Slitherine

Germans "won" battle of Kursk in so specific way, that soviets had enough troops to be on offence for all the rest of 1943 campaign, without stopping crossing Dnepr and so on.
Great victory, what can I say.

Historically soviets suffered huge casualties in 1941, actualy major forces were wiped out several times. But they replaced them even faster. And it (ability to rebuild entire army from scratch in 2-3 turns) is not something, what you want to be modelled in game, since this way soviets will be much stronger, then they are now.

I have to say, that thing which hurt most (i believe axis and allies, maybe allies a bit more) is extensive research randomness.
You can go for dog fight labs with USSR from very beginning of the game, and still have 8 air combat only in mid 1944. Or in 1942. This randomness is not good thing, if you ask me.

Stauffenberg wrote:I also don't agree that the Germans won the battle of Kursk. The battle ended in a stale mate. The Germans failed to cut supply to Kursk and the Russians failed to stop them completely. When the smoke had settled the both the Russians and Germans had lost thousands of tanks. The main difference was that the Russians could replace their losses while the Germans couldn't. Germany squandered their strategic reserve in the east in the battle of Kursk. That led to the collapse of Army Group Center in Bagration. If the armor units had not been lost then Russia would have struggled getting across the Dnepr etc. So the battle was a stalemate, but strategically the Germans lost because of the result of the battle.

I say 'won' when I meant direct battle. No strategic breakthrough was possible as there was whole front in reserve. And I fully agree with you on the consequences so in the broad term there definitely was a 'loss'.

Plaid wrote:Historically soviets suffered huge casualties in 1941, actualy major forces were wiped out several times. But they replaced them even faster.

Nobody is that fast in replacing. In 1941 Germans faced 3 phases/lines of Soviet war mobilization that begun 1940. I personally believe (looking at prisoners/equipment Germans captured in 1941) that Soviets planned their offensive in the same 1941 and Germans were just lucky that they hit first.

This if huge offtopic. We could talk in separate thread if you'd like.

Stauffenberg wrote:We're actually doing something to amphibious invasions in the next update.

I like your changes.

Yes, excellent amph changes. Also, now Axis can also make a go of it for Sealion and not worry too much about the cost of shipping troops back and forth across the Channel.

So I have an idea:

Maybe cost of shipment should be kept but lowered to be not so much (e.g. 2 PPs) but cost of landing should be high (say first would cost and than increasing for each consecutive one. Landing cost and increase could be lowered by industry progress and landing limit could be eliminated (limit would be increasing cost for each landing).

0 cost for shipment is not realistic for me. You had to spent some resources to transport troops but probably not as much as 8 (1/4 of INF Corps).

You don't pay for rail transport either even though you use the trains. Port to port transport can be seen as simple transport using already existing naval vessels. Transport to a beach requires other vessels to be able to land where there aren't any ports.

So the transport cost is considered to be the payment for having to land in areas where you didn't have existing ports waiting. Invasion costs extra to simulate the extra cost for all crafts needed for a sea invasion (including mulberries).

I think it's best for the moment to try out port to port transport without any cost. I don't see how this can be misused. If we start to add some cost then people will again consider saving PP's by keeping in port so they don't lose efficiency, but still at sea.

By doing this the rail transport and port to port transport will be done the same way. You don't pay within the capacity, but you pay for overuse.

Please notice that if you pay for overuse of the transport capacity you don't get these PP's back when the transports get to port.

Plaid wrote: I have to say, that thing which hurt most (i believe axis and allies, maybe allies a bit more) is extensive research randomness.
You can go for dog fight labs with USSR from very beginning of the game, and still have 8 air combat only in mid 1944. Or in 1942. This randomness is not good thing, if you ask me.

This is a good point and something that we could look at before releasing the patch that is: to reduce significantly the randomness in tech labs. No balance issues here for changing that since it would affect axis and allies the same way. I would vote for removing at all spectacular tech labs increases.

Plaid wrote:Germans "won" battle of Kursk in so specific way, that soviets had enough troops to be on offence for all the rest of 1943 campaign, without stopping crossing Dnepr and so on.
Great victory, what can I say.

Historically soviets suffered huge casualties in 1941, actualy major forces were wiped out several times. But they replaced them even faster. And it (ability to rebuild entire army from scratch in 2-3 turns) is not something, what you want to be modelled in game, since this way soviets will be much stronger, then they are now.

Kursk was a defeat for the germans that left in the battle tons of tanks and armoured vehicles. It is said that it was the Luftwaffe that saved the germans from a disaster. Once the germans were definitely repeled in Kursk the soviet army started a counteroffensive but Luftwaffe forces inflicted so high losses in the counterattacking soviet armoured forces that they missed the chance to exploit the initial success. Anyway, the germans lost definitely the initiative and the soviets started to be in the offensive since then.

I somewhat agree on tech randomness. It's good to have some random tech results but the very extreme can be really frustrating at times. Esp. on the all-important dogfight: I've had lvl 5 as early as Feb '42 and as late as mid '43. Tad too much variation IMO.

EDIT: those were for UK/GER and roughly same lab purchases.

Isn't the randomness of the research part of the fun. The overall advances will even out, but the randomness is to where they area.

If we would make any changes then I think the die roll for each tech should be modified compared to the country with the highest tech level in that tech. If you see another country having more advanced equipment then it was common to steal ideas and make similar ones yourselves. E. g. the Germans stole ideas from the T34 to make the Panther tanks.

This is the current code when you roll 1d100. Effort is dependent upon number of labs, focus and research difficulty:
if(roll <= 40) // 0-40
val = effort;
else
if(roll <= 60) // 41-60
val = 1.5D * effort;
else
if(roll <= 80) // 61-80
val = 2D * effort;
else
if(roll <= 90) // 81-90
val = 3D * effort;
else
if(roll <= 95) // 91-95
val = 5D * effort;
else // 96-100
val = 10D * effort;

Let's say we compare you current tech level in the area (not progress to next level). Modifiers can be like this:
You have the highest tech level in the area and share it with another country: 0
Allied country has 1 tech level above in the area: +4
Enemy country has 1 tech level above in the area: +2
Allied country has 2 tech levels above in the area: +8
Enemy country has 2 tech levels above in the area: +4
Allied country has 3 tech levels or more in the area: +12
Enemy country has 3 tech levels or more in the area: +6
Your country has the highest tech level in the area of all countries: -4

Positive values are halved and negative values are doubled if not at war.

This means you will then have a better chance catching up from bad luck or being behind in tech when the game started.

We can also reduce the most spectacular result from 10 * effort to 8 * effort since some countries get extra tech from having higher die roll average.

Countries not at war would get the die roll modifier halved because they're not fully operational with industrial spies, being in battle to capture enemy vehicles etc.

This is checked for EACH of the 15 areas you roll for. What do you think about having such a rule for random research? I think that will help even out bad results in a particular area and it's actually historical. Countries stole ideas from each other or shared with the Allied powers.

This change will mainly benefit Italy because they play catch-up to Germany in many areas. Italy can help German progress in the naval area if the Italians focus on surface ships and Germany on subs.

The Allies are: UK, France, USA and USSR and the Axis are: Germany and Italy. So you gain techs faster if an ally got the higher tech.

Research should not be less random than at the moment IMO.

Obviously overall tech advance does even out but it can happen in bad way as well. For example, Germany getting very fast pace on dogfight (arguably the most important tech) and Soviets getting fast pace on radar (almost useless for them).

While airtech is on table how about increasing their difficulty a bit (+5 maybe?)? Many games I've played tend to have airtechs maxed out quite early.

PionUrpo wrote:Obviously overall tech advance does even out but it can happen in bad way as well. For example, Germany getting very fast pace on dogfight (arguably the most important tech) and Soviets getting fast pace on radar (almost useless for them).

While airtech is on table how about increasing their difficulty a bit (+5 maybe?)? Many games I've played tend to have airtechs maxed out quite early.

May be this is the simplest and the most effective solution keeping in mind the importance of the air units in CEAW-GS.

I can easily increase the difficulty for air techs by 5. Then the value is back to where it was in the first vanilla CeaW versions. They lowered the values for a reason.

At least this will mean that it's not so easy to max out the air techs so early.

Stauffenberg is right – we must kill Hitler.

Sorry, wrong Stauffenberg (that was a joke).

Seriously, though the game balance has been pretty carefully calibrated.

One thing that I think happens is that a lot of people don't play the Axis defense to the very end. Careful defensive play, even as the Red Army is tearing you to pieces and the Allies are ripping you a new one, can slow the game down just long enough to eek out a victory.

I'm saying this because I've seen some AARs end in 'surrender' before 1944, and I've heard of other games where people just threw in the towel when they didn't think they could win anymore.

While I've found all the AAR's to be very interesting, the Morris vs SuperMax are the one's that have really grabbed my attention, for different reasons on each side.

I find myself rooting for Max because I want him to show that the Axis can win. Not win as in prevent a Berlin occupation by May 1945. But actually win as in defeat the Soviet Union. I felt his heart sink in that first match, after taking out the British mainland and occupying Moscow, to be presented with an overwhelming Soviet force. He played as close to a perfect Axis game as possible.

I also find Morris' exploits to be very helpful. Without public disclosure of these, who would know they need to be patched? I'm glad Morris is using them, to expose them to the development team and community, so they can be corrected.

Right now, I do not think Morris as Allies can be beat. I'm hopeful Max can prove me wrong in his rematch.

Morris as Axis is almost impossible to beat as well. If you looked at games when he was the Axis you saw him get past Moscow in 1941 using his armor and mech blob strategy. In 1942 you saw him rush towards Omsk.

Both Supermax and Morris are very aggressive players who will usually overwhelm normal players who aren't aware of such a play style. You need a player of the caliber of Joerock or Neil to be able to deal with their way of playing.

But I think this is true regarding all games like World In Flames.

You can even take chess as an example. That is one of the best balanced games you have (white just has a slight edge). Players like Carlsen or Anand will regularly beat ELO 2600 players. Those ELO 2600 players will regularly beat ELO 2400 players and so on. You need maybe a little more effort to win with black, but you do it against inferior players. Against players of equal strength the track record for white is slightly better, but you still have a fair chance winning with black.

So in GS I think playing the Allies is like playing white and playing the Axis is like playing black. The difference is player skill is still more important than the bias in game balance.

If an elite player like Supermax or Morris would often lose with the Axis against average players like me THEN we have a game balance issue. So far we haven't had such results.

Stauffenberg wrote:Morris as Axis is almost impossible to beat as well.

Just curious...what version was Morris doing this with? Was it a version previous to the last two Morris vs Max AAR's?

I'm just wondering if it was an early version 2.0 that Morris was exploiting an Axis advantage, and that that now, as a result of correcting these exploits, the pendulum has swung in favor of the Allies with 2.1 or 2.2 (I'm just guessing at version numbers).

Stauffenberg wrote:Let's say we compare you current tech level in the area (not progress to next level). Modifiers can be like this:
You have the highest tech level in the area and share it with another country: 0
Allied country has 1 tech level above in the area: +4
Enemy country has 1 tech level above in the area: +2
Allied country has 2 tech levels above in the area: +8
Enemy country has 2 tech levels above in the area: +4
Allied country has 3 tech levels or more in the area: +12
Enemy country has 3 tech levels or more in the area: +6
Your country has the highest tech level in the area of all countries: -4

Positive values are halved and negative values are doubled if not at war.

This means you will then have a better chance catching up from bad luck or being behind in tech when the game started.

We can also reduce the most spectacular result from 10 * effort to 8 * effort since some countries get extra tech from having higher die roll average.

Countries not at war would get the die roll modifier halved because they're not fully operational with industrial spies, being in battle to capture enemy vehicles etc.

This is checked for EACH of the 15 areas you roll for. What do you think about having such a rule for random research? I think that will help even out bad results in a particular area and it's actually historical. Countries stole ideas from each other or shared with the Allied powers.

This change will mainly benefit Italy because they play catch-up to Germany in many areas. Italy can help German progress in the naval area if the Italians focus on surface ships and Germany on subs.

The Allies are: UK, France, USA and USSR and the Axis are: Germany and Italy. So you gain techs faster if an ally got the higher tech.

Won't it cause Soviets&Italy to catch up with Organization very quickly (they are far behind + their allies are much ahead)?

So:
1. I'd limit 'allies' influence to UK<->USA as only those were really connected on this field.
2. I'd add this rule to 'hard' tech only: INF/ARM/AIR/NAV

Stauffenberg wrote:I can easily increase the difficulty for air techs by 5. Then the value is back to where it was in the first vanilla CeaW versions. They lowered the values for a reason.

At least this will mean that it's not so easy to max out the air techs so early.

I vote yes to increase air techs by 5.