On current game balance: how much is too much?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

On current game balance: how much is too much?

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 >> On current game balance: how much is too much?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

On current game balance: how much is too much? - 1/31/2017 5:57:34 PM

Kantti

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/10/2016
Status: offline

I am trying to learn the ropes as Soviet and getting my ass handed constantly to me by Nix77. To be able to do something differently next time, I am wondering, how much is too much. I have seen only steamrolls to one direction or another in current AAR (from reasonably recent patches) where Germans have botched their 1941 royally or steamrolled Soviets to nearly Urals in 1942. I haven't seen games where fate of Moscow would hang in balance (yes, I am not counting Steltecks game as he sacrificed everything else) and 1942 would be nearly historical (perhaps bobo vs Stef being exception). Thus I have to ask this here instead of flipping through AARs.

How many inf/cav/mnt divisions Soviets can afford to loose in 1941 without it snowballing? (of course it is less bad to loose those divisions near the end of the summer when the snowball doesn't have too much time to gather pace)
How much industry can be lost without game being decided by lack of industry in later war?
Can Soviets loose Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov and still have some change in later game to achieve victory somehow?
Any other related questions I didn't have clue and forgot to ask?

Trying to find the balance between delaying, running and fighting but without any benchmarks this is quite hard for a beginner.

Post #: 1

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 1/31/2017 7:45:09 PM

STEF78

Posts: 2094
Joined: 2/19/2012
From: Versailles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kantti
How many inf/cav/mnt divisions Soviets can afford to loose in 1941 without it snowballing? (of course it is less bad to loose those divisions near the end of the summer when the snowball doesn't have too much time to gather pace)

I didn''t update this data recently but I would say you should loose less than 3M men

quote:

How much industry can be lost without game being decided by lack of industry in later war?

you must save:
HI 200
ARM 300
and you will feel comfortable

quote:

Can Soviets loose Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov and still have some change in later game to achieve victory somehow?

Loosing the 3 cities means game over.
Leningrad will fall against a medium german player. You have to keep Moscow and Rostov. If you can still hold Stalino, it's fine.

quote:

Any other related questions I didn't have clue and forgot to ask?

Evacuating vehicle industry is vital!
Try to build guards as soon as possible
And make sure you have Cav corps once blizzard comes

quote:

Trying to find the balance between delaying, running and fighting but without any benchmarks this is quite hard for a beginner.

You will have to adapt your gameplay to your opponent's skill and tempo.
From my opinion and experience if you play a very good german player without +1 and random weather, you will loose, whatever your skill as he will be chaining HQBU and crush your army within 10 turns.

(in reply to Kantti)

Post #: 2

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 1/31/2017 8:10:07 PM

Kantti

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/10/2016
Status: offline

I have been on receiving end of good german player even if I consider myself quite adept in wargames. How should one fight against chaining HQBU's? +1 helps to break pockets, I presume and to rout lone mechs that pushed too far?

(in reply to STEF78)

Post #: 3

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 1/31/2017 8:17:22 PM

Kantti

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/10/2016
Status: offline

And another question, can you see build up fuels on soft factor on your turn (if enemy build upped on their turn) or do the panzers receive their fuel only in the next logistic phase?

(in reply to Kantti)

Post #: 4

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/1/2017 6:03:31 AM

Nix77

Posts: 561
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline

We are actually playing random weather, but without +1 attack bonus.

I think Kantti has been playing a strong game on Soviet side, he knows what he's doing. This is my first game against human opponent, and I can safely say that I'm not playing flawlessly so I'm a bit concerned about the balance too. Blizzard setting does really not affect the destruction of industry or the loss of the key Soviet cities, so +1 attack bonus is the tool we figured would have helped to hold the German at bay. We actually already had a summer mud turn in Central Soviet, so Kantti would be in even bigger trouble without that lucky turn of events...

My strategy has been to concentrate forces as much as possible, by throwing all I have against Leningrad, Moscow and Stalino, and leaving the gaps in between quite empty (with Kharkov being a side-step objective). I guess this has paid dividends since I have been able to break even strong lines that Kantti has constructed.

Main tactical goal has been to surround as many units as possible. My pockets have not been that impressive, but I've been able to consistently create "worms", rows of hexes locked in ZOC with Soviet units inside. These semi-pockets have been a nuisance to Kantti since they're hard to handle, especially without the +1 attack bonus, even if they're not isolate (they will be isolated on the following turn since they can't escape). I haven't even been aiming to create any huge airtight pockets, since those take time to destroy, harm the supply of the surrounding units a lot and are difficult to hold at times.

I've been using majority of the APs to buildups, and it seems they're the ones creating the huge pressure on the Soviet player. Not quite sure if they're balanced or not?

Kantti has made a few mistakes, most of them due to his will to fight :D

He held Smolensk with a strong wall of steel, but in the end that cost him a dozen divisions in a pocket. Not sure if that could have been prevented by falling back a bit more? I made the same mistake in my own Soviet game, and lost even more divisions!

Kiev was lost maybe a bit too fast, and that allowed me to cross Dnepr a bit too early. A strong push with infantry directly to D-Z really gave me a jumpstart there, with mech moving in from the north bank and infantry making the cross in the bend around turn 7-8? South seems to be surprisingly easy for the germans, I'd go as far as to make a small houserule for the Romanian rail to delay the southern advance a bit. I've felt the supply pressure there for sure, but it's getting harmful only after Stalino.

It'd be great to get a Matrix-style fast-forward lesson in WitE to learn how to play this damn monster! I'm sure my 2x12 turns of experience in human vs human games doesn't give me a good enough general idea about which settings to use for a balanced game, and when is the Soviet player losing bad or not.

(in reply to Kantti)

Post #: 5

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/1/2017 11:32:15 AM

Stelteck

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

From the experience of my game (and AAR) :

Soviet side is really vulnerable to looses of men. But is not really vulnerable to armement looses as i'am swimming in armement points.
It is also interesting to destroy soviet manpower center.

Vehicule industry is critical. And heavy industry could be tense, too.

ACcording to my results, i should have evacuated :
Vehicule >>> HI > AA

It is mostly manpower and trucks that limit soviet strengh. (And Political points to create more corps when available of course).

Relative to manpower looses, it come mostly from attrition and encercled units that surrender.

The most interesting and fun part for looses is the combat part when everyone shoot at everyone, but in final this phase do not create a lot of casualties, compare to attrition and surrenders.

I'am trying to think of some small changes that could have a positive effect on the game in my opinion, mostly :

- Significant increase in damage of all heavy equipment during battle phase. (Tanks and Artillery).
- But to balance this change, make artillery&tank more vulnerable to lack of supply/ammunition in combat.
- And do a big increase of the armement point prices of all artillery.

Heavy equipment shall be expensive but efficient and make a big difference in combat, when well supplied.

- Maybe a small increase of manpower production for soviet. As i prefer modifications that affect both side, how about letting a very small % of all Prisonners of war to escape captivity each turn ? (Same mecanism as for "disabled" casualties that have a small chance to return each turn).

< Message edited by Stelteck -- 2/1/2017 11:33:34 AM >

(in reply to Nix77)

Post #: 6

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/1/2017 2:29:46 PM

Pionpion

Posts: 69
Joined: 10/23/2016
Status: offline

(in reply to Stelteck)

Post #: 7

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/2/2017 6:38:13 PM

WilliSaenger

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/11/2016
Status: offline

+1
I would also suggest increasing substantially the number of lost AFVs and Arty of routed units.

(in reply to Pionpion)

Post #: 8

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/2/2017 6:48:50 PM

WilliSaenger

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/11/2016
Status: offline

I don't really believe that even a small percentage of prisoners ever managed to escape captivity though..

(in reply to WilliSaenger)

Post #: 9

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/2/2017 10:26:51 PM

c00per

Posts: 59
Joined: 11/4/2011
Status: offline

My 2 cents is the soviets just melt in 1941 no matter who leads them or what you do, so just set the toe to as low as you can. Use them as speed bumps, movement point sinks and zoc whores. They are replaced for free anyways in the first part of the game. There would be exception areas and in those cases set toe to 100 or whatever you want

< Message edited by c00per -- 2/2/2017 10:27:35 PM >

(in reply to WilliSaenger)

Post #: 10

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/3/2017 8:14:48 AM

Nix77

Posts: 561
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: c00per

My 2 cents is the soviets just melt in 1941 no matter who leads them or what you do, so just set the toe to as low as you can. Use them as speed bumps, movement point sinks and zoc whores. They are replaced for free anyways in the first part of the game. There would be exception areas and in those cases set toe to 100 or whatever you want

I think Kantti has been implementing the "Red Army Steel Wall" mentality more than the "Soviet Speedbump" one. It would be interesting to hear which method do the better Soviet players feel is more effective?

In my own game as Soviet, I try to use frontal screening with weak units spread out 20 miles apart, after that the main frontline 3-high stacks with the best units I have, then behind those light screening with resting units. Usually I'm lacking the units to make the line 20 mile deep, or have rear screens and reserve fortifications. This strategy is all-or-nothing, if the Germans break the line, valuable units are very likely surrounded.

One option is just to spread out the defense, carpet-style, 30+ miles deep, with strongest units in key positions. I feel that the weakness in this defense is that it is very easy to punch a 30 mile-wide hole to the front, the attacks are relatively care-free for the Germans, you just have to do greater number them than against the Steel Wall, and even hasty attacks are viable.

The main question I'm pondering here is if the Speedbump carpet method actually costs more MPs for the German player than the Steel Wall?

In a miniature scale, will it be easier to break a front with 3 units stacks in front and 1 unit rear screen (30x10miles) than it would be to break a 40-mile deep carpet defense with 1 unit/hex (30x40miles)???

(in reply to c00per)

Post #: 11

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/3/2017 8:28:18 AM

Kantti

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/10/2016
Status: offline

Against HQBU -chain I really cannot see how speedbump could succeed. Around turn 9-10 competent Germans can build up within 10 hexes of Moscow when they have faced speedbump /runaway. If you just give ground and use speedbumps, loosing Moscow, Stalino, Rostov and perhaps even Voronezh is imminent. You mention exception areas, but those are hard to handle, if you're giving up everywhere else. That just leads Germies circumventing your exception areas (or making small penetrations in chosen points) which leads to massive encirclements.

(in reply to Nix77)

Post #: 12

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/3/2017 5:21:22 PM

c00per

Posts: 59
Joined: 11/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Against HQBU -chain I really cannot see how speedbump could succeed.

In 1941 you have only one hope as the soviets that I can see, and it is to minimize unrestricted free axis movement and zoc land conversion. A cadre division does this as well as one 100% TOE with a ton of support units. Your number one priority is slowing down the axis infantry movement. I agree with you HQBU and mobile units cannot be countered by the soviets in 1941 except if they over reach and you have mobile units to cut there supply for a turn. The situation is grim and throwing away a 100% toe unit in my books makes no sense when a 50% one does the same thing. the only chance of a "steel wall" as someone put it is a pipe dream in 1941 but if your going to try make sure your in anything but clear terrain. My 2 cents

(in reply to Kantti)

Post #: 13

RE: On current game balance: how much is too much? - 2/4/2017 12:53:13 PM

Kantti

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/10/2016
Status: offline

But 50% unit does not do the same job. It will rout more easily and thus will give more free room for axis to advance. Unit that retreats constantly harrasses axis far more and forces them to attack more often. I am beginning to think some kind of hybrid, where your aim is to build a solid line on key sectors every couple of turns where Germans have to stop for one (or hopefully even 2) turn to gather strenght. Then soviets have to disengage and leave perhaps some kind of screen (of weakish units, at least don't sacrifice high morale units) and retreat to build next position. Biggest problem is that to slow German infantry, you'd have to slow those hex-converting German panzers. And those will wade through screen of units easily and infantry will simply run freely forward.

(in reply to c00per)

Post #: 14

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> On current game balance: how much is too much?

Page: [1]