Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Monday Game XVIII - Setup and Balancing Options · View
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:10:09 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
Hey there, i think it's time to think about what we want to do in the newest iteration of Monday Game, especially balance wise we need to do some talking.
I will state some categories where we need to do some balancing (or not): I need your input here.

First and foremost: We need to consider that our games never last until 1945 but rather until 1942/1943. We need to take into account that our games last short, and need to balance as such.

[Japan's MP]
Japan obviously has too much. Don't exactly know what to do, capping mainland Japans MP? That way they have to be aggressive to conquer MP.

[Useless Commonwealth, too weak UK]
Event for UK to inherit ANZAC, Canada, maybe South Africa - a nice counter balance to this relative boost to UK is the vulnerability to convoy raiding. Also forces Japan to divert it's forces south to meet Allies in Aussieland, so they don't go pouring into the middle east immediately.
We could also balance this to only fire after certain events (although starting at 1938 is already balance enough?).

My rationale is that we Allies could never pose a decent thread to Germany (or even Japan). Also those countries (as opposed to HoI2) never see combat in the normal game, which should be a no no.

[USA's MP]
We either need more custom events that we have now, or plainly a much larger growth, which i would advocate. USA in 1941 had a population of 133 million, while germany and Japan each had about 72 million. My growth is about a third lower than Germany's. Considering i start with none, maybe try to up it to 80 MP a month instead of 45 i have now?

Due to lack of starting MP and later start I was severely limited in what i could do, it just cant be that i cannot even beat Japan out of Panama due to sheer lack of MP Crazy

[USA's early join]
USA joins too early, up neutrality? Houserule? Or does it join on time, considering our shorter timeframe?

[SOV's early aggression]
Ederon is imo right in the assessment, that the SU must be (and is too) aggressive to satisfy it's officer need. We should think about some things: Either up officers from the start further, more leadership or something else.
What about a leadership shock-boost after 3 months of war? can we create off map leadership or on map leadership via event? SU should be very weak (compared to GER) in the beginning, but become a lean mean fighting machine later (specifically because right now it will also lag behind in tech, and this gap will only widen).

[German and Japanese Leadership]
Is germany's leadership per chance too high? I know germany must be absurdly strong to fight all the allies and sovs at once, but i fear it's a little too overpowered? Same with Japan (after having China and INdia?)

[China falling like a house of cards]
What can we do here? Much of japanese's unbalancing comes from the quick campaigns in China. What can we do here to assist China/slow down Japan?

[Supply]
We have seen massive problems with supplies. One thing i think needs balancing is ports. It takes way too long to build up a large port (i see no one building any ports), could we halve the speed at which ports are built?

[lack of Radar coverage]
Is it only me? I really HATE that i cannot get allied radar info. Could we make an event that switches over a harmless province of say UK to US so the US can build Radar there? What am I, as the largest allied power to do if i have fuck all info on what is happening? really annoying.

Anything else?
_____________________

The more i write the more i realize that i hate that we cannot modify shit. Mad I cannot built ports in allied territory, i cannot modify supply throughput, etc. etc. etc. I wish paradox would make this game more mod friendly. Mad

____________________________________________________________

Now, to the country allocation. I'll try to keep it updated properly. I throw in my hat for USA again, i think i learned from my mistakes. I hope Big Grin Would appreciate help, but i think i can manage alone. But help never hurts Smile
First pref is green, second orange, third is red.

Germany Ederon, Traks
Italy Traks, Gen.Schuermann
Japan Hytzon

Soviet Union Hytzon
United Kingdom Gen.Schuermann, Traks, Ederon
United States Gen.Schuermann, Ederon


In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:44:55 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Gen.Schuermann wrote:


[USA's MP]
We either need more custom events that we have now, or plainly a much larger growth, which i would advocate. USA in 1941 had a population of 133 million, while germany and Japan each had about 72 million. My growth is about a third lower than Germany's. Considering i start with none, maybe try to up it to 80 MP a month instead of 45 i have now?

Due to lack of starting MP and later start I was severely limited in what i could do, it just cant be that i cannot even beat Japan out of Panama due to sheer lack of MP Crazy

[USA's early join]
USA joins too early, up neutrality? Houserule? Or does it join on time, considering our shorter timeframe?




id just like to point out that u had something like 16? divs sitting in hawaii. You could have moved at least 5-6 to panama and it would have been a whole different story. You also had loads in India. Just a question that you left yourself exposed.

For me seems that this game was quite well balanced. True usa should have more mp and in the long run it would have forced me and germany out. I really could build much more inf as i had logistical issues and my ship building as getting outclassed. Allies just need in such a situation to wait..

and usa could join way too early. Germany in some games could be still stuck in France.

Remember that japan had all the strategic effects for a LD boost.
Traks
Posted: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:59:02 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
1. As I said, we can borrow (or ask to borrow) Diday's event for China, or only part of it.
Idea is that China would be split in multiple Japan-friendly puppets and Japan would get coastal area - Beijing and some other nice places, making it weaker in all departments.
If they choose full annexation, hit China territory with heavy partisan amount. So either garrison critical places, or get partisans. In FTM partisans can also pop out and cause more troubles.

2. I understand your point about Allied forces not doing much. In FTM it is slightly improved, not much. I'd give Aussies to UK and Canada to USA for starters.
That would boost UK and USA.

3. No. USA is fine as it is, I think.

4. In FTM it joins later, unless Axis get very aggressive. So I am fine with leaving as it is and checking results later.

5. Soviets got big boost in FTM already. But I remember that in Semper Fi leadership was pain and I overall did advocate for increase. We can a) increase base leadership from 14.75 to 16.00. or b) write event to plainly give more officers. Maybe 10,000? Or event giving 3,000 officers/year? In let's say March?

6. Japan would have less leadership after proposed event. Germany, I'd say no for time being seeing boost to SU and weakening of Japan.

7. China needs more troops and some officers for those troops... not sure about how much.

8. Supplies are slightly fixed in FTM. And port capacity is seriously increased in FTM 3.05. I think it was 50% more, so techs have greater impact too.

8. Spies can partially make a workaround. No option for radars I am afraid.

As for uberaggressive SU, we need to make some crippling event. If SU is willing to pay cost, they can go ahead. 5% dissent and -5 unity?
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:34:28 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
Fiendix wrote:
id just like to point out that u had something like 16? divs sitting in hawaii. You could have moved at least 5-6 to panama and it would have been a whole different story. You also had loads in India. Just a question that you left yourself exposed.

For me seems that this game was quite well balanced. True usa should have more mp and in the long run it would have forced me and germany out. I really could build much more inf as i had logistical issues and my ship building as getting outclassed. Allies just need in such a situation to wait..

and usa could join way too early. Germany in some games could be still stuck in France.

Remember that japan had all the strategic effects for a LD boost.


Consider that in a late game join USA's MP is even lower. From a game's perspective i find it unfair that Japan gains 80 MP a day while USA has to do with 40ish. If you won't agree on making US growth higher, what about Japan's growth massively lower to 40ish or 50ish? I mean they have the whole game to mass up MP while the US sits idly at 3 MP a month at peace for a year or more.

I am also not sure if we absolutely need a later US entry. Consider that our games last on average 2-3 years less so we need to balance as such.

And i do not buy that i would be able to oust you out of Panama. you had so much shit swirling around that you could have easily landed behind my back if you just massed you stuff. You probably do not realize in what precarious situation i was in when you invaded Mexico and Panama. US's war waging capacity as is is a joke.

Comments in red:
Traks wrote:
1. As I said, we can borrow (or ask to borrow) Diday's event for China, or only part of it.
Idea is that China would be split in multiple Japan-friendly puppets and Japan would get coastal area - Beijing and some other nice places, making it weaker in all departments.
If they choose full annexation, hit China territory with heavy partisan amount. So either garrison critical places, or get partisans. In FTM partisans can also pop out and cause more troubles.

2. I understand your point about Allied forces not doing much. In FTM it is slightly improved, not much. I'd give Aussies to UK and Canada to USA for starters.
That would boost UK and USA. I had that also in mind. If we do an inherit command, does this also add cores?

3. No. USA is fine as it is, I think. You probably do not realize how shitty USA is in 1938.

4. In FTM it joins later, unless Axis get very aggressive. So I am fine with leaving as it is and checking results later.

5. Soviets got big boost in FTM already. But I remember that in Semper Fi leadership was pain and I overall did advocate for increase. We can a) increase base leadership from 14.75 to 16.00. or b) write event to plainly give more officers. Maybe 10,000? Or event giving 3,000 officers/year? In let's say March?

6. Japan would have less leadership after proposed event. Germany, I'd say no for time being seeing boost to SU and weakening of Japan. Agree

7. China needs more troops and some officers for those troops... not sure about how much. How easy would this be to achieve? Officers would be the easiest part, not sure about adding new divisions.

8. Supplies are slightly fixed in FTM. And port capacity is seriously increased in FTM 3.05. I think it was 50% more, so techs have greater impact too. That sounds great.

8. Spies can partially make a workaround. No option for radars I am afraid.

As for uberaggressive SU, we need to make some crippling event. If SU is willing to pay cost, they can go ahead. 5% dissent and -5 unity? Maybe an officer loss event? Like Stalin overuling generals, and acting up generals being shot? So the effects of having a scandinavian SSR countering the loss of 10000s of officers?




In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:48:26 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
2. I think no. Needs to be checked.
3. USA is fine, Japan is main problem here. SU = Germany, UK = Italy, USA = Japan. Only pair which is seriously unbalanced is USA - Japan. And I did vote for weakening Japan by making China stronger and giving less out of annexed China. That means IC, leadership and manpower.
5. So which option of 3 proposed gets your vote, or you have another option/idea?
7. Make it a decision. AI runs decision ASAP, adding units is not hard, adding some officers too. 20 extra divs and 20% more officers should be enough.

I'd also keep our values of officer cost, casualties and 165% maximum. Or maybe 160? And SU got +20% officers at start of scenario, I think?
As Germany we reached 165% in last session basically.
In FTM there are few triggers for early USA entry - one of them is attacked Yugoslavia, USA gets neutrality lower. Maybe add event on adding manpower to USA in 1943, but for now I'd say not needed.
Fine by me on SU, -10,000 officers for every extra war sounds good.
20 days supplies and practicals are about right.

Only thing that needs houseruling is about landings and evacuation of landings.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:41:42 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
Traks wrote:
2. I think no. Needs to be checked.
3. USA is fine, Japan is main problem here. SU = Germany, UK = Italy, USA = Japan. Only pair which is seriously unbalanced is USA - Japan. And I did vote for weakening Japan by making China stronger and giving less out of annexed China. That means IC, leadership and manpower.
5. So which option of 3 proposed gets your vote, or you have another option/idea?
7. Make it a decision. AI runs decision ASAP, adding units is not hard, adding some officers too. 20 extra divs and 20% more officers should be enough.

I'd also keep our values of officer cost, casualties and 165% maximum. Or maybe 160? And SU got +20% officers at start of scenario, I think?
As Germany we reached 165% in last session basically.
In FTM there are few triggers for early USA entry - one of them is attacked Yugoslavia, USA gets neutrality lower. Maybe add event on adding manpower to USA in 1943, but for now I'd say not needed.
Fine by me on SU, -10,000 officers for every extra war sounds good.
20 days supplies and practicals are about right.

Only thing that needs houseruling is about landings and evacuation of landings.


Maybe you are right about the US. My only quib is that in the short timeframe of the game US get's powerful way too late.

5. The easiest option to implement is probably the officers. What kind of officer/per day do we get as SU on full war footing with 80% or leadership in officers? I am thinking of a 3 month's worth of officers, so in line with your 3000 a year or so figure (or more, or less). 10000 in one stroke may be too much.

7. Someone should write a quick event and check it in 1938 hands off. If Japan gets routed, they should be strong enough (hoping the player fares better Big Grin ).

I agree with keeping the officer cost and maximum, worked fine in that regard. It was however a pain for US - could we give the US some 10000 or so extra officers in one of the war events we gave them? Offsets the really sucky start and especially the really bad techs the US starts with. A small army i think one can live with. If that army cannot even beat the italians, something is wrong.

What about the landings and especially retreats in FTM? Still as bugged as in Semper Fi? Really annoyign that you cannot properly retreat to 1000 TPs off shore until there is only one provice left :/ makes orderly retreats really difficult and frustrating.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:24:09 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Gen.Schuermann wrote:
Consider that in a late game join USA's MP is even lower. From a game's perspective i find it unfair that Japan gains 80 MP a day while USA has to do with 40ish. If you won't agree on making US growth higher, what about Japan's growth massively lower to 40ish or 50ish? I mean they have the whole game to mass up MP while the US sits idly at 3 MP a month at peace for a year or more.


oh i do agree that usa should get more mp later on. didnt say it shouldnt. Its not really china though that kills the balance its india too. Id give then less mp but not less IC. Without IC they dont stand a chance v usa.

Gen.Schuermann wrote:

I am also not sure if we absolutely need a later US entry. Consider that our games last on average 2-3 years less so we need to balance as such.


i think it could enter in november 39 - i think thats a bit way too early. esp if you are makeing japan weaker.

Gen.Schuermann wrote:

And i do not buy that i would be able to oust you out of Panama. you had so much shit swirling around that you could have easily landed behind my back if you just massed you stuff. You probably do not realize in what precarious situation i was in when you invaded Mexico and Panama. US's war waging capacity as is is a joke.


i didnt say oust - i said defend. You only had a few units there and didnt cover the beaches when i attacked. Clearly you werent prepared. Next time a player will know its possible esp when he sees the southern islands off hawaii taken (the 3 down south).

Furthermore you really overestimate me - I invested a huge ammount of ic into the fleet but techwise my land units really sucked esp at the start. I didnt have any capability of killing tanks - so any good placement of them would have hampered me more. I planned for a war in march or later not so early.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:28:13 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Traks wrote:

3. USA is fine, Japan is main problem here. SU = Germany, UK = Italy, USA = Japan. Only pair which is seriously unbalanced is USA - Japan. And I did vote for weakening Japan by making China stronger and giving less out of annexed China. That means IC, leadership and manpower.


I agree to japan in terms if china etc - but really usa should maybe get a tad more in late 1941 or such and it shouldnt be allowed to join in 1939. Thats just crazy. Germany could be in real shit. Look i had to save it by landing 20 divs in spain. How many games we gonna see that?
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:39:27 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I wrote answer and system ate it. Fuck Sad

3. Inheriting Canada will give boost to USA. Question is, when it should happen... after Canada joins Allies, probably.
5. I have no time for China event, maybe next week. I thought that 20% leadership and 20 divs of inf should do trick. At least delay for 3 more months.

Japan was played perfectly. USA had lots of militias, no tanks developed and 15? divs in Hawaii.
There was option to scrape militia and get tanks. Japan was also being outproduced, Allies had more CVs than Japan now.
Also Japan had lost almost all screens.
Other time Japan will not be played so ideally, so weakening it too much is also not good idea.

SU was 115% in 1942. I think best is to give them 4000 officers/year. That would account for 20,000 officers in 1942.
And I see no easy way of denying SU going to war. As engine doe snot care, who declares war, SU or Finland for instance.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:42:16 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
Traks wrote:
I wrote answer and system ate it. Fuck Sad

3. Inheriting Canada will give boost to USA. Question is, when it should happen... after Canada joins Allies, probably.
5. I have no time for China event, maybe next week. I thought that 20% leadership and 20 divs of inf should do trick. At least delay for 3 more months.

Japan was played perfectly. USA had lots of militias, no tanks developed and 15? divs in Hawaii.
There was option to scrape militia and get tanks. Japan was also being outproduced, Allies had more CVs than Japan now.
Also Japan had lost almost all screens.
Other time Japan will not be played so ideally, so weakening it too much is also not good idea.

SU was 115% in 1942. I think best is to give them 4000 officers/year. That would account for 20,000 officers in 1942.
And I see no easy way of denying SU going to war. As engine doe snot care, who declares war, SU or Finland for instance.


Inheriting should probably start for UK (ANZAC, SA) right at the beginning, or Munich II? Just to counterweight a later US join.
USA should imo get Canada in 38, it won't matter much if USA is still at peace footing, but helps once war footing goes in the right direction.

Couple comments on my game: I really had to focus on inf and ship techs (beside putting like 70% on officers) because the 38 scen is not balanced in terms of starting techs. I had to forcefully leave Armor out of the picture (and due to the limits on practical, i never was able to reintroduce them when i had semi decent techs for them.

@Hawaii: This stems from the early panic when i lost every naval battle and i feared they would take Hawaii to land in the US (not knowing that the other islands were actually closer), plus i intended to keep them for an eventual island campaign later which never came after mounting defeats and lack of transports.

I agree that Japan should not be limited more by IC, i merely had MP in mind (which is outrageous - if we cut MP in Japan in half can still get it back if super aggressive in Aussieland, china and india).

@Militia: I actually scrapped some, but i didn't scrap more because frankly had only half of those inf that went to the middle east had poured into the US it would have been game over. simple as that.


Any word on supercharging construction of airfields, infra and ports? IRL the US poured so much stuff into northern france (mulberry harbors), in the pacific etc. The lack of a bell curve construction (it should be easy to create lvl 1 but hard to create lvl8+) really hurts, so i am in favor of speeding things up so GER or SU (or Japan in siberia, china or whereever) can create supply highways so we won't face so much shit in terms of supply. I find it sad that stuff like this was left mostly unattended in HoI3.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:38:26 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Inheriting should probably start for UK (ANZAC, SA) right at the beginning, or Munich II? Just to counterweight a later US join.
USA should imo get Canada in 38, it won't matter much if USA is still at peace footing, but helps once war footing goes in the right direction.

I think Munich sounds good. Not that matters much in times.
There are triggers for USA to join earlier if Axis are aggressive, so not too bad. As bonus also to mobilize earlier.

btw China IS made harder in FTM already, we just need to add more spice to it.
It's okay to have Japan as powerhouse if they have taken India and Aussies. But China should be hard. The same as France for Germany. You do bring it down, most likely, but it is hardest battle in game.

Any word on supercharging construction of airfields, infra and ports? IRL the US poured so much stuff into northern france (mulberry harbors), in the pacific etc. The lack of a bell curve construction (it should be easy to create lvl 1 but hard to create lvl8+) really hurts, so i am in favor of speeding things up so GER or SU (or Japan in siberia, china or whereever) can create supply highways so we won't face so much shit in terms of supply. I find it sad that stuff like this was left mostly unattended in HoI3.

Double price and half building time? I am fine with that, as infra building changes went this route, and in good way.


Regarding manpower - Germany could do only limited operations and yes, West was crumbling. Hence Japanese divisions to protect it.
I was bleeding around 1 division/month to simply reinforce. And that was with slow advances. France and Spain landings cost all garrisons disbanded, so to say we all were on border of not having manpower. Idea was to get 20 more Japanese divisions to manage West wall, and send remaining infantry to East or disband for manpower.
Supply issues led to not having much troops in USA... supply was main reason for abandoning SanFrancisco.
As I said FTM makes ports 50% more effective, with techs also increasing significantly, so now it will be less strained supply problem.
And yes, USA landing was mostly to create panic and make life in Europe easier. So in that regard it was brilliant success.

Regarding Soviets - I know what event can be written. If year is lower than 1942 and Soviets are controlling capital of those countries, they get negative event.

So what about landings?
Main idea was -1. Armor can land only in captured intact ports (level 1 or higher), and evacuation only through ports.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:13:16 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Japan really is on a tight schedual. If it doesnt secure any of the forward islands and make a hard strike versus the usa its basically screwed as it cant combat both uk and usa fleet at the same time. That can change the whole dynamic and balance of the game. UK was very passive with its fleet - which true might have saved it, but on the other had didnt really force me to stay away from usa.

Its hard to balance the mod based on what happened in our game with usa and japan. I had every strategic goal reached. Got a huge boost in LD, IC and most importantly secured oil for axis. Think i was giveing 100 oil to germany IIRC.

i have run a few interesting builds for usa and id love to play then in the paific v japan even with the old setup.
Traks
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:36:54 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Oh yes.
Rewrite event that kills minister. It pops up every 3-6 months and random working minister is removed.
And some ministers have no replacaments, leaving position empty forever.
Put happening time 5 times lower at least. One dead minister/game is okay. All dead, not really.

Ran FTM 3.05 test game.
On January 1st 1940 China is not yet defeated by Japan.
So we can leave balance as it is, and only add event when China is annexed.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:02:31 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
But is that only due to making it more difficult for Japan or just the inability of the strategic AI to do shit? Since i have not FTM yet, would you guys run some additional tests please?

And what exactly has changed to make it more challenging?

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Ederon
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:49:34 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Let's see.

Issue #1 - Japanese MP
We could well handle this by changng occupation policies by simply denying MP to occupier/in non-national provinces at all. This would count for everyone, hitting Axis (Japan) the most. Germany could get some MP boost after conquest of France, so can Italy after conquest of Yugoslavia(?).

Issue #2 - Soviet leadership/officers
One thing is to have SU relatively weak in the beginning, another is to allow it to grow stronger as time goes. It should be able to keep up with Germany (or even surpass it) in portion of techs (like tanks, atilery, etc.). Initial techlevel should deal with starting weakness of SU, same for officers. If we increase leadership, we should do it later or in limited number from the beginning. Adding some extra officers per year is also good way. Combined with slighly increased leadership from the beginning. Ratio of this changes to be decided later.

Issue #3 - Soviet aggressiveness
As already mentioned, SU should be albe to be aggressive, but at cost. Dissent or better national unity hit is the way to go IMO.

Issue #4 - US war entry
I think it is okay as it is, with restriced SU it shouldn't be such a problem. If SU keeps agressive, another way is to increase US neutrality somehow after SU actions. But as I said, I think this is ok.

Issue #5 - US manpower
We already have some events giving US MP, by incorporating Canada, we can boost it too. Combined with restriced MP gain from conquered territory, it should be no issue anymore.

Issue #6 - Radar
My concern regarding radar is different to Schuey's. Radar should see far less. Now, 10 level radar sees line 10 provinces around. I'd like it to be maybe half at best. This will bring further suprise element to the game, which translates into more fun. Planning and guessing on what opponent is up to and how to react is what's so cool about this game.
Second thing, we could select few provinces whould could be used for radar sites as Felix proposes. I think is not bad way to do it. Could be done via some event or decision. No big deal.
Traks
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:20:12 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
1. Decrease could be discussed, putting it to plain 0 I disagree with. I think HOI2 approach was balanced in this regard. But low resource return should also have low partisan value to balance things out.
Not high priority concern. As I said, I am looking at balancing pairs of countries and only one which gets too powerful is Japan.
2. I think no increased leadership, but maybe give more starting officer and yearly officer bonus as mentioned. 4000/year sounds good.
3. I'd say both.
4. Also option, yes.
5. Canada - USA, Australia - UK.
6. Fine as it is.

Schuermann - somebody else (not me) should run such a test. But I agree that 20 more divs and 20% officers will make it better challenge.
*I think* I killed China as Japan in around 9-12months in FTM. Which is better than 3 months now.
Ederon
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:19:52 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
AD1: We should definitely try tests with 0 foreign MP gain. Just to see what happens. Resources and IC wouldn't be touched. And we could script in some limited MP boosts for conquerors: after fall of France, Yugo, China, etc etc etc.

If China keeps falling too fast, we may try to help it by placing few forts here and there. Besides increased numbers of units or officers.
Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:46:09 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Ederon wrote:
AD1: We should definitely try tests with 0 foreign MP gain. Just to see what happens. Resources and IC wouldn't be touched. And we could script in some limited MP boosts for conquerors: after fall of France, Yugo, China, etc etc etc.


thats what we bascially did for MEM mod - IMO it was a positive effect. Though it wasnt scrapped to 0 but to really minimal values

Traks
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:24:08 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Also don't forget new strategic effects, which give Allies +10% manpower growth from day1.
Allies are very adept at building ships now, while from Axis only Japan can build anything useful.
I would like to see not so many changes as new effects have to be calculated in. They do make Allied faction stronger especially at start, Soviets too.

10% manpower from conquered territories is okay and I think does bring to old values.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:16:09 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
Ederon wrote:
AD1: We should definitely try tests with 0 foreign MP gain. Just to see what happens. Resources and IC wouldn't be touched. And we could script in some limited MP boosts for conquerors: after fall of France, Yugo, China, etc etc etc.

If China keeps falling too fast, we may try to help it by placing few forts here and there. Besides increased numbers of units or officers.


Uh i really like the idea of scripted boosts after some events (fall of france and benelux, fall of yugo, etc.). that adds flavor and balances things out, especially if we go to minimal MP gain. Afterall we want to nerf the axis (japan, mostly), but not make them toothless. I think especially Germany was very balanced last game, wouldnt want to make them much weaker.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:34:06 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 updated the first post with country preference. Please post first, second and third preference.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Traks
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:54:15 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
Italy, UK, Germany

P.S. I ran test with Italy... no wonder nobody defends Africa, they got only 13 convoys.
Hytzon
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:03:26 AM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
As Fiendix points out, Japan was played perfectly in this game by 2 players who played the same country in the previous game. So I agree, we should only try to limit its manpower.

I am not sure about the Radar, I think they are a bit to powerful and prevent a really dynamic eastern front as enemy moves can easily be spotted. I suppose halving the effectiveness or limiting the max to 5 would be best. The latter option will ofc. save IC.



You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Traks
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:49:08 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I'd go for lvl5 radar. That's the rule we have in other games too. I don't think we can restrict to lvl5 in files. Or make it twice weaker AND cheaper.
Ederon
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2012 12:23:16 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
There is max level definable in buildings.txt.
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.