PBEM and unit balance

[Mike_w]

Now that more people are playing PBEM, I wondered if you are finding that the WP and NATO forces are somewhat evenly matched. At least, more evenly matched than we first thought.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Interesting question, lets see what people say...

O.

[22sec]

I'm currently playing my first PBEM (hey Oleg), and have been impressed with how this game really takes off when matched against a human opponent. I'll hold off on my final verdict until we finish our match, but I think the scenerios are too balanced. Playing as the WP I feel like I'm missing out on something. I noticed someone mention lack of recon, I would also add the lack of engineers, and and a few other units, like the Rgt AT unit. I think I'll design a scenerio to what I think would be more realistic.

[IronManBeta]

I'm wondering if a little more recon and a great deal more artillery might not be called for on the Soviet side. Soviet doctrine was to aggressively attach large amounts of frontal and army artillery down to regiments pretty quickly if it was an important battle. We might try playing with that a little later on.

Cheers, Rob.

[Poliorcetes]

Almost done with my first game of Tank Assault. With Staff Rules it makes the WP side very interesting.
So far I've figured out the advantages (1 order) and disadvantages (groups up for easy arty kills) of the Group orders. Figured out that I need to just set my assault orders and then spend the next few turns prepping the field with artillary.
Lack of Recon makes this a challenging scenario for WP.

Found a hex that you can shoot into but nobody can shoot back at you due to weird LOS.

Poliorcetes

[Mike_w]

Yes to both. I think unit balancing is good....better than I first thought. It's just that without recon, WP has to recon by force or by sacrificial Mech unit. Maybe a few recon units, better (or more effective) anti-air units for use against annoying NATO airstrikes, and more arty. All in all, units seem to balance out well (quantity vs. quality)

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Poliorcetes

Almost done with my first game of Tank Assault. With Staff Rules it makes the WP side very interesting.
So far I've figured out the advantages (1 order) and disadvantages (groups up for easy arty kills) of the Group orders. Figured out that I need to just set my assault orders and then spend the next few turns prepping the field with artillary.
Lack of Recon makes this a challenging scenario for WP.

Found a hex that you can shoot into but nobody can shoot back at you due to weird LOS.

Poliorcetes

So did you win and vs. whom did you play?

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Don't know whether we've been playing the same game guys.

21SEC you say the game is "too balanced". In our game we have like 10:1 loss ratio when I last checked (in NATO favor of course), 230:15 lead in points for NATO, total. You lost 60-some vehicles in last turn alone. Take my word you will never ever win this scenario but keep trying [:D] If that's balanced no problem, I am ready to play NATO like this for many games to come [;)] Maybe, just maybe you have a chance if your Hinds go on a rampage since I don't have any dedicated AA platform in my OOB and your helos are almost immune.

I still think it's very unbalanced but await first official patch (with some changes generally favoring the attacker) to try more PBEMs. I will take more WP PBEM challengers immediatelly when 1.1 is publicly available.

Again, I *don't* say that unbalanced is necesarilly bad, but unbalanced it is IMO [;)]

O.

[22sec]

yes i admit my a$$ woopin. I actually have no forces left to committ to another assault. I think the scenerio is too balanced, which from a WP perspective just doesn't feel right.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Enough chit chat then, send your turn you Lenin-Lovin' commie! [:D][:D][:D]

O.

[Mike_w]

Seems more balanced than I thought. Although Poliorcetes noticed (as WP), as did I in another PBEM (as WP) that a WP force on assault will usually get shredded by a NATO unit on hold/screen; often without getting a shot off. Just seems...odd. I know the advantages to defense but on "assault" the WP units should be able to do something. Assualting with NATO against an entrenched WP player is usually a sure victory for the NATO side. My bet is that I just don't fully understand the combat modeling and something like terrain, moral, etc is having an effect that I don't realise.

I'm thinking that Rob's idea of more artillery and recon for WP would help out alot. If WP could find the NATO defense and prepare the battlefield more, then WP could concentrate an attack a weakend spot in the line as opposed to just "guessing".

[CommC]

I haven't played all the scenarios yet, but of the ones I have seen I would say that they are all significantly imbalanced. There are far too many Nato forces on the map... and too few WP forces. There should be at least 3:1 in tanks and APCs WP:NATO... and preferably 4 or 5 to 1 to get a good balance given the superiority of Nato equipement.

We are going to have to edit one or more of the canned scenarios to get one balanced for PBEM, IMHO.

[Erik Rutins]

You may want to wait on the edits until v1.01 is released, which in my testing adjusts the attack/defense balance enough to make a difference.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mike_w]

I'd be careful about adding WP units. True, they did have a 4:1 advantage in tanks...but NOT all of those tanks were first line T-80's (or even t-72's for that matter). Soviets rarely retired anything. An advantage of 4 T-80's for every M1A1 might be a little unrealistic.

I'll tell you though, Poliorcetes, in a PBEM, really got a hold of the concept of rolling barrage and preparing the battlefield. Watching him push me out of this town with WP made me a little more hesitant to say that the game is that unbalanced. Seems to depend more on unit placement, tactics, coverage, suppression, morale, etc. I'm getting evenly beat as NATO and WP[:(]

WP still needs more ARty and recon though! I'm sure thats been covered ad nauseum

[hank]

The feeling I get from playing 6 or 10 or the scenario's is that there's not enough WP units and in some sce's there's too many NATO forces. Its just a feel based on some of the other games I've played for years that are from the same era. PZCampaigns Modern Battles - Fulda Gap and now the North German Plains edition typically will have a significant WP advantage in numbers and especially tanks. I see the numerical superiority in mech infantry for WP but some scenrio's don't have a significant numerical advantage for WP MBT's.

I would like to see more WP tanks in these scenarios. I especially would like to see more of the older T72, T55, etc. that were still a part of the WP forces during this time.

Will the scenario editor allow you to add these other tanks (T72/T64/T55) to the scenario? I have not dug too deep into the editor yet.

And another thing that really is fun in the PzC MB games: night action is a blast for the tanks and mech infantry that are equipped with thermal sighting. Will this be modelled in future FPG scenario's? (snipe hunting)

regards
hank

ORIGINAL: Mike_w

I'd be careful about adding WP units. True, they did have a 4:1 advantage in tanks...but NOT all of those tanks were first line T-80's (or even t-72's for that matter). Soviets rarely retired anything. An advantage of 4 T-80's for every M1A1 might be a little unrealistic.

I'll tell you though, Poliorcetes, in a PBEM, really got a hold of the concept of rolling barrage and preparing the battlefield. Watching him push me out of this town with WP made me a little more hesitant to say that the game is that unbalanced. Seems to depend more on unit placement, tactics, coverage, suppression, morale, etc. I'm getting evenly beat as NATO and WP[:(]

WP still needs more ARty and recon though! I'm sure thats been covered ad nauseum