RE: 1941 needs balancing

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: 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 >> RE: 1941 needs balancing

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 7:59:38 AM

tyronec

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

I have one HvH mirror match going, we are both new to WPE.

We are up to May '42, Japan has taken most of India, half of Australia and is making progress against China. Playing again would expect to do much better as Japan as I have made many mistakes, there is not so much improvement available for the Allies early game as they have so little to play with.

As to whether the game is balanced long term I have no idea, possibly the allies can lose most of the map early game and still come back to win because of greater USA production.

(in reply to sajm0n)

Post #: 31

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 10:12:44 AM

Uxbridge

Posts: 1505
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

The current debate about early balance does concern me a bit. Knowing it's a game more than a simulation, and that the same game system will operate with it's own weight and speed throughout the whole scenario, unable to conform to the sometimes rapidly shifting forces and actions of the conflict it portrays, it nevertheless bothers me that the general feeling of reality�the immersion effect on my own mind�will suffer if the initial stages plays out to fast. Without taking any definte stance in the ongoing argument, I will therefore make some changes in the 1941 scenario to test things out.

The first will be to lower the present amount of Japanese landing craft assetts to 130. That will retain the possibility to land with the troops loaded on transports at scenario start. This will hamper the initial assault. Then I will put 20 as reinforcement for game turn 3; 20 as reinforcement for turn 5; and 30 for reinforcement for turn 8, thus re-balancing the 70 deprived to the sons of the rising sun early.

This done, I will double the cost for landing craft, but lower the production time to 2 months. This will give the Japanese player the option to retain his naval offensive, but only at a substantial increase in spendings. Hopefully, this will slow the initial speed of things to a degree, while it will also have a decelerating effect on the initial Allied response.

Any thought before I make these changes?

_____________________________

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 32

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 1:37:14 PM

DaShox

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

Idk. I see this push for rebalancing to be premature. The U.S. side is tricky and you have to realize you have to be careful early.

Japanese position is tricky also. If you don't take NEI and phillipines quickly your game is over. You need to have a plan and you can easily lose if you don't. Japanese has to defend alot of ground and you can't defend it all (as my veteran opponents have schooled me on this).

I say this a new person who has played both side and have learned lessons from both side.

(in reply to Uxbridge)

Post #: 33

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 2:03:45 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob

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.

Mr. Sousa... hehe.. I am just a normal person. No need to apologize for anything man :) This is a game and I know it is very likely unbalanced with initial release. At least it seems to be in better shape than WPE.

More human games are needed to test. There are a lot of tricks and tactics the Allies can do.

Usually I'd say the approach is for the Allies early on...
"...Attack your enemy where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected..."

Another issue is the A.I. also. The main scenarios need to be easy enough early so the A.I. can do it's thing. The Pacific Theater was more difficult to script than Europe. I went through 4.5 full script changes with the final one being a combination of two of them.

The Allies are to delay as much as possible early on. If they can do that in 1944/1945 they can press a few ports and win. Check out this video on Allied expansion 1944/1945. As you can see they didn't take much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS-BWXfFkVY

Start at 7:45 timemark

_____________________________

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 incbob)

Post #: 34

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 4:37:33 PM

eskuche

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

In my games so far I've noticed that basically the early game boils down to (besides Japan playing Press Your Luck solo) 1) who can surprise a smaller enemy fleet with their entire carrier stack or 2) who can do enough attrition on blockading fleets with larger fleets or 3) who can counterattack (2) with their carrier stack. Not sure if this is intended or if there is any other alternative for this type of gameplay with more, smaller fleets doing things. Can a large fleet oil tax be considered?

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 35

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/25/2021 7:17:13 PM

incbob

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

This will be my last post on this subject.

If you look at the Warplan Pacific advertising the "cover" says Warplan Pacific and it shows the picture of two men. Admiral Chester Nimitz and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. The picture of these two men on the cover implies that this game has something to do with WW2, in fact, WW2 in the Pacific Theatre to be exact.

I do not mean to rude, and apologize if this offends, but if you do not know who they are then yes you can comment on whether or not the game is balanced between the Allies and the Axis, but you cannot comment on Allied or Japanese abilities to do a thing or not do a thing.

Admiral Yamamoto is well respected and known to be one of the best Admirals. But this game currently portrays him as a bumbling idiot because anyone can do in 1 month what it took him 3-4 months.

I realize that it is early. I realize that it is only 1.00. I realize there is a lot of work to be done. I realize that this is part of the teething process.

But if the community is fine with a game that makes Admiral Yamamoto, and the Japanese military in general, look like military idiots then you have game, but not a WW2 game. Will I play it. Sure. It is a game after all and honestly there isn't much else out there. But I will continue to wait for World in Flames or some other game to do it right.

(in reply to eskuche)

Post #: 36

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 12:45:01 AM

FirstPappy

Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline

"It is a game after all and honestly there isn't much else out there. But I will continue to wait for World in Flames or some other game to do it right." - incbob

Already in my early 70s. Can't wait that long

_____________________________

Windows 10 Home 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x 3.70Ghz Processor
32 GB Ram
RX580 w/8 GB
LG 32GK850F 2560x1440

(in reply to incbob)

Post #: 37

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 7:49:04 AM

CrackingShow

Posts: 145
Joined: 12/29/2020
Status: offline

Well I'm playing some PBEM games and having fun lol, that's all I have to say.

Interesting how few islands the Allies took, they didn't even go after the DEI - I suppose they sank almost all of the Japanese merchant marine so the Japanese were not getting much out of their conquests, I would expect in the game the player can either kill merchants with subs or land on Java/Sumatra if you wish.

(in reply to FirstPappy)

Post #: 38

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 10:08:14 AM

Platoonist

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrackingShow

Interesting how few islands the Allies took, they didn't even go after the DEI - I suppose they sank almost all of the Japanese merchant marine so the Japanese were not getting much out of their conquests, I would expect in the game the player can either kill merchants with subs or land on Java/Sumatra if you wish.

Re-taking the DEI wasn't really necessary. By taking the Philippines in 1945. the Allies pretty much choked off Japan's lines of communication with the Dutch East Indies and the whole Southern Resource Area. Of course, the fall of Okinawa corked the LOC even further.

In March 1945, one last, tiny Japanese convoy designated Hi-88D composed of eight merchants and eight escorts desperately tried to break through this cordon to reach Japan from Singapore. Submarines and B-24s operating out of Luzon decimated the convoy and not one vessel reached Japan.

The US administration at the time was very reluctant about "liberating" former European colonies for their former owners with US forces. Which is probably why the Australians got the job of invading Borneo and Brunei in the summer of 1945.

_____________________________

(in reply to CrackingShow)

Post #: 39

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 10:37:59 AM

CrackingShow

Posts: 145
Joined: 12/29/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrackingShow

Interesting how few islands the Allies took, they didn't even go after the DEI - I suppose they sank almost all of the Japanese merchant marine so the Japanese were not getting much out of their conquests, I would expect in the game the player can either kill merchants with subs or land on Java/Sumatra if you wish.

Re-taking the DEI wasn't really necessary. By taking the Philippines in 1945. the Allies pretty much choked off Japan's lines of communication with the Dutch East Indies and the whole Southern Resource Area. Of course, the fall of Okinawa corked the LOC even further.

In March 1945, one last, tiny Japanese convoy designated Hi-88D composed of eight merchants and eight escorts desperately tried to break through this cordon to reach Japan from Singapore. Submarines and B-24s operating out of Luzon decimated the convoy and not one vessel reached Japan.

The US administration at the time was very reluctant about "liberating" former European colonies for their former owners with US forces. Which is probably why the Australians got the job of invading Borneo and Brunei in the summer of 1945.

Yeah that makes sense. If the British and Dutch had the strength to do so they would have conquered their colonies, and would desire to hold on to them. Of course the US did not want that happening.

I'll try to recreate that in my PBEM games as Allies, maybe I can do better with the British than they did historically and get into Indochina/Malaya to take the VPs.

(in reply to Platoonist)

Post #: 40

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 10:50:54 AM

Platoonist

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrackingShow

I'll try to recreate that in my PBEM games as Allies, maybe I can do better with the British than they did historically and get into Indochina/Malaya to take the VPs.

Churchill very much wanted to seize either northern Sumatra or Malaya as a preliminary step to retaking Singapore. (Operation Culverin) The blow to British prestige brought about by the fall of Singapore was never far from his mind. However, due to the demands of the war in Europe, the British South East Asia command could never gather the prerequisite strength and resources for this operation, and the US wasn't willing to divert forces from its trans-Pacific drive to help them get their colony back.

_____________________________

(in reply to CrackingShow)

Post #: 41

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 12:14:21 PM

CrackingShow

Posts: 145
Joined: 12/29/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrackingShow

I'll try to recreate that in my PBEM games as Allies, maybe I can do better with the British than they did historically and get into Indochina/Malaya to take the VPs.

Churchill very much wanted to seize either northern Sumatra or Malaya as a preliminary step to retaking Singapore. (Operation Culverin) The blow to British prestige brought about by the fall of Singapore was never far from his mind. However, due to the demands of the war in Europe, the British South East Asia command could never gather the prerequisite strength and resources for this operation, and the US wasn't willing to divert forces from its trans-Pacific drive to help them get their colony back.

Maybe the British should have been more selfish, and prioritised retaking the colonies before invading Italy. I know the UK contributed a lot to the invasion of Italy, and perhaps we should have gone after Malaya instead.

(in reply to Platoonist)

Post #: 42

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 8:36:49 PM

Numdydar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob

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.

I totally agree with this.

Why are we waiting for changes that are desperately needed to bring this game into some semblance of reality?

The starting DATA (not moves) for Japan is ahistorical.

The capabilities of Japan's first move or two are also very ahistorical.

So I do not see why we should have to 'wait' for anything for things like this to be fixed. Since it is very easy to find the historical data to make the changes needed.

My theory is that, just like War in the Pacific, not that many people would want to play Japan if the game was set up correctly with the historical data and capabilities that Japan actually had. For the record, I do play Japan in WitP and I do 'go the distance' when I play head to head. My last pbem game lasted till around Feb '45.

But with the way the game is set up now, lots of people want to play Japan as obviously the Japanese leaders in the real war were all idiots since obviously they could had done much better. But if you do the research and the reading involved, you will find out that they did really well with their pre-war planning and the constraints they had to work under. A far cry from what this game shows them to be.

(in reply to incbob)

Post #: 43

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 9:23:34 PM

eskuche

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

Unfortunately the supermarket sweep style aggression is a result of the longer timeline and abstractedness of the game. Any time any port or air division is ungarrisoned, for example, there can be immediate retribution with perfect scouting of army locales in very low recon. No planning required, as ports are automatically supplied too.

That is too ingrained into the game to �fix,� so I think some bones thrown to the Allies just to make the game non-solitaire for the first three months might be nice. Alternatively, we might see the 1942 start be standard.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 44

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 9:32:50 PM

kennonlightfoot

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

In the game it is to easy to invade and at least cripple India. India is a power house if allowed to get enough production (from US and UK) to start building infantry and Air. It has an almost unlimited manpower pool. Taking it out early is a major achievement for Japan. But just crippling it for a while is also an achievement.

The UK is very limited in what it can produce. I find it's victory conditions rather unconnected to it's ability.

Part of the problem with Japan being able to run wild is it has enough LC's to do it. It doesn't have to hold what it takes, just use it to keep the US occupied a while cleaning up the mess. The Allied lack of transports until about March means that the Allies have almost no means to react to Japanese attacks other than to watch.

Before messing with force levels first take a look at number of LC's and Transports to limit the first six months of the war.

(in reply to sajm0n)

Post #: 45

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 9:34:01 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

If someone who dominates the while map with Japans wants to run the game till mid 1942 I would be happy to do it so I can see the challenges myself and get a better view.

_____________________________

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 #: 46

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 9:47:47 PM

eskuche

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

If someone who dominates the while map with Japans wants to run the game till mid 1942 I would be happy to do it so I can see the challenges myself and get a better view.

See my AAR. Will update tonight. I�d say about 70-80% optimized expansion on my first play through. Low strength landing IMHO needs to be revisited. I can island hop forever with 1 strength units. Maybe a minimum of 5 LC or 2x/3x LC/ strength up to max strength should be implemented.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 47

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 9:54:18 PM

sajm0n

Posts: 58
Joined: 5/2/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eskuche

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

If someone who dominates the while map with Japans wants to run the game till mid 1942 I would be happy to do it so I can see the challenges myself and get a better view.

See my AAR. Will update tonight. I�d say about 70-80% optimized expansion on my first play through. Low strength landing IMHO needs to be revisited. I can island hop forever with 1 strength units. Maybe a minimum of 5 LC or 2x/3x LC/ strength up to max strength should be implemented.

Sorry, but your opponent didnt give much resistance

(in reply to eskuche)

Post #: 48

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 9:56:29 PM

eskuche

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajm0n
Sorry, but your opponent didnt give much resistance

Not referring to India but more the ease with which IJN can paint the rest of the map.

(in reply to sajm0n)

Post #: 49

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/26/2021 10:55:10 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

I am increasing the NEI and Phil forces to the point the A.I. can still take it but it takes longer

_____________________________

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 #: 50

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/27/2021 10:23:58 PM

incbob

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

I am completing my PBEMs I have started because I feel doing a PBEM is a commitment to the other person.
After that I am doing 1942 starts until either the 41 scenario is fixed, someone comes up with a good 41 mod, or I can get in and do a 41 mod.

I would note, that the 1942 starts in April the UK has 3 divisions and two size 10 air groups in India. This is completely impossible in the 41 scenario to do.
Also the US starts with two divisions already in Australia and I am not sure that is possible either.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 51

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/27/2021 10:45:00 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

That is what history had them at.

_____________________________

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 incbob)

Post #: 52

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/27/2021 11:02:38 PM

Numdydar

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

Yes. But if you cannot get to the same point with similar troops, then that means the '41 start is really messed up for the Allies.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 53

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/28/2021 3:01:15 AM

generalfdog

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/18/2020
Status: offline

I had this complaint myself at first and I still think Japan can roll through their initial objectives a little fast, but as a whole after playing a few games i think vs a descent human player you will find Japan has quit the challenge and if you push to much to fast you will get over extended and it is a problem

(in reply to sajm0n)

Post #: 54

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/28/2021 3:06:33 AM

generalfdog

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/18/2020
Status: offline

Incbob. first off i don't think the scenarios are supposted to be completely repeatable, from any start point, that is part of the fun they give you a different game then you would have got yourself, but why can't you buy an air unit for India?

(in reply to generalfdog)

Post #: 55

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/28/2021 4:33:32 AM

Meteor2

Posts: 429
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Yes. But if you cannot get to the same point with similar troops, then that means the '41 start is really messed up for the Allies.

The situation in the 42 scenario must be able to reach from the 41 start positions. If the 42 positions are more or less historical (good) and we can not get to them from the 41 positions, then I am not really happy with the 41 settings.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 56

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/28/2021 7:28:34 AM

AllenK

Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Yes. But if you cannot get to the same point with similar troops, then that means the '41 start is really messed up for the Allies.

The situation in the 42 scenario must be able to reach from the 41 start positions. If the 42 positions are more or less historical (good) and we can not get to them from the 41 positions, then I am not really happy with the 41 settings.

I agree. If 42 start is historically accurate then it shows what the Allies could achieve despite their earlier unpreparedness. 41 start should allow Allies to be in a similar position when they get to the equivalent point in the game. Albeit the actual positioning might be different due to what the Japanese player has done.

(in reply to Meteor2)

Post #: 57

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/28/2021 9:18:39 AM

generalfdog

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/18/2020
Status: offline

I think it is fine the way it is but I thought of 3 things that might shut a few of us up who think the 41 start has Japan going to quick and would add some historical flavor . #1 give DEI another city that has to be captured before they surrender and put a division there. #2 give Singapore a full British corp and make a river line between Singapore and mainland Malaya. #3 make Bataan peninsula a fortress and put US headquarters MacArthur there. Thoughts?

(in reply to sajm0n)

Post #: 58

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/28/2021 3:00:01 PM

stjeand

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline

Well I think the Allies can be in that position but it depends on what the Japanese focus on and if they do the historical moves.
I an say that from what I have seen most don't...they focus elsewhere.

If they focus in India they will push back India and easily get to Calcutta. But the UK will arrive right around that time and there "You shall not pass"
If they focus in Australia then they can invade and fight there. But the US will arrive and smash any Japanese units...they just don't have enough to hold what the US can bring to bear.
If they focus in China they can push them back and the Chinese have to put up a falling back, dig in process. Only the Communists can fight.

NOW if they focus on all three...it depends on the defense.

I have only played 3 games so far against players...and one as Axis...

And it has not gone well for any of them.
Mistakes have been made on both sides...more so on theirs I believe. BUT this is how you learn

I feel that Allies are not hitting and running as they could but that is just a guess.

I love invading the oil locations...supply lines along the Indian coast...

Maybe the Allies did not build any LC?
BUILD THEM...

You can wreak havoc behind the Japanese lines if they are not garrisoning and moving all their units to the front lines.

(in reply to generalfdog)

Post #: 59

RE: 1941 needs balancing - 5/29/2021 3:23:31 PM

DaShox

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

For PBEM games, it might be interesting to have the option of some randomization of when forces/transports become available.

I am finding that those who are veteran of the game have a Japanese "playbook". They know what the allies can and can't do - and they are on a mad-rush to get it all done within the window.

Also, when a country surrenders, I think forces there should be able to fight on and the terriortory has to be cleared.

< Message edited by DaShox -- 5/29/2021 3:24:39 PM >

(in reply to sajm0n)

Post #: 60