Increase German PPs income

[dagtwo]

What about a fairly small loss of morale? One that would recover over a period of time or with the re-conquest of the Canal.

[JimR]

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

As the Axis player I have developed a fondness for lost causes. Axis play offers plenty of opportunity to issue propaganda bulletins, though, and to dream of cool-looking tanks at advanced tech levels.

[Kragdob]

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.

All this possible, BUT Axis simply do not have enough PPs to do: labs, proper Barbsarossa and engage in any campaign on Atlantic/Africa.

Currently i have no sweat when playing Allies - usually I am fully ready for Overlord starting 1943, in some cases even in 1942. This means that Germany falls in 1944 the latest.

[pk867]

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.

[Cybvep]

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

Yeah, you open an another front, and it usually kicks you in the ass sooner or later . Not to mention the fact that all the lost PPs and oil in NA is usually more harmful for the Axis than for the Allies, you need air support, there is a problem with NA supply etc. Moreover, because of the rules, attacking Iraq in 1941 is not really smart, considering that the SU will join the Allies. As far as 1941 Barbarossa and 1941 Middle East attack is concerned, it's simply not feasible against a skilled opponent.

And again, since PPs can be spent on everything, you cannot assume that the Axis players will go for Egypt and the ME if Germany gets more PPs. I bet that in the vast majority of cases the additional income would be spent on the Eastern Front, the Sea Lion, anti-Overlord preparations or subs.

[Kragdob]

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.

In my current game with Morris I got first real convoy on turn 35-40 (60PPs), still be able to launch an invasion with considerable forces.

I usually do not have tech difference or have superiority in major areas for Western Allies so if I attack with Allies it is me who does more damage to the enemy.

Cybvep,

I agree you don't have to use the extra PPs on anything else but Barbarossa, but such play is right into Allied hands. Does 10 more inf corps really makes a difference - they will not even fit in the front line during first turns. BUT some smart Players can use them to build large SUB force or conquer NA so they have higher chances to survive till 1945 then the Players who does not bleed Western Allies at all.

USSR joins when Iran is attacked, not Iraq btw.

[Cybvep]

From the manual:

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.

It's one of the reasons why going for Iraq is usually pointless. The SU joins the Allies early. Also, even when you capture the oil fields, you still lose the Russian oil, so your situation doesn't really improve and I'm not even counting all the oil you have to spent to actually get to Iraq.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

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.

I guess we have made changes before that the manual hasn't been updated with. That is the bad thing about making numerous changes.

[Cybvep]

Is there a full changelog somewhere? That would be useful, not just in this case.

Note that I took this from the 2.1 GS manual.

[GogTheMild]

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.

Correct for 2.1 and 2.12. When Persia activates the UK gets the Persian PPs and oil and 2 GAR. And the USSR starts getting the 15 PP per turn of southern lend lease out of the UK's income. USSR only activates if it is DoWed and you cannot enter Persia with Axis units otherwise under 2.12. In 2.1 you CAN enter Persia with Iraqi rebels (I am not sure about other Axis units), which DOES activate USSR (contrary to the manual); so one to be careful about.

[pk867]

USSR has to walk their troops into Iran or Iraq if the Western Allies control the Basra rail net. It will take about 9 turns to reach Baghdad.

They will have supply level 3. If the Allies let the Axis capture Baghdad then I believe that USSR can start to convert rail for their on use.

Which will probably reach Baghdad more than 9 turns. The USSR has no strategic movement in the Middle East with no rail conversion.

[Morris]

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.

I do agree with you !

Actually it is really difficult to achive an even as an Axis player whenever you play with an experienced Allies player ! If I complain about game balance for Axis can not achive a major victory , I will shut up since Axis did not reserve it ! But If an Axis player has less than 50% possibility to achive a minor victory or an even , It must be unbalance !

Since English is not my native language , anyone who does not believe me , please come on have a pbem with me by an on live AAR , I will play Allies & show you how difficult to achive even a minor victory as Axis !

[Cybvep]

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?

[Morris]

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?

actually , the percentage is much lower than 50% , during my last 20 pbems , I won all Allies game & lose 3 Axis game . Our team had a data that during the last 100 pbems ,only 20% of the pbems Axis win , 2 major, 15 minor , 3 even . 80% of the pbems allies win : 12 strategy ,54 major , 14,minor .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

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.

[Cybvep]

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.

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.

BTW maybe we should gather some 2.1 stats?

[GogTheMild]

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.

In CEaW terms the RL Axis were weak in NA. OK, a lot of Italians, but so far as the Germans went, they only committed one corps. Or, arguably, by Second El Alamein, two. Plus 700 aircraft. (Compare with 4,400 for Barbarossa.) It would be generous to translate their maximum commitment as 1 ARM, 1 MECH, 1 FTR and 1 TAC. For most of the campaign it was 1 ARM and maybe 2 air units. IN CEaW terms, about the minimum commitment if you are not simply abandoning NA.

[Morris]

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.

Yes sir , you are quite right about my weak point . but the data are not only come from my pbems ,80% of them are from others who play different style from mine . I agree 8pp one turn will be alot . But how about just delay the Sibirean troops two more turn & remove the 8GARs appears on Aug 1st 1941 ? If we change so , I believe the game will be much more balance .

[Cybvep]

@GogTheMild I didn't write that the Germans sent many troops to NA, just that the Axis was aggressive there. They wouldn't be able to supply more troops, anyway, as the Axis had major logistical problems in the NA, sth which Rommel ignored over and over again. I asked Stauffenberg what he meant by "strong Barbarossa". IMO RL Barbarossa was strong, especially considering the fact that it started on 22nd of June and not in May, which became a sort of "standard" in CEAW. Most players don't achieve much more than Germans historically did in 1941. It is VERY rare to see Moscow conquered in 1941. Personally, I've never managed to do it against a player who wasn't a total noob. Sometimes you can take Leningrad...

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think the Germans perform well in Barbarossa as is. Starting in May 1941 means they have plenty of time to reach the historical line or even beyond. Look at Morris who went all the way to Stalingrad in 1941.

8 Russian garrisons as a strategic reserve won't mean much regarding the Russian counter offensive. They're meant to show up to just delay the Germans a little.

The Siberian reserves have to show up when they did historically. They arrive far to the east so it takes some turns to get them to the front line.

I think you're in for trouble if you overstretch as the Axis in 1941. I usually get to the Don line and dig in there even if I could go further. Every turn you rest means more efficiency regained and step losses repaired. Once the Russian offensive begins you see where the strong units are. Then you RETREAT in that area so Russia can't kill many of your units. If you stubbornly hold on to all you captured in 1941 you will get a bloody nose. See how Joerock did it against Morris. He retreated all the way to Odessa and Kiev and still won as the Axis.

You need to keep your Axis units in the rail support area when the 1941 winter hits. This way you can rail out units if you really have to and you have supply level 4. If you place the Luftwaffe in Eastern Poland or the Baltic States or the southernmost part of Russia then they're less hit by the weather effect.

I usually use the Luftwaffe to hit the Russian tanks and mech BEFORE they reach the main defense line. Then the tanks lose efficiency and steps and can't do as much damage. It costs a bit of oil so you need to save up before the winter begins. That happens if you dig-in after September 30th 1941.

So my best advise to Axis players is not to be greedy in 1941. Get to the historical line and dig-in behind rivers or in forest terrain. Be prepared to retreat where the Russians are strong in the winter. You get your revenge in 1942.