Matrix Games Forums

As a non-PBEM player, any changes that affect PBEM only would be fine by me.

I would be concerned that PBEM changes are made to the base game, affecting all players (including vs. AI) in the process. I'm finding an extra 150 mpp a turn for Germany plus a ~20% increase in Russian unit costs helps balance the game vs. the Allied AI, but if base scenarios get changed then I'll be back to trying to find the balance again.

It's an extra step with the base game, as the AI gets bonuses (via AI only scripts) that are not used in the PBEM game.
I'll leave it up (i.e. trust) the developers to do it properly.

I will note that once you learn what the AI does, and the mistakes it makes/can be tricked with you will find the going a lot easier.

I'd like to address another major point I thought of regarding the unwillingness of Axis players to continue when the tide turns.

It distorts the game!

The Axis go all out for victory with the idea that the game will probably be decided, and thus 'over', sometime by the end of summer 1943 at the latest.
This means stopping research and throwing all MPP into unit production/repair by spring 1942, with unit production itself starting to peter out for the long build time units.

This enhances the height of Axis power, when they have the unit density, unit experience, tech advantage and while the Allies have the economic power it is not felt as they still have to catch up on tech and the US has to build units from scratch and the USSR is likely still in survival mode and unlikely to be able to invest heavily in counterpunching units.

If they don't achieve victory they can throw in the towel (i.e. give up) before they see the drawback of the choice.

Admittedly the Allies can do the same but it is not the same since they are still playing catch up and in the USA's case hopelessly behind in units.

---
I don't think much could be done about this as long as MPP are universally tied to both research and production.
Even if separated, this would still an issue (with new units no longer being built at some point), but much less of one.

Man, that's human nature and also reflecting this special kind of conflict. Actually it`s reasonable, if not wise to give up when your case is lost.

quote]ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I'd like to address another major point I thought of regarding the unwillingness of Axis players to continue when the tide turns.

It distorts the game!



If someone feels they have no shot I'm fine with people quitting. Often there comes a point when Allied Victory is absolutely certain, then it is fine to quit. Moving and upgrading all the USSR troops gets tedious. A quit is a victory.

I will say after taking a beating for 3-4 years as Allies its annoying when people quit as soon a the tide turns.

Most annoying when they just don't return a turn, at least quit.

At some point the game will become an absolute chore and the fun will be lost. I participated in a number of AARs and ran into that wall when playing with Taifun who had clearly defeated me in 1941 as the Allies and BPINisBack in 1944 as the Axis.

However in 2 other matches BPINisBack and I each played to the bitter end, losing Berlin in July & September 1945 respectively. They were great matches and if there was a mechanism for the Axis to score a marginal victory (by surviving long enough to sue for peace) it would have been even better.

I concede your points, to some extent; and it is why I would like to modify the victory conditions.

However, there is still the issue of the Axis going all in for 'victory in 1943 or bust'. It increases axis chances for victory with no real drawback.

Sadly I can only contribute so much to the conversation having only played 1 vanilla game in BETA. When the Allied AI conceded in 1942 in my first game I went into the editor and never came back.

It appears to me that maybe Axis income is too high mid game though from the outside looking in which is allowing for every Tank, Mech and Bomber to be purchased quickly and without a second thought?

Conversly, I wonder how an Axis player would feel if the Allied player conceded after Spain is aligned, Gibraltar and Cairo all fall in 1941 before or int he early stages of Barbarossa?

Premature? Probably, but as were seeing (at better levels of play) that is likely the point at which Allied chances become very small.

It`s up to each player himself wether he consists on certain conditions, and has nothing to do with balancing. It`s weird to implement such conditions into a tournament, where you probably want the highest numbers of players participating.

I was playing 'Devil's advocate' with my previous post.

I'm more concerned about the distortion effect I pointed out.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I was playing 'Devil's advocate' with my previous post.

I'm more concerned about the distortion effect I pointed out.

You can always find someone to play a mirror game. Then you have an incentive to play to the bitter end. [:)]

*Shrug* my Axis play is still not very good... at least in regards to the AI.

And as I said, I think the game distortion affect is a bigger issue than the actual resignation.

Is it possible for the US not to enter the war in December '41 if no $$ was spent on Diplo (none at all)?

Finally entered 2/42. I don't follow it that closely must have been a series of real bad luck.


All US troops are in the US (never moved).

I have never seen this

ty

It's possible.
If the UK takes both sets of Irish ports, if the Axis only DoW Netherlands (thus getting Belgium to join the Allies without US/USSR mobilization), if there is bad US play with too many ships in the Atlantic, if some bad luck on the random mobilization hits throughout the game, etc... If it happens the US should join pretty early in 1942.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

It's possible.
If the UK takes both sets of Irish ports, if the Axis only DoW Netherlands (thus getting Belgium to join the Allies without US/USSR mobilization), if there is bad US play with too many ships in the Atlantic, if some bad luck on the random mobilization hits throughout the game, etc... If it happens the US should join pretty early in 1942.

Thanks

Yes to the first two, US ships were in port. Bad luck I guess, still 80% in Early Dec '41. I've probably played Allies 50+ times and have never seen it (w/o diplo), always right after Pearl. Only when I sent US troops to Egypt 2 early in my early playing days.


Could a knowledgeable person change game probabilities/outcomes without your knowledge?

Do you mean cheat? I don't know. If someone monkeys with the script before posting the challenge if that would work or if the game wouldn't match as the scripts are different.

There's a post of all the US mobilization events in the War Room, might be useful to review them.

Much appreciated

You are a true scholar of the game (unlike me)

Thanks, doesn't make me a great player. Just knowledgeable as I pay attention to as much as possible in the game and these boards.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Do you mean cheat? I don't know. If someone monkeys with the script before posting the challenge if that would work or if the game wouldn't match as the scripts are different.

There's a post of all the US mobilization events in the War Room, might be useful to review them.

I can't say that it is impossible, but it would be very hard to cheat in PBEM++ by setting up an edited campaign that your opponent is unaware of. For example, the scripts, and even though they are separate text files for ease of editing, are actually baked into the campaign. This just means they are compiled when you save the campaign and the data extracted from them is then baked into the campaign file itself. So editing the scripts without recompiling them and having the data saved into the campaign will have no effect on the campaign.

If they are compiled and saved into the campaign then two opponents would have to have the same campaign on their end in order to play each other, and in this case your opponent would have to send you this customized campaign and you could then take a look to see what has been changed etc.

Hope this helps,
Hubert