Matrix Games Forums

FortTell wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:03 pm

Zebtucker12 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:19 pm I had no ports or even leningrad. Well soviets got stuck there did they not?

Having no ports makes supplying a front harder, for sure.

But where and when exactly were the Soviets stuck around Riga, I assume it was in 1944? In autumn, it took them two months during the Baltic offensive to liberate Estonian SSR and the remainder of Lithauian SSR, incuding Riga, while cutting off the German forces in the Courland Pocket.

In July, during the Siauliai operation, the direct push towards Riga got stalled and the 1st Baltic Front had supply problems, but this was because the could not secure the Polotsk-Daugavpils-Siauliai rail around Daugavpils (the city was taken on the 27th of July 1944, at the tail end of the operation). Receiving supply from Polotsk or, I guess, Vilnius (taken on the 13th of July) while fighting near the Baltic coast is not very good. Also the Germans sent significant reinforcements to the area, while 1st Baltic had 4th Shock Army taken from it. In return they got the 39th Army, which could not be put in combat immediately, and the 11th Guards and 51th Armies, which arrived mid-July.

So the history does not provide us a direct parallel there, unfortunately. Maybe USSR actually could supply the front using this railway, maybe not.

Stamb wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 12:46 pm Mehring

you are not the only one who is or was playing as both sides
and there are many people who understand game mechanics and pvp balance very well

and most of them agree that Soviets are just too OP

it is not like Axis player can not ever win, he can
but it is definitely not 50% chance to win

if there are skillful players from both sides then Soviets will win in 7-8 games out of a 10, imho

ElizabethWizard wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:11 pm

Stamb wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 12:46 pm Mehring

you are not the only one who is or was playing as both sides
and there are many people who understand game mechanics and pvp balance very well

and most of them agree that Soviets are just too OP

it is not like Axis player can not ever win, he can
but it is definitely not 50% chance to win

if there are skillful players from both sides then Soviets will win in 7-8 games out of a 10, imho

I grow tired of pointing this out but...

This is a historical wargame. In the actual war, the Soviet Union threw away three front-sized formations before new years 1942 and still had the war in hand by new years 1943.

Re-adjust your expectations: the Axis should not "win the war" 50 times out of a hundred, they should "win the war" maybe 10 times out of a hundred, if that.

If you really want some kind of even game with your opponents, there's like an entire list of difficulty settings. Try playing with those. Have a problem with Soviet supply? There's a whole-ass logistics slider right there for you to use! Axis allies useless? 45*1.1=49.5. play around and explore!

That being said I do like the "overwhelming victory" idea someone floated... If I send 3 divisions into your brigade (to avoid activations) I do think it should be the CPP loss equivalent of you throwing your brigade into my 3 divisions.

Stamb wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:23 pm did i wrote that Axis should have an ability to win the war ? no
Axis player should have an ability to win the game against an opponent with a similar skill

Soviets lost 4-6 mil men in `41
in average game (i am talking about pvp games as vs AI you will win with any balance as any side) they lose ~2.5 in `41
so maybe lets give Soviets additional 3 mil manpower in `41 so there will be no pvp games at all?

seems you are missing that this is a game, even if it is historical based wargame
and game requires some balance to encourage players to play as a Soviets and as an Axis

otherwise its better to go and watch historical movies about ww2 than play the game that you can not win

ElizabethWizard wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:54 pm I'm suspecting that there's some language barrier issue here: you don't seem to be a native English speaker and I write like a novelist raised by a lawyer. I'll try to make my point more clear because you're way out in left field.

Stamb wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:23 pm did i wrote that Axis should have an ability to win the war ? no
Axis player should have an ability to win the game against an opponent with a similar skill

This game is primarily a PvE wargame. That's how the vast majority of players play it. That's the vast majority of the testing done. This renders your claim here false.

You also include an inherent assumption in your claim which is that pvp games should only be played on the "default settings.". To see why this is such fallacious reasoning, I'll point out that competitive Brood War, for example, has never used the "Normal" speed for it's gameplay.

Soviets lost 4-6 mil men in `41
in average game (i am talking about pvp games as vs AI you will win with any balance as any side) they lose ~2.5 in `41
so maybe lets give Soviets additional 3 mil manpower in `41 so there will be no pvp games at all?

If you restrict yourself to pvp games, you eliminate the vast majority of games played.

You really need to understand this fundamental concept, Stamb. Your conceptualization of how this game is played is self-centered to the point of not even being accurate. Pvp games are an extreme minority of games played. It would be malfeasance for the WitE2 team to balance with a primary eye to pvp.

They have told you this often.

You continue to ignore it.

seems you are missing that this is a game, even if it is historical based wargame
and game requires some balance to encourage players to play as a Soviets and as an Axis

This is also just... Either so simplified as to mean nothing or outright false. Some people enjoy the challenge of playing as an underdog. Some people enjoy feeling superpowered. Balance is in and of itself not a requirement for an enjoyable game.

otherwise its better to go and watch historical movies about ww2 than play the game that you can not win

Again, you are simply wrong, as in your statement is incorrect. It is impossible to "win" the games of Tetris, MineCraft, The Sims, and Dwarf Foretess to name a few. Being able to "win," let alone being able win with any/all settings, is not a necessary feature of games.


The next issue I have with your entire paradigm about this is that you can absolutely make balance adjustments in your own pvp games! And without modding! I think it was Joel who suggested a "bidding" system wherein the player willing to face the strongest Axis (in terms of modifying the difficulty settings that are built into the game) gets to play the Soviets. So why don't you try dong that?

You know, instead of demanding that the coders shift the game away from historical accuracy because it turns out the Axis, which lost the war after the USSR threw away 3 fronts in the first 6 months, can't actually win the war (or, the way points are assigned, "win the game" or whatever) if the Soviet player doesn't blunder half their 1941 army.



One additional point to consider, especially regarding balance, is that you have never played a game to completion. You have *only* played PvP games to the point where someone gives up. Maybe have a little bit of humility and admit that at least some of those resigns are premature, and that what's costing you the ability to "win" games as the Axis is that you give up on games that would be winnable because you are wrong about whether or not they are winnable?

You know, like maybe defend using the 88 FLAK you claim is so overpowered it has to be nerfed? Like maybe if you used that to slow the Soviet advance you might get a "game win" even as you lose the war?

write like a novelist raised by a lawyer.

malyhin1517 wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:59 am In general, in this game, the Axis, in order to win, must simply not lose until May 1945. An absolute Axis victory with the capture of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad is practically unattainable with a good game for the USSR. Many players forget this and misunderstand the probability of an Axis victory. I believe that the Axis has enough chances to win, at least 50%!

DesertedFox wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 9:01 amAbsolutely agree.

I see "players" talking about low Russian casualties in 41 but neglect to mention the same ratio or better lower casualties for the Axis historically.

Loki put this in his current game as +1 million troops extra for the Axis going into 43 and 1.2 million for the Russians due to lower casualties in 41 and there is no "Stalingrad" debacle.

The Russians have to overcome the fact that any decent Axis player isn't going to loose approximately 22 divisions as the Axis did historically at Stalingrad.

I have yet to see a game where Leningrad and or Moscow were captured or were going to be captured and the Russians went on to win.

Loki has displayed that you can get close enough to Leningrad in 41, isolate it in 42 and take it. Whilst his game is ongoing, he is in the box seat to win it.

The best game IMHO is one that ends in mid 45 where both sides come close to victory.

The only imbalance in the game I see is that yes, the Axis player must be competent whereas the Russian player can get away with some minor errors and learn by them as the game progresses.

DesertedFox wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 10:52 amTo put this into context, do not quote the win-loss ratio being so far in favor of the Russians. It's been conceded at the game release it was favoring the Russians, but in the more recent patches, the win-loss has been about 50/50 or there about with "competent" Axis players.

ShaggyHiK wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:18 am In my opinion, there is a strong bias in the game.

The Germans are too strong in '41, but in the winter of '41-42 they become too weak, and in '42 the balance is too much tied to logistics and the players' understanding of it, making up for losses. At the same time, for the Soviet player, for obvious reasons, this is not such a serious issue. All the same, the railway is usually intact and the warehouses are not so far away.

On the example of the first aviation move, the balance imbalance is especially noticeable. It just so happened that it is believed that the Germans defeated Soviet aviation at the airfields on June 22, although in fact the raids continued on the 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th, and with enviable regularity led to serious successes. There were also the necessary ammunition and tactics and trained personnel with technical personnel, but there is only June 22 in the game and then the German aviation finishes everything.

That is, there is an excess of strength in the early stages, and then there is a sharp drawdown of "strength" literally on the next moves, and in the case of aviation, on the next day.

The Soviets are too weak in 41, although historically they were not so weak in direct combat, I'm not talking about tactical mistakes, but directly in combat, the Soviet troops showed stamina which they did not show, for example, the French were in much better conditions.

Also, the Germans were not so weak in the winter of 41-42, and for example, it was rather strange for me to see the results of FortTel in the next branch about the loss of a huge number of tanks in March 42.

Beethoven1 wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:27 am
It is hard to judge, unfortunately, the point about the later game at this point, because so many players resign early. There are a lot of Axis 1941 resignations, as you point out, but also if Germany even does something more or less historical like get near to Moscow or get a big pocket, in a lot of games Soviet players have resigned in 1941 right after that as well, unfortunately - even if they are not actually knocked out and may well be able to survive.

jeffreysutro@jeffreysutro.com wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 5:53 pm Perhaps those Axis players resigning in 1941 are hoping to achieve the, historically unlikely, result of a German conquest of the Soviet Union. They may not find it satisfying to win (in terms of the game) "merely" by doing significantly better than Germany did in the actual war. To each their own.