Matrix Games Forums

I am not entirely convinced that there was even an imbalance with 1.01, I have a fear 1.02 goes too far in favor of the Germans. We will see. You have to look at the victory conditions as well. I really think the VP's should hold more sway. ATM if the German takes military independence, takes Leningrad and holds it he is going to win regardless of what happens elsewhere. Surely he should not win in that situation if the Soviet still holds a line say Smolensk, Kharkov, Stalino or better.

1.01 was fine against the AI and completely winnable. I'm less sure that it works in PBEM.

If the German takes military independence and holds Leningrad, while the Soviets choose Moscow and keep that, isn't that a German minor? I'm okay with that.

I don't think that deserves a win at all really, even minor. Unless say the Germans were still at Vyazma and held Kharkov and Stalino. I think the VC are a little binary, some emphasis needs to be placed on what is happening elsewhere IMO. In theory I could stack all my resources, card selections etc in AGN, take Leningrad and win even if the rest of the Army never progressed any further than the border.

Well, the counter to that is the Soviet redirects a couple of regular armies northwards. That only costs 5 PPs total (the first such card is free.)

It doesn't take much to lock down Leningrad for the Sovs. You are really going to miss those armies in the center now, though. Much harder to create the Iron Wall now.

Well I submitted that example just to make the point. Naturally the German would cloak his real intentions.

I would just like to see the VP have some more weight so that the German just can't take a single objective that is specified by himself or Hitler and win if he has gone poorly elsewhere. I would be happy to see the objective also include a minimum VP amount needed to acquire the minor win. So for example if you get Leningrad and X amount of VP you win. If you get Leningrad and fail to get X VP you get a draw.

I kinda like the binary nature of the VPs, tbh, it emphasizes the poker like aspects of the game. That stakes are high, as is the tension. You can't get too comfortable. This is probably a matter of taste.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Mannerheim, a game that allows you to do all that stuff on turn 1 is also a game that allows you to pull off a massive Lvov pocket on turn one. It also means Leningrad falls nearly every game and is practically indefensible since most of NW Front goes poof in a massive pocket on turn one.

This is what happened in WITE.

I don't recall saying that the game mechanics need to be WITE. I said that WITE better represents blitzkrieg style combat. It also does a good job with knock-down drag out combat. Are there problems? Allows a Lvov pocket? Are you saying that a designer cannot make the Southern Front a bit stronger after seeing the "Lvov pocket" during playtesting???? WITE is ruined because the Germans can go too far in the south? Seems to me a very simple fix, make the Russians a bit stronger in the South! There would be no need to change the combat model, granting fewer movement points to the Germans or changing the terrain cost or increasing the defense value of forts, which would be universal. Increase the CV of a few Soviets is pretty simple.

This is simple stuff, compared to not having the AP to even reach common objectives that were historically captured. That's a problem with the system - if you cannot duplicate (as in impossible because of movement points) the historical first few turns due to objectives being physically IMPOSSIBLE to reach. Go ahead, count the AP's to reach a bridgehead over the Beresina on turn 2. Even the best cheater cannot do it. Dvinsk bridgehead turn one. Nope. Impossible. Anyone who knows something about Barbarossa appreciates the need for the Germans to do VERY well on those first few weeks. Otherwise, what's the point of playing past August?

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

There is more to life and wargaming than turn one. Turn one is so weird and exceptional that it is very difficult to design a game that gets that right without becoming a mess later on and for the entire rest of the game.

You are again bringing up later-game balance, which is not the subject that I am talking about. Are we supposed to believe that the Germans being 5-7 hexes closer to Moscow in the center is going to lose the game irrevocably for the Soviets? If that didn't happen in real life, how is that going to happen in the game - unless the game itself has balance issues down the road? It seems to me that you do not have the confidence in the Soviet AI if the Germans gain a few hexes east in the first three turns.

In addition, balance is dependent upon victory point allocation. That is easily fixed. Cities can be granted different victory point levels to balance perceived issues.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The devs are making changes in a different sort of way, one that doesn't wreck the integrity of the design. I fully support the staggered reinforcements for Timoeshenko, for example. That's an easy and sensible change. But mucking around with core game mechanics in order to duplicate incredible early advance rates is just asking for trouble. Once the Germans are off to the races, they're off and the whole rest of the game suffers.

Yes, that is good, we'll see how reducing the reinforcement rate goes. But changing the readiness level for some Soviet units is going to ruin the game? Good grief, don't you think you are exaggerating a bit? If the Soviets were able to defeat the Germans under the 'incredible early advances', why can't the game mechanics? And let's not forget that those "incredible early advances" came with a lot of casualties and forced a rest/refit before the first two weeks of the campaign had finished in the Center. It sounds like you are stating that the Soviets cannot win if the Germans are able to reach historical spots on the first few turns. Logistics will ever be the first enemy of the Germans. Gaining a few extra cities and hexes east is not going to change that. The Germans MUST stop around Smolensk, even if the Soviets were removed from the map.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Regards

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am not entirely convinced that there was even an imbalance with 1.01, I have a fear 1.02 goes too far in favor of the Germans. We will see. You have to look at the victory conditions as well. I really think the VP's should hold more sway. ATM if the German takes military independence, takes Leningrad and holds it he is going to win regardless of what happens elsewhere. Surely he should not win in that situation if the Soviet still holds a line say Smolensk, Kharkov, Stalino or better.

I would agree that those victory conditions are a problem.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Well I submitted that example just to make the point. Naturally the German would cloak his real intentions.

I would just like to see the VP have some more weight so that the German just can't take a single objective that is specified by himself or Hitler and win if he has gone poorly elsewhere. I would be happy to see the objective also include a minimum VP amount needed to acquire the minor win. So for example if you get Leningrad and X amount of VP you win. If you get Leningrad and fail to get X VP you get a draw.

Agree, this would be sensible. I can't imagine that taking ANY single city would cause the Soviets to collapse and bring about a "victory", if by victory, one means winning the war.

If one means "victory" in doing better than the historical side, that's different.