Next Patch

[Severian]

Yes, they were free, but they only has their T-34 in normal armoured units. If Sherman had to be worst than T-34, then elite units should use better equipment than Sherman's -> T-34.They didn't.

JS-3 is a heavy tank, Sherman and T-34 medium. There is no comparison between them

If I can write better English than I would describe you some facts about T-34 like poor armor quality or problems with ventilation

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Severian

Yes, they were free, but they only has their T-34 in normal armoured units. If Sherman had to be worst than T-34, then elite units should use better equipment than Sherman's -> T-34.They didn't.

JS-3 is a heavy tank, Sherman and T-34 medium. There is no comparison between them

If I can write better English than I would describe you some facts about T-34 like poor armor quality or problems with ventilation

The T34-85 was the Russians Panther, it has a decent gun and could move fast. I think it was much better than the Sherman. The Sherman was more along the lines of the T34-76, not a bad tank but it needed numbers to be effective against German Panthers and such later in the war.

[James Ward]

One thing I will point out about Vichy is that the German must consider whether it is better to end the campaign fast and leave a nation that can be coup'd or to completely occupy France and remove all chance. The existance of Vichy does make North Africa valuable for the Allies, and therefore the Axis, because you can coup Vichy and bring it in the war on your side and rapidly transfer units there from North Africa.

[Anraz]

It is a kind of telepathy - I'm writing next part of my blog concerning “Bitter Glory” and this part is called “A fallen myth” it partly it is about T-34

Soviet guards units were the ones with best equipment, if M4 had been worse than T-34, they would have been using no Shermans It does not matter they were given for free, they just were more reliable, more comfortable and had better aiming system.

There is ww2 era proverb (Russian and used in Polish Peoples Army) : “ZiS 5 (truck) – downhill it goes, uphill it must be pushed” This is not far from true about average T-34.

Regarding ”ronsons” - after including of "wet stowage" they no longer was so flammable. T-34 was as flammable as Sherman, because it was very rough design - it ammunitions usually was kicking around on the floor of combat compartment and use to blow.

It is worth to read about Kubinka and Aberdeen proving ground tests were T-34 were exactly examined by Russians and Americans. Soviet top secret rapport after Kubinka test said that Pz III is better than T-34. It is not mistake...More or less: T-34 had better armour (but considerably weaken by two big holes in its front -  a MG and a hatch) and main gun, had comparable speed, but was unreliable, uncomfortable, had very short-living engine (40-100 working ours!), had poor aiming systems, its combat compartment was badly ventilated (after few shot it was full of smoke and tankists was hardly able to do anything), gear was very difficult to operate - to change one need to use 10kg hammer... so driver used to use second and it hastened breakdowns, bad designed air filters reduced the power of engine (engine used to choke continually so very rarely T-34 was able go to go as deftly as masses believe)... American report fingered the same weakness of T-34.

So on paper T-34 was a great tank

[doomtrader]

It's going to be hard discussion.

Make a separate thread for your tanks guys, or wait for Anraz' Dev Diary and talk about it there.

The only think I can tell is that after watching some Discovery Channel programs I was thinking that T-34 is best tank ever. I was wrong, but it needs some more digging or such great experts around as Sev and Anraz

[Michael the Pole]

Actually, this tank discussion is an offshoot of the discusion about tech levels (part. for the Americans,) and whether they should have so many available PP's that they are able to quickly build to higher levels than the Germans in 1942/43. I dont think that they should, Chuck et. al think that its not a problem. I guess that what we really need are some AARs.
Doomtrader and the rest of you designer types, what do you think of adding at least one French city in North Africa as a victory point city to help solve the Vichy problem?

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Anraz
So on paper T-34 was a great tank

On the battlefields in 1941 early 1942 it was a great tank too, read any German account! [:)]
Many consider the T-34 the best design of the entire war. With the 85mm gun it was a match for the PzIV's and considering the made about 22,000 of them (and ~40,000 of the 76 version), they had the numbers too.

[Severian]

Exactly - the huge number of T-34 was their most important advantage Why Germans described T-34 as super-tank? Because T-34 win, they lost. They can't say - we were poor leaders, we have not enough tanks, guns, plans etc. They must say: We have lost because of soviet superior tank, T-34. It's a legend about his superiority. I have read reports when PzIV destroyed more than 10 T-34 without losses.

I'll look for few russian T-34 "users" reports and pass it through translator

[James Ward]

Another suggestion for the next patch, make air units a low priority build for the AI and balance the pp's/research/units costs better.
I just did a little test to see how many PP's the USA would have on entry assuming they didn't spend any except the default lend lease when time (it was ~9500 btw) When I checked all the other nations to see what sort of PP, units and tech levels I found that Germany had 25 PP's, 8 air armies and only 2 armour corps, which sucks. This should be reversed at the least. Germany had researched to levels 3 in artillery, armour and air which is about right for 1/42. Russia was at 3,3,2 and had ~500 PP's in reserve which isn't to bad. They had 4 air armies parked on the eastern edge of the map just a bit far from the action and 5 armour corps which is a lot considering they had only been at war for ~6 months.
The Germans had spent close to 4,000 pp's on air units (they start with 3) that were just sitting in France. For comparision it would take 2250 to research from level 0 to level 5 artillery. Now 8 air units is a lot to build, maintain and upgrade when you are just starting the fight with Russia. At most 1 more is all they should build and given the expense of air units they probably shouldn't build any until later. And how Russia can have spend over 5,000 pp's on air and armour just 6 months after entering is beyond me. It wasn't like they were short on infantry units, they were all over the place.
I think things cost to little and countries get to many PP's before they enter the war. The USA gets enough PP's to reasearch the entire artillery, armour and air catagories starting from 0 and still have ~3000 pp's before they even enter the war! Russia should not be able to field more amrour corps of equal quality as Germany in 1941. And with the cost of research most of the majors will max out 2 out of the 3 main branches minimum well before 1943. What is the point of research if everyone is maxed 1/2 way through the fight?
Here are some suggestions. 
The USA and Russian pre war PP's should be reduced, perhaps to 1/4 with a bump up tp 1/3 or 1/2 the current level after the fall of France. The USA becamse the arsenal of democracy it didn't start out that way.
USA and Russian artillery start level should be reduced to 0 or 1 so they have to research their way to average from the start. In 1941 the Russian should be able to build mostly poorly trained infantry with some armour divisions and a few elite units not an army equal of quality to Germany only with more units.
Research time should be extended, with 3 bulbs (450 pp's) it takes 8 month to go up a level. Maybe make it a year or even 1 1/2 for some areas. It should be impossible to get to level 5 by early 1942 for any catagory. I mean do you just stop improving for the remaining 3 years?
Upgraded units should cost way more, particularly from level 3 and up. Countries should not be able to field completely upgraded armies. Variety is the spice of life and wargames. Where you commit your elite units should actually matter.
And fix the AI concerning air units. They are expensive and the AI doesn't use them well. Don't let them buy so many. 
I really like this game and it could be made SOOOOO good with a few tweaks.

[Michael the Pole]

Very interesting post, James. Seems to strongly confirm my gut feeling about these subjects that I had no quantification for. Great job![&o]
Perhaps we could make each step a geometric increase in cost and time over the previous level. Someone who is more mathmaticaly inclined must be able to calculate the result of such an increase.
I'm with you about the final result. Tech level 5 ought to be a late 44 or early 45 goal. Me 262, Meteors, Tiger II's, JS III's etc, etc. Of course, if you put everything into getting HOOH subs in 1943 you should be able to, but at a stupendous cost.

[cpdeyoung]

Dear James,
 

In 1941 the Russian should be able to build mostly poorly trained infantry with some armour divisions and a few elite units not an army equal of quality to Germany only with more units.

Have you read my AAR on an early attack on the USSR?  I assure you that it will become my standard campaign if the Soviets are much weaker in 1940.  I rarely wait until 1941 for a Soviet campaign.  I do not find the Soviets too strong.  I gave my Soviets every thing I could send their way in my current PBEM, and I do not feel "equal" in quality to Gary's Axis.  I have plenty of research, but those high level units are so expensive. I want to build a quality armed force, but I find myself buying L2 or possibly L3 units.  I may build high quality units, I just can't.  That front is huge, and while I may have made poor choices in my strategy, I can assure you most Soviet players will not feel they can afford the high level units.  I think I have less than a half dozen units at L4 in artillery.  The average Soviet is going to build L2, some L3, and researching L4 had better have long range implications because in the early going you cannot afford them.
 
I don't mind looking at change for WW2:RtV, but I think Gary and I are having a great time with the current ruleset, and I want everyone to try some fun campaigns with this set of rules.  The next version will be different, and it may be better, but I have seen things go downhill with change, and I repeat : this version makes for a whale of a contest.  If I was much weaker you would be describing the AAR with terms like "knife through hot butter"!
 
We, the WW2:RtV community are going to have a lot of playtesting for balance ahead of us!
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung
I want to build a quality armed force, but I find myself buying L2 or possibly L3 units.  I may build high quality units, I just can't. 

In the fall of 1941 level 3 is elite [;)]
If Russia can build an army of level 2 & 3 units in 1941 then they have a quality force, it's 60% of the best possible unit less than 3 months into the fight. Historically they were surrendering by the 100,000's not counter-attacking and destroying Axis corps! Now no one wants to exactly duplicte history but a level 3 infantry in 1941 would be above Guard status.
And the USA is at level 5 infantry and they haven't had a shot fired at them in anger. This should not be.

As far as attacking Russia in 1940, if you think your army shrinks when you invade in '41 and advance into the vastness of Russia then wait until you need a magnifying glass to find it in '40.[:)]

[cpdeyoung]

Dear James,
 
I hate to be writing what I am about to write.  You, and Michael, and all others who are having a ball discussing the units and their strengths over the four years from Barbarossa to Berlin are forgetting that this is a game, much more than a simulation.  You are trying so hard to make one part of this game reflect reality better.  This is admirable in a simulation, but counterproductive in a game.  What I am doing in my game is driven by a game system, not a simulation system.  If you want to simulate the historic situation in 1941 then you must modify another factor along with the unit capabilities : you must modify the supply system. This game has no mechanism for reflecting the vastness of Russia, because full, high quality supply is available in the next captured city.  I fight my game as I do with this in mind.  I need higher quality levels in my units because a 12-9 Panzer Korps which has fought its way from the middle of what was once Poland to Minsk is the same superb tool it was at full strength, supplied by proper gauge rail lines, on the border.  Before Minsk my troops, at least in part fresh troops from the vastness of the Soviet Union, were meeting bedraggled, lice ridden, profoundly tired men, coaxing broken down, patched together Panzers.  I will not go into the state of the horses!  These men had been in combat almost continually for the three months of the campaign, supply lines stretch back to the Reich, and their next combat before Minsk finds their strength at 12, and plenty of petrol for a sprint of 9!  And then ... they take Minsk, why look around and see the unlimited supply of fresh munitions, all in proper caliber, vast tanks of petrol, refrigerated stores, plenty of wurst and a round of pilsner for all the good troopers!  Fresh as a daisy they cannot be restrained from roaring off to take on my "elite" L2 and L3 divisions. In this game 20 km from Moscow is the same as 20 km from Poland.  ... You must address this as well as unit quality.
 
Still want to change the units for more accuracy : you must modify the hex density situation. This game allows me to have me to have one L1 division occupy a hex.  If you give me L1 divisions the Axis progress will be unimpeded.  I cannot face the 12-9 Korps with 12 L1 divisions, no, I can face it with one valiant but foolish division.  I cannot hold Gary back with L3 ("elite") divisions at one division per hex.  This game, as designed, cannot give me stacking, the mechanism simulation games have used for about 50 years now to simulate unit density.  ... You must address this as well as unit quality.
 
Still want to change the units for more accuracy : be sure to take on purchasing units in a boutique, with no preplanning.  Be sure to take on air naval interaction.  Be sure to look at paratroops dropping on a city 20 hexes behind the front and taking and holding said city. Be sure to take on ... well, read the threads and find the next item someone wants to change.  The more I look at this game, the more I find myself reminded of the days when we had "Third Reich" and "War in Europe" to choose from, board games, of course.  War in Europe had simulation elements that put this game to shame.  Simonsen and Dunnigan had an elegant system, but so big, and so much work.  John Prados had a game, it looked a lot like World War Two in Europe, but Third Reich is to WW2 as chess is to ancient combat.  None the less it worked, and you felt like a WW2 leader as you played.  This game is ever so much more Third Reich than War in Europe, and it works too.  As I play Gary I feel hard pressed, and I don't feel the game I feel the war.  It feels like the decisions I make are the ones Stavka made.
 
One night, in Union Station, Washington, DC, coming back from your beautiful city, where Origins was hosted, we were discussing all this and came up with a game of World War One that was played with a single die.  Roll the die, 1,2 the Central Powers won, 3, 4, 5, 6 the Triple Entente. The point we were making was that this was the first design decision : What is the play balance, after that, what level of historical simulation would be needed to give the players the taste of the conflict.  I believe this game has enough "taste" of World War Two, and it seems to me to play a fun, well balanced game.  I am all in favor of adjusting the simulation elements, provided the balance stays about where it is.  This is a much, much better game than the gaming community believes it to be.  It gives one the feel of the conflict, and played as Gary and I are playing it sure is fun.  We all have a major opportunity in the next release to make it a better game.  Doomtrader and his partners surely watch everything we write here, so suggest away, and get involved in play testing if you have the time, and while we have this version try a match against another player by email.  It is a new, pleasant experience.
 
Chuck

[gwgardner]

Great discussion. The development team will take or leave what they wish, so let her rip.

1) In the games I've played, especially the PBEM, research speed on the AXIS side seems right to me.

I hate to give it away to my arch-enemy, Chuck the lovable commie dictator, but since he did, I will. It is late 1941, Germany has level 3 artillery, armor, and air. Germany has purchased 3 bulbs seeking level 4 artillery, and is only half-way there. No bulbs purchased for air or armor - just can't afford it. I mean, I am scraping the bottom of the barrel each and every turn, for PPs.

The Italians have level 3 artillery, level 1 armor. one bulb in artillery, researching level 4 artillery.

Those levels seem about right to me, for 1941. If anything, research is TOO expensive currently. I cannot afford 250 PPs to research air. One bulb even. Nor 200 to research armor. Not when it would take 24 months or more to see the results. By that time, the war's going to be over, from the looks of it.

2) Cost of units for infantry seems about right. Mech, ok. Armor and air - I have NEVER bought a single armor or air corps, in any game I've played as Axis. Cannot afford it. At the height of conquests, Germany gets like 200 PPs per turn. So it would cost THREE turns of PPs to make one air army. Same for one armor corps. If I build one of those, what do I do about reinforcements (which are very costly), upgrades (very costly), research (very ... well you get the idea). And forget about a paratrooper unit.

3) Along these same lines of discussions, and related: cost and use of air forces. In my PBEM game, I am using air forces solely because my opponent decided to scrap his. I get free rein. However, while they are powerful and decisive, they are incredibly costly to reinforce. It's part of the tradoff choice I have made - use air power, or do research. Can't do both.

Important: using Uxbridge's mod, air power has less effectiveness, but also takes much less losses during combat, therefore can be used more realistically, WITHOUT the tradeoff mentioned in the previous paragraph. That mod should be made the default for the game. I recommend also doing away with all air armies, and allowing only air divisions. Make air power more fun for the game, and more usable. My opponent should not have been forced to totally do away with his airforces.

4) There are some basic changes that do need to be made to the game, like adding air/naval. Leave other changes, where possible, at the mod level. The developers or some player, should come up with a simple text editor to mod all the costs, build priorities, zones of control costs, combat losses, etc. All those are moddable now. If not an editor, then a clear description from the developer on each moddable factor.

In the example of the PBEM by Chuck and me, a decision or two on either side would make a much different game. There's lots of interesting flexibility here already.

[doomtrader]

1) I'll look for proper values as soon as all new features impacting this will be implemented.
Here I'm really looking forward for betas help.
 
2) This one will be revised too.
 
3) I already seen the mod files, looks close to what I would like to achive.
 
4) Simple air/naval interaction will be implemented.
We will try to explain most important things, maybe as an modding manual.

[cpdeyoung]

Hey guys,
 
When I used the phrase above :
 

but I have seen things go downhill with change

 
I was speaking of changes for the worse I have seen over the course my life in general.  I did not mean to imply that any of the changes in this game have been negative!  I think all the changes which have been made have been well thought out, and trust the next ones will be just as carefully applied.  I an very sorry if my phrasing implied otherwise.  I am delighted to have a game worth all this discussion!
 
Chuck

[doomtrader]

I was scared you were atlking about what you have seen in beta forum.
 
I'm realy grateful for all the comments regarding gamebalance in the game. We can only rely on players opinions as you are the one who plays the game. We are only developing and coding it. So the more feedback you gave to us the better we will polish the game.

[James Ward]

Don't get me wrong I REALLY like this game but there are some things that should be tweaked IMO. 
Historically the biggest advantage Germany had over the Allies at the start of the war was the quality of their military. They didn't have more men and equipment, they didn't have more industrial capacity and they certainly didn't have more time. If the game is to last past 1943 then Germany must be able to keep this advantage for a while, assuming average play, and the Allies should be able to overcome this over time, assuming average play. When the USA can enter the war with the ability to field the most powerful infantry in the game and when Russia can field units of equal or superior quality to Germany 6 months after entering the war then Germany has no chance of maintaining their edge as they must attack, replace losses, build an army not just sit and research. They will never see the gates of Moscow or Stalingrad and the Russian will never feel the desperation that they may fall and more times than not the GAME will be over before the half way point is reached. Even when the USA and Russia are neutral the Allies and Axis get about the same amount of PP's. Once they enter the war the PP balcance goes heavily towards the Allies.
To have the ability to outproduce and out tech your opponent for most of the game will usually result in a very one sided game. I am not saying that Germany should be all powerful and unstoppable for that also makes for a boring game. What I am saying is that during the game the Allies should face a real fear of losing early and Germany should feel it late and in the middle it should be in balance. The GAME is simple, fun and has a ton of potential to become a classic. When you can create super units 1/4 of the way through then it definately loses something.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

2) Cost of units for infantry seems about right. Mech, ok. Armor and air - I have NEVER bought a single armor or air corps, in any game I've played as Axis. Cannot afford it. At the height of conquests, Germany gets like 200 PPs per turn. So it would cost THREE turns of PPs to make one air army. Same for one armor corps. If I build one of those, what do I do about reinforcements (which are very costly), upgrades (very costly), research (very ... well you get the idea). And forget about a paratrooper unit.

There was a reason that armies were not composed of all elite tank and infantry units, they cost a lot in real life too [:)]

My $.02 (or $5.00 with inflation) is that the initial cost for units should be set to make it more economical to build less advanced units and upgrade them than to build them at high levels from the start. Level 1-2 units seem to be "priced" right. I think level 3 should cost at least twice what level 2 cost, level 4 should cost at least twice what level 3 costs etc. Upgrade costs should be lower than initial costs, say 25-50% of the differance in cost between new, since the men, basic training, equipment are already supplied and in some cases experiance gains are already in place. This would encourage upgrading (which is basically what happened historically) as opposed to buying high tech units outright. This would lead to a more varied force mixes and deployments. It would make sense to buy cheap and spend time training you troops instead of just buying the best and deploying them instantly. If you were really economical it would take 4 turns to field an average infantry unit, buy level 1 and deploy, upgrade, upgrade and move to the front. In an emergency situation you might say the heck with economy I need my best to defend this city and pay the price.
Replacements for air seem to be priced to high. For other units it doesn't seem to out of whack.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I was scared you were atlking about what you have seen in beta forum.

I'm realy grateful for all the comments regarding gamebalance in the game. We can only rely on players opinions as you are the one who plays the game. We are only developing and coding it. So the more feedback you gave to us the better we will polish the game.

It's a heck of a game and worth providing feed back on.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to put my $.02 in on another forum [;)]