Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Balance Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Balance Thread - 12/27/2020 9:42:12 AM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4640
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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.


Completely agree with you. I hope to have this flexibility to buy small armies after Russia is at war.
So that, I can buy a small army and invest in few replacements within the same turn.


< Message edited by ncc1701e -- 12/27/2020 10:21:12 AM >


_____________________________

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 Flaviusx)
Post #: 61
RE: Balance Thread - 12/27/2020 11:01:07 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7909
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But they are all 20 at full strength and by the time Barbarossa starts they will be at 20. I wonder if this is a little too good for the Soviets. You can literally build one such corps every turn for two years.

That's a lot of armies. You wouldn't even have to build more of them. Just set production to reinforcements.

I think it would be better if they converted to small armies regardless, and force the Soviet to merge them into full armies.




You are right. That will destroy the entire production mechanism.


_____________________________

Creater Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 62
RE: Balance Thread - 12/28/2020 9:15:31 AM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4640
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
I am all in for two modifications:
1. The terrain and river addition on the Russian map
2. The addition of the possibility to buy small armies for Russian production flexibility

I am a little worried on the corps automatic upgrade to be too much in favor of Russia. Lowering the price of Soviet infantry corps was done to avoid the Soviet runaway strategy and oblige the Russian player to fight on the borders. It works well now and there are good fightings from the beginning of Barbarossa whatever the date.

I still think the corps to army automatic upgrade is a good idea. But, perhaps we can lower its impact by starting it only when the first reserve armies can be deployed. Like this, the bulk of the infantry corps have normally been reduced by 1/3 if not 1/2. If it is only 30% chance, some corps will continue to be killed anyway.

But, starting winter 1941, you should have an event that is converting all the remaining infantry corps to small armies saying the reorganisation has been done successfully.

After all, this is a circular, of July 15th, 1941, that has directed several changes to Red Army force structure, including the elimination of rifle corps headquarters and subordination of rifle divisions directly to rifle army headquarters.

Now few questions on the conversion of infantry corps to infantry small army:
1. Do you keep the entrenchement level of the corps after conversion?
2. Do you keep the experience/efficiency levels of the corps after conversion?
3. Do you keep the strength level of the corps after conversion (if < 18)?
4. I assume that the conversion can only be done if the corps is in supply

Allowing people to wonder if it is worth upgrading few corps to 1941 tech will also lower the number of corps on the map. They are no longer to be thrown in the trash.


< Message edited by ncc1701e -- 12/28/2020 9:27:57 AM >


_____________________________

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 AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 63
RE: Balance Thread - 12/28/2020 9:18:38 AM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4640
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
Double post.

< Message edited by ncc1701e -- 12/28/2020 9:19:41 AM >


_____________________________

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 ncc1701e)
Post #: 64
RE: Balance Thread - 12/28/2020 9:50:57 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Was watching TIK(who is quite the little Historian about the Eastern Front his Stalingrad Series is enlightening) He quotes several of the foremost Eastern Front Writers of today. i.e. Glantz

Apparently the smaller divisions were superior. The Italians did the same. The Germans adopted the smaller divisions for lots of reasons the Russians fielded totally opposite Divisional/Corp/Army Compositions cause of their leadership issues. (not the purges but just a lack of leadership) The Germans did not have this issue but the Italians had the same issue as the Russians. I suppose after around Stalingrad the Russians began to make up the difference.


For many reasons smaller Divisions were superior(I suppose logistics, supply, speed? I can go back and quote but another may have a study of WW2 Army Composition and can chime in if not?)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


'43 was also the year that German inf xx and xxx got smaller (and again in '44) but I suppose that's too much to hope for...............



< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 12/28/2020 10:04:07 AM >

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 65
RE: Balance Thread - 12/28/2020 10:00:55 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
michaelCLARADY,

Tyronec, -2 Axis for me, +1 Axis for me
Alvaro, +1 Axis +1 Allied
Almeron, -1 Axis +1 Axis
Sveint -1 Axis
SillyFlo,+1 Axis
Hadros* +2 +1 Allied
Magic M -1 Allied -1 Axis(only man I've not beaten)
Flavius +2 Axis

I didn't think I would lose the Allies vs MagicMissile. The patch was recent and I had a division both on the Maginot and Metz he took which destroyed that game :/ he also taught me a lot about the game since a year ago!

*Hadros was learning so I resigned a game vs him... where I felt too far ahead. Unfortunately he fell victim to my Barbarossa Smash ... This is all the games I remember!

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 12/28/2020 10:10:23 AM >

(in reply to michaelCLARADY)
Post #: 66
RE: Balance Thread - 12/28/2020 10:06:45 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
The new map you made looks disgusting for the Axis and I like it. Also I like the fact you added so many ways for the Axis to defend later on. Something else I would like you take into account...

At the beginning of Barbarossa the Axis outnumbered the Russians(myth that's it the other way around) there was never a shortage of men sent East by the Axis till Kursk. (maybe arrival date and distribution)

I think if any place where the Axis should be a bit hurt is their oil supply. But now I think you have forced the use of more Tacs, Tanks, Mechs with this composition and possibly Airborne Troops as breaking those Rivers gets expensive! For both sides! (Russians started off with a shortage of oil at the front itself)

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 12/28/2020 10:09:18 AM >

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 67
RE: Balance Thread - 12/28/2020 3:08:21 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7909
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: online
WPE (WarPlan Europe as I am referring to it now) is meant to be played to the last turn. Very tough to blow out the Russians. Possible but tough.

Right now I am in a game with Hadros where he botched the Axis some and I will get to see how it fairs vs the Russians for better balancing. But in all my games with him I noticed where the large exploits were on the map. Originally this is how the Russian front was designed. I took out some terrain and rivers for balancing. But with players doing a min-max strategy going all out in Russia ignoring the Allies it was too much of a blow out.

in WiF you can do an all out Barbarossa and usually if it succeeds it cripples the Russians but doesn't KO them. They don't have the strength to get back to Germany.

I do like the auto upgrade but I have to cost calculate this. Usually I just use all the corps, set them to no reinforcement, as speed bumps, then sell them where they are nothing any more. Maybe this will be fine then because I am not taking full advantage.

Technically I should not allow the Russians to build any tank corps till 1942. But the last time I did this with Assault on Communism the entire forum revolted.

_____________________________

Creater Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 68
RE: Balance Thread - 12/29/2020 9:55:17 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3433
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Was watching TIK(who is quite the little Historian about the Eastern Front his Stalingrad Series is enlightening) He quotes several of the foremost Eastern Front Writers of today. i.e. Glantz

Apparently the smaller divisions were superior. The Italians did the same. The Germans adopted the smaller divisions for lots of reasons the Russians fielded totally opposite Divisional/Corp/Army Compositions cause of their leadership issues. (not the purges but just a lack of leadership) The Germans did not have this issue but the Italians had the same issue as the Russians. I suppose after around Stalingrad the Russians began to make up the difference.


For many reasons smaller Divisions were superior(I suppose logistics, supply, speed? I can go back and quote but another may have a study of WW2 Army Composition and can chime in if not?)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


'43 was also the year that German inf xx and xxx got smaller (and again in '44) but I suppose that's too much to hope for...............




The smaller divs were not superior, though no doubt easier to control for an inexperienced commander and staff. The change was made simply because of a lack of manpower, similar to the halving of the tanks in pz divs before Barbarossa when Hitler decided to double the no. of pz xx. The problem with the smaller inf xx was the significant, and disproportionate, reduction in front-line infantry who are the chaps who get by far the most casualties. This meant that the smaller division was far more fragile than the '41 model.



_____________________________

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 #: 69
RE: Balance Thread - 12/29/2020 10:23:42 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4640
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Map Changes based on terrain. I put extra river lines where some smaller ones met up.

Add some more terrain in spots making it slightly denser.







I wonder if this is possible to add on the map, the city of Vyazma between Smolensk and Moscow?
It will add one more defensive terrain.

вязьма on the below map.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 70
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 12:27:07 AM   
ago1000


Posts: 732
Joined: 8/6/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
That bottom map looks so cool.

_____________________________


(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 71
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 3:36:09 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
SillyFlower, from what I understand that may not be the case at all. At least depending on the year... The smaller divisions used by the Germans were used elsewhere in North Africa vs the British(where the British were overloaded with Armor in one Division) these failed very bad against the German Infantry/Anti-Tank/Armor Divisions/Support Units that were smaller... The Germans would used combined arms and the Allies would not successfully for awhile longer(or they would learn about it by this point and in '42-'43 they would know how to cope with the Germans). It was never called Blitzrkieg by the Germans by the way. We get a lot of our information from German Generals which is sometimes false(they want to blame others for their failures and wrote most of the history for Western Readers on the Eastern Front). These divisions had more support units and the Germans obviously learned quicker than the Allies.

On the Eastern Front the Divisions got smaller but more numerous in 1942 and the Manpower devoted to the Eastern Front increased meaning they could of had the same size Divisions as 1941 they opted not to. The Allies Massed Armor both Russians and UK which took heavy losses. I will link you to the youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3RGtIpjvvw I believe this fella has it right.

So in reality German Manpower could use a Buff in Game if you listen to this fellow and his resources are quite impeccable all quoted.

At Dubno the largest tank battle in reality in history this reflects that massive Tank Corps or Tank Armies were not a good thing(Brits had the same tactics in North Africa vs Rommel early on)







< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 12/30/2020 3:37:37 AM >

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 72
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 9:23:22 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3433
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: online
In N Africa the British were still doing cavalry charges with unsupported tanks (mainly armed with the 2 pdr gun which did not fire HE!) until Montgomery put a stop to that, although the practice was sometimes repeated by 1st Army coming from the west.

As to inf xx strength in the east, there may have been more of them but again many were under-strength. Under-strength always means a shortage of front-line combat troops. A lot of the extra manpower was needed in the rear areas and the quality of the fighting troops generally went down due to loss of veterans, and large numbers of 'ethnic' Germans who were all that keen. I will try to dig out my references.

The real cut in inf xx size was in '43 not '42.

I totally agree with your critique of the '41 russian armour.

< Message edited by sillyflower -- 12/30/2020 9:27:29 AM >


_____________________________

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 #: 73
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 1:16:03 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7909
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: online
I will remind everyone this is a balance thread not a history debate thread.

So far this is what I have done to balance a 1941 more toward the USSR and a 1942 more toward Germany and late war a bit slower
Map added terrain and rivers
USSR default experience 35% -> 30% .... I will note all their forming units already come in at 30%
USSR corps now auto upgrade to armies ..... the 30% change should balance this out
USSR armor/mech operation points increase moved back 6 months to allow Germany to have fun in 1942.
USSR armies get 5 free ice cream trucks divisions to raise their morale during those sad times in 1941





_____________________________

Creater Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 74
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 2:49:57 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 1055
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
Russians protest getting ice cream trucks. They want good Russian Vodka trucks. Ice cream is for sissies.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 75
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 3:28:57 PM   
ago1000


Posts: 732
Joined: 8/6/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Russians protest getting ice cream trucks. They want good Russian Vodka trucks. Ice cream is for sissies.

Unless there is Vodka in the trucks to make a White Russian.

_____________________________


(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 76
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 3:31:23 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4640
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
No possibility to buy small armies for Russia?

_____________________________

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 kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 77
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 7:02:03 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4640
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
Another question, what are you planning for "the Western Allies are too strong in 1943"?

Quite honestly, the UK has too much production too early. This plus the fact that now Germany has to face Netherlands, Belgium, France at the same time.
The United Kingdom starts with 158 PP, it is bigger than the USSR with 135 PP.

Understood UK needs to buy ships but they are not suffering enough from U-Boats. In John Ellis' book (page 280), UK had invested in:
1939: 22 destroyers, 5 escorts
1940: 27 destroyers, 109 escorts
1941: 39 destroyers, 87 escorts
1942: 73 destroyers, 71 escorts
1943: 37 destroyers, 79 escorts
1944: 31 destroyers, 55 escorts
1945: 13 destroyers, 7 escorts

Who honestly is buying DD groups to pursue the U-Boats? Me, as Allies player, never.

And, I have plenty to buy tanks, mechanized, airborne units in 1941..
UK production is too strong too early imo.

< Message edited by ncc1701e -- 12/30/2020 7:03:17 PM >


_____________________________

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 ncc1701e)
Post #: 78
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 7:21:46 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7909
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: online
Adding small armies is a big task. Also you can buy a full army and split it.

Allies 1943 not sure yet. I am still evaluating this situation. Is it over commitment in Russia, under commitment to the BotA, or over commitment to everything else?

_____________________________

Creater Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 79
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 7:51:07 PM   
OxfordGuy3


Posts: 986
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Another question, what are you planning for "the Western Allies are too strong in 1943"?

Quite honestly, the UK has too much production too early. This plus the fact that now Germany has to face Netherlands, Belgium, France at the same time.
The United Kingdom starts with 158 PP, it is bigger than the USSR with 135 PP.

Understood UK needs to buy ships but they are not suffering enough from U-Boats. In John Ellis' book (page 280), UK had invested in:
1939: 22 destroyers, 5 escorts
1940: 27 destroyers, 109 escorts
1941: 39 destroyers, 87 escorts
1942: 73 destroyers, 71 escorts
1943: 37 destroyers, 79 escorts
1944: 31 destroyers, 55 escorts
1945: 13 destroyers, 7 escorts

Who honestly is buying DD groups to pursue the U-Boats? Me, as Allies player, never.

And, I have plenty to buy tanks, mechanized, airborne units in 1941..
UK production is too strong too early imo.


I'm not disputing your argument, but bear in mind some of those destroyer builds would probably be considered to be part of the Escort Pool in the game, as would solely be on convoy duty

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 80
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 9:32:57 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4640
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
Oh absolutely, I have absolutely no issue with this. My only issue is the UK production that is too high.

But, have a look in the Production screen:
1. A 1939 Patrol Grp, meaning a DD group, costs 300 PP. The building duration is 210 days.
2. An escort, only assigned to convoy lanes, costs 40 PP. The building duration is 210 days.

You see the difference. 300 PP vs 40 PP.

The UK production is too high. Just increase the cost of the escort ships to 80 PP or to 120 PP and now we are talking.
Too many times I have seen the strategy for the UK to go 'all in' in France and invest there to boost their armies.

With Netherlands, Belgium, a strong France, the west wall will become a wall imo.

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 81
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:14:09 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Another question, what are you planning for "the Western Allies are too strong in 1943"?

Quite honestly, the UK has too much production too early. This plus the fact that now Germany has to face Netherlands, Belgium, France at the same time.
The United Kingdom starts with 158 PP, it is bigger than the USSR with 135 PP.

Understood UK needs to buy ships but they are not suffering enough from U-Boats. In John Ellis' book (page 280), UK had invested in:
1939: 22 destroyers, 5 escorts
1940: 27 destroyers, 109 escorts
1941: 39 destroyers, 87 escorts
1942: 73 destroyers, 71 escorts
1943: 37 destroyers, 79 escorts
1944: 31 destroyers, 55 escorts
1945: 13 destroyers, 7 escorts

Who honestly is buying DD groups to pursue the U-Boats? Me, as Allies player, never.

And, I have plenty to buy tanks, mechanized, airborne units in 1941..
UK production is too strong too early imo.


I agree with Oxfordguy's comments above. The UK and the US have already been considerably nerfed with the last few patches. Or more correctly, the nerfing of the CVs ability to sink subs has considerably increased the effectiveness of the U-Boats. If you have read MM's recent AARs you would know that from mid 1940 on almost all of the UKs (and Canada's) production is being spent on escorts and MMs. In my current game against MM where I am the Allies it is now September 27 1940. Canada has used 95% of its production on escorts. The UK did build some army units along with escorts and MM. I have not has any spare production to build new air units; which of course historically the UK did. I anticipate that most of the UKs production over the next couple years will be spent on escorts and MM.

IMHO this has gone too far. The Western Allies in 1943 should be very strong. Historically, by the summer of 1943 they had way more ships, planes, men and tanks in Western Europe than the Axis. So much so that the US wanted to invade France in 43 and they very nearly won this argument. But i don't think that will be the case in future games.

I agree with your post that in the game the UK does not build nearly as many combat ships as it did historically. But this is also true of the Axis. The next game where I see the Tirpitz sailing the high seas will be my first. Part of the problem with this is that they are just too damn expensive; especially compared to the bang you can get for your buck spending the production elsewhere. I agree with Oxfordguy that the cost of building an escort group represents the construction of both destroyers and frigates. I believe patrol groups area actually primarily light cruisers. I would like to see it where a each nation receives certain levels of production in each of the areas of army, naval, and air. In other words, instead of, for example, Germany starting with 200 production that it can spend on anything; it would receive 120 production to spend on army type builds (which would include supply trucks), 30 to spend on naval units and 50 to spend on air units. Meanwhile the UK's production would be split 50% naval, 30% army and 20% air. But if you did this then you would have to be able to spend on building units in stages. So if an armour costs 400 and takes 15 turns to build than you would spend 27 production per turn to build it. Players could also invest production to increase their capacity in each area (lie building shipyards).

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 12/30/2020 10:34:36 PM >

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 82
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:30:23 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Oh absolutely, I have absolutely no issue with this. My only issue is the UK production that is too high.

But, have a look in the Production screen:
1. A 1939 Patrol Grp, meaning a DD group, costs 300 PP. The building duration is 210 days.
2. An escort, only assigned to convoy lanes, costs 40 PP. The building duration is 210 days.

You see the difference. 300 PP vs 40 PP.

The UK production is too high. Just increase the cost of the escort ships to 80 PP or to 120 PP and now we are talking.
Too many times I have seen the strategy for the UK to go 'all in' in France and invest there to boost their armies.

With Netherlands, Belgium, a strong France, the west wall will become a wall imo.


As I said above, I believe patrol groups are primarily light cruiser; though the Manual does say that they also represent destroyer patrols. But if a patrol group does represent 10 destroyers, how many frigates does an escort represent? Well the patrol group gets 5 Hit Points and an escort only gets 1. So I am guessing that an escort only represents the equivalent of 2 destroyers. So it should cost no more than 1/5th of a patrol group (60) and take 1/5th as long to build, so 40 days. I would gladly pay the extra 20 production to get my escort quicker. But again the problem is that sunk escorts can't be repaired. If in a particular convoy battle the U-Boats sink 1 escort and the escorts get 1 U-Boat hit; then it will cost the Allies 40 production and 15 turns to repair the damage, it will cost the Axis 10 production and 1 turn. Not fair.

Again I disagree that UK production is too high. If anything, comparted to other nations it is too low. The problem is that if the Axis do not engage in an active U-Boat campaign the UK can use all of its historical shipyard production to instead build tanks. Also the cost of most naval units is prohibitively high.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 12/30/2020 10:35:50 PM >

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 83
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:32:02 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7602
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Modest proposal: each additional shipyard past a certain number reduces the cost of naval units, amphibious point, merchants and escorts by 1%. (I would pick 40 here, which is what the USA starts with.) Cap this at 50%, so 80 or more shipyards is as good as it gets. Represents efficiencies in mass naval production.

The UK would immediately start with a 25% discount on all such unit costs. The USA would have good reason to buy lots and lots of shipyards. I suppose even Germany might be tempted to give the Z plan a go here.

UK production is fine and was too low before. Leave it alone. In the initial release it was equal to France, and this made no sense.




< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 12/30/2020 10:37:37 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 84
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:36:35 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Balance is this Western Allies have too much Armor and Mech. That's the simple factor you have to reduce their Morale till 1943 or 1944..AND NOT early in 1943 PLEASE?(this is from a guy that played Axis more in PBEM than any other human, so I have seen what Allies can do a lot?) Can this be done easily? Representing a lack of understanding of combined arms warfare till the period and limiting their offensive scope.

Look Alvaro, the Brits don't need to be doing gamey stuff in France and N.Africa in 1940-1941. Holding is fine and this leaves other strategies as possible. If the Brits bought 10 Tanks and Mechs that all had say 25% Experience or less Mobility then they would just sit on them till the right time? But they aren't, they're adding in 5-10 Americans and steamrolling the Axis the same way the Axis are steamrolling the Russians?

SO, if my suggestion is an easy solution and works try it out?



quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Adding small armies is a big task. Also you can buy a full army and split it.

Allies 1943 not sure yet. I am still evaluating this situation. Is it over commitment in Russia, under commitment to the BotA, or over commitment to everything else?



< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 12/30/2020 10:38:24 PM >

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 85
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:42:20 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3433
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Oh absolutely, I have absolutely no issue with this. My only issue is the UK production that is too high.

But, have a look in the Production screen:
1. A 1939 Patrol Grp, meaning a DD group, costs 300 PP. The building duration is 210 days.
2. An escort, only assigned to convoy lanes, costs 40 PP. The building duration is 210 days.

You see the difference. 300 PP vs 40 PP.

The UK production is too high. Just increase the cost of the escort ships to 80 PP or to 120 PP and now we are talking.
Too many times I have seen the strategy for the UK to go 'all in' in France and invest there to boost their armies.

With Netherlands, Belgium, a strong France, the west wall will become a wall imo.


I've never built a warship other than escorts and I don't plan on changing that. A patrol group is pretty much the same investment as a tank xxx, which is a bit of a no-brainer for an allied player wanting to win.

I haven't heard of the UK sending PPs to France. I do send oil to keep French navy and AF functional. However, investing in the french army seems a bit silly (with a small 's') because it is better to spend the money on identical british units that have 25% higher morale and therefore 25% more combat power. They also don't disappear when France surrenders, mon ami........


_____________________________

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 ncc1701e)
Post #: 86
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:43:02 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7602
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
If you reduce British morale France will be even easier than it is now, and the Axis might steamroll Egypt to boot. Also, what gamey stuff in 1940-1? What I have found is the BoA soaks up so much production that the UK is definitely on hold until the Americans come in.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 87
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:51:40 PM   
malkarma

 

Posts: 310
Joined: 7/5/2020
Status: offline
In one of my current games, with 6 subs I managed to sunk 160 MM. Now the british only have 190 approx and also he is low on escorts so this can escalate. Those few MM's means that URSS LL will be scarce, and also he will be in the verge of starting to lose production.
As true as the allies need to make the german bleed in fFrance is that the german needs to put UK against the ropes in terms of production.
Obviously as soon as the USA joins the war, those starting 350+ PP will shif the balance.

ps: The air units targeting convoys also help, maybe its only 1 MM per turn at moment, but everything counts in order to cripple the allied merchant marine.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 88
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:54:41 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Flavius, 15-20 Mechs and Armor are insane! You have to do something... Come up with something better? Or resign the Axis against any competent Allied opponent every Winter of '43

As Axis you cannot build that many armor and Mechs and you start with 4!
Now Russia has the same number by late '43 ... Just too much!

Somethings gotta give! Somewhere!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you reduce British morale France will be even easier than it is now, and the Axis might steamroll Egypt to boot. Also, what gamey stuff in 1940-1? What I have found is the BoA soaks up so much production that the UK is definitely on hold until the Americans come in.





< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 12/30/2020 10:55:01 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 89
RE: Balance Thread - 12/30/2020 10:57:12 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Not sure what Subs do now but I put 6 out in my last game and the entire Kriegsmarine and Sveint sunk them all! Bad luck? I hope not but I fear that the Atlantic War just is a bit too difficult... Axis can't bite that off and build enough armor and air/infantry to handle the rest of things!


quote:

ORIGINAL: malkarma

In one of my current games, with 6 subs I managed to sunk 160 MM. Now the british only have 190 approx and also he is low on escorts so this can escalate. Those few MM's means that URSS LL will be scarce, and also he will be in the verge of starting to lose production.
As true as the allies need to make the german bleed in fFrance is that the german needs to put UK against the ropes in terms of production.
Obviously as soon as the USA joins the war, those starting 350+ PP will shif the balance.

ps: The air units targeting convoys also help, maybe its only 1 MM per turn at moment, but everything counts in order to cripple the allied merchant marine.


(in reply to malkarma)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> RE: Balance Thread Page: <<   < prev  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

0.262