Axis & Allies 2.0 - Balance Mod Discussion

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:22 pm

also, check into trying to get it to work better with windows 7, i can test that part out since i have it....lol

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:38 am

Have you tried adjusting your Data Execution Prevention settings? Go to
control panel - system - advanced
hit performance button
select Data Execution Prevention and add A&A to the programs not checked for DEP. I have heard this helps for older software, let us know. I have a dedicated XP box for A&A so never tried...

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:38 am

The new stats look neato. Having 3 stars instead of one does seem pretty sick. =)

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:39 pm

spasticdonkey wrote:

Did a little tinkering and found out it's possible to expand the online ranks system. Tested and working and ready to be a part of an upcoming mod. Rolling Eyes

Even if only interested in testing or to contribute ideas, please register at http://www.rtsforce.com/axis/

Id definitely be interested in throwing this into my mod as another feature

Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:09 pm

i registered on the site...not sure what to do next but i will help in any way

Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:16 pm

btw how do you mod??? is there a modded version out already?? how do i get it if there is???all good questions....hehe

Private (E2) Joined: May 22, 2011 Posts: 17

Spaz,
I got an idea but no patience to tackle Code. Could you/we make an option that could equate the game furthur regarding ecos.

Tents equal cost
Tents equal income

Id like to play some games where 4 GB's could fight 4 germans in a 640 map but have identical ecos.

There could just be some additional code to build an option to modify ecos prior to random general generation. Or just make germanies 25 into 30's everywhere in the source code to make things a little simpler but equal.

The beauty of this game is the random map generation and random city generation imbalance staying the same. Im good with volatility here but Volatility with unfair general random generation Im not.

Good players will come back if we could Balance it out with a simple mathematical matrix doing so.

I havent been playing dont have the time.

Happy holidays All.

Except Spaz....

You can KISS MY ASS!

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:27 am

Since not many people are participating on Mantis besides Spas and I, I guess I'll bring up some questions I have here. I need the help of some historical gurus. What would you say the strategic approach to battle of each country was during WWII? i.e. excelled in long ranged bombardment, valued guerilla tactics in trees with long ranged rifles, tank blitzkrieg, etc...

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:38 am

Well Germany's operational doctrine of course, centered around armored spearheads supported by close air support initially, but later was forced to rely on their superior infantry tactics (at least until everyone who knew what they were doing got killed) A heavy reliance on surprise and speed before the enemy could prepare, which worked great in the small countries of europe.

Great Britain - more of a "grand battle plan" doctrine, involving cautious advancement coupled with artillery support, and to a lesser extent commando infiltration. Much reliance on the Infantry Support role for tanks like France

Japan - Unfortunately japan never got militarily involved in terrain that allowed for much maneuverability (china quickly devolved into not much more than partisan stomping) so we can't know how that would have turned out, so much of their doctrine evolved around the environment they were fighting in which was primarily jungles and the like, which entailed an emphasis on using the terrain and conditions to bleed the enemy dry (this could possibly be abstracted by higher terrain bonuses?) all of this of course was saturated with a fanatic devotion to the Bushido code (never surrender etc.) and banzai charges

USA - heavy reliance on the "superior firepower" school of thought, stockpile more supplies, more tanks, more planes, etc to the point that the enemy was just overwhelmed. Initially U.S. military tactics were very outdated (as seen in operations against the Vichy french, Italians, and Germans across Algeria and Tunisia) and they suffered heavy losses, but quickly learned to where their tactics resembled Germany's more than anything else later on. basically a Germany with an inexhaustible industrial base. The massive industrial power of the USA of course taking a long time to build up to maximum efficiency. think "diesel engine". It might be important to note that famous generals such as Patton who came to admire and emulate the German tactics still suffered heavy losses due to his possibly overzealous wish to capture as much land as possible, hence the nickname "old blood n guts"

Soviet Union - The "Human Wave" doctrine should be pretty self-explanatory, throw men and tanks at the problem until they run out of ammo and then kill them all. The soviet officer corps was also severely damaged by Stalin's purges in the 30s, as seen in the "winter war" against Finland, a very small country with a small military that should have been quickly overrun, but held off hundreds of thousands of Russians for around 5 months. The winter war had the effect of labeling Russia army as a third rate power in the eyes of the world, which very much influenced Hitler to assume that they could be beaten in 3 months.
By 1942 the soviet military had adapted to Germany's blitzkrieg style of warfare, made it their own, and used it against them to great effect

Much of the outcome of the war was dictated by Germany's lack of rare materials such as rubber and oil after 1942, and several operational mistakes (Goering's fumbling of the air war against Britain, a coup in formerly friendly Yugoslavia and Italy's invasion of Greece, both in early 1941, that delayed operation Barbarossa by 3 months, "case blue" Hitler's decision to attack the Caucasus instead of Moscow) These things make modeling Germany's economic position fairly difficult as without them they would have certainly won, and it's important to note that Germany had one of if not the most powerful economy at the start of the war, and one must remember that it took the nations of Britain, the USA, AND the Soviet Union just to beat them.

Also, i left out the air warfare specifics given the nature of the system we're working with, which is unfortunate as nations such as Japan and Germany had the best planes in the world at the start of the war, and it's a pity that that and the role of the dive bomber is impossible to model in A&A Sad

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:04 pm

First testing beta available http://www.rtsforce.com/mod/

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:05 pm

Spaz do you want me to skin anything for you? (noticed the SAS model in a Fallschirmjager regiment)

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:38 pm

yes that would be great, I have a few units that have borrowed models.

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:01 am

quickly made a Fallschirmjager
the zip includes the model, skins and unit icon

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:53 am

that's excellent, very nice Smile

Private (E2) Joined: May 22, 2011 Posts: 17

Nice little marketing bit. New improvements. Im impressed.
Wow, KMA might actually save this game. Now if you could hook people with more stats that could get erased if not paid for.

Smile

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:09 am

Since im a WW2 history nut, particularly on the eastern front, but not exclusively, here is my two bits. Gure is essentially correct. There are three things that come into play here: Time, Distance, Efficiency/Productivity/Training.

Gurewicz wrote:

Well Germany's operational doctrine of course, centered around armored spearheads supported by close air support initially, but later was forced to rely on their superior infantry tactics (at least until everyone who knew what they were doing got killed) A heavy reliance on surprise and speed before the enemy could prepare, which worked great in the small countries of europe.

The german army, navy and navy (especially the u-boat crews) were highly trained at the beginning of the war. More so than their equivalents in the allied armies. They fought in spain to fine tune their tactics and also to get some battle experience. As the war progressed, these elite men couldnt be replaced so quickly and so the standard went slowly downhill. The germans had also very good equipment and used it well. Towards the end of the war, the germans had excellent tanks, excellent airplanes and brilliant submarines. They just couldnt make enough of them because they were just simply too complex to build quickly. Although german industry got constantly bombed, their industrial production was still quite good.

Gurewicz wrote:

Great Britain - more of a "grand battle plan" doctrine, involving cautious advancement coupled with artillery support, and to a lesser extent commando infiltration. Much reliance on the Infantry Support role for tanks like France

Basically I agree, they were somewhat inflexible to movement and were quite complacent really, particularly with their losses in singapore and the middle east

Gurewicz wrote:

Japan - Unfortunately japan never got militarily involved in terrain that allowed for much maneuverability (china quickly devolved into not much more than partisan stomping) so we can't know how that would have turned out, so much of their doctrine evolved around the environment they were fighting in which was primarily jungles and the like, which entailed an emphasis on using the terrain and conditions to bleed the enemy dry (this could possibly be abstracted by higher terrain bonuses?) all of this of course was saturated with a fanatic devotion to the Bushido code (never surrender etc.) and banzai charges

The japanese infantry was also highly trained. They were specifically trained to use resources from land, so they should have a higher terrain and resources bonus. Technologically, their tanks were pathetic. But their navy and airforce was quite strong, both in man power and technologically.
However, apart from the initial attacks, their tactics both in the air and at sea was quite bad. Their submarine force was essentially wasted. They had a high level of morale, thus the banzai charge and fighting to the death, as seen in iwo jima, okinawa etc

Gurewicz wrote:

USA - heavy reliance on the "superior firepower" school of thought, stockpile more supplies, more tanks, more planes, etc to the point that the enemy was just overwhelmed. Initially U.S. military tactics were very outdated (as seen in operations against the Vichy french, Italians, and Germans across Algeria and Tunisia) and they suffered heavy losses, but quickly learned to where their tactics resembled Germany's more than anything else later on. basically a Germany with an inexhaustible industrial base. The massive industrial power of the USA of course taking a long time to build up to maximum efficiency. think "diesel engine". It might be important to note that famous generals such as Patton who came to admire and emulate the German tactics still suffered heavy losses due to his possibly overzealous wish to capture as much land as possible, hence the nickname "old blood n guts"

Basically yes. The USA was more on mobility, rather than outright firepower. The sherman vs the tiger is a prime example. The sherman and m10 could run rings around the tiger, but one hit from a tiger in long range and the sherman is gone. The usa had good planes but werent a match for the german fighters (jets and all). Technologically, the USA was inferior, when comparing tank vs tank etc. The only exception was in heavy bombers. Another thing is that the USA could mass produce weapons without suffering any damage (unlike the germans).

Gurewicz wrote:

Soviet Union - The "Human Wave" doctrine should be pretty self-explanatory, throw men and tanks at the problem until they run out of ammo and then kill them all. The soviet officer corps was also severely damaged by Stalin's purges in the 30s, as seen in the "winter war" against Finland, a very small country with a small military that should have been quickly overrun, but held off hundreds of thousands of Russians for around 5 months. The winter war had the effect of labeling Russia army as a third rate power in the eyes of the world, which very much influenced Hitler to assume that they could be beaten in 3 months.
By 1942 the soviet military had adapted to Germany's blitzkrieg style of warfare, made it their own, and used it against them to great effect

Basically agree again. The russian steam roller. Initially the russians were caught out in quite a few things, particularly lack of training and morale, but they traded space for time. It was a tried and true tactic. The russians also made some excellent tanks/planes/guns. Easily mass manufactured and generally of sound design, the russians had just as effective weapons as the germans. Its just that while germany could make 1 or 2 tigers, they would be facing 10-15 t-34's. The russians also arguably developed the best tactics on the battlefield by mid 1942, with them being copied today by everyone else.All the useless soldiers were killed by mid war and everyone else just was fighting to survive, united in the one aim to defend their homeland and destroy germany. The red army had something like 5 million men on the battlefield.

Gurewicz wrote:

Much of the outcome of the war was dictated by Germany's lack of rare materials such as rubber and oil after 1942, and several operational mistakes (Goering's fumbling of the air war against Britain, a coup in formerly friendly Yugoslavia and Italy's invasion of Greece, both in early 1941, that delayed operation Barbarossa by 3 months, "case blue" Hitler's decision to attack the Caucasus instead of Moscow) These things make modeling Germany's economic position fairly difficult as without them they would have certainly won, and it's important to note that Germany had one of if not the most powerful economy at the start of the war, and one must remember that it took the nations of Britain, the USA, AND the Soviet Union just to beat them.

Agree, these are tactical nuances of what happened in ww2 which had an effect upon the outcome. The allies didnt arm up quickly to counter the axis and they were in the middle of their own modernisation of the military. Geography, strategic positioning, political interference and simply just plain good luck made the difference in the end

Also, i left out the air warfare specifics given the nature of the system we're working with, which is unfortunate as nations such as Japan and Germany had the best planes in the world at the start of the war, and it's a pity that that and the role of the dive bomber is impossible to model in A&A Sad

[/quote]

There are some things I would change in A&A.

1. I would have three types of aircraft, small, medium, large. This would emulate the units of the infantry, mech, tank hq's. The bigger the unit, the more the bombing would cost and the more damage/resilience they would have. The small bomber would be the dive bomber type. The medium bomber would be similar to the twin engined heinkels. The heavy bomber would be something along the 4 engined super fortresses. The range that these aircraft would be able to fly, would also be reflected (i.e. a small stuka couldnt fly across the entire map like a 4 engined aircraft could)

I still would have recon aircraft, just like you have recon infantry units

2. Technology upgrades. I would have more tech upgrades for the planes. Jet Engines, Radar (increase in detection), ejection seats (morale). And I would have tech upgrades in the Airfields themselves, so you would be given initially the ability to have small bombers. But youd have to do medium bomber upgrade before you could go to heavy bombers etc. similar to the use of heavy tanks and king tigers tech in the german motor pool before you could deploy these units in the tank HQs)

3. I would also put in the ability where the engineers could do more in this game. Where they can build temporary pontoon bridges across rivers so units can cross.

I would also put in the engineer brigade, 3 new tech upgrades. The ability to build ammo bunkers (+50 ammo), oil depots (+50 oil). There would be no building limit on these buildings, but they wouldnt be destroyed. They could be captured. The cost to build these buildings would be huge, like $500 or so.

I would also put in the ability to build powerful AA guns for the allies (double the strength of the current AA guns) and also V rocket attacks for the germans. It would add an additional aspect of the game, where the AA guns could be used to stop V rocket attacks, while the V rockets could be used to hit areas behind the front line (like against london).

So in essence, I would improve and expand the capability of the engineers to build more powerful resources buildings and to expand the airfields/air power of the game.