Why were Axis trucks nerfed by 20k in OB 2.0?

[Beethoven1]

There is also no documentation of any changes to Axis trucks I can find in the OB 2.0 patch. Here is the thread with the https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6&t=400035 changelog. I did a search for the word "vehicle" and the word "truck" in that and see nothing. But it appears Axis starts with 20k fewer trucks nevertheless.



The following screenshot shows Axis trucks on turn 1 of a grand campaign. Left side is with patch 1.03.07 (OB 2.0 update). right side is the same thing (start of turn 1 of a grand campaign with 1.02.52 (the last pre-OB 2.0 patch IIRC).



You can see the Axis has 20k fewer trucks with the new patch.

However, the "need" is also smaller by about 15-16k, so at least at first glance you might think that starting with 20k fewer trucks is somehow compensated by the lower need or something.


Here is the same comparison on turn 2 (again, no moving any units or doing anything, just clicking through the turns). I wanted to go through a few turns just to check if it somehow worked itself out quickly from minor differences in when units with particular TOEs like RFSS or something arrive on the map. It does not...

turn 2:



turn 3:



turn 4:



turn 5:



turn 6:





Final total difference on turn 6:

397,104 with new patch
416,364 with old patch

That is a difference of 19,260 trucks

If you do not count the repair pool, it is a difference of 18,971 trucks

Need in units is lower by 7,315 in new patch though

[AlbertN]

Has the difference been summed up to the production of trucks that popped in the 5 turns that elapsed with logistic (and thus production) phases?

Also with the test you have not moved in Russia at all (understandably for testing reasons).
That's also why in the mod I've made I've bumped trucks sensibly. - Admittedly by a much larger amount than 20.000 at this stage, since it's 15% extra of what the units start with.

[Beethoven1]

I would strongly urge/suggest reverting this and simply adding back the missing 20k starting trucks, unless maybe there is some very strong reason in historical data or something for this change.

Nerfing Axis trucks, especially this much, is a pretty bad change for balance and gameplay. It discourages the Axis player from trying to do any sort of historical blitzkrieg advance in the early turns, and encourages the Axis player to just grind instead of going for pockets, because it lowers MP and you need MP to be able to do pockets.

Since it is true that the "need" is also a bit lower (by about 3-7k in early turns), this might be a minor buff to the Axis logistics, but that would really be a good thing - again because it will more encourage historical-style gameplay.

It is true that you can make a good argument for Axis logistics being too strong in 1941 (especially later in '41), but the reason for that is NOT that Axis has too many trucks, it is to do with totally different factors which relate more to the amount of freight shipped on rails from NSS rather than what is shipped from depots to units using trucks or for that matter horses (e.g. superdepots and the fact that when you are no longer outrunning your supply by too much, you can get a larger quantity of freight by increasing supply priority).

[Beethoven1]

Has the difference been summed up to the production of trucks that popped in the 5 turns that elapsed with logistic (and thus production) phases?

Also with the test you have not moved in Russia at all (understandably for testing reasons).
That's also why in the mod I've made I've bumped trucks sensibly. - Admittedly by a much larger amount than 20.000 at this stage, since it's 15% extra of what the units start with.

Yes, the reason for testing this way is purely just to check with an exactly equal comparison whether Axis gets more or fewer trucks. Clearly they start with fewer, but since the unit TOEs changed it is worth going forward a bit to just make sure that changes to TOEs do not offset the 20k truck nerf. And it seems they do not.

Of course if you advanced you would lose more to truck attrition (though you would also gain some captured trucks at least from turn 1 pockets).


Also, one other point - back when Soviet trucks were nerfed, Axis trucks were also nerfed (in addition to this newer 20k nerf). So the Axis trucks should now be WAY worse than they were on release of the game, and I don't think anyone playing Axis then complained about it being too easy to manage their trucks.

[Beethoven1]

And here is the same comparison for Soviets on Soviet turn 6

While Axis trucks were massively nerfed, Soviet trucks were increased (albeit by much less). Soviets have 2,801 extra trucks in the new patch (although their need is also a tad higher):

[AlbertN]

I would strongly urge/suggest reverting this and simply adding back the missing 20k starting trucks, unless maybe there is some very strong reason in historical data or something for this change.

Nerfing Axis trucks, especially this much, is a pretty bad change for balance and gameplay. It discourages the Axis player from trying to do any sort of historical blitzkrieg advance in the early turns, and encourages the Axis player to just grind instead of going for pockets, because it lowers MP and you need MP to be able to do pockets.

Since it is true that the "need" is also a bit lower (by about 3-7k in early turns), this might be a minor buff to the Axis logistics, but that would really be a good thing - again because it will more encourage historical-style gameplay.

It is true that you can make a good argument for Axis logistics being too strong in 1941 (especially later in '41), but the reason for that is NOT that Axis has too many trucks, it is to do with totally different factors which relate more to the amount of freight shipped on rails from NSS rather than what is shipped from depots to units using trucks or for that matter horses (e.g. superdepots and the fact that when you are no longer outrunning your supply by too much, you can get a larger quantity of freight by increasing supply priority).

I rest in my case if for historical gameplay you mean pockets - in general for the average player the 'grind' is simply way easier.
There are other, structural problems that are not moddable (such as how admin movement works and allows to dance to the enemy and waltz away after a deliberate attack; with supply 4 guaranteed 16 MP for infanteries for the Russians) that will make either pockets far too tiny and needing a full panzer army to secure 2-3 hexes of pocket, or ... the pocket will break loose.

[Beethoven1]

I rest in my case if for historical gameplay you mean pockets - in general for the average player the 'grind' is simply way easier.
There are other, structural problems that are not moddable (such as how admin movement works and allows to dance to the enemy and waltz away after a deliberate attack; with supply 4 guaranteed 16 MP for infanteries for the Russians) that will make either pockets far too tiny and needing a full panzer army to secure 2-3 hexes of pocket, or ... the pocket will break loose.

Sure, but if you lack enough trucks from the start of the game to have decent MP, then making pockets is not even a viable option, as opposed to grinding merely being easier. It is a question of feasibility or being possible at all, not what is easier. Anyway, you are right that pockets will still be plenty difficult to do with the trucks restored, but if they are NOT restored, then ... well, just forget about it.

Or in practice at least what I would do is only play with a modded scenario that does restore the trucks (unless there is really some undocumented VERY good reason for it).

[Joel Billings]

I assume less trucks was due to rebuilding units with new Obs required less trucks. This kind of thing happens when we make changes to the scenario data. The number of trucks is not sacred, as it's not a specific real number (like number of Panzer II tanks in the 3rd Panzer Division) but was something that was balanced out in testing. Of course you are free to change things as you like, but I don't see a reason to change what we have based on the changes in the data.

[neaugustus]

+1 also have a feeling that something is not okay with German vehicle pool in the latest OOB patch.

I’ve played only one game as axis so far with OOB 2.0. Though with a care management you can still get nice MP on a spearhead motorized divisions, but the infantry are the guys who suffer the most because of trucks shortage. I barely remember now any of mine infantry had above 14 MP under normal circumstances.

The main issue about all this for me is not actually the fact Germans have less vehicles now, but the thing is that Soviets still can just place Stavka on lvl 4 and never face any problems with their logistics. It just doesn’t feel okay

[Beethoven1]

I don't see a reason to change what we have based on the changes in the data.

It is the sort of thing that is making players quit (in particular to quit the Axis).

For example, I just had a server game only on turn 6 end partly because of it:





Axis has to have sufficient trucks to do some sort of blitzkrieg and pockets (or at least to be able to try it) for it to be a WW2 game.

There have been players playing with OB 2.0 who complain that as Axis in 1941 their infantry have 3 MP or so less than usual. So often they will max out at around 11 or so MP as a result of the fewer trucks. That means in some cases they can only advance 1 hex and deliberate attack (but can't necessarily advance even 2 hexes and still have enough MP for a deliberate attack with infantry.

[Gerry58]

So people quit because they are losing games?

[GoodbyeBluesky]

I don't see a reason to change what we have based on the changes in the data.

It is the sort of thing that is making players quit (in particular to quit the Axis).

For example, I just had a server game only on turn 6 end partly because of it:





Axis has to have sufficient trucks to do some sort of blitzkrieg and pockets (or at least to be able to try it) for it to be a WW2 game.

There have been players playing with OB 2.0 who complain that as Axis in 1941 their infantry have 3 MP or so less than usual. So often they will max out at around 11 or so MP as a result of the fewer trucks. That means in some cases they can only advance 1 hex and deliberate attack (but can't necessarily advance even 2 hexes and still have enough MP for a deliberate attack with infantry.

Honestly, you arent even able to do real Pockets after the first few turns in any case. The whole admin move, no real stacking or coordination penalties make those unlikely to be a good idea anyway. Pulling away 20k trucks just is the cherry on top.

Seriously this game is such a big stepback from WITE 1 in terms of playability. I dont wonder that veterans are leaving

[neaugustus]

So people quit because they are losing games?

People quit because the game is insanely arbitrary to the player. You lose not because you are worse than your opponent or due to a severe mistake you made, but you lose only because the game just works this way. And that’s not fun at all

[Beethoven1]

So people quit because they are losing games?

Not at all. If you read what Bitburger said, he said:

I was lucky enough to see the fall of berlin from both sides a total of 5 times in wite1, so it's not like i quit willy nilly

This means he played until the end of the game in WITE1 as Axis in the late game, when Axis is losing (as well as also playing as Soviets).

So really it is quite the opposite of a player quitting just "because they are losing."

[Wild]

Hate to always be disagreeing, but I'm in in the spring of 43' with the new OB 2.0 (no early end vs. AI). Game seems fine to me.
I did notice my advance was a bit slower in the beginning. But not a big deal vs. AI. By the end of '42 my line still ended up around the same place as usual.

For me the balance when playing the AI is very good. That's why I generally just play the AI. You don't have to worry about your opponent failing his morale check and quitting.

In general I think it is such a shame that I see people quitting the game so early instead of hanging in and overcoming adversity.

[Beethoven1]

vs. AI)

But not a big deal vs. AI.

balance when playing the AI is very good

That's why I generally just play the AI.

This is the key point (as I think you also are indicating). Vs. AI. TBH I am pretty sure you are correct that it is fine to play Axis against the Soviet AI.

In general I think it is such a shame that I see people quitting the game so early instead of hanging in and overcoming adversity.

I do very much agree I don't like to see that either.

If you decide you want to try playing a PVP grand campaign game as Axis, let me know, I would be willing to start one right now with you with whatever settings and house rules are your choice. It could be interesting to play it for a bit and then later revisit and see how much your opinion is either still the same or has changed. One way or another perhaps there could be some lessons learned from that about either Axis PVP players could do differently or else what could be changed to make the PVP games have just as good balance as what you find you can get playing against the AI.

If you don't want to for whatever reason or just don't want to, that's fine. But if you want it, the offer is open for a game from me and I'll do my best to give you a good hard fought game which you will hopefully enjoy.

[Wild]

vs. AI)

But not a big deal vs. AI.

balance when playing the AI is very good

That's why I generally just play the AI.

This is the key point (as I think you also are indicating). Vs. AI. TBH I am pretty sure you are correct that it is fine to play Axis against the Soviet AI.

In general I think it is such a shame that I see people quitting the game so early instead of hanging in and overcoming adversity.

I do very much agree I don't like to see that either.

If you decide you want to try playing a PVP grand campaign game as Axis, let me know, I would be willing to start one right now with you with whatever settings and house rules are your choice. It could be interesting to play it for a bit and then later revisit and see how much your opinion is either still the same or has changed. One way or another perhaps there could be some lessons learned from that about either Axis PVP players could do differently or else what could be changed to make the PVP games have just as good balance as what you find you can get playing against the AI.

If you don't want to for whatever reason or just don't want to, that's fine. But if you want it, the offer is open for a game from me and I'll do my best to give you a good hard fought game which you will hopefully enjoy.

Thanks for the offer but I really prefer to play the AI. I have no doubt that you would give me a good game and most likely would clean my clock.

It's not that I really doubt the points you have brought up. I know my AI experience does not translate to multiplayer.
It's just that when I see talk of all these big problems with the game and that people are leaving and don't want to play anymore, that I feel I have to step up and say something to let any new players that may be reading know that the AI still offers a very fun and immersive experience.
I would hate for a game that has had this much effort put into it, and which I genuinely feel is the best East Front game out there to fall by the wayside.

[Joel Billings]

BTW, we are testing a new version with 25k vehicles added to the Axis vehicle pool in the 1941 Camapaign to make up for what was lost in the OB 2.0 update and the fact that units are carrying a bit less supply/ammo/fuel at the start now on average. I expect this will go out as a public beta next week.