A question about current state of balance and tactic

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A question about current state of balance and tactic

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> A question about current state of balance and tactic

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 12:23:52 PM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

I didin't follow these forums and I am not aware about current "tactics". I decided to ask people comments
about this problem here.

I am playing as Germans against quite good soviet player. Problem is, that soviet player is just retreating in
all fronts. As soon as any of my units gets contact to his front, they are gone next turn. For exampleI surrounded
Leningrad at turn 10 and conquered it at turn 11 (production was evacuated). He didin't even try to
defend it for real. Just some minor units standing and trying to delay. I wiped them out by just driving ahead.

The same thing in south front as well. My panzer corps get into stalino and kharkov at turn 10. My spearheads
managed to get all production there. It is really hard to surround any soviets units if they are doing like that, as
my supply chain is limiting my advance speed.

It is now turn 14 and Soviers have 5 million men... I could not make any big surround/capture offensives after
usual Lvov / center pockets. Soviets are running like rabbits here... I captured some arms/heavy production,
even some t-34 factory at Kharkov. But they not seem to be enough worth for all this trouble. Soviets are
getting a huge amount of scripted stuff for free anyway.

In real, Stalin executed everyone who gave up even small piece of land to enemy for free. Loosing ground had
big impact in morale and food supply system. When Soviets lost Ukraina and all its food production fields, it
was bad thing for them. Game engine isin't modeling any of this. Soviets are not loosing anything, by retreating
and playing unhistorically. They can evacuate most production quite easily. All they loose, is some manpower
and rail capacity...

What do you guys think about this? Is there even point to play the game in this current situation? I belive it
is impossible for German side to win the game against such player.

< Message edited by von altair -- 5/7/2012 4:19:25 PM >

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

Post #: 1

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 1:07:21 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

I would tell that "quite good Soviet player" that if winning means more to him than having an interesting and challenging game then you concede. The strategy he has chosen will only lead to a boring game for both of you.

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 2

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 1:21:45 PM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

I live in hope that by him lossing Leningrad...and Kharkov and all before that so quickly that should have a large inpack on the Russian player...in 41 if you add Rostov to that and thats not enought to bring him to heal in 42 i feel something is not right...

just by the way Dominions 3 is a very good game!

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 3

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 2:31:16 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

Just keep chasing him and scarfing up manpower centers as well as the odd production center that he failed to evacuate. Determine what your rail repair limit will be as of about the last week of October and start building a line of forts at your expected limit of supply, being careful to follow forests, rough hexes and dot towns with two or more population. When mud arrives, pull back most of your troops into your defensive line with panzer/mot troops in cities, leaving a screen at the line of your furthest advance to keep him in place unitl late November when you withdraw your screen into your defensive line as quickly as possible.

If he continues to run, you should build up such a large buffer that he will be unable to make contact with your MLR until the Blizzard is almost over and when he does his railheads will be so far away that his troops will be starving by then (and if he does pursue all the way back to your MLR you can probably hurt him badly with a snow offensive in March 42).

If he does continue running, you should decrease his manpower points severely as well as being able to winter with minimal losses. Howver note that if you continue to pursue him until the last gasp, you will be the one starving at the end of impossibly long supply lines when the Blizzard hits so make sure he is the one who pays for the Sir Robin Defense. Any unit that tries to winter beyond 25 Blizzard MPs from the railhead is probably doomed.

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 4

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 2:38:27 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Plan for a long war and in here a hefty 42 offensive. Keep advancing. It essentially give u alot of ground to give up in the blizzard, u dont need to take any casulties either here from combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

The same thing in south front as well. My panzer corps get into stalino and kharkov at turn 10. My spearheads
managed to get all production there.

I captured some arms/heavy production, even some t-34 factory at Kharkov. But they not seem to be enough worth for all this trouble. Soviets are getting a huge amount of scripted stuff for free anyway.

Historicly soviet only lose 28 arms. Sounds like u have alrdy surpassed that. U have destroyed 20% of the soviet T 34 production for the entire war. Historicly they lose no tank/plane factories(of those that has any meaning). Soviet doesnt get a huge amount of scripted stuff for free. They get alot of empthy shells of division that needs manpower and arms to fill out.
If u keep advancing taking cities/villages/towns it will hurt his manpower production. Even if u lose them retreating in the blizzard they wont totally repair until u can start the March/summer offensive and he will lose lots of manpower potential.
His '42 manpower production would alrdy be less than 100.000 per turn and if could keep the current state after a 42 offensive it would really hurt him in 43 where the modifier is even lower.

Now u dont say much about the center of the map, but it prolly been wise to have shifted ur pz group from AGN to AGC at turn 10 11. Dunno if u have done that but if u have u have 3 pz groups to threaten Moscow with.

Ur rail will be repaired for a 42 offensive and ur supply situasion will be different. If u keep taking territory, even losing some in the blizzard. He cant really afford to keep losing territory in '42 the same as in '41.
This is ur upside. If u can have a relativly intact army for the 42 offensive espcially ur pz/mot forces and this should IMHO be ur aim. U can make an effective '42 offensive where his choices in what to do will be very different then now.

Look at TDs recent AAR as an example.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 5/7/2012 3:58:02 PM >

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 5

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 6:51:38 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

I am playing as Germans against quite good soviet player. Problem is, that soviet player is just retreating in
all fronts. As soon as any of my units gets contact to his front, they are gone next turn. For exampleI surrounded
Leningrad at turn 10 and conquered it at turn 11 (production was evacuated). He didin't even try to
defend it for real. Just some minor units standing and trying to delay. I wiped them out by just driving ahead.

If all he's going to do is run, he isn't going to win. (It took a few games for me to learn that.)

IMHO, a good one will know when to stand and fight, and when to retreat.

Just backing up leaves him no time for fort digging.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 6

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 9:34:01 PM

SLAAKMAN

Posts: 2725
Joined: 7/24/2002
Status: offline

quote:

In real, Stalin executed everyone who gave up even small piece of land to enemy for free. Loosing ground had
big impact in morale and food supply system. When Soviets lost Ukraina and all its food production fields, it
was bad thing for them. Game engine isin't modeling any of this. Soviets are not loosing anything, by retreating
and playing unhistorically. They can evacuate most production quite easily. All they loose, is some manpower
and rail capacity...

The US supplied the USSR with enough food to sustain an army of 12 million men for more than 3 years and 2/3's of all their trucks. Is the game taking that into consideration as a source of supply?

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/industrialmobilization/p/lend-lease-act.htm

_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
� Winston Churchill

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 7

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 11:09:55 PM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

Did anyone - ever managed to win the game against this kind of soviet player? I don't think it is possible
at all if Soviet player just keeps running at early rounds and just before mud turns he has like 5-5.5 million men...

Dev team really should do something about this...

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to SLAAKMAN)

Post #: 8

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 11:10:18 PM

glvaca

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

Leningrad really can't be held against a German player who really wants it. Some claim they can but I just stopped trying. It ties down so many quality troops your defense in front of Moscow will be short handed.
In 1941, it's all about Moscow. Most Russians stake everything on holding it and even then it's touch and go.
So, it might be you'll be fighting heavily for Moscow soon.

If he doesn't, and retreats further, he'll most likely lose the game at that point. Just running isn't the answer for the Soviet player. He may have a large army for Blizzard but his replacement capability will be seriously impaired and although he may cause you serious losses during Blizzard, he's going to suffer at least as many if not more depending on his style of play and attack.

(in reply to SLAAKMAN)

Post #: 9

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 11:14:27 PM

glvaca

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

Did anyone - ever managed to win the game against this kind of soviet player? I don't think it is possible
at all if Soviet player just keeps running at early rounds and just before mud turns he has like 5-5.5 million men...

Dev team really should do something about this...

Don't dispair, on the other side of the coin, your army is virtually full strength and if you stop early enough, you'll have formidable defensive lines dug. Only December is now really hard on the Germans. Come January, if you play your cards well, you should be able to halt his offensive. Digging in is key and be sure to protect your flanks if you stand for Moscow. Likewise, make sure you keep your morale 86+ units out of the blizzard weather as much as possible. Come March, they are a still formidable even is less effective as previously.

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 10

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 11:33:12 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

You will struggle to get an objective view about all this around here. Most of the people left are pro Soviet. I would disregard most of what they claim. You are correct in that the game has a serious problem with Russians simply running and accumulating a huge Army. Muling is the antidote to this but it is due to be nerfed soon.

The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

_____________________________

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 11

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/7/2012 11:52:49 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

Did anyone - ever managed to win the game against this kind of soviet player? I don't think it is possible
at all if Soviet player just keeps running at early rounds and just before mud turns he has like 5-5.5 million men...

Dev team really should do something about this...

Guess you missed my earlier post. The one where I said I did retreat the whole time. And lost each of the three times.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 12

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 12:13:25 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

Yeah, the Soviet band of brothers and everyone else that knows history. Yes, many of the pro-German players of any calibre have left because they can't force a Sov surrender by December 1941 as would be possible in their fantasies. Boohoo...

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 13

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 12:16:27 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Leningrad really can't be held against a German player who really wants it. Some claim they can but I just stopped trying. It ties down so many quality troops your defense in front of Moscow will be short handed.
In 1941, it's all about Moscow. Most Russians stake everything on holding it and even then it's touch and go.
So, it might be you'll be fighting heavily for Moscow soon.

If he doesn't, and retreats further, he'll most likely lose the game at that point. Just running isn't the answer for the Soviet player. He may have a large army for Blizzard but his replacement capability will be seriously impaired and although he may cause you serious losses during Blizzard, he's going to suffer at least as many if not more depending on his style of play and attack.

I don't agree with this.

Yes, Leningrad will fall if the Axis really wants it. The point is to drag it out and make it take so long that an entire panzer group is stuck dealing with it until mud hits.

Leningrad thus contributes directly to the defense of Moscow. You need at least 3 panzer groups out of the four to take it, in my estimation, and the third one is going to have to come from AGN unless the Axis shuts down the south completely, not a good idea.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 14

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 12:19:17 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You will struggle to get an objective view about all this around here. Most of the people left are pro Soviet. I would disregard most of what they claim. You are correct in that the game has a serious problem with Russians simply running and accumulating a huge Army. Muling is the antidote to this but it is due to be nerfed soon.

The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

If by losing you mean they should lose the game given the victory conditions, then in my opinion you are grossly overstating the position of what you believe are the Soviet band of brothers. I think they believe the victory conditions between comparable players should lead to an equal chance of victory. What they believe is that with equal players, the Soviets are not likely to be totally defeated as they were not in the real war. There have been many changes made to the game over the past year, and I believe the balance has improved with each change. I believe the many Soviet posters that state that a pure runaway strategy is not a winning strategy with the latest version of the game. In the WitP AE vs WitE thread I posted the victory conditions from the old Avalon Hill Russian Campaign game. I think it would be very reasonable for players to use those victory conditions or something like them. A bigger attempt to devise Hitler/Stalin/political/victory rules that would prevent a lot of the withdrawing that players like to do is something that would only be possible if we are able to add optional rules to the game, and that's something that may only become possible in WitE 2.0 (after WitW).

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 15

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 12:36:12 AM

glvaca

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Leningrad really can't be held against a German player who really wants it. Some claim they can but I just stopped trying. It ties down so many quality troops your defense in front of Moscow will be short handed.
In 1941, it's all about Moscow. Most Russians stake everything on holding it and even then it's touch and go.
So, it might be you'll be fighting heavily for Moscow soon.

If he doesn't, and retreats further, he'll most likely lose the game at that point. Just running isn't the answer for the Soviet player. He may have a large army for Blizzard but his replacement capability will be seriously impaired and although he may cause you serious losses during Blizzard, he's going to suffer at least as many if not more depending on his style of play and attack.

I don't agree with this.

Yes, Leningrad will fall if the Axis really wants it. The point is to drag it out and make it take so long that an entire panzer group is stuck dealing with it until mud hits.

Leningrad thus contributes directly to the defense of Moscow. You need at least 3 panzer groups out of the four to take it, in my estimation, and the third one is going to have to come from AGN unless the Axis shuts down the south completely, not a good idea.

I'm not disputing that a protracted defence of Leningrad helps the defence of Moscow. I do believe that a first class German will just not give you time enough to get really entrenched that it drags out till turn 14-15-16. But this depends on so many factors it's difficult to predict.

Anyway, I gave up trying to hold it, but I ain't giving it away for free

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 16

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 12:59:47 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

The key point here is that I play both sides and seek a balanced contest (in terms of each side winning the game, not the war). I am quite prepared to back up my claims by playing a game as Russian against any of these pro Soviet players. But they won't play as German. Think about that.

The general consensus around here is that any player who comes up with some tactic/strategy/ploy that undermines the Soviet view of how the game should play out is gamey or a gimmick or cheating. Yet there are many equivalent Soviet abuses that are just ignored, just accepted as a design decision, minimised or refuted as unwise, like the run away. Yet I am still to see a competent Soviet lose from running unless confronted with muling.

I will state it again. The German cannot win this game under the current rule set without muling. Period. The only assumption being the Soviet is competent.

Joel, its fine to come up with these alt victory conditions but they mean squat unless you code them.
I think 2by3 is overly influenced by pro Soviet testers, players and other 2by3 people of influence. If there is a pro German 2by3 tester or person of influence please announce yourself.

I am not saying that *you* are pro Soviet Joel, I just think your team is overly influenced by such people. You need some people with an objective view or some pro Germans to balance out the pro Soviets.

Why is it that we often get posts here by German players stating that they are struggling against huge Russian armies in late 1941?

Do we see the opposite?

This in itself should tell you something.

The lack of pro German posters should tell you something. And I am not pro German. I am pro a balanced competitive game. But anyone who goes against the pro Soviet consensus is brow beaten.

_____________________________

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 17

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 1:15:41 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Joel why not code something that disuades running away. Like all manpower factories lost in 1941 is permanent and freezing certain Arm factories to a certain date. That is they cannot be moved until a certain time.

This would curb run aways. And if the Soviet consensus is true, that is the run away is dumb anyhow, it should not make any difference to make such changes like above.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 18

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 1:15:54 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

Yeah, the Soviet band of brothers and everyone else that knows history. Yes, many of the pro-German players of any calibre have left because they can't force a Sov surrender by December 1941 as would be possible in their fantasies. Boohoo...

Well and truly said.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 19

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 1:26:02 AM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

Just for the record, I am a pro-German tester although I don't get to play much as I spend a lot of time on the scenarios. You would be very much mistaken that there is any significant bias in the testing group. We have had many heated debates over the same issues that are debated here in the forums. In the end it boils down to available resources (programmers - there are two). I firmly believe that Joel exercises extremely keen judgement on managing resources and validating changes on their own merits and he definitely would not blinded by any obvious bias. Already, many of the player issues are being addressed in WitW and then followed up in WitW 2.0 such as an improved air support model, improved logistics, and incorporating theater holding boxes as opposed to fixed withdrawals.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The key point here is that I play both sides and seek a balanced contest (in terms of each side winning the game, not the war). I am quite prepared to back up my claims by playing a game as Russian against any of these pro Soviet players. But they won't play as German. Think about that.

The general consensus around here is that any player who comes up with some tactic/strategy/ploy that undermines the Soviet view of how the game should play out is gamey or a gimmick or cheating. Yet there are many equivalent Soviet abuses that are just ignored, just accepted as a design decision, minimised or refuted as unwise, like the run away. Yet I am still to see a competent Soviet lose from running unless confronted with muling.

I will state it again. The German cannot win this game under the current rule set without muling. Period. The only assumption being the Soviet is competent.

Joel, its fine to come up with these alt victory conditions but they mean squat unless you code them.
I think 2by3 is overly influenced by pro Soviet testers, players and other 2by3 people of influence. If there is a pro German 2by3 tester or person of influence please announce yourself.

I am not saying that *you* are pro Soviet Joel, I just think your team is overly influenced by such people. You need some people with an objective view or some pro Germans to balance out the pro Soviets.

Why is it that we often get posts here by German players stating that they are struggling against huge Russian armies in late 1941?

Do we see the opposite?

This in itself should tell you something.

The lack of pro German posters should tell you something. And I am not pro German. I am pro a balanced competitive game. But anyone who goes against the pro Soviet consensus is brow beaten.

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 20

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 1:33:32 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Good to hear.

_____________________________

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 21

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 1:37:43 AM

hjc

Posts: 66
Joined: 2/12/2009
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Joel why not code something that disuades running away.

More flexible victory point assignment?

I'm new to WiTE and so far enjoy it greatly. I will probably only ever play against the AI, so many of the concerns about Soviet or German game strategies don't greatly concern me. However, would it be possible to simulate a Soviet desire to 'hold on' more in the front by altering victory point settings? The current system only gives two choices for assigning points as either "each turn" or "end of game" and this might not be flexible enough. So how about being able to vary the amount of victory points depending on the time-frame, e.g. some towns might be worth more to hold on to during the first 2 or 3 months, than later.

cheers

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 22

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 3:16:22 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You will struggle to get an objective view about all this around here. Most of the people left are pro Soviet. I would disregard most of what they claim. You are correct in that the game has a serious problem with Russians simply running and accumulating a huge Army. Muling is the antidote to this but it is due to be nerfed soon.

The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

+2 to given the Russian player something more to make stand and fight...but what you do i am not sure!

Tigercub

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 23

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 4:36:47 AM

kg_1007

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

I think that a retreat should suffer higher attrition losses than normal movement..in general moving away from the front, and using more than half of your regular(not strategic)movement points should count as a retreat. In the real world it is difficult also to keep soldiers from beginning to panic if they observe a general withdrawal going on all around them, even if it is technically not a retreat under fire. In WW2, this was even more so.
However, seeing that as a possible solution, is a far cry from making it be, and I think it would be near impossible to code something like that, and even if able to, there would be countless ways to "game" that system, also.
In the end, a game is a game, and will always make tradeoffs I think.

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 24

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 6:17:34 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You will struggle to get an objective view about all this around here. Most of the people left are pro Soviet. I would disregard most of what they claim. You are correct in that the game has a serious problem with Russians simply running and accumulating a huge Army. Muling is the antidote to this but it is due to be nerfed soon.

The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

Come on! There has been plenty of complaining about the German impossibility of winning on the forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I will state it again. The German cannot win this game under the current rule set without muling. Period. The only assumption being the Soviet is competent.

Joel, its fine to come up with these alt victory conditions but they mean squat unless you code them.

+ 1 I agree completely! Joel, please consider some changes to the victory conditions that encourage both players to hold and/or take terrain.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 25

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 8:03:26 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I am quite prepared to back up my claims by playing a game as Russian against any of these pro Soviet players. But they won't play as German. Think about that.

I don't think that anyone disputes that it is harder to play as the Germans, you have less room for error. But what point are you trying to make, that Sov players are for that reason more biased or something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I will state it again. The German cannot win this game under the current rule set without muling. Period. The only assumption being the Soviet is competent.

I don't think this is true under existing patches, although there aren't enough AARs going, especially past 1942, to allow any definite conclusion at this point (other than to say that the original VC are far too generous in granting a Sov win for reaching Berlin after May 45). Muling, however, can allow the Germans to win the WAR outright or at least keep the Sovs out of Berlin for a long, long time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I think 2by3 is overly influenced by pro Soviet testers, players and other 2by3 people of influence. If there is a pro German 2by3 tester or person of influence please announce yourself.

I am not saying that *you* are pro Soviet Joel, I just think your team is overly influenced by such people. You need some people with an objective view or some pro Germans to balance out the pro Soviets.

I've never understood these charges of bias; since release the game has been patched many times in favor of the Germans. You can ask why the game was released in such a pro-Sov state, but I think that was a matter of plainly inadequate testing rather than actual bias (if that makes you feel better).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Why is it that we often get posts here by German players stating that they are struggling against huge Russian armies in late 1941?

Do we see the opposite?

This in itself should tell you something.

Again, since 1.06 there are not that many AARs, but in many of them the Germans are doing quite well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The lack of pro German posters should tell you something. And I am not pro German. I am pro a balanced competitive game. But anyone who goes against the pro Soviet consensus is brow beaten.[/size]

I think that most active posters here are for what they consider to be a balanced competitive game, but people don't seem to agree on what "balance" means. For many German players, "balance" means giving the Germans an even chance to win the WAR (not the game), while to me, that is a fantasy game.

There are a lot of problems with this game that I don't think are fixable in this iteration, and I don't think that just tweaking the VCs will really "fix" the game. Coming up with some way to prevent Sov runaways (while not forcing them to make historical mistakes and leaving the Germans free to avoid them) and overhauling the entire logistics system are necessary, and I don't see those happening.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 26

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 8:29:47 AM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

Michael T: Very very well sayd!

When reading Joel and el hefe's comments, it looks like general consensus here is, that
dev team really are aware about all these problems. They just doesn't want to fix them!

They make those fixes in "2.0" and wants us to buy the game again! We bought the game
once (and awesome game it is, one of the best strategy game I've ever played), and now we
are "beta testing" it. We got plenty of nice and good bug fixes. Support is good, can't argue
against it. But seems that when it comes to a new features and commonly accepted changes.
They wont do it, they want to sell those changes for us again within a new game "wite 2.0".

I can understand this business model very well. These guys earn reward for these superior games.
However, I belive that this game should have clear victory conditions. This game should also have
clear rules which prevents such easy victory gamestyle, like "runnaway". It doesn't honor this level
of strategy game and all efforts people have put in this product. These are things, that should not
be sold again under a new name, but included in this one.

< Message edited by von altair -- 5/8/2012 8:31:41 AM >

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 27

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 9:49:06 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
You will struggle to get an objective view about all this around here. Most of the people left are pro Soviet. I would disregard most of what they claim. You are correct in that the game has a serious problem with Russians simply running and accumulating a huge Army. Muling is the antidote to this but it is due to be nerfed soon.

The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

+2 to given the Russian player something more to make stand and fight...but what you do i am not sure!

Tigercub

I think the changes in the patch are going into the right direction. Although I enjoyed and did "mulling" a lot, I was also aware that it allowed me to surpass Wehrmacht's historical performance in too unrealistical manner. Same as using the whole Luftwaffe essentially only as a supply train, but that is fortunately also addressed now. Both were just a bit to efficient. I might have capped the MP of mobiles units supplied by both mechanisms to 35 or 40 instead, but their solution will probably also work.

It will take some time until BOTH sides will adjust to the rule changes, so we should give it time to test. I believe what we are going to see could be that Leningrad will remain an easily achievable goal for the Germans, but maybe Rostov and Moscow will not longer be taken too simultaneously in the decisive fashion we have seen before. Maybe it is going to be closer, which I would be very happy about. Hopefully, this means the Wehrmacht would also need risk much more casualties to get Moscow, i.e. to make "the last mile" (although hindsight shows it wouldn't have been the end).

For the Soviets, it all depends on the balance between their poor combat value and speed, and those of the Germans. I am sure, if this patch leaves the Germans less mobile until the railheads come up, and require a few weeks resupply/refit break in July-August before Smolensk, Yelnja, Proskurov, and wherever history showed that this happened and allowed to Russians to stand without being enveloped again so quickly, the Russians will not pass on the opportunity to attrit the Wehrmacht by counterattacks and holding actions.
Thus far, the main reason for the retreat was that after such counterattacks, any remaining units would immediately be pocketed next turn. If this risk is reduced, then fighting forward becomes reasonable, even if the casualty ratios will be poor. And the patch seems it may have a reducing effect there.

Hopefully, if the Russians begin to fight forward, also the Germans will do so in blizzard. If a strategic retreat, then both sides ought to be entitled to it (or none). However, maybe the blizzard rules are still a tid bit too harsh for this if the Wehrmacht would get attrited (by some 30-40%) and overextended in historical fashion.

One a side note: How would the idea of counterattacks and fighting forward change, if attacking a unit would also cost the defender MP for the next turn? Such a rule would be terrible for the Germans later, but I always wondered why binding the defender in counterattacks didn't have any effect on his mobility.

< Message edited by janh -- 5/8/2012 9:50:54 AM >

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 28

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:01:00 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

quote:

One a side note: How would the idea of counterattacks and fighting forward change, if attacking a unit would also cost the defender MP for the next turn? Such a rule would be terrible for the Germans later, but I always wondered why binding the defender in counterattacks didn't have any effect on his mobility.

This is a good point. Other games do this. As a related issue generally Soviet Inf have more MP than German Inf. Totally wrong. If you averaged out Inf MP over the course of the summer of 1941 I bet the Russians are at least 25% more mobile. Thats just crazy. There is no real Soviet C&C chaos in 1941 as there should be. WITE must be the first game on this subject I have ever seen that dutifully assigns higher MP rates to Soviet Inf over German Inf. Go figure.

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 29

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:05:56 AM

AFV

Posts: 435
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I am quite prepared to back up my claims by playing a game as Russian against any of these pro Soviet players. But they won't play as German. Think about that.

I don't think that anyone disputes that it is harder to play as the Germans, you have less room for error. But what point are you trying to make, that Sov players are for that reason more biased or something?

Personally, I believe what he is saying is simply that he will play you for $1000, he takes the Soviet side, you (or anyone else) take German side- would you play him?

I would not bet against him because I believe his claim that a competent Russian can win every time.
And he means win as in the victory conditions laid out in the game.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 30