Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
(although I could eventually see an option or scenario that removes certain events from the table).

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

That would require that the events be in the data files. At the moment, there is no way to mod this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

That would require that the events be in the data files. At the moment, there is no way to mod this.

It should be possible to work around this by setting certain events to "has occurred" in wawgoldscendat[YEAR].txt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
(although I could eventually see an option or scenario that removes certain events from the table).

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
I think having random events and being able to turn them off or on manually would be interesting. The big ones are 1) Late/Early or no entry by the USA/USSR 2) Activiation of Spain 3) Surrender of the UK and its forces --come on now. if The germans were in London. the UK would have surrendered for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
I think having random events and being able to turn them off or on manually would be interesting. The big ones are 1) Late/Early or no entry by the USA/USSR 2) Activiation of Spain 3) Surrender of the UK and its forces --come on now. if The germans were in London. the UK would have surrendered for sure.

#1 can be done to some extent. Huge WR thresholds can be set in the data files that would never be reached.

#3 might be possible. There are Italian surrender rules, covering a single nation which is part of a player (Germany being the player). Copying the syntax for Italy might work for Britain (though I wouldn't be optimistic).

Actually, I do think that adding appropriate surrender rules for the Allies would be nice. It would be a way to play the war to actual VICTORY instead of a VP based pseudo-victory, and would be realistic. E.g. Russia could easily have collapsed into chaos and effectively surrendered. It is perfectly realistic and possible, but the game does not allow for it.

I was actually thinking that what would be best is if the Vichy surrender rules could be generic, so that one could have Russia surrender leading to everything W of the Urals going German, everything E of the Urals becoming Neutral.

Similarly, under appropriate situations India and Australia should surrender. Similar to Italy, a simple surrender (units disappear, but territories don't change hands) might be possible for individual nations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmeh
Italy's troops need to be accounted for and if not careful can lead to doom for Germany (having Italian militia on guard at a crucial territory when Italian surrender is possible), the commonwealth would certainly need to be careful if it suffered this logistical reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer

I think having random events and being able to turn them off or on manually would be interesting. The big ones are 1) Late/Early or no entry by the USA/USSR 2) Activiation of Spain 3) Surrender of the UK and its forces --come on now. if The germans were in London. the UK would have surrendered for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer

I think having random events and being able to turn them off or on manually would be interesting. The big ones are 1) Late/Early or no entry by the USA/USSR 2) Activiation of Spain 3) Surrender of the UK and its forces --come on now. if The germans were in London. the UK would have surrendered for sure.

You forget that the UK was not JUST England/Scotland/Wales. Assuming the Government or a portion of it got out, there is every reason to believe Canada and India would have fought on. South Africa would have stopped for sure. Australia and New Zealand had no reason to surrender either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer

I think having random events and being able to turn them off or on manually would be interesting. The big ones are 1) Late/Early or no entry by the USA/USSR 2) Activiation of Spain 3) Surrender of the UK and its forces --come on now. if The germans were in London. the UK would have surrendered for sure.

You forget that the UK was not JUST England/Scotland/Wales. Assuming the Government or a portion of it got out, there is every reason to believe Canada and India would have fought on. South Africa would have stopped for sure. Australia and New Zealand had no reason to surrender either.

quote:

RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/6/2006 5:47:50 PM
No New Messages
WanderingHead
Matrix Legion of Merit




Posts: 1220
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
(although I could eventually see an option or scenario that removes certain events from the table).



That would require that the events be in the data files. At the moment, there is no way to mod this.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 3
RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/6/2006 6:06:06 PM
No New Messages
GKar
Matrix Trooper



Posts: 83
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

That would require that the events be in the data files. At the moment, there is no way to mod this.


It should be possible to work around this by setting certain events to "has occurred" in wawgoldscendat[YEAR].txt.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 4
RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/6/2006 8:04:29 PM
No New Messages
WanderingHead
Matrix Legion of Merit




Posts: 1220
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

That would require that the events be in the data files. At the moment, there is no way to mod this.


It should be possible to work around this by setting certain events to "has occurred" in wawgoldscendat[YEAR].txt.



OK, you could do this to completely remove the event from happening. But it doesn't leave any room for changing the probabilities or the event prerequisites.

In WAW1, the (much simpler) political rules could all be adjusted by defining frozen zones and the various events that would unfreeze each zone.


< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 11/6/2006 8:08:25 PM >

(in reply to GKar)
[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 5
RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/6/2006 9:41:11 PM
No New Messages
GKar
Matrix Trooper



Posts: 83
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline Yes, but it fulfills what Uncle_Joe wanted to 100%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
(although I could eventually see an option or scenario that removes certain events from the table).


That said, more modding options never hurt.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 6
RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/6/2006 10:17:03 PM
No New Messages
wargameplayer
Matrix Recruit




Posts: 13
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: online I think having random events and being able to turn them off or on manually would be interesting. The big ones are 1) Late/Early or no entry by the USA/USSR 2) Activiation of Spain 3) Surrender of the UK and its forces --come on now. if The germans were in London. the UK would have surrendered for sure.


(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 7
RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/6/2006 10:48:55 PM
No New Messages
WanderingHead
Matrix Legion of Merit




Posts: 1220
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
I think having random events and being able to turn them off or on manually would be interesting. The big ones are 1) Late/Early or no entry by the USA/USSR 2) Activiation of Spain 3) Surrender of the UK and its forces --come on now. if The germans were in London. the UK would have surrendered for sure.



#1 can be done to some extent. Huge WR thresholds can be set in the data files that would never be reached.

#3 might be possible. There are Italian surrender rules, covering a single nation which is part of a player (Germany being the player). Copying the syntax for Italy might work for Britain (though I wouldn't be optimistic).

Actually, I do think that adding appropriate surrender rules for the Allies would be nice. It would be a way to play the war to actual VICTORY instead of a VP based pseudo-victory, and would be realistic. E.g. Russia could easily have collapsed into chaos and effectively surrendered. It is perfectly realistic and possible, but the game does not allow for it.

I was actually thinking that what would be best is if the Vichy surrender rules could be generic, so that one could have Russia surrender leading to everything W of the Urals going German, everything E of the Urals becoming Neutral.

Similarly, under appropriate situations India and Australia should surrender. Similar to Italy, a simple surrender (units disappear, but territories don't change hands) might be possible for individual nations.



(in reply to wargameplayer)
[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 8
RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/7/2006 1:08:43 AM
No New Messages
wargameplayer
Matrix Recruit




Posts: 13
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: online Right once you are pushing into Tibet with german panzers it starts to seems silly. At the very least the units would probably disappear just like the french does. Saying that the only allies that would ever surrender are French--and not the uk, russia or elsewhere seems really unlikely.


quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
I think having random events and being able to turn them off or on manually would be interesting. The big ones are 1) Late/Early or no entry by the USA/USSR 2) Activiation of Spain 3) Surrender of the UK and its forces --come on now. if The germans were in London. the UK would have surrendered for sure.



#1 can be done to some extent. Huge WR thresholds can be set in the data files that would never be reached.

#3 might be possible. There are Italian surrender rules, covering a single nation which is part of a player (Germany being the player). Copying the syntax for Italy might work for Britain (though I wouldn't be optimistic).

Actually, I do think that adding appropriate surrender rules for the Allies would be nice. It would be a way to play the war to actual VICTORY instead of a VP based pseudo-victory, and would be realistic. E.g. Russia could easily have collapsed into chaos and effectively surrendered. It is perfectly realistic and possible, but the game does not allow for it.

I was actually thinking that what would be best is if the Vichy surrender rules could be generic, so that one could have Russia surrender leading to everything W of the Urals going German, everything E of the Urals becoming Neutral.

Similarly, under appropriate situations India and Australia should surrender. Similar to Italy, a simple surrender (units disappear, but territories don't change hands) might be possible for individual nations.





(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 9
RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/7/2006 1:26:45 AM
New Messages
Timmeh
Matrix Elite Guard




Posts: 598
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline Italy's troops need to be accounted for and if not careful can lead to doom for Germany (having Italian militia on guard at a crucial territory when Italian surrender is possible), the commonwealth would certainly need to be careful if it suffered this logistical reality.

(in reply to wargameplayer)
[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 10
RE: Spain joins the Axis - 11/7/2006 10:02:45 AM
New Messages
WanderingHead
Matrix Legion of Merit




Posts: 1220
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmeh
Italy's troops need to be accounted for and if not careful can lead to doom for Germany (having Italian militia on guard at a crucial territory when Italian surrender is possible), the commonwealth would certainly need to be careful if it suffered this logistical reality.



Excellent point. And while the game does distinguish Italian and French units, it does not visually distinguish Commonwealth units.

But I know that it does in the background, so you, the player, would be left with no way of knowing which units would disappear. Not good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
You forget France had colonies too and they surrender when eastern or western france is taken. For england, I think you could make the argument that england requires more strategic territories to fall in order to get surrender terms. i.e. London, Suez, Delhi cause automatic surrender. Or at least have an option for that surrender to occur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
You forget France had colonies too and they surrender when eastern or western france is taken. For england, I think you could make the argument that england requires more strategic territories to fall in order to get surrender terms. i.e. London, Suez, Delhi cause automatic surrender. Or at least have an option for that surrender to occur.

Actually, I do not forget. I just don't really see the connection.

In 1939, Canada, Australia, New Zealand were NOT colonies. They were nations, recognizing the king of England as titular head of state but with their own independent legislative bodies.

I don't know what flexibility the game provides in this area, probably not much. Obviously, in designing the rule one would have to go through the British and Commonwealth regions carefully and maybe shuffle things around to decide how the surrender plays out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
If you think the British empire was not colonial in nature than I'd love to know why they pretty much lost most of it after the war anyway to independence movements or rebellion. India, Africa, Asia and colonies elsewhere struggled for independence in the post war period and the struggle always ended the same way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
This suggestion just says there should be a event chance for new things such as a peace agreement if certain terrories are taken. Running through to Vladivostok every game with no chance of peace is a waste of game time.

quote:

Running through to Vladivostok every game with no chance of peace is a waste of game time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
If you think the British empire was not colonial in nature than I'd love to know why they pretty much lost most of it after the war anyway to independence movements or rebellion. India, Africa, Asia and colonies elsewhere struggled for independence in the post war period and the struggle always ended the same way.

This is a strange conversation.

At every turn, because I do not include every detail of the political structure of the entire British Empire and Commonwealth, plus the French colonial empire, I am accused of forgetting it or misunderstanding it, but I don't think that any of the things I've actually said were disputed.

What I said in my prior post was that Canada, Australia and New Zealand were not colonies; no statement about the rest of the Empire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
This suggestion just says there should be a event chance for new things such as a peace agreement if certain terrories are taken. Running through to Vladivostok every game with no chance of peace is a waste of game time.

Huh? I don't see how you can get to Vladivostok (as Germans, I assume) without winning by AV. If you have AV turned off, then you should consider that AV is supposed to model exactly what you are talking about: the Allied effort is so broken that they sue for peace and/or their governments collapse.

In the end, I think we may be in violent agreement. I do believe that it might be possible to make the game more interesting with appropriate WA (nation specific) and USSR surrender rules, though I doubt it will be possible to implement them (2by3 won't support them, and the data files are somewhat limited in controlling the political arena).

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Well great. Next time when someone makes a suggestion you agree with --then agree with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
Actually, I do think that adding appropriate surrender rules for the Allies would be nice. It would be a way to play the war to actual VICTORY instead of a VP based pseudo-victory, and would be realistic. E.g. Russia could easily have collapsed into chaos and effectively surrendered. It is perfectly realistic and possible, but the game does not allow for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmeh

This thread made baby jesus cry !


I think with whats being said in this thread, WanderingHead kinda hit the nail on the head with 'but thats axis AV anyway'