ZappSweden vs Rambo Outcome no Surprise

[Jollyguy]

The outcome of the first match between ZappSweden as the Axis, and Rambo as the Allies, is not a surprise to me. SC is the BEST strategic game I've ever played, I LOVE it, but it still carries a significant Axis bias. An Axis player who learns the right moves to make, and becomes skilled along the way, should win virtually all the games he plays.

In the first draft of this post I actually explained exactly how the Axis player can win almost everytime, but on second thought deleted the "roadmap" before hitting the "Add New Topic" button. It's more challenging for other players to learn how to do it, rather than someone simply telling them.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Rambo is the best SC player I've encountered. But touting how many heads he "cracked," etc., etc. as the Axis, was like someone behind the wheel of a Ferrari bragging about how many Fords he beat. A Ford is a fine car, but it ain't no Ferrari. A very good Allied player can hang in there against a very good Axis player, but they don't have the advantages afforded the Axis player. The outcome is vitually foregone.

That’s why I don’t like to play the Axis anymore, there’s no challenge there. The challenge is trying to win as the Allies. I consider myself a VERY good Allied player, which means more times than not I can beat an Axis player who is only good or average. But pit me as Allies against a VERY good Axis player, and I should lose almost everytime. I don't believe the game should possess that degree of certainity. On a good day even a mediocre professional sports team has a chance against the best team, but that can't happen in SC.

1.06 was HUGE improvement over 1.05. It pushed the game out at least another year. But as I've said in other posts, SC, while very close to balance, is not quite there.

Ignoring other issues which can wait for SC 2, IMO there is a very simple fix available now to move SC 1 to balance: On average increase US and Russian readiness. That alone may do it. Give me Russian entry in June 41, and there's a fair chance that I can prevail as the Allies, regardless of the Axis opponents skill. Russian entry in July or August, I've still got a chance. But when Russian entry gets pushed out to late 1941, or early 1942, forget it, game over for the Allies against a skilled Axis opponent.

If SC 2 is due out relatively soon, then a 1.07 patch isn’t necessary. We can wait. But if SC 2 is a year off, then it would be GREAT to see just a few more tweaks to SC 1, to make this great game even better.

[jon_j_rambo]

That was the first game I've played as Allies that actually went far. Zappsweden plays the High-Tech-Jets perfect. He plays the Germans well too. The difference between him & the rookies is patience. There's no reason to make hasty decisions as the Axis, because they are in charge. Playing Zap comes down who controls the air.

I put 2-chits into superbattleships for Britain was stupid; that just gives that tech to Italy. Just wanted to do something new. If you want to beat Zap, you'd better spend ever MMP into air-power, because the ground game is pointless.

USA didn't enter til March 1942. Gee that's cool. Welcome to the game Americans, Germans have 4-Level-15-Jets sitting in France with long range. The USA is worthless enough as you're already the one-shot-landing-wonder. Enjoy the wonderful $180/turn. Maybe you can buy 2-chits & a Jet in 1942. Oh, don't forget about buying a $440 HQ for the US, that takes a couple of months to get.

Russia did okay, but never got any help from Brits/Americans. The ground combat is a joke for the Allies. Supplied Armies, with 1-star experience, in a city, w/ HQ can't do dick to the Germans.

I played very conservative & didn't take chances. Wanted to make ZappSweden earn it. For this being my first real-game as the Allies, you might as well go pyscho at the beginning with ships, because they don't mean anything, for air is King against Zappsweden.

SC strategies have been exhausted. Like Jollyguy said, all you need is the "cookie-cutter" book on Axis winning play.

What cost me was one-thing. The frickin' British couldn't get High-Tech-Jets until a year-after the Germans already had them. I had to hide my fighters in Canada. Yeah, you can fight in Egypt, but whatever, I don't like to fight were supply sucks.

Jolly --- Now I know why you do the Iraq-Jet-Thing with Britain. I'd rather give Egypt up than get SeaLioned.

The problem with SC is the victory conditions. What are they? Do you play to 1947?

Well, vacation is over. Work is in full swing, this game takes forever to play. It takes 16-20 hours if you want to stall as the Allies. Or go crazy & get beat early in France.

What would be nice: When a country's capital falls & they surrender, all the territory doesn't convert until being moved thru. I wasn't willing to take a chance with the Brits in France.

Allies are lame.

[elguapo2003]

Winning as the Allies is easy, I've yet to win as the Axis. Everything is stacked against it in this game. I think there is a major bias toward the Allies in this game making it virtually impossible to win as an Axis player, at least against the AI.

[zappsweden]

Rambo, you did some minor mistakes. You tried to hold Malta. That must have cost you alot in MPP to reinforce it every turn and i gained much experience for my Italian fleet. Without the Malta losses, you could have bought an extra air fleet.

Also, you maybe fought too hard for France. This meant that i was late getting France, Sweden and Norway, especially since i screwed up in Sweden. Another result from it was that not very many French units made it to England (correct?), UK took lots of air casulaties in intercepting duels (correct?) and i imagine it took long time before you could replace those casualties.

If an allied player is too aggressive early in the game then he is more or less forced to be passive later on, to lick the wounds.

The late US entry (because of the dutch gambit) and the weak UK forces made my Russian wars easier.

Before dooming allies, let me try them in our next game and i will give you a piece of my allied tactics.

[ January 02, 2003, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

I would like to say it is a shame if axis has an advantage since all options in a standard game(partisans, siberian wars, free french) already are towards the allies i.e you cannot change any options to even out the game.

[pzgndr]

JollyGuy and others - How significant is the Axis bias? And, considering there won't be any more patches to SC, what adjustments to the scenarios could be made to improve play balance?

I tend to agree that the Axis has a slight bias. Once they are successful in reaching a point where Axis MPPs exceed Allied MPPs, there is little for the Allied player to look forward to except lucky IT tech advances. In 3R, at least the BRP base for the Allies would grow each year faster than the Axis and you could usually count on regaining the initiative eventually. In SC, if the Axis can get beyond the "critical point" they can drive home a victory.

I'd like to hear from folks who have played my scenario mods. Is play balance improved any or not? What other scenario adjustments could be considered?

[Kuniworth]

As I see it the russians shuld be a lot stronger in groundforces. That would more likely get the axis forces to bog down more often than now.

[jon_j_rambo]

Zapp --- I tried to hang onto France too long? Are you kidding me? I played conservative! I didn't lose 1-British unit in the defense of France.

Malta; what the hell should I do with Malta? Just give it to you? I don't give a rats asa about those Italian ships w/ experience. You play slow boring SC, well, so do I. I have my British fleet with experience & tech. Who do you think the Italians got their naval tech from? You're the boring ass player sitting there. You're one of those people who have read every detail in the rule-book & play this 1947 rule.

Bill Macon & others --- The Russian front is joke. I have Armies in full-supply, w/ HQ, & you can't hurt the Germans. It's a joke. All Zapp does is play his "i'm going to play to 1947 strategy" so I'll get a bunch of experienced troops. I have a 14-JETS-IN-SUPPLY-WITH-EXPERIENCE-IN-THE-CAPITAL(and beside)-WITH-HQ & it can't to squat to the Germans. What's the point of playing for 20-hours for that crap?

Let the Battlefront.com pay me to test their software & figure out the game.

Hey Battlefront.com, Moon, & Hubert: Why don't you start sending me free software & pay me to test your software?

I'll tell you what needs done:

New victory conditions. All Zapp does is play slow defensive Axis. Get a few experienced Supermen-Armies & 10-Jets. They all he does is caputure Leningrad, then he can play the game out to 1947 because that's the way the rules are set up. Then it's a matter of MMP's. The Americans are a joke.

A scoring system needs set-up. The game is biased to the Axis, so a scoring systems need made. Why? I'm not going to play for 20-hours & say I played a bad game. Zapp justs plays for destroying units & wants his opponent to give-up. Well, Zapp, Momma taught me never to quit. You're like the kid I used to play wargames as a kid who sits around all day reading rules & hides behind them. What are the victory conditions? Well, I can play language lawyer too. Until the victory conditions are defined, bring it on. I will do it better as the Axis.

[ January 02, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Scorpion_sk]

Rambo, why do you WHINE and POUT like a 14-year old? (No offense to CVM who is an exception)

I understood the "bragging act" as entertainment for you and others, but this is not fun.

I have said it before:

Air units are too decisive. Let me guess, Zappsweden built umpteen air fleets and zero strategic bombers and pounded the allies to oblivion? The same can happen the other way round if the allies get lucky with tech.

I tried to suggest an alternative setup where only Strategic Bomber units are allowed to bomb ground units but noooo, people want it to be just like before because it is so well designed and balanced (NOT!),

Historically the germans had 7 air fleets at the peak of their power. How many more do you think they could have built? Could they conceivably have doubled that number, like we see in most SC games?

The U.S. is too weak, that´s a given. 300 MPP and an earlier entry are in order.

Well, I made my historical mod, which can be DL´d from Otto´s.

It throws you into a situation much closer to the reality : the OOBs are (hopefully) correct, the production capabilities are re-evaluated.

But I think it´s a líttle too much for the SC community to swallow : I think people are a bit conservative here.

However, we need more AAR´s like yours: perhaps people will start realizing that House Rules and modified scenarios are in order.

[zappsweden]

Hmm, i also agree that Jets are too powerful, BUT what is the alternative?

Should i not buy Jets and let Rambo get away with his own tactics?

For example, he fake-transported an army from Leningrad but landed it ON THE SAME TURN in Leningrad and attacked me with the extra readiness bonus a landing unit gets.

Ofcourse i buy Jets if that means winning the game.

Ofcourse i try to destroy enemy units when a units cost twice as much building than it does reinforcing it.

Ofcourse i try to bleed the enemy to death if that is the way the game works.

Trying to robb me from my win by claiming i play boring is just not very nice.

I cannot understand why you first complain that a game takes 20-30 hours and then say that you would never give up (and forcing me to occupy the whole map or battle on for a stalemate win in 1947).

[ January 02, 2003, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[kenfedoroff]

I would like to see an option in the Rules/Variations called, for lack of a better term, "Historical Tech."

Except for Industrial Tech.,(which would be more of a mobilization factor), Tech. advances would be limited to what year it is. (Example), Level #1 no earlier than year 1941, Level #4 no earlier than 1944 etc.

This would eliminate lucky tech advances that could dominate a game.

I know this has been proposed before, and could be incorpoated as a "house rule". It should be an option just like FoW, Free French, etc...

The other penalty for the Axis, should the war continue into 1946, would be the atomic bomb. How this penalty would be patched into the game, I have no idea. Perhaps the Allies would be given a set number of strategic bomber attacks that would eliminate a city with no chance for rebuild.

Perhaps the above options would force the Axis to take risks for an earlier victory than 1947.

I have just started to play human opponents and it is most fun. I have yet to face the incredible Tech. advances, (or the lack thereof) describe in this forum, but I did experience this against the AI. I hope we can continue to make contributions towards making SC even more fun.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Gunslingr3]

For example, he fake-transported an army from Leningrad but landed it ON THE SAME TURN in Leningrad and attacked me with the extra readiness bonus a landing unit gets.

Wow, that's about as gamey as it gets. Noticed any other game design exploits?

[J P Wagner]

But give Rambo credit where credit is due, whether one considers it gamey or not, how many people would have thought of his Leningrad move? If it's allowed in the game, then the game mechanics need to be questioned.

[ January 02, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[Jollyguy]

Bill;

I believe the Axis bias is significant. I could liken it to a complicated jigsaw puzzle. The first few times putting it together is hard, but it becomes easier each time.

A good Axis player who follows the script should win better than 9 times out of 10 against even the most skilled Allied player. The only real way for an Axis player to lose is to do something outside the script, i.e., a Sea Lion.

Now, with that said, you might get the idea that the current level of imbalance is huge. It's not. I would say 1.06 moved Axis imbalance from a 4th and 50 situation for the Allies, to first and goal on the ten. It is VERY close to balance. The reason is that we now 5% ind tech, and an overall research slowdown. That was huge. But the other significant variable that wasn't addressed, and I believe it was because we were so focused on rapidity of research in 1.05 and earlier versions, is: US and Russian readiness.

You make US and and Russian readiness more random, and increase it overall on average, and your going to see more Allied victories. As the game is now, the Axis simply has to hit the right minors in the right order, and he can build a huge base of mpps. Once that's done, he can patiently bulldoze and swamp the Allies with units.

It's common sense. Assume the Russians don't come in until Jan 1942. Between lets say June 41 and December 41, the Axis player can accumulate another large pool of mpps. I haven't added it up exactly, but its probably between 2500 and 3000 mpps. Do the math. That's 7 airfleets!

While we're on the topic, maybe transfer of the Siberian army should be a little more variable. Have them arrive when Kharkov gets approached sometimes, etc. Mix it up. That's what makes sports contests interesting, you never know what's going to happen on any given Sunday (as the saying goes). Do the same here, swirl all the significant variables around, and keep them moving.

As SC sits, people can figure it out like...a jigsaw puzzle. Drop the right pieces in place as the Axis player, and it's solved. Victory almost every time.

I would also like to see more variability on the minors. Maybe Greece and Iraq comes in on the Allied side sometimes. Maybe give the Allies an infusion of units or mpps sometimes. If Barbarossa is late, sometimes the Siberians arrive earlier. If Sweden is hit late or on the same turn as Barbarrosa to avoid the bump in Russian readiness, maybe no Finnish entry. If Cairo falls, Iraq goes to the Allies and Russian readiness moves up. If the Germans hit Spain, maybe Vichy moves Allied and Russian readiness bumps up big. If the Italians hit Gibralter and get ships and subs into the Atlantic, American readiness moves up.

MIX ALL THE MAJOR GAMEPLAY VARIABLEs UP INTO A BIG OL' STEW!

[pzgndr]

Leningrad move is slick. Only good for one attack, though. Bombard the port to <5 and it won't happen again.

Since victory conditions and scoring will not change until SC2, these will just have to be resolved by mutual agreement between players.

The Russian Front and the power of air fleets are also issues that will not change until SC2. Scorpion's house rule is interesting; I'm just not comfortable with it. House rules in general tend to bug me.

It appears that research tech advances were progressing well in the Rambo-Zapsweden game. Was this being played by PBEM or TCP/IP? I've noted that tech advances appear very slow for both sides in my TCP/IP games and asked Hubert about this. Solo games against the AI seem fine and I suspect PBEM exchanges are also fine, but something in the TCP/IP data transfer may be affecting the random research results. I'm curious if others notice a potential problem. Might just be that Immer Etwas and I are both doomed to bad luck. :confused:

[SeaWolf_48]

On the money Bill Macon

Once the Axis gets ahead with MPP'S there is no way for the allies to catch up. I'm playing a 1939 senario against 82ndReady and Russia is holding on but just barely. Russia gets 420mpps, US gets 180 mpps, UK gets 145 mpps; that's 745 total. His Nazis gets 645 mpps, and the Itatians get 180- it has Spain and Greece- they have 825 mpps. I can't catch up.

Your right, in 3R the US would gain a higher percentage of RP's each year, which gave the Allies the atvantage the longer the game went.

[blackbellamy]

i think the single most important imbalancing factor in this entire game is that there is no way the allies can support the russians

any world war 2 game which does not include lend-lease and the murmansk convoy automatically biases the outcome to the germans

the german can ignore every single front but the east. they can lose africa, they can lose italy, they can lose half of france but as long as they have 12 air fleets on the eastern front the russians will die and once the russians die it's game over

the allies can only stand and watch. they cannot send a single tin of food, a single 2.5 ton truck, not a single spare part to the russians ever.

but anyway, the underpowered americans only get their stupid 180 mpp's so it's not like they have anything to spare for the damn russians either way.

[pzgndr]

Jollyguy, one thing we can do is verify US and Russian readiness values to ensure Russia preps for war by August 1941 and US enters in December, assuming the historical roadmap is followed. This of course begs the question about Russian war readiness, which has been debated over and over. The Russia NEUTRAL option is still available, but for play balance increased readiness would place Russia on the front burner. This will not solve the problem, but may help. I do agree about more options and variability in the game, but those will have to wait until SC2.

[David Brown]

One of the problems that I see is the open ended nature of unit purchase. There's no good reason not to buy dozens of air fleets if you can afford it. I happen to dislike arbitrary limits on unit numbers because they're, well, arbitrary. So is there another, 'natural', way to keep a limit on unit numbers?

[The following idea has probably already been suggested -- I know I've posted it before, but without feedback -- but I haven't read *all* the forum postings -- so forgive me if you've seen this one already.]

Change the economics model of the game so that MPPs have to be spent on maintenance of forces in the field with costs increasing from corps to armies to armour to air fleets. Every turn the computer automatically deducts MPPs from a country's total for every unit in the field. Should a country have more units than it can support economically it would have to disband units or drop their supply to 0 until it reached the economy's limit.

Players would then have a 'soft' ceiling on the number of units they could have in the field. You could build as many units as you wanted of any type so long as you could support them economically. Because of the higher costs of supporting air fleets someone who built a great number of them would be forced to build fewer ground units and naval units in exchange.

Further, this might make MPP centres just that much more important. A player may not expend extra effort to take a 10 point city because it won't allow him to expand his army significantly faster, or hurt his opponent that much, but it may be worth it if it makes the difference between keeping the units they have already alive. A player who built right up to their economic limit and didn't keep any MPP reserves is asking for trouble.

As well, this would cut down on the total number of units in the field, making for, to my mind, a more interesting game. Being able to flood the board with corps allows for lazier play. Some of you may remember playing the board game "Hitler's War", by Avalon Hill. Each of the Axis, Soviets, and Western Allies were limited to 10 counters. That really kept the Axis on their toes. (Yes, I know that's an arbitrary limit, but it was inherent to the game design, which is not the same thing as arguing from a historical perspective about limiting air fleets).

Some units would need special rules -- for example, partisans. (I could see a player praying, "Don't give me partisans, I can't afford them!") Alas, I don't have a suggestion on how to handle them right now...

The drawback to this approach is that it would involve a large rejigging of the economic model. The current numbers in terms of unit costs and MPPs gathered per turn by the different sides have been designed for an economic model that does not include maintenance. This change would perhaps would best be saved for SC2.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by J P Wagner:

But give Rambo credit where credit is due, whether one considers it gamey or not, how many people would have thought of his Leningrad move? If it's allowed in the game, then the game mechanics need to be questioned.

Someone pulled it on me yesterday. didn't help um though

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Bill;

I would also like to see more variability on the minors. Maybe Greece and Iraq comes in on the Allied side sometimes. Maybe give the Allies an infusion of units or mpps sometimes. If Barbarossa is late, sometimes the Siberians arrive earlier. If Sweden is hit late or on the same turn as Barbarrosa to avoid the bump in Russian readiness, maybe no Finnish entry. If Cairo falls, Iraq goes to the Allies and Russian readiness moves up. If the Germans hit Spain, maybe Vichy moves Allied and Russian readiness bumps up big. If the Italians hit Gibralter and get ships and subs into the Atlantic, American readiness moves up.

MIX ALL THE MAJOR GAMEPLAY VARIABLEs UP INTO A BIG OL' STEW!

This would kick perverbial Ars.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by David Brown:

One of the problems that I see is the open ended nature of unit purchase. There's no good reason not to buy dozens of air fleets if you can afford it. I happen to dislike arbitrary limits on unit numbers because they're, well, arbitrary. So is there another, 'natural', way to keep a limit on unit numbers?

YES it's Called UPKEEP

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by David Brown:

One of the problems that I see is the open ended nature of unit purchase. There's no good reason not to buy dozens of air fleets if you can afford it. I happen to dislike arbitrary limits on unit numbers because they're, well, arbitrary. So is there another, 'natural', way to keep a limit on unit numbers?

[The following idea has probably already been suggested -- I know I've posted it before, but without feedback -- but I haven't read *all* the forum postings -- so forgive me if you've seen this one already.]

>snip good ideas<

Yes this idea has already been brought up, but one

which I wholeheartedly endorse [since it was once

my Brand New Idea Which Wasn't All Brand New

too ]. I'd also tie it in with oil. In other

words, you're right-logistics should have a cost

associated with it-right now it is a freebie to

keep your forces supplied, which favors the

Germans more than anybody else [since in the real

war logistics was their Achilles Heel].

People who design these grand strategic games

always have to keep in mind that logistics [not

supply, two related but different things-supplies

are all the things you need to run a war,

logistics is the art of procuring them and

getting them to the front-line troops so they can

kill the enemy] is a very important factor and

you ignore it at your peril.

Without logistics you end up taking home a lot of

erroneous conclusions if you try to draw them from

the game experience {a lot of discussion of the

capabilities of the Wehrmacht on the Russian

Front [and Med!] often founders on this point}.

John DiFool

[ January 02, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Is "maintenance" that was mentioned, not the same as "upkeep" which was mentioned several posts later here on this thread?

For me, one element of A3R that was cool was money management.

If at the end of the year you had struggled and managed to save a lot of "cash" you recieved a hefty bonus to your next years budget.

This meant that the US and Russian economies were a very "real and present danger" to a german player that wanted to "play it safe".

But at the same time, the Allies had to spend wisely, or suffer the consequences.

Is this modelled in SC and I have just not found it yet, or would it be a notion to add to SC2?

Oh and guys. please, regardless of why, please don't spiral the forum into more bickering, the forum has actually been fun the last two days.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

I'd also tie it in with oil. In other

words, you're right-logistics should have a cost

associated with it-right now it is a freebie to

keep your forces supplied, which favors the

Germans more than anybody else [since in the real

war logistics was their Achilles Heel].

People who design these grand strategic games

always have to keep in mind that logistics [not

supply, two related but different things-supplies

are all the things you need to run a war,

logistics is the art of procuring them and

getting them to the front-line troops so they can

kill the enemy] is a very important factor and

you ignore it at your peril.

Well said You weren't in S2 were u

Damn pencil pushers