Balance questions

[TotenkopfZZ]

this is a very broad question but I am new to the game and my PBEM opponent and I seem to get into discussions all the time about balance.

Take an example: In a recent game, four of my Tiger II's were knocking out Sherman M4A1's at the rate of several a turn. After just a few rounds of this my opponent calls the game declaring that it could not be won due to the overwhelming superiority of the Tiger II's.

My question is simply this, can one expect the game to be balanced for the most part when picking units in a battle? Specifically, can 10,000 points of M4a1's expect to have even odds vs the same points of Tiger II's? Assuming they each make maximum use of terrain and smoke etc?

Being an historical simulation more than a game can we even expect balance?

I am fishing for a general concensus from the SP:WAW community at large.

Thanks for taking the time to read!

[john g]

Originally posted by TotenkopfZZ:
this is a very broad question but I am new to the game and my PBEM opponent and I seem to get into discussions all the time about balance.

Take an example: In a recent game, four of my Tiger II's were knocking out Sherman M4A1's at the rate of several a turn. After just a few rounds of this my opponent calls the game declaring that it could not be won due to the overwhelming superiority of the Tiger II's.

My question is simply this, can one expect the game to be balanced for the most part when picking units in a battle? Specifically, can 10,000 points of M4a1's expect to have even odds vs the same points of Tiger II's? Assuming they each make maximum use of terrain and smoke etc?

Being an historical simulation more than a game can we even expect balance?

I am fishing for a general concensus from the SP:WAW community at large.

Thanks for taking the time to read!

If the tigers are played intelligently, then no amount of m4's will win. This assumes that the German player has an ammo dump or trucks with which to reload.

You have to remember that when the M4 was designed the powers that be in the US still felt that a tank's job was not fighting other tanks. The doctrine of "The best way to kill a tank is with another tank" wasn't US policy until after the war.

With 10000 points you could buy a whole load of offboard arty and a map full of bazooka teams. They are the proper weapons for the US to take against tigers.

The Soviet army embraced a tank vs tank doctrine early, and the British had one as well they just couldn't manage to design decent tanks.

That 10000 points of M4's would be better used against 10000 points of infantry and mg's. That is what it was designed to fight.
thanks, John.

[David Heath]

I ma not a very good player so I think that I can help here. One if you can expect Tiger Tanks get things that can take them out better. Close Air Support, Nice large off board art. Set your self up in defense stance and wait for some of them. Another thing is that US tends to have more of everything most of the time. If want to give a little flavor of that then maybe make the point totals different. Ger 5,000 and maybe US 7500 or so. Paul Vebber taught me many a painful lession about infantry close assualting tanks. This lead the way to me using a lot more infantry. It also taught me what not to have Tigers attack. Paul has killed more of my tanks then anyone I know with the Soviets and US.

I think the my problem maybe more of not buying what the US needs to deal with the Tigers. Also once he does start taking out your Tigers you will find yourself buying and doing other things to counter his new tactics. The challenge is finding the best array of forces for a given mission. So don't give up keep trying.

[ May 07, 2001: Message edited by: David Heath ]

[CSCOTR]

I have played several ways, historically correct,highly modified and yes , combined forces like the movie devil's brigade. Of course I am biased towards Canadian troops, If you look at armour/slope ratings of British,Russian,German,Us and Canadian tanks I would rate them Russian1 German2 Canadian3 British4 and Us 4th up untill 44.

The Ram II with a 6Pdrmain gun with decent armor and penatrating value of 112 If I Remember along with a 22speed is allot of bang for your buckand a good match for German armour untill44. Shermans were fast but lacked armour and fire power. British were sssloowwww.I guess thats why I like one of my devil's brigade senarios, Ram II's for knock down abillity and shermans for quick responce if I need reinforcements on a flank. But this is just my opinion and with no disrespect to any nation or game player.

[Wild Bill]

Totenkopf, I plan to deal with this matter next week in my scenario design classes here on the forum, even touch upon it today.

Yes, balance is something designers should strive for to make a scenario challenging.

It can be done, but it takes time and practice.

Now for generated battles where each side picks his own forces, the only way you might achieve that is with some ground rules to start.

Given a balance in points for both sides and depending upon the type of scenario, you should be able to achieve balance, PROVIDED, of course, both gamers are equally skilled.

The player's ability has a great deal to do with the winning or losing of a battle.

For an axample of balance with Tigers and Shermans, you should really try my newest scenario on Fabio Prados site called Doom of the Titans. I think you'll find Tigers and Panthers hard pressed to stay alive. It's quite challenging and a good example of how balance can be achieved.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/sp_waw.htm

Wild Bill

[ May 07, 2001: Message edited by: Wild Bill ]

[drob]

Well my 2 cents,

I've been playing SPWAW for a couple of months now and have had success against some of the better players when playing U.S. forces.

As for Tigers I haven't had a whole lot of trouble - I just try to stay out of their way. Here's my drill -

Smoke 'em. They are deadly at distance. Deprive them of that distance.

Buy lots of Bazooka equiped units - a bazooka in the rear, side or sometimes in the front is VERY effective. Even Bazooka-less troops will have a pretty good chance on an assault.

Suppress them with 8in or 155 artillery. A well coordinated assault with Smoke, Artillery, Infantry swarms and then Sherman swarms is pretty effective.

Get infront and behind them. Get your units in and when the Tiger returns fire on one unit put another unit directly behind it and blast away.

All that being said I played one e-mail game where the opposing force only selected Tigers. I think it was winnable if I had more infantry and if I hadn't been playing e-mail. The AI just doesn't do very well in responding to a wave attack by using good ambush technique (maybe 5.0 will do better).

The other thing to remember is that Tigers are relatively expensive and a good player will be cautious about sending them into a fray without knowing what they will find. This happened recently in a large game where I essentially stripped away the infantry support with dedicated 105s (.1 response with a forward observer) and he wouldn't commit even though I think he would have creamed me. The game was a draw.

Almost all of the experienced players require a limit to the amount of artillery and air support one can have. I don't see any problem with negotiating a limited number of "super" tanks.

[Don Eddins]

Totenkopf ... Note the implicit message in Wild Bill's reply. He started off discussing balance in scenarios, and how hard it was to achieve. When you play generated scenarios pbem, what you and your opponent are doing is essentially designing a scenario. You can, as Bill pointed out, achieve, balance in that situation, but it requires that both you and your opponent be skilled, informed, and experienced. Something that won't often happen. I know that none of those adjectives apply to me so I'm always on the look out for a "canned" scenario that some industrious, thoughtful and experienced designer has built to be balanced for pbem. There aren't a lot of them out there, but if you're looking for balanced pbem, that's the way to go.