Game Out of Balance

[HMSWarspite]

I have now played a very little (as opposed to none at all). I am still at a loss over these balance issues. The comments in here suggest that the Germans are harder to play... but to what aim? It is hard to achieve AV before the tide turns? It is hard to play the game once the tide has turned and hold Berlin and enough to time out to a win? Who thinks Germany had an even chance against Russia in RL? A Historical game has to be... historical. Or else it's just bad fantasy.

Is it that people want a game that can swing backwards and forwards until the last turn? Because that isn't going to happen - the 'draw' space is too large. I have no problem with games that reward success, especially of this size - inching slowly forwards in achievement for hundreds of turns would not make for accurate history. WITW is going to be even less 'balanced'. There is no way on earth that Germany can hold off the Allies once ashore in France... and no way Germany can prevent them getting to try a landing. Thus the only hope is for a failed allied landing, or such a brilliant fighting retreat that a draw is achieved. But the Allies (barring supply) can pummel Germany anywhere they choose. Will this game be balanced?

Not trying to be difficult... just trying to understand what people want. I have always been a fan of asymmetric games (ACW, Rome etc). Even games bore me. Want even? Play chess. And even that is unstable and unbalanced (white start, and often game losses can be traced to a move or couple of moves - it tends to punish mistakes and reward success rather a lot!)

I like the quote above "And that's it in a nutshell - one man's balance is another man's bias. At least GG gives us something to debate that isn't politics, religion or football (which I understand is actually a mix of politics, religion and sweat)"!

[Oshawott]

Hell no! Now it is 40-45 morale, in 42 it means 1-2 CV for rifle division.

Isn't this only a problem when playing with VC260? I don't like VC260 very much.

[821Bobo]

No, as far a I know the morale is same in all GCs. Problem is only with the new formed units. However if your opponent is good you will need to build loads of new divisions in 42. With 2 CV division you can barely defend and Axis doesn't have any problems to sweep through it. This is ok. But getting any lower will make Soviets to suffer even more and could probably result in whole front Axis offensive in 42.

[janh]

Up front I must say I have been watching AARs and discussions here over the past monthes on an off. Contributors have changed dramatically over the last year with many of the old guard gone, but the rest stayed the same. I am very happy with the changes Moravel implemented and I can't wait to see the next patch. The mild blizzard and the various other fixes did a lot for the game and also improved balance. For me it is now the standard in terms of Ostfront war games, not only because of it's qiuite much better than average games' AI.

ORIGINAL: Oshawott
- eliminate 1=2 rule
- reduce fortification level for both sides
- reduce Russian morale
- reduce logistic level for both sides slightly

I'd agree with no 1, and no 4. I'd stay hands off no 2 and 3, however. No 2 in face of the importance of fortifications for the Reds in short run (every bit helps my ants' CV in 41/42), but more importantly thinking of the German long-run. They spent 2/3rds of the war on the defense, it would seem counterproductive to weaken the defensive stance in terms of balance.

The Russian morale would do the same in 41/42, there are already quite good chances for Axis to throw the Red Bear off balance and into non-recoverable defeat cycles for Axis. I don't think it would solve the problems of the rich-getting-richer cycles that tend to throw games off the beaten (balanced, competitive) middle path into one-sided courses. In the past patches we had a lot of morale/fort parameter configurations, each one having its own draw backs that finally lead to this parameter set. None, however, did not suffer from spiraling.

I think it would really require different tools to counter those, e.g. something that would lower Russian recruitment/morale/building if the come out fairly too strong from 41 or 42 (would they have pressed their industry or population so hard if it were not really direly necessary?). Or conversely for Axis tools that slow down build-ups if 41 went too well, or accelerated things if truly bad.

[tombo]

...do the above issues affect only the Campaign games? I plan to start backup with the Scenarios.

cheers

[Oshawott]

No, as far a I know the morale is same in all GCs.

What I was trying to say is that the low morale units you get in 42 are only a problem if you play with the VC260 setting. If you had a good 41 as SHC the low morale units in 42 don't matter. If you had a mixed or bad 41 as SHC the VC260 setting combined with the low morale might crush you because you can't retreat and must defend with your crappy units. But without the VC260 setting you might get a much more realistic game.The Germans did make it to Stalingrad but without encircling massive number of Russian troops.

The games I see and play are always either massive Russian or massive German victories and nothing in between.

This is just one of my theories. Another theory is that fortifications are way to strong in this game and need to be reduced for both sides. I might be totally wrong.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: caliJP

I think the main issue here is that the mobile units at step #6, can start moving after the previous 5 waves of sequential attacks and still have the full allotment of MPs for an entire week, even though one would think severals days should have passed during those 5 waves of attacks. I know newly cleared hexes cost more to move across, I still think that this is unrealistic and is really what enables huge pockets if your mobile units are fairly well supplied.

I think if this could be altered in some way, it would go a long way into avoiding those huge pockets, which don't seem realistic, specially in 1942.

Indeed. The lack of any time mechanism as in TOAW leads to extremely gamey and overpowered offensives, especially since most of the uncertainty and coordination problems, i.e. the "friction", are taken out of the equation for the offensive player.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: jzardos

I don't believe in the theory without GG there would be no WitE. Sure no GG WitE, but a game of this scale on the war in the east would have been created at some point.

Can you give some examples of similar games?

TOAW for one. Try the direction 21 scenario.

Also suffers from freak combat results (especially low AT value infantry vs high defense armour) and a very rigid event and production engine, but the general flow and offensives being tied closely to supply trunks is IMO represented fairly well.

[charlie0311]

Hi all

IMO the huge pockets can be prevented with careful defense.

janh, I think most of the old guard is either working on witw of wite 2.0, or is waiting to see how wite 2.0 will turn out.

We all realy owe Morveal.

Charlie

[wallas]

Well I am new to WiTE and my first game was versus Oshawott. I played russia and thankfully after turn 5 he let me restart. My second game as russia was not much better but we did make it to early summer 42 when my hard drive failed. Customer support is trying to reload my game to multi player server for me to continue. Atm oshawott I do not see the game as available. My observations are the game is not based on operational reality and once you accept that then its a fun game. I would agree with the opinion that the game is a slippery slope and once you start losing your footing the steam role is on.

[wallas]

Another theory is that fortifications are way to strong in this game and need to be reduced for both sides. I might be totally wrong.

I would agree in open/clear terrain but armour spear heads covering 500km in a week at near maximum rail head distance using HQ buildup through the forest and swamps between Moscow and Leningrad is just not sound operational mechanics. Once I realised this game is not sound operationally I am enjoying it. I have played scorched earth and many other table top war games and getting used to this fantasy system takes a bit but it is fun.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: janh

Up front I must say I have been watching AARs and discussions here over the past monthes on an off. Contributors have changed dramatically over the last year with many of the old guard gone, but the rest stayed the same. I am very happy with the changes Moravel implemented and I can't wait to see the next patch. The mild blizzard and the various other fixes did a lot for the game and also improved balance. For me it is now the standard in terms of Ostfront war games, not only because of it's qiuite much better than average games' AI.

ORIGINAL: Oshawott
- eliminate 1=2 rule
- reduce fortification level for both sides
- reduce Russian morale
- reduce logistic level for both sides slightly

I'd agree with no 1, and no 4. I'd stay hands off no 2 and 3, however. No 2 in face of the importance of fortifications for the Reds in short run (every bit helps my ants' CV in 41/42), but more importantly thinking of the German long-run. They spent 2/3rds of the war on the defense, it would seem counterproductive to weaken the defensive stance in terms of balance.

The Russian morale would do the same in 41/42, there are already quite good chances for Axis to throw the Red Bear off balance and into non-recoverable defeat cycles for Axis. I don't think it would solve the problems of the rich-getting-richer cycles that tend to throw games off the beaten (balanced, competitive) middle path into one-sided courses. In the past patches we had a lot of morale/fort parameter configurations, each one having its own draw backs that finally lead to this parameter set. None, however, did not suffer from spiraling.

I think it would really require different tools to counter those, e.g. something that would lower Russian recruitment/morale/building if the come out fairly too strong from 41 or 42 (would they have pressed their industry or population so hard if it were not really direly necessary?). Or conversely for Axis tools that slow down build-ups if 41 went too well, or accelerated things if truly bad.

Have you played through 43-45 against a reasonably talented German player? They do need forts but at current levels of speed and power (plus reserves) in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing makes for an absolutely interminable slog that I would argue is no fun for anyone. The real answer is that there needs to be some incentive/upside for the Germans to attack...but in the interim, toning down forts weakens the Reds in '41 (and encourages a forward defense) and lessens the ability to create 3 years of trench warfare for the Germans post '42. Both are very good outcomes IMO.

[charlie0311]

Not buying any of this stuff about forward defense for the sov. Sure, they maybe did it historically, and almost lost them the war.

The 43-45 slog could be dealt with by making the red army more powerful. For example, the red air force could deal with the axis mobile formations. Stormovick (sp) equal panzer bane.

charlie