AV = 70 should be changed - good Axis player can always win...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

First of all I must say that I immensely love GGWaW and that I plan to play it for months and years to come because it offers great fun and hundreds of different ways of doing things (tactics and strategy)!


But... (there is always but)... some things "spoil" the fun and one of the most notable one is AV rule... [:(]


IMHO the AV = 70 rule should be changed because the good Axis player can win every single game when AV rule is used.


How?

Simple!

The only thing he needs is to wage war against weak UK and poor Chinese.

If all of his production is devoted to achieving "magical" 70 number and all his war effort on conquering near (mostly neutral) factories he is 100% certain to achieve AV = 70 victory in game before either Russia or USA enter the war.

That's right - the end of every game would come long before Winter 1943 and that tactics is 100% unstoppable!

Now, IMHO, this is extremely "gamey" tactics because all Axis player needs is artificial drive towards number 70 and 100% lack of any regard against Russia or USA (because the "victory" would come long before they would enter the war).

So... what can be done about this?


#1
Obvious solution is to use "Auto Victory" OFF option but that would almost certainly mean that Axis would loose the game one way or another (and sooner or later) if players are of equal skill.


#2
The other solution is to raise the "magical" 70 number to some higher value.

This is because many many Axis players would otherwise not want to play at all (see #1 above).

I recommend very high number 100 because that way if Axis want to gamble on reaching this value he must do it with _BIG_ risk and there would be _HUGE_ chance of failure.



What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"

[hakon]

Well, first of all, this has been discussed at _very_ deep depth in the game balance thread. (Second half of it.) There is some disagreement about the issue, but most people agree that 70 is too low.

I suggest you read that thread, because a lot of suggestions have come up.

My personal opinion, is that it is plain wrong to make it attractive for germany to invade countries like Sweden, Spain and Turkey, which they had a very good cooperation with anyway. That is why i suggest that free trade should be included when calculating production points for determining victory, and the required number for winning should be increased from 70 to 80. (By the time it is likely for the Axis to be able to produce for 80, the allies should be able to limit free trade to 10 or less.)

A number of 100 is way too high. For the axis to own 100 production points, they basically have to conquer _all_ of Russia in addition to more or less every neutral in sight. If you want to be conservative, the requried number should be 80. Others have pointed to the numbers 72 and 75.

[aletoledo]

first I just bought WitP yesterday, so I hope you're still playing it, I'd like to have lots of opponents.

the patch is supposed to address this issue to a small degree. with the addition of supply costs to attack neutrals it will make it a bit more difficult to accomplish the "neutral land grab". honestly though, this won't stop the strategy, just slow it a bit.

I've been playing primarily axis recently and the best defense against this strat is an active allied player. denying the middle east, spain or scandinavia is all that is really required to give yourself a fighting chance against this. any of these areas gives 3-4 points and thats enough to slow the AV so that russia and the USA have a couple turns to act.

I don't think raising the AV to 100 is feasible. anytime axis hits greater than about 76 points they are unstoppable anyway.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: hakon

Well, first of all, this has been discussed at _very_ deep depth in the game balance thread. (Second half of it.) There is some disagreement about the issue, but most people agree that 70 is too low.

I suggest you read that thread, because a lot of suggestions have come up.

I am aware of that thread (and I have read it) but since the latter part of it departed somehow from initial discussion I decided to post in new thread.

My personal opinion, is that it is plain wrong to make it attractive for germany to invade countries like Sweden, Spain and Turkey, which they had a very good cooperation with anyway. That is why i suggest that free trade should be included when calculating production points for determining victory, and the required number for winning should be increased from 70 to 80. (By the time it is likely for the Axis to be able to produce for 80, the allies should be able to limit free trade to 10 or less.)

Interesting points - must think of them.

A number of 100 is way too high. For the axis to own 100 production points, they basically have to conquer _all_ of Russia in addition to more or less every neutral in sight. If you want to be conservative, the requried number should be 80. Others have pointed to the numbers 72 and 75.

I on purpose said 100 because actual WWII was "life or death" struggle.

If we want to emulate this epic war then the only way Axis could have win by some peace agreement is for them to have big success (and that big success would mean occupying UK and/or Russia). Only then, possibly, the might of US would not have been unleashed because, again possibly, politicians would decide that entering or prolongation of such war would be wrong.

So 100 would real mean significant conquest on behalf of Axis powers


Leo "Apollo11"

[pyrhic]

I'd agree with aletoledo. The allied player needs to be good to prevent the AV, but it can be done. The allies need to press their advantage in the seas, control the baltic, control the med. The axis cannot press the neutrals AND remain strong everywhere. Find the weakpoints, exploit them.

[Paul Vebber]

The new patch imposes a declaration of war cost on the Germans for attacking neutrals (5 I think). I think this puts a bt of a damper on it, particularly if the Allies pursue a "scortched earth" campaign continually going after the resources with infrastructure attacks, while playing very aggressively with their navy (ie all heavy fleets to the med with lots of fighter support (as now even "ineffective" attacks are run and reduce evasion, making Italian fleets very vulnerable to WA 4 evasion hvy fleets operating with 2 range fighter support). Keeping air forces that can threaten the resources of the eastern med and ME, and attriting the Italian Navy and axis med convoys appears to be the key to foiling it.

Playing myself I've found it at least a horse race with the new patch to get to 70 before the US and SU come in...

When the patch is released, it will be interesting to see if those tweaks pan out to make the strategy usable, but with risks.

[willgamer]

...because actual WWII was "life or death" struggle

Totally agree.

In deference to those who believe invading the USSR should be optional, here's a patch request to Matrix:

Please add a WWII option box. [:D]

Unchecked victory remains as it is now.

Checked means that AV for Germany must involve outperforming history against the USSR. There have been many suggestions for achieving this... 100pp, only USSR pp, count trade, etc....

[Joel Billings]

Easiest thing is to turn off AV and use house rules to determine when a player has obtained a auto-victory. At this time there is no consensus on what the AV should be, so changing code to create some new victory conditions where a house rule would work fine doesn't seem to be the best use of our resources. Down the road, if we conclude a change is worthwhile, we'll address it. Likely changes that I can see us making someday if we conclude there is a need are:

1) AV only checked at the beginning of the German player's turn.
and/or
2) Game option to select exact AV trigger level.

Including free trade in AV is something I originally wanted to do during development, but we concluded this had major code/rule issues that kept us from going in that direction. I doubt we'd change that now given those reasons still exist. More likely is just further increasing the cost of attacking neutrals, although I'm not suggesting that's high up in our current thinking about how to address this issue in the future.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Apollo has been latest victim of my "70 PP by mid-42" strategy. I almost feel guilty doing it, and would want for someone to stop it, and devise some counter strategy, but so far noone did.

I think raising AV level to 100 would be definitely overreacting. Unless playing vs total moron, Axis *theorietically* can't get more than ~80 PPs, and I would put AV level at 75. 100 PPs does not represent "life and death struggle" - it simply cannot be achieved by Axis, period. You may as well play without AV rule then.

My propositions are well known and described in "My thoughts on game balance" thread and on the mod board (notes for my Raw Deal mod). In short - AV level should be raised somewhat, but not radically.

I also agree with Mike and whoever else said we oughta wait to see eventual Allied counter-strategies to this, to see whether this strategy can really be as game-breaking as some think, or there is perhaps some cure for it.

O.

[MarcelJV]

When you reached the 70 pp, if the allied players had thier turn would you still have the 70 pps required to win?

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Apollo has been latest victim of my "70 PP by mid-42" strategy. I almost feel guilty doing it, and would want for someone to stop it, and devise some counter strategy, but so far noone did.

I think raising AV level to 100 would be definitely overreacting. Unless playing vs total moron, Axis *theorietically* can't get more than ~80 PPs, and I would put AV level at 75. 100 PPs does not represent "life and death struggle" - it simply cannot be achieved by Axis, period. You may as well play without AV rule then.

My propositions are well known and described in "My thoughts on game balance" thread and on the mod board (notes for my Raw Deal mod). In short - AV level should be raised somewhat, but not radically.

I also agree with Mike and whoever else said we oughta wait to see eventual Allied counter-strategies to this, to see whether this strategy can really be as game-breaking as some think, or there is perhaps some cure for it.

O.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Apollo has been latest victim of my "70 PP by mid-42" strategy. I almost feel guilty doing it, and would want for someone to stop it, and devise some counter strategy, but so far noone did.

I think raising AV level to 100 would be definitely overreacting. Unless playing vs total moron, Axis *theorietically* can't get more than ~80 PPs, and I would put AV level at 75. 100 PPs does not represent "life and death struggle" - it simply cannot be achieved by Axis, period. You may as well play without AV rule then.

My propositions are well known and described in "My thoughts on game balance" thread and on the mod board (notes for my Raw Deal mod). In short - AV level should be raised somewhat, but not radically.

I also agree with Mike and whoever else said we oughta wait to see eventual Allied counter-strategies to this, to see whether this strategy can really be as game-breaking as some think, or there is perhaps some cure for it.

O.

The problem is that Allied player simply can't prevent Axis "Med First" strategy and stop the advance there. After that it is just simple matter of time.

Oleg saw me attacking and counter-attacking in the Med (and at one point I even managed to get all sea control back there by bold thrust but several turn later this also proved futile when Axis aircraft come)...

UK is too weak and the only other fighting power (if you can call it that way) are Chinese which are
useless (and easily conquered by Japan).

The 70 PP is too low and that's a fact.

My 100 PP idea would reflect "true" picture of "life or death" struggle (as if Axis is too strong and peace negotiations must start because war is nor longer winnable in due course) but even 80 would suffice to eliminate this Axis rush towards 70 PP strategy...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Uncle_Joe]

100 is basically turning AV off. If you get to 100, the game is over anyways.

The AV has to be present AND attainable in the fairly early going IMO. If not, two undesirable things happens:

1) The Axis player plays from minute one with the goal of simple survival. If he has nothing to 'shoot for', then he just plays to stall and delay. There is no incentive to 'push' and try and stretch like they historically did. This makes its a MUCH less tense game for both sides.

2) With no realistic threat of an AV, the Allies can basically just sit back and wait for the US and USSR to enter. Again, this makes the early game FAR less interesting.

Both of these really reduce replayability as players will usually be pursuing the same grand strategies game after game. The AV allows players to try various options and keeps both players in the game from the early going...for the Axis, trying to obtain the AV and for the Allies, trying to prevent it. If the Axis fails to attain it, THEN the game switches to how well the Axis can play defense and hold off the Allies.

In any case, the game is FAR better with an ATTAINABLE AV level.

That said, I too think that its a tad too easy for the Axis to play the 'bully' and beat up Neutrals and not really have to engage the Allies too heavily. I think it should be made a little less profitable to go rampaging through nations that were nominally friendly on the way to victory.

A couple of points on changing that dynamic:

1) I dont think simply increasing the AV level is a good answer. This would mean that any Axis player who does NOT simply roll over all the Neutrals will have a very hard time achieving AV, almost forcing the strategy right there. I think the game should allow for the historical strategy to pan out if executed better. Trying to get to 75 (or even 72) without pillaging Neutrals left and right would be nearly impossible without having 'won' anyways. See above for why this is a bad idea IMO.

2) Given that and the fact that its not an option to include the Free Trade and up the level there are still some options. The easiest one I can see it to require the AV to still be held at the end of the ALLIED turns. This makes the cheesey 'land grab' much less viable, but doesnt prevent the 'true' victory.

Alternatively, simply make possession of London or Moscow a requirement for AV. This would mean that if Germany wants to win without involving US or USSR, they not only have to take out the Neutrals, but also KO England as well. If we want to preserve the later game balance, simply waive the need for controlling one of those two after a certain date (Fa43 maybe?).

Anyways, thats my $.02 on it.[;)]

[SeaMonkey]

2) Game option to select exact AV trigger level

This would allow the competitive bid for the Axis. Player who bids highest AV level gets Axis. Then the two/four players would exchange sides and play the mirror game. Player/team who has earliest AV wins or use points accumulated for both games to decide winning player/team.

[pyrhic]

I like both 1 & 2 joel! That'd solve all the problems

couple of additional suggestions:

strengthening the turkish middle would help alot to prevent axis over-run of the med,

if the attacked neutral was considered (for the purposes of retreat only) a member of the opposite alliance at the time of attack, those troops could go back to the defeated nation (ie, it'd be nice if england got 3 damaged troops from a spanish attack - whereas now, unless axis botches the attack, england gets nothing).

[James Ward]

<The AV has to be present AND attainable in the fairly early going IMO. >

Why early?
I think it shouldn't even come into play until 44. It's only a measure of victory in game terms.

[Joel Billings]

Before 44 because what it can represent is the US stays out of the war entirely. Never expected that it could also mean the USSR doesn't enter the war, but that's what a lot of the discussion is about.

[Uncle_Joe]

The reason I feel it should be attainable early (but not easily...there is a difference) is because it puts pressure on both players in the early game and makes for a more tense game. It also encourages the Axis to 'play to win' and try and gain as much as the can early on.

I dont think any of us want to see the Axis playing from the get-go with the goal of survival in mind. It would radically change the way strategies play out IMO. To prevent that, there has to be a way to 'shoot the moon' and win before all of the Allies are in it full tilt. Note that as I said, this does not necessarily mean it has to be all 'neutral-bashing' or that it has to easy to attain. Thats why I mentioned possession of London as possible need. That could be quite hard to take

Of course if its impossible to win the AV without London, that too takes some of the pressure off of the Allies as all they really have to do to avoid the AV is stock-pile England and then wait for the cavalry. Again, I dont think that is what we are looking for here, right?

So, I'm back to suggestion #1, which is to simply make it so that the Axis only qualifies for the AV at the end of the WAllies' turn (or beginning of Germany turn...essentially the same thing). That will still allow for all the possible AVs we see now, but would make it so that it has to be a 'true' victory and not a last-gasp land grab that would utterly collapse in no time.

[sveint]

This whole problem is caused by the freezing of Russia. Let the Russia player actually PLAY and the game would be alot better.

Japan and Germany would both have to worry about a Russian attack: now that'd be something!

[CommC]

I like options 1 and 2, but a third option, as I suggested in the balance thread, is to include a check the box option to not allow PPs from neutrals to count in the AV victory point total.

This would compel the Axis player to go after the historical objectives of the SU and Dutch East Indies resources to achieve the AV.

[aletoledo]

Apollo has been latest victim of my "70 PP by mid-42" strategy. I almost feel guilty doing it, and would want for someone to stop it, and devise some counter strategy, but so far noone did.

oleg beat me with this strat also. I wasn't aware of it then and I simply sat back waiting. I thought he was crazy for letting me build a killer russian army, so I sat back and waited. this really emphasises what Uncle_joe said, I just sat back with a boring game doing nothing for 3 years.

I know now not to wait to attack. The british need to attack in 40 and 41.

playing as german, I'll give all you allied fans a big hint. Spain is very, very, very vulnerable in this strat. with england based air power its hard to keep artillery there. Axis may just build up there, but that weakens other areas. just one succesful invasion destroys 3 resources that are expensive to rebuild. you don't even need to occupy it, just make the germans bleed resources.