Imbalance between Axis and Allies?

[jlopez]

I've played about five PBEM games on both sides and I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's very difficult for the Axis to last until 1945 unless they play an almost flawless game. If you repeat historical blunders like Stalingrad, you're toast well before the historical date for the fall of Germany. Is this a general view?

[richardsd]

I believe it is.

Essentially (IMHO) the game is very closely balanced for 'experts', but playing as the Allies affords one the opportunity to redress ones errors - the same can not be said for the Axis.

Not necessarily a generally held view (but it is my own) is also that the weather can often be the decider between closely matched palyers. I am well passed 6 games where the fall (or not) of Germany before May 45 has been entirely decided by the weather.

Now it does seem that in my current sample of games that the weather gods are not my friends - I appear to be a mud magnet as the Axis early in the game and late if I am the Allies - I look forward to a normal distribution as I continue to add games (independant tests not withstanding!)

[Plaid]

If you play "boring" and safe historical game as axis, without avanturistic untraditional decisions, it seems like there is no advantage for any side. (Player supposed to have more sanity, than Hr Hittler and avoid large Stalingrad-style pockets at least) This sort of game ends often with anything between major allied and major axis victory. Result of this type of game mostly depends on If you aim for better score and gaming experience, you start to do risky things, which can give large advantage either to you or to your opponent and here we are likely to have ultimates, but it can be either your, or your opponent's.

Main source of axis problems is that in game allied commander will do much better, then real allies in 39-41. So precise historical results are almost impossible to achiev, but you still can blitz Poland/France and grab nice piece of Russia, then transfering to defence.

[StevenCarleton]

Isn't this historically accurate? If you accept war between USSR & Germany in 41 and the USA enters in 42, the Germans & Italians are overwhelmed by superior Allied resources (manpower, raw materials, industry, tech) by 45. Yes, you can do a better job than the historical Western Allies in 39-41, but on the other hand, the Germans don't penalize themselves (like Hitler did) by not fully utilizing their war potential early in the war.

It might be nice to have scenarios where the Germans don't Blitzkrieg deep into the USSR in 41, and so the Japanese don't attack the USA in Dec 41. Would Stalin have attacked Hitler if he didn't strike first? Would the USA have entered the war without a Pearl Harbor?

[AdmiralSarek]

Actually my thoughts are that Italy needs to be boosted a bit. Not so much in quality but in infantry numbers.
They had 600,000 troops ready to invade Yugoslavia at the start of the war, so the numbers where there (though not the quality). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ital ... %931946%29 “Nearly four million Italians served in the Italian Royal Army during the Second World War.”

Oh and the UK probably starts with a few to many Infantry in the Middle East. Historically Italy outnumbered them, not the other way around (i.e. when Italy entered the war and before the fighting any reinforcements’ on wither side). Also some of the Italian units in North Africa should start on the Tunisian border as this is historically where they were (France hadn’t surrendered when the Italians’ joined in), maybe a few bonus infantry there? The UK Middle Eastern starting force should still beat the Italian starting ones, but it shouldn’t be the cake walk that it is now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_Egypt “At the time, British General Archibald Wavell's Middle East Command included some 36,000 troops (including support and administration units) based within Egypt. With these troops, he was to defend Egypt and the Suez Canal against an estimated 250,000 hostile Italian troops based in Libya”

[shawkhan]

Good ideas here from both of the last two posts.
I would really like to see optional scenarios developed, where major turning points in the war could be explored, such as the Axis not declaring war on Poland first, or a 1938, 1942 or the Raeder PlanZ WWII start of 1945 which would add all kinds of alternatives to the game. What if Japan didn't declare war on the US to bring them into the war? All kinds of great possibilities out there for inventive scenario builders. Some of these could even appear as game start options like the oil rule .
My pet peeve with GS 2.0 is with paratroopers. They shouldn't be a unit but an airpower technology option. If one examines their use during WWII they were never much of a asset except at small unit levels of battalion size or so. Every major airborne operation of Divisional or greater size resulted in appalling casualties in which the unit was rendered ineffective for an extended period of time. If the truth be known airborne forces were of more value as ground assault troops for both the Allied and Axis sides.
I can see no reason why the Italians shouldn't be given another 4-6 garrison units at the 1940 or 1941 gamestart but nothing extra at the 1939 gamestart.
The Italian problem in WWII had more to do with terrible equipment and incompetent leadership at all levels than any inherent weakness in fighting spirit. Men are men everywhere, it is training and leadership that makes all the difference.

[StevenCarleton]

Yes, it would be fun to see alot more options on the startup screen!

Paratroopers have been suggested and debated since CEAW was originally in development. In many strategic/operational level WW2 games I've played they add alot of interest and variability.

Historians argue about their affects. The Germans suffered huge losses on Crete, but they did take the island (the Italian navy was defeated and couldn't land troops to support). The Americans suffered huge losses at Normandy (not so much the British) but some say they prevented the Germans from massing against the beachheads on D-Day. Market Garden was a failure, but the 101st & 82nd didn't suffer nearly the casulties that Brits did and most of Holland was liberated. There was also a large corp-sized airdrop when the allies crossed the Rhine which was not at all costly. There were several division sized landings in the Pacific theater which were not that costly either.

So it all depends on how you use them. In any case, an opponent is forced to guard a large area when an airborne landing is a threat. I guess some folks don't like having to do that. Paratroops become even more interesting with an airborne supply capability!

[richardsd]

Paratroopers are coming and they are lots of fun!

[AdmiralSarek]

The Italian armored division should probably be reduced from full strength, and same with the British one in the middle east. The Italians could be compensated with more units perhaps.

Just a thought, not sure about game balance, but it would be more historically accurate.

[shawkhan]

Would it be hard to make Historical weather one of the game options at start-up? It seems every Axis player I encounter has nothing but fair weather all through 1939 which really puts a damper on the Defense of France. In actuality, the winter of 1939/40 was miserably cold.

[schwerpunkt]

I originally suggested that Random Weather be an option that you could select at game start just like Random Research and FoW because sometimes the extreme results you get can be frustrating. In the last two games Ronnie has played against me, he got poor weather from Oct 1939 through to late Feb 1940.....

[marklv]

What is certain is that France is laughably underpowered in 1940. This needs to change in v2.0.

[rkr1958]

What is certain is that France is laughably underpowered in 1940. This needs to change in v2.0.

Just curious; but what do you base this claim on? The latest fall of France stats ( viewtopic.php?p=180066#180066 ) collected over 90 games has an average fall date of 6/17/1940, which is within 8-days of the historical French surrender date of 6/25/1940. The average GS v2.00 fall date (so far) across 25 games is 6/15/1940, which is 10-days shy of the historical date.

That's pretty darn close in my opinion and implies that French strength is about right.