DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Various days, normally starting 1700 UTC or later

Moderators: El Duck, Evil Overlord

Post Reply
User avatar
Evil Overlord
Field Marshall
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:43 am

DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 71344Post Evil Overlord
Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:15 pm

hey guys, i thought about starting a debate thread that we can all put our inputs in on specific subjects (e.g. a thread for each) and the first subject that came to my mind was about the choices we as players make in the different events and where the those conflict with either the historical options, the players free choices and the overall fun for us, bearing in mind that we each have a different view on each of those and define them seperately.

to start off, why must uk bring poland into the alliance and thereby trigger the allies entry into a war with germany and the axis, if uk has to do this, then why should other nations and indeed other events not also be enforced, say usa must choose rosevelt and japan must chose to crush the coup in the 2-26 instead of chosing to listen to them which gives the hawk lobby moves.

what exceptions to the historical or forced choices are valid?

why do YOU think that the line must be drawn at any event or chain of events?

what alternative historical scenarioes could be interesting to play out in MP? (bearing in mind the overall balances) an allies vs axis&comintern or perhaps a scenario where it is primarily a german vs soviet union with the allies either not interfering or waiting to balance by joining the 'losing' power?

El Duck
Field Marshall
Posts: 3836
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 71361Post El Duck
Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:30 am

I enjoy playing a somewhat historical WW2 game. However, I could support free choice for most events as long as the historic alliances between player controlled nations remained in force.

Mr_B0narpte
Field Marshall
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:09 am
Location: Newport, Wales UK

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 71363Post Mr_B0narpte
Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:29 am

Very interesting questions.

I think for next game I'd prefer a historical game - we've certainly got the two important events covered; the MR Pact and the Purge event. It is probably an already unwritten rule, but I'd prefer the make it official for the UK to have to accept Poland into the Allies. But there are some events I'd still give the player the option to choose either way, but have a semi-significant penalty for the ahistorical choice. For instance the USA not electing Roosevelt in 1936/40; or Germany not removing Schacht or von Fritsch via the events. It seems silly to have historical events trigger, but there be no penalty for the ahistorical choice - it makes little sense for a player to effectively kill off von Fritsch or Schacht. Keeping on Schacht then makes Speer's arrival in 1942 redundant.

Saying that, my ideal version of AoD would be where an MP game requires the least amount of rules possible to avoid unbalancing or exploiting the game. I.e. if Germany and USSR make an alliance, that comes with significant disadvantages (I think there's already a 20 dissent malus, but something like a permanent reduction in morale or org of units, or a loss of manpower, would be a more balanced penalty). If China allies with Japan, either voluntarily or involuntarily, then the Chinese regime faces permanent opposition considering the anti-Japanese sentiment in the country at the time (and something similar for most/all puppets being created by any authoritarian/dictatorship state).

A more immediate need for AoD is to balance the US gearing events - i.e. make them trigger if the Axis do expand to ridiculous limits, by making them more sensitive to Germany's, Japan's, and Italy's belligerence; by setting additional triggers (fall of Ankara; Stockholm; Nat Spain in the Axis etc), while also making them less sensitive to Soviet belligerence. IMO the only instance where the US gearing should trigger due to the USSR is when Stalin clearly threatens America (i.e. a large Soviet navy or Stalin takes land within reach, or part, of the Americas).

User avatar
Evil Overlord
Field Marshall
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:43 am

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 71373Post Evil Overlord
Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:10 am

indeed i think we all share at least a core desire to play within historical bounds, that said, the question remains, why should we stick to some of these events like having uk ally with poland and not enforce some of the other events like uk sending troops to spain or indeed enforcing that germany/russia keeping some politicians and generals, do we belive it strengthen our games general feel or are we afraid to mess them up by changing the setup for the war? (and yes there is a definete risk of ww2 not happening historically with some of the events) should we enforce a historical choice only game at some point(until or indeed after danzig) or would that mess up the fun?

Mr_B0narpte
Field Marshall
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:09 am
Location: Newport, Wales UK

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 71398Post Mr_B0narpte
Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:20 am

I think the only events we force the players to accept are ones that would otherwise upset game balance. A human Germany refusing the MR Pact, then taking all of the Baltic & Poland would definitely screw up game balance - unless France, whether AI or human, was in a strong enough position to force Germany to send 100+ divisions west, with the USSR then attacking in the east. But that would also screw with game balance, but it would be solely the Germany players fault.

El Duck
Field Marshall
Posts: 3836
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 71408Post El Duck
Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:54 pm

Following is the current rule regarding events as taken from the rules thread:

1. All play will be 100% historic until Danzig with the exception that if an event allows several choices, a player may chose a a-historic path. Germany must DOW the Allies on 1 SEP 39. After that date, players are free to no longer follow history with the exceptions as listed below.

2. Germany must give the full MR pact and the USSR must accept. The pact must be honored at least until 30 APR, 40, when the non aggression pact expires.

3. The USSR must accept the full purge.

I believe that this means that players are allowed to take any options offered by game events except as covered in one and two above. So, in the example that EO mentioned, the UK would not have to accept Poland into the Alliance.

Mr_B0narpte
Field Marshall
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:09 am
Location: Newport, Wales UK

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 71416Post Mr_B0narpte
Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:37 am

I would recommend that the UK having to accept Poland into the alliance to be compulsory. But, then again, if the UK player wants to option to shoot themselves in the foot and let Germany run wild against Poland, and then the USSR, they can be my guest :D

User avatar
princedetenebres
Field Marshall
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:10 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 75327Post princedetenebres
Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:30 am

Mr_B0narpte wrote:...if the UK player wants to option to shoot themselves in the foot and let Germany run wild against Poland, and then the USSR, they can be my guest :D
Just curious if this holds true for the next game as well ;)

User avatar
Evil Overlord
Field Marshall
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:43 am

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 75340Post Evil Overlord
Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:37 pm

well i think the option to not include Poland into the allies could be a very interesting alt history line to pursue in a mp game at some point, there would probably need to be a few "role playing" sessions for the different events

User avatar
princedetenebres
Field Marshall
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:10 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 75455Post princedetenebres
Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:02 am

I was just kidding around, given that his role as the SU would likely mean that perhaps he would feel differently now :)

Mr_B0narpte
Field Marshall
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:09 am
Location: Newport, Wales UK

Re: DEBATE; Historical vs Free choice vs Fun

Post: # 75462Post Mr_B0narpte
Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:12 am

Aha, taking all of Poland would be nice. But receiving -5 dissent from the post MR Pact event when Warsaw falls to Germany is very nice too :D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests