Slitherine

richardsd wrote:

Stauffenberg wrote:It's possible to discuss the game balance forever. People will always have different opinions about which side has the upper edge.

I think people should be more focused on the "journey" to the end and not just the end. When you play the Axis you expect to be able to launch several offensives and be quite successful in them. The Allied player expect to initially be on the defense and eventually get the upper hand and do his own offensives.

The game is flawed in my mind if you can't simulate this. If you follow the historical path then you would hope the end result is almost like the historical one. I feel that this is happening now.

If you try alternative options (Sealion, go for Middle East, 1942 Barbarossa) you should still be able to feel you're on the offensive pushing your opponent hard. Maybe he will eventually become too strong and you will succumb to the pressure and lose Berlin slightly earlier than May 1945. Still, both players have had a lot of fun playing the game and had hopes they could do better historical.

If the game balance is made so the Germans would be on the defensive as early as 1942 or Russia crumbles completely in 1942 in most games. THEN we have a problem. I don't this is happening in most GS games. In the BJR mod it was not unlikely for the Axis to take Omsk. Now you can only dream about that against inferior players, but you can still take Leningrad, Moscow and/or Stalingrad. That is surely better than the real Germans did.

So the success of GS is partly based upon how fun it is for each side to try alternate strategies. All the AAR's I see show that alternate strategies certainly have merit. Not all of them work in the end, but they surely make their opponent sweat a bit.

People look at game balance by only determining when Germany surrendered. There are many factors that can affect the end result. Weather in the final turns is one of them. There are random factors that can decide the outcome just like it happened in the real war. E. g. a lucky attack on Leningrad in 1941 can capture the city and altering the prospects for 1942. If the city had survived in 1941 then maybe Russian counter offensives could have restored supply to the city etc. and held it till the end.

You have similar situations in chess. You choose an opening. Some are rather passive and would often end in draw. Some are sharp and you don't know who will eventually win. Some are deliberate sacrifices where you will probably lose unless you can capitalize on the initiative you get from the sacrifice.

Regardless of game balance I think the difference is player quality is much bigger than difference in strength between each side.

The important question we should ask ourselves is: Is it fun to play GS both as the Axis and the Allies?

but I hate playing as the Axis - hate hate hate

then again thats just me, not the game

Cybvep wrote:Except that it most likely wouldn't do that even if had greater income. Let's be honest here, the in-game alternatives are much better - you have more PPs for repairs and upgrades, you can build more subs, create a nice reserve in Germany etc. In NA, you just adopt a defensive stance. Going for Egypt is simply not lucrative enough.

I only go for Egypt when the UK is falling apart, e.g. when GB is being conquered and Spain is about to join the Axis. Then the UK will lack resources to defend Egypt properly and it should be easy pickings. Many players withdraw to Iraq immediately. Even in this case, the only reason I'm doing it is because I can - 1942 defensive Barbarossa is a piece of cake, so you have enough time to conquer most of the map.

I did agree with you before but not now. Suez and Iraq is maybe not directly lucrative in terms of PP and/or oil but you if you are able to control Basra in time (before 1942 starts) then you secure Italy/ open another front for USSR not to mention that you drain substantial number of PPs from UK in 1940/1941 therefore taking it from DDs/TACs and other weapons they can build if they are not engaged

pk867 wrote:Then you must be getting very big convoys through. In my last 4 or 5 games the Allies do not have enough PP's or time. Also the tech advances for the Allies are rather slow, so

the Tech differential causes higher steps lost on the allies. The Europe defense strategy is hard to crack.

It is interesting that the players have different views on the game balance. So I guess it is pretty close.

Persia activates if Axis unit moves into Iraq

Russia will immediately join the Allies if an Axis unit is adjacent to a Iraq city or resource.

Stauffenberg wrote:I'm not sure if the manual is accurate here. I think the current rules is that Persia will activate when Axis units enter Iraq. USSR is only supposed to activate if Axis units enter Persia.

Kragdob wrote:Since looks like version 2.2 is coming I would like to propose slight change to improve the game balance a little bit. I would like to suggest a change to increase Germany PPs income by ~10% (so they start not with 67 but 75).

This has two main reasons:
=> to improve the balance: Allies will have a little bit difficult, so the Axis will have chances to win closer to 50/50 then they have now.
=> historical reason: GDPs of Germany & USSR is in approprieatly different in favour of the latter.

But If an Axis player has less than 50% possibility to achive a minor victory or an even , It must be unbalance !

Cybvep wrote:

But If an Axis player has less than 50% possibility to achive a minor victory or an even , It must be unbalance !

Is this truly the case? Do we have some stats here or is it a general impression?

If you want a strong Barbarossa then you should not also be able to launch offensives in Egypt or build a super strong submarine force.

Cybvep wrote:What do you mean by "strong Barbarossa"? I could argue that RL Barbarossa was "strong", but the Axis was also aggressive in the NA and gave the Allies hell on the seas.

Stauffenberg wrote:You can't make conclusions about the game balance just based upon your own games. You have a certain playing style (very aggressive) and that means you probably struggle with the Axis because you don't find the right time to switch to defense.

I play the Axis too and usually win with them. I get decent results in 1941, but don't overstretch like you do. That means I manage to survive the winter well enough to launch a decent 1942 offensive.

I don't say playing the Axis is easy, but you certainly have a good chance winning. If we increase the German production by 8 PP's per turn then I predict that you might see elite Axis players regularly going for Omsk. 8 PP's = 840 PP's through the entire game. That is almost 10 panzer corps or more than 8 tactical bomber units.
If you only build corps units it's 24 extra corps units for the Germans.

Germany SHOULD be on a tight budget preparing for Barbarossa. If you want a strong Barbarossa then you should not also be able to launch offensives in Egypt or build a super strong submarine force.

I think the sub evasion rules alone will help the Germans more than enough. If the subs evade almost half the time then the repair bill for the subs will be less. Even more important will be that the subs can now be bolder and maybe go after escorted convoys. That means more convoy losses for the Allies.