Proposal: Use morale penalties to make CEAW more historical

[Diplomaticus]

Since we're now voting on a proposal to hit Italy with a max Effectiveness drop for losing Libya, let's keep going:

1) Soviet units take a loss in max Effectiveness for losing certain cities (e.g. Kursk). We've been complaining that Allied players are doing the "just run away" strategy in Russia, so let's give the Russian side "more choice" by hitting them with -3 max Effectiveness for every city they lose beyond a certain line--say, east of Dnepropetrovsk.

2) French take a -10 max Effectiveness if the UK fails to send a BEF to help defend French soil. The BEF would have to at least match the historical forces that Britain deployed.

3) Etc.

Is this really the way we want to be tweaking the game? I'm very concerned to see the way we're forcing players' hands with this proposed change for Italy. (Yes, we did make the change for the UK's loss of the homeland, but that was to deal with a situation that was badly broken.)

[Morris]

Since we're now voting on a proposal to hit Italy with a max Effectiveness drop for losing Libya, let's keep going:

1) Soviet units take a loss in max Effectiveness for losing certain cities (e.g. Kursk). We've been complaining that Allied players are doing the "just run away" strategy in Russia, so let's give the Russian side "more choice" by hitting them with -3 max Effectiveness for every city they lose beyond a certain line--say, east of Dnepropetrovsk.

2) French take a -10 max Effectiveness if the UK fails to send a BEF to help defend French soil. The BEF would have to at least match the historical forces that Britain deployed.

3) Etc.

Is this really the way we want to be tweaking the game? I'm very concerned to see the way we're forcing players' hands with this proposed change for Italy. (Yes, we did make the change for the UK's loss of the homeland, but that was to deal with a situation that was badly broken.)

Soviet does really need a loss in max Effectiveness for losing certain city like Moscow & Lenigrad & Omsk . But I do think the present game engine is almost balance , so just put it in GS 3.0 maybe

[gerones]

Rules should favour a balance between playability and gamey way of playing. To empty Lybia of axis forces and to redeploy them in Sicily is gamey. To favour gamey playing could make lose interest in the game. So to add consequences for playing like that sounds like a good thing.

[Diplomaticus]

Rules should favour a balance between playability and gamey way of playing. To empty Lybia of axis forces and to redeploy them in Sicily is gamey. To favour gamey playing could make lose interest in the game. So to add consequences for playing like that sounds like a good thing.

I don't agree that it's gamey. To me "gamey" is using transports like warships to block access to a port, for example. Choosing, as Italy, to not attack Greece or to not fight in Libya seems more like a legitimate strategic choice. I mean, exactly how much do we really want to dictate players' options for them?

[gerones]

Rules should favour a balance between playability and gamey way of playing. To empty Lybia of axis forces and to redeploy them in Sicily is gamey. To favour gamey playing could make lose interest in the game. So to add consequences for playing like that sounds like a good thing.

I don't agree that it's gamey. To me "gamey" is using transports like warships to block access to a port, for example. Choosing, as Italy, to not attack Greece or to not fight in Libya seems more like a legitimate strategic choice. I mean, exactly how much do we really want to dictate players' options for them?

IMO to use transports like warships is not very smart if you ask me: you can easily break that "blockade" with your naval and air units since naval transports use to lose many steps when attacked. Using units for different roles than the ones they have uses to be rather ineffective. For me a gamey playing instead is (or I should say was) e.g. to rebase all Luftwaffe wings to non severe winter hexes after that hits and then to rebase again to USSR in the very following turn.

To evacuate italian troops from Libya is a legitimate choice but it has to have consequences if we want CEAW GS a simulation WW2 game. Before, allied players used to empty Mediterranean sea of naval units in 1939-1940 and redeployed them in the Atlantic. This was also a players choice but it was decided to have consequences with an increased chance for Italy to enter the war or even more, in the case of the brits, their Mediterranean fleet cannot be moved until Italy joins the axis. But apart from this, to empty Libya of italian forces can also be said that it is gamey because is a movement pretty related to the special italian surrender conditions.

[Morris]

Rules should favour a balance between playability and gamey way of playing. To empty Lybia of axis forces and to redeploy them in Sicily is gamey. To favour gamey playing could make lose interest in the game. So to add consequences for playing like that sounds like a good thing.

I don't agree that it's gamey. To me "gamey" is using transports like warships to block access to a port, for example. Choosing, as Italy, to not attack Greece or to not fight in Libya seems more like a legitimate strategic choice. I mean, exactly how much do we really want to dictate players' options for them?

I don't agree either . We try to make the game historic not mean to force the player making the same mistake as history . To enforce Africa was a mistake . Only Italian would not be able to hold Lybia ,They would probably all surrender there . So to send them back to Sicily or Europe mainland is not gamey but smart . I also do agree that using transports like warships to block is really gamey ! However it would not happen in the history !

[joerock22]

I think I was opposed to it at first, but I've come to like how GS handles the Balkans situation. The historical approach of invading Greece and Yugoslavia is slightly favored by rewarding the Axis player with additional units for Barbarossa, but players can reasonably choose the other option as well.

This should be how Libya is handled, and I think having one surrender city in Axis-controlled Africa accomplishes that. Abandoning Africa means the Allies are one step closer to forcing Italy to surrender, but it means the Axis will be better able to defend Sicily. Players can reasonably choose both options. With a morale penalty I think you're penalizing the Axis player too much for choosing the non-historical option.

The object should be to give players soft "nudges" to follow the historical approach, not to force them into it.

[Morris]

I think I was opposed to it at first, but I've come to like how GS handles the Balkans situation. The historical approach of invading Greece and Yugoslavia is slightly favored by rewarding the Axis player with additional units for Barbarossa, but players can reasonably choose the other option as well.

This should be how Libya is handled, and I think having one surrender city in Axis-controlled Africa accomplishes that. Abandoning Africa means the Allies are one step closer to forcing Italy to surrender, but it means the Axis will be better able to defend Sicily. Players can reasonably choose both options. With a morale penalty I think you're penalizing the Axis player too much for choosing the non-historical option.

The object should be to give players soft "nudges" to follow the historical approach, not to force them into it.

You are quite right !