Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/3/2011 10:13:28 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5557
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Von Beanie's idea on Stalin/Hitler directives is a good one. The political imperative is missing, and that might be a way to put it back in. Both players can shrug-off defeats, or ignore certain objectives at will, when in reality doing so might get you a "Call back to Moscow for consultations".

I'm sure every Soviet general knew what happened to Pavlov, and acted accordingly......

(in reply to Farfarer)
Post #: 61
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/3/2011 10:56:41 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
He may have been doomed for various reasons.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 62
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/4/2011 12:21:11 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1404
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
I'm honestly wondering how much balance will improve when the Swamp-defense changes occur...

In theory, it could be a very big change to 1941 (and also 43/44, I would suppose).

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 63
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/4/2011 2:50:15 AM   
molchomor

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Von Beanie's idea on Stalin/Hitler directives is a good one. The political imperative is missing, and that might be a way to put it back in. Both players can shrug-off defeats, or ignore certain objectives at will, when in reality doing so might get you a "Call back to Moscow for consultations".

I'm sure every Soviet general knew what happened to Pavlov, and acted accordingly......



Just make sure it is optional (toggle on/off possible) if it goes in at some point or it may well be a gamebreaker. I remember that Gary's Western Front (sequel to SF) did implement such rules and neither me nor a friend of mine found it playable so it went straight into the bin, unfortunately. Too much agony of not being able to do much of anything - that makes it more of a simulation and not a game in my book.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 64
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/4/2011 8:57:22 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

This is why I proposed "Hitler Directives" and "Stalin Directives," hidden to the opponent, that force the players to fight for certain computer-determined objectives, or lose significant victory points for each turn they fail (up to a set amount).



Do you mean randomly? Because it is not the same to hold Minsk at all costs than Baku at all costs

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 65
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 12:09:28 AM   
Pford

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bevans

Finally, the terrain, especially swamps, along the Dnepr, make the replication of the actual rate of advance by the Germans impossible to replicate against a competent defense (see first point). The AI in fact seems to be well programmed to do this. The whole Russian defense in '41 is infinitely better co-ordinated and rational than was the real case.


As the German in WITE, I find that the exhilarating, free-wheeling sense of conquest evaporates pretty quickly and turns into a not-so-fun grind. Sometimes you get the feeling the game was balanced on the skills of a member of the design team or beta tester who, contrary to the AARs so far published, was able to perform prodigies with the Germs in 1941. But this is just one guy.


< Message edited by Pford -- 2/5/2011 12:15:52 AM >

(in reply to bevans)
Post #: 66
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 1:32:08 AM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
In my opinion the game should be as historical as possible, and the balance issues should be dealt with by changing the victory conditions.

I have the feeling that the problem of balance is only being discussed regarding the 1941-45 campaign. But if the game mechanics is changed to best replicate the results of the first year of the war, has anyone considered what would be the effect on the other scenarios?

It can be argued that what really happened during that first year of war was not the most likely (nor the most “correct”) outcome given the situation in June 1941. I, for instance, believe that the Germans were very lucky to be able to launch an initially successful attack in Summer 1942 (Operation Blau). If the game (or the 1941-45 campaign) is changed to give the Germans a decent probability of conquering, let`s say the Caucasus or Stalingrad in 1942, wouldn’t that be at the expense of historic accuracy?

Finally, what is really wrong about imbalance? Chess is an old game, and every chess player knows it is unbalanced: white has the upper hand. But in the chess forums you will not see “Black Players” requesting changes in the game of chess. Balance is obtained because a player plays 50% of the times with white, and 50% with black. Ideally PBEM games could be played in tandem, one after the other, (or simultaneously if it is the players' wish ). The player who holds Berlin during more turns, wins (or any other rule).

But..thinking about it...it is so funny seeing “Soviet” players arguing with “Axis” players….

(in reply to matt.buttsworth)
Post #: 67
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 1:38:13 AM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1695
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline
If the Germans got as far as they did with all those Russian mistakes.

Why should they achieve the same in a game where army placement is controlled by the player.

Every time I see this thread I think the same.

It should be renamed to

Should... Germany stand a chance

In the real world not a chance in hell.

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 68
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 1:53:40 AM   
1jasonoz

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/28/2010
Status: offline
How do i win as the German.

I am playing the 1941-45 campaign as the German, on Easy just to assess the game mechanics of the game.

By turn 8 i had taken Moscow, and pretty much had a line running north south from their with slight bends at the ends with the Soviets still holding Leningrad and a thin corridor to the east, and down south was fast approaching Rostov. 

Turn 11 Leningrad taken, the Crimea masked, Soviet forces really consist of nothing more than massive amounts of HQ, Airbases and either 0-0 or 1-1 units. Total Axis forces of about 5.5 million, and Soviets down to less than 3 million but still no Victory for the Germans.

Turn 15 Rostov taken, Crimea still masked with Romanian's, Axis forces including Finn's pretty much advanced to the main river line 15 hexes East of Moscow (River Volga?), and about 75% holding this line from the North to Gorky, down to opposite Stalingrad, then holding the Don all the way to Rostov, with pockets of soviet forces west of the line at the moment. Axis forces about 6 million men in total about 3000AFV's, Soviets only 2.6 million with less than 1800AFV's, and i would say 50% airbases, 20% HQ units and the rest either 0-0 or 1-1 ground units.  Current victory points at 268 for a 290 point decisive victory win, Germans are suffering supply issues as they have advanced past their rail limits, but still no victory.

How do i do it, win that is, how do i get the required 22 points to win decisivly? The Soviets are really nothing now except airbases, HQ units and 1000 man ground units of 0-0 or 1-1 with no combat ability to speak of. Do i take Stalingrad which may give me another 5 points, kill more soviet units, my units are worn out from the almost constant combats against 1-1 units who seem to suddenly appear in previously open steppes, to only rout away as soon as combat is carried out.

Do i bite the bullet, fortify the river line, reserve/refit my panzers/mech troops and sit out the winter/blizzard to allow my supply lines to catch up, and move South for the Oil and crimea in 42? Or should i do a final lunge and take the Crimea and/or Baku before the winter blizzard occurs in the hope of winning?

I really just want to know what else the German has to do to win after what i have seemingly done, captures his capital, main population areas, and destroyed over 4 million troops, 10,000 AFV's, 9000 aircraft and reduced him to less than 3 million men consisting of essential rabble!!

(in reply to Pford)
Post #: 69
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 2:04:54 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1404
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso



Finally, what is really wrong about imbalance? Chess is an old game, and every chess player knows it is unbalanced: white has the upper hand. But in the chess forums you will not see “Black Players” requesting changes in the game of chess. Balance is obtained because a player plays 50% of the times with white, and 50% with black. Ideally PBEM games could be played in tandem, one after the other, (or simultaneously if it is the players' wish ). The player who holds Berlin during more turns, wins (or any other rule).

But..thinking about it...it is so funny seeing “Soviet” players arguing with “Axis” players….

Actually there's a cadre of master chess players, and that Bobby Fisher grand poobah was among them, who want chess setup to be randomized, because Chess is too static and predictable a game, where white is 'overpowered' due to first move advantage.






< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 2/5/2011 2:05:10 AM >

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 70
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 2:07:41 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?

(in reply to 1jasonoz)
Post #: 71
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 2:13:50 AM   
Senno

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1jasonoz

How do i win as the German.

I am playing the 1941-45 campaign as the German, on Easy just to assess the game mechanics of the game.

By turn 8 i had taken Moscow, and pretty much had a line running north south from their with slight bends at the ends with the Soviets still holding Leningrad and a thin corridor to the east, and down south was fast approaching Rostov. 

Turn 11 Leningrad taken, the Crimea masked, Soviet forces really consist of nothing more than massive amounts of HQ, Airbases and either 0-0 or 1-1 units. Total Axis forces of about 5.5 million, and Soviets down to less than 3 million but still no Victory for the Germans.

Turn 15 Rostov taken, Crimea still masked with Romanian's, Axis forces including Finn's pretty much advanced to the main river line 15 hexes East of Moscow (River Volga?), and about 75% holding this line from the North to Gorky, down to opposite Stalingrad, then holding the Don all the way to Rostov, with pockets of soviet forces west of the line at the moment. Axis forces about 6 million men in total about 3000AFV's, Soviets only 2.6 million with less than 1800AFV's, and i would say 50% airbases, 20% HQ units and the rest either 0-0 or 1-1 ground units.  Current victory points at 268 for a 290 point decisive victory win, Germans are suffering supply issues as they have advanced past their rail limits, but still no victory.

How do i do it, win that is, how do i get the required 22 points to win decisivly? The Soviets are really nothing now except airbases, HQ units and 1000 man ground units of 0-0 or 1-1 with no combat ability to speak of. Do i take Stalingrad which may give me another 5 points, kill more soviet units, my units are worn out from the almost constant combats against 1-1 units who seem to suddenly appear in previously open steppes, to only rout away as soon as combat is carried out.

Do i bite the bullet, fortify the river line, reserve/refit my panzers/mech troops and sit out the winter/blizzard to allow my supply lines to catch up, and move South for the Oil and crimea in 42? Or should i do a final lunge and take the Crimea and/or Baku before the winter blizzard occurs in the hope of winning?

I really just want to know what else the German has to do to win after what i have seemingly done, captures his capital, main population areas, and destroyed over 4 million troops, 10,000 AFV's, 9000 aircraft and reduced him to less than 3 million men consisting of essential rabble!!


Yes, against the AI, there comes a point where the defense is non-existent as you have unbalanced and crushed it. It will still have 3 million soldiers give or take, but they aren't organized or trained at all.

You should take the Crimea, all the cities on the way to Baku, and Stalingrad, and drive east of Moscow to Gorki, and those environs to the east and south-east of Moscow and then you should have the required points.

But, if you don't make it in time before winter, and have outrun your infantry by hundreds of miles, the AI can cut off your panzers with a massive deluge of 1=1 and even 0=0 units. The AI recieves massive reinforcements continually even as you dismantle Russia.

(in reply to 1jasonoz)
Post #: 72
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 3:52:29 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1404
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?


Good points, all.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 73
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/5/2011 1:01:41 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso



Finally, what is really wrong about imbalance? Chess is an old game, and every chess player knows it is unbalanced: white has the upper hand. But in the chess forums you will not see “Black Players” requesting changes in the game of chess. Balance is obtained because a player plays 50% of the times with white, and 50% with black. Ideally PBEM games could be played in tandem, one after the other, (or simultaneously if it is the players' wish ). The player who holds Berlin during more turns, wins (or any other rule).

But..thinking about it...it is so funny seeing “Soviet” players arguing with “Axis” players….

Actually there's a cadre of master chess players, and that Bobby Fisher grand poobah was among them, who want chess setup to be randomized, because Chess is too static and predictable a game, where white is 'overpowered' due to first move advantage.








I have to (gently) disagree

a) You are referring to Chess960 random. If you are also a chess fan you will know it represents less than 0.1% of chess today. There is only one important tournament, at Mainz if a recall correctly, and is considered like a ludic activity by chess professionals (EDIT small UPDATE: Mainz has been cancelled http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7021 ).

b) The objective of Chess960 has nothing to do with white advantage. Check, for instance, the Wikipedia, or Chessbase, or Week in Chess, or Chessvibes. It is an atttempt to avoid chess opening theory (by both sides).

c) The White advantage in chess is not overwhelming. In my Chess Database of elite master games White wins 31%, Black wins 20%, Draw is 49%. But anyhow it is still significant and normally a GM is happy to draw as Black against another strong player. But I repeat, there is no much talking in general among chessplayers about this imbalance needing correction. You already know that with Black you will have a tougher day. In World Championship Matches the players take sides (white-black) alternatively. In city amateur championships it is exactly the same. The concept of "Black Player" simply does not exist.

d) Most chessplayers, for obvious reasons, do not think it is a predictable and static game. You only have to play the games by Topalov, Carlsen, Morozevich, Shirov and the like to see it clearly

Ok, I little bit off-topic, but , well, chess is my main hobby, so, I could not resist the temptation...

< Message edited by alfonso -- 2/17/2011 10:05:02 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 74
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/6/2011 1:03:03 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 875
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


There is a large difference between winning the war and winning the game.

Germany doesn't need to win the game by defeating Russia...they can get a Minor Victory by just holding onto what they started with by game end. If the Victory conditions are too difficult, you can change them.

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 75
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/6/2011 3:09:35 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
As of my game in July 42, I will say there is no way to even hold what they start with. We are going to need some balancing. Big time.

I am hoping beta 3 will clear some of this up.

< Message edited by 2ndACR -- 2/6/2011 3:10:53 AM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 76
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/6/2011 5:18:23 AM   
Zoetermeer

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Seems strange to me to define holding onto your original line by a certain date as 'victory'. Basically what this means is that you managed to delay total soviet victory by a few months or years, but it's not like they would have just stopped at the Bug and been content with a stalemate.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 77
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/6/2011 5:26:06 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
No, just saying that what I am currently seeing, is I see no way to even hold my line if he decides to come play seriously. I don't even like the date thing or the whole TOE changes based on real history even if I don't suffer near the losses the real German army suffered. I will steadily get weaker and weaker while he gets stronger and stronger. I know there are the purists out there, and I love the game, but I hate being penalized by history just because that really happened. History went out the window the moment I started the game.

Like I said above, waiting on Beta 3 and then a re-start to see how it works out with balancing.

(in reply to Zoetermeer)
Post #: 78
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/6/2011 9:04:21 AM   
Zoetermeer

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

No, just saying that what I am currently seeing, is I see no way to even hold my line if he decides to come play seriously. I don't even like the date thing or the whole TOE changes based on real history even if I don't suffer near the losses the real German army suffered. I will steadily get weaker and weaker while he gets stronger and stronger. I know there are the purists out there, and I love the game, but I hate being penalized by history just because that really happened. History went out the window the moment I started the game.

Like I said above, waiting on Beta 3 and then a re-start to see how it works out with balancing.



Agree 100%. It's awkward to make TOE changes or reinforcement changes based on actual history, even though the actual game deviates from history the moment you start.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 79
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/6/2011 12:31:57 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4107
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Personally....

I don't think it is a question of balance. Balance implies that both the Germans and the Soviets have the same capability of "winning" the game.

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

This isn't that kinda game.

My own opinion is the Axis player must realize that with this game, if he plays as good as the Germans did during the actual war... he will lose.

Now given all the "hindsight" we have concerning the conflict, the German player should be able to do better. In this game the question is... how much better?

That is the challenge that is presented for the Axis player. And that is why IMO, it is one super game.




Surely the key point to be made is that the Germans are currently losing the game in 1942! It's fine with me if they lose in '45 - no complaints there, but total defeat by early '42?


_____________________________

Cyberpower tower PC
Intel Core i7-3930k CPU, 3.20GHz processor
32 GB RAM
2TB HD
2xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards, each with 4095 MB
Realtek sound card
Dell 3007WFP (running at 2560x1600) 32 bit monitor
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit O

(in reply to Lava)
Post #: 80
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/6/2011 7:47:42 PM   
Lava


Posts: 1629
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
I still don't think the average German players have had enough time to really have the experience to be able to get the most out of their forces.

I've started at least a dozen games so far and still haven't experienced the first blizzard. I'm still not happy with my play... against the AI. I wouldn't dare go against a person until I could slap around the AI.

I think I have made a lot of progress though, but it's a massive game which will require lots of practice.

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 81
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/6/2011 11:24:26 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
I keep seeing a type of worry that the Sovs have too much going for them, and they can win by 1943; yes, I believe it did happen for Andy in testing, but that was before the current patches, and maybe he's better than most of us.

(in reply to Lava)
Post #: 82
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/7/2011 1:18:42 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2232
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

Historically,
except for the turn south to Kiev, key German generals such as Mainstein in Lost Victories argue the Wehrmacht had a chance in 1941 except for Hitler's orders.
This also, if one agrees with Suvorov, was also due to Stalin placing the Soviet armies in the wrong posiitons in 1941 as he prepared to attack Germany, allowing them to be surrounded and destroyed by the Germans.
I therefore believe two things:
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.

In my game I could stop the Germans approacing Leningrad, them stop them approaching Moscow, allowing them only to advance in the South which could not be held, but could be retaken in the blizzards.
For me, this was too easy, and was not the historical reality.
Thoughts?
How close have people got to Leningrad?
Who has reached the suburbs of Moscow by the 10th of December 1941 as the Germans did?
Again balance.

2 - if this is not accepted in the standard scenario a survorov scenario should be created placing the Soviet forces in an extremely dangerous position, to give the germans a chance in the GC. If anyone is interested I would be willing to cooperate iwth someone to help them create this.

3 - If someone is willing, it would be fun as a historical possible variant that never happened, to create the suvorov variant, as one in which on June 15th, the Soviets attacked first.

Anyone interested in helpng create these?

Do other players believe Mainstein that the Germans did ever have a chance of winning in 1941?

All comments will be eagerly read.

Dr Matthew Buttsworth


The problem with reading books such as Mainstein's is that they take all the credit for what worked, ans blame Hitler for each and every failure. They all say "If we did this, then this would happen." What they fail to realize, or gloss over, is that since they did A, and the Russians did B, and it failed, if they did C, it would of worked. Because they think the Russians would still do B.

To quote from "August storm: The Soviet strategic offensive in Manchuria":
Our view of the war in the east derives from the German experiences of 1941 and 1942, when blitzkrieg exploited the benefits of surprise against a desperate and crudely fashioned Soviet defense. It is the view of a Guderian, a Mellenthin, a Balck, and a Manstein, all heroes of Western military history, but heroes whose operational and tactical successes partially blinded them to strategic realities. By 1943-44, their “glorious” experiences had ceased. As their operational feats dried up after 1942, the Germans had to settle for tactical victories set against a background of strategic disasters. Yet the views of the 1941 conquerors, their early impressions generalized to characterize the nature of the entire war in the east, remain the accepted views. The successors to these men, the Schoeners, the Heinricis, the defenders of 1944 and 1945, those who presided over impending disaster, wrote no memoirs of widespread notoriety, for their experiences were neither memorable nor glorious. Their impressions and those of countless field grade officers who faced the realities of 1944-45 are all but lost.

This imbalanced view of German operations in the east imparts a reassuring, though inaccurate, image of the Soviets. We have gazed in awe at the exploits of those Germans who later wrote their personal apologies, and in doing so we have forgotten the larger truth: their nation lost the war-and lost it primarily in the east against what they portrayed as the “artless” Soviets.

As for the fall of Moscow giving Germany the win, well, it wasn't going to happen. Stalin had no plans to quit the war. To do so would of in all likelyhood led to his overthrow and execution.

Perhaps Axis players should spend some time here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2705668

This is worth the read as well: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/e-front.htm


"This German period of war historiography embraced two genre of works. The first included memoirs written during those years when it was both necessary and sensible to dissociate oneself from Hitler or Hitler's policies. Justifiable or not, the writers of these memoirs did just that and essentially laid blame on Hitler for most strategic, operational, and often tactical failures. Thus, an apologetic tone permeated these works. Officers who shared in the success of Hitler's armies refused to shoulder responsibility for the failures of the same armies. Only further research will judge the correctness of their views."



< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/7/2011 1:23:11 AM >

(in reply to matt.buttsworth)
Post #: 83
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/7/2011 1:31:53 AM   
bevans

 

Posts: 109
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline
I strongly agree with the forced step weakening of the German TOEs being a really bad design decision. However, that is one of the things that is really easy to change with the editor (i.e. I can do it). I have modded all the German divisional TOEs so they get STRONGER every year. If I do worse than historically, all my divisions will be horribly understrength; if I do better, then my divisions will be stronger than historical. That strikes me as a much better approach than the forced approach by Reichsfuhrer Grigsby 'Achtung, ve make der rules and you vill suffer as ve haf suffered'. Fair enough, they haven't exactly disguised their agenda. My issue is that one is forced to live with the German mistakes but the Soviet defense in '41 bears no resemblance to the actual Soviet doctrine in '41. I go weeks without a single Soviet attack whereas Stalin was forever wasting units in fruitless attacks (and some locally successful counterattacks). At least the Wehrmacht should be allowed to pack some sweaters to compensate for this.

The Germans can definitely 'win', as stacked as the deck is against them. Unless by win you mean actually forcing a Soviet surrender. That might be possible on easy, you won't even get to the historical lines in '41 on hard (unless you are a much better player than me) plus the first winter is devastating and you will be in real trouble against a good human oponent unless you start the game with the intent of stalemating. Keeping the German army intact will make Soviet victory impossible. But many of consider retreating to the original start line (read the rules, Winter starts jsut the other side of the start line; historically accurate I am sure. Right.) in Oct '41 to be, let's go with, ahistorical. Plus it will be a very boring game.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 84
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/7/2011 1:55:48 AM   
bevans

 

Posts: 109
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline
Sorry, missed one comment re June 15 Soviet attack. I do not believe it is possible without a major rewrite of the AI and the underlying scripts. I wanted to do a '42 start, which is beyond my capability to mod, given the absence of an sditor manual (yes, there is a manual; read it very closely, then read it again. Bad news, you will know no more about the editor, good news: you will only have lost 15 mins of your life). So I kinda hoped that if I didn't attack first turn, the war wouldn't start. Wrong, the Soviets make a desultory attack on Turn 1 with the airforce and a few land attacks (including vs frozen Rumanian units, who, interestingly, remain frozen) and flee with most of their units to the normal Pskov-Mogilev-Zhitomir-Vinnitsa-Odessa line.

So if you just changed the start date and gave the first turn to the SU, both easy to do, they will sum up the odds and head for a major river line to the east. They correctly conclude that an offensive will hand the game/war to the Axis. So it would take an awful lot of work to get this to work, probably including a major increase to Soviet strength.

(in reply to bevans)
Post #: 85
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/7/2011 2:09:38 AM   
pipewrench


Posts: 450
Joined: 1/5/2010
Status: offline
Aurelian,

love your comments and I understand and partially agree with what you are saying but if the soviets would always win then what is the purpose of the game?

human vs human should always try to be balanced otherwise it becomes a simple simulation

with that in mind, count the hours you took to realize that as a German player in this simulation, you could not win.

try and also count the hours invested by the soviet player by simply pulling back and fortifying until production takes over and manpower becomes a 3000lb gorilla that cannot be stopped.

this is from the aars I have read and if I am wrong then I humbly apologize.






(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 86
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/7/2011 2:51:01 AM   
ceyan

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?



The problem is that gaming the system on the Soviet side results in ridiculous situations because the actual (mostly side/unintended) benefits to playing historically aren't modeled in the game, and thus the Soviet Union player doesn't have to deal with all those other factors that would have been an issue had they come to pass in history. For example, in history the stand and fight/counter-attack meant more time was allowed for supplies/materials/future recruits to be extracted.

In game terms you just don't see that because of the scale, but if you translate between the game and real life, the Soviet Union gets all the benefits of having delayed the German's (by retreating) while also keeping their troops because they weren't fighting, because the time span of a few days is rolled together in-game, but god awful powerful (relatively speaking) in real life. Sure it also means the Germans have a bit more freedom and cover more ground, but the disparity in advantage to the Soviet Union is tremendous.

Just take a few minutes to think of all the little things that the historical counterparts would have had to deal with, that you just don't worry about in-game.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 87
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/7/2011 3:26:38 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2232
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
In my experience, pulling back without putting up a fight doesn't work.

But the impression I'm getting is that German players want to win the game in 41. It's a 200+ turn game. Why not plan for that?

They want to keep putting shackles on the Sovs to make it happen. (Stalin et al)

But the silence is deafening when it comes to putting the same on the German.

I see suggestions like changing the TOE for the Germans, making them stronger. With no historical or even rational arguements to favor that. As if Russia was the only front the Germans fought on.

I see what complaints that the Russian rail network is overpowered. What looks like attempts to add Railroad Tycoon to the game. What I don't see is any historical justification for it. (This isn't the Russia of 1914 afterall.)

Already, no railing industry on the first turn. And doubling some of the industry RR costs. (I don't really have a problem with that.)

I see desires such as Soviet "command paralysis" because Stalin was "out of it." Which I think has been shown to be inaccurate. To say nothing of the fact that they didn't sit on their hands the first 11 days.

The Germans don't even have to take Moscow/Leningrad/Stalingrad to win. But the Russians have to take Berlin. In theory, the Axis player could just sit there and fortify up to his eyeballs. As Flav pointed out in another thread, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2718580

(Wonder if the blizzard effect would take effect in that case.)

A very boring game that would be. Like playing BTR with the Allies only bombing targets on the Channel coast til the Mustangs show up. Or playing SPI's War in Europe with a very conservative Axis player.

I suppose we need some AARs that go the full length before we talk about balance.



(in reply to pipewrench)
Post #: 88
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/7/2011 3:34:57 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2232
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan


quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?



The problem is that gaming the system on the Soviet side results in ridiculous situations because the actual (mostly side/unintended) benefits to playing historically aren't modeled in the game, and thus the Soviet Union player doesn't have to deal with all those other factors that would have been an issue had they come to pass in history. For example, in history the stand and fight/counter-attack meant more time was allowed for supplies/materials/future recruits to be extracted.

In game terms you just don't see that because of the scale, but if you translate between the game and real life, the Soviet Union gets all the benefits of having delayed the German's (by retreating) while also keeping their troops because they weren't fighting, because the time span of a few days is rolled together in-game, but god awful powerful (relatively speaking) in real life. Sure it also means the Germans have a bit more freedom and cover more ground, but the disparity in advantage to the Soviet Union is tremendous.

Just take a few minutes to think of all the little things that the historical counterparts would have had to deal with, that you just don't worry about in-game.


The Germans also get the benefit of deciding where they want to advance. The benefit of not being forced to stand in place. Not being forced to attack that Kursk bulge. Of attacking the Russians near Berlin rather than Lake Balaton. Of not over extending themselves. All those factors that they don't have to deal with.


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/7/2011 3:35:15 AM >

(in reply to ceyan)
Post #: 89
RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? - 2/7/2011 3:35:25 AM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1695
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline
All good points Mister!

Germany had about as much chance as Japan.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? 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

0.125