Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

Hubert - as you suggested, I ran a simple hotseat test between five France and German corps following the German occupation of Luxembourg on the first turn of the game, August 1, 1914. After the first turn, all five units stayed in place with no combat, at full strength and with supply levels from 8 - 12 (for the French unit on Verdun). I tracked their morale levels over the next ten turns.

The morale benefit for the German units was immediate: they enjoyed an immediate morale swing of 20-25% over their starting morale and remained at that level over the ten turns of my test.

The morale penalties for the French units were more ambiguous: they all dropped anywhere from 4 - 12% on the next turn (turn 2) and then rose the following turn (turn 3) to a level above their starting morale, except for the unit on Verdun which fluctuated between 5 - 11% below its starting morale of 120%.

I did a brief check of unit morale across the board and could see a similar swing in favour of the German units and against other Entente units after Luxembourg fell, but I did not document it.

These results for Germany where in range with what the manual suggests: i.e. a 20-30% morale swing in favour, but they appear to be permanent. The results for France were much less than the 20-30% swing against stated by the manual and were very temporary. I will keep track of this factor in my subsequent games and will report the results here.

But I would make the general point now that this effect seems over-powered, at least when Minors surrender. There are many more of them in the game and if attacked by a Major, in general it is not hard to force them to surrender (see the thread on Montenegro, currently at 168 posts and counting..). Would it be possible to adjust the game engine so that the Morale Effects settings can be adjusted by country; or at least to differentiate Minors from Majors in their surrender effects?

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall
But I would make the general point now that this effect seems over-powered, at least when Minors surrender.

quote:


There are many more of them in the game and if attacked by a Major, in general it is not hard to force them to surrender (see the thread on Montenegro, currently at 168 posts and counting..). Would it be possible to adjust the game engine so that the Morale Effects settings can be adjusted by country; or at least to differentiate Minors from Majors in their surrender effects?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

I would have to say that off hand 10 turns doesn't sound right at all. I only suggest this as I've run these kinds of tests in the past and this is the same mechanism used for all 3 SC3 games, including the WWII games and hasn't probably changed code wise in a few years.

What I would suggest is running two games side by side, where in one game you only move one CP unit into Luxembourg and in the other, don't move any units at all. If you really want to be super accurate, creating a customized campaign with all scripts removed will ensure no unforeseen events or morale events are also having an effect.

From memory it should really only be 2 turns (from a single country surrender), just about, and my guess is that by the beginning of the third CP turn, let's say around August 29th, all unit morale levels should pretty much be the same, for both the Entente and the CP, in both test games.

Actually then, since the boost happens at the end of the CP 1st turn, and everything should return to normal by the beginning of the 3rd turn, the boost in reality is only advantageous to the CP side when attacking for a single turn, which is their 2nd turn.

Hubert

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall
A smart offensive player might want to time the final take-down of a minor somewhere on the board to increase his advantage for the opening turns of an offensive somewhere else.

quote:


I still think the line-up of minors likely to surrender in this game is de facto weighted against the Entente and I have a hard time figuring out why Russian units in Galicia would care about what happened in Luxembourg. I'd encourage you to think about being able to adjust the morale swings due to surrender based on the country in question. But at least based on this test, I would not argue that surrender of Luxembourg per se distorts the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater


For example, Luxembourg might not have an effect on Russian unit morale, but a quick surrender of let's say France in 1914 might.

Perhaps minor surrenders only effect the parent nations, while major surrenders affect all major nations etc.

Something for us to think about as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall
Hubert - there is a huge strategic difference between a major like France surrendering and the most minor of minors, Luxembourg, surrendering.

quote:


Yet there is no difference in morale impact at the unit level - both are the same. I would encourage you to consider revising making the revision you suggest so that when minors surrender only their parent major is affected.

quote:


Equally, only the conquering major on the attacking side should benefit when a minor surrenders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Potentially though, I believe a Montenegro gambit of sorts could still exist as it still doesn't stop a German player from taking Luxembourg and Montenegro to give just Germany a unit morale boost for all theaters.

Which again has me lean more towards attempting to limit this particular gambit first and then go from there to see if most of these issues/concerns go away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Of course, this is just one of those where we have to consider a potential game engine change and what kind of impact it will have in other parts of the game, as well as for the other games that use the same code base.

For example, the code works the same for all surrenders and for all games and overall up to now has pretty much worked as desired, e.g. for most circumstances, so it is a question of whether or not we absolutely require code changes as there is no other solution, possible new special rules for one game, or some other solution that has yet to be considered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:


Yet there is no difference in morale impact at the unit level - both are the same. I would encourage you to consider revising making the revision you suggest so that when minors surrender only their parent major is affected.

Fair, but we'd still prefer to think this through as some geographical locations could perhaps have an effect on more than one major, potentially.

For example, let's say Germany did take Montenegro (before the gambit was discovered) in some time in 1915 from a push there to help its AH allies. Would taking Montenegro just boost Germany or could it be argued that it should boost the AH as well which is doing the bulk of the fighting in neighboring Serbia?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Potentially though, I believe a Montenegro gambit of sorts could still exist as it still doesn't stop a German player from taking Luxembourg and Montenegro to give just Germany a unit morale boost for all theaters.

Which again has me lean more towards attempting to limit this particular gambit first and then go from there to see if most of these issues/concerns go away.

A game engine change is not desirable. Nerfing the temporary surrender and morale boost mechanism is not desirable either. The Montenegro Gambit should be available as a strategy. This is a geographical and infrastructure problem concerning this A.O. (Area of Operations). I proposed a simple removal of a narrow gauge railway that is featured as a regular railway...to be replaced with a paved road. (which already is on the map running along the RR). If the CP elects to do the gambit at anytime..especially the first turn..they will stage within 1 hex of Sarajevo. From there they can march down with adequate supply to assemble outside Cetinje.

This proposal eliminates the need to start fiddling with the game engine. It also eliminates the need to change the mechanics of chit selling, or the prohibition of that on the first turn. It also probably means a second capital at Pec isn't necessary..though I personally would add an alternative capital there with the RR snip.

Taking Cetinje early (after turn 2) without making Montenegro surrender is still a huge loss to the Entente, hence its a Gambit.
A gambit is an action entailing a degree of risk...which for the CP, is having substantial units in this A.O. for a while longer then they may want. Having no rail there means they will have to march back to Sarajevo if things turn bad for them on one of the other fronts. As this so called Montenegrin Gambit stands..its actually an exploit. Its an exploit because Albania goes neutral, and there is no conceivable way for the Entente to inject force into the Balkans.

This is all my humble opinion of course..... o7

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

A game engine change is not desirable. Nerfing the temporary surrender and morale boost mechanism is not desirable either. The Montenegro Gambit should be available as a strategy. This is a geographical and infrastructure problem concerning this A.O. (Area of Operations). I proposed a simple removal of a narrow gauge railway that is featured as a regular railway...to be replaced with a paved road. (which already is on the map running along the RR). If the CP elects to do the gambit at anytime..especially the first turn..they will stage within 1 hex of Sarajevo. From there they can march down with adequate supply to assemble outside Cetinje.

This proposal eliminates the need to start fiddling with the game engine. It also eliminates the need to change the mechanics of chit selling, or the prohibition of that on the first turn. It also probably means a second capital at Pec isn't necessary..though I personally would add an alternative capital there with the RR snip.

Taking Cetinje early (after turn 2) without making Montenegro surrender is still a huge loss to the Entente, hence its a Gambit.
A gambit is an action entailing a degree of risk...which for the CP, is having substantial units in this A.O. for a while longer then they may want. Having no rail there means they will have to march back to Sarajevo if things turn bad for them on one of the other fronts. As this so called Montenegrin Gambit stands..its actually an exploit. Its an exploit because Albania goes neutral, and there is no conceivable way for the Entente to inject force into the Balkans.

This is all my humble opinion of course..... o7

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

Hubert - I appreciate why you are reluctant to make a change to the game engine just to address what some players feel is a problem with one situation in one of the SC games. I think the problem is bigger than just Luxembourg and Montenegro, at least for the Entente in this game. But would you consider building into the game engine the option to vary the surrender morale settings by country and then leave the default setting as they are now (at least for now). That way players who want to dial up or down those settings for certain countries can do so in their own mods and everyone else can keep playing normally. It would at least give players (like me) who think there is an issue here to test out alternatives and so if they make any difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

If we have more NO then YES to those questions then we tend to lean towards the bigger picture and consider more significant changes.

If it is more YES than NO then we lean more towards the issue that has raised all the questions and focus more on that and then go from there.

For example, as you've alluded to perhaps the Montenegro strategy should remain as a viable one with some adjustments and if we can raise the risk to ensure it is not the strategy that wins the game for the CP side every time with little to no risk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks OldCrowBalthazor, and yes one of the questions we ask ourselves in this situation is how did the game play before a possible exploit was discovered?

Was it fairly balanced? Were the entries of nations otherwise ok? Did it allow for multiple strategies but none were game breaking? And so on...

If we have more NO then YES to those questions then we tend to lean towards the bigger picture and consider more significant changes.

If it is more YES than NO then we lean more towards the issue that has raised all the questions and focus more on that and then go from there.

As mentioned, past experience has led us to think carefully so as to not introduce new issues. Whack-a-mole has happened to us before in the past and that leads to even more player frustration.

We also tend to lean towards a balanced approach unless it is something truly game breaking and no other option remains other than to completely remove it from the game.

For example, as you've alluded to perhaps the Montenegro strategy should remain as a viable one with some adjustments and if we can raise the risk to ensure it is not the strategy that wins the game for the CP side every time with little to no risk.

We had a similar situation in our WWII game where players felt it was game breaking when the Axis operated all their air to North Africa to overwhelm the Allied defenses there. In the end we didn't remove the option, e.g. some argued for hard caps, special rules etc., we just amended how air units received maximum supply where they had to be attached to an HQ in order to do so. It allowed players to continue to send as much air to North Africa as before, it just now required a bigger logistical investment in order to be effective, e.g an extra HQ or two. The strategy was there for players to still pursue but became more balanced as a result.

That being said we haven't made a final decision just yet, so to everyone, please keep the feedback coming