Matrix Games Forums

As most people are aware the Axis AV is too easy under the current rules. Big Lou and I have played a number of games taking turns being the Allies to try and come up with an effective counter. The Axis won AV Victories in all the games except the very 1st game I played as the Axis (which was my 1st game ever as the Axis) when Big Lou pulled off the Prussia Invasion on his 1st or 2nd turn causing Russia to DOW Germany. However, once I learned to defend against this the Allies didn't win another game. Keep in mind this is with the Allies knowing that the Axis were going for the AV victory so we were doing some things we might not otherwise have done. For example I was having my Russians build lots of Supply to send to China (and via China to the WA). Something I would not have done from the start of the game if I thought the Germans might attack Russia. We also had some good luck with the Allies. In one of my games as the Allies I pretty much destroyed the Italian fleet in the Central Med and took Southern Italy, I still lost. In one of his games as the Allies Big Lou captured Northern Italy on his 1st turn and still lost. If anyone out there thinks they have an Allied strategy to stop the Axis AV I would be more then happy to play you. I'll be the Axis, I'll tell you in advance that I am going for the AV, you stop me.

I understand the designers are looking at ways to make the Axis AV more difficult. This is a good thing. But I understand one of the solutions may be to simply increase the Axis AV Victory requirement to 75. IMHO (and I believe Big Lou's as well) this will not be enough. In most of our games it would not have been too difficult for the Axis to reach 75 VPs. The Japanese are guaranteed 28 (24 original + 4 in China) and perhaps could get more if they built another factory. The Germans getting to 47 is not that difficult. IMHO the Axis AV has to also somehow be tied to Allied production. This will force the Axis to take some Resources from the Russians. Also leaving the AV at 70, but giving the Allies 1 turn to counter attack will also probably not be enough. Most of our AV victories were obtained without any attack on Russia at all. The WA alone (even with US activated) are not enough to retake several resources in just 1 turn.

IMHO, with 2 equally skilled opponents the chances of either of them winning an AV Victory should be remote. It should only happen in games where 1 player significantly out plays his opponent or gets very lucky. The main purpose of the AV rules should be to keep the players honest. The Allies shouldn't be able to just ignore the Axis thrusts into Africa or the DEI because of the threat of an Axis AV. The WA should be encouraged to protect the resource centers and the Axis should be encouraged to take them. I know my view on this is not popular with a lot of players who feel that the game would be more enjoyable if the Axis have an equal chance to "Win the War" as opposed to only an equal chance to "Win the Game". Sorry, but that was not the reality of WWII. The chances of the Axis winning the war once both the US and USSR were committed was remote. Even if the Axis had conquered Moscow and the Caucus oil fields they would still have probably lost the war. However, I do think the Axis should have an equal chance of Winning the Game.

IMHO most (but not all) games between equally skilled opponents should end in only marginal victories for either side. Under the current Rules to win a marginal victory the Allies have to defeat the Axis in 1946 (if they defeat the Axis prior to 1946 they win a Total Victory). In order to win a marginal Victory the Axis have to survive through to the end of 1946 and Allied production can be no more than 7.99 times Axis production. In my experience the current rules make it very difficult for the Axis to even win a marginal victory if AV is turned off. What is everyone elses experience with this? Again, I am talking about a game between 2 equally skilled opponents. If the Axis are not winning the AV Victory are they holding out until the end of 46 with enough production to win at least a marginal victory? I would appreciate your feedback.

Barring a catastrophic fall to one of the early Allied gambits such as Italy, I've found myself able to hold on to Fall 46 with sufficient production to win at least a marginal in more than half of the PBEM's I have played as Axis (or part of it)

I choose to play without autovictory on, because I'm not interested in it. I would appreciate the opportunity to win a total victory by alternative means however, perhaps knocking out Russia & China entirely for instance . .

IMHO, with 2 equally skilled opponents the chances of either of them winning an AV Victory should be remote. It should only happen in games where 1 player significantly out plays his opponent or gets very lucky. The main purpose of the AV rules should be to keep the players honest.

This summarizes my view in a nutshell. The AV should be something that a player has watch out for a guard against, but it should not in any way be as easy as it currently is for the Axis. I've posted my full views elsewhere, but suffice it to say that I dont enjoy the game anywhere near as much at the moment solely due to the silly AV rules. Yes, the AV can be turned off, but that just opens additional cans of worms and I dont find that to be a satisfactory solution to the problem.

So, lets just say that I agree 100% with what you wrote and I'm hoping a more elegant solution than just upping the AV number is decided on.

One simplw way would be to have Russia or the US activate once Axis PP reaches a certain level. To give the allies a chance to counter a AV.

In short, I think that:

• Auto victory is too easy for the Axis.
• A normal game without AV is too easy for the Allied player, since both the USA and USSR become far too strong (in terms of production) after 1943.

But I have to admit that this is "historical correct". Only the overwhelming superiority of the combined Allied (USA+USSR) military production has defeated Germany. Just imagine how small Germany is in comparision to the USA and Russia and how long it took to defeat it.

Ciao Frank

Yeah, activating either early would probably be too much.

The real killer is that players know EXACTLY what will cause the US/USSR intervention and can carefully avoid that. They ALSO know that because of that, they can completely and totally ignore any form of even rudimentary preparation for war with those powers.

This ripple effects into Germany building up Naval Air power and super submarines etc etc because they know they'll never have to fight a serious land war.

To me, if the conditions for war with US/USSR are absolute and known, then some sort of 'realistic' restrictions MUST be placed on the Axis...otherwise one side is playing within historical constraints while the other can merrily do whatever they want. In other words, the game assumes the Allies will play out their historical hand absolutely regardless of how the Axis romps around ahistorically. This is the heart of the problem and one I fear cannot easily be solved at this point.

Within the game mechanics, the only way to prevent the more bizarre outcomes (and game balance issues) is to remove the incentives to doing so. If Germany HAD to take Moscow or London for the AV things might go differently. Similarly, if there were chance for US/USSR intervention that started after the Axis had taken out 'x' neutrals, it would again force the Axis to at least consider their actions, unlike now.

Almost all of the silly and gamey strategies now being employed in the game (including the WA 'invasions' of Prussia to activate the USSR) are direct results of the AV system for the Axis. Fix that, and the other things can fall into place.

Very good point. Possilby an increasing troop requirment(garrison) in West Poland and Rumania to keep Russia from entering? US has a percentage chance of entering after so many neutral are taken, increasing with each subsequent neutral taken?

If Germany HAD to take Moscow or London for the AV, things might go differently.

This is a very good point which should be added to the game!

Ciao Frank

I'm in complete agreement with harrybanana and pretty much everyone else that has responded to this thread. The AV IS BROKEN. I know that some folks have taken to playing with the AV option off, but I haven't heard much about the outcomes of such games. I'm not sure how much fun those games would be as the axis - with your only goal trying to hunker down and hold out.

For all its faults, Axis and Allies had good replayability because of the bid system. Players would bid production points for the axis. The lowest bidder would take the axis and be allowed to convert those production points into what ever units they chose, placing them in any axis territory before the game started. I think something similar may be the answer for WaW. I'm not sure what "commodity" you would want to bid for as the Allies. The only one that could be implemented with the current interface is supply; and I don't think any amount of supply can help the Allies stop the AV. If one could easily modify the starting units in WaW, this could work. Imagine being able to place 3 or 4 extra infantry on Gibralter or the Suez.

On the other hand, such a bidding sytem would create even more pressure for the Axis to ignore Russia/USA and go for the AV. Because any extra units for the WA only makes the goal of a "survive to 46" that much more difficult for the Axis.

I guess I just don't know what the answer is. This is such a well designed game, with so many "possible" strategies, that it is a shame to see it reduced to a single all or nothing AV point grab.

Hmm, maybe not Moscow or London, for if either of those fall, its more than likely over anyway. Possibly make it a territory that can only be taken and held a turn after Russia is activated...Kursk, Stalingrad, Smolensk, or Kalinin. That way Germany must activate Russia, and Russia will have a turn or 2 to react before an AV can be possible.

You could also add Victoria. To make it harder, it could be made where 2 or 3 of them must be held for an AV to be possible.

The game seems to work well enough without AV. I have seen Axis wins as well as Allied wins. Infact, I dont think playing without AV really ruins anything.

With no AV, there is no incentive for the Axis to 'push'. I can almost guarantee that if people started playing without AV on a consistant basis that Axis play would start becoming more and more defensive with little or no incentive to 'go for it'. This, in turn, would lead to a lot of stereotyped play IMO.

To me, the AV needs to be real, but not something that can be easily accomplished without engaging 2 out of 4 of the Allies. If it included a need for certain key locations or (as suggested above) it included a need to reduce ALLIED production by 'x' amount as well, then it would work.

But there does need to be some incentive fo the Axis to push hard early on rather than just conceding the initiative early on and planning on simply prolonging the war. Totaler Krieg had an interesting mechanic called the 'Axis High-Water Mark' which was tracked and made the Allies victory conditions harder the farther Germany made it. I though this was a great way to encourage Germany to stay on the attack as long as possible, but to still have to balance that with the need to roll over onto the defense.

Svend,

In the games you held on until the end of 46 as the Axis, were you playing opponents of equal skill?

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Totaler Krieg had an interesting mechanic called the 'Axis High-Water Mark' which was tracked and made the Allies victory conditions harder the farther Germany made it. I though this was a great way to encourage Germany to stay on the attack as long as possible, but to still have to balance that with the need to roll over onto the defense.

I like this idea a lot Uncle Joe. It gives the Axis a good reason to push to take as much as possible while forcing the Allies to defend hard and then push back as quickly as possible.

Uncle Joe

I agree to a degree. However, I find that only by pushing hard and far does the Axis stand a reasonable chance at winning. Hence I already feel that said incencitive is present. Ofcourse I havent played but 10 pbem games sofar so I still have some experience to gain and my mind could change but presently I dont terribly see a problem.

I'm just wary because early on in playing WaW, my primary opponent experimented with simply planning from minute one to play the 'stall' game. He sunk a LOT of research into Infantry defense and Flak. Then he primarily just built up hordes of both and made very half-hearted attempts to attack unless a golden opportunity was presented.

This was a very hard strategy to beat and the games were about as much fun as watching fruit go bad...I'm not saying it would be some end-all-be-all impossible to beat strategy, but it sure seemed viable (with some development) and it sure made the game boring. I wouldnt even want to think about having to play against variations of that time and again since the other Axis win incentives are gone.

Again, this was early on in our playing. So perhaps things would be different if attempted again.

There will be a tweak to the AV in an upcoming patch. There are two schools of thought right now - one that thinks it needs to include moving the check to the end of the Allied turn (giving them a chance to take "grabbed" items back, (those seem to think you don;t have to raise the current level much if at all) and those who think it should still be checked at the end of the Axis turn, but should be raised to 75 or so.

If you look at the breakdown of factories and resources, the Japanese 8 factories with a X3 multiplier - so they can get to 24 without China and 28 with China. Assuming winning by AV means before the US and SU come in, Japan going after those 4 factories in China, and then a "grab" of resources in the Southern Resource Area, the "last turn". THey will typically get 28. They can get as many as 30 if the "gradb includes Vladivostok and Victoria, but 28 is the "typical" number they can pretty much "guarentee" getting - and if they were playing with an Allied "takeback turn" of holding. ITs possible with poor Allied play to take Vlad and Victoria, but its doubtlful they could keep them if teh Allies get a "take back" turn.

So with a take back turn you have probably 24 at least and as many as 28 with the Japanese. With out a takeback turn 28 is normal and 30 is a "high".

Now if you look at Germany, in 42 mthey also have teh 3 factory multipier to the "home 10" factories, plus 4 "doubled" factories in Italy, and the 3 singles in Rumania and 6 in France for a total of 30+8+9 = 47. TO get more factories they have to take Scotland, India, or invade the SU. So getting the resources to feed their "core" factories in Western Europe is typically the strategy.

IF yo look in absolute terms at an AV that represents fully feeding thier factories, 47 would be the expected contribution of the Germans. Coubled with the "normal 28" form Japan gives a 'high water mark of at least 75 toatal at teh end of an Axis turn to represent "factory-resource parity".

Filling out the German 47 is potentially daunting task. Withthe current 70 limit, the Germans need 42 to match with the "normal" Japanese 28 and those can be gotten by securing Western Europe (sans England" and getting one more from somewhere. either Scotland if the Allied palyer is not careful, or a "last turn" invasion of Turkey. You don;t need to take Suez or advance into the Mideast, or Africa. As has been described, this is nearly impossible for the Allies to counter with Englands resources alone, unless the Germans make a serious error.

Upping the requirement for Germany to take more than 42, requires conquest of Turkey (difficult in 1 turn if the Brits still have Suez and a presence in the Eastern Med) and/or (depending on the exact number) advance into the ME or Africa.

Achieving the "full 47" for instance requires the "core of Europe" (41) plus 6 more resources that can include Scotland (1), Turkey (2), Saudi Arabia (1), IRaq (2), the Persias (1 each) and Ehiopia (1) or points south in Africa. The key to all this is Suez - AND amassing the potentially 50 more supply to convert the resources, compared to the current 70 (requireing only 1 of these).

The current thinking seems to be 70-72 with check at the end of the allied phase, or 75-77 with the check made at the end of the German turn.

Most testers feel the two are more or less comparable, the Allies being able to hold teh Germans who have 75-77 back to the 70-72 range after their "take back" turn.

ITs simple enough to experiment - go into the scendatXX.txt for teh appropriate year, and look for teh line:

VICTORY,AXIS_ALLIANCE,VIC_DECISIVE,VIC_TYPE_AMOUNT,70

and change it to the value you want to use.

Let us know what you think works.

After the Online version of the game is completed, we expect to release a patch to address the AV issue. Im guessing it will come out sometime in late August, maybe later depending on how many other issues we try to address in that patch. The current plan is to set AV to 72 and only check at the end of the WA turn, however, as Paul says, this is fairly comparable to setting the current game to 75 to 77. There are a few other small adjustments we will be making as well that might have some impact on play and strategies, but they will likely be minor. Until the patch comes out we suggest the following:

1) Play with AV off. Yes the Germans know they just need to survive to the end, but this should not change their normal strategies too much (it will make the "neutral" strategy a non-starter).

2) Play with AV off and use a bid system of supply help for the Germans. If you think the game is biased against Germany without AV, the bidding system allows you to alter the balance.

3) Play with AV on, but agree ahead of time to a different AV level (we suggest 75 with the current game settings). As Paul said, the Axis player only needs to adjust his file before he starts the first turn of a game. After that intial start, he can save the game and then change the file back to the old settings if he wants to. The value will be remembered for the duration of the game.

Any of these 3 methods should get you a fairly balanced game, better than most IMHO.

For the sake of complete discussion, I will reiterate my previous points from the beta board:

Simply upping the AV total does not necessarily fix the 'problem'. Sure, it makes it harder to do if you are following the 'neutral grab' strategy, but it makes it nearly impossible to win the AV if you are trying to engage in any remotely historical fashion...ie, invading Russia in '41 while not violating the neutrality of 'friendly' nations like Spain, Sweden, and potentially Turkey.

If you dont attack those three, you are down, what...9 VPs? And without Spain, you are usually denied Gibraltar which means that you can probably write off any large scale conquests in Africa/Middle East. So, you will be left with needing 75 or more VPs taken from Central/Eastern Europe and Russia (+ Japan's contributions)...good luck on that one!

My fear for simply upping the AV number is that you almost FORCE the Axis to have to go 'neutral hunting' if they want to have a prayer of getting the AV. I see almost no other way of accomplishing it against a reasonable opponent if set at 75 (or with it at 70-72, but checked at the end of the Allied turn).

A possible solution to this (as proposed elsewhere) is to give 'bonus points' for control of certain areas...my first brush suggestions would be Moscow and London...make them worth 5 bonus points each. This way the Axis must engage and succeed in taking the capitals of one of the major European Allies in order to succeed, but it leaves the possibility for success open if the Axis dont want to engage in 'neutral hunting'.

The other (slightly more radical) suggestion was to start Spain as a Frozen Minor Ally of Germany. This means she cant be attacked, although her resources already count for Germany. At least this way, Germany has to actually TRY to take Gibraltar rather than just waltzing in at their leisure. I would further suggest that Spain activates if the Germans take London or Moscow or if the Allies invade Portugal.

At any rate, I just wanted to get the 'peanut gallery' involved in any potential discussion for something as important as an AV change. I think the basic framework for this game is fantastic and I enjoyed many a game of it until the current crop of AV silliness crept in. Once we know about it, its kind of tough not to exploit it and still feel you are giving your best game. But it would be nice if the change allows for players to follow a more or less historical path and STILL have a chance to qualify for the AV.