RE: How to ruin the game? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

Harrybanana -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/21/2021 8:19:21 PM)

I am not convinced that there is a problem. In my AAR with Hadros he lost 2 armour, a mechanized and an infantry corps and he seems to be doing just fine. Has anyone playing the Axis who had this happen to them actually played out the game? Or did everyone else just giveup?



ComadrejaKorp -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/21/2021 8:32:26 PM)

quote:

If Egypt has less than X units Italy can DOW.


I don't think this will help, from Egypt only the tank is withdrawn, and it is usually reinforced with infantry.



stjeand -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/22/2021 2:39:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I am not convinced that there is a problem. In my AAR with Hadros he lost 2 armour, a mechanized and an infantry corps and he seems to be doing just fine. Has anyone playing the Axis who had this happen to them actually played out the game? Or did everyone else just giveup?



I don't think there is an issue until Russia...missing 3 armor / mech is a pretty big deal. I have been reading your AAR and that is about 30% of this armor.


Considering prior to the France all in...no armor / mech was lost that I saw and I am assuming the game was pretty even...one has to imagine that losing that much will have a major future effect unless that Axis is able to do a bunch of damage to the UK.

I could be wrong.

Most of the games I played with this tactic was when I was a newer play as were my opponents, other than ComadrejaKorp (and these were just tests) all ended because the Axis player either lost all their armor / mech or failed to take France in 40.
NOW keep in mind they were not as experience as you, Hadros or ComadrejaKorp...but that is still an issue in my eyes.

Honestly I will just play with a smaller BEF for now...even with the possible forthcoming changes.

I just wanted to look out for newer players that don't read this forum and want to play not knowing that this could be an issue. It is pretty disheartening to get crushed as the Axis by the French / UK in 1940.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/24/2021 11:47:40 PM)

One other change I am considering is also allow Italy to DOW in May 1940 and removing the Paris requirement. That would replicate that the UK did have some fear if they moved too many troops that Italy might declare war on them. But this adjustment also prevents an early steamroll.



Harrybanana -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 12:15:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I am not convinced that there is a problem. In my AAR with Hadros he lost 2 armour, a mechanized and an infantry corps and he seems to be doing just fine. Has anyone playing the Axis who had this happen to them actually played out the game? Or did everyone else just giveup?



I don't think there is an issue until Russia...missing 3 armor / mech is a pretty big deal. I have been reading your AAR and that is about 30% of this armor.


Considering prior to the France all in...no armor / mech was lost that I saw and I am assuming the game was pretty even...one has to imagine that losing that much will have a major future effect unless that Axis is able to do a bunch of damage to the UK.

I could be wrong.

Most of the games I played with this tactic was when I was a newer play as were my opponents, other than ComadrejaKorp (and these were just tests) all ended because the Axis player either lost all their armor / mech or failed to take France in 40.
NOW keep in mind they were not as experience as you, Hadros or ComadrejaKorp...but that is still an issue in my eyes.

Honestly I will just play with a smaller BEF for now...even with the possible forthcoming changes.

I just wanted to look out for newer players that don't read this forum and want to play not knowing that this could be an issue. It is pretty disheartening to get crushed as the Axis by the French / UK in 1940.


If you are reading the AARs you will also know that he has as many armour as I do in our mirror game (more now actually). You will have to ask Hadros how he accomplished this while also building more U-Boats. I assume some of it was by not building any German air units at all and not even replacing all of his air losses.

Even before the All-In strategy developed it was common for the Germans to lose at least one mobile unit in France. In my mirror games with Magic Missile (see the AARS) we each lost 1 Mechanized in France. Although we didn't finish the game MM emailed me that he planned on having something like 15 mobile units for Barbarossa.



Nirosi -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 12:45:01 AM)

quote:

ut this adjustment also prevents an early steamroll.


I am not sure I understand. You mean a steamroll by Axis? Or a Allied steamroll against Italy?



Nirosi -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 12:46:28 AM)

Never mind. I understand from another post. My bad!



CreamyGoodness -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 3:02:54 AM)

I'll preface my remarks with the admission that I haven't played Warplan (though it looks interesting) so my suggestions may be bogus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa
One other change I am considering is also allow Italy to DOW in May 1940 and removing the Paris requirement.


Mussolini didn't join the war until the defeat of France was inevitable, so it would not be realistic for him to join the war when the defeat of France seemed even more remote (because of the all-in strategy).

I offer the following alternative for consideration ...

The Germans were slow to build up war production. The easy victory over France would have led to some complacency. If the campaign in France had been more difficult then they may have gotten more serious earlier. One way to counter the all-in strategy would be to advance the economy multiplier for the German economy (or similar) if the French campaign is long and difficult. This would allow any otherwise game-losing, excessive German losses to be replaced.

The obvious measure of "difficult" is the time of the fall of France, but tying an advance to the German economy to that puts the Allied player in a conflicted position of having to deliberately play badly so that France doesn't hold out too long. The maximum achieved size of the BEF above some suitable threshold might be a better measure. A larger BEF would be expected to lengthen the campaign. The Allied player decides the size of the BEF and hence the adjustment to the German economy. After that they are free to hold France as long as they can.

Players that choose a historically sized BEF (under the threshold) won't be affected. Players that go for the all-in strategy will find it less effective in the long run. The relationship between BEF size and German economy advancement could be chosen to be balanced (commensurate to the average German losses) or punishing to make the all-in strategy not worth pursuing (after all it would have been politically impossible, if not infeasible).

An important consideration is what constitutes the BEF. I initially thought of counting the British forces in metropolitan France, but that wouldn't prevent some gamey workarounds, like hiding the BEF in the Low Countries, invading northern Germany or Denmark, garrisoning French territories with British units so the French units could move to France, or ganging up on Italy. I think it would have to be all British land and air units not in Britain and British/Commonwealth controlled territories.

Ultimately, the all-in strategy would have been politically untenable so it would be better IMO if the game could capture the consequences somehow. I also suspect it would not have been possible to build up a large army in the time available by neglecting the navy and air force - just as a shipyard can't suddenly make tanks, an air training school can't suddenly churn out artillerymen.

I'm with Harrybanana in thinking that air power isn't as effective as it should be. The consequences of neglecting the air force should be greater. I expect neglecting shipping would have led to critical shortages in Britain which would be reflected in the effectiveness of the army and the morale of the nation. Churchill would likely be dumped as prime minister and Britain would have sued for peace. Having Britain drop out of the war if the BoA goes very badly would be a powerful incentive to not neglect the navy, and curtail the all-in strategy to a degree.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 12:22:02 PM)

Air power is fine. The 1st hit from a tactical bomber vs a 100% effectiveness unit is 14% in 1939. That's pretty good. This isn't even counting the real damage on the unit which translates to about an additional 3% loss in combat strength.

Then the ground support is about 2/3rds a full strength unit.

The "Big BEF" strategy is unavoidable. I can lock units in place like CEaW does but not going to. There are other things I can do like give Germany more supply trucks, reduce French armor Opts like I did with Russia, lower French infantry Opts to slow them down better representing their lack of communications, Lower UK armor and mech opts till say late 1940.

In the beta the UK forces are now back to absolute historical. Someone needs to play that scenario to see if those modifications are enough. Until then I can't make further ones. You do this in small steps. But with the 1.00.10 changes at least the Russian front is more stable which is the most important.

I might just give more supply trucks to the Germans anyways. They had so much ammunition they could supply the army for the whole war.



sillyflower -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 4:04:25 PM)

With respect, Alvaro, The 'Big BEF' strategy is very easy to avoid. There aren't any complaints about balance with a 'normal' BEF. If you make changes that have the effect of nerfing a 'normal' BEF as well in order to deal with the BEF problem highlighted in this thread, then I might as well give up. I should clarify that the UK start reduction that is being tested is not something that I oppose as long as testing doesn't unbalance the game for mere mortals like me.



ComadrejaKorp -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 5:09:32 PM)

My opinion, these strategies are not cheese or exploit, I think that the game is designed like that, creative freedom so that the possibilities are infinite (within a certain realism), and I think this is part of its success, although it is true that lately many strategies are popping up near the edge.

The problem, possible but not realistic?
History has shown us that what seems impossible can happen.

That said, I am against any strategy that ruins the game.

My problem with them is that they make the game ugly, if All-in works, Axis player leaves in 1940, if All-in does not work, Allied player leaves in 1941.
When using these extreme strategies the game is dead, it will be ugly no matter what.

To make a lot of changes in favor of Axis or that weaken France a lot, will force the Allies to always use All-In defense, and I think this is not the idea.

This is why I do not like the current solutions in Beta, I think that these strategies should be banned directly even if it is contrary to the philosophy of the game.

All-in defense solution: limit number of Uk troops in france

Solution to disband a lot: prohibition to dismantle initial troops (only allowed to disband the purchased ones)

Warplan was close to balance until this defense appeared, modifying things at this point will affect balance for Barbarrosa.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 5:20:22 PM)

The Russia situation had to change. Russia was a blowout in 1943 for one side or another.

I looked at Harrybanana and Hadros AAR. He did the BIG BEF and France fell August 2nd which is fairly reasonable. Both seem to be good players. It just needs to be shifted slightly so the average is July, thus why removing 100 strength from the UK is the correct move. It forces them to make choices as they can't be in all places at once. The UK got beefed up before because they were too weak and the Axis could overrun them easily in Africa.



Ancient One -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 8:35:57 PM)

I'm still curious why lowering the French units on the Maginot with 50% experience to 40% wasn't considered as part of a solution. Was it intended that moving those units out of the Maginot to replace them with 40% ones becomes the normal way to play?



AlvaroSousa -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 8:44:48 PM)

I reduced the French all to 40% in the beta.
I also just added that shattered units due to no retreat path but can trace supply go to the build queue for 2 turns instead of blowing up.



Flaviusx -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 9:52:18 PM)

Whoa. The shattered unit change is a big deal and not just for France.

I think I am okay with it, tbh. Shattering units for lack of a retreat path was a little too devastating all around. You could create some really nasty feedback loops this way.

I also like that now players have an actual reason for trying to cut off units from supply. Because up until now this was mostly irrelevant. Far easier to shatter units for lack of a retreat path and remove them entirely. Now you have to work at it a little harder if you want to get rid of them for good.



MorningDew -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 11:01:43 PM)

Those seem like two very good changes to me.



Nirosi -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 11:06:09 PM)

+1



Harrybanana -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 11:15:41 PM)

I for one really like this change Alvaro.

But my understanding is that it is only units shattered because of no retreat path that come back after 4 weeks. Units Shattered because of high combat odds (7:1 or greater) and low effectiveness will not return even if they have a retreat path.

Also a couple things to consider:

1. What about units in a port hex that have no retreat path (Gibraltar, Malta and often Leningrad and Odessa)? Because they are in a port hex (or in the case of Leningrad adjacent to one) does this mean they will return in 4 weeks? This probably won't have big repercussions for WarPlan, but might for Warplan Pacific.

2. How are the 2 turns counted? In the 39 Scenario the Axis always goes first. So if an Axis player Shatters an Allied unit on say his January 1 turn than the Allied player will receive the unit back on his January 29 turn. The Allied Player will therefore be without the unit for two turns, January 1 and January 15. But if the Allied Player Shatters a German unit on his January 1 turn, does this mean that the German Player will get the unit back on his January 29 turn or his February 12 turn? The problem with the former would be that the Axis Player will only be without the unit for 1 turn (January 15).



Harrybanana -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 11:24:21 PM)

I think this is the best solution to the All-In strategy. I wasn't that crazy about the All-In strategy anyway. In my game with Hadros, even though I destroyed 2 armour, a Mechanized and an infantry using this strategy, I don't know if it was worth it. Because I didn't build any early MS or escorts the British now have serious problems. If those Armour and Mechanized returned in 2 turns it definitely would not have been worth it. Once this Rule becosme official I will gladly play the Axis against anyone who wants to use the All-In strategy against me.



Flaviusx -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/25/2021 11:37:14 PM)

I have to agree the shatter rule change all by itself kills the all in, the other stuff is almost irrelevant.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/26/2021 2:39:40 AM)

If you shatter because of odds YOU DIE.
If you have NO retreat path, like Malta then YOU DIE.
If you can't connect to a supply source when you retreat YOU DIE.
If you can connect to a supply source, don't have a retreat path because the hexes are filled you shatter back to the queue if you retreat.

Shatter because of odds is due to being overrun and destroyed with a few soldiers running away.




Harrybanana -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/26/2021 6:47:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

If you shatter because of odds YOU DIE.
If you have NO retreat path, like Malta then YOU DIE.
If you can't connect to a supply source when you retreat YOU DIE.
If you can connect to a supply source, don't have a retreat path because the hexes are filled you shatter back to the queue if you retreat.

Shatter because of odds is due to being overrun and destroyed with a few soldiers running away.


Alvaro, what do you mean by a "supply source". Is a friendly port (such as Alexandria for the British and Tobruk for the Italians) a "supply source"? If not, does this mean that units shattered in Africa will not return?



sillyflower -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/26/2021 7:44:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

If you shatter because of odds YOU DIE.
If you have NO retreat path, like Malta then YOU DIE.
If you can't connect to a supply source when you retreat YOU DIE.
If you can connect to a supply source, don't have a retreat path because the hexes are filled you shatter back to the queue if you retreat.

Shatter because of odds is due to being overrun and destroyed with a few soldiers running away.




Seems good to me



AlvaroSousa -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/26/2021 1:28:53 PM)

supply source is main or port



Numdydar -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/26/2021 8:16:32 PM)

So if Alexandra is surrounded and the unit in the city shatters, it will come back at some point as an example.

But what if the port is blockaded? Then the unit should die should it not? Since there is no supply path at that point? Provides more reason to not have ports blockaded [:)]



AlvaroSousa -> RE: How to ruin the game? (4/26/2021 9:26:01 PM)

No you don't have a retreat path



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625