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

Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal

 
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 >> Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/10/2011 11:22:54 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2365
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Joel has made it apparent a few times now that if a set of Sudden Death victory conditions can be worked out by the community then perhaps they could be coded as an OPTIONAL set of additional Victory Conditions. So I want to make it clear from the start that these extra conditions would be OPTIONAL. That is an option selected by the players before the game starts. So if you don't want to use them you don't have to. I really only want replies on this thread by those want to get this thing up and running. If you don't like the idea that’s fine. You won't have to worry about it because it will be an OPTIONAL rule. I don't want this thread hijacked by people who just don't like the idea at all. Save your fingers, you only use these conditions if you want to.

First I don't think Joel would be interested in coding something too complex. So I think we should rule out anything other than adding to the existing system. Keep it simple.

Ok here are my thoughts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current method of scoring is used. That is 5 pts for HU and Capitals. 3 pts for LU. 1 pt for City. So no extra coding here.

Sudden Death victory is checked on two occasions. Once at the end of November (this should be close to the German high water mark for 1941). And again at the end of Feb 1942 (this should be the close to the end of the Soviet winter counter offensive).

So for the first check (end November 41) we need to calculate two numbers (A1 and S1).

A1 (Auto Axis Victory Level Summer 41). If the Axis have equal to or greater than this number then the game ends immediately with a Axis Automatic Victory.
S1 (Auto Soviet Victory Level Summer 41). If the Axis have equal to or less than this number then the game ends immediately with a Soviet Automatic Victory.

For the second check (end February 42) we need to calculate two numbers (S2 and A2).

S2 (Auto Soviet Victory Level February 42). If the Axis have equal to or less than this number then the game ends immediately with a Soviet Automatic Victory.
A2 (Auto Axis Victory Level February 42). If the Axis have equal to or greater than this number then the game ends immediately with a Axis Automatic Victory.

So we need numbers for A1, S1, S2 and A2.

Once these numbers are agreed upon it would be relatively easy to be coded in to the game as an OPTIONAL rule.

This method is also easy to use meantime as a house rule. The game tracks VP's levels every turn so if you know A1, S1, S2 and A2 you only need check those levels at the appropriate times to see if the game ends in sudden death for one side. If not continue on as normal.

The harder part is coming up with these numbers. My initial take is to draw several lines across the map that represent what you would call a defeat for either side at either time slot the checks are made and add up the VP's within that area. Its then a simple process to calculate the VP levels required.

That’s what I will be doing over the next few weeks if I get enough positive feedback.

Remember the numbers have to be a possibility. There is no point coming up with numbers for A1, S1, S2 and A2 if they are unattainable. Otherwise they will have no influence and there would be no point using them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think something like this would help in the following ways:

1. Curb the use of run away strategies by both sides (i.e. Soviets in summer and Germans in Winter). Both these strategies are ahistorical and would have never been sanctioned by either dictator.

2. End clearly one sided games early rather than allowing an obstinate player dragging out a game that is really over.

3. Forcing players to fight in 1941, making games more exciting with the knowledge of the possibility of sudden death.

Remember this would be an Optional rule. Either coded or house. You don't like it, don't use it.

Maybe someone has a better idea. But remember it has to be simple and easy to incorporate. Otherwise it won't happen. I would like to get a sense of what players think where these lines on the map should fall as far as calculating these numbers go.

One last point. I am not a Soviet or German fanboy. I will not be biased toward one side or the other

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------
Post #: 1
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/10/2011 11:48:02 PM   
pompack


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

Once these numbers are agreed upon it would be relatively easy to be coded in to the game as an OPTIONAL rule.


An excellent idea Michael

I believe that the coding (postulated ) can be simplified even further. Rather than an optional rule, do the same thing WitP does: IF the autovictory ("sudden death") conditions are met then the AV screen appears awarding victory to who ever met the conditions with a "Continue Game" message at the bottom the screen. Now if the players had previously agreed to use AV the game ends but if they choose not to then just continue on.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 2
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/10/2011 11:57:17 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
I think that something incorporating per turn additions for holding various objectives is the way to go. Similar to how the smaller scenario victory conditions are calculated. The objective values can then be asymmetrical, and accrue each turn, lending a constant tension to do something. The side that is losing points on a per turn basis would be pressured to attack, or at least stanch the loss rate.

The hard part, besides assigning reasonable values to the objectives would be to calculate a wide enough window so that unrealistic gambits are not so alluring, and that will allow a temporary setback to eventually be overcome, yet not so wide that it is irrelevant.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 3
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:00:46 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6364
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
I'd flatly refuse to play with said rules, given the Leningrad is an autowin for the Germans, Moscow is quite doable, and an advance to Rostov is more or less standard in the south.

In other words, a decent German player is going to outperform his historical counterpart as things presently stand. This isn't because of "runaways."

I'm willing to take this sucker bet if the German forgoes the Lvov opening, however. Any takers?





< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 11/11/2011 12:02:09 AM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 4
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:16:35 AM   
pompack


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'd flatly refuse to play with said rules, given the Leningrad is an autowin for the Germans, Moscow is quite doable, and an advance to Rostov is more or less standard in the south.

In other words, a decent German player is going to outperform his historical counterpart as things presently stand. This isn't because of "runaways."

I'm willing to take this sucker bet if the German forgoes the Lvov opening, however. Any takers?






But Flavio, he didn't provide any "said rules". What he refered to as the "German high water mark for 1941" is the TIME to make the test, but he said nothing about the values that would constitute AV.

Now I do believe that it is going to be a lot more difficult than Michael thinks to come up with suitable values for A1, S1, etc because of the very point that you bring up: the way that VPs are currently structured there is not much granularity to the metric. This concept works in WitP because every little sand spit contributes at least a little bit to AV as well as every dead soldier and aircraft. It will be very difficult to come up with values that don't force specific stratagies on the plays just due to this lack of granularity in the (current) VP system.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 5
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:18:12 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6364
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
A good German will beat that high water mark against a good Soviet, Pompack. Handily. Again, not because of "runaways."

Have you seen Leningrad hold lately?

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 6
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:26:06 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
An alternative would be to calculate the auto win conditions (and I like the screen comes up, players chose to proceed or not at that point idea) at the end of February. The idea being to prevent totally suicidal behavior by the Axis or totally turn tail and run by the Soviets. The map line I think about under this option would run from Leningrad-Moscow-Vorenezh-Rostov. This might even get players off the armaments chase.

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 7
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:35:02 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2365
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
James I know your idea is a good one but its just way to complex to figure out and I doubt they would code it. We have to keep it simple to code, figure out and run as a viable house rule first.

Flav, I don't know how many times I specified that it is OPTIONAL. If you don't want to use it fine. Please allow those who are interested in such an option to have a meaningful discussion without the unwanted negativity.

Second the numbers will be based on what is considered appropriate for the game as it stands. My first line for A1 is currently running (inclusive) from Leningrad-Ryazan-Tamboy-Boguchar-Rostov-Kerch. I have to add up all those numbers to get A1 as a first draft. Also remember that reducing the Axis rail conversion from 5 to 4 hexes is going to have an effect.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 8
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:45:10 AM   
TulliusDetritus


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

"24.1.2. AUTOMATIC AND POINT VALUE VICTORY CONDITIONS

Victory levels for the 1941-45 and 1942-45 campaign scenarios:

Decisive Soviet Victory - If Germany surrenders in 1944 or earlier.
Major Soviet Victory - If Germany surrenders between 1/1/45 and 5/31/45.
Minor Soviet Victory - If Germany surrenders between 6/30/45 and 9/30/45.
Draw - Germany does not surrender by 10/01/45 and the Axis player has less than 142 points.
Minor Axis Victory - The Axis controls 142-199 points at the end of the game.
Major Axis Victory - The Axis controls 200-289 points at the end of the game.
Decisive Axis Victory - At any time the Axis controls 290 points.
"

I take it this is not enough? Notice the "at any time"... the automatic victory is already here... I take it "I captured Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov, I automatically win"? Not against me, that's for sure. So this is about discussing history... in The Twilight Zone, of course

Absolutely no one on these forums or in the whole world knows what would have happened had Moscow, Gorky been captured. One million threads will not change that. They will only prove that... I wanna win! I wanna win! And I wanna win!! I will not spoil anyone's dream. simply feel free to play with such rules with anyone who agrees. Is that hard?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 9
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:57:16 AM   
pompack


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


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

A good German will beat that high water mark against a good Soviet, Pompack. Handily. Again, not because of "runaways."

Have you seen Leningrad hold lately?


But once again, that is irrelevent because you are the only one using a value equivilent to what the Germans actually accomplished which is clearly no where close to ending the war in November (AV). Michael clearly said that he doesn't know what the right values are but he is going to explore several possibilites.


But enough of that. The more I think about the granularity problem the more I think that using victory points will be very difficult. Just for one example the Germans can advance to the line Leningrad-Tula-Kharkov-Rostov and yet they are not even close to a condition I would consider AV. As an alternative, if the Germans do not take Leningrad, but hold a line Tallinn-Novgorod-Rzhev-Orel-Voroshilovgrad-Astrakhan they have a LOT fewer VPs but it is unlikely that the Russians could survive. OTOH even taking the Caucasus by November means nothing if the German army is too weak to hold the territory.

Much as I hate to propose a complicated algorithm I think that any AV system is going to need to consider geographic holdings (not just VP cities, perhaps a manpower count), key resources (oil at least), and somehow factor in military strength as well.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 10
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 1:26:32 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
First thing, if you like to play with such rule, well, actually you can. It is called Barbarossa scenario and the scenario finishes after '41. The rule is there, maybe a bit more refined. It was not carried to '41 campaign on purpose, I guess.

Actually, I think that carrying it into '41 campaign would make the game less fun and hugely more difficult to balance as winning Barbarossa does not really mean winning the war. As such, I think that, introduction of such rule (here I mean hypothetical line Leningrad -Moscow - Rostov in German hands, not the Barbarossa major victory conditions) would probably require changes in SU/GER unit strength/ fighting ability in '41 and changes in morale (at least give the tank division & motorised SU division max MP of 50 and make the surrounded units fight/move with much smaller penalty than now, both things can be argued to be historical).

I, however agree that Germany should get more from the territory they acquire (at the moment it is just a cushion and its value is in denying the territory to the SU). One way would be to make the part of factories in cities unmovable and repairable for any side (I mentioned that in the game suggestions thread). Other, to make the resources Germany capture more meaningful. Yet another, connect the losses in area with lowering of national morale of SU (a bit like it is done now, but at the moment it is automatic -/+ 1 a month, independent from the gameplay). But sudden death in '41? As long as I have enough armaments, I can easily fight back and win even if I do not hold the line Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov in '41. However, if this line is in hands of Germany in '44, that is a different story [and in '44 such 'sudden death' would be a rule I can agree on].

Still, as it is now, SU has no fighting chance in '41 if the terrain is not to their favour or the German lines are not very stretched. And making the forts disappear as quickly as they disappear now makes things worse. Germany got quite a bit beefed up in '42 now (and less armaments hurts SU quite a bit) so that may balance the game significantly.

A competent German player can get to Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov line, even when played against a competent SU player (especially if German player is not too worried about losses). On the other hand, German player does not really have the logistic to get much further (getting to the Barbarossa scenario objectives, even if sometimes possible with great loss of people in '41 would most often mean a disaster during blizzard, so introducing decisive victory from Barbarossa as quick win would mean for Germany either now or never); he almost has to abandon any terrain above that line before blizzard. As such, sudden death based on any line like that is not meaningful, as loosing those cities is at the moment not meaningful enough to derail SU war effort. However, Germany being on this line in '44 is probably enough to call it a game ;)

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 11
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 3:41:12 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5860
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

A good German will beat that high water mark against a good Soviet, Pompack. Handily. Again, not because of "runaways."

Have you seen Leningrad hold lately?


I would have to agree with Flaviusx now that I have finally figured out the system. A few poeple know their stuff as Germans. Most have know idea what they are doing and get trashed early.

I do agree with MT, that current system is a joke.

I like Jamiams idea better, but its a major undertaking I beleive to change that and money talks an witw is getting most of the labor.

So I guess I shot for 250 for german to win.

not sure on Russian side. I have time tomorrow to come up with numbers or just find my old thread on same subject.

I also think that there should be auto win check every 6 months.
December and June.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/11/2011 3:43:44 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 12
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 3:54:59 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5860
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
The major problem with the game now is even if hq build up is removed the russians just have no need to fight.

They evac and run and play cat and mouse.

Most of the AAR's are full of

German only gets 3 million kia by Dec,
Russian has saved 90% of amrmament pts, because we know hvy means nothing.
Russian army is 5 million strong by Blizzard with extra armament pts.
Russian army is 7+ million strong by June

Steam roller starts by late 42 or ealry 43.

The only way German wins is if Russian player doent have game figured out yet.

The German vs and equal Russian might take Moscow but so what? Its means little to nothing he still have 7 million men by summer.

The game is way out of wack, the more you play the more you see it.

Thats why there so very few games that get into 43.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 13
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 3:58:17 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5860
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

An alternative would be to calculate the auto win conditions (and I like the screen comes up, players chose to proceed or not at that point idea) at the end of February. The idea being to prevent totally suicidal behavior by the Axis or totally turn tail and run by the Soviets. The map line I think about under this option would run from Leningrad-Moscow-Vorenezh-Rostov. This might even get players off the armaments chase.


Is not possible and 3.5 million KIA is not possible. The AAR's are full of games that all kinda look cookie cutter unless the russian made some major screw ups.

Thats the problem.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 14
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 5:01:55 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2365
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
My first line for A1 is currently running (inclusive) from Leningrad-Ryazan-Tamboy-Boguchar-Rostov-Kerch.

This comes to 255 VP.

So that would mean if at the end of the last turn of November the Axis have 255 pts the Soviets lose in Sudden Death.

Any thoughts?



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 15
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 5:59:03 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Steam roller starts by late 42 or ealry 43.

The only way German wins is if Russian player doent have game figured out yet.

The German vs and equal Russian might take Moscow but so what? Its means little to nothing he still have 7 million men by summer.

The game is way out of wack, the more you play the more you see it.


And you know when the steam-roller starts under 1.05 how? No games have reached late 42 as far as I know. And yes, the only way the German wins is if the Russian player doesn't have the game figure out yet, just like the Sovs didn't have the "game" figured out in 1941 or early 1942.

You can say that the game is not very fun as a result, and I would probably agree, but I don't think that you can say that the game is "out of whack"--I think that it plays out as realisticly as can be expected once you accept that both players can avoid historical mistakes, and that that will have a huge effect on how the campaign plays out.


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 16
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 6:22:40 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6364
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

My first line for A1 is currently running (inclusive) from Leningrad-Ryazan-Tamboy-Boguchar-Rostov-Kerch.

This comes to 255 VP.

So that would mean if at the end of the last turn of November the Axis have 255 pts the Soviets lose in Sudden Death.

Any thoughts?




I'd pass on that. Those aren't difficult conditions to meet. The only mildly difficult one is Rostov. (And, perhaps, Kerch.) Solely for logistical reasons.

Once again, the only way I'd play with them is if the German agrees to forego the Lvov opening.

Sue me for negativity.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 11/11/2011 6:24:36 AM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 17
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 10:35:31 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
I'm with Flaviusx on this. If you want OPTIONAL sudden death rules to compensate for possible skill deficits, help yourselves, but I'd never agree to such rules playing either side.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 18
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 10:54:09 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3064
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

My first line for A1 is currently running (inclusive) from Leningrad-Ryazan-Tamboy-Boguchar-Rostov-Kerch.

This comes to 255 VP.

So that would mean if at the end of the last turn of November the Axis have 255 pts the Soviets lose in Sudden Death.

Any thoughts?


I would suggest you moving the dates as follows:

Date for A1: March 1942 (you can get the cities, but you can't smoke the cigar until Spring)
Date for A2: March 1943
* A2 should include Stalingrad and Baku (the Soviet economy crashes)

Besides that, tweaking the Handicap settings might be a good idea:

Axis & Soviet Logistic Level: 50
Soviet Transport Level: 80 (or 75)
Axis & Soviet Admin Level: 140

With these settings the current cornucopia of supplies, ammo and fuel would be curbed significantly. Increasing the Admin level means that Build Ups are the way to get units into "offensive" stance, with all that implies regarding supply network efficiency).

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 19
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 11:27:20 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
I don't think I would ever agree to any sudden death rules that applied before March 1942, otherwise the Germans could totally over-extend themselves through 1941 and not suffer any consequences--it would be panzer-raiding on steroids, no thanks.

Sudden death rules that start in March 1942 might be OK, but I think they'd have to be more challenging that those you propose, and as others have suggested, I think it would be better if the Germans could also achieve sudden death if they went way deep in one sector but didn't get so far in others.

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 20
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 11:36:48 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2365
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
This is quite obviously going to be a hopeless exercise. I have better things to do with my time.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 21
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 11:41:14 AM   
janh

 

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

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The major problem with the game now is even if hq build up is removed the russians just have no need to fight.

They evac and run and play cat and mouse.

Most of the AAR's are full of

German only gets 3 million kia by Dec,
Russian has saved 90% of amrmament pts, because we know hvy means nothing.
Russian army is 5 million strong by Blizzard with extra armament pts.
Russian army is 7+ million strong by June

Steam roller starts by late 42 or ealry 43.

The only way German wins is if Russian player doent have game figured out yet.

The German vs and equal Russian might take Moscow but so what? Its means little to nothing he still have 7 million men by summer.

The game is way out of wack, the more you play the more you see it.

Thats why there so very few games that get into 43.


Pelton, now that you have figured the German side of things a little better, you might want to switch to playing the Russians for a while. Even if it is not your favorite, it doesn't hurt to know the enemy, plus you could finally prove that as a Russian you don't need to run. That would add a lot of credibility to your arguments. However, I doubt you can, and that's not because of your abilities and knowledge of the tricks the game engine allows.

You should also mention that the German Army presently enters spring 42 in most AARs with around 4 Mio men, a good 1 Mio more than the calibration point. I believe the historical high-water mark was Kursk with about that number. Given that, Soviet numbers also reflect that the German players are a lot more conservative, and plan ahead for a blizzard defense, instead of running their units dry against the Russian defenses at Moscow. More realistic numbers might only come about, (a) if the German player attacks more recklessly, and (b) the Russians get the toys at hand that allow to stand and perhaps to counterattack occasionally. So why do you want to force a Russian player into mistakes, and decide as attacker on where and when the defender should defend, if you yourself deviate strongly from historical decisions/doctrines/mistakes? Just recall raiding as an artifact of the ZOC rules (perhaps ZOC should only affect the actual vicinity of units?), and the static IgoUgo phasing.

The way I see it presently, the fact that the Soviet Army is vastly toothless in 41, and apparently now also a little weaker during blizzard 41/42, makes it a no-brainer decision not to employ it forward except as speed-bumps to enable factory evacuation. (Which, as established in the other thread, was gotten about right by the designers -- none of the sources contradicted what types where primarily evac'd historically, so why not give arms and vehicles priority as well (assuming the categorizing in game isn't different than IRL -- arms here may include heavy facilities for armament production); but I agree that supply and logistics ain't tight enough for both sides, but we haven't seen the Soviet or German supply situation in 43/44 from a GC yet). With fighting forward, all that a Soviet player can do is to loose more -- any counterattacks are extremely costly, as should well be so, but they do not gain anything except to set up more units for pocketing, which hardly costs the Axis time. If the German Army in 43 or 44 would face the same disparity in combat value, we would soon see a similar phenomenon, namely that the Germans would just fall back and avoid battle unless they reach a contracted position that offers hope, or prohibits any further retreat. We have seen this with earlier patches in the 41 blizzard, where German players slowly retreated as the rules prevent them to hold off Soviet attacks. It is the same thing. However, presently the German Army is at least sufficiently powerful in 43 and 44 to blunt Soviet spearheads and force on a cautious, careful Soviet strategy.

Presently the Axis achieves German standards with relative ease as there is not much strain on logistics, even in the south (question: did the Germans historically beef up logistics in the south at the cost of AGC and AGN, or how did that happen??). Leningrad is a standard as much as the Lvov has become, Rostov is well possible; Kharkov, Kursk, have become typical. As you are now figuring yourself, Moscow by turn 12-13 seems to doable as well, without any need to cut back on the other objectives. But does this feel right, do you think the Germans could have optimized their forces that way that this could have been a possible outcome? Not sure, rather not. Presently looks like the Germans back in time were total idiots at their business. If this trend continues and Moscow also becomes a standard, the future will see Soviets fighting until all critical industry is removed, and then pull back to the Urals until they are able to contest the Germans on more even terms.

I believe the Soviet base moral should be a little higher to start with in 41/42 (even though that side least interests me either, much as you Pelton). Not much, though. It seems to be fairly easy to hurt the Soviets, too little can go wrong, and why play out 41 if you already know where it ends? We could as well start after blizzard, when things are hopefully more even and interesting? The designers have obviously tried to enforce the swinging of initiative between Soviets and Germans at certain times a little by things like the 1:1 rule and the shift of national morale instead of naturally let it evolve from the true battlefield conditions. You probably could picture two virtual curves that represent the combat power of both sides. They shift dramatically on small timescales at certain points like towards the Soviet side during Dec. 41, and slowly goes back to German favor by spring 42. Besides such short-term variations, the German curve will have a slight long term skew that is probably designed to mimic the slow decline until 45, and the Soviet curve goes thru a minimum in summer 42, and thereafter steadily increases until 45. Perhaps the speed of changes (gradient) of the initial drop and later recovery of the Soviet combat power (national morale/experience) is too pronounced? If the national morale drop and difference to the Germans would be a bit less, and correspondingly also the later gains tuned down, the Soviets might be capable of putting up some occasional fight in 41 and 42, pull off a little better blizzard offensive, but still only gradually catch up with the German Army by 43 instead of experiencing rather sudden, artificial jumps? Then the artificial 1:1 rule would be totally obsolete, even in 41?

< Message edited by janh -- 11/11/2011 11:48:36 AM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 22
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:09:50 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3064
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
This is quite obviously going to be a hopeless exercise. I have better things to do with my time.




EDIT: You asked about thoughts and some of us gave them. At least you could discuss the answers we gave with us. Speaking for myself alone, I'm pretty reasonable (or so I think).

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 11/11/2011 12:13:30 PM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 23
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:20:41 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
This is quite obviously going to be a hopeless exercise. I have better things to do with my time.


Well that should have been pretty obvious from the beginning. Personally I'm not against some kind of sudden death rules so thought that my views would be welcome according to your rules:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I really only want replies on this thread by those want to get this thing up and running. If you don't like the idea that’s fine. You won't have to worry about it because it will be an OPTIONAL rule. I don't want this thread hijacked by people who just don't like the idea at all. Save your fingers, you only use these conditions if you want to.

If you want sudden death rules simply based on some line of cities, as you propose, I don't see why any programming is necessary, all you have to do is agree on a house rule with your opponent?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 24
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:25:04 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6364
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
I'm quite unreasonable. But then again, so is the swampland Micheal T is selling here.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 25
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 12:48:29 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
I think that the issues regarding the current victory conditions are due to the cracks created by WITE trying to be a simulation and a game, and falling between the two stools.

The Axis Victory conditions have always been based on the "simulationist" view i.e. what OKH would have considered a decisive victory.

In the Barabarossa Scenario, you can take Leningrad and Moscow and still "lose", because the victory conditions are based on where OKH thought they should be in 6 months.

It is understandable that people play games to win, and simulations to gain an experience of what the real thing may feel like and/or develop the skills needed to do the real thing, indeed, I believe people can fly real helicopters after having only practised on a PC simulator - not sure about jumbo jets!

Unfortunately, in WITE the only way to "beat" history is to do things that were not and could not have been done historically.

I suppose the developers have to decide which lobby they want to side with; the "gamers" or the "simulation players" (apparently simulationer/ist are not a real words).

I repeat what I have said from day 1 - the winner is whoever has the most fun.

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 26
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 1:02:08 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
@janh - excellent post. Couldn't have put it better myself.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 27
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 1:24:50 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
I wrote a couple of posts on this some months ago, but I can't find them now.

I am all for some kind of optional sudden death conditions.

I would favor a points per turn system. That way players would be encouraged to do historical things like fighting to hold Kiev as long as possible or doing reckless advances to capture things before winter. You need not give VPs for every city, you could just have a few locations like Kiev, Smolensk, Pskov, Odessa, Sevastopol, Rostov, Kursk, Voronezh, Tula, Moscow, Kalinin, Leningrad and a few more, or something like that. Give one point per turn, maybe two for Moscow. I believe the tally should be made in say March or April 1942, to encompass both the German advance and the Soviet winter offensive, and then every autumn and spring.

All that would be needed to implement this is to modify the 41-45 GC by adding a few victory point locations and then checking the score at certain dates.

Edit: Ah... and the small matter of calibrating the score that means it is over...


< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 11/11/2011 1:25:19 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 28
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 4:17:57 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
I just can't see what sudden death adds to the game. If you don't want to continue a game quit. It seems to me like sudden death is an attempt to have the game validate poor or ahistorical play, or a substitute for a game that can simulate.

If you want something triggered by events, I think it would be good if Axis reserves in the west/Scandinavia could be released to the east if the Russians advance a certain amount before the historical Husky/Overlord dates. Also, if, and as I suspect, they don't impact already, Russian resources like the manganese at Nikopol should be critical to German industry, greatly reducing capacity when it's lost and stocks are exhausted. The latter will force the Germans to defend their gains.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 29
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 5:07:34 PM   
Tarhunnas


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I really only want replies on this thread by those want to get this thing up and running. If you don't like the idea that’s fine. You won't have to worry about it because it will be an OPTIONAL rule. I don't want this thread hijacked by people who just don't like the idea at all. Save your fingers, you only use these conditions if you want to.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I just can't see what sudden death adds to the game. If you don't want to continue a game quit. It seems to me like sudden death is an attempt to have the game validate poor or ahistorical play, or a substitute for a game that can simulate.



How hard can it be...?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117