Play Balance of Proposed Changes?

[USGrant]

We have a number of proposed tweaks on the table which seem to all have the effect of tilting play balance towards the Allies. I think this is fine because it appears to be slightly tilted towards the Axis right now (when played with balanced experience levels). The suggestions that look like they might make it in include:

1. Adjusting tech so advances are slower - prevents blowout tech levels by the Germans in 1941 - a good thing, but be careful that it does not prevent Allied catch up later in the game.

2. Tweak the Russian capitols for improved supply and construction.

Others that are suggested but that I have not read Hubert's opinion on include:

3. Moderate the Operate move so that Germans don't fly a half-dozen corps from Stalingrad to Normandy in a week.

4. Tweaks to British supply/deployment in the Med.

All of these, it can be argued, go to realism but in so doing reduce some Axis advantages in the game. I'm in favor of all of these, but suggest that Hubert be careful that the the combined effect of implemented tweaks does not tilt the balance too far the other way.

[Hubert Cater]

All of these, it can be argued, go to realism but in so doing reduce some Axis advantages in the game. I'm in favor of all of these, but suggest that Hubert be careful that the the combined effect of implemented tweaks does not tilt the balance too far the other way.

That's the tricky part

Hubert

[DevilDog]

I think with regard to substantial changes in the game engine, less is more. I've never had a dificult time winning as the Allies. The most realistic aspect of SC IMO is the pace of the game. Just as in real life, Germany's only realistic chance to win the war was to have overpowering initial successes. Once all the Allies join in it's only a matter of time 'til they win. So in the game, just as in real life, germany is going to run all over the Allies at first. But the Allies don't have to win any battles, they just need to delay until America and Russia come in.

For Germany to even have a chance in the game, initially the game has to be slanted in their favor.

[Bruce70]

Play balance is the main reason why I have tried to make it clear that suggestions are for SC2. Sometimes it is easy to get carried away with suggestions for SC1 since we got used to that in the beta stage, but now that the game is out the only real tweaks that can safely be made are ones design to correct any perceived problems with the current balance. Suggestion to improve the game that are not directly related to play balance should be left for SC2 IMO.

[Hubert Cater]

I think with regard to substantial changes in the game engine, less is more. I've never had a dificult time winning as the Allies.

I believe we are in the same camp here

The most realistic aspect of SC IMO is the pace of the game. Just as in real life, Germany's only realistic chance to win the war was to have overpowering initial successes. Once all the Allies join in it's only a matter of time 'til they win. So in the game, just as in real life, germany is going to run all over the Allies at first. But the Allies don't have to win any battles, they just need to delay until America and Russia come in.

I actually see this the same way, and this was exactly the design intent. However if there does seem to be a percieved PBEM imbalance, this should be addressed. Problem for me is that I like you have not ever had a problem winning as the Allies, so I'm equally tempted to leave well enough alone, yet if it does need a slight adjustment that improves game play I am willing to consider it, so long as it does not through the game for a loop as you and USGrant justifiably fear.

Since I am still working on TCP/IP and not seriously considering any of the proposed changes until after that patch, how about a challenge between the consistent Axis winners versus the consistent Allied winners to get a better handle on things. I believe Jollyguy (playing as Axis) was interested in challenging me as Allies, perhaps the two of you can play it out for a few games?

For Germany to even have a chance in the game, initially the game has to be slanted in their favor.

Agreed, and this is the tricky part I mentioned to USGrant above that seriously needs to be considered before any final changes are made.

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Play balance is the main reason why I have tried to make it clear that suggestions are for SC2. Sometimes it is easy to get carried away with suggestions for SC1 since we got used to that in the beta stage, but now that the game is out the only real tweaks that can safely be made are ones design to correct any perceived problems with the current balance. Suggestion to improve the game that are not directly related to play balance should be left for SC2 IMO.

I agree actually and about 99% percent of the suggestions are in the back of my mind for an SC2. I am really only considering about 1 or 2 changes that may balance out things a bit for the game but not wholesale changes together. As I just posted above, I am considering a few things for the research area, again stating that I presently do not have any serious issues with it, but if after the TCP/IP patch it looks like it still needs a tweak or two, I will seriously consider it.

Hubert

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by USGrant:

Others that are suggested but that I have not read Hubert's opinion on include:

3. Moderate the Operate move so that Germans don't fly a half-dozen corps from Stalingrad to Normandy in a week.

A simple suggestion would be to have a combination

of a flat rate for op movement, and one based on

distance. Take an army: costs 25 (or so, depending

on tech level) now; in my proposal, it will cost

10, plus 1 MPP for each hex moved. Thus in your

example it would cost roughly 40 MPPs. For an

HQ it would be even worse. On the other side going

from Poland to France wouldn't be that bad...

John DiFool

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Hubert Cater:

I agree actually and about 99% percent of the suggestions are in the back of my mind for an SC2. I am really only considering about 1 or 2 changes that may balance out things a bit for the game but not wholesale changes together. As I just posted above, I am considering a few things for the research area, again stating that I presently do not have any serious issues with it, but if after the TCP/IP patch it looks like it still needs a tweak or two, I will seriously consider it.

I am glad that this is an area that is now being... considered, and not implemented for certain (... you used the word "consider" 3 times in one short paragraph -- so who says! I am too often picking dandelions out in left field and slow to react to the crack of the bat?)

And for old reasons already stated by some of us and also the newer ones herein, and because it would be something -- if it turns out to be TOO MUCH assistance to the Allies, you would have to turn around and have ANOTHER patch to fix -- what wasn't wrong to begin with.

Having said that, I am all for leveling the playing field (... and having the groundskeeper dig out the dandelions BEFORE the game begins so I won't be distracted) so perhaps a compromise?

Your initial inclination was to allow -- what was it? 3 or 4 "free" research chits for Russian and USA? Well, how about just restoring that, and possibly have the cost of switching to another area be only 50 MPPs each?

This way you are not trying out a drastic change that would inhibit Germany's "blitz-ability." I like the others feel you need to preserve that initial advantage.

I am wondering if there isn't a hidden psychological mechanism at work here -- given the historical outcome of smashing Allied success, and given the absolutely black-heart nature of the Nazi regime -- might it not be true that most folks are subconsciously intent that this Allied victory should happen again and again -- and most of the time, and an Axis triumph really upsets the collective sense of "righting that horrific wrong?"

Well, no matter the musings about psychology, perhaps it is better to go slow on this, and get some additional feedback before the tech-tree is hacked into bits of kindling wood.

[pzgndr]

I am considering a few things for the research area ... if it looks like it still needs a tweak or two, I will seriously consider it.

For play balance, we can all choose appropriate settings and/or edit the scenarios right now to change starting research points and tech levels. The proposed changes to slow down research at the higher levels and provide a switching-penalty seem reasonable but can only happen with a patch. They would still leave the Axis with an early edge for lower level tech advances, but then provide the Allies a better chance to catch up later. Germany could choose to spread research more evenly early on, or else pay a price for switching from offensive to defensive research in the later years. This seems better than what we currently have and shouldn't drastically affect play balance. So, tweaking research deserves serious consideration.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

[QB For play balance, we can all choose appropriate settings and/or edit the scenarios right now to change starting research points and tech levels. The proposed changes to slow down research at the higher levels and provide a switching-penalty seem reasonable but can only happen with a patch. They would still leave the Axis with an early edge for lower level tech advances, but then provide the Allies a better chance to catch up later. Germany could choose to spread research more evenly early on, or else pay a price for switching from offensive to defensive research in the later years. This seems better than what we currently have and shouldn't drastically affect play balance. So, tweaking research deserves serious consideration.[/QB]

Note that, if both parties in PBEM are honest,

you can do the "switch penalty" right now (just

move your to-be-switched point down to the

disband box). Would be interesting to test out...

John DiFool

[DevilDog]

Since I am still working on TCP/IP and not seriously considering any of the proposed changes until after that patch, how about a challenge between the consistent Axis winners versus the consistent Allied winners to get a better handle on things. I believe Jollyguy (playing as Axis) was interested in challenging me as Allies, perhaps the two of you can play it out for a few games?

In process now. We may have to write up a serious AAR (unless I get creamed, in which case I may have to take up fictional writing). So far Jolly has rolled over Poland and Denmark, but he's in for a suprise in France.

[SirReal]

On the subject of realism changes, why is it that ships gain experience from doing shore bombardments?

The research seems to erratic -- investing 2 pts from the start (and going up to 5 by '43) in Jet Aircraft yielding only 1 point by '44, and getting 5 pts in Rockets in '44 after setting one point there in '43 seems too strange.

IMHO, at this strategic level, gains from research should be more predictable than that.

/SirReal

[SirReal]

Oooh, another few comments ...

Why is it that being attacked several times in a single turn does not affect my ability to defend?

Reasonably, those attacks occur simultaneously, and so I must divide my defenses. Since the game plays like it does, I suggest each unit defending more than once recieves some sort of penalty. Perhaps -1 for each attack after the first?

Rockets, as implemented, have too much effect against troops (even at tech 5, hitting a city block should be difficult, never mind a tank or a ship). But they also have too little effect on resources. I suggest making rockets the strategic weapons they were used as -- good for hitting large, stationary targets (airfields, cities, etc), and not much more.

/SirReal

[J Wagner]

Sir Real, I couldn't agree more. There is nothing more frustrating than launching a number of air and land attacks on a single unit and knock it down to 1 strength point, then watch in dismay as it shoots back up to 10 points on the very next turn. A unit seems just as stubborn at 3 strength points as it is at 10. It should be so disrupted after receiving so many multiple attacks that it would be eliminated.