Matrix Games Forums

Community impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!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!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule-

 
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: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 9:36:35 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
Yes.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 31
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 3:03:22 AM   
Priapus1

 

Posts: 109
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
yes.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 32
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 3:14:01 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
No to sudden death rule for me

(in reply to Priapus1)
Post #: 33
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 6:30:44 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
I am in favour of an optional sudden death rule, but with some tweaking of the exact conditions.

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 34
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 8:36:49 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1244
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
No. I would not want it to exist in the game. If it was an optional rule I would not play any game containing that rule.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 35
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 8:39:21 AM   
Omat


Posts: 673
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline

No

First I think dictatorial states are unlikely to stop fighting.

The germans did not ...and the soviets had plans to make a "fall back" to Samara for the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff if Moscow should be lost. In Samara they build the Stalin Bunker.

Why should the surrender 41-42 when thy even have plans and make arrangements for a evacuation far east? *



Omat

* Andrew Nagorski: The Greatest Battle, 2007, pp. 165-166





_____________________________

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another."
Anatole France

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 36
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 9:20:56 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
The sudden death rules being suggested carry no historical weight whatsoever. So why can't people who want them just play house rules if they want them? Will the rules be less fantastical for being made 'official' in game code? Of course not, they just carry the game further away from simulation and towards 'gamey'.

So lets say you get the 'official' thumbs up for your 'official' house rules. The next twenty threads will be taken up squabbling over their exact nature, wasting time which could be spent sorting the game. Of course, somebody will correctly point out the squabbling over how to best simulate the WitE. To this I answer there is a qualitative difference arguing over how to improve something and arguing how to take it up a blind alley.

Don't let 2 by 3 off the hook, if you're sticking by this game, demand they fix it, however long it takes.

And for those who wish to restrict discussion to 'yes' or 'no' let me remind you of the fascist pedigree of such democracy.

< Message edited by Mehring -- 12/9/2011 9:26:50 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Omat)
Post #: 37
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 9:49:04 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3129
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
No

_____________________________



(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 38
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 10:31:04 AM   
OTZ

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
I vote yes. I may never use it, but I see no harm in adddng it.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 39
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 10:50:15 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1222
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
If it really doesn't distract the devs, and doesn't mean other stuff fails get's its necessary attention, I bet no one will object.  Especially if the game can continue after that by choice of players, meaning that neither side is actually defeated, but played a good game.

The critical votes here, however, seem to be those who state that they will play with "lighter victory conditions" aka "Sudden Death rules" as SOVIET players -- not only, but also. 

(in reply to OTZ)
Post #: 40
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 11:55:33 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
My vote is *NO*.

Reasons:

I do not see a point of having such a rule. Actually I'm afraid it will lead to 'I have not won with a "sudden death" in '41 so now I will lose so I better quit now and try winning another game'. As such, I will not play game with this rule as Russian. On the other hand, as the rule you propose is very easy to check, you can use it as a house rule with anyone you play with. Also, there is a Barbarossa scenario which does exactly what you want for '41, actually in a more sophisticated way. Note that very few Barbarossa campaigns are played...

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 41
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 12:55:29 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
The sudden death rules being suggested carry no historical weight whatsoever. So why can't people who want them just play house rules if they want them? Will the rules be less fantastical for being made 'official' in game code? Of course not, they just carry the game further away from simulation and towards 'gamey'.


I've commented before that players can easily adopt a house rule, to play by the old Russian Front boardgame victory conditions or soemthing comparable. However, it should be easy enough to take the existing non-campaign VP model and fully implement it for the campaigns, in addition to the decisive Axis victory condition already in the game for the campaigns. Is the current 'official' decisive Axis victory condition rule already in the game for both campaigns and non-campaign scenarios so fantastical that it should be deleted?? It should be recognized that the vote is not really for something completely new; it's more or less haggling about possible adjustments to current 'official' victory conditions. And it's up to 2x3 to decide if they want to make adjustments or not.

I do want to respond to the spurious comment about such rules carrying 'no historical weight whatsoever.' Huh? This is a wargame. The discussion is about this wargame's victory conditions. It's perfectly reasonable to compare player performance versus historical results and establish victory conditions whereby you 'win' the game if you do better than history and you 'lose' the game if you do worse. How you play is up to you, but at either the end of the scenario/campaign or at any predefined intermediate point(s) your gameplay performance deserves to be evaluated against the reality of history. And that's all it is. A decisive Axis (or Allied) victory based on VPs and/or specific objectives at some point in time compared to historical results only means that you win the wargame at that point. It's not about whether Russia would have really surrendered or not based on arbitrary VPs or national morale or whatever; nobody knows for sure. It's about winning or losing a wargame, and all games tend to be 'gamey' because that's what they are. It's just a game.

It will be interesting to hear what Joel has to say. If 2x3 can easily implement some modest adjustments to the existing decisive victory rule, and perhaps change this to allow players to select decisive victory as a game option up front or if selected to allow players to continue playing even after decisive victory is achieved by one side or the other, then that should be perfectly acceptable to everyone. If not so be it, a house rule could work fine. No point beating a dead horse.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 42
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 4:47:39 PM   
Mehring

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


Is the current 'official' decisive Axis victory condition rule already in the game for both campaigns and non-campaign scenarios so fantastical that it should be deleted??


In case you've never got there, the current Axis decisive victory condition is to virtually win every city on the map. Yes, why not let the Russian play on if both sides want to? I have no problem there.

That said, if the Axis had ever achieved this, and assuming they were able to harness them and kill off enough locals (hunger plan), it would have gained them the resources they needed for European economic autarchy, and would probably have kept the Russians weak enough for long enough to defeat/stalemate the Briitish and US. These conditions actually mean something historically, they carry historical weight. Nothing spurious there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr I do want to respond to the spurious comment about such rules carrying 'no historical weight whatsoever.' Huh? This is a wargame.


And how was this wargame described on its launch?

"The long-awaited Eastern Front mega-game has arrived!

"Matrix Games and 2by3 Games (www.2by3games.com) are proud to announce that Gary Grigsby’s War in the East is now available for purchase in the Matrix Games Online Store! Now gamers who want to experience unparalleled realism, scope, and detail on the Eastern Front done by an award-winning development team need look no further!"

emphasis added

You can measure your play against history if you want, but to have any meaning, the game must simulate historical conditions. Currently, and in spite of getting so much right, it doesn't.

Personally, I like victory conditions to carry historical weight. Otherwise you tend to end up with a game for nazi fantasists, who, sore at the historical fate of their beloved panzergrenadiers, want a game to rewrite the awful turn history took, either forcing a Russian surrender by capturing Minsk or allowing them to easily roll over Russia up to the Urals.

_____________________________

“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 pzgndr)
Post #: 43
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 5:26:14 PM   
juret

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 10/17/2011
Status: offline
yes

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 44
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 7:25:09 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
That said, if the Axis had ever achieved this, and assuming they were able to harness them and kill off enough locals (hunger plan), it would have gained them the resources they needed for European economic autarchy, and would probably have kept the Russians weak enough for long enough to defeat/stalemate the Briitish and US...

Otherwise you tend to end up with a game for nazi fantasists, who, sore at the historical fate of their beloved panzergrenadiers, want a game to rewrite the awful turn history took, either forcing a Russian surrender by capturing Minsk or allowing them to easily roll over Russia up to the Urals.


You totally miss the point, again. It's not about 'forcing a surrender' in pseudo-historical terms, and it's not meant to be one-sided for only Axis decisive victory. It's about a game victory condition. Perhaps you just never played the old Avalon Hill game Russian Front that I refer to? When those VPs were checked every March and November, either side could win, so both sides were challenged to fight continually to achieve an early game victory or at least deny their opponent an early victory. It had nothing to do with what it may or may not have taken to achieve 'European economic autarchy' or some other hand-waving geopolitical grand strategy outcome. You make it sound like if an Axis player does possibly achieve a decisive victory in November 1941, based on exceeding the historical VPs for that date, then that equals Russian surrender. No, it doesn't, it only means the Axis player won a game. That's it. Nothing more.

If you truly believe this game to be an accurate simulation of unparalleled realism so you can emerse yourself in an alternative history universe that supposedly means something very important to you, then that's something a bit different than just playing a wargame. It's just a game.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 45
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 7:52:08 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2133
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Well, I've played Russian Front. And no one in my gaming group, after a while, would play as the Germans.

Played alot of SPI's WITE 2nd ed as well. IIRC, the Germans had to take every population center to win.

In Russia Beseiged the Germans win the following ways.

1: Capture Moscow and eliminate Stalin. (Not possible in WiTE.)

2: Capture Lgrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and hold them for on additional complete turn.

3: Capture Baku, Astrakhan, Stalingrad, Voronezh and hold them for one complete turn.

4: By keeping the Russians from winning at the end of the Russian May/june 1945. (Probably the last Jun turn in WiTE>)

Russia wins by:

1: Capture Berlin and eliminate Hitler by end of May/June 45. (Not possible in WiTE.)

2: Eliminate Hitler any time during 1944/45. He has to be outside of Germany. (Not possible in WiTE.)

3: Instantly if the Germans do not control the following minimum number of cities at the end of the Russian turn in Nov/Dec. (Last week Dec in WiTE.)
A: 1942------16 Major cities.

B: 1943------9 Major cities.

C: 1944------4 Major cities.

There are no draws.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 12/9/2011 7:54:30 PM >

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 46
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 8:38:03 PM   
johnnyvagas

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/28/2011
Status: offline
The thread has taken sort of an interesting side turn toward cataloguing past wargame victory conditions for Russian Front Games. I’m curious if there’s been anything remotely approaching a consensus amongst past game designers and their particular approach to what constituted “victory” on the Eastern Front. Some of the olden time games that come to mind – aside from SPI’s original “War in the East” are:

GDW’s Drang nach Osten

GDW’s Unentschieden

Avalon Hill’s Stalingrad?

The Original Grigsby Game on the War in Russia?

When does the USSR surrender in games like “Third Reich”; or “Hearts of Iron”; or SPI’s old Global War”; or "World in Flames"?

I either have never owned some of these games (like Hearts of Iron or Grigsby’s original War in Russia), or I don’t have copies of any of these games any longer. I can’t recall what each of the designers was using for victory conditions.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 47
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 9:13:29 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2214
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
Yes include the optional sudded death rules.

Will I actually use them?

Prolly not and heres why.

The Axis player would do everything in his power to get the objectives and potentially wreck his army doing so. If they then failed they would most likely quit as they would be in no position to compete in a viable way long term.


(in reply to johnnyvagas)
Post #: 48
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 10:08:10 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
And in that case the Soviet player would likely be able to roll the wrecked Axis army back and win a decisive victory. Interesting tho, that in my perspective, that is just about what happened historically....

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 49
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 10:30:14 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2214
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

And in that case the Soviet player would likely be able to roll the wrecked Axis army back and win a decisive victory. Interesting tho, that in my perspective, that is just about what happened historically....


Which leads back to the theory that the best chance for an Axis win is strategic defense starting in late summer 42....

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 50
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/9/2011 10:38:24 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
Or a very well orchestrated offensive in 41 that takes the victory cities with an army still capable of defending them. I think that is a long shot but possible. Germans achieving the present 290? Never against human Soviet player that is basically competent.  The point to keep in sight here is that the SD conditions would be optional, they are intended to create some of the incentive for desperate play by both sides early in the conflict and if not achieved, and players don't quit (I have read of a number of players on both sides quitting "early" now not just Axis), they can grind it out to the gates of Berlin 3 years later.

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 51
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/10/2011 3:01:46 AM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2876
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
I think SD VC's should be based on something else besides territory holding. There has to be some component of destroying the fighting ability, on either side, as well.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 52
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/10/2011 3:31:35 AM   
Gremell

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Australia
Status: offline
Yes please.

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 53
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/10/2011 6:22:28 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
My vote is for cookies.

(in reply to Gremell)
Post #: 54
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/10/2011 10:35:42 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1222
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Yes include the optional sudded death rules.

Will I actually use them?

Prolly not and heres why.

The Axis player would do everything in his power to get the objectives and potentially wreck his army doing so. If they then failed they would most likely quit as they would be in no position to compete in a viable way long term.



If you don't intend to use them for this reason, isn't your vote actually a "no -- but I don't care if it's optional"?

Ketza, the latter you mention -- wasn't take sort of what happened at Leningrad to a limited degree, AGN having being push very hard to exhaustion, and for sure in the rush for Moscow? It in fact could be used to get the Germans to push harder, also I agree with you that by hindsight will know even taking these objectives the game won't end as the Soviets are not really defeated and can't continue to fight very effectively. Hence, in my opinion the best strategy for Axis is to turn over to the defense at some point to conserve the Army in the long run. Surely something like Kursk in retrospect was just wasting of Axis assets.

Axis should attack as long as it can critically damage the Red Army. Whether Axis can still achieve excellent kill-ratios by late 42 or 43 is a question to be seen, but so far it looks that with the rather evident game bias towards the offensive Axis seems to be perform very well in spring 42 and summer 42. This will mean that the Axis will likely stop offensives by end of 42, and dig in for 43, to be able to survive as long as possible. In turn, Soviet build-up will be sufficient with the bias to offensives that by late 43 the Red juggernaught will rush forward, and will at least not be checked by supply worries. Since that was historically a big worry for the Soviets, likely in game they can completely overrun Axis before end of 44.

That the Wehrmacht being in rather good shape after the 41 blizzard likely is in part due to it not reliving the disorganizing and draining last-ditch efforts for Leningrad and Moscow, which I believe has in part to do with a slight underestimation of the combat effectiveness of the Soviet units in 41/42 (see the quite unimpressive blizzard offensives), which also just naturally put a huge strain on both sides formations, as well as Axis and Soviet players having a huge benefit in form of hindsight and, thus, are using forces more conservatively since this is just a game missing soft factors (like Hitler pushing, or Generals aka players or soldiers truly having to fear for their head and the welfare of their own families, perceived effects on national will to fight etc. etc.).

As such, a Sudden Death rule could in fact be something that could lead the Axis players to overextend in 41 and/or 42, sort of as if Hitler was sitting in their necks. Unfortunately, if implemented consequently, the sad truth should have to strike them in most cases that even if he holds these key cities now with a weakened Wehrmacht, that the Soviets will still be there and not raising their arms. The war goes on. So perhaps sudden death rules with a significant dice roll once the key cities are taken would be a good idea. Say even if Axis takes the cities, there should only be a 25% (or customizable like the other parameters by both players) chance to win? How about that?

PS. Same would of course apply for the Soviet Sudden Death part!

< Message edited by janh -- 12/10/2011 10:36:17 AM >

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 55
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/10/2011 10:36:55 AM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1899
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

My vote is for cookies.


You can't have them...

_____________________________


"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 JAMiAM)
Post #: 56
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/11/2011 1:55:01 PM   
Jakerson

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
1: Capture Moscow and eliminate Stalin. (Not possible in WiTE.)


Well Capturing Moscow don’t give you Stalin as there is like 7000 miles more Soviet territory left were STAVKA could fall back from Moscow and with allied lend lease supplies and weapons Soviet could have continue resistance even after Moscow falling.

German simply had no fuel, logistics to advance all the way through Siberia to Manchuria.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 57
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/11/2011 4:16:05 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6320
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Y'know, citing a bunch of old wargames made during the Cold War based on extremely limited information is perhaps not the way to go. Maybe, just maybe, they all got it wrong? The victory conditions made in these relics need not detain us, let alone be used as a guide for a modern game.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Jakerson)
Post #: 58
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/11/2011 4:55:15 PM   
Gefreiter Wardstein

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 9/17/2011
Status: offline
I vote against the rule.

As some people have said before, for those players who want it, the Barbarossa scenario provides a perfectly good "sudden death" basis for victory (or defeat) and I believe there is no reason to to tinker around with the 41-45 Campaign game to provide additional victory conditions which are ahistorical.


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 59
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/11/2011 8:18:58 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2133
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
1: Capture Moscow and eliminate Stalin. (Not possible in WiTE.)


Well Capturing Moscow don’t give you Stalin as there is like 7000 miles more Soviet territory left were STAVKA could fall back from Moscow and with allied lend lease supplies and weapons Soviet could have continue resistance even after Moscow falling.

German simply had no fuel, logistics to advance all the way through Siberia to Manchuria.



Oh, I know that. The reasoning, I think, is that the Stalin counter in that game represents all the bigwig political decision makers.

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





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.108