Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

1941 needs balancing

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Warplan Pacific >> 1941 needs balancing Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 4:18:54 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		I think everyone by now knows I am a huge fan of this game. I greatly want it to succeed so I can finally have that board game experience of the Pacific War on a computer. I also know that this is version 1.0 and there are going to be growing pains. This being said.....


The 1941 game needs some changes and better balancing.

2) Either Japan is overpowered or the Allies are to weak.
At first I thought it was the US was to weak and I feared lowering Japan's abilty because it would hamper their ability to get ready for the onslaught of the late war Allies. I wanted the US to be boosted, but I have come to realize that the only reason I want the US to be boosted is to limit Japan.

Currently Japan can take the entire DEI on turn 1.
The Phillipines will fall on either turn 1 or turn 2.
Singapore and Malaysia on turn 3 at the latest.
Rabaul falls turn 1.
Port Moresby on either turn 2 or 3.

Invasion of India and/or Australia isn't a question of if, but when.

All of this and the allies are little better than a speed bump.
Post #: 1
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 4:23:43 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline 		How far have you played against a human? Beta testers have said that the game rebalances in ‘43 ish.

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 2
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 4:30:52 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		Bump up the Allied A.I.
Update to 1.00.01

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 3
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 4:58:09 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline 		Edit: browser double post.

I think we need more data especially with regards to VP. While India or Australia INVASION per se may be a given, success isn’t.

< Message edited by eskuche -- 5/24/2021 4:59:07 PM >

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 4
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 5:05:06 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		First, I am just now playing my first human player. I am not talking about the AI, I am talking in general.

I can see that the game will "rebalance" and I know the idea of the game is not so much as what can Japan take, but the idea of the victory hexes and points. I understand it is not meant to recreate WW2, but the idea that Japan can do all the above so quickly might be a game, but it is not a simulation of WW2.

Look at it from a European Theatre view. Imagine if in WPE the game is setup so that the Axis conquer Poland, France, Norway, Yugoslavia, and most of Africa by November 1939. Is the answer that it rebalances in 41?

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 5
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 5:08:43 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline 		The difference is that that scenario would be impossible IRL for Europe but entirely possible for Japan were they to have the meta knowledge in the Pacific and throw caution to the wind.

I would still prefer that very low land/air be hidden or at least have a chance to, though, to have some risk for blind invasions.

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 6
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 5:54:05 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eskuche

The difference is that that scenario would be impossible IRL for Europe but entirely possible for Japan were they to have the meta knowledge in the Pacific and throw caution to the wind.

I would still prefer that very low land/air be hidden or at least have a chance to, though, to have some risk for blind invasions.


I am not sure what you are saying. I do not understand. Are you saying that the reason Japan took so long in real life is because they were two cautious? That they should have conquered the entire DEI, Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia, and Port Moresby by the end of January 1942?

If this is the claim you are making, I would love to see on what you base it on, other than you can do it in WPP.

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 7
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 5:56:57 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob
I am not sure what you are saying. I do not understand. Are you saying that the reason Japan took so long in real life is because they were two cautious? That they should have conquered the entire DEI, Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia, and Port Moresby by the end of January 1942?

If this is the claim you are making, I would love to see on what you base it on, other than you can do it in WPP.


I'm claiming that it was materially possible to, whereas it's not the in Europe due to political pressure and the territory/force setup. Of course, we can always criticize the surrender mechanics in the game. Maybe that is the way to have some change? Since there is only one city to take for DEI and Philippines maybe it should require that they have less than 50% of starting strength or something as well.

< Message edited by eskuche -- 5/24/2021 5:57:12 PM >

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 8
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 6:16:03 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		How was it materially possible? If it was materially possible then why didn't they do it? Are you making the claim that the Japanese military leaders of December 1941 were so incompetent that they didn't know how to conquer the resources that their country vitally needed?

On what, other than WPP, do you base the idea that the Japanese leaders in December 1941 where either to cautious or incompetent? Politically or materially, there was no way, IRL, the Japanese could have taken Borneo, the entire DEI, and the Philippines even by the end of January. IRL just because the Japanese take a city or port here and there doesn't mean all resistance collapses.

If you think Japan could have done all they they are doing in WPP then why couldn't the Germans have taken France, Poland, Norway, and Yugoslavia by November? What is stopping them?

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 9
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 6:39:49 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob

How was it materially possible? If it was materially possible then why didn't they do it? Are you making the claim that the Japanese military leaders of December 1941 were so incompetent that they didn't know how to conquer the resources that their country vitally needed?

On what, other than WPP, do you base the idea that the Japanese leaders in December 1941 where either to cautious or incompetent? Politically or materially, there was no way, IRL, the Japanese could have taken Borneo, the entire DEI, and the Philippines even by the end of January. IRL just because the Japanese take a city or port here and there doesn't mean all resistance collapses.

If you think Japan could have done all they they are doing in WPP then why couldn't the Germans have taken France, Poland, Norway, and Yugoslavia by November? What is stopping them?

Germans had fewer troops than the countries mentioned at the beginning of Blitzkrieg. Naval power for Scandinavian operations was by no means a guarantee, and France was an unexpected downfall.
On the other hand, assuming the troop TOEs and placement in WPP is relatively correct, they far outnumber the relevant defenders. And yes, I agree that just taking one city or two doesn't translate to full collapse IRL like it does in the game.

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 10
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 7:07:32 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline 		Well I am his opponent and he is welcome to come to Aus and India...

You will lose more than you gain.

Australia is worthless overall. Produces nothing...basically just ports that the US can take easily when they get ships.

India has some uses but you have to get through a narrow path before the UK shows up with corps that you are not able to defeat.


Newer Allied players will not be able to stop the Japanese until the figure out a few ways that they can.
Aus was invaded in my first game...I thought all was lost...then the US got transports and the Japanese lost most of their attacking force.


Give it time and let some players learn the roapes...the npeople will be complaining that the Allies are too strong

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 11
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 7:14:46 PM   
DaShox

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 7/4/2003
Status: offline 		I have played both the allies and Japanese in PBEM. I have spectacularly lost both. I'm learning the ropes one mistake at a time.

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 12
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 7:41:39 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		It does not matter whether I am Japan or the Allies.
I am not the best game player anyway. Usually I never progress past the AI because I am not any good. However...


I will leave it at this:

Just take your argument and put them in WPE.

Look at Europe 1939:
In 1939 a German division far out gunned anything the French or British had.
Germany had better planes and better doctrine.
Germany had 6 armored divisions and 100 infantry divisions.
France and Britain together had 100 divisions available. Poland had about 30 divisions and 12 Calvary Bde.
We know they fell quickly as they were outmaneuvered.


So knowing this why can't we make WPE where by the end of November 1939 Germany has routinely defeated Poland, France, and the British armies?
Shouldn't it be routine for the Axis player to be able to do that?



If Japan could have done IRL what WPP allows them to do and they didn't do it IRL then her military leaders in December 1941 where incompetent.


I am not saying that it might not make a good game, I am just saying that it does not resemble WW2.


And as far as Australia or India......why not both

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 13
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 7:57:41 PM   
Stelteck

 

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		Currently one thing that i found a little frustrating as the allied is the surrendering mecanism, making perhaps a little too easy the first japanese conquests.

Batavia fall. All dutch units disband, including an excellent fighter force and some garnison troops here and here.
Manilia fall. All philipine units disband, including for example the Davao garnison that is hardly ever attacked.

Maybe the surrendering mecanism is not necessary to the pacific theater and could be disabled, forcing the japanese to finish conquering all the territory by force ?

The alternative is that in my future game, i will go berserk with dutch/Philipino troops in order to inflict as many damage as possible because i know they will disband soon. I'am not sûre it will give an historical feeling.

< Message edited by Stelteck -- 5/24/2021 8:01:41 PM >

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 14
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 7:59:12 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Currently one thing that i found a little frustrating as the allied is the surrendering mecanism.

Batavia fall. All dutch units disband, including an excellent fighter force and some garnison troops here and here.
Manilia fall. All philipine units disband, including for example the Davao garnison that is hardly ever attacked.

Maybe the surrendering mecanism is not necessary to the pacific theater and could be disabled, forcing the japanese to finish conquering all the territory by force ?


Yes, this is what I’ve tried to convey above. Even India in one of my games is turning into “can IJA rush the last production center and autosurrender 250,000 men by doing so”

(in reply to Stelteck)
Post #: 15
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 8:06:11 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		Let me put it this way. I

Japan did not invade Sumatra until Feb 42. Fighting over in March.
I can give you fighting in Singapore practically over in Jan 42.
I can give you fighting in Philippines practically over in Feb 42.
I can give you fighting in Borneo practically over in Feb 42.

I mean this is a Corp/Army level game after all.

But as WPP now stands if you, as Japan, have not done the above are are not attacking Port Moresby and other areas by the end of turn 3 you either unlucky or not doing good.


Now take the same thing for WPE?
Would you say that WPE was okay if as the Axis player they were doing badly if they had not completely defeated France, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands by March 1940? I mean if you haven't defeated France by March 1940 you are just doing real bad.
By April 1940 should not Germany be turning to either Yugoslavia and the Balkans, North Africa, or the Soviet Union?

I haven't played enough WPE, so maybe that is how it plays out, but if so something isn't balanced right.




(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 16
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 8:22:43 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob

Let me put it this way. I

Japan did not invade Sumatra until Feb 42. Fighting over in March.
I can give you fighting in Singapore practically over in Jan 42.
I can give you fighting in Philippines practically over in Feb 42.
I can give you fighting in Borneo practically over in Feb 42.

I mean this is a Corp/Army level game after all.

But as WPP now stands if you, as Japan, have not done the above are are not attacking Port Moresby and other areas by the end of turn 3 you either unlucky or not doing good.


Now take the same thing for WPE?
Would you say that WPE was okay if as the Axis player they were doing badly if they had not completely defeated France, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands by March 1940? I mean if you haven't defeated France by March 1940 you are just doing real bad.
By April 1940 should not Germany be turning to either Yugoslavia and the Balkans, North Africa, or the Soviet Union?

I haven't played enough WPE, so maybe that is how it plays out, but if so something isn't balanced right.



You’re getting to setting up a straw man argument here. My initial conjecture (and I am not hard set on any side here, just exploring the question) was that Japan had enough forces to take these places in the span of the game time but did not do so not because of ability but because of some degree of caution (such as remaining neutral with DEI until other objectives were secure), I added the qualifier of “if game surrender rules existed IRL” which clearly is not the case historically. Germany barely got through with these about even number of troops and even then only so because of maneuver warfare. In WPP at stalemate areas like Burma and China, IJA cannot get through easily if at all.

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 17
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 8:30:38 PM   
YueJin

 

Posts: 243
Joined: 1/5/2015
Status: offline 		Give the Indian port garrisons 10/10 strength from the beginning and I think many issues are helped out for the allies. I've run it many times now on both allies and axis sides on hotseat and PBEM and Japan can easily take at least two of the ports on a turn 3 landing and the Indian front just collapses by the end of '42 every time. If they had the ability to hold out for a couple of turns under blockade it would force the Japanese to commit major fleet assets to take the ports which gives some counterplay options with night raids from Ceylon or the US carriers striking in the Solomons or India, wherever the Japanese carriers aren't.

Doing the same for the New Caledonia and Fiji garrisons would also make sense to me given how easy they are to blockade.

< Message edited by YueJin -- 5/24/2021 8:32:29 PM >

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 18
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 8:32:59 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eskuche

quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob
I am not sure what you are saying. I do not understand. Are you saying that the reason Japan took so long in real life is because they were two cautious? That they should have conquered the entire DEI, Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia, and Port Moresby by the end of January 1942?

If this is the claim you are making, I would love to see on what you base it on, other than you can do it in WPP.


I'm claiming that it was materially possible to, whereas it's not the in Europe due to political pressure and the territory/force setup. Of course, we can always criticize the surrender mechanics in the game. Maybe that is the way to have some change? Since there is only one city to take for DEI and Philippines maybe it should require that they have less than 50% of starting strength or something as well.


eskuche you really need to read up on the Japanese planning that went into the initial plans for the beginning of the war. As your comment shows you have very limited knowledge about Japan's capabilities.

Japan had a real lack of troop transports for invasions. They were hard pressed to invade where they did. Much less add additional invasion areas. Plus they had no idea that they would be as successful as they would be either. In addition, they had to divert cargo ships from supplying China and the Home Islands to support the invasions with resupply. And they did not have enough of just normal cargo ships either. They were always short changing one area of the Empire in order to support a different area.

As I have posted in other threads, the '41 start is a complete fantasy. Solely designed to be 'fun' for Japanese players.

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 19
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 8:43:08 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline 		That’s fine! I’ve expressed in multiple places that I’m not familiar with this theatre and this is good enough evidence for me that perhaps IJN landing craft should be titrated down or delayed a bit.

Edit: the port supply shipping has also been glaring in my eyes. There is always instant free full supply to any taken port.

< Message edited by eskuche -- 5/24/2021 8:57:31 PM >

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 20
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 8:44:52 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: YueJin

Give the Indian port garrisons 10/10 strength from the beginning and I think many issues are helped out for the allies. I've run it many times now on both allies and axis sides on hotseat and PBEM and Japan can easily take at least two of the ports on a turn 3 landing and the Indian front just collapses by the end of '42 every time. If they had the ability to hold out for a couple of turns under blockade it would force the Japanese to commit major fleet assets to take the ports which gives some counterplay options with night raids from Ceylon or the US carriers striking in the Solomons or India, wherever the Japanese carriers aren't.

Doing the same for the New Caledonia and Fiji garrisons would also make sense to me given how easy they are to blockade.


Yep, Japanese reach is limited only by how well the player plans and distributes small landing forces at this point (and how well Allies can threaten an all in maneuver on smaller IJN fleets.

(in reply to YueJin)
Post #: 21
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 8:50:32 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline 		Until we have some games between Players done, it is hard to say how balance is. They are still making adjustments to Europe version to fix the latest Hail Mary strategies. I am sure Pacific will have its share. Against the AI it is hard to determine if the tactics being used are valid. A Player might quickly undo what seemed to work with ease against the AI.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 22
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 9:40:34 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		Games this complex in strategy take time to balance. World in Flames has been around for 30 years? They are still balancing.

Strategic Command is also always balancing for every new version. I know I talk to Hubert.

Commander Europe at War changes a lot from it's initial game.

It takes time.

As for important locations.....
I gave careful consideration for which areas get VPs and which don't.
Each location VPs are used to give a choice or motivate.

For example Australia is hard to fully take.
But it is a base to cripple Allied convoy lines, has some resources, and a fair pool of units.
NEI has no VPs because alone it is important and is a choice for the Allies Invade the oil and lose time for VPs or sub the oil and go after VPs
The 4 VPs in India, and many in China are motivators and strategies for Japan to win the game.

THe game get's balanced on both extreme ends to bring the game play to between 3-7 for all players. A good player should beat a bad player but not humiliate them... well unless it is their very 1st game, haven't read the rules, and don't get the mechanics. That's a 1. An example would be the Allied player by 1943 loses England, Russia, and the United States in WPE because the learning curve is that steep.

On the other end I don't want a player to find some gimmick loophole to cripple the game. That's a 10. An example of this was how supply trucks snowballed to the point trucks were way more cost effective against destroying the enemy and preventing damage than building units.

If you are the Allies you are on the defensive. But it doesn't mean you can't do douche bag moves to force the Japanese player to be more careful.
If you are the Japanese you need a strategic plan to win. Then focus on that plan. You can't be everywhere at once. One of Japan's weaknesses is their production. It just isn't enough to absorb all the casualties in an attrition fist fight at sea.

So it will take many games till people get the system and good players start battling each other in PBEM. Or good vs bad player.

< Message edited by AlvaroSousa -- 5/24/2021 9:41:09 PM >

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 23
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 9:54:49 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Games this complex in strategy take time to balance. World in Flames has been around for 30 years? They are still balancing.

Strategic Command is also always balancing for every new version. I know I talk to Hubert.

Commander Europe at War changes a lot from it's initial game.

It takes time.

As for important locations.....
I gave careful consideration for which areas get VPs and which don't.
Each location VPs are used to give a choice or motivate.

For example Australia is hard to fully take.
But it is a base to cripple Allied convoy lines, has some resources, and a fair pool of units.
NEI has no VPs because alone it is important and is a choice for the Allies Invade the oil and lose time for VPs or sub the oil and go after VPs
The 4 VPs in India, and many in China are motivators and strategies for Japan to win the game.

THe game get's balanced on both extreme ends to bring the game play to between 3-7 for all players. A good player should beat a bad player but not humiliate them... well unless it is their very 1st game, haven't read the rules, and don't get the mechanics. That's a 1. An example would be the Allied player by 1943 loses England, Russia, and the United States in WPE because the learning curve is that steep.

On the other end I don't want a player to find some gimmick loophole to cripple the game. That's a 10. An example of this was how supply trucks snowballed to the point trucks were way more cost effective against destroying the enemy and preventing damage than building units.

If you are the Allies you are on the defensive. But it doesn't mean you can't do douche bag moves to force the Japanese player to be more careful.
If you are the Japanese you need a strategic plan to win. Then focus on that plan. You can't be everywhere at once. One of Japan's weaknesses is their production. It just isn't enough to absorb all the casualties in an attrition fist fight at sea.

So it will take many games till people get the system and good players start battling each other in PBEM. Or good vs bad player.

Thanks for the input. I think the main gameplay issue here is that if Japan is railroaded into optimal starting moves, it becomes less of a game. If any of the suggested changes were to be implemented (staggered landing craft arrival, even by one turn, stronger port defenses, or more difficult surrender), there would be more decision-making in the beginning and respects the effort of the game creator :P

There is no reason not to jump Batavia turn 1 and end DEI, for example, as incbob said.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 24
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/24/2021 11:27:51 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		Mr. Sousa,
I in no way mean to disparage either you or WPP. I am very well aware that this game is 1.00. I know it needs balancing and playing and this is why I bring up the issue.


I see a lot of people talking about balance, waiting, and good or bad players, or waiting to see what tactics people come up with.
So here is the question and I feel that this is a serious question.


Do we as players say, "Give us play balance and if that has nothing to do with WW2 fine?" So, for example if play balance needs require the US to start the game with 7 CVs that is fine, since the game is balanced.

or

Do we want play balance and something that resembles WW2 Pacific Theatre?



Right now, unless the Japanese player is bad like me, they can easily conquer everything they did IRL and be attacking Australia and/or India. The Japanese are at least two months ahead of where they were IRL.



For those saying wait, what are you waiting for? What magical allied strategy is going to make the Japanese not be able to take everything I have said they can take? I challenge anyone to come up with an Allied Strategy that keeps the Japanese from taking the entire DEI, the Philippines, and at least half of the Solomon Islands by the end of December. Unless the Japanese player is bad, you are also going to lose the rest of the Solomon Islands, Port Moresby, and probably some South Pacific Islands prior to the end of January.

So, someone throw me a lifeline. What can the Allies do?


It is not a straw man argument to ask that since Germany IRL by June 1940 had conquered Poland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway if we would be happy with a game that unless the German player is bad, they have not done all the same before April 1940.








(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 25
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 1:27:05 AM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline 		People do understand that this is a game and to put rules in to prevent X means you constantly break Y.


As the Japanese I can invade the US on turn 3...
Should that be allowed?


In WPE is it is impossible for the Germans to conquer France by June. Do we think that is broken?
The Germans are consistently 2 months behind there.
BUT it was found if they were "on schedule" it actually broke the game as they could Yugoslavia and Greece before the rains and that gave them a large advantage.

Maybe in this game the Japanese need to be 2 months ahead or the game is unbalanced due to the scale.

I guess I don't see a big difference in the game giving the Japanese less oil and them needing to attacking the DEI to continue. Yes it might be not historical but so is invading India...or the US on turn 3...or not sinking any ships at Pearl Harbor (yes this happened to me once in testing)...

BUT perhaps it can be changed a bit...not sure how yet as I have not played enough games.


IF you stop the Japanese from invading the DEI they will focus elsewhere...

I suppose you would have to take all the units they have in those areas...and put them in the build queue...then take 90% of the landing craft and transports and do the same. You only need 1 Marine and 10 Trans and 10 LS to take out the DEI...Could move one from Truk and take out the DEI on turn 2. Not sure that fixes things.
You could block the ability to declare war on them for X turns...okay...that would stop the invasion.
But then the would change their focus.


Once you have seen 10 games get to the end game you can tell...is the balance there and is a change needed.

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 26
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 2:48:09 AM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		Could the Japanese, in January 1942, have invaded Australia, India, or the US. Yes, but it would have cost them so much that they would have been crippled elsewhere. So I have no problem with the Japan invading in the US on Turn 3, but it should cost them dearly, but it doesn't in this game. Seriously Pearl Harbor was a stretch for them.

As for, "Wait till the end game," or, "but the game is balanced as it is," comments let me say this. If this was a computer baseball game and after 2 innings consistently a team had 20 runs and 40 hits would you say that? You might have a game, it might be balanced, but it is not a baseball game. I would not need to see 10 games to know that something was wrong.


I do not know about WPE. I played the game, enjoyed, it, but it is not my thing.
But if Germany cannot even come close to what it did IRL then there is an issue with the game.


If this game is based on making the Japanese equal to the US and UK then the game has a basic flaw. Japan was NEVER EVER even close to the US and UK. The game should be based on victory points. Can you get more victory points then your opponent. If this requires letting the Japanese do things they could almost never realistically then would you also be okay with cutting back on Japanese Landing Craft and instead giving them another 15 CVs to start the game. I am sure we can figure out how many extra CVS we have to give Japan to balance the game.


My suggestions:
1) Manilla does not auto surrender the Philippines.
2) Batavia doss not auto surrender the DEI.
3) Either get rid of all the Japanese 1,2,3, garrison units or lock them in place. (I suggest either an intrinsic defense value or maybe you can buy island garrison units and assign them the way you do escorts).
4) Lower the Japanese Landing Craft to 150.
5) You may have to give Japan extra victory points.

I do not want to agree with Numdydar but he is right. In the games current state there is little difference between this game and Hearts of Iron 4. You use the same names, you name the pieces the same as the equipment used in the war, but it is not a WW2 game.

I have said my peace. I will continue to play the game and hope that corrections are made. But in its current state it will never replace World In Flames because WiF can come close to WW2.
please lock this thread.









(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 27
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 3:12:20 AM   
sajm0n

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 5/2/2017
Status: offline 		This whole discussion is pointless until we are able to check at least few human vs human (preferably competent ones) games, that lasted at least until 1943 or better until 44. Examples from irl, that Japan didnt take this or that until March, doesnt mean a thing here. What matters to the game is what happens much later, when Allies launch their counter attack, and only then you may or may not see, what effects those "two months ahead of schedule" had.

india/australia debate has more merit to me. Im Japanese player myself, so i wont be spending hours figuring out how to do it, but im pretty sure India is defendable with production help from USA. If not whole country, then at least the most important production points, until reinforcements arrive.
And in Australia only Sydney really matters, which should not be easy to take even when rushed.

About early invasions on Solomons, fiji, new caledonia etc, you cant tell how bad is it for the Allies until you see enough of humans reaching mid to late game.

The one thing id maybe consider changing, would be adding Bandar Lumpur and/or Surabaya to the cities needed for DEI surrender, but again i dont have any data to support it, other than the fact DEI falls on turn 1 and its faster than irl, so maybe its a bad thing, but who really knows.

< Message edited by sajm0n -- 5/25/2021 3:14:41 AM >

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 28
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 3:15:59 AM   
DaShox

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 7/4/2003
Status: offline
quote:




IF you stop the Japanese from invading the DEI they will focus elsewhere...



If you don't take DEI quickly as the Japanese, you lose. I found that out the hard way.

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 29
RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 3:20:46 AM   
sajm0n

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 5/2/2017
Status: offline 		For the USA invasion at turn 3, from game notes:

USA Reinforcements - if the West Coast is invaded by Japan, the US player gets several West Coast reinforcements. I dont know how many, i didnt check it myself, but there is a mechanism against it

(in reply to sajm0n)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Warplan Pacific >> 1941 needs balancing Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.484