Why is this game so much harder than WWI?

[clonedino]

I have played through SC WWI twice, and only twice, as the CP. I got a staggering victory both times. The first, by destroying the Royal Navy in 1916(?) and embargoing them to death while forcing through to Paris. Britain surrendered, then France within 3 turns. Felt pretty good, although it was a bit too easy. I played again not using navy at all, and was able to beat France in 1916 then overwhelm Russia with sheer numbers and won by July of 1917. Felt Pretty good, I really like the WWI game but could never get into either of the WW2s. I figured, I really enjoy this engine, let's just force our way through WaW, I will probably end up liking it.

Boy oh boy, now I just kind of hate strategic command. To be fair, I am not saying make WaW as easy as WWI(that game is definitely too easy in my opinion, but highly replayable!). I have played two games as the axis now in WaW, the first to about the end 1942, and the second to the end of 1941. Both games I played historically until the fall of France. The first game, I launched a Sea Lion and focused entirely on China. I forced the British out of the isle by the end of 41' and had a large portion of central China surrounded(although this massive pocket was causing me mor problems then it was worth. The thought process here was to challenge the British in Africa and on their home, and defeat the everywhere I could so that Japan could essentially keep to itself and beat China and maybe co invade the Soviet Union in 1942 with Germany. Lo, USSR invades Germany around October of 1941 anyways, but I thought that was my mistake for keeping too many units around Warsaw. Of course, I was totally unprepared for this and while I held my own, I didn't see how the Eastern front would every be winnable, at least without slugging it out with attrition for 3 years. And the worst part was, after getting whooped in their own hemisphere, the British decided to go double or nothing and declare war on Japan anyways! I was unprepared, and was not in a position to carry out an invasion of DEI/Phillipines/Singapore. The train of events really made no sense to me, and combined with the fact the British still had 40 ground units after getting crushed in the Middle East and the Isles, I rage quit.

2nd try, I came back for more to give it another chance. I made gains in China while preparing for a naval war(I also hate the naval system in general, so this probably is a reason I have a tough time here), and I went for another Sea Lion, seeing as how the last one went pretty well all things considered. My SL went significantly worse, the war in Africa went slightly better, and the war in China had not nearly advanced enough. But finally, 1941 arrived and I could fix the mistakes of the last game...until the USSR attacked me in June of 41'. I do not have a clue what caused them to do it 5 turns earlier than the first game, I hadn't even taken London yet. Not a problem, I can build units to shore up the line and Japan's invasions are about to kick off. I used the units I was provided with, and no more, to invade the islands of the pacific. I feel a little cheated, the units you are given that are stated specifically for the purpose of seizing the islands, simply weren't enough. I got strong footholds, but the garrison units in capitals and what not were to powerful to be killed by 2-3 attacks of ground units. I rage quit again.

Now, from the point of view of a noob, the axis seems to derive 0 advantage from any ahistorical strategies(except maybe Africa) until 1942. And I only say until 1942 because I haven't played past this point. Sea Lion, was worthless both times. America can just sail over with 4+ armies and attack it pretty easily and challenge your navy over and over again. It is a point sink that I could have just done later. In fact, doing it brings the US into the war early(fair) and the USSR(suspect), while weakening your Eastern front to unacceptable levels. Moreso, China and Britain will never surrender. You can conquer half of Britain's territory, colonies or national territory, and they will be about 50% NM. What makes the WWI game fun and replayable, is I can adjust my strategy and win the war in different ways. This doesn't appear to exist in WaW. If you invade and crush the home isles, not only will Britain still fight you with all it's got, it seems to suffer almost no loss in capability to fight you. It doesn't even seem to deprive the US from an effective base to attack you from. They just carry on an invasion 10x larger than Torch in 1942 like it is nothing. I actually don't see how the axis are supposed to win anyways. If I wanted to play a 50 turn attrition grind over 20 hexes, I would play SC WWI. Because in that game, if I conquer all of a country, it will surrender. And if it doesn't surrender, it will suffer some very apparent damage to it's production capabilities. It doesn't seem as though any of this occurs in WaW.

I do not hate the game, I understand I am trash. I did not share my experiences just to crap on the game, I play a wide range of strategy games and am always open to learn(and usually can) but I am getting kicked here and I have no clue what I am supposed to do. I have a few questions. What are the best strategies for an axis player during the first half of the game? Is there any reason to do a Sea Lion? How do you keep the USSR out? Any tips or criticisms better players might have for me?

Also, for those of you who have ACW, is it more similar to WWI, or WaW? I would play either side in ACW against the AI, I just want to know if it is more noob friendly and has multiple approaches to win, or if it is as brutally difficult and conquer-everything-or-lose like WaW?

[clonedino]

I would even be willing to run a PBEM game with someone who is willing to help me out, either side. Although, as is probably apparent, the amount of challenge I can put up is unlikely to be great.

[Bo Rearguard]

Wow. That's a lot to digest.

I was thinking maybe you should have gone next with Strategic Command: War in Europe. It has the same map at the same scale as the World War One game. Only the borders and a few resources are different. Maybe your knack with that game would have transferred over. At least in a Euro-centric conflict you don't have to concern yourself with Japan. However, the USSR is a tough cookie in both WW2 games. Nothing like Imperial Russia. The strategy most Axis players seem to favor is to invade as soon as possible with as long a stretch of good weather ahead as you can manage.

As for the ACW game you only have ONE enemy at a time to worry about there...unless you completely neglect diplomacy as the Union. Due to the one unit stacking rule it does tend to play a bit more like WWI than the actual Civil War. No trench technology though.

[clonedino]

I was thinking maybe you should have gone next with Strategic Command: War in Europe. It has the same map at the same scale as the World War One game. Only the borders and a few resources are different. Maybe your knack with that game would have transferred over. At least in a Euro-centric conflict you don't have to concern yourself with Japan. However, the USSR is a tough cookie in both WW2 games. Nothing like Imperial Russia. The strategy most Axis players seem to favor is to invade as soon as possible with as long a stretch of good weather ahead as you can manage.

I have played around in WiE some. I find it gets a little boring, particularly through 1940. I will probably jump in again and try to apply some of the things I picked up in WaW into WiE and see if I can win that one.

[Torplexed]

I also hate the naval system in general, so this probably is a reason I have a tough time here.

Kind of a tangent but this is why I tend to stick to the big map games like SC: WiE and WWI. The naval war isn't quite as critical in those games as the land conflict is and the larger map scale make up for some of its inherent issues. But in the WaW version with the whole globe and its oceans modeled on a more cramped hex scale it really falls down. The carrier war in the Pacific in particular just doesn't feel right. The huge Pacific islands pretending to be tiny atolls in particular.

Frankly, the SC naval system bothers me least in the American Civil War game. But that's likely because only side really has a navy of any consequence and it's mostly doing blockade duty.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

I played ACW the initial release time, the battles of Virginia were like WW-1 not ACW. The massive cavalry charges and ironclad attacks are quite fun.

[Bavre]

Short version: ignoring Russia = death

They are the key opponent and are very doable if you focus on them early on, basically just try to overrun them in spring 41. After you got them it's usually over, most Axis wins in MP occur when Russia falls and the Allied player gives up.
Going all in against Russia is usually considered the save way to play it.

You also can not keep Russia (or the US) out. It is just a question of time.

[James Taylor]

Yes, Bavre is right. The secret to this game is just like it is in the real thing, logistics with force projection.

Simply, build all the HQs you can, then research infrastructure to build more and learn how to manage them to produce maximum supply for your units. Don't forget to protect them.

Success is supply!

[Zeckke]

Russia is easy to defeat

Just get the Caucasus via Persia and Rusia is gone

get Baku, land troops from Rumania and Bulgaria the AI is good on landings but human do better.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Yep, the cookie cutter strategy is "All-in" against Russia.
The game should be renamed "Defeat Russia", nothing else matters.

I've tried many strategies outta of fun and entertainment, but if you want to win:

1) Abandon Africa. Who cares, don't waste 1 MMP in Africa
2) Don't spend 1 MMP on Naval. Save all your MMPs, don't waste. France is easy, don't worry about May, June or July.
3) Using the Italians as complete Cannon fodder, they will be going away by 1943, so they are suicide units. Actually, it's fun to see how many you can get wasted.
4) Stick with Quality of Quantity, in units.
5) Supply and focus is all that is needed in Russia, there is no select way to take it down.
6) Well, Leningrad is actually fun to attack from Finland
7) It's impossible to get Moscow in 1941, don't bother.
8) All out to Stalingrad, typically, in 1941, you'll be lucky to get Rostov against good player.
9) The Germans become Superman in 1942, 1943.
10) The *KEY, is who gets LUCKY in the first good weather Spring turn. No matter where you're on the map, units will be adjacent. Whoever goes first in good weather is gonna pound the other in 1942/1943. Germans cannot afford to lose momentum.
11) Get luck with weather in October turns. Nothing like a free beatdown turn before Winter
12) Don't worry about any offensives in Mud or Snow, you won't accomplish anything. Just stay in Supply and Fresh.

The job of the Japs, is to be annoying enough, to cause the United States to have to do something. 90% of players are just gonna stock up Hawaii, and leave the Pacfic. They're heading to Italy in 1942/1943 and building tons of air units to pound the 3rd Reich. As the Japs, take the Island that ruin USA morale, so at least they must fight by 1944 in the Pacific. Smash the Chinese, somewhat, to get them off your backs, and not have it full of USA air (from India make them base, at least). If the British get lazy in Australia, take it. Beyond that, the Japs, need MMPs. The Yanks will bomb the ports of the Oil money.

[clonedino]

Yep, the cookie cutter strategy is "All-in" against Russia.

This seems to be the prevailing conclusion here. Thanks!

[havoc1371]

Yep, the cookie cutter strategy is "All-in" against Russia.

This seems to be the prevailing conclusion here. Thanks!

Only victory that really matters for the Axis. Huge mpp boost when they surrender. Highly unlikely that Allies can stay in the game once that happens.