Suggestion on Fix for Game Balance

Gary Grigsby's World At War gives you the chance to really run a world war. History is yours to write and things may turn out differently. The Western Allies may be conquered by Germany, or Japan may defeat China. With you at the controls, leading the fates of nations and alliances. Take command in this dynamic turn-based game and test strategies that long-past generals and world leaders could only dream of. Now anything is possible in this new strategic offering from Matrix Games and 2 by 3 Games.

Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen

Post Reply
User avatar
TOCarroll
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: College Station, Texas

Suggestion on Fix for Game Balance

Post by TOCarroll »

[:)] I HAVE AN IDEA REGARDING THE DISPUTE ABOUT GAME BALANCE that wouold be fairly easy to test, and impliment.[:D]

It seems a little odd that evryone pays PP's (or supply, depending on how you look at it) for invading neutrals, but not for DOW's against Major Powers (A la Third Reich). If there were a larger cost for attacking one of the major powers, and, if the Germans and were given a few more "points" at the start, It would cost The axis extra to attack the Soviet Union on both the East (Japan) and West fronts. Japan would still have to make the decision to go south against the Allies, or North and west against Russia. Doing both would be very costly.

Personally, I think that the upcoming patch will address the isssue, but there are always some hard-core players who have a more intimate understandiong of the game system. No matter what is adjusted, SOMEONE will claim the the game is a no-brainer for one side if they do such and such. An optional rule, carefully balancing points, would make DOW's against major powers expensive. As an example, charge 25 points for DOW against Major Powers, and start Germany and Japan both with 25 additional points. This means that it would be costly to double team Russia, or (for the Germans), muck around in Frozed Allied territory and attack Russia at the same time.[X(]

I think that this is "realistic", in terms of start up logistics, setting up command centers, lines of communication, ect. Finding the appropriate costs/starting points would require a little testing, but it might be nice to have something ready for the hard core skeptics that always come up with a perfect plan.

After we learn the dynamics changed by the upcoming patch (with I think will fix most everything), it would be nice to have an idea or two in reserve to address the never-ending quubble about game balance.

Prussian Tom
"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time"
J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).
User avatar
5cats
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:17 am

RE: Suggestion on Fix for Game Balance

Post by 5cats »

Hummm, if not a big cost, at least the same as a Neutral, eh?
Which would mean a little supply bonus for Japan's start. That wouldn't unbalance anything, since Japan has lots of supply until they attack the WA.
Pretty good idea.
No Will but Thy Will
No Law but the Laws You make
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War”