A question about current state of balance and tactic

[Michael T]

Good to hear.

[hjc]

ORIGINAL: Michael T


Joel why not code something that disuades running away.

More flexible victory point assignment?

I'm new to WiTE and so far enjoy it greatly. I will probably only ever play against the AI, so many of the concerns about Soviet or German game strategies don't greatly concern me. However, would it be possible to simulate a Soviet desire to 'hold on' more in the front by altering victory point settings? The current system only gives two choices for assigning points as either "each turn" or "end of game" and this might not be flexible enough. So how about being able to vary the amount of victory points depending on the time-frame, e.g. some towns might be worth more to hold on to during the first 2 or 3 months, than later.

cheers

[tigercub]

ORIGINAL: Michael T


You will struggle to get an objective view about all this around here. Most of the people left are pro Soviet. I would disregard most of what they claim. You are correct in that the game has a serious problem with Russians simply running and accumulating a huge Army. Muling is the antidote to this but it is due to be nerfed soon.

The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

+2 to given the Russian player something more to make stand and fight...but what you do i am not sure!

Tigercub

[kg_1007]

I think that a retreat should suffer higher attrition losses than normal movement..in general moving away from the front, and using more than half of your regular(not strategic)movement points should count as a retreat. In the real world it is difficult also to keep soldiers from beginning to panic if they observe a general withdrawal going on all around them, even if it is technically not a retreat under fire. In WW2, this was even more so.
However, seeing that as a possible solution, is a far cry from making it be, and I think it would be near impossible to code something like that, and even if able to, there would be countless ways to "game" that system, also.
In the end, a game is a game, and will always make tradeoffs I think.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You will struggle to get an objective view about all this around here. Most of the people left are pro Soviet. I would disregard most of what they claim. You are correct in that the game has a serious problem with Russians simply running and accumulating a huge Army. Muling is the antidote to this but it is due to be nerfed soon.

The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

Come on! There has been plenty of complaining about the German impossibility of winning on the forums.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I will state it again. The German cannot win this game under the current rule set without muling. Period. The only assumption being the Soviet is competent.

Joel, its fine to come up with these alt victory conditions but they mean squat unless you code them.

+ 1 I agree completely! Joel, please consider some changes to the victory conditions that encourage both players to hold and/or take terrain.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I am quite prepared to back up my claims by playing a game as Russian against any of these pro Soviet players. But they won't play as German. Think about that.

I don't think that anyone disputes that it is harder to play as the Germans, you have less room for error. But what point are you trying to make, that Sov players are for that reason more biased or something?

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I will state it again. The German cannot win this game under the current rule set without muling. Period. The only assumption being the Soviet is competent.

I don't think this is true under existing patches, although there aren't enough AARs going, especially past 1942, to allow any definite conclusion at this point (other than to say that the original VC are far too generous in granting a Sov win for reaching Berlin after May 45). Muling, however, can allow the Germans to win the WAR outright or at least keep the Sovs out of Berlin for a long, long time.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I think 2by3 is overly influenced by pro Soviet testers, players and other 2by3 people of influence. If there is a pro German 2by3 tester or person of influence please announce yourself.

I am not saying that *you* are pro Soviet Joel, I just think your team is overly influenced by such people. You need some people with an objective view or some pro Germans to balance out the pro Soviets.

I've never understood these charges of bias; since release the game has been patched many times in favor of the Germans. You can ask why the game was released in such a pro-Sov state, but I think that was a matter of plainly inadequate testing rather than actual bias (if that makes you feel better).

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Why is it that we often get posts here by German players stating that they are struggling against huge Russian armies in late 1941?

Do we see the opposite?

This in itself should tell you something.

Again, since 1.06 there are not that many AARs, but in many of them the Germans are doing quite well.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The lack of pro German posters should tell you something. And I am not pro German. I am pro a balanced competitive game. But anyone who goes against the pro Soviet consensus is brow beaten.[/size]

I think that most active posters here are for what they consider to be a balanced competitive game, but people don't seem to agree on what "balance" means. For many German players, "balance" means giving the Germans an even chance to win the WAR (not the game), while to me, that is a fantasy game.

There are a lot of problems with this game that I don't think are fixable in this iteration, and I don't think that just tweaking the VCs will really "fix" the game. Coming up with some way to prevent Sov runaways (while not forcing them to make historical mistakes and leaving the Germans free to avoid them) and overhauling the entire logistics system are necessary, and I don't see those happening.

[von altair]

Michael T: Very very well sayd!

When reading Joel and el hefe's comments, it looks like general consensus here is, that
dev team really are aware about all these problems. They just doesn't want to fix them!

They make those fixes in "2.0" and wants us to buy the game again! We bought the game
once (and awesome game it is, one of the best strategy game I've ever played), and now we
are "beta testing" it. We got plenty of nice and good bug fixes. Support is good, can't argue
against it. But seems that when it comes to a new features and commonly accepted changes.
They wont do it, they want to sell those changes for us again within a new game "wite 2.0".

I can understand this business model very well. These guys earn reward for these superior games.
However, I belive that this game should have clear victory conditions. This game should also have
clear rules which prevents such easy victory gamestyle, like "runnaway". It doesn't honor this level
of strategy game and all efforts people have put in this product. These are things, that should not
be sold again under a new name, but included in this one.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ORIGINAL: Michael T
You will struggle to get an objective view about all this around here. Most of the people left are pro Soviet. I would disregard most of what they claim. You are correct in that the game has a serious problem with Russians simply running and accumulating a huge Army. Muling is the antidote to this but it is due to be nerfed soon.

The Soviet band of brothers seem to think if you like playing German you should just accept that you will ultimately lose. There is not a lot of pro German players left of any calibre. They have moved on.

+2 to given the Russian player something more to make stand and fight...but what you do i am not sure!

Tigercub

I think the changes in the patch are going into the right direction. Although I enjoyed and did "mulling" a lot, I was also aware that it allowed me to surpass Wehrmacht's historical performance in too unrealistical manner. Same as using the whole Luftwaffe essentially only as a supply train, but that is fortunately also addressed now. Both were just a bit to efficient. I might have capped the MP of mobiles units supplied by both mechanisms to 35 or 40 instead, but their solution will probably also work.

It will take some time until BOTH sides will adjust to the rule changes, so we should give it time to test. I believe what we are going to see could be that Leningrad will remain an easily achievable goal for the Germans, but maybe Rostov and Moscow will not longer be taken too simultaneously in the decisive fashion we have seen before. Maybe it is going to be closer, which I would be very happy about. Hopefully, this means the Wehrmacht would also need risk much more casualties to get Moscow, i.e. to make "the last mile" (although hindsight shows it wouldn't have been the end).

For the Soviets, it all depends on the balance between their poor combat value and speed, and those of the Germans. I am sure, if this patch leaves the Germans less mobile until the railheads come up, and require a few weeks resupply/refit break in July-August before Smolensk, Yelnja, Proskurov, and wherever history showed that this happened and allowed to Russians to stand without being enveloped again so quickly, the Russians will not pass on the opportunity to attrit the Wehrmacht by counterattacks and holding actions.
Thus far, the main reason for the retreat was that after such counterattacks, any remaining units would immediately be pocketed next turn. If this risk is reduced, then fighting forward becomes reasonable, even if the casualty ratios will be poor. And the patch seems it may have a reducing effect there.

Hopefully, if the Russians begin to fight forward, also the Germans will do so in blizzard. If a strategic retreat, then both sides ought to be entitled to it (or none). However, maybe the blizzard rules are still a tid bit too harsh for this if the Wehrmacht would get attrited (by some 30-40%) and overextended in historical fashion.

One a side note: How would the idea of counterattacks and fighting forward change, if attacking a unit would also cost the defender MP for the next turn? Such a rule would be terrible for the Germans later, but I always wondered why binding the defender in counterattacks didn't have any effect on his mobility.

[Michael T]

One a side note: How would the idea of counterattacks and fighting forward change, if attacking a unit would also cost the defender MP for the next turn? Such a rule would be terrible for the Germans later, but I always wondered why binding the defender in counterattacks didn't have any effect on his mobility.

This is a good point. Other games do this. As a related issue generally Soviet Inf have more MP than German Inf. Totally wrong. If you averaged out Inf MP over the course of the summer of 1941 I bet the Russians are at least 25% more mobile. Thats just crazy. There is no real Soviet C&C chaos in 1941 as there should be. WITE must be the first game on this subject I have ever seen that dutifully assigns higher MP rates to Soviet Inf over German Inf. Go figure.

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I am quite prepared to back up my claims by playing a game as Russian against any of these pro Soviet players. But they won't play as German. Think about that.

I don't think that anyone disputes that it is harder to play as the Germans, you have less room for error. But what point are you trying to make, that Sov players are for that reason more biased or something?

Personally, I believe what he is saying is simply that he will play you for $1000, he takes the Soviet side, you (or anyone else) take German side- would you play him?

I would not bet against him because I believe his claim that a competent Russian can win every time.
And he means win as in the victory conditions laid out in the game.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

One a side note: How would the idea of counterattacks and fighting forward change, if attacking a unit would also cost the defender MP for the next turn? Such a rule would be terrible for the Germans later, but I always wondered why binding the defender in counterattacks didn't have any effect on his mobility.

This is a good point. Other games do this. As a related issue generally Soviet Inf have more MP than German Inf. Totally wrong. If you averaged out Inf MP over the course of the summer of 1941 I bet the Russians are at least 25% more mobile. Thats just crazy. There is no real Soviet C&C chaos in 1941 as there should be. WITE must be the first game on this subject I have ever seen that dutifully assigns higher MP rates to Soviet Inf over German Inf. Go figure.

Those are good points both! I must say that playing the Soviet side, one is not much constrained by any C&C chaos. It is possible to rail units around rather freely on turn 1, and especially as evacuations are not allowed on turn 1, this is almost an invitation to rearrange anything you want rearranged as Soviet player. I am not sure I agree that Soviet infantry MPs are higher than the German MPs, but I think it might be realistic if they were somewhat lower than they are, or maybe the table or whatever is used to generate MP values could be stretched downwards for the Soviets in 41 to give more possibilities of lower MP values.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: AFV
Personally, I believe what he is saying is simply that he will play you for $1000, he takes the Soviet side, you (or anyone else) take German side- would you play him?

I would not bet against him because I believe his claim that a competent Russian can win every time.
And he means win as in the victory conditions laid out in the game.

I wouldn't take the German side for free, or for $1000, I just don't enjoy it, partly because I don't have the skills/technical expertise to get what you need out of the German side, and partly because the parts of the game that I particularly enjoy (building/organizing the army) are largely absent for the German side.

I don't believe that a competent Sov will win every time, although it takes a very good German to defeat a merely competent Sov player. I don't think anyone is arguing that the German side is as easy to play as the Sov side, and obviously for good balance you would want average players on both sides to have an equal chance of winning.

While that's not how this game plays, I think it is the nature of the game rather than some bias on the part of the devs. The fact is that unless you force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes, all else being equal, the Sovs will do better than historically. I'm not sure how to fix this, but until it is fixed it will necessarily warp the game in favor of the Sovs. I've been reading some accounts of the early war in Russia, and one of the things that strikes me is that the Sovs had more combat power than depicted in the game, but had virtually no command and control ability: units receiving no orders, or contradictory orders, or orders moving them back and forth across the battlefield for no effect other than to waste the units via attrition. So in my view, the Sovs in this game conducting a neatly-coordinated withdrawal is wildly unrealistic. I would say the Sov combat units should be made somewhat stronger CV wise, but it should be difficult to move them as the commander wants. I've suggested in the past a mechanic similar to interdiction, ie, a Sov player would never really know whether a unit would complete all, or any, of its intended movement/combat orders. This effect would gradually fade over the initial summer and would depend on commander quality. I think this could an interesting way to limit run-aways...

[Michael T]

I've been reading some accounts of the early war in Russia, and one of the things that strikes me is that the Sovs had more combat power than depicted in the game, but had virtually no command and control ability: units receiving no orders, or contradictory orders, or orders moving them back and forth across the battlefield for no effect other than to waste the units via attrition. So in my view, the Sovs in this game conducting a neatly-coordinated withdrawal is wildly unrealistic. I would say the Sov combat units should be made somewhat stronger CV wise, but it should be difficult to move them as the commander wants. I've suggested in the past a mechanic similar to interdiction, ie, a Sov player would never really know whether a unit would complete all, or any, of its intended movement/combat orders. This effect would gradually fade over the initial summer and would depend on commander quality. I think this could an interesting way to limit run-aways...

+1 Totally concur.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I've been reading some accounts of the early war in Russia, and one of the things that strikes me is that the Sovs had more combat power than depicted in the game, but had virtually no command and control ability: units receiving no orders, or contradictory orders, or orders moving them back and forth across the battlefield for no effect other than to waste the units via attrition. So in my view, the Sovs in this game conducting a neatly-coordinated withdrawal is wildly unrealistic. I would say the Sov combat units should be made somewhat stronger CV wise, but it should be difficult to move them as the commander wants.

For me this is one of the fundamental problems with the game as it stands.If you don't simulate the Soviet 41 C&C chaos then the game makes no sense as an historical simulation.The Soviets can just withdraw fast enough to prevent large parts of the red army being surrounded and the Axis can throw caution to the wind because they have no reason to fear a genuinely dangerous Soviet counterattack.This combined with overly generous Axis logistics ensures that Leningrad and Moscow are both taken in 41 as a matter of course, whereas the capture of either should be felt as a major event.

[RCHarmon]

The logistics is overly generous to both sides. The Axis in 1941, the Soviets during the first blizzard, and the soviet offenses late in the game.

The Germans were able to go anywhere they wanted to go as long as they brought their tanks. They could have had Moscow, but instead took Kiev. The Soviet forces lost in the Lvov pocket if not "lost" would give the Soviet player a better position to resist in the south or elsewhere. I generally agree though the Soviets are weaker than they should be. In a way they have to run and since there is no repercussions to running it is done.

Soviet flat out running is as big as a problem as mulling is. Get rid of mulling and the Lvov pocket and code in some repercussions to Soviet flat out running.

The mulling, etc is addressing concerns in the early stages of the war. The late stage game balance isn't even being discussed yet.

The German army and the Russian soldier deserve some more respect.

The Soviets in WW2 launched a lot of attacks against the Axis that were never going to succeed. Its overall effect was that it did wear down the German divisions. The way the game is modeled with moral no one wants to launch attacks that will lose.

The way moral is done should be rethought. If this same system was used for a civil war game then the Army of the Potomac would be rated no better than militia when the problem was leadership. The AOP remained a well trained and high moral army even through its loses.

[76mm]

I should also point out that another reason for Sov runaways is that it just doesn't make sense to try to hold cities once they are threatened by encirclement--why bother, if they will be dead in a week?

I'm reading Glanz' book, Barbarossa Derailed, and he is talking about a three week siege of Mogilev, which held 10-12 divisions. Can you imagine? Stick three puny WitE rifle divs in Mogilev and you can be CERTAIN that tney will be POWs in a week (if the German bothers to attack them, that is). If you want to give Sovs some incentive to stand and fight, part of the solution must be to allow encircled units more ability to survive, and defend themselves, and hold up the Germans, for longer.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I should also point out that another reason for Sov runaways is that it just doesn't make sense to try to hold cities once they are threatened by encirclement--why bother, if they will be dead in a week?

I'm reading Glanz' book, Barbarossa Derailed, and he is talking about a three week siege of Mogilev, which held 10-12 divisions. Can you imagine? Stick three puny WitE rifle divs in Mogilev and you can be CERTAIN that tney will be POWs in a week (if the German bothers to attack them, that is). If you want to give Sovs some incentive to stand and fight, part of the solution must be to allow encircled units more ability to survive, and defend themselves, and hold up the Germans, for longer.

Good point, very good actually. The only reason for the Soviets to fight forward and possibly to counterattack feverishly despite very uneven odds can be the time factor. The evacuation of facilities is not limiting, as it wasn't limiting back then. I also don't believe that the political/propaganda side of surrendering cities is critical as both sides knew how to set up proper propaganda coups for any mishaps.

My thinking is that they might have countered so decisively either because they believed that they had the means to stop the Wehrmacht (meaning they lacked the exact knowledge of forces, reinforcements, combat values and the future as we do now), and/or because they saw in this a means to weaken the Wehrmacht and delay it so that new, stronger rearward defensive lines could be prepared.

This delaying would be the effect that in my opinion would be missing to some degree here. Imagine if the "out-of-supply and command" effect of pocketing wasn't just that instantaneous for the next turn, but the penalty would add up turn by turn. Turn 1 75% of MP, command, supply, turn 2 50 and turn 3(+) 25%. That would probably introduce the pocket reduction fight that are in the books, and would delay the infantry, which also is a fact.
Hence, this might require the lead Panzers to stop now and then, and possibly even assist in securing the pocket borders or participate in reducing them, taking attrition casualties that are commonly avoided by good Axis players presently. On a positive note, this also would reduce the harm to overextended, isolated Axis spearheads, which wouldn't turn so weak, basically instantly (from the viewpoint of the opponent in his next turn).

That sounds like an idea to explore, at least for future titles.

The idea with the MP cost to the defender was along the same lines, i.e. binding the enemy like for example the role that the Armored Cavalry Regiments, scouts etc. had in the past, and possible even in present doctrine. Think of the 2nd ACR in Desert Storm. This effect is also absent with the present I-Go-U-Go system. Imagine that every deliberate attack, cost the defender the combat MPs (i.e. 2 or 3). You could half that penalty for hasty attacks, or double it or whatever in detail. To ensure the defending unit would still be able to disengage and move off a little within the 1-week time frame of the next turn, you could cap that "penalty" so that MPs for Inf are maximally reduced to say 10 and that of the rest to say 20. Then Soviet players would have some gain from attacking even if the losses were terrible, and the dynamics of 1941 might change dramatically. The disadvantage would be that the Axis would have to bite the same bullet later. But this "abstracted rule" would be plausibly based on the real world mechanisms.

Nothing for this title anymore, certainly, but sounds like a good approach in order to improve the I-go-U-go system in the next ones. The I-go-U-go isn't ideal, but probably best for a game to be kept "relatively simple". I think it has future but it can also be improved by other rules, such as this reaction move discussion that was there earlier (and in essence was also just a means to reduce the chance of getting pocketed too easily).

LATE EDIT: btw, thinking about delaying, this would also give rise to a critical difference to an Axis withdrawal during blizzard. The latter had probably little point besides avoiding to loose material and the arguable risk of a total breakdown of the Wehrmacht line, and a lot of Generals seemed to have pushed for quicker retreats including Guderian (which got him sacked). Although both forward holding strategies came top down from Hitler or Stalin, it would seem that in the Soviet case it appears more sensible whereas in the German case it looks more like a mistake. Of course no one knows this for sure. A game mechanic that would cost a defender MPs, would also result in this logic. The Germans, if used in the same fashion as in history and being overextended and weakend, i.e. ripe for a blizzard counteroffensive, would have no use in holding ground or even countering, whereas the Soviet would. Doesn't sounds that bad in mimicking this whole issue, does it?

[hfarrish]

Replied to far earlier comment that now doesn't make any sense...retracted.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I've been reading some accounts of the early war in Russia, and one of the things that strikes me is that the Sovs had more combat power than depicted in the game, but had virtually no command and control ability: units receiving no orders, or contradictory orders, or orders moving them back and forth across the battlefield for no effect other than to waste the units via attrition. So in my view, the Sovs in this game conducting a neatly-coordinated withdrawal is wildly unrealistic. I would say the Sov combat units should be made somewhat stronger CV wise, but it should be difficult to move them as the commander wants. I've suggested in the past a mechanic similar to interdiction, ie, a Sov player would never really know whether a unit would complete all, or any, of its intended movement/combat orders. This effect would gradually fade over the initial summer and would depend on commander quality. I think this could an interesting way to limit run-aways...

Good comments. I really like your idea of movement randomness due to lack of C&C. Perhaps a simple die-roll random MP modifier. You move a unit, and a die-roll at some random time in the movement will stop the unit. It may move its full MPs, or it may move just one hex. You will never fulllly know ahead of time.

EDIT: I feel that in WitE the Soviets DO suffer from C&C COMBAT penalties, but very little from C&C MOVEMENT problems like they did historically. I've always felt the Soviet ability to conduct a rather orderly strategic withdrawl to not even be historically plausible. The player should have the ability to do a little better than historical in this area in terms of a gradual fighting retreat, but to conduct a fell scale orderly withdrawl is not something the Soviets were capable of in 1941 and to a lesser extent 1942.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: janh

One a side note: How would the idea of counterattacks and fighting forward change, if attacking a unit would also cost the defender MP for the next turn? Such a rule would be terrible for the Germans later, but I always wondered why binding the defender in counterattacks didn't have any effect on his mobility.

Gary already added this rule into WitW several months ago. Depending on the combat odds, defending units lose MPs in their next turn. This will take a lot of balancing to get right, but the idea is in, as are many combat and logistics changes. When taken along with the new interdiction air directive that blankets a designated area with air attacks and causes interdiction points to be added to hexes (which increase the cost of moving into the hex during the next player-turn), you can find yourself with very limited movement options.