Matrix Games Forums

Community impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Rethinking turn 1

 
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: Rethinking turn 1 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/14/2011 10:08:05 PM   
castlebravo


Posts: 22
Joined: 1/28/2011
Status: offline
Look at it this way. 16 units can set up a 8x5 checkerboard that takes 6 battles to penetrate. If you can afford to isolate and not destroy 16 Russian divisions, that is essentially a Front/MD's (or two) worth of unit coverage that will be denied to the Russians at a fairly critical juncture in the 41 opening. I'm not in favor of the routing instead of destroying strategy, but I think I might try the isolate and forget strategy. It will give the minor power units something to do besides chase partisans through the swamps.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 31
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/14/2011 10:36:05 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Those units are going to come back as green troops with almost zero fighting ability. I'm not worried about them.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to castlebravo)
Post #: 32
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/14/2011 11:00:31 PM   
Lava


Posts: 1629
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Well... I'm not saying it isn't important to destroy the Soviet Army. I'm saying that I think it is more important to take critical objectives.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 33
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/14/2011 11:03:33 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

The only critical objective is Leningrad. If the opportunity arises to take come Donbas industry, I would put that in the 'worth the effort' category.

Otherwise, the primary raison d'etre of the Germans is to destroy Soviets.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Lava)
Post #: 34
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/15/2011 9:34:10 AM   
saintsup

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Not to spoil the thread here, but personally, I think the evolution of "best moves" for each front sector is somehow a bit uncomfortable. It is a matter of taste of course, but my personal preference is for wargames to be simulations with a degree of uncertainty.

IIRC it has been suggested by someone in some other thread, but I think there might be some merit to a slight randomization of the locations of the initial Soviet forces. That would create enough uncertainty that there wouldn't eventually evolve a set of predefined options.


I fully agree with that. Could be some free placement for German/Russian too as suggested in an other thread.

And the editor is not a very user friendly way to do that IMHO.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 35
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/15/2011 2:01:26 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
I don't think there will ever be a "set" strategy on the opening. There will always be some variation based on how all the combat goes, interdiction on movement, etc. In addition, players will have different priorities which will affect what forces go where.

While the game doesn't feature a random opening as far as unit placement, it does feature changes to starting Russian forces in terms of starting moral being random on a per unit basis. This in turn affects the various combats, etc.

Part of the issue with doing stuff with the editor is the community at large has no interest such scenario/campaign changes probably in part because it gives one side or the other an advantage.

(in reply to saintsup)
Post #: 36
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/15/2011 5:12:28 PM   
Lava


Posts: 1629
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

The only critical objective is Leningrad. If the opportunity arises to take come Donbas industry, I would put that in the 'worth the effort' category.

Otherwise, the primary raison d'etre of the Germans is to destroy Soviets.


If that is true... than it makes for a fairly limited game. Wouldn't you say?

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 37
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/15/2011 5:31:04 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Surely not. All kinds of things can happen and the possible means of achieving those objectives are varied. Lots of room for tactical innovation.

Of course, anyone is free to make their own strategic objectives. But the design of the game makes Leningrad and the Donbas industry the ones with the highest rewards.

< Message edited by Mynok -- 3/15/2011 5:32:26 PM >


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Lava)
Post #: 38
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/15/2011 5:34:07 PM   
castlebravo


Posts: 22
Joined: 1/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

The only critical objective is Leningrad. If the opportunity arises to take come Donbas industry, I would put that in the 'worth the effort' category.

Otherwise, the primary raison d'etre of the Germans is to destroy Soviets.


If that is true... than it makes for a fairly limited game. Wouldn't you say?


Arguably, this is largely an artifact of the Finish no-attack line. If this was removed, then it would allow the Germans a much more dynamic strategy, because the German blizzard defense in the north almost entirely hinges on freeing up the Finns by taking Leningrad.

(in reply to Lava)
Post #: 39
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 3/16/2011 5:10:05 PM   
findmeifyoucan

 

Posts: 579
Joined: 10/14/2009
Status: offline
Very well put Klydon! I like your comment and very valid point as well!

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 40
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 4/4/2011 6:45:39 AM   
majeloz

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 2/13/2011
From: Australia
Status: offline
Reviving this thread... I have now used my standard Axis opening, almost identical in results (the moves differ sometimes depending on what exactly happens to the Soviet CVs in Turn 1), and got several completely different turn 2s because, as they say, no plan survives contact with the enemy. The challenge is, I think, not to have this or that objective but to weigh up the likelihood of success in competing objectives depending on how the Soviet player responds. In this respect, it's a game... but it does model operational realities to the extent that most military successes come from either a) sticking to the objective when it might seem prudent to change (eg not letting your opponent force you to play their 'game') or b) seizing an unexpected oppportunity which is not a mistake by the enemy so much as a change in the operational situation such that a new, better objective emerges.

_____________________________

I still remember cardboard!

(in reply to findmeifyoucan)
Post #: 41
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 4:13:23 PM   
mr_flappypants

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I don't think there will ever be a "set" strategy on the opening. There will always be some variation based on how all the combat goes, interdiction on movement, etc. In addition, players will have different priorities which will affect what forces go where.


This. And I hope there is NEVER a set strategy then the game turns into one gigantic puzzle. I like the amount of dynamics, depth, and variation in the game that allows for vastly different schools of thought on what is the best. This adds dramatically to the replay value. Don't get me wrong, I love the old Panzer General games even if it does boil down to a puzzle but I also classify it under a 'coffee-table' game, one that is quick to play yet fun. This game is not and should never be like that at all. (Can't wait for Panzer Corps to come out soon)

< Message edited by mr_flappypants -- 5/2/2011 4:15:42 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 42
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 4:21:03 PM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1281
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline
I use various openings depending on what I feel like. I never want to make it just "do this and get that" type of beginning. I have done the "extra PzCorps to Leningrad" or the "Two extra corps to the south" openings, or even the horribly bland "Use what I have where it is and make do" opening. I have found that no matter what I do, the holds, routs, retreat lines, CV end results, all make the opening different.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to mr_flappypants)
Post #: 43
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 6:53:39 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline
Another well-known strategy game manages to be quite varied even with 2 identical, fixed set-up armies on 64 hexes of clear terrain and single unit IGO/UGO system with fixed combat results.

Why anyone intelligent plays a game like that when they can play WiTE is beyond me. Obviously it's for the dim who can't cope with complex games.

Ok, I haven't been 100% honest above. The other game is played on squares not hexes but that should make it less interesting.....

< Message edited by sillyflower -- 5/2/2011 7:01:19 PM >


_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 44
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 7:08:10 PM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1281
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline
Pfft, I wouldn't play a game like that unless it had something cool like horse soldiers and perhaps religious leaders. I would add in something to defend, maybe royalty?

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 45
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 7:27:52 PM   
mr_flappypants

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

it's for the dim who can't cope with complex games.


Honestly, with complex games such as WitE, I find it difficult for me to play the game, not because I'm any less intelligent, but because I am aware of all the variables to where I overthink everything to the point where I am nearly afraid to actually do anything. Chalk it up to OCD I guess. I need to just power through a few turns on the Grand Campaign (the smaller maps are much easier for me to conquer) to get over it. I don't find it boring... I find it extremely exciting and even... academic.

Wow, today I learned that I would make a horrible battlefield general.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 46
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 7:58:27 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr_flappypants

quote:

it's for the dim who can't cope with complex games.


Honestly, with complex games such as WitE, I find it difficult for me to play the game, not because I'm any less intelligent, but because I am aware of all the variables to where I overthink everything to the point where I am nearly afraid to actually do anything. Chalk it up to OCD I guess. I need to just power through a few turns on the Grand Campaign (the smaller maps are much easier for me to conquer) to get over it. I don't find it boring... I find it extremely exciting and even... academic.

Wow, today I learned that I would make a horrible battlefield general.

I sometimes suffer from this, as well. It's called "Analysis Paralysis".

(in reply to mr_flappypants)
Post #: 47
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 8:20:24 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Yep, sometimes ya just gotta wing it and fling it, hoping all the while someone doesn't turn on the fan.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 48
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 9:22:32 PM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1281
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline
Read my sig quote from Nappy.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 49
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 9:28:04 PM   
mr_flappypants

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Read my sig quote from Nappy.


When I know I can take all the time in the world to make a decision (save, walk away, load, etc.) I hardly do anything. Give me a time limit and I know I would have moved all those suckers by now.

Maybe thats what I should do (built in feature request? Just kidding). I think I just solved my own problem.

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 50
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 10:56:44 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
I supposed I can now let everyone in on my secret chief of staff that helps me tremendously with decisions.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to mr_flappypants)
Post #: 51
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 5/2/2011 11:16:10 PM   
mr_flappypants

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
I supposed I can now let everyone in on my secret chief of staff that helps me tremendously with decisions.




Here's mine. I streamlined the process.

Citation [http://www.kudit.com/desktop/kudit.php?section=2&shortname=coinflip]




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 52
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 6/22/2011 7:19:30 AM   
Wally Wilson


Posts: 98
Joined: 6/22/2011
From: The Republic of Texas
Status: offline
My 2 cents is that if you are playing against a Soviet human player, you go to destroy the army. However, a merely decent player won't allow you to deeply encircle him. A pocket at Minsk is more or less inevitable, and possible a smaller one at Lvov. Anymore is a gift. CUt the Soviet lines, slow down the retreat, rout any units you can. Routing units are going to be losing equipment as are destroyed units. 1941 resurrected units draw from the replacement pool. So killing a unit basiclly consumes twice the units equipment. Also, if you don't kill Soviet units they will be on your side of the Moscow defence line. Resurrected units will be on the far side of the Moscow defence zone reading to be used in the Winter Counteroffensive. So keep that in mind.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 53
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 11/4/2011 1:01:28 AM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 21011
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ, USA, Earth, Solar System
Status: offline
No posting on the turn 1 guide since June?  WTF?

(in reply to Wally Wilson)
Post #: 54
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 11/4/2011 8:59:01 AM   
Krec


Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline
go figure

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton


(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 55
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 11/25/2011 5:04:31 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8518
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
I was thinking about routed units coming back, wouldn't they be in the same,"future" pocket in turns 2-4 .. I guess I do not see the problem with routing red army forces t1.. its not like they reform far away where they could be protected.. or am I missing something critical?
thanks

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 56
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 11/28/2011 10:32:43 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8518
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
and if I rout and re rout red army troops, seems an easy way to build experience

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 57
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 11/28/2011 11:27:51 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
A lot depends on where you are routing them and what your plans are.

Granted, routing a pile of units in the south where there are going to be piles of units regardless is not as big of a deal, although routing mountain divisions (which never come back if surrounded and destroyed) and allowing them to escape is not wise.

In the north, especially in the AGN area, a good German turn 1 can leave the Russians with very little or nothing left to move to block further German advances. Speed is of the essence in the north if the Germans are serious about making a stab at Leningrad and the more units the Russians have to rail in to try to slow down the advance just means they get thinner elsewhere and it is not always practical to rail everything to the spot you need it to be at up there.

Besides the destruction of Russian manpower and nailing as much as you can in the armaments department (both you can do in 1941), the other big thing the Germans must look at is removing Russian counters from the game (Can't do that until late 1941 and it becomes what 1942 is all about).

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 58
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 6/21/2013 6:28:18 AM   
Tuhhodge

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 10/21/2004
Status: offline
I am just starting my first '41 Campaign after meticulously noting down my units, formations and assigning SUs etc. I had drawn lots of lovely strategy maps to plan my attack; sending this Corps there or that Army Group here, with a broad aim of capturing Leningrad and Smolensk but specific plans to entrap as many Soviet soldiers as possible.

Then I made the mistake of actually reading one or two Barbarossa books I've had knocking about for years. It turns out that my self-made plans mirror those of the OKH back in 1941. I suppose this is not entirely unexpected given that my plans were mostly dictated by the starting positions of the Axis divisions and the lay of the land. However, I'm loath to re-write history with the same pen because it didn't work 70-odd years ago.

This thread has sent me back to the drawing board. Analysis Paralysis has set in ---- big time! :-)

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 59
RE: Rethinking turn 1 - 6/21/2013 9:50:12 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
AGN




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Rethinking turn 1 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.117