Balance factors

[swkuh]

There being remarks about the game being "out of balance," with comments either way, seems timely to ask those interested what they do with the "balance factors?"

1. Do you use them, or even know they are available?

2. What values do you use?

3. Which type of game play (AI or H2h?)

4. Same setting throughout the game, or allow changes?

If interested, I use 100, 90, 90, 90, 100 for AI play, and get fair games. Now experimenting with morale=110. (Ahh...that's for Axis, SU=100)

Especially would like to know if any have explored ranges of values, as there is some evidence of non-linearity in the effects.

[loki100]

Excellent idea.

If I play the Soviets vs the German AI I tend to use 95 (sov morale)/130 axis and give the axis benefits for logistics and reduce the Soviet transport values etc. I find this gives a scary 1941 but with one problem - sooner or later the AI will self-suicide (copyright Dario Fo) in a deep raid that you can cut off. When that happens, I go back a turn, reset their morale to 110/120 and they tend to act in a more sensible manner as a result.

If I play the Germans vs AI, I tend for pretty neutral. This reflects that I am even more rubbish with the Axis than I am with the Soviets and that I genuinely believe that the German side is the harder to master.

For PBEM, I've tried all sorts of experiments in scenarios. In my campaign game with SigUP we are both on 90% logistics as we both believe the base line is far too permissive. As a balance factor I put my morale on 95%. This is hurting, but I think I can cope with the consequences, in that my problems so far are not really related to that decision, though I do suspect my winter offensive will end earlier in consequence. With hindsight, I think I'd rather have taken the hit on transport, so end up with either less evacuations or more losses trying to cover the key factories.

I think the real problem is logistics. The result is that if one side gets a real advantage, the game engine has few checks and balances so it escalates and becomes one-sided (I think we are seeing this in a lot of the current AARs). The difficulty though is this can be caused either by imbalance between the players or by a bit of bad luck, in truth I think the game is rather unstable rather than 'out of balance'. One thing I find useful with a new PBEM opponent is to go back over one of the shorter 'roads', I think at the end of that you both have a better idea of respective game knowledge (with a given side) and perhaps what can be adjusted.

[swkuh]

Appreciate your insights, Loki...

I play Axis vs. AI only (so far) and am only interested in what, IMHO, makes a realistic game. Prepared to try increasing Axis strength in mid '42 to get something that looks right to me, but am prepared to pump up SU in '43 to insure reasonable outcomes. IMHO, Axis should have no chance to do a successful "Citadel" operation.

For sure, there should be no belief that balance factors should all be 100's. That awards the developers more intellect and effort than I can imagine (good though they are!)

Agree that getting all the logistics factors is important.

[buchand]

I think the importance of the balance factors are sadly neglected. For those of us, i.e. me, with limited ability it allows us to enjoy a game against better players AND the AI.
Agree that logistics is key though I tend to lower my 'opponents' rather than increase my own logistics. I also agree that without a gradual change to a standard set of factors from 42 onwards then game balance swings too far. A 10% differential reducing to 5% in summer 42 and to 0 by 43 keeps me playing the game.