Game Balance

[dicedtomato]

From what I'm seeing, SC2 has the same balance problems as SC1. Either the Axis are unreasonably powerful or the Allies are ahistorically weak. U.S. production seems underrated, while some aspects of the game system (subs wiping out surface ships) seem pro-Axis.

I enjoy strategic WWII games. But many of them - including SC1, SC2 and Hearts of Iron - give Germany divine powers. It's routine - even expected - for the Axis to take Sweden, North Africa, Iraq, the Levant, etc. Rommel could only have dreamed of having the logistics the Afrika Korps enjoys in these games, not to mention the high tech and awesome production.

DT

[jon_j_rambo]

True, but if the game is historical, Germany goes down in May 1945...and there isn't a game. I'd prefer the game to be 50/50 chance of winning, within the best historical boundaries, with limited luck. No surprise, I'm sure others feel the same way.

[dicedtomato]

No, Jon. If the game is historical AND competitive, than Germany has a 50-50 chance of surviving past May 1945. But it's the Allies that seem to be struggling to have a 50-50 chance of surviving. If the only way to make Germany competitive is to conquer almost every spot on the map, then that's a flaw in the game.

DT

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

True, but if the game is historical, Germany goes down in May 1945...and there isn't a game. I'd prefer the game to be 50/50 chance of winning, within the best historical boundaries, with limited luck. No surprise, I'm sure others feel the same way.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

True, but if the game is historical, Germany goes down in May 1945...and there isn't a game. I'd prefer the game to be 50/50 chance of winning, within the best historical boundaries, with limited luck. No surprise, I'm sure others feel the same way.

They should go down in May of 1945 if both Axis and allies do the same thing as they actually did. If the historical actions are taken, there should be the historical result. On the other hand you are free to try different things (or just be better at it) and the results should change.

That is what a good simulation does - it gives you the historical situation and you try to do better than your historical counter part.

So if the game makes the allies weaker then they were historically, you don't proove anything if you win with the Axis. Now if the Allies are just as strong and you last until 1946 you can be proud of your great ability. And if your brilliant strategy results in an actual Axis win, you really do have something to brag about!

[Desert Dave]

The game will be balanced,

50/50

As Hubert has ALSO deemed desirable. :cool:

It's only a matter of... time.

Time time time time time.

You only got just so much,

You gotta have some FUN

In this ol' fast-cindering world,

Then, sooner

Than you might NOW

Suppose... you are like Pink Floyd

Singing 'at fat old Cat kicker:

"Waiting for the Worms... "

[Liam]

Axis are favored if they are able to move without hinderances they're unfavored if there are houserules such as no Turkey Invasion. You cannot breech the Rich Caucasus as easy through Iran

and if the Allied player has good tech then the balance just shifts to the Allies. It's some luck

[Desert Dave]

It's some luck

It IS true, Liam,

RE: EVERY single thing in this World.

The luck of the draw;

Whether that be beauty,

Or brains,

Or who has been GIFTED

With pluck and brawn.

Games reflect that,

Since humans prefer

Their leisure hours

Would match how it IS out there, IE,

Red tooth and snaggled claw,

Broken will and a Soul in awe.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

From what I'm seeing, SC2 has the same balance problems as SC1. Either the Axis are unreasonably powerful or the Allies are ahistorically weak. U.S. production seems underrated, while some aspects of the game system (subs wiping out surface ships) seem pro-Axis.

I enjoy strategic WWII games. But many of them - including SC1, SC2 and Hearts of Iron - give Germany divine powers. It's routine - even expected - for the Axis to take Sweden, North Africa, Iraq, the Levant, etc. Rommel could only have dreamed of having the logistics the Afrika Korps enjoys in these games, not to mention the high tech and awesome production.

DT

Rommel had a dumbass leader who did not grasp the need to take all of the MED, we have hindsight and rectify this by sending the proper troops.

The Axis had the means to wipe out the allies out of Africa and Middle East, but Hitler did not listen.

As for the game being 50/50. I somewhat disagree.

If two players of the same skill played the game flawless on both sides, IMHO, Axis should almost win. Simply because all of the goofball decisions Hitler made will not have occured.

Although I see the Victory more of a stalemate, with USSR not fully conquered. Basically a peace treaty (or a tie in game sense) by 1947.

[dicedtomato]

Correction, Blashy. Rommel was a dumbass strategist whose grandiose plans for the Middle East would have required more trucks than the Germans had in all of Russia. A good tactician, a good corps commander in the estimation of his superiors, but definitely out of his league at the strategic level.

And why did you get the idea that the Axis only lost because of Hitler's mistakes? What do you call the French Dyle Plan in 1940, or Stalin arranging his armies in nice bite-sized pieces along the Polish border? I'd say that German success depended more on Allies mistakes than the other way around.

That's why I don't mind the Axis being a little stronger for play balance. But it's a strange definition of "balance" when Germany routinely wipes up the map. They must be using flying machines like the Martians in "War of the Worlds".

DT

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dicedtomato:

From what I'm seeing, SC2 has the same balance problems as SC1. Either the Axis are unreasonably powerful or the Allies are ahistorically weak. U.S. production seems underrated, while some aspects of the game system (subs wiping out surface ships) seem pro-Axis.

I enjoy strategic WWII games. But many of them - including SC1, SC2 and Hearts of Iron - give Germany divine powers. It's routine - even expected - for the Axis to take Sweden, North Africa, Iraq, the Levant, etc. Rommel could only have dreamed of having the logistics the Afrika Korps enjoys in these games, not to mention the high tech and awesome production.

DT

Rommel had a dumbass leader who did not grasp the need to take all of the MED, we have hindsight and rectify this by sending the proper troops.

The Axis had the means to wipe out the allies out of Africa and Middle East, but Hitler did not listen.

As for the game being 50/50. I somewhat disagree.

If two players of the same skill played the game flawless on both sides, IMHO, Axis should almost win. Simply because all of the goofball decisions Hitler made will not have occured.

Although I see the Victory more of a stalemate, with USSR not fully conquered. Basically a peace treaty (or a tie in game sense) by 1947. </font>

[Guest Mike]

Using TK's allied AI mod seems to even things up a bit - I'm having trouble as the Axis in mid 42 - the US has invaded Vichy Nth Africa, the Russian's are fielding KV's agaisnt my Pz III's, and life is generally getting damned difficult!!

[Liam]

Wait just a second, you're right the Allies were blundering fools. That much is true, USSR was purged and a disorganized ramble, which needed many years to regain it's strength.. Actually at least till 1943 when it really began to show it's colors. Similarly the UK and France were not so much unprepared for War but probably didn't see a Blitzkrieg smooshing nations in weeks. Who can forecast what a new war machine with Tanks, mobile trucks and Divebombers giving close ground support is capable of? The speed pure speed. Rommel was Fast, he proved himself in France. In North Africa he was nicknamed the same and with less equipment than his rival he outmanuevered the brits until the Americans came in the back door and he ran out of Gas... There were no German resources to devote to a barren wasteland... The Resources were needed elsewhere

He did have a good idea, the Suez Canal is the Jugular of the British Empire some say? It definitely would've altered the course of the war, for the Axis? I'm not sure entirely, they couldn't make much use of it. They could however place U-boats in the Indian Ocean? They could've made it that more difficult for the Brits to keep the MidEast working for them. Perhaps by the time Stalingrad and the invasion of the Caucasus arose the Turks may have joined in if most of the MidEast was Axis

better than throwing men into the Cauldron of Death in Stalingrad and worse yet running out of supply into Caucasus

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

[QB] Correction, Blashy. Rommel was a dumbass strategist whose grandiose plans for the Middle East would have required more trucks than the Germans had in all of Russia. A good tactician, a good corps commander in the estimation of his superiors, but definitely out of his league at the strategic level.

And why did you get the idea that the Axis only lost because of Hitler's mistakes? What do you call the French Dyle Plan in 1940, or Stalin arranging his armies in nice bite-sized pieces along the Polish border? I'd say that German success depended more on Allies mistakes than the other way around.

That's why I don't mind the Axis being a little stronger for play balance. But it's a strange definition of "balance" when Germany routinely wipes up the map. They must be using flying machines like the Martians in "War of the Worlds".

DT

[Blashy]

The Allies made their share of mistakes and so did the Axis, but in the end Hitler's constant taking over of plans and his commanders letting him do so cost Germany any chance of getting a peace treaty and keeping the rhine area along with a good part of Russia.

Stalingrad is the greatest example, the commanders wanted to cut off caucausus but he was adamant that a city named after his enemy should fall (that's thinking straight) and they were dumb enough to listen to him.

[SeaMonkey]

Balance.....????? Sheesh!!! If ever there was a fleeting notion, this is it.

Y'all sound like DD's idealism of everything being the same, sorry... for interrupting with realism, but there will never be two players the same.

First of all the game mechanics won't allow it...Duhhhh!! Remember that little variable called luck :cool: , the randomizer algorithm?

The tech plays, the diplomacy, and the individualism of each human's decision making process.

Come on...you got to be kidding me. Balance? Fair and Just? Go find another universe, ain't happening here.

I like Yogi's perspective, sounds logical.

[Desert Dave]

Y'all sound like DD's idealism of everything being the same, sorry

Where in tarnation did you come up with this

Sort of "label" SeaMonkey? :confused:

I am idealistic, sure.

BUT,

That particular metaphysic

Compromises, oh, ummm, let's see?

Maybe?

1 %

Of what I actually, really & truly,

Believe.

Boy Howdy would YOU ever be astonished!!!

To learn some of my many "conservative"

Notions and sech like.

C'mon SM, leave the pigeon-holes

For the pigeons.

Or,

For VERY TINY Giraffes, anyhow!

(... see, they could scrunch on in that little pigeon domicile, then - stick 'em necks out to make room for the ALL the rest, like VERY long legs, and a heart, and a soul, and like that there, eh? )

[dicedtomato]

SeaMonkey, randomizers don't explain why the Germans can take over Europe and Africa with an ease that Hitler could only have dreamed of. As I recall, the Allies in SC1 had to receive a handicap, and I suspect that SC2 will be the same way. Having to give one side a handicap so they'll have a chance at victory isn't a sign of a well-designed game.

Blashy, ask yourself whether Hitler would even have reached Stalingrad if Stalin had positioned his forces with an ounce of sense. Ask yourself whether Hitler would have had a chance to invade Russia if the French generals hadn't practically invited the Germans to invade through the Ardennes.

There seems to be this persistent belief that the Axis totally controlled the tempo of the war, with the Allies reduced to the role of passive dummies. If the Axis won, it's because the Germans were smart. If the Axis lost, it's because the Germans were dumb. Makes you wonder why the Allies bothered to show up at all.

DT

[Guest Mike]

They only showed up because they couldn't find anywhere to hide!!

And until 1943 the tempo of the war in Europe WAS controlled by the Axis - with the exception of Africa after November 1942 and relatively small areas of counter-attack elsewhere.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Blashy:

The Allies made their share of mistakes and so did the Axis, but in the end Hitler's constant taking over of plans and his commanders letting him do so cost Germany any chance of getting a peace treaty and keeping the rhine area along with a good part of Russia.

Stalingrad is the greatest example, the commanders wanted to cut off caucausus but he was adamant that a city named after his enemy should fall (that's thinking straight) and they were dumb enough to listen to him.

I agree with Blashy. Even if the Rambo doesn´t see it the US is quite well repressented if you play the US in a historical way. You are even able to mount a D.-Day in Summer 1943. Problem form the game balance point simply is that in late 1942 Germany usally has wiped out the resistance in Rusia. If Rusia survives winter 1942 more or less intact the balance swings the other way. The much bigger resources of the Allies take over.

[Chris G]

dicedtomato

“Correction, Blashy. Rommel was a dumbass strategist whose grandiose plans for the Middle East would have required more trucks than the Germans had in all of Russia. A good tactician, a good corps commander in the estimation of his superiors, but definitely out of his league at the strategic level.”

No dicedbrain, YOU are the dumbass! :mad:

[hellraiser]

Sombra, by the end of 42, axis control the whole europe - could care less about russia - you can go for the minors and the mpp balance is back.

OFC you can always go for the 100% guaranteed win - get moscow and london. You don't need to bother with other parts of the map if you're in for a quick victory. No sweat

Thing's r gonna change with the patch I think.

From the balancing point of view - you need to provide the 2 sides with reasonable possibility to win the game.

This ideea of a great Axis momentum till 42 (short war, the only hope the germans ever had) - if this fails, things change ... allies mpps come into play, the attrition war won't favour axis no more - this seems interesting and quite historical. Basically after 1942, germans virtually had no more chances to win the war. Interesting nevertheless, but balanced from the gameplay perspective?

[hellraiser]

@Chris G spot -> dude, chill out, talking like that won't earn you admiration or new friends...

[SeaMonkey]

No worries DD, It takes one to know one. Just mine have been kicked, slapped, and punched into submissiveness. My take is life, liberty, and the pursuit of, not the entitlement to food, shelter, and healthcare.

Diced, to early to conclude that SC2 represents an easy Axis victory, no matter what Terif concludes, he's an atypical player.

I'm pursuing a very conservative Axis strategy against Blashy presently, along the lines of the old cookie-cutter. We shall see.

Don't let SC1's Axis bias dictate the present sequel's, it will take time to unfold, the new patch will clear the fog.

[Yogi]

the US is quite well repressented if you play the US in a historical way. You are even able to mount a D.-Day in Summer 1943.

I have done an early D-Day as well with great success, but not with the same power and/or way as the historic D-Day. Of course the game is still young and maybe some circumstances and luck would provide the opportunity, but my questions would before your "D-Day" (specifically US units)

1) Were you also able to send troups to North Africa?

2) Were you also able to invade Sicily?

3) Were you also able to invade Italy?

4) Were you able to build air power to control the skies?

5) Did you have 3 or 4 headquaters?

6) How many paratroops, tanks and Infantry did you have total?

7) How much power and sustainability did your D-Day have, or would have had if the first 5 points were accomplished as well.

I know that your answer could include, I did D-Day instead of the other things, but my experience so far with the game is that the U.S. hasn't been able to do all the historic things. (This was covered as well in a discussion about MPP strength and "free" units.)

[Sombra]

Yogi I will take my current game against Dragonheart as reference.

20 Dezember 1942:

US forces:

2 HQ

Full contigent of corps 6 or 7

2- Armies

1 Bomber

Ships repairired after Battle and upgraded to ASW 2

Tech levels:

IW 3,

IT 5

PT5

AT2,

ASW2

Intel:5

MT2

LR2

And already rest of long term set. Max support for Britain. Troops already upgraded to current tech level.

Yes I think you can do all the things the US did historically.

[Fartknock3r]

For the air war, it should be a team effort. Have US go bombers and UK go fighters, or vice versa. That way, they can just focus on 1 air unit then both. But in my games I usually have lvl 5 industrial tech by the time USA joins, and i collect +300 mpp's even though i give lend lease to the UK.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Sombra:

Yogi I will take my current game against Dragonheart as reference.

20 Dezember 1942:

US forces:

2 HQ

Full contigent of corps 6 or 7

2- Armies

1 Bomber

Ships repairired after Battle and upgraded to ASW 2

Tech levels:

IW 3,

IT 5

PT5

AT2,

ASW2

Intel:5

MT2

LR2

And already rest of long term set. Max support for Britain. Troops already upgraded to current tech level.

Yes I think you can do all the things the US did historically.

Thanks Sombra,

I must have a different game or am missing something here, as I haven't been able to get anywhere near what you accomplished above by end of 42 with the U.S. At first I thought you must have ignored tech investment until you posted it. I simply haven't seen enough MPP's to get this much, but again, I must be missing something somewhere. What tech(s) are you concentrating on first to get the MPP's needed to produce the rest? Do you put all mpp's into tech before creating any units?