Game Balance

Game Balance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan

[Poll]

Game Balance

Axis are generally too strong

26% (5)

Axis are slightly too strong

31% (6)

Game is balanced

26% (5)

Allies are slightly too strong

5% (1)

Allies are incredibly strong

5% (1)

Tanks and mech are too strong thats the problem

5% (1)

Total Votes : 19

(last vote on : 11/19/2021 7:15:56 AM)
(Poll ended: 11/21/2021 7:00:00 AM)

Message

AlvaroSousa -> Game Balance (10/2/2021 3:30:57 AM)
Only answer this if you are playing against opponents equal to your skill. An imbalance in skill can lead to extreme results. The question is if the game is balanced. Where the Axis do well the first half and the Allies have to slow grind them back the 2nd half. The best game is one that ends on the last turn of the game.

aoffen -> RE: Game Balance (10/2/2021 4:31:31 AM)
I voted Axis slightly strong but I would actually like another option - Soviets are a bit weak. That may be more accurate. And I think AirPower is a bit underdone too.

Harrybanana -> RE: Game Balance (10/2/2021 7:16:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aoffen I voted Axis slightly strong but I would actually like another option - Soviets are a bit weak. That may be more accurate. And I think AirPower is a bit underdone too. Exactly my thoughts on both of these. Of course, if air power is increased (as it should be) it will give the Axis even more of an early edge, and by the time the Allies catch up it will be too late. Stjeand and I are playing a test game where rail repair is reduced to 2 hexes per turn. Maybe that is all that is required (but maybe not too). I don't envy Alvaro; balancing is very tricky.

ncc1701e -> RE: Game Balance (10/2/2021 7:20:30 AM)
I can't vote. I have just installed the new patch with the UK production bug fixed. Perhaps in the poll we shoud distinguish the Allies: USA/UK on one hand, USSR on the other hand.

Stelteck -> RE: Game Balance (10/2/2021 7:37:33 AM)
Sorry i can't vote i'am in my first game multiplayer in end 1941 as axis. But still the game has not been a walk in the park for germany, nor for the conquest of france, nor for these first 5 turns of barbarossa. For now the only thing i hate is all the mecanism related to garrison mode, which are not used for garrison but for front line troops due to combat bonus and cheap cost. I agree the air force may lack punch too. Also i was expecting to have issues with oil as germany, but i have none.

Harrybanana -> RE: Game Balance (10/2/2021 4:58:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stelteck But still the game has not been a walk in the park for germany, nor for the conquest of france, nor for these first 5 turns of barbarossa. I don't think anyone is saying that the game is a walk in the park for the Axis; in fact, IMHO, the game is close to being balanced. But most experienced players are of the opinion that Russia in particular is too weak; or perhaps alternatively, that the Axis are too strong in Russia. Partly because of the fact that neither oil nor supply appear to be too much of a problem for the Axis in Russia. quote: For now the only thing i hate is all the mecanism related to garrison mode, which are not used for garrison but for front line troops due to combat bonus and cheap cost. I agree the air force may lack punch too. Garrison mode represents stripping all of a units transport/trucks and assigning same to other units. The Germans actually did this far more than the Allies. In 42 almost all German units from Leningrad to South of Moscow had their trucks stripped away and given to the units in the South for the 42 Offensive. And these were front line units, not garrisons. Having said this, I agree that the garrisoning of units is perhaps too much abused. quote: Also i was expecting to have issues with oil as germany, but i have none. Yeah this is a problem. In a recent game one of my opponents had over 25 Axis Armour and Mechanized units. If this created an oil problem for him he never said.

sveint -> RE: Game Balance (10/2/2021 5:45:26 PM)
I play lots of games against different opponents. Overall the Soviets collapse too easily.

boldairade -> RE: Game Balance (10/2/2021 6:29:57 PM)
I vote balanced. it seems the grognards here really think the axis are too strong, and i imagine for players who have played WP for 300 hours and post daily on the forum, that's maybe true. that said, that's probably 1/10th of 1% of the player base. for the rest of us, i think it's pretty balanced. right now, it seems to me that the better player wins, regardless of which side they pick. and IMO that is how it should be.

Flaviusx -> RE: Game Balance (10/2/2021 10:05:51 PM)
As others have mentioned, the problem is not that the Axis are too strong. It is that the Soviets are too weak. And, yes, this is a distinction with a difference. Framing it as you have in these general terms merely confuses the issue. Fix the Eastern Front, please.

ncc1701e -> RE: Game Balance (10/3/2021 10:27:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stelteck But still the game has not been a walk in the park for germany, nor for the conquest of france, nor for these first 5 turns of barbarossa. I agree. With the new garrison rule, I must learn again how to play Axis. I am losing too much effectiveness...

*Lava* -> RE: Game Balance (10/3/2021 6:05:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx As others have mentioned, the problem is not that the Axis are too strong. It is that the Soviets are too weak. And, yes, this is a distinction with a difference. Framing it as you have in these general terms merely confuses the issue. Fix the Eastern Front, please. If the Nazis can attack the Commies with 20 to 25 armor and mech Corps, fixing the Soviets first is going to lead to a fantasy game of unequaled proportions.

ncc1701e -> RE: Game Balance (10/3/2021 6:22:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx As others have mentioned, the problem is not that the Axis are too strong. It is that the Soviets are too weak. And, yes, this is a distinction with a difference. Framing it as you have in these general terms merely confuses the issue. Fix the Eastern Front, please. If the Nazis can attack the Commies with 20 to 25 armor and mech Corps, fixing the Soviets first is going to lead to a fantasy game of unequaled proportions. With the previous patch and the new garrison rule, 20 to 25 armor is no longer possible imo.

stjeand -> RE: Game Balance (10/4/2021 2:10:07 PM)
Axis slightly overpowered. My vote is due to air power being not overly useful... Soviets to weak. Allies to strong due to no need for airpower. (From what I can see in the scenarios Germany builds maybe 5 more air units...perhaps 6...whereas the Allies build 15 to 20. Without those they have an very large land force) Germany wins because Russia collapses to soon most often. BUT if Russia holds the Allies will have a land force large enough to invade Italy in 42 and France in 43 ending the game earlier than desired. IF you fix Russia...depending of course on the fix... You probably have to address the Allies otherwise I suspect Germany will likely lose every game a year early. BUT need to test with the fixes to the UK production, minus ~30PP per turn after Dec 7th 1941, which works out to a LOT of PP... Likely the US will need something similar but will reserve judgement until a few games are played after whatever is done to address Russia. I have a feeling the only way to slow German advance in Russia and the reverse will be to severe reduce the rail repair, basically to 1. That will turn rail into roads for much of the war which seems to be what happened for the most part.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Game Balance (10/4/2021 2:33:37 PM)
What I believe is happening is that armor/mech are too strong. A played with these units vs player without obliterates them. So why this conclusion? I have had several games with Hadros. In our most two recent games I realized there is no defense for armor/mech except other armor/mech. Once that parity is shattered the entire line blows up. It isn't that the combat value of the armor is necessarily too high it is that they can too easily obliterate a front line. It could be my logistics method of force pools is a mistake and I should have had limits to keep the game balanced. Maybe armor/mech needs a higher supply/oil consumption Maybe they need to lose more effectiveness when attacking. Maybe armor/mech needs higher logistics cost. Maybe they need to be more expensive. So from my experience the game has ugly blow outs. Since the clear strategy is only a 1941 Barb for the kill because a 1942 ends up with the Axis getting destroyed what is the common denominator here in all this? Armor/mech. As pointed our by one of my closed beta testers .... No one buys air because armor/mech is way more effective.

ncc1701e -> RE: Game Balance (10/4/2021 4:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa No one buys air because armor/mech is way more effective. As Russia, disbanding air to buy armor/mech is not even a bad idea. Russia can advance without air cover at all since enemy air does not impact their logistics meaning their supply network.

canuckgamer -> RE: Game Balance (10/4/2021 4:40:28 PM)
Shouldn't the goal be to have historical factors, strengths and weaknesses in the game? After the USA entered the war it was only a matter of time before the Axis was defeated because the Allied industrial might dwarfed the Axis. We have almost completed our first pbem game and it is going to be an Axis victory. Here are some comments and suggestions. 1. The effects of the lack of decent roads in Russia should impact the ability of the Axis to supply their forces. Many times early in the campaign the German tank formations had to pause because they had out run their supply and infantry. The advance of Axis supply in Russia in this game doesn't seem to be an issue. 2. The impact of winter on the Germans is understated. On the flip side, Russian units suffer the same attack penalties in snow and their only advantage is they don't lose effectiveness. One of my suggestions is that the Siberian units should be winterized. I also think the Russians should be more mobile in snow. Shouldn't the Germans lose some combat factors, especially during the first winter instead of effectiveness only which can be recovered? 3. The overwhelming air superiority of the Allies from about mid 1943 is missing. Historically the Allies conducted a massive strategic bombing campaign especially targeting German synthetic oil production. I found that strategic bombers in this game to be expensive and not worth the small damage they inflict on German industrial targets. They also lose so much efficiency from each attack that you would need a lot of them so you could rotate attacking units to conduct an on going bombing campaign. If there was more of an impact on German industry then the Axis would have to base fighters to defend them. Historically this tied down hundreds if not thousand of German fighters. What about increasing the range of fighters as their tech advances? The UK also conducted a night bombing campaign which wasn't as effective but did not lose as many bombers as the Yanks did from their daylight bombing until they were able to escort their bombers with long range Mustangs. In my game, I only built 2 USA strategic bombers. The other historical factor missing from Allied air superiority is the interdiction of the Axis rail lines in western Europe which prevented them to quickly move units to reinforce Normandy after the invasion. In our game the Germans pulled all their air from the eastern front because the Russian air force is so anemic and have air superiority in western Europe. 4. I think Italian ground units are too strong. The Italian VI armoured corps is a 16-9 and is actually stronger than any American armour units. When you look at what they did in Greece and in Africa before the arrival of the Afrika Korps I think they are over rated in this game. I am reading The Second World War by Antony Beevor and to give a North African example, O'Connors offensive at a cost of 624 casualties captured 38,300 prisoners, 237 guns, and 73 tanks. Except for a few units the morale of Italian units was very poor.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Game Balance (10/4/2021 4:49:23 PM)
One of the issues is that the game compensates too historically. Like bombers being not as effective is correct. Or why wouldn't you prepare for the winter as the Germans?

stjeand -> RE: Game Balance (10/4/2021 5:42:18 PM)
quote: With the previous patch and the new garrison rule, 20 to 25 armor is no longer possible imo. If you wait till 42 you can have this much as the Germans...but then the Russias have a lot too.

stjeand -> RE: Game Balance (10/4/2021 6:13:26 PM)
Perhaps armor needs to be more expensive and air less expensive? Not really sure. These things are easy to test through the editor but that takes time and a lot of it. Some things that I noticed... I would assume corps are made up as follows. Infantry: 3 Inf Divisions Mech: 1 Tank Division, 2 Motorized Infantry Divisions Armor: 2 Tank Divisions, 1 Motorized Infantry Divsion. 1) Motorized infantry have a movement of 6, since the US / UK are motorized. Yet when added to an armored division they are 9 or 10. Perhaps armor / mech should be slower. OR perhaps they have a movement of 7 Heavy / 8 Breakthrough...but be allowed to move more at a cost of efficiency, you lose 4% more efficiency to move 8/9 and 8% more beyond that to move 9/10...So you are moving say 10 hexes and that will cost you 20 efficiency. Trust me you will slow down. Also armor / mech should not be able to "amphibious" invade. A port is needed to move these units in...the US / UK tried to land tanks and lost 60%+ invading. This would make North Africa a tougher nut for the Axis...as well Italy,Normandy,England, Portugal... 2) Armored corps vs mech corps don't seem to line up with their configuration. Basically whatever is in a Mechanized / Motorized infantry division should be added to a Tank division to create the corps. But a Mech corp has 2 tanks whereas an armored has 5. Perhaps it should have 4 unless the mech has 2.5 which is possible. I don't know the break down yet as I have not looked into it that deeply. 3) Perhaps combined air needs a bonus...Blitzkrieg was devastating. What if there was a bonus for bombers if no fighters were defending? That makes fighters very useful and more bombers useful if you can have more than the enemy has fighters. This bonus would favor the Germans to start...then the Allies as they took over the air. 4) Strat bombers are tougher...Attacking oil does little compared to production from my testing. I never did more than 1 damage to oil and did 1, 2 or even 4 against production. 1 damage does nothing since you only get 2 attacks and the hex fixes 2. Perhaps continued bombing of the same hex means it is unable to repair? Not sure what the engine can do without crazy modifications. BUT I will say...armor is definitely needed...unless you plan to weaken infantry too... Germany would never through France if armor was 12/10 units...

Stelteck -> RE: Game Balance (10/5/2021 7:48:59 AM)
Historically, panzer corps where very powerful, but Germany had huge issues to supply, repair and fuel them, especially in the terrible road of Soviet Union. There was also shortage of spare parts like tire, engine, etc.. Not only because it was difficult to transport them to the units deep in soviet union, but also because there was not enough spare parts produced at the beginning, due to various reason (lack of ressources being one of them). In game term, it can be simulated by giving the player a shortage of oil and also a high difficulty to maintain a high level of efficiency of the panzer and mechanized corps. So maybe the solution could be : - to decrease the efficiency recovery of armor, especially under poor supply condition. Decrease even more if the unit fight the previous turn. - to tailor the fuel production to be able only to barely field the real life number of panzers corps and no more (the number that is at the start of barbarossa in 1941 scenario). - Maybe to add fixed fuel cost for each battle of armor (if not present already), in addition to the upkeep. Having an armor corps that is very powerfull as today, but difficult to sustain in prolonged battle and needing a lot of resting between each offensive/push would be very interesting in my opinion.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Game Balance (10/6/2021 11:27:28 PM)
The effectiveness route is one I was looking at + combined arms bonus to make air more valuable

MagicMissile -> RE: Game Balance (10/7/2021 10:21:41 AM)
Hello everyone, I agree with a lot of what is said here. I have from the start felt that the Western allies and the Germans are too strong and the Soviets a bit too weak. This follows in my opinion the historical tradition of the board wargames. Balancing these games is really hard maybe even impossible given all the factors in the game so it is not a task I envy anyone to try [:)]. * Problems in the east I think are these. You will invade as early as you can meaning you will have at least 2 maybe 3 more turns of clear weather compared to history. The axis will usually come with a lot of mech units not only the German ones but also 3 maybe even 4 Italian ones. Even if you survive 41 1942 will also see the Soviets more vulnerable than they were in the real war. Some ideas: Reduce railrepair one hex per turn. Reduce German oil production at the start of the war. If you look at the 1941 campaign the German oil is at 30% 232 points in any 39 campaign the oil storage will be 100% at something like 750 points I think. 232 points would be too harsh but maybe 5-600 or so would put some limit on German operations. If nothing else it might stop the great Italian mech army [:)] I also think possibly the Soviet mech move nerf is a bit harsh but maybe not. I havent seen that many games into 1942 and havent played any myself so not sure. * I cant believe I am saying this but maybe make the German subs more deadly in fact make the escorts more deadly too so both Western allies and the axis have to divert more resources to the BoA away from building land units. This will limit Western allies buildup which seems to me to be a bit too fast and lowering the axis land force as well if they want to pursue a BoA. Another alternative up the cost for mech and arm units so there will be fewer of them. But it is tricky they cant be too few or nothing will happen and we will have WW1 fronts. Finally and more drastic is of course to lower the early war economy for possibly all countries for a bit of a slower buildup. * Air units need a bit of a buff they were probably too good at the release of the game but after the nerf they are a bit too bad. Building a land unit or a air unit is not a hard choice generally. * Would be nice if something could be done with the strat bombers. If they were more viable some resources both axis and allied would flow into air units and not into land units as it is now. Also the strategic bombing campaign was a large part of the real war. I think the UK spent 25% of its wartime economy on strat bombers. It is a bit sad that that aspect is missing in the game and the fact that it is missing means players think they are not good enough. * I agree with Harrybanana I think balance is pretty close but I am in the camp that thinks between equal players the Soviets should not be conquered and the game should be decided in 44 and 45 and I think the game is not there right now and the main reason for that is the fact that the Germans have a too big a chance to knock the Soviets out of the war and that chance needs to come down by a fair amount. Probably more to say but this is a start. Edit: And of course after the Soviets have a chance to survive we need to look at how the Germans can survive until 1945. /MM

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Game Balance (10/7/2021 4:35:07 PM)
I have played several late games losing as the Axis. The two main issues I see are this and why I am taking a route maybe others might not approve of. #1 Allies can field too many armor and mech. #2 Armor and mech super dominate. Perhaps a cost adjustment is the right move. In the fist 2 games with Hadros he build a fairly balanced force and our games got down to the last turn. But once he saw the exploit of mech, mech, mech for the Allies I haven't been able to hold him. So that is where I think the flaw is. It took many games with him to realize this only fully realizing it this last one. Friday is my WPE-WPP day where I make changes.

sveint -> RE: Game Balance (10/7/2021 6:45:40 PM)
A minor suggestion from me: Partisans are toothless at the moment. I'd suggest partisans can reduce MAX supply levels in Russia, so with light activity max may be 8 or 9, medium 7 or 6, and so on.

Stelteck -> RE: Game Balance (10/7/2021 8:58:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sveint A minor suggestion from me: Partisans are toothless at the moment. I'd suggest partisans can reduce MAX supply levels in Russia, so with light activity max may be 8 or 9, medium 7 or 6, and so on. It is true that being able to have level 9 supply level for the axis in the deep of soviet union once the railroad is repaired is quite unrealistic. Max supply level could be capped the more you go east, or something like that.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Game Balance (10/8/2021 12:25:47 AM)
Not going to mess with supply. It is already a complex system.

Harrybanana -> RE: Game Balance (10/8/2021 3:06:45 AM)
Of all the ideas suggested I think the best, in order, are: 1. Reduce rail repair in Russia to 2 hexes per turn. This will slow down not only the Axis in 41/42, but also the Russians in 43 to 45. 2. Increase the tactical strength of all air units by +1 at 39 tech level and also add an additional +1 in either 42 or 43. 3. Reduce the cost of Air Units by 10%. 4. Increase the cost of Armour and Mech by 10%. 5. Increase Axis and Russian oil consumption to equal the Western Allies. At the moment my understanding is that British and American Armour and Mech units consume more oil than Axis and Russian Armour and Mech. 6. Reduce German Oil production by 10%. 7. Reduce the OPs of Armour and Mechanized by 1.

aoffen -> RE: Game Balance (10/8/2021 4:29:11 AM)
Or�. 7b) don�t kill the ZOC�s of displaced or destroyed units (slowing movement thru break thru zones)

MagicMissile -> RE: Game Balance (10/8/2021 6:27:13 AM)
I think this looks like a good place to start. All these proposed changes must be easy to do programming wise which is a plus. /MM

YueJin -> RE: Game Balance (10/8/2021 6:42:09 AM)
I'm not a fan of reducing the operations points of Armour/mech units. Encirclements are already very difficult to pull off against a competent player and reducing mobility makes the game even more likely to turn into a grinding battle of attrition. I like making air slightly more valuable and trying to make the Axis care about oil a bit.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

1.097656