My conclusions on game balance

Gary Grigsby's World At War gives you the chance to really run a world war. History is yours to write and things may turn out differently. The Western Allies may be conquered by Germany, or Japan may defeat China. With you at the controls, leading the fates of nations and alliances. Take command in this dynamic turn-based game and test strategies that long-past generals and world leaders could only dream of. Now anything is possible in this new strategic offering from Matrix Games and 2 by 3 Games.

Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen

Post Reply
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: daskomodo
In the very next turn I'd be losing Rumania, East Prussia, West or South France (or both), big chunk of Middle East, Anadolia, North Persia, East Poland, perhaps Hungary. Whole of Med, all fleets there are ripe for taking.

Yeah, I'm just saying that had the Allies contested some of those resources a few turns before, then you'd be close, but not quite, at auto-victory.

They tried but couldn't really. Note that Spain and West Med push were Allied "tour de force" in his turn. We both played every turn in this game like it's the last one before comet destroys the whole planet [:D]

I played couple turns going for the "throat" every time. Some turns before this screen is taken I invaded Scotland, which is something I never do (losing all German fleets in the process) just because I thought a res there will give me much needed 70. No cigar - I ended the turn on 69, losing some Japan units too, in desperate attempt to capture res/fac in India (and failed). Suspense!
Had a few things gone differently, then you'd miss your gamble for auto-victory and Germany would probably be dead by 1944.

Yes. I love that "dramatic" overtone which can be achieved only by AV rule. In fact even my opponent loved it. Its just that AV can be achieved sometimes too easy I suspect.
And for gosh sakes, hit those tenuous supply lines. Imagine if he had parked half his fleet in the Central Med 2 turns ago. No side of Turkey for you [;)]

2 turns ago I had some semplance of fleet in the Med, he destroyed it only just recently.

BTW I happen to be guilty for having this thread stray from my pet peeve - Russian vulnerability. [>:]

O.
daskomodo
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:43 pm

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by daskomodo »

Yes. I love that "dramatic" overtone which can be achieved only by AV rule. In fact even my opponent loved it. Its just that AV can be achieved sometimes too easy I suspect.

Agreed. AV forces the Allies to at least put up a fight on some fronts in the early years, rather than solely waiting on eventual US entry to win the war.
2 turns ago I had some semplance of fleet in the Med, he destroyed it only just recently.

Yet he allowed you to continue supplying all the Middle-East. Should be more forceful there.
BTW I happen to be guilty for having this thread stray from my pet peeve - Russian vulnerability.

Yeah, weren't we discussing about a 2-front war on Russia? [:D]
User avatar
MarcelJV
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: Mohrsville, PA

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by MarcelJV »

I would not worry about hijacking the thread as I think this is going in the right direction. I know I am learning a ton.

1. Do not play a PBEM game with Oleg or Daskomodo, unless you want to get waxed.[&o]

2. Play many more games until I feel a need to get put in my place.[;)]

Since you mentioned your pet peeve is it better in the next patch?
hakon
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by hakon »

ORIGINAL: MarcelJV

Since you mentioned your pet peeve is it better in the next patch?

I am not Oleg, but the only thing i noticed was a line about some redeployments in siberia. Could help if done correctly, but hard to say before we get the details.
User avatar
MarcelJV
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: Mohrsville, PA

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by MarcelJV »

From Oleg as he said he is a beta for the patch.[&o]
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Next patch is further improvement on this fantastic game, and yes redeployment of troops in Russia should make it less vulnerable.

If it's not enough you always have my mod [:D][:D]

Maurice posted the notes for the patch somewhere on the board... (though I am not sure these are complete & official notes)

O.
pyrhic
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:27 pm

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by pyrhic »

Yes, AV fires at the end of the axis turn when it is achieved
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by Harrybanana »

Oleg,
Earlier in this thread I said I did not understand how someone could win an AV without a major incursion into Russia and thought that it had to involve some sort of manipulation of the production system. Thank you very much for showing me how it is done. I have never tried this strategy or had it used against me (yet) but I can see how it would be almost foolproof. Have you ever lost a game employing this strategy?

As for those suggesting that it can be countered by a determined WA Player, I am not so sure. I have also played Mike and know him to be a very good player. If Oleg says Mike played a good hard game I believe him. The question for me is in a game played by 2 equally skilled players would this Axis Strategy win 60% of the time or more? If the answer is yes than the game IMHO needs tweaking to make it more play balanced. I'll wait until the next patch to see if it addresses this and if not perhaps I'll give Oleg's mod a try.
Robert Harris
daskomodo
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:43 pm

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by daskomodo »

I wonder how much playtesting has been done with the "Middle-east+neutrals" strategy?

I'd also would enjoy Mike's comments on the game he played vs Oleg. Was it the first time he faced such a strategy? What we he do differently?

As for me, I still think it is not an unbeatable Axis strategy. It's a good gambit, but stoppable. I still remember the "I've conquered all of Russia but I still can't win" posts.

So, I'll put my PPs where my mouth is. I'm not the best player there is (heck, I always run out of supply and I still don't understand research), but I'm willing to do some playtesting PBEM games to determine possible counter-strategies for the Allies. (will post in PBEM forum). I'll be Allies, someone be Axis. (heck, everyone can be Axis and beat on me).
Drax Kramer
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:42 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by Drax Kramer »

One quick fix against last round Axis run for resources would be to check for automatic victory at the end of the Allied turn, not the Axis one.

The order of playing is a game mechanism, in real life, Allies did not wait for Germans to finish their quarterly conquests before deciding on counterattacking. It seems only fair to allow the Allied side to play the same ammount of turns as the Axis before checking for victory.

In Axis&Allies, the 84 IPC economic victory was checked after the US turn precisely to prevent such unrealistic victories.


Drax
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
Have you ever lost a game employing this strategy?

I almost failed vs. Mike in game described above and it wasn't working 100% to my satisfaction in game vs. Paul (the game that got suspended). But vs. Paul I would not be losing massively even if general strategy would not work. In game vs. Mike (described above) this last turn was literally "do or die".

But, based on experience in those two games I believe I could tweak my general strategy to deal with such difficulties if they should arise again.

Of course, the best "tweak" would be to make things harder for Axis [;)] and prevent any almost-sure-fire strategies.
I'll give Oleg's mod a try.

Try the mod, regardless, it won't hurt [;)]

O.
pyrhic
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:27 pm

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by pyrhic »

You have a mod? [8|][:D]
User avatar
MarcelJV
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: Mohrsville, PA

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by MarcelJV »

ORIGINAL: daskomodo

I wonder how much playtesting has been done with the "Middle-east+neutrals" strategy?

I'd also would enjoy Mike's comments on the game he played vs Oleg. Was it the first time he faced such a strategy? What we he do differently?

As for me, I still think it is not an unbeatable Axis strategy. It's a good gambit, but stoppable. I still remember the "I've conquered all of Russia but I still can't win" posts.

So, I'll put my PPs where my mouth is. I'm not the best player there is (heck, I always run out of supply and I still don't understand research), but I'm willing to do some playtesting PBEM games to determine possible counter-strategies for the Allies. (will post in PBEM forum). I'll be Allies, someone be Axis. (heck, everyone can be Axis and beat on me).

I think this is great Idea and you should play Oleg that way you get someone who knows the game and the strategy. I suspect it will take multiple plays to figure out how to stop it. By the way you write as if you have the game well figured out.

What do you say Oleg up for the game?[:)]
dembe73
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: The Netherlands

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by dembe73 »

Before this discussion started I started a new PBEM with Dobeln. I had the Axis and decided to go for Britain again and tried to hide it by attacking the Suez. Dobeln saw through it and managed to reinforce Britain every turn just a little bit more then I could afford making the invasion impossible.

There was only one turn I had a good chance at a knockout offensive using all my fleet power, but it was Winter so no landings allowed (I will watch for this next time).

In Summer 42 I was down on preparing Barbarrossa but had made some gains on the WA in the Middle East and had taken the Suez. Like Oleg I managed to get to 70 points in Winter 1943 by only taking Kiev. The rest were WA territories like Iraq, Rhodesia , some neutrals and the whole of China.

I did get into Scotland and was stuck there. A naval battle with 1 unit difference let him keep the North Sea else I could resupply and get the upper hand, instead he managed to start killing off my invasion force with his airforce and was close to open a two front war on Germany.

I think dobelns comment that it was strange to win without at least winning the Battle of Britain or defeating Russia is a very valid comment. It feels like I snatched his victory as he would crush me with the Russians in Spring 1943. 70 points is probably not enough to feel like a victory with a strategy not involving Russia.
CommC
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Michigan, USA

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by CommC »

If gamers feel the game is unbalanced, why not implement a bidding system where the perceived weaker side gets a supply (or additional starting units) bonus?

Also, in regards to the 70 VP ... the key to stopping Axis advances in Africa and the middle east is Allied control of the med with naval forces. If Gibralter falls, the British navy should be able to enter the Med via the Suez canal (going around the horn of Africa), admittedly this could use a lot of fuel, but the US has nearly inexhaustible resources for this.

If the Axis can utterly destroy the British navy and control the Med, then perhaps the game really does need some kind of balance tweak.

In games where the 70 PP AV was achieved without invading Russia, was the British navy completely destroyed?
hakon
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by hakon »

There are 2 problems:

1. This kind of win is too easy. This can be fixed with a bidding system or by increasing the required number.

2. It encourages very gamey behavour, making Germany invade their historical allies for resources they were getting anyway. This would be very bad play, if you have the outcome of the war in mind, but because it can make the game end right there, it is still done. Very unhistorical. There is no way the allies would have quit just because Germany invaded Turkey and Sweden.....


To fix the last problem, which is the most fundamental one in my opinion, resources from free trade and gifts should be included in the production point total. To compensate, the total needed should be raised to 85.
dobeln
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by dobeln »

I think dobelns comment that it was strange to win without at least winning the Battle of Britain or defeating Russia is a very valid comment.

Grrrr! ;P

Well, I did make one big mistake: Not defending Africa. Still, that would have left either the UK open to sealion, or India open to German / Italian invasion, so it wasn't a clear-cut choice. Still, very well played - especially given your bad Spanish luck! :)
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by James Ward »

How can you have a strategic game of WWII yet have it able end in automatic victory for the Axis without the US or Russia even getting involved? It's Germany and Japan against the UK and China, what sort of WWII is that?
User avatar
MarcelJV
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: Mohrsville, PA

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by MarcelJV »

ORIGINAL: hakon

There are 2 problems:

1. This kind of win is too easy. This can be fixed with a bidding system or by increasing the required number.

2. It encourages very gamey behavour, making Germany invade their historical allies for resources they were getting anyway. This would be very bad play, if you have the outcome of the war in mind, but because it can make the game end right there, it is still done. Very unhistorical. There is no way the allies would have quit just because Germany invaded Turkey and Sweden.....


To fix the last problem, which is the most fundamental one in my opinion, resources from free trade and gifts should be included in the production point total. To compensate, the total needed should be raised to 85.

This will not work, as now I will be obligated to invade these same neutrals to prevent the resources going to the auto victory and Germany has more troops to send to clear out the WA else where as they do not need to garrison these neutrals. The whole point of AV is for Germany to capture more territory and put the allies on the brink of disaster. Also Britian came very close to working out a peace deal after the collapse of France so it is not improbable that if things got really bad that they would have tried for peace.
User avatar
MarcelJV
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: Mohrsville, PA

RE: My conclusions on game balance

Post by MarcelJV »

ORIGINAL: James Ward

How can you have a strategic game of WWII yet have it able end in automatic victory for the Axis without the US or Russia even getting involved? It's Germany and Japan against the UK and China, what sort of WWII is that?

This is the WWII that might have happened if Britian chose to make peace at some point prior to the involvement of Russia or the US.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War”