More feedback on 1.05

[taffjones]

Hi Iwarmonger

If the Allied player has blockaded the ports in NA and has ships patrolling the Med, Even if you have a Maritime bomber on Sicily, getting 2 or 3 upgraded Panzers to NA by the end of summer is a difficult and dangerous under taking for players of my skill level (I would class myself as Intermediate).[:)]

[lwarmonger]

If the allied player goes all in on a blockade of North Africa then the Luftwaffe in its entirety (not just naval bombers) can be employed to make them pay. If you arent launching sealowe, then you dont have much to occupy your airforce before Barbarossa anyways (and if you are then having the British navy tied up in the Med is a bonus). All you need is one port at strength 5 for 1 turn, and the Italian fleet plus the Luftwaffe can put 3 armor and a headquarters in NA... very achievable.

[lwarmonger]

ORIGINAL: sveint

Also I don't see any possible argument against moving a Chinese HQ south at start.

Agreed.

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: taffjones

Hi EarlyDoors
In my opinion Japan/China and the Pacific is right.

But Germany is now faced with a choice of falling behind in the tech race or build enough units in time to invade Russia.

Also the deployment of the DAK is another issue. I have had some of the units spawn in Southern Germany not Italy and they also spawn away from port hexes. This means you spend 1 turn reinforcing them, Allied turn, your next turn moving them so they can be transported, Allied turn, 1 turn transporting 1/2 of the DAK to NA, Allied turn then your next turn transporting the rest of the DAK to NA and moving the 1st units up to the battle line in total with Allied turns this is a total of 8 months in game time before they are effective, and that is if the Allied player hasn't blockaded the destination ports or sunk any of the transports.

So as the Axis it is better to use them in Yugo/Greece and Russia. Which weakens the Italians unless you have managed to sneak units over to NA before hand.

Agree - can we go back to having them spawn in NA like in WiE?

[sveint]

Here is something that favors the Axis and could be remedied: Japanese morale is too high, and it is not possible to reproduce a historical surrender. The Allies always have to invade and occupy Japan proper.

[eightroomofelixir]

Agree with moving a Chinese HQ to south. It does not change the total number of Chinese unit, and the China in 1942 campaign does have a HQ in south anyway.

On a side note, if we want to give a few more units to the Soviets to increase the fault tolerance of the front line as HamburgerMeat suggested, would it be reasonable to refer to the example of the Soviet unit numbers in the 1942 campaign?

In the official 1942 campaign the Soviets have 4 armor pieces, 12 corps, and a total of 31 army units (normal and shock together) in the European front, with most of them upgraded. It's not easy for human Allied players to reach this number in 42 in the 1939 campaign.

[calcwerc]

If I recall correctly, people were very blunt about the axis being favoured as this patch was released. Well, it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. I do think Hamburgermeats analysis might be right, that this differs at different skill levels, but at higher levels I think most people would pick the allies if they played for money.
About China HQ: well I dont think its a big deal either way, but why take a raisk altering an already very well balanced part of the game? If one should change anything for China, it would help newbies much more if they started out with the relevant techs, as I am sure changing them from the outset is what most experienced players would do.
Ok on strat bombers I agree that they might be a bit too powerful, especially against troops, but again, did you go for AA lvl 5 trying to counter it? And airpower should be a gamechanger lategame in Western-Europe.

[sveint]

I'd go Axis if I played competitive. (I don't play competitive).

China is far from balanced (when seen in isolation). Japan easily crushes China if it wants to, historically this was simply not an option.

AA above level 3 is useless. If you research it to level 5 and upgrade every city/port to AA level 5 then let's just say you are not spending your MPPs wisely.

[EarlyDoors]

I agree that AA is a bit weird in that you can't upgrade units above level 2
It's certainly caught me out first time
I can only assume that units are too hard to destroy at higher air defence levels

[calcwerc]

Sveint, I have only played you once, and your allies beat the shit out of mine axis, so of course I respect your opinion. It would be tempting to play allies against your axis though, as I think my initial China strategy is much better than the way you played it (and still you won as allies!)
I wasnt aware that AA cant be upgraded to 5, as i havent played axis for a while and havent tested that particular strategy. I thought it could, and figured the available AAguns upgraded to 4 or 5 could be a substantial threat to the allied bombers.

[EarlyDoors]

If memory serves AA units go to level 3
All other units only to level 2
Resources go to level 5

[Helsingor]

To me, the AA limits (assuming you're correct, EarlyDoors) make historical sense, if you think of upgrading AA as more like adding additional AA assets to a unit or resource hex and less like upgrading the quality of existing AA defenses.

In my thinking, there's a limit to how many AA guns (and all that ammo!) a unit can trundle around with and still maintain mobility and operational flexibility, whereas a fixed location like a port, city or mine has more room to add guns, searchlights, radar and AA ammo dumps

[HamburgerMeat]

I think that while the sino japanese war as portrayed in game is ahistoric, it makes sense in terms of gameplay for the japanese to be able to constantly advance. Maybe the rate of advance is still too high? The chinese have enough to survive until late 42/early 43 at minimum, which I think is enough

[sveint]

It would be tempting to play allies against your axis though, as I think my initial China strategy is much better than the way you played it (and still you won as allies!)

Bear in mind that I mostly play experimentally, that is I try new and different things. I honestly don't remember what I tried to do as China in our game.

[calcwerc]

ORIGINAL: sveint

Bear in mind that I mostly play experimentally, that is I try new and different things. I honestly don't remember what I tried to do as China in our game.

Well, you made big emphasis on industrial techs, I think you had researched both fully by the end of the war, and tried to spam infantry. I think you also used Chinese air power against the Japanese. I do not think these strategies are good. A China with early techs on infantry, doctrines and artillery will be very hard to beat for the Japanese, and unless Japan allocate all or most air power on the cost of other fronts, China should be able to push back 43 latest.

[taffjones]

If more people reported the results of their games (I'm not talking competitive games) it might help Hubert and Bill with looking at the game balance. I recall it helped with the WiE game.

Also for players they could arrange games with other players of a similar ranking, which should also help in the game balance debate.

[amandkm]

ORIGINAL: taffjones

If more people reported the results of their games (I'm not talking competitive games) it might help Hubert and Bill with looking at the game balance. I recall it helped with the WiE game.

Also for players they could arrange games with other players of a similar ranking, which should also help in the game balance debate.

See, that's a problem. We just don't know going in, how we 'stack up' against one another. Six months ago, I thought I was pretty good at this game. Then I started getting myself whipped like a rented mule.

So, am I a bad player who happened to have several weak opponents at first? Or a good player who stumbled into murderer's row?

I still don't know!

[James Taylor]

This is where I've been advocating multi-player games. more than one player per side. First of all as the turns get much longer, later in the game, it is easier to designate certain countries to players of different abilities.

Veteran players can take the more difficult countries to play, UK, USSR, USA etc. In this manner turns will be less daunting and the dependency on the "team" to get it done for each other will be emphasized.

The second benefit is that the veteran, more astute players, can bring the less experienced ones along with relation to tactics and strategy, the various nuances of the game, and everyone can learn together closing the gap between "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly".[:)]

[Hubert Cater]

This is now actually possible via Hotseat mode where there is a replay of the last moves, not only from the last turn, but the last moves made on your own turn. The only downside is that you have to manually send the saved game file to each team member after you played your country, and then to your opponents once the turn is complete.

[James Taylor]

Actually Hubert I prefer to send my turns through email and not use the server as I'm not concerned with cheating and the Matrix server can be a bit "quirky" at times.