My feedback

[sveint]

I am really enjoying this game, but there are some glaring issues I feel qualified to comment on by now. This concerns balance vs human opponents.

1. China

China is by far the biggest imbalance in the game currently. Historically this was one big stalemate. In the game, Japan wins 100% of the time, the worst performance by Japan I have seen is just short of taking Chungking. Forget China doing better than historically, it's not even a remote chance of that happening.

Suggestions:
a) Japan starts without Infantry Weapons tech.
b) All Japanese units in Manchuria are locked in place until war with the Soviet Union.
c) Improved Chinese mountain supply. Give Chinese infantry units a special ability where they are never at less than 8 supply within China proper.
d) Special events for tech transfer. Specifically when it comes to air and anti-air tech.

2. The Soviets

Much like China the Soviets seem to consistently under-perform. I have yet to see the Soviets perform better than historical unless playing against a green opponent (I was one in my first game as the Axis - sorry Jagdpanther). The problem here is that the Axis is "active" and can set up their strategy while the Soviets have very few options open to them pre-war. Mostly the Soviets are forced into researching a narrow band of technologies if they are to have any chance of survival.

Suggestions:
a) Japan must respect the non-aggression treaty unless they control either India, Australia or Hawaii. (I think this is very realistic).
b) Randomize spawning unit starting locations. German players know exactly what will spawn where when they declare war.
c) Slightly increased production or a few more free units (an HQ and a few corps?). It feels very odd and unhistorical when German units outnumber Soviet units.
d) Winter still doesn't feel strong enough. Some sort of morale penalty in winter weather for Axis units?
e) Add some events where Soviets can prioritize either the army, tanks, air-force of something else? To give the Soviets some pre-war options and "surprise" the Axis. Currently every game plays out 90% the same for the Soviets.

Finally I'd like to add that the rest of the nations/powers feel remarkably balanced.

[sveint]

Here is a typical situation from PBEM. Historically it was completely impossible for Japan to field such a large army in these mountains.

Furthermore in game terms the 3-star Japanese army is invincible. It inflicts tremendous casualties and takes none.

[zzmzzm]

The situation map is just from the match of sveint and me . As I am Chinese ,I agree part of the first one: Japan troops in China starts without upgraded Infantry Weapons . I think it is enough if Japan troops have not upgraded the Infantry Weapons, but they have the tach just not upgraded. Just the same as German . But is will be more hard for Axis. Actually I can defend keweichow in most matchs.

[sveint]

Honestly it could be from any game, I just captured it as it was the turn I was currently playing. The situation is no different if I play Japan.

China always collapses.

[rob89]

Hi Sveint,

in my mod.39-45 Campaign (work in progress)

about China : I had already made several changes that you have now suggested :
- Japan starts without Infantry Weapons tech.
- China has some more free units in the production schedule, for the period 1939-1940
- I increased the value (MPPs) of American aid, from the beginning
- I reduced the supply for Japans, modifying the Occupation Efficiency of China (now 60%, like in Russia)

but the result is, more or less, the same : China collapses by the end of 1940 / spring 1941.

about Russia :
- I added more units in the production schedule, for the period 1939-1940
- I added fortifications around Moscow
- I improved the Soviet economy, in various way, for a 10-15%

I also reduced the speed of the research upgrades (more time, more expensive),
to prevent the Germans from having a decisive qualitative advantage.

Now when Barbarossa starts, the Soviets generally have more units (including a lot of tank corps) than the Germans,
but the problem is the operational mismanagement of the AI ...

regards

[HannoMeier]

I had the same experience in a two-player game.
The Chinese need strong support and the Russians need help also.
Maybe they should get cheap Inf units again - as the Russians had in the War in Europe game.

Regards,
Hanno

[eriador08]

I would not change too much. Chinese sure are doomed, if japan invest there, what will weaken their investment in the pacific. But the war is not won in china. It is just a sideshow.
Russia sure needs help. Allies must send convoys and open a second or even third front.
But if russia can stand on its own the balance slips too much in favor of the allies in my opinion.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Agreed, loss of China not the loss of game. Momentum is king. So is the man who can sing.

[sveint]

The argument that something doesn't need to be balanced because it is a "sideshow" isn't valid.

[eriador08]

My argument was, that it is balanced right now, so i would not change anything. It would weaken axis too much.

[Xenocide]

ORIGINAL: sveint

The argument that something doesn't need to be balanced because it is a "sideshow" isn't valid.

If Japan ahistorically throws everything they have at China they should do better there then they did historically. From experience though a Japan that throws all their MPP at China quickly loses in the Pacific.

[sveint]

So it should remain impossible for China to do better than historically? I stand by my argument.

[eriador08]

If it helps game balance i would say yes. Otherwise you would have to change more. If you give allies something to push them you also have to take something to keep balance.

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

Agreed, loss of China not the loss of game. Momentum is king. So is the man who can sing.

Yep, absolutely correct.

[Numdydar]

The issue with China is that most Axis players want to overrun China. The Japanese in RL had no desire to do so. Even in War in The Pacific AE, China can be overrun. IF Japan wants to expend the supplies and materials to do so. Plus play the political cost to move units away from the Russian border.

However in AE, the cost of doing this is much steeper than in this game.

The issue from a player point of view is that using mmp for reinforcing losses in China seems to be not very costly for Japan. This does not translate directly to less 'stuff' to fight in the Pacific in their minds.

From my point of view nothing needs to be changed (expect replacing forces with garrisons) for China. I'd much rather Japan waste mmp there than on ships/planes that will fight anywhere but China.

[sveint]

OK, I'll lay this issue to rest now. I'd try to argue that I play this game because it is fairly historically accurate but it seems like an uphill struggle.

[Xenocide]

ORIGINAL: sveint

So it should remain impossible for China to do better than historically? I stand by my argument.

If Japan stripped the Manchuria armies and sent them to China and focused on building up troops for the China campaign and did not work on building up the navy but focused on winning the war in China then it is very difficult for China to do better then historically. If the Japanese focus on building carriers and winning the Pacific China can do better then they did historically. I would even argue that is the better choice for China.

The problem is that if you beef up China or weaken Japan to force a more even fight in China then Japan will be forced to launch a full court press in China just to survive and the Pacific campaign will be all but impossible for them.

In a MP game when I play as the Allies I am happy to see Japan throw everything at China. It means I have a good chance at forcing Japanese surrender in 1944 or even earlier.

[zzmzzm]

Actually I support sveint. I wonder just one question : how many time did any one lost China but can conquer Japan? I have played 6 Pbem game and win 5 of them , and never seen anyone who lose china but congqued japan.

[zzmzzm]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had said same thing about china. Only just 30 thousand japan troops can conquer Singapore, how about 1000 thousands japan troops into Russia and India? Since they are all in one land.

[Xenocide]

One method of discouraging Japanese conquests deep into China would be to up partisan activity. As it stands there are only four locations in China that China starts in control of that you have to garrison to prevent partisan activity. Building and shipping over more garrisons would up the cost. Maybe cap the supply of captured Chinese cities beyond Chungking to 2 or 3 to make the deep drives into the outback of China more painful and less profitable?