Armor and Mech Blob - What Needs to Be Done?

[Plaid]

Why? Soviet war effort increase very slow without DoW, so USSR can't build many labs and soviet units in may 1942 will be total garbage compared to germans. So germans will just sit and defend in Poland, while soviets may enjoy 1:7 odds for attack.
And germans may secure Britain and Middle east during entire 1941, so they have lots of PP and oil.

[richardsd]

The Answer is the Mech blob, 2000 pp's (Russian Stockpile to May 42) equals 40 Russian Mech's - hard to stop.

[rkr1958]

The Answer is the Mech blob, 2000 pp's (Russian Stockpile to May 42) equals 40 Russian Mech's - hard to stop.

I think we've found a way to stop it.

[Schnurri]

I'd like to hear your strategy for stopping it as Morris is hitting me with the MECH blob as we speak. Basically I think he commits all research he can to Russian INF and US ARM and then just builds those units so that they are roughly equal in TECH by the time they come in and are hard to stop.

If you want to take Iraq and Persia you have to delay Barbarossa til 42. I've won a few times by defense in Poland, usually holding out just long enough.

[richardsd]

that would be the update from Staffenburg!

[Schnurri]

Not Familiar with that - remember something about an Axis ARM blob but not allies.

[Morris]

I have tested this with Neil for several times , the final conclusion is to invade USSR in May 1942 is almost hopeless

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We've implemented changes for the next patch that we're testing in beta phase now to counter the armor and mech blobs.

1. Mechs will get +1 oil consumption when they get artillery tech 2. That means they will use 2 oil after artillery tech 2 until they get armor tech 4 when they increase to 3 oil.

2. Limitation on the number of units you can have (except garrison, corps and DD) without paying penalties. We can have both oil penalty (implemented) and PP penalty (not implemented, but flag can be set in general.txt).

Limits for free number of units of each type:
1939: 3
1940: 5
1941: 7
1942: 9
1943: 12
1944: 15
1945: 20

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The penalty will be that for each extra unit of a type above the free limit you pay the unit's oil consumption and 1 PP(if PP penalty is activated). Penalties are only applied if the country is at war and only to major powers.

Let's say you face a player using the armor blob and he starts Barbarossa with 15 armor. The limit is 7 and he has got extra techs making each armor burn 4 oil. That means he has 8 excess armor units and that means he will have to pay 8*4 = 32 extra oil per turn. That will drain the oil levels to 0 quickly unless the Germans get to Baku in 1941.
So building so many armor units will not be a smart idea.

Another example is a player using the mech blob and he has 12 mechs in Barbarossa. He hasn't got artillery tech 2 yet so the mechs burn 1 oil. The overuse per turn is (12-7) * 1 = 5 oil per turn. That will still hurt, but can be manageable. When the Axis player gets artillery tech 2 the oil consumption increases to 2. That means the extra oil spent is 10 per turn and that will hurt. When 1942 comes the limit increases to 9 so the extra oil used drops to 6 per turn.

We didn't want to enforce the use of force pools (with max number of new units that can be built per year). Instead we allow players to build a different force than the historical OOB, but if you go for a blob you will suffer some penalties.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The penalty is similar to penalties for overuse of rail and sea transport. The Germans didn't have the logistical capacity to e. g. support 15 panzer corps in Russia in 1941. That would have been a big horde of trucks driving back and forth to the front line with gasoline to the panzers.

The armor blob and mech blob can ruin the game balance and it's very hard to prevent players from selecting such strategies once they know this is the easiest way to win as the Axis. With the suggested changes (still in beta testing) we hope that it will become less lucrative to exploit weaknesses in the game engine (no production limit to unit types) and form blobs.

The mech blob was particularly lucrative because the mechs used to only burn 1 oil. Now they will burn 2 oil from late 1941. That will make a significant difference. Mech units are almost like light tank units and armor units are like heavy tank units. So it makes sense that the mechs burn more than 1 oil (like the motorised infantry used to burn).

[Morris]

I still remember the changes regarding to the Armor bloc of Axis , but finally it didnot change the result of the Armor bloc game . And now if we adjust the game by the above changes to defeat the Mech bloc of Allies , It must be a big mistake ! I still remember the words from you that you won't agree to limited the number of build unit( Axis armor) to defeat armor bloc , you said it would ruin the game. But now ,why you change your mind which is correct?! If someone ask for a solution of this , you can tell them to use Armor bloc against Mech bloc !!!

[Morris]

for your reference , here is the words from your post on May 1st 2011:
I just want to point out that introducing production limits on units per game year goes against the philosophy of the game. We only have production limit on elite units and paras. If we introduce limits then it should affect all countries and why would it be impossible to build e. g. 12 armor units for 1941 if you did it at the expense of air and naval units? Germany certainly had the industrial capacity to focus production on just one type of units.

[Morris]

the Mech bloc is all because of too late Babarrosa , so the rightway to against it is to launch strong Babarosa in 1941 . there will never be a mech bloc appears in front of the amor bloc !

[mamahuhu]

Sorry, I do not think the right that limits number of units。
This is not logical
If the first tank unit fuel consumption is 10, then the 10th or 20th of the same tank unit fuel consumption is also 10, and will not become 11 or higher.

[mamahuhu]

If Germany is willing to build armored forces,
Germany has no resources to build the Air Force and Navy
But we should allow the Axis player choose this strategy
How to win, everyone has their own ideas
This is not a game balance issue, but policy issues

[Peter Stauffenberg]

for your reference , here is the words from your post on May 1st 2011:
I just want to point out that introducing production limits on units per game year goes against the philosophy of the game. We only have production limit on elite units and paras. If we introduce limits then it should affect all countries and why would it be impossible to build e. g. 12 armor units for 1941 if you did it at the expense of air and naval units? Germany certainly had the industrial capacity to focus production on just one type of units.

We changed our minds because the armor blob is ruining the game balance. When you can take Omsk in 1942 against an elite player like Neil using the armor blob then there is something wrong about the blob strategy. No way the real Germans would be able to get to Omsk in 1942 against competent Russian play.

When we get reports that the ahistorical use of armor blobs and mech blobs ruin the fun for many players, making the game unrealistic, we simply need to do something. What's the fun in crushing everybody with a strategy you've invented that exploits a weakness of the game engine? The only other alternative is to nerf the power of the mechs and armor, but that would ruin the game balance for normal play. That's even worse.

Most games have force pools (World in Flames for example) and you don't get the extra armor and mech units until later. You can still build more than the historical numbers, but not 3 times the real size.

Starting Barbarossa in May 1941 with 15 armor corps units as you do is just silly. So if you build that many armor units you put a really heavy strain on the Axis logistics system. Refuelling air units is simpler because you only need to send the petrol to the airbases in the rear. Refuelling armor units is tougher because you need to send the petrol to the front line, using bad roads etc. Think about the huge amount of trucks the Germans would have to build to do that. There would be traffic jams with trucks driving back and forth trying to keep and armor and mechs fuelled. The Russian partisans would have an easier task blowing up trucks with 3 times the number on the roads and so on.

You can still build more units than the limits, but it will drain extra resources. If you're willing to do so then fine, but you won't be rushing across the Russian steppes with 15 armor corps and have oil to spare at the end of 1941 if you do so. You can gamble everything on one card and drive for Baku, hoping to get the oilfields in 1942. If you fail to do it then you lose big time. If you succeed then you're in business and can win. This means the Russians can focus their effort in holding the Caucasus. You can then instead dash for Omsk, hoping for a miracle.

Players who build normally will not be affected by this change and will still be able to push the Russians very hard in 1941. Having 6-8 armor and 4-8 mech seems to be a strong a good force to begin Barbarossa with. That means you're almost at the limit and maybe just above. Paying 4-6 extra oil per turn can be accepted if the extra firepower of the armor and mechs can allow you to get across the Don in 1941 with a sure shot against the Maikop and Grozny oilfields in 1942.

[zechi]

If I understand Stauffenberg correctly, it is not intended that there is any limit on the number of units. However, if a certain number of units is exceeded, then it costs more oil to uphold such a big force. From my point of view this is realistic. In the real war the Axis, especially the Germans, would have been able to built for example a larger tank force. However, the Axis would not have been able to support a larger tank force with oil for a long time.

I never encountered any real "blob" strategies yet (OK, in my last game Massina used an INF blob strategy, but it was not sufficient to stop the Soviets), but I agree that it would feel unrealistic if the Germans fielded excessively Panzer Corps and do not get oil problems.

Furthermore, I absolutely do not agree that the Axis cannot focus on a strong airforce or navy. Both is possible and can lead to success, depending on your strategy and the strategy of your opponent.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If Germany is willing to build armored forces,
Germany has no resources to build the Air Force and Navy
But we should allow the Axis player choose this strategy
How to win, everyone has their own ideas
This is not a game balance issue, but policy issues

We've tested this numerous times and Germany can survive without an air or naval force because they knock Russia out of the war in 1942. Then the Germans can rail all the armor and mech back from Omsk to occupy the French and Italian coastal hexes. There is no way the Allies can get ashore in force and win the war with the Germans not having to fight in Russia.

The problem is that the Allies progress so slowly that they can't take advantage of the weak German airforce in 1941-1942. They simply don't have the number of units to dare landing in France in 1942, hoping to stay there.

So the armor blob was a safe way to ensure Axis ultimate victory even against elite players. I don't see a problem with having such an ahistorical opportunity gone. I agree that you need to know the armor blob well to succeed with it, but people will eventually learn that this is the easiest way to beat the Russians.

Some have mentioned that you can counter the armor blob strategy. Well, that requires you know you're being faced with an armor blob right from the start so you can ignore air research and focus on mechs with antitank or whatever. But how can the Allied player know that with fog of war. He will only see it in May 1941 and then it's too late. If they go with the antiblob strategy and the Germans go with a normal strategy then the Allies will lose because they don't have the techs in air and naval.

So it's better to make it less lucrative to select the extreme strategies that will ruin the fun for most players who haven't seen such strategies.

Again I ask the question: What is the fun in luring players into playing you only to crush them with an armor blob or mech blob. It was probably fun to do it once or twice, but doing it time after time? Unsuspected players will be disillusioned and feel that GS v2.0 is imbalanced and poor allowing such cheesy strategies. And I feel they're actually right. If you lose because you feel you made mistakes or met a better player then you can accept the loss and try again later in another game. If you lose because you don't know what hit you then you will turn away from the game in disgust. That's the reality. We get reports from the victims of blob strategies asking us to look into this and it's our duty to make sure we maintain the fun for most players.

So you just have to accept that the blob strategies won't be as devastating as before. You can still use a pseudo-blob and maybe attack with 10 armor units in 1941. Then you get some penalty, but can overcome it by playing well. So it's not like we will stop the player's focus on one unit type. There will still be possible to have a lot of variety in game strategy.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If I understand Stauffenberg correctly, it is not intended that there is any limit on the number of units. However, if a certain number of units is exceeded, then it costs more oil to uphold such a big force. From my point of view this is realistic. In the real war the Axis, especially the Germans, would have been able to built for example a larger tank force. However, the Axis would not have been able to support a larger tank force with oil for a long time.

I never encountered any real "blob" strategies yet (OK, in my last game Massina used an INF blob strategy, but it was not sufficient to stop the Soviets), but I agree that it would feel unrealistic if the Germans fielded excessively Panzer Corps and do not get oil problems.

Furthermore, I absolutely do not agree that the Axis cannot focus on a strong airforce or navy. Both is possible and can lead to success, depending on your strategy and the strategy of your opponent.

This is true. You can still build 15 armor units for May 1941 Barbarossa. But you will pay extra oil for the armor units above the free limit. Call the limit a logistics limit (increases with game year when the countries are geared more for war effort). The logistics can be seen as having enough trucks to transport ammo, oil, spare parts etc. to the front line where the units fight. It takes time to build the logistics units as well as the regular units.

Game play showed that even with the 15 armor units starting Barbarossa in May 1941 the Germans had 300-400 oil left at the end of 1941. That's just silly. So they were able to rush to Omsk in 1942 and win the war. With the new changes you will be at almost 0 oil by the end of 1941 with 15 armor. So you can only support a limited 1942 offensive, maybe gaining some oilfields in the Caucasus. That's more realistic.

What's more important is that the blob strategy is ruining the fun for most players and what should we do if people stop playing because they have to be faced with blob strategies all the time?

What could have happened is that players wanting to have a fun normal game would start boycotting players who are known to use blob strategies. Then the blob might die out, but I think than enough players want to win and wouldn't hesitate to use a blob strategy to increase their chances of winning.

[mamahuhu]

Thank you for your reply
But in fact does not modify the game, player can deal with Germany's armored Strategy.
In the Battle of morris VS me ,, we can use Soviet Union defend Germany panzer strategy.
In this case,Victory depends on the Who fewer mistakes