PBEM Game Balance

VR designs has been reinforced with designer Cameron Harris and the result is a revolutionary new operational war game 'Barbarossa' that plays like none other. It blends an advanced counter pushing engine with deep narrative, people management and in-depth semi-randomized decision systems.

Moderators: Vic, lancer

Post Reply
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

PBEM Game Balance

Post by lancer »

Hi,

We are currently looking at PBEM balance but it's a difficult thing to pin down as there is both a paucity of data and two humans unknowns involved.

It's a lot easier to figure out balance vs. the AI as it's a relatively constant opponent that can be measured.

Humans can cover a wide spectrum of abilities and heavily skew perceptions of balance by virtue of differing skill levels.

We will probably introduce changes specific to these games (they won't affect AI games) but whatever we do is unlikely to resolve every bodies concerns because the issue is a combination of both balance & player skill. It's difficult to isolate one from the other.

However a very straightforward way around this is for a PBEM match to encompass two games, with each player taking turns at playing either side. Tally each player's score as the Germans and Soviets. Highest wins.

Done this way, perceived balance becomes irrelevant.

Cheers,
Cameron
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by warspite1 »

I would like to see two games (one each side) between

MichaelT vs Orm

MichaelT seems capable of the most incredible advances with the Germans, while Orm is simply an incredibly formidable opponent.

From what I've seen of MichaelT's play and from what I know of Orm's play, this would give really valuable feedback as to the merits of playing either side.

Fellas?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by Flaviusx »

MT has mastered the logistical engine of the game, and furthermore, has a near foolproof plan for preempting the iron wall that nobody else to date has duplicated.

I've explained what he does elsewhere, but so far nobody else has done it.

I'm trying something new as the Soviet in our present game, we'll see if it works. For me, the main problem is the silly siege guns. Those things need to be toned down. The game is coming down to denying those guns access to the 3 victory sites.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

MT has mastered the logistical engine of the game, and furthermore, has a near foolproof plan for preempting the iron wall that nobody else to date has duplicated.

I've explained what he does elsewhere, but so far nobody else has done it.

I'm trying something new as the Soviet in our present game, we'll see if it works. For me, the main problem is the silly siege guns. Those things need to be toned down. The game is coming down to denying those guns access to the 3 victory sites.
warspite1

I would be really interested in seeing this near foolproof plan against Orm (if they are interested).

And Flaviusx, please point me in the direction of where you have explained what he does!!

Finally, and as said elsewhere, totally agree on the Siege guns. They just need to be toned down.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by Flaviusx »

In brief: prioritize 3 PG, clear path to Vilnius by turn 2, then drive due east past the woods and into the clear terrain. Flip control of Vitebsk and Polotsk by turn 3, Orsha and Mogilev around turn 4.

That takes care of your iron wall. Preempts all major reinforcement points save Gomel and Smolensk. He puts his FSB on Vilnius. PG2 will take some time to get Minsk doing this, but it doesn't really matter. The Soviet is then forced to either fight in the middle of nowhere with no real terrain features in and around Smolensk, and a river that runs east-west just south of it which actually is immensely unhelpful and tends to split the defense in two.

Then its just a question of where to place the next real MLR.

I'm trying out one waaaaay back by Moscow and Kalinin. Not even bothering to try to defend west of here. Dropped every single reinforcement army in this area, dug them in, dropped lots of forts around Moscow. It may not work, but it is raising the butcher's bill for him. Very costly to clear out those woods and forts.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by KenchiSulla »

Clearly explained Flavius...

What I expect to become a problem with your first real defense near Moscow is that he can simply take the losses and punch through to get to Moscow....

With regard to the tactical situation the best places to fight are around terrain features. Perhaps you can sacrifice a couple of armies fighting in clear terrain at the end of his logistical rubber band... That in combination with armies skirmishing (25% retreat) to allow you to use forts on a couple of key points might buy you some time... to form your final stand around Moscow...
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
RCHarmon
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:41 am

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by RCHarmon »

I am not the best player and I had only played a few turns into the Soviets against the ai when I started a Pbem game, but here are a few observations from me.

This is from my pbem game.

I think version 102 is okay and will work if the game better modeled logistics. I mean how can the Germans push so far so fast? Really there was no break for them at all.

Infantry moves too fast.

In the south (with Zhukov) present I was always fighting with activations. I have been watching Flavious' games and tried to model my game as he played his cards. I did the reorganize the army card somewhat early and I got a better front commander in there. I still had terrible activations.

I lost Leningrad very easily. Rework the siege guns. Needs to take longer or whatever. Losing Leningrad so easily is a bust for the game.

There needs to be another posture card between neutral and defensive that allows a better defensive bonus at half the cost.

As the Soviet I was unable to use time. Time is against me when I would expect Axis delays because of logistics and slow moving infantry.

I am not the best player and if you wish you can completely dismiss my observations. Except the point that I am trying to make is that the Soviets should be able to trade land for time (willingly or unwillingly). This axis machine just rolls and rolls and rolls.

I'll point this out again, that this siege gun business is nuts. You want Leningrad to fall in one turn you are messing with the expectations of players of both sides. When Leningrad or ,I imagine, Moscow can fall so easily it causes the Soviet player to lose heart.

User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Clearly explained Flavius...

What I expect to become a problem with your first real defense near Moscow is that he can simply take the losses and punch through to get to Moscow....

With regard to the tactical situation the best places to fight are around terrain features. Perhaps you can sacrifice a couple of armies fighting in clear terrain at the end of his logistical rubber band... That in combination with armies skirmishing (25% retreat) to allow you to use forts on a couple of key points might buy you some time... to form your final stand around Moscow...

I tried this already with 1.02. Doesn't work due to the very slow reinforcement schedule. The Soviet is actually outnumbered in the center for most of July. I wound up getting trashed around Vyazma and Bryansk and never did get a chance to properly dig in closer to Moscow. It take around 16 turns now for all the regulars to show up, and this stuff is kind of backloaded, with the last 3 armies arriving in late August. By the time they did, the Germans were already adjacent to Moscow.

It might work with 1.01, because all these armies are in place by turn 7. So you could conceivable throw a couple away and buy some time.

But I'm going all in with the Fortress Moscow approach and seeing how it shakes out. I'm very formidably dug in and causing some real loses on the German. 3 hexside assaults can be repulsed by a stack of 4 regulars fully entrenched in woods, to the tune 10k+ losses for the German. It's a real grind. But he's also got lots of time. My bet is the Wehrmacht is too fragile to maintain this level of attrition for very long. Moreover, I've reduced the number of combats in the center to a bare handful a turn, 1-2. There's nothing easy there anymore for the enemy and no real maneuvering opportunities.
WitE Alpha Tester
Speedysteve
Posts: 15974
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by Speedysteve »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
3 hexside assaults can be repulsed by a stack of 4 regulars fully entrenched in woods, to the tune 10k+ losses for the German. It's a real grind. But he's also got lots of time. My bet is the Wehrmacht is too fragile to maintain this level of attrition for very long. Moreover, I've reduced the number of combats in the center to a bare handful a turn, 1-2. There's nothing easy there anymore for the enemy and no real maneuvering opportunities.

That's the crucial part I feel as an exclusively Axis player. If you can create a slugfest with no opportunities for the Axis to use Armour for maneuver warfare they'll lose.....
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by elmo3 »

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

We are currently looking at PBEM balance but it's a difficult thing to pin down as there is both a paucity of data and two humans unknowns involved...

Cheers,
Cameron

Since you have a paucity of data, and no idea what the skill level is for the games you do have recorded, if it were my game I would not spend a lot of time trying to fix what might not be broken. Maybe it would be easier to make a slider so that two players could agree to give one or the other advantages similar to what the AI gets at higher difficulty levels and let the players decide for themselves.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
Tweedledumb
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:35 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by Tweedledumb »

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

We are currently looking at PBEM balance but it's a difficult thing to pin down as there is both a paucity of data and two humans unknowns involved.

It's a lot easier to figure out balance vs. the AI as it's a relatively constant opponent that can be measured.

Humans can cover a wide spectrum of abilities and heavily skew perceptions of balance by virtue of differing skill levels.

We will probably introduce changes specific to these games (they won't affect AI games) but whatever we do is unlikely to resolve every bodies concerns because the issue is a combination of both balance & player skill. It's difficult to isolate one from the other.

However a very straightforward way around this is for a PBEM match to encompass two games, with each player taking turns at playing either side. Tally each player's score as the Germans and Soviets. Highest wins.

Done this way, perceived balance becomes irrelevant.

Cheers,
Cameron

Howdy Cameron,

On the issue of play balance, I would like to re-iterate my suggestion that you make the arrival of Soviet reinforcements a set of options NOT a fixed schedule. My original post from January 7th (in part):

"The other thing I noted in the forums, particularly Vic's posts, is that 95% of the people are playing against the AI only, and most of those are playing the German side. This makes sense to me. Then the light bulb popped on...

Why not provide the players with several Soviet reinforcement options?

Here's my logic for this:

Human (PBEM) players will be able to defend MUCH more competently and use the Soviet decsions far more effectively than any AI - agree? To "balance" the game and make it challenging for the majority of players (playing Germans against the AI) will not necessarily produced a "balanced" game between two expert human players - agree? So why not provide a series of reinforcement options for the Soviets as a "balancing" feature?

I throw out for discussion five possible reinforcement schedules:

1. Rapid Soviet mobilization (the hardest - for players who can beat the 1.01 AI easily)
2. Improved Soviet mobilization (harder - a challenge for players who have beat the 1.01 AI))
3. Standard Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.01)
4. Slower Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.02f - to avoid the wall syndrome above)
5. Poor Soviet mobilization (the ultimate challenge for the expert human Soviet player!)

Of course there could be a million variants on this and I would love to see more than 5, but you get the idea, I hope. The amount of programming to make these variants I presume would be minimal.

My suggestion, basically, is that rather than trying to "lock in" a one-size-fits-all Soviet reinforcement schedule, that you investigate using this mechanic as a play balance tool. My assertion is that a Soviet reinforcement schedule which works to balance an AI game will NOT be the same as one which balances a PBEM game. "

There could be VP/PP/other costs associated with the Soviets choosing these various options.

As others have suggested, I doubt that there is a single Soviet reinforcement schedule which balances both the AI and PBEM games.

Thanks for designing a brilliant game!
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by KenchiSulla »

Tweedledumb, that is a nice idea! Perhaps a bit of randomness thrown in (+ / - one turn)
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:29 pm
Location: Portugal

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by Franciscus »

ORIGINAL: Tweedledumb

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

We are currently looking at PBEM balance but it's a difficult thing to pin down as there is both a paucity of data and two humans unknowns involved.

It's a lot easier to figure out balance vs. the AI as it's a relatively constant opponent that can be measured.

Humans can cover a wide spectrum of abilities and heavily skew perceptions of balance by virtue of differing skill levels.

We will probably introduce changes specific to these games (they won't affect AI games) but whatever we do is unlikely to resolve every bodies concerns because the issue is a combination of both balance & player skill. It's difficult to isolate one from the other.

However a very straightforward way around this is for a PBEM match to encompass two games, with each player taking turns at playing either side. Tally each player's score as the Germans and Soviets. Highest wins.

Done this way, perceived balance becomes irrelevant.

Cheers,
Cameron

Howdy Cameron,

On the issue of play balance, I would like to re-iterate my suggestion that you make the arrival of Soviet reinforcements a set of options NOT a fixed schedule. My original post from January 7th (in part):

"The other thing I noted in the forums, particularly Vic's posts, is that 95% of the people are playing against the AI only, and most of those are playing the German side. This makes sense to me. Then the light bulb popped on...

Why not provide the players with several Soviet reinforcement options?

Here's my logic for this:

Human (PBEM) players will be able to defend MUCH more competently and use the Soviet decsions far more effectively than any AI - agree? To "balance" the game and make it challenging for the majority of players (playing Germans against the AI) will not necessarily produced a "balanced" game between two expert human players - agree? So why not provide a series of reinforcement options for the Soviets as a "balancing" feature?

I throw out for discussion five possible reinforcement schedules:

1. Rapid Soviet mobilization (the hardest - for players who can beat the 1.01 AI easily)
2. Improved Soviet mobilization (harder - a challenge for players who have beat the 1.01 AI))
3. Standard Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.01)
4. Slower Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.02f - to avoid the wall syndrome above)
5. Poor Soviet mobilization (the ultimate challenge for the expert human Soviet player!)

Of course there could be a million variants on this and I would love to see more than 5, but you get the idea, I hope. The amount of programming to make these variants I presume would be minimal.

My suggestion, basically, is that rather than trying to "lock in" a one-size-fits-all Soviet reinforcement schedule, that you investigate using this mechanic as a play balance tool. My assertion is that a Soviet reinforcement schedule which works to balance an AI game will NOT be the same as one which balances a PBEM game. "

There could be VP/PP/other costs associated with the Soviets choosing these various options.

As others have suggested, I doubt that there is a single Soviet reinforcement schedule which balances both the AI and PBEM games.

Thanks for designing a brilliant game!

Yep, sounds a good suggestion [&o]
Former AJE team member
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: PBEM Game Balance

Post by warspite1 »

Another suggestion could be:

- One Army (randomly chosen each turn) MUST activate fully each turn in each of the three Fronts.

and/or

- Small changes to the set-up positions; particularly of 3rd Army and Western HQ - and for the Germans, 3rd Panzergruppe.

The problem seems to me that the Soviets cannot stop 3rd Panzergruppe, if it can move quick enough, outflanking the 'wall'. If the Germans know that Western HQ could fully activate at any time (and its starting position of (some) units is not quite so far forward) the Germans would need to be more circumspect in the their advance.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa”