1941 needs balancing

[eskuche]

ORIGINAL: YueJin

Give the Indian port garrisons 10/10 strength from the beginning and I think many issues are helped out for the allies. I've run it many times now on both allies and axis sides on hotseat and PBEM and Japan can easily take at least two of the ports on a turn 3 landing and the Indian front just collapses by the end of '42 every time. If they had the ability to hold out for a couple of turns under blockade it would force the Japanese to commit major fleet assets to take the ports which gives some counterplay options with night raids from Ceylon or the US carriers striking in the Solomons or India, wherever the Japanese carriers aren't.

Doing the same for the New Caledonia and Fiji garrisons would also make sense to me given how easy they are to blockade.

Yep, Japanese reach is limited only by how well the player plans and distributes small landing forces at this point (and how well Allies can threaten an all in maneuver on smaller IJN fleets.

[kennonlightfoot]

Until we have some games between Players done, it is hard to say how balance is. They are still making adjustments to Europe version to fix the latest Hail Mary strategies. I am sure Pacific will have its share. Against the AI it is hard to determine if the tactics being used are valid. A Player might quickly undo what seemed to work with ease against the AI.

[AlvaroSousa]

Games this complex in strategy take time to balance. World in Flames has been around for 30 years? They are still balancing.

Strategic Command is also always balancing for every new version. I know I talk to Hubert.

Commander Europe at War changes a lot from it's initial game.

It takes time.

As for important locations.....
I gave careful consideration for which areas get VPs and which don't.
Each location VPs are used to give a choice or motivate.

For example Australia is hard to fully take.
But it is a base to cripple Allied convoy lines, has some resources, and a fair pool of units.
NEI has no VPs because alone it is important and is a choice for the Allies Invade the oil and lose time for VPs or sub the oil and go after VPs
The 4 VPs in India, and many in China are motivators and strategies for Japan to win the game.

THe game get's balanced on both extreme ends to bring the game play to between 3-7 for all players. A good player should beat a bad player but not humiliate them... well unless it is their very 1st game, haven't read the rules, and don't get the mechanics. That's a 1. An example would be the Allied player by 1943 loses England, Russia, and the United States in WPE because the learning curve is that steep.

On the other end I don't want a player to find some gimmick loophole to cripple the game. That's a 10. An example of this was how supply trucks snowballed to the point trucks were way more cost effective against destroying the enemy and preventing damage than building units.

If you are the Allies you are on the defensive. But it doesn't mean you can't do douche bag moves to force the Japanese player to be more careful.
If you are the Japanese you need a strategic plan to win. Then focus on that plan. You can't be everywhere at once. One of Japan's weaknesses is their production. It just isn't enough to absorb all the casualties in an attrition fist fight at sea.

So it will take many games till people get the system and good players start battling each other in PBEM. Or good vs bad player.

[eskuche]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Games this complex in strategy take time to balance. World in Flames has been around for 30 years? They are still balancing.

Strategic Command is also always balancing for every new version. I know I talk to Hubert.

Commander Europe at War changes a lot from it's initial game.

It takes time.

As for important locations.....
I gave careful consideration for which areas get VPs and which don't.
Each location VPs are used to give a choice or motivate.

For example Australia is hard to fully take.
But it is a base to cripple Allied convoy lines, has some resources, and a fair pool of units.
NEI has no VPs because alone it is important and is a choice for the Allies Invade the oil and lose time for VPs or sub the oil and go after VPs
The 4 VPs in India, and many in China are motivators and strategies for Japan to win the game.

THe game get's balanced on both extreme ends to bring the game play to between 3-7 for all players. A good player should beat a bad player but not humiliate them... well unless it is their very 1st game, haven't read the rules, and don't get the mechanics. That's a 1. An example would be the Allied player by 1943 loses England, Russia, and the United States in WPE because the learning curve is that steep.

On the other end I don't want a player to find some gimmick loophole to cripple the game. That's a 10. An example of this was how supply trucks snowballed to the point trucks were way more cost effective against destroying the enemy and preventing damage than building units.

If you are the Allies you are on the defensive. But it doesn't mean you can't do douche bag moves to force the Japanese player to be more careful.
If you are the Japanese you need a strategic plan to win. Then focus on that plan. You can't be everywhere at once. One of Japan's weaknesses is their production. It just isn't enough to absorb all the casualties in an attrition fist fight at sea.

So it will take many games till people get the system and good players start battling each other in PBEM. Or good vs bad player.

Thanks for the input. I think the main gameplay issue here is that if Japan is railroaded into optimal starting moves, it becomes less of a game. If any of the suggested changes were to be implemented (staggered landing craft arrival, even by one turn, stronger port defenses, or more difficult surrender), there would be more decision-making in the beginning and respects the effort of the game creator

There is no reason not to jump Batavia turn 1 and end DEI, for example, as incbob said.

[incbob]

Mr. Sousa,
I in no way mean to disparage either you or WPP. I am very well aware that this game is 1.00. I know it needs balancing and playing and this is why I bring up the issue.


I see a lot of people talking about balance, waiting, and good or bad players, or waiting to see what tactics people come up with.
So here is the question and I feel that this is a serious question.


Do we as players say, "Give us play balance and if that has nothing to do with WW2 fine?" So, for example if play balance needs require the US to start the game with 7 CVs that is fine, since the game is balanced.

or

Do we want play balance and something that resembles WW2 Pacific Theatre?



Right now, unless the Japanese player is bad like me, they can easily conquer everything they did IRL and be attacking Australia and/or India. The Japanese are at least two months ahead of where they were IRL.



For those saying wait, what are you waiting for? What magical allied strategy is going to make the Japanese not be able to take everything I have said they can take? I challenge anyone to come up with an Allied Strategy that keeps the Japanese from taking the entire DEI, the Philippines, and at least half of the Solomon Islands by the end of December. Unless the Japanese player is bad, you are also going to lose the rest of the Solomon Islands, Port Moresby, and probably some South Pacific Islands prior to the end of January.

So, someone throw me a lifeline. What can the Allies do?


It is not a straw man argument to ask that since Germany IRL by June 1940 had conquered Poland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway if we would be happy with a game that unless the German player is bad, they have not done all the same before April 1940.

[stjeand]

People do understand that this is a game and to put rules in to prevent X means you constantly break Y.


As the Japanese I can invade the US on turn 3...
Should that be allowed?


In WPE is it is impossible for the Germans to conquer France by June. Do we think that is broken?
The Germans are consistently 2 months behind there.
BUT it was found if they were "on schedule" it actually broke the game as they could Yugoslavia and Greece before the rains and that gave them a large advantage.

Maybe in this game the Japanese need to be 2 months ahead or the game is unbalanced due to the scale.

I guess I don't see a big difference in the game giving the Japanese less oil and them needing to attacking the DEI to continue. Yes it might be not historical but so is invading India...or the US on turn 3...or not sinking any ships at Pearl Harbor (yes this happened to me once in testing)...

BUT perhaps it can be changed a bit...not sure how yet as I have not played enough games.


IF you stop the Japanese from invading the DEI they will focus elsewhere...

I suppose you would have to take all the units they have in those areas...and put them in the build queue...then take 90% of the landing craft and transports and do the same. You only need 1 Marine and 10 Trans and 10 LS to take out the DEI...Could move one from Truk and take out the DEI on turn 2. Not sure that fixes things.
You could block the ability to declare war on them for X turns...okay...that would stop the invasion.
But then the would change their focus.


Once you have seen 10 games get to the end game you can tell...is the balance there and is a change needed.

[incbob]

Could the Japanese, in January 1942, have invaded Australia, India, or the US. Yes, but it would have cost them so much that they would have been crippled elsewhere. So I have no problem with the Japan invading in the US on Turn 3, but it should cost them dearly, but it doesn't in this game. Seriously Pearl Harbor was a stretch for them.

As for, "Wait till the end game," or, "but the game is balanced as it is," comments let me say this. If this was a computer baseball game and after 2 innings consistently a team had 20 runs and 40 hits would you say that? You might have a game, it might be balanced, but it is not a baseball game. I would not need to see 10 games to know that something was wrong.


I do not know about WPE. I played the game, enjoyed, it, but it is not my thing.
But if Germany cannot even come close to what it did IRL then there is an issue with the game.


If this game is based on making the Japanese equal to the US and UK then the game has a basic flaw. Japan was NEVER EVER even close to the US and UK. The game should be based on victory points. Can you get more victory points then your opponent. If this requires letting the Japanese do things they could almost never realistically then would you also be okay with cutting back on Japanese Landing Craft and instead giving them another 15 CVs to start the game. I am sure we can figure out how many extra CVS we have to give Japan to balance the game.


My suggestions:
1) Manilla does not auto surrender the Philippines.
2) Batavia doss not auto surrender the DEI.
3) Either get rid of all the Japanese 1,2,3, garrison units or lock them in place. (I suggest either an intrinsic defense value or maybe you can buy island garrison units and assign them the way you do escorts).
4) Lower the Japanese Landing Craft to 150.
5) You may have to give Japan extra victory points.

I do not want to agree with Numdydar but he is right. In the games current state there is little difference between this game and Hearts of Iron 4. You use the same names, you name the pieces the same as the equipment used in the war, but it is not a WW2 game.

I have said my peace. I will continue to play the game and hope that corrections are made. But in its current state it will never replace World In Flames because WiF can come close to WW2.
please lock this thread.

[sajm0n]

This whole discussion is pointless until we are able to check at least few human vs human (preferably competent ones) games, that lasted at least until 1943 or better until 44. Examples from irl, that Japan didnt take this or that until March, doesnt mean a thing here. What matters to the game is what happens much later, when Allies launch their counter attack, and only then you may or may not see, what effects those "two months ahead of schedule" had.

india/australia debate has more merit to me. Im Japanese player myself, so i wont be spending hours figuring out how to do it, but im pretty sure India is defendable with production help from USA. If not whole country, then at least the most important production points, until reinforcements arrive.
And in Australia only Sydney really matters, which should not be easy to take even when rushed.

About early invasions on Solomons, fiji, new caledonia etc, you cant tell how bad is it for the Allies until you see enough of humans reaching mid to late game.

The one thing id maybe consider changing, would be adding Bandar Lumpur and/or Surabaya to the cities needed for DEI surrender, but again i dont have any data to support it, other than the fact DEI falls on turn 1 and its faster than irl, so maybe its a bad thing, but who really knows.

[DaShox]

IF you stop the Japanese from invading the DEI they will focus elsewhere...

If you don't take DEI quickly as the Japanese, you lose. I found that out the hard way.

[sajm0n]

For the USA invasion at turn 3, from game notes:

USA Reinforcements - if the West Coast is invaded by Japan, the US player gets several West Coast reinforcements. I dont know how many, i didnt check it myself, but there is a mechanism against it

[tyronec]

I have one HvH mirror match going, we are both new to WPE.

We are up to May '42, Japan has taken most of India, half of Australia and is making progress against China. Playing again would expect to do much better as Japan as I have made many mistakes, there is not so much improvement available for the Allies early game as they have so little to play with.

As to whether the game is balanced long term I have no idea, possibly the allies can lose most of the map early game and still come back to win because of greater USA production.

[Uxbridge]

The current debate about early balance does concern me a bit. Knowing it's a game more than a simulation, and that the same game system will operate with it's own weight and speed throughout the whole scenario, unable to conform to the sometimes rapidly shifting forces and actions of the conflict it portrays, it nevertheless bothers me that the general feeling of reality–the immersion effect on my own mind–will suffer if the initial stages plays out to fast. Without taking any definte stance in the ongoing argument, I will therefore make some changes in the 1941 scenario to test things out.

The first will be to lower the present amount of Japanese landing craft assetts to 130. That will retain the possibility to land with the troops loaded on transports at scenario start. This will hamper the initial assault. Then I will put 20 as reinforcement for game turn 3; 20 as reinforcement for turn 5; and 30 for reinforcement for turn 8, thus re-balancing the 70 deprived to the sons of the rising sun early.

This done, I will double the cost for landing craft, but lower the production time to 2 months. This will give the Japanese player the option to retain his naval offensive, but only at a substantial increase in spendings. Hopefully, this will slow the initial speed of things to a degree, while it will also have a decelerating effect on the initial Allied response.

Any thought before I make these changes?

[DaShox]

Idk. I see this push for rebalancing to be premature. The U.S. side is tricky and you have to realize you have to be careful early.

Japanese position is tricky also. If you don't take NEI and phillipines quickly your game is over. You need to have a plan and you can easily lose if you don't. Japanese has to defend alot of ground and you can't defend it all (as my veteran opponents have schooled me on this).

I say this a new person who has played both side and have learned lessons from both side.

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: incbob

Mr. Sousa,
I in no way mean to disparage either you or WPP. I am very well aware that this game is 1.00. I know it needs balancing and playing and this is why I bring up the issue.


I see a lot of people talking about balance, waiting, and good or bad players, or waiting to see what tactics people come up with.
So here is the question and I feel that this is a serious question.


Do we as players say, "Give us play balance and if that has nothing to do with WW2 fine?" So, for example if play balance needs require the US to start the game with 7 CVs that is fine, since the game is balanced.

or

Do we want play balance and something that resembles WW2 Pacific Theatre?



Right now, unless the Japanese player is bad like me, they can easily conquer everything they did IRL and be attacking Australia and/or India. The Japanese are at least two months ahead of where they were IRL.



For those saying wait, what are you waiting for? What magical allied strategy is going to make the Japanese not be able to take everything I have said they can take? I challenge anyone to come up with an Allied Strategy that keeps the Japanese from taking the entire DEI, the Philippines, and at least half of the Solomon Islands by the end of December. Unless the Japanese player is bad, you are also going to lose the rest of the Solomon Islands, Port Moresby, and probably some South Pacific Islands prior to the end of January.

So, someone throw me a lifeline. What can the Allies do?


It is not a straw man argument to ask that since Germany IRL by June 1940 had conquered Poland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway if we would be happy with a game that unless the German player is bad, they have not done all the same before April 1940.

Mr. Sousa... hehe.. I am just a normal person. No need to apologize for anything man This is a game and I know it is very likely unbalanced with initial release. At least it seems to be in better shape than WPE.

More human games are needed to test. There are a lot of tricks and tactics the Allies can do.

Usually I'd say the approach is for the Allies early on...
"...Attack your enemy where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected..."

Another issue is the A.I. also. The main scenarios need to be easy enough early so the A.I. can do it's thing. The Pacific Theater was more difficult to script than Europe. I went through 4.5 full script changes with the final one being a combination of two of them.

The Allies are to delay as much as possible early on. If they can do that in 1944/1945 they can press a few ports and win. Check out this video on Allied expansion 1944/1945. As you can see they didn't take much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS-BWXfFkVY

Start at 7:45 timemark

[eskuche]

In my games so far I've noticed that basically the early game boils down to (besides Japan playing Press Your Luck solo) 1) who can surprise a smaller enemy fleet with their entire carrier stack or 2) who can do enough attrition on blockading fleets with larger fleets or 3) who can counterattack (2) with their carrier stack. Not sure if this is intended or if there is any other alternative for this type of gameplay with more, smaller fleets doing things. Can a large fleet oil tax be considered?

[incbob]

This will be my last post on this subject.

If you look at the Warplan Pacific advertising the "cover" says Warplan Pacific and it shows the picture of two men. Admiral Chester Nimitz and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. The picture of these two men on the cover implies that this game has something to do with WW2, in fact, WW2 in the Pacific Theatre to be exact.

I do not mean to rude, and apologize if this offends, but if you do not know who they are then yes you can comment on whether or not the game is balanced between the Allies and the Axis, but you cannot comment on Allied or Japanese abilities to do a thing or not do a thing.

Admiral Yamamoto is well respected and known to be one of the best Admirals. But this game currently portrays him as a bumbling idiot because anyone can do in 1 month what it took him 3-4 months.

I realize that it is early. I realize that it is only 1.00. I realize there is a lot of work to be done. I realize that this is part of the teething process.

But if the community is fine with a game that makes Admiral Yamamoto, and the Japanese military in general, look like military idiots then you have game, but not a WW2 game. Will I play it. Sure. It is a game after all and honestly there isn't much else out there. But I will continue to wait for World in Flames or some other game to do it right.

[FirstPappy]

"It is a game after all and honestly there isn't much else out there. But I will continue to wait for World in Flames or some other game to do it right." - incbob

Already in my early 70s. Can't wait that long [:)]

[CrackingShow]

Well I'm playing some PBEM games and having fun lol, that's all I have to say.

Interesting how few islands the Allies took, they didn't even go after the DEI - I suppose they sank almost all of the Japanese merchant marine so the Japanese were not getting much out of their conquests, I would expect in the game the player can either kill merchants with subs or land on Java/Sumatra if you wish.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: CrackingShow


Interesting how few islands the Allies took, they didn't even go after the DEI - I suppose they sank almost all of the Japanese merchant marine so the Japanese were not getting much out of their conquests, I would expect in the game the player can either kill merchants with subs or land on Java/Sumatra if you wish.

Re-taking the DEI wasn't really necessary. By taking the Philippines in 1945. the Allies pretty much choked off Japan's lines of communication with the Dutch East Indies and the whole Southern Resource Area. Of course, the fall of Okinawa corked the LOC even further.

In March 1945, one last, tiny Japanese convoy designated Hi-88D composed of eight merchants and eight escorts desperately tried to break through this cordon to reach Japan from Singapore. Submarines and B-24s operating out of Luzon decimated the convoy and not one vessel reached Japan.

The US administration at the time was very reluctant about "liberating" former European colonies for their former owners with US forces. Which is probably why the Australians got the job of invading Borneo and Brunei in the summer of 1945.

[CrackingShow]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

ORIGINAL: CrackingShow


Interesting how few islands the Allies took, they didn't even go after the DEI - I suppose they sank almost all of the Japanese merchant marine so the Japanese were not getting much out of their conquests, I would expect in the game the player can either kill merchants with subs or land on Java/Sumatra if you wish.

Re-taking the DEI wasn't really necessary. By taking the Philippines in 1945. the Allies pretty much choked off Japan's lines of communication with the Dutch East Indies and the whole Southern Resource Area. Of course, the fall of Okinawa corked the LOC even further.

In March 1945, one last, tiny Japanese convoy designated Hi-88D composed of eight merchants and eight escorts desperately tried to break through this cordon to reach Japan from Singapore. Submarines and B-24s operating out of Luzon decimated the convoy and not one vessel reached Japan.

The US administration at the time was very reluctant about "liberating" former European colonies for their former owners with US forces. Which is probably why the Australians got the job of invading Borneo and Brunei in the summer of 1945.

Yeah that makes sense. If the British and Dutch had the strength to do so they would have conquered their colonies, and would desire to hold on to them. Of course the US did not want that happening.

I'll try to recreate that in my PBEM games as Allies, maybe I can do better with the British than they did historically and get into Indochina/Malaya to take the VPs.