I hope that Tazaaron's update will balance the game somewhat to NATO as I have found through numerous plays of the game that the PACT have a substanatial advantage in the game, especially the grand-campaign.
Am I the only who to see this imbalance? I think I've played as the pact each time and I don't even think the balance makes the game competitive.
I think there are several attempts to balance out the game. Aaron is working on a major update to his BOTB scenario, I have been experimenting with various OOB changes and pdt changes also. The major problem with the stock scenario is the quality of NATO vs WP IMO, there is just not enough quality edge there. Also in the game I am in the QFM is "off", so what "B" units we do have are not getting that benefit.
General Changes I would suggest to anyone building OOBs for the campaign game are the following.
Quality Increase/Decreases: In general NATO should see an increase in quality, while WP should not be over a C quality. This is the single biggest change along with QFM that would even the game out, IMO.
Air Power: Increase soft attack for all air by 20-30%, would favor NATO and make air more deadly, also more realistic IMO.
Infantry Strength: The WP Infantry Bn strength is way too high, while at the same time NATO Infantry Battalion strength is way too low. At least use the same criteria for both when determining strength. According to an Official US Army manual I have from 1984, FM100-2-3 shows a Soviet BTR Battalion at 455, while a soviet BMP battalion at 432 and this is with all support troops included.
Hard Attack Ratings: Would increase for all across the board, to make armor combat more deadly. I think this would be a "neutral" change, except if NATO gets more replacements in the pdt, but I think more representative of modern armor combat.
Speed Increase: Increase all NATO units speed by a factor of "two". This is to simulate the better subordinate C2 and initiative levels of western countries, thus making their decision time shorter. It does and should not represent over all vehicle speed, IMO.
Last Change: A pdt change in the turn per day. Currently the stock scenario and most all scenarios have a seven turn sequence, a dawn, four day, a dusk and a six hour night turn. I have increase the turn cycle by one turn, by splitting the current six hour night turn into two three hour night turns. This does several things, the increase to four low visibility turns would benefit NATO in general, would penalize WP for fighting "through the night" more, and allow all units to gain back more fatigue because of the extra night turn, if they did not move, so it is not exactly a NATO only change, but more realistic, IMO.
I have been testing these changes in two medium scenarios and a "test" scenario.
Zemke Wrote:Air Power: Increase soft attack for all air by 20-30%, would favor NATO and make air more deadly, also more realistic IMO.
I am not sure this is needed. Soft air attacks are very powerful already.Typically they will do 20 to 35 casualties a mission, even up to to 50. And if you hit a unit in travel mode, I have seen full battalions of approximately 165 engineers wiped out in one hit on a number of occasions.
Infantry units have a very limited life span in this game as it is. Increasing the soft attack value would make it all but suicidal for infantry to be on the battlefield.
Overall I am wondering if all your changes don't show an unnatural bias towards NATO, especially your assumption that all NATO forces would have better moral than the WP forces?
And i think Playing Grand Campaing as WP in BOTB is really hard... NATO can easly defeat the Pact if he plays smart...
FLG Wrote:Zemke Wrote:Air Power: Increase soft attack for all air by 20-30%, would favor NATO and make air more deadly, also more realistic IMO.
I am not sure this is needed. Soft air attacks are very powerful already.Typically they will do 20 to 35 casualties a mission, even up to to 50. And if you hit a unit in travel mode, I have seen full battalions of approximately 165 engineers wiped out in one hit on a number of occasions.
Infantry units have a very limited life span in this game as it is. Increasing the soft attack value would make it all but suicidal for infantry to be on the battlefield.
Overall I am wondering if all your changes don't show an unnatural bias toward NATO, especially your assumption that all NATO forces would have better moral than the WP forces?
Granted air is powerful now, and two two thousand pound bombs should cause huge casualties on infantry in travel mode. Air also cuts both ways. Air is also the least needed change IMO, but could be a bit more powerful. Another off set to that could be increasing infantry defense in the pdt, which will would help infantry not in travel mode.
I am biased toward NATO the way the current D 85' "stock" Campaign game is, all the above were just suggestions that could go toward correcting the problem with the stock scenario, and could be either taken together or singly as "a way" to even things out. Granted doing all the above will change the game significantly in favor of NATO. But the WP would still have a huge advantage at the start, and other things can be done to even the game out from that point, for example moving some larger point OBJ hexes from the west to more to the center of the map, this forces NATO to defend further forward, and would "fit" nicely with West German defense policy at the time.