Balance discussion

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

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

Post Reply
User avatar
VigaBrand
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:51 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Balance discussion

Post by VigaBrand »

Hi,
I only want a discussion about changes and balancing.

I know Moravel will work on the balance in the next patch.

Experience from actual AAR
- soviet are to weak
- germans too fast

What could be done:
+1 soviet bonus, will reduce speed or buy the soviets some time.
experience gain will be reworked as chaos told the problems.

Is it possible, that the soviet will get a manpowermodifier if they choose no combat bonus (like the changed formular for guards)? Because with the extended Lvov pocket, you loose more soviets in comparison to some years ago.

The experience change will be huge, because experience will influence the casualties (combat/attrition).

Maybe that could help, but made the soviets not to powerfull (I'm afraid, we changed it so massiv, that it will go the other way).

One question:
The ports will not be auto repair to 0 damage by some support units or FBD? Only 3% per week?


User avatar
Telemecus
Posts: 4689
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:32 pm
Contact:

RE: Balance discussion

Post by Telemecus »

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand
Experience from actual AAR
- soviet are to weak
- germans too fast

I think the AARs say the reverse - and this seems to be the common mistake made.

For most games the Soviets are too powerful and the Germans too slow.

It is only for the top players that Soviets are too weak and Germans too fast.

It is worth making this reminder as it would be a shame for the game to be rebalanced away from the 90% who are new and find it very difficult to break into the game as Axis players.

Certainly the last time this was asked in an AAR of someone advocating a rebalancing to the Soviet side it was confirmed that it is only a group of settings designed for experienced players that needs to be made.
One question:
The ports will not be auto repair to 0 damage by some support units or FBD? Only 3% per week?

3% a week only
Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

Nothing to see here
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

Nada
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by chaos45 »

viga---the experience change is not massive...all it does is return experience gain to what is written in the rules and how the game was played for literally like almost 10 years or something...

For some reason in Patch .08 or later it was reduced to 1 per turn......a completely un-needed and extremely debilitating nerf to soviet CV esp coupled with the removal of sapper regiments as well as reduction of sapper squads in Soviet divisions.

Soviet CV has been nerfed into the dirt since .07 on.

An yes German supply is way to good IMO, yes you do need to manage your rail network...but if a german player is serious about playing this game they will concentrate on the rail network and logistics.

I think Hardluck is going to have even more to say soon as he is playing 2 games as soviets again Beender and BrianG both very knowledgeable players.

Also to tele- I think your seeing even newer players in the scheme of years of play now doing very well with the Germans- getting at least historical results. As they refine their skill- usually 1-2 long games they will start using the tricks they need to make the germans super germans just like all the other good german players. The problem is the events can be repeated game after game and the soviet side has no answers right now.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11762
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Balance discussion

Post by morvael »

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand
Experience from actual AAR
- soviet are to weak
- germans too fast

Next patch will adjust balance of both issues, but you need to be patient. Only today I've started to believe that my great supply system rewrite (2nd attempt) will be successful.
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

Nada
User avatar
xhoel
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Balance discussion

Post by xhoel »

I have to agree with Tele on the topic. For most players, the experience is quite different, but I do understand the frustration of expert Soviet players, who feel that whatever they do, is not enough to stop the German onslaught. IMO opinion it should be pretty hard for the Germans to get all the major cities in 1941 (Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov).

In terms of CV I personally think the Soviets are doing quite well. In my GC there are cases where Soviet Rifle divisions with 2-3 CV values are stopping German divisions with 20+ CVs. And these are not separate cases. The +1 MP rule for failed attacks is a very BIG change, that forces the Axis in 1941-early 1943 to reformulate the strategy as you simply cannot afford to lose a battle. This means you will be conducting many more deliberate attacks, which in turn means less MPs to advance forward. Ofc the same thing affects the Soviets too later on, but I don't know if anyone has tested that yet.

HLYA proposal is a really good one. It would make for a much more interesting game to see the Soviets attack time and time again, either in order to open a thinly held pocket or to push a weak division aside. But the +1 one rule should end in November before the blizzard hits. Otherwise coupled with the blizzard it is more or less a guarantee that you will push back most of the units you attack.

The only thing that should be changed in regards to the supply system is the way ports operate. I'm not using ports as supply sources and my units at the entrance of the Crimea are +40 MP away from their rail lines. That seems enough punishment to me. Also the incredibly high HQ Build Up costs are enough to make sure that whole Panzer armies are not on the offensive week in and week out.

Nice to see a discussion about this though.

@morvael: any ETA on the patch?
AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator
User avatar
EwaldvonKleist
Posts: 2053
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

RE: Balance discussion

Post by EwaldvonKleist »

The fixed experience gain will help the Soviets a great deal already.
Please please please make moderate changes only. There is no point in starting an axis OP soviets OP seesaw.
User avatar
VigaBrand
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:51 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Balance discussion

Post by VigaBrand »

@chaos: Experience fix is massiv. I think it is needed, but it will change much. Better soviet cv, less casualties, more inflicted on the axis side. This could lead to the snowball effect, which made the balancing so extremly hard.

port supply could be defended with air force. You only must achieve 3% damage per week with two attacks. Defend the crimea and you could defend your bombers with fighters. Could be interesting to see.


User avatar
56ajax
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: Carnegie, Australia

RE: Balance discussion

Post by 56ajax »

Some excellent postings here.

As a Soviet player I despair at how weak the Soviets are and how ineffective their weapons systems appear to be. I've read that historically AGN was exhausted by the continuous Soviet counter attacks and eventually came to a dead stop. You would have to be crazy to try that tactic in the game. As the Soviet you run for it and hope your opponent has mucked up turn 1, HQBUs, rail conversions etc otherwise the writing is on the wall by T15. On the other hand though I have played against an 'historic' German and they surrendered very early.

So really the game needs to be balanced and fun for both sides (and against a good German the Soviets rarely have any fun especially as it takes me 3-4 hours a turn).

Now I fully appreciate and support the efforts of morvael and friends in maintaining this game and thank them for fixing bugs but perhaps we need to go easier on them for changing game balance. Instead perhaps players need to negotiate a much better list of House Rules. Consider the following as simplistic examples :

Each Army group must have a minimum n panzer divs assigned
Restrict Army Groups to a geographical areas eg AGN units cannot go further South than co ords ...
FDBs cannot be reassigned, or only 1 can, or they cannot be chained
No re assigning bombers to another airfield on T1
Try and introduce a concept of a Campaign Season and not all out assault on the first clear turn of 1942.
etc

Forts existing on t1 cannot be disbanded
New forts cannot be built till Tn
On T5,7,9,n the worst performing Soviet army commander must be sacked
In clear turns at least nn% of airforce must be assigned to airfields

Some of these could be impractical, but one thing is certain, you are reliant on the good faith of your opponent, and if you don't have that what is the point of playing the game.

Then again they may pull a dirty rotten dastardly Axis trick...



Molotov : This we did not deserve.

Foch : This is not peace. This is a 20 year armistice.

C'est la guerre aérienne
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by chaos45 »

@vigabrand--somehow the old EXP system wasn't causing the axis to lose every game....back when Moscow didn't fall every game.

Secondly soviet casualties are so ridiculously high even for 40 exp units it really isn't going to help reduce soviet losses, as well german losses are still fairly low for attacking turn after turn. So no I don't think the EXP fix will have any appreciable effect on casualty numbers.

The only thing the EXP fix will do is allow the soviets to get some CV 2 divisions by the time the Germans arrive at Moscow which desperately needed for the soviets to even have a chance at defending it....even a stack of CV 1 divisions in a fort with woods can do nothing to slow down the german advance in 1941- 3CVx woodsx lvl 1 fort(if your lucky, due to low exp means sucky fort building)- is only like 9-12 CV on defense...this is easily shifted by the germans in 1941. However 6CVx woods x lvl 1 fort= 18-24 CV the germans actually have to use decisive attacks to shift them and hasty attacks may not be able to clear them after they are push out unless they rout.

Its a huge difference in German MP burn rate which is what the soviets need to have a chance to hold Moscow. Part of the Soviet infantry divisions making 2CV by Moscow will not suddenly make the germans unable to do anything it will just make the battle of Moscow difficult like it should be.

Remember historically Typhoon didn't start till after the first mud---games now see the Germans at Moscow prior to even first mud.

Also Soviet replacement rates are very low-- in the team game soviets lost Moscow---manpower in 1942 is only 90k per turn...soviet attrition when at 45 exp across the front is insane something like 50k per turn...the Germans don't have to shatter/encircle many soviets to make every 1942 turn a net loss for soviet manpower. Couple the lower soviet replacements with higher losses across the board this patch and the soviet losses are just about unsustainable now for average turns. If the Germans get a couple big turns its a huge net loss for the soviets now.

You have to remember other changes have been done over the years to reduce soviet CV they have all compounded to make the soviets now much to weak.
User avatar
mrblonde1
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:49 pm

RE: Balance discussion

Post by mrblonde1 »

Moscow don't fall every game.
War is a game.
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by chaos45 »

More often than not it is falling since .08 patch. While Moscow falling should only be happening in outlier games.
User avatar
VigaBrand
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:51 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Balance discussion

Post by VigaBrand »

ORIGINAL: chaos45

@vigabrand--somehow the old EXP system wasn't causing the axis to lose every game....back when Moscow didn't fall every game.

Secondly soviet casualties are so ridiculously high even for 40 exp units it really isn't going to help reduce soviet losses, as well german losses are still fairly low for attacking turn after turn. So no I don't think the EXP fix will have any appreciable effect on casualty numbers.

The only thing the EXP fix will do is allow the soviets to get some CV 2 divisions by the time the Germans arrive at Moscow which desperately needed for the soviets to even have a chance at defending it....even a stack of CV 1 divisions in a fort with woods can do nothing to slow down the german advance in 1941- 3CVx woodsx lvl 1 fort(if your lucky, due to low exp means sucky fort building)- is only like 9-12 CV on defense...this is easily shifted by the germans in 1941. However 6CVx woods x lvl 1 fort= 18-24 CV the germans actually have to use decisive attacks to shift them and hasty attacks may not be able to clear them after they are push out unless they rout.

Its a huge difference in German MP burn rate which is what the soviets need to have a chance to hold Moscow. Part of the Soviet infantry divisions making 2CV by Moscow will not suddenly make the germans unable to do anything it will just make the battle of Moscow difficult like it should be.

Remember historically Typhoon didn't start till after the first mud---games now see the Germans at Moscow prior to even first mud.

Also Soviet replacement rates are very low-- in the team game soviets lost Moscow---manpower in 1942 is only 90k per turn...soviet attrition when at 45 exp across the front is insane something like 50k per turn...the Germans don't have to shatter/encircle many soviets to make every 1942 turn a net loss for soviet manpower. Couple the lower soviet replacements with higher losses across the board this patch and the soviet losses are just about unsustainable now for average turns. If the Germans get a couple big turns its a huge net loss for the soviets now.

You have to remember other changes have been done over the years to reduce soviet CV they have all compounded to make the soviets now much to weak.

I agree with you. Maybe I miss the higher losses overall in the game and was thinking my high soviet attrition rate came from the low experience.


Stelteck
Posts: 1379
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:07 pm

RE: Balance discussion

Post by Stelteck »

One thing to consider is that in the bitter end scenario, loosing both Leningrad and Moscow is game over for the soviet.

Having these two cities give too much points.

If the soviet want to win, he have to keep one at least.
Brakes are for cowards !!
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

Nada
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4110
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by M60A3TTS »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
ORIGINAL: Stelteck

One thing to consider is that in the bitter end scenario, loosing both Leningrad and Moscow is game over for the soviet.

Having these two cities give too much points.

If the soviet want to win, he have to keep one at least.

Ya, the thing is is that Leningrad will fall unless you defend it with just about everything a Soviet has. But these leaves everything else very open. So Leningrad pretty much falls 90%+ of all games played I bet you. I know that is what I see in almost all the AAR's.

As for Moscow if the Germans want to push and take this I give them a good 60-70% chance easily to take the city in 41 if that is their effort. You just need to do certain things to make this happen as Germany. Not for a AAR spoiler but the way BrianG is going he will probably take Moscow. But of course he is unpredictable and may change direction on me.

Keep your eye on forts. I have been the only one saying this but this is a huge buff for the Soviets early game and balances some of what is above.

I don't see how you can say forts are a huge buff but you will likely lose Moscow. If you are going to save Moscow, one would think forts have to be a part of the equation.
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Balance discussion

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

Nada
FredSanford3
Posts: 544
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:22 pm

RE: Balance discussion

Post by FredSanford3 »

While we're discussing game tweaks- One question I have is what is the rationale for making regiments and brigades slower when entering enemy territory? IMO, if anything, they should be faster since they don't place such a strain on the local road network that a unit 3x the size would (though I'd be happy to just make the movement costs the same as divisions). I think they would also have an easier time maneuvering around obstacles and have a quicker response to changes due to a more nimble C&C structure (fewer echelons to pass orders and reports thru).
_______________________
I'll think about putting something here one of these days...
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”