RE: Balance discussion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Balance discussion

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 2:19:45 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

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

Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:22:50 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Beria)

Post #: 211

RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 2:26:26 PM

Beria

Posts: 403
Joined: 4/6/2017
Status: offline

It may be I have lost the thread actually �

I thought there was one theme of changing house rules e.g. airdrops, para invasions and so on.

There was another theme about the effect of changing rules to discourage soaking attacks.

And a cross-cutting theme about different approaches to before and during blizzard.

So putting it together I thought the suggestions, using all those permutations, are
i) Do you change house rules (airdrops, naval etc) before blizzard?
ii) Do you not change house rules (airdrops, naval etc) during blizzard?
iii) Was the rule change on soaking attacks before blizzard a good thing?
iv) Was the rule change on soaking attacks during blizzard a good thing?

< Message edited by Beria -- 11/29/2018 2:29:30 PM >

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 212

RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 2:55:24 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

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

Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:23:05 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Beria)

Post #: 213

RE: Balance discussion - 12/1/2018 3:50:57 AM

Bitburgerdraft

Posts: 39
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline

Every game i have played has been influenced heavily by how well or not an ahistorical Lvov pocket is executed. Lots of fun to do, but not many would try to argue it was possible. No Lvov or Super Lvov, and my games that have seen the game out, usually ending in a minor victory, either side. I am an average player, balance should be on focused on the majority, so i propose the houserules i would ask in my next game. Army group center can not move south past hex Y73. And no German units can change HQ until turn 3, to get around that. That gives the Russians a fair, historical start. Otherwise, might as well be playing Orks and Elves

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 214

RE: Balance discussion - 12/1/2018 12:10:41 PM

BrianG

Posts: 4653
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline

quote:

v) I can still do massive soaking off attacks with Armor Brigades during the blizzard against German PZ's Division to cause very nice German tank losses if they are on the front line(because of damaged tanks being lost). With 20-30 MPs I can get in a great many hasty attacks off on German armor with the Soviet tank Brigades. This has been the ONLY way I can get tank loses on German armor(besides making the Division retreat through ZOC). I have gotten a handful of tank kills with IL2's bombing with many of my IL2's in the high 80's in Experience. Level bombers don't kill any German armor. Attacking Inf gets a few. But if you hasty attack with Armor brigades after a while you will get very nice results. All other hasty attacks is suicidal with extremely high loses and added MP's on a normal assault :(. So you really have to plan accordingly or you will come up short on the attacks.

I can confirm this is causing large German tank losses, especially on front line tired out tank divisions.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 215

RE: Balance discussion - 12/11/2018 6:44:57 PM

trh2164

Posts: 44
Joined: 3/7/2017
Status: offline

With the top German players seeming to easily take both Leningrad and Moscow in 1941 and blizzard and +1 settings not really affecting it much in the summer, has it come up to create an option on setup to simply disable HQ Build Ups? I would like to see how that would change things. I suppose a workaround would be to reduce Axis AP/turn to perhaps 20, which would make buildups much rarer, although affecting other things later.

(in reply to BrianG)

Post #: 216

RE: Balance discussion - 12/11/2018 8:01:43 PM

thedoctorking

Posts: 2297
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline

I like Bitburgerdraft's idea. If you can evacuate those Lvov guys, or at least some of them, it makes a huge difference. In our Connect4 game, we were able to get at least the SU out of the pocket, and a good number of units, and so even though AGS did have reinforcements from 2nd Panzer Group for the first ten turns or so, they were unable to get beyond the Donbass cities and didn't take Kharkov.

(in reply to trh2164)

Post #: 217

RE: Balance discussion - 12/11/2018 9:36:32 PM

SparkleyTits

Posts: 898
Joined: 10/7/2016
From: England
Status: offline

Yeah Axis really is the harder of the two teams to play well until you get attack pathing, logistics and decent strategic foresight down then it starts the swing to the opposite corner with the Soviets becoming the much harder of the two teams to play as you continue to improve

I do like Bitburgers idea too, great way to make a more historical start by stopping some of the gamey ways to bypas the intended limits!

(in reply to thedoctorking)

Post #: 218

RE: Balance discussion - 1/9/2019 6:05:36 AM

skraft16

Posts: 17
Joined: 7/14/2017
Status: offline

It sounds like a lot of the balance problems (and I agree that there are some) can be fixed pretty easily.

1) House rule against diverting army group center units more than 1-2 hexrows south of Brest-Litovsk on turn 1 and 2. Also no reassignment of units between army groups until after turn 2

2) Edit the standard campaign game scenario to unfreeze the Southern Front so it is available on turn 1

3) House rule against Army Group South units going more than a couple hexrows south of Lvov on Turn 1, and maybe 5 or 10 hexrows on turn 2

4) House rule about HQ swaps. Or if we can put something in the game that you cannot voluntarily reassign units more than once every 4-5 turns

5) My experience in playing (nearly all of it vs. AI) is that the Russians do not need port supply to sustain their late-war offensives. And they don't need ports to sustain army-sized formations around Odessa and Sevastapol early in the war. If yo agree that this is the case, perhaps the port supply issue can be solved by reducing Black Sea port sizes to just 1 or 2? I think that would dramatically reduce supplies moving forward to the German spearhead via the ports, and it would simulate the fact that Russia largely had naval command of the Black Sea.

6) Edit the campaign scenario to add some more manpower to cities in the Caucuses/Voronezh/Moscow belt. If the Axis can gain control of these cities then the "moral collapse" causes Russian recruitment to fall.

7) #6 does require that the Russian evac some more heavy industry and armaments to take advantage of the manpower boost.

< Message edited by skraft16 -- 1/9/2019 6:06:41 AM >

(in reply to SparkleyTits)

Post #: 219

RE: Balance discussion - 1/10/2019 8:46:14 AM

MarauderPL

Posts: 134
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline

I dont like prohibiting AGC units to go south, as it takes one of the few strategic tools the Germans have in their pocket. You could just agree in a set of houserules which pockets in the South are allowed to be created (Rovno, Kovel, Lvov, Proskurov etc.)
I believe under current rules, if the Germans go with a "historical" start, they may as well just surrender. The main problem with historical approaches is that in real life its the Soviet mistakes that allowed German advance - with player hindsight and "realistic" settings every game should grind to a halt near Smolensk. Thats why the game has to "overdo" with the unit quality disproportion to make up for operational/strategic mistakes that were present in history but are not in the game. The same is true for the later stages, where German commander wont make a Stalingradey/Bagrationey type of error, so the game emulates that for him with national morale and TOE changes.

If I were to influence the game design/patching, I would have suggested to get rid of some (most?) of the reinforcements schedule for the Soviets as well as the ridiculous 40AP per division creation cost, and allow the Soviet player to create units on his own to tailor his army. There could be two different kinds of divisions created, a more costly one with higher starting morale and cheaper with lower. The amount of AP received each turn should also be amended. This way the Soviet player would have to decide, if he wants a smaller but better army, or bigger but crappier. It would also provide tools to solve the problem with not enough Soviet counters on map that can occur in some games. In general my approach would be to give more tools to the players, and less railroading them to a historical outcome.

(in reply to skraft16)

Post #: 220

RE: Balance discussion - 2/12/2019 8:29:35 AM

56ajax

Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline

Sorry to kick the can again...

Soviet Ski Battalions can be formed 11/1941. They have a combat bonus in snow and blizzard. Unfortunately they enter the game with base experience of eg 13 so they will not be combat ready until after the snow is just a memory.

_____________________________

Molotov : This we did not deserve.

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

C'est la guerre a�rienne

(in reply to MarauderPL)

Post #: 221

RE: Balance discussion - 2/12/2019 5:36:40 PM

sixten992

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/21/2018
Status: offline

Balance is of course important for a fun game, but one of the best things with WITE is that the game aims for and are quite realistic. I do not think that any balance changes should be done as a separate goal, instead the goal should always be to change the game so it becomes as realistic as possible. Keep on updating WITE when a more realistic alternative for different things in the game can be found, and not for the sake of balance. Balance can instead be regulated by changing victory conditions and/or by house rules.

(in reply to 56ajax)

Post #: 222