Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

China

 
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 >> China Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
China - 1/12/2022 6:20:49 AM   
petedalby

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 12/18/2020
Status: offline 		I love the fact that there is a current thread claiming China is too strong and another saying that China needs help.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5068673

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5123232

I suspect that probably means that the balance is about right and people's experiences will be influenced by the skill level of their opponent - on both sides.
Post #: 1
RE: China - 1/12/2022 8:19:51 AM   
Laurenz

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 5/29/2021
Status: offline 		Hi,

I think the one where people talk about China beeing OP is about SP or AIvsAI, the one where China is weak is about MP.

Wich is also not surprising. If Japan does not do very specific things China can easily defend, but if Japan is played that specific way, China has no chance.

So doing nothing leaves the game in a (comparatively) bad state for both player bases. Some things sadly don't just average out.

(in reply to petedalby)
Post #: 2
RE: China - 1/12/2022 8:24:26 AM   
Laurenz

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 5/29/2021
Status: offline 		And I for my part think the game is in a very good state, and China is not an overall balance issue. I just think there is a very dominant strategy for Japan, whith low counterplay opportunities for the Allies in the short term. This just makes the theater feel boring and unimpactfull. (In MP that is)

(in reply to Laurenz)
Post #: 3
RE: China - 1/12/2022 1:36:04 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		The question then is, what (if anything) should we as developers do here to make it work better in both PBEM and against the AI?

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Laurenz)
Post #: 4
RE: China - 1/12/2022 2:57:46 PM   
redrum68

 

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline 		I think it mostly boils down to making China more resilient in MP which should have little to no impact on SP. Moving some of their production further back so they don't collapse so quickly once their front line cities fall or more triggers that give free units as their cities fall or more/better triggers that increase US/Russia mobilization as japan advances. Essentially don't necessarily make China stronger just make it so they survive longer against a good human played Japan or that their are at least tradeoffs to their advancing deep into China.

Related but more of an overall issue is I think unit and HQ experience is a bit too strong. This mostly impacts MP as human players will maximize using their high experience units (German panzers, Japanese armies, etc) to crush Allied units much more effectively than the AI can.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 5
RE: China - 1/12/2022 2:59:15 PM   
MrTomnus


Posts: 26
Joined: 12/16/2020
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The question then is, what (if anything) should we as developers do here to make it work better in both PBEM and against the AI?


Is it worth considering a "PBEM Balanced" 1939 scenario? Keep the base version of the game balanced for AI, whilst we could have a separate 1939 scenario which is geared towards player control and the nuances this brings?

Just a thought.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 6
RE: China - 1/12/2022 4:25:29 PM   
crispy131313


Posts: 2055
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline 		In my own mod, I gave China 2 nonreformable field artillery units in key defensive areas to start the campaign, which were mainly only purposed to lower the morale of some of the Japanese attackers. It's a bit of a stretch as the Chinese really didn't have much heavy equipment, but had light artillery, mortar and improvised other ways to get the job done (would toss 100s of grenade at once to saturate explosions). At least that's what I've gathered, and I think the field artillery helps slow the Japanese advance against early on. China really isn't going to use the artillery to turn the tide of battle either.

_____________________________

Fall Weiss II - SC3 Mod
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4183873

(in reply to MrTomnus)
Post #: 7
RE: China - 1/12/2022 5:55:10 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: petedalby
I suspect that probably means that the balance is about right


If you are bad at the game then you can always get better or change the difficulty level.
If you are an expert at the game and you still die horribly as China to a human Japan before 1941 then you can do what exactly?

And honestly the guy complaining that China is too strong is talking about fighting the ai. The ai is bad. Anyone who thinks defeating the ai means anything about game balance is wrong.

(in reply to petedalby)
Post #: 8
RE: China - 1/12/2022 7:19:26 PM   
Laurenz

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 5/29/2021
Status: offline 		A nice game design work around could be to reduce the experience on the Japanese armies (humans can use them very well AI cant) and give them on level of range on their planes. This would allow the Japanese to attack all major objectives in China with their carriers, but fall short of Chungking, which is a major tipping point making up ~1/3 of the Chinese MPP production at the time (with the mine and city directly behind it). This is assuming doubble chitting long range, so there should be around half a year of range 7 on the carriers, before they need to go attack the USA end of 41/beginning of 42).

This could give the Japanese a strong but limited tool to reach inital objectives, while allowing counterplay, and beeing limited, so that Japan cannot just break China without investing into it.

Potential problems:

-) might be ahistoric
-) could have a strong impact in the war in the pacific
-) carriers might not be a sufficent replacement for the army experience on its own

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 9
RE: China - 1/12/2022 10:05:33 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline 		Concerning China and MP....I have barely been able to stop Japan (but it can be done) by getting Inf Weapons, AA and most importantly Command and Control to lvl 2 asap. Infantry Warfare also needs doing. Once Inf Weapons gets to 2, then resistance and stopping the Japanese (human player) is possible. Chunking can not fall...that's the most important thing.

Still, I would argue a slight tweak in favor of China. At least in the south..in 1939-40..something seems off a bit with Chinese resistance in the Changsha region.

Could be that the Allies need to intervene and hit Japanese interests early in 42 such as in the DEI etc....
Its the window of 1939 to late 1941 that is so dire for China..and imho at least in the south, China is too weak than it was historically.

Maybe a MP only scenario as suggested would be the way to go. Still...it seems balanced pretty good for the initial turns, except in the south on the Changsha front.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to Laurenz)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> China Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.672