Matrix Games Forums

If the Ladder Game results are at all indicative it would appear that Forwarn was correct in his earlier post when he said that the game is skewed towards the Allies. Of the confirmed games to date the Allies have scored 12 Decisive Victories and 2 Marginal Victories, compared to only 8 Axis Victories.

I'm sure that very soon someone will post that this imbalance needs to be rectified by somehow handicapping the Allies or giving some further advantage to the Axis. In my opinion this would be a big mistake. Historically speaking the Allied Victory in WWII was not a fluke and certainly was not due to the Allied Generals and Leaders outperforming their Axis counterparts. The Allies won WWII primarily because the odds were stacked in their favor due to their overwhelming industrial superiority and control of the resources, particularly oil. If WWII were refought with the same combatants 100 times with different leaders and strategies the final result, an Allied Victory, would be the result in almost all cases. The surprise isn't that the Allies won the War, but that the Axis were able to hold off defeat as long as they did.

Yet in the game if the Axis manage to duplicate the historical result of holding off defeat until Su45 or even until F45, their reward is... an Allied Decisive Victory. Even if the Axis hold off defeat until F46, over a year beyond what was accomplished by their historical counterparts, the Allies still win a Marginal Victory. I suspect that all 8 Axis Ladder Victories have come as a result of an AV Victory (if I'm wrong someone please let me know). Not once in 23 games have the Axis been able to hold out long enough to win even a Marginal Victory (though they did get 1 draw). In my opinion this is just plain wrong.

I prefer, for reasons of my own, to play the Allies. In several of my games my Axis opponent has played with at least as much skill as me; yet I've been awarded the Decisive or Marginal Victory simply because it is almost impossible for the Axis to hold out to the end of 1946 to stand a chance of winning. In other words, unless the Axis wins the AV Victory he is going to lose. I have even felt guilty claiming the Victory, but not so guilty I refused to claim it. The point is I think it should be possible for the Axis to lose the War but win the Game.

The solution is to change these impossible to obtain (from the Axis perspective) Victory Conditions. I suggest that instead of always being F46 the Game End Date be a certain number of turns from the turn when both the US and Russia are activated. This will give the Axis some incentive for attacking before W43. The actual number of turns will vary depending upon the year of attack. If the Axis hold out until the end of the game they win a Decisive Victory. If the Allies defeat the Axis before the Game End Date the level of Victory will depend upon how many turns before the End Date they accomplish this. Specifically I would propose that the number of turns from the Date of Activation of both the US and Russia, which ever is last, be as folllows:

1. If in 1940: 19 turns,
2. If in 1941: 18 turns,
3. If in 1942: 17 turns,
4. if in 1943: 16 turns.

The level of Victory would then be determined as follows:

1. If Axis not defeated by Game end: Axis Decisve Victory,
2. If Axis defeated on the last 2 turns of the Game: Axis Marginal Victory,
3. If Axis defeated on the 3rd or 4th to last turns : Draw
4. If Axis defeated on the 5th or 6th to last turns: Allied Marginal,
5. If Axis defeated on or before the 7th to last turn: Allied Decisive.

A couple examples follow:

Example 1 Russia is activated (attacked) on the Sp41 turn and the US on the F41 turn (Historical). The game will last 18 turns, inclusive, from the F41 turn. This means it will end after the W46 turn. If the Axis remain undefeated after the W46 turn they win a Decisive Victory. If the Axis are defeated in the F45 or W46 turns they win a Marginal Victory. If they are defeated in the Sp45 or Su45 turns (historical) the game is a draw. If they are defeated during the F44 or W45 turns the result is an Allied Marginal Victory. Finally if the Allies defeat the Axis on or before the Su44 turn they win a Decisve Victory.


Example 2 Russia is attacked in F40 and the US in W43 (the usual). The game will end after 16 turns which is the F46 turn (ie the current usual end date). Levels of Victory would be dependent on when the Axis are defeated as follows:

1. Survival: Axis Decisive,
2. Su46 or F46: Axis Marginal,
3. W46 or Sp46: Draw,
4. Su45 or F45: Allied Marginal,
5. On or before Sp45: Allied Decisive.

I really do believe this is the best solution. I know if used one of my Decisive Victories would have been only a Marginal, and my Marginal Victory would only have been a Draw.

excellent post! I support this idea to the fullest.

I think that an axis survival may at best be a major victory. this way a decisive victory is reserved for the autovictory and makes the axis strive for something. otherwise I could simply activate the allies and my strategy would then simply be to survive and not try for an actual tactical victory.

also, if both the USA and russia are activated in 1940, I doubt that that the germans would be able to last simply because of the german population cap and german production deficit. perhaps the USA production multiplier doesn't go to x3 until 1942, after all with a x3 multiplier for the USA starting in 1940 would be a killer. I personally don't activate the USA because of their production increase, if it wasn't for that I would start sooner.

some incentive has to be given for the axis to attack early and simply ending the war 3 turns earlier doesn't justify the huge increase in production given to the allies. perhaps the population is increased in germany for 1940 and 1941 when fully at war (back to normal in 1942)?

besides these two points (which I don't really have a clear idea of a solution), I think your idea of a variable end date makes sense to encourage the axis to attack the USA earlier. it just needs a bonus

I definitely agree with something like this - the current complete lack of incensitive to attack the US untill the latest possible moment is annoying.

These kinds of changes are much easier to do in a board game than a computer game where all you have to do is print up a rules errata. Not only do we have to change the code and make the AI aware of these rules, but we then have to find ways to provide the information to the player (which would involve tacking information onto screens that were not set up for variable end dates). These may be very good changes, but at this point given the limited time we will have to work new rules that involve new code, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to happen. On the other hand, changes to items that are set in the scendat files are easy to make. Here's what's in the scendat file having to do with victory in the 1940 scenario:

DATA,VIC_DRAW,0
DATA,VIC_MINOR,1
DATA,VIC_DECISIVE,2

DATA,VIC_TYPE_AMOUNT,0
DATA,VIC_TYPE_SURRENDER,1
DATA,VIC_TYPE_NUC,2
DATA,VIC_TYPE_TIME,3
DATA,VIC_TYPE_BEFORETIME,4

// Victory conditions
// VICTORY,<alliance>,<level>,<VicType>...
// types are:
// VIC_TYPE_AMOUNT,<prod points>
// VIC_TYPE_SURRENDER,<player>...<player>
// VIC_TYPE_NUC,<type>,<data type>,<level>
// VIC_TYPE_TIME,<year>,<month>,<prod % greater than (order is important)>, Triggers if on or after date
// VIC_TYPE_BEFORETIME,<year>,<month>,<prod % greater than (order is important)>, Triggers if before date
// Note game formula is player * 100 >= other player * n, where n is <prod %>
VICTORY,AXIS_ALLIANCE,VIC_DECISIVE,VIC_TYPE_AMOUNT,70
VICTORY,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,VIC_DECISIVE,VIC_TYPE_SURRENDER,PLAYER_GER,PLAYER_JAP
VICTORY,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,VIC_DECISIVE,VIC_TYPE_NUC,5000,HEAVY AIR,TD_LA,10,1946,1
VICTORY,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,VIC_MINOR,VIC_TYPE_NUC,5000,HEAVY AIR,TD_LA,10
VICTORY,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,VIC_DRAW,VIC_TYPE_TIME,1947,1,800
VICTORY,AXIS_ALLIANCE,VIC_DECISIVE,VIC_TYPE_TIME,1947,1,25
VICTORY,AXIS_ALLIANCE,VIC_MINOR,VIC_TYPE_TIME,1947,1,0


The results from the ladder indicate to me that by changing the end game conditions slightly we would have pretty good balance (it's not that far off now based on the ladder results). Gary very much wanted to let the game go to the end of 1946. I'm willing to consider ending the game a few turns earlier if it is felt that this would make a big difference in game balance.

Its something thats pretty easy to house rule - so still very possible to play with.

That's too bad about not implementing harrybanana's idea or some form of it. I think it would be the single best thing to see in a patch as it would really open-up the game in terms of strategies and options, as well as fixing the victory conditions. It would certainly be my vote for the thing I'd most like to see in a final patch! [;)]

If it doesn't happen, though, I'd still like to see the victory conditions fixed in an official patch to make it better balanced. I'd suggest something akin to:
Game ends in Summer of '46 instead of Fall.
Axis survives to the end of the game = Marginal Axis victory - or decisive victory if Axis has some production left (say at least 1/10 of allies).
Axis makes it to Spring or Summer = Draw
Axis makes it to Fall of '45 or Winter of '46 = Ally marginal victory.
Axis falls before then = Ally decisive victory.

I would say that victory conditions need to be changed to give an advantage to whomever is palying harrybanana or forwarn. They are both quite good.

As to the game, anything which could be iimplemented to give some invcentive to bring the US in earlier would be a good idea.

Finally, is there any consenus about the W.Allied/Soviet bombing on Japan to activate early versus the land attack to activate early? I think the latter may be acceptable if only to give China 1 territory to hold on to.

good idea Forwarn45, but I think the point harry (and jan) really want addressed is getting the japanese to attack the US earlier.

well I agree that with harry's idea completely (and yours too), its not going to likely change a lot without a bonus for the axis. ending the game earlier isn't going to cut it with me. give some form of bonus to the japanese and I'll attack in 1940 every game then.

In another thread about Russian might I had suggested that Russia should not get a x3 mutiplier in 1942 but rather only when its declared on. aletoledo had just suggested something similar for USA. But rather than fixing the production mutiplier to the year or war, have it fixed to the year only. How would this work out?
1940 x1
1941 x1 If Japan attacks USA F41 she will have a grace period of 5 turns before the x3 kicks in
1942 x2
1943 x3
1944 x4 this is the same time Germany gets x4

With this setting Japan with not get swamped so fast. So maybe this would be all the incentive Japan needs to declare a year earlier?

I think fixing the multiplier to the year, irregardless of what the axis does would definitly encourage japan to attack early. I can imagine the WA not liking it though, because it would be impossible for them to defend against I suppose. IMO that would then make the south pacific very tense for the USA and would really have to consider a germany or japan first strategy.

One thing to keep in mind when placing stock in those ladder results (or other posted results) is that many times Axis players will 'resign' rather than stick it out if things are going poorly. I would wager that at least a few 'lost' games might turn out be at least a draw by a skillful Axis delaying action. The trouble is most people dont want to play through that so they might throw in the towel instead. So, in a situation like this it not necessarily an indication that balance is way off but that the stalling endgame isnt a whole lot of fun to play through...

Just some food for thought.

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

good idea Forwarn45, but I think the point harry (and jan) really want addressed is getting the japanese to attack the US earlier.

You are correct that I would like there to be some incentive for the Axis to attack the US prior to W43. However if all I can get is the Victory Conditions changed to something reasonable I'll take it.

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

One thing to keep in mind when placing stock in those ladder results (or other posted results) is that many times Axis players will 'resign' rather than stick it out if things are going poorly. I would wager that at least a few 'lost' games might turn out be at least a draw by a skillful Axis delaying action. The trouble is most people dont want to play through that so they might throw in the towel instead. So, in a situation like this it not necessarily an indication that balance is way off but that the stalling endgame isnt a whole lot of fun to play through...

I don't think so Uncle Joe; at least I would be surprised to learn that this is happening in Ladder Games. These games are pretty competitive and I know I for one would not give up if I thought I had even a remote chance of earning a marginal defeat as opposed to a decisive one. In 2 of my Decisive Victories the Axis did concede prior to the end, but in both cases their situation was hopeless. I was poised to win the game long before the F45 turn. But of course I can only speak from my own experience. Does anyone else know of a ladder game where the Axis conceded the game prior to an Allied Decisive Victory being assured.

The suggestion about keeping the Russian modifier at 2x until war is a good and reasonable one. But the problem with keeping the US modifier low even after it joins the war, in my opinion, is that it would not accurately reflect the situation. US military spending was relatively low until the US was actually involved in the war. If the US had become involved in the war earlier, US production would have spiked that much sooner. There are some things that I think could be done to make victory easier for the Axis, but I think keeping US production down would be somewhat artificial under the circumstances.

As it is now, a very reasonable game result is for the Axis to fall sometime in mid to late 1945 - just as they did historically. This suggests the game is not doing that bad of a job at representing the strategic situation, at least in terms of the relative strength of the Axis versus the Allies. While some tweaks here and there may be warranted to help the Axis or the Allies in certain situations, ultimately I think the best fix is to modify the the victory conditions to reward a better-than-historical Axis performance. In comparison, I'd mention something like the new version of the Axis and Allies board game (which I like). The designers have gone out of their way to balance the game at the expense of making the Axis economies grossly disproportionate to what they were historically. I'd prefer to avoid something like this, although it makes for a great game!

BTW - one reason I like harrybanana's idea is it still consistent with at least one idea of what could result in a victory or something less than a total defeat for the Axis - wearing the allies down and fighting them off through several years of war. This was Japan's war plan from the beginning, as I understand it - not to utterly defeat the US but to force a negotiated peace.

There are a number of possibilities as to how the real war might have ended with a different result but whether these are implementable or not in GGWAW I do not know.

The first and most akin to the Japanese strategy is for the US to suffer such a level of casualties that it decides not to push for ultimate victory. I guess GGWAW tracks some details of the casualties as you can pull them up on the total unit screen. Thus if the WALLIES have lost more than so many units by various dates the Axis might achieve a draw. I seem to remember this was a possibility in GG's original Pacific War. This could be implemented as a house rule and gives some incentive to the Axis to start destroying US units as early as possible.

The second Axis possible strategy was the rocket campaign on London. If the Allied invasion of Europe had been somewhat later the V1 and V2 bombardment of London might have had an effect on British resolve to continue to the bitter end. I guess the game trigger here might have to be whether the Axis is still in control of any land area in supply that is within range 2 of London by, say, summer 1945 in which case the UK or the WALLIES go neutral versus Germany and leave it to the Russians to slug it out with them and the Japanese with the US. This could just about be implemented as a house rule if not within the game itself. I should note here that the ill-fated Allied Market Garden offensive was strongly influenced by a British desire to get at the V2 launching sites in Holland.

The third Axis strategy, that again they followed to some degree, was the creation of the SS from "volunteers" in conquered territories. You could postulate that if either Britain or Russia fell to the Axis then they should be able to tap into some level of their population to man the SS. Out of the 250,000 Axis troops trapped at Stalingrad over 20% were actually SU citizens who had thrown their lot in with the Axis for a variety of reasons. I guess this Axis opportunity would be the most complex to implement and therefore the least likely but would give a stronger incentive for Sealion.

Mike

Right now its 13+2 vs 9 in favor of the Axis.

As I have a background in statistics I have to point out that while this looks like a large lead its not large enough to statistically show that the Allies have an advantage (the p-value is 7.6%). What the numbers do overwhelmingly show though is that Decisive Victory (either way) is extremely more common that Marginals or Draws (p-value of 0.008%).

I hope we can see the TCP patch out soon - followed by the data / rules patch shortly after. Once thats done I suggest that we make a "suggested standard" for ladder games which includes the 2 extra territories Lebatron made and something akin to this for victory. Obviously that will still leave people free to explore other house rules but it would give some common ground atleast.

As it is now, a very reasonable game result is for the Axis to fall sometime in mid to late 1945 - just as they did historically. This suggests the game is not doing that bad of a job at representing the strategic situation, at least in terms of the relative strength of the Axis versus the Allies.

but this is only when the japanese don't release the USA until 1943. which again is harry's point. it takes only about 3 to 3.5 years after the USA is released for the axis to be defeated. Thats where I believe he's getting his numbers from for a variable end date.

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

The suggestion about keeping the Russian modifier at 2x until war is a good and reasonable one. But the problem with keeping the US modifier low even after it joins the war, in my opinion, is that it would not accurately reflect the situation. US military spending was relatively low until the US was actually involved in the war. If the US had become involved in the war earlier, US production would have spiked that much sooner. There are some things that I think could be done to make victory easier for the Axis, but I think keeping US production down would be somewhat artificial under the circumstances.

Well perhaps I went to far in curbing US production and should keep the x3 jump linked to war with GE or JA. But I do think the x4 in 1943 should still be moved back to 1944. That way the US does not get it any sooner than Germany. The rest of the US production mutipliers can remain unchanged. Should I try this for 2.0Beta of Franco's Alliance? Or should it be the production mutiples I listed above? the one from above does not penalize the Japs for declaring before 43. Would some be willing to try this either way before I release a final version of 2.0?

Lebatron, I still like the idea of a fixed multiplier, otherwise there is no incentive to have the japanese attack earlier. are we really trying for history or for balance?