Matrix Games Forums

I can't remember how many times I've played the 1939 campaign by now, sometimes as the Axis, sometimes as the Allies; always against the AI, that is always beaten. Unfortunately, I have now reached a point where each campaign seems very much like the one before. My liking of the game is unbroken, but I start to get a bit bored with the inevitable outcome. Playing the Allies, Germany is beaten 1942-43. Roughly, the same is true the other way round (apart from defeating the USA; I never tried that).

Since I want to play more, I'm now seriously considering trying a H2H game playing against myself. For one thing, it will definately balance the competition. It will also give me a far better understanding of what's going on on the other side. Wether this will actually work, I can't tell before trying; one really has to be a bit schizophrenic to do it. But if one really try to put oneself into the mind of the side presently played, perhaps it will work.

I'm going to follow the German plans to the point. Obviously, there has to be some house rules. Not interfereing with the attacks on Denmark and Norway, for instance. Or keeping a substantional force in England to repell an invasion that never comes. Likewise, I'm going to clear some hexes in Normandy for the 1944 invasion.

I'll just start and see where it all goes.

Has anyone else tried this?

Currently I am in a multiplayer mirror game with an opponent of my competency. The game is going pretty interestingly and I have spotted possibilities as to why players feel this way. When the games are done I will share my results and if any adjustment is needed it will be done then. This is an incredibly complex game in terms of balancing. It takes time to get it 100% right. World in Flames has been around for decades before they got close to balancing.

Note, I'm nowhere near bored with the game, only feel that the campaigns are a bit repetitive. And I fully agree with the almost impossible task of balancing. The real war wasn't balanced either; it only looks that way because there was only one outcome.

That's correct. Yea eventually everyone gets bored with a game.

Since the thought is in my mind, the game could benefit from some minor scenarios:

September to the fall of France.
Barbarossa without the west.
Balkans and Mediterranean 1940 to 1942 with the Russian campaign taken out, but the Atlantic and air war kept in.
West only from D-day to Berlin.

To name a few.

These scenarios could be better balanced even for AI play. And they would give some variety to game play.

+1 Uxbridge. I've moved away from the AI for a bit and really enjoy playing HOTSEAT. I like to set up objectives for Germany on a sheet a paper during the game and rolling a die and the German side needs to obtain those objectives while the Allies try to prevent it. The battles are epic.

I think the idea of smaller maps is also an excellent especially for replay value.

Playing a human is always more fun.

As for other scenarios.... That would be in the future. Right now working on balance, A.I. and Pacific.

ago1000. That could be a good idea for the German main decisions. Case: France defeated. Options: 1. Full-scale uboat war; 2. Limited uboat war; 3. No uboat war. Hitler is represented by the die.

The list could be:

Immediate attack on the west after fall of France, or May 1940 start for Gelb.
Scandinavian venture or not.
Uboat war.
Seelöwe.
Involvement in North Africa, or merely economical help to Italy.
Barbarossa 1941, or dealing with UK and NA first.

And maybe I shall try Battle of Britain without Seelöwe, as in reality–bomb naval and air units from August to September.

I will think about this.

In fact, what you want is to increase replayability. For this there is the solution of SC3 or Third Reich. Set up the possibility of random events with a % that they occur.

I entered into this with great determination, but gave up on the experiment after a few months – it turned out I was too dull an opponent.

WarPlan is strictly a wargame.

SC3 has event decisions.
WarPlan requires a lot more strategic and operational level thinking.

That is the trade off. I am still finding new strategies in every game I play.