Matrix Games Forums

My hope is that this game recieves some serious testing on the game balance front. Historical buffs will say the axis should always lose if both sides are manned by equal players. My belief is gameplay should overrule historical accuracy when neccesary and the sides should be fairly equal. If I want complete historical accuracy, I'll pull out the encyclopedia....

Right now from the aar's it looks like germany and japan are pretty much hopeless. I hope that isn't the case with the final release. I'd rather a system where there is a 50/50 chance of victory for a side, if both sides have equally skilled players. Rather then one side needing the other to committ serious gaffes in order to succeed.

--way

Victory Conditions are still being worked on and tweaked so we need to reserve judgement on this right now as we are not near the finished product....saying that however, I share similiar concerns and have voiced them, so your opinion is not being overlooked...

One of my wargaming buddies used to say "if you want 50:50 - play chess". No wargame, ever, will, or should have 50:50 - it would be boring IMO. Come to think of it - not even chess has perfect 50:50 balance (white player usually has some advantage).

But, having said that, one of the most important tasks during beta test is finding the right balance. Rest assured we do discuss these things on the beta board, and play many more test games than visible here. My personal opinion right now is that it's hard to *lose* as Allies, but it's not easy to win. OK, this sounds stupid. [:D] Games between balanced players will end in a draw, so if that's "50:50" you were talking about then you'd be happy. It's perhaps easier to take out GE or JA, than it is to take out any of the Allied forces, but in hands of very experienced player GE and JA can resist to the end, and get the "draw" on VPs.

I think we can pretty much agree Maurice and Paullus mastered the WAW better than anybody else (so far) so may I suggest our next public PBEM be with M & P as Axis? I volunteer to take WA (again), and as for Russia... whoever wants them - I don't want to play any side that does not have ocean between them and Paullus99-led forces [:D][:D]

O.

Well, it could seriously be argued back and forth if the Axis should always lose all things being equal. Germany did a lot despite having some serious internal problems (Hitler being the biggest, but there were manyu other avoidable issues). Japan had a conflict between the Army and the Navy, and it has been argued they suffered from 'Victory Disease' and so over extended themselves, plus some serious bad luck and poor commanders (it has been noted that all the damage at Pearl was in the long run meaningless, but if the fuel supplies and port facilities had suffered serious damage, that would have set the ability of the US to fight in the Pacific back significantly), and of course there was stupidity and rotten luck for the IJN at Midway.

But two relatively small nations taking on the world does seem a long shot, don't it?

Although as has been said, to take over the world was truely impossible, but for Germany to take over all of Europe (including the Western USSR and England), and Japan to take much of The Pacific Rim, was not quite so impossible.



But at any rate, I don't think it be necessary to say that victory for either side be 50/50. For it to be a bit tougher for the Axis is not unreasonable. To say it is a tough fight, but still winnable, is not unreasonable.

For example, the board game 'Europe Engulfed' does have it as unlikely that Germany will win the war (basically hold Europe and knock the USSR out of the war). But it is possible (in fact, I almost lost the USSR last time I played, it was darn close). But Victory Conditions are simply to not be eliminated at the end of 1945. IIRC, a minor victory is to have 1 to 9 resource points at the end of the war (basically at least one German home resource territory), and a major victory is to have 10 or more points (at least one German resource area and several minors, or a couple German resource areas).

The board game Totalier Krieg is the same way. You can lose the war, but still win the game, or you can even win the war (I've managed to lose as the Allies a couple times) but it isn't easy.


So, it should be possible to win the war (take over a good chunk of the world, although taking over North America should be almost impossible), but doesn't need to be particularly likely. A VP victory on the other hand should probably be close to the 50/50 chance mark.

Victory for the Allies incidentally should be not just based on knocking out the Axis, but on doing better than historically.

Right now in WaW its just based on factories. But as the Allies have a decent chance of knocking out the Axis completely, it should be tied to date as well. So if the Axis is hanging on by a thread at the end of '45, that could be a draw (unlikely to survive much into '46, but even more people will be killed, and more resources wasted making more planes and guns). If the Axis has at least a significant presence at the end of '45, then that would be a victory for the Axis, how many factories they have compared to the Allies determining the victory level.
On the other hand if the axis gets knocked out, well when it happens should say something about the allied victory level, so if they knock out the Axis in the summer of 1945, then it is a minor victory (historical). To do it by the end of 1945 is a marginal victory. By the end of '44 is a signifcant victory. By the end of '43 is a major victory. And by the end of '42 an incredible victory (and the Axis players should beat themselves with their keyboards).



Question: Did all that rambling make any sense?

but in hands of very experienced player GE and JA can resist to the end, and get the "draw" on VPs.

Wow, I have been watching this game with much interest but your comment Oleg is troubling. Sorry, but I want a game where either side can win, not require the Axis to be the superior players. If your focus as the Axis is just to hold on, what is the point?

Hard to answer this... When I re-read our public AARs I note how we all learned together. Reading our very first public AAR (still available here on board) I wish to slap myself for making so many absolutelly silly mistakes (and my side "won" IIRC). I am sure other players share my sentiment. That game had everything to make strategy gamer laugh out loud - amphib invasions of Manchuria in front of JA players nose, Sea Lion successful (twice!), my Soviets building mega-army just to *completely* forget about producing supplies, invasions of Germany thru Baltic etc etc.

You won't see any of us making those mistakes again. So what I am trying to say is that Todays Oleg would beat Oleg from Then into pulp, even playing with Albania (if it would be playable). I am sure same goes for other players.

I predict, and expect this game to be fairly popular, and as people learn the game, and new players come into the group, you will see games where Axis will rule the world by '43. It all comes down to experience level.

Personally I love the wide margin set for draw. Perhaps it's a tad bit too wide, but I guess any future changes would not go in Axis favor.

Joel recently posted new set of victory rules on the beta board (sliiiightlllyyy more pro-Axis than before IMO). I won't re-post those rules here without permission, but let me just say they're interesting, and atomic bomb has been added [:D]

I'm babbling incoherently again. Let me just go back to your worry once again. Yes, I'm afraid in human vs human games Axis will have to be better players to win, no matter how you slice it. What's so strange about this? It's realistic. Don't tell me you (assuming you're at least intermediate player) want to play the US-Russia against a complete newbie as Axis? Axis focus is not "to hold on" right from the start, their focus is to conquer the world. But as the realities of Russian winter and US industrial might set in, if the game goes on to 45 Axis will be happy just to "hold on".

Oleg

Bah, Oleg, I'll take da Rooskies, you can have the corn fed sons of democracy.

Let me give you an example of my thoughts.

First I agree with you if there is an imbalance in the player skills things go out the window.

If you look at what IMHO, and many others, is the best WWII game ever WiF one of the key things about it is that roughly equally skilled and expert players can take any side and make an interesting game with many twists.

We played WiF for many many years and the ability for either side to win was a key.

I'm certainly not saying it should be easy as the Axis but playability is the key to successful wargames that draw a wider audience and develop longevity. Hye think of all the add on modules Matrix can sell if this game lives as long as WiF.

We're talking WaW: Nurses; WaW: Training ...

Hm... very, very interesting discussion. I am having many sympathy and hopes for this game but, must admit, I don’t like what I see here. I am afraid if game is not balanced properly it will not be played for a long time. Oleg, with all respect to you, all test players and game makers, I don’t want (like most of players) historically correct game. As wayllander said, “If I want complete historical accuracy, I'll pull out the encyclopedia....” Also it is a little bit stupid that we have to find the most experienced Axis players to have an interesting game. And the most stupid thing is if a draw will be considered as Axis (or Allied) success!

Draw is a draw, no one implied it's an "Axis success".

But if a game ends in draw, it will be in 1946. By then, Axis WILL be defensive (either that or they will rule the world by 1943). If you're hard pressed and defending, you expect bad things will happen, but - phew! - here comes 1946, game ends, and it's draw! In that sense it would be "Axis success". It's like when one side in football (european football ie. soccer [:D]) is in the lead in the first half, but opponents equalize in second half, and press on to win, they come closer and closer to scoring, but the game ends, and side A is lucky to have a draw.

Edit: Axis may win on VPs in 1946, as well.

BTW, wargaming is not perfectly balanced, by design, and never will be. As I said, not even chess is perfectly balanced, and - in my opinion - it is perfectly OK for Axis side to be harder to play. I'd hate for this game to become "German Fantasy Supreme Ruler 2004". If you want Germans on the offensive in 1945 you'll have to play some other game (HOI anyone?).

O.

I completely agree with Oleg.

It reminds me of some of the Combat Mission: B2B debates about the power of KV-1s and KV-2s in 1941, Tigers in 43, etc. There are some inherent imbalances in wargaming.

and the biggest imbalance of all in WWII: The US industrial output. it dwarfed all all other countries combined. the only chance for Germany and Japan to survive to 1946 is to hamstring the US Economy. (I played WiF for 10 years and loved the game when i played it, BUT they made it an interesting "game" by seriously hamstringing (downsizing) the US economy. )

I am not talking about win/lose here yet, those are just words that need to have definitions, and the goal of balancing the game is to define what "win" means in relation to GGWAW.

biggest imbalance of all in WWII: The US industrial output

Well said.

US + UK + Russia was unbeatable unless UK or Russia was significantly hurt. In WiF, a German doing well can outproduce the US. I don't think that was accurate.

In WAW replays the massive early Russian counterattacks are perplexing and the constant fighting for the same territories. A concentrated German Barbarossa should do better than in AARs. Russia is too strong r Germany is too weak (I think the latter) That said....

If two equal players have an equal chance of winning on victory conditions with either side, that equals a good game. You guarantee this is so with bidding. Everyone knows the Allies have a better chance of winning in Axis and Allies. Often our bids get up to 18 production points of units for the Axis to place anywhere on the map. Have the sides bid in the computer game (see Empires in Arms forum) and everything is cool.

Now, there are some who think that the Japanese should have a realistic chance to defeat the US in Gary's WITP given a historical European outcome. I am sure they want to have the Japanese fighting in San Diego in WAW. I say let them play HOI against AI.

greg (not an Allied fan boy, just a game balance fan boy)

Let me chime in to say that we plan on making the game balanced and fun by the time we are done. By balance, though, I don't mean that there is a 50% chance that the Axis can take over the world and 50% chance that the Allies will take over the world. As some posters have said, the US production capabilities (assuming they can maintain their global merchant fleet) is just too overpowering to make the war even. However, with good players, there should be some chance that the Axis can take out Russia (which would no doubt ensure a "win" in the game). There is a fine line we are balancing on. We want the game to be "historically accurate", more so than some other previous global games, but we too want the game to be fun. In most games, we expect the Axis to be on the defensive later in the game. They can still win the game depending on just how well they do. In some number of games, the Axis should be able to stave off defeat. The reality of the war was that if the Axis could not win early, they were going to be swamped by the US and the world.

By providing enough variability in strategies and counter strategies (which hopefully some of the AARs have managed to show), it will take a lot of time before an "ideal" strategy for each player emerges. If we do things right, there will be no "ideal" strategy, just a series of possibilities that have a rock/scissors/paper interaction. How players recognize their opponents strategies and implement their counter-strategies is where the skill of the player comes in. I think you'll find that there is a lot of flexibility in the game that you will enjoy.

As for the Germans not doing well in Russia in the recent AARs. Well, I think this has much to do with player skill and the fact that testers have taken the most time getting used to the idea that logistics are important in this game (although this is not WitP and the logistics are very easy to deal with). When you invade Russia, you need your forces to be ready to move fast and rebuild the infrastructure (rail and resources) so you can move forces up to the front quickly and increase your production as you go. What Oleg has been trying to say (I think) is that between equally unskilled players, the Germans and Japanese are the hardest to play. That's because mistakes made early in the game will get them behind the curve. With more skill comes the ability to launch a punishing attack against Russia (and/or coordinate Japan with Germany, something that was not really done historically but can be in this game). We are still in balancing and fine tuning and a few months ago we added several regions to Russia. It is possible this altered the balance, but that's something we are watching closely. Again, you are only seeing a few of the many games that are going on in testing. I hope by the time we are done, we'll have hit on the right balance between historically accurate and fun. We do want to have our cake and eat it too.

ORIGINAL: meyerg
In WAW replays the massive early Russian counterattacks are perplexing and the constant fighting for the same territories. A concentrated German Barbarossa should do better than in AARs. Russia is too strong r Germany is too weak (I think the latter) That said....

A few points:

1. There were massive early counterattacks historically. In 1941 counterattacks bled the Wehrmacht white and left it unable to complete its objectives before winter had set in. Army Group Center faced a serious threat to its actual survival in the Winter of 41 and never advanced again from the line at Rhzev. Fall Blau was a huge success in 1942 due partially to the horribly bungling of the Kharkov Op by Timoshenko and Mehklis. It, too, ended in a massive Soviet counterstroke that you may have heard of before that swept the Germans back to Kharkov, and again, nearly into disaster if not for a brilliant counter by Manstein. By March 43 the Germans were no longer in position to conduct full scale attacks on Soviet positions.

2. A W@W German player can do better than this. Without significant WA help in the form of lend lease and distraction, the Soviets cannot stop the Germans. If the Japanese decide to come out and play, it gets even worse.

I recently posted a query on the WiF forum regarding play balance. It seems to me the obvious solution to the play-balance vs. historical reality dilema is to provide a large variety of optional rules, some that favor one side, some that favor the other side. Let the players pick and choose the ones they want to use. Optional rules should also include some ideas from AH's Third Reich where certain "What if" scenarios could be thrown in to affect play balance (What if pro-German admirals in the French navy agree to turn over the entire French fleet to Hitler at Compiegne, The Japanese catch the US carriers in port at Pearl Harbor, Stalin doesn't purge his officer corps in the late 30's, etc.). To inspire all players to create play balance (if that is your goal), have them agree to all the optional rules before sides are chosen.

Becket made a great point. This is a game of attack and counterattack. If you just sit back and take it, you will lose. You must constantly be looking for places to attack your opponent and destroy his units, without overly exposing your own units to counterattack. Especially in the first winter, the Russians must be willing to attack and take advantage of the 1st winter rules to damage the German army. It's this back and forth that makes the game fun. It's during this back and forth that players are attempting to achieve superiority. The Russian Front was full of this historically.

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

I recently posted a query on the WiF forum regarding play balance. It seems to me the obvious solution to the play-balance vs. historical reality dilema is to provide a large variety of optional rules, some that favor one side, some that favor the other side. Let the players pick and choose the ones they want to use. Optional rules should also include some ideas from AH's Third Reich where certain "What if" scenarios could be thrown in to affect play balance (What if pro-German admirals in the French navy agree to turn over the entire French fleet to Hitler at Compiegne, The Japanese catch the US carriers in port at Pearl Harbor, Stalin doesn't purge his officer corps in the late 30's, etc.). To inspire all players to create play balance (if that is your goal), have them agree to all the optional rules before sides are chosen.

Really more complex than the design team is aiming for with this game. IMO, W@W is simple to learn and play, hard to master. Third Reich is anything but simple and play. Besides, some of those rules throw balance to the wind. Since I'm being such a Soviet fanboy today, if Tuchachevskii & Co. were never purged, it's hard to see how the Germans even have a shot at Barbarossa. Tuchachevskii knew it was coming and was conducting wargames to learn how to stop it 6 months before he was executed. Not much fun for the Germans if they run into a Kursk-style defensive system in 1941.

What about using bidding for play balance? Either bids that modify starting forces or final victory conditions could work. You can't whine about your country in a game if you had a chance to play any country with a bidding system.
greg

Simple just to agree to reverse the sides and play one game each way. It removes the balance issue completely.