Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> The War Room



Message

wolf4 -> Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/4/2008 3:42:25 AM)

I used to play Gary Grigsby's World at War - original version - but then stopped it for one reason only. I found that everytime I played the Axis side either Russia or the Western Allies would crush me in a flood of attack which I couldn't stave off no matter what I did. I tried to play intelligently but was always pressed for time knowing full well that sooner or later the flood gates would open and Russia and the Allies would overwhelm me.

I never had the chance to enjoy experimenting alternative ways of attacking the rest of the world; trying out different strategies. Instead I could never get that far - Russia was already overwhelming me and so were the Allies. There was no breather; it was always a race against the clock! For me it killed the enjoyment of playing the game.

Did anyone else have this experience? Or was I really that stupid in my playing? Yes, I can hear the obvious and expected response to that question. I know that there were specific key areas to exploit in order to get the upper hand, but for some reason I couldn't pull it off. But really, do I have to play at expert level from the outset just to get even? Whereas on the Allies side it seemed they could afford to play "stupidly" and still win. Perhaps I'm exaggerating a little bit. Nevertheless, that was the "impression" I had with the game.

I realise this is what happened in history but I do not want it to be so overwhelmingly predictable in a game that no matter what I do I will lose. Or if you are playing on the Allies side you don't want to know for a fact you are going to almost always win. If it is going to be that predictable then what is the point of playing the game?

Finally, the game "Advanced Tactics" came along and there you can actually create your own maps. It is enjoyable because you do not know for certain who is going to win. There is now room and time to "deliciously" plan out one's strategies and tactics. Besides, who wants to keep playing games that are always based on real events where one side is definitely weak, fighting on two fronts and the outcome being so predictable that playing the game loses it's meaning.

Did anyone have this experience when playing on the Axis side? Is the latest version "A World Divided" any better on this issue? I would be interested to know. Thanks.



SGT Rice -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/4/2008 5:46:48 AM)

I shared your frustration with Axis prospects in W@W. There were several features in W@W that weighed heavily against the Axis which have been corrected or mitigated in AWD. IMO the biggest issue was:

Wide Open Technology Buys. In W@W the Western Allies could fast track technology buys on critical unit attributes from the start of the war. This had the most dramatic effect with infantry; the WA could usually get by with 10 on-map infantry units, which they could tech up to 9 attack/9 evasion by late 43/early 44. The Germans rarely did better than 8/8 infantry, so the end game against a competent WA opponent degenerated into a demoralizing, one-sided walk over by invincible phalanxes of American infantry (with no WA tanks in sight; who needs'em?).

In AWD there are several restrictions on tech buys; they're limited to 1 point per turn for each unit attibute until 1941. Then they bump up to 2 points per turn until Russia or the US is at war. And in the late game they're restricted by a cap of 3 points per turn on any tech levels beyond World Standard +2. The cumulative effect of these limits is such that the Germans can maintain parity or even a slight lead in technology during the late game. So the Allied offensives into Germany aren't one-sided overruns; the Allies take losses, are vulnerable to counterattacks, and have to race against time to gain the victory.

Against players of equal ability the game SHOULD end in Axis surrender; the question is whether the Axis can hold on long enough to score the victory in game terms. A critical implication of this play balance is that the Axis player(s) need to be very sensitive to 'the high-water mark'; the point in the game when the Allies have gained an advantage in numbers and sufficient technical parity to seize the initiative and force the Axis to defend. As the Axis you have to anticipate this moment in the game and totally change your tactics when it arrives. IMO Japan is trickiest in this respect; the WA navy can lunge for the home islands leaving most of your ground/air units stuck in China and SE Asia.

There were also some features of W@W that could turn a game into a very lopsided Axis victory; huge teched-up wolfpacks could sweep the Royal Navy from the seas if the WA wasn't fully anticipating them. This has been corrected by making U-boat targeting of surface units a low probability event and also by advancing US entry in the face of an overwhelmingly successful U-boat campaign (based on transport sinkings).

Hope that helps. There are MANY other significant improvements in AWD; I'll let others share their favorites.



GKar -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/4/2008 9:34:10 AM)

As SGT Rice already pointed out, the game is supposed to end in either an "Auto Victory" for the Axis (at a certain number of victory points, usually happening sometime during game year 1943) or in Axis defeat (usually between late 1944 and 1946). That's the compromise the game developers took between having a rather fictional game of world conquest and the historical realities.

Against a human opponent you will have enough suspense and challenge playing by these rules anyway, if playing against the AI it is well possible to conquer the world as the Axis (you can deactivate both "Auto Victory" and the time limit) or to have a hard time as the Allies by using the higher levels of difficulty. In addition to the difficulty settings (bonuses in supply production and combat) there are special scenarios meant to be played against the AI ("Axis Blitz" and "Arsenal of Democracy"). And if that's not enough, it is straightforward to mod the scenario files a little in order to make the enemy even stronger.



wolf4 -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/4/2008 9:58:56 PM)

Thank you SGT Rice for your post and for having taken the time to write to me in such length.

I read carefully what you wrote and it was a help to me. I think what you say is true. In light of possible improvements in the second version, AWD, and what you have said, I have taken the step of purchasing the game "A world Divided".

I always liked the "feel" of the game and I am going to give it another try. I do understand the issues you brought up and the sensitive balance between historical accuracies and gameplay.

Once again thanks four your post; helpful to the point where I actually went and purchased the game.



wolf4 -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/4/2008 10:14:37 PM)

Thanks to you too GKar for taking the time to answer my post.

Yes I wholeheartedly agree with you and do understand the compromise that game developers have to decide upon between a fictional game and historical realities.

Your second paragraph as well as the post from GKar convinced me to purchase the game. No, don't worry, I won't blame you guys if anything goes wrong. My decision. The comments you made seemed justifiable so thank you to both you and GKar for your posts.

Oh, and if you guys ever come to my "neck of the woods", your're both quite welcome to join my pack for a howling session on the cliff edge.



MrQuiet -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/4/2008 11:14:19 PM)

You will not be sorry about your AWD purchase. If you liked the first one at all you will love this version.
Just out of curiousity have you read any of the AAR battles in this forrum?
There are many games that illustrate Axis ability to survive untill 46, game victory, and also some games have ended with Axis Auto Victory (Decisive win)

I agree that you can make more mistakes as Allies and still pull off a victory but I believe the allied edge is very slight at this stage.

Just to add to some of the key changes that give allies a bit tougher time in AWD over the original:

Amphibious attacks
1) Allies start the game with amphib value 3, meaning they can only land 3 units in each amphib attack.
2) units have to start the turn they amphib on a coastal region
3) the further a unit travels to amphib, the less combat effective it is
3) artillary and air power can opportunity fire on any units invadeing their area
4) You use to only need one transport per zone except for the invadeing area, now you need enough transport in all zones traversed to give enough transport capacity. (I.E. Units can not realisticly come from all over the globe to amphib a area anymore)

Resourse collection
Resources have to be connected by rail or transport to be collected.
Allies have NMRC (Non millitary resource consumption) which helps stop the allies from stockpiling 100s of resources 

Combined Arms Bonus
Allies must produce armor (enough to match Axis deployments) if they want to gain CAB in battle (+3 aded to dice rolls)


The amphib rules alone make the game more difficult for the allies vs the original.
Hope that helps
-MrQuiet





wolf4 -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/5/2008 2:05:25 AM)

MrQuiet, thank you for your post. Thanks for your time and effort to reveal to me some key changes in the game.

Actually I have not read any of the AAR battles in the forum. It was partly for that reason I mentioned in the first post that "perhaps I'm exaggerating a little bit". I knew I was making sweeping judgements on the game, but I really wanted to be proven wrong and hence I came out strong on the attack.

However, I am very glad you mentioned AAR battles in the forum. Because I was very glad to read from you that there were many instances of games illustrating Axis ability to survive until 1946, game victory and even decisive wins. This was the kind of response I wanted to hear. Furthermore, you took the time to highlight some key changes in AWD.

In any event, I did like very much the first game of GGWAW and I feel that you are right, I will like the latest version. In fact I have already started looking at it - learning again how it is played - and I like what I see. I know the real test is in the playing, but you and others have more or less convinced me that the balance is better. I know it won't be perfect, but at least it won't be terrible.

Once again MrQuiet thank you very much for your input.

By the way, with regard to your name, "MrQuiet", I hope us wolves didn't disturb you with our howling last night, we were having a little "wolf party"! [sm=00000924.gif]



GKar -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/5/2008 9:53:28 AM)

Welcome to the club, wolf4! [sm=00000436.gif]

Once you're ready, feel free to be crushed - ahem to enjoy a nice PBEM. [:D]



wolf4 -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/5/2008 5:20:22 PM)

Thanks for the invitation GKar.

However, I have to say I am definitely not ready. Yesterday - without knowing all the rules and the subtleties involved - I did a quick little "try-out" and was soon defeated! I obviously was making huge mistakes and I was making a lot of blind moves without thinking it through. I was just playing through the game quickly just to see how it works.

I didn't expect to get "hammered" so quickly though. But I realise now that the "feel" of this game is that if you neglect something it will be taken advantage of quickly and in a big way. Because looking at the map,[sm=00000734.gif] units do not move through small hexes but instead through very large areas or sections of countries. So in a space of a short time you are moving through several countries. It is this I have to get used to.

Anyway, I will continue to soldier on and try to learn the rules in greater depth and get to know the subtleties involved in the game. For example, near the end of the manual it tells what German strategies should be considered and these things I need to know about.

So at the moment I am a little lost cub in the game, not able to make a decent enough "howl" yet!



SGT Rice -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (3/5/2008 10:31:12 PM)

Glad we could offer encouragement/assistance; welcome to the pack! Feel free to toss out game play questions in this forum; lots of experienced players willing to offer their perspectives on things.



jbunnelle -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (4/9/2008 7:16:57 PM)

I totally understand where you're coming from. Granted, I'm no strategic mastermind and only a casual player, but I still find AWD excruciatingly hard, playing as the Axis. I mean, even after Spain joined, I still got my ass kicked. That being said, this game is undoubtedly the finest WWII simulator ever made, at least in terms of resource availability, logistical limitations, etc. But, well, getting my ass kicked constantly just doesn't make me want to play it. [:(] I find North Africa and the Med particularly frustrating, especially that huge UK stack that sweeps in from the East. I've tried every strategy I can think of but still don't have enough resources to spread around, no matter how well I prepare; and yes, I do realize and appreciate that level of realism and think the developers nailed it beautifully.

I guess in the end I prefer games that give me a bit more wiggle-room historically, like starting pre-39, with more time to rev up my industry or research other types of technology. I realize that's not historically accurate, but oh well, so it goes.

This weekend I'm going to fire up my first game with the new patch.

Oh, and I should point out that AWD has an Axis Blitz campaign that gives added early manpower and industry to the Axis. For those of us that are strategically-challenged and dislike monkeying with the difficulty settings, it's a nice option. I haven't tried it yet, since I still grind my way masochistically through the normal scenario. Also sort of embarrassing knowing it's included to offer a better challenge to an Allied player and not to help a sh*tty Axis one. [:D]



beevor_fan -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (4/16/2008 2:02:53 PM)

Agreed - GGWaW AWD is a good game in single-player and a pure masterpiece in PBEM.



templeton -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (6/6/2008 4:58:23 PM)

I would add that the Axis were in a race against time to avoid being crushed...

What would be interested would be to tinker with pre-war options, perhaps try Plan Z and delaying starting the war etc etc.



Kikkie21 -> RE: Flood of Attack - Balance Issue? (11/3/2008 10:46:18 PM)

I always found I could beat Russia. I'd start in 1940 and just build a really good balance of things for Barbarossa. 50/50 on airpower and ground forces. The ground forces themselves were split pretty much equally amongst tanks, infantry and artillery. I'd often attack in Fall 1941. I'd beat Russia by late 1943 (conquering the whole of it by 44/45) but the problem was that it was impossible to beat the WA. They simply have wayyyy to many resources and production points, no matter how much I researched and produced (I tried several different approaches and variances to how I balanced that). WA airpower is absolutely overwhelming as well. That was always what did me in, and I could never counter it no matter what I did. It would drag on until 1950. Slowly but surely I would be worn down through a battle of attrition, until the WA reached Western Germany, at which point i would end up quitting of course, no chance whatsoever.

The key seems to lay completely in beating Russia 100% within 15 months or so. So you'd have to be ready by Summer 1941 (I find it hard to REALLY be ready any earlier) and beat them completely by early 1943, which itself is a great challenge obviously. Even after they can't really resist anymore you have to keep advancing deep, and you have to do it. Otherwise, obviously theyll just build up in the far east and hit you back when youre concentrating everything against the WA. Compromising the very resources you need to beat the WA.

I think if you can beat Russia very quickly then you can win as Germany. But I certaintly wouldn't say its impossible to win as Germany.

Believe me, it took me a long time to be able to beat Russia, but i've found out that if you don't beat them right away then it's absolutely hopeless. I'm not sure about doing a Sealion thing. But it seems pretty impractical to me. At least in this game. What I learned is that using your intelligence in this game really does pay off, It's how I beat Russia eventually. Just can't beat them fast enough yet, and once the WA comes along you better have invested alot into airpower and AA.

Oh another thing. As soon as Barbarossa commenses, you change your balance of production amongst ground forces. Produce more infantry and artillery than tanks. At the same time researching tank attack, and tactical/heavy bomber ground attack. I found it useless to attack Russian industry and rail lines, I stuck purely to blitzkrieg tactics.

The Germans are the funnest to play because it does take intelligence and skill. I love being overwhelmed on two fronts [:'(]. Although of course what I said here applies mainly to original W@W.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375