Final Unit / Scenario Balancing Issues

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:11 pm

Soo here I am again now after the final RC.

First, I tested the new intro and I must say its nicely done. Makes one feel like diving into a history book about WWII

.

Basically I have only 6 things:

In order of personal importance:

1.) Recons should have spotting 4. Or at least some of them perhaps ? So the player can choose more between a Recon-Recon and a fighting-Recon ?
2.) I think in Bagration scenario you should definitely rethink the amount of IS-2 tanks in the red army. IMO it should be 10-15 T-34s in that scenario and 2 or 3 IS-2. If you think the soviets get too weak by this add them some more infantry as well - but just not as many IS-2s.
Thats largely unrealistic in historical terms and also the current IS-2s are stronger than any german tanks available in Bagration except Tiger II and perhaps Elefant (Jagdtiger is no longer available at this timeframe as of RC4 it seems).
Also a player in Bagration is likely coming from the 1943 campaign and not from the standard 1939 one. Even if a player is coming from the 1939 because he lost some battles in the easter front he likely will have to really struggle hard to fight the odds be the russian tanks IS-2s or T-34s.

Overall I like the overwhelming numerical odds of this scenario and I also like the extreme numerical Air superiority of the russians. Just be sure the numbers are in favor of T-34s.

Makes it also feel more historically accurate IMO.

3.) Artillery suppression rate against soft targets is still rather high I think. Kill rate is OK, but suppression seems to be too strong still.

4.) Tacbombers are still having issues in (successfully) bombing tanks. (tooo low damage for Tacs, or tooo high AD for tanks).

5.) I think the initiative of FW-190d9 should be raised to 12.
Reason: It should be more of an improvement on the FW-190a and it should be the german mainstay aircraft (besides 109k) in late war time period to fight allied aircraft.
Perhaps its cost should be elevated as well little (by 20 or 30 ?) as well for that.

6.) General Tank costs are rather high compared to other units - not sure but a lowering of ~10% might be an idea. At least in SP.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:22 pm

OK...from todays experience I have to add another point:

7.) The russian AT SU-85 / SU-100 / SU-152 have too high AD values IMO. They should be around T-34 / Pz IV Levels in terms of armor and therefore GD.

So reducing them a little towards around 15 should be considered.

If you think this weakens the red army too much lowering their cost could be considered as well.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:49 pm

Good feedback, there's no particular point I disagree with.

Recons could use more variety, some better fighters, some truer scouts.
IS-2 spam is a problem, although I am curious on your take on the three USA campaign scenarios?
Artillery has been nerfed slightly already (HA and SA both) but it may not be enough... this'll need more testing before any more changes are made. Artillery is fantastic in single play, but in multiplayer they are hurting, and more nerfs may be the nail in the coffin for them.
AD values on many late war units is still... funky, yes. It's better, especially with the Stuka G at 14 HA, but it's not quite there yet.
As for tank prices, most are too expensive, but the top end are way too cheap. This plus IS-2 spam really makes any tank except the King Tiger pointless to use, which is something of a problem we hope to address eventually.

boredatwork · Post by **boredatwork** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:51 pm

I would also second the request for a reduction in IS-2 spam.

In Bagration after a 1939 start it is manageable (barely) because the AI lines the IS-2s up at river choke points and 6-8 Panthers tanks can usually (barely) "keep up" with them.

In Balaton however on the offensive even after a 1939 start it's hopeless because your tanks cannot stand even 1 vs 1 against the more numerous russian ones.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:29 am

I believe Rocket Artillery is over powered now.

Too much Ammo. Should be 5 or 4

6 ammo makes it a very powerful unit.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:19 am

Only lighter rocket artillery units have increased ammo reserves. All the high end rocket artillery still only have 4 ammunition.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:39 pm

Quote from Kerensky:
"...although I am curious on your take on the three USA campaign scenarios? "

Unfortunately I am sorry I did not yet manage to get to play these, my time is rather limited atm as my live quite changed a lot in april/may this year - I was rather surprised when I got invited to the beta end of may, as of that time I had unfortunately moved to a new job which takes up most of my time atm. Prior to may 1st I could have done much more playtesting

.

Now, where was I....
I worked up in v0.99/RC1/RC2 playing a campaign up to moscow 41 (I decided against sealion 40).
After that I did some single scenario plays vs AI, most importantly the Last Stand - which I played hotseat against myself and vs AI. And then I did numerous Bagration attempts, which all failed though. So I guess it is just from the scenario viewpoint a tad too hard.

Yesterday I also played 5 turns hotseat against myself on Balaton and that IS-2 spam in this scenario is also somewhat critical IMO. There is NO, just not a single T-34 in the russian formation in Lake balaton...quite strange IMO.

I'll try to give the US scenarios a look today evening after supper. I'll keep you posted.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:33 pm

Just keep in mind the USA scenarios aren't really balanced for single play, they are meant to be fought with as either a 1939 core or a 1941 Barbarossa core.

Even so, my own experience on single play was positive, but the favor clearly lies with the allies because of the advantages afforded to the "AI team".

skarczew · Post by **skarczew** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:48 pm

boredatwork wrote:I would also second the request for a reduction in IS-2 spam.

In Bagration after a 1939 start it is manageable (barely) because the AI lines the IS-2s up at river choke points and 6-8 Panthers tanks can usually (barely) "keep up" with them.

In Balaton however on the offensive even after a 1939 start it's hopeless because your tanks cannot stand even 1 vs 1 against the more numerous russian ones.

One solution can be making it really bad for such units to be swimming in the river. Instead of usual "minus value" I would propose "minus percent of value".
If it made the unit lose 50% of attack / defense power, it would not hop into water so happily. Weak (lighter) units will suffer less, so that will not be such a bad thing for them.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:56 pm

Well...I just made about 10 turns vs myself in USA east.

From a single play view I think the Axis lack a level bomber (or a naval attack bomber).

The US navy is pretty pretty heavy in SP mode. Apart from the serious lack of a level bomber type craft on the german side air balancing seems reasonable and manageable.

Landforces could need a little more infantry of the US around towns - could make for nice city defense positions, as well as some light AA guns spread around. Not that the level is easy though ! I certainly would not have won with the axis in my first try (maybe IF I had played vs AI).
My german fleet got messed up in just 4 turns - although I managed to land in the middle and north, my middle section beachhead was pulverized by the remaining US navy afterwards until I quit @turn 10.

Nice to see that the Air war lasted for all this time - neither side gaining the upper hand.

Major drawback is probably that the german transport fleet needs 2 turns to actually close up and only can land in the 3rd turn (only in the north landing in turn2 is possible). That really is a problem as the total scenario length is only 18 turns and the map is rather large !

So far for the US east from my POV.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:04 pm

Yes... USA East used to be very easy(briefing still says little initial resistance still lol), but it was changed at a fairly late stage in the BETA. It is now quite brutal, heh.

And yes, turn count is a serious issue, especially with the lack of air transport for paratrooper options.

Pupec · Post by **Pupec** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:53 pm

BF110 was a heavy fighter, why not have the support function while escorting JU52 or bomber? It has a function separate attacks on enemy aircraft, why not escort?

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:24 am

"One solution can be making it really bad for such units to be swimming in the river. Instead of usual "minus value" I would propose "minus percent of value".
If it made the unit lose 50% of attack / defense power, it would not hop into water so happily. Weak (lighter) units will suffer less, so that will not be such a bad thing for them."

Sounds like an interesting proposal...I'd really like to see how that would work out overall - though it is a quite drastic change to game mechanics.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:27 pm

I just finished trough a mid-west US scenario (playing axis vs allied AI) and I have to say this one is really spot-on !

Its was tough enough for a first try I have to say - but thats OK and I think even for MP it might be an interesting choice.