Balance discussion/suggestions

[ComradeP]

I personally prefer high variability because I think the game becomes more intense when assaults are an unpredictable and dangerous affair. Maybe such high variability is more realistic too? Much safer to fire at a forest position from afar than storming right into the forest… Much less control, and much easier to get surprised with the latter approach… Bombarding the position into disruption with direct and indirect fire, cutting retreat opportunities, and then assaulting is the way to go… Would not that be the case in real-life too?

Making assaults similar to direct fire would make the game more "flat" and "one-dimensional" in my opinion. You would lose a very exciting decision scenario: Should I apply direct fire once more to further soften up the defender, or should I go ahead with a more risky assault. If you assault too soon, it could end in a disaster, but you do not want to wait too long either because of time constraints. Finding the correct time to assault is one of the challenges of playing the game.

High variability by itself is not a bad thing, but in this case there can be so many bunker lines to move through that the variability can decide the outcome of the game.

I also wouldn't want assaults to be more or less identical to direct fire, just to move the outcomes closer together, removing the extremes and making the disruption chance slightly higher. Contrary to PzC, the defenders won't become low ammo in a turn, so they're a bit more sturdy than they would be in PzC as well.

These two scenarios are not a justification that the game system is all wrong.

&

To say the game system is seriously wrong based on such a small sample of play, is, well statistically invalid.

I'm not saying the game system is all wrong, I'm saying that some mechanics can cause issues that might be the result of them being ported from other series to a new series, so some tweaking being required is natural.

There are plenty of very playable scenarios in the game.

I'm not saying there are none.

It is a fiction that the Germans in the Moscow 42 game can run away, sit deep in the rear to receive replacements until full strength, then come storming back to a coherent front line and blast the Soviet winter offensive dead in its tracks.

Have you played a full campaign game against someone who tried?

At first, you said the German replacement rate wouldn't allow for full strength units. Then I pointed out that large parts of the front are fixed and that nothing in those areas can influence replacements for either side. You said the Soviets could find a strategy to counter that, such as concentrating large amounts of men in a single sector. I said that it would require ahistorical tactics like those large unit concentrations or significant concentrations of artillery.

The first game result Strela mentioned also implied that concentrated Soviet artillery could be lethal. The 1941-1942 scenario can turn into a 1944 scenario with large artillery and unit concentrations in a single sector by the Soviets to remove the Germans from strongly held positions.

As to Panzer Battles: the results for assaulting hexes, or direct fire results, with the same units don't depend on the scenario. The mechanics remain the same. Artillery and AT support currently have a limited effect, aside from the artillery's capability to deploy smoke. If the enemy moves in AT units, they tend to get shelled by the defenders, suffer casualties and are generally not very effective. Likewise, Panzer III's have a limited effect as well and you need the better tanks to face Soviet armour. StuGs can work well, but they're currently vulnerable to Soviet artillery and AT guns.

The standard approach to a strongly held defensive position would be either to bypass it (not always possible, particularly when it's an objective) or bring in more of your own troops. If the Soviets man a position with a reinforced company, I can bring in a battalion. The problem is that I can't attack with that battalion in one assault. I need to attack with reinforced companies of my own due to the stacking limit. The stronger the defender's units are, the more problematic it becomes that both sides use the same stacking limit. This is why many wargames don't have such a rule.

At the start, scenarios are balanced in such a way that positions can be taken, but if the player can reinforce a position, that can quickly become very difficult. The difference in quality between the Germans and the Soviets will mean that even reinforced positions will eventually be taken if the Germans bring enough men, but it takes more time.

I'm not saying the game is broken or unplayable, I'm just trying to help improve certain mechanics to make the game more enjoyable than it already is.