Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity 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
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: March Madness '42

 
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: March Madness '42 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 1:05:46 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4085
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

I just see the discussions here go and go in circles, and nothing being done at all.


Unfortunately, it's just as frustrating for the testers as it is for you.

Ideally, there would be no arbitrary rules at all, but solutions would be found elsewhere (for example: instead of 1:1>2:1, make the Soviets better overall) or things would be scaled (for example: instead of 1 blizzard penalty for the entire front, make it scale to how far a unit is from a railhead).


I come back to the issue of complexity. Complex modelling of complex realities will always fail. Why? Chaos theory provides an insight.

The success of table-top war games lies in the way that they combined relatively simple results tables with the random chance of a die role. Once a game engine moves beyond that level of complexity problems abound.

Abstract the complex and let the players focus on the simple but vital decisions; how many divisions for this attack? Moscow or Stalingrad? Are my supply lines clear of partisans?

_____________________________

Cyberpower tower PC
Intel Core i7-3930k CPU, 3.20GHz processor
32 GB RAM
2TB HD
2xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards, each with 4095 MB
Realtek sound card
Dell 3007WFP (running at 2560x1600) 32 bit monitor
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit O

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 91
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 1:27:39 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7166
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
The problem with boardgames/anything based on dice is the reliance on luck more than skill in many cases, as regardless of how good your plan is, if your opponent gets good rolls and you don't you will generally lose. It's a problem that also sometimes plagues games like those produced by SSG, which are quite similar to boardgames in their combat resolution.

WitE adds more random variables, but also rewards player skill far more than anything mostly based on dice in my opinion.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 92
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 1:32:01 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
If we pitch the game at too high level of abstraction, a lot of the hard work on details will be wasted and indeed pointless.

Anyways, there are plenty of other games out there doing this; but there's only one WitE trying to do what it does, as ambitious as that may be. I know where to go if I want beer & pretzels. (My guilty pleasure in this regard right now being Time of Fury.)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 93
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 2:19:29 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: online
@Bletchly, thanks for saying the idea wasn't stupid, I seen your name around alot recently and I have come to respect your opinion.

Like I said I don't follow this particular game forum as though WitE appeals in it's detail and it's the East front I just know I would hardly play it. Hopefully someday I might see someone wanting ot swap it for something I don't play.

Also I hate being tied down to PBEM games. So it would be against the AI I played and knowing how these games struggle with so many units I just can't justify the purchase (If it had been tacticla though I'd have it by now).

Anyway interesting discusion I#ve foind between thos ehwo play Axis and those who play Allied.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 94
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 3:11:36 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
@Bletchly, thanks for saying the idea wasn't stupid, I seen your name around alot recently and I have come to respect your opinion.


You welcome, mate. But this thing you said tells to me that I'm devoting too much time to post on forums rather than attending a very pressing matter...

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Like I said I don't follow this particular game forum as though WitE appeals in it's detail and it's the East front I just know I would hardly play it. Hopefully someday I might see someone wanting ot swap it for something I don't play.


Over time I guess you'll eventually see more scenarios being available, covering smaller parts of the show.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Also I hate being tied down to PBEM games. So it would be against the AI I played and knowing how these games struggle with so many units I just can't justify the purchase (If it had been tacticla though I'd have it by now).


Playing on Slitherine server might work well with you if you don't like PBEM :)

But yes, I understand what you mean. I devote between 2 and 3 hours to make turns... though don't take me as an example.

When I tried to get into WitP-AE I found myself using software to schedule events in order to make sense of all the convoys and task forces I was sending back & forth across half the globe. That felt way too much as if I was actually working as a staff officer in Pearl Harbour.

In WitE assessing the situation and planning - having an AAR public or private for this is invaluable - takes me between half an hour to two hours. Depends on how much of a disaster was the last turn :) Implementing those plans never takes under 45 minutes or so (and this involves counting odds and checking internal unit stats such as fatigue, supply, experience, etc.).

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Anyway interesting discusion I#ve foind between thos ehwo play Axis and those who play Allied.


You should check the forum archives or eventually someone will compile an index of the many discussions about the Eastern Front we've had in the last year. I've learnt a lot of stuff from fellow regulars here - thank you to you all guys, this is Christmas after all, so it's time to sing "O Tanembaum" and have some hot sweet wine all together - and I do really appreciate the many reading suggestions, counterarguments and just lively on-going discussions about many topics covering this theater. Which - I do certainly share this opinion with you - is the thing.


_____________________________

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 wodin)
Post #: 95
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 3:57:33 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4085
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The problem with boardgames/anything based on dice is the reliance on luck more than skill in many cases, as regardless of how good your plan is, if your opponent gets good rolls and you don't you will generally lose. It's a problem that also sometimes plagues games like those produced by SSG, which are quite similar to boardgames in their combat resolution.

WitE adds more random variables, but also rewards player skill far more than anything mostly based on dice in my opinion.


I think you're missing my point. I am not suggesting that WiTE should use dice. I am merely pointing out that once you start 'tweaking' something as complex as this game engine you are bound to run into ever more complex problems.

I'll drop out of this discussion now and come back to make this point again in a year or so. We'll also have WiTW to talk about then LOL

_____________________________

Cyberpower tower PC
Intel Core i7-3930k CPU, 3.20GHz processor
32 GB RAM
2TB HD
2xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards, each with 4095 MB
Realtek sound card
Dell 3007WFP (running at 2560x1600) 32 bit monitor
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit O

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 96
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 5:10:42 PM   
von Beanie


Posts: 249
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline
The very mobile German offensives in the March snow turns are unrealistic. The root cause is high mobility at a time when the snow was at its deepest point, or in the process of turning to mud. QBall's solution in the second post is on the right track. Either change how snow works after the blizzard by creating a new weather type in the Spring turns where the weather is snow (and forcing the correct mobility effects), or simply reduce everyone's movement during the Spring thaw by changing the Spring "snow" turns to "mud" turns.

Some have pointed out the German counterstroke to retake Kharkov occurred in March 1943, but it occurred just south of a major city along a variety of hard-surfaced roads against an exhausted opponent. There were no major offensives across the countryside against a dug-in army that included deep encirclements like I have been seeing.



(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 97
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 5:11:51 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1222
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
Interesting discussion here.  The March offensives in the AAR strike me as surprisingly sustained and powerful as well.  But since the game plays out very differently from history from turn 1 on, including mostly disappointing Soviet blizzard offensives, and many other factors being also at variance, this could simply be a consequence of the balance of the previous 41 summer offensive being too little exhaustive (on one, or both sides?).  Which in my opinion gets down to the op-tempo and logistics again.

I do sincerely hope they will put WitW and other subsequent titles on a stronger foundation with the op-tempo.  Else we might see Monty probing the Ruhr Valley by early autumn 1944.  Even the suggestion mention above to cut logistic factors across the board to a fraction, be it to 50 or 75%, would seem to help to mitigate many problems.  One to come will be the probably equally enormous advance speed for the Soviets.

Given that against AI (although AI...)  at 110/90% settings you can rather easily achieve an Axis advance that includes Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov and sometimes even Stalingrad if you time the break thru and destruction of the Soviets down south in a quick series of medium to big pockets, which the help of a PzKorps from AGC plus HQ Build-up and HQ priority resupply ("HQ Mulling") you can do quite well, there is obviously a really large tolerance for supply delivery.  Way too large?  Part of it could be due to the changes that make the Soviets so much more brittle in 41 in patch 1.05 -- previously already Rostov was hard against AI, but now despite quite clever movement along "historical doctrines", it is become more straightforward to score critical breakthrus and overrun rear lines with mobile units without suffering badly.  But even with the worst AI performance I would expect that major factor limiting my (Axis) advance should be the communications, i.e. supply/fuel that should stop me at some point.  Yes, the average MP drop once you are past the Djenpr as rail doesn't catch up, but it isn't critical (HQ mulling comes in handy then, but at the rather high cost of general supply drops across the whole front, plus truck losses, which should be a detrimental long term effect).

Assuming that supply was shorter in general after turn 1, what could be the effects up into 1942?  The average (German/Soviet) Armor/Mech MPs would drop somewhat, while Infantry would suffer less from that.  Say PDs would be reduced in the average range of 20-30MP, perhaps 40 after HQ build-up for the majority of time in "supplied" status.  Rarely peaking close to 50.  Then the Soviets would not need to run as fast since they would not need to fear being overtaken that quickly and easily without chance to react, and could actually risk more attempts to fight forward and inflict casualties on the German units.  Pocketing would become more difficult, but with proper planning perhaps this could even lead to a larger ratio of bigger pockets being formed compared to the small "on-the-roll" pockets that one usually would be a fool to neglect with 45-50MP and an enemy who is already in disorder.  Keep'em running and don't allow another solid line to be formed...
Perhaps lower MP would even give the Soviet players a small but real chance to put up a fight for Leningrad, and would make Moscow a much bigger challenge, such as it perhaps has been. Lower supply, translating in lower MP would enable perhaps more realistic fighting and op-tempo in the summer campaign, and, hence, both sides would enter winter perhaps in a more depleted state, as was the case.  Then again, a Soviet player could go hard into the blizzard offensives, even performing attacks that exceed the ~2.5:1 casualty rule for most "economical attrition", because the spring offensive wouldn't suddenly could huge chunks off his army, but run out of steam after "frontline corrections" rather than major new progress.  However, unlike in earlier versions, supply issues should force the Soviet player to focus on certain key points for operations, and should not enable him to attack everywhere in a sustainable fashion until spring.
With Germans then recovering much better than the Soviets, and 8-10 week summer offensive limited to one Army Group would still be in the cards.
In the later years, things would be reversed.  The ammo and fuel consumption for the Soviets at Bagration or in the Poland offensive should be so substantial, that with a reduced supply rate some pauses in the advance would hopefully become necessary, giving needed breathing time for an Axis player?

So I would guess.  My impression is that a lot of things we presently see and that strike people as unusual, historical-technically unlikely, or purely game-mechanic or balance issue based are indeed come from the supply model.  I am not sure whether that would be doable, but if the devs could provide a test patch with tuned down supply for limited testing by either the community or the testers themselves, maybe results from that could shine light onto other, perceived or real, discrepancies that keep popping up?


< Message edited by janh -- 12/16/2011 5:19:05 PM >

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 98
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 5:34:48 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

The very mobile German offensives in the March snow turns are unrealistic. The root cause is high mobility at a time when the snow was at its deepest point, or in the process of turning to mud. QBall's solution in the second post is on the right track. Either change how snow works after the blizzard by creating a new weather type in the Spring turns where the weather is snow (and forcing the correct mobility effects), or simply reduce everyone's movement during the Spring thaw by changing the Spring "snow" turns to "mud" turns.

Some have pointed out the German counterstroke to retake Kharkov occurred in March 1943, but it occurred just south of a major city along a variety of hard-surfaced roads against an exhausted opponent. There were no major offensives across the countryside against a dug-in army that included deep encirclements like I have been seeing.



The Manstein counteroffensive wasn't just against Kharkov, though, it took place on more or less all points south of that as well all the way down to the Black Sea and was conducted against several Soviet fronts. It was a major effort on a strategic scale.

At this stage the Soviets were pressing on Zaporozhye -- by the end of the counteroffensive the Germans practically restored the original line they began with in summer of 1942, excepting the infamous Kursk bulge. That's quite a bit of movement.

I personally don't think snow is the problem -- rather, the logistical system. In 1943 German logistics could sustain such an effort, they had straightened out all their issues long before then. In March of 42, not so much.


< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 12/16/2011 5:38:13 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 99
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 7:14:20 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4085
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
I do think we need to be careful and not conflate '42 and '43. The main point about March '42 is that the Axis are just emerging from a winter that, counter-offensive or no counter-offensive, would have left them in dire straits. March '43 is another story.

_____________________________

Cyberpower tower PC
Intel Core i7-3930k CPU, 3.20GHz processor
32 GB RAM
2TB HD
2xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards, each with 4095 MB
Realtek sound card
Dell 3007WFP (running at 2560x1600) 32 bit monitor
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit O

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 100
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/16/2011 11:17:34 PM   
von Beanie


Posts: 249
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline
quote:

The Manstein counteroffensive wasn't just against Kharkov, though, it took place on more or less all points south of that as well all the way down to the Black Sea and was conducted against several Soviet fronts. It was a major effort on a strategic scale.

At this stage the Soviets were pressing on Zaporozhye -- by the end of the counteroffensive the Germans practically restored the original line they began with in summer of 1942, excepting the infamous Kursk bulge. That's quite a bit of movement.

I personally don't think snow is the problem -- rather, the logistical system. In 1943 German logistics could sustain such an effort, they had straightened out all their issues long before then. In March of 42, not so much.



After reading about the March 1943 offensive for the last few hours, I must agree. The pictures I saw didn't show much snow on the ground in the Kharkov vicinity. Nevertheless, the German offensive punches traveled along the roads and railroads. In the reading there was a constant worry by both sides of the onset of the "thaw," and so neither side crossed rivers for fear that they could be isolated the moment the thaw set in.

I'm still not convinced that reducing the German CV in March is as important as reducing mobility some (perhaps by making all rivers and streams nearly impassible) after the second snow turn in the Spring to represent the onset of the thaw, and the riskiness of crossing any river when thawing has set in.

Barring a major upgrade in the logistical aspect of this game that prevents either side from massing their whole tank force in one region in March, 1942, then perhaps the simple solution is to reduce by 30 to 40% the movement factors in the Spring "snow" turns of 1942, or making all streams prohibitively expensive to cross.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 101
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 12:11:05 AM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
After reading about the March 1943 offensive for the last few hours, I must agree. The pictures I saw didn't show much snow on the ground in the Kharkov vicinity. Nevertheless, the German offensive punches traveled along the roads and railroads. In the reading there was a constant worry by both sides of the onset of the "thaw," and so neither side crossed rivers for fear that they could be isolated the moment the thaw set in.


IIRC, the period of Feb-Mar 1943 in the Kharkov region was more of a dry cold, rather than snowy blizzard conditions. I haven't read up on the operation in a while, but I too seem to remember pictures often showing little snow.

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 102
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 6:21:34 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The problem with boardgames/anything based on dice is the reliance on luck more than skill in many cases, as regardless of how good your plan is, if your opponent gets good rolls and you don't you will generally lose. It's a problem that also sometimes plagues games like those produced by SSG, which are quite similar to boardgames in their combat resolution.

WitE adds more random variables, but also rewards player skill far more than anything mostly based on dice in my opinion.

Rolling dice and very complex systems are just replacing one kind of uncertainty for another. Just as you cannot predict the results of your CV multiplying rolls in WITE, you similarly cannot predict the results of dice in traditional boardgames.

Can you hedge your bets by attacking with more force than necessary, having good leaders, air-support and other such factors? Yes, but that's also similar to shifting your CRT to the next odds ratio column in a traditional boardgame.

In fact, in both WITE and a traditional boardgame, you cannot attack with good odds all the time, and need to make decisions on how low you'll risk the odds and where your attacks absolutely must succeed, with limited resources. Such is the essence of command, but then these nail-biting decisions have to made no matter kind of system you're playing with.

"For all of its complexity, War in the East could have used CRTs and die-rolls and still be one of the best games ever made on the subject, if only because it's something that you can play solitaire, does all the book-keeping for you and cannot be ruined by the house-cat eating 1st Panzer Division.

Playing WITE, you're comparing your CV numbers to the enemy's CV numbers, and trying to get a 2:1 ratio or better to score wins. The fact that the game derives the actual CV number by adding together the total number of Squads, Guns and Tanks in a formation, each being worth a fraction of a CV-point, isn't essentially different than if the counter were just made up of discrete "steps" to represent its "health". The fact that the game models the production of every individual 88mm as it gets stamped out by the factory isn't essentially different from letting you dole out "replacement-steps" to your cardboard-counter units.

For the Soviet player, a huge part of being able to score successful counter-attacks in 1942-1943 is lining up a thousand or more tubes of artillery on a single target. Artillery doesn't contribute to CV except to kill off the enemy's troops, reducing his own CV. The fact that you need to line up so-and-so many Artillery battalions in the same hex would be exactly the same even if you were rolling with dice, except arty would cause you to "shift" the results of your Combat Results Table, but the effect would be the same!

Sure, the grognards would argue that no commander in history ever had the kind of "accuracy" that CRTs give you in terms of predicting whether or not you could win a battle, but they'd be wrong: The ultra-complexity of WITE doesn't really pay-off in reinforcing you to make hard choices because the lack of information or predictability means you're usually going to attack with two to three times more force than what's necessary anyway. Furthermore, even if you get to see the exact percentage chance of your attack succeeding or not with a CRT, putting Operation Typhoon on the line with a "63% chance to succeed" attack on the outskirts of Moscow is still a pretty big gamble. Can you "rig" the results by looking for 10-to-1 adds so the tooltip says you have a 99% chance to cause a retreat? Sure, but [1.] you're never going to have enough units to pull this off consistently, [2.] having to parcel out your limited forces to achieve your objectives is a cornerstone of nail-biting command decisions and [3.] the same rigging effect occurs in WITE's CV-obscured system anyway.

In fact, I'd argue that this ultra-realism tends to cause more problems than it solves because of all the edge cases that you have to deal with. Things like two (TWO!) Il-2 Sturmoviks on an Interdiction mission causing an entire division to halt its movement, or a single Soviet NKVD regiment stopping an entire tank column in its tracks. If we were playing a boardgame, that regiment simply would've been subjected to an Over-run Rule and that would be that.

Modeling everything down to the individual rivets makes sense for something like War in the Pacific's air and naval combat portions, where you really have to "sim" planes and ships to get believable results, but for a lot of other aspects of the genre, grognards keep demanding for less and less abstraction without asking themselves how much value they're really getting from spending all that extra computing power. It doesn't always give you a more realistic game, just a more obtuse one."

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 103
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 11:42:54 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7166
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
You forget one big, important, thing: casualties are not dependent on the odds, which is very different from dice-based games where you can take a certain chance to get a X amount of casualties. That isn't possible in WitE, because the odds only determine the type of result and the elements determine the casualties. That's why I feel it is in theory a better system than dice-based games, where you can just min/max attacks because you know the odds and know the CRT. Many dice-based games, at least for the PC, don't have anything like a reserve mode so the only variability in what the result is when attacking a certain unit is what you roll with a single or maybe two dice rolls.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 12/17/2011 11:43:07 AM >


_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 104
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 1:43:23 PM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 4/26/2010
From: Mannheim, Germany
Status: offline
But that breaks down because of retreat losses. Especially during the first Blizzard, the vast majority of losses to the Axis are retreat losses. During my Blizzard offensive, I would see regular results of my attack killing 80-200 men, with the retreat losses being an addition 2k-4k men. And since during the blizzard a few rolls can reduce your adjusted combat value from 100 to 5, you are back at the "roll dice to determine result AND casualties".

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 105
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 2:24:17 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7166
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
But they're still variable, unlike dice-based CRT's that are always, without any exception, A-1:D-1 (for example) for a certain roll on a certain part of the CRT.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 106
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 3:47:24 PM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 4/26/2010
From: Mannheim, Germany
Status: offline
Well, the biggest difference is simply that each "counter" on the board is actually hundreds of counters for the game - which is a good thing as it removes relatively common huge effect of a few bad rolls in normal boardgames that use a CRT, or similar thing to figure out the results. In effect, this makes extreme outliers extremely rare - which is what it should be.

However, this falls apart somewhat through retreat losses - which becomes extremely obvious during the first blizzard. There you have a rule (22.3.1) that basically makes those hundreds/thousands of other rolls irrelevant - or rather it makes extreme outliers very common. This especially, because the losses to Axis units during the first Blizzard is so utterly dependent on the question of being forced to retreat or not. Basically, if you fail the attack, the attacked unit is almost untouched - almost no casualties, losses, etc. If they are forced to retreat, they have huge losses (though no additional disruption, strangely enough).

What I'm trying to say is this: Currently, the first blizzard works mostly through directly changing the combat values (partly all the time, partly dependent on a few rolls of the dice), but NOT through changing the actual battle results. This leads to in effect, invalidating the entire combat system during the first blizzard, and instead replacing it with a CRT (not exactly, but close). A much better approach would have been to have an effect on the individual rolls of elements in battle, thereby once again utilizing the hundreds/thousands of rolls of the dice the game normally uses.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 107
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 4:35:05 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7166
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
It's not just during the first blizzard that the defender tends to take significant losses from retreat, as the German usually significantly more from retreat than from actual combat. Hopefully, that will also be tweaked at some point as you can get some pretty odd results. If ~50.000 men only manage to kill 250 Germans during a battle, how are they suddenly capable of killing 1000 more, hand of good style, after the battle?

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 108
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 5:40:53 PM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 4/26/2010
From: Mannheim, Germany
Status: offline
I think the whole retreat losses mechanic is somewhat screwed up - its just that the blizzard makes it extremely obvious.

Currently, the vast majority of retreat incurred losses is destroyed elements - low morale/exp (or low mobility) units also get some very few damaged elements - but never any disruption. Instead, it would seem better that elements should be mostly destroyed through battle, with the retreat losses being more on the side of damaged and disrupted elements. Since those are more vulnerable in battle (I think), they could then be destroyed in subsequent attacks, or would recover if left alone.

It would be really interesting to simply track the total losses (for both sides) incurred through retreat vs those incurred incurred through battles themselves.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 109
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 5:44:23 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
I agree with DTurtle - for all of the emphasis on exacting simulation, a rather significant portion of the flow of gameplay and combat results are determined by these large abstractions, such as the First Winter, the 2:1 rule, the removal of the 2:1 rule, and this so-called March Madness where the Soviet CV crashes in 1942.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 110
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 6:26:11 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7166
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Unlike the other things you mention, however, the Soviet CV drop in March is not due to some special rule lowering them, CV's just return to normal.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 111
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 7:17:59 PM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 4/26/2010
From: Mannheim, Germany
Status: offline
It would be an interesting experiment to turn up combat losses to 5-10x their current level, while simultaneously reducing retreat losses by 50-90%. Of course, this type of huge adjustment won't happen to WITE anymore, but I hope it is looked at very carefully for WITW.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 112
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 7:18:55 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Unlike the other things you mention, however, the Soviet CV drop in March is not due to some special rule lowering them, CV's just return to normal.

That is a distinction without a difference.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 113
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 7:21:43 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
It's a subtle but important distinction. There's a real difference between saying that Soviet CVs are crashing, and that the Wehrmacht is recovering too quickly. I think the March stuff is more the latter than the former. (But over the course of 42, the issue becomes more about the inherent weakness of Soviet CVs due to 1.05 changes.)



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 114
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 7:29:19 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's a subtle but important distinction. There's a real difference between saying that Soviet CVs are crashing, and that the Wehrmacht is recovering too quickly. I think the March stuff is more the latter than the former. (But over the course of 42, the issue becomes more about the inherent weakness of Soviet CVs due to 1.05 changes.)


Hmm, another fact that you say is not a fact.
In December, Soviet CVs by rule double and Germans are halved.
In March, that rule is removed. Ergo, a rule is responsible.

Unfortunately for everyone involved in WitE, the weather model is infantile in its sophistication. We'll just have to deal with it.

A simple answer to this problem is to play Random Weather.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 115
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 7:35:59 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
In March, Soviet CVs go back to normal. (Or should be, unless there's something else going on here that is a genuine bug.)

If the Wehrmacht was in the kind of condition in March that it should be, normal Soviet CVs shouldn't be a problem. The natural result from this would be a stalemate. Neither side could do much to the other. The Soviets are off their steroids, but the Germans too need time to recover from the winter. Instead, it's a far more abrupt shift and you get tired out (but normal) Soviets facing a German army that's pretty much good to go.

So, yes, there is a difference here.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 116
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 7:49:33 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
That's not really how deductive reasoning works: You're complaining about the relative change in CVs in March, which is entirely the result of the First Winter rule (being removed in March). There already ARE rules that govern how quickly "thaw" (as a concept) impacts rivers and swamps.

One could advocate a weather system that changes gradually the cost of movement/attack after first winter, as has been suggested elsewhere, or one could petition that the first winter rule should still impact German CVs in March, but not Soviet CVs.

Regardless of what change you want, you're decrying the rule's impact, in this case, the impact that occurs on the turn it is removed.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 117
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/17/2011 10:51:21 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21213
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Just want to once again point out that actual Soviet combat CV's don't double in Dec 41, they double for display purposes only due to many penalties that the Germans suffer during the first winter. As I've tried to explain in the past, the round off issue on small German CVs made us think the best way to deal with this was to double Soviet CVs being displayed instead of halving the German CVs (halving a 1 still gets you a 1). Soviet CVs in battle never change, it's the Germans that suffer reductions in battle during first winter. These penalties get smaller and smaller until they finally go away in March. I realize this is confusing. Among other changes, we are considering having the First Winter February attack CV modifiers also apply to any Snow turn in the first winter and in March 42.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 118
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 12:08:44 AM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1736
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Personally, I'd prefer the truth (whole & nothing but) on the counters, modified per FoW.

Closest I can think of is (for both sides and for all turns, not just blizzard)
1) 0.5 and below displayed as '0' on the counters
2) Values in mouse over pop up given with 1 decimal, alternatively multiplied by 10 so in a non-FoW game, the value shown would be the same that the combat result screen would.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 119
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:14:45 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21213
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
I think displaying a 0 for .5 would not be wise, because true 0 CV units rout move when they move next to the enemy, and you which units are in that condition.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: March Madness '42 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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