PBEM Playtest of AWAW v1.2

But everyone has only had three (3) turns, except me!

(just curious how this 'Ouick Reply' differs from regular reply...

edit: apparently no difference??
 
Why don't Morten take over the Minor now, and play both the Minors and the Allies, to balance the game? Please don't call me a traitor, Gary, I'm just trying to put some juice back into the game ;)
 
Yeah... but wait! Wouldn't it be embarrassing as heck for us to end up losing to a bunch of 'AI's 'in the long run'?

If Morten doesn't want to play... does anyone else want to take over? Anyone else want to quit?

Anyone want to take over and help the Allies through 'their darkest hours'?
 
I truly think to start the game with France under human control... will be the instant death of Germany before the game even begins (I know at least Alex dissagrees with me on this). THAT way... Germany would start off with a 'three' front (UK, France and <probably> USSR).
At this point in the game...I don't know... would he even be interested?

Morten, would you be interested in taking over the Minor Allied? Of course, I'd have to get that old 'frog' rivalry thing going... :)

(I think I'd want the UK player then go 'AI', though, as Morten's nasty, nasty, nasty... DANGEROUS, and I know he'll be handing me my own head if given only a tenth of a chance <that's respect, guys, not a persoal attack>!! LOL's!)

edit: of course, we could always specify he takes over on turn 'whatever', in order for you to re-think a strategy, Duke, but without allowing you to pummel the Allied Minor 'AI'... ??? Hmm. Nice suggestion, Eivind. Has some wicked possiblities. Probably against ME, though! ;)
 
I'm not interested in playing the Minor Allies. It was agreed from the outset, that they would stay AI, and I think it would change the strategical landscape dramatically if they were played by a human opponent, since vital strategic courses has been taken on other conditions. It would be kind of unfair to change the conditions of the game.

Gary has performed a brilliant strategical opening, and effectively put the UK out of play. But the Axis has far from won the game, as Gary correctly states. I would still like to see the outcome of this. Will the invasion of England have strained Germany's economy too much? WWill the Third Reich, while holding London, yet collapse from the sudden pressure of a Soviet onslaught?

I see no reason why the game cannot be played to the end. It'll be very interesting to see the long term effects of this dramatic opening. I personally prefer the Brits be controlled by the AI, as I estimate the AI will perform at least as well a job, as I would be able to, given the current conditions.
 
I will personally be sorry to see you go, Morten, but I do understand. I think that, had our positions been reversed, you'd have spotted the same, and done me at least as 'good'... had I been the English!

Yes, you are correct. The game *is* far from over. However, for obvious reasons... I'd just as soon not mention the German flaws and extreme weaknesses at the 'present moment' at this 'present time'. I know that you more than understand what they are, and do not think it would be remiss if you made the occassional allied... observation?

Should you wish it (or Bo, as designer), I can send you a brief summary of each of the three turns it took to accomplish this opening strategic blow.

Gary
 
Nah with the UK knocked out the game isd essentially over.
 
Gary says "Yeah, whatever."
But....

<erase>
I just erased several paragraphs, as I can sum it up in a shorter version: I am so dissappointed...

Gary
 
Well, since this maybe is drawing towards a new game, I will try to meddle a bit with the scenario over the weekend to make a new twist or two.

Any suggestions towards the scenario itself, the new game or other general comments?
 
Here's some suggestions: :)

* Please do something with Montenegro, as it was not an reckognised as an independent state until 1941 in the uprising against the axis. Just rename it into a city name. Podgorica for instance.
* Radically increase the movement of ships
* Increase the movement of planes
* Maybe reneame the Japanese wonder 'Japanese agression' into something more suitable? At this time they havn't really agressed at anything else but China.
* To make Narvik a more desirable conquest, maybe give it the Adam Smith wonder?
* Why would the US have an air base in Britain in 1939?
* How about introducing the Freighter and trade? So the tech advancement would go faster. It would make u-boat warfare for the axis more topical.
* I've never really quite understood why the Engineers have such a high attack value. And the way it is now, it only has settler capabilities, as the Early Fighter unit has the actual Engineer slot. Building roads and such goes a bit too slow for me wanting to build that unit.
* It's spelled Beirut, not Beyrut.
* One less S in 'Strasbourg'.
* Rangoon was under British rule.
 
* Make units as a whole easier to construct so it won't be as disastourous to loose single units - in reality Divisions where not destroyed very often most of the time they fell back regrouped and re-equiped. This will reflect more on the "destroying units and tanks quicker than you coudl build them Philosophy which was in essense the whole point of WWII once it settled down into a long war.

* With this in mind baracks should not be able to built so veteren divisions (from combat or the start of the game) are made much more valuable.

* Reduce the upkeep costs of a few of the improvments, there isn't enough population in the game to support a building program becasue of the already high upkeep costs.
 
Eivind IV said:
Here's some suggestions: :)

* Radically increase the movement of ships
* Increase the movement of planes

I didn't have that much of a problem with the speed of the ships. If they were faster the conflict between the Japanese and US would be over 'too quick'. If any ships speed should be increased I would vote for the transport unit. Conversly, I was actually thinking that the Battleships and Carriers speed should be decreased since typically they were slower than the Cruisers. Unless the Cruisers were meant to be 'heavy Cruisers' I would also reduce the attack/defense factor of the Cruisers a little bit to make them more of a mid-range unit, rather than just slightly weaker Battleships.

* Building roads and such goes a bit too slow for me wanting to build that unit.
I agree that Engineers performed their work a little too slowly. Four turns to build a road in a 'house' square seems a bit much.

I would make the two bunkers outside Vladivostok be supported by the city so that they are 'abondoned' if the city is taken.

I'm guesing that the reason for 'Minor' Divisions is to try and reflect the lack of training and equipment they had when compared to 'regulars' yet they have the same defense value.
 
Increasing the sea unit range overall would mean more manoeuvrebility. I agree as well with the cruiser and transporter, but my wish would be an overall increasment in movement for sea and air units. At least two more.
 
Airpower remains the defining force in the game, if you increase the movement by 2 you'll end up with a vaslty overpowered unit. There will be no gaps in your air cover. Which people can no longer use to slip around the map undetected.

I think the airpower should work thus:

Extreme shortrange Bombers/Fighters specfically German Stukas who operate within the short range support the army as they advance (Range 2 - high Attack). In the begining they were using as Airial Artilery - near the end as Tank busters.

Medium range Bombers/fighters that opperate the sort of distances across the channel and used to bomb cities and attack airforces (Range 4 - Medium attack) - pretty much what we have now.

Long range Fighters - Used for reconisence and submarine killing (Range 6/8 - Low Attack).

The Heavy bombers are an improvement on the attack of the medium bombers (Lancasters & B-17s) and right near the end the development of the high strength extreme range bomber that America developing.

I think the Navy as it stands is pretty balanced - The Carrier does in essense become the heart of your fleet with the edge airpower gives you.
 
I didn't have any real problems with the maneuvarability of my Fleet as the Japanese. The only thing that was painstaking slow was the Transports.

Then again, the Japanese fleet moves at a speed of 1 more than everyone else (other than the US). I guess if the fleet was moving at 5, transports at 3, it would be even worse.

A thought I had with Carriers is that perhaps they should have their defense value reduced a little, but then be given the AA flag? That may help to represent how vulnerable they are to other ships on their own, but also represent the 'CAP' they normally had as well.
 
Top Bottom