View Full Version : EA, the Math Problem
Depressing, :o
The more I read the forum about EA the less fun it's becoming.
The game has gone from what I think the designers had intended. Instead of an exciting "any thing could" happen game it's becoming (if you read carefully) a simple mathematical problem.
(note this is not aimed at the novice player who won't have a clue but by the experienced EA players who know EXACTLY which hex to "avoid." I'll probably catch it for that but... and against 2 experienced players it becomes who knows the most "set" moves to make.)
IF you do "this" with exactly this many units exactly right "here" then on turn X do "this," then by turn Y you can take Z with no problems, Axis victory, or conversely Axis defeat.
While it is all well and good to exchange strategies and stories it will probably kill anyone unfamiliar with the game when they decide to play against someone in the "know." If you don't know all the "set plays" you're greatly handicapped against someone who does.
If anyone remembers the old Avalon Hill "Afrika Corps" boardgame someone came up with THE winning strategy as the Axis. It literally became a series of "set" moves for the Axis and the entire game hinged on ONE single die roll. If the roll was positive then there was nothing the British could do and the game for all practical purposes ended right there. If it was negative then the outcome still heavily favored the Axis .
Same thing for "Midway" there was one way to attack the Jap ships that would guarantee a US victory.
Now in EA we have it nearly down to the number of lost squads taken in 39-40 that determines if the Germans should even play on.
Yes, yes, I know a lot can happen that can change the outcome of the game, & between player skills but that's not the point. The point is that the game is lossing that "individuality feel for the commander" that I think it must have once had.
The game has been so popular that it's starting to get "set strategies and moves" or that mathematical feeling; IF you want to guarantee getting a win do this!
I'll take Mantis' GIB strategy as an example which I think is brilliant, just RR stacks of 9 Germans down thru Spain and hit GIB in "one turn" before the Allies can react. Want to take the MED from the Allies? This is the opening move, etc, you get my point.
Again it's legal and great strategy on his part, we should all do it.
But should we? If I didn't do that (or another set move) in a game as the Axis would I get a note from an experienced EA opponent on Turn 60 saying, "you've lost the war and don't even know it yet! Because by Turn 187...."
I mean if you want to win why wouldn't you do "X" exactly guaranteeing your self a game advantage- all pefectly legal and within the limits of the game. (sort of like soak offs & using ants).
Is the answer for a competitive game making sure your opponet knows all the "secret set" moves that you do? Or is it more important that you crush your opponent quickly by any means necessary?
I know that when I play a board game against some one not as skilled I am I have a list of "game things" that I go over to insure it's a fair, fun and competitive game.
Sort of like which is a better victory; Oklahoma beating NW Texas, or Oklahoma beating Miami? :thumup:
Innovation is a fine thing and I'm learning a lot from the expert EA players I face but if an individual scenario continually becomes a math problem and not "fun" I'll move on.
That's enough ramblings for now, what say you? :hmmm:
The game seems to me (among those who play it a lot) to becoming less fluid and more ridged in it's execution.
Kerry :cheeky:
Yes I agree that putting someone new up against an experienced EA player is a huge mismatch. The new player just hasn't experienced how the scenario plays out so they make a lot of mistakes.
For example many first time Axis players don't understand how quickly they need to move against France less they see a WWI style bloodbath. After it takes nine months and 50k HRS to reach Paris they complain the scenario isn't realistic.
Kerry, there's WAAAY too much there to answer in a single post, I'd rather have you in chat, or do it in email. But don't dispair, it's not anything like what you have in mind.
Saying that if X many HRSs die in the first year, you're in deep ****, is not reducing the game to math. ANY WWII game you play, if basically the entire wermacht is detroyed (and some/most of it replaced) by the time you've conquered France, you know you're in it, right? Same thing. It's simply quantified in HRSs. And no, it's never exact. It's simply a yard stick. And that can't be helped in ANY game. (I lost so much more/less than last time, so I guess I'm doing worse/better...)
And the GIB thing isn't a set strategy. It's common sense. And anyone that couldn't figure that out after doing it a few times will probably never make it past the 'newbie' stage. It's simply experience. Much the same as 'I can push this unit out of that chokepoint', and 'If a drop a para behind this unit before I push it out of the chokepoint, I can evap it'. Doing it the first times leads you to improve your performance the next.
Gibraltar is a fort. So not only do units there get a bonus for being dug in, they get the fortress bonus. And you can only get 9 units adjacent. So, knowing that each unit in Gib has it's defence multiplied several times, does an Axis player want all 9 units adjacent? Of course! No secret there! Now, if the Allies only have 2 units in there, do you want to put 3 units adjacent to it, and do nothing? No! Why? Cuz that dastardly Brit might add ANOTHER unit! So what's the secret? Get all 9 units there, so that even if he does add another round of 6000 sealift points, it might still not be enough!
It's not a set strategy, it's simply common sense.
As to the 'avoid' a hex thing, that speaks more to an EC game than anything else, and since it's only a game, it really can't be helped. And it does work for both sides. The Axis player knows that if he goes past this line, the West can attack. So he stops, and it's gamey. But the Russian knows this as well, and can pull behind the line, and leave huge openings, etc, to try to entice the German in. He can KNOWINGLY get away with murder, cuz 'my big brother Yankee and my li'l bros France and UK are gonna come and kick your Axis ass if you step over this line!'
Anything else (such as in older games, where the Axis would surround Cairo, but not take it, just to avoid the +10 US) has mostly been worked out. With Cairo switched to Suez, it's simply too important to 'avoid'. It's a port, and can be amphibiously invaded, so the Allied strength isn't static, it could go up. Considerably. In Axis hands, it negates the 'Allied Lake'. It's a supply shift. This was the only spot I saw (and used) in a gamey manner. In a 1.5 game with Dan, all I have left is Moscow, and I'm only 5 or so hexes away at my closest penetration. And I >still< have Cairo surrounded. In a newer game with Raver, I chose to take Suez for the above reasons, KNOWING that this was the very +10 that would activate the US. So I think that the 'this hex' thing doesn't apply to the normal game.
As to losing the feeling of individuality, I think that's simply you worrying that others have it down to a science. It's still a wonder to me every time I start a new one, and I think I have a really good grasp of what's what. If the experts aren't of the mind that it's all a set-piece battle, please don't fret that you feel it might be! I'd do anything I can to restore your sense of wonder in the game; it's a damned shame if you're losing it. But all I can give you beyond reassurances, is that >I< still have my sense of wonder in the game, and it only gets deeper the more I play!
Why do you think I want to explore all these crazy options in our game? They've never really been touched on before! And, I hesitate to tell you, but that thing you did up in Norway is going to become a standard move for me, until something newer/neater/cooler comes along! I was worried that the Med approach was the be-all and end-all of this game. Persia was added. I still did it vs. Raver. Much harder now. Saving my Barbarossa til the very end vs. Dan was a telling argument, now you have 6 turns to save it, max. Harder still. AND the Axis supply source was moved west, and now you're lucky to have supply of 10 when you advance against a Brit who can slam into you over and over and laff cuz you're ALWAYS in the red... the Med is starting to look like an option (for the first time!) I won't take next game! Perhaps an overload in the North, just to be different? Who knows!!
But it'll be damned enjoyable trying to figure it out!
:love: :thumup: :banana: :hail: EA!!
I'm having a blast in my first game, however due to the length I suspect this will be my only game of EA.
However, if time wasn't an option I would imagine that it would hold my interest for at least three more games. One more as the Axis, correcting the regretable moves I've already made, and two as the Allies.
Now just to figure out what this RR move is. :confused:
Thomas Hobbes
04 Nov 02, 21:22
Originally posted by Mantis
Why do you think I want to explore all these crazy options in our game? They've never really been touched on before! And, I hesitate to tell you, but that thing you did up in Norway is going to become a standard move for me, until something newer/neater/cooler comes along!
I'd like to hear more about this Norway thing if one of you has time. I already lost Norway in both my games, but the future always beckons.
And crazy options are good. Like blitzing Switzerland instead of the Low Countries, or shipping every extra Brit unit to France to see if they can stop the Germans.
Edited to add:
Hey Tex that might be the way to finish me off in the Med. Activate Spain with 9 heavy Panzer units sitting on a railroad in France and whamo.
Hmmmm. Maybe I better reinforce Gib.
Originally posted by Tex
Now just to figure out what this RR move is. :confused:
Are you referring to Railroad? If I said RR in my last post, I meant having them on the railroad...
Originally posted by Thomas Hobbes
I'd like to hear more about this Norway thing if one of you has time. I already lost Norway in both my games, but the future always beckons.
And crazy options are good. Like blitzing Switzerland instead of the Low Countries, or shipping every extra Brit unit to France to see if they can stop the Germans.
Funny. The Norway thing happened in the game where I >am< blitzing Switzerland. Wiped them utterly in 1 turn.
Norway is rather simply. Stuff it with Allies once, and see what happens! Especially if you still have France alive. The German will be rather occupied... It's still gonna fall, but Kerry will probably hold it til France is dead. Which will make my units recover slower, which might just drao France out an extra month or so, which will mean more french units reconstituting, recovering, new units coming in, etc...
Thomas Hobbes
04 Nov 02, 21:32
Originally posted by Mantis
Funny. The Norway thing happened in the game where I >am< blitzing Switzerland. Wiped them utterly in 1 turn.
Norway is rather simply. Stuff it with Allies once, and see what happens! Especially if you still have France alive. The German will be rather occupied... It's still gonna fall, but Kerry will probably hold it til France is dead. Which will make my units recover slower, which might just drao France out an extra month or so, which will mean more french units reconstituting, recovering, new units coming in, etc...
Sounds good, maybe I'll try it when I start a third game ( when ...not if, I am totally hooked), then again I'd like to see if I could win as Axis.
That's just great Mantis, here I rant about "set moves" and you talk up my "Norway Move!" as one! :(
Just for your information I did not base my dissertaion on your amazing moves. :p It was based on months of reading comments here at the forum all aimed at the perfect Axis moves to ensure victory. Just because you comment on every post doesn't mean I have to quote you every time! :D Well your ideas are interesting....
Anyway,
And yes there are some "common sense" moves and some that are not. But when it becomes if you do this, then this, etc. etc. to ensure a victory it becomes a check list to follow not a game to be played vs your opponet.
And speaking of victory it seems all the Strategy is focused on getting that Axis victory as quick as possible. Why is this? It can't be due to the number of Allied victories. I think I've only seen one "true" one mentioned here, have there been others? Or is an Allied victory that certain?
If they are they must be almost automatic because no one has listed any Allied winning strategies. The closest has been- wear out the Axis early on. I guess from then on it's massed numbers not any brilliant tactics that win.
Kerry :cheeky:
The reason the Axis focuses on an early victory is because there is no other way for them to win. There is never going to be a 'Wehrmacht storms Moscow - April 1945' AAR for EA.
Originally posted by Kerry
Just for your information I did not base my dissertaion on your amazing moves.
Never thought you did. But thanx all the same. :D
:p It was based on months of reading comments here at the forum all aimed at the perfect Axis moves to ensure victory.
But none of us agree on what those moves are!
And yes there are some "common sense" moves and some that are not. But when it becomes if you do this, then this, etc. etc. to ensure a victory it becomes a check list to follow not a game to be played vs your opponet.
Unless your checklist is:
1> Kill Poland
2> Kill France
3> Take Stalingrad
4> Take Moscow
5> Accept Allies surrender
then I just don't know where you are coming from here. I don't agree with most of the strategy I read on here, and I know that most of the people don't agree with everything that I say. I have seen nothing even approaching solidarity on these points. Hell, even getting two of us to agree that we're facing the same direction can sometimes be a challenge!
I still have no idea what the best overall method is. I don't think there is one, actually. I think that reacting to the way your opponent moves/sets up/deploys, and having experience with all the different ways of doing things, is the 'set move' for victory. You need to familiarize yourself with all the possible permutation, and, like a game of chess, outmaneuver your opponent.
and speaking of victory it seems all the Strategy is focused on getting that Axis victory as quick as possible. Why is this? It can't be due to the number of Allied victories. I think I've only seen one "true" one mentioned here, have there been others? Or is an Allied victory that certain?
There have actually been many Allied victories. but Chuck handled this one already. The Axis victory must be quick, because the Russian bear gets nastier the longer it's alive. Higher proficiency units, more and more units, a huge US presence that takes ages to make itself felt, a quite powerful UK that can never show it's true potential til she has some strong friends, as she's all alone fore ages... This game (all WWII games) should be slanted towards the fact that if the Germans haven't won by a certain time, they're unlikely to, and as time goes by, it's more and more a certainty of an Allied victory.
There were no Germans left to hold guns! The vaunted, racist, 'elite' SS was packed full of Indians, Africans, etc... You see a problem here? This is one of the factors we have in the board game I've been designing. We have economy, industrial base, and production. And as you take too many losses, late in the war, it starts becoming more and more difficult (and more and more expensive!) to raise infantry units! Not to mention that the democracies take ages to gear up to full war production; the US has never tasted war on it's home soil, so production is never interdicted, destroyed, crippled, etc... It's all bad for the Axis. Do it now, or die!
If they are they must be almost automatic because no one has listed any Allied winning strategies. The closest has been- wear out the Axis early on. I guess from then on it's massed numbers not any brilliant tactics that win.
Kerry :cheeky: [/B]
That's an easy one. You >can't< lecture on concrete Allied strategies. You can't have one! The Axis have total initiative, and if you don't react directly to what they do, you die. End of story. Short of this, there have been many threads detailing what the Allies are trying to make priorities. I've had a few myself on holding the Canal, or going for E. Africa hard and fast, or going for the powerhouse UK to constantly keep the German in fear of nuisance raids. There's the 'pop the bird to the Axis in Scandinavia' option, which you can see the potential of.
The Allies have gotta shut 'em down, and that's all there is to it!
:joy:
After that and all the logical and "experienced" desenting opinions I've read I feel better.
And once again the Allies turn on Enigma and listen to :devil:
and his not so secret plans.
Soon there will be :nofear: :flag: with :ar15: and hordes of :rifle: to put a world of :hurt: on the Axis's sorry A$$!
Before long that :freak: will be in prison and painting scenes on his wall before his :skull: .
Peep talks over Allies, lets Lock n' Load! Whooa!
Airborne! :thumup:
Kerry
Basilhare
05 Nov 02, 06:05
I would have to disagree...I have been playing EA for three years now....started with v 1.0.....for me it just keeps getting better....have played (started) 20 or so games...each one has played differently.....
Mark Stevens
06 Nov 02, 17:21
Isn't this true of almost any TOAW scenario, or indeed wargame? As you get to know the wrinkles, an approach designed to maximise your chances of winning will become apparent, and you are likely to stick to it. We've tried to build some flexibility into EA (and confuse players by changing the thing every month!), but I suppose that once you've played it half-a-dozen (?) times an ideal strategy will emerge. If you've got two veteran players, it will probably hold very few surprises for either of them.
Apart from building in some really mad random variables, which I don't want to do, I can't suggest anything.
But Mark!
You built a wonderful scenario that has loads of options not like most scenarios that require, "take these exact VP hexes EVERYTIME" no matter who plays it to get a win. AT least in EA the Axis has an option on how to win. He could strike East, West, over even at the UK to get a "win." It's just that I saw a number of- "this is exactly how to do it by the numbers" themes starting to pop up.
It must be hell for you to have built a Lamborghini in a world full of KIA's !!! :thumup:
Kerry :cheeky:
The only Axis must-do moves I can think of are:
get an unit into: Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Belgrade, Athens, Oslo, Moscow and Stalingrad - Game won.
if possible, get an unit into: London, Lisbon, Suez, Murmansk, Leningrad, Baghdad, Gibraltar, Cassablanca, Malta, Crete - Game a lot easier to win.
prevent allied units from getting their units into: Rome, Mesina, Sofia, Bucharest, Budapest, Berlin - Game lost
fairely easy to remember but I can guarantee you that there are no 'set moves' to reach Paris :D (or, Leningrad, or Moscow, or Stalingrad, or.......)
There might be some almost ideal german setupts to overrun neutrals that can't move prior to DoW but that's how it was back than... blitzkrieg ;)
And none of these set-moves will win the war for the Axis, no way!
There aren't any set moves that will win you the game. However there are facts that can't be over looked either.
For example just because you know as the Axis player that you need to avoid a long war in France doesn't mean you will be able to actually do so. Same thing with taking out Gibraltar and Malta, overrunning North Africa, capturing Baku, ect. It comes down to execution.
The German Army had plenty of facts and projections on the course of war. Still they were unable to knock out the Soviet Union.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.