Patch v. Balancing

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Why do people keep screaming for some new patch? The game works great.

Now, perhaps, a unit or two need to be repositioned to balance a campaign; but that is directly related to the campaign editor, not the code.

My question is whether or not there will be newly balanced campaigns released after 1.06 has a chance to marinate a while; and who will be in charge of producing them?

[JerseyJohn]

Andre

I think most people are saying new patch and meaning SC-2 . Hubert has already said there won't be a new patch and I don't think there should be in any case. SC works about as well as SC could possibly work. All improvements need to be directed toward the next version of the game.

There's no way to get away from issues like:

The Atlantic -- how to improve the U-Boat/convoy war and make it more historical in terms of a cross ocean invasion by the Axis -- making Operation Sea Lion less feasable for Germany (my suggestion is charge the Germans four times as much to transport units, reflecting their lack of resources in this capacity -- and so on.

Weather and it's effect on the flow of offensives, particularly things like the Russian Winter and Italian/Balkan seasonal mud, etc..

There are numerous other topics, I'm sure Hubert's heard them all ad nauseum by now (though not from me ) and they're addressed in hundreds of past forums.

But all that should be directed at SC -2 , not another patch that won't be arriving.

[ January 10, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[GroupNorth]

Hubert recently said this:

OK I've come up with something that I think will work, I'll give out more specific details in the next batch of changes.

Hubert

Don't rush or bother the man, but I do believe he is thinking about a patch. I believe he has all the input he needs for the 'next batch.'

Very, very, very good.

[JerseyJohn]

GroupNorth

Amen!

Everyone has their last minute ideas. As you say, however, he's either heard them already or knows where to find them and at this point should pretty much be left alone.

We can bother him about space ships and bunjy jumping commandos after SC 2 comes out.

[ January 11, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Andre Bolkonsky:

Why do people keep screaming for some new patch? The game works great.

Now, perhaps, a unit or two need to be repositioned to balance a campaign; but that is directly related to the campaign editor, not the code.

My question is whether or not there will be newly balanced campaigns released after 1.06 has a chance to marinate a while; and who will be in

charge of producing them?

The problem with us doing scenario mods are that there will be no standard version to be used in challenges or tournaments. The scenario editor should preferrably be used to create new challenges, not balancing the ones already there. Preferrably, at leist the 1939 scenario should be fairly balanced. The options are not capable of fine tuning the balance in the present 1939 scenario.

[pzgndr]

FWIW, my 1939 and 1940 Campaign mods are out there for players to use. The tweaks and changes are very modest and do not radically change the default scenarios. They are not perfect, but they do seem better.

I'm certainly not "in charge" of scenarios players choose to use, but I have offered to update these Campaign scenarios based on player feedback in an attempt to make them more competitive against both the AI and human opponents. I have received some good comments so far and I'm continuing to experiment/playtest some other options. But more feedback from players who have completed full games is useful. Do the Campaign mods improve play balance or not? If yes, let's build on that.

[Jollyguy]

Bill;

I have two games going with your 1/4/03 updated 1939 mod. Thanks for doing it.

The games are both in 1941 now. I believe your changes were evenhanded, in that you gave both sides something (politicians are good at that too!)

My input so far (I'm Allies in both) is the Axis shouldn't get the extra experience or advances, as it's an Axis imbalance we're trying to address. The extra experience lets the Axis slice through Poland and France like a hot knife through butter. In both cases France fell around May or early June, 1940, even with the extra $ you provided France. That's too early IMO, as it allows the Axis extra time to conquer additional minors, and accumulate more mpps.

I'll get back to you with additional comments as the games progress, but one would be to increase Russian readiness from the standard 30, to 36.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

To me "patch" means a fix for broken software.

"Patch" should never have anything to do with my opinion of balance or whether I think some element such as subs or jets is done wrong.

Now I think the term "version" has some merits.

I played Third Reich and loved it when it was just Third Reich. And inevitably there were a few wordings that needed fixing. Errata is ancient wargame slang for pacth I suppose.

They made 4 editions of Third Reich, but only 2 "versions". The 5th edition is actually version 2 Advanced Third Reich. New better map, new better counter mix, totally new Diplomacy rules. and the manual is essentially not "patched" ie employing errata, it was totally rewritten.

When people say they like Third Reich, they are not automatically being clear enough. I no longer like Third Reich per se. I will only play Advanced Third Reich.

Me I have not really got any problem with playing SC just as it is. The only reason to "patch" it, is if the game's software doesn't function.

The best route to go, if the game design doesn't meet your needs, is to encourage Hubert to speed on the process of making version 2 (and not just asking for yet another tweak of the simulation).

Each time Hubert goes in and "tweaks" the game, he risks creating more bugs that will require genuine "patches". The man could end up fiddling with the game for ever (or at least several more months or years).

Far better for a game designer, to make the game inherently tweakable by the user with a decent editor in the first place.

I wish all wargames were done this way I suppose.

To date, it seems all games out there are always "in need" of tweaking by someone.

[ January 11, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Jollyguy:

My input so far (I'm Allies in both) is the Axis shouldn't get the extra experience or advances, as it's an Axis imbalance we're trying to address. The extra experience lets the Axis slice through Poland and France like a hot knife through butter.

But then, this outcome sounds realistic and historical, since the German juggernaut did exactly that, yes?

How they managed it, whether due to organization or deception or superior tactics or plain old battlefield luck, doesn't really matter.

But, as it was indeed done, we are left with trying to find a way to "model" an outcome that is based on more than a few factors that are intangible and nigh impossible to re-create.

The extra advances and experience are in line with actual Prussian/German achievements, IMO. The difficulty is trying to give BOTH sides an accurate OOB and capability.

The question remains: can you somehow allow the early German blitzkreig, and still halt the mean grey & black machine somewhere around Moscow and/or Stalingrad?

I believe you can, and am also experimenting with Bill's scenario in order to provide some suggestions so that we might finally have the most balanced '39 scenario... from the Axis perspective, at least, since that is the agonizing issue.

I would encourage others who are trying Bill's scenario to provide comments AND suggestions.

[Jollyguy]

If it's blunting the Axis advance in Russia you want, then the change would seem to be a fair amount more provided to Russia, in initial mpps and/or units, and more to the Americans.

This wouldn't address the Axis strategy, though, of conquering every minor on the board while England can do nothing but watch. So Russian readiness would also need to be increased.

The changes to the mod I'm working on do this. I've given the Russians 900 mpps to start: two, 2 strength low quality HQs; four, 2 strength corps, all around Moscow. I've given the US one each: 2 strength HQ, bomber, and tank; started the US at 3 ind tech, and given them 5 chits. I've left American starting readiness at 0, but bumped Russia up to 36, from 30.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As originally posted by Jollyguy:

My input so far (I'm Allies in both) is the Axis shouldn't get the extra experience or advances, as it's an Axis imbalance we're trying to address. The extra experience lets the Axis slice through Poland and France like a hot knife through butter.

But then, this outcome sounds realistic and historical, since the German juggernaut did exactly that, yes?

How they managed it, whether due to organization or deception or superior tactics or plain old battlefield luck, doesn't really matter.

But, as it was indeed done, we are left with trying to find a way to "model" an outcome that is based on more than a few factors that are intangible and nigh impossible to re-create.

The extra advances and experience are in line with actual Prussian/German achievements, IMO. The difficulty is trying to give BOTH sides an accurate OOB and capability.

The question remains: can you somehow allow the early German blitzkreig, and still halt the mean grey & black machine somewhere around Moscow and/or Stalingrad?

I believe you can, and am also experimenting with Bill's scenario in order to provide some suggestions so that we might finally have the most balanced '39 scenario... from the Axis perspective, at least, since that is the agonizing issue.

I would encourage others who are trying Bill's scenario to provide comments AND suggestions. </font>

[zappsweden]

THE MAINLAND VALUES (no africa colonies) for the major nations:

Russia 480 MPP

USA 180 MPP

Germany 120 MPP

France 100 MPP

UK 80 MPP

The problem is that Russia alone, has the same MPP as all the other major countries combined!!!

The other problem is the high pillage rates.

Germany is favoured by this because they can attack minor countries and also get alot of plunders. USA and UK suffer because their production cannot catch-up. The production increase from taking neutral countries is simsply to high (that cannot be changed easy though).

A VERY simple way to change this is adding some map (or invisble off-map) resources to USA (most), UK and Germany (leist) AND reducing the plunder rates.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Jollyguy:

The changes to the mod I'm working on do this. I've given the Russians 900 mpps to start: two, 2 strength low quality HQs; four, 2 strength corps, all around Moscow. I've given the US one each: 2 strength HQ, bomber, and tank; started the US at 3 ind tech, and given them 5 chits. I've left American starting readiness at 0, but bumped Russia up to 36, from 30.

Jollyguy, how do you manage this for the '39 scenario, since we cannot edit unless a country is "activated?"

Do you mean to say, for another, later scenario? But... you have mentioned Russian/USA readiness, so I guess I am... :confused:

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by zappsweden:

... AND reducing the plunder rates.

Excellent idea zapp, and I would absolutely favor this approach. I would allow one more level for AI play. Or, simply make Expert and each level below it approximately 20% or so less in terms of amount of plunder that you can receive.

This would provide a truer challenge for the Axis player I am thinking, and align the overall game a little better, since many seem to agree that the plunder allows Germany to succeed all too quickly (... yet, it wouldn't prevent them from conquering Poland and Low Countries and France right away). :cool:

[Yogi]

I'd like to see a more historical version, whether it be a patch or mod or SC2. I love SC and the ability it gives us to experiment with what-ifs. But I also feel as I read the play-by-play of the various contests of this forum that SC among our recognized experts has become a game only loosely based on a historical event rather than a test of the real situation.

Whether we are talking about England invading the lowlands and/or Norway, U.S. strength, anyone taking Spain, Iraq, Turkey, Sweeden etc, Jet planes, size of Navy or air force, supply or logistics -- the simple reality is that this does not depict the real conditions and/or why these things did not occur in actual history. Whether you think the Axis has a clear advantage or the Allies do, it is quite possibly because you don't have to worry about the real world as it was.

Once again, this is not a complaint about what is truly a great game. As an old board wargamer, I would just like the ability to also make it a more realistic depiction. If you want to know if you can do better than Hitler, Patton, Rommel, Guderian etc, then you need to be faced with the same strengths, weaknesses, manpower limitations, equipment and battlefields that they had to contend with.

[Jim Boggs]

Tom:

I think you have hit the nail on the head with your post. Hubert's marketing slogan "Change the outcome of the second world war" would indicate to me that he intended for this game to not be 100% historically accurate. Given the VERY generous transport rules which allows both Sea Lion and an invasion of America, it is readily apparent that this game is wide open to experiment within a certain framework of actual WW II history. I have pondered on this and it seems to me that one has a choice when designing a game, to either try for 100% historical accuracy and allow people to try different approaches based on historical possibilities which would limit somewhat the options available, or, as in SC, use WW II as a basic background to allow some really far-out options while retaining most of the historical elements, but not all. I think from a replayability standpoint SC's approach has extended that feature by a much greater amount than a truly histrical approach would, All the historical options are availble in SC, PLUS you can experiment with outlandish and innovative ideas that can be truly enjoyable-as the posted AAR's show

[JerseyJohn]

I think the game, in many ways is faithful to history. In the '39 scenario it seems Europe is Germany's for the taking. Historically Germany did this despite being hindered by it's Ally, Italy. Having accomplished this Herculean feat, something that hadn't been accomplished since Napoleon Bonaparte, Hitler proceeded to follow exactly in Napoleon's footsteps and throw everything away in Russia.

Players are free to do the same. Lose at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, throw away an entire Army Group in Tunesia, allow Army Group Center to be stupidly destroyed, let Army Group North be cut off for no particular reason in the Baltic States (renaming it's 44 doomed divisions Army Group Kourland) and, as the Axis, you too can succeed in matching Hitler's military genius and attaining the historical result too.

Strangely enough, most players somehow avoid doing those things. Germany should have won the war in Europe. I'm no fan of the nazis but it has to be said that way. And it was only Hitler's misdirection from the Battle of Britain onwards that cost them the war.

A large number of the comments I've seen simply want to prevent the true historically likely outcome through artifically rigging things in the Allies favor.

[USGrant]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Players are free to do the same. Lose at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, throw away an entire Army Group in Tunesia, allow Army Group Center to be stupidly destroyed, let Army Group North be cut off for no particular reason in the Baltic States (renaming it's 44 doomed divisions Army Group Kourland) and, as the Axis, you too can succeed in matching Hitler's military genius and attaining the historical result too.

Strangely enough, most players somehow avoid doing those things. Germany should have won the war in Europe. I'm no fan of the nazis but it has to be said that way. And it was only Hitler's misdirection from the Battle of Britain onwards that cost them the war.

That's a rather one-sided list. It could have said use crappy doctrine for French armor, defend too far forward with the Russians, purge the Russian officer corps, let Monty sit on his ass at Caen and go through the Bocage instead, waste TWO army groups in north africa, get bogged down in Italy, start the western campaign in 1944 instead of 1943, throw away an airborne corps at Arnhem, fail to defend the Ardennes (twice)...

Strangely enough, most players avoid doing those things (or make up for the ones that are coded into the starting setups).

Strategic errors on both sides are a part of all wars. To claim that the Germans should have won save that they made a few is absurd. In a pure mathematical sense, considering human and natural resources, Germany was toast as soon as either the US or Russia entered the war.

I believe that what most complaints about SC play balance argue is that the turning point that occurred in about 1942 doesn't happen or happens much later (in my opinion due to the plunder rules).

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Players are free to do the same. Lose at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, throw away an entire Army Group in Tunesia, allow Army Group Center to be stupidly destroyed, let Army Group North be cut off for no particular reason in the Baltic States (renaming it's 44 doomed divisions Army Group Kourland) and, as the Axis, you too can succeed in matching Hitler's military genius and attaining the historical result too.

Strangely enough, most players somehow avoid doing those things. Germany should have won the war in Europe. I'm no fan of the nazis but it has to be said that way. And it was only Hitler's misdirection from the Battle of Britain onwards that cost them the war.

There's a natural tendency in playing "Historical What-If" to focus on only one side of the equation, and that seems to be what you're doing here. Yes, Hitler made his share of errors during the war, but so did everybody else. What if the French and British had developed an appropriate tactical doctrine for their tanks, which in 1940 were more numerous and of better quality than their German counterparts? What if Stalin had listened to the British intelligence reports about a pending Barbarossa? Yes, Stalingrad was a disaster, but why give out only blame and not credit? The encirclement of the Sixth Army was brilliantly designed and executed by the Russian high command.

I think the other problem with your analysis is that the very things which caused Hitler to lead Germany to its destruction were the same things which allowed him to take it to its heights. The man was a psychotic megalomaniac. He cracked when things started going south; a normal man wouldn't have squandered an army in Stalingrad or Tunisia or the Russian steppes. But a normal man wouldn't have taken a nation shattered by defeat to the brink of world conquest in less than a decade.

[JerseyJohn]

USGrant

I mention the German fiascos because all the Allied mistakes have been beaten to death already.

Also, Hitler's tossing away of entire army groups beats any of the Allied blunders you've mentioned without a backwards glance.

I'm not rooting for the Germans to conquer Europe in WW II, they did that historically. From there they proceded to give it back.

As for such thoughts as the Allies launching the D-Day invasion a year earlier, it would have been a fine combination of a much more powerful Germany defending against a much weaker Allied effort. Most of the D-Day troops were still either in U.S. boot camps or waiting to be called by their draft boards.

I'll stick with my biased opinions.

[JerseyJohn]

Russ

"I think the other problem with your analysis is that the very things which caused Hitler to lead Germany to its destruction were the same things which allowed him to take it to its heights. The man was a psychotic megalomaniac. He cracked when things started going south; a normal man wouldn't have squandered an army in Stalingrad or Tunisia or the Russian steppes. But a normal man wouldn't have taken a nation shattered by defeat to the brink of world conquest in less than a decade."

My reply to General Grant pretty much holds here as well. The Allied blunders have already been discussed numerous times and very often by me so I felt no need to rehash them here. The main argument is that the game is fixed in Germany's favor and should be somehow set in the opposite direction. My argument is the Historical Situation was itself in Germany's favor and the Germans proved it. The real contest isn't to see whether Germany can win, rather it's too see whether the Allies can hold on, somehow, and reverse the tide as they did in the real war.

Regarding the blunders themselves, the Allies did not, as I said to Gen Grant, throw away entire Army Groups. Russia came close in here initial fiascos of hundreds of thousands of men being bagged at the frontier, around Kiev and Rostov, and several other locations. The difference is they still had troops behind those troops and millions of reserves still to call up. Germany, it's manpower already exhausted, was literally done in when Hitler began issueing insane directives that left dozens of divisions stranded and doomed all over Russia.

Similar policies in France after D-Day also resulted in pockes where hundreds of thousands of German troops surrendered.

The massive buildup in Tunesia is beyond comprehension. The troops he already had there were barely supplied and the new arrivals were still fresh on the scene when they were ordered to march into captivity -- which they did with regimental bands playing and American/British troops gazing on in awe of their profesionalism.

That brilliant move only cost Germany 250,000 men, most of them seasoned veterans!

I think it reasonable to suppose that, minus these misadventures, totalling approximately one and a half million excellent troops lost without reason and at very little cost to their enemies, Germany might well have been able to hold on to the lands it had already occupied. France, Poland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, occupied areas of European Russia, and let us not forget Luxemburg!

Entirely true about Hitler's meglomania. As early as 1940 he failed to acknowledge von Manstein's Ardennes plan, pretending he himself had come up with it and Manstein had done little more than work out the details. In conversations he referred to it as his own idea and inluded Manstein only in terms of agreeing with him! The failed action against Britain convinced him that his professionals were all too uninspired and he placed himself in charge of everything, including senseless meddling on a micromanagement level.

What I'm saying is in game terms Hitler was a horrible player. Much worse than anyone I know of. The game should not incorporate his idiocies as part of it's mechanics.

I don't quite agree with your inference that his weaknesses later were his stregnths early on. The main difference between the early triumphs and the later defeats was the extent to which he inserted himself in the decision making process.

[Liam]

I've read about 200 books on WW2 on the Grand Level I have to concur with JerseyJohn only an idiot could lose the War in Europe. Apparently Hitler was an idiot

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Thanks for the nod and extremely well said.

[Jim Boggs]

What's this I see? Intellectual discussion of opposing points of view? Am I back in my dorm room (1971)? The sweet sounds of passionate debate. How refreshing.

If I may offer a possible bridge to the two postions. In my opinion the Soviet Union holds the key. Is it conceivable that Germany could have conquered the Soviet Union prior to the entry of the USA into the war? With the entry of the USA into the war and the Soviet Union still a viable power, I am convinced that not only Germany and Italy, but also Japan were doomed and it was at that point only a matter of time. The Axis Powers could not compete with the Allies from that point on in regards the real key to winning WW II-Production Capacity.

Therefore the debate should perhaps(?) focus on whether it was viable for Germany to conquer the Soviet Union.

Thank you for allowing me to post this thought. Gentlemen Please continue.

[ January 11, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

[JerseyJohn]

Jim

Interesting point. Unfortunately in my college dorm the only thing we ever debated was who owned which bottles! But I'll try to fake my way through.

Agreed about the Soviet Union.

I think Japan was doomed in any case. It's whole premise of attacking the U. S. because it had the superior fighting spirit etc. and that made up for the otherwise hopeless imbalance -- well, as we all know they're offensives, the result of twenty years of build up, lasted approximately seven months, after that it was only a matter of digging in and watching her holdings being conquered.

Getting back to your point about Russia, though, it hinges on what we mean by viable. If, historically, Germany had captured everything up to the Urals, including Lenningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, the Caucassus and Crimea -- giving her all the agricultural, mineral and oil and sheer manpower (regardless of how stupidly they used them, provided it was short of causing an outright revolution [which I believe would have been inevitable later on ]), I don't think there would have been any way to dislodge them from the west and in the East the Soviets would have been too weak to do much in the way of pushing them out -- just holding their own and not being pushed completely into Asia would have been an accomplishment.

From there we get into speculation as to whether there would have been a seperate peace treaty with either Soviet Russia or a different Russia and also whether the U. S. would have used the A-bomb in Europe after developing it in early 1945.

I don't think the U. S. would have and I believe there would have been peace treaties all around with Britain remaining in existence. Germany would have consolidated it's European Empire and established it's right to the former Dutch and Belgian colonies. They were well aware of the uranium deposits of the Belgian Congo, as was the U. S., of course. Additionally, they'd have conducted a lot of diplomatic maneuvers in South America, where several sympathetic governments already existed.

Naturally that's all speculation and only my own opinon.

I surrender the floor, now pass the damn bottle!

[ January 11, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]