Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

[xriz]

@ Umeu: you wrote;
"do you think it is possible to give the cruisers a support function just like the fighters have?"

I looked into this a little more, can't do the intercept function (well not easily) but I did figure out how to have navel commanders add their bonus to convoys, so you can place a navel commander on a cruiser or battleship next to your convoy that imparts Sub attack and an attacking sub is going to take hits.

Now I just add a new British navel commander for convoys only or you can add sub attack to exiting British commanders.

Data/Scripts/game/
game_commanders.lua
about 1/2 way down, change the navel entry to look like air or ground entry. This keeps the commander from not effecting the convoy if left in.

Data/Scripts/
unit.lua
change prototype convoy classes from 'convoy' to 'navel' and add sub = 0 and navel attack = 0 in stats.

[xriz]

LOL, made changes to a file and didn't make a back up, can some one post an unmodified version of the file for me please,
Data/Scripts/Game/game_commanders.lua

[Amaranthus]

This could probably be done without any significant impact on gameplay. Serbia doesn't really have the PPs necessary to recruit enough to make a big dent in their manpower anyway.

It will effect the efficiency of new bought garrisons once the MP drops - which it will do more significantly with this tweak. Which is probably realistic.

A query that stems from this though, when MP drops to <70%, do the MP points used in unit repairs get their efficiency decreased, such that the unit's overall efficiency can drop (presumably by some weighted mean)?

[Amaranthus]

xriz, here you go

[stockwellpete]

One area of imbalance, I think, concerns the Turks. If the British put an artillery unit down in Cairo then they can usually smash up the Turkish army and force them right back to Anatolia. I don't know enough about the history to say whether this is realistic or not either - my suspicion is that it isn't. The Turks would certainly of had some artillery capability and maybe the British didn't have such a superiority in that arm? Maybe the Turks could be allowed artillery capability but with the restriction that they can only build one such unit during the course of the war. Or something like that, anyway.

[avoran]

Maybe the Turks could be allowed artillery capability but with the restriction that they can only build one such unit during the course of the war. Or something like that, anyway.

Even without a restrictive rule the Turks would rarely have enough PP's to be able to buy ammunition on the scale the British can.

[Umeu]

One area of imbalance, I think, concerns the Turks. If the British put an artillery unit down in Cairo then they can usually smash up the Turkish army and force them right back to Anatolia. I don't know enough about the history to say whether this is realistic or not either - my suspicion is that it isn't. The Turks would certainly of had some artillery capability and maybe the British didn't have such a superiority in that arm? Maybe the Turks could be allowed artillery capability but with the restriction that they can only build one such unit during the course of the war. Or something like that, anyway.

yes i agree with you, this will be covered under the section of balancing artillery giving the turks artillery was one of my ideas. and definitely in the initial stages of the war the german artillery was superior later though the british commonwealth perfected combining artillery with infantry charges but it took them till like 1917 to do so. and this was more a matter of organization than of equipment.

[Umeu]

Maybe the Turks could be allowed artillery capability but with the restriction that they can only build one such unit during the course of the war. Or something like that, anyway.

Even without a restrictive rule the Turks would rarely have enough PP's to be able to buy ammunition on the scale the British can.

will also be covered in the section of balancing artillery, atm the CP are at a huge disadvantage which will easily cost them the game in the long run. the brits can simply invest all the convoys in buying ammo points and then mass like 3-4 artillery and whatever front they will send these guns to will collapse in a matter of turns.

[Aryaman]

I have a proposal, what if, instead of looking for balancing the game as our first target we look for a more historical game? After all the real war lasted for 4 years, and the Germans were on the brink of winning, I mean, it was really balanced historically, we could try that way and readjust afterwards if necessary for the limits of the game system.

Some ideas about this

1) A more accurate OOB. Just to throw some data, Standing armies in August 1914
Germany 1.700.00
Austria: 1.500.000
Russia: 1.200.000 (not counting units in the Far East and Caucasus)
France: 1.070.000
Serbia: 230.00
Belgium: 117.000
BEF: 110.000


Reserves mobilized by the end of 1914 /in the whole war
Russia
5,971,000
12,000,000
France
4,017,000
8,410,000
Great Britain
975,000
8,905,000
Italy
1,251,000
5,615,000
United States
200,000
4,355,000
Germany
4,500,000
11,000,000
Austria-Hungary
3,000,000
7,800,000

We could work from the real data on and see how the adjust to balance, the same with naval units, of course. I have basically all the relevant data available to make this possible.

[Aryaman]

One area of imbalance, I think, concerns the Turks. If the British put an artillery unit down in Cairo then they can usually smash up the Turkish army and force them right back to Anatolia. I don't know enough about the history to say whether this is realistic or not either - my suspicion is that it isn't. The Turks would certainly of had some artillery capability and maybe the British didn't have such a superiority in that arm? Maybe the Turks could be allowed artillery capability but with the restriction that they can only build one such unit during the course of the war. Or something like that, anyway.

Actually, the Ottoman army was very weak in artillery, half the divisional artillery was made up of old preQF 87mm Krupp guns. Worst still, there was not a single manufacture of gun ammunition within the Empire.
The inbalance problem with the British in Egypt is that they are allowed to recruit units directly in Alexandria. At an early Betra stage that was not possible and the British had to ship reinforcements to Egypt, much more historical, but it was found that an Ottoman player (or even the AI) can easily overrun Egypt before reinforcements arrived. Historically the Ottoman had no resources to mount such attack. it took them until February 1915 to mount a single corps attack on Egypt.

EDIT: IMO if possible the best way to reinforce the Ottoman position would be
1) Do not allow the British to recruit in Egypt, forcing them to send reinforcements by sea transports
2) If possible, reduce the supply available in desert hexes, that has been used in CEAW with great success to simulate Desert warfare. It would be also historically sound, the British didn try a general offensive through the Suez desert until they built a railroad to supply their forces there.

[stockwellpete]

Actually, the Ottoman army was very weak in artillery, half the divisional artillery was made up of old preQF 87mm Krupp guns. Worst still, there was not a single manufacture of gun ammunition within the Empire.
The inbalance problem with the British in Egypt is that they are allowed to recruit units directly in Alexandria. At an early Betra stage that was not possible and the British had to ship reinforcements to Egypt, much more historical, but it was found that an Ottoman player (or even the AI) can easily overrun Egypt before reinforcements arrived. Historically the Ottoman had no resources to mount such attack. it took them until February 1915 to mount a single corps attack on Egypt.

I suppose the problem is the imbalance bewteen the artillery capability of the Ottomans and the British. I have found these two links which suggest that neither side would have had artillery superiority in Sinai/Palestine . . .

http://www.worldwar1.com/neareast/ta.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_E ... nary_Force

EDIT: IMO if possible the best way to reinforce the Ottoman position would be
1) Do not allow the British to recruit in Egypt, forcing them to send reinforcements by sea transports
2) If possible, reduce the supply available in desert hexes, that has been used in CEAW with great success to simulate Desert warfare. It would be also historically sound, the British didn try a general offensive through the Suez desert until they built a railroad to supply their forces there.

Yes, they would help. I also think some way needs to be found for the weaker powers like the Ottomans and Serbia to have some level of artillery - even if it is a maximum of one unit of 5 strength points only.

[Aryaman]

Yes, they would help. I also think some way needs to be found for the weaker powers like the Ottomans and Serbia to have some level of artillery - even if it is a maximum of one unit of 5 strength points only.

I do not like the idea of giving arty to minor powers, it is not historically accurate, as I have exposed, and it gives offensive capabilities to armies that basically did little more than defend. IMO we should work on the opposite direction, reducing the power of artillery and increasing the cost, otherwise we risk ending with armies of artillery units with some infantry support instead of the opposite.

[stockwellpete]

I do not like the idea of giving arty to minor powers, it is not historically accurate, as I have exposed, and it gives offensive capabilities to armies that basically did little more than defend. IMO we should work on the opposite direction, reducing the power of artillery and increasing the cost, otherwise we risk ending with armies of artillery units with some infantry support instead of the opposite.

Well, that was why I was suggesting an upper limit of artillery units for the weaker powers. And if you made them 5 strength points instead of 10, and also started their ammunition level at 1 or 2 then they would not be too powerful. The other idea would be to have an option that, if chosen at the start of the game, would require players to build historically proportionate armies (by that I mean a roughly accurate balance of troop types e.g. the ratio of artillery to infantry to cavalry).

[Aryaman]

Well, that was why I was suggesting an upper limit of artillery units for the weaker powers. And if you made them 5 strength points instead of 10, and also started their ammunition level at 1 or 2 then they would not be too powerful. The other idea would be to have an option that, if chosen at the start of the game, would require players to build historically proportionate armies (by that I mean a roughly accurate balance of troop types e.g. the ratio of artillery to infantry to cavalry).

I think that ideally, the game should be designed so that players build historically proportionate to their advantage, while those that build extreme, nonhistorical armies can be easily defeated.

[stockwellpete]

I think that ideally, the game should be designed so that players build historically proportionate to their advantage, while those that build extreme, nonhistorical armies can be easily defeated.

Yes, I agree with that.

[Umeu]

I have a proposal, what if, instead of looking for balancing the game as our first target we look for a more historical game? After all the real war lasted for 4 years, and the Germans were on the brink of winning, I mean, it was really balanced historically, we could try that way and readjust afterwards if necessary for the limits of the game system.

Some ideas about this

1) A more accurate OOB. Just to throw some data, Standing armies in August 1914
Germany 1.700.00
Austria: 1.500.000
Russia: 1.200.000 (not counting units in the Far East and Caucasus)
France: 1.070.000
Serbia: 230.00
Belgium: 117.000
BEF: 110.000


Reserves mobilized by the end of 1914 /in the whole war
Russia
5,971,000
12,000,000
France
4,017,000
8,410,000
Great Britain
975,000
8,905,000
Italy
1,251,000
5,615,000
United States
200,000
4,355,000
Germany
4,500,000
11,000,000
Austria-Hungary
3,000,000
7,800,000

We could work from the real data on and see how the adjust to balance, the same with naval units, of course. I have basically all the relevant data available to make this possible.

regarding starting positions and armies, i suppose we could do that. but lets do that test game first

[Umeu]

Yes, they would help. I also think some way needs to be found for the weaker powers like the Ottomans and Serbia to have some level of artillery - even if it is a maximum of one unit of 5 strength points only.

I do not like the idea of giving arty to minor powers, it is not historically accurate, as I have exposed, and it gives offensive capabilities to armies that basically did little more than defend. IMO we should work on the opposite direction, reducing the power of artillery and increasing the cost, otherwise we risk ending with armies of artillery units with some infantry support instead of the opposite.

that is already pretty much possible with the allies, i played vs someone how had 3x or 4x my ammo production and 7 arty + more in production while i had 3 arty and was unable to make more or support the ammo production to use them. i was winning the infantry war but eventually the fronts collapsed under sustained artillery fire.

i do agree artillery should cause less raw casualties and that it probably should be more expensive. eitherway something needs to be done about the disparity. if it is not historically accurate to give the minor nations arty capacity as you pointed out we should increase the capacity for the austrians and the germans and/or reduce that of the allies.

(on a side note, didnt the germans send artillery to the turks?)

[Aryaman]

(on a side note, didnt the germans send artillery to the turks?)

Yes, they did, and as a player you can also send a german arty unit to the Turks as well.

I would choose the road to reduce arty in general rather than make it available to minors. I think that arty should be pretty inefficient against entrenched units the first years and increase effectiveness through tech levels at the end, from 1917 onwards.

[Umeu]

(on a side note, didnt the germans send artillery to the turks?)

Yes, they did, and as a player you can also send a german arty unit to the Turks as well.

I would choose the road to reduce arty in general rather than make it available to minors. I think that arty should be pretty inefficient against entrenched units the first years and increase effectiveness through tech levels at the end, from 1917 onwards.

you can send the artillery but you generally cant afford to, neither to miss the piece or if you can miss the pp to make an additional piece you do not have the ammo. an abstraction would be to make arty available for the ottomans once the constantinople express opens (when bulgaria joins)

[stockwellpete]

Home defence would be another area to consider at some point - for example, the UK would not be completely empty of troops as it sometimes is in the game.