On Balance...

[Thonar]

Greetings folks,

This topic is actually a big one for me and no, it is not about "Buff this unit or that unit"... it is about balance in general.
In the recent streams a lot could be seen and I base my thoughts mainly on them.

So, what do I want to talk about?
The imbalance of Phases and in the following progress the imbalance of "High-Tier"-Unit costs to "Low-Tier"-Unit costs (Mainly tanks-vs-infantry).

Lets start with:
A) There will be 3 phases in the game: A, B and C. Every phase unlocks new units, mostly of a higher tier.
Now here is the problem: This mechanic causes Phase-A units to have a bigger influence on the game than Phase-C units, since they have more time to influence the battle.
Ok, what does that mean? Imagine you use a Division with a strong Phase C. Since the game ends after Phase C (roughly after the same time phase A and B lasted) the units you bought from your last income have only 1(!) Minute to influence the game... actually far less, since they need time to get to the front.
On the other hand the unit you got from Phase A are still able to fight Phase B units and thus hamper following phases.
This might not be a big problem, when in the end the side wins that captured more territory, but that won't be the case. In fact it wins the side that controlled more territory over a longer period of time, which is a huge difference and favors Phase-A strong decks.
So we have here a disparity that actually can't be solved without some other outside tweeks, nevertheless I propose following option(!): Players will get their whole Phase income at the start of the respective phase (with Phase A after deployment) (that should be an option, not a must)

B) With the upper problem in mind the division/ unit balance must be taken into consideration. A point spent in Phase C doesn't have the same value as a point spent in Phase A, since it has less influence on the game. This means a Phase C unit that might have double the capability of a Phase A unit shouldn't cost double the amount of points but being a bit cheaper.
Currently it seems more like we are going to get a balance that might be closer to the wargame-balance which doesn't have to take these problems into account.
This can be seen in the streams for example for the high-prices for "High-Tier-Tanks" in comparison to infantry.


Or have I missed something?

sincerely,
Thonar

 

[Slahinki]

If I'm not mistaken there isn't normally a time limit on phase C, that's something they did to not have the streams go on for too long. So the way I understand it, phase C lasts until somebody wins, not until the 10 minutes are up. Then again I guess the timers for all the phases and time limits could be match options.

 

[GoraSahib]

I was looking for a clear answer to this but couldn't find any. What do we know for certain about this timing of the phases?

 

[UltimateIdiot]

Units from Phase A are unlikely to survive very far into Phase B or C, or if they do they're not very useful anyway, as most units (infantry, tanks, AT-guns mostly) you've brought along in Phase A aren't as good as what you can field in Phases B and C. This is to reflect that what you send in first are lightly armed reconnaissance troops, and the heavy-hitters arrive later.

As an example, in one of the streams the devs played 6. AB, that gets 6 pdr. AT-guns in phase B, which is decent enough to deal with Pz. IV's and whatnot, but when in Phase C the enemy brings along Panthers they're wholly obsolete, and you've to switch to 17 pdrs. Similarly, in Phase A the division gets Tetrarchs and Tetrarch Littlejohn's, but in Phase B and C they have to switch to Cromwells and Challengers to remain viable.

So while you're technically right, it's not a major issue as most divisions that are lack-luster in Phase A, can outgun the opposition in Phases B and C. Even if it was, there are easier ways to deal with it than giving the player all of the points at the start of a phase, such as adjusting income and unit prices.

 

[Thonar]

I was looking for a clear answer to this but couldn't find any. What do we know for certain about this timing of the phases?

So far nothing.
Nevertheless it is only shifting the problem: Let's assume it is a 60 minute game:
When all Phases are 20 minutes, we have the problem described above.
When Phase A+B take 20 minutes and Phase C 40 minutes, Phase C Decks will be the unbalanced ones.

Units from Phase A are unlikely to survive very far into Phase B or C, or if they do they're not very useful anyway, as most units (infantry, tanks, AT-guns mostly) you've brought along in Phase A aren't as good as what you can field in Phases B and C. This is to reflect that what you send in first are lightly armed reconnaissance troops, and the heavy-hitters arrive later.

As an example, in one of the streams the devs played 6. AB, that gets 6 pdr. AT-guns in phase B, which is decent enough to deal with Pz. IV's and whatnot, but when in Phase C the enemy brings along Panthers they're wholly obsolete, and you've to switch to 17 pdrs. Similarly, in Phase A the division gets Tetrarchs and Tetrarch Littlejohn's, but in Phase B and C they have to switch to Cromwells and Challengers to remain viable.

So while you're technically right, it's not a major issue as most divisions that are lack-luster in Phase A, can outgun the opposition in Phases B and C. Even if it was, there are easier ways to deal with it than giving the player all of the points at the start of a phase, such as adjusting income and unit prices.

That misses the problem for two reasons:
1. As long as the super tank from Phase C costs hugely more than the cheap Phase A stuff you could "outspam" it (not the most viable option, but you got also following option 2)
2. The good Phase A-Decks also gets High-End Phase C stuff, even if maybe not so many to chose from.

So the problem remains.

 

[Aythne]

What you guys are ignoring is that this isn't a game designed for 1v1. Everything that's come out of the VIP beta is that 2v2/3v3+ is far more engaging, and the reason for that is complementarity. Obviously they're going to try to balance different division types (infantry/assault/airborne/mechanized/armoured) against each other, but it's not a big deal if "late game divisions are stronger/weaker" because in a multiplayer scenario you're going to need both early game and late game strength. Even if C-Phase Konigstigers are slightly OP, it won't matter if the 101st airbone and 3rd CID have long overrun the battlefield and entrenched themselves in phases A/B. All the developers need to ensure is that no single division is absurdly strong, and the players will figure the rest out for ourselves.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

What you guys are ignoring is that this isn't a game designed for 1v1. Everything that's come out of the VIP beta is that 2v2/3v3+ is far more engaging, and the reason for that is complementarity. Obviously they're going to try to balance different division types (infantry/assault/airborne/mechanized/armoured) against each other, but it's not a big deal if "late game divisions are stronger/weaker" because in a multiplayer scenario you're going to need both early game and late game strength. Even if C-Phase Konigstigers are slightly OP, it won't matter if the 101st airbone and 3rd CID have long overrun the battlefield and entrenched themselves in phases A/B. All the developers need to ensure is that no single division is absurdly strong, and the players will figure the rest out for ourselves.

You can have your King Tigers in Phase C. Behind every twig and leaf in every bocage will be a rifle backed by AT grenades and AT guns and my planes will blot out the sun.

You'll kill plenty of my guys, but if you didn't make an effort in Phase A and B, you're gonna lose on conquest points for sure.

 

[UltimateIdiot]

That misses the problem for two reasons:
1. As long as the super tank from Phase C costs hugely more than the cheap Phase A stuff you could "outspam" it (not the most viable option, but you got also following option 2)
2. The good Phase A-Decks also gets High-End Phase C stuff, even if maybe not so many to chose from.

So the problem remains.

1. As you said, not a viable option as you've limited availability and card slots in your deck.
2. They do, but not as many as Phase C heavy decks. To follow-up on the earlier example, 6. AB only gets Cromwells and Challengers for Phases B and C, but they're not many, and while they're cheaper, they're most certainly not high end when compared to what a Panther or a Tiger will be.

What you guys are ignoring is that this isn't a game designed for 1v1. Everything that's come out of the VIP beta is that 2v2/3v3+ is far more engaging, and the reason for that is complementarity. Obviously they're going to try to balance different division types (infantry/assault/airborne/mechanized/armoured) against each other, but it's not a big deal if "late game divisions are stronger/weaker" because in a multiplayer scenario you're going to need both early game and late game strength. Even if C-Phase Konigstigers are slightly OP, it won't matter if the 101st airbone and 3rd CID have long overrun the battlefield and entrenched themselves in phases A/B. All the developers need to ensure is that no single division is absurdly strong, and the players will figure the rest out for ourselves.

This also affects it. Phase C-heavy decks will have to rely on teamplay in order to make it far enough to play to their strengths, and this is by and large a good thing.

 

[Steeperman]

Nevertheless it is only shifting the problem: Let's assume it is a 60 minute game:
When all Phases are 20 minutes, we have the problem described above.
When Phase A+B take 20 minutes and Phase C 40 minutes, Phase C Decks will be the unbalanced ones

Yeah, especially, after i saw the stream today, i had to think about the question, what would be the best time to play for conquest. It could be hard to have a chance to Comeback with a deck, which relies heavily on later Phase b and Phase C, when a Deck with many elite- infantry Units and a few hardhitting tanks could dominate Phase B and C.
But it also could be, that the Players against Alexis were simply to good for him and the AI... we will see.

 

[Thonar]

1. As you said, not a viable option as you've limited availability and card slots in your deck.
2. They do, but not as many as Phase C heavy decks. To follow-up on the earlier example, 6. AB only gets Cromwells and Challengers for Phases B and C, but they're not many, and while they're cheaper, they're most certainly not high end when compared to what a Panther or a Tiger will be.

This also affects it. Phase C-heavy decks will have to rely on teamplay in order to make it far enough to play to their strengths, and this is by and large a good thing.

To the first part:
Cromwells and Challengers are able to fight Panthers and Tigers. This leads to the odd situation that Cromwells and Challengers are, because of the inner-unit balance, point-wise as effective as Panthers and Tigers. Do not forget that Cromwells and Challengers only have to defend the gains of Phase A+B.
Thus Phase-C decks may lack a certain punch.


Ok, to the teamplay-point:
This point pretty much admits the problem and surrenders to it. Not to mention that, since we haven't heard that there will be VOIP, we get the same old tune from Wargame regarding cancerous Public-Multiplayer with Early-Leavers.

 

[Fussel]

Divisions that are strong in the early Phases are definitly the way to go in 1v1 matchups. Especially infantry focused ones since infantry is viable in all Phases and by the time you get your heavy equipment the map is infested with cheap AT guys who have the potential to kill your expensive toys. Also when you have won map control early you have the superior cover and can wait for heavy tanks to come around hedgerows or buildings and at these ranges it doesn't realy matter that much if you sit in a Panther or Sherman.

 

[Steeperman]

Cromwells and Challengers are able to fight Panthers and Tigers. This leads to the odd situation that Cromwells and Challengers are, because of the inner-unit balance, point-wise as effective as Panthers and Tigers.

It is all about positioning and tactics. It is not really astounding, that two Challengers, with 17pdr- guns, that have 17 AP (compared to 14 frontal armor of a Panther) win against that one Panther. The obvoious drawbacks of the Challenger are: it is most likely avaiable in in pretty low numbers and as we saw in the first gamplaystream: it can be knocked out by nearly anything that it Close enough (in this case a Renault R35).

 

[Thonar]

It is all about positioning and tactics. It is not really astounding, that two Challengers, with 17pdr- guns, that have 17 AP (compared to 14 frontal armor of a Panther) win against that one Panther. The obvoious drawbacks of the Challenger are: it is most likely avaiable in in pretty low numbers and as we saw in the first gamplaystream: it can be knocked out by nearly anything that it Close enough (in this case a Renault R35).

Yes, but when a Challenger costs a Phase-A-Player relatively as much in Phase C as a Panther for Phase-C player (or any other high-end-tanks), than the phase balance is kind of off wouldn't you say?

 

[Aythne]

Ok, to the teamplay-point:
This point pretty much admits the problem and surrenders to it. Not to mention that, since we haven't heard that there will be VOIP, we get the same old tune from Wargame regarding cancerous Public-Multiplayer with Early-Leavers.

Wait, what? There's never been a balanced game ever (no, not even chess), so claiming that finding alternate solutions to the problem is 'surrender' is being a tad melodramatic. This is a game with at least five 'types' of play (inf/air/ass/mech/arm) and 18 options with minor variations (and thus hundreds of similar-but-unique pieces)... and you think it's going to be balanced for 1v1 play for every possible division matchup?

It won't be.

All we can ask from the development team is that no division be strong enough to be a 'must-pick' and no division be weak enough as to be useless. From those goalposts they can work on balancing things, but it's up to the playerbase to get creative to shore up divisional flaws and exploit the cracks of whatever the elite division-du-jour is.

Divisions that are strong in the early Phases are definitly the way to go in 1v1 matchups. Especially infantry focused ones since infantry is viable in all Phases and by the time you get your heavy equipment the map is infested with cheap AT guys who have the potential to kill your expensive toys. Also when you have won map control early you have the superior cover and can wait for heavy tanks to come around hedgerows or buildings and at these ranges it doesn't realy matter that much if you sit in a Panther or Sherman.

Which ties into this point: let's all make it clear that none of us nitpicking over this shit was in the VIP beta. I know this because one of the very first lines in the NDA that came along with an invite would have been "do not talk about balance concerns. This is a beta. This is where we figure out balance concerns, not where we bitch on the forums about them." So can we please stop throwing around proclamations about "X is definitely the way to go in Y situation"? All we have to work with are dev diaries and a couple streams manned by players who've very obviously never played and streamed before. We all have our two cents about why things went wrong for Alexis (for example, I think he should have abandoned the left and right fields entirely and focused all his assets on the city in phase A. The only thing that could have quickly encircled him were light vehicles, which a carefully positioned AT gun at the rear would have dealt with. Instead, he spread himself thin and was overwhelmed on all fronts by his opponent's superior resources.) but we have absolutely zero credibility until we get our hands on a copy of the game.

That doesn't mean there's no reason to talk about our concerns and observations, but let's tone the rhetoric down from 'commandments on Mount Sinai' to something a little more reasonable.

 

[C.N.]

I'm more worried about it being very hard to root out infantry from villages than any tank balance issue, based on what I have seen so far.

 

[Steeperman]

Yes, but when a Challenger costs a Phase-A-Player relatively as much in Phase C as a Panther for Phase-C player (or any other high-end-tanks), than the phase balance is kind of off wouldn't you say?

When the Phase A Player only has like 2-4 Challengers available and the Phase C Player has 8-10 Panthers and or/ a few Tigers and King Tigers, not certainly. The Panzer Lehr also has 1 King Tiger available in Phase B.
And remember: wether the Balance is right for a certain unit or not is depended on much more factors, like Terrain, villages and Player skill. In todays stream,the allied Player on Alexis side had a huge advantage, because he could puch with deep into that wide stretched village with his elit infantry. wich is a hard nut to crack, when you don't have as much infantry. But not evry map has such big villages for infantry cover... so the Panzer Lehr would be better suited for maps with wider open Areas.

 

[Steeperman]

I'm more worried about it being very hard to root out infantry from villages than any tank balance issue, based on what I have seen so far.

What is with artillery strikes, orderd from Observation vehicels?

 

[Graphic]

I'm more worried about it being very hard to root out infantry from villages than any tank balance issue, based on what I have seen so far.

As it should be imo. There are definitely tools though.

The interesting bit is taking the frontline system into consideration, You could theoretically go around the town, cut it off and envelop it while you capture the rest of the map. Because there's no cap zone in the town with a CV to root out, it's not absolutely vital that you take it.

 

[evilcat]

Generally each point from Phase A/B will stay longer in play than any C point.
Also if you can score a hit (kill enemy unit) in phase A it is even better, and having superior firepower helps killing.
Getting good camp position in phase A has also some value.

But...

It will all be clear once we have multiplayer mass testing. We can be very smart on chat on forum, but once MP scene kicks in it will take 1 week for players to figure out:
Which Phase distribution is best (if really front loaded is better)
Which cards sucks.
Which divisions are "a bit better"

Also Eugene will have hard data not just smart talk.

 

[Thonar]

Wait, what? There's never been a balanced game ever (no, not even chess), so claiming that finding alternate solutions to the problem is 'surrender' is being a tad melodramatic. This is a game with at least five 'types' of play (inf/air/ass/mech/arm) and 18 options with minor variations (and thus hundreds of similar-but-unique pieces)... and you think it's going to be balanced for 1v1 play for every possible division matchup?

It won't be.

All we can ask from the development team is that no division be strong enough to be a 'must-pick' and no division be weak enough as to be useless. From those goalposts they can work on balancing things, but it's up to the playerbase to get creative to shore up divisional flaws and exploit the cracks of whatever the elite division-du-jour is.

Have I said it should be a perfectly balanced game? No.
Have I said there are no other options? No.
But saying "Teamplay is the only way to balance the phases" is IMO not a solution at all, when you offer 1v1 (at 1v1 will probably be the major MatchMaking-Playstyle).

The thing is I do not say Air/Mech/... or Division X or Division Y is unbalanced. I speak of a far more fundamental mechanic here that must be (!) taken into consideration.
In which way it is solved, is another matter.
But when Phase-C decks have not the impact in Phase-C as they should have, especially in comparison to Phase-A and B-Decks, then there is a flaw since they are rendered, as you say, "useless".

The major factor here is time.

Which ties into this point: let's all make it clear that none of us nitpicking over this shit was in the VIP beta. I know this because one of the very first lines in the NDA that came along with an invite would have been "do not talk about balance concerns. This is a beta. This is where we figure out balance concerns, not where we bitch on the forums about them." So can we please stop throwing around proclamations about "X is definitely the way to go in Y situation"? All we have to work with are dev diaries and a couple streams manned by players who've very obviously never played and streamed before. We all have our two cents about why things went wrong for Alexis (for example, I think he should have abandoned the left and right fields entirely and focused all his assets on the city in phase A. The only thing that could have quickly encircled him were light vehicles, which a carefully positioned AT gun at the rear would have dealt with. Instead, he spread himself thin and was overwhelmed on all fronts by his opponent's superior resources.) but we have absolutely zero credibility until we get our hands on a copy of the game.

That doesn't mean there's no reason to talk about our concerns and observations, but let's tone the rhetoric down from 'commandments on Mount Sinai' to something a little more reasonable.

I speak of fundamentals, not details as you seem to believe.

When the Phase A Player only has like 2-4 Challengers available and the Phase C Player has 8-10 Panthers and or/ a few Tigers and King Tigers, not certainly. The Panzer Lehr also has 1 King Tiger available in Phase B.
And remember: wether the Balance is right for a certain unit or not is depended on much more factors, like Terrain, villages and Player skill. In todays stream,the allied Player on Alexis side had a huge advantage, because he could puch with deep into that wide stretched village with his elit infantry. wich is a hard nut to crack, when you don't have as much infantry. But not evry map has such big villages for infantry cover... so the Panzer Lehr would be better suited for maps with wider open Areas.

Ok, now here is the problem:
A Panther costs AFAIK 170. PanzerLehr gets as probably a good Phase-C Deck 150 points per minute.
This means it can only buy a Panther in the 2nd minute of Phase-C and has 130 points left, it thus can also buy only second one at the next minute.
So, while the theortical possibility is, that they could call in more, they are obviously not practically able to and only when it starts that their advantages pay off the game is near to it's end.

Generally each point from Phase A/B will stay longer in play than any C point.
Also if you can score a hit (kill enemy unit) in phase A it is even better, and having superior firepower helps killing.
Getting good camp position in phase A has also some value.

But...

It will all be clear once we have multiplayer mass testing. We can be very smart on chat on forum, but once MP scene kicks in it will take 1 week for players to figure out:
Which Phase distribution is best (if really front loaded is better)
Which cards sucks.
Which divisions are "a bit better"

Also Eugene will have hard data not just smart talk.

Ok... so why are you active in the forum currently?
(No offense, but I think discussing and giving food for thought might help improve the game earlier than just waiting for the Big-Patch after release)