Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Soviet Union - Balancing 101 Options · View
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:36:53 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Summary of thoughts compiled by myself. I've made some resolutions, so don't hesitate to speak up in case you have any issues with that.

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
Forgiven
Posted: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:21:09 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
Does 'inherit' work in HoI? (thinking of this, it must work since in a mod Austrian troops get inherited too...)
As you wouldn't want to make UK too powerful too early, if you want the commonwealth there, rather add them 'after french surrender' (or 'inherit upon joining allies' trigger might be possible and working too?)...
...on the other hand, it'll just create ton of extra area to defend too, not sure if it's that so big bonus (ok, so canada is quite safe, but still).

On the list of other changes, I'd love to increase 'base leadership' so minors would have more, it'd also cut differences between majors down in % some...
...alas, I don't know if that's possible...

Umm, and, hm, something else, forgot what it was mid sentence...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:42:12 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
giveing cw to uk is a crazy idea. UK cant be too strong - it has to have just "enough" to keep fighting.

The problems as i see it:

1) Germany rolling over russia too fast
2) Japan getting in to early and allowing axis to gangbang uk - maybe too easily.
3) usa getting in to early and forceing japan an early dow otherwise be banged from uk and usa

USA should only join if japan enters axis or goes on rampage after china.

BTW as a general rule i prefer to make nations weaker rather than give boosts. It better for all to have hard choices than more ic/mp/leadership than you need past 1942.
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:50:14 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I also prefer nerfs and simple solutions.
And I think we should add not too many solutions at once or we will go Paradox way, example of nerfed subs to too powerful subs.

I would increase neutrality of USA and put event if Japan declares war on Allies, with some delay. 3 months or so.
juv95hrn
Posted: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:33:32 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
Maybe maximizing officer ratio at 150% next time? Its very easy if nothing else.
Forgiven
Posted: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:55:26 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
USA is not exactly all that strong when it begins, navy is decent, but still...

Still, I sort of agree that US entry should be tied to Japan's but! I'd even argue that those conquest sprees axis and commies go on should actually make them enter earlier, and yes, no doubt Allies should declare war on soviets too Cool

Still, some tying of US entry to Japan entry is fine with me, I'd argue they should be 'simultaneous' not delayed...

That might even make it tempting for Japan to stay out of the war until say 1941... Annonym
(And still have the Nat Chi to fight with until then)

Not sure of the officer ratio limit either, is there way to 'code' something to limit it (Event that kills extra officers off in internal strife?)? And in fact, I'd argue Germany needs a bit higher ratio to be able to do anything, be it 10% or 20%...
...but in general yes, 150% would be good if they won't add someway to reduce officer effect in next patch...
...Hmm, should at least ask them to change the officer ratio effects into lua from the exe, who knows, it might go through.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:03:56 AM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
makeing a "rule" for 150 is the wrong idea imo - hard to enforce esp if units die and one goes over. Futhermore puts Germany in a much tighter spot with france as time wont help it gain more org..
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:44:16 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Forgiven - you can't add or remove officers via event. It is not possible in current engine.
I am against rules if it is possible to solve problem in other way.
With Japan/USA event can be written, and USA can be put much further away from Allied corner.

And theoretically yes, after conquering spree of SU, Allies should declare war on them too.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:34:35 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
lets face it in this game the ussr are the allies - not allowing them to get more ic through conquest only makes it easier for axis..
there is no point in uk&usa attacking russia
teamgene
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:10:37 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Here are a few suggestions...


I feel that the USA should get involved when:

A - Japan declares war on allies...

B - Germany declares war on Soviet Union.

C - Axis declares war on 2 or more nations that was neutral/Axis in WW2.( ie...Romania, Spain, Turkey etc...) This still allows them to attack one without triggering USA. This should take care of massive Italian growth before the war while still allowing them to get Yugoslavia and Greece.

This makes Axis attack on Switzerland, Spain etc... more of an international event.

To make sure that things are not exploited, SU cannot declare war on Romania prior to border dispute event of 1940 and then only by triggers. Nor can SU attack Turkey prior to:

a) 1941

b) attack on turkey by Axis power.

This still allows SU to expand in less strategically important areas before the war.



Lastly, The Treaty of Munich agreement should be tiggered at start of game and Allies cannot use it to declare war.







Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:28:46 PM
 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 really like the idea of giving the CW to UK. UK is quite shit right now, and as we have seen even the Japanese fuck them royally. I think giving Canada and Australia to them would prove to be fruitful! Consider that the Canucks and the Anzac did serious fighting in the war also. Also the additional IC is offset by increased convoy need. Good balancing factor imo.

I also advocate for more IC to russia. Russia needs to be able to counter devastating losses early on (which need to happen) with a bigger industrial base, since in 38 you cannot build up industry much.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:46:07 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Again giving out stuff is a bad idea. This game should be about tough choices not that i have enough IC to cover everything.

I can also tell you - noteing my modding exp in MEM in which we saw late 42+ /early 43 (which is still a distant dream for HOI3) - issues that arise with giveing out stuff - is too much ic, mp and resources in the later years when nations like german move far into russia - or russia being too strong for allies in 43 when germany died. Things need to be slow and painfull for all (thats why I advocated for less ic, mp and resources from conquered terrains). You will see the problem if we ever chose to play after russia falls. Germany just explodes with resources and allies cant do shit.

Also UK is not the problem - Japan war entry is and italy free hand with local conquest is.

Even in this game UK really hurt germany with a very long France. Imagine what it could do with 110 extra ic from the CW (70 canada + 40- ozzies).
Furthermore if it hadnt lost its fleet in gamble moves uk it would have been very potent. Looking back at the game before this one please note that UK held on to india and Suez till russia surrendered = it was able to keep japan and italy at bay. If the tactic choice in this game was to build only tanks and have not enough inf to cover ground you cant blame uks ic or mp situation and yell for a boost.

We have to aim for mechanical changes not resource ones.
Ederon
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:57:34 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
I agree with Fiendix. We should make it more painful, not giving away IC and stuff.

What we might want to consider is some sort of action/reaction scheme to counter problems of early Axis conquests. I'd implement it as decisions available to selected Allied countries after certain actions of Axis. On one side, aggressive Axis would allow Allies to gain something (lowered neutrality, etc etc), while aggressive SU would work the other way round. Most important - players should have always a choice what to do with at least two options which way to go. So it doesn't look like scripted HoI2 game with Danzig triggering at the same day all the time etc.
Traks
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:12:19 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
1. Italy is fine. They can do one DOW, after second DOW they can be attacked by Allies.
2. As SU I could have built more tanks, I built some infantry to plug the holes and if necessary to die while tanks retreat.
In fact I do have idea on how SU can be helped.
Strongly rewritten decision for transfer of industry to Siberia, removing most of leadership and IC (80%? 90%?) to Urals/Siberia provinces.
Another event to put it all back when Soviets take Warshaw.
3. Japan vs USA needs more thought and refinement. My previous statements of making USA more neutral stays, and there should be triggers for too aggressive Japan mobilizing USA for war. If Japan is neutral, USA also stays neutral.
Forgiven
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:35:02 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
Fiendix wrote:
Again giving out stuff is a bad idea. This game should be about tough choices not that i have enough IC to cover everything.

I can also tell you - noteing my modding exp in MEM in which we saw late 42+ /early 43 (which is still a distant dream for HOI3) - issues that arise with giveing out stuff - is too much ic, mp and resources in the later years when nations like german move far into russia - or russia being too strong for allies in 43 when germany died. Things need to be slow and painfull for all (thats why I advocated for less ic, mp and resources from conquered terrains). You will see the problem if we ever chose to play after russia falls. Germany just explodes with resources and allies cant do shit.

Also UK is not the problem - Japan war entry is and italy free hand with local conquest is.

Even in this game UK really hurt germany with a very long France. Imagine what it could do with 110 extra ic from the CW (70 canada + 40- ozzies).
Furthermore if it hadnt lost its fleet in gamble moves uk it would have been very potent. Looking back at the game before this one please note that UK held on to india and Suez till russia surrendered = it was able to keep japan and italy at bay. If the tactic choice in this game was to build only tanks and have not enough inf to cover ground you cant blame uks ic or mp situation and yell for a boost.

We have to aim for mechanical changes not resource ones.


I pretty much agree, except for that tank building being bad choise, you do realize I had no manpower to build any more units of any kind, thus there can't have been anything wrong with the few armor...
...What lost the war for me in asia was Singapore, There I tried to reinforce to keep Japan off, but losing the naval battle in area (or before even reaching it) lead to losing Singapore and the 15+ (maybe 20?) divisions that had been shipped there by that point, without those there was no force to fight in Asia with, basicly the real mistake I consider myself having made with this was not sending my whole fleet there, to even the ground against Japan, or pushing USA to be more aggressive with it's navy, to secure naval access to Singapore.

I suppose I can't really comment on the Soviet situation, haven't been involved on that front in SF and never played the soviets, I still don't know how you can lose with all those resources, I'd almost blame soviet players for building too many tanks... Sergeant (in past X games).

Indeed, now that Daniel mentions it, I'm quite sure we could use the 'achivement' system to give out some of the benefits instead of events (IE like the 'General Winter' for soviets currently), to curtail early aggression *shrug*

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
teamgene
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:42:32 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Last game I was Italy, events very early before the war dictated that we would be sharing a front with the SU, so suez was of little importance.

This game, there is nothing the USA fleet could have done to save Singapore as Japan controlled too many airfields surrounding Singapore for the fleet to venture close to it. We did venture in to port strike a Jap fleet but the damage was minimal and by far not worth the risk that we took to do it. Not to mention all the aircraft we had to use to try to keep enemy INT busy. Singapore without holding Borneo is just not the place to make a stand.

We perhaps could have made a difference around Ceylon, but that is about it.

But in hindsight, we would have been better served not invading Spain and sending our troops immediately to India or Egypt, but the Russian surprise attack on Germany sounded like a neat idea and we hoped we could keep the panzers west.



One thing the allies may need to look at is trading with Japan so that they can produce at 100% before the general war starts. I don't know if not trading would totally cripple them or not?



Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:03:51 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
well the tactic i used was just not reinforceing a lot of units untill the section of the front was at war - this prolly allowed me to build more units - guess we can check the save when this is over to see what exactly were the numbers as i may be wrong - indeed tanks are a bit cheaper in mp (they shouldnt imo), but i did save up a lot of mp by haveing them at low str untill more time passed. Plus saveing the ic from tanks (although i did build a few) allowed me to get more cvs and planes..

@teamgene - IIRC you did plan to attack suez just your fleet seemed to have gotten shot up Wink . Still i did have a lot of units there plus remember i had every beach in uk covered with min 2 brigades. - doesnt seem so with this uk.
teamgene
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:14:55 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
I had a plan to come in behind your army in Egypt, but with all the units we saw there it was never a 'Main plan' and thanks to stupidity we lost our fleet pretty early.

But the shocker for me was when I jumped Hytzon's transport fleet with my battleships and got our butt kicked. That was quite a learning experience.
'
teamgene
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:23:02 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Fiendix wrote:
well the tactic i used was just not reinforceing a lot of units untill the section of the front was at war - this prolly allowed me to build more units - guess we can check the save when this is over to see what exactly were the numbers as i may be wrong - indeed tanks are a bit cheaper in mp (they shouldnt imo), but i did save up a lot of mp by haveing them at low str untill more time passed. Plus saveing the ic from tanks (although i did build a few) allowed me to get more cvs and planes..



As I recall you had a lot of garrison units and such as well. Japan only tried to attack India by land and did not try amphib ops there. But could be wrong as I have not gone back to the saves.
Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:32:49 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
yea i did have a lot of gar (initial + i think i built a few more) - the pic Traks posted shows me with 239 brigades in start of Jan 40. Dont know what the current uk had then. Guess we would need to count all from land to sea to air...
Gar IMO are also needed esp for the many beaches japan can land (and it did land in karachi if you recall and was squashed by units from my pullout of sardinia). I agree tanks are usefull (sic!) - then again everything is usefull - but mainly for offense (as uk could feel in the calcutta offense) - uk really is more on the defence till usa can get in..

Still Forgiven is right that the loss of the fleet was a big factor in the fall of india...
Forgiven
Posted: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:57:48 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
Hmm, I had 215 in november '39 (ain't got save closer to to new year) but I wasn't building land units in said save at least, so that probably didn't change.

Armor cost is still ridiculously low since 'reserves penalty impact' of volunteer army is still oh so low/much which ever you call it...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
Forgiven
Posted: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:04:19 AM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
Japan is short some 100 energy, 30 is metals and ~50 rares as is, yes, they'd be very screwed without trading, suppose they could get some from the minors but that's ~100 days and they are out of rares... (I think those numbers are about right but I could be wrong.)

And I don't care much for garrisons, I'm quite willing to confess that, it's not like they can hold anything against any reasonably sized force after all...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
teamgene
Posted: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:24:41 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
I generally feel the same about garrisons, especially when your MP limited. Fiendix though uses them well.
Traks
Posted: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:16:38 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I think that currently Japan is okayish without restrictions put on it.
Allies may not trade with it if Japan is too aggressive, but usually Japan is quite peaceful.
Axis con provide Japan with metal and energy, but not rares and oil. So I'd say yes, Japan gets screwed.

I do agree that garrisons are quite okay for some countries, especially islands defense.
They can hold some time while reinforcements arrive, and die gloriously if needed.
Hytzon
Posted: Friday, December 03, 2010 9:15:08 AM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
The real kicker for garrisons are the lower officer requirements. Also note their defensive values and soft attacks are quite okay compared to normal infantry.

As I said earlier, I think we should wait for the patch before we decide what to do. If the patch fixes the org. gain on attack move might be enough to balance things. As we saw in the last session, Germany have a much harder time the further it gets into Russia we get. If USSR hadn't declared war on Germany and allowed themselves to be stuck and surrended in front of the impassable Pinsk marshes, things would have looked quite different on the Eastern front. You have to remember that Germany is quite low on fuel, while also suffering from excessive manpower losses due to British intervention in France.

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
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.