UV playbalance - Oleg analysis

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

UV playbalance - Oleg analysis

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> UV playbalance - Oleg analysis

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

UV playbalance - Oleg analysis - 3/20/2003 10:21:18 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

With all this talk about playbalance lately, I decided to try (ahem) scientific methods in measuring the game balance.

All that follows is: a) based on scenarios 17 and 19 (PBEM favorites); b) subjective and based on personal opinion (mine), but feel free to drop in with your thoughts; c) made with FULL campaign in mind. As I wrote in different thread some players too often have problem to swallow their first losses and quit playing before full campaign gets into full swing.

Also, I am not commenting on whether something is realistic and/or historical, I am simply trying to measure each side's assets in game.

OK, so here we go. I divided each side's assets into several logical cathegories, awarding points to each side (100 points for each cathegory total). Of course, there are "war winning" cathegories, and marginal ones, so I alloted a "ponder", "weight" or a modifier (don't know what's a proper term in english) to each cathegory.

For instance - very important cathegory has a "ponder" (modifier) of 3, and marginal one, modifier of 0.5.

Let's go:

1.) Submarines. I'd say it's 50:50 here. Japs have larger and stronger subs and better torpedos, but US has better mines, and we all love to use subs for mine operations (don't we? :)). Also, Jap ASW is not as good as Allied (it's taken into account in this cathegory). As for "ponder" (modifier) I'd say it's 1,5 - subs are important, but not that important in a grand scheme of things.

So, overall, subs, IJN:USN 75:75 points.

(Only once I played with IJN sub doctrine on - and after 45 turns IJN subs haven't attacked ANYTHING, not once, so if that option is used, I don't know... just don't use that option :))

2.) Recon/intel. I'd say IJN has the advantage here, because of their excellent flying boats and many floatplanes, but let's not forget the all-seeing, and indestructible "Coastwatcher division", no, make it "Coastwatcher army" on every island, islet, shoal, and even in some shallow, island-less hexes. So it's 35:65 in favor of Allies. Ponder: 1,5.

Overall: IJN:USN 53:98

3.) Surface navy. Perhaps the only cathegory where IJN has clear advantage: 60:40. Unfortunatelly for IJN, surface navy cannot be "war winning" element in UV. Modifier of 1,5 is given in this cathegory (maybe 1 would be more realistic?). This cathegory is modifiable thru scenario settings, so if we put IJN ship allottment at 150 I'd say it's like 70:30 then, but let's not go there.

Overall: IJN:USN 90:60 points (modifiable using sliders up to 125:25)

4.) Engineers and base building capability. Oh my... 20:80 in favor of USN. This is very important cathegory, so a modifier of 2,5 is used.

Overall: IJN:USN 50:200 points.

5.) Infantry. Japs have excellent infantry, but Allies have numerical advantage. I'd say it's 45:55 in favor of Allies in #17, and perhaps 50:50 in #19. Ponder/modifier of 1,5 is used here.

Overall: IJN:USN 68:83 (#17) or 75:75 (#19) points

6.) Special forces. USN has paratroopers, IJN has not (which is somewhat ahistorical, because some SNLF units were used as paras in the opening stages of war). Anyway, it's 0:100, but the cathegory is quite marginal, so a modifier of 0,5 is used.

Overall: IJN:USN 0:50 points

7.) Transport. This cathegory comprises of naval and aerial transport assets. In naval transport assets sides are practicaly equal, but let's not forget those life-saving C47s! 40:60 in favor of Allies. This is fairly important cathegory so a ponder of 2 is used.

So overall: IJN:USN 80:120 points

8.) CV airforce. IJN has the early advantage here, but let's not forget we're dealing with LONG campaigns here. Let's say it's 45:55 in favor of USN (and I think I am being very kind to IJN here, but they get their toys early so let it be). This is very important asset (even if not used from ships, CV airwings are very important) so a ponder of 2,5 is used.

Overall: IJN:USN 113:138 points.

9.) Land based air. Ah, The Biggie. The War Winning Asset. And also the cathegory that is so much in favor of Allies it's not even funny. I'd say 25:75 in favor of Allies in scenario 17, and perhaps 35:65 in scenario 19, and I think I am being VERY kind to IJN in both cases). Biggest ponder is used in this cathegory - 3.

So overall IJN:USN 75:225 (#17) or 105:195 (#19)

Total overall in all cathegories is as follows:

In #17: Japan - 604 points, Allies - 1049 points.
In #19: Japan - 641 points, Allies - 1012 points.

This is not all. Japan is given their toys earlier than Allies, which this analysis does not take into account. Also, Japan has the possibility of sudden death victory. But if the Allies survive till 43, this analysis is pretty accurate I think...

PS. Using Ship commitment sliders it's possible to give or take 30-40 points on each side max.

Whaddya say? On mark or off mark?

Oleg

Post #: 1

- 3/20/2003 10:22:32 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

I wrote this longish post not seeing that in the meantime similar thread has already been started - sorry for that, should have posted under existing thread but does not matter I hope.

O.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 2

- 3/20/2003 1:00:08 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Thanks for your analysis. In general, as I posted in the other thread, I think the IJN has the greater challenge in scenario 17, though perhaps not as drastic as your numbers suggest.

I'm still not sure about 19, though. SoulBlazer is IJN vs me in that one, and he sure has lots of toys in July 42. Even so, if I can survive til 43, I look forward to that massive air power doing its thing.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 3

- 3/20/2003 2:29:02 PM

SoulBlazer

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline

From looking at the stats for both nations, by July 42 Japan could, in theory, have the following ammounts in action:

7 CV's
3 CVL's
7 BB's
15 (?) CA's and CL's each
Around 60 DD's

The Allies can have:
6 CV's
1 CVE
2 BB's
15 (?) CA's and CL's each
Around 60 DD's

This is for Sec 19. As you can see, they actually are pretty close to being even -- the main difference being the better quality of both Japanese planes and ships at this point in the war.

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 4

- 3/21/2003 8:26:12 PM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]From looking at the stats for both nations, by July 42 Japan could, in theory, have the following ammounts in action:

7 CV's
3 CVL's
7 BB's
15 (?) CA's and CL's each
Around 60 DD's

The Allies can have:
6 CV's
1 CVE
2 BB's
15 (?) CA's and CL's each
Around 60 DD's

This is for Sec 19. As you can see, they actually are pretty close to being even -- the main difference being the better quality of both Japanese planes and ships at this point in the war. [/B][/QUOTE]
Another factor is the Allies are on the defensive and only have to survive, they do not have to force the Japanese to battle. Being able to run away and wait for another day is a big advantage.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 5

- 3/21/2003 8:56:53 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

It would be interesting if you did exactly the same thing for 1942 ONLY and compaired the differences.

You are pretty much right on the money, except I would shift the effects of air power against both troops and ships because without applying it there, it doesn't do it justice. I know you have it a big modifier, but is it big enough? :D

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 6

- 3/22/2003 2:37:32 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Not a bad analysis. However, I think that a highly skilled Japanese player(meaning perfect play) can go to an automatic victory. (taking advantage of overwhelming assets early in the game) It is our good fortune that the vast majority of us are pretty much average players and can be expected to screw up at a critical point :-) That actually makes the game fun.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 7

- 3/22/2003 2:39:46 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crsutton
[B]Not a bad analysis. However, I think that a highly skilled Japanese player(meaning perfect play) can go to an automatic victory. (taking advantage of overwhelming assets early in the game) It is our good fortune that the vast majority of us are pretty much average players and can be expected to screw up at a critical point :-) That actually makes the game fun. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, that is exactly my point and has been for months: Jap player should be significantly more experienced than allied player to make the game balanced.

O.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 8