Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
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... - 12/7/2011 12:12:30 PM   
saintsup

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline
Sudden death and a dynamic VP system, eventually linked with NM evolution are not the same question.
You can have one with or without the other.

Why do we always mix the two debates ?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 91
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 12:13:54 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3062
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


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.


I lost an AACW game exactly because of that. Spent six months working on an effective Army of the Potomac. I had smashed Confederate armies in Tennesse in August and had laid siege and captured New Orleans. And then I had to send the Army of the Potomac in a wild geese hunt around Richmond in autumn. After a "satisfactory" campaign across the Shenandoah valley, I found myself stranded at the gates of Richmond while the Army of Northern Virginia invaded Pennsylvania. After extricating it with a murderous winter march across the Allegheny, I was completely defeated in a major battle northeast of Washington, and it was game over.

I mean, the game was a kind of cool what-if. But the whole business was sort of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" engine, since it sort of creates an incentive to send a unadequately organized, supplied, equipped and trained army into Virginia, with the guarantee of it being shattered in the field.

It's worse against the AI, that exploits this and sends his über leaders with cavalry divisions to Albany, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc. totally destroying NM in the process even if Richmond falls and the CSA economy collapses...


< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 12/7/2011 12:14:02 PM >


_____________________________

Nullius in Verba since February 2013 - http://panthergames.com
-----
Life in the Internets: http://steamcommunity.com/id/mvorkosigan
----
I'm a real person as well: http://au.linkedin.com/in/miguelramirezjavega

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 92
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 12:50:21 PM   
Ron

 

Posts: 486
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

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




Exactly, I agree. However, the sudden death victory conditions are already there and serve their purpose imo. What is needed is a more dynamic VP system whereby holding(or losing) objectives garners VPs for specific turns and durations. SSG does this quite well in their series of games. I would think the designers of the game would be able to 'design' and implement one if they wished. After all, that is what they do. Asking the community to come up with and agree to some sort of system is a Machiavellian move to ensure nothing gets resolved or done lol.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 93
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 1:14:37 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1644
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
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.


It's odd then I suppose that those old boardgames that did have those pesky sudden death rules managed to be enjoyed by so many wargamers over the years?

Something to keep in mind is that those old victory conditions worked both ways: first to keep the Russian player from running like a rabbit during the first couple years, and second to keep the German player from running like a rabbit during the last couple years. It is not simply an Axis "wish list" request. There's a damn good reason those old games had these mandatory sudden death victory conditions integrated as part of the game design, and seeing these disagreements pretty much validates why they were used. It's certainly no skin off anybody's bones to have them reintroduced as a game OPTION.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 94
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 1:18:48 PM   
Lava


Posts: 1629
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

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


Perhaps losses of close to a million men in its' defense would serve.

No doubt in my mind that had the Sovs lost Moscow they would have continued to have fought. But its' loss would have been a big blow to morale.

As Clausewitz wrote...

"If we desire to defeat the enemy, we must proportion our efforts to his powers of resistance. This is expressed by the product of two factors which cannot be separated, namely, the sum of available means and the strength of the Will."

And while Clausewitz also stressed "The destruction of the enemy's military force, is the leading principle of War," he also pointed out that "In the combat the loss of moral force is the chief cause of the decision." That is to say that the loss of Will is the precursor to the destruction of the enemy's force.

From the theoretical point of view, loss of terrain and important geographical locations should effect the enemy's Will. Indeed Soviet reaction to the invasion shows that their leadership did indeed understand the importance of maintaining the national Will, as we see in the declaration of Minsk as a Hero City for holding on one week against the Axis invasion or the fanatic defense of Moscow. That is why they stood and fought and why, for example, the capture of the Hero City of Leningrad should lead to a drop in military morale.

If the design does not take Will into account, the forces operate in a vacuum in which events have no bearing on their ability to wage war, and therefore, it is flawed.

Which is why we find ourselves in this discussion...

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 95
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 1:22:25 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
The specific problem is that the game fails to simulate the breakdown of C&C in Summer '41 right? Lets see how we could model this without doing extremely unfun stuff like explicitly removing the Soviet player's ability to control them.

Rules for '41:
Knock 1/3 off the MP of all Soviet Units.
Reduce their ability to 'hold' supply by 1/2.
Double Offensive CV (but keep Defensive CV static).
For every Army/Front etc without a unit in 'contact' with a German formation, end-of-turn roll chance to lose AP/Rail capacity/Sack Commanding Officer.

Now obviously I've just plucked numbers out of thin air without a moment's consideration for what would actually be balanced, but those are the mechanisms I would play with to try to convince the Soviet player to stand and fight. Essentially what you want to do is offer the Soviet player chances to deliver solid punches to German forces he can catch out of position, with the proviso that the inevitable German response will probably mean the loss of the units delivering that punch (ie. as happened historically). What makes this tactic viable is that the MP reduction makes running away less viable. The carrot is the increased offensive punch (reflecting the fact that locally Soviet attacks did create danger points). The stick is the loss of Stuff-The-Soviet-Player-Wants if he plays Red Robin.


(in reply to Ron)
Post #: 96
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 1:28:14 PM   
Lava


Posts: 1629
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar
The specific problem is that the game fails to simulate the breakdown of C&C in Summer '41 right?


No, the specific problem is that the game fails to model national Will and its effect on the military and thus allows the Sov army to operate in a vacuum in which territory losses are of no consequence.

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 97
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 1:45:56 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 958
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I lost an AACW game exactly because of that. Spent six months working on an effective Army of the Potomac. I had smashed Confederate armies in Tennesse in August and had laid siege and captured New Orleans. And then I had to send the Army of the Potomac in a wild geese hunt around Richmond in autumn. After a "satisfactory" campaign across the Shenandoah valley, I found myself stranded at the gates of Richmond while the Army of Northern Virginia invaded Pennsylvania. After extricating it with a murderous winter march across the Allegheny, I was completely defeated in a major battle northeast of Washington, and it was game over.

I mean, the game was a kind of cool what-if. But the whole business was sort of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" engine, since it sort of creates an incentive to send a unadequately organized, supplied, equipped and trained army into Virginia, with the guarantee of it being shattered in the field.

It's worse against the AI, that exploits this and sends his über leaders with cavalry divisions to Albany, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc. totally destroying NM in the process even if Richmond falls and the CSA economy collapses...



I am not saying the AACW system is perfect, but in a game like WITE it would work even better because the fact that there is a continuous frontline avoids excessive ahistoric behaviour. Nevertheless the broader point stands : the game is too linear and the player has no imput in some of its key aspects (evolution of national moral, for ex). an AACW's like system of NM, well done could have a positive effect on incentivising historic behaviour. Then adjustments could be made to the game so that this type of historic behaviour is made rational gamewise.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 98
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 1:53:15 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6312
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
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.


It's odd then I suppose that those old boardgames that did have those pesky sudden death rules managed to be enjoyed by so many wargamers over the years?

Something to keep in mind is that those old victory conditions worked both ways: first to keep the Russian player from running like a rabbit during the first couple years, and second to keep the German player from running like a rabbit during the last couple years. It is not simply an Axis "wish list" request. There's a damn good reason those old games had these mandatory sudden death victory conditions integrated as part of the game design, and seeing these disagreements pretty much validates why they were used. It's certainly no skin off anybody's bones to have them reintroduced as a game OPTION.


The Soviets are not "running like rabbits." The frontier armies are being annihilated in the first couple of turns -- including, ahistorically, SW Front, and there's simply not much left to stop the Wehrmacht until it's gone very far east. People are not "running" away from Leningrad. Nor or are they "running" from the Dnepr.

Right now the game's offensive tempo is just ridiculously fast, and what people are confusing as "running" is in fact the Germans running out of targets in the first half dozen or so turns and simply stampeding what scattered resistance they meet.

There's a problem with 1941, but it's not the problem that most folks here think it is nor is it a problem that will be solved by fiddling with VP.


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 99
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 2:04:03 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
You're quite welcome.

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

would have*

And why would it need to mean much? Victory conditions don't necessarily have to be based around a "realistic" political/diplomatic outcome.

As I said previously, these same developers felt comfortable assigning a VP threshold for the Japanese that would award a game-ending "win" for them despite the lack of evidence suggesting that the Western Allies would ever have laid down arms and just accept an in-place Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Indeed, it may well be that this is an acceptable auto-victory threshold because it represents Japan doing significantly better than its historical performance.

So why shouldn't the German player be given a similarly game-ending win for similarly exceeding historical expectations, even if there's nothing to suggest that Stalin would sign an armistice either?

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 100
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 2:06:41 PM   
Baelfiin

 

Posts: 1250
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline
Old school sudden death victory conditions = when one player chucks the dice at the other player, calls him a [expletive deleted] and doesn't play again for a couple weeks.

Quoting an old wargaming friend " Victory conditions? I never looked them up, I just play untill the other guy quits "

I think there is a lot of unnecessary angst over this issue of VP's.

I would much rather see resources devoted to more important things (airwar, etc.) than trying to come up with some arbitray victory condition that everyone can agree to disagree to.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 101
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 3:23:37 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
And why would it need to mean much? Victory conditions don't necessarily have to be based around a "realistic" political/diplomatic outcome.

As I said previously, these same developers felt comfortable assigning a VP threshold for the Japanese that would award a game-ending "win" for them despite the lack of evidence suggesting that the Western Allies would ever have laid down arms and just accept an in-place Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Indeed, it may well be that this is an acceptable auto-victory threshold because it represents Japan doing significantly better than its historical performance.

So why shouldn't the German player be given a similarly game-ending win for similarly exceeding historical expectations, even if there's nothing to suggest that Stalin would sign an armistice either?


Reg. Sudden Death: You do realize how tight these auto-victory conditions for Japan have been chosen in WiTP-AE? There are few people who have succeeded with that, and even then the game usually continued since both players agreed that the End was inevitable as long as the Allies have the means to achieve it.

The question would be: what corresponding auto-victory condition would the Soviets get in turn for lowering the VP-conditions for Axis presently to what you call a Sudden Death? The reduction of the Wehrmacht to 2.3M men? Or below 500 ready tanks? Or a rapid Soviet advance over say 20 hexes on a frontage of 20, emulating a crushing breakdown of a whole front part?

Victory is very clearly defined in Soviet terms, yet not in German ones, because it is all very speculative. As such, I am not interested in playing with such speculative victory conditions in 1941 or 1942 that I would reserve rather for a what-if game, which two specific players would have to agree upon -- playing on neither side.

Maybe an auto-victory by late 43 would be a choice, but none in 41 or 42 unless it is the Wehrmacht standing 200 miles east of Gorky with the Soviet Army in real shatters. By late 43, if the Wehrmacht, being intact, would hold Moscow, Rostov, Kharkov, Kursk, Leningrad or whatever you chose, then most players will automatically ask to quit the game if there is really no more point in getting to Berlin before 46. Kind of an auto-victory indeed...
LATE EDIT: In fact, the simply best rule to decide on defeat and victory would be an Axis player accepting a Soviet surrender because the Soviet player feels not be able to achieve anything like a victory with the tatters of his army and economy anymore, be it Berlin or just retaking Russian territory. So it is up to individual reasoning -- a natural houserule, of you like. As long as any sides still sees a chance to achieve something, it obviously isn't defeated...

Perhaps you should start a poll on the question which players would actually want to play GC on the Soviet Side with Sudden Death rules, and who wouldn't. I bet the minority would. The fun of the game for Axis is not averting the outcome, it is about the route to the end and how skillfully you can handle the trouble you will get into, and if you can do any better. And for the Soviets it is surviving, and getting to Berlin without have to use brute
force methods, but also skill and elegant tactics.

< Message edited by janh -- 12/7/2011 4:28:41 PM >

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 102
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 4:19:08 PM   
Mehring

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
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.


It's odd then I suppose that those old boardgames that did have those pesky sudden death rules managed to be enjoyed by so many wargamers over the years?

Something to keep in mind is that those old victory conditions worked both ways: first to keep the Russian player from running like a rabbit during the first couple years, and second to keep the German player from running like a rabbit during the last couple years. It is not simply an Axis "wish list" request. There's a damn good reason those old games had these mandatory sudden death victory conditions integrated as part of the game design, and seeing these disagreements pretty much validates why they were used. It's certainly no skin off anybody's bones to have them reintroduced as a game OPTION.


The Soviets are not "running like rabbits." The frontier armies are being annihilated in the first couple of turns -- including, ahistorically, SW Front, and there's simply not much left to stop the Wehrmacht until it's gone very far east. People are not "running" away from Leningrad. Nor or are they "running" from the Dnepr.

Right now the game's offensive tempo is just ridiculously fast, and what people are confusing as "running" is in fact the Germans running out of targets in the first half dozen or so turns and simply stampeding what scattered resistance they meet.

There's a problem with 1941, but it's not the problem that most folks here think it is nor is it a problem that will be solved by fiddling with VP.

+1

I seem to recall also that the western and northwestern fronts had to be encircled and some elements took many weeks to reduce. In game, the German can just drive through them frontally and that's it, over. As it stands, the game may be fun and absorbing in its own right but it really doesn't work as a simulation of WitE. Let the devs sort the system if they're going to, and use your own house rules if you must. Breaking the game more won't fix it.

_____________________________

“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 #: 103
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 4:44:40 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
This does keep going around and around in circles.

The intent at the start of the thread was to tackle the run away strategies in the game.

While I agree with Marquo, that it is unlikely either side would surrender it is ALSO equally unlikely either side would have tolerated giving up vast spaces (we know this to be true right?).

So, fairyland or not, whether or not Axis players will find any takers or not is simply beside the point. What is so terribly tough about trying a SIMPLE to code OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL rule that "fairyland" players can elect to use to see if it creates the sought after tension and historically desperate fighting over real estate and towns??



_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 104
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 4:51:38 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch
This does keep going around and around in circles.

The intent at the start of the thread was to tackle the run away strategies in the game.


wadortch, this is because it is all mingled, and you have to find the right origin of the problem if you don't want to screw up more than you fix.
Run-away strategies, as Flavius and many other point out, start with the Lvov pocket and continue with the fact that you couldn't even fight effectively as a Soviet with such low CV even if you wanted to -- you would create a sudden red army dead scenario. And since preserving the Army is more important than holding a few cities, or industry complexes, it is a no-brainer...

VP per time held can force players to fight longer. So can MP changes for the Soviets in 41. But what side effects will this have, and is it rationally correct?

What is missing is a real national will to fight, a national moral that reflects this, and it is the weirdness of doctrines and people like Hitler and Stalin. You won't stop and withdrawal tactics on either side, but just attempt to squeeze the game into a very tight suit if you don't bring in the true reasons why certain battles where fought for useless terrain, and why Stalingrad or Kiev happened. And I bet neither side wants to wear that tight suit.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 105
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 5:39:38 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The Soviets are not "running like rabbits." The frontier armies are being annihilated in the first couple of turns -- including, ahistorically, SW Front, and there's simply not much left to stop the Wehrmacht until it's gone very far east. People are not "running" away from Leningrad. Nor or are they "running" from the Dnepr.

Right now the game's offensive tempo is just ridiculously fast, and what people are confusing as "running" is in fact the Germans running out of targets in the first half dozen or so turns and simply stampeding what scattered resistance they meet.

There's a problem with 1941, but it's not the problem that most folks here think it is nor is it a problem that will be solved by fiddling with VP.



Based on my own gaming experience, playing primarily the Russians, I agree with this completely. If the Russian player "Runs for the Hills" he will lose the game, even Pelton acknowledges this. I personally have never "runaway", at least I would not characterize it as that. What I try and do is build a series defensive lines each 3 to 10 hexes (ie 30 to 100 miles) depending on terrain behind the other. As each line is compromised (ie I am in danger of a significant number of units being surrounded) I fall back to the next line. Depending on what my opponent is doing sometimes I will hold out on each line for several turns, other times I will fall back to the next line after only one or two turns. Are these retreats of 30 to 100 miles considered running away? Admittedly I have not yet played Pelton, or Michael T or Jamian; perhaps if I did I would be forced back much quicker and then I would be officially "running away". But until then I will continue doing what I am doing.

From my review of the AARs I personally don't see much that I would characterize as "Running Away." What I do see is the Russians in the summer and the Axis in the blizzard falling back to better defensive positions as their respective lines are compromised. This just makes good miltary sense. Maybe neither side did this very often historically, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Unlike our historical counterparts we have the advantage of both hindsight and the ability to replay the War over and over to perfect our play. The net result is that both the Soviets and the Axis will probably sustain less losses than historical. But to date I don't now as this has affected play balance. We'll have to wait until some 1.05 games get into 43 or later to find out.

In the meantime, I personally don't want the game forcing me to make the same stupid mistakes that my historical counterparts made.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 106
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 5:57:55 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch
This does keep going around and around in circles.

The intent at the start of the thread was to tackle the run away strategies in the game.

The discussion keeps shifting towards auto-victory / VP / sudden-death rules because it directly influences the way that players behave.

That is, a Soviet player who knows he isn't going to "lose" outside of letting the German go farther than Stalingrad is of course going to trade massive amounts of space for time. There's simply no reason not to.

And conversely, a German player who knows he has little-to-no hope of triggering the auto-victory condition isn't going to stick his neck out after the 1941 campaign season barring a massive mistake on the part of the Soviet. All that real estate is just room to breathe on the way to Berlin anyway, right?

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 107
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 6:24:47 PM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 415
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline
Perhaps the victory conditions for the various Grand Campaign games could be set more like the Case Blue scenario?  For those who have not tried the 20 turn Case Blue scenario- the Russian player gains points each turn he holds major cities like Rostov, Stalingrad etc.  So the German player is compelled to take Rostov in the first few turns and Bouguchar, Voronozeh as quickly as possible. 

So a German PBEM opponent playing too conservatively in 1942 to "avoid losing" will lose VP's for not taking the Caucasus or Stalingrad or Leningrad etc.  In other words, high command is not content with each player sitting tight, or in the Russian case running away. Maybe you lose more VP's for losing Kiev "too quickly"?

< Message edited by leehunt27@bloomberg.net -- 12/7/2011 7:49:07 PM >


_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 108
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 7:47:16 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


Based on my own gaming experience, playing primarily the Russians, I agree with this completely. If the Russian player "Runs for the Hills" he will lose the game, even Pelton acknowledges this. I personally have never "runaway", at least I would not characterize it as that. What I try and do is build a series defensive lines each 3 to 10 hexes (ie 30 to 100 miles) depending on terrain behind the other. As each line is compromised (ie I am in danger of a significant number of units being surrounded) I fall back to the next line. Depending on what my opponent is doing sometimes I will hold out on each line for several turns, other times I will fall back to the next line after only one or two turns. Are these retreats of 30 to 100 miles considered running away? Admittedly I have not yet played Pelton, or Michael T or Jamian; perhaps if I did I would be forced back much quicker and then I would be officially "running away". But until then I will continue doing what I am doing.

From my review of the AARs I personally don't see much that I would characterize as "Running Away." What I do see is the Russians in the summer and the Axis in the blizzard falling back to better defensive positions as their respective lines are compromised. This just makes good miltary sense. Maybe neither side did this very often historically, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Unlike our historical counterparts we have the advantage of both hindsight and the ability to replay the War over and over to perfect our play. The net result is that both the Soviets and the Axis will probably sustain less losses than historical. But to date I don't now as this has affected play balance. We'll have to wait until some 1.05 games get into 43 or later to find out.

In the meantime, I personally don't want the game forcing me to make the same stupid mistakes that my historical counterparts made.



I agree completely. Very well said!

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 109
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 8:07:15 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

So a German PBEM opponent playing too conservatively in 1942 to "avoid losing" will lose VP's for not taking the Caucasus or Stalingrad or Leningrad etc.  In other words, high command is not content with each player sitting tight, or in the Russian case running away. Maybe you lose more VP's for losing Kiev "too quickly"?


But what happens if the best Axis strategy in real life had been precisely to switch to a "defense mode" as early as 1942? Are you going to penalize the player trying that promising strategy? Do you really think Zhukov deserves "to lose VP points" for advocating a retreat from Kiev in 1941 to avoid disaster?

As a matter of fact, I think that the "no-retreat" order was not as universally widespread as sometimes is assumed. There were a lot of voluntary retreats for both sides during the war. But they are not so "glamorous" as the stand-fast battles and are somewhat neglected.

(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)
Post #: 110
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 8:20:17 PM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 415
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline
That's a fair point Alfonso- I'm playing a 1942 PBEM as Germans and i've strategically gone "defensive" while launching sector wide offensives to pocket Russians where I can.  So i know what you mean, however the time staggered VP's idea really makes more sense on the Russian side:

Let's say the Russian player loses Kiev much earlier than historical, he might lose more VP's permanently.  And say the Russian holds Kiev until November 1941, way longer than historically, he may lose less VP's or even gain VP's for such a successful defense.  The Russian player thus must balance preserving his forces with political objectives (a very real constraint that in Wite you don't really have, but you do have in War in the Pacific)  This may encourage a more grudging retreat by the Russians and still encourage an aggressive German offensive.  One reason for these rules may be to inspire each side to really "get after it" in 1942 and on rather than let the game degenerate into trench warfare, as the starting post mentioned.

Its worth playing Case Blue to see these kind of Victory Conditions rules in effect :) 


_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 111
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 9:17:55 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2115
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

That's a fair point Alfonso- I'm playing a 1942 PBEM as Germans and i've strategically gone "defensive" while launching sector wide offensives to pocket Russians where I can.  So i know what you mean, however the time staggered VP's idea really makes more sense on the Russian side:

Let's say the Russian player loses Kiev much earlier than historical, he might lose more VP's permanently.  And say the Russian holds Kiev until November 1941, way longer than historically, he may lose less VP's or even gain VP's for such a successful defense.  



With the current state of the game, (Lvov Opening and the offensive logistics bias.), holding Kiev longer than historical isn't possible.

(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)
Post #: 112
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 9:20:05 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2115
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


Based on my own gaming experience, playing primarily the Russians, I agree with this completely. If the Russian player "Runs for the Hills" he will lose the game, even Pelton acknowledges this. I personally have never "runaway", at least I would not characterize it as that. What I try and do is build a series defensive lines each 3 to 10 hexes (ie 30 to 100 miles) depending on terrain behind the other. As each line is compromised (ie I am in danger of a significant number of units being surrounded) I fall back to the next line. Depending on what my opponent is doing sometimes I will hold out on each line for several turns, other times I will fall back to the next line after only one or two turns. Are these retreats of 30 to 100 miles considered running away? Admittedly I have not yet played Pelton, or Michael T or Jamian; perhaps if I did I would be forced back much quicker and then I would be officially "running away". But until then I will continue doing what I am doing.

From my review of the AARs I personally don't see much that I would characterize as "Running Away." What I do see is the Russians in the summer and the Axis in the blizzard falling back to better defensive positions as their respective lines are compromised. This just makes good miltary sense. Maybe neither side did this very often historically, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Unlike our historical counterparts we have the advantage of both hindsight and the ability to replay the War over and over to perfect our play. The net result is that both the Soviets and the Axis will probably sustain less losses than historical. But to date I don't now as this has affected play balance. We'll have to wait until some 1.05 games get into 43 or later to find out.

In the meantime, I personally don't want the game forcing me to make the same stupid mistakes that my historical counterparts made.



I agree completely. Very well said!


Yep. And as one who has done it, I can tell you that running away makes for a short game for Russia.

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 113
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 10:32:29 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
In response to a suggestion to poll the players on this topic I created another thread--Vote on a Sudden Death Rule---. Hope folks just keep it simple, yes would be interested, no way I would ever use such a rule, etc. Maybe there actually is only several die hard Axis players out there who want such a rule.
Walt

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 114
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 10:46:58 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
"well established method to put pressure on both sides of a game to act in a historical manner in regard to defending and attacking." Or they may very well act in a very silly antihistorical manner to simply capture a VP city in complete disgard of any semblance of prudence.

Marquo

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 115
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/7/2011 11:01:35 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
Sure, can work both ways. Fact that the Germans can't send in a motorcycle squad to win the game by taking Moscow before the blizzard commence is one deterrent to that. Soviets could theoretically grab a win that way at the end of the blizzard but let's just give it a try and see what kind of game behavior changes it produces if any.

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 116
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/8/2011 1:36:30 AM   
jazman

 

Posts: 364
Joined: 1/20/2007
From: Crush Depth
Status: offline
This game had the "Hitler Directive" rule which introduced some insane chaos into the German effort:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5480/drive-on-stalingrad

Interesting feature. A lot of players didn't like it, but I thought it fun. Otherwise, the game was quite broken...



_____________________________

BS, MS, PhD, WitP:AE, WitE

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 117
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/8/2011 2:37:40 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch
This does keep going around and around in circles.

The intent at the start of the thread was to tackle the run away strategies in the game.

The discussion keeps shifting towards auto-victory / VP / sudden-death rules because it directly influences the way that players behave.

That is, a Soviet player who knows he isn't going to "lose" outside of letting the German go farther than Stalingrad is of course going to trade massive amounts of space for time. There's simply no reason not to.

And conversely, a German player who knows he has little-to-no hope of triggering the auto-victory condition isn't going to stick his neck out after the 1941 campaign season barring a massive mistake on the part of the Soviet. All that real estate is just room to breathe on the way to Berlin anyway, right?


RIGHT!

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 118
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/8/2011 2:43:25 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
What was the military objective of Barbarossa in the first place? Advance to the grail-like "AA" line stretching across deep eastern Russia. And that is how the game should be played for the Axis.

What was the military objective for the Soviets? Remove Hilter form power and occupy as much of eastern Europe and Germany as possible. And that is how the game whould be played for the Soviets.

There were no sudden death or VP considerations: a total war of annihilation.


Michael T kicked my ass and captured Moscow, Tula, Stalino, etc before the first mud because more than any one else he has discovered the art of keeping his motorized units maximally supplied. Before any consideration is given to any sudden death rules, the developers need to perform an autopsy on games such as this, and diagnose how some very astute players have figured out how to sustain offensive operations at a pace and tempo which outstrips anything which would have been even remotely possible. The truth is, as long as Micheal T can turn his panzers into universal acid, then there is no point in playing him with sudden death rules because the Soviet will lose everytime.

If the logistical system was modeled a bit more realistically, then there would be much less clamor for sudden death rules.

My 2 cents.

Marquo

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 119
RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yr... - 12/8/2011 4:12:48 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
Marquo
In the game with MT, did you play through the first blizzard and if so, did you retake any of the proposed SD victory cities?

_____________________________

Walt

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

0.137