Victory conditions?

[SMK-at-work]

There's a bit of a discussion on the SC forums at the moment about victory conditions.

Some ppl are complaining that the US is a bit down-played & needs a boost, while others are saying that if it's boosted then the game becomes unbalanced in favour of the allies.

Personally I don't have a problem with unbalanced games - as long as the victory conditions account for the balance issues.

For example in a WW2 game IMO there should be almost no possibility of the Axis actually winning the war - the USA supply the allies ensured that that was never a possibility after 1941!

However there's no reason why the Axis shouldn't win THE GAME by, say, surviving until 1947 or some other time post May 1945 as may be decided.

So victory conditions should (IMO of course) revolve around how long the Axis holds out - a major allied victory would be if Germany and Italy were defeated by, say, the end of 1944, mid 1945 = a minor allied victory, the 2nd half of 1945 = a draw, 1st half of 1946 = an Axis minor victory, and anthnig later than that an Axis major victory.

[IainMcNeil]

We havent really thought much about this yet so anything is possible. I don't things were as clear cut as that though. I think Axis had a significant chance of winning if they had done some things differently. With hind sight that players have I'd put it 50:50.

I have a feeling some US players expect the US army to "kick ass" more than it should, and when the US doesn't get better weapons and quantities of troops they think it is unrealistic. I have a feeling this down to natural bias (my country is better than yours) and is influenced by the current US dominance of technology and weaponry. At the time though the technology war was very close and nobody can doubt the morale & resolve of the average German soldier.

Luckily Johan is Swedish and has no bias towards any of the major powers involved so we'll be able to balance it as realistically as possible. He'll have to stop me making the Brits too good! All I can say is - make sure you don't invade Sweden, they're going to have one hell of an army

[pompousdivinus]

For example in a WW2 game IMO there should be almost no possibility of the Axis actually winning the war - the USA supply the allies ensured that that was never a possibility after 1941!

Probably you are also of the opinion that the Vietnamese shouldn't have had any possibility of winning the war then...

[Redpossum]

We havent really thought much about this yet so anything is possible. I don't things were as clear cut as that though. I think Axis had a significant chance of winning if they had done some things differently. With hind sight that players have I'd put it 50:50.

Winning a negotiated peace, sure. An Axis victory of outright conquest? I'd put the chances of that at well under 50%

I have a feeling some US players expect the US army to "kick ass" more than it should, and when the US doesn't get better weapons and quantities of troops they think it is unrealistic. I have a feeling this down to natural bias (my country is better than yours) and is influenced by the current US dominance of technology and weaponry. At the time though the technology war was very close and nobody can doubt the morale & resolve of the average German soldier.

This is a very good point. Most of my countrymen do not understand how and why we won WW2.

The only three areas of clear US superiority.

1) Production capacity - Hands down, superior to any other combatant. Yes, the russians were second, but not a very close second. The US sent the russians over 300,000 trucks. We single-handedly put the russian infantry on wheels.

2) Logistics - Again, clear and uncontested superiority. Just no comparison.

3) Artillery - Better quality artillery, better fire control, better spotting and communications, and virtually unlimited ammunition, thanks to #2 above. In all fairness, it must be noted that the german artillery was damn good, and russian artillery was, well, plentiful

In any other area, some other combatant had superiority.

Air? Yes, the USAAC dominated the skies of europe by 1944, with considerable help from the brave lads of the RAF. But we did it with numbers, not quality. US pilot training programs were not geared to produce a few elite pilots, they were geared to produce thousands upon thousands of adequate pilots, who would learn in the field, if they survived long enough.

As far as replacement aircraft, see point #1 above, but remember that pilots were always the bottleneck for every nation. Even in the darkest days of the Battle of Britain, the RAF never really lacked for replacement aircraft, it was pilots they ran short of.

Armor? Oh please. US tanks were barely adequate in the western desert in 1942. By 1944 in western europe, they were badly outclassed. But again, they were available in virtually unlimited numbers. The only practical limit was our ability to transport them from north america to europe.

But a large percentage of the US infantry rode in halftracks, not trucks, and this is not an advantage to be ignored.

I could ramble on here, but I think I've made my point

[Redpossum]

For example in a WW2 game IMO there should be almost no possibility of the Axis actually winning the war - the USA supply the allies ensured that that was never a possibility after 1941!

Probably you are also of the opinion that the Vietnamese shouldn't have had any possibility of winning the war then...

Pompous, you're comparing apples and oranges.

The war in southeast asia was an insurgency, up until 1975 when the north finally conquered the south by a conventional invasion.

WW2 was an open, conventional conflict.

The book "People's War, People's Army" by Vo Nguyen Giap does a good job of explaining the differences, if you can wade through the waist-deep communist propaganda without gagging.

Different wars, different rules, different situations.

[SMK-at-work]

For example in a WW2 game IMO there should be almost no possibility of the Axis actually winning the war - the USA supply the allies ensured that that was never a possibility after 1941!

Probably you are also of the opinion that the Vietnamese shouldn't have had any possibility of winning the war then...

Only if they tried to fight as a conventional army - and of course when they did that they got crushed :p

BTW please note that I am not from hte US!

And I don't think the Shermans were badly outclassed in Europe in 1944 - they were much better than the various Pz 3's & 4's that still formed much of hte German armoured forces, and with 76mm & 17 pdr guns they were a cheap, reliable and plentiful pussy-cat killer too!

[ungers_pride]

We havent really thought much about this yet so anything is possible. I don't things were as clear cut as that though. I think Axis had a significant chance of winning if they had done some things differently. With hind sight that players have I'd put it 50:50.

Winning a negotiated peace, sure. An Axis victory of outright conquest? I'd put the chances of that at well under 50%

I have a feeling some US players expect the US army to "kick ass" more than it should, and when the US doesn't get better weapons and quantities of troops they think it is unrealistic. I have a feeling this down to natural bias (my country is better than yours) and is influenced by the current US dominance of technology and weaponry. At the time though the technology war was very close and nobody can doubt the morale & resolve of the average German soldier.

This is a very good point. Most of my countrymen do not understand how and why we won WW2.

The only three areas of clear US superiority.

1) Production capacity - Hands down, superior to any other combatant. Yes, the russians were second, but not a very close second. The US sent the russians over 300,000 trucks. We single-handedly put the russian infantry on wheels.

2) Logistics - Again, clear and uncontested superiority. Just no comparison.

3) Artillery - Better quality artillery, better fire control, better spotting and communications, and virtually unlimited ammunition, thanks to #2 above. In all fairness, it must be noted that the german artillery was damn good, and russian artillery was, well, plentiful

In any other area, some other combatant had superiority.

Air? Yes, the USAAC dominated the skies of europe by 1944, with considerable help from the brave lads of the RAF. But we did it with numbers, not quality. US pilot training programs were not geared to produce a few elite pilots, they were geared to produce thousands upon thousands of adequate pilots, who would learn in the field, if they survived long enough.

As far as replacement aircraft, see point #1 above, but remember that pilots were always the bottleneck for every nation. Even in the darkest days of the Battle of Britain, the RAF never really lacked for replacement aircraft, it was pilots they ran short of.

Armor? Oh please. US tanks were barely adequate in the western desert in 1942. By 1944 in western europe, they were badly outclassed. But again, they were available in virtually unlimited numbers. The only practical limit was our ability to transport them from north america to europe.

But a large percentage of the US infantry rode in halftracks, not trucks, and this is not an advantage to be ignored.

I could ramble on here, but I think I've made my point

I agree with most of your points.

However, the USA actually sent the USSR closer to 600,000 trucks. That is why the USSR could concentrate on producing T-34 tanks, and why their infantry became mobile.

Also, let us not forget that the USA was fighting a two front war (Germany/Japan). Talk about a production powerhouse: by the end of the war, it had almost 100 aircraft carriers!

In addition to the production of tens of thousands of tanks, let's not forget those 1,000 plane bombing raids....

[joe98]

Pearl Harbour was December 1941

El Alamein was October 1942

Stalingrad ended in January 1943



Given that the Axis can achieve ???X??? by November 1941 or achieve ???Y??? by September 1942 or can achieve ???Z??? by December 1942, the Axis player could be handed an automatic victory.

This could be set as an option. To continue playing, both players need to agree and then the game continues to the ???end??? wherever that might be.-

[Redpossum]

Joe, interesting concept!

You would set certain "milestones", and evaluate victory by those, eh?

Excellent points.

Rommel's hopes for (local) victory were doomed after El Alamein.

Germany's hopes for a victory on the eastern front were doomed after Stalingrad.

Similarly, Japan's hopes for victory in the Pacific were doomed after Midway.

Ok, one question. Since these decisive actions won't occur at the same time and place in the game as they did historically, how will you identify them in the game?

[joe98]

Since these decisive actions won't occur at the ??¦.. how will you identify them in the game?

The developers have not stated the victory conditions. Points system? Number of objectives?

If the Germans completely conquer Russia by July 1942, what happens next in the game?

Does play continue?

Do the Germans occupy every hex on the French coast and wait 2 years for Eisnhower?

If every hex on the French coast is occupied, which is the invasion hex?

Ultimately, my thinking is that if a good player is playing a poor player the game might end early because some automatic condition has been achieved. As I said, so long as both players agree.


-

[firepowerjohan]

We have optional end game limit in 1945, meaning if not using that option the game goes on until either side is conquered.

With the optional end game limit on, the score is for conquered primary major Capitals, so if Axis hold Paris, Rome, Berlin in 1945 they win because Paris (conquered primary major capital) give one point.

We are also planning (but wont be ready on release!) more alternative scenarios and what-if scenarios where victory conditions could be different. For instance a Barbarossa scenario where Axis win if they conquer USSR and USSR win if they hold out until a certain date.

Other scenario could be a 1945 quick scenario where Axis wins by just holding Berlin until Summer 1945. What about a Sea-Lion scenario where Axis win if they take London and some other city in England while UK win if they hold out long enough? Such interesting alternatives are rare to see in WW2 games at leist form what I have seen so far

Ofcourse, in some of these scenarios we can have frozen countries so that in for instance in a quick scenario of Barbarossa then UK, USA and Africa would be frozen and only theatre is the East Front.