RE: Balance question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Balance question

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] >> World in Flames >> RE: Balance question

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Balance question - 10/22/2013 4:30:12 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Thanks. Added you to my contacts

(in reply to Titan)

Post #: 31

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 11:33:10 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
I must also agree with Steve who has pointed out it is simply much too simplistic to boil WiF down to being decided exclusively by the German-Soviet war, even granting that it is the most important front (as is proper).

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

I just cannot see how it's possible, given the victory conditions, how it's possible for Germany to beat Russia and for then the allies to win the game. Similarly I cannot see how it's possible for Russia to defeat Germany and for the axis to win the game. If you could walk me through how you think the game might progress in either of those two scenarios, I might be convinced but I'm just not getting it.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 32

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 3:36:21 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

It depends on how you define "beat Russia". Some players quit when the main front in Russia is pushed beyond the Volga, and thus the Allies lose.

Some players keep playing because the might of the United States is just about to enter the fray, and possibly Russia still holds a slim lifeline to overseas aid, and most of the factories made it out...the Red Army becomes a powerful thing in 1944, and the Germans start to have a lot of fronts to cover.

But in very, very few games will you ever see Russia actually conquered. The Allies can't come back from that. The Allies can come back from losing the Russian heartland or even the UK itself, if they keep playing, particularly if the Axis made such gains by speeding up US Entry.

But they have to keep playing. Perhaps the computer edition will lead to less mid-game 'counter fatigue' and more Allied recoveries. ? Or perhaps it will stay about the same as people burn out on hotseat-required air combats with dozens and dozens of planes on the board in 1943. Or perhaps the demands of hotseat connection only will lead to more concessions & start-overs, who knows. Slow players will still demoralize their opposition no matter what.

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 33

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 4:25:54 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

That is soooo true. I was in a six player Empire in Arms game and the Austrian player would take two hours to do his turn

. Needless to say the game did not last too long

This is why a PBEM works so well. You do not really care how long it takes someone to do their turn since you do not have to wait for them. So I am very hopefully that Steve can pull off the netplay/PBEM combination he thinks may work for the game.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 34

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 5:55:22 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I don't think that there's a whole lot that the allies can do to influence when Barbarossa starts, and given that it's likely to start in 1941, there is nothing that the Americans can do to influence the outcome of the German summer campaign -- they are still putting down CV hulls at that stage. That is really where the game is won and lost, and it comes down to the relative skills of the Russian and German players to a great extent.

and that is precisely how the Allies lose the game; indeed perhaps a lesson of the game. Russia is at the edge of the precipice, and the Americans build Carriers, even though the war in the Pacific doesn't matter, or the skills of the American player. "Lend-Lease route to Persia is too expensive", etc.

For better or worse in all wargames, you somewhat have to play to the game system when playing the game. The real Americans built CVs and a ton of Liberty Ships but didn't send much to Russia until after the darkest days of the winter of 1941. World in Flames is much more of a game than a simulation. In the interests of playability and game play, logistics are quite simplified. This gives the Germans a big advantage over history, when they never stood a chance of conquering Russia purely from a logistical stand-point. But all that is irrelevant. The game stands on it's own as very fun to play.

If the Allies focus on aiding a fragile Russia in 1941 and 1942, they can in a number of ways, including actual aid convoys to Murmansk and Archangel in 1941. A BEF led by Alexander can even help protect the two ports, something that never got past theoretical discussions in the real war. I have begun to think that the rail link to Murmansk on the first two impulses of Barbarossa is a big key, due to the rules on moving factories and the economic system in general. Hint: ship Allied oil to Archangel in the summer and save it to burn in railed factories during the frozen winter. Realistic? Not totally. But that is how the game system works.

if the western Allies instead focus on their plans for later in the war, Russia is in more danger. I personally feel that the game pretty much favors the Allies amongst equally matched experienced opponents. Based on how I like to configure the game, as I like nearly every optional rule and counter. Perhaps that is as it should be.

And with bidding for victory conditions, it is in one sense infinitely balanced.

one small point - I would suggest leaving all discussions of Rules version 8 off this board until the game is published and work on future editions is under way. I am confident such work will begin to lessen the simulation/playability trade-offs.

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 35

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 6:12:42 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

1) I actually think Coif helps the axis, not the allies. Sure, the ASW are nice, but if you have to divide up between regular convoys and tankers, you lose a lot of flexibility. And the CX are mean, mean units. They can go anywhere, are almost impossible to intercept, and force the CW to split up to guard convoys that are usually out of range, like the guys around the coast of africa, or anyone doing a lift from Australia to Canada. And of course, those ships and planes sent to guard the fringe convoy routes means a lower density of ships guarding the main route in the Atlantic.

I like CoiF a lot, but then I have begun to prefer the worldwide naval game over crossing and re-crossing the Dnepr. I like logistical constraints that most players hate. You have tankers or you don't. That broke Japan as much as anything in the real war.

And I like the CX units. But I wouldn't use them without the CL units. With the CL units, I really like the proposed "CA/CL Damage" optional which doubles the amount of hits on CA/CL units. It doesn't look like that will make it into future versions of the game. That rule really changes the nature of naval combat as Battleships become very important as Cruisers have no staying power in combat. Literally, in the WiF system; do you "stay" or "abort". Nor will "Random Naval Losses" which is another great rule I hope to see in the computer version, which would save some hotseat interaction. Combat results fall randomly on ships in selected classes, rather than combat steadily improving the quality of the fleets as the lowest factor ships always leave the board first.

quote:

4)ITPOE does help the allies in the Atlantic. But I've generally found that the person who benefits most from it is the Japanese player. Without it, it's too easy to just keep sending suicide subs and cruisers into the China sea, even as early as late 42, and sure, 80% of the time they just get swatted away, but sooner or later you get a good search roll, and the Japanese can't afford hits to that convoy artery.

Yes. A rule that cuts both ways. As does Defensive Shore Bombardment. But In The Presence of the Enemy reduces the unrealistic suicide missions that are easy to order when you are just commanding cardboard.

quote:

One last note to OP; it takes a LOT of time, but if you have two players with nothing better to do, the most balanced way you can play is what my Dad and I called a "supermatch". Agree to a set of optional rules. Play continues until the Axis are completely defeated. Then switch sides, so that in the two matches, you've each played the Allies once and the Axis once. Whomever wins the war faster with the allies wins.

A great way to experience the game. But you would absolutely have to use the same weather rolls. Each game of World in Flames can be wildly different because of the weather, one of the strengths of the design. You could accomplish that in the computer game by re-starting saved games whenever the weather roll doesn't match.

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)

Post #: 36

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 6:25:20 PM

Ur_Vile_WEdge

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline

quote:

A great way to experience the game. But you would absolutely have to use the same weather rolls. Each game of World in Flames can be wildly different because of the weather, one of the strengths of the design. You could accomplish that in the computer game by re-starting saved games whenever the weather roll doesn't match.

We kept the weather rolls random in both games. I realize that gives you the opportunity to have drastically worse weather as one side than the other, but the alternative (which, to be honest, we never really considered) is even worse.

If all the weather rolls are locked, you know when there's good weather and when there isn't. Hey, we had some uncharacteristically good weather last game's M/A 41, I think I'll move up my barbarossa plans a turn, or something similar.

Being able to plan about what the weather is..... No, I think that would mess things up pretty badly.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 37

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 6:29:43 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Regarding bids and del's insightful comparison of some game options, is there already a WiF community concensus someplace (a list perhaps) discussing what average bids are and what the realtive bid adjustments are for each separate game option, wheteher the favor Axis or Allies and by how much? If not, that would be useful. Human players would have a benchmark for rating play balance, and this could be adjusted based on feedback after release of MWiF.

Steve could maybe add something later to the game start menu listing the various bid adjustments for the options, and this would at least help players choose handicaps for the computer opponent as needed/desired. Just an idea...

I don't think very many players of World in Flames have that much insight into the bids. I know I don't, and I have been playing it since the late 80s. You more commonly pick sides based on which countries you have played before, and how often, and in your last game. Then you play the game as an experience as much as a contest. Sure, the Allies or the Axis or individual Major Powers are trying to win the game; but that can frequently be by consensus as much as counting victory cities. Ahh, the Russians took Berlin in J/F '45. Well....they win. Or, the Germans take Sverdlosk. They win. Let's play again.

I do think the computer game will start to change this, as more games are played, and a consensus on the bids will start to form eventually.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 38

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 6:48:48 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
I must also agree with Steve who has pointed out it is simply much too simplistic to boil WiF down to being decided exclusively by the German-Soviet war, even granting that it is the most important front (as is proper).

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

I just cannot see how it's possible, given the victory conditions, how it's possible for Germany to beat Russia and for then the allies to win the game. Similarly I cannot see how it's possible for Russia to defeat Germany and for the axis to win the game. If you could walk me through how you think the game might progress in either of those two scenarios, I might be convinced but I'm just not getting it.

There are, I think, two points to be made against the exclusivity of Germany vs. USSR conflict as a deciding factor of victory/defeat in (M)WiF.

The TL;DR version:
(1) Objectives: The Axis needs 16+ objectives to win the game assuming everyone has 0 bid, and <14 to lose. Between Berlin & Moscow inclusive (also including Stockholm & Helsinki but excluding Athens) there are but 12 objective hexes. Germany could control those 12 - and even Sverdlosk and Vladivostok, to completely conquer the USSR, and still lose. On the other side of the coin, Japan can very nearly conquer and hold onto enough objectives to win the game single-handedly, if it conquers China and maintains a strong position in the Pacific, even if Germany is out of the game or on its last legs. Other bid circumstances give a corresponding advantage to the side with the lower bid.

(2) Focus: The action limit/impulse system and the constant shortage of time and units that both sides face gives each side an incentive to "focus fire" on a single enemy major power, which must inevitably crumble under such an onslaught. But the same constraints also punish such focus by affording the rest of the opposing side a free hand.

To expand a bit on these:

Objectives:

- Barring extremely early US entry or extraordinarily bad luck fighting the USSR, it follows that if Germany is ploughed under (even to the point of being completely conquered), it will be at the expense of Allied resources and effort dedicated against Japan (and perhaps even Italy). They should have a correspondingly easier time taking and holding on to their objectives in order to meet the magic number for victory.

- The ability of the Allies to win despite a weak USSR will depend on the degree to which the USSR has been beaten (conquest? almost-conquest? limited comeback ability?) and the degree to which the German victory has come at the expense of dedicating resoures & effort vs. the Commonwealth or to defending Italy.

Second, the matter of focus:

- With the exception of Japan fighting China in 1939-1940, as far as I can see, the more focused each side gets fighting one power, the more opportunities it allows the other side, thus negating the advantages gained by focusing on one opponent.

For example, if Germany & Italy elect to perform a "kitchen sink" Barbarossa, which is the surest path to victory against the USSR, this can leave the Commonwealth more or less unmolested after the fall of France. This leaves open the possibility of a Commonwealth strategic invasion of Italy & Albania in 1941 (and possibly even complete conquest of Italy if the CW has already dealt with East Africa and Libya). Bolstering the defence of Italy beforehand either diverts resources from the "kitchen sink" attack or leaves Germany dangerously short units elsewhere (primarily France). Bolstering it after the fact has the same effect, with the added penalty that German plans are being disrupted to boot.

Likewise, if the Allies focus very strongly on Germany, leaving Japan almost unmolested (save to put up a stiff passive defence of objective hexes), they will likely find that the Japanese are much too strong to be beaten down in time to win the game. As an example, consider this game report of a table-top WiF game. The Axis did poorly, for a WiF game, but were helped by misplaced Allied focus: the US attacked several South American minor countries (presumably to secure their production) and was largely timid against Japan. As such, even though Germany was completely conquered, Japan held on to (individually?) win the game, boosted by the victory point penalty the Allies suffer for aggression in the Americas. [I should note that the players are using the historical totals as their benchmark for victory - without the penalties the Allies took the Axis side would technically have lost.]

This issue is exacerbated by the vagaries of chance. Steve mentions the possibility of a poor Japanese showing in China, which opens up two lines of opportunity for the other Allies:
(1) They can weaken their resource allocation vs. Japan and still get acceptable outcomes in theatre, allowing more resource allocation vs. Germany/Italy.
(2) They can maintain a "normal" resource allocation vs. Japan, smack it down more easily, thereby getting to focus in detail on Germany earlier in the game.
Either way, Germany's ability to earn a decisive victory by "beating" the USSR is weakened - especially if Germany & Italy went for a "kitchen sink" campaign and have left Italy vulnerable.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 39

RE: Balance question - 10/23/2013 7:18:11 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

quote:

A great way to experience the game. But you would absolutely have to use the same weather rolls. Each game of World in Flames can be wildly different because of the weather, one of the strengths of the design. You could accomplish that in the computer game by re-starting saved games whenever the weather roll doesn't match.

We kept the weather rolls random in both games. I realize that gives you the opportunity to have drastically worse weather as one side than the other, but the alternative (which, to be honest, we never really considered) is even worse.

If all the weather rolls are locked, you know when there's good weather and when there isn't. Hey, we had some uncharacteristically good weather last game's M/A 41, I think I'll move up my barbarossa plans a turn, or something similar.

Being able to plan about what the weather is..... No, I think that would mess things up pretty badly.

DOH! You are correct.

Perhaps you could play such a game ... simultaneously then. And use the same weather in each as you go. Since we won't need two sets of counters to do that any more.

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)

Post #: 40

RE: Balance question - 10/24/2013 4:06:40 AM

Extraneous

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 98annual.pdf

WiFCON 97

Germany: High score 145, Low score -102, Number of games 10

Japan: High score 142, Low score -98 Number of games 5

Italy: High score 153 Low score -92 Number of games 5

Japan/Italy: High score 89.5 Low score -10 Number of games 5

UK: High score 173 Low score -57.5 Number of games 8

UK/USA: High score -5 Low score 5 Number of games 2

USA/China: High score 170 Low score -44 Number of games 8

USSR/France: High score 186 Low score -45 Number of games 8

USSR/France/China: High score 5 Low score -40 Number of games 2

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 41

RE: Balance question - 10/24/2013 4:22:56 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

quote:

ORIGINAL: 98annual.pdf

WiFCON 97

Germany: High score 145, Low score -102, Number of games 10

Japan: High score 142, Low score -98 Number of games 5

Italy: High score 153 Low score -92 Number of games 5

Japan/Italy: High score 89.5 Low score -10 Number of games 5

UK: High score 173 Low score -57.5 Number of games 8

UK/USA: High score -5 Low score 5 Number of games 2

USA/China: High score 170 Low score -44 Number of games 8

USSR/France: High score 186 Low score -45 Number of games 8

USSR/France/China: High score 5 Low score -40 Number of games 2

Good numbers to have, but I believe that these are games based on v.4 of the rules not v.7 (which MWIF is based on) nor v.8.

Anecdotally, v.7 appears to favour the allies more. The current v.8 appears to favour the axis more. However as many experienced players here have noted, the balance is very close.

At last year's AusWiFCon, 3 of the 4 tables were allied victories, with the remaining table being a strong axis victory. Since then the v.8 rules have been revised in particular the build charts. At this year's AusWiFCon, 2 of the 4 tables were strong axis victories, 1 was a very marginal axis victory (by one point), and 1 was an allied victory. I played Russia at both WiFCons, and won my table in a tie with the USA player (the axis were almost overrun by the end of 44), however we were using the v.7 build charts with the v.8 rules. At this year's AusWifCon I ran into two very strong players (Brad and Darren, are you guys here?) and the axis were strong winners after reducing Russia to 1 factory and conquering China.

Since MWIF is based on v.7 I would say that it's probably a very small edge to the allies but so small as to say that any competent player will beat any less competent player regardless of sides.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Extraneous)

Post #: 42

RE: Balance question - 10/24/2013 4:39:58 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Ooo, I can upload files again!

Here are the victory points late in the war. I think this is taken from a Decline and Fall scenario. I thought this would be useful when discussing how much of Europe Germany would have to control to win if Japan is completed conquered.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 43

RE: Balance question - 10/24/2013 4:43:10 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

And here is the screenshot I wanted to post a couple of days ago showing what Japan would need to conquer in the USSR heading west.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 44

RE: Balance question - 10/24/2013 5:59:06 AM

johnball

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/10/2004
Status: offline

I just cannot see how it's possible, given the victory conditions, how it's possible for Germany to beat Russia and for then the allies to win the game. Similarly I cannot see how it's possible for Russia to defeat Germany and for the axis to win the game. If you could walk me through how you think the game might progress in either of those two scenarios, I might be convinced but I'm just not getting it.

[/quote]

I have played in games with both these situations.

1. Germany "beats" Russia and the allies win.
This happened at Auscon.
Germany forced Russia back to Omsk in Siberia.
Germany had Turkey, and the middle east.
Russia was still alive but on life support.
However the allies had decided to go all out for Japan.
The allies controled Japan plus all its alligned minors.
When the game was called it was a close allied victory.

2, Russia defeats Germany but the axis wins.
This happened in one of our home games.
We battled it out to the bitter end.
Germany and Italy both gone.
Japan hold just enough objectives to claim victory by one objective.

The point is that there are not that many objectives in Russia compared
to the force required to take them.

I played in both these games.
regards

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 45