Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion G

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.

warspite1

+1

Please Vic, make whatever aesthetic changes and similar are required BUT please please please do not make changes to game balance this early.

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance - and others will soon work out what to do.

Making life easier for the German makes no sense at this stage.

[Falke]

Captured fortification bug causing fortifications to disappear once taken fixed

Does this fix require a complete restart?

In a save created in 1.02F , after upgrading to 1.02g it still occurs (Structural Points set to Nil)

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: Falke

Captured fortification bug causing fortifications to disappear once taken fixed

Does this fix require a complete restart?

In a save created in 1.02F , after upgrading to 1.02g it still occurs (Structural Points set to Nil)

yes, fixed only in new games...

regards

[Tweedledumb]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.

Just making sure, but you're talking about games against humans, i.e. PBEM?

[Flaviusx]

Yes, PBEM. Which is altogether a different animal than playing the AI. Although I personally already beat the Soviet AI on normal as the German even in 1.01, and am therefore kind of scratching my head a bit over all these Soviet nerfs even from a single player experience. This can already be done as is.

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

(...)

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance

(...)

Why no-one thinks about the German players that don't know what they are doing, like me ?...[:D]

(PS: kidding of course. [:)])

Anyhow, one way or the other, it's too soon IMHO to make definite statements about play balance, specially vs AI, as most gamers play.
Personally, I am in an ongoing campaign started with 1.02. It's mid October. I captured Leningrad, Rostov and Kharkov, but stalled just east of Orsha, and now I'm knee-deep in mud everywhere and fearing for the worst...
And losses, both mine (c. 1200000 men) and soviets (c. 3000000) are appalling...Many of my panzer divisions are reduced to 5 or 10 tanks...3rd PG is a crawling skeleton...Trucks failing everywhere...[X(]

I am also somewhat interested in seeing some more feedback from game metrics from Vic

Regards

[Tweedledumb]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.

warspite1

+1

Please Vic, make whatever aesthetic changes and similar are required BUT please please please do not make changes to game balance this early.

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance - and others will soon work out what to do.

Making life easier for the German makes no sense at this stage.

Are we talking about PBEM or versus AI here? "the Soviet has no chance"

[WingedIncubus]

PBEM.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Franciscus

ORIGINAL: warspite1

(...)

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance

(...)

Why no-one thinks about the German players that don't know what they are doing, like me ?...[:D]

Regards

warspite1

Have a look at my AAR's - I have no idea what I am doing either. But the experiences of one or two isn't the point.

Fact is, in my German vs Soviet game I have made at least two MASSIVE mistakes as the German, but am sill knocking on the gates of the three main cities near the end. In my Soviet vs German game I have simply been crushed (there are other words to describe it [:D]) by someone who is a very, very good wargamer and knows how to play these games.

I am really concerned such a fine game with soooo much promise will go the way of say, CTGW. That too was a fine game on release, but they completely mucked up the patches and play balance such that the game was effectively unplayable (no idea if they ever fixed it as I cannot even get the game to run anymore).

This game is too damn good for that.

[WingedIncubus]

I'd say at least revert the soviet reinforcement back to 1.01. The changes to Soviet cards' PP costs were fine, IMHO.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Tweedledumb

Play Balance via Reinforcement Scheduling - Some Ideas[/b]

Vic and Cameron, thank you for your ongoing support of this brilliant paradigm-breaking design.

My PBEM buddy and I bought this along with DC1 and 2 during the holiday sales. We decided to play DC1 first as it appeared the most approachable game in the series. What we discovered in Poland was that a reasonable human player could make a VERY challenging defense of Warsaw. My point is that a human player can defend much more competently than any AI (even Vic's excellent one). Nothing new there.

We've played portions of about 8 PBEM++ games using 1.01 over the last two weeks. In all the games we have discovered that the German side, as the manual warns, is more challenging as many things can go off the rails (pun intended). Also, the Soviet Central Front reinforcements lead to a veritable wall of divisions from Gomel to Polotsk and shut down AGC's advance to a crawl. AGN and AGS have "possibilities" for German strategic success and the Soviets are definitely stressed (particularly in the South). In the one set of two games (we always play German/Soviet at the same time to compare and contrast experiences) which went into September, the forests and swamps south of Leningrad were also wall-to-wall Soviets.

I'm not claiming that in two weeks we are expert German players, but a quick review of the forums here seems to confirm some of this experience. I applaud the experts like Michael T for testing out some of the best German possibilities! I think my buddy and I are more "average" players.

We have just started up a set of 1.02f games today and note that this version adjusts the Soviet Central Front reinforcements. This is great! We'll see how the games progress with this and the other changes (the adjusted AGN start and the Soviet "randomized" starting positions are great additions).

The other thing I noted in the forums, particularly Vic's posts, is that 95% of the people are playing against the AI only, and most of those are playing the German side. This makes sense to me. Then the light bulb popped on...

Why not provide the players with several Soviet reinforcement options?

Here's my logic for this:

Human (PBEM) players will be able to defend MUCH more competently and use the Soviet decsions far more effectively than any AI - agree? To "balance" the game and make it challenging for the majority of players (playing Germans against the AI) will not necessarily produced a "balanced" game between two expert human players - agree? So why not provide a series of reinforcement options for the Soviets as a "balancing" feature?

I throw out for discussion five possible reinforcement schedules:

1. Rapid Soviet mobilization (the hardest - for players who can beat the 1.01 AI easily)
2. Improved Soviet mobilization (harder - a challenge for players who have beat the 1.01 AI))
3. Standard Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.01)
4. Slower Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.02f - to avoid the wall syndrome above)
5. Poor Soviet mobilization (the ultimate challenge for the expert human Soviet player!)

Of course there could be a million variants on this and I would love to see more than 5, but you get the idea, I hope. The amount of programming to make these variants I presume would be minimal.

My suggestion, basically, is that rather than trying to "lock in" a one-size-fits-all Soviet reinforcement schedule, that you investigate using this mechanic as a play balance tool. My assertion is that a Soviet reinforcement schedule which works to balance an AI game will NOT be the same as one which balances a PBEM game.

I'll certainly report on how our 1.02f PBEM games progress as compared to our 1.01 experience. I think throwing out these reinforcement options to the public would give you A LOT of feedback on play balance both PBEM and against the AI.

Thanks again for this design, which I posted elsewhere that I thought was the BEST computer wargame of all time, and for considering this feedback.

+1 With the caveats mentioned in the recent posts (I agree that the game should not be balanced for the best players, the real Wehrmacht was not able to run a 100% optimized campaign) I think this option has potential. My only concern is that the game be 'realistic' when the armies arrive at the historical time (and then easier/harder for the red army if they arrive earlier/later).

Here 'arrive' means 'at full TOE, supplied and able to fight', as represented in the game, which is obviously later than when the Army HQ was established. The problem the engine faces is that in reality Armies took some time to form, and did not arriver with all their divisions fully formed. So deciding the turn when they are placed on the map and fully supplied requires some compromise.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Drakken

I'd say at least revert the soviet reinforcement back to 1.01. The changes to Soviet cards' PP costs were fine, IMHO.

I strongly dislike the increase in cost to the defensive posture card and believe that it is now a cost ineffective play. It's now a 60 PP investment to reduce defensive posture costs to 0. By the time you get that, it won't matter anymore.

35 PPs to reduce costs to 5 PPs is doable but also means you really won't use defensive posture except for a handful of armies. Is that really worth it?

Conscript armies have a rough time of it without said posture, at least down south where the terrain is open for the most part.

I predict that most players will not even bother with it now. You're better off spending those PPs on CC increases. (The price of which also went up, but is global in effect and helps you out immediately without time consuming posture changes, which can fail on a die roll.)

[WingedIncubus]

So what would you propose to improve the lasting plyability of the Soviet side, flavius?

a) Return the Soviet PPs and reinforcements back to what they were in 1.01?
b) Activation bonus for Armies in the South sector?
c) Nerfing of the siege artillery card?

[Flaviusx]

I think the reinforcement schedule in 1.01 is too accelerated, and in 1.02 is too slow. Ideal would be somewhere in the middle. Card changes are fine except for the defense posture card.

And yes, I think the armies in the south should have a bias in favor of activation. Kirponos historically was somewhat on alert here and not caught nearly as flatfooted as elsewhere. You can achieve this same effect only by throwing all your command resources at the south, maybe that is the design intention. Against a first class German opponent you have almost no real choice but to throw everything at the south, because otherwise the German will gobble it all up in 3-4 turns. South unlike the North and Center can't afford to lose all that stuff, given the long front, lack of terrain features, and general worthlessness of conscripts in the open. You need to husband the regulars down there.

The siege guns need some kind of constraints while allowing them to take out lesser value targets. Otherwise the German will be hung up with sieges all over the map, and that's not right, either. Riga and Odessa in particular can be a pain to clear. But I win cards on Leningrad and Moscow are silly, yes. These aren't tactical nukes for crying out loud.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think the reinforcement schedule in 1.01 is too accelerated, and in 1.02 is too slow.

But, shouldn't the armies arrive roughly when they actually arrived ? Is that the problem? That in 1.01 Stavka armies arrive earlier than what happened historically?
Then what you suggest is great. Also, finding when they first engaged in combat with their full(ish) OOB is easy to find.

Otherwise by arbitrarily altering the arrival of Red Army reinforcements you would not be improving the game, just twisting it to compensate for other perhaps less obvious shortcomings.

[Speedysteve]

Agree with Flav's points

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The siege guns need some kind of constraints while allowing them to take out lesser value targets. Otherwise the German will be hung up with sieges all over the map, and that's not right, either. Riga and Odessa in particular can be a pain to clear. But I win cards on Leningrad and Moscow are silly, yes. These aren't tactical nukes for crying out loud.

The funny thing is, neither Odessa nor Riga were taken using siege guns. The first was taken early in the campaign due to lack of a strong garrison (so maybe a C&C problem of the Red Army). Odessa cost the Rumanian army 100,000 casualties and fell October 19, 1941 after a 70 days siege, almost 20 turns in game terms! The only mention of `heavy' artillery I have seen says it was used in August, obviously to not great effect. Odessa, was WWI warfare.

What I am saying is : to my knowledge there is no historical reference to the use of siege guns to take any minor russian city in 1941. Sevastopol was taken in 1942 using siege guns because it had serious fortifications where it made sense to use them.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The siege guns need some kind of constraints while allowing them to take out lesser value targets. Otherwise the German will be hung up with sieges all over the map, and that's not right, either. Riga and Odessa in particular can be a pain to clear. But I win cards on Leningrad and Moscow are silly, yes. These aren't tactical nukes for crying out loud.

The funny thing is, neither Odessa nor Riga were taken using siege guns. The first was taken early in the campaign due to lack of a strong garrison (so maybe a C&C problem of the Red Army). Odessa cost the Rumanian army 100,000 casualties and fell October 19, 1941 after a 70 days siege, almost 20 turns in game terms! The only mention of `heavy' artillery I have seen says it was used in August, obviously to not great effect. Odessa, was WWI warfare.

What I am saying is : to my knowledge there is no historical reference to the use of siege guns to take any minor russian city in 1941. Sevastopol was taken in 1942 using siege guns because it had serious fortifications where it made sense to use them.

warspite1

Odessa wasn't really 'taken' at all. The Soviets abandoned the city by sea right under the Romanian and German noses....

[Tweedledumb]

I throw out for discussion five possible reinforcement schedules:

1. Rapid Soviet mobilization (the hardest - for players who can beat the 1.01 AI easily)
2. Improved Soviet mobilization (harder - a challenge for players who have beat the 1.01 AI))
3. Standard Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.01)
4. Slower Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.02f - to avoid the wall syndrome above)
5. Poor Soviet mobilization (the ultimate challenge for the expert human Soviet player!)

This type of discussion is exactly what I'd hoped would evolve!

Some folks like 1.01 some 1.02 etc... Why not give the players the opportunity to CHOOSE the reinforcement schedules or even the PP costs of some Soviet cards in order to balance the game in their play circles?

I don't have the experience that the grognards have to give an absolute perfect answer to which is the correct version, I'm just suggesting to Vic and Cameron that they use the reinforcment schedules and/or Soviet Card PP costs as options for the players NOT hard-wired permanently in the hope of miraculously finding a perfect balance for both PBEM and AI play for every level of player!

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think the reinforcement schedule in 1.01 is too accelerated, and in 1.02 is too slow.

But, shouldn't the armies arrive roughly when they actually arrived ? Is that the problem? That in 1.01 Stavka armies arrive earlier than what happened historically?
Then what you suggest is great. Also, finding when they first engaged in combat with their full(ish) OOB is easy to find.

Otherwise by arbitrarily altering the arrival of Red Army reinforcements you would not be improving the game, just twisting it to compensate for other perhaps less obvious shortcomings.

Dates of arrival here are very approximate regardless, as is their location of arrival.

I'm more interested in overall effect here than strict accuracy. This isn't that kind of game, and since armies are treated as generic blocs in this game, meh. If you want to get into the weeds here, you'd be doing it by division, the divisions themselves wouldn't be portrayed as they are in this game, you'd need a replacement system, blah blah blah.

If I want that kind of jazz, I'll fire up WITE. Some imprecision is not only allowable in a game like this, it's part of its charm.