New Version of 2194 Days Available for PBEMs!!!

[klesh]

Thanks Leonidas.


Mike, I think I misread your earleir post. I have indeed switched Bucharest to be size 10, given it the 'Oil Fields' terrain, and better city improvements.

But you were speaking to the fact that Belgrade is in there at all. So I took the liberty of renaming Belgrade to Budapest. In fact, when I look at the map, the city is question is better off being Budapest anyway.

I have solved the Ammunition Plant problem as well with the help of Pap.

Now I am just trying to make this 'Hollywood' thing work out. The Germans did loose alot of tithes, but giving them Cathedrals actually is more expensive for them than the tithes they provide.

More to come... and keep a look out for the update to v5 on the website too.
-
FMK.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
The Germans did loose alot of tithes, but giving them Cathedrals actually is more expensive for them than the tithes they provide.
FMK.

Under fundi cathedrals have no maintainance cost + provide tithes.

I'll take some time to test if the game is balanced. After the SS is gone and the Imp. Marine is downgraded, the Soviet seems to have a big advantage from its Red Guard unit.

Soviet starts with a 10 shield unit, the other two Allied nations start with 20, Axis nations start with 30. Hence it is too big an advantage for the Allied when rush buying units in one turn.

So all in all, I think this game is in favour of the Allied. Japan may have a chance to blitz the US continent using its navy + AM Zeros, but Germany has no chance at all.

[klesh]

I am at a loss here

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Under fundi cathedrals have no maintainance cost + provide tithes.

I was under this impression too. But listen to this. In order to give the germans back some of the cathedrals, I had to give them the tech that makes them available--> Theology. This immediatly increased their tax rate from 'profitable' ~ generating 550 gold or so per turn with costs a little less than 500 to 'in the red' with both costs and taxes all of the sudden in the 700 range. Mind you the Germans have no cathedrals at this time, none at all.

So I begin to add a few cathedrals to see what happens. Now after this, all cathedrals are costing the Germans 3 gold of upkeep per turn (thier correct maintenence cost). However, the cathedrals are ]not listed in the trade advisor's screen, giving the impression that they are free upkeep. But as I add them one at a time to the german cities, their total cost goes up 3 gold accordingly. I really don't know what is going on and it is very very frustrating.


-FMK.

[Case]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
Well I think they should have no problem island hopping with those LVT-2's. The Ami's didnt island hop right away, and building a few of those amphibious vehicles will surely do the trick after a quick shore bombardment. Brit infantry cannot assault amphibiously, but they are allowed to research the LVT-2 as well. I think this gives Japan a nice window of oppertunity to run wild in the Pacific before the Allies can react.

What are everyone else's thoughts on this?

Keep things as they are. The US didn't really have the weapons or know how to make opposed amphibious assaults untill 1943, which was about the time the LVTs began to appear.


Also, why don't you widen acess to the torpedo bomber? The Americans had heaps of torpedo bombers in 1941, and the British had been using their famous Swordfish torpedo bombers from the first day of the war. The Germans and Italians also used torpedo bombers, though not with the same enthusiasm as Japan, Britain and the US.

[Xin Yu]

FMK: the prerequisite for cathedrals is monotheism, not theology. You don't want to give Theology to anyone since that makes oracle (Fuji Mountain?) expire.

[klesh]

Right-o Xin.

But in this scen Nemo renamed Monotheism to Theology...

Theology, 1, 0, nil, no, 1, 2 ; MT

Mt. Fuji seems to have no expiration date as well...


-FMK.

[MagyarCrusader]

To FMK-

First off, let me apologize. I forgot in my previous post to thank you for updating the scenario and to compliment you on your so. Good job and thanks for your dedication.

Secondly,
My main concern over the Belgrade/Bucharest mix up was actually in the event and I don't know if you've fixed it or not. Here's what Nemo had:

@IF
CITYTAKEN
city=Belgrade
attacker=Soviets
defender=Germans
@THEN
TEXT
^With the loss of Belgrade, the Germans lose control of one of the most
^important ressources in the war: The Ploeisti oil fields in Rumania.
^With this loss German tanks and airplanes will soon be without fuel...
ENDTEXT
JUSTONCE
@ENDIF

That is horribly wrong! I can expect this kind of mistake out of a newbie but not Nemo.

Mike, I think I misread your earleir post. I have indeed switched Bucharest to be size 10, given it the 'Oil Fields' terrain, and better city improvements.

But you were speaking to the fact that Belgrade is in there at all. So I took the liberty of renaming Belgrade to Budapest. In fact, when I look at the map, the city is question is better off being Budapest anyway.

Correct! Thank you.

I'll take some time to test if the game is balanced. After the SS is gone and the Imp. Marine is downgraded, the Soviet seems to have a big advantage from its Red Guard unit.

Soviet starts with a 10 shield unit, the other two Allied nations start with 20, Axis nations start with 30. Hence it is too big an advantage for the Allied when rush buying units in one turn.

So all in all, I think this game is in favour of the Allied. Japan may have a chance to blitz the US continent using its navy + AM Zeros, but Germany has no chance at all.

This is exactly what I was afraid of and I'm even more worried now that Xin Yu is sharing in my early suspicion. I think FMK may have over compensated the Allies. This works well if you want the game to turn out historically, but historically Germany lost primarily to poor leadership (aka Hitler was f*d in the head).

Heres how the game plays out in my mind, similar to the Axis & Allies board games: Axis start with a pile of units and must inflict as much damage as possible within the first turn or two to win. If the game is prolonged any later, they will lose due to attrition being heavily in favor of the Allies. And since this is a revised version, it seems FMK beefed up the Allies so much to make the initial blitz almost impossible to accomplish. This way the game will last longer, which is good. However, the bad thing is the Axis will have no chance due to the heavy economic factors coming in for the Allies to suceed as the game progresses. According to the initial demographic, Germany is 3rd in manufacturing goods and Japan is 5th. This already a major disadvantage for them. Then, you have the fact that their units cost more to produce blow the problem up to greater proportions. I believe Xin Yu is right in saying Germany has no chance. What I suggest is lowering German unit costs' to the same as the Allies, and maybe lessening the amount of troops they start with. Hopefully this creates an atmosphere to allow the game to intensify as time progresses instead of the game being decided when Germany fails to take Moscow at the end of the first turn. The worst thing that will happen in this situation is the war will not progress with precise historical accuracy, but it wasn't meant to in the first place.

Just my thoughts. If not, I'll just play as the British or Soviets.

Also FMK, I'm on Spring Break this week. So if you need any help at all I've got some free time. mihaly@jeszenka.com

[Chris 62]

Axis vs allies

First off, don't blame FMK for Germany's postion, blame me, I was behind it, and Germany and Japan SHOULD lose the war.

More then bad leadership lost WWII Mag.
In the released 2194 days, it was a teutonic fantasy, Germany had it all, was FAR to powerful.

They have a real chance to still win, provided they research better tanks, and the Strategic bomber now availible to them.

Historically, Germany could NOT kick in the door in Russia in December of 41, now they can't here either.
The true reasons for Germany's defeat will quickly become clear, two front war, and they need to address this.

It means all the beloved strategies are gone, but bare in mind, so are railroads, invincable fighters clearing cities, and a lot of other unrealistic things.

Japan could not attack on five fronts historically, yet a typical 2194 game saw Japan on the US west coast on turn one, China nearly wiped out, the Soviel far east shattered, the East indies taken, and Austraila invaded.
All nonsense, and totally ahistorical.

FMK:
I'm TOTALLY against giving the USA the German wonders, they should not get this bonus, leave them with Germany, if only to deny it to the USA.
As for the happiness thing, when you made more USA units, are they "non" units or are they city supported?
In Democracy, eventually you reach a point where the city revolts if you build another unit, whether it leaves the city or not.

CaseI'm against giving Britain the torpedo bomber, Britain used the Fiarey Swordfish and the Skua divebomber till 43, neither had the effectivness of the Kate/Val or the US SBD Dauntless/TBF Avenger combination, even after equiped with US airpower types in 1943 onwards, the Fleet air arm scored no notable triumphs.
Before that, the Swordfish wad only Taranto as their big moment, dozens of them attacked the Bismarck to no avail, only a lucky shot jammed her propellar, hardly worth giving the beefed up Britain a powerful air unit it didn't have historically.

XinI believe Axis victory IS possible, Germany must now rethink it war, instead of mindlessly attacking in the east and defending with useless infantry in the west, now they must deal with britain with a hostile and EFFECTIVE Russia on it's border, just like the real world.

Guys, the axis lost WWII badly.
The original scenario went way to far in favor of the axis.
Now the Axis must fight an ever growing enemy while desperatly trying to develop advanced weapons (sound familar?) like Jets and Tigers before it's too late.
They now have Bombers in the late war to help, and Japan has a real fighter at game's end, unlike before, and Germany is in the rough spot it was historically.

Britain now can build real forces, and Russia actually will survive, an impossibilty in the past given equal players.

Keep in mind, Britain and the USA can be sea assaulted rather easily, Germany may now consider a surface fleet instead of paratroops and airpower.

You have to ask yourselves whether you want a historical scenario about WWII or a scenario where if the allies win, it would be a miracle, as the orginal one was for MP.

[MagyarCrusader]

Historically, Germany could NOT kick in the door in Russia in December of 41, now they can't here either.
The true reasons for Germany's defeat will quickly become clear, two front war, and they need to address this.

Then what's the point of playing? They can't do a quick win, which I have no problem with, but they will have no chance at all later on because of production costs. The games will be decided before they even begin, just for the sake of historical accuracy.

Now the Axis must fight an ever growing enemy while desperatly trying to develop advanced weapons (sound familar?) like Jets and Tigers before it's too late.

That's not going to be possible, since the Axis governments are fascist and they are competing against democracies with far more resources at their disposal. By the time Germany may research those nice tanks and fighters, the Allies will have gotten their nice tanks and fighters too so it cancel's each other out.

Britain now can build real forces, and Russia actually will survive, an impossibilty in the past given equal players.

Again. I have no problem with this. I have a problem with the fact that production standards will dictate the game into a war of attrition with no hope for the axis. I do believe the Allies should have a production bonus over the Axis, which they do, but not so much as to make Axis units cost more.

You have to ask yourselves whether you want a historical scenario about WWII or a scenario where if the allies win, it would be a miracle, as the orginal one was for MP.

My opinion. Neither.
In single player I love the scenarios being as historical as possible, meaning if I am Germany I want to lose. But I don't feel this way for multiplayer. I am assuming by you saying historical you mean that the war will progress as closely as it can to the way the war died for real. I am against this for multiplayer. Mulitplayer games are fun because of the variety that isn't there in single player, meaning you have a free thinking human player in place of a monotonous AI. You are taking out the variety in the game by preventing the Axis from achieving a quick victory AND making them at a major disadvantage in the latter half of the war to simulate precise historical accuracy.

But hey that's just my opinion. You guys are free to do what you want. I just know that if I play this scenario I'll be fighting for the King of England or the Comrade of Russia.

[klesh]

I have made changes again. With the help of Henrik I wa able to sort things out to a nice degree.

The Ammunition Plant issue is solved.

The revolting cities issue has been solved without having to move any wonders. Germany still has 'Nuremberg Rallies 1938'. I added some entertainers to the cities in question.

As far as mechanics are concerned, I believe it is all working A-ok. I'm going to upload v5 to the webpage after this post.

I do see Mike's point with the production costs. But also think of this Mike. The Ami's have to ship all thir units into battle. That takes a long time. They are also quite vulnerable all the way across. If Germany can build more production improvements and get a few Industry terrains terraformed they should be able to keep up. It is very tough to knock out those tigers fortified on a river city etc.

If production costs were more simmilar, then the Allies are at a disadvantage because they have to ship their units across the Atlantic which is far more logistically easy then Germany building units in her homeland. If Germany can field Wespe's early on, they sure can knock on the Soviets pretty hard.

If the costs are made the same, then the abilities might as well be the same, because then we still have this historical strictness based on the actual qualities of the historical vehicles. I dont think anyone would agree that a T-34 is equal to a Churchill tank, or a Sherman for that matter.

So do you think equal costs, but historical stats would be more effective at trying to (somewhat) lead things historically without being too much of a bottleneck. I would prefer a nice balance. I dont want it to be like the Microprose WWII scen (not that I am suggesting you do either).

I think being the Germans in this scen is very risky, just as risky as it was for them IRL to start WWII in the first place.

Playing as the Allies is somewhat easier because all 3 of you can grind on the Germans and help each other (as it was IRL) and also your production abilities are superior (again pretty realistic). But if the Germans step into high gear with production early(unlike waiting till '43 as they did), then they should be ablt to fight the allies on an even keel. All the while, the Japanese are nipping at the heels of the British and certainly threatening the American west coast.

Thinking back on past games, I never recall the Americans ever getting to Europe to fight at all. Playing the game in SP as the Ami's, I always took forever to build up a sufficient army worth invading Europe with. The AI germans always had enough Tigers at bay to mess with me.

Now we have a functioning version *as far as I can tell*, so only playing this thing will the qualities reveal themselves to be good or bad.

Keep this discussion going though, we are hashing out alot of good things here.

-FMK.

[Case]

FMK - I agree with what you've said on the production costs.
It's generally agreed that German equipment was more complex, and thus more expensive and difficult to build then Allied equipment. While pound for pound the Germans generally had better stuff, the Allies vast quantities of good equipment proved superior in the long run.
I think that this scenario should include this histocial fact.

As you pointed out, the costs and difficulty of transporting units also increases the real cost of American units (eg each tank unit also requires 1/8 of a Liberty Ship too get into battle).

Re the unhappyness: I don't think that increasing the number of entertainers is a satisfactory solution. Once I start to build bombers and move units out of the cities these entertainers will be overwealmed, and I'll be faced with unhistorical riots against the war.
In addition, the entertainers will come at the cost of my economy, which is also undesirable.

Can you please reconsider this decision and give the Americans the Hitler Youth wonder?

Chris - Point taken on the British torpedo bombers.
However, you underate the British Fleet Air Arm's contribution. While the FAA didn't sink that many ships, this is at least partially due to the lack of ships to sink. After the sinking of the Bismarck the Germans never risked their capital ships in areas where they believed that British carriers were operating.

[MagyarCrusader]

Good points FMK. I hadn't really been thinking about the Americans so much as I have been the USSR and British. I guess we'll just have to see how things turn out. But I still think that at least Wehrmacht should be the same production cost as other civ's infantry since they suck and Germany has no Waffen SS to compensate.

[klesh]

Maybe rename it 'The Boy Scouts of America'... lol

Originally posted by Case
Re the unhappyness: I don't think that increasing the number of entertainers is a satisfactory solution. Once I start to build bombers and move units out of the cities these entertainers will be overwealmed, and I'll be faced with unhistorical riots against the war.
In addition, the entertainers will come at the cost of my economy, which is also undesirable.

Can you please reconsider this decision and give the Americans the Hitler Youth wonder?

I would definately be more in favor of this, especially since it would not affect German tithes (which I ought to rename to seizings BTW...) and since its effect is to decrease unhappiness, it is less useful to the Germans. They are fascists, so their cities won't riot. 'Unhappyness', unless you are going for WLTFD {Fuhrer} day, isn't something that will cripple the German War effort.

Getting rid of the riots in America (and incedentally in the Big 3 Soviet cities) was done with a combination of entertainers and luxuries, both of which would affect their respective economies.

Does everyone agree that perhaps the 'Hitler Youth Movement' would be a better aid to the Americans with less impact on the Germans than 'Nuremberg Rallies 1938'? I think this is a much better solution and a better balance overall.

-FMK.

[Chris 62]

About Britain and US govs....

I have been considering this, is there any reason they must be democracys?

Hear me out here, what if we gave them Communism, and renamed that "wartime government" or something along those lines, it would free up the US happy problems, increse production, would hurt the economy and research a bit, but it would certainly be historical, the WWII govs were dictorial in their practical applications.
You can then try giving them "Hitler youth movement", which we could call "Hollywood goes to war", and it's discription could be:
"Hollywood produced a large number of propaganda films in WWII, that helped raise money through war bonds, and helped stiffen the resolve of the American people".

For Germany, how about it's infantry only be the same cost as British infantry?
That way, Germany could build cheap units fast for defense.

Case
I agree that the fleet air arm accomplished things in WWII, but we have to draw the line somewhere, they can make the Lancaster and now the Meteor, they don't need the naval strike AC (which is what i call it).

[MagyarCrusader]

Hear me out here, what if we gave them Communism

Heh heh... I've was actually considering doing that myself on the updated version of Second Reich, but that's another matter.

For Germany, how about it's infantry only be the same cost as British infantry?
That way, Germany could build cheap units fast for defense.

Yes that would be better.