Tale of Two Games

[Desert Dave]

Game #1: Strategy went according to usual plan, BUT that audacious Corps in Belgium somehow held out with strength of 1, which complicated blitz through northern France, and now you add a couple more "poor dice rolls" and a tactical error made in frustration & haste, and what do you know? France holds out (due to HQ and deft gameplay AND...) until January of '41! :eek:

Game #2: Again, traditional strategy (Poland, Denmark, Low Countries, France -- Scandinavia saved for later to prevent France from expanding too fast) and what now? Good dice-rolls, better preparation and no tactical errors, and so... France falls by early July.

The point is, I guess, that in BOTH games the tech advances were similar, BUT -- there are more factors at play than only that one dimension, important as it is, such as attack/defense outcomes, opponent's distraction or haste... or their exhaustive patience or unique quirkiness, etc, etc.

My conclusion is that there will be many many PBEM games played, and each will have normal and strange factors that will influence it, and so to concentrate on MERELY ONE, such as "tech-luck," or a series of galling dice-rolls, is to forget that there are always other critical factors that are equally important.

In the post-game analysis, one can rarely point to one determining factor as being decisive. You may in fact find that the game ebbs and flows so much that there are 2 -- or 3 or 6 contributing events, and this is, in my view, a compliment to the game designer's excellent instincts for what makes a game interesting and re-playable.

Excellent job Hubert! :cool:

[arby]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

The point is, I guess, that in BOTH games the tech advances were similar, BUT -- there are more factors at play than only that one dimension, important as it is, such as attack/defense outcomes, opponent's distraction or haste... or their exhaustive patience or unique quirkiness, etc, etc.

My conclusion is that there will be many many PBEM games played, and each will have normal and strange factors that will influence it, and so to concentrate on MERELY ONE, such as "tech-luck," or a series of galling dice-rolls, is to forget that there are always other critical factors that are equally important.

That's true to a large extent. I remember one game I had where the Allied player threw everything into France. He was landing corps from Britain just about every turn, throwing every ship in both the French and British fleets at me... I lost a tank group and an army, wondered if I'd perhaps be the first player in the history of the game not to take France at all, and finally managed to conquer it by November of 1940, at which point I thought for sure I was cooked. Managed to scrape up the units for Barbarossa, did my famous Riga Maneuver (patent pending), my equally famous Double Envelopment across the whole front (ditto), shot for the Caucasus, did my Dancing Corps Routine (ditto) on the Western Front to stave off an invasion, and damned if I didn't win the game.

Tech played a part, although not as much as in some other games. I hadn't invested anything in Tech before the fall of France, but dumped about four or five points in there then, and got lucky and managed to get L4 Ind and L1 tanks by summer of 1941, when Barbarossa jumped off. The British player, exhausted by his defense of France, didn't have anything, and I kept the Russians too busy building corps for me to blow up to do anything research-wise. He threw in the towel when Russia surrendered in late '43, by which time nobody had more than L2 jets or tanks or anything.

But even there, tech was important. I doubt if I would have won if I hadn't gotten to L4 Ind by the time I did.

I'm not suggesting that research is completely dispositive. In any game of this size, little events -- that corps at 1 holding out against a tank attack -- can change the course of the war. But it seems to me to play too large a role -- defending Barbarossa against L4 tanks and L3 jets, for example -- and it plays that role too much on the German side; it is almost impossible for the Allies to gain the tech advantage on the Germans. Changing that, in my opinion, will properly return the focus to all the wonderful little events that make up what Clausewitz termed "the frictions of war."

[ September 09, 2002, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: arby ]

[Desert Dave]

... and it plays that role too much on the German side; it is almost impossible for the Allies to gain the tech advantage on the Germans. Changing that, in my opinion, will properly return the focus to all the wonderful little events that make up what Clausewitz termed "the frictions of war."

And so it's mostly only you and I who have experienced -- the best of times and worst of times as well... the thing is, the game is designed to account for early German superiority, otherwise they could not achieve the same kinds of "blitz success" as was actually the case IRL.

So, if you reduce the Axis chances for some initial tech advantage, then you are balancing the game too far in favor of the Allies (...unless other adjustments are made).

OF COURSE the Allied side must constantly play catch up, and it occurs to me that the much of the consternation has to do with NOT being able to play with the same whiz-bang toys! as the Axis gets.

BUT, the Allies COULD choose to invest more in tech speculation, yes?

Sounds as if they desire to have BOTH -- plenty of troops on the ground AND all the tech advances, and all at once too? Well, just invest MORE and make do with less to defend with.

Can't have merely the best of times; must suffer through the worst of times as well, true?

[arby]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

So, if you reduce the Axis chances for some initial tech advantage, then you are balancing the game too far in favor of the Allies (...unless other adjustments are made).

That's assuming the game is properly balanced as it is. I have no idea what the playtesters found, but my experience is that, given two players of equal abilities, the German player will win 70 to 80% of the time. That might be an exaggeration, but I think it's indisputable that the German player has an advantage.

BUT, the Allies COULD choose to invest more in tech speculation, yes?

I don't think that's a viable option. It is not impossible for the German player to have maxed out research by the middle of 1942; in fact, he should be at least halfway there, if not more, by the end of 1940. That's before the Russians and Americans even enter the game. The British may have as many as 3 or 4, but it's very difficult to get more than that. As for the Russians, they're on the heels just about from the onset of Barbarossa, and can ill afford to spend MPP's on research; doesn't do much good to get L3 tanks if the Caucasus falls.

Again, this is just my experience, but from game play it's almost impossible for the Allies to keep up with the Germans in tech. By the very late stages of the game they'll usually get there, but by then it's only to ensure a stalemate.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Arby:

That's assuming the game is properly balanced as it is. I have no idea what the playtesters found, but my experience is that, given two players of equal abilities, the German player will win 70 to 80% of the time. That might be an exaggeration, but I think it's indisputable that the German player has an advantage.

Well, it's not indisputable, because we are disputing it.

Is it true that the German CAN take advantage of investing in Tech? Yes. But, he doesn't HAVE to and could choose more Black Forest-hewn broomsticks and machine gunning Pz3s instead.

(... I wonder why some folks say things like -- this topic has been beaten to death? Of course it hasn't and besides, perhaps not everyone has expressed an opinion yet? Or, just as the debate concerning dualism versus body & mind intertwined, it hasn't been sufficiently exhausted? In any event, they can just work the right-side thread slider?)

Anyway, the designer is highly unlikely to market a game that favors the Germans, either intentionally or by accident, which is why there are various levels to play at AND an editor for those who are more dedicated players.

If you are beating the AI 70-80% of the time, then -- ratchet this old spavined vehicle up a notch, and re-wrench the leaf springs.

If you are beating PBEM players 70-80% of the time, then -- either you are very very good, or the other is average, or luck has played its rare but powerful hand, OR -- you are onto something, and it is indeed a matter of Germany (... accidentally) receiveing too much of an advantage.

Seems like the beta-testers would have noticed and commented (I am certain that they were/are all well-qualified as game-players in general) and the necessary adjustments made.

As I have mentioned, I have found that a good Allied player, with deftness and some favorable results, can very successfully parry a good Axis player. Not always, and not easily, but it CAN be done.

Perhaps we all need to work on our Allied strategies so to counter that perceived Axis advantage... I doubt very much, from what I have read on this forum, that the best strategy has been tried -- OR, more likely -- even revealed, since we tend to save our very best for difficult opponents who are quite certain of easy victory...

[Sol Invictus]

I can live with the whole Tech system without to much heartburn except for the damn German Luftwaffe. Airpower is so devastating and it is very easy for the German to get jets early if he so desires. The best course for the poor Russian is simply to cash out his entire airforce before the German eats it up or to hide it all to use later on the Finns. I dont do this as a personal rule because it is gamey, but I couldnt blame someone else who did. Same thing for the French; I have sold off the airforce so as to get an HQ but this too is gamey. Maybe there should be some limit as to how many air units can attack a single unit in a turn. Being able to use 6 airfleets on a unit in a single turn just doesnt seem right.

I realize that what may seem like a minor change can have a major impact on other aspects of the game balance, so I just hope that over time the game slowly evolves toward a more realistic representation of WW2 and some of the abstraction goes by the wayside. As for me, I can only think of a few things I would like changed; weather added, some type of Tech limitations, Med Theatre enhancement, refining amphibious invasions, and a more abstract Naval Strategic Warfare system. I'm sure I'm forgeting something and everyone else has their own ideas but I am encouraged that Hubert has made such a gem of a game and has shown a great willingness to listen to others ideas and as far as is possible, implement them. Thanks again Hubert.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Sol Invictus:

The best course for the poor Russian is simply to cash out his entire airforce before the German eats it up or to hide it all to use later on the Finns. I dont do this as a personal rule because it is gamey, but I couldnt blame someone else who did. Same thing for the French; I have sold off the airforce so as to get an HQ but this too is gamey.

Some previous games in this genre let you purchase

your units before the game started. So if you

want to ditch the airfleet in favor of a French

HQ, more power to you. The problem of course

with the current design is that the Russians are

incapable of doing same in scenarios where they

start out neutral.

This really should be changed:

non-radical version: allow editing of neutral

country forces, including position. The Russians

should have Freedom of Choice as to where to place

their starting forces. Radical version:

allow neutral majors to be on the map from the

get-go, buying units and putting them wherever

they want, but with a severely reduced MPP income.

John DiFool

[pzgndr]

It is not impossible for the German player to have maxed out research by the middle of 1942; in fact, he should be at least halfway there, if not more, by the end of 1940. That's before the Russians and Americans even enter the game. The British may have as many as 3 or 4, but it's very difficult to get more than that. As for the Russians, they're on the heels just about from the onset of Barbarossa

The game is "fair" in allowing each side to indulge equally in research, but as pointed out Germany seems to have the edge in affording to do so. If maxed out, tech advances occur at fantastic rates. There should be more consistency between research points and tech levels in the scenario setups and what are expected gains in a normal campaign game. It seems all too easy to buy more research and leave history in the dust, whereas the actual participants were supposedly researching the heck out of everything to get ahead in the war.

Research is a very strong variable in the game, but doesn't have to be out of control. Based on gameplay experiences, we should be at a pretty good point to review research in general. Some questions. What were the equivalent tech levels achieved by each country and when? This requires defining what we mean by L3 vs L4 tanks etc., but based on some of the custom unit_sprites and other discussions I think we've got this down. How many research points should each country have over time to achieve their historical gains (on average) and is it now practical for them to afford those points in a normal game? Should limits be reduced to slow down some of the fantastic advances in some games, like L5 jets in 1943?

I am NOT suggesting that we hardwire research into the game or make it so restrictive that alternate histories are not possible. But perhaps research limits could be reduced, cost of research points increased, and some research capability provided various countries at game start, like Britain and Germany with 1 point each. The current combination of max research points, max points per area, point cost, %chance per point, starting research points, and starting tech levels could all be reviewed and tweaked to produce a better game. These parameters can be tweaked now; no game code changes are needed.

The historical path should be achievable for all countries, but not guaranteed. Significant increases to research should also come at a significant cost, probably more than the cost of a single army. So, what if limits were 5-6 max and 2-3 per area and points cost 400-500 MPP? Germany and UK could start with 1 point each, US enters with 1, and USSR enters with 2. Germany could still max out by 1942 but it would cost about 2000 MPP and they wouldn't be so far ahead of the Allied research effort that the game goes crazy. The Allies should then be able to surpass the Axis research effort by 43 or 44 and stay more or less true to history.

This is just thinking (ranting?) out loud. But as I suggested earlier, we should at least review the historical research record and consider what is "normal" and how that could be more accurately modeled, and then haggle about how to change history within reasonable limits. Does that make sense? Like physics, there should be an equal and opposite reaction associated with any strategic decision you make in SC.

[Sol Invictus]

Exceptionally articulated.

[Sol Invictus]

Exceptionally articulated.

[ September 10, 2002, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Sol Invictus ]

[Sol Invictus]

I was so impressed I had to say it twice. DOH!

[Aloid]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Game #1: Strategy went according to usual plan, BUT that audacious Corps in Belgium somehow held out with strength of 1, which complicated blitz through northern France, and now you add a couple more "poor dice rolls" and a tactical error made in frustration & haste, and what do you know? France holds out (due to HQ and deft gameplay AND...) until January of '41! :eek:

<snip>... (ouch) :cool:

Immer, I could tell you why I held out so long, but that would give it away. Wouldn't want to do that now, would I?

Aloid

[Aloid]

Originally posted by arby:

<snip>... (ouch) the German player will win 70 to 80% of the time. That might be an exaggeration, but I think it's indisputable that the German player has an advantage.

Oh great, now you tell me! Go tell Titan that I should really be beating him by now... heh!

I suppose if you find cookie cutter ways to play, then this is all true. I have been trying out different approaches, and paying the price for my mistakes (Sweden killed me), and I'm having fun.

That's the end goal to all this, after all.

Aloid

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Aloid:

Immer, I could tell you why I held out so long, but that would give it away. Wouldn't want to do that now, would I?

I still think you had MPPs stashed under the mattress -- after all, I am infallible (... or is that H.A.L.?)

[Aloid]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As originally posted by Aloid:

Immer, I could tell you why I held out so long, but that would give it away. Wouldn't want to do that now, would I?

I still think you had MPPs stashed under the mattress -- after all, I am infallible (... or is that H.A.L.?) </font>