Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: More feedback on 1.05

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: More feedback on 1.05 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/17/2020 4:26:26 PM   
Helsingor

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/26/2019
Status: offline
You make some good points, Taff. I think the DAK land units should all spawn adjacent to port hexes, if that could be scripted. I like the fact that now (unlike in earlier versions or in WiE) the DAK does not automatically appear in Libya. It means the Axis player can't cede naval superiority to the British in the central Med and still run a strong land campaign in North Africa. BUT having to move the DAK units to a port makes it impossible to come close to the historical timeline, if memory serves. I think they were in action at Al Agheila in early March 1941, after landing at Tripoli and marching east.

To your point about the choice of where to deploy them, it's one of the things I like about the new version--having to make such a decision.

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 31
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/17/2020 6:58:22 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3370
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
That is interesting and good to know!

One question springs to mind though: are you and your opponents all experienced players of this game?

I just wonder if you are very experienced then it might make it easier for you to win as Allies, whereas newer players might still struggle?

The changes planned are small and hopefully they'll still give the Axis a decent chance of victory.

With the DAK deploying in Germany, this might happen if the place they are supposed to deploy in doesn't have enough free hexes, i.e. other units are already there. Hopefully that has been the case here?

_____________________________

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

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 32
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/17/2020 7:54:30 PM   
HamburgerMeat

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/22/2017
Status: offline
This is how I see things as of the current patch:

Allies are stronger than axis at top levels, but the Allies are much more difficult to play. Assuming both players are equal:

Less than intermediate: axis almost always win
Intermediate: slight to significant axis advantage
Advanced: significant allied advantage

Axis = easy to learn, hard to master
Allies = hard to learn, hard to master

The difficulty in balancing (assuming balance means a 50:50 ratio) is making it easier for most players while not skewing the ratio too much. It seems that the vast majority have a problem in the USSR, and once a major line of defense collapses, panzers keep pushing forward and annihilating everything as low morale, underentrenched backline units are devoured. The slightest mistake can cause the collapse of a line, leading to a chain reaction of underentrenched low morale units getting annihilated (a mistake as innocent as moving an army forward to see combat odds, but being unable to undo the move since this revealed the german units stats.)

I agree that the USSR could use a few more starting units, as this will significantly ease the 1941 situation. But I think that even with these additions, new players will still struggle vs axis because they don't know how to use the allied toolkit effectively (engineers, carriers, strategic bombers), because they spread out their research out too thinly as the USSR, and because they don't prepare a second line of defense soon enough. Adding more units will help the last problem, which is probably the most significant.

In sum, I think that giving a few more units to the USSR is a great idea that addresses the biggest problem for most players, but I wouldn't do more for the USSR unless you weaken the allies elsewhere.


< Message edited by HamburgerMeat -- 1/17/2020 8:03:54 PM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 33
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/17/2020 8:03:41 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: offline
Hi Bill

In respect to the DAK deploying in Germany it tends to be the Air units, if the land units deploy in the North of Italy. Would it be possible to script that the Air units deploy in Sicily also the land units by port hexes.

Also AT units should be more vulnerable to infantry attacks.

As for player skill levels, I would say we are similar levels except I have never played the Allies in PBEM games and only occasionally against the AI less than 3% of the games I have played I would say.

I only started playing as Allies to see if the game favours the Axis as many people are claiming.

IMO it isn't, if anything it slightly favours the Allies especially after 43. Unless the Axis have defeated Russia.
Which with two equally matched players that isn't going to happen. I have had two games go into 47 and they have been great games. Wish I was more computer savvy as they would have made great AAR and been a great advert for this fantastic game you and Hubert have made

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 34
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 1:23:22 AM   
Helsingor

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/26/2019
Status: offline
IMO, as a fairly new player to WaW in multiplayer (though I've played this and WiE solo quite a bit), I think the game seems pretty well balanced. However, if the Axis wins, they tend to win early via a blowout such as HamburgerMeat describes. This might be fueling the perception that the game favors the Axis.

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 35
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 1:59:56 AM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
I tend to agree with HamburgerMeat, except that I think the game is almost balanced at Advanced level, with the Soviets and China still needing some minor help.

Instead of weakening the Allies, I'd do something about Heavy Bombers. (My suggestion is that a city/port cannot be reduced below a certain minimum. Other suggestions may be better.)

(in reply to Helsingor)
Post #: 36
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 2:18:49 AM   
lwarmonger

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline
If you are waiting until the DAK appears and sending only the DAK to North Africa you are going to lose there anyways, against even halfway decent allied play. 3 fully upgraded armor in Africa by summer/fall of 1940 can take egypt... anything less can be fairly easily contained and pushed back by the allies. Given that Germany is already extremely strong in early game, not sure that improving the DAKs initial placement should really be a big priority.

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 37
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 3:05:43 PM   
calcwerc

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/8/2019
Status: offline
1. About AT I dont think it should be nerved. It can be built by both Allies and Axis, and the main problem is that you cant build more than three units, so that it is not that tempting to research or build it anyway. I mostly build them after i have maxed out on tanks. If you do play them, you should be rewarded for that in terms of efficiency.
2. I dont agree with Sveint that China need to be stronger. In my view, the balance is already perfect in that scenario. Japan can only win against a good Chinese player by using lots of air power, and even then it is difficult.
3. I dont agree that bombers need to be maken less strong either. How many players complaining about the bombers have gone all the way on AA research?
4. Making Russia a bit stronger and the US a bit less strong may make the game better overall. Perhaps.
5. I still think that the gamey blockading of Vladivostok is the most urgent thing to change.

(in reply to lwarmonger)
Post #: 38
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 6:04:09 PM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
US heavy bombers absolutely rule the late game and make any kind of defense virtually impossible. I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

(in reply to calcwerc)
Post #: 39
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 6:05:57 PM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
Also I don't see any possible argument against moving a Chinese HQ south at start.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 40
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 10:15:22 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: offline
Hi Iwarmonger

If the Allied player has blockaded the ports in NA and has ships patrolling the Med, Even if you have a Maritime bomber on Sicily, getting 2 or 3 upgraded Panzers to NA by the end of summer is a difficult and dangerous under taking for players of my skill level (I would class myself as Intermediate).

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 41
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 10:50:56 PM   
lwarmonger

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline
If the allied player goes all in on a blockade of North Africa then the Luftwaffe in its entirety (not just naval bombers) can be employed to make them pay. If you arent launching sealowe, then you dont have much to occupy your airforce before Barbarossa anyways (and if you are then having the British navy tied up in the Med is a bonus). All you need is one port at strength 5 for 1 turn, and the Italian fleet plus the Luftwaffe can put 3 armor and a headquarters in NA... very achievable.

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 42
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/19/2020 10:52:17 PM   
lwarmonger

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

Also I don't see any possible argument against moving a Chinese HQ south at start.


Agreed.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 43
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/20/2020 12:51:48 AM   
ThunderLizard2

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: taffjones

Hi EarlyDoors
In my opinion Japan/China and the Pacific is right.

But Germany is now faced with a choice of falling behind in the tech race or build enough units in time to invade Russia.

Also the deployment of the DAK is another issue. I have had some of the units spawn in Southern Germany not Italy and they also spawn away from port hexes. This means you spend 1 turn reinforcing them, Allied turn, your next turn moving them so they can be transported, Allied turn, 1 turn transporting 1/2 of the DAK to NA, Allied turn then your next turn transporting the rest of the DAK to NA and moving the 1st units up to the battle line in total with Allied turns this is a total of 8 months in game time before they are effective, and that is if the Allied player hasn't blockaded the destination ports or sunk any of the transports.

So as the Axis it is better to use them in Yugo/Greece and Russia. Which weakens the Italians unless you have managed to sneak units over to NA before hand.


Agree - can we go back to having them spawn in NA like in WiE?

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 44
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/20/2020 1:13:26 AM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
Here is something that favors the Axis and could be remedied: Japanese morale is too high, and it is not possible to reproduce a historical surrender. The Allies always have to invade and occupy Japan proper.

(in reply to lwarmonger)
Post #: 45
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/20/2020 1:36:48 AM   
eightroomofelixir

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 11/17/2019
Status: online
Agree with moving a Chinese HQ to south. It does not change the total number of Chinese unit, and the China in 1942 campaign does have a HQ in south anyway.

On a side note, if we want to give a few more units to the Soviets to increase the fault tolerance of the front line as HamburgerMeat suggested, would it be reasonable to refer to the example of the Soviet unit numbers in the 1942 campaign?

In the official 1942 campaign the Soviets have 4 armor pieces, 12 corps, and a total of 31 army units (normal and shock together) in the European front, with most of them upgraded. It's not easy for human Allied players to reach this number in 42 in the 1939 campaign.

_____________________________

No conquest without labor.

(in reply to ThunderLizard2)
Post #: 46
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/20/2020 6:42:20 AM   
calcwerc

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/8/2019
Status: offline
If I recall correctly, people were very blunt about the axis being favoured as this patch was released. Well, it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. I do think Hamburgermeats analysis might be right, that this differs at different skill levels, but at higher levels I think most people would pick the allies if they played for money.
About China HQ: well I dont think its a big deal either way, but why take a raisk altering an already very well balanced part of the game? If one should change anything for China, it would help newbies much more if they started out with the relevant techs, as I am sure changing them from the outset is what most experienced players would do.
Ok on strat bombers I agree that they might be a bit too powerful, especially against troops, but again, did you go for AA lvl 5 trying to counter it? And airpower should be a gamechanger lategame in Western-Europe.

(in reply to eightroomofelixir)
Post #: 47
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/20/2020 7:03:09 PM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
I'd go Axis if I played competitive. (I don't play competitive).

China is far from balanced (when seen in isolation). Japan easily crushes China if it wants to, historically this was simply not an option.

AA above level 3 is useless. If you research it to level 5 and upgrade every city/port to AA level 5 then let's just say you are not spending your MPPs wisely.

(in reply to calcwerc)
Post #: 48
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/21/2020 6:41:41 AM   
EarlyDoors

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 12/16/2018
Status: offline
I agree that AA is a bit weird in that you can't upgrade units above level 2
It's certainly caught me out first time
I can only assume that units are too hard to destroy at higher air defence levels


(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 49
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/21/2020 7:52:54 AM   
calcwerc

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/8/2019
Status: offline
Sveint, I have only played you once, and your allies beat the **** out of mine axis, so of course I respect your opinion. It would be tempting to play allies against your axis though, as I think my initial China strategy is much better than the way you played it (and still you won as allies!)
I wasnt aware that AA cant be upgraded to 5, as i havent played axis for a while and havent tested that particular strategy. I thought it could, and figured the available AAguns upgraded to 4 or 5 could be a substantial threat to the allied bombers.

(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 50
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/21/2020 8:19:31 AM   
EarlyDoors

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 12/16/2018
Status: offline
If memory serves AA units go to level 3
All other units only to level 2
Resources go to level 5

(in reply to calcwerc)
Post #: 51
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/21/2020 2:47:37 PM   
Helsingor

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/26/2019
Status: offline
To me, the AA limits (assuming you're correct, EarlyDoors) make historical sense, if you think of upgrading AA as more like adding additional AA assets to a unit or resource hex and less like upgrading the quality of existing AA defenses.

In my thinking, there's a limit to how many AA guns (and all that ammo!) a unit can trundle around with and still maintain mobility and operational flexibility, whereas a fixed location like a port, city or mine has more room to add guns, searchlights, radar and AA ammo dumps

(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 52
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/21/2020 2:57:28 PM   
HamburgerMeat

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/22/2017
Status: offline
I think that while the sino japanese war as portrayed in game is ahistoric, it makes sense in terms of gameplay for the japanese to be able to constantly advance. Maybe the rate of advance is still too high? The chinese have enough to survive until late 42/early 43 at minimum, which I think is enough

(in reply to Helsingor)
Post #: 53
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/21/2020 6:18:12 PM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
quote:

It would be tempting to play allies against your axis though, as I think my initial China strategy is much better than the way you played it (and still you won as allies!)


Bear in mind that I mostly play experimentally, that is I try new and different things. I honestly don't remember what I tried to do as China in our game.

(in reply to HamburgerMeat)
Post #: 54
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/22/2020 9:30:56 AM   
calcwerc

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/8/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

Bear in mind that I mostly play experimentally, that is I try new and different things. I honestly don't remember what I tried to do as China in our game.


Well, you made big emphasis on industrial techs, I think you had researched both fully by the end of the war, and tried to spam infantry. I think you also used Chinese air power against the Japanese. I do not think these strategies are good. A China with early techs on infantry, doctrines and artillery will be very hard to beat for the Japanese, and unless Japan allocate all or most air power on the cost of other fronts, China should be able to push back 43 latest.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 55
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/23/2020 7:43:03 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: offline
If more people reported the results of their games (I'm not talking competitive games) it might help Hubert and Bill with looking at the game balance. I recall it helped with the WiE game.

Also for players they could arrange games with other players of a similar ranking, which should also help in the game balance debate.

(in reply to calcwerc)
Post #: 56
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/24/2020 12:39:17 PM   
amandkm

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 1/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: taffjones

If more people reported the results of their games (I'm not talking competitive games) it might help Hubert and Bill with looking at the game balance. I recall it helped with the WiE game.

Also for players they could arrange games with other players of a similar ranking, which should also help in the game balance debate.


See, that's a problem. We just don't know going in, how we 'stack up' against one another. Six months ago, I thought I was pretty good at this game. Then I started getting myself whipped like a rented mule.

So, am I a bad player who happened to have several weak opponents at first? Or a good player who stumbled into murderer's row?

I still don't know!

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 57
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/24/2020 2:49:35 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
This is where I've been advocating multi-player games. more than one player per side. First of all as the turns get much longer, later in the game, it is easier to designate certain countries to players of different abilities.

Veteran players can take the more difficult countries to play, UK, USSR, USA etc. In this manner turns will be less daunting and the dependency on the "team" to get it done for each other will be emphasized.

The second benefit is that the veteran, more astute players, can bring the less experienced ones along with relation to tactics and strategy, the various nuances of the game, and everyone can learn together closing the gap between "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly".

< Message edited by James Taylor -- 1/24/2020 2:56:05 PM >


_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to amandkm)
Post #: 58
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/24/2020 3:05:37 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 3519
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
This is now actually possible via Hotseat mode where there is a replay of the last moves, not only from the last turn, but the last moves made on your own turn. The only downside is that you have to manually send the saved game file to each team member after you played your country, and then to your opponents once the turn is complete.

_____________________________


(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 59
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/24/2020 3:11:10 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
Actually Hubert I prefer to send my turns through email and not use the server as I'm not concerned with cheating and the Matrix server can be a bit "quirky" at times.



_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: More feedback on 1.05 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.152