If this goes through, I think we're going to see a lot of unhappy folks once they realize how this plays out. You're not going to see a lot of games play past 1943. Axis players will go for broke, and either win via the conditions...or wreck themselves in the process and resign. You can expect all sorts of gamey all ins.
Either way, the Grand Campaign will become the 1941-3 campaign for all practical purposes.
Eventually, Soviet players are going to refuse to play under conditions. It's a sucker's bet for them.
Replace the word "Soviet" with "Japanese" and you get to wondering if this exact conversation happened during WITP's early days
That's what I have been trying to recall... There was some discussion, but in the end very little. Most players seem to play for fun, and the latter comes from different parts of the game play for different people. Some like the offensive phases, some production and administration, and some like to defend at poor odds. But if you read most AARs, they are very little about the winning itself, and certainly even less about wining early. Perhaps that's because R&D and production are there, and allow the underdog to toy with some fun stuff during the long lull between Japanese expansion and Allied build-up and counterinvasions. or once everything around him goes south. Even if objectively viewed, in the historical scenario 1 even optimizing Japanese war economy doesn't add up to much besides a faint hope -- but that might do the trick?
I wouldn't dismiss Flavius comments, though. If there are many PBEM games to shape around too low VP conditions for auto-victory, I would fear the same. Besides, things the initial Barbarossa offensive appears to run so smoothly these days that not even taking Moscow (while also pushing hard past Leningrad and Rostov!) is a feat that impresses any longer -- and that easy it perhaps should not be?
For a 260VP auto-victory, any side attempting it should have a real challenge at hand as 76mm implies. But the catch is that for those players who want to "win a game" rather than to "make it through the struggle on the East", a challenge could easily result in a gambit -- and a failed gambit may not be worth playing any further for an Axis player, much like you presently can't blame a Soviet player for resigning who by end of 42 is still pushed back by Axis past Volga and towards Gorky. There may be some truth to Flavius words, but only future would show. And those who plan to play it out to the end, will not go for too challenging auto-victory conditions if at all, but carefully husband their forces for what is known to come.
Nonethless, I find there is some aspects in 76mm suggestion that one should think about. The problem might come down to both sides knowing the VP conditions exactly, and hence optimizing their strategy and game play by the latter, and not playing by the war situation at hand. It is the same with commander changes, platform upgrades, etc -- too little FOW leads to number-crunching optimizations and a game more like chess, rather than situational decisions and (human) mistakes.
A human player in AE will not build poorer planes when better are available -- because in contrast to his historical counterparts, he will already know all the stats. Much like we swap out Generals in WiTE.
Perhaps randomizing and hiding the VP limit would be the only choice to get a more pushy behavior by both sides, defending and attacking harder to the point of a futile struggle, if that is what you desire. Say if the VP level was randomized between 250 and 290 VP each game, on average being 270, but no side knew, an Axis player would probably push a within reasonable limiting to avoid overexposing himself in hope that he VPs in his actual game could be in the low 250s or 260s. But he would neither sit tight, nor gamble?
< Message edited by janh -- 2/24/2012 11:03:32 AM >