Flames and Steel (official thread)

KurtGodel7

To add to my earlier post:

I don't know if I'm upgrading the light tank or not. But if I am, the following would be true.

The light tank upgrade would be available through research. No one would start with it.
The upgraded light tank would attack on a 3 and defend on a 2. Just like the tanks in Classic! Also a light tank costs 5 PUs, which is also a lot like a tank in Classic.
Anti-tank guns would not cancel out the upgrade. The anti-tank gun is, to some extent, the new infantry. Letting an anti-tank gun cancel out the upgrade on a 1 for 1 basis would be almost like letting infantry cancel out the upgrade. Also I'm adverse to having an extra game mechanic.
If I allow the upgraded light tank to attack on a 3 and defend on a 2, then I need to allow upgrades to the medium tank to keep them significantly ahead. That in turn means I need to have upgrades to the heavy tank to keep heavy tanks significantly ahead of the medium tank.

All this starts with an upgrade to the heavy tank.
Currently a normal heavy tank or Panther has four hitpoints, and attacks and defends on a 4. Whereas a medium tank has 2 hitpoints and attacks and defends on a 3. The heavy tank is twice as good for hitpoints, not much better than a medium tank for firepower.

Suppose I were to give a heavy tank or Panther a firepower of 4 + 4 for offense and the same for defense. Also 4 hitpoints. That lifts the ceiling on what I can now give to the medium tank. An improved version of the medium tank could attack and defend on a 4, while keeping its two hitpoints. The Comet tech for Britain would cause its medium tanks to attack and defend on a 5.

So now you compare the improved light tank ( 3/2 ) to the improved medium tank ( 4/4 ). In absolute terms the medium tank is stronger on offense, defense, and hitpoints. If you're looking at what you're getting per PU spent, the improved medium tank is the better unit for hitpoints and defensive firepower, while the light tank is the better unit for offensive firepower per PU. Therefore each still has a role.

If you're worried about balancing them against artillery-category units, I would point out the following.

The purpose of an anti-tank gun is cannon fodder that you can buy without using MPs. None of the above upgrades reduce tank costs or improve their hitpoints, so the anti-tank gun continues to provide more hitpoints for the money than light tanks or medium tanks.
Working women tech reduces the cost of a field gun by 1 PU, and a heavy gun also by 1 PU.
Creeping barrage tech causes field guns to attack on a 3 instead of on a 2. Railway guns tech causes heavy guns to defend on a 5 instead of on a 4. Given that field guns and heavy guns are getting more firepower for the money as the game progresses, tanks can get more firepower too.

Vendetta

@KurtGodel7 said:
With all this in mind, I believe I can improve infantry for a number of nations without having to rebalance anything regarding PU-only units.

No, this is not correct, because the exchange rate between MP and PU is not consistent for different countries - as you’ve said, they all have very different ratios.

Giving a flat power boost to infantry thus disproportionately benefits nations that have higher MP values because those infantry will have higher kill rates against the PU-only units. Whoever is able to field more Infantry gets a huge boost, and whoever relies more heavily on PU takes a big hit because they’ll be losing those expensive units at a higher rate.

As for the AT Gun, right now I think you’re essentially setting players up for confusion by giving them a unit that’s called “Anti-Tank” but has no actual anti-tank properties - in contrast to the AA Gun, which does in fact counter aircraft.

If you’re running into the problem that major countries don’t have enough MP to properly fill out their armies, I think the more obvious solution might have just been to put more MP on the map instead of having a redundant unit fill the gap.

KurtGodel7

@Vendetta said:

@KurtGodel7 said:
With all this in mind, I believe I can improve infantry for a number of nations without having to rebalance anything regarding PU-only units.

No, this is not correct, because the exchange rate between MP and PU is not consistent for different countries - as you’ve said, they all have very different ratios.

Giving a flat power boost to infantry thus disproportionately benefits nations that have higher MP values because those infantry will have higher kill rates against the PU-only units. Whoever is able to field more Infantry gets a huge boost, and whoever relies more heavily on PU takes a big hit because they’ll be losing those expensive units at a higher rate.

As for the AT Gun, right now I think you’re essentially setting players up for confusion by giving them a unit that’s called “Anti-Tank” but has no actual anti-tank properties - in contrast to the AA Gun, which does in fact counter aircraft.

If you’re running into the problem that major countries don’t have enough MP to properly fill out their armies, I think the more obvious solution might have just been to put more MP on the map instead of having a redundant unit fill the gap.

A few thoughts on this.

There are different types of balance here. Balance between unit types, and balance between the Axis and the Allies.
If the game is unbalanced between unit types, a player will eschew the overpriced/underpowered units in favor of the units which give him the most bang for the buck. Balanced units means each has a role to play, depending on the situation.
If the game is unbalanced in favor of the Axis or the Allies that would obviously lead to a less than ideal game.
Your earlier concern was that improving some nations' infantry could make the game unbalanced between unit types. The concern you're expressing here is that the infantry buff could make the game unbalanced between Axis and Allies. As for the latter concern: if play testing does reveal this latter source of imbalance there are ways it can be corrected. Starting units can be adjusted. The magnitude of the Allies' early game income nerfs can be altered. I can change technologies. Lots of levers I can pull to create game balance.
There were four key things which happened in the real war, which were not being captured by Axis and Allies.

Increases in military production. Between 1942 and 1944 Germany and Japan roughly tripled their production of military aircraft, while American military aircraft production roughly doubled.
Increases in technology. A good aircraft by the standards of 1941 would be hopelessly obsolete by the standards of 1944.
The air war. Planes would shoot down enemy planes. This would create air superiority for some nations, with real advantages associated with it.
Limited manpower. Different nations had different population sizes, and this affected the number of men they could recruit into their armies.

The main contribution I envision for Flames and Steel is to create realism for all four of those things. To address specifically the subject of manpower. If it's a game of Revised, and if Japan is building way more infantry than the Soviet Union, that's 100% ahistorical. Way more ahistorical than anything which has been pointed out in this thread. I am not allowing that to happen in Flames and Steel. Manpower points prevent that from happening.

Manpower points are working exactly as intended in my test games. A nation like China will have large numbers of conscripts, as well as a few artillery type units mixed in. A very realistic unit mix for it. The Soviet Union will have vast numbers of soldiers, as well as plenty of good PU units to go along with those soldiers. Again a realistic unit mix.
The mechanics of the game require a cannon fodder unit. To a large extent that's infantry. But because I gave each nation an MP cap, a PU-only cannon fodder unit was also needed. I will grant your point that calling it an "anti-tank gun" could be confusing for people unfamiliar with the map. As you say it has no anti-tank properties. But I needed that unit. I needed to give it a name which a) did not imply fast mobility, b) did not imply it was a type of infantry, and c) did not imply it was a very powerful unit. Calling it an "anti-tank gun" checked all three boxes. If anyone here has a better suggestion for a name I'm all ears.

KurtGodel7

To add to my earlier post: territories produce PUs for any nation which owns them. But they only produce MPs for their original owner.

Suppose that Japan conquers all of China. There would be a PU reward for doing this--maybe 25 PUs or something. But China starts off with an income of 11 MPs, I think. 11 Chinese conscripts per turn, plus whatever units China is able to buy with its PUs. China's main source of military strength is those 11 MPs, and those MPs do not go to Japan if China is conquered. This means that a Chinese-controlled China is a much bigger asset for the Allies than a Japanese-owned China would be for the Axis.

Cernel

@KurtGodel7 said:

The mechanics of the game require a cannon fodder unit. To a large extent that's infantry. But because I gave each nation an MP cap, a PU-only cannon fodder unit was also needed. I will grant your point that calling it an "anti-tank gun" could be confusing for people unfamiliar with the map. As you say it has no anti-tank properties. But I needed that unit. I needed to give it a name which a) did not imply fast mobility, b) did not imply it was a type of infantry, and c) did not imply it was a very powerful unit. Calling it an "anti-tank gun" checked all three boxes. If anyone here has a better suggestion for a name I'm all ears.

Having the "light_mortars" or "infantry_mortars" as a unit, decoupling it from "infantry"? (I guess currently the "infantry" unit comprises mortars like the American 60mm and 81mm ones, which would be the mortars I'm talking about?)

However, assuming same number of men, that cannot cost much more than the infantry unit.

My suggestion for PUs use would rather be having ammunition consumption (especially for artillery). However, you could make the "light_mortars" unit enough costlier than it should be by just assuming a lot of ammunition consumption being implied in the initial cost (if there is no ammunition consumption in the game).

(However, adding ammunition consumption - even if comprising any related consumption like barrel's wear - is of course going to open for a lot on many respects, not last the ammunition consumption for AA artillery and of course bombs consumption and so on, then one would also say why not fuel consumption and so on and so on.)

One possibly nice thing of having "light_mortars" is that then you could represent the Japanese Type 89 grenade discharger (maybe).

Cernel

Or, instead of anti-tank, having light artillery (like the German 10.5 cm leFH or the Soviet 76-mm divisional gun M1939/M1942 - the latter is actually lighter and is almost an anti-tank gun) for that role. I'm not sure. It would definitely feel better as a "universal" unit which can take out tanks too without having any special anti-tank rule.

Vendetta

@KurtGodel7 said:
The mechanics of the game require a cannon fodder unit. To a large extent that's infantry. But because I gave each nation an MP cap, a PU-only cannon fodder unit was also needed. I will grant your point that calling it an "anti-tank gun" could be confusing for people unfamiliar with the map. As you say it has no anti-tank properties. But I needed that unit. I needed to give it a name which a) did not imply fast mobility, b) did not imply it was a type of infantry, and c) did not imply it was a very powerful unit. Calling it an "anti-tank gun" checked all three boxes. If anyone here has a better suggestion for a name I'm all ears.

How about Infantry Gun then? That was a pretty common term and it creates less confusion with the unit’s purpose.

The concern you're expressing here is that the infantry buff could make the game unbalanced between Axis and Allies. As for the latter concern: if play testing does reveal this latter source of imbalance there are ways it can be corrected. Starting units can be adjusted. The magnitude of the Allies' early game income nerfs can be altered. I can change technologies. Lots of levers I can pull to create game balance.

There are lots of ways to mess with the balance and compensate, I was just warning you that you’re about to make a lot more work for yourself. The more common a unit is, the higher the impact any change on it has. The impact is higher as well when the starting stats are low to begin with. A unit that gets a stat bump from 3 to 4 increases its hit rate by 33%, but a 2 to a 3 is a 50% increase, and a 1 to a 2 is 100% increase.

KurtGodel7

Vichy France has been added in. Upon further reflection I decided to have Vichy France own both southern France and its colonial territories.

Half of Vichy French income goes to the Axis. The other half disappears. Japan benefits from Vichy French income in Indochina, Germany benefits from Vichy French income elsewhere. Vichy French territory can be attacked by anyone, at any time, with no diplomatic consequences whatever. Think of it like neutral farming, except that the half to the Axis part reduces the Axis economic incentive to farm, while increasing that of the Allies.

KurtGodel7

Infantry

Tier 1: China. Conscript. Attack 0, defend 1. Cost 1 MP
Tier 2: Italy, USSR, Japan. Infantry. Attack 1, defend 2. Cost 1 MP and 1 PU.
Tier 3: UK, USA, Germany. Infantry. Attack 2, defend 3. Cost 1 MP and 1 PU. The USSR can have this unit also, called "Revolutionary Guards," cost 1 MP and 3 PUs.
Tier 4: Sturmtruppen. Germany. Attack 3, defend 4. Cost 1 MP and 3 PUs.

Japanese Marine-equivalent. Attack 2, defend 2. Cost 1 MP and 2 PUs. Special: gets to fire on the first round of amphibious assaults.

Marine. America Pacific only. Attack 3 defend 3. Cost 1 MP and 2 PUs. Special: gets to fire on the first round of amphibious assaults.

Tech for Japan: Tadamichi Kuribayashi. Causes Japanese infantry to attack on a 2 and defend on a 3. Japanese Marine equivalents attack and defend on a 3. Two stars.

All units described above can receive support on both offense and defense.

KurtGodel7

Tanks

Light tank: attack 2, defense 1, cost 5 PUs
Tank: attack 3, defense 3, 2 hitpoints, cost 8 PUs

Improved light tank: attack 3, defense 2
Improved tank: attack 4, defense 4, 2 hitpoints

Britain's tank techs
Churchill tank (a heavy tank): attack 5, defense 5, 4 hitpoints
Centurion tank (improved heavy tank): attack 5 + 5, defense 5 + 5
improved tank
Comet tank: Britain's tanks attack and defend on a 5.

Japan's tank techs
Medium tank: allows it to build medium tanks
Improved tank

Italy's tank techs
Medium tank tech: allows it to build tanks

USA tank techs (both halves)
Pershing tank: allows the US to build heavy tanks. Attack 4 + 4, defense 4+ 4, 4 hitpoints.
Improved medium tanks
Improved light tanks

Soviet tank techs*
KV-1: Allows the USSR to build heavy tanks. Attack 4 + 4, defense 4 + 4, 4 hitpoints.
Improved medium tanks
Improved light tanks
IS-2 (improved heavy tanks). Soviet heavy tanks attack and defend on a 5 + 5.
Simplify the T-34. Soviet medium tanks now cost one less PU

German tank tech
Panther: Allows Germany to build Panthers. Attack 4 + 4, defense 4 + 4, 4 hitpoints.
Speer's industrialization: every other turn, Germany gets a free Panther at each of its SPCs.
Improved medium tanks
Improved light tanks
Improved Panther (E-50): Germany's Panthers attack and defend on a 5 + 5
King Tiger: allows Germany to build King Tiger tanks. A King Tiger attacks and defends on a 4 + 4 + 4 and has 6 hitpoints.
Improved King Tiger (E-75): King Tigers attack and defend on a 5 + 5 + 5, and have 7 hitpoints.

Note that heavy tanks (Churchill, Centurion, Panther, Pershing, KV-1) and King Tigers are special units. These cannot be purchased with PUs, but can only be produced at SPCs. I acknowledge that Germany has the best SPC tanks in the game, just as Britain has the best tanks purchased with PUs. Germany needs the better SPC tanks to balance Soviet conscription techs. Conscription 4 results in the Soviet Union getting +4 infantry per turn for five of its factories (assuming none of the five factories have been conquered). Assuming both Germany and the Soviet Union are maxed out on tech, and assuming the Soviet Union still holds Moscow/Stalingrad, then every turn the Soviet player gets 20 free infantry. Germany would get 5 free Panthers every two turns. If you're looking at free units received every two turns, that's 40 Soviet infantry compared to the 5 Panthers. In terms of raw hitpoints received this benefits the Soviets by a 2:1 ratio. The superiority of the King Tiger over the IS-2 helps balance out some of that 2:1 ratio.

KurtGodel7

@Vendetta said:

How about Infantry Gun then? That was a pretty common term and it creates less confusion with the unit’s purpose.

After hashing this out with Claude, I've decided on light gun. I wanted a name which would set expectations nice and low. "Anti-tank gun" fails in that, as you pointed out, because it implies that it does something special against tanks. Putting a word like "infantry" in the name might imply it's a type of infantry.

"Light mortar" would have been a good name too. But when I bounced the idea off of Claude, it gave me back the following.

I’d still pick light gun.

A light mortar is an infantry weapon. Light mortars like the 50 mm and 60 mm were carried and fired by ordinary infantry squads. That suggests the unit should cost MP, which undercuts the reason it exists: it’s the cheap unit that doesn’t need MP. A gun is equipment, which explains the PU-only cost much better.
Mortars exist to support infantry. Players would expect a light mortar to give infantry a bonus, the way the field gun does, and this unit gives none. A light gun has the same issue, but less of it, because guns already come in a ladder where the smallest can reasonably be the weakest.
“Light gun” fits the units you already have: light gun, field gun, heavy gun, getting stronger in that order. “Light mortar” would stand on its own, with no heavier mortar to compare it to.

Light mortar does have one thing going for it: it’s a very modest weapon, so nobody will expect much from it. But “light gun” already does that, and it avoids the two expectations above.