Game Out of Balance

[Oshawott]

The game has the tendency to go out of balance. In my opinion this is mostly a problem for the Germans because it is very hard to play the Germans. But if the Russians make enough mistakes the game turns completely in favor of the Germans in 42. In this game I took 2.2 mio POW in 41 and reduced blizzard was a cakewalk. The result is that the situation in 42 is completely absurd and quite frankly very dull for both sides. This is T56. Not sure how to fix the balancing problems.

[loki100]

I think there are two fundamental issues - one is the existence of a lot of 'rich get richer' loops in the game. So if the Soviets do an (unrealistic) wall of steel defense in 1941 there is no solution. Equally after a (unrealistic) massive Lvov opening the Soviets will just never recover.

With the mild blizzard we are seeing more games with German wins in 1942 from a relatively balanced position at the end of 1941 (so not just a case of taking the last few VPs etc). Its clear that the dynamics of the revised winter gives a better game and better simulation but has consequences.

From observation I'm not sure if the problem is lax logistics or Soviet players not reacting to the new threat.

With HQBU and rail lines near the front, its clear the opening German offensives come spring/summer can be game winning. So one solution may be to reduce the logistics level (for both sides) and find a Soviet compensation (to stop the wall of steel if the Germans are slowed in 41). Whether this is a morale hit (as I'm trying with SigUp) or to lower the Soviet transportation level which is one I quite like - it should reduce the speed of factory evacs (so more small pockets) and limit Soviet mobility in 42-43.

The other part is that Soviet players may need to rethink their initial summer of 1942 tactics. In the main enough of a front line to delay but then secondary and tertiary lines well back so they can't in turn be breached. With forces to counterattack so as to hit exposed panzers hard. 3 tank corps stacked give 8-9 CV even in June 42, so you potentially have the tools. To make this work, I think you need to engage in raising a lot more new formations than players have got used to.

So I think you are basically right, but do think there are tools embedded in the game engine and a need to seriously rethink Soviet deployment for the critical phase of 1942.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

The game has the tendency to go out of balance. In my opinion this is mostly a problem for the Germans because it is very hard to play the Germans. But if the Russians make enough mistakes the game turns completely in favor of the Germans in 42. In this game I took 2.2 mio POW in 41 and reduced blizzard was a cakewalk. The result is that the situation in 42 is completely absurd and quite frankly very dull for both sides. This is T56. Not sure how to fix the balancing problems.

Is this against a human or AI? Not sure that the game has ever been "balanced" against the AI unless help is given.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: loki100

I think there are two fundamental issues - one is the existence of a lot of 'rich get richer' loops in the game. So if the Soviets do an (unrealistic) wall of steel defense in 1941 there is no solution. Equally after a (unrealistic) massive Lvov opening the Soviets will just never recover.

With the mild blizzard we are seeing more games with German wins in 1942 from a relatively balanced position at the end of 1941 (so not just a case of taking the last few VPs etc). Its clear that the dynamics of the revised winter gives a better game and better simulation but has consequences.

From observation I'm not sure if the problem is lax logistics or Soviet players not reacting to the new threat.

With HQBU and rail lines near the front, its clear the opening German offensives come spring/summer can be game winning. So one solution may be to reduce the logistics level (for both sides) and find a Soviet compensation (to stop the wall of steel if the Germans are slowed in 41). Whether this is a morale hit (as I'm trying with SigUp) or to lower the Soviet transportation level which is one I quite like - it should reduce the speed of factory evacs (so more small pockets) and limit Soviet mobility in 42-43.

The other part is that Soviet players may need to rethink their initial summer of 1942 tactics. In the main enough of a front line to delay but then secondary and tertiary lines well back so they can't in turn be breached. With forces to counterattack so as to hit exposed panzers hard. 3 tank corps stacked give 8-9 CV even in June 42, so you potentially have the tools. To make this work, I think you need to engage in raising a lot more new formations than players have got used to.

So I think you are basically right, but do think there are tools embedded in the game engine and a need to seriously rethink Soviet deployment for the critical phase of 1942.

One problem is that so much of this is very, very case dependent so its really hard to draw conclusions without a full blown AAR - where/when did the Russian player stop in winter '41 is huge...were his forces properly dispositioned in '42...did he utilize tank and cavalry corps in reserve (critical IMO in 42), etc. etc. Really tough to draw any conclusions from a screenshot.

[NotOneStepBack]

Honestly this has been an issue since the game was first released. I'm afraid that after years of playing (and it is a great game, for what it is) it will never be fixed. As others have said, mistakes and rewards build up over time in WITE, and small issues snowball out of control by '42 - '43.

WITE in my opinion misses the forest for the trees. It's great that I know how many Sdkfz's I have in whatever unit and whatever model, but it doesn't help me know the larger, more important strategic problems which have plagued the game from the start.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

One problem is that so much of this is very, very case dependent so its really hard to draw conclusions without a full blown AAR - where/when did the Russian player stop in winter '41 is huge...were his forces properly dispositioned in '42...did he utilize tank and cavalry corps in reserve (critical IMO in 42), etc. etc. Really tough to draw any conclusions from a screenshot.

aye, fully agree, when SigUp is ready to resume I want to use our current game to experiment a bit in seeing if it is possible to set up to avoid the worst of this. I think in a balanced game, the summer/autumn of 1942 is going to be grim for the Soviet player (as it should be) but I think a couple of the recent AARs have seen too much put into the immediate front line.

My instinct is, in the south, the front should be the regular units and anything decent kept well back.

good thing is that the consequences of the mild blizzard has shifted attention from how to gain even more from turn 1 back to a discussion of the most effective strategy for a large part of the game.

[Tarhunnas]

The game lacks self-balancing mechanisms, both from a realism standpoint and from a game standpoint. This could be improved pretty easily. Some suggestions:

* More stringent and restrictive supply rules. Apart from being realistic, it will rein in successful offensives.

* The Soviets could get say 20% of destroyed units back for free in 1942. This would make it easier for the Soviets to recover if they are roughly handled in 1942. There is no realism ground for this, but neither is there for the AP crunch being the way to defeat the Soviet army.

* There could be a self balancing mechanism that increases replacements for a side that is faring badly. This would simulate more attention to the Eastern Front for the Germans, and perhaps increased mobilisation and lend lease for the Soviets. Not necessarily realistic, but then the replacement numbers for the Soviets are far below what was actually mobilised in the real campaign.

I wish as much attention had been placed on balance issues and victory conditions as has been put into researching every single obscure volksturmgrenadier laundry battalion and its OOB, things might have been better IMHO.

[Michael T]

I wish as much attention had been placed on balance issues and victory conditions as has been put into researching every single obscure volksturmgrenadier laundry battalion and its OOB, things might have been better IMHO.

Agreed. But this is the way of GG games in general.

[jwolf]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
volksturmgrenadier laundry battalion

I'll be very disappointed if this unit doesn't appear in WITE2. [:D]

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
volksturmgrenadier laundry battalion

I'll be very disappointed if this unit doesn't appear in WITE2. [:D]

If you join the test team for WitE 2.0, I'm sure you can get it in there. [:)]

As for WitE 2.0, we are hopeful that our new more restrictive rail/logistics system we are working with in WitW will improve things in that area.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

The game has the tendency to go out of balance. In my opinion this is mostly a problem for the Germans because it is very hard to play the Germans. But if the Russians make enough mistakes the game turns completely in favor of the Germans in 42. In this game I took 2.2 mio POW in 41 and reduced blizzard was a cakewalk. The result is that the situation in 42 is completely absurd and quite frankly very dull for both sides. This is T56. Not sure how to fix the balancing problems.

Forgive me, I only just bought the game in the half price sale a couple of weeks ago, and am just playing Road to Kiev vs AI. However, you appear to be commenting that if the Germans do significantly better in 1941 than history, they will be in a winning position during 1942. I am not clear what the issue is... you have beaten the Russians, and they are collapsing? What am I missing?

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
* The Soviets could get say 20% of destroyed units back for free in 1942. This would make it easier for the Soviets to recover if they are roughly handled in 1942. There is no realism ground for this, but neither is there for the AP crunch being the way to defeat the Soviet army.

I think a more comprehensive solution is to simply include historical Russian reinforcements, rather than relying on user created units. Not an easy task as the Russian order of battle is monstrous and confusing, but there's a chance something or another along these lines can be in place for 2.0. I think the AP crunch Russian players face is far too unrealistic as far as it concerns unit creation. Unit creation should essentially be taken out of the AP sphere.

[Oshawott]

Forgive me, I only just bought the game in the half price sale a couple of weeks ago, and am just playing Road to Kiev vs AI. However, you appear to be commenting that if the Germans do significantly better in 1941 than history, they will be in a winning position during 1942. I am not clear what the issue is... you have beaten the Russians, and they are collapsing? What am I missing?

You are correct that a player who understands the rules should always be able to defeat a player who doesn't understand the rules. This is particularly true in regards to logistics. However, the screenshot shows that an Axis player is able to encircle aprox. 100 Russian units (many units in the first pocket have already been destroyed) in the space of 2 turns in June of 1942 without using HQ buildup.

Even if the Germans had done much better in 41 then they actually did they would have never been able to achieve anything like this simply because of logistical restraints.

BTW, don't worry too much about my comment. You made a great purchase and will have lots of fun with this game.

[Oshawott]

* More stringent and restrictive supply rules. Apart from being realistic, it will rein in successful offensives.

I totally agree with this. The further east the Axis goes the more restrictive supply should be. How can 1 rail line supply an entire army group without restrictions?

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

* More stringent and restrictive supply rules. Apart from being realistic, it will rein in successful offensives.

I totally agree with this. The further east the Axis goes the more restrictive supply should be. How can 1 rail line supply an entire army group without restrictions?

Careful what you wish for - I agree supply is unrealistic but in a vacuum it will also make Soviet late war offensives against a competent German difficult as well. If supply/logistics are toned down forts seriously need a reduction as well.

[Gabriel B.]

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

* More stringent and restrictive supply rules. Apart from being realistic, it will rein in successful offensives.

I totally agree with this. The further east the Axis goes the more restrictive supply should be. How can 1 rail line supply an entire army group without restrictions?

It is not a matter of rail capacity but bridging the gap between the railhead and combat troops with trucks.

200 divisions /5 repair units = 40 divisions per railhead.

At full capacity a double track rail can deliver 10,800 tons/day (24 trains) .

With 31 infantry divisions ( receiving 200 tons/day) +9 tank divisionS (511 tons/day ), the requirement is meet.

[morvael]

The further east the Axis goes the more restrictive supply should be.

There is axis rail modifier, so this is taken care of (but maybe too lightly).

It is not a matter of rail capacity but bridging the gap between the railhead and combat troops with trucks.

At certain times it was the rail net that failed the Germans (for example October-November 1941), when they ran as little as 33-50% of the required trains per day. Of course their truck capacity in the game is grossly inflated. They entered Russia with 20 000 tons of truck capacity (that would be 10k trucks in the pool) and soon had 50% damaged. Which means they could support only one army group of the three.

[Tarhunnas]

Regardless of theoretical numbers, the Germans had to prioritize in 1942, putting a large part of the Ostheer in more or less static mode to be able to attack in the South. Even so, the Stalingrad offensive was run on a shoestring with frequent halts due to supply difficulties. This is not reflected at all in WITE, were the Germans can attack happily all over the front with all motorized and armored divisions they have werever they want.

Similarly, later in the war, the Soviets can in WITE conduct a constant grind against the Germans without any of the supply breakdowns that tended to hobble Soviet offensives, and without the characteristic tempo of offensives and pauses to build up that was a feature of the later phase of the war.

WITE seems to track every single ton of supplies used, but apparently makes no use of all these numbers that has any discernible impact on the game.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

WITE seems to track every single ton of supplies used, but apparently makes no use of all these numbers that has any discernible impact on the game.

It's not a question of making no use - the problem is that the single major limiting factor on supply is the distance of a unit from a railhead. So whilst the supplies are tracked the information is largely irrelevant.

The WitE system with any functioning rail providing almost unlimited supply is utterly unrealistic and can be linked to so many of the problems identified in game balance. Joel's comments on the WitW system are spot on but the need to think more logistically may not be to everyone's liking. I just wish I was allowed to share some more of the detail.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
...the need to think more logistically may not be to everyone's liking.

That is probably true, but that could be solved with game options for more or less restrictive supply rules.