Game Balance - 1914 Call to Arms

[Bill101]

Hi All

Quite a lot of things since I last posted. First, Bill, I do appreciate the feedback, even though some is perhaps disappointing!

I can well understand that the current victory condition assessment is complex, and that means that it is not likely to be adjusted directly. That said, I don't know if you have directly addressed the idea of the DE event that X suggested – is that too complex as well? I think that might be a really fascinating way to provide for very close games.

Hi Ludi

From my side it's really a case of working out a clear mechanism that would cater for varied circumstances while also being fairly straightforward to implement, and also be better than the current set up.

The current set up does have the advantage of being clear cut, i.e. the result cannot be argued about, even if the details of how it was attained can, such as whether the National Morale penalty/bonus of various events are set at the right levels.

SC has evolved a lot in the last ten years and will continue to do so, so even if an implementation of something more subtle isn't immediately around the corner it may come with time!

I also do not want anyone to get the idea that Cpl Steiner ever suggested that this was not a close game. He was quite careful to note that the game was very, very close. It is also clear to me that he won! I suppose that a scoring system would help indicate that a game was close.

They are always my favourite games. I remember a PBEM of Fate of Nations I played earlier in the year, where the Central Powers won it in what was literally the last turn, and just by the skin of their teeth too.

As to game ending, there does appear to be some flexibility now. For example, in the game I am discussing, Russia was forced to zero NM at the end of the CP turn – but did not surrender. This gave the Entente player one more turn to inflict damage on CP units...not a lot of damage, as it turned out, as Russia was in pretty dire straits. But Russia did not surrender until the END of the Entente player's turn. In other words, reaching zero NM does not appear to always trigger surrender. If Germany had had one more turn to move, the result in our game could have been that both France and Germany would have reached zero NM. So I am guessing that reaching zero NM is a necessary but not sufficient reason for victory (or defeat, as appropriate) to be declared – there is a secondary calculation as to whether the war continues for one or more turns?

I'm pretty sure that the scripts will always fire at the end of the turn of the Major that has dropped to zero, so they will be able to fire off a last blast before pulling out of the war.

I appreciate very much the further explanation of the results of the blockade and dip calculations. In my view 1-2% may well be too low for the blockade...perhaps it should be 1-2% for every 90 NM points of blockade in place? So 75 NM points of blockade (three flags occupied in the North Sea blockade line) would not trigger any US reaction, 4 flags in that line would trigger 1-2%, all 8 would trigger 2-4%, and if every flag (a total of 290) is occupied then there would be a 3-6% chance of the US becoming irritated and lowering its prep for war against the CP...or raising its prep for war against the Entente. A similar calculation for each U-boat raiding (1-2% for each and every U-boat raiding a convoy line) would act to increase the chance of the US joining the Entente. If that would be possible I think it would better reflect the actual history of the war, where the blockade was a definite irritant to the US but submarines were very much THE irritant.

I'll have a think about this, because you're right in that the more stringent the blockade, the more annoyed the US could be.

I also think the idea of a Holland favouring the CP perhaps offsetting some of the impact of the blockade might be worth looking at. Along that vein, the capture of Romania and the addition of Ukraine's resources both helped to ease the impact of the blockade – do they have any impact on German NM? If not, there again may be partial ways to address the blockade impact.

Ukraine certainly does boost Germany's NM, providing it has a pro-Central Powers leaning. I hadn't included Romania but will investigate that.

I am not sure what to say about the Verdun comments. It is currently quite challenging to occupy Verdun...I emptied it two or three times in the game with Cpl Steiner before finally occupying it, and the amount of blood spilled in the vicinity was all too historical.

This pretty much matches my experience too actually. I find it a tough nut which is sometimes cracked.

Anyway, I am finding this whole thread fascinating, and I really do think that the underlying reason that there is so much to discuss should be kept in mind – this scenario really is remarkably balanced for such a complex historical event, and that means there are a lot of nuances that can be examined at great length. In other words this is a GREAT scenario!

Agreed on this being a fascinating thread, and it's great to read the last comments, thanks!

[Bill101]

It is really a great scenario, the best as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks!

One thing I noticed about Holland is that in one game I declared war on Holland just to stop them from delivering imports to Germany, but it didn't work, I would think that by declaring war on Holland the blockade would be extended to Holland but it wasn't.

This should be introduced in the next patch, Germany would automatically suffer a penalty of 50 National Morale points per turn, rising to 75 if Holland is conquered by the Entente.

I have also considered another option: the Entente could blockade Holland without declaring war, this would probably upset the Dutch and possibly the Americans, but it could be an option, I'm no historian, does someone out there know if such a move had been considered?

Going from memory I'm pretty sure that diplomatic pressure was put on the Dutch by the British government, so rather than have Blockade trigger points, I decided to opt for that option here as a way of stopping food imports via Holland to Germany. One of my reasons being to ensure that Entente diplomacy could play a significant role in the game.

[Kommandant]

Going from memory I'm pretty sure that diplomatic pressure was put on the Dutch by the British government, so rather than have Blockade trigger points, I decided to opt for that option here as a way of stopping food imports via Holland to Germany. One of my reasons being to ensure that Entente diplomacy could play a significant role in the game.

Talking about diplomacy here people, i will take my momento to say something about it. I would love to see the diplomacy system have some changes, just like the research system. So here is my idea.

Diplomacy chit should raise the diplomacy number from 1-3% every turn, or even from 0-2% every turn and this efect could be halted by the investiment from the other side, just like it works today.

But it must have some other changes to work correctly. The player should have the following opitions:

1-Pursuit the target nation to come to it's side;

2-Maintain diplomatic status with that nation.

The 1st opition would make the diplomatic status of that nation increase to the players side and the 2nd opition would make the diplomatic status stay the same.

The idea is this, when the Entente player invest 1 chit in Holland to bring that country to it's side. The CP player can invest 1 chit to maintain diplomatic status with Holland so diplomacy will not move, UNLESS the Entente player invest another chit in Holland.

The "Maintain diplomatic status with that nation" works so nothing undesirable happens, like the CP player investing 5 - 10 chits in Holland and the Entente player have invested only 3 chits, so in the actual diplomatic system, Holland would come to CP side and cause a NM problem to CP.

The price of the chits should increase also, making the diplomatic investment something very rare, or a heavy decision when talking about the nations MPP.

This would be very interesting, so diplomacy would work unless the other player do something, and we would not be virtually delegated ONLY to luck's will. But it must be something slow and expansive so diplomacy would take lots of time to work out.

Not sure if something like this can be implemented in the next patch, but I think worth posting. :cool:

[Ivanov]

Kommandant - interesting ideas regarding the change of the current diplomacy mechanics. However I'm not sure, if I'd like to see the increase of the cost of diplomatic chints. Most of the time players are very tight with cash, so if we make the chints too expensive, none would be able to invest in the diplomacy.

I have one doubt how the current system works. Do the chints invested by the opposite sides completely negate each other? In another words: if both hostile powers A and B invest one diplomatic chint in the neutral C, does it mean that none of them have any chance of the diplomatic succes, or maybe they both have 5% chance, depending on their luck? Another example would be: A invests 2 chints and B only one. Does it mean that A has 5% chance per turn and B has no chance at all, or A has 10% chance and B 5% depending on their luck?

Can anyone shed some light on it? Thanks

[Kommandant]

I have one doubt how the current system works. Do the chints invested by the opposite sides completely negate each other? In another words: if both hostile powers A and B invest one diplomatic chint in the neutral C, does it mean that none of them have any chance of the diplomatic succes, or maybe they both have 5% chance, depending on their luck? Another example would be: A invests 2 chints and B only one. Does it mean that A has 5% chance per turn and B has no chance at all, or A has 10% chance and B 5% depending on their luck?

As far as i know Ivanov, the chints negate each other, so in the 1st example the none side can bring the neutral to it's side, and in the 2nd example side A would have a 5% chance to bring the neutral to it's side. Maybe one of the Lords of SC can explain you in depth.

[Ivanov]

Yep, let's wait for the confirmation from the Lords Of War:eek:

[Sharkman]

I had allways assumed the chits do not negate each other, I thought if one side bought 1 chit they had a 5% chance no matter what the other side did. Of course I have often enough assumed wrong.

[Ivanov]

That's what I've assumed aswell, so I'm realy interested what is the correct answer. By the way, I think that the diplomatic chints shouldn't negate each other. That would rob the diplomacy of all the dinamism and it would make it too predictable.

[Bill101]

The way I understand it they do negate each other, in which case it is the one who puts the most pressure on the country who will be able to sway it towards their side.

[Ivanov]

Hm, but in this case if both sides invest the same amount of chints in one country, there would be no progress altogether, which would be quite frustrating. Also - if two allied countries invest chint each in a neutral country, does it mean that there is 10% chance of succes per turn or each country has 5% chance? I've always achieved diplomatic success investing a lot chints with one country, for example Germany 3 chints. When I had one chint, invested by Germany, A-H and Turkey ( in this case in Bulgaria ), I could never succeed, so I asumed that there was 5% chance for each country, which is less favorable than having 15% of a chance by a single country. I've noticed aswell, that the more you invest with one country, then the diplomatic success when achieved is higher, for example the neutral swings more than 10% towards the investing side. Is this correct?

[Sharkman]

I'm kind of dissapointed, I thought when I invested in diplomacy there would allways be a small chance of success, even if the other side invested more. In the end I guess it works out the same, I can't sway the neutral country, I just lower the enemy's chance of swaying it.

Ivanov

I allways assumed all of the chits are figured together, all CP or Entente chits, they seem to be added together on the diplomacy chart anyway.

[Ivanov]

Ivanov

I allways assumed all of the chits are figured together, all CP or Entente chits, they seem to be added together on the diplomacy chart anyway.

Well charts are one thing, but I'm not sure if the interpretation is correct. For example when you have chints invested by more than one country, only one reports diplomatic success eventually and from my experience is always the country that has invested most, so I feel that you are better off investing a lot of chints with one country only.

[Ivanov]

The overall balance of the Call To Arms campaign is quite correct, however there should be some adjustments made to the Balkan Front. There are basically two issues here:

1. Invincible Montenegro.

2. Late Bulgarian war entry.

Firstly, as mentioned already before, it's practically impossible for the A-H to conquer Montenegro. If the A-H units will have a lower experience values in the new patch, then the task of defeating Serbia and Montenegro will be even harder. It seems to be a minor issue for the overall balance, but surely it's a frustrating one for the CP player. Also the Cetnije port in the hands of Entente is an open gate for a potential Italian intervention in the theatre. So the strategic importance of Montenegro is not so small at the end. The Montenegrin soldiers proved to be tought fighters ( just like the Serbs ), but the military capacity of the kingdom was very limited. I don't know what was the exact order of battle of the Montenegrin army but for example according to David Stevenson in his brilliant book "1914-1918 The History Of The First World War", Montenegro managed to moblize a militia force of 35-40000 men ( comparing to 350 000 men of the Serbian army.

I think Montenegro should have either less units or make Serbia and Montenegro into one belligerent, that would surrender after the last Serbian capital is captured.

Second issue is the too late Bulgarian entry - a problem rised many times on the forum. In most of my games Bulgaria joins CP later than in the history, even with the early capture of Belgrade and the diplomatic chints invested by Germany and A-H. Without Bulgarian support is not possible for the CP to defeat Serbia ( unless few German corps with HQ and arty support are moved into the theatre ). Historicaly what motivated Bulgarians to join CP was the capture of Belgrade ( reflected very well in the game ) and the success of the Gorlice-Tarnow operation in 1915. So my suggestion would be, that if Tarnow, Gorlice Jaroslav and Przemysl are in the hands of CP, then Bulgaria joins the war automatically on the historical date that is in October of 1915.

[Glabro]

Well, if mountains become defense 2, that will go a long way towards making Montenegro non-invincible. It becomes realistic then.

[Bill101]

We've been testing out +2 for mountains and it has changed some things: for the first time ever in a game of 1917 Fate of Nations, Austria-Hungary is battering the Italians and has just captured Venice! Italy's National Morale has fallen below 50% and things are looking a bit ropy. Just as happened in real life, some British, French and US forces might need to head to Italy!

Overall it seems to work, and I'll take a look at Bulgaria and Macedonia.

[lettowvorbeck]

Bill,

Without getting too wonky on mathematical formulas, what effects do we see with changing the mountain defense value (i.e. does the proposed change only effect combat (and not supply and movement), are mountains now 1/2, 2/3, or a 3/4 as effective for defensive purposes, etc.)? I guess I am asking if they still feel like a significant natural barrier (as the should), while allowing a bit more offensive success than previous versions. I would definitely be in favor of that. It will be interesting to see if this loosens up the Caucasus as well.

[Ivanov]

We've been testing out +2 for mountains and it has changed some things: for the first time ever in a game of 1917 Fate of Nations, Austria-Hungary is battering the Italians and has just captured Venice! Italy's National Morale has fallen below 50% and things are looking a bit ropy. Just as happened in real life, some British, French and US forces might need to head to Italy!

Overall it seems to work, and I'll take a look at Bulgaria and Macedonia.

Good stuff Bill, I hope you will be able to come up with something interesting regarding Bulgaria and Montenegro:)

If it comes to the Italians being battered in "Fate Of Nations" due to the change of the mountain defensive value - we have to be careful so the Austrians don't get too much battered in "Call To Arms"... Maybe a better solution would be creating more passes in the mountains, add more hills in the Balkans, but the Alps should be a formidable obstacle, just like they were in the history, when the Austro-Italian front didn't move too much despite huge number of troops involved on both sides.

[Glabro]

Austrians battered in Call to Arms? Never seen that happen. Lots of Russian battering though when Germany rolls east! I guess some of you never help out A-H.

But as it is +4 is an impenetrable barrier without superiority of infantry tech and arty.

Even +3 wouldn't be quite enough, so I'm glad it's +2. It's in line with the +1 from everything else. They still are quite a barrier, but IMO trenches should be more significant that mountains (with tech).

I'm glad to see the Italian and Caucasus fronts going.

[lettowvorbeck]

Good point. There are mountains and then there are mountains!

If it comes to the Italians being battered in "Fate Of Nations" due to the change of the mountain defensive value - we have to be careful so the Austrians don't get too much battered in "Call To Arms"... Maybe a better solution would be creating more passes in the mountains, add more hills in the Balkans, but the Alps should be a formidable obstacle, just like they were in the history, when the Austro-Italian front didn't move too much despite huge number of troops involved on both sides.

[Ivanov]

Austrians battered in Call to Arms? Never seen that happen. Lots of Russian battering though when Germany rolls east! I guess some of you never help out A-H.

But as it is +4 is an impenetrable barrier without superiority of infantry tech and arty.

Even +3 wouldn't be quite enough, so I'm glad it's +2. It's in line with the +1 from everything else. They still are quite a barrier, but IMO trenches should be more significant that mountains (with tech).

I'm glad to see the Italian and Caucasus fronts going.

I personaly don't like the option of sending majority of the German army to fight against Russia, so in my games there are never many spare A-H units to main the frontier againt Italy. Allow me once again the quote the book 1914 1914 by David Stevenson:

"That same applied to the Italian Front [ hight force-to-space ratios ], where by 1916 1.5 milion Italian troops faced perhaps half that number of Austrians. Althought the Austro-Italian border was some 375 miles long, its two active sectors-the Isonzo and the Trentino - formed only a small portion of the whole (...) Along most of the border the Alps rose like a wall from the north Italian plain, effectively inhibiting the attackers . Conditions here were far worst than in France: trenches had to be blasted out of the rock with explosives, or cut into the sides of glaciers. Thousand of soldiers froze to death, were asphyxiated or were buried by the avalanches (...) Austrians were relatively more outnumbered than the Germans in France but they had the benefit of the topography (...)Haliting the attacks proved unexpectly easy".

Usually when Italy joins the Entente, A-H is already stretched to the limits because Serbia is still undefeated and and most of kingdom's army fights against Russia. If the Alps would have a less defensive value, then garrisoning the southern border of A-H against Italy with a relatively small force ( like in the history ) would not be possible. As I said, I don't like sending too many German units from the West to fight against Russia ( I rather follow something simmilar to the historical path ), so if I wish to hold back Italy just by a relatively small Austrian force, the game should allow me to at least recreate something simmilar to the historical variant on the Austro-Italian front.

[Ivanov]

I think changing all of the sudden the defensive value of all the mountains on the map, would be a dangerous ovesimplification and we need to look a bit into the details of the issue. It is pretty clear to me why the mountain terrain is an problem in the game. As I can still remember from the geography lessons in my primary school, there are few types of mountains and they differ in height. For example in Europe the Alps are in general higher than most of the Carpathin Mountains. The former are simply older and due to that were affected longer by the erosion ( changes of the temperature, wind, rain, tectonic movements etc ), so they are lower than the younger Alps and their ridges are not so sharp. On our map all the mountains are the same and have the same influence on combat and movement. We have hills ( +1 ) and mountains (+3) and nothing in between. I think there is a need to introduce a new type of a terrain that would be called for example high mountains or high ridges. We would have then hills (+1), mountains (+2) and high mountains (+3). So for example the terrain in Serbia and Montenegro would be a mixture of hills and mountains, the Alps would be m mostly high mountains and in the Caucasus we would have mountains and high mountains, so some natural invasion routes could be created between the high ridges.

In this way the game would be much more accurate in simulating the natural conditions. Lowering automatically the defensive value of all the moutains to 2 would be equally bad as all the moutains having the defensive value of 3, as it is now. Unfortunatelly - it's always all about the details.

[Glabro]

The reason the Italians did not meet with much success had surely a lot to do with the fact that they were Italians.

I've yet to see a wargame that punishes so heavily for mountainous terrain as SC. But yes, having a "high mountain" type terrain in the Alps might be ok, they would keep the movement cost of 4 while these normal mountains would go to move cost 3 and defense 2.

But certainly it's miles better with just +2 mountains than keeping them at +3.

[Bill101]

Bill,

Without getting too wonky on mathematical formulas, what effects do we see with changing the mountain defense value (i.e. does the proposed change only effect combat (and not supply and movement), are mountains now 1/2, 2/3, or a 3/4 as effective for defensive purposes, etc.)? I guess I am asking if they still feel like a significant natural barrier (as the should), while allowing a bit more offensive success than previous versions. I would definitely be in favor of that. It will be interesting to see if this loosens up the Caucasus as well.

The change does make the mountains a slightly less secure defensive position, by reducing the soft defence bonus from +3 to +2. They're still quite tough positions, and I think they still make good natural barriers.

The Italian failure in my Fate of Nations is not solely down to this change, but despite being the Entente player I am really pleased with their failure because it's the most I've ever feared losing Italy!

[Ivanov]

The reason the Italians did not meet with much success had surely a lot to do with the fact that they were Italians.

Let's keep in mind that Austrians were also Austrians and in the game their units are not better than the Italian ones, plus Italian HQ's have better rating.

The change does make the mountains a slightly less secure defensive position, by reducing the soft defence bonus from +3 to +2. They're still quite tough positions, and I think they still make good natural barriers.

The Italian failure in my Fate of Nations is not solely down to this change, but despite being the Entente player I am really pleased with their failure because it's the most I've ever feared losing Italy!

It still seems to be only a half measure and the Alps having the same defensive value as the mountains in Montenegro or in Bosnia just doesn't seem to be right.

[Glabro]

Of course Austrians were better than Italians! Let's not exagerrate here. Italian troops were...well, Italian. They're unique in how bad they were!