crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
quote:
ORIGINAL: crsutton
Yep, I prefer to play the Allies but firmly believe that the victory conditions for the Allies should be much more difficult. But one of the hardest things to do is play balance a monster campaign such as this. It is why I pay little attention to VP and don't really factor it in. I play for the fun of it and pretty much will know who won or lost when the dust settles. I really think that the Allies need to be sitting in Tokyo by 1/46 to have anything but a draw.
I think that the VP system is pretty well-balanced for the scale of the game. Could it be better? Certainly, but only some minor tweaks are required, not wholesale changes. I think fewer VPs for strategic bombing, for example, would be the only change that I would endorse.
If you do not play for VPs, however, you cannot claim to win a victory based on VPs. Without VPs and the possibility of Japanese auto-victory, there is no incentive for the allies to do anything in 1942, except defend Australia and India on the ground. This ensures that the allies will have sufficient surface assets and naval air assets to make significant advances in late 1943. Also, without the incentive of auto-victory, Japan lacks any real purpose after the initial conquest phase. This can result in poor Japanese play and a boring game: in which Japan merely fortifies territories, stockpiles supplies, and shuttles resources and oil around the empire for 18 months. It also results, I think, in a skewed set of Japanese objectives: such as trying to destroy the whole Chinese army (which is worth 1/4 as many VPs as other allied ground units)
It is certainly more difficult to play Japan than the allies, mostly because the Japanese economy is difficult to manage and comprehend and because of the limitations that supply and fuel place upon Japan's activities. When playing for VPs and with Japanese auto-victory as a real threat, the game is not so simple for the allies, who must often fight on unfavorable terms in 1942 and suffer disproportionate losses in an attempt to maintain a VP ratio below 3:1.
No, auto victory is a horrible design. Most Japanese drives for auto-victory between matched players fail, and then 90% of those game end with a resignation or the Japanese player disappearing after 1/43. I have seen it happen too many times on this forum. I am pretty confident that if a player goes AV on me that I am going to whip him and then see the empire collapse quickly thereafter. Thing is, if the Japanese player is going for auto victory, then they must do things that will destroy any other sort of plan for a lasting game. It is pretty much an all or nothing gambit. When I commit to play a campaign, I expect to go long and expect my opponent to do the same. The game should be designed to follow roughly a historical pattern with some liberal variations. But I want it to be "sort" of a simulation. If my opponent is going to try a bunch of hokey crap and then bail when it does not work, I need to know in advance. We got World of Warships for the fantasy stuff.
Victory points are not easily balanced. It is just impossible to properly play test a game of this size to determine if the game is balanced at the end. It would take years to test and thousands of man hours.
_____________________________
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
|
Printable Version
RE: October 1944 - 
EDIT: That is not to say this is will happen, you have lots of tools left...but the odds of it happening have greatly increased. 
But with aggressive sub leaders and reaction of 1 the patrol length might not matter. 
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