1939 Game Balance

[Bavre]

A couple month ago I watched a match between two Youtubers and it pretty much was a showcase for what Alter Native has said. Both players started out relatively inexperienced and about en par, but as the Allied player had the disadvantage early on he was "forced to dive deeper" into the game mechanics (for lack of better words) and as a result had a much steeper learning curve. The Axis player easily rolled over everything in Poland and France only to run into a massive concrete wall in Russia. It must have been rather frustrating for him and it clearly showed that he was quite perplexed as to why his so far seemingly invincible forces suddenly got attritioned down.
So yeah, the game seems to be both easier to learn and play as Allies when you start out, but once you "graduate" the balance is excellent as shown in the ELO results.


@ Georgia22:
Historically you are 100% right and there are even more points to add to that tally, like the Germans tendency to overengineer stuff and produce every tank in a million different and only marginally better variants, which totally sabotaged the mass production etc etc.
But I think implementing all that in a 100% historically accurate way would pretty much guaranty Allied victory in almost all matches. It was basically a 1% wonder that the Germans got as far as they historically did with what little they had compared to the other side and with the mistakes they made along the way.
So I think the choice here really is to either keep the campaign a bit ahistorical but with 50:50 odds (btw kudos to the devs here, achiving 50:50 in a game that complex is no small feat!), or make it more realistic but asymmetric. Axis player victory would then have to be defined as something like doing better then it was historically the case.

[nnason]

Bavre,
Your comments are well thought out.

[Georgia22]

Bavre, my computer just hiccuped so this may get on twice. I appreciate your position. Most players want 50-50 balance but a minority, me included, are not concerned with which side wins or loses but with the process of war itself. Also I certainly do not advocate putting all the complexity possible into the game, just a few of great importance, like oil and reinforcements.
Perhaps game designers could split the difference and have such things as oil be preferences that can be turned on or off when setting up a game. But in spite of any criticisms it is an excellent game that is great fun to play.

Thanks

[Georgia22]

ORIGINAL: Georgia22

Bavre, my computer just hiccuped so this may get on twice. I appreciate your position. Most players want 50-50 balance but a minority, me included, are not concerned with which side wins or loses but with the process of war itself. Also I certainly do not advocate putting all the complexity possible into the game, just a few of great importance, like oil and reinforcements.
Perhaps game designers could split the difference and have such things as oil be preferences that can be turned on or off when setting up a game. But in spite of any criticisms it is an excellent game that is great fun to play.

Thanks

We were in the position of a man who has grasped a wolf by the ears and dare not let it go. - A German officer on the invasion of the Soviet Union

[forestrouse]

Yes - the supply system is complicated. But mastering the supply system is what makes this game an interesting challenge.

What I am wondering about, though, is the cost of motorizing the Axis. I notice that the Axis AI motorizes nearly its entire army by the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union. I don't think that is historically accurate nor possible as a human player - at least the cost looks prohibitive to me whenever I play Axis.

Forest

[Mithrilotter]

In the latest 1.14 version of World at War, if Wilhelmshaven (WaW's Cuxhaven)is taken, the Norwegian convoy is rerouted to Kiel. Since update changes tend to be adapted to all versions of Strategic Command 3, does the taking or bombing of Cuxhaven or its port, reroute the Norwegian convoy to Kiel also?

[Raptor341]

It should be difficult for the axis player to win, full stop. All things considered, the wargame is doing an excellent job of simulating the war if it is more difficult overall to win for the axis than for the Allied player. Anything else is tilting it in favour of balance but not in keeping with the spirit of the war it is trying to capture. This being said, I think most axis players I've gamed against do just fine, the Allies have very little room for major mistakes early on so the pressure is intense for the Allied player at the start, and then should naturally shift against the axis player over time. My thoughts on the matter.

[Sugar]

It should be difficult for the axis player to win, full stop.

if at all...

But one small question: what`s the point in playing a game where one side is doomed to repeat the failures of history?
You can easily find out how much fun that is by following historically "accurate" games like AGEOD`s CW2. Read some of the available AAR`s (if you can actually find one longer lasting than 1863) of PbEM`s.

As far as I know AGEOD is done with their concept, while Strategic Command is still thriving (and will hopefully continue to do so; I actually spent more than 15 years playing the various titles).

And to "the spirit of the war": when played correctly, SC is the first and imho best simulation of operational manouevre warfare you can find, as well as the best simulation of air superiority mechanics in gaming history.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks Sugar, very glad to hear you feel this way about the game