Suggestion: Siberian Transfer

[Iron Ranger]

As we have moved into the game with more patchs, I think we are seeing a general shift in balance to the Allies. Not huge but something to be aware of.

With this in mind; I'd like to suggest a drop in the size of the Siberian Transfer. We know historically it was smaller then what the game shows, and spread over time. I would keep it as a one time event but drop:

1 HQ

2 Armor

This still gives you 2 corps, 2 armys, 2 rockets, 1 HQ and 1 air right?

Also, make it more of a drop dead date; not 40% per turn after X. More like 80% each turn after x but with no battle field condisions.

[Iron Ranger]

On a side note, you could make it a complex (in date and time) event based on USA readness, if the US redeployed her navy to the Alantic (spainish event) or a random variavle on weather japan was more aggressive in the Manchico area of Asia.

[TaoJah]

No, I think the Russian need those reïnforcements ESPECIALLY a Allied AI. If you take those out, an AXIS player can probably win the game in summer 1941 and that's just way too soon.

[Blashy]

Unless the MPPs get a serious tweak to be realistic for the allies, the siberian transfer can't be removed.

And if anything should be done to the siberian transfer it should be totally removed. After Kuniworth showed his research I did some myself and the whole siberian transfer was so minute it had no relevance in the war. Even the great Zukhov himself stated this in his memoirs.

[BioWizard]

TaoJah, game balancing issues should of course be always treated having in mind the human vs human gameplay because, in an ideal world, the AI would be as good as an experienced Human. The AI could always be tweaked or more difficulty options (such as the experience bonus) added afterward.

I also feel right now that the Allies have more chances to win right now unless you can master the "Make surrender 7 countries all at once" technique recently revealed.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by BioWizard:

TaoJah, game balancing issues should of course be always treated having in mind the human vs human gameplay because, in an ideal world, the AI would be as good as an experienced Human. The AI could always be tweaked or more difficulty options (such as the experience bonus) added afterward.

Yes, but this isn't an ideal world. The AI is horrible.

And since about 90% of the games played are against the AI, this is a pressing issue.

I don't do the conquer-7-countries, but I still win in the spring of 1942 against the hardest AI without even trying too hard.

[Edwin P.]

I see three problems with the Siberian Transfer;

1. The AXIS player knows then it occurs, as he sees the popup announcing it. It would be much better if the Axis player did not see it, or if seeing it was a function of Intel (i.e. Intel 0 = does not see popup, Intel 2 = 40% to see Allied popup)

2. Its timing is too predictable. The Axis and Allied player know about when its going to occur. I would like to see the Allied (Russian Player) have a limited choice on when to call on the Reinforcements, knowning that if he calls on them too early he will 1) receive fewer units and/or 2) risk Japanese conquest of the Far east and a loss of XXX MPPs.

3. Its content is too predictable. I would really like to see the Allied player have a choice of production strategies for the reinforcements and be able to see what they will consist of. The Russians would select this structure early in the game - i.e. 1939.

Choice 1: Armor Heavy: 2 HQ, 2 Armor, 2 Corps, 2 armies, 2 rockets and 1 air

Choice 2: Army Heavy: 2 HQ, 2 Corps, 5 armies, 2 rockets and 1 air

Choice 3: Air Heavy: 2 HQ, 2 Corps, 2 armies, 2 rockets, 3 air and 1 Strategic Bomber

Choice 4: Rocket Focused: 2 HQ, 1 Armor, 2 Corps, 2 armies, 4 rockets and 1 air

Popup example: Oct 1939 - Russia: Party Chariman, what forces should we deploy to guard our Siberian frontier against the Japanese army?

--- Comrade, Deploy an armor focused army group.

--- Comrade, Deploy an infantry focused army group.

--- Comrade, Deploy an air focused army group.

--- Comrade, Deploy an artillery focused army group.

[ October 13, 2006, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Terif]

Historical accuracy is one thing - at least from a game balance perspective Russia needs the siberian transfer (or if you want it reduced/removed an equal amount of mpps as compensation).

So far in V1.04 Allies have only an advantage against an unexperienced Axis player that still makes a lot of mistakes. From the size IMHO Siberians are just right for game balance .

P.S.:

Taking 7 minors or more at once works only once against the same opponent - if he allows it this is a clear mistake by him and can easily be avoided (and Rambo was a real extreme btw, since he even didn´t Dow Iran - a must do country - despite seeing it coming when Axis conquered Syria and Iraq the turns before..). Except for that one, in none of my last 20+ games Axis was able to do it .

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Terif:

Taking 7 minors or more at once works only once against the same opponent - if he allows it this is a clear mistake by him and can easily be avoided

How does a Allied player avoids it ? By DOW himself ?

[Terif]

Yes, Allies only need to DoW Portugal and Tunisia themselves + Iran when Iraq is under attack or joined - then nothing bad can happen .

Or if you forgot to DoW them, in previous battles they didn´t get Dowed (often several countries don´t remain neutral during the mid game... ) and Axis is really prepared to take them all, then you need to deny yourself any counterattacks during the turns till morale gets back to normal. Russia then needs to give up some land, but it has more than enough of it - on the bright side Siberians and Ural industry will be triggered earlier, so no real disadvantage for Allies. Usually Barbarossa starts before winter, so morale has enough time to go back before the real battles start anyway .

Therefore the only thing Allies really should not do in this case, is defending near the border or start counterattacks, then Allies are in deed dead against the morale bonus by surrendered countries .

[Hubert Cater]

Yes, but this isn't an ideal world. The AI is horrible.

And since about 90% of the games played are against the AI, this is a pressing issue.

I don't do the conquer-7-countries, but I still win in the spring of 1942 against the hardest AI without even trying too hard.

Taojah,

The morale issue has been addressed for the next patch and it will probably not be the exploit that it is at the moment

In terms of the AI, and for the next patch, I'm pleased to report that there have been quite a few upgrades to not only AI logic but also in terms of

the supportive framework available through scripts.

For the scripts I've added an #AI flag, as suggested by Edwin, and what this does is allow us to add minor enhancements for AI games that do not effect Multiplayer games and vice versa. For example we can now fine tune UNIT scripts to provide a few extra units to specifically help out the Axis or Allied AI (at key times), or flag a few of the WAR ENTRY scripts to add variability like the possibility of Italy throwing a wrench in Axis planning by pre-emptively declaring war on Greece. This last example could be set for an Allied AI game only and so on.

These are just a few examples but I think you get the idea where we can now have options to keep Multiplayer games more or less standard (for competitive balance) but can add quite a few variations to AI games to keep them interesting for solo players without affecting Multiplayer at all.

For AI logic I've actually corrected quite a few bugs as well as enhanced AI combat and unit movement. For example, I now have it (the testers have yet to even see this) where the Axis AI can quite regularily take out Poland in 3 turns despite my best defensive efforts and this on the easiest difficulty settings. There will also be few other surprises such as new AI scripts that handle naval movement, think FLEET planning, as well as a few others that will be announced when the next patch is ready to go.

All in all I think the next patch should make everyone pretty happy

[n0kn0k]

Nice improvements!

[Blashy]

I've had a few surprises in testing. The AI is more robust. Quite fun to play.

[TaoJah]

Thanks for the update !

And reading back, I really should refrain from using phrases like "the AI is horrible", it makes it seem like I don't enjoy the game. I do enjoy it, very much, which is probably why I still keep commenting on it instead of un-installing it and move on to the next game.

[Hubert Cater]

TaoJah,

No problems at all as I always appreciate input as I want to improve the game for everyone.

Btw, can you send me an email?

Hubert

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

What I would wish for 1.05 is that the AI stops building numerous Headquarters as Axis.. Once upon a time I had a situation where 5 Axis Headquarters stood in one line in front of Sverdlovsk (I still held Sverdlovsk)... and one field unit per HQ.. doesn`t make too much sense. Esp. if the tides turn positive for the Allies, the AI gets totally lost.. transfer a Corps out of a town and another one in in the same turn. Once I trapped 2 german and one Italian HQs south of Kiev... without any other units attached to it..

[SeaMonkey]

Back on this subject. I have not had any luck in researching the timeline for the arrival of the Siberians other than what we know was historical.

Kuni had suggested that these reinforcements trickled in. The best I've been able to come up with is that about 18 to 20 divisions arrived for that Jan-Feb 41 counter offensive, as others were added later when the offensive gained momentum.

Anyone know the exact historical configuration(OOB) and their arrival times?

[Hubert Cater]

Hyazinth von Strachwitz, this has been fixed for v1.05 as well

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ Hubert: Good to hear! TVM!