Slitherine

Stauffenberg wrote: Do you really think the western Allies can get to Hamburg and Berlint WITHOUT first landing in France? So if they force an Axis surrender in e. g. February 1945 that means they've managed to successfully land in France in 1944 and before. If the Allies manage to land in France in 1944, but are stopped at the Siegfrield line then the Germans can still win if they hold till May 1945. What's wrong with that?

This is obvious. I only wanted to respond to joerock´s points. The allies could be stopped at Siegfried line in 1944 but why this have to be considered an axis victory? What´s the merit for the axis player that have failed in stopping the allies at the beach and only have to hold in the fortresses hoping for bad weather to delay the allies advance? Wouldn´t it more just to consider this situation as a draw?

Recently, posted in the AAR´s section was a game played by you against Ronnie in which I can see what I consider an axis victory: viewtopic.php?p=126417&sid=3971ff6b9b5a ... e50#126417

But a game in which the germans are reduced to their mainland territory with poor quality troops and it is only a question of time they will be invaded by both the western allies and russians shouldn´t be considered an axis victory. At least, this should be considered as a draw. This way, the landing allied success in France would be compensated by the german success in delaying the allies in late 1944 and 1945.

Stauffenberg wrote: If you perform exactly like the real Germans then it's a draw.

I really don´t understand this: if you perform exactly like the real germans you would have to lose!!

I really don´t understand this: if you perform exactly like the real germans you would have to lose!!

I think that it's because the benchmark for winning or losing is merely outperforming the German real world performance.

This is not how we created the victory conditions. If you do better as the Axis than the real Germans then that's a victory for the Axis. We've balanced the game so most Germans will eventually crumble and lose the war at some time. That is DELIBERATE. We wanted to make a game that could recreate history better than the vanilla game.

Even Supermax as the Axis in his game against Panzergeneral will eventually lose the war. He will run out of manpower at some point and then Russia will be in Berlin. But he will most likely win an ultimate victory in GS because he will control 5 major capitals in May 1945. That will be a huge game victory even though he will lose the war if they had played till the very end.

Do you see the difference?

If you want to measure victory at which side has the best chance to crush the other side then you need to change the game balance to what you had in the vanilla game. That is NOT something we want with GS. We created GS to have a better chance to recreate the historical flow of the war in Europa and I think we've done that quite well.

I think the Allies will get initiative and eventually push the Axis back towards Berlin in 95% of the games. What's good about that. One is that both players have to excel both on the defense and the offense in order to win. Some players like to attack and once their offensive runs out of steam they don't know how to defend in order to save what can be saved. In the vanilla game we saw that the Axis player threw in the towel once they failed to take Moscow and the Allies started to move towards France and Italy. They knew they could not stop the Allies and could just yield. That meant most Allied players never got a chance to show their skills as being on the offensive. The Axis player gave up before you had taken Paris and got to Berlin. Most Axis players would quit the game once Overlord succeeded and the German units were unable to crush the beach heads. Then it was only a matter of time.

With GS you won't achieve Allied victory until Berlin and Rome are captured. That means the Axis player has a victory in his pocket until the game actually ends. So the player has an incentive to actually fight to the bitter end. I believe this is one of the biggest strengths of GS. Most games are now played to May 1945. I've only met ONE player who quit on me in GS because he felt he couldn't win. Everyone else have played till the end even though they knew I was about to win. One reason was that they tried to reduce the major victory down to a minor one.

The conclusion is that we don't intend to change the victory conditions in GS. That is one of the strengths of the game. If you like the traditional victory conditions then you play the vanilla game instead. GS is NOT designed to check which side has the most capitals in May 1945. It's that simple actually.

Stauffenberg wrote:I think the Allies will get initiative and eventually push the Axis back towards Berlin in 95% of the games. What's good about that. One is that both players have to excel both on the defense and the offense in order to win. Some players like to attack and once their offensive runs out of steam they don't know how to defend in order to save what can be saved.

Agree with you on this. And this have been implemented since CEAW GS.

Stauffenberg wrote: In the vanilla game we saw that the Axis player threw in the towel once they failed to take Moscow and the Allies started to move towards France and Italy. They knew they could not stop the Allies and could just yield. That meant most Allied players never got a chance to show their skills as being on the offensive. The Axis player gave up before you had taken Paris and got to Berlin. Most Axis players would quit the game once Overlord succeeded and the German units were unable to crush the beach heads. Then it was only a matter of time.

This would be so in the vanilla game: the allies liberate France and the axis have nothing to do. So most of the axis players would resign the game. I´m agree with you on this.

But what I´m trying to say on this thread is that in GS the change would be that when the allies liberate France in 1944 this would be a DRAW, and not an allied victory. The allied player would have to conquer the 2 german capitals for achieving a victory. The axis player wouldn´t then resing the game and he/she would continue playing the game for not allowing the allies achieve a break through and capture the capitals. But just holding until 1945 wouldn´t be an axis victory.

A stalemate in chess have a victory taste but it´s not a victory.

leridano wrote: But what I´m trying to say on this thread is that in GS the change would be that when the allies liberate France in 1944 this would be a DRAW, and not an allied victory. The allied player would have to conquer the 2 german capitals for achieving a victory. The axis player wouldn´t then resing the game and he/she would continue playing the game for not allowing the allies achieve a break through and capture the capitals. But just holding until 1945 wouldn´t be an axis victory.

I disagree with holding Paris limiting the axis to a draw. If the axis still hold Rome by May 45, then the Germans have done far better than historically and so should achieve some sort of victory, as the current victory conditions provide for.

In each of my games as the allies against good opponents, I've managed to capture Berlin after securing Paris. There is a secret to doing this though and it is to land in France in early 44 (ie March, not June) at the latest, and to land in Denmark/northern Germany also in order to spread the germans out (and to outflank the Westwall). Allied players who leave their landings till June and rely on a push through France alone will put themselves at the mercy of the weather in 44-45.
The other thing is for allies to not land INF in France but to land MECH units. The supply level of 3 severely limits INF movement so allied players have to mechanise their units like was done historically. Too many allied players use INF in France and wonder why their advance is so slow (until Paris is captured anyway).

I am happy with the victory conditions as they are, although I wouldn't mind seeing the victory levels modified somewhat by relative casualty rates from the statistics screen.

schwerpunkt wrote: I disagree with holding Paris limiting the axis to a draw. If the axis still hold Rome by May 45, then the Germans have done far better than historically and so should achieve some sort of victory, as the current victory conditions provide for.

In each of my games as the allies against good opponents, I've managed to capture Berlin after securing Paris. There is a secret to doing this though and it is to land in France in early 44 (ie March, not June) at the latest, and to land in Denmark/northern Germany also in order to spread the germans out (and to outflank the Westwall). Allied players who leave their landings till June and rely on a push through France alone will put themselves at the mercy of the weather in 44-45.
The other thing is for allies to not land INF in France but to land MECH units. The supply level of 3 severely limits INF movement so allied players have to mechanise their units like was done historically. Too many allied players use INF in France and wonder why their advance is so slow (until Paris is captured anyway).

Of course it will be an axis victory if the axis still holds Rome in may 1945 no matter the allies would have liberated ONLY France in 1944.

The only thing I propose is to score as a draw when axis is holding ONLY Hamburg and Berlin until may 1945 and the allies have captured Paris and Rome in 1944. In my opinion this should be considered as a draw because of the difficulty of both liberating France with a landing and conquering Italy with a landing and a hard fight in a mountainous territory.

Why after the allied player defeats the germans in France and Italy in 1944 this have to be considered as an allied loss? Wouldn´t it be more just to consider this as a draw? This way we would penalize the allies for not being able to capture the 2 german capitals and for not to finish off their work started with the landings in France and Italy. And, on the other side, we would reward the germans for a successful defensive war not allowing the allies to capture these capitals. But giving the germans the victory for only holding these 2 capitals until may 1945 (no matter they are in practice defeated) does not seem to be correct.

May be this question would be appropriate for starting a pool on the forums.

leridano wrote:May be this question would be appropriate for starting a pool on the forums.

Victor, the GS victory conditions are based on a consensus decision by the design team (and testers) and almost two years of play testing. We, the design team, have discussed the contents of this thread in detail and we've decided to stand by the current victory conditions.

Several of us from the design team and beta test group have posted our rationale why we selected the victory conditions we have and why we're standing by them. Our intention is not necessarily to convince you that these are best but to provide others that read this thread now, and in the future, insight into our design decision. So folks know, you were one of our beta testers and have contributed significantly to GS. However; the consensus decision of the design team and testers on this is still the same. The GS victory conditions as they currently are will remain as they are.

If you or others want to play the expansion with a different set of victory conditions then please fell free to do so via house rule. However; for reporting purposes for the victory stats thread ( viewtopic.php?p=140876#140876 ) they must be reported using the coded GS victory conditions to ensure we're comparing apples to apples.