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: CP and Entente Game Balance

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> RE: CP and Entente Game Balance Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 10:11:22 PM   
Dazo


Posts: 102
Joined: 9/28/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl
The other long term problem for the Centrals is diplomacy. Specifically the Netherlands will deal NM damage every turn to Germany if she is anything but Central-aligned. And the reality is that the Entente get an insane number of diplo chits with no restrictions and the Centrals simply can't match this. Not sure why they give the Entente 18 diplomatic chits (UK France Italy Russia) while the Centrals only get 12, but basically there's no way to stop the Netherlands from swinging. And again it isn't really even the large MPP loss (65 seems too large, should be like 35 and just give Germany a couple extra cities to make up for the difference) that is the main problem but it's the NM damage every turn that hurts the most. I'm not quite sure what historical events the developers are intending here because there already is blockade which deals NM damage every turn. Was the Netherlands really a giant supplier of calories for Germany? Did millions of tons of grain come through the blockade and sneak into Germany to the Netherlands during WWI? There's also a NM hit to Germany once Norway swings but the Netherlands is the main way to hurt the central powers using diplomatic chits. I think the France Russia and Italy should lose some diplo chits (come on was Italy really able to influence anyone at all during the war?) and probably Russia and Ottomans shouldn't be able to influence far away countries like Netherlands... or Spain.

Actually, I think the cost of Holland swinging towards Entente is pretty ok.
However that's an interesting topic so I'll go a bit deeper.

Long story made short, Netherlands economy was more or less integrated with the Ruhr/Germany one before the war:

"From the 1860s, when both countries became free traders, the Dutch economy became extremely open, with an export quote (exports divided by GDP) of over 0.5. In 1862 and 1875, 23 percent of these exports went to Germany; 47 percent in 1910. [...] exports to Germany increased from 10 percent of the GDP in 1862 and 14 percent in 1875 to 30 percent in 1910. [...] In 1912, when the trade ratio (total trade divided by GDP) peaked at 1.4, 0.6 was trade with Germany..."


For more details, you have to consider the four categories of merchandise exported to Germany (wether officialy or not):
1) raw products imports from overseas (transit)
2) raw products imports from Holland proper
3) manufactured products from overseas (transit)
4) manufactured products from Holland proper

"A substantial part of Dutch economic activity was adding value to imports that were exported again."

"Another headache for the Allies was the redirection of trade patterns by the neutrals adjacent to Germany, who sold their own produce to Germany and imported food from overseas instead. In the first half of 1916 5 million gold marks’ worth of food arrived daily from the Netherlands, which made up the gap with imported food."


(5 million GM daily = 1,825 billion GM for 1916 or 21,73% of all german imports valued at 8,4 billion GM)

You can consider those 65 MPPs a land convoy that can't be raided but exists from the start.
As for the relative importance (including NM) compared to Sweden or Norway it's because of several factors but mainly because most of the food came from Holland. Germany could do without swedish ore but not without food from Netherlands:

"The distortions of the war economy were not restricted to food. Two of the most important industrial products, iron and coal, were seriously affected. Iron production depends on the availability primarily of iron ore, coal, and limestone, all of which Germany had in abundance; another production factor, scrap iron, grew in importance, and also in availability."

"A group of food supply experts appointed at the outbreak of war, the Eltzbacher commission, concluded in December 1914 that Germany imported 20 percent of its food by calorific value, 20 percent of its animal protein, and 42 percent of fats. [...] On average, in 1912 and 1913, Germany’s consumption of animal and vegetable fats and oils amounted to 1,860,000 tons, but its domestic production accounted for only 1,105,000 tons. In particular, 97 percent of vegetable fats and oils were imported over this period. [...] "In 1917”, one historian has written, “the Germans procured 5,181 tons of fats from imports through the blockade. During the first ten months of 1918, this figure was only 1,928 tons.”


As for the lower NM hit for Norway, Sweden & co, it's also because german imports were just rerouted through neutrals without actually increasing:

"US exports to Sweden showed a sudden, enormous expansion, at the same time as US trade with Germany dropped. There were significant increases in exports to Denmark, Norway, and Holland. The decrease in exports from New York to Germany, from 90.7 million dollars from August 1913 to September 1914 to 5.8 million dollars over the same period in 1914-1915 was almost exactly matched by the increase in exports to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from 20 million to 104 million dollars."


Source1
Source2


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
The Netherlands was essential to Germany for access to the world market. They were a loophold in the blockade system until the Entents closed it later in the war, reflected by the alignment slip I suppose. They did experience their own food shortages, but that was much later on when the blockade policy went into its furthest extent. 50 NM per turn isn't that large anyway. Just let Germany occupy Serbia instead or soemthing.

I tend to agree with ThisEndUp.

The diplo chit thing is another story entirely though I also consider it pretty ok as Germany has the option to invest heavily in Holland from the start with a good chance to increase a bit its starting lead.
If Entente go all in on Holland later, they won't be able to invest anywhere else if they want results because even with 6 more chits, it "only" means 30% chance per turn to hit whiwh can take some time to bring results.
Also remember that diplo chits arn't an open book, you can kno how many MPPs are invested but not how many chits went where.

Plus there are some other possibilities:

- Germany can just let you spend on Holland and then invade to recoup some of its losses.
- CP can wait for you to switch your diplo efforts somewhere else to try to reswing Holland.
- CP can also leave Holland alone and use this chance to target another country like Switzerland, Romania or whatever.
- CP can concentrate on one country like Italy to try to take it out (including its diplo chits).
- Germany can try to manage its conquests (mostly Russia) to milk the most possible NM out of it.
- Germany can go for UNW to lift blockade or target other NM objectives.
- Maybe some other things I couldn't think about...

Overall the Holland swing just makes that clock ticking louder for CPs, they have to win the war faster or else...
SCWWI is pretty good at giving you scares with huge crisis but also giving you some options to answer them as long as you don't pile up mistakes from the start.

< Message edited by Dazo -- 2/5/2021 11:43:58 PM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 61
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 10:26:52 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 754
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dazo

Actually, I think the cost of Holland swinging towards Entente is pretty ok

Overall the Holland swing just makes that clock ticking louder for CPs, they have to win the war faster or else...
SCWWI is pretty good at giving you scares with huge crisis but alsso giving you some options to answer them as long as you don't pile up mistakes from the start.


Haha...you aren't kidding about 'pretty good at giving scares with huge crises'.

Thanks for the links and this post. Time for some reading now :) I'm having a better understanding about this aspect of the role the Netherlands played back then. btw..They got a pretty good army to boot...especially if the CP can get their hands on it for themselves.

(in reply to Dazo)
Post #: 62
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 10:38:14 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
The Russian retreat should not be penalised either IMO; historically they revolted because of food shortages in the cities (not even a geral shortage, they just had a crap distribution system). Even under Kerensky, the average soldier was entirely content to sit and defend; it was the costly offensives they hated, and which Kerensky idiotically pushed for, that led to the Provisional Governments downfall.


Well I think you touch on the difference between troop morale and home front morale. As it is the primary ways to lose NM are from territory losses and troop losses. And low NM is what causes the revolution.

If you want to consider how it was the offensives that caused nations to break apart well true, but in game you can't enforce stupid offensives as I believe you mentioned in another post elsewhere. In a competitive game if you're low on NM you are going to avoid fighting for as long as possible to delay the collapse. The Russians can easily prolong things for an extra year or more if they start avoiding fighting earlyish.

I think the penalty for losing Warsaw is too high. 6000 NM. But the penalty for losing all the other objectives (Brest-Litovsk, Riga, Polish forts, Vilna, and even Kiev and Riga) are only 1000 each. Which makes pushing hard for them as Centrals not particularly worthwile (also consider none of these give a NM boost to any Central majors). Particularly Riga which is in the northern latitudes so there is a ton of space, which makes it difficult to push against a numerically superior for like Russia. Perhaps Warsaw could be lowered from 6000 to 3000 and the NM penalty for losing Brest, etc. or getting kicked out of Austria could be substiantially higher? Like 2500 for losing Brest Vilna or the Oilfields so Russia has an incentive to fight hard in the Brusilov Offensive area?

(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 63
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 10:43:14 PM   
Dazo


Posts: 102
Joined: 9/28/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
Haha...you aren't kidding about 'pretty good at giving scares with huge crises'.

Thanks for the links and this post. Time for some reading now :) I'm having a better understanding about this aspect of the role the Netherlands played back then. btw..They got a pretty good army to boot...especially if the CP can get their hands on it for themselves.


Thansk for your comment, have a good read ^^ .

Indeed, sometimes you just

And who wouldn't want some more guns and body buddies or was it busybodies ?


< Message edited by Dazo -- 2/5/2021 10:44:58 PM >

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 64
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 10:48:16 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 754
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dazo

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
Haha...you aren't kidding about 'pretty good at giving scares with huge crises'.

Thanks for the links and this post. Time for some reading now :) I'm having a better understanding about this aspect of the role the Netherlands played back then. btw..They got a pretty good army to boot...especially if the CP can get their hands on it for themselves.


Thansk for your comment, have a good read ^^ .

Indeed, sometimes you just

And who wouldn't want some more guns and body buddies or was it busybodies ?



LoL...are you making a joke about gossipy Dutch folks? As long as they aren't talking a lot in the trenches..I'll have em...

(in reply to Dazo)
Post #: 65
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 10:54:28 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
Thanks for the info about Netherlands + WWI German economy.

I think it's more than just the economic importance of Netherlands trade though. In reality the Netherlands was extremely keen not to anger Germany and provoke an invasion. Neutrality was the most beneficial policy by far for the Dutch. But as it stands the Netherlands is treated diplomatically equal to a revanchist warmongering country like Bulgaria or Romania. What's worse, you don't even need to get the Netherlands to 100% in order to cause optimal damage to Germany. You just have to get them to 1% pro-Entente and then they close the border and Germany starts taking hunger damage each turn for the rest of the game. You can use diplomatic chits from countries which would have had very little influence on the Netherlands in reality (Italy, Russia) to accomplish this.

I think there should be severe restrictions on who can influence the Netherlands and by how much. Clearly Germany would have had the strongest influence, sharing a large land border and possessing large armies. UK would be second.

I also think you shouldn't be allowed to dump all of your team's chits into one nation, as though increasing the number of diplomats would somehow proportionately increase the influence. Bulgaria is an excellent example of how increased diplomatic pressure has a diminishing return (sometimes backfiring) as Bulgaria was intensely courted by the UK but grew tired of their hollow promises. You can promise the sun and the moon to a country but if they don't trust you it ain't worth much.

In the case of the Netherlands, I don't believe the Entente was ever able to convince the Dutch to close their borders with Germany. That would have been an extremely risky move, and I think convincing them to take that step in game should be difficult to achieve rather than a case of "when, not if" simply accomplished by dumping all your diplo chits on one country.

TLDR even if Netherlands was really worth 65 MPP per turn, I don't believe she was ever convinced to tighten her land borders with Germany. The British simply did a better job with the blockade later in the war, including confiscating goods headed for neutral countries suspected of trading with Germany. That is NOT the same as the Dutch suddenly cutting off their border with their biggest trading partner and risking provoking their greatest potential enemy!

(in reply to Dazo)
Post #: 66
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 11:08:43 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dazo
The diplo chit thing is another story entirely though I also consider it pretty ok as Germany has the option to invest heavily in Holland from the start with a good chance to increase its a bit its starting lead.


I agree this is what I actually do as Germany now I court the Netherlands asap (which means after I bought my final artillery piece). However I find this to be a bit boring. Basically you spend your chits on preventing/slowing a future disaster and not on something exciting like courting Romania (not really possible I have found, the Entente can always counter-invest if you start to make progress).

Again historically the Entente NEVER convinced the Netherlands to stop trading with Germany and it wasn't until LATE 1916 that the UK was finally able to pressure Norway enough to suspend trade with Germany. But with a 6 chit advantage that's a 30% chance each turn (diplo chit spending should be mature by say 1916) for a swing which has an expected value of 10% for a minor (4-8% + 1/3 chance of 8-16% = 6 + 4 = 10% on average). Well that means on average it's going to take about 4 turns to reduce 25% to a pro-Entente leaning assuming both sides are 100% invested (18 chits vs 12 chits). And that's just too fast for something that can arguably be just as impactful in-game as Verdun, Warsaw or the naval blockade.

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 2/5/2021 11:10:37 PM >

(in reply to Dazo)
Post #: 67
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 11:21:46 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
Everything else I agree with in principle, although I think a further rework of the Balkans with respect to Greece and Bulgaria would also be good.


Oh yeah I also agree Greece should get a HQ and I think everyone wants Bulgarian starting corps location changes to prevent sniping. Greece should be "worth it" for the Entente to court, and there should be a viable opportunity to reinforce Greece.

Warning messages of impending Greek entry to the war would help too. For both sides. Kind of like how the Centrals see multiple warning messages that Italy will join soon. Entente player should also be given a heads up that they may want to begin preparing forces to sail for Greece.

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 2/5/2021 11:22:27 PM >

(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 68
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 11:31:50 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 754
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
Everything else I agree with in principle, although I think a further rework of the Balkans with respect to Greece and Bulgaria would also be good.


Oh yeah I also agree Greece should get a HQ and I think everyone wants Bulgarian starting corps location changes to prevent sniping. Greece should be "worth it" for the Entente to court, and there should be a viable opportunity to reinforce Greece.

Warning messages of impending Greek entry to the war would help too. For both sides. Kind of like how the Centrals see multiple warning messages that Italy will join soon. Entente player should also be given a heads up that they may want to begin preparing forces to sail for Greece.


Bulgaria proposed new set up....just a swap of existing units that deploy. (Corp on Plovdiv goes to Sofia..should have 3 ground cover...Detachment originally on Sofia goes to Plovdiv. Plovdiv needs something to cover back door approach from Greek Thrace. Some other fine tuning maybe needed or not.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 2/5/2021 11:34:48 PM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 69
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/5/2021 11:45:40 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
By the way I also want to mention that some of the proposals I make are open to criticism. I like to give my opinion and then have someone argue against it, rather than just keeping quiet.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 70
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/6/2021 12:40:53 AM   
Dazo


Posts: 102
Joined: 9/28/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

By the way I also want to mention that some of the proposals I make are open to criticism. I like to give my opinion and then have someone argue against it, rather than just keeping quiet.


Maybe we can discuss just 1 diplo chit per major country with increased cost like 250 MPPs for minors and 500 for majors .

Entente: 6 max (UK, France, Russia, Italy, Serbia, USA) with 3 main (FR UK RUS).
CP: 3 max (Germany, AH, OE).
Could even forget Serbia (no chit) and USA won't be in for a while if at all so it would be 4-3 for Entente.

Even simpler would be 3 Entente (UK FR Russia) et 2 CP (Germany and AH or 2 Germany since it clearly was the leading force).
(having 2 chits for Germany would reflect their diplo ability all over the map but also add an heavier burden since it won't be able to share the cost with AH)

Minor Majors like OE and Italy would probably struggle to afford diplo chits (at least on a regular basis).
Majors Majors could "relay" on a target to share the costs or go all out each on one target.
(say Russia on Romania, UK on US and France used to counter CP diplo)
(Germany could be on Netherlands and AH on Bulgaria with OE waiting for better days )

Only 1 chit by side allowed to target a country. Chits wouldn't cancel each other if on the same country.
Chance to hit would be 25% per turn instead of 5%.
Results should be the same: 4-8% increase with a 33% chance of a 12-24 swing.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 71
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/6/2021 7:39:01 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
I am very much in agreement with the general direction of this discussion. In my one futile effort to play MP I (playing as CP) managed to put 5 Diplo chits into Romania in 1915. It was all to no avail as my opponent had put 12 in!! I am not sure that Romania had enough hotels really.

(in reply to Dazo)
Post #: 72
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/6/2021 7:42:43 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

By the way I also want to mention that some of the proposals I make are open to criticism. I like to give my opinion and then have someone argue against it, rather than just keeping quiet.


Yes, this is what I do too. If I get an idea I just put it out there. I am sure quite often it is rubbish, but it may raise an issue that other people have better ideas about. There are loads of interesting ideas knocking about now.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 73
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/6/2021 2:26:12 PM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

So TEU mentioned that he thinks the Central Powers have the advantage. I'll give my 2000 cents:

In my tentative opinion I think the Centrals are in a bind. The first long term problem for the Centrals is there isn't a way to reliable defeat Russia. If Russia adopts a long term strategy to minimize NM losses (after their violent attacks in 1914) and take advantage of their overpowered Industry Tech (+125 MPP per turn per tech advance which is double what Germany gets) and large tech pool (1600 is as large as Germany, we are talking about a country which couldn't produce its own aircraft or submarines and had to rely on foreign imports) then I don't really see how you force their NM to get low enough for the Bolsheviks to take over. Russia has a LOT of space to trade for time. Once Warsaw is lost the remaining NM objectives you have to lose aren't that impactful (-1000 or so each), and it takes MANY turns for the Centrals to get to them. If Russia simply retreats and entrenches one hex every turn on fronts where the Centrals want to attack, then you can do so for a very long time. There just isn't anything forcing Russia to stand and fight. The Germany levels of MPP per turn (700+ is quite possible) once they get level 3+ Industry Tech means they can always repurchase any losses and Russia actually starts buying extra corps even if they have taken very high losses consistently. This combined with 4 artillery units (they can purchase up to limits before their scripted artillery spawns) makes it impractical to push against Russia in multiple sectors. You're not going to take Riga Kiev or Minsk for a LONG time if ever, and Russia can even make a stand near Brest-Litovsk if she chooses to do so. The Russians are perfectly capable of firing their artillery shells and destroying a Central corps every now and then while simultaneously retreating and taking no losses.

I will note that I haven't explored enough is what exactly triggers the series of events in Russia. I gather they need low NM, something like 10%, but I'm not sure exactly what level of low NM triggers what. There are a series of desertion events which help weaken Russian corps and I'm not sure what triggers those. So to have a complete opinion on Russia I'd need to review the exact numbers. I think I can reliably get Russian NM below 50%, but the problem is once you get them there they just start retreating and refusing to engage. I want to examine this further.

The other long term problem for the Centrals is diplomacy. Specifically the Netherlands will deal NM damage every turn to Germany if she is anything but Central-aligned. And the reality is that the Entente get an insane number of diplo chits with no restrictions and the Centrals simply can't match this. Not sure why they give the Entente 18 diplomatic chits (UK France Italy Russia) while the Centrals only get 12, but basically there's no way to stop the Netherlands from swinging. And again it isn't really even the large MPP loss (65 seems too large, should be like 35 and just give Germany a couple extra cities to make up for the difference) that is the main problem but it's the NM damage every turn that hurts the most. I'm not quite sure what historical events the developers are intending here because there already is blockade which deals NM damage every turn. Was the Netherlands really a giant supplier of calories for Germany? Did millions of tons of grain come through the blockade and sneak into Germany to the Netherlands during WWI? There's also a NM hit to Germany once Norway swings but the Netherlands is the main way to hurt the central powers using diplomatic chits. I think the France Russia and Italy should lose some diplo chits (come on was Italy really able to influence anyone at all during the war?) and probably Russia and Ottomans shouldn't be able to influence far away countries like Netherlands... or Spain.

France may be the Entente's main problem and the main reason is they lose Verdun which causes a ticking NM loss for France. And the Entente has to place most of their artillery in France to hold the line and prevent prevent a French collapse. But here is why I think ultimately French NM will outlast German NM: the UK has a giant NM pool and can take over much/most of the fighting in France. Yes between France and the UK that's a giant 95000 NM pool (I know events subtract or add from this but still it's roughly accurate). And worst of all for the Central Powers, there's no ticking NM damage that affects UK (unless you want to try convoy raiding in the Atlantic against a competent Entente admiral, good luck with that). Ultimately this combined NM pool can outlast Germany's pool, especially given the artillery levels on the front, which again make most of the possible advances in France impossible. Again, the ability to get an "extra" artillery unit (purchase up to limit before your event arty spawns) helps tremendously. Industry Tech gives the UK (really every major, except Serbia and possibly Italy and Ottomans) quite a bit of extra MPP which goes into purchasing extra units and the front fills out which makes a "breakthrough" impossible even if a successful attack is carried out. The issue becomes less about fighting and winning battles and more about how much NM are you losing every turn due to events. The loss per turn is zero for the UK*.

*Yes you can rail in an Austrian army to share some of the NM losses between the centrals, so it's not just the Entente that can manage NM pools in this way, but the Austrians have a smaller pool and weak technology....

Elsewhere Italy is a liability for the Entente and the Caucasus front is a liability for the Centrals. I think both sides are just trying to limit the damage here. I think it's difficult for either theatre to become fatal for either side (progress is slow in the Caucasus and the Entente can always rail in units to help Italy). If the Russians choose to place an artillery in the Caucasus then either the Ottomans ultimately give up Erzurum and Trabzon or it basically becomes a NM farm for Russia where they devour an Ottoman unit every couple turns for the badly needed NM. I think the Ottomans could use an Enver Pasha HQ in the Caucasus upon mobilization and I would actually give the Italians a half strength artillery unit and one chit invested in Trench Warfare to start. I was reading about the Italian generous use of artillery during the early battles of the Isonzo.

So yeah I do suspect the Entente has it better in the long term. I think Russia needs its tech levels and economy toned down and probably needs higher NM penalties upon retreating because I don't see them falling apart in 1917 as they did historically if the Russian player moves to avoid this. The Ottomans are weak and will need to be bailed out in one way or another. And probably most critically Germany takes quite a bit of ticking NM damage and in my opinion Germany runs out before France does.

I think the intention was for unrestricted sub warfare to give Germany a NM boost every turn (or every now and then). But in MP it just isn't possible for Centrals to raid with subs in the Atlantic (raiding in the Med more possible once you take Greece but this doesn't have any NM Objective hexes). Your subs WILL gets spotted either leaving or returning past the blockade or simply out at sea. Entente submarines and aircraft are excellent sub spotters, S&I will randomly detect your subs when they are vulnerable, and if those somehow fail the Entente can simply do it the old fashioned way by patrolling with surface vessels and keeping an anti-sub mob ready in a central location. Any raiding you do isn't worth the NM and MPP swing from losing subs (not to mention you anger the USA).

Suggestions:
-Lower Russia tech pool to 1400 from 1600 (this is WWI not WWII, Russia was NOT a tech leader)
-Additional penalties for Russia to retreat (Russian regime historically was shaky and should be in mortal danger if the war appears to be going badly, collapse in 1917 should be a real threat)
-Change Industry Tech to +10% instead of +15% (should reduce late game unit bloat)
-Reduce max chits invested and max tech level in Gas/Shell Production from 3 to 2 to slightly slow it down and limit shell production from 4 to 3
-Change max stored shells from 10 to 3 + logistics
-Reduce Entente diplo chits (UK France Russia Italy) from 5/5/5/3 to 5/4/3/1 (lower Ottomans from 3 to 2) and restrict Russia and Ottomans from influencing Netherlands Spain etc.
-Give Italy a starting arty unit and give Ottomans a low quality starting HQ in the Caucasus, give Italy one chit in Trench Warfare being researched
-Reduce the effect of the Netherlands both in MPP and NM unless there's some great reason why this nation was so critical for German food imports (I don't believe the Netherlands changed its export policy during the war, it was also affected by the blockade and experienced food shortages on its own)
-Also reduce the ticking NM effect of Verdun to balance it
-And finally, Make Unrestricted sub warfare Great Again



Great post.
I agree with nerfing Russia but not only in Industry but in terms of entrenchment also. The Russian memes on guns didn't happen ever in WW2 but did happen in WW1 due to mismanagements not due to shortage of production.


he Wartime Change in Real GDP: 1914-1918, by Country
UK USA Germany Austria Russia France
1913 100 100 100 100 100 100
1914 92.3 101.0 85.2 83.5 94.5 92.9
1915 94.9 109.1 80.9 77.4 95.5 91.0
1916 108.0 111.5 81.7 76.5 79.8 95.6
1917 105.3 112.5 81.8 74.8 67.7 81.0
1918 114.8 113.2 81.8 73.3 … 63.9
Sources: Maddison (1995: 148-51),

Italy and Ottomans are omitted and so are the minors. The Russian economy in 1915 stood good and then slid down. By 1918 even the French economy had nearly shattered which despite good stuff in 1915 and 1916 sank later.
UK alone experienced a minor boom from 1916 onwards.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 74
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/6/2021 3:30:46 PM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 435
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: online
The real GDP numbers for each Major over 1914-1918 that shri quotes above suggest that the settings for Industrial Production tech should be re-thought. Right now, every Major can in theory reach level 5 in Industrial Production.

Without trying to replicate exactly the GDP figures from real life (after all, you can still have the same level of GDP yet shift your wartime towards more guns than butter), this suggests that something like the USA should be capped at 3 in Industrial Tech; the UK and Germany at 2 and all other Majors at 1. Players could still invest in Production Tech (something I usually neglect) if they wished to get their costs down later in the war.

This would obviously help rebalance the game towards the Central Powers, in particular by restricting the growth in the Russian and French economies. It would make bringing in the USA relatively more important for the Entente. And it would help deal with the phenomenon of MPP bloat later in the war.

And unlike a lot of my other ideas for mods, this is eminently doable with the Game Editor!

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 75
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/6/2021 8:34:49 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
I think reducing the effects of industry tech definitely help the Central Powers.

I lost the exact numbers but from what I recall it's something in this ballpark:

Industry gain per tech level:
Russia: 120-125
Germany: ~65
France, Austria, UK: something like 40-50?
Ottomans and Italy: a disappointing amount but still worth doing

So it's more nations that benefit and in particular Russia gets a stupid amount of extra money every turn.

I'm not entirely certain it's really the Entente that has the advantage overall. I feel like they do get a numerical superiority and they do win the diplomacy game in the long term, but as it stands I think the long term balance is up in the air due to 1) Russia is tough to make quit, 2) the USA won't join because 3) Germany isn't conducting sub warfare in MP

A change to any or all of those three factors would make a big difference in terms of balance, so it's tough to talk about individual changes to the economy without addressing the overall picture, and even then it's debatable.

Anyhow I do propose that if the Entente is too weak after weakening Industry tech, maybe just give Russia, Italy and maybe UK also a 5% boost to their initial Industrial Modifier. That would give them more early MPP (the most valuable kind) to compensate.

(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 76
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/6/2021 10:10:46 PM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 435
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

I think the long term balance is up in the air due to 1) Russia is tough to make quit, 2) the USA won't join because 3) Germany isn't conducting sub warfare in MP



Hmmm, if the USA is not joining in MP games because Germany is not conducting strategic sub warfare, that's a problem.

Reducing the returns to investment in Industry Tech and/or dialling back Russia's industrial modifier will make the convoys that much more important to the British, especially if the Entente find they need to start sending serious MPPs via convoy from Britain to Russia. Germany will have a greater incentive to try and disrupt at least the Russia convoy and ideally the incoming convoys to Britain.

But would that be enough to start encouraging CP players to start using their German subs in the Norwegian Sea and in the Atlantic? It might be, if combined with some of the other ideas you have suggested at the end of the long thread on "why are subs so weak in this game compared to WW2?".

< Message edited by mdsmall -- 2/6/2021 10:25:46 PM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 77
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/8/2021 5:43:08 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
I have a proposal-

1. France & UK starting from late 1916 import Chinese labourers (Historically happened and in huge quantities in France) and UK getting Japanese destroyers in 1914/early 1915 (tech 0, maybe 2 numbers in the MED, will help a lot). This will boost the Entente. The upfront costs should be a bit, maybe 200MPP spread over 4 turns for Chinese labourers giving a 5% permanent boost and 100MPP per turn for 2 turns for the 2 free destroyers.
This indirectly helps the UK in the med to combat CP subs and save MPP in the long run and gives France a small boost. Only country penalised is Russia (and rightly so).

2. To compensate, curb Ottomans, Russia, Italy (and minors like Serbia) to level 1 Industry max, Austria and France to level 2 max, UK and Germany to level 3 max, US can remain as it is.

Everyone reaching level 5 is a-historical. 2 reasons-
1. Raw material shortages set in.
2. Additional mobilisation of women on the farms and POWs on the farms (Germany did this esp. using Belgians, Russians and others on farms) and transferring men to factories had a limit.

(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 78
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/8/2021 11:55:26 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4522
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
The thing to remember about MPP income is that it doesn't represent GDP, but the proportion of the economy that is geared towards the war effort.

At the start of the war everyone had to start switching production from civilian/consumer goods to guns, shells, uniforms, bandages, etc etc and this process took some time to ramp up to the full limits of military production.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 79
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/8/2021 12:44:21 PM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
If we take total spending on the war during WW1, then-
Germany spent $39 Billion, British Empire $38 billion, France 26, US 22, Austria 21, Russia 18, Italy 13, Turkey + Bulgaria 3.

We can ignore US for a moment and then draw a graph that -

Germany spent roughly 25% of the total expenditure
UK about 24% (includes the Empire and Dominion figures)
France 16%
Austria 13%
Russia 11%
Turkey + Bulgaria - 2%

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 80
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/10/2021 2:26:28 PM   
hottegetthoff

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/7/2020
Status: offline
I think ottomans do need a second HQ in Caucasus, as stated before in the thread. Also, a Bulgarian Cavalry Corps at the beginning would be historical, as they had one of the most renowned cavalry generals of the war. I feel like the best CP strategy is after attacking belgium, a-h tries to take belgrade the 1st turn, and based on effect decides where to send the additional armies. Germany at the very start needs to send the marine and gear him up towards gulf of Riga, while keeping Home fleet occupied. Russians will get a dreadnought during the operation, because of the speed and distance.
(btw i believe that with the scale of the game a +1 to the movement of naval invasions is necessary)
Next you can do your standard moves, destroying Russian Navy and taking warsaw. Your whole focus needs to shift to the East, as you have no reliable way to destroy the french, no scripted bolshevik revolution. Further, an invasion to finland can work, and you cant have any better options.
Russians have way too many units in caucasus, without Sarrikamish the Turks would probably have numerical superiority, and it would be up to General Yudenich to change that.
I think that a system, which would systematically weaken nations if their National Morale is falling, to cause a downward spiral, should be added in some way, with the easiest trigger conditions for Russia, then countries like France, Ottomans, A-H, Italy on the next level, and UK with Germany at the top of resistance.
Maybe this could be made simply by making the morale at the start differ, like Germany-100%, UK-95%, France 85%, 80% A-H, 75%-Russia, and so on.

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 81
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/10/2021 2:37:39 PM   
hottegetthoff

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/7/2020
Status: offline
Also, replacing the russian sub in the black sea with a destoryer would make the area much more interesting.

(in reply to hottegetthoff)
Post #: 82
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 2/11/2021 6:39:54 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hottegetthoff

I think ottomans do need a second HQ in Caucasus, as stated before in the thread. Also, a Bulgarian Cavalry Corps at the beginning would be historical, as they had one of the most renowned cavalry generals of the war. I feel like the best CP strategy is after attacking belgium, a-h tries to take belgrade the 1st turn, and based on effect decides where to send the additional armies. Germany at the very start needs to send the marine and gear him up towards gulf of Riga, while keeping Home fleet occupied. Russians will get a dreadnought during the operation, because of the speed and distance.
(btw i believe that with the scale of the game a +1 to the movement of naval invasions is necessary)
Next you can do your standard moves, destroying Russian Navy and taking warsaw. Your whole focus needs to shift to the East, as you have no reliable way to destroy the french, no scripted bolshevik revolution. Further, an invasion to finland can work, and you cant have any better options.
Russians have way too many units in caucasus, without Sarrikamish the Turks would probably have numerical superiority, and it would be up to General Yudenich to change that.
I think that a system, which would systematically weaken nations if their National Morale is falling, to cause a downward spiral, should be added in some way, with the easiest trigger conditions for Russia, then countries like France, Ottomans, A-H, Italy on the next level, and UK with Germany at the top of resistance.
Maybe this could be made simply by making the morale at the start differ, like Germany-100%, UK-95%, France 85%, 80% A-H, 75%-Russia, and so on.


Speaking of Historical OOBs then the Germans are short of 1 or even 2 cavalry corps. They had 1 operating in the east split between the 8th army and various detachments and 1 split between various armies on the western front and home front. I guess units were reduced all round to accomodate gameplay.

But i do agree with Enver HQ point and reduced morale for Russia.

(in reply to hottegetthoff)
Post #: 83
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> RE: CP and Entente Game Balance Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.336