Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Soviet Union - Balancing 101 Options · View
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:27:45 AM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
Hmm, as current games shows again and again, the SU is underpowered to a good degree.
I have really maximized everything i could just in order to keep up with the likely German monster.

The prime problem is undoubtedly the officer/leadership problem. In my opinion not so much that the SU has so little, but rather that effects of high leadership (i.e. 200%) completely screw the game to a good degree. It also slows down the game to a considerable degree, a point on which i will elaborate a bit more soon.

First some experiences from the current game:
- constant retreat, not a single large defensive battle winnable
- not one real combat victory. I cannot grasp how a nation so armed to the teeth (>100 Armored divisions, >10 light ARM, etc) cannot achieve this.
- pripyet arguably decided/s this game. The para drop came kinda unexpected, i very well knew about the dangers. I usually had a deep defense, but well, this time i didnt because i could barely hold the front together.

So what exactly is the problem?
- high officers give ridiculous bonuses. you cannot win against an armored division that is up to date with 110 org or more. i had at times 5-6 ARM divs with some 60 org attacking 1-2 german ones, to no avail. this is due to bad techs (more on that later), stupid ministers and well leadership.
- I had to expend 95% of my leadership on officers from mid/late 1939! I havent done serious research for more than a year. Still i started the war with 130% officers only, with the known negative effects.
- Since i could do no research, i couldnt research up to date doctrines, up to date models of arm, inf etc., and so on.


What could be a solution?
- up the starting officer of the SU from 60% to maybe 80-100%.
- a lot more leadership (i had 28 leaderhsip through the game. i think that suffices - i want to bolster the SU, not make it unbeatable)
- limit the max. officers to 125% voluntarily. this makes the battles more interesting, and more importantly - shorter! (this is actually what i would prefer. Hoi3 is painfully slow and sluggish, this could speed things up as units dont have 100s of org anymore.)

- general combat mechanic (please somebody hack the exe - i cannot bear it anymore):
-- vast improvent of org regain when near 0 (triple the regain rate, for example)
-- org loss when marching
-- huge increase of org regain when retreating

Added and maintained by Ederon
Version 1.1 wrote:
Main issues

  1. Tank zerging or inadequate attractiveness of different unit types
  2. Generally too high officer ratio
  3. Ahead of time research
  4. Germany vs. USSR balance
  5. General balance



Proposed solutions

i. Tank zerging or inadequate attractiveness of different unit types
  1. Increased officer cost of armor by 100%
    Pros: incentive to build more diverse army
    Cons: higher officer demand for SU (mitigated by iv.a and iv.b)
    Note: teamgene and Orthank objects it'll just further weaken SU

  2. Decreased officer cost of INF, GAR and MIL
    proposed decrease of 20%
    Pros: incentive to build this type of units
    Cons: works against point II
    Note: teamgene would omit MIL from the list, Orthank would exclude this altogether

  3. Further decreased armor practical from building armor
    proposed decrease of 10%
    Pros: more expensive armor units
    Cons: higher officer cost already targets the issue enough
    Note: n/a

  4. Further increased cost of armor
    proposed increase of 10%
    Pros: more expensive armor units
    Cons: higher officer cost and reduced practical already targets the issue enough
    Note: Traks is for 0% increase

  5. Decreased effectiveness of armor in difficult terrain (attack/defense/movement)
    1. urban from -40/-10/0 to -60/-25/-10
    2. river from -20/0/0 to -20/0/-20
    3. marshes from -10/0/-10 to -20/-10/-20
    4. mountains -20/0/-40 to -40/-20/-50

    Pros: more important infantry support in difficult terrain, slower progress of armor in such terrain
    Cons: alteration of vanilla combat
    Note: Traks is against, teamgene deems it unnecessary



ii. Generally too high officer ratio
  1. Decreased leadership to officers modifier
    proposed decrease to 50%
    Pros: slower accumulation of officers
    Cons: problem for getting high officer ratio for SU (mitigated by iv.a and iv.b)
    Note: teamgene and Orthank objects it'll just hurt SU most and aid Axis (see Fiendix's analysis of built units as argument against this)

  2. Increased officer cost of air and navy
    1. light air: 40
    2. CAG: 50
    3. medium air: 30
    4. heavy air: 20
    5. SS/DD/CL: 20
    6. CA/BC/CVL: 40
    7. BB/SH BB: 100
    8. CV: 200

    Pros: works against high officer ratio
    Cons: works against SU (mitigated by iv.a and iv.b)
    Note: teamgene thinks air is not an issue

  3. Increased combat losses of officers from 0.007 to 0.01
    yet unspecified
    Pros: works against high officer ratios
    Cons: weakens SU (mitigated by iv.a and iv.b)
    Note: Traks thinks its already addressed by lower leadership to officers conversion rate

  4. Increased officer cost of armor
    see point i.a


iii. Ahead of time research
  1. Increased ahead of time research penalty
    yet unspecified
    Pros: less tech rushing
    Cons: decreased liberty in teching
    Note: where is the modifier?

  2. Increased cost of license building
    proposed increase to 75 DI
    Pros: members of each faction do not have generic Axis/Allied/Communits gear, more diversity between countries
    Cons: minors would have it really hard to license anything
    Note: n/a

  3. Decreased leadership to officers modifier
    see point ii.a


iv. Germany vs. USSR balance
  1. Increased Soviet leadership by of 15%[/color]
    Pros: SU able to research something and keep up with higher officer demands
    Cons: more potent SU might prove too hard for Germany
    Note: alternatively, we might increase SU leadership just after German rampage vs. the Allies

  2. Increase starting Soviet officers to 85% officers[/color]
    Pros: SU able to keep in touch with Germany/Axis
    Cons: more potent SU might prove too hard for Germany
    Note: n/a

  3. Adjusted starting German leadership to current level of 1938 scenario with all the changes of leadership demand of units applied by this mod[/color]
    Pros: Germany would have to address higher officer demands for armor and lower conversion rate, but their starting point would remain the same
    Cons: n/a
    Note: if we omit this, Germany might be too weak to live past 1940


v. General balance
  1. Expiry date for Munich agreement set to the end of 1938
    Pros: earlier impact of gearings on Allies
    Cons: harder for Axis
    Note: n/a

  2. Incorporating CW countries directly under UK
    Pros: more potent UK
    Cons: might prove too much for Axis
    Note: n/a

  3. Limit Soviet expansion (and its threat impact on USA) somehow
    Pros: deny weird situation when SU allows Allies to act against Axis earlier because of SU aggressive behavior
    Cons: n/a
    Note: n/a


In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Traks
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:45:47 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Gen.Schuermann wrote:
Hmm, as current games shows again and again, the SU is underpowered to a good degree.
I have really maximized everything i could just in order to keep up with the likely German monster.

The prime problem is undoubtedly the officer/leadership problem. In my opinion not so much that the SU has so little, but rather that effects of high leadership (i.e. 200%) completely screw the game to a good degree. It also slows down the game to a considerable degree, a point on which i will elaborate a bit more soon.

First some experiences from the current game:
- constant retreat, not a single large defensive battle winnable
- not one real combat victory. I cannot grasp how a nation so armed to the teeth (>100 Armored divisions, >10 light ARM, etc) cannot achieve this.
- pripyet arguably decided/s this game. The para drop came kinda unexpected, i very well knew about the dangers. I usually had a deep defense, but well, this time i didnt because i could barely hold the front together.


I had the same. You did win some battles, especially at beginning when we had to fall back to Danzig.
Still, 95% of defensive battles you lost.

Quote:
So what exactly is the problem?
- high officers give ridiculous bonuses. you cannot win against an armored division that is up to date with 110 org or more. i had at times 5-6 ARM divs with some 60 org attacking 1-2 german ones, to no avail. this is due to bad techs (more on that later), stupid ministers and well leadership.
- I had to expend 95% of my leadership on officers from mid/late 1939! I havent done serious research for more than a year. Still i started the war with 130% officers only, with the known negative effects.
- Since i could do no research, i couldn't research up to date doctrines, up to date models of arm, inf etc., and so on.


Yes, linear approach is really bad. But that's Paradox.
I constantly spent 90% of leadership on leaders and having twice bigger army... well, my officer rate was around 120% at start of war.
I did have at least infantry and tanks researched. No doctrines almost.
That is, being more aggressive and getting even Greece, bigger part of Romania and Scandinavia very quickly.

Quote:
What could be a solution?
- up the starting officer of the SU from 60% to maybe 80-100%.
- a lot more leadership (i had 28 leaderhsip through the game. i think that suffices - i want to bolster the SU, not make it unbeatable)
- limit the max. officers to 125% voluntarily. this makes the battles more interesting, and more importantly - shorter! (this is actually what i would prefer. Hoi3 is painfully slow and sluggish, this could speed things up as units dont have 100s of org anymore.)


I do think first solution is good enough, boosting to 90% should provide much better experience.
28 leadership is okay, I had similar.

Quote:
- general combat mechanic (please somebody hack the exe - i cannot bear it anymore):
-- vast improvent of org regain when near 0 (triple the regain rate, for example)
-- org loss when marching
-- huge increase of org regain when retreating


Yes, I know, it's being constantly reminded to Paradox. Whichever side attacks wins, if breaks the enemy line. Anywhere.
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:32:38 AM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Frankly speaking id rather wait till the end of the session. I think most of the long naval pauses should be over so it should go faster unless allies want to fold?

I summed up most in this post:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?495283-Combat-in-HOI3&p=11730010&viewfull=1#post11730010

I doubt Paradox will do much so we will be stuck with other issues.

Now as to your suggestions:

Putting up leadership to a high level could cause germany not to be able to do much due to many exploits in the game: russia buying tanks from uk - frankly speaking all this trade is just one big exploit. Org doctrines doesnt matter as much when you can get 200 leadership - usually seems only ita and russ dont have it at 200%. Furthermore org is great but haveing a better SA is even better.

Id really suggest some of the basic "hack concepts" from the MEM mod which some of you might have played in HOI2:

1) get rid of unit trades
2) Make officers MUCH more expensive in general PLUS make some units like tanks & Hqs use MUCH more. If we can make them die more often in battles that would also be great. Do officers even die?
3) Increase oil & supply use of tanks
4) Increase damage dealt vs org. ie units should lose more str
5) russia should get leadership bonus if they are attacked by germany/italy - if we cant define attacker then use a set date.
6) MUCH lower mp gains from conquered terrain - plus move more ussr mp back behind kiev after war starts.. or just give them an mp boost.

Id have to see in the files whats possible but we should have agreement of what we want before we do anything.
Forgiven
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:56:11 AM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
Let's say it this way... I have 232% officer rate now thanks to the losses of divisions...

...on the other hand, I seem to have lost some 10000 officers in process (!) so they certainly do die, might be they only die in combat, but not if division surrenders thou, but not sure of this...

I'll not comment on the other mod suggestions just yet, I need to figure out what I think again, well I still hate how much benefit officer rate gives, no denying that, but for the rest...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
teamgene
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:18:41 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Well I just want us to take small steps when it comes to balancing. Lets just try raising the starting leadership for SU for now.


I agree with Fiendix on the trades, though I do use them in game.
Geofactor
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:21:13 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/12/2007
Posts: 721
Location: North Coast USA
"So what exactly is the problem?"

You are playing HOI3?

""The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.".....Thomas Jefferson"
anonymous....we are legion...we dont forgive....we dont forget....expect us...
Traks
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 9:20:04 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Officers certainly die.
As we are in constant combat, our officer rate jumps up and down all the time. We are spending some 10 leadership just to keep it on the same level.
I would agree that license build means all nations have the latest units. I would raise cost to 100 diplomatic points. So if "really" needed, you could some units.
On other part of balancing, I would then say that Italy should also get officer raise as too often (read - always) they face Soviets. Let's say 15% increase.

3) Oil and supply usage of tanks is just fine now. It was basically doubled in 2.03
4) Fine as is now
5) Slight boost after DOW is certainly possible. 2 leadership points for example. Don't forget the multipliers.
6) There is event of giving MP to Soviets. Manpower was never an issue really.
Also German manpower is fine, I would say. Those battles in East are bloody. And that is with some countries set to Total Exploitation policy.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:20:16 AM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
I feel that the officer level is solely responsible for the problems the SU faces in every game.
We should try a maximum of 125% next time.
One could finally see island hopping this way. A defender with 300% bonus and 110 org is undefeatable.

I beat down some attacks from Germany to say 40 org, but seriously, i like start at 40 org. I cannot even defeat Infantry, which just is not right.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Traks
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:26:15 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
No no no no.
Then France should be AI, as human Germany vs human France with those limitations on officer rate will take years to win.
Not even sure about manpower losses that Germany will have to suffer.
At least 150%. Officer rate is one of few things that give Germans edge.
Difference in less than 20% officer rate is minor inconvenience, less than 50% is dangerous and more than 50% - sure death.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:45:10 AM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
We could agree on a German "specialty" officer rate of like 140 vs 125 of the rest.

Btw you didnt win in France because of officers, but because of numerical superiority and good airforce use. France had almost 200% right from your invasion, so that renders your point moot, imo.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:51:18 AM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
I had about 160-180% officers as France, ended up at around 200% in the end.
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:33:00 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Gen.Schuermann wrote:
We could agree on a German "specialty" officer rate of like 140 vs 125 of the rest.

Btw you didnt win in France because of officers, but because of numerical superiority and good airforce use. France had almost 200% right from your invasion, so that renders your point moot, imo.


Id beg to differ. Germany had a HUGE problem with France and with 160org v 200org you have barely from 10-18 org difference. If thats all that germany has v russia then it will be in big shit if russia can get so many tanks as it did in this game... In hoi2 you had gde to help germany along - here is just dumbed down to 1 stat - org. Really bad for balance. A 200 leadership russia with more troops will be V hard to germany esp if usa enters so early.

Id like to point out that we should have a statistical draw with this combat engine between 1 unit with 1 SA 1 DEF 1 TOUGH and 100 ORG vs 2 units with 1 SA 1 DEF 1 TOUGH and 50 ORG (same eff on both sides). If we allow russia not only to have more units (which it should) and minimal org difference then germany will not stand a chance.
Traks
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:08:30 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Exactly my thoughts.
SU should get small boost to help fighting. Too much, and Germany will not even move out of Poland.
In 1942 SU should have some 180% org and good research rate. Even better than it was in RL.
Fixing org regain when it is low... not gonna happen probably. Until expansion at least.
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:39:01 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
One thing you have neglected a bit in your review of situation Fiendix is that even when difference in officers is 40%, Germany has better doctrines which multiplies the difference. France, and SU is same case, had to sacrifice research in favor of officers recruitment. Which means less base org for all types of units. German tanks had org of 90-110, while French at almost full officers had 70 maybe? (I don't remember that precisely, but IIRC it was something like this). This coupled with superior German arms makes the difference.

Anyway, I don't think there is such a big need for modding. We might want to slightly adjust something (starting officers, maybe leadership a bit..). We saw in this game that SU has potential to do some bad to Axis even this early on. We failed to materialize on that (delayed attack, failed encirclement in the south, Felix's fuck-up in the marshes Schuer), but should we avoid esp. the latter, we were setup for good fight. Given shortages ahead of Axis. So just admit it, we've been caught with our pants down. We did mistakes where Hytzon/Traks and juv/Kyril avoided them or were able to solve them unlike us. Swallow the bitter pill and move on Wink
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:00:19 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Daniel wrote:
One thing you have neglected a bit in your review of situation Fiendix is that even when difference in officers is 40%, Germany has better doctrines which multiplies the difference.


Ke?

Base org is 30 - with each tech giveing 5 more org. France is usally in par with that tech (and so is russia if it doesnt want to die).

1918 35 org
1936 40 org
1938 45 org
1940 50 org

200 off = 100 org for Germany start of france /and try not to have 200 you will be badly beaten up/
160 off = 80 org so 20 org difference /France at start of combat/
180 off = 90 org or so

so as i said 10-20 diff for France.

Indeed the tech differences matter - but still its very hard at times to break through when the eff of the attackers are low and the defenders can pile up in close provinces..

Traks
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:03:23 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Talking about France and Poland.
Honestly I did overbuild units, and we had 120% or so in Poland and 130% in France, building up to 170% at end of French campaign.
We reached 200% in Spain campaign IIRC. On other hand, we had 52 tank brigades in Poland campaign.
Probably our soft and hard attack are also little bit higher.
But it was real hard to break enemy in forests and cities, as that removes lots of bonuses.
Not even talking about engineers in fortified cities.

On other hand yes, we did research some ahead-of-time techs that helped.
Our tanks have 110 org, while Russians have 55.
I agree that difference is not that big, no idea about Soviet officer rate. If not researching, 140? 150?
And +5 morale/org techs are worth researching of course.
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:20:00 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
about tech differences;

3.8 SA for 1938
4.4 SA for 1940

so 15% difference.
that means a defending 1938 in with 15% better defence eff (forest anyone?) fights just as well as an attacking 1940 inf.
Hytzon
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 4:12:04 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Also remember our tank divisions are for the most part ARM-ARM-MOT-SPART, while the Soviets have mostly ARM-ARM-ENG as far as I have seen.
Thus our divisions are tougher and we have very good leaders. Our OOB was excellent during the early campaigns, giving us lvl 4-5 leaders for Panzer divisions, Panzer Corps and Armies. The combined bonuses are very nice.

I think the Soviets need a small leadership bonus and maybe a small boost to the starting officer amount, but not much more than that. If Paradox would only abandon the completely linear scale for officers...

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 4:31:17 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Traks wrote:
Officers certainly die.
As we are in constant combat, our officer rate jumps up and down all the time. We are spending some 10 leadership just to keep it on the same level.
I would agree that license build means all nations have the latest units. I would raise cost to 100 diplomatic points. So if "really" needed, you could some units.
On other part of balancing, I would then say that Italy should also get officer raise as too often (read - always) they face Soviets. Let's say 15% increase.



Giveing more leadership to everyone is just a way of increaseing the problem. The problem is the ease everybody has 200 officers not that people have too little leadership. With 200 officers we have not only the org issue, but the no delay after attack issue.
Forgiven
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:08:06 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
Hmm, yes, now, alternative suggestion indeed....

We can't modify the effect of officer rate, as that is in the exe...
What we might be able to do, is reduce the the interest in officers by making their cost relative to research more equal...

Which means, 'halve' the officer gains in recruitment laws so that each officer costs twice as much as it does now...
...ok, this will totally kill soviets so up their starting officer rate to 80 or 90, otherwise I fear they'll never be able to get out of shatter territory, it'll be bad enough with new construction even at that rate...

...and change infantry units to need bit less officers indeed, to increase relative value of infantry...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
teamgene
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:21:37 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Again, I say let just try it with a Russia starting game at 90-100 leadership and see what happens.

Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:40:35 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
teamgene wrote:
Again, I say let just try it with a Russia starting game at 90-100 leadership and see what happens.



traks had 1200 brigades and 120 officer rate in our last game IIRC and after he lost a bit of inf and some time passed 140.. Giveing such a behemoth 40 more officers will give them 160-180 officer rate.. I think this is insane.
Traks
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:45:13 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
1100 I think Smile
It will not be so bad. As you are increasing STARTING officer rate. Which, if you build any units, quickly gets much smaller.
So giving SU 90% officer rate seems fine.
At time you get to war, probably amount of units will be at least double. That means only 15% officer bonus in long run.
teamgene
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:49:13 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Fiendix wrote:
traks had 1200 brigades and 120 officer rate in our last game IIRC and after he lost a bit of inf and some time passed 140.. Giveing such a behemoth 40 more officers will give them 160-180 officer rate.. I think this is insane.



It could be, but I would rather do that than making a multitude of mods. If it is too much we can easily back it off for the next.
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:01:03 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Overall id prefer bigger changes - things that have a bigger chance of adressing the delay of attack. Nations should have max 140-160 officer rates with russia haveing less - not all should be 200..

However a raise of x leadership can be easily tested with 2 players takeing the current save before outbreak of german offensive and see how the front flows.

BTW are we playing another monday HOI3? Thought some wanted to move to another game? VIC?? maybe we should setup a poll?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.