Balance Ideas

[battlevonwar]

A: Limit Air attacks .... Goal: Avoid Death Air stacks of 15-25 Strikes ... Highly effective and when used properly nearly unstoppable. You can reduce a 25 strength Armor to a 3-4 Strength one. That much of a smack isn't necessary.

B: No Armor Attacks on Beach-heads. Goal: An Armor can hit a beach even early in the game with 20plus Strength Points while no other unit in game barring maybe a Mech can come remotely close. The Attack/Defense value is way too high so getting rid of the armor can only be done by a ton of air or a ton of multiple attacks. This a necessary alteration?

C: Rifle Corps, change something about them. Goal: Get rid of Cavalry and Mnt. Infantry as the early front line cannon fodder for the USSR.


Thoughts?

This is after near 15 Games of experience. . .

[FrankGallagher]

I agree about keeping armor from invading, on historical grounds. Yes, over the course of 2 weeks perhaps you could land an effective armor force. But the initial battle on the beach and the first counter attack (if done asap) would be fundamentally an infantry vs. infantry battle, and that's what the game should model.

[PanzerMike]

Isn't A more or less no longer an issue in the latest beta. No more pummeling of an enemy unit if there is no adjacent friendly unit. Also diminishing returns for every air attack and no effectiveness lower than 50%.

[AlvaroSousa]

Invading Armor is fine for the timescale. Armor is mostly infantry anyways. If the armor can't break out realize it can get pummeled by air.

Rifle Corps and more - This is just the historical build for them. Now reworking on the mountain unit strategy I have to look at. I am considering a viable alternative.

Air unit I set something up. Now I am thinking if it is the right thing to do. Currently I have it that only the 1st air unit has the capability to damage a land unit. You still can have many attacks but you can't strat bomb units on the front line at will. It's more effective than strat bombing with the cost of an armor being ~17 production per hit in 1943. Compared to strat bombing which might hit 4 production and damage stockpile.

Maybe I will just lower the chance to damage land in the scenarios to very low. It's currently 16% then an armor check is made.

[FrankGallagher]

Alvaro, regarding armor invading. The way the game works now it's like the invader lands an armor corps on the beach the first day. There's no chance for the defender to repel or counter attack the invaders while they still are primarily an infantry force. In that sense, it makes invasions much easier than they were historically. Regardless of the time scale, the *effect* is ahistorical.

[AlvaroSousa]

Originally there was no armor allowed. But it proved a problem for invasions.

[Michael T]

I don't think anyone wants armor landings totally banned. But a sensible date from which it is possible would be good. I say again, tie armor invasion possibility to warship tech. Make it not possible till 42 tech level. Honestly it's a joke and the game is not a serious representation allowing Pz Corp to invade 39-41. Why the designer wants to allow such an unrealistic capability I don't know.

[battlevonwar]

These are some good ideas that have been implemented and will allow for longer games I think and more complex strategies. Air was getting away with too much with little penalty.

I know how complex controlling Armor and what they can do is. They are pretty unstoppable ... used 2 to invade Greece and it's all I needed!(perhaps if they took some effectiveness loss on landing?) Why use anything else, they were ensured with a Division to take the objective vs an all out assault. You could argue use a Navy to stop it but that's not necessarily viable if air is in place. This can be done anywhere on the map.

[ago1000]

My two cents:
1) Increase interception radius of naval units to one OP (12 hexes) . Furthermore, surface fleets must close the gap, that is they can move 12 hexes towards target and would have to conduct surface attacks as before (they don't stay in the same spot), CV fleets can move towards their target and still be away the 5 or 6 hexes, can't remember what the distance is now.
2) Before invasions can occur, an area must have air superiority. This would add a layer to the game and you would have to have separate regions on the map. You will still have the air counters you have now but you would also add a mechanism similar to HOI4 where you purchase air units and place them in an area for air superiority. Those air units would be purchased like supply trucks. (Using the same regions, you can do the same with fleets and set up patrol areas and you would need command of the sea before any invasions occur)

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: ago1000

My two cents:
1) Increase interception radius of naval units to one OP (12 hexes) . Furthermore, surface fleets must close the gap, that is they can move 12 hexes towards target and would have to conduct surface attacks as before (they don't stay in the same spot), CV fleets can move towards their target and still be away the 5 or 6 hexes, can't remember what the distance is now.
2) Before invasions can occur, an area must have air superiority. This would add a layer to the game and you would have to have separate regions on the map. You will still have the air counters you have now but you would also add a mechanism similar to HOI4 where you purchase air units and place them in an area for air superiority. Those air units would be purchased like supply trucks. (Using the same regions, you can do the same with fleets and set up patrol areas and you would need command of the sea before any invasions occur)

There are very similar to some of the first ideas I tried when I developed the naval system. I will go down the list.

#1 A larger interception range invites baiting without risk. You see some fleet patrolling and you put your moving large fleet at 12 hexes away and let them intercept. Blam you smash the fleet without fear from their air force. Also 12 hexes is a radius of 400 miles and a diameter of 800 miles. It's quite a large area. This is why I made it 5 hexes. So the control is in the patrolling players hands. He can patrol and place air units to intercept. Remember I also now made each unit intercept twice and both naval and air together. As the Allies you should be patrolling with ships. You have the oil for it. If you add closing the game, which I did try, again it means fleets will be baited. The current system uses a combination of hex movement and sea area in terms of radius of interception.

#2 This is built into the system. I challenge you to try and invade the UK in the 1943 scenario vs any player of equal skill. I have no problem defending England vs invasion. It takes some work and patience. You also now have time as the Germans start with only 10 landing craft. Not enough to take a port. The English have garrisons.

[ago1000]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

ORIGINAL: ago1000

My two cents:
1) Increase interception radius of naval units to one OP (12 hexes) . Furthermore, surface fleets must close the gap, that is they can move 12 hexes towards target and would have to conduct surface attacks as before (they don't stay in the same spot), CV fleets can move towards their target and still be away the 5 or 6 hexes, can't remember what the distance is now.
2) Before invasions can occur, an area must have air superiority. This would add a layer to the game and you would have to have separate regions on the map. You will still have the air counters you have now but you would also add a mechanism similar to HOI4 where you purchase air units and place them in an area for air superiority. Those air units would be purchased like supply trucks. (Using the same regions, you can do the same with fleets and set up patrol areas and you would need command of the sea before any invasions occur)

There are very similar to some of the first ideas I tried when I developed the naval system. I will go down the list.

#1 A larger interception range invites baiting without risk. You see some fleet patrolling and you put your moving large fleet at 12 hexes away and let them intercept. Blam you smash the fleet without fear from their air force. Also 12 hexes is a radius of 400 miles and a diameter of 800 miles. It's quite a large area. This is why I made it 5 hexes. So the control is in the patrolling players hands. He can patrol and place air units to intercept. Remember I also now made each unit intercept twice and both naval and air together. As the Allies you should be patrolling with ships. You have the oil for it. If you add closing the game, which I did try, again it means fleets will be baited. The current system uses a combination of hex movement and sea area in terms of radius of interception.

#2 This is built into the system. I challenge you to try and invade the UK in the 1943 scenario vs any player of equal skill. I have no problem defending England vs invasion. It takes some work and patience. You also now have time as the Germans start with only 10 landing craft. Not enough to take a port. The English have garrisons.

Hi Alvaro:
Thanks for the response, these are just thoughts. By the way, this is your game, I do not expect these changes in any way and I respect the time you are putting into developing the game. I didn't have time this morning to complete my thoughts, so I added one more.

#1. Current system. Totally agree. That because they keep their OP points so they can move away on their turn. Have them close the gap and lose their OP points in doing so. Rational: they did perform three mission, movement and 2 x attack that turn (2 OP points gone for next turn.). Current system, patrol in area (usually in range of enemy air ), interception is free OP to a max of two, keep your two OP points during your turn and fleet position doesn't move when interception occurs (5 radius)(Note: Fleet has 5 OP in this case per turn). If you are required to move, close the gap and lose next turns OP points then your fleets are in the same positions you are talking about in your current system now. Surface fleets would be next to enemy fleet and CV would be 5 hexes way from enemy fleets, they may be healthy when they counter the invasion but that means that enemy air units would be able to counter strike next turn. Furthermore, their recon level of the intercepting force would be higher. In your current system, the fleets would need to move into position and anticipate an attack. That's when they can be attacked with enemy air multiple times. In this case, your hoping that your recon level is so low that the enemy doesn't get a hit on your fleets. I've learned, hope is not a strategy. Hence why typically its the air units that will respond to the early years invasions. The current strategy for fleets is to block other invasion routes or try to direct an invasion to a particular area. It would be nice if those units could also participate in countering the invasion, they are on patrol.

#2. I play HOTSEAT against myself. I think we are two equally matched opponents. I also know exactly where and when the invasion will take place. I would never invade England in 1943, I'm too involved in Russia at that point in time. The simple strategy is wipe out Poland fastest, then France fast and hit Russia ASAP, while they are converting their troops. I'm not trying to stir the pot here but I'd like to share my thoughts. I'm not sure if air superiority is a calculation, an abstraction of sorts but I would like to illustrate what I mean with a cheezy example if I may. (Remember, you asked for cheezy strategies in an alternate post-here is one with the new mechanics)

In early game, England has two tac bombers in 1939, maybe 3 if they build one more. Take two armies and divide them into 3 divisions each. Transport them close to the intercepting tac bombers. They get two shots each (automatic). They destroy the INF (360PP lost but NO landing ships lost only transport ships.--> Maybe they should lose a certain percent of landing craft.). Then board the armor and inf you want to invade and the location and hit the beaches. No interceptions occur because AIR has used their two OPs. (Even if there is a fleet in range, it would have used up it's two OP points with the air.) This is game mechanics as of .06U4. Note: Game Balance required limiting the number of at start transports Germany gets to make SeaLion more difficult maybe impossible. This didn't effect the new mechanics. [Side bar: Axis strategy changes if Sealion is impossible. Why wait around after France falls? ] My point is this, I will never be able to stop those tac bombers no matter how much I hammer them with my air units in previous turns. (Yes, I know Germany never won the Battle of Britian). They still will come out and sink my transports over 95% of the time. In fact, the only game mechanics I have is to make sure I mask there profile with other fleets and yet those pilots still know to hit those transports most of the time. My air force can outnumber the UK tac bombers 50:1 with intercepts and the response is the same. Only one of my interceptors will respond (maybe-50% of the time) to the intercepting tac bomber and that tac bomber has a high percentage of still sinking my transport. So I'm at a loss at what air superiority is in terms of game mechanics hence why I suggested the region idea.

#3. Addition: Basic Port Supply - At the moment basic port supply provides the minimum supply level (3) to units if you go over port capacity. Some actually get full supply and it will increase efficiency by 1% - 5% and those with basic port supply increase efficiency by 1% minimum. All get supply level 3. You should add additional effects on units based on the number of strength points the port can actually supply. For example, if port supply is 80 and I have double (6 units x 30 size INF) the amount of units in the area then maybe efficiency should not increase at all for any unit. If I have three times the troops, then all troops should start losing efficiency. Just a thought. You can select the % based on game balance. This mimics the idea that they are getting the basic minimum up to double capacity, but anything beyond that then they are not getting even that. Going to add to this also, if they are getting the minimum supply, and their supply level in a prior turn was diminished for some reason (ie. out of supply at any point in turn), then their supply level should remain the same, not increase to 3 automatically. The rational for this one is that 3 seems to indicate a stockpile of sorts, 3 turns before real bad things begin to happen when troops are out of supply. If troops are rationing their supplies then there should not be an increase in their stockpile.

Remember, these are just my thoughts.

[AlbertN]

Ago - you do not need divisions for that.
You can use your DDs to soak bombers / air interceptions.

[ago1000]

Thanks Cohen_Slith
I updated my response to better explain my meaning on air superiority.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I don't think anyone wants armor landings totally banned. But a sensible date from which it is possible would be good. I say again, tie armor invasion possibility to warship tech. Make it not possible till 42 tech level. Honestly it's a joke and the game is not a serious representation allowing Pz Corp to invade 39-41. Why the designer wants to allow such an unrealistic capability I don't know.

A comment about this. In lieu of warship tech, maybe reconsider the landing craft costs again. Maybe change armor to require triple landing craft costs during 39-41? Make it more difficult but not impossible. Remember also Germany still fielded a lot of small Pz-I and Pz-II tanks and the Pz-III was only 23 tons. So some could have been landed early.

ORIGINAL: ago1000
2) Before invasions can occur, an area must have air superiority.

My concern here would be the Torch landings in Morocco and Algeria. A gamey Axis strategy would be to place a couple of air units to screw up Allied landings. Gibraltar can only do so much, so Allied player may need carriers, and so on. Keep it simple.