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 (9/2/2018 4:58:48 PM)

Nada



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 5:14:48 PM)

Nada



Telemecus -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 6:46:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrblonde1
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?


Three cheers mrblonde1 - what I have said for a long time balance discussions should be about which options players chose, not imposing the same set on everyone.

A bit of the history as I have had it told to me on versions changes - for a long time a very well known player was very vocal on these forums about buffing the Axis side. And that is what happened. Now there are very vocal proponents the other way.

This is not to denigrate any of the individuals here as they are wonderful contributors to the forums. But the reality is the game balance has fluctuated by a very few voices shouting loudly and the developers have followed. This is simply no way to design a game.

I have advocated doing a proper user survey so that at least the quiet majority - who find the Axis by far the most difficult side to do well with - at least get heard. This could be done at close to zero cost and however imperfect the responses would be it would be many times the accuracy of any other feedback that has been had so far. And I shudder when I hear the developers are again going to make changes on the basis of the comments of few on this forum.

Given that the problem of balance is different for different skill levels every balance will be wrong for many by definition. The developers should not be trying to get the correct "balance" for everybody - they should be enabling us to have the correct balances for each level. That to me sounds like using the options, or if, as some have said, there are problems with them - then that is what should be fixed. Not the "balance" which simply is not a meaningful concept for the whole player community together.



chaos45 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 7:16:52 PM)

I know telemecus I guess you fear 2 CV soviet divisions by September.....

IDK what changes Morveal is doing as far as overall changes but the fixes to the soviets Experience/digging in is a fix to something that has not been working right for awhile now.

In all honesty fixing exploits, and bugs and some slight changes to starting 1941 scenario to prevent the extreme Super lvov move is the only thing I have fully advocated for in this patch.

I do feel German supply is much to good, especially compared to historical, but with real units the soviets might be able to put resistance to this. You can watch any historical WW2 show, or listen to any WW2 professor on Youtube and see how oversupplied the Germans are compared to what they could actually accomplish in the real campaign.

I guess the point is how good should the 1941 German campaign be? should the Germans be able to take leningrad, moscow, and stalino or more in the south every 1941 campaign reliably? I would vote no...2 of the 3 by overconcentration of forces compared to historical in that area maybe and would actually equal a good overall campaign game going into 1942.

In all honesty I think any German player than manages their supply and rail network with some decent care can easily accomplish 2 of the 3 right now...no real skill required. To get all 3 requires alittle more skill with supply manipulation but easily doable in the current version of the game and soviet player cannot stop it as they simply do not have the CV due the lack of unit experience gain and lack of manpower to fill up units as the campaign goes on.

I dont even think you need Super lvov to get better than historical results this version of the game....a very average opening should easily net German players better than historical results.






Telemecus -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 7:27:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45
In all honesty I think any German player than manages their supply and rail network with some decent care can easily accomplish 2 of the 3 right now...no real skill required.


I think this is the crux of the issue. 90+% of games never achieve 2 of the 3 - most barely 1.

This is rather like saying with care we can play chess like Gary Kasparov and get our doctorates in maths - no real skill required. The point is the skill IS in managing supply and the rail network. And 90+% of games played in WitE are by players who do not have that level of skill.

You simply cannot dismiss what so many find so hard as no skill.



morvael -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 8:13:29 PM)

Only WitE2 will fully solve the supply problem. Currently you can place four panzer groups in a single area and they will be all supplied as well as one would be. This is not realistic.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 9:13:36 PM)

quote:

In all honesty I think any German player than manages their supply and rail network with some decent care can easily accomplish 2 of the 3 right now...no real skill required.

When did you last play Axis chaos?

I sit a little (but not much longer) on my Soviet moves than on my Axis ones on average, but feel the mistake tolerance is much lower under Germans, requiring more concentration.
Also, managing supply is not as trivial as you make it sound on its own, it takes 5 densely written pages to describe what is only a part of it (see the library). Some make tests and some read advice and some play 20 games to get an intuitive feeling, but it is not trivial.

As already stated before, I am fine with a small Soviet buff leaving everything else equal, like quicker exp gain and maybe 5k extra manpower in 1941. If you don't like the Super Lvov, simply include a house rule. Same about the quicker rail repair in the South.

@HLYA: I do not understand the fixaction on Axis panzers. Why trying to inflict decisive losses on them when 1941 is about preserving the army and holding terrain. Also, why attack Panzers if you can attack infantry, I usually think of manpower, not AFVs as the key stat. You can still attack the panzers with tac air assuming the flak gets scaled back a bit.




HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/2/2018 10:05:08 PM)

Nada



56ajax -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 2:50:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: beender

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]


I don't know about others but I get bored when it is a one-sided show. So the intensity is what draws me of the early years. The later years bore me to death. And the Soviet game of slow rolling attacks every turn with no break through is monotonous and drives me to tears.


I don't know if it is depressing but it sure is tiring and definitely not fun with most of the German losses happening during attrition, which you do not see.

HYLA - totally agree, the challenge for the Soviets is surviving 1941, thats a thrill (or not)



galex -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 3:03:46 AM)

One mistake in 1941 will lead to Soviet total destruction.(Probably is historical?[:D]) Anyone who played Soviet side facing an experienced opponent will understand the stress.



56ajax -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 3:24:13 AM)

HYLA, so it is not only me - takes 2-3 days to do a Soviet turn to my liking and because I am in a different time zone to most, I finish my turn at night to awake to the next turn, so there is no let up.

Self inflicted though as I keep on coming back to this Great Game



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 4:43:08 AM)

Nada



galex -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 6:02:38 AM)

change port repair rate to 1.5%~2% from 3% per turn will be an easy to achieve fix.



morvael -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 7:17:01 AM)

Or make ports operational below 50% damage.



galex -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 8:20:50 AM)

much better[:D]



beender -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 5:54:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Just on the mistake tolerance quote I can tell you I can do a German turn in 2-5 hours easy. I have carried 9 games at a time as Germany. I carry at max 2 games as Soviets now.
Soviets take me 2-3 days in the early turns to do a turn. This one against Beender took me two weeks to do a turn. Why? because there is NO tolerance for any mistake as a Soviet(in high end games) in the early game(unless you play run away) otherwise you are going to get killed. I have played both sides and can say emphatically the Soviet side is MUCH harder to play and less tolerance for a mistake in those first 15 turns. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT AT ALL when playing competent players. Not until the Soviet reinforcements come in can the Soviet relax but a little.



I agree Soviet is much much harder than Axis to play in 41 (maybe as it should be), but not allowing one mistake is a bit exaggeration. It is only true if you adopt an aggressive forward defence. In that case the risk that the whole front will collapse is so high that I regard it as unbearable, unless you are confident that there is a considerate amount of difference in player skill levels and your opponent will not be able to take advantage of the vulnerable Soviet positions.


quote:

ORIGINAL: galex

One mistake in 1941 will lead to Soviet total destruction.(Probably is historical?[:D]) Anyone who played Soviet side facing an experienced opponent will understand the stress.



That's a bit overstatement isn't it? Your Soviet is far from total destruction in our game, yet you can't say you have not made a single mistake[:'(]

Seriously, I believe your performance of runaway strategy, oh no, retreat at the right time with the right rhythm contributed greatly to the success. Good job there. In this situation you risk losing one or two more units by making a mistake. Bad but not the end of the world.



Stelteck -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 6:02:10 PM)

The problem of the runaway strategy is that you still have to defend moscow and Leningrad or loose the game deeply by victory point or sudden death.

At least you cannot loose both or it is other. In theory you could retake them quickly enough, but it is quite difficult to retake something that the german really want to hold. German army stay strong a long time. (Or you need to create exceptional large pockets of ennemy troops. Stalingrad like pocket will not be enough).

At least until end 1943 but it is too late for victory points.




HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 6:27:24 PM)

Nada



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/3/2018 6:27:53 PM)

Nada



Elma666 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/9/2018 10:55:31 PM)

Hi. I read all pages here now and my meaning,Ewald see it right. The russian players that means Germany must be weaker should play some rounds as Germans against people that are so good as himself and you will see,germany is not so overpowerd as it seems. I never see that a german is ready to take Leningrad,Moscow and Rostov in 41, the high HQ-BU cost for Germany and the weak Logistic is hard enough i think. The low Panzercasualties in most battles is ok i think,and Germany produces not really much in the first years.I loose more with travelling behind the Lines and bad repair and they got loose then. Sorry but my english is bad. Often i have 3thousand lost after the winter. I think thats more then enough.The Russian extrem losses are total Ok,Historical way do this humanwall attacks and lost thousands and thousands for nothing sometimes. In 42 you have as german very big problems……..

Thats my meaning,pls don,t do to much!! And yes i play both sides more than 5 times…..



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balance discussion (9/10/2018 11:45:45 AM)

Nada



mrblonde1 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/10/2018 2:06:56 PM)

99% of people playing this game don't have so much time to play so most of them probably can't achive so good results. For example I played five 41 campaigns and I took moscow once against beginer.leningrad and stalino always but lost stalino every winter.



galex -> RE: Balance discussion (9/11/2018 3:22:50 AM)

I agree with your estimate of 100% Leningrad and 70% Moscow. [:D]



Elma666 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/11/2018 9:50:22 PM)

Hi. That can be true Hard Luck but then you are one of the 10 % how managed all more then well,and the other???And how i loose 3k armored cars-03.42 with no tank losses?When you are soo good then give your enemies Bonus for moral or etc. then you have a hard game,or play as Germany only with +1 and hard Winter for russian. German can 100% take Leningrad, and why not? Russia dont loose war then. In History Germans was 1mm bevor the russian collapse and this game makes it very good,why the Hell should the Germans be more weaker to can do nothing strong in 41? If you able to hold 41 in later war Germans have 1% chance to come in 45. Yes im not the super expert from that all,but in the most games i play Russia the Germans sucks,some good enemies are able to **** me Hard,and at Russia im a beginner.That fuel tricks for german tanks at the infantry armies are not ok,but the high HQ-Bu costs and the reduced supply is enough i think. Never see Leningrad,Moskau and Rostov fall in 41. Yesterday my german enemy attack west from Moskau,loose battle and lost 28 tanks and 40 damaged how can this with "no" tank losses?

And hey,thats only my meaning,170 campain games i have in my 3 live i think,and many different players play and like this game,you can take so much things bevor game starts,moral bonus,supply bonus etc...why so very good people like you dont use that settings? And again sorry,my english is from school 25 years ago and i dont understand all but the most.



xhoel -> RE: Balance discussion (9/12/2018 12:17:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elma666

Hi. I read all pages here now and my meaning,Ewald see it right. The russian players that means Germany must be weaker should play some rounds as Germans against people that are so good as himself and you will see,germany is not so overpowerd as it seems. I never see that a german is ready to take Leningrad,Moscow and Rostov in 41, the high HQ-BU cost for Germany and the weak Logistic is hard enough i think. The low Panzercasualties in most battles is ok i think,and Germany produces not really much in the first years.I loose more with travelling behind the Lines and bad repair and they got loose then. Sorry but my english is bad. Often i have 3thousand lost after the winter. I think thats more then enough.The Russian extrem losses are total Ok,Historical way do this humanwall attacks and lost thousands and thousands for nothing sometimes. In 42 you have as german very big problems……..

Thats my meaning,pls don,t do to much!! And yes i play both sides more than 5 times…..


I have more experience as Germany than 99% of the people playing this game. I can tell you infatically that the German panzers dont take loses. I can also tell you that the Germans can gaurentee a Leningrad loss. I can also tell you that the Germans can take Moscow 70% of the time. I have many many games that did not go past round 15. The Germans in the right hands can garentee this and as such I 100% disagree what you wrote if I am reading this correctly. That is playing the Germans since the game came out late 2010 and over 170 campaigns as Germany.


I am in no way near the level of experience and expertise that you are and I tend to use my panzers carefully but in my current game I have around 3 Panzer Divisions at 50-60% TOE, casualties taken from heavy fighting. Also the Germans are taking quite heavy casualties (talking about infantry divisions) in many battles, even against numerically inferior Soviet troops on open ground without fortifications.

I am strongly for fixing the Soviet construction bug and experience one. I am also for rules that stop ports (Odessa) to be used as major supply sources. And I think you were the one that advocated for the +1 bonus to stop in November which I also fully support. What me and many other players are saying is that other major changes will lead to a very nerfed Axis and a buffed Soviet side and then we go back to step 1 again. The idea is to have a game that is challenging and for me personally the game now is quite balanced and only needs little tweaks and no major changes.

Changing the game so as to accomodate the needs of 5% of the players (who are the most experienced and vocal ones) is not a good idea IMHO but adding extra options at the start of the game is welcomed.

Cheers,
Xhoel



chaos45 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/12/2018 3:06:01 PM)

xhoel….all it should require is for you to change your ToE % and you can probably fix your panzer ToEs.

That's the issues is you can successfully micromanage the German army to make sure replacements go directly to your best units to always keep them at close to top ToE %. An I wouldn't say that is an advanced tactic by an measure.

I do agree the changes do not need to be radical but some changes are need to make the soviets slightly stronger and the germans esp in the south alittle slower....or at least fix all the fuel exploits the "good" german players are pulling off lol- HQ swaps seeming to be a big culprit and im not sure that's something that can be fixed.



thedoctorking -> RE: Balance discussion (9/12/2018 3:08:28 PM)

There need to be more balance options to accommodate both players at HLYA's level of expertise and people at mine.



xhoel -> RE: Balance discussion (9/12/2018 4:55:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

xhoel….all it should require is for you to change your ToE % and you can probably fix your panzer ToEs.

That's the issues is you can successfully micromanage the German army to make sure replacements go directly to your best units to always keep them at close to top ToE %. An I wouldn't say that is an advanced tactic by an measure.

I do agree the changes do not need to be radical but some changes are need to make the soviets slightly stronger and the germans esp in the south alittle slower....or at least fix all the fuel exploits the "good" german players are pulling off lol- HQ swaps seeming to be a big culprit and im not sure that's something that can be fixed.


I am very aware of that and I am using those options. But that doesn't mean that panzers take no losses like HLYA is saying. And no you can't keep them at top TOE always since units on the front line in contact with the enemy don't just magically fill up their TOE when 30+ MP away from the railhead. You have to pull them back constantly and that means they won't be available for offensive action by next turn.

I have heard this HQ swap thing over and over again but I really don't know what you are referring to, could you please elaborate? I tend to play my games as realistically as possible so I don't go out of my way to use exploits. In my game I am not repairing from Odessa and the supply situation in the south is not optional. I had numerous Infantry divisions at 8 MP this turn, many others had 10-11 MPs.

By all means morvael and Dennis should add more options for expert players like you, HLYA and others but those options should not be imposed on all the other average or under average players.



Aufklaerungs -> RE: Balance discussion (9/12/2018 6:37:03 PM)

Does anyone else find it frustrating that a basic balancing technique in the game, MP costs for controlled and uncontrolled terrain make pursuit of a retreating (routed) foe a very unlikely proposition. Axis can always move faster than the Soviets heading west for home while Soviets can flash east at incredible speeds often without breaking a sweat. As the Soviets, I haven't found any way to get from Kharkov to Kiev faster than the Germans in summer 1943 (without creating my own scenario ... Heh Heh), paratroops, notwithstanding.

Would like to hear how players handle pursuit opportunities where infantry with sky high morale can never overtake with a demoralized, disorganized, fatigued adversary headed in a homeward direction. Seems as though even pursuers in mobilized units have a tough time making an all out pursuit of fleeing infantry (except for Axis T1 in campaign scenarios).



chaos45 -> RE: Balance discussion (9/12/2018 10:40:35 PM)

Germans can easily outrun fleeing soviets with their motorized and panzer formations in 41 and 42 both and 43 to be honest as most German motorized units keep very high morale for a long time and enemy controlled hex cost is based on the units morale.

Also Xhoel, I comment in your AAR...but look at a historical map of the 1941 campaign and you will quickly see you are far in advance of historical by 1-2 months across almost the entire front. This is why me and HLYA talk balance issues.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.605469