AAR: Diplomaticus vs Morris--Morris welcome!

[Morris]

II think that if I play against elite players like Supermax and Joerock I should expect to only lose a minor defeat regardless of side. If I e. g. lose a major defeat without having done a big blunder then maybe there is something with the game balance.

How about play against me ? If you may defeat me by a Axis minor victory , It will be a good prove for the game balance . I have been looking forward to the time of being defeated by you for a long long time !

[Cybvep]

I think most games should be a minor victory for either side if both players have similar playing strength. Major victory happen if you succeeded with a new strategy or your opponent blundered. Strategic victory should happen rarely and is an indication that the winner is way better than the opponent. Ultimate victory should only happen if one side is elite and the other a newbie.

+1

Sorry folks, but major and strategic victories should be extremely rare. There are many things that can be improved in 2.2, but games between experienced players shouldn't end before 1945 often. If you want to have the possibility to perform ridiculous invasions of the USA or sth similar, then I think that you should reconsider whether you want the game to be a WWII wargame or a fantasy game. It's a really strange complaint IMO.

Moreover, if it becomes easier to get a decisive advantage against a skilled opponent early on, then it will mean that more games will end prematurely. You can shout as much as you want, but the fact is that many players get bored quickly if the result becomes apparent in 1941-1942 and surrender or keep playing but find the game unfun, because they no longer any chance of victory or even a minor defeat. The best games are those which are evenly matched until the very end.

Also, it's silly to say sth like "If you can beat me as the Allies/Axis, then it will prove that the game balance is good". What kind of claim is that? Every game is a bit different even due to random rolls and random weather alone. Unless new bugs or exploits are discovered, you need to play several games in order to draw any coherent results. Ronnie's idea about collecting the data from many games is good.

Still, I believe that a different set of VCs would be an interesting option for 2.2. We could have two rule-sets - one with classical VCs, the other one with new, score-based ones. The idea has been mentioned before, I think that we can discuss it later.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I believe that the AAR's we have seen are not representative of the general strength of players. If you look at some reports in the thread Diplomaticus started you see a lot of different results.

Usually players who post AAR's are quite experienced and several of those games have followed different strategies. When you make an AAR you might be tempted to try something new. Sometimes a new strategy can give good results, but you can as easily end up with a bloody nose. You don't improve as a player if you don't dare to experiment a little with your strategy.

In order to draw any conclusions you need a bigger selection of end games than what we have seen from the AAR's.

We also have to read between the lines here. Some players who comment on the game balance just want certain things changes so THEIR strategy get an extra punch. E. g. it should be almost impossible for the Axis to reach Omsk against an opponent of equal strength. So if we say the game isn't balanced because the Germans can't reach Omsk then I feel we're not discussing a real game balance.

GS v2.1 is supposed to allow each side to achieve at least historical progress. That means the Germans should be able to challenge Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov in 1941. If they start earlier than the historical date then they should be able to get a bit further than the historical November 1941 front line. I think this is exactly what is happening in most games we see. The Germans are quite potent early in the game.

Then we have alternative strategies like Sealion or a 1942 Barbarossa. The problem here is that we don't have any historical data to backup how the Germans could have performed. We can only speculate and read comments by war historians. It's possible that a 1942 Barbarossa would have been a disaster for Germany because Russia would then have been prepared. I think most historians claim that Sealion would have had a poor chance of succeeding unless the Germans had prepared from before the war (more naval units, amph etc.). GS allows for ahistorical strategies and some of them can actually lead to very interesting games and even quite even ones (like the Fortress Europe made by Supermax).

I think the game is not poorly balanced if many ahistorical strategies end up being worse than the historical one. One reason doing an ahistorical strategy is to surprise your opponent, hoping he will blunder. Chess grandmasters do the same. If they follow the best line then these lines are so well analyzed so the opponent will know the counter move. So a great grandmaster must find a surprise move that can put his opponent into uncharted territory. This surprise move is often not optimal and if the opponent finds the best counters then you end up losing, but quite often the opponent can't find these optimal moves and you get an initiative you can exploit for a victory. You see the best players like Carlsen and Aronian often take risks to have a good shot at victory. They win more often than others, but occasionally they lose. Other players like Anand and Kramnik play safely and wait for their opponents to blunder. They score more draws because of that.

So if you want the major victory in GS against an opponent of equal strength you need to do something unexpected hoping your opponent isn't prepared for it. But this strategy can easily backfire and you lose big time. If you're willing to lose then you give yourself an opportunity to win. If you don't risk losing then you might have a problem winning too. I'm in the Anand / Kramnik category so I play safe and rarely make any blunders. So my opponents struggle to overrun me. If I win then it's because my opponent did a blunder, not because my strategy was superior. I can't recreate creative strategies made by Supermax and Morris. If I tried I feel I would probably blunder and lose. Therefore my games often follow a historical path, but I know I could have a different game if I wanted to. Still, I feel that every game I play is different and fun. There are so many variables so the game doesn't become repetetitive.

[Morris]

Also, it's silly to say sth like "If you can beat me as the Allies/Axis, then it will prove that the game balance is good". What kind of claim is that? Every game is a bit different even due to random rolls and random weather alone. Unless new bugs or exploits are discovered, you need to play several games in order to draw any coherent results.

If you mean my english lvl needed to be improve . Thank you ! I accept your suggestion . I will try my best to improve it .

But I never want to express sth silly . This claim is not the only sentence of the post . You can not interpret out of context !

[Morris]

Some players who comment on the game balance just want certain things changes so THEIR strategy get an extra punch. E. g. it should be almost impossible for the Axis to reach Omsk against an opponent of equal strength. So if we say the game isn't balanced because the Germans can't reach Omsk then I feel we're not discussing a real game balance.

I know you think I am one of the players you mentioned . But you really misunderstand my idea . On this point , I completely agree that it should be almost impossible for the Axis to reach Omsk against an opponent of equal strength ! What i am asking for is to give Axis equal possibility to reach a minor victory when they against an opponent of equal strength .

BTW , I do respect the player with your style . Since it is beta test ,so I always try to create new strategy for test . But If there will be a championship , I will probably play on your style .

[rkr1958]

Also, it's silly to say sth like "If you can beat me as the Allies/Axis, then it will prove that the game balance is good". What kind of claim is that? Every game is a bit different even due to random rolls and random weather alone. Unless new bugs or exploits are discovered, you need to play several games in order to draw any coherent results.

If you mean my english lvl needed to be improve . Thank you ! I accept your suggestion . I will try my best to improve it .

But I never want to express sth silly . This claim is not the only sentence of the post . You can not interpret out of context !

Let's slow down here and not talk pass each other and let me interpret. What Cybvep is saying (I think), and what I've said previously, is that you cannot draw any statistically significant conclusion from only a handful of samples. You need a large number of samples in order to see real trends. And these samples need to be drawn from a game configuration that isn't changing (as it was in beta testing). We now have such a configuration; but in my opinion, too few samples to draw scientifically sound conclusions about game balance.

[Cybvep]

Let's slow down here and not talk pass each other and let me interpret. What Cybvep is saying (I think), and what I've said previously, is that you cannot draw any statistically significant conclusion from only a handful of samples.

Yeah, pretty much.

[supermax]

Wow.

Things do tend to go sideways everytime we get into theses discussions...

As for my part, i re-state the fact that i love this game, its just that there isnt many options.

Sure, i do creative stuff, but i VERY RARELY encounter someone that does something different or creative.

I would love to play allies more often, but the game just follows a linear way all the time, so hence why i play the Axis, i provoque different outcomes.

I did come up with a way of making the game different with the allies however. I am waiting for Diplomaticus to be ready so i can do that game and AAR it as well. This will be my revenge over him as you cannot really loose with the allies .

I just wish that the game would make it easier for other players to try something different so my games would get actually more exciting because i wouldnt know exactly whats next...

Forget about game balance thats not important. Anyway right now its slanted in favor of the allies as it was historically, which is not really the end of the world when i think about it.

So no, its not about my strategies working better like its been said here, its more for the playability and unexpectability of the games i play.

But most players i see commenting all agree that for example it isnt worth a damn to get the middle east and its too hard for the rewards. Its also not really good to takeover england, as it usually make you loose the game and the allies retake it in 1943 anyway. The spanish option is nice, but if you do it again you loose because you have to do a 1942 barbarossa... So the only real course of option for the germans is a 1941 Barbarossa if they want to win.

That last phrase is important. If you want to play, you try different stuff like i do most of my games or a Morris for example. If you want to win, then you do a 1941 Barbarossa.

Wouldnt a lot of players agree on this? For me its just the obvious.

[Cybvep]

You could have won in your game with Diplomaticus and you did 1942 Barbarossa.... Fortress Europa strategy works very well against many players. Don't be surprised that people are playing conservatively with you - they don't want to make any blunders, because that can be fatal.

I agree about the NA Campaign, though. I said several times that sth will be have to be done in 2.2 in order to make that option more appealing.

[supermax]

You could have won in your game with Diplomaticus and you did 1942 Barbarossa.... Fortress Europa strategy works very well against many players. Don't be surprised that people are playing conservatively with you - they don't want to make any blunders, because that can be fatal.

I agree about the NA Campaign, though. I said several times that sth will be have to be done in 2.2 in order to make that option more appealing.

Well, maybee we should play against each other?

I do need another Allied opponent to try something?

As to my Fortress Game, i am perfectly aware of why i lost. With oil in the 1942-1943 turning points, i would have destroyed the western allies and then some against the Russians. But alas, i squandered it... But it was a most fun game, to the very last turn. Thats the whole point!

[Cybvep]

Well, maybee we should play against each other?

What's the point? You are asking a light middleweight boxer to fight with a heavyweight elite boxer. I know that I would lose, I'm simply not good enough yet to have a chance for even a minor defeat.

Maybe you are bored because there are not enough elite players?

As to my Fortress Game, i am perfectly aware of why i lost. With oil in the 1942-1943 turning points, i would have destroyed the western allies and then some against the Russians. But alas, i squandered it...

... which makes your complaint strange, because you were very close and I am sure that you will improve your strategy in the future. Again, you shouldn't be surprised that people are careful when they are playing with you (with the notable exception of Morris) - you are simply too good, so they are afraid that they will make a blunder and lose quickly. You said it yourself once - only those who are playing defensively have a chance against you.

[supermax]

Cy,

Maybee your comments were a little bit uncalled for... Whats your problem, anyway?

Whats this about assured to lose? I am sure you didnt give a chance to Diplomaticus when i started my AAR. Yet, he won a brilliant victory over me.

And even if you loose, whats the problem with that? Its just a game.

hehehe

[rkr1958]

I know it's hot here ... the peak temperature has been over 105 for the last 2 or 3 days. It's suppose to hit 107(F) today and it's not even July! I think this hot weather must be carrying over a bit to this thread as it seems emotions are starting to flare. I have the greatest respect for everyone here and don't want to see things get out of hand. It's ok, and frankly fun, to have a robust and spirited debate; but please let's not start going after each other.

[Cybvep]

Maybee your comments were a little bit uncalled for... Whats your problem, anyway?

???????? What problem? Any average player (e.g. me) can comment on the game balance, I just don't see how invading the USA or annexing Russia when two opponents with similar skill levels are playing make the better or more balanced (I won't even mention realism). I'm fairly certain that 90% of players will say that they enjoy the game the most when the outcome is uncertain until the very end and in most cases such games end in a minor Allied/Axis victory, which should be the case IMO. Most games are also played in a semi-historical manner, because this is a WWII game, so it's a "default" option and the whole game is balanced with this option in mind.

Frankly, I don't know what we are bickering about. It's not that anything will be changed in 2.1. As far as the game is concerned, I think that Diplomaticus proved yet again that he is now one of the best GS players. Beating Morris and Supermax is something.

And even if you loose, whats the problem with that?

Wasted time. No need to start a game when the result is known beforehand.

[supermax]

Maybee your comments were a little bit uncalled for... Whats your problem, anyway?

???????? What problem? Any average player (e.g. me) can comment on the game balance, I just don't see how invading the USA or annexing Russia when two opponents with similar skill levels are playing make the better or more balanced (I won't even mention realism). I'm fairly certain that 90% of players will say that they enjoy the game the most when the outcome is uncertain until the very end and in most cases such games end in a minor Allied/Axis victory, which should be the case IMO. Most games are also played in a semi-historical manner, because this is a WWII game, so it's a "default" option and the whole game is balanced with this option in mind.

Frankly, I don't know what we are bickering about. It's not that anything will be changed in 2.1. As far as the game is concerned, I think that Diplomaticus proved yet again that he is now one of the best GS players. Beating Morris and Supermax is something.

And even if you loose, whats the problem with that?

Wasted time. No need to start a game when the result is known beforehand.

LOL

[Diplomaticus]

You could have won in your game with Diplomaticus and you did 1942 Barbarossa.... Fortress Europa strategy works very well against many players. Don't be surprised that people are playing conservatively with you - they don't want to make any blunders, because that can be fatal.

Speaking purely for myself, I have to say that I think there's some truth in this. Max has a well-deserved reputation of being not merely a great player, but a maverick. As he's stated more than once, one of his operational goals is to constantly keep his opponent off-balance, always looking over his shoulder. Small wonder, then, that players facing Max kind of hunker down and get very conservative. They're afraid that if they take a chance and stick their necks out, Max will be right there with the axe to lop it off! We've seen Max do this how many times? "Dum dee dum, I think I'll go after Tobruk... what's that? A whole army landing behind me to cut my supply lines? Doh!"

In other words, Max, you're a victim of your own excellence.

One of the reasons I haven't sent my first move to Max yet in our announced game is that I'm feverishly working hotseat trying to come up with something that won't fail miserably against the SuperMax Machine. He's planning to AAR it, so stay tuned....

[Morris]

Frankly, I don't know what we are bickering about. It's not that anything will be changed in 2.1. As far as the game is concerned, I think that Diplomaticus proved yet again that he is now one of the best GS players. Beating Morris and Supermax is something.

And even if you loose, whats the problem with that?

Wasted time. No need to start a game when the result is known beforehand.

at first , if you don't know what we are bickering about , please read more & think more then express your idea . I don't know whether you are an average player or an elite , but I have played more than 200 pbems , how about you ? I know my shortage is my English , I will try to improve . But I do know what we are bickering about ! It is about a game balance issue ! I agree to Ronnie that we need more test data to prove it . We will do it .

second , beating me & Supermax means nothing but Diplomatus is an Elite . If you want to find some thing about balance issue , please wait for the results of the two pbem between Max , me & Diplomatus which Diplomatus play Axis . I believe Diplomatus is quite a brave guy who has enough courage to take both of Max &mine challenge as Allies ! I do respect him because of this !

Finally , I promise I will improve my English , & please play more pbem before you recogonize what we are bickering about .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

But I do know what we are bickering about ! It is about a game balance issue !

I don't think we all agree there is a game balance issue in GS v2.1. So far the results I've seen haven't convinced me this is the case. So nothing will be changed until we have a lot of game results in from players of different strength levels. That will only happen after GS v2.1 is released to the public. GS v2.1 is already given to Slitherine and they're working on making the installer.

I think it's actually good for the game if most end game results show minor victories to either side. That means the balance is quite good. Remember how it was before in GS v1.0. Then the Allies could win from ultimate to minor while the Axis rarely got anything better than major. I think it's quite hard now for the Allies to get a major or better victory. When I played the BJR mod I used to win in 1943 with my Allies. After some modding I used to win by the Summer of 1944. In GS v1.0 I used to win late 1944. In GS v2.0 I usually won in Winter 1945. With GS v2.1 I'm not sure I will win as the Allies anymore. The Axis are so potent now that I can't afford to make blunders as the Allies if I want to get my minor victory.

So I feel that the game balance has moved more and more in favor of the Axis with each new version we have released. If we push it further now I fear we have a game where the Axis can crush the average Allied players in 1941-1942 and then the Allies fight an uphill battle to get the initiative in 1943 to eventually win. I just want to remind you that Joerock won an ultimate Axis victory against Ronnie using GS v2.1. OK, Joerock is maybe the best player of all in GS, but Ronnie is not a poor player. I play against him a lot and our games are very even. So it means that Joe could probably easily beat me as well with the Axis.

To win with the Axis you need to manage your resources (PP's, oil and manpower) and send enough forces to the west, south and east. If you do so then I think the Axis has at least 50% chance to win.

Supermax would have won with his Fortress Europe strategy if he had managed his oil consumption a little bit better. Next time he won't be as aggressive in Russia in 1942 and have oil to counter attack when the Allies push for Berlin.

So I just don't get it when people claim the Allies have a clear advantage in GS v2.1. I certainly don't see it and I have seen all versions since the first BJR mod.

[joerock22]

OK, Joerock is maybe the best player of all in GS, but Ronnie is not a poor player. I play against him a lot and our games are very even. So it means that Joe could probably easily beat me as well with the Axis.

I don't know about either of those things, but thanks. The point is to have a game where evenly matched players have a relatively equal chance at victory, regardless of side. And I'm with you; I think the game balance is fine. Claims that it is not fine have to be supported with data, which I'm glad we're gathering now.

To win with the Axis you need to manage your resources (PP's, oil and manpower) and send enough forces to the west, south and east. If you do so then I think the Axis has at least 50% chance to win.

It is definitely more challenging to play as the Axis. The Allies can afford to play conservatively and gather their strength, while the Axis have to be aggressive, and also skilled at balance and defense. So it takes more practice to be good at playing the Axis than it does the Allies. This does not mean the game balance is bad. I think the game gives both sides a good chance to win, within the GS victory conditions.

[joerock22]

OK, Joerock is maybe the best player of all in GS, but Ronnie is not a poor player. I play against him a lot and our games are very even. So it means that Joe could probably easily beat me as well with the Axis.

I don't know about either of those things, but thanks. The point is to have a game where evenly matched players have a relatively equal chance at victory, regardless of side. And I'm with you; I think the game balance is fine. Claims that it is not fine have to be supported with data, which I'm glad we're gathering now.

To win with the Axis you need to manage your resources (PP's, oil and manpower) and send enough forces to the west, south and east. If you do so then I think the Axis has at least 50% chance to win.

It is definitely more challenging to play as the Axis. The Allies can afford to play conservatively and gather their strength, while the Axis have to be aggressive, and also skilled at balance and defense. So it takes more practice to be good at playing the Axis than it does the Allies. This does not mean the game balance is bad. I think the game gives both sides a good chance to win, within the GS victory conditions.

**sorry for the double post...I think I messed up the quotes somehow