$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 67.95

4,746 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
29.9% of Goal | 28 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

Triumph & Tragedy» Forums » General

Subject: Realism rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Benn
Canada
Windsor
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
Finally got a chance to play my copy and I love the game.

I know that one of the big appeals of the game is the free form, anything can happen, What If? nature of things, but I wonder if there's any thought to rules in a potential 3.0 to maybe address some of the domestic political considerations, mainly in the Great Powers.

For instance, I'm reading some play reports where the USA is driving on Leningrad instead of liberating France. This hardly seems realistic to me. It seems way too gamey.

I don't know how to address it, but the way allegiances can shift on a dime just for victory point "gaming", doesn't feel right to me.

Anyone else have any thoughts about this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Sterner
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
Hmm.. I didn't know the game allowed for that kind of development. Seems more like something that would happen in Diplomacy rather than a historical game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. R. Tracy
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've seen the Western Allies go for Baku, the Soviets go for Delhi, a three-way fight for the Ruhr, etc. The game has a strong element of history guiding it but I think historical accuracy is subordinated to a balanced three-player experience. You can certainly improve the realism through various constraints but I believe that will yield a very different game, more a 2 v 1 than the current 1 v 1 v 1 construct.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hannes Sörensson
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To be fair, an Allied drive on Leningrad seems kind of far-fetched, considering that you need two enemy capitals to win. I could maybe see it if the Allies are already holding the Ruhr and the Soviet player goofs and leaves Leningrad empty for some reason...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alberto Natta
Italy
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
The take on this game should be something that post-36 it is a blank slate in the end of the day.

If one wishes to take on the "historical" (more so than realistic) aspects of the game, I suggest one takes a different game which is tailored and balanced around that (I can assure you the 2 game version of this game is NOT balanced).

IF the USA for example, are to mandatorily go against the Axis (and I am still confident the Soviets were not liked, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the USA were more than happy to use raw material to let the Russian bleed for them ... if you only think today that to lose a dozen of soldiers has a massive impact on the public opinion, how things evolved in that direction. But I am digressing.) the Axis needs a good slice to make up for that.
Why? Because without the USA the West will think many times to DoW Soviets and will focus on Axis.

A drive on Leningrad is quite plausible in a game where Soviets and West struggle first in Scandinavia. It's 2 VP worth, and either the Axis is too strong, or the Soviets are winning. (Because you do not always win by hitting in two the strongest, but you can also win by devouring the weaker who is losing against the winner - where it is most unprepared, with its reserves spent in the current war).

The reasoning is pretty simple.
Germany is winning vs Soviets for example. So Germany has ample reserves they could shift around, meanwhile Soviets are spent (and they thus lack also ability to push Germans away).
To go attack Germany may neat you little - they can shift their reserves and dance in your face as they hold their position.
You need to get more points (resources, population, whatever) to win, so it is easier to take them from the Soviets more so than the Axis - thus you attack the Soviets.

Alas the problem is that this puts the Soviet in a position which have nothing more to gain from the game, and can simply choose "who" to oppose and thus who they favor to win in the end of the day.
Which no one would ever do.

But there is no way to counter the Kingmaker thing unless one instead of computing a single game VP and determining a winner; ends up with a sum (or averaging) of the VPs scored over X games.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
John,

It's not so far-fetched really when you consider the wild plans the Western Allies concocted during the eight-month sitzkrieg that followed Germany's invasion of Poland.

o In addition to invading Iceland, Churchill proposed a "preventative occupation" (i.e. invasion) of Norway followed by seizing northern Sweden on the way to helping Finland. He later proposed bombing the Baku oilfields in the USSR.

o France wanted to lead a 100 division invasion of the Soviet Union by way of the Caucuses by Yugoslavia, Romania, Greece and Turkey.

o An invasion of Belgium was also considered due to the King Leopold's apparent obstinate commitment to neutrality, which he shared with the Scandinavian block.

o During this time, the Western Allies enjoyed a 5:1 military superiority in manpower over the Germans they were facing.


4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
Good observations, Alberto.

One way of shutting down the war in 1944 and 1945 is to start charging a slowly increasing VP penalty for invading new countries.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools

If you invade new countries in 44/45 the war either started late or not at all until then.
Why would you want to put a restriction on invading new countries then ?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools

John,

Please note the game is a sand box and starts in 36.

This means the Axis often declares war on nobody ( except for VoN's ) and therefore Paris is never invaded.
So its absolutely possible the Allies including USA attack Russia to stop them from winning either by conventional or atomic means.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pauli Vinni
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This game does not work at all 2 vs 1. The one who is alone will always lose and the another of the 2 left, will have easy victory. (of course if players make mistakes, anything can happen)

This is pure 3 player game, where you have to look both opponents very closely and try to sneak to the victory or march by force while keeping both other players on their others throats.

But all in all, you have to put big rocks to both players way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmb

Yes, good points about starting the war later in the game.

o Juerg - I'm not seriously proposing this, but maybe each Great Power and Major Power should have a supply of "Nation Will" points that goes down a certain number of points for declarations of war, areas offensively invaded, every battle lost, and so on. Once these points are exhausted, players can keep fighting, but lose VPs as a result.

o Pauli - There was an SPI game released many years ago called "Battle for Germany" that pitted the East Germans and Western Allies against the Soviets and West Germans. Germany was essentially split in half. This worked very nicely for that game. I wonder whether the same idea could be made to work for the two-player T&T.

Just a thought.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
Dieter,

I dont know if you really want to make life harder for the active player and I dont really understand why this would be necessary.
Craig partially solved the end run problem by not counting blockades at the end of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Benn
Canada
Windsor
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
DieterS wrote:
John,

It's not so far-fetched really when you consider the wild plans the Western Allies concocted during the eight-month sitzkrieg that followed Germany's invasion of Poland.

o In addition to invading Iceland, Churchill proposed a "preventative occupation" (i.e. invasion) of Norway followed by seizing northern Sweden on the way to helping Finland. He later proposed bombing the Baku oilfields in the USSR.

o France wanted to lead a 100 division invasion of the Soviet Union by way of the Caucuses by Yugoslavia, Romania, Greece and Turkey.

o An invasion of Belgium was also considered due to the King Leopold's apparent obstinate commitment to neutrality, which he shared with the Scandinavian block.

o During this time, the Western Allies enjoyed a 5:1 military superiority in manpower over the Germans they were facing.




These points are well taken, but none of that stuff was politically viable AFTER Paris was Axis occupied.

The idea that US troops would be opening a 2nd front against the USSR by moving on Leningrad seems fair absurd to me.

Like, "I know we just got bombed at Pearl Harbor and the Germans are threatening Moscow and Baku and Paris is occupied, but the best course of action is to move on Leningrad..."

I don't think it would fly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really want to mess with the open-ended nature of the game, but I also don't believe it's an either-or proposition. Surely, we forumites can think of more creative ways of incentivizing less ridiculous outcomes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alberto Natta
Italy
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
In one of my games I am myself the West, and I am in a position where the "only" way to win is to ninja-grab Baku and Leningrad.

The Germans have about 20+ steps before production in Russia, and produce 15ish.
Soviets have like 6 mobile steps and 2 forts (I assume) of unknown strength in Baku and Leningrad. And produce like 7-8.

West has Persia and Sweden.

So the game no matter what West would do in the West (locked in UK and France and lacking forces for) is probably going to end in a military victory for Axis. Unless the West beats them to it. (USA are not in play yet, it's '42 but both URSS and Axis worked against the West for that, URSS even sabotaged twice the West over time - so that now West is pretty behind and cannot meaningful do much else).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Benn
Canada
Windsor
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
I've been thinking a little more about this and I'll take a stab at it:

Why not just make the VP penalty for declaring war on a 2nd rival higher while you are down a starting objective city.

ie. If Paris is occupied for the West, they can't open another front without incurring a big penalty (-2 more than the DoW).

This would essentially eliminate the gamey gain for taking Leningrad or Baku and make the attack only make sense if it had solid military underpinnings.

PS: The game already incentivises certain behavior (peace dividends, DoW penalties), so it's not a completely blank slate. There's some precedent for this.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
On first look this seems anti Axis which is really not needed.

On second look we have to look a little bit closer.

So the Axis took Paris early and now the Russians are winning.
They dont bleed and still get peace dividends.

The normal 3 player game reaction is for the Axis and the West to come to an agreement ( cease fire for a certain time ) and go after the Sovjets.

Your proposition makes this less viable and so punishes the active player and the diplomats.

Is that really what you want ?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmb

Hmmm. What about making a negotiated peace possible between Great Powers at war? This would also restore Peace Dividends.

After all, it does seem likely that Rudolf Hess went to England to offer that Germany withdraw from France so that the Germans could concentrate on the Soviet Union.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools

That sounds interesting but......

You would have to change back industry cost.
Is suprise possible again ?
Seems to take away the consequences of declaring war in the first place.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alberto Natta
Italy
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
Players can negotiate a peace, just they cannot get peace dividends anymore and someone can build factories at a cheaper cost and someone lost a VP.

I just take that the switch from "peace economy" to "war economy", mobilizing the country, etc - are the factors that matter more if the countries are actually at war or not.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Benn
Canada
Windsor
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
haeberich wrote:
On first look this seems anti Axis which is really not needed.

On second look we have to look a little bit closer.

So the Axis took Paris early and now the Russians are winning.
They dont bleed and still get peace dividends.

The normal 3 player game reaction is for the Axis and the West to come to an agreement ( cease fire for a certain time ) and go after the Sovjets.

Your proposition makes this less viable and so punishes the active player and the diplomats.

Is that really what you want ?


As stated earlier, I don't want to encourage any particular historical outcome as I feel that's counter to the free spirited nature of the game, but merely thought it was strange that the USA would open a new front while Paris was in Axis hands just to take VP from the Russians.

I like the ahistorical possibilities the game offers, as long as they are within the realm of possibility.

Does anyone here think that the UK/USA would have turned on their ally (USSR) against the Axis when they hadn't even liberated France yet?

I find it impossible to fathom.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Szarka
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
When it is your turn to send a VASSAL move, the wait is excruciating. When it's my turn, well, I've been busy.
mbmbmbmbmb
Johnny Awesome wrote:

Does anyone here think that the UK/USA would have turned on their ally (USSR) against the Axis when they hadn't even liberated France yet?

I find it impossible to fathom.


In this game if anyone is truly an "ally" then the three-player dynamic becomes broken. The scenario you describe is not something that would happen often, but if the threat of it happening is removed it will likely unhinge the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alberto Natta
Italy
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
I'd agree to a rule stating that you need a total of 5 Capitals to score a sudden death victory (Military).

So if in factual terms Paris is lost, the Allies need to capture 3 enemy Capitals (or retake Paris and take 2 more).

The kind of sense of that is that, for instance, Allies could take Rome or Rhur - but the Germans are pushing hard in Russia, only delaying the Axis, to seize Baku and Moscow for example.
It's hardly a military victory, if you conquer a nation but you're half conquered yourself!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
In thinking about the dynamics, it doesn't seem a reasonable political motivation, for example, to declare war on the Soviet Union simply because they're ahead in economic points.

So, here's a very rough idea.

What about creating secret strategic goals for each of the Great Powers and their Major Power allies? These would award strategic Victory Points for achieving major and minor goals worth different numbers of points each for different victory levels. One would draw several goal cards to choose from.

For example:

Poland Survives (not invaded or a satellite): 2 SVPs

Roman Victory (Italy): Control over Tunisia, Malta, Libya, Egypt, Albania, Greece, and Turkey (Izmir). 8 SVPs

Lebensraum (Germany): Control over Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Western Poland. 6 SVPs

And so on. At the end of the game, each Great Power would reveal the goal cards that they achieved, the number of SVPs, and their corresponding victory level.


Yes, this would be a massive amount of work--it's just a thought.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Johnny Awesome wrote:
DieterS wrote:
John,

It's not so far-fetched really when you consider the wild plans the Western Allies concocted during the eight-month sitzkrieg that followed Germany's invasion of Poland.

o In addition to invading Iceland, Churchill proposed a "preventative occupation" (i.e. invasion) of Norway followed by seizing northern Sweden on the way to helping Finland. He later proposed bombing the Baku oilfields in the USSR.

o France wanted to lead a 100 division invasion of the Soviet Union by way of the Caucuses by Yugoslavia, Romania, Greece and Turkey.

o An invasion of Belgium was also considered due to the King Leopold's apparent obstinate commitment to neutrality, which he shared with the Scandinavian block.

o During this time, the Western Allies enjoyed a 5:1 military superiority in manpower over the Germans they were facing.




These points are well taken, but none of that stuff was politically viable AFTER Paris was Axis occupied.

The idea that US troops would be opening a 2nd front against the USSR by moving on Leningrad seems fair absurd to me.

Like, "I know we just got bombed at Pearl Harbor and the Germans are threatening Moscow and Baku and Paris is occupied, but the best course of action is to move on Leningrad..."

I don't think it would fly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really want to mess with the open-ended nature of the game, but I also don't believe it's an either-or proposition. Surely, we forumites can think of more creative ways of incentivizing less ridiculous outcomes.


Of course the nazi leadership did hope, basically right up to the very end that the unlikely coalition of the communist soviet union and the western capitalst nations would break up, which sure enough itvdid not too long after the end of the war leading to the Cold War. Circumstances having been somewhat different, it might not even be so far fetched after all...

As another poster already pointed out, the western powers came very close to coming to Finland's aid and thereby initiating a war with the Soviet Union as well as early as the Winter War of 1940..
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Benn
Canada
Windsor
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
None of that was considered after Germany had invaded the Soviets.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.