Balance analysis

[MemoryLeak]

Good discussion.

I was wondering if another aspect of the air war should be reconsidered and perhaps it would help limit the gamey,
all-powerful air units.

Am I the only one who thinks it is totally unreasonable to believe that 10 or more air bases can be constructed
anywhere on the map every two weeks? Buildings, barracks, maintenance shops, mess halls, fuel dumps, ammo dumps, support personnel
housing...the list goes on. There should engineering units required on the hex ahead of time and construction time.
This would be one means to keep the units from always being on the front lines and always within range of targets.

[Guderian1940]

I Think there should be some restriction as well. Swamps, Mountains, forest are certainly challenges to building airfields. Perhaps a restriction as to a hexes supply level. A slight delay based on supply, before an air OP, as supply increases to a hex then Air Op is possible might be a compromised solution. I fully understand that WWII aircraft could operate from grassy fields but there was still a restriction to logistics.

This is less of an issue in Europe, but elsewhere there should be something to prevent air from deploying anywhere they like.

I do think that with less ability to deploy anywhere and have sufficient supply for unlimited air Operations the overall ability to destroy units should be mitigated. Back to an issue I have with deploying a dozen air units to North Africa, because you can, create these kinds of issues with Air Power.

[crispy131313]

I am not a fan of the idea of limiting hexes that Air units can enter. It creates a level of complexity that does not fit anywhere else in the game. Creating a catch all rule would also be extremely difficult through the different theatres.

There are other less complicated ideas which have not been discussed.

Would an increase to the cost of operating air units help, especially if they could not "fly" across the Mediterranean due to reduced free movement rule (which will result in more operating costs). Could operated air units receive a morale/readiness penalty and receive higher losses against cities? Basically these changes, coupled with reduced bomber attack capibilties could have an impact, or maybe not but they could be discussed.

[Benedict151]

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

I am not a fan of the idea of limiting hexes that Air units can enter. It creates a level of complexity that does not fit anywhere else in the game. Creating a catch all rule would also be extremely difficult through the different theatres.

There are other less complicated ideas which have not been discussed.

Would an increase to the cost of operating air units help, especially if they could not "fly" across the Mediterranean due to reduced free movement rule (which will result in more operating costs). Could operated air units receive a morale/readiness penalty and receive higher losses against cities? Basically these changes, coupled with reduced bomber attack capibilties could have an impact, or maybe not but they could be discussed.

This is a very interesting discussion. Thank you to everyone involved

Whilst I can't say I have sufficient experience yet to sensibly contribute on whether air units become overpowered I would certainly agree with Crispy about avoiding introducing a new level of complexity in order to try and resolve it

regards
Ben Wilkins

[rocketman71]

When I first started playing the game, the way that air units could move to any hex and be just as efficient bothered me a bit since it takes away the strategic importance of key airfields, either destroy the opponents or take them over. Could one solution be to turn some hexes with key airfields (like Carpiquet i Normandy) into resources? Also maybe make mountain, marsh and forest hexes no go for air units?

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Benedict151

This is a very interesting discussion. Thank you to everyone involved

Whilst I can't say I have sufficient experience yet to sensibly contribute on whether air units become overpowered I would certainly agree with Crispy about avoiding introducing a new level of complexity in order to try and resolve it

regards
Ben Wilkins

I would not in any case associate the term "complexity" with a negative efect. The decision to build a fortification by engineers and not to program as an automatic command for land units that are more than four rounds in a hex is also more of a strategic expansion than an exaggerated micromanagement. I do not believe that all problems can be solved by variations of the attack values alone. Possible costs of a relocation and also the possibility of a logistical restriction (e.g. preparation of a target hex field) should be tested.

[Leadwieght]

Hi all,

Fascinating discussion! I agree that the ability of air units to "teleport" in unlimited numbers is a big factor giving them a lot of power, but I would still be hesitant to limit it too much. I would say the place where this game feature has the biggest effect is North Africa--particularly for the Axis. Not sure that's such a bad thing. The post-1.05 supply rules have made it MUCH tougher for the Axis there and in Russia.

Maybe air units should only be allowed to Operate into the actual hex of a City/Town/Settlement, and not into adjacent hexes. That would nicely limit the ability to quickly build huge aerodrome complexes in the desert or the remoter parts of Russia without, on the other hand, totally hamstringing Axis offensives. And it would have relatively little negative effect on the Allies in the later years, I think.

Or maybe limit Operational movement by air units to Resource hexes that have a supply level of 5 or higher, instead of 3 (which I think is the current limit).

But I'd like to argue against overly strict limits on air units' flexibility. I know it seems weird to have air units popping up all over the map via Operational movement, but the fact is that functioning airfields were constructed in some pretty remote, inhospitable places. My great-grandfather was with the Seabees in the Pacific and they hacked landing strips out of the jungle!

LW

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

My great-grandfather was with the Seabees in the Pacific and they hacked landing strips out of the jungle!

This is, of course, true. But probably on a battalion level, and less so when a whole air division or an air fleet is relocated. There should be some more logistics required, right?

[Leadwieght]

"This is, of course, true. But probably on a battalion level, and less so when a whole air division or an air fleet is relocated. There should be some more logistics required, right?"

True, but I thought that's what the MPP expenditure represented, in part. Perhaps there's something to be said for simply upping the cost of OMing Air units.

[James Taylor]

I'm seeing this as a non-issue. Why? Since at the SC scale, I would think that every hex has some degree of ability to operate air units, perhaps not at the scale the SC air units represent, but at least a small contingent there of.

So reflecting the supply and readiness of that contingent in making them less combat effective does a decent job of representing the limitation of deployment.

It's a player controlled issue, you are free to select the hex of deployment knowing that lower supply and readiness will reduce the unit's effectiveness.

The proximity of an HQ helps in that it provides the necessary commitment of assets to operate a larger aircraft contingent.

It all makes perfect sense.

[jlopez]

Given my PBEM gaming experience I would agree that Sealion, followed by the conquest of French Africa with a late Russian invasion seems like an almost unstoppable strategy. It takes practice to build the right troops and get them at the right place and the right time for Sealion but after that it's almost a formality.

The basic flaw, I feel, is the ease with which amphibious landings can be undertaken. Let's remember that it took the combined Allied resources years of preparation to land the SC equivalent of three armies in Normandy in 1944. Three armies.

Compare this with SC where Germany can pretty much do the same in 1940 with no dedicated amphibious landing ships. Historically, the intention was to use anything that more or less floated like canal barges for example. Let's even assume the Germans had got ashore, how would they have been supplied once ashore?

OK. Enough of the criticisms. Here's some potential solutions:

1. Drastically increase the cost and time it takes the Axis to research Amphibious Landings.
2. No one can undertake landings before June or after September in Europe and May-December in Africa. The weather is too unpredictable.
3. You can only block access to amphibious units at sea with ships and not submarines. These get moved sideways if necessary after inflicting the automatic casualty on ships moving through them.
4. You need to capture a port and not have it blockaded to have any supply. A German HQ occupying Dover would not provide any supply.
5. Create a new naval unit: Artificial harbour (Mulberry harbour). Available when Amphibious research is maxed out. It functions as a level 8 supply port.

The above should make amphibious landings much more hazardous and requiring lengthy preparation for both sides.

One last thing. I would like to see some player interaction with the convoy system even if it is only to cancel or postpone convoys on a particular route. This is particularly true after a successful Sealion where the UK is still sending help to the Soviet Union!

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Jlopez,

Thanks for the feedback and I'm just curious if this is with any games post v1.04 where we made the change to HQ linking/supply rules.

For Convoys, if you open up the Convoy Map screen you can adjust the convoy transfer percentages for Major to Major transfers and essentially shut down a convoy like the one where the UK is sending help to the Soviet Union.

Hubert

[jlopez]

Hi,

We started in 1.03 but by the time we got to SeaLion it was well past 1.04.

Thanks for the tip on convoys. A clear case of RTFM. Duh!

One last thing. I'd have units on 0 supply lose a random number of strength points every turn. Otherwise, you get units stranded in the middle of nowhere for ever and they can't be rebuilt. Happened with a UK SF unit in Narvik that got trapped against the mountains and couldn't get out. The German corps couldn't inflict any casualties on it. Another case was a UK corps in Algeria that got stranded after the capture of Algiers and the surrender of France. The owner should at least have the option of surrendering the unit.

Julian

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Jlopez,

Then the HQ supply rule change would have come into effect part way through your campaign but the additional balance changes that had been applied in the v1.04 campaigns would not have come into effect and these have seemingly also had some effect on play balance with some arguing that it now tilts the balance in the Allied favour.

I'd be curious to know what you think after a few PBEM++ games started with our latest version, v1.08, prior to any further changes as some of what you've outlined may no longer be an area of concern. But that being said some of the suggestions are still good ones and could apply either way.

Hubert

[sPzAbt653]

Agree with the spirit of the suggestions as they relate to gameplay, but it gives me a few thoughts.

1. Drastically increase the cost and time it takes the Axis to research Amphibious Landings.
To be fair, the Allies would have had the same restrictions. Torch was their first amphib op, and it was all they could do to deliver the equivalent of 5 inf and 1 arm div to the beaches, and at the cost of shipping elsewhere, and due mostly to the influx of US shipping once they entered.

2. No one can undertake landings before June or after September in Europe and May-December in Africa. The weather is too unpredictable.
This would give both sides many worry free turns, so I might think it would be better if Storms would make it impossible to land.

4. You need to capture a port and not have it blockaded to have any supply. A German HQ occupying Dover would not provide any supply.
5. Create a new naval unit: Artificial harbour (Mulberry harbour). Available when Amphibious research is maxed out. It functions as a level 8 supply port.
Can you think of HQ's as representing these logistics efforts, rather than creating a new unit and new rules ? Maybe, but it still seems that a port should be necessary. This also speaks to the fact that one HQ and/or one resource can supply an infinite number of units.

[Goodmongo]

With the reduction in German MPP I think the changes to the bombers only means I'm going to research something else above level 2. The return for the MPP spent is not worth it unless I have no more units to upgrade, buy or reinforce. It seems the change forces us down a specific path of rushing level 2 ground attack and then skipping the rest for sometime.