Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

[Q-Ball]

Von Beanie's idea on Stalin/Hitler directives is a good one. The political imperative is missing, and that might be a way to put it back in. Both players can shrug-off defeats, or ignore certain objectives at will, when in reality doing so might get you a "Call back to Moscow for consultations".

I'm sure every Soviet general knew what happened to Pavlov, and acted accordingly......

[randallw]

He may have been doomed for various reasons.

[heliodorus04]

I'm honestly wondering how much balance will improve when the Swamp-defense changes occur...

In theory, it could be a very big change to 1941 (and also 43/44, I would suppose).

[molchomor]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Von Beanie's idea on Stalin/Hitler directives is a good one. The political imperative is missing, and that might be a way to put it back in. Both players can shrug-off defeats, or ignore certain objectives at will, when in reality doing so might get you a "Call back to Moscow for consultations".

I'm sure every Soviet general knew what happened to Pavlov, and acted accordingly......

Just make sure it is optional (toggle on/off possible) if it goes in at some point or it may well be a gamebreaker. I remember that Gary's Western Front (sequel to SF) did implement such rules and neither me nor a friend of mine found it playable so it went straight into the bin, unfortunately. Too much agony of not being able to do much of anything - that makes it more of a simulation and not a game in my book.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

This is why I proposed "Hitler Directives" and "Stalin Directives," hidden to the opponent, that force the players to fight for certain computer-determined objectives, or lose significant victory points for each turn they fail (up to a set amount).

Do you mean randomly? Because it is not the same to hold Minsk at all costs than Baku at all costs

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: bevans

Finally, the terrain, especially swamps, along the Dnepr, make the replication of the actual rate of advance by the Germans impossible to replicate against a competent defense (see first point). The AI in fact seems to be well programmed to do this. The whole Russian defense in '41 is infinitely better co-ordinated and rational than was the real case.

As the German in WITE, I find that the exhilarating, free-wheeling sense of conquest evaporates pretty quickly and turns into a not-so-fun grind. Sometimes you get the feeling the game was balanced on the skills of a member of the design team or beta tester who, contrary to the AARs so far published, was able to perform prodigies with the Germs in 1941. But this is just one guy.[:D]

[alfonso]

In my opinion the game should be as historical as possible, and the balance issues should be dealt with by changing the victory conditions.

I have the feeling that the problem of balance is only being discussed regarding the 1941-45 campaign. But if the game mechanics is changed to best replicate the results of the first year of the war, has anyone considered what would be the effect on the other scenarios?

It can be argued that what really happened during that first year of war was not the most likely (nor the most “correct”) outcome given the situation in June 1941. I, for instance, believe that the Germans were very lucky to be able to launch an initially successful attack in Summer 1942 (Operation Blau). If the game (or the 1941-45 campaign) is changed to give the Germans a decent probability of conquering, let`s say the Caucasus or Stalingrad in 1942, wouldn’t that be at the expense of historic accuracy?

Finally, what is really wrong about imbalance? Chess is an old game, and every chess player knows it is unbalanced: white has the upper hand. But in the chess forums you will not see “Black Players” requesting changes in the game of chess. Balance is obtained because a player plays 50% of the times with white, and 50% with black. Ideally PBEM games could be played in tandem, one after the other, (or simultaneously if it is the players' wish ). The player who holds Berlin during more turns, wins (or any other rule).

But..thinking about it...it is so funny seeing “Soviet” players arguing with “Axis” players….[;)]

[cookie monster]

If the Germans got as far as they did with all those Russian mistakes.

Why should they achieve the same in a game where army placement is controlled by the player.

Every time I see this thread I think the same.

It should be renamed to

Should... Germany stand a chance

In the real world not a chance in hell.

[1jasonoz]

How do i win as the German.
 
I am playing the 1941-45 campaign as the German, on Easy just to assess the game mechanics of the game.
 
By turn 8 i had taken Moscow, and pretty much had a line running north south from their with slight bends at the ends with the Soviets still holding Leningrad and a thin corridor to the east, and down south was fast approaching Rostov. 
 
Turn 11 Leningrad taken, the Crimea masked, Soviet forces really consist of nothing more than massive amounts of HQ, Airbases and either 0-0 or 1-1 units. Total Axis forces of about 5.5 million, and Soviets down to less than 3 million but still no Victory for the Germans.
 
Turn 15 Rostov taken, Crimea still masked with Romanian's, Axis forces including Finn's pretty much advanced to the main river line 15 hexes East of Moscow (River Volga?), and about 75% holding this line from the North to Gorky, down to opposite Stalingrad, then holding the Don all the way to Rostov, with pockets of soviet forces west of the line at the moment. Axis forces about 6 million men in total about 3000AFV's, Soviets only 2.6 million with less than 1800AFV's, and i would say 50% airbases, 20% HQ units and the rest either 0-0 or 1-1 ground units.  Current victory points at 268 for a 290 point decisive victory win, Germans are suffering supply issues as they have advanced past their rail limits, but still no victory.
 
How do i do it, win that is, how do i get the required 22 points to win decisivly? The Soviets are really nothing now except airbases, HQ units and 1000 man ground units of 0-0 or 1-1 with no combat ability to speak of. Do i take Stalingrad which may give me another 5 points, kill more soviet units, my units are worn out from the almost constant combats against 1-1 units who seem to suddenly appear in previously open steppes, to only rout away as soon as combat is carried out.
 
Do i bite the bullet, fortify the river line, reserve/refit my panzers/mech troops and sit out the winter/blizzard to allow my supply lines to catch up, and move South for the Oil and crimea in 42? Or should i do a final lunge and take the Crimea and/or Baku before the winter blizzard occurs in the hope of winning?
 
I really just want to know what else the German has to do to win after what i have seemingly done, captures his capital, main population areas, and destroyed over 4 million troops, 10,000 AFV's, 9000 aircraft and reduced him to less than 3 million men consisting of essential rabble!!

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: alfonso



Finally, what is really wrong about imbalance? Chess is an old game, and every chess player knows it is unbalanced: white has the upper hand. But in the chess forums you will not see “Black Players” requesting changes in the game of chess. Balance is obtained because a player plays 50% of the times with white, and 50% with black. Ideally PBEM games could be played in tandem, one after the other, (or simultaneously if it is the players' wish ). The player who holds Berlin during more turns, wins (or any other rule).

But..thinking about it...it is so funny seeing “Soviet” players arguing with “Axis” players….[;)]

Actually there's a cadre of master chess players, and that Bobby Fisher grand poobah was among them, who want chess setup to be randomized, because Chess is too static and predictable a game, where white is 'overpowered' due to first move advantage.

[randallw]

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: 1jasonoz

How do i win as the German.

I am playing the 1941-45 campaign as the German, on Easy just to assess the game mechanics of the game.

By turn 8 i had taken Moscow, and pretty much had a line running north south from their with slight bends at the ends with the Soviets still holding Leningrad and a thin corridor to the east, and down south was fast approaching Rostov. 

Turn 11 Leningrad taken, the Crimea masked, Soviet forces really consist of nothing more than massive amounts of HQ, Airbases and either 0-0 or 1-1 units. Total Axis forces of about 5.5 million, and Soviets down to less than 3 million but still no Victory for the Germans.

Turn 15 Rostov taken, Crimea still masked with Romanian's, Axis forces including Finn's pretty much advanced to the main river line 15 hexes East of Moscow (River Volga?), and about 75% holding this line from the North to Gorky, down to opposite Stalingrad, then holding the Don all the way to Rostov, with pockets of soviet forces west of the line at the moment. Axis forces about 6 million men in total about 3000AFV's, Soviets only 2.6 million with less than 1800AFV's, and i would say 50% airbases, 20% HQ units and the rest either 0-0 or 1-1 ground units.  Current victory points at 268 for a 290 point decisive victory win, Germans are suffering supply issues as they have advanced past their rail limits, but still no victory.

How do i do it, win that is, how do i get the required 22 points to win decisivly? The Soviets are really nothing now except airbases, HQ units and 1000 man ground units of 0-0 or 1-1 with no combat ability to speak of. Do i take Stalingrad which may give me another 5 points, kill more soviet units, my units are worn out from the almost constant combats against 1-1 units who seem to suddenly appear in previously open steppes, to only rout away as soon as combat is carried out.

Do i bite the bullet, fortify the river line, reserve/refit my panzers/mech troops and sit out the winter/blizzard to allow my supply lines to catch up, and move South for the Oil and crimea in 42? Or should i do a final lunge and take the Crimea and/or Baku before the winter blizzard occurs in the hope of winning?

I really just want to know what else the German has to do to win after what i have seemingly done, captures his capital, main population areas, and destroyed over 4 million troops, 10,000 AFV's, 9000 aircraft and reduced him to less than 3 million men consisting of essential rabble!!

Yes, against the AI, there comes a point where the defense is non-existent as you have unbalanced and crushed it. It will still have 3 million soldiers give or take, but they aren't organized or trained at all.

You should take the Crimea, all the cities on the way to Baku, and Stalingrad, and drive east of Moscow to Gorki, and those environs to the east and south-east of Moscow and then you should have the required points.

But, if you don't make it in time before winter, and have outrun your infantry by hundreds of miles, the AI can cut off your panzers with a massive deluge of 1=1 and even 0=0 units. The AI recieves massive reinforcements continually even as you dismantle Russia.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?

Good points, all.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: alfonso



Finally, what is really wrong about imbalance? Chess is an old game, and every chess player knows it is unbalanced: white has the upper hand. But in the chess forums you will not see “Black Players” requesting changes in the game of chess. Balance is obtained because a player plays 50% of the times with white, and 50% with black. Ideally PBEM games could be played in tandem, one after the other, (or simultaneously if it is the players' wish ). The player who holds Berlin during more turns, wins (or any other rule).

But..thinking about it...it is so funny seeing “Soviet” players arguing with “Axis” players….[;)]

Actually there's a cadre of master chess players, and that Bobby Fisher grand poobah was among them, who want chess setup to be randomized, because Chess is too static and predictable a game, where white is 'overpowered' due to first move advantage.

I have to (gently) disagree

a) You are referring to Chess960 random. If you are also a chess fan you will know it represents less than 0.1% of chess today. There is only one important tournament, at Mainz if a recall correctly, and is considered like a ludic activity by chess professionals (EDIT small UPDATE: Mainz has been cancelled http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7021 ).

b) The objective of Chess960 has nothing to do with white advantage. Check, for instance, the Wikipedia, or Chessbase, or Week in Chess, or Chessvibes. It is an atttempt to avoid chess opening theory (by both sides).

c) The White advantage in chess is not overwhelming. In my Chess Database of elite master games White wins 31%, Black wins 20%, Draw is 49%. But anyhow it is still significant and normally a GM is happy to draw as Black against another strong player. But I repeat, there is no much talking in general among chessplayers about this imbalance needing correction. You already know that with Black you will have a tougher day. In World Championship Matches the players take sides (white-black) alternatively. In city amateur championships it is exactly the same. The concept of "Black Player" simply does not exist.

d) Most chessplayers, for obvious reasons, do not think it is a predictable and static game. You only have to play the games by Topalov, Carlsen, Morozevich, Shirov and the like to see it clearly

Ok, I little bit off-topic, but , well, chess is my main hobby, so, I could not resist the temptation...[:)]

[LiquidSky]

There is a large difference between winning the war and winning the game.

Germany doesn't need to win the game by defeating Russia...they can get a Minor Victory by just holding onto what they started with by game end. If the Victory conditions are too difficult, you can change them.

[2ndACR]

As of my game in July 42, I will say there is no way to even hold what they start with. We are going to need some balancing. Big time.

I am hoping beta 3 will clear some of this up.

[Zoetermeer]

Seems strange to me to define holding onto your original line by a certain date as 'victory'. Basically what this means is that you managed to delay total soviet victory by a few months or years, but it's not like they would have just stopped at the Bug and been content with a stalemate.

[2ndACR]

No, just saying that what I am currently seeing, is I see no way to even hold my line if he decides to come play seriously. I don't even like the date thing or the whole TOE changes based on real history even if I don't suffer near the losses the real German army suffered. I will steadily get weaker and weaker while he gets stronger and stronger. I know there are the purists out there, and I love the game, but I hate being penalized by history just because that really happened. History went out the window the moment I started the game.

Like I said above, waiting on Beta 3 and then a re-start to see how it works out with balancing.

[Zoetermeer]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

No, just saying that what I am currently seeing, is I see no way to even hold my line if he decides to come play seriously. I don't even like the date thing or the whole TOE changes based on real history even if I don't suffer near the losses the real German army suffered. I will steadily get weaker and weaker while he gets stronger and stronger. I know there are the purists out there, and I love the game, but I hate being penalized by history just because that really happened. History went out the window the moment I started the game.

Like I said above, waiting on Beta 3 and then a re-start to see how it works out with balancing.

Agree 100%. It's awkward to make TOE changes or reinforcement changes based on actual history, even though the actual game deviates from history the moment you start.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Personally....

I don't think it is a question of balance. Balance implies that both the Germans and the Soviets have the same capability of "winning" the game.

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

This isn't that kinda game.

My own opinion is the Axis player must realize that with this game, if he plays as good as the Germans did during the actual war... he will lose.

Now given all the "hindsight" we have concerning the conflict, the German player should be able to do better. In this game the question is... how much better?

That is the challenge that is presented for the Axis player. And that is why IMO, it is one super game.

[;)]

Surely the key point to be made is that the Germans are currently losing the game in 1942! It's fine with me if they lose in '45 - no complaints there, but total defeat by early '42?