Storm Over Europe / game balance and unexploited potential

[Bill101]

Overall this was fantastic feedback and definitely made our jobs that much easier

My thoughts exactly! We've implemented a lot of suggestions based on this thread, and the quality of the feedback has been, like in the Call to Arms balance thread, extremely useful. Thank you!

[SeaMonkey]

I had forgot about this thread and then started reading again and even though I don't have SOE, I have played all the other SCs, excepting PDE. One thing that strikes me in P to P games is there usually is very little diplomacy as neither player has the MPPs to accomplish what Hubert has set up for us. Some dabbling efforts yes, but a truly focused emphasis on diplomacy, unlikely.

So, for thought, I'm pondering, how about some free diplomatic chits for each side to garnish upon the many minors to attract their favors? Obviously, the Allied player would go for USA right off, so maybe some limitations, only one chit application per turn, per major. Maybe have them dealt out over time with DEs, heck ...I don't know ...use your imagination, just something to jump start the diplomacy model and provide additional variations.

And if we did get the USA in earlier, WTH....wouldn't that balance out the Axis advantage?

[Ivanov]

And if we did get the USA in earlier, WTH....wouldn't that balance out the Axis advantage?

Interesting idea about providing the players with some free diplomatic chints. If it comes to the speeding up few monts US war entry thanks to the diplomacy, that wouldn't change the balance of the game, simply because in SOE, even fully mobilized USA is too weak and that is the real problem of the campaign. From the other hand, the Axis could try to encourage Spain in the Atalantic zone and Turkey. Success with Turkey, would give them an easy access to the Caucasian olifileds of USSR and to the whole Middle East. So at the end, more action on the diplomatic front, could be even more beneficial to the Axis than to the Allies ( of course if we are talking about the SOE campaign as it is balanced right now ).

[SeaMonkey]

Can't really argue with that line of reasoning Ivanov. I would think, knowing the historical prowess of the British diplomatic corps, that a designer would allow many more chits to the UK then to the Axis which IMO weren't as proficient at diplomacy.

Perhaps as the percent leaning of minor countries to the Allied or Axis side escalated the MPPs representing favored trade would also increase to the appropriate side without the countries actually joining one side or the other? Then there might be a reason for more diplomatic action to acquiring that favoritism and since the Axis are more limited, might incite them to a further use of their resources (ie. diluted MPPs) in that arena.

Actually, I like the ratcheting up of USA MPPs to allow them an earlier significant effort, I'm just trying to think of other parameters that lead to the same conclusion with the addition of variability.

[Ivanov]

Can't really argue with that line of reasoning Ivanov. I would think, knowing the historical prowess of the British diplomatic corps, that a designer would allow many more chits to the UK then to the Axis which IMO weren't as proficient at diplomacy.

Perhaps as the percent leaning of minor countries to the Allied or Axis side escalated the MPPs representing favored trade would also increase to the appropriate side without the countries actually joining one side or the other? Then there might be a reason for more diplomatic action to acquiring that favoritism and since the Axis are more limited, might incite them to a further use of their resources (ie. diluted MPPs) in that arena.

Actually, I like the ratcheting up of USA MPPs to allow them an earlier significant effort, I'm just trying to think of other parameters that lead to the same conclusion with the addition of variability.

Increasing US mobilization thanks to the diplomacy and as a result having more MMP's to spent on the research and on purchasing new units is an interesting idea. From the other hand, knowing the dynamics of the game it would end up sooner or later in US joining the Allies. But as I said - the total potential of even fully mobilized USA has to be increased so it could make a real difference in the game.

[Peter Palchinsky]

I would think, knowing the historical prowess of the British diplomatic corps, that a designer would allow many more chits to the UK then to the Axis which IMO weren't as proficient at diplomacy.

I agree and suggest diplomacy costs be adjusted per nation with allies having generally cheaper rates than axis.

[xwormwood]

Can't really argue with that line of reasoning Ivanov. I would think, knowing the historical prowess of the British diplomatic corps, that a designer would allow many more chits to the UK then to the Axis which IMO weren't as proficient at diplomacy.

Perhaps as the percent leaning of minor countries to the Allied or Axis side escalated the MPPs representing favored trade would also increase to the appropriate side without the countries actually joining one side or the other? Then there might be a reason for more diplomatic action to acquiring that favoritism and since the Axis are more limited, might incite them to a further use of their resources (ie. diluted MPPs) in that arena.

Actually, I like the ratcheting up of USA MPPs to allow them an earlier significant effort, I'm just trying to think of other parameters that lead to the same conclusion with the addition of variability.

Winning or loosing the war was probably more important than any diplomatic corps.

And than the germans pressed some countries into their alliance ("do or die"). Another thing the allies couldn't do very convincing as long as the 3rd Reich was winning every or most of the battles.

I agree that Ribbentrop was in no way a good diplomat, but than weapons speaks sometimes louder than words.

Clash of Steel had the option to gain diplomatic pressure points from victories. These points could be used to press a neutral power toward you direction. Sometimes this backfired. If you had to little pressure points. You could always try, but with nothing in the backhand to impress the other side, the pressed one felt strong enough to tell you want he thought about this pressure...

[SeaMonkey]

Granted xwood, strongarm tactics have a degree of success, but just like the human response to aggressive pressure, "the ultimatum", the amount of effort received can be left wanting. Endearing a nation to help you gains a lot more contribution than demanding their assistance.

[xwormwood]

You're right, SeaMonkey, of course (even though it might happen that all you need for the time being is the help granted to you without any love for your cause).

I want my pressure points!

[Ludi1867]

This comment will take the thread away from diplomacy (a discussion I find rather interesting), but I don't think that the material deserves a new thread, as it is right in line with trying to 'improve' Storm Over Europe.

My concern is regarding Decision Event 101.

DE 101 - UK: Destroyers For Bases?

- Event fires: On the 13th August 1940 when London is in Allied hands and the USA is at least 10% aligned with the Allies but not fully mobilized.

- Cost of accepting: 450 MPPs at 50 MPPs a turn for 9 turns.

- Yes: The UK receives a strength 6 DD (Niagara) at Scapa Flow on the 13th August 1940, a strength 6 DD (St. Clair) at Rosyth on the 1st December 1940. Canada receives a strength 8 DD (Annapolis) at St. John’s on the 1st March 1941, and a strength 6 DD (Columbia) at Halifax on the 1st June 1941.

- No: Nothing.

There are some problems with the current Decision Event 101. First, the cost. Why so much? The historical event was actually sort of 'free' for the British – the only 'cost' was a bunch of bases in overseas territories plus the cost of repairing and upgrading these rather old destroyers (that cost was not insubstantial, though, as there was a lot of work required). The distribution and number of destroyers received is also far from historical. In the actual war the RN received 43, the RCN 7. So why do both the UK and Canada each get two Destroyers? Worst of all, however, is that despite paying a LOT of MPPs now, the Allied player does NOT get full strength, upgraded destroyers, but has to spend time and MPP to repair and upgrade these ships. Assuming ASW tech level 1, the actual cost of the four destroyers is 140 more MPPs for repairs to bring them to full strength, and about 120 MPPs to upgrade four destroyers one level of ASW (it costs double for Canadian destroyers to upgrade). This brings the total cost to 710 for the four destroyers with level 1 ASW, which is still cheaper than new, but hardly a great bargain.

I started looking into this particular DE because it really seems that the UK (as well as the US) get shortchanged in Storm over Europe. When this DE fires, the UK is hardly rolling in MPP (the UK always seems to struggle hard for MPP in my experience). While the UK is paying out a lot of MPP for these broken down old destroyers (and, frankly, not getting very many of them, especially the UK), the Germans get a number of 'free' U-boats, which just show up.

I can 'guess' that the designer's intent is to promote a better Battle of the Atlantic. If so, I am not impressed with the decision. The UK is badly understrength in many ways anyway, and adding further penalties hardly seems reasonable. The result is perhaps more activity in the Atlantic, but there is also a bias against the UK as a result of the dearth of MPP that the UK now has in any other theatre, whether it is to conduct a better (and bigger) bombing campaign, or build up the very weak forces available to the UK in the desert.

What should be done? Well, I think there are two choices. The DE can either be made much less expensive, and the ships are delivered in their current state, or the cost can still be substantial (but hopefully not a full 450 MPP) but the ships that arrive are full strength and fully upgraded. What would be a reasonable cost for the first option? Perhaps 100 MPP, and 200 for the second. I think the second would be better, personally, although perhaps a touch less 'historical' (although the current DE is not historical anyway).

[Sharkman]

I would like to see maybe at least 1 more free heavy bomber for the americans and 1 more for the brits, the germans get lots of free u-boats to to wage the battle of the atlantic, I think the allies should get the same freebee for the strategic bombing campaign.

[Peter Palchinsky]

Since SC1, I've felt something was wrong with how easily units can be eliminated. Historically, most battles ended with one side retreating, not being totally destroyed, which is rare in real life, but very common in SC battles. The current retreat mechanism helps alleviate this, but seems to wait till ground units are around 1-3 strength points before the unit may OR may not retreat; however, I suggest the following changes to the retreat mechanics:

1) Non-artillery ground units retreat by default if they are at least 50% strength or less AND are attacked by another non-artillery ground unit.

2) To change the default setting, allow players to choose "No Retreat" by right clicking on the unit. Then the current retreat rulles are in effect where the unit commander may or may not retreat when the unit reaches 1-3 strength points.

3) If terrain/entrenchment level aren't factored into the current retreat mechanism, then they should be. For example, if "no retreat" is selected for a unit in a fortress, then it is more likely it will not retreat compared to a unit behind a river.

4) Artillery units must retreat when attacked by non-artillery ground units except for anti-tank/AA/garrison/partisan units.

5) Naval units attacked at sea by naval/air units should retreat (like submarines do) if at 50% strength or less. If in port, they retreat at any strength following an attack by a non-artillery ground unit. Retreat from attack by air units might lead to 'gaming' issues, but should be experimented with.

6) Air units retreat at any strength following an attack by a non-artillery ground unit. This will reduce ahistoric uses of air units as "paratroopers" to fill gaps in the line.

[SeaMonkey]

Good suggestions PP. but I would offer that the retreat mechanism be based upon the experience level of the unit. If an inexperienced unit suffers an adverse combat result it retreats at a certain strength level 100% of the time, one medal 75%, two 50%, 3 - 25%, 4, no retreat.

[Glabro]

Surely you mean the inverse as retreat is a positive thing for the defenders, you'd want the experienced units be able to retreat while the green units get destroyed.

That's because the current movement system makes it very hard to follow up to destroy a fled unit.

I'd probably change the "+2 movement cost for moving next to 2 enemy units" to just "+1 to move next to one or more enemy units".

I think it's pretty silly when sometimes units are not able to march to contact with an enemy battle line because of this rule, even if they'd only need to move one tile.

[Ivanov]

This comment will take the thread away from diplomacy (a discussion I find rather interesting), but I don't think that the material deserves a new thread, as it is right in line with trying to 'improve' Storm Over Europe.

My concern is regarding Decision Event 101.

DE 101 - UK: Destroyers For Bases?

- Event fires: On the 13th August 1940 when London is in Allied hands and the USA is at least 10% aligned with the Allies but not fully mobilized.

- Cost of accepting: 450 MPPs at 50 MPPs a turn for 9 turns.

- Yes: The UK receives a strength 6 DD (Niagara) at Scapa Flow on the 13th August 1940, a strength 6 DD (St. Clair) at Rosyth on the 1st December 1940. Canada receives a strength 8 DD (Annapolis) at St. John’s on the 1st March 1941, and a strength 6 DD (Columbia) at Halifax on the 1st June 1941.

- No: Nothing.

There are some problems with the current Decision Event 101. First, the cost. Why so much? The historical event was actually sort of 'free' for the British – the only 'cost' was a bunch of bases in overseas territories plus the cost of repairing and upgrading these rather old destroyers (that cost was not insubstantial, though, as there was a lot of work required). The distribution and number of destroyers received is also far from historical. In the actual war the RN received 43, the RCN 7. So why do both the UK and Canada each get two Destroyers? Worst of all, however, is that despite paying a LOT of MPPs now, the Allied player does NOT get full strength, upgraded destroyers, but has to spend time and MPP to repair and upgrade these ships. Assuming ASW tech level 1, the actual cost of the four destroyers is 140 more MPPs for repairs to bring them to full strength, and about 120 MPPs to upgrade four destroyers one level of ASW (it costs double for Canadian destroyers to upgrade). This brings the total cost to 710 for the four destroyers with level 1 ASW, which is still cheaper than new, but hardly a great bargain.

I started looking into this particular DE because it really seems that the UK (as well as the US) get shortchanged in Storm over Europe. When this DE fires, the UK is hardly rolling in MPP (the UK always seems to struggle hard for MPP in my experience). While the UK is paying out a lot of MPP for these broken down old destroyers (and, frankly, not getting very many of them, especially the UK), the Germans get a number of 'free' U-boats, which just show up.

I can 'guess' that the designer's intent is to promote a better Battle of the Atlantic. If so, I am not impressed with the decision. The UK is badly understrength in many ways anyway, and adding further penalties hardly seems reasonable. The result is perhaps more activity in the Atlantic, but there is also a bias against the UK as a result of the dearth of MPP that the UK now has in any other theatre, whether it is to conduct a better (and bigger) bombing campaign, or build up the very weak forces available to the UK in the desert.

What should be done? Well, I think there are two choices. The DE can either be made much less expensive, and the ships are delivered in their current state, or the cost can still be substantial (but hopefully not a full 450 MPP) but the ships that arrive are full strength and fully upgraded. What would be a reasonable cost for the first option? Perhaps 100 MPP, and 200 for the second. I think the second would be better, personally, although perhaps a touch less 'historical' (although the current DE is not historical anyway).

Thank you Captain Ludi for a professional and complete assessment on the naval issue:)

It's hard for me not to agree with the logic of your post, but from the other hand, I am not sure if what you suggest would be the best solution for the games playability. Basically in my game which inspired the initial post of this thread, the only area where my Axis were effectively defeated was the Atlantic Ocean. At the beginning of SOE, U-boots can operate with a considerable degree of impunity because Allies have too few destroyers and cannot patrol all the convoy routes. Later in the game however, when all the R-N destroyers are finally in place, there is no way that the U-boots operating far from the bases could win the Battle of Atlanic. In my game, the German submarines were mercilessly chased and destroyed, despite the fact that I had established the bases in Greenland and Iceland and that some R-N destroyers were sunk during the chance encounters with my U-boots.

So even if the high cost of the "Destroyers for bases" DE seems to be ahistorical, I kind of understand the logic behind it - it simply prolonges the Battle of Atlantic and gives a bit more changes to the Krigrsmarine. What I would suggest instead, would be a smaller number of free German submarines in the earlier stages of the war, so the overall balance U-boots vs destroyers would be more even during the whole game.

[Ivanov]

I would like to see maybe at least 1 more free heavy bomber for the americans and 1 more for the brits, the germans get lots of free u-boats to to wage the battle of the atlantic, I think the allies should get the same freebee for the strategic bombing campaign.

That could be some solution, but I would much prefer simply providing the Allies with more MMP's, so the players could decide if to spent it on creating a big bomber force or for example more attack aircraft units or land troops instead. Launching a full scale bombing campaign is a controversial issue, because it cannot really do a big damage to the German war industry as the main resources are in the east, beyond the range of the Allied aircraft. It also worth remembering, that replacing the bomber loses is always a hard task because of it's high cost. From my experinece strategic airforce is most efficient when used to obliterate the rail and supply in the Western Europe prior to the D-Day.

[Glabro]

Wait, so you actually end up paying a lot more for those DDs than if you bought them normally, this being a sort of a "loan scheme" for them?

That's very silly. I'd say drop the administrative costs down to 50, perhaps make them need more repair.

[Ivanov]

I think it would be worth to establish some relation between the NM loss and the strategic bombing of the enemy cities. For example one destroyed point of the city value could equal the loss of 10NM points. Total destruction of the 10 point enemy city, would equal then the loss of 100MMP's.

It just came to me, because in Storm Over Europe, the NM is completely irrelevant in case of major powers like Germany, Britain or USSR. If the feature is present in the campaingn, it would be worth making some use of it. Still, a surrender of a major power due to the strategic bombing would be quite unlikely, but it would defnitely make the strategic bombing more attractive option for the players ( both - Allied and the Axis ). Usually if the Germans decide not to launch the Sea Lion after the fall of France, the Battle Of Britan never takes place. For the Allies on the other hand, the bombing campaign is always a quite problematic undertaking, due to the high cost of the bomber units repairs and due to the fact, that funny enough, the main German production centres are on the coquered Eastern Territories, not in the Western Germany...

[Ivanov]

Having Finland as a fully mobilized belligerent on the Axis side, just because Germans approach Leningrad, contributes greatly to the numerical superiority of the Axis at the beginning of Barbarossa, menitioned in the initial post. I haven't pointed this out earlier, because in my game as Axis, I thought that Finland joined due to the irresponsible actions of the Soviet Navy on the Baltic and in my game as the Allies, Germans never got close enough to Leningrad, so Finland stayed out. Still, due to the small number of Russian units in my disposition, I could spare only 1-2 corps to protect the entire Northern border against possible attack of the whole Finish army...

My point is, that however Finland took part in the 1941 fighting, it was happy enought not to cross the pre 1939 border. Wise Fins, were persuing only their limited national goals but refused to fully participate in the German aggression. Their refusal was one of the main factors why Germans didn't capture Leningrad, so they indirectly contributed to the one of the earliest strategic failures of the Wehrmacht. Having all the Finnish Army fully mobilized in the game, allows the Axis player the following ( just few possible examples ):

1) Attack the Leningrad from the North

2) Cut off the rail lines linking the city with the rest of Soviet Union

3) Direct Finnish units against Archangel

4) Use Finnish Army as a occupational force

All of the above options were denied to the Axis in the reality, yet in SOE the are automatically granted to the player, just because the German forces approach Leningrad.

Beacuse SC2 is not a simulation but a strategic game, that allows players to rewrite the history, I think that there should be a possibility that Finland becomes a fully mobilized belligerent, but it should be quite costly to the Axis player and also needs to be offset somehow to the Allies. It could be maybe a DE for which German player needs to pay and Allied player gets some additional units to protect the Northern border of Soviet Union. Or it could be simply due to the diplomacy, which is always hard enought to achieve, because in each game there are always few MMPs to spare after reinforcing the units, purchases and the research... Anyway, Finland joining the Axis so easily, with such a small effort of the Axis player, seems just very wrong to me.

[Ivanov]

Regarding the drop back to 5 for occupational efficiency in the USSR, we did try it but with towns maxing out at 5 and the combination of the bigger map as well as Partisans the supply problem made it severely limiting for the Axis invader. Essentially movement stalled very quickly as soon as you were 4 tiles past an occupied city, which is not much in the SOE campaign, and all supply could get quickly knocked down with Partisan strikes.

Unfortunately it just didn't feel right under testing and so we had to use the higher value of 80%.

This quote is a fragment of the supply thread but the subject of it belongs here - the SOE balance.

I understand that the supply value of some conquered cities/resources of the Soviet Union has to be set to the value of eight because otherwise the Axis armies wouldn't be able to advance there. That's fine and I don't see it as a problem. What I think should be changed, is the industiral efficiency of the occupied resources. Basically when Germans capture the six Ukrainian mines, they can get out of them 96MMPs each turn, while the Ruhr industry in the Western Germany produces only 40MMPs... Due to that, Ukraine is a principal and primary target, each time Germans decide to unleash Operation Barbarossa and does not live too much room for some alternative strategies. Historicaly Ukraine was important to Hitler due to it's agriculture, the coal mines were totaly unusable after the Red Army's withdrawl and only the iron and manganese mines of Krivoy Rog and Nikopol were extensively exploited by the invaders. Ukraine was also important because it was on the way to the caucasian oil, which was the real objective of the Hitler's southern strategy.

So my question is: is it possible under the current SC2 system, that a city/resource has a supply value set to 8 or 5, while it's industrial value is set to be 5 or to 0?

For example, some big cities of the USSR should have their supply value set to eight and the industrial capacity to zero. That would refer mostly to the the recently incorporated Polish or Baltic cities ( they shouldn't provide any MMP points to the Soviets either, as their were occupied only one year prior the German attack and in such a short time weren't still fully incorporated into the Soviet centrally-planned economy ). If it comes to the German occupation, the game would be most realistic, if the conquered cities of the USSR didn't provide income to the invaders at all ( while having their supply values of 5 or 8 ), the mines would be set to 5MMPs x 2 and the oil to 8MMPs or even 10MMPs multiplied by 3. This would certainly resolve the problem of too big and unrealistic German industrial output in the campaign.

So once again my question - can it be done from the technical point of view, given the current mechanics of the game?

[Ivanov]

I am impressed...

- Added 1 UK mine at 197,47.

- Decreased initial German IM from 80% to 75% to match the UK.

- Added 2 mines to the USSR in the Urals that are not tied to the Industrial Transfer event.

- Added an additional 2 mines to the USSR that are tied to the Industrial Transfer event

- Added a 750 MPP boost for the USSR once it reaches 100% mobilization. I LOVE IT!!!

- Increased initial US Industrial Technology to Level 1.

- Placed 1 chit in Advanced Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, Long Range Aircraft and Naval Warfare.

- Added 2 more Oil resources that will activate once the USA mobilizes for war.

- Added an additional 2 more mines to the US that are not tied to the USA mobilization event.

- Reduced US research costs by 50 MPP across the board.

- Increased the cost of Tanks, Fighters, Tacs and Bombers by 50 MPP for all countries with the exception of the USSR.

- Increase Anti-Tank TA/TD from 3/3 to 4/4.

THANK YOU!

[Glabro]

That certainly is a much needed major boost to the allied industrial capacity.

Now, I wonder how on earth we're going to go about updating those to our mod - or was I correct and basically we have to start over? Because that's what it seems like.

[Hubert Cater]

I am impressed...

- Added 1 UK mine at 197,47.

- Decreased initial German IM from 80% to 75% to match the UK.

- Added 2 mines to the USSR in the Urals that are not tied to the Industrial Transfer event.

- Added an additional 2 mines to the USSR that are tied to the Industrial Transfer event

- Added a 750 MPP boost for the USSR once it reaches 100% mobilization. I LOVE IT!!!

- Increased initial US Industrial Technology to Level 1.

- Placed 1 chit in Advanced Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, Long Range Aircraft and Naval Warfare.

- Added 2 more Oil resources that will activate once the USA mobilizes for war.

- Added an additional 2 more mines to the US that are not tied to the USA mobilization event.

- Reduced US research costs by 50 MPP across the board.

- Increased the cost of Tanks, Fighters, Tacs and Bombers by 50 MPP for all countries with the exception of the USSR.

- Increase Anti-Tank TA/TD from 3/3 to 4/4.

THANK YOU!

Your welcome

[Hubert Cater]

That certainly is a much needed major boost to the allied industrial capacity.

Now, I wonder how on earth we're going to go about updating those to our mod - or was I correct and basically we have to start over? Because that's what it seems like.

One option might be to go through the list and incorporate all the changes listed as that might be easier than starting completely over.