US has too many advantages

[Toonboy]

For the first patch I would like to see the US tweeked to become more balanced in comparison to the rest of the other countries. Economically, Millitarilly and in terms of the general powers the US is a little overpowering.

Economically, has too much of an advantage with the extra cash that each HQ produces. In the early stages of the game, even if a player has 2 less cities than another player each players eco are almost even, yet the US player would have a more concentrated millitary force covering less ground. I suggest having only the armor HQ's produce extra income, and increase the amount of "supply" income on the earlier tech HQ's. Still give the US an advantage but one that others can play against.

Having the economic advantage creates a problem with the millitary balance also. The US can move up the tech tree much faster than any of the other civs. So the States usually ends up fighting with halftracks much sooner that other civs can afford to. The only other way a non-US player can compete is to skip building infantry early (as in just build recon, to capture cities and hope the other player doesn't press), and "turtle". But because the US HQ's produce more income once the battle starts rolling other civs can't keep up in unit production. Also, all the US units, with the exception of armor, at the top of the food chain or #2 when compaired to everyone else. So in other words, I can't move up the tech faster and I can't flood with infantry, as I am always outproduced.

General powers.... first off A-bomb it's too powerful in the game, increase the amount of exp. points and increase the reset timer on it. Secondly the lend lease power compounds the economic imbalance.

[ColonelBekker]

I agree with your comments. It is now almost generally accepted that the US has an advantage over other countries and that the use of Nimitz (Atomic Bombs) is an unfair advantage. The use of Eisenhower (Lend Lease) also provides a very strong economic advantage over other countries.

Another problem I have found is the fact that the actual production rates for US HQs is much higher than advertised at the Corps HQ. The advertised production rates are as follows:

HQ type Money Ammo Oil
Infantry +$12 +05 +02
Airborne +$12 +05 -
Mech +$12 +05 +05
Armor +$12 +05 +08

The actual rates displayed by the HQs during the game are:

HQ type Money Ammo Oil
Infantry +$30 +10 +05
Airborne +$25 +10 -
Mech +$30 +10 +10
Armor +$30 +10 +15

These values are much higher, and indicates a much greater rate of income revenue for the US than any other country in the game.

No wonder then that the US is such a popular country to play.

All the best,

Colonel Bekker

[Valdarez]

You mean in a 1v1, on a 320x320 map the US has more advantage than say the British with their lovely SAS? Or more of an advantage that the germans on a 640 x 640 map where they have time to get to their lovely King Tigers?

[Toonboy]

Vald,

In both cases, the sas and king tiger, going toe to toe with any with a comparible american unit, the american unit would loose, but thats not the point. It's the fact that the americans can produce units at a faster rate than any other nation or can move up the tech tree producing superior units in greater numbers. When there is no workable counter available to the other nations there is aproblem. (e.g., american anti tank halftrack divisions)

When playing as the Germans one normally doesn't get to the point of kings, or at least I don't, the game is usually decided well before then with halftracks, and infantry. Playing against the british, well if your on a small map, your screwed plain and simple. Anything other than 320 then you have a reasonable number of counters available.

The solution, as I see it, would be to remove the money advantage in the early part of the game, while keeping the late game advantage to counter things like the king tiger. By reducing this early eco advantage, the lend lease would still be a big advantage, but wouldn't be out of line with any of the other gernal powers at the 400 EXP point price range. To offset the reduced money income, a oil and ammo bonus could be given at the infantry and mech hq's. This way americans could support more units before having to spend cash on depots. Still a huge advantage for the americans but, would make the other nations more playable for the competitive player.

Aren't you getting tired of going into a 4v4 game and have 6 eisenhowers and 2 british players?

[Valdarez]

I don't know. We must be playing different types of games. There usually aren't 6 Eisenhowers in the game when I play, although there are definitely 2 british units.

I think people just haven't found the advantages of the other countries yet. America can be beaten consistently on 1v1, 2v2, and even on the larger maps, it just requires different strategies.

[Toonboy]

Never said that the americans were unbeatable, just that they had too many advantages when comparing to the other countries. Look at all the top players in the game, everyone from XXX, AD, and a few others, I would be willing to bet that the most dominate gerneral out of the group would be Eisenhower. Sure everyone mixes it up for some variety, but when it comes down to crunch time and its a big game, its Eisenhower. Ask yourelf, why is that??

Its not because of supior units, its because of economic advantage. With Ike, one can get more units on the ground quicker. Which leads to taking more cities early which leads to an economic advantage (which the US already has) which makes comebacks really difficult. When another player drops a vweapon on you you can rebuild faster. In the hands of equal players, on equal maps, Ike will win.*

I used to play mostly as the Germans and I can assure you that I have looked into every possible strat for beating the US. I can't out flood them with troops or halftracks as they make more cash than me. V-weapon doesn't fully destroy Halftracks so I really only forces a retreat. The blitz comes too late in the game, as it only effects armor. So yes it's cheap and killer when you can use it but one can't use it unit 30 mins into the game. (Yes I know about anti tank halftracks but there are only 6-12 on the field of battle and Ike would have been able to use lend lease 2 or 3 times having a $500 advantage by this time.) It can tip the scales for early battles but does not win the war. Manstien can steal $50 every 4 mins but lend lease is every 4, which produces about $150. On top of the fact the HQ's are producing $5 extra per min.... 4mins x $5 x 3 hq's for early game = $60.



*(At the upper levels of competition)

[Valdarez]

I never play Eisenhower in a long game. If I play it, it will be in a single player game. I will only choose Eisenhower in 1v1, under the following situations: someone else chooses Eisenhower, or Mikawa, or someone uses British.

I think it does give an early advantage, but not in the long run. There are other strats for getting more $$$. ;) In addition, if you save your carpet bomb, then you can go in with 2 men, and take out 2 or 3 bases very, very quickly.

I guess I like the fact that some generals are harder than others. Adds to the dynamics. Also, it makes for a better game if you are playing newer players. Let 'em all be Nimitz. :)