GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

PSP/DS/PC/MAC : WWII turn based grand strategy game

Moderators: firepowerjohan, Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Kragdob » Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:31 am

I think that 1941 oil level = 200 is OK. If USSR is DOWed in 1942 then it should be increased to 500 or 600.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Morris » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:40 am

Stauffenberg wrote:It's certainly possible to increase the USSR oil reserves by e. g. 300 when Russia mobilizes if there was no 1941 Barbarossa.

Russia would probably stockpile some oil in 1941-1942 even if not at war. The 200 starting oil was intended to be for a 1941 Barbarossa. I think the Russians started with as low as 50 oil in the vanilla game.

An alternative is to just bump the Russian starting oil from 200 to e. g. 400 in the 1939 scenario. Do we have any data about the Russian starting oil reserves when Barbarossa started?

The biggest problem for Russia is that they don't generate oil at all until they join the Allies. In the real war they would not be idle and not prepare for war at all. An big oil producing country should be able to have some oil reserves.

So what is best.

Bump the oil reserves for Russia from 200 to 400 for all scenarios or bump the reserves from 200 to 500 if no 1941 Barbarossa?

What is the normal DOW time upon USSR in the fortress Europe strategy?
Cybvep wrote:
What is the normal DOW time upon USSR in the fortress Europe strategy?
April-May 1942. But don't count on that, just increase the oil levels in late 1941 or in the 1939 scenario.

IRL the Soviets had enough oil for their forces, BUT the Germans captured or destroyed much of Soviet fuel stockpiles during the first months of war. So it's ok if the Soviets don't start with much oil in 1941. 1942 is another matter. They would have been better prepared and a German attack wouldn't be so shocking or surprising.

I'm ok with the fact that if the Soviets try to build too many units that consume oil, they will have oil problems, even if they only last for some time. It seems appropriate, considering the logistical considerations, but they should have more oil in 1942 in order not to disrupt the balance of the Fortress Europa scenario etc.
Usually the Dow date is May 8th 1942 , If Axis quit to dow USSR , USSR will dow Axis after this turn .

We can increase the oil lvl of USSR after Nov 1941 or after Pearl Harbour . 400-500 is acceptable .

Regarding to the production limited , how about to give USSR same limited as UK or even as USA at least in 1943 ?

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Kragdob » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:07 pm

Morris wrote:We can increase the oil lvl of USSR after Nov 1941 or after Pearl Harbour . 400-500 is acceptable .

Regarding to the production limited , how about to give USSR same limited as UK or even as USA at least in 1943 ?
Morris,

Limit depends on your investments in industry. I think it is ok, that Allies (USSR primarily) will be limited a little bit which will make it longer to grow in power.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

siln
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by siln » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:31 am

Just played through a few Case White's, Yellow's, and SeaLions with the new 3.01 rules. I find the modifications very satisfying. Germany has a core groups of units that gain level 1 and level 2 experience which only a unit or two gaining level 3 by the time France fell. England provided a great battle field to gain further experience. The build up for Barbarossa went well - and managed to field a majority of units that were recently built without experience, but reinforced with my seasoned forceds. My air armada had a tremendous amount of expeirience and those poor Russians in the Red airforce felt the force. A true "infanticide" as I believe the German's initially called it - which was only balanced as the Russians built more planes - and better planes as time went by - again Historically accurate.

Note that Barbarossa started in Spring 42 as I spent 41 securing England.

By 1943 and 1944 my ost troops were a well oiled machine.
When I recalled some of them to the Western front, their expeirence in battle showed.
They were a hot knife through the butter of green troops

Good work thus far with the modifications!!

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:27 pm

Kragdob wrote:I think that 1941 oil level = 200 is OK. If USSR is DOWed in 1942 then it should be increased to 500 or 600.
I found a very simple solution to this. Currently you only produce oil if you are at war. I changed the code so you produce oil if you are at war or mobilized. So USSR will start producing about 50 oil per turn from November 1941 if not DoW'ed by Germany.

With this simple addition Russia will have between 700-800 oil when they join the Allies in the Spring of 1942. If Germany declares war on USSR just prior to the join date they will have about 700 oil. That seems pretty ok. Russia would stockpile oil from the time they mobilize so they should have some reserves to launch offensives with.

This changes doesn't require a hardcoded bonus for USSR if no 1941 Barbarossa. It simply takes into effect the mobilization of a major power.

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Cybvep » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:12 pm

Sounds great :).

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Morris » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:47 am

Stauffenberg wrote:
Kragdob wrote:I think that 1941 oil level = 200 is OK. If USSR is DOWed in 1942 then it should be increased to 500 or 600.
I found a very simple solution to this. Currently you only produce oil if you are at war. I changed the code so you produce oil if you are at war or mobilized. So USSR will start producing about 50 oil per turn from November 1941 if not DoW'ed by Germany.

With this simple addition Russia will have between 700-800 oil when they join the Allies in the Spring of 1942. If Germany declares war on USSR just prior to the join date they will have about 700 oil. That seems pretty ok. Russia would stockpile oil from the time they mobilize so they should have some reserves to launch offensives with.

This changes doesn't require a hardcoded bonus for USSR if no 1941 Barbarossa. It simply takes into effect the mobilization of a major power.
it looks much reasonable ! Thanks Borger !

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:46 pm

I was thinking about the Russian factory relocation that happened during 1941. Having to do this manually can be a choir and diverts from the military aspects of the game. Such things should be automated.

It seems like the real Russians were able to get a lot of factories to the east in time for the Germans to capture them.

The direct effect of factory relocation is to move PP's from the west to the east. The indirect effect is that the Russian rail network was strained relocating factories instead of transporting military units.

In GS v3.0 the Russians have a rail capacity of 14 when Barbarossa starts. That capacity is actually quite high. You can transport almost 5 corps units per turn.

To simulate the relocation of factories we could e. g. reduce the Russian rail capacity by 8 for the first 10 turns after Barbarossa started. The reduced capacity simulates the factories being moved to the east. If Barbarossa starts in May 1941 it means the reduced rail capacity is there until the beginning of November.

The side effect of USSR not being able to rail so many units unless they pay for overuse of their rail capacity is that they can't easily rail units away from the west or get units from the far south or east to the main defense line. So it could be the Russians would be better off using their rail cap for getting the far south and eastern reinforcements to the main line. The western units can retreat to a river line further west than the main line. If you want to get the western units out by rail you have to accept your far eastern units might not arrive at the main defense line in time for the Germans to get there.

Is this worth looking into as an alternative to having to rail PP's to the east each turn?

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Cybvep » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:05 pm

Would that mean that there is no actual (automated) PP transfer, only reduced rail capacity?

A small thing - in most games Archangelsk is not threatened, but when the Axis player manages to capture it, this has no real effect. How about stopping the Northern Soviet convoy from spawning? If Archangelsk is captured, that means that Murmansk is at the very least cut off. Without Murmansk and Archangelsk, no major ports would be available in the North, which means that the Northern convoy would be pointless.

petertodd
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:31 am

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by petertodd » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:59 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:Is this worth looking into as an alternative to having to rail PP's to the east each turn?
Yes, this would be an excellent change. It shouldn't be so easy for the Russians to run away in early Barbarossa, and it's a simple way to simulate the relocation of factories.
Cybvep wrote:A small thing - in most games Archangelsk is not threatened, but when the Axis player manages to capture it, this has no real effect. How about stopping the Northern Soviet convoy from spawning? If Archangelsk is captured, that means that Murmansk is at the very least cut off. Without Murmansk and Archangelsk, no major ports would be available in the North, which means that the Northern convoy would be pointless.
This makes a lot of sense too.

dagtwo
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:53 pm
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by dagtwo » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:13 am

This has been an excellent series of upgrades. I'm just wondering about the Egyptian map. The two forks of the Nile river make a lot of sense but shouldn't there be some marsh area between the two?
Hex grids Rule!

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:23 am

Cybvep wrote:Would that mean that there is no actual (automated) PP transfer, only reduced rail capacity?

A small thing - in most games Archangelsk is not threatened, but when the Axis player manages to capture it, this has no real effect. How about stopping the Northern Soviet convoy from spawning? If Archangelsk is captured, that means that Murmansk is at the very least cut off. Without Murmansk and Archangelsk, no major ports would be available in the North, which means that the Northern convoy would be pointless.
Yes. That is a good point. Losing Archangel means the northern convoy reverts back to UK.

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:09 am

To refine the northern convoy rules you could even add a rail depot in hex 118,1 and call it Belomorsk.

The rail line from Murmansk went through Belomorsk. One went east to Archangel and south to Vologda or east towards Kotlas and Syktyvkar. The other went south to Petrozavodsk and Leningrad.

http://www.raildude.com/en/train-ticket ... -of-europe

The main reason the northern convoy lines went to Murmansk was that the port was ice free all year since Murmansk is located at the Barents sea. Archangel, however, was not ice-free during the winter. It was located at the White Sea. The White Sea froze each winter.

See here for details:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet ... loye-More-

If Belomorsk fell to Axis hands then the railroad between Murmansk and the rest of Russia would be cut. Then the northern convoy would have to sail to Archangel. If the white sea was frozen the convoy could not reach Archangel.

So we could make a simple rule saying something like this:

1. If Archangel is Axis controlled the the northern convoy spawns as a UK convoy
2. If Belomorsk is Axis controlled the norther convoy spawns as a UK convoy if the weather in Russia is severe winter.

The weird part about this rule is that the movement time of convoys take so long time in GS v3.0 so a convoy spawning in e. g. severe winter in March would reach the Murmansk port on the map in June where you have no ice at all. A convoy being sent in October would reach Murmansk in December in the game and a big change for frozen sea.

In the real war a convoy sailed from America to Murmansk in just a few weeks (1 turn). So maybe we have to accept that discrepancy as long as the effect is the same.

Is is worth considering Belomorsk or is it enough to just check for Archangel?

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Cybvep » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:43 am

It would be easier to take Belomorsk than Archangelsk, so there would be a bigger incentive to support Finland heavily. Besides that, I think that there wouldn't be much difference in most games :). If you think that it's worth the coding effort, go for it.

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by pk867 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:01 pm

It takes on average 7 to 8 turns for a convoy to reach the Murmansk hex and have the PP's for the Russians to spend.

I was under the impression that supplies went to England and the convoy was formed and then sailed from England to Murmansk (have not checked the WWW)

Vokt
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1222
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:11 pm

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Vokt » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:06 pm

I am ok with reducing USSR rail capability simulating relocation of factories. Anyway, I've been thinking if there should be some off-map rail capability of let's say 2-3 points. This is because Germany at the end of game, and because of the allied bombings, has its rail capability excessively reduced not being almost able to redeploy its units. I wonder if this simulates well what happened in real war.

Regarding map changes suggested by @dagtwo, will this 3.1 update include some map modifications? I am asking you this because I have a few in mind.

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by pk867 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:10 pm

Look what is happening now is to adjust for balance through minor tweaks. Map changes and such will start a new beta test which should happen in about 6 months or so with another closed beta if we do it. The game has just been updated and released sheesh....
The last beta period lasted 6 months and then it took Slitherine another 3 or so months to make the installer for us.

None of this was brought up during the last beta period. I think the current map changes are fine at the moment.

Adding Marsh or whatever will then make it harder to capture the Suez. It is hard enough. As before if it is not broke do not mess with it.

So let's consider map changes closed at the moment.
Last edited by pk867 on Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dagtwo
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:53 pm
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by dagtwo » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:11 pm

Fair enough. Changes that delay the release and don't augment game-play should be abandoned.
Hex grids Rule!

Vokt
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1222
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:11 pm

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by Vokt » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:46 pm

pk867 wrote:Look what is happening now is to adjust for balance through minor tweaks. Map changes and such will start a new beta test which should happen in about 6 months or so with another closed beta if we do it. The game has just been updated and released sheesh....
The last beta period lasted 6 months and then it took Slitherine another 3 or so months to make the installer for us.

None of this was brought up during the last beta period. I think the current map changes are fine at the moment.

Adding Marsh or whatever will then make it harder to capture the Suez. It is hard enough. As before if it is not broke do mess with it.

So let's consider map changes closed at the moment.
Yep, the game has just been updated so people might wonder why this early balance tweaks if in closed beta we checked out that the game was well balanced already. So for the same reason that MINOR tweaks for balance might be included I don't see the issue in including MINOR map changes too.

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

Re: GS v3.01 slight modifications for testing

Post by pk867 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:50 pm

At the moment I just want to play the game and not spend another 10 months updating the game.

Even after we agree with these tweaks which is going to take time and with results reported. We then have to ask Slitherine if they would update their installers again for us.

Right now the few people we have doing this must report their findings back to Stauffenberg .

This is a free upgrade and they are kind enough to do this for us. Everybody is doing this in their spare time.

Post Reply

Return to “MILITARY HISTORY™ Commander - Europe at War : General Discussion”