Can Germans win the game?

[Kragdob]

I have little experience yet but what I see from AARs, my own plays and other experience is that Germans have close to 0 chances to stand till 1945:
=> last AARs show Germans smashed even in 1941
=> my own game is now in 1942 and I don't think I'll see 1944 even though I have UK, Iraq, Persia and sunk all UK/US fleet (2 US DDs left). I made some mistakes but in 1942 Soviets can kill my MECH unit behind the river without air support (2 Soviet MECHs attacked loosing 3 steps each).
=> friend I play with says longest he kept Berlin was 1944.

Does anyone have statistics on how many games finish in 1941/1942/1943 etc.??? I'm curious if its only us playing so badly with Germans (or so briliantly with Allies) or Morris was right that Germans are doomed to fall and have no chances to fight till 1945.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't think that's true. Especially after the latest beta changes that will make it far less lucrative to sacrifice UK to let the Russians get the upper hand in 1942.

I can use my own games with GS v2.01 beta as a refence.

In one game I'm in September 1942 and I hold the line from Leningrad to Stalingrad (both captured) and to the Caspian Sea. Maikop and Grozny are German controlled. The Allies have stormed into Libya, but no threat against mainland Italy or France yet. I can still lose this game, but Germany will hold quite long. The Russians are beaten quite heavily, but will get through the winter and can seize the initiative in 1943. So the main threat is from the western Allies.

In 2 other games I'm in Spring 1942 and are in the front of Leningrad and pretty straight down to Rostov. I've taken some beating during the 1941 winter, but expect to launch a concentrated offensive in 1942 taking several of the major objectives.

In the last Axis game I've only in September 1940 and just attacked Yugoslavia. Norway and Denmark fell after France fell in the end of June 1940. I got mud in March so Case Yellow begun as late as April.

I agree that being the Germans is a bit challenging because you have to know where to build your late 1941 defensive line in Russia. If you try to hold in the open then the Russians will punish you. If you find a good river line you can hold through the winter. If you don't have such a line you better withdraw to the river line (Dnepr?). You quickly regain lost territory in 1942.
If you do what Hitler did and refuse to withdraw then the casualties can be big and 1942 will not be fun.

My experience is that the player skill will determine much more than any imbalances in the game. A good player knows where the challenges are for his side and will plan accordingly.

I'm playing some Allied games too and I have to say the Axis bite harder than they used to so you really need to be careful and plan ahead. You will lose every encounter against the Axis until the Russian 1941 winter offensive. So make sure you don't waste good units too early. At the same time you can't just run away in Russia because then the Germans will be in Leningrad and Moscow in 1941. Finding the right balance is the trick so you can snipe at the Germans in 1942. It's from 1943 you can expect to start pushing the Germans back to Berlin. Then it's a race against time. I don't think I can win by taking Berlin in the Summer of 1944 anymore. I will be glad if I can take Berlin before 1945 against decent players. Against some players I feel I can't get to Berlin before May 1945. The bottom line is that it's now easier to mess up with the Allies and then the Axis player will be all over you. I've seen my Russian front line crushed by several players using GS v2.0. It's not fun seeing the Germans rush towards Baku and you don't have any good forces to stop them with.

[shawkhan]

Bottom line, the better player should play the Axis.

[rkr1958]

I'm currently playing four games ... two as the axis and two as the allies. I had a fifth game going as the allies but my opponent just conceded before the severe winter in 1941. My estimate for the other four games is that I will lose both allied games and one axis game and I should win one axis games. This means that the axis player will win 3 of these 5 games.

[zechi]

I have never lost a game with the Axis yet (However, in several games I could have lost, if the game would not have been aborted by my opponent).

[gchristie]

While I've yet to win one as the Axis I'm playing a few games with 2.0 as Axis (glutton for punishment) and I am doing better playing Axis in 2.0 than I did in the previous version. Partly because I've gotten more proficient with the Axis , partly because I think the changes in 2.0 do make it less of a challenge for the Axis side.

Once the four games I have going are over I'll have a better sense, but in one it is 1943 and I haven't a) run out of oil, b) started scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel, c) gotten crushed in the Ukraine...yet and d) been evicted in North Africa/Sicily.

So congrats to the BJR team, you guys are definitely heading in the right direction IMHO.

[metolius]

Overall, I'd say the odds for the Germans are about 1/3.

Within that, I'd say that the Axis play better for top players, with the odds rising to 1/2 or better for a few top players, and dropping to 1/6 for newer players.

Briefly, I'd attribute this to the fact that the Axis war machine needs to be a pretty fine-tuned system –– you can't make too many mistakes, or waste many PPs, before the wheels come off and the Allies crush you. More experienced players are able to focus their resources better and generally keep the Allies off balance for longer.

[shawkhan]

I would say that Metolius has the odds exactly right for the Axis. Of course this makes Grand Strategy more realistic as the Axis odds of winning the actual war were about the same, that is, one out of three. After all, they DID lose.
IMHO, if they could have lost Hitler and Goering, they might even have had an even shot at the win. This is why, I believe, that better players win more often with the Axis, they don't have to play with the 'insane leader' handicap.

[Kragdob]

If you try to hold in the open then the Russians will punish you. If you find a good river line you can hold through the winter. If you don't have such a line you better withdraw to the river line (Dnepr?). You quickly regain lost territory in 1942.

This is not the case - as I wrote in 1942 you can have Soviet units at 80 effectiveness able to destroy German 100% healty MECH through the river without any air support.

Even as this is 1942 Barbarossa I find this imbalance pretty inconvenient for Germans. The game will finish in mid 1943 probably because Soviet can kill 4-5 German units per turn regardless of their position.

I would say that Metolius has the odds exactly right for the Axis. Of course this makes Grand Strategy more realistic as the Axis odds of winning the actual war were about the same, that is, one out of three. After all, they DID lose.

We could discuss German odds because I think they were much higher although I'm pretty happy that they didn't took it.

So you admit that game is imbalanced - you need to have two games (one Axis and one Allies) to see who's better because after one you cannot say (unless you are experienced and know that holding Germans till say 1944 is quite good) if winning as Allies is thanks to skill or maybe just the game imbalance. And by 'loosing' I mean that the game finishes before 1945. I am not even thinking of Germans keeping anything except Berlin in 1945.

IMHO, if they could have lost Hitler and Goering, they might even have had an even shot at the win. This is why, I believe, that better players win more often with the Axis, they don't have to play with the 'insane leader' handicap.

What about Stalin and Soviet commanders that didn't care about units looses. Shouldn't it be reflected by the game?

Right now it looks like victory conditions are very hard to meet for Germans.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If you try to hold in the open then the Russians will punish you. If you find a good river line you can hold through the winter. If you don't have such a line you better withdraw to the river line (Dnepr?). You quickly regain lost territory in 1942.

This is not the case - as I wrote in 1942 you can have Soviet units at 80 effectiveness able to destroy German 100% healty MECH through the river without any air support.

Are you using regular GS v2.00 or the GS v2.01 beta?

[Kragdob]

We play GS 2.00 right now.

Here are the screenshots - it is turn 57 (September 1942)

In the north Soviets killed 1 ARM and reduced second SS ARM to 2 steps loosing 11 steps of their MECHS




In the south I had my ARM (with Mainstain on it) reduced to 2 steps and my MECH killed.



All that without minimal air support (friend told me that he used his STR to kill last step of the MECH).

So in conclusion it looks like to win you just need to buy 6 labs (8 in GS 2.10) and some MECHs (limit of 8 seems to be enough). The key is high Soviet effectiveness that coupled with ability to go on attrition war can deplet Germans in very few turns (and Soviet are not stopped by winter so they have full year to operate.

If he combines that with Morris 'burn PPs' stragegy (hopefully he didn't) I'd been lost in 1942 probably.

[Plaid]

Probably this soviet mech have high AT factor (this type of units scale best with infantry AT tech) and your tanks have rather low surv, like 6? Tanks are not great at all to have at 1st line, and when opposing units have good AT, tanks become totally worthless defenders.
Also if

in 1942 Soviets can kill my MECH unit behind the river without air support

happens systematically, I will be very confident, that opponent do turn reloading. I rarely see cross-river attack do more then 3-4 steps of damage even vs weakest units.

[Roberto]

I think AT factor must concern also to Mechs...but only at half value.Mechs have less AFV that Arm....
Regards!

[Kragdob]

I attach exact units' stats.

Probably this soviet mech have high AT factor (this type of units scale best with infantry AT tech) and your tanks have rather low surv, like 6? Tanks are not great at all to have at 1st line, and when opposing units have good AT, tanks become totally worthless defenders.

So is this normal to beat the tank with these units?

Also if

in 1942 Soviets can kill my MECH unit behind the river without air support

happens systematically, I will be very confident, that opponent do turn reloading. I rarely see cross-river attack do more then 3-4 steps of damage even vs weakest units.

I don't think this is the case but again - can you tell me if you can kill a MECH with below units?



P.S
Tanks should be good in defense - especially in this scale (Corps). Panzer division was having a LOT infantry and a LOT of machine guns and artillery. Till the very end of the war German Panzer Divisions were the ones that held crucial points in the front and was very hard to beat.

[metolius]

I agree with the central thrust here. Panzer Divisions WERE in the front lines on defense, and they were very tough nuts to crack.

[Diplomaticus]

I agree with the basic principle of this thread, i.e. that it's tough to be Axis, relatively speaking, but I think it's a complex matter.

1) In my experience, although the AI is really incompetent, playing vs. the computer as Axis is at least moderately interesting, whereas when the computer plays Axis it's so bad as to make the game pointless. (e.g. taking 3-4 turns to take Poland and other minor countries, completely failing to ever take Paris, etc.)

2) That difference would seem to indicate that it's easier to get away with being a mediocre player as Allies than as Axis.

3) However, I suspect that really excellent play results in better outcomes for Axis than Allies. In other words, an outstanding general can achieve more spectacular results playing the Bad Guys. This should come as no great surprise, since the Axis in the opening years have the initiative and have vastly more to work with.

My conclusion is that the game is balanced, in a manner of speaking, but not for all players in all matchups. I think this fits the historical situation--for much of the war the Allies had to just 'not lose' in order to 'win.'

[shawkhan]

I would be satisfied if the Axis AI were minimally competent. I simply can't stand to watch it declare war on Switzerland every time I try to work out a new Allied strategy. Isn't it possible to simply make Switzerland unplayable in the game if no other solution is available, much like Newfoundland?

[richardsd]

the beta is working on some improvements

including no Axis attack on Switzerland! plus some nice other features - but not hoe well the AI 'manages' the game, so it will be a lot better, but not great

[Kragdob]

My conclusion is that the game is balanced, in a manner of speaking, but not for all players in all matchups.

As always if good Player meets not so good one than the first should have greater odds . But that's not the point here. For equal Players both should have ~50% chance of winning (individual mistakes, bad day etc should decide). My current feeling is that if equal Players meet than still the one playing the Allies have better chances.

Since victory conditions are set for Germans holding till May 1945 (and I agree with that) looks like good aggressive allied Player have much more chances over good German Player and this is the flaw in this great game.

However I also agree with 'evolution' and not 'revolution' so let's see what GS 2.10 brings.

[Morris]

I have never lost a game with the Axis yet .

May I give you an experiencew of Axis failure?