Next qualitative leap for WitE

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

What in the world is fun about playing the soviet side with crazy Lvov pocket and Hq muling laid out in an almost idiots guide to screw the soviets in 41'? What?

Because the Soviets will recover if they don't make a mistake and be domininant by 42. Remember, Germans had enough juice in 42 to fight all the way to Stalingrad, far east side of the map. Can't happen in this game if the soviets don't make futher mistakes in 41. Not even close.

Tophat, Soviets players run away because of Lvov pocket. A fine and effective strategy. It's scary to think about what would happen to the Germans without Lvov, barring other changes to the game.

FYI, mules not only are unrealistic they swing the game in the favor of Germans in the right hands. I've been clear in all my frustrated posts today that I don't mule. Without muling and INCLUDING the Lvov pocket, it's extremely tough for the Germans. So much so, that game is frustration.

Indeed. I fairly agree with a number of Michael T's gripes and observations myself. And yes my frustrations have taken me from feeling this was an excellent game down to a good one.

[vicberg]

Yes, the Soviet are funner. Why?

1) You can create SUs and tailer your armies.
2) You can create guard units and shock armies
3) They seems to have many more additional AP points to play with and more flexibility
4) You can make a few mistakes and still win

Germans have to play perfect and with FOW being so extreme, as well as hasty attack limitations, no recon or probe attack ability, unit bombing on begining of turn only, Soviet production incredibly strong if you don't smash it somehow, the game is SO out of balance it is to be believed.

Using mules is the balancing mechanism, though I'm tempted to find out in detail what BigA does, to make this game playable. Right now, I don't think it is, unless you find a Soviet opponent who gives the German player chances in 41.

Not going to buy WITW. If they can't get this game right, not going to waste more money. Besides, Gary's games are too extreme in general and take years to correct (see WITPAE). Don't feel like waiting around.

[vicberg]

No worries guys.

This game isn't going to change. I'm not sure I'm going to buy another matrix game, not at least until it's been out a long time and there's LOTS of forum posts about it. They can't seem to create a balanced game, at least coming from Gary, sorry Gary, you are a brilliant designer, but your desire for variance is too extreme and I have no idea why you create games that one side can't win. Why bother?

So, I'll move on.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

What? How in the world if we are diametrically opposed on Hq muling and the lvov exploit can we for the most part be in agreement? The game is anything but balanced with those two items in the mix. The lvov nonsense causes the soviet southern front to disintegrate and forces the runaway scenario many axis players complain about.

And yes i have enjoyed playing the soviets.

I've played the game since its release and poured over the aars from beta to the present. I'm disturbed at the level of partisan bickering that seems to now be habit for more and more players. I'm not trying to single you out or start an argument and i regret my use of the bs meter comment as a sign of my frustration with what I perhaps blindly consider a very good game. Without some house rules or really knowing my opponent wouldn't go gamey on me there is no way I'd invest the time and effort to play this game multi-player now and that really bothers me. My apologies for the rant.

Speaking of the BS meter going off, here we go.

Make all the case you want for muling and far more of the community will agree with you. It is "gamey" and deserves to be looked at with a remedy because it further circumvents an already too generous logistics system. I am confident that at some point in the future, this will be addressed and fixed.

The Lvov opening on the other hand is another matter. Make a logical and reasonable argument on why it should not be possible. It seems you (and others who want to remove the Lvov option) have absolutely no issue at all with what happens in the AGC area where the Germans not only make a deeper thrust, but it is through terrain that is not as open as what is available in the south.

That in a nutshell is the crux of the issue. How do you justify a nerf on the Lvov opening while allowing the drive on Minsk just on the grounds that it was "historical".

I would like to think the Lvov operation won't be nerfed, but who knows. Personally, I think it would be a mistake. Players deciding to play "house rules" not to do it is fine with me as well, depending on what other house rules may be involved as well.

[entwood]

You won't get the Dev's to admit to any fundamental imbalances. An imbalance is ok in my book. The Axis have to win fast or not win at all. Once into 1942, there is the United States to deal with, starting to lose the U-boat war, Italy faltering, German economy, more and more garrison requirements in occupied areas, bombing of Germany, and all the other outside influences.


If I had a 10% chance to win as the Axis that would still be fun for me. If there is a glimmer of hope, it is just to to fix or overcome as much of the remaining gamey, funky, unrealistic, and other problems and issues that even the most notable players like Pelton and MichealT are not shy about stating.

[vicberg]

Yes, they mule. It's the balancing mechansim to this otherwise imbalanced game.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

No worries guys.

This game isn't going to change. I'm not sure I'm going to buy another matrix game, not at least until it's been out a long time and there's LOTS of forum posts about it. They can't seem to create a balanced game, at least coming from Gary, sorry Gary, you are a brilliant designer, but your desire for variance is too extreme and I have no idea why you create games that one side can't win. Why bother?

So, I'll move on.

Your option on all of this of course although I would disagree about about one side being unable to win in this game, depending on your definition of "winning". An outright German win should be fairly rare. A German marginal victory as defined by the rules does not appear to be that tough right now between two fairly equal players from what I have seen.

I can't really think of any Pacific WW2 game (computer or board) that doesn't use some sort of victory point total to define victory, because the Japanese "winning" the war isn't going to happen under almost any circumstance.

[vicberg]

No Klydon, I don't believe that "not losing" can happen if you dont' do enough damage in 41. Period.

Game will be over by 43 at best. The games that have lasted to 44 or 45 are the result of Soviet mistakes (or German mules) that have allowed the Germans to survive. The snowball affect in 41, for the Germans, either damaging production or encircling units, allows the game to continue. Otherwise, the game is heavily pro-soviet.

Soviet players are getting wise to the game and preventing a 41 that allows the game to continue, even with Lvov pocket or Leningrad being absurdly easy to take.

[Klydon]

It is not just 41 on the offensive for the Germans, but what happens over the winter and into the spring/early summer of 42. I have seen several AARs where the Germans make some serious hay in the spring/summer of 42. It also depends on how much territory the Russians have lost. A lot of games are featuring at least the loss of Leningrad and Moscow probably falls more often than not if the Germans make it somewhat of a priority. If the Germans have done well in the south too, the Russians find themselves short on manpower, perhaps a bit low on armaments and a long way to go to Berlin against a stronger than historical Axis army.

I don't have a feel for how common the mule stuff is. I know some Germans used it all the time. I never have.

Most Russians have run for the hills for a long, long time so that is nothing new. They don't really have a choice to a point and are not penalized by it very harshly in game terms. Same deal for the Germans in the winter. There is simply no penalty for pulling back, so the Russians find it extremely difficult to inflict any meaningful damage on the Axis armies during the winter. The fear of a spring offensive will often cause a Russian offensive to come to a premature halt.

[vicberg]

Well, there is a penalty for the Germans running. They get out of their forts, lose troops and the all important morale. They are depleted by 42.

Your are pointing out exactly the issue. The Germans making hay in 41. Against a good opponent isn't going to happen. FOW, hasty attacks, no probe attacks, silly recon, etc. prevents a decent German offensive without mules from turns 4 on until the railheads catch up, which is usually too late as the Soviets have formed their defenses behind good fortifications.

I keep saying mules, because it really is the balancing mechanism. I haven't found another solution. BigA has another solution, but I really need to see his movements from first turn. If Soviets make mistakes, then Klydon, you are right. The game can last until 45. If the Soviets don't make mistakes, then no chance for Germans. That's my point. The game isn't balanced.

Quite frankly, if the German goals are Leningrad, Smolensk, Kiev and the west of Denpr, WTF, that should be ok to continue a fight into 42, but it isn't. That's the problem. The Soviet production is way overpowered, forcing the Germans to capture production or encircle units in 41 or die.

Sorry, but my experience against and playing Russians in the winter is different. They can attack and should. The 1-1 becoming 2-1 rule is enough.

[Guru]

As a matter of fact, I must admit that I have, along with my 3 or 4 usual opponents, given up on the game for the moment. It's not even the problem of balance, strictly speaking - it's just that we bought WithE because we enjoy historical simulations, and that, with all due respect for the devs' and the designers'admirable work in many aspects, and the unavoidable( and therefore perfectly acceptable) distortions/simplifications that arise from squeezing reality into a computer game equation, well, it doesn't feel right...
It's a bit as if I were playing a game pitching the Gallic hordes vs the Roman invader, and that the Gauls were able to conduct an orderly and gradual retreat, protected by a disciplined screen of rearguard skirmishers backed by a line of tortuga formations. That might have been a smarter thing to do, but that simply ISN'T a Gallic army. Whichever side I would play, it would still amount to a very unsatisfying game experience.
As I explained earlier, the army conducting the skillful orderly retreat that we witness most commonly (not to mention such intricated defensive niceties such as "carpet" or "checkerboard", which border on system exploitation) simply IS NOT the Red Army of 1941.
The Red Army of 1941 was INTRINSICALLY not able to perform that.

All we're waiting for (and I admit we might be in for a very long wait) is some sort of mechanism that places certain Soviet HQs on "counterattackattack mode" - I mean, fundamentally, it's no different that have HQs on "frozen mode"! Frozen units had legs and wheels, their status merely reflects unpreparedness, confusion, friction, whatever. Those defending player omnipotence should have rebelled against that ("Hey, I'm in charge, what prevents me from giving these damn frozen units the ORDER to move on?")

About omnipotence/omniscience, I remember a Clash of Arms game that is still pretty much acclaimed as a fine piece of work ("Edelweiss", on the Caucasus campaign) that contained a mechanism for asking permission to retreat, to abandon bridgeheads, etc. Rather than frustrating or unpleasantly constraining the game, it actually added an additional layer of challenge and made for an extremely rewarding game experience.

Of course, such system as I recommend would strongly tilt the balance in the Germans' favour, and I think it could be compensated by putting the Germans on a shorter supply leash (as I do not seem to be the only one to deem Axis logistics overgenerous) and by somewhat shortening the most extreme spectrum of unfavourable results for Soviet counterattacks (as I mentioned before, the couple of dead German soldiers vs zillions of Russian men and AFV). If not in term of losses, in term of loss of readiness for the attacked, which in turn will reduce their movement points total - as a effect of the delay inflicted upon them.

A note on the Lvov opening: I do consider it a lesser problem. It basically derives from the fac that the German player has access to the Soviet set-up at start, which certainly wasn't the case in reality and doesn't happen later in the game because of the FOW rules. I am therefore in favour of a limited randomness in Soviet initial placement of some units in order to prevent that.

Muling and Lvov openings might be seen by some as necessary features in order to give the Germans a chance, but I sincerely believe that compensating unrealistic advantages on one side with unrealistic advantages on the other is not a good solution.

I have been waiting for so long for this game, and it is pretty good in many ways, what a shame to see players drop out like that [:(]

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
I don't have a feel for how common the mule stuff is. I know some Germans used it all the time. I never have.
Most Russians have run for the hills for a long, long time so that is nothing new. They don't really have a choice to a point and are not penalized by it very harshly in game terms.

Mulling is quite useful. I combine it with shifting divisions between corps in alternating fashion for PzGrp 1, which can accelerate the pace (at a few bad dice rolls in combat, but the Germans usually over-match the Russians anyways).

The bill comes later through the penalty on supply across the whole front, but I find compared to the penalty that 1st blizzard rules already enforce, it doesn't make a big difference. Then, however, I tend to advance with the Axis until the least possible moment and usually do not prepare forts and defenses for winter, just like they did back then, which forces me to retreat with the Axis in winter. Sometimes I even rail out the best units to Germany.

Without forts, I have not yet managed to stand my ground with blizzard rules, even using reserve orders and stacking units 3 high in every 2nd hex just as Q-Ball did. It is the Soviet summer retreat all over, exact same thing -- too weak to fight while risking very dire consequences. In one case, the blizzard rules change the balance dramatically, in the other the defender is already quite powerless, and further curtailed by the large 1st turn pockets.

[jaw]

If the Soviets don't make mistakes, then no chance for Germans. That's my point. The game isn't balanced.

But that's just it, the Soviets DID make mistakes, enormous mistakes, and without those mistakes the Germans would have done much worse than they did historically. We have already factored into the game a great many disadvantages for the Soviet player to make his task as difficult as possible. Here are some examples:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

[Guru]

If the Soviets don't make mistakes, then no chance for Germans. That's my point. The game isn't balanced.

But that's just it, the Soviets DID make mistakes, enormous mistakes, and without those mistakes the Germans would have done much worse than they did historically.
[...]
For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

It is probable that the Germans had little chance of actually prevailing in this gigantic clash (and their handicaps are no less factored into their representation in the game); however, from the game's point of view, this must be dealt by the Victory conditions, where Victory should not be defined as forcing the enemy's surrender, but rather outperforming significantly one's historical counterpart, without necessarily an ultimately victorious outcome.
Without such a perspective, it would be impossible to create viable and enjoyable games for assymetrical campaigns such as, for example, France 1940.
For me (and my pals) it is really the question of the physiognomy of the conflict that caused our disaffection; it is precisely the Soviet Army's ability to totally disregard its historical doctrinal conditioning and operational capabilities that appears to me as "historical fantasy"...

[vicberg]

Jaw,

There's nothing I disagree with. The soviet army is under huge disadvantages. You need to forget history or there will be no one playing this game in short order. Looking at this thread, plus private PMs I've received, many people have stopped playing it because it is so unbalanced. That's a mistake at a business level for Matrix, a game design level and of course programming and delivery.

I'm not buying the danube expansion nor WITW. They couldn't balance this game, why think it will be balanced in other games? That's bad business and will impact sales of this series.

Game vs. history. I'm not buying history. If I want to buy history, I'll buy a book. It's cheaper also. I'm buying a game that's fun to play, not just the first year.

[RCHarmon]

h

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Guru

If the Soviets don't make mistakes, then no chance for Germans. That's my point. The game isn't balanced.

But that's just it, the Soviets DID make mistakes, enormous mistakes, and without those mistakes the Germans would have done much worse than they did historically.
[...]
For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

It is probable that the Germans had little chance of actually prevailing in this gigantic clash (and their handicaps are no less factored into their representation in the game); however, from the game's point of view, this must be dealt by the Victory conditions, where Victory should not be defined as forcing the enemy's surrender, but rather outperforming significantly one's historical counterpart, without necessarily an ultimately victorious outcome.
Without such a perspective, it would be impossible to create viable and enjoyable games for assymetrical campaigns such as, for example, France 1940.
For me (and my pals) it is really the question of the physiognomy of the conflict that caused our disaffection; it is precisely the Soviet Army's ability to totally disregard its historical doctrinal conditioning and operational capabilities that appears to me as "historical fantasy"...

But YOU the player is doing that not the game. Try getting past the ego thing about who wins and who loses and play the Soviet side the way the Soviets fought the war then come back and tell me it was no fun.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: Guru

It is probable that the Germans had little chance of actually prevailing in this gigantic clash (and their handicaps are no less factored into their representation in the game); however, from the game's point of view, this must be dealt by the Victory conditions, where Victory should not be defined as forcing the enemy's surrender, but rather outperforming significantly one's historical counterpart, without necessarily an ultimately victorious outcome.
Without such a perspective, it would be impossible to create viable and enjoyable games for assymetrical campaigns such as, for example, France 1940.
For me (and my pals) it is really the question of the physiognomy of the conflict that caused our disaffection; it is precisely the Soviet Army's ability to totally disregard its historical doctrinal conditioning and operational capabilities that appears to me as "historical fantasy"...

First, I have to get a dictionary out and look up half these words.

Jaw, he's not saying the Soviets have to play historically. He's talking about this as a game, playable by both sides. It has nothing to do with winning or losing. I has to do with having fun.

There are elements of the combat mechanics that lead to great frustration because FOW is so extreme, too extreme. Variance in CV is too extreme and if the Germans are medicore in 41, they get slammed in 42. That's not the case with Soviets. The soviets can survive anything other than a disasterous 41, and even then, can still have a competitive game. Look at Pelton vs. M60A3TTS. M60 had a terrible 41, but the game is still competitive. The germans can't have a mediocre 41. This is where the game is wildly out of balance, frustrating and not fun.

It has nothing to do with ultimately winning or losing. It has to do with having a competitive game that lasts into 43 and 44 that ISN'T 100% reliant upon perfect German play in 41.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

[Jaw, he's not saying the Soviets have to play historically. He's talking about this as a game, playable by both sides. It has nothing to do with winning or losing. I has to do with having fun.

There are elements of the combat mechanics that lead to great frustration because FOW is so extreme, too extreme. Variance in CV is too extreme and if the Germans are medicore in 41, they get slammed in 42. That's not the case with Soviets. The soviets can survive anything other than a disasterous 41, and even then, can still have a competitive game. Look at Pelton vs. M60A3TTS. M60 had a terrible 41, but the game is still competitive. The germans can't have a mediocre 41. This is where the game is wildly out of balance, frustrating and not fun.

It has nothing to do with ultimately winning or losing. It has to do with having a competitive game that lasts into 43 and 44 that ISN'T 100% reliant upon perfect German play in 41.

He's saying the game should force the Soviet player to counterattack in 1941 irrespective of the fact the German player will be optimizing is play to make those counterattacks as meaningless as possible. If you examine the actual times the Soviets counterattacked in any force before the winter of 1941 you will see that these attacks were launched to exploit vulnerabilities created when the Germans over-extended themselves. In most games it is rare for the German player to run such risks therefore the Soviet player has few if any opportunities to counterattack. People keep saying they want a game not a book but then ask for rules to force players to play historically. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

As for your other objections: FOW, don't like it, turn it off. I played board games for years without FOW and they played just fine. With a game of this size I don't think FOW even matters. No FOW would also help a little with CV variance although I personally have never found it to be a significant problem. It is true the German player can't afford to play anything less than a good game in 1941 but if he can't perform well when he has his greatest advantage versus the Soviet, things are not going to get better later. If you have a bad Barbarossa, you concede and start over.

The historical Germans were not "competitive" in 1943 let alone 1944 and from a correlation of forces perspective they weren't even competitive in 1942. Operation Blue owes much of its early success to Soviet under-estimation of German strength resulting in the failed Spring offensive at Kharkov and STAVKA's reluctance to accept that the German strategic objective for 1942 was not Moscow. If either player goes conservative in 1942 you are just not going to get a very exciting game. In both 1941 and 1942 both sides have to go all out for victory to get the kind of dynamics that happened historically.

Once you get past 1942 you are in to one of either two types of games: either the Axis player has greatly exceeded his historical success which means he has won and continued play would only lead to ahistorical distortions, or he has done no better, or more likely worse, than history and his defeat is only a matter of time. Neither of these situations are much fun to play, but the game is designed more for the latter than the former.

[vicberg]

Jaw,

I understand what you saying.

Now you have to look at what 2by3 did with WITPAE. They added ahistorical capabilities to the Japanese that keep them competitive until 1944. Everything from ASW to Pilot quality to Air frame production. Not historical in the slightest, because by 43, the allied subs had already torched the Japanese Merchant Marine. Because it is competitive, you'll see 40-50 AARs going on at any given time, minimum, not including those choosing not to AAR, compared with maybe 5-10 going on here on this forum, with the majority of them being Pelton.

When I posted for a game, I must have received at least 15 PMs. It tells me that a lot of people want to play, just a very few of them German.