Game Balance

[Kragdob]

I open this topic for more convenient discussion that's going in most 'hot' AARs right now.

Quoting Stauffenberg:

We're playtesting past 1942 with the current rules to check the game balance. So far the games I've played show that with normal play the Axis can get to the historical line in 1941 and hold pretty well through the first winter. In 1942 they can push hard and capture some strategic objectives (Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, oilfields).

The German oil levels seem pretty ok for the 1942 offensive.

We've yet to see how the changes will affect the end-game and that's why we haven't released the beta yet.

I don't think you can use any games against Morris as a reference for game balance. Normal Allied players would not have sacrificed the Royal Navy etc. So the Axis will have many extra units for Barbarossa than you had. When Morris is the Axis he gets to Omsk in 1942 (at least before the latest changes). I think you should only be able to get to Omsk against a very inferior player. Then you win an ultimate victory.

Most games should see the initiative shift to the Allies late 1942 or early 1943. Then the rush towards Rome and Berlin will be interesting.

Before we made the latest changes I noticed that many experienced players (including me) got crushed by the Germans in 1942 and the Russian defense crumbled. I've never seen that happening to me before. This happened against normal Axis opponents. So the official GS v2.0 is actually biased in favor of the Axis.

Morris claims otherwise because he says he has a strategy to stop the Axis armor blob. I haven't seen in and we can't base the game balance upon weird strategies that only a few can think out. We need the game to be balanced when both sides select pretty normal strategies.

So my advise is to just play GS v2.0 with the latest beta changes as the Axis against a normal player. Then you will see that you have very good punch in Russia if you don't go for Sealion. The rules we added in GS v2.0 with 30 efficiency drop for the Russian units and also halved efficiency recovery for 4 turns means that you don't have to fear counter attacks until late 1941. So you can storm eastwards as fast as you do. The best Axis players manage to take Leningrad, Moscow and maybe even Stalingrad in 1941 even with the latest GS v2.0 beta changes.

and

The official GS v2.0 is not balanced enough. It's biased in favor of the Germans. Good German players could crush the Russians in 1942, even without using an armor blob. So reverting back to the official GS v2.0 is not an option. Instead we have to tweak what we have using the data we get from the latest games. So far it seems that the change with the efficiency (drop by 20 instead of 35 and remaining 25 below max for the duration of the severe winter and slightly less duration of the severe winter) actually helps the Germans survive the winter a bit more. So they're back on track in 1942.

E. g. I'm playing the Axis against Pionurpo and we're in August 1942 and I've taken Grozny, Stalingrad, Leningrad and can with luck get all the way to Baku (I've cut rail support to Baku). He's not a novice player. Against Ronnie I'm doing a bit less well, but I still have a chance for a good 1942. In my Allied game against Ronnie I struggle to inflict Axis losses because he retreated past the Dnepr. He will come back with a vengeance in 1942.

The conclusion is that you need to adapt your playing style a bit and when the smoke has settled you should have a fair chance with both sides. Our main problem in the beta phase is that game balance tweaks, bug fixes etc. have moved the target so you had to quickly alter your strategy to the new circumstances. That makes it harder to get valuable game balance data. We hope that's soon over now so what we have now is what will be released in GS v2.1.

I do not agree that Players should play agains 'normal' gameplay. Should I ask my opponents question like 'will you sacrifice UK to kill me in USSR in 1942?'
I do not agree that game is biased towards Germans.

I used to design and tweak games and it's all about creating proper 'environment' for the Players. Any wholes in this lead to 'extreme' and unrealistic strategies like Morris's one. To start I'd like to point two holes I see in (otherwise very appealing) game:

1. Successful SeaLion really hinders Germans and have no real impact on (or even boosts a little - convoys!) UK.
2. Amphibious landing engine.

Ad.1
Shouldn't it be that successful SeaLion gives Germans great advantage in the game to the point of most likely victory? I think yes. This way UK Player will not waste his forces and do not do things like scarifying all the country just to clear the way for Soviets. This simple fact completely destroys Morris strategy and create realistic 'begin of the war' environment.

Ad. 2
I wonder if it is possible for US/UK to load troops in America swim whole Atlantic right to Sicily and make successfull landing. Why didn't they bother to take West Africa then? Why Overlord wasn't made directly like that?
For me the answer is that you cannot have ground unit swim on a ship for quarter of a year and then drop it just into the battle.
I propose following rule: each ground unit starting turn in transport on a see looses 10% effectivenes. Amphibious landing is another 10% of effectiveness lost.

This way it will be completely impossible/very risky to swim from America directly to Sicily. You'd need to make base in North Africa first. Even invasion made directly from Egypt will be more risky. Finally this gives Allies very good reason to keep UK for further landing in Europe (see pt1).

Any comments/ideas?

[Blathergut]

The loss of effectiveness is interesting. Perhaps something can be done with that. Loss of England should be a dire consequence. It seems now to have a much less dire consequence.

[ferokapo]

Stauffenberg has indeed raised very good points and asked the right questions.

I am afraid that with all the rules against exploitation strategies, the game will become uninteresting for "normal" players like me. To give you two examples (with the caveat that I am not a beta tester, and so I am not fully up-to-date):

1. The new rules on DOW on Holland and Belgium are historically much more accurate than before, but for a "normal" player, they mean that you have to follow the historical course of action, because otherwise you will not be able to exploit the surprise bonuses. I am aware that that is the intention of the rules, but it means a constraint for me.

2. The new rules on Barbarossa (additional garrisons for the Red Army, supply zone 3 starts farther West) mean that even with a well-prepared, full-strength Barbarossa it is impossible to get to Moscow in 1941. Again, this is historical, but a severe constraint for me.

I consider myself a good, though not very experienced player, who has a good grasp of the strategies and strong analytical skills. Yet I am unwilling (and unable) to spend hours on devising and testing strategies, and more hours on planning the optimal moves. I am aware that a difference in player skill and experience should make a difference, and that exploitation strategies need to be countered.

Yet for me the bunch of new rules intended for GS2.1 seem to ruin a lot of fun, because they make any deviation from the historical path an extremely risky endeavor, that will likely decide the game within the first two years.

Again, I am aware of the intentions of the GS team. And I value their work and dedication a LOT, not least because I have had hours of fun playing their version of CEAW. Yet I doubt at the moment that I will enjoy GS2.1.

I understand very well that it could only be me having these thoughts, neverless I thought sharing them might be useful.

Thanks and Cheers,

Eisenkopf.

[Kragdob]

eisenkopf,

I think the two changes you mention are rather historical reality. Nobody prohibit you from launching invasion on Holland in 1939. By this you will warn (probably as would have happened historically) Belgium and activate Western Allies defensive plan. Also 1941 in Russia is even to little historical. German generals very shocked that when they arrived at Smolensk and after they took 3 millions of prisoners (size of German army in 1941) they had to face whole new armies of Soviet 3rd mobilization phase. Soviet should not get 8 GARs but like 5 MECHS to fight in Smolensk area.

Here you are restricted the same way Germans were during the war but can do 'stupid' things - nobody takes that from you.

What I really mean is that there are some things you can do in the game that would not have been possible or even feasible yet you can still do them: UK can be sacrificed without any serious consequences for Western Allies, US/UK can make 'long range' amphibious landing or sent huge British forces to Russia in 1941?

I would like to hear dev/tersters team opinion on that - maybe you already walked through that stuff and I am just repeating discussion already gone?

[zechi]

1. Successful SeaLion really hinders Germans and have no real impact on (or even boosts a little - convoys!) UK.


Ad.1
Shouldn't it be that successful SeaLion gives Germans great advantage in the game to the point of most likely victory? I think yes. This way UK Player will not waste his forces and do not do things like scarifying all the country just to clear the way for Soviets. This simple fact completely destroys Morris strategy and create realistic 'begin of the war' environment.

I don't agree that Sealions "hinders" the Axis. Sealion gives the Axis a great strategic advantage, as it will delay operations against "Fortress Europe" from the west or at least make it a lot more difficult. The Allied player only has the options to either first retake Britain or go directly for France. In the latter case he will find it a lot more difficult to invade France, as he will lack air support normally provided by the biggest aircraft carrier in the Atlantic named Britain Furthermore, any units will have to be transported from Canada/US, which makes the logistics harder and the invasion forces can easily attacked by SUBs. In addition the Axis get some additional PP income and Britain loses a lot of PP income.

Ad. 2
I wonder if it is possible for US/UK to load troops in America swim whole Atlantic right to Sicily and make successfull landing. Why didn't they bother to take West Africa then? Why Overlord wasn't made directly like that?
For me the answer is that you cannot have ground unit swim on a ship for quarter of a year and then drop it just into the battle.
I propose following rule: each ground unit starting turn in transport on a see looses 10% effectivenes. Amphibious landing is another 10% of effectiveness lost.

Your proposal would make the transport system more realistic, but I also think would make it more difficult to handle. The current system is completely unrealistic, but adheres to the game philosophy: easy to learn, but hard to master. I think such a system would only complicate the game for unnecessary reason and I do not see any real benefit for your proposal. US/UK will most likely not go directly for Sicily, as they will need a third Italian city or Tunis to force the surrender, i.e. the easiest third target will always be Tunis under normal circumstances.

[gerones]

My concerns about the question discussed here are:

1. Next update will not allow the western allies to send any unit to USSR so issue here is solved for sure.
2. It has been discussed about to make UK a surrender country and there are a few pros and many cons: if we make UK a surrender country probably we will see far more Sea lions operations than now (historically it has been said that a successful german landing operation in UK was only in Hitler´s dreams); surely german player would be more rewarded than now but what to do with Commonwealth units, etc.

[Blathergut]

While it's nice to think of having Britain surrender, it's probably too harsh. There does need to be some major consequence for it and it should be more difficult for the Germans to execute the invasion, but knocking Britain out would ruin the game I think.

[ferokapo]

eisenkopf,

I think the two changes you mention are rather historical reality. Nobody prohibit you from launching invasion on Holland in 1939. By this you will warn (probably as would have happened historically) Belgium and activate Western Allies defensive plan. Also 1941 in Russia is even to little historical. German generals very shocked that when they arrived at Smolensk and after they took 3 millions of prisoners (size of German army in 1941) they had to face whole new armies of Soviet 3rd mobilization phase. Soviet should not get 8 GARs but like 5 MECHS to fight in Smolensk area.

Here you are restricted the same way Germans were during the war but can do 'stupid' things - nobody takes that from you.

What I really mean is that there are some things you can do in the game that would not have been possible or even feasible yet you can still do them: UK can be sacrificed without any serious consequences for Western Allies, US/UK can make 'long range' amphibious landing or sent huge British forces to Russia in 1941?

I would like to hear dev/tersters team opinion on that - maybe you already walked through that stuff and I am just repeating discussion already gone?

As I said, the changes are entirely in line with historical circumstances. That is not my point here. My point is that the game should allow above-average (but not hardcore) gamers to deviate from the historical events with a reasonable chance of success. If you can launch a successfull 1939 Fall Gelb or a Barbarossa that reaches Moscow only if you are an experienced, elite player with lots of time on your hands, I think the game balance is gone. I was referring to what Stauffenberg wrote in the OP quotes, and the title of this thread.

To address your concrete two issues, I think that Sealion is a good example for my argument: Currently the axis investment is balanced well against the axis returns, with a reasonable risk to fully lose the investment if poorly executed. If you increase the impact of Sealion on the Allies, you need to increase necessary Axis investment and/or risk of failure to balance it out. This would lead to a) a very unstable game in the sense that most games would be decided in 1940, with the Axis either loosing a big investment they will not be able to make up for, or the Allies being dealt a crushing blow; and b) such high investments and risk that none-elite players will not attempt it.

As for the transport problem, this could only be reasonably solved if you'd introduce two types of transports: One long-distance one that could unload only in harbours, and another short distance one with only a few hexes of movement range, which would not count towards normal naval transport limits, but directly towards amphibious landing capacity, and could unload in any non-mountain hex.

[Kragdob]

Your proposal would make the transport system more realistic, but I also think would make it more difficult to handle.

For me it's hard to see the difficulty in 'the longer you are at see the less effective your units are' rule

As for the transport problem, this could only be reasonably solved if you'd introduce two types of transports

I disagree. If you loose effectivenes for beeing at see you would need to unload in friendly ground near the target and only after you'd recover you could make a short leap. This perfectly simulates naval transport and amphibious landing.

[Kragdob]

1. Next update will send british fighters in USSR to the force pool so issue here is solved for sure.

Soon you'll be fighting with next 'extreme' strategy: fast transport of UK troops from Middle East to England...

Guys, you are fighting the symptoms not disease. What else will you prohibit next? Is it worth coding If you create another exploit? I seen that in some games I tweaked - prohibition is the last choice. If you make things not worth doing something than it won't be done in 99% of the cases.

Let it be then. At least I will have easy crush on my German opponent next game .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The western Allies can't send any units to core USSR hexes so no swift way sending troops from the Middle East back to England or Canada. If you have your UK units in Iraq or Persia you can only fly missions into USSR, but not move there. So what Leridano is writing is not correct. It was suggested at one point, but we landed on not allowing the western Allies to send their units to Russia. That's more historical because Stalin was paranoid against the western Allies and certainly didn't want their combat units on Russian soil.

The problem is that some players sacrifice UK and send 4+ UK fighters in addition to land units to Russia to overwhelm the Germans there. That means the Russian steamroller can begin in 1942 with maybe a German 1944 defeat.

That would never have happened in the real war. Russia was really hard pressed in 1941 and 1942, but the western Allies didn't send significant troops directly to Russia. Instead they tried to make noise elsewhere to draw German forces from Russia.

[gerones]

I forgot that finally it was decided not to allow the allies to send units to USSR, so apologies if my post above (already edited and corrected) has confused to anyone.

[Kragdob]

The western Allies can't send any units to core USSR hexes so no swift way sending troops from the Middle East back to England or Canada. If you have your UK units in Iraq or Persia you can only fly missions into USSR, but not move there. So what Leridano is writing is not correct. It was suggested at one point, but we landed on not allowing the western Allies to send their units to Russia. That's more historical because Stalin was paranoid against the western Allies and certainly didn't want their combat units on Russian soil.

The problem is that some players sacrifice UK and send 4+ UK fighters in addition to land units to Russia to overwhelm the Germans there. That means the Russian steamroller can begin in 1942 with maybe a German 1944 defeat.

That would never have happened in the real war. Russia was really hard pressed in 1941 and 1942, but the western Allies didn't send significant troops directly to Russia. Instead they tried to make noise elsewhere to draw German forces from Russia.

While I agree with the rule I still see UK can spend like 400-500 PP on doing e.g. landing in France in 1941 which can be as effective as sending fighters. You don't need to invest in UK defenses at all so you are free to go and do whatever you want leaving close to nothing on the Islands. What were Allied offensive actions in 1941/42 except North Africa?

This is why I think the ban is just curing one of the symptoms, not the real cause of such actions.

What do you think about losing effectiveness while at sea?