Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Crusade against Bolshevism

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> War In Russia: The Matrix Edition >> Crusade against Bolshevism Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Crusade against Bolshevism - 3/16/2002 6:39:50 AM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		Hi

A few days ago I added a battle reports page on my site ( [URL]http://www.davescorner.de/games/wir/battle/battle_en.html[/URL] ). If you have save games looking very interesting (turning points, unconventional strategies, 'How to dos' and 'How to not dos') screenshots of them can be posted there.

As an example I took the monumental struggle between Loveman and me. :)

"At the beginning of the war our troops advanced faster than anyone could have dreamed of. They destroyed many Soviet armies.
The Fuhrer decided not to capture Moscow and Leningrad before the winter so that we didn't have to feed millions of pow's AND the Russian people.
To shorten our supply lines our glorious armies withdrew temporarily and arranged winter quarters. The weak Soviet troops tried to hinder our movements but they were defeated and suffered heavy losses from which they will never again recover.
Currently our soldiers familiarize themselves with their new weapons, the Pz IV and the He 177, the bomber the Luftwaffe always wanted.
It is beyond doubt that this year will face the end of the bolshevistic plague."

quoted from the
"Völkischer Beobachter", 04.26.1942

Dave
Post #: 1
- 3/17/2002 2:11:20 AM   
screamer

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: The Netherlands,
Status: offline 		heheh any of you think th HE177 doesnt belong in game, most of the ones that where build wherent used, germany once again wanted to much [dive bomber, heavy bomber in one]


nut nevermind this is off topic

_____________________________

poep

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 2
- 3/17/2002 11:17:26 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by screamer
[B]heheh any of you think th HE177 doesnt belong in game, most of the ones that where build wherent used, germany once again wanted to much [dive bomber, heavy bomber in one]
[/B][/QUOTE]


Yep, my understanding is they couldn't have mass produced that plane if they had wanted too.due to lack of materials.

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 3
- 3/17/2002 4:19:32 PM   
czerpak

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Poland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]


Yep, my understanding is they couldn't have mass produced that plane if they had wanted too.due to lack of materials. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not only that - the ones that were finally built had to many technical problems, so it was hard to make them fly.
But in a game I love it anyway :)
Maciej

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 4
- 3/17/2002 5:17:09 PM   
moonfog

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by czerpak
[B]
Not only that - the ones that were finally built had to many technical problems, so it was hard to make them fly.
But in a game I love it anyway :)
Maciej [/B][/QUOTE]

Because WiR doesn't simulate technical problems, the He-177 is a very fine bomber and I love it too. However, I think the He-177's bombload is still overrated compared to f.ex. the B-17.

Ray

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 5
- 3/17/2002 6:10:40 PM   
screamer

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: The Netherlands,
Status: offline 		yup, its a very nice nomber in the game thats tru, but i still think its ahistorical to put it in and i would like to see it replaced[with what, arent many other german bombers, maybe naaa nevermind]

_____________________________

poep

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 6
STALINS ARMY - 3/19/2002 6:21:58 PM   
loveman

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 7/8/2001
Status: offline 		the mighty stalin has vowed to break the whermacht back in 1942 and will be in berlin in the summer of 1943.

the red army has plenty reserves to finnish of the pitiful german army.:rolleyes:

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 7
- 3/19/2002 7:26:15 PM   
Lokioftheaesir

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/26/2001
From: Oz
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]

Yep, my understanding is they couldn't have mass produced that plane if they had wanted too.due to lack of materials. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ed

And this is where my attidude towards realism follows your own. I may clump industry over certain types of air/armour but do not do so with types that had historical problems. At most i will have only two factories on he177 to support 1 or 2 units, the rest on proven designs , he111 & ju88.
The same with the elephant. It was realistically to expensive to produce in the numbers required and a tad too sophisticatted for the job it was meant for. JgPz 4 is the best ballance and cost for that job.

Loki

_____________________________

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 8
- 3/20/2002 1:10:17 AM   
RickyB

 

Posts: 1155
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Denver, CO USA
Status: offline 		And the new production model should help with these unrealistic production levels, although it is not perfect. Switch everything to the He177 and you will end up with many fewer bombers. The same with the more expensive tanks. Now at least there is a choice between quantity and "quality", whereas before it was strictly a quality choice as you would get nearly the same quantity of anything you chose to build.

_____________________________

Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi





(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 9
- 3/20/2002 9:06:36 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
[B]

Ed

And this is where my attidude towards realism follows your own.

.....

[/B][/QUOTE]


Agreed. Even further though, I don't like the He-177 presences in the game at all because it was not an aircraft produced in large numbers.

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 10
- 3/20/2002 9:09:36 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by RickyB
[B]And the new production model should help with these unrealistic production levels, although it is not perfect.[/B][/QUOTE]


Its going to need some more tinkering I think. I ran a comp vs comp game, and at the end there was not a significant difference between He177 asd Ju88 production He177 production was 10, and 11, and Ju88 production was 11, 12, and 15.

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 11
- 3/20/2002 1:34:34 PM   
RickyB

 

Posts: 1155
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Denver, CO USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]Its going to need some more tinkering I think. I ran a comp vs comp game, and at the end there was not a significant difference between He177 asd Ju88 production He177 production was 10, and 11, and Ju88 production was 11, 12, and 15. [/B][/QUOTE]
But it is much better. If you watched during the game, the He177 factories should have topped out at 8 and then randomly but very slowly grown another level. The Ju88s would have gone to 10, as they are cost 7. Your end of game output is in relation to the cost of the 2 planes. However, before the He177 would have grown to 15, or nearly double the level in current game. The only way to improve it in the current system would be to allow higher costs than 9, or lower the Ju88 and other bomber costs and remove some factories I guess.

_____________________________

Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi





(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 12
New bombers arriving - 3/22/2002 11:46:11 PM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by screamer
[B]yup, its a very nice nomber in the game thats tru, but i still think its ahistorical to put it in and i would like to see it replaced[with what, arent many other german bombers, maybe naaa nevermind] [/B][/QUOTE]

The forum is a bit quite these days...

Anyway, in order to remain historical there is no chance to find a german WWII bomber that could replace Ju-88/He-111/Do-17. There were only either slightly modificated ones like the Ju-188/Do-217 or late or problematic projects that were never build in large numbers (Ju-288/Ar-234/He-177).

Nevertheless my Luftwaffe will get thousands of He-177 and these will surely bomb Stalin back to Stone Age. ;)

Dave

_____________________________

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Lord Acton

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 13
- 3/23/2002 3:34:05 AM   
moonfog

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]
Agreed. Even further though, I don't like the He-177 presences in the game at all because it was not an aircraft produced in large numbers.[/B][/QUOTE]

Ed,

concerning production numbers of the He-177 I found the following data on warbirdsresourcegroup.org:

"Production:
8 Prototypes
35 He 177A-0 (Mainly Arado built)
130 He 177A-1 (Arado built)
170 He 177A-3 (Heinkel Built)
826 He 177A-5"


I agree that a bit more than 1000 He-177 built is certainly not indicating a mass production of this plane. But I think that this quantity should be enough to keep the He-177 in the game.

It's a fact that the He-177 suffered some severe technical flaws, sure. The problem IMO is that WiR doesn't take the liability of a tank or plane into account. Adding a new equipment attribute like "technical liability" (which could influence the number of pieces showing up in combat) to WiR is not possible, I fear. So the problem that in reality the He-177 was very unliable and therefore not built/used en masse but in WiR it is a super bomber cannot be solved this way.

However, I think Yogi found a simple but effective way to prevent the soviets being crushed by masses of german super bombers in 1942 (Yogi redid all plane attributes in his alternative obwir). He set the availability date of the He-177 to octobre 1943 instead of march 1942 in the original obwir. This change saves the soviet player from unrealistic griffon-attacks at least until end 1943.

In 1943/44 and with the new production calculation in WiR 3.2, probably a german player can't afford anymore to build an expensive bomber with many of his factories when he needs a lot of planes to replace his losses(?).

IMO, Yogis change solves a big part of the in-game-problem with the He-177 and such a change wouldn't be even (too) ahistorical. So why not add a later availability date in Matrix WiR 3.3?

Regards
Ray

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 14
- 3/23/2002 10:29:37 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by moonfog
[B]
It's a fact that the He-177 suffered some severe technical flaws, sure. The problem IMO is that WiR doesn't take the liability of a tank or plane into account. Adding a new equipment attribute like "technical liability" (which could influence the number of pieces showing up in combat) to WiR is not possible, I fear. So the problem that in reality the He-177 was very unliable and therefore not built/used en masse but in WiR it is a super bomber cannot be solved this way.
[/B] [/QUOTE]


We had thought of a "reliability" characteristic, but adding such a thing would be an awful lot of work.


[QUOTE][B]
However, I think Yogi found a simple but effective way to prevent the soviets being crushed by masses of german super bombers in 1942 (Yogi redid all plane attributes in his alternative obwir). He set the availability date of the He-177 to octobre 1943 instead of march 1942 in the original obwir.
[/B] [/QUOTE]


Was this change for historical reasons or simply to make the He177 less important? If the He177 really did show up in 1942, I don't believe we should change that. This goes back to my concern over how we go about solving problems with the game. Damaging realism or historical accuracy to fix a problem is the wrong way to go about solving a problem I believe. We've inproved things a good deal in 3.2, I think further tweaks in the future can reign in the He177 problem, without altering realism or accuracy.

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 15
- 3/23/2002 2:43:19 PM   
moonfog

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]

Was this change for historical reasons or simply to make the He177 less important? If the He177 really did show up in 1942, I don't believe we should change that. This goes back to my concern over how we go about solving problems with the game. Damaging realism or historical accuracy to fix a problem is the wrong way to go about solving a problem I believe. We've inproved things a good deal in 3.2, I think further tweaks in the future can reign in the He177 problem, without altering realism or accuracy. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with you that there shouldn't be any ahistorical game changes just to balance the game. Otherwise we could end up with a well-balanced sci-fi game and nobody wants that, I think.

I don't know what the intention behind Yogis change exactly was. From a historical point of view, octobre 1943 is probably a bit too late. But the He-177 A-5 (the most built version with 826 planes and though probably less flawed than the prior versions) seems to have been delivered into service in February 1943.

Taking the production quantity argument into account, on which I agree with you, then one could probably argue that the He-177 represented in WiR should be the version A-5 because the prior Griffons where produced only in small numbers. Because of that, a change to at least early 1943 would IMO not damaging realism for balances sake.

Last but not least, v3.2 has really improved very much. A BRAVO to Arnaud, you and the other members of the development team for that good work.

Ray

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 16
- 3/23/2002 4:22:05 PM   
czerpak

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Poland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]

If the He177 really did show up in 1942, I don't believe we should change that. This goes back to my concern over how we go about solving problems with the game. Damaging realism or historical accuracy to fix a problem is the wrong way to go about solving a problem I believe.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You see Ed, as I said in other thread we do agree on many things :)
BTW My generall opinion about historical realism - it is ONLY a game, so sometimes we have to give up realism to keep game playable, right ?

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 17
- 3/23/2002 9:22:46 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by moonfog
[B]
I don't know what the intention behind Yogis change exactly was. From a historical point of view, octobre 1943 is probably a bit too late. But the He-177 A-5 (the most built version with 826 planes and though probably less flawed than the prior versions) seems to have been delivered into service in February 1943.
[/B][/QUOTE]


This is what I found out after looking around some:

http://www.simviation.com/fsdcbainhe177.htm
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/bomber/he177/he177.html
http://yarchive.net/mil/bomber_duel.htmlp://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he177.html
http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/he-177.htm

I think you and the others are right. In WIR the He177 shouldn't show up until Feb '43 to represent the more numerous A5 version. About 3/4 of the He177s produced were the A5 variant. Even this doesn't get us really close to reality, because a large number of those A5 models on the eastern front were fitted with 50mm and 75mm guns and used as tank busters, not level bombers.

The He177 is a good example of WIR's limitation in aircraft characteristics, since in WIR this is a great bomber whereas in reality it was a horrible failure, and was hated by its crews. Many of its crews called it a "flying coffin". If we had a valid historical alternative, I would actually vote to remove the He177 in place of another aircraft. So are there any bomber type planes in the Luftwaffe, where more than a thousand of them were produced somewhere between '41 to early '44, that aren't represented in WIR?



One thing I found while looking for info is the following story. Its one of those "would you believe this" stories, and I figure many of you may like to hear this. Have you ever heard of air-to-air combat between bombers? :)

http://yarchive.net/mil/bomber_duel.html

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 18
- 3/23/2002 9:43:54 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by czerpak
[B]
You see Ed, as I said in other thread we do agree on many things :)
BTW My generall opinion about historical realism - it is ONLY a game, so sometimes we have to give up realism to keep game playable, right ? [/B][/QUOTE]


This statement could be the start of a long discussion. :)

Its an interesting proposition, I suppose it would depend on how much realism is lost in a given example. There is a point at which I would no longer be interested in a game if it sacrifices a substantial amount of accuracy in favor of a balanced contest. It depends on what you get out of the game, what makes it so compelling to you. For me, it is at least the appearance of a historical simulation that is important, not whether the game is balanced or not. To me, balance can always be achieved through the formulation of a set of victory conditions that can make the game interesting to play even if its clear one side can not "win" in the conventional sense. Either way, its an interesting question, what do the rest of you think?

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 19
- 3/23/2002 10:42:22 PM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]So are there any bomber type planes in the Luftwaffe, where more than a thousand of them were produced somewhere between '41 to early '44, that aren't represented in WIR?[/B][/QUOTE]

No.

[QUOTE][B]
One thing I found while looking for info is the following story. Its one of those "would you believe this" stories, and I figure many of you may like to hear this. Have you ever heard of air-to-air combat between bombers? :)

http://yarchive.net/mil/bomber_duel.html [/B][/QUOTE]

From now on I'll wait for a bomber-only dogfight air-sim! :)

_____________________________

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Lord Acton

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 20
- 3/24/2002 12:06:48 AM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]Its an interesting proposition, I suppose it would depend on how much realism is lost in a given example. There is a point at which I would no longer be interested in a game if it sacrifices a substantial amount of accuracy in favor of a balanced contest. It depends on what you get out of the game, what makes it so compelling to you. For me, it is at least the appearance of a historical simulation that is important, not whether the game is balanced or not. To me, balance can always be achieved through the formulation of a set of victory conditions that can make the game interesting to play even if its clear one side can not "win" in the conventional sense. Either way, its an interesting question, what do the rest of you think? [/B][/QUOTE]

IMO it's obvious we all like role-playing (What would I have done in General X's position?) and what-if's. For that reasons there's a big need of historical accuracy.
On the other hand i.e. WIR isn't just a simulation but a game too. And both (human) opponents should be able (technically) to win. So one has to find a compromise and everybody will find his own.

Dave

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 21
- 3/24/2002 12:27:52 AM   
moonfog

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]

I think you and the others are right. In WIR the He177 shouldn't show up until Feb '43 to represent the more numerous A5 version. About 3/4 of the He177s produced were the A5 variant. Even this doesn't get us really close to reality, because a large number of those A5 models on the eastern front were fitted with 50mm and 75mm guns and used as tank busters, not level bombers.[/B][/QUOTE]
The He-177 not showing up before February 1943 would not be a unhistorical change, so far we agree. This change would IMO be a big improvement concerning realism compared with the actual specs of the He-177. The eastern front Griffins were largely used as tank busters not as level bomber, I agree with you. But I think that's another problem. WiR does allow the player to control the tactical use of weapon systems only in a limited manner. Otherwise f.ex. the Ju-88 should also be able to be set on CAP against allied bombers(?).
Probably the He-177 could be set in the tank buster category like the Hs-129, I don't know.

[QUOTE][B]
The He177 is a good example of WIR's limitation in aircraft characteristics, since in WIR this is a great bomber whereas in reality it was a horrible failure, and was hated by its crews. Many of its crews called it a "flying coffin". If we had a valid historical alternative, I would actually vote to remove the He177 in place of another aircraft. So are there any bomber type planes in the Luftwaffe, where more than a thousand of them were produced somewhere between '41 to early '44, that aren't represented in WIR?[/B][/QUOTE]
Perhaps the Ju-188 which Possum has added to his alternative obwir (additional to the He-177). I can think of no other alternative.

[QUOTE][B]
One thing I found while looking for info is the following story. Its one of those "would you believe this" stories, and I figure many of you may like to hear this. Have you ever heard of air-to-air combat between bombers? :)

http://yarchive.net/mil/bomber_duel.html [/B][/QUOTE]
Imagine how the poor guys in the bomber's rear must have felt during these manoeuvers. Everybody happy who didn't have breakfast:)

Ray

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 22
- 3/24/2002 5:31:16 AM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by moonfog
[B]Perhaps the Ju-188 which Possum has added to his alternative obwir (additional to the He-177). I can think of no other alternative.[/B][/QUOTE]

If we're talking about adding the Ju-188 I'd agree. But in order to replace the He-177 there's no alternative IMO. And removing the He-177 without providing a serious alternative (no minimum modificated Ju-88) doesn't sound good. Changing the the He-177's unit type to tank destroyer (as mentioned) might be better.

Dave

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 23
- 3/25/2002 4:56:02 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by davewolf
[B]

If we're talking about adding the Ju-188 I'd agree. But in order to replace the He-177 there's no alternative IMO. And removing the He-177 without providing a serious alternative (no minimal modificated Ju-88) doesn't sound good. Changing the the He-177's unit type to tank destroyer (as mentioned) might be better.
[/B][/QUOTE]


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7404/ju188_388.html


According to this, most Ju-188 planes were built as recconaisance aircraft. I don't think enough were built as bombers to include it in WIR

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 24
- 3/25/2002 6:22:27 AM   
davewolf

 

Posts: 1840
Joined: 2/14/2002
From: On world conquest.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7404/ju188_388.html


According to this, most Ju-188 planes were built as recconaisance aircraft. I don't think enough were built as bombers to include it in WIR [/B][/QUOTE]

As a part of the 'B-bomber' program, determined to replace the obsolete Ju-88 and He-111, the Ju-288 was developed. But due to technical problems (the Jumo 222 engine, same one as the He-177 had...) it never came to service. The Ju-188 was the substitute for the Ju-288. It was first delivered in the second quarter of 1943. Technical data: max. speed 325 mph (Ju-88:280mph), max. bomb load 3000kg (1500kg), four guns (three); so no big modifications.
The Ju-188 came to service as bomber, night fighter, long range reco. So did the Ju-88!

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 25
- 3/25/2002 6:39:23 AM   
moonfog

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7404/ju188_388.html


According to this, most Ju-188 planes were built as recconaisance aircraft. I don't think enough were built as bombers to include it in WIR [/B][/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Dave and you that the Ju-188 isn't a real alternative to the He-177. It was a proposal from my side without doing further research on the specifications of the Ju-188. Sorry...

The Ju-188 option gone, I think Dave is right that there is no other german bomber which could replace the He-177 in the game. Changing the He's unit type to tank destroyer would represent the role the He-177 was mainly used in reality. But that doesn't change the fact that the aircraft was originally designed as heavy level bomber, does it? IMO a germanside WiR-player should still get the chance to build a longrange heavy bomber to conduct strategic bombing raids f.ex. on the caucasian oil fields if he likes to do so. The 1943 strategic situation in a WiR game can differ very much from the historical one and I think that the option for a strategic bomber should remain open.

Ray

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 26
- 3/25/2002 7:51:57 PM   
czerpak

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Poland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]

Its an interesting proposition, I suppose it would depend on how much realism is lost in a given example. There is a point at which I would no longer be interested in a game if it sacrifices a substantial amount of accuracy in favor of a balanced contest. It depends on what you get out of the game, what makes it so compelling to you. For me, it is at least the appearance of a historical simulation that is important, not whether the game is balanced or not. To me, balance can always be achieved through the formulation of a set of victory conditions that can make the game interesting to play even if its clear one side can not "win" in the conventional sense. Either way, its an interesting question, what do the rest of you think? [/B][/QUOTE]
Gee, Ed, I start to worry about myself. I've read your answer several times and still cant find anything I could argue about !!!
Seriously, to go a bit further - if I play germans and soviet player didnt win up to may 1945 I consider this my victory. Just an example how we can balance the game. Historically IMHO germans had no a single chance to win, even with Leningrad and Moscow taken in 1941.
BTW I didnt say BALANCE I said playability. And as you said for everybody something else makes game playable. I think majority of players will prevail. But fortunatelly we can always have alternative scenarios for the rest


[QUOTE]
This statement could be the start of a long discussion. :)[/QUOTE]

Could be, but I am pretty sure we will find something more important soon :)

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 27
- 3/26/2002 6:31:29 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by czerpak
[B]
Gee, Ed, I start to worry about myself. I've read your answer several times and still cant find anything I could argue about !!!
[/B][/QUOTE]


I'm just getting mellower in my old age. My assertions and retorts are not as sharp as they once were. :)


[QUOTE][B]
Historically IMHO germans had no a single chance to win, even with Leningrad and Moscow taken in 1941.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Must respectfully disagree here. Leningrad and Moscow were major industrial centers along with weapons factories, oil and resources and population. Losing these will seriously hurt Soviet industry. The Soviet player can only move ~9 factories, so all those HI, and tank/plane factories in those 2 cities would be permanently lost. If lost in '41, it would mean a weak USSR in '42 which would almost lead to certain Axis victory.


[QUOTE][B]
BTW I didnt say BALANCE I said playability.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Balance is part of playability, isn't it?

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 28
- 3/26/2002 6:44:38 AM   
Possum

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline 		Hello all
The Ju-188 in my custom OBWIR is really meant to represent a whole variety of improved marks Ju-88's. I settled on calling it Ju-188 as that seemed to be a historical name, and was distinct from Ju-88A. Alternatively I could have been called Ju-88S, Ju-88A8, or Ju-388. Ju-88A8 would be the most appropriate, but I thought this would be too easy to confuse with the already existing Ju-88A.

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 29
- 3/26/2002 4:06:49 PM   
czerpak

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Poland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]


I'm just getting mellower in my old age. My assertions and retorts are not as sharp as they once were. :)

Must respectfully disagree here. Leningrad and Moscow were major industrial centers along with weapons factories, oil and resources and population. Losing these will seriously hurt Soviet industry. The Soviet player can only move ~9 factories, so all those HI, and tank/plane factories in those 2 cities would be permanently lost. If lost in '41, it would mean a weak USSR in '42 which would almost lead to certain Axis victory.

[/B][/QUOTE]

You mean historically ? They didnt have artificial limitations about number of factories moved to east. It would hurt them seriuosly, I agree, but probably wouldnt break them as a nation. Soviet ability to recover was amazing.
[QUOTE]Balance is part of playability, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
It is, but you took it out of context.

(in reply to davewolf)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> War In Russia: The Matrix Edition >> Crusade against Bolshevism Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.281