Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

 
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: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/3/2012 9:52:41 PM   
pwieland

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 3/15/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical. Not the Soviets's fault if a) the Soviets had huge reserves (backed by an industry which could arm them) and b) if the Germans started a war without the necessary strategic reserves... for a long war that is. No wait, the Soviets were supposed to collapse before the winter. Reserves? Who needs stinking reserves?

Morale of the story? The USSR was too big for Germany

In WitP we could assume that the "Yamatos" idea was thrown overboard. This is plausible (in the Twilight Zone though)... but the human reserves (and German industrial capacity) are simply arithmetics.


You may state that it was a mathematical certainty that Russia would win the war, others may agree with you. However, I would say that you are incorrect, but more importantly state that its irrelevant.

The point being - if it isnt competitive, then why do you even play? Why would you expect anyone to even play the Germans against your superior army and its mathematically ensured victory? Maybe thats the point in others voicing concern about the balance issues....

Oh and by the way, stating that the Red Army's flexibility completely outclassed the Wehrmacht's is complete historical revisionist BS. But again, its irrelevant since the game is obviously portraying the Soviets as such - and the game is an effort in futility for the Germans.

< Message edited by pwieland -- 5/3/2012 9:56:53 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 91
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/3/2012 9:54:05 PM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.


"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk


What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).

Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.

On to your other post, though:
quote:

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical.


The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.

By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.

You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.

I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."

The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.

Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.

Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 92
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/3/2012 11:22:13 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4383
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland
You may state that it was a mathematical certainty that Russia would win the war, others may agree with you. However, I would say that you are incorrect, but more importantly state that its irrelevant.


The correct conclusion would be that the attack on the USSR was pure adventurism... Based on a pre-conceived assumption: "we will utterly destroy them before Christmas". IF this assumption proves to be false, what have you got to pursue a long war? NOTHING. This is called -again- adventurism. Germany in ruins, the consequence.

The game -as far as I know- it is not supposed to explore what ifs. Unless I'm a clown I should be advancing towards the general direction of Berlin. In fact, after my disastrous PBEM Soviet summer 1942 defensive I might not even get to Berlin, so...

quote:

The point being - if it isnt competitive, then why do you even play?


Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

quote:

Why would you expect anyone to even play the Germans against your superior army and its mathematically ensured victory? Maybe thats the point in others voicing concern about the balance issues....


Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pwieland)
Post #: 93
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/3/2012 11:47:16 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4383
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.


"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk


What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).

Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.

On to your other post, though:
quote:

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical.


The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.

By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.

You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.

I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."

The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.

Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.

Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).


I used very incorrectly the APs I bought many diggers... when the forts mattered. Then a patch changed that. Whatever, now I know you only have to be a Spartan: buy the minimum assets.

As I said, Some of you forgot (and this is critical) that the Red Army is on the ropes in the first half of the war. This means the APs are needed to merely survive. You German players have lovely units with high experience (and good commanders). The Soviets don't... You might be forced (every single turn) to bring fresh units (aka spend APs) to replace depleted/low morale units, which are reassigned to let's say Stavka, to avoid overloading that front HQ... This, the Germans CAN avoid it. The Soviets can't You have a shabby army, and even if you use many APs to replace demorailised units the army will be shabby the same. The truth is I will badly need APs to upgrade to the Red Army v2.0. Will I do it in time? It's a tough struggle (keep the head above the water etc.).

And thanks for the compliment, but no, I am not "the best WitE player out there", not even close My 1942 summer defensive campaign is the proof on my book

As I see it (AARs), German players are currently surpassing their historical counterparts, so I still don't get it.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 94
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/3/2012 11:50:09 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2520
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).


While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 95
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/3/2012 11:52:05 PM   
pwieland

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 3/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


The correct conclusion would be that the attack on the USSR was pure adventurism... Based on a pre-conceived assumption: "we will utterly destroy them before Christmas". IF this assumption proves to be false, what have you got to pursue a long war? NOTHING. This is called -again- adventurism. Germany in ruins, the consequence.

The game -as far as I know- it is not supposed to explore what ifs. Unless I'm a clown I should be advancing towards the general direction of Berlin. In fact, after my disastrous PBEM Soviet summer 1942 defensive I might not even get to Berlin, so...

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).


You prove the point that the original poster was making. That is, why doesnt the inferior side get some of the love regarding game mechanics like WITP? Unfortunately, when game mechanics are brought up, the inevitable Russian counterattack ensues regarding realism and inevitable conclusions and whatnot. If it werent about winning or losing then why do people argue about allowing both players to have the same capabilities in regards to game mechanics?

The game, by the way, is an entirely what-if situation. It has no demonstrable measure of historical reality within it, even as those of you decry rule changes based on historical dogma. Does the game simulate einsatzgruppen terrorizing the countryside liquidating large pockets of civilians? No, but the effects of their campaign are evident within the partisan rules. If you want to be historically accurate, the army had the opportunity to prevent these murderers from working in their sectors of the front. Why not allow a rule that allows a benign occupation of the country, where army commanders were able to affect such changes. However, this one change would make your mathematical certainty a bit suspect.

Now, I enjoy the game and am an armchair historian regarding the Eastern Front, so I think the game is great. However, I dont think that the game is realistic or emulates warfare on the East Front with a high degree of precision. And I also think that when playing PvP the Germans lose more than 90% of their games (admittedly a very rough calculation based on AAR's in the forums and personal xp). Hell Tarhunnas got a draw playing the Germans even though he kept the Russians on the Vistula on Turn 240. Say wha???

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 96
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 12:50:50 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5550
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Pompack's post is spot-on IMO, and probably one of the main differences between this engine and WITP-AE.

Playing both games, I have to say that giving Japan extra help seems "right" to me, and not giving the Germans a ton also seems "right". I can't explain 100%, but generally intelligence and risk plays a much greater role in WITP-AE than it does in WITE.

1944-45 turns into a grind either way, so whether that grind in on the Dnepr, or the Polish border, or the Oder, doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of playability. I think future versions of the engine may have more depth to include "what-ifs", but WITE is the first crack at it.

Remember, WITP-AE is now in it's 8th year as an engine. 8 years of 2 additional releases, countless patches, mods, all kinds of stuff. It was fun along the way, but just great now. I bet as the engine develops, you'll be more pleased with it. It takes time. Stick with it.

(in reply to pwieland)
Post #: 97
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 12:55:50 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4383
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland
You prove the point that the original poster was making. That is, why doesnt the inferior side get some of the love regarding game mechanics like WITP? Unfortunately, when game mechanics are brought up, the inevitable Russian counterattack ensues regarding realism and inevitable conclusions and whatnot. If it werent about winning or losing then why do people argue about allowing both players to have the same capabilities in regards to game mechanics?


So the Red Army -led by a competent player- should hardly get to Berlin? Yes or no?

My opinion is that if the game is well designed -and I fairly know Matrix philosophy- you should a) stuff the Germans and b) get to Berlin.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pwieland)
Post #: 98
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 1:05:00 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.


"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk


What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).

Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.

On to your other post, though:
quote:

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical.


The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.

By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.

You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.

I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."

The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.

Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.

Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).


I used very incorrectly the APs I bought many diggers... when the forts mattered. Then a patch changed that. Whatever, now I know you only have to be a Spartan: buy the minimum assets.

As I said, Some of you forgot (and this is critical) that the Red Army is on the ropes in the first half of the war. This means the APs are needed to merely survive. You German players have lovely units with high experience (and good commanders). The Soviets don't... You might be forced (every single turn) to bring fresh units (aka spend APs) to replace depleted/low morale units, which are reassigned to let's say Stavka, to avoid overloading that front HQ... This, the Germans CAN avoid it. The Soviets can't You have a shabby army, and even if you use many APs to replace demorailised units the army will be shabby the same. The truth is I will badly need APs to upgrade to the Red Army v2.0. Will I do it in time? It's a tough struggle (keep the head above the water etc.).

And thanks for the compliment, but no, I am not "the best WitE player out there", not even close My 1942 summer defensive campaign is the proof on my book

As I see it (AARs), German players are currently surpassing their historical counterparts, so I still don't get it.


Ya know what, I have to wonder just how "disbanding Corps HQ/SAD bases." is hindsight. Being that they disband on their own, and there is no way to stop it.

I keep hearing that the Axis player is on rails. Now, I haven't seen *any* evidence that they are. especially as they have the ability to game the logistics for at least a year before the Soviets can. The fact that the guy who just said they are wants Matrix to pay him to "go away" as it were, says alot.

In the first half of the war, it is the Soviets who are "on rails."

To quote jaw:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

IIRC Russian ground support is hardwired to, in a nutshell, suck.


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 99
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 5:11:08 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 727
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: online

quote:



In the first half of the war, it is the Soviets who are "on rails."

To quote jaw:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

IIRC Russian ground support is hardwired to, in a nutshell, suck.




I wish my current games were AARs (if only I had the time...). Maybe the very, very best Soviet players (Tarhunnas, Flav, et al) can really whip the Soviet army into shape in 41 but as one who played the game a lot in 2011 pre-fort nerf and now playing multiple games today, I can't see what any complaining is about. The Soviets are nigh on impossible in 41...I am now questioning the fort nerf, because (a) it makes the Soviets ridiculously weak in 41 and (b) it will exacerbate late war problems (if anyone ever gets there) because the Germans will get creamed. I would wholeheartedly endorse eliminating brigade ZOCs (which don't matter in 41) and the ability of brigades to build forts (a lot of the problem in 42 and beyond) for a restoration of some level of entrenching ability in 41...

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 100
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 5:24:29 AM   
Tophat1812

 

Posts: 1622
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Pompack's post is spot-on IMO, and probably one of the main differences between this engine and WITP-AE.

Playing both games, I have to say that giving Japan extra help seems "right" to me, and not giving the Germans a ton also seems "right". I can't explain 100%, but generally intelligence and risk plays a much greater role in WITP-AE than it does in WITE.

1944-45 turns into a grind either way, so whether that grind in on the Dnepr, or the Polish border, or the Oder, doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of playability. I think future versions of the engine may have more depth to include "what-ifs", but WITE is the first crack at it.

Remember, WITP-AE is now in it's 8th year as an engine. 8 years of 2 additional releases, countless patches, mods, all kinds of stuff. It was fun along the way, but just great now. I bet as the engine develops, you'll be more pleased with it. It takes time. Stick with it.



Well said!

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 101
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 9:53:43 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1223
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents


Add my two cents. You couldn't have summed it up in better way.

I can't recall a balance discussion for AE, the only discussions there focus on (technical) capabilities that are overestimated by the game engine. There rest is matched against history (i.e. Scen 1), and the only balance there is between 1 year offensive phase for the Japanese player with limited assets versus 3 years for the Allied player. And yet, it is extremely fun and exciting.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 102
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 2:06:50 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


quote:



In the first half of the war, it is the Soviets who are "on rails."

To quote jaw:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

IIRC Russian ground support is hardwired to, in a nutshell, suck.




I wish my current games were AARs (if only I had the time...). Maybe the very, very best Soviet players (Tarhunnas, Flav, et al) can really whip the Soviet army into shape in 41 but as one who played the game a lot in 2011 pre-fort nerf and now playing multiple games today, I can't see what any complaining is about. The Soviets are nigh on impossible in 41...I am now questioning the fort nerf, because (a) it makes the Soviets ridiculously weak in 41 and (b) it will exacerbate late war problems (if anyone ever gets there) because the Germans will get creamed. I would wholeheartedly endorse eliminating brigade ZOCs (which don't matter in 41) and the ability of brigades to build forts (a lot of the problem in 42 and beyond) for a restoration of some level of entrenching ability in 41...



I think alot of it stems from not being able to win before the winter against Soviet player who is at all competent. Or the fact that they can't replicate those massive pockets. (Thus various proposals to handicap the Soviets even more.)

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 103
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 2:11:34 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents


Add my two cents. You couldn't have summed it up in better way.

I can't recall a balance discussion for AE, the only discussions there focus on (technical) capabilities that are overestimated by the game engine. There rest is matched against history (i.e. Scen 1), and the only balance there is between 1 year offensive phase for the Japanese player with limited assets versus 3 years for the Allied player. And yet, it is extremely fun and exciting.



Couldn't agree more. Playing as Japan is fun. Not because they can tweak a few things. But the journey itself. How long can you pound on the Allies before the tide turns.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 104
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 4:43:39 PM   
Zonso

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 1/28/2011
Status: offline
I realize some in this community are quite polarized but are they really saying flexibility isn't fun or Russia in WitE isn't flexible??? I have played the Russian side and maybe you can't do everything you want, but you can definitely tweak and change things to shape the Army to your likeing. Something wholly not possible from the German side. In my 40+ years of gaming, being able to change variables has been the hallmark of a great, immersive game. Next I expect to hear the sky isn't blue anymore! I recall many years of acrimony between gamers in WitP before the community settled and the game matured. Perhaps the same will happen here though in some respects the fault lays with the combat engine of WitE itself - there are too many things imo that don't reflect or capture the feel of operations on the East Front. After the first turn all is fantasy anyways!

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 105
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/4/2012 5:37:38 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6358
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonso

I realize some in this community are quite polarized but are they really saying flexibility isn't fun or Russia in WitE isn't flexible??? I have played the Russian side and maybe you can't do everything you want, but you can definitely tweak and change things to shape the Army to your likeing.


Not quite. I can tweak the Red Army as APs allow. And due to the limited number of APs this results in a smaller and less diverse Red Army than would be the case with a historical OB. Thus, everyone winds ups building as many sapper regiments as they can. This in the end turns out to be quite a few less SUs than you'd get otherwise with an historical OB, and is certainly less interesting.

It's all about APs. I hate APs. They are trying to do too many things at once, badly. I'm not managing the Red Army. I'm managing APs, which control army formation and command and control at the same time, two things that simply do not mix together and ought to be separated. Being cost effective with APs is the exact opposite of "flexible."

The game needs a proper economic system in order to do unit formation, not APs.


< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 5/4/2012 5:46:55 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Zonso)
Post #: 106
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/5/2012 12:09:23 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
I can't tweak it to my liking. 60APs a turn doesn't really allow much tweaking.

Want to transfer that army to a new Front? That's 50 APs or more.

I have 3 Tank Armies. Should I build more, or rebuild the 6 armies I lost in what I call the Great Debacle?

Replace the bad leaders I got when the good ones died?

And so on.........



(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 107
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/5/2012 2:19:10 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
I think the crux of the arguement is that as a German player mainly you haven't played the Soviet side long enough to realize in what an AP shortage they are and only see the good things of building SU's looked at from the German perspective. And turst me (and many others who've gone before), in 1941 as the Sovs, you're actually well off, it's 1942 and (I presume) beyond that's the pain in the behind.
As the German (mainly) you have AP's to spend on operational matters, new leaders and shifting a couple of Divisions, SU's around. So obviously, there is plenty of room for some extra SU building AP wise.
What they don't see, know or ignore is that as the Soviet, your main focus is to get your army and air organization up to the starting level of the Germans. Sure, you're "building" your army, but it's not to get ahead, it's to catch up!
The Soviet is striving towards efficiency the German starts with!
So, if the German players are just out to build a few extra Tiger Battalions if the pool allows, just say so. I, personally, have no problem with that and don't think it's going to be a game breaker. If it makes the German players happy (including myself) to build a limited amount of SU's if they do well, then why not?

All the other BS about AP's and building the Soviet Army to your personal liking at your whimp is nonesense by, as TD put it, created by people who haven't played the Soviet far enough in a competitive match to really know what they are talking about.

< Message edited by glvaca -- 5/5/2012 2:23:12 AM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 108
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/5/2012 2:29:02 AM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
The rub is, Axis players do not accept, for a variety of reasons, that their case is as hopeless as Japan, and won't accept a game that condemns them to a pre-ordained fate. Get over it, the Players have spoken. The same players perfectly willing to play KNOWING they will lose as Japan are happy to play WITP, but are unhappy in WITE. For WITE there are simply a majority of Axis ( losing side) players who say NO, with hindsight and my omniscience as a game player, I can win WWII on the East Front, so I won't play in the same "doomed to lose" paradigm that I will accept and enjoy in WITP.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 109
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/5/2012 2:37:29 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
I'm sorry Farfarer, can't follow you there. I do believe the Germans had the chance to win the War in Russia. I also think that WITE allows the German player to do this, provided they play well and more.
Personally, I'd put the 1941-42 GC till end of March at a 10/10 marks as the Russian. IT's extremely challenging as the Soviet to even perform as historical against a first class German, as SJ80 certainly is. Every turn is simply a nailbiter. Incredibly intense.
Blizzard is good, really good now. The Germans have options, they can fall back or stand in place. The costs vary, the gains too.
1942 seems like very interesting setting, I'm loving it!
Really guys, just play! This game is really deep and there are some interesting behind the scenes checks and balances you just gotta love (although bloddy inconvenient at times!).

(in reply to Farfarer)
Post #: 110
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/5/2012 3:10:09 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 727
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: online

Agreed, although I still think there is room to make the 41 campaign less absurd and make the 42-45 period more realistic (which would hurt the Germans in 41 but make it more playable for them later on...)

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 111
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/5/2012 4:09:42 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4383
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
I hadn't thought about this, but yes, I think the Soviet player should have (via reinforcements, à la WitP) what was had in the real thing. For free that is. With withdrawals included.

After all, the Germans get an historical OOB (along with withdrawals) via the reinforcements thing. And when their units are destroyed they are rebuilt for free as well.

I guess some sort of Iron Man scenario [a WitP scenario, already mentioned, in which the Japanese are better prepared, namely, we assume they were clarivident and that they knew the queen of the oceans -the battleships- would be soon obsolete, and that the naval air power would rule] might be created (modders, yoohoo... anyone at home...?), with more German units: divisions and support units. We might assume they were taken from France, the Balkans, Scandinavia, etc. etc. Not a lot. Again, German human reserves are a barrier: why do you think the losses suffered during 1944 (when the Germans were stuffed) were er, simply not replaced? Why did they raise battalions of sick and deaf men? Not to mention the kids and old men... Yes, everyone felt manpower shortages but the German case is clearly the case of someone who cannot pretend to conduct a long war... Fact.

In all, a competent Soviet player should be advancing towards Berlin the same...

P.S.: if you don't like the last sentence, let me use other words: "a competent Soviet player should be retreating towards Berlin the same"

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 5/5/2012 4:26:53 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 112
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/5/2012 7:38:39 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
With historical OOBs, the Sovs would have many, many, more SUs IIRC. To quote jaw: "What they had historically was a lot, in fact a lot more than most Soviet players would ever build. As the Soviet player, I would love to have the historical Soviet OOB and not have to screw around with building units. Yes, I would get some clunkers like Ski battalions, Motorcylce regiments, Anti-tank rifle battalions, etc. but I would avoid all the time and pain of building those corps or figuring out what support units really matter."

As well as things that are not in the game. (Those 10 Engineer armies, those 10 Reserve armies. Yes I know the latter all had their designations changed, but still.)

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/5/2012 8:47:57 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 113
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/5/2012 8:32:17 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21320
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
Here’s a suggestion. For PBEM players looking to add some pressure to the early game, and looking for victory conditions that make it easier for both sides to end the game before summer of 1945, use the victory conditions from the AH game Russian Campaign. Players could email their sudden death objectives to a neutral party before the game. The victory conditions are:

German: Take AA line (285 victory points in WitE).
Soviet: Take Berlin, Bucharest, Breslau, Helsinki and all cities east of these.

If by end of June no one has won, it’s a draw unless sudden death has occurred.

Sudden Death:

Before the game each side secretly picks an objective for start of each year from 42-45 from a list. If either player controls both sides’ objectives at the start of a year, they win. Objectives must be picked from this list:

Axis Objectives:
1942: Dnepropetrovsk, Bryansk, Leningrad
1943: Leningrad, Kharkov, Maikop
1944: Sevastopopl, Riga, Kiev
1945: Warsaw, Lvov

Soviet Objectives:
1942: Sevastopol, Kalinin, Kharkov
1943: Voronezh, Moscow, Stalingrad
1944: Leningrad, Rostov, Kursk
1945: Bucharest, Berlin


_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 114
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/6/2012 2:23:19 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1823
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).


While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents


Great post and I totally agree. The difference as you point out is time scale. My WitP AE PBEM game has just reached 1/44 after two years of game play in RL. How many WitE games could I have played in this time frame? Would I have wanted too lol?

Maybe it is the fact that after playing a game where I have a huge amount of operational fredom and then play WitE and discover how limited my options are (for both sides) just does not seem fun. Interesting yes, fun not so much.

To be blunt, I am more of 'I want a game that feels historical, which WitP AE does, rather than a game that is historical'. WitE just does not provived that 'feel' to me. Do not get me wrong, the game is an amazing feat imho. This is why I can like games like HoIx as an example becuses it 'feels' right rather than a slave to historical facts and events.

But regardless of that, it seems like the best way to play Germany is to go as far as you can in '41, pull back a little, and then spend the rest of the game fortifing every hex between the front and Berlin

To give you context, I played a PBEM game of DG's War in Europe and had a blast even though the game is designed specificly to have Germany lose. Why? Because all combantents could adjust production. Wven if you just played War in the East or West, you could still effect things in the other non-simulated fromts by assigning more or less troops to the non-active fronts.

So in WitE, just like the different setups for Japan in WitP AE, there should have been options for both sides that could have effected the outcome in the East. Several that come to mind would be, no Atlantic Wall, full war production in '42, no purge of officers, etc. This would have made the game more interesting to play for both sides.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

I dont think the OP was talking about balance. It was about which side was more fun to play (at least how I read it). In its current form, Germany is not as fun to play as the Soviets. The Soviets have many more choices and more flexibility with their OOB than the Germans. Thus, the preferred side playing WITE is the Red Army. I think its fairly obvious, but perhaps I am mistaken.



Just for the record, you are correct pwieland, I was taking about the 'fun' and you were not mistaken about my point of view

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 115
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/6/2012 2:29:06 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1823
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Here’s a suggestion. For PBEM players looking to add some pressure to the early game, and looking for victory conditions that make it easier for both sides to end the game before summer of 1945, use the victory conditions from the AH game Russian Campaign. Players could email their sudden death objectives to a neutral party before the game. The victory conditions are:

German: Take AA line (285 victory points in WitE).
Soviet: Take Berlin, Bucharest, Breslau, Helsinki and all cities east of these.

If by end of June no one has won, it’s a draw unless sudden death has occurred.

Sudden Death:

Before the game each side secretly picks an objective for start of each year from 42-45 from a list. If either player controls both sides’ objectives at the start of a year, they win. Objectives must be picked from this list:

Axis Objectives:
1942: Dnepropetrovsk, Bryansk, Leningrad
1943: Leningrad, Kharkov, Maikop
1944: Sevastopopl, Riga, Kiev
1945: Warsaw, Lvov

Soviet Objectives:
1942: Sevastopol, Kalinin, Kharkov
1943: Voronezh, Moscow, Stalingrad
1944: Leningrad, Rostov, Kursk
1945: Bucharest, Berlin



Sounds like a great thing to add to WitW

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 116
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/6/2012 11:48:59 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22590
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents


Nice post Jay!


For me it was always the journey... I love playing UV / WitP / WitP-AE and I played both sides without any prejudices!


I always knew that winning as Japan was impossible (except in UV in special grand campaign scenario case) but I played Japan because I wanted to be better than history and that is a win in my book!

Same is with WitE - I play both sides without any prejudice!

And I also know that Germans can't win - this is because they simply can't win (and no serious modern historian claims that as well ) - but they can do better than history and that is, again, a win in my book!


Also I don't like winning because of winning alone - for me, again, it is a journey that matters - the winning at all costs ("bending" game engine and using other "methods") is not something anyone should be proud of!


At the end - we are Grognards - we are such a small group of people and we should cherish what we have and enjoy the journey in our long long long games!!!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 117
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/6/2012 5:57:32 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21320
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
There are those that want to play a game as a game, trying to win using the rules as they are. I have no problem with that, and agree that the rules should be set up so that "winning" is equally possible for both sides. In practice, making this an equal chance is not easy, but that is the goal. There are those that are interested in learning something about history, and enjoying the journey, and that is fine too. At various tmes I've played wargames both ways, although I tend to be in the journey camp more often than the competitive gaming camp in my play. I don't want anyone to walk away from this discussion thinking the we aren't trying to balance the game so that both sides can win by the victory conditions. That is always the number one goal of the victory conditions.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 118
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/6/2012 6:44:43 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
Good victory conditions and games as history are not two opposites. On the contrary, victory conditions are often needed in a wargame to reward and encourage historically reasonable gameplay. In WITE a VP system that encourages both the Soviets and the Germans to try to hold terrain for as long as possible is a must, otherwise players are operating totally outside the boundaries that constrained the historical armies and generals. Having the Red army just run eastwards isn't history, that is pure fantasy! No Soviet commander could ignore decisions on to to stand and fight, and the same for the German commanders later in the war. And the German commanders were under severe pressure to capture their objectives before the winter of 1941. That should be reflected in VPs not just to make a playable game, but to reflect the historical constraints and imperatives.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 119
RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/6/2012 9:14:47 PM   
map66

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Good victory conditions and games as history are not two opposites. On the contrary, victory conditions are often needed in a wargame to reward and encourage historically reasonable gameplay. In WITE a VP system that encourages both the Soviets and the Germans to try to hold terrain for as long as possible is a must, otherwise players are operating totally outside the boundaries that constrained the historical armies and generals. Having the Red army just run eastwards isn't history, that is pure fantasy! No Soviet commander could ignore decisions on to to stand and fight, and the same for the German commanders later in the war. And the German commanders were under severe pressure to capture their objectives before the winter of 1941. That should be reflected in VPs not just to make a playable game, but to reflect the historical constraints and imperatives.



I agree completely. I think some form of victory conditions are needed to actively encourage both a Soviet active forward defense in '41 and '42 (with the entailed risk of pockets) rather then a simple run to the east as fast as possible as is the case now , as well as a German sense that one more drive might actually win the war (also, with the entailed risk of over-extension.) My personal preference would be for the game to model some percentage chance of Soviet collapse based on how quickly they are loosing urban locations. I should emphasize that this a Soviet collapse designed to model in game terms that both sides' leadership were acting under the assumption that this collapse was indeed possible, and hence the need for "not a step back" and risky offensive drives, rather then a historical verdict on whether such a collapse was actually likely.

But that said, the victory conditions Joel posted above from the board game actually sounds like a rather elegant way to model this, although they probably would require a bit of tweaking to work within the context of the game. My gut feel is maybe providing choices of 2 out of 5 cities for both sides, but that is a seperate subject.

Both ways though would give the proper encouragement for a GC that feels more historical--- i.e. one where there is basically bitter fighting for each advance, and one has to agonize over when to retreat or not or to dig in to defend against the winter offensive. As it is, I limit myself to the scenarios (and am having an immensely enjoyable time playing them, especially with the new Don to Danube ones), where the victory conditons make one feel like one is actually simulating a historical Eastern Front, not the gamey min-maxing that the lack of these transforms the GC into.

< Message edited by map66 -- 5/6/2012 9:16:21 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE 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

0.137