Panzer Division = SUPER MAN

[thedoctorking]

No morale losses for failed attacks might lead to more "soak-off" attacks.

How about increasing the morale gain for successful attacks in 1941? They're so rare that you get a bigger payoff.

Attacking already has a good payoff for the Soviets if you can isolate a German panzer spearhead.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Nada

[thedoctorking]

I think the thing is that Gamesaurus is still using the 1.11.0 patch. That one was very pro-German. But with the supply and HQBU cost changes in 1.11.01, the game is relatively balanced at least through 1941. We'll see about 1942...

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Nada

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

IDK where this magical 170k soviet replacements per month in 1942 comes from......The Average against a German player that does anywhere near historical/normal in WiTE should have the soviet player around 100k replacements per week in 1942.

If the Soviet player was getting 170k per week in 1942 the game would be alot easier for the soviets to win lol.....and if the German player failed so bad in 1941 that the soviet player was somehow generating 170k per week in 1942 its game over for the Germans for almost a certainty.

Its what makes 1942 hard as the Soviets as your factories are just getting back to 100% operation from the 1941 moves, and your only getting around 100k replacements while a good german player can chew up around that many a week esp when you consider how high soviet attrition losses are due to low morale/exp in 1942.

You can't get 170k in 1942 even if the Axis don't take a step into the USSR. More like 159k. Don't know what game he's referring to.

[thedoctorking]

OK, 160k. Playing with 1.11.01, turn 47. Germans hold Kiev, Leningrad, other major cities have remained in Soviet hands. I have 3009 manpower centers:

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Well, I want to remove morale changes for battles in which no ground changes ownership, and Soviets will not get extra losses for failed attacks in the period 6/41-8/41. All in order to promote aggressive style and increase battle losses (not by increasing losses in individual battle, but by increasing the number of battles).

Nice idea, but in 41-42 it won't change the fact that the Russian cannot afford to fight forward when it means they WILL be pocketed and destroyed on the next turn. Until the Russian starts forming Corps in mid 42, he doesn't have anything to fight with. Division level Russian troops are nothing more than speed bumps.

(Yes, you can develop Cavalry Corps and some Guards units IF you use extreme blizzard and 1-1=2-1... and they are useful, but the rest of the army is just trash to be burned in pockets.)

And I am playing the 1.11.01 patch.

If Morvael didn't KNOW there was an issue here... he wouldn't even be looking at it. As usual, he has a more balanced view than the Fan Bois. In fact, his and Denniss' work has been what has kept this game alive. It would have died an early death, if left in it's original state.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Nada

[thedoctorking]

Like I say, man, we need to play. Put the challenge up on the multiplayer server, I have a space on my dance card now that another German opponent has taken a look at his position in December 1941 and packed it in.

Full blizzard, no Soviet attack bonus, random weather, better CV calculation, art and su +1 are my preferred options.

[tyronec]

Would concur that the game is fairly balanced under the latest patch.

The problem with increasing combat losses and reducing logistics attrition losses is that it would make the game less stable. At present Soviets can survive a moderate '41 and a lot of combat losses because the logistics attrition balances the game out. So by the time you get into '42, as long as there have not been too many disasters, they can still build up to a reasonable force. If combat losses dominated then the roller coaster effect would be more extreme and even less games would go the distance.

Doing major changes to the morale levels would in my view be high risk, get the levels wrong and the game could become seriously unbalanced for a period. Given that many players are likely to move over to WITE2 when it comes out that would be a shame.

Personally I would rather see some fine tuning of the known problems:
Air supply
Air war fatigue
Axis brigades high kill ratios
and no doubt there are a few others...

[SparkleyTits]

Regiments definitely make Axis winter much easier than it should be and have many more benefits beyond that so definitely hope this one gets sorted

I feel the problem with balancing though is that different level of players clearly have different issues on how the game is played and the problems resulting from that balancing for everybody is all but impossible I imagine

Me and Telemecus had a chat about that same problem and he had the brilliant idea of interchangeable options akin to +1, mild blizzard etc

With the morale changes you are thinking about I personally think it would be a great start off change for most of the players on the forum but would it at all be possible to put all of these options into selective ones like mild blizz and +1 etc?

If you could build up the options with that people could find what makes them comfortable and suits their playstyle and level

[Telemecus]

Just to carry on from what ST said I honestly find it quite difficult to disentangle some objective assessment of the balance of the game from the balance of skill levels who those who play it. Players who play both sides often against the same opponent either way might be the only ones to get close to an objective assessment and I have to rely on what they say here. Also the balance is very dependant on the "meta." If I am right that the right "meta" for the Soviet air force is that it should be deployed in the rear to defend its industry in 1941, not to support its army, then the Soviet airforce could no longer be considered overpowered for instance. Would that be because the objective balance has changed, or because one player was good enough to spot an opportunity and so represents who plays it? Perhaps it is not only difficult to have an objective measure of game balance, but one conceptually could never really exist?

It may also be that the objective balance is not independent of skill levels even when they are matched. Two noobs playing will have the balance more in favour of the Soviet side and two experienced players I guess more on the Axis side. A lot of the forums discussion here is about experienced players. Overall for most players, who are new, the game is still very unforgiving on Axis players.

I am struck though how little discussion there is on the other options. The "normal", "challenging" and so on options can be used in a person versus person game too - and make a difference to combat results. I assume putting the game option to challenging would help the defending side - Soviets in 1941? The changes in supply can easily be reversed or increased with the logistics level setting. And so on. So why, given all the discussion about supply and fortification changes and so on with each version, do players simply not make those changes as part of their game options instead? I know the choices are more varied and not as discrete as +1bonus or not and mild/normal blizzard. But I would have thought some standards would have emerged. For instance would a balanced game for newbies have logistics on 120% as standard but for experienced Axis players 80%?

HLYA's earlier challenge in fact is precisely an example of this. But rather than going to very complicated house rules for on map action, why not just use the options we already have?

[thedoctorking]

I had no idea that those balancing options worked other than with the AI.

Can you fill us in on the effect of the various options? This might well be a good balancing mechanism.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking
I had no idea that those balancing options worked other than with the AI.
Can you fill us in on the effect of the various options? This might well be a good balancing mechanism.

Well I suppose the thing to remember is even in a game against the other person the AI is still very much a participant. So for example during your turn the AI does decide whether to intercept or not and is only guided by the air doctrine of the other player. This is an inevitable feature of WeGoYouGo games.

I did play a game with another on harder settings - and just felt I needed more units to get a successful attack. So I assume, without testing, that harder settings helps the defender while you are attacking. The logistics, admin, production settings etc are more straightforwardly mathematical. Whoever gets 80% on the admin setting for example will only have 40 points every turn.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

That statement might be just a tad lopsided buddy [:D]

My take on the whole balance debate is that if you look at the trend from AAR's of which player wins as which nation the pattern is that comparatively the more experienced a player the higher chance of them winning as either team

How many of the AAR accounts reflect games where the German player was the more skilled ? How many where the Russian was more skilled ? Under what patches ? Until you adjust for that, the AARs tells you nothing about win-loss ratios for the GC.

[STEF78]

Not sure what will be modified with the next patch but changing morale rules has a huge impact on the game.

Be careful...

Personnaly, I find that the game is well balanced under 1.11.01

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

No morale losses for failed attacks might lead to more "soak-off" attacks.

How about increasing the morale gain for successful attacks in 1941? They're so rare that you get a bigger payoff.

Attacking already has a good payoff for the Soviets if you can isolate a German panzer spearhead.

"Attacking already has a good payoff for the Soviets if you can isolate a German panzer spearhead."
How do you propose to do that when your units can barely move one hex into the German controlled hexes due to low morale ?
Wheat will have two or three controlled hexes protecting everything he has. You won't get near his troops.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Like I say, man, we need to play. Put the challenge up on the multiplayer server, I have a space on my dance card now that another German opponent has taken a look at his position in December 1941 and packed it in.

Full blizzard, no Soviet attack bonus, random weather, better CV calculation, art and su +1 are my preferred options.

It's not me you need to play as the Germans. I'm not practiced as the German. It is Wheat who can show you why resistance is futile...

[thedoctorking]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

No morale losses for failed attacks might lead to more "soak-off" attacks.

How about increasing the morale gain for successful attacks in 1941? They're so rare that you get a bigger payoff.

Attacking already has a good payoff for the Soviets if you can isolate a German panzer spearhead.

"Attacking already has a good payoff for the Soviets if you can isolate a German panzer spearhead."
How do you propose to do that when your units can barely move one hex into the German controlled hexes due to low morale ?
Wheat will have two or three controlled hexes protecting everything he has. You won't get near his troops.

Yeah, if you are cautious and methodical as the Germans, you can prevent the Russians cutting off your spearheads and breaking your pockets. Of course, you will have fewer pockets and your advance will not get as far. And the Soviets will be cranking out 150k +/- new soldierboys a turn. They sit back behind the lines getting experienced at 1-3 points a turn, and by the end of winter they will be at 45 EXP and ready to rock and roll.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

No morale losses for failed attacks might lead to more "soak-off" attacks.

How about increasing the morale gain for successful attacks in 1941? They're so rare that you get a bigger payoff.

Attacking already has a good payoff for the Soviets if you can isolate a German panzer spearhead.

"Attacking already has a good payoff for the Soviets if you can isolate a German panzer spearhead."
How do you propose to do that when your units can barely move one hex into the German controlled hexes due to low morale ?
Wheat will have two or three controlled hexes protecting everything he has. You won't get near his troops.

Yeah, if you are cautious and methodical as the Germans, you can prevent the Russians cutting off your spearheads and breaking your pockets. Of course, you will have fewer pockets and your advance will not get as far. And the Soviets will be cranking out 150k +/- new soldierboys a turn. They sit back behind the lines getting experienced at 1-3 points a turn, and by the end of winter they will be at 45 EXP and ready to rock and roll.

LOL ! Yes... and those 45NM troops will melt like snowflakes in the blowtorch of the Panzer Ball... and Wheat WILL own Leningrad and Moscow before 42 and, if you're not careful, he'll bag huge chunks of the Russian army in the process. You will be able to retake Moscow in early 42, but Leningrad will be out of reach. He'll hide hide his Panzer's and Mechanized in Poland for the winter and chase you back to the Volga in 42. So much for a 1941-42 that looks anything like reality.

I'd love to see any of you play Wheat. If you can beat his Panzer Ball, it would show me what you seem to think I've missed about the Russian potential. I'd love to see you do this without extreme blizzard and 1-1=2-1, since you all seem to think it is unnecessary. (The house limits we have routinely used is no Russian airdrops and he uses some limit on Russian beach landings.)