Game killing problems

[Scott_WAR]

Oh yeah, I knew that was coming. You have to actually have or build the units for tech to do any good. In most of my games, now that I have learned the hard way about tech, it IS getting carried away. As I said, between getting the techs I KNOW I will need (fighters air attack, bombers ground attack, tanks ground attack, evasion for all of those, asw) also matching whatever my opponent decides to research makes it where over half of my production seems to go for tech early on.

Its a matter of opinion I guess, but I really feel as if tech plays too large and too important of a role in this game. Yes, tech should make a diffference, but it shouldnt be THE most important thing in the game.

[JanSorensen]

The only games I have seen where tech got out of hand was either because one side had basically won already and out teched the other - or because of a clear error from the opponent. Sofar I havent seen a true "gotcha" - but I suppose those are possible.

I concur its a matter of taste - and I also concur that tech might matter a little too much. I dont think its horribly broken in any way though

[Joel Billings]

This system, like A&A, relies on rolling lots of dice. The analyzer is an average, but that only tells you so much. If I have 2 attacks each with a 90% chance of a hit, that's a huge difference from having 6 attacks with a 30% chance of a hit. Each gets 1.8 average hits, but in the first case I'm probably going to score 2 hits (but never more). In the second case I might get 3 or 4 hits, but there's a decent chance I'll hit nothing (roughly 1 out of 8 times, which is like what happened to you in your reported attack). Now we don't make you see the dice being rolled. When you play a boardgame you see the dice and have a sense after each attack whether you should blame the dice for the result. In this game, it's easy to ignore the dice, but you do so at your own peril. I see this as a perception issue problem more than as a weakness in the game system. But without making you watch a bunch of dice rolling, I'm not sure how to get around the perception being reality.

[Scott_WAR]

Very true Joel. I remember cursing the dice on MANY occasions in Axis and allies, and NOT seeing the dice here can definately make bad rolls get blamed on the game, and not just luck.

[lkendter]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

I remember cursing the dice on MANY occasions in Axis and allies,

I think any A&A player has cursed the dice. I will never forget being attack in A&AE with 2 hit BB, dst and trn vs. my dst and winning. The dice sim I have gave that a .01% chance. Yes, then is a decimal point as in 1/100 of 1%. Yet I saw it in real life.

Don't get focus on a single battle result. Now if you detect a pattern over time, then that could be a real issue.

[craterous]

TRANSPORTS VS SUBS:
What bothers me about the game is the ease of resourse transport for the allies. In the early game all that is really needed is 3 transports from USA to England. (Indeed, if one wants african resources, a short string of 4 transports along the antarctic from S.Africa to south america will supply these - and South American llamas will complete the transport chain to WA factories.)
In brief: Transports are too easily defended, due to issues of sub range, and WA being able to abandon almost all historical convoy routes. In other words, I find axis subs to be a "red herring" in the game, and red herring leaves me with a bad taste. (I am concerned the people I play with will wander off by the time you fix this.)

Personnaly: I would not allow resources to move thru neutral countries. But even more to the point - make them trace by rail or transport directly to a factory - no overland connections!

Secondly I would limit transport speed to 1 (I would only allow free movement along already existing transport lines if a transport started in a port.) This would make the allies commit to making and protecting (modestly flexible) convoy routes - rather than hop around the map - invading/transporting/hiding.

Thirdly I would consider not having resource pools; i.e. each resource generates one per turn - use it or lose it.

Fourth, I would not allow aircraft to pin subs in place via opportunity fire. Unless perhaps my prior 3 points have taken care of the problem.

[Agema]

Not having resources move through neutral countries doesn't make sense. Well into the age of the automobile, I suspect it's not that outrageous to believe goods could be transported without rail as well.

In the early game, bear in mind that the Axis doesn't actually have many subs, so just three transports can keep him busy for the first few turns. Of course, with no (or not enough) transports to sink there's no reason subs couldn't start eyeing up fleets instead as targets - particularly with the assistance of the not insignificant surface fleets and bombers. Later on, more transports will be necessary as the Allies will need to get more stuff across to Europe.

[craterous]

ORIGINAL: Agema

Not having resources move through neutral countries doesn't make sense.

The written word is a clumsy animal, especially when trying to be brief in a chat format. My intent here is: not having resources move thru neutral countries was one possible "game design fix" to making the transport of resources approach some historical accuracy.

Well into the age of the automobile, I suspect it's not that outrageous to believe goods could be transported without rail as well.

Um, yes it is outrageous. Rommel had trouble with his African fuel supplies being eaten up simply getting them to the front, and this is mere fraction of the distance you are talking about. Ship or Rail - that is about it when transporting mass base commodities - oil in particular, rubber, iron ore, etc.

Another way of saying this is why did the British bother with all those silly convoys being sunk by u-boats if they had alternate means of transport?

Most of the game is brilliant - but it really missed with transport unit use, resource transport, and invasion. There are a number of approaches to fixing this, and I threw out a couple of directions to explore. (If it truly depended on me to come up with "the" fix, I would narrow down my fix to one solution and test it.)

There are 2 aspects to any WWII game - is it a good simulation? is it a good game? It can be one or the other, or both, or neither. In the case of transport units in this game - they are a blemish on an otherwise brilliant game design.

Transports having problems skews U-boat usage in the game.

just three transports can keep him busy for the first few turns

I think you missed the point that having just 3 transports vulnerable makes it easy for the WA to defend them - hence makes them and (u-boat manuf) not really worth pursuing in most game strategies.

Now had you said that you need transports out to supply WA blocking fleets etc, and these transports would mean there were more targets for u-boats than what I imply - I would have accepted this as a valid point. But note - my real point is that transports can totally ignore historical shipping routes and invasion considerations - to point that this specific aspect of the game is both bad simulation- to the point of fantasy, and harms WorldAWar as a good game.

PS you have to see the German U-boat on display at the Chicago museum of Science and Ind. And thanks for writing.

[Agema]

I don't think they're *that* easy to defend for the following reasons:

1) As said, the subs can spend their time sinking your defensive fleets instead; if you have light fleets dispersed here and there, a group attack by an equal number of subs is going to come off better due to the various attack/defence scores, and even the WA, certainly until the US enters the war, can't afford to have its limited unit production clogged up perpetually repairing or building new light fleets.
2) You lose cover for heavy fleets and carriers, which become very tempting targets for subs instead. If you pull the non-light units into port, the German surface fleet can run riot.
3) If you spread your navy too much, the German surface fleet (with subs and possible air support) may be able to batter isolated groups.
4) If your light fleets are tied up defending the North Atlantic, what stops a few subs dashing south to sink ships in the Antarctic region?
5) The more you limit your transport links, the more you cripple your own strategic flexibility moving units.

It's just I looked at defending all the important transport squares with light fleets against the AI, and I found it just merrily sank the light fleets faster than I could replace them, and then hammered my heavy/carrier fleets when I was short of light fleets to cover them. Although admittedly I hadn't got around to the tactic of restricting sub numbers by bombing them whilst in port.

Rommel did have trouble getting supplies a long way from port, sure. But I think that was to some degree due to problems getting enough to Libya in the first place, due to interdiction from UK/Commonwealth forces in the Mediterranean.
Giving it some consideration though, restricting resource movement only to sea or railways through neutrals may be a good idea. Persia and similar states might create a problem, mind, as I seem to recall it doesn't have railway which would imply you pretty much can't get resources out of it.