Is WiTE Balanced?

[AFV]

Flaviusx- you had suggested in a different thread that at the very best, the German might get a marginal victory.  I hope that is not what you really meant.
 
I contend that the victory conditions should be written so that both sides have an equal chance of getting a decisive/marginal victory or draw.I am not saying that is easy or trivial to do however.
 
At least we agree with the end date and the Axis auto victory points. I would hope that the powers that be will take notice of the general consensus on at least the end date.

[Flaviusx]

AFV, that's where things presently stand I think. Auto victories aren't in the cards unless there is truly an enormous gap in skill. Even a major requires a hefty disparity. A very good Axis player who cripples the Sovs can wind up at or near the 1941 start line.

The more likely outcome between two good players is either a draw or Soviet marginal. On balance this is probably too forgiving for the Soviet, the timetable and final VPS are too generous.

Micheal T, I've made my feelings clear on the subject. There's really not a lot of fans out there of the post May business.

[AFV]

Flaviusx I now understand what you meant, thanks for clarifying. You are saying with the current victory conditions thats what the German can expect.
As you have already stated you would be in favor of the victory conditions being tweaked, oddly enough we are in complete agreement on this.
Be the ambassador for this, at least the post May business!

[Michael T]

Well more specifically Flav, I mean can we get it *coded* for the game to end in May 1945 and the German Auto Win reduced from 290 to 260. 260 against a good Soviet is still very remote but at least it is a whiff. At 290 you may as well say "German Auto Win *Computer says no* "
I realize its not your decision but your advocacy would surely help.

[Flaviusx]

I'm of two minds about the 260 points. On the one hand I don't believe the Sovs would throw in the towel short of getting pushed back to the Urals.

On the other hand...frankly, if the Axis runs up the score to 260, that's a pretty amazing achievement and the Soviet has been clearly outplayed. Personally, If somebody did that to me I would resign and not insist on playing the damn thing out to the bitter end. Then I'd think long and hard about how I screwed up so badly, lol.

[Michael T]

Whether the Soviets would have surrendered is not the point. There is an argument that even a score of 290 would not result in a Soviet surrender. Although Stalin would no doubt remove you from command whether it was 260 or 290 achieved [:D]
 
The point is that if the Axis player gets 260 points he should be declared the winner because he has clearly out played his opponent and deserves his victory.

[AFV]

+1 Michael

[Harrybanana]

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.

I agree.

[/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]

I get your point; but my personal playing philosophy is that I am Stalin and the Russian High Command combined or Hitler and OKH combined. I would prefer to have a much freer hand when playing, I don't want to be forced into the same mistakes as my historical counterparts. Also, reading the AARs I don't see too many "Runaways", but perhaps we have different views on what that term means. The only place the Russians tend to retreat quickly is in the south and IMO that is more a function of the Lvov pocket than anything else. I have no problem with Victory Points being awarded for taking and holding certain cities, as in the scenarios, but do have a problem with the "purge" idea.

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]

I have no problem with the game going until October, but if the German Player lasts that long he should be given at least a Major Victory. Or end it in May and than the level of Victory is determined by the VPs, with the Germans at least getting a Minor Victory. If the threshold for an Axis Automatic Victory is lowered than there should also be a requirement that the Axis hold a certain number of VPs by December 1942 (the Historical high watermark) or else it is an Automatic Russian Victory.

. 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]

If it was historically feasible for the Axis to essentially double up the number of men and equipment working on a particular rail line to speed up the rail repair I agree with you it should be allowed. I am no expert on this though and suspect that doubling the men and equipment would at best only give a 50% (and probably less) increase in the amount of track that can be repaired in a particular week. Still, if the Axis or Soviet Player believes that is the best use of those resources they should be given the option.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: 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.

You may be right, but what are you suggesting to "Fix" the problem? The options as I see it are:

1. Change the Victory Conditions so that the Axis have to actually Win the War (by causing Russian Surrender) in order to Win the Game and then change the rules to actually give the Axis a reasonable chance to accomplish this. This may well make a better "Game", but it would not be a very historically accurate one.

2. Implement Michael's idea of lowering the Automatic Victory Requirement. This may work, at least for a while, in encouraging both sides to be aggressive; but as soon as the Axis realize that they don't stand a chance to win the automatic victory we will be back to the same game.

3. Award VPs in the GC the same as the scenarios; that is both sides getting VPs each turn for holding certain cities. Personally I think this is the best answer, but it will not be implemented until WITE2 if at all.

[krishub1492]

Should victory conditions in 1945 be impacted by Allied operations in the West? If the Russians didn't take Berlin in May 45, would the Allies have stopped on the Elbe? Also, in August, the Russians may have had less casualties taking Berlin, since it would have been a radioactive ruin.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: krishub1

Should victory conditions in 1945 be impacted by Allied operations in the West? If the Russians didn't take Berlin in May 45, would the Allies have stopped on the Elbe? Also, in August, the Russians may have had less casualties taking Berlin, since it would have been a radioactive ruin.

Yes, this is one of the main problems I have with taking the game much beyond May. It becomes increasingly difficult to pretend that nothing happening off map matters or that the war in the west is hermetically sealed from the east. This is debatable, but it seems to me that if the Germans halt the Sovs well short of Berlin, this simply results in the Western Allies overrunning Germany. Or, in extremis, nuking Germany.

The other problem is with respect to production and reinforcements. As of May of 1945 we enter into uncharted waters. The game engine isn't well designed to handle this sort of thing, given that a deliberate design choice was made to keep these things relatively fixed and historical.

[Aurelian]

Game should end at the end of May 45 IMHO.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: krishub1

Should victory conditions in 1945 be impacted by Allied operations in the West? If the Russians didn't take Berlin in May 45, would the Allies have stopped on the Elbe? Also, in August, the Russians may have had less casualties taking Berlin, since it would have been a radioactive ruin.

I wouldn't be so sure about Berlin being nuked. It is often forgotten that Germany had extensive Chemical Weapon stocks and these could have been delivered via V2's to f.e. London quite handily. Nuke Berlin, and unless there's absolutely nothing left (but then why nuke Berlin in the first place) I expect London would have an interesting experience in mass VX/Sarin etc. usage. I doubt the UK would have been willing to take that kind of risk.

[Flaviusx]

I actually think they'd nuke the Ruhr before Berlin, at least if the USAAF had its way. Nor am I sure that the British would be able to or even desire to veto such an action, chemical weapons notwithstanding. Bomber Harris would be all for nuking Berlin.

[LiquidSky]

ORIGINAL: 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.

One easy way to implement a rule to prevent runaways is to change the cost of movement depending on direction.

So moving Easterly is times 1. But moving Westerly would be say double..or triple. The reverse could go for the russians. This would still allow some tactical movement out of the line, but not wholesale running across the countryside.

[heliodorus04]

When the game was first released, Slitherine server games (and maybe PBEM too) could be modified between player side-turns. So the German could receive the game and set the Morale/Logistics/Transport/Fortification settings DURING a game, and if you were not checking for that, you could suddenly find yourself without trucks, or you wouldn't realize the German had set his Logistics level to 400 (or something). At least I vaguely recall this being patched way back in the 1.03 days, preventing settings from being changed once a scenario was actively begun.

I believe that lock-decision should be undone or some sort of toggle, and here is why:
As far as "house rule" victory conditions go, that's well and good, but nothing materially changes in the game.

If you could change these settings during a game, and you were playing with a friend or an opponent you knew you could trust, it would be great to have settings as something you could change as part of your house rule set.

Imagine if you could set the Soviet morale setting from 100 to 95 as soon as Leningrad or Moscow fell for a whole turn (or 4 turns later, or whatever freakin house rule you want). Imagine if the Soviet wanted a house rule that said "For every HQ Buildup you use over 1 per army group, you have to take 6 turns of -1 to your transport setting."

Here, you have robust possibilities to create house rules to suit almost all sizes and shape of player expectation.

These settings can have a great impact on both the fun factor, the difficulty level, and the historical accuracy of any particular scenario or game. Given that many players would like to experiment with different victory settings, and given that this kind of capability was formerly IN the game, it would seem to me a good starting point, and realistically achievable (but a non-programmer can never be sure there).

Anyone like the idea? I mean, if it came from someone else?

[Flaviusx]

Helio, I'm not against the idea in principle, so long as it can't be gamed or enable cheating somehow or otherwise compromise server integrity.

[heliodorus04]

Well, instead of it being always open or always closed, I'd like to see it be a toggle at game start. You either start the game with those parameters being open to change between side-turns (at which point, you simply have to trust your opponent and verify the settings, which isn't particularly difficult due diligence) or you start a game with those settings fixed prior to the first turn, knowing they can never be changed.

To me it seems simple enough, and quite versatile, without adding abuse potential.

[Flaviusx]

Liquisky, an interesting idea, but how does it distinguish between lateral movements on the front and retreats?

I very frequently march units east, put 'em on rails, and then send them to another part of the front that needs reinforcement. Same applies in reverse to the Axis. Neither of these are retreats in a strategic sense. But the rail net is such that you can't help but to march in the "wrong" direction if you want to reposition forces.

[JAMiAM]

Simply put, until, and unless, a VP delta over time function is coded in, there will never be any good means to prevent runaway strategies.