GS v2.01 game balance issue in Russia

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:42 pm

I've played quite a lot of games and received games from others as well and they all show the same thing about how the game progresses in Russia.

1. The Russians get stormed in 1941 and have nothing to delay the German advance without losing their valuable corps and mech units. This means the Germans can get take Leningrad if they go for it or at least get Moscow or Rostov. In order to prevent losing these cities the Russians have to waste their corps and mech units trying to hold river lines etc.

2. The Germans suffer dearly in the first winter of 1941 due to the efficiency loss and the arrival of the Russian Siberian reserves. The Germans can counter this by sending air units back to the Baltic states and Poland prior to the severe winter hits to keep them at high efficiency. So unaware Germans can get a lot of units destroyed during the first winter.

3. In 1942 the Germans are back to full power and can really crush the Russians. In all the games I've seen I see the Germans getting past the historical conquest lines. I have in all my games managed to get to the Caucasus and take Leningrad and Stalingrad. This is not necessarily bad, but the German still usable mobility means that the Russians have to screen the Germans to not lose too much ground. That means the Russian forces are so worn down by the end of 1942 that they can't take the initiative in 1943.

4. So we see Germans holding the lines deep in Russia in 1943 and that means they can focus on the western Allies so they don't get ahead of schedule. This means it's very hard indeed to get to Berlin in time with the Russians.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:48 pm

We've weakened the Russians quite a lot between GS v1.0 and GS v2.0 beta. E. g. the efficiency recovery is halved for 4 turns and that means the Russian counter strike capability is not so good. We've placed more Russian units in forward positions so they get destroyed by the Germans. That's fine since it matches the 1941 OOB.

I think it's right that the Russians are on their knees a bit in 1941 and they should not be able to stop the Germans at the Dnepr or hurt them really hard until the winter begins.

One of the biggest problems I see being the Allies is the slow war effort increase. This means USA and Russia have about 40 war effort when Barbarossa starts and when the first bad winter hits it's only increased to about 60.

The problem is two-fold. One is that these countries get less production to build new units and repair losses (mainly Russia in 1941). Just as bad is that they can only get an addition lab per quarter. So they have 6 labs in October 1941 while Germany has had 12-13 labs from the start of 1941. This means a tech deficit that's hard to recover from. You can only hope to match the German techs late in the war like 1944 when Germany caps the most important techs.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:55 pm

Another issue is that the real Russians actually managed to mobilize quite a lot of poor equipped soldiers during 1941 that they used to delay the German advance. Some games have rules like Russia mobilizing their strategic reserve and can place corps / garrison units in major cities. Other games let you use the cadres of destroyed units to build new units cheaper. Some games let the Russians have cheaper costs for building certain units like infantry, mech and armor, but not air and naval.

These changes would be big for GS v2.0 and maybe a simpler solution exists.

We have to think about what did we want with the changes we made between GS v1.0 and GS v2.0. One was to reduce the Russian offensive firepower a bit so the Germans could get to the historical lines with normal play. We've already done that and the result is that nearly all Germans manage to get to the historical line and beyond in 1941.

I think we should have some kind of mechanism for the Russians to delay the advance a bit more than now without making their offensive firepower bigger.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:07 pm

I therefore propose a few changes that could be useful to implement:

General.txt
1. QUARTERLY_PEACE_PRODUCTION_INCREASE 7 (increased from 6)
2. AT_WAR_PRODUCTION_INCREASE 20 (increase from 10)

This would help a bit allowing USA and USSR a slightly higher production prior to war and

I just did a test and if Germany DoW's Russia in June 22nd 1941 then the war efforts will be:
USA 63
USSR 80

USSR will increse to 87 in August and 94 in October. In November the mobilization means they will get to 114 or max war effort.
USA will have 70 in Augst, 77 in October, 97 when they enter the war and 117 when they mobilize.

That would give both countries a chance to gain labs a bit earlier and a slightly higher production.

These changes can easily be implemented and will not require any code changes.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:13 pm

Another change I was thinking about was the ability to build cheaper garrisons to delay the enemy advance. One way to do this could be the following. These changes can be done in unit.txt and won't require code changes.

Garrison price 12 (decreased from 15)
Garrison manpower cost 6 (increased from 5)

This change can benefit both the Russians and the Germans / Italians. Since we increase the manpower cost slightly it means it's not an efficient way of using your manpower and you can drop manpower levels fast if you build hordes or garrisons.

This could make it slightly easier for Russia to build garrisons in 1941 to screen their valuable corps and mech units and delay the German advance slightly. The Germans can more easily build Volksturm units, but they can get below 25% manpower fast if they build too many of them.

The garrisons gain techs very slowly so they won't be useful late in the war except as stumbling block for advancing enemy units. 2 attacks should be enough to kill a garrison.

An alternative to decrease the garrison cost could be to let Russia mobilize strategic reserves on July 1941. These could be e. g. 6-8 garrison units that would be placed in the force pool. These can then be placed in Russian cities.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:15 pm

Can you please vote on the changes I propose so we can maybe try them out in some beta games we play before we release GS v2.01 to the public? If you have better ideas you can propose them as well.

1. QUARTERLY_PEACE_PRODUCTION_INCREASE 7 (increased from 6)
2. AT_WAR_PRODUCTION_INCREASE 20 (increase from 10)

Either:
3a. Garrison changes
Garrison PP cost 12 (decreased from 15)
Garrison manpower cost 6 (increased from 5)

Or:
3b. Soviet Strategic reserves (about 6-8 garrisons)
Extra Soviet garrisons will be spawned on July 1941
Please tell how many you prefer.

KingHunter3059 · Post by **KingHunter3059** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:13 pm

Borger -

I am experiencing the problem first hand as we speak. My votes:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3a. Yes

Jay

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:33 pm

I actually played several 2.0 games and didnt feel this disbalance.

Its usually possible to stop germans at line which is shown http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4746/ussrplans.png here.
If you keep all cities garrisoned germans usually have only 1-3 turns in 1941 to actually storm this lines. Also they suffer from 3 supply rule.
Yes soviet units are not great in 1941, but by this time if you place commanders properly they will be close to 60 effectiveness and with 2 entrenchment. Its extremely bloody to break this defences without air support, but availiable air support is limited for germans, so they will be able to destroy only few corps/turn.

Note, there is forest terrain around Moscow and Leningrad, which cause major troubles for mech and panzer units to move fast there. Usually only infantry may arrive in time to storm soviet defences in 1941.

Several situations from my recent 2.0 games:

In early 1942 axis launch case blue, which lead to huge massacre and little or no advance. Soviets lost actually most of their units on the south (Kharkov - Rostov area) including valueable mech and armour, but very same happened to germans. As a result germans were stopped by bad weather close to Rostov and in very deplted state.

Since this battle germans were on full defence, while Red Army replaced casualties relatively easy and started their push to Berlin.
Result of this game was stalemate.
So USSR'42 forces are more or less able to combat germans, I think.

Another example from the game, where I played axis

In 1942 soviets retreat very same manner like in 1941, with no actual combat. Germans easily captured Stalingrad, even Tambov, Stavropol. They reach Caucassus. Only result of this was axis stuck there in 3 supply zone in 42-43 SW and totally wiped out by huge red army. I actually never had forces to mend front after this collapse, Germany surrendered in mid 1944. (Italy hold till early 1945 mostly because even allies didnt expected so fast collapse of Germany and were not in place to attack Italy).

I think eastern scenario is nice, since everything may happen there.

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:10 pm

Hi,

I vote with Jay

1. Yes
2. Yes

and 3a Yes

Paul

PionUrpo · Post by **PionUrpo** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:49 pm

1. yes
2. yes

I'm not sure about number 3. but if it is implemented, then a

EDIT: Actually, people pointed out the effect of 3a on France '40 and '44-'45 so now I'm even less sure.

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:24 pm

My votes are yes to 1. and yes to 2.

I would vote not to decrease the cost of garrisons. So I would vote for a strategic russian reserve of garrison units that would spawn in july 1941. We would simulating how Stalin tried and tried to stop the germans sending these reserve units and how these units were successively pocketed and/or destroyed by the germans thus clearing the way to Moscow but delaying their advance.

My reasons for voting no is the possibility that the decrease much favours the germans in late game so it could happen what could be called "german garrison blob". Let´s keep in mind that by late game the germans could buy tons of garrisons that could delay the advance of the allied units thus avoiding that the allies arrive in time to Hamburg and Berlin. 120 PP´s in a single turn would mean 10 garrison units and so on.

The change I would made in late game is to reduce the number of fortresses in Sigfried line. Sigfried line was not a so formidable defensive line as it is showed in CEAW GS. The germans have a rather "comfortable" end of game in Western front because of this reason: they only have to man all fortresses hexes, and with their high tech infantry values by late game is really hard for the allies to progress in the West. So I would remove 2-3 fortresses hexes of the Sigfried line simulating how this defensive line was partially dismantled to build the Atlantic Wall.

And finally, I would also remove 1 or 2 hexes of the Gustav line in Italy. The allies really were stopped there but not so many time. I would put instead a fortress hex further north near Florence to simulate another german defensive line there: the Gothic line. In this defensive line the germans stopped the allies from august 1944 to april 1945 when final allied offensive in Italy started.

peterjfrigate · Post by **peterjfrigate** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:06 am

hi - I am writing to add to the minority view and to urge some second thoughts before anything is decided.

My experience has been much like Plaid's. I've played Allies in the 39 scenario about 10 times now (against about half that many players) and I've never even come close to losing Moscow, Leningrad or Stalingrad. How did they get through a double line of infantry at level-2 entrenchment in forests basking under Zhukov's glow? Yes, the axis can keep pushing on the hope that SW will be delayed, but that gamble is part of the game. Also, I had thought of the occasional damage suffered by Axis units during early Barbarossa as an abstract representation of local counterattacks by soviet units.

And some examples of '42 stages:

1. Axis advance into "the gap" south of the moscow forests, get ambushed, effectively ending offensive.
2. Axis bulge neglects center and north, makes it into caucasus, gets surrounded.
3. Axis advance tentatively, but capture nothing important.

The soviets can't maintain a broad front of offensive operations in 42, but they have enough for 1 or 2 "strike forces" comprising a mix of air, armor and mech, that can deal some payback, especially for unentrenched speartips with minimal air cover.

I am also worried about unintended consequences of cheaper garrisons.

Even with an extra manpower cost, what effect will this have on e.g. France, or Leridano's GAR blob when the weather turns sour in 44 and 45 and the Allies are facing 25% more roadblocks? n.b. I think I have the math right :/

Having said all that, I will hold off on voting until more people are heard from, maybe my experience is anomalous.

best,
peterjfrigate (Sean)

JimR · Post by **JimR** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:07 am

Yes to (1) and (2).

Like Leridano, I worry about the late-game play-balance issues that the proposed garrison changes would cause. An adequately defended Westwall in 1944-45 is already nearly impossible to breach.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:06 am

1 no
2 no
3 yes

These change will continue increase the difficulty of Axis . Even without these change , Axis has less than 10% possibility to survive until Apr 1945 ( a pbem between two same experience players without big strategy mistake ).

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:56 am

Morris wrote:Axis has less than 10% possibility to survive until Apr 1945

Interesting, on what its based? Topic about victory stats says a bit other things.
Also I can't recall a game, where both sides didn't done any mistake. Making mistakes and exposing enemy ones is the essence of the game, seems to me.

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:58 am

No to all 3, as a big fan of weaker then average barbarossas I vote, by the way.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:11 am

Morris wrote:These change will continue increase the difficulty of Axis . Even without these change , Axis has less than 10% possibility to survive until Apr 1945 ( a pbem between two same experience players without big strategy mistake ).

That is not my experience. I see most Germans capable of getting further into Russia than before and it's hard to kick the Germans out because the Russians are hit so hard in 1942. The Allies need time to get momentum so they Germans can succeed with focus on just Russia.

Remember that the change for 1-2 is a temporary change. From 1942 there won't be a change because both countries would have reached almost their max war effort. So you get the countries into the war a bit faster and they can get labs a bit earlier to not fall too far behind tech wise.

What we're doing is to test out changes in the beta team. It's very easy to change values if we feel it's too much.

Usually we should be careful about changing the game balance, but I've seen so many games all showing the same direction that the Axis are a bit too tough in 1942 for the Russians to get the initiative in 1943. If the Russians fail to do something in 1943 they can't expect to move from Stalingrad to Berlin in 1944-1945. They need to have the Germans on the run late 1943 to be able to win the war. This is what I see they struggle with. Maybe I and the players I've heard from are not the best players, but I don't consider myself and Ronnie as novices. Several others struggle with the Allies now and they didn't before.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:12 am

Plaid wrote:No to all 3, as a big fan of weaker then average barbarossas I vote, by the way.

If you meet a stronger than average Barbarossa you might change your mind.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:26 am

Stauffenberg wrote:
Morris wrote:These change will continue increase the difficulty of Axis . Even without these change , Axis has less than 10% possibility to survive until Apr 1945 ( a pbem between two same experience players without big strategy mistake ).
That is not my experience. I see most Germans capable of getting further into Russia than before and it's hard to kick the Germans out because the Russians are hit so hard in 1942. The Allies need time to get momentum so they Germans can succeed with focus on just Russia.

Remember that the change for 1-2 is a temporary change. From 1942 there won't be a change because both countries would have reached almost their max war effort. So you get the countries into the war a bit faster and they can get labs a bit earlier to not fall too far behind tech wise.

What we're doing is to test out changes in the beta team. It's very easy to change values if we feel it's too much.

Usually we should be careful about changing the game balance, but I've seen so many games all showing the same direction that the Axis are a bit too tough in 1942 for the Russians to get the initiative in 1943. If the Russians fail to do something in 1943 they can't expect to move from Stalingrad to Berlin in 1944-1945. They need to have the Germans on the run late 1943 to be able to win the war. This is what I see they struggle with. Maybe I and the players I've heard from are not the best players, but I don't consider myself and Ronnie as novices. Several others struggle with the Allies now and they didn't before.

I think the only way to change your mind will be the fact . I 'd like to invite you or any other elite in our testing group to try a pbem with me . I am not an elite , but I have enough experience of pbems , If any one of you can defeat me by using Axis at the present situation (2.01.08) . I will surrender & never argue about the changes .

zechi · Post by **zechi** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:13 am

I'm with Plaid and peterjfrigate. I did not had any problems with the eastern front yet. In fact I agree with Plaid that everything is possible in the east and this is great. Furthermore, I think that the Allied player will have to react with the western Allies if the Axis player focuses on the eastern front and play more aggressively.

I also fear that the changes proposed will again change the game significantly and we already had so many changes. From my point of view the playbalance is quite good after all.