PBEM Playtest of AWAW v1.2

Thx for all the feedback so far - great. They have all been noted though I cannot promise that all will be included. (we all have different views of what makes a fun game)

@Eivind:
* Montenegro and Rangoon noted. Concerning the spelling of city names I'll have to go through all of them. They should all be spelled the British way.
*Think that 'Japanese agression' is well suited. Besides the conquest of China (which is quite an atrocity) they also grapped several Islands in the Pacific. But I'm open for other suggestions.
* Narvik could be made more desirable - maybe also as an improved U-boat strongpoint.
* The US air base in Britain could be seen as a "Partnership for Peace" airfield. As you have it in your own scenario it gives the US the opportunity to land aircrafts later on in the game.
* Trade units could of cause make nice pray for U-boats, but they will not be included since IMO trade units tend to slow down the game, and I like action.
* Engineers high attack value is meant to represent their use in combat. Germany and the Allies both had engineer units during WWII that carried special equipment such as Flame Throwers, Satchel Charges, Mines etc. They were called upon the destruction of Strong Points - as they could be used in this scenario.

@All:
Engineers perform their task slowly for the reason that I didn't want to have games were each player used the first 20 turns in a game to build up infrastructure and thereafter pump units out for the rest of the game using railroads to smash through the enemy. This is the classic civ strategy for most people I guess. But IMO it's unrealistic and don't head the inertia and slowliness of military operations.
Even though WWII was the breakthrough of the Blitzkrieg tactic no one rolled through the other country just on railroads. And even though it proved effective in France and Russia, it required superior forces and combined arms to succed.
So, my best advice in the game would be to produce combined arms - this is one of my prime intensions for this scenario. Too often just producing 2 or 3 units in different scenarios could win the game - this IMO is not funny and not realistic. Vaging war is an enormous logistic undertaking and no wars are won in just 14 days (with exceptions :p )

Ships movement can be improved by 1 by researching "convoy warfare".
Generally I have tried to balance the game in that way that in the Pacific movements are higher because of more ocean to cover (both Japan and the US have ship wonders). In Europe this is not the case. My concern is that transports should be vulnerable and if they have so high movement that they almost never are on open ocean things would get dull. Ships are slow but powerfull - like in reality.

I think I have balanced the planes pretty well. In many games planes are too powerfull and I have tried to combat this by reducing their movement (I especially know that you Eivind should be quite an airforce expert ;) )

@Boli: Notes taken on the barracks - I actually have though the same myself.

@Duke: Notes taken on the carrier.
 
I have a few other suggestions.

Abolish railroads (myself a big fan of RR warfare, I like the slower pace of this scenario) and rename roads to "highways" or "railroads" and change their graphics to match. Increase their movement rate to x4 or x5 to make highways more valuable, so you'll benefit more from putting your engineers to work. And I agree, the 'houses' terrain takes too long to build roads in IMO. Where possible, I've always avoided building them there.

Highways are probably more appropriate than rails, since most of Europe at this time already had a widespread rail network.

Also, I think the middle east is far too underdeveloped, considering the enormous populations of say Egypt. They are too poor IMO for anyone wishing to develop the cities. And there were both universities and factories in the middle east.

Rename 'stock exchange' to 'war bonds' in order to make the benefits more appropriate, when you build up oil fields.

Rename 'uboat pens' to something different (in ZWK they are 'godowns'), to simulate imported raw materials, and give them to basically all british cities, which severely lack them (to provide them with benefits for their many ocean squares). Some UK cities actually have zero production from the outset because of unit support.

Provide the UK with more factories (terrains). The UK were the most industrialized nation in the world after the industrial revolution.
 
I think the unit/support build has got to be the most pressing concern I found in the playtesting. You just cannot recoup looses as you would like.
 
I don't like how fighters work, a person can easily send out a fleet of battleships and transports park a fighter over them and boom it's damn near impossible to knock em out, because you gotta use your own fighters yet the battleship will defend against the attacking fighter meaning the fighter has absolutely no chance to win.
 
Why not have that as a house rule, to disalow air protected stacks? It's a house rule recognised by the PBEM community at CDG. The whole point of air protected stacks are very unrealistic and annoying during game play.
 
Actually, I think it's a matter of real life perspective. The fighter squadrons over the stack indicate a combat air patrol (CAP) flying overhead. And in real life, you wouldn't send fighters out to attack a battle fleet. EXAMPLE: gee, there's a 20 ship flotilla being provided air coverage by 45 fighters. Hey, lets send our fighters out to engage the enemy fighters... but not the enemy ships?
Just doesn't work like that.
And remember, that the USA battleships carried OVER 200+ .50 caliber machine gun anti-aircraft stations on board (Japan taught us we needed that many against their Kamikaze pilots).
Basically, if you didn't have the air power, or surface fleet power, to attack/destroy the entire SURFACE convoy... you didn't send the fighters.

Consider this effect later in the game, when you have dive bombers. OK, the first squadron or two is taken out by the CAP, but the CAP is then damaged or taken out, and your successive waves of aircraft then assualt the capitol ships. Besides it works both ways for both parties... !?

edit: by the way, where/what other sites could I access for PBEM games, where at least rudimentary english is used??
 
Gary J. Durham said:
Consider this effect later in the game, when you have dive bombers. OK, the first squadron or two is taken out by the CAP, but the CAP is then damaged or taken out, and your successive waves of aircraft then assualt the capitol ships. Besides it works both ways for both parties... !?

One problem with that example is that Bombers cannot attack stacked units that have air cover at all. However, yes, it affects both parties the same.
 
In most scenarios air units have lesser attack and defense value than naval and land units. Thus making the fighters nill as the land units will then take the hit over the fighter protecting the stack. I think it's stupid. The same goes for subs. Why would you build subs if you can escort a convoy all over the atlantic and the sib can not do anything about it. It may be somewhat realistic for real life experiences but it certainly ruins the game play and destroys the game balance.
 
I would be willing to be 'beat up on' as the 'french'... but this would depend on who the other Allied players were going to be (sorry if that sounds 'conditional'). Just a thought which MIGHT be of interest in a further 'test' of the scenario.

It might put to rest (or not) why the Allied Minors should, or shouldn't, ever be played by a human in PBEM, whereas the Axis Minors SHOULD in a PBEM.

Besides... I laugh in the face of adversity (after swearing, crying, pulling hair out, etc) :)

Gary
 
Top Bottom