AAR: Supermax Vs Moriss (No moriss please)

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 4:05 pm

. Still no signs of the Russian main body of troops. At this speed we can easily reach Rostov and maybee even Moscow before the bad weather? Mmmm

More battles in the Maghreb desert and in the MED near Oran...

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 4:38 pm

Maybe I don't understand something, but looks like you physically can't capture Rostov in 2 turns, as only land unit, who can reach the place in 2 turns is german panzer near Dnepropetrovsk.
3 supply zone starts near Dnepropetrovsk, reducing movement points.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 4:53 pm

Plaid wrote:Maybe I don't understand something, but looks like you physically can't capture Rostov in 2 turns, as only land unit, who can reach the place in 2 turns is german panzer near Dnepropetrovsk.
3 supply zone starts near Dnepropetrovsk, reducing movement points.

That may well be Plaid, that may well be. REmember its my first game with the 2.0. 3 supply zone started farther before.

Then 3 turns. hey?

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:26 pm

In attempt to hurt german armour blob GS team made some rule, that in 1941 3 supply zone starts just east of Smolensk hex row (so its 40 hexes from Berlin).
With start of 1942 it will be normal 50 hexes.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:46 am

The reduced supply range simulates the need for the Axis to convert the rail gauge in Russia from broad gauge to standard gauge. It took time and the combat units moved out of the range of the rail heads and had to be supplied by trucks instead.
By the end of 1941 the rail heads had caught up with the front line.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:44 am

Stauffenberg wrote:The reduced supply range simulates the need for the Axis to convert the rail gauge in Russia from broad gauge to standard gauge. It took time and the combat rules moved out of the range of the rail heads and had to be supplied by trucks instead.
By the end of 1941 the rail heads had caught up with the front line.

It makes real sense.

But... Altough i am ultimatly confident in final victory, moriss has a point in saying the game is favoring the allies i think... This rule, oil, the strategic reserve, etc... A bit exçessive if you consider that anyway you need a miracle game to make the russians surrenders.

Looking at the waymoriss expands british power makes me wonder. There seem to be no consequences to this as he is still able to field a solid navy and many troops. It does not make sense after the licking they got in our game...

I think that you guys have to figure out a way for the axis to win the game early if the allied player stupidly uses british power... Make serious consequences of a successeful sealion, loosing too many ships...

I mean, historically at that time in 1940, chruchil wasnt the national hero and there were still pacifist in britain... Imagine chruchill's popularity if england fell in april 1940 like in my game against moriss? His government would have fallen, and whos to say that the next government wouldnt have sued for peace?

We must remember that while we all know that the usa will be in the war in 1942, in 1940 there were no serious indications that the americans would get in the war or that hitler would stupidly attack russia...

Whos to say that britain couldnt have lost heart after a humongous defeat earl in 1940?

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:25 am

unfortunately? a lot of these changes were introduced to deal with the ARM blob

now I can tell you that this is a fearful thing, which if you hadn't seen it before would see you lose Russia in 42/43!

that said I think most of the changes are adding to the game, we just need to get the balance right

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:40 am

richardsd wrote:unfortunately? a lot of these changes were introduced to deal with the ARM blob

now I can tell you that this is a fearful thing, which if you hadn't seen it before would see you lose Russia in 42/43!

that said I think most of the changes are adding to the game, we just need to get the balance right

But why we need some "rules", which hurt normal gameplay while aiming to hurt some blob? It looks like "normal" gameplay favours allies a lot.
Just add hard limit to this armor numbers and blob will be impossible without any damage to normal players.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:10 am

We're playtesting past 1942 with the current rules to check the game balance. So far the games I've played show that with normal play the Axis can get to the historical line in 1941 and hold pretty well through the first winter. In 1942 they can push hard and capture some strategic objectives (Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, oilfields).

The German oil levels seem pretty ok for the 1942 offensive.

We've yet to see how the changes will affect the end-game and that's why we haven't released the beta yet.

I don't think you can use any games against Morris as a reference for game balance. Normal Allied players would not have sacrificed the Royal Navy etc. So the Axis will have many extra units for Barbarossa than you had. When Morris is the Axis he gets to Omsk in 1942 (at least before the latest changes). I think you should only be able to get to Omsk against a very inferior player. Then you win an ultimate victory.

Most games should see the initiative shift to the Allies late 1942 or early 1943. Then the rush towards Rome and Berlin will be interesting.

Before we made the latest changes I noticed that many experienced players (including me) got crushed by the Germans in 1942 and the Russian defense crumbled. I've never seen that happening to me before. This happened against normal Axis opponents. So the official GS v2.0 is actually biased in favor of the Axis.

Morris claims otherwise because he says he has a strategy to stop the Axis armor blob. I haven't seen in and we can't base the game balance upon weird strategies that only a few can think out. We need the game to be balanced when both sides select pretty normal strategies.

So my advise is to just play GS v2.0 with the latest beta changes as the Axis against a normal player. Then you will see that you have very good punch in Russia if you don't go for Sealion. The rules we added in GS v2.0 with 30 efficiency drop for the Russian units and also halved efficiency recovery for 4 turns means that you don't have to fear counter attacks until late 1941. So you can storm eastwards as fast as you do. The best Axis players manage to take Leningrad, Moscow and maybe even Stalingrad in 1941 even with the latest GS v2.0 beta changes.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:18 am

Plaid wrote:
richardsd wrote:unfortunately? a lot of these changes were introduced to deal with the ARM blob

now I can tell you that this is a fearful thing, which if you hadn't seen it before would see you lose Russia in 42/43!

that said I think most of the changes are adding to the game, we just need to get the balance right
But why we need some "rules", which hurt normal gameplay while aiming to hurt some blob? It looks like "normal" gameplay favours allies a lot.
Just add hard limit to this armor numbers and blob will be impossible without any damage to normal players.

The official GS v2.0 is not balanced enough. It's biased in favor of the Germans. Good German players could crush the Russians in 1942, even without using an armor blob. So reverting back to the official GS v2.0 is not an option. Instead we have to tweak what we have using the data we get from the latest games. So far it seems that the change with the efficiency (drop by 20 instead of 35 and remaining 25 below max for the duration of the severe winter and slightly less duration of the severe winter) actually helps the Germans survive the winter a bit more. So they're back on track in 1942.

E. g. I'm playing the Axis against Pionurpo and we're in August 1942 and I've taken Grozny, Stalingrad, Leningrad and can with luck get all the way to Baku (I've cut rail support to Baku). He's not a novice player. Against Ronnie I'm doing a bit less well, but I still have a chance for a good 1942. In my Allied game against Ronnie I struggle to inflict Axis losses because he retreated past the Dnepr. He will come back with a vengeance in 1942.

The conclusion is that you need to adapt your playing style a bit and when the smoke has settled you should have a fair chance with both sides. Our main problem in the beta phase is that game balance tweaks, bug fixes etc. have moved the target so you had to quickly alter your strategy to the new circumstances. That makes it harder to get valuable game balance data. We hope that's soon over now so what we have now is what will be released in GS v2.1.

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:30 am

so a couple of observations:

losing Russia should only happen with considerable skill differential - the aim is simulation (with variation) not 'free for all'

balance for a long game (simulation) is hard to get right when 'extreme early game' options are explored - this is to be expected in any game where progress is tied to 'a view' of historical resources (you can see a simple example of this by turning the oil consumption option off)

dealing with this quite hard, I vaguely remember an old (SPI?) game for the Russo/Fin war that was considered an execellent game due to the 'perfect' balance - then, someone with too much time on their hands (and intelligence) worked out the perfect no lose game plan! (ruining it for all)

the perfect solution may not exist within the current game engine, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try!

anyone gone back recently and tried the vanilla game - yuk, but thats what we used to know and like

I for one am not a top player, but I really like the game mechanic's - its 'fun' for me and I like looking at the options, sometimes you get interesting results (I even beat Plaid in a beta game where I caught him off guard due to the changes

normally a player of his quality would run over me)

I also like playing Morris - for me they are interesting games and I am looking forward to this game playing out as it very closely follows my Axis game against Morris, i am just not as brave or talented as Max!

Crazygunner1 · Post by **Crazygunner1** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:02 am

Max, regarding your comment about Morris giving you space in Russia

Don´t think he has got any choice for the time being. He needs to avoid a confrontation in until end of 41 when he has got the advantage. So giving you room is not entirely bad, but i would set up a "bump" here and there to make you loose time. He is maybe making it a bit to easy...

The real test for you will be how you handle the end of 41 and the winter. Like we previously said, avoid him the first 3 turns of severe winter, maybe then stand ground and get ready for summer offensive. If you manage that, you will have a pretty good shot at taking all three objectives Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Might also have supplies to support the Italians a little longer...

Crazyg

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:40 pm

Guys, dont get me wrong i think all the changes are great.

Imam only saying that you should do something to punish reckless british play. For one, it is not necessarily fun for axis to play against a suicidal british and french player, and second its totally un- historical.

The way thw british are loosing units in this game would have made for many an ennemies for churchill in the government dont you think?

England is a democracy, and would never accept suicidal behavior like the russians and germans were boud do to because of their dictator and political system.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:40 pm

Crazygunner1 wrote:Max, regarding your comment about Morris giving you space in Russia

Don´t think he has got any choice for the time being. He needs to avoid a confrontation in until end of 41 when he has got the advantage. So giving you room is not entirely bad, but i would set up a "bump" here and there to make you loose time. He is maybe making it a bit to easy...

The real test for you will be how you handle the end of 41 and the winter. Like we previously said, avoid him the first 3 turns of severe winter, maybe then stand ground and get ready for summer offensive. If you manage that, you will have a pretty good shot at taking all three objectives Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Might also have supplies to support the Italians a little longer...

Crazyg

Yes, i know. The real test is going to be how i fare thru winter and its first months. I also know that i am probably not going to be able to hit anything decisive in 1941. Althouth it looks like i am poised to go very far, i actually might chicken out a bit and make sure i am far away from moriss troops by november.

The goal here is not to get tangled in a pro- tracted struggle in september or october. Which is why moscow might not be an option for 1941.

Also i am kinda busy with a little plan of mine for the western allies. This will take ressources and time.

mamahuhu · Post by **mamahuhu** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:37 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:I don't think you can use any games against Morris as a reference for game balance. Normal Allied players would not have sacrificed the Royal Navy etc. So the Axis will have many extra units for Barbarossa than you had.

Morris claims otherwise because he says he has a strategy to stop the Axis armor blob. I haven't seen in and we can't base the game balance upon weird strategies that only a few can think out. We need the game to be balanced when both sides select pretty normal strategies.

I think Morris is right. Because his strategy is to be for others to learn and use.
In a recent game, I use allies, Morris is the Axis. Sea lions he did not take action, but also did not go to North Africa.He used to be the largest power Operation Barbarossa.But I learned from him the use of a strategy to defeat him.

This shows that this strategy is an objective reality, Morris himself can not break.Since this is a can be learned and used the strategy, then it is not just a minority of people.When I use the axis of time, I was defeated by this strategy.When Morris use the axis of time, he was defeated by this strategy.When anyone use the axis of time, anyone was defeated by this strategy.This is a serious problem. If this strategy can not be shaken, then the balance is shaken.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:44 pm

mamahuhu wrote:
Stauffenberg wrote:I don't think you can use any games against Morris as a reference for game balance. Normal Allied players would not have sacrificed the Royal Navy etc. So the Axis will have many extra units for Barbarossa than you had.

Morris claims otherwise because he says he has a strategy to stop the Axis armor blob. I haven't seen in and we can't base the game balance upon weird strategies that only a few can think out. We need the game to be balanced when both sides select pretty normal strategies.

I think Morris is right. Because his strategy is to be for others to learn and use.
In a recent game, I use allies, Morris is the Axis. Sea lions he did not take action, but also did not go to North Africa.He used to be the largest power Operation Barbarossa.But I learned from him the use of a strategy to defeat him.

This shows that this strategy is an objective reality, Morris himself can not break.Since this is a can be learned and used the strategy, then it is not just a minority of people.When I use the axis of time, I was defeated by this strategy.When Morris use the axis of time, he was defeated by this strategy.When anyone use the axis of time, anyone was defeated by this strategy.This is a serious problem. If this strategy can not be shaken, then the balance is shaken.

What is the axis of time strategy???

The strategy he is using against me in my game?

mamahuhu · Post by **mamahuhu** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:25 pm

Sorry. I don't know.
You can ask Morris.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:26 pm

mamahuhu wrote:Sorry. I don't know.
You can ask Morris.

.?????

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:35 pm

mamahuhu...I think supermax is asking if you could describe what the russian strategy was that was so effective against you and by you in those games.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:36 pm

I think many of us are trying to get an understanding of how the Allies can lose so much and still be invincible.

AAR: Supermax Vs Moriss (No moriss please)

Turn 34: June 22nd, Gomel, Vitebsk, Kherson falls