Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Heresy!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Heresy! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Heresy! - 12/29/2008 2:44:37 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
I am feeling a bit stroppy, so I will fire off a little heresy in the hope of provoking some discussion on the current implementation of the A-bomb. For various reasons, I feel that it is easier to win as Axis. I feel that this is, in large measure, the result of how the A-bomb works (and does not work). Leaving aside the issue of whether the bomb implementation favours the Axis, it does force a certain measure of uniformity of strategy.

First off, the USSR must be at war with Japan. WHY? This means that unless Japan declares war against the USSR, or gets in range of Soviet bombers in the central partition, the WA and Russia must target Germany first. Yes, it is possible for the WA to take Japan amphibiously, but this can really only occur if only if the Japanese player has been extraordinarily sloppy allowing for the home islands to be be cut off and un-garrisoned. Transport restrictions and air unit costs, as well as long-range air unit penalties simply make this almost impossible if the Japanese player retreats even a fraction of the IJA to Honshu and Kyushu. So, with roughly evenly matched opponents this means that the WA must really rely on the A-bomb to win. Ok. Fine. But this means that almost every game played follows a Europe-first strategy (and the Axis player knows this). So much for choice.

Too, I am curious about the presumption that only Japan would surrender after an A-bomb (ironic, given the Japanese predisposition to not surrender). In fact, Germany was contemplating surrender without an A-bomb and probably would have if the coup against Hitler had been successful (admittedly, this may not have been the un-conditional surrender sought by the Allies). Certainly, by autumn 1944 the writing was on the wall for Germany and, if an A-bomb or two happened to drop from the skies (difficult to obtain by 1944, in any event), I find it plausible that Germany might have thrown in the towel. Why can it not be possible to consider the A-bomb for situations where Germany has retreated into her historical borders and falls below a certain PP threshold? Of course, one might consider that Russia or the WA would also surrender after an A-bomb, but the resources necessary for development obviate the need to consider this further.

Thoughts?
Post #: 1
RE: Heresy! - 12/29/2008 9:41:45 PM   
xianing

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/22/2007
Status: offline
For the first point, I think a Japan-first strategy is possible. I have used this strategy in one game because Germany was too strong so I decide to deal Japan firstly (not to force Japan to surrender but to destroy its production capacity). Finally Japan was paralyzed and surrendered one turn after the fall of Germany by A-bomb. It was a Allies victory.
This strategy may be useful when Germany is too difficult to deal at first and WA want to rescue more ressource in Asia to maintain a high productivity.

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 2
RE: Heresy! - 12/29/2008 11:45:03 PM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
Thanks, Ning, for offering your thoughts and considerable experience.

Of course, A Japan-first strategy is possible. Dependong on game developments, it might be a viable or even the best available option. But, in 90% of the games I have played, it does not occur. This is probably more a function of being able to double-team Germany more easily than Japan (with Russian DOW limitations). That said, I think a good measure of this phenomenon is also attributable to A-bomb implementation. So, I still don't see why there is the requirement of Russia being at war. What purpose does this strait-jacket serve apart from reinforcing a pronounced tendancy of games focus first on Europe? Indeed, I think that even if this requirement were lifted, most (but perhaps fewer) games will still focus on the war in Europe. So, what specifically is being gained my imposing the Russian war requirement and why was the made decision impose it (what was feared to be the downside of not having Russia at war for the A-bomb to work)? Too, one should keep in mind that Japan really has to be on her last legs for the bomb work...

Equally, what is being gained by having only Japan surrender from the A-bomb? What would the reasons be for not implementing something comparable for Germany? (and even other combattants) 

My purpose is raising these issues to allow for more in-game choice and variety. I am curious what others think.




< Message edited by Lucky1 -- 12/30/2008 1:09:59 AM >

(in reply to xianing)
Post #: 3
RE: Heresy! - 12/30/2008 1:37:45 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
Personally I wouldn't have a problem removing the at-war-with-Russia requirement (although it does serve as a bit of a deterrent for Japan attacking Russia).

Recall that a patch added the requirement that the US actually drops an a-bomb on Japan, rather than just possess the a-bomb. The production threshold was also reduced. So a-bomb surrender is harder to get now than it originally was. I think that with the newer requirement that a bomb actually fall on Japan it is OK to remove the Russian-war requirement.

Anyway, I'll wait to see what people want.

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 4
RE: Heresy! - 12/30/2008 3:27:57 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
Ah. Perhaps the deterrent thing makes sense.... I never thought of it that way (but I often do a pre-emptive strike with Japan if Germany is going down the tubes...). I wonder what others think. For me, the greater deterrent is the bump in US war readiness...

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 5
RE: Heresy! - 12/30/2008 6:03:53 PM   
Marshall Art

 

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline
IMO the deterrent is a great factor since without it the Japanese player always would double-team with Germany on Russia without any disadvantage in case AV is not reached. Thus the requirement to keep peace with Russia until Germany is conquered puts the Japanese player somewhat on a rather historical path.

However, I do fully agree that with the current balance issues the Allies are too vulnerable against a quick-AV strategy which may or may not include the Russian double-team. I played back-to back games with Lucky1 and xianing where the Axis player always gained at least a victory, sometimes even an AV with very similar strategies. While the respective WA strategy might have been sub-par it still supports the pro-Axis balance argument. It is quite easy to win as Axis while it is very hard to prevent an AV as Allies and almost impossible to win without the A-bomb.

In order to tackle this some adjustments in either Russian and US WR or the addition of either another Russian or US factory might swing the balance back to an even situation.

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 6
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Heresy! Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.672