Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

Post Reply
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by Peltonx »

Looking for general feed back on current game balance. How the game plays and what changes that might help balance game or if your happy with it over all

My 2 cents.

I like to play 5+ games under a new patch, playing vets to newbies. This way I get good data. If I just play 1 or 2 games vs newbies I might think Germans are way over powered, but if I play 1 or 2 vets I might think Russia is way over powered.

If you check my AAR's

3 games were 41 wins vs newer players.
3 vs veteran players

Germany vs new players should be able to defeat them in 41 or 42 and it does. I was able to destroy large amounts of industry, troops and take key cities.

vs the veteran players

Pelton vs smokendave I was able to capture far more then historical industry, Leningrad, Stalingrad, all of the Caucasus and citys South East and north east of Stalingrad.
I did far better then historical, but as of turn 155 it looks like dave dispite very very low truck numbers has a 50/50 chance of winning or getting a draw.
Very interesting thread for new people because it shows under the current ruleset as long as you hold Moscow you can more then likely come back from massive losses.

Pelton vs BrianG BrianG was able to save all but 19 pts of AP and Hvy proving that a skilled veteran can save more then historical and hold Stalino metro area and attack 20+ times during snow not blizzard in 41.
I will more then likely lose this game in late 44 or early 45 based on the data collected from Pelton vs smokendave.

Pelton vs Chaos this game is in 42 and is very much balanced game and could go eather way. Chaos proved Leningrad can be held until 42. He has a smaller army then the other 2 games, but a better army. He has saved more then enough industry, again based on data collected from Pelton vs Dave.


1. I like the fact that if the German player is very skilled and the Russian a newbie The German player can win in 41 or 42.
Also based on the data a skilled Russian player can easly defeat a German player, this based on other AAR's which are not hard to find.
2. All things being equal I think late war Russia is way over powered. Even after taking far more then historical losses in industry, trucks and land the Russian army can easly push west starting in late 43.
less then 80% trucks should cripple any army.
3. Russia can still easly evac almost all industry and block almost all German thrusts and hold close to historical land wise.

I think HQBU has been nerfed enough and dropping from 25 to 20 will simply kill the game coupled with nerfing fuel drops.
I agree fuel drops is unhistorical and needs to be nerfed.
Also making pockets harder to destroy will very much slow down Germanys march east.
Its already more then clear all things being equal industry seems to be window dressing so Russia only needs to hold Moscow.

The game seems to be balanced other then the same old problem of a late war runaway,
dispite heavy industrial loses, lose of far more terrain and a shortage of trucks.

I would think long and hard about .05 and what should or should not be balanced.

I look forward to other players input.




Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by loki100 »

ok. I'll bite.

your vet vs newbie= german victory in 41 logic is re-assuring. If that wasn't happening, I'd almost find myself in agreement with the long absent MichaelT.

I agree with you that HQBU has to stay. Till WiTE2 there is simply no other way to prioritise some operations and without it a Soviet player has 90%+ certainty as to German capacities. Its a bad rule, but a totally necessary one. Reduce fuel drops and the logistics system will be as tight as possible given the binary rules for WiTE (ie you have a functioning rail line = limitless supply to that point). The old SPI board game (WiTE) had the flaw that after about 2 turns the Soviet player could see where the German supply lines were going to be and put in place a precise set of moves around that knowledge - as with many SPI games their desire to produce as many games as possible meant they were often vulnerable to being 'broken' by a perfect strategy,

I'm surprised how well Soviet players have adapted to no +1 and mild winter. When the option came out I did a test game vs the AI and it was an exercise in attack-defense up to mid-November. Now it seems that most people who have some grasp of the importance of mass in the combat engine have worked out how to handle the new situation. Against Vigabrand, of the attacks I made with a reasonable hope of winning, I think I won about 80%.

The other thing is that most people seem to have adapted to the need to lose more of the 1941 army to protect the industrial evacuation without this setting off a death spiral.

The problem with modelling Soviet mid/late war constraints is you really need the WiTW supply system. I'm finding it that it rewards operational pauses, not just to let supply lines catch up but to replenish ammo stocks etc (and ammo deficits hit harder in WiTW than in WiTE). That was the primary reason why the Soviets kept on swapping focus and indeed why their entire southern Ukrainian forces sat still from March - August 1944.

I really don't know how to cope with that in the WiTE engine. I'm not sure the issue of higher losses is the solution as my feeling is that raw strength, pure and simple, is so much less important than leadership/morale/experience/equipment.

You're right about Moscow being the key, your game against Dave is going to be an interesting test of just how much the Soviets can recover.
Callistrid
Posts: 669
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:27 pm

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by Callistrid »

Ok, so here is my insights:

1. The rail transport levels are to high. German and soviet both.
Soviet side can rail troops evacuate industrial areas in 1941, and 42-45 2-3 full fronts could be transported. The current 50-60 % rate could be enough for boh sides.

2. Air bases, and HQ-s had high number of MP. The panzer/tank armies should have 50, but infantry, and other HQ/air base why? I believe 25 would be enough for both sides.

3. Isolated units could be killed to easy. Their strength dropped to high. Better continuously lower third CV,
-33% first isolated turn
-66% second turn,
-75% third turn
-90% 4+ turn

4. The attack cost is to low, 2 for infantry, 3 for motorized. I believe 3 MP for infantry, and 5 for motorized could better. In other case the casualties need to be doubled, and soviet side could gain extra loses by morale (low morale troops loose more units, high less).

5. Isolated hexes flip. Delay the isolated hexes flip by 1 turn. That means the isolated area must be cut from main territory for two turn, except enemy if unit capture the area.

6. Lower the air transport in 1941, or just simply don't allow until 42

7. The enemy territorial movement rethinked. I believe standard base should be implemented (not morale based), like:

+1 MP for german motorized/cav division
+2 MP for infantry division / cav/mot brigade (german)
+3 MP for german inf brigade/regiment
+2 MP for soviet tank/mech corps
+3 MP for all soviet divisions/corps
+4 for all soviet brigades
User avatar
Commanderski
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:24 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by Commanderski »

I agree fuel drops is unhistorical and needs to be nerfed

I don't play as near enough as I would like but I like the balance so far, playing against the AI. I disagree with what you said about the fuel drops as the Luftwaffe did supply the Panzer divisions by air. You can find numerous occasions where that occurred. The limiting to using transports only for the fuel drops makes it close to what was historically used and could have been used. The way it currently is you have to chose who you want to get fuel/supplies as there are only so many transports.
Also making pockets harder to destroy will very much slow down Germanys march east.

Be careful what you ask for. The way it's set up now may be due to programming more than anything else and could end up causing greater delays than actually happened. Against the AI a large pocket take 2-3 turns(weeks).

There is a difference in what happens in the game between paying human vs human and playing human vs AI and they have to try to maintain playability for both types of players. Neither type may be 100% happy but I think it's as close as they can get it now.

Also just thought I would point out that putting all the high morale leaders in a chain of command where they weren't historically is allowed and is sort of a way to "game" the system to increase the morale of your attacking troops. That probably couldn't be nerfed in the programing of the game but should be considered a house rule when playing a PBEM.

This game is designed to also be a "what if" not a "what was" so it's not always going to be at 100% of historical.
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by chaos45 »

My take on things.

First off against BrainG you got hit with 3 mud turns and 2 very early in the campaign if I remeber right- this should be fairly crippling to the early German advance especially early in the game thus not quite reaching historical with all those mud turns probably about right. As to november Snow counter-attacks if you look at our game I counter-attacked very heavily the last week in november as well, it seems the the Germans get a slight hit to CV that last week before the blizzard starts.

Our game is proceeding kinda close to historical minus the massive German March to April offensive that allowed you to get about a month headstart on Summer operations. I will say your ability to continue to conduct major operations in the South while conducting minor/threatening offensive operations in north is abit unrealistic and purely being allowed due to the massively more powerful German army in 1942 than historical.

As to Soviet industry- I got out slightly less than historical despite sacrificing most if not all of the 1941 army lol. Now I made one small mistake that you capitialized on, on T4-5 so maybe reasonable. To say Soviet industry doesnt matter I would have to disagree----you say my army is smaller than all the others yet I still have virtually no armaments surplus nor manpower surplus. So Soviet industry/manpower for sure puts a limit on how large and how fast the Soviet army grows. I have purposely stopped building support units and it has helped alot on armaments but now its all manpower shortages.

There is simply no way for the Soviets in 1942 even to stop German attacks period- to me this is extremely unrealistic---the reason is neither side experiences enough casualties to halt/hinder operations. Those battles we have been fighting from June into July have had unbelievable concnetrations of Forces for both sides in a very small area- effectively Kursk level engagements week after week but few casualties for both sides. So basically since German CV per divisions is about 2-3x soviet CV the Germans refuel they just run over the Soviets. You smashed through 40+ Soviet Corps with 3 SU each with over half of them being Guard corps in June/July and all of them being concentrated against your main push. Not to mention the about 2 entire fronts of Soviet infantry forces supporting my Shock armies and tank forces.

Another huge/massive reason the Soviets cant effectively stop German attacks is the cost in MP to enter enemy terrain is massive even my best units pay 4-5MP to enter clear ground...this means effectively the Germans dont have to really guard flanks that heavily because 1-2 empty hexes means most soviet units cant do more than a hasty attack which for Soviets is horrible unless you have a massive edge in CV. So once the germans get a breach they just drive around for alittle while planting flags and the soviets are like ohh the germans were there we cant do anything---with the control rules and movement penalties I dont think the Soviets could ever conduct Stalingrad in this game as no German player will ever leave a flank that weak, and with movement penalties you would need a clean breach and just open driving ground to make an advance like that for Soviets even in late 1942.

I cant say how huge this is- your flanks were extremely weak compared to the forces I could mass but the issue is due to the movement penalties I couldnt mass/move enough stuff to make any headway. When moving into 1 hex of enemy territory takes most of your units 1/3-1/2 their movement it limits counter-attacks massively perhaps abit to much.

Historically the German 1942 offensive succeeded because it hit a weak spot in the Soviet lines against exhausted and worn out troops...you smashed through the best troops the Soviet army had to offer generously supported by well trained tank corps. All those tank corps had been built early and were 40+ experience and 90+% ToE when all of those battles started- one even guard at almost 60 morale. Almost all of my 20 cav corps are 60-70 Morale yet they couldnt stop you. This is the issue im having with 1942- you are using 2-3k AFVs assaulting into 2 fronts and an additional 40+ Soviet mobile corps equiped with almost 5k AFVs and still doing just fine. In fact in this last turn you managed to encircle yet another entire Soviet infantry army and forced me to fall back or risk additional encirclements. Not sure I call that balanced/realistic. If the Germans want to attack and be counterattacked by those types of force levels lots and lots of stuff should die and be destroyed- dont see it in the game. Soviet counterattacks are small pinpricks that the Germans brush off and just encircle more soviet units the next turn.

As to your thoughts on Rifle Corps- welll you did give me the perfect training ground for my infantry for months by leaving your center weak. Thus that allowed something like half of my western front to become Guard rifle divisions. Thus the reason my now very experienced rifle divisions are still slowly chewing up your lines there even with you adding more and more units. As to rifle corps being to powerful I disagree- your 1st Corps is the same principle only better as you have 90+ morale/EXP and have up to 9 engineer battalions from turn 1 if you want. Takes months to build 3 rifle corps with 3 sappers each then only at most 50-60 morale and they dont have the same fort destroying ability of the German engineers. So nope not overpowered in fact my average guards rifle corps (CV) is no stronger than your 1st Corps rifle divisions and they have like 10k more men in them than your divisions. The key thing Rifle corps give the Soviets is the ability to actually mass more CV from one hexside. Which against German CVs is needed when even a full strength soviet non-guard division only nets 2-3 CV for normal divisions.

As to the air war- you are losing it badly for several reasons. It started when you bombed leningrad without fighter escorts...that allowed a load of Soviet fighter groups to get a ton of experience early in the war. Then you stripped the luftwaffe from the front all winter- this allowed Soviet bombers to get a load of experience for free. Then when you returned the luftwaffe you put most of it in the south and a small force by leningrad- leningrad had my best fighter pilots- tons of 80+ exp grps...so I just chewed up your small fighter force with my almost 1,000 fighters then bombed your bomber bases into the dirt. Allowing my fighter pilots to rack up even more exp/morale. Now im slowly shifting my fighter grps around so your now weakened airforce is facing more and more veteran soviet fighter squadrons- and it all really goes back to your 1-2 month failed bombing campaign over leningrad. Thats how the airwar has greatly turned against you. Then you allowing me to gut the finnish airforce on the ground for several turns didnt help either as you ran them out of fuel by keeping them so far from supply lines. Not to mention low supply and bombing raids left alot damaged then you left a weak hex right next to the airbase I took then routed the airbase destroying like 40+ finnish planes on the ground.

Also I think I built a good solid soviet army and its very close to historical aside from alot more cavalry corps. Which historically the Soviets lost alot more cav divisions/cav corps than I have so far is a big reason for that- I tried to save alot of the cavalry and in the future Im going to try and save even more as I still lost 11 cav divisions before I could form Corps- so that was probably 2 lost corps before december as the others are lost at the frontier and you cant stop that. Soviet cav corps are the Best units in the soviet arsenal especially paired with sappers/tank bns for support units- they are also armaments hogs though. They are mobile and pack one of the best CV punches the Soviet have still even in july 1942. My Guard infantry corps pack slightly more CV but arent nearly as mobile.

So thats my 2 cents on our game so far- again its damn depressing playing the Soviets in 41/42 you get a small bright spot for 2-3 months over the winter then once march hits every turn is depressing again lol.
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by Peltonx »

Chaos any input from your other games?
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: loki100

ok. I'll bite.

your vet vs newbie= german victory in 41 logic is re-assuring. If that wasn't happening, I'd almost find myself in agreement with the long absent MichaelT.

I agree with you that HQBU has to stay. Till WiTE2 there is simply no other way to prioritise some operations and without it a Soviet player has 90%+ certainty as to German capacities. Its a bad rule, but a totally necessary one. Reduce fuel drops and the logistics system will be as tight as possible given the binary rules for WiTE (ie you have a functioning rail line = limitless supply to that point). The old SPI board game (WiTE) had the flaw that after about 2 turns the Soviet player could see where the German supply lines were going to be and put in place a precise set of moves around that knowledge - as with many SPI games their desire to produce as many games as possible meant they were often vulnerable to being 'broken' by a perfect strategy,

I'm surprised how well Soviet players have adapted to no +1 and mild winter. When the option came out I did a test game vs the AI and it was an exercise in attack-defense up to mid-November. Now it seems that most people who have some grasp of the importance of mass in the combat engine have worked out how to handle the new situation. Against Vigabrand, of the attacks I made with a reasonable hope of winning, I think I won about 80%.

The other thing is that most people seem to have adapted to the need to lose more of the 1941 army to protect the industrial evacuation without this setting off a death spiral.

The problem with modelling Soviet mid/late war constraints is you really need the WiTW supply system. I'm finding it that it rewards operational pauses, not just to let supply lines catch up but to replenish ammo stocks etc (and ammo deficits hit harder in WiTW than in WiTE). That was the primary reason why the Soviets kept on swapping focus and indeed why their entire southern Ukrainian forces sat still from March - August 1944.

I really don't know how to cope with that in the WiTE engine. I'm not sure the issue of higher losses is the solution as my feeling is that raw strength, pure and simple, is so much less important than leadership/morale/experience/equipment.

You're right about Moscow being the key, your game against Dave is going to be an interesting test of just how much the Soviets can recover.

I agree with WitW supply system working better, but not sure how that will work on a large scale like EF.

A huge lack of trucks should mean less fuel and less ammo, but it appears we only see less MP's


Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: Callistrid

Ok, so here is my insights:

1. The rail transport levels are to high. German and soviet both.
Soviet side can rail troops evacuate industrial areas in 1941, and 42-45 2-3 full fronts could be transported. The current 50-60 % rate could be enough for boh sides.

2. Air bases, and HQ-s had high number of MP. The panzer/tank armies should have 50, but infantry, and other HQ/air base why? I believe 25 would be enough for both sides.

3. Isolated units could be killed to easy. Their strength dropped to high. Better continuously lower third CV,
-33% first isolated turn
-66% second turn,
-75% third turn
-90% 4+ turn

3. Isolated units could be killed to easy. Their strenght dropped to high. Better continuously lower thied CV, line -33% first turn, -66% second turn, -90 % other turns.

4. The attack cost is to low, 2 for infantry, 3 for motorized. I believe 3 MP for infantry, and 5 for motorized could better. In other case the casualties need to be doubled, and soviet side could gain extra loses by morale (low morale troops loose more units, high less).

5. Isolated hexes flip. Delay the isolated hexes flip by 1 turn. That means the isolated area must be cut from main territory for two turn, except enemy if unit capture the area.

6. Lower the air transport in 1941, or just simply don't allow until 42

7. The enemy territorial movement rethinked. I believe standard base should be implemented (not morale based), like:

+1 MP for german motorized/cav division
+2 MP for infantry division / cav/mot brigade (german)
+3 MP for german inf brigade/regiment
+2 MP for soviet tank/mech corps
+3 MP for all soviet divisions/corps
+4 for all soviet brigades

I like all your ideas.

6. has been addresses in .05
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by chaos45 »

Its why ive not advocated for alot of changes aside from higher casualties as my other games havent gotten very far. My buddy just returned from vacation so got the next turn from him late last night. An the other German player I was facing as Soviets hasnt replied with a turn in a couple weeks so figuring thats a dead game.

An honestly with how long our turns take and my game vs my buddy 2 games is about all I can prolly keep up with.
User avatar
heliodorus04
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Nashville TN

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by heliodorus04 »

Versus the AI playing as Germany, I'm super happy with the 1.08.04 version of the game.
Quality defender in the AI now. I still avoid using HQ BU against the AI, but that doesn't concern me.

I recently tried 1.08.04 against an inexperienced Soviet who was ready to switch from AI to humen; he tried to defend too far forward, and the resulting encirclements meant he resigned on Turn 3. I'll let you decide what that means for the game. I share it without assigning meaning.

For my fun-factor, playing a human opponent requires way too much work out of the Axis player. Much of what I consider to be the mundane tedium can easily be remedied in single-player by giving myself more Admin Points. Essentially I just want to optimize my Army Organization for the needs of the combat engine. It's still absurd (absurd!) that VIII Corps/9 Army starts with half the SUs in the Wehrmacht. But in the end, those problems are also solvable by design/mod of the scenario (someone get right on that, mkkay?).

I have little enthusiasm for the game's head-to-head gameplay. The disparity in difficulty level between Axis and Soviet is enormous.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Versus the AI playing as Germany, I'm super happy with the 1.08.04 version of the game.
Quality defender in the AI now. I still avoid using HQ BU against the AI, but that doesn't concern me.

I recently tried 1.08.04 against an inexperienced Soviet who was ready to switch from AI to humen; he tried to defend too far forward, and the resulting encirclements meant he resigned on Turn 3. I'll let you decide what that means for the game. I share it without assigning meaning.

For my fun-factor, playing a human opponent requires way too much work out of the Axis player. Much of what I consider to be the mundane tedium can easily be remedied in single-player by giving myself more Admin Points. Essentially I just want to optimize my Army Organization for the needs of the combat engine. It's still absurd (absurd!) that VIII Corps/9 Army starts with half the SUs in the Wehrmacht. But in the end, those problems are also solvable by design/mod of the scenario (someone get right on that, mkkay?).

I have little enthusiasm for the game's head-to-head gameplay. The disparity in difficulty level between Axis and Soviet is enormous.

Hi bro!!!

With the nerf to HQBU you have more then enough pts to make things perfect.

I would reconsider H v H.

Play for fun as vs the AI or simply think of the H as an AI.

Hope RL is going great.


Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
wga8888
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:20 pm
Location: Sachse, Texas USA
Contact:

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by wga8888 »

What is your objective? To assure Axis win the campaign, an ahistorical result?

(This is the issue with Decision Games Windows War in Europe; all the options are pro Axis and Axis consistently effectively win by late 1942 when Russia becomes impotent. The majority of the player base are young folks and see no point playing with the actual supply & weather rules as interferes with assuming a Decisive Axis win; have not hesitation cheat; to redo a turn to avoid bad die rolls, return to save after testing defenses undefined by FOW, then return to save).

This is merely a game not a simulation. If it was a simulation, the Germans would be constantly constrained by irrational orders out of sync with the military situation (a human player has unified singular command); the Axis would come close but lose decisively.

The Axis winning decisively in 41/42 is a game where the Axis have all the historical tactical advantages but the flawed strategic decisions/ army group rivalries, etc are absent. Similar to What if the Confederates has AK-47s (Harry Turtledove) or if Napoleon has a B-1 bomber (Saturday Night Live). Same concept applies to War in the Pacific, Japanese have all the historical advantages but the human player is not bound by the countless strategic limitations (no overall strategy, waiting for the Allies to negotiate a pro Japan treaty, total army/navy non-cooperation, flawed industry, advancing availability of aircraft by as much as a year while Allied production is fixes, & standardizing the best types throughout the air fleet, etc).

Playing AI has no relationship to playing a competent human player.
Bill Thomson
wga8888@icloud.com
Discord: wga8888 #7339
817-501-2978 CST [-6 GMT]
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by chaos45 »

Surviving 1941/1942 is no easy task as the Soviets- a small slip up can cost you big and I mean big......which means that despite what some ppl believe is easy Soviet play I disagree, the Germans effectively have all the initiative in the game 41/42 and maybe even 1943 havent gotten that far yet.

Here is what I so far hate about playing the Soviets and feel is completely stupid- unrealistic- all im playing for is time I cant really hurt the germans, I cant really take back land....all I can do is try to delay you and buy time until my army becomes worth something or bad weather sets in.....this is completely dumb and unrealistic. The german 1942 offensive was historically stopped by losses and combat not time and weather. Since combat doesnt matter really though and its all about national morale levels and what they are auto set at- Im really begining to doubt the game is worth playing. Battles should matter(casualties) and national morale should be less important. Honestly morale should take care of itself really- as the Germans get ground down by losses-attrition the soviets should then be able to more easily launch attacks thus slowly grinding down German morale while increasing their own.....that really is how it should work not just for a long time Germans are amazing and soviets crap then because we cant fix the combat system to work in a realistic manner we just make the Germans suddenly fight like crap via the morale lever and make the soviets better.

The Germans reach the Stalingrad area in August of 1942 and were stopped decisively not just in the city but on the open ground to the north. Also the German army was in such a bad state after the winter they couldnt get re-built and re-organized to launch the offensive until the end of June 1942, 28th if I remember right...far cry from March German offensives in this game that just continue on every non-mud turn.

Army Group A was decisively defeated in the drive on Grozny-Wiking and the panzer division at the spearhead effectively lost all their remaining tanks in like 1 battle against 2 Soviet tank BDEs if I remember correctly- you will never see that in this game. These events happened because the Soviets killed/wounded alot of germans not because of logistics/weather or whatever else.

The Germans were decisively defeated before the actual encirclement, the encirclement was the coup de grace on already greatly battle worn formations. Its why the Germans had no reserves/no counterattack forces worth mentioning.

So if historically the Soviets could stop German offensives in the summer of 1942, why can they not do it in the game? I would have to say its because the game gives the German a free army group that never existed-due to massively low attrition/combat losses and is removing several fronts worth of Soviet troops from the game due to lower replacement/AP/industrial capacity to employ them.

So IMO the game is doing a completely ineffective job at modeling attrition/combat losses and that is one of the main issues with the system to making the eastern front look/act realistic. There is effectively almost no attrition to the German army by the summer of 1942- maybe its because of the way some players game the system IDK- but I still see a ton of german divisions in contact with soviet forces all over the map and they are still conducting massive offensive operations- which means losses should be substantial each week, not the pin pricks they are in the game.

Kursk 1943- the Germans were winning yes...at an extremely high cost in manpower- They stopped the attacks not only because of Sicily but because they were losing a ton of men and equipment they couldnt replace. I want to see that effect in the game, its not there now. Do I care if a german attack succeeds or not- no because im going to lose the ground/divisions anyway, however I want to see those soviet divisions take some Germans with them, I want to see my counterattacks matter....things that in the game currently dont. the German army should slowly die the death of a thousand cuts, as thats what historically happened. It wasnt one major battle that caused them to lose it was battle after battle where the losses added up.

Currently in games against players that know the game we are seeing a neverending German army staying around/surpassing 4M men in 1942/1943 Sorry this shouldnt be happening.

The issue is this compounds the German CV/Experience/morale edge way more than historical- as those extra 500k men stay in 80+ exp/morale units giving the Germans a massive edge in CV over historical, thus allowing them to chew up the soviet army even worse than historical creating a compounding issue that makes it decidedly unpleasant to play the soviets. As Pelton says its a snowball effect, to a massive benefit of German players.




shermanny
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:36 am

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by shermanny »

I have been playing a slow-paced PBEM game which began in 8.0, progressed to 8.1 and then 8.2. I'm Soviets. Mild winter, VC 260, and as an intended offset, a house rule limiting Axis advance in the South on turn 1 to what was historically achieved.

I lost Moscow and Leningrad in 1941, as the Axis was able to just forge ahead in the mild winter. In 1942, the supply rules had my guys just losing almost no matter what, and that snowballed as morale cratered. The Germans were able to simply force their way through the woods of the North and take Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, Vladimir, and very nearly Gorki. We upgraded to 8.2 at some point and my defenses firmed up a little, but a lot of the damage was done.

My opponent headed South and ground his way into Voronezh and Kharkov. He didn't need pockets and didn't get many, which was the one bright spot in all this. (I've lost the equivalent of 85 divisions destroyed, counting brigades as half a division and corps as 3 divisions.) Toward the end of 1942, with the uptick to base morale level 45, I was able to firm up a defense and make a stand before Stalino, Tambov, and Gorki.

With 199 Heavy Industry and 362 Armaments factories, I'm OK now on that score, as of October 1943, and have made some gains. Germans have 3.9 million men, 36K guns, 4100 AFV, and 2150 planes. Plus their Axis allies. Soviets have 9.4 million men, 145K guns, 13800 AFV, and 22.5 K planes. Axis still hold Moscow, Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, but Soviets have just regained control of Tula, Kharkov, Zaporozhe, and Kursk.

I expect the game will be a draw in the end. VC 260 plus Mild Winter cedes a lot, and then having to fight most of the summer of 1942 with very low supply levels cost me dearly. But it remains to be seen what can be done with the 1944 Soviet Army. It'll be very strong, as I've got over 60 guards rifle corps.

One curiosity: mechanized corps remainly stubbornly in the 40s with experience, even when morale has been in the 60s for many turns. Is it a fool's errand to build such units?
you cannot refine it
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by chaos45 »

Interesting that you lost leningrad/moscow but managed to keep much more of the south it seems.

As to mech corps not sure, they should be able to train up to 60 experience. When you first form them remember you take the experience hit on the first formation and it take a long time to train up after that....months really. Even on a rail line which is supposed to give a bonus to training....you will ony see a gain of like 3 points per week or something.

So build them early then they have to sit around for 2-3 months and train if you want them at full skill....or just train them in combat.
MattFL
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:48 pm
Contact:

RE: Game balance under 1.08.03/4?

Post by MattFL »

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

For my fun-factor, playing a human opponent requires way too much work out of the Axis player. Much of what I consider to be the mundane tedium can easily be remedied in single-player by giving myself more Admin Points. Essentially I just want to optimize my Army Organization for the needs of the combat engine. It's still absurd (absurd!) that VIII Corps/9 Army starts with half the SUs in the Wehrmacht. But in the end, those problems are also solvable by design/mod of the scenario (someone get right on that, mkkay?).

I have little enthusiasm for the game's head-to-head gameplay. The disparity in difficulty level between Axis and Soviet is enormous.

This is a very interesting comment. For me, playing the AI is a waste of time, only playing head to head is any fun at all. Further, I enjoy much more playing the Axis than I do the SHC if only because the workload is so much lighter and it's just a lot more fun to attack then it is to take a beat down. It takes me twice as long to play a Soviet Turn as a German turn.

As for the game's balance, really I find the current version to be quite balanced, at least in the first half of the war. Can't really comment on the late war as I little experience with it. But watching Pelton's AAR vs Smokindave, it seems pretty boring in any case. We'll see though....

If you look at the AAR's between experienced players, it seems that the games are for the most part quite close. Changing too much will no doubt cause unintended/unanticipated headaches. So I personally wouldn't muck with too much as I think it's fine the way it is for the most part. For example, making isolated units take a lot longer to kill could have a massive impact on the game and it could suddenly become a viable strategy to allow encirclements at some points knowing they will fight on for several weeks tying up the enemy dealing with them. Callistrad has several other very interesting suggestions, but personally I wouldn't implement them as many seem like small changes but could possibly really upset the game balance.

Just my .02..
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”