Magicmissile (Axis) vs Flaviusx (Allied)

[MagicMissile]

In africa the British are coming. I will fight over Tobruk and delay as long as possible.

[MagicMissile]

July 41

A bit surprising Flaviusx decided to give up the game. I thought I was struggling a little bit in Russia but it seems I did enough damage. Again the more or less all in Barbarossa is a little too strong. But I think next patch with Yugoslavia not joining the axis will help out a fair bit. Also not sure if the Soviet corps were buffed properly in our games so that might have been an issue too.

Thanks Flaviusx for the game, if you want to try another maybe after the patch I could be up for it[:)].

/MM

[kennonlightfoot]

How is the overall situations? I really wanted to see how the Russian defense would hold up.

[MagicMissile]

From the screenshot above you can see that the Soviet army was still larger than the German. But in the gray blob in the center there were 10arm corps and Moscow only 4 hexes away. So Moscow would have fallen for sure and the main line of resistance was starting to break a bit so the 4 or 5 turns of clear weather left the axis might have been able to do a lot of damage.

That is the problem with the Soviets not only do you have to survive 41 you need to survive in decent strength or 42 will also be very hard on the Soviets.

[Flaviusx]

Since this is over I'm just going to say I wasn't happy with my Soviet defense here and will be making certain adjustments in the future. I could've fought this out, but I want to get this right. I mismanaged the southern part of the defense and it blew up on me.

It really sucks for the Soviets when the Germans invade in early May and get nothing but clear weather (as they did in the south, in the north I got a turn of mud and that helped stabilize it.) There's just too much open terrain in the south.

[sillyflower]

Coming from the man who said I had given up too early vs sveint............[;)]

The chance of clear in the south for the 2 turns in May are 9/16, or 0.56 to purists like me. With an easier and quicker fall of France, the wehrmacht will be stronger, though not having the Yugo's will draw a few troops away for garrison duties: altho' not the panzer blob. Thank goodness WiTE does not allow an early start...........

The problem seems to be that in WP the Germans will normally be at historic Barbarossa strength or higher at the beginning of May. Having a game where 1 side feels the need to surrender a third of the way through a 6 year game because of a weather roll is silly, and probably annoying for the other player.

I have tried to think of an easy but fair tweak. The best I've come up with using Alvaro's upside/downside approach is to have the soviet reserve armies have experience level 35 instead of 30 if Barbarossa starts before June '41. However, I am unable to come up with a logical rationale for that. The more logical approach would be to reduce German production in '40 perhaps with a catch-up increase in '41.

I will repost this in a new thread.

[kennonlightfoot]

Weather is a problem since it only takes a few bad luck turns at key points (usually April/May) to significantly unbalance the game. Probably the best cure for this is having "historical weather" version of the 1939 scenario.

A few clear weather turns in early 39 lets the German clean out the lower countries at little cost. This has a cascade effect on the UK as it has to scramble to both prevent a SeaLion and stop the Axis from running wild in the Mediterranean. Without an invasion of France lasting into July the Axis has time and resources to do whatever they want.

A clear weather in May of 41 gives the Axis the little bit of extra time they need to take Moscow and maybe Leningrad which will break the Russians as a major threat.

The problem with weather is it's all or nothing. Which means it can be a game changer not just an event that the player should include in his plans. In a game that requires over a hundred turns to complete you don't want early events to make the next 70 or 80 turns not worth playing.

There are some changes in the next version (beta) which may help the Allied side absorb bad luck a little better but I am not sure they will counter bad luck with weather in 1941.

Right now I have my game playing on hold until the version 8 release because there are a number of changes I consider very important to the way the game plays. Hopefully it will be soon.

[sillyflower]

I too have not been starting any more games until the new patch. Alvaro says it should be September but Matrix are a bit behind because of the virus.

[gingerbread]

Make the Axis ineligible to repair Soviet rail until Q3/41. Soviet rail includes '39 SU, Baltics, Soviet part of partitioned Poland and Bessarabia. Possibly even occupied Finland to keep the code clean.
Close down Riga harbour as well until Q3.

Intention is for the change to be unintrusive and hopefully not prone to bugs.

[Harrybanana]

In my opinion we should wait until after version 8 has been play tested before any more changes are made. I think what we are missing here is:

1. Flavius says that he botched his defence in the South. Perhaps with a better defence he would not be in the pickle he is in.
2. In their mirror game MM appears to be doing just fine. Admittedly it started a turn later; but it would also seem that MM's large corps didn't get buffed as they should have.
3. The new Yugo rule will reduce the number of Axis units participating in the Russian invasion.

[battlevonwar]

Kind of wondering why you haven't given up with me and you are still not out of the game. Considering I don't really consider VPs a win. I feel more that objectives and position at 'finish' are...and how well you played it is more important.

Flavius may have his reasons for ending(lose some key units at the wrong time) you can collapse fast. Playing a steamroll where you will never have a high water mark is not entertaining. MagicMissile plays a lot so he is likely an able Man. I think I should challenge him

The Russians don't need to fight in 1942 they just need to be able to not cave in. Not sure why everyone is so forwardly defensive. They need to fight in 1943.

Weather sucks... I had game vs Sveint where if I had 3-4 clear turns I Feel I could of turned the game my way a little bit more. Of course I was sloppy and Warplan favors Microing more than people want to admit. I am learning that again.

If people take Yugo out of the game I've already brainstormed a method to make up for the loss players will loathe...

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Coming from the man who said I had given up too early vs sveint............[;)]

The chance of clear in the south for the 2 turns in May are 9/16, or 0.56 to purists like me. With an easier and quicker fall of France, the wehrmacht will be stronger, though not having the Yugo's will draw a few troops away for garrison duties: altho' not the panzer blob. Thank goodness WiTE does not allow an early start...........

The problem seems to be that in WP the Germans will normally be at historic Barbarossa strength or higher at the beginning of May. Having a game where 1 side feels the need to surrender a third of the way through a 6 year game because of a weather roll is silly, and probably annoying for the other player.

I have tried to think of an easy but fair tweak. The best I've come up with using Alvaro's upside/downside approach is to have the soviet reserve armies have experience level 35 instead of 30 if Barbarossa starts before June '41. However, I am unable to come up with a logical rationale for that. The more logical approach would be to reduce German production in '40 perhaps with a catch-up increase in '41.

I will repost this in a new thread.

[kennonlightfoot]

Right now version 8 brings a number of fixes that should help the Allied side so we will have to wait and see how the game balances out.

One major fix is blocking the Axis from going around Africa. This will make for a major change in tactics for both sides. The UK won't have to spread it's forces so thin garrisoning the entire world. The Axis will have to reconsider their Mediterranean strategy since it won't be as easy to take the Middle East. They probably would have to make a major commitment to take both the Middle East and Iraq. For the UK it means it has a reasonable chance of preventing being cut off from oil which was certain death before.

The second major change that will affect Axis strategy is Yugoslavia being a sure ally if they take Greece. I haven't figured out the odds of it going Axis so I don't know if it will still be a strategy worth the risk and cost.

I do still have some things I wish could be included in 8 like increasing the chance of UK surface ships finding surface raiders.

It will require quite a few games though before we can judge whether the balance has shifted a little to much in favor of the Allies or not.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot



The second major change that will affect Axis strategy is Yugoslavia being a sure ally if they take Greece. I haven't figured out the odds of it going Axis so I don't know if it will still be a strategy worth the risk and cost.

I do still have some things I wish could be included in 8 like increasing the chance of UK surface ships finding surface raiders.

Next patch will mean no chance of Yugo going axis. There's a thread devoted to that issue. Axis was getting 1500 PP army for zero net cost.

Agree 100% re surface raiders.

[MagicMissile]

I think we have to wait for next patch and see how it will play out. Germany will lose Yugoslavia so German invasion of Sovietunion will be a bit nerfed which is good. I do think we might need to see some kind of nerf to the western allies as compensation but I am not sure guess we need to see some games first.

/MM

[Flaviusx]

With freebie Yugo no longer an option, Germans can shift production to submarines in lieu of Greek prep. Fewer amphibs, fewer paras, more subs. That will keep the UK busy. Not worried about this. It should be all self adjusting.

I don't think the Western Allies are too strong, it is just that Germany could leverage Axis Yugoslavia to drop a hammer on the Soviets and neglect other things, mainly in the Med, and allow the British to get ahead of schedule down there.

The game imo will be just about perfectly balanced after the next patch. Leave it alone.

[MagicMissile]

Sounds good [:)]

[kennonlightfoot]

I think we will have to wait and see how the game balances out. Most of the changes in 8 fix things I saw as "historical" problems. The Axis was able to do things that they simply shouldn't be able to do like take Iraq and Persia from the Persian Gulf rather than overland. Also the threat of these tactics so weakened the UK defenses that the Germans could take the Middle East with ease.

Yugoslavia was another of these non-historic things the Germans could do. Historically taking Greece and then Yugoslavia by invasion tied up large number of German troops fighting partisans rather than giving them this rather large allied army to garrison Europe with and free up German units for Russia. While it was entirely possible for the Allied coupe to fail and make this a real outcome, like Germany getting a nuclear bomb in 45, it unbalances things to much for a single event. I would have to be coupled with a compensating event like jump in Russian preparation.

But I don't know whether the Axis side has received some bonuses to counter not being able to do these things or not. And, I really don't know if the Axis side was overpowered in ver 7 enough that they needed to be nerfed by these changes.

I still hope that ver 8 will get Surface Raiders nerfed a bit. UK shouldn't have to spend years chasing the Bismarck around the N. Atlantic with there whole fleet and not being able to catch it.

[Harrybanana]

The biggest problem with game balance is that most players (not me) want the Axis to stand an equal chance of winning the War. Or at least they want the Axis to have good odds of pulling off a successful Sealion and conquering the Middle East and conquering most of the USSR. But the fact is that historically the odds of any of these happening was remote. Historically the Axis did about as well as could possibly be expected given each sides resources and capabilities. And they only did this well because of all the early war blunders made by the Allies. If we had access to 100 alternate universes where WWII was fought under similar circumstances I think we would find that the Axis came closer to winning in our universes than it did in 90% of the others.

So in order for any game to give the Axis an equal chance of winning the War you have to distort historical reality. This means giving the Axis more production than historical, or giving the Allies less, or doing something else ahistorical to give the Axis an edge. Put another way, you can't give both sides their historically real capabilities and still give the Axis an equal chance of winning the War. You have to choose one or the other. Myself I would prefer the historical capabilities game but than change the Victory Conditions to give the Axis an equal chance of winning the game, even if they don't stand an equal chance of winning the War. But i realize that I am probably in the minority and that this not what most players want.

[GenSlack]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

The biggest problem with game balance is that most players (not me) want the Axis to stand an equal chance of winning the War. Or at least they want the Axis to have good odds of pulling off a successful Sealion and conquering the Middle East and conquering most of the USSR. But the fact is that historically the odds of any of these happening was remote. Historically the Axis did about as well as could possibly be expected given each sides resources and capabilities. And they only did this well because of all the early war blunders made by the Allies. If we had access to 100 alternate universes where WWII was fought under similar circumstances I think we would find that the Axis came closer to winning in our universes than it did in 90% of the others.

So in order for any game to give the Axis an equal chance of winning the War you have to distort historical reality. This means giving the Axis more production than historical, or giving the Allies less, or doing something else ahistorical to give the Axis an edge. Put another way, you can't give both sides their historically real capabilities and still give the Axis an equal chance of winning the War. You have to choose one or the other. Myself I would prefer the historical capabilities game but than change the Victory Conditions to give the Axis an equal chance of winning the game, even if they don't stand an equal chance of winning the War. But i realize that I am probably in the minority and that this not what most players want.

I'm with you! This is also one of the reasons why I think strategic level WW1 is far more interesting than WW2 (no need at all for all the artificial "balancing"). And in that I am in even a smaller minority!

[Flaviusx]

Harrybanana, the game already does what you suggest, or mostly. It is perfectly possible for the Axis to not do a Sea Lion, do a Barbarossa that doesn't quite knock out the Soviets, and then grind out the clock and win on points.

In no way does the game force Axis players into an early all in if that comes up short they necessarily lose. I've never done a Sea Lion as the Axis in PBEM. I've never conquered Russia, either. (I have crippled it.)

And I've never lost as the Axis. I play the long game. I have lost plenty as the allies, though.