Thanks for fixing China in 1939

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Adding just the one fort hex NE of Changsha was an elegant solution to the whole 'Rolling China' so easy deal. I am playing the Axis in a MP match...and Japan is having difficulties here now in reducing this line, which is a GOOD thing. Seems more realistic now as it was historically. Anyway that's my opinion and wanted to express my thanks to Bill and Hubert for coming up with this rather simple solution. Cheers.

[LoneRunner]

Yes, that's a great solution. I'm impressed with how the developers take a minimalist approach to adjusting the game. Thanks Bill and Hubert.

I am concerned with the cumulative changes to the game that appear to be adversely impacting the Axis. Perhaps a couple adjustments in favor of the Axis? For example, increase the loss of USA morale for the capture of Hawaii and West Coast USA cities. Make it worthwhile for the Japanese to take San Francisco or LA. Imagine the crushing wave of panic and horror if the Japanese had actually landed on the West coast.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks OCB, that's great to hear!

LoneRunner, I am interested in all feedback on balance, it would be great to perhaps have a new thread on this subject?

[Taifun]

Hi Bill,

I think that the UK attacking a neutral Japan should be very severely penalized. The isolationist in the USA would have been mad by such an attack by the British Empire and the American Congress would had reacted violently. The USA should get a 40-50% mobilization PENALTY. This should take care of the preemptive gamely UK attacks against Japan...

[pjg100]

I also think that a serious UK NM penalty - on the order of 20-30% - should attend such a move. While the strategy may remain viable, the real world consequences of such an imprudent move should be reflected in the game. Perhaps coupled with a substantial but not crushing US mob penalty and a game mechanic (Pearl Harbor and other US Pacific ports reduced to 3 supply?) that renders the US unable to effectively operate in the Pacific until certain "at war with Japan" criteria are met. That might enable the US to go to war with Germany at some point without being effectively at war with JA, which could better reflect what would have happened in such a scenario IRL.

[Marcinos1985]

SC: WaW can only benefit from more options for the players. I understand frustration of Axis guys, but I believe they are "angry" not because strategy itself is so strong, but because game engine works as it works and very needed units are blocked from spawning. Fix this in the first place, then we will be able to see if UK going for Japan is that powerful - when at the same time GER will be effectively left alone.

But - please don't feel offended, just a private opinion - I sometimes feel that Axis players would like to be completely left alone till at least 1942. Seeing France and Japanese homeislands nearly empty is common, players just go all-in and act surprised when punishment comes. Strategic games are good when decisions are plenty and meaningful, please don't erase counter strategies completely.

LoneRunner, I am interested in all feedback on balance, it would be great to perhaps have a new thread on this subject?

Well, if we really believe that Allies are now favoured, there are 2 things that may be done:

1. Nerf US - sounds like heresy, but please hear me out. If optimized, US is able to intervene in force very early, even in (late?) 1942, and for sure in 1943. That's very fast comparing to IRL. If US wasn't that fast, Axis would'nt be forced to go 200% all-in vs USSR. There are many ways to try, like adjusting mobilization slightly, maybe lowering MPP pre-war base etc.

2. It's not a change in-game per se, but making a 39 Race to Victory scenario a default one would change dynamic of the game very much. Axis - if unsuccessful in their main campaigns - could play defense from 1943 and if well conducted, they would be able to last up to 1945. Therefore just beating historical result would be a win, even if strategical situation would be bad by 1945. You can't play in such a way in main capaign, unless USSR is dead then 4 years against Allied MPP machine is just too long. Maybe ELO games could be played in this scenario for month or two, stats would be interesting. Heh, I even beleive that if developers from the start made a race to victory scenario a main one, meta in this game would be different.

[BillRunacre]

SC: WaW can only benefit from more options for the players. I understand frustration of Axis guys, but I believe they are "angry" not because strategy itself is so strong, but because game engine works as it works and very needed units are blocked from spawning. Fix this in the first place, then we will be able to see if UK going for Japan is that powerful - when at the same time GER will be effectively left alone.

Providing alternative spawn points is definitely going to be done.

2. It's not a change in-game per se, but making a 39 Race to Victory scenario a default one would change dynamic of the game very much. Axis - if unsuccessful in their main campaigns - could play defense from 1943 and if well conducted, they would be able to last up to 1945. Therefore just beating historical result would be a win, even if strategical situation would be bad by 1945. You can't play in such a way in main capaign, unless USSR is dead then 4 years against Allied MPP machine is just too long. Maybe ELO games could be played in this scenario for month or two, stats would be interesting. Heh, I even beleive that if developers from the start made a race to victory scenario a main one, meta in this game would be different.

I also recommend this campaign be the mainstay of PBEM, and that's why it has been used as such in the tournament.

Defending Axis conquests for as long as possible should be as much fun as attempting to conquer the world - or at least it is for me!

[James Taylor]

I've been working on a strategy that provides for Germany never attacking the USSR.

Instead, Italy is allowed to take France and the first builds for Axis is the engineers who proceed to fortify the eastern border conquests(Poland etc).

Now the European Axis continue with the normal Africa strategy, emphasis on building experience and tech advances, but by late 1943(summer/fall) they pull back. Back into southern France for DDay and Italy to defend the Med.

Can they hold Paris, Rome and Berlin for the minor victory or one for the tactical win?

[Jackmck]

Marcinos1985's post is excellent- totally agree that Axis players who leave Japan and France totally ungarrisoned should occasionally be made aware of the risk this presents. Rather ahistorical too for no IJA ground presence in Japan.

Alternative spawn points is a good fix. Penalizing the UK more for attacking Japan (by severely reducing US tensions) would have some unintended advantages for Japan who could send multiple LRT units right off Allied coasts with impunity. Also there are several ways to get the UK and Japan at war by declaring war on minor countries so it becomes very tricky to implement this fix without unintended consequences.

Yes, the 39 Race to Victory scenario should be the default. Playing past 1945- into the nuclear age- presents difficult hypothetical questions that are out of the scope of this game, in my opinion. Game design should be focused on the challenge for the Axis to do better historically by surviving while holding an additional allied capitol. Playing the Allies to win by 45 is the benchmark challenge- not to win by 1947. With that, "nerfing" the US would make it easy for most Axis players to win- so not recommended.