ORIGINAL: Schmauser
Glad to see this thread because I was thinking about the very same thing over the weekend.
I am in my second "test" GC against the AI on normal. I am on turn 38 which is the first non-blizzard turn and evaluating the status of the Wehrmacht. Although I have no fears that I can beat the AI on normal (probably not turn 52), I can definitely see the challenges for an Axis player against a human opponent. Being short of time I will leave you with the following thoughts for the developers based on a comparison between WITP and WITE. I hope to properly join the discussion when I have more time.
WITP is based on a historical opening (Pearl Harbor) and leaves the rest to the players. There is no preprogrammed destruction of the Japanese fleet at Midway and the results of December 7 are variable. A good opening by a Japanese player has a very small chance of an auto victory in 42 and a reasonable chance for an auto victory in 43. Even if auto victory is not achieved, good opening play by a Japanese player can result in a good fight past 43 with a chance for a marginal victory later in the war. In most cases a competent allied player can avoid the auto victory conditions because of the points system that requires invasions of difficult places like India or the one sided destruction of large numbers of allied ships. In short, there is enough there to reward a player for wanting to play the Japanese and there is enough of a safety net for an allied player to try more aggressive strategies. This makes the game fun.
After turn 1, WITE does not have a historical opening in MP play as the Soviet player knows the limits of the Axis advance and can fall back to prepared lines of defense. These lines of defense will yield in 41, but will cause a higher level of casualties to the Axis player and result in fewer losses to the Soviet. The only limits to that plan are slowing the advance enough to evacuate factory capacity. In addition, there is a preprogrammed destruction of the Axis army in the Winter and the Soviet player has to do absolutely nothing to generate 1,000,000+ Axis casualties. If the Soviet husbanded their forces in 41, they can increase those casualties drammatically as the Axis take disproportionate losses as morale falls and fatigue rises. This makes it nearly impossible for the Axis MP player to win in 41 and makes it highly unlikely for them to win in 42. Failure in 41 and 42 leads to the destruction of the Axis in 43 as the Soviets are then just too strong and numerous. Doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Things that the developers might want to consider. This isn't a wish list, just some ideas to consider to increase MP playability.
1) Find a way to penalize the Soviet player for evacuating territory too early in 41. No matter what the high command thinks, soldiers don't like giving up their homes and families. This could be reductions to morale or decreases in manpower and manufacturing capacity. Fighting farther forward makes the Axis player earn the casualties inflicted on the Soviets and you could similarly bonus the Soviet for being able to hold ground.
2) Find a way to enhance the Axis player if the Soviets evacuate. This could be increases to rail conversion rates or bonuses to movement. Units move much slower tactically than they do on road marches.
3) Reduce releases of additional units if the Soviet player isn't attempting to hold ground. Why give them those units if the front is stable?
4) Base the 41 winter effects on supply levels (perhaps fortification levels too?). The availability of warm weather clothing in December should be higher if fuel and ammo didn't need to be brought forward for fighting in August. Less time spent fighting also means more time to build shelter.
5) Reward the Axis player with supply, fuel and ammo when they take cities. This would reflect that units could withdraw, but that their logistical base is not as easily evacuated. This would have the effect of moving supply forward without changing the rail conversion process. I have found the lack of this feature perplexing since this is a common feature in WITP and is based on historical fact.
6) Make the Soviets "earn" those winter casualties. Winter attrition is linked to operations.
7) Reduce general Soviet effectiveness in the 41 Winter. The current model treats every Soviet unit as Siberian shock troops. Results against the Finns and show that the Soviets weren't exactly the masters of Winter fighting.
8) Reduce the double whammy of regular attrition compounded by Winter attrition. Guys aren't banging away at each other when they are trying to stay warm.
9) Return the Winter disablements to the Axis at a much higher rate. As it is it will take you 2 years to get those troops back. The problem is that this gives you bodies, but doesn't give you back the gear. Perhaps there should be a return of equipment as well.
10) Add Winter disablements and deaths to the Soviets. Again, the Soviets were not Winter supermen.
11) Allow the Axis player to raise limited manpower from captured sources. Evacuating factories is one thing, but the Soviet Union was a hetergeneous population.
12) Find a way to prevent Axis offensive operations in Blizzard 41 while moderating the overall Winter effects. This would provide the Soviets with freedom of maneuver while still rewarding a competent defense.
13) Reduce Soviet abilty to fortify in 41. The Soviets reacted to being overrun and encircled.
14) Reduce effect of Soviet ZOC's in 41. Units with poor command and control and the intent to retreat large distances will focus less on what is around them.
I personally believe the 41 Winter modeling to be the fundamental issue for MP play. Soviet players will do everything to delay for it and maximise it's effects on the Axis player to break their back in 42. Axis players will lament it because no matter how they husband their forces in 41, they will watch the winter destroy their army and the chances of victory in 42. Although based in history and a legacy of the board game, implementing it as a brutal certainty kills the "what if" that makes MP play the real challenge.
[&o]
+1 great summary. I think you've come to the same conclusions I have. Thanks for organize this a bit better than I have in all my fragmented posts.[:)]
