Does phase A last too long?

[Hoggorm]

Is it just me or does phase A "recon" last too long?

I often run out of useful units before phase B and relatively early in phase C the game is over...

 

[TGApples]

Not much too long. I wouldn't mind if they cut a minute or two off it, but not more than that. It's pretty fine.

I often run out of useful units before phase B and relatively early in phase C the game is over...

Move cards from later phases to A then.

 

[mitchverr]

Well, as people say that phase A wins the game, I wouldnt mind seeing it reduced by 2min to see how it effects the game, maybe then they will stop needing to nerf phase A 15th to the point they are just removing some units from being useful lol.

 

[Karlburg]

15th is still fine, yeesh. It's still really solid, just overshadowed by the crazy 2e DB.

 

[CyberianK]

I think there is a chance that if they fix the total Imbalances of too strong power disparities between Axis and Allies regarding Phase A and between certain units that this problem also disappears and you could keep Phase A as it is.

So I would like for the other issues to be fixed first then review this again.

 

[Karlburg]

I think there is a chance that if they fix the total Imbalances of too strong power disparities between Axis and Allies regarding Phase A and between certain units that this problem also disappears and you could keep Phase A as it is.

So I would like for the other issues to be fixed first then review this again.

I agree with this. I also think they need to rework the way some of the phase C centric divisions work in terms of units and such rather than extend the game. 40 minutes is a good time, though perhaps in phase C it should be easier to get +2 and +3 because it's a bit too easy to become mathematically eliminated right now.

 

[axnone]

Reducing phase A time gives a disadvantage to divisions which focuses on phase A, such as the 2e DB and airborne divisions.

The current default settings gives C phase divisions such a drawback as it's very hard to turn the tides that has been build during A&B. I'd rather have phase C extend some time rather than cut down phase A time.

 

[Grosnours]

I think we can all perceive now some underlying characteristics/design choices to the global balance :
- axis has a worse/less numerous/not as cost-effective infantry
- axis has better top tanks
- axis has slightly worse AAA
- axis performs more in a defensive fashion in phase A, phase B is supposed to be balanced and then phase C should be where axis shines

Conversely :
- allies have better/more numerous/more cost effective infantry
- allies have worse top tanks
- allies have better AAA
- allies shine in phase A, with B balanced and C more defensive.

This is compounded by the type of divisions, as armored divisions in general do better in phase C.

Those are all general design decisions and I don't see anything wrong with them if in the end everything turns out to be roughly balanced.
Right now I see two main issues :

- better top tanks don't compensate for worse infantry (and AAA)
- the phase imbalances don't allow for phase C-strong decks to shine

I would add one more issue :
- german infantry support equipment is systematically more expensive/worse/later/less numerous than the allied one. This can be understood in the "axis infantry is worse" meta idea, but it's going a bit far, and again it's not compensated by the tanks.


The biggest issue in my mind is the phase problem. Everything else can be changed by fixing some values and stats. The phase problem is a more profound one and comes from multiple factors :
- the +1 system at 51% is not ok, nor is the linear way you gain points. (broken record I know)
- attack is much more difficult and demanding then defense, making phase B/C counter attacks a very difficult thing to pull off
EDIT: i forgot an obvious factor
- snowball effect. The less you lose units, the more it's easy to overpower your enemy. Hence the more you have lost in phase A, the more it will be difficult to win in phase C.

Those factors combine to give to phase A a much bigger role than needed.

What do you think ?

 

[TGApples]

Those factors combine to give to phase A a much bigger role than needed.

Yup. Sounds about right to me. I've never had a German comeback hurt me, but I've managed it a few times. My feeling is that it's quite a lot harder to play the defensive game (while preserving K-D ratio) in A as Germans than it is to hold off the counter attack in the later game. Defending is easier when there's more stuff on the map.

The problem is that if you're worse early you lose victory points, lose ground you have to recapture, and lose units. Coming out of A down in every metric means that a lot of your later advantages are soaked up just pulling level and by the time you're actually up you need to get +3 for the rest of the game to actually win. This is possible, and due to the RNG nature of the games you may even manage it against a player on about the same skill level, but I feel the "good A" decks have the advantage.

I don't think a longer game would fix this unless units/card was rebalanced. Valuing Phase A income more in the income balancing would help (ie. if you have high A income your B and C are lower than they are now). Changning the victory point earning system may change things. Shortening phase A may change things. Increasing default victory points to 2500 might help.

Eugen said they're actively collecting data. I wonder how they're planning on decoupling the properties of the deck's units from how strong they are in certain Phases.

 

[Sanny]

It'd be better if Phase A was 8 minutes long as opposed to 10, and Phase B was 12 minutes long as opposed to 10.

 

[Fussel]

I agree with OP that phase A is generally the only phase I look at and have thoughts like: "What...still 3 minutes till B???"

 

[Fussel]

It'd be better if Phase A was 8 minutes long as opposed to 10, and Phase B was 12 minutes long as opposed to 10.

I can get behind that.

 

[Tank Girl]

Phase A is boring most of the time, no matter which mode (IMO).

It also does not feel like "combat recon" at all but like a full flegded battle.

Either make it shorter (5 mins should be enough) or just give us the option to start a game in Phase B or even C.

 

[Arctander]

I know we all want to choose that "get 6 tanks" card for phase C instead of that "get 2 halftracks" in Phase A card, but seriously consider how often do you bring in everything in C? As nice as it is to know you could be bring in those 6 uber tanks, you almost never do. So, you might want to tweak that deck budget to get setup in A better.

And yes, Phase A is definitely more than just combat recon - since getting a defensive line setup past that 50% mark is a huge step up going forward, but phase C is already 2x longer than phases A & B.

 

[Langerak]

I think it is fair to say that based on the eight divisions released so far, the Eugen balance team seems to: consistently underestimate the power of strong phase-A decks, and overestimate the ability of phase-C decks to make a lategame comeback. This is completely forgivable because we are still in a beta and the decks simply need to be played to find out that sort of stuff.

Keep the phase length as it is, because it is nice and orderly with 10-10-20. Just buff and nerf individual decks where appropriate.

 

[Vyllis]

Phase A is fine.

Its just Phase A decks being too strong and games finishing then too early,
Also the "+1" point system in conquest.

They severely limit the chance of comeback in phase late B/C.

 

[FatRefrigerator]

I think it is fair to say that based on the eight divisions released so far, the Eugen balance team seems to: consistently underestimate the power of strong phase-A decks, and overestimate the ability of phase-C decks to make a lategame comeback. This is completely forgivable because we are still in a beta and the decks simply need to be played to find out that sort of stuff.

Keep the phase length as it is, because it is nice and orderly with 10-10-20. Just buff and nerf individual decks where appropriate.

Part of the problem is also that the game ends before the 40 minute time limit and that the 51% territory has such a big influence. There should be a 4% deadzone from 48-52% of the map (meaning you need 53% to get that 1 point). That may not seem like a big difference, but I am often surprised when someone has 55% of the map and it looks like they have 75% of it.

 

[TGApples]

Part of the problem is also that the game ends before the 40 minute time limit and that the 51% territory has such a big influence. There should be a 4% deadzone from 48-52% of the map (meaning you need 53% to get that 1 point). That may not seem like a big difference, but I am often surprised when someone has 55% of the map and it looks like they have 75% of it.

I prefer to have more conquest points overall and a steeper ramp up. I'm fine with 51-49, but the next step should be before 58-42. I find comebacks often involve a rout of the enemy forces, giving the coming back force 70+% of the map. Complete domination at the end of C should be rewarded more. If the +2 bracket was moved to 55-45, and the later brackets also shifted down, with +10 at the exteme, and conquest points to reach moved to 3000 we'd get more reward for complete domination, with small gains still being rewarded.

Another idea I've seen floated that I quite like is different victory point incomes for different phases. Phase A could give no points at all, for example. That would make Phase A about recon and establishing a strong forward line. The victor of the game would be determined by performance in B and C. Phase A decks would still be strong as defending is easier than attacking, and they'd probably be getting points all through B.

Finally... there's always the "who holds most land at 40 minutes" condition. I honestly think that would be a very good victory condition. It makes sense and means that the benefit of strong early divisions is that you can be the defender later on in the game. It's quite a big change, but I think it would be interesting.

 

[Mountsorrel]

For me, Phase B is the "shaping" phase where I actually get stuff done. Phase A is usually a consolidate/re-adjust/hold out Phase and pretty much every game I spend the latter part of Phase A counting down the ticks until I can bring my Phase B units.

It's easy to say "put more Phase A cards in" but the units you can get in A are, for the most part, not the ones you need to support your moves in Phase B. A shorter Phase A would solve this, so 8/12/20+ for A/B/C would work better. Plus it gives less time for the game to be decided in A...

 

[FatRefrigerator]

I prefer to have more conquest points overall and a steeper ramp up. I'm fine with 51-49, but the next step should be before 58-42. I find comebacks often involve a rout of the enemy forces, giving the coming back force 70+% of the map. Complete domination at the end of C should be rewarded more.

Another idea I've seen floated that I quite like is different victory point incomes for different phases. Phase A could give no points at all, for example. That would make Phase A about recon and establishing the line, and the victor would be determined by performance in B and C.

Finally... there's always the "who holds most land at 40 minutes" condition. I honestly think that would be a very good victory condition. It makes sense and means that the benefit of strong early divisions is that you can be the defender later on in the game. It's quite a big change, but I think it would be interesting.

Perhaps the conquest points should be (0x/1x/2x) for each phase, with the overall cap increased.