Warplan 2 wishlist

[StalnoyMonstr]

To clarify, when I say that USSR can't win without a massive amount of PP coming by lend lease from the Allies. This is my answer for this game in particular.

I have done several posts about the fact that USSR is not having the right level of production; that USSR can't win if it is trying to resist somewhere. In 1941, battles like Smolensk, Soltsy, Staraya Russa, Kiev, Moscow are just a suicide to perform because of encirclements. And with the map, there is not this operational depth that you would have expected. The new winter scenario is better however.

Yes, I understand you and agree with you. It looks like you and I are talking about the same things. It’s just that when communication takes place with the help of an online translator, there is a mismatch between thought and text))).
It also seems to me that we need to somehow stimulate the possibility for the USSR to place a second and third set of pieces on the chessboard (rifle corps / combined arms armies, in terms of the game). But at the same time, Germany should not be weakened in any way. For game balance, it would be enough to take away part of the industrial production from the Western allies and annex it to the USSR. This would not violate the logic of the game in any way. Or, as an option, simultaneously with adding industrial production for the USSR, add it to Germany as well. The main thing is that the overall proportion between the Axis countries and the Allies does not change.
In addition, for both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army there was a problem with mobility, due to a shortage of cars, starting in the winter of 1941/42. But the Western allies did not have such a problem. Maybe we should depict this in the second part of the game?
However, if you have completed the change to the game map, which you did judging by your posts, which I read through the link you provided above, then the first part will undoubtedly change for the better. To this we can also add equalization of starting experience for all allies. Approximately – experience 45 points. Or 40. Then it will be easier for the Wehrmacht in the west than it is now, and harder in the east.

[generalfdog]

StalonyMonstr, are you suggesting that all allies have same experience? so France, USA, UK, and USSR all be 40? humm I am going to go ahead and not agree with that, the difference between the performance of UK units and early Russian ones was worlds apart

[StalnoyMonstr]

StalonyMonstr, are you suggesting that all allies have same experience? so France, USA, UK, and USSR all be 40? humm I am going to go ahead and not agree with that, the difference between the performance of UK units and early Russian ones was worlds apart

Are you sure you're not joking right now? And where did the British army get such an experience at that time? Where did she participate in real battles? Let me remind you that it was the Red Army that had the experience of fighting with Japan on Hassan in 1938, on Khalkhin Gol in 1939. The Red Army sent officers to help the Kuomintang against Japan. The Red Army fought in the Spanish Civil War. The Red Army was at war with Finland. Or does your statement mean that the British gentleman is just a priori an excellent soldier by birthright?

[FrancPeinovich]

StalonyMonstr, are you suggesting that all allies have same experience? so France, USA, UK, and USSR all be 40? humm I am going to go ahead and not agree with that, the difference between the performance of UK units and early Russian ones was worlds apart

Are you sure you're not joking right now? And where did the British army get such an experience at that time? Where did she participate in real battles? Let me remind you that it was the Red Army that had the experience of fighting with Japan on Hassan in 1938, on Khalkhin Gol in 1939. The Red Army sent officers to help the Kuomintang against Japan. The Red Army fought in the Spanish Civil War. The Red Army was at war with Finland. Or does your statement mean that the British gentleman is just a priori an excellent soldier by birthright?

Yes, the soldier, who hails typically from England, Scottland, Whales, and other parts of the British Empire, was of better quality than the average Red Army conscript in 1940, in terms of training regiment, and understanding of assault and maneuver formations.

The vast majority of the Red Army did not see combat in Mongolia in 1939 or in Finland in 1940. Those that did suffered heavy losses, and the experience gained was mostly for the staff officer's benefit.

The German perspective of their enemy soldiers was generally accurate. The individual Russian was a fierce fighter, but the company and battalion leadership was poor and indecisive (in 1941).


The experience of the default infantry in 1939 should be as follows, in my opinion:

Germany: 45-65
UK: 50-60
France: 45-55
USSR: 35-45
Italy: 35-45
USA: 40-55

A very rough estimate, assuming the experience will vary depending on formation. Germany had a very experienced army due to the need to totally reconstruct the officer corps and the large amount of veteran trainers, although the German army was largely conscripted.

[FrancPeinovich]

Very important!!! The distance Brest-Gomel in reality is 500 kilometers, on the game map – 15 hexes. The Gomel-Moscow distance in reality is 570 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. The Brest-Krakow distance in reality is 340 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. It's simply impossible to comprehend. This breaks the entire gameplay. In the second part, it would be nice to display real distances on the game map. Where are the endless expanses of Russia?

Absolutely, Moscow is much too close from the German border. See this thread:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=377580

This is completely breaking the game balance. A workaround was then done to move the industry if Moscow is captured but, in fact, there is no more interest to capture it. Shame the map will never be solved but I can understand it is no more the time to invest in this game iteration.

I think you are right in many ways, especially the topic you raised with errors on the game map. Your contribution here is invaluable, I was pleasantly surprised when I got acquainted with your opinion through the links on the forum.
However, in some particular issues, in my opinion, you do not fully assess the situation) And in real history there was an evacuation of industry, not always successful, but mostly successful. The evacuation, and the pre-started construction of “backup enterprises” in the Urals and Siberia, literally saved the USSR, and not Lend-Lease at all. But we must pay tribute - Lend-Lease saved many lives of Soviet people and brought victory closer! Honor and praise to the allies for this!
However, not everything is so simple. Basically, supplies were equal to a small share of the USSR’s own production; before the winter of 1941 there were none at all; until the winter of 1942, supplies were minimal. Moreover, for example, the British Empire received 3 times more supplies than the USSR, and as for the results of the impact on the Wehrmacht - judge for yourself who fought more, England or Russia...
In addition, the US government pretended not to see how American businesses were supplying Hitler. And this happened before the start of the war, and during the war, even when the United States officially entered the war with Germany. Supplies through Spain ceased only at the time of the Allied landings in Normandy.
And the USSR supplied “reverse Lend-Lease” to the USA with rare earth metals, gold and other raw materials.
So in the game it is necessary to arrange supplies to Germany through Spain from the United States and Venezuela of oil and products, even when the United States is at war with Germany. And from Russia - back to America, rare earth metals. This is the harsh truth.
It turns out that the Red Army was able to stop the Wehrmacht and defeat it near Moscow absolutely without Lend-Lease, and win at Stalingrad with minimal help from the allies. According to this, it is necessary to calculate Lend-Lease in the game. More help came, the Germans did not build submarines - well, the USSR in 1943 - in Berlin. There is no Lend-Lease at all - the USSR in 1946 in Berlin.
By the way, Mongolia, a friend of the USSR, with a population of 0.3% of the US population, supplied more products to Russia before 1943 than during the same time all allies combined, and at the same time absolutely free of charge. This is what help is...

Can you provide a source which states the aid from Mongolia was more than the US from 1941 to 1943? This is hard to believe without substantial evidence, even if we include the manpower Mongolia supplied.

[stjeand]

Keep in mind one of the most difficult things to test will be the end game.

I have played over 50 games and to be honest...only two have ever gotten to the end game in 44/45.

I played the Germans once...and this was pre-MANY patches...and they got surgically wiped out.

The game I am in now I am the Allies and it is basically the same. 1944...
Russia is in Germany, Poland and all the Allies outside of Hungary survive...
It was an odd game in the flow, but that is why we play.

I suspect based on my experience it would take far to many years to accurately test the end game...
Unless there is a way to save a game and it is in and average place in 1943...which to be honest is rare.

[ncc1701e]

Since the USSR is at 40% experience, I have to admit that I have never seen Stalingrad in danger.
Hard to balance a game.

[stjeand]

Are you sure you're not joking right now? And where did the British army get such an experience at that time? Where did she participate in real battles? Let me remind you that it was the Red Army that had the experience of fighting with Japan on Hassan in 1938, on Khalkhin Gol in 1939. The Red Army sent officers to help the Kuomintang against Japan. The Red Army fought in the Spanish Civil War. The Red Army was at war with Finland. Or does your statement mean that the British gentleman is just a priori an excellent soldier by birthright?

I will also have to disagree and this is why...

Russia did fight vs Japan but that did not go all that well for either side.
Russia did fight against Finland and it was a complete disaster.

The issue with the Russian army were equipment, which honestly should not factor into the "experience" but mainly local leadership, training and command and control. That is what caused their early issues and low experience in the game.

The UK had fought in WW I, had better training and had learned a great deal as well as kept their leadership and gained new leaders because of it.


So honestly to have the UK start at 50% and never rise...and the Russian start at 40% and rise...I am okay with and makes sense. Quick conscripts thrown into action that learned and grew.

If I remember...

UK 50%
US 45% (can rise to 50%)
France 40% (I believe it can rise to 50% also)
Russia 40% (can rise to 50%)
Italy 45%? (can rise to 50%...though honestly I can't remember)


Overall the Russian experience level will rise quickly.
I suppose it could be "coded" to rise automatically but there is a nearly 100% chance they will be at at least 45% by the end of 41 and 50% by the end of 42...

Again unless there can be an easy way to test this it will be extremely difficult to balance.
Right now things are fairly close, though in your eyes favor the Alllies.
I agree...but there has to be caution in raising the Russian forces too high.

FOR the average player I think the game is close to the correct balance as a two player game...though perhaps as you say not balanced per historical accuracy.
Lowering US experience has little to no effect on the game since they have so few land forces overall.
Lowering the UK experience may...if you lowered it to say 45%, which I would probably be okay with but not sure that would have a huge effect either.
But changing the Germans or the Russian will completely change the games balance.

Also keep in mind that there are likely to be no more major changes with the version now and when WP2 is created and is being tested this can all be rethought out.

[battlevonwar]

Warfare and experience, equipment and leadership have many contributing factors both good and bad. Schools, doctrines of the nation and innovation as well as Money.

The Third Reich was bankrupt soon by 1939 and had to continually roll conquests in order to fund their Vampire Economy which is a book. They had an old Prussian guard that trained with Russians and in hidden ways in their own country and abroad. Their innovation wasn't so remarkable but they had a tremendous amount of good equipment stocked up and they were trained enough I suppose by 39-40. They lost a lot of tanks against the Poles and didn't just learn what they knew in Spain alone. It didn't however work so well in poor infrastructure like the USSR. They lacked raw materials to keep the juggernaut going and against a foe with time to learn from their mistakes... there were many factors working against them. Supply chain was never going to make a conquest of Russia easy. It's not Central/Western Europe.

The British, Russians, French fought tons of war. I don't think the XP in game reflects any history in that regard. The Russians fought the Poles for one and pretty much the whole world post WW1. Their equipment was abysmal and ill prepared for war at the time, they were learning from their mistakes as they went along. I could call many material to back this up but you can google it up. They took awhile to learn warfare and to stabilize/mobilize themselves for the scale of a conflict that Barbarossa was going to be. The Italians even knew they weren't ready and wanted more years to collect themselves. I doubt they ever had the industry to be a real player in the era.

France a lot of internal conflict politically before WW2. The USA and all the majors had good training schools and some of them had much more reliable equipment backed up by a good supply chain and heavy industry to sustain a long term war effort. Any slight advantage you might give the Axis for initiative or aggression was always going to be subdued by superior qualities in other ways. For every 1 German Tank that was overengineered you got 5 Allied and a couple of Tank Busting Fighter Bombers.

Axis leadership is overrated but I would say they just had some luck/good choices early. The initiative faded and so did their chances to win. They had to Knock Out the Russians in '41-42 or face the fully mobilized Bear who could with Allied assistance just strangle them.

In game balance is beyond tough to weigh. We end up playing Warplan 2 to 3 years to get there and the best players can drag it on till '44 or '45 ... I am sure a lot quit too before they get a chance to get there. Alvaro has redone the game way too many times too cause it was well and balanced ages ago if skill was equal. It's how it was played adapted or changed.

Warplan 3 doesn't need to be overdone, but I think I would leave the best players to challenge each other in it to gauge 'it's balance'. As all other players with match up pretty close in skill and those advanced players will look for exploits and any edge they can get. That'll tell the actual level of balance.

Are you sure you're not joking right now? And where did the British army get such an experience at that time? Where did she participate in real battles? Let me remind you that it was the Red Army that had the experience of fighting with Japan on Hassan in 1938, on Khalkhin Gol in 1939. The Red Army sent officers to help the Kuomintang against Japan. The Red Army fought in the Spanish Civil War. The Red Army was at war with Finland. Or does your statement mean that the British gentleman is just a priori an excellent soldier by birthright?

I will also have to disagree and this is why...

Russia did fight vs Japan but that did not go all that well for either side.
Russia did fight against Finland and it was a complete disaster.

The issue with the Russian army were equipment, which honestly should not factor into the "experience" but mainly local leadership, training and command and control. That is what caused their early issues and low experience in the game.

The UK had fought in WW I, had better training and had learned a great deal as well as kept their leadership and gained new leaders because of it.


So honestly to have the UK start at 50% and never rise...and the Russian start at 40% and rise...I am okay with and makes sense. Quick conscripts thrown into action that learned and grew.

If I remember...

UK 50%
US 45% (can rise to 50%)
France 40% (I believe it can rise to 50% also)
Russia 40% (can rise to 50%)
Italy 45%? (can rise to 50%...though honestly I can't remember)


Overall the Russian experience level will rise quickly.
I suppose it could be "coded" to rise automatically but there is a nearly 100% chance they will be at at least 45% by the end of 41 and 50% by the end of 42...

Again unless there can be an easy way to test this it will be extremely difficult to balance.
Right now things are fairly close, though in your eyes favor the Alllies.
I agree...but there has to be caution in raising the Russian forces too high.

FOR the average player I think the game is close to the correct balance as a two player game...though perhaps as you say not balanced per historical accuracy.
Lowering US experience has little to no effect on the game since they have so few land forces overall.
Lowering the UK experience may...if you lowered it to say 45%, which I would probably be okay with but not sure that would have a huge effect either.
But changing the Germans or the Russian will completely change the games balance.

Also keep in mind that there are likely to be no more major changes with the version now and when WP2 is created and is being tested this can all be rethought out.

[Emporer]

Hi

Thanks for this excellent games and I see forward to see War plan 2. There is one features I missing in this games like combat events.
This feature is in games like HOI3. That function could be triggered by leaders in a HQ with special traits, experience with on current fighting unit and special ability similar to the current function with special ability. It would be extremely cool to implement something like that so that you can get more random results and reverse a given outcome of a specific battles. From what I understand, there is something similar to a limited extent already but it would be good to develop it more.
Is this something that you are considering in the next game war plan 2.

Cheers
Captain Jack

[AlvaroSousa]

Possibly.