nnason
Posts: 502
Joined: 3/4/2016 From: Washington DC Metro Area Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alter Native I think the game's balance is fine and does not need any major changes, however generally speaking it is much harder to play the Axis compared to the Allies, especially for new players. I have played around 5-6 games as Axis vs AI starting 39 and 3 Allies campaigns at different difficulties. I've also played the other campaigns (Barbarossa, Case Blue, and 43 Citadel) from the Axis perspective and for experiences players the balancing of the game is good, but I can understand why new players are struggling. Poland and France are very easy to do and they are more or less impossible to fail as Axis. Even if you mess up as a new player and it takes you until September to take Paris you still feel like you are doing ok. In my opinion the new player problems start at the eastern front when all of a sudden effective play and a good understanding of the game rules is required. During the eastern campaign you are on a clock against the soviet infantry lvl 2-3 upgrade and you need to take enough MPPs from the soviets before they can outproduce you with cheap units. In order to play effectively you need to have a good understanding of the supply system as well as managing your HQs well. You need to understand some advanced mechanics such as HQ chaining and encircling of units. You also must have enough HQs in the first place to supply and command all of your troops to begin with. I assume most new players will increase the amount of tanks and armies they have, but not the amount of HQs. Therefore lots of your units will fight poorly supplied without command against cheap soviet units until they outproduce and outgunned in 43-44. However until Barbarossa you never dealt with supplies and HQs much, as everything was running fine on auto pilot in France. When you realize you made big mistakes they are too late to fix. Furthermore if you make mistakes it's almost impossible to comeback as Axis, as your units often die with <5 supply and you can not afford to loose large parts of your army in order to keep the Barbarossa momentum going until you control all soviet victory points. Playing as the allies things are way too easy against the AI as you basically just have to sit back in the USSR and watch the AI grind their army to the ground against your cheap units. Unlike the axis there is very little rule knowledge and clever strategic thinking required. So, people are right playing the Axis is a lot harder. It's mechanically harder (Supplies and HQs, being the attacker), strategically harder (prioritizing the right targets in a multi front war) and time is ticking against you. If you screw up big in one of those areas you loose. But in my opinion this is how it should be. The war was never fair and balanced and you need to be smarter than the historic counterparts despite the odds against you. Some ideas on how to help new players: - Remove the Murmansk hint that is given in 41. I feel like this is a big newbie trap. Taking Murmansk is completely unnecessary and as a new player shipping HQs and armies to Finnland is hurting more then it helps. Cutting the soviets of MPPs is better done with U-Boats. Even if you control Murmansk you are not taking any MPPs from the allies, you are just preventing the UK from shipping it to the USSR for 3 turns.... wow. - Maybe consider giving the Germans another free HQ in early 1941 as an easy fix to help new players. (It's not necessary imo, but I think it would help new players) - The interface is hard to understand for new players and a lot of important information is hidden, I already discussed this point in some other suggestions I made a couple of month ago: (I can not post links as a new member, it's in the steam forum called "Feedback and suggestions" from June 20th) - Maybe give Italy the navel warfare moral upgrade at the beginning. From my understanding the Italian navy was (unlike the army) pretty strong and a serious opponent for the UK. Even though large in numbers the Italian navy is still relatively lackluster. - Maybe increase the MPP damage U-Boats do to trading routes in order to make the Atlantic war more rewarding. Also, please allow the bonus MPP difficulty setting to be more then just +20%. I'd love to set this to +50% or more when playing the Allies in order to get an interesting game, but the game doesn't let me. I agree the game balance human-to-human is adequate. The well over 200 ELO games played showed two things. The 1939 scenario is evenly balanced and the best players always win. Alter Native has some good ideas/tips/observations. The AI is decent but I believe game modifications should always focus on keeping the human-to-human game even. SC is a game, not a simulation. A simulation is meant to closely match history. A game is meant to be even so either side has a good chance of winning. As such there will be aspects of a game that are not realistic such as rail and sea movement. Making changes to either of these game aspects might really unbalance the game. Messing with the current supply methodology is challenging as it is such an integral part of the game. As an average player, I get clobbered by Fafnir and Sugar. I believe what makes them so successful is a mastery of HQs, supply, and the understanding of when to push hard. REGARDING SUPPLY the one thing I would like to see is a way to model supply to see the effects before actually moving the HQs units. Something like allowing all HQs to move within fog-of-war and movement rules as many times as needed and then only commit their movement with a commit command. Or provide dummy HQs so you can see the effects of HQS placement before actually moving them. SC in all it forms is a great game as witnessed by the huge gamer base, the vigorous forum traffic, and the suberb support.
_____________________________
Live Long and Prosper, Noah Nason LTC Field Artillery US Army Retired
|