These will be fixed for the sake of balance?

[unmerged(93773)]

Germany currently too powerful,and please stop saying that if Hitler bad decisions wasnt there Germany would be invincible like in this game...

You cant even defend against Germany as France...This is far away from balanced game.also SU is a joke...

Great you killed the so-called zergrush,but now there is the lot more broken tank spamming.Tanks are ultimate killing machines,you almost dont need anything else...Infratry just plain useless...Not to mention,they suffer in almost every terrain worse or the same extent as tanks.LOL

So these fix needed:
-Reduce tanks speed,and give them very harsh terrain penalties
-Human wave useless as it now,do something with that
-Inf need some buff to make them alternative
-Germany has too much resources,they need a bigger shortage,and also much less IC.You cant help yourself laughing when you see Germany has almost more IC than USA or SU

Who is with me?

 

[Johnhawkwood]

what version of the game are you playing? 1.04 has nerfed tanks a fair bit.

 

[unmerged(209792)]

Germany currently too powerful,and please stop saying that if Hitler bad decisions wasnt there Germany would be invincible like in this game...

She was. It was those decisions that brought her down from that status by late 1941 (and before in the Battle of Britain). As a consequence Germany suffered from the Russian autumn and winter climate, which was the real direct reason of the German failure to defeat the USSR. Perhaps the Rasputitsa and extreme winter (30-50 degrees below centigrade, sometimes with wind blowing, was completely normal) isn't simulated well enough in AoD.

You cant even defend against Germany as France...This is far away from balanced game.also SU is a joke...

You shouldn't be able to with that kind of leadership that France had in WWII. Then again, you could deploy a completely ahistorical tactic such as using armour in an elastic defense type of role, as sorts of "firebrigades".

Great you killed the so-called zergrush,but now there is the lot more broken tank spamming.Tanks are ultimate killing machines,you almost dont need anything else...Infratry just plain useless...Not to mention,they suffer in almost every terrain worse or the same extent as tanks.LOL

Are you sure you're not playing a pre-1.04 version?

-Reduce tanks speed,and give them very harsh terrain penalties

I think certain weather/climate penalties would be more appropriate. The problem is though, in-game a Central European winter is just as cold as a Russian winter, which is total nonsense.

-Human wave useless as it now,do something with that

Not sure about that, but historically the USSR used very literal "human wave" tactics - sending masses of men against MGs and minefields - only to get slaughtered. Not very effective when done just a few times, but when done enough, you'll eventually get results.

-Germany has too much resources,they need a bigger shortage,and also much less IC.You cant help yourself laughing when you see Germany has almost more IC than USA or SU

From what I understand there's a resource lack problem globally in the latest version of AoD (I personally play CORE 0.49 - it's there too, though). This needs to be fixed first.

About the IC though, Germany didn't totally mobilize its economy for war until as late as 1943 (after the so called "Total War speech" by Goebbels). As insane as it was, the Nazi leaders wanted to keep the home front as comfortable as possible, by not causing it the strain that a war-time economy would have. After the economy was mobilized for war though, German industrial capacity rose considerably - for example aircraft production rivalled that of the USSR's in 1944, where as before it had been IIRC at least 3x lower.

There should be some kind of decision or an event that asks for total economic mobilization, that triggers every 12 or 6 months during war, which is then slept when the player chooses "yes". The AI would have a 99 chance of choosing "yes" only in 1943. Also, perhaps a "Return to peace-time economy" event could be created once Germany is in peace-time.

As a side-note, the USSR ran on full war economy since the first half of 1939.

 

[Mjarr]

Not sure about that, but historically the USSR used very literal "human wave" tactics - sending masses of men against MGs and minefields - only to get slaughtered. Not very effective when done just a few times, but when done enough, you'll eventually get results.

Penal battalions, early war confusion, odd command decision or such aside most of the Red Army problems can be attributed for quite simple problem: lack of coherent internal structure. Another nasty side-effect of the purges besides high level leadership was that most divisions had barely - if at all - even the minimal sufficient COs to run a division as it should be. It doesn't really matter is it US, British, German or French division - if they barely have any officers, it's going to perform very poorly in the large scale. Then as interesting comparasion, average german training for soldier in 1941 was 16 weeks. For russians it was less than 4 weeks by the time Barbarossa began.

Small scale 'heroism' (if we want to call it that) is bit diffrent, as there's plenty of stories throughout the whole war about some inviduals or even groups going completely batshit insane and doing really fucked up things to just hold the ground. Soviet Naval Infantry was probably one of the most demoralising units of the whole Soviet Union in 1941, as the germans themselves called them Black Deaths. Their grand-scale performance may not have been that diffrent from other divisions, but on small scale they certainly gained rather interesting reputation. Quality of eguipment and basics is one thing, but ultimately when it came down to the military concepts and capabilities Soviet Union was far from being as 'poor' as people usually make it sound like.

 

[Freightshaker]

Not sure about that, but historically the USSR used very literal "human wave" tactics - sending masses of men against MGs and minefields - only to get slaughtered. Not very effective when done just a few times, but when done enough, you'll eventually get results.

I would start reading Glantz or Beevor, or at least something that wasn't written during the Cold War.

As a side-note, the USSR ran on full war economy since the first half of 1939.

She also picked up and moved a great number of factories to the other side of the Urals, during a war, and still out produced Germany.

Germany's problems stem more from lack of resources and industry than Hitler's meddling, not that it's not a contributing factor.

 

[unmerged(209792)]

I would start reading Glantz or Beevor, or at least something that wasn't written during the Cold War.

I'd rather believe the people who were there, and those are my main source on that particular subject - Finnish and German veterans of WWII.

EDIT: Not to mention the countless history and "war experiences" books written by veterans AFTER the Cold War. I've even listened to Russian/Ukrainian veterans of the Winter War telling the same that I just wrote.

 

[Freightshaker]

I'd rather believe the people who were there, and those are my main source on that particular subject - Finnish and German veterans of WWII.

EDIT: Not to mention the countless history and "war experiences" books written by veterans AFTER the Cold War. I've even listened to Russian/Ukrainian veterans of the Winter War telling the same that I just wrote.

Eyewitness accounts are normally self serving and very narrow in scope and the winter war in 39' was very much different than Bagration in 44'.

The German telling of the East front was the only telling up until the Soviet archives were opened in the 90's. Information now coming out of the archives has dispelled many myths perpetrated by the Cold War.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

It is a very warped view of history that says Germany was some kind of superpower. At the time, the people were right to believe they were in a struggle that they could lose. But with the hindsight of history, Germany never had any chance of winning WWII. They had less chance of winning WWII than Japan had of defeating the US in the Pacific. Carrier warfare is a fickle thing, and Japan actually could have won the war with a couple lucky carrier engagements. Unlike Japan, there was never any chance of Germany winning in Europe.

Russia defeated Germany a year before the Allies even landed at Normandy. The Battle of Kursk broke the back of the German Army and from that point forward the war was over... even if the Allies never landed in the west. You can't say Russia defeated them "single-handedly" with all the assistance they recieved in equipment, supplies, and allied distractions in Africa. Allied bombing. But, after the fact, it is pretty obvious that Germany was no match for Russia... let alone the Allies. European arrogance held that the Russians were simply inferior too them when, as was proven, the Russians were the most powerful nation in Europe. They had been for quite some time.

The allies landings in France wound up being entirely about the Cold War, and had little to do with WWII... in the hindsight of history. The Germans were beaten before we landed, what we achieved was keeping Western Europe out of the Warsaw Pact. Germany was nothing at all like the US or Russia were after the war, they were just another European country roughly equal to the others. They simply developed a slight, very slight, advantage for about 3 years. There was never a time when they anywhere near as powerful as the US or Russia.

The "German Superpower" is a myth... they didn't even have a true navy.

 

[quaazi]

That's just wrong. Although annexation of the soviet union was obviously out of the question, a peace treaty in 1941 (or a coup) was completely possible with justa little political initiative from Germany. Of course, they opted for Hitler's megalomaniacal rantings and tried to take it all but creating a new Russia under a new government would've easily won them the support of the population and the war as well. Think of the amount of defections at a time when the germans shot their prisoners. Not think how many would there have been the they would've welcomed defections. With the SU out of the war, the western allies simply could not have coped with Germany, even with USA in the war. Their piss-poor performance against a completely beaten Germany in 1944 showed that they wouldn't have stood a chance against an rested, technologically superior Deutches Reich. A peace treaty would've followed pretty quickly I'd imagine (especially if they managed to make peace with the SU before Pearl Harbour)

 

[unmerged(93773)]

That's just wrong. Although annexation of the soviet union was obviously out of the question, a peace treaty in 1941 (or a coup) was completely possible with justa little political initiative from Germany. Of course, they opted for Hitler's megalomaniacal rantings and tried to take it all but creating a new Russia under a new government would've easily won them the support of the population and the war as well. Think of the amount of defections at a time when the germans shot their prisoners. Not think how many would there have been the they would've welcomed defections.)

However you forget one thing.The National Socialist ideology was insane.So they just killed many innocent civilians because some craps about inferior races...You right Germany would have a chance but not with the short sighted nazis.....So they in game performance questionable....

 

[froek]

However you forget one thing.The National Socialist ideology was insane.So they just killed many innocent civilians because some craps about inferior races...You right Germany would have a chance but not with the short sighted nazis.....So they in game performance questionable....

Stalin killed much more (just look at the holomodor 8 million deads)

 

[Porkman]

Stalin killed much more (just look at the holomodor 8 million deads)

However you forget one thing.The National Socialist ideology was insane.So they just killed many innocent civilians because some craps about inferior races...You right Germany would have a chance but not with the short sighted nazis.....So they in game performance questionable....

Both of you have been on the boards long enough to know that comparing atrocities is counterproductive.

Though back to this line.

Their piss-poor performance against a completely beaten Germany in 1944 showed that they wouldn't have stood a chance against an rested, technologically superior Deutches Reich.

Technologically superior? Did we forget the only strategically important superweapon of the the war? If Germany prolongs the war into late 1945, Berlin glows. The US built the Atomic bomb, not Germany.

In 1938, the US was making 60% of all the vehicles manufactured in the entire world. By the sort of heavy industry standard that IC represents, the US should have anywhere between 3 and 4 times the IC that Germany does. Modify by peacetime penalties or what not, but the US economy was much larger with a much larger population and much more suited to manufacturing complex machines.

Things like German jet fighters seem special, but the British had their own as well, just not deployed outside of England. World War 2 history has been sensationalized and making the Germans seem unstoppable only makes it better when the heroes come back in the third act and save the day.

Turn on the TV. Which show is on the history channel? "Hitler's Superweapon: The Bomb that Almost Changed History" or "The Nazi Nuclear project: Underfunded, Misguided, Years behind Los Alamos with no German bomber capable of carrying said device." Dramatic stuff! I'm sure to stop watching CSI for that.

In game Germany is really overpowered and the US and France are really underpowered. France and Germany make sense. You have to make it so that two historically equal forces controlled by the retarded monkey AI will always end with a German victory. They do it so the coin flip always come out heads. Making the US underpowered is also for gameplay purposes. The Axis vs. Allies has to look like a somewhat fair fight just for drama's sake.

I actually like the way AOD shows the power of hard units though I think the combat system is sort of let down by the map. It rightfully breaks the power of the superstack but superstacks form anyway because there aren't enough places to put the divisions.

 

[quaazi]

Yes I said technologically superior. A Germany with no eastern front to drain resources away is a horrible beast of technology - think of the air forces they can allocate to the western front. Think of how they have time for Plan Z. Any american bomb of 1945 would've been shot down over Holland, if Britain was free at all, in a world where Germany won the Eastern front.

Secondly, would the US indeed have the resolve to keep enduring appaling losses in the air during their strategic bombardment campaign, regardless of how well suited their industry was to sustain such an effort? There would've been a peace treaty, as Fortress Europa was impregnable and the Royal Navy and American Navy undefeatable. Really, any scenario with the Soviet Union knocked out can only end this way.

And finally, to humour you, what would a nuke have changed? Germany took horrible casualities from the strategic bombardment campaign anyway, a nuke would be just a new weapon in their arsenal. A proud, USSR-subduing Germany can't be compared to the situation Japan was in in 1945 (especially when THE LARGEST ARMY OF THE WORLD declared war on them, oh not a factor at all, nukes did everything). Provided that Hitler survived the bomb (Hitler, Göring, Bormann, any of the big nazis), there would have been no problem, especially considering how slowly the US built new bombs and how much of an incentive the germans would have then to build their own nuke. The Wehrmacht would've been utterly subordinated with the conquest of Russia, the SS was never wavering in their resolve, the civilians never rioted against nazis in our timeline... a nuke wouldn't have changed anything, if it had gotten through the wunderwaffe-equipped -industry-of-whole-of-Europe-backed Luftwaffe in the first place.

 

[Porkman]

stuff

The complaint of the original poster was that Germany has the same IC that the SU or the United States does when Germany never had a chance of getting anywhere close to matching America's industrial capacity even with the conquest of most of western Russia.

The point about technologically superior was that the Allies were in possession of just as many if different wonder weapons as the Germans, the atomic bomb being the most obvious example, but Allied radar was much better, proximity fused artillery etc.

 

[quaazi]

I replied to your reply of my sentence, and used that as the starting ground. Of course Germany is overpowered in AoD, wasn't that established like a month ago?

 

[unmerged(93773)]

The complaint of the original poster was that Germany has the same IC that the SU or the United States does when Germany never had a chance of getting anywhere close to matching America's industrial capacity even with the conquest of most of western Russia.

The point about technologically superior was that the Allies were in possession of just as many if different wonder weapons as the Germans, the atomic bomb being the most obvious example, but Allied radar was much better, proximity fused artillery etc.

Thank you that was my point.
So i guess these never will be fixed,actually i quite surprised some people still belive in übermensch tales

 

[unmerged(44926)]

Armoured divisions work reasonably well in AoD 1.04. They are incredibly strong, but also incredibly fragile. In anything but mountains, jungles or mud a mass of armoured divisions will crush anything except for other armoured divisions.

The problem, I think, is how quickly and cheaply they can be reinforced. I can't remember the exact numbers, but if it takes six months of 15 IC to build an armoured division, it should not take a week or two at 5 IC to replace half the division after a bad defeat. Because repairs are so cheap, the game has no way to simulate a Kursk, for example. Historically that battle did irreperable damage to German armoured strength. In the game similar losses can be made good in a month at the cost of delaying the production of an air division or battleship.

In terms of resources I HAVE seen the Germans run into serious resource problems when fighting deep in the Soviet Union. Problem was that they had already conquered well past Moscow and Stalingrad before this became a problem. With a bit of tweaking the results could be a bit closer to historical potential.

As for France being underpowered I still say they need some major penalties. Those who say France and German were industrial and military equals in 1940 are missing the point that the French got curb-stomped. Big time. Chance played a role, sure, but such a complete collapse suggests that the foundation was rotten. I could see giving the French more IC if they had something similar to the Soviet GDE penalty. Either way, I'm not sure why so many people argue that the French should be able to fend off a German attack when historically they didn't even come close.

 

[ticorico]

okay several points germay could have won the war but god aweful decisions ended that you could model that but you would have to lock units into areas of russia to do so. The french need to be equal or slightly larger in size then the krauts. The french army was destroyed and encircled due to luck the german were lucky that the french poured into belgium and then they broke through at sedan and it was all over if the french hadnt suffered that breakthrough they probably would have won in a year or two

 

[unmerged(93773)]

okay several points germay could have won the war but god aweful decisions ended that you could model that but you would have to lock units into areas of russia to do so. The french need to be equal or slightly larger in size then the krauts. The french army was destroyed and encircled due to luck the german were lucky that the french poured into belgium and then they broke through at sedan and it was all over if the french hadnt suffered that breakthrough they probably would have won in a year or two

i agree
the best example would be if we would say that Hitler was playing Roulette.He always bet everything on little chance.

Just ask yourself:
-What if allies do something about the reocupping in 1936?
-Or if they send ultimatum to prevent Anschluss?
-Or if they wont agree at Münich?
-Or if they wont tolerate events in 1939 march?
-Or if they attack while Germany busy at Poland?
-And as you said,France leadership makes right decision

As you can see,Nazis and Hitler were very lucky.Or in other words they had the devil luck...
However they made the biggest mistakes attacking the SU,Hitler accepted the gamble,but his luck ran out....and lost everything.


Little strange the game enables Germany correct mistakes,but SU and France has disabled options to prevent them.....as it is now:allies always making the worst possible selection,on other hand Germany always making the best

This isnt right....

 

[froek]

okay several points germay could have won the war but god aweful decisions ended that you could model that but you would have to lock units into areas of russia to do so. The french need to be equal or slightly larger in size then the krauts. The french army was destroyed and encircled due to luck the german were lucky that the french poured into belgium and then they broke through at sedan and it was all over if the french hadnt suffered that breakthrough they probably would have won in a year or two

Germany could have never won from America...Impossible.
The USA had a superiour navy and was thousands of kilometers from Germany + they had the atom bomb.Winning from the USSR was possible and also from the U.K.