Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago?

 
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: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 3:03:47 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1714
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Japan did not expect to defeat the USA, they planned to make the recapture of lost territories so costly that the US would would recoil from that price, historically they were wrong.


You are using an euphemism here. If you bring the Americans to the negotiation table it's because the latter are admitting DEFEAT... That was the idea behind the Midway Operation. American carriers sunk = Americans might give up (the hordes of American CVs would only be ready in 1943-44)

Capture of Moscow in WitE and Midway captured and CVs annihilated in WitP would be the excuse to say "hey, they might have surrendered / sued for peace"...

I personally believe both the Germans and Japanese grossly underestimated their enemies... especially their WILL to fight to the end.


Obviously the Axis totally underestimated the will to fight of the Allied Nations, dictators often do. Their strategy meant that victory could only come if their major opponents gave up, rather than being able to force a defeat on them and I think they knew that.

Only the actual events can be proved, because they happened, anything else is conjecture, or worse. However, how do we limit the effect of hindsight in the game, the certain knowledge what is coming next?

I am trying to characterise the thoughts of the Germans and Japanese, which resulted in them attacking the Soviet Union and the US, not validating them. If you want to put yourself into the shoes of the commanders of the day (common thread - how am I doing against the performance of the real Germans/Russians), surely it would help to introduce a level of doubt. If I give away too much ground, suffer too many casualties might I lose. If I push on further might I win, rather than just play 300 turns to see which month Berlin falls.

The point is, subject to the devs, it's a possible option that nobody has to use, if they don't need it.

PS - euphemism - is that the one with strings, or do you blow it.


< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 12/6/2011 3:46:58 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 61
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 3:04:17 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 947
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
As an outsider looking in (for now)...

Would it make sense to punish Soviet units making excessive retreats by "liquidating" the leadership of those units and having them replaced with really poor leaders (party flunkies)?

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to abulbulian)
Post #: 62
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 3:17:46 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: online
So I agree with pzgndr that if the SD thing works, additional conditions could be added for subsequent years, etc. I continue to think something simple should be tried that can be evaluated consistently by players and 2x3 alike. This thread is going the way of its predecessor into the deep end of historical debate and complicated design changes to the game.
quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgn

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What I suggest is to Patch (because people, me included, want an official rule not a house rule) in an OPTIONAL victory condition set that would involve sudden death victory conditions for both sides.

My proposal for the SD condition is this: if one side or the other occupies all the following cities on the 1st turn of March, 1942, they win the game: Leningrad, Rzhev Moscow, Tula, Voronezh, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov.

Let's try it and see if it doesn't eliminate the run for the hills tactics by both sides.



This proposal is still too narrowly focused on the initial 1941 campaign and neglects anything beyond March 1942. There needs to be something more that spans the entire war and keeps players continually focused on fighting for objectives rather than running for the hills; that's the core issue and the reason why those old boardgames had ongoing sudden death victory conditions. The Russian Front rules specifically provide for this and could be easily implemented as an optional victory condition set to be checked during the first weeks of March and November. A Decisive Victory would automatically end the game. A Marginal Victory would allow players to end the game at that point or continue on.

So yeah, patch it up if possible as an official optional rule which players can test and provide specific feedback on. Alternatively players can manually calculate these victory conditions themselves. If nothing else, players could go back and review a few recent game saves to see what the victory points were during the March and November turns. Given these sudden death victory conditions, it's no real accomplishment to run for the hills to save your Army for another day if you just keep handing your opponent a Decisive Victory in the process. It may be an entertaining alternative history, but not exactly the kind of wargame most players are expecting to play. And I believe that's the fundamental point Pelton and others are trying to make, and it's a valid point.




_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 63
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 4:07:37 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 844
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

As an outsider looking in (for now)...

Would it make sense to punish Soviet units making excessive retreats by "liquidating" the leadership of those units and having them replaced with really poor leaders (party flunkies)?

Ed-


Or maybe the Soviets could be allowed to gain a substantial amount of ADM-points by holding a number of cities that are likely to be early German conquests and likewise loose a lot if they give them up too early. This wouldn't be too unrealistic either, since a sudden major retreat to the east would surely have made the administration of the forces difficult.

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 64
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 4:21:54 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
PS - euphemism - is that the one with strings, or do you blow it.


You were avoiding the harsh term (defeat, as on my book the Americans giving up is a "defeat"), using another expression: "could only come if their major opponents gave up, rather than being able to force a defeat on them". Or in your original post: "Japan did not expect to defeat the USA, they planned to make the recapture of lost territories so costly that the US would would recoil from that price". That's an euphemism

Cheers

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 12/6/2011 4:24:02 PM >


_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 65
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 4:35:24 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

As an outsider looking in (for now)...

Would it make sense to punish Soviet units making excessive retreats by "liquidating" the leadership of those units and having them replaced with really poor leaders (party flunkies)?

Ed-


I am quite ok with the VP as implemented at this stage, and would rather wish the focus of the patching on some more fundamental things that couldn't be treated by house rules like for example the "reaction move" suggestion. The VP tracking BG and Q-Ball started seems to be fundamentally right. Selecting goals at random will not improve such an approach -- people will figure other ways to find out which the "sudden death" cities to take would be. And it might turn the game into a random ant chase, which would not look like the Eastern War at all.

Surely I am not a fan of any sudden death rules either -- I just have serious doubts that the loss of Leningrad and Moscow on top of the usual would really have triggered the collapse. Note that Stalin was preparing the evacuation of both, so it appears to have rather become a case of lengthening the war, as in game as well.

In contrast, the suggestion of liquidating leadership in case of excessive retreats would perhaps be something to evaluate. It is a means to simulate the soft factors of largely political origin, something that allows "what-if" changes much more than anything else. However, how to you quantify excessive retreats, and what is this based upon? That you wish to see the Soviets loose more by pockets and fighting early on. This in turn doesn't make sense if you don't allow the Soviets the corresponding CV capabilities, which presently are quite definitely on the low side, and are a prerequisite to make this a sensible strategy. Else, you would twist the system very poorly out of other deficits.
If it were evaluated, I would also then want to see the same standards applied to both sides. And very clearly the Axis was even less flexible to retreat later than the Soviets early. Demyansk, Korsun and the many disasters and near-disasters just to mention a few, would then be the corresponding expectation. Plus the clearing of the German command of skillful people like Guderian, Model and so on.

Surely you could implement that in a fair way. But since I prefer playing Germans, I would not want that rule. And only to implement it in a one-sided fashion for the Soviets would neither be fair, nor reasonable. Same as sudden death short of reaching the Urals, it wouldn't feel right.

< Message edited by janh -- 12/6/2011 4:37:20 PM >

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 66
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 5:15:56 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 947
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
Yeah, you'll have do decide on an algorithm to determine what kind of a retreat will incur Stalin's wrath. I doubt it's impossible to do so.

It's true, German generals were sacked for similar reasons, so it can work both ways.

It might force an adherence to national doctrine a bit, without forcing players to act according to a script.

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to janh)
Post #: 67
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 5:43:08 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8616
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
well.. there are ways within the engine to tweek the reward punishment for grund taken that have not been suggested..
take Lenn Moscow for axis get troops quality and number bump... take and hold..
take Len  Moscow Stalingrad get armaments and numbers and quality bump...
This are just some examples of how risk reward can be re writen...

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 68
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 7:46:35 PM   
saintsup

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


Is this game / simulation flawed?

IMHO not!


Why do people think it is flawed?

Because many still think that Germany could have won against Soviet Union and / or that Japan could have won over USA in historic WWII!



Is this game / simulation fun for German?

IMHO not!


Why do (people) I think it is not fun?

Because 175 turns (around one year of play) of grinding and retreat without NO IDEA if you are winning (the game not the war) or loosing is VERY VERY long.

We need a VP system for GC !!

Besides a good designed VP system can induce other positive effects (see other posts above)

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 69
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 7:48:22 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 657
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
Allowing more flexible use of German production and TOEs (within reason) would be IMO huge improvement to replayability. I'm tired of seeing large pools of tanks that would never have sat in 'pools' from a historical context.


YES, please also add (with reasonable restrictions) the option to manually upgrade AFVs, just like already exists for air units. It boggles my mind why they created this for air units but not ground units. It makes no sense.

(in reply to abulbulian)
Post #: 70
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 8:39:23 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2326
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Japan did not expect to defeat the USA, they planned to make the recapture of lost territories so costly that the US would would recoil from that price, historically they were wrong.


You are using an euphemism here. If you bring the Americans to the negotiation table it's because the latter are admitting DEFEAT... That was the idea behind the Midway Operation. American carriers sunk = Americans might give up (the hordes of American CVs would only be ready in 1943-44)

Capture of Moscow in WitE and Midway captured and CVs annihilated in WitP would be the excuse to say "hey, they might have surrendered / sued for peace"...

I personally believe both the Germans and Japanese grossly underestimated their enemies... especially their WILL to fight to the end.


I would really like to know the basis on which the loss of Moscow would of meant much. The gov't wasn't going to collapse. The gov't wasn't there. The only people who mattered as far as decision making goes were prepared to fight on. There wasn't going to a coup, as ole JVS killed all the possible rivals.

Losing DC during the War of 1812 didn't have much of an effect.

The Marshals declaring "enough" brought Nappy down. Not the fall of Paris in 1814.

Losing Moscow in 1812 did nothing more than piss the Russians off. (Much more important than St Petersburg was to the average Russian. )

The Chinese didn't fold when Nanking fell. They just moved the capital.

(This isn't directed at you TD..)

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 71
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 8:44:44 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Japan did not expect to defeat the USA, they planned to make the recapture of lost territories so costly that the US would would recoil from that price, historically they were wrong.


You are using an euphemism here. If you bring the Americans to the negotiation table it's because the latter are admitting DEFEAT... That was the idea behind the Midway Operation. American carriers sunk = Americans might give up (the hordes of American CVs would only be ready in 1943-44)

Capture of Moscow in WitE and Midway captured and CVs annihilated in WitP would be the excuse to say "hey, they might have surrendered / sued for peace"...

I personally believe both the Germans and Japanese grossly underestimated their enemies... especially their WILL to fight to the end.


I would really like to know the basis on which the loss of Moscow would of meant much. The gov't wasn't going to collapse. The gov't wasn't there. The only people who mattered as far as decision making goes were prepared to fight on. There wasn't going to a coup, as ole JVS killed all the possible rivals.

Losing DC during the War of 1812 didn't have much of an effect.

The Marshals declaring "enough" brought Nappy down. Not the fall of Paris in 1814.

Losing Moscow in 1812 did nothing more than piss the Russians off. (Much more important than St Petersburg was to the average Russian. )

The Chinese didn't fold when Nanking fell. They just moved the capital.

(This isn't directed at you TD..)


By that same train of logic, why than should the games victory conditions be predicated on the capture or non-capture of Berlin?

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 72
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 9:22:48 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 2091
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Because the germans run out of space and industry due to being sandwiched between 7 million angry russians east and a couple of million angry americans, brits, canadians, south africans, indians, australians, dutch, french, belgians, danes, norwegians, italians etc. etc. etc. etc. (takes a deep breath) etc. etc. etc... fighting for liberation of their territory...... geography is a bitch...

Even if Berlin falls as early in 1943, with the allies having a foothold in europe, I think Germany defeated is an understatement...

One can even argue that a rapid advance of the soviets would have caused transfer of additional units to the east, making a 1943 allied invasion of the french mainland feasable...

Soviets losing Moscow would have been bad, maybe very bad for Stalin and the state but they wouldn't have surrendered with so many miles to the east to retreat to, with the industry fairly safe behind the Urals...




< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 12/6/2011 9:26:47 PM >


_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 73
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 9:53:12 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
Aurelian, in fact I am pretty certain what you say is what would have happened. All I know is Stavka ordered to build many defensive lines to protect Moscow. EAST of the city included aka they were assuming the city is lost but war conitnues. This says it all Mother Russia is enormous. There's a lot of manpower, industry to continue the war. And above all, the will to fight (Hitler indeed helped)...

I simply didn't want to look "extremist". No one has crystal balls. Well, some persons say they have it...

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 12/6/2011 9:54:50 PM >


_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 74
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 10:42:43 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

FWIW.

This discussion seems to revolve around creating a vehicle for preventing the runaway strategies for both sides.

There has been voluminous posting about significant modifications to the game (reaction and idiocy rules, execution of commanders who retreat, etc.,) that based on what we have heard, is not in the cards for the small and valiant crew at 2x3 games.

So, I go back to a solution that Michael T proposed in another thread that lost its focus due to the same discussion about major modifications to the game, interpretation of history and so on.

I think the game is close to being what was intended, namely a great game.

What I suggest is to Patch (because people, me included, want an official rule not a house rule) in an OPTIONAL victory condition set that would involve sudden death victory conditions for both sides.

My proposal for the SD condition is this: if one side or the other occupies all the following cities on the 1st turn of March, 1942, they win the game: Leningrad, Rzhev Moscow, Tula, Voronezh, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov.

Let's try it and see if it doesn't eliminate the run for the hills tactics by both sides.


This thread is all over the place again. I'd like to take it back to a simple optional rule that players who want to eliminate run for the hill tactics by both sides can elect to use. I recommend a trial with a SD rule that will be employed in March 1942 as described above. As Joel has indicated, 2x3 is willing to take something simple like this up, but NOT other major modifications live manual upgrades on AFVs, reaction moves, etc, etc. etc.

I would ask people who would be willing to try this OPTIONAL rule to determine if it achieves the desired GAME effect to step forward and vote YAY so that Joel can determine whether coding such is a wasted effort. This proposal does not need to be evaluated against what Japanese strategy was vs the United States ad nauseum.




_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 75
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 10:48:12 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2326
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Aurelian, in fact I am pretty certain what you say is what would have happened. All I know is Stavka ordered to build many defensive lines to protect Moscow. EAST of the city included aka they were assuming the city is lost but war conitnues. This says it all Mother Russia is enormous. There's a lot of manpower, industry to continue the war. And above all, the will to fight (Hitler indeed helped)...

I simply didn't want to look "extremist". No one has crystal balls. Well, some persons say they have it...


I had a crystal ball. I dropped it. Ya think it should of told me that would happen.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 12/6/2011 10:53:34 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 76
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 10:53:08 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2326
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Because the germans run out of space and industry due to being sandwiched between 7 million angry russians east and a couple of million angry americans, brits, canadians, south africans, indians, australians, dutch, french, belgians, danes, norwegians, italians etc. etc. etc. etc. (takes a deep breath) etc. etc. etc... fighting for liberation of their territory...... geography is a bitch...

Even if Berlin falls as early in 1943, with the allies having a foothold in europe, I think Germany defeated is an understatement...

One can even argue that a rapid advance of the soviets would have caused transfer of additional units to the east, making a 1943 allied invasion of the french mainland feasable...

Soviets losing Moscow would have been bad, maybe very bad for Stalin and the state but they wouldn't have surrendered with so many miles to the east to retreat to, with the industry fairly safe behind the Urals...





Mr Hitler certainly thought territory and cities were important. We all know how well that worked for the 6th Armee.

Manstein certainly didn't agree when he said about Kharkov "I'd rather lose a city than an army."

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 77
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/6/2011 10:59:42 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2326
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Japan did not expect to defeat the USA, they planned to make the recapture of lost territories so costly that the US would would recoil from that price, historically they were wrong.


You are using an euphemism here. If you bring the Americans to the negotiation table it's because the latter are admitting DEFEAT... That was the idea behind the Midway Operation. American carriers sunk = Americans might give up (the hordes of American CVs would only be ready in 1943-44)

Capture of Moscow in WitE and Midway captured and CVs annihilated in WitP would be the excuse to say "hey, they might have surrendered / sued for peace"...

I personally believe both the Germans and Japanese grossly underestimated their enemies... especially their WILL to fight to the end.


I would really like to know the basis on which the loss of Moscow would of meant much. The gov't wasn't going to collapse. The gov't wasn't there. The only people who mattered as far as decision making goes were prepared to fight on. There wasn't going to a coup, as ole JVS killed all the possible rivals.

Losing DC during the War of 1812 didn't have much of an effect.

The Marshals declaring "enough" brought Nappy down. Not the fall of Paris in 1814.

Losing Moscow in 1812 did nothing more than piss the Russians off. (Much more important than St Petersburg was to the average Russian. )

The Chinese didn't fold when Nanking fell. They just moved the capital.

(This isn't directed at you TD..)


By that same train of logic, why than should the games victory conditions be predicated on the capture or non-capture of Berlin?


Ask the designer. And Berlin *did* fall.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 12/6/2011 11:05:43 PM >

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 78
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 3:37:50 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: online
Thanks all for the recapitulation of history that includes a reminder that Berlin fell.
Can people let go of this broken record and get on with agreeing to some kind of optional SD rule that Joel writes that @x3 people will code??


_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 79
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 5:05:58 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1367
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: online
IMHO the VPs are fine the way they are: barring the death of Hitler Germany would have never surrendered or been otherwise defeated unless Berlin fell, and frankly there is no historical precendent to suggest that the SU would have ever "surrendered." WITE is a very long game, so if one is looking for an artifical set of conditions to cease hostilities, then play another game or have some fairyland houserules. Who in their right mind would have ever suggested to Stalin something like :"Joseph, if Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov fall in 1941 we must give up?"

Play to the bitter end: Berlin or Bust.

Marquo :-)


< Message edited by Marquo -- 12/7/2011 5:06:40 AM >

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 80
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 5:06:28 AM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1113
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

FWIW.

This discussion seems to revolve around creating a vehicle for preventing the runaway strategies for both sides.

There has been voluminous posting about significant modifications to the game (reaction and idiocy rules, execution of commanders who retreat, etc.,) that based on what we have heard, is not in the cards for the small and valiant crew at 2x3 games.

So, I go back to a solution that Michael T proposed in another thread that lost its focus due to the same discussion about major modifications to the game, interpretation of history and so on.

I think the game is close to being what was intended, namely a great game.

What I suggest is to Patch (because people, me included, want an official rule not a house rule) in an OPTIONAL victory condition set that would involve sudden death victory conditions for both sides.

My proposal for the SD condition is this: if one side or the other occupies all the following cities on the 1st turn of March, 1942, they win the game: Leningrad, Rzhev Moscow, Tula, Voronezh, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov.

Let's try it and see if it doesn't eliminate the run for the hills tactics by both sides.


Seems to me although you say "one side or the other" you really only the mean it to be the Axis. We've already established that the Soviets cannot hold Leningrad against a determined Axis player and especially if you make the conditions of March '42 it would be a given. Therefore the Soviets will almost never have a shot at winning your proposed condition, even if the Axis might find it difficult to hold the other places.

For all the complaints of the advantages the Soviets get, I don't hear much comment that if Leningrad is isolated, 100,000 Soviets just give up when attacked in the city environs at the cost of a couple hundred Axis soldiers. Same for Moscow or any other city you can name. Until that gets fixed, the game lacks a major degree of realism in my book.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 81
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 6:06:32 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

Thanks all for the recapitulation of history that includes a reminder that Berlin fell.
Can people let go of this broken record and get on with agreeing to some kind of optional SD rule that Joel writes that @x3 people will code??



I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions.


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 82
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 6:18:53 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 861
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

IMHO the VPs are fine the way they are: barring the death of Hitler Germany would have never surrendered or been otherwise defeated unless Berlin fell, and frankly there is no historical precendent to suggest that the SU would have ever "surrendered." WITE is a very long game, so if one is looking for an artifical set of conditions to cease hostilities, then play another game or have some fairyland houserules. Who in their right mind would have ever suggested to Stalin something like :"Joseph, if Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov fall in 1941 we must give up?"

Play to the bitter end: Berlin or Bust.

Marquo :-)

While I agree with you to a point, the problem with this line of thinking is that it provides very little incentive for the player to actually play the game.

Is it true that the Germans probably should never have invaded Russia in the first place? Yes, but then why play WITE at all? Sure, taking all that land between Smolensk and Berlin is worth "something" insofar as delaying the Russians from getting to Berlin, but the problem is that you riled up the hordes in the first place.

The Russian player has every reason in the world to play a good defensive game and transition into a good offensive game - he has to beat the clock that winds down in 1945.

In contrast, if we just grant that the German player is never going to be able to force a "surrender", then he might as well hunker down after 1941 and just wait it out unless the Soviet player commit a fairly large mistake or is otherwise vulnerable in one place or another.

Even the Japanese in WITP-AE have an auto-victory condition, and one that has been legitimately reached before - it gives them the opportunity to end the game by risking over-extension, which then translates to a more interesting game for the Allied player because that over-extension is keeps the flow of play mobile instead of mired and entrenched.

Finally, the auto-victory condition for the Japanese isn't grounded in reality either. There's nothing to suggest that the Allies would just up and leave and sign an armistice no matter how deep into India / Australia the Japanese managed to push in, but the devs threw that in anyway, so the base assertion itself that the Soviets would never surrender to the Germans should not automatically disqualify the potential for more lax auto-victory condition in WITE, especially since WITE is, at its heart, a game.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 83
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 8:34:37 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6149
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
What continues to go unmentioned is that the Axis *already* have a "Sudden Death" victory condition. Namely, score 290 VPs. It seems to me that the elements of the Axis player base that are clamoring for something additional are either conveniently forgetting about this, or are simply unhappy with it being as difficult to attain as it is.

That said, I am on record for wishing that the Victory Conditions in the game were more dynamic, so that some real tension would be instilled in the game, with respect to taking, or holding, territory over time. Awarding VPs for various VP locations, on a per turn basis, similar to the smaller scenario Victory Conditions, and perhaps factoring in some casualty figure (IMO, a much more minor factor compared to territory) should be the means by which such a Victory Condition should be structured.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 84
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 9:52:01 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
That said, I am on record for wishing that the Victory Conditions in the game were more dynamic, so that some real tension would be instilled in the game, with respect to taking, or holding, territory over time. Awarding VPs for various VP locations, on a per turn basis, similar to the smaller scenario Victory Conditions, and perhaps factoring in some casualty figure (IMO, a much more minor factor compared to territory) should be the means by which such a Victory Condition should be structured.


See the graphs I posted above for my game against Q-Ball, using scenario victory conditions (scaling losses multipliers to account for the longer length of the campaign). I disagree completely about losses having to be a minor factor. Actually, they should be a major factor.

Achieving the most spending the least should be - in my opinion - the hallmark of sound planning and playing. If land was the major factor, then things wouldn't be that different from they're now, because of the huge strategic imbalance. Having a balance between land and losses I think is the way to go if we want to create incentives so that players are concerned by factors similar to those that influenced decision making 70 years ago.

A possible benchmark would be that if the Soviet suffer historical losses and conquer Berlin by May 1945, Soviet Victory level would be a very narrow minor victory (or perhaps even a draw). WitE should be rewarding performance better than historical, and right now, it doesn't. Note that with the scenario Victory Conditions isn't precisely easy by any means.

The Axis gets quite an advantage during 1941 - which can become bigger during 1942 - and if this advantage is managed rationally - and the Axis plays without any major blunders - should ensure a handsome victory, even if that ends up in the destruction of Germany.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 85
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 11:09:39 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 983
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
I know the game is completely different, but in AGEOD's AACW on the American Civil War, they have VPs and National Moral. VPs are just what they are, and they matter only in so far as the players reacht the endgame without automatic victory, than they are tallied to say who won. But NM matters a lot more because it has strong operational consequences : With more NM the CSA or USA forces have more cohesion (which in WITE would be morale), the recruitement or replacements is better and basically the army more efficient.

What is interesting is that in AACW NM is a dynamic number influenced by actions in the game and events. Actions in the game that influence NM are the results of battles and the loss or conquest of objective cities. in the standard AACW scenario, there are about 12 to 15 objective cities, from those unlikely to change hands (NEw York) to the capitals and all major cities that were objectives in the war : St Louis and Louisville and Lexington in the neutral states and all big southern cities (from NO to Charleston via Nashville, Memphis, etc...).

At the start of the game the CSA has substantially higher NM, which means its troops are better, and its objective throughout the game is to keep this edge as long as possible to compensate its numerical inferiority. Once the USA start grabbing objective cities and winning battles, the NM differential goes down an than inverts, making it very hard for the CSA to hold..

Now NM is also influenced by events : For example to emulate's the pressure in the Union for offensive action to finish of the reb rabble, several times the USA have to get armies within two provinces from Richmond otherwise they lose 5 or 10 NMpoints...

This system is really good, as it makes the game lively, and gives acual importance to objectives : the CSA has to try to keep Memphis, NO, Norfolk or Little Rock for as long as possible, not for its own sake or just to gain time, but because it has actual benefits in game : allows its forces to stay stronger, more cohesive. and both parties have incentives to actually win battles, just for the NM use of it.

Now I know WITE is a completely different beast, but the way I see it suffers from an overly linear game development. German national morale is X in 41 and will evolve to y, than z, etc... Same for Russians.

Now imagine WITE with an NM system where there is say 25 objectives cities, with variable values, from Berlin and Moscow as the capitalsls, to Leningrad, Stalingrad and Koenigsberg, than all different layers. We could have a system where the NM of the two sides evolves, from a starting point of x for Germany and Y for the Soviets based on : battle results or losses and objective points.

It would matter for the players to try to hold NM objective cities because they affect the overall NM level which in turn affects units moral and for example production (Mampower and Armts begin affected by a multiplier).

The system would be tailored so as to emulate in a typical game the natural evolution of the situation : German NM gets better in 41 because of their success, recedes during the winter, than again gets better in 42 as they regain objective cities. Opposite for the Soviets. This would also lead to a more historical play of aiming for big objectives. The Russians would try to delay the fall of Leningrad because the earlier it falls the bigger the positive NM effect for the Germans. Later in the war the Germans would actively try to hold the festpunkts because each extra month you deny Kharkov of Smolensk ot the Russians, you maintain your army strength and limit the growth of theirs.

Ideally the objective cities and their NM value wouldn't stay the same, it would evolve during the game in a somewhat random way to emulate a form of political pressure on the players. Say it's summer 43 and Kharkov becomes a major NM points objective : The Germans know it and so do the Russians, and even if the German line is long and almost flanked, each extra week they hold that NM objective city prevents the Russians from getting the nm bonus its capture would entail, which would provoke a surge in the units morale.. It might be wort losing quite a few divs for an extra month or 6 weeks of holding it...

See this type of dynamic system would be great. The players would still be free to do what they please, but in game actions would have consequences. A soviet players retreat to fast ? He just allowed the Germans to gain NM points very quickly and boosted their morale... with added events, it would be even better. the Germans let the Russians advance 10 hexes in the Blizzard from the december front line ? boom, -5NM for Germany and +5NM for Soviets.

Make the player make decisions that have a cost. with the ethereal und unimpactful actual VP system + preplanned linear evolution of the settings (Morale, etc...), the player's actions have no impact as long as force conservation is ensured.

just two cents but really, I find the AGEOD model of NM very interesting.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 86
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 11:10:32 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2326
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

Thanks all for the recapitulation of history that includes a reminder that Berlin fell.
Can people let go of this broken record and get on with agreeing to some kind of optional SD rule that Joel writes that @x3 people will code??



I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions.



I know I will never agree to it.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 87
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 11:13:40 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2326
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

Thanks all for the recapitulation of history that includes a reminder that Berlin fell.
Can people let go of this broken record and get on with agreeing to some kind of optional SD rule that Joel writes that @x3 people will code??



You're quite welcome.

Perhaps you can provide the basis on which the fall of Moscow would of meant much.


(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 88
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 11:20:55 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2326
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


Now NM is also influenced by events : For example to emulate's the pressure in the Union for offensive action to finish of the reb rabble, several times the USA have to get armies within two provinces from Richmond otherwise they lose 5 or 10 NMpoints...



True, but those events are also open to abuse. A hyper agressive Rebel, with all those excellant leaders, will pour North. He can be sitting in Baltimore, lay seige to Washington, be sitting in Harrisburg, etc. And your newspapers will be screaming. Not because of that, but because you're not advancing.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 89
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 12:00:11 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2418
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
quote:

I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions


What you continually fail to acknowledge is that *either* side can win a sudden death victory. Its not a German fanboy dream. Sudden Death victory is a well established method to put pressure on both sides of a game to act in a historical manner in regard to defending and attacking. It is also a method to end clearly one sided games early. But thats secondary in this case.

Sudden death victory conditions are supposed to offer a equal chance for both sides if designed properly. Thats what I would advocate. I hate the fact that the runaway tactics employed by both sides can go unpunished. It's totally wrong. That is my primary motivation for sudden death.

The fear of losing is greater than the ambition of victory in most people. Thats why we see all this running away. I don't beleive the game is so unbalanced that there is no choice for the Russians to run in summer 1941 or the Germans to run in winter 41. People do it because its the no risk way to play. A mechanisim is needed to force people to fight for every inch just like the real war. I think sudden death is a way to do this. If not that then something else please... perhaps a victory set like James has described. HPS use it in their WWIE series. It would do the job but its complex to work out in the first instance. But beautiful when done right. It would mean giving up too much ground too early would mean giving up a lot of VP and increase dramatically the chance of a losing. Not the war, but the GAME. This is another point people are mixing up. Sudden death does not mean you neccesarily lose the war, but you lost the GAME





_____________________________

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

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? 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

0.117