Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.02

[chaos45]

I think it would fine if you just tied soviet air units to national morale....the problem is your now tying it national morale and adding a huge negative modifier. Esp with the changes to no huge bonus from reserve movement....

You guys like triple nerfed the soviet air force all in one patch...perhaps slow changes are more appropriate.

As you tied it to national morale, added a negative modifier, and reduced the benefit from reserve movement....abit much....

[morvael]

The "negative" modifier stems from the fact that you're out of trained pilots (you get 90 per turn as USSR), and untrained pilots have severe experience penalty. Previously they got magically better by joining their group because they got extra exp from average group experience. Perhaps this could be brought back, but limited a bit compared to what was before. The idea was to penalize burning through pilot pool, even if you get plenty of new airframes to waste.

[M60A3TTS]

By that logic, pilots are only lost in air-to-air combat or by flak. They aren't sitting in the 5,000 planes that are destroyed on the ground turn 1. Operational losses that include aircraft damages beyond repair and scrapped likewise.

To put this in perspective, in our current multiplayer game after ten turns, the Soviets lost only about 2,200 machines to air-to-air combat and flak. By comparison, 8,500 planes presumably that had pilots were destroyed on the ground. So I don't see how in those circumstances you can rationalize that I've run out of trained pilots and so should have garbage morale.

[STEF78]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: Blubel2

ORIGINAL: STEF78



Very bad new for the axis player in the late war...

I agree. I think that this will kill the late game.

I'm not so sure. Rarely I had a failed attack in 1944+ with 6-12 rifle corps plus 12-24 support units attacking German divisions all along the front line.

It's not about russian ability but about german morale while winning defensive battles. Russian steamroll will be stronger and faster.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

By that logic, pilots are only lost in air-to-air combat or by flak. They aren't sitting in the 5,000 planes that are destroyed on the ground turn 1. Operational losses that include aircraft damages beyond repair and scrapped likewise.

To put this in perspective, in our current multiplayer game after ten turns, the Soviets lost only about 2,200 machines to air-to-air combat and flak. By comparison, 8,500 planes presumably that had pilots were destroyed on the ground. So I don't see how in those circumstances you can rationalize that I've run out of trained pilots and so should have garbage morale.

I don't think the pilots are returned to the pool when their plane is lost. I guess this is the weak point of the model. It simply wants new pilot for every new plane added to the groups.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: STEF78

It's not about russian ability but about german morale while winning defensive battles. Russian steamroll will be stronger and faster.

Yeah, but what if there is close to 0 defensive battles won by the German side? The change has no effect. And you can try more counterattacks without fear of losing morale.

[EwaldvonKleist]

AFAIK the Soviet air force was in a very bad shape in 1941, so limiting its morale/experience is only realistic. Putting it on 20 in 1941 is a bit hard, I agree. I personally would simply put it to 40 in 1941 and 45 in 1942, after that linked to NM. Also note that the weakness of the Soviet air force was not only training, but also the lack of communication- and support equipment, and the only way to simulate this is air group experience/morale.

I value the efforts of Dennis and Morvael highly, even if I do not agree with every change the trend for WitE quality definitely points upwards. If there is one improvement that could be made to the patch process, IMO its is making the changes more gradual instead of complete nerfs (like it happened with German supply/HQ BUs too).

+no one is forced to use the recent version, you can easily have multiple WitE versions installed.

Are there still active alpha/beta play testers for WitE 1 patches?

[Icier]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

AFAIK the Soviet air force was in a very bad shape in 1941, so limiting its morale/experience is only realistic. Putting it on 20 in 1941 is a bit hard, I agree. I personally would simply put it to 40 in 1941 and 45 in 1942, after that linked to NM. Also note that the weakness of the Soviet air force was not only training, but also the lack of communication- and support equipment, and the only way to simulate this is air group experience/morale.

I value the efforts of Dennis and Morvael highly, even if I do not agree with every change the trend for WitE quality definitely points upwards. If there is one improvement that could be made to the patch process, IMO its is making the changes more gradual instead of complete nerfs (like it happened with German supply/HQ BUs too).

+no one is forced to use the recent version, you can easily have multiple WitE versions installed.

Are there still active alpha/beta play testers for WitE 1 patches?

+1

maybe float the thinking of the developers before doing a new patch...that way you may hear from more players as some
are relucant to post

[thedoctorking]

I have to think that the best thing now is to send the entire Red Air Force to national reserve on turn one and not bring them back again until January 42. Maybe with the exception of the long-range bombers, which you keep back in the rear somewhere on night missions.

[EwaldvonKleist]

AFAIK morale is only important to decide if a unit breaks off the attack and for flown miles calculation. If you fly low losses missions like manual unit bombing, the effect of the nerf shouldn't be too big.

@charlie: Your comments are really bad inappropriate, If you accuse someone of such things you should come up with some substantiation at least.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
Are there still active alpha/beta play testers for WitE 1 patches?

AI is our only willing (?) tester at this point.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
If there is one improvement that could be made to the patch process, IMO its is making the changes more gradual instead of complete nerfs

If something has to be rewritten from scratch then the change is pretty major, even if a lot of effort is made to retain previous balance. Once the change is in, and you report back, then gradual adjustments are made to balance it properly. That's why it's beta patch, despite what most people think, that new beta is latest official version [:)]

[EwaldvonKleist]

AI is really nice, it never complains when you quit a game and has endless patience. If it were just a bit smarter...

Good reminder regarding the beta thing, so I will relabel everything written above as "testing feedback"


But if I understand the updating process correctly, the 1.xx.xx official version always is the same as the 1.xx.xx public beta?
So every recent version you can download is an unchanged public beta?

[morvael]

Yes, after a while they decide to make given public beta an official version (which requires changes only in the installer AFAIK). But some betas may be skipped and never become official. And hotfixes are no-go since Steam version was released.

[beender]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
If there is one improvement that could be made to the patch process, IMO its is making the changes more gradual instead of complete nerfs

If something has to be rewritten from scratch then the change is pretty major, even if a lot of effort is made to retain previous balance. Once the change is in, and you report back, then gradual adjustments are made to balance it properly. That's why it's beta patch, despite what most people think, that new beta is latest official version [:)]

I understand and appreciate the efforts to make the game more balanced. On the other hand, it's never possible to have a perfect balance and any change in rules requires the players to adjust and adapt, incurring not insignificant amount of time and energy.

Back when 11.01 was out, i read in certain forum posts that some players decided to retire. I was too inexperienced to understand why. But now I can see that once a player established some kind of instincts or feeling in this complicated game, a new patch modifying a set of rules would simply render those instincts obsolete. For example, in the new beta patch, defender no longer gains morale and attacker no longer loses from a "held." This will have a profound impact on the strategy and development of both early and later turns. Such a change may be reasonable and historical, but still, players need to invest additional time to get used to it, and without any warrant that newly acquired experience will not again become useless in the next new patch. If such things repeat a few times, the frustration may deter even the most loyal players.

All in all, I'm suggesting a more prudent way to introduce new rule changes, so that we can have more faith in current rules and more motivation to study them.

[morvael]

Yes, on the other hand some players were very comfortable with using well known tricks and exploits to win, and didn't want to start from a level playing field, having to find out and learn what works in place of their previous skills. There are also players who vastly prefer one side to the other (Axis or Soviet), and are furious everytime their favourite side gets a nerf, while being inconspicuously quiet when the other side gets a nerf. My stance on global balance is well known now, I think, where I don't want to see any sudden death Axis victories in 41 or 42 (including easily overruning Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov before winter'41), and I want to see Soviets in Berlin sometime in 1945.

Long-living computer games usually undergo some meta shakeup to keep things interesting. Without any patches player interest fades away as well. Of course if any changes are introduced there are possible rage quits etc from those who don't like new meta or don't want to make the effort to learn it.

[beender]

Yes i am aware of those reasons so i'm not totally against introducing new rules. Just the manner and extent.

ORIGINAL: morvael

where I don't want to see any sudden death Axis victories in 41 or 42 (including easily overruning Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov before winter'41), and I want to see Soviets in Berlin sometime in 1945.

So basically you don't want to see any game that does not follow history? That seems a bit extreme. First, players have different level of skills; second, it's interesting to have different result from reality, which is probably what players are fighting for.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: beender

ORIGINAL: morvael

where I don't want to see any sudden death Axis victories in 41 or 42 (including easily overruning Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov before winter'41), and I want to see Soviets in Berlin sometime in 1945.

So basically you don't want to see any game that does not follow history? That seems a bit extreme. First, players have different level of skills; second, it's interesting to have different result from reality, which is probably what players are fighting for.

I am guessing might have meant strictly the median game rather than every game. 50% of games would do better than that and 50% worse. Differing players abilities and game plays for that match would continue to make wildly different results.

My only caution is that we may be looking at the AARs and games of people active in this site rather than the widest user base. So while it may look like experienced players here were carrying away with Leningrad and Moscow every time, for most players who are actually newer it was rarely the case.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I am guessing might have meant strictly the median game rather than every game. 50% of games would do better than that and 50% worse. Differing players abilities and game plays for that match would continue to make wildly different results.

Thanks for adding this. It's the truth.

I still have to point out that books like The Wages of Destruction influence my thinking - no amount of tricky operational moves yielding great tactical victories would help Axis manpower+economy to overcome Allied+Soviet manpower+economy, especially if we take into account there is no diplomacy, research or custom production in WitE (so we have to assume they all follow historical paths). For more a-historical games you need Hearts of Iron (where you can try to make nazi USA or build large fleet as Germany or be the first to invent nukes as USSR). So in case of similar player skills and standard difficulty settings, WitE should follow history every time. I know it will be disappointing for some who would like to rewrite history in WitE scale and detail, but sadly things that are out of control of the player force historical results (you can't even keep Rommel in the East or decide which divisions goest West and which East).

To me all players should do is to play Bitter End and compare their results. Who is the most efficient etc. Default campaigns with no VPs will (should) always end in German defeat.

[MarauderPL]

WITE is a very complicated game and from its start date can go many different ways, depending on the actions of players and results of the random rolls incorporated into the game. Unsurprisingly, the reality is extremely more complex than the game. The history of real war in the east is only one realization of myriads of possible outcomes - if some actions/decisions were different in the real world (as they are in game), we would probably be basing WITE on a completely different historical benchmark (like the Soviets holding Stalin's line in 1941, or the Germans on the Volga in 1945 and Berlin getting nuked instead of Hiroshima).

Making a very complex game follow closely the historical path using big, crude tools strips the players from having any influence on the results of their actions. It makes them repeat history in a kind of a interactive TV show instead of playing a strategy game, where big decisions lead to big consequences and shape the outcome of the game.

Comparing VPs score after bitter end game is historically accurate but boring! After 200+ turns thinking: "Yay, I did better, because I held Rostov for 2 more turns than the last time, let's try again" doesnt look like a lot of fun. Otherwise, "I lost too many soldiers in 1941, so by 1943 I've been totally beaten, next time I'll play differently and it will result in a different outcome" sounds more exciting!

Also, this post is too long, and the topic is for like 2 hours of talking