Game Balance

[AlvaroSousa]

Only answer this if you are playing against opponents equal to your skill.
An imbalance in skill can lead to extreme results.

The question is if the game is balanced. Where the Axis do well the first half and the Allies have to slow grind them back the 2nd half. The best game is one that ends on the last turn of the game.

[aoffen]

I voted Axis slightly strong but I would actually like another option - Soviets are a bit weak. That may be more accurate.
And I think AirPower is a bit underdone too.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: aoffen

I voted Axis slightly strong but I would actually like another option - Soviets are a bit weak. That may be more accurate.
And I think AirPower is a bit underdone too.

Exactly my thoughts on both of these. Of course, if air power is increased (as it should be) it will give the Axis even more of an early edge, and by the time the Allies catch up it will be too late. Stjeand and I are playing a test game where rail repair is reduced to 2 hexes per turn. Maybe that is all that is required (but maybe not too). I don't envy Alvaro; balancing is very tricky.

[ncc1701e]

I can't vote. I have just installed the new patch with the UK production bug fixed.

Perhaps in the poll we shoud distinguish the Allies: USA/UK on one hand, USSR on the other hand.

[Stelteck]

Sorry i can't vote i'am in my first game multiplayer in end 1941 as axis.

But still the game has not been a walk in the park for germany, nor for the conquest of france, nor for these first 5 turns of barbarossa.

For now the only thing i hate is all the mecanism related to garrison mode, which are not used for garrison but for front line troops due to combat bonus and cheap cost. I agree the air force may lack punch too.

Also i was expecting to have issues with oil as germany, but i have none.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

But still the game has not been a walk in the park for germany, nor for the conquest of france, nor for these first 5 turns of barbarossa.

I don't think anyone is saying that the game is a walk in the park for the Axis; in fact, IMHO, the game is close to being balanced. But most experienced players are of the opinion that Russia in particular is too weak; or perhaps alternatively, that the Axis are too strong in Russia. Partly because of the fact that neither oil nor supply appear to be too much of a problem for the Axis in Russia.

For now the only thing i hate is all the mecanism related to garrison mode, which are not used for garrison but for front line troops due to combat bonus and cheap cost. I agree the air force may lack punch too.

Garrison mode represents stripping all of a units transport/trucks and assigning same to other units. The Germans actually did this far more than the Allies. In 42 almost all German units from Leningrad to South of Moscow had their trucks stripped away and given to the units in the South for the 42 Offensive. And these were front line units, not garrisons. Having said this, I agree that the garrisoning of units is perhaps too much abused.

Also i was expecting to have issues with oil as germany, but i have none.

Yeah this is a problem. In a recent game one of my opponents had over 25 Axis Armour and Mechanized units. If this created an oil problem for him he never said.

[sveint]

I play lots of games against different opponents. Overall the Soviets collapse too easily.

[boldairade]

I vote balanced.

it seems the grognards here really think the axis are too strong, and i imagine for players who have played WP for 300 hours and post daily on the forum, that's maybe true.

that said, that's probably 1/10th of 1% of the player base. for the rest of us, i think it's pretty balanced.

right now, it seems to me that the better player wins, regardless of which side they pick.

and IMO that is how it should be.

[Flaviusx]

As others have mentioned, the problem is not that the Axis are too strong. It is that the Soviets are too weak. And, yes, this is a distinction with a difference.

Framing it as you have in these general terms merely confuses the issue. Fix the Eastern Front, please.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

But still the game has not been a walk in the park for germany, nor for the conquest of france, nor for these first 5 turns of barbarossa.

I agree. With the new garrison rule, I must learn again how to play Axis. I am losing too much effectiveness...

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

As others have mentioned, the problem is not that the Axis are too strong. It is that the Soviets are too weak. And, yes, this is a distinction with a difference.

Framing it as you have in these general terms merely confuses the issue. Fix the Eastern Front, please.

If the Nazis can attack the Commies with 20 to 25 armor and mech Corps, fixing the Soviets first is going to lead to a fantasy game of unequaled proportions.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: *Lava*

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

As others have mentioned, the problem is not that the Axis are too strong. It is that the Soviets are too weak. And, yes, this is a distinction with a difference.

Framing it as you have in these general terms merely confuses the issue. Fix the Eastern Front, please.

If the Nazis can attack the Commies with 20 to 25 armor and mech Corps, fixing the Soviets first is going to lead to a fantasy game of unequaled proportions.

With the previous patch and the new garrison rule, 20 to 25 armor is no longer possible imo.

[stjeand]

Axis slightly overpowered.

My vote is due to air power being not overly useful...

Soviets to weak.
Allies to strong due to no need for airpower.
(From what I can see in the scenarios Germany builds maybe 5 more air units...perhaps 6...whereas the Allies build 15 to 20. Without those they have an very large land force)

Germany wins because Russia collapses to soon most often.
BUT if Russia holds the Allies will have a land force large enough to invade Italy in 42 and France in 43 ending the game earlier than desired.

IF you fix Russia...depending of course on the fix...
You probably have to address the Allies otherwise I suspect Germany will likely lose every game a year early.

BUT need to test with the fixes to the UK production, minus ~30PP per turn after Dec 7th 1941, which works out to a LOT of PP...
Likely the US will need something similar but will reserve judgement until a few games are played after whatever is done to address Russia.


I have a feeling the only way to slow German advance in Russia and the reverse will be to severe reduce the rail repair, basically to 1. That will turn rail into roads for much of the war which seems to be what happened for the most part.

[AlvaroSousa]

What I believe is happening is that armor/mech are too strong. A played with these units vs player without obliterates them.

So why this conclusion? I have had several games with Hadros. In our most two recent games I realized there is no defense for armor/mech except other armor/mech. Once that parity is shattered the entire line blows up. It isn't that the combat value of the armor is necessarily too high it is that they can too easily obliterate a front line.

It could be my logistics method of force pools is a mistake and I should have had limits to keep the game balanced.
Maybe armor/mech needs a higher supply/oil consumption
Maybe they need to lose more effectiveness when attacking.
Maybe armor/mech needs higher logistics cost.
Maybe they need to be more expensive.

So from my experience the game has ugly blow outs. Since the clear strategy is only a 1941 Barb for the kill because a 1942 ends up with the Axis getting destroyed what is the common denominator here in all this? Armor/mech.
As pointed our by one of my closed beta testers .... No one buys air because armor/mech is way more effective.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

No one buys air because armor/mech is way more effective.[/i]

As Russia, disbanding air to buy armor/mech is not even a bad idea. Russia can advance without air cover at all since enemy air does not impact their logistics meaning their supply network.

[canuckgamer]

Shouldn't the goal be to have historical factors, strengths and weaknesses in the game? After the USA entered the war it was only a matter of time before the Axis was defeated because the Allied industrial might dwarfed the Axis. We have almost completed our first pbem game and it is going to be an Axis victory. Here are some comments and suggestions.

1. The effects of the lack of decent roads in Russia should impact the ability of the Axis to supply their forces. Many times early in the campaign the German tank formations had to pause because they had out run their supply and infantry. The advance of Axis supply in Russia in this game doesn't seem to be an issue.
2. The impact of winter on the Germans is understated. On the flip side, Russian units suffer the same attack penalties in snow and their only advantage is they don't lose effectiveness. One of my suggestions is that the Siberian units should be winterized. I also think the Russians should be more mobile in snow. Shouldn't the Germans lose some combat factors, especially during the first winter instead of effectiveness only which can be recovered?
3. The overwhelming air superiority of the Allies from about mid 1943 is missing. Historically the Allies conducted a massive strategic bombing campaign especially targeting German synthetic oil production. I found that strategic bombers in this game to be expensive and not worth the small damage they inflict on German industrial targets. They also lose so much efficiency from each attack that you would need a lot of them so you could rotate attacking units to conduct an on going bombing campaign. If there was more of an impact on German industry then the Axis would have to base fighters to defend them. Historically this tied down hundreds if not thousand of German fighters.
What about increasing the range of fighters as their tech advances? The UK also conducted a night bombing campaign which wasn't as effective but did not lose as many bombers as the Yanks did from their daylight bombing until they were able to escort their bombers with long range Mustangs.
In my game, I only built 2 USA strategic bombers.
The other historical factor missing from Allied air superiority is the interdiction of the Axis rail lines in western Europe which prevented them to quickly move units to reinforce Normandy after the invasion. In our game the Germans pulled all their air from the eastern front because the Russian air force is so anemic and have air superiority in western Europe.
4. I think Italian ground units are too strong. The Italian VI armoured corps is a 16-9 and is actually stronger than any American armour units. When you look at what they did in Greece and in Africa before the arrival of the Afrika Korps I think they are over rated in this game. I am reading The Second World War by Antony Beevor and to give a North African example, O'Connors offensive at a cost of 624 casualties captured 38,300 prisoners, 237 guns, and 73 tanks. Except for a few units the morale of Italian units was very poor.

[AlvaroSousa]

One of the issues is that the game compensates too historically. Like bombers being not as effective is correct.
Or why wouldn't you prepare for the winter as the Germans?

[stjeand]

[/quote]

With the previous patch and the new garrison rule, 20 to 25 armor is no longer possible imo.

If you wait till 42 you can have this much as the Germans...but then the Russias have a lot too.

[stjeand]

Perhaps armor needs to be more expensive and air less expensive?

Not really sure.

These things are easy to test through the editor but that takes time and a lot of it.

Some things that I noticed...
I would assume corps are made up as follows.

Infantry: 3 Inf Divisions
Mech: 1 Tank Division, 2 Motorized Infantry Divisions
Armor: 2 Tank Divisions, 1 Motorized Infantry Divsion.

1) Motorized infantry have a movement of 6, since the US / UK are motorized. Yet when added to an armored division they are 9 or 10. Perhaps armor / mech should be slower. OR perhaps they have a movement of 7 Heavy / 8 Breakthrough...but be allowed to move more at a cost of efficiency, you lose 4% more efficiency to move 8/9 and 8% more beyond that to move 9/10...So you are moving say 10 hexes and that will cost you 20 efficiency. Trust me you will slow down.
Also armor / mech should not be able to "amphibious" invade. A port is needed to move these units in...the US / UK tried to land tanks and lost 60%+ invading.
This would make North Africa a tougher nut for the Axis...as well Italy,Normandy,England, Portugal...

2) Armored corps vs mech corps don't seem to line up with their configuration.
Basically whatever is in a Mechanized / Motorized infantry division should be added to a Tank division to create the corps.
But a Mech corp has 2 tanks whereas an armored has 5. Perhaps it should have 4 unless the mech has 2.5 which is possible.
I don't know the break down yet as I have not looked into it that deeply.

3) Perhaps combined air needs a bonus...Blitzkrieg was devastating.
What if there was a bonus for bombers if no fighters were defending? That makes fighters very useful and more bombers useful if you can have more than the enemy has fighters. This bonus would favor the Germans to start...then the Allies as they took over the air.

4) Strat bombers are tougher...Attacking oil does little compared to production from my testing. I never did more than 1 damage to oil and did 1, 2 or even 4 against production. 1 damage does nothing since you only get 2 attacks and the hex fixes 2. Perhaps continued bombing of the same hex means it is unable to repair?


Not sure what the engine can do without crazy modifications.


BUT I will say...armor is definitely needed...unless you plan to weaken infantry too...
Germany would never through France if armor was 12/10 units...

[Stelteck]

Historically, panzer corps where very powerful, but Germany had huge issues to supply, repair and fuel them, especially in the terrible road of Soviet Union.

There was also shortage of spare parts like tire, engine, etc.. Not only because it was difficult to transport them to the units deep in soviet union, but also because there was not enough spare parts produced at the beginning, due to various reason (lack of ressources being one of them).

In game term, it can be simulated by giving the player a shortage of oil and also a high difficulty to maintain a high level of efficiency of the panzer and mechanized corps.

So maybe the solution could be :
- to decrease the efficiency recovery of armor, especially under poor supply condition. Decrease even more if the unit fight the previous turn.
- to tailor the fuel production to be able only to barely field the real life number of panzers corps and no more (the number that is at the start of barbarossa in 1941 scenario).
- Maybe to add fixed fuel cost for each battle of armor (if not present already), in addition to the upkeep.

Having an armor corps that is very powerfull as today, but difficult to sustain in prolonged battle and needing a lot of resting between each offensive/push would be very interesting in my opinion.