Soviets underpowered

[tmoj2000]

I just finished a scenario of "big guns" as the germans killing some 50 soviet units (basically all of them) whilst losing 2..
In another game still on going the count is about 25 to 1

Playing as the soviets I am able to inflict losses on the germans but its extremely tough going.... Playimg as the Germans it is a picnic

These are all MP games

Either the soviet 85Ls and 152s and 122s are seriously underpowered in the game or the pricing of the units is not right.... Compare production numbers of the T34 to that of the panther and you should be able to buy a minimum of 3 to 4 to 1.... As it is the soviets simply dont stand a chance in any head on scenraio with the same number of points....

Also why can the german buy the best tanks in the largest scenarios whilst the soviet is very restricted in the number of JS2s ? Its raining panthers and tigers as if those were the standard equipment

[MacD2013]

Interesting, I've yet to play the game but I was under the impression the game would reflect those two aspects, either more points for the Soviet side or units be cheaper, especially armour, to represent the colossus that was the Red Army. Kind of be disappointed if it's not like that.

[Tac2i]

I think we kinda got to remember it is a game. Most gamers, in my experience, want games to be balanced so both sides have a chance to win. In fact gamers usually get irritated if games are unbalanced. Above all games have got to be fun. Don't know about others but l don't have time for games that aren't fun. Not only that, this game isn't targeted to the hard core grognard. There are other are games out there if that is your preference. I like this game because it is quick and easy to play yet has enough depth that using good tactics usually pays off.

Interesting, I've yet to play the game but I was under the impression the game would reflect those two aspects, either more points for the Soviet side or units be cheaper, especially armor, to represent the colossus that was the Red Army. Kind of be disappointed if it's not like that.

[MacD2013]

I agree the simplistic 'fun' has to be maintained, but if the dev team put all the time and work into statistics for specific tanks armour protection and HE rounds etc, then it almost seems unfair for anyone playing as the Russians if both sides have the same points and vehicles are too close in cost. Like I said, I haven't played it yet, BA1 was superb I thought, but wouldn't be one of the fundamental aspects of an Eastern Front game to have the Russian side from 43-45 just have overwhelming men and vehicles?

Maybe the original thing in question is strictly for the multiplayer aspect? For multiplayer you'd have to have points evened out, otherwise no one would play/win as the German army lol.

[Gerry4321]

I thought the attacker always get extra points in wargames (there is a ratio but I cannot remember it now), otherwise there is no way they can compete.

Also though the Russians had more tanks but they were often (slightly inferior) to the German ones so Russian should be able to acquire numbers as that was their advantage.

[IronFist00]

I think there are two different pieces in motion here, the Skirmish type games and the Campaign missions. In the Campaign missions which can be played solo or in multiplayer as co-operative, they are setup to reflect the current situation for that side at that point of the war. The units match what was historically available and the "feel" is pretty accurate. That's what MacD2013 is talking about. For example one mission during Operation Barbarossa has the player(s) as the Germans trying to close a pocket and the once accomplished, holding that against desperate Soviet counterattacks to breakout. The Germans have PIIIs and RAD scout cars while the Soviet can field some T34/76s. One of the Achievements is not to lose a single tank as the Germans. Talk about tense! In another mission in the Winter Counter Offensive you play the Soviets trying to hold at the outskirts of Moscow as wave after wave of Germans units assault from multiple directions. It can often degenerate into street to street fighting as you try to hold as many VPs as possible until reinforcements show up.

In Skirmish you can select game type, game size, and terrain. You can do Attack, Defense, Meeting engagement, Mirror, etc. In meeting engagements the points are usually equal unless it's against the AI where it will get more points. On a medium map, it would get 400 more buying points. This will vary based on game size (very small to very large). So if you take the AI out of the equation, the game type determines which side gets more points and when it is the same.

[IainMcNeil]

The unit stats are balanced for multiplayer and in single player we have to give the AI some help to even things up. In scripted missions this is easier to do by setting situations for the player that are challenging but in skirmish games weight of numbers is important. Note that giving the AI more is far less effective than giving the player less. Once you have a certain number of points you can form a strong front line and then the AI does struggle to penetrate it. Try reducing your points forcing you to take weaker equipment to fill the line and you'll find it more challenging. Also the AI is better at defence than attack as co-ordiating attacks is an extremely complex decision, so try attack missions versus the AI.

Programming an AI that can do all the tricks a player can do to outflank and exploit is extremely difficult and nobody has really achieved anything that can defeat a good player at equal odds in any game. Real time games have a chance because the AI can make lots of decisions at once so give the player enough to do ad you can overwhelm them by lack of time to make decisions. Turn based games cant do that so tend to be harder to make difficult when the rules are anything more complex than Chess, which these games are - massively!

[tmoj2000]

The unit stats are balanced for multiplayer

Do you consider the "big guns" scenario to be balanced for multiplayer ?

[hedning]

I think we kinda got to remember it is a game. Most gamers, in my experience, want games to be balanced so both sides have a chance to win. In fact gamers usually get irritated if games are unbalanced. Above all games have got to be fun. Don't know about others but l don't have time for games that aren't fun. Not only that, this game isn't targeted to the hard core grognard. There are other are games out there if that is your preference. I like this game because it is quick and easy to play yet has enough depth that using good tactics usually pays off.

Interesting, I've yet to play the game but I was under the impression the game would reflect those two aspects, either more points for the Soviet side or units be cheaper, especially armor, to represent the colossus that was the Red Army. Kind of be disappointed if it's not like that.

Exactly. We have to keep in mind that the developers get their ideas from reality. And reality is not always a beauty.... But functional!