1939 Game Balance

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Alter Native

Isn't there an obvious solution for the problem?
Just rename the current easy mode to "normal" and have it be the default option when starting the game and rename the current "normal" to hard. The hard of the current version becomes very hard etc.
Basically just shift the naming of the difficulty settings by one, but keep all settings for experienced players that are looking for a challenge.

The problem is that many people are too proud to lower the difficulty to easy, even if they had a better experience with it. Many game developers know this and have the easiest difficulty as "normal" and then several hard options.

The only possible issue here is we have a bit of a sliding scale when it comes to spotting, experience and MPP bonuses for the AI. At the default INTERMEDIATE level those items are all at zero, but can be + etc as you select the harder levels, and - when selecting the easier levels.

Having GREEN become NORMAL would then have -20% MPP for the AI, which I don't think would feel right either.

Don't get me wrong, I understand where the suggestion comes from here, we also at one time had the default level named as BEGINNER which we then changed to INTERMEDIATE for similar arguments, e.g. players felt better not being categorized as a BEGINNER when playing at the default level (and rightfully so), but the other concerns here is that while some may find the default INTERMEDIATE level too difficult, some find it just right.

And going with a renamed GREEN level as the new default has the potential of then making the game too easy for some players and that might not be a good thing either. For example, one early review of War in Europe gave it a knock because he found the default level too easy.

I also completely understand where players are coming from in that they don't like the idea of the AI receiving free bonus units, however they are strategically laid out for an optimal experience for once you get a good feel for the game. It's not a matter of just throwing a bunch of extra units on the board and calling it a better AI, it really is game action dependent (e.g. not all will fire as it matters what the player is doing in game) and it does help to make up for some of the weaknesses in the AI big picture thinking.

We do feel it gives the player a much better game, but again, for those that may disagree or just want to remove them we also provide the in game option and methods to do so.

But that being said, if we can massage the INTERMEDIATE level just a little bit to make things a little bit easier at the default level, and some careful thought went into this for the next update, we are happy to do so.

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

I've just updated the AI FAQ thread to reflect that selecting GREEN mode will also enable you to quickly disable all the bonus UNIT AI events.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5075864

[roy64]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

ORIGINAL: roy64
But what about people like me who play the medium level? I don't like to play against an AI that has any bonuses.

What you could do here is play a modified GREEN level (or modified INTERMEDIATE level depending on how we want to look at it), which is to select GREEN which disables almost all the UNIT AI bonus events, and then set the AI MPP Bonus to 0% MPP from the -20% MPP.

This then gives you the INTERMEDIATE level without any UNIT AI bonus events.

Nah I probably not bother playing to be honest.

[Sugar]

The question was how to improve the Axis performance in Russia, right?

- increase the speed of HQs by 1, enabling them to reach the next town in 1 turn

- cut the costs for mobility upgrades drastically

- increase the number of HQs to enable chaining

- overhaul the overcomplicated supply system, you`d be surprised how much the performances of new players increase

[roy64]

The funny thing is they've just made the game much harder now with the new patch[:D]

[Sugar]

What do you mean, Roy?

[roy64]

The increased severity of the Russian Winter.

Sorry wrong game I was on about the World at War game.

[Elessar2]

Annnd the more stringent Scorched Earth settings.

[PvtBenjamin]

And the strength of SU Corps & Armies were reduced so....

"Corrected Soviet Corps and Army Combat Target Statistics "

[Sugar]

The strength was reduced as promised in ancient times: lvl. 3 sovyet Inf. should have the same values as all other nations lvl. 2 Inf..

Apart from the balancing question, I guess we all know the real issue of the SC series: it`s the overcomplicated supply system. That`s what newbies prevent from succeeding, as everyone recognizes who ever played some.

I know it`s not what Bill or Hubert want to hear, because they don`t want to jump in that rabbit hole and following balancing questions and a real major change, but this is undoubtedly the issue.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Sugar,

Thanks and I'd honestly say it is not a case that we don't want to hear alternative options/suggestions, it is just sometimes impossible to satisfy all issues/concerns, and all players generally speaking with any of the adjustments and fixes we've put into place.

For example, while we feel the current supply rules helped to address 2 major issues players had concerns about, e.g. Axis having too good supply deep into the USSR, as well as North Afrika being overrun with air units at high supply, it is not wrong at the same time, what you and others are feeling, that this has now possibly introduced a higher learning curve hurdle for new players to overcome.

Sure there might have been other approaches to have considered to address these two issues, but at least on our end the issues have seemed to have gone away and players seem to be happy with the changes and the overall balance for the most part.

If down the road we can also then keep these solutions in place while having supply a bit easier to understand, that would be good as well.

Hubert

[Elessar2]

The only remaining issue is player choice for HQ chaining. Maybe have a button for HQs to allow them to "redo" supply once per turn per HQ once the link has been explicitly made? But yeah then the newbs don't know about that feature and are further hamstrung...

[Tmanusa]

I would recommend getting rid of the SU level 3 infantry upgrade or make it not available until late 44 or early 45.

[Zeckke]

i always in mid 1942. thinking on a another last level infantry (3); to the japan only, because for germans and british if they get level 3 its a must that you need in the game another last level for thanks, level 3 infantry for germans and british is not good, only for japans i think.

level 3 of germans at 1944 its giving the victory to the germans, there are about 25 German divisions

money thats what they must cost a lot if level 3 for example 150 points (dont know exactly) to upgrade level 3.


think that it is in the game level 3 for many many units: by, researching levels of aircraft ground combat


the game is balanced very well, so if you want to change the research area, (great) more upgrades but it has to cost high money what you have already done in the game, so if possible anther extra-level for infantry because you have level 2 at 1942 and of course 4 more years for the infantry

the supply is one of the best thing of the game, its a question of how many HQs do you get, so again the game now is A+ so if you want another +. dont touch anything, just the money, to get what is not now in the game just get money and maybe you can get the new levels

and what is need to get more money (PPS)? only the developers know how to do it

so more PPs (money) it might not a good idea to get that, level 3 (also at ships) but its the best balance.

[akinesia]

I also found the shortage of Garrisons very limiting for the Axis. The work around I have used which makes the game feel much better to me is to allow Germany to build 6 Inf Brigades and 6 Inf Divisions. gave the Italiens 3 of each and really seems to make a differnece in being able to guard the west while also defending against Partisans in the East.

The Anti air unit is not very good as built I have increased the intercept range to 2 and it makes a huge difference. It may even make them a little to good.

[Duedman]

What I really dislike is that the Allies can bombard Cuxhaven to completely cancel the Norway trade route. Thats just way too powerful and also not realistic.
It should simply be re-routed

[Georgia22]

Sorry to be a contrarian but I find that it is the Germans who are massively overpowered. In addition to superior troops, HQ ect, which is historically accurate there are too many things that are unhistorical and that greatly increase German strength. Most of these are things that are NOT in the game.

1) No magic; the Allies should have much more info on the Germans that vise verse. A big German advantage.
2) No radar to enhance Brit planes. Advantage Germans.
3) And this is the KILLER. There is no oil in this game!!!!!! What were the designers thinking of? This totally distorts things. To give just a few examples from history: In 1941 the Germans delayed the attack on Leningrad 7 times (see Germany and the Second World Vol 4. In 1943 the German 6th army could have taken Stalingrad easily except it was immobilized when the fuel was switched to the armies in the Caucas. Rommel starte his last attack towards Cairo with one days supply of fuel. Ect Ect. The examples are endless.

What is strange is that this could have been put into the game without over complicating it at all. Simply have a total of fuel factors that the Germans get from all sources (Romanian oil, synthetic oil factories, whatever) and as each mobile, air or naval unit moves subtract from the total.

Now, I am a novice at this game and I may well have all or none of this right and I will be glad to be corrected if so.

Thanks

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: Georgia22


What is strange is that this could have been put into the game without over complicating it at all. Simply have a total of fuel factors that the Germans get from all sources (Romanian oil, synthetic oil factories, whatever) and as each mobile, air or naval unit moves subtract from the total.

Now, I am a novice at this game and I may well have all or none of this right and I will be glad to be corrected if so.

Thanks

No, you're correct. Fuel usage, whether for ships, planes or tanks is not a factor in the game as it now stands.

[Georgia22]

Sorry I left out another way the Germans are too overpowered. The German industrial output is to high in the first 3 years of the war at least. If you want an eye opener of how badly managed German armaments were during the early war read the appropriate sections of Germany and the second world war.
For instance, after conquering western europe and big chuncks of Russia German production was still no bigger than the Brits and yet in the game it is.

thanks

[nnason]

ORIGINAL: Alter Native

I think the game's balance is fine and does not need any major changes, however generally speaking it is much harder to play the Axis compared to the Allies, especially for new players.

I have played around 5-6 games as Axis vs AI starting 39 and 3 Allies campaigns at different difficulties.
I've also played the other campaigns (Barbarossa, Case Blue, and 43 Citadel) from the Axis perspective and for experiences players the balancing of the game is good, but I can understand why new players are struggling.


Poland and France are very easy to do and they are more or less impossible to fail as Axis. Even if you mess up as a new player and it takes you until September to take Paris you still feel like you are doing ok.

In my opinion the new player problems start at the eastern front when all of a sudden effective play and a good understanding of the game rules is required. During the eastern campaign you are on a clock against the soviet infantry lvl 2-3 upgrade and you need to take enough MPPs from the soviets before they can outproduce you with cheap units.

In order to play effectively you need to have a good understanding of the supply system as well as managing your HQs well. You need to understand some advanced mechanics such as HQ chaining and encircling of units. You also must have enough HQs in the first place to supply and command all of your troops to begin with.
I assume most new players will increase the amount of tanks and armies they have, but not the amount of HQs. Therefore lots of your units will fight poorly supplied without command against cheap soviet units until they outproduce and outgunned in 43-44.
However until Barbarossa you never dealt with supplies and HQs much, as everything was running fine on auto pilot in France. When you realize you made big mistakes they are too late to fix.

Furthermore if you make mistakes it's almost impossible to comeback as Axis, as your units often die with <5 supply and you can not afford to loose large parts of your army in order to keep the Barbarossa momentum going until you control all soviet victory points.

Playing as the allies things are way too easy against the AI as you basically just have to sit back in the USSR and watch the AI grind their army to the ground against your cheap units. Unlike the axis there is very little rule knowledge and clever strategic thinking required.

So, people are right playing the Axis is a lot harder. It's mechanically harder (Supplies and HQs, being the attacker), strategically harder (prioritizing the right targets in a multi front war) and time is ticking against you. If you screw up big in one of those areas you loose. But in my opinion this is how it should be.
The war was never fair and balanced and you need to be smarter than the historic counterparts despite the odds against you.


Some ideas on how to help new players:
- Remove the Murmansk hint that is given in 41. I feel like this is a big newbie trap. Taking Murmansk is completely unnecessary and as a new player shipping HQs and armies to Finnland is hurting more then it helps. Cutting the soviets of MPPs is better done with U-Boats.
Even if you control Murmansk you are not taking any MPPs from the allies, you are just preventing the UK from shipping it to the USSR for 3 turns.... wow.

- Maybe consider giving the Germans another free HQ in early 1941 as an easy fix to help new players. (It's not necessary imo, but I think it would help new players)

- The interface is hard to understand for new players and a lot of important information is hidden, I already discussed this point in some other suggestions I made a couple of month ago:
(I can not post links as a new member, it's in the steam forum called "Feedback and suggestions" from June 20th)

- Maybe give Italy the navel warfare moral upgrade at the beginning. From my understanding the Italian navy was (unlike the army) pretty strong and a serious opponent for the UK. Even though large in numbers the Italian navy is still relatively lackluster.

- Maybe increase the MPP damage U-Boats do to trading routes in order to make the Atlantic war more rewarding.

Also, please allow the bonus MPP difficulty setting to be more then just +20%. I'd love to set this to +50% or more when playing the Allies in order to get an interesting game, but the game doesn't let me.

I agree the game balance human-to-human is adequate. The well over 200 ELO games played showed two things. The 1939 scenario is evenly balanced and the best players always win.

Alter Native has some good ideas/tips/observations.

The AI is decent but I believe game modifications should always focus on keeping the human-to-human game even.

SC is a game, not a simulation. A simulation is meant to closely match history. A game is meant to be even so either side has a good chance of winning. As such there will be aspects of a game that are not realistic such as rail and sea movement. Making changes to either of these game aspects might really unbalance the game.

Messing with the current supply methodology is challenging as it is such an integral part of the game. As an average player, I get clobbered by Fafnir and Sugar. I believe what makes them so successful is a mastery of HQs, supply, and the understanding of when to push hard. REGARDING SUPPLY the one thing I would like to see is a way to model supply to see the effects before actually moving the HQs units. Something like allowing all HQs to move within fog-of-war and movement rules as many times as needed and then only commit their movement with a commit command. Or provide dummy HQs so you can see the effects of HQS placement before actually moving them.

SC in all it forms is a great game as witnessed by the huge gamer base, the vigorous forum traffic, and the suberb support.