NM rebalancing and general promotions

[seathom]

I only played one game of TEAW before the DLC and just started playing with the DLC. I noticed that on a turn in Sept. 1914, after winning 8 of 10 battles, my NM rose 1 from 104 to 105 due to the effects of rebalancing NM. I lost 5 NM and received a whopping 2 EP and 10 VP . Normally, in this game, gaining 1 NM on a turn is pretty good; however, I had won 6 NM (2 one point gains and 2 two point gains). I hadn't noticed this rebalancing in my previous game; is it a new feature or has it always been in the game? The NM loss seemed quite expensive; is the community content with this or will it be looked at to make the massive NM hit a bit more palpable with greater "exchanges for rebalancing NM"?

I noticed this feature while watching Gilmer9999 Let's Play ROP (I hope everyone interested is watching it because it's been very entertaining and is starting to sizzle with Prussia surrounded by enemies). In that game, NM swings are much wilder than in TEAW and I can understand the rebalancing effort to ensure a premature quick ending doesn't occur from one big battle.

Does anyone know the parameters used in deciding these NM rebalances? Having 10 battles in one turn is not common in my games and the moral gains seemed justified.

On the plus side, after watching Gilmer's TEAW AAR and seeing a dearth of promotions available; I am happy to say that I have been getting consistent announcements for promotions. Maybe it's easier for the CP (which I'm playing) in the early game than it is for the ENT (which Gilmer was playing)?

[Altaris]

These scripts work similarly to the ones in Rise of Prussia. I'd have to double-check exactly what values they are again, but basically if morale is < 80ish it gets bumped up at the cost of some VP and EP, and If > 100 the opposite occurs. These effects only last through the end of 1915, though. It's to help keep one side from gaining a massive NM difference in the early war and then just sitting idly by waiting for a morale win.

[seathom]

I can understand the reasoning; but just question the effect. I'm not 100% sure what the ENT NM was, but let's say it was 96 when the CP's was 104. A 6-point swing makes it 90 NM to 110 NM. Hardly a cataclysmic difference, but I could understand rebalancing it slightly and as the margin grows larger, making the adjustments a little larger too. The next turn was a more common 0 NM difference; but losing 5 of 6 NM earned stings. All that said, I still have the comfort of gaining territory and taking enemies off the field (which is the purpose of the war), not an elusive NM total (although it does signify the national will to keep the fight going).

Also, I noticed (but not in my game yet) that naval battles can cause significant NM changes (5 NM not being uncommon). It would seem that these changes should be smaller, unless you totally, or near totally, destroy your enemy's fleet and thus significantly alter one's ability to wage war and destroy its will to fight. In my 10 battle turn, two were small naval victories over EE with no NM change and made sense but I did notice in an AAR that the ENT had huge NM gains from what I recall weren't massively decisive victories.

[H Gilmer3]

Hi Seathom, thanks for the plug. I'm Gilmer 9999. As for the NM in sea battles in To End All Wars, I mentioned that in my AAR of To End All Wars on the AAR forums. It does/did seem like the naval battles gave too much NM swings. After a few patches, though, I stopped seeing as many naval battles, so I assumed they had made the German navy a little more cautious to balance it out.

As for the NM balancing, in To End All Wars, I guess it does it if you are above 100, but it seems I am hardly ever above 100 in NM even when winning because of the war weariness mechanism.

[seathom]

Hey Gilmer, still enjoying your ROP Let's Play (and waiting for #14). All my NM gains have come from land battles so far as I have kept my navy away from the WE and only patrolling the EE while the Russians seem to be hiding in their ports.

I'm still bummed out by the 5 NM loss for peanuts in return. It just happened again late May 1915! That is 15 NM losses in exchange for a miserly 6 EP and 15 VP. My NM stands at 107, WE at 84 and EE at 86.

The only comfort is that I see Paris and Campaigne lightly defended and the RR hopefully soon to be cut off east of Paris with a good sized force in Saint Quentin. Oh well, still a great game as long as it doesn't crash. My last turn was a nightmare but finally got through it.

[seathom]

Another turn and +3 NM from land battles with a -5 NM modifier! I win battles and lose NM even though I'm threatening Paris! So what would be 124 NM is only 104 versus the WE and EE at 85 each. If my calculation is correct, the WE had 84 NM, lost 3 NM from battles, lost 1 NM from war wariness and gained 5 NM for rebalancing for a net 85 NM!!

So not only do I lose NM for winning, the WE gains NM for losing? I hope I am wrong on this and they got a +5 NM from some event that I did not see. I understand and agree with the balancing mechanism, although I think it should be tweaked (it is too drastic at 100 - 110 NM) as I have explained earlier in this thread, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree if one side is penalized for gaining NM too quickly then the other side should gain it - that is a 10 point swing in NM.

[H Gilmer3]

With To End All Wars, being up by even 15 NM, you are in a very commanding position. Due to events and other things, you can win the war just by playing even now. In chess it's like when you get a piece up, you start trading pieces because you're always going to come out on top if you get even trades each time.

and take Paris and it's probably the last nail in the coffin for the whole war.

Oh, and about to start recording #14 right now.

[seathom]

I'm still missing something about the mechanics of the balancing system. In three recent turns, each of which my NM was between 101 and 107, I had a net gain prior to balancing of +3, +4 and +3, yet only on the first time did I receive the -5 NM for balancing. Is there another requirement that kicks in the balancing that the first turn had and the other two turns didn't or is there only a %chance that balancing kicks in? Maybe I can plan my turns knowing what will cause the balancing mechanism to occur.

[Altaris]

Here are the exact mechanics of NM balancing events:

- Only effects games where on player is AI (non-applicable for PBEM)
- Events only fire between October 1, 1914 to September 1, 1915
- If morale >= 110 for a side, it loses 5 morale and gains 10 VP and 2 EP
- If morale < 85 for a side, it gains 5 morale and loses 10 VP and 1 EP

These events were requested during beta testing to keep the AI from having such a large NM gap early in the war that it made the rest of the game rather boring since the player could just wait out til the end for an insta-win via NM.

There is a separate engine mechanism called "Return to Neutral" which reduces NM by 0-3 points per turn if it is above 100. The higher above 100 a side is, the greater the chances it will get impacted. So, for example, if you have 130 NM, you are very likely to get at least -1 "Return to Neutral" in a turn, if you are at 105ish, the chances are pretty low but will occasionally come in.

Trust me, if you're this high above the AI, you're not being unduly hurt by the loss of a few NM points.

[H Gilmer3]

It could be war weariness? I don't think it's 100% chance war weariness hits 1 NM every time, but that there is a chance that it hits.

[seathom]

Very interesting Altaris and thanks for the exact mechanics. Since my NM has never been above 108 I've never had more than the -1 return to neutral modifier. All four of my balance modifiers have been the -5 NM hit. However, that doesn't explain why it happened only 1 of the last 3 times I had at least +3 net gains in NM. There seems to be a randomness to the -5 NM modifier. Several turns I had no NM gain and mercifully I did not lose the -5 NM modifier, just the -1 NM from war wariness.

As far as I can discern, the -5 NM modifier only occurs when there is a net NM gain of at least +3 (which caused a net -2 NM that turn). It happened every single time I had good gains from battles. However, in June through July of 1915 it failed to have the modifier occur with +3 and +4 NM gains. Thankfully, I'm in August 1915 and won't have to deal with it soon, but maybe the closer you get to Sept 1915 the less likely it occurs and thereafter it won't occur at all? Also, the modifier has occurred when I have been at >100 at the start of my turn, interestingly it didn't occur when it was 98 and I had a +5 NM gain from battles and +5 from event -- that was sweet. Also, I noticed once (at least) that when I had a -5 NM hit, the WE had a +5 NM gain so both can happen at the same time for a 10 point swing (it is possible that the WE had an event occur, but I don't think it did).

While I have been consistently around 100 - 108, the WE and EE have been mired in 84 - 86. At least their NM will soon begin to fall without the balancing event (which I desperately need to get the EE out of the war before Italy starts moving in on AH!!).

Yikes, -20 NM seems like a lot in this game. I must be a miser! Thanks for the exact mechanics of NM balancing events, but I wonder if they tweaked it a bit in a patch to make it occur at >100?