The AI doesn't like to play as axis...

[Admiral_Awesome]

When I play 3vs3 or 4vs4 skirmishes against the AI, I usually get more or less the same result - A major win as allies and a major defeat as axis. In smaller games the player skill matters more and I can win those as axis, though it is considerably more difficult than when playing allies.

I don't want to whine around that I'm not capable of winning 4vs4 games (I enjoyed the one I lost more than the other one), instead I'd like to use this to point out some balancing issues, like the too distinct superiority of allied infantry and the importance of Phase A. I think the AI is better suited as an example for this then various multiplayer matches, since the AI has always the same level of skill, cooperation and communication and it also doesn't min/max. You can repeat those 3vs3 /4vs4 games and you more or less get the same result, also on different maps.

I'm not advocating for symetrical balance or that the axis infantry should be brought on par to the allied one, instead I'd like to propose a slight nerf in the overall available veterancy of the allied infantry as well as a severe nerf to the halftracks.

Also the Luftlande needs to be severly buffed, the suffering those guys endure every time is really painfull to watch.
It also beats me, why the 15th scots as an infantry division have better tanks than the dedicated armored division 2er Blide. Either the scots need another nerf or the 2er Blide needs a buff...

Regarding the Phase system, the allies more or less emerge every time victorious from Phase A. Phase B is more or less balanced between the two sides with a slight favour towards the axis while C is clearly the time where the axis shines, mostly due to their better tanks. This would not be too much of a problem if the axis side would not enter the B Phase weakened by the preceding sucesses of the allies. Usually the overall higher troop strenght at the beginning of B is giving the allies a momentum that carries them over until the start of C, where the axis tanks slowly start to regain ground, (well, they should and in most MP matches they actually do. In matches against the AI the axis tanks usually fail to some extend). So Phase B is also more or less in favour for the allies which makes things slightly harder for the axis since they have to a) retake lost ground b) average out the preceding losses from A and B all in Phase C that lasts as long as A and B together. To ease this dilemma I'd suggest a shorter duration for A like 8 or 9 minutes instead of 10.

 

[Hellequin]

The game's not been released yet mate. Maybe wait till the full game is a few weeks old before calling to drastically change it.

 

[Admiral_Awesome]

If its an general issue right now with 4 out of 9 divisions on each side, I'll guess its quite likely to remain. Otherwise the 5 unreleased axis divisions have to be substantially better than the 5 unreleased allied ones in order to balance that out, which is quite unlikely to me.

 

[CyberianK]

Agree to the overall statement. I would say after having played the game for over 200 hours its is obvious that Axis infantry needs to be buffed across the bord regarding cost effectiveness of almost all cards. 91 Luftlande is in a horrible state and needs a complete rework its pretty much the only Division which is completely unplayable in any competitive sense and any gamemode.

I would not agree to 2e blindée having to be buffed and getting better tanks on the contrary they are too strong currently and even get stuff that 3rd gets for cheaper. You probably don't push hard enough and bring in enough M10s if you have problems with them.
As for Axis/Allies balance I don't really agree that Axis are stronger in B. They are stronger in C but then really only the Divisions that have KT and Panther. Except the Super tanks I don't even see them having an advantage in tanks which would justify them having inferiour Infantry, AAA, Air and support cards. Like the Pz4s are worse than the Shermans across the board same for the lighter tanks.

If those things get fixed I also don't see a reason to change the phase system to uneven durations currently its nice and orderly. That said I would be fine with a weighted system that slightly increases points earned towards the end of the match to make comebacks more possible but I would wait for the effect of the fixes first..

 

[Bonkster]

The game's not been released yet mate. Maybe wait till the full game is a few weeks old before calling to drastically change it.

right lol where does he think he is some kind of beta feedback forum?

 

[Bracken]

I agree, they could start making Fallschirmjäger and Grenadiers cheaper.

And as a personal wish, please give 91st a better AA choice in Phase A. The 20mm improvements feel a bit weak.

 

[CyberianK]

I agree, they could start making Fallschirmjäger and Grenadiers cheaper.

And as a personal wish, please give 91st a better AA choice in Phase A. The 20mm improvements feel a bit weak.

20mm single barrel needs price to drop to 25 and availability increased to x5 (A card) x8 (B card)
37mm single barrel needs price to drop to 55 and availability increased to x3 (B card) x5 (C card)

Or give them Flakvierling in A and B but I would prefer these drastic price drops to single barrel AA as otherwise you would still have useless cards in there which is kind of a waste.

 

[Ahab78]

My experience as well. AI likes to loose with Axis. As most players do as well. I don't really think we can purely blame the noob magnet factor of Berlin Zoo gimmicks to be responsible for that w/l ratio.

If you want to actually win with axis, create 50-60 min games with huge win scores and benefit from the phase C madness.

And yes, you have been caught playing 2e DB. You should feel dirty! (srsly...enjoy the 2e madness as long as it lasts. It won't stay like that.)

 

[Hellequin]

right lol where does he think he is some kind of beta feedback forum?

My first reply wad probably a little too facetious.

What I was getting at is that the axis don't yet have an infantry division whilst the allies have two.

The infantry available to the allied armoured divisions does not outperform the axis and has a generally comparable cost.

Once we see the full range of divisions I think then we can start calling for the sort of sweeping changes you're suggesting. But as yet we have 3 B and C focused axis divisions against mainly A heavy allied divisions. The comparison maked it hard to draw complete conclusions on the state of balance once the full game has been released.

Hence why minor balance changes mainly focused around cost, availabilty and veterancy are appropriate. Overhauling how the phase system works without having a range of divisions to play would be.... foolish.

 

[xXSunSlayerXx]

At what difficulty setting did you experience the mentioned results? On easy and medium, my Axis team mate AIs seemed to be pulling their weight quite well (or rather, carry my inexperienced behind quite well)...
Not saying you are wrong, just wondering if the AI maybe has different effectiveness for each side depending on the difficulty setting and if that happens to be the case, what the reason for that could be.

 

[Hellequin]

I'd also like to argue that using the AI as a metric to balance the game is foolish. This is ultimately a multiplayer centric game.

As such units need to be employed by humans to achieve an end state. The AI, by virtue of how it is coded, can struggle with certain play styles.

 

[Hellequin]

If its an general issue right now with 4 out of 9 divisions on each side, I'll guess its quite likely to remain. Otherwise the 5 unreleased axis divisions have to be substantially better than the 5 unreleased allied ones in order to balance that out, which is quite unlikely to me.

No they just have to be different. You'll no doubt see a proper airbourne phase A heavy division and some all round infantry divisions. And infantry divisions are the most forgiving because they're so adaptable.

 

[Admiral_Awesome]

What I was getting at is that the axis don't yet have an infantry division whilst the allies have two.

I don't know where you get your information from, but when I open up the division tab it says that the Panzergrenadiere are a mechanized infantry division and Luftlande is also marked as a infantry division?

The infantry available to the allied armoured divisions does not outperform the axis and has a generally comparable cost.

Please, while you're already in the division tab, compare the infantry selection of the 2er Blide against the one from the 12th and 22th...

Once we see the full range of divisions I think then we can start calling for the sort of sweeping changes you're suggesting. But as yet we have 3 B and C focused axis divisions against mainly A heavy allied divisions. The comparison maked it hard to draw complete conclusions on the state of balance once the full game has been released.

We have, as stated before, 4 out of 9 divisions available right now. Two of the axis ones get their strongest units in C (12th and 22th) while the panzergrenadiers receive their unicorn nebelwerfer and most of the usefull stuff at B. You conveniently forgot Luftlande that is supposed to be A. This means we have 1xA, 1xB and 2xC decks on the axis side, which also makes a lot more sense from the developers perspective then the introduction of solely C decks. So, if axis sucks in A (which is completly fine to some extend) but can't make a comeback in B and/ or C chances are quite high the five new divisions won't change much on this. If the upcoming five divisions would have such an impact, it would only outline the uselessness of the current divisions. Which would in return mean, that the available divisions on the allied side right now are better than the ones yet to be released. I highly doubt that.

 

[Bonkster]

My first reply wad probably a little too facetious.

What I was getting at is that the axis don't yet have an infantry division whilst the allies have two.

The infantry available to the allied armoured divisions does not outperform the axis and has a generally comparable cost.

Once we see the full range of divisions I think then we can start calling for the sort of sweeping changes you're suggesting. But as yet we have 3 B and C focused axis divisions against mainly A heavy allied divisions. The comparison maked it hard to draw complete conclusions on the state of balance once the full game has been released.

Hence why minor balance changes mainly focused around cost, availabilty and veterancy are appropriate. Overhauling how the phase system works without having a range of divisions to play would be.... foolish.

the 91. LL is an infantry division. but i agree. thats why i still think its dumb to have a beta for real teasting purposes and not have all the division playable

 

[Karlburg]

3AD has a weak infantry tab but at least they don't have to pay nearly as much. Armored rifles are fairly bad but they're 20 points. 2e DB probably has too diverse an infantry tab for that division.

 

[Harold Alexander]

Current balance is almost fine in games 2x2 and higher, IMO, but in 1x1 germans are slightly weaker. Main reason: no cheap infantry spam on phase A, so you is not able to take the ground effectively without cheese tactics.