are the Allies too weak in the early years?

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

Guderian1940
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:55 pm

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Guderian1940 »

Vonik I agree with your observations. That the Germans should be strong at the start and that the tide could change in 43 once the US come in. That being said I do believe there should be some semblance of chance if not reality in the first years for the Allies. NA is just ridiculous and Russia is also. It is very hard to keep interest in a game when NA, Persia, Moscow and Leningrad are all taken by 42 and maybe England as well. This all possible when a VG and/or bold player are the Axis. No matter how good you are as the Allies it is difficult to stop this scenario. Different skill levels as the Axis will make some of these things harder for the Axis but they still run over whatever they focus on. Only mistakes in timing and focus by the Axis give the Allies a chance i.e an interest in keeping playing. The Allies will make mistakes also which may counter the Axis mistakes.

Yes the Allies can land almost anywhere on the Coast they have access to but they do not have very much strength till the US come in.

All I wish for at this time, and it may be enough with the new changes coming, that the Allies can stop the Axis in NA (if they fight hard), can hold on to Moscow if they concentrate and can make a fight of it (not just get rolled over whether you have a hundred Armies or not in front of Moscow or Alexandria.

The choices made for production, Tech, Diplomacy and strategy should have long term effects. Right now there is little money for anything else but rebuilding your losses for the Allies. In Russia, you buy tech, you do not have enough troops, which in the end make little difference as they are cannon fodder no matter how many you have. You can't afford HQ's or extra anything for the most part as the Allies. The Axis choices are important too but they have a lot more wiggle room in regards to choices.

All of my observations are with a 39 start and against a Human. The other scenarios are different.
User avatar
Leadwieght
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:51 am

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Leadwieght »

I appreciate the design challenge that this game represents. My feeling is that it needs only a slight tweak to lessen the Axis powers' ability to dominate EVERYWHERE in 39-41. Then the rest is up to good Allied generalship.

My suggestion is that the tweak needs to happen in North Africa, but there may be other ways. Maybe simply giving the Brits another half-strength HQ via auto-script after the fall of France would be enough.

I notice in 1.03.02, Soviet mobilization automatically goes up with a Sealion attempt (as opposed to it being a possibility. That will probably help.
Truth be told, I have probably won several of my games as the Axis almost entirely because I got lucky and this event didn't fire. It can be frustrating to lose on a coin-flip!
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Capitaine »

If the Germans hadn't campaigned in the Balkans in 40-41, could they have devoted more strength to NA? Are German players in the game also doing this, in addition to NA? The point being, had Hitler also done this (ignored the Balkans) could he have easily won in NA? Players want to alter history yet object when history is altered. Seems many want a "story board" game. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't eat your cake, yet still have it.
User avatar
Leadwieght
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:51 am

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Leadwieght »

Capitaine,
It's exactly the alternative possibilities that make this game fun for me. Not sure how calling for a slight adjustment to the force balance or the supply rules amounts to expressing a desire for a "storyboard" game. SC3 is a good simulation of decision making at the grand-strategic level. The interaction of the opposing players' choices is what gives the game it's great replay value. But both sides should be faced with real choices, or it becomes stale. If the Axis has several sure-fire paths to victory in 39-42, barring VERY bad, luck, then the number of interesting game permutations is rather small.
BTW, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but so far the Axis really seems to have too much of the upper hand.
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Capitaine »

Well, folks keep saying Brits can't hold NA is wrong, because: history. Well, I'm just asking if there's an unhistorical reason for that happening in the game. If the German forces cited in the posts above are available to the Germans because of "other choices", then why the complaints? Historically the Germans had reasons why they didn't have the resources to devote more force to NA. I get the feeling Allied players feel they should be able to win in NA just "because". Yet historically if the Germans had committed what these players have they, too, WOULD have won in NA. Trying to make NA an unwinnable struggle for Axis doesn't sound like a good idea. More like a story board.

In other words, there should be more discussion of history and alternative history to analyze the issue you have raised. Not just the game differing from history and wanting nerfs.
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Sugar »

Sorry, but that`s not the point. Of course the Axis should be able to beat the Brits in NA. The question is what that means gamewise, since the Russians also are easy to beat, and the occupation (or liberation) of Irak means the german income to increase to the later Allied level.

This is 1. historically not correct, since the production capacity of the Axis industry could not reach Allied (especially american) level, even if they`ve had enough oil to fullfill all requests; and second, despite operation Barbarossa caused 4.000.000 losses to the SU in 41, Germany suffered before Dec. 41 also 1 million casualties, together with half of it`s tanks. And that`s before the counterattack started. Will there be a counterattack in this game?

A victory in the desert should be a huge advantage to the Axis player for sure, but in this setting the confrontation with the SU is unavoidable. The predecessors managed to keep the balance of chances between both sides, if this game does is questionable.

As I already mentioned, it`s not yet the time to judge; but for my experience it`s a tough and long going for the Allied to win, even if they don`t loose NA.

User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5862
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Hubert Cater »

He everyone,

Been following the discussion a bit and just wanted to say thanks for the feedback. I posted the following in another thread but figured it would be suitable here as well.

With the next update we hope that any imbalance will be addressed (for the most part) as we've made a significant supply rule change in terms of how HQs link supply to one another.

With the previous implementation, linked HQs actually provided the possibility of higher supply distribution than would otherwise be possible for an HQ in normal and maximum supply. All this meant was that a linked HQ deep in the USSR or in bad supply in North Africa could still have a distribution supply level of 9 or 10 while a single HQ (non linked) but in the best supply distribution position possible under the current supply numbers/situation of the area could be much lower, i.e. at 5 or 8 at best. Essentially the bonus of linking HQs provided arguably unrealistically high supply which can have a spiraling effect when it comes to balance due to optimal combat results and so on.

For the next release (but already available in the current beta release v1.03.02) the supply distribution for HQs has been adjusted/remodeled to reflect our findings and while a linked HQ can still provide better supply, it will only do so if its distribution supply could be improved from the default and yet still lower than what we had before, i.e. not automatically maxed out to a maximum supply distribution level as in the past.

Here is the full list of changes and as a result we believe modifiers like the Malta Effect will now have a more realistic impact and driving deep into the USSR will be a bit more challenging now supply wise, and all of which can have a more critical effect on the overall game play and outcome of the war.

- HQ distribution supply has been changed to the following:
-> HQ supply < 3 will have a distribution supply value of 5.
-> HQ supply >= 3 and <= 5 will have a distribution supply value of 8.
-> HQ supply > 5 will have a distribution supply value of 10.

- HQs can now only be linked if the first HQ has a supply value >= 5, raised from a previous threshold of >= 3.
-> the HQ to be linked must have a supply value < 3 and is now automatically boosted to a supply value of 5 which caps its distribution supply at 8. Previously linked HQs could have a maximum distribution supply level of 10.

What the above changes will hopefully lead to is a situation whereby if the Axis commit enough to North Africa then they can still do well there, but it should be a longer and tougher fight and similar in effect in the USSR and especially once the Axis begin to push deeper and outrun their supply.

Ideally it leads us back to a better level of balance whereby the Axis need to make some tougher choices on where to apply and how much of their resources (to the various theaters) and less of an automatic guarantee of success in both NA and the USSR while still requiring the Allies to give a significant fight from their end as well.

Hubert
vonik
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:12 pm

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by vonik »

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater


Here is the full list of changes and as a result we believe modifiers like the Malta Effect will now have a more realistic impact and driving deep into the USSR will be a bit more challenging now supply wise, and all of which can have a more critical effect on the overall game play and outcome of the war.

I think that this is Worth trying and testing .
However forget Malta - Malta modifier has no and can have no impact for the simple reason that it gets destroyed in August 40 in 2 turns and there is Nothing the Allied can do to stop it .
But basically this kind of tweaks acts exactly where an action should be done - in the timeline .

Indeed as the Allied (well actually the US only) start to become powerful around 1943, the question which is in the heart of what has been discussed here is : "Has the German already accomplished everything in NA and Russia in 1943 or not ?"


In the current game the answer is yes so that when the US really starts to be able to invade (mid-end 43), Germany has all its forces free and available so that an invasion can mostly be succesfully countered .
Actually the game Germany succeds to realize the original Hitler's idea (which has also been the one of Hanibal or Napoleon) : if you have several ennemies, beat them one after the other .

By making fast advances harder now (I have my doubts because in the current game the German rarely/never outruns his supply and yet gets to Lenigrad and Moscow in Fall 41) this would mean that Germany is still fully committed in Russia in 43 so that any US invasion in 43 leads REALLY to the dreaded 2 front war which Germany can't win .

Amusingly (or not so amusingly) if the tweak leads to Germany never being able to win the war, it would miss its intent because the game would then become totally unablanced in favour of the Allied :)
User avatar
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Iñaki Harrizabalagatar »

One question to Hubert, can the numbers of units supplied by a HQ be limited the same way the units that receive command bonus are? Because that would be really a good way to represent supply limits, as it is now supply limits are ververy easy to get around
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5778
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by BillRunacre »

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

I played Russian where the Winter war was not an option. Where the Irish ports were not an option


Hi Guderian

This doesn't sound right at all, as these Decisions should be presented in almost all circumstances, the only exceptions being if Ireland or Finland have being swayed diplomatically, or with the latter if the USSR has been declared war upon by the Axis before mid October 1939.

If that isn't the case and you or anyone else notices this again please be sure to let us know. [:)]

Thanks

Bill
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5862
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Hubert Cater »

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

One question to Hubert, can the numbers of units supplied by a HQ be limited the same way the units that receive command bonus are? Because that would be really a good way to represent supply limits, as it is now supply limits are ververy easy to get around

At the moment there is no limitation but something for us to consider perhaps in the future.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Another idea might be to limit the number of units that can trace supply to a port that has no connection to a friendly capitol. HQ limits would seem to be simpler, though.
User avatar
Christolos
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:45 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Christolos »

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
Think outside the box. If you play predictably then you are letting the Germans 'do the math' and will probably win. Try and aggravate them. Invade Norway just after he gets it. Put an AA in London and surround it in Militia to prevent paratroopers from taking it. Park your subs in front of the ports so he can't move into them without using precious little DD's to bump them out.

I like this attitude/approach to a style of play the Allies could and probably should employ to aggravate the Axis. I myself thought about using the Allies naval superiority in carriers (with support BBs, CAs, Cls, and DDs) to raid the Norwegian convoy to Germany. The only issue with this is that the CVs (in convoy raiding mode), as the game is currently designed, need to be parked on or adjacent to the convoy line to be able raid. This of course puts the CV's in more danger.

I anxiously await consideration on this from Hubert and Bill (see tm.asp?m=4288120 ), in terms of whether carriers should be able to raid convoys which they are in range of. In my opinion, I think this should be the case. It would also give the Allies an interesting/potentially effective way to convoy raid in the early years of the war.

C
“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-
User avatar
Leadwieght
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:51 am

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Leadwieght »

Thanks for the response, Hubert!
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5862
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years?

Post by Hubert Cater »

Thanks again everyone and with the next update we have put in place a few additional minor tweaks for the UK and the USSR to hopefully help address the balance issues for North Africa and the USSR even further. Again, nothing major, but hopefully enough to force the Axis to continue to fight hard in these areas, while giving the Allies a better chance to survive until late 1942 where the balance can then be tipped one way or the other.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”