Allied Balance

[lwarmonger]

As has been discussed on some threads elsewhere, right now the balance between Allied powers is a little off. The Soviets are usually struggling by 1942, and are very dependent on a D-Day invasion by 1943 to save them. This would seem to indicate that the United States is a little too strong, and the Soviets are a bit too weak.

I attribute a lot of this to the "pre-war mobilization management" that most Axis players do, which enables them to keep U.S. and especially Soviet mobilization very low until they stage for the invasion of the Soviet Union/Pacific. I usually find that the United States has enough MPP's to max out its research and keep it maxed prior to war, while the Soviet Union never does.

All that being said, the solution seems clear.... increase the base Soviet mobilization values (say by 10%, although the exact number should probably be playtested first), while decreasing the U.S. by between 5-7% (this should be less because the U.S. industrial base is bigger). This would reduce the amount of tech the U.S. is able to develop pre-war and slow the U.S. rollout, while increasing the Soviet capabilities to tech up and hold off the Germans short of Moscow and the oil fields. Ideally we have fewer games being decided by whether or not the U.S. can launch a 1943 D-Day while largely ignoring Japan until they are firmly ashore in France and more decided by how effectively the Soviets are able to fight in Russia.

[Chernobyl]

I agree. But what do you mean by "D-Day 1943" because historically the Allies did knock out Italy in 1943 by landing armies in Europe.

Tweaking mobilization levels (for USSR in particular) is definitely one way to make USSR stronger or USA weaker. However I think it might not be the best way to handle balance, because it gives these countries the options to spend MPP on ahistorical stuff that might result in the game feeling off. For example the USSR is 'supposed' to be behind in tech, but have tons of units; increasing base mobilization will likely get spent almost all on tech, not units.

Here are three basic things I would do:
1. USSR gets a TON more units in its build queue / spawn upon Barbarossa and their army size becomes terrifying. I have a long list of 20+ units with suggested arrival times and locations.
2. Germany actually gets a few more historical corps/Armies in build queue (makes DDay 1942-43 more difficult)
3. USA build queue gets 2-3 additional Essex class carriers (these are the ones that became operational in 1943 and thus are the most relevant):
-Essex date changed to historical 31 Dec 42 not 6 Dec, Norfolk (showed up at Pearl May43)
-Lexington-II 17 Feb 43, Norfolk
-Bunker Hill 25 May 43, Boston
-Intrepid 16 Aug 43, Norfolk

The idea is to make the land armies of Germany and USSR larger, leading to 2 things: Germany has an easier time finding units to spare to counter an early DDay, and USSR has a real chance to simply overwhelm Germany if the Axis don't kill enough USSR units or cripple the USSR fast enough. USA also gets real dual ocean fleet superiority beginning in late 43 via the Essex class coming online, as was historical.

Obviously I have no idea if these changes are balanced without playtesting, but my general idea is that build queue units might be better at keeping game balance and "historical" feel than changes to early MPP.

[lwarmonger]

I agree. But what do you mean by "D-Day 1943" because historically the Allies did knock out Italy in 1943 by landing armies in Europe.

Tweaking mobilization levels (for USSR in particular) is definitely one way to make USSR stronger or USA weaker. However I think it might not be the best way to handle balance, because it gives these countries the options to spend MPP on ahistorical stuff that might result in the game feeling off. For example the USSR is 'supposed' to be behind in tech, but have tons of units; increasing base mobilization will likely get spent almost all on tech, not units.

Here are three basic things I would do:
1. USSR gets a TON more units in its build queue / spawn upon Barbarossa and their army size becomes terrifying. I have a long list of 20+ units with suggested arrival times and locations.
2. Germany actually gets a few more historical corps/Armies in build queue (makes DDay 1942-43 more difficult)
3. USA build queue gets 2-3 additional Essex class carriers (these are the ones that became operational in 1943 and thus are the most relevant):
-Essex date changed to historical 31 Dec 42 not 6 Dec, Norfolk (showed up at Pearl May43)
-Lexington-II 17 Feb 43, Norfolk
-Bunker Hill 25 May 43, Boston
-Intrepid 16 Aug 43, Norfolk

The idea is to make the land armies of Germany and USSR larger, leading to 2 things: Germany has an easier time finding units to spare to counter an early DDay, and USSR has a real chance to simply overwhelm Germany if the Axis don't kill enough USSR units or cripple the USSR fast enough. USA also gets real dual ocean fleet superiority beginning in late 43 via the Essex class coming online, as was historical.

Obviously I have no idea if these changes are balanced without playtesting, but my general idea is that build queue units might be better at keeping game balance and "historical" feel than changes to early MPP.

I like your solution as well... I think either could work, although making the USSR stronger means that, given that the desire is to have Axis and Allies relatively balanced, Axis would need a bit more to compensate for this addition to allied strength... vs tweaking mobilization levels to make the U.S. weaker and Soviet Union stronger means you don't have to rebalance the Axis-Allied dynamic as well.

And for your initial comment, I view Italy and Greece as "limited theaters" in that the terrain and narrowness of them make it safer for the Allies to land, but more difficult to do anything particularly useful once there (of the three listed below I view Italy as the most useful, to knock Italy out of the war). When playing against someone who is going all in against the Soviet Union you really need to open up a "limited theater" (Greece or Italy or Turkey) in 1942, followed by a "D-Day" landing in either Spain (if you are still weak) or France (if you are not) in '43.

[Chernobyl]

Thanks.

I will note there are many balance considerations to adding more units (just as there are for changing mobilization % or adding MPP). Additional units could have undesired effects, such as:
-Increased difficulty to "hide" at sea (more crowded oceans)
-A more "continuous front" might preclude breakthroughs/encirclements (which are probably too small a part of this game)
-Increased cost of paying to repair/upgrade/replace more units affects economic balance
-Takes a bit longer to play the game

There are probably other considerations I haven't thought of.

That being said, I think more units is the best answer to USSR's weakness (not to mention it's pretty darn historical, they had an absolutely gigantic army).

[Feinder]

My feed-back is "baby steps".

Having just gotten my butt handed to me as Allies, i would say that "yes, there is room for improvement."

That being said, my opponent Ngineer played a straight-up game. Nothing gamey in my opinion.

But baby-steps... change too many things, and you wont know worked to solve a problem, and what made things worse.

There are a lot of suggestions here.
But baby steps.

[lwarmonger]

My feed-back is "baby steps".

Having just gotten my butt handed to me as Allies, i would say that "yes, there is room for improvement."

That being said, my opponent Ngineer played a straight-up game. Nothing gamey in my opinion.

But baby-steps... change too many things, and you wont know worked to solve a problem, and what made things worse.

There are a lot of suggestions here.
But baby steps.

Don't get me wrong.... I'm making the argument that the game is, generally speaking, fairly balanced right now between Axis and Allies.

However, Russia looks a bit too weak (ie it is nearly impossible to hold an equally skilled axis player without an early D-Day) and the U.S. may be a bit too strong (ie it is very possible to pull off that early D-Day... albiet by delaying the Pacific theater until you are fully ashore in France, so late 1943).

[Chernobyl]

I think the game maintainers are pretty good at being conservative when it comes to balance changes. I know anything I or Iwarmonger suggest here DOES potentially have an effect on balance changes, because the developers do listen. I do agree that caution and small changes are generally good ideas.

That being said, I don't think adding just a couple more units to USSR would make much of a difference.

The balance situation has multiple contributing issues that should probably be addressed, such as:
-The surrender hoarding exploit
-Probably too much "good" weather in Russia
-All-weather bombers are probably overpowered right now
-Persian Gulf sub

But beyond the issue of simple game balance, I believe the 39 scenario misses something important in that the whole vibe of the Eastern Front is a bit too far off for my tastes. I think it would be awesome if the 39 scenario could do more than merely balance the "race" (can Allies DDay etc. before USSR collapses?) The Soviets should have a bit more fight in them, with the ability to throw in some nice counter-punches to weaken the Wehrmacht. Germany should feel pressure to "do better" than they did historically 41-43. If Germany hasn't achieved something like take Baku or take some major cities like Stalingrad/Leningrad/Moscow by that time, it should find itself in at least some degree of difficulty in the East. Soviet troops should increase in number and/or quality (the Red Army did improve thru bitter experience). Currently, Soviet forces DO improve around this time as Infantry Weapons and AA upgrades come online, but the upgrades don't really change the nature of what is happening, they just slow the rate at which the Red Army is inevitably destroyed.

I mentioned above my idea to give the USSR more units. Another idea might be to add/change some USSR National Morale events, similar to the "Russian Morale Improves As War Continues" event. Part of the reason the whole Ostfront amounts to little more than Russians sitting in trenches waiting for Panzers and Stukas to kill them is because Germany generally gets maximum NM bonuses while USSR suffers in NM. If USSR were to gain enough NM to pass above one of the thresholds, say in 1942 and/or 1943, their units would fight a bit more effectively. This solution could be simpler or more elegant than adding more units. It also generally fits the big-picture history of the conflict: Soviet troops often fought to the death even against impossible odds, so high morale certainly isn't ahistorical.

Reminder: NM thresholds are 40%, 75%, 95% and 110%. USSR has 150K NM = 100%

Soviets could be granted NM bonuses for holding onto certain cities (Smolensk, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Baku, Moscow) thru the end of 41, 42 and 43 (either individually or as a group; could also increase the NM loss for losing these cities to balance it out).
E.g. "Soviet Morale Increases As Axis Fail To Capture X In (Current Year)"
The aim would be to get the Soviets a significant amount of NM for these successes, enough to boost them above a threshold so all their units fight more effectively in 1942-43 and beyond. The secondary benefit would be that this puts pressure on Germany to achieve certain goals more quickly (e.g. might not want to completely ignore Smolensk in '41, rush to take Stalingrad before end of '42).

Again, I am guilty of having too much fun thinking up ways to improve this game, and I apologize if I propose anything that seems too drastic, but I do think the above would be a really cool way to improve the current situation. What do you guys think?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

The balance situation has multiple contributing issues that should probably be addressed, such as:
-The surrender hoarding exploit
-Probably too much "good" weather in Russia
-All-weather bombers are probably overpowered right now
-Persian Gulf sub

That's it in a nutshell, Chernobyl.

The 'surrender hoarding exploit'...that's a perfect name btw.
That's alone was discussed and confirmed over a year ago with the Montenegro Gambit tests we did for SC-WW1. Note go to the SC-WW1 WarRoom and check out the Montenegro Gambit Test 1 and 2 done by Bavre and I. Very entertaining and informative.
Personally experienced this stratagem here in WaW. Early game..."how come my Axis opponent left alone Luxembourg, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Greece etc early in the war? Oh...I know why."
Also, importantly, this stratagem can keep the USAs mobilization very low if applied correctly.
An additional bonus here.

All weather bombers and other air: Snow or shine perfect spotting. Demoralization and detrenchment at 100%. Have to say this makes carrier vs carrier operations more fair...but early to mid game the Axis will absolutely wreck the low countries even on a rainy April turn. Soviets won't have AA2 by Barbarossa unless prioritized, leaving the hard decision of what other critical research. If the Soviets don't have AA2 though by late 1941, they will be wrecked by German bombers. Snow not much of a cover as these bombers can still demoralize, detrench, and hit their targets, and in conjunction with ground attacks, be vaporized.

Too much good weather in Russia. Yes and this has been noted here on the forums many times. Too many clear turns seen in November and December. Inclimate weather has always been one of Russia's biggest defense against invaders. Compound that with the fact that the Soviets can and will be bombed even in a blizzard and basically they get little breaks from air assault. There maybe some mud turns but there are only 13 turns (for a side) in a year in WaW...so weather doesn't seem to be that big of a factor when conducting operations against the USSR currently.

Persian Gulf sub. Yeah one Japanese sub unit can shut the whole thing down, though I think this can be countered a bit easier (though expensive) by the Allies than the all weather air armada the Axis can weld.

Anyways that's my contribution to Chernobyl's previous post.

[Elessar2]

But beyond the issue of simple game balance, I believe the 39 scenario misses something important in that the whole vibe of the Eastern Front is a bit too far off for my tastes.

One big issue is that very sparse number of towns & settlements in Russia. This leads to yawning gaps/dead zones in the front that nobody wants to move into because their supply will become poor (note this is more of an issue in WiE because of the bigger map). More t/s will mean more viable spearhead routes, higher supply levels for both sides, and more dynamic and less predictable play overall.

[Chernobyl]

sparse number of towns & settlements in Russia

I have considered slightly editing the USSR map sometimes, partly for representing industrial production (Kazan should probably be a city, places like Orsk should probably be at least a town), partly to simply add major locations in areas that I feel are missing (Tambov). The problem with changing any of the map in Russia is that it affects balance greatly. In particular, every City is a stepping stone for Germany because they can get 10 supply from that spot. If anything, I feel some of the distances between major cities are too close to adequately represent the difficulties in supply (feels a bit too easy to hop from Voronezh to Saratov, and the Caucasus feels too small). If I could I would stretch the map a bit and make central Russia a bit wider (also Iraq/Iran would get bigger, but doesn't seem like a problem to me).

[Elessar2]

Tweaking down Scorched Earth a bit (so that captured cities drop to 2 or 3 not 4 or 5) would counterbalance that.

[Bavre]

...
The 'surrender hoarding exploit'...that's a perfect name btw.
That's alone was discussed and confirmed over a year ago with the Montenegro Gambit tests we did for SC-WW1. Note go to the SC-WW1 WarRoom and check out the Montenegro Gambit Test 1 and 2 done by Bavre and I. Very entertaining and informative.
Personally experienced this stratagem here in WaW. Early game..."how come my Axis opponent left alone Luxembourg, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Greece etc early in the war? Oh...I know why."
Also, importantly, this stratagem can keep the USAs mobilization very low if applied correctly.
An additional bonus here.
...

Those two also synergize in a VERY effective way. If you keep down US mobilization as much as possible, you have a good chance to delay Pearl to the turn after the russian winter hits the Wehrmacht. This is the only moment of the game when you can really fully utilize the accumulated monster bonus of all those minor surrenders within one turn in the pacific: it will instantly revert the morale effect of the winter and give you almost god mode for your spring offensive.

[ThunderLizard11]

PBEM results last 3 months were Axis 19 victories and Allis 15 so yes slight advantage to Axis - however need to adjust that to make sure Allied loss were same level experience players as Axis.

Could see slight tweak of Soviet/US mobilization to offset "surrender exploit" and possible adjustment to Soviet Nov/Dec weather.

[Chernobyl]

Tweaking down Scorched Earth a bit (so that captured cities drop to 2 or 3 not 4 or 5) would counterbalance that.

Yes I agree this is one of those 'random factors' that can be very frustrating and make a giant difference if the rng doesn't go your way. Is there any way to edit this?

[Elessar2]

Yes. Vanilla has a range of values, but you can eliminate the spread and always get the SE level you want.

[lwarmonger]

PBEM results last 3 months were Axis 19 victories and Allis 15 so yes slight advantage to Axis - however need to adjust that to make sure Allied loss were same level experience players as Axis.

Could see slight tweak of Soviet/US mobilization to offset "surrender exploit" and possible adjustment to Soviet Nov/Dec weather.

Shouldn't the surrender exploit be the easiest thing in the world to fix? Just get rid of it for everyone who isn't a major surrendering. There are already specific events for how Belgium surrender impacts Allies.... cover stuff like that through events, and don't let Luxembourg or any other minor countries surrender have any effect on how anyone else fights?

[lwarmonger]

Shouldn't the surrender exploit be the easiest thing in the world to fix? Just get rid of it for everyone who isn't a major surrendering. There are already specific events for how Belgium surrender impacts Allies.... cover stuff like that through events, and don't let Luxembourg or any other minor countries surrender have any effect on how anyone else fights?

To add to this further, it doesn't make any sense to have this. Was German unit's morale lowered because the Romanians surrendered? Did the Soviet infantry care if Greece went down? Why on earth would British armored units fighting in North Africa care about Yugo, or Greece? Or the U.S. about Thailand surrendering to the Japanese?

This isn't the way morale worked... today or in WWII. It is an exploitable mechanic as others have aptly demonstrated, and worse it is an exploitable mechanic that doesn't represent reality.

[Feinder]

The issue with morale is that, it (mostly) only goes down (esp for allies). Axis will go up as their empires expand, but there are very few triggers that allow the the allied morale to go up. Even in an AI game, with the Allies having killed 2 of 3 axis powers and 3rd crumbling, allies morale is only 55% (at least in my games). Against the ai tho crushing weight is sufficient to win the game. Against a human, where German and Japanese morale sustains around 100%(+), the losses sustained by allies have a major impact on the efficacy (or lack thereof) of allies units; meanwhile "sustaining" the elevated axis morale and increasing their effectiveness (relatively).

[Chernobyl]

This isn't the way morale worked... today or in WWII. It is an exploitable mechanic as others have aptly demonstrated, and worse it is an exploitable mechanic that doesn't represent reality.

This is a point many players have made, as you know, for multiple versions of this game. Yes I agree a lot of it is nonsensical, especially in this global version of the game (heck, if Mao got defeated, it might have actually increased Nationalist Chinese morale!)
It's two issues in one: keeping USA/USSR mobilization as low as possible is extremely powerful, and the global unit morale swing (+/- 10-20% for land units, +/- 5-15% for naval units) is really best saved for a large scale offensive.

The issue with morale is that, it (mostly) only goes down (esp for allies). Axis will go up as their empires expand, but there are very few triggers that allow the the allied morale to go up.
meanwhile "sustaining" the elevated axis morale and increasing their effectiveness (relatively).

I generally agree that USA/USSR National Morale is too low, especially for 1943 and beyond. I think very high German/Japanese NM is probably an intentional feature, and I would hesitate to mess too much with it. But in general I think there should be more ways for USA/USSR/UK to gain back NM and I think there are many opportunities here to improve the game. For example perhaps the USA should gain more NM for "striking back" at Japan (the American public was primarily hungry for a victory against Japan). Most of the islands in the Pacific and places like Manila subtract from Japanese NM when the USA takes them, but they don't seem to provide the USA with any NM boost. Perhaps these could be looked at. I don't see any event for the Dolittle Raid in the event files; perhaps the USA should be given a decision event for this one (bonus NM if raid succeeds).

[kaigab]

Balance in this game is tricky.

Personally i think that forbidding air power on bad weather would greatly help russians as well as the germans later when facing DDay. I would just do this change and see what happens.

I agree that Russia is way weaker than historical but at the same time US is overpowered as well. I mean, right now if Germany focus on SU, SU ends up surrendering always in '44 unless Allies manage to do a DDay in '43. However, it is also true that if allies go for Japan first, Japan also surrenders by late 43 or early '44: joint UK and US fleet can basically stop dead Japan from the get go.

So boosting SU in a way to be more historical (so way harder for germany to win in the east) would need a significant rebalancing of the allies or any game might end up with Germany not beating SU in '44 with allies killing Japan by '44 and then taking down Germany.