Europe and Balance Pt. II

It's pretty undisputed that Ukraine and Turkey are the best two nations to pick in Europe+

Any team game will have these two picked first almost as a matter of course and most 1v1s will have one of these nations picked (so much so that there is now a 'No Ukraine/Turkey' rule that players seem to be using.

Buffing Ukraines income (and thus starting cost) has been a popular idea and yet this would be a major breach of the realism which makes the game as compelling as it is. So how do we balance Ukraine and Turkey without impacting on realism? Easy, we just look at what makes them so overpowered.

Turkey is overpowered because it is easily the most populous country in Europe+ and its reinforcements reflect that. It has 39 reinforcements, the next largest nation is UK with 28. It's strengths lay in leveraging it's starting reinforcements (and infantry) to either outexpand its opponent or simply to zerg them down with an unstoppable mega stack.
How do we solve this? We can't reduce its reinforcements because it IS the biggest nation. However we could split it into two smaller nations and add more cities to each.
It's most divided into Agaen and Anatolia. Agaen is Istanbul, Bursa, Izmir and Antalya. Anatolia is the rest. I would add more cities to Anatolia such as Konya, Keyseri, Gazientep, Trabzon. They don't have to be big, but there is plenty of choice for extra cities.
The result is that Agaen Turkey would have 24 reinforcements, the same as Spain. Anatolia (with its current cities) would have 15, the same as Volga. Turkey would be as strong as every other european nation, albeit a bit cheaper... of course since I have a bit of foresight, a cheap 24 pop nation would make Agaen stronger than Ukarine is now... so to avoid that we'd need to buff Agaen income a bit.

Ukraine is overpowered because it has similar reinforcements to a big western nation but much lower income. The result is that Ukraine costs very little to pick and so can leverage this by expanding expotentially as it is not limited by cost nor reinforcements. Buffing Ukraines income is a sensible choice but many players feel it would ruin the realism. Similarly it has a population that justifies its reinforcements. So how do we solve this? By limiting Ukraines expansion.
Russia is not a poor nation, nor is it deserted. Russia Centrals ingame population is listed as 38 million. Ukraines is listed as 42 million. How is it then that Russia Central has only 13 reinforcements and Ukraine has 21? It's completely out of whack.
We solve Ukraine by making Russia Central the power it deserves to be. Buff Voronezh and Yaroslavl, add one or two more cities like Bryansk, Tula, Kursk and increase it's overall income.
The desired result is that Russia Central will be worth more as a starting selection and if not picked it will be defended by infantry and so requires Ukraine to spend more to take it over.

Please ponder this, it's a real shame when threads like REVERT TIMER FONT CHANGE gets more reaction than a genuine attempt to improve the game.

Napisano od Barrymore, 21.06.2012 at 15:35

Please ponder this, it's a real shame when threads like REVERT TIMER FONT CHANGE gets more reaction than a genuine attempt to improve the game.

Sorry. :u

I think what really needs to be balanced is SM. I don't think it'd hurt to nerf SM a little, because for right now pretty much every SM user I've seen has just steamrolled everyone.

I actually wouldn't be against increasing Ukraine's income. I also think that just decreasing the number of troops available for some cities wouldn't be such a bad idea, but only if the real-world statistics are in line with the changes. Or why not both? If expansion to anything beyond and including Germany and Austria fails in a Europe game, Ukraine is completely screwed--if not anyone that spawns in Eastern Europe (Sweden is still a possibility, but too hard to hold).

I think an accurate description of Afterwind would be "fun over realism", though obviously it tries to be as realistic as possible. That philosophy works well with Urban Terror, and unless you suffer from assburger's then you should be fine. So Amok and Ivan shouldn't be afraid to breach realism just a tad. They're already breaching it in many ways, but my point is that this is not a simulator--it's a fun turn-based strategy game which just takes place in the real world. Not realistic. Got it?!

Anyway, whatever happens, they should both be affected in a single update. Turkey and Ukraine have a very special relationship in Afterwind, and rushing each other from the first turn is not at all uncommon. Either change both of them or neither, because they are both too damn powerful for their own good, and the very balance of power in Europe+ will change completely if only one country is changed.

Oh, and where's part one?

I'm in favor, Barry. You have my vote.

(And I don't think a SM nerf would be needed with these proposed changes)

Napisano od notserral, 21.06.2012 at 17:21

(And I don't think a SM nerf would be needed with these proposed changes)

Nope, a facerolling SM China would still be ridiculously overpowered in Eurasia and World games. Trust me on that.

I really like these ideas. They honestly change the entire make up of Europe based competitive gameplay, but possibly for the better.

Napisano od YOBA, 21.06.2012 at 19:20

Napisano od notserral, 21.06.2012 at 17:21

(And I don't think a SM nerf would be needed with these proposed changes)

Nope, a facerolling SM China would still be ridiculously overpowered in Eurasia and World games. Trust me on that.

No, I can't trust you on that because you're a terrible player who quit aw :b

On all seriousness, I think that an SM nerf isn't needed, and the solutions Barry presented are very nice.

(joking, you're not terrible)

How these income of the countries based upon anyway?

Actual gdp figures.

also, like these changes, russia is well overdue infantry.

Napisano od notserral, 21.06.2012 at 20:48

Napisano od YOBA, 21.06.2012 at 19:20

Napisano od notserral, 21.06.2012 at 17:21

(And I don't think a SM nerf would be needed with these proposed changes)

Nope, a facerolling SM China would still be ridiculously overpowered in Eurasia and World games. Trust me on that.

No, I can't trust you on that because you're a terrible player who quit aw :b

On all seriousness, I think that an SM nerf isn't needed, and the solutions Barry presented are very nice.

(joking, you're not terrible)

SM needs to be nerfed. Even unskilled people can just steamroll you. Once they get going, you can't stop them. "Oh, you just took a country, here's 50 bombers to make up for that." They can send in a bunch of units from long distances, while you, lets say, a MoS user, can't spam 100 marines in one turn.

Napisano od Gking19, 21.06.2012 at 22:47

Napisano od notserral, 21.06.2012 at 20:48

Napisano od YOBA, 21.06.2012 at 19:20

Napisano od notserral, 21.06.2012 at 17:21

(And I don't think a SM nerf would be needed with these proposed changes)

Nope, a facerolling SM China would still be ridiculously overpowered in Eurasia and World games. Trust me on that.

No, I can't trust you on that because you're a terrible player who quit aw :b

On all seriousness, I think that an SM nerf isn't needed, and the solutions Barry presented are very nice.

(joking, you're not terrible)

SM needs to be nerfed. Even unskilled people can just steamroll you. Once they get going, you can't stop them. "Oh, you just took a country, here's 50 bombers to make up for that." They can send in a bunch of units from long distances, while you, lets say, a MoS user, can't spam 100 marines in one turn.

SM is, in all seriousness, not that overpowered. Deserving a bit of a nerf? Yeah, I could definitely see that, it's got too much range and too few disadvantages. But the reason that, say, an MoS player, couldn't spam 100 units where a SM player could is because they're supposed to be able to use their marines in a way that could cripple the player without them being able to counter the marines. That's the entire idea behind stealths: Saving firepower with the same result.

While SM deserves a nerf, it's not so ridiculously overpowered as some people make it out to be. I think, if anything, the way they nerf SM should be a cost increase, as their ridiculous expansion entirely counters the supposed "high costs" of the strat

Barrymore, city reinforcements are based on metro-areas. But I know how you feel, I used to think it was population too

Yeah, I get that since Moscow itself has crazy high population and that can only be converted into 8 reinforcements that there's a lot of waste. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way though.

I agree with some parts of your idea's, and i agree that there is a 'problem' with these countries. However i don't agree with all solutions.

About Turkey:
Turkey is not OP imo. The reason for taking Turkey, is because its a good counter for Ukraine, not because its a good country. Without anyone taking Ukraine, there is no need to take Turkey. Yes, it has a lot (most) of reinforcements, but its expensive to buy. All 'high costs' strategies are useless with Turkey. Therefor you have to play GW, PD or IMP. With these strategy you have a slow expansion, and since you can only expand to other 'cheap' countries, you will be running out of money in turn 2. Turkey will lose in a 1v1, against countries like Germany, France, UK and Spain. Therefor, i think no change is needed here.

About Ukraine:
Yes, its way to cheap and its too powerfull compared to other countries. In a Ukraine vs. Germany match, Ukraine will win most of times. However, making Russia Central stronger and richer is not the right thing to do. It will just change the counter for Ukraine, from Turkey to Russia Central. It will move the problem, not solve it.

My solution Ukraine:
- Reduce the reinforcements in: Dnipropetrovs'k and Kharkiv (the eastern cities) to 2.
- Replace the Militia by Infrantry in the neutral Russia Central (same as Germany/Spain/UK)

This will make it way harder for Ukraine to expand, it will make Russia stronger but more expensive and it won't be a big difference with the current system. Maybe only the Infrantry in central would do it, without the reinforcement nerf.

Last but not least: In a recent 3v3 on Europe+ we (BiteMe! + tesla) played with this teams:
Turkey(KonstantinPats), Ukraine(Hugosch), Spain(MajorKill)
versus
Russia Central(bargain), Germany(XEvah), UK(tesla)

Guess who won? Just meaning to say that the Turkey and Ukraine in a combination isn't a garantee for success, if they having a hard time expanding and having no money infusion.

I agree completely with Hugosch I can personally say I pick turkey a lot and it is hard to use high cost strategy, even with GW which I use a lot the closest countries you can expand into are poor countries so I think IT should be left alone and as for ukraine I think the makeing russia:central harder to just take right away from Ukraine. As for talking about SM I think it should be nerfed I think it is still kind of OP.

Actually a good thread. But I wouldn't consider Ukraine or Turkey overpowered at all. At the moment, they are the more trendy picks according to players' knowledge and understanding of team coordination, expansion etc.. I think the reasoning behind the superior power of these two countries is simply because the community hasn't found proper counters for them. People will adjust and eventually we will have countering countries to pick against them. And who knows, maybe one day Spain will be OP, it's not about the countries themselves it's about people's understanding of them.

Great solutions were depicted in the above that could fix the problem instantly but could cause future problems in the coming months. In my opinion I would leave the countries as it is or simply make Ukraine slightly more expensive, maybe like 800 or 1000. In the case of turkey I would remove Bursa. Small adjustments are far better than big ones since they don't cause future problems and can easily be re-adjusted.

Ooh, I like Hugosch's idea. Putting infantry into Russia Central is both realistic and makes Ukraine less OP by making Moscow harder to take and depriving it of those essential early troops and money. If this doesn't work, just decrease reinforcements in Ukraine by 2 or 3, or buff up it's income so its starting cash lowers by 1-3k. Not both, though, that'd be cruel.

I'll also have to agree on Turkey, it doesn't have much access to income and it has low starting cash, it's not really OP. Splitting it up would be rather odd, considering we haven't even split India. It'd change the game too much unnecessarily, and would overpower the western portion with low income (and cost) and a lot of reinforcements.

No harm in nerfing SM again, of course. SM is the strongest strat for Ukraine, and although it's OP with other strats, SM makes it far too strong.

Ukraine
- Russia Central has infantry instead of militia
- Slightly higher starting cost

Turkey
- I disagree with splitting it into 2 parts, I believe it would ruin it.
- Just reduce number of starting reinforcements by little, Turkey is not the biggest country, it has lower population than Germany.

Well the only reason I suggested to nerf Turkey is because a nerfed Ukraine means a stronger Turkey. Turkey may not be OP right now because it's kept in check by Ukraine.

We've seen how nerfs to certain strats and nations means the rise of others without any tinkering at all. Spains increased cost lead to the rise of SM Ukraine for example.

I'm just pre-empting Turkeys inevitable rise to OP status if these changes do go ahead. Foresight yo

Napisano od Barrymore, 25.06.2012 at 03:44

Well the only reason I suggested to nerf Turkey is because a nerfed Ukraine means a stronger Turkey. Turkey may not be OP right now because it's kept in check by Ukraine.

We've seen how nerfs to certain strats and nations means the rise of others without any tinkering at all. Spains increased cost lead to the rise of SM Ukraine for example.

I'm just pre-empting Turkeys inevitable rise to OP status if these changes do go ahead. Foresight yo

Europe+ is a well balanced map altogether with 100 additional cities.
And I would even say Ukraine vs Turkey is perfectly balanced match up as it is right now.

Never change a running system. please.

A Balanced map would be one where you could pick France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine without being at a disadvantage. In the context of Turkey vs. Ukraine it's balanced yes because they're the two strongest, but if you're the first person to pick in a 3v3 or even a 1v1? Why would you pick France over Ukraine or Italy over Turkey?

Just to make it clear, perfectly balanced map is not possible in any case but some small nerfs and buffs which don't change the gameplay are not bad. That's why I am against splitting Turkey, I think it would be a lot underpowered in that case and highly inferior to western countries.
Also, "OP countries" change over time. At one point everyone was whining how Germany IF is OP but then Ukraine and Europe+ was found, after that Ukraine was OP but we found Turkey and so on...

Posting here because Ukraine really needs to be fixed, every game is turkey vs ukraine and it sucks.

I made a scenario to balance these two countries called "Europe+ All Stars". Try it out I'm sure some of you will be pleased. Here are the changes.

- Same Europe+ map except with northern Africa.
- Ukraine is more expensive to purchase
- Russia central's income was raised now giving it infantry neutrals
- Turkey's income was raised to give east Europe a better economy.
- Russia south was also given a boost to its income.
- North-African countries were given boosts as well to make them more relevant to acquire.
- And finally, Italy's income was lowered to make it a better starting position.

North-African countries were added to make West Europe have a more efficient entry into the east. The reason why East was stronger than West was because the West side didn't have a good invasion position into the Balkans and more importantly Scandinavia. (St-Petersburg 8 reinf) Also naval warfare is now far more enhanced than before with the addition of the whole Mediterranean.

Here's the link to the scenarios section for the thread with a screenshot of the map.

http://afterwind.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=4594

Now go play it!

Hugosch idea is great


solution Ukraine:
- Replace the Militia by Infrantry in the neutral Russia Central (same as Germany/Spain/UK)
in Moscow infrantry sound good

Turkey and Ukraine are not overpowered.
Serbia > Turkey

Good news everybody!!! As of today, these changes are implemented for a small nerf of Ukraine:

Reduced reinforcements in Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv by 1 each

Russia Central now has Infantry

This still leaves Turkey as the only OP country, since there is no ukraine to keep it in check. In every game it was: someone picks ukraine, so someone HAD to pick turkey to stop an unstoppable duo(in team games), or vice versa. Even in 1on1's.


You can't nerf one without the other.

Good,
but what happend with turkey?

Napisano od Desu, 29.07.2012 at 05:41

This still leaves Turkey as the only OP country, since there is no ukraine to keep it in check.

Turkey is not OP imo. The reason for taking Turkey, is because it was a good counter for Ukraine, not because its a good country. Without anyone taking Ukraine, there is no need to take Turkey. Yes, it has a lot (most) of reinforcements, but its expensive to buy. All 'high costs' strategies are useless with Turkey. Therefor you have to play GW, PD or IMP. With these strategy you have a slow expansion, and since you can only expand to other 'cheap' countries, you will be running out of money in turn 2. Turkey will lose in a 1v1, against countries like Germany, France, UK and Spain. Therefor, i think no change is needed here.

But lets see how things work out, if Turkey seems to be OP, then we can change that later