where is the joy in this game

[soh]

When playing axis I consider "joy" holding allies later in the game, with limited resources, poor manpower and oil troubles.
Actually I like this phase of the game more, then early blitzkriegs against weak forces. Its really fun, when you have 4 king tiger armours, which can obliterate entire allied offencive, but have oil to move only one of them, for me at least.

Also if oil is such a problem for you, you can simple turn it of, if its more fun for you to have no oil limits in operations.

---------------------
ok i was looking at the older mod for this game and u get a unreal amount of oil 500(i think) and the aar for this mod looks more alive with some axis players pushing deep into ussr and that makes the allies player better because the allies player is under pressure the whole time it too easy for the allies now. i know that axis win by holding on to berlin so whats the point of attacking ussr they can not be knocked out because of the oil after 1943 the game is so slow notting happens it sad because of the oil problem the game just stops like if u add up the pp,at some point it can reach axis 140-150 per turn and Italy 27 - 30, thats 140 + 27 = 167. ok put ussr 150-170 ,england 60 and usa 60 -70 = 270
axis = 167 pp tec heads
allies =270 pp the blob

this game should be all out war to the end, thats a game poeple will play

so out of the 19,588 members u say" when you have 4 king tiger armours, which can obliterate entire allied offencive, but have oil to move only one of them, for me at least".

for me this game is like chess but much bigger,so if someone says u cannot move your queen,knights,etc, half way into your match, do u think chess would be around today,
more oil = more of a game

Soh, i'll ave to agree with you that the original game was more fun in the sense that at least the Axis could run an offensive till 1945. In the olds days, ive seen many games where it was decided in 1945 in front of the last russian capital in Siberia...

In the game before the mod (i stopped playing that because no one was anymore) the game STARTED to be interesting in 1943. Now, its almost always germany on the defensive. So far i've succeeded in playing 5-6 games out of 20 with GS without being on the defensive in 1943-1944 with the germans. My last ultimate victory agaisnt Phil Conca i was on the offensive still in 1944 (well, more like counter-offensive) in and around Moscow. It reminded me of the good olds days where me and Joerock we would battle it out in from of Omsk in 44 and 45. God it was fun to resist with the Russian in that desperate situation. This can almost not happen in the mod.

I think that you should stick to the regular game, it has all the features you are talking about. The MOD was designed to be more historic, and also certainly for players that like predictability. Let me give you a good example. In GS 1.01, i succeeded in invading north america through the fact that i knocked britain out of the war then inaded Canada before the americains entered into the war. You know what the developpers did? They changed the rules for it to happen never again. Now the rule is that if you invade Canada the US automatically enter the war. They also changed the weather zone. By doing this they made it practically impossible, thus rendering the game more predictable and fun for players that like a linear game with no surprises. So dont fear i totally understand your frustration, but hey, what can i say? These people put a tons of hours into modifying this game, so at least they should be entitled to like it for themselves should they not?

Is it not fun to have a "VICTORY" with the germans just by holding on to Berlin long enough? TO win the war in any long term definition, in my book the germans have to CONQUER the wolrd, not resit one more turn than they have historically! hahaha i am being sarcastic here. Of course i find it mediocre that players thrives for an axis minor victory by being the master of Berlin at end 1945!

ya i just thinking the moders are a bit pro allies and anit axis(their choice) i like the saying "who dare wins" anyone think this please say so,i wish more poeple would say something,if not i will keep banging on and on and on.so do not be shy

[richardsd]

Guy's

GS is a simulation of WWII, with some latitude, not a fantasy.

cheers

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Max, I just think that GS is actually not the type of game suitable to your playing style. You like to be the Axis and be on the offensive for the entire duration of the war. When you're forced to be on the defense it's no longer fun.

Do you still remember how it was in the vanilla CeaW. You had to have more major capitals than the Allies to win as the Axis, with equal number you had a draw. With less you would lose.

What happened in most games? The Axis would get into some trouble from 1942 or later. They lost Moscow and the Allies landed in Italy. In the vanilla game you could bombard Rome from 2 sides with BB's and land with a transport from the 3rd side. With 2 tac bombers you could easily just sting Rome and force Italy out of the war. You got control of all of Italy and the Germans had little chance regaining Moscow and Rome. Just holding Paris and Berlin was a defeat.

So what happened then? Most German players accepted defeat and the game ended prematurely. That meant that most Allied players were never tested with their skills to land in northern France, all the way to Berlin etc. Vanilla CeaW was simply a game where the Axis player had most the fun planning new territory to conquer etc. Once the steam ran out of his offensive he yielded. So the Allied player had to defend for most of the game. In some games the Germans captured the entire map.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We in the GS team believe that both sides should have equal opportunities to be on the offensive and defensive. You need to prove your skills on both. Some players are better on the defensive than the offensive and vice versa (you maybe)? So we wanted to have a more historical mod that means you're compared to the REAL war. If you do better than the real war side then you're winning. If you're doing worse then you're losing. It's as simple as that. The end result is that many games last till the very end. If you make a good job on the defense as the Germans you can hold on to a victory.

Do you think many Axis players would still fight on being sure they had lost if they needed 3 capitals for a draw? With GS you can win as the Axis with just one capital.

I think it's actually just as fun being on the defensive fending off worse and worse odds just to make it to the end. I almost beat Joe when I was the Axis. I stopped his invasion in France and Greece in 1943 fended off almost like Manstein. I made a mistake in Russia because of partisans cutting supply to some of my troops or I could have won the game. I'm sure both Joe and I enjoyed that game. He got the pleasure of fighting all the way (planning Overlord, Bagration etc.) seeing that the offensives actually paid off. I had fun trying to thwart his offensives.

But if you're a player who only like to be on the offensive then I agree it's frustrating playing the Axis from 1943. Then they can mainly afford counter strikes.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The situation about the Axis being able to invade USA was simply ridiculous and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't have exploited that hole in the game. Is it really fun winning a game by exploiting a big rule hole?

I make a recap of what happened. You sent large forces from Europe (after Britain had fallen) and landed in Canada. The Axis transport capacity wouldn't have been able to support such a landing in the real war, but in GS it's possible. Then you landed in Canada and slowly captured Halifax and Ottawa. Then US did nothing because it was prior to the US entry date.

Then you moved your troops to the US border and some transports were sent to the US coast line. Still no US response. Then you landed the invaders and attacked from the north. Now USA joined the Allies with the production as if they weren't invaded.

USA had in fact PP's to get enough units to kick you back to the sea, but they had no free hexes to place the units because just 5% of USA is shown on the map. Most of USA is offmap. So you just killed one US unit at a time until the capitals were captured. The Allied opponent couldn't even place a single reinforcement because all hexes adjacent to cities were occupied.

So you captured USA and were happy.

Do you really think it should be possible to repeat such a conquest by exploiting the fact that 95% of USA is off map and that Roosevelt would surely not have done anything to stop the Axis prior to invasion? Do you think the US people, although being isolationists at the time, would sit and watch the Axis land in their own continent and march troops to the US border. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that USA would be next after the fall of Canada. Even average Joe would run and get conscripted to defend his beloved USA. Look how things changed once Japand attacked Pearl Harbor.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We certainly are not pro Allied. Our goal is to make the game so balanced that the game would end in May 1945 if both players were of equal quality. If we had kept the original victory conditions then your claim would have merit. But the victory conditions were changed accordingly so the Axis have a fair chance of a game victory.

Many wargames measure victory differently from becoming the strategic winner. If you e. g. play Manstein's backhand blow (reconquest of Kharkov in February 1943). At that time the Russians have a strategic superiority and will win eventually, but you win the GAME if you can recapture and hold Kharkov until the game ends. When the game ends you know it's only a matter of time before it falls, but you keep it long enough to be declared the victor.

So GS has different victory conditions from what you prefer. Then I propose you play a game with victory conditions you like. You're also inferring that most players of GS are opposed to the way GS is constructed. Well, by having more than 5000 people downloading it I don't think that's a fair statement. I agree that when we first made the BJR mod and later GS we made it primarily for ourselves. The mod was not available for the public. We decided to improve the vanilla games rules so we got a game we enjoyed. Then things got bigger since we got beta testers who wanted to try it out. Most of them liked the improvements and stayed on as beta testers. Some people proposed that we could offer the mod to the public because probably many CeaW owners would like the improvements we had made. That spawned GS.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Those who have been part of beta testing know how many suggestions have been discussed added / discarded etc. based upon ideas from beta testers. When we add changes we have the following goals: They should increase realism, add fun and improve game balance.

Most of these discussions are not known to the public. We try ideas we eventually discard long before they're made available to the public. So we've beta tested the game numerous times polishing the game a bit every time we discover some flaws.

I would say that GS v2.0 is a bigger change from GS v1.07 than from the BJR mod to GS v1.07 and maybe even from the vanilla game. So it's quite hard to discuss with you in the public a game in a state so old so we don't even remember how it worked then.
E. g. the introduction of amphs has made Sealion more attractive and that means many beta games see England being invaded.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Many other changes have been made as well that would hopefully make the Axis last a bit longer. I think that the biggest flaw of GS (any version) is that the Axis collapse a bit too fast. We've tried to analyze why the initiative changes so fast and figured out the following. The subs rule the Atlantic to 1941, but after Barbarossa Sealion is no longer a threat so the British can build strategic bombers to hurt the subs hard. So the Germans will suffer heavy losses if they go after convoys after that. When USA joins the situation becomes even worse. Once the battle of the Atlantic is won the bombers can fly to Britain to bombard German factories so you get from bad to worse.

So the British production is kept low enough beyond 1941. That means the Allies can make noise already in 1942 when the Germans need to use almost all the have to break the neck of the Russians.

Another issue is that the manpower and oil levels drop faster and faster after 1942. The nice new German units are surely shiny, but they consume too much oil. When you drop manpower levels too fast you make your units weaker when you repair them. When you get below a critical number of German units the entire front line collapses and you're forced to flee.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Trying to fix this without making the Allies too weak is rather tricky. We need the current production levels so the British can survive through 1940 and the Russians through 1941.

So what we did was to experiment with reducing the Allied ASW points so they're spread more over time (some moved to radar tech). Especially the bombers start with ASW 1 instead of 2 and gain techs at a slower pace. This means it will be way into 1942 before you can have effective use of the bombers. Before 1942 you can expect to inflict maybe 1-2 hits per attack.

Another interesting change we added was that subs at sea can repair 1 step per turn. The reason for that is that subs being attacked by bombers often get 3 steps per attack and that means the sub is so depleted it needs to get to port to be repaired. That means 3-4 turns to port and the same number back to the hunting area. So the sub is out of action for a long time if heavily depleted. Most damaged subs were sunk and didn't have to be repaired in port. The wolfpacks were reinforced by NEW subs sailing to the hunting area. Subs mainly had to get to port to be refitted with better equipment. Subs even got supplies elsewhere than in controlled ports. E. g. the subs used Spanish ports or transport ships to get more diesel, torpedoes etc.

With this change it means the subs will be inactive while repairing, but they're still in the area spotting for the full strength subs. So they get back into action faster. If the sub is almost destroyed you can sail it to port to repair 3 steps per turn.

This change alone with make the Allies build more DD's so the subs can be hit harder if they attack an escorted convoy.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

When the Allies will build more naval units then they can't so easily start harassing the Germans in 1942. The DD's aren't well suited to bombarding. Rules changed so BB's have an attack factor of 2 and DD's only 1. Survivability of units bombarded is increased by 2 so damage from BB's are the same while from DD's halved. The changes mentioned means the Allies will fight for the British income with more DD's (as they did historically). Churchill said that the only German weapon he feared was the subs. Britain almost starved until USA joined the Allies. The losses in the Atlantic were horrible. It was only in 1943 that the battle of the Atlantic was won by the Allies.

Another change we have made is that fortresses, cities and other resources have coastal batteries. So naval units bombarding land units there can be hit by the batteries. So it's no longer so attractive for the Allies to snipe at the Axis coastal defenders.

In GS v2.0 the Axis player will get the Atlantic wall fortresses in all ports in France, Calais (clear hex) plus Antwerp. This means Overlord will struggle more to get a port for better supply. Landing early is no longer a winner since you won't capture a port quickly.

You can't drop entrenchment lower than to 1 from airstrikes and shore bombardment. That also helps the defenders a bit.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We've made some changes to oil consumption with increased tech so armor and bombers will have 1 less max oil consumption. This means you can drive the King Tigers with slightly less oil consumption. This won't change the early game because removed oil consumption increase is only on the higher techs, but it will help the end game a bit.

The biggest change we made is that manpower consumption of repairs use the same discount as for PP repairs.

Land and air units use 60% and naval units 80%.

If you build a new infantry unit you pay 10 manpower. If you repair e. g. 7 steps on the infantry you before paid 7 manpower.
With the new rule you pay: 7* 0,6 = 4.2 manpower.

So keeping the cadres alive will be even more important. This change alone should delay the German manpower collapse from maybe late 1942 / early 1943 by maybe one year. That means the battles late in the game won't be such walk overs as it had been.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I tell you all of this for several reasons:

Balancing a game is NOT an easy task and it requires a lot of beta testing. That's the main reason we're not releasing new versions regularly.

We're completely aware of any issues and work on them. You're not aware of the discussions we make in the beta group so you're not aware of possible improvements etc.

You're discussing a version we haven't worked on for several months. So the game we're testing can't be compared to the game you're playing.

We're doing our best to get the game as balanced as possible with almost equal number of Axis and Allied victories. Right now the game is quite balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. It's like playing white in chess when you're the Allies and black when you're the Axis. A great player will beat a good player, but with equal players we think the one playing the Allies will most often win.

It's not possible for such a complex game like GS to make it 100% balanced. Even chess isn't completely balanced. White has a slight edge. Many wargames have suffered from balance issues. Just look at World In Flames (all versions). The errata list is even longer than the rule book. I remember when clever Axis players could be in Paris in September / October 1939 with some luck on the impulse dice rools.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I would again repeat that the main rule for GS is to try to be a HISTORICAL simulation of the real war. That means the most likely outcome is to have a historical result with the eventual defeat of the Axis. When that is going to happen determines how good you are as a player.

I agree that this isn't what all players like and those players would probably enjoy other types of games. But there are many enough players who want to play games with a historical feel even though they can never simulate the real war properly. I believe that GS has managed to satisfy those players pretty well. Especially since I'm myself a player who prefers historical war game simulations to fantasy war games. Therefore I've never truly enjoyed games like SS America, Axis & Allies etc. If you look at the sales statistics I'm sure Axis & Allies by Hasbro has sold many more games than e. g. Master Front by Columbia Games (one of my favorites) or World in Flames byt ADG.

[gerones]

I agree with richardsd that GS is not a fantasy wargame but is intended to be a simulation wargame. If you wanna conquer all the world and this cause you fun you just have to play Civilization or Risk but not CEAW GS.

Regarding to changes made to the game with GS, they are all focussed in getting more realism. So for me the fun of this game is to get more and more realism and historical accuracy so you can even learn some military history with it. Game balance is also important but it is secondary from the other two factors. I mean that just by changing victory conditions, as it was made in GS, you can afford to represent an historical unbalanced scenario: you just have to modify the objectives. This way you can win a game (as it can happen in GS with axis) no matter you have less forces.

[Plaid]

I think its some irony in this game - axis start stronger and offencive-capable, but in long run they are on defence. Couple of years will pass, and axis will face allied powers with 2-3 times larger PP income and unlimited oil and manpower. How can you be on offence under this conditions against competent opponent? So you should be careful and save resources, when conquering europe and USSR in 1939-1941, and ready to switch on defence. Its almost impossible to beat more or less good allied player with only offencive - Barbarossa, MED campaign, Sealion - all this strategies can be countered, if recognized in time. Even if you will not defeat axis (its true for sealion or MED) you can make cost greater, that outcome for them, and axis can't afford to waste resources in this way.
From my experience stubborn axis player, who is going to finish what he started, and not ready to switch on something other, if having little succes, is easy prey. Axis should be flexible, and its most challenge playing them

[_Augustus_]

Greetings,

Thanks, Stauffenberg. It's nice to hear what's in the pipeline.

Soh, if you prefer to play a world conquering game using GS why do you play with limited oil ON? Turn it off at the game setup and you'll probably have a game much more suited to your preferences with German TACs flying and Panzers blitzkrieging to the end of the war. Fun for all from fantasy gamers to historical gamers, eh.

_augustus_

[marklv]

The most ridiculous thing about the game is that there is no diplomacy. Obviously, given that the western allies were accountable to public opinion, no peace was possible with Germany except through total victory or total defeat, however this was never the case with the USSR, and there is historical evidence that Stalin would have been prepared to offer some kind of deal to Germany even as late as October 1943. Also, there is the possibility that Spain could have been drawn into the Axis sphere if Germany had been willing to offer more.

The other nonsense is Russia not surrendering until you capture Perm. What is the significance of Perm? Surely, once Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad, Saratov and the Caucasus including Baku are captured the Soviets would simply run out of manpower and other essential resources. Likewise Germany would still have to surrender even if the Ruhr was the last area not captured by the enemy. The Ural industrial region was very important but you also need manpower, natural resources and infrastructure to fight effectively.

[supermax]

hehehe did i hit a soft spot?

What i was saying has nothing to do with my playing style.

Ask some players, i do not always play games where i am on the offensive. I can also play like you, that is move to Moscow and keep a defensive line. ask Ronnie in our game together.

Didnt get the chance to read all your posts sorry, but i will.

Defense is fun, dont get me wrong. My problem is when every single games the axis have to be on the defensive in 1943 and later.

[supermax]

The situation about the Axis being able to invade USA was simply ridiculous and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't have exploited that hole in the game. Is it really fun winning a game by exploiting a big rule hole?

I make a recap of what happened. You sent large forces from Europe (after Britain had fallen) and landed in Canada. The Axis transport capacity wouldn't have been able to support such a landing in the real war, but in GS it's possible. Then you landed in Canada and slowly captured Halifax and Ottawa. Then US did nothing because it was prior to the US entry date.

Then you moved your troops to the US border and some transports were sent to the US coast line. Still no US response. Then you landed the invaders and attacked from the north. Now USA joined the Allies with the production as if they weren't invaded.

USA had in fact PP's to get enough units to kick you back to the sea, but they had no free hexes to place the units because just 5% of USA is shown on the map. Most of USA is offmap. So you just killed one US unit at a time until the capitals were captured. The Allied opponent couldn't even place a single reinforcement because all hexes adjacent to cities were occupied.

So you captured USA and were happy.

Do you really think it should be possible to repeat such a conquest by exploiting the fact that 95% of USA is off map and that Roosevelt would surely not have done anything to stop the Axis prior to invasion? Do you think the US people, although being isolationists at the time, would sit and watch the Axis land in their own continent and march troops to the US border. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that USA would be next after the fall of Canada. Even average Joe would run and get conscripted to defend his beloved USA. Look how things changed once Japand attacked Pearl Harbor.

LOL. Wow Borger, a little jalous or disgruntled that i can see holes in your perfect GS mod? I did it and even with all the things you mention, it was still near impossible to achieve. you didnt need to change the rules that game was exceptionnal in the sense that all went well for me and that the british fleet was oblitarated.

REALLY man, how many people are playing this game on a regular basis? 10, 15? That should tell you something.

I'll keep playing until the end of time because i like strategy games and i think your mod is great. Its just that we dont get to do DIFFERENT games after 1943. Its almost always the same ina general sense.

[supermax]

ALso Borger

You say i have a certain playing style, but remember this: its not like i havent played conservative games or defensive games with the Axis. Just look at my official record, thats 18 or 20 games. Thats not counting the 15 or so that played with my good freind that is not interested in playing agaisnt people on the forum, or the 10 or so that were abandonned for many reasons.

So after a while, the linear aspect of the games gets boring. So of course i'll try somethin new just because that a good way for me to still find new ways to have fun.

When i post something on the forum, its because i find it worthwhile. I dont want to have a boring account of how my double-defensive line is holding. That is simply boring for everyone to see. Just look at the number of hits per AAR. This will tell you which ones were interesting to people. Most recent AAR with hits in the last, say, year and a half were the ones with "un-historic" events happening.

You talk about World in Flames, well, i did play a lot of that too in my past, and Axis and Allies, and Panzer General, and Pacific war and Was in the east and and and... Whatever. But even in WIF , there was many scenarios posible and it was doable to beat the Damned Russians out of the european map, even if they didnt surrender, the game was won by the Axis. And thats suposed to be historic.


So i just say since you are making another great upgrade to your mod, why not make it interesting, like when you are playing the russians, YOU KNOW that if you are playing badly, the Germans will simply overrun you.

Or make it easier for the germans (more oil, more manpower) but even if they take Omsk let it be that the Russians dont surrender. In fact, historically they would never have surrendered, the nazis would have had to go all the way to Kamtchatka. So why would they in your historic simulation? Same for US, make them never surrender whatever the axis do.