Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

As with any 1st edition of a war game, many members of the community fear issues with what is otherwise a Stella product when it comes to the balance boogieman. Players worry that units have been ill designed, poorly tested or worse yet ignored entirely. While no game can truly maintain balance, nor can comparisons be made via one faction to the other when it comes to cost and ability, such comparisons are inevitably made, resulting in players having many questions on their lips.

What I wish to purpose here is a thread that contains slight alterations to units to help level any perceived unfairness, weaknesses or strengths that are undue to particular factions or units. It is my hope that should a unit’s problems be heard when spoken by the majority that FFG will be willing to make said suggested alterations to a unit within an errata. With any great war game, tournament scenes and balance are key, yet the most valuable resource a game has is its players, who are able to crunch literally thousands of man hours a day to ensure as most rigorous a testing as possible.

The 21st century is a marvellous thing for the most part, and it would be a benefit to drag said hobby kicking and screaming into the internet age, putting the power of networking a community to good use.

For consideration by the community (And fantasy flight games, should they be listening) I present a small number of changes which the community in general have aired as desired. Where possible, I would ask that players attempt a game or three with the proposed balance changes and return feedback in their own threads.

Suggested Allied Changes.
Recon Boys – The physical models contain only two UGL. Considering the recon boys damage output of 15 dice vs tier 2 infantry for a very small points cost at a 12 inch range, simply errataing the unit to have only two UGL’s would both return the unit to WYSIWYG status and most likely remove a small amount of sting from what is otherwise during personal play testing a very effective unit for its cost. No other unit compares within the axis forces for raw damage output at such a cost vs tier 2 infantry, though Panzerfausts admittedly do give axis infantry an edge in anti-walker tactics.

Steel Rain- Indirect units are few and few between, yet the steel rain appears to be woefully lacking in damage output for the investment of its actions. With the 4.2 rockets able to drop 5 dice any any target, coupled with the petard mortar, 10 or so dice given for a sustained action that then requires a reload appears steep for a 45 point cost. A simple repricing to 40 ap would most likely be very welcome indeed.
------------------------------------------------------

Suggested Axis Changes

MG48 – to improve the general abilities of axis infantry a simple change from 3/1 to 4/1 vs tier 2 infantry would no doubt allow axis squads to perform marginally better then they currently do. Not only does the fiction suggest such performance improvements over the victory MG, but with the vast majority of tier 2 allied units packing huge dice outputs, it would be nice to see the axis see a little something to differentiate them past “each dude rolls a dice, the guy with the big gun rolls 3”.

MG44ZWEI – much like the MG48, a simply increase of 1 die per infantry tier would help greatly. Currently heavy recon grenadiers have the same AP cost as heavy attack rangers, yet mysteriously are unable to hurt tier 4 infantry, and have damage resilience to make up for the heavy attack rangers movement and jump ability.

------------------------------------------------------

These two alterations per faction are early suggestions, to be mulled over, considered and chewed. It is my sincere hope that the community can attempt these changes, test them and report feedback. I ask my fellow players now to conduct themselves in a manner fitting of a play testing team, for how players conduct themselves most certainly affects how seriously their requests and input are taken.

Time for a coffee.
Dave

Grenades given to the 3 Grenadier squads to help balance out all the UGL's of the Allies and to fit in with the text.

Slight alterations it is; I'll leave out my nominations for a straight-up Overwatch mechanic, hard-and-fast area-terrain LOS definitions carved in stone, and crew-served weapons. Capitol idea for a thread, though!

On the slight alterations, how about changing laser damage (paricularly heavy laser damage) to 2/1 instead of 1/2 against vehicle armor across the board? That would make them more effective for their points, while emphasing laser designation (pun intended) as anti-tank weapons. It would make the schwerer laser grenadiers into a sort of low-rent equivalent of the Tank-Busters. Oh, also, take their points down to 30, or take the Tank Busters to 40! A 2-shot bazooka, Jump, 12" move, and rocket-punch, for the same cost as the heavy lasers? Something's not right there.

2nd suggested alteration (or is it really 3rd, after that rant about the Tank Busters?): Raise the .50 cal MG attack vs. infantry Armor 3 to 3 dice, and against infantry Armor 4 to 2 dice.

I actually like heavy lasers but they are expensive for what you get. Both laser grenadiers and heavy laser grenadiers need tweaking. Right now they require sustained fire for any chance at being useful but especially with the laser grenadiers good luck ever getting the chance for a sustained attack with their short range. Phasers simply outclass lasers in my opinion.

agree agree with vepr. Rather then adding mechanics or altering a units intended play style simple ap costs and loadout changes would be a far better way to tweek. Having 50 cals go up in damage would'nt hurt

Major, im also game for grenadier squads to recieve grenades. Rarely would grenades see use outside of storming positions due to the 6 inch range, thus they would rarely see use, but would give light infantery the option to storm fortifications.

May i sugest gentlement that the changes you feel listed here that make sense be play tested? I myself will be giving these alterations a go Tuesday.

With the nature of modern table top gaming there is little reason why community based balance testing could not occour. If FFG would give us their blessing, a compilation of recent balance changes similar to that of a patch could keep the tournement scene fresh and fair, while also squeezing the most out of the products quality.

Let us know what you think FFG, im sure everyone on the board would love to hear if this is a plan you would approve of - relationships between community and developer can be very useful things indeed as im sure you're aware.

I think it might be way to early in the game to make big changes. Although i am kinda wondering why lazors are only 12' when most hand held guns are 16'. If your setting up for reactions you only need 12' but a smart ally player can just pop shots from 16' without much retaliation. Grenades would help a bit but i think the game starts getting off when nads are 6' and CC is 3'.

Its still too early to tell, but in my games at least im finding that taking extra walkers off sets much of the allies troop advantage.

certianly the metagame is something that must be taken into consideration - these small changes however are to generally iron out percieved problems with specific units. The games mechanics are fine and a solid basis for a competitive product, but with time and playtesting comes the need to make changes. I simply want to get the ball rolling on making small alterations and seeing how FFG wish to handle the situation alongside the community

Azrell said:

Lasers had shorter range in DT so makes sense to have the same in DW, but in DT you could have unlimited re-rills and not just the one, this rule should also be kept for DW. For an expensive unit to have just a 5 dice attack is rubbish, even on sustained they will only achieve 4 hits, Recon Boys will get 15 attacks causing 8 hits with no cover save and have the chance of killing a few Grenadiers as they come in range :/

I agree about the Recon Boys - I've been considering updating my unit cards to take them down to the number of UGLs the miniatures actually have.

Steel Rain I also agree with, although I haven't actually fielded it yet, so I'm not confident about it.

A few observations:

Pounder and Ludwig cost the same, have the same range and nearly the same dice against armor. Head to head shootout is a tossup with Ludwig having a slight advantage. (played out many times). But Pounder has an extra .50 cal against infantry, Jump and most importantly a turret. Given the very restrictive firing arc and movement rules, the turret alone should be worth a few points.

Wildfire and Heinrich also cost the same while Wildfire inexplicably rolls more dice against infantry. Heinrich has 6" additional range, but the advantage is dependent on playing on terrain with sight lanes longer than 24". Wildfire has fast which more than makes up for the range advantage.

With respect to class 3 infantry: Allied 12" movement and Jump are far superior to nerfed Damage Resistance.

Red Devils vs Heavy Laser Grenadiers is also out of balance. Heavy Lasers cost 3 more points and have Damage Resistance. Red Devils have air drop and their Phasers cut through infantry and vehicle armor like a hot knife through butter.

That being said, the Apes go a long way to helping the Axis but is hampered by the fact that Marcus is packaged in a way that makes him very expensive.

Overall the mechanics are robust, but my group has observed that being the first (initiating) player is a significant advantage. I can see how the designers tried to balance going first vs second, but the balance is not quite right. At this point it favors playing fewer, costlier units to roll fewer initiative dice. Recommend adding something to the second player to balance the first player's obvious advantages.

Rather than a cost reduction, I'd rather see the Steel Rain's Petard Mortar get a 36" range on Artillery fire. Currently the thing most hampering the unit is the general difficulty using both weapons in an Artillery attack.

I find it ironic that Axis get an "extra vehicle" option when their vehicles are worse than the Allies, and Allies get an "extra heroes" option when their heroes are worse than the Axis.

Lasers could probably do with a range upgrade.

Damage Resilience should invert armor rolls like Rocket Punch inverts hits.

Balance alterations? Well, mostly I'd just like to see burst / grenades ignoring cover going away.

Ditto for Angela (or whoever it was) the sniper making a squad ignore cover.

After that? I guess stuff like Laser Grenadiers not having enough punch.

In the games I've had, none of these issues have been a problem that to me warrants a change in the rules for them. Guess everyone has different opinions

A lot of my earlier issues have since been resolved by just playing more and figuring things out.

The four big ones:

We've been playing that UGL attacks ignore cover, but any other normal weapons also used in the same attack do not. Gets a little fiddly on figuring out totals, but I'd like to see this become a rule with clear guidelines. Same for other attacks that ignore cover combined with normal attacks.

Maybe an extra die to machine guns as part of Axis armor 2 squads

Maybe knock a few points off laser grenadiers.

Chef probably shouldn't be invincible when he starts the game…Its pretty easy to just go assassinate someone's command section for free…feels like cheating

@ Cornelius:

There are some units that don't match up to each other…but if both counterpart units were the same stats, the game would be pretty boring.

Case in point: Blackhawk is decent tank hunter, though I've never had it live very long. Its counterpart Hans is pretty amazing, with the reserved option, anti infantry and anti tank on separate weapons, and indirect fire capability. Even with the shortish range it can be pretty nasty if you get it to the right spot.

The red devils, also, are 12" range while HLG are 16". We've found 12" ranges to be a big deal in this game…especially because the reaction can be made to the movement, thinning down the squad quite a bit before it can attack. Same thing with UGLs, although those can still be brutal. That said, the 12" range on the regular laser squad together with their low dice output make them a pretty iffy unit.

Definitely agree about the initiative advantage, especially with the possibility of reacting after your unit phase is over. Guessing they kept it this way so that whoever was "losing" at any given moment got a little boost- Tactics was a very slippery slope once you lost a couple units…the way it is now does penalize larger army lists, which sucks because I prefer greater numbers of cheaper units…but on the other hand it does help even it out if someone just fields a ton of snipers and spotters. I kind of like it the way it is, even though it means I'm usually going second.

its nice to see that the discussion is continuing.

Pounder vs ludwig - while that 1 extra dice is an advantage, it seems that in design the pounder is a very good anti tank walker, yet is more flexable then the ludwig due to its anti infantary ability. Id not object to play testing the pounder at 5ap more.

Red devils - ive found red devils to be fairly difficult to use effectively in 300ap games, but much of this comes down to using high risk tactics with them. I dont see an issue with the red devils balance currently, though heavy laser and laser grenadiers are a subject of must debate, no doubt. Perhaps adding a single dice per tier of infantary damage?

Steel rain update - i agree a 36 inch indirect range would help, but would counteract the fluff some what. Generally the issue is that even at its "sweet spot" range, you are going to be dropping N+5 dice on a squad. Being able to fire indirectly and thus avoid being shot at is a huge advantage, but in 5+ games using the steel rain it has always seemed to struggle. The best way to use it appears to be to fire its rockets and petard mortar directly as that only takes a single action.

Keep the ideas comming and the mood civil guys, this thread so far gives valuble insight into the general feeling of the games balance, which can only be helpful.

Just a question about the discussion: What's all this about range limits on the 4.2" rocket system? The book clearly states that it's an "A" range, and page 57 says that "A" range weapons have a direct fire range of 36" and table-top range (essentially unlimited) when firing indirectly.

the petard morder doesnt have unlimited range when firing indirectly, Krag.

OK, it doesn't really have much to do with balance, but I would like to see an errata where the dead hulks of the walkers remain on the battlefield. As I understand it, once a walker is destroyed, the figure is "removed". I think it would be more cinematic if they stayed on the field. They would be cover for units to hide behind, and also potentially block the way for other walkers - for example, if you have a narrow street and manage to destroy the first in a column of walkers.

We've been leaving vehicles with no problems. It never really crossed our minds to remove them as vehicle wrekage was on the terrain charts.

I was wondering how many of you have been playing the tournement senarios in the book vs just killing each other? some of the conditions can radically change the balance back for the better. Some of the balance issues may come up because allies are just better at killing.

i can say all my balance sugestions have been made while playing the game RAW. I dont believe drastic changes are required, just little tweeks to make some units more competitive or less lackluster then they have been. There is no reason why a well supported wargame cannot have unit tweeks and updates regually to improve the game.

caecitas said:

Im not saying it shouldnt get some tweeks im just trying to get the context, as it might be the context that tones down perceived imbalances.

absolutely, every unit has situations it excels at, every dog has his days.

I think the game is highly payable as is and I've enjoyed immensely playing the game as is so far. I love the mechanics of the game and the flow of play and wouldn't change a thing there. However having said that there are some glaring issues that leap out at me and whomever I play with each time I play. Some of these I hope are just obvious misprints that weren't caught before printing like the move distance on Rhino in comparison to units with the exact same equipment. Others just maybe oversights, or things that just need better explanations, at least I hope they are as otherwise they would seem to defy the laws of reality even in an alternate universe. An example of this would be a Quad compared to a Dual compared to a single barrelled MG or Flak Gun, take your pick of the same caliber or cm. If you have 1 .50cal MG and you mount a second next to it does that change their ranges, of course not. But what it does do is increase the rounds they fire per minute to twice as many if it's a Dual mount and 4 times as many if it's a Quad mount. If you don't believe me look it up. A .50 cal Browning M2 could fire 460-635 rpm, while the Quad mount on the M16 "meat chopper" could fire 1840-2540 rounds per minute both at a 1800 meter effective range and both with a 2000 meter maximum range. There are a number of models in the game that have 2 weapons arms each with 1 or 2 of these type weapons and yet there treatment in the current rules are inconsistent both in terms of ranges, and in just how many shots they fire or damage they do.

We all want balance, in so far as each side should have a chance to prevail in battle. No one wants to field an army that is simply going to get slaughtered. But to me the answer isn't to try to make units the same by artificially making one unit better or another one worse than they should be by doing stuff like taking away everyone's grenades or make one weapon better and another worse. During world war II the Germans had better weapons almost across the board. Most people believe they had better officers and better trained soldiers until they started running out of men. (Note: I'm not German) Newsflash they still lost! In this game at least as the story Paolo has written goes the Germans are still supposed to have better weapons, some things just don't change. They are also supposed to have at least a 6 year head start on developing the new technologies gained from their close encounter of the 3rd kind.

The approach I would take to keep the game faithful to the story, and yet achieve balance in play, would be to 1st correct the obvious mistakes in weapon ranges, firing rates, damage, movement distances or where ever they may lie. Actually pretty easy to do. The game would then be more pleasing to the sensibilities of someone who also plays historical games or actually has read a history book or two, and the Germans would actually have their better toys to play with as the story says they should. Then correct the ap values to reflect those changes and suddenly the allies and the new sino/soviet armies would suddenly be able to field far more units than they can now. Their weapons may not be as cool as those that the Germans use, YET, but they will have far more units and men to deploy as they did and should. The revaluing of unit ap's would be the hard part as once the obvious things are corrected the game would have to be rigorously play tested to make sure the allies and now soviets have enough troops to achieve balance.