Matrix Games Forums

Paris taken in 3 turns by May?? Would like to see how that's done.

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

I think the plunder is affected by how many units are alive when they surrender. I am not sure exactly about the formula though.

Wait so it is actually more beneficial to not destroy units and not capture everything? It is better to avoid everything and just capture the capital?

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

I think the plunder is affected by how many units are alive when they surrender. I am not sure exactly about the formula though.

Wait so it is actually more beneficial to not destroy and capture everything? It is better to avoid everything and just capture the capital?

I believe there is a percentage chance that a country will not surrender which is a multiplier of units left on the map. So it's a double edged sword, you could get more MPP but you could also allow the country to fight another day.

One of the things I dislike about the game is how it handles TIME.

You should be able to take Warsaw in two turns. And you often can, although a bad roll and you're looking a three.

Paris fell on 14 June--35 days into Gelb. In game turns that's three turns. Unlikely.

The Balkan campaign is worse. The Germans struck on 6 April and by June 1 had taken Belgrade, Athens, and Crete--56 days? In game turns that's two spring turns! Lots of luck!It takes two turn to prep for, and land on Crete, and that assumes you can start in southern Greece!

I'm working on a Mod with 11 day-simultaneous turns. In other words each turn (the Allied and the Axis) covers 11 days, no matter the season, not the current minimum of 14, 28, or 42. (Why should winter turns pass faster in the North African Desert?)

Obviously, there are plenty of game balance considerations with such a change, and I'm working on them.

I agree, my timeline is off as well

ORIGINAL: majpalmer

One of the things I dislike about the game is how it handles TIME.

You should be able to take Warsaw in two turns. And you often can, although a bad roll and you're looking a three.

Paris fell on 14 June--35 days into Gelb. In game turns that's three turns. Unlikely.

The Balkan campaign is worse. The Germans struck on 6 April and by June 1 had taken Belgrade, Athens, and Crete--56 days? In game turns that's two spring turns! Lots of luck!It takes two turn to prep for, and land on Crete, and that assumes you can start in southern Greece!

I'm working on a Mod with 11 day-simultaneous turns. In other words each turn (the Allied and the Axis) covers 11 days, no matter the season, not the current minimum of 14, 28, or 42. (Why should winter turns pass faster in the North African Desert?)

Obviously, there are plenty of game balance considerations with such a change, and I'm working on them.

Many excellent points.

I've come to terms with the timing because for the most part the end result is accurate (Balkan campaign is the exception). You are correct on the German attack of France timing but in the "game" the end result (PBEM) is France usually falls in June because the attack can start much earlier than historically.

Barbarossa and Soviet events do quite a good job at being in synch with the historic timeline.

It will be very interesting to see how your 11 day works out. I think there would have to be major changes so the Germans wouldn't be prepared to attack until late April/May. In PBEM games people often attack Holland/Belgium in the Winter, it took me quite a while to accept that. I think changing to 11 days might require much slower moving/operating/reinforcing/etc troops to compensate which might make the game tedious.

My bigger concern is that each side can have different weather, this makes no sense to me. If your turns are simultaneous it would correct that.

I believe the game is intended to represent "what ifs" so the timeline can deviate from history. To me the games complexity/results are very good and think its the best large scale WW2 strategy game out there. Maybe your results will make it even better. I've tried GGWE & GGWW which are exceptionally accurate but I find the games overwhelming.

My bigger concern is that each side can have different weather, this makes no sense to me. If your turns are simultaneous it would correct that.

I just posted a similar response in a Steam forum, so I thought I'd post it here as well.

This is something that comes up from time to time, and my arguments are that simultaneous turns/weather don't quite work out as one would hope for with a game that has one side start, and the other side go second under the same date.

For example, Axis goes first in most of the campaigns, so the Allies are always second under any specific date, i.e. before the date and weather advances to the next turn date and weather.

Essentially from 1939 to let's say 1941, when the Axis are on the offensive, the Allies can always be guaranteed to defend/respond to any Axis aggression with the same weather.

However, once the balance tips and the Allies go on more offensives later on in game, because the Allies go second under a specific date, the Axis, which is now on the defensive, is not guaranteed the same weather to respond to any Allied attacks.

Why? Because the date rolls over to the next date after an Allied turn, and the weather only possibly changes between Allied and Axis turns, whereas the weather is always guaranteed between an Axis and Allied turn when you play with same weather for both sides.

Playing with the same weather for both sides of a turn, is only the same weather for the Axis and then the Allies, but not necessarily the same for the Allies and then Axis.

Over time I would argue that this system actually gives an advantage to the side that goes second in game. This is because the side that goes second is guaranteed to have the same weather as the side that goes first (all game), while later on in game it will have an opportunity to have good weather (from time to time) on its offensive turn where the defending side is not necessarily going to have good weather when it comes time to initially respond on its follow up turn.

Hopefully that makes sense,
Hubert