Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1939 Game Balance

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: 1939 Game Balance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 10/17/2021 6:34:46 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Hi Sugar,

Thanks and I'd honestly say it is not a case that we don't want to hear alternative options/suggestions, it is just sometimes impossible to satisfy all issues/concerns, and all players generally speaking with any of the adjustments and fixes we've put into place.

For example, while we feel the current supply rules helped to address 2 major issues players had concerns about, e.g. Axis having too good supply deep into the USSR, as well as North Afrika being overrun with air units at high supply, it is not wrong at the same time, what you and others are feeling, that this has now possibly introduced a higher learning curve hurdle for new players to overcome.

Sure there might have been other approaches to have considered to address these two issues, but at least on our end the issues have seemed to have gone away and players seem to be happy with the changes and the overall balance for the most part.

If down the road we can also then keep these solutions in place while having supply a bit easier to understand, that would be good as well.

Hubert

_____________________________


(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 31
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 10/17/2021 8:56:11 PM   
Elessar2


Posts: 883
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline
The only remaining issue is player choice for HQ chaining. Maybe have a button for HQs to allow them to "redo" supply once per turn per HQ once the link has been explicitly made? But yeah then the newbs don't know about that feature and are further hamstrung...

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 32
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 10/19/2021 8:26:36 PM   
Tmanusa

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 4/23/2019
Status: offline
I would recommend getting rid of the SU level 3 infantry upgrade or make it not available until late 44 or early 45.


(in reply to Elessar2)
Post #: 33
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 10/19/2021 10:27:38 PM   
Zeckke

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 8/6/2021
Status: offline
i always in mid 1942. thinking on a another last level infantry (3); to the japan only, because for germans and british if they get level 3 its a must that you need in the game another last level for thanks, level 3 infantry for germans and british is not good, only for japans i think.

level 3 of germans at 1944 its giving the victory to the germans, there are about 25 German divisions

money thats what they must cost a lot if level 3 for example 150 points (dont know exactly) to upgrade level 3.


think that it is in the game level 3 for many many units: by, researching levels of aircraft ground combat


the game is balanced very well, so if you want to change the research area, (great) more upgrades but it has to cost high money what you have already done in the game, so if possible anther extra-level for infantry because you have level 2 at 1942 and of course 4 more years for the infantry

the supply is one of the best thing of the game, its a question of how many HQs do you get, so again the game now is A+ so if you want another +. dont touch anything, just the money, to get what is not now in the game just get money and maybe you can get the new levels

and what is need to get more money (PPS)? only the developers know how to do it

so more PPs (money) it might not a good idea to get that, level 3 (also at ships) but its the best balance.




(in reply to Tmanusa)
Post #: 34
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 11/7/2021 5:06:36 PM   
akinesia

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 3/24/2020
Status: offline
I also found the shortage of Garrisons very limiting for the Axis. The work around I have used which makes the game feel much better to me is to allow Germany to build 6 Inf Brigades and 6 Inf Divisions. gave the Italiens 3 of each and really seems to make a differnece in being able to guard the west while also defending against Partisans in the East.

The Anti air unit is not very good as built I have increased the intercept range to 2 and it makes a huge difference. It may even make them a little to good.

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 35
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 11/7/2021 7:38:38 PM   
Duedman

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 8/9/2021
Status: offline
What I really dislike is that the Allies can bombard Cuxhaven to completely cancel the Norway trade route. Thats just way too powerful and also not realistic.
It should simply be re-routed

(in reply to akinesia)
Post #: 36
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/6/2022 1:53:48 AM   
Georgia22

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 1/29/2022
Status: offline
Sorry to be a contrarian but I find that it is the Germans who are massively overpowered. In addition to superior troops, HQ ect, which is historically accurate there are too many things that are unhistorical and that greatly increase German strength. Most of these are things that are NOT in the game.

1) No magic; the Allies should have much more info on the Germans that vise verse. A big German advantage.
2) No radar to enhance Brit planes. Advantage Germans.
3) And this is the KILLER. There is no oil in this game!!!!!! What were the designers thinking of? This totally distorts things. To give just a few examples from history: In 1941 the Germans delayed the attack on Leningrad 7 times (see Germany and the Second World Vol 4. In 1943 the German 6th army could have taken Stalingrad easily except it was immobilized when the fuel was switched to the armies in the Caucas. Rommel starte his last attack towards Cairo with one days supply of fuel. Ect Ect. The examples are endless.

What is strange is that this could have been put into the game without over complicating it at all. Simply have a total of fuel factors that the Germans get from all sources (Romanian oil, synthetic oil factories, whatever) and as each mobile, air or naval unit moves subtract from the total.

Now, I am a novice at this game and I may well have all or none of this right and I will be glad to be corrected if so.

Thanks

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 37
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/6/2022 2:01:44 AM   
Platoonist


Posts: 1342
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Kila Hana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Georgia22


What is strange is that this could have been put into the game without over complicating it at all. Simply have a total of fuel factors that the Germans get from all sources (Romanian oil, synthetic oil factories, whatever) and as each mobile, air or naval unit moves subtract from the total.

Now, I am a novice at this game and I may well have all or none of this right and I will be glad to be corrected if so.

Thanks


No, you're correct. Fuel usage, whether for ships, planes or tanks is not a factor in the game as it now stands.


_____________________________


(in reply to Georgia22)
Post #: 38
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/6/2022 2:12:36 AM   
Georgia22

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 1/29/2022
Status: offline
Sorry I left out another way the Germans are too overpowered. The German industrial output is to high in the first 3 years of the war at least. If you want an eye opener of how badly managed German armaments were during the early war read the appropriate sections of Germany and the second world war.
For instance, after conquering western europe and big chuncks of Russia German production was still no bigger than the Brits and yet in the game it is.

thanks

(in reply to Georgia22)
Post #: 39
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/6/2022 10:14:51 AM   
nnason


Posts: 502
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alter Native

I think the game's balance is fine and does not need any major changes, however generally speaking it is much harder to play the Axis compared to the Allies, especially for new players.

I have played around 5-6 games as Axis vs AI starting 39 and 3 Allies campaigns at different difficulties.
I've also played the other campaigns (Barbarossa, Case Blue, and 43 Citadel) from the Axis perspective and for experiences players the balancing of the game is good, but I can understand why new players are struggling.


Poland and France are very easy to do and they are more or less impossible to fail as Axis. Even if you mess up as a new player and it takes you until September to take Paris you still feel like you are doing ok.

In my opinion the new player problems start at the eastern front when all of a sudden effective play and a good understanding of the game rules is required. During the eastern campaign you are on a clock against the soviet infantry lvl 2-3 upgrade and you need to take enough MPPs from the soviets before they can outproduce you with cheap units.

In order to play effectively you need to have a good understanding of the supply system as well as managing your HQs well. You need to understand some advanced mechanics such as HQ chaining and encircling of units. You also must have enough HQs in the first place to supply and command all of your troops to begin with.
I assume most new players will increase the amount of tanks and armies they have, but not the amount of HQs. Therefore lots of your units will fight poorly supplied without command against cheap soviet units until they outproduce and outgunned in 43-44.
However until Barbarossa you never dealt with supplies and HQs much, as everything was running fine on auto pilot in France. When you realize you made big mistakes they are too late to fix.

Furthermore if you make mistakes it's almost impossible to comeback as Axis, as your units often die with <5 supply and you can not afford to loose large parts of your army in order to keep the Barbarossa momentum going until you control all soviet victory points.

Playing as the allies things are way too easy against the AI as you basically just have to sit back in the USSR and watch the AI grind their army to the ground against your cheap units. Unlike the axis there is very little rule knowledge and clever strategic thinking required.

So, people are right playing the Axis is a lot harder. It's mechanically harder (Supplies and HQs, being the attacker), strategically harder (prioritizing the right targets in a multi front war) and time is ticking against you. If you screw up big in one of those areas you loose. But in my opinion this is how it should be.
The war was never fair and balanced and you need to be smarter than the historic counterparts despite the odds against you.


Some ideas on how to help new players:
- Remove the Murmansk hint that is given in 41. I feel like this is a big newbie trap. Taking Murmansk is completely unnecessary and as a new player shipping HQs and armies to Finnland is hurting more then it helps. Cutting the soviets of MPPs is better done with U-Boats.
Even if you control Murmansk you are not taking any MPPs from the allies, you are just preventing the UK from shipping it to the USSR for 3 turns.... wow.

- Maybe consider giving the Germans another free HQ in early 1941 as an easy fix to help new players. (It's not necessary imo, but I think it would help new players)

- The interface is hard to understand for new players and a lot of important information is hidden, I already discussed this point in some other suggestions I made a couple of month ago:
(I can not post links as a new member, it's in the steam forum called "Feedback and suggestions" from June 20th)

- Maybe give Italy the navel warfare moral upgrade at the beginning. From my understanding the Italian navy was (unlike the army) pretty strong and a serious opponent for the UK. Even though large in numbers the Italian navy is still relatively lackluster.

- Maybe increase the MPP damage U-Boats do to trading routes in order to make the Atlantic war more rewarding.

Also, please allow the bonus MPP difficulty setting to be more then just +20%. I'd love to set this to +50% or more when playing the Allies in order to get an interesting game, but the game doesn't let me.




I agree the game balance human-to-human is adequate. The well over 200 ELO games played showed two things. The 1939 scenario is evenly balanced and the best players always win.

Alter Native has some good ideas/tips/observations.

The AI is decent but I believe game modifications should always focus on keeping the human-to-human game even.

SC is a game, not a simulation. A simulation is meant to closely match history. A game is meant to be even so either side has a good chance of winning. As such there will be aspects of a game that are not realistic such as rail and sea movement. Making changes to either of these game aspects might really unbalance the game.

Messing with the current supply methodology is challenging as it is such an integral part of the game. As an average player, I get clobbered by Fafnir and Sugar. I believe what makes them so successful is a mastery of HQs, supply, and the understanding of when to push hard. REGARDING SUPPLY the one thing I would like to see is a way to model supply to see the effects before actually moving the HQs units. Something like allowing all HQs to move within fog-of-war and movement rules as many times as needed and then only commit their movement with a commit command. Or provide dummy HQs so you can see the effects of HQS placement before actually moving them.

SC in all it forms is a great game as witnessed by the huge gamer base, the vigorous forum traffic, and the suberb support.



_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to Alter Native)
Post #: 40
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/6/2022 4:53:12 PM   
Bavre


Posts: 299
Joined: 12/5/2020
Status: offline
A couple month ago I watched a match between two Youtubers and it pretty much was a showcase for what Alter Native has said. Both players started out relatively inexperienced and about en par, but as the Allied player had the disadvantage early on he was "forced to dive deeper" into the game mechanics (for lack of better words) and as a result had a much steeper learning curve. The Axis player easily rolled over everything in Poland and France only to run into a massive concrete wall in Russia. It must have been rather frustrating for him and it clearly showed that he was quite perplexed as to why his so far seemingly invincible forces suddenly got attritioned down.
So yeah, the game seems to be both easier to learn and play as Allies when you start out, but once you "graduate" the balance is excellent as shown in the ELO results.


@ Georgia22:
Historically you are 100% right and there are even more points to add to that tally, like the Germans tendency to overengineer stuff and produce every tank in a million different and only marginally better variants, which totally sabotaged the mass production etc etc.
But I think implementing all that in a 100% historically accurate way would pretty much guaranty Allied victory in almost all matches. It was basically a 1% wonder that the Germans got as far as they historically did with what little they had compared to the other side and with the mistakes they made along the way.
So I think the choice here really is to either keep the campaign a bit ahistorical but with 50:50 odds (btw kudos to the devs here, achiving 50:50 in a game that complex is no small feat!), or make it more realistic but asymmetric. Axis player victory would then have to be defined as something like doing better then it was historically the case.

(in reply to nnason)
Post #: 41
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/6/2022 5:21:57 PM   
nnason


Posts: 502
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline
Bavre,
Your comments are well thought out.

_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to Bavre)
Post #: 42
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/7/2022 2:01:50 AM   
Georgia22

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 1/29/2022
Status: offline
Bavre, my computer just hiccuped so this may get on twice. I appreciate your position. Most players want 50-50 balance but a minority, me included, are not concerned with which side wins or loses but with the process of war itself. Also I certainly do not advocate putting all the complexity possible into the game, just a few of great importance, like oil and reinforcements.
Perhaps game designers could split the difference and have such things as oil be preferences that can be turned on or off when setting up a game. But in spite of any criticisms it is an excellent game that is great fun to play.

Thanks

(in reply to nnason)
Post #: 43
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/7/2022 2:50:52 AM   
Georgia22

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 1/29/2022
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Georgia22

Bavre, my computer just hiccuped so this may get on twice. I appreciate your position. Most players want 50-50 balance but a minority, me included, are not concerned with which side wins or loses but with the process of war itself. Also I certainly do not advocate putting all the complexity possible into the game, just a few of great importance, like oil and reinforcements.
Perhaps game designers could split the difference and have such things as oil be preferences that can be turned on or off when setting up a game. But in spite of any criticisms it is an excellent game that is great fun to play.

Thanks

We were in the position of a man who has grasped a wolf by the ears and dare not let it go. - A German officer on the invasion of the Soviet Union

(in reply to Georgia22)
Post #: 44
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/15/2022 1:45:22 PM   
forestrouse

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/18/2020
Status: offline
Yes - the supply system is complicated. But mastering the supply system is what makes this game an interesting challenge.

What I am wondering about, though, is the cost of motorizing the Axis. I notice that the Axis AI motorizes nearly its entire army by the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union. I don't think that is historically accurate nor possible as a human player - at least the cost looks prohibitive to me whenever I play Axis.

Forest

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 45
RE: 1939 Game Balance - 2/15/2022 11:33:05 PM   
Mithrilotter

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 2/18/2016
Status: offline
In the latest 1.14 version of World at War, if Wilhelmshaven (WaW's Cuxhaven)is taken, the Norwegian convoy is rerouted to Kiel. Since update changes tend to be adapted to all versions of Strategic Command 3, does the taking or bombing of Cuxhaven or its port, reroute the Norwegian convoy to Kiel also?

(in reply to forestrouse)
Post #: 46
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: 1939 Game Balance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.703