Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Aftermath

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> AAR >> RE: Aftermath Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aftermath - 8/22/2020 8:42:38 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2093
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Harrybanana, the game already does what you suggest, or mostly. It is perfectly possible for the Axis to not do a Sea Lion, do a Barbarossa that doesn't quite knock out the Soviets, and then grind out the clock and win on points.

In no way does the game force Axis players into an early all in if that comes up short they necessarily lose. I've never done a Sea Lion as the Axis in PBEM. I've never conquered Russia, either. (I have crippled it.)

And I've never lost as the Axis. I play the long game. I have lost plenty as the allies, though.


I agree with you Flavius, under the current Rules the Axis can do all of those things and win the game. But, IMHO, the game accomplishes this by giving the Axis greater capabilities than historical and lowering the Allies capabilities. Examples include:

1. The German army 70% experience rating compared to 50% for the UK and even less for the other Allies (though they can build up to 50% through battle). Unlike the Allies the Germans favoured some units (primarily SS and panzer) with their best men and equipment; but this was at a cost to their other units. The fact is that most UK units (but not commanders) were equal to most regular army German units from the beginning of the War. But in the game all UK infantry corps are 40% weaker than their German counterparts. Even if an argument can be made that they should be weaker; 40% weaker is a lot.

2. The Greece/Yugo Rule. Although this Rule is being eliminated, all the games you are talking about above were performed with this Rule. We will have to wait and see if the Axis can win consistently without it.

3. Increased Axis production from historical and decreased Allied production. Historically from 1939 to 1945 the Allies outproduced the Axis (including Japan) about 6 to 1 in AFVs, 5 to 1 in Artillery, 2.5 to 1 in aircraft and 50 to 1 in combat ships. I don't think this historical production is duplicated in the game.

4. Increased ability of surface raiders to avoid detection.

5 The rail repair rate. In my experience I have had no problem keeping my Axis units in Russia in good supply (6 or better) even into the late summers of 41 and 42 deep in Russian territory. Again, I don't think this is historical.

6. The non-motorization of UK and US Infantry. Historically they were virtually all motorized. Yes, I know you can build mechanized units, but those are a different beast.

7. No radar representation in the game.

8. No representation of the Allies superior code breaking.

I am not saying any of these should be changed. I can live with all of them except the Greece/Yugo Rule. But they are, IMHO, ahistorical

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 8/22/2020 8:48:18 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 61
RE: Aftermath - 8/22/2020 9:21:41 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3159
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I am not saying any of these should be changed. I can live with all of them except the Greece/Yugo Rule. But they are, IMHO, ahistorical


No more ahistorical than axis having a real chance of winning..........


_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 62
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 2:08:06 AM   
michaelCLARADY

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/2/2019
Status: offline
Got to disagree that an Axis victory in WW2 is totally ahistorical. The key I think would be before the war effective propaganda in the USA- reminding Americans of how they were used in WW1, continuously paint a benign picture of life in the Reich and contrast to the horrors of Stalin's USSR........and appeal to certain widely held American prejudices of the time. Leni Riefenstahl could have done a lot more with additional resources which would have been trivial relative to the gain. Quietly befriend and aid those elements in elite USA politics most hostile to FDR in the Democrat Party and at the proper time arrange for FDR to have a sudden onset fatal illness and then arrange for his VP to be exposed as a tool of Moscow. Goal here of course to make America as hyper-isolationist as possible. Remember in 1938 the USA still had serious Plans for how to handle a War with the British Empire.

When war comes to Europe follow the customary rules of war even in Russia. I have a suspicion that consistent reasonable treatment would have gotten active help from the Russian peasants and workers to exterminate the Communist Party stay behinds in the conquered areas of Russia and Ukraine. Concentrate on integrating the economies of France, Low Countries, Poland and western Russia with that of Germany without allowing Nazi Party 'old fighters' to rent seek across Europe. Oh and at the earliest opportunity cause a car accident for Winston. Nail the Boss in Moscow also. Waste no time/resources on side issues like Yugo or Greece.

Without Winston around UK might well have made a peace in 1940 to preserve the Empire. Then its one on one with the USSR in 1941 & 1942. With the German Army in St Petersburg and a hundred miles east of Moscow plus controlling Ukraine and the Boss dead there might well be a Party faction or even the army willing to allow the west of Russia to become German clients as long as the Party remnant gets to remain top dog of what is left.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 63
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 2:58:08 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2093
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelCLARADY

Got to disagree that an Axis victory in WW2 is totally ahistorical. The key I think would be before the war effective propaganda in the USA- reminding Americans of how they were used in WW1, continuously paint a benign picture of life in the Reich and contrast to the horrors of Stalin's USSR........and appeal to certain widely held American prejudices of the time. Leni Riefenstahl could have done a lot more with additional resources which would have been trivial relative to the gain. Quietly befriend and aid those elements in elite USA politics most hostile to FDR in the Democrat Party and at the proper time arrange for FDR to have a sudden onset fatal illness and then arrange for his VP to be exposed as a tool of Moscow. Goal here of course to make America as hyper-isolationist as possible. Remember in 1938 the USA still had serious Plans for how to handle a War with the British Empire.

When war comes to Europe follow the customary rules of war even in Russia. I have a suspicion that consistent reasonable treatment would have gotten active help from the Russian peasants and workers to exterminate the Communist Party stay behinds in the conquered areas of Russia and Ukraine. Concentrate on integrating the economies of France, Low Countries, Poland and western Russia with that of Germany without allowing Nazi Party 'old fighters' to rent seek across Europe. Oh and at the earliest opportunity cause a car accident for Winston. Nail the Boss in Moscow also. Waste no time/resources on side issues like Yugo or Greece.

Without Winston around UK might well have made a peace in 1940 to preserve the Empire. Then its one on one with the USSR in 1941 & 1942. With the German Army in St Petersburg and a hundred miles east of Moscow plus controlling Ukraine and the Boss dead there might well be a Party faction or even the army willing to allow the west of Russia to become German clients as long as the Party remnant gets to remain top dog of what is left.


Even assuming you are correct with all of this, and I don't think you are, none of this is represented in the game. All I am saying is that many of the advantages actually given to the Axis in this game (not the hypothetical ones you are suggesting) are ahistorical. There are several others than the ones I previously mentioned such as:

1. As the Weather is decided before the Axis turn the Axis player always know what the weather will be like on the Allies turn; but the Allies generally do not know what it will be on the Axis turn. Historically the Allies were much better at weather forecasting.

2. The Allies have to capture a production City on the Italian mainland before Italy will surrender (historically they surrendered prior to this).

3. No Yugoslav partisan units.

Now there are also some ahistorical advantages that the Allies get in the game; but IMHO the Axis get more.

Again, I am not advocating that any of these be changed. I am simply stating what I think is obvious; that if changes are made to make the game more historical (for example making it easier to find and attack surface raiders) than you will have to compensate by giving the Axis some other ahistorical advantage.


< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 8/23/2020 2:59:16 AM >

(in reply to michaelCLARADY)
Post #: 64
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 3:00:32 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2093
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I am not saying any of these should be changed. I can live with all of them except the Greece/Yugo Rule. But they are, IMHO, ahistorical


No more ahistorical than axis having a real chance of winning..........



Well yeah, that is my point.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 65
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 3:01:22 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 941
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
Victory conditions are set relative to "Historical". Victory in the game is relative to whether you do better than the Allies did (win before August 45) or worse (Germans hold out to the bitter end). There isn't any requirement that the Germans occupy the UK, USSR and/or the US.

Ideally the balance should end up a near thing when played by two equal opponents.

The game allowed a number of "Hail Mary" type strategies that are slowly being chipped away at.
Sealion shouldn't be possible as long as the UK has domination of the seas which should be always true. Even if the Germans could land an army they couldn't supply it by air for long enough to take England. But the game doesn't really handle the air and sea power that Germany would need to keep supply lines going between Germany and the UK. Much less counter the US which probably would enter the war if England was invaded.

Likewise, the other alternate strategy of taking everything in the Mediterranean is ahistorical. It would have taken a massive commitment of air, navy and men to achieve this. In the earlier versions of the game it could be done relatively easily. Version 8 will make this much more difficult.

The Yugoslavia strategy (take Greece and get an army) likewise was very ahistorical. Greece was a bad decision forced on Germany by the Italians, not be best strategy that the automatic gaining of Yugoslavia turned it into.


However, the Germans may need some twinking to make up for losing these strategies because even if they weren't used they forced the Allied player to commit substantial resources trying to prevent the.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 66
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 5:03:02 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2093
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I appreciate that the Axis do not need to conquer England or most of Russia or the Middle East to win the game and I never said they did. What I did say (or at least I am trying to say) is that a majority of players want them to have a good chance to do one or all of these in the game. Historically the Axis did not accomplish any of these, there was little chance of them doing so and in fact they did even better than they should have. But in the game they can successfully pull off a Sealion and will likely penetrate further into Russia than historical. At least that is my gaming experience. And Historically Germany was conquered in May 45, not August 45. So to win the game the Axis actually have to hold out for 4 or 5 summer turns longer than they did historically. Again, even though historically they held out longer than they should have.

So what conclusion can you draw from these 3 facts?:

1. Historically the Axis did better than they should have due to early War Allied military incompetence (particularly France 1940 and Russia 1941),
2. In the game a competent Allied Player will not make the same stupid mistakes that the Allies made historically, and
3. Yet in the game the Axis are generally able to accomplish more than they did historically and in fact must perform better than historical to win the game.

The answer is that the Axis in the game are buffed beyond there historical capabilities.

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 67
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 5:55:19 PM   
michaelCLARADY

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/2/2019
Status: offline
ahistorical- lacking historical perspective or context

Myself, for a game like this I much prefer one where the reasonably possible (Nope German weapon research doesn't get a boost from the space alien nordics or the USSR from the grays) is explored rather than a mere copy of what did happen. Was it foreordained from the foundation of the World that the USA would join WW2 in 1941? How well would the USSR have fared without USA Lend Lease support? Suppose Japan had struck North against the USSR rather than South against the Brits and Americans? Is it even unreasonable that a Balkan nation such as Yugoslavia would pile on to help loot another defeated and past enemy Balkan state like Greece?

Is a factor of Luck and Chance in the game a Bad Thing? Again I see these games as more kin to alternate history syfy than to a university history course.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 68
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 8:23:13 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2093
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelCLARADY

ahistorical- lacking historical perspective or context

Myself, for a game like this I much prefer one where the reasonably possible (Nope German weapon research doesn't get a boost from the space alien nordics or the USSR from the grays) is explored rather than a mere copy of what did happen. Was it foreordained from the foundation of the World that the USA would join WW2 in 1941? How well would the USSR have fared without USA Lend Lease support? Suppose Japan had struck North against the USSR rather than South against the Brits and Americans? Is it even unreasonable that a Balkan nation such as Yugoslavia would pile on to help loot another defeated and past enemy Balkan state like Greece?

Is a factor of Luck and Chance in the game a Bad Thing? Again I see these games as more kin to alternate history syfy than to a university history course.



I mostly agree with you. I also want a game where a player has all of the resources and capabilities that were historically available to the faction played by the player in the game. I also want the game engine to accurately model the use of those resources and capabilities (for example, paratroopers being disorganized after dropping). Of course, how that player uses those resources and capabilities is up to that player and he should not be bound by "history". So by "ahistorical" I simply mean anything that gives a faction in the game any ability (or increased ability) over what was historically available to that faction.

Where I disagree with you is perhaps the extent to which luck should factor into the game. I have no problem with luck being a factor as to when the US enters the War so long as it is reasonable. But if you are suggesting that US entry should, depending on luck, be moved up or delayed by more than 2 months, than I think that would be wrong. Not because it wasn't historically possible (who knows if/when the US would have entered the War but for Pearl Harbour), but because the winner of the game would be decided by this Luck rather then skill. The same with the Yugoslavia roll. If a die is rolled to see if Yugoslavia enters the War on the Axis side if Greece falls before March 41, than (assuming all other things are equal) you might as well just say that whoever wins that die roll wins the game and then start another game.

(in reply to michaelCLARADY)
Post #: 69
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 9:42:20 PM   
michaelCLARADY

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/2/2019
Status: offline
I think on the paratrooper thing you are not taking into account the two week long turns. The chaos of a drop lasted hours not weeks. Real problem with para's is their numbers- a three Corp drop is 3X the biggest drops of WW2 on either side. The air transports double as para transports all at a very low cost and can instantly redeploy to fronts a continent apart.

I believe a significant chance the USA would sit out WW2 to be solidly reasonable. Just as reasonable is a Soviet Union seeing an open road from the Border to Berlin in summer'41 taking advantage as Germany tours the Med 10 Corp.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 70
RE: Aftermath - 8/23/2020 10:08:02 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2093
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelCLARADY

I think on the paratrooper thing you are not taking into account the two week long turns. The chaos of a drop lasted hours not weeks. Real problem with para's is their numbers- a three Corp drop is 3X the biggest drops of WW2 on either side. The air transports double as para transports all at a very low cost and can instantly redeploy to fronts a continent apart.

I believe a significant chance the USA would sit out WW2 to be solidly reasonable. Just as reasonable is a Soviet Union seeing an open road from the Border to Berlin in summer'41 taking advantage as Germany tours the Med 10 Corp.


I don't disagree with you. But for Pearl Harbour there was certainly the possibility that the US would have stayed out of WW2 and the Axis might have won. But are you saying that there should be some chance/die roll in Warplan whereby the Us does not enter the War?

(in reply to michaelCLARADY)
Post #: 71
RE: Aftermath - 8/25/2020 2:18:57 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 941
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelCLARADY

ahistorical- lacking historical perspective or context

Myself, for a game like this I much prefer one where the reasonably possible (Nope German weapon research doesn't get a boost from the space alien nordics or the USSR from the grays) is explored rather than a mere copy of what did happen. Was it foreordained from the foundation of the World that the USA would join WW2 in 1941? How well would the USSR have fared without USA Lend Lease support? Suppose Japan had struck North against the USSR rather than South against the Brits and Americans? Is it even unreasonable that a Balkan nation such as Yugoslavia would pile on to help loot another defeated and past enemy Balkan state like Greece?

Is a factor of Luck and Chance in the game a Bad Thing? Again I see these games as more kin to alternate history syfy than to a university history course.


You don't want things subject to luck that instantly turn the game into won by one side. That is what any random chance that affects US entering war or Japan attacking USSR. Yugoslavia is a special case because it did intend to join the Axis but the coupe stopped it. Whether it's joining would be as decisive as it was in the game is open to question. The partisans in Yugoslavia were quite well organized and strong enough to turn the country into Civil War. But in the game taking out Greece turn loose the second larges Axis allied army. But from the game point of view you still don't want random events that are game changers when they occur. The weather can be deadly enough.

(in reply to michaelCLARADY)
Post #: 72
RE: Aftermath - 8/25/2020 6:17:46 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 941
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
I am shocked how people think the Axis are buffed. I played the Developer with my Allies and he never took 1 Russian Objective beyond History and despite me completely letting him devour the North Atlantic with U-boats I had virtually conquered Germany by 1943.(I think the Russians almost could of finished the game by themselves with lendlease, and I think it's nearly possible against an inexperienced opponent add in a '42 D-Day and boy that's really making the Allies 3 to 1 in strength vs the Axis)

I have never lost Moscow/Leningrad or Stalingrad(including Baku) in a single Allied game I have played as far as I can recollect. I gave up the MidEast once for the fact I saw no real use defending it.

I have actually strategically won the Battle of France against a Human. I have had it nearly done to myself as well.

You aren't thinking outside of the box and rerun the same strats/tactics and blame the game balance. There is more to it... You're using the Allies improperly! I suppose I will run an AAR to show you JUST how wrong you all are and I am actually a 6 on a 1-10 scale as the Allies or even a 5. But nobody here will beat my Allies with such beefs against their strength!

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 8/25/2020 6:20:59 PM >

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 73
RE: Aftermath - 8/25/2020 10:38:20 PM   
michaelCLARADY

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/2/2019
Status: offline
War is all about unplanned for events aka 'luck'.

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 74
RE: Aftermath - 8/26/2020 2:31:11 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 941
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelCLARADY

War is all about unplanned for events aka 'luck'.

War is, but this is a game and a rather long one if you play it out.
You don't want luck to make one side win automatically. If it happens often it will be the death of that game. No one wants to play a game that some random die roll can determine who wins or loses.

It's like the nuclear option. Germany was the world leader in chemistry. They failed to enrich Uranium enough to make a bomb. But it was pure luck for the Allies (and there getting the best German scientist) that Germany didn't realize the importance of Nuclear and didn't make a Manhattan type program to develop it.

But you don't want that as a random event in the game.

(in reply to michaelCLARADY)
Post #: 75
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> AAR >> RE: Aftermath Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.152