Game Balance - 1914 Call to Arms

[Bill101]

Hi

As I hope to start work this week on making changes to the WWI campaigns ready for the next patch, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the balance of the WWI campaigns, and especially of 1914 Call to Arms.

Now is the time to have your say, so please do, whether you think it is well balanced or not. We all have different perspectives so the more input, the better.

Thanks!

Bill

Note: One reason for asking this is that although we may introduce something whereby the Central Powers have to maintain some forces in the east after Russia has withdrawn from the war, if it is generally considered that the Entente already have an overall advantage in the game then this will not work without some compensating factor.

[Glabro]

Personally I feel that the CP have a very strong position IF they attack Russia first and only maintain a defence at Alsace-Lorraine and possibly at the Belgian border river if it is attacked / turned.

Therefore measures to implement a Russian border garrison should be taken, what kind of a garrison depends on whether Lenin was sent and / or the Brest-Litovsk treaty signed or whether total conquest took place without Lenin being sent.

Of course, Russia first being (in my books) the best winning strategy is a balance problem in of itself, it has to do with the amount of troops required to maintain the western border after the attack in the West inevitably stops at the Somme, and the inability to strike that crucial early blow to put Russia on the back footing and prevent them from teching up to become nigh-unconquerable.

[Rabelesius]

Ok, that's a cool move Bill. Let's discuss the following:

1) If Germany concentrates on the East after having achieved the usual gains in the West, Russia will collapse either by treaty or via surrender. Both events should require a decent garrison of CP troops (both AH and German) as this was the main limiting factor in bringing more troops to the West quickly.

Therefore, any time a Russian knock out happens, both CP forces should be required to maintain forces in the East. Furthermore, if the US have not been pulled in yet, the Russian surrender should give the US a greater percentage of coming into the war.

2) The early German advance: has anybody ever seen Belgium not surrender and German troops stopped at the Somme? Therefore, I propose to move some appearing French forces a few tiles more to the North. A race to the Sea never happens as the Germans are far too clever for a knockout move onto Paris. They will always advance on a broad front. How to fix this is difficult, maybe give the Paris option a huge NM for a guaranteed win in 1914?

3) The Mesopotomian front. Here, another Corps and/or artillery is needed in late 1916 and supply rules need to be changed somehow to allow a realistic chance of the Allies capturing Baghdad.

4) The Gallipoli desaster: Nobody in his right mind will ever commit the Anzacs there. Therefore, the attack should have a higher incentive. However, even the threat keeps a Turkish corps in the straits, so it's not a major problem at the moment.

5) Fast advances in tech: there should be a minimum research time so as to prevent gamey moves like putting 4 chits on one tech and achieving it in one turn (as reported by Sharkman earlier)

6) US starting tech seems to be rather low, can't the US assume the same tech level as Britain?

7) Do something about cut-off units being reinforced. That bothers a lot in the whole game.

8) The Caucasus front sees no movement at all due to terrain/lack of artillery. This is rather boring given the historical campaign's moves.

Anyhow, that's it for the moment and I also refer to earlier postings about other fronts.

[Glabro]

2) Well, like I said, I don't even attack Belgium, in order to get an early hit in on Russia, and I can halve the amount of garrison corps needed on the west wall.

When me (just once for kicks) or my opponents attack the West, they are always stopped at the Somme, where are you stopped then?

4) It actually requires 2 detachments.

5) It's gamey to put 4 or more chits in one tech? What?

6) Yes. It's a major problem in my mind that cut off units in towns simply keep reinforcing (out of occupied enemy towns no less!) In my mind the whole supply system needs a re-thinking, my idea was supply depots (non-leading HQs). For example, it's very silly when the Cyprus detachment can invade and cut the Ottoman railway (I forget the name of the non-port town nearby) and reinforce from there, requiring 2 corps and a HQ to dislodge!

8) Yes, there's absolutely no action there. Even a single detachment can hold a mountain road town indefinitely.

[Kommandant]

I will work over Rabelesius post:

1) If Germany concentrates on the East after having achieved the usual gains in the West, Russia will collapse either by treaty or via surrender. Both events should require a decent garrison of CP troops (both AH and German) as this was the main limiting factor in bringing more troops to the West quickly.

Therefore, any time a Russian knock out happens, both CP forces should be required to maintain forces in the East. Furthermore, if the US have not been pulled in yet, the Russian surrender should give the US a greater percentage of coming into the war.

I agree, as it has been discussed before, germany should be forced to leave troops to hold ground in the east border when Germany surrender. I think, also, that Russian surrender should force US to enter more into the war, not a total activation, but something like 20%-30%. But, we must see that CP has some minor desadvantage towards Entente already.

2) The early German advance: has anybody ever seen Belgium not surrender and German troops stopped at the Somme? Therefore, I propose to move some appearing French forces a few tiles more to the North. A race to the Sea never happens as the Germans are far too clever for a knockout move onto Paris. They will always advance on a broad front. How to fix this is difficult, maybe give the Paris option a huge NM for a guaranteed win in 1914?

I agree with this also, The race to the sea is never done, as troops are not deployed faster enough to the northern border of france.

3) The Mesopotomian front. Here, another Corps and/or artillery is needed in late 1916 and supply rules need to be changed somehow to allow a realistic chance of the Allies capturing Baghdad.

The brits should have a DE to deploy a corps and a 5 str art by late 1916

4) The Gallipoli desaster: Nobody in his right mind will ever commit the Anzacs there. Therefore, the attack should have a higher incentive. However, even the threat keeps a Turkish corps in the straits, so it's not a major problem at the moment.

I don't agree, Gallipoli is already a very good target for Entente, i only think that greece should mobilize at 200% if gallipoli is taken by Entente powers.

5) Fast advances in tech: there should be a minimum research time so as to prevent gamey moves like putting 4 chits on one tech and achieving it in one turn (as reported by Sharkman earlier)

I think minimun research lvl for a breakthroughshould be 30%, then this early research achivements would not hapen at all.

6) US starting tech seems to be rather low, can't the US assume the same tech level as Britain?

A good point, but i don't think it's relevant, US has a lot of industrial power, and you can give 75% of it to Brit, the US enter in the war is not about the US troops, but is about US MPP to GB.

7) Do something about cut-off units being reinforced. That bothers a lot in the whole game.

This is a very good point, but to do it i think they have to remake all game supply system, i don't think this will come out in the next patch.

8) The Caucasus front sees no movement at all due to terrain/lack of artillery. This is rather boring given the historical campaign's moves.

I agree. Caucasus is never a front in the game, It's because of the lack of troops and supply for Russia or OE, but i think this front can be moved by deploying troops there rather than the german/A-H borders.

[Rabelesius]

2) Well, like I said, I don't even attack Belgium, in order to get an early hit in on Russia, and I can halve the amount of garrison corps needed on the west wall.

When me (just once for kicks) or my opponents attack the West, they are always stopped at the Somme, where are you stopped then?

4) It actually requires 2 detachments.

5) It's gamey to put 4 or more chits in one tech? What?

6) Yes. It's a major problem in my mind that cut off units in towns simply keep reinforcing (out of occupied enemy towns no less!) In my mind the whole supply system needs a re-thinking, my idea was supply depots (non-leading HQs). For example, it's very silly when the Cyprus detachment can invade and cut the Ottoman railway (I forget the name of the non-port town nearby) and reinforce from there, requiring 2 corps and a HQ to dislodge!

8) Yes, there's absolutely no action there. Even a single detachment can hold a mountain road town indefinitely.

Attacking Belgium should be no option. There was no choice to not enact Schlieffen. That is something to be explored in a variant/expansion.

We are always stopped at the Somme. That's the logical frontline. And it's not possible to save Belgium. Solutions welcome.

It's gamey that you put 4 chits in one tech and achieve a breakthrough instantly.

[Glabro]

What do you mean, no choice not to enact Schlieffen? What forced them into this blunder?

Like I've said before, the whole strategy was to knock out France fast, not to knock out Belgium and capture some industry, then hold the line from Schwarzwald to the Channel.

As for the tech question, just as long we agree it's not somehow wrong to invest a lot in one tech, just the results can be weird, we're fine.

[Ivanov]

In my opinion the scenario is in general well balanced and the fact that CP don't have to garrison their eastern borders, gives them too big superiority on the Western Front at the later stage. As someone put it before: when troops are transfered from Russia, there are more German units than spare tiles in Belgium and Northern France I'd suggest that leaving some units in the East should be offset by the lower impact of the Bolshevik agitation. I mean it should still affect NM of both sides, but not so fast, if the CP leave some garrisons on the former Eastern Front. It would be a nice trade off, because right now Germany & C.O usually surrender due to the loss of NM, not because of the the military defeat.

Also, I think that both WWI campaigns should be set to finish automatically let's say in 1920, not 1918.

I would also like to repeat here my earlier request. I'd be cool if in the new patch there would be an optional possibility of switching off the estimate of combat results. For some of us it would realy mean a big improvement in the game playability

[Peter Palchinsky]

Hi

As I hope to start work this week on making changes to the WWI campaigns ready for the next patch, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the balance of the WWI campaigns, and especially of 1914 Call to Arms.

Thanks!

Bill

Bill, just two things for now.

1) Experience level of units should not allow automatic increases in strength for all nations. In my view only Germany, France, Britain, and US deserve this perk. For all other nations the max strength should be 10 no matter the experience level. For play balance I'd entertain Russia too. But can the 10+ strength bonuses be limited to certain units of a nation; for example, only ground units?

2) Allow "economic aid" to be turned off by the owner. It would be nice to make it based on a sliding scale percent with max of 10% of total income per nation u wish to aid.

PP

[Glabro]

Is overstrenghtening really an issue?

[Peter Palchinsky]

Glabro, in most of my games AH units on eastern front gain experience quickly and by late 1915 many corps are 10+ strength. It is my view that this is an imbalance because AH units did not perform well historically. My fix is to limit their ability to gain 10+ strength. As I thought about it more I believe Italy, Turkey and all neutrals should be limited too. I'm inclined to do the same with Russia but this might cause another imbalance with respect to German units, but it needs to be tested. My fix for Russia was to ask if only certain units could be allowed the strength increases vs. all units a nation possesses.

PP

[Rabelesius]

Wow, I never see units stronger than 10 except when they arrive as such. But I agree that the AH is pretty strong (only in one of my current games, Sharkman decided to cede Trieste, that brought them to historical performance quickly ;-))

[Glabro]

Yeah, the elite reinforcements cost double...but I suppose the readiness increase makes it worth it when you've got the money to spare later on.

[Bill101]

Hi

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

I'm just sifting through it properly now and from it I'm taking that in general the scenario is pretty well balanced but there are a few details that could be improved upon.

I might have a few further questions or comments later.

Bill

[Bill101]

The lack of movement in the Caucasus has been mentioned in a few posts.

There is a Russian Decision Event to provide the Caucasus front with an artillery unit in the spring of 1915, but I presume that this isn't enough generally enough to start pushing the Ottomans back, or is the artillery unit being sent to the Eastern Front instead?

[Bill101]

Bill, just two things for now.

1) Experience level of units should not allow automatic increases in strength for all nations. In my view only Germany, France, Britain, and US deserve this perk. For all other nations the max strength should be 10 no matter the experience level. For play balance I'd entertain Russia too. But can the 10+ strength bonuses be limited to certain units of a nation; for example, only ground units?

Hi Peter

I'm afraid that it isn't possible to allow for Elite reinforcements to some countries but not others, so that issue cannot be addressed directly.

2) Allow "economic aid" to be turned off by the owner. It would be nice to make it based on a sliding scale percent with max of 10% of total income per nation u wish to aid.

PP

I'm not sure that I follow, though a Major can adjust the amount of money it sends by convoy, e.g. the USA to the UK, via the Convoys map.

[xwormwood]

Well, this has nothing to do with game balance, i guess, but anyway:

4) The Gallipoli desaster: Nobody in his right mind will ever commit the Anzacs there. Therefore, the attack should have a higher incentive. However, even the threat keeps a Turkish corps in the straits, so it's not a major problem at the moment.

I completly agree.

And i would even go one step further ahead.

All HISTORICAL oparations should be offered in a decison event (many already are, like the zimmermann telegram), even the not so clever ones or the disasterous ones.

Together with a sweet but somehow poisenous incentive.

The player should be tempted to do as his historical counterparts did, to repeat their mistakes. He should have have the freedom not to do so, but he should be tempted to walk on dangerous streets.

What about a NM bonus for invading gallipolli? And a NM morale malus for withdrawing to soon? Or a unit morale malus if certain naval tiles are not held by Entente war ships (during the gallipolli invasion)?

When it comes to Iraq, why not give the Entente better supply or movement IF they have done the Gallipolli invasion?

Or the Turks could receive somewhere of for some time less supply because of the entente Gallipolli invasion.

[Sharkman]

I would like to have the option to build more smaller cheaper units in exchange for less larger units, especialy the Ottomans could use more smaller units. I usualy use up the Turkish detachments very early but never build all their corps. Possibly combining the build limits for all infantry units: 2 detachments = 1 corps, air units could be done the same way, then you could choose not to build zeppelins at all but more fighters or bombers.

[Bill101]

3) The Mesopotomian front. Here, another Corps and/or artillery is needed in late 1916 and supply rules need to be changed somehow to allow a realistic chance of the Allies capturing Baghdad.

Hi

In addition to the Maude decision event which provides an HQ (Maude) and the Tigris Corps at Basra in July 1916, I have found some of my opponents sending quite a large proportion of either the original British army, or of Kitchener's New Army to this area.

They are taking a chance that the French will be able to hold on the Western Front in the meantime, possibly with some British support, but it does seem to have some potential so I would recommend giving this a try.

That said, I am considering adding a second decision that would allow for an artillery unit at Basra at the same time, but it would be at full price.

Bill

[Bill101]

All HISTORICAL oparations should be offered in a decison event ... The player should be tempted to do as his historical counterparts did, to repeat their mistakes. He should have have the freedom not to do so, but he should be tempted to walk on dangerous streets.

What about a NM bonus for invading gallipolli? And a NM morale malus for withdrawing to soon? Or a unit morale malus if certain naval tiles are not held by Entente war ships (during the gallipolli invasion)?

Hi Claus

Where possible I generally agree about the Decision Event, but here it could only really be done prior to the Ottomans joining the war.

Any later on, and an Ottoman player who has stuffed Gallipoli full of troops won't be pleased to find them all pushed out and the town captured by the Entente as the result of a decision event.

Currently, a successful Entente landing at Gallipoli will:

• Reduce Ottoman National Morale by 2,500, i.e. 12.5% of the Ottoman's starting figure.
  
• Make Bulgaria, Romania and Greece all swing 30-45% towards joining the Entente.

One problem with Gallipoli is that I think the mission could never really have achieved what it aimed to do, unless Constantinople could have been taken and held by a large force.

The Russians did make some preparations for an amphibious landing and that would have helped if it had been carried out, but whether it would have affected the outcome is hard to tell.

A second problem is the benefit of hindsight that we all have, though at least the fear of a landing there does tie up two Ottoman units for the whole war. Though I have at times been so hard pressed elsewhere that I've been forced to leave the area empty. So far, the risk has paid off.

In terms of the game, perhaps a solution is to increase the bonus to the Entente or penalty to the Ottomans if a landing is made.

One thing that can be done is to add in a penalty to Ottoman morale if Entente naval units are in the Sea of Marmara. This location can already be used by naval units to reduce Ottoman supply at Constantinople.

____________________________________________________

Incidentally, I have carried out landings at Gallipoli and it's not always been a waste of time. One important thing is to pick the right time, and even late in the war it can be a very useful thing to do.

As Ottoman, I've also lost Smyrna due to a landing, and in a different game the Entente landed behind my lines in Syria. The landing in Syria came just as the Ottomans were about to surrender and for them, that was the icing on the cake!

[Ivanov]

Honestly I usually tend to ignore the other fronts than France and Russia and consider them as merely sideshows, so I have never gave them a proper thought. This discussion is quite inspiring however, so I have few comments in regards

I think that Gallipoli landings are potentially quite benefitial for the Entente, contrary to what some of my interlocutors claim. Capturing Gallipoli increases Romanian and Greek leaning towards Entente to about 60 and 50% respectively. That, along with the diplomatic efforts, may lead to Romanian war entry in 1915, what can potentially change the whole balance on the Eastern Front and in the Balkans. The capture of Gallipoli lowers Ottoman morale and allows allied navies to block the Sea of Marmara. Quite beneficial if you ask me. The Entente player may perform the landing as a pure diversion and send only a small unit that will be subsequently destroyed, or try a more serious landing ( especially in Greece is already at war ) to threaten directly the Constantinopole.

The other thing is that Ottoman Empire is too strong in the game. It is nearly impossible to disloge the Turkish army in the Middle East and Caucasus, so CP player can invest and build new Turkish units at will and later use them as a "fire brigade" on other fronts, which seems quite wrong to me. I'd suggest lower the industrial output of the whole empire to the initial 80-90MMP ( just like Italy in Storm Over Europe ) and add some events that would affect the morale of Turkish combat units, as there are already good few events that lower the NM of the whole empire.

[Rabelesius]

Absolutely agree about toning down the Turks. I had a whole Turkish army on the Western Front once against the AI.

[lettowvorbeck]

Bill,

I think it has to do more with the terrain. The artillery unit helps but you can't get enough 5+ supplied units at the point of attack to make progress. Is the Caucasus really solid "mountains" along the border, or are there more valleys and hills?

The lack of movement in the Caucasus has been mentioned in a few posts.

There is a Russian Decision Event to provide the Caucasus front with an artillery unit in the spring of 1915, but I presume that this isn't enough generally enough to start pushing the Ottomans back, or is the artillery unit being sent to the Eastern Front instead?

[Bill101]

That's an idea worth exploring, and I welcome suggestions on any specific terrain changes that are both realistic and will make a difference.

[xwormwood]

Hi Claus

Where possible I generally agree about the Decision Event, but here it could only really be done prior to the Ottomans joining the war.

Any later on, and an Ottoman player who has stuffed Gallipoli full of troops won't be pleased to find them all pushed out and the town captured by the Entente as the result of a decision event.

Currently, a successful Entente landing at Gallipoli will:

• Reduce Ottoman National Morale by 2,500, i.e. 12.5% of the Ottoman's starting figure.
  
• Make Bulgaria, Romania and Greece all swing 30-45% towards joining the Entente.

One problem with Gallipoli is that I think the mission could never really have achieved what it aimed to do, unless Constantinople could have been taken and held by a large force.

The Russians did make some preparations for an amphibious landing and that would have helped if it had been carried out, but whether it would have affected the outcome is hard to tell.

A second problem is the benefit of hindsight that we all have, though at least the fear of a landing there does tie up two Ottoman units for the whole war. Though I have at times been so hard pressed elsewhere that I've been forced to leave the area empty. So far, the risk has paid off.

In terms of the game, perhaps a solution is to increase the bonus to the Entente or penalty to the Ottomans if a landing is made.

One thing that can be done is to add in a penalty to Ottoman morale if Entente naval units are in the Sea of Marmara. This location can already be used by naval units to reduce Ottoman supply at Constantinople.

____________________________________________________

Incidentally, I have carried out landings at Gallipoli and it's not always been a waste of time. One important thing is to pick the right time, and even late in the war it can be a very useful thing to do.

As Ottoman, I've also lost Smyrna due to a landing, and in a different game the Entente landed behind my lines in Syria. The landing in Syria came just as the Ottomans were about to surrender and for them, that was the icing on the cake!

Bill, thanks for the insight.

Maybe i need to explain my point a bit more.

What i imagine is a decision event that offers something that has no real chance to succeed. A decision event that challenges the player with a situation, where he can only lose, or at best keep what he already has.

(Card driven) Board games use this system quite well and successful.

The event asks the player to follow an order or to suffer the consequences.

Usually these events occur when your opponent plays an event, and you have to follow the event, or face the punishment for not doing so.

Or there are other events which you yourself play, because you want to get access to other events which wouldn't come into play it the first event wasn't played.

Right now SC offers players more or less only events like "turn left or continue" or "turn right or continue".

What i would like to see is an event that offers

• me nothing, but forces my opponent to turn left or get punished (and vice versa)
  
• me a very hopless (but still existing) chance, and if denied (the event), a punishment
  
• me a very hopless (but still existing) chance, and if denied, the loss of a future decision event, that would only appear if i ate the frog (said yes to the hopless chance)
  
• me nothing, but taking away a DE of my opponent
  
• me something instantly pretty helpfull, like a NM boost, or a crack unit, or better supply for x turns), but taking away future good DE
  
• me something instantly pretty helpfull, like a new unit upgrade like infanty --> storm troopers, combined with a change in the victory conditions, like " if you upgrade you have to win by may 1918 or you will lose the game". Another option could be that freely upgrade units could have repair or repurchase restrictions.

In short: more and different kinds of DE (and all mentioned examples are only that: examples)

But again: sorry for this post, it has nothing to do with game balance.

To those who ask for better supply in the Sinai or Mesopotamia, i would suggest DE like which allow to build water pipelines, tracks or roads once a player holds certain key villages or cities. If he pays for the DE and holds the key points he could receive better supply in one or more places on the map. If he looses one of the key points during construction he could get the DE once more after he holds all nescessary key points again.

Alternatively (again, nothing to do with game balance), the player could get instead an immobilized HQs in one of the key points, with no HQ rating, but with a better supply value. Once destroyed, the DE should reapear.

I'm no friend of free / scripted units, but i guess thats nothing new.