Matrix Games Forums

I've been reading about these two, but they seem to do almost the same? What would be the distinguishing factor between them, and which should I "prefer" for PBEM?

And do I need to update them, or is the version that comes with the latest patch ok?

Thanks

Well I'm not the most unbiased one to respond, but IMO UV2.0 is the best for PBEM because it's better balanced. UV2.0 won't have the Allied tendency to run away with the game in the later half like GG does. One of my primary goals in developing UV2.0 was to get more games to end in a draw under equal play. I had many ideas to support that end, and integrated them very carefully so they complement each other well. Also, my new map improves the look and gameplay as well.
The two major differences, as I see it, between UV2.0 and GG are the surrender rules and the Middle East region. My opinion is that the game doesn't benefit by adding these surrender rules, which is why I never contributed to that long thread a while back concerning this. I like the Check Mate feel in this game. As Russia, I couldn't see throwing in the towel before AV was reached. The surrender rules can force this upon the Russian player by pure chance, which I don't like at all. This game is best played with two opposite poles. One pole being total Allied surrender (the AV) and the other pole being total Axis surrender. UV2.0 stays true to this idea.
Regarding the Middle East and GG's oil emphasis. Brian's gripe for a long time now has been the lack of a separate supply unit for fuel and separate industry for it. It's a legitimate grip, and one that probably should be addressed if there's ever a sequel. However, in this game, I don't follow Brian's logic when he compares oil outputs of certain regions, then compensates by adding more resources. IMO, UV2.0 keeps to the relative real world value while GG overemphasizes it. Each resource point is an abstraction of all types of resources. In some regions it represents everything, and in others only one or two. Take Rumania for example, it has 4 resources. 50% could be oil and the rest could be everything from ore to wood. In contrast, Iraq's is definitely 100% oil. When you figure its all oil, and nothing else, then the normal values are sound.
Adding extra resources to the Middle East only makes an Axis AV more likely when Germany breaks through Cairo. In games where AV is 4 points away are the Allies expected to cede victory when Iraq falls? I'm sure the world did not revolve around the Middle East back then like it does today. American oil production was more than enough to satisfy the Allies need. It's an error IMO to make Iraq worth more than 2 points toward AV. The problem is magnified even more if Germany takes Persia too. Looking at it from the other end, if Germany never breaks through Cairo, it's apparent that all them Middle East resources are going to be give the Allies a lot of extra production, tipping end game balance even further in the Allies favor.
If additional levels of damage could be represented by the game engine, this concept could work. To fully repair resources it takes 2 levels, but to build new should take 2 to 3 times as much. A new factory costs 6, yet to fully repair only costs 2. See my point? To make a new resource it should cost at least 4. In addition, it takes time to develop from the ground up, so levels 3 and 4 of damage should each take one turn to repair. This would prevent an unrealistic exploitation of new resources in one turn. At a cost of 4 it should take 3 turns to fully repair. 1 turn for level 4, 1 turn for level 3, and 1 turn for red and yellow damage levels. For new colors, level 3 could be purple, and 4 could be black for instance. If Brian added support for that into the engine and I did the graphics, then I think the concept could work. But I'm not sure if Brian could or wants to because almost a year ago I asked him to add additional damage levels for greater scenario flexibility. It could prove useful in the Pacific, the Middle East etc.
In summary, without additional levels of damage being added to the game engine, I feel it's a mistake to mess around with the current resource numbers in the Middle East. If it was added, then I would certainly make full use of it in UV3.0.

ORIGINAL: sveint
I've been reading about these two, but they seem to do almost the same? What would be the distinguishing factor between them, and which should I "prefer" for PBEM?

And do I need to update them, or is the version that comes with the latest patch ok?

The v1.020 patch includes the latest Global Glory, so at least there is no need for an additional update there. It is likely to change, however. I am looking forward to any feedback from the community on how it can be improved. I think that most of the changes implemented came about via discussions on the forums, even ancient discussions on the old beta testing forum.

Having read Jesse's post, it occurs to me that there are two big philosophical differences.

First, I really tried to keep the changes relative to Total War et al as small as possible (believe it or not), especially in what I considered to be the core mechanics of the game. I was reluctant to change things like combat rules. The main reason for this is that not everyone can agree on every little detail, so I was more comfortable staying with what was hashed out in development, even where I personally thought things could be improved. It does come to mind that I changed two major things: air rules (narrows overflight and penalty at max range) and transport rules (port benefits). I felt that these were simply too important for their realism and strategic impacts.

Second, I really appreciate Jesse's emphasis on a "chess-like" experience, but I did consciously make a different emphasis. I feel that the political course of the war is far too certain, it just isn't what real war is like. Everytime I stack German troops on the Yugoslav frontier __knowing__ that it will flip in a turn or two I think of how predictable it all really is. Similarly, the world looked at Russia in '41 and early '42 with far less certainty than the game provides, with many quarters expecting quick institutional collapse. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. The issue to me is that this predictability impacts your planning, in ways that the generals of the day never could have counted on. So I've consciously tried to reduce certainty as to the exact course of events while doing the best to keep balance in mind.

That said, for the sake of balance and without more sophisticated political models you can't do too much. So most of the changes are little things, like Italy joining the war before France surrenders, and lower probability of Yugoslavia flipping (with the chance to proactively impact that by taking Greece). As for the Russian surrender, I haven't actually seen it in a game yet, so all I can really say is that it is hard enough to attain so that the impact on balance is, at least, not overwhelming.

Other important changes I made follow this same general philosophy, namely War Readiness. I tried to make DOW by Russia and the USA less likely, while giving them more chance to prepare for war behind the scenes (with strat moves). The static USA is certainly not a very good model after the start of 1942, yet an actual preemptive DOW is a big step. I felt a smaller step was required.

Jesse mentions the desirability of a more expensive mechanism for building up resource exploitation from scratch (e.g. to explore and exploit new oil fields as opposed to repair pre-existing). This is true, something I wanted. I was just to lazy (or too eager to push out the patch earlier, take your pick) to implement this feature. Maybe it is a good feature for the next patch, as I would certainly like to implement it in Iraq, Persia, the USA and maybe Russia.

At any rate, these are qualitative differences in philosophy, rather than judgments on the scenarios. Maybe they can each be prefered by different people .