Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 10:56:59 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
RCH, I think you need to distinguish between what happened in AGC in 1942 and what has been happening in game during March. They aren't the same thing.

Historically the situation in AGC was quite confused with encirclements and counterencirclements launched by both sides as the blizzard petered out. These were not massive operational movements that shifted the front lines by hundreds of miles. They were desperate struggles often involving ground down units contesting supply lines. The Soviets lost the fight, but it was a near run thing, and in the end, you wound up with a lot of very ugly salients and pockets. It took until June to straighten this out.

The in game March Madness period is something else entirely. Entire Fronts are getting destroyed and the lines are being pushed back hundreds of miles in the space of a few weeks. It resembles Manstein's counteroffensive in 1943 rather than anything that happened in 42.

MechFO criticisms and ideas about this are well considered and I'm taking them under advisement. I think he's on the right track here. But even he will acknowledge the distinction I'm outlining here.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 241
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:19:58 PM   
RCH


Posts: 180
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
It is clear to me that supply is the issue. The March madness shouldn't be possible even with well preserved armored divisions as the supply situation was tenuous at best. That is a given.

A point that I was trying to make was the blizzard effects are possibly too severe on the Axis by late blizzard 41. In the first released blizzard it was severe and the Axis players were continually told that they just didn't know how to play it. I saw back then that it was way too severe. From a historical standpoint, I am trying to come to terms with what should be possible in game.

So much of this plainly comes down to supply and that's for both sides.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 242
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:20:32 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

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.


I am open also to the idea and have started so in the past.



_____________________________

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=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 243
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:31:08 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
These were not massive operational movements that shifted the front lines by hundreds of miles.


Flaviusx I beleive in most cases the lines "shift" 100's of miles because of withdrawals.

The pockets in most if not all cases are 20 units if that. The russian player pulls back another 10 hexes. Then mud hits before any more pockets are made.

Again as Katza has stated the March O is historical and does nothing to change the normal all things being equal 1944 wins by the russian side.

Nerfing something that does nothing to change the out come of the game because of bias is just silly and is causing the loss of the player base for no reason other then some nutty crusade by 2by3 to nerf anything German.

I just dont get it.

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=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 244
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:33:44 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale


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!!



Again no facts all feeling.

Talk about facts and not fiction.

Another GG troll.

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=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Treale)
Post #: 245
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:40:06 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
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.



You know little about the game, witp is not wite.

Your trolling for GG.

Hate has nothing to do with improving a game. Hate proves nothing.

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=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 246
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:45:01 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Less hate and more data would be nice.

Facts and less fiction.

Hate just drives poeple away.

I will keep playing and the haters can keep hating.

A winter O is 100% historical.

I am not the only one that sees this clear fact.




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.







quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I think the German players hands are tied quite enough already. Cannot create support units, cannot decide what unit withdraws, cannot spend AP's to winterize units prior to winter, cannot control armor assignments within reason even though they might have 1000 tanks in the pool (note I said within reason, as fun as it would be, I don't want 300 Tigers in a division), forced to suffer historical morale loss no matter the situation due to dates, forced TOE changes per history even though the German may be doing much better, forced withdraws of units that got mauled during history yet might be full strength in our game, no control over when a unit TOE upgrades or who (on this date everyone starts changing) instead of allowing the German to spend AP's to keep the unit a certain TOE setup.

Sorry for the last rant, but I really, really hate having my hands tied.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


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?


Of course the Germans could not pocket Russian divisions in March of 1942 historically.



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.





quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
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.


Flaviusx, first a big premise: thank you and the devs team for this patch. Thank you all for the outstanding support.
It's not about defending march madness. I do not like the solution to this problem ("artificial" reduction of German units CV's).
I cannot see an historical reason to this (why only the germans? Why only in 1941?)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


One has to admit that 2ndACR has hit the nail on the head. Frankly I believe that until some of these issues are settled especially the morale and late war TOE 'upgrades' are settled, it will be difficult to really play as Axis to win in the long run. To the list I'd add the fact that Axis allies cannot recreate destroyed units and that they cannot have SU attachments (both of which are not historical in any way).

Mayebe these issues will be solved when a total war in europe title comes out, combining all fronts, with the Germans having to make decisions on where and how to allocate units and possibly even affect war production. Maybe one day it will happen...



quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

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.

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.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron

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.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

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!





_____________________________

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=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 247
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/5/2012 12:38:03 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32556
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Hello Pelton,

You've been a very active player and in many cases very helpful in your feedback.

However, you've previously received a warning about some of your forum behavior. You don't seem to understand the point where constructive feedback becomes destructive. You've received replies to your assumptions and points from the publisher, developer and testers, which you have chosen to ignore. You've continued repeating the same criticisms, based on assumptions about a beta update that was just released, which you have not yet played to any significant degree. Ignoring responses, repeating the same points over and over again without evidence and accusing forum posters who disagree with you of bias, hate or trolling actually turns you into a form of troll yourself. That wouldn't be tolerated on most forums and it isn't tolerated here.

We welcome your and others' constructive criticism, but we don't allow trolling.

As you have already been warned in the past, you will receive a one week vacation from the forum to give this some thought. After that week is up, please e-mail me at erikr@matrixgames.com to let me know that you understand the points above and will keep things more civil in the future and I'll restore your access.

I am also locking this thread and encourage all other posters to leave any baggage from this thread behind. Feel free to start a new thread to discuss changes, but please keep the discussion civil and constructive.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 248
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 8 [9]
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]
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

0.086