Yeah that makes sense
"East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion
-
Been some deveopler activity lately is why I mention it.
-
@barnee I will use an option on the defense strength of tanks, with a default of 3. I have started working on this for a bit every day. Right now I am adapting everything to the Big_World map. When that is done I will create a custom map for East & West.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@barnee I will use an option on the defense strength of tanks, with a default of 3. I have started working on this for a bit every day. Right now I am adapting everything to the Big_World map. When that is done I will create a custom map for East & West.
For completeness, there are two tank types: the tank attacks at three and defends at two. The heavy tank attacks at four and defends at three. The soviets start out with access to both tank types.
-
@The_Good_Captain I’ve watched your first few videos about A&A: Europe (1999) and your comment about the game being a 6-round affair sort of struck a chord with me.
I think E&W is similar, except that it’s “1d6 rounds” owing mainly to how soon the USSR can get the first nuclear bomb tech. Granted, their economy needs to be strong enough that they can afford to build a bomb while maintaining parity in terms of land units.
The issue is that NATO generally can’t counter-attack anywhere on rd1; if the Soviets spread their Pacific fleet properly, they can insulate Korea as well as Kamchatka. The only place that’s usually left open is Yugoslavia. The adjunct to that is generally the USSR spends all of rd2 attacking neutrals, which NATO can do nothing about; since there is no “Pro-neutral” type of mechanic within the designs, NATO can’t lend support/deterrence to neutrals that are vulnerable to attack (i.e. on the Soviet border.)
If the strongest weapon in NATO’s arsenal is the US attack in the far east (which takes til rd3 to reasonably get new transports involved in a landing) you’re at least halfway along the doomsday countdown by that point.
Even if NATO is splitting their fleets to mitigate the effects of a nuke, I think that having to rebuild, say, 3 transports in the Pacific is more cost-intensive than the USSR having to crank out another nuke – particularly if their income is anywhere in the 70 IPC range. If India is bottled up, you end up in a situation of the UK basically throwing good money after bad, just to maintain the status quo, with no real potential of ever swinging the momentum, from that position. Never mind the costs NATO is going to incur trying to keep up on spying.
I think the Kamchatka landing can absolutely work, but it’s a lot easier if NATO can sway China (hard, if not impossible) and they absolutely need to be pushing past Eastern Siberia within “1d6 rounds.” Otherwise the game just deteriorates until NATO slowly dies to nukes. Even when I’ve had NATO making grand offensives to try and keep the economics of the game from stagnating, they either can’t sustain it because the USSR absorbs and counter-attacks everything, or they’re forced to pivot off of one position to bail out another, and all momentum is lost in the process.
NATO has time in which to gamble, but they don’t have the economic edge in this game – and they have all the drawbacks of the Allies, always needing to build up their logistics chain (and spying!) before they can really even act. They’re on the back foot from the word ‘go’ and they have only a handful of rounds to do something decisive.
-
@The-Janus I have almost finished, the preliminary version of East & West in TripleA.
The TripleA AI does not make good use of nukes and generally will not buy them. I do see that Russia has an advantage with its cheap infantry and central position.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
The TripleA AI does not make good use of nukes and generally will not buy them. I do see that Russia has an advantage with its cheap infantry and central position.
Not sure how you would code it as such, but the Soviets should view the nuke as an anti-ship weapon; never mind just raw “TUV swing” numbers, but taking out 5 transports is way more valuable than only taking out 5 infantry.
As for the infantry cost and such, the start of rd2 typically should have the cash on hand as something like:
- USSR: 65 = 32 inf
- WE: 21 = 7 inf
- UK: 33 = 11 inf
- US: 41 = 13 inf
So already, the Soviets are ahead of the allies by 1 infantry – but that’s not taking into account that the US likely needs to put down about 4-5 new transports at the start of the game, as well as up to 3 spies for the NATO alliance, and as many as 3 more transports for the UK.
The rd1 attacks should more or less even out the units on the board (if it’s implemented in TripleA we can get an accurate accounting of TUV, but even a mock-up of the typical battle results would likely bare this out) so from rd2 onward, the USSR should be edging ahead. It isn’t even really advantageous for NATO to attack (in most cases) because unless they can take out planes or armor, or guarantee an infantry kill ratio of 3:2 or better, they’re just spinning their tires and likely weakening themselves in the overall calculus of the game.
In rd2, the USSR typically builds on their lead by taking Iran and Sweden, with Finland, Pakistan, often Afghanistan (and Switzerland, depending on the circumstances) falling in rd3. In that time, NATO might be able to counter-attack a weak West Germany position, and the US might start to land in Asia. But the alliance is most definitely behind the 8-ball from the outset.
-
@RogerCooper I forgot there even was an option for AI in TripleA. I think you’re doing the lords work just to make the TripleA align with the rules. WELL DONE @RogerCooper
-
@The-Janus I agree with about 80% of this. The rhythm and flow sound right. Where I disagree is that I think the game is significantly NATO favored pending a fairly extreme result in the spying/tech arena (which doesn’t have such cataclysmic outcomes as tech in Anniversary/Global - a plus imo). The Soviets have to really make gains early with tech/spying or the USA comes through the back door. In my experience, WE and UK can reasonably expect to hold down the fort and USA can reasonably be expected to kick in the back door via Kamchatka.
When NATO buys a nuke, the opportunity cost is 6 infantry and two IPC. When the Soviets buy a nuke, the opportunity cost is 10 infantry - that hurts. Also, if NATO is playing (imo) efficiently - they can shrug off the first nuke and lose five naval units with almost no disruption or replacements needed (losing subs, cruisers or WE transport - fodder units). To rinse and repeat as the soviets (20 infantry total now) is crippling.
I still feel this game is so solid and on point that it deserves to be considered canon and the Axis and Allies answer to a cold war variant.
-
@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@RogerCooper I forgot there even was an option for AI in TripleA. I think you’re doing the lords work just to make the TripleA align with the rules. WELL DONE @RogerCooper
This is going be more inspired by East & West than a port of East & West. The complex tech & espionage rules can’t be done in TripleA. I am just randomly giving out tech & neutrals through events.
The major neutrals are also an issue. I think that it works better to make them distinct powers rather than awarding their units & territories to the major powers. Having China as Russian ally and OAS as Western ally seems natural. The problem is that whoever gets the Arab League wins. My probable solution is to give the Arab League to the Eastern alliance and suggest playing the West with an income bonus.
-
@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
When NATO buys a nuke, the opportunity cost is 6 infantry and two IPC. When the Soviets buy a nuke, the opportunity cost is 10 infantry - that hurts.
I think you need to ask the question, “why would NATO buy a nuke?” because you’ve always based the entire cost/benefit analysis on how many infantry a nuke costs. Why would NATO spend 20 IPCs to kill 10 IPCs of infantry? Even with the upgraded nuke, it’s still only a break-even proposition for NATO.
I think if the USSR can pull ahead by, say 3 infantry per round over/above what NATO can put out, they can afford a nuke every 3rd round while still maintaining parity on land units. If they can get the “10 IPC free SBR” of a spy kill, that helps their economic prospects even more.
If you take the standard chunk out of NATO (Norway, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, South Korea) on rd1, they’re down to 94 IPCs (31 infantry, rounded down). If the USSR can add Sweden, Finland, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (usually doable by rd3) they’re at 69 IPCs (34 infantry, rounded down) without any contribution from China – already putting them ahead 3 infantry per turn. If NATO loses any more territory than that, they’re completely behind the 8-ball economically (never mind militarily, because that would probably mean losing/trading Italy or India, or both.) So yeah, by rd3, the US had better have put together a landing that can sustain itself; if the Soviets are able to push that back either militarily or with nukes, I don’t see a path to victory for NATO.
As for the naval units, I find I tend to burn through most US and UK subs in the first few rounds, mopping up the Soviet navies; by the time nukes start flying, I usually don’t have any/many left – and this is coming from a guy who prioritizes using the US starting nuke on navies, whenever possible. I also find the WE navy very useful, so I’m not in the habit of just parking it by the UK to soak nukes; maybe I’m too aggressive as NATO but I feel those transports are valuable in opening new fronts around the Mediterranean (and that’s probably the best assignment for the UK’s carrier, too).
It also takes the UK a long time to consolidate their ships from around the Indian ocean into either the Atlantic or Pacific, if you spend any amount of energy gathering up units from Australia, Africa, and/or putting down extra transport loads of infantry at Singapore.
That all being said, I do think it is hard to defend Kamchatka (…unless the USSR has an amazing Tokyo Drift – which seems to happen about 50% of the time). The problem is mainly that the USSR has such a low production capability in/around the region, that even having 2 rds to build up doesn’t always amount to much. And the other problem is that aside from what starts in the region, all Soviet equipment is basically 2+ rounds of movement away from being able to help out. One of the things I’ve looked at is trying to get the tanks (or infantry?) from Moscow over to East Siberia ASAP, rather than stranding them in Turkey – but 2 tanks worth of offense is basically impossible to replace, on rd1.
This is why when I gameplan as the USSR, I’m always trying to squeeze as much non-combat movement out of my S1 attacking units as possible. I look at things like, can I get a fighter into my Scandinavia attacks, instead of a tank? or even a heavy tank instead of an armor? Can I get another fighter into Turkey and use the heavy tank somewhere else? etc.
The other thing I’ve tried to hammer out is, where should the USSR be producing more infantry, to send to the far east? Having a defensive line at Turkey/Georgia/Kazakhstan and maxing out placement in those areas, while marching them eastward seems like a good idea. The problem is the USSR is so tight on cash, that they need every scrap of territory in order to be competitive; not taking Iran, and also just abandoning Turkmenistan doesn’t seem to be viable. But if you dip too far down into central Asia, those units are effectively stranded for the duration, and can’t be used elsewhere. It’s a catch-22.
Basically, I’m taking the principles of the Orient Express where units do “double duty” as both offense and defense, and trying to apply that to the Soviet’s supply chain into the far east. For example, would it make sense to be placing infantry in Orel every turn? They could be used to counter-attack landings in Karelia or Komi, but also moved to defend Moscow and then continue eastward. But is that really better than just placing as much stuff as close to the front lines as possible? It doesn’t seem to pan out that way, and it actually seems like it’s not maximizing the value of the placement rules, for the USSR.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@RogerCooper I forgot there even was an option for AI in TripleA. I think you’re doing the lords work just to make the TripleA align with the rules. WELL DONE @RogerCooper
This is going be more inspired by East & West than a port of East & West. The complex tech & espionage rules can’t be done in TripleA. I am just randomly giving out tech & neutrals through events.
The major neutrals are also an issue. I think that it works better to make them distinct powers rather than awarding their units & territories to the major powers. Having China as Russian ally and OAS as Western ally seems natural. The problem is that whoever gets the Arab League wins. My probable solution is to give the Arab League to the Eastern alliance and suggest playing the West with an income bonus.
I have a request then. Can you make the random tech and neutrals being handed out through random events an optional rule? Or just leave it out? In this way, we can use the EDIT mode and layer them in using an independent dice roller.
Same with the Major Neutrals. Edit mode to the rescue is A-okay with me.
-
@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
I think you need to ask the question, “why would NATO buy a nuke?” because you’ve always based the entire cost/benefit analysis on how many infantry a nuke costs. Why would NATO spend 20 IPCs to kill 10 IPCs of infantry? Even with the upgraded nuke, it’s still only a break-even proposition for NATO.
Great point. You don’t even need to buy a nuke as NATO while the USSR has to blow holes in its economy to build the two needed to make something you might call a difference in the naval war.
@Ragnell804 response to the problem of being the Soviets is to both buy a spy with the pregame IPC and dump the rest into going whole hog on Italy AND Germany round 1 and essentially banking the game on a coin flip.
That’s the most interesting answer I’ve seen to (again) what I feel strongly is a significant imbalance.
-
@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
buy a spy with the pregame IPC
What’s the implied game-ender that the Soviet spy provides? Spain?
I’ve said it upthread, but I think that’s also the strong counter-point to saying, “US can go all in on the Pacific, and there’s literally no downside.”
Leaving France susceptible to that stab in the back is what makes me think the Kamchatka push is less of a sure thing. I feel like a split focus between Europe and Asia for the US is often warranted.@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
the USSR has to blow holes in its economy to build the two needed to make something you might call a difference in the naval war.
The situation in the Pacific is really a gambit, just because the US has the option to potentially retreat up to 2 subs, out of the Soviet attacks. But like I said, I’ve often seen the US lose all of the naval units that are attacked on S1.
That leaves them with 1 bb, 1 crz, 2 CV for the Pacific (generally assuming they’ll lose the Hawaii sub in mopping things up.) If those get taken out by a nuke (even if you lose some fighter aircraft to save ships) the remaining transports are pretty vulnerable to a kamikaze-style attack. If nothing else, that would cause a player like myself to consider pivoting my navy somewhere out of fighter range (i.e. perhaps supplying India instead.)
If the Soviets get the nuke tech early enough, I know that the US can’t really afford to have their navy out of position if/when the nuke arrives – that’s why in games where that early tech happens, I’ll often just focus on the southerly route, with an IC in the Philippines.
Suggested Topics
