Game is balanced against the Allies

[sveint]

Well here is one for the Axis fanboys... the game seems to be balanced in favor of the Axis. It is VERY hard to conquer a decent Axis player within the historical timeframe.

Flame away, that is my experience so far.

[Uncle_Joe]

Why bother making flame bait posts like this with no meat to back it up? WHY do you think its tilted in favor the Axis, or are you just trying to get a rise out people?

I have my suspicions for some ahistorical things they might to do win, but I dont think its slanted heavily one way or the other at this point.

I would also wager that many folks complaining about how the Axis 'cant win' arent actually even trying to go for the 'survival win' and are giving up once the roof starts to cave in.

Personally, I think if the Axis plays from minute one with the intention of not 'winning' by conquest but by survival and points, its a tough fight for both sides and certainly not a walk-over victory for the Allies that the end game military situation displays.

[ratprince]

Uncle Joe, et al;

I wholeheartedly agree Joe! If, as the axis, you are gunning for the "total" victory from turn one, unless you are brilliant or lucky, you are going to be disappointed. If, on the other hand, you take the approach of expansion, expansion, contraction.... then, I think, you will have a much better result. As the axis, you have to plan ahead for the eventual collapse. Hopefully, that collapse will start later and finish later, thus assuring a win.

As for the axis being over powered....I can't agree with that. I savvy allied player can put a hurt on the axis just as well as the axis onto the allied. The game is a teeter totter. The allies start on the "getting whipped" side, but eventually move to the "whipper" side.

2 cents.

Mike

[CommC]

I agree with you, sveint, I think the Axis wins easily by either strategy... expand rapidly and get the 70 pp autovictory or plan for long term defense.

Of course, there is not enough hard data yet to be definitive in the these conclusions... time will tell.

[Dalwin]

I would agree that the victory conditions seem to favor the Axis somewhat if both sides follow moderate courses of action.

However, there are a number of extreme research strategies that if coordinated properly between Russia and the WA will make life for the Axis extremely difficult.

The Axis might still win by an all out squeeze againt Russia by both Axis powers. Since this latter approach works most of the time in almost any grand strategic WWII game, I consider it a cheesy appraoch and will not use it.

[sveint]

I am simply posting my experience from my 4 PBEM games.

I deduced beforehand that there would be people in strong disagreement with me (have a look at the other posts on this board).

An admin here asked for game results and I will give them as each game concludes. Funny how I win as Axis (even when making mistakes) and lose as the Allies though.

[Uncle_Joe]

Fair enough.

I find it amusing that the appearance is that the pressure is really on the Axis to win, but it reality, its the Allies on the real timetable. When using the standard victory options, the Axis only has to plan to survive until fall '46. If that is their objective from minute one, they will not make an awful lot of the mistakes that cost their historical counterparts dearly. Its only when you wave that magical carrot of a 'true win' in front of them that you can tempt them into doing things that will cripple their chances of winning the survival victory instead.

In a few of my games, I think the Allied player has become complacent in his military superiority and his ability to grind the Axis econ into mush. But its come with the cost of not having the transport and troop capability to finish off Germany in a timely manner.

However, I think that with a few games of experience, Allied players will begin 'to put wheels on it' at an earlier date knowing just how much time it takes to actually close the deal. I think the first amount of time since the game has been out has been spent largely looking for ways for the Axis to 'win'. Now that most people are accepting that the 'auto-victory' for the Axis just isnt really likely and are planning for the eventual siege, the Allies are feeling the heat. I believe in the coming weeks, people will begin to develop Allied strategies to shave time off of what it takes to conquer the Axis.

Somewhere in there, I'm hoping a patch comes out to address the remaining bugs that still effect gameplay as well as tweak the research system a tad to discourage the 'one unit wonder' tactic that I've been seeing more and more in my games.

CommC:

Do you feel its easy to get the Auto-victory as the Axis against a human player or just the AI?

[CommC]

Uncle_Joe,
Well, its certainly easier to get the auto-victory vs the AI, but I think its also relatively easy to get it vs a human .... if the right strategies are used... i.e the Axis must focus both Japan and Germany on crushing Russia and grabbing those resources.

I have easily crushed the AI on normal as the Axis ... I am now going to play as the Allies... if I get a decisive victory, I'll assume the game is reasonably balanced (just has weak AI) and move on to playing humans. If I don't win as Allies, I may start to have doubts about the game balance.

Again, clearly, its too soon to tell about the balance issues, need more games.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: mike mcmann

Uncle Joe, et al;

I wholeheartedly agree Joe! If, as the axis, you are gunning for the "total" victory from turn one, unless you are brilliant or lucky, you are going to be disappointed. If, on the other hand, you take the approach of expansion, expansion, contraction.... then, I think, you will have a much better result. As the axis, you have to plan ahead for the eventual collapse. Hopefully, that collapse will start later and finish later, thus assuring a win.

Mike, interesting comment, I am curious whether you'll have something to add after reviewing my last turn I just sent you [;)]

BTW I am inclined to half-agree with you right now, but am not so sure about the other half (yes, being an astrological Gemini has its drawbacks [;)]).

Seriously though, I think game is almost perfectly balanced, as far as historical games go. Axis has to show its hand first. As Mike said if Axis player is brilliant and/or lucky (AND Allied player is neither) he may win on points. But the same goes for Allied player, of course, knowing that Allied victory will always take longer.

Too many Allied players think game can be won by simply clicking "End turn" until industrial behemoths USSR and USA are in the war. This is wrong! Early on, playing only with China and UK you have to buy time, stall the Axis advance, and prepare the ground for final victory.

I believe it was Stalin who said: "in victory over Nazism Britain gave time, America gave money, and Russia gave blood". I think if I had to sum up WW2 and this game in one sentence this would be it.

Too many players seem to forget the part about "Britain buying time" [:D] so by the time USA and USSR enter the war, it's already lost, and they blame the game (instead of themselves).

O.

[schury]

if you wanna make it historical,so remember taking the whole world is the axis' aim.and that become my aim,not just a "unhistorical" victory

[jchastain]

Just for fun I tried a game where all I did as Germany was fortify the west wall. I captured France and Yugoslavia, stockpiled close to 200 supply, and then built nothing but research for several turns - putting as much as possible into tanks every turn and saving the rest. In Winter if 1942 I was ready to begin production on my super tanks. By then, I had 170 spare research points built up for future use. My tank tech was at 10/5/10 with air and land set to rise again next turn. So then, I starting building tanks in West Germany at a rate of 5 every 3 out of 4 turns.

By Summer of 1943 the Russians were getting close and I stopped researching ground (as it had just gone up to 12) and decided to spend my remaining banked research on Evasion and Air as I had enough to make those go up again (but not all 3), which would give me final stats of 12/8/12. Berlin fell in Fall of 1943, but I already had 20 tanks in West Germany. Italy surrendered in Jan of 44 when the Russians came into the north. I had 5 tanks since the beginning of the game and put 3 in W France and 2 in S Italy. With all the research, they were still standing guard in those locations - the WA hadn't yet invaded either location.

Summer of 1944 I put my last tanks into production for delivery in Spring of 1945. With those plus another set already underway, my final defensive force of tanks guarding W Germany would be 40 (up from the current 30). I delete damaged non-tanks from the production queues and am trying to stockpile a few resources for potential repairs. Supplies are still plentiful as I'm not doing anything except sitting on defense. I also hit my final tech target of 12/8/12 this turn with 17 banked research points left over to spare. It took 70 research points to get that last point of air on my tanks.

By Spring of 1945 only W Germany remains in German hands but it is too powerful for anyone to invade. We all just coast to the end with Germany surviving indefinitely with its unbeatable pile of teched up tanks. It isn't exactly an exciting way to play the game, but it does make for a fast game.

[Uncle_Joe]

I'm seeing the same thing in my latest human vs human game and it followed from a much more 'traditional' opening. But in the end, I'm sitting in W.Germany with 11 Tanks (11-3-10) and 8 Fighters (9-9). So far, my opponent has killed only one of my tanks in his 4 huge throws at W.Germany. Everything else I had (Infantry, Guns, Flak etc) all died out turns ago. Only my two 'super units' are still alive. Every few turns, my OGRE's all go out and kill aobut 10 units in an adjacent enemy region just to thin the herd and then move back to W.Germany for the fort bonus. Russia has 10-9 Tanks and the WAllie have 9-10 tanks. The WAllied tanks CAN hurt me, but they dont have enough being shipped in time. Even at that, their exchange ratio is horrible due to the German defense bonus.

I must say it feels pretty silly. And I didnt even really 'plan' this from the start. I just knew I needed to crank my Tank tech and Fighter tech to survive and this is the result. Its interesting to see what happens when someone DID plan to build OGREs from the start.

I have no doubt that once people are trying this type of thing on a consistant basis, the game will really need to be tweaked. Tanks can just become absolutely silly as is.

One concern I have is that if/when Tanks ARE toned down, Germany might have a rougher time surviving. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable.

[Delphinium]

Re : Tech Wars.

I just got my first win ahead of history playing the Russians against AI. Guess what, mega tanks 10-3-10 strong fighters speed to 2 8-8. Quality and not quantity won the war.
The whole tech thing is becoming a bit silly. I've mainly played as the Russians against AI and I'm sure my new strategy would fail against PBEM with Japan pressing from the east.

I suppose the thing is that we are in REAL Beta Test mode at the moment. The proble in game design is that adding too many bells and whistles creates more chances for imbalances to occur and paradoxically usually ends up LIMITING strategies. I'm sure though that these things can be resolved.

[Uncle_Joe]

Delphinium:

It doesnt really feel too far off. A few minor tweaks will probably have profound effects on the result.

Overall, I still feel they did a fantastic job on the game. The overall mechanics work out incredibly well for a game at this scale. I'm still amazed at how well the system comes together to allow the entire war to be simulated while still being playable in a long evening.

I do agree that quality is too emphasized too much over quantity considering how the real war turned out. I believe the system is set up to show the march of technology through the war and not necessarily the development of super weapons. It just needs some adjustments IMO to keep things in line.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure they'll be taking a look at some of the numbers for the next patch and tweaking it. I'm also confident that if the 'Axis Double Team' is indeed too easy to pull off that something will done to compensate. I'm not really as concerned about that one yet as its still early in the game's strategic development. I'm sure not many people have had the time to look into ways to really counter it yet.

[mavraamides]

I'm not convinced the Axis can be beat if they go for an all out Russia first strategy. I just don't believe the WA can have much of an impact untill the US gets involved and by then Russia is almost gone.

China has no real impact unless Japan makes the mistake of invading inland. If Germany can cut off the LL from WA to Russia and both Axis powers go all out against Russia it seems like a layup.

I agree with the poster above that this is sort of an exploit.

I think a simple change in the rules to bring the US in immediately as soon as both Japan and Germany have attacked Russia would possibly alleviate this problem. Its a lot tougher for Japan to go balls out against Russia with the US Navy breathing down its neck.

As far as the super techs go, perhaps more needs to be done with the cost of researching beyond world standard to make it next to impossible to gain a huge lead in technology. Another possibility would be that countries you are at war with can catch up more quickly with technology. The idea being, that once you have faced German Uber tanks in battle, you would learn things by examining captured equipment that would allow you to accelerate your own tank technology.

In otherwords, if your tank attack is 6 and Germany's is say 9, then the cost for you to go to 7 and then 8 would be much lower than normal since you could school off of the more advanced country. This would make it a risky strategy to go all out in one tech because you would allow your oponent to catch up cheaply while simultaneously advancing technology accross the board at a more moderate pace.

Just some ideas...

[carnifex]

Funny how I win as Axis (even when making mistakes)...

Your opponent is not building and upgrading enough Heavy Bombers

...lose as the Allies though.

You are not building and upgrading enough Heavy Bombers

[Dalwin]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I'm seeing the same thing in my latest human vs human game and it followed from a much more 'traditional' opening. But in the end, I'm sitting in W.Germany with 11 Tanks (11-3-10) and 8 Fighters (9-9). So far, my opponent has killed only one of my tanks in his 4 huge throws at W.Germany. Everything else I had (Infantry, Guns, Flak etc) all died out turns ago. Only my two 'super units' are still alive. Every few turns, my OGRE's all go out and kill aobut 10 units in an adjacent enemy region just to thin the herd and then move back to W.Germany for the fort bonus. Russia has 10-9 Tanks and the WAllie have 9-10 tanks. The WAllied tanks CAN hurt me, but they dont have enough being shipped in time. Even at that, their exchange ratio is horrible due to the German defense bonus.

I must say it feels pretty silly. And I didnt even really 'plan' this from the start. I just knew I needed to crank my Tank tech and Fighter tech to survive and this is the result. Its interesting to see what happens when someone DID plan to build OGREs from the start.

I have no doubt that once people are trying this type of thing on a consistant basis, the game will really need to be tweaked. Tanks can just become absolutely silly as is.

One concern I have is that if/when Tanks ARE toned down, Germany might have a rougher time surviving. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable.

Even though this approach will likely render W. Germany and perhaps a few other provinces unconquerable, won't the Allies still win by bombing your few factories? The Allies may only get a marginal victory, but I don't see a point (other than as a test which is I am sure what you intended) to such a German approach that must ultimately end in a loss.

[carnifex]

Can you not force a retreat without causing a single casualty to the enemy simply through force ratio? If you send in 60 units and 15 get killed you still got 45 left and that is more than 3 times 11 so the tanks die or retreat to Denmark. Should have had 1 big attack, not 4 small ones.

[mavraamides]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Can you not force a retreat without causing a single casualty to the enemy simply through force ratio? If you send in 60 units and 15 get killed you still got 45 left and that is more than 3 times 11 so the tanks die or retreat to Denmark. Should have had 1 big attack, not 4 small ones.

Good point. I've used that technique as Russia to eliminate German armor units that had advanced too far with too little support. I cut them off and then send in 3X as many militia which Russia always seems to have a surplus of. They wipe out 1/3 of my militia but then have to retreat and have nowhere to go. Not an entirely unrealistic strategy for Stalin.

[Uncle_Joe]

Dalwin:

Well, it wasnt exactly planned to be reduced to just W.Germany. I also didnt really plan to have just my Tanks/Fighters left to defend it, but its the way the game evolved. Everything else just died out and it was just more efficient to replace the 'better' units than to constantly have to rebuilding the fodder units.

I did end up winning a squeaked out victory in the game. Yes, he bombed by factories into oblivion with his bombers, but I had a large pile of supplies left from previous turns (I was forced to the defensive early on and the supply just piled up). This let me rebuild them every turn and even though I didnt get much output from them, he couldnt just let me alive in Germany and turn to focus everything on Japan. Without the full weight of Russia/WAllies, the Japanese held onto enough output to get me the marginal win.

carnifex:

I think he partly realized too late that he just couldnt kill of my tanks regardless of what he sent (sending more Infantry/Guns/Planes that cant hurt them doesnt do much good...the attacks dont accumulate past the first one). Its also tough to get 45+ units from either Russia or WAllies adjacent to Germany when I can slip out and kill 11-13 or so on either side in a turn and escape almost without loss.

Yes, if he had planned to do solely and 'overrun' from the very start rather than figuring out that he couldnt kill them later on, he might have had the mass to do so. But to me, the point is that it is AWFULLY silly to have to resort to such a strategy in the first place. NO unit should be that unkillable regardless of how researched up it is. Granted, he could have had better tanks too if that was all he wanted, but again, that is the point I was trying to make...you shouldnt be pigeon-holed into having to mimic your opponent's research like that.

Anyways, in our current game, we have lowered the WS for Tank Evasion by 1 and Battleship AA WS by one as well. The game is proceeding along MUCH better as even though the superior tanks ARE attainable with the higher costs, you are just having to wait a bit longer to see the payoff. In that time, an opponent using multiple unit types is gaining and advantage. Also, leaving the Tank Attack WS as is means that attack will always outweigh defense, meaning that since those tanks ARE going to take losses anyways, there is much less incentive to concentrate solely on them. I think its working out great and I would encourage those who are also seeing the game decided by 'super' units to do likewise.