Multiplayer balance as the allies

[gamer78]

Maybe for historical balance Allies sub factions should be looked at. Egypt can be lost or not from only good use of navy? I don't think Russia good at defending. Different skill level of players probably research appropriate techs. But still it may need additional HQ, air units and maybe automatic garrisons. My opponent use extra mpp to capture Egypt and was late in Soviet war but as playing Russia doesn't show it will get any better. It will only delay.

Race to Victory campaign probably result in Axis victory on same level players.

[ThunderLizard11]

Not sure OP did this already but need to double up on infantry tech and infantry weapons early. Uninvest in artillery and industrial. Also invest in command and control. There's a bunch of tips on China/USSR in other recent threads.

[Searry]

ORIGINAL: ThunderLizard2

Not sure OP did this already but need to double up on infantry tech and infantry weapons early. Uninvest in artillery and industrial. Also invest in command and control. There's a bunch of tips on China/USSR in other recent threads.

Double up? Uninvest?

[EarlyDoors]

I've taken a beating as the Allies in PBEM but I've learned even more

There are some subtleties in the combat functions described in the manual that newbies like me overlook.

I think the balance is right and I'm looking forward to proving that in my next game.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: GrayNemesis

Main problem is that I have yet to to see Russia not surrender or the Axis stopped in Africa. In War in Europe this was not the case. How is this explained?

Hi GrayNemisis,

Could you tell me is this against the Axis AI, or from multiplayer games when you play the Allies? If it is against the AI, could you tell me which difficulty level you are playing?

I only ask as for the next build, I have made some adjustments to the Veteran level to give the Axis AI a few less bonus units for the invasion of the USSR.

Hubert

[Searry]

I think multiplayer balance should be a big focus for a patch.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks Searry, I've just put together a poll so we can get a better idea on this:

tm.asp?m=4602362

[Xsillione]

Uninvest: sell the chit in fringe ir no use tech chits, like artillery.

Double up: Invest two chit in very important techs, like infantry weapons and infantry warfare, even if only one level remained (or exist), and than after researched, sell the now useless extra chit for half back. This way you can get these techs faster at a small price compared to there usefulness. This also can be used in other techs with more levels go go through them faster

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Generally speaking the Allies will lose heavily and badly in Poland, France and even in the early stages of the campaign in the USSR. The ideal tipping point is in mid 1942 where the Allies can slowly start to push back and only after all the Allied war machines (especially the US) and economies are in full swing and the numbers start to favour the Allies. Typically you shouldn't expect much from the Allies in the first few years, as was the case historically, and this gives the Axis a chance to potentially win the war past 1942 and depending on just how well they've done in those first few years.

However, depending on game play and potential skill level mismatches between opponents, the end results can vary and while one side may seem to be favoured over another early in this release, we'd still suggest that more games be played before we make any further changes.

The main reasons for this is that in some reports so far, the win record in head to head matches still seems to favour the Allies, and from experience in the past and especially in our previous release War in Europe, it was strongly felt that there too the Axis had an advantage until after dozens of head to head matches indicated that the Allies had the slight edge.

There is a lot of cause and effect in play and very often a battle lost here and there does not indicate the final result of the overall war. For example, Axis players may go heavily in towards Egypt, but this may and often does come at the cost of the war if they are unable to have an effective victory in the USSR.

One suggestion I could make, is to perhaps try a game as Axis against a strong Allied opponent to not only see how the balance plays out, but to also possibly learn what an effective overall Allied stragegy might look like. It might change your opinion, or if it does not, it will help us to learn what changes do indeed need to be made in the end.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

+1

The game is quite complex but can indeed lead to a tipping point in mid 1942. It is not a simple matter to declare which way the game is balanced with so many variables, including the relative skills of the opponents playing a particular side.

C

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

I will say this. Against above average players, there's not much margin to "goof off". I lost a game buying too many Axis toys. Dude put the "all chits" to Infantry strategy. Made casual mistakes in Africa. Tried gamey comeback in Spain, lost. What was weird, Romania did not join. Think that has to do with Africa????

[Searry]

What was the last straw for me is Germany freely declaring war on the baltic states while the Soviets just look stupidly behind the border. This game just has too many artificial restrictions.

[amandkm]

It may be my background, but from the boardgame settings I am used to, some decisions are left out of the players' hands. Think of yourself as the combined chiefs of whichever alliance you are playing. Some choices are political and as such, beyond the scope of your role. War leaders have to fight with the tools they have or are given, not always with those they would want to have.

[Numdydar]

Disagree amandkm because if that was true then we should not be able to direct chits into diplomacy or technology as those areas are outside of just being a military commander.

The Baltic states were stated to be the Russia's sphere of influence so Germany attacking them would have been a violation of the treaty. So any attack on them should bring Russia into war or at least increase their mobilization significantly. Plus increase the US War percentage as well.

[ringoblood]

Now are we talking about single player game here or multiplayer bc im confused??? If the computer or AI chooses not to invaded thats the AI choice or Historical piece if im served right. if your USSR and you cant its bc of a Historical piece. Know thy history. Thank you Numdydar

[amandkm]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Disagree amandkm because if that was true then we should not be able to direct chits into diplomacy or technology as those areas are outside of just being a military commander.

The Baltic states were stated to be the Russia's sphere of influence so Germany attacking them would have been a violation of the treaty. So any attack on them should bring Russia into war or at least increase their mobilization significantly. Plus increase the US War percentage as well.

Good point. I withdraw the statement.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Searry

What was the last straw for me is Germany freely declaring war on the baltic states while the Soviets just look stupidly behind the border. This game just has too many artificial restrictions.

Hi Searry

I've checked the scripts and the USSR will move towards the Allies by 8-15% per Baltic State the Axis declare war upon, so if all three are attacked then the USSR will move 24-45% towards the Allies.

The effect of these scripts would be to increase Soviet mobilization to help it prepare for war.

I'm not necessarily averse to increasing the % swings a bit, but whether Stalin would have automatically gone to war if this happened is a question we cannot answer with any certainty.

Bill