Game Balance

[Becket]

I think when you see the victory conditions you will be pleased. It's also fairly easy to do what Mr. Frag suggests, as paullus and I have been running "reverse sides" PBEMs for a while now.

[Toby42]

I don't want to see a game that produces un-historical results to satisfy "Game" balance. Just look at the mess with SC and HOI...

[a19999577]

As to game balance and results, do you guys remember "Clash of Steel"? A fairly typical win for me as the Axis would involve knocking out the USSR sometime in 1943 or early 1944, and all those extra resources available enabling me to prepare a 1944 or even 1945 uber-strength Sea Lion, finally knocking out the Commonwealth and US from the war.

Does this seem too unhistorical?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: a19999577

As to game balance and results, do you guys remember "Clash of Steel"? A fairly typical win for me as the Axis would involve knocking out the USSR sometime in 1943 or early 1944, and all those extra resources available enabling me to prepare a 1944 or even 1945 uber-strength Sea Lion, finally knocking out the Commonwealth and US from the war.

Does this seem too unhistorical?

I wouldn't comment on "historicity" of that move [:D] but it'll be very very hard or impossible to pull off in WAW except vs. total WA n00bz (n00bz = newbies, inexperienced players in new kidz online lingo [:D])

To kill the SU by late 43 you'll have to invest heavily in tank, infantry and artillery research and production, and also in research and production of subs, to keep off those pesky WA and disrupt their Arctic conwoys to Russia. You'll also have to garrison the conquered SU provinces heavily, or their captured factories, resources, and rail network will be unusable to you. Yeah, it's hard, harder than many GE fanboys here expect, but guess what? That's how it was for Germans in WW2 [:D]

While you do all this, any sensible WA player will have 20+ well equipped, well supplied and solidly "researched" land units in England preparing Operation Overlord, not to mention 6-8 heavy fleets in the Atlantic and Med, 12+ light fleets, who knows how many CVs etc. (naval assets available to WA player depend on his war vs. Japan of course).

Not to mention, that while you invest every penny into tank and infanrty production to beat the Russians, you'll have no more than 3-4 transport fleets available for your Sea Lion 44 (WA will have 20-30+ at least)

So what is your way to victory then, if not Sea Lion '44 and occupation of Washington DC afterwards? [:D][:D]

Something way more realistic: you'll hope that Festung Europe holds, you'll do your best to defeat Overlord (it's doable) and that you survive by 45-46, along with your buddies in Japan, and that by that time, your production is "only" 2-3 times less than Allies, and they decide it's too risky to attack you, and decide to leave your little Nazi paradise alone (leading to another version of 50-year Cold War perhaps but that's outside the scope of this game).

In game terms, you'll "win on points", instead of winning by "total world domination". [:D]

Oleg

[Joel Billings]

Bidding is built into the game in a way. Difficulty level consists of 3 factors, all of which can be individually adjusted for each of the 5 player countries and thus can be customized. One of the items is "Supply Help", which is the amount of extra supplies that are automatically given to the player each turn. For most human only PBEM games, this would be 0 for all players. It is very easy for the players to agree on a bidding system using the Supply Help numbers. Extra supplies is effectively extra production. Problem solved?

By the way, for the AI, difficulty level also has an impact on AI strategy selection in that at harder levels the computer is willing to try more esoteric strategies in order to keep the player guessing as to what it is strategically going to do. It won't be quite as predictable.

[Murat]

Was this game designed from scratch or is it based on a board game? I am curious because it seems odd to me that China is a player while the US and Britain are lumped together as the WA. I was just curious as to why China was not placed with the US player (giving the US player some fighting throughout all the years) and the British Commonwealth a separate player. This is especially strange since with the Communists -v- Nationalists -v- Nippon 3-way war, the Chinese player (Nationalist I presume) would be very hamstrung. Also, how are the so-called minor allies treated (Germany - Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland for sure, Ukraine and several other Nazi-sympathizing nationalities in revolt, and Sweden, Switzerland who supplied $$ and matetial kind of like US Lend Lease; Japan - Burma, Manchuko, and the multiple colonial native uprisings against the European Allies in Indonesia, India, Indochina; US(WA) - Mexico and Brazil; UK(WA) - Commonwealth; USSR - Mongolia)?

[Oleg Mastruko]

Most of your questions have been answered on this very board, and I don't want to take the joy of using the "Search" button away from you [:D]

I'll just answer about China and order of play - it can be played by any side, it's place in "turn sequence" does not matter. Originally China was placed at the end of the turn (after WA), but in latest builds it's between SU and WA, which means that in 4-player PBEMs any Allied player (SU or WA) can control China. Whoever plays China along with his "main force" will process the China turn before, or after he processes the SU or WA turn. But even playing only with China can be fun, so it's not impossible that there'll be 5-player PBEMs once the game is released. It's good for "easing" new players into the game.

China is technically separate entity because all nations within one side share the technology and research. By amalgamating China in WA, you'd have Chinese using very advanced weapons from WA - not very realistic.

O.

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: a19999577

Something way more realistic: you'll hope that Festung Europe holds, you'll do your best to defeat Overlord (it's doable) and that you survive by 45-46, along with your buddies in Japan, and that by that time, your production is "only" 2-3 times less than Allies, and they decide it's too risky to attack you, and decide to leave your little Nazi paradise alone (leading to another version of 50-year Cold War perhaps but that's outside the scope of this game).

In game terms, you'll "win on points", instead of winning by "total world domination". [:D]

Oleg

Good and logical strategy but I hope not the only one for Axis? I understand that is hard to gain good balance (hell, I agree there is no game which is balanced perfectly) but to put more ways to win for each side every game should have.
Let’s take a few examples.

Example for bad game (scenario) balance:
1. War on Pacific scenario in Civilization 3 game. ONLY the most experienced Japan player can make this scenario interesting. When people realized that, scenario is not played often any more.

2. Axis and Allies. This game, players still play today, but they had to make up a lot of house rules to have some balance.

3. Strategic Command. One of my favorite games. Research concept and ability to buy unlimited number of air units made this game almost unplayable. Lots of house rules….

4. HOI. Good idea but catastrophic game. Even me, who is freak for “what if” events, must say that.

Example for good game balance:
1. Advanced Third Reich game. One of my favorite games. Each side can win with major or major victory. Needing good players, true, but so much non-linear and non-historical events make this game so good. Game is not balanced perfectly, of course.

2. Uncommon Valor. Very hard game. Don't like it so much but everybody have chance to win with major or minor victory.

3. TOAW. Everybody knows this old game. For a wargamers but very good balanced.

As you have said before. Game makers always have one big dilemma – to make a game realistic or playable? I am always 100% for second one. For what games are for? For fun!! That’s why we called it - game. If someone what to be a real general he or she should join real army.

I am saying all this not to criticize GGWAW game makers, I am saying because I am afraid that this game will have the same destiny as a lot of games - played for a few weeks and then goodbye. GGWAW? What is that? Never heard.[&:]-[:@]-[;)]

[Becket]

keyser, I'm not sure I understand your point.

Each side in W@W will be able to win a decisive victory (W@W's equivalent of a major victory) or a marginal victory (a "minor victory"). The game can also end in a draw.

Hopefully this will start to become clear as you guys see more games.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: keyser soze
I am saying all this not to criticize GGWAW game makers, I am saying because I am afraid that this game will have the same destiny as a lot of games - played for a few weeks and then goodbye. GGWAW? What is that? Never heard.[&:]-[:@]-[;)]

You're wrong. This game could have books written about all the possible strategies to use. It has lots of depth, lots of choices, lots of challenge, and truckloads of replayability. You'll see specialised fan sites, mods, and PBEM ladders when this game is out.

Of course, that's just my humble prediction based on my experience with reviewing, playing and observing games for past two decades. Success will also depend on the publisher's will and knowledge to make the game "marketable" to wider audience etc etc.

Oleg

[gunnergoz]

From what I've seen so far, I expect it'll be on my hard drive for a goodly while. So bring it on! [8D]

[Murat]

China is technically separate entity because all nations within one side share the technology and research. By amalgamating China in WA, you'd have Chinese using very advanced weapons from WA - not very realistic.

O.

It's not realistic for the US and Britain to share technology either. Their European Theater operations were the most "united", under Eisenhower, and even then they kept a lot of intel from each other and maintained separate commands and units. An attempt at "realism" is easier to obtain with a separation of the US and British players than with them combined. If anything, the US shared more technology with the Chinese than with the British - Nationalist China was trained by US officers and used US gear (although it was the older gear). As a matter of fact, without US supply, the Nationalists were limited in their ability to conduct operations.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Of course, that's just my humble prediction based on my experience with reviewing, playing and observing games for past two decades. Success will also depend on the publisher's will and knowledge to make the game "marketable" to wider audience etc etc.

Oleg

Marketability has a lot to do with perceptions. If a game is perceived to meet a player's needs and desires they will purchase it. If it is deems to have major flaws, it will not be marketable. A&A, for all of it's simplicity, is highly marketable because it is playable. It is easy to learn, any of the 5 seats is fun to play, and the game can be "won" by either side. The more involved WWII games are appealing due to their historical accuracy and the possibility of beig able to "change history" through a different strategy. I have 2 main concerns with this game: China seems to be a boring country to play (as in a 5 player game) since it's role was historically, should be in this game, and appears to be in this game auxillary AND the game appears to start when Germany is at war with France and England and Japan is at war with China, but the German/Russian war as well as the Japanese/US war seem to be programmed in as inevitable (Japan picked the war with the US, US may not have allowed Japan to keep their conquests, but we certainly were not going to war if Pearl Harbor, or a similar event had not occurred - we had no wish to protect European Colonialism or get involved in Europe's constant conflicts. As for USSR, Stalin had no intention of fighting Hitler until the last possible moment since he hoped to make the West bear the major costs of the war) - either start it when these wars were reality or allow more latitude with the wars.

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You're wrong. This game could have books written about all the possible strategies to use. It has lots of depth, lots of choices, lots of challenge, and truckloads of replayability. You'll see specialised fan sites, mods, and PBEM ladders when this game is out.

Oleg

I will love to see that.

[Joel Billings]

Unlike A&A, you can play when everyone is at war. Just play the 1942 scenario (which is where A&A starts). We understood from the beginning the risk of uniting the Western Allies and leaving China independent, but we had our reasons to do it this way. I admit, from a marketing point of view it seems "wrong", but we felt the advanatages with the game being done this way will overcome the first impression issue. This is really a 4 player game (with China run by the WA or the SU), although if you have a beginner in the group, you can easily have China played by that person. Also, the game is excellent as a 2 player game where it doesn't really matter which countries are separated. Although I don't mean to ignore the real differences that existed between the US and Great Britain/Commonwealth, they did operate together all over the world just about as well as any allies ever have (probably in all of military history). And although they may not have shared all of their technology with each other, it was comparable in many ways. Our system required China to be a seperate player, although China is hardly a major power compared to the other players. We really feel the game works best with all of the Western Allies lumped together (for both the fun factor and historical realism). The testers will need to chime in if they disagree, but many expressed skepticism about this when they first heard about the game. However, once they started playing the game, I don't remember hearing any of them argue that we should have done it differently. We are confident that if you play the game, you'll end up agreeing with us or at least appreciating why we've done it the way we have.

[IDrinkBeer]

The testers will need to chime in if they disagree, but many expressed skepticism about this when they first heard about the game. However, once they started playing the game, I don't remember hearing any of them argue that we should have done it differently.

I will chime in on Joel's side here. I think its the right decision. When you play the game you will see that it works quite well. I also came into the game with a definite bias towards thinking it WASN'T right.

[:D]

[Murat]

The problem is "playing the game". In it's current form it appears flawed and will take a LOT of positive feedback before I put $$ into it. China is just not a good choice for "playable power", especially when you state this is designed as a 4-player game, why not just take China out and let it AI?

As for the "historical" cooperation between the US and Britain, you are wrong. They divided the World into 3 Theaters: Pacific (US), Indian (Britain), and European (the only combined command). European, as I already pointed out, only was unified under Eisenhower for D-Day to Berlin and even then there were still seperate British and US commands/operations going on in other parts of Europe. I understand it is easier to be combined in a 4-player game, and if you make a 4-player game, great. But if you decide to allow a 5th, the split of US Britain is FAR more logical, historical and playable than China.

US has challenges early on as well in making Lend Lease work in the face of German unrestricted submarine warfare before they even enter the war (and, without Pearl Harbor or a successful Sea Lion, the US public were not accepting more involvement beyond Lend Lease, which itself was being attacked as too generous and dangerous in Congress at the time).

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Murat

The problem is "playing the game". In it's current form it appears flawed and will take a LOT of positive feedback before I put $$ into it. China is just not a good choice for "playable power", especially when you state this is designed as a 4-player game, why not just take China out and let it AI?

I (try to) respect your opinion, but what, exactly, appears flawed to you?

The only "flawed" results in AARs on this board are direct result of players mistakes and stupidity (including mine LOL [:D]) but certainly nothing as regards the issues you raised (ie. amalgamating UK into WA, and having separate China) appears "flawed".

Positive feedback? Most, if not all those who became beta testers "fell" for this game, most of the feedback from others on this board is positive as well. I understand if you need more positive feedback after the game is released from other players, reviewers etc., but to say something appears flawed based on *available* facts, opinions and experiences - I really don't know how you reached that conclusion.

And BTW yes, you can have China controlled by AI, and all other sides on human control, but IMO, that would be totally senseless. China is very easy to play, takes little time, and may play important role. If you control it yourself it'll take you less than minute per average turn, and it can be used to "train" new players. Turning China to AI control makes absolutely no sense to me, if all other sides are human controlled.

O.

[YohanTM2]

As usual Oleg, you make great sense. And with the Chinese now being between WA and Russia they can be played by either in a 4 player game which gives the Allies a bit of flexibility as to who controls them.

If possible it might even make sense to switch owners part way through the game. The Russian has little to do off the start so give China to him and then transfer to WA when he is deep into the fighting and he WA can coordinate attacks against Japan.

[Hanal]

And remember, China's role is to tie up as many Japanese Forces as possible in order to prevent them from being used elsewhere and China can indeed be aggressive enough to be a thorn in the Japanese players' backside....while I will not pretend that you could (or should) turn China into the "beast from the East", do not underestimate their role in the overall war effort, especially if you are the WA player...as Oleg said, China does not take long to play, and the WA player will appreciate what the Chinese can do, if he controls them as well......

[Murat]

Again, all 3 of the above are discussing "playing" China as an auxillary to another power. I am saying that China, alone, without any other role, in a 5-player game, looks like it would bite. Everyone keeps pointing out that China would be great for a beginner, but after a game or so they are no longer a beginner and will most likely want to switch seats with someone else. If this is meant to be a 4-player game (GER, JAP, USSR, WA), make it one, but if it is meant to be a 5-player game, I think China is the weak link and that a different 5-player set-up (GER, JAP, USSR, UK, USA) would be more appealing. I have seen no indication anywhere else (and I have read through the posts) that indicate China is a player position equally involved and interesting as the other 4.

Actually, keep it the way it is and I will keep my $$$, no sense trying to help improve this thing since y'all have deemed it perfect.