GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

[Morris]

Dear Borger :

At first thanks lot for improving me English reading abilty !

Since you mentioned three players who you believe had badly defeat me by playing Axis to prove the game is balance , I have to use my limited English to express my points :

1 Joe is the best GS player I have ever met . ( maybe you are the best but I have no opportunity to take the lesson ). He is the only one who had defeated me by using Axis & Allies . The pbem he used Axis , was the first one I tried Dyle plan (edition 1 ), Joe took Liege & got 5 fair turns in 1939 & conquered Paris in Feb .1940 . This gave Joe a wonderful Axis start & a big advantage . The most important point is that Joe is the rare one who can maintain this advantage until the end with few mistakes ! I really learnt a lot from him & do want to play a new pbem with him in 3.0 ! But unfortunately he retired from this game !!It made me feel so disappointted !
2 Supermax is a great elite player who always has creative strategy & always love to attack ! I do love his style & we have played 3 pbems & 2 of them unfinished , one of them Axis surrender after failure of sealion .

3 Hue is a good player who is creative & able to make great AAR . Our pbem was my last Allies pbem before 3.0 & it was halted by the well known reasons . You can consider it as my Axis failure , but no one including Mr Hue himself won’t be able to repeat the victory .

If you make a conclusion from the above pbems to prove Axis has great or fair opportunity to win the game even against the monster Morris , I really don’t agree with that . the above 4 Axis Morris game ‘s results were 1 lose ,1 win & 2 unfinish . besides these I almost only lose less than 3 Allies game among my hundreds of Allies pbems with more than 100 players !! Does it prove anything ? Here I am still waiting for any new player’s challenge to beat me down by playing Axis ! I will follow my words which I mentioned in forum ! You have my words !!!

Finally , I have to repeat my opinion that 3.0 is unbalance & Axis has less than 10% posibilty to win or make even !

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Maybe you can try playing with an Axis advantage and turn off options favoring the Allies when you start the game?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If you really think you can't win with the Axis then you can play double games against your opponents. One as Axis and the other as Allies. Then you check the turn the Axis surrender. The one who can hold the Axis the longest will be declared the overall game winner. The victory level can be determined by the difference in turns between the Axis surrender in both games. E. g. less than 3 months = minor victory. 3-6 months = major victory etc.

[Morris]

I really don't agree to play with our opponent at Axis minor advantage . It seems a little bit unpolite or unfair .

If Axis player has to use minor advantage choice to achive an even or a minor Axis victory , the game balance must have some problem

[Morris]

Actually , GS pbem is between human players ,not player VS AI . So the normal option is always the choice of most of pbems . the only difference between them is the choice of scene ( 1939 or 1940 or....)

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I said you can try out with Axis advantage to figure out how much advantage you need to get a "balanced" game for you.

I have not seen enough evidence that the Allies have a big advantage. So you need to try different settings to see what can shift the advantage

[Morris]

I said you can try out with Axis advantage to figure out how much advantage you need to get a "balanced" game for you.

I have not seen enough evidence that the Allies have a big advantage. So you need to try different settings to see what can shift the advantage

But to deal with different lvl player will give different result . I had play an allies pbem with a newbie(he insisted) , he played large Axis & I conquered Berlin by the end of 1943 .

[Morris]

If you really think you can't win with the Axis then you can play double games against your opponents. One as Axis and the other as Allies. Then you check the turn the Axis surrender. The one who can hold the Axis the longest will be declared the overall game winner. The victory level can be determined by the difference in turns between the Axis surrender in both games. E. g. less than 3 months = minor victory. 3-6 months = major victory etc.

If there is a championship at present on 3.0 edtion , this should be the way . But this not the way to solve game unbalance .

[Plaid]

Just my contribution to the discussion.
I think game is balanced if allies play more or less historically, but there is plently of opportunities to play ahistorical and efficient strategies.
For example british land unit mass-production and sending them into France in 1939-40. Most players consider this to be a bad idea mostly for historical flavour I think. In game it is excellent strategy to delay Fall of France and significantly increase axis casualties. Strategic value of this british units lost is very low - allies have lots and lots of PPs later in game, and Sealion is out of the board with fall of France in August-September anyway. Dyle plan also comes here.

Another point is ASW warfare. Biggest convoys in PP terms are roughly 2 DD units and they are quite rare. So Kragdob is probably right - if you do not invest into ASW warfare, you will save enough PPs (for not building and repairing escorts) to compensate for most convoys not making it. (Some convoys will make it regardless - axis are unlikely to have 10+ subs when heavily engaged in other areas).

Another example is allied players being overcautious on the East during SW weather. It is really no problem to kill german unit during SW with 2 air and 3 ground attacks, but some people just rarely do so.

Also here comes large allied invasions in France in 1943 or even 1942 sometimes. Axis usually can't deal with it, even if they have couple of good units as a reserve, they will be just obliterated by allied airpower. Most players never do it, believing that Overlord belongs to 1944 just because.

Resume : game is pretty balanced if allied player plays "cautious" style, but once allied player starts to play reckless axis will suffer. (Allies produce maybe 3 times more PPs starting from midgame and have relatively endless oil and MP, so they can afford playing recless).

By the way if someone asks me to prove my thought by playing vs him as allies, I have to warn you, that I am NOT expert of such reckless strategies by any way and have no interest to master them. I consider this approach something, what should be rather removed from the game at all, than something used on regular basis.

[Morris]

Just my contribution to the discussion.
I think game is balanced if allies play more or less historically, but there is plently of opportunities to play ahistorical and efficient strategies.
For example british land unit mass-production and sending them into France in 1939-40. Most players consider this to be a bad idea mostly for historical flavour I think. In game it is excellent strategy to delay Fall of France and significantly increase axis casualties. Strategic value of this british units lost is very low - allies have lots and lots of PPs later in game, and Sealion is out of the board with fall of France in August-September anyway. Dyle plan also comes here.

Another point is ASW warfare. Biggest convoys in PP terms are roughly 2 DD units and they are quite rare. So Kragdob is probably right - if you do not invest into ASW warfare, you will save enough PPs (for not building and repairing escorts) to compensate for most convoys not making it. (Some convoys will make it regardless - axis are unlikely to have 10+ subs when heavily engaged in other areas).

Another example is allied players being overcautious on the East during SW weather. It is really no problem to kill german unit during SW with 2 air and 3 ground attacks, but some people just rarely do so.

Also here comes large allied invasions in France in 1943 or even 1942 sometimes. Axis usually can't deal with it, even if they have couple of good units as a reserve, they will be just obliterated by allied airpower. Most players never do it, believing that Overlord belongs to 1944 just because.

.

Yes , I agree . If just forbid Allies to make Overlord before 1943 , it will be quite helpful for balance the game !! Actually ,Allies did not get ready to launch Normandy until spring in 1944 .They didn't get enough landing boats & have no experience of landing before Torch ! THey need Torch as an trainning course & had to take years to take France air superior ( until P-51 ready ).

[Cybvep]

I'm not sure... I remember that in the old days Morris used a super-aggressive Allied strategy that looked like a real killer, but Supermax was able to give him a run for his money. Things changed a bit with the home-guard rule and other stuff like that. How do the new 3.0 naval rules affect Sea Lion? Is it harder, easier or more or less the same as in 2.1?

Anyway, 3.0 is 3.0 and we won't see changes here. I'm not sure whether 3.1 will even be released. However, if we want to limit the Allied ability to sustain high losses, the obvious, semi-historical way is to give them morale penalties for high losses. It's rather unlikely that the UK or the USA would be able to sustain immense casualties, like the SU, and 1-2 failed D-Days could cause serious political problems.
Since that would be a major feature, I think that it should be optional - those who like the game the way it is would still be able to play it 3.0-style.

Note, however, that this has NOTHING to do with the Dyle Plan and the situation that is happening here. To deal with the 1-turn Dyle, just move the units around, like Stauffenberg proposed.

[Morris]

By the way if someone asks me to prove my thought by playing vs him as allies, I have to warn you, that I am NOT expert of such reckless strategies by any way and have no interest to master them. I consider this approach something, what should be rather removed from the game at all, than something used on regular basis.

Hi Plaid : I have to clear that this strategy is one of the Grand strategy , maybe not historic but not reckless .

[Plaid]

I'm not sure... I remember that in the old days Morris used a super-aggressive Allied strategy that looked like a real killer, but Supermax was able to give him a run for his money.

Did it ever happen? I believe Morris won all his allied games vs Supermax (at least AAR ones).

[Cybvep]

Their AAR games usually end prematurely for various reasons ,

[Kragdob]

I'm not sure... I remember that in the old days Morris used a super-aggressive Allied strategy that looked like a real killer, but Supermax was able to give him a run for his money.

Did it ever happen? I believe Morris won all his allied games vs Supermax (at least AAR ones).

My allied strategy won always so far - autumn 1944 the latest. Build FTRs and MECHs with UK and bombers with US (MECHs as well if you can sail them through Atlantic, but UK production is just fine). 1942 or 1943 Overload is guaranteed success unless Axis moves majority of their forces to the West. If Axis do so then USSR takes over.
Axis are tied by unit limits and they can't afford numerous air force anyway so one side ties Germany and bleeds while the second moves in.

No need to go for battle of Atlantic, convoys are 20% of EXTRA income for UK/US and I can do easily with Allies base.
No need to going for Africa, It is much easier to reach Italy through France, Italian units are weak anyway so if they are used for Overlord defenses (instead of German) its even better.

The reason why this works is very simple, US is very powerfull at the very start in Turn 41, It can buy 5 bombers, have 2 in ORGanization, and equals Germany in INF tech and is much superior with TAC/STRAT techs (FTRs are maxed by UK, also at least equal with Germany). So the German tech advantage is a myth, they can be superior in tanks maybe (and with air against USSR but it can equal it with its PPs). Usually it is possible to make Germans sacrifice labs for units (air for France, SUBs etc.) so Allies are superior and the fall is even faster.

I don't think it is a sophisticated strategy - so far worked perfectly, even with Gog who seemed to conquer everything by 1942 it is now end of 1943 and I am at the gates of Berlin.

Just my contribution to the discussion.
I think game is balanced if allies play more or less historically, but there is plently of opportunities to play ahistorical and efficient strategies.
For example british land unit mass-production and sending them into France in 1939-40. Most players consider this to be a bad idea mostly for historical flavour I think. In game it is excellent strategy to delay Fall of France and significantly increase axis casualties. Strategic value of this british units lost is very low - allies have lots and lots of PPs later in game, and Sealion is out of the board with fall of France in August-September anyway. Dyle plan also comes here.

Another point is ASW warfare. Biggest convoys in PP terms are roughly 2 DD units and they are quite rare. So Kragdob is probably right - if you do not invest into ASW warfare, you will save enough PPs (for not building and repairing escorts) to compensate for most convoys not making it. (Some convoys will make it regardless - axis are unlikely to have 10+ subs when heavily engaged in other areas).

Another example is allied players being overcautious on the East during SW weather. It is really no problem to kill german unit during SW with 2 air and 3 ground attacks, but some people just rarely do so.

Also here comes large allied invasions in France in 1943 or even 1942 sometimes. Axis usually can't deal with it, even if they have couple of good units as a reserve, they will be just obliterated by allied airpower. Most players never do it, believing that Overlord belongs to 1944 just because.

Resume : game is pretty balanced if allied player plays "cautious" style, but once allied player starts to play reckless axis will suffer. (Allies produce maybe 3 times more PPs starting from midgame and have relatively endless oil and MP, so they can afford playing recless).

By the way if someone asks me to prove my thought by playing vs him as allies, I have to warn you, that I am NOT expert of such reckless strategies by any way and have no interest to master them. I consider this approach something, what should be rather removed from the game at all, than something used on regular basis.

I agree completely.

[supermax]

Funny how this discussion is leading.

My take is that youve got a very good chance of winning as axis if you only do and play safe.

I am sure i cannot be beaten by doimg all thats need to be done.

That is one of the reason i dont play much these days or why i wont be excited to play in a game against moriss ( no harm intended) that will just play recklessly with allies.

And yes it is true. If you play reckless as allies, do blobs or specialize in something then you win.

Main german weaknesses are:

Manpower too low
Tech too low at game start
Unit limit is one of the biggest problem
Options are too limited
Med waste of time for the effort
Sealion hardly doable anymore because of transport limit
Russian now doing a "retreat to hinterland" safely because even with an empty map it will take a miracle for the germans to get moscow and say rostov



Conclusion: with all the limitations, the axis has lost his main strenght, that is the hability to be agressive because it was the only way to win. Now the only way to win is to play conservativly, and in my opinion not being agressive as axis goes against the whole historical part of this game.

Anyway... We should find ways to give the axis more room to manoever agressively to gain an advantage in the game when it matters before 1942-1943.

[supermax]

I'm not sure... I remember that in the old days Morris used a super-aggressive Allied strategy that looked like a real killer, but Supermax was able to give him a run for his money.

Did it ever happen? I believe Morris won all his allied games vs Supermax (at least AAR ones).

You have a short memory plaid. don't get me wrong Moriss is a great player, but in terms of victory/losses,

I was winning at least 2 pbem aar with moriss, even one wher i obliterated his western landings in 43-44 and also oblitarated his russian army as a fighting force (incredible encirclement in southern Russia) in 1943...

He can be beaten and soundly you just cant play agressively as axis, but more like a cautious-offensive style of game.

I will stand firm behind this statement: I can beat anyone, I mean anyone and ALL the time if I play the way its needed to be. Its just that I like alternate games, so this leads for me to use reckless and desperate strategies that in would NEVER do if my goal was victory only.

moriss is an amazing elite player. I don't play him anymore because against him and his reckless allied strategy there is just no room for sealions, Spanish gambit and funny aggressive offensives in Russia for examples . I just know now that the outcome that he will target will be victory only. In order to do this he will suicide the brits and do all that needed (blobs, and the likes) to win, regardless of the fun of the game. I respect his way of playing and think it is great, I just got bored of playing this type of game myself.

The most fun games I have had are the 2 AAR's where I lost against Diplomaticus (in my much studied Fortress Europa strategy) and the one against Massina where I blundered the early loss of the Italian. There is also a couple games against Joe rock that I won back in the days but that we never AAR. Joe is very fun to play against let me tell you that!

viewtopic.php?f=78&t=33494&start=20 (Max as Allies)
viewtopic.php?f=78&t=28005&start=420 (Max as Axis)
viewtopic.php?f=78&t=28999 (Max as Axis)
viewtopic.php?f=78&t=26861&start=180 (Max as Axis)

[Morris]

I'm not sure... I remember that in the old days Morris used a super-aggressive Allied strategy that looked like a real killer, but Supermax was able to give him a run for his money.

viewtopic.php?f=78&t=33494&start=20 (Max as Allies)
viewtopic.php?f=78&t=28005&start=420 (Max as Axis)
viewtopic.php?f=78&t=28999 (Max as Axis)
viewtopic.php?f=78&t=26861&start=180 (Max as Axis)

Hi Max :

I just check out the above links , yes we have played 4 pbems with 4 AARs ( the one Axis surrender after failure of sealion not including in the above links ) . The second & the third link are about the same AAR which you believe you almost won & I explained why I still did not surrender . Three of our AARs were unfinished . It had caused huge argument in the forum . But finally we know how to have fun from the game !

There is one thing similiar between us that : we both believe we can defeat the other ! hehehe !

[Morris]

.

If you play reckless as allies, do blobs or specialize in something then you win.

.

I still remembered that the first blob concept was come from my arm blob when I play Axis in GS 1.12 . Then there are many changes against all my blob concept ( arm blob , mech blob , BEF blob , gars blob , sub blob ) . Actually I still believe all these changes are not necessary . The only use were just help people to deal with blob strategy against the Damn Morris . But may I ask you a question : are there many players use blob strategy achive their victory ? No ! but the changes against these strategy swing the game balance many times & from right to wrong .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't think there is an easy way to make a game balanced for all kinds of playing styles. It's impossible to predict the creativity of some players. These players can analyze the game and find weird ways to get advantages that the game was not designed for. One example is the specialization described above. E. g. just let USA produce bombers and tanks while the British produce mechs and fighters. By doing that you can focus your techs and just pump out units that the Germans can't respond to.

In order to stop that you have to add gearing limits to production. We have a soft version of gearing limits where you pay extra if you build too many of a particular unit type. We even added number of labs restrictions to reduce the specialization.

The problem is that if you try to prevent all kinds of weird ways to play you complicate the game and ruin the game balance for players who enjoy a more normal game. So in the end you just have to pick your target and try to make that work.

For the BJR group the target was people who like to have fun in rather historical games and would make plans that could have been possible in the real war. For such players GS v3.0 is pretty balanced right now.

For the players who are experts in exploiting weaknesses in the game design I think they will never find the game balanced. You will always find players who can find new exploits to beat a current exploit. The problem with all these exploits is that if you have to tend to them to win then you scare away all those "normal" players.

Again I would say that our target is these normal players and not the elite players. The development team have already spent enough energy chasing the tail of those who are experts in exploiting game weaknesses. That work is futile and won't bring you closer to your goal (a fun and balanced game for them).

I therefore recommend that such players play with general.txt or options to find ways to make the game balanced for them. We won't make updates to GS v3.0 trying yet another time to plug holes in the game rules that could be exploited.