Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Man yours, and others' guns! ...Sundays 8PM-11PM EST
Post Reply
greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94264Post greyhoundgames
Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:51 pm

First of all were beating a dead horse here. Nobody since the night this happened as said the words "I am in favor of early war". 0 people said this. Why are we still trying to convince people that an early war is bad? Everybody is on the same page, early war was not fun, greyhound made people upset, he apologized immediately for being too "win focused".

Horse shot, bashed, maimed, dead..

As to why I said what I said, which I clarified as meaning I wanted to change the meta of uk being sparsely defended well into the later parts of the game and force africa to be more axis-viable in the early years (because creating a requirement to have troops at home at all times). I regretted the comment right after I said it.

That being said, it is a common (and valid) tactic in games to force other players to create force in a certain area of a game in order to keep their troops "bottled up". There is nothing wrong with that. What was wrong was my attitude and poor presentation of that plan. I don't think anyone would say "Russia, don't mass troops along the border to force germany to mass troops along the border". I was taking that principal to england's doorstep. Im very happy were changing the game so this won't be effective anymore.

Can we shift the focus of this thread to what were doing next? I have already offered to switch to allies based on my choices last game.

I am fine with Club Med being italy's playground until italy is at war. Though I did bring up to Har when he asked about this, that germany could likely break the rock or suez fairly early (if it was done with such blitz and massive air dominance and shore bombardment at an early date)as well so I don't think that alone is enough to prevent early war. This is why i suggested date restrictions on the NFs

User avatar
ummd
Field Marshall
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:53 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94265Post ummd
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:02 pm

greyhoundgames wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:51 pm
germany could likely break the rock or suez fairly early (if it was done with such blitz and massive air dominance and shore bombardment at an early date)
With Spain not in the war (by rule)? Or do you mean attacking Spain?

I don't see how Gibraltar can fall before Spain enters. And the requirement of a naval invasion requires med naval superiority. If that last condition is met, then Gibraltar should fall... and the UK should be in trouble.

greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94266Post greyhoundgames
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:04 pm

Yeah if winning the english channel is doable, winning the med should be too. Easier potentially because plenty of pre war time to build radar and potentially naval strike boats over time to "pre damage" a bunch of stuff. Not to mention better airbases in the region (West med).
Last edited by greyhoundgames on Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ummd
Field Marshall
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:53 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94267Post ummd
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:05 pm

I don't understand. Are you saying that an early Italian naval attack in the med can't be defended?

unbutu
Lieutenant General
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:59 am

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94268Post unbutu
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:07 pm

No, it was not personnal. Here is publicly availaible information that can help you arrive to that conclusion.

From me:
It feels right to send your stuff where the ennemy is weakest. I know we are not too worried about allies getting too strong. But honestly, how ridiculous would that be, if someone could send their troops somewhere and ignore all else because the only move allowed to the ennemy is the expected move. Really ? That all in africa meta was a bluff, and we called it.
(Speaking of the amount of troops UK was sending in africa in the last games)



From our faction forum (I think it's public now ? )
Greyhound:
The secondary and actually more important goal is to force UK players from now on to burn resources being defensive(Which they should) so that the axis gets more leniency in places like asia and africa due to resources being spent at home.
I've answered because I'm afraid you could really think you were personally targetted. Let's stop derailing that fresh thread :)

greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94269Post greyhoundgames
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:07 pm

Im just saying that it feels like if the UK cannot hold the channel to that tactic, they probably cannot hold the med right? Its possible im overlooking some med-based advantage. I know the german fleet won't be there(assuming the same rule applies to germany joining the italians in the med, which loosing that option does feel gimmicky as i've always liked merging the fleets), but Im thinking the better positioning makes up for it.

User avatar
ummd
Field Marshall
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:53 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94270Post ummd
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:13 pm

greyhoundgames wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:07 pm
Im just saying that it feels like if the UK cannot hold the channel to that tactic, they probably cannot hold the med right? Its possible im overlooking some med-based advantage. I know the german fleet won't be there(assuming the same rule applies to germany joining the italians in the med, which loosing that option does feel gimmicky as i've always liked merging the fleets), but Im thinking the better positioning makes up for it.
_losing_ the option to merge the fleets feels gimmicky? I think we're coming from very different interpretations of "gimmicky" here

it's worth testing if the RM can best the RN in the med to be sure. And if a naval only invasion can work.

greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94271Post greyhoundgames
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:18 pm

In our first game together I spoke of wanting to come join you in the med and you said you should keep the fleet there to threaten england, a valid point. But we never even thought to say, you cannot do that because its non historic.

But that aside, ill go with whatever rules you want, but as the german aggressor it might make sense to make it MORE preventive if im feeling like that change alone will not fix this. You cannot have med naval supremacy without boats in the region, and boats in the region will get attritioned out by naval bombers. At some point the boats have to stop patroling and then at any moment germany could launch its attack and make a landfall before the british could react since their orders would be cancelled to stop the attrition.

User avatar
ummd
Field Marshall
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:53 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94272Post ummd
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:26 pm

greyhoundgames wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:18 pm
In our first game together I spoke of wanting to come join you in the med and you said you should keep the fleet there to threaten england, a valid point. But we never even thought to say, you cannot do that because its non historic.
If I would have made the non-historic argument instead, would you have listened?
greyhoundgames wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:18 pm
But that aside, ill go with whatever rules you want, but as the german aggressor it might make sense to make it MORE preventive if im feeling like that change alone will not fix this. You cannot have med naval supremacy without boats in the region, and boats in the region will get attritioned out by naval bombers. At some point the boats have to stop patroling and then at any moment germany could launch its attack and make a landfall before the british could react since their orders would be cancelled to stop the attrition.
We should check if this is still true with the new ship AA.

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94273Post Bill
Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:17 pm

Survey results of the first 9 rule proposals posted in this thread.

8 respondents as of this post.
Survey results regarding first 9 proposals posted in thread Future of the Game Rules and Balance Discussion.PNG
Survey results regarding first 9 proposals posted in thread Future of the Game Rules and Balance Discussion.PNG (703.68 KiB) Viewed 325 times

Feel free to post your analysis and interpretations of the results of this non-scientific survey.

The results can be seen here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-R5D6FJLNV/

mikeydz
Field Marshall
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:25 am

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94277Post mikeydz
Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:10 am

unbutu wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:07 pm
No, it was not personnal. Here is publicly availaible information that can help you arrive to that conclusion.

From me:
It feels right to send your stuff where the ennemy is weakest. I know we are not too worried about allies getting too strong. But honestly, how ridiculous would that be, if someone could send their troops somewhere and ignore all else because the only move allowed to the ennemy is the expected move. Really ? That all in africa meta was a bluff, and we called it.
(Speaking of the amount of troops UK was sending in africa in the last games)



From our faction forum (I think it's public now ? )
Greyhound:
The secondary and actually more important goal is to force UK players from now on to burn resources being defensive(Which they should) so that the axis gets more leniency in places like asia and africa due to resources being spent at home.
I've answered because I'm afraid you could really think you were personally targetted. Let's stop derailing that fresh thread :)
The Axis Forum has not been made public (at least not to me asof this post), so I can only base my opinion on what was said in the post game chat and what's been posted up to now in the main threads.

But since that specific comment in question was evidently not meant to be personal, my other point still stands. Right now we are going back and forth about what rules we need to implement. My point is that's basically the wrong mindset to have, and is contrary to what WPO has historically been about. In essence, a hypothetical WPO rule number one could be described as "If you have to ask if it's gamey, probably don't do it". You can substitute other words like malicious, punitive, hyper competitive, ect for gamey and it would still work. With that mindset, you don't need 50 different rules with 10 sub rules each. Our rule list should be more along the lines of Monopoly, and less like Star Fleet Battles.

I just think we are going down the wrong rabbit hole trying to debate the "perfect" rule set.
Image

greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94283Post greyhoundgames
Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:28 am

I agree with mikey. NF change via mod and Gibralter change via mod means we don't need a new rule about germany rushing and we can actually remove the house rule on gibralter. Less rules is better. If around maginot cannot be done until day X then germany cannot attack france until day X. Since there is no manual justifying before a certain date, that feels pretty bullet proof. Unless the uk is willing to use guarantees the war will start at the appropriate time. And france can simply not join the war if the UK needs a guarantee for strategic reasons. I don't think there is a feasible sea lion without at least holland(blocked by the date on around the maginot) for better airport access as the channel is pretty terrible on mission efficiency otherwise(as is the sea zone to the north) which will then preclude massive naval bomber flights. (que attempt to create a tac bomber heavy fighter naval dominance strategy!)

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94284Post Bill
Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:33 am

greyhoundgames wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:28 am
Less rules is better.
I concur.

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94285Post Bill
Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:39 am

mikeydz wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:10 am
Our rule list should be more along the lines of Monopoly, and less like Star Fleet Battles.
Star Fleet Battles = "The winner is the player who knows the most rules."

:grin:
Star Fleet Battles ruleset.jpg
Star Fleet Battles ruleset.jpg (78.99 KiB) Viewed 306 times

https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/com ... oard_game/

greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: Future of the Game: Rules and Balance Discussion

Post: # 94286Post greyhoundgames
Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:44 am

Never played that, is it worse or better then pathfinder. I swear when we play that its always an argument about DC somehow.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests