Dare I say it! Imbalance???

[SeaMonkey]

Tell me I'm wrong, I'm jumping to conclusions, right?

Now I'll be the first to admit I have not completed more than a few, some disrupted, perhaps incomplete games of Fall Weiss WaW, but I'm getting the feeling of a slight bias.

Now I've been playing with UK capital transfer to Ottawa because I feel its more realistic that the UK never surrenders and I think the Egypt deal is to farfetched.....

.....

Hey ....I have my boundaries, the British Empire based in Cairo? :confused:

So what do you guys say, we've had the game long enough, the introductory tourney should be winding down with some opinions....eh?

Has the SC circle come all the way around to the Axis advantage that SC1 was? Slightly?

[jon_j_rambo]

Agreed. Never bought into Brits moving to that stinkhole called Egypt. It's been barren ever since The Exodus.

[Philippe]

A statement born out of racism and an astonishing ignorance of the last 3000 years of history.

But I do agree that moving the UK government to Cairo is pretty far-fetched.

[arado234]

I believe if the Germans took England the Brits. would still continue the fight from Canada.I think whats left of the British armed forces should go to Canada and Canada be responsible for the maintenance there of.I also think that should England go down that Canada gets an increase in its production and industrial output.I dont know how to determine what would be accurate.

But for the Germans it should be a MASSIVE shot in the arm for their overall morale and a lowering of ALL commonwealth troops morale.If Germany was able to take England it would be a freakin disaster for our morale.It would GREATLY increase the myth of nazi invincability.I also believe that ALL the minor countries left in Europe should automatically get some % increase in Diplo.towards Germany.They would all be scared to death thinking they were next and have not much of a choice but to be sympathetic to Germany.In reality the Germans would have to just threaten to attack and what if any could any of the minor countries do about it.

As far as Russia goes I think England going down should lower Russias war readiness.The last thing Stalin would want to do would be to upset Hitler and getting ready to attack would probably upset Hitler.Remember Russia just finished having that debacle in Finland and their confidence in fighting a wehrmacht that managed to pull off a sucessful invasion against one of the greatest seapowers in the world would probably be quite low.They would do their best to avoid war.I think that their Ind.output should start to increase as the Russians would know they are going to be next.

With the Amis.who knows.Maybe the isolationists win out and Roosevelt can only get the country to agree to a minor increase in Ind.output or hes able to talk some sense into the country and make them realise that they to will be on the Axis agenda one day.I dont know how you could fit that into this game.

Overall the loss of England would cause a massive inbalance of power in the world and lower our overall morale .Japan wouldnt have to really worry about the Brits.and who knows(i doubt it)maybe Germany and Japan realise the golden opportunity presented to them and actually fight as Allies and really go after Russia.That would be bad.There are alot of ifs to ponder but no doubt it would be bad for us.

[SeaMonkey]

You are with unfathomable insight Phillipe.

A234...how emphatic, however I do agree you have a natural feel for the probable sequence of events. :cool:

And the bias.....Phillipe??? A234???

is that an affirmative or negative. :confused:

Thanks Rambo,clearly stated, thanks for not making me use my powers of decifer,,, unlike the other yahoos.

[arado234]

I think its a little bias but that I think creates play balance.If England goes down the game is prettywell over so it forces the Brits. to defend it like they would have in reality.They cant just go about launching high risk attacks and not have to worry.

Maybe if England does get wiped out Americas military goes to the actual historical amount.Although this may cause some players to actually try and loose England.Its kind of a catch22.

[PowerGmbH]

Just beacause of the "freaking" effect of Britain beeing successfully invaded by Axis, i would suggest a "Home-Militia" for UK, as it is for USA.

I.E. when only 1 Axis-Unit lands in UK, the Engine produces a Bunch of Corps and Army Units supported by HQ. this i think would also have been done historically. So after the Pop-Up of 4 Corps 1 Army and 1 HQ, the Famous Sealion would be realitically more difficult.

Its not for nothing that Axis forces did'nt try the invasion. more realitically this was as impossible/difficult as an Invasion in USA...

[pzgndr]

moving the UK government to Cairo is pretty far-fetched

I don't think of it as the British crown moving to Cairo. In game terms, it represents the continued resistance of the Commonwealth with emphasis on defense of the Middle East. Cairo was the base of operations.

By moving the "capital" to Cairo, UK/Commonwealth remains in the game, supply is enhanced for defenders there, and reinforcements arrive directly rather than have to be transported in from Canada. If Allied player cannot hold on despite these advantages, then Allied cause is pretty well sunk.

I'm not sure if a second surrender event would work to move the UK government to Ottawa if Cairo falls. That would keep the Commonwealth in the game even if Europe is lost.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by powergmbh:

Just beacause of the "freaking" effect of Britain beeing successfully invaded by Axis, i would suggest a "Home-Militia" for UK, as it is for USA.

I.E. when only 1 Axis-Unit lands in UK, the Engine produces a Bunch of Corps and Army Units supported by HQ. this i think would also have been done historically. So after the Pop-Up of 4 Corps 1 Army and 1 HQ, the Famous Sealion would be realitically more difficult.

Its not for nothing that Axis forces did'nt try the invasion. more realitically this was as impossible/difficult as an Invasion in USA...

I don't know enough facts about the british reserves and homeguard quantity / quality.

But we didn't see such a phenomen in France when the german broke the neck of the french army.

Why should be such an industrial and moral outburst occur in the UK?

If the royal navy wasn't able to stop the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Airforce wasn't able to stop the Luftwaffe and all out of the sudden the nazi wehrmacht stands on the british isle while offering favourable peace terms, add to this that France is gone, no US entry and a german-russo pact, while japans eats the far eastern colonies for breakfast...

I can't see or imagine a UK wonderarmy standing up from nowhere. Yes, there is the sleeping Arthur tale, of course, but come on.

There is a difference between the USA and the UK, and while i totaly agree that the US would easily create an effecitve and forceful homeresistance, i highly doubt that the UK would have been able to do the same.

[Scook]

Coming back to imbalance in game, which way do you say it tilts the game, to the Axis or Allies? All I see is Cairo vs. Ottowa for historical debate.........

edit....

Ok, your last sentence. No, I tend to find the balance is still there. If you want to stop and invasion, you have work on it, and some ships (British, unfortunatly) will end up in the bottom of the channel. The addition from patch 1.2 of having combat vessels able to shoot at all transports moving by help tremendously.

As for Africa vs. Canada, I think its a game mechanic. Canada ships her resources out, and I dont think there is a function to make it stop when that country does not change hands (ie: conquered). So by default, the only other territory on map for the British Empire is Africa. Yes, I do believe because the ocean crossing to Canada is shorter the govt. would move there.

[ January 20, 2008, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Scook ]

[arado234]

powergmbh,first of all anyone who lands just one unit in England without grabbing a port or H.Q.support is going to loose that unit anyway if the Brits. have properly prepared.

I saw a hypothetical show on this very subject(i think it was called SS G.B.).It was done using all the latest info available on the forces both sides would have had.Germany had won the air battle.The invasion occured on sept 15.England does raise a home guard army but they are absolutley no match for the whermacht.The British high command never really gives them a chance from the start.Its over in about 2weeks.

By the way dont you think that Britain would have in reality raised this Army you say they were capable of creating since they were genuinely worried about an invasion.Better to try and stop the Germans from getting a beachhead than fight them after the fact when they would have had little hope.

xwormwood is right about the comparison to the Amis.Your now talking about the biggest Ind.power on the planet with a pop.3 to 4 times the size of England.Plus the fact Germany has no way of getting any type of Airpower for support and the U.S.wouldnt have suffered any looses prior to the attack like the Bits.One more thing,Germany would have to sail 5000 miles to attack.Im thinking you would have alot of seasick

troops that would have little or no logistic support.Goodbye Germans.

[SeaMonkey]

To shed a little light on my presumption, my initial focus has been mostly the Axis with WaW, I'm only just now getting around to the details of conducting Allied operations.

But as Axis, I have found they can put together a mighty Sealion force scheduled for August 40 invasion. I believe they can be stopped, but the cost maybe so significant that it truly impairs Allies from adhering to an effective early game strategy that carries over to mid and late game with the ever increasing Axis momentum.

Scook is right about the new amphib blockade feature, RN is very lethal in that capacity, but the cost is high, very high, maybe too high. The sacrifice of the RN continues until the weather finally short circuits Sealion in late 40. This is a very critical period.

To tell you the truth...I like it, its objectively an historical possibility, because as Axis you must plan for this success the day you role into Poland, first turn.

As far as the game balance....well...that's what I'm soliciting opinions for, and it maybe premature, but I want everyone to be alert to the possibility as we continue with the examination.

[PowerGmbH]

Arago234 & xwormwood:

Britain had still not "total" war. Also Axis forces only put a Total War effect by 43 and then with the Volksfront.

So for shure if Britain would be in Total War there would be a possibility of MINIMUM a HQ as well a 2 Corps, if not more.

In case of France it s another thing: This is tha Land of Cheese and Wine, and population support for the War was rather ugly. so not so much to expect from there.

Anyway it could have been, that if the Vichy System would not have been created, that the Resistance would have taken more effect, by continuing the War effort by also some Home-Guards.

[Minty]

Played quite a few WaW games now. In short the game is imbalanced slightly, and in favour of Allies. Yes if the Axis want to Sealion and are determined they can wipe out UK and then Eygpt too if they want. Result? A much weakened barborossa and in WaW the availability of cheap ,defensive specialist units like anti air, anti tank, artillery give a huge advantage to the soviets.

Am slowly becoming disillsioned with WaW after a few months of play. Whilst lots of new things are possible, if you do them (against a good player) you'll lose. It becomes quite predictable and historical and frankly a little boring. In short I think blashy may have had too strong a hand in it's development (no offence, appreciate the work but his style is more to simulation side than open what if gaming) The new units smoother the creativity. I don't quite agree with Terif (yet, although I'm coming round to it) that it becomes trench warfare (too mobile for that) but it is tactically very restrictive.

Two players of equal skill = allied victory in WaW at present. Main reason is disproprotiate MPP cost defence abilities available to the USSR.

[arado234]

powergmbh, like I said before dont you think Britain would have done what you said anyway if they really could have since they really were worried about an invasion?Plus those troops(if they really could have been found)would have practically no training and would have been up against a victorious(very high morale), very well equipped and very well trained army.Dont see much hope for the Brits.

[xwormwood]

I agree with arado234.

Morale would be vey low, same for equipment, training and tactics.

Total war needs time, and germanies volksturm was wasted into the gunfire of the enemy, so not such a big role model, hm?

[jon_j_rambo]

Nazis didn't have a chance off the mainland. They never beat a real opponent on the mainland for that matter. The planning sucked. The Battle of Britian was a failure. I'll never understand what they were doing in Libya, never had a chance there either. The Germans were crazy Satanic fools.

[Liam]

I got into this discussion on another forum, was in invasion of England possible. I think that this may ring true in 1940 the Kriegsmarine was nearly non-existent in comparison with the Royal Navy. The only thing the Germans really had in massive transport was river barges. What was also mentioned is how direly the Germans needed these barges for Industry.

The RAF was never beaten, they could've redeployed their Fighters further inland if needed. The amount of time it would take to unload river barges onto English soil means cost was well beyond the value of England. Certainly it's possible, but Hitler was actually right about this particular Operation. Most German Generals were against crossing the Channel.

It is unlikely that a Sea Lion could've succeeded in 1940, the British didn't need an Army, they had the RAF and the Royal Navy.

It was the threat that counted.

The Germans won some exceptional Victories. If you haven't noticed something about Germans they're very precise. Very hard coded work ethic. Something that some of the other nations lack, like Americans, British, Russian. Though Each of these nations have their own abilities. Americans are industrious or were, and gifted with Raw materials. British Naval Masters... Russians, willing to sacrifice everyone to win...

[Sombra]

I am glad that Seamonkey brought up this point. Yes from the game balance point of view the "capital transfer"works but froma realistic point of view? Its not that only a small bunch of high politicans have to flee to Canada or Egypt its about the ability to maintain an army. Evne if Canada formed an excile government who pays the bills...same goes for Egypt why suddenly does all the supply goes up...have they suddenly better logistic abilities than before?

I think the main problem is :

- In SC2 the german fleet is still to strong. I no way Germany was able to challenge the RN in any meaningful way besides a hit an run tactic with teh subs.

- SC1 IMO got the balance right regarding a Sealion...You could do it sometimes with tremendous risk if your enemy made mistakes..otherwise you would fail.

- The reaction of America could be stronger.

- A samll home defense force could help...but IMO it should be really small...England was already fully armed. ...hard to find more "ghost" armies...

[Minty]

totally going off seamonkeys's original question. In summary: historically Rambo right, nazi boys wouldn't didn't like it up 'em , espacially with their feet wet. Seamonkey didn't ask if Sealion was possible in 1940. It wasn;t , it didn't happen. He asked if the game was imbalanced cos he thought it was in favour of the Axis. It is bias but not in favour of axis. Allied tough to beat in Waw. read my previous poss if you want to know why. super. end of discussion.

[SeaMonkey]

I want to reiterate what I may have only suggested about Sealion. Historically, I agree the feat was impossible, well maybe not impossible, but very difficult to execute successfully.

Since SC is a what if...moving to a more simulation format with WaW, I propose that if Germany had prepared properly, even before Fall Weiss, they may have been able to pull it off.

Any problems with that assumption? Basically I'm saying that if you begin with that goal as Germany you can do it in the game, and in defense of the Axis bias you can also launch a relatively effective Barbarossa in the Summer of 41. The Axis opening will gather momentum and pretty much culminate with either Moscow or the Caucusus falling by the end of 42.

IMO it takes Axis focus, ingnoring the loss of Finland and some MidEast, African possessions, but so underminds the USSR position they can slowly be obliterated.

[Scook]

Well, everything is based on MPP limitations for transporting. If in game there is a hard cap for each country of how many amphib and transports are avaialble at any time this would curb the Sealion antics. Say, for example, Germany is to launch an invasion with 2 tanks, 4 armies and an HQ, that would not be feasible, even if the British lent Germany amphibs to invade. The naval cost can be very high, especially if the German uses invasion as a feignt to destroy the RN. But, everything in SC has a price....

To go on with Minty, and what Terif has said before, the logistic limitations of WaW really channel what the Axis can do. Barbarosa has to be a smash hit, or the Axis are in for a long game, no two ways about it. This may or may not be a bad thing, as many SC games are very ahistorical and Middle East is a hotbed of activity; that would have not occurred because of logistics. The few changes in WaW to limit logistics does limit the wide open games from SC2, and it becomes very clear why AH would invade the USSR. Pick your poison on this, maybe a better balance can be derived.

So, I have not found a good reason in WaW to invade Britain, except to keep France and Germany free of Allied bombing. Weak, very weak, and there is no movement for Spain and Turkey in WaW for invasion of Britain.

[Marty Ward]

Perhaps your Amphib level could be tied to how many Amphibious transports can be active at one time? Level 1 gives you 3 units, level 2 6 etc.

At least there would be a good reason to research it then.

[arado234]

I think Germany could have taken England IF they had prepared for it before the war started(drop tanks for their fighters,a capable four engine bomber fleet,a big enough sub force to screen the invasion fleet,proper invasion craft).This plus the other things required would have put a strain on Germanys(Hitlers)ability to build a large land army.He would have been betting everything on one roll of the dice(plus the fact that the Brits probably would have noticed all this prep. work and may have planned better).

In 1939 when they took Poland the Germans didnt anticipate that they would be in a position(if they had planned for it)to attack England in 1940.So in reality they would have had to assumed(in 1939) that the French would have folded like a house of cards and that the Brits.would had to have been dumb enough to send those fighters to France when the French were done.How do you anticipate that?

Thats one of the things you cant take away from this or any ww2 game is the fact that we already know before the game starts that the French are done and can plan accordingly.Just like the British player knows before the game starts that America and Russia will be joining her side and can plan accoringly.In reality they had no such knowledge.So by making it possible for the Germans to take England it forces the Brits.to do what they would have done reality and thats defend the Island.

SeaMonkey is right,If the Germans had planned from the start there is a prettygood chance they could have pulled it off but in reality with the forces they had they would have just had to gone for it right after France was done.Maybe it succeeds maybe it doesnt.Letting the Allies escape at Dunkerque didnt help either.To me that shows Hitler wasnt too keen on trying to attack England

[arado234]

I think Germany could have taken England IF they had prepared for it before the war started(drop tanks for their fighters,a capable four engine bomber fleet,a big enough sub force to screen the invasion fleet,proper invasion craft).This plus the other things required would have put a strain on Germanys(Hitlers)ability to build a large land army.He would have been betting everything on one roll of the dice(plus the fact that the Brits probably would have noticed all this prep. work and may have planned better).

In 1939 when they took Poland the Germans didnt anticipate that they would be in a position(if they had planned for it)to attack England in 1940.So in reality they would have had to assumed(in 1939) that the French would have folded like a house of cards and that the Brits.would had to have been dumb enough to send those fighters to France when the French were done.How do you anticipate that?

Thats one of the things you cant take away from this or any ww2 game is the fact that we already know before the game starts that the French are done and can plan accordingly.Just like the British player knows before the game starts that America and Russia will be joining her side and can plan accoringly.In reality they had no such knowledge.So by making it possible for the Germans to take England it forces the Brits.to do what they would have done reality and thats defend the Island.

SeaMonkey is right,If the Germans had planned from the start there is a prettygood chance they could have pulled it off but in reality with the forces they had they would have just had to gone for it right after France was done.Maybe it succeeds maybe it doesnt.Letting the Allies escape at Dunkerque didnt help either.To me that shows Hitler wasnt too keen on trying to attack England