Atd balance revisited (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Korsun Pocket



Message

Pawlock -> Atd balance revisited (2/6/2004 2:31:05 PM)

Before the board went down there was a lot of talk on the issue of ATD balance in favour of the Russians in this scenario. A lot of the releveant posts have now been lost, so I though it appropriate to restart it with some of my latest views on this subject.

My experiences so far in pbem in this are thus, 2 overwhelming wins as Russians, 1 marginal as German(100 points shy of Decisive) and 2 more in progress as Germans and look like losses in both cases.

With all these games played 1 thing I am certain of, and that is there is no way the German player should be made stronger. As it is now, he can attack and prevail at will with wherever he wants.
It may suprise people to know, as the scenario stands now the force disposition is not excrutiatingly huge in favour of the Russians as many would believe. The OOB is something in the region of 400/ 275 in the Russian favour, with the caveat that most of the German units are larger and stronger and have larger reserve of timed replacments. This knowledge on the last point on timed replacments is crucial to any German success.

If I was to advocate any altering of play balane it would be simply to extend the game turns to the ORIGINALLY intended 28 turns (perhaps some of the beta testers or guys from SSG could give thier reasons as to why it was changed to 24?). The reason I say this is because I believe given those extra turns I could have taken at least 1 of the 200 point bonus, 50 point a turn Cities in the extreme North. This would have easily given me a Decisive if not an Overwhelming win.

Against a good defender, even if things go to plan as Germans, you just have not the time to reach these objectives. Im not saying it cant be done, but the only way is if you route the Russians early in the game. Also much of the German reinforcments later in the game even with perfect conditions cannot reach the front to make any worthwhile contributions.

So to sum up, I would say no to any stronger German force, or weaker Russian and if was to alter, would increase the scenario lenght to 28 as originally planned giving the Germans the extra 4 turns to take one of the big cities which would make a huge difference to the outcomes of many a battle I believe.

Again it would be interesting if SSG or the beta testers could comment on this point.



Joel Rauber -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/6/2004 4:43:26 PM)

Pawlock,

Interesting reply, while I'm only in my first game as the Germans, I'm fighting a quite able Russian opponent who is making my advance quite the slog by leaving detachments everywhere.

Your suggestion of changing the scenario length is a good one to explore as it is the least drastic change that one could make. Which is good. I agree that one doesn't want to make the German player stronger.

Some other thoughts:

a) I wonder if there would be any advantage to going to 12 hour turns, this would be similar to increasing the length. The major down side is the lethality of the CRT, either it would have to be changed a bit or more replacements added of both the timed and regular type.

b) I wonder what the effect would be to allow Russian units to entrench, but to not lay detachments?

If a historical defence is needed for the idea, one could argue that laying detachments is a more sophisticated tactical doctrine then merely entrenching. On the other hand that all depends on what one envisions entrenching representing.



Pawlock -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/6/2004 5:06:17 PM)

quote:

b) I wonder what the effect would be to allow Russian units to entrench, but to not lay detachments?


Again, IMO only, I think allowing entrenvhment over leaving detatchments will favour the defender greatly, as it eliminates Overruns which are the crux of any German offensiv

I have never played anyone who does not use detatchments prolifically in this scenario. A favourite tactic of most Russian players is to form a solid line, wait till the Germans get near, then retreat 1 Hex leaving detatchments at the front to negate any shifts. Suprisingly effective.

On the other hand, the secret of any German offensive is to never let up and move up to negate these shifts ASAP.



hammerfrank99 -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/6/2004 9:05:44 PM)

The scenario is balanced fine as far as I am concerned. As I remember there were a lot of people who were concerned they were not able to get an overwhelming victory as the Germans. Which I found odd as in doing so would actually prove the imbalance and not the fact that they could not get one.

In my experience over 5 games of this scenario from both sides is that it seems balanced to me as I have seen a wide variety of outcomes ranging from overwhelming for one side to overwhelming for the other (I've got an overwhelming from each side myself and I am no expert player).

The balance is not the point for me anyway as the wide disparity in experience and competency levels between players exerts such a corrupting effect on the balance anyway that trying to exactly calibrate it seems an exercise futility. The crux of the matter for me is if the scenario is fun from both sides and I think it is, I love the huge map and am happy to get out of the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Ardennes wher every damn hex is a forest with heavy forest thrown in once in a while. This is a freewheeling scenario with epic manuevers possible that raises the tension every turn in a competitive game.

My quick advice for the Russian player, detachments and then more detachments, in front of your hex, on your hex and behind your hex, every unit that can make a detachment should do so every turn as long as they are not sacrificing favorable defensive terrain to do so. Even retreat entire line portions one hex to place the detachments. For the Germans, mass to attack and screen where you don't, do not match the Russian line hex for hex, go thru and around the Russian to threaten his supply and watch his entire line retreat, you can gain more territory with threats to supply in this scenario than you actually can do so by directly attacking. To this end interdiction is your greatest weapon and used in conjunction with your (attempted) encirclements will put large numbers of Russians out of supply.



carnifex -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/6/2004 9:13:45 PM)

The problem with leaving detachments in AtD is that most Soviet units have only one bullet, so if they leave a detachment and the German player then advances and cuts supply the Soviet units will be in the 'red' and probably won't have enough movement allowance to move back into supply or into safe range.

You can always have one unit in a stack not leave a detachment, but the problem is that most russian divisions come with 3 units, and you need 3 detachments to cover a hex from the most probable avenues of attack.

This got me in trouble my last game of AtD as my opponent racked up quite a nice kill score running over red units that detached themselves into hell.



Pawlock -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/6/2004 9:23:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

The problem with leaving detachments in AtD is that most Soviet units have only one bullet, so if they leave a detachment and the German player then advances and cuts supply the Soviet units will be in the 'red' and probably won't have enough movement allowance to move back into supply or into safe range.

You can always have one unit in a stack not leave a detachment, but the problem is that most russian divisions come with 3 units, and you need 3 detachments to cover a hex from the most probable avenues of attack.

This got me in trouble my last game of AtD as my opponent racked up quite a nice kill score running over red units that detached themselves into hell.


I too found that out the hard way, and so passed on the lesson[:'(]

The thing to watch in this case is your reserve op points with the Russians, if you have near full reserve, you should be ok to leave a detatchment with the knowledge that if the tap is turned off, you can still move.



hammerfrank99 -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/6/2004 9:59:02 PM)

quote:

The problem with leaving detachments in AtD is that most Soviet units have only one bullet, so if they leave a detachment and the German player then advances and cuts supply the Soviet units will be in the 'red' and probably won't have enough movement allowance to move back into supply or into safe range.

You can always have one unit in a stack not leave a detachment, but the problem is that most russian divisions come with 3 units, and you need 3 detachments to cover a hex from the most probable avenues of attack.

This got me in trouble my last game of AtD as my opponent racked up quite a nice kill score running over red units that detached themselves into hell.


I hear you but I believe the benefits of psychotically placing detachments far outweigh the negatives, if you place them correctly the Germans simply will not be getting behind you. Even if they do and you lose some units it's no big deal, the amount by which you slow the Germans down would again I believe far outweigh the loss. The Germans are on a tight schedule to capture cities so the cumulative effect of turn after turn of wading thru detachments I think will unhinge all but the best German player, it really is virtually the only weapon in the Russians arsenal, besides bridge blowing. The Germans can go where they want pretty much when they want and the Russians job is to slow them down not stop them, that is what detachments do. From my experience, when I get a three hex wide area of detachments (one in front of my units, one sharing the hex and one behind) it stops the Germans cold, the one behind my units is really superfluous at that point but I do it anyway.

Detachments, from a numbers perspective, can be worth the same as a 20 value defensive unit when placed in front of a 10 defensive value unit as it denies the attacker the 2 shifts, two detachmnets are worth the equivalent of 40 points of defensive value, consider how significant that is. I see detachments as a huge force mutiplier and trying to play the Russians without agressively utilizing them as the equivalent of fighting with both hands tied behind your back.



Pawlock -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/7/2004 12:47:49 AM)

Carnifex is right regarding being careful when you leave them. As a German player I will look at which units drop them and the terrain and supply network in the area, and if the player has been dropping them left right and centre I will endeavour to turn the tap off completely with interdiction.

Now what this achieves is not just 1 or 2 units, but stacks unable to move or restricted greatly and so easy to catch up to regardless of detatchments left because they cant move so far back. In essence negating the very reason fro dropping them in the first place.

Detatchments are great, but nowadays I use with care where I think very hard to cut my supply completely or have near full reserve op points so I can move still if unit is outta supply next turn.



BrubakerII -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/7/2004 4:55:00 AM)

Agree Pawlock. Rows of detachments can indeed provide unwarranted attention ;)

On balance, I find the scenario excellent. Bothe sides have a good chance of a win and if clever enough, of a substantial win. If the scenario was extended it would certainly favour the german, as his last ten turns of reinforcements would really have an effect at the forefront of the battle and he would also reap substantial gain from VL's he owns. If it was extended for more turns, I think the russian would have to receive an equal amount of reinforcements as he is used to already, and the points the german recieves per VL would have to be lowered slightly accordingly.

I think it is great just how it is.

Brubaker



Nickel -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/7/2004 4:59:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hammer

The balance is not the point for me anyway as the wide disparity in experience and competency levels between players exerts such a corrupting effect on the balance anyway that trying to exactly calibrate it seems an exercise futility. The crux of the matter for me is if the scenario is fun from both sides and I think it is, I love the huge map and am happy to get out of the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Ardennes wher every damn hex is a forest with heavy forest thrown in once in a while. This is a freewheeling scenario with epic manuevers possible that raises the tension every turn in a competitive game.



Balance is the point. Who wants to play a game where one side will almost always win against the other. I guess I am just corrupt because I want to understand exactly how the game mechanics work, exactly how the unit capabilities funtion within those mechanics and exactly how the terrain and CRT interact in outcomes. IMO we are dealing with human nature here. People are always going to "corrupt" the outcome. That is reality, so trying to keep an objective as opposed to subjective point of view in appraising game balance should be fairly important. I for one, don't get a lot of thrills driving units around an outstandingly done map to find out that after I have moved them for 24 turns, I got pasted. I play these games for fun, but in the back of my head I am trying to exert my will over the guy I am playing against. Is this not so for the lions share of we who play these games? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this may not be far from the truth. I play to compete. [;)]



Pawlock -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/7/2004 5:16:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrubakerII

Agree Pawlock. Rows of detachments can indeed provide unwarranted attention ;)

On balance, I find the scenario excellent. Bothe sides have a good chance of a win and if clever enough, of a substantial win. If the scenario was extended it would certainly favour the german, as his last ten turns of reinforcements would really have an effect at the forefront of the battle and he would also reap substantial gain from VL's he owns. If it was extended for more turns, I think the russian would have to receive an equal amount of reinforcements as he is used to already, and the points the german recieves per VL would have to be lowered slightly accordingly.

I think it is great just how it is.

Brubaker


I too think balance is pretty good, not perfect but considering the type of game from both sides, IF the advantage is with the Russians, well I think they deserve it.

2 things hamper the Germans from a players perspective.

Caution, cant afford to be too cautious

and

Overconfidence, ie not expecting Russian counters etc.

These 2 may sound contradictory, but especially the latter I have fallen prey for in one of my games.

I pushed hard S of the river towards Velizh and in fact reached the outskirts via the S route by turn 3 or 4, but my flanks were weak and my opponent cut my supply. I had to backtrack quite a way to reestablish contact, by which time my opponent had good strengh in the area.

IMO this scenario offers the most possibilities of manouvour I have yet seenin a DB scenario. The tactics are endless for both sides.

I can lose as Germans but still feel excited in some respects, and win as Russians and feel despondant[sm=00000280.gif] weird , but its great.



Joel Rauber -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/7/2004 7:30:39 AM)

The consensus I read from the above falls into one of two camps:

1) Russians should leave lots of detachments, if done properly, this prevents too many units from going red and slows the Germans down significantly.

(if this camp is correct, and if the scenario is unbalanced, a contested point at the moment I think, then my suggestion for allowing entrenchments but disallowing detachments might be appropriate.

2) Leaving detachments should be done but non indiscriminately as way too many units will end up in the red otherwise against competent German play. Again, if the scenario is unbalanced, this camp would lend extra support to Pawlock's suggestion.

Right now my gut feeling is with camp (1), but I haven't played the Russians against NI yet. So I'm not terribly confident of my gut.



hammerfrank99 -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/8/2004 1:45:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nickel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hammer

The balance is not the point for me anyway as the wide disparity in experience and competency levels between players exerts such a corrupting effect on the balance anyway that trying to exactly calibrate it seems an exercise futility. The crux of the matter for me is if the scenario is fun from both sides and I think it is, I love the huge map and am happy to get out of the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Ardennes wher every damn hex is a forest with heavy forest thrown in once in a while. This is a freewheeling scenario with epic manuevers possible that raises the tension every turn in a competitive game.



Balance is the point. Who wants to play a game where one side will almost always win against the other. I guess I am just corrupt because I want to understand exactly how the game mechanics work, exactly how the unit capabilities funtion within those mechanics and exactly how the terrain and CRT interact in outcomes. IMO we are dealing with human nature here. People are always going to "corrupt" the outcome. That is reality, so trying to keep an objective as opposed to subjective point of view in appraising game balance should be fairly important. I for one, don't get a lot of thrills driving units around an outstandingly done map to find out that after I have moved them for 24 turns, I got pasted. I play these games for fun, but in the back of my head I am trying to exert my will over the guy I am playing against. Is this not so for the lions share of we who play these games? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this may not be far from the truth. I play to compete. [;)]



I guess I was not really clear, perhaps it would be better stated saying that I ultimately find balance to be in all practicality unattainable to acheive or prove. How does one determine equal partners and how is one to say they played up to their capabilities in that particular game? The part of my post you did not quote is that I find the game close enough in balance that the entire range of victory outcomes is possible, I in fact have seen overwhelmings for both sides. The scenario may very well, and realistically speaking must be, favorable to one side or the other but what I am saying is that the variables of each specific game will act upon that inherent balance and change it every game. The scenario itself is just one factor in the balance equation, not playing the scenario from one side because you feel it is unbalanced is like the Twins refusing to play the Yankees because the game is unbalanced, just go out there and play, winning from the disadvantaged side will make the victory all the sweeter.

Of course we play to compete but I am not going to worry too much if in the process of losing I have some fun and improve my play, the journey 's the thing not the destination. Take being pasted as a lesson and an opportunity to apply the strategies that were used against you in your next game. I grew up with two older brothers whom beat me at every game and it instilled in me the desire to challenge and win vs seemingly insurmountable odds so from my perspective balance is not the point, competing is.



BrubakerII -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/8/2004 3:14:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hammer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nickel

... but in the back of my head I am trying to exert my will over the guy I am playing against. Is this not so for the lions share of we who play these games? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this may not be far from the truth. I play to compete. [;)]



Of course we play to compete but I am not going to worry too much if in the process of losing I have some fun and improve my play, the journey 's the thing not the destination.


Struth Nickel [sm=duel.gif] Now you are spooking me ;)

I agree Hammer with you totally. Of course the byplay is part of the fun as well I guess. I enjoy a bit of jibing and banter in my games. So long as we all aren't playing for sheepstations.

Brubaker



Nickel -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/8/2004 8:18:09 AM)

Brubaker II,
There seemed to be a little Sigmund Freud being thrown around with the talk about people corrupting games and BTW how do you psychotically place delay markers? Do you need to be staring myopically into your display as a puddle of saliva collects in your lap for this to be accomplished?



hammerfrank99 -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/8/2004 2:15:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nickel

Brubaker II,
There seemed to be a little Sigmund Freud being thrown around with the talk about people corrupting games and BTW how do you psychotically place delay markers? Do you need to be staring myopically into your display as a puddle of saliva collects in your lap for this to be accomplished?



LOL, funny that. The way I place detachments could only be described as psychotic, the screen is literally filled with them.

By the way, check out the AAR on AtD at Run5, noitce in the screenshots how many detachments the Russian placed then note the overwhelming victory acheived by the Russian. Anyway, this is great as far as I am concerened, we all have some new strategic problems to overcome in AtD and it breathes such a breath of fresh air into the engine. It would be great if this engine could continually be made into bucketloads of new scenarios like TOAW was.



Nickel -> RE: Atd balance revisited (2/8/2004 5:59:18 PM)

Hammer,
I give [&o], I place delay markers all over the place when I play the Russians. My point is that I believe that the Germans will almost never win in this scenario once the players realize how easy it is to win as the Russian. Keep in mind that the Russian never has to attack. The more you confine your play as the Russian to just moving, the more you can eliminate randomness. Moving is a "sure thing" right, no AI interference. I have done a bit of math comparing movement vs available distance, as well as CRT benefits (what conditions best suit the Russians). I agree with your analysis about the advantage in terms of relative points lost in the attack by the Germans. IMO time is the worst enemy that the Germans have. I did view the AAR between Keating and Trout. This tends to confirm my belief about the Russians, although I know that one sample does not = a significant population statistically speaking, nevertheless one would think that the outcome between two people so closely involved with the game might be a little less lopsided.

About the journey vs the end.... I play to compete yes and I probably should have made this more clear. I certainly think the journey is important i.e. AtD is great eye candy but when I play I am trying to win. Is winning more important to me than eye candy? Somewhat. Will you be disinclined to keep playing AtD by PBEM as the Russians if you lose 80-90% of the time? I am in my second PBEM of AtD. Both of my opponents suggested that they would prefer the Russians before we started play and I agreed. I believe I am a competent offensive player so I took up the challenge because I wanted to prove to myself whether my math was any good. I don't believe that I have either game even marginally won. One game is around turn eleven and I have yet to crack Mogilev or Osha and in that game I only have around 85 Russian units killed. The other game is more favorable as I have Orsha and Mogilev in hand at turn 7. My opponent in that game tried some defence early on that lead to this circumstance. My point here... both opponents indicated that they preferred the Russians. I guess I decided to take the journey as opposed to being strictly concerned about the win. Why did they prefer Russians? [;)] I rest my case.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.328125