Game Balance

[YohanTM2]

Wayllander,

I like the way you approach this. I vote for you as a new Beta tester.

[Joel Billings]

We hope to sell to both the mainstream wargame/strategy game market and the grognards. Obviously if we can only sell to one of them, we'd be aiming at the broader audience with this game, but we think we can get a fair share of both. I agree there has to be a good chance that people can play the Axis and win through the Auto win victory conditions. I would bet the the overwhelming majority of mainstream players will play against the AI, so it is important that in those games they have a chance for the Decisive Victory (without the AI playing a stupid game, and/or at the Hard Level of difficulty). I think this is possible. With 4 or 5 good players this will be much less likely.

Axis & Allies Pacific had a set of victory conditions that had to rely on the fact that the Japanese were going to lose eventually if you played long enough, so they had to have victory not depend on Japan taking over the world.

I've considered both sides of this and I'm tempted to try to create a 5th scenario (we currently have planned 40/41/42/43 start scenarios. A 5th scenario could be a 40 start that gives the Axis some sort of advantage that makes it more likely they can take over the world. Of course, this game would require different victory conditions. I'm not sure if I like this option due to the extra time and balancing work involved in creating a new scenario. Also, it would have to have an open ended end date, which has it's own set of code problems. If nothing else, I want to make sure the game is relatively easily modifiable so that players can create this scenario. I really think that the game as it now stands (with some additional balancing and tweaking of victory conditions) will work well enough for most players as they'll be able to win a satisfying victory from either side (if they are a good player).

[YohanTM2]

Save your time and energy getting the game out Joel. Let the modders have fun on what if scenarios and you can always release a bonus scenario to the faithful later.

[solops]

In a properly designed WWII game the Axis powers will be at a serious long-term disadvantage. For game purposes there should be options available during the set-up (with recommendations and comments) that add or subtract from the strength of each side so that play balance can be adjusted to counter the historical reality or to counter an imbalance in the abilities of the players.

Pretty obvious, I should think.

[paullus99]

The production schedule (when industries receive their modifiers) helps the Axis in the beginning, but the Allies really start pouring on the production modifiers from 1942 - to the end of the war....the Axis have to use their initial advantages in troops & production (since both the US & Russia are frozen) to put themselves in good positions for their initial offensives & a defensive stance to withstand the inevitable allied counterattacks.

Trust me, even later on the Germans are dangerous. I've had the AI hand me some humiliating defeats in Europe (as both the WA & Soviets) into 1944 & 1945 in some cases.

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: Chaplain

"The Axis made only a few, cardinal mistakes?"

I think not.

If anything, they committed signifanctly more and greater blunders than the Allies. How many "stand and die" orders, when a tactical retreat could have turned the tide? How many bone-headed offensives when grinding attrition would have won the day? How many opportunities missed? Sheesh! If you read the history, the list is endless. They spent a considerable amount of time within a hair's breadth of disaster. If Rommel's 7th Panzer is delayed 24-48 hrs at Sedan in 1940, France doesn't fall.

The Soviets didn't win out East because they were lucky. They won because it was practically inevitable. Glantz exhaustive study of the Eastern conflict makes this clear ["How the Red Army Stopped Hitler"].

I really didn't want to go with discussion in that direction (I want to talk about the game) but you deserve an answer. I meant a few cardinal global strategy mistakes. I will mention only some but very big one:
1. Dunkirk – Germany should have destroyed British and French army there. UK will never recover his land army from that.
2. Air battle for Britain – Luftwaffe actually was winning that battle. They needed a few weeks more to achieve complete victory but then Hitler changed his mind and went for night bombardments on UK cities
3. Close related to first and second. If Germany have done all that Sealion will be possible. UK will fall.
4. Germany lost precious one month for Barbarossa in Yugoslavia. If they didn’t loose it Moscow will fall and USSR will never be enable to do what they did. Etc, etc

It is important to say that mentioned mistakes are made only because Hitler’s stupidity and ignorance. He should have consulted his generals more.

ORIGINAL: Chaplain
How many "stand and die" orders, when a tactical retreat could have turned the tide?

You are wrong. You should read what Hitler’s generals said in trial after war. Hitler with that stubborn order actually saved east front from total collapse. Napoleon didn’t do that and his army was immediately overrun completely.

ORIGINAL: Chaplain
May I gently, humbly suggest to keyser that he is suffering from AAFB (acute Axis fanboy-osis)?

I will not comment your silly observation. I will ask you one question instead – with what major power you will play first when you will have GGWAW?

[meyerg]

A 5th scenario could be a 40 start that gives the Axis some sort of advantage that makes it more likely they can take over the world. Of course, this game would require different victory conditions. I'm not sure if I like this option due to the extra time and balancing work involved in creating a new scenario.

Joel:
I think this fifth axis fanboy scenario is a great idea. If we had bidding, the scenarios would balance themselves.
greg

[YohanTM2]

deleted