Balance Issue

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Balance Issue

Post by freeboy »

agreed
and
fyi
I am over running sovs as German/axis player in 42campeign...
so its not that the game plays so poorly but how much the allies can build... seems buggy
"Tanks forward"
ILCK
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:28 pm

RE: Balance Issue

Post by ILCK »

ORIGINAL: Cohen

That is the point - Multiplayer - that I am trying to bring across.

Klydon already realized the issues themselves. The forces UK has in UK by the time Barbarossa should be launched simply mean that the UK player in '41 can rule in Afrika AND land anywhere he wants in Europe without having much opposition unless the Germans pull back from Barbarossa.
I am playing of player vs player, so no easy fleet baiting or grand mistakes assuming both players are competent.

Easiest UK win is in Norway. German forces pathetic to begin and almost cannot defend it in face of U.K. Navy since air power not all that effective. One turn rush to land forces, opens air bases for fighters, game set match. Quick strike across to Sweden and you can cut off Germans from a lot of sweet sweet MPP.
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Balance Issue

Post by AlbertN »

ORIGINAL: ILCK

ORIGINAL: Cohen

That is the point - Multiplayer - that I am trying to bring across.

Klydon already realized the issues themselves. The forces UK has in UK by the time Barbarossa should be launched simply mean that the UK player in '41 can rule in Afrika AND land anywhere he wants in Europe without having much opposition unless the Germans pull back from Barbarossa.
I am playing of player vs player, so no easy fleet baiting or grand mistakes assuming both players are competent.

Easiest UK win is in Norway. German forces pathetic to begin and almost cannot defend it in face of U.K. Navy since air power not all that effective. One turn rush to land forces, opens air bases for fighters, game set match. Quick strike across to Sweden and you can cut off Germans from a lot of sweet sweet MPP.
Easiest UK win is in Norway. German forces pathetic to begin and almost cannot defend it in face of U.K. Navy since air power not all that effective. One turn rush to land forces, opens air bases for fighters, game set match. Quick strike across to Sweden and you can cut off Germans from a lot of sweet sweet MPP.

That is the exact problem, it's big as an elephant and does not neet Multiplayer to be seen.

As said the Royal Navy would not get any closer to where the Luftwaffe - that was dominant in '40-'41 - can operate; and anyhow would not get close to Norway til '44 because their carrier planes were litterally insufficient to even match a Bf109E.

Thus the only solution I can see that is compatible in-game terms is to drastically beef up the German forces in Norway created via the invasion event. (That without denting the force pool limits of Germany)

If then Germany opts to move them away to use them elsewhere and leave Norway open that's up for them, but currently Germany lacks the MPPs to protect all of its lands adequately.
Alternatively UK MPPs must be drastically reduced so that they cannot afford an invasion force til late war - as someone pointed out well, they get plenty of troops already in '41 and they may invade without having to wait for the US.

A game should not follow history strictly, but neither should be a fantasy game with a vague WW2 background (ala Hearts of Iron IV, a big disappointment in my eyes).
ILCK
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:28 pm

RE: Balance Issue

Post by ILCK »

UK is problematic as you said because I can effectively fight a two Front war. Most recent allied game:

1. Mediterranean Front: won easily in North Africa and knocked out Italy with Sicilian invasion.
2. Took out Norway at same time and invaded then invaded Denmark and took up defensive positions along Kiel Canal

All before Barbarossa kicked off.
User avatar
Steely Glint
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm

RE: Balance Issue

Post by Steely Glint »

You guys need to start playing on a harder difficulty setting.
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
User avatar
Birdw
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:27 pm
Contact:

RE: Balance Issue

Post by Birdw »

I beat the AI on the standard (Intermediate) mode of the game as the Axis but it took until almost the end for me to do it. I was already inside the 10 turns to end. The key was the use of the Axis bombers and concentration of armor and HQ's. The Axis can drive about 10-15 hexes anywhere they want on the Russian Front before casualties and expanding lines of communication slows down the advance. This in spite of the Allies having jets by 1943. I never had Spain or Turkey join (don't ever want Turkey to join as the Axis - way to big of front and very small force pool) and I was fighting the Allies in France from 1943 till the end of the game. At one point the allies had 14 land units ashore. I held them at bay by the sacrificing of the Axis navies in the channel and the fact they never got an HQ ashore. They did take 4 ports but over time I was able to recapture them.

I have been playing this series since its inception. I have seen some quirks in the AI that would never fly against a human opponent but it was still a great deal of fun. I'm on my first games as Allies and for the life of me I don't see how the AI got all those Corps and Armies to N.Africa but I suspect I'm just spending my money in other areas as the UK as opposed to how the AI spent.
Birdman

It's just like shooting squirrels, only these squirrels have guns
User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

RE: Balance Issue

Post by jzardos »

I agree 100% with the thread starter's points. I feel this game is drastically unbalanced for the Axis. Italy is made out to be a 4th rate minor when as already stated they had a large armored forces, but an overall lower quality and motivation than the other major counties involved. The Italian navy was a very modern navy, but was not used effectively. But that should not be a consideration in game play, since the human or AI are now making the decisions how to use the navy. Axis supply in the Soviet Union has many issues and I'm not going to beat a dead horse here.

I do understand there were deadlines to be met here, but I'm a little tired of games being released with out proper debugging and play testing. The designers can say they did there research on WW2 and tried to model the key players armed forces properly but they did a C+ job on it. They don't understand about digging a little deeper for the truth as the victors (namely the Soviet Union) wrote their own history on WW2. For those that have any clue, it was the allied lend lease that kept the Soviet Union from collapsing in 42-43. Take away the bad leadership, Hitler, and the Germans have an even greater chance for victory in the east. Stalin learned to start trusting his generals on matters of strategy, but Hitler never did and actually became more obsessed with lower level details as time went on.

Another very significant issue with this game is the lack of a battle history. Didn't anybody ever speak up in testing and ask why the heck there's no how, what, where for previous battles? There's no excuse here. Shame on the entire team releasing the game without this feature.

I know people will respond and kiss ass here on the game, there's always that element on the forums. But the truth is this game in it's present condition is only worth $9.99. I bought the game and have my right, just like the ass kissers, to speak frankly about the game. Many fixes need to happen until it's worth what I paid. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Huber and company will try and fix many of these issues. IMO the play balance needs to be a concern for a recent planned patch.

AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Balance Issue

Post by AlbertN »

ORIGINAL: ILCK

UK is problematic as you said because I can effectively fight a two Front war. Most recent allied game:

1. Mediterranean Front: won easily in North Africa and knocked out Italy with Sicilian invasion.
2. Took out Norway at same time and invaded then invaded Denmark and took up defensive positions along Kiel Canal

All before Barbarossa kicked off.


There, ILCK nails it.

In '41 UK barely had the forces to fight in Africa (and it was an Italian collapse in front of 2 UK divisions led aggressively and efficacely - ontop of being motorized) and defend their homeland.
Churchill was -scared- to land anywhere the Germans could safely reach (Anywhere in Europe) even in '43, so that he tumbled and fumbled to trick the USA to land in Marocco in '42 and then in '43 in Italy - because he knew the Germans would have bled heavily the thin British manpower that was at avail. Italy would have been perceived as a secondary front for Germany (and it backfired in the Allied faces as the Italian campaign drained more Allied resources than German ones)

But back on track, the problem is that Germany is too weak or UK is too overpowered.
That is a common issue in many games where UK production may be well modelled BUT gives the players the ability to produce as they deem fit. And usually Germany lacks the ability to produce submarines properly at the same time.

Which translates in UK building 0 ships at all - as their starting naval pool suffices.
Which means that lots of carriers, cruisers, the Prince of Wales class 5 BBs and so forth are not built and that production is simply dumped into planes and troops.

IF UK is able to do what ILCK said - and I know as well as I've the game it is - even before Barbarossa, who will play the Axis in multiplayer? You? I'll take the Allies any day.
And sure, maybe you can beat my invasion down, but at the cost of not invading Russia which will be overwhelming in '42 with a full production of all towns and cities and without suffering losses.

Good game.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Balance Issue

Post by sPzAbt653 »

But the truth is this game in it's present condition is only worth $9.99.
This game isn't advertised as an historical recreation of WWII. It appears by your comments that your pedestrian knowledge of the subject is more advanced than this game. Suggest you scrutinize your purchases more carefully in the future.
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Balance Issue

Post by Klydon »

ORIGINAL: jzardos

I agree 100% with the thread starter's points. I feel this game is drastically unbalanced for the Axis. Italy is made out to be a 4th rate minor when as already stated they had a large armored forces, but an overall lower quality and motivation than the other major counties involved. The Italian navy was a very modern navy, but was not used effectively. But that should not be a consideration in game play, since the human or AI are now making the decisions how to use the navy. Axis supply in the Soviet Union has many issues and I'm not going to beat a dead horse here.

I do understand there were deadlines to be met here, but I'm a little tired of games being released with out proper debugging and play testing. The designers can say they did there research on WW2 and tried to model the key players armed forces properly but they did a C+ job on it. They don't understand about digging a little deeper for the truth as the victors (namely the Soviet Union) wrote their own history on WW2. For those that have any clue, it was the allied lend lease that kept the Soviet Union from collapsing in 42-43. Take away the bad leadership, Hitler, and the Germans have an even greater chance for victory in the east. Stalin learned to start trusting his generals on matters of strategy, but Hitler never did and actually became more obsessed with lower level details as time went on.

Another very significant issue with this game is the lack of a battle history. Didn't anybody ever speak up in testing and ask why the heck there's no how, what, where for previous battles? There's no excuse here. Shame on the entire team releasing the game without this feature.

I know people will respond and kiss ass here on the game, there's always that element on the forums. But the truth is this game in it's present condition is only worth $9.99. I bought the game and have my right, just like the ass kissers, to speak frankly about the game. Many fixes need to happen until it's worth what I paid. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Huber and company will try and fix many of these issues. IMO the play balance needs to be a concern for a recent planned patch.


I am not so sure how the Regina Marina rates as a "modern" navy to a point, especially against the Royal Navy.

The Italians had some impressive ships, but outside of the Zara CA's and the Littorio class battleships, the Italian ships were mainly glass jawed light weights with light armor that compared very poorly to their RN counter parts. On the other hand, the Italian ships mainly compared very favorably to the ships the French had. The rebuilt WW1 Italian battleships were much better than anything the French had outside of the new ships the French were building, but 12.6 inch guns and 10 inches of belt armor compares very poorly to most anything they may have run into from the RN.

Most of the Italian cruisers were very weakly armored and were not that much faster than their CW counterparts and battle after battle, although the Italians often fought bravely, they usually came off second best.

That is part of the issue with the game (but not one I really brought up because to fix it means a ton of extra work and is perhaps beyond the scope of the concept of the game). A battleship is a battleship. If it is the same tech, the Bismark is the same as a French WW1 battleship, etc. Same with the cruisers and on down the line.


AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Balance Issue

Post by AlbertN »

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: jzardos

I agree 100% with the thread starter's points. I feel this game is drastically unbalanced for the Axis. Italy is made out to be a 4th rate minor when as already stated they had a large armored forces, but an overall lower quality and motivation than the other major counties involved. The Italian navy was a very modern navy, but was not used effectively. But that should not be a consideration in game play, since the human or AI are now making the decisions how to use the navy. Axis supply in the Soviet Union has many issues and I'm not going to beat a dead horse here.

I do understand there were deadlines to be met here, but I'm a little tired of games being released with out proper debugging and play testing. The designers can say they did there research on WW2 and tried to model the key players armed forces properly but they did a C+ job on it. They don't understand about digging a little deeper for the truth as the victors (namely the Soviet Union) wrote their own history on WW2. For those that have any clue, it was the allied lend lease that kept the Soviet Union from collapsing in 42-43. Take away the bad leadership, Hitler, and the Germans have an even greater chance for victory in the east. Stalin learned to start trusting his generals on matters of strategy, but Hitler never did and actually became more obsessed with lower level details as time went on.

Another very significant issue with this game is the lack of a battle history. Didn't anybody ever speak up in testing and ask why the heck there's no how, what, where for previous battles? There's no excuse here. Shame on the entire team releasing the game without this feature.

I know people will respond and kiss ass here on the game, there's always that element on the forums. But the truth is this game in it's present condition is only worth $9.99. I bought the game and have my right, just like the ass kissers, to speak frankly about the game. Many fixes need to happen until it's worth what I paid. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Huber and company will try and fix many of these issues. IMO the play balance needs to be a concern for a recent planned patch.


I am not so sure how the Regina Marina rates as a "modern" navy to a point, especially against the Royal Navy.

The Italians had some impressive ships, but outside of the Zara CA's and the Littorio class battleships, the Italian ships were mainly glass jawed light weights with light armor that compared very poorly to their RN counter parts. On the other hand, the Italian ships mainly compared very favorably to the ships the French had. The rebuilt WW1 Italian battleships were much better than anything the French had outside of the new ships the French were building, but 12.6 inch guns and 10 inches of belt armor compares very poorly to most anything they may have run into from the RN.

Most of the Italian cruisers were very weakly armored and were not that much faster than their CW counterparts and battle after battle, although the Italians often fought bravely, they usually came off second best.

That is part of the issue with the game (but not one I really brought up because to fix it means a ton of extra work and is perhaps beyond the scope of the concept of the game). A battleship is a battleship. If it is the same tech, the Bismark is the same as a French WW1 battleship, etc. Same with the cruisers and on down the line.




That is actually -entirely- wrong.

Italians had Littorio and Vittorio Veneto which were far better than any RN BB fielded in the Mediterranean.
Their cruisers were better than the UK counterparts.

Then why the Italian navy is renown to be bad?

Given, Italians never lost a single battle that involved gunnery, surface vs surface in daylight.
Italians thought lacked radar, and lacked carriers.
The philosophy of "Italy is a not sinkable carrier", a precept of the Fascists, simply proved non efficient because the C3I of the Italians was extremely poor, where their command of the airforce (including naval bombers) was linked to "Aereo Supremo" meanwhile the navy entirely answered to "Supermarina" (The respective supreme headquarters). Add in service rivalry, delays in passing of informations, Italian planes pratically never got in time to help the surface squadrons or offer CAP.

The defeats of the Italians are the "Night of Taranto" (The first surprise carrier strike on a naval base, well before Pearl Harbour), and Capo Matapan, where a cruiser got damaged by airplanes (like the Bismark) and lost maneuverability. The Italians detatched other vessels to pull the cruiser back home meanwhile the damaged main BB was safely being brought back at the docks.
Brits intercepted the cruisers coming to rescue the one immobilized by night. That is radar vs non radar equipped ships. And BBs vs CAs. The outcome was written already. (Also the Italians here did a maneuver mistake with the CAs in front of the DDs in their night journey to rescue their crippled vessel).

Thus, to repeat and resume:

Lack of Coordination of Navy & Airforce (Italians had excellent torpedo bombers actually!)
Lack of Radar
Lack of Carriers (which though was not a necessity in the Mediterranean IF the first point was null)

For the same reasons Genoa got bombarded by ships - they were in front of Genoa. They did not got intercepted by airplanes (which move much faster than ships) simply because to get the planes in the air took so long that when they did the British formation was already north of Sardinia on their way back to Gibraltar.
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Balance Issue

Post by Klydon »

ORIGINAL: Cohen

That is actually -entirely- wrong.

Italians had Littorio and Vittorio Veneto which were far better than any RN BB fielded in the Mediterranean.
Their cruisers were better than the UK counterparts.

Then why the Italian navy is renown to be bad?

Given, Italians never lost a single battle that involved gunnery, surface vs surface in daylight.
Italians thought lacked radar, and lacked carriers.
The philosophy of "Italy is a not sinkable carrier", a precept of the Fascists, simply proved non efficient because the C3I of the Italians was extremely poor, where their command of the airforce (including naval bombers) was linked to "Aereo Supremo" meanwhile the navy entirely answered to "Supermarina" (The respective supreme headquarters). Add in service rivalry, delays in passing of informations, Italian planes pratically never got in time to help the surface squadrons or offer CAP.

The defeats of the Italians are the "Night of Taranto" (The first surprise carrier strike on a naval base, well before Pearl Harbour), and Capo Matapan, where a cruiser got damaged by airplanes (like the Bismark) and lost maneuverability. The Italians detatched other vessels to pull the cruiser back home meanwhile the damaged main BB was safely being brought back at the docks.
Brits intercepted the cruisers coming to rescue the one immobilized by night. That is radar vs non radar equipped ships. And BBs vs CAs. The outcome was written already. (Also the Italians here did a maneuver mistake with the CAs in front of the DDs in their night journey to rescue their crippled vessel).

Thus, to repeat and resume:

Lack of Coordination of Navy & Airforce (Italians had excellent torpedo bombers actually!)
Lack of Radar
Lack of Carriers (which though was not a necessity in the Mediterranean IF the first point was null)

For the same reasons Genoa got bombarded by ships - they were in front of Genoa. They did not got intercepted by airplanes (which move much faster than ships) simply because to get the planes in the air took so long that when they did the British formation was already north of Sardinia on their way back to Gibraltar.

I believe I made exceptions for the excellent Littorio and Zara classes. However, you are talking 6 ships for much of the war compared to the rest of the Italian navy and Littorio was unavailable for part of that time after Taranto.

The rest of the Italian cruisers were fairly weakly armored for what they were. The RN ships were much better balance when it came to speed, offensive and defensive qualities.

I absolutely agree on your other points, especially the issues of communication between the navy and airforce. It cost the Italians dearly on many occasions.
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Balance Issue

Post by freeboy »

after a 11 month win as Axis in the 42 scenario
Im now fighting as Allies in the 40 scenario and standstill in africa and Russia in 42 with MOST major objectives still in Allied hands.. Aug 42 Smolensk just fell
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

RE: Balance Issue

Post by jzardos »

Sorry Klydon, but you're quite wrong here. I'm guess you have some nation bias for the Royal Navy? I'm not saying the Royal Navy was not an elite force, but the original point was that Strategic Command Europe does a crappy job representing the the Italian armed forces.

You could learn something from Cohen's post. If you need I can pm you many books on WW2 navies to enlighten you on this subject matter.

cheers,
Jason
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Balance Issue

Post by Klydon »

Well, they say the printed word is bad at conveying meaning and intent at times. Apparently that is what is going on here so I am going to drop it. I have a pile of books that detail what the relevant ships had and didn't have.

The bottom line is the game just has generic unit types and there is no difference in stats to allow for differences in classes of ships (IE, old battleship classes vs new).

The one thing that is a glaring weakness for the RM is having just 1 destroyer unit which makes it extremely hard for them to deal with the starting CW sub unit in the Med.
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Balance Issue

Post by AlbertN »

Yes, there are generic unit types (which as I said I believe should not be upgraded). The generic old BB remains a generic old BB (style Warspite - now someone is going to lynch me! - or Conte di Cavour or Lorraine and so forth). WW1 dreads that got upgraded for WW2.
Upgrade 1 BBs can simply be the Littorios, Bismark, Prince of Wales kind of BB.
And for the upgrade 2 ships - well a player should produce them when they get the tech. That will give a "naval difference" in naval armament.
The problem is that I doubt the game engine allows to filter what can be upgraded and what cannot.

I fully agree having only 1 DD is quite crippling - especially as the size of a fleet is triangular (more smaller ships, less BBs! It does not exists a fleet with let's say 10 BB and 2 DD). One can argue that DDs are bundled into the larger units too (ie a BB unit also includes the escort vessels associated with the larger unit) but that is a crippled concept in the game mechanics as BBs do not hunt submarines, and their stats do not mirror the escort DDs either.

The ultimate problem is the naval system though that has been preserved into a land battle mechanic and not a system by itself.
The naval zones system of WiF is most excellent in my eyes with the unpredictable outcome of encounters (surely some flaws are there too but surely much smaller than the ones in this game).
User avatar
Steely Glint
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm

RE: Balance Issue

Post by Steely Glint »

Klydon's correct about the Italian Navy.
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Balance Issue

Post by warspite1 »

Interesting discussion and some interesting points raised which I have not had time to digest and properly think through but off the top of my head:

1. The point I've heard from the designers is that these are not individual ships. So a BB counter will consist of other vessels. This has an effect perhaps i.e. its not the BB that is upgraded its her escorts?

2. I disagree about a blanket ban on upgrading the WWI ships - although the amount of upgrade should be limited, reflecting the amount of work involved, the ability of any such ship to take such upgrade and how long a ship would be out of action in doing so. Examples HMS Warspite had improved AA post her visit to Bremerton, and look at the WWI vintage US battleships that were re-built after PH. One thing though, it would have been better to have upgrades take longer - and so be more of a decision for a player over whether to spare them or not?

2. Agree that the Italians having one destroyer only (and presumably building others is unlikely?) is wrong.

3. The points made about the Italian Navy miss something vital - and is always a problem for strategic wargames. As has been pointed out the Littorios were superior all-round to anything the Allies could field until the newer RN battleships made an appearance later on. The Zaras were decent cruisers - and the RM out-gunned the RN in 8-inch cruisers.

BUT the point that is missed is that the rules of engagement under which Supermarina handicapped the RM was their biggest problem. The RM were fighting the RN's reputation and were possibly too cautious. Matapan is written off as simply - the RM didn't have radar and the RN did. That is unfair. Even with radar Cunningham had to make the bold decision to send his ships in search of the enemy, knowing full well they would be under threat of air attack the following morning. Yes, a combination of radar and Italian stupidity (sending cruisers on a rescue mission at night??) led to the destruction of the Italian heavy cruisers at Matapan but the point is; the battle would not have happened if Cunningham adopted the same cautious approach as the Italians would have done. Think the Second Battle of Sirte.

As I say, this is a problem. The more realistic you make the starting forces, the more you have to think of other ways to limit the Italian Navy - otherwise they can achieve totally unrealistic levels of performance which have implications for play balance.

4. The Italian destroyers should be more susceptible to weather damage than the RN. At least two of these 'flimsy' vessels were actually sunk due to weather damage.

5. The RN carriers at the start of the war are far too effective. Yes there was Taranto, but otherwise they achieved little offensively at sea other than convince the RM to steer clear of engaging the British (they were of course vital in the re-supply of Malta).

6. The more 'realistic' you make things i.e limiting old BB the more the need to actually give the RN more ships. I have not played the Axis yet but from what I can make out the Axis get a counter for each of their BB/CC - the British do not.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head but will watch this discussion with interest.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Balance Issue

Post by freeboy »

Well, Playing as the Allies and playing as the
Axis.. I do much better as the Allies... They just get so much stuff, which is realistic after 43... when the US economy kicks in.. as the Axis Its a challenge to win imo I am sure without fog its easier, but man I am excited for two player..
anyone else? ha
"Tanks forward"
Dunkelheit87
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:29 pm

RE: Balance Issue

Post by Dunkelheit87 »

The Germans never made it close to Leningrad, got stuck at Smolensk and barely got past Kiev. In '42 there was no "Blitzkieg" at all, more a sluggish war of attrition where the German units slowly (against the limits of an AI, I underline) made relevant advances here and there; and had to give grounds there and elsewhere. (Forfeitted Moscow attack to take Rostov and Kharkov, established possession of Tula and reached Leningrad. Conquered Sebastopol)
In Barbarossa scenario it is easy to take Leningrad (even if you can't reach it in 1941) and advance in the south in 1941 (much easier and farther than in history), but in 1942, yes, there is always positional warfare, especially under Moscow.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”