Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I wonder what the big difference is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I wonder what the big difference is?

There are several, but the most important one - in my honest opinion - is a 2nd front in USSR. In WiE you won't be attacked by Japan. In WaW - probably as soon as JP DOWs USA. Against all-in attack Russians need plenty of units, and they already lack them against Germany.
2nd difference - map scale. In WiE, although there are more turns across the year, you have to get through a lot of hexes. In WaW not that much, and with 6AP Panzers you will get to Perm from Moscow in ca.3-4 turns.

SC:WaW IS generally well balanced. But if you take a very good Axis player, then he will win majority of games against similarly skilled Allied player. Simply by leveraging early game advantages. There are plenty of AAR's in these forums between good players, Axis wins in almost all of them. Fortunately (?), there are not that many that good Axis players, this requires a lot of skill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pjg100
GE has beaten the USSR and the US has beaten or is well on the way to beating JA. Seems to me that under these conditions the long game should still favor the Allies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985
In case of France, at least for me, I'd like to see attacking Low Countries very early - like 11 or 12.1939 - to come with sort of tradeoff. People on the forums probably know better, but I assume that GER wasn't that ready to strike Holland and Belgium that early, Polish campaign wasn't that easy for them and they had to refit for some time. Just food for thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985
In case of France, at least for me, I'd like to see attacking Low Countries very early - like 11 or 12.1939 - to come with sort of tradeoff. People on the forums probably know better, but I assume that GER wasn't that ready to strike Holland and Belgium that early, Polish campaign wasn't that easy for them and they had to refit for some time. Just food for thought.

+1, I just experienced this for the first time as a new player and having Belgium invaded in Nov 1939 and then France getting pressured that quickly seems a bit much. There should to be more drawbacks to Germany invading that early something like higher increases in mobilization for USSR/USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985
In case of France, at least for me, I'd like to see attacking Low Countries very early - like 11 or 12.1939 - to come with sort of tradeoff. People on the forums probably know better, but I assume that GER wasn't that ready to strike Holland and Belgium that early, Polish campaign wasn't that easy for them and they had to refit for some time. Just food for thought.

+1, I just experienced this for the first time as a new player and having Belgium invaded in Nov 1939 and then France getting pressured that quickly seems a bit much. There should to be more drawbacks to Germany invading that early something like higher increases in mobilization for USSR/USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidDailey

Could the designers of this game please explain to me why we must have long, dragged out debates before changes are made in the scenario to address balance issues? If the scenario works well as it exists for AI games then why not leave as it is for beginners and those who like to waste their time competing against the artificial intelligence (stupidity). And then place the same scenario in the game and label it for multiplayer play only. That way whenever a change is proposed the designers won't have to go into convulsions about how a balance issue change affects the AI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidDailey

Could the designers of this game please explain to me why we must have long, dragged out debates before changes are made in the scenario to address balance issues? If the scenario works well as it exists for AI games then why not leave as it is for beginners and those who like to waste their time competing against the artificial intelligence (stupidity). And then place the same scenario in the game and label it for multiplayer play only. That way whenever a change is proposed the designers won't have to go into convulsions about how a balance issue change affects the AI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre
Some changes were introduced in WWII: War in Europe to help increase France's starting strength, reducing her income slightly to compensate, but there's not been any feedback as to whether or not that was a worthwhile change so I have hesitated to invest the time in making that change here too.

Mobilization penalties for an early invasion are rather artificial so I'd rather avoid them if we can, unless they can be rationalised in a realistic way, e.g. how to explain that an invasion carried out at one date carries a larger diplomatic penalty than one carried out a turn or two later?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidDailey

Could the designers of this game please explain to me why we must have long, dragged out debates before changes are made in the scenario to address balance issues? If the scenario works well as it exists for AI games then why not leave as it is for beginners and those who like to waste their time competing against the artificial intelligence (stupidity). And then place the same scenario in the game and label it for multiplayer play only. That way whenever a change is proposed the designers won't have to go into convulsions about how a balance issue change affects the AI.

quote:

1. They weren't yet prepared, 2. They didn't want to start the invasion during winter, and 3. They were planning the invasions of Denmark and Norway as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985
Spot on. In SC:WaW GER may teleport via rail straight to Belgium border, so pt 1 is not simulated. What is more, losses after Polish campaign are nonexistent, contrary to what happened IRL - at least in material terms.
When it comes to point 2, it was mentioned several times on forums that penalties in bad weather are insufficient. In mud your AP is reduced, but land units fight at full effectiveness, quite strange. Frozen weather is harsher, but if Belgian troops start at zero supply, this frozen weather won't save them. So point 2 is not well simulated in French campaign either. Not to mention, that until winter (so late December, 4 Axis turns) weather is really good in Belgium/France. Was it the case in 1939, I don't know.

Changing the weather is a huge undertaking though, I don't think it could be changed in current iteration of the game. Still weather zones could be adjusted a bit, there was already a meaningful change for Russia last patch.
3rd point is interesting. Making NOR/DEN invasions more expensive/impossible if Belgium is gone would change situation a lot. A food for thought indeed.

Personally, I would like to see those changes introduced to WiE transferred to WaW, just to see if these are enough to make France less suspectible to early rushes. These modifications seem very reasonable.

Still, one must be very wary with changes to France. Making them too strong will derail axis game completely. It's probably impossible to take France on historical date if GER attacks in April, so they are nearly forced to go all-in earlier. With recent changes to Soviets, help for France may be even not welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeckke

The AI cheats; thats why i play against the AI; tell me if am wrong but on Multyplayer(humam-human) there cant no space to cheat

for example, in some of my games as axis, i always see new units of ships (egal the type) that is docked and at the same time upgrading

THIS AI cheats everywhere, fantastic, the best game¡¡¡

quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

Maybe the Allies, and i'm thinking UK here could get a DE fire in Jan 1940 that checks whether Belgium is neutral

and if not (it has been invaded / conquered) then they could be rewarded with eg.

Polish /Czech under strength fighter unit in England

something that could represent a trade off

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeckke

The AI cheats; thats why i play against the AI; tell me if am wrong but on Multyplayer(humam-human) there cant no space to cheat

for example, in some of my games as axis, i always see new units of ships (egal the type) that is docked and at the same time upgrading

THIS AI cheats everywhere, fantastic, the best game¡¡¡

Hi Zeckke,

The AI plays by the same rules as a human player, other than the known bonuses that can be applied to the AI via the OPTIONS screen.

If you feel the AI is doing something incorrectly, this is then likely a bug (if it is not a misunderstanding), please don't hesitate to send me a saved turn so I can take a look.

Thanks,
Hubert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeckke

Thanks¡ Hubert; am going to send you my actually game as axis

tell me if you see something wrong, the bug is that Russia is always now PREPARE FOR WAR on 1940, let me know whats going on with the AI

and for sure play this save game; its getting interesting; the AI

the game now is on 1942-08

sending by wetransfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeckke

Thanks¡ Hubert; am going to send you my actually game as axis

tell me if you see something wrong, the bug is that Russia is always now PREPARE FOR WAR on 1940, let me know whats going on with the AI

and for sure play this save game; its getting interesting; the AI

the game now is on 1942-08

sending by wetransfer

Thanks for the file, unfortunately as it is dated already all the way to 1942, I won't be able to tell you in any definitive manner why the USSR prepared for war in 1940, but typically this is due to either not enough units in the East along the border with the Soviet Union, or too much. There may be other factors as well such as how many declarations of war you have committed, and I believe capturing the Suez prior to Soviet entry is also a factor.

Two things I would suggest:

1) Update to the latest version of the game, this saved game is from v1.00, and the game is currently at v1.12.01. There have been quite a few updates, fixes and improvements since the original release, including a information button you can toggle to hide and show map info such as how many units you need to keep along the Soviet border to help minimize Soviet interest in mobilizing for war.

2) Review the Strategy Guides, and in this case specifically the section labelled 'Axis Units Required in the East' as this should really help here.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Hi Zeckke,

Unfortunately as your game version is the original release, I'd be hesitant to make any recommendations for it as I can't be certain what the conditions would be exactly relative to the current release.

Again I would advise upgrading to the latest version, v1.12.01, so there would have been at least 12 updates since the original release that you are playing, and to review the latest 1939 Strategy Guide found in the Manuals folder for the game. This guide can also be accessed in game as well via the upper right hand panel when playing the game map.

From the latest guide here are the relevant sections, found on the 4th page:

Axis Units Required in the East
To prevent the USSR from entering the war before the Axis are ready to fight them, Axis commanders should ensure
that the following criteria are met:
From January 1940
- 2 Axis units are needed within 6 hexes of Warsaw.
- Failure to meet this requirement will swing the USSR by 2% towards the Allies every turn.
From January 1941
4 Axis units are needed within 6 hexes of Warsaw.
Failure to meet this requirement will swing the USSR by 2% towards the Allies every turn.
Both the criteria listed above are cumulative, so from January 1941 if there were less than 2 units within 6 hexes
of Warsaw, then the USSR would swing by 4% towards the Allies.
While the above require a minimum number of Axis units to be in the east, the following requires that there aren’t
an excessive number of Axis units present:
From January 1941
- If there are more than 18 Axis units within 10 hexes of Warsaw, then the USSR will have a 50% chance every
turn of swinging 2-3% towards the Allies.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Historically France surrendered in June 1940. It's impossible against a human to get France to surrender in June if German invades Belgium in May (historial). On top of that, France doesn't even surrender when you take Paris. You have to spend another month or two advancing towards Bordeaux. This can push things past October which screws up the Axis timetable.

I understand that a 1939 attack should probably be more difficult, but it should also probably be easier to finish France in a timely manner.