Allied frustation setting in

[david12345]

Hello. I have been playing since SC1, so although I'm not an expert, I do know my way around the game.

I have 4 games of global going. In every one, and in the games that proceeded them, the allies have surrendered. Where is the play balance? Every game, the axis just walks over the allies. Once China, Spain, Turkey, etc all fall (and they all do) the axis experience is so much that the allies have no hope. I have tons of allied units with good tech, all useless against the experienced germans. Similar in the Pacific. The Japanese just hole up around the home islands with Units in the ports and HQ supported air in the Phillipeans, Dutch indies, etc. Game over - the Americans just can't bust it. In one game, I had the Japanese just in Japan and it took another whole year to kill them off, they just don't have good enough supply there to aid in the offensive.

Right now I have a game, mid 43, my Russians are in the urals. All units HQ support and good tech, all dug in, many in forts. Every turn, the germans just kill everything they attack. I can see no way I can ever dig out of this.

Example: My level 4 tank with morale and rediness in the high 70's, hq support (level 7), supply of 8 wanted to attack a german tank (level 5) his supply was 5, I assume HQ support, and his rediness and morale over 100. expected results? Att= 8 Def=0. If I can't expect to knock off a single point against a german tank in the urals with a level 4 tank, then how can I ever win?

I think experience is the problem. NO matter the tech and number of units, the allies just bounce off the axis. The players I play are around my skill level and EVERY game results in allied loss. News flash, the allies won the real war!

Sorry, I really want to love this game - it does so many things right, but what fun is it if the actual victors lose every game?

I bet that although I'm only an average player - that I can get at least a draw against anyone as axis - and that should not be.

So, I know it is too late for global, so I guess my question is has anything changed for the expansions? Like I said, I want to like this game, I want to buy and enjoy the expansions, and even SC3, but I don't want to play them and just watch the axis rule the world every game.

So curious if the play testors or Mr. Cator can tell me if anything has changed that might make me want the expansions?

Thanx, and sorry for the rant. I have bought many games that stunk and I just deleted them (recently commander Europe). But I complain at SC because it has so much potential and I so much want to have at least one turn based war game to enjoy.

dave

[SeaMonkey]

Dispense with the narrowmindedness, I already addressed this in the AoD thread.

Now, for the fix. The Allies had the resources that allowed them to train and experiment to a higher degree. To simulate this advantage, when an Allied unit is rendered "combat ineffective" and returned to the production queue, they should retain some of their experience as the lessons learned in combat are passed on to the new recruits.

[david12345]

Narrowmindendness? Not sure I deserve that. And I have not read where it is you have addressed this. Thanx for the response anyway. This sounds like it could help if it applies only to allies. I will look for where you addressed this.

Ok, I see - you spoke of my thread there. Ok thanx

p.s. Current game: I have huge very highly experienced Japanese army after the fall of China. Russians due to constant attack can build no experience, these guys will march through Russia.

[SeaMonkey]

Ok david, you probably didn't deserve that! I remember back in the old SC1 days where we had this same imbalance for PvsP and it was resolved by bidding MPPs for the Axis side. Meaning that both players bid MPPs to give to the Allied side before starting the scenario and then we opened the editor and provided the starting MPPs of the highest bid to the Allies and the high bidder took the Axis.

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi david12345 ,

- Obviously if Germans are in the Urals in 1943, Allies have lost the game. I don't know how both sides played allied countries but the cause of the problem might lay in Allies strategy during early years.

- Did any of you ever attempted a Sea Lion with Axis ? Given how you describe the Reich rolling over Spain/Turkey I suppose not. Then I guess playing Axis you just maximize their MPPs for land (Barbarossa for Germany, China/India for Japan) then as you say going full defense.

- Actually it's possible to defend China/India USSR by giving ground and rotating units but Allies also have to be agressive and distract Axis ressources by spotting and attacking weak spots (I didn't say Italians ).

- I admit playing Allies in early years is a pain but I never found it as one-sided as you describe it (well it was on 1.02, didn't play much with 1.03). So I'm not sure what's going wrong, maybe penalties for invading neutral countries (Spain/Turkey) arn't high enough ?

- Have you ever tried to push USSR (or USA) in the war early with diplomacy ? It costs a lot but if Stalin joins only 1 turn before Barbarossa or forces Germany to attack earlier than scheduled it can make a big difference (with only 1 chit you can hit big, at worst Germans will have to invest in diplomacy too and not the way they want).

- Also, ever tried some landings in Europe before 1944, in 1941 or 1942 ? Killing undefended german MPPs wherever you can (Norway/Spain) ? Occupying Pacific islands with commonwealth forces before Pearl Harbor ? Attacking DEI as Allies before Japs does (delays USA entry but MANY MPPs)?

- You have to keep Axis under pressure and it usually begins in France where those lvl 1 tanks can do some damage and might delay the whole german timetable... Many things can go wrong for Axis in 1940-41 but Allies have to take risks and assess what Axis plans areto make surprise moves.

- On a more tactical plan, fight wherever you can gain bonuses to negate Axis tech advantage (high supply, best HQs, fortifications, cities, mountains...), keep the enemy pinned in bad terrain/low supply), play defense to minimize losses, don't attack on your turn unless you can get something big out of it (killing experienced steps/units, HQs, planes, cutting supply of several units...). Above all, watch your HQs attachments EACH turn, AI usually makes a mess of it even when you have HQs on "Manual".

*

- A hard earned experience in China: since you only have few MPPs, don't burn your fighters again IJAF early, they won't help and cost you an arm, keep them for later or set traps by activating them only over crucial objectives or where they'll have a chance to damage unescorted bombers.

- Replace your armies by corps (far cheaper to maintain) under good HQs as quickly as you can and rotate them on the defense line when morale/readiness is too low and enemy as unentrenched them. Prepare a defensive line with fortifications in the back (Lanchow or beyond) on narrow terrain/low supply, you can lose western China but keeping it alive even only to protect USSR's back has no price !

*

- I know I know, easier said than done . Just wanted to suggest some things to better enjoy the game on Allies' side, I hope I was of help .

EDIT: ouch, sorry for the wall of text, didn't see the length of it while writing...

[Hubert Cater]

Hi David12345,

We are looking into adjusting some of the experience gains as that will certainly help but at the same time I'd be interested in more feedback on balance before I make any further changes.

I only suggest this as testing on our end indicated that the game was and continues to be relatively balanced with some exceptions here and there depending on players, playing style and so on.

As Strategiclayabout mentions sometimes it is just a matter of thinking outside of the box or playing more aggressively as the Allies to secure victory and perhaps that is something to consider if you think it may apply?

From memory the v1.03 patch should not have changed balance in any way but that being said I am interested to hear more from other players as we'll want to include any necessary changes in v1.04 as needed.

So now is your chance to speak up

Hubert

[david12345]

Thanx for the replies.

I think the key here is when 2 equal players play a mirror match, which side tends to win? After many many games with many opponents I can say Axis hands down.

Thinking out of the box can help, and I have run into a few players that have pulled off slick moves as allies, but if I follow the "take out China and Russia" path, I have found that I am nearly unbeatable. And I'm not bragging, I'm only an average player. My allies lose just as bad as my axis wins.

Mr. Cater, how about toggles that can improve play balance. That way, the game could adapt to different skill levels and swings in balance created when people discover "new strategies"?

This could be adjusted at the beginning of the match, from the options menu. Some examples:

Russian winter severity.

Extra Siberians arrive (from the old SC days)

Hitler trades "arms for butter" German research penalties

USA less isolationism Rediness goes up faster

These are just a few examples. If players find axis winning, toggle some. You could even make some that help axis.

Perhaps you would be open to starting a survey - find out who is winning for MULTIPLAYER. I would venture to say that most players like me - who are not expert - will say they win considerable more as axis.

Thanx again for listening!

[Amadeus]

Hey David, I saw similar things in my games but there is one thing that soften the problem. Many allied players invest very much in dominating the seas. That is of course very expensive. I think that the benefit is too little. Try to invest in US research for production and industry first up to +5. The next issue in research should be tank and inf. GB should not invest much in ground warfare nor in naval except anti sub. When you play the naval warfare very smart you have many many mpps to spent in a combined allied attack in 1943. In my test matches I watch more than 20 ground units partly support by carriers. Carriers do not need unconditional longrange or naval +2. All too expensive. Concentrating to the European theatre is one possible key.

[david12345]

@Amadeus. With the exception of a few games when things go badly for England at sea, I follow just what you advise - almost to the word. I trust the British navy to win with NO builds or research, not even antisub.

My research money goes into air and inf level 2 for England. As America, industry, production, air, and naval are the first priorities. I never give allied carriers naval upgrades.

By late 43, my unit count as allies is high, tech I will have inf 2 and high air. I must admit, I don't spend money on bombers, they just seem to get eaten up by experienced german air. So all these units with high tech get wiped out. Not sure exact numbers off hand, but I have seen a 3 star level 4 or 5 german tank with experienced HQ eat American level 5 tanks for lunch. Same thing happens in the air game. I believe it all comes back to experience. When allies invade, the germans just send a couple high level tanks and an HQ to the invasion and waste it. By late 43, my germans will have 2 -3 HQ supported level 4 or so air in france area and will dominate any allied air because the allies have no experience. Throw in a few armies and an experienced Tank and France can be an allied nightmare. If the allies hit spain supply dooms them. Attacks from Med area will be slowed and destroyed due to favorable axis terrain and the ability to quickly shuffle units into any area that the allies hit.

Meanwhile, the Russians are fighting in the Urals with high experienced Japanese pouring in on their flank from a defeated china.... Game over

[Amadeus]

Yes, experience is a big problem and I saw many things you describe. France is a bad place for Allies many times.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi David12345,

We are making some adjustments for the v1.04 GOLD patch that I think will address many of the concerns.

One significant adjustment will be just how much experience units will gain from combat.

This is being reduced, and we will be reducing the overall max experience a unit can have to match more closely what we did with the Storm Over Europe campaign released in the WWI package.

One thing that often happens during testing is that a campaign can be found to be relatively balanced but after wide release and once strategies are fine tuned, a winning strategy is often found for one side or the other and this of course requires us to make some refinements to the campaign in order to address this.

Since the prevailing strategy is China/USSR for the Axis we've also made some adjustments to make China a bit harder to subdue and we've added some elements to hopefully help slow the German advance ever so slightly as well.

We'll be testing the changes on our end and if all goes well a new patch will be ready soon enough

Hubert

[david12345]

Thanx so much HC. One of the guys I play who feels as I do said you would never listen and I was wasting my time. He is on vacation and unable to post. Thanx for proving me right when I told him there was hope.

This makes me look forward to the next SC and even the expansions.

I'm going to put my games on hold in anticipation of 1.4!

Thanx again.

[Amona]

I am an average player and Strategiclayabout, my favourite playing partner eats me for lunch with both Axis and Allies, and I have lost 5 or 6 allies games against him.

Nonetheless, from my games against other players than him, I have a score of allied games of 13 won and 3 lost (including one lost against Amadeus by the way.) And I am really not very good.

What I want to say is that I find the game all in all balanced.

Experience is an issue, and the winning strategy Russia/China, but if these things will be addressed in 1.04, I would say that the Allies should be able to win most games.

One other possible issue is that the Japs are a bit overpowered. I think it derives from all the popping units in Spring/Summer 41. Japan usually has the biggest army of all nations, and thats outright ridicilous when you look at history.

[PGtomli]

You can also try some scenarios from the repository (for instance Nupremal). The axis is not as powerful there (from my limited experience)

[Jollyguy]

I'm not sure that the game is as out of balance as David indicates, although imo there is an Axis bias. I too have been at SC for years and when I do win against a competent Axis player my Russians are inevitably pushed back to the Urals and sometimes the final capital before my Allies can fully turn the corner. But I have won as Allies against very good Axis players who followed the usual script of taking all the minors. As one poster said the Allies must be very thoughtful on what to buy and when. I think as Allies you need to be more reactive and try to gauge your opponent on where and when to committ resources. I.e., if he’s not showing much naval effort then don’t have the Brits invest there except for anti-sub 1. If he’s timid somewhere then that’s where the Allies can concentrate and delay better, etc. As the Allies I believe the first few years should be in trying to get every mpp you can as early as you can and be careful on expenditures of mpps. For the US research is very important but so is having units ready to go to blunt the Axis when the DOW comes. On balance the Allies have to be more creative and better at reading their opponent and patient. I do think though that the victory conditions need to be tweaked a bit. Between two very good players it would be hard for the Allies to meet the conditions at times but it can be done.

There’s no doubt imo that the Axis is easier to win with, but I like the Allied side because it’s more challenging. David, I’m currently working SC 1.02 as I await Assault on Democracy. I could fit in one more game. If you’re curious send an Axis 1.02 first turn to rrweeks@comcast.net We’ll see if I can do things a bit differently than what you’re used to.

Bob

[david12345]

@ Amona - care to pit your record against me?

@ Jollyguy. Challenge accepted. I know you are an excellent player. If I can beat you, it would go far in proving my point.

[Amadeus]

I go with Amona. If the experience issue will be fixed the game seems to be balanced. And yes Japan is overpowered but China could hold back Japan for a while and it seems to me that this issue is difficult to rework by the designers. Thanks to Hubert that he listen to David and the fanbase of SC.

[Amona]

@David: Have P.M.ed you about a game. Feel free to ruin my score.

[steel32]

I would have to agree with all the above to a point.

One key to playing this game is not to waste anything if results are not worth the loss. This can be evaluated from multiple levels. Such as putting a fighter in front of a tank's path to save time to allow a defense being placed to eventually stop a blitzkrieg or perhaps when results show 2 or 3 to 1 and nothing more can be gained, sometimes not worth taking the shot.

Thinking out of the box is a must as the allies against a good axis player.

Tech is a must for the USA/China/Russia with US maxing out on production/industrial with industrial for all. England not as much so.

China's best defense is to never attack until the odds turn and must keep entrenchment to buy time and wear the Japanese eventually out of MPP for their pacific offensive once the US is involved.

Experience could perhaps be toned down a hair, however another thought is if the axis continue to succeed and build up experience and go on with good strategy perhaps they should get the upper hand, but the allies have the edge in this game.

Hope too many changes are not made as this game is for the most part balanced depending on one of the big advantages and that is keeping the initiative.

[david12345]

Such as putting a fighter in front of a tank's path to save time to allow a defense being placed to eventually stop a blitzkrieg

China's best defense is to never attack until the odds turn and must keep entrenchment to buy time and wear the Japanese eventually out of MPP for their pacific offensive once the US is involved.

Experience could perhaps be toned down a hair, however another thought is if the axis continue to succeed and build up experience and go on with good strategy perhaps they should get the upper hand, but the allies have the edge in this game.

Hope too many changes are not made as this game is for the most part balanced depending on one of the big advantages and that is keeping the initiative.

I disagree with all of these points Goes to show that people have different experiences and that toggles for many of the changes might be best to suit all!

[steel32]

As you say David each has its own experience and reflects that:)

However never lost with the Allies against human until perhaps my current game where I did use a fighter to delay a blitzkrieg and it did work temporarily, but probably due to lose this as my 1st lost against a human as the allies.

Find your way as I am sure you will with more playing!

[david12345]

As you say David each has its own experience and reflects that:)

However never lost with the Allies against human until perhaps my current game where I did use a fighter to delay a blitzkrieg and it did work temporarily, but probably due to lose this as my 1st lost against a human as the allies.

Find your way as I am sure you will with more playing!

perhaps we could try a game after the patch. I stand by my statement that although I'm an average player at best, I don't believe I can be beat as axis due to game imbalance.

hoping the patch will help.

[Hairy Pie]

I'm at the end of 1944 in my first proper game of the 1939 World at War scenario, SCGC Gold v1.3. playing as the Allies.

Germany surrendered in summer 1944, quickly followed by Italy, and I'm now currently shifting my huge allied navy over to the pacific to give the Japs a hiding (although, apart from western China and India, I've left them pretty much unmolested and have no idea what's waiting for me?).

Germany never got anywhere near Moscow or Stalingrad, and the German navy never made it out into the Atlantic. China is hanging on for dear life after shifting it's capital to the north west. I don't want to say too much about what I did, as I would like to play against a human one day, but the Axis can certainly be beaten. In Europe anyway.

I'm playing with soft builds on, and not sure that, that was the best option? But then what would I do with all those IC's?

Edit - MPP's not IC's.

[Jollyguy]

Are you playing a human or the computer...huge difference.

[Hairy Pie]

Sorry, computer. I wasn't sure what the original poster was referring to?

EDIT- just re-read the original post, and he's talking about playing against humans. I'm at work and skimming over posts, ignore me.