@ Devs
You guys have eluded to perhaps doing something for PBEM balance?
I am curious if anything will materialize anytime soon?
PBEM Balance query
RE: PBEM Balance query
Hi Michael,
Yep, should have a PBEM Beta patch out by the end of week, all going well, for you to test drive.
Cheers,
Cameron
Yep, should have a PBEM Beta patch out by the end of week, all going well, for you to test drive.
Cheers,
Cameron
RE: PBEM Balance query
Excellent news. A bit of a break for a refresh then back to the front lines [:)]
-
ChuckBerger
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:11 pm
RE: PBEM Balance query
[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]For what it's worth, my assessment of game balance (focus on PBEM game with good players who know the system reasonably well):
The central fact of any Eastern Front game is the seemingly endless reservoir of Russian manpower. In real life, the Germans constantly underestimated the resilience of Russia, its ability to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers and somehow keep fielding more and more armies.
In real life, Germany pocketed and destroyed army after army after army, yet each time Russia was able to somehow restore the front, rebuild their armies, and go another round. Each time the Germans thought they had inflicted the knockout blow, the Russians came back for more.
The quandry this creates for any game designer looking at the Eastern Front is that it is like a roller coaster running on a very narrow track. If the German player is unable to “keep up” with the Russian reinforcement schedule by continually chewing through vast number of Russian troops, then the Russian player quickly accumulates an unbeatable depth of forces in play. On the other hand, if the German player gets just a little ahead of schedule, he can cover vast amounts of territory, and start to simply gobble up incoming Russian reinforcements, so the Russian player can never recover.
Arguably, this is all made even harder by the fact that, in real life, the German army’s operational performance was pretty much flawless. (As opposed to their strategic planning and logistics, which left a lot to be desired) But Russia repeatedly made gravely flawed operational decisions, which a skilled human player in unlikely to repeat. So even though Germany didn't win Barbarossa, it can be said that their performance in 1941 was far better than it “should” have been, given the capabilities on either side. So the poor game designer has to either nerf the Russians artifically, or model the Russians faithfully with the result that Germany will find it very difficult going.
My point is that it’s easy for the game to snowball either way, once one of the players establishes an early advantage. And this is why almost no DC3 games go more than about 30 turns. I’ve played a lot, and have never even made it to mid-November in any game – by then, the game has snowballed in one direction or the other, and it’s over.
The game designer’s challenge is to keep the roller coaster running on the rails. What is needed are things that moderate the snowballing effect, for either side, so that it's possible to do better or worse than history, but exponentially harder to do better or worse than history the more you deviate.
The Germans should be able to take Moscow in late October through exceptionally good play, but under no circumstances should it be possible to take Moscow in August against a vaguely competent opponent. The Russians should be able to stop the Germans at Vyazma if they do well, but they probably should not be able to stop them cold at Orsha.
So what are the moderating effects?
German logistics is one such moderating effect. The further into Russia the panzers advance, the less fuel is available to them to continue. Currently, it is arguably too easy for the Germans to get around this by various means – using sustained offensive posture for the panzers, for instance. Fatigue and breakdowns are other moderating factors, but these too tend not to limit the German player too much, especially because there is no fatigue outside of blitzkrieg mode. And in most of the games I've played so far, a single refit is enough to see the Panzergruppe through the whole game. On the whole, it doesn't feel like there is enough moderating the Germans in a game that is snowballing in their favour. The fuel limits, partisans, rail re-gauging etc are all hiccups, rather than real brakes on the advance.
How about the Russians?
Well, there's really nothing to moderate the Russians in a game that starts to snowball in their favour. The reinforcements just keep accumulating, if the German player fails to keep chewing them up. This is what enabled the Russian player to “lock down” AGC in version 1.01 in some games. Stretching out the reinforcement schedule in 1.02 was an effort to fix this, but now it is possible for a good German player to blitz through to the final objectives before the Russian player even gets his conscript armies deployed.
There's also nothing to stop the Russian from abandoning vast tracts of land, preserving his troops so as to build unbeatable citadels around the 3 main objectives. In real life, the loss of industry, agriculture, and manpower of such a decision - to say nothing of the effect on morale and political stability - would have been unacceptable.
One possible solution would be to peg Russian reinforcements to the losses actually taken in the field. So the heavier the Russian losses, the more reinforcements they get – allowing them to rebuild the line multiple times, but not to accumulate an overwhelming advantage if the Germans “fall behind” a little. This makes some sense: if Russia is doing disastrously on the front, they would step up conscription, even of essential industrial personnel, as they did historically, and even draw upon forces from Far East, guarding Caucasus borders, etc. But if they are not doing quite so bad, they probably would have left some of these industrial and agricultural workers in the economy rather than at the front.
An “adaptive” reinforcement schedule for the Russians, rather than a fixed schedule, would do a lot to help stretch games out into the winter. If the Germans are doing brilliantly, the Russians should get lots of “emergency” troops to help them restore the line and keep the game going. But Russia’s field army would never reach such a massive size that there is no possibility for the Germans to continue the attack.
This would also help give the Russians an incentive to fight forward, rather than abandoning huge areas to the German advance uncontested.
Following is a list of other changes that are intended to help balance the game, and make it more interesting. It’s mostly to benefit the Russians, in terms of balance under 1.02.
- Germans shouldn’t get any benefit from captured Russian fortifications. They’d be pointing the wrong way...
- Axis Allies should be significantly reduced, especially the 2 Slovak divisions and the availability of Romanians without restriction for the full campaign. Romania’s commitment was limited, just like the Finns – they didn’t go “all in” until 1942. German AGS should feel very stretched thin by the time they get to Kharkov/Rostov.
- Fix/delete Siege Artillery “Death Star”. I like the idea, but the truth is that siege artillery had no appreciable effect on any Eastern front battle in 1941. Not even Brest-Litovsk, where the huge Karl mortars fired all of 31 rounds, with not much effect on the defenders. B-L fortress fell after savage house-to-house fighting, with heavy losses on both sides. Flamethrowers, stukas, and close assault troops carried the day, the siege mortars had nothing to do with it.
- Remove the ability of armies to retain Blitzkrieg card benefits, even after switching to sustained offensive.
- Rebalance Romanian front and shift start date to Turn 3.
- Fix Finnish activation and Russian border garrison rules.
- Change +AP movement card for sustained offensive armies. If the German player wants to switch to sustained offensive to save fuel, he shouldn’t be able to use a card that gets his focus army extra AP. For armies in sustained offensive, the card options should be +morale, -fatigue, or a small +att (but less than blitz)
- Remove Soviet ability to resupply by sea in the Baltic, but give them a one-off evacuation card useable at a major port.
- Give Soviets ability to move units by sea in the Black sea, between any ports (including German controlled but unoccupied ones), and ability for supply to flow to hexes surrounding a port.
- Make Sevastopol a major city.
- Change High Octane fuel – this is a bit of a fanciful card, I like it but the stacking AP bonus with other bonuses is overpowered. Have it give a strong reduction in the chance of mechanical breakdowns and perhaps a small attack bonus. A “high octane” panzer division would be more reliable and perhaps some small tactical benefit of greater top speed, but it wouldn’t give the whole division more operational speed.
- Give Russians free major garrisons, or reduce the cost. If these garrisons are meant to represent naval troops, NKVD forces, local workers brigades, etc, then they should always be present. To force the Russian player to pay a steep PP cost to pay for troops that are already there seems strange. At a minimum, each of the 3 objectives should always have a major garrison.
[/font]
Apologies all for the long post, I think it's my last word on the subject for a while!
The central fact of any Eastern Front game is the seemingly endless reservoir of Russian manpower. In real life, the Germans constantly underestimated the resilience of Russia, its ability to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers and somehow keep fielding more and more armies.
In real life, Germany pocketed and destroyed army after army after army, yet each time Russia was able to somehow restore the front, rebuild their armies, and go another round. Each time the Germans thought they had inflicted the knockout blow, the Russians came back for more.
The quandry this creates for any game designer looking at the Eastern Front is that it is like a roller coaster running on a very narrow track. If the German player is unable to “keep up” with the Russian reinforcement schedule by continually chewing through vast number of Russian troops, then the Russian player quickly accumulates an unbeatable depth of forces in play. On the other hand, if the German player gets just a little ahead of schedule, he can cover vast amounts of territory, and start to simply gobble up incoming Russian reinforcements, so the Russian player can never recover.
Arguably, this is all made even harder by the fact that, in real life, the German army’s operational performance was pretty much flawless. (As opposed to their strategic planning and logistics, which left a lot to be desired) But Russia repeatedly made gravely flawed operational decisions, which a skilled human player in unlikely to repeat. So even though Germany didn't win Barbarossa, it can be said that their performance in 1941 was far better than it “should” have been, given the capabilities on either side. So the poor game designer has to either nerf the Russians artifically, or model the Russians faithfully with the result that Germany will find it very difficult going.
My point is that it’s easy for the game to snowball either way, once one of the players establishes an early advantage. And this is why almost no DC3 games go more than about 30 turns. I’ve played a lot, and have never even made it to mid-November in any game – by then, the game has snowballed in one direction or the other, and it’s over.
The game designer’s challenge is to keep the roller coaster running on the rails. What is needed are things that moderate the snowballing effect, for either side, so that it's possible to do better or worse than history, but exponentially harder to do better or worse than history the more you deviate.
The Germans should be able to take Moscow in late October through exceptionally good play, but under no circumstances should it be possible to take Moscow in August against a vaguely competent opponent. The Russians should be able to stop the Germans at Vyazma if they do well, but they probably should not be able to stop them cold at Orsha.
So what are the moderating effects?
German logistics is one such moderating effect. The further into Russia the panzers advance, the less fuel is available to them to continue. Currently, it is arguably too easy for the Germans to get around this by various means – using sustained offensive posture for the panzers, for instance. Fatigue and breakdowns are other moderating factors, but these too tend not to limit the German player too much, especially because there is no fatigue outside of blitzkrieg mode. And in most of the games I've played so far, a single refit is enough to see the Panzergruppe through the whole game. On the whole, it doesn't feel like there is enough moderating the Germans in a game that is snowballing in their favour. The fuel limits, partisans, rail re-gauging etc are all hiccups, rather than real brakes on the advance.
How about the Russians?
Well, there's really nothing to moderate the Russians in a game that starts to snowball in their favour. The reinforcements just keep accumulating, if the German player fails to keep chewing them up. This is what enabled the Russian player to “lock down” AGC in version 1.01 in some games. Stretching out the reinforcement schedule in 1.02 was an effort to fix this, but now it is possible for a good German player to blitz through to the final objectives before the Russian player even gets his conscript armies deployed.
There's also nothing to stop the Russian from abandoning vast tracts of land, preserving his troops so as to build unbeatable citadels around the 3 main objectives. In real life, the loss of industry, agriculture, and manpower of such a decision - to say nothing of the effect on morale and political stability - would have been unacceptable.
One possible solution would be to peg Russian reinforcements to the losses actually taken in the field. So the heavier the Russian losses, the more reinforcements they get – allowing them to rebuild the line multiple times, but not to accumulate an overwhelming advantage if the Germans “fall behind” a little. This makes some sense: if Russia is doing disastrously on the front, they would step up conscription, even of essential industrial personnel, as they did historically, and even draw upon forces from Far East, guarding Caucasus borders, etc. But if they are not doing quite so bad, they probably would have left some of these industrial and agricultural workers in the economy rather than at the front.
An “adaptive” reinforcement schedule for the Russians, rather than a fixed schedule, would do a lot to help stretch games out into the winter. If the Germans are doing brilliantly, the Russians should get lots of “emergency” troops to help them restore the line and keep the game going. But Russia’s field army would never reach such a massive size that there is no possibility for the Germans to continue the attack.
This would also help give the Russians an incentive to fight forward, rather than abandoning huge areas to the German advance uncontested.
Following is a list of other changes that are intended to help balance the game, and make it more interesting. It’s mostly to benefit the Russians, in terms of balance under 1.02.
- Germans shouldn’t get any benefit from captured Russian fortifications. They’d be pointing the wrong way...
- Axis Allies should be significantly reduced, especially the 2 Slovak divisions and the availability of Romanians without restriction for the full campaign. Romania’s commitment was limited, just like the Finns – they didn’t go “all in” until 1942. German AGS should feel very stretched thin by the time they get to Kharkov/Rostov.
- Fix/delete Siege Artillery “Death Star”. I like the idea, but the truth is that siege artillery had no appreciable effect on any Eastern front battle in 1941. Not even Brest-Litovsk, where the huge Karl mortars fired all of 31 rounds, with not much effect on the defenders. B-L fortress fell after savage house-to-house fighting, with heavy losses on both sides. Flamethrowers, stukas, and close assault troops carried the day, the siege mortars had nothing to do with it.
- Remove the ability of armies to retain Blitzkrieg card benefits, even after switching to sustained offensive.
- Rebalance Romanian front and shift start date to Turn 3.
- Fix Finnish activation and Russian border garrison rules.
- Change +AP movement card for sustained offensive armies. If the German player wants to switch to sustained offensive to save fuel, he shouldn’t be able to use a card that gets his focus army extra AP. For armies in sustained offensive, the card options should be +morale, -fatigue, or a small +att (but less than blitz)
- Remove Soviet ability to resupply by sea in the Baltic, but give them a one-off evacuation card useable at a major port.
- Give Soviets ability to move units by sea in the Black sea, between any ports (including German controlled but unoccupied ones), and ability for supply to flow to hexes surrounding a port.
- Make Sevastopol a major city.
- Change High Octane fuel – this is a bit of a fanciful card, I like it but the stacking AP bonus with other bonuses is overpowered. Have it give a strong reduction in the chance of mechanical breakdowns and perhaps a small attack bonus. A “high octane” panzer division would be more reliable and perhaps some small tactical benefit of greater top speed, but it wouldn’t give the whole division more operational speed.
- Give Russians free major garrisons, or reduce the cost. If these garrisons are meant to represent naval troops, NKVD forces, local workers brigades, etc, then they should always be present. To force the Russian player to pay a steep PP cost to pay for troops that are already there seems strange. At a minimum, each of the 3 objectives should always have a major garrison.
[/font]
Apologies all for the long post, I think it's my last word on the subject for a while!
RE: PBEM Balance query
it is actually easy to deal with large numbers of soviet reinforcements. Ammo. The soviets had a terrible time with keeping troops supplied with ammo. You can have all the troops that you want, but supplying them is another thing.
RE: PBEM Balance query
Good suggestions in this thread.
-
Tweedledumb
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:35 am
- Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
RE: PBEM Balance query
Good post, Chuck.
I don't necessarily agree with all your ideas, but what I do hope is that this game sells enough copies over the next few years that Vic and Cameron can keep tweaking the specifics of the game's engine and parameters so that we're all happier with the game play, balance and historicity. I think we all agree that this game is VERY fun to play, highly immersive, challenging, and quite simply a brilliant design.
I think that most of the "issues" with the game can be solved by having many more selectable "options" at Game Start so that we, the players, can adjust perceived "issues" in our play circles. Don't like the siege artillery? Give us an option to get rid of it at start. Another example, let us choose when the Rumanians are activated - Turn 1,3,5, whatever. I have argued for a "selectable" set of choices on Soviet Reinforcement Schedule at Game Start.
I really hope that Vic and Cameron don't try and make the "perfect" one-size-fits-all set of game parameters. What they have created is a brilliant "toolbox" for gaming/simulating Operation Barbarossa. Just give the players the ability to pull a few more levers at the start and we're good to go!
I don't necessarily agree with all your ideas, but what I do hope is that this game sells enough copies over the next few years that Vic and Cameron can keep tweaking the specifics of the game's engine and parameters so that we're all happier with the game play, balance and historicity. I think we all agree that this game is VERY fun to play, highly immersive, challenging, and quite simply a brilliant design.
I think that most of the "issues" with the game can be solved by having many more selectable "options" at Game Start so that we, the players, can adjust perceived "issues" in our play circles. Don't like the siege artillery? Give us an option to get rid of it at start. Another example, let us choose when the Rumanians are activated - Turn 1,3,5, whatever. I have argued for a "selectable" set of choices on Soviet Reinforcement Schedule at Game Start.
I really hope that Vic and Cameron don't try and make the "perfect" one-size-fits-all set of game parameters. What they have created is a brilliant "toolbox" for gaming/simulating Operation Barbarossa. Just give the players the ability to pull a few more levers at the start and we're good to go!
RE: PBEM Balance query
I like RCHs idea, dc2 had stavka supply income at 75% of max supply usage. Make something similar but with an absolute number instead of relative maximum use. Maybe enough to support 1M troops at max supply usage, also increasing with time (or cards?) but decreasing with lost towns to encourage forward defence. Then have a reinforcement schedule like 1.01 or something but now the soviets would have to throttle their placement of new armies if they haven't lost a lot.
RE: PBEM Balance query
IMO lots of options are a good thing. Let the two opponents negotiate their game and get going. So like minded people can be happy playing each other.
-
Tweedledumb
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:35 am
- Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
RE: PBEM Balance query
ORIGINAL: Michael T
IMO lots of options are a good thing. Let the two opponents negotiate their game and get going. So like minded people can be happy playing each other.
Completely agree, Michael.
-
FeurerKrieg
- Posts: 3400
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:43 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
RE: PBEM Balance query
Lot's of great ideas, Chuck. I especially like this one -
while I'm not sure casualties alone are the best mechanism (maybe hex columns and casualties combined), the overall concept is one I really like. It works well in WITP with the emergency reinforcements in India, Australia, or the US for the Allies, and the Vietnam and Home Island militias for Japan. If Germany is being held at the border, why would Russia continue to mobilize at the maximum rate possible?
An “adaptive” reinforcement schedule for the Russians, rather than a fixed schedule, would do a lot to help stretch games out into the winter. If the Germans are doing brilliantly, the Russians should get lots of “emergency” troops to help them restore the line and keep the game going. But Russia’s field army would never reach such a massive size that there is no possibility for the Germans to continue the attack.
while I'm not sure casualties alone are the best mechanism (maybe hex columns and casualties combined), the overall concept is one I really like. It works well in WITP with the emergency reinforcements in India, Australia, or the US for the Allies, and the Vietnam and Home Island militias for Japan. If Germany is being held at the border, why would Russia continue to mobilize at the maximum rate possible?
RE: PBEM Balance query
ORIGINAL: RCH
it is actually easy to deal with large numbers of soviet reinforcements. Ammo. The soviets had a terrible time with keeping troops supplied with ammo. You can have all the troops that you want, but supplying them is another thing.
ChuckBerger
I like many of ChuckBerger suggestions, but this one from RCH is also great and realistic. Most accounts show that Soviet ammo production tanked in 1941 and the Red Army suffered serious artillery shells shortages until at least early 42 (see W.S Dunn's Stalin' keys to victory). This would make for an easy 'at start' option to add, something like 'realistic soviet ammo shortages' that would enrich the game, giving the Soviet commander more 'operational things' to worry about. This within a more general perspective of game balance of course.
RE: PBEM Balance query
Hi Chuckberger,
Thanks for the detailed post. Good analysis of the design problem.
Cheers,
Cameron
Thanks for the detailed post. Good analysis of the design problem.
Cheers,
Cameron
RE: PBEM Balance query
I don't like games that 'auto balance' if one side gets ahead, I don't play them. If a player does well enough to gain an advantage he should keep it. Otherwise why bother trying? Suggestions like getting more troops if you are losing should be placed in the 'handicap options' if there is one. This suggestion smells like a hidden 'helper' to me. So why not just add some more 'helper' options (eg more armies) if that's what people want. PBEM games are a test of skill between human minds. To the victor go the spoils. Propping up an inferior position with extra troops that would not normally materialize belong in the realm of AI play IMHO.
I want games to go the distance as well. But through closely matched skill levels. Not 'bail me out' packages.
I want games to go the distance as well. But through closely matched skill levels. Not 'bail me out' packages.
-
FeurerKrieg
- Posts: 3400
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:43 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
RE: PBEM Balance query
I'm not suggesting more than what came along historically. I'm just thinking, if the Germans are not doing so well (relative to historical performance) then maybe the Russians would have a slightly less urgent deployment. Maybe they wouldn't, I don't know.
My opinion is that that the Soviets pulled out all the stops to mobilize everyone they could because the German's advanced so fast and wiped out so many pockets. Perhaps they would not have mobilized as quickly or as many if the Germans had been less successful.
My opinion is that that the Soviets pulled out all the stops to mobilize everyone they could because the German's advanced so fast and wiped out so many pockets. Perhaps they would not have mobilized as quickly or as many if the Germans had been less successful.
-
FeurerKrieg
- Posts: 3400
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:43 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
RE: PBEM Balance query
The other approach, which I also like, is to match VP's against historical performance. So if the Germans and Russians hold similar amounts of territory to what they held historically at the end of the game, then it is draw. Whichever side moves the needle better than historical wins by minor or major margins.
RE: PBEM Balance query
The other approach, which I also like, is to match VP's against historical performance. So if the Germans and Russians hold similar amounts of territory to what they held historically at the end of the game, then it is draw. Whichever side moves the needle better than historical wins by minor or major margins
The above I like.
But as for the Russian reinforcement schedule changing depending on German progress, well in all honesty any German player beyond novice status should wipe out the Soviet frontier armies as occurred historically, which set in motion the panic in the Kremlin and the subsequent mass mobilization. Whether the German is then capable of breaching/circumnavigating/nullifying the Iron Wall is then what half the game is about. It should be a test of operational and logistical skill. Not getting leg ups if one side or the other starts to fail.
-
FeurerKrieg
- Posts: 3400
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:43 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
RE: PBEM Balance query
Hmmm, if, as you say, any decent player should be able to wipe out the frontier armies, then perhaps the game should have an optional scenario that starts a bit farther along in the campaign. Then the PBEM folks could play out the part that actually matters.
-
ChuckBerger
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:11 pm
RE: PBEM Balance query
I want games to go the distance as well. But through closely matched skill levels. Not 'bail me out' packages.
Hi Michael, yes good point. I too want a game that doesn't artificially prop up one side. But I also want a game that isn't decided in the first dozen turns, as every single PBEM game in the AARs currently has been (with maybe one exception). I want a game that at least has a chance of going into winter, and that doesn't lead to wildly unrealistic outcomes either way, like panzers in Red Square and Romanians partying in Sevastopol in early August...
The problem isn't wild mismatches in player skill, it's that advantages tend to snowball rapidly in this game, even with evenly-matched opponents, such that it's almost always over by August. Of course the more skillful player should prevail, but right now too much rides on the outcome of the first few turns.
What I'm proposing isn't giving one side a crutch, I think of it more as a game system that is designed to dampen rather than accentuate small advantages through dynamic - but still realistic - adjustments. I'm groping around for a solution here... no doubt there are others! My only real point is that there is nothing inherently "realistic" about a fixed reinforcement schedule. It's not unreasonable to think that reinforcements for both sides would have been different if actual historical performance was appreciably better or worse than actually happened.
Cheers mate
RE: PBEM Balance query
But what you propose at the end of the day equates to 'helping' one player and not the other. The better player (assuming he gains the advantage) will always be 'handicapped' in any dynamic adjustment that favors the player who is deemed to be struggling by the algorithm you devise. And then, given the better player again gains enough of an advantage further on, he will then be penalized again by the dynamic adjustments, and so on. And it is entirely possible that in the end the lessor player will attain an undeserved result by either surviving for a draw or even worse winning. I guess if the 'journey' is your prime motivation for playing then this is ok. But from my perspective most PBEMer's are by nature competitive and seek a fair end result.
In my experience any game that has hundreds of units to move and many other in game decisions to be made will always spiral quickly in favor of the better player (assuming a balanced game). The answer is to start with a balanced game (which IMO DC3 is not at this time) and play people of equivalent skill. Then you will see games progress much longer. If the game is balanced and evenly matched games still result in the early demise of one side or the other the problem would most likely be in the victory conditions. Which in my opinion is quite likely in DC3, as so much is tied to just one objective. The victory conditions need to add much more weight to Victory Points.
If VP actually were a valuable currency in winning the game then it would be possible to implement a system like you suggest. The player feeling the pinch could sacrifice a number of VP (like the current helpers) in order to gain some short term help to get past a hump, which on balance would make it harder for him to win but easier to get to the end of the game without complete capitulation. But again I would hope this kind of thing is optional. As if you end up playing an opponent who is hopelessly outclassed then it's best to end the thing quickly anyway.
In my experience any game that has hundreds of units to move and many other in game decisions to be made will always spiral quickly in favor of the better player (assuming a balanced game). The answer is to start with a balanced game (which IMO DC3 is not at this time) and play people of equivalent skill. Then you will see games progress much longer. If the game is balanced and evenly matched games still result in the early demise of one side or the other the problem would most likely be in the victory conditions. Which in my opinion is quite likely in DC3, as so much is tied to just one objective. The victory conditions need to add much more weight to Victory Points.
If VP actually were a valuable currency in winning the game then it would be possible to implement a system like you suggest. The player feeling the pinch could sacrifice a number of VP (like the current helpers) in order to gain some short term help to get past a hump, which on balance would make it harder for him to win but easier to get to the end of the game without complete capitulation. But again I would hope this kind of thing is optional. As if you end up playing an opponent who is hopelessly outclassed then it's best to end the thing quickly anyway.