More feedback on 1.05

[EarlyDoors]

December 1945. My epic PBEM++ game against TaffJones(axis) is drawing to a close. He will graciously say its still in the balance and it may take another 8 months, but in reality it will be another Allied defeat.
He's a good player and he deserves it.

This game has been closer than our last but I'd put that down to my prioritising Infantry Weapons and Warfare for most nations. I remain unconvinced that limiting some of the techs to a single step prevented the Axis from taking a commanding tech advantage. In fact as another poster commented it just leaves the Allies with no opportunity to overtake late game. I like the idea of guessing which tech your opponent may prioritise and would like to see that taken further whereby leads in S&I and SOE / Ultra / Gestapo Decision Events could reveal opponent tech trees.

As for this game, I made very few mistakes but am just ground down, particularly by Axis air Power. It seems to me that if the Axis Player prioritises Air Power then they cannot lose and most tellingly of all time is irrelevant. They can have a late Barbarossa and not suffer. Clearly the USSR needs more resources to place some time pressure on to the Axis.

I would suggest, one of:-
~ an extra 20mpp mine East of the Urals (either from day 1 or the move industry east DE)
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1 being researched
~ USSR land units are 5% cheaper

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[Belyakov]

Game is realy boring.
First. Not enough script forces for UK when Seelowe is succesful.
Second. Allies not enough script units for defending Africa.
Third. Battle of Atlantic is Allies wins fast anyways (but look at Seelowe).
And much more not enough historical accuracies.
Previous games in series is better.
Right now it's just damned Hearts of Iron.

[otumfuo2]

I find 1.05 much easier to win as the Allies against AI. In 1.04 I could occasionally squeak out an Allied win; in 1.05, it's not hard at all. My advice (against Intermediate AI).
1. Go all in on the defence of France. With a couple of air defense units and a couple of armies beyond the BEF, I've managed to hold on to France until the Russians enter the war.
2. Destroy the Italian fleet during the Battle for France by bringing about half the British Navy into the Med - this will let you blockade the North African ports and keep Afrika Corps from getting to Africa. Without Afrika Corps to bother you, it's easy to conquer all of North Africa and be ready for an early invasion of Sicily and Italy or even southern France.
3. Russia coming in before the Germans are ready for Barbarossa makes all the difference. You can reinforce and upgrade all those units that are usually wiped out on the first turn of the German attack. It's easy to advance into East Prussia and build a strong enough line the the Germans cannot even push you out of Poland. It won't take long to get Berlin.
4. In China, defend Nanning by bringing down an HQ and any reinforcements you get. Counter attack towards Peking. It's often possible to recapture most of China even without Russian help - but Russian help will come, since Berlin will fall by late 44.
5. Since you cannot drop all other techs to focus on double chitting infantry and armor techs, invest in Industrial and Production techs. If you keep pushing that for Russia and the US, they'll end up massively outproducing the Axis by 43, and the game goes to whoever can produce units faster thn they get destroyed.

That's the brief outline. In any case 1.05 feels like a cake walk as the Allies against an Axis AI.

[Grotius]

Sheesh, the Axis AI is giving me a good game, but then I'm new at this. I did hold France until almost 1941, but the Germans still managed to get back on track to attack the USSR before it entered the war. I didn't think of destroying the Italian fleet and blockading the North African ports, so the Brits have been bogged down in Egypt/Libya for a couple years, and in 1943 the US is still liberating North Africa.

But China is what surprises me most about your post. I've fought long and hard there, but the AI keeps coming with more and more units, and I have trouble scrounging up the resources to build new Chinese units. I'm still holding Chungking, barely, but I've lost Sian, Nanning and most of the other cities I held at the start. What am I doing wrong?

[otumfuo2]

In China you do need to upgrade infantry warfare and infantry weapons as fast as you can, but since you cannot double chit, there's a limit to how fast that is. Defending Nanning successfully requires that you bring down an HQ to support the defense and that you allocate most of your early reinforcements to its defense. Once Nanning is stable, there are places in the north where it's possible to get good odds against the Japanese and push them back. The AI will usually pull back forces that were attacking you around Changsha or elsewhere to defend the cities you've put at risk. The longer you hold on to your major cities, the longer you have a flow of MPP and the bigger an army you can build. I, too, was surprised how well the Chinese could handle the Japanese in 1.05.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

Further thoughts.... for the Soviets, their buildup is just too slow right now. They really should have several echelons spawn at the start of war with Germany, not just the one at the front with Germany that is easily destroyed. These formations could spawn in sequence as the Soviets mobilize, and to give the German player an opportunity to maintain momentum.

For the Chinese... honestly, it seems about right to me. If the Japanese commit a fair amount of resources to China, they can advance... but the Chinese are very difficult to knock out. I also think that Indochina needs some units to defend itself. That attack you launched directly into Hanoi caused all of indochina to surrender without a shot fired... logistically a non-naval power simply couldnt do that. It does kind of force the Japanese player to pursue a very specific strategy in China in order to prevent the fall of IndoChina before it can just be overrun by the Chinese. A beautiful move that I never even thought of... there just doesnt seem to be any real reason not to.

My feeling too is the Russians may be a little too weak, particularly in terms of the number of Siberian troops that can be transferred. They are way lower in number compared to what is available in War in Europe...

My thinking is that China may be just right, but I am no expert here...

C

[taffjones]

I used to play only as the Axis and agree up until 1.05 it did favour the Axis.

In fact until 1.05 I hadn't lost a game.

So after 1.05 was released and people were still complaining that it favoured the Axis, I decided to try playing the Allies.

Note- I play 90% of my games in PBEM

Results so far in PBEM games finished

Playing as Axis x 2 games the Allies won 2 Decisive victory's

Playing as Allies x 2 games 1 Allied opponent resigned in 41, the other I will win in 46 (Despite USSR surrendering in late 43).

So I think at the moment from my experience the game slightly favours the Allies, Against equally matched players (intermediate) I have had some epic games going down to the last 3 turns.

Against elite players or those that know the scrips of by heart I get my arse kicked big style. They build a wall of artillery units that even when they are advancing you can't defend against as the Axis as you don't have enough artillery units available to build to counter it.

It's the same with Airpower, in the beginning the Axis have the Advantage but by 43 the Allies can start decimating the Axis economy and units.

I agree Japan taking out the convoys from the USA is to easy and a solution needs to be found for this, but to me the rest of the game is almost right for players of the same ability.

If the Allies get buffed more without the Axis getting some compensation. In my opinion it will ruin the game for most players especially whose that want to try "What If" games and will become a re=run of history.

[EarlyDoors]

Hi TaffJones
What is your opinion on the 1.05 tech limits?

Do you fèel that has swung the balance too far?
Or is there some other change that has made the biggest difference?

[taffjones]

Hi EarlyDoors
In my opinion Japan/China and the Pacific is right.

But Germany is now faced with a choice of falling behind in the tech race or build enough units in time to invade Russia.

Also the deployment of the DAK is another issue. I have had some of the units spawn in Southern Germany not Italy and they also spawn away from port hexes. This means you spend 1 turn reinforcing them, Allied turn, your next turn moving them so they can be transported, Allied turn, 1 turn transporting 1/2 of the DAK to NA, Allied turn then your next turn transporting the rest of the DAK to NA and moving the 1st units up to the battle line in total with Allied turns this is a total of 8 months in game time before they are effective, and that is if the Allied player hasn't blockaded the destination ports or sunk any of the transports.

So as the Axis it is better to use them in Yugo/Greece and Russia. Which weakens the Italians unless you have managed to sneak units over to NA before hand.

[Helsingor]

You make some good points, Taff. I think the DAK land units should all spawn adjacent to port hexes, if that could be scripted. I like the fact that now (unlike in earlier versions or in WiE) the DAK does not automatically appear in Libya. It means the Axis player can't cede naval superiority to the British in the central Med and still run a strong land campaign in North Africa. BUT having to move the DAK units to a port makes it impossible to come close to the historical timeline, if memory serves. I think they were in action at Al Agheila in early March 1941, after landing at Tripoli and marching east.

To your point about the choice of where to deploy them, it's one of the things I like about the new version--having to make such a decision.

[BillRunacre]

That is interesting and good to know!

One question springs to mind though: are you and your opponents all experienced players of this game?

I just wonder if you are very experienced then it might make it easier for you to win as Allies, whereas newer players might still struggle?

The changes planned are small and hopefully they'll still give the Axis a decent chance of victory.

With the DAK deploying in Germany, this might happen if the place they are supposed to deploy in doesn't have enough free hexes, i.e. other units are already there. Hopefully that has been the case here?

[HamburgerMeat]

This is how I see things as of the current patch:

Allies are stronger than axis at top levels, but the Allies are much more difficult to play. Assuming both players are equal:

Less than intermediate: axis almost always win
Intermediate: slight to significant axis advantage
Advanced: significant allied advantage

Axis = easy to learn, hard to master
Allies = hard to learn, hard to master

The difficulty in balancing (assuming balance means a 50:50 ratio) is making it easier for most players while not skewing the ratio too much. It seems that the vast majority have a problem in the USSR, and once a major line of defense collapses, panzers keep pushing forward and annihilating everything as low morale, underentrenched backline units are devoured. The slightest mistake can cause the collapse of a line, leading to a chain reaction of underentrenched low morale units getting annihilated (a mistake as innocent as moving an army forward to see combat odds, but being unable to undo the move since this revealed the german units stats.)

I agree that the USSR could use a few more starting units, as this will significantly ease the 1941 situation. But I think that even with these additions, new players will still struggle vs axis because they don't know how to use the allied toolkit effectively (engineers, carriers, strategic bombers), because they spread out their research out too thinly as the USSR, and because they don't prepare a second line of defense soon enough. Adding more units will help the last problem, which is probably the most significant.

In sum, I think that giving a few more units to the USSR is a great idea that addresses the biggest problem for most players, but I wouldn't do more for the USSR unless you weaken the allies elsewhere.

[taffjones]

Hi Bill

In respect to the DAK deploying in Germany it tends to be the Air units, if the land units deploy in the North of Italy. Would it be possible to script that the Air units deploy in Sicily also the land units by port hexes.

Also AT units should be more vulnerable to infantry attacks.

As for player skill levels, I would say we are similar levels except I have never played the Allies in PBEM games and only occasionally against the AI less than 3% of the games I have played I would say.

I only started playing as Allies to see if the game favours the Axis as many people are claiming.

IMO it isn't, if anything it slightly favours the Allies especially after 43. Unless the Axis have defeated Russia.
Which with two equally matched players that isn't going to happen. I have had two games go into 47 and they have been great games. Wish I was more computer savvy as they would have made great AAR and been a great advert for this fantastic game you and Hubert have made [:)]

[Helsingor]

IMO, as a fairly new player to WaW in multiplayer (though I've played this and WiE solo quite a bit), I think the game seems pretty well balanced. However, if the Axis wins, they tend to win early via a blowout such as HamburgerMeat describes. This might be fueling the perception that the game favors the Axis.

[sveint]

I tend to agree with HamburgerMeat, except that I think the game is almost balanced at Advanced level, with the Soviets and China still needing some minor help.

Instead of weakening the Allies, I'd do something about Heavy Bombers. (My suggestion is that a city/port cannot be reduced below a certain minimum. Other suggestions may be better.)

[lwarmonger]

If you are waiting until the DAK appears and sending only the DAK to North Africa you are going to lose there anyways, against even halfway decent allied play. 3 fully upgraded armor in Africa by summer/fall of 1940 can take egypt... anything less can be fairly easily contained and pushed back by the allies. Given that Germany is already extremely strong in early game, not sure that improving the DAKs initial placement should really be a big priority.

[calcwerc]

1. About AT I dont think it should be nerved. It can be built by both Allies and Axis, and the main problem is that you cant build more than three units, so that it is not that tempting to research or build it anyway. I mostly build them after i have maxed out on tanks. If you do play them, you should be rewarded for that in terms of efficiency.
2. I dont agree with Sveint that China need to be stronger. In my view, the balance is already perfect in that scenario. Japan can only win against a good Chinese player by using lots of air power, and even then it is difficult.
3. I dont agree that bombers need to be maken less strong either. How many players complaining about the bombers have gone all the way on AA research?
4. Making Russia a bit stronger and the US a bit less strong may make the game better overall. Perhaps.
5. I still think that the gamey blockading of Vladivostok is the most urgent thing to change.

[sveint]

US heavy bombers absolutely rule the late game and make any kind of defense virtually impossible. I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

[sveint]

Also I don't see any possible argument against moving a Chinese HQ south at start.