Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: CommC

I like options 1 and 2, but a third option, as I suggested in the balance thread, is to include a check the box option to not allow PPs from neutrals to count in the AV victory point total.

This would compel the Axis player to go after the historical objectives of the SU and Dutch East Indies resources to achieve the AV.

Resource is a resource - why would a resource from area X be less worthy than resource from area Y? Not logical, not historical - you devise totally atrificial rule just to "channel" the game in direction you want?

O.

While a resource is a resource, Hitler didn't just want to amass resources.... he wanted to conquer Russia, and this should be reflected in a game about WWII.

The resouce counting is just a device to aid in determining victory, it is not an end unto itself. Lets construct the AV to truely reflect the aims of the major powers involved in WWII.

ORIGINAL: CommC

While a resource is a resource, Hitler didn't just want to amass resources.... he wanted to conquer Russia, and this should be reflected in a game about WWII.

In this game you're in the role of Hitler, and you need not repeat his mistakes. I am not saying invading Russia is a "mistake" it's just that you as player can have other ideas about Germany's future, and other roads to victory should be made possible.

(Though I agree a road to victory that bypasses Russo-German war completely should be avoided, ie. should be made impossible in the game.)

O.

[8D] Please see my suggestion on play balance. By charging the players points to declare war on a Major Power (say 20), and starting Germany and Japan both out with 20 extra, 2 things happen.

1. Is is more expensive to double team the USSR.

2. DOW Costs on neutrals makes it less cost-effective to win by knocking out North Africa, China, ect.

Watcha think? [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: CommC

While a resource is a resource, Hitler didn't just want to amass resources.... he wanted to conquer Russia, and this should be reflected in a game about WWII.

In this game you're in the role of Hitler, and you need not repeat his mistakes. I am not saying invading Russia is a "mistake" it's just that you as player can have other ideas about Germany's future, and other roads to victory should be made possible.

(Though I agree a road to victory that bypasses Russo-German war completely should be avoided, ie. should be made impossible in the game.)

O.

What about assigning values to various territories and victory is by gaining the appropriate number of territories.

In deference to those who believe invading the USSR should be optional, here's a patch request to Matrix:

Please add a WWII option box.

Why not request a "sit back and enjoy" button - this way the game can insure that the war follows history with complete accuracy? [:D]

Personally, I enjoy games that give me some "what if" variables to play with - both on a strategic and tactical level.

I think CommC's idea of not counting neutral is a very good one! While a resource is a resource - this would focus the game on the objective of defeating the other side. For Germany, this would mean going after the Western Allies and/or RUssia. Attacking neutrals would be just a means to that end (to gain strategic position and build up the economy). I think this would avoid overly gamey moves of invading neutrals that the opposing side can't defend and that have little or no actual strategic or economic value.

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

I think CommC's idea of not counting neutral is a very good one! While a resource is a resource - this would focus the game on the objective of defeating the other side.

With great respect to both you and CommC, I think this is among the craziest ideas for balancing the game I've ever heard.

This game is not about senselessly fighting side A vs. side B just because you like them to fight. Even the A&A is smarter than that.

Although it does not include diplomacy, this game is about being smarter and more shrewd than your opponent. It's about winning the war with *as little* fighting as possible. It's about picking your battles, and outsmarting your opponent. It's about fighting the battles you know you will win. I am happiest when I win the war with just a couple of "epic battles".

That being said, remember I was among the first who brought this "unbeatable" Axis strategy Leo talks about to light, and among those who think it should be stopped (either by some new, yet unseen Allied counter strategy or by tweaking of the game config files). But certainly not by removing resources from neutrals. [:-]

O.