Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:14 pm**

Appreciate all the feedback and concerns, we just ask that you keep an open mind and consider all the changes as a whole and to give the new build a good run through before drawing potentially pre-mature conclusions.

As mentioned, they appear to have worked out quite well in the World at War release, with practically zero knocks on overpowered air etc., as was previously the case in War in Europe, which we view as a good thing.

The AI vs AI tests have come back quite positive for War in Europe as well, with the Axis AI at times actually doing better than it usually does, Major Victory in 1944 in my last test and typically the Axis AI rarely if ever defeated the Soviets in v1.15 or earlier, which has me suspect that the added manouverability and attrition changes are likely having a bigger impact than one would think.

For example, some of the initial feedback for World at War, from AI players familiar with War in Europe (and even some PBEM players), has been that they are having a much harder time holding back the Germans in the USSR relative to what they are used to in War in Europe. Granted map scale and other factors may play a part in some of the differences, but World at War was built up from War in Europe when modeling the European Theater so both games are reasonably developed to be within very similar parameters game play wise.

We honestly do try our best to acknowledge all concerns, from PBEM balance, to single player balance, to how to best handle "realism" within the gameplay (for both single player and PBEM), and we feel pretty good overall about these changes as we always attempt to balance out each change keeping in mind how it will play out for both sides.

What we hope is that you'll be pleasantly surprised, and if we've missed something, we strongly feel that it won't be by much, and are always happy to make any final tweaks to get it just right as needed.

Posted: **Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:42 pm**

ORIGINAL: Sugar

...you're also still in need of something to break through and destroy the russian lines, especially as their infantry's hard defense values against tanks are 1.5 points higher than that of all other nations at the highest lvl, and that's also unrealistic.

Hi Sugar

I've just had a look in the Editor at this and made the following calculations:

Default Tank Defense + bonuses from Infantry Weapons Upgrades
Corps
1 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 4
Army
2 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 5

Red Army
Corps
0 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 4.5
Army
1 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 5.5

The differences are just half a point with maximum upgrades, so unless I'm missing something or there's a different unit type that allows this, there isn't really any difference at maximum levels between Soviet and non-Soviet infantry units when defending against tank attacks?

Posted: **Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:13 pm**

Also note that the Soviets won't hit that maximum level until mid 42 at the very earliest and more likely late 42. Leaving 2 summers' offensives at weaker levels.

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:18 am**

Some valid concerns here...I will throw my 2c on those issues:

1. Unit swapping

Indeed IRL, "swapping" a corps/army size unit is quite a huge logistical achievement. From this standpoint, yes it can be considered "unrealistic". But since this is a game, one needs to find ways to deal with certain bottlenecks and the swapping thingy solves this. The alternative being what? 5-6 bomber units? Is this realistic? Thousands of air units to break a fortified hex surrounded by marshes?
If the game was on a tactical level, played on a much larger map, it would be far easier to implement this issue in a more realistic manner. But since it is a grand strategy game, sometimes workarounds have to be implemented (workarounds that maybe tactically don't necessarily make sense).

My verdict : unit swapping is a clever feature which prevents a trench type warfare.

2. Upcoming air force changes

At first, any axis player will be pretty much upset about this, bombers being one of the main tools for breaking front lines in SCWiE.
But let's analyze it for a moment:
Some players are complaining that the axis bombers destroy everything in their path but the problem is WHEN? This effect is mostly felt during the russian campaign. People don't really complain about how unbalanced bombers are during the french campaign. Maybe the real reason is not the attack values of air units but the experience they aquire. By the time Axis fights in Russia, they have 2-3 star xp HQs and airfleets. Now that is scary. Not only airfleets are scary but have you seen a 2 star xp Panzer Group attached to a 2-3 star xp Manstein, do battle? You didn't? That's understandable, no one survived to tell the story

My verdict: airforce attacking values may not be the real culprit here. Maybe experience gains should be toned down a little bit?

3. Proposed supply rules for naval units (subs/raiders)

The problems for axis subs is that they have no possibility to resupply in the Atlantic. Historically, they were supplied by the milk cows (supply subs) or even surface supply vessels disguised in commercial ships. OFC it is not realistic at all to have a sub perform missions for half an year without resupply (as we do it in SCWiE) but penalizing their zero supply status with +50% combat losses, inability to raid and no dive chances seems a little bit too much. Basically, at least in the first years, it kinda turn them into suicide ships - you send them out, you can't resupply them, if they somehow don't get spotted it will take another half year to bring them home to resupply - I mean they quickly lose their usefulness. And if I play long term, i.e. saving them for when i get ports in France and better techs - i am missing their "happy time" - that is the first year of the war. As for the allies - they got ports everywhere so the supply issue is not really an issue.

Verdict: do not make subs/raiders utterly useless at zero supply. Scaling down their efficiency might be a better idea.

4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:45 am**

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

The combat values of "Medium Tanks" and "Heavy Tanks" are no different than the "Infantry Corps" in relation to the "Infantry Army". I agree so far that, at least with regard to the presentation of a "larger" tank unit, other, slightly less misleading alternatives (Tank Division, Tank Corps and Tank Army?) could also be considered.

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:15 am**

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.

I would agree with making heavy tanks as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map.

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:29 pm**

ORIGINAL: ringoblood

I would agree with making heavy tanks as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map.

In the degree of abstraction of the game, the research "Advanced Tanks" also depicts the development of heavy tanks. Another area of research without decisive additional benefit would, in my view, be much more unnecessary than variable organization sizes for tank units. At least on maps in the scale of WiE or larger.

Like the infantry units the tanks should be evaluated in terms of different production costs, combat values, time of formation and possibly unit strength and not in terms of their naming ("Heavy Tanks", "Tank Army", "Large Tank Group", "Big Red Dragon" or whatever ...!)

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:15 pm**

Two more cents

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

Some valid concerns here...I will throw my 2c on those issues:

1. Unit swapping

My verdict : unit swapping is a clever feature which prevents a trench type warfare.

2. Upcoming air force changes

My verdict: airforce attacking values may not be the real culprit here. Maybe experience gains should be toned down a little bit?

3. Proposed supply rules for naval units (subs/raiders)

Verdict: do not make subs/raiders utterly useless at zero supply. Scaling down their efficiency might be a better idea.

4. Heavy tanks

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.

1) Swapping - I think the current land battle format is great and doesn't need changes.

2) Bombers - Interesting idea on experience the main issue is Axis bomber strength when the game progresses. Maybe the strength increase from lv 1=>2=>3 for bombers could be less. It remains to be seen if the demoralization increase will be enough to offset the strength reduction.

3) Subs - Couldn't disagree more the v1.16 zero supply & subs changes are very welcome. If played correctly the Axis has ports from Petsamo Finland to Santa Cruz (+ Vigo) to resupply. The ability to put effective zero supply subs off North America (and other regions) into perpetuity needs to change.

4) Heavy Tanks - I see the thought process for change but don't see why its necessary. All players have the same advantage of heavy tanks. Any change would need to be closely analyzed because eliminating heavy tanks would probably hurt the SU and tip the scales considerably. I guess it could be offset in other ways as discussed but see no reason for the change.

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:32 pm**

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

Some valid concerns here...I will throw my 2c on those issues:

1. Unit swapping

Indeed IRL, "swapping" a corps/army size unit is quite a huge logistical achievement. From this standpoint, yes it can be considered "unrealistic". But since this is a game, one needs to find ways to deal with certain bottlenecks and the swapping thingy solves this. The alternative being what? 5-6 bomber units? Is this realistic? Thousands of air units to break a fortified hex surrounded by marshes?
If the game was on a tactical level, played on a much larger map, it would be far easier to implement this issue in a more realistic manner. But since it is a grand strategy game, sometimes workarounds have to be implemented (workarounds that maybe tactically don't necessarily make sense).

My verdict : unit swapping is a clever feature which prevents a trench type warfare.

2. Upcoming air force changes

At first, any axis player will be pretty much upset about this, bombers being one of the main tools for breaking front lines in SCWiE.
But let's analyze it for a moment:
Some players are complaining that the axis bombers destroy everything in their path but the problem is WHEN? This effect is mostly felt during the russian campaign. People don't really complain about how unbalanced bombers are during the french campaign. Maybe the real reason is not the attack values of air units but the experience they aquire. By the time Axis fights in Russia, they have 2-3 star xp HQs and airfleets. Now that is scary. Not only airfleets are scary but have you seen a 2 star xp Panzer Group attached to a 2-3 star xp Manstein, do battle? You didn't? That's understandable, no one survived to tell the story

My verdict: airforce attacking values may not be the real culprit here. Maybe experience gains should be toned down a little bit?

3. Proposed supply rules for naval units (subs/raiders)

The problems for axis subs is that they have no possibility to resupply in the Atlantic. Historically, they were supplied by the milk cows (supply subs) or even surface supply vessels disguised in commercial ships. OFC it is not realistic at all to have a sub perform missions for half an year without resupply (as we do it in SCWiE) but penalizing their zero supply status with +50% combat losses, inability to raid and no dive chances seems a little bit too much. Basically, at least in the first years, it kinda turn them into suicide ships - you send them out, you can't resupply them, if they somehow don't get spotted it will take another half year to bring them home to resupply - I mean they quickly lose their usefulness. And if I play long term, i.e. saving them for when i get ports in France and better techs - i am missing their "happy time" - that is the first year of the war. As for the allies - they got ports everywhere so the supply issue is not really an issue.

Verdict: do not make subs/raiders utterly useless at zero supply. Scaling down their efficiency might be a better idea.

4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.

Hi

Some intresting thought here but still soem different view of the game mechanics.

1. The swap thing is to much of a benefit for attacker. It could work if you should be allwed to swap BEFORE the unit done its attack but not after. This could also be a mod able parameter in the settings or in the editor, problem solved.
2. Let the airforces lower the rediness and/or morale factor instead and tone down the hits on the units strenght.
3. Create a mode for the unit where they can resupply for 1 turn and and be immobilized during this resupply turn not have the possiblity to dive and be more vulnerable. This to simulate resupplying at sea.
4. This slot is what it is, I personally have modded them to elite forces as soviet Guards, German SS etc.

Cheers

Posted: **Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:16 pm**

One way to deal with the swapping thing could be to increase the retreat range of all land units from 1 to 3 hexes, this sometimes saving the depleted unit from total destruction. This would simulate the depleted unit being routed like it happens in War In The East Gary Grigsby's game

Posted: **Mon May 27, 2019 1:51 pm**

it had never occurred to me that one could trade in research to get more units in the beginning. i feel foolish.

Matrix Games Forums

Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game

RE: Some reflections on the game