So I see that Alan and everyone supporting (i.e., play-testers) are nearing a new milestone for ETO and Update Kit ... so some release is over the horizon. (yeah!)
Graham and I have been doing our own "play-testing" with ETO 042 and the 0.4 Update Kit ... however, I've been following the changes that are posted on social media (CSW, BGG, FB) and find it impossible to keep up with those changes in our game. For example, the Soviet Mech for 4-5-4s and EPs didn't make it past my turn 3 before it changed yet again. But that's okay because it is play-testing.
Now I understand this is because I'm playing PBEM using VASSAL. However, what I don't understand (and not speaking for Graham here) is that each iteration I've been through, the game appears pro-Soviet. Yet the "tweaks" I see every so often appear to support a pro-German play-test result of some form.
So I ask, do any of the play-testers use PBEM, or is it all FTF? Seems like there is more opportunity to mess up as USSR if playing fast and FTF, than at leisure where I can keep adjusting a defense that suits me using PBEM.
For my part, I'm not 100% convinced yet. But based on our game, the balance definitely feels pro-Soviet. I'm taking a wait and see approach on our game because we're only in the Aug I turn, but I don't feel a sense of crisis as the Soviets (everything feels under control). There are certainly opportunities remaining for the Germans. I will also say that it's really hard to tell because of the long feedback cycles for the game, which is why I posted the other thread to get some experienced player perspectives. I will post the latest turn, but I outlined the general flow and AAR of our game in that thread.
We have put a lot of work into the Soviet storyboard and have it in a very good place, historically. The narrative produced really "feels right."
A few other notes of what is on our playtest table right now...
One of them is a new card, Jericho Trumpets. This will ensure that every Axis attack on a new involved country will have sufficient "kick" and keep the Stukas flying.
Another thing is addressing something that has long been annoying us -- bringing a "sacrificial lamb" to every battle "just in case."
*Leading Strong: When selecting your own step loss from a Combat Result, you must always prefer:
A participating friendly “1st Line” (i.e., not a 2nd Line [symbol]) Ground unit…
That does not have a stripe (located behind its strength and movement values).
This applies only to Combat Results Table specific single step losses and not losses suffered for other reasons (e.g., a Retreat through an EZOC per 238.3.3, isolation attrition, etc.).
No roll on that card is certainly going to make the Axis happy both for the guaranteed shifts and for the fact that he can't damage the JU-87's on a bad roll
There is a learning curve for the Germans. The Russian play more easily uses knowledge and game experiance from other games. Russian mistakes cost a couple PP. German misfortunes are lost turns. Not having a good HQ location to move to because a rail line was not cleared, rolling poorly on an Odessa attack or a bad weather roll all can give the Russian a chance to form a nice line. The good news, the Germans have fun even as victory is slipping away.
In game design terms, the Soviet player can use Extrinsic knowledge (i.e., what they have learned from outside of playing TITE, such as their experiences playing this situation out in other games). The Axis must use considerably more Intrinsic knowledge (which comes from knowledge of the game's structures; such as HQ placement, closing and maintaining supply lines, air asset allocation, proper card play, etc.).
Still if the Axis can figure out how to maneuver (and not just bludgeon) with their Panzer Corps, they can pull off the same feats as their historical counterparts.
In my opinion (and Alan must get tired of hearing this), if an experienced Russian player takes a lot of time (not FTF), and retreats discretely in '41, there is little chance for the Germans at present. I enjoy playing this way, but some would find it a bit dull. I doubt most people would play this way, though. The Germans need help, but if it were balanced for the slow, careful way I play Russians, then it would be pro-Axis for others. Jay has suggested handicapping rules for players of different levels of experience, but they could help here as well. There have been a lot of good changes in recent months, but they have mostly helped the Russians--not that they were always intended to. So many changes I liked ended up creating this imbalance--oh well. Any way, it's being tested...
There is a new, much-enhanced Panzerblitz Assault card that will allow Overrun attempts against multiple steps, while retaining it's original +1. This should help the Germans a lot against my type of defense for three straight turns. This will give my Russians a headache defending!
I always thought the PB =1 should be inherent in the Blitzkreig Card ... so good to see that something is a-foot, at least.
I was perhaps premature to post about this experimental, over-powered Panzerblitz Assault card. Just know that Alan is hearing concerns about the Soviet edge in the more recent versions and is trying to compensate--God bless him. Not all playtesters are fully in unison though regarding balance.
If that is the case ... then let me propose as an option what we do in ASL.
Every scenario has a balance provision ... one for each side. So if the person believes the USSR is stronger, then use the German balance. And vice versa. This also allows for side/balance bidding.
The balance can be anything Alan/Frank desires. Right now, it seems like it is tough to get a game balanced "naturally" and there are two factions (I fall in the Soviet is overpowered camp).
As an example, a balance provision for Soviets could be ?-5 Mech's can be upgraded to 4-5-4s, etc. Or, you can have a number of different balance provisions that can be decided upon ala carte. Otherwise, use the standard rule.
Realistically, all these play test options can be piled into a Balance Provision section (No RPs to buy IPs, Mech's to 4-5-4, no Large or Medium Events cards following month, certain cards not available or available, etc.). It puts the ONUS on the players to figure it out, and allows the ETO series to develop faster, without all the back and forth tweaking.
It also assists greatly if you have two different skill levels, then the weaker player can get a little help.
I mean, let's put this entire project into PERSPECTIVE. It is massive, and there is no way to get everything tweaked and perfect. But if you use a Balance Provision for sides (or scenarios), then it can stand the test of time as people gain experience. Don't forget, we've seen Mark Herman games go from where one side was an unbalanced dog, flip the other way a few years later as the game system became more familiar. So we need to be cognizant of that, too. I think that was what Alan was referring to Intrinsic and Extrinsic learning. So it'll change. Well if we know that, we can defend against ETO becoming an unbalanced dog. Balance Provisions options will let us navigate that in the future, without the game designer or developer having to worry about it.
Just my 0.02 zlotey.
Brian
Every scenario has a balance provision ... one for each side. So if the person believes the USSR is stronger, then use the German balance. And vice versa. This also allows for side/balance bidding.
That is SO MUCH easier to do for scenarios that last 2 hours than ones that last 20. It's a great idea, but I am not sanguine about its practical application to a mini-monster game...
No matter how you slice it, you really can't teach players to be at ease with successful panzer operational dogma. We're just to used to walking up to the enemy line, factor-counting, and trying to bludgeon your way to victory. Putting your best units forward into places fraught with counter-attack peril makes players nervous, yet that's how the Axis racked up their great successes.
Of course, handicapping or not is up to Frank, Alan and Lance. For what it's worth, I basically agree with Sielski, but would limit handicaps to things that do as little damage to the story boarding as possible. A key variable could relate to PP's, for example. I think players could benefit from suggestions about mid-game handicaps, also. The campaigns are sooo long, and some players might appreciate suggested aids at periodic points to try and keep the game competitive IF both players were in agreement at the time of selection. Or, this could be offered unofficially in articles and such. How often does a game of TITE 1 or 2 actually reach late '42+ from June '41, to say nothing of being competitive?
Hi Alan, Thanks for some more insight into the whole development process. Just some more thoughts I hope to convey ... not sure it came across.
""That is SO MUCH easier to do for scenarios that last 2 hours than ones that last 20. It's a great idea, but I am not sanguine about its practical application to a mini-monster game...""
All this assumes that the current group of play-testers, and the designers and developers, know exactly what's going on, and what will go on in the future. And that is the trap.
I give you Mark Herman's example again, which is non-ASL related. Mark has designed games that one side wins all the time when released (meaning he and the play-testers didn't get it right) ... and yet years later, as people play more and exploit and learn the system, it flips to the other side winning. So they still got it wrong! Hey man ... this crap is hard to do, obviously. lol. So years later, it still requires some reworking.
You told me you hope to get this done before we all depart this world ... so wouldn't it make sense to make sure this legacy can face those play balance challenges in the future with optional rules you vetted out in the past? Basically to still steer the game from the great beyond.
What you would do then is have the POTENTIAL balance rules act as Optionals. Just list them out. They are not required to play. Go ahead and finalize the rules right now (but I'll bet your favorite beverage it won't stand the test of time). By having them in the rule book, it conveys a degree of legitimacy (as opposed to independently presented by future vocal netizens). That way, years later, it'll still be a complete game.
It doesn't take anything away from the game, and is an insurance policy for the future.
Again, just my 0.02 zlotey.
Brian