Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Balance Thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Balance Thread Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 12:45:24 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1001
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
My last 5-6 games has lead me to believe that the Axis need a nerf as do the Allies.

If one wants to spend an hour digging through my AARs with Sveint, MagicMissile or FlaviusX, or ask Silly Flower or Hadros in my most recent games ... I think they would all agree on some level.

1. The Germans should not be able to DOW the Soviets till some point in May of '41. It is the easiest solution I can dream up cause once you wait till about May it's hard to press too deep too soon, unless someone has a more eloquent solution? I doubt there is one!

2. The Western Allies are just nasty Strong in 1943! I mean, the Axis can be pretty strong given that they manage to take Gibraltar but how to balance this is not in my knowledge base so I leave this to more Evolved Allied Players to Chime in on. Perhaps 6 U-boats in the Build by 1941? Free(!) ??? Another Idea Men???

Axis cannot take the MidEast if the Axis drop a Corp in Syria and properly garrison Egypt but this stretches the UK thin as she should be. Properly played.


I am all eyes/ears?
Post #: 1
RE: Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 1:11:34 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7591
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The new BoA plus the increased costs for amphibs, go a long ways towards slowing down the Western Allies.

I do think the Germans have to aim to build up to at least 9 u boats total now. This is worth it because the allies are going to have to spend a lot more than the costs of building 6 uboats and repairing to deal with this.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 2
RE: Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 1:21:47 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7591
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
So far as Barbarossa goes, I'd also throw in something about oil. Oil just doesn't seem to be a constraint for the Axis. They can easily run around with 14+ mobile corps in Russia and not even sweat it.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 3
RE: Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 2:02:57 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7472
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
Oil hasn't changed, play styles have. It just means you know how to adapt. Every game I play I have had to watch my oil carefully. I can't just wille-nilly throw out fleets all the time.

Then there is strategic bombing.

< Message edited by AlvaroSousa -- 12/23/2020 2:03:12 PM >


_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 4
RE: Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 2:05:47 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1001
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
14 Tanks and Mechs with 8-10 Fighters/Tacs is insane. Though they cannot defeat the Soviet Union in a June Invasion 41? Nope, they should run out of steam, get caught up in Frost and then face a Western Force of as many Tanks and Mechs in 1942-43. Axis likely won't build anymore either...they cannot afford it... I bunt heads with the Russian Armies by the end of '41(where she can finally start to defend)

Axis oil is tricky, I don't think the Dev can measure it perfectly without breaking something...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

So far as Barbarossa goes, I'd also throw in something about oil. Oil just doesn't seem to be a constraint for the Axis. They can easily run around with 14+ mobile corps in Russia and not even sweat it.



< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 12/23/2020 2:06:46 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 5
RE: Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 2:44:15 PM   
Marco70

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/4/2019
From: Germany
Status: offline
For me, there are some issues for changing the balance:

1) The most important one, i would forbid a german DOW to the soviets before the second turn of may 41.

2) The italians are too weak. They mobilized 9 million soldiers in the war compared to the english's 5 million. They should have more troops at their disposal or be able to produce more, so that an invasion in 42 in the mediterranean would not be possible.

3) The allied armaments industry did not start up noticeably until 1943 and was at full speed in 1944/45. I would therefore turn to the production factor, england should have less than 158 at the start and only increase noticeably from 43.

4) Maybe give the germans a free strategic bomber in 40 that bombs away some industrial points.

5) Furthermore, it should be possible to station only german or italian troops in conquered areas and not romanians, hungarians and bulgarians. This would possibly also make a russian campaign more difficult.

Oil was plentiful until before 1944, when the americans bombed the german synthetic oil industry and razed it to the ground. Before that, germany steadily increased its production. They captured oil production in france, norway and poland and together with the very important romanian oil fields, they almost had enough.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 6
RE: Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 9:19:02 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 428
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marco70

For me, there are some issues for changing the balance:

1) The most important one, i would forbid a german DOW to the soviets before the second turn of may 41.

2) The italians are too weak. They mobilized 9 million soldiers in the war compared to the english's 5 million. They should have more troops at their disposal or be able to produce more, so that an invasion in 42 in the mediterranean would not be possible.

3) The allied armaments industry did not start up noticeably until 1943 and was at full speed in 1944/45. I would therefore turn to the production factor, england should have less than 158 at the start and only increase noticeably from 43.

4) Maybe give the germans a free strategic bomber in 40 that bombs away some industrial points.

5) Furthermore, it should be possible to station only german or italian troops in conquered areas and not romanians, hungarians and bulgarians. This would possibly also make a russian campaign more difficult.

Oil was plentiful until before 1944, when the americans bombed the german synthetic oil industry and razed it to the ground. Before that, germany steadily increased its production. They captured oil production in france, norway and poland and together with the very important Romanian oil fields, they almost had enough.



Your #5 suggestion is a good one. The Germans simply could not deploy minor axis forces as if they were part of the Wehrmacht. Romanians were only interested in committing their forces in Russia and specifically to recover Besserabia and support the German advance into the Ukraine and the Donets region. The Bulgarians kept their army at home and the Finns had a firm stance not to advance deep into Russia or attack Leningrad.

The Germans never had plentiful oil, they were suffering from oil shortages even in 1941 during operation Barbarossa. This is why Hitler insisted that the 1942 German offensive be directed towards the capture of the Caucuses oil fields.

< Message edited by Lascar -- 12/23/2020 9:21:29 PM >

(in reply to Marco70)
Post #: 7
RE: Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 9:53:59 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1001
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Lascar, trying to find balance though not really interested in history...Soviets didn't have a great command structure after the invasion of '41 until late '42...i.e. half sized divisons(they didn't have the leaders for such a large army)

We need to make the game we have easily and thoroughly even on both sides with skill levels even. We got to work with what we have as huge variation and desire of history is not going to make players able to fight more evenly on both sides.

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 8
RE: Balance Thread - 12/23/2020 11:38:26 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 428
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Lascar, trying to find balance though not really interested in history...Soviets didn't have a great command structure after the invasion of '41 until late '42...i.e. half sized divisons(they didn't have the leaders for such a large army)

We need to make the game we have easily and thoroughly even on both sides with skill levels even. We got to work with what we have as huge variation and desire of history is not going to make players able to fight more evenly on both sides.

Well, this is a historical wargame and not a abstract sandbox game with a military theme. Balance and historicity need not be mutually exclusive.

For the sake of balance it could be argued that the Allies and Soviets should be able to deploy their respective forces within each others territories e.g. Americans to Russia and Red Army units to the Middle East ect.
Just as the Germans are allowed to freely deploy minor axis armies.

The lines are drawn somewhere, the dispute is not over whether their should be lines but where they should be drawn. A wargame is somewhere between a perfectly balance game (chess) and a military simulation used by war colleges. It should enjoyable and reasonably balanced, but not at the expense of diminishing the feeling of immersion that comes with a historically faithful presentation of the historical reality that the game is modeling.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 9
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 12:21:50 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1001
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Lascar,

it is an abstract game with grand strategy the primary focus. I agree that having 3 Bulgarian Corps fighting against their Allies in Russia would be completely ahistorical is bad for immersion. We can ask that gets patched after we handle some more pressing issues.

It would be hard for the Allies to survive 1941 when historically they could of easily done this. . . If you know how to play the game well! It is hard for the Axis to survive 1943 if the Allies know what they're doing and the Axis don't attack the Russians in Spring. These are huge imbalances.

Any approach to repair this would be nice. The tons of details of history would be nice to add as we go but I think Warplan 2 may be required? Plus 10 or 15 more patches which it appears Alvaro will and has done. Look at Greece, Battle of the Atlantic, US reaction to invasion of Western Territories, Spain, etc... This a ton of more detail than most games of this scale?

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 10
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 2:16:08 AM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7472
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
So the two issues are the Western Allies are too strong in 1943
And the Soviets too weak in 1941 vs an early Barbarossa. Is this correct?

I have some ideas.

_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 11
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 7:12:35 AM   
Lascar


Posts: 428
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Lascar,

it is an abstract game with grand strategy the primary focus. I agree that having 3 Bulgarian Corps fighting against their Allies in Russia would be completely ahistorical is bad for immersion. We can ask that gets patched after we handle some more pressing issues.

It would be hard for the Allies to survive 1941 when historically they could of easily done this. . . If you know how to play the game well! It is hard for the Axis to survive 1943 if the Allies know what they're doing and the Axis don't attack the Russians in Spring. These are huge imbalances.

Any approach to repair this would be nice. The tons of details of history would be nice to add as we go but I think Warplan 2 may be required? Plus 10 or 15 more patches which it appears Alvaro will and has done. Look at Greece, Battle of the Atlantic, US reaction to invasion of Western Territories, Spain, etc... This a ton of more detail than most games of this scale?

There is no doubt that Alvaro is fully engaged with the player community, considers their feedback and he continues to make a solid game design progressively better. That is why I find WarPlan one of the most compelling games that I have ever played. Suggestions for some tweaks towards some aspects of historical accuracy, for a fuller immersive experience, is just polish on a solid game design.

< Message edited by Lascar -- 12/24/2020 7:13:30 AM >

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 12
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 9:55:41 AM   
Meteor2


Posts: 395
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
Lascar, that’s right.
A developer, who is engaged in an outstanding degree and a community full of ideas and suggestions, make this
game shine. I have nearly no example in mind with this involvement (maybe WitX games) and fast dev reaction.
So I have high hopes for the Pacific version.

A merry Christmas time for all of you!

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 13
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 10:21:07 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3238
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline
As I've written before, what is needed for balance with 2 equal players is a chimera because it will differ depending on their skill levels. This is because they will play very differently. I expect that more experienced players, especially axis, play a lot more aggressively.

1 of the interesting features of this game is that it is that it is a game set in WWII (as Alvaro has always said) and not a simulation in the way that most other games try to be. In some ways, this can make the game more 'realistic. For example,many/most the German units in Normandy in '44 often had very few Germans (in the sense of coming from areas where G manpower comes from in game) and many of the 'true' Germans were combat-fit. Only the 352d G div at Omaha, a few paras, and the weak 21st Pz were much good, so having the west wall occupied by poor quality axis allies is in a strange way more 'realistic'.

Looking at some other issues:

1.Barbarossa started later than planned because of the delays cause by fighting in the Balkans. Without that, Barbarossa in May was perfectly feasible.

2. the russian forces were much bigger in '41 than in-game, and they did put a lot of hurt on the axis even though their losses were horrendous. The 1st winter O ended up with both sides very badly weakened, though the axis got the worst of it. WP is the only game I know in which this doesn't happen.

3. The UK is much stronger in '42 in the game because they won't/shouldn't have the losses sustained in real life, and their tanks and tank tactics aren't totally cr#p: unless the allied player failed to invest in tank tech.

4.German tech investment during the war was shambolic. For example, their fighters just got heavier rather than having any new designs, and I believe even the basic design of the jet engine was pre-war. Their logistics arrangements were also pretty poor - and logistics is key.

5 The weather in European Russia and Ukraine in this game is exactly the same as the weather in England which is absurd. Not nearly so bad in UK, but far worse in Russia. For example, you can through a Russian winter without any rasputitsa or blizzard. Neither one fails to appear.

I could go on, but I hope that my point is made. So what is/are the answer(s)? One might be to have the weather in Russia resemble the real thing and to give the Siberians an automatic winter boost (I can't recall what it's called) to allow a proper winter O.

Another change might be to reduce allied tech points early on and to boost them up as the war goes on. German tech points should reduce to reflect the complete shambles of their research. Alternatively alter the max points per tech level in a similar way.

Anyway, these are just some early thoughts that avoid adding in more 'historical' staight-jackets.





< Message edited by sillyflower -- 12/24/2020 12:06:16 PM >


_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 14
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 1:06:05 PM   
Meteor2


Posts: 395
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
Good points.
Maybe point 4 is not the point I would make.
A lot of development, but also to much diverse development and no focus on transfer into
useable technology.
Me 262, type XXI, V1 and V2, Fritz X (e.g. were far ahead of its time, but had no real impact).

I would add, that oil limitations are not strict enough. Even in summer/autum 41, the mech. Korps
had halts due to low reserves.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 15
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 1:14:06 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1081
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
To me part of "balance" is the victory conditions too.

For example:

* If the Axis survive past 6/15/45 - it is a victory for the Axis regardless of VPs. The level of Victory is dependent on on VP differential
* If the Axis surrender before 4/1/45 - it is a victory for the Allies regardless of VPs. The level of Victory is dependent on on VP differential
* If the surrender occurs within the historical window (4/1-6/15), winner is determined by VP

A minor Axis victory should include surviving 6 weeks (or some time period) past the historical surrender


_____________________________


(in reply to Meteor2)
Post #: 16
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 1:36:27 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 3665
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Lascar, that’s right.
A developer, who is engaged in an outstanding degree and a community full of ideas and suggestions, make this
game shine. I have nearly no example in mind with this involvement (maybe WitX games) and fast dev reaction.
So I have high hopes for the Pacific version.

A merry Christmas time for all of you!


+1 and Merry Christmas

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to Meteor2)
Post #: 17
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 1:51:26 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7472
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
I will remind everyone this is a simulation based on history not a historical simulation. A game this complex with a new way to do things takes time to get correct. Everything we do here impacts WP2 because it will be based on the WP1 system.

I will run down my ideas. Listening to everyone and haven't decided how to implement them yet.

BALANCE IDEAS
#1 Adding river lines to keep a steady pace of the game in Russia. There is a point where the Germans start blowing out on the map due to lack of defensive positions.
#2 Adding Terrain in some areas in Russia.
#3 Increasing 1939 start Russian units +5% experience and lowering default 5% experience. The forming units have 35% experience. The reason for this is because playing for a 1942 Barbarossa is really hard and unwinnable for the Axis. They are dead in 1944. A 1942 Barbarossa for the point of simply pushing back and winning on VPs isn't unreasonable.
#4 Forcing the USA to build more logistical type resources like shipyards and transports. I have to do some research here why the USA didn't land in June in North Africa for example.
#5 France seems fair
#6 BoA seems about right now.

I do want to make this game balanced. Commander Europe at War went through some incredibly transitions over the years. I bought it the 1st time it game out. It was one of the games I researched and probably the sole reason I have beaches :) I could stop Sealion by jamming the coast with garrisons.

Some of the ideas posted by players I simply can't do with the current engine without a major rewrite. It is better and easier to evaluate them in better code with WP2. I always have to consider my time as well. Some ideas are a lot more complicated to incorporate and could take 3 months to code and 3 months to test.

The VP system will remain the same. It rewards aggression with a balance of knowing when to pull back and survive for the Axis. For the Allies it is understanding you need to make an effort to take somethings and strategize on what to do. It doesn't reward Sitzkrieg which is a boooooring strategy WiF players use to win a game. Someone did suggest I have an auto-win situation for the Axis. Like if they take a serious of objectives like London, Moscow, Cairo, etc since the Axis literally have to survive the war. I am thinking about it.

Devs won't say this, none I know of, but I will. There are some elements of games that players think they want but they don't really want. For example a Euro-sized Pacific map. I have been asked this a few times. But that map is simply too enormous to scale and makes the game unplayable or micromanaging convoys.

And thank you very much for the kind words. IMO as a developer you should be involved in the forums highly. From my experience it takes years to develop an engine. 6,000 man hours in my case (3 years full time work spread over 5 years without pay). Then you reuse the elements of that engine to create more games more quickly catching up the time lost and increasing your hourly pay. WarPlan Pacific will take 1/10th the time. But you must be involved with the community and use their input to make better games. You build a quality game out of love then the money will follow. I know I will never be rich making games but I do have enjoy it and it makes enough to pay the bills + retirement. In the long run it will pay better than what I used to do.

I also enjoy the social interaction. This social engagement is productive and positive. I look forward to it each day to hear what everyone has to say. Without your participation this game would not have a very positive rating on Steam. I spend about 1-2 hours a day on the forums. I take breaks from coding to see what people are posting.

The changes I am thinking of are organic to the game without changing mechanisms. Think of them like a resistor with electricity to control the flow.

_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 18
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 2:40:45 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1001
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
SillyFlower,

the Russians had a smaller army on the Eastern Front at the beginning of Barbarossa. I was reviewing some detail and they had many obsolete tanks without fuel or logistics. Many biplanes... A small fraction of their armor was medium armor but from what I've been reading and watching on more in depth history that until December '41 the Axis had a great number of actual boots on the ground. Once Mobilized the Russians were defeating the Axis toe to toe.

Mud and Winter were always blamed but once on parity with the Axis in numbers the Russians defeated them. Not to say that it didn't help. Oil was running out ...

Love some of your other points by the way.


(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 19
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 2:44:14 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3238
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa



BALANCE IDEAS

#3 Increasing 1939 start Russian units +5% experience and lowering default 5% experience.


I'm a simple soul and have no idea what this means


I do like the idea of a '42 Barbarossa being a viable option though. Adds a bit of variety.

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 20
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 2:48:13 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1001
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Alvaro,

the ideas don't sound bad at all. There are portions of the map that are a blowout for the Russians and moderating the USA to have to build up for war would not be a bad idea.

Also giving the Russians bonuses enough to be able to hold her Real Estate long enough to handle early invasions.

There is a lot to be sad for small alterations. . . Even lowering the Axis Oil down to a point where Flaviusx mentions she has to manage it better. She was constantly running on fumes at a certain point. This would dent the strategic variant in her to do new things but maybe more accurate? Getting the perfect balance was done in CEAW but there was a lot of strategies involving(I faced one fellow considered #1 in the game) take up a bunch of land and just let the Allies bang up against immobile Axis Units till 1945. So there is always a way to exploit the game. Just funner to make it more difficult ... keep it evolving, keeps people playing and makes it fun plus CEAW never created a 2nd version, which is a shame. We would love to see a 2nd version of this and every ounce of time into it will go into that ... Love the game by the way. Shelved SC3 and other games for this one!

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 12/24/2020 2:49:18 PM >

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 21
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 3:12:46 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 1032
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
I haven't really seen that much imbalance (I can lose with either side).

I just feel that certain aspects are over emphasized in the game like:

Battle of the Atlantic - while it was critical it tends to dominated the UK resources because Escorts and Air power are so ineffective against U-Boats.

US production especially in ships seems off. The US was the major supplier of merchant ships (2710 Liberty ships during war of which 2400 made it to the end of the war). In the game they barely have enough shipyard production to make the landing craft they need.

I may not understand the dynamics of Strategic Air war but I have never had enough resources after sinking everything the UK has into Merchants and Escorts to even attempt mounting a Strategic Bombing campaign. Likewise, the US doesn't have enough logistics or production to commit to a strategic air campaign. Some of this may have to do with the difficulty of telling if it is delivering any results in time to make any difference.

In the Eastern front I get the feeling the Russians can't produce enough bodies to throw in front of the Panzers as they actually did. They have trouble producing enough units to cover the long front they have.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 22
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 3:23:03 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 428
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline
quote:

#4 Forcing the USA to build more logistical type resources like shipyards and transports. I have to do some research here why the USA didn't land in June in North Africa for example.


Alvaro, I was wondering why the Soviet logistics base is almost twice as much the the US logistics capacity. It that because what is available to the US in WarPlan is discounted from the portion of the American war economy that is devoted to the war against Japan?

Also, should the remarkable achievement of rapid American merchant ship construction(Liberty ships)be reflected in a faster completion time for American built merchant ships compared to those of other countries?

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 23
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 4:00:15 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3238
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa


#4 Forcing the USA to build more logistical type resources like shipyards and transports. I have to do some research here why the USA didn't land in June in North Africa for example.



The short answer is because they didn't want to, and the long answer isn't very different.

The 'Germans 1st' strategy was decided 5 days after Pearl Harbour during the ARCADIA conference. Next was the decision to go with Operation BOLERO which was to build up US forces in the UK.

At the end of March '42 Eisenhower proposed ROUNDUP which was to invade northern France with 48 divs. This obviously required BOLERO to be to happen quickly. In addition, SLEDGEHAMMER was developed - a plan to invade France in '42 if that was needed to keep the Russians in the war. It was recognised that the operation was bound to fail, and was only agreed to reluctantly for that reason.

We (the British) in particular realised that SLEDGEHAMMER would be pointless and on May 28 Churchill resurrected his earlier plan to invade N. Africa (GYMNAST) that the Americans had turned down during ARCADIA, although the top military men in both countries were still against invading N. Africa or Norway, but still favoured BOLERO.

GYMNAST was only agreed in principle on 28 August and was renamed TORCH.This was going to be a huge undertaking requiring massive amounts of planning. It then happened on 8 November (cf planning D Day took over a year). It is often forgotten that most of the ships and men were supplied by the British, including Empire troops.Troops coming direct from the USA only landed on the west of Africa, and only troops from the UK landed on the north coast. to give an idea of the complexity, the N. Africa landings needed 4 assault convoys carrying 38,500 British and US troops + equipment and supplies (200 ships including escorts) 6 advance convoys with escorts (over 100 ships) and another 176 in purely naval forces. Working out and and writing the naval orders took 4 days of near-continuous dictation to 2 teams of stenographers.

This is an aspect of strategy that we gamers happily ignore. TORCH was planned and implemented very quickly and there was no delay due to lack of US shipping.US troops and ships were in a minority in Torch, and even D-Day featured more British ships and men than the Americans contributed, though that changed of course.

I should perhaps add that there were also US troops in 8th Army and quite a lot of US airforce squadrons in the middle east too, which I didn't know until I read James Holland's excellent book 'Together we Stand' from which I've taken the timeline and force levels above.







_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 24
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 4:14:24 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7591
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Alvaro, here's some items on my Soviet wish list:

1. Allow them to build small rifle armies. Right now the Soviets can only build full size ones, which effectively limits them to 1 unit per turn, and an expensive one at that. Everybody else can build single infantry divisions and corps, the Soviets don't get this option.

2. Give them the ability to merge corps into armies after the war starts. I.e., rifle corps become functionally equivalent to small armies. Because right now the Soviet is forced to disband them and feed them into production and this is incredibly inefficient. You lose half your production this way. Not to mention the time delay. The Soviet Union is not exactly swimming in production. This is in fact what they did in real life after abolishing the corps organization.

3. Reserve armies should enter the game at the current tech. A 39 assault army with 30% experience is really quite helpless in the open. The panzers just chew them up. I also wish they came in as AT rather than assault tech.




< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 12/24/2020 4:18:55 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 25
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 4:14:25 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3238
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

SillyFlower,

the Russians had a smaller army on the Eastern Front at the beginning of Barbarossa. I was reviewing some detail and they had many obsolete tanks without fuel or logistics. Many biplanes... A small fraction of their armor was medium armor but from what I've been reading and watching on more in depth history that until December '41 the Axis had a great number of actual boots on the ground. Once Mobilized the Russians were defeating the Axis toe to toe.

Mud and Winter were always blamed but once on parity with the Axis in numbers the Russians defeated them. Not to say that it didn't help. Oil was running out ...

Love some of your other points by the way.




Not sure I agree with you on the parity issue, though the German excuse that they were only beaten by endless hordes does not stand up to analysis.

The Russians did have the numbers at the start (look at the WiTE OB's) and the T34s and KV1s which were so much better than any axis tank were badly used and hampered by poor russian C&C (as were all their troops). The biggest problems on the German side were logistic problems, which were greatly exacerbated by the russian climate as well as as everything else. G also not helped by the partial winding down of german military production after the fall of France: not something that I would expect from you .


_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 26
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 4:16:54 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3238
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar



There is a lot to be sad for small alterations. . . Even lowering the Axis Oil down to a point where Flaviusx mentions she has to manage it better. She was constantly running on fumes at a certain point. This would dent the strategic variant in her to do new things but maybe more accurate?


Do you know something we don't?


_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 27
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 5:43:03 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7472
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
Let's address these one at a time....

Russian Army - Is historical forces including the forming armies and builds all the way through 1941.

Russian Experience - I meant on map units +5% experience... But the default when creating new ones drops to 30%. This allows an easily 1942 for the Germans and a harder 1941 as the forming armies are already 30% experience.

Russian Special Rules - I really want to avoid individual special rules and rather adjust organically that can be seen by all like map changes instead of Russian Bonuses.

Axis Oil - I know I have to manage oil as the Axis. I have can't send out the Italian or German fleet all the time. I keep air units back to recover in mission mode to save oil. I know I can't overbuild armor. I also know the Allies can just bomb 2-3 oil sites and cause a serious problem for me. Late in the war I buy more infantry and don't air strike as much. So if there is some secret sause to Axis oil I don't see it. As the Allies I ALWAYS buy 2 strategic bombers to annoy the Axis and force them to commit some resources to AA and air sups.

US Production - yes it is due to the Pacific. If I remember most resources went to the Pacific. As the US I first focus on the navy. I build some patrol groups, transports, landing craft. I want these available at all times. Instead of taking a chance on a landing then being screwed for 6m I would rather take my time and build up properly. So far what I have seen in AARs is Axis players not garrisoning France, Italy, or other places enough. As the Western Allies I will always pounce an invasion out there to at least distract them. As the Axis I always have those players well garrisoned and I even use deception put railing beat up units to France to recover. I usually have 1 armor there too. Maybe that's why in my games I always lose on the Russian Front.

Small Rifle Armies - You realize that Armies can be split in 2. Corps can have detachments, Armies can split. They can also merge again into larger armies. As for their tech yea that might help.


_____________________________

Games worked on

Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy

Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 28
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 6:34:42 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7591
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Yes, armies can be split in two.

However, they cannot be built in smaller increments. Again, I miss this flexibility a lot with the Soviets, whereas with the other nations I often build divisions to be later merged into corps. The Soviets don't have this kind of production granularity. They have to buy in big chunks or not at all and this effectively means 1 rifle army per turn.

Sometimes I'd like to buy less than that and divert production to replacements. But I am forced by the lack of flexibility to almost always buy a rifle army. The Soviet is locked into a really inflexible production scheme compared to the other major powers.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 29
RE: Balance Thread - 12/24/2020 7:24:55 PM   
malkarma

 

Posts: 309
Joined: 7/5/2020
Status: offline
Agree with the logistics relating the USA. Wer have to remember that by the time of torch the lost 4 of the 6 starting CV (the Ranger doen´t count) and a big chunk of cruisers anmd small units..so they have their shipyards really busy. Another important thing is that the USA joined the war against the Japs due Pearl Harbour, but the congress was still hesstant about a full war declaration (actually, is Hitler the one that triggers the USA full commitment due the german DOW in 42 spring), so the war machinery was not at full pace until maybe 1943.
If you add the fact that a CV unit with 41 tech (Essex class) is 960 PP in the game, and the USA builded one per month/2 months we can agree that close of 70% of the war effort in terms of production was aimed towards the Pacific theater.

Agree with the lack of flexibility in the URSS builds. We should have the option of merging corps into armies...but I'm afraid that the code dont allow that due the fact that they are diferent kind of units (like the way that you cant merge Paras with infantry to create an infantry corps). However we can explore the ability to build half armies.
True than most of the URSS tanki were **** in '41...but also half of the panzers were Checz ones or Pz III with small guns that struggled to crush the T34 or KV 1 (even if the URSS losed most of them due to crap tactics and awful commanders). Maybe the big issue is that heavy tanks are really overpowered compared to breakthough ones, somethingm that end with the german army having more punch that it should...but this is a perception of me and not something related to crude facts.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Balance Thread Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.189