Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance

[jomni]

@heliodorus,  no worries.

[heliodorus04]

How about this:
Routed units go to 99 fatigue and can't recover for 1 full turn.
(Or maybe, if you prefer): routed units who are forced to perform a displacement move)

Applies to both sides throughout the game.

Right now, Routing a unit is worse than not attacking it in a great many situations.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

I'm still none the wiser.[&:]Can you add some detail to your explanation?Perhaps some examples too.Thanks.
I'm well aware that it's impossible for turn based wargames to simulate reality exactly, or any other system for that matter, but I think that the apparent viability of unhistorical checherboard and carpet defences shows that there is something here that needs fixing.I don't want to see them banned, simply discouraged because they aren't tactically a good idea in most situations.
Maybe there are other things apart from flanking penalties that can be done to encourage the forming of lines at or near the front.You might also at the same time have to slightly tweak the German mobile forces ability to maraud behind the front line in order to balance play.This would of course depend on being able to identify the "front line" which may sometimes be rather difficult to do, might even need to be player designated in places.

[bloomstombs2]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

How about this:
Routed units go to 99 fatigue and can't recover for 1 full turn.
(Or maybe, if you prefer): routed units who are forced to perform a displacement move)

Applies to both sides throughout the game.

Right now, Routing a unit is worse than not attacking it in a great many situations.

Yeah, this is a big problem.

You should never be happy "YES!!! MY UNIT GOT ROUTED! JUST WHAT I NEEDED!"

Which is often the case.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

I'm still none the wiser.[&:]Can you add some detail to your explanation?Perhaps some examples too.Thanks.

Sigh...... If you don't understand that there is a difference between a game at a div/corps/weekly turn and a game at a battalion/regiment/minutes turn scale, then I can't help.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

I'm still none the wiser.[&:]Can you add some detail to your explanation?Perhaps some examples too.Thanks.

Sigh...... If you don't understand that there is a difference between a game at a div/corps/weekly turn and a game at a battalion/regiment/minutes turn scale, then I can't help.

I note that you still haven't answered the question.Is that because it's all too blindingly obvious to you or because you don't know the answer?If it's the former then perhaps you could explain it to me in layman's terms so that I can understand.

[bloomstombs2]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Because it doesn't fit the scale of division/corps/weekly turns.

I'm still none the wiser.[&:]Can you add some detail to your explanation?Perhaps some examples too.Thanks.

Sigh...... If you don't understand that there is a difference between a game at a div/corps/weekly turn and a game at a battalion/regiment/minutes turn scale, then I can't help.

I would like an explanation as well.

Why SHOULDNT the game take into consideration flanking attacks when it takes into consideration the rate of fire to name one thing.

Don't you find it odd that watching a very detailed combatlog, where you can almost envision the soldiers and tanks closing in, that there is no advantage or even mention of flanking?

I will have to disagree with you on this subject until you come up with a valid explanation.

Oh and TOAW had scenarios of equal and greater scope and still managed to implement this aspect.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Sigh...... If you don't understand that there is a difference between a game at a div/corps/weekly turn and a game at a battalion/regiment/minutes turn scale, then I can't help.

Spoken like a bourgeoisie paternalist.

The foundation of your arguments is exposed as unsupportable using your own logic. I shall refrain from considering your opinions as meaningful in the future unless you can improve your capability to defend your points.

I refer you to my response to you specifically in Post 18.

[Ketza]

One thing that people arent taking into consideration is that it may be possible for Germany to win if the games goes to 1945.
 
A few points can be taken from other games such as Fire in the East:
 
1) In FITE there was a random roll the first few turns to see if Soviet units executed their orders. If they failed they would be randomly moved. This could result in attacks, retreats or being poorly positioned.
 
2) In FITE German units were only impacted negatively in offence, not defence during blizzard/snow.
 
3) In FITE Soviet and Axis winterized units such as Siberians, mountain units and SS received major combat bonuses during snow/blizzard. This prompted the Soviets to save their winterized units for the winter offensive but it also limited its scope to one major axis of attack.
 
In an old SPI game about the battle of Smolensk Soviet divsions were a ? for both sides until they actually had their first combat.
 
Just a few thoughts.

[matt.buttsworth]

Gentlemen,
It appears we are locked in an increasingly acrimonious argument that is unnecessary. The game allows for more than one scenario and there is no need for people to argue about creating one right version of the game. Clearly that is impossible.
I believe from the discussion so far there are to clear camps:
1) those who believe the game is historically accurate, Germany should not have a real chance in 1941 and should suffer forever after with no changes in game balance needed as that is the supposed reality of history.
2) Those who believe that game at the moment is unbalanced and there is no fun playing german if they cannot win in 1941 and have no hope of mounting a real offensive in 1942.
I am off the second camp and believe that to make the game enjoyable, and in my opinion to reflect what happened in history, the German player should, if he is very good:

a) have a chance of winning in 1941 by capturing Moscow and triggering political collapse; and
b) have a chance of mounting a dangerous offensive in 1942 - Case Blau - and even a doomed offensive in 1943 - Operation Citidel - before inevitably losing in summer 43, 44, and 45.

As the game is now, our game is over in January 1942, and I know I will win by September 1942 when I cut off German oil with mopping up occuring in Berlin beginning 1943.
During this whole time, Germany will be unable to launch any major offensives having been totally crippled by the 1941-42 blizzards.
I do not believe this is historically accurate, and the German enjoyable part of the game is limited to June to November 1941. After that it is pure pain

(and for critics, who think I am a German fan, remember that I am playing Russian and usually play Russian)

If a group of players is happy with this state of affairs as historically accurate, then let them enjoy pulverising Germany every game.

The game I want to play is version 2 - call is scenario 1941-1945 G - in which it is enjoyable to play Germany from 1941 to - as a good player - 1943 when the avalanche becomes unstoppable with a real chance of victory for a very very good German player in 1941 and a real chance of victory with a good 1941 in 1942 even if this is hard to achieve. While a very good Russian player can survive the German assault in 1941 to coutner attack in the blizzards, can attack again with more strength in 1942, ane become unstoppable in summer autumn 43 with an abnormal but possible game finishing for germany in 41 or 42 and a normal game finishing for Russia between summer 44 and spring 45.
Such a game would reflect what happened in history and be fun and a challenge to play for both sides.
The question is how to get there.
It needs I beleive a specific scenario created

Possible Suggestions I can make:
1) strenthening blitzkrieg warfare (helps 41 or 42)
2) weakening the effect of the blizzards so that Germans can survive the winter in reasonable shape.
3) reducing soviet transport capacity so that rail transport is a limited resource and at some times russian players must choose between losing factories or shifting armies.
4) lowering morale and experience of many russian units in 1941 to reflect the fact that many ukrainian and caucaussus units did not want to fight
5) preventing more russian units from moving in turn 1 or turns 1-2 reflecting paralysis of Soviet command in first weeks of war.

I think this scenario - 1941-1945 G - will be a matter of trial and error in development to achieve game balance.
But I think it will be worth it in that:
a) people who believe the game is right as it is can play the existing GC 1941-1945; and

b) those who want a game in which Germany has a chance and which in my opinion greater reflects what happened 1941 to 1945 can play the alternate scenario GC 1941-1945 G.
This I believe will attract a greater audience to this excellent game in that Germany will have 2 1/1 enjoyable summers and a chance to win and Russia will have two winters and two years of enjoyable offensive play with a greater chance of winning.
Such a game giving pleasure to both sides will increase the long term number of players for the game for who will want to play more than once if German defeat is inevitable after November 1941.

I am therefore asking for people willing to help create GC 1941 G scenario.
Any helpers?

Dr Matthew Buttsworth
Weimar
Germany

[rolypoly]

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth
Possible Suggestions I can make:
1) strenthening blitzkrieg warfare (helps 41 or 42)
2) weakening the effect of the blizzards so that Germans can survive the winter in reasonable shape.
3) reducing soviet transport capacity so that rail transport is a limited resource and at some times russian players must choose between losing factories or shifting armies.
4) lowering morale and experience of many russian units in 1941 to reflect the fact that many ukrainian and caucaussus units did not want to fight
5) preventing more russian units from moving in turn 1 or turns 1-2 reflecting paralysis of Soviet command in first weeks of war.

I´d like to see these changes happening, before even trying out the 41-45 campaign. I hope you get your support...

[Encircled]

Are we not being a bit premature here?

As I understand it, the air situation for the Germans is due to be fixed, and the swamp bug is due to be fixed

Certainly the air fatigue will make a difference, and the swamp defences will make holding Leningrad in particular a lot harder

And just what is wrong with a wargame that means you have to defend skilfully for a substantial period of time?

[matt.buttsworth]

See how the fixes go.

Hopefully they go very well.

As Soviets I have completely smashed my German opponent by end of January 1942.
He has no hope of skillful defense.
He has been destroyed.

That is not good.

MB

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

Gentlemen,
It appears we are locked in an increasingly acrimonious argument that is unnecessary.

I'm not trying to be a douche because I'm some internet troll.
Aurelian's response was simply that 'you little people are too small-minded to understand big concepts and thus it would be a waste of my precious breath to even deign to explain said concepts to you' which is accurately characterized in some adjectives in my response.

If a player feels that Germany had no capability to win the war, then please describe to me where the fun is in playing this historical simulation AT ALL?

If a player feels that the Soviet side should be unfettered by the Command and Control and/or logistics problems that plagued the Soviets from 6/41 to about 6/43, then why should the Germans be tied down the 1941/42 winter supply problems? Or the Finnish no-attack/no-move line? Or the Romanians entering the war late? Or Turkey not entering the war with the capture of Baku?

There is a group of advocates who appear to just want a game that shows Hitler was an idiot/madman (which isn't in dispute) and seem to me to want a game that punishes German play from start to end. A) I don't want to play that game. And B) I disagree that Germany had no chance to win the war on the Eastern front up until about 1943 (if Stalingrad had never happened).

My only ambition is to play a part in honing WitE to be a fun game for players of equal skill to play, on either side. THAT game sells more copies, by the way...

[Zort]

I am wondering if anyone who is advocating massive changes has played a game by changing some of the initial settings, reduce the sov rail, reduce their moral, give the germans higher things per the settings.  If someone did that and tested it, those changes might be the new default.  Just wondering.

[Encircled]

I don't think that is fair at all

I think, as I have posted, that advocating change is a bit premature as fixes still have to implemented in two crucial areas.

Have a look at the QBall - VanBeenie AAR, and the Germans are doing fantastically, against a human opponent who hasn't really made any major mistakes.

A very successful German '41 turn gives the Germans a real chance in '42, and it is possible with good play.

Not that I've managed good play yet btw!

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I don't think that is fair at all

I think, as I have posted, that advocating change is a bit premature as fixes still have to implemented in two crucial areas.

Have a look at the QBall - VanBeenie AAR, and the Germans are doing fantastically, against a human opponent who hasn't really made any major mistakes.

A very successful German '41 turn gives the Germans a real chance in '42, and it is possible with good play.

Not that I've managed good play yet btw!

I'm not advocating anything specific be done in a hurry or without adequate consideration of the programming difficulty, or play balance outcome (rather than intention).

I am, however, asserting that the Soviet side benefits more from the Min/Max possibilities (that are inevitably created by any abstracted game mechanic) created from unified, omniscient player command than does the Axis. I am also arguing that this is disturbingly a-historic.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

If a player feels that Germany had no capability to win the war, then please describe to me where the fun is in playing this historical simulation AT ALL?

Trying to hold Berlin. If you keep it, you do not lose. I have never seen Berlin taken in a PBEM (it is still too soon). Everybody is assuming it will fall, but I haven't seen it yet. Perhaps in the future we will hear complains from the Soviet side: "it is impossible to reach Berlin!!!"

Personally, I like the idea of playing the weaker side (because I mostly play vs. the AI). I like Germany in 1944

[randallw]

I agree with the guy who feels that having Germany get a good chance to win in 1941 is probably too much; the countries that surrendered were small enough for the German Army to mostly capture after a month or two, and the population base and infrastructure too small to get reserves and replacement formations deployed/created to stop the intruders.

The way Germany approached the invasion may be highly ironic; it was felt the best chance to win would be a short war, but as that early plan did not work exactly as planned they stayed with it, even though a modification to a longer war ( what they were trying to avoid ) may have helped in the big picture.

[bevans]

The Germans should have very little chance of winning in '41 as it is not really credible that the Soviets would have collapsed to a regime as ugly as Nazi Germany even if they lost Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov and beyond. There is simply no downside in continuing the fight, especially with the Germans clearly unprepared to contine the war through winter. A really good player should be able to do at least as well as Germany in '41 and be able to go on the offensive again in '42 with a chance of, if not total victory, ensuring that they won't lose. For a game that loudly proclaims historical accuracy, this is surprisingly difficult to do as the Germans. It seems to me that the developers wanted to make sure that the Germans had to play with the historical liabilities and errors they had/made. Not so much for the Soviets. The developers clearly lost their way and turned the game into a grind for the Axis from about the 4th turn, at leat on Difficult. So much detail, so little fun.