Poor Russians. Balance in 3.101

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:33 pm

In earlier versions the Russians could defend Leningrad very well, one square south of it was very hard to take, and major cities and swamps were very hard to take.
Now major cities fall to direct assualts (before they had to be surrounded) and units can advance and fight in the far north without serious problems.
Worse still, German supply is excellent whereas in the real war it was terrible and got worse over mud/winter which was the real reason apart from the kiev pocket decision they did not win the war in the first summer and were in terrible straits over winter.
The original game had a very good balance with the problem being that the Germans were too weak over winter and the Russians could destroy them in the 1941 winter blizzards.
The game I think should go back to the original 1.1 form with bugs fixed (which was done by version 2.0) and then try to solve the German blizzard problems which was I thought the whole reason for version three.
Version 3.001 I think is unplayable with a good German blitzkrieg so a major rethink is necessary.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:47 pm

The other thing is that starting in august the russians could gain a bonus for defending (I have no idea what this would do to the code) to represent the historical fact that the russian defence was becoming fanatical. Also there could be bonuses to the defence of any major russian city (Moscow, Lennigrad, Kiev, Stalingrad) to again represent the fact the troops doggedly defended these.

I like the sound of this.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:51 pm

The game I think should go back to the original 1.1 form with bugs fixed (which was done by version 2.0) and then try to solve the German blizzard problems which was I thought the whole reason for version three.

I like the sound of this too..

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:55 pm

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
In earlier versions the Russians could defend Leningrad very well, one square south of it was very hard to take, and major cities and swamps were very hard to take.
Now major cities fall to direct assualts (before they had to be surrounded) and units can advance and fight in the far north without serious problems.
Worse still, German supply is excellent whereas in the real war it was terrible and got worse over mud/winter which was the real reason apart from the kiev pocket decision they did not win the war in the first summer and were in terrible straits over winter.
The original game had a very good balance with the problem being that the Germans were too weak over winter and the Russians could destroy them in the 1941 winter blizzards.
The game I think should go back to the original 1.1 form with bugs fixed (which was done by version 2.0) and then try to solve the German blizzard problems which was I thought the whole reason for version three.
Version 3.001 I think is unplayable with a good German blitzkrieg so a major rethink is necessary.

A well balanced WIR would require the Soviets to fight many delaying actions during 1941, not just run for the east. If they do that, the Germans SHOULD be ablte to take Moscow by early autumn of 1941. The problem is weak Soviet fighting ability in 1941 which prevents them from delaying.

As for German supply, rather than slowing rail conversion, why not reduce max supply during mud and blizzard turns? (say it drops to max 4 or 5 rather than max 6?)

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 4:40 pm

Hey,
I think that like always true is somewhere in the midle - both sides are right, it's just a question of what you expect from playing the game. IMHO you play to win and you should use the game rules to do so
unlessstated different in house rules. I'm historian so I'd rather have games as historical as possible, but wining (if you dont cheat !!!) doesn't hurt, does it?
The most important thing I learned at university - it's impossible to know History 100%. Even if you took into acount all possible sources there is still a good chance you are wrong. So we will never know to the end what is historical, but we can try to get as close as possible.
And about winning - IMHO the real winner is the one who performed better than his oponent even if lost the game ( see Spartans at Termopile)

best regards to all of those who play to win and those who play to have fun and those who play to see if they can change history

czerpak

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 5:04 pm

Originally posted by czerpak:

best regards to all of those who play to win and those who play to have fun and those who play to see if they can change history

Well said. I think there really are 3 groups as you've described them.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 5:18 pm

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:

A well balanced WIR would require the Soviets to fight many delaying actions during 1941, not just run for the east. If they do that, the Germans SHOULD be ablte to take Moscow by early autumn of 1941. The problem is weak Soviet fighting ability in 1941 which prevents them from delaying.

I agree there is a problem here, but I'm really not sure of the best way to try to fix it. The problem isn't with Soviet training because the problem we're having now didn't exist back with v1.xx. We made changes along the line since then that have changed the game's balance in '41. To me the problem is those changes we made and those are the things we should change again, whether just tweaking an algorithm or reverting back to earlier rules.

varjager · Post by **varjager** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 5:50 pm

I have been reading all the post,so i wonder is the game more balanced from the 42 game and forward? Or do the same problem stand on the rest of the campaings as well? Do the German forces have the upper hand in all the scenarios?
Otherwise it would be easy to play the 42 in stead od the 41.But on the otherhand then it would take alot out of it!

varjager · Post by **varjager** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:04 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

To you and others this is just old history and thats fine, but for the rest of us, this knowledge and the awareness of what was actually happening when we push counters across hexes on a map is an important part of this game, it gives us a backdrop to the war that no simple book can. Contrary to popular myth, I believe wargamers are the ones who understand the horrors of war more than *anyone* else, because for us, playing the game is also reliving history. Well, obviously not all wargamers..... This does NOT mean we want the game to play like the war did historically every time, only that the game be as accurate as it can to support the belief that things could have turned out the way they historically, as they do in the game.

You obviously are not concerned with the history, just using every advantage the game provides to win and thats fine. Your entitled to your opinion Josan, but that is all it is, an OPINION. This sure as *HELL* doesn't mean we must "improve" ourselves "rather than criticize". It is you who is handing out criticism to others based on nothing more than *your* idea of how the game should be played and how players should approach the game. Your assumption that you are right and we are wrong in thinking about the ways this game should be played is precisely the attitude that has gotten you into so much trouble in the past, and here has done so again. And if you keep calling other players "losers" because they don't agree with you, I'm really going to lose my temper.....

Ed "Just Another Loser" Cogburn

I must say that this is one of the best things somebody has said on this forum.

Varjager"losser against Loki"

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 7:17 pm

One of the problems of the early soviet strategies was the constant counter-attacks that Stalin ordered. The one at Pskov cost them something like 8000 AFV (or at least that is the number I remember but it may be wrong). In game terms I think the soviets must fight a series of delays at every concievable natural defence (the rivers and the towns) where they can so with the germans at low supply level. But they have to start making serious defensive battles starting in the middle of july.

I think the important thing is that historically few of the early defences were significant in WIR terms since most of them were for only a few days. It was the accumulation of these small delays that was significant. In WIR terms though it is hard to imagine the soviets doing much more than holding for a week.

One other thing to look at is the blitzkrieg supply in the old game you lost it totally now you loose it more gradually (10-8-6 rather than 10-6). The question comes up if it might not be better to drop the supply level in steps but starting sooner so 2 weeks at 10, 2 weeks at 9 and so on (again code restrictions may prevent this) this will tend to slow down the german advance naturally and may do more to help the russians than any other simple(?) fix.

As far as changes to the rules go that have affected things I would look at the effectiveness of entrenchments both under the new code and the old code. A unit in a max entrenchment in a major city should be a very hard target.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 9:01 pm

Paul this sounds good.

One adittional note: suicide attacks on Leningrad and Moscow. In V.1.11 I did this against the computer. Heavyly bomb (5 times) every unit in the way of a Pz Corps including the city (6 or more times) then simple plot the way to the city. The Pz Corps will take the city with a high probability, destroying the factories.
It doesn't matter if you loose the Pz-Corps and if the city is retaken, the factories are destroyed and lost for ever.
This is highly unrealistic but possible in WIR.
Russia managed to evacuate many factories and only if the russians prepared them and blow them up (Kiew, Grosny,...) to prevent them to fall in german hands. But if you are sure that you retake the city in a few weeks, would you blow up the factories? I think it takes some time for both sides to demolish the factories if not prepared.

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 11:02 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Well said. I think there really are 3 groups as you've described them.

Maybe there is a fourth group also : the people that play to win and enjoy playing dont matter the final outcome and trying to do historical things. Im in this group you believe or not.

Btw Ed Also you had problems in the past with other peoples. Just take a look to the topics posted from march and you will see there are many guys not come back to the forum. And you are not struggling in English like I ( as obviously you can see in every post I do )

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:13 am

Originally posted by Josan:

Maybe there is a fourth group also : the people that play to win and enjoy playing dont matter the final outcome and trying to do historical things. Im in this group you believe or not.

I think I belong in the fourth group too - I play to win but I have just as fun if I don't and I don't like anti-historical stuff.

I've had many discussions with Ed and we have always kept things civil and civilised. You'll find that as long as you do not throw invectives around, the people at this forum are a very friendly bunch.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Nov 06, 2001 11:13 am

Originally posted by Josan:

Maybe there is a fourth group also : the people that play to win and enjoy playing dont matter the final outcome and trying to do historical things. Im in this group you believe or not.

As I've said before, I'm not interested in a game that forces you "to do historical things" the way things actually happened, and I'm tired of you making that accusation every time we have this argument. What I *AM* interested in, is a game that does not allow players to do grossly unhistorical things, and win using a tactic that could never have happened historically or realistically.

Btw Ed Also you had problems in the past with other peoples. Just take a look to the topics posted from march and you will see there are many guys not come back to the forum. And you are not struggling in English like I ( as obviously you can see in every post I do )

Try as hard as you might Josan, but I'm not letting you change the subject. You or anyone else can go back to the earlier discussions and see that, unlike you, I've *NEVER* called anyone a "loser". The subject at hand is not me, but the posts you made at the beginning of this thread where you insulted Loki and Muzrub, and fired off a shot at me when none of us were talking about you in this thread.

In fact, let's remind everyone here what started this:

Josan:

Really its amazing. None likes to win. Change the history is guilty?

Loki speak too much but really he is bad player.

Muzrub are you also a loser? Because both are brothers in arms...

Varjager, really thinks Loki is a good player?

Ed, ..., I know your attitude.

I play for fun and if not my guilty wins every game I play.

Ok some day I will lose but I wont cry as others. If I can get Moscow why not take it?

I could respond to every sentence above, but its obvious that would be a waste of time.

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Tue Nov 06, 2001 2:00 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
[QB]

As said before I was no my intention insult anybody. I choosed the wrong adjective. With the word loser I would try to say somebody that not likes to win.Really I did never insult before and I will not begin now.

Muzrub my apologies. Was no my intention insult you. sorry.

Loki my apologies. Sorry.

Ed bad choice try to attack me in this way.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Tue Nov 06, 2001 2:29 pm

As said before I was no my intention insult anybody. I choosed the wrong adjective. With the word loser I would try to say somebody that not likes to win.Really I did never insult before and I will not begin now.

I didnt say I would rather not win, sure I would rather win. But the struggle to me is as important. If I take Moscow in 1941 so be it if I dont thats fine- a whole new scenario opens.

But Being the German player you kick the Soviets around the map- your opposition does the best he can and also tries to save some of his forces for 1942 and the winter.
If a victory is gained after 1942 at least the Soviets had a chance to reply. Total destruction in 1941 means there is no chance of reply and to me that ruins the game.

I'd rather the Soviets rebuild and do their best to destroy me. This then allows me to play a defensive war, all in one game. And if the Soviets are still in Poland in 1945 I'd consider that a victory!

As for you apology thats fine- nobody really wants to fight and argue here anyway. Its counter productive.

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Muzrub ]</p>

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 5:18 pm

One point to consider in suggesting changes is that we have no idea what the code is like. Many changes should be easy (I program in C and Fortran so I am not speaking without some basis) but due to the fact memory was so tight I suspect that the code looks much like early 60s fortran which is anything but user friendly to read. Plus there is the question of how well it was internally documented or externally for that matter.

The suicide attack to destroy factory production I have never liked. It is more than possible the soviet player looses Moscow and then recovers it during the winter offensive but that does him little good since he has lost several important factories plus a large chunk of his available manpower (not so much now that this will return). The trouble is that there is a fixed limitation on the number of factories. I wonder if it would be possible to have overran factories show up in a new city? After say 9-12 months delay? This would go a long way towards helping the soviet player as the historical ratio in production was significantly more than what is shown in WIR (for tanks the ratio was on the order of 10:1 in favor of the russians).

Rasputitsa · Post by **Rasputitsa** » Thu Nov 08, 2001 5:56 am

I first played WIR on my Atari 8 bit computer in the 80s and it has been one of my favourites ever since. I have not had enough experience in the newer versions to be able to suggest how the balance should be set, but I think that the supply arrangements in 3.101 are about right. Historically Guderian’s Panzer Gruppe was able, after a short pause, to drive South from Smolensk, to complete the Kiev encirclement. That supply could had been directed towards a drive at Moscow to reach that city in September 41. The only thing that could have stopped them would have been a fanatical defence of the capital. I have found that cities have fallen easily to armoured attack, which did happen in the early stages of Barbarossa, but should become more difficult later in the campaign. I support the feeling that resistance by both sides should increase to defend important objectives, therefore defence factors should be increased for key cities.
The fact that there is still a lively discussion on a game that in computer terms is so ancient, is testament to the quality of the original design. That WIR can represent the biggest campaign in history in the detail that it does is a work of genius. The upgrades and improvements of the Matrix Project have been outstanding, but may also be asking the impossible. To be able to represent the equipment, production and tactical changes from 41 - 45, with the historical extremes of weather and subsidiary Fronts, in one piece of software is probably impossible. The fact that WIR comes so close is miraculous and I am more than grateful for what we have got. By using the different versions, altering the scenario start dates, plus the variable help levels, the game can be made as challenging as anyone could want.
I think that WIR should be made as historically correct as possible, each person can then set the variables as they wish to match their skills.

Xanthro · Post by **Xanthro** » Thu Nov 15, 2001 9:55 am

Balance in WIR.
I played this game extensively when it first came out, but haven't played in about 4 years.

Even before the Russian experience change, the Russian side could not win, if the German side knew what to do.

I played WIR in 100s of PBEM games (you don't want to know what my AOL bill was one month), and 1000s of times against the computer, simply checking out different stratgies.

Second Front had better balance, because the Russian side could win, but the air supply in WIR unbalances the game in the German favor far too much.

I haven't played this new version yet, just having recently come across this site. I'll try out the old strategies and see if the still work.

I actually have a three ring binder of Second Front and WIR info. Week by Week lists of item and general availability, mapped out lists of what to take by what date. It's pretty sick.

Xanthro

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Nov 15, 2001 11:29 am

Originally posted by Xanthro:

It's pretty sick.

Nope, around here, you'll fit right in. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

P.S. Guys, I'm not really sure the next release will address the alleged balance problem. It will fix that infantry replacement bug though, along with some other nasties.