More feedback on 1.05

[amandkm]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I and three others tried a few turns like that last fall. There were some problems with decisions not being available (e.g. couldn't deploy the BEF or declare war on Finland, etc)

[Hubert Cater]

This should be all corrected now, and if not then at worst with the next update.

[taffjones]

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!

Hi amandkm

That's what I mean, If we post our results in the rankings, we can then see players of a similar ranking in playing the enemy side and PM each other to arrange games.

Sorry I don't know how to "quote" someone else's post, so if any one can tell me that would be great [:)]

[EarlyDoors]

So I found it interesting that an opponent invaded Indochina as China before the Japanese did

I assumed that this was to re-inforce or re-establish the trade link from hanoi

However when i tried it myself against the AI after the Henry-Matsuoko Act, the trade has not been re-established.

So i see no strategic value in China invading Indo-China

[smckechnie]

EarlyDoors,

Here are the advantages of China invading Indochina.

1. Japan now has to take every hex in the country, including those strategic ports in South.
2. Japan has to now fight to take the resources vs just walking in to capital. Can be done, but takes away resources from elsewhere.
3. Due to railway, China can strategic reinforce from Kumming down.
4. Japan now has to send forces to defend Thailand.
5. China national morale goes up.

This move mostly depends on how good your opponent is.

[Christolos]

What, if any, are the disadvantages of China invading Indochina?

C

[HamburgerMeat]

Not sure if there are diplomatic penalties, but the chinese player likely moves their corp out of range for HQ bonuses, and the Japanese probably get a liberation bonus for retaking Indochina

[EarlyDoors]

In most cases your opponent will have applied too much Southern pressure for this to be an option.

If it is, then China can probably bear diverting key resources into Indochina and an early alignment of Thailand with Japan. It looks like the Thai convoys are only worth around 5mpp per turn.

[smckechnie]

Against a great opponent taking Indochina with China is probably not advised.

There seems to be no diplomatic hits for China taking Indochina.

If the Japs are smart they will send forces right away to Thailand though that will help with their conquest of Malaysia and Burma.

[boudi]

One of the main problem is the snowball effect. Due to national moral mechanic, More you loose, and more you loose. It's impossible to come back.

[Kaukopartio]

Here's some feedback on the AI.

In my most recent game I've been playing as China & Russia to test out some things. Otherwise all seems to go rather smoothly, but the UK AI is absolutely bonkers. For example, the moment Germany declared war on Benelux countries and invaded France, UK withdrew is expeditionary force to northern ports. The next turn they evacuated them to Britain without firing a shot. A turn after that, Lord Gort and the whole expeditionary army set sail again. By the time France capitulated, the BEF with all its components were around the Cape of Good Hope.

The "battle" for the Atlantic seems rather odd as well. Germany had a cluster of submarines spotted at Skagerak, but the Commonwealth destroyer force has been sitting idle in a nice queue of 8 destroyers in the Atlantic west of France for over half a year. They're slowly getting withered away by storms while the U-boats are sinking merchant shipping.

Also, curiously, the United States suddenly stopped sending supplies to China at the end of September 1940. China didn't lose Nanking, or anything else for the matter, but has in fact pushed back the Japanese in the south. Should this be even possible? I don't remember having the option to suddenly stop sending supplies or lend-lease when it has started.

[lwarmonger]

If I recall the assistance China receives stops after the fall of France cuts of aid through indochina, and doesnt resume until a decision the US makes to open the Burma road.

[Kaukopartio]

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

If I recall the assistance China receives stops after the fall of France cuts of aid through indochina, and doesnt resume until a decision the US makes to open the Burma road.

The thing is that China owns Indochina, as well as Thailand.. But I think you are right - China didn't invade Indochina until the turn after France fell.

[boudi]

Somebody know that if Chinese cut the road between Pekin and south china, all the japanese supply in south China collapse ? In the 1st turn i did'nt understood why the allies player pushed its corps to east, never mind his casualties, but i understood at the opening of the second turn. 2/3 of japanese army is around out of supply. Bug or WAD ?

[Kaukopartio]

ORIGINAL: Kaukopartio

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

If I recall the assistance China receives stops after the fall of France cuts of aid through indochina, and doesnt resume until a decision the US makes to open the Burma road.

The thing is that China owns Indochina, as well as Thailand.. But I think you are right - China didn't invade Indochina until the turn after France fell.

Do you happen to remember when the Burma road decision should kick in? It's November 1942 and China is still on her own. Perhaps Roosevelt decided China was doing well enough on her own? They did send the Flying Tigers and Gen. Stillwel though.

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: Kaukopartio

Here's some feedback on the AI.

In my most recent game I've been playing as China & Russia to test out some things. Otherwise all seems to go rather smoothly, but the UK AI is absolutely bonkers. For example, the moment Germany declared war on Benelux countries and invaded France, UK withdrew is expeditionary force to northern ports. The next turn they evacuated them to Britain without firing a shot. A turn after that, Lord Gort and the whole expeditionary army set sail again. By the time France capitulated, the BEF with all its components were around the Cape of Good Hope.

The "battle" for the Atlantic seems rather odd as well. Germany had a cluster of submarines spotted at Skagerak, but the Commonwealth destroyer force has been sitting idle in a nice queue of 8 destroyers in the Atlantic west of France for over half a year. They're slowly getting withered away by storms while the U-boats are sinking merchant shipping.

Also, curiously, the United States suddenly stopped sending supplies to China at the end of September 1940. China didn't lose Nanking, or anything else for the matter, but has in fact pushed back the Japanese in the south. Should this be even possible? I don't remember having the option to suddenly stop sending supplies or lend-lease when it has started.

How do you view attachment. Click and said it downloaded it but where to?

[lwarmonger]

ORIGINAL: boudi

Somebody know that if Chinese cut the road between Pekin and south china, all the japanese supply in south China collapse ? In the 1st turn i did'nt understood why the allies player pushed its corps to east, never mind his casualties, but i understood at the opening of the second turn. 2/3 of japanese army is around out of supply. Bug or WAD ?

So that is a high risk/high reward strategy for a Chinese player. As the Japanese, you can crush a Chinese player who does that though with a combination of army units maneuvered by sea, air and naval airpower.

And once you do smash those Chinese units, there shouldnt be much left to stop your push into the Chinese interior.

The reason supply is so low is because Japan has only a few 5 strength ports in mainland China... no hong kong... no indochina... so the bulk of their supply at the start of the game comes from Korea/manchuria. If the Chinese player makes an effort to cut that line you have the power to stop them. It just isnt overwhelming.

[Kaukopartio]

ORIGINAL: ThunderLizard2

How do you view attachment. Click and said it downloaded it but where to?

When I click on the attachment, it opens a pop-up window. In the pop-up I click filename.jpg and it opens up the attached image. Not perfect, but apparently the forum software doesn't allow embedding images before "a week after your tenth post".

[EarlyDoors]

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

December 1945. My epic PBEM++ game against TaffJones(axis) is drawing to a close. He will graciously say its still in the balance and it may take another 8 months, but in reality it will be another Allied defeat.
He's a good player and he deserves it.

This game has been closer than our last but I'd put that down to my prioritising Infantry Weapons and Warfare for most nations. I remain unconvinced that limiting some of the techs to a single step prevented the Axis from taking a commanding tech advantage. In fact as another poster commented it just leaves the Allies with no opportunity to overtake late game. I like the idea of guessing which tech your opponent may prioritise and would like to see that taken further whereby leads in S&I and SOE / Ultra / Gestapo Decision Events could reveal opponent tech trees.

As for this game, I made very few mistakes but am just ground down, particularly by Axis air Power. It seems to me that if the Axis Player prioritises Air Power then they cannot lose and most tellingly of all time is irrelevant. They can have a late Barbarossa and not suffer. Clearly the USSR needs more resources to place some time pressure on to the Axis.

I would suggest, one of:-
~ an extra 20mpp mine East of the Urals (either from day 1 or the move industry east DE)
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1 being researched
~ USSR land units are 5% cheaper

So, our latest game has finished, and, yes, it really does take 8 months to play a game.
I no longer agree with my earlier comments above.
The game (at 1.6.02) is perfectly balanced and requires no further tinkering.

For anyone who struggles to win as the Allies, all I can offer is that its a longer learning curve than as the Axis. I advise Patience and always a bit of William Slim
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/192408-in-battle-nothing-is-ever-as-good-or-as-bad

Still an awesome game

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

December 1945. My epic PBEM++ game against TaffJones(axis) is drawing to a close. He will graciously say its still in the balance and it may take another 8 months, but in reality it will be another Allied defeat.
He's a good player and he deserves it.

This game has been closer than our last but I'd put that down to my prioritising Infantry Weapons and Warfare for most nations. I remain unconvinced that limiting some of the techs to a single step prevented the Axis from taking a commanding tech advantage. In fact as another poster commented it just leaves the Allies with no opportunity to overtake late game. I like the idea of guessing which tech your opponent may prioritise and would like to see that taken further whereby leads in S&I and SOE / Ultra / Gestapo Decision Events could reveal opponent tech trees.

As for this game, I made very few mistakes but am just ground down, particularly by Axis air Power. It seems to me that if the Axis Player prioritises Air Power then they cannot lose and most tellingly of all time is irrelevant. They can have a late Barbarossa and not suffer. Clearly the USSR needs more resources to place some time pressure on to the Axis.

I would suggest, one of:-
~ an extra 20mpp mine East of the Urals (either from day 1 or the move industry east DE)
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1 being researched
~ USSR land units are 5% cheaper

So, our latest game has finished, and, yes, it really does take 8 months to play a game.
I no longer agree with my earlier comments above.
The game (at 1.6.02) is perfectly balanced and requires no further tinkering.

For anyone who struggles to win as the Allies, all I can offer is that its a longer learning curve than as the Axis. I advise Patience and always a bit of William Slim
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/192408-in-battle-nothing-is-ever-as-good-or-as-bad

Still an awesome game

William Slim has been accused of some bad stuff. If you're gonna quote the good, you gotta take the bad.