My conclusions on game balance

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: MadMirko

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?

Hi, Mirko

In principle, I agree that a bid system is a good idea, and your solution would work to some extent. A couple of problems, though:

1. As you really can have only 1 bid parameter, i takes away the possibility of bidding resources per turn

2. It doesnt remove the problem (the way I see it) of (gamey, imo) german attacks on their friendly neighbours (sweden, spain and turkey).

I think it is better to try to balance the game (in a way that doesnt favour gamey tactics), and to let the players have the possibility to bid resources if they think that one side is stronger than the other.

[dobeln]

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.

I would be very greatful if you could dig them up, as I would be very surprised, should they exist.

[Tac2i]

I did a Google search on "Winston Churchill put to his cabinet the idea of making peace" and found this article:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/00/11/OOF251100.html

Interesting reading as I had never heard there was any discussion of this topic.

----------------------------
Roy, old wargamers never die

ORIGINAL: dobeln

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.

I would be very greatful if you could dig them up, as I would be very surprised, should they exist.

[MarcelJV]

ORIGINAL: dobeln

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.

I would be very greatful if you could dig them up, as I would be very surprised, should they exist.

Here is the information that is in the book The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940 by Julien Jackson. This is lifted from the article in WEBIZEN's post on this site, but this covers what is in the book exactly.

He is recorded as declaring, for example, that "if we could get out of this jam by giving up Malta and Gibraltar and some African colonies," he would "jump at it," although he didn't see any such prospect. He also declared that he was prepared to accept "peace on terms of the restoration of German colonies and the overlordship of Central Europe," which presumably included continued occupation of Czechoslovakia and western Poland, although, again, he said that such an offer was "most unlikely."

I have both of David Irving's book mentioned at the end of the article I can atest to the fact the Hitler seems to have had no interest in the British Empire or even really in France. I will have to review the vol II on Churchil to find the cabinet notes but I recall them in there.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: 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.

They can. They can fight aggressive, active defense, biting the Germans and Japanese wherever the opportunity presents itself. If they fight well, they prevent Axis AV and get US & USSR as "reward". Hey, this is, more or less, what happened historically.

Now, in my opinion, getting AV as Axis just needs to be made harder, and UK & China job made easier, that's all. But I wouldn't suggest changing the basic philosophy of AV and US&USSR entry.

O.

[dembe73]

Fully agreed Oleg: AV makes every round exciting for the WA: can they slow down the immense armies of Germany untill the Russians and US decide to join the conflict?

Otherwise your only Axis strategies can be: Conquer Russia or fight a defensive war to stay in the game ending better than historically. Germany cannot fight a two front war too long. Production capacity should bring down the Axis, if it doesnt well they did a great job.

This is one of my reasons to destroy any WA resources I can get my hands on if I get the chance: in an end game the US will run out of resources this way slowing them down seriously.

[MarcelJV]

hakon did you get my email?

[Delphinium]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

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.

Looking at history, we see fairly obvious reasons why Yugoslavia got invaded and Greece for that matter. The Balkans had great importance in the ultimate goal of the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Denmark and the Netherlands just happened to be "in the way", Norway was to protect the Swedish Iron Ore, so why invade Sweden - the problem with doing that is that Germany could not afford to risk losing the ore at all.

The problem about Spain is that even AH would have found it hard to justify invading a supposedly sympathetic regime with similar political leanings.

There is a further issue I have about how easy it becomes for Germany to invade and capture Spain very quickly as unless total surprise is achieved invading Spain from Western France (remember we have Vichy in the south) is not an easy proposition.

Sweden despite its neutrality was also quite well armed.

[James Ward]

<They can. They can fight aggressive, active defense, biting the Germans and Japanese wherever the opportunity presents itself. If they fight well, they prevent Axis AV and get US & USSR as "reward". Hey, this is, more or less, what happened historically.>

I must have missed the AV conditions in the WWII history books? Did Hitler and Tojo know about them? [;)]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: James Ward
I must have missed the AV conditions in the WWII history books? Did Hitler and Tojo know about them? [;)]

I guess they didn't RTFM [:D]

Well anyway, if you want to nitpick same logic involving hindsight can be applied to Allied leaders/players too... why should Allies KNOW they will get megapowers on their side? Churchill didn't know that for sure, when he desperately evacuated beaches of Dunkirk, let alone Stalin knowing he'll have democracies of the world on his side (after his buddy Adolf backstabs him, which he refused to believe even while reports from the front were coming to Kremlin)

Seriously, if you want to bring hindsight as agrument I think Allies profit from it far more than Axis.

O.

[James Ward]

Well anyway, if you want to nitpick same logic involving hindsight can be applied to Allied leaders/players too... why should Allies KNOW they will get megapowers on their side? Churchill didn't know that for sure, when he desperately evacuated beaches of Dunkirk, let alone Stalin knowing he'll have democracies of the world on his side (after his buddy Adolf backstabs him, which he refused to believe even while reports from the front were coming to Kremlin)

Seriously, if you want to bring hindsight as agrument I think Allies profit from it far more than Axis.

No I don't want to get into that. I just think a game covering the entire scope of WWII should not be able to end in an AV for the Axis without the US or Russia even getting involved. I mean what's the point of the game then, to see if Japan and Germany can crush the UK and China?

[Paul Vebber]

Sorry Oleg, but the idea as the game protrays that the Axis could ENSURE that SU and US don't enter the war by properly "dancing around the triggers" is pure "entertainment value".

THat the "significant Allies" are condemned by history to sit on their hands until Uncle Adaolf decides he's ready to take them on - OR has taken enough neutrals to "ring their doorbell and run" can't be defended historically in any stretch of the imagination.

The issue is not "making AV harder" - its a matter of a fundamental problem of "determinism" in the game that puts the timing of when the "significant Allies" intervene in the hands of the Axis. The game would be far more suspensful if SU and US entry were made more random - not arguing "how many Axis production points is needed to have "victroy dance on the head of a pin". That is simply a game construct with no relation to history. There are better game and more historically relevent game constructs that can be used.

The idea that only a phenomenal effort on teh part of England and China will stave off German AV and "grace the game with the presence" of the SU and US is to me pure rubbish.

[Wayllander]

I agree with Oleg, in that I think our views are tainted on the reality of what happened instead of the possibilities of what may have happened. What if Britain ceded Malta and Gibralter to Germany and made peace while Japan played nice. Would the US have been as eager to go to war?

Better yet, what if Britain and Germany made peace and then Hitler warned Japan they were on there own if they attacked the US. Perhaps Germany condems any attack. Would it be possible for ww2 to splinter into germany vs russia while the US and Japan got it on? There were plenty of people in America that favored fascism over communism...

Anyway, without AV it is impossible for the axis player to achieve victory. (as is historically acurate). Once those allied factories start churning its just a matter of time... Hence the axis player would always play a defensive game - trying to delay his defeat past the historical outcome. That in itself would be ahistorical - due to how offensive minded Germay was.


--way

--way

[James Ward]

Anyway, without AV it is impossible for the axis player to achieve victory. (as is historically acurate). Once those allied factories start churning its just a matter of time... Hence the axis player would always play a defensive game - trying to delay his defeat past the historical outcome. That in itself would be ahistorical - due to how offensive minded Germay was.

There should be an AV rule but it should be one that makes the Axis defeat all the major Allies not just the UK and China. The AV doesn't come into play until W44 or a year or so after the US and Russia have entered the war and you have to hold the level for one complete turn. An AV should indicate an insurmountable lead not just reaching a certian point for an instant.

[Paul Vebber]

The point is to make "Auto victory" represent VICTORY - not some surrogate for some sort of diplomatic "peace with honor" where Hitler basically cows the US and SU into not getting involved.

You can come up with all sorts of "what if England gives up" scenarios - but whats the point? THis line of reasoning totally ignores the other side of the coin that represents the case where the US or SU get involved DESPITE any 'arrangements' between England and Germany.

If you are going to entertain fantasy capitulation scenarios to give "fan-boi" victories to teh germans, you have entertain the possibility that it might be Stalin that stabs Hitler in the back or that the US gets fed up with Japanese atrocities in China.

You can't just "what -if" it to the benefit of Germany without putting the shoe on the other foot.

You can't just theorize about things that would prevent teh US and SU from going to war while neglecting the possibilities that would have driven them TO WAR. Unfortunately that seems to be the direction things are going in order to give the Axis one-sided expectations for victory.

[Espejo]

I think as it always the problem with these kind of fixed rules is that the player can dance around the triggers.
A liitel randomness would be ice to keep the players gnawing their teeth and not look for the perfect work around the

the war triggers

[James Ward]

Maybe there are not enough triggers.
It seems that AV is acheivable early if the Axis goes completely ahistorical and attacks Spain, Sweden etc. to gain strategic advantage in the Med and then get the resources there and also to double up on Russia.
What if the price to do that was increased?
What if an Axis attack on Spain brought the US in but if the Axis capture Moscow, Spain joined the Axis? That might make the German have second thoughts about invading his 'ally' AND give them a way to get them (and their units and resources) into the war.
What if an Axis attack on Sweden caused Russia to enter the war and Finlad to go neutral but the Axis capture of both Leningrad and Moscow brought Sweden in as an Axis nation?
What is the activation of Rumania brought Russia into the war? That would make when to take Yugoslavia a difficult decision.
What if an attack on Russia by Japan sooner than one turn AFTER the Germans attacked Russia brought the US into the war?
What if a Japanese attack on Russia increased China production and caused the loss of the 3 US resources?

[hakon]

I am not introducing randomness to US and USSR entry is such a good idea, as it can get quite out of hand. (In my opinion, this is the greatest problem with World in Flames, as the difference between lucky and unlucky draws for the USSR entry pool means about 1 1/2 years difference, basically the difference of victory and defeat).

If variability is to be added, it would be better to connect it to the number of axis resource points. Given an AV at 70, Russia could be unfrozen 1 turn earlier for each resource (even unrepaired ones, but not counting saved resources/free trade/gifts) Germany has above 35, and the US could be unfrozen 1 turn earlier for each resource Japan has above 12 and an additonal 1 turn earlir for each resource Germany has above 40.

Increased production should be affected the same way, and this could replace the hard-coded effect of doubeling US production if Japan attacks Russia.

This would pretty much solve all problems, ie:
- The more neutrals the Axis conquered (the more agressive they were), the sooner the US and USSR would attack them.
- It would be extremely hard for the axis to win before both Russia and the US enters.
- The axis could still keep the major allies out of the war untill 42, if they played conservatively. 35 + 2 (based on unfreezing the US in summer of 42), should still give Germany the chance to take spain and finish a sealion before the US enters, if the UK botches the defence. 12 would give Japan the chance to take out most of china before attacking the DEI, or the chance to help Germany by taking a few resources from Russia.
- It doesn't introduce critical luck into the game.

If this proposal is implemented, there should be some kind of GUI info telling the players what is the ETA for Russian and American entry, based on the current possession of resources, so that they are able to DOW before that happens.

[hakon]

James: Our basic idea is more or les the same, but i disagree with some of your examples:

Sweden : Sweden would never voluntarily join any side in the war. The focus of their entire diplomacy was to avoid war, and they were in a military position to do that.

Spain would be more likely to join the axis by a capture of Gibraltar (rightfully spanish in their opinion) than moscow. Moscow + Stalingrad could trigger Turkey, though.

Rumania : Could be a good idea. This would require some major rebalancing though, as it would make barbarossa much harder. I thing Rumania is fine as it is now, though.

Chinese production : Personally, i think China should have their production every turn, anyway, but I dont feel that linking it to a Japanese/Soviet war simulates anything. Giving them production every turn, could be balanced by increasing build time for most units (except inf and milita) by 1, and by removing the factory in Sinkiang (dont think they had industry there).

Of course, I prefer the method i descriped in my last post to making more triggers.

[Wayllander]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

The point is to make "Auto victory" represent VICTORY - not some surrogate for some sort of diplomatic "peace with honor" where Hitler basically cows the US and SU into not getting involved.

You can come up with all sorts of "what if England gives up" scenarios - but whats the point? THis line of reasoning totally ignores the other side of the coin that represents the case where the US or SU get involved DESPITE any 'arrangements' between England and Germany.

If you are going to entertain fantasy capitulation scenarios to give "fan-boi" victories to teh germans, you have entertain the possibility that it might be Stalin that stabs Hitler in the back or that the US gets fed up with Japanese atrocities in China.

You can't just "what -if" it to the benefit of Germany without putting the shoe on the other foot.

You can't just theorize about things that would prevent teh US and SU from going to war while neglecting the possibilities that would have driven them TO WAR. Unfortunately that seems to be the direction things are going in order to give the Axis one-sided expectations for victory.

I completely disagree. (And I'm not going to throw in terms like fan-boy or fantasy to bolster a week argument [:-])

A true VICTORY in your sense is not even remotely possible for the Axis if the game has any basis in reality. So then how do you model victory in the GAME for the Axis player?To base it on 'surviving' longer then the historical outcome completely changes the Axis strategy. The way the current game operates is to give victory to the Axis if they come in with knockout style punch. If the Allies can weather that, then the game shifts into a huge advantage for the allies. This works imho creating the suspense that makes the game great even if it is not 100% historical accurate.

I will agree with you that the possibilities for the war could have followed a vast spectrum. Maybe the Soviets attack early, or maybe the US decides to get involved when France is attacked. But what would those things do to the game balance?

--way