RE: Balance discussion (Full Version)

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



Message

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (8/31/2018 3:19:09 PM)

Nada



Stelteck -> RE: Balance discussion (8/31/2018 3:22:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

At lest until Blizzard hits in all four weather zones :)


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa......... No seriously :)


Is it random weather or fixed weather ? [:D]



GoodbyeBluesky -> RE: Balance discussion (8/31/2018 7:57:24 PM)

So people mentioned Port Supply a bunch of times now. How does one exactly utilize it? The port is after all damaged when you take it and needs a lot of time to repair



thedoctorking -> RE: Balance discussion (8/31/2018 8:06:28 PM)

A big port like Odessa or Riga will become operational as a supply source relatively quickly - say at 96% or 92% damage. So you capture Odessa as soon as possible, even diverting armor from AGS to go down there. Then, run your FBD's forward to Odessa while a corps or RHG HQ with a lot of construction units assigned to it repairs the rail hex in the port (and runs the rail line forward from Romania to Odesa). Once the port is repaired to the 90-some percent level - a couple of turns - and the rail hex in the port is repaired, you can start running your rail line forward from there. It gains you a couple of turns on pushing supply forward in the south.

Similarly, in the Baltic, Riga and (should the Germans take it) Leningrad offer a similar possibility. Capturing Leningrad turns out to be enormously important for preserving the ability of the Germans to supply themselves in the vast forests to the east of there.

It's also pretty much totally bogus from a historical standpoint. The Soviet navy in the Black Sea was a whole lot bigger than the Romanian, and could and did block Axis naval activity in the Black Sea. While Sevastopol was under German siege, the Soviet fleet had to rebase to the eastern Black Sea and then the Romanians were able to do some naval transport, but not in July 1941. The Axis have a very small naval transport capacity in the Black Sea in game terms until they actually get Odessa and Sevastopol fully repaired, but their ability to move supplies through those ports is clearly an exploit.



morvael -> RE: Balance discussion (8/31/2018 9:31:37 PM)

Automatic rail repair in port will be gone.



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (8/31/2018 10:16:37 PM)

Nada




GamesaurusRex -> RE: Balance discussion (8/31/2018 10:41:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Beender, I concur with your balance thoughts...but a lot of things are already very much balanced in favor the Germans over historical. The Lvov/Super Lvov move being one that historically never happened and I would wager couldn't have happened as the thousands of Soviet tanks actually put up quite a fight historically. This move alone gives the Germans a massive edge over anything that happenend "historically"

As well German losses are much lower than historical which is allowing the panzer/motorized divisions to keep a very high CV and continue to be the leading edge of the spear turn after turn. Again a gamism and not based on historical results.

Next soviet replacement rates are much lower than hisorical making the Soviets have less men/units to deal with the above non-historical advantages the Germans have.

Then in addition to that you have a German logistics/supply rate that is obviously much better than historical when units often had to spend weeks waiting on supplies/fuel to continue the advance.

Then you also have that in real life/historical Soviet counter-attacks actually delayed and cost the Germans alot of losses---something the soviets cannot do in this game.

So alot of the Historical facts have already been manipulated to give the Germans a chance to win much greater than history.

I agree with you need both sides to have a chance, but at this point the Germans chance has been pushed to an almost absolute due to the changes of the last couple patches. You can look back before alot of artificial manipulation- which increased German supply and reduced Soviet CV even more....that skilled German players were still doing well and winning games prior to patch .07

I understand some system issues have been fixed since then but balance has also been heavily weighted in facor of an axis victory when they could already win in the hands of a skilled play prior to all the additional nerfs to Soviets and buffs to Germans in the last 3-4 Major patches.





I've played the Grand Campaign of this game primarily as the Russians since 2013 and I agree 100% with chaos45's overall comments...

but the real question is "WHAT KIND OF A GAME DO YOU WANT?"

IF YOUR AIM IS TO GET A "BALANCED" GAME: The thing that many players seem to miss is the fact that there are several pre-game adjustments that can be made in the initial setup screen. However, the problem that presents itself there is the fact that new players will not know how to tweak the settings to accomplish game balance between two particular players until they have played a few times to get a sense of what can and cannot be accomplished by each side.

IF YOUR AIM IS TO GET AN "HISTORICAL" GAME: Then you should be using both the "Extreme Blizzard" and "Russian +1" options and a House Rule that disallows the Lvov Pocket, since you want the simulation to impose conditions on the German side that will weaken them in the blizzard, facilitate a Russian counter attack in 41-42, and prevent them from crushing the Southern Front in two moves because they know the exact starting point of Russian units. (As for the problems of Leningrad's impossible defense or the outrageous German rail capacity... I have yet to even try to "adjust" that out of an "historical" game. I think WITE 2.0 will probably be out before I get there.)

These are two very different goals from a game simulation perspective, but thanks to the work of Morvael, Denniss and others, GGWITE has plenty of adjustment tweaks to satisfy almost anyone. You just have to play around with it to get what you want.

**********
Please note that these comments are in no way meant to dissuade Morvael and Denniss from continuing their heroic efforts to crush the "bugs" out of this excellent game. Their efforts are greatly appreciated and applauded !
[sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif]



beender -> RE: Balance discussion (8/31/2018 11:19:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

I agree with you need both sides to have a chance, but at this point the Germans chance has been pushed to an almost absolute due to the changes of the last couple patches.



Probably we have different ideas about what is "win" or "victory", now that I come to think of it. I have been assuming without much reflection that Germany needs to have a chance to win a total victory, meaning taking every bit of hex on the map.

Soviet can certainly do that, given enough time. Yes scenario settings like maximum turns or victory points can stop you from obtaining a technical win but you will feel satisfied knowing Soviet has been saved and Berlin is at your mercy.

On the other hand, the only chance for Germany to push to the very end of the map lies in 41. You have to hurt Soviet very badly and then keep pushing come 42, of course, after successfully surviving the first winter. A minor mistake and bang, all you can hope now is to slow down the Soviet juggernaut and postpone the inevitable loss of Berlin. Not very appealing goals, are they?

Indeed, whether it is desirable to give Germany such a chance is an entire open question to debate. What I am trying to say is just that, if we would like to reserve a possibility for Axis total victory, then many aspects of the game might have to be balanced accordingly, sometimes very much against history. So perhaps there can an option of "fiction" or "ideal" or something, like in WITP and some other wargames.



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/1/2018 2:02:13 AM)

Nada



56ajax -> RE: Balance discussion (9/1/2018 4:11:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: beender


quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

I agree with you need both sides to have a chance, but at this point the Germans chance has been pushed to an almost absolute due to the changes of the last couple patches.



Probably we have different ideas about what is "win" or "victory", now that I come to think of it. I have been assuming without much reflection that Germany needs to have a chance to win a total victory, meaning taking every bit of hex on the map.

Soviet can certainly do that, given enough time. Yes scenario settings like maximum turns or victory points can stop you from obtaining a technical win but you will feel satisfied knowing Soviet has been saved and Berlin is at your mercy.

On the other hand, the only chance for Germany to push to the very end of the map lies in 41. You have to hurt Soviet very badly and then keep pushing come 42, of course, after successfully surviving the first winter. A minor mistake and bang, all you can hope now is to slow down the Soviet juggernaut and postpone the inevitable loss of Berlin. Not very appealing goals, are they?

Indeed, whether it is desirable to give Germany such a chance is an entire open question to debate. What I am trying to say is just that, if we would like to reserve a possibility for Axis total victory, then many aspects of the game might have to be balanced accordingly, sometimes very much against history. So perhaps there can an option of "fiction" or "ideal" or something, like in WITP and some other wargames.



No they are not, and neither is playing a Soviet defensive game for about 75 turns where the only enemy tanks destroyed are captured T34s, your weapons fire pop corn, 26 turns to build up experience to max if the unit lasts that long, and the Nazis launch an all out offensive on the first clear turn of the season and crack open your line by advancing a panzer corp through 3 swamp hexes...and it takes me 4 -5 hours a Soviet turn, sometimes over multiple sessions ...and you realise you are only playing on in fairness to your opponent...

Still the game has to be fun for both players. IMO balancing may have to come from the House Rules you set up at the start



beender -> RE: Balance discussion (9/1/2018 6:28:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have always considered total victory by forcing a Soviet to surrender the game. Pretty easy to do as Germany if you know what you are doing. Not much the Soviets can do about it until they get unit density. You have been proving that pretty easily in your games, what more can you ask for balance wise on those odds?


Well don't get me wrong. I am not asking for more, just unsure as to whether less is still enough. Also, playing Germany is never easy, at least not for me. Actually, difficulty is where I think the fun is, and it requires a lot of effort and perhaps luck as well to achieve some success against experienced Soviet players.



beender -> RE: Balance discussion (9/1/2018 6:36:59 AM)

Lol it does sound quite depressing. Anyway, I suppose that's what the life is when you play Soviet starting from 41. If as Soviet you have fun in 41, what do you expect to happen in later years[:D]



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/1/2018 2:21:10 PM)

Nada



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/1/2018 2:22:26 PM)

Nada



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/1/2018 10:22:31 PM)

Loss ratios in my game vs. S-T looked good. Here is a battle where German losses were not only significant (in the context of the game), but also at a 1:1 ratio:
[image]local://upfiles/54093/C9B0A80032814085ABD30D3DF73EC915.jpg[/image]

Loss ratios for counterattacks were in the 1:2 to 1:5 range, which I consider to be fine, especially because we were still in the phase with Soviet extra losses.
In the 8MP game, I also regularly see 1:2 to 1:1 ratios for counterattacks, and conditions there are far from optimal.

Of course, you get much different loss ratios when a low mrl/exp division is attacked in the open without protection from terrain or fortifications, but this is how it should be.



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 1:06:43 AM)

Nada



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 1:12:14 AM)

Nada



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 8:27:42 AM)

It is by design that the attacker takes more losses. I find this plausible in the historical context.
First another screenshot from another game under 1.11.01 (before the latest increase in Axis losses) where the Axis side takes significant losses and where loss ratios are fine. Note this is a clear hexagons with lvl 1 fort only.

[image]local://upfiles/54093/E294BDCAFB244CF39DBEA4FD11F9ADA3.jpg[/image]



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 8:44:17 AM)

Data from game under 1.11.01 (before the latest increse in Axis losses), T17




[image]local://upfiles/54093/7FBF6A82CCF441ACA55D6B739744F284.jpg[/image]



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 9:07:09 AM)

Data from partially played Axis T8 (only army group North), ignore Soviet attacks here as Axis resigned T8 and they were "just for fun battles".
Again from Soviet point of view I have no problems with those results, especially because I know they will only become better once the extra loss rule falls T11 (or T12, I support this rule) and when morale/experience have grown.



[image]local://upfiles/54093/EB7B95641E9B4D48AB9CAAA5139F22CB.jpg[/image]



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 9:18:00 AM)

Data from Soviet counterattacks before T8, unfortunately all screenshots I have from this game, but results are congruent with my memory.

[image]local://upfiles/54093/945F376BE9F548698FCBB2587EA48A37.jpg[/image]



Stelteck -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 9:33:55 AM)

In WW2 unlike WW1 (especially in the beginning), the defender often take more looses than the attacker, because a well planned attack will have overhelming numbers and firepower, all defending position will be destroyed by artillery at range (or bypassed) and the defender will have to conduct a difficult retreat under fire or be surrounded and destroyed.

Usually in WW2 the attacker take looses when its attack is counter attacked by reserve forces.



chaos45 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 11:03:38 AM)

One thing I notice from your reports is almost every soviet division is at least 2 CV...which means these are all fully trained soviet units.

Also you can see from your posts in the pictures that ST slams right into your best units turn after turn in the north. So these are more or less best case scenario battles for the soviets in 1941. You have several almost 3 CV divisions in those combat reports....I found in my last game under V11.03 3 CV soviet units were very rare outside of my tank/mech/motor div due to super Lvov....I also noticed ST did not do the super Lvov against you so you have more/better units available early in the game.

Its one reason I have mainly advocated for fixing the Soviet exp gain so you can actually have more CV 2 units by September, and doing some slight scenario mods to limit the super Lvov move as they are to damaging to the soviets in the early game. As well limiting Super Lvov has no impact on average/intermediate level german play at all---and its a super easy fix with scenario mod...just need to move some units and add some strength to Odessa to represent the black sea fleet units that aren't currently represented in the game.

Another note is you have the very best soviet commanders facing not the best German commanders, so this is influencing the battles. If the german player uses the 9 politic german leaders to just do swaps for 2 AP they can very quickly get among the best german commanders to their corps. Another recommendation I made to have changed was a minimum cost of 5 AP for german corps command changes as thats about half what a soviet army commander takes to change--usually a minimum of 9-10 to change a soviet army commander.

More or less exploits are part of the problem right now, and limiting those would help alot.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 12:04:59 PM)

@Stelteck: Do you talk of absolute losses or of losses relative to the committed force by each side? I have looked at the Kursk data set from War by Numbers by the dupuy institute and it confirms that ratios of absolute losses favour the defender. Edit: The data from Kursk contradicts your claim, their data from Italy slightly contradicts it, and the data from the Ardennes supports it. I am interested in educating myself here, do you have sources or do you knwo a good analysis on this you can link/name?
It is important to divide between losses inflicted on the tactical/low operational level, which would be a fight over a hexagon, and losses at the operational level due to surrender or overruns. (losses due to surrender/overrun on low levels to be included in the low level losses).

@chaos45:
1) Super Lvov kills two, maybe 3 more infantry divisions compared to S-Ts opening in the south. The third one which is bagged depending on herding technique usually is of poor quality. The attacks shown here mostly involved rifle divisions.
2) You are right that S-T is slugging through the best Soviet formations in good terrain. The combat systems rewards the defender in this case. But the same way it should punish a player who sends his green Soviet divisions in open terrain without fortifications against Axis formations. He also should be punished when attacking with untrained units with bad leaders. Also note that I paid much attention to morale management for the units to get the divisions to NM ASAP.
3) I agree about the experience gain, 2 points per turn on average instead of 1 seem good to me.
4)
quote:

Another note is you have the very best soviet commanders facing not the best German commanders
That is because S-T concentrated his best commanders for the attacks on my defence, the data you can get from the tables. Many attacks were led by Manstein and Model.
5) Remember that swapping a leader on the Axis side improves the C&C for up to 4 divisions, for a Soviet army for up to 12 divisions. Also, the Soviets have a much reduced cost for swapping units of any size (1AP vs. 2-4) between corps, and do not need to spend on HQBUs. Historically, the German command system was very flexible and relied on Auftragstaktik, while the Soviet system lagged behind in this regard.







beender -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 12:06:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

But all of this still does not fix the Germans not taking any losses on their PZ Divisions and Moto Divisions. :) Those SUPERMEN


Actually I have been quite confused as to the issue of adjusting combat loss, as if it were something adjustable with particular respect to one side, or even one type of units? Of course technically it is surely possible but I doubt that currently there is any special buff to make German loss smaller in a combat. I assume the combat calculation takes into account everything relevant, except the nationality of the troop. In other words, if you swap the nationalities of the antagonist troops in a certain battle, almost exactly reverse result should be obtained. German panzers lose little not because they are German panzers, but because they are very good and strong units.

If this is the case, then making German panzers lose more necessarily means lower the weight of exp/morale/etc. play in the calculation formula, so that good and bad troops do not suffer casualties with so much difference. Whether it is a desirable change I sincerely don't know, but it is a bigger change than you might have wanted to ask for.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 12:11:21 PM)

Some more data, this time from 8MP game, T49, Axis major offensive, on clear ground. Soviet positions have fortifications from 0 to level 2.


[image]local://upfiles/54093/9BC750AD9E474E0AA318753401B3A048.jpg[/image]



chaos45 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 1:51:27 PM)

Command and control...actually a soviet army commander can only command 9 divisions unless you later want to pay AP to remove divisions thus increasing overall AP usage.

So Soviets paying 9 at the cheapest to replace 18 CP worth of command....while germans can currently replace 2x corps commanders for 16 CP of command for only 4 CP...this to me is a pretty unfair advantage esp when german commanders on the whole are prolly twice as good as soviet at the start.

Also pretty sure Germans go to 9 CP on corps at some point maybe 43? While soviets go from 24 to 21 to 18 so to conserve AP use on the soviets its best to only go 18 CP per army. As well they aren't staffed with support squads to support more than 18 CP is my understanding from Morveal in past conversations.

Make it 4 AP per german commander replace so its 8 CP for 2 corps commanders would be close enough...2 AP is just to cheap right now. Make the German commanders make a hard choice on AP use. Soviet commanders have a lot of choices they have to make with AP use, no reason Germans shouldn't have the same issue.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 2:26:28 PM)

@chaos:
1) For good leaders I usually use the full CPs the army can offer. It costs a few APs but the German side often helps me reducing the overload :) It also makes support unit use more efficient.
2) Rifle divisions are mostly self-supporting, therefore spreading the army support thing is not that tragic. It is a different matter with motorized/arm units.
3) I am not sure where you get your information with cheap German corp commands from. Here is a screenshot of how much it costs to replace Reinhard in the GC1941, at min 9+1AP. Of course there are also corps where this is very cheap (but at the beginning they are not the important ones), the minimum cost under perfect conditions is 2. I think the formula is in "how supply works" in the library.
You can replace corp commanders for cheap, but need to spend APs at the army level for this if you want to do this for all armies, so the overall average cost is not as low as you describe it. Having to pay 4AP per Axis corps commander would be close to a buff in my eyes. The same way the Axis can save APs on Axis corps changes by switching Army leaders is open for the Soviets as well with armies and the STAVKA.


[image]local://upfiles/54093/C034FD743BA74D039D1916C3DEAF2CD2.jpg[/image]



chaos45 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 2:38:51 PM)

If you replace any German corps commander with a 9 politics corps commander its only 2 CP. The Soviets can do the same with Army commanders but the it costs 9 due to being an army.

So T1 you can put in a 9 Political leader to replace a bad corps leader....then next turn use that same commander on another junk corps commander for only 2 AP....the AI then selections usually one of the best German commanders to replace the 9 Plotical leader you just moved.

Its a super cheap way for the Germans to replace most of their bad corps commanders very early on for low AP costs.

As I said more an issue of exploiting the system, but something that should be fixed IMO.



mrblonde1 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 3:11:05 PM)

Aren’t these balance issues can be solved by setting right options in the game options menu? I would like to see a game between two good players with morale, fort, admin and logistics set for 90 for germans and 110 – 115 for soviets. And no Lvov pocket. Would it be a good test to check players propositions?



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.921875