Final discussion about game balance

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Maybe a different approach we could do is to let Vichy France activate for the Allies if all Axis troops are destroyed in North Africa and Free France is not Allied yet. That would also activate Free France, but Free French units can't move until USA joins the Allies. So it will be dangerous for the Axis to empty Libya because then Vichy France will turn Allied (including southern France). Germany can sweep southern France and grab the territory, but it's a nuisance to do so.

I think that change would mean the Axis can't run away from Libya without consequence. If there is no Vichy France (armistice offer rejected) then there is no change.

What we could have is that Crete is also counted to North Africa for this. So if the Axis takes Greece then control of Heraklion (on Crete) will delay the time the Axis is considered eliminated in North Africa. That creates a reason to DoW Greece.

This means the Axis should be able to stall the Allies in eastern Libya so the Allies will feel they have to launch Torch to crush the Axis. If the Allies are patient then they can get Vichy France on their side with no Torch, but all attacks will have to come from the east or seaborne invasion.

If we want to reward the Axis for taking Greece we could spawn an Italian mech adjacent to Benghazi on the turn Athens falls. That should help the Axis hold Libya slightly longer. We're something similar with a German corps arriving in northern Finland if Norway is Axis.

These changes could make it more lucrative for the Axis to actually invest in Greece and avoid being eliminated in Libya.

[PionUrpo]

Forgot this one earlier. Anyone else have a problem with the huge deployment to Romania for Barbarossa? In one game I managed to reach Stalingrad without a specific Romanian deployment (only 2 corps). Seems to me it speeds up the railway build up as the Black Sea coast hexes of Romania are further to east than the usual (Polish) hexes. It also makes the southern route much more preferable as opposed to North/Central, esp North as there's almost no effect for the rail up north anyway. I think having the railways only build from the German (Polish) border would be more sensible, after all most supply would be going through those...

[richardsd]

I think the biggets balance problem we have is that the Russian's are just way to poor in 41. Morris doesn't even have to go to Omsk, he kills so many Russian's he could just go on the defensive and win easily, there just aren't enough (or strong enough) Russian's to do anything.

So after lots of thought I think we need the Russian INF tech back up and the severe winter drop to be more for the Axis. At the moment the Axis can just duke it out quite happily after sever winter hits (we might give some thought o Russian manpower as well - did they suffer at all from this inreality?).

[Cybvep]

The Red Army suffered from MP shortages in 1943-1945. It's hardly surprising when you look at the casualty statistics.

[pk867]

IMHO v2.0 is more balanced on the Eastern front then the current beta. ( i hate to say it)

[Morris]

IMHO v2.0 is more balanced on the Eastern front then the current beta. ( i hate to say it)

YES !!!

[Morris]

I will come up with a proposal from all your comments and then we vote for that and go ahead. I hope to implement the final files this weekend.

Will this change delay the final 2.1 release again ? Better not big change which need time to test !! Just small adjustment . Italy change is great , but really great effect for the whole strategy . We will have to look into it to find how it works & how does it work for game balance .How about put it in 2.2 ?

[amcdonel]

I recommend either launch 2.1 as is or if changes are introduced - then play test for balance and launch much later.

[Morris]

I recommend either launch 2.1 as is or if changes are introduced - then play test for balance and launch much later.

If play test , it will last at least one month . Why we can not wait to make the change in GS 2.2 ? I am sure it will not the last change . Just small tweak about severe winter & april fair day . For these two , we don't need any test .

[Cybvep]

Most of the mentioned changes wouldn't need intensive playtesting, as they are simple text changes.

[pk867]

Hi,
I responsible for the map. My question is we changed the map area in the North area of Russia towards Leningrad. In v2.0 the map was all forest.

In v2.1 we changed it to be more accurate. Did the new map changes possibly cause game balance issues?

Thanks for your input.

[Diplomaticus]

Hi,
I responsible for the map. My question is we changed the map area in the North area of Russia towards Leningrad. In v2.0 the map was all forest.

In v2.1 we changed it to be more accurate. Did the new map changes possibly cause game balance issues?

Thanks for your input.

I've been playing 4 simultaneous games as Allies, and the extra clear spaces do seem to make it tougher to defend up north, but I don't think it's enough that we need to change it back. We want the map to be accurate, no?

[Diplomaticus]

We have to make sure we don't make changes that would make it harder for the Germans to push eastwards. We want the Germans to have a chance to try for Moscow, Leningrad and / or Rostov.

We also don't want to make changes that will boost Russia more in the end game than in the 1941 winter offensive. So dealing with the surprise remaining will only affect 1941 and dealing with severe winter turns will only affect winter play (with less effect after 1941 since the efficiency lost decreases per year).

Giving Russia more tech means they will be stronger in the end-game. Allowing them to have focus again will have less of an effect, but could encourage Allied players to max/min situations like USA focusing on infantry and UK on armor and Russia on a particular armor tech.

So we have to be careful about the consequences of what we do. We do NOT want to reverse all the nerfing we did with Russia some versions ago. If we do then Russia will become too dangerous during the winter as they used to be. So we need to reverse SOME of the changes we made. Which ones we should reverse is still open to discussion. So please give us your suggestions.

Before we all get too far afield, what with Greece & Vichy France and Italian surrender, let's try to keep perspective. If we want to meet our deadline, we must remember that, as Borger has pointed out, we're really very, very close. He used the metaphor of a F1 car. I'd use the metaphor of sailing: once you know when a sail has been trimmed too tight and then let out too far, you have a very good sense of the proper trim. We've seen this now in Russia. Let's just make some of these proposed tweaks and leave the more complex matters to 2.2.

[Kragdob]

I would put no fair in April + SW + spawn 12 Soviet GARs 2 turns after Barbarossa has started (no fixed date!) + have Soviet recove effectiveness normally (they have it low anyway).

I think that Morris strategy is very aggresive but it has its weakness so I agree that resolution should be found on the battlefield not in another stream of changes. No more delays. Lets put any changes for NA/East after GS2.1 is released

[Blathergut]

Don't make more possibly substantial changes. Tweak the weather and make any other minor tweaks. Otherwise we'll be at RC30 before it releases. At some point you have to say no more changes otherwise it can become endless.

[Morris]

Don't make more possibly substantial changes. Tweak the weather and make any other minor tweaks. Otherwise we'll be at RC30 before it releases. At some point you have to say no more changes otherwise it can become endless.

Totally agree !

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Hi,
I responsible for the map. My question is we changed the map area in the North area of Russia towards Leningrad. In v2.0 the map was all forest.

In v2.1 we changed it to be more accurate. Did the new map changes possibly cause game balance issues?

Thanks for your input.

I looked at the map for World in Flames and it's quite similar to the current map. So I think map accuracy is more important than adding forests just to reduce the movement speed of units there. If you want to make map changes I would consider adding a few swamp hexes in the north near rivers / lakes.

The problem in the east is NOT that the Axis can move eastwards rather fast. The real Germans reached the outskirts of Leningrad in August 1941 and their Barbarossa started in June 22nd. No, the problem is that the Russians can't strike back with enough firepower.

So the tweaks we should do in my opinion is NOT on the map, but with the duration of severe winter, the efficiency regain for Russian units.

[TotalerKrieg]

I hope the conditions for Vichy France entry if the Axis abandon Africa aren't part of the GS 2.1 release (or any subsequent release for that matter). This to me seems like a major change and I don't think the assumption (Vichy France would enter on the side of the Allies if Africa was abandoned) is true. Remember that Vichy is in France (not far from the wrath of the Wehrmacht) and Petain generally complied with German wishes. An early Axis withdrawal from Africa offers some advantages to the Allies as well. If we need a change here to encourage more Axis interest in Africa, possibly tie loss of Port Said to loss of the Southern convoy or reduce general British morale by 10 (just throwing out ideas, understanding that these would not be included until GS 2.2 if ever). Looking at the real WWII, I think the war in desert was a mistake for Axis and I would hate to force them to repeat it every game.

[ncali]

I agree with the last comment that this is a major change so I voted "no" to implement it at this time. I think it could have too significant an affect on play balance and the assumption behind is it a little speculative (as noted above).

[Morris]

I agree with the last comment that this is a major change so I voted "no" to implement it at this time. I think it could have too significant an affect on play balance and the assumption behind is it a little speculative (as noted above).

I agree too ! Why Axis player have to follow the historic mistake even if they know it is wrong ? ! It really not make sence ！