factory redistribution

Moderators: firepowerjohan, Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:38 pm

I want all of you to remember why you're beta testers. It's not about winning the games you're playing. It's about playing your best to learn important information about the game balance and report your findings back to the beta group so we can fix what we can fix.

Quite often the beta games don't go all the way to 1945 because we restart with updated rules, hoping to get better balance results or a more historical feel. So if you lose a beta game it could just be because you were playing the weakest side. So losing or winning doesn't count in beta games. Therefore we shouldn't let there be any prestige in how we perform in the beta game.

ALL beta testers are valuable to us and we get different feedback from each of you. Once GS v2.1 is out the door I think all of you will feel you've contributed to the end result. Not all you want changed will make the release, but some will. Some suggestions that are discarded are actually quite good, but the time needed to make them is longer than we have at the moment. One example is the introduction of movable production. This means we could have added more production to western Russian cities and let the Russians move e. g. 2 production points per turn to cities at the Urals.

E. g. we could add the F command to relocate production points and then add the point automatically in Omsk, Chelyabinsk and Sverdlovsk. The main problem with such a rule is that with time Russia could send all PP's to the far east so Germany won't get anything production. So there must be some kind of limit to how many PP's can be moved etc. And now you see why we can't add such a rule right now. It would take quite a bit of playtesting time to get it right. If we got it right then we would have improved the historical accuracy, but if we don't get it right we will have to start over with testing the game balance.

One simple way to make such a rule is to not allow production to be moved if only 1 production remains. Resources can't be moved and capitals can't move production below 8. We could make each PP moved cost e. g. 8 rail cap points. So if you want to save production for the future you need to rail them before the Germans arrive. By doing that we could drop Omsk from 6 to 1 and place these points in Minsk, Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Stalino and Smolensk. We could drop Chelyabinsk and Sverlovsk as well and move PP's to the west.

So by clicking on a hex and the F key you get the question if you want to rail 1 PP to the Urals (and play the cost if you overspend the railcap). If you answer yes then the PP is moved permanently to the new location.

We could also add a rule saying that if the city is in enemy ZOC then you can't rail PP's from it. This means that if you want to rail from Leningrad you need to do it before the Germans get to the city. Or we could say that you need to have supply level 4 or better to be able to rail a PP out of the city. That means surrounded cities can't rail factories.

With a railcap cost of 8 I guess it will be expensive for Italy to rail PP's from the south and they need 8 in Rome anyway. The same with Germany.

One good benefit from this change in 1941 is that Russia will have to either decide to rail PP's to the east or units to the east. They don't have capacity for both. That means they will have to move their units eastwards or remain further at the front and fight there.

This idea is definitely interesting, but we might end up with disrupting the game balance in the east. So introducing changes that can alter the game balance is something we need to be very careful about. We did it for unit cost and the map and that can cause balance issues for us. But I felt we had no other choice given the exploits discovered by Morris. If the changes don't work we can always revert back to the old values.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:57 pm

One way to deal with the factory redistribution could have been to reduce:
Omsk 6 -> 1
Chelybinsk 2 -> 1
Sverdlovsk 2 -> 1
Molotov 2 -> 1
Gorki 3 -> 1
Kazan 2 -> 1
Kuybychev 2 -> 1
= 12PP's

Add:
Minsk 1 -> 2
Kiev 3 -> 4
Novgorod 1 -> 2
Smolensk 1 -> 2
Bryansk 1 -> 2
Kursk 1 -> 2
Kharkov 3 -> 4
Dnepropetrovsk 3 -> 4
Stalino 2 -> 3
Tula 1 -> 2
Kalinin 1 -> 2
Rostov 2 - > 3

= 12 PP's

The clue is to find a rule to prevent all PP's to go to the east.

One way to limit this reallocation is to have a max size for the eastern cities similar to the size today. Once these are all filled with extra production up to the max you can't rail more PP's to the east. Or if you rail points above the limit then the excess PP's will only produce half similar to being captured PP's. This way you would think twice before emptying e. g. Stalingrad of production if you've already got 12 PP's to the east. It could be better to lose the city and liberate it to regain full production from the city.

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Cybvep » Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:14 pm

It seems that my idea is alive! It's ALIVE!!!! :D

If you want to add this, then the transfer shouldn't be instantaneous. It should take several turns to complete it. It should also be possible to do it only if the rail cap is not below 0. This should spread the process in time.

pk867
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

Post by pk867 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:06 pm

You can always spend PP's over rail capacity

rkr1958
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

Post by rkr1958 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:54 pm

I assume we're doing this to force Russia to defend forward a bit more aggressively and not just run east. Also, the idea is to tweak balance towards the axis and not the allies. Assuming this is the case here are my recommendations if we were to implement such a scheme.

1. No more than 1 PP per turn from a city can be transferred east.

2. No city can drop below 1 PP (assuming it starts the game with PP's).

3. Cost of railing 1 PP east is 5 rail points + 5 PP's.

4. PP's can only be railed from a city if rail exist to that city.

5. PP's can only be railed to a receiving city only if rail exist to that city.

6. This assumes your reallocation of PP's stated above for the start.

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2278
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Post by Morris » Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:17 am

rkr1958 wrote:I assume we're doing this to force Russia to defend forward a bit more aggressively and not just run east. Also, the idea is to tweak balance towards the axis and not the allies. Assuming this is the case here are my recommendations if we were to implement such a scheme.

1. No more than 1 PP per turn from a city can be transferred east.

2. No city can drop below 1 PP (assuming it starts the game with PP's).

3. Cost of railing 1 PP east is 5 rail points + 5 PP's.

4. PP's can only be railed from a city if rail exist to that city.

5. PP's can only be railed to a receiving city only if rail exist to that city.

6. This assumes your reallocation of PP's stated above for the start.
It will be a big change , Axis will quite benifit from it by a strong effective Babarosa . There was a balance time point in Babarosa in 1941. Oct 20 1941 . After that the severe winter will come at any time . It is the opportunity for Russian to do the first counter attack . But according to Mr Max & Plaid showed in last several AAR ,It would be effective to hold an stable defence line at the right place from right turn by well experienced Axis player . But it was a very soft balance . After this change , the balance will certainly be broken a little ,Axis will get little upper hand in 1941 & 1942 . But as we know that every big war had its turn point . Maybe it will be the new turn point . It is really need some practise to test how it does effect our game .
For my personal opinion , I agree this change . because Allies have too many opportunity to hold their mistakes , But Axis maybe just be defeated by a only mistake . We should give Axis more chance .
:)

metolius
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Post by metolius » Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:23 am

Also, this thread has gotten way off topic. Well, not any more, since it has been moved. Carry on.
Last edited by metolius on Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:23 am

That is certainly doable using a key to perform the relocation. Do you want to do it then we have a simple way to do that without having to add factories on the map.

Should it only be for the USSR?

If the rail cost is 5 then you can do 3 moves per turn and only pay 1. But then you can't rail land units. So maybe it's not so bad.

Should the possible points that can be railed out be 12 or should it be even higher? If yes then please suggest how to alter the city production.

I can easily make code to reset city production in USSR so it will work on all GS v2.01.35 games that haven't got to Barbarossa yet. We can then use a special version of game.class to alter the production and swap back to the regular game.class immediately after.

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2278
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Post by Morris » Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:43 am

I hope it only used in Russia .Yes it will be hard for USSR especilly the Babarosa comes in a very agressive & rapid way . They have to make the choice of whether should use the rail to do it or not . Even the best gambler, do afraid of the 50% V 50% choice , the more this topic happens ,the more mistakes will be made . Even so USSR & allies will be able to afford it . But Axis will be very difficult to face it when they retreat from Russia while anti landing the American in1943 & 1944 . the train will be too presious to transfer production , but if Axis lose the PP too fast ,An even game will become a Aliies minor victory . :)

BTW , Borger ,when is your time ? it should be night .Take care of your health ! you need enough sleep . :)

rkr1958
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

Post by rkr1958 » Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:22 am

metolius wrote:Also, this thread has gotten way off topic.
Now it's back on target and I'm moving it to the beta forum.
Last edited by rkr1958 on Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

metolius
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Post by metolius » Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:27 am

Thanks! :-)

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Kragdob » Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:38 am

I think Russia (or Allies in general) is too comfortable to play so I vote YES.

This, in my opinion, should apply to Russia only and for Soviets only.

There should be some popup when Axis DoW on Russia with instruction that you can transfer and how to do it.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Cybvep » Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:02 am

You can always spend PP's over rail capacity
Yeah, but if you do that, then you won't be able to transfer more PPs!

pk867
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

Post by pk867 » Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:35 pm

This is to much a swing and Russia will be crushed. I thought we wanted to play the game and not worry about logistics.

If the player does not move the PP's to the East, what happens then? Does it recover ? if not then Russia will be without the PP's to fight back.

You can not depend upon convoys there are not a lot of them and in my games the average with all of the convoys that make it to Russia with out losses are about 50 to 60 PP's . The first convoy may not arrive for 8 to 9 turns depending upon if there is a northern convoy on the board.

If a UK convoy spawned it takes 5 turns to make it to England, then wait 4 turns then the 7 to 8 turns for the first convoy to make it to murmansk.

That totals 17 turns which is almost a year. I have seen this in many games playing the Allies. The first one is never really a large one about 20 to 30 PP's.

This idea will destroy the balance.

pk867
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

Post by pk867 » Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:37 pm

Why do we need it? To make it more like another game? I like the unique flavor of CEAW-GS not to be like oh yeah is like so and so game.

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Cybvep » Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:27 pm

Hmm, let's think for a second... Because it would be historically accurate, realistic and would give the player more options?

leridano
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:51 pm

Post by leridano » Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:17 pm

The fact is that it has not been mentioned here that with this change the axis would get less PP´s from occupied USSR cities so it is not a change that would only benefit the germans. I think it is worth to try this.


    pk867
    Sr. Colonel - Battleship
    Sr. Colonel - Battleship
    Posts: 1601
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

    Post by pk867 » Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:18 pm

    Cybvep wrote:Hmm, let's think for a second... Because it would be historically accurate, realistic and would give the player more options?

    While this happened historically does it fit the simulation well? As for realistic lots of things are factored when looking at a strategy game with this scale.

    Compromises are made for playability and trying to make the game fun.

    So to save 12 PP's which will be about let's say for 3 years (42,43,44) will be about 432 PP's points the Russian player will have to spend 60 PP's points and if we use Ronnie's suggestion then it would take 12 turns. So it would be highly unlikely to get all 12 out. So the overall effect is Russia will be short of PP's points while the Axis can capture some.

    While we are trying to tie down the game balance to release the game patch before Christmas, I do not see how we can get enough games to determine game balance with a new twist to the Russian PP's points. To determine good balance, I know that I will not get a v2.01.35 game to the end in 30 days.

    Slitherine would have to make a new installer for the PC and I would make the installer for the Mac and then we have to test that for bugs.

    I say we can consider this for the next update which would be next year.

    But I am against this change.

    PanzerGeneral
    Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
    Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
    Posts: 341
    Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:03 pm
    Location: Norway

    Post by PanzerGeneral » Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:47 pm

    pk867 wrote: While we are trying to tie down the game balance to release the game patch before Christmas, I do not see how we can get enough games to determine game balance with a new twist to the Russian PP's points. To determine good balance, I know that I will not get a v2.01.35 game to the end in 30 days.

    Slitherine would have to make a new installer for the PC and I would make the installer for the Mac and then we have to test that for bugs.

    I say we can consider this for the next update which would be next year.
    I totally agree with you on this. I feel that the focus should be to determine if v2.01.34 is balanced enough and without any bugs and do a release v2.1 before trying to play with the Russian PPs balance.

    Peter Stauffenberg
    General - Carrier
    General - Carrier
    Posts: 4711
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
    Location: Oslo, Norway

    Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:00 pm

    I just mention how it could be implemented without having to redesign the game rules (adding factories etc.). What I want from you is some kind of discussion to decide whether this is something you want or not. I haven't made up my mind here and if most of you want it then I can implement this within a day or two. It's not as good as having factories, but would at least drain the Russian rail cap in the first months of Barbarossa.

    An even simpler way to do this is to actually abstract the factory reallocation by doing the following.

    We move forward the 12 PP's and each turn 3 PP's are automatically moved to the east. The Russian rail cap is reduced by 10 (14 to 4) for the 4 turns it takes to reallocate the factories. The game AI will select the PP's to move that are closest to the German front and not yet captured.

    An alternative is to rail 2 PP's pr turn to the east and let the rail cap be halved (14 to 7). Then it takes 6 turns to get all PP's to the east.

    This way the players won't have to deal with the logistics, but you will feel the strain on the rail cap because it's quite a bit lower for the critical first 4 turns. Since the Russian initial setup is more forward than it was some time ago it means that you need to move the units back towards a safe line instead of railing units to safety. You can only rail 1-2 units per turn instead of railing 5 corps or 7 garrisons.

    I think it contributes to making an "empty" Russia in 1941 because the Russian railcap is at it's max capacity from the first turn of Barbarossa. That's probably not very accurate.

    An even simpler way is to not move PP's at all and just reduce the Russian rail cap for the turns Russia still has surprise remaining (4 turns). The reduced railcap is intended to show that the factories are being moved east as an emergency because of the rapid German advance. By doing that you have the same effect in 1942 as in 1941.

    So maybe going for the simplest solution is best.

    a. Keep as is
    b. Move PP's forward and let the players manually rail them eastwards (more coding)
    c. Move PP's forward and let the AI move a fixed number of PP's each turn eastwards. Russian railcap is reduced while this is happening
    d. Keep PP's where they are and reduce the Russian railcap for a fixed number of turns to simulate the factories being moved.

    That's your options.

    Both c and d are quite simple to implement. With c you get more of a need to defend in the front because the Germans can capture the forward PP's if you don't, but then more rear PP's will be transported instead so the end result might be the same for the Germans.

    With c the script could be
    Turn 1: Move none due to full surprise
    Turn 2: Move 1 PP from Minsk, Odessa and Kiev
    Turn 3: Move 1 PP from Smolensk, Kursk and Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov
    Turn 4: Move 1 PP from Tula, Kalinin, Voronezh, Rostov and Stalino

    If the city is captured before the transfer then the option is lost and the PP will remain.


    If you see these cities will most likely be evacuated before the Germans get to them so therefore it could be easier to just have the PP's in the east and reduce the Russian rail cap for the same turns.

    Post Reply

    Return to “Commander Europe at War : GS Open Beta”