Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo 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!
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  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 5:16:17 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1010
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
We can do with a little less beating on Pelton and a little more focus on what's been presented to us in the latest version.

My current PBEM opponent is often his own worst enemy in the way he expresses his frustration, but I really appreciate him as a player. He knows the game, plays it exceptionally well and gets turns back in a short time span. Recently he offered me the chance to quit our game if I wasn't having fun. You can't ask any more than that as a Soviet player.

The AARs that are getting close to the 225 turn limit show nothing to indicate that the Axis player ends up in as bad a situation as they were historically.
Put aside the game victory conditions and this extended game play beyond May 1945, that I'm no real fan of, and there are three worth looking at.

Tarhunnas vs Gids- Is there anyone who really believes Gids hasn't been outplayed and isn't really the loser here?
Oloren vs Terje- Terje has admitted he's not going to win and is nowhere near historical lines.
IdahoNYer vs Scar- Maybe the most even of the three, but October 1944 and the Axis is still occupying plenty of the USSR.

Would this latest version if played from the start for the 3 games mentioned have altered the results so that the Axis lose Berlin by May '45? I really don't think so. The new winter rules might be a bit too severe for the Axis- I would have preferred they be enabled in 1942, but the reduced Soviet manpower multipliers as well as the reduced command limits and lesser impact of shock and guards armies are going to have an impact in making it more difficult for the Soviet. And those effects are going to last a lot longer than the first winter. The end result may make an Axis knockout blow more difficult, but the end result of the keeping the Soviet hordes at bay in May '45 is a win for the Axis in my book, no matter what the official victory conditions say.

76mm- I feel your pain, these latest changes have put me in the same boat as you with overloaded armies. With these latest changes if I had to look into a crystal ball, I'd predict my game with Pelton ends up about where Terje's will.



(in reply to Treale)
Post #: 211
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 5:49:21 PM   
Flaviusx


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

ORIGINAL: Klydon


Is there anyone here that really believes that if the Germans had such a reserve in March of 1942 that they could not have cut some sector of the Russian line to pieces? The issue for me is not that they can cut a Russian line to pieces, but the mobility in the snow which is amplified by the fact that these spearheads are elite moral units and they are driving around Russia like its summer time in terms of mobility.



Yes. Me. Could not have been properly supplied. Could not probably even have been railed into the theater to begin with in a timely fashion (somebody uptopic even suggested that the better way to deal with March madness is to hit Axis rail cap. That's not a bad idea in some respects.) Also probably couldn't be railed out of there to begin with to take a breather in Germany.

The Axis was in no logistical condition to launch a massive counteroffensive in March of 1942. They could barely keep the stuff in the field in supply. These things really didn't get straightened out until the rasputitsa proper shut down both armies for good.

It's a fantasy counteroffensive allowed solely by the game's flawed logistical model. The solution chosen is not elegant -- the real fix would be in the logistical model and probably also Axis rail -- but it'll do for the moment.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 212
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 6:26:23 PM   
Ron

 

Posts: 487
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline
You know Flaviusx, you would have some credibility if you applied your selective historical criteria to the Russian side as stringently you do the German.

As it stands, yet again the Germans are handcuffed if they show any sort of what-if capability. I'm surprised by the subtle brakes put on the initial '41 offensive - it's not like Russian isn't capable of running fast enough or relocating industry or preserving a huge army already. I'm also surprised this has come out so quickly after the last set of changes.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 213
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 6:31:35 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Ron, what criteria do you wish me to apply to the Soviet side?

I'll happily apply a Stalin rule if you can come up with a good Hitler rule. You might not be happy with the results. This would leave you even more hamstrung than you believe you are now. Mandated Fall Blau. Mandated Axis standfast in the blizzard. Mandated no retreats in general in the late war. No fortifications built in the rear, and most especially not on the Dnepr. For every boneheaded decision you can come up with from Stalin, I can name equally boneheaded ones from Adolf.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Ron)
Post #: 214
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 6:37:48 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2876
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The German side is put on a historical time line that has nothing to do with in game results that limits this incentive.



It's a good observation, so why not take it to an extreme ? Just for discussion purposes. Why not take the German Army in June 1941 and run West, to best defensible positions, dig in like mad many layers deep ?

No blizzard, no losses. Just build up and see if you can stop the Russians from getting to Berlin before the historical timeline...if so, you win.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 215
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 6:37:54 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


Is there anyone here that really believes that if the Germans had such a reserve in March of 1942 that they could not have cut some sector of the Russian line to pieces? The issue for me is not that they can cut a Russian line to pieces, but the mobility in the snow which is amplified by the fact that these spearheads are elite moral units and they are driving around Russia like its summer time in terms of mobility.



Yes. Me. Could not have been properly supplied. Could not probably even have been railed into the theater to begin with in a timely fashion (somebody uptopic even suggested that the better way to deal with March madness is to hit Axis rail cap. That's not a bad idea in some respects.) Also probably couldn't be railed out of there to begin with to take a breather in Germany.

The Axis was in no logistical condition to launch a massive counteroffensive in March of 1942. They could barely keep the stuff in the field in supply. These things really didn't get straightened out until the rasputitsa proper shut down both armies for good.

It's a fantasy counteroffensive allowed solely by the game's flawed logistical model. The solution chosen is not elegant -- the real fix would be in the logistical model and probably also Axis rail -- but it'll do for the moment.


15-20 divisions can't be railed in over 1 turn as it is. The reserve usually comes in over several turns depending on the situation. Railcap is an issue, especially if it takes more than 1 turn to rail the troops to where they need to go. These are things the German has to deal with already in order to get his forces into position to launch the counter attack. Note, I am not saying the Axis rail cap is not an issue. In fact, I am one of the ones that has posted that it is too generous, especially during the winter.

I do disagree that forces could not be withdrawn to be rehabilitated over winter. The trains were full going to the front and not used much coming back. The reason more units were not withdrawn was because the Germans were going for the knock out in 1941. Withdrawing a reserve is recognition of playing for the long game; a right of strategy every German should have to make, but is heavily penalized in this game at almost every turn.

I also would point out that in most cases, the Germans have fallen back on shorter logistical lines during the fall back phase of the Russian blizzard offensive. Such shorter lines could not help but improve the logistical situation for the Axis. Now, how much it is improved is a matter for conjecture. To say it is the same as what happen historically to the Germans is absolutely idiotic when you look at how impacted AGC was by the pressure on their lines of communication by partisans, paratroopers and troop movements to their rear. All those had a impact on the supply situation at the front and almost all of them do not apply in a typical game, yet it is thought the Germans should operate under this handicap as if it still exists, even when the German players undertake measures to prevent it.

To put in special rules just to nerf a German tactic is silly. Let the community develop counter tactics instead of trying to "guide" the game in a certain direction. Right now, there is far too much "guiding" of the German side while the Russians hold all the trumps of being able to customize their army in terms of size and composition. If logistics are the issue, then work on fixing that issue instead of doing a "short term fix" like this.

I think they just need to finish the total handicapping of any German attempts to deviate from what they did historically and nerf the Lvov opening as well. The attitude seems to be we just can't have the Germans learning from any of the mistakes of history without getting clubbed by the nerf bat on the grounds of "game play".

I am pretty much done with this game for at least the near future and I doubt further down the road anything will happen that will interest me enough to invest the massive amount of time needed to play a campaign when ill thought out patches like this happen.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 216
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 7:02:56 PM   
barbarrossa


Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline
I've had the game for almost a month. I've completed one 41-45 campaign as the Soviets, one on going Axis 41-45 and one on-going Soviet 42-45. I'm having a blast with WiTE.

I just jumped in without teasing out every little "gamey" feature and exploit out of the manual or from these boards.

My experience has been a positive, as it was with the original WiTP seven or so years ago. Getting AE soon.

Just to counter all the "I've had enough" posts for balance.




_____________________________

"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 217
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 7:25:55 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2214
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
76mm emailed me about these changes when I had told him I was very busy at work. Since my name is batted around a bit I thought I would chime in fast.

March madness -

In my game against 76mm I destroyed a lot of stuff in the late winter and spring mainly because I caught him off guard with rested Panzer divisions and the entire 18th army which had been resting during the Blizzard. It was my choice to give up territory and take a beating on various sectors of the front during the blizzard so I could reap some rewards later when the weather turned.

Now over time many Axis players picked up on this concept of force preservation during Blizzard. This led to the "march madness" period and the subsequent change of Soviet tactics after the Blizzard was toned down to prepare for the potential of An Axis early offensive.

I do not agree with the change as it takes away a very interesting and fluid time period from the game. As the Axis player you have to plan for it in advance and take risks during Blizzard to make a possible March campaign a success. As the Soviet player you have to consider the march campaign a possibility and prepare accordingly. To me this rules dumbs down a potential area of excitement.

Besides in my game against 76mm all that stuff I killed in the spring did not really make that much of a difference as he was still able to start his steamroller in the winter of 42.

This leads me to my second point.

Although its unfortunate that the new CC rules will wreck late war Soviet HQ set ups of games in progress it is my thought that something had to be done to slow down the Soviets via logistics or C&C. There seemed to be a lot of focus on disrupting Axis logistics (which I agree with to a great extent)in 41 and 42, yet once the Soviets get rolling they can attack at will with huge grinding stacks turn after turn. 76mm has been assaulting the same section of front from winter of 42 right through to the fall of 43 with the only slowdown being the mud turns. To me this is just as unrealistic as what early versions of Axis logistics were able to accomplish. Logistics need to be addressed for the late war Soviet side and this new CC structure will hopefully help.

To let you know I have a Soviet game going where I have already started the grinding offensive in June 42. As I conduct my attacks each turn and push around hapless Panzer divisions who try to plug the holes I keep telling myself this is wrong on so many levels :) That game is now on the Oct 1 turn and I have been pushing all summer.

I truly appreciate the devs and their hard work. I also appreciate the passion of the players who post here.

Its always a good read!






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ketza -- 2/4/2012 7:32:52 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 218
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 7:41:13 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


Is there anyone here that really believes that if the Germans had such a reserve in March of 1942 that they could not have cut some sector of the Russian line to pieces? The issue for me is not that they can cut a Russian line to pieces, but the mobility in the snow which is amplified by the fact that these spearheads are elite moral units and they are driving around Russia like its summer time in terms of mobility.



Yes. Me. Could not have been properly supplied. Could not probably even have been railed into the theater to begin with in a timely fashion (somebody uptopic even suggested that the better way to deal with March madness is to hit Axis rail cap. That's not a bad idea in some respects.) Also probably couldn't be railed out of there to begin with to take a breather in Germany.

The Axis was in no logistical condition to launch a massive counteroffensive in March of 1942. They could barely keep the stuff in the field in supply. These things really didn't get straightened out until the rasputitsa proper shut down both armies for good.

It's a fantasy counteroffensive allowed solely by the game's flawed logistical model. The solution chosen is not elegant -- the real fix would be in the logistical model and probably also Axis rail -- but it'll do for the moment.


Flaviusx I am not 100% sure on this but:

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Just to nitpick, they did manage to pocket and destroy 2 Armies in January 42 around Rhzev with 3 fresh Divisions from France and the burnt out units at hand.

Also, second the point about excessive mobility being one of the problems, which like many issues, has it's origin in a logistics system that's out of whack.




Is this true?

If it is 2by3 is tring to rewrite history with this patch not follow it.

if it is true it is more then historically possible to have a snow offensive, because the Germans had a Blizzard offensive.

Our current snow O is basicly done with fresh units as per history if mechfo is right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg



Wiki: Soviet forces along the Kalinin Front and Western Front broke through the German lines west of Rzhev in January, but because of a difficult supply route the troops of the Soviet 22nd Army, 29th Army and 39th Armies became encircled.

Hmm

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/4/2012 8:05:14 PM >


_____________________________

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 Flaviusx)
Post #: 219
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:18:55 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

76mm emailed me about these changes when I had told him I was very busy at work. Since my name is batted around a bit I thought I would chime in fast.

March madness -

In my game against 76mm I destroyed a lot of stuff in the late winter and spring mainly because I caught him off guard with rested Panzer divisions and the entire 18th army which had been resting during the Blizzard. It was my choice to give up territory and take a beating on various sectors of the front during the blizzard so I could reap some rewards later when the weather turned.

Now over time many Axis players picked up on this concept of force preservation during Blizzard. This led to the "march madness" period and the subsequent change of Soviet tactics after the Blizzard was toned down to prepare for the potential of An Axis early offensive.

I do not agree with the change as it takes away a very interesting and fluid time period from the game. As the Axis player you have to plan for it in advance and take risks during Blizzard to make a possible March campaign a success. As the Soviet player you have to consider the march campaign a possibility and prepare accordingly. To me this rules dumbs down a potential area of excitement.

Besides in my game against 76mm all that stuff I killed in the spring did not really make that much of a difference as he was still able to start his steamroller in the winter of 42.

This leads me to my second point.

Although its unfortunate that the new CC rules will wreck late war Soviet HQ set ups of games in progress it is my thought that something had to be done to slow down the Soviets via logistics or C&C. There seemed to be a lot of focus on disrupting Axis logistics (which I agree with to a great extent)in 41 and 42, yet once the Soviets get rolling they can attack at will with huge grinding stacks turn after turn. 76mm has been assaulting the same section of front from winter of 42 right through to the fall of 43 with the only slowdown being the mud turns. To me this is just as unrealistic as what early versions of Axis logistics were able to accomplish. Logistics need to be addressed for the late war Soviet side and this new CC structure will hopefully help.

To let you know I have a Soviet game going where I have already started the grinding offensive in June 42. As I conduct my attacks each turn and push around hapless Panzer divisions who try to plug the holes I keep telling myself this is wrong on so many levels :) That game is now on the Oct 1 turn and I have been pushing all summer.

I truly appreciate the devs and their hard work. I also appreciate the passion of the players who post here.

Its always a good read!







All things being equal this game is still hvly in favor of the Russian side as Katza has pted out.

He is the best German player other then possibly James and he is alrdy getting stream rolled in late 1942.

As he has stated he plays both sides and stated stream rolling his German enemy in June 1942.

Katza has zero bias and has most if not all the players on these boards respect.

The game before 1.06 is hvly in favor of the Russian side alrdy and all things being equal its and easy win during 1944 still for the russian side far sooner then historical.

This patch clearly is a german nerf, on something that is 100% historically possible and does very very little to effect the out come of the game all things being equal.

1.The Germans conducted operations during the first blizzard
2. The game pre 1.05 was still hvyly in favor of a russian win in 1944 all things being equal.

Why the german nerf bat patch after patch?

Pelton

_____________________________

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 Ketza)
Post #: 220
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:22:46 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Pelton - what on earth is a bat patch?!?

2 questions for you:

1.) Do you see any negatives for the Soviet's in this patch?
2.) Have you actually played this patch yet?

P.S. You may as well just copy and paste your posts from now on with regard to this patch, will save you typing the same diatribe.

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 221
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:26:13 PM   
Oloren

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/24/2007
Status: offline
Speaking historically here and a bit tongue in cheek, how can the Soviets complain about a month of possibily ahistorical German attacks in March 42 and defend the 4 MONTHS of free clear weather campaigning season they get in 1945?  You'd think the Allies would've take Berlin well before that.  For that matter, the Germans probably would've won the nuclear sweepstakes in August instead of the Japanese, but of course, it's all conjecture.

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 222
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:27:52 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Shvestov's 29. Army was encircled and destroyed in mid February, yes. The Sovs lost 6 divisions outright and 4 more scattered (in game terms presumably routed.) 4800 POWs and 26,0000 enemy dead.

This isn't quite March madness.

Other Soviet formations got caught behind lines and cleaning those up took quite some time, stretching into June.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 223
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:32:47 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Pelton - what on earth is a bat patch?!?

2 questions for you:

1.) Do you see any negatives for the Soviet's in this patch?
2.) Have you actually played this patch yet?

P.S. You may as well just copy and paste your posts from now on with regard to this patch, will save you typing the same diatribe.




I am talking about the 100% historically possible German snow offensive that was nerfed out of the game by 2by3.

Now if you want to start some childish Spell checking police thread go right ahead son.

Heheheh, again your all feelings and zero facts.

Your standard MO, personal attacks and zero data.

pelton

_____________________________

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 Speedy)
Post #: 224
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:36:45 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Shvestov's 29. Army was encircled and destroyed in mid February, yes. The Sovs lost 6 divisions outright and 4 more scattered (in game terms presumably routed.) 4800 POWs and 26,0000 enemy dead.

This isn't quite March madness.

Other Soviet formations got caught behind lines and cleaning those up took quite some time, stretching into June.




Thanks for looking that up.

I think the case has been made( by others that spell better heeheh) that it is a logical historical possibity that the Germans could have conducted an offensive during March 1942.

if I missed spelled something Speedy , pray for me P


Speedy I am looking for someone to take long walks with on the beach -

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/4/2012 8:37:42 PM >


_____________________________

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 Flaviusx)
Post #: 225
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:43:28 PM   
MechFO

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Shvestov's 29. Army was encircled and destroyed in mid February, yes. The Sovs lost 6 divisions outright and 4 more scattered (in game terms presumably routed.) 4800 POWs and 26,0000 enemy dead.

This isn't quite March madness.

Other Soviet formations got caught behind lines and cleaning those up took quite some time, stretching into June.




Plus the blocking forces were strong enough to stop another Army outright trying to relieve the pocket. A far cry of what is possible in game in February.

Considering that there were only 3 fresh division available, I think it scales quite well with what happens once the blizzard penalties are gone and there are 10-20 fresh divisions involved. The cleanup lasting to June was mainly due to the mobility of the Cav Corps and the terrain preventing anybody getting it to grips.

Fact remains, combat penalties are the wrong way of dealing with the issue of oversized (in terms of terrain covered) March offensives and that said, same goes for the Blizzard effects, artificial combat penalties being used to cover up a flawed logistics model.






(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 226
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:49:08 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Info from another player and not me.

It's really tough to find something useful in English but here's a quick overview:

http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/eastern-europe/eastern-europe-index-1942.htm

January and February

02/01/1942 The Red Army achieves a breakthrough at Rzhev.
04/01/1942 The Red Army captures Kaluga to the southwest of Moscow.
15/01/1942 Army Group Centre evacuates the Kaluga sector and takes up winter positions 20 miles to the West.
24/01/1942 German troops of Army Group Centre, recapture Sukhinichi near Kaluga.
01/02/1942 The Red Army begins an offensive toward Vyazma. Zhukov is promoted to command the West Theatre, which includes the Kalinin, West and Bryansk Fronts.
03/02/1942 German forces of Army Group Centre launch a counterattack at Vyazma, cutting off and encircling several Red Army divisions.

Speedy's perfect spelling and grammar is a huge turn on

He would fit right in on the Big Bang Throey.

did I spell that right


_____________________________

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 #: 227
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:50:33 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
2by3's reply to historical data?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg


_____________________________

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 Pelton)
Post #: 228
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:55:08 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Pelton if you read your responses and posts you'll see that a fair percentage of them are either flaming, trolling and or personal attacks. I challenge you to find my posts that are personal attacks on you?

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 229
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 8:58:28 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
MechFO, I don't disagree, the solution here isn't ideal. I rather like the idea you floated uptopic about rail cap.

A drastic overhaul of the game's logistical system is unlikely to happen until WitW.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 230
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 9:09:18 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 462
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


A drastic overhaul of the game's logistical system is unlikely to happen until WitW.


does that mean it will be ported to wite?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 231
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 9:10:22 PM   
MechFO

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

MechFO, I don't disagree, the solution here isn't ideal. I rather like the idea you floated uptopic about rail cap.

A drastic overhaul of the game's logistical system is unlikely to happen until WitW.


Rail Cap is I think the quickest and easiest but I don't understand why you guys aren't using the Axis Raily Supply Modifier more aggressively. I don't know if it's event driven but what's stopping you from really cranking it up December 41 - March 42 in addition to more severe MP penalties at least for Blizzard and arguably also for Snow.

Ideally you would have excess Rail Cap influence supply capacity, same as in TOAW, so the player is forced to choose between Strat Redeployment and Supply, but I see that's definitely WITW if ever.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 232
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 9:40:41 PM   
Treale


Posts: 1256
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Pelton if you read your responses and posts you'll see that a fair percentage of them are either flaming, trolling and or personal attacks. I challenge you to find my posts that are personal attacks on you?


Pelton is a whiner that wants you to design the game especially for him!!

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 233
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 9:49:20 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
These are pretty good ideas, MechFO.

I'm hesitant to jacking up terrain movement costs, though. Remember the 43 counteroffensive. The Axis covered a lot of ground in that. I'm just not sure they could pull a Manstein if we changed that up in order to get 42 right.

But hitting MPs via logistics is probably the way to go.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/4/2012 9:50:29 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Treale)
Post #: 234
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 9:54:36 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3115
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

Pelton is a whiner that wants you to design the game especially for him!!


No... Pelton is just passionate about the game, but has sadly overreacted to the changes, before playing under them. I have seen this before many times in WitP, and it passes (in most cases). For me this patch is just the normal progression of this game, which was needed,and good, also the full impact of the patch will no be known for sometime.


_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Treale)
Post #: 235
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:02:00 PM   
MechFO

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

These are pretty good ideas, MechFO.

I'm hesitant to jacking up terrain movement costs, though. Remember the 43 counteroffensive. The Axis covered a lot of ground in that. I'm just not sure they could pull a Manstein if we changed that up in order to get 42 right.

But hitting MPs via logistics is probably the way to go.


AIUI special movement penalties are already coded for the Axis for the Blizzard in 41 which don't apply to later years, so extending those penalties to Snow (don't they cover snow turns Dec-February anyway?) until March 42 should be doable with little effort and low risk.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 236
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:10:22 PM   
Treale


Posts: 1256
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88


quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

Pelton is a whiner that wants you to design the game especially for him!!


No... Pelton is just passionate about the game, but has sadly overreacted to the changes, before playing under them. I have seen this before many times in WitP, and it passes (in most cases). For me this patch is just the normal progression of this game, which was needed,and good, also the full impact of the patch will no be known for sometime.



Then we need to have positive feedback and not someone accussing 2x3 of ruining the spirit of the game on purpose! I would hope that we are all adults on here that can carry on a fruitful discussion of things??

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 237
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:45:18 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2140
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88


quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

Pelton is a whiner that wants you to design the game especially for him!!


No... Pelton is just passionate about the game, but has sadly overreacted to the changes, before playing under them. I have seen this before many times in WitP, and it passes (in most cases). For me this patch is just the normal progression of this game, which was needed,and good, also the full impact of the patch will no be known for sometime.



Passion is one thing. But the constant accusations/invective/insults go way beyond that. It does, at least IMO, lead one to believe that he wants an "i win" button.

And it is selective reading. Just how anyone can seriously look at the patch notes and think that cutting the CP or command span of the Soviets is a sympton of pro Soviet bias is beyond what any reasonable person could comprehend.

Gotta love those who want Stalin rules that hamstring the Soviets, but just completely ignore Hitler's own meddling. Somehow, I don't think any Axis player would like rules that say they can't take Leningrad because Hitler said no.

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 238
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:46:08 PM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Shvestov's 29. Army was encircled and destroyed in mid February, yes. The Sovs lost 6 divisions outright and 4 more scattered (in game terms presumably routed.) 4800 POWs and 26,0000 enemy dead.

This isn't quite March madness.

Other Soviet formations got caught behind lines and cleaning those up took quite some time, stretching into June.



How can this be so haphazardly passed over? This is really more proof of bias? Stop claiming this game as historical. It is only a game with only a superficial likeness to actual combat on the eastern front. I was here early and remember the first released games' blizzard. Even now the understanding is that the current blizzard isn't as bad as the original blizzard. This is true, but from what point of view are we looking at?

The Axis, during the blizzard of 1941, was able to cut off and destroy a Soviet force of over 30k+. That is not reflected in this game; and yet, it is so easily dismissed.

The fact is historically, the Germans put all their panzers on the front lines and pushed for Moscow. The blizzard hit and it was a disaster. If the player in this game chooses to preserve his armor and then bring it back out after the blizzard is over that is unhistorical and therefore brings the ire of the devs to stop that?

The main problem is with supply. The fix needs to be with supply.

This is an example of having Hitler on the Axis' back. Historically Hitler wrecked the panzer formations by driving on Moscow. In the game therefore panzer formations must be similarly gutted; and if the Axis player doesn't comply, well then the devs are going to do it for them.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 239
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:49:50 PM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
I have no problem with getting rid of the Lvov pocket. If this game is historical then lets do it. But the game is not historical.

What would happen if you took the pocket away? The Axis would be in outright mutiny and everyone knows why.

If the game is marketed as a historical game then make it historical. The Lvov pocket is clearly unhistorical.

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   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