Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Will you keep playing after this patch?

 
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: Will you keep playing after this patch? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 1:19:51 AM   
stone10


Posts: 240
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline
Why not? Is there any reason to not play? Back in 1.04, the game is like a nightmare for German player start from 1942, and I still enjoy the game.

_____________________________



(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 61
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 1:23:30 AM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 293
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
I have never come across a serious military historian that has suggested the Germans could have won the war on the Eastern Front. I have read many, many suggestions based on completely unrealistic 'could-have-beens' that some non-military people have put forward (see the 'oil' thread for one flagrant example). it isn't narrow-minded to have an opinion, even if it disagrees with yours.
What the german perspective players are missing is: Both sides in this game have a chance of winning!!!!!! but that isn't what you mean. you mean that you want the germans to be able to win before the soviets can build-up. you want to win before the other guy gets his chance, that just doesn't seem very defensible to me.
look, it is simple, the game goes until berlin falls. that is the end of the 4th quarter. there is no sudden-death rule. fight till the end. you do better than historical, you win!! how simple is that. stop looking for an easy out.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 62
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 1:38:36 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think both sides should have an equal chance of winning the game. That is not the case right now. Russia is clearly the side to play if you simply want to win a game.

I like to be challenged. Playing Russia in WITE is no challenge in so much as ultimately winning the game. I would like to be challenged no matter which side I play.

As far as the war goes. Yes I agree the most likely outcome was Russia winning especially once the US got going in 1943. But I beleive, from what I have read over the past 40 years and from what I have heard first hand from interviews done with the protagonists that Germany had a chance (the size of which is debateable) of defeating Russia in 1941/42 outright. How are we to know what may have occured had Moscow been taken or a succesful Fall Blau? My mind is open to any number of what if scenario's. Apparently the Soviets were interested in a negoiated peace as late as early 1943.

Why is it that people can accept (in game terms) that France should be able hold out in 1940 but not that Russia could lose in 41/42? It seems they are quite prepared to accept some what if's but not others. Will the France WITW game be designed around the premis that France cannot win because historically it did not happen?

If the game(s) are to be limited to strictly historical outcomes what is the point in playing them at all?




It would appear then that perhaps the only thing we disagree about is, as you say, the size of the chance that Gemany had to win in Russia.

With respect to the Fall of France in 1940, I think perhaps the major difference here is that historically Gemany"outplayed" France. So any recreation of this Battle should favour the French Player as all he will have to do is outperform his historical counterpart; which should be easy. By the way, if they start the game in May 1940 with the historical disposition of troops than, IMHO, France will not stand a chance. The French player may be able to out perform his counterpart in terms of surviving longer, but France will fall.



(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 63
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 2:30:39 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6395
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Micheal T, you haven't played the Sovs against a first class Axis opponent as a Soviet, and have a rather exaggerated notion of how easy they are. (Your last game exemplifies this, although that one had a promising start.)

I think you need to start picking games against folks in your own weight class. Why not challenge Pelton? (He's beatable, mind you, but better than any of the German opponents I've seen you play.)



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 64
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 3:00:52 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2133
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think both sides should have an equal chance of winning the game...
Why is it that people can accept (in game terms) that France should be able hold out in 1940 but not that Russia could lose in 41/42? It seems they are quite prepared to accept some what if's but not others. Will the France WITW game be designed around the premis that France cannot win because historically it did not happen?

If the game(s) are to be limited to strictly historical outcomes what is the point in playing them at all?


If you think Germany should have an equal chance to win, you might as well be asking to play a fantasy game, which I think most here are not particularly interested in.

And as to why people have different opinions about the possible outcomes in France and Russia, maybe because, you know, the facts were completely different? Key fact: France is not Russia.

And I actually think that Germany had a small, tiny, chance of winning in Russia, but only if they could have triggered a political collapse. Given the ruthlessness of the Soviet regime, such an outcome was very unlikely but not completely impossible, especially if Hitler had played his cards very differently (which of course is equally unlikely).


< Message edited by 76mm -- 2/6/2012 3:05:32 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 65
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 3:16:56 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2391
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
76mm you confuse two issues. One is where I consider Germany had *some* kind of chance to win the war against Russia.

The other is where I consider that both sides should have a equal chance of winning the *game* not the *war*

They are entirely different issues. The issue of game victory is entirely driven by the games victory conditions. There are two ways for Germany to win the game. One is to attain 290 VP's. Which is impossible against and equal opponent. The other is to survive until Oct 1945. Again impossible against an equal opponent.

For the sake of the argument lets consider I subscribe to your view that Germany could not win the war. Ok

Do you think the games vitory conditions offer both sides an equal chance of winning the *game* ?

Obviously they do not. I say that they need a drastic overhaul now more than ever.

And Flav I have played both sides
well enough to make an informed call that playing Russia is much easier than playing Germany. Against equal opponents Russia will always win the *game*. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 66
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 3:22:53 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6395
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
I disagree, Micheal T. I think if we go by the endgame GC victory conditions it's going to be a footrace to Berlin. (Yes, the timetable is too forgiving. Those extra innings need to go away.)

Between equally skilled opponents draws won't be uncommon at all. I can see minor Axis victories becoming quite possible with a May 45 ending date. If you cripple the Sovs in 41-2 they may not be able to work up a head of steam until practically 1944 and they'll never get to Berlin on time. We're seeing quite a lot of this.

Now I understand this isn't the "win" you're looking for.

I know you play both sides. I think you need to find opponents more at your level of play. Your Axis opponents are making clear blunders. That last game you played was thrown away.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 67
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 3:28:59 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2133
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

76mm you confuse two issues. One is where I consider Germany had *some* kind of chance to win the war against Russia.

Sorry, based on the context I thought you meant winning the war.

As to winning the game, I think it is hard to say, since the only games I've seen which have gone to 1944-1945 are those in which the Germans did really well early on, and are likely to achieve a minor victory. That said, I would probably agree that the Germans will lose the "average" game.


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 68
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 3:45:43 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2391
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
You see Flav this is where we have a fundamental difference. You see *game* victory solely decided by whoever controls Berlin by a certain date. I can seperate the conditions needed to win the war as opposed to the game. Many cannot it appears.

In order to have incentive for aggressive play the Auto Win conditions need to be acheiveable. Otherwise the German player will always enter the game with a survival mentality rather than the confident all conquering army that the Wehrmacht was in 1941 and to a lesser degree 1942. Ideally I want to play (when German) with this mindset in 41/42. Then, if my opponent holds me off go in to a survivalist mode. As it stands I see the 41/42 aggressive German player becoming extinct. And that seems wrong to me.

I really think *game* victory should be determined by an accumilation of points based on both players acheivements throughout the game.

For example Tarhunas v Gids. Gids Soviets may well win the war and the game. But Tarhunas has received no credit for the long periods he occupied most of European Russia. In game terms he should have received some *bonus* vp for that in my view.

< Message edited by Michael T -- 2/6/2012 3:50:31 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 69
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 3:57:13 AM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 670
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
I like the old SPI sudden death. If the Axis takes (and holds at the same time) Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad it is a decisive sudden death victory. This will shape game play quite nicely, nay almost historically. Very simple and the simplicity will annoy everyone equally. If you are a die-hard Hitler simulator, put Baku in as well, but as long as the Axis get Ukrainian partisans :)

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 70
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 4:07:15 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2133
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
In order to have incentive for aggressive play the Auto Win conditions need to be acheiveable. Otherwise the German player will always enter the game with a survival mentality rather than the confident all conquering army that the Wehrmacht was in 1941 and to a lesser degree 1942. Ideally I want to play (when German) with this mindset in 41/42. Then, if my opponent holds me off go in to a survivalist mode. As it stands I see the 41/42 aggressive German player becoming extinct. And that seems wrong to me.

I totally agree with you here, with the additional complication that "survivalist mode" does not really seem to be a viable strategy.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 71
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 4:53:55 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2391
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

I like the old SPI sudden death. If the Axis takes (and holds at the same time) Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad it is a decisive sudden death victory. This will shape game play quite nicely, nay almost historically. Very simple and the simplicity will annoy everyone equally. If you are a die-hard Hitler simulator, put Baku in as well, but as long as the Axis get Ukrainian partisans :)


Farfarer, you have raised a very taboo subject around here. Shame on you

_____________________________

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

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 72
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 6:15:13 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I really think *game* victory should be determined by an accumilation of points based on both players acheivements throughout the game.



I agree with this; but unfortunately it is unlikely this feature will be added to the game now even as an optional rule. My only concern is that Leningrad is just too easy to capture. Even if the Germans commit the same forces to it's capture as historical and the Russians commit more than historical I believe it will fall in most games. But perhaps this would be balanced by the Russians capturing Berlin and other objectives earlier than usual.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 73
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 8:15:39 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22595
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I disagree, Micheal T. I think if we go by the endgame GC victory conditions it's going to be a footrace to Berlin. (Yes, the timetable is too forgiving. Those extra innings need to go away.)

Between equally skilled opponents draws won't be uncommon at all. I can see minor Axis victories becoming quite possible with a May 45 ending date. If you cripple the Sovs in 41-2 they may not be able to work up a head of steam until practically 1944 and they'll never get to Berlin on time. We're seeing quite a lot of this.

Now I understand this isn't the "win" you're looking for.

I know you play both sides. I think you need to find opponents more at your level of play. Your Axis opponents are making clear blunders. That last game you played was thrown away.


I, of course, agree with Flavio!

In my book the German win is not total military victory (which is impossible in game where opponents are more or less of equal skill) - it is doing better than history (i.e. keeping Soviets as far as possible from Berlin)!

Therefore this is exactly what "Tarhunas" did - although the game was declared "Draw" he is the victor!


Same applies to WitP - anyone who played WitP knows this - regardless of all victories in 1942 (or even in 1943) the end for Japan would come in 1944 and 1945... the victory is to have Allies as far as possible from Home Islands!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 74
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 8:31:39 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22595
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I have never come across a serious military historian that has suggested the Germans could have won the war on the Eastern Front. I have read many, many suggestions based on completely unrealistic 'could-have-beens' that some non-military people have put forward (see the 'oil' thread for one flagrant example). it isn't narrow-minded to have an opinion, even if it disagrees with yours.
What the german perspective players are missing is: Both sides in this game have a chance of winning!!!!!! but that isn't what you mean. you mean that you want the germans to be able to win before the soviets can build-up. you want to win before the other guy gets his chance, that just doesn't seem very defensible to me.
look, it is simple, the game goes until berlin falls. that is the end of the 4th quarter. there is no sudden-death rule. fight till the end. you do better than historical, you win!! how simple is that. stop looking for an easy out.


Yep - exactly!

I have also never heard of any modern serious historian who would claim that Germany might have won in war against Soviet Union (regardless of "what if" scenarios - even including going straight to Moscow in late August / early September 1941 and ignoring Kiev and Ukraine) - same thing is with war colleges!


Leo "Apollo11"



_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 75
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 8:34:56 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

76mm, that's only part of it.

For the tank armies they never should have been allowed to get so big to begin with. This one really is a no brainer. 3 corps was the standard. They simply didn't run around with 6+ mobile corps.

The combined arms thing, well, that one is trickier. Generally speaking late war combined arm armies tended to have 3-4 corps (not always rifle, sometimes including a mobile corps) and various odds and ends. But there were many exceptions. It was felt that the command model should aim at the average here. The "shrinkage" is in part due to the distortions caused by the shift from divisions to corps. The command costs associated with these are not linear, bear in mind. Corps are more efficient in terms of command load than 3 divisions. So that gets you some of the perceived shrinkage.



The easier solution is to increase the CPs of corps

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 76
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 8:45:22 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH
  For me though the unhistorical aspects win out in the long run. 




That's why I stopped playing chess. Don't tell me the queen was all-powerful in medieval times. Then we have knights doing dressage rather than charging in an historical manner (obviously an anti-Pelton's Teutonic knights nerf), and don't get me started on moving castles...............

Each to his own but for me WiTE is just an excellent game

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 77
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 3:40:46 PM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 670
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

I like the old SPI sudden death. If the Axis takes (and holds at the same time) Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad it is a decisive sudden death victory. This will shape game play quite nicely, nay almost historically. Very simple and the simplicity will annoy everyone equally. If you are a die-hard Hitler simulator, put Baku in as well, but as long as the Axis get Ukrainian partisans :)


Farfarer, you have raised a very taboo subject around here. Shame on you


Oops. Mea culpa, I won't mention Ukrainian partisans again. Someone please sticky the "List of Offical Taboo subjects" thread :)

Interesting the comparison with Japan play strategy in WITP where a successful plan means subordinating all activity to the Grand Design of "B29 Keep Away". Now there are recommmendations to "see if you can get that Axis draw or minor victory" although fun was previously poked at:

" Oh boy, June 21 1941! The first step in my master plan to achieve a minor victory in May 1945 begins!"

[RP on] "Gentlemen launching Operation Barbarossa is critical to halting the the Red Army at the Oder four years hence so the Reich can surrender to western powers. Plan accordingly. " [RP off]

< Message edited by Farfarer -- 2/6/2012 3:58:36 PM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 78
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 4:02:06 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I have also never heard of any modern serious historian who would claim that Germany might have won in war against Soviet Union (regardless of "what if" scenarios - even including going straight to Moscow in late August / early September 1941 and ignoring Kiev and Ukraine) - same thing is with war colleges!


Well, I might say that in war colleges one would like to rate the students on the basis of how well they achieve things, even in the face of massive strategic imbalance. Having the VP system of scenarios in the GC has always made a lot of sense. Rewards people who kill the most of the enemy while losing the least. Rewards people that tries to defend their country (or they conquests). I'd say that it would be nearly impossible to attain a 1:2.5 VP ratio with the Soviets, following a historical schedule with historical losses.

Common practice in wargaming is to assign victory levels according to performance better than historical.

As I see WitE right now, things are rigged so that the Axis player - no matter how weak or strong - achieves similar gains to those achieved by Nazi Germany by December 1941. Hence why we'll hardly see any Axis player suffering the nearly 500,000 casualties (permanent and temporary) suffered historically by the combined Axis Armies between 22nd June - 1st September. That's the reason why will never see Southwestern Front more than holding their ground against the massed forces of AGS 6th, 17th and 1st PzGroup. That's why there isn't anything like the Smolensk battles between July and August 1941 in the game.

And the converse is true for the Soviets. The game is rigged from 1943 onwards. The German Army loses quality even if it doesn't suffer anything like the Winter 1942-43 disasters or 1941-42 attrition rates.

To be honest, the only really interesting part of the game is the one that goes between May 1942 and March 1943 (with the historical start). Some of the scenarios in the upcoming expansion might well sparkle again my interest in the game.

But the 1941-45 GC? I know that playing monster game campaigns is a risky proposition. There's always the possibility of some patch crapping on your game. I would have endured that if I could see that those changes were made for a good reason (say, the fortification changes). But in this particular case, I can't really see any good reasons.

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 2/6/2012 4:04:20 PM >

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 79
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 8:16:37 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

As I see WitE right now, things are rigged so that the Axis player - no matter how weak or strong - achieves similar gains to those achieved by Nazi Germany by December 1941. Hence why we'll hardly see any Axis player suffering the nearly 500,000 casualties (permanent and temporary) suffered historically by the combined Axis Armies between 22nd June - 1st September. That's the reason why will never see Southwestern Front more than holding their ground against the massed forces of AGS 6th, 17th and 1st PzGroup. That's why there isn't anything like the Smolensk battles between July and August 1941 in the game.

And the converse is true for the Soviets. The game is rigged from 1943 onwards. The German Army loses quality even if it doesn't suffer anything like the Winter 1942-43 disasters or 1941-42 attrition rates.


Key points, with the predetermined NM (as main driver of MP/CV) and TOE changes being the main regulators of that process.

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 80
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/6/2012 8:31:05 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 839
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
I will go on playing this game while waiting for something else that can surpass it in scope and enjoyment. It has it's flaws, surely, as has all games, but in my view they are minor or could easily be dealt with using some house rules. We are now in april 1945 in our first game and will soon swap sides for a second run. I wish the game wouldn't end in 1945, as the Ruskies are still to enter German soil.

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 81
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 12:36:57 AM   
sath

 

Posts: 434
Joined: 2/21/2010
Status: offline
Not a chance.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 82
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 1:49:40 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2250
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
The current VP system is a simple aim. The war is going to be won by one side or the other, either the Axis capture 290 points of cities or the Soviets capture Berlin (and thus end the war or make it a certainty in the near future). The timetable seems to be that the Soviets win a marginal victory if they capture Berlin before the Western Allies do. A simplistic but effective measure of game victory.

A typical war game would have the historical result be a draw and then graduations for the amount of time earlier for a Soviet Victory or the additional amount of time for an Axis Victory. However, you need to finish the game to see if your game strategy is a winning one or not. That is probably the most frustrating thing on an incomplete GC game - there really are no milestones to see how you are doing. And playing 225 turns to see if your play in the first 25 turns was good is a very long delay - heck at my age I probably couldn't remember what I did during the first 25 turns! Which leads to keeping a "war diary" so you can remember your previous decisions and why . . .

And then you get well into the game and suddenly the latest patch comes out . . .

It would be easy to use the editor to make a GC with different VP awards. The casulties are easily done - historically about 2.4 Soviet to 1 German death - this tells me that a decent start is 50% of Soviet losses versus 100% of Axis losses. Then comes the problem - the territorial VPs that make the small campaigns so balanced as to capturing and/or holding onto cities. There are only 10 cities able to be defined for each side. This is not enough granuality for a GC game. If this could be increased to about 50 for each side, then you could make a good attempt to award per turn awards - end of game awards are probably not needed in the GC - since the capture of Berlin or the 290 cities could still be used as a sudden death end (although I don't know if you could do that in the program easily or not).

So I would make a priority to have the number of VP cities increased to 50 for each side - something that should be easily changed in the program. This would allow people to start to come up with alternative victory conditions and solve several of the complaints about reasons to stand and fight or attack during the game.

(in reply to sath)
Post #: 83
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 6:48:35 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 875
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


I would argue that the Russian/German conflict was actually a fight between the western democracies and Russia, with Germany as the proxy.

Imagine, if you will, how long the war would have lasted if Stalin really decided that Berlin was the ultimate objective.

The Fronts that moved into Rumania/Hungary/Yugoslavia would have been used through Poland with the rest of the Russian army. I would argue that Stalin knew that the Germans were finished (or at least controllable) and was in a hurry to gobble up as much of Eastern Europe as he could before the allies could reach Berlin themselves and end it.

In fact, I think the largest problem with figuring out a victory for a game like this, is that the participants didnt have any sort of clear victory in mind. And that the idea of victory that they had in their minds changed from season to season.

Summer 1941. Germany thinks it only has to destroy the army on the border. No more Russians, then free walk to Archangel/Astrakahn.
Summer 1941. Russia thinks it can use its larger army to crush the invaders and push them back into poland with a series of attacks. Victory!

Fall 1941. Germany thinks one more push aught to do it, and plans for Typhoon to take out the 'last' Russian armies in front of Moscow. Moscow then Victory!

Fall 1941. Russia thinks attrit and hold the Germans while new formations are raised (with a small number of fresh divisions from the east, and lots of new officers released from gulags) for a winter offensive.

Winter 1941. Germany just wants to hold onto what they own. Give up no ground until summer. No more talk of Victory.
Winter 1941. Russia counterattacks everywhere to drive the invader back to Germany! Victory in Germany!

Spring 1941 Germany plans to take out the southern breadbasket/mineral fields and drive to the oil fields Victory!
Spring 1941 Russia thinks just one more push aught to do it, and tries for Kharkov in the teeth of German preparations. Victory if they can take Kharkov, and pocket Germans!

Clearly neither side really had a realistic idea of what they needed to do for victory. What hope do we have?


I would think that because the nature of the battle changed so much and so many times over the war, you could break victory conditions into little bite sized chunks. And the sum total of those chunks determines ultimate victory. Much easier to argue/debate/decide a suitable condition then.
It also has the pleasant side effect of giving a benchmark of progress to your score, so you can be rewarded for taking risks during certain campaign seasons.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 84
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 8:58:20 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1544
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
The obvious solution is to release a bug fix version and an all inclusive version so as not to interrupt people's games. Me and my opponent were fortunately at the end of turn two when the latest swathe of data fixes and rule changes arrived, so we restarted. Further on and I for one would not have been so happy. I'm wondering about the 1.6 version announced with the add on. Is that going to have more game changes?

Please, release the bug fixes seperately.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 85
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 10:15:54 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1226
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Common practice in wargaming is to assign victory levels according to performance better than historical.


Hmmh, perhaps you ought to figure in the potential of improvement of both sides into the VP conditions. Both sides made huge misjudgements and errors, and it is hard to guess whether the Soviets or the Axis would have more potential to learn from hindsight and lack of medelling by Hitler or Stalin, or their staffs and officers with own politics going on. It even depends on the time: certainly the Axis could have done little better in 41 with the exception of the Leningrad hold order, and perhaps or not the delay of Typhoon for Kiev, but the Soviets could do a lot better by running rather than desperately learning many times that fighting mobile forces without proper means leads to huge, wasteful pockets. Later, also Axis has a lot of potential to avoid mistakes.

An extreme example would be applying above rule to the battle of Chancellorsville. Given that this was perhaps a one-time feat, it is hard to image that any Confederate player could even get anywhere near the historical result. Hence, a "performance better than historical" is perhaps not a good argument alone.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
As I see WitE right now, things are rigged so that the Axis player - no matter how weak or strong - achieves similar gains to those achieved by Nazi Germany by December 1941. Hence why we'll hardly see any Axis player suffering the nearly 500,000 casualties (permanent and temporary) suffered historically by the combined Axis Armies between 22nd June - 1st September. That's the reason why will never see Southwestern Front more than holding their ground against the massed forces of AGS 6th, 17th and 1st PzGroup. That's why there isn't anything like the Smolensk battles between July and August 1941 in the game.

And the converse is true for the Soviets. The game is rigged from 1943 onwards. The German Army loses quality even if it doesn't suffer anything like the Winter 1942-43 disasters or 1941-42 attrition rates.


That's what it seems like. The transitions, forced by both the optional rules such as the 41 blizzard rules, the new snow rules, and the national moral changes, are quite quick and feel abrupt. Too abrupt? All these detail, extra situational rules are becoming hard to remember, are getting too many. Things should develop naturally from the situation, making it easier to understand and play.
For example, I would wish the strong blizzard offensives would come about due to the Soviets gaining more strength by reinforcements, the Siberian Divisions, and by a naturally tightening German supply situations due to snow and severe weather inhibiting road and railway traffic combined with overextension and exhaustion. The transition of initiative would be more continuous, and offensives would trickle out rather than be immediate -- the latter which allows a gamey exploitation, especially with fixed weather, as player know perfectly when to pull divisions back to Germany, or stop the blizzard counteroffensive and run for the trenches again.
Unfortunately, as it stands now, the Soviet counters in 41 are in little condition to counterattack unless massed against single or isolated German units. All the counterattacks on a smaller scale, or the hard counterattacks against AGS and its tedious advance are not represented due to poor Soviet quality, Lvov, lack of reaction mode combined with very fast mobile/Panzer speeds, etc. You cannot blame a Soviet player not to fight forward more than evacuations necessitate with that.
I will try a game against Soviet AI next in which it gets a 130% morale bonus for summer 1941, and see whether that leads to some counterattacking...

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 86
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 10:25:21 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1226
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
I would argue that the Russian/German conflict was actually a fight between the western democracies and Russia, with Germany as the proxy.

Imagine, if you will, how long the war would have lasted if Stalin really decided that Berlin was the ultimate objective.
...

I would think that because the nature of the battle changed so much and so many times over the war, you could break victory conditions into little bite sized chunks. And the sum total of those chunks determines ultimate victory. Much easier to argue/debate/decide a suitable condition then.
It also has the pleasant side effect of giving a benchmark of progress to your score, so you can be rewarded for taking risks during certain campaign seasons.


I have started reading some original literature on that, the "Tagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht". Even within the German ranks there politics and conflicting interests, and even between all ranking Wehrmacht officers or staff there often wasn't even a clear cut goal or line. Add Hitler on top, who usually had again different opinions, and you can see how the chaos and dilution of "Schwerpunkte" came about. They were arguing, pushing, fighting and manipulating each other all the time it feels.

They were at one point planning Seelöwe for spring 41 while sending military missions to Rumania and Bulgary, organizing operations Felix (Gribraltar) and Marita (bailing out the the stuck Italians from the Greece debacle), arguing about sending a Panzer Brigade versus several mobile division to Lybia (Italians stuck again...) and setting up new Army Groups in Poland... That was just 7 months before Barbarossa, and no staff was preparing for that yet -- if they even had an idea that this thought could have crossed Hitlers mind by then.

Things are obviously never as simple as in a game with a single player at the top, and no further personal intentions, gains, or dangers from failure... To mimic that, perhaps a little randomization of goals and VP sites, or values, could help? Some FOW on that...?

< Message edited by janh -- 2/7/2012 10:27:11 AM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 87
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 11:38:10 AM   
demjansk

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
I am liking this game and glad patches keep coming out. Not like some of the other games I have read about like the one game that has no retreat for the unit and for some reason the publisher is not updating the game, I think its on this forum somewhere, can't remember the game. I am a super noob to this game even though I have had it since the first day. I loved the old war in russia and still have the game.

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 88
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 12:03:21 PM   
demjansk

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
remember? I still have the game along with the three V for Victory boxes etc from 360




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by demjansk -- 2/7/2012 12:05:00 PM >

(in reply to demjansk)
Post #: 89
RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? - 2/7/2012 12:10:17 PM   
Paul McNeely

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline
Just restarting my game which is in july of 42...I was hoping that major changes in the patching process (why I stopped playing) were over with. But most of my armies are under 18 CP anyway so I can adjust. What I don't know about any more is the armnements point question...I have a large pool of the things. Is it possible to reduce it...or for that matter what value should it be reduced to?

As for Germany winning the war in the east. It was possible if they had originally planed for a 2 year campaign and didn't have a political apparratus in place that made stupid decisions regularily. Read "Why the Allies Won WW2" and the point is that the victory was not forgon or flip that around and it says that the Axis powers had a chance to win. A large number of factors went into Russia surviving the first 2 years of the war, had enough of them gone the other way it is possible that Stalin would have had to settle for some sort of peace from a dacha in siberia.

Is it likely? I don't think so, but with a plan based around winning in 42 it had a chance. With the plan they entered into the war with they had a snowballs chance in a blast furnance. They didn't even have a defined "stop line", they had poorly defined objectives, and what few they had changed, and they didn't have the logistics and production to back up their troops. Plus the soviets were far more determined then they had anticipated. Their morale stiffened the further the further back they were pushed. Stalin was smart enough that after a few disasterous months of interfering with the Army concentrated on politics and left the professionals to their job. Soviet industry was in the Urals...one thing that seems unrealistic in this game is how quickly the industry recovers from the displacement but it is a lot better than in HOI3 where it is more or less instantanously.

But even in the game it should be rare the German's achieve a decisive victory, but on the other hand stalemates should be rather common. Winning as other people have said should be defined in comparison to history.

(in reply to demjansk)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117