Using the Clock as a Crutch

[RodentDung]

I might be sticking my snout into a lion's den with this but here goes!

Okay, the people who play Matrix games are generally a fairly smart bunch I think, with a few exceptions like Rodents getting flattened while crossing roads but anyways...

So I'm wondering why everyone seems to rely on the end date, or 'the clock' as I call it, and the autovictory 'security blanket' to bail them out of a possible drubbing by the allies? I do believe it tends to alter people's playing style to a slow retreating defense rather than a creative offensive campaign. How satisfying is it to have a challenging situation brought to a sudden end by the clock?

Let's consider the reality quotient of the clock.

Its 1946, Hitler has managed to slow down the Russian and Allied assaults towards Germany and is now defending at the borders of the motherland. Then God swoops down to Hitler and scoops him up with a congratulatory bearhug and lots of lovebombing, "HAHA Adolf old pal! And I say unto ye that starteth a war and lacks the wisdom to know how to finish it, BRAVO!! Glad you made it to 1946! Go party it up with the angels while I strike down the allied fools with lighting and pestilence! HAHA!"

Autovictory security blanket?

God scoops up Hitler once he's got the magic 70 industry, same speech.

Reality or a fool's delight? You decide. [:D]


Don't kill me, I'm just creating a chatter! [&o]

[Maginot]

Autovictory is a must for two players of equal skill. The fact of the matter is from around 1943 one Allied production skyrockets expontially. Germany can never attempt to hold out indefinatley against an allied player of at least similar skill. The sheer might of the allied production will continue and continue to outstrip the Germans as they exchange fire over German lands, damaging German resoruces, factories and the like, while the bulk of the Western Allies production sits out of reach of the Axis hand.

[hakon]

It is a historical game, with alliances set. Germany could perhaps have won the war if the USA had never joined, and the attack on the USSR had been planned better, wether had been better in the first winter, etc, etc, or if germany had built landing craft, longer range fighters and effective anti-shipping bombs prior to 1939.

Japan was even worse off.

Within the framwork of having to fight both the USSR and the USA, there was never a way for Germany to win in the end. That is why you are competing with the clock, to see if you can do better than the Axis did IRL.

If you want a balanced game, with no artificial constraints, give the axis some kind of bonus, like 50 extra supply each, every turn. The problem with this, of course, is that Russia will fall in almost every game, and the endgame will turn into fight over the english colonies. For me, making the eastern front this unbalanced would ruin the game. A scenario modification (altering the OOB and industry/resource setup) could of course reduce the strength of the western allies instead (the USA especially), but i havent experimented with that yet.

Playing a *balanced* game have 2 other disadvantages:
1. It can take very long to finish a game (into the 1950s), given that it is a close one.
2. The game will be a lot more sensitive to imbalances. If you get a bad start, you loose the game, and there is no way to try to limit the loss to a minor one. All losses (and wins) will be decisive. Of course, one could say that a major victory is one that happens before 1948, or something, but then you have the clock again. With a time limit, the allies will always have to play efficiently in order to finish inside of 1946, unless they are doing hugely better than the axis.

[raydude]

Its kind of like asking how a game about the Battle of Little Bighorn (or any game where one side gets massacred) can have any result other than defeat for the side that gets massacred? Well, sure in one sense yes, one side always loses. But, if you can do better than history can't that be a "game" victory? Same applies here.

In your scenario God would actually say:

"Yeah, player, you will ultimately be defeated. But, I'd rather not see you drag the game on for no reason than to say that ultimately Germany lost. So, I grant you a victory for lasting longer than the historical Germany did. And thank god its only a game because otherwise you'd be spending eternity in hell for crimes like Auschwitz."

[Wayllander]

Exactly. The clock exists because as Germany you are not playing to win the war, you are playing to do better then Germany did historically. Same for allies, your playing to do better then the histroical result.

Furthermore, I think the autovictory part takes into consideration the Germans/Japanese only true hope at victory. A quick knockout of Russia and using their gains at diplomatic table to achieve peace. The longer the war lasted, the worse off Germany became.

--way

[RodentDung]

So nobody here can think? [&:][:'(]

I'm surprised no one has the smarts to actually win the game as Axis. To me it seems a little immature to need a fake victory to satisfy one's ego instead of accepting the challenge of winning for real. It's like in online chess when my timer runs out within a few moves of me setting up an obvious checkmate and my opponent does the usual 'HAHAHAHAHA LOL U SUK' routine. The equivalent in weight lifting is the guy who swings like a pendulum doing what he thinks are arm curls, and arcs his spine like a bridge to artificially increase his bench press and thinks he is stronger than everyone else. Oh well, everyone has their own idea about what winning means. [:D]

[IDrinkBeer]

I'm surprised no one has the smarts to actually win the game as Axis. To me it seems a little immature to need a fake victory to satisfy one's ego instead of accepting the challenge of winning for real. It's like in online chess when my timer runs out within a few moves of me setting up an obvious checkmate and my opponent does the usual 'HAHAHAHAHA LOL U SUK' routine. The equivalent in weight lifting is the guy who swings like a pendulum doing what he thinks are arm curls, and arcs his spine like a bridge to artificially increase his bench press and thinks he is stronger than everyone else. Oh well, everyone has their own idea about what winning means.

Okay, you're playing a game as Germany and the tide turns on you in '43. At this point you have no hope of an outright win. How many people are gonna play the game out at that point? 1 in 10? Of course there are people who are gonna stand up and say: "I always play my games till the end!!". Great, wonderful. I do too, but without Auto-Victory conditions and time constraints this game would wind up gathering dust on my shelf within a short time-period. Sort of like playing with the original rules for the board game Axis and Allies... Oops, the Russians just lost Karelia: GAME OVER. [:D][:D]

[dembe73]

Send me the next turn in our game and we will see. I think it is in critical stage now to make Axis victory complete (or perhaps the start of Allied victory if you have more units then I think you have).

I seem to be one of the few people that think the Axis have a chance and I havent dissapointed you so far I hope by conquering England?

Also the USA is cutoff all resources except the ones on the American continent. At some point this must hurt? If I take India and the SU will you agree its an Axis victory?

[daskomodo]

I don't think it's a question of smarts or not.[8|]

Coming from a wargame background, I have no issue with victory conditions that differ from the simplistic "make the map one color". Lots of wargames do it, the point is giving the players a fair chance to win in the game, even if they lose the war.

I view a Production Point victory as the tipping point where the Allies move from a "Unconditional surrender only" to a "Maybe we can co-exist with the Axis".

You'll notice there are no Soviet or England surrender rules. These are factored into a Production Point victory.
We don't have the benefit of hindsight in knowing what would cause either to surrender.

Does Russia surrender if Moscow falls? Maybe
Does it surrender if Urals falls? Maybe more likely
Does it fight on if the only Soviet region is Yakutsk? Probably not.

Similarly, does the British Empire still fight if England is conquered? They'd still have a fleet and forces throughout the world. What about if India falls or the Middle-East?

We need a line somewhere.

Yes, 70 PP is an artificial "gamey" line, but both sides know where it stands. Much better than some systems than turn Russian collapse into a crapshot (you got Moscow? 50% chance Russia surrenders)

Failing a PP victory, the Allies should have enough tools in their toolbox to defeat Germany in 1945. If the Allied players fail to do so, they have caused all the more casualities on both sides as the war grinds on. The Axis is rewarded for good defensive play while the Allies learn from their mistakes for the next game.

In other words, 1946 victory gives something the Axis can aim for having failed a PP win. Otherwise, most games would be abandonned if the Axis fail to reach the victory mark.

[RodentDung]

ORIGINAL: IDrinkBeer

I'm surprised no one has the smarts to actually win the game as Axis. To me it seems a little immature to need a fake victory to satisfy one's ego instead of accepting the challenge of winning for real. It's like in online chess when my timer runs out within a few moves of me setting up an obvious checkmate and my opponent does the usual 'HAHAHAHAHA LOL U SUK' routine. The equivalent in weight lifting is the guy who swings like a pendulum doing what he thinks are arm curls, and arcs his spine like a bridge to artificially increase his bench press and thinks he is stronger than everyone else. Oh well, everyone has their own idea about what winning means.

Okay, you're playing a game as Germany and the tide turns on you in '43. At this point you have no hope of an outright win. How many people are gonna play the game out at that point? 1 in 10? Of course there are people who are gonna stand up and say: "I always play my games till the end!!". Great, wonderful. I do too, but without Auto-Victory conditions and time constraints this game would wind up gathering dust on my shelf within a short time-period. Sort of like playing with the original rules for the board game Axis and Allies... Oops, the Russians just lost Karelia: GAME OVER. [:D][:D]

This is why I said mature players don't need a victory trigger when all you have to do is resign when it looks like you don't have a chance to win. That's all it takes. I never said anything about playing til the bitter end. If that's what you like then all the power to you.

[RodentDung]

ORIGINAL: dembe73

Send me the next turn in our game and we will see. I think it is in critical stage now to make Axis victory complete (or perhaps the start of Allied victory if you have more units then I think you have).

I seem to be one of the few people that think the Axis have a chance and I havent dissapointed you so far I hope by conquering England?

Also the USA is cutoff all resources except the ones on the American continent. At some point this must hurt? If I take India and the SU will you agree its an Axis victory?

dembe73, I already sent you an email 2 days ago saying I resigned from this game. Unless it makes you feel good, I don't see the need to keep bringing this up on various threads since then.

daskomodo, I didn't follow your thread. Something about you not needing to be smart to win the game.

Everyone totally missed my point of this thread. I'll make it much more simple. Okay, 2 mature players start the game and when one looks to be winning, the other resigns and then just have another game if they want to. For younger immature players this doesn't work cause they need to see some sort of victory announcement for ego appeasement purposes, even if they were losing or were still having an even game when the announcement came. Personally, I prefer the mature approach cause it leaves the door open to continuing a game if it is interesting and leave ego out of it. At least that's my attitude towards board games I have with my friends. I play for fun, not ego boosting. If I'm losing or just not enjoying a game, I resign.

[daskomodo]

o nobody here can think?

I'm surprised no one has the smarts to actually win the game as Axis.

You said that. I disagreed.

I think I've explained my point properly following that paragraph.

Furthermore, your comments on "mature players" are somewhat disparaging. We understand your point. We tried to explain that it is a valid game mechanic and has nothing with ego or maturity.

Seems you're more interested in trolling than in actual dialogue. (now you can call me immature)

[Big Lou]

Rodent,

First off, your chess analogy is all wrong. In chess both sides have the same starting position and equal material - that is clearly not the case with WaW. The victory conditions were set up to (arguably) allow each side an equal chance at a "win", while starting with unbalanced forces and production capacity. To play without auto victory and no end date is clearly an advantage for the allies. Are some playes smart enough to win with the axis under those conditions - I'm sure there are, but they would be playing a handicapped game.

Most people here are looking to play a game with even (or at least fair) odds of winning. The game was not designed to allow equal chances for either side to win a world domination type of victory; so its not much fun playing without auto victory/end date knowing you only have maybe a 5% chance of winning. Would you like to play a game of chess against me without your queen - come on don't you have the brains to win that kind of game. THAT is the equivelent of what you are proposing with your rules. So don't belittle people because they are looking to play a game with a reasonable chance for a "victory".

[dembe73]

Actually you didnt say you quit, you just said: I don't think exploiting the evasion techs is a very intelligent way to get your opponent to resign.

That didnt mean to me that you threw in the towel at that point, but ok I am just blunt and very direct like most people from my country.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: dembe73

Actually you didnt say you quit, you just said: I don't think exploiting the evasion techs is a very intelligent way to get your opponent to resign.

That didnt mean to me that you threw in the towel at that point, but ok I am just blunt and very direct like most people from my country.

immature)

Rodent:

Actually, accusing people of exploitation when they obviously play by the rules as intended, and after loosing a game to them where you were given a huge advantage in the first place, is a bit immature in my book. I would dare to say, that the only way to win the war as the axis is to play against someone who doesnt really understand the game mechanics (barring really extreme luck on the dice).

A game of chess with a queen handicap is a pretty good example. When you are first learning chess, even a moderately good chess player can probably beat you with a queen handicap, But how fun do you think it would be to start out without the queen vs a reasonably good player?