PBEM-axis victory?

[korbelz]

anyone done it? if so how? or better yet anyone even made it to 46 with the axis vs humans? doesn't seem possible so far through my 1st two PBEM games. in fact its fall of 1940 and allies have already asked for my surrender since they took italy already.(my 1st PBEM game)

[sveint]

Sorry to say this but... ahem... it's much easier to win as the Axis than as the Allies.

[Svend Karlson]

I recommend reading some of the PBEM AAR's in progress (including my own). I don't think any have run to conclusion yet but it shall give you a feel for what is possible.

[ratprince]

Sveint;

I would not make the sweeping comment that it is "too easy" to win as the axis. I think, under the current victory conditions, it is possible to win as Germany and Japan, but by no means easy (against a competitive opponent). Maybe you simply have not played against an equal skill level opponent? Many times, in games as this one, people tend to make judgements rapidly due to inequality in opponent skill. That is a poor and rash thing to do. I have played in many PBEM games to date and finished two. One, an axis auto victory, the other and allied victory. I considered both opponents to be of equal skill level and competence, thus the 50/50 trade.

This game has been out for less than a month. I would go as far as to say that is is nigh on impossible to make a grand determination of GGWAWs balance and machanistic equality. Lets spend many more hours playing before assuming that one or the other is "too" powerful.....

Later

MIke

[Grotius]

Well, my PBEM game against Rome just entered Winter 1946, and my Axis still has Kiev and Kharkhov in the east, no successful D-Day in the West, control of Gibraltar and Suez, and control of the Solomons and even New Caledonia in the east. Rome has pushed me out of Burma and is now threatening to take Indochina and coastal Chinese provinces with his ground troops, but it looks like I'll survive to Fall 1946 in pretty good shape. I still have 62 production, which I think means I might achieve some sort of victory.

Now, we were both newbs, and we both made our share of mistakes. But I share Sveint's impression: if anything, the Allies have a slightly tougher time of it. The Western Allies seem like a particular challenge: you've got to pull off both D-Day and the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. You do have the industrial and military might to do these things, but it requires moving a lot of supplies efficiently and lots of careful planning.

[Barthheart]

Yeah, but that doesn't make it impossible. Careful playing of the WAllies is very rewarding. I've been reading your AAR and it's very well done by the way. But it seems to me that the WAllies and Russia have been a little too defensive. Now I can't tell for sure because I can't see his supply situation or yours for that matter, but the Allies cannot plan on a defence to win the war. They must fight hard to take the intitive from the Axis powers. Once that's done, a relentless campaign of economic destruction can bring the Axis to their knees in time for a victory. It's not that hard and as more people actually practice witrh the WAllies instead of always playing the Germans we'll see more Allied victories..... and probably people stating that it's impossible to win as the Axis.[:'(]

[Uncle_Joe]

Yep, I'm with Barthheart on this one. I think a LOT more time has been devoted to 'Axis strategies' than to the Allies at this point. Just look at the number of AARs and questions referring to playing Germany or Japan.

Also, IMO, the Axis AI is a lot weaker than the Allied AI making it tougher to learn to defeat a 'good' Axis player. So, people used to playing the Axis AI are getting into PBEMs and getting slaughtered.

I think once more and more people are playing the Allies in PBEMs, strategies will evolve there too. I also think too many people are playing 'historically' and not thinking outside the box yet. Again, that will change with experience.

Finally, future patches might change research a bit and make the 'super tanks' that are easy to get to less possible. This alone might force German players to come up with some new ideas...

[ratprince]

Barthheart, Uncle-Joe, et al;

I find it interesting to read that some feel certain sides have are imbablanced or "more powerful." I find both the Allies and Axis have strengths and weakness.

The axis have strength at the early period. They even, in a respect, have the technology edge. They MUST use this to destroy the allies, not only militarily, but economically as well. The allies gain the advantage later with overwhelming economic power (if the axis havent diminished it)

As for the "super" weapons that everyone seems to be discussing. I think that these are a result of a lack of aggressive assault by the opponent. If both sides are hammering on each other, research will not be ostensibly large. The potential is there of course to research a narrow focus and achieve "Ogre" tanks as has been discussed. However, a savvy opponent will notice (by checking the world research levels) their opposite traveling up the research track and counter. No one side has a better research capability per se, in that each must start with one point, then two more, etc.... so the MOST you should ever be behind is one point. That one point difference is felt, but by no means insurmountable.

Ultimately, I think the game is quite balanced. The allies must hold to what they have and repeatedly "annoy" the axis (as Barthheart made discover to my chagrin!) in undefended areas, all the while building an invasion force. The axis must attack, attack, attack, both military and economic to stand a chance, all the while defending what they own already and preparing for the final assault. All of these factor have the potential to sway vastly in one direction or the other. Competitive players, however, will result in a pretty tight and historical finish.......I feel.... [;)]

Later

Mike

[Uncle_Joe]

Note that I dont think that either side cant research something to kill a particular unit. I do agree that all sides can do so. But the 'super tanks' give Germany an advantage late in the war as they are (by far) the most efficient use of POP that can be found for the ground war.

Again, it doesnt matter HOW aggressive your opponent is...you are going to be doing SOME research. And the tighter the budget, the more it makes sense to specialize that research as much as possible. In fact, that is what leads to the 'super units'. Instead of being able to hit a broad research path where multiple units can all be improved, the tighter games force you to pick a few number of units to upgrade. This results in the 'super units' even if the stat never reaches the really high levels. If other units are not getting the upgrades, even a modest improvement produces huge results in combat.

Aside from that, I think the focused research takes options away from the player as the game progresses. Which would you rather buy? A 7-7 or 8-7 Infantry or a 10-9 or 9-10 tank? Both will require about the same research to get to. Same comparison can be made for most other units compared to the tanks. For the cost in research, production, and perhaps most importantly POPULATION, tanks are the way to go.

So, thats why I think that adjusting those down a notch might take away a notch from Germany. It will be Germany, not the combined Allies who has the larger problem with population later in the game. Also, those tech'ed up tanks dont tend to die all that often, but again, once they are 'in line' with the rest of the units, Germany will be forced to replace more losses than they currently are and this will eat into available research and production.

On the flip side, I believe something will be done to tone down the Heavy Bombers as well. This will help Germany compared to now. But the Allies dont have to use massed bombers to win. So, in the end, I think that Germany will feel a little more pressure than they currently do. For those thinking the Axis have an easier time winning, it will be time to adjust! [;)]

[Grotius]

Actually, I should amend what I said. On the whole I also think the game is quite balanced. In my PBEM, my Allied opponent had some trouble with the supply rules -- for both of us, this was our first game on Advanced Supply -- and that's constrained his ability to fight Japan. Against Germany, he told me before we started that the AI's subs had never been more than a nuisance; he found out the hard way that highly-researched U-Boats can really make life difficult for the Allied player, whose supply lifeline depends on transports.

Anyway, in our next game, I fully expect Rome would adjust his play to place more emphasis on getting transports and supply safely around the globe, and that change the dynamics of our contest significantly.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I think game is almost perfectly balanced, in as much as it's possible for a historic game.

Axis must TRY to win on auto victory, period.

If Axis fails to achieve auto vic, initiative is in Allied hands, and from W43 onwards (if not earlier), it's the Allies who can either win the game, or lose it (ie. give victory away to Axis).

As for the balance, from the moment WA enters the war, game is balanced vs Axis. WA's incredible industrial might usually translates in having immensely teched up weapons. In reality, Allies didn't have much tech advantage over Germans in anything I can remember, except for heavy bombers. In fact, in tanks and subs, perhaps in fighters as well Germans had the edge right to the very end. They were unable to produce their advanced weaponry in significant numbers but they had the tech edge. This usually does not translate in the game 100% because WA player invests a LOT in his research, usually resulting in WA having more tech advances than thay had in real life (up to 45). If you can't win even with all tech advantages you have over your historic WA counterpart, then I think you have only yourself to blame.

When judging game balance you always have to regard the biggest "modifier" - player's skills.

O.

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, it depends on what you consider 'tech edge'.

Some important Allied advantages:

-ASDIC and FAR better ASW than the Japanese (or Germans, who never bothered)

-Radar. The Allies possessed significant edge here and it was telling in the Battle of Britain and especially in the Pacific. This edge carried on right up until the end of the war

-Aircraft. No, they had nothing like the ME262 in mass production, but the aircraft they did develop had longer ranges ('speed increase') and in many cases where more durable than Axis planes. In the Pacific, the later war Corsairs, Helldivers, Avengers, etc outclassed the Japanese carrier aircraft (although they also had far better trained pilots as well).

-Mechanization/support. I consider this modeled into the Infantry stats. The Allies has a far larger percentage of transport and armored vehicles available to the infantry. This would probably fit under Infantry defense in the game. The Axis couldnt hope to match the degree of mechanization that the WAllies had.

-Artillery. Late war WAllied Artillery was far more accurate and responsive than anything the Axis could muster. The same goes for forward air support.

This doesnt even begin to scratch the surface of the various ships, subs, rifles, AA guns etc that were developed that were markedly superior to their Axis counterparts.

So while the Allies didnt seem to have the edge in the 'glamorous' equipment, they did have technological advantages in many areas. These seem to be included in some of the game stats more abstractly (I dont think Infantry or Artillery Evasion represents men or guns that are harder to kill, but tech and material advances as well as better doctrines evolved).

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Well, it depends on what you consider 'tech edge'.

Some important Allied advantages:

-ASDIC and FAR better ASW than the Japanese (or Germans, who never bothered)

First of all I was talking only of Germans, Japanese have to do their own research in this game, and given their industrial base will almost certainly fall behind other powers (which is realistic).

Having said that, Germans didn't need ASDIC [:D] In WAW, as WA, you can have both ASDIC and better-than-Me262 fighters and better-than-Tiger tanks etc, as WA, in fact any player who in 45 does not have this equipment did something wrong.

-Mechanization/support. I consider this modeled into the Infantry stats. The Allies has a far larger percentage of transport and armored vehicles available to the infantry. This would probably fit under Infantry defense in the game. The Axis couldnt hope to match the degree of mechanization that the WAllies had.

I have no problems with that, in fact I agree with you on most points, my post was aimed at those who think "Axis have it easy" in WAW. They do, but only up to mid-42 at most, which I find perfectly realistic. But there is this spectre of auto victory to ruin the Allied player day...

I already said several times: Allied player who thinks he will win simply by clicking End turn until the USSR and USA enter the war could be in for a nasty surprise.

O.

[sveint]

I have yet to lose as the Axis or win as the Allies. So, yes, I have drawn my own conclusions.

At the very least the Allies are harder to master.

[ratprince]

Hey Sveint!

I will take you on! You take the axis, I, the allies. Deal? [:)]


hehehe!! Lets see if we can change that "always wins as the axis" statement! [;)]

later!

Mike

[Oleg Mastruko]

Sveint I'd be glad to play you as Allies (damn, Mike beat me to it [:D]).

Anyway the challenge stands...

O.

[Barthheart]

I'll take him on in a third game. You Axis. Me Allies.[;)]

[HardRock]

Me 4th??

hehe I think he's got his hands full:)

[ratprince]

Hey fellas;

Sveint and I are waging a nasty battle! When we are done, you can have a go at him! He is quite the worthy opponent! We are having a bloody exchange of blows!

I will post an AAR after we are done to settle this "allies cant win" debate.....[;)]

Later!

Mike

[Barthheart]

So Sveint, how goes the war?