Axis OP

[AlbertN]

I've felt that bombers are pratically the only way to deal with well dug in troops - in general I try to squeeze in at least 2 more Stukas as Germany but it's hard to have more than that. Logistics and all.

[Journier]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

I've felt that bombers are pratically the only way to deal with well dug in troops - in general I try to squeeze in at least 2 more Stukas as Germany but it's hard to have more than that. Logistics and all.

yea its definitely a fine line of production availability leading up to and into barbarossa before first winter.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
This is the flipside of all these threads claiming the game is hopeless for the Axis.
There is far too much rushing to judgment going on here about game balance.

+1

[AlvaroSousa]

If the conversation is equal on both sides of the equation then it is probably well balanced.

Axis too OP?
No Allies too OP!

Vote 50/50

Seems balanced to me.

[Michael T]

No way the allies are OP.

[tyronec]

For me it seems too early to say. The patches are making a lot of difference and have not played an HvH game out to the finish yet.
One thing for sure, if one side makes a lot more mistakes then the other will win.

[battlevonwar]

Not sure what the Allies can throw at the Germans to stop Leningrad/Moscow from falling in 1941. Will have to seen what can be done. I can imagine 1 of them falling and the Allies recovering some though both seems to be ... very bad for the Allies...

ORIGINAL: tyronec

For me it seems too early to say. The patches are making a lot of difference and have not played an HvH game out to the finish yet.
One thing for sure, if one side makes a lot more mistakes then the other will win.

[AlbertN]

Soviets can play with the loss of both tbh - Leningrad is not that relevant, being 10 points.
Moscow being worth 25 is a different tale. Nonetheless it happened to me just once to be able to seize Moscow - and I believe my opponent there was learning the ropes (not that I am an expert right now - but I've done some games by now.)

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: MagicMissile

... The axis can still win without conquering the whole map. My opinion is that a game between 2 equal players the Axis should not be able to win by painting the whole map gray. .....

This is correct. The idea of the Axis is to gain as much as they can and hold it as long as they can.

The Allies is hold onto as much as they can then take back what they lost as fast as they can.

The reason for this is that I have seen too many Sitzkrieg games where the Germans can safely plow Spain, take the middle east, then do a 1942 barb to the river line and play an economy of force game just defending and delaying. My last WiF game I could have done that to win the game but instead I chose a different strategy and it came literally down to the last die roll on the last turn when the Allies were out of options. The whole game came down to a die roll. If I had Sitz's it we would have easily won.

[AlbertN]

Pretty confident that in WiF Sitzkrieg is not a widely diffused strategy due to force pool constraints - the Allies benefit more than the Axis from a Sitz there.
Besides that it is a rarely used strategy also because it's not considered amusing. In general at the Wifcons is played a traditional Barbarossa '41 (often with the Japan in far east variety and Italian airforce in Russia, the so called 'kitchen sink').

But indeed Axis should not conquer the whole map in order to win. I'd be astonished if anyone achieves that in Warplan.
In WiF there is Germany that can even get to Urals, and then is pushed back from Urals to Warsaw in '44 (Given by now I play WiF on Vassal with the Collector's, so MWiF is out of date for me.)

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa
This is correct. The idea of the Axis is to gain as much as they can and hold it as long as they can.
The Allies is hold onto as much as they can then take back what they lost as fast as they can.

And here is where optional 'early victory' conditions would be exciting, to compel Axis and Allies to push hard to gain more than a certain number of objectives by end of 1943. [;)]

[Flaviusx]

The problem with sudden death conditions is that every game will turn into a sudden death match and the Germans will always resign early if they fail. This is boring for the allies.

I like the fact that this game, unlike so many others, gives the Axis a real chance to win on VP and grind it out to the end...but this also gives the allies the opportunity to have their fun in the late game.

Panzer pushers love sudden death conditions. I prefer the game being the kind of game it is now. Indeed, I think I am the only person so far in AAR to play it out to 1945 thus far. (As the Axis, even.) Because I like the long game, even as the Axis.

One thing I have noticed in this forum: the Axis fanboys keep trying to push this game into a design to result in quick Axis wins. I hope the developer resists this. It is absolutely not necessary nor realistic. These Axis fanboys keep claiming the game is biased against the Axis because they want quick wins and don't realize that it is perfectly possible to win the game as a marathon playing the Axis thanks to VPs. (I have done this!) This rewards judicious play and an eye on your war economy and other things besides pushing panzers. It's more subtle, more interesting, more historical, and I'd hate seeing this game losing that and becoming like all the other WW2 games that go the other way on this.

[PanzerMike]

@Flaviusx: +1

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The problem with sudden death conditions is that every game will turn into a sudden death match and the Germans will always resign early if they fail. This is boring for the allies.

I like the fact that this game, unlike so many others, gives the Axis a real chance to win on VP and grind it out to the end...but this also gives the allies the opportunity to have their fun in the late game.

Panzer pushers love sudden death conditions. I prefer the game being the kind of game it is now. Indeed, I think I am the only person so far in AAR to play it out to 1945 thus far. (As the Axis, even.) Because I like the long game, even as the Axis.

One thing I have noticed in this forum: the Axis fanboys keep trying to push this game into a design to result in quick Axis wins. I hope the developer resists this. It is absolutely not necessary nor realistic. These Axis fanboys keep claiming the game is biased against the Axis because they want quick wins and don't realize that it is perfectly possible to win the game as a marathon playing the Axis thanks to VPs. (I have done this!) This rewards judicious play and an eye on your war economy and other things besides pushing panzers. It's more subtle, more interesting, more historical, and I'd hate seeing this game losing that and becoming like all the other WW2 games that go the other way on this.

QFT.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The problem with sudden death conditions is that every game will turn into a sudden death match...
Panzer pushers love sudden death conditions.

I specifically suggested "optional" conditions. Some players don't have a problem with options. Sudden death conditions in Third Reich have worked fine for over 40 years. Just saying... [;)]

I will add that even if optional sudden death victory conditions are implemented and selected by players, the game should allow players to continue on to the bitter end if they choose to do so.

[battlevonwar]

Flaviusx,

I agree with the assessment that an early victory is boring for the Allies. The Axis unless inept should take France in Summer '40, arrange their economy and then Barbarossa. There are variants and the way she handles her economy and manpower is weighed to a perfect scale to handle when she is in '43-'45 now having to defend.
The Allies must slowly bleed the Axis and remove as much manpower as they can early and hurt her economy. Not collapse(this is just boring to watch as the Axis) and then manage their own economy for the final Blitzkrieg they themselves now have mastered in '43-'45.
Both sides have equal chance at attacking and both sides will be judged on not just the Military(tactical) achievements but also the management of resources and strategic decisions. Panzer rushes or Stalemates in France in 1940 prevalent in other games are 'boring'... Gamy tactics to win outright make me not want to play. As the Axis if I am not fighting into 1943-44 cause the Allied player is bored and not trying I would rather not play the game.

Both sides need to be fair, there is offensives and defensive windows for them. This resembles CEAW, they made a very entertaining long game.

CEAW replicated the long game well...and like Warplan rewarded defensive play for the Axis. With VP Victory rather than conquest.

[tyronec]

I agree with the assessment that an early victory is boring for the Allies. The Axis unless inept should take France in Summer '40, arrange their economy and then Barbarossa. There are variants and the way she handles her economy and manpower is weighed to a perfect scale to handle when she is in '43-'45 now having to defend.
The Allies must slowly bleed the Axis and remove as much manpower as they can early and hurt her economy. Not collapse(this is just boring to watch as the Axis) and then manage their own economy for the final Blitzkrieg they themselves now have mastered in '43-'45.
Both sides have equal chance at attacking and both sides will be judged on not just the Military(tactical) achievements but also the management of resources and strategic decisions. Panzer rushes or Stalemates in France in 1940 prevalent in other games are 'boring'... Gamy tactics to win outright make me not want to play. As the Axis if I am not fighting into 1943-44 cause the Allied player is bored and not trying I would rather not play the game.

Both sides need to be fair, there is offensives and defensive windows for them. This resembles CEAW, they made a very entertaining long game.

CEAW replicated the long game well...and like Warplan rewarded defensive play for the Axis. With VP Victory rather than conquest.

What gamy tactics are you referring to ?
What do you mean by 'Both sides need to be fair' ?

[battlevonwar]

tyronec,

quoting myself "gamy tactics prevalent in other games," I would play Strategic Command 2. A fellow I would play would use the Morale Boost from invading every Minor on the map Pre-Barbie to completely remove The USSR. The Morale boost was intended to be partial but he would time it perfectly.
In Strategic Command 1, defending France to the death was possible and people would use it to win the game(this was at least entertaining) by bleeding the Germans dry before any other strategy or tactic was employed.
Ceaw had several gamy tactics similar, Time of Fury did as well... I remember in TOF the Russians Declaring War in 1940 and it was just a houserule you either made or didn't. . .

Are some of these realistic or possible in history? I'm sure...

So far I'm yet to see if the Soviets can survive a Blitzkrieg rush in this game. I'm waiting on it... I wouldn't like to see them collapse in 1941 even if historically possible. The best Axis Players pitted against the best Allied players will have to prove it's viability for the Allies to keep fighting past an Axis Panzer Rush. That will take about 3 or 4 more games for me. I assume 6 months?

[tyronec]

tyronec,

quoting myself "gamy tactics prevalent in other games," I would play Strategic Command 2. A fellow I would play would use the Morale Boost from invading every Minor on the map Pre-Barbie to completely remove The USSR. The Morale boost was intended to be partial but he would time it perfectly.
In Strategic Command 1, defending France to the death was possible and people would use it to win the game(this was at least entertaining) by bleeding the Germans dry before any other strategy or tactic was employed.
Ceaw had several gamy tactics similar, Time of Fury did as well... I remember in TOF the Russians Declaring War in 1940 and it was just a houserule you either made or didn't. . .

Are some of these realistic or possible in history? I'm sure...

So far I'm yet to see if the Soviets can survive a Blitzkrieg rush in this game. I'm waiting on it... I wouldn't like to see them collapse in 1941 even if historically possible. The best Axis Players pitted against the best Allied players will have to prove it's viability for the Allies to keep fighting past an Axis Panzer Rush. That will take about 3 or 4 more games for me. I assume 6 months?

It is an important question, some people throw out an accusation of 'Gamey tactics' without explaining what they mean. From your answer it looks like there is nothing you are objecting to in this game, which is good. If the game is well put together there shouldn't really be any tactics that a player can use that are not legitimate.

[battlevonwar]

Oh trust me Tyronec, there is a huge difference between a viable strategy and one that is gamebreaking and manipulates the game engine to win easy. I'm sure many could argue a great strategy that wins early is not gamey at all. Some could also argue the player that lost early lacked the foresight so another could of countered it?