Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Balance discussion

 
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 >> Balance discussion Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 11:52:13 AM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Hi,
I only want a discussion about changes and balancing.

I know Moravel will work on the balance in the next patch.

Experience from actual AAR
- soviet are to weak
- germans too fast

What could be done:
+1 soviet bonus, will reduce speed or buy the soviets some time.
experience gain will be reworked as chaos told the problems.

Is it possible, that the soviet will get a manpowermodifier if they choose no combat bonus (like the changed formular for guards)? Because with the extended Lvov pocket, you loose more soviets in comparison to some years ago.

The experience change will be huge, because experience will influence the casualties (combat/attrition).

Maybe that could help, but made the soviets not to powerfull (I'm afraid, we changed it so massiv, that it will go the other way).

One question:
The ports will not be auto repair to 0 damage by some support units or FBD? Only 3% per week?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 1:07:05 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand
Experience from actual AAR
- soviet are to weak
- germans too fast


I think the AARs say the reverse - and this seems to be the common mistake made.

For most games the Soviets are too powerful and the Germans too slow.

It is only for the top players that Soviets are too weak and Germans too fast.

It is worth making this reminder as it would be a shame for the game to be rebalanced away from the 90% who are new and find it very difficult to break into the game as Axis players.

Certainly the last time this was asked in an AAR of someone advocating a rebalancing to the Soviet side it was confirmed that it is only a group of settings designed for experienced players that needs to be made.

quote:


One question:
The ports will not be auto repair to 0 damage by some support units or FBD? Only 3% per week?


3% a week only

(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 2
RE: Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 1:23:07 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nothing to see here

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:08:58 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 3
RE: Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 1:25:57 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada


< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:09:15 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 4
RE: Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 3:09:23 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		viga---the experience change is not massive...all it does is return experience gain to what is written in the rules and how the game was played for literally like almost 10 years or something...

For some reason in Patch .08 or later it was reduced to 1 per turn......a completely un-needed and extremely debilitating nerf to soviet CV esp coupled with the removal of sapper regiments as well as reduction of sapper squads in Soviet divisions.

Soviet CV has been nerfed into the dirt since .07 on.

An yes German supply is way to good IMO, yes you do need to manage your rail network...but if a german player is serious about playing this game they will concentrate on the rail network and logistics.

I think Hardluck is going to have even more to say soon as he is playing 2 games as soviets again Beender and BrianG both very knowledgeable players.

Also to tele- I think your seeing even newer players in the scheme of years of play now doing very well with the Germans- getting at least historical results. As they refine their skill- usually 1-2 long games they will start using the tricks they need to make the germans super germans just like all the other good german players. The problem is the events can be repeated game after game and the soviet side has no answers right now.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 5
RE: Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 5:54:11 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand
Experience from actual AAR
- soviet are to weak
- germans too fast


Next patch will adjust balance of both issues, but you need to be patient. Only today I've started to believe that my great supply system rewrite (2nd attempt) will be successful.

(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 6
RE: Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 6:14:08 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:09:32 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 7
RE: Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 6:41:59 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I have to agree with Tele on the topic. For most players, the experience is quite different, but I do understand the frustration of expert Soviet players, who feel that whatever they do, is not enough to stop the German onslaught. IMO opinion it should be pretty hard for the Germans to get all the major cities in 1941 (Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov).

In terms of CV I personally think the Soviets are doing quite well. In my GC there are cases where Soviet Rifle divisions with 2-3 CV values are stopping German divisions with 20+ CVs. And these are not separate cases. The +1 MP rule for failed attacks is a very BIG change, that forces the Axis in 1941-early 1943 to reformulate the strategy as you simply cannot afford to lose a battle. This means you will be conducting many more deliberate attacks, which in turn means less MPs to advance forward. Ofc the same thing affects the Soviets too later on, but I don't know if anyone has tested that yet.

HLYA proposal is a really good one. It would make for a much more interesting game to see the Soviets attack time and time again, either in order to open a thinly held pocket or to push a weak division aside. But the +1 one rule should end in November before the blizzard hits. Otherwise coupled with the blizzard it is more or less a guarantee that you will push back most of the units you attack.

The only thing that should be changed in regards to the supply system is the way ports operate. I'm not using ports as supply sources and my units at the entrance of the Crimea are +40 MP away from their rail lines. That seems enough punishment to me. Also the incredibly high HQ Build Up costs are enough to make sure that whole Panzer armies are not on the offensive week in and week out.

Nice to see a discussion about this though.

@morvael: any ETA on the patch?

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 8
RE: Balance discussion - 8/24/2018 10:18:44 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline 		The fixed experience gain will help the Soviets a great deal already.
Please please please make moderate changes only. There is no point in starting an axis OP soviets OP seesaw.

_____________________________

The Library of Gary Grigsby's War in the East resources.
Do you want total war? Guide for WitE players

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 9
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 6:16:39 AM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline 		@chaos: Experience fix is massiv. I think it is needed, but it will change much. Better soviet cv, less casualties, more inflicted on the axis side. This could lead to the snowball effect, which made the balancing so extremly hard.

port supply could be defended with air force. You only must achieve 3% damage per week with two attacks. Defend the crimea and you could defend your bombers with fighters. Could be interesting to see.

_____________________________




(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 10
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 7:14:48 AM   
56ajax


Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline 		Some excellent postings here.

As a Soviet player I despair at how weak the Soviets are and how ineffective their weapons systems appear to be. I've read that historically AGN was exhausted by the continuous Soviet counter attacks and eventually came to a dead stop. You would have to be crazy to try that tactic in the game. As the Soviet you run for it and hope your opponent has mucked up turn 1, HQBUs, rail conversions etc otherwise the writing is on the wall by T15. On the other hand though I have played against an 'historic' German and they surrendered very early.

So really the game needs to be balanced and fun for both sides (and against a good German the Soviets rarely have any fun especially as it takes me 3-4 hours a turn).

Now I fully appreciate and support the efforts of morvael and friends in maintaining this game and thank them for fixing bugs but perhaps we need to go easier on them for changing game balance. Instead perhaps players need to negotiate a much better list of House Rules. Consider the following as simplistic examples :

Each Army group must have a minimum n panzer divs assigned
Restrict Army Groups to a geographical areas eg AGN units cannot go further South than co ords ...
FDBs cannot be reassigned, or only 1 can, or they cannot be chained
No re assigning bombers to another airfield on T1
Try and introduce a concept of a Campaign Season and not all out assault on the first clear turn of 1942.
etc

Forts existing on t1 cannot be disbanded
New forts cannot be built till Tn
On T5,7,9,n the worst performing Soviet army commander must be sacked
In clear turns at least nn% of airforce must be assigned to airfields

Some of these could be impractical, but one thing is certain, you are reliant on the good faith of your opponent, and if you don't have that what is the point of playing the game.

Then again they may pull a dirty rotten dastardly Axis trick...





_____________________________

Molotov : This we did not deserve.

Foch : This is not peace. This is a 20 year armistice.

C'est la guerre aérienne

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 11
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 9:15:52 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		@vigabrand--somehow the old EXP system wasn't causing the axis to lose every game....back when Moscow didn't fall every game.

Secondly soviet casualties are so ridiculously high even for 40 exp units it really isn't going to help reduce soviet losses, as well german losses are still fairly low for attacking turn after turn. So no I don't think the EXP fix will have any appreciable effect on casualty numbers.

The only thing the EXP fix will do is allow the soviets to get some CV 2 divisions by the time the Germans arrive at Moscow which desperately needed for the soviets to even have a chance at defending it....even a stack of CV 1 divisions in a fort with woods can do nothing to slow down the german advance in 1941- 3CVx woodsx lvl 1 fort(if your lucky, due to low exp means sucky fort building)- is only like 9-12 CV on defense...this is easily shifted by the germans in 1941. However 6CVx woods x lvl 1 fort= 18-24 CV the germans actually have to use decisive attacks to shift them and hasty attacks may not be able to clear them after they are push out unless they rout.

Its a huge difference in German MP burn rate which is what the soviets need to have a chance to hold Moscow. Part of the Soviet infantry divisions making 2CV by Moscow will not suddenly make the germans unable to do anything it will just make the battle of Moscow difficult like it should be.

Remember historically Typhoon didn't start till after the first mud---games now see the Germans at Moscow prior to even first mud.

Also Soviet replacement rates are very low-- in the team game soviets lost Moscow---manpower in 1942 is only 90k per turn...soviet attrition when at 45 exp across the front is insane something like 50k per turn...the Germans don't have to shatter/encircle many soviets to make every 1942 turn a net loss for soviet manpower. Couple the lower soviet replacements with higher losses across the board this patch and the soviet losses are just about unsustainable now for average turns. If the Germans get a couple big turns its a huge net loss for the soviets now.

You have to remember other changes have been done over the years to reduce soviet CV they have all compounded to make the soviets now much to weak.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 8/25/2018 9:42:41 AM >

(in reply to 56ajax)
Post #: 12
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 9:38:45 AM   
mrblonde1


Posts: 51
Joined: 6/6/2018
Status: offline 		Moscow don't fall every game.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 13
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 9:43:34 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		More often than not it is falling since .08 patch. While Moscow falling should only be happening in outlier games.

(in reply to mrblonde1)
Post #: 14
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 10:13:33 AM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

@vigabrand--somehow the old EXP system wasn't causing the axis to lose every game....back when Moscow didn't fall every game.

Secondly soviet casualties are so ridiculously high even for 40 exp units it really isn't going to help reduce soviet losses, as well german losses are still fairly low for attacking turn after turn. So no I don't think the EXP fix will have any appreciable effect on casualty numbers.

The only thing the EXP fix will do is allow the soviets to get some CV 2 divisions by the time the Germans arrive at Moscow which desperately needed for the soviets to even have a chance at defending it....even a stack of CV 1 divisions in a fort with woods can do nothing to slow down the german advance in 1941- 3CVx woodsx lvl 1 fort(if your lucky, due to low exp means sucky fort building)- is only like 9-12 CV on defense...this is easily shifted by the germans in 1941. However 6CVx woods x lvl 1 fort= 18-24 CV the germans actually have to use decisive attacks to shift them and hasty attacks may not be able to clear them after they are push out unless they rout.

Its a huge difference in German MP burn rate which is what the soviets need to have a chance to hold Moscow. Part of the Soviet infantry divisions making 2CV by Moscow will not suddenly make the germans unable to do anything it will just make the battle of Moscow difficult like it should be.

Remember historically Typhoon didn't start till after the first mud---games now see the Germans at Moscow prior to even first mud.

Also Soviet replacement rates are very low-- in the team game soviets lost Moscow---manpower in 1942 is only 90k per turn...soviet attrition when at 45 exp across the front is insane something like 50k per turn...the Germans don't have to shatter/encircle many soviets to make every 1942 turn a net loss for soviet manpower. Couple the lower soviet replacements with higher losses across the board this patch and the soviet losses are just about unsustainable now for average turns. If the Germans get a couple big turns its a huge net loss for the soviets now.

You have to remember other changes have been done over the years to reduce soviet CV they have all compounded to make the soviets now much to weak.


I agree with you. Maybe I miss the higher losses overall in the game and was thinking my high soviet attrition rate came from the low experience.

_____________________________




(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 15
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 10:53:40 AM   
Stelteck

 

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		One thing to consider is that in the bitter end scenario, loosing both Leningrad and Moscow is game over for the soviet.

Having these two cities give too much points.

If the soviet want to win, he have to keep one at least.

(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 16
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 2:18:39 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada


< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:09:51 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Stelteck)
Post #: 17
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 3:51:11 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

One thing to consider is that in the bitter end scenario, loosing both Leningrad and Moscow is game over for the soviet.

Having these two cities give too much points.

If the soviet want to win, he have to keep one at least.


Ya, the thing is is that Leningrad will fall unless you defend it with just about everything a Soviet has. But these leaves everything else very open. So Leningrad pretty much falls 90%+ of all games played I bet you. I know that is what I see in almost all the AAR's.

As for Moscow if the Germans want to push and take this I give them a good 60-70% chance easily to take the city in 41 if that is their effort. You just need to do certain things to make this happen as Germany. Not for a AAR spoiler but the way BrianG is going he will probably take Moscow. But of course he is unpredictable and may change direction on me.

Keep your eye on forts. I have been the only one saying this but this is a huge buff for the Soviets early game and balances some of what is above.


I don't see how you can say forts are a huge buff but you will likely lose Moscow. If you are going to save Moscow, one would think forts have to be a part of the equation.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 18
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 5:16:06 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada


< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:10:07 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 19
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 9:43:42 PM   
FredSanford3

 

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline 		While we're discussing game tweaks- One question I have is what is the rationale for making regiments and brigades slower when entering enemy territory? IMO, if anything, they should be faster since they don't place such a strain on the local road network that a unit 3x the size would (though I'd be happy to just make the movement costs the same as divisions). I think they would also have an easier time maneuvering around obstacles and have a quicker response to changes due to a more nimble C&C structure (fewer echelons to pass orders and reports thru).

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 20
RE: Balance discussion - 8/25/2018 10:06:20 PM   
beender


Posts: 184
Joined: 2/23/2017
From: Beijing, China
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

While we're discussing game tweaks- One question I have is what is the rationale for making regiments and brigades slower when entering enemy territory? IMO, if anything, they should be faster since they don't place such a strain on the local road network that a unit 3x the size would (though I'd be happy to just make the movement costs the same as divisions). I think they would also have an easier time maneuvering around obstacles and have a quicker response to changes due to a more nimble C&C structure (fewer echelons to pass orders and reports thru).



I suppose the primary rationale is related to logistical reasons. Since division is usually the smallest formation that is self-supporting, brigade or regiment really cannot conduct operations independently for an extended time. Making them slower in enemy territory is a crude way to simulate this, though perhaps is good enough.

(in reply to FredSanford3)
Post #: 21
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 9:58:42 AM   
GoodbyeBluesky

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 7/20/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

While we're discussing game tweaks- One question I have is what is the rationale for making regiments and brigades slower when entering enemy territory? IMO, if anything, they should be faster since they don't place such a strain on the local road network that a unit 3x the size would (though I'd be happy to just make the movement costs the same as divisions). I think they would also have an easier time maneuvering around obstacles and have a quicker response to changes due to a more nimble C&C structure (fewer echelons to pass orders and reports thru).


I think a good compromise would be for the regiment to have reduced ZOC Cost as it is propably easier for such a formation to remove itself or keep away from the enemy while keeping the movement cost into enemy territory the same.

This way it would be easier to push for example a brigade into a hex that you have already taken or forward into that 1 vital hex you want to have it in to be a minor nuissance.

(in reply to FredSanford3)
Post #: 22
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 10:55:06 AM   
Huw Jones

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline 		[/quote]I think a good compromise would be for the regiment to have reduced ZOC Cost as it is propably easier for such a formation to remove itself or keep away from the enemy while keeping the movement cost into enemy territory the same.

This way it would be easier to push for example a brigade into a hex that you have already taken or forward into that 1 vital hex you want to have it in to be a minor nuissance.
[/quote]

Sounds like a good idea.


< Message edited by Huw Jones -- 8/26/2018 11:40:21 AM >

(in reply to GoodbyeBluesky)
Post #: 23
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 11:48:33 AM   
Huw Jones

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline 		I don’t think things should change much from where they presently are, only minor alterations, bug fixes.

The Germans could have taken Moscow much earlier most likely in the real world, if they hadn't done the Kiev pocket or sent Panzer units off to Kursk instead of concentrating everything on Operation Typhoon, so losing Moscow in the game I don't see as a problem.

Most players won't leave a Kiev pocket, but that is more than compensated for by the basic Lvov pocket.

FOR THE GERMANS

1 Soviet +1 should end as the blizzard commences.

FOR THE RUSSIANS

1 Sort the Soviet construction bug out.
2 REMOVE the false Lvov pocket hex flipping, only flipping hexs that you normally do elsewhere, that won't stop people doing the basic Lvov, but the 2nd & Super Lvov will be harder, as you will need more units to keep the basic Lvov bottled up.
3. An extra option added, so that the really good Germans can be nerfed slightly, maybe something to do with Panzer fuel, so possibly extra costs for HQ build up, something like that.

(in reply to Huw Jones)
Post #: 24
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 2:10:51 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Huw Jones

I don’t think things should change much from where they presently are, only minor alterations, bug fixes.

The Germans could have taken Moscow much earlier most likely in the real world, if they hadn't done the Kiev pocket or sent Panzer units off to Kursk instead of concentrating everything on Operation Typhoon, so losing Moscow in the game I don't see as a problem.

Most players won't leave a Kiev pocket, but that is more than compensated for by the basic Lvov pocket.

FOR THE GERMANS

1 Soviet +1 should end as the blizzard commences.

FOR THE RUSSIANS

1 Sort the Soviet construction bug out.
2 REMOVE the false Lvov pocket hex flipping, only flipping hexs that you normally do elsewhere, that won't stop people doing the basic Lvov, but the 2nd & Super Lvov will be harder, as you will need more units to keep the basic Lvov bottled up.
3. An extra option added, so that the really good Germans can be nerfed slightly, maybe something to do with Panzer fuel, so possibly extra costs for HQ build up, something like that.



What about Leningrad? Do you think it should be as easy for the Germans to take as it has been throughout the history of the game? What historical "what-if" context would you make for this city falling?

(in reply to Huw Jones)
Post #: 25
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 2:22:42 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
What about Leningrad? Do you think it should be as easy for the Germans to take as it has been throughout the history of the game? What historical "what-if" context would you make for this city falling?


Historically it was a German decision to pull back from assaulting the city - Hitler's decision. He had been so upset at the casualties in taking Kiev that he did not want to repeat it at Leningrad. (A feeling he did not repeat a year later). If you follow that logic then historically if the Germans had decided to make a full assault in 1941 they would have taken it?


< Message edited by Telemecus -- 8/26/2018 2:23:16 PM >

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 26
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 2:39:12 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:10:24 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 27
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 2:43:08 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
What about Leningrad? Do you think it should be as easy for the Germans to take as it has been throughout the history of the game? What historical "what-if" context would you make for this city falling?


Historically it was a German decision to pull back from assaulting the city - Hitler's decision. He had been so upset at the casualties in taking Kiev that he did not want to repeat it at Leningrad. (A feeling he did not repeat a year later). If you follow that logic then historically if the Germans had decided to make a full assault in 1941 they would have taken it?



Could have been a Stalingrad a year earlier ;-) You just never know!!


Actually I sort of think that hits the point. After all in the meaningful sense the Axis did actually take the city of Stalingrad. There should always be an option for the Germans to take Leningrad in 1941 - but if it is by direct assault against dug in troops in supply then yes it should be a blood bath.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 28
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 2:44:16 PM   
daretti

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 1/1/2015
Status: offline 		Germany loses too few tanks during the campaign 41

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 29
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 2:55:20 PM   
Huw Jones

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline 		[/quote]

What about Leningrad? Do you think it should be as easy for the Germans to take as it has been throughout the history of the game? What historical "what-if" context would you make for this city falling?
[/quote]

The Panzers to me seem to move to fast North of the Pskov with a good German player.

We don't want to change things to much, so the extra button regarding fuel supply only for the very good German players initialy, see how that pans out.

Some extra forts appear South of Leningrad in the start up would help, using the same button, BUT in step 2 could be an option.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Balance discussion Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.781