High Wire Balancing Act

[Desert Dave]

OK, as we move into latter stages of testing SC-2,

I would REALLY like to know what ALL of the VERY knowledgable members think about...

Just WHAT constitutes a "balanced" WW-2 ETO GS game? The "grand campaign" and not the shorter scenarios.

We surely know what actually happened, and everyone has on opinion on why it ended as it did.

BUT, what I would be VERY curious about,

Is this:

Is the WW-2 ETO GS game "balanced" if there is a 50-50 chance of either the Axis or Allied side winning?

[... this is germaine most especially, I would guess, to all of those who prefer to play competitive, in leagues, using the DEFAULT '39 scenario... but also, for the very many who enjoy solo play... in any event, you can always bolster one side or the other using the Editor]

OR, should it be closer to real events, IE, toward game's end, Italy has already been liberated, and GErmany is defending the Rhine and trying to keep massive Russian armies out of Poland and Eastern GErmany.

What chance for Axis success?

50% ??

20-30 % ??

What do you think should be a "balanced game?" :cool:

[Edwin P.]

For a balanced game I think that it should be closer to 50%? Why?

a. Basically the Axis player will not make all of the strategic errors that doomed the German war effort.

01. Invasion of Russia - The axis player will likely select one Axis of advance - either to the oil rich Causcaus mountain area or Moscow.

02. Egypt and Malta - Rommels push towards Egypt failed because a) the Allies controlled Malta and he did not receive the reinforcements that he requested.

03. Battle for the Atlantic - Germany started the war with only 50 subs, not the 300 that Admiral Doentiz wanted. Why - limted resources were assigned to build surface ships not subs

04. What if the Brits never broke the Ultra code?

b. A 50/50 balances game is more fun to play.

c. It should not be a cake-walk for either side. Both sides should have to struggle to win.

d. That said, the Allies should be able to achieve the historical victory that they did if the Axis player's moves are effectively countered by the Allied player.

PS: For those that play solo something needs to be done to make the AI a more competitive and less predictable Allied and Axis player at expert level. At Green to Beginner level I can accept a predictable AI.

[ January 05, 2006, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

In an historical 1939 situation the Axis should have a 55-45 edge.

Also, the USSR, if it DoW's on Germany before the Spring of 1943, ought to have a very inferior army and air force. It was the jolt of Barbarossa that made Russia formidable; it's doubtful a Soviet aggressor war would have gotten anything near the same national effort. Also, without Barbarossa it would have taken much longer for the army to recover from the purges, so I think two years longer would be about right.

Despite it's 55-45 edge, Germany should have the same realities that it had in actual history, mainly a complete inability to cross the Channel and invade the UK. It should be possible, but should be something the Axis player would need to work at and prepare for. The Autumn 1940 schedule was nonsensical, Hitler's admirals and generals knew that perfectly well. But even the British were apprehensive about a well prepared invasion being launched in the Spring of 1941.

For the rest, I pretty much agree with Edwin. Like many others my opinion is that Hitler mainly lost the war in the Atlantic. Again, as Edwin points out, this had a lot to do with building the Bismark and Tirpitz instead of concentrating on a much larger U-boat fleet.

Then there are victory conditions. I really hope an Axis invasion of the Western Hemisphere won't be involved; I think that premise is clearly ridiculous. Naturally, if the Axis had succeeded in conquering Europe and neutralizing the UK (from the U. S. perspective) there would have been very blatant effects upon the U. S. economy, and that was the big fear, not German troops goosestepping past the White House.

[Hueristic]

a couple of things off the top of my head.

1. The U.s. should not jion unless attacked.

2. Russia should have a much longer timer that is dependant upon it's readines vs german buildup.

I think the reasoning for this is well established.

I would also love to see a what if scenerio if the maginot had been completed through the low lands.

[SeaMonkey]

This question has a lot of answers.....well,..OK just one answer, but lots of qualifiers.

Short answer...game should be balanced, 50 / 50.

Of course the Axis player has the benefit of hindsight, that is a great advantage for them, because they lost, it can only get better.

Allies are under pressure to perform as the traditional winner, slight disadvantage, but larger than historical because initially they will have to react to Axis tweaks.

In other words, give the Axis enough chances and they will invariably become the winner, note SC1.

Examine the real consequences and causes of WW2 and boil them down to what it was essentially all about, resource acquisition.

Just as in SC1, when a side gains the preponderance of potentially more MPPs per turn, the momentum adjusts to that side.

Should this be the focus of balance and thusly the subject to ascertain victory, MPP count?

Not sure, I'll have to reflect on this some more.

But ideally the longer the game can hang in that inconsequential zone of purgatory(given two equal opponents), with both sides teetering on the edge of success or failure, the better.

[Gavrok]

I appear to be at odds with everyone on this but believe it shoul be extremely difficult for axis to get a total victory. Reasons as follos

A) gamey: if 50/50 then the allies are at the whims of the Axis play. Good axis player will make it difficult for the allies to get initiative back in time

Russia should be extremely difficult to take. Moscow in 41 would have been Stalingrad a year earlier, and unlike SC the Axis did take huge casualties in 40 and 41. True that Russians offensively would still take years to gain advantage

C) Again Egypt woul be difficult due to logistics. Believe that HQ unit support and range should be very limited through desert with such units supplied having a lower level

D) Sealion....come on...how long did it take the naval powers of usa and uk for overlord...and they had to move lcs from med.

E) limited axis manpower...holding all of Russia....maybe if local manpower was used only..eg Ukraine

At the end of the day it is a game to enjoy but as Axis I would prefer very rare chance of total victory but be aiming for a decisive victory through holding onto a large number of areas that would include some of Poland, France,Italy and even Russia by end of 45.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but should not be used to bring about the near impossible....or a very warm coat for German soldiers in Winter 41

[Lars]

As a game, I want 50/50.

If I wanted a historical simulator, 30/70.

But I don't want a historical simulator, I want to change things, so 50/50.

[Gavrok]

Agree with the 50/50 but would like to see the flavour of it altered as my thread above ie total victory on either side being rare....but 50/50 chancwe winning with majority of wins being what/ how long you jold on to as Axis.

First and foremost loved SC as a game and not a historical simulator. Non-micro management combined with open ended strategies was only offset by the ease with which the bear rolled over.

[Edwin P.]

Quick Note: From my readings on this forum the Bear will not roll over so quickly in SC2 due to 1) USSR having 2 production centers, 2) unit build limits, 3) reduced plunder, 4) free setup for USSR, 5) weather effects and 6) partisans in more countries. Waiting for comments on new improved AI.

[ January 05, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

OK, as we move into latter stages of testing SC-2,

I would REALLY like to know what ALL of the VERY knowledgable members think about...

Just WHAT constitutes a "balanced" WW-2 ETO GS game? The "grand campaign" and not the shorter scenarios.

We surely know what actually happened, and everyone has on opinion on why it ended as it did.

BUT, what I would be VERY curious about,

Is this:

Is the WW-2 ETO GS game "balanced" if there is a 50-50 chance of either the Axis or Allied side winning?

[... this is germaine most especially, I would guess, to all of those who prefer to play competitive, in leagues, using the DEFAULT '39 scenario... but also, for the very many who enjoy solo play... in any event, you can always bolster one side or the other using the Editor]

OR, should it be closer to real events, IE, toward game's end, Italy has already been liberated, and GErmany is defending the Rhine and trying to keep massive Russian armies out of Poland and Eastern GErmany.

What chance for Axis success?

50% ??

20-30 % ??

What do you think should be a "balanced game?" :cool:

My compliments to Dave for a non-poetic post which I can actually read. It's rare but it proves that besides nucleartest zones and poetry there are people alive not on drugs 24-7 in New Mexico...

[BRO,JD]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Then there are victory conditions. I really hope an Axis invasion of the Western Hemisphere won't be involved; I think that premise is clearly ridiculous. Naturally, if the Axis had succeeded in conquering Europe and neutralizing the UK (from the U. S. perspective) there would have been very blatant effects upon the U. S. economy, and that was the big fear, not German troops goosestepping past the White House.

I comepletely agree with this part. I hated the end-game for the Germans, slowly and unrealistically building up a huge fleet of carriers and air fleets, and then invading Canada and the US. It was a waste of time, ahistorical, and just plain not fun.

[ColumbusOHGamer]

Isn't the difficulty of the game based the amount and quality of your units/leadership, plus your resources? Aren't these things that can be adjusted scenario by scenario?

I gues what I'm trying to say is, the should be able to do both. For P vs. P, a 50/50 balance is best. For historical reasons, or playing against AI, it should be something like 65/35.

That's my .02...

[Kuniworth]

Ok here is my 2 cents...

First of all; Under no circumstance should balance greatly affect the different sides order of battle or leaders, resources etc. Keep that as historical as possible and use techs or efficency levels to create for example axis advantages.

Paradox tried that messing around stuff with HOI 1 and gave the USSR barely 43 starting divisions in the 1936 scenario to reflect the many understrength divisions and it turned out awful. They soon had to reverse their decision and made other things count instead like tech levels. So keep the OOB as historical as possible.

To your question about balance I strongly support an allied historical superiority which can only be countered by axis acting swift and eliminating one opponent at a time. That means Germany gets like one good summer in Russia to create as much damage as possible before allies will eventually wear them down. In SC 1 this never happened or was very dependent on allied tech so the game could drag on with Axis producing merely the same amount in 1943. Something that of course was not the case historically.

I like the "high water mark" model in Totaler krieg and think it's a quite nice balance model eg the axis get to strike fatal blows and the allies change from defense to offense and the roles are reversed. You've played the game Dave, so you know what this would mean to balance.

As for invading the US I agree that this is just plain stupid and should not be in the game.

[Gavrok]

My 3rd cent would be to add that Axis preparation prior to Barbarossa should not be enough for an effective knock out blow in one season...ie taking Turkey, Iraq Finland etc by political/ other means meaning that Russia could be knocked out in one season before it can influence the decision.

SC had a steamroller effect whereby these countries would build up your mpp to an irresistable level and there were few casulaties due to tech/ exp etc against a new (Russia) opponent.

Likewise a late (42) Barbarossa should still give Russians enough time to reorg and counterattack after the initial onslaught.

Heres hoping that Russian winter, limited units and partisans will help this.

Yours (thinking fondly of AH The Russian Campaign...was the first strike good enough.....oh well lets have the 2nd weaker strike.........oh here comes the turning point....deflect the steamroller with fast defensive counterattacks to slow down.....and pray)

Gavrok

[Kuniworth]

SO what I'd like to say in conclusion thus is;

- keep it historically as much as possible when it comes to OOB and leaders

- But make balance possible for Germany too take the historical route up to Barbarossa and get one good chance to hit the Soviet bad. If they succeed they will have a chance to win the war. If not it will be downhill - AND FAST. Thus the stupid long games dragging to 1944 or longer will be gone unless its a panzerliga game and itss a matter for how long a player can hold out as axis. This is historically correct as Hitler were barely fighting for survival after Stalingrad. And even without Stalingrad an unconclusive campaign like that of 1941 that nor gave new resources or broke the russians would be the same thing eg the unavoidable defeat of Germany.

- The french campaign was the beaut of SC. Both players knew the outcome but allies fought to delay and axis to be on time schedule. Just transfer that to Russia too and give axis one shot.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

In an historical 1939 situation the Axis should have a 55-45 edge.

Jersey how do you come to the conclusion that this was historical?

[Gavrok]

Agree with you on that Kuniworth

55%!! think JJ has been smoking too much

Dont generally agree with Rambo but the Germans had little chance........would reccommend a book called Brute Force for anyone thinking Hitler threw it away.....he just threw it away quicker than a competent German leader considering the resources deployed against him......wait a sec....a competent leader might not have kicked this off in the first place and learnt from history.....2 fronts and Russian winter....wasn't that in our history classes prior to 39!

G

[Edwin P.]

As for that 55 to 45, a better lead Germany would have;

1. Not declared War on the US after Pearl Harbor, but instead thrown Japan out of the Axis Alliance. Some might say that such an action would have delayed US entry into the in Europe for about another 12 months while the US focused on Japan.

2. Been more persuasive in convincing Franco to join the Axis. Without Gibraltar allied supply lines in the Med would have been fatally lengthened and Malta along with Egypt would have quickly fallen, in addition to stopping SOE aid to resistance forces in Yugoslavia and Greece. Thus freeing up more resources for the Western Front.

3. Constructed a larger submarine force.

4. Not ordered Generals not to retreat.

In summary, Germany could have won if they had better leadership. They did not, and lost.

That said, I still think that a game where both sides can win is just more fun to play, and WWII was relatively balanced in Europe except in the Pacific. The problem in SC1 was that it was too easy for the Axis to conquear all the neutrals before attacking Russia.

[ January 05, 2006, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[beginner's luck]

Not saying I'm any MORE knowledge than anyone else but here is what my take.The question was:

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Just WHAT constitutes a "balanced" WW-2 ETO GS game? The "grand campaign" and not the shorter scenarios.

We surely know what actually happened, and everyone has on opinion on why it ended as it did.

BUT, what I would be VERY curious about,

Is this:

Is the WW-2 ETO GS game "balanced" if there is a 50-50 chance of either the Axis or Allied side winning?

OR, should it be closer to real events,

I think a balanced game is where both sides have a equal chance in winning. If due to the overall situation,(ie Like Desert Dave stating things like its going to hard for Germany to be able to conquer every minor nation due to partisans therefore less MPPs,etc,and all the other disadvantage Germany will have.) it means that Germany needs a little help ie 55-45than I think that will be best for the game.

There is no way anyone here can say that they play the game "exactly" like it happened in history.They dont in SC1 so why would they do it in SC2?So why balance the game so it will end "exactly "like history. Why would any one play if it was already decided that the game would be lopsided that Allies would win every time.

It doesn't make sense to say ,since Allies won the real thing that is how Sc2 should make the outcome of their game. Remember guys this is a GAME!!!!. Watch History channel if you what it to be the exact same battleplan,end game,etc. I want a fair chance to win as Allies as well as Axis. Thats why I played SC1. Thats why I will buy SC2. So give Germany a fighting chance at the begining of game and let the "leadership" (or lack there of)of the Human player on who wins at the end.

[beginner's luck]

Originally posted by Gavrok:

A) gamey: if 50/50 then the allies are at the whims of the Axis play. Good axis player will make it difficult for the allies to get initiative back in time

What is this???!!!! Your mad cause the Allies were at the whim of the Axis? Of course they were!! Thats why they called Germany the "aggressors".!! Thats what any invader or nation/leader that is trying to conquer the world as they knew it(ie Hitler,Alexander the Great, Napoleain,etc)wanted to have.

The point of the defending nation/leader is to cause the situation to be where the invader loses the initiative.

BTW that was your lesson in Wining and lossing 101 for the week.Please check back next week for the next lesson- Why having more soldiers may help you!!!

[J P Wagner]

I think what all this leads up to is an extensive OPTIONS screen to allow you to create the type of balances you want....do you want to try playing a game where the USA remains neutral unless attacked?. Or how about a neutral Soviet Union until 1943? How about having Spain be part of the AXIS in 39? Then a check on a box should make these and many other things so.

There is already the ability to limit the number of units that a country could produce so this can go along way in creating balance in the game if players feel the default setting skew the game in favor of one side or another.

The default settings should be the game that Hubert envisions for us to play which would, not exactly mirror, but shadow a historical framework. An extensive choice of options will then allow players to take the game to the next level.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

As for that 55 to 45, a better lead Germany would have;

1. Not declared War on the US after Pearl Harbor, but instead thrown Japan out of the Axis Alliance. Some might say that such an action would have delayed US entry into the in Europe for about another 12 months while the US focused on Japan.

2. Been more persuasive in convincing Franco to join the Axis. Without Gibraltar allied supply lines in the Med would have been fatally lengthened and Malta along with Egypt would have quickly fallen, in addition to stopping SOE aid to resistance forces in Yugoslavia and Greece. Thus freeing up more resources for the Western Front.

3. Constructed a larger submarine force.

4. Not ordered Generals not to retreat.

In summary, Germany could have won if they had better leadership. They did not, and lost.

That said, I still think that a game where both sides can win is just more fun to play, and WWII was relatively balanced in Europe except in the Pacific. The problem in SC1 was that it was too easy for the Axis to conquear all the neutrals before attacking Russia.

This is arguments I don't understand at all. "Axis could have won if...etc etc"

But what about the allies?

What if they had done a lot of fewer of the errors they did. Then this wholw ww2 affair would have been goodbye Adolf much earlier.

Why do you only focus on the german errors to prove your point? That is so dull.

[Retributar]

The simple reason for me to focus on the Germans is not because i loved what they did, but, because they lost!.

I rarely if ever really like to play the side of the winner...and always like to try to find out why the loser lost...and what could they have done differently to have reversed their end-situation!. This is a study in itself!.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

In an historical 1939 situation the Axis should have a 55-45 edge.

Jersey how do you come to the conclusion that this was historical? </font>

[beginner's luck]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

This is arguments I don't understand at all. "Axis could have won if...etc etc"

But what about the allies?

What if they had done a lot of fewer of the errors they did. Then this wholw ww2 affair would have been goodbye Adolf much earlier.

Why do you only focus on the german errors to prove your point? That is so dull.

Kuniworth I think you just provided

Desert Dave his answer!

People want to be able to prove/play that given the same starting point they will be able to correct the "errors" and have a desired outcome.

Example you say if some were fixed than maybe Allies win quicker. Edwin says if maybe Germany not declare war on US at first it would have had a big difference. Both are true statements!

So the answer for DD is that people want a game that lets THEM decide the fate of the nations ,not have preset events put in just to make outcome more like history. If players make same decisions as the leaders in history than game comes out like history. But the "what ifs" is why WE ALL PLAY THE GAME!!!!!!! :cool:

BTW JJ's agruement is sound. Germany should be given an "edge" at the start cause they really did have an edge over the rest of Europe.Makes perfect sense.

[ January 05, 2006, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: beginner's luck ]