Sc2, rocket league and csgo or nearly any other game don’t attempt to claim in any way they are a model/simulation of a historical event. (which is why I also think it’s absurd you can fabricate a war declaration on anyone in 1936, but that’s a different issue) Out performing history as the axis should be “winning” not a wc. Not “everyone has a equal chance of winning”.
The only difference is that the balance fixes come from the developers, so there's no need for the community to try and fix them (if airtoss is imbalanced, there's no need to ban it because the developers will nerf it, given time).Ī ww2 gsg should be balanced on history. That turned out to be too effective, so now battlecruiser's teleportation ability is no longer instant. Last year the meta was for terrans to rush battlecruisers and use them for early harass. Starcraft 2 units get nerfed or buffed regularly and yes, I gather there IS a lot of balance whining from the community(to the point where "balance whine" has practically gotten lexicalized). You don't play a lot of video games, do you? Or if you do, you don't pay any attention to their communities. And if you look at any D&D or Pathfinder community, you'll find countless people complaining that this or that thing is over/underpowered and needs to be banned or fixed with houserules. Back in the day there were loads of people complain about Path of Exile meta of picking every health boost you could get when choosing perks, and ignoring everything else. Oh, and just last week (or maybe the week before that) there was an AoE IV tournament (a proper one, with actual prices and high-level players competing for them) where the french were banned for - you guess it - balance reasons.Īnd don't think this phenomenom is limited to just multiplayer games with competitive scene. The only difference is that the balance fixes come from the developers, so there's no need for the community to try and fix them (if airtoss is imbalanced, there's no need to ban it because the developers will nerf it, given time).
I’m aware many don’t want a purely realistic balance to the game, but it’s pretty absurd, IMO, to want a gsg about ww2 to have 50/50 odds of the axis winning-especially if the war becomes drawn out.Ĭlick to expand.You don't play a lot of video games, do you? Or if you do, you don't pay any attention to their communities.
War isn’t balanced, and certainly the strategic situation of the axis and allies wasn’t balanced in ww2. It may potentially be devestating in game because it’s devastating irl. Scorched earth has been used to retard the advance of enemies-since like forever, I can come up with two examples for Russia itself and numerous from antiquity. The uboat campaign is deadly to Britain because it nearly knocked them out of the war and the cost to combat it was orders of magnitude more expensive to counter it than it cost to produce the uboats. Strategic bombing is brutal.because *it was brutal*. The only advantage the axis had was they decided when the war started and the ability to prepare en mass for said conflict. One side had a severe disadvantage in industry and recruitable manpower, resources, and there were disparities in naval power and logistical dissimilarities. Click to expand.You mean like the AWP and AK?