Min/Maxing the game
Moderator: AlvaroSousa
Min/Maxing the game
So, I've been designing games for nearly 40 years now and no matter how hard I try I can't seem to stop myself from spotting the game mechanisms that will tweak things in your favor.
An example with Warplan is that the cost to invade is set to the strength of the invading unit. Because of this, I will intentionally damage a corp/division early on in order to try and get a 1-3 strength unit. 1 is absolutely gold. What that means is that I can invade any unguarded port for the cost of only 1 landing ship. I can then withdraw the next turn and drop multiple full corps in that port. If I have a low pt corp, this also means I get the +2 movement cost when moving adjacent to me, so I can be assured than any unit > 1 hex away cannot attack me. What this amounts to early game is essentially zero risk German invasions everywhere that can't be attacked the turn of the invasion. Early game this means just about anywhere. Even mid to late game this means having a very low risk tool in your arsenal to mess with your opponent.
I don't pretend to know a fix for this, and I don't even assert that this is broken, but I have used this to much advantage often. One possibility for a fix would be a minimum landing ship cost based on unit size. If every landing cost at least 10 landing ships this cheesy tactic would be less exploitable. As it is, I drop a low-strength division anywhere I can to create chaos and confusion on the allies part, and half the time I'm able to set up a sustainable bridgehead at the very discounted price of 1-3 landing ships.
Yes, this can be countered by covering every single port you own with at least some kind of unit, but as we all know that's extremely difficult as the allies in '39 and '40. This is obviously gaming the system, but we need to take that into account. Any ideas on how to counter this tactic?
(Full disclosure, I've got about a dozen other moves that are as cheesy as this in my bucket. As a game designer I know it's nearly impossible to keep players from finding and exploiting this stuff, but it's always worthwhile to at least look at these issues.)
Kevin
An example with Warplan is that the cost to invade is set to the strength of the invading unit. Because of this, I will intentionally damage a corp/division early on in order to try and get a 1-3 strength unit. 1 is absolutely gold. What that means is that I can invade any unguarded port for the cost of only 1 landing ship. I can then withdraw the next turn and drop multiple full corps in that port. If I have a low pt corp, this also means I get the +2 movement cost when moving adjacent to me, so I can be assured than any unit > 1 hex away cannot attack me. What this amounts to early game is essentially zero risk German invasions everywhere that can't be attacked the turn of the invasion. Early game this means just about anywhere. Even mid to late game this means having a very low risk tool in your arsenal to mess with your opponent.
I don't pretend to know a fix for this, and I don't even assert that this is broken, but I have used this to much advantage often. One possibility for a fix would be a minimum landing ship cost based on unit size. If every landing cost at least 10 landing ships this cheesy tactic would be less exploitable. As it is, I drop a low-strength division anywhere I can to create chaos and confusion on the allies part, and half the time I'm able to set up a sustainable bridgehead at the very discounted price of 1-3 landing ships.
Yes, this can be countered by covering every single port you own with at least some kind of unit, but as we all know that's extremely difficult as the allies in '39 and '40. This is obviously gaming the system, but we need to take that into account. Any ideas on how to counter this tactic?
(Full disclosure, I've got about a dozen other moves that are as cheesy as this in my bucket. As a game designer I know it's nearly impossible to keep players from finding and exploiting this stuff, but it's always worthwhile to at least look at these issues.)
Kevin
- PanzerMike
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:40 am
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Ugly
A simple solution would be that only full strength units may invade. So a 10 strength div is the minimum
A simple solution would be that only full strength units may invade. So a 10 strength div is the minimum
Re: Min/Maxing the game
This might be okay in Warplan Europe but it would be a problem in Pacific.
Invasions were usually done by small forces...to minimize risk and cost.
I supposed you could allow the country to build specific units for this...say 5/5 Marines....
But yes there are a lot of cheesy things you can do in games that can cause problems...
Others I have seen?
1) French landing craft / invasions into Germany during the Battle of France.
2) French / UK paradrops into Germany during Battle of France.
3) USSR landings in Finland making them surrender turn 2 of the invasion of Russia
4) Italian landings and paradrops to cut off the Allied army in Africa.
5) During a scenario paradropping on VP locations on the last turn.
Many more...
I have not done them all...never did 2 but have all the others.
There are a lot...
I suppose a fix would be that every port has an intrinsic defense value...that make is so you just can't invade with a small force.
Then again a 1/10 unit is 1000 troops...so tough to call that small.
NOW one should NOT be leaving ports undefended...and perhaps this is the cost.
Invasions were usually done by small forces...to minimize risk and cost.
I supposed you could allow the country to build specific units for this...say 5/5 Marines....
But yes there are a lot of cheesy things you can do in games that can cause problems...
Others I have seen?
1) French landing craft / invasions into Germany during the Battle of France.
2) French / UK paradrops into Germany during Battle of France.
3) USSR landings in Finland making them surrender turn 2 of the invasion of Russia
4) Italian landings and paradrops to cut off the Allied army in Africa.
5) During a scenario paradropping on VP locations on the last turn.
Many more...
I have not done them all...never did 2 but have all the others.
There are a lot...
I suppose a fix would be that every port has an intrinsic defense value...that make is so you just can't invade with a small force.
Then again a 1/10 unit is 1000 troops...so tough to call that small.
NOW one should NOT be leaving ports undefended...and perhaps this is the cost.
- PanzerMike
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:40 am
Re: Min/Maxing the game
If smaller units would be a thing, than a smaller unit could be used to defend a port as well.
Re: Min/Maxing the game
No longer possible, French do not have any shipyards starting Sept 1939.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
Re: Min/Maxing the game
The solution would be to add a second or a third city to trigger the surrender. Could be Helsinki, Vyborg and Oulu that is needed to trigger the surrender? Or, Tampere, nice city by the way.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
- AlvaroSousa
- Posts: 11628
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
- Contact:
Re: Min/Maxing the game
I could minefield the rear.
But if you aren't guarding Helsinki.... you should be invaded. There should always be a unit there.
Someone could paradrop in the same port and move units in there.
But if you aren't guarding Helsinki.... you should be invaded. There should always be a unit there.
Someone could paradrop in the same port and move units in there.
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific
Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific
Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
Re: Min/Maxing the game
To attack Helsinki I have landed 2 tank corps and 2 paratroopers...with the navy and full airforce to hit.
IF the unit is not at least a small corp it retreats / surrenders. Then you just need a small unit waiting to invade JUST in case.
I don't do this often but it is horrifying as a German to suddenly be down an ally on turn 1.
I have come REALLY close knocking Romania out of the war with paradrops and invasions...but normally there are units holding the capital.
Yes ncc the French lost their ability to do that...thankfully.
IF the unit is not at least a small corp it retreats / surrenders. Then you just need a small unit waiting to invade JUST in case.
I don't do this often but it is horrifying as a German to suddenly be down an ally on turn 1.
I have come REALLY close knocking Romania out of the war with paradrops and invasions...but normally there are units holding the capital.
Yes ncc the French lost their ability to do that...thankfully.
- PanzerMike
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:40 am
Re: Min/Maxing the game
German Luftwaffe attacks, German and Finnish minefield operations, combined with German and Finnish surface and submarine actions took an additional toll on the departing Soviet fleet. Korvettenkapitän Birnbach’s 1st Torpedoboat flotilla (S26, S27, S39, S40, and S101) left Helsinki on 28 August 1941 to attack the departing Soviet ships. Three times he attacked the convoy’s but was forced to abort his runs due to heavy Soviet counterfire. German mines and Luftwaffe attacks were far more successful in their interdiction efforts. The survivors of the Tallinn exodus (in German parlance -the Juminda mine battle) arrived in Kronstadt and Leningrad on 29 and 30 August 1941. Over 50 Soviet naval ships were lost or sunk mostly to mines (the Krivoi was damaged by mines, but managed to make it to Kronstadt).AlvaroSousa wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:52 pm I could minefield the rear.
But if you aren't guarding Helsinki.... you should be invaded. There should always be a unit there.
Someone could paradrop in the same port and move units in there.
Soviet naval losses for all of 1941 were devastating. They lost one battleship (the 22 September 1941 loss of the Marat to Rudel’s Ju-87 attack), one cruiser (the Petropavlovsk), 17 out of 24 destroyers, 26 out of 65 submarines, two gunboats, 35 tugboats, six coastal patrol boats, 14 torpedo boats, 24 submarine chasers, and 10 other minor ships. In addition, the Soviets also lost 91 of their own merchantmen, mostly to German and Finnish mines. Combined, the Baltic States lost nearly 100 merchantmen during the same time period; nearly all of these were flagged as Soviet ships.
- AlvaroSousa
- Posts: 11628
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
- Contact:
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Yea as the German player you should destroy their fleet and have a patrolling ship. War is not easy.
In our old World in Flames game if you left some minor capital open someone would take advantage of it. I ALWAYS leave a unit in a minor country's capital. I ALWAYS go after the Soviet fleet.
If I don't sink the Russian fleet I need to keep several ships behind.
If I sink it I need to keep 1 ship behind.
Black Sea is a bit of a problem as they can run to far ports, but the Baltic? Yea I pound those puppies.
In our old World in Flames game if you left some minor capital open someone would take advantage of it. I ALWAYS leave a unit in a minor country's capital. I ALWAYS go after the Soviet fleet.
If I don't sink the Russian fleet I need to keep several ships behind.
If I sink it I need to keep 1 ship behind.
Black Sea is a bit of a problem as they can run to far ports, but the Baltic? Yea I pound those puppies.
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific
Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific
Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Speaking of min/maxing the game, is it normal that France can deploy AAA everywhere?
I know they are Allies but France production can be used to help UK building plenty of AAA guns before leaving the game.
I know they are Allies but France production can be used to help UK building plenty of AAA guns before leaving the game.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
- PanzerMike
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:40 am
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Jup. Same for Italy and Germany. Aa can be deployed within the territory of the faction. Easy to exploit in the case of France. Not very nice.
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Coastal forts seem to be limited to the owner's territory. Could not AA guns be also adjusted as such?
Re: Min/Maxing the game
I don't think I have seen USSR able to deploy AAA guns in UK for example. But, they are on the same side.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Yes, just made a test. USSR can deploy AAA guns only inside its country. France should be the same imo.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Agree for France...
As for Italy...not sure.
I am torn.
Knowing that the US can deploy AA in the UK...
I think Italy should be able to deploy in Germany and visa-versa...
More than likely Germany will be supplying most of the AA to Italy but one never knows.
As for Italy...not sure.
I am torn.
Knowing that the US can deploy AA in the UK...
I think Italy should be able to deploy in Germany and visa-versa...
More than likely Germany will be supplying most of the AA to Italy but one never knows.
Re: Min/Maxing the game
I agree.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
-
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:20 am
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Klemmick, I don't know who you are playing, maybe the AI but in our PBEM games every port by a beach is garrisoned so landing a 1 strength point unit is pointless and not an issue. I build divisions to garrison as does the Axis.
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Well, as Canuckgamer said, ports are usually garrisoned (except some minor neutral countries ones). By 1940, when Italy is at war, every port in range of the enemy usually is garrisoned in the games I played against various human players (AI is another thing). When one is not, it is usually an oversight or a very problematic lack of ressources. So then yes, if one can muster a 1 000 or so men to take an empty port, why not?kklemmick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:44 am Yes, this can be countered by covering every single port you own with at least some kind of unit, but as we all know that's extremely difficult as the allies in '39 and '40. This is obviously gaming the system, but we need to take that into account. Any ideas on how to counter this tactic?
In 1939, only Germany on the Axis side could land units and they have no 1 strength unit (and could take a while to have one). And the only target in range is the UK, which can, should, and usually does, garrison its eastern ports right away.
Of course, this could be a problem against AI during the whole game, but the game is not quite made to be played against AI. Quite easy to beat it by 1943 on both side with very normal tactics (AI seems to enjoy been surrounded).
Last edited by Nirosi on Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:20 am
Re: Min/Maxing the game
Kklemmick, I find it ironic that you suggest trying to reduce a unit to 1 factor for an invasion and then say that garrisoning a port is "gaming the system". Garrisoning ports is tactics 101 because no invasion can succeed without taking a port.
The Germans start with 10 landing craft so even if they start the build of landing ships on the first turn they will not be available until November which means it will be most likely snow when you can't invade anyway. UK beaches that can be reached expending 1 op from the German ports in 152,64 and 153,65 are 133,78 and 134,71 because all the rest on the east coast are protected by mines and the Germans cannot sail through the bottleneck between Dover and Dunkirk. However no German ground units start in either of those ports but as soon as I see that that there are German ground units in those ports I would move bombers and fleets within interception range of the two beach hexes. Both beaches have a recon value of high so interception is very likely.
By 1940 the two ports on Cyprus and the three in Syria and Jordan are garrisoned by French and UK units and to even attempt an invasion of any of them means coming out with the Italian fleet in force which is hardly worth the risk that early in the game given the superiority of the UK navy and the fact that the UK will also have air superiority.
The Germans start with 10 landing craft so even if they start the build of landing ships on the first turn they will not be available until November which means it will be most likely snow when you can't invade anyway. UK beaches that can be reached expending 1 op from the German ports in 152,64 and 153,65 are 133,78 and 134,71 because all the rest on the east coast are protected by mines and the Germans cannot sail through the bottleneck between Dover and Dunkirk. However no German ground units start in either of those ports but as soon as I see that that there are German ground units in those ports I would move bombers and fleets within interception range of the two beach hexes. Both beaches have a recon value of high so interception is very likely.
By 1940 the two ports on Cyprus and the three in Syria and Jordan are garrisoned by French and UK units and to even attempt an invasion of any of them means coming out with the Italian fleet in force which is hardly worth the risk that early in the game given the superiority of the UK navy and the fact that the UK will also have air superiority.