GD1938V3 First Game

[Bombur]

I think the Soviet player should avoid being too aggressive in the early game, as it will result in a weakening of the Axis which in turn makes a Soviet victory extremely unlikely. The game was designed to have the USSR as an opportunistic power (with a pro allied bias). The Soviet Union only can win by allowing the Germans to conquest continental Europe and the liberating it before the allies. It can be combined with a similar liberation of Japanese conquered China. Any prospects of Soviet victory depend on a strong Germany, and to a smaller extent of a stalemate in China. Allowing Germany to be weakened when the allied side is controlled by one of the best players of the community is a sure path to defeat.

[cpdeyoung]

ArmouredLion and I are going to fight on. He is up, so he will be rushing to fill the vacuum left by the Axis collapse. I will do the Gold Rush next.

This should be a lot of fun for us, and I hope for those who will watch.

Chuck

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

So, please correct me if I am wrong, you are not going to play, because you chose a bad strategy, and it backfired, just like the manual said it would?

For the slow, when the game favors attacking by the Soviets in 38 39 time line when the allies out produce the Germans and when there is no way Germany can get Austria Czechoslovakia, Romania and Hungary in the fold before war it is not a good game.

Thanks for hinting at me being slow. Really makes me want to look at things in a positive light. Also the game you are hinting at, is yet to be determined. It may be a good strategy, it may not. If it is not, then I guess someone should eat crow (but probably won't). I'll chalk this up to be another time that I have failed you Twotribes. One would think I'd want to give up by now, trying to please you .

You make good games then modify them into extinction This is a good game if you control the rush to war fare but you have already admitted the rush to open warfare is what you want. Germany CAN NOT compete when Russia frees France and Britian of their limits on production in early 38. Germany can not compete when they do not have a real chance to gain Austria Czech, Hungary and Romania befor any major fighting.

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

For the slow, when the game favors attacking by the Soviets in 38 39 time line when the allies out produce the Germans and when there is no way Germany can get Austria Czechoslovakia, Romania and Hungary in the fold before war it is not a good game.

Thanks for hinting at me being slow. Really makes me want to look at things in a positive light. Also the game you are hinting at, is yet to be determined. It may be a good strategy, it may not. If it is not, then I guess someone should eat crow (but probably won't). I'll chalk this up to be another time that I have failed you Twotribes. One would think I'd want to give up by now, trying to please you .

You make good games then modify them into extinction This is a good game if you control the rush to war fare but you have already admitted the rush to open warfare is what you want. Germany CAN NOT compete when Russia frees France and Britian of their limits on production in early 38. Germany can not compete when they do not have a real chance to gain Austria Czech, Hungary and Romania befor any major fighting.

I see. Well too bad I just spent 3 years on this failure. I guess I won't need to modify this monster either. Oh well, at least I had the good times making it.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


Thanks for hinting at me being slow. Really makes me want to look at things in a positive light. Also the game you are hinting at, is yet to be determined. It may be a good strategy, it may not. If it is not, then I guess someone should eat crow (but probably won't). I'll chalk this up to be another time that I have failed you Twotribes. One would think I'd want to give up by now, trying to please you .

You make good games then modify them into extinction This is a good game if you control the rush to war fare but you have already admitted the rush to open warfare is what you want. Germany CAN NOT compete when Russia frees France and Britian of their limits on production in early 38. Germany can not compete when they do not have a real chance to gain Austria Czech, Hungary and Romania befor any major fighting.

I see. Well too bad I just spent 3 years on this failure. I guess I won't need to modify this monster either. Oh well, at least I had the good times making it.

So one person voicing a concern is enough to make you quit?

[ernieschwitz]

So one person voicing a concern is enough to make you quit?

You are more than voicing a concern. You are beating that drum constantly. This strategy may work with professional game designers, but it won't work with people who make things for their own amusement. I am not amused, and this does not motivate me. I am sorry for you if you think that whipping someone into action is the only option for making them do something. Says a lot about you actually.

[ArmouredLion]

I'm not sure I understand. I must have missed something. If Axis didn't quit and I reached Berlin and Rome and then I broke China, I win.

Also, in the second game, don't count me out. I still think I can make Soviets pay and put up an Axis victory. I think the next six months will be big... I have some big plans, Two tribes. I have about 2-3 aces in the hole that may play very big. In my opinion, Soviets maybe be overstretched. They will lose about 10 pp per turn with the loss of their far east city and they lost 40pp to go to war. This forces the PP they gained in condensing to be lost as they must reexpand early for a two-front war. They must now send force east and Germany is only months from having access into Romania. Also, Romania put up a tough stance and could delay the Soviets long enough to have Italian and German forces reinforce. I do think a tweek maybe in the cost of early war declaration might be a good thing (Larry's idea)or maybe not. I'm interested in seeing how these 3 little cards play out. So I think some space and time to see how things go is wise. This game is awesome. For sure if Soviets are aggressive it takes the German player to respond in kind with some good responses... I've wracked my brains on this (loads of fun for me) and I think I'm going to bring an Axis victory. But I do see that maybe a tweek cold be good. But again, maybe not. I'm having a blast. Love this game for sure.

[LJBurstyn]

I will not be playing in more V3 games because I like to play games in which the player will face the same problems as the real people faced. In 1938 Britain was very anti-war and went out of it's way to avoid it (Czech)-the so called penalty phase. It's penalty phase continued all the way (in ever lowering amounts) until May 1940 when Germany invaded the low countries (Benelux). That is when Chamberlain (peace in our time) FINALLY gave up the position of PM to Churchill (the war hawk)--Churchill had been appointed to Lord of the Admiralty earlier. British industry was not put into full war production mode until then. Full war production mode = all industry turned to war production only--no civilian production. It might be interesting to note that Germany did not go into full war production mode until after the British did. Full war production mode also included factories running 24 hours a day 6 days a week (7th day = maintenance). The USA was totally isolationist and any intervention in the war before 1940 would have resulted in impeachment or early election of a peace advocate (FDR had partly won on a promise to keep us out of any European War--but that promise would not have worked if he had already interfered). It might be noted that most German industry was built for war production from the early 1930's while British/Allied production mostly had to be changed from civilian to military. Also although little noted by historians British did not send agents to undermine foreign governments because that would not be "gentlemanly" until they were in the war.

If I had the ability I would make the following changes.

Increase the starting peace penalty to 50% and lower it by some percentage points when certain events happen not on specific dates. The first threaten use decreases it by 10%. Successful threaten by 15% total. Any other nation voluntarily joining the Axis by 5%. Any Axis invasion by 10%, other than unsuccessful threaten. This means that Britain can technically be at war and still have the peace penalty. The only thing that would reduce the peace penalty to zero by itself is the invasion of France. Example: Germany uses Threaten successfully on Czech. Peace penalty reduced to 35%. Austria joins Germany =30%. Poland invaded =20% (French/Britain at war). Denmark invaded =10%. Norway invaded =0%. If the Polish invasion does not trigger British entry into war any attack on French territory does as well as reducing the peace penalty to zero.

Britain would not get a discord or send agent card until after Germany invades someone or threatens.

RULE: The USA cannot move any vessels into a foreign nations waters (adjacent to land) or into the same hex as another country's ships.

The Soviets cannot declare war on anyone other than Finland or Poland (after Germany invades) before 1941. The war with Finland (if started) automatically ends after three months with positions fixed at that time. Not sure how to do that--Event or rule. IF even possible if not Finland cannot be attacked. If the Soviets threaten the Baltic countries--Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania automatically move closer to Germany by 20 diplomatic points. A Soviet attack on Poland does the same thing even if Germany declares first. Many of the Balkan countries thought the German invasion of Poland "justified" because of the German city of Danzig being given to Poland after WWI.

I would modify the Soviet declaration of war restriction to until the Soviet economy is at 100%.

[ArmouredLion]

gambit
[gam-bit]
SynonymsExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms for gambit on Thesaurus.com
noun
Chess. an opening in which a player seeks to obtain some advantage by sacrificing a pawn or piece.
any maneuver by which one seeks to gain an advantage.

I like Larry's thoughts they are well thought out and offer possibilities.

But here is my retort:

In this 2nd game, Chuck made a gambit. It looks good early, but if it costs him the game in the long run, how good is it? If this ends up to be a losing gambit for Soviet players, then new rules aren't needed. The move will simply be a shinning turd. I like the move, but as the Germany player, I see some nice option opening that don't include Allies winning (sorry bombur ). Maybe they are shinning turds as well... we'll see.

My gripe is Claus and Bombur put three years into this game for our pleasure and some have given it a few days to pronounce it not good. I like Two Tribe, and you too Larry. But honestly, this is unfair (and a few other words I won't use because I like you both). This labor of love by Claus and Bombur should be treated with equal love. It's a very good game.

Larry wants a replay of WW2. V2 wasn't such a game either, so I'm not getting it. My personal opinion is you have welded yourself into one track. You wanted to replay WW2 up to a certain point and the rest of the players be a spectator and oblige your strategy and history until you deem otherwise. It kinda' felt like you wanted us to be role players in your remake of history, rather than active participants.

Again, I really enjoy your company on this forum, and you as an opponent. BUT, you played our game poorly. You didn't adapt. Many examples: you let Benlu get taken, you let Romania get taken. You were fighting for Turkey with Japan politically and all of that could have been used on primary goals benlux and romania. you had this vision... a good one but it's was viewed with tunnel vision (two shipyards after that was happening (400PP!!!)? Hell... you didn't even condense your forces down and grab all the PP you could have used... I think I shaved down the German army for like 60PP that went to very good use. But when Chuck and I decided to not follow the roles scripted to us, you did not respond. Soviet forces were weak. I pushed into Poland because you showed weakness. If you had acted with strength I would have sat back. I have said it many times... you are a bright and learned scholar, you have great stories of your life, and I enjoy learning from your wisdom... but this is meant to be a framework of history not a retracing where one player gets to determine when we go off script.

Again, I like all your thoughts on the rules, but for God's sake give it a couple of games. If you can't see you played poorly,despite what you think of the rules, then I believe you aren't seeing it correctly. This all might shake out the right way. Yeah, I started it with being aggressive... that's how I play. But you played passive and that's not how Germany I meant to play. Fair is fair and truth is truth.

This is a game of grand strategy.

I hated Chuck attacking. I immediately thought there should be some way of preventing this... but now a few rounds from it, I see that Strategic options are present to win this game and prevent Soviet players from doing this in the future. Maybe I'm wrong. But as a competitor, who is grateful for this wonderous game that has been labored over FOR FREE, I look forward to the challenge before I come to a conclusion. And even if I do come to the same conclusion as you, all my thoughts will be one that come from gratitude and friendship to help this GREAT game be the best it can be. Far to often we all quit before we find wisdom or victory. It's a shame to give up after a loss or a few turns... Claus and Bomber didn't quit after 3 years... I for one am very glad they didn't-- I'm enjoying the heck out of the game.

[Bombur]

In this 2nd game, Chuck made a gambit. It looks good early, but if it costs him the game in the long run, how good is it? If this ends up to be a losing gambit for Soviet players, then new rules aren't needed. The move will simply be a shinning turd. I like the move, but as the Germany player, I see some nice option opening that don't include Allies winning (sorry bombur ). Maybe they are shinning turds as well... we'll see.

Of course, it´s possible you win the second game, you can crush your Soviet opponent and then you become strong enough to defeat the Allies in the gattle for global domination. My point is that the path of victory is closed to USSR, in game 2 even they defeat Germany. But the opposite is not true. The three Axis powers combined, in the hands of a skilled pplayer (and I had the unfortunate experience of learning you´re are a very skilled player), can defeat the USSR thus creating a global Eurasian power that could win the game.
Remember, however, who is your opponent in game #2. I would say you are the best players of the community, any conflict between you will be long and bloody.

[Twotribes]

I play this scenario just solo with me at all the points. I have been clear since I started playing this scenario in all its versions, Germany needs a reasonable opportunity to get Austria, Czech, Hungary and Romania.

[ArmouredLion]

I was/ am... sort of under the same belief, Two Tribe... but my only caveat is that the Soviets getting drawn in so early MAY (maybe not) work to the benefit of Axis. You and Larry may be 100% correct. If I don't even make it close my faith will be shaken a bit. But each round leaves me a little more positive. I'm not just saying this. I even unwittingly lost the threaten card when I used my Germans as a shield to make Soviets pay the 20PP and save me 20PP. But I noticed some geographically and equipment options that I believe when combined for an aggressive move MAY flip the script. Again, Chuck is a very, very good player because he is so well rounded and without serious weakness. Thanks, Bombur, but I'm sort of a 1 trick pony... although, if I do say so myself it's dandy trick. Chuck to me is the best. He has serious OCD and he is ultra adaptable. Due to the general slow WW1 style of play among most, my aggression works. But in my opinion, with a bit OCD on unit construction and some more aggressive play among several players and I would be torn down to the pack... while Chuck would still be floating. He just has more tools... even though my one tool is sharp and shiny. Although, I'm trying to adapt as well... but I'm just so damn stubborn and get antsy in peace... that's where I'm proone to serious mistakes. Anyway. Two Tribes, I can't fault your thoughts... they were mine too initially. I don't know if it's just me trying to be positive or they are legit opportunities. If they do pan out, they may end up making the Soviet / Romanian gambit a moot issue. If I swing and miss, I'd like another go at it... and if not then I will be unable to deny you and Larry's contentions.

[Bombur]

Also remember that ernie gave the Soviets a few disadvantages to encourage them to refrain from being too aggressive in the opening rounds. Some of these handicaps are only removed if the Soviets LOSE territories (the disorganization), so a very active USSR can suffer a lot in the early game. Remember the Soviet Union was a "stumbling colossus" (to use Glantz words) before 1942, they need time to make the Red Army in the formidable fighting force they eventually became in 1943-45.

[LJBurstyn]

First let me say that I know this scenario is Claus and Bombur's scenario. And they put a lot of effort into it and produced a very very good what if scenario. They can do anything they want to with it. I could see in the play testing stage (Version 03 and 017) that they did not want a "historically accurate" portrayal of WWII. As a war game player I want to face the same things the nations faced at the time and see if I can get a different result. Even if that means I have "nothing" to do for many turns---as the US player has in some recreations of WWII. Of course no player really has nothing to do...he can do research, try to build his economy, change public opinion, etc.,

I did have tunnel vision in the First Game. I see it was my fault for not following the restrictions and rules that were actually in effect. But I was not just sitting passively. I was doing research, building up the German war machine and trying to get to a point where my Navy could really hurt the British/Allies supply lines. I waited too long before I started the war. I was busy trying to get Austria and Czech nations into my sphere and missed the Benelux and Romania actions although I thought I had time to turn Romania back into my sphere after I got Austria and Czech nations under my control. After all I had three nations that could use diplomatic actions (plus discord and send agents) while the Allies only had two. I did several times used actions on countries I did not mean to use them on. But I did not call for a do over because of those mistakes (the diplomatic card use mistakes).

WWII was a resource war. Manpower and production points. The outcome depended upon who had the best resource pool. The resource pool could be affected by defeating nations and capturing territory. The Axis lost because they did not capture enough of the Resource pool or deny enough of the resource pool to the Allies (and Soviets) to win or force a draw. Different actions both militarily and politically could have changed that...but version 3 will never show that.

[ArmouredLion]

That's what I'm banking on, sir.

[ArmouredLion]

I think V3 can have a more standard WW2 timeline if the Soviet early action is crushed a couple of times and future players refrain from it due it being a poor gambit. In our game, I'm sure your were producing and planning, but from what I saw, I didn't see any authority (not saying there wasn't, but that's was my view point) and felt no threat of threat. I didn't see any tanks and the force composition was loose and defensive. And then Romania fell out of your hands late in 38 AND belux was taken and France was so fortified that I decided to take pieces of Poland expecting you to attack Poland as well and then we'd split it. But you were passive and offered peace, so I took as much as I could. Any sign of aggression of resistance would have given me pause. This was why I relented and didn't move on the oil fields because I was a paper lion. Your strategy could have worked if you projected strength. Soviets are so soft early and have little PP to work with.

"WWII was a resource war. Manpower and production points. " This is firmly in play in this game. Manpower is crtical and production is critical. I don't understand you there. Although I am trying. But from all my studies, Germany would ever have out produced the west or East. They needed to act early as there is huge evidence that Stalin was planning an offensive.

If you had held Romania or kept Belux from Allies hands you'd of had the time to keep producing and would have keep Soviets a silent dog in the distance. I'm not saying I'm right, but I just think you are a bit misguided by taking one game where you made a ton of poor choices and had some bad luck and then extrapolate it out to every game and how the game is. True maybe the war cycle is a bit shorter generally, but does that really a make or break considering everything else! Okay it would be cool to have everything jive, but then you'd just be replaying ww2. At what point do you diverge? What point is acceptable to have a counter-history. I get Two Tribe as he believer Axis doesn't have a chance because of x,y, and z. I disagree and will do my best to prove Axis can win. But there's no way to force a consistent ww2 timeline every time without constricting choice and free will and grand strategy. You can't expect every event and every piece of tech and every WW2 subplot to match exactly how it was in history.

Hell, if you want that just get the players to agree to follow a pre prescribed path to a certian point to create and alternate WW2 timeline and walah, you have what you want. If you had said to me, hey let's not have the Soviets attack till blah blah... I'd of said, 'cool'. Done.

You could have said hey, 'I really only want to play if we take 6 months into 38 to do x,y, and z'. I'd of said, 'cool'.

This is a community and it's what we make it. This game is great and can fit any plot line you want with a bunch of guys in communication. Anytime you play humans things change. It's a process. If you said hey, let's reboot or whatever, I'd of said, 'cool'.

Chuck and I had one expectation and you had another. I don't fault you for wanting a specific timeline to try and replay a historical bent you wished to explore. That's your thing. I hink it's cool. I'm fine with even putting myself in a disadvantageous role to have fn with it. But, I have never played a WW2 game against humans and had ww2 recreated to a tee... unless it was a scenario and then it was just a tactical game. This is grand strategy and unless house rules are applied it is unrealistic to think a WW2 timeline can be achieved... BTW this is far closer to ww2 than V2... at least from my experiences.

In summary, I think you are a good guy and a good player. I just think emotion, expectations, and the sting of a poor game is clouding your view. Just my take though... I may very well be wrong.

[cpdeyoung]

27 May 1940

The Soviet Union has rushed to fill the vacuum left by the Axis surrender. This is displeasing to the Allies, but certainly can be adjusted by diplomacy. A five power council is being proposed for Germany, with joint possession of Berlin.

The West does not want war. The Chinese do not want war. ... But ... the USSR must slow down and consider the tinderbox situation all are in. The armies are not demobilized, the war economies are in full swing. Great care must be taken. The great mass of the world's peoples do not want Communism, and certainly do not want it imposed on them by force.

[cpdeyoung]

27 May 1940

The Soviets are replacing the Japanese as overlords in Korea, and some of China. This is unacceptable. China fought valiantly and deserves to make her land whole. The Chinese Communists are patriots, and call on the Soviet Russians to back away from Chinese lands.

[cpdeyoung]

24 June 1940

Allied recon has scanned the northern stream of Soviet forces heading toward the French lines. It is heavy in artillery, moving slowly to position.

The British battle the German led Turks, and we assume the Soviets are doing the same. We have employed air, naval, and ground assets in these attacks.

The Soviets have taken Venice, but we seem to have secured the rest of Italy.

[cpdeyoung]

22 July 1940

Here is a map of the nervous peace in the center of Europe.