Winter Idea......Comment

[Skanvak]

Even if I tend to play germans, I think that we should keep the weather effect (even if made optional) but I really like Iron Duke analysis that the combat value of Germans was not impacted that much compare to soviet value. I remind that most game divide german CV in attack only.

[NinetyNine]

The main problem for me with the blizzard isn't the hit the Axis take, nor with the lack of a hit the Soviets take, but it's in the fact that, historically, the Soviets *did* perform a counterattack during the winter, but it was *not* a Leningrad to Rostov wide push-back for hundreds of miles. It was fairly localized. This wasn't because the Soviets wanted to be sporting. They were still suffering from serious problems at that point. In the game, however, if you expose a Soviet division to snow they develop superpowers and can suddenly punch holes in the entire German line.

[abulbulian]

Ok, well I've been trying to fight the battle for play balance since I noticed the seriously issues back in Jan. It's not been an easy road, because many of the resistance was due to lack of real game experience data (release version), soviet fanboys (j/k. we all love our certain sides), and partly maybe my somewhat aggressive approach to getting my point across. Sorry, but I'm passionate in what I know and believe.

Recently I think my warnings about play balance finally took a step in the right direction with the last few beta version. I know Joel and especially Gary are hesitant to change the blizzard mechanics. But, now I feel it again is time for them to see what most of us already know...it's not working. Blizzard is too harsh on the axis player, as those have seen, the game is almost always over (maybe draw?) by the spring of 42. The assumption here is a human competent sov player. There's just no way for the axis player to avoid getting hammer in those 13 turns of blizzard even for those that 'plan' accordingly. As people have already stated, all axis players are forced to receive the same punishment as the axis forces did in winter 41-42, even if they don't recreate the same variables as were in 41-42. Even if you retreat as axis, you still can be attacked unless you retreat many hexes a turn ... that x 13 = game over in 42. Also, the way the sov can build forts means the spring 42 line will be something out of the Great War. Not hard for the sov player to have mostly lvl 3-4 forts in depth of 3 hexes where it matters. I experienced this first hand in my PBEM human vs human game. Sure, the axis player push some of these forts, but each hex they gain they will be countered attack by masses of rifle corps.

So if no changes are made regarding blizzard we are left with:

- a game that is mostly likely a draw for even the best axis players
- axis fun factor is very low, maybe first 17 turns or so.. unless you like defensive play.. which can be fun.. but not with axis in 42, IMO.
- weather system that leaves something to be desired .. zones need to be used better. Northern and southern Soviet Union could have very different weather conditions.

So keep in mind it's a game, thus, there has to be some balance between for fun both sides as well as historical realism. Maybe there can at least be an settings option to have some reduction in blizzard or option that forts reduce attrition and blizzard CV penalties.

It seems most of the community feels there is an issue here with first winter blizzard in the 41 campaign. So, I'd like to hear why the developers don't seem to want to deal with this issues? I'm happy to have a more in depth discussion on what possible solutions could be. Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away. [;)]

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away. [;)]

I don't really think that the development community is ignoring this problems.

As to everything else you have stated I support your ideas 100%. For myself, I will be watching the team play AAR as this should really bring out the strength and weaknesses in a human vs human game.

again , gread post abulbulian

[color]

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away. [;)]

I don't really think that the development community is ignoring this problems.

+ 1

Knowing 2by3Games they listen a lot to the community, so I am pretty sure they are well aware of the developments.
They put a lot of details into their work, it's kinda their trademark [;)]
And their love for the subject & craftsmanships really shines through in this product.

The game was made this way for a reason, and I outmostly respect their efforts to strike a balance here.
Let's not forget the blizzard has been a hot topic for months now, so it is bound to become a little tiresome when everybody has an opinion to share about it [:D]

I think you can rest assured they listen and are more than willing to deal with unbalances.
There's more than the blizzard on the topic list, and some changes are already being tested.

Having said that, there's nothing wrong with us discussing the topic until we all die of old age, so just bring it on [:'(]

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away. [;)]

I don't really think that the development community is ignoring this problems.

As to everything else you have stated I support your ideas 100%. For myself, I will be watching the team play AAR as this should really bring out the strength and weaknesses in a human vs human game.

again , gread post abulbulian

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant and was not to be a insult to a fine group of devs. Just wanted them to share their ideas on a future solution or what might be on the table for that first blizzard? I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe there is anything in the 'works' to change blizzard mechanics. Just looking for some feedback from the dev team.

[Skanvak]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

So keep in mind it's a game, thus, there has to be some balance between for fun both sides as well as historical realism. Maybe there can at least be an settings option to have some reduction in blizzard or option that forts reduce attrition and blizzard CV penalties.

after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there.

[NinetyNine]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there.

I'm not looking for that either, personally. I don't mind the winter hit, or losing as Germany, or inbalance. What I mind is that pretty much my entire line gets shoved back like clockwork in late 41, early 42. I exit winter not weakened, but pretty much shattered. I've tried the linebacker defense and it just delays the same result slightly. I have tried 15 times now and can't exit the winter in anywhere near the shape that the Axis start the '42-'45 scenario in.

Maybe it's just me, though.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

So keep in mind it's a game, thus, there has to be some balance between for fun both sides as well as historical realism. Maybe there can at least be an settings option to have some reduction in blizzard or option that forts reduce attrition and blizzard CV penalties.

after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there.

I

umm ...

I didn't buy this game as a historical simulation, but rather as a realistic WWII strategy war game about the eastern front. I know what happened in 41-45 on the eastern front very well. Reading about hundred books on the subject was my resource for that aspect. I'm guessing the majority of people also bought the game to attempt to play either side and create their own strategies and results under the guide of some realistic and historical parameters.

Who buys a game for a historical simulation? That almost sounds like you just put both sides as AI and watch them fight it out? Really? What am I missing with your remarks that this game should be a historical simulation??

Also, I don't see anything where Matrix or 2by3 Games marketed WitE as a 'historical simulation':

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/372/details/Gary.Grigsby%27s.War.in.the.East:.The.German-Soviet.War.1941-1945

You bought a 'game' not a simulation.

[paullus99]

Of course, given that most players are able to beat the AI under the current blizzard rules (German vs. AI) any tweaks to balance PvP may really break things on the AI side - unless there is a way to make the changes conditional only for human vs. human games.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Of course, given that most players are able to beat the AI under the current blizzard rules (German vs. AI) any tweaks to balance PvP may really break things on the AI side - unless there is a way to make the changes conditional only for human vs. human games.

Add a setting as I suggested to factor in forts a bit for blizzards. Not a large coding task, IMO.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there.

Please explain to me, then, what you want to add to WitE that historically reflects the piss-poor Soviet command and control of 1941/1942. Because right now, that's not in the game. And that is a huge matter of historical accuracy, would you not agree?

I'm not calling you a hypocrite, but people who want a "historically accurate" simulation seem to be just fine with what a human player can do in total command of all Soviet forces, when what they can do utterly defies the history of Soviet politics.

I am finding a lot of players who want historical accuracy have two things in common right now:

1) They prefer to play the Soviet side
2) They have no desire to add historical accuracies that negatively impact the Soviet side.

This is an integrity issue that makes me see this winter debate as an "Us vs. Them" thing. My signature says what I need to say about historical accuracy. I play both Soviet and Axis. I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play.

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Of course, given that most players are able to beat the AI under the current blizzard rules (German vs. AI) any tweaks to balance PvP may really break things on the AI side - unless there is a way to make the changes conditional only for human vs. human games.

exactly, no point in changing the human vs computer.

it seems that just introducing a new scenerio in an update with the modified changes would keep all sides happy. You could go head to head with the old 41 start or the new modified 41 start

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there.

Please explain to me, then, what you want to add to WitE that historically reflects the piss-poor Soviet command and control of 1941/1942. Because right now, that's not in the game. And that is a huge matter of historical accuracy, would you not agree?

I'm not calling you a hypocrite, but people who want a "historically accurate" simulation seem to be just fine with what a human player can do in total command of all Soviet forces, when what they can do utterly defies the history of Soviet politics.

I am finding a lot of players who want historical accuracy have two things in common right now:

1) They prefer to play the Soviet side
2) They have no desire to add historical accuracies that negatively impact the Soviet side.

This is an integrity issue that makes me see this winter debate as an "Us vs. Them" thing. My signature says what I need to say about historical accuracy. I play both Soviet and Axis. I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play.

Amen, brother. I really find the humor in people that support the 'blizzard is fine, don't change it as axis need to suffer as they did historically' opinion. These are the same foos (yes, foos) that are more than happy to take the Sir Robin strategy and move the majority of sov units east even when this was not the reality at the time. Yeah, nothing wrong there ...

There was no real orderly planned retreat in summer 41 for the sov forces. Far from it...

I'll be more than happy to call anybody a 'hypocrite' that would take this nonsensical stance for WitE.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Amen, brother. I really find the humor in people that support the 'blizzard is fine, don't change it as axis need to suffer as they did historically' opinion. These are the same foos (yes, foos) that are more than happy to take the Sir Robin strategy and move the majority of sov units east even when this was not the reality at the time. Yeah, nothing wrong there ...

There was no real orderly planned retreat in summer 41 for the sov forces. Far from it...

I'll be more than happy to call anybody a 'hypocrite' that would take this nonsensical stance for WitE.

Pardon me while me and Abulbulian high-five each other...

[Skanvak]

I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play.

"Balanced" and "enjoyable" generally don't go well together in my experience.

Beside, I am generally playing the German side and what you say on politics is true for the German sides too. The command and control of the player on the German army is far more ahistorical than on the Soviet side, unless you demonstrate something due to organisational regidity (I thought that was already in the game).

Beside before flaming someone with "a priori" read the previous post...

[2ndACR]

Easy, I don't want my thread going down hill with petty arguments. So, please refrain.

I want a thread of ideas, both pro and con. Clarification "arguments" okay, general spats, no.

As for coding, only Pavel, Joel, Gary would be able to say what is and what is not do-able. Looking at some of the changes we got in WITP, I bet there are alot of do-able things.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play.

"Balanced" and "enjoyable" generally don't go well together in my experience.

Beside, I am generally playing the German side and what you say on politics is true for the German sides too. The command and control of the player on the German army is far more ahistorical than on the Soviet side, unless you demonstrate something due to organisational regidity (I thought that was already in the game).

Beside before flaming someone with "a priori" read the previous post...

I'm going to respect 2ndACR's request that we keep this constructive and focused on topic.

Skanvak I specifically went out of my way to say that I was not accusing you of being a hypocrite, and then I went on to describe a problem I'm seeing with factions developing in these debates. I didn't include you as being a part of any faction. I resent being falsely accused of attacks against anyone. My integrity matters a great deal to me. I have flamed people on a couple of occasions here, and when I do, I always use 5-syllable words, so please note that there were none in that last post in response to you.

I do assert our goals for the end-state of the game are incompatible, and you are standing in opposition to the game *I* want, so I must defeat your ideas with logic and better ideas. That's what I'm trying to do.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

So keep in mind it's a game, thus, there has to be some balance between for fun both sides as well as historical realism. Maybe there can at least be an settings option to have some reduction in blizzard or option that forts reduce attrition and blizzard CV penalties.

after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there.

I

umm ...

I didn't buy this game as a historical simulation, but rather as a realistic WWII strategy war game about the eastern front. I know what happened in 41-45 on the eastern front very well. Reading about hundred books on the subject was my resource for that aspect. I'm guessing the majority of people also bought the game to attempt to play either side and create their own strategies and results under the guide of some realistic and historical parameters.

Who buys a game for a historical simulation? That almost sounds like you just put both sides as AI and watch them fight it out? Really? What am I missing with your remarks that this game should be a historical simulation??

Also, I don't see anything where Matrix or 2by3 Games marketed WitE as a 'historical simulation':

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/372/details/Gary.Grigsby%27s.War.in.the.East:.The.German-Soviet.War.1941-1945

You bought a 'game' not a simulation.

+1

I think it's a game that is always going to end in germany losing. But it's a win for germany if they can hold out past historic dates. As winter stands now that will not happen.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there.

Please explain to me, then, what you want to add to WitE that historically reflects the piss-poor Soviet command and control of 1941/1942. Because right now, that's not in the game. And that is a huge matter of historical accuracy, would you not agree?

I'm not calling you a hypocrite, but people who want a "historically accurate" simulation seem to be just fine with what a human player can do in total command of all Soviet forces, when what they can do utterly defies the history of Soviet politics.

I am finding a lot of players who want historical accuracy have two things in common right now:

1) They prefer to play the Soviet side
2) They have no desire to add historical accuracies that negatively impact the Soviet side.

This is an integrity issue that makes me see this winter debate as an "Us vs. Them" thing. My signature says what I need to say about historical accuracy. I play both Soviet and Axis. I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play.

I'd be all for modeling a random chance until winter 41 of russian units not listenign to orders and staying static etc etc. Anything that adds a little spice is good.