Extended Lvov

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, not quite the Don. The Dnepr.

True, thx for correcting me Flav.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[gids]

very nice move
@ matt but: indeed war should be more or less a bit random and give chances to both side ,wherein this nice opening move the russian loses his whole southfront in a turn :p,and will have to send tons of reinforcements to the south ,and is sure now to loose leningrad and most possibly moscou aswell,and the remark 'tricks in his sleeve 'makes me shivery :p but still very nice move

[karonagames]

@ MichaelT. In the spirit of balance and fair play; and as you play both sides successfully, can you show the way you would defend against this opening move when you play as soviet. I am currently preparing for my first Soviet GC in over a year, and it seems inevitable that every Axis player will be trying to emulate this opening move, so I would like to be prepared to deal with it.

[Callistrid]

This is an unfair open from the german.
If any player will do that against me, I'll leave the game.

[matt.buttsworth]

Hello Everyone,

I restate my point.
Unless the Russians have a limited ability to move on June 15 (such an early opening already exists in War in the Pacific in the allied turn before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) so that the Germans do not know the exact disposition of their forces on the first turn this game will suffer as the German attack on the first move becomes ever more devastating as it is based upon total perfect knowledge of Russian disposition which did not exist in real life.
It is a flaw which the designers of the game need to fix by offering an optional June 15 scenario.

Matthew Buttsworth

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Callistrid

This is an unfair open from the german.
If any player will do that against me, I'll leave the game.

Fix the damned surprise turn. This has been a problem since forever, and people are just finding more and more outre ways to take advantage of it.

Don't blame Michael, blame the game design.

Bob, I'm waiting to see how James deals with this. Speaking frankly, I think he's delusional in his belief this can be managed.

Michael has always claimed that the Soviet side is easier, but I am morally certain that if Michael played each side against himself, he'd spank the Soviets hard. His Soviet play is nothing amazing.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

Hello Everyone,

I restate my point.
Unless the Russians have a limited ability to move on June 15 (such an early opening already exists in War in the Pacific in the allied turn before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) so that the Germans do not know the exact disposition of their forces on the first turn this game will suffer as the German attack on the first move becomes ever more devastating as it is based upon total perfect knowledge of Russian disposition which did not exist in real life.
It is a flaw which the designers of the game need to fix by offering an optional June 15 scenario.

Matthew Buttsworth

I really don't see how this can work. A free setup is going to massively favor the Soviet unless you've got so many restrictions that it begs the question of how "free" it really is.

My quick and dirty fix: just remove all the surprise turn penalties from the Soviet side. Most importantly the movement penalty. These reckless pockets would be a lot tougher to pull off if the Soviets weren't zombies on turn one. But even that is a bandaid that recommends itself only because it is easy to code. Fundamentally, the surprise turn needs to be reworked from the ground up, and that's not happening.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
@ MichaelT. In the spirit of balance and fair play; and as you play both sides successfully, can you show the way you would defend against this opening move when you play as soviet. I am currently preparing for my first Soviet GC in over a year, and it seems inevitable that every Axis player will be trying to emulate this opening move, so I would like to be prepared to deal with it.

It is impressive (and scary) to see what the game allows a German to do. This move corresponds to a huge time gain, I would say. Seems like 1/3 of the initial Soviet forces, and the higher quality part of it, is in this pocket.

I am not surprised that someone came up with an even better move. Honestly, that's what a game is for. But after that move, the Soviets are even more off balance and so is the relationship to the conflict this game set out to mimic. But it is a good thing that something like Lvov can be tried. Just the degree to which it works is weird. Michael certainly shows force economy at its best. I wonder what implications this will have for the retreat of the Soviets in the South.

There really should be some randomness in the setups, or, much more directed at the origin of the thing, something to make stationary units react to by-passers. I hope for the best for the next titles, this repeated would be too linear.

Let's see whether there is a counter-move to it? I suppose it requires a a further weakening of fronts and reinforcements directed against AGC and AGN?

PS. A late afterthought: Some suggested at with a trustworthy opponent, the Soviet player could be allowed some editor changes to the 1st turn Soviet setup by some houserules. Alternatively, how about creating 9 "alternative GC setups" with minimal changes for everyone and then randomly choose one at start? Won't help AI, but PBEM. With AI, self-discipline must do.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Don't blame Michael, blame the game design.

Bob, I'm waiting to see how James deals with this. Speaking frankly, I think he's delusional in his belief this can be managed.

I admit that I was unable to restore supply the northern pockets, though it was a close run thing with some attacks against the broken down Das Reich Regiments. I was able to budge one of them, but didn't have enough MPs left to convert the last hex needed.

The analysis of this situation, however, did reveal that the First Turn Surprise Rule movement point costs are...again...broken. The only reason that Michael is able to extend himself in this fashion is due to the regimental breakdown, and if the regiments were being charged their additional movement costs (+2 for entering enemy territory) he would be unable to both draw the cordon around the 16th Army, as well as leave a regiment in every other hex. He could still isolate the forces he has, but it would be a great deal "leakier".

[Q-Ball]

As a patch, what about a HR somehow limiting Regt. breakdowns on Turn 1?

[Michael T]

I agree its way over the top. But this is what you have to resort to to get past the Soviet advantages. One thing balances another. If you don't mule and do stuff like this I can't see how the German has a chance against a top notch Soviet. You need lots of house rules to bring the game back in to the realm of reality IMO. But rather than struggle with that (it would be a list a mile long) I prefer anything goes bar the para thing, which is even more nuts. A PC game should not need house rules.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I agree its way over the top. But this is what you have to resort to to get past the Soviet advantages.

No, this is what you need to do to win the game in 1941. It has nothing to do with balance. It's very difficult to take this line of argument seriously since you have yet to play a game into 1942.

[Michael T]

I have probably played more east front games than you have had hot dinners Flav, I know what I am talking about. It's my job to build, analyse and interpret model results. WITE is just a model like any other. Once the system is understood an output can be predicted with a known set of inputs. Simple really.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have probably played more east front games than you have had hot dinners Flav

Not likely. I've been at this for a quarter century and have tried out just about every major title and written strategy articles for several board games.

[gids]

a pissing contest...gotta love it

[Michael T]

Well I have been offered *paid* work by a very high profile PC company, which I reluctantly had to decline. I have been war gaming for over 35 years. Not trying to say I know more than you about this Flav but you don't seem to respect the view of anyone bar yourself unless they concur with your own thinking. You ought to try playing German some time without muling etc etc and see how you go.
 
In the end players will make up their own minds. All they need to do is negotiate some boundaries before they play, if they feel it is needed. For me I just wouldn't play German without muling or this opening unless the Soviet player was prepared to play with some restrictions on the use of reserves, runaways etc etc. But I would rather just play open slather to be honest. Hopefully many years down the track WITE2 will address a lot of these shortcomings.
 
I also am very interested in Schwerpunkt's WW2IE game. I really like the take they have on supply and the hard limits on attacks they have. Plus the system is out in the open, no black box.
 
But until WITE2 or WW2IE I will stick with WITE for my PC East Front fix. But I still prefer my EF boardgames in comparison to WITE.
 
Over and out [:)]

[Flaviusx]

Michael, you do not need to mule in order to make very convincing advances in 1941; right now the state of the game is such that Leningrad is practically an autoloss and Moscow is a 50/50 proposition in games where no muling is done.

What muling allows you to do is to win the thing outright in 41, as you have done every time.

I repeat: if you were to play yourself I'm morally certain that you'd thrash the Soviets. You yourself don't appear to believe that there's any good way to respond as the Soviets to these expedients you have perfected.

[janh]

There is no point in fighting over this... it is just a game. People play for all sorts of reasons -- all that matters is that they have fun.

Some want "fair games" and a GC that's more balanced than history, a bit like chess. Some want to be limited only by hard realism, and some want to that to be carried further by some "softer" political rules. Some want to play only those limits that the game engine enforces, and use all the available options to win. Some even have made it a contest to see which side benefits most from loopholes. Others wish to stay more in the realm of plausible possibilities and use houserules to fix loopholes, or ask them to be patched, no matter which side benefits. I think it all has been there with WitP before. And as long as your opponent knows, it is all fair game. Just pick the right opponent.

[gids]

+1

[darbycmcd]

This is same argument that has been going on since people have made games about the Eastern Front. It really boils down to people that are approaching it from an historical point of view vs those who approach it from a gaming point of view. Michael, what you mean when you say you need to mule is that you need to mule in order to win outright in 41/42. That is probably a fair observation.
But for a player who is interested in an historical model, it is also an outcome that is indicative of a broken system. I don't have your experience gaming, but I do have experience as a military intel analyst with a focus on the SU, and I can tell you I strongly believe games that have outcomes like yours diverge from the realm of realistically possible outcomes from a military point of view.
So, on one hand you have folks that want a game that allows the Axis to win in the early war. On the other, folks that want a more historical 'simulation' even if it means it sucks for one of the players much of the time and has a foregone conclusion. These sides will not agree about game design decisions. Because what I think the first group is missing is that the actual war, you know the baseline model if you will, was really in the 'sucks for one side most of the time and has a foregone conclusion' category. Any decision to fundamentally change that is going to diverge from, not just history, but historical possibility.
In the end you are both right, but about different ends.