Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?

 
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: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
[Poll]

Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?


No, like it as is.
  22% (26)
Yes, would like it to be 280
  1% (2)
Yes would like it to be 270
  9% (11)
Yes would like it to be 265
  5% (6)
Yes would like it to be 260
  26% (31)
Yes would like it to be 255
  2% (3)
Yes would like it to be 250
  10% (12)
Yes would like it to be 245
  7% (9)
Yes would like it to be 240
  13% (15)


Total Votes : 115


(last vote on : 3/4/2012 6:22:47 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 8:22:09 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1248
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I'm abstaining in this poll. I disagree with any form of auto win condition for either side, and would like to be able to turn it off as an option, completely. I would agree with reducing the points margin for a draw at game end, however. It seems that a few games we are seeing as AARs should have been a victory to one side or another but 90% are ending up as draws.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 31
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 1:50:37 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1689
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Really? You would like to be the defender, who played a good game, but have it end suddenly, before you can really get going? Even 1 game out of 10? Random chance should not decide between two close to equal players on having the game end. Let them play it to the finish. Auto Victory should only punish the defender for a poor decision, so next time he plays, he won't make the same mistake twice.


Critics of this modest proposed option lose sight of what it's about. This is a game, and game victory conditions should allow both sides some reasonable opportunity for victory along the way. This provides both players a tangible incentive to fight a little harder if a sudden death victory is within reach, to either achieve it as the attacker or to deny it as the defender. If one side or the other does exceptionally better than historical, then in game terms a sudden death victory should be declared. And that's it. The auto victory condition should also allow players to continue on if they choose, moving on to the next auto victory condition or the end of the game. No biggie there. It's just a game.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 32
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 3:34:05 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I'm abstaining in this poll. I disagree with any form of auto win condition for either side, and would like to be able to turn it off as an option, completely. I would agree with reducing the points margin for a draw at game end, however. It seems that a few games we are seeing as AARs should have been a victory to one side or another but 90% are ending up as draws.


That's basically my view as well. I just don't buy into this autowin stuff. The War in the East wasn't going to end prematurely on either side in this fashion.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 33
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 3:39:47 PM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 302
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
I don't get the obsession with autovictory really. Why are so many players adverse to playing to the end to see who does better? None of the AV conditions seem to have anything to do with historical conditions. Lots of 'this is a game' talk, but it is also has an historical basis, if you deviate from that too much, what is the point? Of course it is a game, and of course each side should have a reasonable chance to win. But why are some people so anxious that, lets be honest this is about the Germans, one side gets to win early?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 34
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 3:43:48 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Nah, I'm totally cool with early resigns in lopsided games. I myself would quit a game if I was losing badly enough. No point in dragging it out to the bitter end if you're behind far enough. I would much rather concede, reset, and figure out what the hell I did wrong and get it right.

This is true for most players. So the autowin is already there in the sense of a personal psychological threshold. Most of us know pretty well when we've played badly.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 35
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 5:08:00 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1689
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I just don't buy into this autowin stuff. The War in the East wasn't going to end prematurely on either side in this fashion.


This is just too funny. It is NOT about whether or not the actual war was going to end and one side or the other throws up their hands in unconditional surrender just because that last VP=1 city was taken or lost on such and such date. It is only about a game victory condition, for a game, to be won or lost as is; nothing more. Heck, even the campaign scenarios have changing victory conditions for an Axis Decisive Victory per rule 24.1.2: 290 points for 1941-45 and 1942-45, 250 for 1943-45, and 200 for 1944-45. Are there to be no Axis Decisive Victory conditions, and if not these then what? If nothing else, couldn't the campaigns scenarios at least reduce the Axis Decisive Victory from 290 to 250 in 1943, and then reduce it again to 200 in 1944? Or whatever numbers seem most reasonable along the way.

quote:

I don't get the obsession with autovictory really.


For starters, it's already there in the rules so it's not like there's any "obsession" for wanting a simple code change to adjust the numbers to allow Axis players a more reasonable chance to actually achieve a Decisive Victory in the game. Is there an obsession to deny a little bit more balance?? Hmmm. Again, too funny.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 36
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 5:20:30 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2153
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
I don't get the obsession with autovictory really. Why are so many players adverse to playing to the end to see who does better?


First, you don't have to play to the end to see who does better; if the Germans get an auto-victory, it means that they did better. Much, much better. Why play another three years to see if the Sovs get to Berlin in October 1945 or February 1946? Who cares?

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
None of the AV conditions seem to have anything to do with historical conditions. Lots of 'this is a game' talk, but it is also has an historical basis, if you deviate from that too much, what is the point?

I disagree; while it is kind of a blunt tool in this respect, I think that achievable (yet of course very difficult) auto-win conditions are the only way to get the Germans to "swing for the fences" as they actually did. Currently the Germans have absolutely no incentive to capture much ground in 1942, when in fact they of course did just that.

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 37
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 7:08:31 PM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 302
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
I see your point 76mm, it can be a motivator for more aggressive play. I guess I sort of overlook that because when I do play the Germans I play, well like they were, trying to take ground while they could. It wasn't as if OKH could decide on a turtling strategy. But it is a good point that there are players who are going to need incentives to act more historically.

As a player who has surrendered on two games now I certainly appreciate that there is a need for an early out in the case of overmatched players! But it is there, player decision. The problem I have is that for an historically based game, what is the basis of 'autovictory' if the other player wants to keep playing? The German end-game was the A-A line and even then they saw that as not forcing surrender, but ending the soviet capacity to carry on. If the Russian player wants to keep on fighting, how can you historically justify not allowing him to? Then the real test is, did the german player do well enough in the first half to hold on to more than historical in the 2nd half. The war and the game are really about 2 halves, the German offensive portion and then the Soviet offensive portion, to create circumstances where one player can win without allowing the other player a chance at their offensive seems a bit... unsporting I suppose.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 38
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 9:18:23 PM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1582
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

Give each hex a victory value of 1.

I want to take towns and cities because there is a military reason to do so (pop'n centre, railnet, factories or raw materials, or just shelter from the oncoming winter).

I don't want to have to to do it because a scenario designer thinks I should have it in order to win.

As for the relative values, the only approach is to measure AXIs progress in 41/42 and Soviet Progress in 44/45 as the draw and challenge sides to do better to win. The current system seems to do that. Leave it as it is.

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 39
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/18/2012 11:34:39 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2153
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
The problem I have is that for an historically based game, what is the basis of 'autovictory' if the other player wants to keep playing? The German end-game was the A-A line and even then they saw that as not forcing surrender, but ending the soviet capacity to carry on. If the Russian player wants to keep on fighting, how can you historically justify not allowing him to? Then the real test is, did the german player do well enough in the first half to hold on to more than historical in the 2nd half. The war and the game are really about 2 halves, the German offensive portion and then the Soviet offensive portion, to create circumstances where one player can win without allowing the other player a chance at their offensive seems a bit... unsporting I suppose.

I don't see how it is unsporting. A Sov player who has lost 260 VP by 1942 has not done well, and will not be in Berlin by any reasonable time frame, and has, by any reasonable measure, lost the game (if not the war). Why play another three years to figure exactly how much they lost by?

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 40
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/19/2012 2:21:03 PM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 302
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Ah, but here is where I disagree. It is not impossible for them to come back and punish the German player. To gain autovictory, often instead of 'historical' play, you will see very ahistorical play. Much like Pelton style players, they will adopt very high risk / high reward gambits that gain fantastic amounts of ground, but can leave them exposed.... when the Soviets have a chance. You should really give the second player that chance. Realistically, any German AV will happen at the latest in late 42, just the time when the SU is getting itself together. To reward player one with victory without allowing the second player a chance to see if they can do something equally spectacular once they finally get their toys is unsporting in my opinion.

In the case you are using, totally unmatched players, we do have autovictory, one side surrenders. That is what I have done!!!! Why is it necessary to have the computer enforce it? We are still humans playing the game, you can send an email and discuss with the other player. Why does it need to be coded to be real?

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 41
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/19/2012 2:51:38 PM   
Fishbed


Posts: 1650
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
The middle way would be to allow for a switch in the startup panel to whether activate the auto-victory option for the game or not, while giving the auto-victory proponents what they're asking for (namely a little less points to achieve it). This way, the two players may first agree on the kind of game they'll play, and you'll please the whole crowd with a mere option.

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 2/19/2012 2:52:34 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 42
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/19/2012 7:25:59 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Frankly I think that the best way would have to be a graduated approach. What I mean is this:

'41 - victory for the Germans meaning that they have to take the initial Barbarossa objectives: all the big cities between the frontier and the heartland of Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev plus the other big cities like Kursk, Kharkov, Orel etc. Such an act would have meant that they basically have wiped the floor with the Russians and destroyed the Soviet system and dealt a death blow to the party, with the party losing its grip on peripheral territories and the USSR disintegrating. A lot of the points though should be tied to Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev and Kharkov

Come '42, if the USSR survived as a working entity, than a redistribution of points takes place. Leningrad and Moscow remain the focus of the war, but cities like Kharkov, Kursk Belgorod and others like far away Baku etc are rated higher. But the Axis will need to earn more points than in '41. This will lead players on both sides to take risks - the Russians will counterattack even beyond the blizzard, trying to take important cities like Kharkov, while the Axis will be forced to attack in order to win outright or else risk a stalemate which the increasing materiel of the USSR will break eventually. Presumably the Russian player would have made Moscow impregnable by now and can redeploy substantal forces elsewhere.

In '43 the situation will remain as in '42 only the Russians will have to earn more VPs

In '44 and '45, the pressure should be shifed on the other side to simulate the Russian need to recover land and invade the Reich at this time. German held cities in Russia proper earn more points (since it would mean that they managed to stall the Russians), while major cities in the Reich would have the point associated with them increased to make them more attractive. Berlin, Prague, Vienna and Warsaw and to a lesser extent, Budapest and Bucharest would thus become the focus of attacks of the Russians and defence of the Germans.


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 43
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/19/2012 8:05:47 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2153
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
Ah, but here is where I disagree. It is not impossible for them to come back and punish the German player. To gain autovictory, often instead of 'historical' play, you will see very ahistorical play. Much like Pelton style players, they will adopt very high risk / high reward gambits that gain fantastic amounts of ground, but can leave them exposed.... when the Soviets have a chance. You should really give the second player that chance...To reward player one with victory without allowing the second player a chance to see if they can do something equally spectacular once they finally get their toys is unsporting in my opinion.

In the case you are using, totally unmatched players, we do have autovictory, one side surrenders. That is what I have done!!!! Why is it necessary to have the computer enforce it?

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Frankly, I am as perplexed by your position as you seem to be by mine.

First, I completely fail to understand the argument about the Sov player "not having a chance" if there are auto-win conditions. Of course they have a chance, as long as they prevent the Germans from getting an auto-win. The whole point is that the auto-win conditions incentive the Germans to attack, but hardly guarantee that they will succeed. If they don't get the auto-win, the Germans will probably be screwed. I think that is all the chance the Sovs need. And you seem to think that the auto-win conditions will be easily achievable, which I don't think should be the case. Currently they are virtually impossible to achieve, they should be ratcheted down to simply very difficult.

Second, I've already explained why I think it should be part of the game: to encourage German players to launch major offensives in 1942. Sure, a Sov player can resign at any time, but since many Sov players will not resign, the German players see no reason to launch pointless offensives in the hope that the Sov will resign. Because if the Sovs don't resign, the Germans are screwed.

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 44
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/19/2012 10:49:34 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Nah, I'm totally cool with early resigns in lopsided games. I myself would quit a game if I was losing badly enough. No point in dragging it out to the bitter end if you're behind far enough. I would much rather concede, reset, and figure out what the hell I did wrong and get it right.

This is true for most players. So the autowin is already there in the sense of a personal psychological threshold. Most of us know pretty well when we've played badly.



What you have stated is why poeple want an auto win. Some poeple just don't know when to quit.

Plus it saves the other guy a little pride by not having to be "sick" for months and then be ok hehe

I had 4 poeple I was playing all get sick right when 1.05 came out. Guess what?

When 1.06 came out they all showed up and were all better hehehehe

I am sure 1 of the 4 were sick for months, but 4 at same time hehehe

Flaviusx the auto win is there to get poeple to fight and not run first off and secound if your getting your ass handed to you you dont have to quit, because you got auto beat down.

And maybe so many poeple will not keep getting sick hehe
Pelton

_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



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

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 45
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 1:45:03 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
I think any game worth anything has three aspects: game balance and replayability and a good production system.  Quite frankly this games fall down on all three areas.

1) Production - seems more set piece than anything else.  Production has a limited aspect at best.  Why can manpower around an isolated city allowed to move through enemy lines?  Hello? The manpower stays in the isolated city until the city is liberated and then it's available. 
2) Balance - Could the Germans have won?  Sure.  If not by German effort alone, they could have prompted the Japanese, with it's very large Kwangtung army to attack into Siberia and that would have crippled the Soviets, especially if the Japanese had thought strategic and not attacked the USA at PH.  So taking enough strategic locations, including general land, should allow for an auto-victory.  290 is absurd.  Something less is reasonable.
3) Replayability - if you want a game that's replayable you need major strategic goals that vary from game to game.  So, in terms of the above, if you want auto-victory, then Leningrad, Moscow and cities behind Moscow, prompting the Japanese into action and forcing a Soviet sue for peace.  If you want to damage production, then attack the south.  The chance for auto-victory is virtually nil, but significantly damages Soviet production into 43 or 44, depending.  This comes back to balance and production.

Right now, this games feels completely out of whack.  Want a historical game and you take the chance of no-one wanting to play it or buying another Gary Grigsby game, which is a shame because I have a lot of respect for him as a game designer.  Germans are losing in 43 and the answer isn't to tweak the combat system.  The artifical additions are creating problems already.  The combat system should apply to both players and stand on it's own.  The answer is to balance the above 3 and you will have a kick-ass game.  Continue the path it's going and there won't be many ppl playing it in a year or buying any sequel. 

< Message edited by vicberg -- 2/21/2012 2:10:02 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 46
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 2:04:32 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
I want to amend the above.   Production really should reflect game balance.  So, I might place Moscow as the auto-victory.  Taking Moscow prompts Japanese into action forcing a Soviet capitulation.  Anything else damages production unless the Soviets play a delaying game long enough to evacuate the production.  That would be an interesting game, time and time again.  Soviets can't blanket retreat because of either damage to production OR possible auto-victory.  Defend Moscow and lose production.  Germans focus on Moscow and get severly smacked in return if they aren't successful.   It would be a game within a game.  Where are the Germans going?  Where the Soviets going to defend to buy time and evacuate production?

That would be fun.  What's going on right now is much like some scenarios of WITP (another Grigsby game...take note developers and Matrix!), and an excercise in mouse clicks.   


< Message edited by vicberg -- 2/21/2012 2:09:46 AM >

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 47
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 2:22:07 AM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2928
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

The middle way would be to allow for a switch in the startup panel to whether activate the auto-victory option for the game or not, while giving the auto-victory proponents what they're asking for (namely a little less points to achieve it). This way, the two players may first agree on the kind of game they'll play, and you'll please the whole crowd with a mere option.


An alternate alternative way would be to change the VP value of the cities to reflect the strategic worth to each side. This could be done once a turn or just once at the start of the game. Either way there would be no need to change the 290 autovictory amount.





_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 48
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 2:32:59 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2153
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.
Taking Moscow prompts Japanese into action forcing a Soviet capitulation. 


You seem to be suggesting that taking Moscow would be an auto-win for the Germans? Moscow falls in virtually every AAR. It's got to be a lot harder than that.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)
Post #: 49
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 3:06:41 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.
Taking Moscow prompts Japanese into action forcing a Soviet capitulation. 


You seem to be suggesting that taking Moscow would be an auto-win for the Germans? Moscow falls in virtually every AAR. It's got to be a lot harder than that.


Moscow might be a bit aggressive based on current OOB and combat mechanics. However, how many Soviet players actually contest terrian? Why bother? Production doesn't really get dinged running away so why fight? Soviets IRL fought. Americans in early 42 fought the Japanese at inferior odds at Midway. Americans didn't know 50+ carriers were going to be produced so they fought right from the start. Soviets didn't know thousands of T-34s were going to be produced so they fought right from the start. This isn't reflected at all in a game in which all future production is a known entity and the Soviet player knows were and when to fight from prescience.

You have to force a fight, like was done in the real war. Soviets weren't content running away. So why are Soviet players in this game happy running away?

Why? Because the game alllows them to. You have to force the Soviets to make a decision. Prevent auto-victory or prevent damage to production or preserve troops for a POSSIBLE 45 victory.

That's a balanced game and much more reflective of what was actually going on during that time, minus the prescience.

< Message edited by vicberg -- 2/21/2012 3:16:45 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 50
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 3:35:04 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
It's actually a problem with Gary Grigsby game in general.  He spends all this time creating "historical" games and then misses the strategic level.  He's a tactical designer, wonderful at that.  But he's not a strategic designer, at least in my experience with his games (30+ years of wargamming). 

The allies, in his games, don't have to fight because they know everything that is going to happen production wise and the victory conditions aren't aggressive enough to force a fight. So these "historical" games become more fantasy than reality. 

< Message edited by vicberg -- 2/21/2012 3:37:46 AM >

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 51
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 3:36:07 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
You seem to be suggesting that taking Moscow would be an auto-win for the Germans? Moscow falls in virtually every AAR. It's got to be a lot harder than that.

You'd have to consider how much the ease by which Moscow currently falls is influenced by actually being able to afford to lose Moscow. Just because it falls now doesn't necessarily mean it would fall later once you're obliging the Soviet to fight tooth-and-nail for it.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 52
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 6:01:56 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2153
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
You'd have to consider how much the ease by which Moscow currently falls is influenced by actually being able to afford to lose Moscow. Just because it falls now doesn't necessarily mean it would fall later once you're obliging the Soviet to fight tooth-and-nail for it.


Sorry guys, I'm not buying it. Do you really think the Sovs could defend Moscow if the Germans make it their focus? I don't believe it for a second...moreover, it would lead to very bizarre games with big blobs of Sov and German troops converging on Moscow. I don't consider that very interesting game-play either.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 53
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 10:48:53 AM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
From the AAR I read, several players do not seem to fight delaying actions prior to Moscow, thinking that they'll save their strength for the 'big fight'. I believe that the worst enemy for the Germans is the Red Army committing enough formations to slow down the Germans for long enough in key areas. There are several areas whcih can be used to delay the Axis like the area around Smolensk, between Kiev and the marshes, the Crimea and Kalinin, Rzech, Vyazma line. With the Axis essentially tied down to limited window of opportunity, any delay could prove fatal.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 54
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 12:58:37 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
To quote Lewis Black, I'm confused. Are the people who are crying for a Sudden Death victory rule the same 51% who said the game should run past the historical end of the War in May, 1945? To me, they would seem to be saying we want the Axis victory threshold lowered because it is unrealistically high (even though it's based on the actual objectives defined in Directive 21) but we want an equally unrealistic amount of time to achieve this lower threshold.

Sure sounds like they want their cake and to be able to eat it too.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 55
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 3:18:55 PM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Nope, no cake, no eat, a fight and a good one that goes into 45. From what I'm seeing on AARs, most games are over by 43. VE didn't occur until 1945. So, the game is off right now. The Soviets are too strong going into 42 because there's little reason for them to fight, little consequence, and they can preserve the bulk of their army. By 43, their army is overwhelming.

What I'm talking about is game balance and replayability. Right now the game pretty much plays out the same way because Leningrad is too easy to take and because there's little consequences for the Soviets losing cities. The Soviets fought IRL in 1941 and so they should in this game. What happens in 41 should have a long term impact in following years.

The Germans should have 3 considerations entering a game: 1) Victory, 2) Destruction of the Red Army, 3) Economy, or obviously, any combination of the 3. A victory focus should take the battle to the north, with a much tougher Leningrad requiring a significantly higher German focus along with Moscow (and more, most likely). 2) Troop destruction would take the game pretty much anywhere depending on what the Soviets give the Germans, 3) Economic would take the game to the south and should have a MUCH higher impact on the game. Manpower shouldn't be allowed to escape isolated cities, cities should provide a bigger impact on both German AND Soviet production. An active soviet defense would force German committments to one of these objectives. Go for the south, Leningrad holds. Pocket the Soviets (ala Kiev IRL) and risk economy or victory. Rock, paper, scissors.

If the game could balance these considerations, and I believe it can be done without significant code overhauls by putting higher level forts into Leningrad at start of war, tweak VPs for cities, increase economic affect of cities for both sides, it would make for a highly replayable game and people will be playing this for years into the future. The route it's currently going I'm afraid there will be Pelton playing Germans and that's about it.

< Message edited by vicberg -- 2/21/2012 3:20:51 PM >

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 56
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 3:27:15 PM   
jlevans


Posts: 45
Joined: 2/14/2011
Status: offline


Pretty much the way I see it too vicberg. The Germans must have a shot at winning the war (not just winning the game) to achieve replayability for me. I see this as a separate campaign length scenario with some modified rules.

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 57
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 7:56:40 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2928
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

To quote Lewis Black, I'm confused. Are the people who are crying for a Sudden Death victory rule the same 51% who said the game should run past the historical end of the War in May, 1945? To me, they would seem to be saying we want the Axis victory threshold lowered because it is unrealistically high (even though it's based on the actual objectives defined in Directive 21) but we want an equally unrealistic amount of time to achieve this lower threshold.

Sure sounds like they want their cake and to be able to eat it too.


So, do you have evidence that all the people who voted for lowered SD victory also voted for the extended timeline ? Or did you just make that one up by yourself ?


_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 58
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 10:35:12 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1438
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

FYI: 290 is the equivalent of a little more than Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Gorky AND Baku.


And yet, they may have fought on even after losing all those. The alternative wasn't particularly good. This wasn't France with the Germans willing to make nice with a collaborationist regime and go easy on the locals.

Let's be quite clear about this. I can see the case for lowering the VPs from a gamesmanship standpoint, but only from that standpoint.


Did I miss the part where the settings were altering the course of the past?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 59
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/21/2012 11:18:47 PM   
stone10


Posts: 240
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline
Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?

No.

_____________________________



(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? 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

0.207