I still say balance

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Rosencrantus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Yogol



I fully agree with this part of your statement. Unless you turn the difficulty setting real low, this game is too one-sided.

The fact that a very, very small group of very, very vocal players say otherwise doesn't change that.

A pity that the DEVs listen mainly to them, but it's like that in many games with a small player base, I'm afraid.

If you think the DEV's listen mainly to these people(or person) that you reference in your quote then you are seriously mistaken. I personally have seen you need overwhelming evidence of something for the DEVS before a change is made. So implying the few have sway over the DEVS is the farthest from the truth as you can get.

There is only ONE person that has said the Germans are powerful and that is me. I have yet to see anyone else say that. Everyone else has said the same thing that is being propagated in this thread. I have seen Tyronec writing the Soviets are all powerful in BETA if not defeated in 41(paraphrasing here), I have seen Loki write it on this Forum that the Soviets should not lose(paraphrasing here), I even fell into the trap of believing it for awhile. So your writing of "very very small group should be changed to "ONE person"" that is me. I know the Germans are powerful and stand by my writings. I have the key and I know the lock others will have to find it. Or of course the DEVS can make it easier to cater to the masses that is really what is being asked for here.

+1, I've also said before that Germany is actually strong, and agree even more especially after the current latest public beta. The only thing that is pro Soviet about the game is the fact that Soviet players get to use historical hindsight much more effectively than the Germans do and there is nothing anyone can do about that. I don't see any inherent bias in the design of the game and that is coming from a person who only really plays Axis.

/Cheer Glad you see it too Sorry I missed any of your posts you may have done stating that before. I did not know. Yes, I think the tables really turned on the last patch although I was seeing it well before that patch. When Air gets addressed will even swing a bit more towards the German side I feel but that is just a feeling with no hard evidence yet, especially since the patch isn't out for air LOL

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Roger,

Do you have any good links, I think I would like to know more? Thanks.

I've done all types of history courses, and documentaries. I would think for WWII, there is no shortage of documents compared to ancient times when few were literate and much of our knowledge are based on a few elite writers.

Thanks.

yes but I'm working away from home at the moment so I'll drop you a PM when I can double check the more immediate sources - I still have all this sort of stuff in books and can't always remember the references when I'm not using it on a regular basis.

conventionally with case study/qualitative research you look for multiple instances, try to control out unique factors and then do a comparison. So in the WiTE2 framework you could look at say 5 instances of Soviet offensives post-1943 or German corps level defensive operations and to that sort of analysis.

A key part to the analysis is to build a narrative that intersects with the known bits (or best guessed at bits) and try constantly to test that narrative against new information.

The problem/really good news, is we only have one instance of the totality of the war so you can't easily compare to anything (clearly you can partially) so trying to theorise on the whole needs a particular analytic and interpretative framework.

I guess the difference is a historian will try to explain what happened in its own terms, taking a more systems approach you are interested in the wider trends and what we can generalise from the specific.

Roger

[MarkShot]

Besides feeling that balance is important ... I want clarify. I mean to win scenario or campaign despite that the war is lost. Obviously, this can always be worked out via scoring and setting a standard of out performing history. But I know that there were sudden death victories only, and new scenario got generated without sudden death. I assume it meant that you TKOed the USSR; got peace; and finished off that pesky island.

Where is the bias?

Is it in the game engine?

Is it in the scenarios/campaigns?

Since before the Internet in the 1990s with BBS, people have been doing data file mods for "realism". If the scenario/database editor permits this to be done, then I think there isn't any issue here.

I am actually reading at this very moment the WITW manual Chapter 20 Logistics. This is what I feel I paid for. A comprehensive well thought out model that behave more like a system than program/game. Once you have an engine with such power, if you can edit the scenarios and parameters that define the game world ... there is nothing that should stand in your way.

It truly depends just how far you want to go and how much work you are willing to put in.

I wish I understood the boundary between the EXE and Editor better. If I did, I might say you are taking this bias thing too far; and instead start designing YOUR database and YOUR scenarios.

PS: I noticed that is exactly what some of the team did in Torch with The 4th Supreme Command.

[panzer51]

The only real pro-Soviet bias in the game is that Soviets really never have any ammo/fuel shortages like they did historically.

[MarkShot]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Roger,

Do you have any good links, I think I would like to know more? Thanks.

I've done all types of history courses, and documentaries. I would think for WWII, there is no shortage of documents compared to ancient times when few were literate and much of our knowledge are based on a few elite writers.

Thanks.

yes but I'm working away from home at the moment so I'll drop you a PM when I can double check the more immediate sources - I still have all this sort of stuff in books and can't always remember the references when I'm not using it on a regular basis.

conventionally with case study/qualitative research you look for multiple instances, try to control out unique factors and then do a comparison. So in the WiTE2 framework you could look at say 5 instances of Soviet offensives post-1943 or German corps level defensive operations and to that sort of analysis.

A key part to the analysis is to build a narrative that intersects with the known bits (or best guessed at bits) and try constantly to test that narrative against new information.

The problem/really good news, is we only have one instance of the totality of the war so you can't easily compare to anything (clearly you can partially) so trying to theorise on the whole needs a particular analytic and interpretative framework.

I guess the difference is a historian will try to explain what happened in its own terms, taking a more systems approach you are interested in the wider trends and what we can generalise from the specific.

Roger

It sounds to me like you are using the scientific method to make a theoretical model of combat as opposed to physic process. You take some samples and build an equation or in your case an algorithm, since what you are doing is procedural. Then, dig up the some battles not analyzed and see how the model does with those cases.

Something like this is done with investing with technical investing (as opposed fundamentals). You build a model. You then apply to old periods of data, and see if it predicts what came later. Your one problem is the war is over, and you will never have any more data sets than 41-45.

As to your other point, it sounds like what is done is to clean up dirty data sets. Ideally, there is a control and one variable. But in medical research you rarely get such clean data. So, you need to find a way to correct for what is dirtying your data. Like one of the inactive vaccines tested by China in Brazil came out quite lower in efficacy compared to other trials like in the UAE or Indonesia. In Brazil, the control group were ordinary Brazilians. However, the test group were medical staff. Unlike other groups, medical staff were continuously exposed to very high viral loads and unlike the trial group in the UAE. So, efficacy for the Brazil trial was quite a bit lower. I think due to the fact that it still met WHO standards and politics which would have been unleashed if they tried to factor out high viral load, they just took that segment and averaged it in with all trials. But dirty data.

[MarkShot]

In terms of the game, I think you probably have dirty data sets when looking at the history. Like the Red Army casualty rate for Berlin.

First, Stalin set up a brutal race between 2 field marshals and gave them a hard deadline. Second, perhaps the soldiers were not at their peek performance. There was a sense that the war was almost over. There was more raping, looting, and boozing than the Red Army had done previously in urban combat. So, factors like these could raise causality figures for urban combat. And it wasn't just performance, there were more cases of friendly fire as two armies moved in from different axis without communicating.

---

Thanks, Roger. I never really considered how data science might be applied to history.

[Zemke]

NOTE: Everything below refers to Player vs Player games, NOT Player vs. AI games, as I think they are two different animals.

I still think that until there is some historical-based testing that confirms or denies if the Germans can reach historical lines of advances, we have no idea if the game is balanced or not. (I keep wanting to do this, but I have been too lazy to do the detailed research.)

I know no player German or Soviet player will play historically. The Germans are NOT going to push to the gates of Moscow in late Nov and early December or take Tikhvin near Leningrad. The Soviet player will not stand and fight anywhere as long as he is not in danger of a sudden loss. But until we have a baseline, we do not know.

This statement may be sacrilege, but it seems to me that WitE1 replicated the German drive on Moscow better than WitE2 does. I am not saying WitE1 is better, just that for Operation Typhoon, it seems to have a better feel of realism of battered, deficient strength German Divisions grinding forward till they could not go anymore. The desperation of that was palatable in the game. The German player (or I cannot) cannot do that in this game against a moderately experienced player, and certainly not while trying to do a credible push to isolate Leningrad. During a Player vs. Player game, this cannot be done, or if so, is rare.

Why Not?
(1) The Germans have not destroyed enough Soviet units before this and so there are lots of albeit weakened Russians, to absorb a push. This may be the primary reason!
(2) Most German players are not going to burn out their units to try this.
(3) CCP management is key to any push, but in a few attacks, it is used up, so unless you have new units with high CCP/low fatigue, the attack will stall. The Soviet player knows this, so has several lines or layers to absorb such an attack.

1. Maybe addressable through VP/Objective changes or other methods.
2&3. Fatigue sheading is too slow, it should not take weeks for units to remove fatigue. (How many naps do these guys need anyway! <---Bad Humor )

Another issue is the Leningrad "front", which is very hard to attack due to the terrain and the Soviets can use TB teleportation to shift LOTs of units without any rail penalty.

I don't know if the possible issue of Soviet units appearing on the map in nice clusters near the front was a real problem or not, something about rail capacity and mobilization sites.

Anyway a lot is still up in the air as far as I am concerned and not settled. We still need that historical based test.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Balance is the key to:

* Enjoyment

* Immersion

* Replay value

Yes, hindsight may be skewing the game. This is why balance solutions are important. We cannot eliminate hindsight. And even if we could, I have played a few scenario 10-20 times. THAT IS HINDSIGHT. But why was it worth it? Balance and well conceived systems.

Even Ike, Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and MacArthur would probably fought a very different war if they had a chance to give it a few more tries.

I think balance can be crafted into the structure of the game despite foreknowledge without a total loss of history. Also, I am in favor of the GG philosophy. Which is many systems can be extremely micro-managed, but you can leave it to the AI. This is critical to increasing market share. The buyer knows there are many things which they can put on auto-pilot. The player with years of experience knows it can all be turned off, and they can do AD, rebasings, loadouts, TBs ... this is best chance to bring in new players.

Further, for veteran players, it allows the ability to shut off the parts you don't like. Finally, permitting hybrid auto-pilot is a very clever training wheels approach as peoples skill grow.

In summation, we should embrace hindsight of history and hindsight of play experience and be discussing how to achieve balance and replay.

We lack uncertainty. The player is not only operating with the benefit of hindsight and foreknowledge, but an absolute knowledge of game mechanics and a lack of uncertainty in nearly every part of the game.

It starts with knowing the size of the opposite army and how many turns it will approximately last.

The harsch winter is known to have happened in 41, but though it was known to be possible, they did not know 41 would be the big instead of f.e. 43.

Standing in front of Moscow did not lead to the collapse of the SU in our probability branch, but was that the 1 percentile or the 99th percentile outcome?

Introduce uncertainty and one opens up the scope for mistakes and miscalculation. Why not 60 30 10 10 chance for harsch winter rules (whatever they may be). Or a progressive sudden victory chance after reaching a certain number of VP points.

What would be nice is if the operational mistakes of real history was not baked into the game to the extent they are but that is an old discussion.

[malyhin1517]

I already wrote that Germany could not defeat the USSR even if it fulfilled its goals of the Barbarossa plan! A blitzkrieg in the east was not possible and the Barbarossa plan was based on erroneous inputs. Hitler was sure that the people would not defend the communist government and the USSR would collapse like a colossus with feet of clay. But this did not happen and the USSR would have defeated Germany anyway, the only question is the timing. Therefore, the game can be considered pro-Soviet, but it's true. But in Western Europe and the United States now they generally try not to remember the history of the Second World War and where the German war machine was destroyed. This is a matter of big politics. I am grateful to this game that it does not allow you to completely forget about it. And it's not for nothing that most players like to play WITE, not WITW!

[GibsonPete]

To meet the needs of its social image History gets manipulated and forgotten in every country. What does the average citizen of Japan know of WWII? Many younger Americans can not even name who was our enemy during WWII. In the United States we still have people who theorize how Robert E. Lee could who have defeated the Northern states during the civil war. In the U.K. there are folks who explain how a handful of English archers could have defeated France a country 10 times their size. In reality, the Axis never stood a chance. A practical thinking player knows this game is more about the journey than the end result.