The problem here is that we are trying to fix a potential "game breaker" whereas we have extensive experience of how the russian advance in GS flows and believe it to be balanced from a game perspective (even if it doesnt accurately reflect the russian supply difficulties). As it has been noted, the CEAW game engine does not deal with supply, hence the North African supply rules. If peoples experience of GS2.00 over the next six months say, pointed to an issue in the east that could be solved by the addition of supply rules, then we'd have to give it thought. Currently, we dont have the data to suggest that the late war in the east is "broken".NotaPacifist wrote:It's tricky, so we're not even gonna bother with it? This is just another 'what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander' issues.
Everyone had supply issues. The Western Allies had supply issues shortly after D-day and again before the Battle of the Bulge until Antwerp was fully usable. You've already said the Russians had supply issues. But we're only gonna hit the Axis with supply issues?
Proposed Change to Supply Level Distances
Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
-
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
- Location: Western Australia
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:48 am
It wouldn't be a game breaker if you accepted the idea that Russia or at least Moscow ,in the summer/fall of 41, can fall and adjusted US production to something like it's true level.
If Russia falls...since somebody said something about much of the US manufacturing capability going into lend-lease, then you could institute something like one of those grey pop-ups that says: With the fall of Moscow, the US stops sending lend-lease to Russia, and concentrates on it's own military"...or something like that. Thereby putting those PP's at US disposal
And please, no more stories about the US being too busy manufacturing toaster ovens to try to outproduce the combined Axis powers. You do a disservice to the millions of Americans that sacrificed a lot to bring peace to the world.
As far as supply distance goes, if it is going to change, it should affect everyone equally throughout the entire game. If the Axis are at Supply level 3 at Smolensk, then the Russians should be at level 3 in Warsaw. Trains and trucks didn't move appreciably faster in 1945 than they did in 1941.
It's not fair if you hamstring one side when they are supposed to be stronger, then bless the other side when they are supposed to be stronger.
If Russia falls...since somebody said something about much of the US manufacturing capability going into lend-lease, then you could institute something like one of those grey pop-ups that says: With the fall of Moscow, the US stops sending lend-lease to Russia, and concentrates on it's own military"...or something like that. Thereby putting those PP's at US disposal
And please, no more stories about the US being too busy manufacturing toaster ovens to try to outproduce the combined Axis powers. You do a disservice to the millions of Americans that sacrificed a lot to bring peace to the world.
As far as supply distance goes, if it is going to change, it should affect everyone equally throughout the entire game. If the Axis are at Supply level 3 at Smolensk, then the Russians should be at level 3 in Warsaw. Trains and trucks didn't move appreciably faster in 1945 than they did in 1941.
It's not fair if you hamstring one side when they are supposed to be stronger, then bless the other side when they are supposed to be stronger.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4744
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
The Germans have supply penalty range of 20/40 from 1942 so they're not hamstrung in 1942 or later making a dash towards Omsk a possibility.
The German advance in 1941 was a special one because they gained so much ground in just 6 months. Russia had much less roads etc. than you will find in countries like Germany, Poland and that made supply was harder. Rail conversion didn't make it easier.
So Russia is a special case. Russia liberated their territory at a more slower pace than the initial German advance. It was after Army Group Center was broken that the swift Russian advance begun.
The German advance in 1941 was a special one because they gained so much ground in just 6 months. Russia had much less roads etc. than you will find in countries like Germany, Poland and that made supply was harder. Rail conversion didn't make it easier.
So Russia is a special case. Russia liberated their territory at a more slower pace than the initial German advance. It was after Army Group Center was broken that the swift Russian advance begun.
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:48 am
Well, I can tell you that the supply distance certainly works the way you wanted. Because Doug and I play at a very fast tempo(much more than 1 turn a day) I was able to plan the armor blob from when it was first mentioned and now stand 2 hexes From Moscow on November 1. However, the turn went straight from mud to severe winter. I thought this was gonna be changed? So I imagine I'll be looking at a 1943 surrender again.
I launched Barbarossa on 2 june vice the historical 22nd. I have a lot of units in Russia, not just Panzers. The infantry have been behind, mopping up the Gars which Doug left behind. I also have a lot of fighters.
I launched Barbarossa on 2 june vice the historical 22nd. I have a lot of units in Russia, not just Panzers. The infantry have been behind, mopping up the Gars which Doug left behind. I also have a lot of fighters.
-
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
- Location: Western Australia
Morris gets to Moscow by Aug 1 by not pausing his armour to mop up GARs. He doesnt build planes, just ARM and MECHs, later followed by INF.....NotaPacifist wrote:Well, I can tell you that the supply distance certainly works the way you wanted. Because Doug and I play at a very fast tempo(much more than 1 turn a day) I was able to plan the armor blob from when it was first mentioned and now stand 2 hexes From Moscow on November 1. However, the turn went straight from mud to severe winter. I thought this was gonna be changed? So I imagine I'll be looking at a 1943 surrender again.
I launched Barbarossa on 2 june vice the historical 22nd. I have a lot of units in Russia, not just Panzers. The infantry have been behind, mopping up the Gars which Doug left behind. I also have a lot of fighters.
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:48 am
That's just ridiculous. The problem is that since the Russian isn't obligated to defend anything west of Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov, he doesn't. So instead of the historical winter counteroffensive which happened mainly around the Moscow area with a few armies, he has almost his entire army to do it with.
This has been a problem with all eastern front games. But now it's very exacerbated.
This has been a problem with all eastern front games. But now it's very exacerbated.
Isn't that historical? (The first November game turn in 1941 is November 9 not the 1st). In 1941, the first snowfall hit the Germans in early October which then turned to mud when it warmed. Then in November the weather turned colder, the ground froze and the Germans restarted their offensive. However; they had to build fires under the tank engines at night to keep them warm in order to be able to start them in the morning. Then on December 6 (I think), Russia in the Moscow area launched a counterattack using the fresh and highly motivated Siberian reserve troops.NotaPacifist wrote:Well, I can tell you that the supply distance certainly works the way you wanted. Because Doug and I play at a very fast tempo(much more than 1 turn a day) I was able to plan the armor blob from when it was first mentioned and now stand 2 hexes From Moscow on November 1. However, the turn went straight from mud to severe winter. I thought this was gonna be changed? So I imagine I'll be looking at a 1943 surrender again.
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:48 am
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4744
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
If you constantly get a 1943 surrender with the Axis then maybe there is nothing wrong with the game balance, but YOUR playing style. I think many of us can play the Axis and win against you being the Allies. I can beat good players like Ronnie being the Axis so please don't use your own results as a guideline about the game balance.
It's harder to play the Axis well because you need to know how to be on the offense and when to change to defense. Being the Allies is more forgiving, but you can still lose with them against an able Axis player. When an elite player like Neil repeatedly got crushed as the Allies against Morris is tells that the Axis is certainly not nerfed. The German armor blob strategy invented by Morris yields great results if you know exactly what to do. He has analyzed this for a long time and master his strategy. If you simply build lots of armor units and think you can replicate his results then you will be in for a nasty surprise. It's not that he has many armor units that causes such big problems for the Russians, but HOW he uses them. The sprint eastwards faster than you can imagine and that puts the Russians on the verge of total collapse.
I suggest you play the Russians from April 1941 against Morris and see how devastating this strategy is. When you lose Moscow in August 1941 and see the Germans cross the Volga in September then you pray for bad weather and fear you will lose Omsk in 1942.
You also claim we've added many ahistorical rules on purpose. I think that's not true and I want you to give us examples. What we've added are rules that can be defended as historical.
I really don't understand what you're after. The game seems pretty balanced to the rest of us playing it. If you want to alter the rules for your own taste you simply alter general.txt.
We will never get 100% balance because the difference in player skills will mean more than any change we make to the rules. Our goal is that pretty experienced players will feel they have a chance to win with either side. THOSE players are our target players. Inexperienced players will have to learn the good strategies the hard way and it's possible that the learning curve is steeper with the Axis, but that's how it is. Once you master it then you can have your fun.
My gut feeling is that the Axis is much stronger in GS v2.0 than they were in GS v1.0. So you can't auto-pilot the Allies into victory anymore.
It's harder to play the Axis well because you need to know how to be on the offense and when to change to defense. Being the Allies is more forgiving, but you can still lose with them against an able Axis player. When an elite player like Neil repeatedly got crushed as the Allies against Morris is tells that the Axis is certainly not nerfed. The German armor blob strategy invented by Morris yields great results if you know exactly what to do. He has analyzed this for a long time and master his strategy. If you simply build lots of armor units and think you can replicate his results then you will be in for a nasty surprise. It's not that he has many armor units that causes such big problems for the Russians, but HOW he uses them. The sprint eastwards faster than you can imagine and that puts the Russians on the verge of total collapse.
I suggest you play the Russians from April 1941 against Morris and see how devastating this strategy is. When you lose Moscow in August 1941 and see the Germans cross the Volga in September then you pray for bad weather and fear you will lose Omsk in 1942.
You also claim we've added many ahistorical rules on purpose. I think that's not true and I want you to give us examples. What we've added are rules that can be defended as historical.
I really don't understand what you're after. The game seems pretty balanced to the rest of us playing it. If you want to alter the rules for your own taste you simply alter general.txt.
We will never get 100% balance because the difference in player skills will mean more than any change we make to the rules. Our goal is that pretty experienced players will feel they have a chance to win with either side. THOSE players are our target players. Inexperienced players will have to learn the good strategies the hard way and it's possible that the learning curve is steeper with the Axis, but that's how it is. Once you master it then you can have your fun.
My gut feeling is that the Axis is much stronger in GS v2.0 than they were in GS v1.0. So you can't auto-pilot the Allies into victory anymore.
I agree. The changes included in Eastern Front scenario are really so significant that now can be said this scenario is far different from GS 1.00. Right now the axis can launch an overwhelming punch in Barbarossa 1941 that can make the soviets to crumble. Now in GS 2.00 a meticulously planned Barbarossa played by a good axis player can result in the russians almost kicked out of the war. So to build 12 armoured german corps does not automatically guarantee you to be in Moscow in october 1941 but it much depends much in how you have planned your movements and how you perform with such huge armoured force.Stauffenberg wrote:My gut feeling is that the Axis is much stronger in GS v2.0 than they were in GS v1.0. So you can't auto-pilot the Allies into victory anymore.
The fact is that here in the forums has been discussed many times that the russians were too strong. Some others missed the possibility to really crush the soviets. GS 2.00 has bring the possibility of knocking out the soviets. This has resulted in a really interesting Eastern front scenario in which almost all can happens.
In GS 2.00 the allied player has to do quite well with the soviets if he wants them to survive so right now is not an effective strategy to sit and wait on the east bank of the Dneper like before since you will be overrun by much more effective axis forces.
-
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:06 am
When I was play testing for SSI they required concurrent games for all scenario play balance testing. That allows for the player quality to be included in the balance stats, and without that variable we can't get a very accurate idea of the games play balance. Concurrent games just means that if you want your total axis victory data to be used in gauging play balance, you also have to play the same opponent (with the same patch version) again as the allied side. That is easier to do in short scenario games of course, but it would still be possible in CEAW GS. Players would only have to play a concurrent game if they wanted their data counted for the purposes of play balance.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4744
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:48 am
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:01 pm
- Location: Bucharest (Romania)
..balance...balance...
Hi,
Dear all, after all this is the most difficult part, are we not serching for balance in our real life???
But lets come to the game, i think that the team is doing a great job, working in their free time for this wonderful game.... its awsome...and they have my respect. (In this days every body is working for money)
I played in multiplyer only with allies, and i can say that the game is much more balance than ever, and iis very near to achieve a 99,999% balance, from now on it will be probably very small alteration of the game play due to extensive work done by now.
The game right now its harder for the allies, its not just waiting and then roll over, its about careful planing and mastering the action, sorry guys but i learned the hard way, and i thanks Loredano for this, he is just a very nice guy .
Dear all, after all this is the most difficult part, are we not serching for balance in our real life???
But lets come to the game, i think that the team is doing a great job, working in their free time for this wonderful game.... its awsome...and they have my respect. (In this days every body is working for money)
I played in multiplyer only with allies, and i can say that the game is much more balance than ever, and iis very near to achieve a 99,999% balance, from now on it will be probably very small alteration of the game play due to extensive work done by now.
The game right now its harder for the allies, its not just waiting and then roll over, its about careful planing and mastering the action, sorry guys but i learned the hard way, and i thanks Loredano for this, he is just a very nice guy .
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4744
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
This did not happen to me. I tried to run the 1942 scenario and surrounded Gomel with the Russians. The city still had supply level 3.
Can you tell me which city this happened with and whether the city was damaged or not. Remember that if the city was captured in Russia then scorched earth means the city drops a lot in strength. If it had been attacked then it would have dropped even further.
So I need to see a save game to verify this.
Did you use the latest hotfix 10
Can you tell me which city this happened with and whether the city was damaged or not. Remember that if the city was captured in Russia then scorched earth means the city drops a lot in strength. If it had been attacked then it would have dropped even further.
So I need to see a save game to verify this.
Did you use the latest hotfix 10
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4744
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway