Big problem with new patch

[Shri]

The new patch does a job of NM balance, this is excellent for Player vs AI but extremely bad for Player vs Player games.

The NM gain has to be for AI not humans, my enemy (actually my friend- SVEN/BYRD who plays WE) in our intense game also agrees.
Please see that 5 NM gain for WE. Quite unfair to CP.

[Byrd]

The game is extremely loaded against the CP, in both early and late stages.

- Both Entente Powers can simply match, dodge or simply avoid Major CP Forces without too great a Penalty (loss of ground does not in the slightest match loss of numbers) and deny the CP neccessary headstart in NM. If the EE Player does not concentrate his Forces in single Provinces or simply retreats from the start, even bigger battles (if there ever will be any) don't have to happen. So again, almost no NM for the CP but a couple of VP that can be regained when numerical superiority is achieved. This automatically happens in 1915 because the CP Player has to at least match WE Forces and therefore shift heavily. Level 3 trenches don't do a Thing since supporting Units don't seem to Profit from them.

- The WE Players has too many Options in later game to influence CP Alignmnt and NM negatively and his own positively. Vice Versa, the CP has the Deutschland Event and that's about it.

- An NM gain in the Early game for the WE out of nothing makes it even worse.

[HerrDan]

The game is extremely loaded against the CP, in both early and late stages.

- Both Entente Powers can simply match, dodge or simply avoid Major CP Forces without too great a Penalty (loss of ground does not in the slightest match loss of numbers) and deny the CP neccessary headstart in NM. If the EE Player does not concentrate his Forces in single Provinces or simply retreats from the start, even bigger battles (if there ever will be any) don't have to happen. So again, almost no NM for the CP but a couple of VP that can be regained when numerical superiority is achieved. This automatically happens in 1915 because the CP Player has to at least match WE Forces and therefore shift heavily. Level 3 trenches don't do a Thing since supporting Units don't seem to Profit from them.

- The WE Players has too many Options in later game to influence CP Alignmnt and NM negatively and his own positively. Vice Versa, the CP has the Deutschland Event and that's about it.

- An NM gain in the Early game for the WE out of nothing makes it even worse.

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately the German army in the game can never hope to match what it did IRL (e.g. crush russian forces while suffering minimal losses, really threaten to capture Paris before the end of 1914 or keep the italians at bay without needing to transfer a huge amount of forces to the italian front).

[Byrd]

Right now this game Needs about a page of houserules to be halfway balanced in pbem. I dunno. Considering that there already are two new titles, this probably won't Change anytime soon. CWII seems to be way more balanced at 1.05 than I can imagine this one ever being, and it's already at 1.03.

[Shri]

@Byrd
I think you are a bit too pessimistic, i would say - with proper House Rules and 'Fair Players' following those rules, you can have a decent game. I guess our ongoing game except for the 5NM you gained is fairly realistic and somewhat Historical.

[Byrd]

@Byrd
I think you are a bit too pessimistic, i would say - with proper House Rules and 'Fair Players' following those rules, you can have a decent game. I guess our ongoing game except for the 5NM you gained is fairly realistic and somewhat Historical.

Unfortunately, I always am.

[Lindi]

for me for I have play many PBM, with moral before 1916 that very good for not see a playeur said I have already lose in 1915-1914 when he have not big lose...

[BBBD316]

I would like to see land/cities become more important, this would mean that especially for Russia in which you will often just withdraw and not give battle, that the CP player can take Warsaw, Brest, Riga, etc and still cause the allies to have to provide a real fight.

Though the NM loss really means that the CP needs to hammer the WE not the EE, push the WE into the 70-80 range and you can probably set up a defensive line and then sit back and wait. while you deal with Serbia and then Italy.

The diplo game is in the CP's favour so it does have more ally potential than either WE or EE

[Altaris]

Sorry for not responding earlier, I've been out of town since last Thursday.

Would you guys recommend we remove the NM balancing scripts if both sides are human? The NM adjustments were made based off of beta tester suggestions, but I never saw any issue with the original NM setup in PBEM myself. I would be okay with making the NM adjustments contingent upon the game being human vs AI.

[HerrDan]

I would like to see land/cities become more important, this would mean that especially for Russia in which you will often just withdraw and not give battle, that the CP player can take Warsaw, Brest, Riga, etc and still cause the allies to have to provide a real fight.

Though the NM loss really means that the CP needs to hammer the WE not the EE, push the WE into the 70-80 range and you can probably set up a defensive line and then sit back and wait. while you deal with Serbia and then Italy.

The diplo game is in the CP's favour so it does have more ally potential than either WE or EE

I really agree (as I have already stated before, during the Beta tests) with the idea of making land/cities more important. I think it should boost NM to capture important cities as it did IRL. At the moment you have 1 month to try to capture some cities and gain some NM out of it, but later it becomes almost useless to capture important cities and I don't think it should be like this.

I think you're not sure about what you're talking about when you say that "The diplo game is in the CP's favour", so I won't bother to adress that.

Cheers everyone,
Daniel.

[Altaris]

Pocus added some new scripting commands a few months back to allow for dynamic objective selection. This allows for a "Grand Offensive" type of Regional Decision to be played against a target and make it into an objective. Additionally, scripting could be added to perhaps gradually reduce the playing nation's National Morale if they don't take the target region. In this way give some incentive for Verdun type situations.

Only downside I've seen to it so far is it's somewhat easy to outsmart the AI with it. Might need to be limited vs the AI to target regions where they have a signficant amount of troops.

[HerrDan]

Pocus added some new scripting commands a few months back to allow for dynamic objective selection. This allows for a "Grand Offensive" type of Regional Decision to be played against a target and make it into an objective. Additionally, scripting could be added to perhaps gradually reduce the playing nation's National Morale if they don't take the target region. In this way give some incentive for Verdun type situations.

Only downside I've seen to it so far is it's somewhat easy to outsmart the AI with it. Might need to be limited vs the AI to target regions where they have a signficant amount of troops.

This looks amazing! To be able to make a "Grand Offensive" from years to year (or whatever interval it fits better for you) would make the game much more dinamic. I'd think that the kind of decision you make at the start of the 1916 campaign to repeat every year or so, would be great as well and it would also give the AI some ways to counter it (receiveing reinforcements etc).

I'm looking forward for that.

[BBBD316]

Would the Grand Offensive plan be variable? Say if I choose to take a target a number of provinces back as opposed to one on the front lines? Also would the decision show to your opponent?

From the mass PBEM games on the Paradox forum it seems that players are in favour of NM rebalancing, but that it should be based on NM levels at the end of the year. So if the WE is 76 it gets 5NM, EE is 82 it gets 3NM and the CP at 91 only gets 1NM. Or whatever, just so that the side that is struggling has the ability to try to reverse the situation. Even if it only means they can play a gas decision or state funds because they can afford the NM.

[Shri]

NM rebalancing is utter nonsense when you play against Humans, i will list out why?
If CP doesn't have a reserve NM i.e. NM lead of at-least 5NM by 1/1/1916, CP is lost.
EE is anyway going to lose unless EE has an exceptional player who can prolong the inevitable.
WE is far too powerful in PBEM.
Trenches don't help CP in PBEM as they did historically.
Italy is far too powerful in PBEM, in real they s***.
Turkey is powerful, they were weak.
Britain didn't put its all till 1916, in PBEM by early 1915, Britain has 3-4 strong armies.

What doesn't happen in PBEM-
1. No Suicidal French attacks in Alsace nor any suicidal territorial attacks in 1915- Result -- WE saves 1 ARMY!
(Actually, WE saves 1.5 and CP saves 0.5, so net effect is 1)
2. No Suicide attacks in Serbia, Galicia and Ruthenia- Result -- CP saves 2 Armies and EE saves 1.5 Armies.
(Serbian, Galician and Ruthenian battles of 1914)
3. No suicide attack in East Prussia - Result -- EE saves 1.5 Armies.
(East Prussia campaign by Russia)
4. No suicide in Colonies and Gallipoli- Result-- CP saves 0.5 Army and WE saves 1 Army.
(Huge losses in East Africa, Mesopotamia etc for the British Indian Army)

Total savings-
CP - 2.5
EE- 3
WE- 2
The net effect, WE and EE save 5 armies vs CP 2.5.

So, if you want NM balance, Delete 1 French Army, 2 Colonial corps for WE and 1 Army for Russia and start the game.


As for the decision to attack- it must be one province or
1 main province and 2 adjacent provinces signifying one region like LGG/WW1 Gold.
Right example of regional attack.

[HerrDan]

I'd say the event is really necessary when playing against AI, I think it should be linked with the event that relieves Moltke, something on the lines that with the faillure to execute the schlieffen plan the germans are forced to fight a war of atration on two fronts, it should also give the WE a boost in NM, I'd also like to ask if the AI isn't taking too seriously the idea of making suicidal attacks against Metz, their losses are staggering.

[Shri]

DEVS and MODS

Please see this file-

Continuing from my old complains-
WE has twice got 5NM boost, this is atrocious.
CP didn't get any NM or Manpower boost from Bulgaria entry- bad
The RASPUTIN event fired and then disappeared in next turn - horrible!
Please see and rectify. Thanks.

[Altaris]

I was somewhat waiting on consensus on this issue. IMO, in PBEM, there should be no NM rebalancing at all. I never saw any issues with this during PBEM testing, yes, NM became very difficult in the late war, but that was reality for all major powers anyway. But the NM balance was put in place due to beta request during testing. So I need to decide how to approach. I'm good with removing it if there are no AI sides, would this help you think?

I'll check the other issues. But Bulgaria joining has never given a NM boost, BTW.

[Byrd]

When you guys announced balancing the NM issue, I figured it'd be more like balancing the actual Events themselves instead of implementing some mechanism. Germany has one 10 NM Card to Play, which is equalized by the death of the Austrian Kaiser. That is it. The other possible NM infusions are actually choices the WE and EE Player have to make (warplans, Italian Options and General Options at a later stage) + the WE can Play some heavy Cards in the late game like Poincare and the other Cards which chip away at CP morale and alignment (Which due to the Blockade already skyrockets within turns).

[Altaris]

NM was an issue for all nations in the war, though, Russia foremost, followed closely by the Central Powers (Germany being the most durable of them, but heavily impacted by the blockade). While France did have some mutinies in 1917, apart from that, it and Great Britain did a pretty good job of keeping public morale tempered. Remember, Germany pretty much fell apart in 1918 into revolution, both on the homefront and within the navy. Britain and France, while heavily war-weary, would have been able to carry on the fight into 1919 had they needed to. It is quite likely Germany would have followed suit of Soviet Russia had the army attempted to force the war on into 1919. So I'm not really in favor of adding NM boosting events. Perhaps reducing the impact of some of the CP events could in order, though.

Let's focus on actually solutions and numbers, though. You guys are the ones playing the game, so I'm looking for suggestions on what should be modified in the late war events.

[Shri]

Alliance partners joining may give a small NM boost 3-5 NM.
So CP will get total 8 or 11.
EE will get 0 or 3.
WE will get 13.

Also Rasputin should not die in 2 turns, he was quite a stubborn guy - poisoning, stabbed, drowned and yet took time to die.

NM gains in PBEM can be removed.

2-3 .. 0 Manpower divisions may be allotted to CP if Poland and Baltic's fall.

Louisitania shouldn't fire with surface raiders or transports.

Some way to form army in Bulgaria attached to Hindenburg command.

[Altaris]

Shri, I took a look at the files you posted. Bulgaria event appears to be firing correctly, there's only +50 Conscripts gained from them joining (most of the benefit of Bulgaria joining is from their troops and increased per turn manpower/money).

Can you tell me exactly what's occurring on the NM events? I don't see a big jump occurring in WE NM during these turns, but then again I don't have the log files either.

I can't replicate issue with Rasputin. Do you by any change have the log files for the turn where he disappeared? Would be helpful in tracking down exactly what's occurring.

Overall, looking at the turn files, I don't see a gigantic issue anywhere, you guys have roughly historical lines for late 1915. Morale in the mid-80's for CP and WE, and in low 70's for the EE. Nothing extremely out of whack. I'm open for discussion on balance issues, but please provide specifics, as otherwise it's very easy to modify game mechanics in an unbalancing manner.

[Altaris]

I reviewed the morale event files, they don't fire after September 1 1915. So you guys should be past the point where they are firing now. If you are still seeing them, I need to see the turns and script files you are running. I can give you an event file which will disable it for PBEM games, but at this point in your game, it's not going to make a difference.

What happened to Rasputin exactly? He should be dying, I loaded up and can see him fine there after a few turns. Did the Russian player have the event Assassinate Rasputin become active? That shouldn't happen so quickly. Russia has to have loyalty less than 34 in the off-map area (meaning it's very high in Rebel alignment) before the event comes available, and even then it takes a while sometimes. I'm wondering if something else occurred causing the RGD to remove from the off-map region. Did you see the Assassinate Rasputin event pop up in message window, or did he simply disappear?

[HerrDan]

I have something to report here, it seems in my game that when I buy a unit, I pay the WS points both in the turn I order them and in the next one, is it WAD? Well at least it wasn't like that the last time I played the game, I think it limits way too much the resources we have at our disposal. In any case I belive this is a MAJOR issue, but in any case I just wait for an answer.

I think the NM balancing was a great idea when playing against the AI, but in no way it should happen in PBEM IMO, CP is already at a huge disadvantage in PBEM (probably because the russians are much tougher in the game than they were IRL, but everyone knows my opinion about it since the early beta...) and that would make it almost impossible for CP to win. I'd also like the idea of forming an army with Bulgaria.

[Shri]

@Ben.

I have given you the files for the last 3 turns. the turn before those 3 Rasputin got activated and then suddenly in one of those turns he disappeared, i am not sure which turn; but when i observed carefully he had run off to Siberia escaping his assassins!. BTW- assassination did not occur, there was some code error is what i think.
WE got 2 NM boosts in 1915 Jan and Feb, both times they were getting close to 80NM and got a 5NM boost.
Bulgaria manpower, even that measly 50 didn't really come to me!, something amiss.

Can some army be formed by the 3* Bulgaria Generals, maybe under Hindenburg?

[HerrDan]

Could anybody explain what is up with the WS costs doubled question?

[Lindi]

Alliance partners joining may give a small NM boost 3-5 NM.
So CP will get total 8 or 11.
EE will get 0 or 3.
WE will get 13.

Also Rasputin should not die in 2 turns, he was quite a stubborn guy - poisoning, stabbed, drowned and yet took time to die.

NM gains in PBEM can be removed.

2-3 .. 0 Manpower divisions may be allotted to CP if Poland and Baltic's fall.

Louisitania shouldn't fire with surface raiders or transports.

Some way to form army in Bulgaria attached to Hindenburg command.

For Moral with Alliance big + 1 and that more historical I Guess, when you have new ally it's good.

Also, for me one probleme is for French begin, in the begin He do many big attack and lose all, but he continue the war, maybe juste reduce moral lose when you lose men in fight... (only time and big big lose or win do Moral, and never big moral change)

For finish, for me Zepplin event for Germany do really to much moral degat. Maybe only for the first do 1 MM and after do new event do -2MM but one event each 3 month, or the decision is keep on British city for 10 turn and If in 10 turn not have fighter and zepplin are always Zepplin Germany in the area for decision that do-10MM (keep -1MM when you use card), with that the british have time to build aircraft and also Entent not lose -6MM only because the aircraft is long to build. (after 10 turn is for me people can't moral resiste always)