Next Update Suggestion

[stjeand]

Al, is it possible to add scenarios to the update?

Here is why I ask...

Some of us are concerned that to many changes may adversely effect play.
For example, changing armor to 12% loss per attack and rail repair to 2. Perhaps either would help address the situation in Russia, but the armor may make France near impossible to take with masses garrisoned units.

All this is subjective but...

Many players seem reluctant to test out scenarios and only want the play the "sanctioned" ones.

I performed one test with Harry to see how the Russia 2 hex repair worked. As the Russian player, of which I am not good, I still got completely destroyed.
NOW others that know how to play the Russians may fair much better but it is nearly impossible to find other players willing to test this out.

I am testing now with another player but a test like this takes weeks if not months.


Not sure how to address this.

I know play testers help but only so far...it takes SO long to test say the end game, or even just Barbarossa that multiple major changes could make the game unplayable.


What I was suggesting is...more scenarios...

i.e.

1939 Railrepair change...this would have all the bug fixes and air changes but just change rail repair to 2
1939 Armor change...this would change armor / mech to 12% loss.
Perhaps another scenario with both so players will test?


That way players will actually test these things rather than say I will wait for Al to figure it out.

Thoughts?


Only other thought I had was to gather up a bunch of thoughts about how September 1940 would look for the Germans and create a scenario at that time with German units being damaged and experience increase...BOA having done something, and give all the countries points to build what they want other than the base stuff that Germany and the UK would have.

So the Russians would have say 5000 points (I actually got the exact numbers) and let them build up their defense and be sure they have 100% manpower the whole time.
Germany would get some points but have most of their units in the game already
And so on...

This way players could test Russia much more quickly...instead of taking a month to get there and having the Germans roll over them in the first year and try again...or the Russians beat back the Germans in 41 far to strongly.

[AlvaroSousa]

I can just post those scenarios. When I do make changes they are slow. I wouldn't do both -12% and rail 2. It's too much. As is I think -12% is out from today's testing.

[stjeand]

Well I am not able to give a good accord of the rail repair.

Harry decimated my Russians...but I still can't figure out how to play them so I am sure someone with an iota of skill would do better.

[scout1]

Changing the rail repair from ????? to 2 .... ?
Presumably, slowing rail repair down in russia since this was more than merely a repair rather than a complete gauge change ....

[scout1]

https://www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/3/9/ ... r-19411945

[scout1]

rail capacity should somehow be reduced relative to supply being moved as well ....

[generalfdog]

So just curious with all these tweaks to try and help Russia why don't you just increase their production? Aren't they way lower then historical? Historically their loss rate in the early part of Barbarossa was insane 5Xs that of Germany but it didn't matter because they just replaced them all and then some. I would argue 41 Russians should be if anything even worse or at least be forced in to a forward defense but have a way higher production.

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: generalfdog

So just curious with all these tweaks to try and help Russia why don't you just increase their production? Aren't they way lower then historical? Historically their loss rate in the early part of Barbarossa was insane 5Xs that of Germany but it didn't matter because they just replaced them all and then some. I would argue 41 Russians should be if anything even worse or at least be forced in to a forward defense but have a way higher production.

This will only make balancing a pencil on its pointy end harder. The Allies should be putting forth MAXIMUM effort to aid the USSR with production to compensate as it was historically.

Giving them more production means they will steamroll Germany 1943 on. As is it is very difficult doing a 1942 strategy. You can take Gibraltar by sea, Egypt, Syria, 11 subs out, and a solid line of troops with reserves pushed back ~2/3rds of the way to Moscow with almost maximum manpower and get steam rolled by 1944 by the Allies.

So when the Axis steam roll Russia in 1941
and the Allies steam roll Germany in 1944
AND to make this happen players overbuild armor/mech then the problem is with armor/mech.

Changing effectiveness use is out as it destroys the A.I. and makes things too difficult.
Rail might be one.
Attack values might be a change.
Logistics cost or PP cost is out as this has little impact on the actual problem.
Or operation point cost of armor attacking in NON-Clear terrain might be the answer which is where I am considering now.

I also have to implement something that flows with the system. Thus the poll. If I had overwhelming support for it I might go this route, but it is 50/50. So I will come up with another solution. The poll action is also difficult to implement.

[generalfdog]

Those are all good points Alvaro, thanks for all the hard work you put in to improving the games!

[AstroBlues]

Suggestion: A board game has a Combat Results Table so a gamer can get an idea of whether he should attack or whether he can be more successful in the attack. Would there be a way to show such a table and to show what the die roll is?

Ron

[AlvaroSousa]

There is no combat table. But 3:1 initial. Attack slightly favors attacks in results usually. Worst case breakeven

[ncc1701e]

When is the next update by the way? My soviets are tired to be crushed.

Did I misread somewhere that something will be done to increase air power?