Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: room

You forgot the income form Algers and Tunis [:'(]
But mainly it's the way to DE 603 that is too easy and completly nonsensical in any historical or logical perspective.

One of the thing is that Axis dow have an impact on neighbours belligeence: it s a good thing but those neighbours don't actually mobilise.

For example there is no conséquences to an early LUX dow. Belgium is a bit unhappy? So be it! No conséquence. In addition Belgium should start mobilize and get one more corps when axis dow Belgium. Similarly if Axis do Belgium and Netherland one after the other, they should also get one more corps.

It's even worst for the Vichy French countries... All Vichy french countries should go allies immediatly if one of them is DOW. Plus it should shock the shit out of all unaligned countries that Axis break their peace with Vichy France.

Right on Room. I have argued that declaring war on Holl/Belg/Lux should result in all 3 entering the war. I think the change was made for Holl/Belg but it should include Lux.


The tactic of declaring war on Lux fall '39 and chipping away at the unit(s) without fort should be have more consequences. At least put another fort in France by Lux.

Also something other than an 5 str HQ in The Hague. My people deserve more.

The law of unintended consequences to that would be far less US & USSR mobilization if 2 of the low countries joined after just one was DoW'd. If you make this change then something would need to be done about that. Either change the mobilization to 'upon conquest' or split it so that it is 2% for DoW and 1-2% for conquest (or vice versa).

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

The law of unintended consequences to that would be far less US & USSR mobilization if 2 of the low countries joined after just one was DoW'd. If you make this change then something would need to be done about that. Either change the mobilization to 'upon conquest' or split it so that it is 2% for DoW and 1-2% for conquest (or vice versa).

Good Point


My cut & paste quote skills need work

On a separate but related note, I would like to see some adjustments made to the victory conditions; particularly the end of timeline.

Brainstorm suggestions:
1. Axis need to control all victory hexes at the start of their turn.
2. If the Allies don't control all victory hexes at the start of their first turn in 1947 (or perhaps the last 1946 turn), then the game will be either a draw or an Axis victory (see #3 below).
3. If the Allies don't control all victory hexes by the end of the last turn of the game, the Axis win (minor victory).


My intention with the above suggestions is to give the Allied player a chance to go on the offensive and conversely have the Axis player play defense.
I don't like the idea of the Axis player conceding once he realizes he won't win.

Personally, I would consider Axis holding Berlin in May 1945 to be tactical victory for them anyway. If they have that plus another major capital (Warsaw, Paris, Rome) then that should be considered a major victory.

Conversely, the Allies getting all major capitals including Berlin before May 1945 would be a tactical victory. If they get all capitals before 1945 then I would consider it a major victory for them.

If scenario designers can base their game around these victory conditions, hopefully you should be able to get historical OOBs & economies producing a realistic chance for either side to win.

Although I can see why the 1947 end date was chosen to give a longer game, I actually think it does the reverse as you need to boost the Axis ahistorically to achieve a more competitive game. As a result the good Axis players can be very hard to stop if at all, thereby causing Allied players to resign in 1943/44, the exact opposite of what was intended.

Just send me any allied opponent able to hold until let`s say summer 44. The better ones are usually done in spring 43...

I don't like the idea of the Axis player conceding once he realizes he won't win.

We're playing a game for fun, not to torture opponents; at least I hope so.

The point being to let an Allied player have some 'fun' by being on the offensive instead of always merely trying to survive. If/when things turn around the Allied player should have some opportunity to be
on the offensive instead of just having the Axis player resign because the tide turned.

Imho game built around german surrender date are the best. GGWAW is still a must.

However they do have a problems too such as the axis you can start to be defensive before necessarry (thus willingly surrendering any chance of victory in the war) because your objective is only to reist until a certain date.

What is GGWAW?

World in Flames works that way too.

"World in Flames" has no AI or multiplayer correct?

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/330 ... ld.Divided

Many Thanks.

It didn't have either for quite a while.

Has anyone played it?

Lots but years ago I must confess.

Some good ideas in this thread. I like the idea of having some triggers that make the game tougher for a side that achieves objectives. For example if Germany takes Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Alexandria, Gibraltar.

I also would like to see some incentives for the Axis to continue on the defensive and have a chance to win by extending the game beyond the historical surrender date.

Perhaps a point system based on chronology and preservation of units/resources.

What we did not suggest so far but what seems quiet easy to me:

why not decreasing the number of units slightly? One tank unit less, maybe making the heavy tanks a bit more expensive
and maybe one tactical bomber less. Two or three armies less would work too (not sure about balancing)

that would finally be a good thing I guess. The Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe was not bad equipped but they were outnumbered badly.
It would slow down the advance and keep the game going until mid 43 I hope... and then the allies are getting better.

I think the problem is the wide variability of Axis skills. Newer players find it impossible to win and top players win easily. If the troop levels are adjusted in base game it improves the experience for one type player but makes it much worse for the other.

It seems the most favored approach is to have games that adjust MPP & troops from the beginning of PBEM game(keeping base game).

Personally I think having a self adjusting game (in addition to base game) is an interesting idea but there has been some push back from other players and I'm sure it would be much more complex for the authors to incorporate in the game.

The additional air units the allies got in the last patch have been a nudge in the right direction although I would tend to agree the UK lacks the cash-flow to be a menace post-France.

The balance pre-fall of france is fine so I wouldn't want to upset it by giving a mine to the UK right away. Maybe a mine that activates in June 1940 or at France fall. As an added bonus, it gives an extra incentive for Sealion.

Taxman was talking about normalizing USSR income, this could be done by being more generous with the mobilization bonus mpp. Currently at +250mpp for 3 turns it could stand to be more than that (something like 500mpp for 3 turn or 250mpp for 6 turn).

Wouldn't mind if they up the unit cap on AA for the UK and USSR. Often times the AAs are commited to defend the victory cities and you don't have enough to cover your offensives.

Give Russia 4 X 250 as mobilization bonus

+ let them get AT level 1 from start

+ Make Leningrad a fortress

+ put an additional russian tactical bomber in the production queue(early 1943)

+ Give Russia a national morale boast if they hold any of the 3 cities Leningrad, Moskwa or Stalingrad by summer of 43

+ cut down the Italian force pool of tactical bombers by one

ORIGINAL: Rannug61

Give Russia 4 X 250 as mobilization bonus

+ let them get AT level 1 from start

+ Make Leningrad a fortress

+ put an additional russian tactical bomber in the production queue(early 1943)

+ Give Russia a national morale boast if they hold any of the 3 cities Leningrad, Moskwa or Stalingrad by summer of 43

+ cut down the Italian force pool of tactical bombers by one

Re: Italians I agree. Only 3 tanks (2 regular + heavy) vs 4 bombers (3 tac, 1 medium). Cutting the tac by 1 would make the armored stream a bit more desirable. I'd bump their corp limit by two since it is really low (and events already sends them over).

The USSR already gets event boosting national morale just for existing as the war goes on.