How Long?

[canuckgamer]

I am wondering how long in real time is it taking players to complete a multiplayer 1939 campaign game that goes to the end, i.e. September 1945.
We started a 1939 small fleet campaign game at the beginning of May 2023 and currently in June of 1944.
I have mentioned this before but it would be nice if this game and WP2 allowed the traditional PBEM saves rather than having them on the Matrix server. That way, if we wanted to test a "what if" we could load up the save file.

[stjeand]

I agree though to a point...

The issue with that could be a player could keep replaying the turn, over and over until they get the desired outcome.

You can sort of do that now...but not to many times.
I have had times where I am moving units and inadvertently clicked an attack at horrible odds. So long as I have not attacked anywhere else I will restart it because of the mess up.

Maybe the ability to turn on a confirmation would be nice for an attack.

That way you can verify you have all the units you want chosen. I know there have been a few times where I pick 3 units and attack and somehow it unchose one...that sucks. A few extra confirmations would not bother me...and if you can turn it on or off...that would be great.


BUT I will say this...it will be required to test Russia.

It take too long to run through Poland and France and such just to find out the Russians collapse quickly or the Germans messed up.
To test you have to be able to create a game with what the Germans are expected to have vs the Russians.

[stjeand]

AS for how long...depends on how many turns you can play a day.

I always get in one turn...but sometimes can get in 2 or 3 during a quiet winter....but when attacking France or Russia or defending as them it can take me an hour or 2 to plan and perform my turn...so likely get one in per day.

Add to that the timezone difference.

I am playing MagicMissle at the moment and he is on the other side of the world than me...so odd times to perform turns.


Figure a turn a day, there are 26 turns in a year...40 - 44 would be 130 days...39 is 9 turns and 45 till say June about 13 more.

So in total 152 days which would be 5 months though I would say 6 months due to vacations and missed days played.

[generalfdog]

I have had some games completed in 2 to 3 months often with some proactive players we blast through the early turns quickly timing it so we both taking them at the same time and since there is not much to do early on you can get 5-6 or more a day

[topolm]

I've never had a game last longer than 2 months maximum. It all depends on the opponent, some of my opponents gave up in 1941. And in my one game with stjeand, I myself gave up in 1941

[stjeand]

Hoping to find the balance where games can last till 1945...

Playing MM now...and we have both decimated the Russians in 42...me more than he at the moment...
I have all the oil fields now...and he has had to invade France to try to slow the German advance down in Russia.

In the game I am Russian he smashed through my lines and has split them around Voronezh.

My army is only as large as the German but half as good so it is getting rough.
Hoping the Allies can do something soon to bail them out.

That currently seems to be the issue. Without a major Allied push the Russians rarely can hold.
Have to find that balance...

[AlvaroSousa]

From my years of experience playing World in Flames which is the best and one of the longest existing grand strategy games on the market it is common for games not to go to 1945.

You have a choice of playing history or playing a simulation of history.

I could make every game go to 1945 unless there was some unbelievable incompetence by an opponent but then why bother playing? If the Axis can't win but defeating Russia, invading England, taking all of Africa, attacking through Iran why play?

Like I tell people it is not a historical recreation, it is a wargame based on history.

Best game are finding players equal to your skill.

[stjeand]

Al, while I agree sadly the Allies lose 100% of the time with two players of equal skill unless the Allies are able to use some crazy invasion gimmick.

That should not have to be the case...
There should be a good chance that the USSR can actually fight back. They are supposed to be even if not beyond the Germans in numbers...and that is very difficult in my experience...

[Nirosi]

Hi everybody,

I believe the "equal skill" should also be put into context. From my experience, and some observations here and there, is that at high level of skills, equal skill mean a huge advantage for Axis (but never 100% wins). At medium skills, mostly Axis victories, still a big Axis advantage (especially if min-max).

But at low skills (two more or less beginners), my experience is that the Axis is usually at loss of what to do in the East.

So balancing this can become complicated fast. It could very well not be possible to balance for all skills levels. Then it becomes a "marketing choice" if I may say. Logically balancing for medium skills would make sense, but that could piss-off the expert players (and they tend to be more implicated with the game).

[stjeand]

Nirosi,

I agree with the low skill piece...because if the Germans can't take Russia out in 42 then they will lose overall.

I think the issue is with the higher skill players...once they figure out Germany there is nothing the Russians can do. NOW I am not the best Allied player but I like to think I am pretty good, but the Russians just have so many disadvantages that they rarely survive.

As I said this is just my experience...UNLESS the Allies can make a gimmick attack somewhere Russia will falls.

Testing is honestly impossible.

You have to play for a month JUST to get to the testing point. And once there it could go horrible in 41...or you get all the way to 42 and have that issue. It is just so difficult to balance.

Sadly IF you follow history the Allies are unlikely to survive.

AGAIN with higher skilled players.

[Nirosi]

Hi Stjeand,

I agree 100% with you. The problem is at high skills (and up to a point at medium one too; at low skills it is actually the opposite). But that can become a dilemma : what if Alvaro can balance for high skills but that unbalances it for lower skills? Hopefully, it can be balanced for all skills, I can only cross my fingers. If not, it becomes more of a "marketing" choice I guess..

[canuckgamer]

I have suggested a number of times that there should be the option of "traditional pbem". My definition of this is players being able to save game files on their pc and not use the Matrix server. This would allow testing "what ifs" and alternate strategies without using something like hot seat and playing numerous turns to get to the time in the game you wish to test. For example you may want to re-start the game the turn after France falls or the beginning of Barbarossa.

[topolm]

I have suggested a number of times that there should be the option of "traditional pbem". My definition of this is players being able to save game files on their pc and not use the Matrix server. This would allow testing "what ifs" and alternate strategies without using something like hot seat and playing numerous turns to get to the time in the game you wish to test. For example you may want to re-start the game the turn after France falls or the beginning of Barbarossa.

All this can be done without traditional pbem

[stjeand]

Hi Stjeand,

I agree 100% with you. The problem is at high skills (and up to a point at medium one too; at low skills it is actually the opposite). But that can become a dilemma : what if Alvaro can balance for high skills but that unbalances it for lower skills? Hopefully, it can be balanced for all skills, I can only cross my fingers. If not, it becomes more of a "marketing" choice I guess..

Agreed...this is why I suggest another scenario built off of the Harsh Winter one.

I see lots of games played using the "normal" scenario...but I won't play the normal after playing with the Harsh Winter...

BUT some of the changes, I listed in another Subject...things like more supply depots in Russia and weather changes should not cause a sudden change in the balance.

Changing other things could for sure.

[canuckgamer]

In our current PBEM game the Germans did not invade until spring of 42 which means there was no harsh winter for them because as I understand it, it only applies to the winter of 41. I am also not sure any of the factories transferred to the Urals since the fixed dates came and went before Barbarossa in 412.

I still think there needs to be more changes benefitting the Russians. A suggestion would be that winterized units do not pay the winter movement costs.

[stjeand]

Factories move automatically.

I would like Russians to get a move bonus in snow...

I thought about that but forgot to put it in my list of possibilities.
Could be winterized units are not affected by snow for movement...though there are so few it may not matter overall.
Maybe all units get a +1 for movement, whatever theirs is...so if they have 5 movement, they get 6 in snow but still move at half.

[MagicMissile]

Hello,
I am playng a mirror with stjeand right now and saw this thread and thought I could add my view.

Who to balance for I think sport and competitive computer games are generally balanced for the best players. But Warplan is neither of those so who knows whats the best to go at it. But my view is that balance is not a huge issue necessarily. As I am fond to say not even Chess with 32 “units” on 64 “hexes” is balanced you need to play 2 games one as white and one as black and compare outcome if it is important to determine who is the better player. So for example the games I am playing now I have already conceded my game as the allies and it looks like I have a chance to win as the Axis but it is not certain yet. So even if I win as the Axis Stjeand won faster as the Axis and put up a better resistance as the allies so on balance, I will think that Stjeand played better than me in these two games even if we play 1-1. If you play two games the conditions are the same so that makes the game “balanced” from a competitive point of view if that is important.

What about the balance in the game just right now? I agree it is a game it is not a simulation of WW2 but even so it tries to represent WW2 so I feel it can not deviate too much from what would have been a realistic outcome in WW2. Ok I think we all agree we would like to see both sides win 50/50. Of course, with the difficulty of balancing these games that is probably a pipedream that cannot ever be achieved too many factors involved game mechanics and different player skills. But if we had 50/50 then we have 5 Axis victories in ten games. They can win by conquering either the Uk or the Soviets or survive to the last turn and win on victory points. In my opinion Germany should win on victory points 4 times and conquer the map 1 time possibly 2 but no more than that. In the real war we now know that the chance of a Axis win was very slim indeed so even giving the Axis a 50% of winning is already a deviation from history. And here is the problem. I don’t know how easy it is to conquer the UK I have actually never tried to do that. But I have played a lot of games on both sides and my view is as things are right now Germany probably have like a 75% chance of conquering the Soviets and all games I have won as the Germans it has always been by taking out the Soviets. Also as the Allies I have always conquered the Axis. The game has never gone to counting Vps which is a bit sad. So my conclusion as things stand is that early Germany is too strong and possibly late Germany is a bit too weak.

I know Alvaro is working on the new game and WP2 so I don’t think much more will change in this game which is like 5 years old after all. But some simple solutions which wouldn’t take that much time would be to decrease Axis oil production 39-41 and increase it 42 onwards and possibly give Germany a 1944 production boost since they actually produced more stuff than ever even with all the bombing going on in 1944.

Also since I am writing some minor things I think we could change to help the Allies a little bit

I think one or possibly both of the UK interceptors should start with 1940 tech. Germany starts with 2 of 4 and since UK fighters were of similar quality I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t start with at least one with 40 tech.

I think all soviet reserve armies that have not been released should release on the 2nd turn of September they will need them if the Axis are lucky and get cold weather.

I think all Soviets corps that have not converted to armies should do so on the 1st turn of 42.

I think that’s it just some ramblings .

Kind regards
/MM

[ncc1701e]

I think all Soviets corps that have not converted to armies should do so on the 1st turn of 42.

+1