Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes?

 
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: 1.05.59 rule changes? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:45:45 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2158
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

One of the biggest turnoffs for me in this game has been the fact that it is either WW1 style or one side or the other gets the track shoes on and both armies spend far more time running than fighting.


But...that's more or less the war on the Eastern Front as it was historically too. Neither the Soviets nor the Germans regained the initiative prior to the enemy exhausting itself during the war, and there were long periods where very little happened on large sectors of the frontline, primarily in the north. If anything, the front wide attacks in WitE each turn are ahistorical, but improvements to static mode have made those more rare for the Axis, although the Soviets can still launch them.

An Eastern Front game that allows both sides to attack, without stalemates, would not be a true Eastern Front game.


I don't necessarily disagree with you to a point. My issue is there is nothing really important to fight for that a player, especially a Russian, will make a stand for. Both sides play run away (Russian in the summer/fall, German during the winter, Russian during the spring/summer) and the whole thing essentially becomes a counter shoving match back and forth rather than seeing a lot of fighting going on. The fort changes have been a tremendous beneficial change.

Part of the issue is there isn't the ability to have a real good give and take slugging match. The Russians can very rarely counter attack in 1941 and the Germans still can't counter attack without taking casualties that are far too favorable to the Russians from 42 on, no matter what the odds are.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 151
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:48:17 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
And time and time again you come back to your defense, to honor the simulation. Which means Soviets should win. I read Matrix Games, not Matrix Simulations, now when are you going to get with that?
I am not interested in investing hundreds of hours playing a GAME well as Axis the Soviets always win sir.

uote]ORIGINAL: Flavius

Micheal T, everybody is biased. Neutrality is an illusion -- as is observer independence. The only interesting question is who is biased in what way.

When you claim you are not biased, you're just kidding yourself. I'm willing to grant that your own biases are not crudely in favor of one side or the other -- but it's fairly clear to me that you lean strongly on the game end of the spectrum versus the simulation one. Time and again you propose things from that perspective. Historicity isn't particularly your concern. You and I are bound to clash because I'm more of a simulation guy, and most of the things you propose don't make much sense to me from that standpoint. We already went through this with the VP business a while back.

That being said, I actually agree you with on the very late end date for 45 -- I don't like it either, it's fantasyland. It ought to be truncated.
[/quote]


_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 152
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:16:09 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Ideally between equal opponents, it ought to be a draw or minor win. That's not "always a Soviet victory." I think the current VPs for the campaign game reflect that, there's definitely a clock ticking, although extending things to October 45 is a bit much.

But if you are asking me: should the Germans have a chance to flat out win in 1941-2 between equal opponents? Just plain overrun the Soviet Union?

No. Not even remotely possible. Not between evenly skilled opponents, anyways. I get the feeling a lot of folks have problems with that. And if so, we're never going to agree on this. They want the game design to enable something that it really should not, not if it tries to be in any way a simulation. There's other games out there that will allow this; I can recommend the fun, but not very historical Time of Fury if that's the kind of thing you're looking for.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 153
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:29:15 AM   
wadortch

 

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

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it’s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that’s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.




_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 154
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:47:30 AM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
If this thread gets any more poplular Super PACs will be posting :)

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 155
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:53:24 AM   
stone10


Posts: 240
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline
I enjoy playing both sides and I think it's much better to nerf Germans in early war.
People playing game for fun. In 1.05, the morale rule change favored the Germans so much that the only thing the Soviets can do is to run basicly. There's no fun at all to play as Soviets in early war. I see no fun in just moving massive amount of counters around a huge map and pray for them. On the contrary, it's much fun to play as Germans. You can slaughter reds easily. If things don't look good you can just say there's no hope and end the game or simply disappear. You can also choose to say that this game biased toward Soviet side or your opponent know more tricks than you do.


_____________________________



(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 156
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 5:51:25 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2384
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Flaviusx I enjoy simulations and games, as long as both sides in each kind are treated equally. It seems to me you are quite happy to enforce simulation type restraints on the Axis but not so much on the Soviets.

Example:

The German extent of advance is limited by its railheads (read the logistical model). You constantly call for limiting this so called unrealistic model. Yet you show no inclination to model the Soviet contraints set by Stalin. That is the freedom the Soviet players have in running away and giving up vast tracts of territory and cities that would never have been possible under Stalins regime.

You can't say the game is a simulation when the Soviets have this freedom. I create simulations and models as my vocation. I know something about building models. Leaving out a parameter/factor such as this (Soviet freedom to retreat) renders WITE as a game, not a model of reality.

Really allowing the Soviets this freedom should be balanced by allowing the Germans to plow extra resources in to rail conversion that would accelerate the rate of railhead advance.

It is a fact that many military historians still have trouble explaining how Germany defeated France and Britain in 6 weeks in 1940. Most games/simulations have trouble recreating it. Yet it occured. If it had not happened and had somehow played out in to a stalemate I have no doubt you would be among the people who would be saying 'What, Germany defeat the Western Allies in 6 weeks. What rubbish!'

_____________________________

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

(in reply to stone10)
Post #: 157
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 6:12:30 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Micheal T, you are conflating two separate things: mechanical and unavoidable logistical constraints, and political constraints.

Let's compare apples to apples: if you want Stalin rules, then you have to get Hitler rules. Logistical rules are essentially apolitical and have nothing to do with either. The game doesn't have such rules for either side, by and large, except in the vaguest sense of victory conditions.

So to the extent the game is unrealistic for lack of "hard" political constraints on the Soviet side, I say it is a wash. The Axis doesn't have them either, mostly. You won't hear me calling for Hitler standfast rules, btw. That's a can of worms I'd just as well leave alone.

The logistical model is a purely military and operational issue.

I don't think anybody is totally happy with the game's logistical model. Plainly, there's room for improvement here. (And I expect to see improvements for it in WitW.)


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 158
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 6:17:18 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
Another huge game-changing patch which screws up on-going games. ... So, I'm in 1943 after playing a campaign game for over a year, and most of my armies have almost 30 CPs so are now massively overloaded. It will take about a million APs to fix that small problem. Unless Ketza agrees to play without this patch, that game is over.

I have had it with investing tons of time into this game only to have massive changes introduced which make it difficult or impossible to continue.

And I didn't see any explanation for why CP caps should DECREASE over time as the Soviets, so I guess it is just a hack to introduce more "balance"?

(in reply to bdtj1815)
Post #: 159
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 6:36:08 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
76mm, it's not a hack, but I myself don't really agree with it. There is a legitimate justification for it insofar as Soviet armies in absolute numbers did tend to decline over the course of the war. (Not universally or uniformly, there's many exceptions, but the trend is clear.)

The tank army change is open and shut -- that one doesn't leave much room for debate, the Sovs almost never deviated from the 3 corps norm. They never should have been allowed to be as big as they originally were in command capacity. I can name on my fingers the occasions they deviated from the norm, and they are all exceptional:

1. The ad hoc Group Popov which had 4 understrength tank corps in the 42-3 offensive.

2. Rotmitstrov's 5. Guards Tank temporarily received 2 tank corps as reinforcements for Prokorovkha. In the context of week long turns, this could be easily explained as reserve movements.

3. 6. Guards Tank Army in Manchuria was heavily restructured and reinforced -- that lies outside the scope of the game.

And that's pretty much it.

The change to combined arms command capacity is more controversial. On average, and within a game context, one can argue that the late war armies tended to converge around the figure selected. It's not a totally crazy argument. But the Soviets concentrated far beyond that on many occasions. Combined arms armies were highly task specific and didn't really have quite the uniform organization the tank armies did.

We're also looking at a granularity problem insofar as the burden of command changes depending on the size of the unit in practice, something the game just doesn't account for. A full strength 30k rifle corps is obviously more unwieldy than the threadbare rifle corps that marched into Berlin. But they are all 4 command points for game purposes.

At any rate, I'm going to play it out and see how it works out. I have some ideas on how to manage the change. It's going to be a real pain in the neck, but it's not a game killer imo, if you're willing to accept that perfect C&C just isn't going to happen all the time.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 160
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 6:57:13 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

I am not interested in investing hundreds of hours playing a GAME well as Axis the Soviets always win sir.


Then play a different game? This game is, after all, supposed to be historical, not fantasy.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 161
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 7:13:57 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
At any rate, I'm going to play it out and see how it works out. I have some ideas on how to manage the change. It's going to be a real pain in the neck, but it's not a game killer imo, if you're willing to accept that perfect C&C just isn't going to happen all the time.


Are you talking about new games or on-going games? I don't have a problem with the changes for new games, but it sure seems like a game killer for on-going games--I would have to devote every AP for the rest of the war to creating new HQs and transferring units from one HQ to another, in the meantime all of my armies would be crippled because they would be almost 100% overloaded...

2x3's complete lack of regard for players that have invested so much time beta-testing, I mean playing, their game really turns me off.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 162
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 7:25:24 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
For the time being, your best bet is to stick Zhukov in STAVKA (it matters now, and he can make a lot of rolls that will fail at a lower level, especially for infantry), but I'm not gonna lie. Sorting out your C&C if you are in a late game period is going to be exceedingly difficult. The game is evolving and improving over time, and I can only ask for patience.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 163
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 7:27:29 AM   
Schmart

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

During march most germans pocket 20 to 30 units on average. which is 325ish AP points. Thats your math not mine.

This will require the Russian player to spend the next 6ish turn buying back units. But before then its clear weather and I can pocket 10 to 15 more again keeping the size of the russian machine in check and the ap's low as per your email

Plus the german player can push past the forts.

now we have your nerf bat patch 1.06

None of this is possible now.


Can you please refer us to the history book(s) that details this historical German ability to pocket 30 Russian divisions in March 1942?

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 164
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 7:45:22 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
Depending on how far along you are in your game, and your accumulated AP pool, it'll probably take 3-6 months of game time to sort out the Soviet C&C. For those who are complaining about this patch being an Axis nerf, you might want to consider that the next time you're worrying about the one month (March 1942) that your armies are going to be operating at sub-par (for 1.05.53 and earlier) levels of performance.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 165
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 7:51:51 AM   
Truppenstab


Posts: 12
Joined: 2/4/2011
Status: offline
After spending most of the day, digesting the changes in this patch. I am of the thinking that this upgrade works both ways, and will not benefit one side more than the other. But that's just my option, and what do I know.

Of course I only play the Axis side, and the major affect I can see for me. Is that I will have to delay my 1942 offensive to a more historical start date. Also I maybe restricted, in moving fresh reserve units around in the Blizzard.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 166
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:46:39 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21420
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
76mm, I am truly sorry for the pain the patch is inflicting on your game and others like it. The command change was the one item we knew was going to be very painful to current players because they had no time to adjust to it (unlike a new game, or one still in 1941). For cases like this we recommend that you consider keeping two copies of WitE on your system. The older version can be used to finish out the current game, while the newer version could be used for new games. Studying the later war scenarios it became obvious we missed a major factor with the size of the Soviet Armies, and we wanted to make the adjustment now while we were also fixing Stavka and making the other changes. All in all we think the patch is fairly balanced, but it will tend to net out as a hit to the Germans early, and then net out hitting the Soviets later on. We just didn't see a way of avoiding this issue. Fewer, large Soviet armies run only by the best Soviet leaders just wasn't right. We are at the point where we don't want to be making a lot of rule changes going forward, but will try to keep an eye on how the game is doing and try to make more subtle corrections as needed. Having worked on the Don to the Danube scenarios, we've had a better view of some of the later war issues and we think the biggest changes are behind us.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 167
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:57:10 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

76mm, I am truly sorry for the pain the patch is inflicting on your game and others like it. The command change was the one item we knew was going to be very painful to current players because they had no time to adjust to it (unlike a new game, or one still in 1941). For cases like this we recommend that you consider keeping two copies of WitE on your system. The older version can be used to finish out the current game, while the newer version could be used for new games. Studying the later war scenarios it became obvious we missed a major factor with the size of the Soviet Armies, and we wanted to make the adjustment now while we were also fixing Stavka and making the other changes. All in all we think the patch is fairly balanced, but it will tend to net out as a hit to the Germans early, and then net out hitting the Soviets later on. We just didn't see a way of avoiding this issue. Fewer, large Soviet armies run only by the best Soviet leaders just wasn't right. We are at the point where we don't want to be making a lot of rule changes going forward, but will try to keep an eye on how the game is doing and try to make more subtle corrections as needed. Having worked on the Don to the Danube scenarios, we've had a better view of some of the later war issues and we think the biggest changes are behind us.


I just discovered the same problem in our team game Za Rodinu. I think the change is good, and in our case the effect will be manageable, but it still hurts to pay APs to rearrange the command structure when every AP is needed to build new units. Just a thought, a one time AP grant when first starting an old game saved on an earlier version might have solved the problem, but maybe that wasn't possible. But in cases as 76mm, couldn't you consider doctoring his save file and giving him an AP compensation? Provided Ketza agrees of course.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 168
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 9:01:53 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
Joel, thank you for your response. I should also say that I appreciate that your team is still putting significant effort into improving the game (and I think that the various patches have been improvements) this long after launch.

That said, playing a campaign game is a huge investment of time, and I'm just not interested in starting another one if I'll just have to flush it down the toilet after a few months. Maybe this is OK for German players, since they have more fun during 1941-1942 anyway, but I only play Sov and replaying 1941 over and over again without ever getting to 1943 is completely unappealing.

What really irks me is that you could have done some pretty simple things to help limit the impact on ongoing games. For instance, in my game I've spent the last few game-months stocking my armies with as many CPs as possible, which turns out was exactly the wrong thing to do. If you had simply told us this change was coming, I would not have done so, and would be in much better shape. Or you could have had the patch calculate how many AP would be needed to "fix" C&C for the player's current OOB and grant those AP as a one-off. Or even some arbitrary number of APs would have been better than nothing.

As it is, we're being treated like beta-testers, not players, and I'm kind of fed up with it.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 169
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:00:16 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
I am happy its not just me that think this patch is nothing more then another German nerf bomb.

The dev's are clearly bias with Flaviusx being the shining example.

The Russian side gets to do what is historicaly possible, (the what ifs).

The German side is put in a box and with each patch any thing that is historically possible is hit with a nerf bat.

This is the standard MO time and time again.

The player base questions this bias and 2by3 is proud of this bias.

Player after player throws in the towel and 2by3 just thinks its a big joke. 2by3 got their cash , but they dont understand that most of these poeple are not going to spend a dime on another game put out by 2by3 because they can see how the staff designs a game. Not based on historical what ifs, but based on what 2by3 beleives the game should be about. Its got little to do with history, but the history 2by3 wants to write.

A game designed to give one side historically possible what ifs and the other side is boxed into only the what happened box IS going to fail and is now clearly tanking.

Yet 2by3 will just be all smiles about it, because they got there money this time.



quote:

Pelton

Its clear that patch has

Flaviusx said"You alrdy see that 1942 will be a stalemate, The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- "

1. be bigger then 1.05 by 1.25 million men
2. have 4 months to build forts
3. be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

Those are the facts.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it’s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that’s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi

It seems to me that now:
- thanks to relatively safe winter/spring of '42 SU can get back to the trench warfare in '42 (I'm pretty sure I can do it with some effort & engineering armies)
- Reduced armies capability is going to hurt in the long turn, but not as much as people are fearing; I have no problem with it
- vehicles are going to hurt much more than the armies reduction; even 10k reduction in vehicles in '43 for SU is hurting; fair enough
- impact of making shock/guards armies a window dressing only (as +1 admin is really not that important imho) will affect the game; maybe it is a good idea
- it seems to me that now chances for major victory for German are nil again; chances for draw are probably same or higher
- impact of weather on reinforcements (especially in blizzard) will hurt Germany a lot. This change will lead to a much more difficult blizzard defense, especially for those who like to fight in blizzard (which was pretty much achievable, not sure anymore); it is the only change I like a lot (as it removes inconsistencies), but I think it may backfire badly



quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon



Anyone who has read Pelton's stuff will have taken note that he has made suggestions to IMPROVE the Russian side (He was one of the first to call for a bump in the armaments multiplier after a new patch dropped it by a lot). This is no different than Flav and ComradeP who have made good suggestions for the Germans, although they are more associated with the "Russian side". While Pelton can sometimes get a bit passionate about the topic of the game, it would be a mistake to assume he wants the "I win" button. If you look at his record, he wins pretty regularly as it is.

As far as my view on this patch, I think it is a step back.



quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

As the combat system won't be overhauled for the moment, that means the oddities of the combat system (like retreat losses probably being too high for smaller attacks and too low for big ones and wildly fluctuating Soviet losses when attacking) will be there for the future, and they can't be balanced because the problem is with the combat system, not something that's easier to balance like replacements.



quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

March Madness is a side effect of the too permissive logistics in WITE.

IMO the current March Madness is a result of overextended Soviets low on supply meeting well supplied Blizzard-sheltered Germans. The results are not unreasonable. "March-Madness" isn't occurring with German units that had to man the line, that would be unreasonable.



quote:

ORIGINAL: colberki

I just hope WITE does not end up like many games especially those from Russian or Eastern European developers where the Germans (in the game) are destined to lose. It maybe not politically correct for the Germans to win but this is a game. But this new rule reducing German CV during the winter of 1941-42 is feeling like the last straw for me. And I have been enjoying playing both German and Soviet sides - seems GG is giving in the the ever vocal minority on the forum.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil


I think these changes will lower dynamics of fighting in '42. Germans will be less able to attack, but it will take more time to mount serious offensive by Red Army. So both sides will grow grow and grow while front remain static.

I hope I am wrong.




quote:

ORIGINAL: sj80

I think Kamil and Pelton are right. 1942 will become much more static now.
I fear this patch is a half step backwards in WITE "evolution".

It will become now much more important to run as Axis backwards during blizzard to save morale and manpower. Without a snow offensive during winter 1942 the Sovjet strength and the fort levels will increase much. Axis offensive actions in 1942 will become weaker now.
I'm really waiting for the patch that prevents Axis retreats during blizzard with high equipment losses. I think it's only a matter of time until the last loophole for the Axis player is closed.
Pelton is also right with naming the major problem: Germany is bound to historic results, Sovjets are free. It seems there are too few Axis fanboys and too many Sovjet fanboys out there.

sj80



quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?


quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

This game has not been developed by looking at two sides, but is overly influenced on one side.

I am tired of the Axis players being driven away with insults.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild





You may be right Aurelian,but if you are i won't know it. Unfortunately i am finished with this game. It is very sad, but i like to play the Germans and as it stands they are just not fun to play. This patch does nothing to correct that and will probably make it worse.

It's a shame because as an AI only player i see all Gary's hard work on the AI going for naught. But the game just leans too far to the Soviets to make it enjoyable. If they would have only given us some of the options they gave the soviets or for that matter anything really to do after '41. Sigh...

Goodbye.




quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

I share this perception. Pelton takes his hits for his style but I think many of his point are on point. What is the ultimate goal for the game if both sides play a "perfect" game? I would think a draw. What I sense is that the Soviet play testers who I believe are exerting a bias on the game seek is Soviet win which may be historically supportable and proper for a simulation but makes for a lousy GAME.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon





quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon




I don't necessarily disagree with you to a point. My issue is there is nothing really important to fight for that a player, especially a Russian, will make a stand for. Both sides play run away (Russian in the summer/fall, German during the winter, Russian during the spring/summer) and the whole thing essentially becomes a counter shoving match back and forth rather than seeing a lot of fighting going on. The fort changes have been a tremendous beneficial change.

Part of the issue is there isn't the ability to have a real good give and take slugging match. The Russians can very rarely counter attack in 1941 and the Germans still can't counter attack without taking casualties that are far too favorable to the Russians from 42 on, no matter what the odds are.



quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Another huge game-changing patch which screws up on-going games. ... So, I'm in 1943 after playing a campaign game for over a year, and most of my armies have almost 30 CPs so are now massively overloaded. It will take about a million APs to fix that small problem. Unless Ketza agrees to play without this patch, that game is over.

I have had it with investing tons of time into this game only to have massive changes introduced which make it difficult or impossible to continue.

And I didn't see any explanation for why CP caps should DECREASE over time as the Soviets, so I guess it is just a hack to introduce more "balance"?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

I bought this game when it came out, but after following the discussions in the form, I always hesitated to really start a long campaign.
So I have to say, that my experience here is very low. But it is my feeling, that Pelton is really trying to make things better with the experience he has.
And regarding his comment, that the game should not be developed parallel to "historical" timeline, but be influenced by the user made decisions and the impacts of these, he is ABSOLUTELY right.
I remember, that I had the same impression in the old days of WItP. From a cerain point in time, the Zero-fighters lost there capabilities suddenly. Or japanese invasions were nearly impossible due to a certain date. The time was triggering something and not the flow of the game.
If Pelton, with his big experience, is claiming this, he should not be attacked personally for this. I understand his point...




What were the conditions necessary for the historical March Madness 43?

Fresh German troops operating near their supply lines against exhausted out of supply Soviets. If one can replicate those conditions, the outcome should be the consistent, no matter whether 41 or 45. Nerfing fresh German units operating near their supply lines artificially just because it's a certain date is historical determinism at it's worst.

What's arguable is whether the logistic system could support this in 42, I agree it couldn't, but then the logistic system should be tweaked instead of messing things up even more by introducing illogical "fixes" in an unrelated area.









< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/4/2012 10:29:23 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 170
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:20:35 AM   
Meteor2

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
I bought this game when it came out, but after following the discussions in the form, I always hesitated to really start a long campaign.
So I have to say, that my experience here is very low. But it is my feeling, that Pelton is really trying to make things better with the experience he has.
And regarding his comment, that the game should not be developed parallel to "historical" timeline, but be influenced by the user made decisions and the impacts of these, he is ABSOLUTELY right.
I remember, that I had the same impression in the old days of WItP. From a cerain point in time, the Zero-fighters lost there capabilities suddenly. Or japanese invasions were nearly impossible due to a certain date. The time was triggering something and not the flow of the game.
If Pelton, with his big experience, is claiming this, he should not be attacked personally for this. I understand his point...

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 171
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:23:14 AM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The Russians now are going to probably be able to continue to attack well into February if not all the way to the end of February. Right now, they start looking to wind it down the first part of February and certainly by the middle of the month, most Russian offensives are done. Nothing wrong, but the Russians now know the Germans probably can't do anything to them if they extend themselves.



And you know what, that's what happened in real life too. The Soviet Union didn't stop attacking in early February and start making preparation for March Madness -- which never in fact happened in real life. (The real life March madness happened in March...of 1943. March 1942 was a mutual exhaustion society.)

I'm gobsmacked by the number of people here who are defending this March stuff. It's blatantly ahistorical. Nobody should be surprised to see attempt to bring it in line. It is every bit as indefensible as the 1.04 Maginot line business -- nor does getting rid of it mean that we are going back to 1.04. This isn't a binary solution, folks.




What were the conditions necessary for the historical March Madness 43?

Fresh German troops operating near their supply lines against exhausted out of supply Soviets. If one can replicate those conditions, the outcome should be the consistent, no matter whether 41 or 45. Nerfing fresh German units operating near their supply lines artificially just because it's a certain date is historical determinism at it's worst.

What's arguable is whether the logistic system could support this in 42, I agree it couldn't, but then the logistic system should be tweaked instead of messing things up even more by introducing illogical "fixes" in an unrelated area.



(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 172
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:25:56 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Joel, thank you for your response. I should also say that I appreciate that your team is still putting significant effort into improving the game (and I think that the various patches have been improvements) this long after launch.

That said, playing a campaign game is a huge investment of time, and I'm just not interested in starting another one if I'll just have to flush it down the toilet after a few months. Maybe this is OK for German players, since they have more fun during 1941-1942 anyway, but I only play Sov and replaying 1941 over and over again without ever getting to 1943 is completely unappealing.

What really irks me is that you could have done some pretty simple things to help limit the impact on ongoing games. For instance, in my game I've spent the last few game-months stocking my armies with as many CPs as possible, which turns out was exactly the wrong thing to do. If you had simply told us this change was coming, I would not have done so, and would be in much better shape. Or you could have had the patch calculate how many AP would be needed to "fix" C&C for the player's current OOB and grant those AP as a one-off. Or even some arbitrary number of APs would have been better than nothing.

As it is, we're being treated like beta-testers, not players, and I'm kind of fed up with it.


I am sorry for your lost time. The Russian players mostly do get a beat down when a new patch comes out more so then Germans because of what you pointed out.

I think the major problem is we are the beta testers, which is ok by me. BUT we put in allot of hard work and get 100% ignored and basicly laughed at by some 2by3 members or poeple that are helping run the boards and inside test the game.

They have known for a while what was going to happen in this patch or atleast some of the major changes.

Allot of the player base feels the same way as you do and many have quit because of how we are treated for helping them play test the game.

Our options mean nothing, yet we put in 1000's of hours of play time and get zero thanks for it.

Again sorry for the kick in the nutts. I know our options differ on the game, but we both want whats good for the game in the long run thats why we keep putting up with the beta tester feel we get as players.




< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/4/2012 10:37:09 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 173
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:32:14 AM   
Deserted Fox

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Ideally between equal opponents, it ought to be a draw or minor win. That's not "always a Soviet victory." I think the current VPs for the campaign game reflect that, there's definitely a clock ticking, although extending things to October 45 is a bit much.

But if you are asking me: should the Germans have a chance to flat out win in 1941-2 between equal opponents? Just plain overrun the Soviet Union?

No. Not even remotely possible. Not between evenly skilled opponents, anyways. I get the feeling a lot of folks have problems with that. And if so, we're never going to agree on this. They want the game design to enable something that it really should not, not if it tries to be in any way a simulation. There's other games out there that will allow this; I can recommend the fun, but not very historical Time of Fury if that's the kind of thing you're looking for.


Flaviusx,

Get outta my head mate!!

I couldn't agree more with every word you spoke. My sentiments exactly.

You are also correct that many people WANT a German victory in 41 and possibly 42. Realistically only possible should the Russian player make the numerous big blunders they did historically, in which case if both opponents are of equal skill, the German player would be unable to capitalise on them whist making his own huge blunders.

Mark


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 174
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:36:12 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO





Nerfing fresh German units operating near their supply lines artificially just because it's a certain date is historical determinism at it's worst.





The game is clearly based on an artifically bias timeline and not ingame results. Players like Tarhunnas and Katza has stated in other threads that they disagree with this bias also.

German historical what ifs are nerfed and Russian whats ifs are supported.

Yes its determinism at it's worst.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/4/2012 10:38:09 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 175
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:38:18 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 1017
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
There doesn't appear to be any changes to the fortification building rules, so the chances of a Maginot Line in '42, at least from the Soviet side, is nil.

If a German player decides to fortify in '42, then it will be a Maginot Line situation

The Russian player won't have the AP's to build such a line unless the Germans do it

I've not enough experience to know for sure, but in my opinion, if the German does this, he is pretty much making sure that the Russian Juggernaut will win the game.

I see the patch as an incentive for a large scale German '42 offensive, and thats a good thing for game balance, surely?


(in reply to Deserted Fox)
Post #: 176
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:51:26 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

There doesn't appear to be any changes to the fortification building rules, so the chances of a Maginot Line in '42, at least from the Soviet side, is nil.

If a German player decides to fortify in '42, then it will be a Maginot Line situation

The Russian player won't have the AP's to build such a line unless the Germans do it

I've not enough experience to know for sure, but in my opinion, if the German does this, he is pretty much making sure that the Russian Juggernaut will win the game.

I see the patch as an incentive for a large scale German '42 offensive, and thats a good thing for game balance, surely?




German tanks losses for simply moving more then 30 MP's is 10% from my testing. This was put into effect to keep the tanks from moving around so much. Another nerf bat hit to Germans.

It is very easy for the Russian player to know basicly what area you will attack in. This new patch gives a huge advantage to the Russian player.

1. The Russian army will be 1.25 million men larger by late June.
2. It will have 4 months to build forts
3. It will be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

This sets the game back to pre 1.05 where it will be fort belts, the russian player has more then enough counters on the map, they do not need to build fort zones.

Also the combat loss ratio for the Germans was hit with a NERF BAT to make up for the lose of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

So the combat lose ratio is basicly 2 to 1 in most combat wins for the Germans after 1941, so this makes attacking in 1942 a huge minus for the Germans unless you get pockets.

Again its not just this one bias nerf patch, its patch after patch that hits the german side.

Flaviusx talks about how the game is historical, its far from it when the combat loss ratio is 1/2 of what it was historically, but he will laugh and say its a possible what if for the russian side.

The MP nerf, the combat loss ratio nerf and now the snow nerf are all nerfs to put the german side in a box. Its not just one German nerf its and unending chain of them patch after patch.

They all try to forse the game into WWI on the russian front from 1942 to 1945

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/4/2012 10:57:32 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 177
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:55:23 AM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
Any chance of any evidence to back up your statement, based on actual gameplay?

The self-balancing of WITE can be very subtle, and if you look very closely at all the rule and formula changes, you can see some of the swings and roundabouts that creates new challenges for both sides.

The so-called "March Madness" had to be addressed - if Axis players are honest with themselves they know that the strength of the recovery tipped the balance too far. Personally, I felt almost embarrassed by the number of units I was pocketing and the amount of territory I took back. The .59 changes can be worked around with skilled play and the Axis can still get to the summer of 1942 stronger than they were historically and at a start line that will enable a better than historical Case Blue. There is absolutely no evidence that the soviets can build a 4 deep wall of lvl4 entrenchments as seen in 1.04. They will be slightly stronger than earlier versions of 1.05, but there will be plenty of opportunity for the Axis to have a good 1942.

The challenge for the Axis remains judging when to stop attacking, and deciding how much real estate they can hold with what size of army, until attrition causes the tipping point to occur, and defence turns into delay. The Axis have plenty of attrition management tools and the new .59 Static/replacement rules will reduce some of the micromanagement that has been driving me nuts.

.59 does introduce more challenges for Soviet players due to the CC and manpower multiplier changes. Having 1m fewer men in more armies with a dilution of leader quality is a new problem that will require clever solutions.

I think everyone needs to read all the changes very carefully, play the game, and get creative in solving any perceived problems, because signs are this is the version we have to work with for the foreseeable future.


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 178
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:01:27 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 1017
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
I don't think you have played the Soviet at all Pelton

Trust me, you won't have the AP's to build the forts

You will if the German player goes into a '42 Maginot Line plan.

Therefore, the German player has all the incentive to attack, and if you think that a Soviet in '42 can stop a German attack in favourable terrain (i.e. South of Tula) then you need to look at every single AAR (including all of yours!).

It might not be a solution, but it needs playing by players like you (ones who can play shed loads of turns more than me!) before we can write it off as a "Soviet fan boy" patch

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 179
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:04:47 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Any chance of any evidence to back up your statement, based on actual gameplay?

The self-balancing of WITE can be very subtle, and if you look very closely at all the rule and formula changes, you can see some of the swings and roundabouts that creates new challenges for both sides.

The so-called "March Madness" had to be addressed - if Axis players are honest with themselves they know that the strength of the recovery tipped the balance too far. Personally, I felt almost embarrassed by the number of units I was pocketing and the amount of territory I took back. The .59 changes can be worked around with skilled play and the Axis can still get to the summer of 1942 stronger than they were historically and at a start line that will enable a better than historical Case Blue. There is absolutely no evidence that the soviets can build a 4 deep wall of lvl4 entrenchments as seen in 1.04. They will be slightly stronger than earlier versions of 1.05, but there will be plenty of opportunity for the Axis to have a good 1942.

The challenge for the Axis remains judging when to stop attacking, and deciding how much real estate they can hold with what size of army, until attrition causes the tipping point to occur, and defence turns into delay. The Axis have plenty of attrition management tools and the new .59 Static/replacement rules will reduce some of the micromanagement that has been driving me nuts.

.59 does introduce more challenges for Soviet players due to the CC and manpower multiplier changes. Having 1m fewer men in more armies with a dilution of leader quality is a new problem that will require clever solutions.

I think everyone needs to read all the changes very carefully, play the game, and get creative in solving any perceived problems, because signs are this is the version we have to work with for the foreseeable future.




As has been stated by MANY players its not just this one a-bomb nerf patch its nerf after nerf.

The MP nerf, the combat loss ratio nerf and now the snow nerf are all nerfs to put the german side in a box. Its not just one German nerf its and unending chain of them patch after patch.

Nothing is done to one side and proudly stated to be historically possible.While the other is hammered time and time again for doing things that are clealry historically possible.

The player base does the beta testing for 2by3 and we are ignored and laughed at for stating what is clearly bias by 2by3.




_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.133