GS 2.10 Realism and Play Balance Discussion

[Aryaman]

I am playing a PBEM game v2.0 with a long tim e opponent, so that I can safely say we are evenly matched players from experience. I played the Med strategy, not accepting France surrender and going for everything, I got already Spain and south of England, but I made a mistake in the Middle East, I forgot about the rule of antering Persia trigger a SU War Declaration, so I was caught totally unprepared in the Eastern Front, and I am struggling to patch a battlefront there. So, my point is, a variable Russian sntry in the war instead of the fixed May 1942 we have now will greatly improve Allied position and make the game more realistic, as right now the Axis player that don´t forget that rule as I did can safely have the Eastern Front empty of units right until spring 1942. After all, it is the SU attacking, so the Axis player should not know when that will happen.

[Crazygunner1]

Sealion is never à sure road to victory, but if you capture London in july 40 then you are in à pretty good situation no matter What you do after that.

Risking the allied fleet Will depend on the situation, but consider this....if You risk the fleet and axis player goes after it, then there are less bombers flying sorties over britain. Always good when axis needs to capture à port or london. That might be valuable time lost for axis. If you bring home the second sub from the med, you will probably cause havoc among the kriegsmarine or german transports. If all britts are home and not in france, also adds to your favor.

All these small things can be enough to tip the scale and make it costly and even deny the operation.

Ohh... Another thing, did Max launch the sealion before the canadien reserves were released? Or did they cross the atlantic before to take part in the action?

[zechi]

Max said that he has a 100% working strategy for Sea Lion. I doubt that you can delay him longer than 1941 and it is probably enough.

I think it is the general opinion that a Sealion by a determined and able player cannot be stopped. It is possible to make the Axis bleed a lot, but you can't stop the invasion under normal circumstances.

Of course this is unrealistic, as most historians agree that Operation Sealion would most likely have failed, if the Germans had tried to cross the channel even if they had managed to get air superiority over the Channel and southern Britain (which failed as we all know).

Nevertheless, in this game we face several problems:

1. The Axis have air superiority from the start, as they field usually four FTR and TACs plus the Italian FTR and TAC. They also have the income to replace any losses easily, the British will have greater difficulties to replace any air losses. In reality it was the contrary. The British were able to produce enough air planes to win the battle of attrition in the skies. They were also in a better situation as British pilots which survived after being shot down by the Luftwaffe would usually not be lost as they did not go down in enemy controlled territory. German pilots shot down were usually lost even if they survived, i.e. Germans had the greater problems replacing any losses.

2. The Axis can have a lot of transports on the sea, which is unrealistic considering the historical resources the Axis had in 1940. Nevertheless, the transport system is generally not realistic in GS, but I fear it is a necessary to make any invasions possible at all (later it favours of course the Allies).

3. The channel can be easily blocked by SUBs, so that the RN cannot interfere with the invasion and attack the Axis transports. In reality the Axis needed air superiority to be able to fend off any attempts by the RN to interfere with the invasionn. I'm not 100 % sure how this will play out with the tougher DDs, but in the past the blockade of the channel could not be penetrated by the Allies easily (of course a naval unit can be placed in advance in the channel and British SUBs can also wreak some havoc).

4. If Sealion would be much harder and riskier as it is now, then nobody would try it and Sealion is one of the more interesting "what ifs" in the game. It would also mean that a failed Sealion could lead to the quickly end of the game, as the Axis player will face disaster if he fails the operation.

From my point of view the best solution for a more realistic Sealion Scenario would be to make it much more difficult for the Axis player to succeed, but if he fails the game should not be lost. However, I think this can only be done if the current transport system (no overbuilding of transports) is changed, which would affect the game in many circumstances.

[Cybvep]

Yeah, a failed Sea Lion should make the game simply harder, not impossible to win. IRL the Germans lost the Battle of Britain and they still managed to do a strong Barbarossa .

However, the situation is a bit better in 2.1, because you can withdraw units to ports without suffering a PP loss.

[Schnurri]

Yes, in a recent game I stopped a Sea Lion in its tracks by taking out the DD and damaging some transports with subs - also, had a double line of GARs, Corps and Mechs onshore to discourage them. End result was small losses for the Axis and loss of most of my DD's for the Brits. Germany didn't lose many PP's and a small amount of oil and the Brits were in pretty bad shape til I could launch some more DD/s. A fairly realistic outcome IMHO.

[gsmart04]

I'm too new to add anything to this discussion other than say I find the level of discourse to be outstanding and extremely interesting

[Samhain]

This is about the best forum in terms of the way the users act towards one another that I've ever been on, which says very little but still if there were such a thing as a perfect forum it would be this one.

[gsmart04]

This is about the best forum in terms of the way the users act towards one another that I've ever been on, which says very little but still if there were such a thing as a perfect forum it would be this one.

I couldn't agree more.

[gchristie]

This is about the best forum in terms of the way the users act towards one another that I've ever been on, which says very little but still if there were such a thing as a perfect forum it would be this one.

The AGEOD forum for their Amercan Civil War game is equally good, and it is here and there only that I post anything. I just recommended this game over there, so I thought I would recommend their game over here. The forum members interact with the developers and patch coordinators, folks are astonishingly well informed and well-mannered, the game has PBEM and an equally robust gang of players so finding a match is easy.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay ... -Civil-War

Regards.

[JimWC]

This is very interesting thread, but somewhat depressing. I haven't yet played 2.1, but was hoping that the Red Army would be weaker than in 2.0. It sounds like it has been made stronger?

The biggest game problem in 2.0, as I see it, is that the Red Army is so strong that invading Russia is suicidal for the Axis. That may be realistic, but it doesn't make for the best game. In all the 2.0 games that I played (except for one), the Red Army chewed up and spat out the Axis offensive. However, I discovered that I could pretty much always win the game (as opposed to the war) as the Axis by going on the defensive in 1941 and building a strong line. Maybe that's a balancing strategy, but turning things from mobile battle into something resembling WWI trench warfare does not make the game more enjoyable to play.

I love CAEW GS, but maybe both defense and the Red Army are too strong (and maybe the U.S. is too weak). If you do a mod beyond 2.1 please consider that some of your public would like to get the blitz back in the game.

[gsmart04]

This is very interesting thread, but somewhat depressing. I haven't yet played 2.1, but was hoping that the Red Army would be weaker than in 2.0. It sounds like it has been made stronger?

The biggest game problem in 2.0, as I see it, is that the Red Army is so strong that invading Russia is suicidal for the Axis. That may be realistic, but it doesn't make for the best game. In all the 2.0 games that I played (except for one), the Red Army chewed up and spat out the Axis offensive. However, I discovered that I could pretty much always win the game (as opposed to the war) as the Axis by going on the defensive in 1941 and building a strong line. Maybe that's a balancing strategy, but turning things from mobile battle into something resembling WWI trench warfare does not make the game more enjoyable to play.

I love CAEW GS, but maybe both defense and the Red Army are too strong (and maybe the U.S. is too weak). If you do a mod beyond 2.1 please consider that some of your public would like to get the blitz back in the game.

Hey I share your pain about trying to come close to beating the Red Army but the more experienced gamers here on the forum have done it easily on 2.0. I'm still learning and still haven't succeeded after 3 games but you might want to look over the AARs and see what others have done. By the way, I agree that its pretty easy to 'win' as the Axis just by holding out against the A/I. Just once I'd like to beat the damned A/I against Russia and then I'll hotseat it and also look for other gamers to play.

[richardsd]

This is very interesting thread, but somewhat depressing. I haven't yet played 2.1, but was hoping that the Red Army would be weaker than in 2.0. It sounds like it has been made stronger?

The biggest game problem in 2.0, as I see it, is that the Red Army is so strong that invading Russia is suicidal for the Axis. That may be realistic, but it doesn't make for the best game. In all the 2.0 games that I played (except for one), the Red Army chewed up and spat out the Axis offensive. However, I discovered that I could pretty much always win the game (as opposed to the war) as the Axis by going on the defensive in 1941 and building a strong line. Maybe that's a balancing strategy, but turning things from mobile battle into something resembling WWI trench warfare does not make the game more enjoyable to play.

I love CAEW GS, but maybe both defense and the Red Army are too strong (and maybe the U.S. is too weak). If you do a mod beyond 2.1 please consider that some of your public would like to get the blitz back in the game.

why would you want the Red Army weaker? we have spent a lot of time getting a balance that doesn't see Russia actually fall!

I think you will find GS2.1 is more historical and more balanced whilst providing aternate options - that said I am still unsure how the Allies will defeat one of the Axis Aces?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If you read the AAR's you see that the Axis players in GS v2.1 can get very far in Russia in 1941 and it's not that easy to push them back.

In GS v2.0 the Axis seemed to have some problems getting past the historical 1941 fall line in 1941. Now they can easily do that if they really go for it.

So my feeling is that the Axis are more dangerous in GS v2.1, but they have to play well to not lose initiative too early. The Allied player can't just defend and avoid big blunders to eventually win the game. You need to work hard to gain initiative and turn the tide in your favor. Being too passive means you hand victory to the Axis.

[JimWC]

I look forward to seeing how things work in 2.1. Please note that I don't think the Allies should be weaker, just that the Red Army of 1941 (and even more of 1940 or 1939) should not be so fierce. I think the game (as of 2.0) considerably overrates the combat efficiency of the Red Army. An officer corps weakened by pre-war purges and units composed of raw conscripts don't deserve the combat power it has. The inherent inefficiencies of the Communist regime hampered the Russians throughout the war. What made the Red Army formidable was vast material resources -- together with the endurance of the long-suffering Russian soldier.

Off board Russian resources, no surrender with the capture of Omsk, and a stronger U.S. player come to mind. I realize that I'm talking about changes that would need lots and lots of playtesting to get into balance.

[rkr1958]

I believe that we have found the right balance in GSv2.10 between experienced and equal axis and allied players. I agree with Borger that the axis now actually can push deeper into the USSR than in GSv2.00. As the allied player you have to balance lost units versus lost ground. I see more games now with Moscow and Leningrad falling than I did in GSv2.00. 1941 and 1942 are tough years for the allied player in Russia against an experienced axis player.

With that said, I would say that between two inexperienced players that the game is much harder playing the axis than playing the allies. You just can't balance the game for inexperience players and expect it to be balanced for experienced players. That's just not possible. In my opinion the best and fastest way for an inexperience player to learn the game and learn to play it better (or well) is to play against a more experienced axis player. Though you will likely get beat up; you will learn a lot that you can apply in your next game.

There is little margin for error playing the axis. Also, and especially in the early game you have to move quickly and efficiently from operation to operation. And, you need to know when to transition from offensive to defense in the mid game. To win as the axis, and I would say even to win as the allied, player in GSv2.10 you need to perform well on both offense and defense.

And by the way, I'd say that 1000's of hours in play testing has gone into getting the balance we now have in GSv2.10. There are so many things that play much more historically now than in GSv2.00. (1) Naval warfare and the Battle of the Atlantic. No longer does the RN hide in port in 1939 and 1940. Now DD's strike fear in the hearts of sub commanders and force then to hunt elsewhere. (2). I feel that Russia plays more historical with the allied player in fear of having Russia crippled or possibly lost. (3) North Africa the Med are more important with Tropoli and Tunis now Italian surrender cities.

[richardsd]

I look forward to seeing how things work in 2.1. Please note that I don't think the Allies should be weaker, just that the Red Army of 1941 (and even more of 1940 or 1939) should not be so fierce. I think the game (as of 2.0) considerably overrates the combat efficiency of the Red Army. An officer corps weakened by pre-war purges and units composed of raw conscripts don't deserve the combat power it has. The inherent inefficiencies of the Communist regime hampered the Russians throughout the war. What made the Red Army formidable was vast material resources -- together with the endurance of the long-suffering Russian soldier.

Off board Russian resources, no surrender with the capture of Omsk, and a stronger U.S. player come to mind. I realize that I'm talking about changes that would need lots and lots of playtesting to get into balance.

so I think we have all the things you ask for but you need to keep Omsk surrender for those who play the AI and want that target - Russian surrender!

as the preceeding coments have noted, as the Allies you now need a bit of offensive skill, you can just sit it out and wait for an Axis mistake - the Axis can likely recover from a couple fo small errors if the Allies aren't aggressive enough

all in all - a lot of fun and I would be happy to play a game with you when you upgrade, which should be soon