Game Balance - 1914 Call to Arms

[Ludi1867]

Hi All

Some really interesting comments in this thread!

Overall, I would say that the Call to Arms scenario is pretty balanced. An awful lot depends on what someone does. For the most part, I play PBEM (haven't played the AI since the original game came out, without patches) so my comments versus AI are all rather old – so I won't make any.

The Turks will do well or badly depending on how much the Entente player does – or does NOT do – to thwart them. If the British send ANZAC reinforcements to the western front instead of Egypt right away, the game will play out quite differently. If the Russians are aggressive they can make life a little challenging for Turks in the Caucasus, IF the Turks are distracted in Palestine, etc. Without distractions the Turks can handle the Russians most of the time. In short, while some fine tuning of terrain to allow more maneuver might help, the game really depends a lot on the players. Which really says to me that the scenario is pretty darned balanced – an impressive achievement overall.

The one thing not mentioned in this thread that I might suggest improving is how comparatively painless it is to attack ports now. The naval game in SC WW I remains a little weak, but now that submarines are a little better (I think the penalty to submarines that move before attacking has really helped play balance), the next problem is port defence, which is generally not all that good. It can take time to inflict damage on a ship in a port, but there is not all that much a player defending a port can do in many situations, and this allows players to unrealistically continue to apply pressure and (sometimes) do significant damage to ships within ports.

To me this is highly unrealistic, and I think there is actually a way to fix this that is fairly straightforward and consistent with overall SC design – allow ports to upgraded, up to level 5, increasing the damage that a port will do to an attacker and reducing the damage done to any ship inside that port with every level of upgrade. Now, I do not think that there needs to be any research for this – the technology to protect ports existed before the outbreak of war. Instead, I would suggest a cost for each level of perhaps 10-25 MPP. This would represent the cost of installing large guns, mines, etc that are intrinsic to port defence of the period. Players then have the strategic decision of investing in port defence or more ships, or more armies, etc.

If you review the history of the war, there are not many examples of successful attacks by ships against ports. Ships were used to bombard cities and coasts with roughly the same level of success that is found in the game now, but ports were generally NOT attacked – because it was generally too difficult. Right now that is NOT the case in the game, and it can make the AH ports in the Adriatic, for example, much too easy to attack.

[lettowvorbeck]

Ludi,

I believe Bill increased the chance of damage to ships attacking ports with v1.03. I found the smashing of ships in port to be a major problem with 1.02 but haven't done a pbem of 1.03 to test for improvements. It sounds like you are finding the situation remains problematic with 1.03.

[Bill101]

Thanks Ludi, I think I did make a change to port defense but will take a look at this again because it might be that more can be done.

[Bill101]

I'm currently looking at the terrain in the Caucasus and comparing it with my books and maps to see if there's any potential for changes that could open up some opportunities without looking out of place.

Edit: One thing I have found is that one of the Russian offensives in the Caucasus in 1915 was launched in the region of Mount Ararat, and a map of the region from 1922 shows a road from near Erivan, passing to the north of Mount Ararat and leading off to either Eleskirt to the north west or Van to the south west.

Here's an image of the proposed route:

It would now mean that there are four roads (highlighted with a blue line) between Ottoman and Russian territory, making it harder for both sides to defend them all.

The question is, would this extra possible invasion route for either side make a significant difference?

[Bill101]

Bill, thanks for the insight.

Maybe i need to explain my point a bit more....

Thanks, this is an interesting idea and I have one or two ideas along this line that will hopefully see the light of day before too long.

[Ivanov]

I'm currently looking at the terrain in the Caucasus and comparing it with my books and maps to see if there's any potential for changes that could open up some opportunities without looking out of place.

Edit: One thing I have found is that one of the Russian offensives in the Caucasus in 1915 was launched in the region of Mount Ararat, and a map of the region from 1922 shows a road from near Erivan, passing to the north of Mount Ararat and leading off to either Eleskirt to the north west or Van to the south west.

Here's an image of the proposed route:

It would now mean that there are four roads (highlighted with a blue line) between Ottoman and Russian territory, making it harder for both sides to defend them all.

The question is, would this extra possible invasion route for either side make a significant difference?

An extra invasion route would be definitely helpful, because it would require at least some extra units in order to defend the passes. I would also suggest that for the sake of supplying units, some of the tiles through which the roads are passing, be changed from mountains to hills or to clear ( for example the tiles adjecent to towns can be clear ).

[Kommandant]

if you connect the roads that comes from Oltu and Sarikamish the supply from the russian HQ deployed thare would help the units attacking from Oltu, leaving space for a concentrated russian strike in Erserum, with 3-4 corps + an art unit and a HQ from the russians, it would be possible to take the city even against a defense of 2 ottoman corps + a HQ. A coordenated assault from the russians and brits would force the ottomans to fight in 2 fronts, and with weak units and the lack of concentration os the ottoman armies, one front would collapse, at least... At least i think it could work....

[Bill101]

Yes, good suggestion because not only should a connection between Oltu and Sarikamish solve the problem, but although there isn't a road there as such, the Bardiz Pass between the two locations was Enver Pasha's approach route to Sarikamish in December 1914. Hence it isn't a fictional route, which is something I was hoping to avoid.

I found more evidence on this in Caucasian Battlefields: A History of the Wars on the Turco-Caucasian Border by W.E.D. Allen. It's available in preview mode on google books and looks pretty good, as it included a map of the battle of Sarikamish:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oDb6P0HXwIcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Bill101]

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

Hi Peter

What I can do is to decrease some of their starting units' experience. This will delay their increase in experience to the level you've experienced, and should reduce their initial combat power against the Russians slightly.

[Ivanov]

Hi Peter

What I can do is to decrease some of their starting units' experience. This will delay their increase in experience to the level you've experienced, and should reduce their initial combat power against the Russians slightly.

Maybe it would be correct historicaly but I wouldn't weaken A-H too much, because that would change the balance in favour of the Entente. Austrian HQ's have usually quite low rating, so that in my oppinion reflects quite well weak perforance of their military.

[Glabro]

Well surely there can be a counter-action to weaken the Entente elsewhere as an alternative.

But to be frank it does not bother me either way.

[Bill101]

It's only a minor change so shouldn't affect balance too much.

The new requirement for the Germans to keep some troops near Warsaw after Russia has pulled out of the war will have more effect, but I have compensated for that somewhat.

[Syagrius]

In my opinion mountain supply penalties and defensive bonus are too strong. Two exemples: as discussed here, a campaign in the Caucasus is a waste of ressources for both sides but espcially for the Ottomans. Second exemple, the Balkans; I mean, even when Bulgaria gets in the war early (with diplo incentive), the help of an Ottoman army and the bulk of the Austrian army, it takes years to get rid of Serbia and Montenegro (in my last campaign I finished Montenegro in 1917 only). Historically those two crumbled as soon Bulgaria entered the war. The Italian front is less of a problem it seems. My conclusion; mountain terrain has too much impact on offensive capabilities.

[Glabro]

Agreed. A defense bonus of +2 would be enough for mountains, not a whopping +4. Most of the fighting would happen in valleys with roads anyway.

If we do this, suddenly the map opens up a great deal and the aforementioned campaigns are feasible.

Oh, and adding more mountain roads is a good idea.

[Syagrius]

Agreed. A defense bonus of +2 would be enough for mountains, not a whopping +4. Most of the fighting would happen in valleys with roads anyway.

If we do this, suddenly the map opens up a great deal and the aforementioned campaigns are feasible.

Oh, and adding more mountain roads is a good idea.

Very good point Glabro, agreeing 100% with you

[Sharkman]

Lowering the defensive bonus of the mountains will mainly benefit the CP, especialy early in the game, the Call to Arms scenario is balanced on a razors edge allready, a tiny push in CP direction early in the game and the play balance is gone.

[Glabro]

Hmm. So you believe the CP to hold the advantage in WW1 instead of the Entente? Interesting. I always considered the CP the underdog.

The lowering of mountain defense won't really help Serbia. It means Cetinje in Montenegro CAN be attacked instead of it being impossible, but that's probably good.

What else...well if Italy joins then the A-H are not nearly so secure in their mountains.

I'm sure you mean the Ottomans launching an offensive into the Caucasus - is this really a problem?

I'm just interested in how you think this would change the balance.

[Sharkman]

I think the Entent have a very slight advantage, and it's ok that way, but making it easier for A-H to conquer the Balkans quickly and then throw their forces into a less defensible Italy would I think tilt the advantage tawards the CP. Additionaly the Turks could invade Russia, algthough it is my experience that the Ottomans allready have enough to do fighting the British.

It is true that the Entente will gain as well though, it would become easier for the Italians to attack A-H and of course the Russians could invade Turkey. But I think most of the advantages would go to the CP early in the game, when the Entente is weak and unable to take much advantage of it.

[Rabelesius]

I am also ok with a 60-40 balance. Let's face it, Germany could have only won the war if the 1918 offensive would have been successful or the knockout would have happened in 1914.

However, if we want a historical game and not fantasy, we need certain incentives/constraints to mirror a historical outcome. Any good wargame in my opinion should be designed so as to allow the historical game to happen. Then we can talk about deviations (that's scripting).

Therefore, does SCWWI mirror history? Yes, in most games it does. Where it fails are the points we repeatedly discussed here:

1) The occupation of Eastern Europe by the CP and the teleporting of units. A change will hurt the CP in 1917/18.

2) The Caucasus front which makes the historical advance by the Russians impossible.

3) The lack of a Mesopotamian campaign absent the Entente having forces there.

4) The lack of supply lines for the Entente in Palestine (not a biggie in my book)

5) The strong Schlieffen plan forces which make holding Belgium almost impossible if the CP makes a broad front approach.

All these are in favor of the Entente which is more delicate to balance.

On pro CP change needed in my opinion is:

6) Serbia is difficult to conquer even with Bulgaria coming in. True, a German HQ and artillery will remedy that. However, this needs more investigation as I have never used this tactic

Other than that, I only believe that both sides need to suffer from attrition much more if cut-off and cut-off surrounded units should not be allowed to be rebuilt.

So, all in all one big change and some smaller changes.

[Syagrius]

The lack of a Mesopotamian campaign is something I noted also; historically the siege and fall of Kut had been a pretty big thing. As the Ottoman I move a single corps near Basra and the British dont make any move, outside bringing in an heavy artillerie and bombing my corps once in a while. In my current campaign after the surrender of Russia I was to move the few corps I had on the Caucasus frontier to take over the British in Koweit. But that's only late in 1917.

The lack of a real campaign there allow the Ottomans to deploy sizeable forces elsewhere; in a previous game I was able to concentrate enough forces to beat the British near Suez, take Egypt and push into Cyrenaica. In my current game I could afford to have an Ottoman force in Balkans helping taking Serbia and invading Greece. Historically the Ottomans were stretched too thin to accomplish any of these.

[Glabro]

Mike, I'm not sure the Balkans NEED to be conquered currently except for Serbia. It only has the 1 mountain capital town that needs to be taken for surrender. I admit that it can be hard to crack, but you might not need to do that...you could siege it and Montenegro out with detachments (invulnerable because of the mountains too) and send the corps elsewhere.

[Kommandant]

The prob in montenegro is the lack of supply to AH, if you try to take it out. If there was more roads, with 2-3 corps a HQ and an art taking it takes 2 turns. You omly need to move the AH 2dn army there wth an art and BANG, Montenegro down. The prob, as i sayed, is the lack of supply.

[Sharkman]

[quote=Rabelesius;

Other than that, I only believe that both sides need to suffer from attrition much more if cut-off and cut-off surrounded units should not be allowed to be rebuilt.

This is somthing that needs some looking at, I have often landed a British unit in Karaman (Southern Turkey) on the same turn the Ottomans enter the war, then entrench on the next turn. This unit cuts the rail link between Turkey and all of their posessions in the mid-east. The Turks are very hard pressed to take it out, I was often able to reinforce the unit to 8 factors, there is no port there and no way to get a realistic amount of suppiles to it. There must truly be somthing wrong with the supply system, in one game he held out till 1918!

The worst thing about it is that it has now happened to me! :eek: Now somthing needs to be done about this!

[Glabro]

Indeed, that is a very, very important point that can't be stressed enough, Mike.

There simply shouldn't be reinforcement opportunities for units cut off like that regardless of HQs (if those too are cut off). A port changes things, though it's still too easy I think.

I suppose Strength loss represents "repairable" readiness and morale damage in a big part in addition to casualties, but the big problem is attrition doesn't work if you can keep repairing to a certain level.

[Rabelesius]

Indeed, this is a huge problem in the game. I also forgot to mention that I consider the Arab revolt to be broken as Lawrence's forces even with some Allied help have no chance taking Medina against a corps entrenched there. The Arabs should have corps strength.