My conclusions on game balance

[James Ward]

This is the WWII that might have happened if Britian chose to make peace at some point prior to the involvement of Russia or the US.

But what's the point of playing it out? [&:]

To me you should get an automatic victory when it is pretty clear you can't lose and therefore you call the game, like the slaughter rule in little league. It's just a gamey way to claim you 'won', to just get a specific number of PP at a specific time and then poof it's over.

[MarcelJV]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

This is the WWII that might have happened if Britian chose to make peace at some point prior to the involvement of Russia or the US.

But what's the point of playing it out? [&:]

To me you should get an automatic victory when it is pretty clear you can't lose and therefore you call the game, like the slaughter rule in little league. It's just a gamey way to claim you 'won', to just get a specific number of PP at a specific time and then poof it's over.

From a game perspective there needs to be a way to identify that one side or the other has reached a lead that is considered as a victory and that continued play would not prove worth while. I will indicate that it would seem the total is too low as Oleg has indicated he thinks 72 is a better number. If you do not like any kind of AV then turn off the option and just play to the end of the game time. This may not be as much fun for the German, but should remove the gamey plays that others do not like.

There is definately a risk in going for AV, in that if you fail you may have removed any chance of any level of victory. This does give the Axis another option to just playing safely to ensure a victory by the end of the game. It also means the allies can not just site back and build up knowing that the Axis can not win until closer to the end, then hitting them with everything they have and ending the game a couple of turns later. I can see that as the WA your only focus is on when can I take Germany and Japan home lands out. Why care about North Africa, the southern Resource areas?

I like the idea of a Axis Auto victory, it just needs to be determined if the allies can prevent it at 70 or if needs to go up a little so the Allies have more of chance.


Just my 2 cents on the idea.

[James Ward]

From a game perspective there needs to be a way to identify that one side or the other has reached a lead that is considered as a victory and that continued play would not prove worth while. I will indicate that it would seem the total is too low as Oleg has indicated he thinks 72 is a better number. If you do not like any kind of AV then turn off the option and just play to the end of the game time. This may not be as much fun for the German, but should remove the gamey plays that others do not like.

I agree an automatic victory is useful, once the outcome become a foregone conclusion it is a way to end the game. Getting a specific number of PP's for a split second isn't the way, especially if the number can be reached without the US or Russia even getting involved in the war. Holding a specific number for a certain amount of time would be better. Allowing autovictory after a certain date, say Fall 44, would be even better.
I always turn it off as I've just played the AI but I hope to get into some hotseat games, if I can convince a few of my buddies to get better computers[:D][:D]

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: MarcelJV

ORIGINAL: hakon

There are 2 problems:

1. This kind of win is too easy. This can be fixed with a bidding system or by increasing the required number.

2. It encourages very gamey behavour, making Germany invade their historical allies for resources they were getting anyway. This would be very bad play, if you have the outcome of the war in mind, but because it can make the game end right there, it is still done. Very unhistorical. There is no way the allies would have quit just because Germany invaded Turkey and Sweden.....


To fix the last problem, which is the most fundamental one in my opinion, resources from free trade and gifts should be included in the production point total. To compensate, the total needed should be raised to 85.

This will not work, as now I will be obligated to invade these same neutrals to prevent the resources going to the auto victory and Germany has more troops to send to clear out the WA else where as they do not need to garrison these neutrals. The whole point of AV is for Germany to capture more territory and put the allies on the brink of disaster. Also Britian came very close to working out a peace deal after the collapse of France so it is not improbable that if things got really bad that they would have tried for peace.

This will not work, as now I will be obligated to invade these same neutrals to prevent the resources going to the auto victory and Germany has more troops to send to clear out the WA else where as they do not need to garrison these neutrals. The whole point of AV is for Germany to capture more territory and put the allies on the brink of disaster. Also Britian came very close to working out a peace deal after the collapse of France so it is not improbable that if things got really bad that they would have tried for peace.

I think you are a bit quick in saying that this will not work.

First off: note that part of the proposal is to increase the limit from 70 to 85. That is i bigger difference thant the free trade that germany and japan recieves, put together. It should be impossible for the axis to reach this kind of production without taking significant territory from Russia. In short, AW should not happen until 1-2 years after Barbarossa, at the earliest. (1944 would be most likely, as they dont have enough industry before germany gets the x4).

Second: If the axis at some point should reach 85 in total production, it means that they would already have 70+ (and even 72+) production when excluding the resources from free trade. In other words, these AW's would always be AW's under todays rules.

Third: When the Axis is getting close to 85 total production, the allies can slow that down if they are able to cut off their free trade. This is what you percieve as the problem. I percieve this as a bonus. Imo, the allies should try to cut off any source of axis production, anyway, either by invading the countries the axis trade with, or by destroying the connecion there. Even for the allies establishing their own trade routes to those countries, would reduce the axis production.

Of course, it is usually _easier_ for the allies to take away territory directly from the axis than to attack neutral minors supplying the axis with resources, though invasions of norway and finland, combined with a bombing of the german baltic fleet would happen in some games, to take away the 5 scandinavian resources from germany. But doing this is something that you would see from the allies in a lot of games regarless of AW-conditions, as the allies _always_ want to limit axis production. Nothing gamey about it, in my opinion. Remember that the allies are attacking countries actually contributing to the German war effort AND they are paying the political cost of this with the 10 supply needed for the attack.

Finally, for the axis to have a total production of 85, they have to be doing quite well, much better than historical. In my opionion, for the axis is entiteled to a decisive victory in this case, regardless of what part of this production comes from free trade. (In any case, free trade will almost never be more than 10 of those resources) If they are actually able to get this big, they would also most likely be able to reach a decisive victory at the end of the game.

Summary:
- My proposal is to the allies' advantage (even more so than the 72-proposal of Oleg).
- It encourages the same actions (more or less) that will lead to a decisive victory in 46. (Germany does have to push hard in either case, and it is possible that a minor victory is more likely for Germany if they play to conserve their forces.)
- For the above reason, the proposal is pretty close to playing with no automatic victory at all, except that if Germany is already winning, you are not forced to play out the endgame

[MarcelJV]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

From a game perspective there needs to be a way to identify that one side or the other has reached a lead that is considered as a victory and that continued play would not prove worth while. I will indicate that it would seem the total is too low as Oleg has indicated he thinks 72 is a better number. If you do not like any kind of AV then turn off the option and just play to the end of the game time. This may not be as much fun for the German, but should remove the gamey plays that others do not like.

I agree an automatic victory is useful, once the outcome become a foregone conclusion it is a way to end the game. Getting a specific number of PP's for a split second isn't the way, especially if the number can be reached without the US or Russia even getting involved in the war. Holding a specific number for a certain amount of time would be better. Allowing autovictory after a certain date, say Fall 44, would be even better.
I always turn it off as I've just played the AI but I hope to get into some hotseat games, if I can convince a few of my buddies to get better computers[:D][:D]

You should try the PBEM feature as it is very simple and you can find opponents right on this site. Just post to opponents wanted and you will get some responses quickly.

I do agree that it should be at the end of the game turn not the player turn. The next patch looks to address some of the play balance problems of units and Russia and fixes some bugs that definitely give the Axis an advantage, so it may become harder to get to AV, but I doubt it.

[James Ward]

You should try the PBEM feature as it is very simple and you can find opponents right on this site. Just post to opponents wanted and you will get some responses quickly.

How long does one of them take?

I just have a hard time understanding why an automatic victory is even possible without the two largest nations ever getting into the war. It seems to remove the word World from the War [:D]

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: James Ward
I just have a hard time understanding why an automatic victory is even possible without the two largest nations ever getting into the war. It seems to remove the word World from the War [:D]

Well put. Imo, playing with the AW-option "as is", is pretty meaningless unless it is changed significantly.

[dobeln]

"This is the WWII that might have happened if Britian chose to make peace at some point prior to the involvement of Russia or the US."

As the game stands, this means that the current auto-victory fuction assumes that the UK would surrender even when the British Isles, India and Australia were still in British hands, at the same time as the US and the USSR are untouched. Frankly, that's absurd.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: dobeln

As the game stands, this means that the current auto-victory fuction assumes that the UK would surrender even when the British Isles, India and Australia were still in British hands, at the same time as the US and the USSR are untouched. Frankly, that's absurd.

Agree. And imo, it is also absurd to encourage German attacks on Sweden, Spain (except to take Gibraltar) and Turkey.

[MarcelJV]

I think you make some great points with this more indepth explanation of what you are trying to get to. Why do we need to include the the free trade resources. If you surmise no more then 10 on average for the Axis then why not just say you need 75. Last night I was playing Germany and I was averaging 14 free trade a turn. Which means I would not have to do more then normal plus some more of the Soviets to get to the total needed. Have you tried as Germany to see what you would need to take and collect in Free trade to get to 85. I would like to see what you would need to take. Also is it possible to get 85 factory points prior to 44. I think this maybe hard and if you needed to get to 75 you still would need more of Russia to ge to the 75 factory points prior to 44.

I think that AV (Auto Victory) would be next to impossible if it could only be possible at the end of the Western Allied movement turn. This would require the Axis to have a larger then the 70 resources require as they have to withstand the allied part of the turn. It may even make it next to impossible and if you did it then kudos.

We could test this by playing with AV turned off but check each German Start turn or end of allied movement if the Axis have 70 points to meet the victory level. So that in PBEM we turn it off and still call it game over if it occurs at the end of the game turn.[8D] How does that sound?

[MarcelJV]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

You should try the PBEM feature as it is very simple and you can find opponents right on this site. Just post to opponents wanted and you will get some responses quickly.

How long does one of them take?

I just have a hard time understanding why an automatic victory is even possible without the two largest nations ever getting into the war. It seems to remove the word World from the War [:D]

Depends on the amount of players, if you have 2 one axis and one allied it moves along very quickly. All you have to do is email the turn to your opponent. You can easily do multiple turns a day. With more people it is hard to get more turns done a day, but it does depend on the individuals in question.

I just made the suggestion of turning off Auto Victory and checking at the end of the allied movement and see if the Axis still have the Auto Victory and if so you can decide to call the game or not.

[James Ward]

I just made the suggestion of turning off Auto Victory and checking at the end of the allied movement and see if the Axis still have the Auto Victory and if so you can decide to call the game or not.

Maybe after the next patch comes out I'll try it.

[MarcelJV]

I do not have my history books handy but tonight if you like I will find the passages where Winston Churchill put to his cabinet the idea of making peace, an idea the he supported.[&:] So I do not think it is absurd at all.

Consider that at the time of the fall of France, the US had just telegrammed France and said no to getting involved in the war, and with no indication as to when they might get involved.[:@] Had Japan not attacked they may not have gotten involve other than economically. Now the Commonwealth stands alone, with no expectation of aid other than economic, no small amout here mind you.[:)] You just watched the best Army in Europe, or so the theory goes, get smashed to pieces in 7 weeks. Your own troops were also routed during the same time period and now your island may be invaded at any moment. Now, from a game perspective, add in the lose of North Africa, the Middle East, Scandinavia, Iberia (Spain, and Portugal), Gibralter, Singapore, Burma, and DEI (Dutch East Indies) and you might consider cutting your loses and call it a day.[&o]

I think we need to change the Auto Victory to be determined at the end of the game turn, and you will see very few such victories.

[hakon]

Marcel:

Regarding free trade, I can see Germany getting the following free trade, providing the allies are not trying to cut it:

Sweden: 3
Norway: 1
Spain: 2 (likely the allies have a connection there as well, if gibraltar is in supply)
Portugal :1
Turkey 3 (i guess)
Persia 2 (until war with the USSR, they will probably take it)
Arabia: 1 (if they take jordan)
Greece: 1

Total : 14

I may be wrong by 1 or 2 points. Of course, reaching 71 resources without having _any_ of these areas, is pretty tough (possibly too tough, it may be that AW should happen at 80, not 85, even when including production from free trade).

About the idea of checking the victory condition during the axis production step or after after the allies have moved, i don think that has any other impact than being similar to move the required number by 1-5 production points. 70 german production at the end of the allies' turn is pretty much the same as 75 production at the end of the axis turn. To reach those 70 or 75, you still would probably have to take out Spain/Turkey/Sweden, which i don't like.

Furthermore, to play to test how this would work would still require Germany to play by a (gamey) strategy of trying to take as many neutrals as possible(the part that i dont like), with the goal of reaching 70 production, preferrable before the spring of 43 (with the US in the game, it gets hard to hold the neutrals). On top of this, this doesnt even try to address the issue of a double teamed Russia. All-in-all a game i dont find very interesting.

Currently, my game is set up with most of the tech changes that will come with the next patch, as well as some relocation of Russian troops, to make it harder for Japan to take lots of territory from USSR during their surprise turn (the patch isnt very specific about the nature of this, but i have strengthened central siberia and irkutsk to such a level that making an effective attack on russia in 41 will hopefully require Japan to give up resources in China.

My proposal is that we play with these changes (send your email address to haakoflo@online.no, and i will send you the files for you to review), and without AW turned on (you can choose side).

The official victory condition of the game will be the 1946 ones, but the side playing axis should keep note axis production points (excluding production from free trade at the _beginning_ of every turn, as well as _actual_ production during the production step ofevery turn, for reference. Should the axis achieve victory, we could compare the maximum of each of these numbers to 70 and 85, respectively, to see if an AW would have happened with any of the proposals.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

You should try the PBEM feature as it is very simple and you can find opponents right on this site. Just post to opponents wanted and you will get some responses quickly.

How long does one of them take?

I just have a hard time understanding why an automatic victory is even possible without the two largest nations ever getting into the war. It seems to remove the word World from the War [:D]

I don't think it is totally meaningless, IMO it just needs to be made harder.

a) There was realistic option of US never getting involved in European war, or in the war to defend Dutch and British colonies.

b) Gameplay-wise, I like the pressure it puts on Allied player to DO SOMETHING with Chinese and UK. Otherwise, too many Allied players would simply wait for mega-powers to get involved. AV option is there to say "you can't do that, you must initially fight desperate battle with very limited Chinese and UK assets".

I'd keep the AV sword above Allied players head, I'd just make it harder to achieve.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: dobeln

"This is the WWII that might have happened if Britian chose to make peace at some point prior to the involvement of Russia or the US."

As the game stands, this means that the current auto-victory fuction assumes that the UK would surrender even when the British Isles, India and Australia were still in British hands, at the same time as the US and the USSR are untouched. Frankly, that's absurd.

That is not absurd at all.

And no one says UK would "surrender", they would only "make peace". There's huge difference between "surrendering" and "making peace". One should read books like Deighton's Blood Tears and Folly to see how desperate was the situation for Brits couple times during the war, and how close some groups in Brit society were to making peace with Germany.

AV option assumes Germany got so far away in its production capability, UK is effectivelly fighting invincible super-power. With Germany having ~50 PP, and UK still at, say, 20 PP, or something, Brits would make peace, no matter what territory they would have under their control. You can't win the fight vs. enemy with production capability many times your own. So you gotta stop Germany from becoming 50 PP superpower, even if your core territories (and Commonwealth core territories) are not attacked.

That is how I see the idea behind AV.

O.

[MadMirko]

With me being a newbie to both the game and the forums I should probably be quiet, but I can't control myself... [;)]

I do think that Axis AV in principle is a great addition to the game. I also like the possibility of the Axis snatching victory in the mid-game, that's where it belongs, if at all. It provokes gamey moves, but also daring and clever maneuvres, providing fun and excitement.

Instead of fixing the value to 70, 72, 75, 80, or 85 points, the exact value should be settable in the game setup screen prior to starting. That way players can agree upon a value that suits all of them, and have a handy tool to provide handicaps to balance experienced and new players. You could make the inclusion of free trade resources an option as well.

Both sides in this thread have good arguments, this would be a way to please all of us, wouldn't it?

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: MarcelJV

I do not have my history books handy but tonight if you like I will find the passages where Winston Churchill put to his cabinet the idea of making peace, an idea the he supported.[&:] So I do not think it is absurd at all.

Consider that at the time of the fall of France, the US had just telegrammed France and said no to getting involved in the war, and with no indication as to when they might get involved.[:@] Had Japan not attacked they may not have gotten involve other than economically. Now the Commonwealth stands alone, with no expectation of aid other than economic, no small amout here mind you.[:)] You just watched the best Army in Europe, or so the theory goes, get smashed to pieces in 7 weeks. Your own troops were also routed during the same time period and now your island may be invaded at any moment. Now, from a game perspective, add in the lose of North Africa, the Middle East, Scandinavia, Iberia (Spain, and Portugal), Gibralter, Singapore, Burma, and DEI (Dutch East Indies) and you might consider cutting your loses and call it a day.[&o]

I think we need to change the Auto Victory to be determined at the end of the game turn, and you will see very few such victories.

I think we need to change the Auto Victory to be determined at the end of the game turn, and you will see very few such victories.

Of course, in game terms, Japan cannot take DEI without declaring war on the USA, and it would be very unlikely at the time for the US to just stand by and watch the Japanese do this. If the UK would actually accept peace with Germany at that time, i think it would be all the more likely that they would team with the USA to knock out Japan.

Another issue: Hitler wanted war with the Soviet Union all along, and to end the game without the soviets even involved in a battle is still taking away an important aspect of the game. And how much fun do you think it would be to play Russia in a 2vs2 game where this happend?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: hakon

ORIGINAL: dobeln

As the game stands, this means that the current auto-victory fuction assumes that the UK would surrender even when the British Isles, India and Australia were still in British hands, at the same time as the US and the USSR are untouched. Frankly, that's absurd.

Agree. And imo, it is also absurd to encourage German attacks on Sweden, Spain (except to take Gibraltar) and Turkey.

Your thinking is conditioned by what you already know about history.

Who would expect Germany would attack such peaceful, and generaly Germany friendly nations like Denmark, Netherlands or Norway? Denmark for christssake? [:D]

Why would Germany attack Yugoslavia, unimportant country on Balkans? Greece?? Why would Germans be even remotely interested in Greece?

Yet Germans historically attacked all those countries. So why do you think attacking Sweden and Spain is to "absurd" and far fetched? Just because it didn't happen in history? You must leave your history-conditioned thinking behind.

O.

[James Ward]

b) Gameplay-wise, I like the pressure it puts on Allied player to DO SOMETHING with Chinese and UK. Otherwise, too many Allied players would simply wait for mega-powers to get involved. AV option is there to say "you can't do that, you must initially fight desperate battle with very limited Chinese and UK assets".

If there was something the UK or China could do to get the US or Russia into the war I might agree. But a reachable AV level without involving the US or Russia and no way for the Allies to bring in either of their big guns just makes the game seem pointless.
I mean is there a 1940 to 1942 scenario included where Russia and the US are neutral? No because who would want to play it [:D][X(][;)]