Big World v3 issues with balancing - unbalanced
I have been playing triple a and axis and allies for years.
I admit that the original Big World map and v2 was not hard to beat computer opponents playing any of the allies with the exception of China (in which case the game was a toss-up). Computer vs. computer tests showed the allies to have a considerable advantage (not a guaranteed win by the allies, but much more than 50% win rate).
I recently downloaded the v3 map and the balance is worse than it ever was, but now in favor of axis players.
I am running computer on computer simulations right now. So far, the first two v3 games with preset rules have been routs: axis wins within 20 turns.
Has anyone else had issues similar to mine with regards to v3? Is v3 the go to version in the games lobby / internet multiplayer gameplay?
Just curious about other people's experiences with this map..
Bigworld 1942 v3 is very balanced imo. The AI is the problem, if axis keeps winning, its probably because AI is terrible with naval and logistics just to name a couple.
Big World 1942 v3 is unbalance and favour of allies.
If you have 2 advanced yet equal players, then I agree allies have a slight edge. But mainly because the allies have the clock working in their favor. In a typical game of BW v3 the axis is racing the clock to crush Russia or to take certain objectives before USA can deploy forces in a meaningful way. Once USA forces are deployed in the chosen theatre, the allies have the tendency to completely stop axis advances and begin to drive them back in that theatre. Thus reducing pressure on Russia and elsewhere. This is actually true in most WW2 maps, as it should be because it is historically accurate. So in short axis has an early game advantage and this advantage is reduced each turn as USA effectively deploys more into Pacific or Atlantic theatres. However the axis still has a reasonably fair chance to negate this clock advantage if they move swiftly and decisively. In my opinion, this asymmetry makes the game more interesting. Anyways, if it was perfectly balanced and symmetrical for both sides, the game dynamics would suffer. Overall strategies and game replayability would most likely be limited because no matter which side you play, game would tend to bog down. Due to giant stacks sitting in entrenched defensive positions because each side can match and or counter the others move with relative ease.