RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/23/2011 11:21:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pwieland I must disagree with this - the Germans invented the concept of kampfgruppe - that is an ad-hoc formation anywhere from company to corps sized units to suit the task or operation at hand. The most famous example perhaps was Kampfgruppen Peiper in the Battle of the Bulge, an over-strength Panzer regiment if there ever was one. And, one could argue that the flexibility of the German Army was unmatched throughout the war - at least within the tactical zone. Operations and strategy - well they were certainly outclassed late in the war, especially since they were hamstrung by a leader that felt retrograde operations could be punishable by the firing squad. I'm halfway through Glantz's first volume on the battle of Smolensk, and KG's were a fairly standard arrangement for PanzerDivisions at least by July 1941. My opinion is that KG's are just a natural consequence of implementing the "mission-oriented" approach to the execution of operational warfare - conducting tactical operations - developed by the German army at the end of WW1. Here there's a deep connection between US Army and German Heer doctrine: Task Forces and Kampfgruppes were very much the same thing, ad-hoc combined arms units, formed up to accomplish some concrete goal or mission, and disbanded afterwards.

misesfan -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 12:40:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky It may be an imbalance, but it is a historical capabilty the russians have that the germans do not. Giving that capability to the Germans enters a world of fantasy, that I would rather not see. As for 'bias' towards victory, well..change the victory conditions. Call 'history' a German Major Victory, and force the Russians to do it faster. Make the Russians need to take Berlin before the Allies land at Normandy for a 'major' Victory. Then would you say that since the Soviets were incapable of moving large Soviet formations in 1941, that all movements costs for Russian units in 1941 should be doubled? Or when moving an HQ it suffers the effects of displacement?

wpurdom -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 4:48:31 AM)
I agree with the quote provided by PDH on the overall dynamics. And I think the developers, with few exceptions got the overall balance right. The degree of resilience of the Soviets was highly unanticipated at the time, probably even to the Soviets, just like the incredible outflow economic productivity of the US economy, and is difficult to explain any in hindsight, but I really don't think the Germans had much of a chance after they went to war with all of the Soviet peoples and didn't even try to feign a war of liberation. There are a few exceptions. When a war aim is to kill a fourth of the population while enslaving the rest and you start implementing those plans before you win the war, it tends to solidify the opposition. The morale for the Germans is screwed in early 1942 as is well recognized. Qball has some interesting suggestions. German morale should bounce back easily to a basic national morale level in 1942 and bounce back better. It seems once the Germans have their Stalingrad, the road to ruin is not easily disrupted - not many bumps along the way. Logistical considerations are not large, and backhand blows aren't very feasible. And the scale, units per hex, operates unsymmetrically against the Germans after the Soviets develop Corps. Yet all that being said, once the Soviet people realized they were fighting a war against extermination or enslavement and the Soviet government didn't start collapsing before the mud, I think the Germans had a snowball's chance of winning.

delatbabel -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 8:15:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky It may be an imbalance, but it is a historical capabilty the russians have that the germans do not. Giving that capability to the Germans enters a world of fantasy, that I would rather not see. As for 'bias' towards victory, well..change the victory conditions. Call 'history' a German Major Victory, and force the Russians to do it faster. Make the Russians need to take Berlin before the Allies land at Normandy for a 'major' Victory. +1 Find out what an "average" German player can achieve against an "average" Soviet player. Any German player that beats the average wins the game. Any Soviet player that beats the average wins the game. Preferably, balance that so that the "average" is the Soviets advancing into Berlin in the first week of May 1945. I don't think anyone can support the argument that the German army was bigger and better than the Soviet army and so it should be historical fact that the Germans can easily win the war, because they can't. As a game it's all about doing better than the historical norm.

janh -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 10:28:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elxaime In WITP, you tend to see less complaining about the Japanese ultimate doom because, I suspect, US gamers more readily accept the notion that the USA Arsenal of Democracy really could not have been beaten. I don't think there is much of a basic difference between playing Axis in WiTE or WiTP. Also the Japanese player knows that he will loose. But in contrast to WitE, in WiTP the underdog gets more options to toy with (namely the production and research of new planes, ships; as well as equipping and upgrading them). Especially during the later stages of the war, when the Allies can just grind through Burma, or come a long with a CV-death star to do some island hopping, this gives the Japanese player something fun other than to move around counters and watch them wiped. And a marginal hope to hang on to that he can perhaps build the best airframes and train pilots that may counter the B-2X raids on the home islands, or from a more efficient convoy system and form hunter-killer groups supported by trained ASW bombers to counter the sub threat. He simply gets a chance to adapt better than the historical counterparts did, though it has of yet not led in any AAR to a significant different end. In fact there are some who ask for similar benefits for the Allied side, but they stick to historical reinforcement schedules, and get historical production. Getting similar handles ain't really necessary since they get so many troops, ships and planes that even if you could alter production, you could hardly press more stuff into service. And you don't get crappy stuff anyway, most of the allied equipment is just excellent stuff. Other than that, the basic formations (LCU and squadrons) you get on both sides are fixed, and you cannot build say an extra division here and there. So basically the better organized side at the beginning gets the added flexibility in WitP/AE, while the Allied forces build up according to a time-table.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 11:36:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky It may be an imbalance, but it is a historical capabilty the russians have that the germans do not. Giving that capability to the Germans enters a world of fantasy, that I would rather not see. As for 'bias' towards victory, well..change the victory conditions. Call 'history' a German Major Victory, and force the Russians to do it faster. Make the Russians need to take Berlin before the Allies land at Normandy for a 'major' Victory. +1 Find out what an "average" German player can achieve against an "average" Soviet player. Any German player that beats the average wins the game. Any Soviet player that beats the average wins the game. Preferably, balance that so that the "average" is the Soviets advancing into Berlin in the first week of May 1945. I don't think anyone can support the argument that the German army was bigger and better than the Soviet army and so it should be historical fact that the Germans can easily win the war, because they can't. As a game it's all about doing better than the historical norm. This turns the game into a drag race, you can adjust the tires, play around with the fuel mix, tinker with the engine, but your headed down the same 1/4 mile track, with winning measured in how many days, or months, you can take off the record. There's nothing wrong with that, but some people want more and if the game stays this way it will not attract a wider long term following. You can still have whatever is deemed as the historical track, with unit withdrawals on certain dates, etc., but why not options for random withdrawals (in how many units go and when), or no withdrawals at all (war in the West is won). The game system should be made as flexible as possible, just so long as there is an agreed set-up between players, which is closest to what is believed to be the historical situation, for those that wish to use it. Even those who like the drag race may be glad of something different in the years to come. [:)]

Tarhunnas -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 12:12:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janh quote: ORIGINAL: elxaime In WITP, you tend to see less complaining about the Japanese ultimate doom because, I suspect, US gamers more readily accept the notion that the USA Arsenal of Democracy really could not have been beaten. I don't think there is much of a basic difference between playing Axis in WiTE or WiTP. Also the Japanese player knows that he will loose. But in contrast to WitE, in WiTP the underdog gets more options to toy with (namely the production and research of new planes, ships; as well as equipping and upgrading them). Especially during the later stages of the war, when the Allies can just grind through Burma, or come a long with a CV-death star to do some island hopping, this gives the Japanese player something fun other than to move around counters and watch them wiped. And a marginal hope to hang on to that he can perhaps build the best airframes and train pilots that may counter the B-2X raids on the home islands, or from a more efficient convoy system and form hunter-killer groups supported by trained ASW bombers to counter the sub threat. He simply gets a chance to adapt better than the historical counterparts did, though it has of yet not led in any AAR to a significant different end. In fact there are some who ask for similar benefits for the Allied side, but they stick to historical reinforcement schedules, and get historical production. Getting similar handles ain't really necessary since they get so many troops, ships and planes that even if you could alter production, you could hardly press more stuff into service. And you don't get crappy stuff anyway, most of the allied equipment is just excellent stuff. Other than that, the basic formations (LCU and squadrons) you get on both sides are fixed, and you cannot build say an extra division here and there. So basically the better organized side at the beginning gets the added flexibility in WitP/AE, while the Allied forces build up according to a time-table. Good post, good to have things put in a perspective.

Klydon -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 1:18:17 PM)
I think part of the issue that makes it tough to balance the game is the Russian player is simply not going to repeat the Russian mistakes. In addition with the support units, while the historical Russians built a wide variety of support units, the typical Russian player is only going to build a pile of support units that seem to do the best in the game, so most players are not building motorcycle units, crappy anti-tank units, etc. I am not saying they should be forced to build those, but simply that it means the Russians are that much better by concentrating on just the very best support units and turning them out en-mass. (And no, this is not the sole reason there are issues with the game [;)] )

misesfan -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 2:48:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon I think part of the issue that makes it tough to balance the game is the Russian player is simply not going to repeat the Russian mistakes. In addition with the support units, while the historical Russians built a wide variety of suppaort units, the typical Russian player is only going to build a pile of support units that seem to do the best in the game, so most players are not building motorcycle units, crappy anti-tank units, etc. I am not saying they should be forced to build those, but simply that it means the Russians are that much better by concentrating on just the very best support units and turning them out en-mass. (And no, this is not the sole reason there are issues with the game [;)] ) Agreed - given that and absolutely no penalty for losing either Leningrad or Moscow other than making the blizzard a bit more survivable with the release of the Finns, what incentives are there for the Axis after 1941? Their hand is forced and they dont have much operational flexibility to do much other than serve as cannon fodder for a grinding assault by the Soviets. It becomes more of a mathematical exercise of when and not if... if that makes sense. Is the historical result the only probable occurrence that could possibly result? That is, there is absolutely no opportunity to improve the historical performance, even given the benefit of hindsight? Hell, I have seen AAR's in which Leningrad and Moscow both conquered and yet by Winter 1942,massive Soviet formations are still able to grind through German lines with massive success. 1943 rolls around, and its game time - rolling Soviet formations simply crushing the Germans at will.

Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 2:50:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon I think part of the issue that makes it tough to balance the game is the Russian player is simply not going to repeat the Russian mistakes. In addition with the support units, while the historical Russians built a wide variety of support units, the typical Russian player is only going to build a pile of support units that seem to do the best in the game, so most players are not building motorcycle units, crappy anti-tank units, etc. I am not saying they should be forced to build those, but simply that it means the Russians are that much better by concentrating on just the very best support units and turning them out en-mass. (And no, this is not the sole reason there are issues with the game [;)] ) I don�t see SU's this important as I rather make extra rifle divs and refit rifle divs full strength faster rather than make large number of SU's. More SU's Soviet players make more manpower and arms they drain away from pool witch make it slower refitting rifle divisions and building units. Is there sense for making SU's at all? Probably as SU's gives small bonus in combat beyond stacking limitations especially early years of war but that�s all they give. After Soviet side gets ability to merge divisions to form combat corps, make artillery divisions and sapper brigades they really don�t even need SU�s anymore and can do fine just disbanding all of them so SU�s manpower and arms can be released to build corps and artillery divisions faster. Only construction and rail repair SU�s are needed all the way to end but Soviet side makes well even without them as they advance so slow most of time that it is easy to repair rail lines with those repair units anyway.

pompack -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 4:13:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky It may be an imbalance, but it is a historical capabilty the russians have that the germans do not. Giving that capability to the Germans enters a world of fantasy, that I would rather not see. As for 'bias' towards victory, well..change the victory conditions. Call 'history' a German Major Victory, and force the Russians to do it faster. Make the Russians need to take Berlin before the Allies land at Normandy for a 'major' Victory. I think that there are some really good points here. Anyone following Stalin's strategy after Bagration can clearly see that he is not all that interested in ending the war as soon as possible. Instead he is focusing on long-term political objectives. One can certainly make a case that having everything west and south of Berlin taken by the Western Allies instead of the Soviets would certainly constitute at least a Minor Victory for the German people.

janh -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 4:30:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pwieland Is the historical result the only probable occurrence that could possibly result? That is, there is absolutely no opportunity to improve the historical performance, even given the benefit of hindsight? Surely there is, for example on the way an Axis player conducts his operations, and more importantly, how he designs his overall strategy. Basically by negating the "Hitler effect", and prevent the myriad of mistakes that were mostly due to his involvement, is one thing to test. In that is one power of this game, though ultimately it will probably lead to the same result. You'd still not be Hitler and have his freedom, but other than his effect on withdrawals, and replacements, you'd have gotten rid of him. Axis players can for example avoid overextending like at Stalingrad and loose a large fraction of an army. They can start the battle of Kursk ahead of schedule, following Mannstein's and Models suggestions not to wait for reinforcements, Panthers, the end of Operation Zigeunerbaron, and Hitler's delaying order due to the unsure situation with Italy. They can also try to prevent something like the disintegration of Armeegruppe Mitte (AGC) by Bagration in 44 by following what GFM Busch and other leading generals of Heer and OKH suggested: shorten the front line and retreat to a more defensible, even fortified line -- which was historically overridden by Hitler's "Feste Pl�tze" decision. I recall that some German generals suggested such a contraction and digging in already in 43, so instead of wasting the creme de la creme of the Wehrmacht Kursk-style, you could starting fortifying in autumn 42 and from there see whether the Red Army will be forced to a slower progress. Of course, if the Axis digs in in 42, and perhaps this could be the best way to trade losses at a reasonable ratio, the game could end up being trench warfare throughout 43. So I think there are still plenty of things to try for the Axis side, and even more flexibility for the Russian player. A game like this or WiTP/AE draws its power from allowing you to test different decisions, with some more or less strict constraints such as historical production, unit formation, being tied to certain orders, etc (or the flexibility to improve these as well in plausible/realistic fashion). Pretty much like a simulation in which you try to assess the effect of each of these factors on the overall outcome -- who wouldn't want to show that --perhaps-- the Axis could have achieved a stalemate if Hitler hadn't messed up OKH and OKW, or see whether Stalin could have reached Berlin in 44 had he not wasted so many troops in poorly conducted offensives in 42?

kirkgregerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 4:34:01 PM)
Really? Are people actually putting a priority on trying to 'balance'�this game? What does that even mean? How about rather focusing on historical accuracy regarding the capabilities of both sides during the war. How about some combat mechanics that don't allow a single very low morale/exp Soviet unit of 3k men to hold up an elite German Pz div? Seriously, it's time for WitE to mature and adopt an overrun policy for combat under certain obvious circumstances. If there's major issues with historical accuracies how can you even beigin to 'balance' the game? As stated before, why the frick do the Soviets have a free hand in retreating armies so easily in 41 while Germans have to moronically go into Dec with very un-winterized units. It was more Hilter's decision to avoid sending anything to help give German units some defense again the cold in place of using the rail capacity to send more supplies to continue the winter offensives. Why should players be forced on this same path? Don't get me wrong, it still would have been a tough winter, but not at the level of abuse the German/Axis army takes currently. As stated before too, why the heck do German/Soviet troops returning from the disabled pool not retain their exp/morale level? This is not rocket science to code is it? Not saying it's a slam dunk, but certainly not any complicated algorithm. Without this concept, the game falls down hard again for historical accuracy. Also, as stated it's crazy not to allow the Germans some ability to create su to maximize using their pools of equipment. Really? please.... you want fantasy?? How about having hundreds of German tank collecting dust in a Berlin warehouse while the German forces are desperately trying to hold ground against Soviet 43 counter-attacks. Sorry to be blunt, but this is just so so ridiculous. Dare anybody to show me any historical references suggesting the Germans liked to stockpile tanks in warehouse. This part of the game just infuriates me to no end! [:@] The the very high variance of battle results in terms of CVs, is something else that I have noticed which is very disappointing. I know there are many factors, but even attempting to keep certain constants, seems this is very unstable to say the least. I've play this game long enough to understand some results where very small forces are able to inflict a crazy ratio of loses when out matched happen 25% of the time or more. Just not good, something with the combat engine is still very fishy to me. Some deep bugs or bad premises that will be fixed in 1.05. As for those nutty people that decide to play the Axis and think they have a chance to do anything more then get their arse kicked around starting in 42-43, um I have stocks in the Golden Gate bridge I'd like to sell you too. Oh yeah, not talking about playing the AI or some noob Soviet player. If you want to play your sister, then maybe. This is just the way the game is set-up, so don't hate on it. As axis you'll have you're fun in 41, but the party ends in 42, for the most part, as you face a deep wall of high forts manned by mostly ANT Soviet units that will decimate you by attrition (see my blurb about the combat engine being whacked). Been there and done that. Nope, for me I'm Soviets all the way in WitE until there's some variants to make it more fun beyond about 25 turns of a 200 turn game. Maybe 1.05 will convince me enough changes have been made to play axis again? That's just me and I still love WitE and where it's going. Just not as patient as most to see it get to where it needs to be. [8\|] Sorry to be so blunt, but showing my tough love for WitE and just being honest.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 5:31:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson Really? Are people actually putting a priority on trying to 'balance'�this game? What does that even mean? How about rather focusing on historical accuracy regarding the capabilities of both sides during the war. How about some combat mechanics that don't allow a single very low morale/exp Soviet unit of 3k men to hold up an elite German Pz div? Seriously, it's time for WitE to mature and adopt an overrun policy for combat under certain obvious circumstances. If there's major issues with historical accuracies how can you even beigin to 'balance' the game? As stated before, why the frick do the Soviets have a free hand in retreating armies so easily in 41 while Germans have to moronically go into Dec with very un-winterized units. It was more Hilter's decision to avoid sending anything to help give German units some defense again the cold in place of using the rail capacity to send more supplies to continue the winter offensives. Why should players be forced on this same path? Don't get me wrong, it still would have been a tough winter, but not at the level of abuse the German/Axis army takes currently. As stated before too, why the heck do German/Soviet troops returning from the disabled pool not retain their exp/morale level? This is not rocket science to code is it? Not saying it's a slam dunk, but certainly not any complicated algorithm. Without this concept, the game falls down hard again for historical accuracy. Also, as stated it's crazy not to allow the Germans some ability to create su to maximize using their pools of equipment. Really? please.... you want fantasy?? How about having hundreds of German tank collecting dust in a Berlin warehouse while the German forces are desperately trying to hold ground against Soviet 43 counter-attacks. Sorry to be blunt, but this is just so so ridiculous. Dare anybody to show me any historical references suggesting the Germans liked to stockpile tanks in warehouse. This part of the game just infuriates me to no end! [:@] The the very high variance of battle results in terms of CVs, is something else that I have noticed which is very disappointing. I know there are many factors, but even attempting to keep certain constants, seems this is very unstable to say the least. I've play this game long enough to understand some results where very small forces are able to inflict a crazy ratio of loses when out matched happen 25% of the time or more. Just not good, something with the combat engine is still very fishy to me. Some deep bugs or bad premises that will be fixed in 1.05. As for those nutty people that decide to play the Axis and think they have a chance to do anything more then get their arse kicked around starting in 42-43, um I have stocks in the Golden Gate bridge I'd like to sell you too. Oh yeah, not talking about playing the AI or some noob Soviet player. If you want to play your sister, then maybe. This is just the way the game is set-up, so don't hate on it. As axis you'll have you're fun in 41, but the party ends in 42, for the most part, as you face a deep wall of high forts manned by mostly ANT Soviet units that will decimate you by attrition (see my blurb about the combat engine being whacked). Been there and done that. Nope, for me I'm Soviets all the way in WitE until there's some variants to make it more fun beyond about 25 turns of a 200 turn game. Maybe 1.05 will convince me enough changes have been made to play axis again? That's just me and I still love WitE and where it's going. Just not as patient as most to see it get to where it needs to be. [8\|] Sorry to be so blunt, but showing my tough love for WitE and just being honest. I'm going to pile on this rant with a +1 The combat engine is grossly unrealistic. All the stats and attention to detail on individual ground elements is wasted because the combat mechanics make little sense in context of actual warfare of the time, because supply magically appears everywhere it's needed (for both sides) and one side gets to play strategically with options while the other side is forced to play according to a script. (Oh, and because the Soviets have the engineering crew from the Hoover Dam project working for every brigade in the army) For the group of people that argue that WitE is historically accurate and that this realism is the best part of the game, all I can really say is that we want different things from our games. I'm starting to take the perspective that Matrix's target market is for that group of people like you, and not like me. I passed on WitP:AE; I'm reasonably certain I'll pass on future Matrix titles as well.

jzardos -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 6:05:24 PM)
You go Kirk!! I have to say with 100% knowledge that the combat engine in WitE can be at times very flakey. I should know too, since I've done my own independent testing with many many hours invested. What I found and have posted is some serious flaws in combat that make WitE modeling of war on the east front between German and Soviet forces somewhat fantasy to say the least. Sorry, but it is what it is... Hats off to the people that have created the detail of each individual squad have a few grenades and such. Great stuff, but if the combat engine can't process that information in a historically accurate manner, what is the point? All I've seen is some run-around from some testers and developers (almost quiet here) about the issues in the combat engine. Please this has to be a priority in order for this game to be taken seriously as a non-fantasy recreation of the struggle on the east front. Unfortunately I think the main effort of research was done on most unit capabilities and less on each sides overall strengths/weaknesses and capabilities during the timeline. Did the Soviets really have the capability in early 42 to launch organized massive counter-attacks across the front? Lol, for you historical newbies, maybe. But pick up a decent book and do some reading about what actually happen to Soviet attacks in 42 and you'll get a different and factual answer. So why does WitE allow this to be the case? Your guess is as good as mine. Also, it's not like this can't be fixed or it's too much effort to program. Do it right and make it historical. My suggestion is somewhat simple: before any Soviet attack each unit must make a check to see if and how it participates in the offensive (maybe only 50% unit committed). This check would be a factor of the leadership (already in place and well done by WitE [;)] ) and some year/month mod. Thus, as the time go by, the effectiveness of the Soviets offensives will improve. That's not that hard to put in place? Is it? I too have been very depressed with the lack of concern devs have had towards the large pools of axis tanks and other equipment that can accumulated and never be utilized. Just allow the Germans to create some limited su's. IMO the major effort for WitE has been this crazy concept, as Kirk expressed, about BALANCE. Screw the damm balance, just get the game mechanics to reflect what the east front campaign was about. All I ever hear is 'we can't touch this because of balance effects...' or 'we need to test the balance for weeks before we can do this..' Come on, nobody even can quantify what this darn 'BALANCE' concept is anyways. Means squat to me really. Just get the game to properly reflect how an German Pz unit could handle combat on the eastern front. The more and more I read how important and the incredible the accomplishments of these German Pz/Mech were with good leadership, the more I think WiTE really drops the ball. WitE does not do the German far superior tactics at this level any justice, IMO. Sure I know that leaders get bonus and supposed exp/morale helps, but when I go back to be testings with the combat engine, I can prove anybody wrong that wants to make a case for WitE doing them justice... anybody. Don't get me start on this whole concept of morale... omg. Really I can lose morale at the drop of a hat but it takes a miracle to get it back? Case and point from some more testing... 15 attack with one lose for a German infantry div in spr/sum 42 with a starting morale of 70, guess what it's morale was after this span of 14-1 months later? A whopping 74, lol, come on. This should NEVER happen. It was not a isolated exp either, so please don't anybody respond with some argument that it was just a low chance occurrence. Not it was not. Face it, morale is busted. Good news is it supposedly will get better in 1.05? I could go on, but rant over. As people might not know, I've suffered sever trauma playing the axis. In all cases been obliterated and dissolution with 42. I can still see the 6-7 depth lines of Soviet forts with this pesky small units taking many hundreds of axis loses to only hundreds of theirs. Yeah sure, 60k to 5k and that Soviet unit will just retreat or route back to safety. Here's a tip for the devs/designers, Soviets units did actually surrender without being surround for many turns... [:'(] Same with axis too of course. This really needs to be better factor of the timeline, leadership, and units morale/exp than currently.

Q-Ball -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 6:23:03 PM)
I think you guys are much too hard on the developers and other powers that be. It ain't easy to develop a complex war simulation and have it be even close to 100% realistic. There are many moving parts. I do think that balance and realism issues are recognized and being addressed; maybe not fast enough for some, but I can't think of a wargame you can't punch holes in, especially not one as complex as this engine (and WITP-AE for that matter) The focus is on balance, because you can address that within a wargame much quicker than realism.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 6:53:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball I think you guys are much too hard on the developers and other powers that be. It ain't easy to develop a complex war simulation and have it be even close to 100% realistic. There are many moving parts. I do think that balance and realism issues are recognized and being addressed; maybe not fast enough for some, but I can't think of a wargame you can't punch holes in, especially not one as complex as this engine (and WITP-AE for that matter) The focus is on balance, because you can address that within a wargame much quicker than realism. I give the devs much credit. This is the best eastern front PC game I've ever played and one of the best PC wargames I've ever played. Fire in the East it is not, unfortunately. It lacks the realism of the best cardboard wargames, which is not a crime. I do think that the term 'game balance' means different things to different people. From my perspective, you can't have true game balance by my definition while the Soviet gets to create whole units out of nothing but AP, and the German is scripted to have everything occur exactly as it did historically. Again, by my definition of 'game balance' you can't have game balance in such an asymmetrical system, and it will always sour WitE for me. The mechanical kinks in the game, whether they're over-run mechanics, or massive and perfect rail evacuation by the Soviets, or the command and control disparity that the human Soviet has over his counterpart in history - those could be worked out and still make me happier with the game. I'm very hopeful of 1.05 and future work.

jzardos -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 7:36:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball I think you guys are much too hard on the developers and other powers that be. It ain't easy to develop a complex war simulation and have it be even close to 100% realistic. There are many moving parts. I do think that balance and realism issues are recognized and being addressed; maybe not fast enough for some, but I can't think of a wargame you can't punch holes in, especially not one as complex as this engine (and WITP-AE for that matter) The focus is on balance, because you can address that within a wargame much quicker than realism. My comments were not meant as any sort of personal attack on anybody. Just trying to be frank about where I believe the priorities should be to make the game better. Only an opinion, but since I purchased the game I think it gives me a right to have an opinion. Don't you? To be fair, the game has been out for almost 9 months. In that time I still surprised the combat engine lacks a certain amount of historical flavor. Especially when so many people have expressed concern with it and documented it's shortcomings. Where is the disconnect for the developers to fix what is core to a game that features ground/air combat on the eastern front? Just don't understand???[&:] But I'm very willing to hear the reason behind where the devs priorities fall. In the big picture, I know the devs really owe us nothing. They made a good game and we bought it, maybe they've just spoiled us with continuing to make it better and thus tainted our expectations. I could be coming across as pushing and selfish, but my desire is to help WitE get better... really.

Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 8:10:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 I do think that the term 'game balance' means different things to different people. From my perspective, you can't have true game balance by my definition while the Soviet gets to create whole units out of nothing but AP, and the German is scripted to have everything occur exactly as it did historically. Again, by my definition of 'game balance' you can't have game balance in such an asymmetrical system, and it will always sour WitE for me. Sorry to say but claiming that Soviet player only need AP don�t tell the whole story. If Soviet player over create units they end up struggling fill up TOE of units they have. Soviet vehicle pool pool dry up faster larger the Soviet army becomes. It wont pay up creating too many units only as much as pool and vehicle pool can sustain. If it would be as you say you both side would be able to hold whole map just creating fortified zones everywhere believe me this won�t work out simply because if you use all AP creating these you end up having map full of TOE 5-10% fortified zones that fill up like 1% a month. Most human player choice to conserve their strength and avoid doing those massive counter attacks too early that Stalin did and this helps them to build up Soviet Army faster than historical but on the other hand German player is allowed to avoid all Hitler�s mistakes too witch destroyed 6th army at Stalingrad, whole Army Group North and center at operation bagration when Hitler did not allow pull back when whole front was collapsing. I think you should play both sides more and stop making clames that are not true.

Schmart -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 8:18:29 PM)
I think the developers are doing a good job to address issues, and that balance issues will be worked out eventually. Since I play mostly the AI, any im-balance that I find is no problem, because I can adjust the difficulty level to suit my needs/wants. However, I think the game could use a little more 'chrome' for the Axis side, to make the game as a whole (even in the dark days of 43-45) more fun and add to replayability. Things like manual AFV changes, a little more force flexibility (some variation on withdrawls), and some strategic/economic/political options. These additions should'nt be there to grossely un-balance the game or make it easier for the Axis to win, but just to make the GC game more enjoyable, rather than having the game only won/lost in 1941. The campaign may be only won/lost in 1941, but at least make it so the 43-45 fighting retreat can be enjoyable by giving the Axis side something to other than watch their armies implode. I think if this game is supposed to be more of a simulation, then the Soviet OOB should be more or less historical. If the game is supopsed to be more of a 'game', then the Axis need more chrome. It all depends on what dirrection the developers intended for WITE.

Gargoil -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 9:07:45 PM)
This is what I want: Balance - No. Historical posibilities - Yes.

daft -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 9:23:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jzardos My comments were not meant as any sort of personal attack on anybody. Just trying to be frank about where I believe the priorities should be to make the game better. Only an opinion, but since I purchased the game I think it gives me a right to have an opinion. Don't you? To be fair, the game has been out for almost 9 months. In that time I still surprised the combat engine lacks a certain amount of historical flavor. Especially when so many people have expressed concern with it and documented it's shortcomings. Where is the disconnect for the developers to fix what is core to a game that features ground/air combat on the eastern front? Just don't understand???[&:] But I'm very willing to hear the reason behind where the devs priorities fall. In the big picture, I know the devs really owe us nothing. They made a good game and we bought it, maybe they've just spoiled us with continuing to make it better and thus tainted our expectations. I could be coming across as pushing and selfish, but my desire is to help WitE get better... really. Well, software development is an inherently complex undertaking, especially a system such as this with lots of moving parts. It is a very precise thing as well. You need to know exactly what and where the fine tuning should be done, which isn't as straightforward as one might think. Even for the original devs. In order to pinpoint the issues you need to replicate and identify the contributing factors, which is easier for the tangible issues, less so for the more emotionally based arguments. Finding an erroneous calculation (1 + 1 = 3) is a very different thing to fixing something people feels "a bit out of whack". This is a process that even big boys such as Microsoft spend quite a bit of time on. Just imagine what it must be like for the Grigsby Boys.

daft -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 10:28:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gargoil This is what I want: Balance - No. Historical posibilities - Yes. Reasonable request I think. Although it is worth pointing out that, within certain loosely defined limits, what constitites a historical possibility is a matter of opinion. I think it could, for example, be argued that a German draw (or stalemate) on the eastern front was at best a pipe-dream. I'm not making that argument at the moment, but still. It's a difficult issue to be sure.

jzardos -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 10:37:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daft quote: ORIGINAL: jzardos My comments were not meant as any sort of personal attack on anybody. Just trying to be frank about where I believe the priorities should be to make the game better. Only an opinion, but since I purchased the game I think it gives me a right to have an opinion. Don't you? To be fair, the game has been out for almost 9 months. In that time I still surprised the combat engine lacks a certain amount of historical flavor. Especially when so many people have expressed concern with it and documented it's shortcomings. Where is the disconnect for the developers to fix what is core to a game that features ground/air combat on the eastern front? Just don't understand???[&:] But I'm very willing to hear the reason behind where the devs priorities fall. In the big picture, I know the devs really owe us nothing. They made a good game and we bought it, maybe they've just spoiled us with continuing to make it better and thus tainted our expectations. I could be coming across as pushing and selfish, but my desire is to help WitE get better... really. Well, software development is an inherently complex undertaking, especially a system such as this with lots of moving parts. It is a very precise thing as well. You need to know exactly what and where the fine tuning should be done, which isn't as straightforward as one might think. Even for the original devs. In order to pinpoint the issues you need to replicate and identify the contributing factors, which is easier for the tangible issues, less so for the more emotionally based arguments. Finding an erroneous calculation (1 + 1 = 3) is a very different thing to fixing something people feels "a bit out of whack". This is a process that even big boys such as Microsoft spend quite a bit of time on. Just imagine what it must be like for the Grigsby Boys. Yes, I agree and understand what you are saying. However, you only have so much time in a software iteration or whatever time frame WitE devs work with. I'm just saying let's get the priorities straight as to what should be worked on for the continuing improvement of WitE. IMO certain issues such as play balancing WitE is just a 'rabbit hole' for development time. And really who has the definitive say as when it is balanced? It would seem to make more sense to move away from the religious like philosophy of "we can't introduce even the simple 'realistic' changes changes because it will disturb play balance". That is a fallacious comment in itself. Once again, focus on making the game an epic historical recreation (NOT simulation) of the east front campaign. Attempt to make it fun throughout and re-playable for both sides as it's a game too.

KenchiSulla -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 10:51:02 PM)
Although I agree with some of the comments in this post I think hiding behind that fact that you "love" a game to be able to bluntly behave like an arse is actually not (I imagine) a motivating thing for the team working on the game... Be at peace...

Klydon -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 10:55:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jakerson quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon I think part of the issue that makes it tough to balance the game is the Russian player is simply not going to repeat the Russian mistakes. In addition with the support units, while the historical Russians built a wide variety of support units, the typical Russian player is only going to build a pile of support units that seem to do the best in the game, so most players are not building motorcycle units, crappy anti-tank units, etc. I am not saying they should be forced to build those, but simply that it means the Russians are that much better by concentrating on just the very best support units and turning them out en-mass. (And no, this is not the sole reason there are issues with the game [;)] ) I don�t see SU's this important as I rather make extra rifle divs and refit rifle divs full strength faster rather than make large number of SU's. More SU's Soviet players make more manpower and arms they drain away from pool witch make it slower refitting rifle divisions and building units. Is there sense for making SU's at all? Probably as SU's gives small bonus in combat beyond stacking limitations especially early years of war but that�s all they give. After Soviet side gets ability to merge divisions to form combat corps, make artillery divisions and sapper brigades they really don�t even need SU�s anymore and can do fine just disbanding all of them so SU�s manpower and arms can be released to build corps and artillery divisions faster. Only construction and rail repair SU�s are needed all the way to end but Soviet side makes well even without them as they advance so slow most of time that it is easy to repair rail lines with those repair units anyway. Sapper brigades are not worth it. Regiments that can be assigned to corps are much better imo. Assign them and you know they will participate in the battle. The thing that SU's give the Russians is more concentration of firepower in a given hex. Take a 10 CV infantry corps. Add 3 sapper regiments and it likely turns into a 13 CV infantry corps. That type of concentrated increase in firepower simply can't be ignored (or taken for granted). I would also remind people of the new rules about units that "may" take the battle off due to over stacking issues in a given battle. That would argue for more support units and fewer larger formations. The Russians are usually swimming in tanks. Seems to me a good way to get more of those into battle in a economical way (IE not consuming a ton of trucks) is through support units. Certainly Cav corps gain a big combat increase with 3 tank regiments (or even the early tank battalions for that matter). I don't disagree with what you are saying from a manpower perspective, but the Russians want to try to increase the concentration of firepower over a given section of the front. They can't really do that with a ton of formations that count against the stacking limit vs a lot of formations that don't count but can be attached to units in the line. I also think you can disband crappy support units to help the manpower situation as well. Don't get me wrong in terms of building tons and tons of support units. I just think players are going to focus on a couple of support units that seem to work the best, crank tons of those out while totally ignoring 75% of the other support units they could have built and that the Russians fielded in the actual campaign. This results in a stronger than historical Russian.

KenchiSulla -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 11:01:09 PM)
Now we are having this discussion.. Is it an idea to limit support units the same way you limit guards units? As it stands now it is an TOE enhancer... This would force the player to make some tough decisions .... This could be considered balancing ofcourse which is a touchy subject.. Or perhaps make changes to how many support units you can attach to a Division/Corps?

jzardos -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/24/2011 11:34:20 PM)
Yes, there's certain Soviet SUs which I believe are just window dressing. The forum has already been circulating what is worth building for Soviet SUs and what is a waste of manpower and armaments.

misesfan -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/25/2011 12:08:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 I give the devs much credit. This is the best eastern front PC game I've ever played and one of the best PC wargames I've ever played. Fire in the East it is not, unfortunately. It lacks the realism of the best cardboard wargames, which is not a crime. I do think that the term 'game balance' means different things to different people. From my perspective, you can't have true game balance by my definition while the Soviet gets to create whole units out of nothing but AP, and the German is scripted to have everything occur exactly as it did historically. Again, by my definition of 'game balance' you can't have game balance in such an asymmetrical system, and it will always sour WitE for me. The mechanical kinks in the game, whether they're over-run mechanics, or massive and perfect rail evacuation by the Soviets, or the command and control disparity that the human Soviet has over his counterpart in history - those could be worked out and still make me happier with the game. I'm very hopeful of 1.05 and future work. Totally agree. Assuming average luck, what should be the expected outcome of the campaign? Everyone as states that the Soviets should do at least as well because they can avoid the mistakes of history. Why cant the Germans do the same thing? Couldnt they be able to hunker down before Winter of 41? Avoid having entire armies encircled in so-called Festngs? How about using retreats as a springboard to unleash a smackdown on a Soviet offensive thrust? But more fundamentally - isnt it more FUN to play as the Red Army? As the Germans, there is some critical decision making to be had in 41, but thereafter doesnt it devolve to a method of retreating banged up formations to refit, and plugging these holes with progressively weaker and weaker units? I dont know how fun that is. I have a played a few PBM campaigns, and inevitably, when 1943 hits, and the Dneiper bend has already been cleared, Minsk captured, and the Courland pocket formed, its not much fun for the Germans. If it aint fun to play, I dont care if you think it is a true simulation which is historically accurate - you wont play that side. Now, playing the Soviet side - especially during 41 and 42 - thats some awesome gaming. Many critical decisions to be made in defense. Dramatic and tense gaming. Then as the tide turns, the logistical and material puzzle along with complete freedom of offensive action to be made throughout every front allows one to experiment with a variety of different offensive strategies. The downside, is that there really is no risk to the Soviets from late 1942 onward. The Axis dont have the strength to mount Operation Citadel let alone the operational masterpiece of Mansteins Backhand against Kharkov. Maybe some house rules can be set up or something - I dont know.

Schmart -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/25/2011 12:19:40 AM)
What about putting a hard cap on the number of SU's a Soviet player can create? X limit of Art Regts, Y limit on Sapper Regts, etc. Once the Soviets reach their Art Regt limit, the player can't create any more, and then needs to decide if they want to use their pool of material to beef up the army with lesser SU's, or use the pool to funnel more replacements to on map units.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.266113