More feedback on 1.05

[sveint]

So I guess this is good news, but my findings are that 1.05 is closer to balanced than previous versions.

There are still problems with the Soviets and China.

The Soviet are still slightly too weak. I think especially getting their research going anywhere is difficult, perhaps start them off with level 1 in espionage?
Also Vladivostok needs to be looked at. Even there I fear there is no good solution as a good Japanese player will stop those deliveries no matter what.
My go to strategy for Japan now is to just take Hawaii. This stops supplies and puts a MAJOR break on the US in the pacific at almost no cost.

China is also too weak. Not sure what to suggest to be honest. A US reaction if Japan advances too fast and takes key cities?

The UK faces a new and severe problem in 1.05. Its infantry is now no better than Italy. In the desert there will be level 1 German tanks facing level 0 infantry
or level 2 tanks facing level 1 infantry. Sure airpower etc helps but it is now VERY hard to get any sort of historical results in North Africa. Italy easily keeps
the UK at bay until German help arrives. Would it be possible to start the UK halfway to infantry tech 1?

[sveint]

I should add that I tested uniquely on humans, no AIs were harmed.

[Mercutio]

ORIGINAL: sveint

I should add that I tested uniquely on humans, no AIs were harmed.

[:D]

Perhaps Vladivostok and PH both should be heavily entrenched with armies? Instead of a max entrenchment of 3, make it 6? Also maybe something like the home guard where if war is declared on Russia by Japan or amphibious transports are with X hexes of Pearl Harbor it triggers more troops?

I agree both are too weak and isolated to protect.

In addition bolstering China will back it harder for the Japanese player to divert forces to Russia in the first place.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks, this is useful and I welcome more feedback from both PBEM and games against the AI. [:)]

[amandkm]

I've played a dozen different pacific war games, dating back to the old board game, Victory in the Pacific, and in every one of them, invasions in general are too easy, and invading Hawaii in particular is far easier in game than it would have been in life.

The logistics of sending a force sufficient to the task over so long a distance was quite beyond any of the countries of the time, with the possible exception of the US. I would suggest a range limit on Amphib transports, which, combined with a basing limit, would force Japan to take Midway before moving on Hawaii, and once that is done, limit them to only one transport per turn, which seems far more realistic to an armada just sailing from Yokosuka and landing all at once.

[taffjones]

It's my experience playing PBEM games (I would class myself as an average player) that the changes in 1.05 have balanced the games.

Japan can no longer run over China, in fact in most of my games it is difficult for Japan to make more than historical gains unless they spend so many resources that they can't make the historical gains in the pacific.

Russia is not a walk in the park either, in fact I am not even making historical gains.

I agree that taking Vladivostok is quite easy if Japan wants to DoW on Russia, so may be if it is taken supplies should go via a convoy through Persia (at a reduced rate). this would still allow "what if" strategies for average or less experienced players.

sveint appears to be an experienced player and may know the scripts off by heart, which would make it seem that there are still balancing issues if he is playing players like myself.

So may be more players should chip in with their experiences V's the AI and Human players before any more changes are made.

At the moment I have some great games going with people trying different strategies after the last changes made.

I will post more feedback as these games progress [:)]

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: amandkm

I've played a dozen different pacific war games, dating back to the old board game, Victory in the Pacific, and in every one of them, invasions in general are too easy, and invading Hawaii in particular is far easier in game than it would have been in life.

The logistics of sending a force sufficient to the task over so long a distance was quite beyond any of the countries of the time, with the possible exception of the US. I would suggest a range limit on Amphib transports, which, combined with a basing limit, would force Japan to take Midway before moving on Hawaii, and once that is done, limit them to only one transport per turn, which seems far more realistic to an armada just sailing from Yokosuka and landing all at once.

Agree with this and as well send long range amphibs from East Coast to France is not reasonable.

sveint mentioned taking Hawaii but I have never been successful with this in MP as Axis and only had one opponent try and fail when I was paying Allies. Generally moving in some fighters and marine bombers to big island helps reduce Japans carriers.

[lwarmonger]

While I would say that the issue in North Africa is a difficult one in multiplayer, I would also say that upgrading Britains infantry weapons tech might not be the way to go about doing it.

I think in multiplayer you have gotten used to a battle of France being started end of '39 or beginning of '40. If Britain is able to acquire infantry weapons 1 much sooner, it will weigh into the Battle of France as well in a significant way.

Perhaps a better solution is giving air units a ground attack bonus in the desert (after all there is no place to hide there). That would improve the capabilities that Britain could put into the field without strengthening them in ways that effect other game balance in other theaters (after all, the middle east and north africa is pretty much the only desert theater of war).

[lwarmonger]

Further thoughts.... for the Soviets, their buildup is just too slow right now. They really should have several echelons spawn at the start of war with Germany, not just the one at the front with Germany that is easily destroyed. These formations could spawn in sequence as the Soviets mobilize, and to give the German player an opportunity to maintain momentum.

For the Chinese... honestly, it seems about right to me. If the Japanese commit a fair amount of resources to China, they can advance... but the Chinese are very difficult to knock out. I also think that Indochina needs some units to defend itself. That attack you launched directly into Hanoi caused all of indochina to surrender without a shot fired... logistically a non-naval power simply couldnt do that. It does kind of force the Japanese player to pursue a very specific strategy in China in order to prevent the fall of IndoChina before it can just be overrun by the Chinese. A beautiful move that I never even thought of... there just doesnt seem to be any real reason not to.

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

Further thoughts.... for the Soviets, their buildup is just too slow right now. They really should have several echelons spawn at the start of war with Germany, not just the one at the front with Germany that is easily destroyed. These formations could spawn in sequence as the Soviets mobilize, and to give the German player an opportunity to maintain momentum.

For the Chinese... honestly, it seems about right to me. If the Japanese commit a fair amount of resources to China, they can advance... but the Chinese are very difficult to knock out. I also think that Indochina needs some units to defend itself. That attack you launched directly into Hanoi caused all of indochina to surrender without a shot fired... logistically a non-naval power simply couldnt do that. It does kind of force the Japanese player to pursue a very specific strategy in China in order to prevent the fall of IndoChina before it can just be overrun by the Chinese. A beautiful move that I never even thought of... there just doesnt seem to be any real reason not to.

Do you not take the peacefully occupy Indochina event?

[lwarmonger]

ORIGINAL: ThunderLizard2


Do you not take the peacefully occupy Indochina event?

Never had the chance! Indochina was conquered by china before the event fired... there was no unit that spawned there, so it happened immediately too (I had an Army already on a transport that could have landed to defend the place, but because the invasion was unopposed it never had the chance).

The only way I can see to prevent this is to conquer Nanning.... so now as Japan I MUST do that every time.... there didnt appear to be any downside to this aggression as China.

[sveint]

Good discussion. Let me add that the only game I'm losing (most likely) as the Allies in 1.05 is one where I went "Japan first" and focused on tank tech for the Soviets, with some other minor experiments. There is just too little room for maneuver as the Soviets. Tech research needs to be tight, unit purchases have to be just right, the defense impeccable, and so on. All other countries have at least some room for errors or experimentation.

[BillRunacre]

Thinking of Vladivostok, what would be useful for me to know is:

1) How frequently is Japan attacking it in PBEM, i.e. does every player with some experience do it, or have some of you found that keeping Japan focused more on its historical enemies is more valid?

2) If you do attack Vladivostok, at what point in the game do you do it?

Thanks

[Mercutio]

For me it is when China is collapsing. Usually 42-43 at the latest. It is easy to cut the rail line to Vladivostok so they cannot operate there and hit it with 2 or 3 armies. Maybe some bombers or ships.

[calcwerc]

Vladivostok: I experience and practice myself 3 options, and most expereinced players do this:
a) Torpedoboat stops 80 MPP per round with no risk
b) Attack on Vladivostok together with Germany in summer 41, with no risk for Japan. 2-3 Armies and a HQ enough, if you send more you hurt the Russians even more, and at this point you can easily do that as Japan
c) Attack on Vladivostok after the German attack, since you play with other priorities in summer 41.
In all cases its a walkover. And it makes it very much harder for a Russia already doomed against a focused German attack (for instance including Africa Corps and all air power, possibly the armies of Yugoslavia additionally to the traditional Axis). These 80 MPPs could really make the difference, so I regard that it should be high priority to fix.

Different possibilites:
a) Japanese attack on Russia should make USA enter the war if not already happened
b) Russia should get a mobilization event making them able to defend
c) Rerouting of the convoys via Persia if Vladivostok is blocked. This could be countered by Axis conquest of Stalingrad, Astrakhan or Teheran.

I do not think the Russian sabotage event against Japanese vessels is nearly strong enough to fix it.

[HamburgerMeat]

1. Pretty much every game

2. For me it depends on a lot of factors, but I would never do it before the USA joins the war, since you want the USA to stay out for as long as possible.

[calcwerc]

Well, if you can practically kick Russia out of the game by fall 41, as can only happen if Japan and Germany bundle their efforts, then its worth it that US joins a few months earlier...

[Mercutio]

ORIGINAL: calcwerc

Well, if you can practically kick Russia out of the game by fall 41, as can only happen if Japan and Germany bundle their efforts, then its worth it that US joins a few months earlier...

So true. China is nothing compared to Russia. This allows Germany and Japan to focus on their vulnerable areas. Especially Germany.

Personally I don't think Japan should be allowed to blockade Vladivostok without a DoW. It should also entail a morale hit AND the US upping aid to China, Russia and up its mobilization. That at least gives the allies a chance.

I may give you no penalties after the start of 43.

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Thinking of Vladivostok, what would be useful for me to know is:

1) How frequently is Japan attacking it in PBEM, i.e. does every player with some experience do it, or have some of you found that keeping Japan focused more on its historical enemies is more valid?

2) If you do attack Vladivostok, at what point in the game do you do it?

Thanks

I attack every time as Axis typically right after Peal Harbor so as not to accelerate US entry (I think attacking earlier advances US mobilization but not 100% sure - I know it does if Soviets attacked Japan it reduces US mobilization). As Allies, I say 75% of the time and definitely experienced players will do this.

[lwarmonger]

So some further thoughts. Definitely think the Soviet Union needs a great deal more income during the leadup to war. Historically, Soviet Armies were huge, and right now that simply isn't reflected. That being said, there should be severe combat (and possibly movement, if possible) maluses for the first 8 months or so after the German attack, because while huge, those Soviet armies were also completely ineffective. Right now the Soviet Union is simply outnumbered from the start. The only way to catch up is to avoid combat while continuously retreating until unit density is high enough to hold a front and counterattack. Instead, Germany should be plowing its way through large numbers of soviet troops with ease... however those Soviet units can then be replaced at 50% cost, while also improving German experience. This will end up working to the Soviets advantage... but Barbarossa should be a very hard thing for Germany to win... a bit easier than Sealion, but still very difficult.

We discussed North Africa above... and thus far I've had one game as axis where my tanks didn't quite push through to victory before the British Navy was able to move into the Med in force to cut supply lines (and it was time for Barbarossa anyways), and another game as allies where Germany committed to a tentative Sea Lion (failed, although the British fleet was thoroughly mauled) and a knockout blow against England in North Africa (it is a little early to say it has failed yet... but it is in the balance right now). In each case in North Africa, once the British were able to bring in reinforcements from all over and mass their airpower, all of these things achieved a kind of equality with German armor. I would say generally North Africa is reasonably balanced.