Flaviusx (Allied) v Battlevonwar (Axis)

[Flaviusx]

Challenge accepted.

Let's see just how many rifle corps it is possible to spam out.

[AlvaroSousa]

After a few games myself I was considering a couple changes.

###Current
USSR can disband at their units and reconstruct them.
USSR builds armies Jan 1942.
USSR can DOW on May of 1942.

###Changes considering
Neutral powers can't disband units
USSR builds armies when they are a full allied power.
USSR can DOW in June of 1942.

Reason is through various games a 1942 Barb is 100% out of the question and has lead to the destruction of Germany in 1944..... regardless of what the Western Allied powers do.

As for your 1941 game. I have played and have had the kitchen sink thrown at me with a 1941 Barb. The Germans have taken Leningrad and Moscow, and have ran me out of manpower. The game still went to the last turn. How did they do this? They ignored the Western Allies. So the USA and UK were quite strong in 1943 and 1944. So a 1941 Barb is a balance of resource. One of the big notes is that I never disbanded any units in any of my games. I garrisoned them sure but never disbanded.

Thoughts you two?

[Flaviusx]

The Soviets were going to be chased to the Urals in this game and the Axis probably was going to take the Caucuses and get into the ME back door by the end of 42.

I don't see the Western Allies making up for this.

The game is decided on the Eastern Front. You are not wrong that a 42 Barbarossa always fails. That's the flipside of this. Germany has one chance to break the Red Army in 1941 and that's it. They can still win even if they come up short here, but they will definitely lose if they don't at least try.

Your rule change doesn't change much. The Soviets can build up plenty of mech before 42 June, it won't be helpless, and bank plenty of points, cash it all in, disband all their trash 20% infantry corps for manpower and production besides on June 42, and put in a boatload of rifle armies. Germany will make limited gains and be held at bay by a mass of Red Armor supported by enough rifle corps until the rifle armies arrive. Delaying rifle army production won't change this.

The Soviets can spend all of 1941 churning out mech once it is clear no attack is forthcoming.

If you disallow disbands by neutral countries, I think I'm done playing this game as the allies. The Red Army is the one that suffers most from this and what you have to start with is beyond terrible. The only hope they have of surviving a perfected 41 Barbarossa is to tailor their forces accordingly within the existing constraints. And now you propose to remove disbands?

[battlevonwar]

Alvaro, the issue is if you go full Barbie and the Western Allies haven't gimped the Axis then well you lose. The problem with Full Barbie that I can see perhaps is the early dow on the Soviets. BUT! The Axis are underdogs in the hands of a wise Russian Player. Skill varies so much as does experience with different strategies.



If the Axis go full East I might consider putting a limit on when the Axis can actually invade the Soviets. Or maybe the issue is the Soviets need a buff ... cause in March you can DOW take up the riverlines, dig in, build up your Effectiveness with trucks and time..(unless we see that Flaviusx can make me wrong with this) and just hammer all the way through the first 2 objectives and since the Soviets are pretty neutered a 3rd objective is possible next year. He still played a tough game, it was no cakewalk...just I was sooooo far forward and he so little to defend with by that point.

'42 Barbie Axis don't usually win it's just neat... Unless the Allies really did something wrong?

I might consider Either Marking May as the Barbie Start Date minimum... but MM did manage to hold my Axis off with lots of Rifle Corpses so lets see this game unfold!

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

After a few games myself I was considering a couple changes.

###Current
USSR can disband at their units and reconstruct them.
USSR builds armies Jan 1942.
USSR can DOW on May of 1942.

###Changes considering
Neutral powers can't disband units
USSR builds armies when they are a full allied power.
USSR can DOW in June of 1942.

Reason is through various games a 1942 Barb is 100% out of the question and has lead to the destruction of Germany in 1944..... regardless of what the Western Allied powers do.

As for your 1941 game. I have played and have had the kitchen sink thrown at me with a 1941 Barb. The Germans have taken Leningrad and Moscow, and have ran me out of manpower. The game still went to the last turn. How did they do this? They ignored the Western Allies. So the USA and UK were quite strong in 1943 and 1944. So a 1941 Barb is a balance of resource. One of the big notes is that I never disbanded any units in any of my games. I garrisoned them sure but never disbanded.

Thoughts you two?

[Harrybanana]

I know of at least 2 games where the Axis have won with a 42 Barbarossa. One was Sveint's game against Sillyflower and another was one of my own games. But even if Axis victories after a 42 Barbarossa are rare I think this would be a misleading statistic. The reason is that most of the time the Axis invade in 42 it is because they took too many losses in 1940 and chose not to invade in 41 because they were too weak. In other words, even if they had invaded in 41 they still would have lost. For the Axis to win a 42 Barbarossa they have to be spending 41 conquering the UK, not just conquering Africa and the Middle East.

In any event, I don't think any more changes should be made until several more games have been played with the current rules.

[kennonlightfoot]

I don't know if the game is out of balance since it takes a long time to play enough games to pick up on a pattern. I do have some observations.

The US player at the current production levels combined with a logistics limit of 2650 is little more than a minor power. The UK can field more men and equipment than the US. But the UK is having to garrison most of the map so can't concentrate to do anything. The BoA sucks up almost all of the UK resources so the end result is UK and US aren't much of a threat. So the game hinges on Russia. If the Axis fail to take Moscow in 41, they will probably lose. If they take Moscow, they will probably win.

The BoA is taking entirely to much of the UK resources. I think some adjustments to make the sub war so dominating need to be made. The UK didn't have to channel its entire production into anti-sub warfare during 41/42.

I have always had the impression that Russia was able to raise much larger and heavy hitting forces by 42 than they are able to in the game.

I also had the impression the Germans were able to field much larger armored forces for the Russian front than they are able to in the game.

This mostly just needs some adjustments.

The Germans and the US need higher production rates. For Germany it probably should be through conquest (increase the resources in some of those targeted countries).

The BoA needs to be toned down some. Subs should be a bit less successful. Escorts need to improve faster with advancements.

US needs to be able to raise troops faster and more heavily mechanized. The US fielded just as many men as Russia did by end of war. 12 million military with 6 million in field Armies.

Strategic Bombing needs to be made a viable strategy and not a production point sink.
Should be a bit easier to build ships than the game allows.

US should start with a lot more shipyards.

Russia should be able to raise a lot more and powerful Armies. They fielded 79 Combined Arms Armies. 20 Guard Armies, 5 Shock Armies, 11 Guard Tank Armies, 10 Reserve Armies.

Mostly, this could be implement through small parameter changes to see how they balance out over the next few updates.
The game takes quite a long time to finish. So I am usually trying to figure out what the next upgrade did before I have enough complete games to know what the last upgrade did. So most of these observations are based on how I "feel" the war historically went relative to how the game is presenting it. So its hard to separate my "bad" choices from actual game imbalance.

[AlvaroSousa]

You all have different experiences than I do as the Allies. I have no problems balancing the Allies.
#1 I always get ashore
#2 I always get to Germany.
#3 As the Allies I do mess and build to keep the Axis busy

I play Hadros. We are fairly well matched. He almost ignores the sub campaign and I believe my Allies are strong. I on the other hand go for a full 1943 set of U-boats in 1941. I build around 10 of them. He always goes 1941 strategy, I always go 1942 strategy so we can see the differences. When he goes for a 1941 the game is fantastic and it has gone twice now to the last turn, almost last attack. When I have played the 1942 I have been crushed by 1944 regardless of what I do to the Western Allies.

Currently we are playing the newer version. Which balances things out on manpower for the Germans and BoA for the Allies.

In 1942 the Germans shouldn't be able to conquer Russia, period. But they should be able to push them back. Which in my games I have only been able to once. The current game own Spain, Yugo, Greece, French North Africa. I am holding them in Libya and Morocco. The Western Allies are weak. My 1942 Bard had a good force but I am losing a battle of attrition on the Eastern front and got no where. This was my strongest 1942 offensives of all the games. But Hadros watches you guys and everytime he gets better.

Ok so no one wants the system leading to 1941 changed got it. That's why I ask. I don't think I am that good in my own game as a player. Hadros thinks I am.

So let's keep things the same. I just need to test more 1942 scenarios.

Question for all of you above to answer.

When the Axis DoW'ed in the USSR how many subs did you have at sea vs the Allies and how strong did they defend those convoys? Also tell me how well you did in Russia. I am asking this to get a better picture of the game balance.

[battlevonwar]

I am not sure why people are saying they have issues vs getting a foothold on the Axis in '41 let alone '42... The minute the Axis turn East you can invade Europe somewhere! (I have had this done and tie down several Axis Armor in most of my games where the opponent just takes a few ports and await the US)

U-boats are great till the Allies are prepared, once that happens and or the dice go against the Axis I bleed out those Numbers! Not sure about investing in this unless I want to gamble...

[Marco70]

I have played a lot of pbem games and think the following.
With the last update the submarine war became a real factor and since then i try to build between 9-12 submarines to keep the british busy.

Actually there is only one issue that bothers me. As most here write, you win or lose the game in russia. If i have 10-12 german tanks / mechs and 2-4 italian a very good player will probably always destroy the russian or at least weaken him enough to finally defeat him in 42. The option to start Barbarossa with a cold turn in april especially helps with this. I would ban this option. In reality, the germans had prepared for a russian campaign starting in may 41 (see Führerweisung No. 21, the Wehrmacht should be ready by may 15). Before that, the army was not in a position at all. I would change that in the game as well. If the germans are missing two good weather turns, they will have a very hard time conquering Moscow and or Leningard in 41. In my opinion, that would help enormously for a balanced game.

[Flaviusx]

We are on June 7 1940 of the second go of this and right now I am doubting very much the result will be any different.

It is not really possible for the Allies to inflict much in the way of losses in France anymore. They just get slaughtered in the air. I've rather desperately put extra AA in France in order to extract some kind of butcher's bill here, but Germany's losses will only be marginally larger than last time, whereas the British losses are going to be much heavier. I have already lost the WDF. I expect to lose 2-3 more infantry corps. France will not fall any later than before and may indeed fall faster due to agggressive counterattacks.

I'm spamming rifle corps like crazy with the Soviets and will have over 50 new construction rifle corps by 41. And yet it is not really enough. This is only possible by the most stringent economies and disbanding and if the German invades early...

Ultimately there is absolutely no reason to defend forward with the Soviet because you cannot rely on the weather cooperating. In one cold or clear turn you lose everything on the border and then it is just a march to the depths of Russia. Even if it is a mud march it hardly matters because it takes forever for new construction to arrive and the reserves are garbage and take several turns of upgrades to be even reasonably effective at defense.

I think these early Barbarossas in the hands of a good player are unstoppable. Nor can the allies in the West do anything to stop it.

[Flaviusx]

For the record: I disbanded the entire Red Air Force. It is pretty useless early on. I also trashed half the starting mech. All starting rifle corps are on garrison. These I am *not* disbanding but rather placing deep in the rear in reserve. They get disbanded *after* the war starts to the extent possible and to feed reinforcements and new construction.

All new construction rifle corps should be at 41 AT by 41. (I have 40 tech already.)

[Flaviusx]

As for the Western Allies doing amphibious raids to distract the Germans in 41?

Good luck with that one. With the sub war being a thing now and amphibious points costing 25 a pop, Britain will be very hard pressed to do much of anything before the Americans come in.

[Flaviusx]

It's not just that Germans can start early, btw, and have a bunch of Italian mech to boot.

It's that they can put some of this in Romania. Which means anything in the Lvov salient is toast on turn 1 of Barbarossa, assuming clear or cold weather. Then you have to somehow defend the Ukraine with whatever is left after that.

[AlvaroSousa]

So my big thing is that you shouldn't have to disband units to make new ones. As you know I hate micromanagement. Supply trucks shouldn't be a must either. They should be a a tool to use in the right situation.

So an easier change that doesn't change the rules is this which would solve the 1941 slaughter for the Russians and avoid the 1943 slauther for the Germans if they do a 1942 Barb. Narrow the experience.

I was looking at the front line troops today of the 1939 Soviets. Considering the corps are about 50% the power of breaking them down and buying armies which should be about even in trade they are not. The very low experience means more damage, more retreats, more effectiveness loss. Meanwhile in 1942 they overwhelm the Germans fairly easily with a decent force.

The idea of that front is to give a chance the Axis blow out the Russians but not make the Russian feel desperate. Most of the time the Axis should be attacking in summer 1941 and summer 1942 with the tide turning in 1943.

So now I am thinking add +5% to the 1939 Soviets and lower 5% to their starting default experience. It is what the forming armies have. It balances out the 2 years. Causes less losses but continues the push for the Germans. Really this comes down to balancing the math.

I'm taking this from the AAR posts I am seeing and then thinking about my own experienced and what I DON'T do and who I am playing at. Hadros says all of you are better than he is and he gives me a tough game.

+5% with the 1939 army means they hold better early and don't get blown out. It also makes it not cost effective to replace.

The number can be anything but it needs to find that right balance. It's pretty close right now as is. Takes time to balance things.

[kennonlightfoot]

My complaint is less about balance (since I don't think I have played enough to tell) but just certain parts of the game dominating the others.

BoA I think is still to dominant. It was a problem for the British but it didn't consume all their resources like it does in the game.

While it worried the British in 40 that Germany would invade, there was little real threat of it for various reasons, but the game makes it more of a threat because of the mechanics of invasions and how weak the UK air is. In the game the UK can't contest the air war. Their fighters are to lousy relative to the German's.

Likewise the UK lacks the resource to prevent Egypt from being taken if the Axis really wants too. This is a combination of having to keep more troops in England and the BoA being a resource hog.

Likewise, the German's are having more problems taking out Belgium and France than they should. Should be a cake walk for them.

A lot of these are interlinked so changing one without compensated for the other side in some other area will unbalance the game.

But don't listen to much to players. The first Star Wars game was exceptional until the developers started listening to much to the players and destroyed the game trying the make the most vocal happy. [&:]

[Flaviusx]

I don't think balance is that far off here, but the thing is, there's no gradual shift here. There's about a two turn window where the Soviets can ride out 41 reasonably okay, or just get mauled. A couple of extra turns doesn't sound like much but the entire game can come down to it.

The fundamental issue here is that people are trending more and more towards the earliest possible Barbarossa attack, even with less than ideal weather. An early clear turn in either the north or south (but preferably in the south because it really hurts there) in April is really all you need here to put you in the driver's seat.

Maybe these tweaks will help. I am skeptical.

[Flaviusx]

A 25% base experience might keep me from disbanding any ground units, although I would still keep the starting rifle corps well in the rear, on garrison mode, and saved for disbands after Barbarossa. Nor would I upgrade them. I'd feed them into war construction. These are, for all practical purposes, junk militia waiting to be turned into regulars.

The mech is probably worth keeping at 25% experience.

The air force still goes into the junk pile. The Red Air force is terrible and doesn't even begin to become competitive until 1943. You can't even really get it up to experience early on. It just dies. Only after it techs up several levels can it actually hope to gain experience. It's not a cost effective arm at all for years. You are better off putting boots on the ground or just buying flak.

Even the Western Allies struggle here now. I don't know what has changed but the Luftwaffe is really dominant early on.

[AlvaroSousa]

What I can say about the BoA is this.

In the current game I took out Gibraltar vs Hadros, I have sank 360 MMs so far. I have 10 subs at sea. He is still putting up a good fight, has enough land units in Egypt to stuff me, and is doing fine. I go all out on the sub war and he forgot to build things. Now on the reverse I have no issues with the UK. I build 1 escort a turn, some MMs every X turns, and land units with at least 1 armor early. I can hold the Axis. The Allies always come back and fight even in my games with Hadros where he botches the escorts. I do build to a 1943 level in 1941 and pound those convoys. But historically the Germans had less subs out there until 1943. I have played enough where I don't see an issue in the BoA especially with pursuit rules and sub hunters in effect.

Russia is the only balance.

My Russia I don't disband anything. I don't reinforce after Barb is declared. Hadros has DoWed early too. He does end up taking Moscow and Leningrad plowing his way forward. I don't sac the air and I use it. But he doesn't focus on the BoA nearly as much as I do. A random sub here or there. So I have a free hand early 1942 when the USA comes in the war to do an annoyance invasion or threaten Italy.

It's nice to see contribution toward the improvement of the scenario which is my main goal.

[battlevonwar]

It's tough for me to compare skill here. I have put in a lot of games as Axis(far too many)... Sveint told me he had issues with my Axis and MagicMissile disbanded all the Red Air Force and had to retreat from Moscow, defeating me soundly. It can be done and has been done. Now things are tougher on the Axis in invading France(but the French have less Junk Corps to feed the Meat Grinder)

It's hard for the Allies to fight the Luftwaffe(but AIR is so weak in comparison with the early patches) in France it's very large. Previously the French would throw in a lot more corp and the Axis would have to grind through that losing between 250-350 Land HP. 100-150 Air HP. Pumping truck supply and slow picking off 1-3 Units per turn is the only way around this. I don't see the lesser experienced players utilizing this strategy. Not effectively at least.

While the better players do it and I did it vs Hadros in a game(he can tell you Alvaro) I picked off every Panzer in France with the Brits. I had it done to me... You have patched a lot since then though so things have changed.

In the East:

The issue is that the early DOW just allows the Axis to get too deep into the supply situation, the defensible rivers/defensible terrain(upping supply for the clear weather). Delaying might be the only answer but addressing 1943 Allies whoa(!) is as big an issue.....

The reason I say is Flaviusx doing something wrong or the precise thing that another opponent would do.(it appears to me that he is doing it right, I haven't faced another French Defense in awhile so?) If he is then there is no stopping the Axis as is. Upping XP by 5% I am not sure that is the answer. The Axis losses were severe in 1941... They ran out of fuel(maybe lessening the fuel) so that the Panzers and Mechs can't run amuck with endless air strikes? Historically the Axis did run out of fuel, spare parts and the Russians were ready for them December '41. The Russians still were using the wrong tactics for another year.

[Flaviusx]

If the Axis is being picked off in France it is they who are doing wrong, not the allies who are doing it right. This simply should not be happening against a seasoned Axis player who understands how to manage the advance and leave retreat lanes. It is a rookie mistake.

Any reasonably experienced player can knock out France quickly and without excessive losses. I have never found it difficult.

Even with a large British commitment (and I went all in here) the result is just not that different here, and indeed, worse for the allies because they end up throwing away more units. I am regretting following your advice to play more aggressively in France. My first game was better.

Nothing that happens in France is going to stop an early Barbarossa.