Play Balance

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Play Balance - PBEM

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] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> Play Balance - PBEM

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 10:33:05 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Lets see where this goes....

I am going to say out straight out. IMO version 1.01 was in favour of the Germans. 1.02 is a cake walk in comparison.

I am sure Flavius will make comments on other aspects but IMO the Conscript armies are just too ineffective. They die for virtually nothing. They need at least an experience boost I think. Maybe start at 20 instead of 15. Maybe begin them in defensive posture. Or at least some.

I love the game. But at the moment I feel playing the Soviets is very difficult against a quality German, 1.01 is/was hard enough, 1.02 must be a nightmare.

I should add, this is in relation to PBEM.

EDIT - addition of last line.

< Message edited by Michael T -- 1/2/2016 11:34:19 AM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 11:26:43 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi Michael,

As per my comments in your AAR I think we need a wider base of finished games on 1.02 to be definitive. You're clearly at the upper end of the Axis skill curve but if the other 95% of games are ending with a clear Soviet victory then it may not be out of kilter

Also need to factor in the AI only players

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 2

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 12:18:13 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

My two cents: defensive posture card costs are way too high now. Said posture goes a long ways towards making up for the deficiencies of those conscript armies. It takes 35 PPs to get this down to a cost of 5 PP, or 60 PPs to make them free. Given the large number of conscript armies, spending 5 PPs on each just to make them usable is a bit much. And saving up 60 PPs to get the cost to zero is likely to not happen until mud, which then makes it a moot point. Mud and snow will do the job.

I also think the Soviet reinforcement schedule is now way too stretched out. If you are lucky, you might get out Western Front intact in the center. Otherwise you have to rebuild this from scratch. Yet at the same time other theaters need reinforcement more immediately. If you send out an army or two elsewhere the center is going to take forever to rebuild.

In 1.01 you had all the regulars on the map by turn 7...probably too fast, and leading to the iron wall. Now it takes until around turn 15-16 for all of them to arrive, and much of this is backloaded. During the whole of July you might wind up with 5-6 armies in the center. That's pretty damn thin to deal with such a long front and 2 panzer groups. Which, btw, won't necessarily be halted by an FSB relocation. The upshot of this is you have to fall way back and concentrate everything between Kalinin and Kaluga and let the rest of it hang.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 3

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 12:46:21 PM

Franciscus

Posts: 809
Joined: 12/22/2010
From: Portugal
Status: offline

Hi

All valid notes by distinguished players of this great community!

Just please do not forget that many (most ?) players are more like me: I only play versus AI and I am not that skilled. In my current 1.02 campaign as Germans, I am in 22nd September. I managed to capture Leningrad, but I failed to get near Smolensk and Rostov is also miles away. And Rasputitza is coming...
And this playing in Easy mode and Fast AI

. But I am having loads of fun.

A balance must be kept between above-average players and those like me, and between AI vs PBEM

Regards

< Message edited by Franciscus -- 1/2/2016 1:47:43 PM >

_____________________________

Former AJE team member

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 4

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 1:41:46 PM

Ron

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline

I agree with Speedy here. A sample size of '1' simply is not conclusive of anything, especially in light of the variability built into the game.

(in reply to Franciscus)

Post #: 5

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 1:45:13 PM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

Isn't it more of a matter of fuel? I have learned myself that you must get the Panzer Armies out of Blitzkrieg posture. This saves so much fuel and in the long run is more beneficial then the extra APs.

(in reply to Franciscus)

Post #: 6

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 2:02:23 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

RCH makes a good point. Blitzkreig gives you the additional AP but fuel cost for having Blitzkreig posture means you will often not have the fuel available to use the additional AP negating the posture benefit! Catch 22. With focus cards you can assign a card granting an off/def bonus which helps provide a nice bonus. I think I'll be taking my Panzers off Blitzkreig posture thinking on all of this....

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 7

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 2:24:47 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

MT did what he did on sustained offensive. Blitz really isn't worth the cost over the long run. Sustained offensive also makes FSB transfers a lot less of a drag on operations.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 8

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 3:02:52 PM

willgamer

Posts: 902
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: offline

Right now, in 1.02, due to the (rather much) looser constraints the AI operates under, it may be more difficult for the Germans to face an AI opponent.

We really have few reports and AARs of German success on normal with all the options (except FOW) turned off and "helpers" are never used. We have even fewer, actually none that I'm aware of, at any level more difficult.

I stress with all the options off (except for FOW) because, IMHO, the PP meta game is really tough. There are so many times that you will know the decision that should be made, but there are simply no PPs to perform it. The bad outcomes can absolutely cripple the German's for short periods of time.

I've also been ambushed by the random setup effect. I remember looking at one of Michael T's opening moves in AGN. When I tried to emulate them, surprise, surprise! In the plains, crossroads, area north of the forest, instead of open terrain for my tanks there was an entire additional Russian army deployed on that crossroad. So much for blowing through to the north.

I followed the wonderful AAR between Michael T and Flaviusx, but I don't believe it provides much guidance for balancing the vs. AI game (and it was never claimed it did, I'm just saying the average German player is not winning often yet vs. the AI).

_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 9

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 3:05:47 PM

marcpennington

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline

I gotta agree that the game seems heavily weighted towards the Germans at the moment.

In my current game it's early August and the Germans are outside Leningrad, beyond Vyazma, and occupy the entirety of the Dnepr bend with multiple bridgeheads across. My opponent did draw a bad starting hand with terrible aparatchik generals, but I strongly think the early going is just too smooth sailing for the Germans. In particular the south is out of whack. Though there is no turn 1 Lvov gambit, in both games we've played a super-pocket was formed with the Germans meeting the Romanians further east, with little ability for the Soviets to prevent due to activation woes.

Another issue, I think, is that the combat model is so predictable, the Germans can make their attacks in the early going with little chance of a random defeat just by running the numbers quickly. A bit more randomness would allow for the occasional heroic Soviet road block.

Further, I think the map may need more rough terrain. In particular, north of Vitebsk is clear, while historically there were nasty swamps, which allows in the center the Germans to have a much wider zone for panzer advances, making pocketing Smolensk rather easy. There are a few other areas which I'm blanking on at the moment.

Finally, the infantry just moves too fast. In the current game, the infantry armies were by mid July east of Smolensk, while historically they were still marching roughly through Minsk. There's only so fast units can march.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 10

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 3:39:26 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

The south can be saved. But you have to devote serious command resources to get things activated. At a minimum, the focus card and a new marshal for the theater. Play the focus card on turn 1 down there, no ifs ands or buts. And Stalin gets a free speech on turn 1. That's +35 initiative right there. If you throw in Zhukov, that's another +20.

But doing all this means something else with suffer. I think you have to write off the center. The only thing you can save there is Western Front. It's a substantial force, but not anywhere near as big as the stuff in the south.

The harder choice for me is the north. If those border armies fail to activate early on, Leningrad is in trouble quickly. I keep hemming and hawing over whether to send Zhukov there instead of the south. You really need to reinforce this area, too, send 21. Army there immediately (a free play) on turn 1. Depending on what you can save there, maybe a second army. Again, both these come at the expense of the center. You probably need to replace the marshal up north, too, and if Zhukov is there, have him give that marshal a backbone speech. Maneuver in this area is limited once the Baltic states are out of the picture and a decent marshal can take care of it.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to marcpennington)

Post #: 11

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 3:47:58 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Flav this is what Gunnulf did to me - Zhukov up there, 21st Army, good activations, forts along the Dvina and bridges blown. It's the best opener I've seen for a Soviet start. The blown bridges and forts mean no quick move over the Dvina and no FSB up to Dunaburg....

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 12

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 4:02:27 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

I gotta agree that the game seems heavily weighted towards the Germans at the moment.

In my current game it's early August and the Germans are outside Leningrad, beyond Vyazma, and occupy the entirety of the Dnepr bend with multiple bridgeheads across. My opponent did draw a bad starting hand with terrible aparatchik generals, but I strongly think the early going is just too smooth sailing for the Germans. In particular the south is out of whack. Though there is no turn 1 Lvov gambit, in both games we've played a super-pocket was formed with the Germans meeting the Romanians further east, with little ability for the Soviets to prevent due to activation woes.

Another issue, I think, is that the combat model is so predictable, the Germans can make their attacks in the early going with little chance of a random defeat just by running the numbers quickly. A bit more randomness would allow for the occasional heroic Soviet road block.

Further, I think the map may need more rough terrain. In particular, north of Vitebsk is clear, while historically there were nasty swamps, which allows in the center the Germans to have a much wider zone for panzer advances, making pocketing Smolensk rather easy. There are a few other areas which I'm blanking on at the moment.

Finally, the infantry just moves too fast. In the current game, the infantry armies were by mid July east of Smolensk, while historically they were still marching roughly through Minsk. There's only so fast units can march.

Timing infantry movement is always tricky in east front games. They tend to be marching robots or on crutches. I do think they move kind of fast in the game. Right now the base costs for clear terrain is the same for foot as for motorized and tracked.

(in reply to marcpennington)

Post #: 13

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 4:16:58 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Flav this is what Gunnulf did to me - Zhukov up there, 21st Army, good activations, forts along the Dvina and bridges blown. It's the best opener I've seen for a Soviet start. The blown bridges and forts mean no quick move over the Dvina and no FSB up to Dunaburg....

Yeah, I saw that. Up until now I've always dropped 21. Army in Pskov to build a line there, which is the safer play and will delay the Germans.

But going all in on the Dvina is an interesting play. If for whatever reason you can trap all that stuff there, he's gonna be in trouble down the line. Leningrad only gets conscripts. More conservative play would be to use the regulars to stiffen them further north.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 14

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 5:37:25 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

I consider myself a decent player of the game, but playing the Germans vs my PBEM opponent Scott (version 1.02), it is definitely no cakewalk. There are so many variables to the game, so many choices, that may throw the balance one way or the other.

For instance, I may have gone over to 'sustained offensive' way too early (essentially at the same time I moved my FSBs forward.) Or perhaps I have failed to use my Panzers properly, consistently. I have made my sector commanders upset with me, so am not getting any help from them.

At any rate, it's early August. I'm still 100+ miles from Smolensk. Have not taken Pskov. Have just taken Kiev. The Soviets have stalled my drive towards Rostov. I see strong Soviet defenses all along the fronts.

My point is that I can think of five or ten things I could do differently next time that might make a big difference. I wouldn't want the developers to mess around significantly attempting to balance things, based on only a month+ of play.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 15

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 5:44:32 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

That's a fair point to add too gwgardner there's a lot of variety on command decisions which can influence both sides in a run through

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 16

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 6:15:42 PM

Isokron

Posts: 178
Joined: 7/31/2012
Status: offline

I havent played 1.2 yet but in my two german pbem games so far I have won one and think im on track of winning the second. So the germans cant have been that underpowered in 1.1 and the nerfs for the soviets seems pretty huge in 1.2

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 17

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 9:25:43 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I would like to hear a comment or two from the devs. If they are not going to react that's fine but my next game will be with 1.01. I think I can improve my play by 25% on my last effort. I made so many errors with PP that I lost the ability to use the focus cards on AGC and AGS in mid July. I had to trash my relationship with the Truck guy to get those cards back. But then I had no PP to play them anyhow. Goring loved me though for some reason. Which helped with resupply missions. The only thing that kept my mech units going in the critical August turns was the High Octane Card. So with the focus cards kept and the High Octane card up my sleeve I think can do much better. I also made some bad rail conversion decisions early on which hurt my trains. Overall I see lots of improvement potential for my German play. Not so much for my Soviet play.

_____________________________

(in reply to Isokron)

Post #: 18

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 9:43:56 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Agreed with that Michael in that there's a lot of Command decisions that now I've experienced I would do differently in the future. Haven't played the Sovs enough to know if there's a greater room for improvement in play etc.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 19

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 10:03:27 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I had a thought about the helpers. Wondering if free use of Soviet helpers in version 1.02 might help.

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 20

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/2/2016 10:22:09 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hmm. Maybe as an individually agreed to token in specific PBEM's it would help. Sounds like a potential band aid over a problem (if any exists

) though.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 21

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/3/2016 12:25:58 AM

marcpennington

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline

Three suggestions I would make to balance the game a bit more is to first, change the AP penalty for previous combats to more like they were in DC1/2. Previously, creating a breakthrough was a bit of an art form, as one usually needed to use the fast divisions in the initial attacks (in a painstakingly thought out way), as otherwise, they'd lose their AP anyway moving through the captured hex. Now with the fairly moderate AP penalties, it's way too easy to just attack with infantry first, then just run the mobile divisions through after.

That problem is amplified by the too fast movement of infantry (IMHO). Here, when infantry is in blitzkrieg stance, I would keep the attack bonus, but take away the AP bonus. That, I think would be enough to slow down the rapid infantry marches where they can almost keep up with the panzers.

Finally, in previous DC games, if combat occurred near a bridge, there was a chance it would be destroyed. I have not seen this happen in DC3 yet. Maybe I'm wrong that it is absent, but if it is, restoring the destroyed bridge chance would be a great way to add random hiccups to the German advance.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 22

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/3/2016 10:38:13 PM

lancer

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline

Hi,

People's perception of the games balance is highly subjective and there are a lot of variables involved.

Our aiming point is to make the game as balanced as possible, will still presenting a challenge, for the majority of players who will be playing at the normal AI level.

Beat the game on normal, go up a notch in AI difficulty where there are specific extra features designed to present a challenge that isn't just centred around increased AI bonuses.

PBEM balance is a different beast. We'd like to get more data back (turn on your 'Metrics' setting, it's a big help) from completed PBEM games before we make any changes here.

As pointed out elsewhere, during Beta testing we had a Soviet Player who beat all-comers in PBEM.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to marcpennington)

Post #: 23

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/3/2016 11:11:02 PM

battlevonwar

Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline

Haven't opened the beta patch, too ill. Though both 1.01 games(PBEM) I played as Germany was really a cakewalk for the Russians. I think I counted 4 deep in the Center. 4 Divisions deep and stacks of 8 or 9 divisions per hex in some places. I had 22k in fuel when I quit cause my Panzers were down to like 15% of their original strength and the last objectives I took were in the parameters of Operation Typhoon. I cannot see where you bag 220 Red Divisions pre Moscow reinforcement Phase where the Reds should be doing so well. The real mega battle should be around the objectives. I got within 3 hexes of Leningrad, 4 of Moscow and probably 10 from Rostov(not devoting resources to it) but there was no way of digging the Russians out of their forts.

In Leningrad region those forests and a stack of say 80 red and reinforcements was just dreadful. You grind into them and the mud hits and you mine as well swap a Panzer for a regular Army cause you have no use of it up North.

In the South you could do the most if you devote resources... It's the most open terrain all the way to Rostov.

In the end one opponent offered me a deal, if I could hold Minsk or I think it was Warsaw we would call it a draw... I thought that fairly generous...

Forts + Terrain + limited strategic frontage + a little luck = victory once you know game mechanics... The Russians in capable hands under 1.01 should never lose, so now. I don't know if I check this out and play a couple games on either side. I will report back. As it was I would say the Russians should win 100% of the time in 'capable hands' unless you broker a deal like Smolensk as a Victory Objective in 1.01 or All surrounding Cities in the AGN sector before Leningrad and

ultimately in the South I would say Kharkov... That's about the best any Fair German can do

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 24

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/4/2016 12:30:37 AM

baloo7777

Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline

If you don't do well vs the AI on normal as the Germans, does it mean that you probably would not do well against an average Russian pbem player?

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to battlevonwar)

Post #: 25

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/4/2016 12:48:28 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Who is this guy who never lost as Soviet?

_____________________________

(in reply to baloo7777)

Post #: 26

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/4/2016 12:50:05 AM

WingedIncubus

Posts: 512
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline

Indeed, who is this Red Army demigod or demigoddess? Impair us of your wisdom!

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 27

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/4/2016 7:54:51 AM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

I would like to to a test run against a reasonably good German player (but not a genius either) with me playing the Soviets.

Any volunteers?

I'll do about 1 turn a day. If you want you can do an AAR, but I might surrender mid-game since for me the objective is to personally get a sense of balance with the current version.

PM me please.

Best wishes,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to WingedIncubus)

Post #: 28

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/4/2016 10:30:21 AM

I�aki Harrizabalagatar

Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline

I am playing a PBEM game vs Gunnalf, and by September 10th the frontline is very similar with the historical one, so so far I amvery happy with game balance.

< Message edited by I�aki Harrizabalagatar -- 1/4/2016 11:30:40 AM >

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 29

RE: Play Balance - PBEM - 1/4/2016 11:02:31 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

MT and I are going to give 1.01 a whirl to compare and contrast 1.02. He thinks he doesn't need all the goodies in 1.02 as the German. I don't entirely agree with that, the original accelerated reinforcement schedule is a bit much even if this was overcorrected in 1.02. But it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.

I'm not convinced by either version at present. Like Goldilocks, I'm looking for something in between the two. The differences between the two are quite dramatic. 1.02 should probably have not introduced quite so many changes on the Soviet side as it did, and aimed for a more gradual testing approach.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to I�aki Harrizabalagatar)

Post #: 30