Jump to content

Axis Bias


Recommended Posts

Have a number of games under my belt now, and my sense is that the game has an Axis bias. Reading other posts I believe this might be the concensus on the board. However, I don't believe the bias is dramatic and small steps could nudge the game toward better balance. Some of these adjustments were used in SC II which I believe ended with near perfect balance. Here are my thoughts:

1) The Japanese can steamroll the Pacific and flatten Pearl Harbor in one turn. Just a bit more in this theatre could buy the Allies some time. If the US navy popped up with advancements that would cost the Japanese, and perhaps an understrength corp on Wake could appear in early 1941 which would be historical.

2) Important minors could start with a bit better placement and entrenchment. I.e., currently Turkey can easily be taken out in one turn from the Middle East which really puts pressure on the Russians. Sweden goes in one turn with a tac bomber and a para. And Norway is very hard for the Allies to take given the weather in 1939, but for the Germans it's a snap, one para and they get the resources and those two understrength corps. And the Phillipines could be a tad more stuboborn, to be historical. Perhaps an entrenched US army.

3) Russia could use just a bit more. With everything else in mind perhaps just another research chit and a couple more corps, and/or a sooner start to industry rebuilding. Currently the Axis doesn't really need to batter the Russians at first like in SC 2, they can just take their time and get around to them after they've built a huge mmp base.

4) Even another corp or two for the British would help. They are simply starved for mmps at the outset. Doesn't have to be at the outset, but perhaps in the queue.

5) A good Axis player goes right for India with the Japanese and then starts bombing the Russians. A bit more here would buy a bit more time.

From what I've seen the Axis really gain strength and becomes pretty much an unstoppable force by 1943, with a US sized economic base and a huge, combined German/Italian/Japanese navy. By then they've conquered so much territory that they can absorb and fairly easily parry the first, expected Allied counterstroke, then resume their domination. If no SeaLion England becomes an unassaiblable island, but then mainland Europe is the same. By that time the Japanese are all over the place.

I wouldn't be in favor of dramatic changes as they all need to be field tested, but I would give the Allies a bit more and the Axis nothing and then see how things work out.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe JG, a better battle for France would assist the European theater and perhaps with the new National Morale factor that would affect Axis MPP accumulations, small nips and bites of the Axis pie could eventually erode their readiness and momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having played quite a few H2H games now I'm of the firm opinion that if the Axis player plays aggressively without taking too many risks he will win 99% of the time under the current victory conditions.

The only chance the Allies have at present is to go 'all in' for the Italy gambit and actually take Italy out early 1940. This is a massive gamble because if France falls before Italy surrenders the Allies are really knackered (to use a technical term).

Jollyguy's suggestions are all good. Certainly some minors should have more risks attached to them if you attack them. Also, as a number of people have said, TacAir is far to powerful at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still learning as I go and trying new things and making some mistakes, and have in mind some good, standard Allied moves that could buy more time. But Grong is right. All the Axis has to do is basically lean away from the punches, as in a few years they build such a deep economic base that in time they can replace their losses no problem. Right now it is absolutely no problem for the Germans to get the second round of outer minors of Sweden; Norway; Spain: Portugul; All of north/central Africa; Turkey; All the Middle East; reclaim Finland; and then push the Russian back to the Urals. The Japanese have no problem taking all of the Pacific excluding Australia and up to India. A good Axis player can also take Pearl Harbor and Midway. (Most good Axis players will entirely bypass Australia.) However, with that said I wouldn't want to go overboard, I think nudging the Allies up a bit should be tried at first, as balance is probably not that far off. I know in my initial Allied games I tried to kill Axis more than look at the board strategically. In my later Allied games I’m trying to be more strategic and patient.

In my game with Rambo, my first Axis game, I made so many mistakes it was almost embarassing, and yet my Axis still took out the Russians. He concentrated on Japan and that was going to fall eventually, but in the meantime I was shoving him out of France and taking back Spain, so we decided to call it a draw.

I do agree that tac bombers are too strong. Imo they should be strongest against tanks and artillery which was their historical forte, same in general for naval, but not as strong against soft targets. Pinpoint attacks aren't going to gut a land unit. Against Sweden an elite reinforced tac bomber just plasters the initial unit placed in Stockholm and the para just casually floats down to finish the job. Same in Turkey. Turkey wouldn't be as bad if the Russians could get that eastern city and place some units around it in the mountains, that would buy time. If that city started with a full strength unit in it then after surrender the Russians could move in and better secure that flank. As it is now an Italian tank rushes in to garrison it and basically can't be dislodged, and the next turn the Germans op units over and then start pressing on the Caucusses from two sides, as they’re also coming down from Stalingrad. The Russians could buy a bomber and try to reduce the Turkish city, but that's pretty expensive early in the game when they are pressed to build enough corps to get coverage against Barbarossa. One idea could be to get the Russians their engineer earlier, or maybe give them a few pre-made fortifications.

As to the Italian gambit imo the Italians shoudl start with an entrenched army there. That took care of it if I remember correctly in SC 2.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I tend to agree with the comments here, I think it's mostly because I'm an Axis player, but the times I have played as the Allies, patience is the key. As JG has alluded to, it's very important to take your time, pick your battles carefully and use diversionary tactics.

The big deal in my mind is the accumulation of experience and of course the ability to outstrip the Allies in tech investments early. This is where the Axis create their momentum, they have easy battles at first(unit experience escalation), using their plunder to tech up and since they start earlier they have a chance/time advantage for hits.

Allies are just holding on, very little they can do in tech investing as they are fighting losing battles in a withdrawing environment and that is where Allied players get carried away, sucked into over commitment, and the balance just degenerates from here.

Discipline my Allied comrades, discipline.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sea Monkey is very right, and that's why Dragon doesn't do Poland in one turn, he's building the experience. An elite reinforced, better tech Axis unit does tremendous damage against the non-experienced, no tech Allied units. A 12 or 13 elite unit is a monster, basically just slicing through their opposition. The Brits can barely afford to buy the research to get up to speed. I also think it's unrealistic that the US doesn't start with motorization, while, the Germans and Japanese do. Don’t get me wrong, the Japanese need motorization in China otherwise it would bog down, same in Europe for the Germans. But of all countries that should start with motorization it’s the US. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simpler solution is to reduce / increase the % increase for industrial tech advance for axis and allies respectively. Japan economy can approach that of the Russia's and Germans that of the US which is not only unbalancing in game play but historically ridiculous. At is stands the axis can get all the super experienced units and out manufacture detroit and tankograd too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, we'll need to see how the new features interact from the WW1 version, especially NM, and the anti-air tech slot for ground units before any changes are made.

I'm of the opinion that the next thing to consider is giving all air units double strikes along with the armor, since all of these are "fast movers". We'll also need the ability to deselect a unit and reselect it later(same turn) if APs remain so that a combined arms scheme can be set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since playing my fair share of games, Yes...the Axis rule the planet. They don't need to be agressive at all, actually stupid to be agressive....well, depends on the definition. Axis gain so much experience & MMPs before 1944, there's not much the Americans can do. The Russians are worthless. The Brits just annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm off base here, but one glaringly obvious thing that the Allies have is a mega amount of carrier aviation. Now think about that, this little map we have with global and the fact the CAGs can have a 4 tile strike range and double strikes besides that.

OK, so you get some good advanced air and cover your CVs with fighters, they're fricken cheap, putting both the RN and USN together and just look at the coastlines the Axis have to cover, a plethora of opportunistic invasion spots with many small nation capitals in range of CAGs.

Heck...what do I know....but it seems to me you can do a lot of feints, lots of diversions and just pile in anywhere the opportunity happens to pull off the main thrust, all covered with mega Allied CAGs and fighters. I haven't even included the TAC and SAC the Amis have available especially with IT and PT maxed.

Allied commanders, you have to be patient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea, use the carriers against a fully fortified france , defended by 8 lvl 5 axis fighters :P

The british isle is not big enough to accommodate enough fighters and TACs to support the carriers.

I tried this vs Rambo's 'fortress France' , took paris and got beaten back so badly i thought i was dreaming. Despite fully upgraded US/UK fighters and TACs - you got tons of them but no room to place them :)

And on the ground, by '44 axis have several 5 star units which are immortals.

In my allied game vs Rambo (which i conceded in summer 44) I admit i did some mistakes but the big problem is USA comes in force way too late to be able to change things. I've learned my lesson and I will not attempt a D-Day in Normandy against that type of defence but instead pick remote areas where axis cannot fully deploy their might. But this bears the risk of being to late to threaten major axis objectives.

I lost the game but did not play against a cookie cutter since Rambo is not the guy to play cookie cutters. He went all in , supper aggressive, even lost a fair share of units in russia but the incredible good axis economic position helped him replace the losses easily and beat my allies back without much sweat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed HR, UK and France focus feed right into the Axis strength, not a brilliant move!:P

I was thinking more on the lines of an Iberian peninsula assault supported from NA, while always keeping the threats alive from ME, Egypt/Libya, UK and of course you've got to have the Reds still alive and kicking, all in 43.

Stay on the perimeter, chip away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point HR, there's no room for all the Air power in England to cover a significant gain in France. Plus the 50% chance of rain in England is another show stopper.

Going to Spain sucks for the Allies also. I put in a massive landing & offensive against JollyGuy.....the Nazi Panzers went thru me like butter. Allies in Spain have sorry supply for all their units. Jollyguy held me off with couple Corps (just in the defensive cities), then the Panzers rolled me out with Luftwaffen fighters that make the Red Baron look like a rookie.

Russia still alive in 1943, that's a laugher. Yeah, they are alive, behind the Urals, producing more sorry arse units for the Germans to train on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm I am thinking if the SC1/SC Blitzkrieg ideas wouldn't have been good for SCGC - air fleets which combine fighter and tacbomber operations and separately strategic bombers. You play with hardcaps so Axis can't buy a truckload of them plus UK home island would accommodate airfleets which act like a multirole - no need for double amount of tiles in order to make us of fighters AND Tacs.

Also tanks without 2 strikes would be more balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it seems I'm out voted, kind of what I figured and found, but in the interest of spurring further Allied research I'm trying to play the devil's advocate.

Actually I'm not expecting anymore patches or work on Global, so..... as I said before, you want an even game with the default campaigns, better pick the "Axis High Tide".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think the easier route is to revive Rambo's SC 1 epiphany of bidding. I remember SC1 bidding started low, all for the Russians, but ended up at around 6k to 7.5k mmps. I think here both the Brits and Russia need extra $. I'm thinking $750 for the Brits as that would allow them to do the French decision after surrender and also Singapore or whatever, to slow the Axis momentum a bit, and let's say $500 for the Russians, which would allow them to brace their defenses a bit. If the Brits had some extra $ to begin with there are multiple ways they could deploy it to harass the Axis. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on guys, really, the 39 campaign? Don't you get a little sick of the same old opening, down goes Poland, down goes LC, Denmark, Norway, France etc. etc.....same old cookie cutter approach as the axis build the momentum of MPPs and experience that is the killer.

Crap...I know what happened in WW2, I've studied it and read about it till I've got very little else to examine, let's embark upon something else, something that is within the realm of late 20s to 40s, the time of empire building and a World truly at war.

How.??.. we have decision events, so thoughtfully devised by Hubert, we have a bartering medium, MPPs, we have research and diplomacy and we begin in the early 30s or late 20s. We answer the decision events as either the Axis or the Allies, we invest in research and/or build a military, and we can sway our potential allies with diplomacy all with the allocation of MPPs we have.

Every game different, every game has new beginnings, different strategies and alliances, that is true diversification, infinite variables, a global sandbox of the era of World War based upon the SC foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, good luck with that! I used to think the same thing, now.... forty years later, it has only gotten worse, expotentially so.

Look around you.....notice the distractions of convoluted complications perpetrated by the "powers that be"? The justifications of tier upon tier of unnecessary rules and regulations built on the facade to "make things better".

One more straw......OK two more, it's for the greater good.....and what finally happens to the camel's back.:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I know I have sugested this on a number of threads but I really think it could be a possible solution to the almost unbreakable Axis defenses in Europe. An effective strategic warfare option, one that can destroy mmp's, cut rail and supply lines and possibly even reduce fuel supplies, that would give the Allies more options when invading France or Spain. Of course this runs the risk of the Germans conducting an effective strategic bombing and u-boat campaign against England, but that's what the beta-testers are there for, theyr'e underworked anyway, right?

Additionaly I think the game is slanted towards the Axis.

Still, it is the best WW2 game I have ever played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, good luck with that! I used to think the same thing, now.... forty years later, it has only gotten worse, expotentially so.

Look around you.....notice the distractions of convoluted complications perpetrated by the "powers that be"? The justifications of tier upon tier of unnecessary rules and regulations built on the facade to "make things better".

One more straw......OK two more, it's for the greater good.....and what finally happens to the camel's back.:eek:

yeah, guess we'll all be working 80/hours week, no vacation, new healthcare (LOL), and given a free pedal bicycle.

-Legend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...