Armor and Mech Blob - What Needs to Be Done?

[rkr1958]

What if axis go barbarossa in 1939?
USSR will go deep below 0 PP with their mechs.

I haven't work the numbers but I don't think this will be an issue. In 1939 Soviet mechs will use 1 oil point and the initital Soviet oil level is 100. Even with a limit of 3 and the Soviets having 10 (?) mech this would only be 7 oil points per turn. And, with a DOW the Baku oil fields go back to Russia and their war effort starts to ramp up.

[Morris]

I really believe this adjustment is not necessary . let's see .

[LOGAN5]

why dont we just make tanks cost 100 instead of 80, problem solved.

[trulster]

Could it be that a simple fix to this "blob" problem is to not make Russia as weak at Barbarossa start (due to the massive efficiency loss)?

[Plaid]

why dont we just make tanks cost 100 instead of 80, problem solved.

It will affect normal strategies. Axis already in short of PP when building normal armies, why should they have even less?

[richardsd]

the Axis is very strong early in the game - at the moment the new rules mean players are still getting used to using this effectively

you can get caught out being to aggressive as the German's but careful planning and experience will see the Germans in total ascendancy until 42

[richardsd]

so I mean the German's shouldn't be punished by 100pp ARM - the players will get more used to new rules

[gerones]

Could it be that a simple fix to this "blob" problem is to not make Russia as weak at Barbarossa start (due to the massive efficiency loss)?

Read this taken from Army Historical Series:

In June 1941, the Soviet forces, the army in particular, were in a state of flux. In part it involved modernization and expansion, which had been going on throughout the 1930s and at an accelerated rate after war broke out in September 1939. Most immediately, the changes were an effort to act upon the lessons learned in the war with Finland. Mannerheim, the Finnish Army's commander in chief, had compared the Soviet performance in that war to that of a badly conducted orchestra in which the players could not keep time. The trouble had not been primarily with manpower or equipment. Despite Soviet deficiencies in the latter, the Finnish Army had been so much smaller and more lightly armed that equipment should not have been a significant factor. Inexperience had counted heavily at all levels but most particularly in the upper ranks. Purges in the mid-1930s had carried away many senior officers who had been hurriedly replaced by men advanced from posts far down the line. Beyond that, the Finnish War had exposed deep-seated rigidity, lack of initiative, and failure to grant and to assume responsibility. Since these failings stemmed directly from the autocracy Stalin had imposed to maintain his own position and that of the Communist Party, they were extraordinarily difficult to correct.

It seems that the soviet preparedness for war by june 1941 was not the best. They have made a poor performance during finnish war that showed this to the world and by june 1941 they were caught busy in a process of modernization and optimization that was completely broken by the german invasion. Stalin´s purges had much to do with this: many good officers were executed or sent to Siberia. To this we would have to add that the german invasion really caused an immense chaos (disrupting soviet communications, etc). Inexperienced officers giving inappropriate orders to the units resulted in more and more chaos causing that tons of russian units were encircled and surrendered to the germans in the very first weeks of the invasion.

So IMO, CEAW-GS reflects this well with this 30 efficiency loss in russian units. On the other hand, being this a high efficiency loss, german efficiency loss of 35 due to severe winter in 1941 is still higher than the soviet one.

[ferokapo]

This is an interesting discussion. I have expanded a little on my original thoughts about the problem:

There are three factors that determine the use of units in game:

1. Production Points, used for building and overuse of infrastructure
2. Oil Points, used for using (moving and attacking) with units that have increased logistical needs such as spare parts, more ammunitions, and fuel.
3. Supply as a abstract concept based on distance to supply centers.
(4. Manpower has an effect, but it's exactly the same for all units)

The Armor/Mech Blob has two factors that make it unrealistic:

1. Not enough assembly lines were actually available to produce that many vehicles.
2. Supplying mechanized/armored units actually takes up more logistical capacity than supplying a unit of infantry.
3. Higher training demands, although this applies mostly to airplanes and to a lesser extend tanks.

Concerning factor one, Production Points are unspecific, thus you can produce thousands of tanks one turn and hundreds of airplanes the next. This is very unrealistic. Concerning factor two, this is partly represented by oil, but probably not enough. Plus, there is unlimited storage capacity, which might be unrealistic, too. Concerning factor three, I think this is balanced, because later in the game air units and tanks suffer the same quality penalties as other units, while it would make sense that the best new recruits get trained as pilots, so that the manpower penalty should not apply fully to them.

Looking at this, I see the following solutions, some of which I have already mentioned in a previous post:

1. Introduce a total upper limit and a production-per-turn limit on the number of armored/mechanized/air units. If a new unit is build when any of the two limits is exceeded, the production cost should be increased drastically. This represents the problem of adjusting the industrial capacities to a certain type of product.
2. Raise the base oil consumption of armor/mechanized/air units, but reduce the increase through tech. This represents the much higher base cost of supplying mechanized units in the field.
3. Reduce the starting oil available to the Axis. AFAIK, fuel was a problem right from the start, because stockpiles were low.

I think these measures could prevent:

1. The USSR from building several dozen mechs in a few turns.
2. The Axis from using 15 tank corps as early as 1941.

[Morris]

do you think it is enough to defeat me ?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If we had been in beta testing then we could have tried this out, but GS v2.0 is actually pretty well balanced with normal play. So the best solution now is to find a way to prevent Blob exploit without altering the game balance for normal play.

One way to do this could be to make the unit price be dependent upon the limit.

E. g. armor costs 80 up to the limit. Then the cost for purchasing could increase by 10% for each unit will get above the limit.

E. g. time is 1940 and the limit is 5. You can build so you have 5 armor for 80 PP's per unit. Armor #6 will cost 80 *1.1 = 88 PP's.
Armor # 7 will cost 80 * 1.1 * 1.1 = 97 PP and so on.

Let's take the 1941 armor blob with 15 armor. Limit is 7. We assume all units are built in 1941 and no over limit in 1940.

Over use cost will be: 80 * 1.1 + 80 * 1.1^2 + 80 * 1.1^3 + ... + 80* 1.1^8 - 80*8 = 366 PP's

Over use will be like:
1: 8
2: 25
3: 51
4: 88
5: 137
6: 199
7: 274
8: 366

For mechs the numbers will be:
1: 5
2: 16
3: 32
4: 55
5: 85
6: 124
7: 171
8: 228

By doing this we won't penalize the Russians for having more than the limit number of mechs at the game start. They will only be penalized for building new units.

This rule would make an incremental cost for overusing the limit because you strain your production capacity.

[ferokapo]

If we had been in beta testing then we could have tried this out, but GS v2.0 is actually pretty well balanced with normal play. So the best solution now is to find a way to prevent Blob exploit without altering the game balance for normal play.

One way to do this could be to make the unit price be dependent upon the limit.

E. g. armor costs 80 up to the limit. Then the cost for purchasing could increase by 10% for each unit will get above the limit.

E. g. time is 1940 and the limit is 5. You can build so you have 5 armor for 80 PP's per unit. Armor #6 will cost 80 *1.1 = 88 PP's.
Armor # 7 will cost 80 * 1.1 * 1.1 = 97 PP and so on.

Let's take the 1941 armor blob with 15 armor. Limit is 7. We assume all units are built in 1941 and no over limit in 1940.

Over use cost will be: 80 * 1.1 + 80 * 1.1^2 + 80 * 1.1^3 + ... + 80* 1.1^8 - 80*8 = 366 PP's

Over use will be like:
1: 8
2: 25
3: 51
4: 88
5: 137
6: 199
7: 274
8: 366

For mechs the numbers will be:
1: 5
2: 16
3: 32
4: 55
5: 85
6: 124
7: 171
8: 228

By doing this we won't penalize the Russians for having more than the limit number of mechs at the game start. They will only be penalized for building new units.

This rule would make an incremental cost for overusing the limit because you strain your production capacity.

My thoughts exactly. This exactly what I had in mind for my first possible measure. I had listed all measures that I could think of, but a PP penalty for overuse of production facilities is the best, IMHO, because it's the most straightforward. That way, you don`t have to rebalance oil levels and consumption, which I understand would require a lot of play testing.

[Aryaman]

I think there is a problem in general with mech units, because historically they were a luxury but in the game they are a bargain. The German army was overwhelmengly an army of Infantry divisions, but in the game it pays to produce Mech instead of infantry, you get much more upgrades, less consume of manpower and a unit that is all around considerably better than normal Infantry. As Allied after 1942 you don´t even consider to produce normal infantry, even for Soviets, instead of hordes of Soviet Infantry units you produce Mechs

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We can then also use a similar system for overuse of oil. This means the standard oil use for the units will be a function of how many units you have above the limit. We increase by 5% for each overuse.

Let's say the German armor use 4 oil per unit in May 1941 and you have 3 units above the limit.

That means the oil use of all armor units will be: 4 * 1.05^3 = 5.3 oil
Oil cost will be like this:
Overuse 1: 4.2
Overuse 2: 4.4
Overuse 3: 4.6
Overuse 4: 4.8
Overuse 5: 5.1
Overuse 6: 5.3
Overuse 7: 5.6
Overuse 8: 5.9

So if you have 15 armor units running and attacking half the time you pay 15*5.9 = 88.5 oil
for moving and 15*5.9/2 = 44 oil for attacking = 132.5 oil.

The old penalty rule meant double oil cost for the overused units: 8*4 = 32 extra
Movement = 4*15 = 60 oil + attacking = 4*15/2 = 30 oil. = 122 oil in total.
With no penalty you would have paid 4*15 + 4*15/2 = 90 oil.

For 12 armor units you pay: 12*5.1 = 61.2 oil for movement and 61.2/2 = 30.6 oil for attacking.
Total: 91.8 oil
With old penalty you paid: 5*4 + 12*4 + 12*4/2 = 92 oil
With no penalty ou paid 12*4 + 12*4/2 = 72 oil

For 9 armor units you pay: 9*4.4 = 39.6 oil for movement and 39.6/2 = 19.8 oil for attacking.
Total: 59,4 oil
With old penalty you paid: 2*4 + 9*4 + 9*4/2 = 62 oil
With no penalty you paid: 9*4 + 9*4/2 = 54 oil

With overuse of 2 you use 5.4 extra oil with new system and 8 extra oil with old system
So with overuse of 5 you use 20 extra oil with both the old and new system
With overuse of 8 you use 42.5 extra oil with the new system and 32 extra oil with the old system

This system creates increasing penalties and you will only be penalized if you actualy use the armor units. You can counter it a bit by railing units towards the front whenever possible.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If the PP overuse costs are too much we can let the cost increase by 5% per overuse. Then the results would be:
Mech Unit cost: Initial cost: 50
+1: 53
+2: 55
+3: 59
+4: 61
+5: 64
+6: 67
+7: 70
+8: 74

Accumulated overuse cost:
+1: 3
+2: 8
+3: 16
+4: 26
+5: 40
+6: 57
+7: 77
+8: 101

Armor Unit cost: Initial cost: 80
+1: 84
+2: 88
+3: 93
+4: 97
+5: 102
+6: 107
+7: 113
+8: 118

Accumulated overuse cost:
+1: 4
+2: 12
+3: 25
+4: 42
+5: 64
+6: 91
+7: 123
+8: 162

So to have things consistent for PP's and oil we could have the increase cost for purchase (PP's) and use (oil) and use the 5% increase factor per overuse level. This way you can get away with a slight overuse, but if you go all the way you pay dearly.

A good thing is that you won't be penalized for having too many units if you don't use them. You pay for buying them and for using them. So USSR won't pay PP's for their extra mechs. They only pay the extra cost to get more mechs until the limit is increased or they have lost enough units to battle. So we don't need a special rule for the Russians.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think there is a problem in general with mech units, because historically they were a luxury but in the game they are a bargain. The German army was overwhelmengly an army of Infantry divisions, but in the game it pays to produce Mech instead of infantry, you get much more upgrades, less consume of manpower and a unit that is all around considerably better than normal Infantry. As Allied after 1942 you don´t even consider to produce normal infantry, even for Soviets, instead of hordes of Soviet Infantry units you produce Mechs

The western Allies usually had motorised infantry instead of regular infantry. So it's natural for them to get mechs. The Russians need mechs to be able to break through the German defense line. The same with the Allies. Without use of mechs they will take too heavy casualties. Armor units can make a hole, but those are so expensive and can be bombarded by the German Luftwaffe. So the Allies are more robust on the offensive if they can have more offensive units and use corps units for holding lines.

With changes to make overuse harder then the Germans won't have the economy to build hordes of mechs. Corps units have no limits and burn no oil so it's good for them to have many corps units. Mechs are used to capture cities and destroy Allied units. I don't think it was unlikely for the Germans to build a stronger mech force than they actually did. The Panzergrenadier units performed very well. Oil issues were partly the reason not more were formed.

I actually think the balance of units work well now to have a pretty historical simulation. What disrupts the balance is the blob strategies. Those are very hard to fight against.

[Aryaman]

I agree about the Western Allies, but the Soviets did have very little Mech Corps, much more Tank corps and a lot of Infantry corps, in the game usually you see comparatively few Soviet Infantry and Tanks for the reasons you explained, so the soviet army does look odd. I think the game should make atractive for the Soviet player to build those mass infantry armies they built, sorry if this should be posted in another thread.

[rkr1958]

Could it be that a simple fix to this "blob" problem is to not make Russia as weak at Barbarossa start (due to the massive efficiency loss)?

Read this taken from Army Historical Series:

In June 1941, the Soviet forces, the army in particular, were in a state of flux. In part it involved modernization and expansion, which had been going on throughout the 1930s and at an accelerated rate after war broke out in September 1939. Most immediately, the changes were an effort to act upon the lessons learned in the war with Finland. Mannerheim, the Finnish Army's commander in chief, had compared the Soviet performance in that war to that of a badly conducted orchestra in which the players could not keep time. The trouble had not been primarily with manpower or equipment. Despite Soviet deficiencies in the latter, the Finnish Army had been so much smaller and more lightly armed that equipment should not have been a significant factor. Inexperience had counted heavily at all levels but most particularly in the upper ranks. Purges in the mid-1930s had carried away many senior officers who had been hurriedly replaced by men advanced from posts far down the line. Beyond that, the Finnish War had exposed deep-seated rigidity, lack of initiative, and failure to grant and to assume responsibility. Since these failings stemmed directly from the autocracy Stalin had imposed to maintain his own position and that of the Communist Party, they were extraordinarily difficult to correct.

I say a stat where Stalin had purged (i.e., executed) 90% of his general officers and 60% of his lower ranking officers.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

do you think it is enough to defeat me ?

Yes.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I agree about the Western Allies, but the Soviets did have very little Mech Corps, much more Tank corps and a lot of Infantry corps, in the game usually you see comparatively few Soviet Infantry and Tanks for the reasons you explained, so the soviet army does look odd. I think the game should make atractive for the Soviet player to build those mass infantry armies they built, sorry if this should be posted in another thread.

Prior to the Summer of 1942 the Soviet tanks were organized in mech corps. This is what the game reflects.