Balance Thread

[battlevonwar]

My last 5-6 games has lead me to believe that the Axis need a nerf as do the Allies.

If one wants to spend an hour digging through my AARs with Sveint, MagicMissile or FlaviusX, or ask Silly Flower or Hadros in my most recent games ... I think they would all agree on some level.

1. The Germans should not be able to DOW the Soviets till some point in May of '41. It is the easiest solution I can dream up cause once you wait till about May it's hard to press too deep too soon, unless someone has a more eloquent solution? I doubt there is one!

2. The Western Allies are just nasty Strong in 1943! I mean, the Axis can be pretty strong given that they manage to take Gibraltar but how to balance this is not in my knowledge base so I leave this to more Evolved Allied Players to Chime in on. Perhaps 6 U-boats in the Build by 1941? Free(!) ??? Another Idea Men???

Axis cannot take the MidEast if the Axis drop a Corp in Syria and properly garrison Egypt but this stretches the UK thin as she should be. Properly played.


I am all eyes/ears?

[Flaviusx]

The new BoA plus the increased costs for amphibs, go a long ways towards slowing down the Western Allies.

I do think the Germans have to aim to build up to at least 9 u boats total now. This is worth it because the allies are going to have to spend a lot more than the costs of building 6 uboats and repairing to deal with this.

[Flaviusx]

So far as Barbarossa goes, I'd also throw in something about oil. Oil just doesn't seem to be a constraint for the Axis. They can easily run around with 14+ mobile corps in Russia and not even sweat it.

[AlvaroSousa]

Oil hasn't changed, play styles have. It just means you know how to adapt. Every game I play I have had to watch my oil carefully. I can't just wille-nilly throw out fleets all the time.

Then there is strategic bombing.

[battlevonwar]

14 Tanks and Mechs with 8-10 Fighters/Tacs is insane. Though they cannot defeat the Soviet Union in a June Invasion 41? Nope, they should run out of steam, get caught up in Frost and then face a Western Force of as many Tanks and Mechs in 1942-43. Axis likely won't build anymore either...they cannot afford it... I bunt heads with the Russian Armies by the end of '41(where she can finally start to defend)

Axis oil is tricky, I don't think the Dev can measure it perfectly without breaking something...

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

So far as Barbarossa goes, I'd also throw in something about oil. Oil just doesn't seem to be a constraint for the Axis. They can easily run around with 14+ mobile corps in Russia and not even sweat it.

[Marco70]

For me, there are some issues for changing the balance:

1) The most important one, i would forbid a german DOW to the soviets before the second turn of may 41.

2) The italians are too weak. They mobilized 9 million soldiers in the war compared to the english's 5 million. They should have more troops at their disposal or be able to produce more, so that an invasion in 42 in the mediterranean would not be possible.

3) The allied armaments industry did not start up noticeably until 1943 and was at full speed in 1944/45. I would therefore turn to the production factor, england should have less than 158 at the start and only increase noticeably from 43.

4) Maybe give the germans a free strategic bomber in 40 that bombs away some industrial points.

5) Furthermore, it should be possible to station only german or italian troops in conquered areas and not romanians, hungarians and bulgarians. This would possibly also make a russian campaign more difficult.

Oil was plentiful until before 1944, when the americans bombed the german synthetic oil industry and razed it to the ground. Before that, germany steadily increased its production. They captured oil production in france, norway and poland and together with the very important romanian oil fields, they almost had enough.

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: Marco70

For me, there are some issues for changing the balance:

1) The most important one, i would forbid a german DOW to the soviets before the second turn of may 41.

2) The italians are too weak. They mobilized 9 million soldiers in the war compared to the english's 5 million. They should have more troops at their disposal or be able to produce more, so that an invasion in 42 in the mediterranean would not be possible.

3) The allied armaments industry did not start up noticeably until 1943 and was at full speed in 1944/45. I would therefore turn to the production factor, england should have less than 158 at the start and only increase noticeably from 43.

4) Maybe give the germans a free strategic bomber in 40 that bombs away some industrial points.

5) Furthermore, it should be possible to station only german or italian troops in conquered areas and not romanians, hungarians and bulgarians. This would possibly also make a russian campaign more difficult.

Oil was plentiful until before 1944, when the americans bombed the german synthetic oil industry and razed it to the ground. Before that, germany steadily increased its production. They captured oil production in france, norway and poland and together with the very important Romanian oil fields, they almost had enough.

Your #5 suggestion is a good one. The Germans simply could not deploy minor axis forces as if they were part of the Wehrmacht. Romanians were only interested in committing their forces in Russia and specifically to recover Besserabia and support the German advance into the Ukraine and the Donets region. The Bulgarians kept their army at home and the Finns had a firm stance not to advance deep into Russia or attack Leningrad.

The Germans never had plentiful oil, they were suffering from oil shortages even in 1941 during operation Barbarossa. This is why Hitler insisted that the 1942 German offensive be directed towards the capture of the Caucuses oil fields.

[battlevonwar]

Lascar, trying to find balance though not really interested in history...Soviets didn't have a great command structure after the invasion of '41 until late '42...i.e. half sized divisons(they didn't have the leaders for such a large army)

We need to make the game we have easily and thoroughly even on both sides with skill levels even. We got to work with what we have as huge variation and desire of history is not going to make players able to fight more evenly on both sides.

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Lascar, trying to find balance though not really interested in history...Soviets didn't have a great command structure after the invasion of '41 until late '42...i.e. half sized divisons(they didn't have the leaders for such a large army)

We need to make the game we have easily and thoroughly even on both sides with skill levels even. We got to work with what we have as huge variation and desire of history is not going to make players able to fight more evenly on both sides.

Well, this is a historical wargame and not a abstract sandbox game with a military theme. Balance and historicity need not be mutually exclusive.

For the sake of balance it could be argued that the Allies and Soviets should be able to deploy their respective forces within each others territories e.g. Americans to Russia and Red Army units to the Middle East ect.
Just as the Germans are allowed to freely deploy minor axis armies.

The lines are drawn somewhere, the dispute is not over whether their should be lines but where they should be drawn. A wargame is somewhere between a perfectly balance game (chess) and a military simulation used by war colleges. It should enjoyable and reasonably balanced, but not at the expense of diminishing the feeling of immersion that comes with a historically faithful presentation of the historical reality that the game is modeling.

[battlevonwar]

Lascar,

it is an abstract game with grand strategy the primary focus. I agree that having 3 Bulgarian Corps fighting against their Allies in Russia would be completely ahistorical is bad for immersion. We can ask that gets patched after we handle some more pressing issues.

It would be hard for the Allies to survive 1941 when historically they could of easily done this. . . If you know how to play the game well! It is hard for the Axis to survive 1943 if the Allies know what they're doing and the Axis don't attack the Russians in Spring. These are huge imbalances.

Any approach to repair this would be nice. The tons of details of history would be nice to add as we go but I think Warplan 2 may be required? Plus 10 or 15 more patches which it appears Alvaro will and has done. Look at Greece, Battle of the Atlantic, US reaction to invasion of Western Territories, Spain, etc... This a ton of more detail than most games of this scale?

[AlvaroSousa]

So the two issues are the Western Allies are too strong in 1943
And the Soviets too weak in 1941 vs an early Barbarossa. Is this correct?

I have some ideas.

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Lascar,

it is an abstract game with grand strategy the primary focus. I agree that having 3 Bulgarian Corps fighting against their Allies in Russia would be completely ahistorical is bad for immersion. We can ask that gets patched after we handle some more pressing issues.

It would be hard for the Allies to survive 1941 when historically they could of easily done this. . . If you know how to play the game well! It is hard for the Axis to survive 1943 if the Allies know what they're doing and the Axis don't attack the Russians in Spring. These are huge imbalances.

Any approach to repair this would be nice. The tons of details of history would be nice to add as we go but I think Warplan 2 may be required? Plus 10 or 15 more patches which it appears Alvaro will and has done. Look at Greece, Battle of the Atlantic, US reaction to invasion of Western Territories, Spain, etc... This a ton of more detail than most games of this scale?

There is no doubt that Alvaro is fully engaged with the player community, considers their feedback and he continues to make a solid game design progressively better. That is why I find WarPlan one of the most compelling games that I have ever played. Suggestions for some tweaks towards some aspects of historical accuracy, for a fuller immersive experience, is just polish on a solid game design.

[Meteor2]

Lascar, that’s right.
A developer, who is engaged in an outstanding degree and a community full of ideas and suggestions, make this
game shine. I have nearly no example in mind with this involvement (maybe WitX games) and fast dev reaction.
So I have high hopes for the Pacific version.

A merry Christmas time for all of you!

[sillyflower]

As I've written before, what is needed for balance with 2 equal players is a chimera because it will differ depending on their skill levels. This is because they will play very differently. I expect that more experienced players, especially axis, play a lot more aggressively.

1 of the interesting features of this game is that it is that it is a game set in WWII (as Alvaro has always said) and not a simulation in the way that most other games try to be. In some ways, this can make the game more 'realistic. For example,many/most the German units in Normandy in '44 often had very few Germans (in the sense of coming from areas where G manpower comes from in game) and many of the 'true' Germans were combat-fit. Only the 352d G div at Omaha, a few paras, and the weak 21st Pz were much good, so having the west wall occupied by poor quality axis allies is in a strange way more 'realistic'.

Looking at some other issues:

1.Barbarossa started later than planned because of the delays cause by fighting in the Balkans. Without that, Barbarossa in May was perfectly feasible.

2. the russian forces were much bigger in '41 than in-game, and they did put a lot of hurt on the axis even though their losses were horrendous. The 1st winter O ended up with both sides very badly weakened, though the axis got the worst of it. WP is the only game I know in which this doesn't happen.

3. The UK is much stronger in '42 in the game because they won't/shouldn't have the losses sustained in real life, and their tanks and tank tactics aren't totally cr#p: unless the allied player failed to invest in tank tech.

4.German tech investment during the war was shambolic. For example, their fighters just got heavier rather than having any new designs, and I believe even the basic design of the jet engine was pre-war. Their logistics arrangements were also pretty poor - and logistics is key.

5 The weather in European Russia and Ukraine in this game is exactly the same as the weather in England which is absurd. Not nearly so bad in UK, but far worse in Russia. For example, you can through a Russian winter without any rasputitsa or blizzard. Neither one fails to appear.

I could go on, but I hope that my point is made. So what is/are the answer(s)? One might be to have the weather in Russia resemble the real thing and to give the Siberians an automatic winter boost (I can't recall what it's called) to allow a proper winter O.

Another change might be to reduce allied tech points early on and to boost them up as the war goes on. German tech points should reduce to reflect the complete shambles of their research. Alternatively alter the max points per tech level in a similar way.

Anyway, these are just some early thoughts that avoid adding in more 'historical' staight-jackets.

[Meteor2]

Good points.
Maybe point 4 is not the point I would make.
A lot of development, but also to much diverse development and no focus on transfer into
useable technology.
Me 262, type XXI, V1 and V2, Fritz X (e.g. were far ahead of its time, but had no real impact).

I would add, that oil limitations are not strict enough. Even in summer/autum 41, the mech. Korps
had halts due to low reserves.

[MorningDew]

To me part of "balance" is the victory conditions too.

For example:

* If the Axis survive past 6/15/45 - it is a victory for the Axis regardless of VPs. The level of Victory is dependent on on VP differential
* If the Axis surrender before 4/1/45 - it is a victory for the Allies regardless of VPs. The level of Victory is dependent on on VP differential
* If the surrender occurs within the historical window (4/1-6/15), winner is determined by VP

A minor Axis victory should include surviving 6 weeks (or some time period) past the historical surrender

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Lascar, that’s right.
A developer, who is engaged in an outstanding degree and a community full of ideas and suggestions, make this
game shine. I have nearly no example in mind with this involvement (maybe WitX games) and fast dev reaction.
So I have high hopes for the Pacific version.

A merry Christmas time for all of you!

+1 and Merry Christmas

[AlvaroSousa]

I will remind everyone this is a simulation based on history not a historical simulation. A game this complex with a new way to do things takes time to get correct. Everything we do here impacts WP2 because it will be based on the WP1 system.

I will run down my ideas. Listening to everyone and haven't decided how to implement them yet.

BALANCE IDEAS
#1 Adding river lines to keep a steady pace of the game in Russia. There is a point where the Germans start blowing out on the map due to lack of defensive positions.
#2 Adding Terrain in some areas in Russia.
#3 Increasing 1939 start Russian units +5% experience and lowering default 5% experience. The forming units have 35% experience. The reason for this is because playing for a 1942 Barbarossa is really hard and unwinnable for the Axis. They are dead in 1944. A 1942 Barbarossa for the point of simply pushing back and winning on VPs isn't unreasonable.
#4 Forcing the USA to build more logistical type resources like shipyards and transports. I have to do some research here why the USA didn't land in June in North Africa for example.
#5 France seems fair
#6 BoA seems about right now.

I do want to make this game balanced. Commander Europe at War went through some incredibly transitions over the years. I bought it the 1st time it game out. It was one of the games I researched and probably the sole reason I have beaches I could stop Sealion by jamming the coast with garrisons.

Some of the ideas posted by players I simply can't do with the current engine without a major rewrite. It is better and easier to evaluate them in better code with WP2. I always have to consider my time as well. Some ideas are a lot more complicated to incorporate and could take 3 months to code and 3 months to test.

The VP system will remain the same. It rewards aggression with a balance of knowing when to pull back and survive for the Axis. For the Allies it is understanding you need to make an effort to take somethings and strategize on what to do. It doesn't reward Sitzkrieg which is a boooooring strategy WiF players use to win a game. Someone did suggest I have an auto-win situation for the Axis. Like if they take a serious of objectives like London, Moscow, Cairo, etc since the Axis literally have to survive the war. I am thinking about it.

Devs won't say this, none I know of, but I will. There are some elements of games that players think they want but they don't really want. For example a Euro-sized Pacific map. I have been asked this a few times. But that map is simply too enormous to scale and makes the game unplayable or micromanaging convoys.

And thank you very much for the kind words. IMO as a developer you should be involved in the forums highly. From my experience it takes years to develop an engine. 6,000 man hours in my case (3 years full time work spread over 5 years without pay). Then you reuse the elements of that engine to create more games more quickly catching up the time lost and increasing your hourly pay. WarPlan Pacific will take 1/10th the time. But you must be involved with the community and use their input to make better games. You build a quality game out of love then the money will follow. I know I will never be rich making games but I do have enjoy it and it makes enough to pay the bills + retirement. In the long run it will pay better than what I used to do.

I also enjoy the social interaction. This social engagement is productive and positive. I look forward to it each day to hear what everyone has to say. Without your participation this game would not have a very positive rating on Steam. I spend about 1-2 hours a day on the forums. I take breaks from coding to see what people are posting.

The changes I am thinking of are organic to the game without changing mechanisms. Think of them like a resistor with electricity to control the flow.

[battlevonwar]

SillyFlower,

the Russians had a smaller army on the Eastern Front at the beginning of Barbarossa. I was reviewing some detail and they had many obsolete tanks without fuel or logistics. Many biplanes... A small fraction of their armor was medium armor but from what I've been reading and watching on more in depth history that until December '41 the Axis had a great number of actual boots on the ground. Once Mobilized the Russians were defeating the Axis toe to toe.

Mud and Winter were always blamed but once on parity with the Axis in numbers the Russians defeated them. Not to say that it didn't help. Oil was running out ...

Love some of your other points by the way.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa



BALANCE IDEAS

#3 Increasing 1939 start Russian units +5% experience and lowering default 5% experience.

I'm a simple soul and have no idea what this means [&:]


I do like the idea of a '42 Barbarossa being a viable option though. Adds a bit of variety.