Slitherine

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 )

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 )

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.

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?

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.

Sorry to be so blunt, but showing my tough love for WitE and just being honest.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

This is what I want:

Balance - No.
Historical posibilities - Yes.

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.

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.

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.