AXIS VS ALIIES&RUSSIA

[Forwarn45]

Personally, I think the game is very close to being balanced but slightly favors the Allies because of the Japanese surrender issue that everyone identified. Between two evenly balanced opponents, I think you have a good match on your hands - with only a slight edge to the Allies. The best source of information is probably mrquiet's tournament results so far - using version 1.010. I've copied them below.

Note also that I suspect version 1.011 will be even better balanced than version 1.010 (which was used in the games below). The reason is the bug in prior versions that kept damaged elite units from being rebuilt as veterans. In the long run, this rule helps the Axis a little more than the Allies - since the Axis tends to build up more experienced units in the beginning of the game. Now - if an elite German bomber or sub - or Japanese CAG - is damaged (maybe by an autohit) - they will be returning as a strong veteran unit.

Anyway, I don't want to wade too deeply into a discussion or prolong it too much. Everyone seems to agree the Japanese a-bomb condition should and will be adjusted somewhat. With that, I really think we will have a nearly perfectly balanced game.

Round 1 =
Game Axis------vs---------Allies-------------Game Year
01) Avatar47--------------aaminoff----------------Axis Decisive Victory
02) christian brown-------Avatar47--------------Allied Decisive Victory +5AAR Axis&Allies
03) Erik Rutins------------christian brown-------Allies Decisive Victory Allies+5pt AAR
04) Forwarn45-------------Erik Rutins------------Axis AutoVictory (DV)
05) GKar-------------------Forwarn45-------------Allied Decisive Victory Allies +5AAR
06) Haudrauf1962--------GKar--------------------Allied Decisive Victory
07) JanSorensen---------Haudrauf1962--------Axis Decisive Victory - Axis+5pt AAR
08) kondor----------------JanSorensen----------Allies Decisive Victory - Allies+5pt AAR
09) ---------------------------------------------------------
10) mikemcmann----------kondor----------------Allies Decisive Victory
11) MrQuiet---------------mikemcmann----------Axis Decisive Victory
12) rjh1971----------------MrQuiet----------------Allied Decisive Victory
13) tica---------------------rjh1971----------------Draw
14) wargameplayer-------tica--------------------Axis Auto Victory (DV)
15) aaminoff---------------wargameplayer------Allied Decisive Victory

Round 2=

Game Axis------vs---------Allies-------------Game Year
01) Forwarn45---------JanSorensen-----------Allied Marginal Victory +15Axis AAR
02) JanSorensen-------mikemcmann----------Axis Decisive Victory
03) mikemcmann--------Avatar47--------------1939
04) Avatar47-------------Haudrauf1962--------Axis AV
05) Haudrauf1962-------MrQuiet----------------Allied Decisive Victory +5Allied AAR
06) MrQuiet-----------------GKar------------------Axis DV (allied forfiet)
07) GKar--------------------kondor----------------Allies DV (axis forfiet)
08) kondor------------------rjh1971---------------1944
09) rjh1971-------------------tica------------------1942
11) tica--------------------Forwarn45-------------Allied Decisive Victory +5Allied AAR

[schury]

not even include the ART stuff? i don't agree. i think a superpowerful weapon itself is unbalanced
and since you find the result of the match, some of them don't have a AAR, so we can't judge the situation of the game. but come to the results it seems like there's no big advantage over axis, on the contrary to the AARs.
 
BUT, here i find sth interesting(not related to this topic very much, but to this statistic data, it may have) that the four guy with the top scores(JanSorensen,Forwarn45,MrQuiet,Avatar47) only fight against each other once, IMHO, that not help to improve the overall skill of us. if you fight more, we'll learn more, so please[:)]
and i just wondering why the only fight was uncommonly changed to 1942 senario? why not fight a total war? i wanna desperately to learn from it. but wired it was started in 1942, we lost a good oppotunity, what a pity

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: schury
and i just wondering why the only fight was uncommonly changed to 1942 senario? why not fight a total war? i wanna desperately to learn from it. but wired it was started in 1942, we lost a good oppotunity, what a pity

All of the tourny games used the 1939 total war scenario. But the AAR's don't always start at the beginning. MrQuiet indicated it was OK to start the AAR on the year the Soviet Union gets involved in the war - whenever that happens to be. Note also the point about the veteran-elite bug.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: schury
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 have some knowledge of statistics and data collection so lets view the matter in that perspective since you ask what the ratio means (actually, the ratio is not a useful measure without the size of the sample).

4 games is essentially statistically meaningless. Even if you decide to look at 4 games then the p-value of getting 4 Allied wins under the assumption that the sides are equally probable of winning is 1/16 and hence not below 5% so you cannot statistically reject the hypothesis that the game is balanced.

If you look at the games played in the tournement you see that 11 out of 18 are Allied wins (ignoring the draw result). The p-value for that under the assumption of equal probability of winning is 24% - so thats certainly not significant. Again, no statistical evidence points towards an imbalance. For it to be significant at the 5% level it should have been 13 of 18 btw.

You said that Norway was of extreme importance. I disputed that and showed why its not in our game. I am still waiting to hear your reaction to that.
You said ALL 1vs1 AAR games had been Allied wins. I disputed that and showed why its not the case.
You ask what the ratio means. I have now pointed out that it means very little and have given a more meaningful statistical analysis of the data present.

[schury]

i still think it's stupid not taking Noway. you can defeat me doesn't mean norway is not important. is that the same thing? what about i defeat sb with taking norway, then it become important again? can't understand your logic. whether it worth or not can't be responded by this. and you are right, 4 game garantee nothing. i only point out the trend. i am not sure yet, but i see hints! if you regard 1/16 as a coinsidence, as what you mean in your reply, i can agree to this disagree. but if your view stands, what about the JAPANESE THING. many people agree to it. then i wanna ask you how could you be that sure it is not the factor that causes the coincidence? please don't tell me you are not brass so you can be sure of it without giving any evidences.
yes i said  ALL 1vs1 AAR games had been Allied wins, i forget to add the confination that within 30 days, cause the default AAR are those within 30 days. congratulations, you are very good at finding fault in other's words. and to your gentle reply.
you say the statics is meanless, and you doesn't find sth to prove your idea why you think this game is balanced. why don't you point out the japanese thing until i opened this thread, and why don't you tell me how to fight against massive ARTs? why don't you just talk about the game strategy itself like the other gentlemen? instead of talking about the game, you label people, good job, moderater. appearantly forwarn45's post are more convincing than yours
 

[schury]

then we should take a close look at that. do you mind tell us in the AAR what you build for the early times? and how you deal with the HR problem?[:)]

[JanSorensen]

Schury,
 
If you have gotten the impression that I am labelling you or have been rude to you then I apologise. That was never my intention.
 
My intention has been to let you know that nomatter if I agree or disagree with your points of view it would be alot better if you could remember to put in your reasoning rather than simply posting things like "its stupid not to take Norway" without any reasoning to go along. It would also be good if you had not started an AAR for a second game against me without me constenting to a second game. That does seem presumptious. It might also be best to avoid calling people inexperienced that you have not played against seemingly because it suits your point of view. It risks coming across as somewhat rude. You are obviously free to disagree and I have no issue with that. All this said as just another player and in no way as a moderator.
 
On the issue of Norway we just have to disagree. The very first lines of your AAR state that the reason for the game and the AAR is that we disagree on the importance of Norway. I then logically assumed that when the game ran its course in a manner where Norway was not and would not have been of any importance that it might have made an impact on you but I see that it did not. I see now that I was wrong to assuming it would.

[schury]

ok, thanks. i just think you were a little bit overreact to challanges, but that's ok.[:)]
i speak frankly cause i am not that good at english. still i feel like inexperiance is not a bad word. everyone was inexperianced before! when you are beaten hard, i suppoesd to attribute it to inexperianced, what else do you think instead of inexperianced?[&:]
i still acknowledged that i am a newbie and inexperianced. but i am proud of my making progress each time.[:)] i think you can't defeat me that easy now, do you wanna try it?[;)] i wanna write a good AAR, this one should contain new things like some thoughts together with Q&As. that would benefit all the people here, which i'd very glad to do. our last game surely tells people how strong the attack is via Spain. let's just focus on the game itself.
norway is that important to me, but since i made other stupid mistakes, it is covered.
and i still focus on the ART matter. it's too strong. evasion to 5 is a good idea, or there's maybe all ART wars.

[WanderingHead]

Totaled from Forwarn's post on the tournament results.


Axis Decisive | marginal | draw | Allied marginal | Decisive

Code: Select all

8 	0 	1 	1 	11

[Uncle_Joe]

Actually, considering the small size of the sample of those tournament results it pretty much shows how well balanced the game is. If Japan held on another turn or two in some of those games I think you'd see almost perfect distribution of wins/losses/draws.
 
 

[JanSorensen]

Looking at those numbers I am reminded that AWD suffers from the same problem WaW did. Almost all games are won decisively and very few are won marginally or draw. Part of the reason is that people give up but part of the reason is also how the game works and the fact that skill and experience matters considerably so a small advantage in skill/experience often turns into a large advantage in game. I see no real way to remedy that - we tried by making the turn where a non-decisive victory occurs more numerous but that seemingly didnt do the trick. 

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
I see no real way to remedy that - we tried by making the turn where a non-decisive victory occurs more numerous but that seemingly didnt do the trick. 

Perhaps more than just two seasonal shifts based on VPs. A little more benefit for gathering VPs, but not quite getting to AV, may spread things out a bit. I could see having 4 shifts, so even without AV you could move the victory dates by a whole year.

That'd be kind of difficult to add, because the GUI for the strat screen would have to be updated.

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
Almost all games are won decisively and very few are won marginally or draw.

There are still a couple games left from Round 2 in their final stages - which may end up in something other than a decisive victory. (The long games are often the closer ones.) I also think we'll see more closer games when the Japanese surrender is adjusted.

[BenTaylor]

Two points I could add regarding Japan balance and ART.

The Uncommon Valour scenario is very good for increasing Japanese options. Lots more locations worth grabbing for VP which I think reflect part of the real Pacific war - the USA found it important to balance their effort against Japan with direct thrusts and clean ups of their spider web in the Pacific.

That means lots more different opportunities for Japan to play. Personally I think a sightlier early Pearl Harbour which includes whacking LA based fleets afterwards is a great strategy especially if the Germans have broken through to Cairo, that makes India much more vulnerable. The Pacific becomes Japan's playground for some time and this can actually hurt the WA alot as they begin to miss the resources of the DEI, India and even Africa if this is done right.

As for artillery I have mixed views - it would seem to reflect what the Russians really did when they heavily outnumbered the Germans by the end of the war. I have wondered though whether the supply costs of WORKING artillery is too cheap. If you have WWII era infantry and artillery is it true to say that the artillery are much harder work to supply? It's the difference between supplying AMMO to rifles and guns - the truck loads of stuff are so much bigger for artillery aren't they? Anybody got an expert view?

Still this reflects what the Germans need to do - whack the Russians hard all the time, knocking units off the map and steadily eliminating resource and factories. Even Russia can suffer population stress with enough damage. That is one reason why Germany failed, it is an awesome task well modelled in AWD.

[BenTaylor]

Schury

I don't think you can say always taking Norway is good. Let's face it any strategy has to be based on being nimble and unexpected. You need to unbalance the enemy. If you lock yourself in you probably miss opportunities.

I think it can be worth it but before you have Finland it is difficult to supply, and it gives the Wallies an easyish thorn in your side unless it is well garrisoned and eventually a cheap means of getting on to the European mainland.

Just think in WWII Germany committed 400,000 troops to securing Norway. It is hard to quantify directly in AWD but if you wanted to really make a Wallied invasion there hard until at least mid 1942 you would put say 2 INF, ART + AA and even some air - all of that could be active in Barb which is still a major consideration for Germany.

Actually many "peripheral" theatres in WWII such as Norway, Crete (Perhaps Yugo) which are often considered Allied failures could be considered great successes in distracting the Germans from main efforts and making them spread their efforts too thin.

One condition as I have said, if it goes pro Allied prior to Barb it is a good bet in order to try and get Finland as a means of attacking Leningrad.

The only counter I could see to this would be to argue that Norway has a strategic value that is unreflected in the current set up. Maybe something to do with the ore that flowed from Sweden and the Aluminum plant that was important to the German nuclear program.

So I will suggest some ideas to make Norway much more attractive in very practical terms to the game.

1st in Winter months Germany gets no resources from Sweden unless they occupy Norway with a valid transport link OR they put transports right up to the Norwegian Sea to reflect the winter needs of transport which would be affected by Allied naval blockade (which would have included mines around Narvik which aren't and can't be modelled in the game) = transports get blown up by Wallies or expensive naval battles happen if Germany defends.

2nd put a factory there to reflect manufacturing importance of the Heavy Water plant - even if this is slightly unbalancing.

3rd give some kind of range advantage to stationed air and/or defense bonus to subs in port (probably means hard code).

Would be interested in experienced modders opinions on this - amongst all!

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: BenTaylor
1st in Winter months Germany gets no resources from Sweden unless they occupy Norway with a valid transport link OR they put transports right up to the Norwegian Sea to reflect the winter needs of transport which would be affected by Allied naval blockade (which would have included mines around Narvik which aren't and can't be modelled in the game) = transports get blown up by Wallies or expensive naval battles happen if Germany defends.

2nd put a factory there to reflect manufacturing importance of the Heavy Water plant - even if this is slightly unbalancing.

3rd give some kind of range advantage to stationed air and/or defense bonus to subs in port (probably means hard code).

1st is much too hacky (situation specific) for me.

2nd I'd only be interested if historic production really warranted it, I'd be interested in seeing data.

3rd could be accomplished with map mods (remove that double border to the west, so Norway is closer to the Atlantic than Germany). IMO, this map mod would be an improvement. If you did it, then you would also be able to sorte LFs from W Germany to the Atlantic and bring them back to port in Norway. This would be cool to allow a little bit of German surface raiding, which is now impossible.

To once again plug Global Glory (hey, I keep listening to the forum and trying to incorporate ideas and address problems that are brought up), GG gives Norway an increased importance for lendlease because of the modified transport rules.

I'd like to make that map mod, but the game doesn't support multiple maps. So if I did it and people took it, they need a separate copy of the game if they want all versions to look right.

[BenTaylor]

Thanks WH I have not played GG but the amendments you made to transport are very logical; they seem a correlation to other indirect land effects such as interdiction which model effects of land control not shown directly by units.

As far as I know Norway was Germany's only source of heavy water - I was wrong to write about an Aluminum plant. The heavy water is basically water where the hydrogen atom has a neutron and is rare compared to "normal" hydrogen. Anyway you can't run a nuclear reactor without heavy water, but also sources say Germany was anyway years behind the Allies and the reactor is but one part of an atomic bomb. The factory is just a way of putting a useful "resource" worth fighting over that the Wallies and Germany both thought important. The problem as you have written is the game doesn't differentiate kinds of supply.

With regards map mod, great idea. Isn't it a problem that you can't reflect map mods that actually happen on the game map (like need a new actual image?). If you can great. It would seem realistic if you had control of Norway, it's a large "salient" in to the sea!

Another point of Norway was their huge merchant marine (only after US, UK and Japan) which was given over to the Allies after the German invasion. Wouldn't it be possible to put an amount of frozen tranpsorts in Norway that have a % chance to flee to the opposer of an invading major power (as per a defeated France?). Just another idea?

[schury]

what is more strong defence? your troop or neutral militia?[&:]

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: BenTaylor
Another point of Norway was their huge merchant marine (only after US, UK and Japan) which was given over to the Allies after the German invasion. Wouldn't it be possible to put an amount of frozen tranpsorts in Norway that have a % chance to flee to the opposer of an invading major power (as per a defeated France?). Just another idea?

I've thought of this before, since it is historically accurate. But why all this emphasis on special things just for Norway? The modded transport capacity is a generic rule which, IMO, works well everywhere while also enhancing Norway's value. And the importance of Norway is already pretty well represented in historical sense: the best reason for the Germans to take it is to prevent the WA from taking it.

For the fleets, you can give them to Norway today in a mod. But the Germans could simply blockade the port before they invade, then the transports would disappear when Norway changes hands because they would not be able to flee to another Norwegian port (they wouldn't be WA until the next WA turn when the WA player accepts them).

This is, for example, what happens to the Greek fleet when Greece is captured.

[BenTaylor]

Could you distribute a few frozen Norwegian TRs around the map?