Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! 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 Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Another waste of money

 
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: Another waste of money Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 7:58:17 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Nope, it is not, but I don't play by history. Hind sight and all that.

(in reply to James Ward)
Post #: 31
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 7:59:23 PM   
jay102

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 8/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

I think historical game should not be focused to reproduce the outcome of history. Yes, it should simulates the historical enviroments, conditions and limitations as accurate as possible. After that, it's the players' show time, making their own strategies, testing various what ifs...to produce their own outcome based on reasonable historical limitations. This is what makes a game shine. Without initiative and achievements, what's the point of playing game? better to watch movies or read books.


The problem is the German Army was built around this assumption: Blitzkrieg. People automatically think about the scintillant Panzers and their amazing victories... but they forget (or simply ignore) that this military doctrine was born because Germany was WEAK! They had to find a new way to conduct war. They needed to eliminate their enemies one by one AND quickly! The Blitzkrieg was a consequence of German weakness (NOT the other way around: "wow, Germany has Panzers because they're strong"...)

So these are exactly the "historical enviroments, conditions and limitations as accurate as possible" you mention. German war machine was NOT made for a long war. It was exclusively made for short and contundent conflicts. Therefore stopping somewhere in Russia in october 1941 to build forts and protect your soldiers and machines does NOT make any historical sense, sorry. It's "get to Moscow, annihilate Red Army or drop dead". Curious, that's what the Germans did...

Said this, I'm no one to say what people should have AGAINST the AI. But for sure NO Soviet PBEM player should accept this aberrant "no winter" rule


You point is perfectly acceptable if the Russian side also hardcoded a no retreat rule in summer to prevent the totally unrealistic, ahistorical Sir Robin(Forest Gump) playing.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 32
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 8:02:31 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Valid point. 

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 33
Define Historical simulation - 1/16/2011 8:05:07 PM   
madgamer2

 

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline
If I buy a game and it gives me all the info and is geared to come out historically what is the use of playing it. Gary Grigsby in my opinion is a game designer of a totally different breed. His game not only present the historical situation and reflect the technology but he designs hi games with the elements, of luck, chance,and the random events that control any battle.
I think that with both sides knowing that the first winter will be bad and the Germans w ill not have the proper equipment going to result in predictable historical behavior. It surprised me that he did not introduce more random variations in things like the weather and German winter preparedness and the arrival of the Russian reinforcements from the Jap front. Not knowing that something will happen at a certain time adds much more flavor to a game. Letting the German have winter readiness at some cost whould make a good option. Thoes who want to play with the exact conditions that were present should be able to do that.
You can pick any event in any war and know that there could have been a different result. Warfare is die rolling in its simplest form ang Gary knows this more than most designers. He goes to great lengths to introduce chance and luck as part of the game. i have not seen it yet but using the editor and dificulty level we caqn introduce some factors in the game that may not be there. i do not kn and could be talking out of my backside but one has to only look at his many other games to see the historical outcomes are possible but so are other outcomes brought about by the players themselves so yes I will devote time to this game because being a game designed by Gary it will be a good one.

Lastly we could go on for pages and pages trying to define the title of this post but in the end we each form our own opinion based on the game we play

Madgamer2

_____________________________

If your not part of the solution
You are part of the problem

(in reply to madgamer2)
Post #: 34
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 8:10:41 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4379
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102
You point is perfectly acceptable if the Russian side also hardcoded a no retreat rule in summer to prevent the totally unrealistic, ahistorical Sir Robin(Forest Gump) playing.


I totally agree. Stalin's criminal ineptitude should be in the game as well What would be the limit? The Frontier Districts (from the NW to S) should not attempt a withdrawal after x turns for example?

Anyway, the "no surrender" Soviet order was conjuctural (they finally realized --pretty soon-- such order was idiotic). The German problem was structural (it could not be 100% solved during the war)

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 35
RE: The weather thing - 1/16/2011 8:31:33 PM   
MechFO

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

Thats not cool.
If the Axis player starts digging in November they should be able to do better than being stuck out in the open when winter hits.


My opinion as well. Even level 4 forts, which take ages to build, don't provide any protection. I don't think it's actually the combat modifiers that hurt, since these can be somewhat compensated for, but the attrition. Not to mention the long term experience loss.

IMO one should at least institute another check for fort levels like the current check for towns. Could even be the identical check, with unit limits if necessary.


As a matter of fact it works, but you have to do it right (for tips, RTFM (or at least the section on First Winter Blizzard) at least three times; I was still finding little gems buried in the text on the third time through).

Now forts will help protect you from attacks by hordes of Russians, but that is not what is killing the Germans (at least at first). First rule if you are caught in a blizzard: get to shelter. Per TFM you can shelter from the blizzards in towns (one unit sometimes) and urban (two or three units all the time).



BTDT. The problem is that the attrition save is dependant upon a die role that has to be matched by the population size. After being fought over, many towns/cities have a population of 0 or 1 , so offer little to no benefit. So even a system where one bases ones defence lines on towns, often doesn't give any discernible benefit.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 36
RE: The weather thing - 1/16/2011 8:36:05 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 11795
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

After being fought over, many towns/cities have a population of 0 or 1 , so offer little to no benefit.


Town population shouldn't decrease in the game. Manpower ("factories") do.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 37
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 8:39:33 PM   
MechFO

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

I think historical game should not be focused to reproduce the outcome of history. Yes, it should simulates the historical enviroments, conditions and limitations as accurate as possible. After that, it's the players' show time, making their own strategies, testing various what ifs...to produce their own outcome based on reasonable historical limitations. This is what makes a game shine. Without initiative and achievements, what's the point of playing game? better to watch movies or read books.


The problem is the German Army was built around this assumption: Blitzkrieg. People automatically think about the scintillant Panzers and their amazing victories... but they forget (or simply ignore) that this military doctrine was born because Germany was WEAK! They had to find a new way to conduct war. They needed to eliminate their enemies one by one AND quickly! The Blitzkrieg was a consequence of German weakness (NOT the other way around: "wow, Germany has Panzers because they're strong"...)

So these are exactly the "historical enviroments, conditions and limitations as accurate as possible" you mention. German war machine was NOT made for a long war. It was exclusively made for short and contundent conflicts. Therefore stopping somewhere in Russia in october 1941 to build forts and protect your soldiers and machines does NOT make any historical sense, sorry. It's "get to Moscow, annihilate Red Army or drop dead". Curious, that's what the Germans did...

Said this, I'm no one to say what people should have AGAINST the AI. But for sure NO Soviet PBEM player should accept this aberrant "no winter" rule


The problem of the Germans was indeed mapower/industrial/resource constraints, but that is and should be handled in the production system, not by trying to recreate, regardless of circumstances, a single 3 month segment of a 4 year campaign.

The discussion when and where to build winter quarters started in Oktober in OKH. It was decided not to, but this was a calculated risk that went wrong, not an inevitable act of fate.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 38
RE: The weather thing - 1/16/2011 8:44:08 PM   
MechFO

 

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

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

After being fought over, many towns/cities have a population of 0 or 1 , so offer little to no benefit.


Town population shouldn't decrease in the game. Manpower ("factories") do.


Well, there was at least three with 0 population, 106/68 and 96/54 and 92/59, and south of Orel nearly everything is 1, so I assumed this was due to Pop decrease.

EDIT: Looking around a bit I'm finding quite a few of them. Do want a save?

EDIT: Finding them starting a new game as well, so looks like a scenario problem. All of them seem to start with no manpower as well.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 1/16/2011 8:51:31 PM >

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 39
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 9:01:29 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4379
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

The discussion when and where to build winter quarters started in Oktober in OKH. It was decided not to, but this was a calculated risk that went wrong, not an inevitable act of fate.


And it went wrong because the German war machine was only made for quick wars in the first place. Fate has nothing to do here: if your army was made to win quick wars, you better win quickly... Because if you fail to do so the rutilant façade (Panzer divisions) will crumble and then...



< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 1/16/2011 9:03:29 PM >


_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 40
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 9:16:11 PM   
willgamer


Posts: 534
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Nashville, Tennessee
Status: offline
The word "historical" is in grave danger of being abused whenever it is invoked to pigeonhole opposing viewpoints.

It is a word with a broad definition easily capable of shouldering multiple facets of what we consider important about history.

"Historical" could mean the actual recorded conditions for particular zones on certain dates.

"Historical" could also mean, with equal validity, statistically valid conditions when plotted over a certain time period, e.g. the last hundred years.

So both determinant and indeterminant (but statistically accurate) weather can be fully historical.

Whether one version of historical weather is the preferred model for this game is debatable, but does not hinge on declaring alternative definitions as illegitimate.

Considering the wide range of choices given in other areas of the game that allow, or even promote, ahistorical player strategies, it seems that questions about why weather was hard coded are legitimate.


< Message edited by willgamer -- 1/16/2011 9:21:56 PM >


_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 41
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 9:26:55 PM   
MechFO

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

The discussion when and where to build winter quarters started in Oktober in OKH. It was decided not to, but this was a calculated risk that went wrong, not an inevitable act of fate.


And it went wrong because the German war machine was only made for quick wars in the first place. Fate has nothing to do here: if your army was made to win quick wars, you better win quickly... Because if you fail to do so the rutilant façade (Panzer divisions) will crumble and then...




It went wrong because the logistics system couldn't handle the consequences of the gamble failing.

The structural issues took time to work itself through, which is why the war lasted as long as it did. From the way to make it sound, the Soviets should have been in Berlin in 42.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 42
RE: The weather thing - 1/16/2011 9:43:56 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 11795
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Well, there was at least three with 0 population, 106/68 and 96/54 and 92/59, and south of Orel nearly everything is 1, so I assumed this was due to Pop decrease.

EDIT: Looking around a bit I'm finding quite a few of them. Do want a save?

EDIT: Finding them starting a new game as well, so looks like a scenario problem. All of them seem to start with no manpower as well.


0 pop towns are just geographical references.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 43
RE: Another waste of money - 1/16/2011 9:44:04 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4379
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
From the way to make it sound, the Soviets should have been in Berlin in 42.


And the Americans should have been in Tokyo in 1943 (Battle of Midway and Guadalcanal Campaign)

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 44
RE: Another waste of money - 1/17/2011 1:30:05 AM   
notenome

 

Posts: 598
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

I think historical game should not be focused to reproduce the outcome of history. Yes, it should simulates the historical enviroments, conditions and limitations as accurate as possible. After that, it's the players' show time, making their own strategies, testing various what ifs...to produce their own outcome based on reasonable historical limitations. This is what makes a game shine. Without initiative and achievements, what's the point of playing game? better to watch movies or read books.


The problem is the German Army was built around this assumption: Blitzkrieg. People automatically think about the scintillant Panzers and their amazing victories... but they forget (or simply ignore) that this military doctrine was born because Germany was WEAK! They had to find a new way to conduct war. They needed to eliminate their enemies one by one AND quickly! The Blitzkrieg was a consequence of German weakness (NOT the other way around: "wow, Germany has Panzers because they're strong"...)

So these are exactly the "historical enviroments, conditions and limitations as accurate as possible" you mention. German war machine was NOT made for a long war. It was exclusively made for short and contundent conflicts. Therefore stopping somewhere in Russia in october 1941 to build forts and protect your soldiers and machines does NOT make any historical sense, sorry. It's "get to Moscow, annihilate Red Army or drop dead". Curious, that's what the Germans did...

Said this, I'm no one to say what people should have AGAINST the AI. But for sure NO Soviet PBEM player should accept this aberrant "no winter" rule


Christ this is a myth. The German army was not build around the tank or blitzkrieg. Guderian's panzer idea was heavily criticized pretty much from the beginning, and the development of tanks in the Reich took far longer and proved more costly then expected. The first hundred pages or so of panzergeneral are pretty much devoted to all the dificulties and obstacles the mobile corps faced from high command. It was only after the French campaign that this notion of Blitzkrieg really came in vogue (and mind you it wasn't even the Germans who came up with the term), and only after Guderian became inspector of motorized troops in 43 that the tank corps were really rationalized, and even then he was frustrated by the favoritism given to building new tanks (Tiger/Panthers) instead of masses of PIVf2/g s.

Now it is true that Barbarossa was planned to be a quick campaign, but you have to separate the plan from the army. The vast majority of the Wehrmacht was composed of infantry divisions, who pound for pound performed better and were more resilient then any other nation's comparable formation. And, as has been often said, the Wehrmacht did have winter clothing, but ammo and fuel were prioritised above these. A player who pulls the panzers back to Germany should therefore lessen the logistics burden and allow for at least partial transportation of winter clothing. And something akin to this was suggested by Guderian (and many others), who asked to make winter quarters after the Battle of Kiev in September. To say this doesn't make historical sense is, I'm sorry, ridiculous. It didn't make sense to Hitler, and so wasn't done, but then again retreating didn't make sense to Stalin.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 45
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 2:37:13 AM   
Zemke_4


Posts: 379
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

AFAIK, the most experienced player from tester team is merely able to get a historical result and casualty number in 41 winter, even with hindsight and expert planning.

Average Axis player usually collapse 9 out of 10 times.


See Above: I agree 100% Jay, and that should be a “red flag” to the designers as well. If it takes the best of the best to get close to historical results as the game is designed now as the Germans, while I have seen a report that a Soviet player are reached Berlin by 43, then something is not right. I have written of this in my own thread, “Casualties seem off......”

German casualties appear too loses are too high in winter, and Russian prisoners are too low in summer 41. After the initial shock of the first month, I'll bet the cases of frostbit were way down, reason, the Germans had learned how to cope with the weather, and they were wearing the nice padded jackets and boots from dead Russians, and the lines had stabilized in most places by mid January to early February 42. Most of the frostbit cases were caused by from having to fight in the open, once the lines had stabilized, this was not case. The Germans would hole up in dugouts or villages in hedgehog (360 degree defense), and would only come out to fight if needed, rotating out LP/OPs. The first month brutal, maybe some of January, I agree 100%...after that I think personnel loses due to blizzard too high for the Germans. There should be some bonus if Germans are able to start and end a turn in levels of fortifications.

As for Soviet prisoners, I have taken 2 million prior to the 25th turn, the start of the blizzard, with a total of 3.37 million total Russian casualties. This is still not close to historical results. I also think the artillery loses may be a bit too high for all sides. Unless you are getting over run, or retreating, artillery tube loses should be very low, it is not like either side have very good means of firing counter battery fires.

If we are going to have a historical "simulation", then it should have close to historical results given reasonable play. All the results above are against the AI, I cannot imagine how hard it would be to get historical results against a human Soviet player, I would thing next to impossible, making a PBEM game a forgone conclusion, while is a sad state of affairs for me.

Winter 41 as it is right now in the game, IS used as the primary balancing agent in the game. It allows the Soviets to have a chance, and prior to the winter of 41 the (in game) Soviets do not have a chance, and cannot even think about attacking the Germans, when a closer look the historical record shows the Soviets fought much harder and inflicted very heavy losses on the Germans prior to the 41-42 Winter battles. The latest historical research by Dr. Stahel and COL (Ret) Glantz, show that it was not winter that broke the back of the German army, but the summer battles around Smolensk. According to both their independent research (David Stahel book “Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East”, 2009 and David Glantz's newest book “Barbarossa Derailed: The battle of Smolensk 10 July – 10 September 1941”), the heavy casualties the Germans suffered during the summer battles around Smolensk were the primary reason for the failure of Barbarossa not winter. I agree the winter was bad, very bad, but it was just icing on the cake of a failure to plan, taking into account the actual size and competency of the Soviet Army and leadership, and it's willingness to suffer huge loses to stop the Germans.

Bottom-line if you play the Germans and do exactly what they did in 41, fighting all the way to the suburbs of Moscow, till the Soviet winter counter offensive hit, then you should see comparable loses in the game, right now you do not, you see huge German loses in winter, fewer Soviet prisoners taken in summer, and that is not historical.

I hope this post does not offend, but I think an honest discussion of the the above issues needs to take place.

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
"Pass the salt, please"

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 46
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 2:43:54 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
I am sorry and with due respect to the authors, I don't see how the battle of Smolensk can be the big reason as to why the Germans lost the campaign. Now, if you want to say they lost their time table for the original plan, then perhaps there is a discussion to be had. 

(in reply to Zemke_4)
Post #: 47
RE: Another waste of money - 1/17/2011 3:26:01 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4379
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

Christ this is a myth. The German army was not build around the tank or blitzkrieg.


A myth? Of course, it was the infantry (NOT the tanks and motorised units) that did MOST of the job, from Poland to France and then the fulgurant victories in Russia

The real myth is that the German was a perfect war machine (what you say about her infantry is a classic example of this). FALSE. In fact after the Polish Campaign the German High Command itself concluded the 1914 infantry was superior. Their 1939 counterparts were less combative and resistent...

And this myth persists because of one simple reason. The people ONLY see the rutilant façade: the panzers which made possible many quick victories The weakness behind this façade, they don't see it... But it's there.

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 48
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 4:29:54 AM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3344
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

Thats not cool.
If the Axis player starts digging in November they should be able to do better than being stuck out in the open when winter hits.


My opinion as well. Even level 4 forts, which take ages to build, don't provide any protection. I don't think it's actually the combat modifiers that hurt, since these can be somewhat compensated for, but the attrition. Not to mention the long term experience loss.

IMO one should at least institute another check for fort levels like the current check for towns. Could even be the identical check, with unit limits if necessary.


As a matter of fact it works, but you have to do it right (for tips, RTFM (or at least the section on First Winter Blizzard) at least three times; I was still finding little gems buried in the text on the third time through).

Now forts will help protect you from attacks by hordes of Russians, but that is not what is killing the Germans (at least at first). First rule if you are caught in a blizzard: get to shelter. Per TFM you can shelter from the blizzards in towns (one unit sometimes) and urban (two or three units all the time).

So, during the Mud and Snow, pull all of your mobile troops back to urban hexes as near to the front as you please. Then look to where you can form the best line by connecting town and urban hexes; go there and start digging. Leave gaps if you can dig in on a town one our two hexes behind your first stop line. Use mountain troops to cover gaps between towns in the stop line; NEVER waste a mountain unit by putting it in a town. Do NOT stack except mobile units in urban hexas. Try to get as much of your army as possible into some sort of shelter before the blizzard hits. Leave a screen (two hex gaps) along the original front line to keep the Russians away from your first stop line during Mud and Snow turns. Have your screen run like hell as soon as the blizzard hits (use RAIL ALWAYS if you can during Mud, Snow or especially Blizzard to perserve your trucks (and NEVER move mobile troops except by rail unless you are really, really desperate)). Also pull all of your minor allies (except the Finns of course) and stick all of them in urban hexes as far from the front as possible because they are useless the first winter EXCEPT the mountain troops which will fare better than you German infantry..

With a little luck this will hold you to about a half-million frostbite casualties with none in the mobile troops by January. Then it gets nasty as your line begins to crack from major Russian attacks but it's a lot better than your army disintegrating in December. I had 1.2 million disabled by April (most in the fighting in late Jan and Feb when I had to fight in the open) and that seems to be about as good as it gets.



I'd like to see forts of 3+ provide relief from the effects of the cold as well. This would reward a german player who goes on the defensive (ahistorically) and builds up defenses. No i'm not the german player in my pbem games. But i agree there is an issue where players need to have the ability to do things their way. If they build forts and prepare for winter they should not get beat down like dogs.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 49
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 4:32:30 AM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3344
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster


quote:

ORIGINAL: madgamer2


quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

If the game is supposed to be a simulation then why can't we simulate a 'what if' situation where the Germans came prepared for winter.


Cos it's a historical simulation. The German Order of Battle is set.

Let the murderers freeze in their foxholes.

SO ELOQUENT I would suspect your hobby is kicking sleeping dogs. You will have to forgive me but I find such comments a bit stupid.
This is a historical simulation and some what ifs could add some flavor.

Madgamer2


I'm sorry that I upset you.

This is after all a historical simulation of the Eastern Front.

The German's froze in the foxholes with no winter clothing.

That is a historical fact.

If you wanna play a modded game with first winter modifications then feel free.

For some people to complain about the stock games simulation of how the first winter affected the Germans in a stock game is a little strange.

Take my comment with a pinch of salt.

I realised I was being flippant but thought you Kraut Lovers would realise I was only messing.

Best regards


If we're going to say this is a completely historical simulation take away the soviets ability to create their own military and use ONLY the toe that we can dig up. We as players can't have it both ways. :) It's just too hypocritical to say it's a historical simulation only from one side of the coin.


(in reply to cookie monster)
Post #: 50
RE: Another waste of money - 1/17/2011 4:35:45 AM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3344
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: madgamer2

And It would appear I should have raised this BEFORE I ORDERED the game. Many of us are average players and will have to play through the first winter many times like the testers before we can get a handle on that first winter. Having a ready for winter optional rule would allow the average player who will collapse and get run over by the Reds happen to the popint they will stop playing this wonderful game. I dont't have the time to spend hours and hours playing and replaying that first year.
I was hoping the rule for varying the winter weather or what ever it was called would help. A lot of players will get discouraged after getting blitzed by the reds and quit the game. What is the use of playing something like this when you know your most lkely going to fail. If hard coded means that it could not be changed even with a patch then I have wasted my money because I ply for the fun of it and getting ready for that first winter will make it difficult to play and have fun. When a game becomes work I don't play
it much.
I am surprised that Gary G did not put in an optional rule for beginners so the first winter is easier or for players who just want to have fun playing the game. The hard core players win out again like with the AE game. I am not objecting to having a game for the expert, hardcore player its just that a little more consideration for those of us who are not hardcore or expert or have lots of time to ply the game.

I know the hardcore will say I am being a wimp and I guess they would be right compared to there level of play ability. I Had such high hopes for this game and Its designer. No more buying GG"s games right out of the gate like the past now I will have to read more of the forum and ask dumb questions. If matrix ever gets my download+ boxed shipment fixed I will try but i think it will be like AE which is way over my head as I can barely keep even with the dumb AI in WitP LOL

I can't win them all

A much sadder Madgamer2


I'm right there with you mad. I think having options like in WITP to change variables would be nice. (ie dud torpedoes for us navy historically etc)

extreme winter yes/no
historical german no retreat first winter yes/no
historical soviet no retreat rules until winter? Yes/no

etc.

(in reply to madgamer2)
Post #: 51
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 4:36:44 AM   
Zemke_4


Posts: 379
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I am sorry and with due respect to the authors, I don't see how the battle of Smolensk can be the big reason as to why the Germans lost the campaign. Now, if you want to say they lost their time table for the original plan, then perhaps there is a discussion to be had. 


I would say what the authors have said, it is precisely the lost time table, that then causes the campaign to be lost. Because it slowed the Germans down so much, caused far higher infantry casualties and tank loses that had to be made up prior to the launching of Typhoon, (much higher than was previously thought). The Germans have to take a month long delay while forces refitted, (and commander debated). Behind on the time-line, the Germans had no chance to take their key objective prior to winter. If they don't take the key objectives they know they are in for a long war, one Germany is NOT prepared for, cannot sustain, and cannot supply. Taking those key objective may not have knocked the USSR out of the war, but it would have crippled them to prosecute a long war, with the loss of manpower, industry and resources. Typhoon's failure then leads to a 42 campaign designed not to win the war, but gain critical resources (oil), to allow Germany a chance to fight a long term war. We all know the rest of the story. That is why Smolensk is the key to Soviet success, everything else was due to that battle. It gained critical time for the USSR and bloody the Germans enough to stop, refit and resupply.

My main point was, the casualties model is off.
1. Soviet Summer casualties don't match the historical record.
2. German winter casualties are over the historical record,
3. Disabled casualties return far too slowly
3. Winter is used in the game as the primary game balancing method, when I think there were a lot of other factors at play, like German loses during the battle of Smolensk.

Last I would say if you have not read those books, then it hard to make such a statement. I felt the same as you, until I read the books.

< Message edited by Zemke_4 -- 1/17/2011 4:38:57 AM >


_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
"Pass the salt, please"

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 52
RE: Another waste of money - 1/17/2011 4:36:47 AM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3344
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Ah, come on guys, he made a comment about the weather. Quit busting his chops for it. It would be a nice feature, I got savaged extremely hard my first winter, bad enough that I started over. So for new players trying to come to grips with it, it might be nice.

And since I got savaged by the AI that time, I basically stop all offensive actions in Oct and start digging in. Level 4-5 forts across my entire frontline area. Lesson learned and all that. And now the AI has a hard time cracking my line anywhere except in the south.

And for the history comments, history dies the moment I end my 1st turn. I don't mind it to some extent, but I refuse to be condemned to repeat history in a game, just because it happened in real life. I played the Japanese in WITP because they are the underdogs, same for as the Germans here. So let's back away and quit pounding some.

And to the Kraut comment, easy on some of the names. I got your meaning, but we are an international forum and you have to remember that.



+1

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 53
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 4:38:04 AM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3344
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: itkotw


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

I was able to get thru the blizzard in very good shape for the first time in many games... I caused about 3 million Russian casualties before the blizzard hit. This greatly limited how many troops the AI had for the counter attack.


I had a similar experience (causing 3+ million casualties) before the blizzard, and my german army out numbered their army (as per the OOB screen 3.75 mil GER to 3.2 mil RUS). But by January the OOB showed 7+ million russian troops and the stronger points in their line were 5-6 units deep. One breakthrough, which I wasnt originally worried about (who would have thought marshes would make a good breakthrough), ended up having something like 180 brigades/divisions in it (I removed FoW to count).

I would be interested (if others would be so kind) to hear how many troops both sides had (as per OOB screen) before and after the blizzard. Maybe in my next game I will push on Lenningrad and Moscow instead of trying to go south, in hopes of knocking out population centers.

As for the "historical simulation" crowd. Off the top of my head I would say that, yes, historically, the germans pushed as far as they could and were left in the open with no winter equipment. But germans spending months building forts, of any level, would have increase winter protection. Getting out of the weather in any fashion increases your survival rate. Even eskimos in ingloos feel warmer than being outside.

Quick search about snow shelters gives quotes like this:
"Temperature inside a snow shelter can be 32 degrees or warmer even when the outside temperature is -40 degrees." http://www.alpharubicon.com/primitive/quinzeetrigger.html
" ...just several feet below the surface of the snow the temperature rarely drops below 20F no matter how cold and windy it is on the surface."
http://www.survivaltopics.com/survival/snow-trench-shelter/

I think forts could be harder to build, but they should give some protection. Maybe level 3,4,5 forts should practically require contruction battalions to assist to build the fort in a reasonable amount of time. Maybe lower the contruction values of average units.

I dont want the germans to have a free pass, but it should be a trade off between milage achieved or forts (=shelter), not death at the gates of Moscow or death at gates of Mogilev (germans die where ever they choose to stop, currently).





+1 that's how i feel about the the winter stuff as well.

(in reply to itkotw)
Post #: 54
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 4:43:24 AM   
Zemke_4


Posts: 379
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
This all started over a weather post, wow!

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
"Pass the salt, please"

(in reply to bwheatley)
Post #: 55
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 4:52:02 AM   
abulbulian


Posts: 776
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline
I just realized that I can't play this game as axis anymore until some fixes are made regarding the first winter and sov units ability to be super human in winter... all sov units.

Many reasons why the winter of 41 was very harsh on the Axis forces in 41-42 winter. I did almost all I could do to counter what was done historically and still suffered exactly the same fate.

Here's some of the bad mistakes by Germans in that first winter:

1) no winter prep clothing had priority to get to front
- I couldn't change this cause game has hard coded winter effects on axis units

2) many units pushed to such extreme that div sometime at 50% strength
- most of my units still very strong with respect to TOE - 80%-90%

3) Supply lines were over extended in last autumn and winter pushes
- my supply lines were in good shape for the majority of game (mud is harsh) and motor pool was at least equal to needs

4) Hitler want Moscow late and pushed generals to attack late Nov and Dec to take it. Thus, not preparing defense lines as all out attack consumed last of muni, fuel, and supply stocks
- I hunkered down in Nov and units started to fortify and rest.

5) German armor units left out and exposed to elements.
- I had almost all my armor in Urban or Cities behind the lines and safe.


* also, I took Leningrad and had Fins on line too to help
before blizzard turn
** Sov loses at 4 mil and 16k tanks
** axis loses at 0.5 mil and 2.4k tanks

All this didn't make a drop of difference, first turn of blizzard Sov units bust through my fort 3's push and isolate some div, which have no hope to break out or survive more than one more turn.

Don't like game mechanics that try to impose historic loses even when the player takes a (better) non-historic path. That just seems silly and wrong IMO.

It's almost like all Sov units are treated like Siberians in winter. Which was far from the truth of the maybe 15 div that were actually Sib to fight in Dec. This was far from historically, many Sov units had low moral and would not have been able to break through well prepared German units.

Even with all the mistakes the Germans made, the still managed to stabilize the lines later in winter. In this game, don't see how one could even hope to stop the Sov units in 12 turns of blizzard.

The way I see it is that if axis player does not get auto vic in 41, it's just a matter of time and good luck mounting anything like Case Blau in the summer 42. Sov player would have to be very novice to not crush axis almost completely in 12 turns of blizzard.

I hope some changes will be made in the future regarding forts, and these super human sov units in the winter. Yes, I know the Sov win the war, but there should be a chance beyond an auto vic in 41 for the axis to win game. And I just don't see it unless Sov player is clueless.

Will be happy to prove my point to anybody that wants to play axis against me in campaign 41-45 game. Really have to play it to understand all of what I mean. Think some of you finding out that pocketing sov in 41 is not easy task, I got lucky in getting 4 mil the person I played against will not let that happen a 2nd time. As I was saying, many of you are already or close to experience the futility of playing the axis in the 41 campaign.

I look forward to this game making improvements and will be happy to share my game data with anybody that is curious. Still great game, just more potential out there and I think these developers will apply it sooner than later.

< Message edited by abulbulian -- 1/17/2011 4:57:31 AM >

(in reply to bwheatley)
Post #: 56
RE: Another waste of money - 1/17/2011 4:55:38 AM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3344
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102
You point is perfectly acceptable if the Russian side also hardcoded a no retreat rule in summer to prevent the totally unrealistic, ahistorical Sir Robin(Forest Gump) playing.


I totally agree. Stalin's criminal ineptitude should be in the game as well What would be the limit? The Frontier Districts (from the NW to S) should not attempt a withdrawal after x turns for example?

Anyway, the "no surrender" Soviet order was conjuctural (they finally realized --pretty soon-- such order was idiotic). The German problem was structural (it could not be 100% solved during the war)


Yes they should module it and put the Destroyer battalions in as well. They were NKVD troops who were reliable enough and would shoot looters, retreaters without orders etc. Should happen up until first winter. I mean if we're going to have a "historical simulation". :)

I'm using this as a point to show that there are things that are modelled for germany that effect play balance a tad.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 57
RE: Another waste of money - 1/17/2011 4:59:25 AM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3344
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

The word "historical" is in grave danger of being abused whenever it is invoked to pigeonhole opposing viewpoints.

It is a word with a broad definition easily capable of shouldering multiple facets of what we consider important about history.

"Historical" could mean the actual recorded conditions for particular zones on certain dates.

"Historical" could also mean, with equal validity, statistically valid conditions when plotted over a certain time period, e.g. the last hundred years.

So both determinant and indeterminant (but statistically accurate) weather can be fully historical.

Whether one version of historical weather is the preferred model for this game is debatable, but does not hinge on declaring alternative definitions as illegitimate.

Considering the wide range of choices given in other areas of the game that allow, or even promote, ahistorical player strategies, it seems that questions about why weather was hard coded are legitimate.



I agree copmletely.

(in reply to willgamer)
Post #: 58
RE: Another waste of money - 1/17/2011 5:01:46 AM   
madgamer2

 

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline
It would seem that to me there is a difference between a historical game and a simulation game. I don't want a game to be so historical that it prevents me from doing other things. A simulation puts you in the situation with the historical limitations but does not force you to play in such a way as to reproduce what happened historically.
A simulation presents things that could have happened. What i wanted with the weather was the posibility that the winter could have been different. What happens if the cold arrives later ore even earlier and ends either earlier or later. I find that having hind sight historically not to my liking.
amassive invasion such as this could have any number of different outcomes and the player knot knowing what is going to happen makes a game a simulation. When you crank up the tanks and the bullits and shells start zippiong around it takes the fun out of it. if both sides know certain things are going to happen at a given time is not what I want. I wqant that feeling of uncertainty, luck, of lack of knowledge of the total situation.
Most of Gary's games like his Civil War game were simulations and this one strikes me as as a much more historical game with much of what happened in the war built into it. Just because something happened in the real war does not mean it has to happen in a simulation. The possibility should be there but should not force players to react and do certain things at certain times in certain ways. I kist like to have more what ifs built into a game.
Not actually having the game yet is a disadvantage but it sounds like with the editor and other means players can free themselves from the yoke of history if that is what they desire. Gary's previous games had these kind of elements and I hope this one does to.
i am looking forward to getting the game and spending the time to learn to play it

Madgamer2

_____________________________

If your not part of the solution
You are part of the problem

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 59
RE: The weather thing - 1/17/2011 5:08:00 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
I can see the other side on the fortification issues. It makes it too easy for the Germans to keep a solid line in the winter. Historically, they had to form hedgehogs and these were generally around population centers.

As far as the original plan being thrown off by the battle around Smolensk, I call BS on that. The German plans called for the Soviet army to be destroyed at the border. Their time tables were such that they expected to be in pursuit after defeating the armies at the border and expected a collapse of the Soviet regime. All these things were toast long before the battles around Smolensk with the fighting in the south and the fact the Russians did not collapse and could offer strong resistance around Smolensk in the first place. The Germans absolutely destroyed the Russian army in the Baltic and Western Military districts. The issue was what was behind it and the effective mobilization of the nation by the Soviet regime.

I think a lot of this is saying the same thing. The Russians were prepared to offer strong resistance at Smolensk (and did so). The German panzer formations were down around 50% effective by the primary book I have and ammunition expenditure was extremely high. The Germans were already experiencing logistics issues as it was. Part of the reason they stopped was to rehab the panzer formations (something they had not planned on needing to do) and also build up the logistical base to continue the attack in the center. Hitler sent PG 2 South and PG 3 North to help the flanks after they were rehabbed. Even after rehab, both formations were not as nearly as effective as they were at the start of the campaign. PG 2 in particular suffered over the distance covered and then the counter march back to the north.

By the strictest definition of what the objectives of the original campaign was to achieve in 1941, then it could be argued that meeting significant resistance at Smolensk spelled doom, but as I mentioned, the real culprit was the issues AGS ran into from the outset of the campaign. No way could they have achieved their objectives and that was absolutely clear within a week of the start of the campaign. Because they could not, they forced the diversion of PG 2 in Hitler's mind. Generals from both sides have stated that the Germans likely would have taken Moscow had they not diverted forces. I will take their word over a couple of authors splitting hairs discussing the merits of when the failure of the original campaign took place.

(in reply to Zemke_4)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Another waste of money Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.124