Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

here is my two cents for what it is worth
I play german -i capture moscow - i rout the russians----i place leningrad under siege , i dig in -the winter comes -i get destroyed


????????????????????????????????????????????

Whats the point of capturing moscow -of doing anything -if UNDER EVERY circumstance -my army is destroyed in the first blizzard.
I am currently experimenting with a game where I dont actually invade the first year -if my army is destroyed by the winter in these circumstance -well, i will go back to WITPAE..............

Did you follow the guidelines provided by BigAnorak for a succesfull blizzard defense?

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

here is my two cents for what it is worth
I play german -i capture moscow - i rout the russians----i place leningrad under siege , i dig in -the winter comes -i get destroyed


????????????????????????????????????????????

Whats the point of capturing moscow -of doing anything -if UNDER EVERY circumstance -my army is destroyed in the first blizzard.

Beta 3 will help because a lot of '42 problems for Germans were TOE ones that have been sorted, and you don't have to lose your army if you play smart like Big A. We are all learning so we should all study the AARs.
Use cities to the max and you can always send troops back west to x =55 or lower iirc; it's in the manual.

[bloomstombs2]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

And of course we're going to add Hitler decisions as well?

No taking Leningrad.

No retreat come winter.

Offensive toward Maikop/Baku.

Many historians say no retreat may have saved his army (from turning into icecubes).

[Aragorn69]

Hi,

I was playing with ideas about hitler and stalin. in fact there are both of them, creating havoc in their armies. Is it possible to implement some turns events like :

Hitler want kiev. if kiev is not taken into two weeks VP - 100 (this is insentive to follow orders)

Stalin said to joukov. Take smolensk back go to offensive - if soviet player is doing less than 15 attacks across the front in this week then VP + 100.

So if we want more realism, let's introduce more variability. The more the game go on the less soviet have in terms of alea, at contrary with passing time germans are going to be more and more struggling with aleas.

Coming with that.

Hitler's said no retreats in winter. If more than 20 divisions are going west in the player turn. VP - 100 (rather hard to code this one but not impossible).

Perharps for WITE 2.0 ;o)

IMHO in winter, this not the weather alone which is killing german. This the fact that troops were obliged to fight, and worst to retreat (that's why hitler's said stop, and that's could explain the better results obtained). So tweak effects of winter in logistic a bit (ie no fight = shelter = less losses) but worsen the impact of retreats for germans after fighting. (losing shelter, tanks and guns = more losses)

This will push soviet to have strong offensives if they wanted to destroy germans troops in winter. They need to push them back relentlessly.

And this mecanism could be in effect for all winters for allieds like roumany, italy.

just an idea.

regards

[Skanvak]

So  I am the side that want realism. I will add too that balance is never an issue in game as I tend to stop playing balanced game. I have even know a pro-nazi player that love to play the german again two allied player in battle for germany (he stands not a single chance of winning anything more than a moral victory.

So, please, we have an historical simulation so don't break it, the scenario and what if can solve your balance issue or simply do two game switching side and sum up the result to know who is the better.

That being said. I do think that a very successful Barbarossa should make Russia collapse. Stalin feared that. Second, Moscow is somewhat vital to Russia economy, so taking it should have a bigger effect and impact the Russian organisation. I think it is balanced by the way the German will want to attack Moscow and other objectives more and then expose themselves more to blizzard. We already have a random weather. That should give a better start.

After I still don't know if cutting Western Ally aid and taking Baku is enough to crippled the production and use of mechanized troop as it should.

Side note about Hitler and Stalin : no, AI intervention, they are the actual "player" of the time's strategy blunder or not (the Hitler no retreat is consider a sound strategy for blizzard). Because if you add Stalin behaviour you will have to add Guderian, Manstein and other generals (even some russians) not obeying their orders and formanstein it is a whole army group (the whole Kharkov move was against Hitler orders but he gave up arguing with Manstein). Only multi for one side can simulated the problem on command and control of general staff.

[Aussiematto]

First post...gday all!

I have not yet had the chance to play a real person, but Germany is pretty easy to play against the AI - you just have to be very careful indeed about how you do things in the first three-four turns and have a little luck with the weather. In some ways, the problem is that you have to be absolutely spot on in the first month or the consequences are significant.

I have just played most of a campaign game (currently Feb 1943) and I am 12 points away from a decisive German victory. I keep waiting for it to get worse but I am murdering the computer. Maybe that is too easy? I await a PBEM opponent to show me the error of my ways.

So... what views of easy / hard when it is the computer you are playing?

[pat.casey]

I think my opinion here mirrors several others in that I think the game as currently constructed favors the soviets with two human players.

The challenge, of course, is that given the historical OOB and competent leadership on both sides, that's the "correct" outcome.

In the actual war, of course, the soviets made a series of massive operational errors in 1941, losing much of their army in the process, and very nearly managed to lose the war.

A human playing the soviets with the dual advantage of hindsight and not having just survived the purges through blind obedience will not repeat the historical soviet errors. He will trade space for time, conserve his manpower, and counterattack later once blizzard and production give him an advantage.

The older WIR games tries to model this by giving the SU a command and control mallus in 1941 wherein many of their units wouldn't follow their movement orders. While this may have worked as a balancing mechanism, it can't be any fun to play the soviet union under those circumstances so I'd recommend against it on gameplay grounds.

I'm starting to lean towards the opinion that what is really needed is an alternate start scenario that gives the axis, say, a 50% chance to win against an equally skilled human. The WITP analog would be the infamous "scenario 2". Then players could opt for either a historically accurate game (in which case I'd expect the SU to win virtually every time), or a gameplay balanced one. There's fundamentally no reason why both can't be available.

Some things I'd suggest (off the top of my head) for an "Axis Help" scenario. I'm sure some of these are dreadful ideas, and I'm also sure implementing all of them would radically imbalance the game in favor of the axis, but I'd hope at least a few might be plausible.

1) Radically reduce blizzard effect if entrenchment > 2 so if the axis slow down and take time to entrench in fall instead of grinding out just a few more hexes there will be a benefit.
2) Allow the axis to spend PP to "winterize" selected divisions.
3) Free "start" disposition (turn 0) to allow axis player to position all troops as desired rather than as was historical
4) Spanish intervention --- Spain added as a new axis minor, add, say a dozen infantry divisions
5) Total War -- bump up 1941/1942 german production levels to late 1943 levels
6) Allow axis to spend PP to "unlock" finnish divisions
7) Put OKH reserves on-map on turn 1 and make them immediately available
8) "Ost" divisions -- allow germany to spend PPs to produce a limited number of divisions out of captured soviet MP. Simulates a somewhat less insane german occupational policy that actually managed to recruit anti-soviet russians. Would also give the soviets more of a reason to defend forward if, say, each ukranian MP point captured meant more german manpower.

[Skanvak]

"3) Free "start" disposition (turn 0) to allow axis player to position all troops as desired rather than as was historical"

It is true that I'd like this option (for Russian too).

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

I think my opinion here mirrors several others in that I think the game as currently constructed favors the soviets with two human players.

Ask Emir Agic...

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

I think my opinion here mirrors several others in that I think the game as currently constructed favors the soviets with two human players.

Ask Emir Agic...

I'm not claiming the game is unwinnable as the axis, especially in a scenario where player skills are mismatched. What I am claiming is that with equally skilled players the game heavily favors the soviets.

If you assume, for sake of arguement, that a "balanced game" should result in roughly:

15% axis major victory
25% axis minor victory
20% draw
25% soviet minor victory
15% soviet major victory

Then we'd expect to see roughly this distribution of results in PBEM games being discussed in AARs. As far as I can tell there's a grand total of one Axis major victory in the AAR section and that's Emir Agic's game, and even that only made it onto the AARs because it was so unusual.

[Klydon]

I think most players continue to forget what a Axis "win" is. It is not defeating and occupying Russia, yet this is what most German players want to have not just a chance at, but a good chance at. People can argue all day long at how much of a chance the Germans actually had because there are key pieces of opinion that we just don't know about. (Case in point: the view on what would have happen if the Germans had captured either Leningrad and/or Moscow; what would have been the effect on the Russians?). The Germans finishing the game in better than historical position and "winning" has no appeal at all to most German players unfortunately. 

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I think most players continue to forget what a Axis "win" is. It is not defeating and occupying Russia, yet this is what most German players want to have not just a chance at, but a good chance at. People can argue all day long at how much of a chance the Germans actually had because there are key pieces of opinion that we just don't know about. (Case in point: the view on what would have happen if the Germans had captured either Leningrad and/or Moscow; what would have been the effect on the Russians?). The Germans finishing the game in better than historical position and "winning" has no appeal at all to most German players unfortunately. 

I think for some players you are absolutely right; beating the historical axis performance and, say, holding Berlin and Praugue into 1945 will be a "victory" and an enjoyable game.

The WITP experience though seems to indicate that, for most players, grinding out a slow defeat isn't a lot of fun. In most WITP games the "fun" goes out of the game about the time the allies take control and start grinding into Japanaese territory. As long as the Japanese are still expanding or have a viable change to stop any allied offensive, the game remains fun for both players. Once the allies break the IJN though, the game generally ends; very few AARs actually play to the invasion of Japan.

The solution in WITP (and I think its a good one) was to produce a deliberately ahistorical scenario (Scenario 2) that extended the "interesting" part of the game by giving Japan more toys in the mid-late game. Based on my highly non scientific sampling of AARs, this became by far the most popular PBEM scenario. I'm not claiming that Scenario 2 is historically accurate, merely that the evidence suggests its more fun.

Based on that, I think a WITE scenario 2 in which the axis have a decent shot at auto victory in 1941 or 1942 would be more *fun* than a historically accurate scenario in which case the axis are really doomed to do nothing but play attritional defense from 1942 on.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

I think my opinion here mirrors several others in that I think the game as currently constructed favors the soviets with two human players.

Ask Emir Agic...

I'm not claiming the game is unwinnable as the axis, especially in a scenario where player skills are mismatched. What I am claiming is that with equally skilled players the game heavily favors the soviets.

If you assume, for sake of arguement, that a "balanced game" should result in roughly:

15% axis major victory
25% axis minor victory
20% draw
25% soviet minor victory
15% soviet major victory

Then we'd expect to see roughly this distribution of results in PBEM games being discussed in AARs. As far as I can tell there's a grand total of one Axis major victory in the AAR section and that's Emir Agic's game, and even that only made it onto the AARs because it was so unusual.

I have not seen any game extending into 1945: so nobody knows how easy is to reach Berlin. Besides, I believe that the Axis in 1941 is the most difficult part of the game to master.
Many Axis players think that they cannot win if they do not have Moscow in 1941 or 1942. Therefore they surrender, perhaps prematurely?

What happens if, let's say, the line between Danzig and Krakow is a hard nut to crack?

[karonagames]

I have not seen any game extending into 1945: so nobody knows how easy is to reach Berlin. Besides, I believe that the Axis in 1941 is the most difficult part of the game to master.
Many Axis players think that they cannot win if they do not have Moscow in 1941 or 1942. Therefore they surrender, perhaps prematurely?

What happens if, let's say, the line between Danzig and Krakow is a hard nut to crack?

I think it would be a good exercise for Axis players who surrender before 1943, to take on a 1943 campaign, as this is after all the mistakes of 1941 and 42 have been made, and he has all his cool Panthers and Tigers to play with.

In my game with Flavio, where he is kicking the snot out of me, I intend to build a defensive line from Danzig to Krakow, that I will defend with everything I have.

[janh]

Good discussion here.  I can only imagine the effort that the testers and devs of this "monstrum" of a game must have gone through to dig out the truth about the blizzard effects etc. out of the history books, statistics...  And finally balance it into a mutually playable, not-to-far-from historical game. 

One thought I would like to add is that obviously the Russians can make lots of mistakes on their retreat 1941 and still survive.  At least that is the impression I gather from the latest AARs.  Surely this is right, since in contrast to the German general staff the Russians just went through the purges and their creme de la creme wasn't anymore.  So maybe it were historically correct if a German player was forced to play the blizzard phase without big mistakes to survive in proper state for a summer 1942 offensive, while a Russian player could be more of a rookie and should commit numerous errors in order to wear down the Russian bear so that a 1942 start was achieved, that was close to historical and allowed a "Case Blue". 

Could well be that the game engine simulates all this actually quite accurately -- although my impression is that the blizzard effects might be indeed a (little?) bit too permanent/severe.  But that also depends on the resources you pick to compare to as reference case, or how you treat the historical statistics (for example remember the different criteria for tank destruction vs. disablements used by OKH, Russians, book authors/historians... that leave a huge discrepancy in the number of kills vs. true losses). Surely not easy to dig out the facts with many different (re)sources as there are about WW2. 

But I can see that the ones amongst the players that would prefer to have more hope and fun when playing the Germans (or a true challenge when Russian) would like a different scenario where things would be tuned a bit more towards giving the Germans a better chance to survive the winter.

[bevans]

My main objection to what I perceive as a game slanted against Germany is the way the TOE works: SU TOEs get better with time - historically accurate and fair enough; German TOEs get much weaker - historically accurate but not fair enough. Have a great '41, survive the first winter better than most, run a successful limited offensive in '42 and don't do anything stupid in '43. The reward: your divisions will become shadows of their former selves as the designers' rigid adherence to history wreaks havoc on your divisions, especially the Pz divs. Unlike the Soviets, you don't have the option of building new divisions so you are stuck with your OB with much weakened TOEs. The Germans did not change their TOEs because it was fun but because the course of the war forced it. I sometimes think the game should have come with a 'play' button so we could watch the war unfold in the historically accurate fashion they have worked so hard to simulate. However, most of us play these games in an attempt to do better than historically or to play some what if scenarios.

So I am in the process of changing all the Axis TOEs; if I do better than historically, then my divisions in '44 and '45 will still give the Soviets a run for their money, do worse and my divisions will be shells. Note that this will give me no better chance of winning early, just not losing late. But at least there is a potential reward for doing well through '43. and fighting between the Dnepr/Daugava and Vistula/Bug in '45 will be just fine with me

[janh]

True, this little asymmetry I dislike too. The Russians have more control over optimizing their forces during the game, while the Germans got what they got.  In fact intuitively I would have designed it the other way around, to make the (weaker) Germans more competitive and allow them a better chance later.  The fair way would have been to allow both sides the same changes.

There is numerous cases in which the game design seems to suffer a little bit from adhering too strongly to the historical way, not only the TOE changes.  In fact the strong blizzard effects could perhaps be another such issue as even players that preserve the Axis forces and dig in early seem to have little chance to stop their forces from disintegrating by February (as judged from recent AARs).  Of course their is no historical reference to compare that too, but this should quite definitely lead to stronger Axis forces by 1942 than historically were after the exhausting push towards Moscow, and the Russian winter counterattacks against the depleted, undersupplied and overextended formations. Now whether much stronger or not, that can be a matter of debate and detailed study.  Yet sacrificing the Germans less in 1941 and fortifying in better lines should probably lead to strengthening. Another issue with adhering to much to history is surely the withdrawal system, which appears a little disconnected from the present progress at the front.

[Skanvak]

I can easily adhere to the TOE issue. Though Germany cannot really create a lot more division.

For the Blizzard, beyond a few adjustement, we would need a whole political option that is out of the game design.

For withdrawal, I can only disagree more. The withdrawal made by germany are mostly due to western front situation and been done without regards to the Russian front situation.

Klydon is right, the problem with defining what is a win in WWII has always been here. Victory is a political thing. If the politic (Hitler) gave an unreachable goal, should the game reflect it or give the nazi what they need to win? Should this even be corrected? Most game in this situation give Moral victory to a player if they do better that historically but still lose.

I think that part of the problem here is hindsight. The nazi had strong basis (thought they will reveal to be all false) to believe that they could win in one year (two for the most pessimistic). The general staff could I believe too that the Russian will sue for Peace (what happen is really strange, Stalin was willing to accept any peace condition IF the nazi open the diplomatic negociation first, which they never did, otherwise the nazi would have won Barbarossa like they have won the battle of France, strange isn't it).

Should we give a potential for the German believe to be true? That would correct all hindsight but create huge what-if. This goes for any wargame on WWII (even on WWI).

Should we give the German yearly objective point to reward it if he try to achieve the historical call of 1941-42, instead of only end game reward. So the German player could win even if he lost Berlin if he had succeeded its Barbarossa (The "I will be remember has the best general of history fighting a lost cause" victory).

I just wonder, if I want just to protect Berlin with the German, shouldn't it be a good idea just not to fight far from the fontier? I mean I conquer up to a good defence line if the good weather zone, then I may be try Baku to have Oil but, just, don't fight more. Would anyone tried this Full Defence Stratégy?

[karonagames]

Would anyone tried this Full Defence Stratégy?

I would if it wasn't so boring! To me the winner of any game is the player who has the most fun, and I understand many people don't find being on the defensive the most fun. Fortunately I am not one of those, and am having a fantastic time in my 1943 campaign with Flavio, desperately trying to rebuild my lines each time he smashes them into tiny pieces. Will he get to Berlin? Probably, but he will have to fight for every hex on the way.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I just wonder, if I want just to protect Berlin with the German, shouldn't it be a good idea just not to fight far from the fontier? I mean I conquer up to a good defence line if the good weather zone, then I may be try Baku to have Oil but, just, don't fight more. Would anyone tried this Full Defence Stratégy?

I don't think this would work that well from the standpoint of view that you have very little ground to retreat on. You also would not cause huge Russian casualties in 1941 along with leaving resource and population centers in their hands. On top of that, the Russian would not have to worry about evacuating industry, which at least disrupts their production for awhile. Gaining a good chunk of ground allows for a better defense in depth, the opportunity for counter attacks using space and also favorable defensive positions.