Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: War in the West

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the West Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: War in the West - 2/21/2012 2:55:26 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 751
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: online
It would be a massive coup if the strategic bombing portion of WITW ended up being better than the game designed specifically for it. I could never really get into Bombing the Reich, hard as I tried.

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 91
RE: War in the West - 2/21/2012 4:17:26 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2519
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

I think it will be interesting to see how the strategic bombing campaign goes.



Try BTR . Just as the basic air combat model for UV/WitP used BTR as a starting point, I suspect that that WitW will trace a heritage back to that Grigsby game as well.

Of course daily turns with the ability to target anything with anything does make BTR play just about as slowly as WitP

< Message edited by pompack -- 2/21/2012 4:19:55 PM >

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 92
RE: War in the West - 2/21/2012 6:53:03 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 867
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Your breaking my heart there Jaw.......I sure hope they add it in.....it would really add to the game for the better IMO.


+1

Since basically the allies have got several inexhaustable sources of materiel that are beyond the German's reach, its only fair that the Axis get to do some tweaking to their production. Basically if the Axis are not allowed some leeway in production and unit recruitment, what's the point of playing? The Axis had some wasted opportunities, why do we have to repeat their mistakes?

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 93
RE: War in the West - 2/21/2012 8:29:39 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I would bet that War in the West will allow Germany almost complete control over production. Since The strategic bombing will be a major factor for the Allies. I would not be able to fathom how the game could be playable with a "fixed" production. Since the Allies would just bomb the factories to dust that produce the best weapons etc. Take out the Tiger factory, then the Panther factory and just continue working down the list.

Same as in WITP, since strategic bombing was a major factor hence why Japan has control over production.


I can see no other way to make the game playable otherwise.



At the moment there is no German control of production but we are still in very early development. That said however, your strategy of bombing fixed production factories would not work. These factories are hard to damage and repair very quickly. Better strategy is to bomb basic industries like synthetic oil plants and degrade the German railnet by bombing marshalling yards.



How about units and TOEs?

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 94
RE: War in the West - 2/21/2012 10:37:39 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Since basically the allies have got several inexhaustable sources of materiel that are beyond the German's reach, its only fair that the Axis get to do some tweaking to their production. Basically if the Axis are not allowed some leeway in production and unit recruitment, what's the point of playing? The Axis had some wasted opportunities, why do we have to repeat their mistakes?


Replace the word "allies" with "Soviets" and read the irony.

(in reply to Offworlder)
Post #: 95
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 5:49:12 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Since basically the allies have got several inexhaustable sources of materiel that are beyond the German's reach, its only fair that the Axis get to do some tweaking to their production. Basically if the Axis are not allowed some leeway in production and unit recruitment, what's the point of playing? The Axis had some wasted opportunities, why do we have to repeat their mistakes?


Replace the word "allies" with "Soviets" and read the irony.



+1

Looks like another completely unbalanced game. I think I'll hold off on this one.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 96
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 6:30:40 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 751
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Replace the word "allies" with "Soviets" and read the irony.

Aren't the Germans able to deal significant damage to Soviet industry through City Bombing air missions? Or at least, whatever the Soviets haven't evacuated to Chlakov yet. The only reason I don't do it myself is because I heard it was a frowned upon practice.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 97
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 7:13:37 AM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 316
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline
I renew the suggestion I wrote here.
If the Axis player will have the possibility of shifting forces between fronts, he'll feel less framed into a preset schedule, even if he's not able to tinker the production.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 98
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 11:43:56 AM   
kafka

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 6/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Looks like another completely unbalanced game.


the problem being there is a vocal minority who thinks this should be no game at all, and in order to achieve this the gameplay has to be reduced by putting the 'player' into an 'historical' straight jacket. Anyway since I simply don't like such reduced gameplay I guess I'll have to spend my money on something else, as there are so many other opportunities :-)

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 99
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 12:45:16 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


How about units and TOEs?


What do you want to know about units and TOEs?

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 100
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 1:48:07 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


How about units and TOEs?


What do you want to know about units and TOEs?



I for one would like to know if one is stuck with awful 45 ones or if one could keep the 44 TOE and use the % setting to adjust as needed.

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 101
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 1:52:01 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


How about units and TOEs?


What do you want to know about units and TOEs?



Can you change TOEs? Cna you create units?

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 102
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 7:12:24 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO




I for one would like to know if one is stuck with awful 45 ones or if one could keep the 44 TOE and use the % setting to adjust as needed.


Yes, you are stuck with the 45 TOEs but considering that the game begins in July, 1943 rather than June, 1941, when the Axis has already lost the Battle of Stalingrad, been crushed in North Africa and about to be defeated at Kursk, you may want those slimmer TOEs with their emphasis on anti-tank weapons and small arms combat.

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 103
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 7:14:04 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


Can you change TOEs? Cna you create units?


No and No

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 104
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 10:12:37 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
How are you handling the mobility of the US Army?

Technically, the US Army had fewer mobile divisions than the Germans in Normandy.

But in reality, almost any US Infantry Division could become a de facto "Motorized" division, especially considering that most US Infantry divisions had attached Armor of some sort. (Tank or TD Bns)

Making all the US Army be "marching" infantry a la WITE would be unrealistic. But you can't make the whole US Army motorized, either.

Maybe allow for "Motorized" AND attack? (as opposed to "Motorized-NO Attack" in WITE)

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 105
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 10:58:28 PM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Your breaking my heart there Jaw.......I sure hope they add it in.....it would really add to the game for the better IMO.


+1

Since basically the allies have got several inexhaustable sources of materiel that are beyond the German's reach, its only fair that the Axis get to do some tweaking to their production. Basically if the Axis are not allowed some leeway in production and unit recruitment, what's the point of playing? The Axis had some wasted opportunities, why do we have to repeat their mistakes?


What were their wasted opportunities? The Germans put every available man into uniform by impressing slave labour on a hitherto unheard of scale. You could argue that the 20 odd Luftwaffe field Divisions could be stopped, and the manpower added to the main pool, but this doesn't create more manpower, merely maintains fewer infantry units at more optimum strength. They lacked the resources to build more Panzer Divisions, and even if they had had the resources, wouldn't have had the fuel to move them. The Luftwaffe Field units would have simply been soaked up by the Heer/Waffen SS as replacements.

I'm usually keen to hear what people would do with German production if they had the chance.

Pre-war it was flat out (and failing) to equip the units they had raised. In 1941, the expansion to invade the Soviet union was fueled by captured french trucks and Czech Tanks. Late war increased production could only maintain levels in the wake of allied bombing not substantially improve them.

There is absolutely nothing the Germans could do at a strategic level with their production that would make a jot of difference to the war's outcome. Build more 190s and fewer 109s? Irrelevant, they lacked the fuel to train sufficient replacements well enough for the better planes to make a difference.

Build no Panthers and get twice as many MK IVs instead? Pointless, since Army morale would have nosedived (who wants a 10% reduction in national morale if this option is chosen?) and they lacked the fuel to keep the Panthers moving, so twice as many fuel tanks would have seen the Panzer Waffe grind to a halt even earlier, assuming that is they could find the support vehicles, rubber and technical personnel to house the extra tanks in the order of battle.

Get control of research and get the Panther in 41/42? How? Given the Panther was the result of meeting the T34 which didn't happen until June/July 1941, how exactly do you get it any earlier?

Get control of research and get the 262 a year earlier? It makes no difference. Wonderful when they worked, but hugely expensive and requiring all sorts of materials the Germans simply didn't have, the Allies defeated them by the simple expedient of loitering around the airfields waiting for them to land. When they landed, they were defenceless and shot out of the sky a few feet above the runway.

Another favourite is don't bother with the Tirpitz, but the ship was afloat (albeit not complete) before the war even started, which basically means you are making production decisions from around 1935. Use the steel for tanks and all you have is another 1000 engines you can't fuel.

The Maus is an irrelevance.

Ultimately, the Germans were overwhelmed. In other words, wherever you placed your deckchair on the Titanic, you were getting wet sooner or later. The Allied bombing campaign should also be abstracted. It was bad enough as it was. Give the Allies hindsight and the Germans are in real trouble.

I have no objection to a little tinkering a la WITP. Prefer the Hetzer to the Marder III, fine. But no research, please, if the game isn't grounded in reality, what are we actually playing?

Abstract it and give a few options.

Allied players wants a carpet bomb strike al a Goodwood. Fine, Germans get 10% extra supplies for a day or two and an extra day's production adding to the pools to simulate the bombers being used for something else. Germans want extra 88s. Fine, give them 2000 extra guns and ammo and then drop production levels of everything else by 10% as the Allies fly past a lightweight Kammhuber line and hit largely undefended targets.

However, if you want the chance to build a fleet of 262s or 10 additional Panzer Divisions (made up of Lg MK IVs at the expense of Panther) then there should be some sort of "Invoke Gandalf" option that players can sign up to beforehand.

Still, each to his own, I appreciate others see it differently, and provided its utterly optional, I suppose they can put in whatever they like provided the core of the game remains rooted in reality.

Respect and regards,
ID

(in reply to Offworlder)
Post #: 106
RE: War in the West - 2/22/2012 11:28:49 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
I would like to have control over switching out tanks in units......even here in WITE.....within the classification. Say, I have a panzer div withdrawing, I would strip the PV1V and better PZIII and give it lesser/ older tanks......really hate when that withdrawing unit sucks the cream right out of the pools and takes it with them.

I have a 70 morale PZ div and a 90 morale div......which should be equipped with the best you got? I have no control over this right now. None.

That is the control I would love to have....I would love to be able to create support units. I would love to have better control over withdrawing units.....tell me I have to withdraw one and I will pick the one to go.........I would love to be able to control TOE upgrades......let me select which units upgrade and when. If I want a 20 Div hammer with 1942 TOE in 1945 at the expense of the other 300 div, that should be my call to make.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 107
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 5:07:59 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


Can you change TOEs? Cna you create units?


No and No


Well, I'll wair for the whole WW2 instead of war in the west then...

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 108
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 5:50:11 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 751
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I would like to have control over switching out tanks in units......even here in WITE.....within the classification. Say, I have a panzer div withdrawing, I would strip the PV1V and better PZIII and give it lesser/ older tanks......really hate when that withdrawing unit sucks the cream right out of the pools and takes it with them.

I think the problem with giving the player that kind of control is that you're essentially circumventing the reality of the war by doing the replacement in a vacuum.

That is, if your withdrawing division downgrades from PzIV's to PzIII's a week before they're supposed to leave your front, you're really shooting the other front in the foot. You can ignore the effects of this if the game you're currently playing doesn't model Rommel having to fend-off D-Day with out-dated tanks, but real commanders couldn't, which is probably a big reason for some of the TOEs historically ending up the way they did.

< Message edited by gradenko_2000 -- 2/23/2012 5:51:03 AM >

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 109
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 6:56:39 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Look at a lot of the units withdrawn from the Russian front historically......they were withdrawn to be rebuilt because they were devastated. Not all of them mind you, but a bunch of them had suffered tremendous losses. Look at the German withdraws in Spring 1942......what pressing front were they heading to? None, they were devastated during the blizzard of 41 and needed to refit and retrain. Now, currently, those units leave whether I suffer a single loss to that unit or not. I have watched withdrawing Panzer Div fill out with the cream of the tanks, while the ones I have left are using so called obsolete designs. If the production we currently have is only what basically went to the Eastern front, why must my Eastern Front portion of that production be used to fill out the unit. Let that puppy use the remaining production NOT going to the east. Barring that, give me control so that I have the better tanks for my remaining units.

Now, when or if the linking of the games occurs, then I will have to choose who gets short changed in the deal. Which front is in more pressing need.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 110
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 10:11:40 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Look at a lot of the units withdrawn from the Russian front historically......they were withdrawn to be rebuilt because they were devastated. Not all of them mind you, but a bunch of them had suffered tremendous losses. Look at the German withdraws in Spring 1942......what pressing front were they heading to? None, they were devastated during the blizzard of 41 and needed to refit and retrain. Now, currently, those units leave whether I suffer a single loss to that unit or not. I have watched withdrawing Panzer Div fill out with the cream of the tanks, while the ones I have left are using so called obsolete designs. If the production we currently have is only what basically went to the Eastern front, why must my Eastern Front portion of that production be used to fill out the unit. Let that puppy use the remaining production NOT going to the east. Barring that, give me control so that I have the better tanks for my remaining units.

Now, when or if the linking of the games occurs, then I will have to choose who gets short changed in the deal. Which front is in more pressing need.


I really support that. The early withdrawals are a nuisscance, esp. knowing that they mostly went for refreshing in France and keeping up the threat of operation Attila (occupation of Vichy France in case of a worsening of the "collaboration"). There would be other units that in my games would have gone thru some bleeding, but those I cannot send to refreshment instead.
With units going to fighting fronts urgently, the story is different -- they need to be in shape. Here I believe even the abstracted fronts used in old War in Russia do a much better job than having nothing to model this. But it can't be so difficult to code an optional rule that allows picking units along some criteria, say for a few extra AP.

Also swapping abilitiy of ground vehicles in the ToE's as optional rule would be nice, really nice, and can't be that difficult to implement either -- there is a similar function already for planes. Those would be nice cherries for WitW, and for retrofitting to WitE. And would add a little more fun for playing Axis...

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 111
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 10:35:28 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
...
I'm usually keen to hear what people would do with German production if they had the chance.
...
I have no objection to a little tinkering a la WITP
...


I guess that is what most people would wish for. Nothing that is so dramatically different to break out of the realm of realistically-doable or historically plausible courses, but a little leeway a la R&D and production in AE to at least have some fun with it if you like, or chose historical R&D and production instead if you prefer the fixed pictures (would be best if all involved sides were treated the same then).

A few months R&D advance of certain elements that you decide to focus on (robbing peter to pay paul, so to say), e.g. the 262 as fighter by skipping the period it was initially tried to develop it to a fast bomber/CAS aircraft. Or halt the production of certain types of vehicles like the Tiger II, for whatever reason you could come up with, and use the freed resources to expand facilities and production rates for something else instead.
In AE this system works very well, and it add a huge fun factor for me to the Japanese side. Not that it will make a huge difference in the end in most games, but it is simply fun to test out some reasonable what-ifs and see how a few Katsurage carriers could help if accelerated early enough.

Where you take your assumptions from that never having seen a Panther (meaning people in your game wouldn't even know about it or its performance), and focusing on the advanced Panzer IVH,G,J series, which could cope sufficiently with the T-34s, should translate into a 10 point NM loss, is not clear. There is no unambiguous reason for that.
Also, keep in mind that the Panzer V series and the Panzer IV had a very different fuel consumption. Roughly speaking, each Panther (730 l => ca 170 km range on roads) need twice as much as a Panzer IVH,G (470 l => ca 200 km range on roads) or J (680 l => ca 300 km range on roads). So from the perspective of fuel usage, the Panzer IV was more sensible. Looking at kills/per loss statistics, that is little different.

But you are certainly in general right about fuel being in most cases limiting factor for what R&D and production should allow a player to sensibly do if he wants to avoid running dry, but that's some risk there should be. In AE that certainly is quite acute of a risk.

< Message edited by janh -- 2/23/2012 10:37:47 AM >

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 112
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 11:31:56 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I would like to have control over switching out tanks in units......even here in WITE.....within the classification. Say, I have a panzer div withdrawing, I would strip the PV1V and better PZIII and give it lesser/ older tanks......really hate when that withdrawing unit sucks the cream right out of the pools and takes it with them.

I think the problem with giving the player that kind of control is that you're essentially circumventing the reality of the war by doing the replacement in a vacuum.

That is, if your withdrawing division downgrades from PzIV's to PzIII's a week before they're supposed to leave your front, you're really shooting the other front in the foot. You can ignore the effects of this if the game you're currently playing doesn't model Rommel having to fend-off D-Day with out-dated tanks, but real commanders couldn't, which is probably a big reason for some of the TOEs historically ending up the way they did.


Compare this with the Soviet ability to NOT create inefficient 1942 corps combat units (42a and 42b Rifle Corps). Soviet players are encouraged NOT to create these units and instead to use the existing divisions. They skip the inefficiencies and magically STAVKA figures out how to improve on Corps anyway.

Soviets already have the ability to bypass TOE mistakes and inefficiencies.
Germany can actually end up through withdrawals having a worse army than was historical, but that NEVER bothers the Sovie-o-phile side of the playing community.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 113
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 12:50:42 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
One of the best comments I've ever read on the forum. I couldn't have said it better myself.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 114
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 12:54:20 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Look at a lot of the units withdrawn from the Russian front historically......they were withdrawn to be rebuilt because they were devastated. Not all of them mind you, but a bunch of them had suffered tremendous losses. Look at the German withdraws in Spring 1942......what pressing front were they heading to? None, they were devastated during the blizzard of 41 and needed to refit and retrain. Now, currently, those units leave whether I suffer a single loss to that unit or not. I have watched withdrawing Panzer Div fill out with the cream of the tanks, while the ones I have left are using so called obsolete designs. If the production we currently have is only what basically went to the Eastern front, why must my Eastern Front portion of that production be used to fill out the unit. Let that puppy use the remaining production NOT going to the east. Barring that, give me control so that I have the better tanks for my remaining units.

Now, when or if the linking of the games occurs, then I will have to choose who gets short changed in the deal. Which front is in more pressing need.


I think you don't understand the withdrawals. The only units being withdrawn from the game are those that were either re-deployed to another front (e.g. 10th Panzer Division) or substantially re-organized (e.g. the SS motorized divisions). As long as a unit returned to the Eastern Front after re-building, it is not a withdrawal in the game.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 115
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 1:20:44 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


Compare this with the Soviet ability to NOT create inefficient 1942 corps combat units (42a and 42b Rifle Corps). Soviet players are encouraged NOT to create these units and instead to use the existing divisions. They skip the inefficiencies and magically STAVKA figures out how to improve on Corps anyway.

Soviets already have the ability to bypass TOE mistakes and inefficiencies.
Germany can actually end up through withdrawals having a worse army than was historical, but that NEVER bothers the Sovie-o-phile side of the playing community.


Your assumption is a misunderstanding of the Soviet TOE. The early Soviet Rifle Corps are not "corps" in the same sense as the later ones. These early corps were created by combining Rifle Brigades and the TOE reflects that which is why they seem so poor in comparison to the later ones which are based on combining Rifle Divisions. The designers/developers wanted the Soviet player to have the option to create these early corps but did not change the game corps creation mechanic to allow them to be created purely from Rifle Brigades. To simulate what the Soviets did in game terms you would have to create two rifle divisions out of four rifle brigades then combine them with another rifle brigade.

These early corps were not inefficient, they were expedient and had we ignored these "psuedo" Rifle Corps (which actually I favored) no one would have thought anything of it.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 116
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 2:02:28 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


Compare this with the Soviet ability to NOT create inefficient 1942 corps combat units (42a and 42b Rifle Corps). Soviet players are encouraged NOT to create these units and instead to use the existing divisions. They skip the inefficiencies and magically STAVKA figures out how to improve on Corps anyway.

Soviets already have the ability to bypass TOE mistakes and inefficiencies.
Germany can actually end up through withdrawals having a worse army than was historical, but that NEVER bothers the Sovie-o-phile side of the playing community.


Your assumption is a misunderstanding of the Soviet TOE. The early Soviet Rifle Corps are not "corps" in the same sense as the later ones. These early corps were created by combining Rifle Brigades and the TOE reflects that which is why they seem so poor in comparison to the later ones which are based on combining Rifle Divisions. The designers/developers wanted the Soviet player to have the option to create these early corps but did not change the game corps creation mechanic to allow them to be created purely from Rifle Brigades. To simulate what the Soviets did in game terms you would have to create two rifle divisions out of four rifle brigades then combine them with another rifle brigade.

These early corps were not inefficient, they were expedient and had we ignored these "psuedo" Rifle Corps (which actually I favored) no one would have thought anything of it.

Please note:
I give a **** about actual history. And so do you (because if you gave a ****, you would be consistent about history, and no one on this thread is ever 100% consistent about history).

What we know is that Germany must stick to its actual TOE at each and every step of the war.
Soviets do not.

Any serious game player can take one look at that dynamic and know that strategic playing options are wildly different for the two sides.
Germany is on rails to withdraw Totenkopf in the second half of 42 irrespective of whether there is a Demyansk pocket.

So you waste your breath talking to me about history, I'm talking about equanimity in play (though not identical capabilities).

The Soviets get all sorts of tools and abilities with which to improve the efficacy of their whole army that results in a seriously improved 1942 and 1943 fighting force over history's. They get to learn lessons without first failing.

Germany, meanwhile, can have the entire summer's worth of success snatched from it by the fiat of arbitrary adherence to history. It occurs in morale drops, it occurs in TOE changes, it occurs in withdrawals.

What I see is a huge community of soviet-fan players who do not care that their opponent's major setbacks are handed to him by game design, not you.

To me, you all have no meaningful concept of fair play.
And this is why I encourage people considering this or future Matrix titles to pay attention to the lop-sided nature of the discussions, the hypocritical and selective adherence to history, the personal attacks against people with different opinions, and my favorite, the insults based on what you have or have not read.

This is Matrix games and its fan base.
This is the future of War in the West.

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 117
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 2:03:28 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


Compare this with the Soviet ability to NOT create inefficient 1942 corps combat units (42a and 42b Rifle Corps). Soviet players are encouraged NOT to create these units and instead to use the existing divisions. They skip the inefficiencies and magically STAVKA figures out how to improve on Corps anyway.

Soviets already have the ability to bypass TOE mistakes and inefficiencies.
Germany can actually end up through withdrawals having a worse army than was historical, but that NEVER bothers the Sovie-o-phile side of the playing community.


Your assumption is a misunderstanding of the Soviet TOE. The early Soviet Rifle Corps are not "corps" in the same sense as the later ones. These early corps were created by combining Rifle Brigades and the TOE reflects that which is why they seem so poor in comparison to the later ones which are based on combining Rifle Divisions. The designers/developers wanted the Soviet player to have the option to create these early corps but did not change the game corps creation mechanic to allow them to be created purely from Rifle Brigades. To simulate what the Soviets did in game terms you would have to create two rifle divisions out of four rifle brigades then combine them with another rifle brigade.

These early corps were not inefficient, they were expedient and had we ignored these "psuedo" Rifle Corps (which actually I favored) no one would have thought anything of it.



Please note:
I give a **** about actual history. And so do you (because if you gave a ****, you would be consistent about history, and no one on this thread is ever 100% consistent about history).

What we know is that Germany must stick to its actual TOE at each and every step of the war.
Soviets do not.

Any serious game player can take one look at that dynamic and know that strategic playing options are wildly different for the two sides.
Germany is on rails to withdraw Totenkopf in the second half of 42 irrespective of whether there is a Demyansk pocket.

So you waste your breath talking to me about history, I'm talking about equanimity in play (though not identical capabilities).

The Soviets get all sorts of tools and abilities with which to improve the efficacy of their whole army that results in a seriously improved 1942 and 1943 fighting force over history's. They get to learn lessons without first failing.

Germany, meanwhile, can have the entire summer's worth of success snatched from it by the fiat of arbitrary adherence to history. It occurs in morale drops, it occurs in TOE changes, it occurs in withdrawals.

What I see is a huge community of soviet-fan players who do not care that their opponent's major setbacks are handed to him by game design, not your ability as his opponent.

To me, you all have no meaningful concept of fair play.
And this is why I encourage people considering this or future Matrix titles to pay attention to the lop-sided nature of the discussions, the hypocritical and selective adherence to history, the personal attacks against people with different opinions, and my favorite, the insults based on what you have or have not read.

This is Matrix games and its fan base.
This is the future of War in the West.



< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 2/23/2012 2:04:42 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 118
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 2:12:08 PM   
Baelfiin

 

Posts: 1250
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline
Cmon helio, JAW just gave you a pretty clear view of why a design decision was made, thats all.  Did you take an extra grumpy pill this morning?

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 119
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 2:33:38 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2519
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
Some people just are not going to be happy unless they have the "I WIN!" button. So give it to them. As long as the use of the button is optional you can always have house rules not to use it.

To re-state my position is less snarky terms, go ahead and put a production OPTION in the game to let people who want to fiddle with it fiddle with it. Don't spend a lot of debug time trying to dig out the deeply buried bugs, but include the function as an untested Beta option.

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the West Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.121