Where are my Mules? (Muling)

[hfarrish]

U can ofc argue that with "more" russian stuff more steam rolling will happen and im not in disagreement with that, but its a strawman arguement. Instead of tackling the real issue, steaming rolling, u try and focus on a 2ndary issue to stop steamrolling, well at leased one way of the steamrolling, not so much the other way.

So sorry, but i reject this as a case for the problems in game [:(]

Rasmus

I second this - I have always felt the real issue (which applies to the Germans as well but especially to the Soviets on the offense) is the lack of logistical constraints on the offensive. As multiple people have posted over time the Soviet army put together by players tends to be smaller in terms of combat units than historical; the steamroll is caused by a lack of logistical contraints, IIRC

[vicberg]

Walloc,

I'm somewhat confused. The goal is to balance the game. History may not relevent. Where does steam rolling come from? Having too many units on the board. Where are those units coming from? Production and being railed to the front. I don't see how it can be anything else? Realize that this is in spite of Lvov, Lgrad, etc., scary to think what would be happening right now without them.

Please understand that nothing I'm stating is a binary and needs to be tinkered with within the context of the game to create a more balanced game overall. If you want to focus on OOB, fine, reduce manpower or don't allow manpower to escape. Will that stop what's happening in 41? No. It will still be fairly easy to checkerboard or carpet a defense and prevent anything even resembling a historical German 41, unless the Soviets make a major mistake, because rail allows both movement of troops and factories pretty easily.

There's consensus, for the most part, that something needs to be done. Offer up suggestions.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

U can ofc argue that with "more" russian stuff more steam rolling will happen and im not in disagreement with that, but its a strawman arguement. Instead of tackling the real issue, steaming rolling, u try and focus on a 2ndary issue to stop steamrolling, well at leased one way of the steamrolling, not so much the other way.

So sorry, but i reject this as a case for the problems in game [:(]

Rasmus

I second this - I have always felt the real issue (which applies to the Germans as well but especially to the Soviets on the offense) is the lack of logistical constraints on the offensive. As multiple people have posted over time the Soviet army put together by players tends to be smaller in terms of combat units than historical; the steamroll is caused by a lack of logistical contraints, IIRC

+1

[vicberg]

Well, it's been pretty clearly stated that no major changes like a logistical overhaul are going to happen. They have to be smaller changes.

Do nothing to the game right now and it will die eventually, IMO. Germans players are finding the same thing happening now, game after game. It's frustrating and dull, unless of course you mule, which is what this thread is about.

Sooo....other ideas?

[hfarrish]

I would be personally in favor at this point of limiting the blizzard impacts further (such as additional benefits for dug in German units or higher defensive CVs) in exchange for randomizing Soviet start points (or similar measures that would limit opening gambits). I like changes that move the game closer to historical impacts (which these likely would) as opposed to doing easier to implement, but potentially ahistorical, balancing such as simply cutting rail or cutting manpower.

Of course, I'm of the view that the game has been vastly improved (through the balance of the changes) since when I started playing it and would far prefer the devs focus on bigger, longer-term fixes (such as the air war and logistics) than more balancing tweaks here and there. A year ago, it was very difficult to impossible for German players to beat historical 41 gains...maybe not everyone is doing it now but plenty of players can capture Leningrad and even Moscow without muling...

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: comsolut

It is often the victory conditions that make a game interesting and playable, even an unbalanced situation can be made interesting to play with well thought out and balanced victory conditions. The tragedy with WITE is that the game itself is good, but somehow uneven, with some areas immensely complex and almost overdone (the air war), and others underdeveloped, for example the victory conditions in the GCs (supply is another one).

Between two evenly matched players (when does that really happen):

1941 victory conditions will not solve anything - I can see German players trying for that last hex - coming up short and then getting crushed in the Blizzard - and giving up. And since they are alreay giving up no improvement.

Now - 1942 and the Russian Army is too strong - that seems to be the complaint and maybe the reality. So with house rules against muling and the first turn Lvov pocket drive to Rumania, maybe manpower numbers for Russia need to be lowered for 1942 and spread out into 43 and 44.

The goal, imho, is to get good contests in 1942 where if the German player does well he sets up a good position for 43 and 44, and if the Russian player does well he gets to Berlin earlier.

------

Besides running away in 41, although my opponents will testify I tend to fight for most of the ground, how many Russians really exhaust themselves attacking in the Blizzard. I know I do not. I figure 42 will be tough so I conserve strength (not to mention preparing multiple defensive lines to fall back to) and maybe that is leading to higher Russian OOB numbers.

I think you misunderstand VP as I envision them. Its not an all or nothing, the German gets that last hex and boom! he wins, yay, pawned, woot, etc. Or misses it by 10 miles and now he is dead in the water, toast.

How I see it is like this: Lets say the Soviet player runs like hell to the east (the smart thing to do tactically). The German player consistantly is getting a "bonus" for capturing city after city "ahead of schedule". The Russian preserves his army, steamrolls in 43, and even hits Berlin well before game ends. Adding up the victory points, he loses the game, because of all the points the German had gobbled up early.

With VP consequences, now the Soviet needs to consider where he can fight forward, and hold a city/area for a few extra turns, and where he cannot to avoid encirclement. The other scenario here is that the Soviet may do such a good job of holding ground- even when the German does create a few encirclements that critically hurt the Soviet army that cause his first blizzard offensive to be poor- and even eventually cause him not to get to Berlin before game end- but since the German did so poorly VP-wise early, the Soviet wins the game.

Sure, such a system would take a lot of work, thought, careful implementation. But for God's sake, this is one of the largest and most complex wargames in the world, why would you have Victory Conditions so simplistic? I have played hundreds of different wargames, most cardboard, and even those much smaller, vastly less complex games, where you have to track this $hit manually have more complex victory conditions. In another words, a games this complex merits that extra work that more robust victory conditions would require. And you have the computer to track it automatically. Of course, IMO.

[comsolut]

I agree I was taking a simplistic view of VP's, and your thoughts are well reasoned.

But, how long would it take to gain the experience, by both sides to balance hold enough vs. don't push too far? And to find the VP balance between players of the same skill and the AI.

I have six PBEM games going, three as the Russian and three as the German, and I want to have long satisfying games in all of them, so I am definitely invested in balancing the game so it is fun for both sides.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: comsolut

I have six PBEM games going, three as the Russian and three as the German,

Respect!

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: comsolut

I have six PBEM games going, three as the Russian and three as the German,

Respect!

Ditto.

[khyberbill]

Most gave up. This forum has become a Soviet back slapping centre of excellence

This is why I have not bought this game. The first computer war game I bought was Eastern Front and I played it to death. And won against credible opponents playing each side. That was why it was so much fun.

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: marty_01

ORIGINAL: AFV

While I disagree on the use of muling, I do agree with your other premises.

There is no reason for the Soviet not to simply run- but there could be
1) Manpower loss- does not matter much- but devs could make it matter
2) Armament loss - super RR capability combined with HI not needing to be moved, so this does not matter
3) Victory points - simplistic VP conditions so this too does not matter but it could if there were VP that could be gained or lost by holding certain cities by a certain date
4) Moral - seems like this could be linked to territory- give up too much, your moral drops, keep more than average, it goes up. But instead moral is on a strict time line with nothing to do with what happens in the game. 

Sadly, I have to agree, two evenly matched foes- its a slam dunk as Russian. Just dont fight forward. Easy formula- run like hell, evac arms, factories you need, wait for mud, then regroup and its all downhill for German. By the time clear weather comes again, there should be no chance for breakthroughs, Soviet will lose hexes but the German will grind his army to a nub- and really for no reason as industry is gone and manpower does not have much of an impact.

Michael- you and Pelton are part of the problem (no offense intended, read on). The Soviet fanboys point to your AARs and say "see, the Germans are too powerful as it is". Unfortunately, the other 99% of the games played are not visible, and thusly ignored- which follow the formula above, and end in 42 when the German can muster only gaining a few hexes across the entire front each turn.

Good summation of the issues at hand.

Game is WAD (Working as Designed), coded according to requirements. Logistic system is not buggy, it is WAD.

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: comsolut

I agree I was taking a simplistic view of VP's, and your thoughts are well reasoned.

But, how long would it take to gain the experience, by both sides to balance hold enough vs. don't push too far? And to find the VP balance between players of the same skill and the AI.

I have six PBEM games going, three as the Russian and three as the German, and I want to have long satisfying games in all of them, so I am definitely invested in balancing the game so it is fun for both sides.

That is a good point, and a valid concern.

Generally, when victory conditions are laid out clearly, it does not take a lot of experience, you just have to be a good war gamer and judge of a situation.

For example (just hypothetical), if you get 0 points if you still hold city X by turn 3, 5 points if you can hold it till turn 4, and 10 points if you can hold it till turn 5. You control your army, you judge the situation. You may decide you can hold it, with reasonable risk until turn 4, but after that, the extra 5 points just is not worth it. Are you a good judge of the situation? Will you be right in what you do more times than you are wrong? Thats the challenge of a war game, at least, to me.

For some people, objectives makes their head hurt. They just want to push counters around, with little regard to any military/political/economical objectives. For others, they thrive on this. As a Soviet, give me no good reason to hold a city (current game as it is), and hell yeah, I am retreating. It makes "game" sense. Give me a reason, give me a risk/reward situation to fight forward, hold a city, and I will at least access the situation, and perhaps try and hold it, because, yet again, it makes "game" sense.

To jazman: I did not mention the logistic system, did not say the game was not WAD. These are just suggestions. WAD does not mean it cannot be improved.

[traemyn]

ORIGINAL: jazman


Game is WAD (Working as Designed), coded according to requirements. Logistic system is not buggy, it is WAD.

I work in Support so I understand both sides of this statement. However when we have a really upset customer its better (and more honest) to say "it may be bad design, but its still working as designed". Which points to the heart of discussing these "issues" is that the devs have stated there are no major feature changes so the best someone can do is provide their ideas on how to make the next version better and hope the devs take it to heart.

There are problems with the logistics, withdrawls, ZOC's, rail capacity, air war, etc etc, but DAMN this game is still great imo. I am excited about WiTW and whatever comes next because it can only get better (rail capacity is being addressed for example, air war maybe too?).

[Michael T]

Its easy to neuter carpets and checker boards. Introduce and overun rule and no zoc's for anything less than a Division. This is precisely why these types of defensive techniques do not work in cardboard equivalents. This would also put paid to the extended Lvov.

Sadly 2by3 seem to ignor the hard lessons that were learnt by boardgame designers decades ago.

Simple fix for runaways. All Soviet manpower centre's lost are completely lost until recaptured. That is no migration. I would also increase the rail cap lost in 1941, say 50% to 100% more than what it is now.

None of these would be hard to code.

With changes like this and muling gone you would see a much better game.

To stop same German runaway in winter add rule:

For every X amount of VP's Germany has below what she had in Nov 1941 X amount of the best leaders are permanently retired. Could probably add a similar rule for Soviets as well.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Its easy to neuter carpets and checker boards. Introduce and overun rule and no zoc's for anything less than a Division. This is precisely why these types of defensive techniques do not work in cardboard equivalents. This would also put paid to the extended Lvov.

Sadly 2by3 seem to ignor the hard lessons that were learnt by boardgame designers decades ago.

Simple fix for runaways. All Soviet manpower centre's lost are completely lost until recaptured. That is no migration. I would also increase the rail cap lost in 1941, say 50% to 100% more than what it is now.

None of these would be hard to code.

With changes like this and muling gone you would see a much better game.

To stop same German runaway in winter add rule:

For every X amount of VP's Germany has below what she had in Nov 1941 X amount of the best leaders are permanently retired. Could probably add a similar rule for Soviets as well.

As a general Soviet player (mainly because I don't have the attention to detail to do the German side) I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with this (not sure exactly what you mean by the "rail cap lost" metric - does that mean the decline in rail cap from 41 to 42 via the capture of "Railroad" industry in cities?), but I think it would have to be pseudo balanced with some increase in Soviet "morale" (quotes since this factor doesn't really represent morale per se). It's simply too easy for a German player to cut linear non-carpet lines to absolute pieces right now because the Soviet armies are so totally feeble early on. I actually would prefer not having to carpet as I agree that it is ahistoric and generally annoying.

One might also consider with these changes restoring forts to a degree - the Germans actually need them later on in the war to stay competitive and as long as you don't have fort "carpets" they are far less of a problem. Just a thought.

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: AFV

ORIGINAL: comsolut

I agree I was taking a simplistic view of VP's, and your thoughts are well reasoned.

But, how long would it take to gain the experience, by both sides to balance hold enough vs. don't push too far? And to find the VP balance between players of the same skill and the AI.

I have six PBEM games going, three as the Russian and three as the German, and I want to have long satisfying games in all of them, so I am definitely invested in balancing the game so it is fun for both sides.

That is a good point, and a valid concern.

Generally, when victory conditions are laid out clearly, it does not take a lot of experience, you just have to be a good war gamer and judge of a situation.

For example (just hypothetical), if you get 0 points if you still hold city X by turn 3, 5 points if you can hold it till turn 4, and 10 points if you can hold it till turn 5. You control your army, you judge the situation. You may decide you can hold it, with reasonable risk until turn 4, but after that, the extra 5 points just is not worth it. Are you a good judge of the situation? Will you be right in what you do more times than you are wrong? Thats the challenge of a war game, at least, to me.

For some people, objectives makes their head hurt. They just want to push counters around, with little regard to any military/political/economical objectives. For others, they thrive on this. As a Soviet, give me no good reason to hold a city (current game as it is), and hell yeah, I am retreating. It makes "game" sense. Give me a reason, give me a risk/reward situation to fight forward, hold a city, and I will at least access the situation, and perhaps try and hold it, because, yet again, it makes "game" sense.

To jazman: I did not mention the logistic system, did not say the game was not WAD. These are just suggestions. WAD does not mean it cannot be improved.

I wasn't disputing you--I agree with all your points. And I was throwing in the Logistic system as a bonus.

I'm not sure how well requirements were defined for this game, but surely they should include things that reflect "design for effect". For example, the Russian needs to be incentivized and enabled to stand and fight. I think there should be morale / political fallout from running. I can't believe designers overlooked such things--I believe decisions were made and we see the results.

The logistic system would be buggy if, for example, the documentation explained that supply works like this, and you saw supply doing crazy things. So it's not buggy, it's working the way they designed and coded it. Not sure it's working like intended, though. In a game it can be hard to test "did we design this element right?" And some things, you just can't get it right--only reality ever worked right.

[Michael T]

As a general Soviet player (mainly because I don't have the attention to detail to do the German side) I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with this (not sure exactly what you mean by the "rail cap lost" metric - does that mean the decline in rail cap from 41 to 42 via the capture of "Railroad" industry in cities?), but I think it would have to be pseudo balanced with some increase in Soviet "morale" (quotes since this factor doesn't really represent morale per se). It's simply too easy for a German player to cut linear non-carpet lines to absolute pieces right now because the Soviet armies are so totally feeble early on. I actually would prefer not having to carpet as I agree that it is ahistoric and generally annoying.

One might also consider with these changes restoring forts to a degree - the Germans actually need them later on in the war to stay competitive and as long as you don't have fort "carpets" they are far less of a problem. Just a thought.

I mean if rail cap for a city lost currently equals 100 lost then increase this to 150 or 200 lost. Even if only temporary for 1941. From my experience the Soviet rail cap is overstated.

I wonder if the people who did WitP AE would do the same job with WITE?

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I wonder if the people who did WitP AE would do the same job with WITE?

Wow. I have to admit, this has been in the back of my mind since I read a post somewhere that 2x3 only did the original WitP and not the WitP AE.

I can only say, it is guaranteed I would buy such a product, pretty much just based on some of the posts here regarding the people who did WitP AE, and based on the fact I think, despite it faults, WITE is an excellent game.

But, I'm just one guy with $80.

[RCHarmon]

There are some good ideas in the thread. My money says that they fix muling and that is it.




I recently bought WITP AE and I do like it. It is a monster, but it has lots of options.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: RCH

There are some good ideas in the thread. My money says that they fix muling and that is it.

The devs listened to the Axis side when they made the VP change, but that has not been the norm. The devs don't listen to Axis concerns.

Not sure this is fair - a lot of the changes have focused on reducing blizzard effects and forts, which definitely were needed. Obviously more to be done but I don't think there is a bias against hearing out Axis complaints.