Is the game balanced?

[nats]

I havent seen any posts about this so I thought I would ask: how are other players finding the differences between Nasa and the Soviets?

I tried the Soviets a couple of times and just lost really badly in the Race to the Moon both times, it seems that they cant develop space planes at all quickly so they have to put their efforts into other things (fair enough) but I just couldnt seem to make enough prestige to build stuff quickly enough and the price of some of the later missions were astronomical compared to what money I had.

Recently I started playing the Nasa campaign and am sailing along, both games on hard. I have already got a man/satellite in space and the Soviets havent even got Sputnik in space yet. Its just too easy.

So I am wondering how other peoples games are going? Do they similarly find a massive imbalance between the two. Do the Soviets have any advantage at all over Nasa? - you would think they would get more prestige and faster research into rockets and probes but perhaps less quality - but I havent noticed any real advantages to them myself.

[KyleS]

The Soviets tend to have less spare cash, so in the campaign game must be more focused - no Venus, Mars etc missions. Just do the minimum required to get a guy on the Moon.

[nats]

The Soviets tend to have less spare cash, so in the campaign game must be more focused - no Venus, Mars etc missions. Just do the minimum required to get a guy on the Moon.

Yes I am trying that now thanks for your advice. Certainly you have to be pretty efficient with the Soviets and have a few different programs and rockets advancing before time they are required. I am just onto the second funding session and am doing pretty well. But the thing is if I had even failed one Sputnik mission it would have been game over before I even started. I do think the Soviets are rather difficult, certainly compared to NASA. Once you get behind NASA with their increasing money later on I dont think you will stand a chance of catching them. But we will see...either way its a good challenge and I am glad the game provides this sort of variety of challenge. There is a fair amount of playability here.

[bumble410]

First of all let me say that I love this game, been playing a lot. I am puzzled now by reading these posts about the game balance as Nats says that he finds the NASA campaign "too easy". versus AI, when I myself have been clobbered every time I play . Usually by the early 1960's I am behind and losing ground (or space), and never get the chance to land on the moon. What am I missing? I have played sandbox numerous times to experiment with the NASA programs (on hard setting) and the earliest I can get to the moon (without killing too many astronauts) is mid 1974. Am I being too cautious, I never fly until at least 80% reliability, I don't want to go bankrupt so I am careful about my spending, (that's happened to me twice), I try to buy the cheapest hardware and do the minimum space probes for prestige points. I have not tried to play as the Soviet player as I am not really familiar with their hardware yet, (maybe I should give them a try, but I figure I'll be crushed by NASA then). I would really like to try MP games but if I can't beat the AI, what chance would do I have in that venue. Guess I'll just keep playing sandbox and challenging myself to get to the moon as early as possible.

[KyleS]

What I said for the soviets applies for anyone learning how the game works - first, learn how to get to the Moon as soon as possible using the least programmes and staff possible. Then you learn what else you can do on top of that and still hit the Moon in a reasonable timeframe.

[nats]

First of all let me say that I love this game, been playing a lot. I am puzzled now by reading these posts about the game balance as Nats says that he finds the NASA campaign "too easy". versus AI, when I myself have been clobbered every time I play . Usually by the early 1960's I am behind and losing ground (or space), and never get the chance to land on the moon. What am I missing? I have played sandbox numerous times to experiment with the NASA programs (on hard setting) and the earliest I can get to the moon (without killing too many astronauts) is mid 1974. Am I being too cautious, I never fly until at least 80% reliability, I don't want to go bankrupt so I am careful about my spending, (that's happened to me twice), I try to buy the cheapest hardware and do the minimum space probes for prestige points. I have not tried to play as the Soviet player as I am not really familiar with their hardware yet, (maybe I should give them a try, but I figure I'll be crushed by NASA then). I would really like to try MP games but if I can't beat the AI, what chance would do I have in that venue. Guess I'll just keep playing sandbox and challenging myself to get to the moon as early as possible.

A lot of the early game is luck. You can have a couple of bad missions that can put you behind on the prestige, thereby getting less money than you need to be able to open several programs at once, and then never recover from it. I gave up my NASA game because I was miles ahead of the Soviets. I am trying another Soviet game now because I prefer a challenge (and I also want to try out the new tech - I know all the NASA stuff).

It is very important in the first two funding sessions to try to get as near to the max prestige you can by the end of the period. You need to pay for building upgrades and a lot of staff early on and the money goes quickly. try to do the high prestige missions where there is little negative prestige if you fail and if you have a few loose seasons do some fill in missions like extended missions which keep the prestige ticking up with no requirement for more R&D advances so you can concentrate on researching you next set of rockets/ships/probes. Essentially the key is to research like mad then once you start flying the missions start researching the future tech. Once you get to 80% start moving people onto the next set of rockets.

But like I say a lot of it is down to luck, once you get behind there is little you can do to get back because the price of the larger missions is astronomical - you just cant do them without lots of spare money. I would love to see a loan facility made available to carry you through a bad season.

[Nacho84]

But like I say a lot of it is down to luck, once you get behind there is little you can do to get back because the price of the larger missions is astronomical - you just cant do them without lots of spare money. I would love to see a loan facility made available to carry you through a bad season.

I like the idea of the loan facility. I'll add it to the backlog. Can't promise it for 1.2.0, though, but I'll see if I can fit it in a future update.

Cheers,

[KyleS]

I wouldn't put in loans. It's not like the director of NASA could just blow all the cash and then wander over to Congress and ask for more.

In games, loans fall into two categories: those which need never be paid back (because the game ends before they come due, or because they can keep being rolled over forever), and those which never can be paid back (the player enters a death spiral of loans to pay back loans at ever-higher rates). Neither adds anything to the game.

It's a budget. That means you plan ahead. Unless you're really unlucky and get a random event that costs cash just before your final turn of a cycle where you'd been planning to be down to under 100 of cash, going bankrupt shouldn't be an issue.

[Bolter]

I definitively have to agree that NASA has an advantage, in the sense that their projects generally fulfill more objectives and thus give more prestige. Also, their craft break less than the Soviets for comparable reliability levels.

With that said, though, I have beaten NASA to the moon with the Soviets on Buzz-Hard, so it CAN be done.

As mention before, money is a big issue for the Soviets, so extreme conservation must be practiced. Also, a different path than NASA must be pursued for at least the first 2 funding periods. The Soviets have ONE big advantage over NASA, and that is that you only need three boosters to put a cosmonaut on the moon (Molnya>Voshkod>UR700.) More importantly, you don't need any medium rockets, so while NASA is forced to upgrade its VAB to tier-2 for the Gemini-Atlas II projects, you can steal a march on them and go straight to tier-3 rockets. That's huge savings as you don't have to pay tier-2 maintenance costs for years, like NASA does.

My strategy for beating NASA in buzz-hard:

1st funding period:
Sputnik-Molnya Q3 1958 (No extended mission)
Sputnik II-Molnya Q4 1958

2nd funding period
Lunar flyby-Molnya (opens Venus probe and manned lunar projects.)
Lunar impactor-Molnya
Vostok-Voshkod (as many missions as you can afford, but no less than manned suborbital before end of funding period.)

3rd funding period
Venera 7-Molnya (must, not enough prestige otherwise.)
Vostok-Voskhkod (program completed.)
Large EOS-Voshkod (must finish Venera7 by early '64)
Key moves:
Upgrade VAB to tier2 and immediately after to t3
Ensure you have at least 12 scientists, 5 cosmonauts, 15 controllers and train them!
Start LK700 2-man orbital program (~9K credits.)
Start UR700 booster (if you have enough money left, otherwise wait till the 4th funding period.)

4th funding period
Research craft, rocket, EVA and accumulate credits
Boot-strap UR700 development with unmanned launches of Vostok capsules (money permitting.)
LK700 orbital flights '68
LK700 lunar flights '69

This is an extremely aggressive approach, but it is the only way to get to the moon in the '60s as the Soviets in buzz-hard. Unless you completely skip the 2-man capsule programs, you won't make a manned landing by Q4 '69. The Soyus-LOK requires that you research & test the auto-docker as well as the lander, which will put a landing out somewhere in the '70s.

The timing for building construction/upgrade, hire/train, launch/no-launch is critical. Upgrade a building too soon, maintenance kills you. Upgrade too late, not ready in time. Hire too many, salaries kill you. Hire too few, not enough for launches. Wait too long to launch, not enough prestige. Launch too soon...BOOM!

So in closing, yes NASA has more arrows in their quiver, but the Soviets can get it done by relying on probes early-on for the bulk of prestige, and then one-upping NASA by bypassing "Gemini" and going straight to the direct ascent lander. Most people don't notice it, but you can open the LK700 program right after a lunar fly-by. Yes opening either of the 3-man or lunar programs is prohibitively expensive in the 3rd funding period, but opening the orbital 2-man LK700 project is quite affordable and lets you start research early on. Don't worry, it'll be years before you have a booster to launch it, so you wont have to drop big bucks for missions right away.

[kongxinga]

That is a good post from Bolter. I think the game is asymmetrically, and historically balanced, which means the Soviets do come out weaker, mostly because they lack fall back plans. Soviets does seem to have it easier early game (they can squeeze in the Bio Satellite Khorabl 2 in lieu of a Vostok unmanned orbital then shut the program down, saving money and gaining a huge prestige boost. You can also consider running it twice as long as you don't slow your manned orbital prestige first. However since this game is based on 4 year budget reviews, you can't immediately press your advantage like you could in Baris. Voshkod is kinda questionable, but allows mostly a fast way of getting the EVA first.

In comparison for NASA, Gemini is ABSOLUTELY the key and the signal that the tide has turned in your favor. It is a spaceworthy craft that can get you to the moon, and you can easiliy grab docking firsts since soviets have to go Soyuz for that. I had experiences that I had all firsts until Gemini arrived. Even if you decided on other approaches, gemini is always there to back you up, and flying more missions in Gemini can raise its reliability for a good purpose, unlike deadend Voshkod, I think there was supposed to be more cost savings in opening Voshkod, but that seems to be not applying (Voshkod is a glorified Vostok anyways). Apollo blew up? NO problem, Gemini the next turn and get to the moon. If this was a game and not a sim, I would be yelling Gemini IMBA about now.

In contrast, if Soyuz fails, Soviets can direct ascent with super expensive UR-700? That is simply out of the question since it takes 2 years non stop research to get it to respectable, so you mind as well fix soyuz for 1.5. It is always do or die and any setback will set you back a year or more, making a NASA win very likely. I am always biting my nails after Gemini as Soviets since I know it is do or die.

[N_Molson]

A lot of the early game is luck.

The more I play the game the more I feel how 'luck' is related to my employees skills.

So if I could give an advice, it would be to take MC and flight crews training very seriously from the beginning. It makes the difference. Now, of course, you're never 100% safe, just like in real life !

[Tankerace]

I'm not sure, but has anyone noticed if national side makes a difference to odds of failure?

My wife and I both have copies and played it competitively, me as the Soviets, her as NASA. My unmanned stuff had more success, got to the moon quick, as well as landers on Venus and Mars.

But the manned aspect.... 4 Rocket failures in a row and two dead cosmonauts. Then in '68 I finally tried a spacewalk with my two best astronauts. Had great MC, reliability on the Voskhod (I used it as a cheaper Soyuz for an EVA test) and Soyuz rocket was fantastic. Burned up on reentry.

Then the moon shot. Tried the Soyuz with Lander. Lander worked perfectly, tried a suborbital, and uncrewed lunar flyby and uncrewed lunar orbit, as well as lon crewed orbital flights in the first Soyuz you can open, and a Cislunar flight with the 3rd type of Soyuz.

My moon shot. N1 worked flawlessly. I bypassed some of the lunar stuff, but it worked fine, EVA transfer good (my first successful, after my previous two Cosmonauts died on reentry), landing flawless, planted a flag on the moon, took off, everything was great. Reliability 85+%.

Soyuz came in for reentry. Catastrophic failure (despite numerous times doing it before), and the game DID NOT EVEN SAY WHY. Crew dead. Next turn my wife launches the Gemini Direct Assent, bypassing just as many steps, and flawless mission and wins the game.

We had similar play styles, though initially my guys were not trained as well. Things we noticed that might be influenced by history.

1) Soviet unmanned probes were more successful -- My Luna stuff all worked fine with the exception 1 failure. Her unmanned Moon stuff continued to explode with 4-5 failures before success.
2) Soviet rockets faulty -- I lost 3 to "fuel leaks," and had 3-4 more be destroyed by Range Safety Officers. This included my only N1 failure.
3) Soviet deaths -- 6 Cosmonauts dead, 2 on the launch pad, 4 on reentry. No NASA deaths. I wondered if this was a nudge to the pre-Gagarin explosion, as well as Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. It seemed to me that despite good numbers, Soviet tech was more prone to fail than NASA tech (I think my wife had, at most, 1 Rocket failure and 1 uncrewed capsule failure).

It's possible to win as the Soviets, I managed to land on the moon (although not reenter), and send out a lot of probes, but it seemed to me that the Soviets, possibly as in RL, will pay a higher price than NASA.

Or this could all just be the rolls of the dice -- but my Moon shot failed with an 85% success rating, my first EVA that burned up on reentry had a 96% rated spacecraft and good ground crew, and my only N1 failure was of a 93% rated rocket, and the failure (the Tiger Team option) had a 90.6% chance of resolving the issue, and it still blew up.

[N_Molson]

No, playing NASA or USSR has no other impact on the gameplay than giving you access to different hardware. Now of course, some hardware is more prone to failure than some other. Notice than one of the worst of the game (but also one of the cheapest) is the Voskhod. Also Soviets have excellent rockets compared to NASA (the R-7 family is powerful, affordable and reliable ; the Protons are very powerful and flexible, while not as reliable).

The other thing is that the Soviet Soyuz lunar landing has quite a lot of steps, because EVA transfers are required. It makes things a bit harder. But the Gemini EOR/LOR mission plan is even more challenging.