Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

As for the extra artillery pieces UK/Russia (can France possibly do this too?) can purchase beyond build limits, I understand there is some opportunity cost and you may be partial to it but in my opinion this is an exploit that goes too far.

I checked Greece and Athens, Salonika Corfu and Heraklion are already primary supply centers in the editor. I think a starting Greek HQ makes sense, perhaps commanded by Danglis (3) and upgradable to Paraskevopoulos (5)

I am actually starting to get quite partial to the soft building limits for this game. Not sure how balanced it is, but I greatly appreciate the added flexibility.

As for Greece, they don't seem to work as primary supply centers. When Serbia falls, all resources in Greece immediately fall to 5, and remain that way until you can push back up and retake the Serbian capital. This makes it quite impossible to defend without a HQ. Is this a bug then?

The Greek resource and supply situation upon the fall of Serbia is a bit odd as you say illustrated..but I have only witnessed it once...in our match where I was the Entente months ago..(The same one where you partially dismantled the Royal Navy in the early winter of 1914 and tore through Serbia like the Huns haha)...so I can't exactly remember what went wrong in Greece..but it went wrong fast for me. Supply sucked!

That sounds right to me. The Greek units defending their country always are in a pathetic state. They need their supply and a HQ too.

Can someone confirm that Greek cities are not reaching full strength?

Looking at the editor, I suspected that perhaps Greece suffers from lower maximum values for cities/towns kind of like how the Ottomans have uniquely weak cities, but this isn't the case. Their cities have a max strength of 10. Then I checked "occupational efficiency" but that isn't the problem either as Greece actually has 100% which is higher than most majors which only get 80%.

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
soft building limits
Not sure how balanced it is

Perhaps it could work if the +MPP% were increased considerably from the +10% it is by default. Like say to +40%. Do soft build limits scale independently for minor allies? E.g. do you get separate build costs for Germany and Bulgaria or are they linked?

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Can someone confirm that Greek cities are not reaching full strength?

Looking at the editor, I suspected that perhaps Greece suffers from lower maximum values for cities/towns kind of like how the Ottomans have uniquely weak cities, but this isn't the case. Their cities have a max strength of 10. Then I checked "occupational efficiency" but that isn't the problem either as Greece actually has 100% which is higher than most majors which only get 80%.

The explanation is that Capitals or Primary Supply Centers that belong to Minor powers do not intrinsically get the maximum supply level for those urban resources. They also have to be connected by rail to a Capital, Primary Supply Center or Industrial Center of a friendly Major. As long as Serbia is still in the game as a friendly Major and controls one of their Capitals, Greek cities connected by rail to that capital will get their fully supply values. Once Serbia falls, all the Greek cities will have a maximum supply of only 5, either due to having a rail connection back to Athens and/or because they are beside a 5 level port. For more details, see my earlier thread on "understanding supply".

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Can someone confirm that Greek cities are not reaching full strength?

Looking at the editor, I suspected that perhaps Greece suffers from lower maximum values for cities/towns kind of like how the Ottomans have uniquely weak cities, but this isn't the case. Their cities have a max strength of 10. Then I checked "occupational efficiency" but that isn't the problem either as Greece actually has 100% which is higher than most majors which only get 80%.

The explanation is that Capitals or Primary Supply Centers that belong to Minor powers do not intrinsically get the maximum supply level for those urban resources. They also have to be connected by rail to a Capital, Primary Supply Center or Industrial Center of a friendly Major. As long as Serbia is still in the game as a friendly Major and controls one of their Capitals, Greek cities connected by rail to that capital will get their fully supply values. Once Serbia falls, all the Greek cities will have a maximum supply of only 5, either due to having a rail connection back to Athens and/or because they are beside a 5 level port. For more details, see my earlier thread on "understanding supply".

Thanks mdsmall! Also..if I didn't already, thanks for that comprehensive guide you put out...
Understanding supply as represented in this game is essential, and the other two SC titles as well.

This understanding now leads to the question about if Greece should be so reliant on Serbia's survival or not. As it stands...since Greece is a minor...Serbia is essential. I don't see any other way to strengthen Greece..and its probably not desirable. The Entente will just have to do all they can to keep at least Uskub (usually the last Serbian capital) from being taken by the Central Powers.

The Entente can't keep Serbia alive until Greece joins. Or to put it another way, if Serbia is still holding on by October 1915, the Entente is in amazing shape if they haven't already won the game.

Right now Greece is so weak that the optimal play for the Entente might even be to keep Greece neutral. When I conquer Greece I usually give it to the Ottomans for an economic boost. Yes it is slightly annoying to find the units to send to Greece, but you really don't need very many to conquer them. A HQ, one artillery, 2-3 corps and some detachments and cavalry are more than enough to obliterate the Greeks with almost no delay or losses.

Now I'm not sure how defend-able Greece might be if the British send a HQ, some corps, and an artillery. But for this to work Greece would need full strength cities. If their cities are truly stuck at strength=5 then that's not good enough.

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The Entente can't keep Serbia alive until Greece joins. Or to put it another way, if Serbia is still holding on by October 1915, the Entente is in amazing shape if they haven't already won the game.

Right now Greece is so weak that the optimal play for the Entente might even be to keep Greece neutral. When I conquer Greece I usually give it to the Ottomans for an economic boost. Yes it is slightly annoying to find the units to send to Greece, but you really don't need very many to conquer them. A HQ, one artillery, 2-3 corps and some detachments and cavalry are more than enough to obliterate the Greeks with almost no delay or losses.

Now I'm not sure how defend-able Greece might be if the British send a HQ, some corps, and an artillery. But for this to work Greece would need full strength cities. If their cities are truly stuck at strength=5 then that's not good enough.

I have sent a British HQ and arty to Greece...but if Salonika falls, it all over for Greece...at least the times it happened to me in two different MP's.

Which makes me wonder again with the idea that as been floated to make the Salonika area some kind of enclave of the Entente at a certain time..with Big Power status and an Industrial Center to generate the supply needed to hold the Greco-Serbian frontier. At least..the line could possibly be held as it was historically. Just throwing that out there....

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
I have sent a British HQ and arty to Greece...but if Salonika falls, it all over for Greece...at least the times it happened to me in two different MP's.

What's wrong with defending south of Salonika? There are some nice mountains with roads on them in the middle of Greece.

I feel it might be difficult to set up a defense quickly enough though. You need to have the units land on the exact correct turn and then immediately move to form a defensive line. The Centrals can occupy quite a bit of territory immediately if they rail some attachments and cavalry to Albania and south Serbia the turn before (which I do).

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
I have sent a British HQ and arty to Greece...but if Salonika falls, it all over for Greece...at least the times it happened to me in two different MP's.

What's wrong with defending south of Salonika? There are some nice mountains with roads on them in the middle of Greece.

I feel it might be difficult to set up a defense quickly enough though. You need to have the units land on the exact correct turn and then immediately move to form a defensive line. The Centrals can occupy quite a bit of territory immediately if they rail some attachments and cavalry to Albania and south Serbia the turn before (which I do).

There's nothing wrong with it, as long as the Entente (esp the UK) has a planned commitment to Greece prior to Serbia's fall. The two times I lost Greece rapidly in a MP...UK forces were heavily involved in other theaters..though I had what I thought was a reasonable presence in and around Salonika.

When CP artillery came up..that place fell...and though I put together a scratch force of French and UK units together and sent them into Athens and Kalamata..they came in willy-nilly and strung out. Mainland Greece fell quickly..though I got something in Corfu and Crete and had Mudros.

It was Salonika that was the keystone that collapsed..a major tactical victory in both matches for my opponents.

I just remembered the collapse of Greece vividly...and wondered if it would have historically. Probably so..since it was in a quasi-civil war through most of WW1.

In terms of assessing game balance I think it is also very useful to break the game down into the various main fronts that regularly occur. To my way of thinking the Western Front is very unbalanced because the Entente (realistically UK and France) has more artillery pieces than Germany right throughout the war. This is not historically correct. When the USA turns up the situation becomes ludicrous as they can add 4 more artillery pieces in the later game (if the Central Powers can get that far).

I think the Eastern Front is very good and generally fits with my current understanding of what happened there, although I have not yet read anything in detail about things like Warsaw 1915 and Brusilov 1916.

The Italian front is definitely not right. I think this is because the game has it that Italy is at war with Germany from the outset in 1915, when in reality this did not happen until the second half of 1916. I think this is the key issue. Italy joined the war expecting to fight a shortish campaign against Austria-Hungary for modest territorial gains (Trento, Trieste and Fiume). Their main direction of attack was across the Isonzo. Instead, we get an all-out Italian offensive, prioritising Trento where they usually come up against a German unit) followed up by an astonishing assault of thousands of soldiers up sheer mountain faces towards Salzburg and then Vienna. Operations across the Isonzo are really a bit of an afterthought.

With the Ottomans, I think their general weakness and their problems with trying to control such vast sprawling territories is very well modelled. The absence of a major Gallipoli event is the main problem for me. Additionally, there seems to be an issue with “micro-landings” for some players (I have no experience of this myself in SP) and I definitely think that the UK and Russia should not get discounted artillery units in Palestine and the Caucasus respectively. In SP you can turn these two events off.

To conclude then, my priorities would be -
1) balance UK/French artillery with German artillery on the Western Front. Reduce US artillery to 1 unit.
2) re-consider Italy-Germany relationship and make declaration of war a separate event in 1916 unless triggered by units of either country coming within a certain distance of the others territory. This would not be too complicated to understand (also USA declaration of war was against Germany only). The Italian mobilisation in 1915 needs to be slowed down considerably (fewer infantry corps and maybe just 1 HQ in early 1915 and a second one towards the end of the year)
3) introduce major Gallipoli event to force the Ottomans to maintain their strength near Constantinople and address the “micro-landings” and artillery issues.

1) and 2) would favour the Central Powers, 3) would favour the Entente, so to balance things out a bit more . . .

4) make USA entry into the war in 1917 almost a certainty (seems easy to stop at the moment with 2x Diplomatic chits in SP) and remove the Zimmerman Telegram event and, instead, have it automatically fire 9 times out of 10 to boost American belligerency.

If I recall my history correctly, the Germans didn't try very hard to kick the Greeks out of the war. They shrewdly noted that the best way to keep Bulgaria engaged was to give them a front to manage, close to home. Had they occuipied Greece, it was likely that Bulgaria would drag its feet about in the other theatres - not an issue at all in this game. Much better to tie up Entente resources in Salonika with troops they can't use elsewhere. If they put their mind to it, I don't see how the Greeks could possibly hold against a determined assault.

Perhaps one way to balance this would be to make Greece less of a prize for either side. Currently Greece has 35-40 MPPs worth of resources, although the Brits really only see 28 MPPs from the convoy. It is safe to assume that the CP would see a similar amount to the British. That's a 60 MPP swing once occupied. Additionally, the Brits can use the Greeks to build an artillery unit. This makes Greece impossible to ignore. It might be a good idea to remove that artillery unit and reduce the amount of resources that Greece has. Further increasing the cost of occupation with partisan tiles in awkward positions in the mountains throughout the country would make it even less enticing. It really seems strange that the Greek economy, a largely agrarian one, is over double that of the Netherlands, a heavily industrialised country in possession of some of the most resource rich colonies in the world.

In terms of assessing game balance I think it is also very useful to break the game down into the various main fronts that regularly occur. To my way of thinking the Western Front is very unbalanced because the Entente (realistically UK and France) has more artillery pieces than Germany right throughout the war. This is not historically correct. When the USA turns up the situation becomes ludicrous as they can add 4 more artillery pieces in the later game (if the Central Powers can get that far).

It is not as big a problem as you think. The French get 3, the Brits 4. At least 1 has to go to Egypt, 1 to Mesopotamia, 1 to the Balkans if it is still standing, and 1 to Italy. This leads to 3-4 pieces on the western front, which is quite managable.

The Italian mobilisation in 1915 needs to be slowed down considerably (fewer infantry corps and maybe just 1 HQ in early 1915 and a second one towards the end of the year)

The Ialians already barely have enough troops to both form a solid line and garrison its eastern coast. Reducing those numbers will make it extremely vulnerable to a spoiling attack launched as soon is war is declared.

introduce major Gallipoli event to force the Ottomans to maintain their strength near Constantinople and address the “micro-landings” and artillery issues.

Gallipoli is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't see anyone electing to take this option in a DE, unless you gain a ton of free stuff. And if so, a player would just pick it, then immediately transport them out as soon as practicable.

make USA entry into the war in 1917 almost a certainty

The 1914 Triple Alliance scenario does have this! That being said, given the current balance for the 1914 Call to Arms scenario, this would swing the advantage way too far in the Entente's favour I think. This is balanced out in the Triple Alliance scenario since Italy is on the opposite side.

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

stockwellpete
In terms of assessing game balance I think it is also very useful to break the game down into the various main fronts that regularly occur. To my way of thinking the Western Front is very unbalanced because the Entente (realistically UK and France) has more artillery pieces than Germany right throughout the war. This is not historically correct. When the USA turns up the situation becomes ludicrous as they can add 4 more artillery pieces in the later game (if the Central Powers can get that far).

It is not as big a problem as you think. The French get 3, the Brits 4. At least 1 has to go to Egypt, 1 to Mesopotamia, 1 to the Balkans if it is still standing, and 1 to Italy. This leads to 3-4 pieces on the western front, which is quite managable.

Well, the figures I have for maximum artillery pieces for the Entente are . . .
UK - 4
France - 3
Russia - 3

then . . .
Italy - 2
Greece - 1
USA - 4

There is no reason why the UK should send artillery to Egypt or Mesopotamia; it might make more sense to send them to France.

So there are a maximum capability of 10 for the Entente to start with, with that capability being increased by 3 more from 1915 with Italy and Greece joining; and then another 4 from 1917 if the USA joins up. So that makes a whopping 17 in total and 13 of them can be deployed on the Western Front if required (not the Russian or Greek ones).

The Germans can deploy 7 at most on the Western Front (all the German and Austro-Hungarian units) with 3 more in the east (Turkey and Bulgaria), making a grand total of 10. It is near enough 2:1 on the Western Front.

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

The Germans can deploy 7 at most on the Western Front (all the German and Austro-Hungarian units) with 3 more in the east (Turkey and Bulgaria), making a grand total of 10. It is near enough 2:1 on the Western Front.

I am a bit confused. Profided CP have Nish, what should stop them from deploying Bulgarian or Turkish guns at the western front? I have done both, especially the Bulgarian one is almost a natural choice, since it can be attached to one of germanys crack HQs for max efficiency.
Imho in the late game arty distribution is kind of a global problem. Since entrenchment is so high, the only way to go forward is arty (or massed high end planes, but lets disregard that for the moment). So say GB decides to not deploy any arty in Egypt while the turks have 1 or 2 there. This means the front will move only in one direction and Egypt will inevitably fall, because GB simply cannot take lost hexes back. In other words, if your enemy has at least one gun at a theater you either get one too, or sit passively there and wait for destruction.

ORIGINAL: Bavre

I am a bit confused. Profided CP have Nish, what should stop them from deploying Bulgarian or Turkish guns at the western front? I have done both, especially the Bulgarian one is almost a natural choice, since it can be attached to one of germanys crack HQs for max efficiency.

So far I have just played SP, apart from the 1 MP game I have just started. I have never seen Bulgarian or Turkish artillery on the Western Front. In fact, I have never seen Bulgarian or Turkish artillery full stop. If you are telling me that in MP players often build a Bulgarian artillery unit and send it to the Western Front (presumably by late 1915 at the earliest) then that is news to me.

Imho in the late game arty distribution is kind of a global problem. Since entrenchment is so high, the only way to go forward is arty (or massed high end planes, but lets disregard that for the moment). So say GB decides to not deploy any arty in Egypt while the turks have 1 or 2 there. This means the front will move only in one direction and Egypt will inevitably fall, because GB simply cannot take lost hexes back. In other words, if your enemy has at least one gun at a theater you either get one too, or sit passively there and wait for destruction.

The discussions are difficult because I am mainly talking about SP, while nearly everyone else is referring to MP. On top of that nearly all of us agree that artillery is much too powerful and there are a number of different solutions being suggested, all of which may, or may not, be supported by Bill and Hubert to any great extent.

From my point of view the fact that Infantry Corps can de-entrench enemy Infantry Corps with every attack then that means field artillery and medium mortars are included (abstracted) into each infantry attack. It follows from this that actual artillery units must represent (in abstracted form) the ability of that nation to concentrate its heavier artillery pieces. If you are telling me that artillery units represent in abstracted form all a nation's artillery capability, then my response is that field artillery/medium mortars are being counted twice. I cannot see any justification at all for this double-counting. And if we say that artillery units just represent a nation's heavier guns then the Turks only get 1 unit maximum and the British and Russians do not get discounted Artillery units by way of DE's in Palestine and the Caucasus. If players want to send big guns to those theatres (perfectly reasonable alt-history variations) then let them build them themselves and then "operate" them down to the appropriate theatre. The situation you describe in Palestine would not occur at all.

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

stockwellpete
The Italian mobilisation in 1915 needs to be slowed down considerably (fewer infantry corps and maybe just 1 HQ in early 1915 and a second one towards the end of the year)

The Italians already barely have enough troops to both form a solid line and garrison its eastern coast. Reducing those numbers will make it extremely vulnerable to a spoiling attack launched as soon is war is declared.

At the moment in the game Italy is at war with Germany as soon as it joins the Entente. This is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the terrain on the Italian front where the mountain hexes are far too benign. It would need to be tested but the initial Italian mobilisation should probably be just 1 HQ and enough Infantry Corps (5/6) to mount attacks across the Isonzo. They could have Detachments elsewhere. This would be enough to defend northern Italy from the Austro-Hungarians who usually have been clobbered by the Russians and are usually still trying to defeat Serbs/Albanians/Greeks on their southern borders. The Austro-Hungarians would be in no position to invade northern Italy - they have no Mountain Corps for a start.

Overall I think it's a very balanced game. CP have the initiative and central position (hence their name [:D]) but can't attack everywhere at the same time.
Some fronts may look weaker or unbalanced without looking at the bigger picture but that's the strong point of SC WWI: you have to balance pressure on various fronts to prevent the collapse of one.
If one side commit to one front, you'll have chances on others so it's best to keep annoying and threatening the enemy in various places just to avoid being backed into a corner where you're lacking.

Things like Bulgaria or Greece might be a bit flawed and can probably use some minor tweaking as said above but usually it's a chain of choices and players decisions that lead to those situations being difficult/hopeless.
So I tend to agree with OldCrowBalthazor.

You'll make mistakes, take it and save what you can to fight another day but whatever you do, think about the NM losses or benefits, that's paramount .
If given the choice, trade MPPs, ground, time or even a whole country in exchange of NM, it's usually worth it (at least for majors).

@stockwellpete:

About SP and MP, I believe there are enough tools to balance the game as is though it can always be improved here and there of course. Centralized human strategy vs AI for one side will obviously expose AI limitations and make flaws bigger than they should. Between the two-headed difficulty/experience settings and delegating some countries to the AI there is enough to work with.

Have you tried just playing as Germany with AH and OE AI ? That will make you reconsider some (german) events in a new light while some obvious ones for AH and OE might not go the way you want. Plus your "allies" will make some ù*£µ sh** that will probably infuriate you to no end [:D] . You'll still be able to punish the AI where and when you want but you'll have to plan for (un)expected failure on your side.

Overall they'll more or less manage against fellow AI enemies but you'll think twice before sending help because you won't be able to cooperate well with them. Sending one unit here and there to shore up lines will work but managing a whole army in allied territory will lead to "funny" adventures .

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Well, the figures I have for maximum artillery pieces for the Entente are . . .
UK - 4
France - 3
Russia - 3

then . . .
Italy - 2
Greece - 1
USA - 4

There is no reason why the UK should send artillery to Egypt or Mesopotamia; it might make more sense to send them to France.

So there are a maximum capability of 10 for the Entente to start with, with that capability being increased by 3 more from 1915 with Italy and Greece joining; and then another 4 from 1917 if the USA joins up. So that makes a whopping 17 in total and 13 of them can be deployed on the Western Front if required (not the Russian or Greek ones).

The Germans can deploy 7 at most on the Western Front (all the German and Austro-Hungarian units) with 3 more in the east (Turkey and Bulgaria), making a grand total of 10. It is near enough 2:1 on the Western Front.

Respectfully...these are raw numbers that don't reflect what usually occurs in this game regarding actual numbers of artillery that end up on the map.

Regarding Greece or Italy for example...its real hard and expensive to actually field these units without a huge deficit in other spending for the appropriate power involved.

I don't see Serbia on this list...but if Serbia has the money to build an artillery unit...then the Central Powers is doomed already and it won't even matter.

The USA doesn't really count at all either because by the time they get in the war (if at all), by the time it shows up...the Western Front is generally already decided. In fact...I have never seen the Americans show up with just artillery..which they could do I guess if they spent 1200 MMPs to do so.

In my experience in MPs...Its almost always the Central Powers that can concentrate artillery on a front of their choosing, and much easier than the Entente, because the Central Powers have the benefit of strategic 'Interior Lines'. This position is even more enhanced once Germany/AH (MittelEuropa) links with Bulgaria and the Ottomans.
And, as Bavre pointed out in an above post...if the Western Entente choose to lets say concentrate all their artillery into France...well their secondary theaters like Egypt, Greece, Kuwait, or Italy are at high risk to fall.

So with that..I think the artillery numbers as it stands is just fine. Its the shells now that needs a little fine tuning..and I think the Dev's have a good idea linking Shell research with Logistics.

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

Respectfully...these are raw numbers that don't reflect what usually occurs in this game regarding actual numbers of artillery that end up on the map.

Regarding Greece or Italy for example...its real hard and expensive to actually field these units without a huge deficit in other spending for the appropriate power involved.

I don't see Serbia on this list...but if Serbia has the money to build an artillery unit...then the Central Powers is doomed already and it won't even matter.

The USA doesn't really count at all either because by the time they get in the war (if at all), by the time it shows up...the Western Front is generally already decided. In fact...I have never seen the Americans show up with just artillery..which they could do I guess if they spent 1200 MMPs to do so.

My experience with other MP games is that if there is a "route 1" strategy to win the game then most players will avail themselves of it. Many of the reports on here that I read about MP matches suggests to me that the game is very often decided by the artillery balance.

Regarding USA, if the game is often over before they can join then that suggests to me that something is off. Their rapid deployment from the Spring of 1918 was a key factor in the eventual German defeat.

In my experience in MPs...Its almost always the Central Powers that can concentrate artillery on a front of their choosing, and much easier than the Entente, because the Central Powers have the benefit of strategic 'Interior Lines'. This position is even more enhanced once Germany/AH (MittelEuropa) links with Bulgaria and the Ottomans.
And, as Bavre pointed out in an above post...if the Western Entente choose to lets say concentrate all their artillery into France...well their secondary theaters like Egypt, Greece, Kuwait, or Italy are at high risk to fall.

So with that..I think the artillery numbers as it stands is just fine. Its the shells now that needs a little fine tuning..and I think the Dev's have a good idea linking Shell research with Logistics.

I take a different view, albeit with much less experience with the game. The artillery seems seriously unbalanced to me. From what I have read the Germans were not outgunned on the Western Front. If the Western Front is won by superior Entente concentration of artillery then the more peripheral theatres do not really matter. Having said that, the linking of Logistics Tech with Shell Tech is a very interesting idea.

ORIGINAL: Dazo

Overall I think it's a very balanced game. CP have the initiative and central position (hence their name [:D]) but can't attack everywhere at the same time.

In MP what proportion of matches are won by the Central Powers do we think? And what might the proportion be between players of similar skill levels? Anyone got any ideas on that? I would think a good balance would be something like 66-33 in favour of the Entente.

Have you tried just playing as Germany with AH and OE AI ? That will make you reconsider some (german) events in a new light while some obvious ones for AH and OE might not go the way you want. Plus your "allies" will make some ù*£µ sh** that will probably infuriate you to no end [:D] . You'll still be able to punish the AI where and when you want but you'll have to plan for (un)expected failure on your side.

Overall they'll more or less manage against fellow AI enemies but you'll think twice before sending help because you won't be able to cooperate well with them. Sending one unit here and there to shore up lines will work but managing a whole army in allied territory will lead to "funny" adventures .

I didn't know that you could do this. I will investigate. Thanks.