Matrix Games Forums

Ya I agree, stop the spaming please. If your going to post, try to contribute to the discussion.

nobody ever looks for the pills under the tongue nowadays.

At the risk of hijacking this thread I must say I am concerned about exactly what the developers are planning to do to "fix" the WA invasion capacity. I generally play the Allies and concede that the Russians are too strong. I further concede that the WA invasion capacity in the early game is too high. BUT as a whole the WA prior to US involvement is too weak. The Germans start with a significant edge in fighter tech even though historically the British fighters in 1940 were roughly equal to the German and had the radar edge as well (at least over England). As well the UK/Canadian available pop is too low. Germany, US, and Russia each get 1 pop for every 8 to 8.4 million 1940 citizens while for UK/Canada it is only 1 pop per 10 million. Too be fair UK/Canada should have 7.5 pop and they only have a combined 6.

With the new rules coming in, to win an AV Victory (which I believe most Axis players will be shooting for) the Axis will need to capture either Moscow or London. Already I think the Axis have a better chance for London than Moscow. If the rules are changed to cripple the WA by removing some trannies (which they need to keep the lifeline to England open as well as for invasion) and make it more difficult to attack Russia (by removing the Caucus paradrop) then I think we will see the "english gambit" become the option of choice for the Axis.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the Developers do remove some WA Trannies in a coming patch, I hope they compensate by either adding a pop to England, Scotland, or Canada, or increase the WA starting fighter tech, or both.

The UK Pop is actually as high as Germany if you include the rest of the Commonwealth. That provides sufficient pop to actually guard the UK if you set that as your goal (at least in my experience). Remember that once the AV is changed, the UK can settle into their more historical role of SURVIVAL rather than the absolute need to be constantly invading Europe on raids to lower Germany's AV score. Really England didnt feel the blade being removed from their throat until the Germans turned East. Yes, the prospects for invasion were greatly reduced by the BoB, but England's primary goal until US involvement was really to stay alive and keep the convoy routes open.

Also keep in mind that simply securing England is not a guarantee of AV. The Germans would still have had to go through knocking out neutrals left and right so its not as if they can afford to throw their entire weight against England from the get go.

Finally, the Allied Amphib capability is being more or less delayed, not removed. Yes, three transport will be moved to Frozen zone, and yes that will take some sting out, but the rest of the change can be undone after some turns of research (until we know the starting level, we wont know the exact amount). So, its not as though Germany will have a totally free ride until 43 from the WAllies...the change just means that they wont have to worry about massed Allied invasions in 40-41 and that anything they attempt until the US enters will be on a smaller scale (again, for the better IMO).

Overall, I think the proposed changes seem to be pretty good...removing loopholes and undesirable game effects while continuing to provide for the players to undertake various historical or ahistorical course of action.

On the other side of the world, I think Japan is better served by preparing for war against the US rather than always being used as a knife in Russia's back. They have to maintain a credible threat against Russia, but beyond that, I think their primary goals should be the SRI and then into India/Australia.

I guess time will tell how the patch changes benefit each side, though...I'm lookin forward to it...it should put a new lease on the game's life IMO.

I disagree Joe. The pop of the entire Commonwealth is only 9 while the pop of Germany alone (including Austria and Czechoslovakia) is, if I remember correctly, 11. By 1940 Austria and Czechoslovakia no longer existed as separate countries. For the industrialized nations of Germany, USA, Russia, and Japan the game seems to employ a ratio of 1 pop per 8 to 8.5 million people. But the same ratio is not used for either the Commonwealth or Italy. I can understand Italy as it's people were not entirely committed to the war, the morale of it's army was generally low and it was not, in 1940, as industrialized as the other nations. With respect to the Commonwealth, I further agree that the ratio for industrialized nations should not apply to India. The 2 pop for India seems fair and it would not even bother me if 1 (or even both) of the factories in India were limited to the same types of builds as Rumania. But I don't agree that the ratio of actual population to game pop for the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (South Africa is also a bit of an exception) should be worse than Germany or the other industrialized nations. If anything these nations should get a better ratio than Germany because:

1. Much of the "German" population in 1940 was made up of Czechs, Jews, and other "undesirables" who were not considered for military service and

2. The UK was able to use the manpower of the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dispossed young men who flocked to her shores following the Nazi occupation of Europe. Whole divisions, battalions and squadrons of the British Army and Royal Airforce were made up of foreign nationals including Poles, French, Czechs, Dutch, Belgians, etc.

If giving the UK more pop imbalances the game then I am all for limiting India to the same builds as Rumania, or weakening Russia, or some other mechanism to restore balance. But I just don't like imposing an ahistorical limitation on the UK. But then I readily admit that I am an Anglophile.