RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/23/2019 6:41:15 PM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

I feel like we are finally getting somewhere with this discussion.

On the subject on strategic bombers, I'd suggest the following changes:
*Can only damage mines and oil, never cities
*When attacking cities, does more MP damage
*When attacking a unit, reduces the supply of that unit but does no damage

(in reply to HamburgerMeat)

Post #: 91

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/23/2019 8:23:26 PM

pjg100

Posts: 369
Joined: 4/8/2017
Status: offline

The allies can use strat bombers very effectively to attack cities by reducing their supply strength below the threshold for allowing rail movement, which makes it difficult for the axis to respond effectively to an invasion.

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 92

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/23/2019 9:15:50 PM

Judgementday

Posts: 29
Joined: 12/10/2013
Status: offline

It seems to me, that the units with two attacks is causing the most imbalance, they can be skewed to overpowered by rushed tech that makes them very difficult to deal with and by the time that you realize what the other player is doing, your already in serious trouble. Your are forced into a guessing game. Is this an Armor game or an Air game, and play to that defense. Guess right and you MAY be OK, guess wrong and your toast.

Maybe strengthen the Tank/Strat/Carrier initial attack and remove the 2nd?

Also Tech in general needs to be better paced, limited to 1 advance per year max per category? I'm not sure of the pace, but three advances in a single category over a two year period or less seem to cause the game to unbalance quickly, especially when tied to armor and air. OR, prevent a > one/two? tech advantage over the opponent? I believe that technological advances were almost always countered with matching and at times superior tech by the opposing nation. I'm not sure there was ever what would translate into a +3 or > tech advantage over the course of the war.

< Message edited by Judgementday -- 8/23/2019 11:27:37 PM >

(in reply to pjg100)

Post #: 93

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/23/2019 11:01:53 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

I tend to agree that you shouldn't have more than 1 per year. As long as you can double up to catch up.
Say you are UK and so you aren't putting much into amphibious landing the first few years. You should be able to tech up to the limit of that year.
So say (arbitrary dates for example purposes) you can't have more than 1 tech level by start of 41
level 2 by 42
3 by 43
4 by 44
5 by 45

If you hadn't reached level 1 by 42, you COULD research (2 chits) up to that level.

Bombing rail centers as pjg100 points out, was a major tactic used by the west especially. Perhaps it needs to be less effective?
I feel the real imbalance is the initial difference from no upgrade to 1 and 2. The start values are so low it is a huge advantage early. Later on it is an advantage to be up a level, but early on the difference is larger and the Allies have terrible morale and readiness on top of that.

I kind of agree on removing 2 attacks. EXCEPT for interceptors. That is a large defensive advantage used in BoB as well as the Luftwaffe. The distances were shorter, so more sorties. If a fighter to escorting the ridiculous ranges in the game (drop tanks, I know) they should get 1 escort only. They can scramble on defense if needed.

This brings up another thing in the game I feel needs addressed. Carrier fighters never seem to do as well as land based planes. These pilots were very skilled fliers as they had to takeoff, navigate with few landmarks, possibly limp a plane home with nowhere else to land AND land on a moving target. Everything I read about Japanese forces was the naval planes were dangerous. The Japanese army planes had less training and experience and were not as skilled.

Also When you attack a carrier (or land based fighter) why doesn't the unit being attacked scramble? It seems to always be another carrier or fighter. So the target takes damage and loses strength, etc. Now you attack the on that intercepted and the reduced previously targeted fighter intercepts and takes heavy losses. What??? A carrier being attacked would have CAP and scramble, not sit around waiting for some other unit to show up. Same with an airfield.

Just my 2 cents, which now days can't even by a piece of bubble gum....

(in reply to Judgementday)

Post #: 94

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/23/2019 11:29:07 PM

Mithrilotter

Posts: 216
Joined: 2/18/2016
Status: offline

Originally, certain critical tech research was restricted to only one research point. That worked really well to slow down tech advances and it was and still is my preferred solution.

Due to some game change that I don't understand, somehow all tech research became slower. To solve that problem, all techs again were able to have two research points. But that brought back the too fast critical tech advance issue. I would rather go back to the one research point limit on critical techs and then increase certain other research bonuses to compensate for overall slower research. This should solve both problems of slow research in general and too fast double point critical tech research.

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 95

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/23/2019 11:58:08 PM

HamburgerMeat

Posts: 361
Joined: 7/22/2017
Status: offline

I don't like the one point tech research from WiE, that + Spain diplomacy + weather made the outcome of the game too based on RNG. The double chit system is more consistent and has much less variance, which is what I prefer. It could use some tweaking, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet.

(in reply to Mithrilotter)

Post #: 96

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/24/2019 12:48:34 AM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

The only issue is German tank tech, the rest of the techs seem to work well.

(in reply to HamburgerMeat)

Post #: 97

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/24/2019 2:05:42 AM

zzmzzm

Posts: 116
Joined: 10/24/2010
Status: offline

My suggestion:
1. Decrease the supply of Changsha,Nanning and Hengyang from 10 to 8. Then Japan only get 5 supply there. Which means China can hold up Kweichow(South of Chungqing). As a Chinese ,I am sure the Hengyang is very little town ,most chinese even donnot know this place name besides World War II fans. But yes, Changsha and Nanning is a big city.
2. Strat bomber can attack only once.
3. Tech have limitation of years, such as in 1940 we can research 1st level tank research ordinary, but if you want to research 2nd level tank, there is penalty， such as 50% if More than a year, 75% More than 2 years . Which makes technology gap will be not so much.
4. Secend attack of tanks and planes will cost more readniess and morale , and have only 80% efficiency, since they are tired in first attack.

Above all are easy to be achieved. But if you want this game more Historic, we will need conception of oil, MPP and Oil should be separated. If there is only manufacturing capability with no need of oil, German will win the WWII in great chance.

< Message edited by zzmzzm -- 8/24/2019 2:23:17 AM >

(in reply to HamburgerMeat)

Post #: 98

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/24/2019 2:44:45 AM

zzmzzm

Posts: 116
Joined: 10/24/2010
Status: offline

I play a game as Allies now, oppoent is also HamburgerMeat.
HamburgerMeat made a successful sealion, I have lost England and the strat bomber. So I have little chance to use Strategic Bombing.
But HamburgerMeat send 3 tanks and 4 bombers to England , 3 tanks to Mideast. When he attack Soviet in 1941 June, there is only 1 German tank in the border of Ger-Su border! But German have 3rd armor tech already , Soviet have only 1st armor tech.
So Strategic Bombing have little influence in this game between HamburgerMeat and me. We will see the result without the large-scale Strategic Bombing of Allies.

(in reply to Judgementday)

Post #: 99

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/24/2019 5:04:03 PM

Judgementday

Posts: 29
Joined: 12/10/2013
Status: offline

Regarding the Stat Bombers, I wonder if it would not be better for Supply Sources to have a separate value from their MMP. That way Stats could bomb MMP and either have a reduced or null impact on Supply. Seems like an easier way to implement.

And yes, Operation Sea Lion is very viable in this game, Germany can exert an immense weight on Great Britain. Britain must defend against it, at the risk of losing the Med.

(in reply to zzmzzm)

Post #: 100

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 8/24/2019 9:59:11 PM

epower

Posts: 25
Joined: 7/15/2019
Status: offline

In my recent game as Japan only, I doubled up infantry weapons and mobility until both were at level 2. After that it was all over in China since the extra movement points negated the nasty, nasty terrain effects. Didn't know China was so rugged. Never fight a land war in Asia, Indeed! I'm considering a house rule forbidding double chits until the industrial modifier reaches a certain level. Alternatively, maybe only one research area can have 2 chits. Some room for tweaking certainly.

While implementing such a thing would be very tricky, I agree with zzmzzm that accounting for Germany's critical oil situation might help with balance. Barbarossa had to happen in 1941 or there wouldn't be another chance for offensive operations on that scale since Germany were projected to be out of oil by Fall of 1941. Perhaps a German failure to take Grozny and Maikop in 1941 or early 1942 should result in a movement penalty for mechanized units and a reduction in supply. I'm talking to you, Rommel and Von Manstein!

On the flip side, if the German player can interdict the Volga by taking Astrakhan or Stalingrad then that interruption of oil flow should have a highly negative effect on the Soviet economy. Maybe having supplied units on either side of the Volga would be enough to choke off the Soviet oil supply.

Some food for thought is Marshal Timoschenko's secret speech to the Supreme Defense council in November of 1941:

quote:

"If Germany succeeds in taking Moscow, that is obviously a grave disappointment for us, but it by no means disrupts our grand strategy. Germany would gain accommodation but that alone will not win the war. The only thing that matters is oil. As we remember, Germany kept harping on her own urgent oil problems in her economic bargaining with us from 1939 to 1941. So we have to do all we can to (a) make Germany increase her oil consumption and (b) to keep German armies out of the Caucusus."

(in reply to Judgementday)

Post #: 101

RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced - 9/14/2019 1:39:27 AM

boudi

Posts: 346
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boudi

From my point of vue, with 1.03.00 version, against an average or a good axis player ( i think that i'm an average player, not good, but not too bad) and at mid 1942, it's more or less unplayable for the Allies.

Mid 42' i lost Leningrad, japaneses took Vladivostok after DOW Soviet Union, China is out of the game, it was very easily destroyed by the japanese army with the support of its air force, Japanese fight now in Burma. Germans tooks Egypt, then Palestin, Irak, and they are now at Teheran. By Soviet union Germans took Caucasus with all oil fields. i don't know how India will be defended, attacked by rear and front.

The US army is long, long, too long to be ready for saving anything...

Soviet Union and China are far away too weak. I will see what will be the game later, in 1944, but at this time : unplayable.

Unfortunately, even with the last patch the game is still unplayable for Allies.
UK is undefendable if Germans use its Luftwaffe against it. German fighters kill easily all British fighters and German bombers destroy all British units. I think that the game is very unbalanced about aerial warfare : the german air superiority is too strong. Where are the Spitfire ? When my fighter fight agaisnt a BF109 it lost 3 points, the german only 1 ? Then German tanks with their two hits capacity finish the job. UK Is lost in may 42.

Soviet units still have 2 lost against 0 for each counter attack attempt.

USA can't do anything, it's impossible to give them a decent army 6 months after Pearl Harbor....

I noticed that allied side suffer a crual lack of HQ. SU has only 2 (the third is easyly destroyed during the 1st turn of Barbarossa) and UK only one in the european theater. It's too less, and a HQ is horribly expensive. I think that the problem should come from the diffrence of HQ number. Allies do not have enough, or Germans have too much, Or maybe a HD gives too many advantage.

Unplayable. Of course, it's only my point of vue.

< Message edited by boudi -- 9/14/2019 9:17:52 AM >

(in reply to boudi)

Post #: 102

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: Game favors Axis and is unbalanced