Matrix Games Forums

New information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity 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!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

 
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: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/17/2011 11:45:49 PM   
Mynok


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

Have you heard me complaining about forts, Oleg?


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 121
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/18/2011 12:50:01 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I play and enjoy both sides in WITE. I think multiple lines of forts (level 3 and 4) is obsurd and well beyond the capability of either side. I am fine with level 1 and 2. But level 3 and 4 should have a limiting factor, a cost in AP's seems the simplest solution, with maybe a cap on each type, bar the 1's and 2's.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 122
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/18/2011 2:53:57 AM   
Mynok


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

While I don't disagree with you as far as the Soviets are concerned, let me assure you that if you are the Axis, you will desperately want those levels in the late war. Trust me.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 123
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/18/2011 7:11:41 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
It's not like everyone is lining up behind one change.


Well don't forget about us, the silent or not so loud majority/minority who think that forts basically work fine already.

There are other things in game that need improvement, but forts in my opinion are not one of them.

Don't let the people (German players) who played only till 42 make you nerf the forts, because then those same people will whine again when their German games get deep into 43 and suddenly it's them (Germans) who need forts for the rest of the war.



Oleg, I have repeatedly said that I don't suggest to reduce the effectiveness of forts, just the present ability to build multiple lines of them for no cost. This should not have a great impact on the Germans in 1943 or 1944. The Germans don't have the number of units the Soviets have to put on digging, but they have APs and could therefore build prepared lines if they pay for them in APs. I feel like you are ignoring what I say and just repeat yourself. I am not a German player, I play both sides (I am a Swedish player ). I am interested in having a realistic 1942 summer for both sides.

I have played until october 1943 (see sig for AAR), so even if I have more playing experience in 1941 - 1942, I don't regard myself as belonging to "the people (German players) who played only till 42".

In the autumn of 1943, I did certainly feel the need for forts as the German. I am also quite certain that the Germans will never have the units to dig the deep fortified belts the Soviets can have when the 1942 summer starts.

You dismiss the views of others with limited experience beyound 1942, but might you not yourself be primarily influenced by your 1943 campaign? How many campaigns have you played that went from 1941 into summer 1942? Did the situation in early 1942 feel like the beginning of the historical 1942 campaign, or like the setup in the 42 - 45 scenario?

I mean no disrespect, It is only natural that the most recent experiences tend do be large in our thinking, but I think we all have to try to take a broad and balanced view, and take into account all phases of the game.


_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 124
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/19/2011 10:50:16 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

My preferred method would be for a fort to protect only as many hex-sides as it's fort level (or perhaps it's level +1), but you could argue to give maximal benefit to certain sides and less to others (define a front of a unit and it protects at 100% there, and less at other sides).

I have never heard of a military unit digging ad-hoc defenses being taught to prepare forts for a 360-degree attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you start with the obvious avenues of approach, and as time and resources dictate, you then work on integrating larger avenues and omni-directional protection.

From my experience in the military, usually if you have that long, you're probably attacking before you start worrying about 360-degree defense.

I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps, but frankly I'm not having enough fun to start another game right now. Maybe later, or maybe I should take my whiney whine whine and leave you all alone.

But I wanted to put that out there as my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

let me know when you want to play a game with those handicaps :)

_____________________________

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 heliodorus04)
Post #: 125
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/19/2011 11:39:05 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps

I think we also need to consider what consists of a "victory" in the first place. Yes, the German probably isn't going to eke out an auto-victory if he hasn't won yet by 1942, but simply ending the game at the pre-war borders is going to net a minor victory/draw. Isn't that worth fighting for?

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 126
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/19/2011 6:35:44 PM   
JAMiAM

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps, but frankly I'm not having enough fun to start another game right now. Maybe later, or maybe I should take my whiney whine whine and leave you all alone.

But I wanted to put that out there as my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

let me know when you want to play a game with those handicaps :)

No kidding. I'd take him up on it too, if I had more time, and if he were still game. Just to have a good b*tch slapping game...

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 127
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/20/2011 4:29:04 PM   
map66

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline
Just a head's up, this thread gets directly mentioned in an editorial on Rock, Paper Shotgun:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/20/heavily-engaged-ignorance-is-bliss/

Can't say I agree with all of the editorial, but it is well written.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun, BTW, for those not aware, is a blog fast turning into one of the best general gaming sites--- certainly its highly opinionated reviews of new games are among the best out there.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 128
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/20/2011 4:40:04 PM   
kvolk


Posts: 50
Joined: 5/26/2011
Status: offline
That was awesome...the grognard dilemn captured perfectly...

(in reply to map66)
Post #: 129
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/20/2011 5:02:47 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

Just a head's up, this thread gets directly mentioned in an editorial on Rock, Paper Shotgun:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/20/heavily-engaged-ignorance-is-bliss/

Can't say I agree with all of the editorial, but it is well written.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun, BTW, for those not aware, is a blog fast turning into one of the best general gaming sites--- certainly its highly opinionated reviews of new games are among the best out there.


Cool! Helio, you're famous!

Thanks for posting the link map66.

< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 6/20/2011 5:03:13 PM >

(in reply to map66)
Post #: 130
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/20/2011 5:47:13 PM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Cool! Helio, you're famous!

Thanks for posting the link map66.


At least I wasn't quoted with that intemperate rant about other people's 'wasted time' spent reading history books...

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 131
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 12:51:42 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1244
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.


Yes, and also:

* Reduce the AP bonus for going into static mode and the AP penalty for coming out of static mode. A player that creates a lot of static units to fortify won't be able to pull them out and run if it costs 2 bazillion APs to do that.

* Reduce or eliminate attrition losses for static units in level 1+ forts. Static units stacked next to enemy hexes eventually go into unready (and eventually depleted) mode because they suffer so many attrition losses and can't get the benefits of refit.

* Static units should be harder to retreat (higher odds level required), but if forced to retreat should automatically rout.

* Increase the damage done by artillery to forts.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 132
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 1:34:12 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.


Yes, and also:

* Reduce the AP bonus for going into static mode and the AP penalty for coming out of static mode. A player that creates a lot of static units to fortify won't be able to pull them out and run if it costs 2 bazillion APs to do that.

* Reduce or eliminate attrition losses for static units in level 1+ forts. Static units stacked next to enemy hexes eventually go into unready (and eventually depleted) mode because they suffer so many attrition losses and can't get the benefits of refit.

* Static units should be harder to retreat (higher odds level required), but if forced to retreat should automatically rout.

* Increase the damage done by artillery to forts.



That sounds like good suggestions!

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 133
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 1:44:57 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2093
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
I don't think that units retreating from fortifications should autmatically rout; on the contrary they would presumably have a series of fall back positions that would make it easier for them to retreat in good order.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 134
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 1:52:02 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1244
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I am only talking about static units here -- units without mobility that won't be able to retreat quickly.

Maybe not "automatically" rout, but have a higher chance of routing.



_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 135
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 1:52:18 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I don't think that units retreating from fortifications should autmatically rout; on the contrary they would presumably have a series of fall back positions that would make it easier for them to retreat in good order.


Not units in forts, static units. A static units would have much less transportation, thus a retreat would force it to abandon much of its equipment. This could be simulated by a rout. Not sure it is the ideal solution, but I like the thinking.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 136
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 2:58:27 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2093
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

I am only talking about static units here -- units without mobility that won't be able to retreat quickly.


I hear what you're saying, but if all units in Fort 3s have to be static, it is kind of the same thing (fortified = static). While I understand the logic, I'm not sure if I agree that all units with Fort 3+ should be assumed to give up ALL of their vehicles and have to leave all heavy equipment behind in case of a retreat (ie, rout).

You could also argue that they would have protected positions/routes for their vehicles and would have throroughly planned any withdrawal, including with their heavy weapons. The bottom line is that it seems strange and counter-intuitive to me that if you push a unit out of a Fort3+, the defending unit will essentially evaporate (at least for that turn) rather than retreat to the next hex and continue to defend, but if you push a unit out of a Fort 2, it will retreat rather than rout.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 137
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 3:09:49 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

I am only talking about static units here -- units without mobility that won't be able to retreat quickly.


I hear what you're saying, but if all units in Fort 3s have to be static, it is kind of the same thing (fortified = static). While I understand the logic, I'm not sure if I agree that all units with Fort 3+ should be assumed to give up ALL of their vehicles and have to leave all heavy equipment behind in case of a retreat (ie, rout).

You could also argue that they would have protected positions/routes for their vehicles and would have throroughly planned any withdrawal, including with their heavy weapons. The bottom line is that it seems strange and counter-intuitive to me that if you push a unit out of a Fort3+, the defending unit will essentially evaporate (at least for that turn) rather than retreat to the next hex and continue to defend, but if you push a unit out of a Fort 2, it will retreat rather than rout.


Good point 76mm, and well argued!

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 138
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 3:45:59 PM   
Mynok


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

The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 139
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 5:19:52 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 718
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.


+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 140
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 7:11:54 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 141
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 7:42:24 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.



That's the mechanism used in the OCS series.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 142
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 8:13:01 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Yes, but not WITE, where the whim-of-god rules. "Too many guns" is not a problem, as in supply means in supply. Even the overstacking rules are only a partial salve, and you can still pack your stacking limit, in-depth, over a short length of front and attack at immediately full-offensive supply with multiple echelons with limited/no penalties.

Everything uses the supply capacity too... building extensive fortifications is really hard on local/operational supplies, each bunker/minefield taking considerable resources to build, with at least increased supply usage for the building troops (in forage and rations), and at worst huge quantities of lumber/cement/concrete/mines.

OTOH, fortifications should be easily buildable in winter (and shelter too, as snow/ice makes excellent bullet-proof/camouflaged/wind-proof shelters), it seems that troops are stuck with what they had 'before the freeze'. These improvised fortifications should of course evaporate with the coming of mud, and a double track should account for pre-winter permanent shelter, and that made from ice - with a limited re-building in mud after the end of the freeze eliminating the trench-warfare situation of 1942 to a large degree.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 143
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/23/2011 8:27:13 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 316
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
That's the mechanism used in the OCS series.

And that's the the very mechanism that makes OCS stand head and shoulder above similar games.
The ability to manage supply is the key to realism in a strategic level simulation.
I presume that some variation on the theme "HQ buildup" could give WitE some mechanics that replicate this kind of stockpiling.
Now think for a moment how many perceived "problems" will have a direct solution: limiting the overall offensive ability of the Red Army in 1942, making selected pocket more likely to resist... etc. etc.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 144
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/24/2011 6:51:46 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste
OTOH, fortifications should be easily buildable in winter (and shelter too, as snow/ice makes excellent bullet-proof/camouflaged/wind-proof shelters), it seems that troops are stuck with what they had 'before the freeze'. These improvised fortifications should of course evaporate with the coming of mud, and a double track should account for pre-winter permanent shelter, and that made from ice - with a limited re-building in mud after the end of the freeze eliminating the trench-warfare situation of 1942 to a large degree.



Snow and ice is NOT very bulletproof. You need several meters of ice and snow is worthless as bullet protection. It is not practical to build any kind of fortifications using snow and ice, all it will do is give some cover and concealment. I did learn the amount of ice needed for adequate protection in the army, but I have forgotten it, but I do remember it was much more than you would have expected. With ground frozen it is extremely difficult to dig. The game models this correctly IMHO.

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 145
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/24/2011 6:54:39 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.


+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.


But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 146
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/24/2011 6:57:46 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.



I agree, supply could have been better used for limiting the tempo of operations. In a game as detailed as WITE, there must surely be the possibilities for simulating the connection between supply and offensive operations in more detail.

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 147
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/24/2011 7:18:05 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.


+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.


But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

I agree, and have brought this up several times. One more time can't hurt, can it?

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 148
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/24/2011 7:59:12 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1244
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.


Yes, I agree, and would be a better option than requiring static units.

Perhaps allow either static units or FZs to get past level 2.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 149
RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/24/2011 10:50:06 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.


Yes, I agree, and would be a better option than requiring static units.

Perhaps allow either static units or FZs to get past level 2.



That would also give the Soviets the choice in early 1942 of either digging in or creating new units and expanding and organising the army. That seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.137