Need help

[Ichili]

I agree with Isokron and Michel T. The PBEM game is unbalanced in favor of the German player. The main reason, in my opinion, is Stalin's paranoia episodes and its effect on the Russian timetable of reinforcements. Stalin's rage keeps reinforcements from getting to the front, and as a result, many times at the beginning of the campaign, the German counters outnumber the Russian ones.
Besides that, it is possible for the German Panzer Groups to easily skirt Russian defenses by penetrating through the Pripet Marshes, and that is not historically correct.

[wadortch]

Hello Ichili

Well, we shall see. Isokron and I have started a game. Not to say that will prove anything definitive about the balance but at least it will show if my opinion about it being balanced in favor of the Soviets is incorrect!

[lancer]

Hi,

Stalin's paranoid episodes don't actually prevent Soviet Reinforcements from arriving. These are the only Action cards that aren't affected by an episode.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Vic]

Hi all,

Here is run down of the human-vs-human games registered into the metrics database.

http://www.vrdesigns.net/img/humanvshuman.jpg

It seems to me like the results are relatively balanced and there about as many good Soviet as good German runs.

Keep in mind that the average bar (thick line) can be betraying since I have noted a tendency for games going bad for the Germans to not be continued for to many rounds.

Hope this graph helps to shine a bit of light on the discussion.

Best wishes,
Vic

[Philippeatbay]

Not sure how to interpret that graph. It would be a little clearer if it explicitly said that it was some kind of victory tally.

What do the x- and y- axes represent ?

The vertical axis is probably victory points and the horizonal axis is probably time or number of turns, but that's just a guess.

And is there a key somewhere for what the different colored lines represent (other than the scenario number, which is confusing because there is only one scenario in the game)?

I would assume that the thick red line refers to something like average Soviet wins and the greenish line refers to average German wins, but the key in the lower left-hand corner doesn't seem to indicate that. (And what's the short orange-yellow line)?

Apart from that, metrics trumps anecdotal every time.

If this graph shows what I think it shows, the Germans don't have significantly more wins than the Soviets.

The problem with a single player's perspective on this is that there is no way to be sure that the human opponents are evenly matched, except in a solo human v. human. And even then you have far too much insight into what your opponents plans are.

[Michael T]

Once the German knows his business he should win every time. It is a fact that attacking is an order of magnitude more difficult than defending. So with two beginners the Soviet should win mostly, simply because playing the German is more difficult and outweighs the balance issue. These results will skew the metrics. As skill improves with experience the pendulum will swing toward the attacker in this game due to the imbalance that experienced players have been flagging for months. Eventually the penny will drop. But who knows when.

[Vic]

Hi Philippe,

The Y axis is the number of victory points held by the Germans.
The X axis is the round number.

The thick lines are the averages for a specific scenario version. The higher the number the more recent.

Best wishes,
Vic

[Philippeatbay]

Thanks for that.

Is there a similar metric for the Soviet player in human v. human ?

[wadortch]

Hi Vic

I suppose I could count the individual lines on the graph but I expect you could answer this one quickly--how many games is the data based on?

[Michael T]

I have to admit I might be changing my mind balance wise. I based my view on 1.02.

1.03 has two key elements that favor the Russian's.

1. Starting fuel reduced.

2. Major change. Free Defensive Posture for Soviet armies depending on Axis advance rates. I have to say I really hate the essence of this rule but it most likely will help the Russians a lot.

So in my mind the jury is out on balance. Walt and Isokrons game may indicate a swing too far in Russia's favor. I last played with 1.02 and it really was a German cakewalk.

I don't know about 1.03

I do know I despise rules like free assists for players who find themselves in trouble. Which is what this free defensive posture rule is.

[wadortch]

Hello Michael

Isokron and I started our game without nailing down all the options ahead of time and I have offered to restart it with all that clear.

The goal of that game from my point of view is to test the present balance of the human v human state of the game.

Given that, I ask you, others and Cameron and Vic to weigh in on what options we should agree on to make this test?

[Philippeatbay]

Historical should be on.

And if you play a hundred games and the Soviets win more often than the Germans, then the model is doing what it should be doing.

The Germans lost in real life (tm).

[EdinHouston]

I would go so far as to say that, in real life, it is debatable if Barbarossa could have succeeded in defeating the Soviet Union no matter what military decisions the Germans made once the invasion started.

[Michael T]

And if you play a hundred games and the Soviets win more often than the Germans, then the model is doing what it should be doing

No this is wrong. Ideally win/loss ratio should be 50/50. Winning the game does not equal winning the war. This is so often confused by posters.

Game balance and who actually won the war/campaign are entirely different issues.

[wadortch]

Agree with Michael here, the purpose of this thread is all about a balanced game (PBEM) between two equally talented players.

There was a very similar discussion when WITE was released about whether WITE was a simulation or a game.

We could all spend the rest of our lives arguing about who would have won the war under what circumstances. That is not the topic here.

Likewise about who have "won" the campaign in 1941. If it were a simulation totally consistent with history, the Soviets would have to attack in the opening rounds. PG 2 would have to turn south and head for Kiev.

What is so appealing about this game is that Cameron and Vic have tried to introduce a decision making scheme into the game that addresses all this and by and large they have surely achieved their goal.

So where I am on this point is that the Germans cannot presently make the decisions they should be able to make within the context of the GAME, that Halder actually could have made (reallocation of trains for example).

Now Isokron may very well change my mind about where the balance presently is, but that is irrelevant to the pursuit of modifying the game so that odds of winning or losing are in the neighborhood Michael suggests.

[lancer]

Hi,

I'd go with Historical OFF as, with it on, it gives a set Soviet layout at the start of the game which makes it easy for a good German player to exploit a known disposition.

It'd be better to have a measure of variability here that better reflects the unknowns on the day.

When it comes to outcomes it's worth keeping in mind that a lot of people, probably most, view the Germans as a binary proposition. They either conquer Russia or they don't. Once it looks like that don't is likely there is a tendency to quit.

The victory conditions allow for a range of outcomes that encompass games where the Germans don't take their objective and still manage to eke out a minor victory (and vice versa for the Soviets). Unless it's evident that you are about to get completely clobbered it's almost always worth playing on as the outcome is rarely as preordained as people think.

Cheers,
Cameron