My conclusions on game balance

[James Ward]

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

These were just things that popped into my head. I don't know if any are doable but I think the more triggers you have and the more interlinked they are the harder it is to find a way around them all. You may just have to choose a strategy and stick to it, giving up some opportunities for other gains.

[hakon]

Actually, I can imagine one scenario where True Victory would happen for Germany (Japan is not part of this):

1. After the fall of France, Germany manages to get a peace with both France and England. All of France becomes a Vichy-like state, paying tribute to Germany, and perhaps having some german "peacekeepers" for a limited amount of time. England could have to agree to give Egypt and Sudan to Italy (linking their african territories) and Girbraltar, Morocco and Algeria coulld be used to bribe Spain into the Axis. This could have given a huge lojalty boost for Spain and Italy, making them more effective axis members over all.


2. An all-out attack on Russia in 42, after much better planning than in real life, including better plans for logistics building and with proper winter equipment for the German troops. The invasion could also start right after the Russian mud season was over, since the Balkans would be secure. The United States would not really want to enter this conflict without the UK, so Russia was on her own. Germany would probably be surprised at the level of resistance, but would still be at the feet of the Urals within 2 years (with significant help from much more confident Italian and Spanish Allies. At this point, Stalin (wanting to survive personally) sues for peace, and keeps Siberia as a playground. Not long after, a facist government takes power in France, and they join the Axis, too, while bein relieved of most of the reparations costs they were paying.

At this point, Hitler has reached his goals. He continues to build up forces, though, out of instinct, and the might of the German army keeps anybody from challenging the new empire from the outside. Ie, a German win.

Of course, just as with the Soviet empire, the Facist empire would soon experience trouble from within. Conquered territory would be plagued by guerrillas, and more importantly, the governments would become more and more corrupted (not helped by Hitler's drug problems). A close allience between the British Empire (not weakened much from the war) and the USA cooperates economically and militarily, keeping Japan from daring an attack on DEI, and eventually the nationalist chinese throws the japs out of china. With no real soviet help, and without the manchurian base, the nationalists win the civil war, and eventually (with American help) they manage to build up a prospering economy in their costal cities. They maintain good relations with the USA and the UK, boosting trade between the 3 powers. (India remains under British control for a good while.)
'
When Stalin dies, the Communists are no longer able to maintain power in the remaining Soviet Union, and the union breaks apart. Some of the emerging countries form an allience with the still-strong nazis, while most turns towards the US and UK.

The economies of the democracies become stronger and stronger, while the Facist countries become more and more corrupt. Germany maintains the strongest army in europe until the 1980's though, but the strain on the budget of doing so almost, almost breaks the country.

The german people grow wary of their supressing regime, and wants the kind of wealth that the democracies are enjoying. Eventually, a reformist comes to power, and the empire collapses.


----------------------

[Paul Vebber]

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

Despite your admonishment you seem to agree that awarding victory in untenable situations is hardly a "weak argument" but something required to create some sort of condition that one can call a "game victory" that you admit bears no resemblence to anything in real life.

You don't appear to disagree with the argument, just accept it as a necessity of the 'fact' that clear cut victory for the Germans was not a possibility.

So then how do you model victory in the GAME for the Axis player?

Certainly NOT by mehtods that allow them to acquire victory by triggering SU or US entry bascially the turn they 'win' on points - or by gerrymandering empires that don't offend the US and SU enough to get involved. You do it the way games like this have ALWAYS done it - by Germany putting a serious hurt on one or more major powers (England and Russia), and in the case of Japan, two of the three of China, Austrailia and India.

By establishing a high water mark that can by at least some stretch imply the US would sit out (either Conquest of England making cross ocean invaision too difficult, or substantially hurting Russia and implying either actively or through lack of means their inability to mount a major comeback and thus allowing shifting forces West to oppose teh US and UK - you can at least make some reasonable argument that the Axis has "won".

To say that just because the game is unwinnable you conjur up fantasy - yes FANTASY - victory conditions so that Germany can win (I won't use the term for those who seem to require made up reasons to declare Germany the winner...) is beneath a game as good as GGWaW is at providing elegent means to portray the war.

In other words if you are going to " bend reality" to provide Germany chances to win, how about in stead of providing avenues that bear absolutely no relation to reality, you instead look at ways to reflect a REAL "high water mark" of sufficient magnitude to be termed an "automatic victory" in the full light of day. Instead of trying to hide behind teh argument that "the poor axis is doomed and the only way to make the game fun is to "let them win" if they follow the right prescription.

As an aside, I had the good fortune to meet Dr. Gerhard Weinberg today, who fortuitously happened to be a giving a lecture discussion his new book "Visions of Victory" that discusses what plans and what sort of victory the major powers actually entertained.

I asked him after the lecture what he thought about the possibility that Germany could satisfy itself with, an negotiate a victory that did not include a significant portion of the SU. He all but laughed and chided me a bit because the whole point of the war from the German point of view was taking land in Russia. To consider anything else as a "German victory" was to take the war so far out of context as to "fight it on Mars". He would not even consider a successful invasion of the UK anything other than more secure flank protection for the 'whole point after all of starting the thing' - lebensraum in Russia.

If the game doesn't allow that (which I don't think is absolutely true - I think the AXIS CAN achieve a sufficient 'high water mark' with good play and a some luck (perhaps a LOT of luck) to be declared an "automatic victory winner") then better to "help" a bit rather than invent totally ahistorical ways for Germany to be declared victor out of some sympathy to "give them a chance".

[willgamer]

[:)] Great discussion; best thread yet....

At this point, Hitler has reached his goals.

This is the crux of improving the game. Imho, the overarching, irrevokable driving force of WW2 was Germany's commitment to invade and subdue the USSR. Allowing Germany to dance around this is fantasy.

Germany, in concert with its allies, should have great latitude with strategies. However, at the end of the game the degree to which victory over the USSR was achieved should be the measure of victory.

Perhaps a more detailed politcal subsystem is needed to suport this. Every county represented in the game may need its own (fuzzy logic) ai tailored to that countries goals, objectives, and timeframes. Each turn, each county would reassess its actions, alliances, and commitments.

Perhaps players would have access to that intel according to their investment in spying.

Politics always seems to the the bete noire of grand strategy games. GGWaW made a good effort at victory conditions. I believe they can be even better.

[Wayllander]

To say that just because the game is unwinnable you conjur up fantasy - yes FANTASY - victory conditions so that Germany can win (I won't use the term for those who seem to require made up reasons to declare Germany the winner...) is beneath a game as good as GGWaW is at providing elegent means to portray the war.

Interesting. So in short, Because I feel that a WW2 GAME should have equal ability of "winning" for players of both sides, then I must be some sort of Nazi sympathizer or worse. If you base a game entirely on reality without some fantasy, then why bother playing it all? We all know that Berlin will fall in 45 and the Allies will be victorious. Perhaps matrix should have just released a video so we could watch the results?

I think perhaps the one thing we can agree on is that in reality, Germany had relatively no chance of achieving victory. I also think that WaW models this very effetively - You would have to be a very poor player indeed to lose to the axis with no auto-victory and no time limit (which would be the historical accurate conditions). Hence, the current auto-victory system displaces some reality in favor of game balance - and that is something good games should do. Or perhaps you favor a game in where one opponent is always destined to be crushed rather then have the game metrics create a balance - however fanciful they me be in your eyes.

--way

P.S. - If you reread my comments - I never presented a scenario where Germany and Russia did not clash. What i did do is provide a scenario in which that clash would have different players involved then the historical outcome.....

[dembe73]

I think most people agree the main reason for Germany to go to war was to secure a large part of territory in the East. Poland was a start and next would be Russia.

From what I know the Axis lacked what the English and French had:colonies across the world to make them a real world power. This was one thing binding Italy and Germany together. If they would get a significant increase in their territory their goals would probably be achieved.

In the real war they started with Poland, happened to find France and England on the way and tried to take them out. Half that strategy worked out quite well: everything in the rear for the march east except the UK was taken out. A good strategy would probably have been to destroy the Brits at Dunkirk and either go for peace or take the country to get a strategic position to achieve their goals to move East.

Instead they ended up in the same way as they were in WWI because they didnt completely take out England: another two front war, but this time at least without the French.

Doing better than history would mean reaching the goals the Axis had for the war: expansion and taking out their natural enemies: the French, the English and the Russians they fought in WWI. I dont think they cared one bit for the Americans and vice versa.

I translate that into following for a game that would try to recreate this event but still leave alternative scenarios open:

If in the game you can reach the goal of securing victory on one front and getting enough defence in place to repel the other allies from continuing the war (this should be easier before the Americans join) I think it can be considered an Axis win. If the Axis manage to take lets say the strategic positions of Gibraltar, Suez, the Middle East and conquer the colonies in Africa when still being able to keep the British at bay I would say they did a good job on their fight against the UK. Invasion and capture of the islands would also mean they achieve that goal.

For Russia it should probably mean capture all large cities west of the Ural or destroy the Russian army to such a point that fighting on is useless.

I think the model of the game models this nicely with the AV except that it is a bit too easy right now if you go for neutrals as well.

[Paul Vebber]

P.S. - If you reread my comments - I never presented a scenario where Germany and Russia did not clash.

Then what are you in a tizzy aout? My point is that German victory conditions should include having to make an 'honest' attempt to take at least one of England and Russia and be reasonably successful at it.

Interesting. So in short, Because I feel that a WW2 GAME should have equal ability of "winning" for players of both sides, then I must be some sort of Nazi sympathizer or worse.

Who's not reading who? I'm arguing the NATURE of the AV rule, not whether its needed or not...You seem to be wanting to create fantasy points of contention as well as fantasy victory conditions...

Hence, the current auto-victory system displaces some reality in favor of game balance - and that is something good games should do.

No, the current AV rules allow the Axis to be awarded victory in cases they clearly have no business having it be awarded. That is something good games DON'T DO.

Or perhaps you favor a game in where one opponent is always destined to be crushed rather then have the game metrics create a balance - however fanciful they me be in your eyes.

If you'd read what I actually say, and what you've agreed with, and not invent arguments it would seem we are in agreement.

ONce again for possible penetration... Rather than award a victory to the Axis in cases they clearly have not won, out of sympathy for wanting to let them win, (Ie holding a rather large number of prodution points instantaneously) how about making teh victory conditions at least marginally realistic - like holding a LESSOR number of production points - some of which must be captured from other major powers for some time frame of 2 or 3 turns to demonstrate are are "held' and not "grabbed"?

THAT is the point...now what is the argument against that other than Axis coddling?

[dembe73]

That sounds good Paul. It would leave open the options for various strategies that might have achieved Axis victory, like taking the UK and/or the colonies or go for Russia instead completely.

[MarcelJV]

If I may take a moment to get us back on topic.

I believe that we are all agreed that Auto Victory is too easy in the current version of the game. There have been some suggestions to make it harder to achieve AV.

1. One is to increase the total needed from 70 to 72 or up to 75.
2. Include neutral resources but boost the total to 80-85.
3. Another is to calculate victory at the end of the Game turn instead of the end of the Axis movement phase.
4. Some folks want to do away this AV, as this is already an option no point in persueing this topic.
5. For some reason we are trying to validate AV to history, don't bother it is a game mechanism nothing more, at good one at that.

Hakon and I are testing the 80-85 points need and neutral resources as well as calculating both at the end of any axis movement phase and at the end of the turn. We will post result of our game.

Also the main point of the thread was that Russia was to easy to take over. We have made the following suggestions on this topic.
1. move some units closer to Central Siberia to prevent paratroop drop, or at least make it harder.
2. Add a Factory, or move a Factory to Irkutsk. This allows building of troops here.

I think that is all.

[Wayllander]

Then what are you in a tizzy aout? My point is that German victory conditions should include having to make an 'honest' attempt to take at least one of England and Russia and be reasonably successful at it

Not neccesarily. I think a German victory via a peace proposal was a plausible thing early in the war - Previous to russian and US involvement. The AV conditions simulate this via production points. I have no doubt that the Germans and Russians would have engaged at some point in the near future - but that would no longer be the same conflict.

Who's not reading who? I'm arguing the NATURE of the AV rule, not whether its needed or not...You seem to be wanting to create fantasy points of contention as well as fantasy victory conditions

Any auto victory scenario is clearly based on fantasy tweaked or not. Do you think Stalin would have really said "Oh well Germany has now reached x amount of production, lets surrender?"

No, the current AV rules allow the Axis to be awarded victory in cases they clearly have no business having it be awarded. That is something good games DON'T DO

This is of course the heart of our disagreement. I think a victory based on negotiations was plausible early in the war. I have no doubt that additional conflict would loom in the future - but the conflict that began in 1939 would have been concluded.

If you'd read what I actually say, and what you've agreed with, and not invent arguments it would seem we are in agreement.

ONce again for possible penetration... Rather than award a victory to the Axis in cases they clearly have not won, out of sympathy for wanting to let them win, (Ie holding a rather large number of prodution points instantaneously) how about making teh victory conditions at least marginally realistic - like holding a LESSOR number of production points - some of which must be captured from other major powers for some time frame of 2 or 3 turns to demonstrate are are "held' and not "grabbed"?

THAT is the point...now what is the argument against that other than Axis coddling?

I'm not sure where you are getting all of this Axis coddling and sympathy from other then from your own imagination. If I wanted to coddle the Axis - Would I not be saying that the game mechanics should allow for equal oppurtunity for complete victory? In addition, you territory holding auto victory is just as fanciful as a production based one. Do you really think the Soviets and US would have surrendered if say Lennigrad and Moscow fell?

[daskomodo]

wow, lots of posts while I'm working [:D]


AV seems like a holdover from its cousin, Axis & Allies (if Axis makes this much $, you win). Alternative from other WW2 games include:
- collapse Russia and you win (Clash of Steel)
- Reach a high-watermark and then try to stay alive til <insert date here> (Totaler Krieg and World in Flames I think)

The Med first strategy should be a viable alternative, as historically, it was planned for. Other WW2 games also make a point that Gibraltar and the Middle East should be important objectives for the Axis.

If you get the Middle East, then the Axis has A LOT more oil to run their toys with. But historically, they never even got close. So, it should be a BIG reward if you get there.

But the Allies seem to have a rough time defending against a Med first strategy. Attacking in Africa doesn't feel like much of a stretch, even though it was historically. The Afrika Korps worried more about supplies than the British.

Some ideas I've been kicking around (nothing drastic you'll note):
- Makign Spain a fortress regions, forcing the Axis to dedicate more forces to conquer those spaces.
- Toning down the Italian navy. Reducing its transports from 4 to 2 for instance will slow down a rapid build up in Africa. You want a super-Afrika Korps, you gotta build some transports first.
- Building up the unit makeup of the British in Cairo (is this a fortress? wish I had my map). In 1940, North Africa was Britain sole good point of the war.
- Unfreezing Russia earlier. After the German's turn in Summer 1942 maybe. You had two summers to launch Barbarossa and didn't take it. You've ceded initiative. (Again, this match the "frozen Russia" of other WW2 games) This puts more pressure on Axis trying to go for neutral victory.

What I fear about raising the AV point count is that it will encourage Axis player to snatch even more neutrals before hitting Russia, and worse, penalize players who are focusing on attacking Russia itself (i.e. doing it historically).
WW2 wasn't Gulf War 1/2. (although it could've been [:D])

Paul, just to show how clueless I am, are you official Matrix games staff? Is Matrix now telling us AV is broken?

[Paul Vebber]

If you've not been around here much, I'm Matrix staff, but I hold my own opinions on some things.

I'd like to see the AV rules changed, but I like the arguments made in defense of the current AV rules less...so I challenge the arguments.

2by3 will ultimatley decide if they want to change the rule. in theaat regard, my opinion counts as much as anybody elses. I hope they do on general prinicples...but they tend to be rightfully conservative.

What burns me is the general idea that the Axis needs "special treatment" regarding victory conditions and and other aspects of a game to "make things more fair". There are ways to balance a game that do not include "giving away" victory rationalized away by flawed arguments.

In this case I (me not some mythic Matrix presence) think the current rule needs to be changed along the lines I mention to prevent "victory grabs" and other gamey situations.

That and 1.95 gets you a cup of Starbucks finest...

What I fear about raising the AV point count is that it will encourage Axis player to snatch even more neutrals before hitting Russia, and worse, penalize players who are focusing on attacking Russia itself (i.e. doing it historically).

Thats why I think a LOWER threshold, but with a requirement to maintain it for some time period is a better way to qualify a 'highwatermark' as sufficiently high to get an AV.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: daskomodo
Some ideas I've been kicking around (nothing drastic you'll note):
- Makign Spain a fortress regions, forcing the Axis to dedicate more forces to conquer those spaces.
- Toning down the Italian navy. Reducing its transports from 4 to 2 for instance will slow down a rapid build up in Africa. You want a super-Afrika Korps, you gotta build some transports first.
- Building up the unit makeup of the British in Cairo (is this a fortress? wish I had my map). In 1940, North Africa was Britain sole good point of the war.

Frankly I don't like your ideas.

I think you try to solve what you perceive is a gamey problem, by gamey quasi-solution.

Making Spain fort reagion would have disastrous consequences on the gameplay. There is like half dozen other, more realistic ways to make conquering Spain less atractive proposition to Axis. Some of them - like paying 5 supply to attack neutrals - will be implemented in the next patch. Some I proposed in my mod [;)]

Italian navy is OK as it is, as I argumented in some other thread.

Cairo is not a fort, nor it should be.

Paul, just to show how clueless I am, are you official Matrix games staff? Is Matrix now telling us AV is broken?

Paul is Matrix guy but from what I can tell he always posts as "just Paul" [:D][:D] Don't fear him. His ideas hold as much weight as anyone else's - good or bad [:'(]

It's up to 2by3 guys to decide what will finally be implemented. 2by3 = developer, makers and bossees of this game. Everyone else, including lowly betas like me, or Matrix guys like Paul = everyone else.

O.

[Paul Vebber]

I think a German victory via a peace proposal was a plausible thing early in the war - Previous to russian and US involvement.

Sorry, if you think that you don't understand why Germany started the war. I wasn't to "win enough victory points to declare victory and go home".

I have no doubt that the Germans and Russians would have engaged at some point in the near future - but that would no longer be the same conflict.

LOL, Now I've heard everything... So Germany "wins" the pre- real war phase, and we need a new game to cover the inevitbale battle with the Soviet Union...you have got to be kidding [X(]

Any auto victory scenario is clearly based on fantasy tweaked or not. Do you think Stalin would have really said "Oh well Germany has now reached x amount of production, lets surrender?"

If enough of that production was SOVIET production, then its a far more defensible argument than saying they would surrender 'before they fought the real war' because Germany takes Sweden, Spain, Turkey and Iraq among a few others...and "raids" the Ukraine to get the couple more it needs to go over the top...

I think a victory based on negotiations was plausible early in the war. I have no doubt that additional conflict would loom in the future - but the conflict that began in 1939 would have been concluded.

Well, I guess the Germans start the game having won the "Great War of Polish Liberation" and this game is about a different war... This of course after those rousing victories in the Assimilation of Austria, and the classic Annexation of Czechoslovakia. I forgot how much fun those games are...

If you want to play a game about WWII then it would be nice to consider the reasons the countries went to war in determining the victory conditions. A novel concept I know.

I'm not sure where you are getting all of this Axis coddling and sympathy from other then from your own imagination. If I wanted to coddle the Axis - Would I not be saying that the game mechanics should allow for equal oppurtunity for complete victory? In addition, you territory holding auto victory is just as fanciful as a production based one. Do you really think the Soviets and US would have surrendered if say Lennigrad and Moscow fell?

You keep arguing with me for some reason, and in teh same breath you say "I never argued Germany and Russia should not clash" but then argue despite that such a thing should no be required? You began this argument proposing scenarios where the UK bribes Germany to stop fighting (for some undetermined amount of time before Germany attacks Russia I guess) and this should be considered a German victory? That certainly appeared to be "coddling" the Axis - as is this bizzare notion that some sort of "time out" should be awarded, and a German "interim victory" awarded until battle is joined withthe Soviet union. Germany is free to stop fighting for as many turns as they want and tell everyone "they won" Maybe they can even convice the other players to observe a truce.

About as sensible...

[Paul Vebber]

Paul is Matrix guy but from what I can tell he always posts as "just Paul" Don't fear him.

I'm the "anti-suit"...occasionally it gets me in trouble but most wise I'm a gamer like you guys who happens to be part of a hard working bunch that tries to make and publish games. But among other character flaws I have, is a don't see any reason not to speak ones mind. Some think that because I "work here" I shouldn't say anything controversial or question anything a customer might say for fear of offending them.

I have dumb ideas and peole call me on them - sometimes I have to say yup that was a stupid thing to say. Thats does happen to be when we tend to learn things. So I'll broacast my opinion loud and clear, and if its right you learn something and hopefully get a little entertained. Sometimes I wind up with egg on my face. So be it.

[CharonJr]

Hmm, actually I am in 2 minds about Germany HAVING to attack Russia in order to win. On the one hand it "feels" right since it would enforce "historical" gameplay, but on the other hand does a WW2 game HAVE to be more historical than trying to simulate the starting positions/OOBs/ressources/alliances/... (i.e. the setup) as much as possible ?

But since at least a try at being "historical" feels better maybe there should be some additional conditions connected to AV like at least 10-15 (don't have the map in from of me, but this should mean a decent part of the western SU including the Caucasus) of the ressources required for the 7X PPs come from Russia.

And I agree that the PPs should at least be held till the end of the WA's turn.

CharonJr

[daskomodo]

Yup, always with the mod. Just because you plug it too much - Hungary is too strong I think (compare it to Rumania's one militia a turn). Feels like Germany lasts in its home region for years and years at the endgame. So, not better than the regular game, just different.

I hate that Greece is always left neutral, not too historic. in both regular and mod.

And naturally, I tend towards the gamey, as that what this is. I can hardly argue that one infantry and one militia represents Britain's historical force. They are just abstract concepts.

Well, all I can see is that on turn 1, the Axis can (with a little luck, not much) completely sink the Allied med fleet and park about as many tank units as he needs parked right in front of Egypt. Following that with amphib invasions of Palestine. Tada, you have the Middle East.

As for my assuming Paul talks on behalf of Matrix, I asked because I thought it was Paul's opinion, but the Matrix logo might give me thr wrong impression. I guess my job makes me paranoid about legal things more than necessary. (full disclosure! auditors are everywhere! keep your laser handy!)

As for changing how victory is determined, modders might do it, but the game is out. It'll be patched, but probably not overhauled until WaW2 or something.

Anyway, real world calls and this is getting close to a forum slugging match. My final input on the matter is that small tweaks are needed, nothing major. Good thing I just got this new game with a purple chick on the box. (fanboys posts game names, you have to guess)

[pyrhic]

to paul,

the problem with establishing a 'high-watermark' is that you define what needs to happen in the game. One thing the AV allows is an opportunity to try different strategies - attack the uk/russia/neutrals and likely some combination of it all. But you don't need to do all of it, and delaying you until the other combatants arrive, that's the allied role at the begining.

It's funny that you castigate the AV supporters as being axis fan-bois, but your same argument can be turned against you. By your whining, aren't you just a little allied fan-boi that must win every game and can't stand if the axis wins?

[Panzeh]

AV is the way for a materially inferior(in the long run) Axis to win. It could be changed out a bit, but the reasoning is sound.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Panzeh

AV is the way for a materially inferior(in the long run) Axis to win. It could be changed out a bit, but the reasoning is sound.

I dont disagree, in principle, but the way I see it, there should be only be two ways of winning:

1. Actually winning the war, meaning that the opponent surrenders or is conquered The English may have been close to quitting in may 1940, but after that, only a successfull invasion of the Bristish Isles would have any chance of triggering British surrender, imo. In game terms, _maybe_ the fall of London should trigger an AV.

2. Doing better, overall, than that side did in real life, could also be considered a victory. Note that the definition of _better_ should be compared to the actual goals of that side.

Conquest of Sweden, Spain and Turkey was never a goal for the axis.

An alternative to base an AV on production, would be to define victory areas (much like Axis and Allies Revised).

By, for example to define the following cites as victory areas:

Western France, England, Scotland, Kiev, Leningrad, Moscow, Caucasus, Vladivostok, Chunking, Manila, SE Australia, Western India, SW USA, NE USA

One could define an AV for the Axis at any time when they hold at least x of these cities. (somewhere between 5 and 8).