We want feedback on GS v2.0 game balance

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:45 pm

It was pretty much consensus that GS v1.0 was slightly biased in favor of the Allies. We made numerous changes that would make this balance better, but it's possible we've done too little or maybe too much. We want your feedback on that.

We're working on a patch for GS v2.0 that might be out in August. So far we've only collected and fixed minor bugs that only occur in very rare situations. We hold the patch until we have collected enough bugs and possible game balance tweaks.

For game balance we want to get your feedback about how you feel the game balance is. Please vote on A and B what you think and give a short explanation to your vote.

A. Game balance
1. The Axis to way too strong.
2. The Axis is too strong.
3. The Axis is slightly too strong.
4. Both sides seem pretty balanced.
5. The Allies is slightly too strong.
6. The Allies is too strong.
7. The Allies is way too strong.

B. Imbalance areas (please specify)
1. Production levels
2. At start war effort
3. War effort progress
4. Oil consumption
5. Manpower
6. Starting tech levels
7. Tech progress
8. Production
9. Number of units
10. Other

We want those of you who have completed games to tell me which side won and the victory level for that side. We want that statistics to check how the game balance is in GS v2.0

dhucul2011 · Post by **dhucul2011** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:00 am

The balance is very good but it is the AI that skews the game.

Unfortunately I don't think that you plan on addressing the issues.

The USSR fails to protect Moscow or the Caucasus very effectively. Instead it masses every unit it purchases into Estonia for some reason.

After Sealion the USA sends dozens of unprotected transports to the English Channel and just sits there.

The only balance item that may need to be addressed is the manpower levels for Italy. At one point I had over 40 Italian garrisons on the map. Too much?

CetrixFR · Post by **CetrixFR** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:54 am

I think that it is balanced, but not everywhere. I agree to dhucul2011, sometimes the IA isnt smart... well, it's only IA, but there are absurd situations. In my current game with Axis :
- USSR doesnt protect caucasus
- USSR is too defensive after 1942 (i am in 1945 and I surround Moscow... they dont have a lot of troops ! seems they have too low production points)
- Allies tries too much amphibious attacks early in the game, it's easy to win at the western front.
- UK doesnt attack in Libya ! I've lost all Italians troops but the stand still at libyan/egyptian borders since 3 years.
- IA doesnt do paratroops (or maybe i've missed it)
- No partisans in Norway (intentionnal?)

By the way, it is all around fair.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:10 am

I had test hotseat by myself , If Axis & Ally both make no mistake , Axis has no chance to win( survive in June 1945)

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:23 pm

Morris wrote:I had test hotseat by myself , If Axis & Ally both make no mistake , Axis has no chance to win( survive in June 1945)

I didn't understand that one. If the Axis can survive till June 1945 they will win.

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:40 pm

The play balance issues deal with the PBEM or HotSeat style of play. Not against the AI.

Thanks.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:52 pm

It's not possible to balance GS v2.0 vs the AI without making it unbalanced against PBEM and hotseat. The AI will never play as well as a real player, especially on the offense. Since our focus was PBEM and not AI then you can't expect the AI to challenge you.

You couldn't do that in vanilla CeaW either and not in most other games as well. Making a good AI is very hard, unless you allow the AI to cheat considerably. Some games do that to compensate for poor AI and I don't like that. I want the AI to have the same production etc. as I have.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:39 am

I did mean on the base of pbem & hotseat between equal experienced player ( I have given up any AI for at least one year )

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:43 am

I know if the axis can survive in June 1945 ,Axis win . But I believe they will die before that time ( between same level expericened player & both no mistakes )

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:31 am

I don't think we have enough info yet, hence the request for feedback.

What I do know so far is that if the Germans make no mistakes then the Allies have to be creative - you can't just wait like the old days.

Its a learning process, my first go as the Allies saw me make a couple of mistakes - not big and I got nowhere against the Axis, granted that was against a better player.

In my second game I managed to catch the German's slightly overcommitted in winter and will win that game and again thats against a better player (happy me).

Still a way to go I think.

Bern · Post by **Bern** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:49 am

Stauffenberg wrote:It's not possible to balance GS v2.0 vs the AI without making it unbalanced against PBEM and hotseat. The AI will never play as well as a real player, especially on the offense. Since our focus was PBEM and not AI then you can't expect the AI to challenge you.

You couldn't do that in vanilla CeaW either and not in most other games as well. Making a good AI is very hard, unless you allow the AI to cheat considerably. Some games do that to compensate for poor AI and I don't like that. I want the AI to have the same production etc. as I have.

I wonder. Would it not be possible to make balance changes specifically for play against the AI and offer such changes as a game option.

Since returning to this game following your excellent changes, I have played five games up to the fall of France against the Axis AI. The best result the latter has achieved is to defeat France one month prior to the USSR DOW. Interestingly, however, in each game, once Belgium surrenders, the AI has done a first rate job of quickly destroying French resistance and taking Paris.

The key, therefore, at least in the early stages of the game, would seem to be the Axis AI failing to achieve the defeat of Poland to Belgium within a reasonable time frame. Is there not a case for addressing the strengths of the units of Poland, Holland, Denmark and Belgium to provide the Axis AI with the possibility of its historical gains.

Two other factors would also assist in this area. The first would be to prevent the reinforcement of the Brussels garrison and the second would be to stop the Axis DOW of Switzerland. I'm assuming these are coded into the game however - a pity.

Bern

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:14 am

Hi duncan , Is the pbem you mentioned the second one you play ally is the one you play with me?

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:32 pm

Sadly not!

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:47 am

it seems you start counter back by the siberian guards

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:27 pm

Some feedback from my on going games.

Firstly, I want to make some comments scenario by scenario:

Case Blue: BEF blob possibility definitely removed so in my games me and my opponents (unfortunately a few of my games have been stopped because of my short free time

) have achieved more and more historical fall of France dates. Objectives has been completely achieved here.

Sea lion: slightly easier for the germans than before because of the new para units and because of 1939 blitzkrieg strategy resulting in early fall of France dates. I would remove the french morale loss in case of a 1939 invasion and conquest of Belgium. It almost has no sense that the french have a morale loss when they actually are mobilized and fighting against the germans. Anyway, Sea lion it continued to be a risky operation for the germans and a fight for surviving for the brits.

Norway: I see more and more people not invading Norway. May be it has little incentives. An expanded map (which unfortunately won´t be possible) with all norwegian territory inside the map and with the soviet convoys making all their way to Murmansk would add a new dimension to this scenario but right now this scenario doesn´t seem to give much interest to the players.

North Africa and Italy: IMO here the objectives have been achieved too. This scenario has gained a lot of interest and the historical time frames have been also much improved.

Barbarossa: definitely, the most improved scenario in GS 2.00. This scenario has been changed in such a way that right now is surely the most interesting. All can happens now in Eastern front and the players have to do well both with russians and with germans. German armour blob strategy with all the updates made to the game won´t be able to ruin the game any more.

D-Day. IMO, may be the less historically represented scenario in GS 2.00: the germans use to be so engaged fighting against the russians and in Italy-Sicily that they are only able to man Sigfried line fortresses and to dig in there waiting for the allied to attack. May be some extra german units spawning in Pas-de-Calais, simulating german reserves activated to face the invasion could make more historical this scenario.

Second, I would like to comment some other things and to give some ideas that could help to improve the game even more in the future:

Improved fog of war: the game would gain much in terms of realism and challenge if we could "see" the enemy units but NOT their actual strength and tech level. It would only have to be possible to see strength and tech level of the enemy units in ZOC. No wargame outhere gives the players such a complete information about the rearguard enemy units as CEAW GS gives. Even tactical wargames give a shorter fog of war of enemy rearguard units and CEAW is not a tactical but a strategical wargame. So with this improved fog of war, spotting ranges of the units would be the same but we wouldn´t be able to see ALL as it is now.

Another thing regarding with an improved fog of war would be the possibility of hidding the type of amphibious unit embarked in a naval transport UNTIL they make an attack against an enemy occupied coastal hex. This simulate that not ALL the corps unit is an amphibious unit (no amphibious corps sized units existed) but only regimental or battalion sized units attached to the corps have amphibious capability.

PBEM server: We would have to definitely remove the possibility of people replaying turns from the game with a pbem server. Probably CEAW GS is the wargame in which to replay turns is the easiest thing to do. No other wargame out there makes the things so easy for the cheaters than GS. Finally, we would have to definitely have a look at this if we don´t want to see people losing interest in the game because of this reason.

pzgndr · Post by **pzgndr** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:04 pm

Bern wrote:
I wonder. Would it not be possible to make balance changes specifically for play against the AI and offer such changes as a game option...

The key, therefore, at least in the early stages of the game, would seem to be the Axis AI failing to achieve the defeat of Poland to Belgium within a reasonable time frame. Is there not a case for addressing the strengths of the units of Poland, Holland, Denmark and Belgium to provide the Axis AI with the possibility of its historical gains.

Bern

Agreed. One option is to create separate Axis and Allied scenarios where the AI starts with additional units, specifically for single player play balance versus the computer opponent. This appears to be doable right now by text editting the scenario files, but somewhat cumbersome. The GS 2.0 developers used a "special" editor to create the campaigns. Wouldn't it be nice to make this available to other modders too?

Another possibility could be to use the new "spawned units" capability in the general.txt file, but one needs a secret decoder ring to figure out how to use this special feature. If this could be expanded just a little to designate either Axis or Allied AI-only spawned units, then this could be used in lieu of creating separate scenarios.

Firstly, there needs to be some acknowledgement from the developers that game balance versus the AI needs some more support than has been forthcoming. This seems to be taboo?

Schnurri · Post by **Schnurri** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:51 pm

I have completed a number of 2.0. As Axis I almost always used the close the Med strategy. Against elite players I've lost every time. Against inexperienced players I have been extremely successful and generally taken Russia out - even activated the Turks as well as the Spanish. Against medium to higher skilled players it has been very even - won some, lost some, but only barely. In the few Allied games I've played I've been badly beaten by the Axis against elite players and split evenly against other players. In my opinion, the game is balanced fairly well and the major determining factor is the skill of the player plus some random events that might throw the game one way or the other for evenly matched players. Axis can only truly win (beyond just the victory conditions) when the Axis player is more skilled. IMHO.

PionUrpo · Post by **PionUrpo** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:08 pm

leridano wrote: Sea lion: slightly easier for the germans than before because of the new para units and because of 1939 blitzkrieg strategy resulting in early fall of France dates. I would remove the french morale loss in case of a 1939 invasion and conquest of Belgium. It almost has no sense that the french have a morale loss when they actually are mobilized and fighting against the germans. Anyway, Sea lion it continued to be a risky operation for the germans and a fight for surviving for the brits.

I think the best thing in GS2.0 Sealion is the threat not actually execution of it. Allied player can't strip the defenses of Britain almost bare to boost Egypt/Med until Barbarossa is certain. Previously any '41 Sealion would've likely been suicide for Axis and most of British units could be sent to kick Axis from Africa.

leridano wrote: Norway: I see more and more people not invading Norway. May be it has little incentives. An expanded map (which unfortunately won´t be possible) with all norwegian territory inside the map and with the soviet convoys making all their way to Murmansk would add a new dimension to this scenario but right now this scenario doesn´t seem to give much interest to the players.

I rarely skip Norway unless pulling Sealion (very rare for me as well). Ok, I haven't really bothered calculating if it's + or - PP overall but it usually seems a good idea to me.

leridano wrote: North Africa and Italy: IMO here the objectives have been achieved too. This scenario has gained a lot of interest and the historical time frames have been also much improved.

Agreed, now Torch is almost a must for me. Previously I hadn't even tried.

leridano wrote: Barbarossa: definitely, the most improved scenario in GS 2.00. This scenario has been changed in such a way that right now is surely the most interesting. All can happens now in Eastern front and the players have to do well both with russians and with germans. German armour blob strategy with all the updates made to the game won´t be able to ruin the game any more.

Improved very much indeed, but as long as Axis player has decent punch left in '42 the Soviets are IMO bit too obligated to run for their lives. Any stand between Donets and Don will likely end in massacre of Red Army. The Don line (roughly historical line) is very hard to keep if Allied player wants to have enough units left for a winter offensive. The recent beta additions might remedy this though.

EDIT: for the actual vote...

More of a gut feeling than anything empiric from those games I've played so far (beta and regular)

For A I'd go for something between 3 and 4
For B I really can't say for sure but tech levels seem to be bit of an issue so maybe 3, 6 and 7 in some combination.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:42 pm

leridano wrote:Some feedback from my on going games.
Norway: I see more and more people not invading Norway. May be it has little incentives. An expanded map (which unfortunately won´t be possible) with all norwegian territory inside the map and with the soviet convoys making all their way to Murmansk would add a new dimension to this scenario but right now this scenario doesn´t seem to give much interest to the players.

The possibility for the Allies to interdict the Swedish iron ore should be an incentive for the Axis to conquer Norway so the Kriegsmarine can be located in the Norwegian ports to prevent the interdiction. With no Axis units in Norway the Allies can easily send naval units to interdict the Swedish iron ore route when the sea weather is rough.

If the Allies have one naval unit more than the Axis adjacent to a Norwegian city then the iron ore is halved. If the Allies have 2 naval units more than the Axis then the iron ore is completely stopped for the turn. Since the iron ore is 6 PP's multiplied by war effort it means the Germans could lose about 7 PP's per turn by not having Norway. That comes in addition to losing the 3 PP's per turn from conquered Norwegian resources.

Losing 10 PP's per turn for about 7 turns (approximate number of rough sea weather turns per year) and 3 PP's per turn for 11 turns it means the Axis will lose 70+33 = 103 PP's per year. That's about 3 corps units per year. OK, you need to garrison some Norwegian cities and launch an invasion, but you should be able to gain PP's from taking Norway because Norway often stays Axis until the end of the war.

_Augustus_ · Post by **_Augustus_** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:33 am

With no Axis units in Norway the Allies can easily send naval units to interdict the Swedish iron ore route when the sea weather is rough.

Just curious what's the logic behind restricting this only to rough seas?

The manual states "can only be interdicted if the weather in the iron ore hex is not fair"[Emphasis mine]. Since the iron hex is in Sweden in North/East Europe weather zone it could have a different weather than Central Europe weather. The latter I believe determines the rough seas for the Atlantic, right. So just making sure is the weather for iron hex used and does that particular hex make belong to northern or central zone?

Cheers,

_augustus_