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: 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 ... - 2/22/2012 1:06:06 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicber]

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.



No? The Navy did. And Congress. And FDR and so forth. So did all the shipyards. (They ordered 32 Essex class carriers for example. 9 of them before Dec 7th 1941.) Research the Two Ocean Navy Act, aka Vinson-Walsh Act.

And they didn't have to worry about the Japanese gaming the system or a Lvov opening.

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 61
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 1:34:04 AM   
Ron

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 6/6/2002
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.



Yes, I think you are a little confused, there is no correlation between the two unless you want to start another poll? I think anyone picking May or June 45 as the end date (66% currently) are looking for significant change to the staus quo. If we took 260 as a number for significant change for the auto-victory VP then 58% are casting their vote. Exact numbers aside, a clear majority are asking for change from what we have don't you think?

< Message edited by Ron -- 2/22/2012 1:36:41 AM >

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 62
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 2:04:15 AM   
vicberg

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


No? The Navy did. And Congress. And FDR and so forth. So did all the shipyards. (They ordered 32 Essex class carriers for example. 9 of them before Dec 7th 1941.) Research the Two Ocean Navy Act, aka Vinson-Walsh Act.

And they didn't have to worry about the Japanese gaming the system or a Lvov opening.


It was the Navy? Wow. I didn't know that. I thought it was a bunch of civilians chucking spears from Midway and popped the tires on a few Jap carriers. You learn something new every day.

Keys words: Ordered 32 carriers, with no guarentee that the situation in Europe would see them to conclusion. Pacific only received on average 30% of US production and it could have been reduced if Germany had seen greater success in Europe.

You haven't answered the question. Why did the US (oh sorry, the Navy) fight at inferior odds when they could have waited for those 32 carriers? Hmmm...

Obviously they were compelled to fight. It was politically unfeasable to turtle or play Sir Robin at the homefront. Same with Soviets. The ability for Soviet players to run away with little or no concern is a Soviet fantasyland. Nothing historical about it.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 63
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 2:18:15 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Also, if the Lvov opening were so devastating, why does Germany rarely, if ever, last past 43 (also Soviet fantasyland and very non-historical)?

But, that being said, for replayability, I believe that Leningrad should be beefed up with much higher forts or whatever else to make it difficult to take and the opening setup for the Soviets and Germans should either be a free setup or randomized to prevent the same opening from happening in every game. I think a free setup would be ideal with X number of troops forced to start within X hexes of the border, but it's probably way beyond scope to code that. However, seeing the same first turns in AAR after AAR, Riga gambit, Lvov pocket is boring.

(in reply to stone10)
Post #: 64
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 3:27:36 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2063
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg
You haven't answered the question. Why did the US (oh sorry, the Navy) fight at inferior odds when they could have waited for those 32 carriers? Hmmm...


Dunno, maybe because they had broken the Japanese code and thought that they could inflict a devastating defeat on the Japanese fleet using the element of surprise?

< Message edited by 76mm -- 2/22/2012 3:28:31 AM >

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 65
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 3:30:29 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2063
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg
Also, if the Lvov opening were so devastating, why does Germany rarely, if ever, last past 43 (also Soviet fantasyland and very non-historical)?


Don't understand your statement at all. If the Germans don't last past 1943, it is because they quit, because the fun part of the war is over for them and they are bored. Please point us to some AARs where Berlin falls in 1943.


(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 66
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 3:54:14 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The Lvov opening is good enough that everybody does it. This is not an accident. It's a game changing move and easily accelerates the Axis advance by a month or two.

Without it, SW Front can grind things out down there for quite some time and indeed force AGC to do what they did historically and move Guderian to its rear. I hear a lot of folks talking about the Lvov opening preventing Soviet runaways.

Nonsense. If you're running away to the Dnepr in the absence of a Lvov opening, you've thrown away a great opportunity to slow AGS to a crawl. The running away is what happens as a result of the Lvov opening, so people have got this exactly backwards.



< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/22/2012 3:55:18 AM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 67
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 5:39:57 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Lvov is good enough because the intial troop disposition doesn't change and so it becomes scripted. I don't like that. Troop dispositions should be randomized or free setup allowed. The point is, it's not a game killer.

Yes there was intelligence, but still, the American went out with less planes and untrained pilots against the best pilots in the world at that time (trained in china) and the largest fleet in the world at that time. Pretty damn risky if you ask me, though it paid off. It could have easily gone the other way is someone more aggressive than Nagumo had been in charge. Me thinks the US (sorry, Navy) were compelled to fight. Same with Guadacanal. That battle was in doubt for quite a while as the Japanese owned the seas around it for a period of time. Still the Americans (sorry, Navy) persisted. A consistent pattern of fighting the enemy from the start of the war that was shown by the Soviets as well. Why? National Morale? A lack of prescience? Regardless, not reflected in the game. There's little consequences and that's the problem.

It's not really a surprise that Germans generally don't last into 43 or beyond. Seems to me that the Germans are put into a narrower and narrower box as time goes on that's entirely INDEPENDENT of game play. The strategic situation becomes irrelevant. Goes back to consequences. Very little. Very little affect of German gameplay on the macro level. Of course, if you have a wildly experienced Pelton against someone inexperienced, then the field is leveled. Soon there won't be inexperienced Soviets as they will learn from everyone else.

Problem for me is that this game has real potential to be awesome for ALL involved, fun, providing that the Soviet Fanboys realize they won't have any German opponents if the game continues the current direction. Both sides should have a chance to win. Period. Or it's not a game. It's a clickfest and a waste of time.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 68
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 6:25:20 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2063
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg
It's not really a surprise that Germans generally don't last into 43 or beyond. Seems to me that the Germans are put into a narrower and narrower box as time goes on that's entirely INDEPENDENT of game play.

Problem for me is that this game has real potential to be awesome for ALL involved, fun, providing that the Soviet Fanboys realize they won't have any German opponents if the game continues the current direction. Both sides should have a chance to win. Period. Or it's not a game. It's a clickfest and a waste of time.

You still have not explained what you mean by "the Germans generally dno't last into 43...". Of course they do, unless they quit because they haven't occupied the Urals already. And of course the Germans are put into a "narrower and narrower box" as time goes on and the Red Army grows stronger. What on earth would you expect?

I guess you will call me a Sov fanboy because I want a realistic game, which necessarily means that the Germans had virtually no chance of winning the war; winning the game, however, should be an entirely different matter.

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 69
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 6:41:12 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
No no no. Nothing artificial. That's the problem with Grigsby games. Too much artificial. Let the gameplay determine what's happening. Not hardcoded boxes. Let National Morale, etc., be determined by what's happening on the field.

From what I see, Pelton is about the only German player who can last into 43. Why? Because the Soviets can preserve their forces and come back in 42/43 with overwhelming strength. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but this game has been out for quite a while. Where are the AARs where the German is into 44? Point them out to me and I'll be happy to apologize for the remarks. It's been out too long to NOT have an AAR into 44. Otherwise, I'm right.

Please explain "winning the game vs. winning the war"? I see a possible conciliation from you, but not quite sure. We are playing a game. It's not a "historical" game by any means. The Soviets should fight in 41 in a "historical" game. Leningrad shouldn't fall. Lvov pocket shouldn't occur. Etc, etc.. This isn't historical. It 's a game. Based on history, the Germans would lose. Based on what ifs? Japan involvement in Siberia? German focus on Moscow instead of Kiev pocket? The armor is allowed to go to the Urals? There's a ton of those. But that's the true fun. The What Ifs. That's where game balance comes into play.

< Message edited by vicberg -- 2/22/2012 6:43:49 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 70
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 7:07:14 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Well, of course it is a scripted move. So is everything else at this point. That begs the question: why this scripted move in particular?

Because it is that good. Nothing else comes close. It's a move with strategic and game changing effects that leverages the rather badly designed surprise turn to maximum effect, and dramatically accelerates the pace of the game. It's why the Dnepr is being crossed on average around turn 6 and AGS gets massively ahead of schedule down south. And all this without prejudicing operations elsewhere, since AGC can do without a panzer corps or two, especially since no time is lost by it diverting forces south to crack the Dnepr line.

The Soviet player must simply passively accept this blatantly ahistorical opener each and every game, knowing that all 3 of his border Fronts will be annihilated more or less when he gets the turn back. We've heard a lot of stuff in recent days about paratrooper abuse -- this is no less of an exploit so far as I am concerned.

BTW, Ketza, Idaho, Tarhunnas, and a few other people would be surprised to hear that Pelton is the only player who has made it to the post 1943 period. And a lot of those games are heading towards draws or German marginals (some already got there.)



< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/22/2012 7:33:31 AM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 71
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 7:29:10 AM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 315
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline
Jusr wondering (I never toyed with the editor): is the VP level required for auto-victory hardcoded or is it modifiable within the scenario editor?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 72
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 7:51:48 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2063
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg
From what I see, Pelton is about the only German player who can last into 43...Where are the AARs where the German is into 44? Point them out to me and I'll be happy to apologize for the remarks. It's been out too long to NOT have an AAR into 44. Otherwise, I'm right.

There are several AARs going into '44, you can find them yourself easy enough (hint: look for the AARs with lots of pages). And you still don't explain what you mean by Germsn not "lasting" past 1943--again, I have to assume that you mean that all of them quit once their fun is over in 1941-1942. This will happen in any non-fantasy game involving the Eastern Front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg
Please explain "winning the game vs. winning the war"?...We are playing a game. It's not a "historical" game by any means. The Soviets should fight in 41 in a "historical" game. Leningrad shouldn't fall. Lvov pocket shouldn't occur. Etc, etc.. This isn't historical. It 's a game. Based on history, the Germans would lose. Based on what ifs? Japan involvement in Siberia? German focus on Moscow instead of Kiev pocket? The armor is allowed to go to the Urals?

I think the difference between winning the gamea and winning the war is pretty obvious, but here goes: the Germans would almost certainly have lost the war almost virtually any circumstances, but that does not mean that German players should not be able to win the game because of properly-devised victory conditions. As to your assertion that the game is not "historical" because things happen in the game which did not happen IRL: you can play semantics if you want (by your definition no game can ever be considered historical-based), but the fact is that this game is intended to depict, with the greatest degree of fidelity possible in a game, what each side could have realistically accomplished in the war. Your latter two "what ifs" can already be tried in the game (and I disagree that your "Japanese" what-if is particularly interesting or relevant).

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 73
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 1:54:54 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The Lvov opening is good enough that everybody does it. This is not an accident. It's a game changing move and easily accelerates the Axis advance by a month or two.

Without it, SW Front can grind things out down there for quite some time and indeed force AGC to do what they did historically and move Guderian to its rear. I hear a lot of folks talking about the Lvov opening preventing Soviet runaways.

Nonsense. If you're running away to the Dnepr in the absence of a Lvov opening, you've thrown away a great opportunity to slow AGS to a crawl. The running away is what happens as a result of the Lvov opening, so people have got this exactly backwards.



We have previously discussed and proved that your assertion that Lvov is responsible for all the eastward run-away is absolute and utter fallacy. The reason the Soviets are required to run away is because their offensive power is measured in natural log values.

The 1941 army is offensively toothless, despite history. You claim that Lvov is the reason for German early advances. But Lvov has NOTHING to do with Leningrad falling, and Lvov has nothing to do with Minsk and Smolensk falling MONTHS before they historically had.

You have two basic issues: Toothless Soviet offensive capability in 1941's opening 17 turns.
German understanding of the consequence of 1.

Want to prove this? Let's start looking at all the 1941 scenarios people play, in which a Lvov opening is not possible. Explore these, and tell me that Soviets aren't simply delaying by ZOC blankets, falling back in good order, and refusing to attack Germans.

In Road to Kiev/Dnepropetrovsk you will find Germany cannot win, and in Smolensk/Leningrad you will see Robinsky over the first 6 turns, guaranteed.

So Soviet players (me included, I have Soviet games ongoing) know to fall back in a NATO Phased-Defensive-Displacement (invented in the 80s when armored vehicles could move 30 mph over broken terrain) all the way to the Valdai/Rzhev/Moscow/Voronezh/Donets cities. You run until you can condense in the forests, behind the river, and at the spot where your reinforcements have had time to organize, dig in, and wait for Germany to reach the (completely predictable) limit of their supply line.

This is all standard, no-brainer stuff, Flavius.

As is customarily the case, the Sovie-o-phile community wants to say that Soviet High Command could have developed and implemented a doctrine completely anethema to its training doctrine over the previous 20 years (the 1986 NATO defense) based on (insert anecdote of history here); but they discount the possibility that German high command could just as easily have recognized (based on anecdotes from generals' advice) that supply and supply distance were the largest 1941 enemies that they'll face, and improve their supply and rail networks.

No, you can't tolerate Germany doing better than historical in 1941, and you will use any excuse to enforce history against the Germans only.

I find the continued dominance of the Sovie-o-phile play philosophy producing a more limited range of outcomes each time a new version of the game is released.

WitE is a caged hunt designed for a Soviet player to have an optimal army with which to defeat the historical German one.

I repeat again: No one should play Germany against a human opponent.
Boycott Soviet opponents and let them see how much fun they can have playing other Sovie-o-philes.
It is clear that Matrix has no interest in improving the fun-factor of the German side.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 74
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 2:08:43 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4671
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

me included, I have Soviet games ongoing


quote:

No longer playing WitE


Pretty much sums up the confused and confusing message you are trying to communicate.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 75
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 2:13:27 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

me included, I have Soviet games ongoing


quote:

No longer playing WitE


Pretty much sums up the confused and confusing message you are trying to communicate.


Oh, let me explain that: I re-started my last Soviet game last night.
I'll change my signature for you...

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 76
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 2:19:55 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

me included, I have Soviet games ongoing


quote:

No longer playing WitE


Pretty much sums up the confused and confusing message you are trying to communicate.


Again, no substance, only an attempt to undermine me personally.
I am fine being layered in the scorn of a hypocritical community.
It says more about your reaction to different ideas than it says about me, and it says nothing about my argument.

In short, typical response from the group-think playtester community.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 77
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 2:55:29 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


No? The Navy did. And Congress. And FDR and so forth. So did all the shipyards. (They ordered 32 Essex class carriers for example. 9 of them before Dec 7th 1941.) Research the Two Ocean Navy Act, aka Vinson-Walsh Act.

And they didn't have to worry about the Japanese gaming the system or a Lvov opening.


It was the Navy? Wow. I didn't know that. I thought it was a bunch of civilians chucking spears from Midway and popped the tires on a few Jap carriers. You learn something new every day.

Keys words: Ordered 32 carriers, with no guarentee that the situation in Europe would see them to conclusion. Pacific only received on average 30% of US production and it could have been reduced if Germany had seen greater success in Europe.

You haven't answered the question. Why did the US (oh sorry, the Navy) fight at inferior odds when they could have waited for those 32 carriers? Hmmm...

Obviously they were compelled to fight. It was politically unfeasable to turtle or play Sir Robin at the homefront. Same with Soviets. The ability for Soviet players to run away with little or no concern is a Soviet fantasyland. Nothing historical about it.



Ummm, you claimed that Americans didn't know about them. Something that is just obviously false.

Midway had nothing to do with it.

Didn't turtle up? You mean that the whole defense of the Phillipines, wait, the entire first six months of the Pacific War, consisted of allied offensive after offensive? Can you explain why the US carriers didn't attack the enemy at Wake Island? Why just hit and run raids?

Do you have any idea just how much a factor luck played at Midway? Like Clarence Wade McClusky, Jr, who not finding the enemy carriers where he expected them, decided to follow a destroyer heading north.

Nothing historical about Russia trading space for time? Far more historical than this Lvov opening.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/22/2012 3:34:27 PM >

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 78
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 3:37:56 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Poll as requested. Current rule requires 290 VP for a German auto-win.

FYI, with what the German's control in June 1942, if they also took the Leningrad area, Moscow, Rostov and Stalingrad, and no other cities, they'd have 243 (245 if you throw in Kaluga and Voroshilovgrad).


This is amazing. What began as a very simple poll to make a modest adjustment to an existing rule (24.1.2) has degenerated into ridiculousness.

IMHO, the weakness in Rule 24.1.2 is that is does not allow for Decisive Victory at any time or at pre-determined times (end of year, etc.) for both sides. Boardgames (The Russian Campaign, Russian Front, etc.) had these sudden death victory conditions and they worked ok. If one side or the other significantly outperforms the historical results, it shouldn't be a major issue to declare an automatic victory. For a game.

Geez, just make the damn points editable and allow players to continue playing past an automatic victory if they want to.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 79
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 4:03:10 PM   
Baelfiin

 

Posts: 1248
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Oh, let me explain that: I re-started my last Soviet game last night.


Good to see you playing again Helio 8)

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 80
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 4:43:03 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4671
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

Again, no substance, only an attempt to undermine me personally.
I am fine being layered in the scorn of a hypocritical community.
It says more about your reaction to different ideas than it says about me, and it says nothing about my argument.

In short, typical response from the group-think playtester community.


I am no longer a tester. I was simply stating a fact. You stated that you were not playing the game while issuing a rallying call for other players to stop playing the game, while also stating that you were playing the game. Saying I was confused is not a personal attack on you, more a personal attack on myself for getting confused by what you are trying to say.

If I could humbly suggest that if you stop seeing any comments as a personal attack, you might get more support for your case. I have a perfectly clear conscience from my time as a tester that I argued strongly and fairly for both sides of many arguments. I simply don't see the evidence from published AARs and my own playing experience of this pro-soviet "cabal" or other fancy words you might use. If you have the time to go through the rule changes that have occurred since day one of this project, and count up the number that favour the axis versus those that favour the soviets, you might be surprised.

I do agree that the axis probably is faced with playing in an historical straitjacket when compared to the soviets, but good Axis players can create a significant amount of "wriggle room" within that straitjacket to produce non-historical results. Some players (me included) enjoy trying to figure out how to create that wriggle room, and others find being in a straitjacket no fun at all, and I respect and understand that.

With regard to the Automatic Victory VP levels, the designers made a clear statement that they were based on the historical OKH stop line, and not what would be a good number for two evenly matched opponents to fight over to create a challenging game. Personally I would prefer VPs to be based on creating a better game for the players rather than some line that could never have been reached historically, and I voted accordingly.

< Message edited by BigAnorak -- 2/22/2012 5:17:48 PM >

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 81
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 7:20:35 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Terje's game ended with a minor Axis victory. So much for all this latest pro-Soviet nonsense.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 82
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 7:42:13 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2063
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
You claim that Lvov is the reason for German early advances. But Lvov has NOTHING to do with Leningrad falling, and Lvov has nothing to do with Minsk and Smolensk falling MONTHS before they historically had.


I actually agree with some of your points, although not your obnoxious tone...moreover, the point above is worth examining: I'm not sure how you can say that Lvov has NOTHING to do with Lgrad falling, since the Sovs need to fill the gaping holes in their southern front caused by the Lvov front by diverting troops that could otherwise go to the North to the South. You can debate whether this is the principal reason why Lgrad always falls, but I don't think it is possible to say it has nothing to do with it...

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 83
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 8:20:41 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2190
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
The game is pro Soviet. I find it interesting that we have a number a people claiming the game is pro Soviet, yet I can't recall anyone making a claim it is pro German. That in itself speaks volumes. The best I hear from the pro Soviet camp is that the game is balanced.

Again as a veteran wargamer (of 30+ years) who plays both sides my strong opinion is that the game is obviously in favour of the Soviets. The two polls conducted clearly show the majority of people want some more attainable AV level and the game length reduced. Both would help the German cause.

Come on 2by3. Act on the results. You own this to the WITE gaming community who helped fix your game after beta testing it for you.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 84
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 8:48:56 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The curious thing about your claim Micheal T is that you have yet to lose a game as the Germans. You have never even played a game into 1943 as the Axis -- your opponents seem to resign each and every time. Obviously you haven't found the Axis impossible to play or needed to rely on autovictory conditions to win.

The poll is telling us nothing new here: the Axis side is more popular than the Soviet. We have a lot of older grognards who were fed a steady diet of old war literature and have not assimilated the scholarship of the last 20 years. Vox populi, vox dei...well, not in this case.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 85
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 9:04:17 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2190
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I have won all games as Russian too. None going in to 43. Your comment has no weight. As usual.

My opinion is about a game between opponents of equal skill. That should be obvious. But one needs a hammer to get even the most simple concepts in to your head.

Why don't you make some constructive comment about the issue rather than constantly trying to undermine me personally. It seems to be your aim in life. But then again what else would I expext from a bully.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 86
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 9:13:55 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Micheal T, since you have never played the game on either side against somebody of your skill, then how can you say the balance is off? You've never even experienced the post 43 game. The only conclusion that I can get from your experience is that you win every game every time. This does not compute into WITE favoring the Soviet.

I would love to see you play yourself. That might settle matters. You may even surprise yourself at the results.

Look, I get that you have no interest in the late war period and want the game to turn into a 41-2 deathmatch.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 87
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 9:59:30 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2190
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  Flaviusx
Look, I get that you have no interest in the late war period and want the game to turn into a 41-2 deathmatch.

That is absolutly not true. Again your only arguement is about me personally.
You still attack my opinion rather than the issue. It's my opinion, you can't change that. I have played both sides for long enough to form that opinion.
You need to make an arguement about the issue. But you can't really because you agree that the game length is too long and you are 50-50 on the AV issue.
So whay are you attacking me here on this?
Why do you constantly try to discredit me?


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 88
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 10:09:46 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
It's not a personal attack at all. Sudden death conditions that end the war prematurely are necessarily designed to end the game early, one way or the other. I mean, this is practically a tautological statement.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 89
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 10:19:54 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2190
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

The point of this thread and the other poll is to determine how players feel about the AV level and game end point. Both issues have been discussed at length and the consensus is that the game should shortened to roughly the historical end point and the AV level reduced, the polls confirm this. You even agree with one and are on the fence for the other.

So in essence you are agreeing, perhaps to a lesser degree that the game favours the Soviets. Because both proposals will actually go toward addressing the balance issue.

You can't see it but your opinion on these issue's means that you agree that the game is in favour of the Soviets.
So you are arguing against your own view.

Flav whenever we cross swords you attack me rather than the issue. That is bullying.
Actually it seems to me you have some kind of personal vendetta against me. Whenever I post an AAR you deride me and admonish my opponents. No matter which side I play. I make a comment that is anti-Soviet, you go at me, not the issue. You have labelled me gamey, an abuser, a raider, a grognard and someone ignorant of revisionist history.

After being provoked on many occasion I have succumbed to your jibes and retaliated. I apologise for that.
Why don't we call a truce and just stick to the issues rather than the personal slights.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)
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: 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

0.109