were we trapped?(No.2 weight of historic move)

[schury]

i am always interested in making different moves which may surprise the foes. that's the difference of this game from other hexangular chessboard games. i've tried taking the mainland USA, hawaii, eastern Russia, baltic contries before Russia can do. both these strategies works fine against ai or newbies, but while facing veterns, very bad move and cuased early surrenders. we have to work somewhat in the frame of the history if you wanna a better choise among which you are given. i agree that attack Russia early is not good unless you occupy the whole country, at least taking Mosco, but then i find out it's almost impossible if Russia doesn't maike blunders, even japan is involved. i think what gary substantially ask us to do is something according to the history, at least within the main frame.
am i missing sth?[&:]

[christian brown]

I agree, the game is set up to encourage roughly historical play, though this is not to say that radical departures from the real course of the war cannot prove fruitful.

[schury]

IMHO, i serious doubt about the "fruitful outcome" i think only repeatable strategy can be considered as fruitful outcome. after calculation, i don't think some move go too far(take BC,EP the first turn, Attack Spain, Attcak USA, land on England, take turkey to attack Russia, those moves are all doable, but the gain can't cover the loss i believe) from historical frame deserves. however, some small move, maybe taking molburne, is quite ok if you can.
I love Brussels now[:D]

[WanderingHead]

During development this was a big topic of discussion. The basic agreement was that the historical course should be one of the best courses for the Axis. Otherwise, WWII would never play out. Hence, there is a lot of "gravity" built into the game to pull the events in the historical direction.

If I can use this as an opportunity for a plug ...

my GGWAWGG mod has evolved to a point that I think it could hopefully be quite interesting (it has also evolved so far as to be in serious need of balance playtesting, since it's only had a couple of games). One of my goals is to allow more variation of Axis play with appropriate penalties/drawbacks for non-historical approaches.

Right now, the only real penalty that seems to be available is War Readiness increases. Germany attacks Turkey ... boom, big USSR WR increase. Japan attacks Russia ... boom, big USA WR increase.

What this seems to mean is that the Allied powers are all or nothing. They are either completely unprepared or completely prepared (and at war). I'd like to have a middle ground, where the Allies are more prepared (less susceptible to a surprise attack), but not yet at war.

As such, here are some of the things I've added:

• a random event that might go off if Germany takes Turkey. If it occurs, then USSR WR is increased, and 3 militia are created in Caucasus.
• a random event that might go off if Japan takes Vladivostok or goes deep into China. If it occurs, USA WR is increased and 3 militia are created in the Philippines.
• frozen strategic movement limits for Russia and the WA increase over time. As time goes on, the WA will be able to reinforce the DEI, Hawaii, etc.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head for this "middle ground". It is hoped that with these changes and some increases in WR thresholds, some alternate strategies can be followed without becoming killer Axis strategies.

I've also made some changes like allowing Italy to join before Vichy (to catch the WA off guard if they do a typical evac of the entire Med to defend France), but less likely to join afterwards (it will probably take a few more turns than it does now). Also changes to make the Med, hopefully, play better (which to me means: the Germans and the British can't move troops around so damned fast). Also increased resources in the Mid East. Also "oil refineries" in the DEI. Also surrender rules for India, Australia, Russia.

Hopefully we get a patch of the code soon, so this can become available. I myself am also in the waiting mode for this.

One of my reasons for describing this is to whet your appetite. Another is to ask ... what else can be done to provide that the kind of variability you seem to be looking for?

[schury]

what about a mod that belence the game, i.e. both side are identically strong. AXIS in tech, allies in pop-pool maybe?[;)][;)][;)]
and i am very curious about the winning condition. why should it be, say summer 1946 for example? would it just because of the accumulated die outcomes that results in the five different ends in the  successive five turns while doing the game in a normal way(optimization of the move) [&:]

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: schury
what about a mod that belence the game, i.e. both side are identically strong.

I think that with the alliances fixed as they are that it can't quite happen with historical realism.

Although, even this is something I was hoping to attain with the surrender rules. In particular, if you hit Russia hard and fast and force its surrender (which in the mod means cessian of territory, reduction of production, resource gift to Germany, and refreezing rump Russia), then maybe the Germans are strong enought to turn around and fend off the WA.

ORIGINAL: schury
and i am very curious about the winning condition. why should it be, say summer 1946 for example? would it just because of the accumulated die outcomes that results in the five different ends in the  successive five turns while doing the game in a normal way(optimization of the move) [&:]

I can't quite speak to that, but it does seem to be roughly the correct time frame. My last game as Axis (which was with GGWAWGG) I won a marginal victory in 1946 after hitting the second shift threshold. I thought I was going to lose, but my opponent gave Japan too much free reign while he pursued "Germany first", then suffered some unlucky surprise naval disasters in the Pacific. The fact that it scrape by right around the "draw" level really made me feel like the time frame was correct.

I don't exactly understand your guess as to how it came about.

[schury]

i mean considering the random dies, the winning period may be longer. say both summer and fall 1946 are considered marginal victory. hehe, that's just my recommendation[:)]
as a balanced mod, i think maybe the surrended eu after Russia surrenders should be considered mainland Germany, or Germany cannot compete with the WA. you can roughly calculate the war power by interpret all the troops into PP,  and you'll know at a certain time who's taking the initiative. certainly there should be some coefficient in amphibian plan or the like.

[dobeln]

Ahistorical moves that can pay off nicely, in my personal experience.

- Delayed war entry for Germany, taking the western med (at least) and playing havoc on WA LOC:s. Then let the Japanese rip on the weakened WA player while doing a holding action on the Eastern front.

- Taking Turkey for an offensive into the Caucasus. The +8 Soviet WE means it has to be a well-timed move, but it can be devastating.

- The rushed Barbarossa. Either a) be really quick in dispatching France or b) Deny Italian entry or c) pray to god that the Greece war event doesn't happen. Then proceed to hit the Soviets hard in autumn of 1940.

[schury]

i think the WA would open a second battlefield via Greece or Potugual while facing a all-out for Russia mode[:(]

[Petiloup]

Somehow I always see that the rule for England surrendering (London Occupied) is not right. That the WA received more points for War readiness I can understand but surely not for Russia.

Stalin in 1941 was still strongly convinced there wouldn't be War with Germany. No orders were given in case of attack, there was no plan, etc... There are a lot of writings about this. The only fact is that Russia was gearing up his army to be in fighting conditions for 1943 or so. New tanks were being designed (KV1, T34), new planes, and there was even a Navy building plan.

What I would suggest is to change the rule of London Occupied. Instead of giving +5 to War readiness I would take -5 to Russia War readiness for the reason that such a success would make Stalin even more cautious to go to war with Germany. Instead I would give Russia few more troops (1Tank, 2/3 INF, 2/3 ART,...) to represent increased army buildup ans also increased Strategic move to 2 or 3 per turn.

This would better represent a West priority strategy for the Axis and I think would be historically more correct.

[schury]

i would rather a fun game than a historical game.
but still i think the game favors the Allies, maybe i just doesn't grasp the point. but Russia is the key i think. landing is not that easy before around 1943. what you can do before that tells the ends of the war

[Uncle_Joe]

What I would suggest is to change the rule of London Occupied. Instead of giving +5 to War readiness I would take -5 to Russia War readiness for the reason that such a success would make Stalin even more cautious to go to war with Germany. Instead I would give Russia few more troops (1Tank, 2/3 INF, 2/3 ART,...) to represent increased army buildup ans also increased Strategic move to 2 or 3 per turn

 
This was debated in the beta and I think the response from on high was that the +5 was a balance thing. For a while, it was pretty easy to take out England and without some sort of counter-balance, the game was all but over since Russia couldnt come to their aid and it would simply take the WAllies too long to recover.
 
Later, the idea of Russia being able to up her WR by commiting units to East Poland was added. Personally, I think the +5 for London is unnecessary now but I certainly wouldn't want it changing to -5. Certain effects might be considered 'realisitc' but they might also be bad from the point of view of keeping the game interesting.
 
I know I tossed out the idea of an event check for Spanish and/or Turkish activation if London fell (under the premise that a successful Axis campaign against a lone England would make joining the Axis seem more appealing to those nations...indeed, Franco had adopted a 'wait and see' attitude and England falling might well have enticed him to 'jump in for the big win'). In the end, it was decided against such events so as not to 'pile on' if a player loses England...ie, it would make a terrible situation hopeless thereby ending the game by default.

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

In the end, it was decided against such events so as not to 'pile on' if a player loses England...ie, it would make a terrible situation hopeless thereby ending the game by default.

True because AV is decided based on a total of Victory Points and not based on a Political situation. Frankly I doubt that even the War would have gone more badly for the Allies that the US and Russia wouldn't have gone to the finish. Stalin was fighting to the death and he did know it so like Hitler he would have fight to the bitter end. He had nothing to gain to quit unless he would have had an "accident".

Roosevelt like Churchill was aware what a disaster a Nazi Europe would be. Also the ABomb program was already under way and aimed at Germany not at Japan at first.

Would the war be a lot worst for the Allied you might have seen a B29 launching an ABomb on Berlin in 1945 instead.

That's why I would consider changing the AV by giving some conditions to be fullfilled first.

For Example, you need X VP for AV and:

1/ Russia sue for Peace (occupation of x objectives considered as lethal for USSR)
or 2/ England Occupied and X on Z objectives occupied on top of it. (example 6 out of 10 objectives like Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Vladivostock, India, Australia, Gibraltar,...)
or 3/ Y out of Z objectives occupied.

You could also make it interesting by giving a strategic choice to each player at the start of the game:

1/ Axis chooses Russia first strategy.
2/ Axis chooses West first strategy.
etc.

The Allies chooses a Germany first strategy or Pacific Defense or protect the neutrals,...

Then crossing both strategies would give the conditions for AV without the other player knowing about it which would give more a blind approach of how to win the war which is what happens in reality. Nobody did know for sure how decisions made would affect the war.

All you could do with this approach is do your best, get a shot at AV and if not try to do better than history as for a fact the Axis had very little chance to win a World War. They simply didn't have the Industrial might/manpower to win against the US and Russia alltogether.