Yet another balance thread (1.11)

[EarlyDoors]

There was an unofficial USSR-Japanese war in 1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

and it was decisive in no further outbreak on that front

I'm not sure how to model this event and its impact in the game

Maybe its possible that a Japanese DoW on USSR could spawn some of these USSR forces mentioned here?

I agree entirely with the Vladivostock disatisfaction - the Allied player just has to sit there and take it, unable to respond

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

If you don't want to hear about it, then just don't browse this thread. [:)]
It's about balance in PBEM matches, as stated in opening post and there are no bad ideas, as long as game gets more 'even'.

The issue is that you brought up historical arguments to justify buffing the Soviets in the Far East. That I feel is unjustified.

As for MP balance justifications, the thrust of my argument is that SP balance should be considered, too. After all, I suspect SP players are the majority of the player-base in even specialist war simulations.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

There was an unofficial USSR-Japanese war in 1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

and it was decisive in no further outbreak on that front

I'm not sure how to model this event and its impact in the game

Maybe its possible that a Japanese DoW on USSR could spawn some of these USSR forces mentioned here?

I agree entirely with the Vladivostock disatisfaction - the Allied player just has to sit there and take it, unable to respond

I've already broached this topic. First of all, the Nomohan incident was hardly a "war." It was, as the Japanese titled, an "incident" caused by a renegade, overzealous elements of the Japanese army that did not in any way follow the proper chain of command. Thus there was no central planning and support for the action. You have to understand that the Kwantung Army in those days frequently acted like an out of control, private contractor - a bit like the British East India company. In this respect, the Nomohan incident was a bit like the Mukden incident in 1931 - which ultimately led to the invasion of China. Lower level military officers stirred things up, and the higher ups back in Japan was furious.

Second, most important, the Nomohan incident is greatly exaggerated in terms of its impact in the West - in large part fed by Russian propaganda. It really was a minor border clash that involved runaway elements of the Japanese army acting on its own. To the Japanese eyes, it was no big deal. Yet, just as Europeans over-exaggerated the impact of Tours or the Arabs over-exaggerated the impact of Talas, Russians grotesquely over-exaggerate its impact. Instead, the real reason that Japan did not choose the "North Strike" option had to do more with domestic factors - just like why the Tang Chinese stopped its westward expansion after the defeat at Talas. The North Strike faction was purged after a failed coup, so there were no longer powerful officials advocating for it in 1941. Otherwise, Japan may have gone North - just as Gao Xianzhi would have come back with an even bigger army and routed the Arabs after Talas, but for the breakout of the An Lushan rebellion - which rent China apart. In fact, the Nomohan incident was in part an effort by the Kwantung Army to instigate a larger conflict with Russia in the aftermath of its very flagging prospects after the purge of the Strike North faction.

Also more important than the outcome of Nomohan was the simple fact that Japan felt existentially threatened by the Western oil embargo. I tend to think people over-rate the impact of oil as a primary cause in the decision to go to war, but I cannot over-rate it in this case. Japan's two options were either a humiliating capitulation and accede to Western demands(including an unconditional withdrawal from China) and get oil - or make war and get oil.

[Marcinos1985]

Maybe its possible that a Japanese DoW on USSR could spawn some of these USSR forces mentioned here?

I agree entirely with the Vladivostock disatisfaction - the Allied player just has to sit there and take it, unable to respond

Such an event would be nice. Though i could imagine that some players would take those troops and transfer them to Europe immediately [:)]

Vladivostok feells little bit off. Maybe if there was no RNG in this event, that lets you shoot at blocking ships (just shoot them each turn 100%) this would deter Axis players more.

[taffjones]

I'm sure that in a previous patch it was implemented that if Japan blocks the supplies going to Russia by blockading Vladivostok USA mobilisation increases.

As this issue was raised a long time ago. I might be wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation as it stands now.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: taffjones

I'm sure that in a previous patch it was implemented that if Japan blocks the supplies going to Russia by blockading Vladivostok USA mobilisation increases.

As this issue was raised a long time ago. I might be wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation as it stands now.

I'm not sure we did, but will check and if it's not already included then it's another potential change. [:)]

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

If you don't want to hear about it, then just don't browse this thread. [:)]
It's about balance in PBEM matches, as stated in opening post and there are no bad ideas, as long as game gets more 'even'.

The issue is that you brought up historical arguments to justify buffing the Soviets in the Far East. That I feel is unjustified.

As for MP balance justifications, the thrust of my argument is that SP balance should be considered, too. After all, I suspect SP players are the majority of the player-base in even specialist war simulations.

You're right, I've taken quite a few notes from this great thread and will do my best to implement the ones that are the most applicable to both single and multiplayer.

I realise that some might make more sense in one environment than another, but the good thing is that some of the ideas are also generating ideas of my own. Lots to think about and I'm merely noting things down and thinking about them at this stage, but I am optimistic that we will see some improvements coming.

It's certainly going to keep me busy for a while! [:)]

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

These changes seem to be nice. I wonder if there was a feedback from WiE players, did it help much? For me it seems that making 2 armies close to Luxembourg stronger would make France less suspectible to rushes.

I've not had any feedback yet from WiE. Maybe I should have implemented it in WAW instead! [;)]

This thread is great, players are very creative and at the same time, they left their pitchforks at home. [:)]

I totally agree. [:)]

[Marcinos1985]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: taffjones

I'm sure that in a previous patch it was implemented that if Japan blocks the supplies going to Russia by blockading Vladivostok USA mobilisation increases.

As this issue was raised a long time ago. I might be wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation as it stands now.

I'm not sure we did, but will check and if it's not already included then it's another potential change. [:)]

@taffjones, @BillRunacre No sign of such a change in patch notes. Maybe in 1.12? [:)]

[petedalby]

Apologies if it's already been suggested but a simple way to buff the USSR might be to reduce the research costs for their 'must haves' like Armoured & Infantry Warfare, Command & Control, Advanced Tanks & Infantry Weapons.

I find that once Barbarossa begins all of your MPPs are spent on rebuilding losses rather than keeping pace with technology.

[rafaelmbaez]

Be careful of buffing too much the Allies ( that France buff is significant ) or it will need a very good Axis player to win... remember, in ELO matches right now, its almost 50/50 at the moment.

Another thing to touch is the Pacific War, Japs and USA avoids each other focusing in URSS / India and USA in Germany first.

[boudi]

The main problem is in Soviet Union. USSR is severly hit before the end of 1942 in MP game. At the start of Barbarossa i think that USSR need a additional HQ, because there are often 4 opened fronts : Leningrad, road to Moscow, Stalingrad and Caucasus. However, the USSR has only 3 HQs (the 4th is easly destroyed at the border when it appears).Moreover the level 2 in infantry weapons is obtained too late even if we do everything to accelerate the research, with the research of level 1 from September 1, 1939.

In addition to the HQ, maybe USSR can start the game with level 1 in infantry weapons research started at 50%.

[Elessar2]

Alas every tech starts any scenario at zero. [:(]

[hansondavid4]

I have just played 2-player games and another solidary hot seat game. My opponent and I are fairly well match and been played these sorts of grand strategy boardgames for 30+ years. He had been playing SC solidary a bit before we played and I had not touched it for a long time (been playing War Plan). I had remembered SC as favoring the allies when I played it at launch, so took the allies. I got pretty well wiped out the first few as games as allies. My first axis has been a learning experience, taking a few years to master supply in China. My suboptimal play as the early axis has actually made for a good mid-end game.

Overall impression:

The game heavily favors an Axis player who knows what they are doing.

Specifics:

If the axis player focuses on knocking out the Soviets and not be distracted by ancillary activity, the Soviets will fall. If the Soviets are gone, the western allies just cannot compete. If need be, Italy can pull out of North Africa and turtle, freeing up more more resource (Italian HQ's to lead minor allied armies) for the east front and avoid moral hits for lost units there.

The European Axis can try some different gambits just to make the game interesting.

Japan is too powerful. They basically get all the units they need for free. They really only need to build some garrisons to free up the armies and corps in Manchuria; build the minor units for additional garrison duty; and artillery units to dig out the Chinese fortification and moral before attacking. Maybe an extra bomber. Once these are all in place, Japan pretty much can roll over the Chinese.

Japan get all the units they need for the Pacific for free to establish the historical defensive parameter. You need to set asside several turns worth of production to get them all on landing craft. This frees up MP's for research, replacements, and a few extra units.

Balancing:

It would be nice to have some selectable options to tweak the balance of play between players. This could be the extra AT reinforcements as selectable. Maybe additional an additional optional at start army on the major power's capital selectable for either or both sides. Anything that give the allies more units early will help them more than the axis which already has sufficient forces.

Make Strasbourg a fortified city. There is a big hole in the Maginot Line. The Germans can punch this out in the winter giving France a really problem in defending in the spring.

[Marcinos1985]

@hansondavid4 All very fair points.
TBH, there's no reason not to go all-in vs China. You get your Pacific play for free, around 1500 MPP (maybe more) just warps in and you are free to go. Only investment you have to make are amphibs, rest of MPP's goes into tech and units. No wonder they can pursue USSR agressively.

Though I suspect it's this way to balance SP play somehow. Writing an AI, which would by itself prepare for Pacific War would be a tremendous task. For now, its has problems to take changsha, which falls to human player in 4-6 turns, around 5 years earlier then IRL.

I believe patch is around the corner, I wonder what developers have in pot. Still, changes would have to be substantial to tip balance in Allied favour.

[redrum68]

Generally agree with most of those points. I think the big thing is USSR needs to have more units/income as you get into 1942/1943 to be able to have a chance to stop the Germans. Maybe adding a few more mines in the Urals that trigger on German invasion would be a fairly simple change to help better balance the game.

The other big issue not mentioned is weather which is really random and can really swing games one way or the other.

[LoneRunner]

Between skilled players, the most unbalanced issue with the game appears to be that the USSR surrenders late 42 or early 43 before the USA can get significantly involved in the war. I think the game would be improved if the conquest of USSR was made more difficult but not impossible.

Currently, after Moscow falls, panzers scream through Kuybysliev and begin an assault on Perm before the Allied player can prepare proper defenses. I think the problem is supply. Frequently, I've captured Penza at level 5 supply and have been able to operate HQs, infantry, and artillery to the outskirts of Kuybysliev while the Russian is still scrambling out of the Moscow area. Then I capture Kuybysliev at 3 or 4 supply and quickly I'm in the rough terrain in front of Perm.

IRL this would never have happened. By the end of 41 the Russians had become masters of scorched earth. The Germans found nothing but destruction as they approached Moscow. I think the game should reflect this situation.

Perhaps the controls could be set such that all cities, towns, resources to the east of Moscow are captured at zero supply. Thereafter the locations would regain supply at the standard rate of one per turn.

Yes, a skilled player will daisy-chain HQs to provide supply but the German won't be able to operate fresh troops to the front and relying on a boosted HQ that sometimes has boosted supply and sometimes loses the boost will force the Axis player to be more cautious and slow down the German advance.

[pjg100]

I agree with Lone's suggestion regarding resources east of Moscow. However, I also wonder what would happen were two skilled players to play it out to '47 where, by mid to late 1943, GE has beaten the USSR and the US has beaten or is well on the way to beating JA. Seems to me that under these conditions the long game should still favor the Allies, with two majors (US and UK) and two lesser majors (India and CH) all building out to max capacity and having effective control of the air wherever they want it and with long range level five strats ready to disrupt supply and reinforcements in whatever theater they choose.

[Tanaka]

Funny in WIE forum they are complaining the Allies are too strong. In WAW forum they are complaining the Axis are too strong. I wonder what the big difference is?

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5086634

[EarlyDoors]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

I agree with Lone's suggestion regarding resources east of Moscow. However, I also wonder what would happen were two skilled players to play it out to '47 where, by mid to late 1943, GE has beaten the USSR and the US has beaten or is well on the way to beating JA. Seems to me that under these conditions the long game should still favor the Allies, with two majors (US and UK) and two lesser majors (India and CH) all building out to max capacity and having effective control of the air wherever they want it and with long range level five strats ready to disrupt supply and reinforcements in whatever theater they choose.

Disclaimer: Im not skilled but certainly intermediate. I feel that my recent Axis Tactical Victory defeat to Thunderlizard fulfills the criteria you mention. Our game went to the last turn. Germany conquered the USSR in 45, but China had almost pushed Japan out of Manchuria back to their home island. Thunder won fair and square but I do believe the allies would have won if the game had carried on although it would have taken another 3 years.

I do believe that the game is currently balanced although tweaks are to be welcomed. For me, it’s the strangeness of the ending that stands out. Why should the game suddenly stop in 1947? At the same time why are the Atomic Bombs not war winning weapons? I believe the 2 should be tied together more tightly and also with Rocket artillery for Germany which could double in range and destruction with every level upgrade. I believe this would provide a ticking clock for all sides as well as focus Germany and Japan more towards USA and Rocket Research and away from USSR and India conquest.


Also, I’m still a huge fan of ability to reroute USSR convoy via Iran if Arctic route is shut down, after all, that’s what ships do, they move, and is the whole point in having a dominant navy.