game balance

[czerpak]

Hi,
I've read recently many posts about WiR being balanced in favour of axis. I agree with many issues like increasing soviet production, reduction of soviet coordination problem and so on.
There is one important thing never mentioned though: in the game it is possible for soviets to reach the same experience as german troops have. What I mean is e.g. VVS when trained long enough will reach experience of lets say 80 - 90. So they will be equal to Luftwaffe (similar thing with ground troops). I dont thing it is historically correct. Experience for me consist from individual pilots (soldier) skills an experience, tactics used, commander skills, air-ground (infantry-armor, infantry-artillery) coordination etc. IMHO to the very end of war soviets (and allies in general - maybe except Poles )) ) were somehow inferior in those aspects comparing to germans. I cant prove it by facts, its just my feeling from what I read especially in memories writen by all parties involved (mostly german, polish, alies, soviets commanders, pilots and soldiers).
Waiting for opinions
Maciej

[Chairman]

You only have to read the French "invasion" of Germany during 1939 to see what coordination there were between units of the same type as well as between Tanks-Infantery-Artillery-Airplanes.

I like the french general that thaught the plowed field looked a bit suspect and ordered a private to drive some pigs on to the field, when the dust settled there were no more moving forward for that day or the other :rolleyes:

Or when 1(one) german machine gunner held up a whole army for 1 day.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by czerpak

IMHO to the very end of war soviets (and allies in general - maybe except Poles )) )
were somehow inferior in those aspects comparing to germans.

It may be true for the USSR, but not for the western allies, the US in particular. The US had the blitzkrieg doctrine down pat, they had the tactics, better arty use, strategic bombing that bled the Luftwaffe white, superior aircraft and pilots, and excellent air to ground coordination (relative to everyone else). By the winter of '44-'45, they had an experienced army and airforce. The only thing they lacked was a decent tank. Remember, much of the German military prowess eroded as casualties mounted on the eastern front. The lead the Germans had, narrowed as they lost experienced soldiers and pilots, who were replaced by inexperienced personnel.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn


It may be true for the USSR,

This was my main point, we dont deal with western allies much in WiR. I agree US had probably ( and still have) best logistics I ever heard of. But maybe they needed so good logistic, because they used to waste so much equipment and materials (because they lack good tactics, commanders and so on) ?

My idea behind this thread was maybe it should be some experience limit for soviets ( e.g. 85 )
If you play 1941 campaign soviet troops will reach the same experience as germans much earlier then in reality.
Maciej

[Muzrub]

My idea behind this thread was maybe it should be some experience limit for soviets ( e.g. 85 )

But if that is changed then its even worse for the Soviets!- the game even more swings in favour of the Germans!
Its already to much in Germany's favour- or should I say in favour of the "German player!"

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Muzrub



But if that is changed then its even worse for the Soviets!- the game even more swings in favour of the Germans!
Its already to much in Germany's favour- or should I say in favour of the "German player!"

Muzrub,
right, I agree, but thats only when you change this particular thing. But as I understand other threads it is agreed that few things must change :
1. production - decrease for german, increase for soviets
2. soviet coordination penalty - shouldnt be that long as it is now
So my change I would see added to above mentioned changes.
Anyways IMHO its mainly 1941 for axis favor and my change would affect only later years.
regards
Maciej

[Muzrub]

czerpak

If a particular unit fights on and on and on- how cant it experience grow beyond 85%?

But in my opinion- no unit should be 80% or more wether it be German or Russian!- but for game value it should grow beyond- but for realife factor if you look at some german units for 44-45 their experience might be 15%- is that reflected in the game no!

But soviets- especialy air force need to be able to rise to counter FW's etc etc- personally I think the Stalin tank is also under rated, is not a Tiger I in the game a better offensive and defensive tank? even a Panther- The Stalin tanks were almost unstoppable with a good crew- and once again experience comes into the matter- but by the bloody at Kursk etc etc the Panzer force with the exception of some units suffered terribly from inexperience!

[czerpak]

Good points, Muzrub

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by czerpak


This was my main point, we dont deal with western allies much in WiR. I agree US had probably ( and still have) best logistics I ever heard of. But maybe they needed so good logistic, because they used to waste so much equipment and materials (because they lack good tactics, commanders and so on) ?

What waste?

My idea behind this thread was maybe it should be some experience limit for soviets ( e.g. 85 )
If you play 1941 campaign soviet troops will reach the same experience as germans much earlier then in reality.

I'll add this to the issues list, but frankly, the game favors the Germans too much as it is now, thise would only make it worse.

[Die Kriegerin]

Ed, I'm going to back on this one, "because they lack good tactics, commanders and so on". What cave did you roll out of czerpak? Don't mix us up with the British. American command aside from early German victories, was the most agressive force in WWII. Sicly, Utah beach, St. Lo, Bastone, not to mention the Pacific. We won the war without great loss of life...Ok, Clark was an idoit?...My dad, veteren of Okanawa, said this. We won the war because, they would send one round over our heads, and we would send 4 back. Sounds like common sence...The only bad battle of the war we fought was at Kasserine. The the best field commander of WWII then arrived. Say what you want, but old George S., turned defeat into victory in 3 weeks. Name someone else that did that? West Point turned out some of the best officers the world has seen. I could go on and on...Oh, Poland had more casulities in WWII than the U.S, but we lacked good tactics and commanders and so on. Hummmmmmmmmmm.

Jon

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by Die Kriegerin
Ed, I'm going to back on this one, "because they lack good tactics, commanders and so on". What cave did you roll out of czerpak? Don't mix us up with the British....

Interesting posts

No, never compare the US forces with the british,
Many British mid/level officers (and that one at the top) seemed to cultivate stupidity.
I will never forgive the 30th XXX for it's performance at Market Garden.
The US army was well trained and superbly equiped
(except as ED says with a top of the line tank)
And had a 'can do attitude' that the Brits did not.
Yes, Most of their Army commanders were mediocre.
But George made up for all the others. I would put
Manstein up with him though.

Loki

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir

Interesting posts

....

I will never forgive the 30th XXX for it's performance at Market Garden.

The timidity shown by the British ground forces is an example I think of the whole issue of casualties that had become a major political problem for the Brits. They had been bled white by '44 of manpower, despite them winning, and it was Churchill who made casualties an issue for every military operation. That concern filtered its way down to all command levels, leading to a lack of aggression in military operations.

Yes, Most of their Army commanders were mediocre.
But George made up for all the others.

An irony here is that Patton became a famous commander in the US army for his innate aggression, but would probably never get a command position in the British army because of the concern over casualties. George understood that higher casualties in the short term meant more lives saved in the long run, but the Brits had been fighting a long time before the US became involved, and we weren't in a position to understand what the Brits were going through.


Market-Garden was an excellent plan. It had only 2 problems, first, intellegience did not reveal the presense of SS Panzer forces nearby, and second, Blood-and-Guts Patton was not in charge of the ground forces.

[varjager]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn




Market-Garden was an excellent plan. It had only 2 problems, first, intellegience did not reveal the presense of SS Panzer forces nearby, and second, Blood-and-Guts Patton was not in charge of the ground forces.

They intelligeience knew about the 2 SS pz-corp but choose to ignore it.Sine they dident want to be the one that rocked the boat.But the other one i agree.Patton should have been in charge of the ground forces.Monty was more like a 1 WW general.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
But George made up for all the others. I would put
Manstein up with him though.

Loki

Wise decision. For me personally Manstein was the greatest WWII commander. From my point of view there was no situation he had no answer. Offence (i.e. Sichelschnitt 1940), defence (i.e. southern front, spring 1943), he seemed always to know what to do. 'His' only weakness was his supreme commander. If Manstein would have been supreme commander in 1941 or better 1940 with Hitler's absolute powers (of course not very realistic) probably only the a-bomb would have stopped the Wehrmacht. Anyway who wants that? Nobody wants to be a-bombed - I live in Mannheim... As much as I know Mannheim/Ludwigshafen would have been the first target in Germany... - and nobody (except of mentally ill ones) would want the Nazis to have won the war!
Nevertheless for me Manstein was the greatest. Certainly their will be different opinions...

Dave

[Die Kriegerin]

Dave I agree, Manstein was the most brilliant military commander in WWII, Patton was the best field commander, thier is a difference. He took (Patton) a undisiplined, rag tag bunch of boys (The American 2 corps), lite a fire under thier butt, slapped them around, and within weeks produced men. Thats a field commander...How did you make your cool icon?

Jon

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Die Kriegerin
Dave I agree, Manstein was the most brilliant military commander in WWII, Patton was the best field commander, thier is a difference. He took (Patton) a undisiplined, rag tag bunch of boys (The American 2 corps), lite a fire under thier butt, slapped them around, and within weeks produced men. Thats a field commander...

Jon

Perfect definiton for Patton.

How did you make your cool icon?

It's just an animated GIF. You can take any graphics (max. 50*50 pixels) and set it up as your 'avatar' in the 'Edit Options' menu. (Just like the 'Matrix Staff' symbol.)
BTW an 'avatar' is an expression for your 'virtual body' in the future when we all will be able to 'walk' through cyberspace... (Did anybody read 'Snow Crash'?) A small GIF is just the beginning...

Dave

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by varjager


They intelligeience knew about the 2 SS pz-corp but choose to ignore it.Sine they dident want to be the one that rocked the boat

A deliberate coverup or just the intel (US, British, both?) people not trusting what the resistance was telling them? I read that was the reason.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by davewolf

an 'avatar' is an expression for your 'virtual body' in the future when we all will be able to 'walk' through cyberspace...

Considering the still high cost of bandwidth, and at least here in the US, the lack of any impetus to introduce widespread high-speed net access, Americans at least shouldn't hold their breath for 3D avatars in cyberspace any time soon.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Die Kriegerin
Ed, I'm going to back on this one, "because they lack good tactics, commanders and so on". What cave did you roll out of czerpak? Don't mix us up with the British. American command aside from early German victories, was the most agressive force in WWII. Sicly, Utah beach, St. Lo, Bastone, not to mention the Pacific. We won the war without great loss of life...Ok, Clark was an idoit?...My dad, veteren of Okanawa, said this. We won the war because, they would send one round over our heads, and we would send 4 back. Sounds like common sence...The only bad battle of the war we fought was at Kasserine. The the best field commander of WWII then arrived. Say what you want, but old George S., turned defeat into victory in 3 weeks. Name someone else that did that? West Point turned out some of the best officers the world has seen. I could go on and on...Oh, Poland had more casulities in WWII than the U.S, but we lacked good tactics and commanders and so on. Hummmmmmmmmmm.

Jon

what cave? I love this one - old known tactic : if you dont have enough arguments attack a person behind the post then. Well done, Jon. You can go even further then that - when you finally run out arguments you can always laugh from my mistakes in english. I've seen this here before. But coming back to your question - I come from a cave called Poland. I understand that being educated in US ( I know a bit about american education from my american friends, so dont tell me I dont know what I'm talking about) you have the right to know nothing about my country. So to make it easier for you - we are a medium sized country in eastern Europe. Hmmm, could be to difficult - Europe is this first big land east of US. Ok, now I can go to main points - I had some arguments with Ed before, but he is intelligent guy, so he knows that when I am using a smile there is no point to argue with this sentence because I'm not really serious about it.
But if you choose to take this serious and wanna fight here I am. Let the show begin :
first of all I was talking in general, which means on averege, and you give me particular, single examples. OK, here are mine :
american command - well done in Pearl Harbour - your commanders couldnt even read intel reports.
Anzio - great one, congratulations.
Monte Cassino - you had to ask polish soldiers to do dirty job for you- you are good indeed in saving your troops.
Market Garden was mentioned by someone else.

we won the war

ROFLOL - war started and finished in Europe. It might be hard to believe but SOVIETS won the war in Europe. Only serious thing you managed to do in Europe was you sold eastern Europe to mister Stalin. BTW how much did he pay you?
You just won the war in Pacific - great deal, my congratulations. 4 years to defeat small country with no resources - this requires great skills. And you still had to ask Stalin to do a job for you in Manchuria. Not to mention using A-bomb to make Japan finally surrender - again great skills shown.

Say what you want, but old George S., turned defeat into victory in 3 weeks.

I never said you didnt have great commanders - I was talking about averege. If he was the best - thats another story. I admit - he was really, really good. One of the best.

West Point turned out some of the best officers the world has seen.

so what - some of them were nazi officers, studying there before war.

Oh, Poland had more casulities in WWII than the U.S, but we lacked good tactics and commanders and so on. Hummmmmmmmmmm.

Most of polish casulties were civilians. You know - concentration camps, polish Jews and so on. You might never heard of this staff. Nothing to do with army. Anyways, I cant remember comparing your army to ours, I was comparing to germans.

enough for now
Maciej
p.s. my posts in that thread do not mean I dont respect american soldiers which fought and also died in Europe fighting nazis. In my country case as well. Some of air crew members are still here in my city in soldiers cementary.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



What waste?


I'll add this to the issues list, but frankly, the game favors the Germans too much as it is now, thise would only make it worse.

Ed, it seems I'm the only one with this opinion, so dont add it to issue list.

what waste ?
I didnt have in mind anything particular about wasting, I used wrong word - should say "use" instead (as I read in another post Us army used 4 bullets for one used by enemy, and thats exactly what I wanted to say. Your logistic had to be 4 times more efficient then ) Sorry for confusion.
Maciej

p.s. different story is : why did US army had to use 4 times more war material to get the same result. Jon said that you wanted to save your soldiers lives - and I have to accept this explanation, although my opinion is different. There can be few answers for one question and they all can be true, no problem for me.