GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

[Morris]

So increasing the limits means the Allies benefit the more. Well, unless you have different limits for each country.

Exactly. But that's not possible ATM, right? I wrote my proposal for Germany - 3/5/8/11/14/18.
Also, the Allies benefit more from that rule, because they are not really limited by oil. But that's ok, it makes sense, considering that the Allies controlled the vast majority of the oil-producing regions in the world and that the US production alone accounted for ~80% of ALL oil production.

This will only help Axis since Allies never care about oil & PP s . But it is still not enough to help Axis to achive an even .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's possible to link the unit limit to tech level in industry. This is one example.

Base limit:
1939 = 1
1940 = 2
1941 = 3
1942 = 5
1943 = 7
1944 = 9
1945 = 12

tech limit = tech in industry + tech in organization * 2 / 3

Total limit = base limit + tech limit

Germany starts with industry tech 1 and organization tech 3.
1939 limit will then be: 1 + 1 + 3 * 2 / 3 = 4
1940 limit will be: 2 + 1 + 2 = 5. When industry tech is increased to 2 you get. 2 + 2 + 2 = 6
1941 limit will be: 3 + 2 + 2 = 7. With industry tech 3 you get. 3 + 3 + 2 = 8

Let's look at USA in 1942. USA will have tech 2 in industry and tech 2 in organization

Limit = 5 + 2 + 2 * 2 / 3 = 8

USSR will probably have industry tech 2 and organization tech 1 in 1942. That yields:
Limit = 5 + 2 + 0 = 7 a little lower than now

Germany might have organization tech 4 and industry tech 3 in 1942. That means a limit of:
Limit = 5 + 3 + 4 * 2 / 3 = 10

Such a method will give the Germans an advantage until about 1942 in unit limits. USSR will have to put effort into organization and industry to increase their unit limits.

With such a method you hamper the Allies a bit more early in the war. The Germans can put effort into general techs to bump their unit limit to try e. g. a blob technology.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Having said this I don't think the unit limit is that prevents the Axis game strategy the most. Maybe for certain players who like blob strategies, but not the majority of players.

The main reason the Axis collapses is that they can't replace the losses they suffer. Huge Allied air forces who can bombard the German lines turn after turn is the main reason. So a unit limit should ensure the Allies get a slightly lower limit than before and the Axis keep the same.

At least until 1943 or 1944 when the Allied war machine really produced high level of units.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Also remember that these limits are not absolute. These are soft limits so if you can overuse the lmit and pay a bit extra for the units. Later in the war the Allies have enough PP's to pay for overuse.

[Cybvep]

It sounds fair, especially considering the fact that the Allies have a PP advantage. It also wouldn't be a drastic change, more of a bonus for the Axis .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I just won my game as the Axis against Happycat so we will try some changes to the unit limit. When I have something workable I will post the changed files for people to try out.

[Morris]

Having said this I don't think the unit limit is that prevents the Axis game strategy the most. Maybe for certain players who like blob strategies, but not the majority of players.

.

Yes , it was just against me . It was wrong & I will be so happy to see it changing back !

[Morris]

Back to AAR itself :


Oct 5th -- Oct 25th 1940 all fair !

This time Axis got great weather luck , both turns in Oct are fair & Allies defence was finally broken !












In Africa , the 8th army start to attack Italians in Lybia .

[Morris]

Nov 14th 1940 fair !


The unbelievable unusual weather cut off all French hopes ! Paris was almost encircled . The mainbody of BEF & RAF retreat back to England . Only left one Canadian corp to help France to defence Paris to the last minutes .


In Lybia , the 8th army got good progress .

[Morris]

Dec 4th 1940-----Dec 24th 1940 winter

Axis encircle Paris ,but failed to conquer it since bad weather .

In Lybia , The 8th army is going to destroy the Italians as real history .

[Morris]

Feb 2nd 1941----Feb 22nd 1941 winter


After 2 turn's attack . Paris fall on Feb 22nd 1941 .


After this , Axis ask for surrender .


Thanks for Mr Plaid 's patience ! This will probably the last Dyle plan AAR . Dyle plan will never be a chance after the latest adjustment .

[JimWC]

At the risk of intruding on a private conversation, I’d like to put in my two cents on what I see as the major theme under discussion. First, let me say that CAEW is one of the great wargames of all time, and the enhancement versions have enriched it magnificently. However, I have two points of difference with Stauffenburg that echo and amplify some of the sentiments others are expressing.

First is the issue of historical exactitude versus freedom of play to explore and find new strategies. The desire to create a system in which the player experiences history and the only variation is the skill of the players involved is a valid point of view, but one that has few adherents. Most players, myself included, want above all a good game. One that is fun to play and that can be played again and again. The desire to constrain the players to historical strategies leads (inevitably I think) to what feel like artificial regulations that are there only to enforce behavior that the game designer feels should be encouraged. This is, after all, a game and not a course in history.

Second, and more important to us game players, is play balance. Despite what Stauffenburg claims, this game is not balanced. What I hear from everybody, and what I experience myself is that it is very difficult to win as the Axis. I haven’t played 3.0 yet, but in many games of 2.1, I won only a very few as the Axis and lost only a few as the Allies. Stauffenburg’s counter argument seems to be that he can always win as the Axis. This is special pleading. When I was the programmer on a game (as I was in a previous life for a goodly number of games), I could always win. The programmer has a depth of understanding of the game that is impossible for anyone else to attain. Lack of game balance, when you’re playing human vs human, turns players off faster than anything else. It is critical, and this is CAEW GS’s grand failing. It isn’t fun to beat your head against a stone wall. Players enjoy the challenge of trying to win as the Axis, but eventually they give up.

I want this game to live for a long time. It’s a great game. But I fear that it has taken a turning that will kill it or reduce its audience to tiny numbers.

[supermax]

a

[supermax]

At the risk of intruding on a private conversation, I’d like to put in my two cents on what I see as the major theme under discussion. First, let me say that CAEW is one of the great wargames of all time, and the enhancement versions have enriched it magnificently. However, I have two points of difference with Stauffenburg that echo and amplify some of the sentiments others are expressing.

First is the issue of historical exactitude versus freedom of play to explore and find new strategies. The desire to create a system in which the player experiences history and the only variation is the skill of the players involved is a valid point of view, but one that has few adherents. Most players, myself included, want above all a good game. One that is fun to play and that can be played again and again. The desire to constrain the players to historical strategies leads (inevitably I think) to what feel like artificial regulations that are there only to enforce behavior that the game designer feels should be encouraged. This is, after all, a game and not a course in history.

Second, and more important to us game players, is play balance. Despite what Stauffenburg claims, this game is not balanced. What I hear from everybody, and what I experience myself is that it is very difficult to win as the Axis. I haven’t played 3.0 yet, but in many games of 2.1, I won only a very few as the Axis and lost only a few as the Allies. Stauffenburg’s counter argument seems to be that he can always win as the Axis. This is special pleading. When I was the programmer on a game (as I was in a previous life for a goodly number of games), I could always win. The programmer has a depth of understanding of the game that is impossible for anyone else to attain. Lack of game balance, when you’re playing human vs human, turns players off faster than anything else. It is critical, and this is CAEW GS’s grand failing. It isn’t fun to beat your head against a stone wall. Players enjoy the challenge of trying to win as the Axis, but eventually they give up.

I want this game to live for a long time. It’s a great game. But I fear that it has taken a turning that will kill it or reduce its audience to tiny numbers.

WOW well said. The more I read thru the comments the more I realize how many players are of the same mind.

On the Borger always win thing, well, he may win most of his games, but he consistently refuses to play against some players, like Moriss and myself included. I would rather like to see what I could do against him, but to no avail . I am also pretty sure 99% that moriss would beat him with his allied strategy

[Morris]

At the risk of intruding on a private conversation, I’d like to put in my two cents on what I see as the major theme under discussion. First, let me say that CAEW is one of the great wargames of all time, and the enhancement versions have enriched it magnificently. However, I have two points of difference with Stauffenburg that echo and amplify some of the sentiments others are expressing.

First is the issue of historical exactitude versus freedom of play to explore and find new strategies. The desire to create a system in which the player experiences history and the only variation is the skill of the players involved is a valid point of view, but one that has few adherents. Most players, myself included, want above all a good game. One that is fun to play and that can be played again and again. The desire to constrain the players to historical strategies leads (inevitably I think) to what feel like artificial regulations that are there only to enforce behavior that the game designer feels should be encouraged. This is, after all, a game and not a course in history.

Second, and more important to us game players, is play balance. Despite what Stauffenburg claims, this game is not balanced. What I hear from everybody, and what I experience myself is that it is very difficult to win as the Axis. I haven’t played 3.0 yet, but in many games of 2.1, I won only a very few as the Axis and lost only a few as the Allies. Stauffenburg’s counter argument seems to be that he can always win as the Axis. This is special pleading. When I was the programmer on a game (as I was in a previous life for a goodly number of games), I could always win. The programmer has a depth of understanding of the game that is impossible for anyone else to attain. Lack of game balance, when you’re playing human vs human, turns players off faster than anything else. It is critical, and this is CAEW GS’s grand failing. It isn’t fun to beat your head against a stone wall. Players enjoy the challenge of trying to win as the Axis, but eventually they give up.



I want this game to live for a long time. It’s a great game. But I fear that it has taken a turning that will kill it or reduce its audience to tiny numbers.

completely agree with you ! Maybe the 3.01 patch will make gamebalance better .

[Morris]

WOW well said. The more I read thru the comments the more I realize how many players are of the same mind.

On the Borger always win thing, well, he may win most of his games, but he consistently refuses to play against some players, like Moriss and myself included. I would rather like to see what I could do against him, but to no avail . I am also pretty sure 99% that moriss would beat him with his allied strategy

[/quote]

I am so happy to learn that I am not the only guy who was always refused by Borger !!

[Blathergut]

1. On historical accuracy, the game must be designed to follow the main historical strategies or you have a completely different game and a game balance nightmare. Look what a first turn Dyle maneuver caused, or all the other a-historical strategies we've seen. You can't balance a game to all of those. You can balance the game to the basic historical path, allowing for variations (invade Spain, don't invade Greece, heavy attacks to Leningrad). It seems to me that GS has added a tremendous amount of variation to the game and done a good job of still maintaining balance.

Why not allow for free placement at start? That would give you your variations. You wouldn't have a game that recreates the war in Europe.

2. I don't see what has changed so greatly in the latest version to warrant all the cries of terrible imbalance. Nobody as yet has actually pinpointed any particular feature(s) causing the imbalance. The Axis must have a hard time of it otherwise, if they can get the edge earlier on, the balance is thrown out.

Am hardly an expert on this game. I became very jaded with the community when I did the aar with rkr and all the voices out there criticized and questioned but never offered suggestions. But the game itself has always held my interest and enjoyment, primarily for the work done on GS. I think Stauff. has created something quite unique in the WWII games world.

[supermax]

Blather, a great game creates great passion.

That should explain the thing.

As for me i am only concerned with replayability, in the sense that after 4-5 games it gets stale.

Not to say i aint still trying to find a way for the germans to win a clear victory...

[JimWC]

For my part, I'm just disappointed that 3.0 doesn't address the terrible imbalance that existed previously. If you want a suggestion for improving balance, I'd reduce Allied initial tech levels (especially Russian) but increase their PP production in the latter stages of the game. But that's just one of many ways that you could get from here to there.

If players discover an ahistorical strategy variant that seriously unbalances the game, do something in a later version to reduce the incentives for it. Tying Hungarian and Rumanian enthusiasm for the war to an attack on Yugoslavia is a particularly clever solution that makes following that historical path more likely and feels reasonable. It also isn't too heavy-handed. Though now it's a clear benefit to attack Yugoslavia, an Axis player could still choose not to.

I'm not sure that the Dyle plan is a serious imbalance. One of my few wins in 2.1 as the Axis was when my opponent attacked Belgium. Of course, he didn't execute the plan as well as Morris did! There have been several suggestions here for dealing with Dyle -- the only one I don't like is simply making a rule against it (unless the rule is an option). Players should be able to follow bizarre strategies. Even suboptimal strategies may be winners if they surprise and fluster the opponent.

[supermax]

1. On historical accuracy, the game must be designed to follow the main historical strategies or you have a completely different game and a game balance nightmare. Look what a first turn Dyle maneuver caused, or all the other a-historical strategies we've seen. You can't balance a game to all of those. You can balance the game to the basic historical path, allowing for variations (invade Spain, don't invade Greece, heavy attacks to Leningrad). It seems to me that GS has added a tremendous amount of variation to the game and done a good job of still maintaining balance.

Why not allow for free placement at start? That would give you your variations. You wouldn't have a game that recreates the war in Europe.

2. I don't see what has changed so greatly in the latest version to warrant all the cries of terrible imbalance. Nobody as yet has actually pinpointed any particular feature(s) causing the imbalance. The Axis must have a hard time of it otherwise, if they can get the edge earlier on, the balance is thrown out.

Am hardly an expert on this game. I became very jaded with the community when I did the aar with rkr and all the voices out there criticized and questioned but never offered suggestions. But the game itself has always held my interest and enjoyment, primarily for the work done on GS. I think Stauff. has created something quite unique in the WWII games world.

you say we haven't pinpointed the reason for the imbalance. Let me give you a blatant example.

Since the rail conversion rule it is almost impossible to actually manoeuver and win the war in the east in 1941 like you used to be able to do. All the Russian player has to do is retreat and leave an empty field for the germans, concentrating its forces around Moscow or in the south ready for a counter-attack. While the rail rule is historical, that Russian strategy of not defensing an inch of ground before Rostov-Moscow line is not. I wonder what would have happened to Russian morale if they'd let ground go on that grand a scale???

What is does is over-extend the germans for no reason, and its now impossible to take Moscow in 41v against a moderatly capable player.

Historically the germans were very close to winning the war in the east in 1941 as we all know. Now, its just not doable.

So when I say the germans cant manoeuver anymore, that's a good example. You can go as fast as you can, there simply isn't any downside to the Russian retreat and concentrate strategy, since as german you cant rail stuff rapidly to the front anymore. I remember in the old days if a player didn't defend forward or on the river lines, I would just trash him all the way to Gorki in 41.

thuds the appearance of parallel strategy like Fortress Europa, since you cant knock out the Russian bear in any normal game against a moderate player...