Is WiTE Balanced?

[Harrybanana]

In my opinion the game is not balanced in the sense that the Germans do not stand an equal chance to win the game. For those who disagree look at the game between Tarhuannas and Gids. Gids played valiantly and his play improved as the game went on; but even he agrees that Taurannas deserved to be awarded the win. Admittedly the game was played through numerous patches, but it just doesn't seem right to me that the Axis can survive until October, without the Soviets even getting a whiff of Berlin, and still have to settle for a draw.

The war itself was not balanced in the sense that the Axis did not stand anywhere near an equal chance to win the War in Russia. Historically the Axis "outplayed" the Russians for most of the War, particularly in the first 18 months, but they still lost. In my opinion, with equal opponents there should be very little chance of the Axis "Winning the War" in the sense of causing a Russian surrender. Accordingly, I am opposed to any rules that give the Germans an ahistorical chance to win the War. I personally want the game to be as accuarate a simulation (in terms of comabt model, logistics, etc.) as possible.

But I do believe that both sides should stand an equal chance of Winning the Game. To accomplish this the victory conditions need to be changed.

[Q-Ball]

Speaking purely about the VP conditions in the GC; "DRAW" is going to be the result in 90% of games, IMO.

In order for the Germans to score a Minor Victory, they need to hold 141 VPs or something like that; they need to hold the Soviet Army to basically the June 21, 1941 line, at the end of 1945! This is almost impossible to acheive.

The Soviets victory conditions are more attainable, but I predict will still not be easy under 1.05 (we havent' seen any games get to 1944 without the 1=1 rule taken away, which makes a huge difference)

[Flaviusx]

The post May 45 period just needs to go away or at minimum be scaled back to June or July.

Tarhunnas played a very excellent game. The only serious error he made was in his 1943 offensive where he overextended himself and persisted in attacking much too long. In doing so he wore down the Wehrmacht and particularly the mobile forces. It was a bit of a Kursk for him, although conducted at point much further east than the real life Kursk.

After that he was dogged by an ongoing armaments point shortage. Even after fixing the bug, he was perpetually short on armaments and consistently had more manpower than he could use. This is a real problem. It's hard to judge if that problem is global or the result of a game that went through too many patches, but my suspicion is that it is a global problem and related to quirks in the combat system.

[Klydon]

Tough question because part of it depends on your view of "balanced" and that changes from person to person. There are also different versions of "victory". This is typically defined as a outright victory or victory as based on a comparison of how the game finished compared to historical.

For me, the chances of a outright victory for the Germans should be well below 50%, but it should be possible. Some would say it should be possible 50% of the time and some would say it should never be possible. Pick your poison.

Balance for me comes into comparison to the historical. Part of the issue is both sides made a lot of mistakes. It is left to the players to overcome these mistakes and by overcoming them, who has the better opportunity to outperform their historical counter parts? I think the Axis has somewhat of an advantage in this simply because while the real Axis forces played to "out right win", the Axis commander does not have to have that as a goal in this game because playing for a "out right win" can lead to dangerous situations. This part of the game is very hard to balance and the bar is constantly in motion since there are a lot of changes through the patches. Where the balance point will be found is likely a question that won't be answered for at least a year if not more.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Speaking purely about the VP conditions in the GC; "DRAW" is going to be the result in 90% of games, IMO.

In order for the Germans to score a Minor Victory, they need to hold 141 VPs or something like that; they need to hold the Soviet Army to basically the June 21, 1941 line, at the end of 1945! This is almost impossible to acheive.

The Soviets victory conditions are more attainable, but I predict will still not be easy under 1.05 (we havent' seen any games get to 1944 without the 1=1 rule taken away, which makes a huge difference)

I have a game vs Kamil that is almost pure 1.05, we patched to 1.05 in January 1942. So the 1v1=2v1 had no impact on our game. The results for me aren't good as I will clearly lose.

I also desided to dig in during 1942 to test out the Manstien plan, hehehe its a no go.
Turtling during the 1942 summer is not the answer for the German side as the SHC OOB grows far faster then the German OOB.

A static front allows the SHC to build up forses so as German player you must attack during 1942 even if the loss ratio is less then 2.5 to 1

Flaviusx: After that he was dogged by an ongoing armaments point shortage. Even after fixing the bug, he was perpetually short on armaments and consistently had more manpower than he could use. This is a real problem. It's hard to judge if that problem is global or the result of a game that went through too many patches, but my suspicion is that it is a global problem and related to quirks in the combat system.

In my game vs Kamil I have 350,000 ish armament points in the pool even when taking massive loses June to August 1944. So the armament problem has been solved for sure, on the German side. I do not beleive based on Pelton vs Kamil the problem is releated to the combat system or quirks.

I would say the problem was solved by 2by3.

Tarunnas vs Gids armament problem I beleive was because of the many patchs which caused underlying issues "quirks" in the code. The game is very complex and went through some major patchs which in turn caused problems that we will hopefully never see seen in any other games.

Harrybanana

In my opinion the game is not balanced in the sense that the Germans do not stand an equal chance to win the game. For those who disagree look at the game between Tarhuannas and Gids. Gids played valiantly and his play improved as the game went on; but even he agrees that Taurannas deserved to be awarded the win. Admittedly the game was played through numerous patches, but it just doesn't seem right to me that the Axis can survive until October, without the Soviets even getting a whiff of Berlin, and still have to settle for a draw.

The war itself was not balanced in the sense that the Axis did not stand anywhere near an equal chance to win the War in Russia. Historically the Axis "outplayed" the Russians for most of the War, particularly in the first 18 months, but they still lost. In my opinion, with equal opponents there should be very little chance of the Axis "Winning the War" in the sense of causing a Russian surrender. Accordingly, I am opposed to any rules that give the Germans an ahistorical chance to win the War. I personally want the game to be as accuarate a simulation (in terms of comabt model, logistics, etc.) as possible.

But I do believe that both sides should stand an equal chance of Winning the Game. To accomplish this the victory conditions need to be changed.

It is getting closer with each patch.

Before the HQ nerf winning as the German in 1941 was easy. MT and myself had little problem "winning".

The game was very unbalanced(1.04), the German side was way way way over powered during 1941 and the Russian side over powered because of 1v1=2v1rule, manpower and armament over production from late 42 to Berlin falling in late 43 to early 44.

1.05 was a huge step in the right direction. it stopped the easy wins most things being semi equal.

1.06 also has balanced out the game some more. I have more then voised my option on the snow rules. But looking at the patch as a hole its a step in the right direction.

Looking at the 1.05 AAR's the game is much more balanced based on pvp results. MT and myself can't dance in Gorky come October any more all things being semi equal [:(]

We will have to see what 1.06 does. Most of whats in the patch is to try and slow down the Red Steam Roller.

I think the main problem on the German side is, the game is very very unforgiving and you just can't recover from any major or several minor screw-ups.
All things being equal you can play your best and not screw up and the Russian guy can have some minor screw-ups and you will still lose.

Which is historical.

Before playing the German side, you need to know that you will be the side that gets pounded on for 150 of the 225 turns.

Poeple I personally have tried helping that were very good SHC players just can't seem to get a handle on the GHC side of the game.

The SHC is given allot more freedom( rope), which can be a good thing or a bad thing when they hang themselfs with it.

As the German player you can only take what you are given and make the Russian side pay for mistakes.

IF as the German player you are given a gift you have to turn that gift into a nightmare for the Russian player. Turn it into the gift that keeps on giving. Because you might not get another chance.

Pelton

[Flaviusx]

Well, that's a relief to hear about the armaments points. Still think retreat losses are too high late in the war for the Axis, though for other reasons.

[Speedysteve]

Yup. I agree Flav. I think Retreat losses are too high and high RoF weapons and units are too effective.

[Q-Ball]

Good to hear from Pelton the armaments thing might have been fixed. The Germans should run out of men, not guns.

I am looking forward to seeing if the Russians get more Manpower constrained, like they were IRL, with the lower 43-45 Manpower production rates.

[paullus99]

It should be very interesting to see how the new patch plays out in the longer games. From what I've seen so far, it does change the dynamic (still getting a handle on the CC restrictions) and the 43 - 45 period will continue to be a challenge. I think we'll see a few items that may need to be tweaked, but I do believe we're still heading in the right direction.

Of course, the proof will be in the pudding.

[karonagames]

I think the main problem on the German side is, the game is very very unforgiving and you just can't recover from any major or several minor screw-ups.
All things being equal you can play your best and not screw up and the Russian guy can have some minor screw-ups and you will still lose.

Something we finally agree on!!! I 100% agree with you on this, and I think that the main difference the patches have made is to make mistakes made by the soviets more expensive with each update. Prior to 1.05 the soviets could run on auto-pilot and be in a winning position by 1942. Now soviet mistakes in 1942 can prevent them from winning the game, but the axis still can't achieve an outright win in 1942 under the current victory conditions unless house conditions are introduced (as per Joel's suggestions).

By 1943 the soviets are pretty much mistake proof and Axis mistakes can cost big time - as seen with Tarhunnas' 1943 offensive. The new manpower multipliers may thin out the Red Army enough to make them lose momentum if they lose too many men, but we are a long way from seeing the evidence of this.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

It should be very interesting to see how the new patch plays out in the longer games. From what I've seen so far, it does change the dynamic (still getting a handle on the CC restrictions) and the 43 - 45 period will continue to be a challenge. I think we'll see a few items that may need to be tweaked, but I do believe we're still heading in the right direction.

Of course, the proof will be in the pudding.

I currently have JV, 8421 and TVD vs Pelton which were started under 1.05, but were patched in or had no 1942 snow offensives. M60's game I had a snow offensive so it has to be taken with a small grain of salt.

All the games have a little different twist to them so should be a good sample group.

Same bonehead German player vs several SHC players of differing skill levels.

Pelton

[Michael T]

No matter how one sided any game is it can be balanced by the victory conditions. Nothing complicated about it. A game can be completely one sided but the victory conditions can still be designed to accommodate an equal chance of a win for the side getting crushed. It just requires some intelligent unbiased thought and an understanding that the conditions are designed around the idea of players of roughly equal skill. So the player who performs best wins.[/align] [/align]FWIW my 3 big wishes for WITE are some political constraints, revised victory conditions and some flexibility in the logistical model.[/align] [/align]1.Political ramifications for players that simply run away are needed. There was no greater influence on the war than the personalities of Hitler and Stalin. I would like to see players that run away subjected to something like a second Stalin's purge if certain cities fall too soon. Some similar rule for Hitler. How may players will risk giving up too much territory if a bunch of their best leaders might get shot/arrested/disappeared? A realistic scenario I think.[/align] [/align]2. End the game in May 1945 and give the Germans a minor win if they still hold Berlin. Reduce the German Auto Win threshold to something in the range of around 260-265. There needs to be some kind of carrot. At the moment there is none as 290 is simply impossible against a competent opponent. At the moment the Soviet player (if he knows his business) walks in to the game knowing he cannot loose outright. He can only loose by not winning quickly enough. If an outright win is a possibility for Germany in 41/42 (as both sides would have thought in 41 for sure) then the extra pressure applied to the Soviets could create some interesting results. Its not hard to perform without pressure.  [/align] [/align]3. Everyone with any knowledge of the campaign accepts that there were serious logistical problems for both sides at various times in the war. What frustrates me is that I have very little control (nil really) of how my supply network is set up. What I would like to see is the rate of rail conversion increased if the German/Soviet is prepared to risk two rail engineers on one line. And the ability to funnel supply to HQ's that I want supplied at a higher level, whether German or Soviet. A priority system. Its simply a risk versus reward scenario. This is at the heart of any good game. A player who is conservative and never takes a risk consigns himself to mediocrity and a draw, or at least it should be that way. The player who takes a risk takes a step toward victory or defeat. There needs to be more of those risk/reward type decisions available, especially in the logistical frame.[/align]

[Farfarer61]

What I hope for is complete unfettered grand strategic freedom. Once swept through, Russia is the Sahara. If I make Vichy a Spanish client state, will the latter go "active"? Never mind the whole "Independent Ukraine" bit.

Like AH Third Reich where you have all the combat and logistics rules, but you buy any "Variable Chit" you want - if you're willing to pay for it.

Before one cries foul - what was the whoel Nazi_Soviet non-agression pact but grand strategic twists and turns 'gaming' the international order an bi-national "relations" ( read long term intent to fight to the death ). What if the UK decides to do nothing when Poland or even France are invaded, but re-arms. Maybe the BEF doesn't deploy, but is sent to far East? The UK elects to contain the Axis at sea only? Stays neutral but supplied Russia?

That stuff I like. I know there is a snowballs chance in heck of having a great simulation game blended with so many strategic and manifestly wonky strategy and politcial choices.

[Oloren_MatrixForum]

I really like Michael T's points, particularly 1 and 2. The problem with 3 is that it is unlikely to see the light of day. One possibility is to lower the automatic victory as suggested and nerf the Lvov pocket. The Red Army should have more to defend with and coupled with the victory conditions, less incentive to run, producing a hopefully more interesting game. Alternately, instead of dropping the automatic victory threshhold, simply add bonuses to say, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad to achieve the desired effect.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No matter how one sided any game is it can be balanced by the victory conditions. Nothing complicated about it. A game can be completely one sided but the victory conditions can still be designed to accommodate an equal chance of a win for the side getting crushed. It just requires some intelligent unbiased thought and an understanding that the conditions are designed around the idea of players of roughly equal skill. So the player who performs best wins.[/align] [/align]FWIW my 3 big wishes for WITE are some political constraints, revised victory conditions and some flexibility in the logistical model.[/align] [/align]1.Political ramifications for players that simply run away are needed. There was no greater influence on the war than the personalities of Hitler and Stalin. I would like to see players that run away subjected to something like a second Stalin's purge if certain cities fall too soon. Some similar rule for Hitler. How may players will risk giving up too much territory if a bunch of their best leaders might get shot/arrested/disappeared? A realistic scenario I think.[/align] [/align]2. End the game in May 1945 and give the Germans a minor win if they still hold Berlin. Reduce the German Auto Win threshold to something in the range of around 260-265. There needs to be some kind of carrot. At the moment there is none as 290 is simply impossible against a competent opponent. At the moment the Soviet player (if he knows his business) walks in to the game knowing he cannot loose outright. He can only loose by not winning quickly enough. If an outright win is a possibility for Germany in 41/42 (as both sides would have thought in 41 for sure) then the extra pressure applied to the Soviets could create some interesting results. Its not hard to perform without pressure.  [/align] [/align]3. Everyone with any knowledge of the campaign accepts that there were serious logistical problems for both sides at various times in the war. What frustrates me is that I have very little control (nil really) of how my supply network is set up. What I would like to see is the rate of rail conversion increased if the German/Soviet is prepared to risk two rail engineers on one line. And the ability to funnel supply to HQ's that I want supplied at a higher level, whether German or Soviet. A priority system. Its simply a risk versus reward scenario. This is at the heart of any good game. A player who is conservative and never takes a risk consigns himself to mediocrity and a draw, or at least it should be that way. The player who takes a risk takes a step toward victory or defeat. There needs to be more of those risk/reward type decisions available, especially in the logistical frame.[/align]

1. No ideas on that one.
2. I would like to also see the VP lowered to 260 for the same reasons as yourself. I am thinking May is to easy in most cases. I like to see August 1st as it gives the Russian player 6 turns to take it.
3.Not sure if it is even possible under current system. I am thinking witw/wite2 will have a much better logistics system so it will be good for everyone.

[wadortch]

I don't think the game is balanced in the way Michael T suggests a game (not a simulation) can and should be balanced else why would be all be playing? To do our very best and be content with a draw?

I set aside the historical debates here (and I would be among those who would agree that it was a long shot the Germans could have knocked out the Soviet Union had they managed a perfect campaign)in the interest of keeping to the "game" topic.

As it stands now, the Germans are held to managing a near perfect campaign, and the Soviets have a huge cushion to absorb mistakes and yield territory (including 5 more months to get to Berlin and a "win")than their historical counterparts ever sat on.

I agree with Michael that the incentive for the Germans to make the historically desperate attempt to go for the win is not in the game. As it stands now, German occupation of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad has little to no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the game, particularly so with the October 45 end date. It really was not there in the beginning at the 292 VP level, is not there now after the recent patches (which may adjust for too much power in a German Spring 42 offensive, but in the method which it was done, further enhances the cushion of the Soviets to get reckless in their 1st blizzard offensive).

So it seems the path being taken is to "balance" the game to make a draw harder to achieve for the Soviets! Why? Because in the absence of any real incentive for "go for it" play on the part of the Germans, we will see more conservative play on the part of the Germans to achieve a draw. What gaming fun is this? I read the forums about coaxing all the little perks out of the engine with micro management (planes, pioneers, moving Thor and Karl to Leningrad, etc)and am increasingly dismayed that such tricks are necessary on a game of this scale to "win" especially since most of these options (now that the German rest the divisions in winter to get em ready for spring 42 option is gone) again are Soviet. I read on another forum a humorous statement about the campaign orders for the Germans being something like, go forward ye host, we are preparing to defend Berlin!

The point I suppose for many of us older gamers is what is it that entices us to play? For me, it is the very old now Avalon Hill come on--you have all the forces that were available to those old generals--can you change history? I will ask the rest of you--what is it that entices you to sit down and invest hundreds of hours in a game such as this? Particularly those of you who mostly play the Axis side?

If changing history in WITE means the Germans, after a perfect campaign, prevent the fall of Berlin by October of 1945, I am going to look for another game (and I have been playing nothing but WITE since its release).

I was surprised at the recent effort by 2x3 Games to patch the game (3 new beta patches in a matter of weeks). I had thought they were directing their resources to WITW but it does appear there is enough resources (and I applaud that for certain) to keep at the attempt to make WITE better. What is not clear to me at this point is what the goal of that effort is. The perfect simulation (boring) or a better game (I hope). Nevertheless, I offer the following (hopefully, low code writing fixes) changes to get players of both sides into the historically proper desperate realm their historical ancestors were in. To make a game of it. Now, not a year from now.

1) make victory conditions effective in May, 45.
2) reduce the auto-win VP conditions as described generally by Michael above (and elaborated on further in the sudden death VP optional rule proposal seen elsewhere in the forums).

I agree that the logistical side of the game needs to be fixed for both sides (some of that has already been done re HQ buildup--largely a German penalty in my view since the Soviets will rarely out run their supply network in the game)so that neither Soviet logistical capability in the winter of 41/42 to run an offensive along the entire front nor the German in the Spring of 42 is too high. My understanding is that this fix is not an easy one on the coding side but does need to be kept in view.

I offer these suggestions with a goal of creating the tension and excitement a warGAME should offer to both sides.
Not really interested in hearing why this is contrary to a perfect simulation which is not what induced me to buy WITE in the first place.

[Flaviusx]

I can sign on to a May 45 ending date and a reduction of VPs needed.

The political thing is and always has been problematic. Leningrad falls in virtually every game. If it doesn't it's because the German takes a pass on it. If he wants it, he'll get it. Kiev never lasts until September. This isn't because of mythical runaways, folks. It's because Leningrad is seemingly indefensible and because SW Front goes up in smoke on turn one. I fight doggedly for these places and if the German knows what he's doing, he's going to take them and well ahead of time.

So this second purge is practically an automatic event. It will happen in every game. No Soviet could prevent it. It won't fix "runaways" because runaways are not and never have been the real issue here.

Nor is it clear to me how one writes a rule to prevent Axis runaways (which are far more clear and actual runaways.) I also doubt they are necessary.

[Farfarer61]

I assess the patches to date are to keep a 'player' interested in the game through increasingly longer periods. The Blizzard has been toned down, the snow offensives toned down, so essentially the short term brass ring is kind of achieved - hang in to 1943, where it might be 'even' ( and I use the term loosely) if neither side has badly screwed up - but especially the Axis. If one looks at the changes, they seem to be designed to incrementally discourage people from bailing though a sense of hopelessness. If we are lucky, the game will evolve to a point where Axis summer 1943 forces, if preserved and not thrown away quixotically , can cause serious hurt. Then, work on 1944 starts

[Michael T]

I could easily write an algorithm to drive the 2nd purge or equivalent Hitler rage event. But since you are in agreement with point 1 Flav how about going in to bat for it? Surely the VC adjustment/game end change would not be a big coding issue.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: wadortch
I agree with Michael that the incentive for the Germans to make the historically desperate attempt to go for the win is not in the game. As it stands now, German occupation of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad has little to no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the game, particularly so with the October 45 end date. It really was not there in the beginning at the 292 VP level, is not there now after the recent patches (which may adjust for too much power in a German Spring 42 offensive, but in the method which it was done, further enhances the cushion of the Soviets to get reckless in their 1st blizzard offensive).

So it seems the path being taken is to "balance" the game to make a draw harder to achieve for the Soviets! Why? Because in the absence of any real incentive for "go for it" play on the part of the Germans, we will see more conservative play on the part of the Germans to achieve a draw. What gaming fun is this? I read the forums about coaxing all the little perks out of the engine with micro management (planes, pioneers, moving Thor and Karl to Leningrad, etc)and am increasingly dismayed that such tricks are necessary on a game of this scale to "win" especially since most of these options (now that the German rest the divisions in winter to get em ready for spring 42 option is gone) again are Soviet. I read on another forum a humorous statement about the campaign orders for the Germans being something like, go forward ye host, we are preparing to defend Berlin!

Key points and why I think it's actually impossible to expect a "historical" flow if all the hardcoded effects were to be removed. Currently the German Player knows he has to last until 45, has no scope for victory beforehand, and will face an unstoppable juggernaut from late 43 onward. Force preservation is the name of the game and only game in town.

This is fundamentally different from having no choice except to run huge risks on the mere possibility of victory, even if one ends up losing 30-40 divisions in a year when things go wrong. Unless there's an actual in game incentive to run those kind of risks, no sane player will do so.