Balance Issues

[Wushuki]

There are in my opinion a number of balance issues, especially research related, that have been in the game for quite some time. I would like to present what I feel is currently dubious and hear some opinions of others about that. This thread is not meant to criticize the game, as I think it is one of the best WW2 strategy games, but is meant to serve as a platform for constructive conversation.

Technology related

Production Technology

To start out with production technology, I realize that this can never become a 40% reduction as it would then be cheaper to buy new units then to replace old ones. If you compare the current way that this works with industrial research and the benefits that you gain from it however it seems that it is severely underpowered.

Industrial research now increases the income of the original cities and mines by 25% for an investment of 125 MPP. Production research only increases the income that is spend on building new units by 5%. In practice the percentage of income spend on new units won't be more then 50% of the total. That means that production research gives an increase of 2.5% of the income. Industrial research is highly dependent on the country, but for large countries with few colonies like Russia this will just be 25%. For others like Germany and Japan it will still be in the direction of 50%. So that makes industrial research between 5 and 10 times more effective then production research.

About the actual effects, all nations make between 200 and 600 MPP a turn. When 50% is spend on new units (which is already a very high estimation) it will come down to an increase of 5 and 15 resources per turn. That means that you will get your investment back between 8 and 24 turns after researching it. There are about 15 turns in a year, so that is 1,5 years for you to get your resources back for a nation like Britain. That is hardly worth the investment.

A change to the production research cost could make it a more viable choice again. Alternatively an additional effect, such as decreased production time or reduced reinforcement cost might help here.

AA Radar

I never researched it and with the removal of AA units it seems highly unlikely that anyone ever will. A serious decrease in cost combined with an upgrade on ships to use this instead of the naval warfare might really help here.

Bombers

Although bombers are quite useful the research only affects strategic bombing, which isn't that useful most of the time. Even when income is invested in heavy bombers, the increase in bomber cost and thus MPP losses from bomber repair compensates for the additional damage they do to cities. This makes bombers permanently incapable of a successful strategic bombardment campaign against cities, even when highly upgraded. Although strategic bombers can be used for a number of other tasks that require the strategic bombing statistic, the high MPP cost of the research is just not worth it for those.

A possibility to deal with this might be that tactical bombers could be made to benefit from this upgrade, rather then from anti-tank weapons. The maximum level of research could then be reduced to 2 and the MPP cost to 100. The upgrade cost for heavy bombers could then be reduced from 10% to 5%. This would make heavy bombers profit from research you need anyway without spending absurd amounts of MPP to get it.

Alternatively, a simple reduction in the cost of heavy bombers can be implemented. But as it is, the cost of 125 MPP for this research seems absurd.

Infrastructure

I have never kept track of how much I spend on operating, transporting and amphibious transports, but if even for Japan its more then 15% of the total income I would be very surprised. A 10% decrease in 15% of your total income is 1.5% income bonus a turn. It would take more then a year to get your money back from this, with the already low research budget for Japan its not worth investing in it.

The cost of this would have to be reduced to 75 MPP at maximum and even then it wouldn't be able to compete with industrial research.

Unit related

Rockets

The rockets are in my opinion too expensive and not worth the cost. Even with the range increase they received in GC, practical experience simply shows that the effect they have cannot compare to alternative investments. I would suggest a reduction in cost to 125 MPP for the unit.

Artillery

Not a big issue, but artillery always seemed a bit cheap for my taste, especially when compared to rockets. Artillery is better in every way as it shoots more often, can fire at units in cities and reduces entrenchment by 2, but only costs half as much. It is true that rockets decrease morale by twice as much, but without the ability to shoot on units in cities this advantage isn't quite as large as might be expected. The 10 hitpoints for artillery for only 100 MPP are already a decent expense, but the great unit that comes with it really can not realistically cost only 100 MPP. An increase in price to 125 MPP would make both rockets and artillery equally priced.

General Issues

Tank Forest / Jungle effectiveness

I have said it before and will say it again, tanks shouldn't be as effective in forests as infantry is. This is both good from a realism perspective as well as from a gameplay perspective. Currently tanks are nearly as effective as infantry in cities and mountains and literally trample infantry outside of these areas. The difference in cost between an army and a tank is only about 40%, this is no way compensates for the double damage, 2 attacks and 15% demoralization and extra movement that tanks receive.

That means that tanks are much more powerful then infantry. Infantry needs compensation for that and this can be received by making tanks more incapable then infantry to battle in forests and jungles, as well as in mountains and cities. So the TDB for forest and jungles should be set to 2.

Final remarks

I have given some points that can be changed relatively easily that could, in my opinion, really help to solve some of the issues that the game still has. Feel free to criticize anything I have said here or to share your own thoughts.

[Colin I]

Production: Around 1.5 to 2 years to make your investment back in the context of a 5 to 6 year game seems about right. It lets Russia or USA set up mass production.

Bombers: You might underestimate how useful these are, not just reducing MPP but spotting, disabling ports and operational movement. Agreed they should be further disabled in jungle.

Armour: Basically they decline in usefulness as the war goes on (as AT technology improves) but remain potent. That's realistic.

AA - agreed, this needs to do more.

[xwormwood]

I do research AA-Tech, especially if i can't afford anytime soon a good fighter force.

Strategic Bombers are very useful if you bomb the supply level to zero, especially if you want to conquer this city, and if your enemy receives his supply out of this city.

Rockets and Artillery are ok, same would apply for the A-Bomb.

In my eyes these units are only in the game to reflect their historical presence, to smoothen up the game-feeling. For me this works very good.

Tanks, well, i wouldn't change too much here.

Maybe units could loose temporary some of their movement points when they have entrenched to a certain level, just to reflect that it takes some time mobilize units with entrechment level 3, 4 or higher.

Infrastructure would become more important if your OP-Range would benefit from this tech as well, or better: low Infrastructure level = short(er) OP-Movement distances.

[Colin I]

Oh - bombers can raid convoys and if you bomb the port a convoy operates out of this screws up the route. Bombers are REALLY useful!

[Amadeus]

What about the naval forces? I guess the German Kriegsmarine is quite strong isn’t it. In my last MP games the Subs beats (sometimes dives quite often) the Royal Navy. What about your experiences?

[SeaMonkey]

Don't forget Bombers reduce entrenchment levels X2, except in cities and permanent fortifications.

[Wushuki]

I don't think that bombers are bad units, but upgrading them seems rather useless as all the good things you do with bombers do not really need those upgrades. So spotting, bombing HQs, reducing entrenchment and reducing supply to below 5 is all very useful, but none of them justify getting heavy bomber upgrades. But if anyone feels that those upgrades are useful in some way I'd like to hear it.

Note that in my calculations of production and infrastructure I did not include the time it takes to research the technologies. This is easily another 15 turns or so for an investment of 1 chit. So the actual time it takes to get your money back is close to 2,5 years. That still doesn't completely exclude them from getting a profit out of it, but for most countries this is not worth it at all. When comparing them to industrial technology this is doubly true, as industrial technology makes itself back in just a few turns (after researching it) for most countries. In my view, these income increasing technologies should all have some situations in which they are useful. The math shows, however, that currently getting industrial technology is a good move and production and infrastructure are just empty filling of your technology window.

About the naval issue, I really haven't played enough GC games to be able to judge it. But on first sight it does seem to me that Germany receives a gigantic amount of free subs and defeating the navy of the UK is fairly easy.

[heatrr]

Why not change most of what you are lamenting via the game editor, Wushuki?

[Wushuki]

Good idea, but I post it here, because these are general issues that affect everyone and I believe it would make the game better if it were implemented. That is also why I have limited it to issues of which I think it is quite clear that they are unbalanced.

[PowerGmbH]

Really Interisting Idea about the Tank Effectiveness in Forest/Jungle Terrain.

I would totally Agree if Amry/Corps receive a +1 Defense Against Tank Attack as long as they are on a Forest or Jungle or Tropical Mountain Field.

For Standart Mountain maybe also, while not for Hills.

[xwormwood]

I'm not so sure about this. Don't forget that the tank units are not only tanks, but combined forces. Why should a panzergrenadier fight worse (with the help of the attached tank formations) than a infantry men without the help of tanks?