Axis/Allied Balance in PBEM

[ThunderLizard11]

What are players thoughts on the balance between the two sides so far?

[ThunderLizard11]

Come on no thoughts on this???

[Tanaka]

Come on no thoughts on this???

Well that was sort of the job of the beta testers. The game just came out and not many of us have started or finished full campaigns. I've only played the smaller scenarios to completion and feel pretty good about them. The one full campaign I started my opponent quit on me just because I was doing well in China as Japan others have said China is too strong so sounds balanced so far...

[OldCrowBalthazor]

There was a small pool of us that MP tested in the Beta.
I spent 3 solid months with 2 opponents with the Day of Infamy scenario through at least 3 or 4 version

Of course balance can seem skewed if the players in the match have different skill sets or familiarity with a scenario.

Overall, between two players with similar experience, I think there's reasonable balance now.

Tanaka brought up China and some folks thinking it's too strong, yet he was doing well on a China focused strategy with Japan, and came to the conclusion that it must be balanced.
Bravo good point haha.

China was way too weak in earlier versions during the Beta. Each time we started a new version, there had been made tweaks. The devs had to be conservative on changes there with China and that theater. My told my main sparring partner who played Japan to keep throwing the sink at me in China.
By the time we got to the last version before release, I think we got China into the 'Goldilocks' zone. Not too hot and not too cold.

I do believe over time as other folks start playing this scenario more in multi-player, that more data will be gained to see if any further tweaks are needed. It's just the same as like the evolution of SC-WAW, WW1 ACW and WiE through time involving multi-player.

Right now, in my opinion, Day in Infamy scenario shouldn't be a blow out for one side or the other if both opponents are of similar levels.

[AlbertN]

I am one of the players that believe China is too rich.
Japan should be able to hold ground against China and 'do well' without a China focused strategy.
By doing well I mean grabbing some land and Changsha like.
A China focused strategy should obliterate China and it is a matter of neglecting Pacific or other fronts.

China should simply have 1 attack less per unit. Or at least ground units.
That should make more difficult some offensive or attacks.

[Feinder]

This conversation can be very subjective in what one expects (esp in Multi-player).

I won't go into the longer essay version, but essentially, there are two types of players that approach many of these "historical feel" games.

A. The historic grognard - Wants a game that plays "relatively historic" that yields a campaign and victory conditions that are similar to the historic situation on 08-15-1945. In this case for example, the "best victory" that Japan is likely to achieve is to NOT collapse by 08-15-1945 or similar.

B. Red vs. Blue - These players are less concerned with historic play and feel, but rather relish the simple competition of a "balanced" game where each side has an equal opportunity to win (like Checkers or Chess, but set with Pacific WW2 as a back-drop). In this case, "world domination" by crushing India and Australia, or maybe even the US, is a real possibility (where they really were not realistic outcomes historically).

When choosing a PBEM opponent, it's important to keeping in mind the two points of view along with relative experience levels. "Balance" can be very subjective, and if a player is expecting a Grognard game but faces an opponent in the "Red vs. Blue" perspective, might be inclined to say that the game is not "balanced".

All that being said, I dont think we have enough data to say whether the game is "balanced" for either Grognard or Red v Blue (it's a bit early to make that call).

In my own case (and my PBEM game vs. Ngineer, see AAR here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=404950), so far it "feels" like it's going to play decently for PBEM. Still will need some work, but for a game that's really only been out for a month or so, it plays well. Not to be a complete Switzerland, but it feels (to me), like the game falls somewhere between Grognard and RvB, with (IMO) a lean towards RvB. I'll admit that I'm more of a Grognard player, but my own experience with ScWaW was to have expectation of RvB. But so far Ngineer and I are both enjoying the game. We're more-or-less keeping a historic time-line, but that's as much my own (Grognard) play style. I think when we swap (me to be Allies, Ngineer as Japan), he's going to clobber me - He's very aggress and this will probably serve him well when playing as Japan.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

This conversation can be very subjective in what one expects (esp in Multi-player).

I won't go into the longer essay version, but essentially, there are two types of players that approach many of these "historical feel" games.

A. The historic grognard - Wants a game that plays "relatively historic" that yields a campaign and victory conditions that are similar to the historic situation on 08-15-1945. In this case for example, the "best victory" that Japan is likely to achieve is to NOT collapse by 08-15-1945 or similar.

B. Red vs. Blue - These players are less concerned with historic play and feel, but rather relish the simple competition of a "balanced" game where each side has an equal opportunity to win (like Checkers or Chess, but set with Pacific WW2 as a back-drop). In this case, "world domination" by crushing India and Australia, or maybe even the US, is a real possibility (where they really were not realistic outcomes historically).

When choosing a PBEM opponent, it's important to keeping in mind the two points of view along with relative experience levels. "Balance" can be very subjective, and if a player is expecting a Grognard game but faces an opponent in the "Red vs. Blue" perspective, might be inclined to say that the game is not "balanced".

All that being said, I dont think we have enough data to say whether the game is "balanced" for either Grognard or Red v Blue (it's a bit early to make that call).

In my own case (and my PBEM game vs. Ngineer, see AAR here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=404950), so far it "feels" like it's going to play decently for PBEM. Still will need some work, but for a game that's really only been out for a month or so, it plays well. Not to be a complete Switzerland, but it feels (to me), like the game falls somewhere between Grognard and RvB, with (IMO) a lean towards RvB. I'll admit that I'm more of a Grognard player, but my own experience with ScWaW was to have expectation of RvB. But so far Ngineer and I are both enjoying the game. We're more-or-less keeping a historic time-line, but that's as much my own (Grognard) play style. I think when we swap (me to be Allies, Ngineer as Japan), he's going to clobber me - He's very aggress and this will probably serve him well when playing as Japan.

These are great points, A and B and the follow up. Wish I had wrote that.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I am one of the players that believe China is too rich.
Japan should be able to hold ground against China and 'do well' without a China focused strategy.
By doing well I mean grabbing some land and Changsha like.
A China focused strategy should obliterate China and it is a matter of neglecting Pacific or other fronts.

China should simply have 1 attack less per unit. Or at least ground units.
That should make more difficult some offensive or attacks.

Honestly its my opinion (for Multiplayer) Japan can do well and keep the front stabilized in China if Nippon has a major focus elsewhere. That means taking Changsha or some similar enterprise like an 'Ichi-go' type limited offensive.
A total China focused strategy by Nippon should still be hard.
The problem with earlier iterations before release was even if Japan DID NOT do a China Focus, it was too easy for the Japanese to slowly grind the Nat and CCP Chinese into Matcha tea powder.

Feinder made excellent points concerning 'balance' and the type of players involved. This thread is about Multiplayer and my limited experience with Day of Infamy is mostly with MP only, with hotseat tests to see if China was improved during version changes. The devs were very conservative of implementing changes for China, and from a design point of view, had to be hard since this game is primarily played in Single Player mode.

Anyways yes more MP play with a larger base needs to be done regarding all aspects of balance.

[ThunderLizard11]

Good comments/ My inital games as Allies I felt China was too easy pushed back. Limited experience so far. Guadalcanal is also too easy for Japan to secure.

[Tanaka]

Good comments/ My inital games as Allies I felt China was too easy pushed back. Limited experience so far. Guadalcanal is also too easy for Japan to secure.

Well historically they took Guadalcanal very easily. But because they did not expect any allied reaction until 1943 they took their time in sending stronger forces there which was a major blunder...