Where are my Mules? (Muling)

[vicberg]

Joel,

I started getting very vocal about this a week ago and it's snowballed from there. Certainly not going to take credit for something I believe has been going on for a long time, but I was encouraged to see many German players posting similar experiences. I understand there are choices and unintended consequences in any software design. I should know. I've done it for 20+ years. So I appreciate you posting and look forward to the results.

Speaking of, I offered a few years ago to help, pro-bono, with the development. I was going to contact your developer and we never connected and then my 2 year old was diagnosed with cancer, and that was that. She's going to be off treatment in a couple of months and I would like to renew my offer. I'll non-disclosures, etc..

Let me know if you're interested.

[entwood]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Joel,

I started getting very vocal about this a week ago and it's snowballed from there. Certainly not going to take credit for something I believe has been going on for a long time, but I was encouraged to see many German players posting similar experiences. I understand there are choices and unintended consequences in any software design. I should know. I've done it for 20+ years. So I appreciate you posting and look forward to the results.

Speaking of, I offered a few years ago to help, pro-bono, with the development. I was going to contact your developer and we never connected and then my 2 year old was diagnosed with cancer, and that was that. She's going to be off treatment in a couple of months and I would like to renew my offer. I'll non-disclosures, etc..

Let me know if you're interested.

sincere and heartfelt best wishes for your child.

[Farfarer61]

Compare going to a movie, 90 minutes for 10 bucks. How many hours have you played WITE? The Defence Rests.

[entwood]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Michael T, we have a game where amazing movements should be possible under the right conditions, and we have weekly turns. It becomes quite difficult to balance this in such a way that you get the ability to suddenly encircle large forces, while also making it possible to stop this from happening too easily. We could have started with a system that made ZOCs more complicated (i.e. you have to have a certain force to project a zoc), but we didn't, and going back now would force other changes in the game system. It's easy to identify an item that doesn't feel right, because this is a game and in the end and strategies are developed that are game mechanisms that allow the game to be played. It's a lot harder to remove something that doesn't feel right and make sure it's replaced with something that feels better, doesn't just lead to other strategies that feel just as bad, or doesn't compromise other aspects of the game. This is always difficult with a game that provides all the detail of WitE but in the end is after all just a hex based IGOUGO game. The IGOUGO and move/combat phase aspects of WitE provide a lot of the fun factor of the game, but come at a price.

re: overruns and variable zocs

why not just add a die-roll to it. 1-3 zoc, 4-6 no zoc or what-have-you. I have been and remain an advocate of adding a die roll to crush some hard-code, and that might not be too hard to program? and easy enough to adjust a die roll while balancing, or use 2 'dice' 2-12. Adding some die-rolls to
eliminate too-much-comfort would go a long way into adding some variance and risk to gambits.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: entwood

sincere and heartfelt best wishes for your child.

Thank you

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Joel, one of the things that infuriates me about the comment that changes will have to wait until War in the West (or even further thereafter) is that your company made a decision to charge $80 US for this game (along with $10 for a manual that was hopelessly out-dated the instant you sent it to the printer, but not everyone paid for that like me).

You have said that multiple times now! For myself, I must say that even if I don't think the game is perfect, the money I spent on this game is the best money I have spent in a long time. Few other computer games have given me as much enjoyment. I think the people behind this game are well deserving of any money the make out of it. And I know that you certainly don't get rich as a wargame developer!

+1...and incidentally I recently started two games on the latest patch, my first since the fort nerfs (and second kid) back in 2011 and I have to say it is a far greater challenge as the Soviet player now than it was then, even with a no-muling house rule. Doesn't mean things are perfect and maybe it doesn't feel that way to the German, but I sure notice it!

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I wonder how many people are playing the alternate VC scenario. Maybe I should start a poll. [:)]

I just started a GC as the Soviets with the alternate VC scenario against Big Anorak. I don't have the time to write a full AAR this time, but I intend to publish occasional status reports, mostly to give you devs something to go on when considering adjustments.

[Joel Billings]

Very sorry to hear about your child and I hope things go well. When you are at a point where you have time to help out, send me an email. We had one volunteer programmer for WitE that said he might be available to help on WitW. We told him our number one task for him if he had time was to redesign the way the menu screens are set up so that we could more easily add game options. He hasn't been available so this task is still out there. If we're able to do this, then some changes become possible. In theory, this could be done for either game, and then ported to the other (although the code is no longer directly linked so there would be some additional work involved).

[vicberg]

Will do

[colberki]

Have we considered a simple new rule to balance the 1941-45 campaign as such to moderate the Soviet dash to the Steppes during Barbarossa?

"Each Soviet unit on the Eastern Front in the area from the June 22 border and west of Riga, Minsk, Kiev and Odessa must pay ten AP one time cost to move eastwards by land before December 1, 1941 No unit in the area may rail eastwards." This rule reflects STAVA determination to stand and fight at the start of the war, and the command cost of a local leader disobeying STAVA at (personal) cost.

Interested to hear what forum members and Matrixgames think of this proposed new rule?

[Aurelian]

And starting the first blizzrd turn, each Axis unit must pay a 10 AP cost to move westward. This reflects Hitler's determination to stand and fight instead fo retreat. And the command cost of a local leader disobeying Hitler at (personal) cost.

[colberki]

Hey Aurelian! I think your suggestion makes great sense alongside my suggested rule change. This pair of new rules will likely increase Soviet losses in Barbarossa among the frontier troops, but in turn, will restraint the Axis from reckless drive East lest they become severely over stretched when the blizzards arrive.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: colberki

Have we considered a simple new rule to balance the 1941-45 campaign as such to moderate the Soviet dash to the Steppes during Barbarossa?

"Each Soviet unit on the Eastern Front in the area from the June 22 border and west of Riga, Minsk, Kiev and Odessa must pay ten AP one time cost to move eastwards by land before December 1, 1941 No unit in the area may rail eastwards." This rule reflects STAVA determination to stand and fight at the start of the war, and the command cost of a local leader disobeying STAVA at (personal) cost.

Interested to hear what forum members and Matrixgames think of this proposed new rule?

There's simply nothing in the present game mechanic that counter-balances the awful Soviet unit strength in 1941. The running east is a symptom of the "all my units suck" problem. Even if VPs were awarded per turn for places like Kiev, there's no point getting units surrounded and cut off for them.

In addition, since the same disincentive applies to Germany during the Blizzard of 41/42, you cannot leash the Soviets to land without doing likewise to Germany at that time period. And Germany stands to lose much more for mistakes in the winter than the Soviet does in the summer.

At this point, the abstractions are what they are and we must work within them, if for no other reason than the developers are done supporting this product's play balance/engine problems.

Given that we're left with this (redacted) system, I'm a proponent of players agreeing to settings that work for them in terms of fun, competetive games. I'm a fan of 105 logistics for Germany, and 200 Admin. Germany gains a great deal from that, without dramatically changing anything on the Soviet side. A little extra logistics gives Germany some tactical surprise options, but should be balanced by house rules to HQ buildup limits.

The extra admin points combat the hard-coded punishment Germany takes - the ability to swap divisions, corps, and armies as necessary, and to choose optimal commanders, creates efficiency in a number of arenas that help fight off the TOE change problems, the National Morale drop in 42, and evens up some of the hindsight advantage that the Soviets get. The admin point issue should be balanced with house rules about Axis fort creation in 41/42 (I've pondered a rule that axis forts must always be set to 100 TOE, or that they cannot be disbanded until a Soviet unit is adjacent (meaning they carry risk). Your mileage may vary, but I'm interested in trying out some of these ideas if I decide to play another game versus a person.

[Aurelian]

It was made to show just how nonsensical such suggestions are.

You're not going to find a sane Russian player to play with such a rule. Especially considering the ahistorical result of the Lvov opening.

You're not going to find a sane Axis player to play under such a condition as mine either.

There's enough acrimony from some who claim that the Axis are in a straight jacket.

Putting in Hitler/Stalin rules will only increase that.

[Klydon]

@Colberki: I am not sure how much you have played WITE as either side, but honestly, the Russians would never pay to activate any units because they are simply not worth it and so much more needs to be done with their AP. The only exceptions I would even consider might be for mountain units and only if I know I can get them away.

Against a good German, you are going to lose everything that started at the in the north border in about 3-5 turns anyway. Every single unit. In the south, where there are more reserves from the front to the Kiev area, the Russians can and do often deploy these units to delay the Germans or at the very least, move them behind the river to form the river defense. The Odessa units would be screwed over the most since they can't pull back behind the rivers in good order, which is what they did historically.

Regardless, the Russians could lose all this and they will get it all back (shells at least) without making it a significant advantage for the Germans, so it doesn't solve anything.

@Aurelian. Once again, you are so pro-Soviet as to be laughable when it comes to solving issues with this game. Having said that, lets look at your proposal that you tossed up in retort to someone trying to make a suggestion. First, the Germans are in better position to afford the admin points to free up certain units in order to retreat and the fact is that Hitler did authorize some retreating. Not often, but he did. Secondly, the Germans will just run a bit early during frost, much like they do now so once again, it won't solve a lot of issues.

Both proposals have issues with trying to solve "attacking to the rear". Would this be allowed?

The eastern front was a brawl and a massive battle of attrition, not a track meet. Until things are fixed with the game (logistics, air, etc) it is going to remain a track meet for both sides.

[Farfarer61]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

It was made to show just how nonsensical such suggestions are.

You're not going to find a sane Russian player to play with such a rule. Especially considering the ahistorical result of the Lvov opening.

You're not going to find a sane Axis player to play under such a condition as mine either.

There's enough acrimony from some who claim that the Axis are in a straight jacket.

Putting in Hitler/Stalin rules will only increase that.

I would readily play Soviet with the Axis at 105 logistics. In fact I will suggest to for future games. An admin increase is not needed, save for perhaps the initial Axis AP pool. Lvov, Mule, Build Up away!

[Klydon]

Once again, claims that the Lvov opening is so terrible, yet nothing on the fact the Germans drive further, through worse terrain, to get to Minsk. Change both or leave both alone, but at least try to be consistent.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Klydon


@Aurelian. Once again, you are so pro-Soviet as to be laughable when it comes to solving issues with this game. Having said that, lets look at your proposal that you tossed up in retort to someone trying to make a suggestion. First, the Germans are in better position to afford the admin points to free up certain units in order to retreat and the fact is that Hitler did authorize some retreating. Not often, but he did. Secondly, the Germans will just run a bit early during frost, much like they do now so once again, it won't solve a lot of issues.

If I was as pro Soviet as you claim, I would be attacking 2by3 for the changes they have made. You know, things such as shrinking command points of the Soviet armies. Removing the ability to make static units in 1941. And all the other changes.

Read all the changes made to the Soviets over the various patches, then show just where I claimed 2by3 has a pro Axis bias. And then, you can explain why I currently am at 1.06.6. So tell me, if what you claim is true, just why would I patch up to that?

Of course, I haven't, and you can't. So your claim is false.

Now, that that falsehood is exposed, let's move on.

You've been here long enough to know just how much complaining and accusations have been made because the Axis can't get those massive pockets. How much they want to implement so called "Stalin rules." And all the rest

But what you don't see, or just ignore, is the thundering silence when they can do what the Axis could not. I can't find *any* Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad before winter. Or how they can take Moscow. Or how they can retreat during the blizzard. I have yet to see *any* Axis complaint that they have to launch Fall Blau, whether they want to or not. Or *any* Axis complaint on how they have to stand their ground.

Nor do I complain about how 2by3, or the game, is pro Axis because of that. "pro Soviet bias............ riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight."

Can you find those complaints?

You want Stalin rules to force the Soviets to act a certain way. Then you should be willing to accept Hitler rules to force the Axis to act the same way. That works for me.

And since Hitler interfered more and more as the war went on, while Stalin did the opposite, well.........

[Farfarer61]

I ruthlessly exploited the harvest of APs and trucks from static mode, then shed not a Red tear when caught out by the Devs and this went away. By far the best suggestion so far is the slight 105 tweak to Axis logistics in PBEM games and be done with it.

[RCHarmon]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian



You've been here long enough to know just how much complaining and accusations have been made because the Axis can't get those massive pockets. How much they want to implement so called "Stalin rules." And all the rest

But what you don't see, or just ignore, is the thundering silence when they can do what the Axis could not. I can't find *any* Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad before winter. Or how they can take Moscow. Or how they can retreat during the blizzard. I have yet to see *any* Axis complaint that they have to launch Fall Blau, whether they want to or not. Or *any* Axis complaint on how they have to stand their ground.

Nor do I complain about how 2by3, or the game, is pro Axis because of that. "pro Soviet bias............ riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight."

Can you find those complaints?

You want Stalin rules to force the Soviets to act a certain way. Then you should be willing to accept Hitler rules to force the Axis to act the same way. That works for me.

And since Hitler interfered more and more as the war went on, while Stalin did the opposite, well.........

You are being disingenuous. I for one have commented on all the items that you have mentioned.

Several Axis players have commented on how they have no problem with loss of the Lvov pocket. The Soviets did put up a fight against AGS. Allowing the Soviet player to "keep" these troops would go a long way in addressing this; but if the Soviet player just takes these troops and runs then the complaints about Soviet running is compounded.

I have no problem the Soviet player running, I just believe that there must be some repercussions.

It is easy to tell a player that his concerns are unfounded. It is impossible to make a player believe that his concerns are unfounded.

It doesn't do any good to pit Soviet player against the Axis player anywhere except in game. Both players are essentially in the same boat.