My conclusions on game balance

[CommC]

I think we should keep the AV, for the purpose that when it is recognized that that the Axis has done much better than historical, and playing it out to end is pointless because the Axis will still be in a "better than historical" position at the end of 46 or whenever it ends.

To this end, the answer is simply make a rule that PPs obtained from neutrals such as Spain, Sweden, Iraq, Arabia, Turkey, etc do not count toward the AV. This would force and reward the achievement of the better than historical advance into Russia or other major contested areas. The PPs earned from capturing the neutrals would help the overall advance, but would not count toward the AV. The AV needs to recognize better than historical achievement against the real Axis historical goals: the capturing of the SU and the DEI resource area, etc.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: CommC
To this end, the answer is simply make a rule that PPs obtained from neutrals such as Spain, Sweden, Iraq, Arabia, Turkey, etc do not count toward the AV.

Ugh. Yet another ridicolous idea.

I mean, come on. Somehow Swedish resuources are less worthy than Russian ones?

This game isn't as detailed as, say, WITP, but it IS based on historicity AND reality. So, any proposals should be based on historicity and reality too.

O.

[Paul Vebber]

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?

Someopne else with reading comprehension of zero...[8|]

Please defend the argument that the Axis should be able to 'win' without ever fighting the US and SU or doing anything to England other than parrying attempts to interfere with their "child mlestation" -(HEHE I like that one...)


I never said the Allies "should win" I just don't think the Axis should be awarded victories that aren't. How exactly is that anything other than wanting a good game?

Demonstrate where I am advocating Allied "fantasy victories" and I'll give you your point. Otherwise you need to go back and try again...

[James Ward]

This game isn't as detailed as, say, WITP, but it IS based on historicity AND reality. So, any proposals should be based on historicity and reality too

I think Paul had the rigth idea. The AV level isn't as important as being able to hold that level for a certain period, more than the end of a turn. You could make the AV level different for each year and have to hold it for 2-3 turns. For example if the Axis has 50 pp's in the winter of 45 and still have that many at the end of the fall they could probably claim an AV in both game and historical terms. Holding 70 for a single turn in 1942 doesn't cut it at least historically.

[Willy Liao]

I agree about holding onto to PPs for at least a few turns. This prevents last minute "suicide rushes" where the Axis blows its forces in a pyrrhic victory to grab that last PP in some region, overstretching its forces in the process--and the enemy doesn't even get their own turn during that season to retake it.

[Tac2i]

I think we should table this discussion temporarily and wait for the next patch. After we have about a month of gaming experience with it, then we can pick up this discussion again.

[pyrhic]

I'll try to spell it out for you simply, since you seem to be the one with the low comprehension

1) that england would quit the fight, particularly if she was clearly overmatched(like losing the battle of britain) and the cost was low, is plausible

2) that the us would fight germany was never pre-ordained. If england surrendered, or signed a cease-fire, it's VERY unlikely the us would come tearing into europe on its own moxie.

3) Though germany would almost certainly turn on russia next, at this point the game situation has changed significantly enough that the old parameters are no longer justified.

here's the tough one, try to follow

4) given that the game does not model politics, and since clearly politics is at work in points 1 and 2, it is a not unreasonable abstraction to say that given a high level of german production, only attainable by a very aggressive germany and a very lax Western allies, point 1 occurs. With point 1 comes point 2, and given point 3, it's probably the best game result to say germany wins the game, play again.

Please note that history is not actually altered at any time during the game.


As far as wanting a good, fair, game, yes we all want that. If you hadn't noticed we were having a pretty fair and civil discussion about it before you came in and thought the best way of proving your point was by typing insults.

[ratprince]

Fellas....fellas...what is up with the "spat" back and forth? I mean, you both (all) have great ideas and points, but a) it is just a game, and b) it is just a game! [;)]

I am sure we are all fairly competent historians and veteran wargamers, but that does not disallow for multiple viewpoints and disparate ideas. That is what makes *democracy* a great thing...right? The ability to wage a fair, open, non-inflamatory debate is what makes these forums great! Lets not debase the intrinsic philisophical value of this open 'forum' with personal attacks. We are all too professional and adult to do that. Right?


Great discussion!

Mike

[hakon]

pyrhic : I agree with Paul in most of what he writes (except for his tendency to start calling people names when they dont agree with him).

Even Paul admits that a real defeat of Britain could potentially be an acceptable victory condition. His point is that taking Spain, Sweden and Turkey has nothing to do with a defeat of Britain.

For Germany to win prior to an attack on Russia, Germany should _at least_ hold London.

[SeaMonkey]

Didn't need a crystal ball to see this coming. This is what you get with a rudimentary diplomatic model, but it can be better, just not the best.

So far, I think Hakon has touched on the best and most realistic idea, that of a phased in DoW from USA and USSR, based on the aggressive actions of the Axis. Obviously there should be some randomness involved, so as to obliterate any repetitive pattern.

I'm OK with the AV, it just needs to be coupled with some additional requirements as has been suggested. It is ridiculous to think that a suicidal grab for an addition PP pool would ever come off as a realistic concept, although this is just a game and there will always be some gambits available for either player.

To me the discussion should be boiled down to the triggers, which obviously we will all never agree on, but a compromise will be possible. Most likely the majority of the ideas represented here could be accomodated in one degree or another, but the priority will always be in question.

My first priority requirement for Axis victory is some degree of completion for Barbarossa, which means an Axis-USSR conflict.

Second would be some culmination based on regional possessions for a simulated negotiated peace between UK and Axis, however tenacious that peace will be, ie. triggers exist to undo the settlement. This of course would be in lieu of a successful Sealion.

Well these are paramount in my perceived illustration for an Axis victory in WW2, there are apparently others, and that my fellow WaW players is the question, what is truly significant and what is not?

[Wayllander]

Someopne else with reading comprehension of zero...

My question to you is why you feel it is necessary to belittle and badger people with opposing views? Do you honestly feel that your argument is so weak that it can't stand on its own in a civil manner? You have succeded in one area - I fully consider you a complete jerk now. Pyrhic understood my initial argument completely - the argument was against the notion that AV was totally unrealistic. I proposed a scenario in which I feel it was realistic.

I never said the Allies "should win" I just don't think the Axis should be awarded victories that aren't. How exactly is that anything other than wanting a good game

Your problem is the inability to seperate reality from game play. Historically, we know Germany had 0 shot of defeating the US and SU. In GAMES people want sides that are competitive - that is where the fun lies. Perhaps you play chess but require your opponents to remove their rooks and bishops prior to the start. We all know conflict in reality is usually not very even sided. I for one am happy that Matrix brought GAME BALANCE by AV rather then a model in which they allow the Axis the economic and military strength to conquer the world. (As in some games where you see german tanks assault Washington) Of course this view somehow makes me an "Axis Fan Boy" in your argument - rather the presenting a clear case based upon the actual merits of our discussion.

--way

[Wayllander]

For Germany to win prior to an attack on Russia, Germany should _at least_ hold London

Hakon:

I disagree with the above. I think that Britain only deals with Germany if they have something tangible to gain and vice versa. Britain sees Europe collapsing and thinks of self-preservation while Germany may see an advantage in peace to further their aims the east front. (Noting that sealion would be expensive)

IMHO if London falls the bargaining power is gone. Britain has nothing to offer Germany anymore and now they nothing to lose but to continue the conflict and pray for American involvment as well as cold weather in Russia.

--way

[Wayllander]

Possible new idea:

The game keeps auto victory but the number of points needed is unkown to the player. The actual number would be randomally generated within a specific range (67-75)? This would help curb those last straw grabs, because you are risking leaving yourself very open without a guarantee of victory.

-way

[5cats]

Hummm, not a bad idea, but it'd have to be a "hold it for a while" kind of thing, or else too much luck would be involved, eh? Perhaps a warning for both sides when the Axis is getting close. But since the X4 multiplier has a lot to do with it, again it's iffy.

[pyrhic]

randomness cuts both ways though. I wouldnt want a win because I just got lucky and needed 67 PP instead of 75. I think the AV at 70 is fine, but the things I see that need to be changed.

>the victory condition must not fire until the end of the allied turn.

>SU activation should be keyed relative to the forces in the bordering states(both germany and japan). Ideally, i'd like to see SU get a round of internal premovement whenever %axis forces on the border>2xSU forces (or something). It might solve the problem of places like irkutsk falling too easily. But generally i don't favor a SU dow as it might impact US involvement. Would the US be as keen to aid an aggressive stalin? Hmmm....be interested in hearing what others think about that..

>some neutrals should be harder to take. In particular spain should be a tough nut. I could see alot of partisan activity if/when germany took spain.

>the balance of power in the med should be evened a bit towards the allies. Yes, the italians had way more ships, but they were not inclined to use them(many reasons). Alternatively, carrier power should be boosted so those fearsome carriers can actually sink something . Either way, a harder med means a more difficult road for axis to travel.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Wayllander

IMHO if London falls the bargaining power is gone. Britain has nothing to offer Germany anymore and now they nothing to lose but to continue the conflict and pray for American involvment as well as cold weather in Russia.

--way

If england falls, they do have something to to gain from bargaining, ie their home country. It has been common practice in european peace settlements (between great powers), that most of the territory lost by one side, is returned. With London down, Germany could agree to return england to the english, at the cost of some british colonies, and the complete demolition of the British fleet and air force. The commonwealth would probably be dissolved as well. Maybe germany would eveb want to keep Kent and Essex to be able to ensure that the terms are followed.

Hitler's goal was never to eradicate the British empire (for which he had great respect), but rather to create his own empire - in the east.

Before the actual occupation (or real threat of such) of the British Isles, the English really had little reason to accept peace. They were pretty safe where they were, protected by the channel. They knew that Nazi and Communist were natural enemies (ideologically), and anybody who had red Mein Kampf knew what Hitler's real ambitions were. Additionaly, Roosevelt was pretty clear on wanting to help the english. Even before Pearl Harbor, the lend lease was pretty significant.

The only time i think it would have been realistic to accept peace for the english, was during the fall of france, as the quick conquest was a great shock, but nobody wants to end the game at that point.

But the English knew very well, that invading Spain, Turkey and Sweden, would just bind up German forces, and in no way increase their chance to win the war. This should not increase the probability of British surrender.

[SeaMonkey]

>some neutrals should be harder to take. In particular spain should be a tough nut. I could see alot of partisan activity if/when germany took spain.

On the contrary, I believe Spain probably would have joined the Axis with very little pressure, hence no partisans. It was German General Canaris who advised Franco to not join the coalition, telling him that Hitler's true intentions were in the East and that Spain was probably safe. If he had presented a different case, such as a pending invasion, I'm sure Franco, being the smart fellow he was, would have agreed to be a more active partner. Remember the relationship Franco had with the Axis during the Spanish civil war, he was somewhat beholden to the Alliance.

Since there is no mechanism to simulate Spain joining the Axis, in WaW, through diplomatic pressure, the representation of an easy invasion is all we have. If there would have been a German conquest of Spain in reality, then, yes, I would agree there should be a partisan faction.

[Panzeh]

Just because the Germans and Italians threw in on Franco's side doesn't mean Franco would join the axis quickly or easily.

After all, the Germans helped the Chinese far more than they helped the Japanese. Guess who ended up on the Axis side?

[Wayllander]

ORIGINAL: Panzeh

Just because the Germans and Italians threw in on Franco's side doesn't mean Franco would join the axis quickly or easily.

After all, the Germans helped the Chinese far more than they helped the Japanese. Guess who ended up on the Axis side?

Excellant Points!

--way

[pyrhic]

i too don't think franco was beholden to the axis cause and don't think he would have joined the axis willingly. The case i make for partisans was in consideration of an axis occupation, and not from willfully joining.

I think it's proper that the game doesnt allow for a condition which spain would willingly join the axis(like it does for romania/hungary) because i don't think they would have. Leaving germany's only option to put them under the gun...a case i think they would have resisted most aggressively...