Yet another balance thread (1.11)

[Marcinos1985]

Hello fellow players,
for some time there wasn't any general thread concerning balance of PBEM in our beloved game. Specific issues were of course discussed, but not a 'big picture'.

Therefore I encourage you to answer a simple question in this thread: Which side is favoured currently - Axis or Allies? Arguments for and against are very welcome, but there is no need to elaborate thousands of words, just let us know what you think. Every player is welcome, no matter how many games you played or how advanced you are.

Developers are also cordially invited, maybe some insight from this thread may be put to use.

To give a good example, I will post my thoughts in next post.

[:)]

[Marcinos1985]

In my humble opinion if 2 very good/elite players meet, Axis is favoured, maybe even heavily. Just check recent AAR's or results from ELO tournament. Probably the last game, when in heavy-weight game Allies won was Cpuncher vs Fafnir, and you may argue it was because failed Sealion.

Why is it so? I may write 20 pages, but will try to keep it short here. I believe the reason is that SC:WaW is balanced around historical dates. Especially attack on France and Barbarossa. Both FRA and USSR have units in production que and their 'delivery' dates strongly suggest that game 'should' be played historically and then everything is generally ok and balanced.

Problem is, the best players are not going to wait for historical dates. They go for France since November and may get to Paris even before both HQ and tanks from que come into action. With USSR it's similar, attack in June is perceived as late one, not normal. You may even attack in March 1941 (or even '40, but there is a house rule against it in tournament). Similarly, Japan can mortaly wound China in 1941 already and switch attention somewhere else nearly fully. I don't think it was intended, Strategy Guide suggests otherwise.

This way, Axis player gets above the curve and is in superior position. So superior, that he/she (assume he for clarity) may close the game late 1942, before USA joins for real. With USSR down, it's GG. This requires a lot of optimizaton and tactical skill (thus why very good/elite players are needed), but it's entirely possible and as aforementioned results show - probable. To have some chance Alied player has to resort to gamey moves, like suicidal landings to trigger some scripts or do at least some damage to Germany (JP is less important) to prolong the game deep into 1943.

On the other hand, in my opinion if 2 good or weaker players face each other, Allies are favoured. And mainly for the same reasons. Only 'good' (or weaker) player will not get above the curve as much, launching Barbarossa early also may be too troublesome. Then you gradually fall behind and crumble under Allied MPP heavy foot.

I believe majority of player base, maybe even 95% (no proof, just feeling) are good or weaker. Therefore buffing Allies may skew the results heavily in their favour in general population, only to somehow even the game out on high level. However, I am pretty convinced Alllies do need some help to make it more balanced between very good players. And intuition tells me we are not that far from that. Buffing France and/or USSR slightly may mess an Axis rush schedule a bit and make Allied chances better.

This comes form my experience. What do you think? [:)]

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

@Marcinos1985 --- Great thread, glad you started it, was in need.

Simple Answer: Depends who's playing.

Top Talent: Axis is favored
Regular Dudes: Balanced
Intermediate: Allies
Bums: Allies

*Disclaimer (the word Bum is a boxing term. Do not interpret this as a derogatory meaning of a bum who rides trains without paying. But if the shoe fits, you're welcome to wear it.)

[EarlyDoors]

From the ELO spreadsheet - up to 19 April

Wins
----

Total Axis 48
Total Allies 55

..for the next update I will add this tally
and also try and display some data around results when a player is favoured

i know there is often chat that its easier to play as Allies and harder to master as the Axis
but overall i agree with your sentiment

btw there is a new DE that gives USSR 3 AT units!

[Marcinos1985]

btw there is a new DE that gives USSR 3 AT units!

Wait what?

[wobbleguts]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

@Marcinos1985 --- Great thread, glad you started it, was in need.

Simple Answer: Depends who's playing.

Top Talent: Axis is favored
Regular Dudes: Balanced
Intermediate: Allies
Bums: Allies

*Disclaimer (the word Bum is a boxing term. Do not interpret this as a derogatory meaning of a bum who rides trains without paying. But if the shoe fits, you're welcome to wear it.)

How is 'bum' a boxing term? Never heard that one.

[EarlyDoors]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

btw there is a new DE that gives USSR 3 AT units!

Wait what?

yup, guess its this one

- Added DE 416 and DE 645 from War in Europe to provide the USSR and Germany with dedicated anti-tank units.

looks to be balanced

[Marcinos1985]

- Added DE 416 and DE 645 from War in Europe to provide the USSR and Germany with dedicated anti-tank units.

For me, an Allied fanboy, great to hear. Thank you for pointing this out.

Now, back on topic [:)]

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

@Marcinos1985 --- Great thread, glad you started it, was in need.

Simple Answer: Depends who's playing.

Top Talent: Axis is favored
Regular Dudes: Balanced
Intermediate: Allies
Bums: Allies

*Disclaimer (the word Bum is a boxing term. Do not interpret this as a derogatory meaning of a bum who rides trains without paying. But if the shoe fits, you're welcome to wear it.)

How is 'bum' a boxing term? Never heard that one.

Hello wobbleguts:

Boxing is a dying sport in popularity & participation. Mostly do the advent of the UFC & science showing permanent brain damage & injury risk. The term bum is has been used in Boxing for centuries. The term bum has long been used to describe certain fighters. It's part of boxing tradition/history. Term for a fighter who basically isn't any good, the sort of fighter who will fold after one or two rounds against any half decent opponent

More:
a) An utterly mediocre fighter that any boxer with average skills could easily beat, and whose only use is to pad and inflate the records of other boxers.
b) A fighter that has absolutely no chance to win the fight being discussed. Not even so much as a punchers chance.
c) check the script(s) from the legendary "Rocky" movies. Bum is used over & over again. Mostly by Burgess Meredith, who played Rocky's trainer, Mickey.

[wobbleguts]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

Hello wobbleguts:

Boxing is a dying sport in popularity & participation. Mostly do the advent of the UFC & science showing permanent brain damage & injury risk. The term bum is has been used in Boxing for centuries. The term bum has long been used to describe certain fighters. It's part of boxing tradition/history. Term for a fighter who basically isn't any good, the sort of fighter who will fold after one or two rounds against any half decent opponent

More:
a) An utterly mediocre fighter that any boxer with average skills could easily beat, and whose only use is to pad and inflate the records of other boxers.
b) A fighter that has absolutely no chance to win the fight being discussed. Not even so much as a punchers chance.
c) check the script(s) from the legendary "Rocky" movies. Bum is used over & over again. Mostly by Burgess Meredith, who played Rocky's trainer, Mickey.

You must not follow competitive boxing,
-EJR

I'm British. The Britich invented modern boxing in 1865 with the Queensberry Rules. Without Britain there wouldn't be any boxing! Boxing is in my blood.

I still find the word 'bum' offensive. In future, use the Queensberry approved 'not a very good boxer'.

*

[OldCrowBalthazor]

My gut says Allies....but my (limited experience) shouts Axis.

Also...I was a ski bum for an interlude earlier in my life, and I didn't mind the moniker 'bum'.....and, I got all the girls. [:D]

[LoneRunner]

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

btw there is a new DE that gives USSR 3 AT units!

Wait what?

yup, guess its this one

- Added DE 416 and DE 645 from War in Europe to provide the USSR and Germany with dedicated anti-tank units.

looks to be balanced

Are DE 416 and DE 645 new to WAW, added in the last patch?

I checked the strategy guide and USSR DEs stop at 415, Germany DEs stop at 636. So I'm missing a bunch of DEs. How would I see all the current DEs?

[Jackmck]

In my humble opinion if 2 very good/elite players meet, Axis is favoured, maybe even heavily.

Completely agree- and as players become more experienced, the Axis will win more and more. This should be addressed.

In my view, in games of evenly matched, high level players, Russia surrenders too often and China always.

China is easier to address- tie the US embargo to conditions rather than a fixed historical date (keep the option though for non PBEM play). The embargo should be triggered by Japanese advances in China as it was historically. Would also like to see a US mobilization boost for Japanese capture of Chungking and Sian- not enough to get them in the war but to give the US more resources.

Russia problem is harder to fix. Maybe smckechnie's post about more options for the western allies to pass resources to Russia is worth considering. Not only Murmansk and through Siberia but through the Middle East too- historically accurate and a feature in other games. This shouldn't make a difference in games of axis tactically superior play- Axis will just kill more units. But in elite play it will help Russia survive.

[LoneRunner]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

In my humble opinion if 2 very good/elite players meet, Axis is favoured, maybe even heavily.

Thank you for creating the thread Marcinos.

I agree, between two good players the Axis usually wins. Why? One word, Russia. By the end of 42 before a second front can be created, Russia has lost at least two of it's three strategic cities (Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow) and is struggling to survive.

I think the reason Russia struggles is that scorched earth doesn't work and the weak impact of the first winter on Axis forces.

Axis forces frequently capture Russian towns and cities at 4, 5, or 6 supply. As a result they are not slowed by lack of supply. I've captured Russian cities and the next turn operated HQ and artillery directly into an advancing front. During my last online game my opponent attempted scorched earth but found that German forces could advance faster than he could retreat.

No Russian towns or cities should be captured at more than two supply.

January of the first Russian winter, Axis forces are hit with losses due to being unprepared for the cold. The result is that many German units in Russia lose one strength point. My reaction as Axis player is typically a shrug. I lose some MPPs rebuilding units but I'm in no danger of actually losing a unit. And I rebuild the units during mud and snow, so I don't even lose a turn.

And where are the Siberians? Well...they are already lost or in the defending line. No massive winter counter offensive ever develops in WAW during the first winter.

Perhaps during the first winter if the Axis are within a certain number of hexes from Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad, two upgraded Siberian armies appear. That way, the Axis player is penalized when going for the early win.

[ThunderLizard11]

I think it's pretty balanced ATM. Would agree that defending Russian seems like an impossibility but there's probably some tricks I'm missing or something done wrong. I could see a slight tweak to make the Russian winter event a little more harsh and perhaps supply a little bit worse - bit not too much as it would tilt quickly in favor of Axis.

[Bo Rearguard]

Maybe to buff up the Soviet Union when the Germans invades, they could get a fifth oil well near Ufa that slowly ratchets up to full strength like the mines in the Urals do. Currently the Volga-Urals Basin is the largest oil producing region in Russia although it was still being developed prior to the war.

[Taifun]

Thank you Marcinos for addressing again this issue.

As said above, I agree that between two good players the Axis wins. Russia needs more strategic reserves in the production line. When you read about the East front, it is mind blowing how the Soviets were able to raise time and again whole new Armies and Army Groups. At least 2-3 more Armies should be arriving November 1941 as reinforcements with some more artillery.
As pointed out before in WiE and in this forum, the scorched earth is not correctly addressed. I agree with LoneRunner that no Russian towns or cities should be captured at more than two supply. I also agree that during the first Russian winter, Axis forces should be hit with much higher losses (At least 1-3 points per unit) due to being unprepared for the cold. The Germans lost many hundreds of thousands of vehicles, more than half, of the original invading fleet during this winter. The USSR should get more MPPs via Persia (100-150 MMPs) to help survive the country through 1942.

As Jackmck points out, China should also be reconsidered. Japan is unstoppable and China could be destroyed in 1942 as I recently discovered in my game against Cpuncher.
An embargo should be triggered as the Japanese advances deep into China as it was historically. As stated above by other players, the US should get a mobilization boost for each NM city that the Japanese capture not enough to get them in the war but to give the US more resources.

What do we want, a balanced game or more realism?

[ThunderLizard11]

Be interested to see an AAR between two of the top players to better understand balance issues.

[Elessar2]

Another idea would be to have a massive negative supply event against the Axis each December, lessening each subsequent winter (right now the "Russian Winter" event only takes off 1 health point from each Axis unit). As it is as soon as the snows & blizzards arrive the entire Axis army goes on a carefree skiing holiday for 3 months (since the current game settings give substantial penalties to the offense in winter, on both sides). Currently they can yank all of their elite units off of the front line to buff & tech them up, without any real concerns about any Russian counteroffensive (like the one that actually took place).

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I favor both the embargo effect against Japan if certain trigger points are crossed in China as Taifun proposed...and a stronger winter effect in the Soviet Union..incrementally lessening in severity, as Elessar2 illustrates.

Also..the scorched earth effects in the Soviet Union seem too weak as it is right now. 2 strength towns upon Axis control seems way more realistic. As it stands right now, the chances of a Soviet counter attack during the first winter are almost nil, as Axis supply isn't at all diminished much as they consolidate their winter positions.