Supermax-Moriss restart (Game stopped)

[supermax]

I would like to have a go at him and see where it ends....

I agree that Supermax still has a good chance winning this game. I also agree with him that it's not fun anymore playing against people who just exploit the game rules and won't follow historical paths.

I think Morris will have a hard time finding opponents if he continues to do what he does. At least it's encouraging to see that nobody else seem to use his strategy. So maybe it's a GOOD idea he doesn't want to reveal how he does it. At least then it can't be replicated by others.

So my question to you all is this: Should we simply ignore the issues we see that Morris shows us and get GS v2.1 out the door as planned? Or should we try to fix yet another issue and hope there won't be many more holes to plug. I feel I'm running out of ideas to what to try here.

Simple. We just ignore moriss. The way i see this, winning by simple attritiion and no strategy and tactical skills is boring and lame. My question is : who wants to play like that???

I might just continue this game till its completion just to beat moriss bloody some more. A this rate te russians will finish the game at 20 milliions casualities.

[PionUrpo]

I don't think supermax is outright losing here, not even close, as both WAllies and Soviets are so depleted that Morris can't get rolling right away. By '43 things will be different if the beachead survives but by then Max might also show us more skillful moves rendering the advantage moot.

I would definetly like to see how things develope by summer '43. The fun part for Max would be debatable though

What you've just seen is the benefit of fighting from friendly core hexes. The reason we added this is to simulate that e. g. pilots shot down would more easily find their way back home if shot down under friendly territory. German pilots shot down in France would have to deal with the French resistance before getting back to the airbases, while the UK pilots would be helped by them instead.

Actually, IMO it's not really working quite as intended here since France is for all intents and purposes 'friendly' territory for Axis despite some maquis roving about. Also the combat happens over France where British pilots are hard pressed to be rescued despite the same maquis hiding SOME of them. Most would fall into German hands.

For Battle of Britain situation it works correctly because combat is over Britain. UK air gets the help on exp being on core hexes while German air units situated in France don't get the help on exp.

Too bad air combat can't be determined by the actual combat location. Anyway, can't have everything and it works well in most situations.

[Diplomaticus]

I think I am not only speaking for myself: Please don't stop this AAR! It has been fun, informative, fascinating, entertaining, enlightening to watch these two go at it. I would be deeply disappointed not to see how this devolves. I know that this is beta testing, but maybe this AAR has also taken on a life of its own?

To answer Borger's question, I would strongly suggest a look at the ways that manpower is calculated. In my experience, manpower levels for Germany and Italy seem just right. England in the first several years doesn't dare build units because they'd take a -1 quality hit. Around about 1940 that improves, but my understanding of history was that the UK never had very deep pockets when it came to manpower reserves. Their strength was at sea and in the air. Certainly by this early in the game it is, to me, inconceivable that the UK could suffer the massive losses of ground units and come away unscathed. They should be, IMO, down to the second level of MP loss--losing Eff, quality, etc. So, perhaps the MP figures for the UK can be tweaked? That sounds like a simple fix (I hope it is). We have so many historians on this forum, surely someone can give us a sense of how many UK troops had boots on the ground in the European theater at different years, and how this played out in terms of total manpower. I know that Britain was relying heavily on women, pensioners, etc. to keep the lights on the and factories running. Could they really have sustained the kinds of losses we're looking at without their entire war effort being impacted?

[AC67]

If you ask me, we should stop running after Morris. I fear that he will always be a step ahead of us all, but then, do I really care about? I myself would never play like Morris did, maybe because I'm too lazy to exploit a game like he does, maybe because I am just not able to do so. I will go ahead playing the game in a normal, almost historical way, and those guys who I usually play will too (at least I think so). So why care about the exploits of some über-players? As supermax said, just don't play 'em.

Just my 2 cents.

[ferokapo]

(...)

So my question to you all is this: Should we simply ignore the issues we see that Morris shows us and get GS v2.1 out the door as planned? Or should we try to fix yet another issue and hope there won't be many more holes to plug. I feel I'm running out of ideas to what to try here.

I would not only ignore current issues created solely by Moriss, I would also rethink any changes introduced only because of him. Especially the 1941 limited Axis supply zone 4 in Russia (I think it was introduced because of Moriss's Axis armor blob, right?). I think (please correct me here if I'm wrong) that due to the reduced movement in supply zone 3, it is practically impossible to take Moscow in 1941, even under optimal conditions (early and strong Barbarossa, flawless execution, no botched combat results). I think that would rob the game of one alternate strategy, making it less interesting and more repetitive.

[Cybvep]

Stauffenberg, what do you think about my idea?

Hmm... Maybe the western Allies should get morale drops when they suffer high casualties? Historically the war in the West wasn't as bloody as the war in the East and the Allied casualties were incomparable with the Soviet casualties. The Soviets suffered higher casualties than the western countries did in BOTH World Wars (!!!) and there was no (second) revolution. I doubt that the British, the French or the Americans would be able to cope with so unbelievably high casualties.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The idea looks good, but I need to see a suggestion telling how this should be done (numbers, limits etc.) so it can be coded.

[Cybvep]

The issue is serious. If there is a way to be so incredibly effective in the game and there is no way of checking it (because you don't see the enemy's MP levels, build orders etc.), then that can ruin the fun for most of the average or good players.

I cannot believe that Moriss "won" this. His playing style was very careless and Max has shown superior skill right from the start.

[supermax]

Yes.

Now everyone agrees that we are done talking about moriss and most importantly making changes because of him.

The game is very fun to play like it is.

Uber player... That describes moriss good.

Hey and anyway i might still win this one...

[Plaid]

Morris' western allies casualties are not this great. Maybe its ~10-15 units more, then normal player will have by this time. But still, you can suffer high casualtes with normal gameplay (Sealion; Middle east axis campaign) and you want to penalize this players, who already suffered from losing Britain for casualties?

I guess what you should do is undo all "balance changes" done because of Morris' "blobs", "exploits" etc and do balance changes based on feedback from normal players who atleast can explain how and what they achieved.

This 3 supply zone in USSR is real killer for strong 1941 german offencive. You can plan Barbarossa from the start of the game, build great force, soviets will just flee to deep USSR and then you will stack in this 3 supply zone, without capturing Moscow/Stalingrad, though you had all chances with older rules. With 3 supply rule there is no reason at all advance deeper then Dnepr line probably, which is totally unrealistic.

This current "anti-blob unit limits" hurt not where they intended - soviets still can have their 15 mech and 10 tanks in 1942 paying little of no fee. 12 RAF fighters penalized? Ok, 9 is more then enough! (also when you already produced dozen of units you will not be concerned about paying 10 more PP or so, yes?) But if you want to Sealion and start building Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe in 1939 in large numbers - penalty is here, draining you quite low early PPs. I think this rule is wierd and GS team should either remove it or replace with some real force charts which will strongly encourage players to build real history-style armies. (Also if player will be encouraged to build all-around balanced army min-maxing tech will not work any more)

Removing ability to place focus points before country activation will also hurt normal players. Many times I gone for say dog fight with USSR from very start (with focus) and was 2 levels below germans at Barbarossa time. So with denying of focus point it will be 3 levels behind, cool.

P.S. I strongly feel that Morris have more then just "strategy" behind him, shom me any single place in all this AARs where he failed critical attack during *his* turn. I see no such a thing (maybe looked not well enough)...

[Cybvep]

Blobs are not a Moriss-only problem. USSR's MECH or ARM blobs seem to be common in most games I play in 2.0.

Ignoring the problems is just stupid. Moriss may be the most extreme player around, but he shows us the game's weaknesses.

How can a beta tester even behave like this?

[Kragdob]

I would like to have a go at him and see where it ends....

I agree that Supermax still has a good chance winning this game. I also agree with him that it's not fun anymore playing against people who just exploit the game rules and won't follow historical paths.

I think Morris will have a hard time finding opponents if he continues to do what he does. At least it's encouraging to see that nobody else seem to use his strategy. So maybe it's a GOOD idea he doesn't want to reveal how he does it. At least then it can't be replicated by others.

So my question to you all is this: Should we simply ignore the issues we see that Morris shows us and get GS v2.1 out the door as planned? Or should we try to fix yet another issue and hope there won't be many more holes to plug. I feel I'm running out of ideas to what to try here.

I think you should try - but since those all are areas that does not affect 'normal' play I think you should make very little further changes to GS 2.1 (if you plan to release in 2011). With so many changes already the chance of creating another holes increase. I'd rather have GS 2.2 as 'Morris targeted' release

To target what he is doing:

naval transport and amphibious landing supply (did you play with 5% loss? I didn't notice any impact on combat ability)
Even now US - country with one of the most military tech must first transport troops to make invasion (Iraq/Afghanistan) in GS you can do transport->invasion directly in 1941.

There were several discussions here and there. I suggest 10% decrease without cap.
Fixed cost for each landing (depending on unit type?) sounds interesting.
Friendly port nearby for supply levels also sounds interesting idea.

tech levels - I also noticed that recently only that US starts with INF/ARM at 1st levels, same for Soviets. Why was this set? I could agree for some ARM techs (armor and/or antitank due to t-34 factors) for Soviets but why they have infantry superior to Germans?

UK should start much superior in naval
US should have some techs in naval/air (but I don't think the levels as it is now)

To show German advantage in war experience for the war maybe all Allies should have ORG lvl = 1 . They can reach lvl 3 around turn 55-60 (end of 1942) just in time for El-Alamain battle (although this one was also won by enormous quantitative advantage). The only problem I see here is easier conquest of NA by Germans and easier getting Spain (but on the other hand this would make sacrificing French nave very, very bad idea).

I like idea about build limit I do not think US had their industry mobilized in early 1942 and could produce enough tanks to fill 10 ARM corps within half of the year.
Maybe step build limit (for new units and replacements) similar to MP? Modified by industry level. The only problem is where to show this.

Disclaimer: I do not want to be misunderstood by Supermax or anyone else. I'm not trying to teach anyone here and all this are just my opinions based on what I see. I'm not expert in GS and these are just ideas you can take or throw away and I do not have problems if they are criticized and rejected.

[Plaid]

tech levels - I also noticed that recently only that US starts with INF/ARM at 1st levels, same for Soviets. Why was this set? I could agree for some ARM techs (armor and/or antitank due to t-34 factors) for Soviets but why they have infantry superior to Germans?

Well, they start with higher level because they cant build as many labs as germans have in early year, and this initial advantage *supposed to* make sure that they will not be very far behind germans by the time they join. Not working very well actually.

[supermax]

Blobs are not a Moriss-only problem. USSR's MECH or ARM blobs seem to be common in most games I play in 2.0.

Ignoring the problems is just stupid. Moriss may be the most extreme player around, but he shows us the game's weaknesses.

However, if I were a dev, I would threaten Moriss with forum ban unless he says what he is doing. How can a beta tester even behave like this?

Agreed.

Like plaid is saying, " strategy " is not the only thing helping moriss here. Believe me when i say this.

[PionUrpo]

tech levels - I also noticed that recently only that US starts with INF/ARM at 1st levels, same for Soviets. Why was this set? I could agree for some ARM techs (armor and/or antitank due to t-34 factors) for Soviets but why they have infantry superior to Germans?

Well, they start with higher level because they cant build as many labs as germans have in early year, and this initial advantage *supposed to* make sure that they will not be very far behind germans by the time they join. Not working very well actually.

That's because he ingores early naval and general labs for landtech. I definetly want my ships to actually survive mid-late game and want the additional organisation + added production from general as well. However, seems it isn't required when the game is played in this way, so I have to agree tech isn't working as intended.

[gchristie]

My two cents:

1. Move 2.1 "out the door as planned."

2. Ignore Morris. If people want to play him, fine and good luck. The rest of us can find opponents that enjoy the spirit of the game and play it for fun the way it is intended.

[supermax]

My two cents:

1. Move 2.1 "out the door as planned."

2. Ignore Morris. If people want to play him, fine and good luck. The rest of us can find opponents that enjoy the spirit of the game and play it for fun the way it is intended.

Exactly!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One simple way to deal with amphs is to make the transport only amph capable if within 10 hexes of a friendly port. Then we don't need control ports. It also means transports far at sea will look like transport and not some as amphs.

It will also encourage landing from area to area instead of a direct invasion to the target area. E. G. USA used island hopping in the Pacific instead of going straight for the Philipines or Japan

[Crazygunner1]

If we ignore Morris plans and exploits and release another version, where do we draw the line to playing like or close to Morris strategy. I can honestly say that part of my Allied plan is to keep pressure and overwhelm the Axis forces to maximum. Also i only research a couple chosen techs with each country as Allied. If i do tanks with americans i won´t do it with the UK. Most of the time when i play allies i don´t get tech pararity against germans until 43-44 sometimes not even then. So what else is there to do but to throw in everything you got into the fight and hope the defender can´t replace his losses? That is the only way to break him...

The problem now is that colapse of germany comes a bit to early. I don´t see a problem with the whole balance of the game, we just need to delay it for awhile so it comes earliest end of 42 or 43 if you use Morris tactics.

Maybe we should integrate the reasearch somehow, i mean Russians would never abandan research on Naval in reality just because the country is landbased. The UK would never abandon tank production because the americans produce a huge number.

Is there a way to do that? If we solve that, atleast the extra PPs would disappear and a more balanced research take place.

Also i think the supply 3 in Russia is good, it should be hard to enter that area. If you are not sure of success than don´t enter it. Think it is more realistic to what actually happen in ww2. Even if Germany would have prevailed in Stalingrad, they would have found it hard to carry on with total conquest of Russia.

[Plaid]

About 3 supply - its not about sure in succes or not, now you are sure it will be failure. You just don't have enough fair turns to get from border to Moscow against weakest soviet resistance even when you start in May, thanks to 3 supply zone. It mean that soviets can flee without fear that they will lose anything.