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 discussion

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: Balance discussion Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 3:46:15 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

One thing to consider is that in the bitter end scenario, loosing both Leningrad and Moscow is game over for the soviet.

Having these two cities give too much points.

If the soviet want to win, he have to keep one at least.


Ya, the thing is is that Leningrad will fall unless you defend it with just about everything a Soviet has. But these leaves everything else very open. So Leningrad pretty much falls 90%+ of all games played I bet you. I know that is what I see in almost all the AAR's.

As for Moscow if the Germans want to push and take this I give them a good 60-70% chance easily to take the city in 41 if that is their effort. You just need to do certain things to make this happen as Germany. Not for a AAR spoiler but the way BrianG is going he will probably take Moscow. But of course he is unpredictable and may change direction on me.

Keep your eye on forts. I have been the only one saying this but this is a huge buff for the Soviets early game and balances some of what is above.


I don't see how you can say forts are a huge buff but you will likely lose Moscow. If you are going to save Moscow, one would think forts have to be a part of the equation.


Excellent question. I might be overstating forts as a HUGE buff since all my previous games was with no digging at all. So I am used to that being the case and the new reduced cost of fort building to me is HUGE. For everyone else it probably isn't huge. But I do think it is a great benefit over the previous edition and well worth the point investment. Of course I could be totally wrong.

Now for me in the game I reference I used all my points to build forts around Leningrad and just started on Moscow turn 5. So I am behind the build schedule for that since BrianG turned from Lenigrad and going towards Moscow. He is just past VL. Plus I am defending all sections of the Map against BrianG and I just don't have the units at turn 6. He has been Pacmaning my units and just blowing them away with combat. A deadly combo :( I have a ton of routes this turn along with on average 5-10 units surrounded :( It is just something I have to survive until turn 10ish.

BTW. The cadres I got for the Reserve front that start with an experience of 14-19 have been in the meat grinder twice now. They have risen in experience to 16-22 on average after two German sustained attacks. In exchange for roughly 250,000 in loses in 2 turns. Sheesh.


While we're at it, for Soviet players contemplating building support units for their forts, I would not suggest construction battalions. Apparently "construction" is an honorary title.



Really???




And yes, it has almost no experience, but even at exp 50-ish it has a construction value of 1 as compared to 3 for a sapper battalion.

< Message edited by M60A3TTS -- 8/26/2018 3:56:29 PM >

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 31
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 4:33:28 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada


< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:10:52 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to daretti)
Post #: 32
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 4:35:16 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:11:11 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 33
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 4:56:56 PM   
daretti

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 1/1/2015
Status: offline 		Late game is too unbalance. Look old patch http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2792361&mpage=38&key= germany in 45: 1.5 mln soldiers 3000 AVW...

Newest patch http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4280532&mpage=29&key= germans 3.8 mln 15 000 AVW in 1945 its redicules....

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 34
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 5:00:38 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: daretti

Late game is too unbalance. Look old patch http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2792361&mpage=38&key= germany in 45: 1.5 mln soldiers 3000 AVW...

Newest patch http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4280532&mpage=29&key= germans 3.8 mln 15 000 AVW in 1945 its redicules....


You cannot do a comparison on one game. Stef did very well which is why they have a higher OOB - in other games where they do not do well they do not. Remember the vast majority of games do end in a decisive Soviet victory.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 8/26/2018 5:02:07 PM >

(in reply to daretti)
Post #: 35
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 5:21:28 PM   
daretti

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 1/1/2015
Status: offline 		ok but 15 000 germans AVW in 45 is LOL ROTFL IMAO....

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 36
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 5:34:58 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:11:28 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 37
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 5:40:26 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada


< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:11:43 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 38
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 6:26:55 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

quote:

ORIGINAL: daretti

Late game is too unbalance. Look old patch http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2792361&mpage=38&key= germany in 45: 1.5 mln soldiers 3000 AVW...

Newest patch http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4280532&mpage=29&key= germans 3.8 mln 15 000 AVW in 1945 its redicules....


You cannot do a comparison on one game. Stef did very well which is why they have a higher OOB - in other games where they do not do well they do not. Remember the vast majority of games do end in a decisive Soviet victory.


This game is all about attacking. The Soviets can't do enough damage when attacking the Super German PZ's. You take thousands of loses for what?...... maybe 20 Panzer Grenader men killed. Plus you should be able to put a modifier in by year not for the whole darn game not to unbalance it. I know for a fact this modifier can be done because the handle was pulled to cause the Soviets extra loses in 1941 from June 22 to Aug 31. Come on already and lets get off our azzes and pull the handle for German Panzers/Moto units to take more loses in 1941. This argument for late years unbalance is getting stale while the Soviets rack up Millions of men dead for a fist full of German Panzer grenadiers.


If you think about it this is the major reason the offense just keeps going and going. These panzers/Moto never have to sit and refit from their losses. The only thing that is holding them back is the fuel.


I think this little nugget had the makings of a good idea and could have gone a ways towards addressing some of this.

15.3.2.5. Fort Level and AFV Damage
There is a small chance that attacking AFV ground elements may become damaged during combat by mines. The probability of damage increases with the fort level, representing the higher density of minefields.

Unfortunately, like so many things in this game, its effect is so well masked that there is no way of telling how far this might be pushed to get better results. If done properly, and I'm not saying all Soviets did this, but anti-tank ditches and minefields designed to disable tanks and covered by anti-tank guns would have an effect. Obviously in 1941 the Soviets should not have Kursk-like defenses, but there has to be some middle ground here. The loss of sapper regiments was done for historical reasons. Fair enough. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the strength of the panzer division was in its mobility and shock effect against troops in the open. When going up against prepared positions, losses were expected which is why the panzers would often try to avoid such locations, and simply bypass strong points of resistance.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 39
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 6:58:58 PM   
Huw Jones

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline 		[/quote]

If you think about it this is the major reason the offense just keeps going and going. These panzers/Moto never have to sit and refit from their losses. The only thing that is holding them back is the fuel.
[/quote]

Up until the blizzard, the Germans had recieved very light losses.

The problem was lack of fuel and supplies.

Even when the rail lines were close to them on the Typhoon attack, the units involved were only getting 2/3rds of the trains the required, which mounts up quickly.

Is that taken into consideration with the overall fuel/supply situation for the Germans in 41?

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 40
RE: Balance discussion - 8/26/2018 7:04:31 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Huw Jones
Is that taken into consideration with the overall fuel/supply situation for the Germans in 41?


Yes there is a specific rail supply modifier that gets worse the more east you get, but better over time. However there is an ongoing debate at what levels this should be set at and it has been adjusted in past patches.

(in reply to Huw Jones)
Post #: 41
RE: Balance discussion - 8/29/2018 5:46:20 PM   
Blubel2

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 5/10/2018
Status: offline 		German construction bns also have very limited construction value.

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 42
RE: Balance discussion - 8/29/2018 6:55:15 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Im sure its better than 0.....

Its why all soviet engineer and sapper units are now useless after the nerfs lol.

Only the railroad units have any value as engineers now for the soviet side.

For the germans those construction units are huge in 1941 as they allow you to get all the side rails repaired.

(in reply to Blubel2)
Post #: 43
RE: Balance discussion - 8/30/2018 12:05:47 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		It's very likely the construction value in this menu is rounded down (for display purposes only)

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 44
RE: Balance discussion - 8/30/2018 7:57:54 AM   
MarauderPL

 

Posts: 134
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline 		Having dedicated (and actually effective) Soviet support unit that speeds up digging would be very helpful. With a lot of stuff being not 100% accurate we could close one eye on the fact that more experienced crew digs faster/better. Change the threshold of how the construction value is calculated for low-exp units (so it doesnt start at 0 or close to 0). Make the connection log not linear. Or something else ;)

The main problem for the soviets right now is that one mistake - misplaced defensive line leads to a massive encirclement. With better/faster forts the Germans would burn more MP battering through the front and have less movement for a deep drive.

The tables have turned a bit, a year+ ago the general consensus was that the game is basically won by the soviets if a german makes one mistake. Now its the other way round (not entirely, but this kind of vibe). Of course I am talking about the more veteran players. The less experienced germans (like no lvov pocket) have basically no chance at winning the game against any opponent.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 45
RE: Balance discussion - 8/30/2018 8:43:26 AM   
Stelteck

 

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		One point : Having sapper regiments that downgrade to sapper battalion soon is a newbie trap, because people will create them for 2 PP and they will worth only 1 PP.
Something have to be done about it. (At least do not allow to create sapper regiment early).

(in reply to MarauderPL)
Post #: 46
RE: Balance discussion - 8/30/2018 6:26:38 PM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		very interesting discussion.

While new to this game, I have designed in other arenas. What I hear is that the experts in this game generally get the same outcome, and most others get the opposite. Players are looking for changes to curb experienced Germany capabilities while not compromising existing balance measures for less experienced players.

This does not seem to be a case where minor changes in certain rules will satisfy all conditions for all players. Rather, it seems like the experienced players are suggesting incremental options that can be chosen at game start that push advantage to one side or the other - and those options today are buried in the code. Let me suggest that pulling out three to five of these key variables for selection as options at start can be a solution that will allow better balance across the vast combinations of player types.

And BTW - this is an outstanding simulation with outstanding player and design support. Easily a top 5 game, and I have ben gaming for more than 40 years.



_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Stelteck)
Post #: 47
RE: Balance discussion - 8/30/2018 8:12:19 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline 		Good comment topeverest.

_____________________________

The Library of Gary Grigsby's War in the East resources.
Do you want total war? Guide for WitE players

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 48
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 3:35:35 AM   
galex

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 8/26/2008
Status: offline 		If a german player understand supply system very well then he can fuel their tanks much better than historical level.
their is a couple of things he can do :
1. optimize rail repair plan
2. using port supply
3. rotating Panzers
4. HQBU

If a german player can do all this things correctly he will have great advantage in 1941.

Most games ending in Soviet winning is because of most mid-level german player do not able to do all this things. on the other hand no matter soviet player understand this or not dos not make any difference.

SO I think the problem is that the game provided the possibility of much better supply level to top german player. IMO this caused the unbalance issue.


(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 49
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 3:42:49 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:12:03 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to galex)
Post #: 50
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 5:35:22 AM   
galex

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 8/26/2008
Status: offline 		So my point here is that the game should let the player forced on combat strategies, force deployment etc.
Historically speaking,Supply situation can hardly be changed by OKH or STAVKA. But by far as I can see in WITE the finally outcome of the war is mainly depended on:
1. If German know how to manage his supply in 1941
2. If Soviet know how to manage his truck in 1943/1944

it makes me frustrated that the most important things is not thinking troop deployment but reading the supply section in the manual.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 51
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 5:41:03 AM   
galex

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 8/26/2008
Status: offline 		Yes, German player have many tricks to fuel his panzers. It is hardly to say if that is gamey But i think it will be the best that the game mechanic simply don't provide the chance to do so.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 52
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 7:22:10 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: galex
reading the supply section in the manual.


Welcome to real war

(in reply to galex)
Post #: 53
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 9:41:04 AM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline 		@Galex:
quote:

Historically speaking,Supply situation can hardly be changed by OKH or STAVKA

There was quite some unused potential in the Axis logistics in 1941, which was wasted by bad organisation, which must be mostly attributed to Hitler's inability or reluctance to set up a unified and efficient command and control system on the highest level.
The motor pool (Großtransportraum) and the railway (Reichsbahn) were not under a unified logistical command, but separated. Cooperation between the two branches was possible, but not anchored in the organisation.
Preparation of economical exploitation of the country used resources better used for the Wehrmacht.
The advancing army used and destroyed resources which were essential for the transportation system, like wooden walls for protection from snow, which were used for heating.
The constant changes and uncertainty of objectives also contributed to friction in the system.
Sources:
The German Empire and the Second World War, Vol. 4, the section on logistics and the description of operations in 1941+the part on the planning and the economical exploitation.
Local population was not sufficiently integrated in the transport system for political and ideological reasons.
Logistik im Russlandfeldzug, die Rolle der Eisenbahn bei der Planung, Vorbereitung und Durchführung des deutschen Angriffes auf die Sowjetunion.

_____________________________

The Library of Gary Grigsby's War in the East resources.
Do you want total war? Guide for WitE players

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 54
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 10:09:46 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		EvK- I would say the political issues should not be modifiable or fixable for a game based on the purely military situation.

You take away Stalin or Hitler and their political beliefs and WW2 might not even happen.

So basically as a military commander you are constrained by the politics of your nation. Clausewitz I do believe stated this in his book. War is an extension of politics. Its one of the problems with Hitlers war on Russia- it had no end goal other than the annihilation of the Soviet Union and the people therein. Thus if that is your political goal makes it very difficult to suddenly be like well if only we had treated these people we see as sub-humans better the war might have went better.

That is far outside the scope of this game IMO.

Also I strongly disagree with assumptions or statements after the fact that the German logistics system could have done better. The German logistics section of the Army/ G4 in US army terms projected massive lack of supplies past Smolensk and Kiev....in fact I think it was even after Minsk they said they would have difficulties. This is the official logistics professionals estimates. Those professional soldiers don't just make stuff up for reports they make those projects based on assets on hand and projected.

As well the German rail network was already very stretched just servicing Europe and Balkans adding the extension of rails into Russia simply stressed it even more to the point that it operated less and less efficiently as the war went on....not more efficiently.

An well Fuel---even if you pretend the germans have enough trains and trucks to maintain a supply network across Europe and deep into Russia- which they didn't. They never produced enough fuel to cover their own military, civilian, production, and training requirements. Operation Blue was to capture fuel because German had run out in effect. It also even restricted operations to starts and stops during Blue due to lack of Fuel.

The game is currently the dream situation of german logistics and in no way represents a realistic situation on that front.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 8/31/2018 10:11:33 AM >

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 55
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 10:41:14 AM   
beender


Posts: 184
Joined: 2/23/2017
From: Beijing, China
Status: offline 		I find the discussion here is very interesting and illuminating, though it seems to me that sometimes two different issues are mixed up and addressed together, namely: game balance and historical accuracy. I don't think they are interchangeable ideas and that you get one then automatically you get the other.

To argue that the game is currently too much in favor of one side does not entail one also advocating that in history that side suffered much worse situation (though that is surely possible). On the other hand, accurately reflecting the historical realities may well lead to an unbalanced game, almost unwinnable by certain side. After all, it will be quite a coincidence if Germany and Soviet, as it turned out to be, were actually on an perfectly equal, balanced footing. Therefore, as a game rather than a history simulation software (or so I suppose), WITE probably should place balance at first priority. Just because one thing is not historical does not necessarily mean we can't have that in WITE. Right off my head I can think of Starcraft as an good example: in that game a marine can shoot down a battlecruiser if given enough time, which is certainly impossible in the world of "real" Starcraft, but for game issues, every unit is "balanced." WITE may have to do the same.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 56
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 11:29:51 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Beender, I concur with your balance thoughts...but a lot of things are already very much balanced in favor the Germans over historical. The Lvov/Super Lvov move being one that historically never happened and I would wager couldn't have happened as the thousands of Soviet tanks actually put up quite a fight historically. This move alone gives the Germans a massive edge over anything that happenend "historically"

As well German losses are much lower than historical which is allowing the panzer/motorized divisions to keep a very high CV and continue to be the leading edge of the spear turn after turn. Again a gamism and not based on historical results.

Next soviet replacement rates are much lower than hisorical making the Soviets have less men/units to deal with the above non-historical advantages the Germans have.

Then in addition to that you have a German logistics/supply rate that is obviously much better than historical when units often had to spend weeks waiting on supplies/fuel to continue the advance.

Then you also have that in real life/historical Soviet counter-attacks actually delayed and cost the Germans alot of losses---something the soviets cannot do in this game.

So alot of the Historical facts have already been manipulated to give the Germans a chance to win much greater than history.

I agree with you need both sides to have a chance, but at this point the Germans chance has been pushed to an almost absolute due to the changes of the last couple patches. You can look back before alot of artificial manipulation- which increased German supply and reduced Soviet CV even more....that skilled German players were still doing well and winning games prior to patch .07

I understand some system issues have been fixed since then but balance has also been heavily weighted in facor of an axis victory when they could already win in the hands of a skilled play prior to all the additional nerfs to Soviets and buffs to Germans in the last 3-4 Major patches.




< Message edited by chaos45 -- 8/31/2018 11:30:03 AM >

(in reply to beender)
Post #: 57
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 11:35:24 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		At this point I can only ask for your patience. It will be best to return to this discussion after the next patch :)

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 58
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 1:16:34 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:12:21 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 59
RE: Balance discussion - 8/31/2018 2:33:58 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		At lest until Blizzard hits in all four weather zones :)

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Balance discussion Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.188