Balance Thread

[battlevonwar]

Alvaro,

the ideas don't sound bad at all. There are portions of the map that are a blowout for the Russians and moderating the USA to have to build up for war would not be a bad idea.

Also giving the Russians bonuses enough to be able to hold her Real Estate long enough to handle early invasions.

There is a lot to be sad for small alterations. . . Even lowering the Axis Oil down to a point where Flaviusx mentions she has to manage it better. She was constantly running on fumes at a certain point. This would dent the strategic variant in her to do new things but maybe more accurate? Getting the perfect balance was done in CEAW but there was a lot of strategies involving(I faced one fellow considered #1 in the game) take up a bunch of land and just let the Allies bang up against immobile Axis Units till 1945. So there is always a way to exploit the game. Just funner to make it more difficult ... keep it evolving, keeps people playing and makes it fun plus CEAW never created a 2nd version, which is a shame. We would love to see a 2nd version of this and every ounce of time into it will go into that ... Love the game by the way. Shelved SC3 and other games for this one!

[kennonlightfoot]

I haven't really seen that much imbalance (I can lose with either side).

I just feel that certain aspects are over emphasized in the game like:

Battle of the Atlantic - while it was critical it tends to dominated the UK resources because Escorts and Air power are so ineffective against U-Boats.

US production especially in ships seems off. The US was the major supplier of merchant ships (2710 Liberty ships during war of which 2400 made it to the end of the war). In the game they barely have enough shipyard production to make the landing craft they need.

I may not understand the dynamics of Strategic Air war but I have never had enough resources after sinking everything the UK has into Merchants and Escorts to even attempt mounting a Strategic Bombing campaign. Likewise, the US doesn't have enough logistics or production to commit to a strategic air campaign. Some of this may have to do with the difficulty of telling if it is delivering any results in time to make any difference.

In the Eastern front I get the feeling the Russians can't produce enough bodies to throw in front of the Panzers as they actually did. They have trouble producing enough units to cover the long front they have.

[Lascar]

#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.

Alvaro, I was wondering why the Soviet logistics base is almost twice as much the the US logistics capacity. It that because what is available to the US in WarPlan is discounted from the portion of the American war economy that is devoted to the war against Japan?

Also, should the remarkable achievement of rapid American merchant ship construction(Liberty ships)be reflected in a faster completion time for American built merchant ships compared to those of other countries?

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa


#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.

The short answer is because they didn't want to, and the long answer isn't very different.

The 'Germans 1st' strategy was decided 5 days after Pearl Harbour during the ARCADIA conference. Next was the decision to go with Operation BOLERO which was to build up US forces in the UK.

At the end of March '42 Eisenhower proposed ROUNDUP which was to invade northern France with 48 divs. This obviously required BOLERO to be to happen quickly. In addition, SLEDGEHAMMER was developed - a plan to invade France in '42 if that was needed to keep the Russians in the war. It was recognised that the operation was bound to fail, and was only agreed to reluctantly for that reason.

We (the British) in particular realised that SLEDGEHAMMER would be pointless and on May 28 Churchill resurrected his earlier plan to invade N. Africa (GYMNAST) that the Americans had turned down during ARCADIA, although the top military men in both countries were still against invading N. Africa or Norway, but still favoured BOLERO.

GYMNAST was only agreed in principle on 28 August and was renamed TORCH.This was going to be a huge undertaking requiring massive amounts of planning. It then happened on 8 November (cf planning D Day took over a year). It is often forgotten that most of the ships and men were supplied by the British, including Empire troops.Troops coming direct from the USA only landed on the west of Africa, and only troops from the UK landed on the north coast. to give an idea of the complexity, the N. Africa landings needed 4 assault convoys carrying 38,500 British and US troops + equipment and supplies (200 ships including escorts) 6 advance convoys with escorts (over 100 ships) and another 176 in purely naval forces. Working out and and writing the naval orders took 4 days of near-continuous dictation to 2 teams of stenographers.

This is an aspect of strategy that we gamers happily ignore. TORCH was planned and implemented very quickly and there was no delay due to lack of US shipping.US troops and ships were in a minority in Torch, and even D-Day featured more British ships and men than the Americans contributed, though that changed of course.

I should perhaps add that there were also US troops in 8th Army and quite a lot of US airforce squadrons in the middle east too, which I didn't know until I read James Holland's excellent book 'Together we Stand' from which I've taken the timeline and force levels above.

[Flaviusx]

Alvaro, here's some items on my Soviet wish list:

1. Allow them to build small rifle armies. Right now the Soviets can only build full size ones, which effectively limits them to 1 unit per turn, and an expensive one at that. Everybody else can build single infantry divisions and corps, the Soviets don't get this option.

2. Give them the ability to merge corps into armies after the war starts. I.e., rifle corps become functionally equivalent to small armies. Because right now the Soviet is forced to disband them and feed them into production and this is incredibly inefficient. You lose half your production this way. Not to mention the time delay. The Soviet Union is not exactly swimming in production. This is in fact what they did in real life after abolishing the corps organization.

3. Reserve armies should enter the game at the current tech. A 39 assault army with 30% experience is really quite helpless in the open. The panzers just chew them up. I also wish they came in as AT rather than assault tech.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Not sure I agree with you on the parity issue, though the German excuse that they were only beaten by endless hordes does not stand up to analysis.

The Russians did have the numbers at the start (look at the WiTE OB's) and the T34s and KV1s which were so much better than any axis tank were badly used and hampered by poor russian C&C (as were all their troops). The biggest problems on the German side were logistic problems, which were greatly exacerbated by the russian climate as well as as everything else. G also not helped by the partial winding down of german military production after the fall of France: not something that I would expect from you [;)].

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar



There is a lot to be sad for small alterations. . . Even lowering the Axis Oil down to a point where Flaviusx mentions she has to manage it better. She was constantly running on fumes at a certain point. This would dent the strategic variant in her to do new things but maybe more accurate?

Do you know something we don't? [X(]

[AlvaroSousa]

Let's address these one at a time....

Russian Army - Is historical forces including the forming armies and builds all the way through 1941.

Russian Experience - I meant on map units +5% experience... But the default when creating new ones drops to 30%. This allows an easily 1942 for the Germans and a harder 1941 as the forming armies are already 30% experience.

Russian Special Rules - I really want to avoid individual special rules and rather adjust organically that can be seen by all like map changes instead of Russian Bonuses.

Axis Oil - I know I have to manage oil as the Axis. I have can't send out the Italian or German fleet all the time. I keep air units back to recover in mission mode to save oil. I know I can't overbuild armor. I also know the Allies can just bomb 2-3 oil sites and cause a serious problem for me. Late in the war I buy more infantry and don't air strike as much. So if there is some secret sause to Axis oil I don't see it. As the Allies I ALWAYS buy 2 strategic bombers to annoy the Axis and force them to commit some resources to AA and air sups.

US Production - yes it is due to the Pacific. If I remember most resources went to the Pacific. As the US I first focus on the navy. I build some patrol groups, transports, landing craft. I want these available at all times. Instead of taking a chance on a landing then being screwed for 6m I would rather take my time and build up properly. So far what I have seen in AARs is Axis players not garrisoning France, Italy, or other places enough. As the Western Allies I will always pounce an invasion out there to at least distract them. As the Axis I always have those players well garrisoned and I even use deception put railing beat up units to France to recover. I usually have 1 armor there too. Maybe that's why in my games I always lose on the Russian Front.

Small Rifle Armies - You realize that Armies can be split in 2. Corps can have detachments, Armies can split. They can also merge again into larger armies. As for their tech yea that might help.

[Flaviusx]

Yes, armies can be split in two.

However, they cannot be built in smaller increments. Again, I miss this flexibility a lot with the Soviets, whereas with the other nations I often build divisions to be later merged into corps. The Soviets don't have this kind of production granularity. They have to buy in big chunks or not at all and this effectively means 1 rifle army per turn.

Sometimes I'd like to buy less than that and divert production to replacements. But I am forced by the lack of flexibility to almost always buy a rifle army. The Soviet is locked into a really inflexible production scheme compared to the other major powers.

[malkarma]

Agree with the logistics relating the USA. Wer have to remember that by the time of torch the lost 4 of the 6 starting CV (the Ranger doen´t count) and a big chunk of cruisers anmd small units..so they have their shipyards really busy. Another important thing is that the USA joined the war against the Japs due Pearl Harbour, but the congress was still hesstant about a full war declaration (actually, is Hitler the one that triggers the USA full commitment due the german DOW in 42 spring), so the war machinery was not at full pace until maybe 1943.
If you add the fact that a CV unit with 41 tech (Essex class) is 960 PP in the game, and the USA builded one per month/2 months we can agree that close of 70% of the war effort in terms of production was aimed towards the Pacific theater.

Agree with the lack of flexibility in the URSS builds. We should have the option of merging corps into armies...but I'm afraid that the code dont allow that due the fact that they are diferent kind of units (like the way that you cant merge Paras with infantry to create an infantry corps). However we can explore the ability to build half armies.
True than most of the URSS tanki were shit in '41...but also half of the panzers were Checz ones or Pz III with small guns that struggled to crush the T34 or KV 1 (even if the URSS losed most of them due to crap tactics and awful commanders). Maybe the big issue is that heavy tanks are really overpowered compared to breakthough ones, somethingm that end with the german army having more punch that it should...but this is a perception of me and not something related to crude facts.

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Yes, armies can be split in two.

However, they cannot be built in smaller increments. Again, I miss this flexibility a lot with the Soviets, whereas with the other nations I often build divisions to be later merged into corps. The Soviets don't have this kind of production granularity. They have to buy in big chunks or not at all and this effectively means 1 rifle army per turn.

Sometimes I'd like to buy less than that and divert production to replacements. But I am forced by the lack of flexibility to almost always buy a rifle army. The Soviet is locked into a really inflexible production scheme compared to the other major powers.

The issue is Soviet divisions were too small to be effective like italians. Also realize 2 Small Armies still have ZoC while 3 divisions do not.

[AlvaroSousa]

Could be armor is too strong.

[Flaviusx]

I'd cost the small armies at 120 base, reflecting their size and capabilities. (And not coincidentally, this is also the cost of rifle corps, which have similar capabilities.) Point is, they are the building blocks for the big armies just like divisions are for corps.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa


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.

I totally disagree

As someone that has played a lot of War in the Pacific (45 miles/hex), WWII Europe (7.5 miles per hex) does not make the game unplayable. I would much rather have a bigger map than one too small. This is my biggest complaint with World at War. The map scale sucks. Especially after playing on the WiE map. So I would REALLY love a bigger map for Europe.

I am glad to see that you are pretty close to WitP AE map scale as I believe you are going for 50 miles/her in your pacific game. I still think a slightly bigger scale, like 40 miles/hex would be better, but we have had that discussion and since you are doing all the work, you win lol.

But if you are ever planning on doing a complete WWII game, you are going to have to split the world in half with two different map scales, one for Europe and one for the Pacific or have a unified map scale. Unfortunately to really showcase the ETO, you would have to have a scale of 10-15 miles/hex. Which would map the PTO HUGE lol.

Personally I would have no problem with that . But players like me that REALLY would like that scale of a game, are likely not enough to make a game like that profitable. Even if we all bought 2 copies lol.

But I keep dreaming of a unified WWII map at 10 miles/hex to move my virtual units on

[battlevonwar]

People want what they think is good. Rather than that which balances the game out to make it a better game. I think what I am noticing is the pre-Barbarossa preparation is that the Axis can lawnmower the Weak/Low Experience/low effectiveness Russian Armies a little too much. The Russians are ready to defend too late as the game was designed around a Clear Weather turn for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Now you have about 3-7 game turns the Axis are getting and 6-7 Hexes deeper into the Soviet Territory that is giving off the impression of an imbalance. Now Axis can rebuild their effectiveness and the Soviets are really frail.

I am crazy about oil usage myself as Axis. I use every rail-line. I never attack unless I know I'm getting something for it and my navy pretty much is sitting in port 24-7. Oil by the time of December of '41 with a great Russian opponent should be around 30% at best. If the opponent pushes even harder that could could down into a deficit until the next year.

France is a little too easy now... I'm not sure why before it was harder and now it's easier it may be that people have gotten better at it over a year of playing the game. I know when I started the players were taking down 300-400 HP in land units and 100-150 in Air HP to take France and usually pushing into August/September. Without that issue the Axis really are a lot stronger going in early '41. I think this is giving off an impression of them being OP where previously they were taxed hard for that win.

Similar to '42 when The UK lands in with 5 Mechs, 3 Armor and 6-7 Air into Italy or North Africa without the US. Which can add and = number of units if they want by then. By '43 the two together can not be stopped...

I have practiced my Axis a lot. I think people need to learn the proper tactic for the Russians to survive and the proper balancing. Almeron once joked to me as he landed Armor off France that I couldn't do anything about it in 1941. It was true I could do nothing about it as it sat in Cherbourg and then Brest... especially when the weather changed the next turn. He knew it would tie up 3-4 Units.

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Could be armor is too strong.

[OxfordGuy3]

Personally I would hate to have the Pacific War modelled at a similar scale to the European map, I think Alvaro has made the correct choice at splitting the map scales

[malkarma]

Inmo the only situation i which the same scale in both theaters works is when you break the ocean in sea areas with search boxes like WiF does. In an oceanic hexes game (like this one) the ETO scale can be a real nightmare regarding the naval operations. Also there would be a lot of wasted space (let´s be honest here, no one care about Nepal and 3/4 of New Guinea and Australia would be empty wastelands).
So in this point, I agree with the developer. And since divisions doesn't exert a ZOC in the ETO they will work nicely in the PTO.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: OxfordGuy3

Personally I would hate to have the Pacific War modelled at a similar scale to the European map, I think Alvaro has made the correct choice at splitting the map scales

+1

[kennonlightfoot]

As someone that has played a lot of War in the Pacific (45 miles/hex),

How did you do this?
Grigsby's Pacific version has one day turns (sometimes you can speed up but you will get in trouble). That is 365 turns to get through one year. And, doing a turn in it is very complex. It's one of those "oh god it's beautiful" wonder if I can finish a game against the AI before I die of old age.[&:]

[Marco70]

It is not true that most of the USA resources went to the pacific. During the war, it was more like 25% and 75% for the war in europe, following the europe first strategy established at the arcadia conference in december 1941.
As late as december 1943, the proportions between the pacific and europe were very even, approx. 1.8 million soldiers each, 7,800 to 8,800 aircraft and 700 to 500 ships. At the end of the war, 47 divisions were in action in europe, while in the pacific, there were only 21 plus 6 marine divisions. It was certainly only in the naval sector that most capital ships were deployed in the pacific.

In general, the americans had undertaken an enormous buildup from the start of the war. They managed to reduce the construction time of an aircraft carrier from 42 months in 41 to 32 months in 44. this also shows that most carriers were laid down in 42 in order to be available in 44. I'm looking forward to seeing how this is implemented in warplan pacific.

To your previous question about an invasion of north africa. Such a large-scale invasion took a long time to plan. It took the allies a year for normandy. The americans simply had not yet produced enough landing ships, equipment, or soldiers. Most of the equipment was provided by the british. Therefore, they were not ready until november 42.

By the way, i think warplan is the best WW2 game of its scale so far. You are doing a great job and the discussion is just about nuances on a very good developed game.