Game is completely unbalanced

sorry, it’s a skill issue

I'm trying not to be rude here:

There is effort concentrated into ensuring that the game is balanced and the developers regularly review things and sometimes make adjustments. In fact a few months ago they actually nerfed pan-Asian a bit after it was found it had slightly higher winning statistics than some other doctrines.

freshwatergame wrote:

Just rounded up a match having seen or wait did NOT see any of my battles. And I spent a great deal of time in front of screen trying to capture the moments of my opponent coming out and striking me. Not once did even was given chance to engage a battle. Adding to this frustration was the units (fighters same level) in hand while I maneuvered them became destroyed by a ghost squadron.

Whereas Axis is built along Clausewitzian lines, Pan-Asian is built to be played by the rules of Sun Tzu (to win without fighting, to avoid lengthy sieges, and when fighting, use of earth, &c.). Therefore, it is to the pan-Asian player's advantage not to give chances for a superior foe to engage (Ch1, §§21). He or she also plays by surprise, which this player is obviously doing.

How are you using the allied doctrine? Its buffs favour mechanised armies supported by heavy aerial and artillery support. Exploit the research advantage you have and the speedy upgrades and swift production. Provided one knows what one is doing, it is quite easy to defeat a pan-Asian player as an Allied player, particularly in the late game. But the doctrines must be played as intended in order to work as intended.

freshwatergame wrote:

I researched my my opponents actions in Newspaper. During this three hour siege I lost about 100,000 him about 10,000. I lost roughly about 40 unit. Here is the punch he didn't lose a single unit all the while i couldn't engage in a single battle. He did that on the first siege and on the third and final. I don't recall destroying any of my opponents units not a one.

freshwatergame wrote:

Matching up against an opponent with increased speed to your decreased speed is no contest. Also are the individual units, shamelessly for reason, having an increased hit point advantage from start at same level without Doctrine calling for it. Here is another instance fighter level 6 having a range of 600, speed 996 as another's level 7 range 550 speed 816. The greatest distance visual be 93 vs 72

Pan-Asian interceptors have buffed range, and with 20% more speed, at lvl.7 speed is 1100, so base being 917 the allied ought to be 825 (evidently not kmh-1 for a Ki-100). This is reasonable. 93 is 1.3*72 as well.

srry, but its truly a get good situation.

Doctrines are unbalance but in the end its just player activity who decide the results. Its hard to balance something thats cant be competitive

You did well Crayfish, thanks

with other words you think allied doctrine is too weak or what you wanna say?

I know Doctrine is something we all have to live with. But imagine if a doctrine had artillery with greater range sarcastically speaking...

freshwatergame wrote:

I know Doctrine is something we all have to live with. But imagine if a doctrine had artillery with greater range sarcastically speaking...

Lord Crayfish wrote:

freshwatergame wrote:

I know Doctrine is something we all have to live with. But imagine if a doctrine had artillery with greater range sarcastically speaking...

I feel in your situation you'd hate this, but my fuzzy memory holds that in some early form after pan-Asian was added, their battleships had buffed range (I was fighting Japan as Australia) and higher-level battleships got higher range? This is probably incorrect, but if somebody confirmed this it would be interesting.

On 1.0 every range unit used to increase range as you reach higher levels.

Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

nope, panasian battleship never had such bonus.On 1.0 every range unit used to increase range as you reach higher levels.