TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939

[Cpuncher]

Maybe a PBEM specific balanced campaign is needed, that differs from the default ones. I believe the default campaigns are mostly balanced based on AI playing each other. A player is so much better in offense compare to the AI, as it requires more specific maneuver and sequence. When I tested letting the AI playing each other, the Japanese couldn't even take Changsha after 2 years (The Japs were given a 0.5 exp and 15% MPP bonus in settings). Any decent human player can do that in maybe 6 turns against any other human player.

The Allied side are more mistake tolerant while the Axis can't make significant blunders, that's why at Novice to Mid level we often see more Allied victories. As more and more players are getting better in this game, with more strategies and tactics discovered which seem to favor the Axis more, it does appear the Allies need some balance help, especially the Russians. We can always reduce the US Industry power a little bit if we fear the Allies may be too strong if Russia wouldn't fall.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Congrats to IIo4Tu, he wiped me off the map with his Axis strategy. I know what was coming but lost 3 games in row to him.
Taifun naval play is second to none.

My advice: Players should do a "bid system" before the game starts.

Example:

Player #1 bids, I'll take Axis and give Russia an extra 300 MMPs at start.
Player #2 bids, I'll re-raise, take Axis and give Russia 310 MMPs at start.
Player #1 bids, I'll,re-raise, take Axis and give Russia 325 MMPs at start.
Player #2 bids, I'll, make that 350.

Player #1, says, okay, I'll take Russia +350 MMP to start game.

Problem solved.

[John B.]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

First of all, grats to both players, very good game and fantastic AAR.

Just puzzled on this one.

To be honest, so am I. Maybe Allied position is not crazy good, but not that bad either, there are a lot of pluses actually. I suspect resignation was more due to tilt, than position itself, but I am poor psychoanalyst.

But apart from this, Taifun mentioned 2 important things which are very real:
1. Weather in South Russia. I don't know why, but weather pattern there is extremely generous to Axis. For Fall, associated with mud and early snow, there is 65% chance for a clear weather. So for example, in 2 of 3 games there will be clear weather in November. You can even get clear weather in Winter, only 10% chance but still kinda memish. That contradicts what happened IRL. This can be very frustrating, because a lot of players focus on push in the South.

Actually, France has similar problem. You may get a clear weather there even in Winter, and this may result in Fall of France 1-2 turns quicker. Typical example of 'bad RNG', which for good players may skew the game very early on. I believe this should be reconsidered - unless Winter was somehow mild in france in 1940?

What happened in Middle East for Taifun sounds very unlucky, there is only 15% chance for secondary weather effects in Fall/Winter. I'd throw my PC out of window. I remember ElvisJJ had similar situation in one game, developers even adjusted weather pattern slightly afterwards.

2. Scorched Earth. Why on Earth (pun intended) this effect is so weak in many places and why it depends on RNG? Another lottery, which may skew the game. Sometimes Axis can even get a port on 5 supply during Sea Lion - could you imagine that Brits would allow this? Everything would be destroyed and port unusable for months to come, as - I don't know- Cherbourg. Same in NA - many times I saw Tunis port caught intact.
I may still somehow understand that western nations would be somehow against devastation of their real estate, but USSR? Country was razed to the ground, due to Soviets first running away, and then Germans running away. But for some reason, there is possibility to catch cities on level 5 and operate troops even from France in 1 turn. This could be somehow logical on 1st turn, due to surprise effect, but later on, deep in 1941/42, this is debatable. Current SE effects let Axis to move way faster than IRL. This applies to Japan too, they may get supply 10 in China mainland easily. [X(]

But still, while looking at world map, I am very curious what would happen if there wasn't this suicide battle near Sumatra and all those US units would get to Med. Still rather a distraction for axis, than a problem, but distractions will ultimately lead to a gap somewhere.

I'm stuck in quarantine and using the time to catch up on AARs. So thanks for this one as it was both informative and entertaining. [&o]

As for the question about the weather on the western front in the winter of 39-40 it was the coldest winter there for a long time. In fact, in the Netherland it was the coldest winter since 1835.

http://www.warchangesclimate.com/b/Four_month_war.html

[AshFall]

Thank you very much for the enjoyable AAR!

Very well done, entertaining and informative.

----------------------------------

Weather in general has always frustrated me in the SC games.

Overall the effects are nowhere near severe enough, as is seen in all these games where Germany attacks the low lands and France in the dead of winter.

In reality, such an offensive was simply impossible because of the weather, much like any offensive movements in the east became insanely costly and ineffective during the severe mud and snows of 41.

I would love to see much more impactful weather in general in the SC games, as well as a better model of the epic battle in the east.

It would be interesting to have mud do actual strength damage to moving mechanized units, and winter do strength damage to any unit moving for example.

[Elessar2]

In terms of air units tho bad weather can seem unnecessarily punitive. In reality they'd launch missions during the lulls (assuming there would be any lulls-maybe precip can range between light and heavy, still can fly during the former, with appropriate penalties of course). But note made for extra mud penalties...[8D]

[IIo4Tu]

the proposal of the respected EJR is interesting, but without a proportional weakening of the US, it looks unbalanced, I would like to hear the opinion of developers and expert players

[rafaelmbaez]

In my experience in MP, its almost impossible to stop a good Axis player in the USSR. The Soviet do not have the resources, the tech and the MMP to stop them if Germany invades in March-April 1941.

And if you manage to survive 1941, in 1942 you will be destroyed by the far superior tech the Germans will have in airpower and tanks.

The only chance is kamikaze invasion from Allies and divert a lot of German troops in Italy or France.

I think in a low to mid level, Allies are better than Axis, but in a mid to pro level, Axis are clearly unbalanced and could win quite easily.

Having said that, I agree that attacking in mud / snow should have a bigger penalty ( in movement and odds ) so we stop to see the attack in the West in November 1939, and same thing with the Germans attacking through snow and mud in USSR.

I think MMPs are fine, but this small change could balance a bit more the game... its too fast, and normally, the game is clearly in one side by 1941 or early 1942.

( Maybe same thing should happen with desert storms, to limit the movement in Egypt, Lybia and Middle East? maybe the same with storms in the ocean, to lower the movement points ? )

Another thing to consider is that USA do not spend pretty much any resources in the Pacific War...

[pjg100]

I think it might be useful to motivate the US to focus more resources on the Pacific by, for example, applying NM penalties to the US for failure to take/retake certain islands and resources by a certain date. The NM penalties could be larger for, for example, Sydney or Calcutta than for Iwo or Truk or Singapore. This would have the collateral benefit of giving the JA player a carrot for playing an aggressive game in the Pacific rather than just continuing to pound relentlessly on China.

I agree regarding the suggestions to nerf the impact of rain/snow/storm on air units so perhaps they have half strength, and conversely to increase the impact of bad weather on ground units so the GE can't just pound away in winter 39-42. Perhaps an automatic material loss of strength points for any unit that attacks in frozen/snow on top of the reduction in combat effectiveness that already exists, and a reduction in combat effectiveness for attacks in mud. Would also I think be good to provide for Russians and Finns to be exempt from such snow/frozen penalties or affected to a much lesser extent. We might then see something like the large offensives of the Russians in winter 41 and 42 that occurred IRL.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Totally agree, and have brought up before: The USA declared war on Japan, before German, after the Pearl Harbor attack. Yet the victory conditions offer zero incentive to battle in the Pacific due the fact Europe is in dire straights. USA morale was quite important on winning battles in the Pacific.

[Duedman]

So far I have only played WiE. Do the tanks have the same amount of movement points in WaW as in WiE?
I wonder if the smaller size of USSR makes it easier for the Axis player since the raw amount of turns it takes to reach Moscow must be smaller. Also I guess the supply situation is probably not as bad as in WiE?

[Taifun]

ORIGINAL: Duedman
Do the tanks have the same amount of movement points in WaW as in WiE?
I wonder if the smaller size of USSR makes it easier for the Axis player since the raw amount of turns it takes to reach Moscow must be smaller. Also I guess the supply situation is probably not as bad as in WiE?

The same thoughts came to my mind when I arrived to WAW from WiE. Now I am a big fan of WAW!
They do have the same movement points in both games, but it is not easier for the Axis player, as the terrain is much more rugged specially in the North and on the road to Moscow. The supply problems are the same, but as the number of hexes are fewer the units have much less room for maneuver and the front line is more difficult to breach as the counters are crammed together...

[Duedman]

I see, thanks!
I already bought WaW a month ago since I greatly enjoy WiE. But its still too intimidating lol

[gpcgarag]

great aar thank you

[Mwhit299]

Thank you two so much for posting. Love to see a great battle and learn new tricks. I really think Taifun's downfall was losing those forces in North Africa when he got caught up by a blitz that took Tobruk. Once you lose those precious resources in low supply it puts the Brits in dire straits and they don't have cash to buy back. It's really hard to break through El Alamein with only 2 squares and low supply in my experience

While I've played a few games, and not nearly as many as you two, I do agree a strong Russia attack is hard to beat. I won against a strong opponent by the skin of my teeth. I had to invade France since he was going all out against USSR with not even sending the Africa Corps to Africa but instead against Russians. But once I captured a Port in France, I was shipping in USA troops on a massive scale. So if an Axis player doesn't operate a large army group back ASAP, France is lost.

I think an allied player needs to consider a 2nd front pronto when an Axis player goes all out in my limited gameplay. IF not you are just falling into a game where the Axis control every move. Love to hear your thoughts on opening a second front.