On Balance...

[Thonar]

Get a load of this fuggin guy. I'm done with you. I'm not gonna talk mechanics with you when we've not even had a chance to play the latest build and I can't talk about specifics because of NDA since not everything has been shown in a stream.

I can list a couple of ways that would totally mesh with what you're saying. And I can list a couple that would go against it, but again I'M UNDER NDA.

Wait until the damn game is out. At least in public beta when your grumbling can have a real tangible impact on the game. Right now you're just grasping at straws.

Being in the close Beta means having more information, if you are unable to draw conclusions out of them and even make wrong claims about the game-mechanics, than your CB-Status is of no interest, especially not if you are unable to make a viable theoretical point, despite having more information.
The question that have to be asked:
1. Is there an unbalance in phase-gameplay?
IMO: Yes.
2. Does it threat the overall balance?/ Is it balanced in another way?
That question remains unanswered.

Well no fucking shit, but "the rest of the game" isn't really very precise now is it. It could be anything, 10, 20, 40 minutes, maybe more. We don't know. So why bother worrying that phase C units won't have time to influence the battle?

As said earlier in this topic, such a mechanic might even cause the Phase-Balance to turn upside-down (back-heavy).
So then the question is: What is the perfect time-limit for a game?

Thing is, here are two closed Beta Players talking to you. We are under NDA, if i could i would tell you more about how the game Played already.
But i tell you all the time this: You think simply to short and confusing. You are considering "only the mecanic", which is a bit of a no brainer, when you don't tke Units into your considerations, as the diferent Units are really important for the game.
And the Things you say in general about values of Phase A Units in comparison to value of Phase B and C Units in General simply isn't the reality, as the Units you are getting in the different phases have largely different values on their own.
It is just much mre complex, than you think, when you have played the game already.

Why taking units into consideration, when from a logical standpoint all units are affected by this problem?
It's like 2x = 2x... just take the X out of the formula.
Otherwise the NDA-point is the same as for WUB.

Thonar dont buy the game,no problem,80% people in this forum see the units in a,b,c phases good
Dont like,dont buy

No point made here.

So the game isn't even out yet and Panzer Lehr is already underpowered in need of huge income buffs?

Several people have been overusing their Jump 2 Conclusion mats in the last few weeks, making alarmist threads that draw conclusions which are often bizarre, based on nothing more than something they think they did or didn't see while someone was barely paying attention to the game in a stream.

Those of us who were in the beta aren't trying to be elitist snobs by constantly dangling the fact that we participated in people's faces, but it's so painful to not be able to respond except through suggestions or implications..

I'm not talking about PzLehr but Phase-C and Phase-C-strong-decks in general, why is this so hard to grasp?

 

[Gorganslayer]

Being in the close Beta means having more information, if you are unable to draw the same conclusions as I've had despite only seeing gameplay on streams, and even make claims about the game-mechanics that I have not personally interacted with, than your opinion is of no interest, especially not if you are unable accept that everything I say is gospel, despite me having limited information.

fixed that for you.

 

[Hellequin]

I think the big problem here mate is you're speculating on a balance issue with no data to back it up.

If we were having this during the open beta then all sides are drawing on experience and could probably produce EVIDENCE based arguments.

Here everything is purely speculative so I'm sure you can understand why people are frustrated when trying to address your concerns.

At the end of the day you'll have to wait and see. My own experience in the closed beta leads me to believe that this will not be a problem.

 

[Thonar]

What is speculative about the Phase-Gameplay, Divisions which are purposely imbalanced in different Phases and that Units unlock only over time?
That is the whole basis of my argument.

Again: Only because there is an imbalance doesn't mean that the whole game is imbalanced, when there are other factors to balance this out.
Actually: Imbalances cause dynamic but they have to be taken into consideration within the overall balance.
I'm doing nothing else than stating that there is an imbalance in phase-gameplay and asking how this is or can be balanced out.

So far no-one has made a point that shows that there is a "counter-imbalance" and/ or proposed a solution to it.

When the NDA-guys would state, that 280 Phase-C points are usually stronger than 280 Phase A+B points, than that might be a way in which the Phase-Imbalance I'm adressing, is balanced out and everything is fine, but so far nobody has done so.
(Not to mention such a statement would back my statement up, that Phase-A points having a bigger game-value than Phase-C points but when this is already taken into account within the price-policy of Phase-C units everything is fine).
€: Before somebody comes up here: This doesn't mean a good player can't win with the right usuage of A+B units against C units of the same point-value, but when he has it harder than the Phase-C player in doing so, everything is fine.

 

[defylar]

By default games of Wargame are 40 minutes. I'm assuming that the default setting for Steel Division will be the same. So phases A+B = C in terms of time.

From what I've seen phase A units are typically pretty weak. Basic riflemen without much if any experience, sometimes without any AT besides grenades. Some armored cars for support and recon, light tanks. Mortars and towed AA and AT of a smaller calibre.

This means that while phase A units have the potential to stay around longer, they simply lack the strength to do so in the face of units that are deployed in phases B and C. From what I've seen in the very few games that we've been shown there aren't many phase A units that survive even half way through phase B.

 

[Steeperman]

What is speculative about the Phase-Gameplay, Divisions which are purposely imbalanced in different Phases and that Units unlock only over time?
That is the whole basis of my argument.

Again: Only because there is an imbalance doesn't mean that the whole game is imbalanced, when there are other factors to balance this out.
Actually: Imbalances cause dynamic but they have to be taken into consideration within the overall balance.
I'm doing nothing else than stating that there is an imbalance in phase-gameplay and asking how this is or can be balanced out.

So far no-one has made a point that shows that there is a "counter-imbalance" and/ or proposed a solution to it.

When the NDA-guys would state, that 280 Phase-C points are usually stronger than 280 Phase A+B points, than that might be a way in which the Phase-Imbalance I'm adressing, is balanced out and everything is fine, but so far nobody has done so.
(Not to mention such a statement would back my statement up, that Phase-A points having a bigger game-value than Phase-C points but when this is already taken into account within the price-policy of Phase-C units everything is fine).
€: Before somebody comes up here: This doesn't mean a good player can't win with the right usuage of A+B units against C units of the same point-value, but when he has it harder than the Phase-C player in doing so, everything is fine.

You are just ignoring completely, what iam saying so far, right?

You say: There is an imbalance in the Phase System with Phase-A- heavy divisions and Phase C- heavy.
We say: This is completely depending on the Units you are spending your Points on. The closed Beta Players had a Little grasp, of how the gameplay feels like and i can only tell you, that nobody can tell you "which 280 Points are better than the other 280 Points". Now, that doesn't mean i can say, that there is a "counter- imbalance", but i can advice you the 10th time, that it just isn't as simple as you like it to be.
You simply don't have the data, to back your Arguments. And guessing will not help us at this Point. I only try to say you, that there is no Point in trying to make out such General imbalance issues, when you have only seen a few Divisions so far in streams, that are most probably not in their final Balance and not in the state they will be in open Beta.
Why are you not just accepting, that we all have to wait, until we made much testing, to have a discussion, which makes sense?

conclusion: There is a Chance, that you are right with your imbalance issue, but it is not verified. And at that Point, there is no solution to make for a Problem, that probably won't even exist, when we Play the game.

 

[Thonar]

You are just ignoring completely, what iam saying so far, right?

You say: There is an imbalance in the Phase System with Phase-A- heavy divisions and Phase C- heavy.
We say: This is completely depending on the Units you are spending your Points on. The closed Beta Players had a Little grasp, of how the gameplay feels like and i can only tell you, that nobody can tell you "which 280 Points are better than the other 280 Points". Now, that doesn't mean i can say, that there is a "counter- imbalance", but i can advice you the 10th time, that it just isn't as simple as you like it to be.
You simply don't have the data, to back your Arguments. And guessing will not help us at this Point. I only try to say you, that there is no Point in trying to make out such General imbalance issues, when you have only seen a few Divisions so far in streams, that are most probably not in their final Balance and not in the state they will be in open Beta.
Why are you not just accepting, that we all have to wait, until we made much testing, to have a discussion, which makes sense?

conclusion: There is a Chance, that you are right with your imbalance issue, but it is not verified. And at that Point, there is no solution to make for a Problem, that probably won't even exist, when we Play the game.

"Depending on the units you are spending your points on":
This is actually nearly irrelevant since units that are purchased later have naturally less time to influence the outcome of a game... and this is the point I'm adressing. It is not about a specific unit or force comparison.

So, I'm not ignoring what you say, but you seem to be unable to answer these simple questions of who do you believe has an easier game:
1. The Phase-C player with 500 points available or the Phase-A+B player with 500 points available.
2. The Phase-C player with 500 points available while attacking or the Phase-A+B player with 500 points available for his defense?
This is a completely simple question that you complicate because you are unable or unwilling to make a general statement.
I know that the situation, the environment and several other factors can change the outcome of such a blant comparison, nevertheless you avoid answering the question. I'm aware that such a statement must be taken with a grain of salt and do not expect an answer that is true under all circumstances.
Or let me ask you these questions maybe more personal:
What side would you prefer without having more information than given in Case 1 and 2, when you have to decide within a blink of an eye?

Also again: I do not compare Division X vs Division Y.

 

[Aythne]

Seriously people, stop feeding the troll. He's not going to stop arguing, because he's basing his points in vague 'fundamentals' that have only tangential relations to the game, so he can keep 'winning' his version of the discussion. It's a rhetorical device every philosophy department tries to beat out of their students in year one, but the infection sometimes spreads to the general population.

If you answer his query by pointing out that qualitative differences make up a huge part of the balance between divisions, then that becomes 'nearly irrelevant' and quantitative metrics are all he cares about.

If you make a quantitative stab at a balance argument, then 'it turns balance upside down' and the problem is now at the other end of the equation.

So, argue all you want. But do it to pass the time, if you're into that sort of thing, just don't expect him to ever stop.

 

[UltimateIdiot]

When the NDA-guys would state, that 280 Phase-C points are usually stronger than 280 Phase A+B points, than that might be a way in which the Phase-Imbalance I'm adressing, is balanced out and everything is fine, but so far nobody has done so.

I said that on the very first page? By their nature, Phase B units are stronger and more numerous than Phase A units, and Phase C units are stronger than Phase B units, to represent the fact that they're the main body of fighting men. Divisions that are Phase C-heavy, get better stuff at better veterancy. Again I bring up the Panther vs. Cromwell and Tiger vs. Challenger argument (because apparently everyone missed the point). While you can fight with Cromwells and Challengers against a division that fields Panthers and Tigers, you're at a considerable disadvantage, because they're not as good and you've fewer of them, and must play it carefully. Meanwhile, Panthers and Tigers are impervious to Cromwells from the front, and only at an even footing with Challengers (as in, both can penetrate each other from the front). The difference is that the German player can order in more of them, a British player can't afford to lose a single one.

As for your "can't afford it" argument earlier. When the phase changes, you get instantly one tick of income. So you don't have to save all that much if you want to field a Panther right from the start of Phase B/C.

Even then, I've no doubt there's going to be balance issues at start. We'll just have to wait and see for open-beta.

 

[Thonar]

I said that on the very first page? By their nature, Phase B units are stronger and more numerous than Phase A units, and Phase C units are stronger than Phase B units, to represent the fact that they're the main body of fighting men. Divisions that are Phase C-heavy, get better stuff at better veterancy. Again I bring up the Panther vs. Cromwell and Tiger vs. Challenger argument (because apparently everyone missed the point). While you can fight with Cromwells and Challengers against a division that fields Panthers and Tigers, you're at a considerable disadvantage, because they're not as good and you've fewer of them, and must play it carefully. Meanwhile, Panthers and Tigers are impervious to Cromwells from the front, and only at an even footing with Challengers (as in, both can penetrate each other from the front). The difference is that the German player can order in more of them, a British player can't afford to lose a single one.

As for your "can't afford it" argument earlier. When the phase changes, you get instantly one tick of income. So you don't have to save all that much if you want to field a Panther right from the start of Phase B/C.

Even then, I've no doubt there's going to be balance issues at start. We'll just have to wait and see for open-beta.

I just reread your first page answer and interpreted it differently not getting the grasp of the implications of your point on the game.
Nevertheless I see your point and agree with it, thus the "Phase-Imbalance" is known and dealt with.
While I still believe in a 30 Minute game a Phase-C deck will probably not being able to compete (it doesn't necessarily has to), in a 40 Minute game this can look vastly different.

Thank you for clarification.

 

[Steeperman]

While I still believe in a 30 Minute game a Phase-C deck will probably not being able to compete (it doesn't necessarily has to), in a 40 Minute game this can look vastly different.

Just watch todays stream and you will see, that you can be both crushingly defeated or have a decisive Victorie with a "Phase B/C" Division like the Panzer Lehr.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/132667600

 

[gronank]

There's a standard time limit is 40 minutes but the practical limit resides in the point limit. The length of games, and therefore how impactful a phase C advantage is can be adjusted with the points necessary to win. In the streamed mp games they used 2k point limit, resulting in a 33min even-but-decicive game and a 21min curbstomp. Both games ending in a total victory. With a higher limit, more of the game will be played in phase C and somewhat even games are less ikely to end in a total victory.

As for the exact income values: They have the properties that they interact very non-trivially and are also being very easy to adjust. Therefore, they're best left until a meta is properly established.

 

[olm]

I don't really see the issue here, unit prices and division income rates can be adjusted if balance requires, but currently balance obviously isn't the main focus of development.

 

[fabius]

Just watch todays stream and you will see, that you can be both crushingly defeated or have a decisive Victorie with a "Phase B/C" Division like the Panzer Lehr.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/132667600

I really avoid watching until it's on Ytube with 1080p

 

[Steeperman]

I really avoid watching until it's on Ytube with 1080p

Isn't it 1080p, when you take the Option "source" for Quality?

 

[Slahinki]

Isn't it 1080p, when you take the Option "source" for Quality?

Pretty sure the twitch source quality is better than the youtube 1080p quality.

 

[fabius]

Isn't it 1080p, when you take the Option "source" for Quality?

Pretty sure the twitch source quality is better than the youtube 1080p quality.

I will try it again, but I never see as good a quality or clearer vision with twitch as I do with Tube.

 

[Mikeboy]

There's a standard time limit is 40 minutes but the practical limit resides in the point limit. The length of games, and therefore how impactful a phase C advantage is can be adjusted with the points necessary to win. In the streamed mp games they used 2k point limit, resulting in a 33min even-but-decicive game and a 21min curbstomp. Both games ending in a total victory. With a higher limit, more of the game will be played in phase C and somewhat even games are less ikely to end in a total victory.

As for the exact income values: They have the properties that they interact very non-trivially and are also being very easy to adjust. Therefore, they're best left until a meta is properly established.

I think a better way to solve it would just to be have a 5% either way limit before you start awarding victory points. In the stream (and this backs up my experience too) a hell of a lot of the points from phase A that ultimately it ends up getting difficult to pull back from are from the +1 during really minor differences of control like 48-52.

 

[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

I opened this topic even before Beta-Release and despite all the down-votes and partly wrong assumptions, I'm feeling myself confirmed by the current(!) Meta, especially regarding Point-B.

All Phase-B and C-Units need IMO a Cost-Reduction by -10%/-20% all across the board with maybe some exceptions (e.g. KingTiger, most planes...).

 

[Vasily Krysov]

I'd say a better solution would be to shave some minutes off A/B, maybe 2 mins from each. That means a total of 16mins and thus the game plays mostly in C, but A and B are still important.

This would also have the follow on effect of shifting the income curves around a bit too.

Edit: It wouldn't even cause that many problems to decks like the 2db, because they actually do have some nice Phase-C cards, and with slightly shorter Phase-A/B, deck pressure for these two phases is reduced.