Lend Lease to the USSR

[kjgokc2007]

You can not keep buffing the Allies without helping the AXIS. This game is already balance towards the Allies.

ELO Rankings December Update: http://scwaw-rankings.com/
(sorry been so long ~ november was a busy month)

Overall
======
Total Axis 189
Total Allies 235

Players of month
==============
kjgokc2007 8 wins out of 9
ElvisJJonesRambo 5 wins out of 7
Kaigab 4 wins out of 7

[firsteds]

You can not keep buffing the Allies without helping the AXIS.

I agree with kjgoc2007 on this and would like to add a few points:

1. The Devs have said "I am planning some changes to help the USSR better withstand air attacks, so I don't want to take things too far the other way." That's important news.

2. Despite what other players have experienced, I think the new forts are already helping protect Vladivostok in PBEM games, even against tough players. The more Japan has to spend here the less they have available in China and the Pacific. Russia should have AA upgrades in time, and both the units and forts can be upgraded cheaply.

3. I think Axis players should be able to correct historical strategic mistakes of WW2 and improve co-ordination between Germany, Italy, Japan and minors. That's part of the fun / challenge of the game. When Japan attempts to take Vlad China already gets a small NM boost. Any further 'punishment' should be very minimal. Maybe spawn one extra unit (if it is post PH), or a very small boost to US mobilisation (if it is pre PH).

[kaigab]

You can not keep buffing the Allies without helping the AXIS. This game is already balance towards the Allies.

ELO Rankings December Update: http://scwaw-rankings.com/
(sorry been so long ~ november was a busy month)

Overall
======
Total Axis 189
Total Allies 235

Players of month
==============
kjgokc2007 8 wins out of 9
ElvisJJonesRambo 5 wins out of 7
Kaigab 4 wins out of 7

I think the issue is that Russia is too weak and maybe US too strong. Against a decent Axis player is very hard to not have SU surrender by late 43 or 44.

[Feinder]

I'm not sure that "allies should win 50% of the time, and axis should win 50% of the time" is actually a valid measurement. If you just want a red vs blue game, then sure a 50-50 WL rate is is relevant.

But ww2 wasnt a reflection of axis having a 50% chance of victory.

While it is a debate for an entirely different thread. One could argue that historically, the axis "chance if winning" was pretty close to zero. Even on 06-05-1944, the day before western allies had boots in western europe, the soviets had already pushed the germans back to near the polish border. Would have taken a lot of blood, and another year (prob 46 or 47), but it likely that the soviets could have beaten the germans without allies in western europe..

Point being, you have to ask youself, what kind of game are you looking for? Red vs blue? Thats certainly valid answer for plenty of folks. Or "historical simulation(ish)".

Problem is, these are opposing mechanics. If you try to "balance" the game benefit Red vs Blue players, it disrupts the accuracy of the simulation players. And if you make the game more accurate, it disrupts the red vs blue.

Frankly, instead of adjusting the engine/mechanics, which have much farther reaching impact, it would be better to solution thru scenarios to accomodate red vs blue, then fundamental changes to the engine.

[Elessar2]

The other issue is that in a more historically-balanced scenario (= unbalanced towards one side or the other) you have to choose an arbitrary and artificial set of victory conditions, such that the Axis can still eke out a marginal "victory" while the Russians and Western Allies are about to knock down the doors on their borders when the arbitrary endpoint of the scenario finally comes along.