SC and Play Balance

[Edwin P.]

HvH - In HvH play I find SC to be a fairly balanced game and exciting game, where both sides have an equal chance to win. Although, I have read many posts complains about air power I have not found it to be an unbalancing aspect.

About the only two major changes I would make is to do something that would require the Axis to garrison Russia after conquering it, and to make sure that the Siberian transfer is covered by FOW. Perhaps even giving the Russian player a choice as to whether the units from the Siberian transfer will appear in the area of the Urals or Stalingrad.

HvAI - In play against the AI I find the AI routines to be fairly predicatable after a number of games, but due to my travel Schedule I play against the AI quite often.

This can only be improved by supporting the AI's fuzzy logic with a library of additional strategies. Example: Allies - Attack Ireland on turn 1 or 2 with 2 Carriers, Battleship and 1 Corps (40% at Beginner, 100% Expert) or Axis attack Denmark on turn 1 (40% Beginner, 100% Expert).

In playing against the Axis AI, I noticed that the Axis is not as aggressive as many human players. This causes it to enter into a war against Russia with a much lower production base as the AI does not will never attack Norway or Sweden and rarely attacks Vichy France or Spain or Greece.

In playing against the Allied AI I find that it is too aggressive too soon and does not adequately invest in technology. Nor does it attempt to conquer Iraq and/or Ireland, both sources of valuable plunder for a human player.

[ May 31, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Vs AI, what are the best settings? I am pretty much addicted to playing against human opponents anyway, but there have been some good AI stories posted.

I usually go Expert with no plusses, FOW on. I've won playing against +2, but I find the strategy is far different. You can not buy much aircraft because it gets the snot kicked out of it and is very expensive. So I've found it deviates too much from normal play vs humans. On the other hand, I have found it difficult to lose vs the AI.

Do you use FOW on or off? I heard with it off the AI can be smarter. I recently played and it didn't seem much smarter.

Interestingly, I was the Axis and it was the first time I saw the payload the AI Russians got in the Siberian Transfer. Three air, Two HQ, three armor, five armies and three corps!!! When I played with FOW on against allies I had no idea on expert that they got that kind of MPPs! It made it a little more fun, but it still didn't matter.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Interesting observations, especially about the way the Axis plays either side. The best way to play with the Axis having the Axis is to set up a scenario where you've placed Scandinavia in the Axis from the start. Among other things the Axis AI batters itself against the Maginot line even if the LC road to Paris is open.

Tigleth

Unfortunately, the best way to play against the AI is with the FOW turned OFF for the AI's sake. One of the suggestions we were pushing a while back was a third setting that would keep the FoW OFF for the Human Player and ON for the AI. Hopefully we'll get that down the road.

[ May 31, 2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn

Thanks for the tip on giving the Scandianvian countries to the Axis.

I also find that the AI, in its current incarnation, does not concentrate airpower to support its land offensive.

Example 1: Early in the game I landed 2 corps and a HQ in Bari and the AI only sent 1 German Air to Italy to support its land assaults. I held them off until Russia reached Berlin.

If the AI had sent 3 air units to Italy, My corps holding Bari would have quickly fallen.

-----------------------

Hopefully, the next version of SC will include a scriptwriter so that players can write and exchange their own AI rountines. I would surely like to see the strategies covered in the AAR implemented in the AI (ie Corps defense of France, Teriff's UK research strategy, German troops landing behind Russian lines, etc)

---------------------------

Tigleth

When playing the AI recently with FOW on, I withdrew all my Russian Units to the Caucaus mountains, and then staged a comback after the Germans seized all other Russian Cities north of Rostov and Stalingrad. With the big Axis MPP advantage is was an interesting game.

[ May 31, 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Hoss]

hi...

In the many games i played vs. AI , i only saw

the axis AI attacking Greece once / Denmark twice

, so the Ai usualy cant come up with much money

, as the human opponent has, since he will conquer

almost all neutrals.

Vs Axis Ai i play with expert (no exp on units)

Russia = neutral , fow = on,

Right now i play some self made Scen , based on the 39 Weiss, but Axis get Norway , Sweden ,Greece

Denmark (Axis minors on random)...

Did anyone experience more Axis -AI attacks on neutreals ?

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Although, I have read many posts complains about air power I have not found it to be an unbalancing aspect.

Air do dominate, you better believe it (or you will get smashed). Air superiority combined with long-range leaves the enemy with a lose-lose situatuion. Either they stand and fight with HQ's (and get their HQ's blown up), stand and fight without HQ's (which will give the enemy no problems) or they fall back their front EVERY TURN. Ofcourse that does not work.

In my latest game against Rambo he was Axis and was pretty strong on his front around Moscow. He was pushing north towards kaukasus. All that stopped when my carriers (in the baltic) exchanged casualties with him. All changes after that. How the hell could he even TRY making a defense after that? He could not defend from mid 1943 to 1947 to gain a draw. He gave up shortly after that (still having many axis units in Russia).

AIR SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KILL GROUND UNITS ONLY DAMAGE THEM.

[ June 01, 2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[pzgndr]

Since the Axis AI won't attack Norway and sometimes won't attack Denmark, try the 1940 scenario.

[Dan Fenton]

I agree with Bill. The AI wil never attack Norway. Therefore 1940 scenario is the best way to go for a long game as Allies. If the AI starts with Norway then the AI has the MMP's to play a better game. Also, the loss of a powerful UK carrier is an equalizer.

I have observed that under the 1.07 Beta patch, the AI is now very good about going after Denmark and Greece. Norway seems to be the only problem minor country for the AI.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Interesting discussion about the different scenarios. I wonder if starting in 1940, isn't a solution for this new "Rambo Rome" gambit.

[pzgndr]

1940 offers all the opportunities for an exciting game without the problems of the opening move "gambits" that seem to skew things. Additionally, the UK starts with only 2 Carriers and moderates the super-Carrier strategy a bit. The 1940 Campaign scenario provides some reasonable experience and research adjustments, but things like the reduced strength Corps in the Low Countries (primarily for the Axis AI) would need correction for head-to-head play.

I'm the first to admit these scenario mods are not perfect, but I think they offer better balance and a more historical feel. Many players seem locked into playing the default 1939 scenario with bidding. Why not try the Campaign mods, or take them a step further with some adjustments and create Official Tournament scenarios?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[santabear]

Some AI thoughts:

1. Play against AI with FOW on, but turn it OFF every few months (game time) and play a few turns with it off. This seems to help AI the most (if he's Axis). If AI is Allies, leave it on. The best thing AI does as Allies is launch surprise Overlords.

2. Interesting settings (to me): Beginner level, +2 experience bonus (but don't invest more that 2 chits in jets). Intermediate +1 (the best overall game, I think), or +2. Expert +1 if you have a LOT of time--these games move very slowly. Expert +2 and play as Allies; if you want to see if you can really play the game. This is VERY difficult to win.

3. Play later scenarios as Axis. These are difficult. "Overlord" is almost impossible to win as Axis.

4. Don't stock up on air units. AI doesn't.

5. AI is a disciple of maneuver warfare. He will try to create a "line" between Kiev and Odessa, otherwise he'll use relatively few units and zip them around you. His attacks are brilliant, and he reinforces for counterattacks well. Don't build a million corps and smother him. Try to play Rommel vs. Patton. The game usually stays fairly wide open.

6. If you combine #5 and 6, the game can have a more realistic WWII feel.

7. In short, I have the most fun playing "Axis vs. Allies" with AI--trying strategies to see which side will win.

If you play "to win" vs. AI you should be able to win 90% of the time if you start (as either side) in 1939. There are many ways to "sucker punch" him.

8. It seems like the HvsH games discussed in here have things like Britain invading Ireland, Allies making war on Portugal and other actions that would have had disasterous diplomatic consequences (and these players complain about "ahistorical" jets??). One advantage of AI games is that AI follows the "script" of historical WWII fairly closely. If you do, too (by adopting some restraint in techs and purchasing units), you can have some good games in the sense of "refighting" WWII. At least I've had great fun with it.

HvsAI games will never be as creative or filled with intrigue as HvsH games. I think you have to accept that. And I think the HvsH players have to accept that games in which France invades Belgium or where Britain invades Ireland or Portugal aren't going to feel very historical.

9. Edwin P's recommendations/suggestions would be EXCELLENT improvements to AI. He's too aggressive with the British fleet as Allies, and futtzes around aimlessly between the fall of France and Russia as Axis. With some better overall strategic vision, he could be a tough opponent.

[ June 02, 2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[Edwin P.]

Santabear, thanks for your idea on turning the FOW off and on, I never thought about that. Great Idea. Really Good Idea.

And I agree with all of your other points. The later scenarios are especially hard to beat.

[ June 02, 2003, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[santabear]

Santabear...Great Idea. Really Good Idea.

** bear scratches left ear, blushes, shuffles paws self-consciously **

Thanks, Edwin...

[ June 03, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[_Sardaukar_]

I have only played and won using axis and mostly with FOW on and normal level.

I find it very odd that the computer is so braindead it doesnt probe or atleast send suicide landings once in a while.

I find it agreeable that the landings that USA does are done in waves, which is quite nice. But why oh why does it only want to land in northwest france ? Even if denmark, norway, portugal, italy are open for the taking. Not a single landing try even after it kicked me out of north africa.

Some tweaks are really needed.