Just for those players...

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
who think the scenario's unbalanced in favour of the Axis: snapshot of an Eastern Crusade game vs Pelle with Mark having led the Third Reich to the brink of defeat in all of three and a half years. Any advice welcome! :cry:
 

Rev

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
Mark,
I will be the first one to claim that the axis possess too much of an advantage. The play results back that up. I have been doing some digging a bit. I will post some thoughts and ask you a few questions then.

Looking at all the reported games of EA, the average game lasted 109 turns or 2 years from start date. Which if we use the 3.3 start date of July 1939, the majority of the games end by July 1941, with an AOV (axis overwhelming victory). Could they have conquered all of Europe/Russian/Norway/Middle East in 24 months, of which about 1/2 of that time period contains poor campaigning weather (snow and mud). This really leaves us about a good 12 months (48 turns @ 1 week each) of warm weather to pull it off....

31% (17) - ALLIES Overwhelming Victory
4% (2) - ALLIES Substantial Victory
4% (2) - Draw
4% (2) - AXIS Marginal Victory
2% (1) - AXIS Substantial Victory
56% (30) - AXIS Overwhelming Victory

Now allow me to look at those higher rated players. Majority wise the top players chose to play the axis. Why? It is that it’s the stronger side and one they are betting on winning with more often than not. Of note (I can only see last 20 reports):

Raver has played probably more than anyone and has racked up a 11 Wins of which 9 are Axis victories and 2 allied. He has chosen the allies 4 of 13 times and lost 50% of those 4 times.

Ravenstrike has racked up 3 for 3 as the axis.

Mantis is undefeated standing 6 for 6 as axis and 4 for 4 as allies, probably the best record considering the win/loss percentages the axis have over the allies in general.

Siberian Heat is 3-1 overall with 2 wins as the axis and 1 as the allied and losing as the allied.

Skyvon stands 2-5 with both his wins as the axis and all 5 losses as the allies.

There are other players I could list but I think I have enough here to support my point.

Now I could go on and split hairs on this but the numbers speak for themselves. Overall the axis win and when they do it’s usually an overwhelming victory. They are nearly 2-1 in wins versus allied play. This is complete lop sided a-historical result. In reality, the allies won an overwhelming victory and that should be where the scenario is measured from, not a 50/50 chance of either side winning. The favor is in the allied hands. The majority and expectation should be that most of the victories should be in the hands of the allies, NOT the axis.

Now 3.3 starts in July of 1939, which seems only to give the axis a start advantage, which means now they are drilling into Poland 2 months early. Is that necessary? The axis always take the pre-war buildups which just gives them more firepower. Maintaining a multi-front war seems to be little to no problem. As a matter of fact, most good axis players will pursue several fronts at the same time. Denmark, Norway, and the invasions of France are usually going on at the same time or near the same time with overlap. Supply should always be a problem, and it doesn’t seem to be the case.

The shock which affects the allies affects all the allies, which doesn’t make sense. Many turns tons of units are orange banded and can not move. Another issue is the lack of naval supply capacity, which should be huge for the allies and isn’t. The royal navy should be able to control the high seas and prevent major Italian sorties from supporting any Middle Eastern invasions or supply to armies in Africa.

In the game I am in, Raver is supplying about 4-6 air groups, 5 corps, 2-3 divisions and a few brigades along with some smaller units from ports in Greece/Italy, to Palestine, down to Egypt across to Basra and up through Iraq, like it’s a stroll in the park. That is ridiculous and impossible. Given that any success in Africa will always lead to a 2nd front against the Soviets. Meanwhile the US is kept out by not activating Italy. All of Europe has collapsed and in axis hands less the British Isles and the east front. Russia is on its last foothold fighting a 2 front war, and the UK is isolated, yet the US sits and does nothing. It is turn 76, I just lost Leningrad and Baku. I could not do anything to stop it. Most of the time my units can not move, or he has broke bridges and used air to isolate things so he can steam roll from Persia up into my back door, again dropping my supply levels and increasing his. With such rapid axis success the entry time should be moved way up. It does no good in stemming off a AOV if the US can not threaten the Germans while the Soviets are still hanging on. Coming in during clean up in the east is a waste and the game ends there.

Another problem is the inability to break down any unit into a size small enough to ship. I have been unable to move any UK units out of South Africa because I don’t have the shipping capacity to get them home. How is that? How did they get there in the first place? There should always be a break down option or enough naval to ship the heaviest unit home.

I have more thoughts but I think I have dumped enough on you already. Perhaps Mantis or Ravenstrike or Raver or Siberian or anyone who has multiple wins as the axis can pipe in and give food for thought. Why do they play the axis, what do they do in general? Are such actions/decisions within the means of the Germans during the real war? Are any of the political deterrents enough to thwart operational decisions?

(more later) :blab:

Rev
 

Karri

Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
Malta
Country
llMalta
From my point of view, the biggest problem is with infantry replacements. Both sides could use way more than what they have now. I suggest the axis replacements are raised with 30% and allied replacements with 50-75%.
 

Rev

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
The German army gets ground down to fragments and ad-hoc junk by the end. Has this ever happened in any EA game? Increasing the replacements will fix somethings but I think it will continue to give more longevitity to the attrition factor the east front had on the axis over the long haul. Remember the Russians bled the Germans white and wiped out over 100 divisions.


Rev
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,242
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Rev said:
Mark,
I will be the first one to claim that the axis possess too much of an advantage.

(snip)

31% (17) - ALLIES Overwhelming Victory
4% (2) - ALLIES Substantial Victory
4% (2) - Draw
4% (2) - AXIS Marginal Victory
2% (1) - AXIS Substantial Victory
56% (30) - AXIS Overwhelming Victory
The numbers, unfortunately, are meaningless. *ALL* the playtest data needs to be from the most recent version. Most of the newer versions have all been changing the balance in favor of the Allies. Therefore, any reports from prior versions are meaningless in determining the exact leanings of the scenario.

Now I could go on and split hairs on this but the numbers speak for themselves. Overall the axis win and when they do it’s usually an overwhelming victory. They are nearly 2-1 in wins versus allied play.
Also, it should be noted that the vets usually win when they play - so if they are choosing to play as the Axis more often than not, that side will win more often than not. This isn't exactly a reflection on the scenario, but sometimes more a result of skill with the game system.

This is complete lop sided a-historical result. In reality, the allies won an overwhelming victory and that should be where the scenario is measured from, not a 50/50 chance of either side winning. The favor is in the allied hands. The majority and expectation should be that most of the victories should be in the hands of the allies, NOT the axis.
From a design standpoint, I don't agree with this. I've spent a good portion of my life developing a WWII grand campaign board game, and if we follow history and produce a 'proper' game, the Allies would win every time. Who would want to play that? Our changes (in favor of game balance) have been such that we hope the Axis is win 1 out of every 3 games. It's not any fun otherwise.

Now 3.3 starts in July of 1939, which seems only to give the axis a start advantage, which means now they are drilling into Poland 2 months early. Is that necessary? The axis always take the pre-war buildups which just gives them more firepower.
The most recent version makes the Prewar builds less attractive than ever before, by giving the Russian some *very* sweet units to compensate. This will also spell Finland's doom quite easily, as it's the lack of armor (mech or otherwise) that makes the Finns so hard to beat. *With* these units, a vet EA player is going to slice the Finns to ribbons.

Maintaining a multi-front war seems to be little to no problem. As a matter of fact, most good axis players will pursue several fronts at the same time. Denmark, Norway, and the invasions of France are usually going on at the same time or near the same time with overlap. Supply should always be a problem, and it doesn’t seem to be the case.
Denmark and Norway require about a turn to take. And if done properly, the Allies cannot even respond. So basically, France is done by itself. And then you tackle Russia.

The shock which affects the allies affects all the allies, which doesn’t make sense. Many turns tons of units are orange banded and can not move. Another issue is the lack of naval supply capacity, which should be huge for the allies and isn’t. The royal navy should be able to control the high seas and prevent major Italian sorties from supporting any Middle Eastern invasions or supply to armies in Africa.
This is more a problem with TOAW itself than a reflection of the scenario.

In the game I am in, Raver is supplying about 4-6 air groups, 5 corps, 2-3 divisions and a few brigades along with some smaller units from ports in Greece/Italy, to Palestine, down to Egypt across to Basra and up through Iraq, like it’s a stroll in the park. That is ridiculous and impossible. Given that any success in Africa will always lead to a 2nd front against the Soviets.
You are aware of the new changes which (drastically!) limit the Germans in Africa? It will now come down to Italians with some small German support, against the Brits, which is proper.

Another problem is the inability to break down any unit into a size small enough to ship. I have been unable to move any UK units out of South Africa because I don’t have the shipping capacity to get them home. How is that? How did they get there in the first place? There should always be a break down option or enough naval to ship the heaviest unit home.
There is a breakdown option for all Brit units. If you are encountering this difficulty, it is because all the formation slots for the Africa formation are already full. (Mark - you could consider breaking the Africa formation into two seperate formations - this might be a very good idea). This is because you already have some units split, are there is no room for further breakdowns.

I have more thoughts but I think I have dumped enough on you already. Perhaps Mantis or Ravenstrike or Raver or Siberian or anyone who has multiple wins as the axis can pipe in and give food for thought. Why do they play the axis, what do they do in general?
I played most of my early games as the Axis because when I first told everyone that the Germans could win *every* game by going through Africa to the Middle East, no one would listen to me. :laugh:

So I set out to prove a point, and did it over and over again. I even did it once (my first game) without using the Barbarossa TO. Once I had 'done my time', people started to listen. It also helped that I had many games under my belt myself.

Most of my current games are as the Allies. (I believe I'm doing very well in all of them, with perhaps only one in doubt, and that is a 1.x game... One other game that is too early to tell, vs. Mike).

The newest version has changed quite a lot of factors (heavily!) in favor of the Allies. There can now only be the DAK in Africa until the Germans show some success. (No more dozen korps of German infantry, and 3 korps of Panzers pushing towards Cairo). The Reds get a mess of high prof/very strong units to match the prewar builds.

We need to gather more data on the latest changes prior to making any determinations that the game is unbalanced. I am very pressed for game time, but I'm almost inclined to invite you to take up the Axis banner against me, and we can learn how the new version stands together!
 

Karri

Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
Malta
Country
llMalta
Rev said:
The German army gets ground down to fragments and ad-hoc junk by the end. Has this ever happened in any EA game? Increasing the replacements will fix somethings but I think it will continue to give more longevitity to the attrition factor the east front had on the axis over the long haul. Remember the Russians bled the Germans white and wiped out over 100 divisions.


Rev
Right now the german units that I use for attacks are pretty much good for one offensive and nothing after that, due to the fact that the HRS replacements are so low. It seems that the only way to get replacements is to let the unit be destroyed and reconstitute...

For example I have on SS panzer corps that has been fighting in Turkey/Middle-East and has been in 10-50 Heavy Rifle Squads for about 30 turns now. In all other equipment it has been on at least 50% strenght.

EDIT:
Correction, the unit is now, after several turns of resting, in 50 heavy rifle squads, and in 90% strenght in all other equipment.
 
Last edited:

Wolf

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Country
ll
I don't like the look of those numbers Mantis :confused:
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,242
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
The numbers are deceptive, Rick. (Besides, you're Axis :D ) Which numbers are you talking about? I'm afraid I might not be following you - if you were to go by Rev's research, it indicates that you're going to stomp me. :) But I assure you (all of you!) that you can't take those stats as fact - the version itself needs to be a constant for the numbers to mean anything, and the version is anything but. It's been a a variable. There have been probably close to a dozen scenario versions in all that time, and each of them affected the balance in some subtle (and not so subtle) ways. The new version is all that counts, as it makes some sweeping balance adjustments; more than any previous version in fact - all which favor the Allies.

There is still the chance that this is not enough, but since we don't have even a single report from this version, there is no way to tell what such drastic changes have done to the 'favors the Axis' balance. For certain, the Med campaign will not be a cakewalk, as it was previously. Which should also have the effect of making the Persian route into Russia much less of a 'sure thing'.
 

Wolf

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Country
ll
It was the 100% record that worried me ;)
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
As Shane says, two of the main reasons for Axis victories - the Pre-War Builds and the ability to ship and supply an unlimited number of units in North Africa have been addressed. We'll only know if that's helped to restore the scenario balance if players feel it worth pressing on with 3.4(b) for many months more.

I think that only the Army of the Nile unit in the Africa Command is too heavy to ship out initially, which isn't unreasonable, since that's the core unit defending Egypt. Some of the other units in the Command may become too heavy as they receive additional equipment, but that shouldn't be until later in the game, when Allied shipping capacity rises with the entrance of the US.

The question of how to simulate supply problems and the fact that shock affects the whole map are difficult ones to counter. We have made some minor changes to supply (see the 'Proposals for 3.4 (b) thread.) Perhaps reversing Karri's suggestion - i.e. lowering equipment replacements rather than increasing infantry replacements for both sides - would prevent fighting on every front at once?

It's my fault, because I helped to design the scenario, but my impression is that players - or at least certainly the Axis - are able to fight too hard, too often and over too wide an area for the first year or so. That's partly what burns out the infantry squads. Reduce starting supply from 25 to 20 for both sides from the start? The thing is that an unlucky supply-induced result on one particular formation which forces it into reorganisation can cripple an entire campaign. Reduce everyone's movement by 50%? Or would it then resemble World War One?

Let's hear something radical, suggesting a reduction in supply/movement/troops and equipment rather than any more increases.
 

Tiberius

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
486
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
Mark Stevens said:
The question of how to simulate supply problems and the fact that shock affects the whole map are difficult ones to counter. We have made some minor changes to supply (see the 'Proposals for 3.4 (b) thread.) Perhaps reversing Karri's suggestion - i.e. lowering equipment replacements rather than increasing infantry replacements for both sides - would prevent fighting on every front at once?

It's my fault, because I helped to design the scenario, but my impression is that players - or at least certainly the Axis - are able to fight too hard, too often and over too wide an area for the first year or so. That's partly what burns out the infantry squads. Reduce starting supply from 25 to 20 for both sides from the start? The thing is that an unlucky supply-induced result on one particular formation which forces it into reorganisation can cripple an entire campaign. Reduce everyone's movement by 50%? Or would it then resemble World War One?

Let's hear something radical, suggesting a reduction in supply/movement/troops and equipment rather than any more increases.
I agree that being able to fight too hard and too long are problems.

One possible way to slow things down and possibly reflect the way many battles played out would be to give sides shock or penalties that cause their formations to frequently go into reorg. Reducing supply isn't going to stop anybody. 33/1 and loving it! Perhaps if the allied formations were frequently going into reorg through 41 and the Germans were not, but had no shock bonus. Something along those lines.
 

Rev

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
Mark
I am probably least versed in the inner mechanics of this game so I think on a more abstract/operational level of thinking, when I try to problem solve and figure out the cavaets of this scenario. Frankly I don't want to worry about replacements or how many trucks & or squads a particular unit has at this point, that to me is beneath the surface and the game itself takes care of such things. What I worry about is if the counter itself or the armies are balanced in relation to one another. Are armies capable of doing things within reason on the map. With that said, let me give you some more food for thought.

Re-Org can be a interesting tool it has a dramatic affect on the game and what a player can do on any given turn. One thing about the game I don't like, is that that axis have the initiative every turn and can declare war and move on the same turn. This is a great advantage, and it takes away the allied ability to counter in the mid/late war with suprise. Re-Org triggered by events (maybe an Overlord or a Saturn/Mars or Bagration) would allow such a shock and awe affect to hit the Germans even though they go first in the turns the entire game.) This would help model some of the stand fast/no retreat doctrine Hitler himself ordered during the late war period. (also good for France in 1940).

I like your changes concerning Africa. That should stop the Med front into Russia gambit as Mantis has proven is an effective strategy.

I see that there is a general recon ability (theater) in the game.... Could this be changed via events (code breaking) etc. that could show the Germans losing some visibility of the enemy and the allies gaining some. Perhaps this would allow some build up of reserve fronts to launch Soviet offensives in the east which then put the Germans into Re-Org a turn or two and this really can open up the game. Just some ideas along that line.

Maybe there can can be some random event that determines the aggressiveness of the Japanese which in turn affects the U.S. ability to respond faster with more material based upon German aggressiveness (builds and offensives or DoW's). This way attacking Spain just to close off the Med can have some major political drawbacks.

What are your thoughts about the war in the Atlantic? Could that be modelled at all? Make boat counters? Have some Civ units represented at sea that can be hit or something to show some economic affect vs the UK and the strat air war against Germany? Could you force events to come up for both sides that have simulated affects without going through the motions? Like an allied theater option to begin industrial bombing? Or a German one to have unrestricted U-Boat war in the Atlantic? I'm not very familiar with how the event process is laid out and if you had hundres of index cards trying to figure out how to implement the events correctily. Factories ever come to mind for the Russians?

Rev
 

Rev

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
Country
llUnited States
One more item of note pertaining to the war in the atlantic. You have many supplied roads going over sea... perhaps a string of these from the USA to the UK could be interdicted and reduce replacements or something for the UK?? Maybe the main source of supply for the allies can be the USA and keeping the lanes open is key to maintaining the war effort from the UK into Europe.

Possible?

Rev
 

Lou

Event Engineer
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
Location
Rockford, Il
Country
llUnited States
IF supply is to be adjusted
first determine max/min possible level for both sides
subtract 1 from the minimum, and that is the possible adjusted supply that can be created without having a negative balance. Then apply the adjustable balance to the various levels of supply ang guage the effect. In some cases almost worthless waste of events.

An alternative would be to delay the effect of the supply increases. It taking 2-6months for effective intergration of the defeated country into the Axis war effort.

The allied loss would still be immediate.

Since Italy joining the Axis was poorly planned, maybe that supply increase could be delayed also.

The Barbarossa supply bonus could be delayed until a year after the fall of France. Or else permanetly lost.

Germany stopped the advance in Russia after Barbarrosa, a cease fire would work, but elsewhere?

For the Axis
Poland falls supply reduction and recovery
France falls supply reduction and recovery
Yugo/Greece falls supply reduction and recovery
Turkey falls supply reduction and recovery
Seuz falls supply reduction and recovery
Iran falls supply reduction and recovery
and on and on
but the events - a mimimum of 10 out to 12 for the 6 above. OR 4 + and additional 1 for each country this would apply to.

Concerning the Allies

The US did not start convoys for 6+ months (someove verify this please) after entering the war. Reduce the initial gain for joining the war.

In Pony Tracks, I created a submarine unit to attempt the Alantic Sea War, but still had to end it by events, or there would have been too many units involved even with the created choke points. Also had to have special house rules to cover this, because of the Axis alway moving first. Not all of the playtesters liked it, and only one had any real success with it having identified a quirk in the TOAW game engine allowing him to locate ship units, even when not spotted before his submarine arrived to attack.

I suppose the submarine war could be expanded to have US replacements arrive by sea transport from the US, but then they would have to disbanded. And where could they have honestly landed in such quanity if Britain fell?

I would prefer to see US/Allied supply increase via recurring random events, small percentage opportunity, average the current gain. 2 or 4 events.

Sea Roads accross the Alantic are not practical for units. Landbridge, with a major river in each hex would work better. But really don't like the idea.

The conventional history has it the Germany disbanded divisions and reduced its war industry after the fall of France. I read somewhere in the past year that this was in fact a reorganization of some forces. Maybe withdraw a formation, and disband a unit equal to the total troops and equipment removed.

RE-ORG and offensives.
A Russian T/O could have a news string "Germans stunned by Russian Offensive"
German troops east of Germany/Italy would not be able to move. If contact with Russia was also in turkey/Irag/Iran, the same over the land area to the front. Shock is about the best possible unless negative supply is used, and remember how hard to determine what it would be when, in each different game.

The Allied recon could increase by recurring random event, an enable event, and a event to cancel in Dec44 (Bulge). On average would equal 40 when ended. Also would need to reduce Allied intelligence then - reduced Ultra. The Germans were great a tactical intelligence, (200 km or so from the front) and what they have seems about right in the few turn replays I have reviewed. Someone with more old game files on hand, might want to look at some of the replays and see if they agree.


The variable system is for the political effect on the US, and may be too generous, but still necessary to keep the game as balanced as it has been. Back in Pony Tracks I saved some events, replacing them with recurring random events (2) to get a historical result ON AVERAGE. The Axis could speed things up, but not really slow things down more than 6 months. The US in fact had more troops and ships in the Pacific for most of 42 than they did in Europe. The only reason they did not have more was that there was no real place to meet the Japanese with any more than what they had.

Another way to handle offensives, would be to allow a spring and Fall Offensive each year, add Summer for all with Barbarrosa, and a Winter T/O for the Allies.
The effect lasts for 8-10 weeks, and everyone is at 95-99% shock the rest of the time.

The industry units, for the bombing campaigh, appears to be a dud, most hitting bridges instead. The only loss appears to be soft targets. Maybe Ben Turner has the right idea, bring in the big bombers before Normandy, and remove them after 6-8 weeks. Bombing the industry could use recurring random events, (4). Axis supply loss -2 5% and Axis Supply recovery increase +1 5%.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FREE EVENTS FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE, but enough ideas to stir the pot.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Although the scenario tries to cover the whole of WWII in Europe, I don't think that the engine allows for the sort of major industrial and economic strategy decisions that were available.

I've assumed that the broad thrust of these continue as they did historically, i.e.

the Germans don't develop strategic bomber forces or the atomic bomb, or put more effort into the submarine war

there's a (very) limited simulation of ULTRA in that Allied theatre recon increases about half-way through the war

when the USSR is attacked the factories are evacuated to the east and continue to pour out equipment to the masses of men being mobilised

the Germans don't develop jet fighters earlier, or improved radar

once the USA enters the war Allied supply, and sea and airpower will rise inexorably whatever the Axis does, while Axis airpower and sealift cabability will fall

There are a few things 'on the ground' that change supply or release extra troops and equipment - the surrender of France, Italy, the USSR, or the loss of Vienna, Stalingrad, the oilfields at Baku, Ploesti and Maikop, the Suez Canal, the iron ore port at Narvik, the loss of south-east England, etc. (take a look at the Full Briefing), but I don't think the engine is sophisticated enough, or the number of Events large enough, to give players the option to take the sort of underlying strategic decisions that you have in games like Third Reich or Hearts of Iron.

I also think that either side putting more effort into a particular area would have been countered by the other doing the same, and remember that both sides were at full stretch so there's no slack to exploit. If the Germans had decided to concentrate on the submarine war to a far greater extent they would have had to divert scarce economic resources and very, very highly trained and motivated men from other areas of the military, besides all of the supporting infrastructure required. To put in place an Axis Theatre Option 'Put more effort into the submarine war - Allies' Replacements drop 10%' would also mean removing a significant number of Axis armoured/mechanised/motorised/air units to represent this. Also, would the Allies not have diverted more effort into the anti-submarine war, albeit at the expense of e.g. the Strategic Bombing Campaign?

The idea of sea supply roads snaking across the Atlantic from the USA to the UK with U-Boat units fighting Allied escorts along them is superficially attractive, but I just can't see how to implement it.

This is essentially a 'panzer-pushing' scenario with, hopefully, a few interesting extras, and I think that's it, although I'm open to ideas.

My main interest for the future is to try out the weather loop idea to free up Events, and think how to reduce the overall tempo of the war, which is too fast: either by lowering supply, or Replacements, or movement speeds, or some sort of shock penalties outside the summer campaigning season, without rogering the scenario completely.

And seeing whether the changes to 3.4 (b) make it a more interesting game. :nervous:
 

Raver

TOAW Ironman
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
663
Reaction score
3
Location
Wellington
Country
llNew Zealand
Rev said:
Mark,
I will be the first one to claim that the axis possess too much of an advantage. The play results back that up. I have been doing some digging a bit. I will post some thoughts and ask you a few questions then.

Looking at all the reported games of EA, the average game lasted 109 turns or 2 years from start date. Which if we use the 3.3 start date of July 1939, the majority of the games end by July 1941, with an AOV (axis overwhelming victory). Could they have conquered all of Europe/Russian/Norway/Middle East in 24 months, of which about 1/2 of that time period contains poor campaigning weather (snow and mud). This really leaves us about a good 12 months (48 turns @ 1 week each) of warm weather to pull it off....

31% (17) - ALLIES Overwhelming Victory
4% (2) - ALLIES Substantial Victory
4% (2) - Draw
4% (2) - AXIS Marginal Victory
2% (1) - AXIS Substantial Victory
56% (30) - AXIS Overwhelming Victory

Now allow me to look at those higher rated players. Majority wise the top players chose to play the axis. Why? It is that it’s the stronger side and one they are betting on winning with more often than not. Of note (I can only see last 20 reports):

Raver has played probably more than anyone and has racked up a 11 Wins of which 9 are Axis victories and 2 allied. He has chosen the allies 4 of 13 times and lost 50% of those 4 times.

Ravenstrike has racked up 3 for 3 as the axis.

Mantis is undefeated standing 6 for 6 as axis and 4 for 4 as allies, probably the best record considering the win/loss percentages the axis have over the allies in general.

Siberian Heat is 3-1 overall with 2 wins as the axis and 1 as the allied and losing as the allied.

Skyvon stands 2-5 with both his wins as the axis and all 5 losses as the allies.

There are other players I could list but I think I have enough here to support my point.

Now I could go on and split hairs on this but the numbers speak for themselves. Overall the axis win and when they do it’s usually an overwhelming victory. They are nearly 2-1 in wins versus allied play. This is complete lop sided a-historical result. In reality, the allies won an overwhelming victory and that should be where the scenario is measured from, not a 50/50 chance of either side winning. The favor is in the allied hands. The majority and expectation should be that most of the victories should be in the hands of the allies, NOT the axis.

Now 3.3 starts in July of 1939, which seems only to give the axis a start advantage, which means now they are drilling into Poland 2 months early. Is that necessary? The axis always take the pre-war buildups which just gives them more firepower. Maintaining a multi-front war seems to be little to no problem. As a matter of fact, most good axis players will pursue several fronts at the same time. Denmark, Norway, and the invasions of France are usually going on at the same time or near the same time with overlap. Supply should always be a problem, and it doesn’t seem to be the case.

The shock which affects the allies affects all the allies, which doesn’t make sense. Many turns tons of units are orange banded and can not move. Another issue is the lack of naval supply capacity, which should be huge for the allies and isn’t. The royal navy should be able to control the high seas and prevent major Italian sorties from supporting any Middle Eastern invasions or supply to armies in Africa.

In the game I am in, Raver is supplying about 4-6 air groups, 5 corps, 2-3 divisions and a few brigades along with some smaller units from ports in Greece/Italy, to Palestine, down to Egypt across to Basra and up through Iraq, like it’s a stroll in the park. That is ridiculous and impossible. Given that any success in Africa will always lead to a 2nd front against the Soviets. Meanwhile the US is kept out by not activating Italy. All of Europe has collapsed and in axis hands less the British Isles and the east front. Russia is on its last foothold fighting a 2 front war, and the UK is isolated, yet the US sits and does nothing. It is turn 76, I just lost Leningrad and Baku. I could not do anything to stop it. Most of the time my units can not move, or he has broke bridges and used air to isolate things so he can steam roll from Persia up into my back door, again dropping my supply levels and increasing his. With such rapid axis success the entry time should be moved way up. It does no good in stemming off a AOV if the US can not threaten the Germans while the Soviets are still hanging on. Coming in during clean up in the east is a waste and the game ends there.

Another problem is the inability to break down any unit into a size small enough to ship. I have been unable to move any UK units out of South Africa because I don’t have the shipping capacity to get them home. How is that? How did they get there in the first place? There should always be a break down option or enough naval to ship the heaviest unit home.

I have more thoughts but I think I have dumped enough on you already. Perhaps Mantis or Ravenstrike or Raver or Siberian or anyone who has multiple wins as the axis can pipe in and give food for thought. Why do they play the axis, what do they do in general? Are such actions/decisions within the means of the Germans during the real war? Are any of the political deterrents enough to thwart operational decisions?

(more later) :blab:

Rev

errr.... I hate to say it but I dont recally this game...? Probably because what you describe is fairly typical. What turn are we up to in our game and what name do I know you by?
 

Raver

TOAW Ironman
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
663
Reaction score
3
Location
Wellington
Country
llNew Zealand
Just to add my little thoughts to the general debate. My feeling is that the proposed changes to the north african situation and making the pre-war builds a real strategic decision will come close to balancing the game. But having played the most recent versions quite extensively now, I still think there is a systematic bias toward the axis - i.e. probably 75% of the time the axis can expect to beat Russia in a 1 on 1 fight in1941, regardless of whether they've taken north africa or the pre-war builds.

So I do still think there is likely to still be an underlying balance issue after the proposed changes, but only a little one. My feeling is that tweaking the aggregates (german shock, supply, etc) will still prove to be necessary.
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
I've been trying to pick up a game of the latest rev, as the Allies. No luck, so far. Would you have time to take on another, Raver? The only games that I've played of any versions of this scenario have been as the Axis, and I'd like to see it from the other side for a change.
 
Top