Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

A forum to discuss custom scenarios, campaigns and modding in general.

Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz

Umeu
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Umeu » Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:31 pm

Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment aka Project: IMBA

First of all, I have really enjoyed this game, it is very good and enjoyable, but I feel that there is still alot to improve in the area of balance in multiplayer games. At the moment there are a few things such as naval warfare which aren't properly developed and which leads to exploits in PvP games. I would like to put in some effort to come up with ideas, and if I have time perhaps even mod the files to come up with a more balanced game in multiplayer for all starting years. At first I'd like to list the areas that need improvement from most needed to less need of attention. I think it wise to wait for the first batch before actually starting to mod the files though.

Any help is appreciated, either by posting your thoughts and ideas or by volunteering to help mod the files when the time is there.




Areas that need improvement

Code Navy-Blue: (I think naval warfare and all the related things are really the biggest factor for the imbalance in multiplayer games, therefor a special category is warranted in my opinion)
Naval warfare (most preferred is a complete overhaul, but if that is not possible perhaps submaring/naval combat or naval production needs to be looked at)

* Submarine warfare, the way subs are intercepted, the way convoys work (5pp for germans, 5-8 for allies), the limit on merchant convoys the Germans can sink
*Upkeep for the navy now generally prevents any potential of waging war on the sees for the CP. I know this is kinda historically correct, but for the sake of dynamic games, it would be nice to atleast have the opportunity. This includes lowering the cost for Naval upgrades which are now extremely high.
*Add the Goeben (Battleship?) and Breslau (Cruiser?) cruisers to bring a new dimension to the Black Sea and Mediterrean naval arena.



Code Red:
Artillery production (The artillery production is really unbalanced and in favor of the Allies who can possibly have 5 ammunition and artillery producing countries while the central powers can have only 2. This is not really noticable in PvC but creates a very big advantage if properly exploited by the allies in multiplayer because the artillery is arguably the most important and effective unit in the game)
Artillery deserves some closer attention, the current system has pro's and con's and these need to be evaluated properly. Perhaps artillery should become less deadly with direct fire but more deadly indirect, in the sense that it disrupts efficiency. I would like to see artillery barrages become more common but at the same time less effective. This way you will have to pound away at the enemy over a prolonged period of time before the line will dislodge (this is already represented in the game but I think the dislodging is too quick right now if multiple artillery units are involved)

The Central Powers have a massive disadvantage when it comes to artillery producing nations and raw ammo produciton as well as the ability to increase this ammo production. This needs to be fixed in order to create a more balanced game.I'm not sure whether the best way is to increase the ability of the CP to produce artillery, perhaps by giving Turkey the option to get artillery and by increasing the CP ammo production through events or by each year. Or if the better way would be to decrease the Allied capacity to create artillery by making artillery more expensive so that they can't afford a ton of artillery as they can now (this expense would be compensated to the CP by giving them some extra pp income)
Artillery should be more or less effective depending on the unit it is attacking, the terrain of the defender, the level of entrenchment.

Counter battery fire should no longer cost ammo.

Code Orange:
Offensive warfare in winter (As pointed out by MajPalmer in another thread, winter offensives were really rare and at the moment, while it is annoying, is not nearly as unforgiving as it should be)
Winter should be more unforgiving in certain areas (mountains as opposed to farmland) and climates (Russian winter should be worse than French or Italian winters and there should not be a winter penalty in Arabia or Persia) than others

Dynamic winter periods is a good idea!
Supply system needs some reworking (Most notably how cities provide supply and how units go out of supply and are resupplied in the field)

Code Yellow:
More historically accurate starting positions for all scenario's. (Smaller manpower pool for Serbia, better positioning Russian army 1914 etc)
The 1917 scenario needs to be looked at (It seems massively in favor of the Allies, while historically the Nivelle offensive was a disaster that brought the French army to the edge of destruction)
The 1918 scenario needs different win objectives or more turns (that represent less days passed)(Right now this scenario isn't really winnable by either side, it can be fixed by my first suggestion or put both sides way closer to breaking point than they are now)
Persia needs a fix (Tehran should be a capital and should have production points, perhaps an infantry unit there, atleast to avoid neutral country pp exploits. Persia did not really pick a side in WW1, but perhaps with some more in depth diplomacy options an alternative scenario can be construed where Persia actually picks a side.)
Greeks joining the war if Serbia isn't defeated by 1917 (Historically they joined around that time, only really interesting to add for the 1914 and 1915 scenario's)
Repair costs for mechanical units (Mostly an issue for ships and airplanes, it seems that their repair costs are so high that they become cost-ineffective in the later stages of the game when anti-aircraft is provided to the infantry and the damage airplanes take while protecting from enemy fighters is also substantial. This makes that fighter planes become less effective the longer the game goes on and that is a bit strange.)
Finding more functionality for certain units (Some units, such as armored trains, armored cars, train artillery but even tanks or to lesser extent zeppelins do not seem to be very functional in this game. Sure their upkeep is low, but their ineffectiveness combined with relative high production cost makes them really unuseful and I see no reason to produce them ever. This is ofcourse a sad thing, and I hope something can be done to fix that. A suggestion is to make them more effective but also alot more expensive, this way you would really want to have one, but it would be hard to afford one, and more than one would be generally imposibble)
Armored Car: Slightly enhanced offensive capabilities, no techlab required for upgrades?

Armored Train: Slightly enhanced defensive capabilites, more movement points? An upgrade that starts to come in effect when the tanks start to become a factor, this way Armored trains can be used to defend against tanks.

Armour (Tanks): More attacking punch, most effective in the middle upgrade when the tanks became technically better and anti-tank tactics were still lacking, more expensive in upkeep

Railroad Gun: Range increased to 4 (I'm aware that 3 is closer to its historical range but I think it's too little for the game.), research speed increased to be ready at fastest early 1916 or at latest autumn 1916 (instead of late 1917 now), make the railroad gun available for germans already in 1914 (it seems like the artillery in 1914 near Liege is supposed to represent the big bertha, perhaps change that into a railroad gun?), possible add more upgrades (early railway guns can have 3 or 4 range while later railway guns have increased range to 5, (perhaps increase upkeep and production to make sure they dont become too overpowered, they should not become the main artillery piece.) I'm not sure what to do with this unit, it has alot of potential but it shouldnt become overpowered. Perhaps the best way to represent them is as city/fort breakers, they are inaccurate so shouldnt be very effective against entrenched infantry in the field but they should do very well vs forts (which may mean that atleast Verdun needs a buff because I'm afraid it might fall too soon otherwise)

Fighter: Not sure if this needs any attention, seems to work fine early on but perhaps needs to be looked at to become more effective later in the game. Maybe lower repair costs, they were mostly wood and cloth early on and metal later on, not very expensive materials i think.

Airship (Zeppelins): I think they need faster upgrades, I'm not sure if they were extensively used for offensive warfare later on but they were for scouting purposes I believe. Perhaps give them the ability to scout just like fighter planes. Like all fighters, lower repair costs. Perhaps make them more effective at chasing down subs, I havent figured out yet how they come in handy. They were used early in the war but became outdated later, I think this is already fairly well represented in the game but perhaps make them more effective early on and totally useless later on (this is quite historical I'd say) so that atleast it will be a valid option.

Bombers: Fine unit overall, maybe lower repair costs, but perhaps thats not even needed, they do not often take alot of damage.
Ideas

A research tab for home defense, which would include upgrades for ports, cities, forts and coastal defense?

Include the colonies more into the game, for example by extending the map to Africa, special colonial units, more colonial related army events for mostly the UK (ANZAC and India) and France (Morocco and Algiers)

Bugs
There are some bugs with loading games in multiplayer, it would be nice if this could be adressed in the patch.

There is also a bug that makes landing units invisible (when they are on your border shore) while they can be seen in the minimap. I think it has something to do with the border mechanics (you also can't see what happens on the other side of your border, but I'm not sure. For the sake of the game though, it would be nice if we can still have vision of the shore, perhaps to simulate coastguard etc. You can't really keep things hidden in the open sea like you can on land :P
Last edited by Umeu on Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:07 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677

xriz
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by xriz » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:43 am

I've actually been working on modding a lot of what you just brought up.

I've been able to split tec's, currently I'm working splinting railroad guns into 3 steps so you can get them a lot sooner and I did make their range 4!

I've been able to add commanders, presently I'm planning on a Serbian commander but taking away most of the Serbian Garrisons, tuffer units but less of them.

Navy wise I've got planned to reduce the up keep so it cost a lot less to hang on to starting navel units, plus toying with adding range to the BB so they are more use full in bombardment and letting cruisers also attack ground units but very lightly and cutting the ammunition costs.

Changing the way submarine warfare works I think is way beyond modding from what I can tell, making BB's have a range of 2 makes them able to attack subs up to two hexes away so that will help and the subs still attack back. In addition I am adding 2 attack to starting subs making them more powerful against convoys, which I want to reduce defense wise.

As for Artillery, reducing the starting labs the Allies get is easy and adding to upkeep costs to Artillery units is also easy along with tweaking the direct and in direct damage.

Changing winter offensives is pretty easy and adding more sinkings before the US joins the war I think should be pretty straight forward.

Supply system is probably a non starter, I haven't seen a lot that would make it straight forward to change.

I've got a lot of ideas for tweaking other units you brought up to make them more useful, changes in LOS, production costs and times ect.... some stats can't be changed with tec upgrades I've found like, LOS, range, costs.

Adding research tab's for a new research item is probably not possible with out way, way, way to much work, i've looked into it and its seems real difficult to make a new unit or other upgrade that isn't already represented in the present tec trees.

I've gotten all my tweaks to work, but coding very particular so I haven't gotten them all to work together, just yet.

Umeu
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Umeu » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:18 am

nice to hear that alot is possible through simple modding :) perhaps the lordz are willing to throw us a bone with the rest :D
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677

Aryaman
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:12 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Aryaman » Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:59 pm

I think we should keep our priorities clearly, I mean some of the improvements are for reblancing the game while others try to make the game more accurate historically. Those 2 goals are not necessarily exclusive but we have to be careful in mixing them.
IMO we should start by trying to make the game more accurate from an historical perspective, for instance by changing the redeployment of units and the OOB. In a MP game is too easy for a competent CP player to take Paris and push France out of the war by early 1915 at the last, the mai reason for that is that Russia is far too weak in the game and unable to put real pressure on the Germans to shift units to the Eastern Front. A more accurate OOB reflecting the real balance of power in 1914 would go a long way in balancing the game.

Umeu
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Umeu » Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:39 pm

you are right about that, a few of the things i added to the list later are more from a historical perspective but i think they will add to the overal balance of things. they are however on the low priority list so they should be something that can be looked at when the most pressing matters are fixed.

i do agree that russia needs a small fix, most notably it needs an infantry unit in warsaw to avoid that warsaw gets blitzed in turn 1 without being able to really take it back, as it is right now it is just a instant -10. I do not agree however that Russia is weak, it may be weak in its initial stage but once it gets rolling its actually too strong and too hard to knock out of the war.

im not sure if its easy for germany to knock out france by taking paris, yes a good player will get near paris for sure but this is nothing ahistorical. even if paris is taken it is usually impossible to hold on to (although i agree that the damage has been done by then). i would also like to speed up the time it takes to ship units across the channel from 3 to 2 turns, either by changing the mechanics of embarking disembarking, and if that is not possible by making the infantry unit in london already ready for shipping. the brits landed 2 weeks (10 days) afteir their dow against germany, now it takes like 6 weeks... thats way too long.
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677

Aryaman
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:12 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Aryaman » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:37 pm

Umeu wrote:you are right about that, a few of the things i added to the list later are more from a historical perspective but i think they will add to the overal balance of things. they are however on the low priority list so they should be something that can be looked at when the most pressing matters are fixed.

i do agree that russia needs a small fix, most notably it needs an infantry unit in warsaw to avoid that warsaw gets blitzed in turn 1 without being able to really take it back, as it is right now it is just a instant -10. I do not agree however that Russia is weak, it may be weak in its initial stage but once it gets rolling its actually too strong and too hard to knock out of the war.

im not sure if its easy for germany to knock out france by taking paris, yes a good player will get near paris for sure but this is nothing ahistorical. even if paris is taken it is usually impossible to hold on to (although i agree that the damage has been done by then). i would also like to speed up the time it takes to ship units across the channel from 3 to 2 turns, either by changing the mechanics of embarking disembarking, and if that is not possible by making the infantry unit in london already ready for shipping. the brits landed 2 weeks (10 days) afteir their dow against germany, now it takes like 6 weeks... thats way too long.
Be careful while using arguments based on historical accuracy for making changes in the game, because they should be taken in full context, for instance.

1) Russia started the war in August 1914 with 2 armies facing German 1 single army in Prussia, one of them covering Warsaw. It took one full year (August 1915) the Germans to actually take Warsaw.

2) Germans got close to Paris geographically, but thatś all, the city had a very large garrison and very considerable fortifications and was never under direct threat. Plan Schlieffen was not to take Paris, it was to outflank the French field force. As game units doesn have flanks, plan Schlieffen is virtually meaningless in the game as it stands now.

3) In the game it tkes yo 3 turns to land units in France, but you have 2 infantry units inmediately available, that is a very large force in game terms compared to the historical BEF.

Just to show some of the problems we can sink into if we do not use a coherent approach that takes into account the historical balance of all the armies involved.

Umeu
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Umeu » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:57 pm

the russian army does need a different deployment, i agreed with you on that. i guess i forgot to add it but yes, i would prefer to have a fast 1 infantry unit of the brits in belgium and then the rest coming slightly later instead of 2 infantry + 1 garrison coming at roughly the same time.

a unit does not really have flanks but the army does have flanks and exposed parts etc, the schliefen plan is still viable in the game and ableit its abstracted the most succesful the german army can be is to rush for the sea and try to outflank the french army. a competent cpplayer can take paris of an incompetent allied player but not from a competent allied player.

but like you pointed out this is a balance mod for a game (not a simulation) in the first place, so i would like to balance some of the mechanics first, most nobably the naval and artillery ones, after that we can look at how we can also balance the game historically. i know i wrote both in the list but i did prioritize them.

feel free to add points to the list though, please also say what code you think they would belong to :)
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677

xriz
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by xriz » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:41 pm

Don't think you can speed up the transporting of units across the channel, at least not easily since I haven't seen any references to loading and unloading units. You could place a British unit in Belgium on the starting deployment but would probably have to change the hex owner to do that.

One of the things I've tried is adding a french cavalry south of Paris, that is historically representational of the French High commands strategic reserve of 3 cavalry divisions, it can be in Belgium in on the second turn, I've also considered moving one of the French garrisons to Paris.

To make some of the other units more useful I've been toying/considering some of these changes, this is my list so far but not complete, please feel free to comment or make suggestions;

Artillary:
Base defence = 2, use to be 0
high defence = 2, use to be 0

Zeppelins:
LOS = 4, use to be 2 (line of sight).

Fighter;
research time for Armed fighters = 400, use to be 400
cost = 30, use to be 40.
Man power cost = 3, use to be 4.

Bomber;
range = 7, use to be 10, makes you have to move them more for attacking.
cost = 40, use to be 60.
man power cost = 3, use to be 4.
turns to produce = 5, use to be 6.

Cavalry;
LOS = 2, use to be 1.
Movement = 9, use to be 8, should get let them move one more if there is a "rough" hex.

Armored cars:
LOS = 2, use to be 1.

Subs;
upkeep = 1, use to be 2
Navel attack = 4, use to be 2
submarine cruiser tec/ naval attack = 1, use to be 0, 4th & last sub tec.


Cruisers;
costPP = 50, use to be 30.
turns = 6, use to be 5, turns to produce.
upkeep = 1 use to be 3.
Sub attack = 8, use to be 5.
Base defense = 10, use to be 9.
*Can now attack land units;
ground attack = 1
bombard = 2
shock = 1
ammunition = 1

Battleships;
costPP = 110, use to be 100.
Upkeep = 1, use to be 4.
turns = 12, use to be 10, turns to produce
Sub attack = 1, use to be 2, still does about 4 damage to subs when attacking.
Base defense = 16, use to be 15.
range = 2, use to be 1, this is a big help since it shore bombardment and includes attacks against subs.
shock = 3, use to be 2.
ammunition = 3, use to be 6

Merchant convoy;
base defense = 4, use to be 7.
high defense = 4, use to be 5.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10552
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:57 pm

I must go to bed now but just some things that have been whizzing through my head that might be worth thinking about in future . . .

rain
mud
3 types of infantry - regular, reserve, garrison (home defence only) plus elite regiments as attachments (increasing efficiency of infantry unit to 12)
minefields at sea/ blockade runners
at least 4 types of ships - dreadnoughts, battle cruisers, destroyers and submarines plus smaller ships as attachments to regular units e.g. torpedo boats
what to do about pre-dreadnoughts?
Indian soldiers in British army, particularly in "middle east", Algerians in French army
more events e.g. Zimmerman Telegraph, Black Tom explosion, death of Franz Joseph, Easter rising, Battle of Coronel, Tsingtao, Africa, Lenin "sealed train" etc
diplomacy
end sequence stats etc
espionage

Umeu
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Umeu » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:35 pm

xriz wrote:Don't think you can speed up the transporting of units across the channel, at least not easily since I haven't seen any references to loading and unloading units. You could place a British unit in Belgium on the starting deployment but would probably have to change the hex owner to do that.

One of the things I've tried is adding a french cavalry south of Paris, that is historically representational of the French High commands strategic reserve of 3 cavalry divisions, it can be in Belgium in on the second turn, I've also considered moving one of the French garrisons to Paris.

To make some of the other units more useful I've been toying/considering some of these changes, this is my list so far but not complete, please feel free to comment or make suggestions;

Artillary:
Base defence = 2, use to be 0
high defence = 2, use to be 0

Zeppelins:
LOS = 4, use to be 2 (line of sight).

Fighter;
research time for Armed fighters = 400, use to be 400
cost = 30, use to be 40.
Man power cost = 3, use to be 4.

Bomber;
range = 7, use to be 10, makes you have to move them more for attacking.
cost = 40, use to be 60.
man power cost = 3, use to be 4.
turns to produce = 5, use to be 6.

Cavalry;
LOS = 2, use to be 1.
Movement = 9, use to be 8, should get let them move one more if there is a "rough" hex.

Armored cars:
LOS = 2, use to be 1.

Subs;
upkeep = 1, use to be 2
Navel attack = 4, use to be 2
submarine cruiser tec/ naval attack = 1, use to be 0, 4th & last sub tec.


Cruisers;
costPP = 50, use to be 30.
turns = 6, use to be 5, turns to produce.
upkeep = 1 use to be 3.
Sub attack = 8, use to be 5.
Base defense = 10, use to be 9.
*Can now attack land units;
ground attack = 1
bombard = 2
shock = 1
ammunition = 1

Battleships;
costPP = 110, use to be 100.
Upkeep = 1, use to be 4.
turns = 12, use to be 10, turns to produce
Sub attack = 1, use to be 2, still does about 4 damage to subs when attacking.
Base defense = 16, use to be 15.
range = 2, use to be 1, this is a big help since it shore bombardment and includes attacks against subs.
shock = 3, use to be 2.
ammunition = 3, use to be 6

Merchant convoy;
base defense = 4, use to be 7.
high defense = 4, use to be 5.

putting a brit unit in belgium would be too much, but putting it ready to ship out in the port of london would be just fine i think. it would be in belgium at the 2nd turn after the dow. putting a garrison in paris i guess is ok, im not sure if putting cavalry there is needed, but we can sort all that out when we check out all the scenarios for more historical starting position i suppose.

i like alot of what you have done with the units, not all but alot. im not sure if subs neccesarily need to become more deadly, i do agree that they need to become more available, lowering upkeep and production costs alittle bit should do that just fine. that + lower convoy numbers should make naval warfare succesfull enough early on i think.

do you think it is possible to give the cruisers a support function just like the fighters have?
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677

Umeu
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Umeu » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:37 pm

stockwellpete wrote:I must go to bed now but just some things that have been whizzing through my head that might be worth thinking about in future . . .

rain
mud
3 types of infantry - regular, reserve, garrison (home defence only) plus elite regiments as attachments (increasing efficiency of infantry unit to 12)
minefields at sea/ blockade runners
at least 4 types of ships - dreadnoughts, battle cruisers, destroyers and submarines plus smaller ships as attachments to regular units e.g. torpedo boats
what to do about pre-dreadnoughts?
Indian soldiers in British army, particularly in "middle east", Algerians in French army
more events e.g. Zimmerman Telegraph, Black Tom explosion, death of Franz Joseph, Easter rising, Battle of Coronel, Tsingtao, Africa, Lenin "sealed train" etc
diplomacy
end sequence stats etc
espionage
thanks for your suggestions, but like aryaman said we should distinguish between making the game more historical/less abstracted and more balanced. some of your suggestions will definitely help improve the balance, others i think may indeed add to the game but would not neccesarily add to the balance as the game is now, and i fear things such as espionage would really be beyond simple modding :P
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677

xriz
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by xriz » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:47 am

@ Umeu: you wrote; "do you think it is possible to give the cruisers a support function just like the fighters have?"

I think it's possible but the fighter intercept takes place in the Data/Scripts/Game/game_combat.lua file and its not for the feint of hart to modify, a whole lot of functions that could do god knows want to other navel units, providing you could even copy it out and change the relevant parts and not have the game crash on loading or when moved any navel unit.

Even with the increase in the sub's attack, they are still dead meat to Cruisers and Battleships, it allows them to do about 3 damage to convoys so it makes it worth while for them to go after convoys rather then the 1 damage they were doing before. Additionally if you increase the Battleships attack range to 2, they can escort a convoy and attack any sub that attacks the convoy and do some serious damage to the sub, though it will take a hit or two in return from the sub.

Probably the best and easiest solution is to add more navel units, like the British getting 1 or 2 more cruisers to start, you could also give the Germans an extra sub, the reduced upkeep costs make it worth while to hold on to.

I don't think its possible to place units on transports at sea during the initial deployment phase of any country.

Aryaman
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:12 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Aryaman » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:03 am

Umeu wrote:the russian army does need a different deployment, i agreed with you on that. i guess i forgot to add it but yes, i would prefer to have a fast 1 infantry unit of the brits in belgium and then the rest coming slightly later instead of 2 infantry + 1 garrison coming at roughly the same time.

a unit does not really have flanks but the army does have flanks and exposed parts etc, the schliefen plan is still viable in the game and ableit its abstracted the most succesful the german army can be is to rush for the sea and try to outflank the french army. a competent cpplayer can take paris of an incompetent allied player but not from a competent allied player.

but like you pointed out this is a balance mod for a game (not a simulation) in the first place, so i would like to balance some of the mechanics first, most nobably the naval and artillery ones, after that we can look at how we can also balance the game historically. i know i wrote both in the list but i did prioritize them.

feel free to add points to the list though, please also say what code you think they would belong to :)
Maybe I have faced only incompetent players, but I have to meet an allied player able to stop the Germans full commited to an attack in the Western Front. So far to me that is the worst balance problem, because once I take Paris my opponents are unwilling to keep the game going and surrender.
Maybe we need some playtesting for balance before modding.

Umeu
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Umeu » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:37 pm

yup, we definitely need to do that, thats why i said lets come up with some ideas, possible problems and bottlenecks first + wait for the new patch to see what they already do for us :D

i think im fairly good at playing either side, and otherwise i know a guy who is very good at playing this game as well, if u want to test a few runs that would nice. im very interested to try a few german attacks on france russia and allied defenses of such. they wouldnt be full games i suppose but say till end 1915 or something at most, possibly less depending on how it goes.

i am currently playing my first real 1914 game as entente (everyone wants to play as them apparantly :P i preferred to try out axis hehe) where i underestimated the amount of defense is needed by france early on, and ive played a load of different strategy games, i think if youre new to this sort of games you will very easily fail to see what move is need to make the defense. its very tight on both sides, germany needs to make optimal moves but so does the allied player. i was so close to losing paris, i had 1 garrison unit there and 1 6pp garrison unit on its flanks, no closed lines or anything, no trenches :P and i was facing the full german army that advanced to paris in 3 turns and was about to take it in the 4th and i was really mad that i made all these mistakes but i saw 1 opportunity and took it... i ran my armored car through brussels to my line in verdun and cut of the entire german army from supplies XD that was so funny. too bad i couldnt cut him off for more than 1 turn but atleast paris was saved and antwerp as well. but that was like a desperation move, just funny it happened, i think i know now what the trick is to a good defense :P
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677

majpalmer
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:04 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by majpalmer » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:15 pm

I thought I had a great idea. I modified the 1914 data file to include a second German convoy--worth a full 10 points--and had it enter from the edge of the map north of Scapa Flow.

My concept was that this convoy would represent German overseas trade. The British fleet would, of course, destroy the convoy easily, preventing its 100 PPs from reaching the Reich.

This would achieve two things. First, it would give the Entente player something meaningful to do with his sea power. Second, it would give the Central Powers player an incentive to use his own naval forces, and perhaps to even build additional forces, in an effort to break the blockade and gain those extra 100 PPs.

Sure sounded good. And the mod worked as I hoped. On Turn 6 the convoy spawned and made its way southeast toward Germany. Great! I thought. Next Entente turn--BAM!

If only it were that simple. The Entente AI ignored the convoy that turn, and the next, and it arrived safely in Germany.

But I guess it would work in a multi-player game.

majpalmer
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:04 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by majpalmer » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:20 pm

And if you want to get historical, the starting manpower for Serbia should be about 120, not 300.

Myrddraal
The Artistocrats
The Artistocrats
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Myrddraal » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:32 pm

Reading this with interest :)

Even if we can't/don't implement all of these things ourselves, I'm sure this will be an interesting mod.
And if you want to get historical, the starting manpower for Serbia should be about 120, not 300.
This could probably be done without any significant impact on gameplay. Serbia doesn't really have the PPs necessary to recruit enough to make a big dent in their manpower anyway.

majpalmer
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:04 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by majpalmer » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:39 pm

I have run the game with the Serbian change to 120.

Against a good human player, it makes no difference. Serbia will be beaten before it runs out of manpower.

In my try against the CP AI, Belgrade still held out well into 1916. The AI didn't hit hard enough to run out Serbian manpower as I had hoped. I even allowed the Bulgarians to walk into Nis and Skopje. The AI still didn't manage to finish off the Serbs.

Umeu
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by Umeu » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:41 pm

majpalmer wrote:And if you want to get historical, the starting manpower for Serbia should be about 120, not 300.
like i said, a balanced multiplayer game is priority 1 and after we achieved that we can see how we can add more historical accuracy without upsetting the balance. but giving serbia less manpower is definitely something that could be worth looking at. ill put it on the list in yellow priority.
Check out Project: IMBA, the balance mod for the multiplayer section of Commander: the Great War. Your input is appreciated! viewtopic.php?f=218&t=39677

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10552
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Project: Intensive Multiplayer Balance Adjustment

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:45 pm

Umeu wrote:thanks for your suggestions, but like aryaman said we should distinguish between making the game more historical/less abstracted and more balanced. some of your suggestions will definitely help improve the balance, others i think may indeed add to the game but would not neccesarily add to the balance as the game is now, and i fear things such as espionage would really be beyond simple modding :P
Yes, OK then. I just had some ideas in my head so it is best to get them written down before I forget them again. Things like diplomacy and espionage would really have to be done by the developers, I agree. Some very interesting ideas here - good luck with it. :D

Post Reply

Return to “Commander the Great War : Mods & Scenario Design”