Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 7:52:13 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2507
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

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.


I can't say what other people think it brings to the game, but for me it has little to do with "knowing when to quit". Over and over again in these forums, people have stated that it is very ahistorical for either the Soviets or the Germans to "run away". A "sudden death" rule done properly would force the currently retreating side to stand and fight at least once in a while.

But you can take some of the ideas above and instead of applying them to a "sudden Death" concept, use them to create an incentive for the currently retreating side to retreat a little more slowly.

So just to hijack the thread a bit, what about taking James idea of accumulating VPs on a per turn bases and apply it to maintaining National Morale. Just for a strawman, if the cum VP count falls below a monthly threshold National Morale drops five points.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 31
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 8:09:23 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
The trouble with sudden deathing the Russians is that they lost a ton of stuff historically, but kept fighting. How about sudden death if they lose < XXX million men in 1941? It doesn't make sense. On the other hand with the current unit values, if the Russians stand and fight as historically, they will lose the game for certain, the game is already compensating for the Russian doing the sane thing, retreating only slow enough to cover their industry evacuating.

If the occupied territories occupied their rightful place in the German war economy, they could be made to retreat slowly, fighting to maintain control of the vital raw materials without which they were not able to even pretend to compete with the vast economies ranged against them.

Sudden death is an admission that the game system cannot simulate the complexities of war economy and military strategy. I haven't given up on it yet and, personally, if I ever do, it'll be off to find another game, not accept fudges like sudden death.


< Message edited by Mehring -- 11/11/2011 8:11:05 PM >


_____________________________

“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 pompack)
Post #: 32
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 8:17:46 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2779
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
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.


FWIW I'm sure many of us recall the classic AH boardgame, "The Russian Campaign". In it there were alternate victory conditions, one I recall was a sudden death type where at the end of any German turn if 3 of his strategic objectives were held, he wins. He secretly writes them down at the beginning of the game from a predetermined list.

I think the German intentions were to cause immediate collapse of the Soviet regime, by destroying their army and capturing their political center. The auomatic victory should reflect both aspects.

I think your idea could be tested with "house rules" as things are, could it not ?


_____________________________

"Games lubricate the body and the mind" Ben Franklin.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 33
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 8:32:36 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
I think the German intentions were to cause immediate collapse of the Soviet regime, by destroying their army and capturing their political center. The auomatic victory should reflect both aspects.

That may have been the German intention, but it takes two to win a war and I don't think the Russians were playing ball.

_____________________________

“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 Jeffrey H.)
Post #: 34
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 8:44:20 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2779
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

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.


I think both players can and should be winners. That should be a goal and having an element of suprise to the VC's might make things more interesting. I agree with your analogy re:gamers vs. simulation-'ists'. Unfortunately for me there isn't nearly enough game here to make things interesting.




_____________________________

"Games lubricate the body and the mind" Ben Franklin.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 35
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 8:46:40 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1691
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Seriously, good luck with finding a line in the sand where the axis win the war.. I can't imagine where that line would lie..All an autovictory in 1941 would proof is that the axis player is excellent at the 1941 summer campaign stuff which is only a small (important but small) part of the game...

You would be better off checking your progress in terms of landshift and casualties in time.. Perhaps someone in the community can draw up a map and check on real OOB on different points in times.....

EDIT: To clarify, I play the japanese in a WitP AE PBEM in scenario 1 (historical setup).. I know I will lose the war but I keep playing because I can and am doing better then the Japanese did historical... If you roll axis, don't expect to win the war...

< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 11/11/2011 8:47:42 PM >


_____________________________



"An agile, adaptable and capable Air Force that, person for person, is second to none, and that makes a decisive air power contribution in support of the UK Defence Mission."


(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 36
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 9:43:16 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Why even bother coding such a thing into the game when both sides can make their own AV conditions?

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 37
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/11/2011 11:45:23 PM   
entwood

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline
What could be coded, optional or not, is a chance that Soviet units cannot completely bolt East in the 1st few turns of the campaign, they would be shot by NKVD or turned around.  A simple chance on a 1-6 or 2-12 die roll for a frozen, cannot move stay-and-fight unit, a few units lose control and move randomly a hex or two or attack any adjacent enemy, I would suggest that is pretty historical.   The chances diminish after a few turns as command and control is re-established.    the soviet air force gets wacked being unprepared turn1 why not also the ground forces? 



< Message edited by entwood -- 11/11/2011 11:47:38 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 38
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 12:47:17 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
Do Russian ground forces not get whacked on T1 or any place in summer 1941, particularly west of the Dnepr?

I wonder whether russian CVs aren't badly under estimated in summer 1941 and then over compensated for in the blizzard rules. As anyone who knows my thinking will guess, I think attention to logistics are the lever to create a more historical flavour.

< Message edited by Mehring -- 11/12/2011 12:49:21 AM >


_____________________________

“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 entwood)
Post #: 39
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 1:51:50 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
This is great discussion and hang in there Michael T.

From my perspective point of this is to create, without a huge amount of coding, a GAME mechanic which will create the incentive for the Germans to go for broke and the Soviets to stand and fight as, I think most would agree, they were directed (for whatever sound or unsound but politically real reasons) to do.

It may very well be that a great simulation of history and allowing the Soviets all the options they presently have with regard to production, etc. creates what some would suggest is the inevitable--a Soviet victory or Germany becomes the target of the first atomic weapons.

And perhaps this is premature since the 1.05 games are still being played out and the outcome of the interesting AAR where the Axis are returning home for the winter remains to be seen but several things do seem to be clear.

1) Axis are not going for broke--the AAR's depicting WW1 like trenches being built by the Axis behind "skirmish lines" of front line troops is way off historical and of course an appropriate GAME tactic.

2) Russian Strategy of running away just behind the trains hauling out the factories equally non-historical and an appropriate game tactic.

I have seen several posts that suggest this is already in the rules but the 290 points auto for the German seems an unattainable outcome against any competent human Soviet Player.

Other posts have suggested that why is this even important since anyone can agree to house rules.

From my own perspective (flawed as that may be) there is value in formalizing something like this in the official rules. Players generally I think are investing time in play (and an awesome amount of energy in AAR reports) to be measured or compared against the rules of the realm not the house. For that reason, continued discussion and incorporation of the optional variant Michael T proposed is worthy.

I suggest again that the calculation he proposed be measured in late February or early March to give the Soviets the benefit of a winter offensive (that stands hugely to curb too far a reach by the Axis). But if the Soviets run so far away that they cannot seriously contest the auto victory spots, they lose. If the Germans send to many troops to Germany or to construction in the rear, they lose. It is not a one way proposition, both sides have their time with the initiative to win it all early and if not. slug it out to end some 150 odd plus turns down the road.





_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 40
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 2:11:44 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2190
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Some people seem to think that I raised this issue so that the Germans have a 'I win' push button. I articulated my reasons quite clearly. I also claim no bias. I also clearly said on numerous occasions players would be under no obligation to use such a rule. But these facts are ignored. Again the main reason for the idea is to force players to conform more to the demands of Hitler and Stalin. Its that simple. At the moment this does not exist. We see both sides running at the first hint of trouble. This would not have been tolerated by Hitler or Stalin. The commander of the troops that did this would have been sacked, imprisioned or shot. Maybe all three.

You also need to consider the effect of removing the extra hex of rail conversion that will be in the next beta. It will make a difference.

FWIW when my current CG ends I will be doning my Soviet cap for a while.





_____________________________

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

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 41
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 2:22:50 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
FWIW, I don't think you raised the idea based on an Axis bias. In my view, the goal is to try and create in the game the incredible tension and struggle of the first year of the conflict where all seemed to hang on a gossamer thread for both sides.


_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 42
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 2:37:56 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

This would not have been tolerated by Hitler or Stalin.


Well, Hitler would NOT have tolerated a different plan (Barbarossa)... The plan was about a strong center and the main goal was Moscow. Forget those extra panzers in the south, NO Lvov pocket...

Same thing about Leningrad, only send AGN...

And yet we see every German player has perverted the original plan... included those who blame the "run away" thing... Soooo...

In other words, every single time you modify Barbarossa you are IGNORING Hitler's orders... but the Red Army is apparently forced to obey Stalin's ultimate lunacy: do not run away... Can't you see the FLAGRANT contradiction?

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 11/12/2011 2:56:02 AM >


_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 43
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 2:59:31 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2190
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
No one wants to be completely shackled by history. I have no problem with variant Barbarossa plans, thats part of the fun. But front wide retreats/digins by the German army in September is just as ludicrous as the Soviets running straight back to Moscow in July.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 44
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 3:24:17 AM   
entwood

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline
Optional in-game rules serve several purposes.  First and foremost, it protects the main game because if the optional rule is not working right the basic game still would, because we know that is a valid new development concern, messing up the main game with new changes, if optional rules were coded as a 'sub-routine' or what-have you. 

Secondly, players can use them at their discretion. 

Thirdly, Optional Rules could be used to help balance PBEM, where a stronger player could concede an optional rule not in their favor and the-like; a handi-capping aspect.  I think more games would get played ; all good.   Almost every old table top or computer wargame I have played had optional rules....This is what this game lacks.

Lastly, Heck, if the company wanted to charge a modest 10 dollars or so for an 'add-on'; we have yet another benefit.  buy it or not DLC.



(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 45
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 3:34:13 AM   
entwood

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

In my view, the goal is to try and create in the game the incredible tension and struggle of the first year of the conflict where all seemed to hang on a gossamer thread for both sides.



These words should be added to the Game Manual's Introduction.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 46
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 4:14:19 AM   
Kronolog

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 3/23/2011
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Well, it would certainly be nice to feel the political pressure as the player (if one excludes the already included dismissals and executions of leaders). How this could be coded into the game though, I'm not exactly sure, but sudden deaths (representing coups against the head of state?) might be a good way of doing it.

(in reply to entwood)
Post #: 47
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 4:23:50 AM   
traemyn

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Again the main reason for the idea is to force players to conform more to the demands of Hitler and Stalin. Its that simple. At the moment this does not exist. We see both sides running at the first hint of trouble. This would not have been tolerated by Hitler or Stalin. The commander of the troops that did this would have been sacked, imprisioned or shot. Maybe all three.


I assumed this was the main reason and I am glad you said it specifically because I think Auto-Win points or an Auto-Win line or similar are NOT addressing the issue. The issue is that historically Hitler and Stalin both issued orders for no retreat. Isn't that ultimately the main driver behind why the Soviets fought so hard so forward (which cost them dearly from my understanding) and why ultimately the Axis did not retreat as we see every Axis in AAR's do during the first blizzard?

By crafting VP's or Auto-Win lines or whatever, its just making up different ways for the game to play the same as history. Well then why can't the "Optional" rule deal with the RETREAT issue instead?

Have this optional rule make leader checks on down the line through the Soviet command structure and if they 'pass' their movement points are spared. If they don't pass then they lose a chunk of MP's. You would have to take into a number of factors including the year, maybe multiple leader attributes, etc. Same thing for Axis whenever Hitler did the same. Wouldn't be a small thing to code but at least it feels like it gets to the heart of what this VP or Auto-Win is really trying to do.

< Message edited by traemyn -- 11/12/2011 4:27:51 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 48
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 8:29:44 AM   
Gandalf

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 12/15/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: traemyn
...

Have this optional rule make leader checks on down the line through the Soviet command structure and if they 'pass' their movement points are spared. If they don't pass then they lose a chunk of MP's. You would have to take into a number of factors including the year, maybe multiple leader attributes, etc. Same thing for Axis whenever Hitler did the same. Wouldn't be a small thing to code but at least it feels like it gets to the heart of what this VP or Auto-Win is really trying to do.


+1

(in reply to traemyn)
Post #: 49
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 10:37:20 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

This would not have been tolerated by Hitler or Stalin.


Well, Hitler would NOT have tolerated a different plan (Barbarossa)... The plan was about a strong center and the main goal was Moscow. Forget those extra panzers in the south, NO Lvov pocket...

Same thing about Leningrad, only send AGN...

And yet we see every German player has perverted the original plan... included those who blame the "run away" thing... Soooo...

In other words, every single time you modify Barbarossa you are IGNORING Hitler's orders... but the Red Army is apparently forced to obey Stalin's ultimate lunacy: do not run away... Can't you see the FLAGRANT contradiction?

I'm not sure Hitler was so set on the details of Barbarossa. He was always doing about turns. The issue was securing an economic base to continue the war, but this strategic perspective was modified according to the nature of the war or perception of the war, Germany was facing.

The Moscow or Ukraine/Caucasus tension was the most pronounced. As long as they thought Russia could be knocked out in the first year, Moscow was target #1. When this objective appeared less attainable, and doubts were intermitently surfacing summer 1941 (Halder IIRC), economic considerations became primary. Hence we have priorities changing Moscow-Ukraine-Moscow even in 1941.

What I find lacking in so many games is the abstraction of war from its motives. It permits players to make decisions which, while they might make military game sense, bare no relation to the economic-political-military situation faced in reality. They also engender the most mindless conceptions of history in which invasions are made on the whims of individuals, their ideological pretexts are promoted to primary cause etc etc.


A game which used economic and logistical levers to face players with the situation of their historical counterparts would actually be highly educational. Players would begin to realise why so few options were actually available and why the various factions really did what they did.


_____________________________

“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 TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 50
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 2:16:20 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
I'm not sure Hitler was so set on the details of Barbarossa. He was always doing about turns. The issue was securing an economic base to continue the war, but this strategic perspective was modified according to the nature of the war or perception of the war, Germany was facing.


And even if he was, we know he constantly changed his mind, right. Still, the point is that Barbarossa was written on a marble stone It's not like 5 minutes before the attack, some front commander decides to shift lots of troops from AGx to AGy... These changes radically change the essence of the whole plan... In fact it is a new plan. And by the way, I don't care about these opening variants, I don't care about the Lvov pocket. I don't care about the buildup spam. I will never say to my German opponent "hey, don't do that"... I expect the same: I don't want to be lectured about this run away thing.

Or make it rational: execute Barbarossa and ONLY Barbarossa (you can shift troops after turn 5 or 6 or 7 though, to simulate for example the AGC Panzers sent to Kiev), tell me exactly until what turn I am not allowed to run away. Didn't the Soviets RUN AWAY in the south after the Kiev disaster? If they didn't I would like to know how the Germans got to Rostov... Teleport thing?

EDITED: oh, and don't tell me "do NOT move (in the south) the units west of the Dnper (or Kiev)". The Soviets sent their Stavka Reserve Armies (located west of Kiev) to the center

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 11/12/2011 2:29:00 PM >


_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 51
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 2:40:38 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
Nice post, TulliusDetritus. Quite on the point. Both sides should either be allowed to deviate from history as game engine (and house rules) allow, or both players must agree mutually on a fair trade.

Otherwise, I stand with Cannonfodder and others. Why would you want to quit the game before the fun for the opponent side even started? Not only not fair, but: Chances that the Soviet would have fallen apart even if Moscow and Leningrad would have fallen, as well possible in game, are probably very small. Axis can perhaps have a tiny chance of a true campaign-ending victory, but it should come as a combination of terrain gains, and destruction of the Red Army.  If the Russians stood near the Urals, barely able to counterattack in mid-43, maybe there would have been a chance for a cease-fire?  For sure there would have been an additional boost in Lend-and-Lease, a dynamic effect which also ought to be taken into account once too many key cities fall.
However, perhaps an Axis player should get a VP bonus if he holds Moscow, Leningrad, and Rostov by end of 41, by end of 42, and by end of 43? That would honor at least his skills on the initial offensive?

The fun is much like with playing Japanse in WiTP/AE in the long-run: try to do better. Only that without the production system and inability to use AP to create
formations (or change withdrawals) as the Soviet has, something important has gotten lost compared to WiR. The administrative freedom in terms of production and research gives a Japanese player actually the feeling of having "sufficient" levers to effect anything. It would be awesome if even a primitive production system could be put in place for the Axis, just tuned to be a bit less forgiving than in WiR. A lot of code basics and ideas from WitP could probably be transferred. Then one could choose between fixed production, and dynamic game setup like in WiTP.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 52
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 3:25:19 PM   
sajer

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline
Hi all,

I thought I would interject myself into this thread.  I don't post much here.  But believe me I do read all the new threads and comments everyday. I am permantly disabled (a long time ago).  So because of that I don't get out much..hehe.  I am now in my 50's and I am what could be deemed a pretty good expert on WW2.  It peaked my interest, to the point that I played every game/read every book I could get my hands on with that theme.  I play ALOT of computer games.  I started out playing board games.  I then played a vast amount of computer games/simulations since 1980!  Lots of changes since then, obviously.

So that being said I have thought about this game alot in the last few months.  I consider Gary Grigsby's games - the best on the market.  I doubt I would get very much argument there.

Being a somewhat expert on the history of WW2 I have a few suggestions on how to make the game better and most importantly - more FUN.  You see not having fun in a game is what I think turns off much people in this particular game - by the time 1943 rolls around.  If you are not playing this game for fun I suggest you play a good game of chess - as WOPR would have said in the movie "War Games"

I have been racking my brain for the name of a game I played that actually gave you a briefing on what was happening in the war on other fronts.  It was very cool to see that briefing after each turn.

You see WW2 was a War that had so many things that hung on the end of a razor - that could have tipped the balance in the Axis or Allied favor.

There are so many "what if's"!!  I will go through a few - I tend to be long-winded when I write - but bear with me - I think this will be an interesting post for some.

"What if" Germany had succeded in crippling England.  The Battle of Britain was sooo.. close to completely destroying Britain's Air capabilties.  All Goering had to do (in the opinion of experts in Britain's Air Force) was to keep bombing thier Airfields and Command/Control facilities for another week - instead of (on Hitler's orders) they began bombing population centers (i.e. London).  This had the effect of letting the British Air Force get up off it's knees and fight on.

"What if" the U-Boat campaign had succeded in strangling Britain's ability to wage war - because of lack of supplies - food/armaments etc..

"What if" Pearl Harbor had never happened?  That the Japanese were satisfied with thier empire's vastness and were satisfied with the oil that they had captured in the Dutch West Indies. Then they attacked the Soviet Union on it's Eastern border.  This definitely would have had the effect of keeping the 60+ divisions of Siberian troops in position - so they could not be railed West to help in the Russian Winter offensive against the Wermacht in '41?

"What if" The U.S. was not able to crack the Japanese JN-25 Naval Code prior to June 1942?  The battles of Midway would never have happened.  The  ambush at Midway by two U.S. Carriers would never have happened.  Japan would have taken Midway and thier six carriers would have been on the loose in the middle of the Pacific for who knows how long.

"What if" Rommel had taken the Suez canal?  As he was sooo...close to doing.  It certainly have tipped the balance in the Mediteranean - wouldn't it?  Then Rommel could strike East from there and capture some oil fields in the Middle East.

"What if" the German Navy was succesful in cutting of the Allied Shipping to the Soviet Union via Murmansk.  I many U-Boats and Tirpitz led surface groups made it untenable to continue to ship MUCH needed supplies, armaments..etc..  What effect would this have had on the way the Soviet Union conducted the war in 1942 onwards?

"What if" Hitler never thought of or approved the Ardennes offensive plan in December '44?  What affect would the introduction of 26 fresh divisions (including the 6th SS Panzer Army) have had on the Eastern Front.

"What if" Churchill had not insisted that the Allies attack the "soft" underbelly on the Axis in Italy.  It turned out to not so soft did it Winston??  What if those divisions that fought in Italy would have been available to fight on the Eastern front?

I was struck by this the other day by watching a program having to do with air war/bombing campaign over Germany by the Americans and British.  They had Albert Speer - the German armaments chief talking about it.  Of course this program was made in the 70's or so.  But I like the idea of watching programs that have the actual people talking about the war from thier perspective - rather than conjecture from so-called "experts". 

He said that "if" the Allies had continued to bomb the ball-bearing factories in Schweinfurt (in 1943) for a few more days that it would have had a "profound" effect on German plane manufacturing.  The Allies stopped the bombings because of heavy losses of Bombers.  He also said that he knew the day that Germany lost the war.  It was after repeated bombings of the Synthetic Fuel factories.  He said that in his mind that was a knockout blow and it was then just a matter of time before Germany lost the war.

OKAY... I know some are interested, but most of you are asking what point do countless what-if's have on WiTe??  Or what the hell am I reading this long post for anyway.

First - I think it would VERY cool to get an intelligence briefing on "War News" introduced into the game after each turn (week).

Also if alot of the the what-if's could be simulated in some way to be incorporated into the game.  Either by affecting the logistics/supply output - production etc.. of either side in this struggle.  It would bave the effect of an unbelievable Fog of War.

I think that the variants to the game should not only come from other "outside" variants based on key events, but from strict orders from Hitler and Stalin - who both ran the war and interjected themselves into it for good or ill.  The German 6th Army would maybe survive??  The Tiger tank would be available for the initial invasion?  Tanks, Planes that are set in stone in this game for production on certain dates could somehow become variable?  Or is that to much to hope for?

You see.. introducing outside events that were variable would eliminated so many "gamey" tactics (btw - which I totally abhore).  I think taking advantage of the 1's and 0's of a computer game system is in extremly bad taste.

The intruduction of variable outside events and orders from Stalin and Hitler (which have to be obeyed) would eliminate alot of "gamey" tactics. 

Besides it makes the game a whole lot more uninteresting if you absolutely know the whole future.  I remember a watching a program where a German General talked about how furious Hitler got when his Generals told him in 1943 that they estimated that the Soviet Union had 20,000 tanks.  He said that was "impossible"!!  After all he had said (before the invasion, referring to the Soviet Union) that all you had to do was "Kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure would come tumbling down".
 
IF! these variables and randomly picked events could somehow be simulated. It would make the game 10 times more fun to play.  It would also totally eliminate any need for ammended victory conditions.  Besides that guys - it would be FUN!!
 
I'm very sorry for the length of this post, but for those who have stuck around to the end - try to roll this idea in your head awhile and see if it makes any sense.  If I have repeated some things - sorry - it's the morning!  LOL!

One funny true story from WW2.

I was recently talking to a big-time collecter of WW2 memorabilia on the phone.  He's a bit older than me and said that in the early 70's he actually met and had a conversation with Adolph Galland - the famous fighter ace of the Luftwaffe.  He said that shortly after Hitler had awarded him the Knights Cross with oak leaves, swords and diamonds - a rare and big honor for fighter jocks.  Goering had come up to him and said that "Agghh - as usual the Fuehrer has played his joke with you.  You see, the diamonds are NOT real.  Give me that medal and I will get you a REAL one."

He never got a new medal or response from Goering for the rest of the war.  He said that fat Hermann had kept his diamonds along with all his other plunder!..hehe..

Well, thanks for reading this and tell me if my ideas are "full of it" - "impossible to simulate" - "or that it might make a difference"

Happy Hunting!!
 

< Message edited by sajer -- 11/12/2011 3:32:01 PM >

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 53
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 3:53:53 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1271
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Random = Fun for some, Hell for others.

(in reply to sajer)
Post #: 54
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 8:24:59 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
Sajer, for a self-proclaimed expert you do repeat a lot of propaganda and fiction uncritically and as fact. I too have argued that U-boats could have defeated Britain, but have to concede the statistics in fact show they never came close to it and never could have given the time it took to make a U-boat. Likewise, the Siberian divisions are a propaganda fiction a fact mentioned in at least two threads in this forum.

Yes, there was a load of 'what if' in WW2, but the only one that could concievably have changed anything but the war's length would be had Lord Halifax succeeded in leading a team to negotiate peace with the Nazis. Even there, the odds were so stacked in favour of the historical turn out the 'Halifax option' really belongs in The Outer Limits. Nevertheless, closure of the western front would not only have freed divisions up for the east but, more importantly it would have ended the crippling blockade of western Europe, a far more effective blockade than the U-boats ever achieved.

_____________________________

“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 Marquo)
Post #: 55
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/12/2011 9:14:21 PM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 273
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Personally, I like the idea of optional rules for those players that need some outside factor to make them play in a more historical way. I would not use them, but they are good for some players, so this is a useful discussion.

I do however feel that too many people are missing the point that the game runs until the 45! or until Berlin falls. Which is really what the entire campaign is about, when does Berlin fall. From the first turn, the German player is really working toward doing better than historical. That is 'wining' for them. For any game which is designed around the historical parameters, there is no other realistic end-game. I think people should stop looking for German 'wins' in the early war phase, it is completely distorting to the analysis of game mechanics. Any 'fix' that is not looked at through the entire war period is going to be prone to breaking as much as it fixes.

The game ends when Berlin falls, victory is determined from that point.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 56
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 10:50:10 AM   
Schattensand

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 11/9/2011
Status: offline
To go back to the original tread.

You already have a sudden death. The moment one player says I have enough. Congratulations, you won. That is sudden death - HP against HP.
And if I play the AI I dont need it anyway.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 57
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 2:45:23 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Its an option poeple take a chill pill, you would think it was the end of the world, lol.

If you don't have something to say thats not about the OPTION then stop spamming thread with retard comments.

The option that should be coded in is that the poeple playing each other set the VP for German and runnsian sides.

Its 290 now.

If you choose the option it could be set at 250 for GHC and 150 SHC ect ect.

Its an option, which for the slower poeple replying to this thread means you DON'T have to choose it

Hopefully someone learnt something.

Pelton


(in reply to Schattensand)
Post #: 58
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 3:15:15 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2144
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
I have been sort of considering my own plan for coming up with some varient that introduced VP's etc within the limits of the current game engine.

There are a lot of things that could be added from "outside" influences, but I would not want that from the simple reason I know that WITW and other games in the series are coming and then it will hopefully all tie together. It is a question of spending time for something short term, vs getting the overall project done sooner.

I do think VP locations would be helpful to add in some extra dimensions to the game like making the Crimea more important than it currently is. Right now, I don't see any reason the Germans should overextend themselves by taking it when in reality, it was considered to have a huge influence in securing the western Black Sea and also having political influence with Turkey.

One mechanic I was thinking of for "sudden death" was to have some locations have a big "one shot" VP value. Unfortunately, this makes them susceptable to "raiding" or to a sudden lunge to collect the bonus VP and then withdraw only to do it again someplace else. I still need to puzzle that part of things out.

The Russian Campaign was mentioned with its sudden death victory conditions earlier in the thread. I was a avid fan of this game and played it a lot back in the day. I never lost as the Russians and had 1 loss as the Germans along with a tie. (3 turn 1941 winters will do that to a German tho.). Perhaps instead of TRC, another old Avalon Hill classic may pave the way. Stalingrad. In order to "win" at that game, the Germans must occupy Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad before sometime in 1943 or lose. I think this sets the bar pretty high in WITE and a Axis player able to pull this feat off does indeed deserve a "victory" under an agreed optional victory condition.

As an aside (and a thread hijack) I wonder what sort of interest there would be for a non historical 1942 start featuring straighter lines, perhaps some static units, etc. The concept behind this is to produce a shorter game that gives players a chance to play the "meat" of the campaign in the east during the period where both sides were relatiavely equal (game would end during the first part of 1944). I think most everyone is agreed that it isn't a ton of fun for the Russians in 1941 and what games have gotten to 1944 have not been as enjoyable for the Axis for most of 1944 into 1945. I doubt much comes of it since the community has shown little or no interest in anything that is not "official".

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 59
RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 4:53:28 PM   
saintsup

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline
I think our problem is that we are mixing three debates:

1) Is the game a a good simulation/modelization of warfare at the time ?
- logistics is overly favorable for offensive side
- are political / economical constraints correctly modelized ?
- german entry/withdrawal schedule is mixing events coming from other war theaters (OK) and events coming from the eastern front even if the war is not following history (KO)
- air war is 'not perfect'
- strange and artificial rules were introduced over the top of the detailed simulation to compensate for flaws in the simulation
- ...

2) Assuming the game is a good simulation/modelization of warfare and with a clear understanding on what is the player 'position' (Hitler/Staline, OKH/Stavka,college of army group commanders) could have Germany won the war ?
- what is winning ? (force negociation, ...)
- which conditions could have trigger this win ?

3) Assuming the game is a good simulation of warfare and Germany could'nt have 'won the war' is it fun to play for hundreds of hours ?
- well I think not: I'm now in a PBEM as Germany in november 43. I have absolutly no hope since summer 42 and since spring 43 I cannot do anything more than plugging the gaps and retreating. I have absolutly no idea if I'm doing well or not and I must play a 100 turns more to know when Berlin will be taken
- players like me needs absolutly a VP system to know during the game if we are ahead of the curve or not

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal Page: <<   < prev  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

0.113