My conclusions on game balance

[sveint]

Well my conclusions on game balance is that 2by3 did an amazing job except for one detail:

- Double-teaming Russia while the US is still neutral.

I'm really hoping an optional rule or something can be added in a patch. Otherwise (and I'm fine tuning my own strategy to do this) the Axis are almost guarantueed a victory if they go all out for Russia.

To summarize: I'm not complaining, just hoping for an optional rule or preference that can say for example "US enters war if Japan attacks Russia" or something like that. Or maybe make China stronger... anything really.

[Uncle_Joe]

There should be something in the works for the next patch. It remains to be seen if it really addresses the issue or not.

[Wayllander]

Maybe Activate China's accelerated production with a Japanese attack on Russia in addition to an attack on the internal provinces?

--way

[Oleg Mastruko]

I mostly agree with Sveint. It's not just double team strategy per se, Russia is just too weak. Huge, unrealistic and unhistoric gains are routinely made, on the very first turn of invasion(s) (both from Germany and Japan), with Russian player frozen and unable to respond.

Changes *I* think should be made - I incorporated in my mod (scenario, campaign, call it what you like).

Raw Deal 40 campaign can be found here:

http://www.bug.hr/oleg/raw_deal_for_ggwaw.zip

Russia can be made much tougher nut to crack just by implementing couple relatively small, and historic changes. They are still the Axis "punching bag" early on, but not as much as in stock scenario.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

BTW, where I don't agree with Sveint, and some other players, is that US should activate if Russia is attacked, or if UK is taken. I really don't think US would give a damn, no matter how much good old FDR respected Uncle Joe. There's NO way American public would go to war to save commies' ass. No way.

Some other, more realistic way of dealing with this situation must be devised... (my own suggestions are incorporated in the Raw Deal mod above).

O.

[hakon]

A good, coordinated attack on russia is more or less an assured victory, little doubt about that. By researching one level of long range heavy bombers, Japan can take out Central Siberia on the surprise turn, viping out all forces in both irkutsk and vladivostok. Railing in reinforcements to central siberia more or less assures a major japanese resourse grab, directly affecting russian production, and accessing all of russia's siberian territory.

As noted in previous threads, germany doesnt need anything in africa, as they get the persian resources from free trade, anyway (until russia takes northern persia). By harassing the UK (using mostly strategic movement, supply is valuable) untill barbarossa, will buy the axis the needed to take most of russia's resources, which should lead to auto-victory in 44.

I think the main reason this is happening, is the 5 resources that Japan can claim during the summer of 41, and that will probably not be lost, combined with Japan's superior infantry tech compared with Russia. Note that the situation in eastern siberia just before germany attacked in 41, was that the Russian had very strong forces there. These same forces had actually won a short blitzkrieg vs japan as late as septemeber 1941, led by zhukov. It was the arrival of these very forces in europe later in 1941 that pretty much stopped to german push for Moscow.

Attempt at historical solution:

1. Move all russian starting tanks to irkutsk.

2. Make all mongolian borders require double movement to pass (to stop the paradrop in central siberia - the alternative would be to let russia start with 2 inf in central siberia).

With 3 russian armor in irkutsk(+the 2 inf and 1 mil that start there), the territory will be extremely hard for japan to capture , and russia should be able to get away with building additional units in vladivostok. 5 russian armor (with russian armor tech) should make it pretty expensive for Japan to go for a Russia first strat.

The consequences for europe, will be an easier german push during the first turn, but russia will have more reserve forces to stop the German advance.

[ratprince]

I have to disagree with the "Russia is too weak to defend against both sides" complaint.

There are several methods than can be employed to counter a dual thrust into the Soviet Union.

1) Strengthen SU infantry, AA, Arty as opposed to tanks. This pretty much nullifies Jap infantry.
2) DO NOT try to defend in the east. Let them come to Central Siberia and stop them there. The Japanese will have to build rail and transport troops on a weak rail network while your Ural factories are right there.
3) If necessary Rail your Ural factories into the Caucus to protect them from Japan, and Germany for that matter.


As a side note - the point of contention mainly is that Japan has not the resources to be everywhere. If they are in Russia in strength, with advanced land tech, then they DO NOT have air and sea tech for fighting the US. The allies need to plan in advance for this and prepare to hammer them for this over sight. A Japan in Russia should be a relatively easy conquest for an active U.S. player.

Any change to strengthen Russia would simply make it more difficult for the axis by basic logic. Then we would have people clamoring to make Germany tougher.....then the allies stronger....then Japan tougher.....then China....etc.....etc....and on, and on... Point is, the game is well balanced now. I have not, in over a couple dozen PBEM games, seen any overwhelming advantage or disadvantage for any side.

my $1.50

later

Mike

[James Ward]

I wouldn't mind seeing some variation in the US entry. Right now the Axis chooses exactly when the US enters. This is a huge advantage.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: mike mcmann
Any change to strengthen Russia would simply make it more difficult for the axis by basic logic. Then we would have people clamoring to make Germany tougher.....then the allies stronger....then Japan tougher.....then China....etc.....etc....and on, and on... Point is, the game is well balanced now. I have not, in over a couple dozen PBEM games, seen any overwhelming advantage or disadvantage for any side.

Has anyone won decisively as Allies vs decent human opponent?

Since this game's release I won 5 PBEMs as Axis (all of them by auto victory, and usually very easy), including the game vs you Mike [;)] Interesting that my games as Axis are usually won on production points without even *having* to beat the Russia very much (games were over by the time I took just a couple of Russian provinces, and without having Japan attack them).

My other games, where I am Allies are much harder, much more demanding and much more time consuming, and although I am pleased by my play, I think I am on the way to lose them all, on "points" (again including the game vs you Mike [;)]). Russia is being beaten to a pulp in all of them.

Where the balance of this game breaks (somewhat) is definitely Russia. I would not want to make US enter the war earlier, as historically - they were unwilling to.

To hakon: I don't think just moving the Siberian tank to Irkutsk would help much. That tank is in Vladivostok right now, and is usually overwhelmed by Japanese anyway. My suggestion is to move the factory from Vlad to Irkutsk, so you can prioduce units there.

EDIT: Now I see you suggested moving ALL starting Russian tanks there. That is not very realistic, so my suggestion still stands [;)]

O.

[James Ward]

I would not want to make US enter the war earlier, as historically - they were unwilling to.

I can see them entering earlier tho not to early. What I was thinking about was a random entry roll starting in Sum 41 and the chance would increase each season. That way the US might enter a bit early or at least earlier than the Axis planned on. I mean historically Japan had no intention of invading Russia yet it appears to be a favorite strategy in the game.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I would not want to make US enter the war earlier, as historically - they were unwilling to.

I can see them entering earlier tho not to early. What I was thinking about was a random entry roll starting in Sum 41 and the chance would increase each season. That way the US might enter a bit early or at least earlier than the Axis planned on. I mean historically Japan had no intention of invading Russia yet it appears to be a favorite strategy in the game.

There's huge difference there...

Japan HAD intention of - if not invading - at least fighting Russia. They tried, twice, in 39, got bloody nose each time, and decided to turn south...

I think that is a problem - Russia just can't give Japanese a bloody nose in the game, no matter what.

O.

[Uncle_Joe]

I also think that James Ward has a good point in that the Axis can too easily abuse the absolute knowledge of the Allied entry. One thing that kept the Japanese in check was that they were never exactly sure what they could or couldnt do without forcing war with the US. They eventually attacked the US rather than waiting for the US to dictate economic policy to them with the embargo.

In the game, they know EXACTLY when and how the US will enter. So, they are free to commit 100% to a 'Russia first' strategy and totally ignore the Pacific for the first two years. They need no naval techs and need to expend no supply moving fleets. They also still know the exact last moment they have to pull off Pearl Harbor.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure a 'random' factor is a good thing in this situation either. Nothing else to do with the global situation in the game is random, so its probably not 'appropriate' to have it determine US entry either. What I WOULD like to see is that the US turn of auto-entry is moved up if Japan attacks Russia (or perhaps if they 'move inland' similar to the way it works with China).

Obviously from a 'realism' point of view, the US wouldnt really care about the fate of Russia in the grand scheme. But from a game point of view, they should and do. A lot of other 'realism' ideas have gone out the window in the name of gameplay, and I think this should be another one. As long as the risk/reward ratio for a 'double team' on Russia feels correct, the game is doing fine. Currently I think the pay-off for a double-team is too high.

One thing I disagree with Mike M on above is that if Japan is focusing on Russia that the US should punish them. Its my understanding that half of the whole goal of the early double team is to essentially win the game before the US can meaningfully intervene. I dont have extensive experience exectuting this strategy, but the from what I've seen and read is that if you can collapse Russia early on, you are pretty darned close to auto-win right there. Take and repair a few neutral resources and/or the SRI and win before the US can possibly have time to get over there and do something about it. In this case, earlier US entry would obviously change that equation.

I do still agree with Mike M though that it might be too early to tell if its REALLY unbalanced or not. Although at some point a judgement call has to be made and if 90% of the people playing the Axis are reporting easier wins than the Allies, it might be time to make a slight adjustment and then re-evaluate.

[CharonJr]

From what I have seen till now I tend to agree with Oleg that it is a bit to easy to win on points as the Axis.

I am not sure if Oleg's mod with 72 points needed for an autovictory is the right number, but it surely is the right direction.

I would dislike to see Russia or the UK any stronger than they are since their power levels feel pretty historical to me.

The main problem is Japan being able to concentrate on the land warfare without having to pay the price vs. the US Navy later on. And this only happens due to the game being won by the Axis by autovictory before Japan can be made to pay for its "wrong" focus.

Concerning US entry I prefer the current system since I doubt that the US would have been willing to enter the war openly without being attacked unless the US felt overly threatened by the Axis.

I recall a similar discussion here if a successfull Sealion with Russia being severely beaten would be considered as threatening enough. IMO maybe, but most likely not.

Basically forcing the Axis to get more points for an autovictory currently seems to me the only way to prevent the Axis from wining most of the time (well, Axis mistakes help, too, as I will be surely able to soon attest due to a current PBEM game [;)]).

CharonJr

[dobeln]

Having Chinese production hit max if Japan goes after russia sounds about right to me. This could be rationalized as increased US aid, more Soviet aid, and greater political unity in China. (I.e. the Commies get more cooperative when their friends in the North are on the ropes...) This, coupled with some airborne-defeating infantry in Sibiria should do the trick. Perhaps a militia in the northern coastal area as well.

[James Ward]

To bad there doesn't seem to be a way to for the US to give units, at least Air and Naval, to other nations instead of just supply. The manpower limitations of the UK and the poor Chinese production doesn't really allow the supply to be put to good use before the US actually enters.

[Cheesehead]

Having Chinese production hit max if Japan goes after russia sounds about right to me.

Unless a good Japanese player uses his air to destroy all Chinese factories and China doesn't have the supply to repair them. This happened to me in a game I'm currently playing. The WA can't deliver supplies because China is effectively isolated. My China is completely neutralized and will remain so until the WA can launch an attack across the Pacific. Japan should employ this strategy every time and it will work.

[Grotius]

Has anyone won decisively as Allies vs decent human opponent?

Dembe73 reported an Allied Total Victory in a PBEM. His post is in the AAR section, in the thread on "Report your results." Admittedly, most posts are of Axis victories, but I wonder whether this just means that people haven't yet figured out how to play the Allies well.

Someone also posted a Total Victory as the Allies against the AI, but I suppose that doesn't count as much.

I suppose it is optimal for Japan to attack Russia in the east. I just don't do it because I don't want to. I find it much more fun to play the naval/air war as Japan, and I still win doing it this way.

[von_Schmidt]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

Having Chinese production hit max if Japan goes after russia sounds about right to me.

Unless a good Japanese player uses his air to destroy all Chinese factories and China doesn't have the supply to repair them. This happened to me in a game I'm currently playing. The WA can't deliver supplies because China is effectively isolated. My China is completely neutralized and will remain so until the WA can launch an attack across the Pacific. Japan should employ this strategy every time and it will work.

How about having the Soviets deliver the supplies to China? That is possible even when Russia is still frozen and will only take one additional turn if the supplies come from Lend-Lease (ie WA -> Russia -> China).

This is what I did when playing a solo Russia game. I figured that donating supplies (5-10/turn) to the Chinese would serve me better in the long term than having a few extra PP's building up the defense against Barbarossa...

von Schmidt

[Cheesehead]

Hey, thanks for the suggestion. I wasn't aware Russia could do that, but it is worth a try.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Supplying China via Russia is almost essential for Chinese to survive, not to mention to have some offensive capability.

But what does it have to do with Russian vulnerability being discussed here as playbalance issue? [;)] Having to supply China makes Ruissia, if anything, even more vulnerable.

O.