Victory conditions

[gerones]

May be it would have to change the victory conditions so it will be a draw when the allies liberate France and Italy at least in 1944, because I keep on thinking it´s a little bit difficult for the allies to arrive in time and achieve a victory with the new weather conditions in which they almost can´t use their unlimited air superiority in the decisive last turns. Let´s think that the last turns in which the allies can achieve a victory are all of them bad weather. So for me if the allies succeed in the landings in 1944 and the axis don´t succeed in dropping them to the sea this have to be a draw and not an axis victory. Let´s remember that in this case in the vanilla game (the allies liberate Paris and Rome in 1944) it was an allied victory so the change would be to consider this a draw.

[timhicks]

agree with you on that, but I think a better idea would be to limit the restrictions that mud has on Aircraft. After all, in Western Europe many of the Aircaft were based on hard airstrips. A "Mud" turn presumably represents 20 days of intermittent rain , low cloud and soggy ground. The aircraft would only really be affected by the cloud and the persistent rain. Otherwise they just need to wait for rain to stop.

The aircrews would be told what the level of the cloudbase is and unless the cloudbase is very low, they just pop out of the cloud over the target and continue normally.

At the moment it's hardly worth using your Tac Air when the weather is bad (especially if you're the Axis with an eye on the Oil), and I think it's a bit unrealistic.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Mud and winter doesn't always mean that the air units were grounded, but heavy clouds meant that the precision of bombing suffered. I still use my strategic and tactical bombers during mud and winter when I attack the Germans. They have less effect, but with the usual tech upgrades you can still inflict 1-2 step losses upon the unit you bombard. This allows for attacks upon a few hexes each turn. You can't move far due to the mud movement restrictions, but you can inflict losses.

The victory conditions are made in such a way that you're measured against the REAL war result. If you take all the Axis capitals before May 1945 then it's one kind of Allied victory. If the Axis player still controls one or more of the major capitals then it's one kind of Axis victory.

The game balance is made so the Axis would surrender around May 1945 if both sides play equally well. So if you grant Allied victory just for landing in France or Italy then we need to completely rebalance the game. I don't think the vanilla game victory conditions were good. It was balanced so the Axis had to keep 4 or more major capitals to win or 3 to get a draw. Our goal was to make a more historical game and that meant the Axis IS supposed to collapse before May 1945. A good Axis player can delay the collapse and thus he will win the game.

It seems harsh to get all the way to Berlin before May 1945, but it definitely can be done. You just have to play aggressively as the Allied player and don't worry about losses. This is especially important for the Russians. You rarely get good odds against German units for the initial attack upon the unit, but each subsequent attack will get better odds and usually the German unit will be destroyed if you can attack it with 3 units (one mech or armor). You win by inflicting so many losses each turn on the Axis player so his front line will collapse

[gerones]

So if you grant Allied victory just for landing in France or Italy then we need to completely rebalance the game. I don't think the vanilla game victory conditions were good. It was balanced so the Axis had to keep 4 or more major capitals to win or 3 to get a draw. Our goal was to make a more historical game and that meant the Axis IS supposed to collapse before May 1945. A good Axis player can delay the collapse and thus he will win the game.

I don´t mean an allied sucessful landing in France and Italy gives a victory to the allied player. I only mean that if the allies could liberate Paris and Rome in 1944 this could be considered a DRAW. What it is really a victory for the axis (and historically would have been) is to drop the allies to the sea and not to let the allies liberate Paris. But I don´t think it should be considered a victory a german army that has almost no strength, fortified in a little bit unrealistic row of fortifications (in fact Sigfried was a half-built defensive line and the "east wall" was a group of fortified cities but with no continuity as it appears in CEAW GS) and surrounded by overwhelming allied armies in both sides. It seems it has no sense that the allies can´t achieve the victory in the very month of May 45 when they could achieve this victory in the month of June or July 45. So these are the changes I propose:

• Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals before july 1944 --> ULTIMATE ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in july-december 1944 --> STRATEGIC ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in january-february 1945 --> MAJOR ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in march-april 1945 --> MINOR ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 but they don´t capture the two german capitals before may 45 or they capture the two capitals in may 1945 --> DRAW
  Axis capture 4 ENEMY major capitals --> ULTIMATE AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome until may 1945 --> STRATEGIC AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome during all the year of 1944 and they hold only Paris until may 1945 --> MAJOR AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome during all the year of 1944 and they hold only Rome until may 1945 --> MINOR AXIS VICTORY
  Axis loses Paris and Rome during 1944 but holds Berlin and Hamburg until 1945 or they lose these two capitals in 1945 --> DRAW

This victory conditions seems to be a little bit less confuse that the ones in the GS manual since in the manual determines an ultimate axis victory if the axis controls 4 capitals without specifying as enemy capitals. That´s why I´ve specified as ENEMY capitals in the list above.

[rkr1958]

So if you grant Allied victory just for landing in France or Italy then we need to completely rebalance the game. I don't think the vanilla game victory conditions were good. It was balanced so the Axis had to keep 4 or more major capitals to win or 3 to get a draw. Our goal was to make a more historical game and that meant the Axis IS supposed to collapse before May 1945. A good Axis player can delay the collapse and thus he will win the game.

I don´t mean an allied sucessful landing in France and Italy gives a victory to the allied player. I only mean that if the allies could liberate Paris and Rome in 1944 this could be considered a DRAW. What it is really a victory for the axis (and historically would have been) is to drop the allies to the sea and not to let the allies liberate Paris. But I don´t think it should be considered a victory a german army that has almost no strength, fortified in a little bit unrealistic row of fortifications (in fact Sigfried was a half-built defensive line and the "east wall" was a group of fortified cities but with no continuity as it appears in CEAW GS) and surrounded by overwhelming allied armies in both sides. It seems it has no sense that the allies can´t achieve the victory in the very month of May 45 when they could achieve this victory in the month of June or July 45. So these are the changes I propose:

• Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals before july 1944 --> ULTIMATE ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in july-december 1944 --> STRATEGIC ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in january-february 1945 --> MAJOR ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in march-april 1945 --> MINOR ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 but they don´t capture the two german capitals before may 45 or they capture the two capitals in may 1945 --> DRAW
  Axis capture 4 ENEMY major capitals --> ULTIMATE AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome until may 1945 --> STRATEGIC AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome during all the year of 1944 and they hold only Paris until may 1945 --> MAJOR AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome during all the year of 1944 and they hold only Rome until may 1945 --> MINOR AXIS VICTORY
  Axis loses Paris and Rome during 1944 but holds Berlin and Hamburg until 1945 or they lose these two capitals in 1945 --> DRAW

This victory conditions seems to be a little bit less confuse that the ones in the GS manual since in the manual determines an ultimate axis victory if the axis controls 4 capitals without specifying as enemy capitals. That´s why I´ve specified as ENEMY capitals in the list above.

As Borger said victory conditions are set relative to the historical outcome. Until we implemented the broader weather effects our play testing experience was that against two equal players the game was titled towards the allies. And, against a more experienced allied player the game was greatly titled towards the allies. We've gone through quite a bit of play testing and tweaking to arrive at these victory conditions. However; our experience and data on all this was limited primarily to our play test group. Over our entire design and testing processing of updating and tweaking we tried to avoid making major changes, which changing the victory conditions would be, based on limited data or one person's experience. With that said, it doesn't mean we wouldn't be willing to change or tweak the victory conditions. It just means that we would need the sufficient data that would justify and support changing them. If this is something that you feel strongly about would you be willing to collect and summarize the data to properly assess this? Similar to what I've done with the fall of France stats?

[gerones]

So if you grant Allied victory just for landing in France or Italy then we need to completely rebalance the game. I don't think the vanilla game victory conditions were good. It was balanced so the Axis had to keep 4 or more major capitals to win or 3 to get a draw. Our goal was to make a more historical game and that meant the Axis IS supposed to collapse before May 1945. A good Axis player can delay the collapse and thus he will win the game.

I don´t mean an allied sucessful landing in France and Italy gives a victory to the allied player. I only mean that if the allies could liberate Paris and Rome in 1944 this could be considered a DRAW. What it is really a victory for the axis (and historically would have been) is to drop the allies to the sea and not to let the allies liberate Paris. But I don´t think it should be considered a victory a german army that has almost no strength, fortified in a little bit unrealistic row of fortifications (in fact Sigfried was a half-built defensive line and the "east wall" was a group of fortified cities but with no continuity as it appears in CEAW GS) and surrounded by overwhelming allied armies in both sides. It seems it has no sense that the allies can´t achieve the victory in the very month of May 45 when they could achieve this victory in the month of June or July 45. So these are the changes I propose:

• Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals before july 1944 --> ULTIMATE ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in july-december 1944 --> STRATEGIC ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in january-february 1945 --> MAJOR ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 and they capture the two german capitals in march-april 1945 --> MINOR ALLIED VICTORY
  Allies liberate Paris and Rome at least in 1944 but they don´t capture the two german capitals before may 45 or they capture the two capitals in may 1945 --> DRAW
  Axis capture 4 ENEMY major capitals --> ULTIMATE AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome until may 1945 --> STRATEGIC AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome during all the year of 1944 and they hold only Paris until may 1945 --> MAJOR AXIS VICTORY
  Axis holds Paris and Rome during all the year of 1944 and they hold only Rome until may 1945 --> MINOR AXIS VICTORY
  Axis loses Paris and Rome during 1944 but holds Berlin and Hamburg until 1945 or they lose these two capitals in 1945 --> DRAW

This victory conditions seems to be a little bit less confuse that the ones in the GS manual since in the manual determines an ultimate axis victory if the axis controls 4 capitals without specifying as enemy capitals. That´s why I´ve specified as ENEMY capitals in the list above.

As Borger said victory conditions are set relative to the historical outcome. Until we implemented the broader weather effects our play testing experience was that against two equal players the game was titled towards the allies. And, against a more experienced allied player the game was greatly titled towards the allies. We've gone through quite a bit of play testing and tweaking to arrive at these victory conditions. However; our experience and data on all this was limited primarily to our play test group. Over our entire design and testing processing of updating and tweaking we tried to avoid making major changes, which changing the victory conditions would be, based on limited data or one person's experience. With that said, it doesn't mean we wouldn't be willing to change or tweak the victory conditions. It just means that we would need the sufficient data that would justify and support changing them. If this is something that you feel strongly about would you be willing to collect and summarize the data to properly assess this? Similar to what I've done with the fall of France stats?

These were only suggestions for a little bit less confuse victory conditions. And with these suggestions we won´t have any more an always "hurried-up" allied player if he/she wants to achieve the victory. It seems to be a strange victory when the axis with only 10-12 corps units with -2 or -3 quality obtains a victory against an overwhelming allied force because the allies haven´t get enough luck in the combat results and cannot capture the german capitals in the very last turns. This is what seems to be a little unrealistic. As we are seeing in your AAR against Jim, the alllies have now superiority in all fronts. But they surely lose the game because it´s november and it´s almost impossible that the allies can take the two german capitals because of the bad weather. Of course, it is needed more testing but we will often find allied players hurrying up to arrive in time to Germany in 1945 for a victory.

[rkr1958]

These were only suggestions for a little bit less confuse victory conditions. And with these suggestions we won´t have any more an always "hurried-up" allied player if he/she wants to achieve the victory. It seems to be a strange victory when the axis with only 10-12 corps units with -2 or -3 quality obtains a victory against an overwhelming allied force because the allies haven´t get enough luck in the combat results and cannot capture the german capitals in the very last turns. This is what seems to be a little unrealistic. As we are seeing in your AAR against Jim, the alllies have now superiority in all fronts. But they surely lose the game because it´s november and it´s almost impossible that the allies can take the two german capitals because of the bad weather. Of course, it is needed more testing but we will often find allied players hurrying up to arrive in time to Germany in 1945 for a victory.

This is the nature of the game isn't? And, not just for the allies but for the axis too. Aren't the axis hurrying to capture Poland by September 21, 1939, France by May / June 1940, Balkans by Spring 1941, invade Russia by the summer of 1941 or reach a defensible 1941 winter line in Russia before severe weather sets in. In the GS expansion we've tried to create a framework that allows players to implement historically reasonable strategies at the corps level. Well, that was our goal at least. But one thing we can't do anything about is people's knowledge of WW-II. For example, in 1939 did the French and British (or even the Germans) believe that France would be conquered in a month.

Also, one could view the race to get to Berlin by May 1945 as the race between the western allies and Russia. Or the political pressure to free western Europe for the nazis.

[gerones]

These were only suggestions for a little bit less confuse victory conditions. And with these suggestions we won´t have any more an always "hurried-up" allied player if he/she wants to achieve the victory. It seems to be a strange victory when the axis with only 10-12 corps units with -2 or -3 quality obtains a victory against an overwhelming allied force because the allies haven´t get enough luck in the combat results and cannot capture the german capitals in the very last turns. This is what seems to be a little unrealistic. As we are seeing in your AAR against Jim, the alllies have now superiority in all fronts. But they surely lose the game because it´s november and it´s almost impossible that the allies can take the two german capitals because of the bad weather. Of course, it is needed more testing but we will often find allied players hurrying up to arrive in time to Germany in 1945 for a victory.

This is the nature of the game isn't? And, not just for the allies but for the axis too. Aren't the axis hurrying to capture Poland by September 21, 1939, France by May / June 1940, Balkans by Spring 1941, invade Russia by the summer of 1941 or reach a defensible 1941 winter line in Russia before severe weather sets in. In the GS expansion we've tried to create a framework that allows players to implement historically reasonable strategies at the corps level. Well, that was our goal at least. But one thing we can't do anything about is people's knowledge of WW-II. For example, in 1939 did the French and British (or even the Germans) believe that France would be conquered in a month.

Also, one could view the race to get to Berlin by May 1945 as the race between the western allies and Russia. Or the political pressure to free western Europe for the nazis.

The axis player has not to hurry up after Poland because he/she depends much on the weather in the west and can wait until fair weather as well. When the axis player has taken Low Countries and France, he/she has a large year to prepare for Barbarossa so here neither needs for hurry up in anything. After, in Barbarossa he/she can push the soviets east. When this is done, in fact if the game ends at that moment the axis player would win the game. So the axis player just needs to hold and hold to win the game (a conservative axis strategy). In other words, the axis player, after Russia enters at war, doesn´t have to capture more capitals for winning the game while the allied player has to capture Paris, Rome, AND the two german capitals and that´s because has to hurry up for arrive in time to capture all these capitals.

[gerones]

I would like to know how many players have finished their games with a draw result in GS since with the current victory conditions (the allies capture the last capital in the very last month of may 45) it´s fairly difficult to see a game that finished in draw. With the victory conditions I suggest in this thread, I´m sure we would see more results with draw since as it is posted above the allies wouldn´t have to capture any german capital for achieving at least a draw result.

[gerones]

I would like to know how many players have finished their games with a draw result in GS since with the current victory conditions (the allies capture the last capital in the very last month of may 45) it´s fairly difficult to see a game that finished in draw. With the victory conditions I suggest in this thread, I´m sure we would see more results with draw since as it is posted above the allies wouldn´t have to capture any german capital for achieving at least a draw result.

I´m quoting myself about this thread started by me 2 months ago because as we can see in the GS victory statitistics there has been only registered 1 draw. See this: viewtopic.php?t=15062&start=40

So it is checked that a draw result is very difficult to see in GS. I have to say again that in GS if the allies achieve to liberate France in 1944 it should be considered a draw no matter they conquer or not the 2 german capitals in 1945. Let´s think that the vanilla game victory conditions it was an allied victory if the allies liberate France even they don´t conquer Berlin.

[schwerpunkt]

I´m quoting myself about this thread started by me 2 months ago because as we can see in the GS victory statitistics there has been only registered 1 draw. See this: viewtopic.php?t=15062&start=40

Leridano,
That "Draw" wasnt really a real one either as its actually the game that you and I agreed to wind up part way through 1943, so I reported it as a "Draw" for stats reporting purposes.

Neil

[gerones]

I´m quoting myself about this thread started by me 2 months ago because as we can see in the GS victory statitistics there has been only registered 1 draw. See this: viewtopic.php?t=15062&start=40

Leridano,
That "Draw" wasnt really a real one either as its actually the game that you and I agreed to wind up part way through 1943, so I reported it as a "Draw" for stats reporting purposes.

Neil

That is good to know. So, no draw at all.

[rkr1958]

I´m quoting myself about this thread started by me 2 months ago because as we can see in the GS victory statitistics there has been only registered 1 draw. See this: viewtopic.php?t=15062&start=40

Leridano,
That "Draw" wasnt really a real one either as its actually the game that you and I agreed to wind up part way through 1943, so I reported it as a "Draw" for stats reporting purposes.

Neil

That is good to know. So, no draw at all.

We've had two draws reported. One by Neil and one by Paul. The way the stats spreadsheet works is to balance wins, losses and draws using the "Anonymous" player. For example, the "Anonymous" player makes sure that the number of major axis victories = number of major allied loses and so on including draws. So continuing with this example if 5 major axis victories have been reported and 3 major allied loses then the algorithm used adds 2 major allied loses to anonymous. No attempt has been made to reconcile for which games wins and loses have been reported. This includes draws so if one allied and one axis draw has been reported then all is well. However; in this case I do know that the two reports of draws came from different games.

By the way, and I've stated this position before, I support the current GS victory conditions. Personally, I think they work best. If you check the victory stats post ( viewtopic.php?p=140876#140876 ) we have folks saying that's too difficult to win with the axis. If we were to convert all minor and major axis wins (i.e., the ones with one or two capitals) to draws then this would drop the axis win percentage from 11-21-1 (33%) to 6-21-6 (20%). To me, the existing victory conditions result in a lot of games going down to the wire. Like was the case historically, many axis players will fight to the bitter end even though they'll know from a non-gaming perspective (i.e., post first turn in May 1945) that Germany would be totally defeated.

[gerones]

Leridano,
That "Draw" wasnt really a real one either as its actually the game that you and I agreed to wind up part way through 1943, so I reported it as a "Draw" for stats reporting purposes.

Neil

That is good to know. So, no draw at all.

We've had two draws reported. One by Neil and one by Paul. The way the stats spreadsheet works is to balance wins, losses and draws using the "Anonymous" player. For example, the "Anonymous" player makes sure that the number of major axis victories = number of major allied loses and so on including draws. So continuing with this example if 5 major axis victories have been reported and 3 major allied loses then the algorithm used adds 2 major allied loses to anonymous. No attempt has been made to reconcile for which games wins and loses have been reported. This includes draws so if one allied and one axis draw has been reported then all is well. However; in this case I do know that the two reports of draws came from different games.

By the way, and I've stated this position before, I support the current GS victory conditions. Personally, I think they work best. If you check the victory stats post ( viewtopic.php?p=140876#140876 ) we have folks saying that's too difficult to win with the axis. If we were to convert all minor and major axis wins (i.e., the ones with one or two capitals) to draws then this would drop the axis win percentage from 11-21-1 (33%) to 6-21-6 (20%). To me, the existing victory conditions result in a lot of games going down to the wire. Like was the case historically, many axis players will fight to the bitter end even though they'll know from a non-gaming perspective (i.e., post first turn in May 1945) that Germany would be totally defeated.

As you can read above the draw reported by Neil was not a real one (I mean the game does not end in 1945 but in 1943).

The only thing I try to say here is that in general for the allies (as it happens in the real war) to succeed in a Overlord operation is not easy and this would have to be valued more in GS CEAW. So this way if the allies succeed in Overlord and liberate Paris and France in 1944 this should be considered a draw as if the war would have finished without an allied invasion of Germany, the things would have been as in may 1940 before Fall Weiss was launched. I mean no territories are conquered by neither side.

But if the germans succeed in throwing the allies to the sea in Overlord this really have to be valued as a major axis success and this way this have to be considered an axis victory no matter the allies try again the landings in 1945 (difficult because of the weather).

This way we didn´t see more games in which the germans with 4-5 corps around Berlin get finally the victory because of the allied with overwhelming forces were not lucky about the weather or the combat results in the very last turns. I mean that the military situation of the war would be an allied victory no matter the allies don´t achieve to capture the capital in a concrete date and it would be ridiculous to be valued as an axis victory what it would be a total annihilation of the german forces if the game would have lasted 2 or 3 more turns.

So, in my opinion, the draws or victories have to be valued in terms of the real military situation at the end of the game and not in terms of capturing a capital or a city in a concrete date.

Anyway, is there a way to implement a different victory conditions as an option for the players?

[rkr1958]

Anyway, is there a way to implement a different victory conditions as an option for the players?

I'm afraid that's hardcoded but you could always define your victory conditions any way you wish and implement them via house rule. However; I do request that for the purposes of reporting games for the victory stats thread ( viewtopic.php?p=140876#140876 ) that they be reported the way they're coded (and shown by the game) so we can continue to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

[joerock22]

This way we didn´t see more games in which the germans with 4-5 corps around Berlin get finally the victory because of the allied with overwhelming forces were not lucky about the weather or the combat results in the very last turns. I mean that the military situation of the war would be an allied victory no matter the allies don´t achieve to capture the capital in a concrete date and it would be ridiculous to be valued as an axis victory what it would be a total annihilation of the german forces if the game would have lasted 2 or 3 more turns.

So, in my opinion, the draws or victories have to be valued in terms of the real military situation at the end of the game and not in terms of capturing a capital or a city in a concrete date.

I fail to see the problem with this. The victory conditions are based on the historical timeline of the war. If the Allies fail to capture Berlin by the historical date, that should be scored as a victory for the Germans, because the Axis player did better than the Axis did historically. Even if the player would have only lasted another 2 weeks, that should be scored as a minor victory. Luck in 1945 can play a role in determining the final outcome, but the Allies can just as easily get lucky with a turn of clear weather when the odds favored mud or winter. Luck always plays a role in closely-contest games, so I don't see this as a problem either.

The only thing I try to say here is that in general for the allies (as it happens in the real war) to succeed in a Overlord operation is not easy and this would have to be valued more in GS CEAW. So this way if the allies succeed in Overlord and liberate Paris and France in 1944 this should be considered a draw as if the war would have finished without an allied invasion of Germany, the things would have been as in may 1940 before Fall Weiss was launched. I mean no territories are conquered by neither side.

But if the germans succeed in throwing the allies to the sea in Overlord this really have to be valued as a major axis success and this way this have to be considered an axis victory no matter the allies try again the landings in 1945 (difficult because of the weather).

I think this would encourage many Allied players to invade France in 1943 before they’re ready, which would lead to more Allied defeats. It could also allow the Axis player to send everything in the west to defend Paris without worrying about Belgium or Holland or Germany, since holding Paris until 1944 guarantees them a draw. Why would they bother defending Germany when Paris is made a more important city for determining victory than Berlin?

Ultimately, I think the victory conditions have to stay with the final outcome of the war in 1945, and not stray into the realm of certain cities falling by their historical dates. Once you do one, like Paris, then you can make arguments for other cities like Rome, Warsaw, etc. Then the victory conditions become so muddled that they aren’t understandable anymore.

[gerones]

I think this would encourage many Allied players to invade France in 1943 before they’re ready, which would lead to more Allied defeats. It could also allow the Axis player to send everything in the west to defend Paris without worrying about Belgium or Holland or Germany, since holding Paris until 1944 guarantees them a draw. Why would they bother defending Germany when Paris is made a more important city for determining victory than Berlin?

Leaving empty Belgium or Holland for defending Paris does not seem to be a smart strategy since the allies could really land in these countries or northern Germany and advance to Hamburg and Berlin whilst the germans are "entrenched" and "defending" Paris. This would be such a stupid strategy that there´s no need to talk more about it for all of you know that if Germany surrenders all the units in Paris would dissapear and then no more defense of Paris could be done.

I fail to see the problem with this. The victory conditions are based on the historical timeline of the war. If the Allies fail to capture Berlin by the historical date, that should be scored as a victory for the Germans, because the Axis player did better than the Axis did historically. Even if the player would have only lasted another 2 weeks, that should be scored as a minor victory. Luck in 1945 can play a role in determining the final outcome, but the Allies can just as easily get lucky with a turn of clear weather when the odds favored mud or winter. Luck always plays a role in closely-contest games, so I don't see this as a problem either.

Any military historian will tell you that succeeding in the Normandy landings was decisive for the allies to win the war. In fact, Rommel knew that this battle was decisive and when he was defeated he knew that the war was lost. So, I think CEAW GS does not give importance that it should be given to this decisive battle: the allies succeed in the landings but the game does not consider this decisive victory at least as a draw for we have to keep in mind that the vanilla game consider this an allied victory. If the allies would have failed in Normandy landings this really have to be scored as an allies defeat for it has been said that historically the allies would have lasted at least 2 years for planning and launching another landing like Overlord.

So, in my opinion, the decisive factor is not to hold the 2 german capitals until the concrete date of may 45 but to succeed in defeating the allies in the beachs not allowing them to land in France. So the axis player will do better than the Axis historically did if he/she achieves to drive the allies to the sea and win this battle. I don´t think that resisting in a surrounded Germany with a few low quality inf corps until may 45 is important strategically because as I´ve pointed above if the allies don´t succeed to capture Berlin in that concrete dates they could really have done sooner or later since the war was lost for the germans. What´s the importance of taking Berlin in june 1945 instead of may 1945 if Germany was already defeated?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't understand your arguments, Leridano. If the Allies manage to capture Hamburg and Berlin then Germany will surrender and thus taking control of all Axis terrain including Paris, unless Italy is still alive. Once Italy surrenders then all Axis hexes will become Allied controlled. That means you will get an Allied victory if you force an Axis surrender before May 1945.

Do you really think the western Allies can get to Hamburg and Berlint WITHOUT first landing in France? So if they force an Axis surrender in e. g. February 1945 that means they've managed to successfully land in France in 1944 and before. If the Allies manage to land in France in 1944, but are stopped at the Siegfrield line then the Germans can still win if they hold till May 1945. What's wrong with that?

The victory conditions are made to check when the Axis will surrender. The faster you achieve it the higher the victory level. It doesn't matter how Germany surrenders. If the Russians crush both Italy and Germany while the western Allies failed in their Overlord landing it doesn't matter. The Axis surrenders regardless and you have an Allied victory if it was done early enough.

I don't think when Paris is liberated is important at all. What is important is if the Allies can benefit from the liberation of Paris to speed up their move into Germany to force an Axis surrender. So a good Allies player who successfully lands early in France will most likely be in Berlin early too.

I think the current victory conditions work well. You're measured against how the REAL Germans did. They surrendered in May 1945 and if you do better then it's an Axis victory of some kind. If you do worse then it's an Allied victory of some kind. If you perform exactly like the real Germans then it's a draw.

[joerock22]

I fail to see the problem with this. The victory conditions are based on the historical timeline of the war. If the Allies fail to capture Berlin by the historical date, that should be scored as a victory for the Germans, because the Axis player did better than the Axis did historically. Even if the player would have only lasted another 2 weeks, that should be scored as a minor victory. Luck in 1945 can play a role in determining the final outcome, but the Allies can just as easily get lucky with a turn of clear weather when the odds favored mud or winter. Luck always plays a role in closely-contest games, so I don't see this as a problem either.

Any military historian will tell you that succeeding in the Normandy landings was decisive for the allies to win the war. In fact, Rommel knew that this battle was decisive and when he was defeated he knew that the war was lost. So, I think CEAW GS does not give importance that it should be given to this decisive battle: the allies succeed in the landings but the game does not consider this decisive victory at least as a draw for we have to keep in mind that the vanilla game consider this an allied victory. If the allies would have failed in Normandy landings this really have to be scored as an allies defeat for it has been said that historically the allies would have lasted at least 2 years for planning and launching another landing like Overlord.

So, in my opinion, the decisive factor is not to hold the 2 german capitals until the concrete date of may 45 but to succeed in defeating the allies in the beachs not allowing them to land in France. So the axis player will do better than the Axis historically did if he/she achieves to drive the allies to the sea and win this battle. I don´t think that resisting in a surrounded Germany with a few low quality inf corps until may 45 is important strategically because as I´ve pointed above if the allies don´t succeed to capture Berlin in that concrete dates they could really have done sooner or later since the war was lost for the germans. What´s the importance of taking Berlin in june 1945 instead of may 1945 if Germany was already defeated?

The importance, as I already said, is doing even a little better than the Axis did historically. Besides, in most cases, defending France in 1944 is a downright stupid strategy for the Axis. It’s mostly clear terrain, and Allied planes and tanks will tear you to pieces. The best late game Axis strategy is to defend at the line of forts and have a large force in Holland to cover the flank. Often, doing that is the only way Germany can survive until 1945. If you want to force the Axis to drive the Allies back into the sea, you would need to change the game balance to give them a realistic chance of doing so. GS is very well balanced as is, and none of us want to tamper with it.

[rkr1958]

Back in the late 70's at home and on break from college there were three or four of us that used to play almost a wargame a day. One of my favorites, which I never did own but my neighbor did, was Midway. This was a game you could play in an evening. You had a search phase followed by combat if you found the enemy fleet. I remember one particular game as the Japanese in which I sunk all three of the US carriers (i.e., Hornet, Yorktown and Enterprise) and successfully took Midway but lost the game because my opponent had more points. I can't even recall the specifics of the point system but it had to do with losses and how long it took the Japanese player to capture Midway. I can't remember the specifics but I probably had lost one or more of the four main Japanese carriers and taken to long to capture the island. If the IJN had accomplished what I did in the game then I'm sure history would have judge them as victorious and the war in the pacific would have taken on a didn't character. However; in game terms I lost the game.

While this is an extreme example I wanted to make the point that CEAW - GS is still a game. While I do feel we've created a fairly darn good expansion that is historically sound and which can be used to explore historically reasonable alternate strategies it still is a game in which victory conditions are measured against the historical end date of the war in Europe.

@leridano, I agree with your victory conditions if you're playing CEAW - GS in a "emulator" role. That is, if you're playing it from an historical, or alternate historical, "study" point of view. And that's fine. Please feel free to define your victory conditions as you, or anyone else playing in this mode, sees fit. However; for two experienced players of equal ability squaring off I think our current set of victory conditions give a good measure of who played better (i.e., who's the winner and who's the loser). Bottom line is that I believe the current victory conditions provide an accurate measure of which player played better and how well each player played. They're not meant to evaluate the war's outcome from an "emulator" point-of-view.