Game favors Axis and is unbalanced

[Hubert Cater]

I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I have been playing 2 WAW games, one as Axis and other as the allies. My game as Axis chased off my opponent, simply because I was overwhelming the allies in Europe and Asia and it's was only March of 1940. I'm not really that good of a player yet as Axis it was pretty easy to take on the initiative and not get stopped. Now in my game as the Allies I have just been throttled by my opponent. The French literally collapsed in January-february, the British BEF I evacuated before they could become cannon fodder for the Axis. THe morale for the French drops incredibly fast for little or no reason once the germans crossover into France. Once the Maginot line is flanked it's over in France. And there certainly is not enough PPs to invest into a military that could hold off the germans for more than a couple of turns.

Thanks Wayne, and from a design point of view I don't think we'd have too many concerns regarding this as from a game play and balance point of view, if the Allies were able to significantly slow down the Axis in the first few years of the war, then there would be little to no chance of a possible Axis victory in game. Essentially we'd be a bit more interested in what the situation would look like by mid 1942, as that is the ideal tipping point of possible maximum Axis advances, versus whereabouts the Allies finally have their chance to push the Axis back.

Long story short, if Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece etc., fall quickly to the Axis, and even the opening stages of Barbarossa are devastating to the USSR, this is not at all really unexpected (as was the case historically) and are almost required if the Axis are to have any sort of fighting chance to eventually win the game.

But that being said, there were some issues that were discovered where the Maginot was a lot weaker in game than it should have been, and some have also found consistent success in knocking out Poland in 1 turn, and while the first has been corrected for the latest patch, the Polish issue will be looked into for the next update.

[Hubert Cater]

The French literally collapsed in January-february

This part is likely too quick and hopefully the Maginot fix will improve it for 1.03 games, and if it was also the case that Poland fell rather too quickly as well, we'll have an improvement there as as well (as mentioned) for the next update too.

[Hubert Cater]

The Japanese are conquering China easily enough

It might be that the supply rule changes are not having enough of an effect on the Japanese, but I would be interested to hear what the situation in China is like a bit later on in when the Japanese have pushed a little further as they'll likely need a bit more careful supply management (when there is typically lower occupational supply for them) to be successful.

[Hartmann]

Regarding the Chinese, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I couldn't break their lines as easily as I saw it done in two letsplays (by Paradogs gamer and thehistoricalgamer) during release. So this must have been improved considerably in the later patches.

I'm on my first game right now (playing only Japan) and in August 1941 the Germans are way beyond schedule in Russia and Greece, have already lost the Africa corps and both Italy and Germany have lost most of their fleet. Of course things might differ in other playthroughs, but thus far at least it doesn't quite look to me like the game is favoring the Axis. Gotta see how winter and 1942 plays out, though. Also, I hope the US will give me a run for my money as Japan - I'm sceptical regarding the naval AI (which, apart from the reduced scale compared to WIE, is the main reason I got off the fence so late regarding WAW).

[elxaime]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

The Japanese are conquering China easily enough

It might be that the supply rule changes are not having enough of an effect on the Japanese, but I would be interested to hear what the situation in China is like a bit later on in when the Japanese have pushed a little further as they'll likely need a bit more careful supply management (when there is typically lower occupational supply for them) to be successful.

I'd guess against a skilled Axis PBEM player the Chinese still have zero chance. The Japanese have two years to concentrate on them with a tech advantage. Due to its early weakness, the US is really no threat until 1943 or so in terms of advancing into the Japanese home areas and the extra economy Japan gains from conquering most of China reduces the MPP gap considerably (not to mention the experienced 12 and 13 strength Japanese armies that can be thrown against India). In the two PBEM so far post patch as Allies, the Japanese more or less are in position to attack the USSR from behind by mid-1942. Usually a good guide to whether a strategy is perceived as a winner is that each opponent adopts it, and the all-in to squash China seems a low-risk high yield approach.

What might be looked at are two aspects.

First, an early all-out Japanese advance into the depths of China would not just have alarmed the Communists in Yenan, but also Stalin and the potent "China Lobby" in the USA, which was an exception to the general pre-war American isolationism. Thought might be given to impacts on their war readiness. Second, it might be worth considering similar "backs to the wall" type events that could trigger, similar to how the UK gets US tanks if Cairo is approached or the USSR can move industry in land. A deep advance and serious threat probably also would have led to the collapse of the Chinese Nationalist government and its replacement by some sort of salvation front. China was no match for the Japanese in WW2 but they were also not the pushovers they often seem to be in the game. The Japanese had more problems with supply and partisans than seem portrayed as well. Whether the Yellow River flood of 1938 has significant impact (aside from civilians) is debated, but it shows the lengths the Chinese were prepared to go. If China wasn't the USSR, they also weren't France 1940.

The idea is not to make an all-China approach impossible, but to make it more of a trade off than currently. Consequences to USSR and USA readiness and some additional triggers may be what is needed.

[zzmzzm]

Yes,china is too easy to be conquered. Especialy China have no HQ in south which means very difficult to defend the Nanning.
I am playing as Allies with HamburgerMeat. China move a HQ to south from the 1st turn, but because the weather is always mud , HQ can only move 1 hex every turn. before the HQ can attach corps in Nanning, Nanning is lost.
But contrarily, Japan have a HQ in Haikou from begining.
Now I learn the China can use the fighter-HQ exchange to accelerate the HQ speed, but it is too gamey.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: zzmzzm

Now I learn the China can use the fighter-HQ exchange to accelerate the HQ speed, but it is too gamey.

Hi

Can you explain what this means please? Just wondering if it's something we should look into.

Thanks

Bill

[Mercutio]

I believe he is saying you can fly a plane to a hex your unit cannot move into. Then the next turn swap hexes

[Christolos]

Very gamey indeed! This should be fixed.

C

[Xsillione]

One of the big difference from RL, that the US is mush weaker. They outproduced the rest of the world in most war related stuff, yet IG they have around 1000 MPP, while Germany can reach the same after taking over most of europe, and before defeating the SU.

So I would suggest a way to buff the US, depending the situation:
Involvement value: Starting at 1 (which means the current values of units and mpps) and can reach to 10 (Which means double the mpp and 50% boost in unit numbers, if possible to add to the hardcap that way.)
What would add involvement numbers:
+1 for france surrendering (yep, this would be quite guaranteed)
+1 for total france surrender (both, this would be the price for the territory and spanish diplomatic option)
+1 if axis units ever enters the british isles (even attempting the sealion)
+1 if axis occupies London (lost if allies retake the city)
+1 if the UK has to change capitol (so a successful sealion is three points)
+1 for german DOW on SU (This is also garantueed)
+1 for each of the big three cities (Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow, only if the axis occupies they, if retaken, lost)
+1 for each of the british Mediterranean assets (Gibraltar, Malta, Cairo, once again for occupation only)
+1 for the second chinese capitol
+1 for the chinese surrender
+2 for japan DOW on SU (0 if SU DOWs on Japan)
+1 for japan DOW on USA (once again guaranteed)
+1 for for Pearl Harbor (Hmm, US losing 4 or more ships in the first two turns after the japan DOW, or something similar)
+1 for dutch indies surrender
+1 for axis units entering india

Max 10, so it won't get too OP for the US, but if the axis gets way too powerful early, they really just awoke the sleeping US. and this would also give an option to limit the US with careful actions and not just repainting the map.

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: elxaime

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

The Japanese are conquering China easily enough

It might be that the supply rule changes are not having enough of an effect on the Japanese, but I would be interested to hear what the situation in China is like a bit later on in when the Japanese have pushed a little further as they'll likely need a bit more careful supply management (when there is typically lower occupational supply for them) to be successful.

I'd guess against a skilled Axis PBEM player the Chinese still have zero chance. The Japanese have two years to concentrate on them with a tech advantage. Due to its early weakness, the US is really no threat until 1943 or so in terms of advancing into the Japanese home areas and the extra economy Japan gains from conquering most of China reduces the MPP gap considerably (not to mention the experienced 12 and 13 strength Japanese armies that can be thrown against India). In the two PBEM so far post patch as Allies, the Japanese more or less are in position to attack the USSR from behind by mid-1942. Usually a good guide to whether a strategy is perceived as a winner is that each opponent adopts it, and the all-in to squash China seems a low-risk high yield approach.

What might be looked at are two aspects.

First, an early all-out Japanese advance into the depths of China would not just have alarmed the Communists in Yenan, but also Stalin and the potent "China Lobby" in the USA, which was an exception to the general pre-war American isolationism. Thought might be given to impacts on their war readiness. Second, it might be worth considering similar "backs to the wall" type events that could trigger, similar to how the UK gets US tanks if Cairo is approached or the USSR can move industry in land. A deep advance and serious threat probably also would have led to the collapse of the Chinese Nationalist government and its replacement by some sort of salvation front. China was no match for the Japanese in WW2 but they were also not the pushovers they often seem to be in the game. The Japanese had more problems with supply and partisans than seem portrayed as well. Whether the Yellow River flood of 1938 has significant impact (aside from civilians) is debated, but it shows the lengths the Chinese were prepared to go. If China wasn't the USSR, they also weren't France 1940.

The idea is not to make an all-China approach impossible, but to make it more of a trade off than currently. Consequences to USSR and USA readiness and some additional triggers may be what is needed.

I've held China in all my MP games. Here's a few ideas:

* Focusing on double investments in infantry weapons, infantry warfare and command and control. Add one level of AA after others
* Pull back two units defending ChangSa on turn 1 even though they are behind fort walls. Otherwise they will be destroyed quickly.
* Put units on both sides of Nanning - an opponent did this in my last game and completely jammed me in the South
* Move an HQ down south ASAP (I just read about fighter trick so will try it next game)
* Move 1-2 corp south to help defend ChungKing and Burma road (varies depending on how aggressive Japan attacks in North)
* Rotate and upgrade units when tech level reached. Double down again on infantry weapons after level 1 is done.
* Use engineer to fortify south of ChungKing

I always lose ChangSa and Nanning by April/May 1940 or so but by late 40/early 41 lines have stabilized after I have level 2 infantry with 1 AA level. By then Japan needs to start focusing on upgrading ships and launching LTAs for eventual entry of US/DEI etc. into the conflict.

[zzmzzm]

I know these points, but I don't think China can hold Chungking till autumn of 1942 . If you have time , we can start a Pbem to testfy it . In autumn of 1942, America navy is not strong enough to attack Japan effectively.

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: zzmzzm

I know these points, but I don't think China can hold Chungking till autumn of 1942 . If you have time , we can start a Pbem to testfy it . In autumn of 1942, America navy is not strong enough to attack Japan effectively.

You're on - pw = zzmzzm

[zzmzzm]

I am playing as Axis with ThunderLizard. I taked Nanning in Dec of 1939, now besieged Chunqking in 1941 July , and will take it in 2 turns. China surely cannot defend Jap if Axis gamer is experienced.
ThunderLizard is a really good defender. When I attack france in 1940 April, I found 3AA and 3 corps of English there . I take Paris till late August, and all my 3 tanks strenth is below 5. But in China, Jap will take Chongking definitely before 1942.

[sveint]

I now have more experience with 1.03.

My findings, game is as unbalanced as ever:
1. China has no chance vs an experienced Japan, even if defender is highly experienced
2. An experienced German player will always crush the Soviets (going all in, no Sealion/wasted MPs, max tank and land techs, etc)

In other words, the game hugely favors the Axis. The only times it is "balanced" is when the Axis player makes huge mistakes or plays an experimental strategy.

[sapper32]

I agree I don't see any real change from the last version, I'm playing 1.03 v a human and China cannot defend or attack Japan just marches on getting stronger and stronger, Barbarossa has just started I lost 19 units on the first turn,The Red Army sacrifice units that are put in the jaws of the German army appear not upgraded why?? At least they may have a chance if upgraded I have spent my pitiful few MPPs on research they should have that tech.

[taffjones]

As someone who mainly plays Axis, I am seeing the supply changes slowing down my advances.

So I am having to change tactics, research priority's, units built and the order units are built to accommodate the changes.

To the Allied player it may not seem as if much has changed yet (Still in 41), but there is a trade off for Japan in going all out in China.

There are opportunities to be taken advantage of.

I will have a better understanding of how the changes effect the balance of the game after about another 3-4 games.


sveint - In any game a more experienced player will have the advantage against a less experienced player, which will make the game seem imbalanced.

The same was said in the WiE forums but the PBEM tournament showed the Allies were wining most games (even with the "Sugar" war machine destroying all comer's as the Axis)

I'm sure someone will come up with a winning Allies strategy soon.

[zzmzzm]

I have thought some new ideas for Allies. I will play as Allies with Sveint to testify it.

[BillRunacre]

Please keep this feedback coming, it makes for interesting reading (especially taffjones and zzmzzm's posts as it looks like you've got some ideas) and of course we will make adjustments as needed once an overall consensus emerges.

[Hartmann]

Well, whatever changes are made, please don't screw up the balance for players who play against the AI, or play single countries so that the AI plays against itself in certain theaters.

For example, I am playing a game as Japan where Germany/Italy seriously underperformed in Africa and after Barbarossa: Africa was lost in 41 already, Germany didn't make it anywhere near the Caucasus (not to mention Stalingrad), and Allies successfully invaded France in 43 (one year before historical schedule). If this would be further "improved" by making the Allies stronger because of PBEM complaints, then playing (just) Japan against the AI wouldn't be *any* fun anymore.

Another example: As Japan (on normal difficulty), I found the war in China reasonably challenging, even with replacing all armies in Manchuria with garrisons and using these troops for fighgting in mainland China. But now I started up another game playing the Chinese side, where I could easily push the Japanese into the sea. If this would be further "improved" by making China stronger because of PBEM complaints, playing the Allies against the AI would mean you got to leave China to the AI or else the Pacific War would be no fun anymore.