Matrix Games Forums

Ah, the Holy Grail of Game Balance.

WiTE is an unusually asymetic game, played by people with a large range of ability and experience. Ideally, most games would end in '45 but very few do. Part of this is due to the time commitment needed. The in-game reason IMHO is that so much depends on the 1st 17 turns and to a lesser extent by the next 7 turns of mud and snow.

The outcome of these turns depends mainly on the German's performance as the attacker. Poor Russian play can lose any game, but the game system heavily favours the side with the initiative. This is why game balance changes depending on the skills of the German. Given equal skill levels on each side, I believe that less experience Germans will do far less well than the more expert players. they won't get of to such a good start; so crucial to achieving momentum and we all know about the WiTE snowball effect. For example, 1 of the most important skills for the G player is mastering the supply (ie fuel) system. The complicated supply rules are probably inevitably very prone to loopholes (by which I mean just doing what the rules allow albeit in what I call unacceptably gamey and nothing to do with exploiting bugs or cheating) and these therefore all help the attacker ie the Germans. As we know from other threads (eg my one on delaying killing surrounded Russian units) 'too gamey' is a purely subjective concept on which players legitimately hold very different views, which are sometimes coloured by the side they play.

2 conclusions flow from my analysis:

1 Those trying to get the right balance for the game will never succeed fully. It is impossible to test the full effect on proposed changes on full games played by very good, average and inexperienced/poor players. Even the feedback the get from players is biased towards the better players because these are more likely to provide it through the forum etc. This is only natural even tho' the forum is exceptionally beginner-friendly.

2 Whilst Michael T is an exceptionally intelligent and interesting chap, and a charming opponent, only a complete idiot would agree to subject himself to being trampled on by his cakewalking Germans.

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: BrianG



I think the old retreat rules need to be put back asap.

This has changed a key component of game imo.

I agree.

I agree as well.

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think an alteration was required to fix loss ratio (too much focus on retreat losses previously, with none for the attacker), all it needs is just balancing.

well its good that the patch is so favourable to Pelton - but its wrecked yet another of my games - this couldn't have happened without 30+cv Pzr divisions ... and they won't have happened if this patch hadn't effectively eliminated German losses:

I just wish the altering of core game systems would stop. I don't care if after 4 iterations its more 'realistic'. As I have made clear before this endless radical patch process, tested by Pelton, has finished my interest in bothering about the WiTE campaign game. I've had to put up the 40 NM, the invincible Luftwaffe and now the invincible Pzr to see 18 months of gameplay down the drain.

Could I carry on? Yes. Can I be bothered. No

This approach to patching a mature game has lost me as an active player.

This is just ridiculous. I followed your AAR, and with your more(!) than decent play, this shouldn't be possible at all...

Well that german movement was in essence increased up too 50% on the offensive for alot of units doesnt seems to have been noticed by the community(the effect might have tho), in one of the recent changes.

Thats the reason as i gather that the german reach near the Luga now on turn 3. Totally the wrong way to go IMO. The game needs less movement not more, on both sides. The movement max seems to be modeled in the game after the first weeks advance rates that is never achieved by any of the sides at any other point in the war. Logistic certainly doesnt do any thing to stop this.
The change i mention above have a huge impact in 42 too in particular as the offensives tend to go ahead in mostly clear hex area's. Certain it doesnt help in 44 vs the invicible panzer neither, just ask Loki.

Any how to look at the current state of balance in 41 its just to look at AARs. I cant find a single AAR even by new players on german side. People that is beaten soundly by more experienced players, where Leningrad doesnt fall. Not a single case. Moscow falls in some too, but not alot.
Non the less if u at how normal distribution works. Excluding the games with new players and only looking at the games with experienced players, there is no cases of post 1.08 where u stops before historic progress. The way normal districution works u would have to see some cases of that happening too.
There is nothing wrong in that people do better than historic but by the law of distribution if it was balanced u would see some games going worse than historic. U simply dont see this.

All cases is futher than historic progress if u look at what is evaced now in all the cases its been particular mentioned in the AARs its now in all cases is less than historic. Again that not what u would expect by normal distribution if the game was balanced against historic progress.


When things consistantly goes better than comparing to comparible parameters when there is experienced players on both sides it says every thing u need to know about the state of balance of 1941.
That is not to say that there isnt other issues on both sides, but logic goes along way to tell the state of the current balance.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Well that german movement was in essence increased up too 50% on the offensive for alot of units doesnt seems to have been noticed by the community

I certainly haven't. Are you sure?

Only rule change I've noticed was that units with morale of 80 only take 2 MPs to go through unconverted clear hex, whereas before unit needed 85 morale. Still 3 for lower morale and more MP for units with much lower morale. Effect is therefore 1/3rd increase and only for a very small number of units. I suppose a few panzers might be able to make it to the Luga in 3 turns IF the Russians left a clear path, but if they can now they could before.

Those lower costs are only for infantry. For infantry 1 MP represents 10 hours 30 minutes of time, for Panzers only 3 hours 21 minutes. Whereas motorized units are faster when it comes to road movement, speed of advance into enemy territory (let's call it tactical movement) is quite slow for both and speed advantage is reduced. So 2MP for infantry means 21 hours, 3 MP for panzers just 6 hours 42 minutes. No need for infantry to be 5 times slower (31:30 vs 6:42) than panzers, 3 times is enough.

Uhhh... extensive discussion of "game balance" w/o any mention of the "difficulty" settings. Does anyone on this forum use them?

My play, Axis vs. AI, is more interesting and seems more balanced when Soviets are given a little boost to morale & transportation. Give a try and see. 100/105.

Nobody wants to use suggested ATTACK+1 for the Soviets, but all say the game is too hard on them.

I do use the +1 attack bonus and it helps especially in the later Summer turns and the blizzard. I'm still not certain about balance under this patch, but it's certainly better than the previous patch. If the Axis retreat casualties are tweaked up a bit this may be pretty close to balanced with +1, mild winter and non random weather.

I wouldn't want to play with NM 45 but I did like the lower starting morale of the previous patch. I'd be happy to see the first two turns at 45 and then up to 49 in July. This will prevent too many monster divisions forming at start and simulates the shock and awe of the first two weeks.

My Red army needs no +1. Try me sometime.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Only rule change I've noticed was that units with morale of 80 only take 2 MPs to go through unconverted clear hex, whereas before unit needed 85 morale. Still 3 for lower morale and more MP for units with much lower morale. Effect is therefore 1/3rd increase and only for a very small number of units. I suppose a few panzers might be able to make it to the Luga in 3 turns IF the Russians left a clear path, but if they can now they could before.

The effect isnt 1/3. If u have 10 MP and pays 3 MP per clear hex u can move 3 hexes. U can move 5 hexes if u pay 2 MP per hex. Thats more than a 50% increase in actual moved hexes. Now i do say up too 50% because the effect is highest in clear hexes and less but non the less real in other terrains too, with river crossings making for the least change.
AS to number of units that many starts with 85+ moral, 80+ is more frequest plus those getting above it during the campaign. Those 70 inf units moral have it much easier to get to 80 than 85. The knock of effect is once u swicthed the sides of hexes it still costs 1 per clear so the follow up movement gets effected too.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Those lower costs are only for infantry. For infantry 1 MP represents 10 hours 30 minutes of time, for Panzers only 3 hours 21 minutes. Whereas motorized units are faster when it comes to road movement, speed of advance into enemy territory (let's call it tactical movement) is quite slow for both and speed advantage is reduced. So 2MP for infantry means 21 hours, 3 MP for panzers just 6 hours 42 minutes. No need for infantry to be 5 times slower (31:30 vs 6:42) than panzers, 3 times is enough.

U used the same kind argument in regards too losses. I think that kinda thinking is flawed. ill try and explain why i think that.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Anyway, 2-3 hasty attacks represent one day of fighting. Apart from too low losses during a fighting withdrawal I think the ratios lost per day of battle are quite reasonable. You can't have so bloody battles that after few hours battle entire units would be gutted. The bigger the battle and more units engaged (sometimes an entire army), the lower the % of losses taken should be.

When u start to make math of what is humanly possible and not use what in fact in history/actual war was possible, the mesauring stick is going to be totally off. What theoritically could happen and what did happen usually is far apart and my point is its the latter that is interresting not the former or ops tempo is going out the window game wise.

Apart from special situasion u dont see for example 43+ and russian advances german unit being involved in more than 2 and more rarely 3 combat during a week/turn. Typically the number is rather 1 in my experince and from looking at AARs. Can u find examples of more than 3 or set you theoritical situasions where unit gets to be involved in more than 3 combat during a turn, sure. Non the less its not how teh game genrally plays out. Ofc u can be "stupid" and make 10 hasty attacks in the german phase too but if we discount such non sense and look at how the game actually plays out.
A situasion/disucssion like what sparked that comment was a Pz div being retreated twice in a turn. I can only say i look at that much different than a question of 16 hours or 24 hours of combat. 2 retreats or 35 km withdrawl wasnt under normal circumstances done by germans in 1943 or 1944 in 16/24 hours. Less we taking a Bagration type thing which clearly wasnt the case in the AAR and teh losses there would come from surrenders not combats.. The 2 hexes is also close to the average weekly retreat in fall of 43 so to me this rather represents close to a full week of fighting/gradual withdrawl. Futher if that is teh thot process that the combats only represent so short a time, why is the russian casulties in these changes looking at AARs twice the weekly average russian losses. If there to few "combats" as is and the ops tempo needs to be higher the russian tank losses woudl just increase even more. So it doesnt compute that the combat only represent X little amount of time with the current russian losses.

In another way if u to have a full week of fighthing having 10+ hasty attack for motorised troops to represent a full weeks of fighting, and that is used as a base for losses in the indiviual combat u going to be in actual game play always find losses to be very much lower than historic, because that never actually happen in game.


I look at in a meta way. A Pz div having retreated twice in a turn is having a very bad week and losses should be reflected in that and is not(underlinging using the word AFV not tank) at 1% permant losses for that week or u never ever gona get close to historic losses.

I see it the same with movement. The fact that u can make pockets in a week spaning over litteraly a 500+ km front with 2 pincers was never historicly done in that time span. So the pz divs might actually drive that far theortically, but as it never was done in combat/entering enemy territory. The base line should be made from what was actually in real life, with soem special rules for turn 1/2. What was possible in rela life, not what theoritically was possible.
I dont see this alone. The movement within friendly lines should be lower some how, either by less MP or activation so u dont necesarily just run out of pockets, but already in 42 things were much different and there is a reason u saw much less pocketing in 42. The reason is among other that russian reacted faster than in 41.


Before ppl start to shout about the no retreat order of 28 july 1942. They should study what happens the exact same day to the Caucasus front and what its orders was on that exact same day from STAVA/Stalin him self. Not to talk about the whole operation of said front following that.


Just about the only thing ppl have agree up on since the start of the game, is that ops tempo is to high for both sides. As logistics never really have curtailed it enough. That leaves movement is the only real way to deal with it(lessen it)in wite1.0. In that light its a bit confounding to me that a fix/alteration has been made that that increase the ops tempo. Futher if u indeed thot that movement was to low why hasnt the change been made to all sides. Why isnt it true that axis minor and RU inf should move more. As currently implimented it only have an effect on german and possibly finnish units with the effect being seen mostly in 41-42.
If it was a general thing that inf moved to little compared to motorised units why is the change so one sided?

If we wanted to study german inf movement its fairly easy. Using the Smolensk operations as a mesauring stick seems appropiate. The conditions leading up too it is easily replicated within teh game engine. In order for the operation to go ahead the motorized troops had to wait for the inf to come up. That happens in game too but the major diffiference is when in game the inf catches up and compared to in reality. As in the first turn there really is only as much u can do as russins in stopping teh germans and its standart for any experience player to arrive at teh landbridge at end the german turn 2 phase with some motorised troops. Leaving a path of all friendly hexes for those leading inf unit trying to catch. Its easily replicated in game.
Then just compare inf move in game to when it actually arrives is fairly easy. Clearly u can set up theoritically parameters inf should move X per day. Problem is history defys that, it takes longer. So that my reason not to give much for these theoritical approches to losses and movement. IMO history and giveing leway to either side of the historic yard stick is a much better measuring stick IMO. Looking at it overall i've hard time to se what justifies a increased ops tempo as the game in its current state plays out. If any thing it should be lowered significantly for both sides IMO.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

Hard to curtail ops tempo with unlimited capacity rail lines, but we're trying to do it for next patch. Losses ratio is also changed in Soviet favor, with reliability playing part. A division takes part of its losses in logistics phase as well, and this is not seen in battle reports, but if they end turn with a lot of damaged elements, every extra hex of retreat and logistics phase will cost them.
And Soviets benefit from lower entry costs for non motorized as well, it's simply a different scale that differs in some ranges.

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Only rule change I've noticed was that units with morale of 80 only take 2 MPs to go through unconverted clear hex, whereas before unit needed 85 morale. Still 3 for lower morale and more MP for units with much lower morale. Effect is therefore 1/3rd increase and only for a very small number of units. I suppose a few panzers might be able to make it to the Luga in 3 turns IF the Russians left a clear path, but if they can now they could before.

The effect isnt 1/3. If u have 10 MP and pays 3 MP per clear hex u can move 3 hexes. U can move 5 hexes if u pay 2 MP per hex. Thats more than a 50% increase in actual moved hexes. Now i do say up too 50% because the effect is highest in clear hexes and less but non the less real in other terrains too, with river crossings making for the least change.
AS to number of units that many starts with 85+ moral, 80+ is more frequest plus those getting above it during the campaign. Those 70 inf units moral have it much easier to get to 80 than 85. The knock of effect is once u swicthed the sides of hexes it still costs 1 per clear so the follow up movement gets effected too.

In practical game terms the 85 to 80 morale change makes little difference compared to many other recent changes, though obviously every little bit helps. Won't get any german infantry to the Luga by T3 though, or even any further because it takes a lot of combat to get from morale 70 to 80, or even 75 to 80. After T1 German infantry in AGN do very little fighting and just march through friendly territory until T4 or later depending how the game goes.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Only rule change I've noticed was that units with morale of 80 only take 2 MPs to go through unconverted clear hex, whereas before unit needed 85 morale. Still 3 for lower morale and more MP for units with much lower morale. Effect is therefore 1/3rd increase and only for a very small number of units. I suppose a few panzers might be able to make it to the Luga in 3 turns IF the Russians left a clear path, but if they can now they could before.

The effect isnt 1/3. If u have 10 MP and pays 3 MP per clear hex u can move 3 hexes. U can move 5 hexes if u pay 2 MP per hex. Thats more than a 50% increase in actual moved hexes. Now i do say up too 50% because the effect is highest in clear hexes and less but non the less real in other terrains too, with river crossings making for the least change.
AS to number of units that many starts with 85+ moral, 80+ is more frequest plus those getting above it during the campaign. Those 70 inf units moral have it much easier to get to 80 than 85. The knock of effect is once u swicthed the sides of hexes it still costs 1 per clear so the follow up movement gets effected too.

In practical game terms the 85 to 80 morale change makes little difference compared to many other recent changes, though obviously every little bit helps. Won't get any german infantry to the Luga by T3 though, or even any further because it takes a lot of combat to get from morale 70 to 80, or even 75 to 80. After T1 German infantry in AGN do very little fighting and just march through friendly territory until T4 or later depending how the game goes.

First off i never said that inf would be near the Luga by T3 now, i said motorized could be.

Whether its few or not so few guess is a question of matter of taste. Going from 85 to 80 has the effect that 6 or 1/3 of the inf divs from the hex line just south of Köningberg and northwards has 80 in moral so u go from about 1/3 to about 2/3 of these infs divs going up as a result of the change. Not to mention another couple of 75 moral divs that is candidates to make the leap too. In the test turn i made doing my normal combats post these changes. The 2 made the jump to 78 and 79 in turn 1 alone. Incidently 2 of the 70 moral was now 74 moral and only 2 70 moral inf divs that hadnt risen to 73 or more was those only involved in 1 or non combats. Again this was in turn 1.
In this case my experiece is a little extra can mean alot, if u just change the way you/I did thing pre this a bit. Any how one can get around this increase ops tempo then we can disagree on amount of impact we beleive it has. I dont see higher ops tempo as what is needed for the game.

Certainly its not the only thing changed their ammo and supply has been upped from 150 ish to 200% too as compared to earlier and ofcourse that helps too.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Well that german movement was in essence increased up too 50% on the offensive for alot of units doesnt seems to have been noticed by the community(the effect might have tho), in one of the recent changes.

Thats the reason as i gather that the german reach near the Luga now on turn 3. Totally the wrong way to go IMO. The game needs less movement not more, on both sides. The movement max seems to be modeled in the game after the first weeks advance rates that is never achieved by any of the sides at any other point in the war. Logistic certainly doesnt do any thing to stop this.
The change i mention above have a huge impact in 42 too in particular as the offensives tend to go ahead in mostly clear hex area's. Certain it doesnt help in 44 vs the invicible panzer neither, just ask Loki.

Any how to look at the current state of balance in 41 its just to look at AARs. I cant find a single AAR even by new players on german side. People that is beaten soundly by more experienced players, where Leningrad doesnt fall. Not a single case. Moscow falls in some too, but not alot.
Non the less if u at how normal distribution works. Excluding the games with new players and only looking at the games with experienced players, there is no cases of post 1.08 where u stops before historic progress. The way normal districution works u would have to see some cases of that happening too.
There is nothing wrong in that people do better than historic but by the law of distribution if it was balanced u would see some games going worse than historic. U simply dont see this.

All cases is futher than historic progress if u look at what is evaced now in all the cases its been particular mentioned in the AARs its now in all cases is less than historic. Again that not what u would expect by normal distribution if the game was balanced against historic progress.


When things consistantly goes better than comparing to comparible parameters when there is experienced players on both
sides it says every thing u need to know about the state of balance of 1941.
That is not to say that there isnt other issues on both sides, but logic goes along way to tell the state of the current balance.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

Your wrong - which is nothing new.

If a Good German player plays a good Russian player you get basicly historical out comes.

or what good players call a balanced game.

Sure if a Good German player plays and average Russian player he wins BUT!!!!!!!!

If you take a little time and check the AAR's which you clearly have not you will see average German players losing to Good Russian players.

Lets stick to the data and keep the fairytales for Middle Earth

Pelton vs Choas

tm.asp?m=3871507

Pelton vs BrianG
tm.asp?m=3822946

MT can win as Russian vs a good German player

and

Win as a German vs a good Russian player.

Which is old news as we all know.

Data not fairytales is what is used to balance games

ORIGINAL: Pelton

If a Good German player plays a good Russian player you get basicly historical out comes.

or what good players call a balanced game.

Now that is an assumption worth a whole thread of its own!

Sometimes you just get lucky, or unlucky, and everything turns on that. Imagine all the effort put into a game system just to recreate the fact that some commander had everything go his way, but then we call it balanced?

If we could truly recreate historical situations in our simulations, how many "successful" commanders might be shown up as mediocre or worse?

Or put another way, if Pelton had been in charge of Barbarossa would it have been a sure thing for Germany? And which version of history would be "balanced."

ORIGINAL: Pelton
...

Data not fairytales is what is used to balance games

Pelton rather than recycling your claims about 'middle-earth' and your rather idiosyncratic definition of what is 'data' I think you need to think about this last patch. Its completely unbalanced (and I am going off experience in a new game and an ongoing game plus comments from other players via PM). Its as pro-axis as some of the very early iterations (1.04?) were pro-Soviet.

You are, apparently, the main tester of these patches. Its very hard not to assume you realised how much it benefits your preferred (only) side and opted to keep quiet. Add some more wins against the unsuspecting to your win ratio and that is wonderful (for you).

This game takes around 18mths-2 years to play as a PBEM campaign. It is simply not fair on the player base to carry on releasing patches that are both massive shifts in game play and only tested for the potential gain to one side - from a comment in my AAR vs Stef78 I assume the coders/developers were unaware of what the consequences were going to be.

As I said earlier in this thread. I am giving up on WiTE - its not worth the time investment. If either the patching process comes back under control, or they are better tested, I'll rethink as it is still potentially an awesome game.

And its not an answer to say 'don't use the patches'. All that will do is (a) completely fragment the player base as you search for an opponent who only wants to use 07.15 or 08.05 or whatever; and (b), each patch contains essential changes (real bug removals or rebalancing the arbitrary changes from the last patch and so on.

Wait, so Pelton finally achieved mind control over Morvael et al.?

I went back and read the patch history after this debate. I bought the game in December thinking after several years at version 1.xx it was stable.

What a surprise then to find things as basic as national morale and weather charts still being tinkered with every few months and for no obvious reason - though to be fair perhaps the reason is on the forums from before my time. In pursuit of "balance" I surmise from comments on this thread. Just change the victory conditions by a few months and leave the engine alone. In fact, players will probably do that for you.

I'm almost with Loki about giving up but I will give it one more go. However please, stop changing the game basics chasing the unreachable "balance"! I'm investing months into another game and I think we players deserve the stability.

Or to put it more positively, tell the developers to take my £60 and go to the beach for the day. [:)]