Game favors Axis and is unbalanced

[sapper32]

ORIGINAL: zzmzzm

Yes, smckechnie have some good ideas, but these are only ideas. Allies have not enough mpps to achieve these goals.
In the game between I(axis) and ThunderLizard, Japan alomost conquered china in 1942(taken chongqin and lanzhou, kunming), and invade India with elite japan army. Though India use all mpps to build many troops(india does not invest diplomatic), but it is still cannot hold on. If india put 300 or more mpps in diplomatic, surely it will be conquered soon. And Japan teken Vladivostok and deep-going Soviet in 1941 end。
As in Ger_Su, German taken Caucasus and Stalingrad in the latter half of 1942. German have near 900 mpps a turn now. Japan have more than 400 mpps a turn. There is little chance for ALlies.
It seems Axis is obviously dominant at the end of 1942.

China is still too easy to be conquered for a experienced Axis player. This is the most disadvantage for Allies now.

Yes that sounds like one of my current games, My opponent although maybe a little slower but not much is making gains in Caucasus, Outskirts of Lenningrad Moscow and Stalingrad has fallen, I was powerless against his lvl2 Pzr now at lvl3 I won't last much longer, No where near enough MPPs to build upgrade and repair my huge losses per turn no money for research,The only chance USSR have is if your opponent over extends his supply then maybe you can inflict some damage, USSR needs more of something at the start ?

[Mercutio]

Really if you don't max convoy from US to UK and UK to USSR early, you will be in trouble. IMO that should be the default as new people have no idea the default is 1/2 the max

I think a few things could help
An event to transfer troops from Siberia and replace with garrisons (except Vladivotok, which really needs to be an army) They would go into the new units pool next turn for placement
Soviet Armor research should be cheaper as they certainly didn't over engineer it like the Germans and others. Crew comfort? pfft.
Perhaps more units auto-building and/or cheaper units?
Better performance in winter (less penalties for attacking in snow/frozen)

I am not saying all are needed, just spit balling here.

[sapper32]

Convoys are maxed out from US/UK ,UK/USSR a typical turn USSR gets 580mpps spend 400 keeping Red Army in the game leaves 180 for what? Rebuild an Army all gone hence no research or a build up of forces

[zzmzzm]

Yes, Soviet can make heavy tanks early, but it is something only about KV-1.
In now a game , in 1941 july, Axis oppoent have 3rd tach Armor, my soviet has only 1st tech armor. Where is T34?

[Mercutio]

Which is why I said make USSR armor research cheaper. Perhaps their tanks too.

Also I like the idea of limiting by year, turns, whatever max research so axis can't get so far ahead. However, that would mean the axis will probably fall behind once they stall out. Then they are in trouble.

Really the German/USSR balance is a totally different thing than everything else.

As I said, maybe giving them more units that drop automatically. Say around Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. I am no expert, just coming up with ideas to perhaps help the discussion.

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: Mercutio

Really if you don't max convoy from US to UK and UK to USSR early, you will be in trouble. IMO that should be the default as new people have no idea the default is 1/2 the max

I think a few things could help
An event to transfer troops from Siberia and replace with garrisons (except Vladivotok, which really needs to be an army) They would go into the new units pool next turn for placement
Soviet Armor research should be cheaper as they certainly didn't over engineer it like the Germans and others. Crew comfort? pfft.
Perhaps more units auto-building and/or cheaper units?
Better performance in winter (less penalties for attacking in snow/frozen)

I am not saying all are needed, just spit balling here.

Agree default should be 100% - I often forget this for a turn or two.

ORIGINAL: zzmzzm

Yes, Soviet can make heavy tanks early, but it is something only about KV-1.
In now a game , in 1941 july, Axis oppoent have 3rd tach Armor, my soviet has only 1st tech armor. Where is T34?

Agree. When I play as Allies I don't have the MPP for Soviets to build heavies until late '42/'43 at the earliest. They get a few which can be upgraded.

The game doesn't model armor correctly. The 1941 T34 was a better tank the the 1941 Pzkpfw IV. In game, Germany has lvl 3 tanks by '42 and Russia usually still level 2 so Germany armor much better than Russian armor. I'd suggest a change for both balance and historical reasons to have Russian tank research and production costs to be lower than German.

[sapper32]

ORIGINAL: ThunderLizard2

ORIGINAL: Mercutio

Really if you don't max convoy from US to UK and UK to USSR early, you will be in trouble. IMO that should be the default as new people have no idea the default is 1/2 the max

I think a few things could help
An event to transfer troops from Siberia and replace with garrisons (except Vladivotok, which really needs to be an army) They would go into the new units pool next turn for placement
Soviet Armor research should be cheaper as they certainly didn't over engineer it like the Germans and others. Crew comfort? pfft.
Perhaps more units auto-building and/or cheaper units?
Better performance in winter (less penalties for attacking in snow/frozen)

I am not saying all are needed, just spit balling here.

Agree default should be 100% - I often forget this for a turn or two.

ORIGINAL: zzmzzm

Yes, Soviet can make heavy tanks early, but it is something only about KV-1.
In now a game , in 1941 july, Axis oppoent have 3rd tach Armor, my soviet has only 1st tech armor. Where is T34?

Agree. When I play as Allies I don't have the MPP for Soviets to build heavies until late '42/'43 at the earliest. They get a few which can be upgraded.

The game doesn't model armor correctly. The 1941 T34 was a better tank the the 1941 Pzkpfw IV. In game, Germany has lvl 3 tanks by '42 and Russia usually still level 2 so Germany armor much better than Russian armor. I'd suggest a change for both balance and historical reasons to have Russian tank research and production costs to be lower than German.

The Panzers are far too lethal and combined with Axis air by mid too late 42 are unstoppable, I'm losing in the good weather 7 to 10 Red Army units a turn and can build 2 or 3 if I'm lucky, The supply changes have not made any meaningfull difference in the USSR unless your opponent over runs his supply, The Axis can advance across Russia at a reasonably steady pace destroying Red units and get better and better all the time, The USSR needs a chance I've never had an Army in the field and unless you just build GAR and Corps you never will

[sapper32]

Why do the USSR get so few HQs, 2 at the start 1 in Siberia when Barbarossa starts and one that is spawned next to the German army so let's forget about that one, How many will the Axis have 8,9 or 10 maybe against 3 for USSR, I can't spare 350 mpps to buy another one never mind the 3 or 4 extra you really need to buy.

[Judgementday]

OK, Strategic Bombing is totally unrealistic, 1-2 Strats with supporting fighter(s) can disable an entire front in 2-4 weeks? really. And decimate entire armies/armor units, when they where not event used against them. 3-4 will disable 1/2 of USSR, 1-2 will disable 1/2 of China or India.

HamburgerMeat and I are playing a game, Axis are clearly leading or would be, if Strats were not destroying supply and then decimating out of supply armies/armor in a period of weeks. To his credit, Hamburger has found more game flaws and is exploiting them without mercy. I MAY be able to holdout for a win, Maybe not, but our game isn't even fun anymore, due to a strategy that seems to be ridiculous. Strategic bombers where used to hurt economies and make it impossible to fund a war, not to decimate supply and destroy units.

Great game HamburgerMeat, I look forward to a rematch, when some work is done to the game to work out balancing and unrealistic strategies.

NOTES resulting from our games for consideration:

(1) I'm not sure a one turn conquest of Poland should be allowed, and if so, Germany certainly needs be forced to honor the German-Soviet Pact or pay diplomatically if they do not, which is broken if Germany does conquer Poland in one turn. A very likely result.
(2) Both Turkey and Spain appear to be much to easy to conquer, both will fall in 1-2 turns regardless if Axis or Allies attack them. I'm pretty sure they would be harder to conquer than that.
(3) Baring crazy strats, where the Allies throw EVERYTHING at Germany using a broken Strat tactic to stop them from decimating USSR, USSR is to weak.
(4) China is to weak, a good Japanize player will crush them every time. China was VERY shaky, but held. They wont here unless VERY lucky or the Japanize make mistakes.

Great games HamburgerMeat, you are an excellent player.

I hope the game designers will consider these suggestions and work on improvements to this game, it is awesome. I would like to see a WWI and WWIII version. Korea would also be cool.

[HamburgerMeat]

Agreed with Judgmentday for the most part. Strategic bombers are crazy powerful (if there are soft build limits, not sure if axis can win against a strat bomber fleet). USA too powerful, USSR too weak, China too weak. I'm curious to hear results from zzmzzm

And I'd be happy for a rematch sometime Judgementday. I was admittedly worried by the ferocity of your barbarossa attack.

[sveint]

I feel like we are finally getting somewhere with this discussion.

On the subject on strategic bombers, I'd suggest the following changes:
*Can only damage mines and oil, never cities
*When attacking cities, does more MP damage
*When attacking a unit, reduces the supply of that unit but does no damage

[pjg100]

The allies can use strat bombers very effectively to attack cities by reducing their supply strength below the threshold for allowing rail movement, which makes it difficult for the axis to respond effectively to an invasion.

[Judgementday]

It seems to me, that the units with two attacks is causing the most imbalance, they can be skewed to overpowered by rushed tech that makes them very difficult to deal with and by the time that you realize what the other player is doing, your already in serious trouble. Your are forced into a guessing game. Is this an Armor game or an Air game, and play to that defense. Guess right and you MAY be OK, guess wrong and your toast.

Maybe strengthen the Tank/Strat/Carrier initial attack and remove the 2nd?

Also Tech in general needs to be better paced, limited to 1 advance per year max per category? I'm not sure of the pace, but three advances in a single category over a two year period or less seem to cause the game to unbalance quickly, especially when tied to armor and air. OR, prevent a > one/two? tech advantage over the opponent? I believe that technological advances were almost always countered with matching and at times superior tech by the opposing nation. I'm not sure there was ever what would translate into a +3 or > tech advantage over the course of the war.

[Mercutio]

I tend to agree that you shouldn't have more than 1 per year. As long as you can double up to catch up.
Say you are UK and so you aren't putting much into amphibious landing the first few years. You should be able to tech up to the limit of that year.
So say (arbitrary dates for example purposes) you can't have more than 1 tech level by start of 41
level 2 by 42
3 by 43
4 by 44
5 by 45

If you hadn't reached level 1 by 42, you COULD research (2 chits) up to that level.

Bombing rail centers as pjg100 points out, was a major tactic used by the west especially. Perhaps it needs to be less effective?
I feel the real imbalance is the initial difference from no upgrade to 1 and 2. The start values are so low it is a huge advantage early. Later on it is an advantage to be up a level, but early on the difference is larger and the Allies have terrible morale and readiness on top of that.

I kind of agree on removing 2 attacks. EXCEPT for interceptors. That is a large defensive advantage used in BoB as well as the Luftwaffe. The distances were shorter, so more sorties. If a fighter to escorting the ridiculous ranges in the game (drop tanks, I know) they should get 1 escort only. They can scramble on defense if needed.

This brings up another thing in the game I feel needs addressed. Carrier fighters never seem to do as well as land based planes. These pilots were very skilled fliers as they had to takeoff, navigate with few landmarks, possibly limp a plane home with nowhere else to land AND land on a moving target. Everything I read about Japanese forces was the naval planes were dangerous. The Japanese army planes had less training and experience and were not as skilled.

Also When you attack a carrier (or land based fighter) why doesn't the unit being attacked scramble? It seems to always be another carrier or fighter. So the target takes damage and loses strength, etc. Now you attack the on that intercepted and the reduced previously targeted fighter intercepts and takes heavy losses. What??? A carrier being attacked would have CAP and scramble, not sit around waiting for some other unit to show up. Same with an airfield.

Just my 2 cents, which now days can't even by a piece of bubble gum....

[Mithrilotter]

Originally, certain critical tech research was restricted to only one research point. That worked really well to slow down tech advances and it was and still is my preferred solution.

Due to some game change that I don't understand, somehow all tech research became slower. To solve that problem, all techs again were able to have two research points. But that brought back the too fast critical tech advance issue. I would rather go back to the one research point limit on critical techs and then increase certain other research bonuses to compensate for overall slower research. This should solve both problems of slow research in general and too fast double point critical tech research.

[HamburgerMeat]

I don't like the one point tech research from WiE, that + Spain diplomacy + weather made the outcome of the game too based on RNG. The double chit system is more consistent and has much less variance, which is what I prefer. It could use some tweaking, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet.

[sveint]

The only issue is German tank tech, the rest of the techs seem to work well.

[zzmzzm]

My suggestion:
1. Decrease the supply of Changsha,Nanning and Hengyang from 10 to 8. Then Japan only get 5 supply there. Which means China can hold up Kweichow(South of Chungqing). As a Chinese ,I am sure the Hengyang is very little town ,most chinese even donnot know this place name besides World War II fans. But yes, Changsha and Nanning is a big city.
2. Strat bomber can attack only once.
3. Tech have limitation of years, such as in 1940 we can research 1st level tank research ordinary, but if you want to research 2nd level tank, there is penalty， such as 50% if More than a year, 75% More than 2 years . Which makes technology gap will be not so much.
4. Secend attack of tanks and planes will cost more readniess and morale , and have only 80% efficiency, since they are tired in first attack.

Above all are easy to be achieved. But if you want this game more Historic, we will need conception of oil, MPP and Oil should be separated. If there is only manufacturing capability with no need of oil, German will win the WWII in great chance.

[zzmzzm]

I play a game as Allies now, oppoent is also HamburgerMeat.
HamburgerMeat made a successful sealion, I have lost England and the strat bomber. So I have little chance to use Strategic Bombing.
But HamburgerMeat send 3 tanks and 4 bombers to England , 3 tanks to Mideast. When he attack Soviet in 1941 June, there is only 1 German tank in the border of Ger-Su border! But German have 3rd armor tech already , Soviet have only 1st armor tech.
So Strategic Bombing have little influence in this game between HamburgerMeat and me. We will see the result without the large-scale Strategic Bombing of Allies.

[Judgementday]

Regarding the Stat Bombers, I wonder if it would not be better for Supply Sources to have a separate value from their MMP. That way Stats could bomb MMP and either have a reduced or null impact on Supply. Seems like an easier way to implement.

And yes, Operation Sea Lion is very viable in this game, Germany can exert an immense weight on Great Britain. Britain must defend against it, at the risk of losing the Med.