Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 3:29:48 PM

matt.buttsworth

Posts: 886
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Weimar, Germany
Status: offline

I think this is a great Eastern front game with playability that is simple, but complex, and close to addictive. However, I also strongly believe the game as it is structured makes it impossibile for Germany to win and too easy for the Russians to totally destroy the Germans, as I have, in the blizzards of 1941/1942. This was the same weakness as in Wir.
I therefore believe that to be as playable as WITP AE Germany must have a chance:
1) to win in 41, and
2) to launch a serious offensive in 42 after the blizzard winter.
The question is can this be factored in to WITE 2.0 or must a new scenario be created by players which gives Germany a chance.
I would like players to suggest ways in which WITE can help Germany to have a chance of winning without destroying the game or going into total fantasy.
My suggestions:
1 - Weaken Russian command and control in summer 1941, either factoring in stalin's paralysis for the first 11 days or making some units simply not move.
2 - Weaken effects of blizzards so that Germans are weakened but not destroyed by it and capable of seriously resisting Rusian winter offensive, and launching another major offensive in 42.
3 - Figuring in chance of political collapse of Soviet Union if Germans take leningrad (weakening it) or taking Moscow (50% chance of total collapse)
4 - Give Germans a real chance of reaching Moscow by November 41 if the drive saouth to Kiev had never occurred
5 - Consider Suvorov variant of suicidal disposition of Russian forces on Border?

Any other suggestions.
All discussion welcome.
What I would like is a balance like WITP AE where Allies will win but it takes very good game play to beat Japan (Germany) and allies can expect serious resistance throughout 1942 and summer 1943?
Can this be created in WITE? Or in a mod?

Let's discuss this.

Dr Matthew Buttsworth
Germany

Post #: 1

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 5:49:09 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Once they get the editor patched, I am looking to work on some different versions. I already have two up. One is an alternative start that has XXXX panzer corps with 2nd and 5th panzer assumed to go to Rumania after Greece instead of being shipped back to Germany and losing their tracked vehicles in the process. This was the original plan before Hitler changed it because he felt the river was too tough in the south. It could have been revisited since the Balkans happen after the plan was changed and it was clear 2nd and 5th panzer could not be gotten back into central Poland in time for the start of the campaign. The other features the unfreezing of 4 of the 5 frozen divisions of Panzer group 1. While there is no question the staff has done their work and there are logical reasons to freeze those units, this is the only game I have seen it done in and it has a huge impact on game play for those familiar with eastern front games and used to having most if not all of PG1 in battle from the opening of the game. What this variant does is give the Germans 4 more mobile divisions in the south and removes the necessity of diverting at least a panzer corps from PG2 to open the game, although this is still a viable strat if you really want to get the mechanized forces going in the south from the start. Both variants are clearly helpful to the Germans. They don't solve everything, but it perhaps helps. Having said all this, the community does not appear interested in scenarios/campaigns that are not "official" and "historical", which is fine. The community is more interested in smaller historical scenarios.

I will be working on another scenario that takes into consideration better planning by the German high command for a longer war to a point. For instance, the Germans already had issues with the Matilda II tank of the British (first encountered in France 1940) and it was pretty much immune to anything the tanks were using for armament. They once again had issues in the desert as well in the spring of 41. As a consequence, they started working on upgrading PIIIs with the long barrel 50. Unfortunately nothing was done about the Panzer IV or Stugs and it could have been. Further, the Germans came across T-34/KVs in the opening battles in June of 41, but did not bother to form a "tank study group" until November of 41 to discuss what made the T-34/KV series so much better than existing German tanks. Coming out of this study, the Germans decided to up gun the Panzer IV and Stugs along with starting design work on the Panther; losing roughly 5 months of time. Now, even if you are planning a short war in the east, the fact is you still know you have issues with an existing British tank, so you would think planning along those lines would have been started earlier and then running into T-34/KV's just puts that much more urgency behind it.

I have not started to sift through the nuts and bolts on the "how" to make this happen, but my idea is to basically advance up the 75 mm AT production (under design since 1940, but with no real urgency) and also introduce up gunned Panzer IV and stugs sooner by about 6 months along with making the Panther available 6 months or so sooner (and advancing the Panther lines behind that based mostly on the design flaws being found and fixed along with simplified manufacture methods). Further models of Panzer and Stugs would probably not change that much. Tiger entry would not change, but Tiger II would likely be moved up. The Russian 85mm gunned units would also likely move up in response as well.

Obviously this scenario would favor the Germans as well and would likely not be of interest to much of the community, but for those looking to give the Germans some advantages other than game setting changes in terms of Admin, etc then this may be of interest.

(in reply to matt.buttsworth)

Post #: 2

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 7:01:29 PM

castlebravo

Posts: 22
Joined: 1/28/2011
Status: offline

From the perspective of history, each side several mistakes.

1. Stalin's insistence on counterattacking at the outset of Barbarossa condemned many Soviet units to encirclement and destruction, making the initial months of the war much worse than they should have been for the USSR.
2. Hitler's confidence that the Soviet Union would fall like a house of cards resulted in the German troops being poorly equipped for the coming winter.
3. The German's could have very well been treated as liberators in many parts of the Soviet Union, and the Ukraine could have been potentially used as a confederate source of manpower (the USSR was conducting division sized anti-rebel campaigns in the Ukraine into the early 1950s). The Germans messed up big time here.
4. The Germans should have shifted to a war-time economy as soon as the British and the French declared war. Waiting until 1943 cost them.

From a game perspective, the only one that a player can change is...#1. Which means the Germans will still be ill-equipped for the blizzard, partisans will be a huge problem, and will be outproduced by the Russians, while any half-way decent player will do whatever he can to keep the large scale encirclements that destroyed a large part of the Russian army in 1941 from happening in the re-creation.

So I agree, either more Russian units should be frozen, or there should be compensating factors for the Germans (maybe 2 turns of supply/movement bonuses instead of 1 turn), enhanced production timetables, reduced partisan activity in the Ukraine, etc.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 3

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 7:34:46 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

And of course we're going to add Hitler decisions as well?

No taking Leningrad.

No retreat come winter.

Offensive toward Maikop/Baku.

(in reply to castlebravo)

Post #: 4

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 7:38:29 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Pulling my units away when I need them more.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 5

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 7:52:50 PM

Zort

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline

I think the bottom line is both sides should have fun playing and have equal opportunities to be successful. How that success is determined is what is being discussed most times. Sovs are stuck with their initial setup and frozen units. Gers have blizzard. What can the developers do to make it more fun? It's nice to see people playing past the blizzard. Now the next patch should help but might not be enough. I for one want to be able to survive the blizzard and be able to make the sovs react in a maneuver conflict in 42 in certain sectors. If I don't force the russians out then have the ability to hold the oncoming hordes back for a while.

We all know what happened in history now it's up to the developers to make the game playable (balanced?) from 42 on. That is the challenge since few games have been able to model that well.

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 6

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 7:55:23 PM

Zort

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline

wrong post....

< Message edited by Zort -- 2/7/2011 4:09:49 AM >

(in reply to Zort)

Post #: 7

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 8:42:21 PM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

I do not think that a political collapse should be possible in 1941, nor should the Germans be able to win outright that year - I think the dreams of Barbarossa are beyond the actual possibilities. I do think the Germans should be able to do well enough to win the game in 1942 if they punish the Soviets enough in the first year - or at least set up a "mop up" in 1943.

I also do not think winter is as broken as people say, perhaps the "shock" period lasts too long or mitigates too slowly in January and Feb, but I do not think overall it is wrong. I do think that the recovery from winter is not right, while the TOE upgrade problem and (perhaps) the level of Soviet manpower should be fixed soon, the issue of returning soldiers not having an adequate replacement training level seems to also be hurting the German 1942 chances. I do not think short of an entire doctrinal shift in a couple of months after the beginning of the campaign could the Germans realistically mitigate the effects of the blizzard - it seems to me that even a "winter quarters" starting a month before the mud season is not realistic from the training, offensive idealogy, or supply capacities of the Germans.

I do think the Germans are the harder side to play, signifcantly so. Even just the opening moves that have been discussed show that the minutiae of the system can ripple effect down the line - the German side is far less forgiving.

Issues of Soviet coordination of large scale assaults also need to be looked at closely before demanding changes - we have examples in the first winter both of large operations working well and failing horribly by the Soviets.

I am not a huge fan of "what if's" in part because in this setting the player takes over on the 22nd of June, 1941 jumping into history right there - the "what if" portion takes place after the game has started. If we are speaking merely of a game, then yes we should tinker, but if we are speaking of a simulation then we need tread more carefully - understanding what me might of the history involved, from the workings of a panzer III to the economic situation of Germany, and walking within that line.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Zort)

Post #: 8

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 10:12:52 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I never bought War in the Pacific (any version) because I thought to myself:
How can you make a game out of a war that the Japanese had NO chance of winning?

Now from reading around here, I've found that some of the people who play it say it's a great kind of 'hypothetical' Pacific War variant that strips some of the limitations that the Japanese had and enables a fun game for either side.

Based on what *I* am reading in AARs, playing the Axis in WitE is punishing, unforgiving, and to some bordering on hopeless. I personally don't know, as I've not played a GC yet.

What I do believe is that the Soviet is not sufficiently constricted by his historical predecessor. I know I'll move on to other games if it turns out WitE is only fun for seeing how quickly the Soviet can defeat the German. I'm absolutely fine with a game that calls the starting German position as some kind of German victory. But it doesn't appear that's the game that exists now, from estimates made based on AARs.

I'm not qualified to talk about everything in the game by any stretch. But my couple of suggestions are these:

1) The Command Battle CV Modifier (15.6.2.2 in manual) MUST be changed to punish the Soviet far more heavily than the German, particularly in 1941 and 1942.
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this one. Germans were notorious for ad hoc command arrangements and their success. Soviets always had a harder time coordinating operations, especially in 41/42 (and really until after Kursk). That both sides pay the same command modifier is, IMO, a-historic.

2) A flanking modifier to CVs must be imposed on defenders when attacked from multiple hexsides.
Again, I can't imagine anyone can disagree with this (okay, maybe in a game programming/mechanic sense you can, but from a history standpoint, no you can't!).

Those two I don't think would require a whole lot of programming (but WTF do I know about programming, disregard that last sentence).

Others I theorize about:
Forts should take longer to build post level-1. Whether that's the time-effect multiplier, or whether that limits the Soviet ability to Min/Max the construction battalion effect, I dunno.

The Finnish no-move/no-attack line should be randomized, and invisible to the Soviet player. Finland might as well not even be included in the game at present. Maybe that's your version of perfect reflection of history, but it's no fun to me.

Fatigue should diminish faster and be less a factor of distance to supply than proximity of enemy forces/territory, and especially, MORALE. There is no way for the SS panzer corps to recreate the 3rd Battle of Kharkov in the present environment. How safe you are matters more to effective rest than your supply level. Distance should affect supply and replacement. Not how well you can rest. Supply already has plenty of game-impacting effects.

The Reserve rule for defenders in cities (15.3.5.1 in the manual) is utterly unbalancing, and must be redone (I just defended Leningrad with 6 divisions that were routed in the previous turn's combat!). I do not see the connection to WW2 history with this, but maybe the better historians can enlighten me.

Forts should have limited directional benefit, not 360-degree awesomeness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I do not think that a political collapse should be possible in 1941, nor should the Germans be able to win outright that year

+1 to the Axis win in 1941.

Simply too punishing to the Soviet player, IMO. Not a fun game to play when you can spend 35 or so turns in defense (especially if they bring in more restrictions to the Soviet to reflect their historical problems in 1941, which I advocate they do), invest all that time, and lose before you ever really got your army's balance together.

Should there be a morale bonus/loss when defenders have/don't have (respectively) a friendly unit adjacent? I dunno - I just know the Checkerboard ZOC issue is an easy exploit of a game mechanic real commanders don't have on the field, and is one of the big advantages a human Soviet can manage in 1941 that his historical counterpart wasn't allowed.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 2/6/2011 10:43:57 PM >

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)

Post #: 9

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/6/2011 10:46:56 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

2) A flanking modifier to CVs must be imposed on defenders when attacked from multiple hexsides.

Well, probably beyond the scope of a patch. But it would surely drive a stake through the heart of the 'checker board' strategy. My problem is, some of us can't even match historical norms with the Germs against the AI which, one assumes, doesn't employ that tactic.

I kind of lean towards the randomized freezing of Soviet armies in 41. The defensive acumen I'm seeing on their part in the early stages of the war doesn't seem to match historical accounts one reads about in books. Of course it's possible that I suck.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 10

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 1:41:04 AM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
2) A flanking modifier to CVs must be imposed on defenders when attacked from multiple hexsides.

I agree, I'm all for anything that encourages the forming of lines.I'd like it to go even further so that even the presence of enemy units ,(possibly even enemy controlled hexes),on more than one hexside would cause a reduction in the defender's cv as defending forces are stretched ever more thinly to counter the threat.You could say something like 10% cv reduction for each enemy held hexside above one, so you'd be able to defend one hexside at full strengh but if totally surounded you'd be down to say 50% cv.This would also more accurately reflect the situation of units in exposed salients.I like the idea of a morale bonus for having adjacent friendlies, although personally I'd make it a morale penalty for being isolated with low morale, low experience units being most adversely affected.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 11

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 1:47:53 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

A flanking modifier at a game of this scale????? No sense in that.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 12

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 1:50:20 AM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

A flanking modifier at a game of this scale????? No sense in that.

Can you explain why not please?

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 13

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 3:59:32 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 14

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 4:29:32 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

I also do not think winter is as broken as people say, perhaps the "shock" period lasts too long or mitigates too slowly in January and Feb, but I do not think overall it is wrong. I do think that the recovery from winter is not right, while the TOE upgrade problem and (perhaps) the level of Soviet manpower should be fixed soon, the issue of returning soldiers not having an adequate replacement training level seems to also be hurting the German 1942 chances. I do not think short of an entire doctrinal shift in a couple of months after the beginning of the campaign could the Germans realistically mitigate the effects of the blizzard - it seems to me that even a "winter quarters" starting a month before the mud season is not realistic from the training, offensive idealogy, or supply capacities of the Germans.

Agreed 100%. It's not that the winter penalties are so wrong but the recovery is non-existent. The Axis have NO infantry abilities on the attack post 41. None. They should be seriously hindered during the winter, but they recovered sufficiently in history to make an effective offense in the south at least in 42. As the game works now, they can't mount a successful offensive anywhere in 42 because their infantry is totally hosed post 41.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 15

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 4:37:16 AM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I agree that winter isn't the problem. It should be painful for the Germans, and the Soviets should be able to make progress.

If the morale/experience issues are fixed, then that should go a long way to aiding the German's 1942 recovery, and maybe keeping a lid on Soviet improvements.

Maybe the issue is forts; a level 4 fort is pretty tough to crack, but several rows of forts are just about impossible.

Let's acknowledge how hard this is for the testers and developers, because pushing the wrong level could tilt it too far in the other direction.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 16

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 4:43:29 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

I agree it is hard, and once me and Kel do a re-start when the patch gets here, I will offer them my game and password so they can continue testing it in the extreme situation.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 17

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 5:17:54 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

A flanking modifier at a game of this scale????? No sense in that.

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

This game is modeled down to the individual reliability of a single armored fighting vehicle, and you want to argue that having a flanking modifier for attacking from multiple directions is outside of it's scale? Even if it's, for example, attacking from non-adjacent hexsides?

This strains my concept of credulity.

Moreover, this game does NOT allow hasty attacks from more than one hex-side, which is absurd in a game of this strategic scope with 1-week turns (penalize it with a command modifier, sure, but allow it). And it allows only 3 units in one hex, even when regiments. Why is it 3 Soviet corps can occupy a hex, but 4 German brigades cannot (or even 4 battalions of rail repair)? The stacking limit is an arbitrary rule which happens to create a strategy.

"Scale" is an abstraction, the same way a zone of control is. I dislike inconsistencies in arguments, and I'd ask you to look at the "Scale Defense" that you're asserting and see how many game mechanics violate it (forts protecting in 360 degrees, to name just one). If you're going to argue 'the square mileage of a hex' shouldn't allow such strategies as that one above, then you should be consistent and seek to change the rules that also defy the scale of the game in other ways.

Respectfully, no. Your argument doesn't hold water.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 18

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 5:24:39 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

They way I see it is that hasty attack does not do flanking while planned attack does (whether coming from 1 or mulitple hexes).

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 19

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 5:43:58 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

They way I see it is that hasty attack does not do flanking while planned attack does (whether coming from 1 or mulitple hexes).

Please don't think I'm registering a major complaint about hasty attacks. I'm not. I'm pointing out flaws in the logic of "scale" as a justification for bad rules limiting good strategy, and using that as a simple, unimportant example.

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 20

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 5:47:50 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

@heliodorus, no worries.

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 21

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 6:09:53 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

How about this:
Routed units go to 99 fatigue and can't recover for 1 full turn.
(Or maybe, if you prefer): routed units who are forced to perform a displacement move)

Applies to both sides throughout the game.

Right now, Routing a unit is worse than not attacking it in a great many situations.

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 22

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 11:05:21 AM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

I'm still none the wiser.

Can you add some detail to your explanation?Perhaps some examples too.Thanks.
I'm well aware that it's impossible for turn based wargames to simulate reality exactly, or any other system for that matter, but I think that the apparent viability of unhistorical checherboard and carpet defences shows that there is something here that needs fixing.I don't want to see them banned, simply discouraged because they aren't tactically a good idea in most situations.
Maybe there are other things apart from flanking penalties that can be done to encourage the forming of lines at or near the front.You might also at the same time have to slightly tweak the German mobile forces ability to maraud behind the front line in order to balance play.This would of course depend on being able to identify the "front line" which may sometimes be rather difficult to do, might even need to be player designated in places.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 23

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 2:23:09 PM

bloomstombs2

Posts: 138
Joined: 1/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

How about this:
Routed units go to 99 fatigue and can't recover for 1 full turn.
(Or maybe, if you prefer): routed units who are forced to perform a displacement move)

Applies to both sides throughout the game.

Right now, Routing a unit is worse than not attacking it in a great many situations.

Yeah, this is a big problem.

You should never be happy "YES!!! MY UNIT GOT ROUTED! JUST WHAT I NEEDED!"

Which is often the case.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 24

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 3:40:47 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

I'm still none the wiser.Can you add some detail to your explanation?Perhaps some examples too.Thanks.

Sigh...... If you don't understand that there is a difference between a game at a div/corps/weekly turn and a game at a battalion/regiment/minutes turn scale, then I can't help.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 25

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 3:58:57 PM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

I'm still none the wiser.Can you add some detail to your explanation?Perhaps some examples too.Thanks.

Sigh...... If you don't understand that there is a difference between a game at a div/corps/weekly turn and a game at a battalion/regiment/minutes turn scale, then I can't help.

I note that you still haven't answered the question.Is that because it's all too blindingly obvious to you or because you don't know the answer?If it's the former then perhaps you could explain it to me in layman's terms so that I can understand.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 26

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 4:37:59 PM

bloomstombs2

Posts: 138
Joined: 1/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

I'm still none the wiser.Can you add some detail to your explanation?Perhaps some examples too.Thanks.

Sigh...... If you don't understand that there is a difference between a game at a div/corps/weekly turn and a game at a battalion/regiment/minutes turn scale, then I can't help.

I would like an explanation as well.

Why SHOULDNT the game take into consideration flanking attacks when it takes into consideration the rate of fire to name one thing.

Don't you find it odd that watching a very detailed combatlog, where you can almost envision the soldiers and tanks closing in, that there is no advantage or even mention of flanking?

I will have to disagree with you on this subject until you come up with a valid explanation.

Oh and TOAW had scenarios of equal and greater scope and still managed to implement this aspect.

< Message edited by bloomstombs -- 2/7/2011 4:39:56 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 27

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 4:47:38 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Sigh...... If you don't understand that there is a difference between a game at a div/corps/weekly turn and a game at a battalion/regiment/minutes turn scale, then I can't help.

Spoken like a bourgeoisie paternalist.

The foundation of your arguments is exposed as unsupportable using your own logic. I shall refrain from considering your opinions as meaningful in the future unless you can improve your capability to defend your points.

I refer you to my response to you specifically in Post 18.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 28

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 5:10:05 PM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

One thing that people arent taking into consideration is that it may be possible for Germany to win if the games goes to 1945.

A few points can be taken from other games such as Fire in the East:

1) In FITE there was a random roll the first few turns to see if Soviet units executed their orders. If they failed they would be randomly moved. This could result in attacks, retreats or being poorly positioned.

2) In FITE German units were only impacted negatively in offence, not defence during blizzard/snow.

3) In FITE Soviet and Axis winterized units such as Siberians, mountain units and SS received major combat bonuses during snow/blizzard. This prompted the Soviets to save their winterized units for the winter offensive but it also limited its scope to one major axis of attack.

In an old SPI game about the battle of Smolensk Soviet divsions were a ? for both sides until they actually had their first combat.

Just a few thoughts.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 29

RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance - 2/7/2011 6:06:58 PM

matt.buttsworth

Posts: 886
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Weimar, Germany
Status: offline

Gentlemen,
It appears we are locked in an increasingly acrimonious argument that is unnecessary. The game allows for more than one scenario and there is no need for people to argue about creating one right version of the game. Clearly that is impossible.
I believe from the discussion so far there are to clear camps:
1) those who believe the game is historically accurate, Germany should not have a real chance in 1941 and should suffer forever after with no changes in game balance needed as that is the supposed reality of history.
2) Those who believe that game at the moment is unbalanced and there is no fun playing german if they cannot win in 1941 and have no hope of mounting a real offensive in 1942.
I am off the second camp and believe that to make the game enjoyable, and in my opinion to reflect what happened in history, the German player should, if he is very good:

a) have a chance of winning in 1941 by capturing Moscow and triggering political collapse; and
b) have a chance of mounting a dangerous offensive in 1942 - Case Blau - and even a doomed offensive in 1943 - Operation Citidel - before inevitably losing in summer 43, 44, and 45.

As the game is now, our game is over in January 1942, and I know I will win by September 1942 when I cut off German oil with mopping up occuring in Berlin beginning 1943.
During this whole time, Germany will be unable to launch any major offensives having been totally crippled by the 1941-42 blizzards.
I do not believe this is historically accurate, and the German enjoyable part of the game is limited to June to November 1941. After that it is pure pain

(and for critics, who think I am a German fan, remember that I am playing Russian and usually play Russian)

If a group of players is happy with this state of affairs as historically accurate, then let them enjoy pulverising Germany every game.

The game I want to play is version 2 - call is scenario 1941-1945 G - in which it is enjoyable to play Germany from 1941 to - as a good player - 1943 when the avalanche becomes unstoppable with a real chance of victory for a very very good German player in 1941 and a real chance of victory with a good 1941 in 1942 even if this is hard to achieve. While a very good Russian player can survive the German assault in 1941 to coutner attack in the blizzards, can attack again with more strength in 1942, ane become unstoppable in summer autumn 43 with an abnormal but possible game finishing for germany in 41 or 42 and a normal game finishing for Russia between summer 44 and spring 45.
Such a game would reflect what happened in history and be fun and a challenge to play for both sides.
The question is how to get there.
It needs I beleive a specific scenario created

Possible Suggestions I can make:
1) strenthening blitzkrieg warfare (helps 41 or 42)
2) weakening the effect of the blizzards so that Germans can survive the winter in reasonable shape.
3) reducing soviet transport capacity so that rail transport is a limited resource and at some times russian players must choose between losing factories or shifting armies.
4) lowering morale and experience of many russian units in 1941 to reflect the fact that many ukrainian and caucaussus units did not want to fight
5) preventing more russian units from moving in turn 1 or turns 1-2 reflecting paralysis of Soviet command in first weeks of war.

I think this scenario - 1941-1945 G - will be a matter of trial and error in development to achieve game balance.
But I think it will be worth it in that:
a) people who believe the game is right as it is can play the existing GC 1941-1945; and

b) those who want a game in which Germany has a chance and which in my opinion greater reflects what happened 1941 to 1945 can play the alternate scenario GC 1941-1945 G.
This I believe will attract a greater audience to this excellent game in that Germany will have 2 1/1 enjoyable summers and a chance to win and Russia will have two winters and two years of enjoyable offensive play with a greater chance of winning.
Such a game giving pleasure to both sides will increase the long term number of players for the game for who will want to play more than once if German defeat is inevitable after November 1941.

I am therefore asking for people willing to help create GC 1941 G scenario.
Any helpers?

Dr Matthew Buttsworth
Weimar
Germany

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 30