quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

Hello all,

I have noticed that most of the proposed changes on this forum tend to be in favour of buffing up the CP, either directly or indirectly. This made me curious about the current game balance. Do most games end in an Entente victory? Since it is a game, I assume that a 50-50 win rate for either side would be the ideal balance.

I also ask because I find that the CP are the easier faction to play with, so I do have a touch of concern about balancing too far in their direction. Of course, this is just one opinion. I would appreciate it if everyone put forth theirs as well, so that a better overall understanding could be reached.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

Hello all,

I have noticed that most of the proposed changes on this forum tend to be in favour of buffing up the CP, either directly or indirectly. This made me curious about the current game balance. Do most games end in an Entente victory? Since it is a game, I assume that a 50-50 win rate for either side would be the ideal balance.

I also ask because I find that the CP are the easier faction to play with, so I do have a touch of concern about balancing too far in their direction. Of course, this is just one opinion. I would appreciate it if everyone put forth theirs as well, so that a better overall understanding could be reached.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

Hello all,

I have noticed that most of the proposed changes on this forum tend to be in favour of buffing up the CP, either directly or indirectly. This made me curious about the current game balance. Do most games end in an Entente victory? Since it is a game, I assume that a 50-50 win rate for either side would be the ideal balance.

I also ask because I find that the CP are the easier faction to play with, so I do have a touch of concern about balancing too far in their direction. Of course, this is just one opinion. I would appreciate it if everyone put forth theirs as well, so that a better overall understanding could be reached.

Single Player or Multi Player? I've never won as CP in MP. Could you list the specific changes you are speaking of?

Bulgarian Gambit is not really an advantage for CP just a balance to prevent a cheat really.

Subs are for both.
Artillery is for both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

I'm seeing the same trend, playing a SP game against veteran level AI. Artillery and Subs, all the way. Tanks and to a less extend airplanes need a buff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

I should clarify that I usually play MP games.

Submarines are mostly a CP tool. Buffing them would be an indirect buff to the CP, since it will result in greater losses to British convoys, than German convoys. However, I do not see an issue with this one. The naval war as it is currently is so one sided, it ceases to be an engaging part of the game. The fact that it alters balance, however, should still be kept in mind.

Artillery units are an important weapon for both sides, but are noticeably more important for the Entente than the CP. Reducing their power, while called for, would also weaken the Entente considerably for 2 reasons: number of artillery units available and infantry quality.

Currently the Entente can field a theoretical maximum of 5 British guns, 3 French guns, 2 Italian guns, 1 Serbian gun, 1 Greek gun, 1 Belgian gun, 1 Romanian gun, and 4 Russian guns, for a total of 18 artillery units. The extra British and Russian guns come from decision events, which allow you to exceed the build limit if you have already hit it when it fires. Realistically of course, The Serbian, Belgian, and Italian guns won't show up until late in the war, if ever. Romania may not even be dragged in. So we usually see about 12-13 artillery units for the Entente, with a worst case scenario of 10. This compared to the 11 maximum guns the CP can field (GE:4, AH:3, OE:3, BU:1), is a fairly significant advantage, especially when considering that Ottoman artillery also arrives relatively late.

With weaker artillery, there will be a stronger emphasis on the infantry. German infantry are significantly stronger than the Entente counterparts, due to better tech, better leaders, better experience, and better NM. This makes them less reliant on artillery on the attack. They can get away with firing just enough shells to full de-entrench their target to achieve excellent 1:3/4 combat results. The Entente require more shells to reduce their targets readiness and morale, often needing 6-8 shots on a single target in 1915 just to achieve a parity of losses on the offensive.

Both of these factors mean that weaker artillery hurts the Entente far more.

Changes to Trento and Bulgaria would also make things easier for the CP.

While these changes are, I think, good improvements, they all shift the balance towards the CP. My argument is not that the changes are bad per se, but that implementing too many changes that balance things in only in one direction would make things a little too hard for the Entente.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

You'll want to maximize their efficiency and number, they are so darn good compared to other units. Artilleries on land will allow to smash corps and take hexes reliably. Subs, are general pain in the rear at sea, acting as super scouters, road blocks (paradoxically, them doing convoy raiding seems their secondary mission here). As Entente, you must go into ASW, because CP will go into better subs. Hey, even Entente should go into better Subs! They rule the sea. As Artillery rules the land. Forget about tanks or planes. Well, forget until you have the best artillery possible, they are much less game-changers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

I should clarify that I usually play MP games.

Submarines are mostly a CP tool. Buffing them would be an indirect buff to the CP, since it will result in greater losses to British convoys, than German convoys. However, I do not see an issue with this one. The naval war as it is currently is so one sided, it ceases to be an engaging part of the game. The fact that it alters balance, however, should still be kept in mind.

Artillery units are an important weapon for both sides, but are noticeably more important for the Entente than the CP. Reducing their power, while called for, would also weaken the Entente considerably for 2 reasons: number of artillery units available and infantry quality.

Currently the Entente can field a theoretical maximum of 5 British guns, 3 French guns, 2 Italian guns, 1 Serbian gun, 1 Greek gun, 1 Belgian gun, 1 Romanian gun, and 4 Russian guns, for a total of 18 artillery units. The extra British and Russian guns come from decision events, which allow you to exceed the build limit if you have already hit it when it fires. Realistically of course, The Serbian, Belgian, and Italian guns won't show up until late in the war, if ever. Romania may not even be dragged in. So we usually see about 12-13 artillery units for the Entente, with a worst case scenario of 10. This compared to the 11 maximum guns the CP can field (GE:4, AH:3, OE:3, BU:1), is a fairly significant advantage, especially when considering that Ottoman artillery also arrives relatively late.

With weaker artillery, there will be a stronger emphasis on the infantry. German infantry are significantly stronger than the Entente counterparts, due to better tech, better leaders, better experience, and better NM. This makes them less reliant on artillery on the attack. They can get away with firing just enough shells to full de-entrench their target to achieve excellent 1:3/4 combat results. The Entente require more shells to reduce their targets readiness and morale, often needing 6-8 shots on a single target in 1915 just to achieve a parity of losses on the offensive.

Both of these factors mean that weaker artillery hurts the Entente far more.

Changes to Trento and Bulgaria would also make things easier for the CP.

While these changes are, I think, good improvements, they all shift the balance towards the CP. My argument is not that the changes are bad per se, but that implementing too many changes that balance things in only in one direction would make things a little too hard for the Entente.

Thanks for clarifying!

Glad you agree on Subs and the naval situation.

Damn I wish I could get 11 artillery as CP! The most I've gotten is 6! I am completely blown away by Entente artillery! Haha

I disagree that the Germans only need a few shots with their artillery. As Old Crow will attest that did not do me much good until I learned to save shells up...

I am neutral on Trento as I don't consider myself much of an expert on the history of that...

You believe the Bulgarian Gambit should be allowed?

Have you won MP games as CP?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

I should clarify that I usually play MP games.

Submarines are mostly a CP tool. Buffing them would be an indirect buff to the CP, since it will result in greater losses to British convoys, than German convoys. However, I do not see an issue with this one. The naval war as it is currently is so one sided, it ceases to be an engaging part of the game. The fact that it alters balance, however, should still be kept in mind.

Artillery units are an important weapon for both sides, but are noticeably more important for the Entente than the CP. Reducing their power, while called for, would also weaken the Entente considerably for 2 reasons: number of artillery units available and infantry quality.

Currently the Entente can field a theoretical maximum of 5 British guns, 3 French guns, 2 Italian guns, 1 Serbian gun, 1 Greek gun, 1 Belgian gun, 1 Romanian gun, and 4 Russian guns, for a total of 18 artillery units. The extra British and Russian guns come from decision events, which allow you to exceed the build limit if you have already hit it when it fires. Realistically of course, The Serbian, Belgian, and Italian guns won't show up until late in the war, if ever. Romania may not even be dragged in. So we usually see about 12-13 artillery units for the Entente, with a worst case scenario of 10. This compared to the 11 maximum guns the CP can field (GE:4, AH:3, OE:3, BU:1), is a fairly significant advantage, especially when considering that Ottoman artillery also arrives relatively late.

With weaker artillery, there will be a stronger emphasis on the infantry. German infantry are significantly stronger than the Entente counterparts, due to better tech, better leaders, better experience, and better NM. This makes them less reliant on artillery on the attack. They can get away with firing just enough shells to full de-entrench their target to achieve excellent 1:3/4 combat results. The Entente require more shells to reduce their targets readiness and morale, often needing 6-8 shots on a single target in 1915 just to achieve a parity of losses on the offensive.

Both of these factors mean that weaker artillery hurts the Entente far more.

Changes to Trento and Bulgaria would also make things easier for the CP.

While these changes are, I think, good improvements, they all shift the balance towards the CP. My argument is not that the changes are bad per se, but that implementing too many changes that balance things in only in one direction would make things a little too hard for the Entente.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
5 British guns, 4 Russian guns

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
1 Belgian gun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

If we are going to talk Entente weaknesses then I think Italy needs some kind of defensive enhancement like starting with a chit researching Trench Warfare level 1. In my limited experience Italy really struggles to defend on their own and French or British reinforcements are required. This fact may not be unbalancing as the Austrians do have to commit more of their forces to Italy than they did historically in order to advance, but the fact that the NM objectives are so close and kind of in a salient (the geometry favors the Central Powers) makes it difficult for Italy to hold on to their NM objectives. I was experimenting with editing the terrain to add an extra river and town in NE Italy in order to make it easier to defend there.

I also believe Serbia could use a slightly stronger defensive setup. It's really easy to push them back past Nish immediately especially if you rail down extra corps. Again it's impossible to completely guarantee balance in the long term here as there's no limit to the number of units the Centrals can throw against Serbia should they choose to do so. The only balancing factor is Russian pressure against Austria. But I do think Serbia could use a small defensive setup boost to prevent an early collapse. Even something small like +25 MPP in the starting bank would be quite useful.

I also have found that Greece is easy to conquer. Historically French and UK units were showing up at Salonika even before Greece really entered the war. I think it would be nice to give the Entente more time to ship units to Greece should they so choose (it's also difficult to know in advance exactly in how many turns Greece will join unless you are an expert who reads event files). Perhaps a special event could give UK/France the option to move in a bit earlier (and warn the Central Powers when this happens to give them a heads up).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

I also have found that Greece is easy to conquer. Historically French and UK units were showing up at Salonika even before Greece really entered the war. I think it would be nice to give the Entente more time to ship units to Greece should they so choose (it's also difficult to know in advance exactly in how many turns Greece will join unless you are an expert who reads event files). Perhaps a special event could give UK/France the option to move in a bit earlier (and warn the Central Powers when this happens to give them a heads up).

quote:

The Ottoman early game situation is also complex. Possibly, if they were given a few garrison units like the Russians have had Odessa, Sebastopol and other places..this may ameliorate their vulnerabilities. These units have very little offensive power, but would help resist an Entente detachment raid that now can cripple the Ottomans.
Jerusalem and Damascus come to mind. More than 2 garrisons would probably be too much, and too easy to cover the partisan hex spawning grounds. (I don't know if garrison units can be 'turned off' so they can't stop partisan spawning or not in the editor but if they 'couldn't' that would be ok. Then again, maybe a solution to Ottoman early game weakness, is not needed.

quote:

I was wondering about this. Build limits are 4 for UK and 3 for Russia but those don't matter if you purchase an arty early enough. Unfortunately the Central Powers have no way to increase their arty counts beyond their build limits like the Entente do because they get none of these pieces through event. I believe that last British gun comes pretty late in the Middle East, but still the ability to get more guns beyond the build limits is pretty insane. Is this something the developers intended?

quote:

Outside of that building beyond limits issue, I think the # of guns is balanced considering the Serbian and Greek guns will probably never see the light of day unless the Centrals screw up (assuming the Greek gun disappears from any build queue once Greece surrenders).

quote:

I also have found that Greece is easy to conquer. Historically French and UK units were showing up at Salonika even before Greece really entered the war. I think it would be nice to give the Entente more time to ship units to Greece should they so choose (it's also difficult to know in advance exactly in how many turns Greece will join unless you are an expert who reads event files). Perhaps a special event could give UK/France the option to move in a bit earlier (and warn the Central Powers when this happens to give them a heads up).

quote:

Greece, big Yes, there needs some tuning here..at least with MP matches. Greece falls way to easy under the guns of the CP once Serbia falls..which is ahistorical. I've actually sent loads of troops there only for them to get picked off one by one on the road down to Athens. A earlier option for the Salonika area for Entente forces to assemble would be good. I don't know if it was you, but someone had another idea of an Entente enclave around Salonika..politically separate maybe or something on those lines based on a Decision and/or Event. Anyway, in PM's, a couple of times I lost Greece way too easy because the CP just rolled on down after Uskub..and not with very many units either while accompanied with an artillery unit and some cavalry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
I have not really felt that the Ottomans are exceptionally weak over there.

it's quite balanced.

Giving them a HQ unit or making Athens a primary supply center

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

As for the extra artillery pieces UK/Russia (can France possibly do this too?) can purchase beyond build limits, I understand there is some opportunity cost and you may be partial to it but in my opinion this is an exploit that goes too far.

I checked Greece and Athens, Salonika Corfu and Heraklion are already primary supply centers in the editor. I think a starting Greek HQ makes sense, perhaps commanded by Danglis (3) and upgradable to Paraskevopoulos (5)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
soft building limits
Not sure how balanced it is

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Can someone confirm that Greek cities are not reaching full strength?

Looking at the editor, I suspected that perhaps Greece suffers from lower maximum values for cities/towns kind of like how the Ottomans have uniquely weak cities, but this isn't the case. Their cities have a max strength of 10. Then I checked "occupational efficiency" but that isn't the problem either as Greece actually has 100% which is higher than most majors which only get 80%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Can someone confirm that Greek cities are not reaching full strength?

Looking at the editor, I suspected that perhaps Greece suffers from lower maximum values for cities/towns kind of like how the Ottomans have uniquely weak cities, but this isn't the case. Their cities have a max strength of 10. Then I checked "occupational efficiency" but that isn't the problem either as Greece actually has 100% which is higher than most majors which only get 80%.

The explanation is that Capitals or Primary Supply Centers that belong to Minor powers do not intrinsically get the maximum supply level for those urban resources. They also have to be connected by rail to a Capital, Primary Supply Center or Industrial Center of a friendly Major. As long as Serbia is still in the game as a friendly Major and controls one of their Capitals, Greek cities connected by rail to that capital will get their fully supply values. Once Serbia falls, all the Greek cities will have a maximum supply of only 5, either due to having a rail connection back to Athens and/or because they are beside a 5 level port. For more details, see my earlier thread on "understanding supply".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The Entente can't keep Serbia alive until Greece joins. Or to put it another way, if Serbia is still holding on by October 1915, the Entente is in amazing shape if they haven't already won the game.

Right now Greece is so weak that the optimal play for the Entente might even be to keep Greece neutral. When I conquer Greece I usually give it to the Ottomans for an economic boost. Yes it is slightly annoying to find the units to send to Greece, but you really don't need very many to conquer them. A HQ, one artillery, 2-3 corps and some detachments and cavalry are more than enough to obliterate the Greeks with almost no delay or losses.

Now I'm not sure how defend-able Greece might be if the British send a HQ, some corps, and an artillery. But for this to work Greece would need full strength cities. If their cities are truly stuck at strength=5 then that's not good enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
I have sent a British HQ and arty to Greece...but if Salonika falls, it all over for Greece...at least the times it happened to me in two different MP's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
I have sent a British HQ and arty to Greece...but if Salonika falls, it all over for Greece...at least the times it happened to me in two different MP's.

What's wrong with defending south of Salonika? There are some nice mountains with roads on them in the middle of Greece.

I feel it might be difficult to set up a defense quickly enough though. You need to have the units land on the exact correct turn and then immediately move to form a defensive line. The Centrals can occupy quite a bit of territory immediately if they rail some attachments and cavalry to Albania and south Serbia the turn before (which I do).