Panzers and Game Balance

Time of Fury spans the whole war in Europe and gives players the opportunity to control all types of units, ground, air and naval. Not only that, each player will be able to pick a single country or selection of countries and fight his way against either the AI or in multiplayer in hotseat or Play by E-Mail. This innovative multiplayer feature will give player the chance to fight bigger scenarios against many opponents, giving the game a strategic angle that has no equal in the market. The game uses Slitherine’s revolutionary PBEM++ server system.

Moderator: doomtrader

User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by battlevonwar »

I have never been able to perform Barbarossa because I was forced into a war with Russia in 1940. Odessa and Lviv are the only two USSR cities to have fallen. That accounts for the great amount of PP. I would be reinforcing those assaulting armies if I was using them but there is a river, entrenched Reds and more and more.

Panzer Korps really didn't count quite as much here. Full Strength, full moral Russian Mass Infantry 2-3 deep in places and easily replaceable.

However, I still have killed over 3 million Russians... Fun but I do not think Panzer Korps will survive an A-bomb. I should have performed Sea Lion but I doubt that would be possible now. It's the only way to beat the Allies.

Here it's PPs vs PPs

Kriegsmarine is quite unstoppable, since ship on ship battles are rare. They are great raiders(surface ships) who needs U-boats?


ORIGINAL: gwgardner

If you've killed 3 or 4 of his Panzer Corps, and you see six more in the field now, then you can be assured your opponent is failing to spend elsewhere as needed.

I'm playing on hard level as Germans. I've never had more than 8 Panzer corps, because I cannot afford to build them. I have to spend on reinforcements, subs, occasional STPs. After that, in order to afford a Panzer corps, I have to save every other available PP for at least 5 turns to get enough to purchase a Panzer Corps. And then there's a 16 week production cycle.

So let him have his extra Panzer corps or two, and go exploit whatever else he is failing to purchase that he desperately needs, like subs.

And this bit you guys keep mentioning about 'uber panzers.' I have level three Panzers at full strength, with 30 experience points and a good commander, and their strength is around 30. That goes down quickly as the unit takes losses or gets reduced supply. My level 3 infantry is at about 10 strength points. So my Panzers are around 3 times the strength of my infantry - exactly where Doomtrader said was reasonable.
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by JLPOWELL »

Re the DAK How about no magical appearance of the uber (above current tech level) DAK at all the player controls the German army and production if he wants to build a corps and deploy to N Africa he is free to do so no need for dealing a joker out of the wild and craaazy events deck.... you can even assign Rommel to it if you feel nostalgic.


ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Given that we have an AI that is ... less than stellar ... perhaps one way of making that work to make the game more historical in gross outcomes is to increase the detection and combat values of allied warships massively and let the German AI produce lots of ships that will get sunk quickly.

For human vs human games, well, the Axis characters will soon realise that they are simply wasting PP and stop building anything but Subs, at least the canny ones will [;)]

The wasted PP will, at least, not be spent on uber-panzers, and may make the game more believable.

As for the DAK, have the event make it appear in Rome, and require the Italians to transport it across in the face of the improved Allied Navies [8D]

Phil
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
Razz1
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:09 pm
Location: CaLiForNia

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by Razz1 »

Your comment about carriers is exaggerated.

Here is a game where in 14 turns I have sunk 8 submarines. Most by carriers.

Image
Attachments
TOFNavalLoss.jpg
TOFNavalLoss.jpg (231.33 KiB) Viewed 368 times
User avatar
Razz1
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:09 pm
Location: CaLiForNia

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by Razz1 »

Here is a game where you can see twice as many ships sunk via sea battle over air bombardment and this is only part of the list.

Ship battles work fine. Reading the manual again to learn how to use your units may help improve your results.



Image
Attachments
TOFNavalLoss2.jpg
TOFNavalLoss2.jpg (280.57 KiB) Viewed 368 times
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by JLPOWELL »

I think we are on the same page. Razz is on another planet talking about subs when we are talking about surface ships (likely he is playing the AI which is from what I can see an even match his defense in the game I played him was the only PBEM I have seen weaker than an AI...). I have hit surface ships with probably a 100 carrier strikes and killed maybe 5?!?!. Damage happens but sinking is rare. You need 7 CV's and a bit of luck to kill a BB. The RM can sail laps around the British Isles (and ARE)

Subs on the other hand look about right, its hard to tell as the game does not report 'dice rolls' only results so the players can't tell if its a run of bad luck or that what the odds are. One or two hits sink a sub. Surface ships run wild particularly individual ships. Get a 'Fleet' together and you could get hurt. (The result of 7 CV on the entire RM would be LOTS of hits. Attack a single ship with the same force and you are VERY UNLIKELY to sink it.

Surface actions are different from sub encounters. If a CV unit (or surface unit or surface and CV together) attack as sub they either 'kill it quick' or it escapes and cannot be found. Subs can 'loose themselves' even in daylight with enemy air and surface searching. A surface ship cannot disengage so easily surface ships cannot escape detection as easily and when damaged they get 'finished off' by followup airstrikes and or surface ships. Surface actions are decisive damaged ships 500 km out so sea don't limp home when enemy has superior air and surface units THEY DIE. Not so in ToF BB's take a hit or three then scoot back to port (often past more enemy units and like as not right up the channel. The actual odds of a single BB or a BB and a CA surviving an encounter with a 7 CV battle group were effectively zero. In ToF the odds are they will get away.

As BattleVonWar states Tac is way too powerful vrs ships. The game needs a dedicated Nav air unit with the investment that entails (which were pretty deadly) German Tac air was very ineffective vrs warships compared to others (pretty deadly vrs convoys however but Tac cannot attack a convoy at all in ToF)

Normally I don't engage in a flame, but Razz's condescending remarks about 'reading the manual' so 'I could properly deploy my ships' are insulting enough to beg a response. >quote> Ship battles work fine. Reading the manual again to learn how to use your units may help improve your results <quote< He apparently plays the AI for the most part, I have played 7 opponents in this game and he was by far the least challenging (hard to tell as he dropped out fairly early my guess was because Paris would be lost in 1939). I make a comment (supportable based on some notes I have taken and corroborated by my opponent) about surface ships and he replys I am exaggerating and gives an irrelevant example involving subs. This in the face of posts by my opponent (BattleVonWar) who essentially is saying the same thing I am re surface actions.

Naval rules are pretty BROKEN, no amount of 'cheer-leading' will fix this. Valid specific criticism is useful. I like a lot about the this game but posting how wonderful it is doesn't help Matrix / Wasteland improve it. The discussion has to be about flaws. Fortunately Matrix is pretty receptive, and clearly wants to improve the game.

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I have never been able to perform Barbarossa because I was forced into a war with Russia in 1940. Odessa and Lviv are the only two USSR cities to have fallen. That accounts for the great amount of PP. I would be reinforcing those assaulting armies if I was using them but there is a river, entrenched Reds and more and more.

Panzer Korps really didn't count quite as much here. Full Strength, full moral Russian Mass Infantry 2-3 deep in places and easily replaceable.

However, I still have killed over 3 million Russians... Fun but I do not think Panzer Korps will survive an A-bomb. I should have performed Sea Lion but I doubt that would be possible now. It's the only way to beat the Allies.

Here it's PPs vs PPs

Kriegsmarine is quite unstoppable, since ship on ship battles are rare. They are great raiders(surface ships) who needs U-boats?


ORIGINAL: gwgardner

If you've killed 3 or 4 of his Panzer Corps, and you see six more in the field now, then you can be assured your opponent is failing to spend elsewhere as needed.

I'm playing on hard level as Germans. I've never had more than 8 Panzer corps, because I cannot afford to build them. I have to spend on reinforcements, subs, occasional STPs. After that, in order to afford a Panzer corps, I have to save every other available PP for at least 5 turns to get enough to purchase a Panzer Corps. And then there's a 16 week production cycle.

So let him have his extra Panzer corps or two, and go exploit whatever else he is failing to purchase that he desperately needs, like subs.

And this bit you guys keep mentioning about 'uber panzers.' I have level three Panzers at full strength, with 30 experience points and a good commander, and their strength is around 30. That goes down quickly as the unit takes losses or gets reduced supply. My level 3 infantry is at about 10 strength points. So my Panzers are around 3 times the strength of my infantry - exactly where Doomtrader said was reasonable.
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by battlevonwar »

The Bismark was sunk by 1 torpedo you see.

Malay was a land based attack and was devastating.

Meanwhile Taranto? You won't sink a Battleship at full strength in this game with a single striking Carrier. Due to the HPs, you might get a Transport or Amphib(or very damaged Naval Unit) That's why it's so very hard. AN INTELLIGENT player will never post his ships up to get slaughtered, meanwhile me and Powell are Intelligent enough to run when we take a few HPs of damage and reinforce out of range of Enemy Carriers/Surface Ships. We both probably have about 2/3rds of Surface Fleet damaged and in port or on the way trying to fight for supply over North Africa.

Though Land Based Tac Air is a unique factor. If it's any hint the Designer cut back on the Damage the German Tac Air can do in a single strike.

Mediterranean is a narrow Funnel, not a Sea, The Ownership of these arteries are easy enough. Plus... Plus the North Sea, English Channels and Biscay regions are all easily monopolized along with the Baltic with plenty of Tac Air. Cheaper than Carriers, more powerful.

Not that I dislike any of these qualities, they make it very tough. U-Boats are not a major factor when you can bottleneck the opponent with Tac Air and spotting Surface Ships
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by battlevonwar »

Land based Tac Air Kills RN 55-60
Sea Battles: 6
Sub Attacks: 3
(Fall Gelb PBEM)

I will omit the 30 other Kills by Tac Air on USSR/USA and Minor Navies.

Here is my experiences about exaggeration, I mean, if you want to break it down I lost count at 55 Royal Navy Ships Sunk. If you want a Chronological List I will add it up later for you.

Image
gwgardner
Posts: 7304
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:23 pm

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by gwgardner »

Land-based air did historically rule the coastal seas. I see no problem with that. You did not have to place those ships in harms way, in range of German bombers. Or you could have suppressed those bombers with your own land-based fighter or CV-based fighter attacks.

As the German, I place subs in the Channel or North Sea, or Irish Sea in great peril- UNLESS I carry out a systematic air suppression campaign, forcing British bombers away from the coast.

There are tradeoffs in the game that a player has to make. The UK could invest in fighters to oppose my German suppression campaign, rather than pumping PPs into strat bombers or naval units.

Now one area that the player has no control over is where convoys go. I agree with JLPowell that a major enhancement to the game would be player designation of convoy paths. If the player chooses a circuitous, out of the way, long path, then it would cost more STPs. If he chooses to go direct, near coasts or where subs can hang out, then the convoy costs less STPs, but the risk is greater of raids. Again, player tradeoffs.

And finally - I think I'll start ending every post like this - EVERYTHING almost in the game is player configurable. If for instance you think land-based bombers are too powerful, go into the text-editable configuration file and reduce that power. It's quite simple. And then, for the benefit of other players, make a mod of the changes and upload it to the mod forum.

User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by battlevonwar »

In all respect... I am no Historian, I love History but I was not the UK, I was Axis in this game. I will admit the opponent was neglectful of their Navy(and I think I lost 5-7 ships myself, he did not learn to use TacAir) I will also say no amount of Land Based Fighters or Carriers would stop me from sinking 100 Ships with Tac Air. (right now in my Current Game we have the whole Luftwaffe and RAF in Egypt and they have no impact on Preventing Naval Deaths, in fact seems Tac Air rarely takes damage on Ship Runs) HOWEVER in fairness the patch has made German Tac Air weaker. Also in every other game I have played kill totals on Navies are about 50+ by tac air, and primarily subs and surface ships are lucky to get in hits and finish off a job or chase down a wounded ship. So really I will say in my worst scenarios the kill total for Surface Ships is nearly zero UNLESS the opponent or myself is too busy to bother with the Navy. In this case a random hit or two destroys a wounded ship or a straggler gets killed while people's heads are in the clouds way out at sea.

I agree changing the course of Shipping would help and might make U-boats better. In that case you'd have to find the veins and arteries. Though in choke positions I stand by what I said... Also I am posting this here for you, sacrificially showing you what is completely not Historical at all. If Stukas and He-111s would have leveled the Royal navy with the Royal Airforce buzzing around, we would all be speaking German. At that kill rate.

To improve the game, Mods aren't needed. In the patch the whole overhaul is needed. This is a Balance Subject I created ;)

Onto more relevant issues:

I am actually in a stalemate, completely shocked. So are the Allies though, WW1 has erupted in our game of Balance. : ) When does the A-Bomb come.. Uber Panzer Korps hold the line in the South and in the North Rivers and entrenchments do.

Now in fairness dedicating my Air Power in this game has cost me A LOT in Russia, about 5-6 at least. The Reverse is I may have never invaded Egypt had I known that I wouldn't get a full collapse of the USSR's Army. I also have spent poorly and wasted lots of PPs. My opponent has done a great job at side showing me. With Production likely 3 to 1 vs my Axis let's see how long our game of Balance lasts. What UPKs do in Open territory when Russians invade...Plus pre-A Bomb what will happen? Allied Offensive or not.

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Land-based air did historically rule the coastal seas. I see no problem with that. You did not have to place those ships in harms way, in range of German bombers. Or you could have suppressed those bombers with your own land-based fighter or CV-based fighter attacks.

As the German, I place subs in the Channel or North Sea, or Irish Sea in great peril- UNLESS I carry out a systematic air suppression campaign, forcing British bombers away from the coast.

There are tradeoffs in the game that a player has to make. The UK could invest in fighters to oppose my German suppression campaign, rather than pumping PPs into strat bombers or naval units.

Now one area that the player has no control over is where convoys go. I agree with JLPowell that a major enhancement to the game would be player designation of convoy paths. If the player chooses a circuitous, out of the way, long path, then it would cost more STPs. If he chooses to go direct, near coasts or where subs can hang out, then the convoy costs less STPs, but the risk is greater of raids. Again, player tradeoffs.

And finally - I think I'll start ending every post like this - EVERYTHING almost in the game is player configurable. If for instance you think land-based bombers are too powerful, go into the text-editable configuration file and reduce that power. It's quite simple. And then, for the benefit of other players, make a mod of the changes and upload it to the mod forum.
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by JLPOWELL »

BattleVonWar and I have played out our game (thru turn 119) and it looks like an allied win likely in 1944. Some observations based on that game...

Uber Panzers. I must concede they are not the unbalancing problem I expected. With the patch and an active opponent they can be held in check. NOTE this game was set to HARD so Germany was too cash strapped to make many. As USSR and Allies I bombed them relentlessly and was able to keep them from getting 'super sized' (full strength with experience) In supply limited areas like Africa they were still unstoppable, this was more a supply terrain issue than uber panzers however. 6+ inf corps pushed out of Egypt by DAK (driving thru the Qattara Depression) UK can't supply Egypt (should be a MSS or supply from Colonies)

Aircraft on defense... not too good you can do 'spoiling' and 'attrition' strikes but TAC air is really only good for attacks in ToF. Historically TAC air was best breaking up attacks. Air is offensive only in Tof. While this should be addressed I am not sure how.

AI and minors. AI is just plain useless. An option for players to 'take control' of all units in their faction should be added to PBEM (Perhaps set an event which changes control when a minor joins an alliance to player controlling that alliance). Best tactic you can use is attack the AI, only Switzerland gave any kind of fight. Finland folded to the USSR like a cheap tent (plenty of units but AI was just hopeless moving them) Also AI units just plain get in the way. I awarded a 'Hero of the Soviet Union' to a Croatian unit for its key role in the defense of Kiev (blocking German attack hex) Just to review AI worse than useless particularly for minors. Fun but sad to watch minor units 'dance' in and out of positions mindlessly exchanging positions instead of just staying put. Crowding around (effectively blocking) ports and other access routes.

Naval rules CV and surface units completely ineffective. (40 CV strikes to kill off a small task force chased for 7 weeks) Tac is vastly more effective and has the odd effect of killing more the more targets there are. I expect if you put 1000 CV in a hex and flew a TAC strike you would inflect 500+hits game engine seriously broken here....

Events... Still stand by my assertion they are out of control many qualify as completely 'wakadoodle' Giant instant cash prizes or penalties; Overpowered (plus tech) units like DAK 'materialize'. Events are 90% rubbish. This game is 'event driven' like poker with LOTS of wild cards. Lets not marginalize the players TONE THIS DOWN and give control in PBEM.
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

Post by battlevonwar »

Uber Panzers:

I have to agree with you here, I have seen alterations in the patch and your game play that has made me a believer that they can be stopped.(you stopped them at The River Euphrates?) Mind you I didn't get to see a Red Army Collapse so I will be very curious if that event was some how lessened a bit(it was overpowered before) in that situation, The USSR is much like Africa. A Panzer Train.

Aircraft on the defense:

I watched you bomb me into the stone age, literally. I was close -%50 PPs at some point in the game. Fighters really do not accomplish very much. They are hardly worth much considering their price in comparison with an offensive Bomber or Tac. I will have to say I would double my Tacs as Germany next time and ignore Fighters. It is very rare they seem be either aerial umbrellas or defenders as they were historically.

AI and Minors: This part is going to be tough. They get in the way for certain, but if you can control them or streamline them??? Perhaps for Axis Minors in the future we could have all of them under 1 turn for PBEM and streamline their actions as all player controlled? Same for the Allies..1 unit in the wrong location could be a massive issue in multiplayer.

CVs: They are fun. They are pretty, but overpriced for the actual bang they deliver. The Attack...Power.... of a navy needs to increase to play a role in the game. CV Air Craft should be far more adept than Land based Tac Air. These guys were trained to do their missions at sea...

Events: Could be an issue, I have been wondering how one would fix them for PBEM play, don't think it will happen. Too much a part of the game engine. If they could be disabled it would be nice. The Civil Unrest event struck me as off totally. Any major in WW2 save perhaps the USA would have stomped their people into shape. WW2 was total war, it's not historical at all... Getting War Declared on me by the USSR who couldn't defeat the Fins was weird, a few months after that war had just ended, that's a pretty piece of fiction. DAK in N.Africa as a Panzer Korp at strength 23 I believe? I added 1 Korp and 1 Tank Div and the Whole of the UK couldn't stop me there. Supply lines were like a Giant Pipeline right up into Alexandria. That is a fictional piece, especially if you were posting any ships to cut the supplies coming through. Historically between Allied Air and Navy, I doubt Rommel had a chance to take Egypt at all. That aside.... I haven't discovered any other back breakers so far though will certainly continue to study them. Tried Peeking in the Event Files(they are near impossible to study)

Post Reply

Return to “Time of Fury”