Matrix Games Forums

so it seems that many people have the same idea about Axis' weakness, but no one before ever point it out in order to balance the game?[X(] then have to wait for the next patch maybe to help......

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

No takers for actually having to DROP the bomb (in addition to a point reduction)?

Just requiring that you can get a bomber undamaged over Japan is a change, and it forces a certain emphasis on fighters and island bases. Not that you don't have those anyway, but you'd really need them. It also doesn't allow a Japanese surrender on the SAME turn that the a-bomb is attained.

It seems more satisfying (you actually DO something with it), and it allows recreation of the actual course of events.

I really don't think this would be a difficult change.

That plus a severely punished Japan economy would be great if it can be coded that way.

I'm waiting until the existing patch has some legs on it (no problem posts yet ... I assume that is GOOD news!). In a month or so I'll submit a little proposal list to Joel for the next patch, and it will include this a-bomb change.

BTW, I also believe that the artillery/militia combo strategy for Russia is a little strong, and made a tweak in Global Glory: reducing artillery evasion to 5 (all Players).

The rationale is that in MOST cases artillery is targeted by bombardment attacks (other artillery, air, naval). It has been demonstrated that an increase/decrease in evasion has little effect on bombardment attack outcomes (this is a much discussed topic ... tech disparities matter less with suppression than with regular attacks). The only time artillery is targeted by regular attacks is when you have a disproportionate number of artillery, i.e. you don't have a buffer of mil/inf/arm to prevent direct attack against the artillery. The evasion reduction will have a notable effect in that case.

Hence, this change has little effect for a balanced artillery deployment, but makes artillery more brittle without the mil/inf/arm buffer. It also makes artillery-only attacks to damage without taking ground potentially more expensive.

I think one consideration missing from this discussion is the East vs West scenario. I think as you see the 2 v 2 tourney unfold you'll find it isn't quite as easy as the Allies. From what I'm seeing, as you get down toward crunch time the allied players are less willing to take as much risk to follow-up on or to make an opening for each other because losing large parts of your army to buy a turn or two for the other ally will probably result in an East vs. West thumping. You may want to keep a scenario with the current victory conditions specifically for use if the East vs West option is going to be used.

BTW, I also believe that the artillery/militia combo strategy for Russia is a little strong, and made a tweak in Global Glory: reducing artillery evasion to 5 (all Players).

 
Thats probably not a bad idea. IIRC, it was boosted to 6 before Arty could shoot twice at Ranges 3 and then 2. So they probably didnt need the survivability boost with the added firepower.
 
Overall I still havent really seen the arty to be a game-winner though. Sure, it does win a lot of battles but I havent seen anything where I think that equal value of other units wouldnt have produced similar results.
 
But that said, I certainly dont see any harm in reducing it by 1. Arty should be more support and less of a stand-alone weapon IMO and this change might help make that so.
 
 

cool. seems that everything happens supporting the smash Russia idea[:D]

ORIGINAL: schury
cool. seems that everything happens supporting the smash Russia idea[:D]

Well, Global Glory also added a political event, so that if Russia is invaded by the Japanese then the USA has a probability of an additional WR bump plus free miltitia sprouting in the Philippines. I certainly don't want to return to the bad old days when the double team was the only way to win.

Also, Global Glory includes some limited strat moves for the WA in 41 and 42, so if the Japanese are delaying war with the WA then at least the DEI and Hawaii end up being defended, and also better prepared to immediately go on the offense. At least, that is the idea.

And also GG includes political events and insta-militia to make the Portugal->Spain->France route harder for the WA. In particular, given the Spanish event responding to the occupation of Portugal, if Spain is at least leaning Axis then there is always a non-zero chance that Spain will join Germany if Portugal is invaded.

it reads like you are trying to prevent the double team strategy from winning, instead of increasing the favor of other Axis strategies, which are now less profitable IMO. i think Axis is already weak enough, if you are good, axis stands no chance to win.[:(]

I do not believe the Axis is 'weak' at all. As I said above, Japan can fold a bit too easily with the current rules, but that doesnt make the Axis weak.
 
And I think there are plenty of players out there who can and do win the Axis.
 
At any rate, the changes that WH is talking about are for his modded scenario, not for the base game.

I concur with WH that its still too easy for the Japs to attack Russia. In the real world the Japs were scared to death of having to fight the Russians. Maybe having a simple 20 supply cost for the Japanese in order to attack Russia to represent having to overcome the reluctance involved.

if your modification the game, making Japan not that easy to surrender is to balance the game, then Axis is weak. or say weak under the condition of survival until 1946
and what i mean is while the two sides are on the same level, allies are more like to win.
i kicked a lot of people's asses as axis, but it doesn't mean axis is strong, i got kicked by JAN then. it depends on people! you find people win as axis maybe just because people are not so good at Allies. not many people taking Spain to back stab me. you can even see Axis AV in the tournament, forgive my rudeness, it doesn't prove anything that the game is balanced, it just tells us that Russian player needs more game experiance!
just like what i pointed out, no one ever seriously think Japan is weak before the AAR and this thread, it tells a lot, people learns a lot. what we should do is to test it, gather the data, hear from people, and make GGWAWAWD a better game. don't get me wrong, i love this game, just wanna make it perfect. what i can do is to give you my ideas.[;)]

ORIGINAL: schury
if your modification the game, making Japan not that easy to surrender is to balance the game, then Axis is weak. or say weak under the condition of survival until 1946

It is true that the discussion implies that the Axis is weak against a strong Germany first strategy. The proposed solution (modifying Japanese surrender) gives a nudge to encourage the Allies to play a strategy with more balance.

It would be cool to see more summary and analysis of games from the tournament, to get a better idea of balance. But you have a good point, that it is good to see such analysis distilled to the best players to get the best idea.

thanks
and from what i see, all the 1X1 AARs end in Allies victory, what a coinsidence...

ORIGINAL: schury

thanks
and from what i see, all the 1X1 AARs end in Allies victory, what a coinsidence...

I call BS. I know I posted an Axis win and I know that MrQ-McM resulted in an Axis win as well. Forwarn also damn near beat me in a very close game and only sheer luck and the fact that Japan falls so easily allowed me to pull off a win. There might be more.

It seems that you have been blinded in your crusade to prove that the Axis is the weaker and ignore all possible evidence to the contrary, what a coinsidence... Argue all you want - but please try not to ignore facts that you dislike.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that it seems that many people tend to mis-use Japan. There are a LOT of VPs in Australia and yet I rarely see people going for them (in the AARs anyways). Perhaps people were just conditioned too much in WaW that the SoPac isnt worth their time but in AWD it really can be a huge swing of points. At the very least it puts pressure on the US not to ignore the Pacific. You might not get to the AV against a heavy KGF strategy, but you can almost certainly get the favorable shift if the US doesnt make an effort to intervene.
 
Even if the Brits mass infantry in Victoria (meaning a loss of PPs going elsewhere...), you can still earn 3 of the VPs by taking New Zealand and basing Bettys there. That is usually quite easy to do.
 
In the end, this game is very deep. There are plenty of strategies that have never been tried and or havent been fully developed. I think at the moment its a tad easier to play the Allies, but they arent really 'better'. Skilled players playing the Axis tend to do OK from what I've seen so far.
 
That said, as I mentioned above, I dont think it would be bad for balance to make Japan a little more resiliant. The A-bomb should obviate the need to actually invade Japan, but there should still be a need to actually BEAT Japan, not just sink a few TRs for a turn and win on a 'technicality'.

BS. I know I posted an Axis win and I know that MrQ-McM resulted in an Axis win as well. Forwarn also damn near beat me in a very close game and only sheer luck and the fact that Japan falls so easily allowed me to pull off a win. There might be more

i am not blind to sth, i think you'd like to charge the person who put a new different contraversary ideas on the table. i don't know if it is a good manner, but i will look up at the dictionary for the meaning of gentle, maybe i can find the answer.[;)]
when you collect data, you have your diciplines. i didn't retrospect that lone time, i find it more reasonable because in early times there are lots of impacting factors like test games, show games, and new patches, etc. so i just check the last 30 days' posts, and there's four games. Allies win all of them. it shows a relatively recent situation. and even count all game in, what is the ratio that Allies win? you may tell us what the ratio mean[&:][&:][&:]
i just wanna intrige your insterests on the topic. you can have different ideas towards it, and that's ok, at least i won't say you are blind or brass just because i am quite good at this game. i would rather talk abour the AAR or the game itself. before i totally understand you and a fully communication with you, i would rather agree to disagree. i guess that's so called courtesy. i am not a very good person, but surely not that bad[:D]
i would be very glad if i were wrong. cause it makes the game stand firm. i believe people like balanced game, and to prove it balanced is cool and makes me feel like it's a feat. now the Japanese thing already gives me confident that the discussion is worth it![:)]

thanks Uncle_Joe, you give me a point. i think people usually don't do that just because the tranporting

line is too easy to be cut. with carriers based in hawaii or even close, you can hardly

protect your TRS. and that may cause your troops unsupplied faraway, maybe never have a

chance to be back.

i am not that sure allies have a overwhelming advantage. but from what we know about the

game, you may find that if you wanna win as axis, you should do better than allies games.

the two points are exactly pointed out above, Japan TRS and the ART problem.

to japanese problem, what about we count the unlinked resources in? if all the resources

controled by japan drop to a certain level, then Japan surrendered?

and ART problem makes the war atillery wars now especially for Russia. nothing would

surpess ART well in the game so far. Germany's passively competing in ARTs draws his HR to

deplete so soon! so i like the idea to lower the evasion of ART to 5[:D]

Well, if the WAllied player is heavily commiting to Europe, chances are it will be much harder for him to cut the Japanese TR lines near Australia. Japan has more than enough naval power to stop the starting WAllied Pacific Fleet from being much more than a nuisance and if you are causing the WAllies to spend to build CVs or even a pile of subs for the Pacific then Japan is already helping Germany quite a bit.
 
Ideally if you are planning on making a play for Australia, you should build a lot more TRs than in a 'normal' game. Airpower, bombardment, some infantry and a tad of artillery should be sufficient to secure Australia unless your opponent knows its coming and builds accordingly (and again, this is taking WAllied PPs away from Europe). Japan is always going to play second fiddle to Germany, but if she can threaten a lot of VPs, she might be able to draw enough forces away from Europe to give Germany some breathing room.
 
A side benefit of building the TR fleet for an attack on Australia is that you can also threaten India and even Africa much earlier. If the WAllies build a defense in Australia that is too tough to crack its relatively easy to re-direct to India instead. And if they are heavily defended there too, then chances are they havent been sending as much to Europe.
 
In any case, unless you are putting pressure on WAllies in the Pacific, you are letting them commit almost their entire effort to harassing Germany. Given how easily Japan surrenders at the moment, its imperative to make sure Germany lasts as long as she can and that the Axis have done everything in their power to get a favorable victory shift. If you get lucky, you might even win the AV if you take Australia. At the very least, even threatening the AV can cause the Allies to have to make more reckless attacks than they might like.

Good points UJ. I consider Japan to be the right 'arm' of Germany. IMO, it's there to distract the WAllies away from Europe and buy Germany time. Like UJ said, building TFs is the way to go, as the Allies are almost forced to defend both India and Australia in that case, or suffer the VP loss. Most players, especially new ones, are more inclined to attack the 'closer' territories to Japan, such as China and Russia, because those attacks are easier to manage. Maintaining long transport routes throughout the SoPac can be tricky and risky if one is making mistakes.
 
Although I like attacking Siberia with Japan, it's really an all-or-nothing scenario, because if Russia lives long, then Japan is virtually helpless on all other fronts once the US comes in. In reality, and in my opinion, Japan should have attacked Vladivostok. Russia was not well liked by most governments at the time, and many would have seen the death of communist russia as a mostly good thing. Given how many Americans disliked/hated the USSR, Roosevelt would have been hard-pressed to convince the public to go to war over Russia....

IMO, still too risky. Russia can't ignore Japan's early attack. WA under certain circumstances, can. and a long TRS line get WA's subs and battle ships reemployed[:D]