Balance and Difficulty

[n0kn0k]

ORIGINAL: ludi18671

Hi

In 1.03 I just had a crash to desktop when I tried to move my paras (Axis, therefore German) by air into Yugoslavia. The situation was that Yugo had just joined the Allies (after a coup) and I was about to bring them into the Reich. It was March 1941. I neither have a picture nor anything like that. The second time (when I did NOT move the paras by air) the play of the turn went smoothly.

It's a known bug in 1.03. To be fixed in 1.04.

[ludi18671]

Hi nOknOk

Thank you for your answer - I look forward to the next patch!

Cheers

Ludi18671

[Seminole]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Hi Seminole,

From the screenshot it looks like there is bad weather and storms at sea will significantly reduce the effectiveness of any attacks. Let us know if once the weather improves if you notice any differences, likely you will.

Hubert

I think you found the culprit.
This turn was clear and while the sub suffered 2 dmg attacking on the Axis turn I was able to get in 5 hits, 1 dive, and 1 miss the next turn. It's now down to 1 health, no supply, and they should die next turn...

[sPzAbt653]

The change that was made to Transports [to prevent endless transports] maybe shouldn't apply to Amphib's because they have to wait one turn before being used anyway. In the screen shot I just landed the two tank units in England, and I can't load up any more. Next turn I could load more, but then I had to wait another turn to use them.

[Seminole]

You can actually use them the same turn in at least 1 location. Didn't scour the map for more (Le Harve and Calais look like they offer the same thing) but if you launch an amphib from Cherbourg and have naval units in the correct position (to guide its initial location) it can move 1 space and unload the same turn.









I think, with ships covering the right sea hexes, I could get 5 or 6 (not sure about Calais loading spots) units across if a single amphib was available for reuse.

[sPzAbt653]

*Sigh* ... well, now what are we supposed to do ?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi sPzAbt653,

When we were implementing this change we realized it would add an extra turn to any follow up amphibious operations, but I'm not sure if there is really an easy way around that without possible abuse of infinite Amphibious transports on a single turn as Seminole pointed out single turn loading and unloading is possible.

Internally we hoped it would resolve more issues than it would create, i.e. make Sealion that much more realistic as most if not all have mentioned how it has been too easy in the past and etc.

Hubert

[sPzAbt653]

make Sealion that much more realistic

I have only been thru it once, but I might agree with this. However I do think that the situations that Seminole pointed out are limited and not the norm.
For my one game example, as I had felt that Sealion was too easy [vs. the computer], I had reduced the German Amphib from 3 to 2. That left my two tank units unsupplied for the next two turns until I could get an HQ landed. However, that might be a good thing [you need to get a port on the first assault!]. That is why I commented no further. I would like to get a few more plays in from both sides. I am curious to see how the Amis do when they have an extra turn delay. My feeling is it will have the same effect - you need to get a PORT on the initial assault [which is most likely very historical].

[Seminole]

Keep in mind the Germans can also add paras. So they could push across even more units to try and create space for an HQ initially.

The only restraint on the 'recycling' amphib before was available loading hexes by the close ports since you can't move a ground unit and then load it.

The same turn unload is kinda nice though, as it stops the enemy from boxing a transport, and requires them to place their defenses accordingly.

[sPzAbt653]

Referring back to Post #88 in this thread, and to this other thread:
tm.asp?m=4284342
I have two screen shots that I think resolves the issue. This first shot shows the Astrakhan to Guryev line that the v1.01 fix didn't include.

[sPzAbt653]

This shot shows the representation of the Trans-Caspain railway along the east map edge, which isn't extremely important. But most important is the extension of the rail line up to Chelyabinsk. Without this addition and the one in the previous post, an Axis capture of Kuybychev cuts off southern Russia. I've played this area of the game many times from both sides and feel that these additions are important. If it has been decided not to do this, I respect that, and I hope it doesn't seem that I am harping on it.

[sPzAbt653]

Snips from online sources:
Baku-Orsk - After the Grozny to Kiev line was captured during Axis advances, a new link between Moscow and Transcaucasia was established
with the construction of the new railway line running from Baku to Orsk (via Astrakhan), while a shipping line was maintained over the
Caspian Sea through the town of Krasnovodsk in Turkmenistan.

Krasnovodsk - As the terminus of the Trans-Caspian Railway, it was an important transportation center. The railway had originally begun
from Uzun-Ada on the Caspian Sea, but the terminus was shifted north to the harbour at Krasnovodsk and completed in 1886.

[PvtBenjamin]

I have been a huge fan of SC since its origin and looked forward to the Multiplayer games of this version. I have played all prior versions extensively. Unfortunately it is my experience (albeit limited vs AI in this version) is that the 1939 PBEM is grossly unbalanced favoring the Axis. I have received the same feedback from multiple people who are very experienced at this version.

If two experienced players of equal ability play PBEM 1939 the Axis easily wins by a large margin.

Following are some of my opinions on how 1939 could become more balanced and enjoyable.

1) Poland is far to weak. With a 5 str garrison in Warsaw Poland falls in 2 turns (Sept 15). This throws all historic events/reinforcements largely in the Axis favor. Axis is two turns ahead. There should be enough forces that the earliest victory in Oct 1. This leads to Holland/Belgium being attacked in fall 1939.

2) Holland needs an 8-10 str corps (currently 5 str leader) in Amsterdam.

3) If Luxembourg is attacked prior to 1940 Holland/Belgium declare war.

4) Africa is not defensible for Allies, falls in 1940 early 1941 latest. Axis shouldn't be able to put a large number of troops in Syria. This opens a two front war for the Allies. With the timeline (1) off there are no troops to defend Axis attack from Syria. The ramifications of Axis total control of Africa are obvious.

5) Garrison in Iceland.

6) Upon invasion most (if not all) Soviet reinforcements are wiped out in 2 turns. They are placed poorly (especially the air force), at least some of the reinforcements should survive.

I'm just looking for a good gaming/historic experience. Please let me know other peoples thoughts & experiences.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi PvtBenjamin,

Thanks for the feedback and with the next update we hope that any imbalance will be addressed (for the most part) as we've made a significant supply change in terms of how HQs link supply to one another.

With the previous implementation, linked HQs actually provided the possibility of higher supply distribution than would otherwise be possible for an HQ in normal and maximum supply. All this meant was that a linked HQ deep in the USSR or in bad supply in North Africa could have a distribution supply level of 9 or 10 while a single HQ (non linked) but in the best supply distribution position possible under the current supply numbers/situation of the area could be much lower, i.e. at 5 or 8 at best. Essentially the bonus of linking HQs provided unrealistically high supply which can have a spiraling effect when it comes to balance due to optimal combat results and so on.

For the next release (but already available in the current beta release v1.03.02) the supply distribution for HQs has been adjusted/remodeled to reflect our findings and while a linked HQ can still provide better supply, it will only do so if its distribution supply could be improved, i.e. not automatically maxed out to a maximum supply distribution level as in the past.

Here is the full list of changes and as a result we believe modifiers like the Malta Effect will now have a more realistic impact and driving deep into the USSR will be a bit more challenging now supply wise, and all of which can have a more critical effect on the overall game play and outcome of the war.

- HQ distribution supply has been changed to the following:
-> HQ supply < 3 will have a distribution supply value of 5.
-> HQ supply >= 3 and <= 5 will have a distribution supply value of 8.
-> HQ supply > 5 will have a distribution supply value of 10.

- HQs can now only be linked if the first HQ has a supply value >= 5, raised from a previous threshold of >= 3.
-> the HQ to be linked must have a supply value < 3 and is now automatically boosted to a supply value of 5 which caps its distribution supply at 8. Previously linked HQs could have a maximum distribution supply level of 10.

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

I also wanted to thank you for your list and provide a few quick comments as there are good suggestions here and while we want to maintain some level of Blitzkrieg early on and not slow things down too much, my preference would be to address North Africa and the USSR more than anything else as I feel these would have the biggest overall impact.

However items such as 3) and 5) feel like a good fit to me and for 6) I think we just have to be careful here as for the most part this is historical and purposeful on our end. The idea being that these are not so much reinforcements but most of the historic front line units that would have been destroyed during the first few weeks of Barbarossa. The placement of them after the DoW, and near the front lines (which prevents players from simply moving them out of the way due to hindsight), helps to ensure that this is historically recreated. But if the USSR needs more units to help it survive, I would preferably lean towards additional support units that can arrive late 1941 and early 1942 as that is the more seemingly critical time of need for survivability by the Allies.

Bill and I are reviewing and we'll see if this is still even needed considering the aforementioned supply rule changes. I just mention that as we need to be careful we don't over compensate here with the planned changes.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Referring back to Post #88 in this thread, and to this other thread:
tm.asp?m=4284342
I have two screen shots that I think resolves the issue. This first shot shows the Astrakhan to Guryev line that the v1.01 fix didn't include.

Hi

I added some of the railways you'd suggested at the time, but from memory I think that I only added the ones I found good historical evidence for, and I don't think that I found evidence of a wartime line from Astrakhan to Guryev.

Do you have a source for when the rail line was constructed?

I'm not necessarily against adding it, but as Baku is an Industrial Center then it shouldn't generally lead to any issues unless Baku is also cut off from Astrakhan?

Thanks for the post about the Trans-Caspian Railway too. [:)]

Bill

[PvtBenjamin]

Thank you for the Strategic Command series, it has provided me with countless hours of enjoyment over the years.

I fully appreciate the attention to history. Diplomacy, research, strategy, weather etc should give us variances on historical events.

1) I do think Poland needs at least a 8-10 corp in Warsaw. Currently players don't need to direct maximum resources for Victory in Sept 15 (two weeks ahead of actual).

2) Maybe Luxembourg, Holland & Belgium should be linked. Declare war on one and all entire the conflict. Should the objective be that in a phenomenal attack Axis captures Paris May 1940?

3) Africa does need some adjusting, you know better than me. In my last game in early 1940 my 1 corp east of Red Sea was attacked from Syria with 2 armies, 3 corps, a tank, a leader & a bomber. He also had several troops attacking from Libya. Then German air was moved in. I had 3 corps, 1 army, 1 leader & Navy in total. Can't send much support because maximum resources needed to protect Britain early 1940.

4) I'd solicit the experience of others but the USSR seems like a clear shot to Leningrad & Moscow after reinforcements are taken out. Moscow & Leningrad fall late 1940/ early 1941. Maybe some extra Garrisons?

5) Garrison in Iceland a good idea.

I appreciate your attention to my issues and look forward to your updates.

[sPzAbt653]

Do you have a source for when the rail line was constructed?

Sadly, the Astrakhan-Guryev line eludes all searches on Wiki.

The Industrial Center at Baku at times appears to be some sort of an issue. Recently another player sent me the screen shot below. The issue was that Kuybyshev had been taken by the Axis and the capital had moved to Perm, after which units could not be placed at or near Baku. I have also seen this but searched my save files and had none that portrayed the subject. I will e-mail this player to see if he has a save file.

[BillRunacre]

I think that rail line eluded my searches too! For such an authoritarian and bureaucratic state it can be quite hard finding info on things in the USSR.


Yes, I saw that issue in another thread and must admit to be a bit confused by it, but without further details we don't know if it's from a default campaign or mod or there is something else at work.

[sPzAbt653]

We have continued that thread thru e-mails, I have asked for a save file but they say that multi-player's don't have save files ? I don't know, I never MP. I will soon start another game and will save a file when I get to this point.