Matrix Games Forums

Just a few (not necessarily joined-up) thoughts...

The obvious solution to the 'scripted' German T1 attacks is to have an alternate start date in early July 41. It will obviously have to wait till WITE2 now but in hindsight I'd suggest that whatever efforts were spent researching the set-ups/OOBs for the later Grand Campaign sized starts in WITE which hardly ever seem to be played perhaps could have been better spent on an alternate early-war start date.

I'd like to see a global morale penalty to Soviet units whilst Moscow is in German hands.

At the moment a GC draw is along historical lines with the Russians taking Berlin in mid to late 1945. I would suggest that a Soviet player that runs everywhere but at Leningrad may well 'win' 1941 by holding Leningrad and keeping their armies intact but may then eventually find themselves struggling to make the lost ground back up in the centre and south later in the war against a German OOB that has not been worn down by hard fighting - particularly if the 41 blizzard has been set to mild. When we discuss 'balance' I think it is important for people to consider whether they would prefer a very fluid 1941/42 with the result being irretrievable for whichever side is losing at the end of that period or a game when either side can fall a little short in the first couple of years but then salvage a draw (or even snatch a minor victory) through good play in the subsequent 3 years.

IMHO the game should be balanced around the average player rather than around the elite player. That will mean that the Germans will always be overpowered in the hands of an elite player under default conditions but it should be left to them to try and find solutions through house-rules/settings tweaks/later start dates.

@Sammy5IsAlive:

Interesting comments thank you. This said, I would like to stress once again that I was NOT talking about balance in this post. Balance is very relative and impossible to achieve IMO, because of those very arguments you list. Also, I don't have any problem with the 'scripted' German attack on the first turn. There will be differences enough from the die rolls to mean that even the best possible script won't ever go as expected, and even if you started the game after a few turns, it would still be scripted. At least in the present state, there are a few possible different scripts.

That said, yes, I imagine the game must be 'balanced' as much as possible around average players as they are in theory the majority and therefore those who will make it thrive in the long run. But it's all a fickle thing, as because of the length of a game, it might very well be that an average player turns into an elite one during it's course while the other one doesn't really dive deeper into the mechanics and stays at his initial level. But that's another debate, one I didn't intend to get into in this thread.

If we get back to the basic idea I was expressing in this thread, the actual tendency and effectiveness of the Soviet runners, Xhoel had a good point when mentionning that playing a Bitter End scenario might force the Soviet player to stand and fight more. Or as you said the use of house rules to force certain behaviors onto the players. But it is really a pity that a game with such possibilities in it's engine should become driven by such artificial devices when it could be done much more natural, too much early factory losses by example as Telemecus mentions, with a drop in Morale or something if the user looses assets too much too fast, not necessarily Moscow, could be a certain number of factory points or whatever makes sense without penalising the Soviet player too much.

But yeah. Maybe that is above the average players and so maybe it all comes back to a balance discussion. But that I leave to others.

What I do know with the knowledge I have, is exactly what I will do as Axis in 1941 in my next game. And the one after. And the one after. And also what I will do if I play Soviet. Because I don't believe there are any valuable and/or stronger alternatives in both cases.

I do hope someone comes out with some mighty arguments to prove me wrong though And maybe something in the next patch will make this different. We'll see.

Something I would say in favour of a Moscow defence strategy in 1941 is that it makes the Soviet's 1942 defence stronger.
When Leningrad falls in 1941 the north can be sripped bare during the following spring. The same does not apply to the center if Moscow falls in 1941 and Leningrad is held.

@timmyab: really interesting.

That said, I'm not sure this balances out the advantages for the Soviet during Blizzard of not having to worry about the Finns and enjoying a big powerful salient in the north which further lengthens the German lines, who have less troops available to guard it to begin with.

And isn't the German then almost forced to take Leningrad in 1942 anyway if he wants to be in a better position in 1943-1944 for the coming Soviet steamroller?

But maybe then the salient also becomes a dangerous trap for the Soviet player, playing right in the hands of the German. Another way of seeing it.

Thanks for your comment

ORIGINAL: joelmar
balances out the advantages for the Soviet during Blizzard of not having to worry about the Finns

Some Soviet players react to the loss of Leningrad by simply withdrawing troops from the Finnish move area altogether - meaning they do not have to worry about the Finns anyway still. I am not sure this is necessarily a good idea, but it is only sacrificing a lot of trees in terms of area lost.

Yes, makes perfect sense.

But my comment was more about the Finns in a defensive role holding a big part of the line that would have to be held by Germans if Leningrad doesn't fall. In such a case, it's almost like the Finns are not there at all. Of course, they are still a big threat in the case the Germans get Leningrad in 1942 and destroy a lot of Soviet units doing so. Might rip apart the Soviet front to the north of Moscow.

But maybe then the salient also becomes a dangerous trap for the Soviet player, playing right in the hands of the German

Yes this is a definitely a consideration.

This conversation reinforces my argument that this game needs some sort of free deployment option for both sides. Maybe some constraints - a certain percentage of Soviet units must be within so many hexes of the border, German units must remain in their Army Group sectors, or something like that, but the suggestion that the outcome of the whole game depends on the first two or three Axis moves is a clear weakness. Developers should be making fixing this problem a priority.

I realize there would be engine changes required. Maybe have a pre-game turn where neither side can attack into the opponent's territory and some units are frozen or have limited movement allowances?

An alternative would be a 26 June start, as with the War in the Pacific game's 8 December start.

Free deployment could be interesting.

But I doubt it would do much to stop a Soviet from withdrawing without a fight. In this eventuality the Soviet takes the initiative, even if it could be said to be an inverted one, and the Axis player must follow.

Interesting discussion for sure. For full disclosure, I am the one playing the Russians against Joel and yes, I ran (and continue to run in the south through end of turn 13) everywhere except PSKOV/Lenningrad. We are at start of Turn 14 and my initial PKSOV line is broken, but i'm still defending several hexes SW of the Luga while I build my Luga defenses and have a pretty massive CV wall in front of Moscow (he's within 3-4 hexes of Moscow). It is unlikely either will fall in 1941. Further, Soviet's have avoided big encirclements and OOB stands around 4.5M Men. Lack of any real losses to Tank Divisions means trucks and such are well in surplus, manpower and industry are fine as far as I can tell.

Here are my very unsolicited thoughts on the topic:

In my mind, the current iteration of the game is pro-German. This is one reason I wanted to play Russians as I was reading post after post whining about how Germans are too powerful. Is it true? To some extent, yes. But I don't think this means the Russians can't win. Rather, I see Russians making mistakes that end up giving up massive encirclements on Turns 4-5 that often are lights out. Is this because the Germans are so powerful? No, it's because the Russians played it completely wrong.

I opted to utilize HLYA's PSKOV defense in this game because I found it interesting and wanted to give it a try. He has a post on this defense, though it only covers what to do in that one small area of the map and only Turns 1-2 basically. It doesn't address what to do elsewhere or really what to do later than the early turns. Consider it something of a scripted Soviet Turns 1 and 2 to some extent for that one part of the map. It's frustrating for German Players when the Soviets run, but really I don't so much see this as a runner strategy. In fact, I see it as things have always been since I started playing this game years ago. The soviets could always pick a single front and decide that they are going to hold there and fight there at the expense of pretty much everything else. Where Soviets get in trouble is when they try to defend too much as invariably they have too little to do so and end up getting encircled and compounding their early game shortages. If the Soviet sets his goals to say defend Lenningrad at all costs during '41 at the expense of pretty much everything else, with a secondary goal of avoiding encirclements at all costs, there is a decent chance of them holding up well in 1941. They may lose Moscow or may not lose Moscow in the process, they may lose more ground and industry than they'd like, but they will not suffer a '41 knock out punch and will most definitely be around later in the game.

I'm not a big fan of limiting either player from doing what they want (with some very few exceptions). There is no need for house rules such as "no Super Lvov Pocket." The Russians can still do well in the long run even in the face of the strongest German openings (i.e. Turns 1-3). The PKSOV defense can still be setup just about exactly the same totally irrespective of German opening. But to me, this doesn't at all lead to a repetitive predictable game even if it's the same two opponents playing each other. Whoever lost the first time around will invariably do something different the second time around. There are just too many variables in the game, too many playing styles, players with very different risk tolerances, etc... for the games to become overly scripted and repetitive.

My limited experience under the current version of the same (first game since pre 1.07!) is that it seems pro German, but not egregiously so. Yes, the German player can pretty much attack even the strongest Russian defense and push them back if he is determined to do so. But as Xhoel points out, at what cost in time and men? The overall goals for the two sides in 1941 (beyond the obvious, "hold this city or that") are directly conflicting with one another. The German wants easy, cheap encirclements to eliminate Russians, the Russian wants to avoid such at all costs and force the Germans to bang their head against CV walls even if they lose all of the battles and give up lots of ground. Whoever can force the other to fight on their own terms usually will have an advantage. And while I do feel that the Russians can put up a strong defense on a single front such as Lenningrad, I do not feel that they can possibly hold Lenningrad if the Germans decide they are going to take it at all costs. But there are tradeoffs and other areas of the battle will be impacted.

Further, I agree 100% with EvK who said in some post somewhere that the Russians should never (ever) engage in a battle in 1941 until they are ready. Strong German players will punish them for doing so and there is little point in trying to hold ground that you're going to lose 1-4 turns from then anyway. THe only difference is losing the ground without heavy losses or losing the ground with heavy losses. Either way, the ground is lost. So if a Russian decides he's ready to fight for Lenningrad then he simply must retreat everywhere else or face disaster because the only way to fight for Lenningrad (or wherever they choose to fight) is by concentrating pretty much every decent unit on the map in that one place with all of the air support, best leaders, etc... The result is one that can be frustrating for a German player (i.e. lack of fun encirclements) if they see it that way or one that an opportunistic German player can take advantage of if they are so inclined. No defense (or attack) exists that cannot be countered. It's inventing these different offenses and defenses and coming up with new counters to them that makes the game fun and prevents it from being overly repetitive. I look at nearly every AAR and find myself of the opinion that I wouldn't be doing anything either of the players are doing had I been controlling that side or seeing mistakes (as I perceive them) that players are making. Is my choice right and theirs wrong? Who knows. All I know is it's my choice and playing style and it's vastly different in a lot of cases than what i'm seeing. These differences between each player is one of the things that makes it interesting.

Anyway, just my unsolicited .02 cents. The Germans come up with a new opening and it's "the Russians can't win", the Russians come up with a good counter to a german opening and it's "the Germans can't win" or the Germans "must do this or that to counter it". Same old same old. Neither has ever been true. It's up to the competence and style of the individual players to deal with whatever situation is at hand and make the best decisions. After turns 1-4 or so the game is very much unscripted and much more reactive and it's after these turns that really separates the different levels of play. Anyone playing either side can have a good opening. Now what? To me, this has a lot more to do with it than who uses what opening or what defense and that is true under this version and previous versions in my experience (given the versions I've played).

I guess as final response to the initial post by Joel - no there should absolutely not be any consquences to the Soviets running other than what is inherently in the game just as there should not be any consequences for the Germans using Super Lvov pocket. It's up to the German player to figure out how to beat such a strategy as with all strategies, it's definitely beatable and carries with it its own risks.

Peace out.

Matt

@MattFL: great answer my friend. I have some comments to do of course. But won't get into that now as I want to use the evening to advance my turn! lol!

Wanted to pitch in some of my own thoughts.

I do not comment on the many balance discussions that have appeared on these forums over the years. I do not know the historical numbers well enough for those who make balance arguments on what actually happened. I do not understand why some say it is unbalanced in game terms. If it is then just change the game options - give the Soviets a victory if they capture Berlin by august 1945 instead say. You can do that yourselves without needing to change the program. But the bigger question I wondered is is there actually any such thing as game balance at all?

ORIGINAL: MattFL
In my mind, the current iteration of the game is pro-German ... post after post whining about how Germans are too powerful... I don't think this means the Russians can't win. Rather, I see Russians making mistakes that end up giving up massive encirclements on Turns 4-5 that often are lights out.... it's because the Russians played it completely wrong.

This I found interesting because does it mean that all balance discussions are simply discussions about players ability? It is only pro-German because of the way the Soviet side has been played? If so there is no such thing as game balance as some absolutely quantity independent of players. It make no more sense to discuss it than it does to discuss what are the feelings of machines or what is the colour of number 2?

ORIGINAL: MattFL
The Germans come up with a new opening and it's "the Russians can't win", the Russians come up with a good counter to a german opening and it's "the Germans can't win" or the Germans "must do this or that to counter it". Same old same old.

This I find a pretty good description of the history of the discussions of the game at least on these forums. A similar parallel can be found in the changes in the air war. It went from the Soviet air force is too powerful resulting in the developers nerfing it, to the German air force is too powerful which is when the developers essentially ended the night air war entirely and made the day air war a question of flak. But I think this is instructive as the toing and froing of balance in the air war by the developers has ended up getting us back to where we were to begin with - but in the process getting rid of some of the variety and interest in the game. And I suppose it is this rather than any questions of balance that worry me.

ORIGINAL: MattFL
It's up to the German player to figure out how to beat such a strategy as with all strategies, it's definitely beatable and carries with it its own risks.

This is the thing I am looking forward to and so long as the game is actively followed I expect to read the definitve post on this soon. The Pskow Defence has certainly been the most recent meta/paradigm of the game. I think this is more than just a fashion as for most so far in game theory terms it is the "dominant strategy." One of the last AARs by Tyronec for WitE1 (see tm.asp?m=4358933 ) was supposed to be the way you could beat the Pskow Defence - sadly for that game his opponent decided not to do the Pskow defence then so we will never know what it was. I have never faced an opponent doing a Pskow Defence - but I did write a very brief AAR about worrying less about pockets in early turns and instead advancing as fast as possible (see tm.asp?m=4639282 ). This was to challenge the paradigm (slightly) that making pockets is all that matters on turn 1. However some have suggested it could be part of a Pskow counter by allowing an Axis player to arrive in greater mass at Pskow BEFORE the hardest defences are formed. Knowing Joelmar's way of thinking and inquisitiveness I wonder even if Joelmar will be the one to take the experiences of fighting a Pskow Defence and work out the definitive counter that will be the forum post everyone reads on it for ever more? [:)]

In answer to @MattFL:

I will keep this brief as I don't want my meaning lost. I would like to clear a few important points:

-This thread was NOT started as a balance discussion
-I agree with most of what you say about balance, abilities and so on, and I won't get into that here because it's besides the point and we already discussed it in lenght in private and you already know my position on this.
-This thread should not have been called "Pskov-Runner strategy" but it should have been called: "As Axis, what do you think is the primary objective between Leningrad, Moscow and DonBass?"
-My own observations and what seems to be a concensus among most here is that Leningrad is easily the most important objective because it brings in the Finns and permits the shortest front for blizzard. And the fact that the other 2 objectives don't have similar returns almost makes taking Leningrad a MUST.
-Therefore, defending heavily against it, almost to the point of giving away all the rest is also easily the best Soviet strategy.

And to me that means 2 things:
1. If I play Axis, I will go with all my might for Leningrad, making the rest secondary.
2. If I play Soviet, I will do a Pskov-runner strategy.

Conclusion, TO ME the game has become predictable (again: the game, not who wins).

And this brings me to another question: would you do otherwise? Do you believe that there is another better course for either side?

@Telemecus: Knowing Joelmar's way of thinking and inquisitiveness I wonder even if Joelmar will be the one to take the experiences of fighting a Pskow Defence and work out the definitive counter that will be the forum post everyone reads on it for ever more?

lol.. it would be great, but it won't be from an AAR of my current game against Matt, because I didn't play it as I should have and Matt is a great player, so I'm late in this game. But I have some ideas of course, as do Matt

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

This I found interesting because does it mean that all balance discussions are simply discussions about players ability? It is only pro-German because of the way the Soviet side has been played? If so there is no such thing as game balance as some absolutely quantity independent of players. It make no more sense to discuss it than it does to discuss what are the feelings of machines or what is the colour of number 2?

No, it doesn't mean that balance can't be discussed (let's face it, balance will ALWAYS be discussed even if in fact it may be irrelevant!). As I said, in my opinion it's a bit pro-German. But pro-German doesn't mean the Russians can't win (i.e. the "chaos argument"). And the skill of the players is a far greater factor in determining the outcome than the balance of the game. The "best" players here (if such a thing exists) consistently win the game with either side. Where the Chaos argument may hold true is if you have the best Russian against the best German (i.e. players of absolutely equal, and very high, skill) the game balance will benefit the German. But rarely if ever are there games between people of absolutely equal and very high skill. One is always going to be a bit better than the other or have a better understanding of the side that they are playing in that particular game. For players of average skill, who are probably most of the people who play the game, I think the game balance is irrelevant because neither is maximizing what their side can potentially achieve.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
This is the thing I am looking forward to and so long as the game is actively followed I expect to read the definitve post on this soon. The Pskow Defence has certainly been the most recent meta/paradigm of the game. I think this is more than just a fashion as for most so far in game theory terms it is the "dominant strategy." One of the last AARs by Tyronec for WitE1 (see tm.asp?m=4358933 ) was supposed to be the way you could beat the Pskow Defence - sadly for that game his opponent decided not to do the Pskow defence then so we will never know what it was. I have never faced an opponent doing a Pskow Defence - but I did write a very brief AAR about worrying less about pockets in early turns and instead advancing as fast as possible (see tm.asp?m=4639282 ). This was to challenge the paradigm (slightly) that making pockets is all that matters on turn 1. However some have suggested it could be part of a Pskow counter by allowing an Axis player to arrive in greater mass at Pskow BEFORE the hardest defences are formed. Knowing Joelmar's way of thinking and inquisitiveness I wonder even if Joelmar will be the one to take the experiences of fighting a Pskow Defence and work out the definitive counter that will be the forum post everyone reads on it for ever more? [:)]

There will never be a definitive post on this. The German Turn 1 is about the only thing that can be absolutely definitive. Sure, the PSKOV defense is somewhat definitive in that the Germans can't really do a damn thing about it on their Turn 2 and by the time their turn 3 starts, the defense is in place. But we're talking about what, an area of the map that is maybe 8 hexes by 8 hexes? If the Russians setting up some units in an area of a massive map that small is a "dominant strategy", then folks aren't thinking hard enough. [:)]

Really, I find it kind of surprising that (apparently) this has become a dominant Russian strategy. It carries with it lots of risks and certainly no guarantee of success. Let's be realistic here, the PSKOV defense strategy in HLYA's hands as Russians is most likely a very different thing than that same strategy in say my hands or some other random Russian players hands. On the flip side, HLYA playing Germans against said defense is probably different than say me playing Germans against it. So it's not so much about beating that strategy, I'm quite certain I could beat it as Germans against a random Russian player of average skill. It's more about beating it while it's being played by HLYA - it's his defense after all. Further, it's a different thing to beat such a defense when you know it's coming as opposed to not knowing it's being played until you run into it. If the German isn't aware it's being played, they can often waste a turn running into it. If they know it's being played, they have a lot more options, such as just ignoring PSKOV and racing east or sending far more to PSKOV than would normally be the case. It's a very different thing than a German opening in which the Russians have absolutely no say. The Germans do have a say in this case.

And just to follow up on your comment about Turn 1 pockets, i'll repeat what i've said elsewhere. Turn 1 in a vacuum is irrelevant. It's the continuous action of Turns 1-3 that matter. Who cares if you pocket X number of Russian units on Turn 1. What matters is getting east as fast as possible while preventing the escape of the maximum number of Russian units. You can often get even more Russians this way than if you have very tight encirclements on Turn 1. As Germans, i could care less if encirclements hold on Turn 1. It's all about preventing escape and pushing east as fast as possible. I prefer to leave the encircled units to rot and mop them up over 6-7 turns with very few divisions, security units, etc...This allows maximum force east as early as possible.

I took a quick look at the Pandemonium/HLYA vs Tyronec game. Yeah, i'm not sure the abandoning the North Russian strategy is a very good one. As GHC nothing would make me happier than to play against that. [:)]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

In answer to @MattFL:

I will keep this brief as I don't want my meaning lost. I would like to clear a few important points:

-This thread was NOT started as a balance discussion
-I agree with most of what you say about balance, abilities and so on, and I won't get into that here because it's besides the point and we already discussed it in lenght in private and you already know my position on this.
-This thread should not have been called "Pskov-Runner strategy" but it should have been called: "As Axis, what do you think is the primary objective between Leningrad, Moscow and DonBass?"
-My own observations and what seems to be a concensus among most here is that Leningrad is easily the most important objective because it brings in the Finns and permits the shortest front for blizzard. And the fact that the other 2 objectives don't have similar returns almost makes taking Leningrad a MUST.
-Therefore, defending heavily against it, almost to the point of giving away all the rest is also easily the best Soviet strategy.

And to me that means 2 things:
1. If I play Axis, I will go with all my might for Leningrad, making the rest secondary.
2. If I play Soviet, I will do a Pskov-runner strategy.

Conclusion, TO ME the game has become predictable (again: the game, not who wins).

And this brings me to another question: would you do otherwise? Do you believe that there is another better course for either side?

Fair enough and sorry if I drifted off into a topic which wasn't the main point. But to your main point above, here are my thoughts....

If I play Axis, Moscow would be my top priority in general and particularly against a PSKOV defense. I would drive hard and occupy the area between Moscow and Lenningrad for maximum operational flexibility. If I play Russians again, I may or may not use the PKSOV defense. Like I said, I wanted to try it out. I don't think it's infallible.

In either case, I do not think the game is predictable at all. Too many options, too many styles, too much opportunity to do a wide variety of things. There is no one winning strategy. Lots of losing ones, but no one winning one. [:)]

@MattFL: I took a quick look at the Pandemonium/HLYA vs Tyronec game. Yeah, i'm not sure the abandoning the North Russian strategy is a very good one. As GHC nothing would make me happier than to play against that.

You see, that is EXACTLY my point.

If I play Axis, Moscow would be my top priority in general and particularly against a PSKOV defense.

For the idea of a Moscow Axis strategy against a Pskov Soviet strategy... I have my doubts honestly. Yes, even against the best Soviet player out there you will most probably take Moscow if you put all your beans there, I have no doubt about it. But Leningrad will then be a very remote probability, not to say an impossibility, and you will most probably end up with an overextended and vulnerable left flank and no Finns to help in the worst part of the map for Blizzard. Hardly a confortable strategy. Sounds very familiar to me... lol!

BTW, that is exactly when a Soviet player bent on the slowest retreat possible thereby making the road to Moscow as long as possible without exposing himself to chunky pockets will have an even bigger advantage, but that is another topic...

In game terms, the 2 year plus siege of Leningrad is the same as the fall of the city. As long as you defended long enough to evacuate, has anyone had the loss decide your game? The Finns grabbing nothing but forest and not crumbling from lack of manpower, as soon as they are really pressed?
Leningrad is the first priority for sure, but it's no auto-defeat unless the Russian player quits. I have and have had opponents still win.
But when i see the loss of Moskow in an AAR, well, can anyone show me one where the Russian was able to get to Berlin in time?

@Telemecus

It make no more sense to discuss it than it does to discuss what are the feelings of machines or what is the colour of number 2?

Colour of 2 is obviously red but as for machines feelings, well really old engines used to be cranky.

Does this help?

[:D]

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
@Telemecus

It make no more sense to discuss it than it does to discuss what are the feelings of machines or what is the colour of number 2?

Colour of 2 is obviously red but as for machines feelings, well really old engines used to be cranky.

You know as soon as I pressed post on that message I thought I bet someone will be awkward and say numbers do have colour! [:D] [:D]

Actually there is a common condition with a name where people do see numbers as having colour and other such unsual connections of properties. (Edit: looked it up - Synesthesia)

ORIGINAL: MattFL
let's face it, balance will ALWAYS be discussed even if in fact it may be irrelevant!

There is probably no greater truism.

I did once suggest that perhaps the only way to judge balance would be by having the same two players play two games against each other but on different sides. If one side consistently won, then you could say that was because of balance of the game and not standard of the players which is controlled for. But then someone objected that players can be better Soviet players than Axis players and vice versa - having them play each side does not mean they are controlled for ability.

So I guess the argument will go on and on [:D]