Matrix Games Forums

So one long term frustration I have with this game, that I know has been mentioned elsewhere but is worth mentioning again, are the ahistorical and gamey tactics that have seemingly been deliberately introduced, and added to over time

What I'm referring to are the blockades, specifically of Vladivostock and the Persian Gulf, although I'll also throw in Cape Town as well, even though it isn't in the same category.

Why are these a problem? Well, for one, the Vladivostock and Persian Gulf blockades don't really have an effective counter. What I mean by that is that by parking a single (now much more durable after the sub buff) submarine in the Persian Gulf the axis can prevent hundreds of MPP's worth of aid to the Soviet Union for the cost of.... a single submarine. This happens even when the Allies devote considerable resources to hunting that sub down (80 for the first turn the sub is there... unless there is already a massive anti-submarine presence in the Persian Gulf specifically you are talking probably another 4 or 5 turns to hunt down an out-teched sub)... if they don't, then the MPP's denied Russia quickly goes into the thousands (13 turns with a sub being present is over 1000 MPP's that never make it to Russia). Vladivostock is even worse.... for the cost of a few strength points from a motor torpedo boat a turn I can cut U.S. aid to Russia through the Pacific in half, and short of starting a war that the Soviet Union simply can't afford until the war against Germany is practically won, there is nothing that can be done. Cape Town is another issue, albiet without the war winning consequences of the first two. By parking a naval unit outside of South Africa the Axis can simply prevent all South African trade to Britain until the resources are specifically diverted to the tip of Africa... and that isn't even referring to the opportunity cost of the naval or naval air units you are diverting.

The reality is that naval units had (and have today) very real limitations on range and supply that are not reflected in this game at all. These are fine so long as the sole damage they can inflict is the MPP's they destroy while convoy raiding. But imposing total blockades on entire countries on the southern tip of Africa or in the Persian Gulf was FAR beyond axis naval capabilities at any time during the war... Axis subs and naval units could (barely) reach there, much less loiter and smash every single merchant ship passing through. And as others have mentioned, there were very real reasons why the Japanese absolutely did NOT want a war or tensions with Russia that choking off lend-lease would entail.

My issue here isn't so much the realism problem... this is after all a game that in multiplayer the Axis players win outright nearly 50% of the time... if it portrayed WWII realistically then that would be less than 5%. My issue is that introducing "I win" button tactics that didn't happen in real life without a viable counter or real cost to the Axis as part of the game mechanics creates a significant frustration for the allied players without really adding anything to the game. And often allied players are already frustrated because they are doing worse than the Allies did in real life (because this game is relatively balanced, and real life was completely not).

My proposal is to eliminate the blockade tactics entirely. They are ahistorical, uncounterable, and not fun. If the Axis want to convoy raid, let them... that is a viable strategy, especially if the allies aren't devoting considerable resources to an anti-sub and raider effort. But just parking units that take forever to kill in a zone that the allies can't do a whole lot to stop doesn't add anything to the game but frustration.

As a note.... I don't do the blockade of Vladivostock.... an invasion of Hawaii or Siberia will do the same thing in a counterable way. I also don't blockade the Persian Gulf... whether or not you win in Russia is contingent on taking Baku, usually by the end of 42 at the latest, so once again you can eliminate this source of MPP's without resorting to the gamisms. My issue here is that mechanics deliberately introduced seems to be encouraging this kind of gameplay, and that isn't adding anything.

I must confess I've never quite understood the logic of the placement of some the red hatched sea hexes. Supposedly they represent concentrations of raidable shipping. So why does the tiny, isolated atoll of Nauru* in the Pacific get three and areas of historically heavy shipping like the approaches to the Panama Canal, the Straits of Malacca, Gibraltar and the Gulf of Aden get none?

*All I can figure is it's because a lucky German commerce raider sank five Australian phosphate ships off the island in December 1940.

This issue got worse now that subs are harder to kill. The Persian Gulf zone is pretty unfair to Allies right now.

Conversely, Axis raiding off the coast of the USA was very successful in the first half of 42, but has anyone ever raided these hexes successfully in MP? I haven't seen it. Historically you had subs off Brazil, both sides of Japan, all sorts of places where no red convoy line currently exists. I would love to see more convoy routes across the sea as well as fewer overlapping routes (you put a raider there and it hits the Sudan convoy instead of the Australia convoy). Perhaps divert the Canadian convoy further north to spread things out a bit.

Vladivostok is weird. The biggest problem preventing a solution is that the real (historical) thing preventing Japan from intervening was fear of the Red Army, while in game the USSR doesn't have the units to spare to defend Siberia. So there's no way to "punish" Japan for angering USSR. Perhaps there should be a decision event where Japan can choose to interfere with the Pacific Route convoy, but it gives the USA a mobilization boost? At least that would be a pro-con decision.

Chernobyl wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 8:37 am This issue got worse now that subs are harder to kill. The Persian Gulf zone is pretty unfair to Allies right now.

Conversely, Axis raiding off the coast of the USA was very successful in the first half of 42, but has anyone ever raided these hexes successfully in MP? I haven't seen it. Historically you had subs off Brazil, both sides of Japan, all sorts of places where no red convoy line currently exists. I would love to see more convoy routes across the sea as well as fewer overlapping routes (you put a raider there and it hits the Sudan convoy instead of the Australia convoy). Perhaps divert the Canadian convoy further north to spread things out a bit.

Vladivostok is weird. The biggest problem preventing a solution is that the real (historical) thing preventing Japan from intervening was fear of the Red Army, while in game the USSR doesn't have the units to spare to defend Siberia. So there's no way to "punish" Japan for angering USSR. Perhaps there should be a decision event where Japan can choose to interfere with the Pacific Route convoy, but it gives the USA a mobilization boost? At least that would be a pro-con decision.

Well, Axis subs off the coast of the U.S. certainly sank a lot of ships... generally speaking I've always been a bit skeptical about how "successful" the Axis sub campaign ever got, as Donitz went with quantity over quality as far as what he was sinking, the idea seeming to be that when the British Empire, and later the Americans, ran out of merchant ships important war goods would stop moving too.

What I mean by that is, of all the tonnage sunk in WWII by the Germans, how much of it was actually carrying stuff that was important to the war effort? From what was being sunk off the coast of the U.S in 1942 I'm sure it was vanishingly small as the U.S. still had what was essentially a peacetime economy at that point. Now contrast that with the level of effort that went into the Submarine campaign by the German side in terms of steel, personnel, fuel, etc.

As for the "blockade" hexes... I would challenge people to name one instance where industrial production was significantly affected (i.e. war production dropped) in a specific city or region like London, New York etc during WWII due to submarine action. The only one I can think of is Japan over a period of years as U.S. submarines gradually strangled their sea lanes, and that is because they put zero effort into ASW throughout the entire conflict and imported nearly everything by sea. Literally everyplace else submarines were a manageable problem that was annoying (as depicted in raiding convoys for MPPs), occasionally worrying (for the Brits especially, although even during their darkest days they still managed to continue expanding production in their home islands while shipping assistance to the Soviets, and maintaining an Army, Navy and Airforce worldwide) but not devastating (as depicted by blockades).

At this point it is just a super weird game design choice that doesn't really have much basis in reality (in the sense that what it represents didn't happen) or good game play (ie is counterable or presents a cost-benefit ratio that is roughly even).