My Take on the Game

[James Ott]

I've frequently read the board here, but just finished my first PBEM and decided to offer my suggestions. I love the genre and think that it is an excellent game. I also agree with the argument that the play balance favors the axis.

1. Contrary to other's opinions, I do NOT think that US economic capacity is under-estimated by the game. Look at the number of actualy combatants employed by the various countries (as well as casulaties sustained) and, IMO it will roughly match the importance of the US in the game.

2. The impact of the Russian winter is under-represented in the game. The Russians are never given an opportunity to pause and re-group early on. Furthermore, historical counterattacks by the Russians would be nearly impossible to simulate in the game because of the difficulty in halting the Germans long enough to prepare for a counteroffensive (again, early in the game--winter 41/42 and 42/43). IMO the Russians should get a winter entrenchement bonus and the Germans should receive a supply penalty during winter months. (Perhaps "Winter Rules" could be a game option). Also it seems to me that an HQ should be able to supply and command twice as many Corps as Armies. Since corps buidling is the preferred Russian strategy, this would also help play balance.

3. "Operational Move" is too easy. It is too easy for the Germans to use all of their units in an attack on Russia, with the option of "operationally" moving them back to the western front if needed. If the Germans were forced to garrison the western front to a greater extent, this would also better balance the play. I think there should be a distance penalty used in operational movement (i.e. if you move a unit twice as far, it should cost you twice as much in mpps).

All in all a very addictive game.

[ October 14, 2002, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: James Ott ]

[Jeff Heidman]

I think that there is no real need to "balance" the allies; if anything the Germans are too weak.

My limited experience suggests that a good Soviet player is pretty hard to beat without resorting to the "build 18 German jet fighters" lameness.

Jeff

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by James Ott:

Also it seems to me that an HQ should be able to supply and command twice as many Corps as Armies. Since corps buidling is the preferred Russian strategy, this would also help play balance.

I SO SO SO SO SO agree with this idea. I understand that on this scale the idea may be that each unit represents a functional unit of its own. Thus each individual unit would require the support provided by a HQ. However I am not entirely sure what all is involved in an HQ supporting a land or air unit. But it seems to me that an HQ could support MORE units of a smaller size (corps) than larger ones (armies). This just seems a logical and easy fix. Allow a HQ to support 2x the number of corps than other units. Or perhaps allow a HQ to only support a limited number of air units. Perhaps this can be one small fix to what so many feel in an imbalance to air power. If one HQ could only support 3 air units (or a combination thereof) then that would either raise the cost of a large air force - by requiring more hqs, or it would reduce the effectiveness of the air force by operating without an HQ. Any way I look at this it seems that tweaking the support provided by HQs to reflect the demands of the individual unit only improves play and enjoyment of the game.

[Sol Invictus]

My main gripe is that there are several loopholes in the rules that promote gamey tactics and then the game becomes Fantasy War and not a historical simulation of WW2. I've played 5 PBEM games and I think I've seen it all. The worst problem is the ease of mounting amphibious invasions. I've been on the receiving end of some crazy amphibious invasions as both the Allies and Axis. These usually involve setting them up just before a Major power goes belligerent. My two favorites are the 1940 French amphibious blitzkrieg against Italy and the German amphibious blitzkrieg to initiate the attack on Russia. It's just crazy and ruins the whole game for me because that just sets the tone for the game and there is no return to a reasonable simulation of WW2.

I agree that winter rules must be included and the Operational movement needs to be toned down. I think the whole amphibious routine needs a workover as well as some Mediteranean tweaks. Very nice game but without a large number of houserules, which shouldnt be neccessary, I dont think I will play another PBEM game. I am confident that Hubert will continue to tweak the game and after a few more patches I will greatly look forward to some TCP/IP play.

[docd]

you said:

1. Contrary to other's opinions, I do NOT think that US economic capacity is under-estimated by the game. Look at the number of actualy combatants employed by the various countries (as well as casulaties sustained) and, IMO it will roughly match the importance of the US in the game.

I say:

Until 42 german subs ruled the atlantic and destroyed thousands of tons (convoys) produced by US.

you said:

2. The impact of the Russian winter is under-represented in the game. The Russians are never given an opportunity to pause and re-group early on. Furthermore, historical counterattacks by the Russians would be nearly impossible to simulate in the game because of the difficulty in halting the Germans long enough to prepare for a counteroffensive (again, early in the game--winter 41/42 and 42/43). IMO the Russians should get a winter entrenchement bonus and the Germans should receive a supply penalty during winter months. (Perhaps "Winter Rules" could be a game option). Also it seems to me that an HQ should be able to supply and command twice as many Corps as Armies. Since corps buidling is the preferred Russian strategy, this would also help play balance.

I agree!

[John DiFool]

The simplest (tho perhaps not best) solution for

both the transport and operational loopholes is

to force the player to buy "rail" and "amphib"

points (at a reasonable cost of course) to

represent railroad and transport capacity (natch).

But I also like having distance factored into the

cost for operating a unit. On the amphib side

you could have on-map transport (landing ship)

units as well-to keep things from being cluttered

I would allow ships to stack in a port (which

makes perfect sense anyway).

John DiFool

[HankWWIIOnline]

"and the German amphibious blitzkrieg to initiate the attack on Russia."

I don't see a huge problem here. As the Germans, in a recent PBEM game, I took over Sweden. Russia had still to enter the war. I took my units from Sweden and set them up on the northern coast of Russia to aid in my attack. When I finally did attack, I was able to slice quicker into russia, and cut off a lot of units.

Is that gamey? I hardly think so. Just because it didn't happen in WWII doesn't mean it's "gamey". However, setting up units to land in Italy before they join is gamey, I agree there. But since Germany, historically, invaded Russia first then they are free to set up whatever type of invasion they wish.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I dont think thats gamey at all.

[Sol Invictus]

I think it is very gamey for Germany to line the Baltic coast of Russia before Russia is in the war and to spring an amphibious invasion on them when they dont have a turn to react. If you dont agree then you should have no problem with the French gambit in Italy either. I'm not saying Germany couldn't have done something like that but Russia and Italy need to be able to react and not just sit there and wait for it. To put transports on a nations coastline should trigger an immediate declaration of war in the following allied turn.

[Zeres]

These Gamey strategies are a product of players testing the limits of what can be done differently. That's part of the fun. You should still be able to do these things but not just to take advantage of game mechanics. The fact that the Allies can anticipate Italian entry, cripple their fleet and take over two of their cities before they even move is beyond gamey, it's cheating. The question is how do you ( still )allow these things without letting it affect play balance?

[I/O Error]

Originally posted by Sol Invictus:

I think it is very gamey for Germany to line the Baltic coast of Russia before Russia is in the war and to spring an amphibious invasion on them when they dont have a turn to react. <snip> To put transports on a nations coastline should trigger an immediate declaration of war in the following allied turn.

That would be true for MOST countries. But when we consider Stalin's absolute refusal to believe in an imminent German attack?

Hell, you'd think there would be a line of code in the game about this.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">IF Country = Soviet,

Transports.OnCoast = PEACE

END IF

IF Country = Oh hell, absolutely anybody else,

Transports.OnCoast = WAR

END IF</pre>

[John DiFool]

Indeed: if the concept of "territorial waters" was

included in the game, these silly pre-DOW

invasions would be much harder to pull off...

JD

[Norse]

Originally posted by Zeres:

The fact that the Allies can anticipate Italian entry, cripple their fleet and take over two of their cities before they even move is beyond gamey, it's cheating.

I agree.

Like it is now, Italy joins the war when the allies choose to make their ampibous attack. Italy joins at the end of the axis turn, so the allies always get the first move

Let Italy join at the start of the axis turn instead, that would help alot.

Or choose historical

~Norse~