Balance/Meta Thoughts v1.17

[redrum68]

After coming back and playing a few MP games, I wanted to leave some thoughts on the current meta and balance. Overall the game is pretty fun and I think the last few patches have generally improved it. But there are still some things that could be further improved to create more interesting decisions and promote better balance. The overall Axis vs Allied balance is actually pretty good and I think only at top levels of gameplay the Axis are slightly favored though not as much as before. These thoughts are mostly MP centric and suggestions will mostly try to avoid impacting AI and lower level MP balance too much. The goal is try to create more varied gameplay and try to avoid the game being solely decided in the USSR in 1941-1943. The suggestions are also more of a list of options not that all of them should be done.

1. Early France Invasion - Most good Axis players invade France in late 1939 after Poland surrenders T1 or T2. There is very little reason not to as the extra several turns of mobilization gain for USA/USSR for DoW on Belgium and Luxembourg is fairly minimal for the trade off of having those turns to grind through France and cause them to surrender earlier than they even did historically which was already very quick. This was made even more advantageous with the air weather changes so that bombers can crush morale even during winter. It would be nice to see more early spring invasions of France or at least penalize the early invasions a bit.

Suggestions
- Consider adding a NM or mobilization boost for allies or penalty to Germany for a DoW before Spring 1940 (represents that Germany was being even more aggressive and invading during winter would be brutal)
- Increase the allied mobilization for Belgium/Luxembourg
- Make winter invasions in France more difficult by increasing bad weather chances in France and/or decreasing bomber effectiveness in land bombing during bad weather

2. Axis Ignoring North Africa - North Africa is generally quite risky for the Axis and if they aren't going to go for Cairo/Middle East then generally they essentially abandon it. It would be better to see less all in or all out gameplay by making it so at least trying to hold North Africa more meaningful not just some minor NM hits to Italy. If Germany completely abandoned North Africa then Italy would have probably caused all sorts of problems and potentially even left the war much earlier.

Suggestions
- Add more Axis NM penalties/bonuses either per turn like US Pacific islands or for losing/holding the North Africa cities based on when they historically were captured to promote more action in North Africa
- Change Afrika Korps event to spawn the units in North Africa either as an option or the only option so its more costly to transport them back to Europe rather than the other way around
- Consider some events to allow Algeria/Tunisia to join Allies if Axis lose all North Africa cities

3. Axis Ignoring Greece - Seems like most Axis players ignore invading Greece as their is pretty limited upside and not much penalty for ignoring it. Would be nice to see invading Greece the meta while still allowing for some games to not invade it.

Suggestions
- Adjust the DE to have more benefit for invading and more drawbacks for saying no
- Increase MPP or NM value of Greek resources

4. Med/Tact Bombers are OP - After the air weather changes, bombers are generally much stronger than before as they now are useful every turn rather than just in good weather. While I think air to sea combat now is better with weather having less of an impact, air to land combat is too strong during bad weather especially during the winter months. This mostly impacts France and USSR which allows the Germans to take more advantage of attacking during the winter months as bombers still cause full morale losses and do half damage (later in the game Allies can use bombers to crush the Axis as well though). The USSR in particular really struggles to deal with German bombers as they are usually behind in fighter tech (Germans often don't even need fighter escorts) and have very limited AA build limits.

Suggestions
- Halve the morale damage during bad weather
- Reduce/remove the morale damage increase per GAW level
- Reduce damage to land units
- Increase AA/fighter damage to bombers
- Increase AA build limits for USSR

5. Game decided in 1941-1943 in the USSR - Most games don't go past 1943 as either the USSR surrenders by 1943 or the Germans are stopped cold and the Allies MPP advantage is already too much. It would be better to see more games go into later years and more stable gameplay in the USSR. It should be fairly rare for the USSR to surrender and the USA shouldn't really be invading France/Italy in 1942. I think some of the concepts that have been applied to China should also be used in the USSR to make it be able to hold out longer. The USA should probably have less income in 1942, Japan less free units, and long range amphib invasions should be more costly/difficult.

Suggestions
- Add some events for USSR to get some free unit spawns as various Soviet cities are captured similar to China so they don't quickly collapse when losing
- Decrease USA income in 1942 further by making some of the resources not come online til later years. Probably decrease the number of free units Japan gets as well.
- Adjust LRATs to either be more expensive or harder to invade over long distances to promote capturing North Africa and more island hopping in the Pacific while also limiting crazy invasions like US directly to France/Italy and Japan directly to India/USA/Africa. Maybe even make regular ATs cheaper so you get more usage of them.

6. HQ Experience OP - Good players maximize HQ experience gain and get 3 star HQs very quickly which makes units under them extremely strong. This generally isn't the case for the AI and lower level players. Air units in particular seem to be easy to farm up HQ experience. There seems to be too large a HQ experience difference between the attacker and defender as Germany/Japan often have multiple 3 star generals while China/USSR have generals with 0 experience.

Suggestions
- Limit HQ experience to 2 stars instead of 3 stars
- Change HQ experience formulas to be more gradual and more focused on how much their units are fighting and less about whether they are winning/losing/attacking/defending. The Germans having like all 3-star generals in 1941 while USSR/China generals have 0 experience just seems silly.

7. HQ Supply Boosting OP - This can be optimized by good players to provide supply really far from the nearest supply source. Generally the AI and lower level players struggle to take advantage of this but this can allow for example the Germans to push very deep, very quickly into the USSR even with the scorched earth.

Suggestion
- I think the rules were adjusted in some patch to make it so any boosted HQ gets 5 supply so distributes 8 supply which just seems way too strong. This should be turned down to be based on the supply level the boosted HQ actually receives not just set to 5.
- Might need to nerf strat bombers a bit to counteract this which is probably fine since they are still very strong especially after the air weather changes

8. Invading Vichy France - Currently, usually the Axis invade Vichy France the turn the USA joins. There should be more drawbacks to invading Vichy France. Its essentially free income and has no defense and no significant drawbacks to invading it.

Suggestions
- Increase mobilization for a number of other countries especially in Africa

9. Port Blockade Hexes and Subs - With the recent changes to subs not losing supply when attacked, its very difficult to counter subs being placed in the blockade hexes to stop the convoy routes from South Africa and Australia.

Suggestions
- Only surface ships should count as blocking the port blockade hexes
- Just like convoy routes, an adjacent enemy vessel prevents the unit from blockading the port

10. Italy Combat Ships Outside the Med before DoW - Axis players still use Italian ships to scout for the Germans before the Italians mobilize

Suggestions
- Expand the US mobilization zone for Italian combat ships to beyond just near Southampton but any combat ships outside the Med before DoW

11. Carrier Exp Farming - All resources should have at least 1 carrier defense to avoid farming carrier exp and taking no damage

[ThunderLizard11]

Some good ideas. Most changes seem to nerf Axis. Right now I think Allies have the long-term advantage so how will you balance Axis nerfs with buffs?

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

@redrum68 --- You spent some solid thought into this, will try to respond with valid input. Your desire is well taken, make the game less about that "momentum change in Russia" decides the game. Players want some kick-ass battles/fight in that 1943+ timeframe, that actually matters.

I totally agree with your theme. How can playability be adjusted so it's not about the Russia breakpoint 1943. I've been barking for more action in Pacific. Reduce naval movement and add more ships?

My quick thoughts on your 1-10
1) No, not a big deal. Game play is good in France.
2) Yes, Axis need some help or a reason to get some action. Top players are off to Russia unless they see the Nile.
3) Yes, Axis need rewarded more, not penalized for taking Greece. Give the Italians some MMPs. Make Crete worth something. It's worthless now.
4) Maybe something, but not more reductions in weather. I like your idea of fighters doing more damage on intercepts.
5) Maybe something, I like your idea of Russia no surrender. Let them stick around, all beat-up with Partisans, and troublesome garbage units spawning on event triggers.
6) Agree, the entire German high command become 3*** star. Lets toggle some Generals to be more historical. Starting with Patton get beefed up. He wasn't even involved in D-day, by Gerry followed his every step. Patton should be super beefed.
7) Good point. It's a top player exploit. The German HQ supply become Spanish Conquistadors of the 1600s
8) No, who cares. North Africa loser countries, joining, means nothing. Both Germans/Allies use Vichy France to their likings. Both in the game and real life. Audie Murphy.
9) No The endless supply for U-boats is funny. An endless supply of food, gas, ammo. U-boats were too weak before. Getting fuel waxed by pinging 0-0 attacks. How about more dives and disappear even farther away.
10) No. Who cares if Italian ships leave. What are they gonna spot, what you know is already there? I think it hurts Italy MedFront defense. Maybe the strength-5 ships can sail the 7 seas, block a port for a few turns. I don't understand why players get bent on this.


A) Change nothing to the game mechanics, but add different/more victory conditions. Rather than the "all or nothing" in Russia, which ultimate determines the winner, find a new way to measure Victory Conditions (aka player performance). Pacific theater included. I'm a huge proponent that the Pacific theater must have USA attention. Pearl Harbor motivated the USA.

B) Your thoughts on Air Attacks in bad weather are well taken. But calibrating them back/forth just for France. No. Here's different thought. I wouldn't be in hurry to tether Winter attacks. Rain is already hosed by range. Maybe reduce Winter range. Not in a hurry to toggle Air in Winter/Rain.

It's true, that Planes don't perform in Rain. (range already reduced). Winter, I disagree. Allies at the Bulge, all the 1943 Winter bombings. Read historical history. Now Germany in 1940, that I will agree with you. But, it's not that big of deal in France. The French Campaign is really good now. Allies should be able to easily hold until May to July, with average of June. The German ground units aren't that great in the Winter.

*this is a turn based game. Allied Air sitting on the shelf doesn't make sense.

Far as the Luftwaffe in Russia, they really aren't that great. There's a few turns, where damage can be done. But give it time, they wear down with Russian Winter event, need upgraded, need coordinated supply/HQ. The Russians get AA-2 for infantry and many AA units, it's not that easy for German Air to dominate. So expensive. The must have a way to destroy/open a breakthrough of momentum.

C) Axis ignoring North Africa. Now this is a great comment. We know how this goes. If Axis cannot go Super Tank to Egypt, they are gone. The Allies swarm on Italian entry, and block all the ports. Why waste good units. Instead of penalizing a player for NOT doing something. I'd rather REWARD a player for doing something. Risk/Reward.

--Give the Axis little bit more Anti-Air protection of their supply points? Make the ports strength 8? Reward the Italians with some morale for holding some cities in North Africa? Just thoughts.

D) Greece, yes, 99% of top Axis players don't give this a 2nd thought. It's only an afterthought to take. Don't penalize the Axis for not doing it. Increase the reward. People need some skin in the game and incentive to take Athens. Might was well add Crete to that reward list.

E) I'd like to see some more cat/mouse with Fighters/Air/Anti-Air in the Allied campaigns over France. Maybe reduce the range of Allied attacks. Germans killed alot of Airman and shot many down many planes.

F) How about having more units, for more action. Remember when the Anti-Tank units were added, spiced up the action. Give the Germans a Rocket to start the game. Maybe more ships in the Pacific? Japs get more garrisons to stop the USA just sniffing with AA-gun landings to steal key cities. Give Germans more garrisons? Russians more weak units to spice up the battlefield. Give the Germans a couple of Super Tanks late in the war? Put them as replacements. More death and destruction.

G) How about adding some supply to remote areas. Island fighting needs some action. It's just swarm with landing craft. Defenders never do any damage.

[redrum68]

Some good ideas. Most changes seem to nerf Axis. Right now I think Allies have the long-term advantage so how will you balance Axis nerfs with buffs?

I tend to agree that if you addressed all of these then it nerfs Axis more than Allies though I also think Allies have a slight edge right now at higher level gameplay. To Elvis's point, I think you could use a carrot rather than a stick for some of these so they are providing benefits to the Axis for doing things that they are ignoring now. Also I think I would consider decreasing USA/USSR income in 1942/1943 a bit to balance any early/mid nerfs to Axis. For longer game balance 1944+, I have pretty limited experience and there are very few high level AARs that last in 1944+. I think Allies are probably a bit favored and you'd potentially have to nerf USA income a bit or adjust the victory conditions to be a little more pro-Axis. But this would very much depend on if LRATs were nerfed some as that primarily hurts the USA and some of these changes would primarily nerf the Allies more than Axis in later game.

@Elvis - Good input. I do tend to agree that I'm probably a little too focused on nerfing Axis while instead doing some things to reward things that Axis are ignoring would be better. We definitely agree that overall it would be nice to see fronts outside of the USSR matter more and see more action. Not sure if you've played a top Axis player recently but German bombers in the USSR are absolutely brutal now when used by elite tactical players like HM, I agree that France isn't a big deal but being bombed to pieces in the winter in the USSR just is tough to counter. In my last game, the Germans blew up an entrenched Soviet Army in Moscow in December with tons of bombers which just feels wrong. Only thing that saved Moscow was Soviet Winter firing the next turn.

[Argothair]

I just came here to say that redrum is absolutely right about the problems in the current meta and the solutions. I strongly agree with darn near everything he says.

My only tiny quibble is that for the submarines, I would just restore the part where they lose supply for diving. Losing supply is realistic, themey, balanced, and fun. It simulates the feeling of being 'hunted'; a sub captain can escape from one surface attacker making a casual raid, but if everyone keeps going after you and you can't get back to a safe port then sooner or later you run out of oxygen, have to surface, and get creamed.

[redrum68]

I just came here to say that redrum is absolutely right about the problems in the current meta and the solutions. I strongly agree with darn near everything he says.

My only tiny quibble is that for the submarines, I would just restore the part where they lose supply for diving. Losing supply is realistic, themey, balanced, and fun. It simulates the feeling of being 'hunted'; a sub captain can escape from one surface attacker making a casual raid, but if everyone keeps going after you and you can't get back to a safe port then sooner or later you run out of oxygen, have to surface, and get creamed.

That's not a bad idea. The only adjustment that could be considered is limit them to losing supply only once per turn from diving. Otherwise I think you could end up with a lot of the original issues with them being attacked by tons of surface ships in a single turn to remove all their supply.

[Argothair]

Why is it a problem if a whole fleet full of surface ships causes a sub to run out of supply? As I understand it, a sub only has a (1 + tech) * 10% chance of diving, so a level 2 sub would have a 30% chance of diving on each attack. If I attack that sub with ten surface ships, then it would expect to lose about 3 supply, which sounds totally reasonable. Subs were designed to be able to evade occasional retaliation, not to swim through the entire enemy fleet.

Sending 10 ships to attack the same sub is a massive undertaking that's very expensive in terms of opportunity cost -- those same ships could be bombarding the enemy coast, escorting transports, patrolling sea zones, searching for other subs, protecting convoy routes, and so on...if I send all 10 of them (essentially the entire UK Atlantic Fleet) to go bother the same sub, it should have a notable effect like removing 3 supply. If it only removed 1 supply instead, then it would take 10 turns, i.e., seven or eight months, just to render one sub pack weak enough to be killed. That's assuming the sub can't simply escape and go resupply at a port somewhere. Meanwhile, all the other subs I'm not able to pay attention to are wrecking havoc and gaining XP.

[Nginear]

I think a 0.5 supply loss each defense is reasonable. The carriers lose 0.5 for each attack/strike....