Vokt (axis) vs Plaid (allies) 3.10 AAR

[GPT55]

Ideally, what I would most like to see in the victory conditions is rewarding the axis for capturing and holding objectives and the allies for minimizing casualties. This would encourage more realistic and I think more interesting behavior by both sides. Hitler was nutty enough to think he could capture all of Europe and hold it for 1000 years. Therefore capturing all of Europe was his goal, not surviving until May 1945. A properly designed point system could incentivize the axis to act more realistically, and discourage "fortress Europa" strategies, which I think are both unrealistic and dull. On the other hand it was very important to the allies (an least USA and Great Britain) to keep casualties low--much more important than ending the war by an arbitrary date. I don't see any benefit to incentivize the axis to move units to safe locations at the end.

Realistically I know that the victory conditions are not going to be changed. I greatly appreciate the work that has already been done to enhance this excellent but old game, and recognize that an updated game engine is needed. Please don't regard this as a complaint!

[Vokt]

Victory conditions are good, I believe.

[Vokt]

Turn 99. January 12, 1945.

Eastern front. In Allies turn, Red army liberated Novgorod, Zhitomir and Vinnitsa. In Axis turn, withdrawal combined with all the railing of units that could be made, continued:




Western front and Italy last Allies turn. Antwerp was finally taken by the Allies. And Siegfried Line was finally breached after fortress 2xN of Strasbourg was destroyed. Some attacks in the Rhine, in Holland without much success. In Italy, German garrison killed near Florence and unit defending the city was halved and cut from main supply:

Western front


Italy


Western front and Italy Axis turn. British paratroopers in Stuttgart were heavily attacked and ended much weakened. Volkssturm activates:

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Ideally, what I would most like to see in the victory conditions is rewarding the axis for capturing and holding objectives and the allies for minimizing casualties. This would encourage more realistic and I think more interesting behavior by both sides. Hitler was nutty enough to think he could capture all of Europe and hold it for 1000 years. Therefore capturing all of Europe was his goal, not surviving until May 1945. A properly designed point system could incentivize the axis to act more realistically, and discourage "fortress Europa" strategies, which I think are both unrealistic and dull. On the other hand it was very important to the allies (an least USA and Great Britain) to keep casualties low--much more important than ending the war by an arbitrary date. I don't see any benefit to incentivize the axis to move units to safe locations at the end.

Realistically I know that the victory conditions are not going to be changed. I greatly appreciate the work that has already been done to enhance this excellent but old game, and recognize that an updated game engine is needed. Please don't regard this as a complaint!

Complicating a game like that would make finding the game balance even worse. What should be considered acceptable casualties for the Allies? The casualties will be a function of Axis activity. If the Axis player knows he can win even by inflicting extra casualties then he will play accordingly. That would create situations we might not want to see.

In the real war there was only one goal for the Allies. That was unconditional surrender by the Axis. They wanted to achieve that as soon as possible, but not at any cost. They would fight until the job was done regardless of the time.

I don't think many players would want a strategic game like GS to have mechanisms like casualty levels determining the eventual victor. Victory cities like major power capitals is easier to accept. E. g. Germany surrenders when Berlin and Hamburg are captured. That is something most players understand and accept. Getting an end game report after the Axis had lost their capitals that you "lost" the game as the Allies because your casualty level was above e. g. 400 is something they can't relate to.

[Vokt]

Turn 100. February 1, 1945.

Eastern front last Allies turn. Riga and Vilna were taken by Red army that again, attacked Finnish corps. German corps units west of Kiev were finished off. Romanian mech in Bucharest was killed by VVS air strikes:




Western front last Allies turn (Winter). Intense air bombardment from Allies, that attacked in several spots:



Western front and Italy Axis turn. Mud weather. British paratroopers in Stuttgart were further attacked. Given the defensive dispositions that Wehrmacht has set in Holland-Northern Germany, Allies will have hard to breach front line there. This turn, swapping move in Arhem so it's now a corps unit that is guarding the city:

[GPT55]

Complicating a game like that would make finding the game balance even worse. What should be considered acceptable casualties for the Allies? The casualties will be a function of Axis activity. If the Axis player knows he can win even by inflicting extra casualties then he will play accordingly. That would create situations we might not want to see.

In the real war there was only one goal for the Allies. That was unconditional surrender by the Axis. They wanted to achieve that as soon as possible, but not at any cost. They would fight until the job was done regardless of the time.

I don't think many players would want a strategic game like GS to have mechanisms like casualty levels determining the eventual victor. Victory cities like major power capitals is easier to accept. E. g. Germany surrenders when Berlin and Hamburg are captured. That is something most players understand and accept. Getting an end game report after the Axis had lost their capitals that you "lost" the game as the Allies because your casualty level was above e. g. 400 is something they can't relate to.

I'm not proposing an arbitrary limit on allied casualties, but a point system that recognizes that lower casualties is better (especially to western democracies), just like achieving victory sooner is better. I think this is something that CEaW players can understand and accept just fine. Currently the cost in casualties is totally irrelevant. I also proposed points for the axis achieving geographical objectives that align with their historical objectives. The axis goal was not merely to avoid annihilation before May 1945. I certainly agree that such a change would create new balancing issues.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The game is balanced in a way so the Axis side is supposed to collapse. Therefore the game often ends when the Axis capitals are captured or the Allies arrive too late to make it happen before May 1945.

Which objectives the Germans had during the war is irrelevant for the final result if they ended up being crushed. It doesn't matter if you e. g. managed to do a Sealion if the Allies liberated England and captured Berlin and Hamburg in 1944. You are crushed regardless.

If we have tactical games like e. g. the Overlord invasion then you could have objective cities that would give victory points. In strategic games you often play until one side is beaten. That means you need different victory conditions for that.

Vanilla CEAW had different victory condition since it was balanced differently. The side with the most number of major power capitals won the game. If the game balance had been like that then we could certainly have had victory cities in GS like 3 points for Berlin, 1 point for Prague, 1 point for Milan and so on.

[Vokt]

Turn 101. February 21, 1945.

Eastern front last Allies turn. Red Army took Kaunas and killed nearby Finnish corps. In Eastern Poland, retreating German units were reached and attacked by the Soviets:




Western front last Allies turn. Allies continued to attack no matter the weather, battering a garrison near Arhem. In Italy, little changes:

Western front


Italy


Western front and Italy Axis turn. British paratrooper in Stuttgart was killed. More deployments of corps units in Holland-Ruhr sector:

[Vokt]

I'm not proposing an arbitrary limit on allied casualties, but a point system that recognizes that lower casualties is better (especially to western democracies), just like achieving victory sooner is better. I think this is something that CEaW players can understand and accept just fine. Currently the cost in casualties is totally irrelevant. I also proposed points for the axis achieving geographical objectives that align with their historical objectives. The axis goal was not merely to avoid annihilation before May 1945.

Main objective of the game must be to capture or to hold German capitals. This is how it has worked for long. Changing it would require a lot of testing.

[Cybvep]

Now I'm much more confident in final outcome of this game. The Allied player won't have enough time to take Berlin and Hamburg .

[richardsd]

Now I'm much more confident in final outcome of this game. The Allied player won't have enough time to take Berlin and Hamburg .

different weather could have given a different result!

[Vokt]

Turn 102. March 13, 1945.

Western front and Italy last Allies turn (mud weather). Weather kept the Allies from properly progressing. Many garrisons ended battered due to Allied attacks:

Western front


Italy


Eastern front last Allies turn. Finland asked for armistice. In Hungary, Cluj was attacked but held. Tallin was taken by Polish partisans:

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Remember that the game can be drawn if Berlin falls, but not Hamburg. The reason is that Hamburg is not counted in the victory cities. So not losing Berlin is essential to Axis victory.

[Vokt]

Remember that the game can be drawn if Berlin falls, but not Hamburg. The reason is that Hamburg is not counted in the victory cities. So not losing Berlin is essential to Axis victory.

Those Red army units in Eastern Prussia and Lithuania will be able to reach the Oder but I doubt that all of those guards units near Lvov will be. Without enough shock units for breaching Ostwall defensive line, soviets won't go much further.

[Vokt]

Turn 103. April 2, 1945.

Western front last Allies turn. US armoured crossed the Rhine 1xSE of Hague. Massive air bombardments in Holland-Northern Germany that even got a garrison unit killed 1xS of Essen. There were also some attacks to the Siegfried Line, SW of Frankfurt. In Italy, Allies took Genoa and destroyed German mech:

Western front


Italy


Eastern front last Allies turn. Romania changed sides after Bulgarian army entered Bucharest. Konigsberg, Danzig and Cluj were all taken by Red Army. German retreating units in Warsaw and Lodz were heavily bombed. VVS bombings even reached Posen:



Western front and Italy Axis turn. No counterattacks at all. Only repairing of units:

Western front


Italy

[Vokt]

Turn 104. April 22, 1945.

Western front last Allies turn. No matter the heavy air bombardments, progress was slow. Only a garrison unit was killed SW of Frankfurt:



Eastern front last Allies turn. Red Army entered Warsaw. Attacks to Posen commenced:



Western and Eastern front Axis turn. Only repairs in both fronts:

Western front


Eastern front

[Plaid]

Those Red army units in Eastern Prussia and Lithuania will be able to reach the Oder but I doubt that all of those guards units near Lvov will be. Without enough shock units for breaching Ostwall defensive line, soviets won't go much further.

Thats true. Soviet troops in Poland/Germany also suffer from half supply because of fast advance during last few turns.

[Vokt]

Turn 105. May 12, 1945.

Western and Eastern fronts last Allies turn. Red Army took Posen, Lodz and Krakow and crossed the Oder SE of Breslau, killing a German corps in the process. Kosice in Czechoslovakia was taken by the Bulgarian army. In Western front, British landed in Holland and Hague was taken. No progress in the rest

Western front
[17,980]

Eastern front


Western and Eastern fronts Axis turn. No counterattacks at all. Only repairing of units. Germany PP's dropped to 65 this turn due to last turns strategic bombardments of Berlin, the loss of northern Italy cities and the surrender of Axis minor countries:

Western front


Eastern front


Western and Eastern fronts, 105 Allies turn. Plaid provided me with 105 Allies turn shots:

Western front


Eastern front


Germany ended with 16 corps units, 27 garrisons, 6 mechs, 4 fighters and 1 sub. Manpower dropped to 19% whilst oil reserves were 670.

Victory and casualties screens:

[AC67]

Thank you for this AAR!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

What do you think about how GS v3.1 works compared to earlier versions based upon your experiences here?