Slitherine

But at least in the Vanilla ganme most of the time the outcome wasnt decided until late 1944, even later.

In an evenly matched game, the outcome is often not fully decided in 1944. Of course I'm talking about a "victory" from the perspective of the game's VCs.

I disagree with the idea that reaching Omsk should be a fully attainable goal in a regular game, as it would reduce the realism to arcade levels.

However, I fully agree with this:

Make the Russians PAY dearly for not defending their home territory.

I have been advocating for this since the beginning of my activity on this forum. Various ideas like implementing the factory transfer to Siberia (which would require time) and efficiency drops for losing various Russian cities were rejected because they would radically change the game balance. Maybe it's time to come back to them?

Also, maybe we should think about a better VC system for 2.2. Some games use score-based systems which require the player to play to the best of their abilities for the whole duration of the game. Basically, every lost PP, every lost MP, every turn an important city is held etc. would generate victory points, which would then all be summed up at the end of the game, so the victory scale would be very gradual and you could always do better.

Cybvep wrote:

But at least in the Vanilla ganme most of the time the outcome wasnt decided until late 1944, even later.

In an evenly matched game, the outcome is often not fully decided in 1944. Of course I'm talking about a "victory" from the perspective of the game's VCs.

I disagree with the idea that reaching Omsk should be a fully attainable goal in a regular game, as it would reduce the realism to arcade levels.

However, I fully agree with this:

Make the Russians PAY dearly for not defending their home territory.

I have been advocating for this since the beginning of my activity on this forum. Various ideas like implementing the factory transfer to Siberia (which would require time) and efficiency drops for losing various Russian cities were rejected because they would radically change the game balance. Maybe it's time to come back to them?

Also, maybe we should think about a better VC system for 2.2. Some games use score-based systems which require the player to play to the best of their abilities for the whole duration of the game. Basically, every lost PP, every lost MP, every turn an important city is held etc. would generate victory points, which would then all be summed up at the end of the game, so the victory scale would be very gradual and you could always do better.

So maybee my idea has some wings...

rkr1958 wrote:Max,

Ok, I'm intrigued. Why did you quote yourself in that last post?

Just an error!

sorry

supermax wrote:

rkr1958 wrote:Max,

Ok, I'm intrigued. Why did you quote yourself in that last post?

Just an error!

sorry

Ahh ... I got you. You hit quote instead of edit. Yep ... I do that all the time.

supermax wrote:I propose the following modfification when doing the new version: Make the Russians PAY dearly for not defending their home territory. Politically by having the americans entering the war later, by Turkey joining the axis side if the germans advance too rapidly in Russia, etc. Then, if the germans can actually kill some RELEVANT russians units in 1941, it will by far help them have a good time in Russia. You dont even have to weaken the russians, it will only make them think of better ways not to retreat too far but not get their army destroyed. It would create a very interesting "war of manoeuver" and change the Barbarossa campaign significantly. It would even make it interesting for the russians, since they would have to find creative ways to manoeuver themselves to safety. It would also make any "moriss type offensive" i.e. concentrating only on 1 area of the front non-doable. this would render Barbarossa more historical, since the germans would have to advance on a broad front (like historically) in order to catch the russian army.
My last argument is that the game (1941 Barbarossa) would be closer to historical reality.
What do you think of that proposition?

I don't see the point of this. First off, you're contradicting yourself a bit by proposing a change that would make an unusual strategy (Morris's) undoable. You can't have the opening paragraph of your post criticizing changes made for that purpose and then propose the same thing.

Second, Russia is not like Great Britain or France. Russia is like the U.S. in that even if you conquer the portion of the country represented on the CEAW map, there is still a lot more out there. Get to Omsk, and you haven't even captured 50% of Russian territory! Why should the game make it possible to make every Russian unit "magically" dissappear when Omsk falls? I for one don't believe for a second the Soviets would have stopped fighting even if the Germans penetrated that far. To me, beating the Russians so severely that they can't striked back effectively is much more historical than giving the Axis a real shot at Russian surrender against a reasonably-matched opponent.

And I think you are severely underestimating the value of a 1941 Barbarossa as well. I just did one, starting in May 1941 with a fairly balanced approach against a very good player. My opponent retreated as much as he could and did not defend hard until the Moscow/Leningrad forests. Even so, I captured Leningrad and Stalingrad, and ended in winter positions right at Moscow. I can assure you that I killed "relevant" units as well; 1 tank, at least 6-8 mechs, and dozens of corps. How can you say that it's not worthwhile to do a 1941 Barbarossa when it's possible to inflict such a beating on a good opponent? I have put myself in a very good position to win the game. Isn't losing so much territory penalty enough on the Russians for not sacrificing their whole army to slow the Germans down?

I believe GS does a decent job at not forcing players to repeat the mistakes of the past. That's what you would be doing here. The real Soviets barely stopped the Germans from taking Moscow in 1941 because their losses were so high in the initial stages of Barbarossa. To me, forcing the Allied player into a fight against a superior enemy wouldn't be fun at all.

The solution of making the Americans enter the war later doesn't make any sense either. The U.S. was no friend of Soviet Russia. Many in America were actually rooting for the Nazis (the old "are fascists better than communists?" dilemma). American entry is based on two events set in history and completely out of the realm of the game: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the German declaration of war on the U.S.

Bottom line: the game allows Barbarossa to run a historical course if the Axis player is willing to play it that way. If the Axis player wants to use other strategies, then that's fine. We can only make the historical approach possible, not compel players to follow it. I don't want to make the Morris-type offensive undoable; it is great to see different strategies like that. And I do understand your point about changes being made to address those strategies; perhaps the team should not be so aggressive in making alterations. But the very fact that strategies like yours and Morris's are viable means that the dev team hasn't gone too far.

joerock22 wrote:And I think you are severely underestimating the value of a 1941 Barbarossa as well. I just did one, starting in May 1941 with a fairly balanced approach against a very good player. My opponent retreated as much as he could and did not defend hard until the Moscow/Leningrad forests. Even so, I captured Leningrad and Stalingrad, and ended in winter positions right at Moscow. I can assure you that I killed "relevant" units as well; 1 tank, at least 6-8 mechs, and dozens of corps. How can you say that it's not worthwhile to do a 1941 Barbarossa when it's possible to inflict such a beating on a good opponent? I have put myself in a very good position to win the game. Isn't losing so much territory penalty enough on the Russians for not sacrificing their whole army to slow the Germans down?

Losing that tank corps hurt! For you American football fans out there playing against Joe is like playing against a team you know is going to run the ball right at you. You put 8 in the box and they still chew up ground and score on you. I have to say that I've played against and have lost to the best (Max, Borger, Joe, Neil, etc.). The playing style of these four are so very much different from each other that it's striking (to me at least); but the have one very important thing in common. They know how to win and usually do. Max is an offensive phenom, Neil is a defensive phenom and Borger & Joe are highly efficient and just don't make mistakes.

I'm so impressed how Joe is currently rolling me up that I don't really mind. It's really a pleasure to watch. He has played the historical strategy (Poland-Denmark-Norway-Holland-Beligum-France-Greece-Yugoslavia) and still was able to launch a May '41 Barbarossa in which he captured Leningrad and Rostov. He also made me commit my armor reserves (3 built corps) to hold Moscow, of which I just lost one! That really hurt. Lesson learned ... in 40/41 build nothing but infantry corps and 2 or 3 good leaders. Well, max out the Russian labs which I've done.

I personally think we've got GS about as balanced as we can get it. In my opinion it's the ability, strategy and execution by the player and not which side he has that determines the winner.

AFAIK player skill has always been of utmost importance in CEAW...

joerock22 wrote:

supermax wrote:I propose the following modfification when doing the new version: Make the Russians PAY dearly for not defending their home territory. Politically by having the americans entering the war later, by Turkey joining the axis side if the germans advance too rapidly in Russia, etc. Then, if the germans can actually kill some RELEVANT russians units in 1941, it will by far help them have a good time in Russia. You dont even have to weaken the russians, it will only make them think of better ways not to retreat too far but not get their army destroyed. It would create a very interesting "war of manoeuver" and change the Barbarossa campaign significantly. It would even make it interesting for the russians, since they would have to find creative ways to manoeuver themselves to safety. It would also make any "moriss type offensive" i.e. concentrating only on 1 area of the front non-doable. this would render Barbarossa more historical, since the germans would have to advance on a broad front (like historically) in order to catch the russian army.
My last argument is that the game (1941 Barbarossa) would be closer to historical reality.
What do you think of that proposition?

I don't see the point of this. First off, you're contradicting yourself a bit by proposing a change that would make an unusual strategy (Morris's) undoable. You can't have the opening paragraph of your post criticizing changes made for that purpose and then propose the same thing.

Second, Russia is not like Great Britain or France. Russia is like the U.S. in that even if you conquer the portion of the country represented on the CEAW map, there is still a lot more out there. Get to Omsk, and you haven't even captured 50% of Russian territory! Why should the game make it possible to make every Russian unit "magically" dissappear when Omsk falls? I for one don't believe for a second the Soviets would have stopped fighting even if the Germans penetrated that far. To me, beating the Russians so severely that they can't striked back effectively is much more historical than giving the Axis a real shot at Russian surrender against a reasonably-matched opponent.

And I think you are severely underestimating the value of a 1941 Barbarossa as well. I just did one, starting in May 1941 with a fairly balanced approach against a very good player. My opponent retreated as much as he could and did not defend hard until the Moscow/Leningrad forests. Even so, I captured Leningrad and Stalingrad, and ended in winter positions right at Moscow. I can assure you that I killed "relevant" units as well; 1 tank, at least 6-8 mechs, and dozens of corps. How can you say that it's not worthwhile to do a 1941 Barbarossa when it's possible to inflict such a beating on a good opponent? I have put myself in a very good position to win the game. Isn't losing so much territory penalty enough on the Russians for not sacrificing their whole army to slow the Germans down?

I believe GS does a decent job at not forcing players to repeat the mistakes of the past. That's what you would be doing here. The real Soviets barely stopped the Germans from taking Moscow in 1941 because their losses were so high in the initial stages of Barbarossa. To me, forcing the Allied player into a fight against a superior enemy wouldn't be fun at all.

The solution of making the Americans enter the war later doesn't make any sense either. The U.S. was no friend of Soviet Russia. Many in America were actually rooting for the Nazis (the old "are fascists better than communists?" dilemma). American entry is based on two events set in history and completely out of the realm of the game: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the German declaration of war on the U.S.

Bottom line: the game allows Barbarossa to run a historical course if the Axis player is willing to play it that way. If the Axis player wants to use other strategies, then that's fine. We can only make the historical approach possible, not compel players to follow it. I don't want to make the Morris-type offensive undoable; it is great to see different strategies like that. And I do understand your point about changes being made to address those strategies; perhaps the team should not be so aggressive in making alterations. But the very fact that strategies like yours and Morris's are viable means that the dev team hasn't gone too far.

Again Joe, i dont want to "contradict you" in anyway.

I said what i said because of Borger wanting to change the game because of my AAR...

Anyway joe, yes you are positionning yourself to win the game, so di I.

So whatever we discuss here i TOTALLY agree that we do not need a change, but if there will be one then organize one that would be fun for allies and axis.

supermax wrote:Again Joe, i dont want to "contradict you" in anyway.

I said what i said because of Borger wanting to change the game because of my AAR...

Anyway joe, yes you are positionning yourself to win the game, so di I.

So whatever we discuss here i TOTALLY agree that we do not need a change, but if there will be one then organize one that would be fun for allies and axis.

What are you talking about? I'm NOT talking about changing the game at all. On the contrary I said the opposite. It's Cypveb and Zechi who want to make changes and I argue against that trying to defend the game as it is at the moment. Can you please show the text I wrote that is supposed to indicate we want to alter GS yet again?

All I've done is to tell people the consequence of their suggestions and how the game had to be altered, e. g. like removing scripting from Russian events. Then we had to activate Russia in September 1939 and that meant they could just flee from the front line with an even bigger problem for Germany, unless we made new rules to force front line garrisons. I'm not supporting such changes myself. I just show the consequence so people can see that by altering the game to their own desires you open up a can of worms that will cause undesired side effects.

It's very easy to suggest a change, but it's not so easy to implement changes without getting undesired side effects. i think that too many people just suggest nice changes without looking at the whole picture. We need to have a goal with what we do. What is making GS such a fun game compared to some other WW2 strategic games. One is that the game mechanisms are rather simple. You don't need to learn a lot of special rules. You can focus on planning your attacks and executing them. If we try to fix this and that then we create a lot of special rules that will make it harder for the players to understand what's going on. That has been the downfall of many promising games. I actually believe World In Flames was better before (version 5 the best) since you could learn the game and play it without reading and remembering hundreds of pages of rules.

Civilization by Firaxis is another example where micromanagement ruined the endgame fun. We have to focus on what players want to do and that is to move their units around and fight. Logistics, production, diplomacy etc. could certainly have been added, but I don't think the game would have been more fun having it. Therefore we have abstracted most of this. Vanilla CeaW had nearly no diplomacy at all while GS has scripted some events. I don't think that is bad.

I repeat what I wrote in other threads. GS v2.1 is closed to changes that will alter the game balance. Slitherine will start working on the installer soon after Easter so we only do cosmetical wrap-up now like fixing text typos in general.txt, message_spa.txt etc. The only exception was the odds calculator. We found a way to improve it. That's something we can alter because it doesn't affect the game balance, unless getting more accurate odds will change your decisions.

Just to make my point clear, I don't want to change the game because of the Fortress Europe Strategy. This strategy is not new and has been part of the game for a long time (details of its execution may have changed, but not the basic idea as you can see in several AARs). I think it should be a viable strategy in the game.

My main point is that the current execution of the Barbarossa 1942 Scenario in the game and this cannot be denied. Because of the scripted events some events do not make sense at all, as the scripted events assume a 1941 Barbarossa. I think everyone agrees to this assessment. I'm not sure if these events can be changed in a way that they do make sense if the Axis do not go for Barbarossa in 1941. But if there is a technical solution, this should be changed, because this is currently a flaw in the game. This should be something you should look at in GS. 2.2

The other ideas I mentioned were rather wild ideas, which I'm also unsure about.

Clark wrote:
Right, but didn't Italy organize their tank force in more coherent units, more along the lines of the Germans than the French and Soviets?

Not sure what you mean here. The 3 Italian armoured divisions had just tankettes and a few M-11 tanks. France had 4 Armoured divisions (with real tanks) and 5 Light Mechanised divisions, each of them with more real tanks than the Italians. Now, I understand that despite the French actually having 2 of their armoured divisions grouped in the 1er Groupement Cuirassé in game terms they are "dispersed" into Mech units, but what makes the Italian divisions then qualify as an armour unit is beyond any historical reason. Now probably there are good game reasons in terms of game balance, but please stop trying to justify it historically.

All I've done is to tell people the consequence of their suggestions and how the game had to be altered, e. g. like removing scripting from Russian events

This was just one of the examples to remind you that it's not that the game doesn't force some outcomes on the player.

Let's get one thing straight - nobody wants any changes to GS2.1. This version is finished, period. We are discussing the future of CEAW, i.e. possible future versions.

I think that a more advanced VC system would be a good start.

EDIT:

Cypveb

Damn, why so many people misspell my nickname?

Cybvep wrote:Damn, why so many people misspell my nickname?

Wait, these are all nicknames? I thought I had stumbled upon a forum where everyone had unusual names and I felt right at home...

Now I'll need to come up with a clever nickname, like "George."

Thanks all above for a very interesting thread.

For the record, I stand by my words, paraphrased earlier by Max: "Fortress Europa Improved" is the most fun, exciting, challenging, and overall enjoyable game of CEAW I've ever played. I think in all of our talk of historicity, game balance, etc. we need to remember the factor of pure fun too. To me a key ingredient of fun is what I call dynamism. That means the flow of the game is wide open and unpredictable, while operating within the reasonable constraints of "what if" history. Dynamism also means that the game has a chess-like texture of both tactical and strategic challenges. By these measures, I find GS 2.1 not perfect but pretty darned good and infinitely superior to vanilla CEAW.

Finally, to those followers of Max's AAR who have already written off the Allies, I have this to say: Don't count his chickens just yet. For reasons I've posted elsewhere, Russia couldn't engage properly with the invading Axis in the summer of 1942 (look what happened to Zechi). However, when Max launched Barbarossa the Reds had over 2,500PP and their PP/turn was 166. Even after Max's farthest advancement it was still 148/turn. Max has been touting his fabulous German income of 205 pp/turn, but a) it won't stay that high for all that much longer and b) the Russians by themselves have 75% of that coming in already, and it will increase.

For a while longer the Red Army will suffer from a bad technical disadvantage that will limit their effectiveness (outside of winter months), but I think that Max is going to find it harder than he thinks to fend off the Ruskies. We'll see in 1943.

And while the Western Allies have so far been reduced to a nuisance factor, the nuisances I've generated in Morocco and Libya are steadily draining substantial oil and other resources with (so far) minimal cost to the Allies. Since the USA joined the war I've sunk two subs, a DD, and nearly sank a German BB. I've hurt his Moroccan airforce to the point where he's put his fighters on sleep mode. The Allies saving the day a la Overlord may be out of the question in this game, but Max's choice to hurt the West first has left him with a big, hairy Russian problem to the East.

I think it will depend a lot on what his lab strategy has been, he may have neglected them early and not chosen end game mixes, we shall see

however, my money is on Max unless he has badly managed his labs and oil

Hi everyone

I have been away for a while and realize that i might not be up to speed in this discussion. But arent we looking at this problem the wrong way?

I mean, how many times have an allied player that has lost England in a successful sealion, come back and won the game?
In my opinion Max greatest achievment was taking England so easily and quick that the rest of his strategy for the remaining game is academic. People arent defending against sealion or planing for it properly so it makes Maxs plan look like à great one. If an allied player defends against sealion properly, ofcourse he probably wont resist the german player for 2 years but still make a total conquest of England impossible before 41 and even 42 in some cases. Don't forget that you still have the 8th army in egypt that can join in defending the home isles.

The point is that in this strategy, Max didn't get delayed at all....ofcourse he his plan Will look perfect. Activation of spain, conquest of balkans is easy when not apposed.

I think this scenario would have looked rather different if England given up more resistance.

In all my previous games, anyone that has started à 42 barbarossa against me have lost the game. Think à lot of you can say the same....the only difference here is that England has been conquered. That is tricky...

people delay till 42 when they haven't taken Britain - thats a recipe for being crushed, even I could beat that strategy (I think)

Crazygunner1 wrote:Hi everyone

I have been away for a while and realize that i might not be up to speed in this discussion. But arent we looking at this problem the wrong way?

I mean, how many times have an allied player that has lost England in a successful sealion, come back and won the game?
In my opinion Max greatest achievment was taking England so easily and quick that the rest of his strategy for the remaining game is academic. People arent defending against sealion or planing for it properly so it makes Maxs plan look like à great one. If an allied player defends against sealion properly, ofcourse he probably wont resist the german player for 2 years but still make a total conquest of England impossible before 41 and even 42 in some cases. Don't forget that you still have the 8th army in egypt that can join in defending the home isles.

The point is that in this strategy, Max didn't get delayed at all....ofcourse he his plan Will look perfect. Activation of spain, conquest of balkans is easy when not apposed.

I think this scenario would have looked rather different if England given up more resistance.

In all my previous games, anyone that has started à 42 barbarossa against me have lost the game. Think à lot of you can say the same....the only difference here is that England has been conquered. That is tricky...

a successful sealion is no guarentee of a win, plenty og aAxis games are lost after a successful sealion (is that what you sadi as well?)

Max said that he has a 100% working strategy for Sea Lion. I doubt that you can delay him longer than 1941 and it is probably enough.

I managed to delay the complete conquest of England until mid-1941 (and technically it's not complete, since I still hold Belfast & Scapa), but I committed a number of errors due to sheer inexperience. Fact is, I have only faced Sealion once before, whereas Max is a Master at this.

In hindsight, there are a number of things I could have done to make his life more difficult, slow, and painful, but without risking the fleet I don't see how I could have completely stopped him. Everything I've read in this forum says "save the RN, save the RAF!" Well, I did that, and in the process made it a bit easier for him to complete his conquest. Was this a mistake? Should I have thrown caution to the winds and risk losing the fleet?