1.05 - the era of Allied dominance?

[HamburgerMeat]

With the changes to double chit research, nerf to amphibious movement, along with the 4 entrenchment changes for fortresses (previous patch), I'm thinking that the axis are at a clear disadvantage.

Sealion becomes extremely risky and difficult, easily shutdown if the UK keeps its carriers around England.

Although the double chit affects everyone, it harms the axis more.

I haven't started any new games in 1.05, but, barring a string of lucky research breakthroughs, I'm not sure how the axis wins against an advanced Allied player.

Which is fine in my opinion - the axis should be at a huge disadvantage. But if the goal of multiplayer is to have a 1:1 win/loss ratio between axis and Allies, I think this is a huge pendulum swing.

Expect axis players to rely on crazy gamey strategies/tactics to win the game against advanced Allied players.

[sveint]

The pendulum hasn't nearly swung that far. Hardest it in the latest patch is China, who absolutely depended on double chitting Infantry Weapons to survive.

Sealion was never a realistic proposition historically. It's still doable ingame unless the UK keeps its entire fleet at home and uses MPs on defense (this leaves the UK weaker in Egypt of course).

The Soviets aren't a powerhouse either. And it is still fairly easy for Japan to shut down Vladivostok.

If anything we are approaching where the game should be. Let's see what results the 1.05 version gives us.

But so far... China struggles in 1.05.

[Christolos]

Very interesting discussion. I suppose the Russians might also suffer from not being able to double chit Infantry weapons...

Let's see what happens indeed! [:)]

Cheers,

C

[ThunderLizard11]

They should have kept double chits for infantry to give China a chance. Agree that taking away doubles for German armor and planes was a good balance move.

[Jackmck]

The Axis "win" by surviving past what occurred historically. Concur with above that they should be at a huge disadvantage to actually win the war.

There are various levels of victory and it is also possible to stalemate. A 1:1 win/loss ratio may not be a good goal. It is certainly the aim to eliminate failsafe strategies. In any case, when elite players on both sides consistently stalemate, the balance is probably good.

[amandkm]

The real issue is that, during the early part of the game, the Axis has a great time winning most of the battles and taking objectives. Then (assuming it lasts), the Allies will have their turn. The challenge is in playing on after the pendulum swings and you are not likely to win many battles as Axis.

I've had several games where opponents just vanish when they have some bad breaks as Axis. Not sure any amount of tweaking with items to balance things will address that- it's just human nature. (Also one reason I tend to prefer the race to victory campaigns- to give a benchmark to measure relative success against.)

[fireston]

• The Maximum chits for the following research categories has been reduced from 2 to 1: Infantry Weapons; Anti-Tank Weapons; Advanced Tanks; Advanced Fighters; Ground Attack Weapons.

Ham, I don't know if it puts the Axis at a massive disadvantage, I think its going to require different Axis strategies, which is a good thing in my opinion. I think things will be more balanced than before, but I only have two games going under the new 1.05 version and they are very early so I'm speaking on opinion and not fact.

JackMck, you had a damn good Russian/MidEast strategy in our game, I wish i had gotten a chance to tell you that sooner.

[MrLongleg]

I'd also recommend to wait for a couple of games to finish. The Germans now also won't be able to double chit their tanks which gave them a great advantage.

[Jackmck]

Fireston,
Thanks for the comment. You invaded Turkey in that game, correct?

[fireston]

that I did and what was supposed to be an easy walk thru turned into my version of Spain for Napoleon as I was in Russia too.