Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
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  3 4 [5] 6 7   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 ... - 2/24/2012 2:27:27 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
If we are released from such political considerations insofar as the Soviets being free to run east from turn 1, or the Germans being free to retreat as necessary during Blizzard and 1943, why are we then still tied to the politics of the Soviet state refusing to surrender?

As well, the victory conditions are hardly equal - the Soviet player still gets rewarded with a victory even if Berlin falls much later than what was historically achieved, but the German player has to fight on to 290 VPs, which would have left the historical peak long in the dust.

EDIT: And yes, to echo comments made previously, creating a completely separate scenario with different victory conditions won't even touch the games of those who would like to stick with the original campaign.

< Message edited by gradenko_2000 -- 2/24/2012 2:46:19 AM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 121
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 2:37:40 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2370
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
No one is trying to take anything away form you LiquidSky. 70% of the people who voted would like a choice. Thats pretty simple and reasonable.

Why some people wish to impose their rigid mindset on others who simply want to choose a different path is beyond my simple mind to comprehend.

Live and let live. You have your preference which no one is going to take away from you. Let us have ours. Thats all we propose.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand?



_____________________________

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

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 122
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 2:48:44 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



It is not 70%. Such a silly thing to say. It is 70% of the people who bothered to vote. Not 70% of the people who play. And how many of those who voted, did so knowing all the facts? Thought it through? To suggest that this is a mandate for change is simply ludicrous. This vote should be only used as fuel for discussion.

Flaviusx is correct. This really is a discussion between having and not having an auto victory. The people who want one, want it set low enough so that any German player can achieve it. Will the German player fight so hard trying to achieve it, that he burns himself out, and can no longer continue the game?

And what exactly do all those numbers mean? If I remember correctly, the devs based it on the ACTUAL Barbarossa plan of Archangel to Astrakhan. Which as Flaviusx said probably wouldnt have mattered, as this was a fight to the death. And the Russians would have fought as long as they had any means to do so, and probably guerrila warfare if they didnt.

In a game this long, does it matter what the final score is? There will be many triumphs and losses on the road to the end. And if there is no way to tally those up, at least fight to see if you can better the final historical end.

There is nothing ludicrous about what is being discussed now and don't derail it with yet another sortie into revisionist or old history and all the rest of that. I agree that Flaviusx has stated that obvious difference of opinion, I think most others do too. We get it. Hence the alternative scenario idea. Can you live with that?

Proposal is to code an alternative scenario that people who think differently than you do can elect to play.

If you don't like that ALTERNATIVE scenario don't play it. There are a lot of people who do.

As was stated in a previous post, quit the histrionics will you?


_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 123
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 3:57:09 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
It is not 70%. Such a silly thing to say. It is 70% of the people who bothered to vote. Not 70% of the people who play. And how many of those who voted, did so knowing all the facts? Thought it through?
****************
Flaviusx is correct. This really is a discussion between having and not having an auto victory. The people who want one, want it set low enough so that any German player can achieve it.


I have to say that I completely disagree with both of your statements. Your first statement appears to be not an indictment of this poll, but rather of democracy itself. After all, if people's expressed opinions about a game should be ignored for those reasons, surely they shouldn't be allowed any say in, you know, governing themselves? Yikes!

Your second statement is a bit less scary, but also incorrect; I have been advocating auto-win conditions, but hardly something that "any German player" can achieve. I think that I, and most of the other people asking for auto-victory, think it should still be very difficult to achieve, as I believe 260 would be (I have not focused on the number, maybe it should be 270, or 265, or 255, I don't think it matters that much).

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 124
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:03:03 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2189
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
It is not 70%. Such a silly thing to say. It is 70% of the people who bothered to vote. Not 70% of the people who play. And how many of those who voted, did so knowing all the facts? Thought it through?
****************
Flaviusx is correct. This really is a discussion between having and not having an auto victory. The people who want one, want it set low enough so that any German player can achieve it.


I have to say that I completely disagree with both of your statements. Your first statement appears to be not an indictment of this poll, but rather of democracy itself. After all, if people's expressed opinions about a game should be ignored for those reasons, surely they shouldn't be allowed any say in, you know, governing themselves? Yikes!



A game is not a gov't or a democracy. And if you recall, people's expressed opinion that they wanted free production, as well as some who want the give the Axis the same ability to build units/SUs/whatever, has been and is still, to this point, ignored.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 125
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:06:03 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2189
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No one is trying to take anything away form you LiquidSky. 70% of the people who voted would like a choice. Thats pretty simple and reasonable.

Why some people wish to impose their rigid mindset on others who simply want to choose a different path is beyond my simple mind to comprehend.

Live and let live. You have your preference which no one is going to take away from you. Let us have ours. Thats all we propose.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand?




That 70% choice is all over the map. So who are you going to please?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 126
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:07:52 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
If you believe, as I do, that this war, maybe more than any other in history, was war to the knife, a genuinely do or die existential war for both sides (yes, I think early German surrender is just as ridiculous and gamey), then you will necessarily find these VP conditions preposterous. It was going to end in utter defeat for one side or the other, and not before.

I am having a hard time understanding how these statements relate to auto-win conditions. No one is denying that this war was do-or-die for both sides. No one is suggesting that the auto-win conditions mean that the Sovs would have surrendered. The auto-win conditions are simply a recognition that because the German PLAYER has done far far better than IRL, he has won the GAME; you can continue to play for a another 3 years to dot the Is and cross the Ts, but personally I don't see the point. Although of course even if there is an auto-win players should be able to continue play if they want.

I think that such victory conditions would be much better at reflecting the "death match" that was this war than the current VCs, which encourage (actually almost require) very timid, conservative play by the Germans and leads to a very tedious mid-game. Give them the possibility to get an auto-win, invite them to over-extend themselves, and watch what happens... Sometimes they get 260--GAME OVER--and sometimes they get 259, get over-extended, and allow the Sovs storm back and crush them to dust in an exciting war of maneuver rather a plodding, fort-busting, war of attrition.

I don't see how any of this is preposterous, and think that it would encourage a "death-match" style of play.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 127
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:09:36 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
A game is not a gov't or a democracy. And if you recall, people's expressed opinion that they wanted free production, as well as some who want the give the Axis the same ability to build units/SUs/whatever, has been and is still, to this point, ignored.

Obviously the results of this poll don't guarantee any changes regardless of what the results are or could have been, but a poll was created, and the poll was created by Joel Billings himself, which means the devs are trying to get a feel for this issue in particular, even if we grant that they already closed the door off on the production control and unit creation issues.

You'd have a point of "Polls don't matter! It's their game!" if it was just any random poll, but this one was asked and put up for discussion by the developers themselves.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 128
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:09:58 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
A game is not a gov't or a democracy. And if you recall, people's expressed opinion that they wanted free production, as well as some who want the give the Axis the same ability to build units/SUs/whatever, has been and is still, to this point, ignored.


I'm not saying that the devs have to implement whatever the players want, but we shouldn't ignore how the players have voted just because they "didn't know all the facts", etc. Who knows "all the facts" when they vote about anything?!

< Message edited by 76mm -- 2/24/2012 4:10:53 AM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 129
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:15:05 AM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2881
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


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.



Bingo, that's it right there.


_____________________________

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

Ron Swanson

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 130
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:22:33 AM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2881
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

... 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.




Ahh, now we have it. It took forever but now we've gotten to the core of it.



_____________________________

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

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 131
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:23:01 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2189
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
As one guy I know used to say, polls are for sheep :)

These polls show that change is wanted. But, there is no consensus on what kind of change.

No matter which number is picked, you're going to get more unhappy than happy people.

And either way, 2by3 will be damned if they do. Damned if they don't.

OK, lets change it. 280 is what it's changed to. (That is one of the proposed changes.)

So will it stop everyone who say 290 is too much from complaining?

Hardly.

Which is why I'd rather the two players themselves come up with one they can agree on.


(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 132
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:30:06 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
No matter which number is picked, you're going to get more unhappy than happy people.

Not necessarily; the poll did not allow people to choose a range, so while they had to pick some specific number, they could be almost as happy with another number. I chose 260, but could live with 250 or 270, either is better than 290.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 133
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:41:34 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2189
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
No matter which number is picked, you're going to get more unhappy than happy people.

Not necessarily; the poll did not allow people to choose a range, so while they had to pick some specific number, they could be almost as happy with another number. I chose 260, but could live with 250 or 270, either is better than 290.


So is 280 :)

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 134
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:43:02 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
No matter which number is picked, you're going to get more unhappy than happy people.

That is not a valid excuse to avoid change, seeing as how keeping the status quo is also going to result in unhappy people.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 135
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 4:52:00 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

So is 280 :)

And so is 289, etc. So what? The fact is that a majority a lower number, and moreover, some number (unlike 290 or 280) which is achievable (albeit with difficulty).

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 136
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 5:03:00 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
Maybe some of you who are so opposed to auto-win conditions can explain something to me: do you think that the current mid-game (late 1942-mid 1944) is particularly interesting or "realistic"? I think it is rather tedious and more like WWI than the War in the East...because of static fronts, forts, correlation of forces, the Germans don't have an incentive to attack in this period, and the Sovs don't have the capability to do so, other than in plodding attritional attacks which have no hope of penetrating German fort belts.

Do you think this might have something to do with current victory conditions? Do you think different victory conditions could encourage a more fluid style of play?

I am one of the biggest Sov "fanboys" around, so no one can accuse me of favoring the Germans, but in my view something in this game needs to be fixed...

< Message edited by 76mm -- 2/24/2012 5:06:28 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 137
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 5:04:23 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
double-post

< Message edited by 76mm -- 2/24/2012 5:05:59 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 138
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 5:11:05 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6369
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
If this goes through, I think we're going to see a lot of unhappy folks once they realize how this plays out. You're not going to see a lot of games play past 1943. Axis players will go for broke, and either win via the conditions...or wreck themselves in the process and resign. You can expect all sorts of gamey all ins.

Either way, the Grand Campaign will become the 1941-3 campaign for all practical purposes.

Eventually, Soviet players are going to refuse to play under conditions. It's a sucker's bet for them.





_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 139
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 5:19:14 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
If this goes through, I think we're going to see a lot of unhappy folks once they realize how this plays out. You're not going to see a lot of games play past 1943. Axis players will go for broke, and either win via the conditions...or wreck themselves in the process and resign. You can expect all sorts of gamey all ins.

Either way, the Grand Campaign will become the 1941-3 campaign for all practical purposes.

Eventually, Soviet players are going to refuse to play under conditions. It's a sucker's bet for them.

Replace the word "Soviet" with "Japanese" and you get to wondering if this exact conversation happened during WITP's early days

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 140
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 5:28:33 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Either way, the Grand Campaign will become the 1941-3 campaign for all practical purposes.


I think this is a valid point, but isn't this how it is now? Fact is that very few games get into 1944, and I contend that the main reason is that the game gets very boring for the Germans. In balance, if anything I think this will get Germans to play longer because the mid-game will be more interesting.

Currently, if the Germans don't get the Sovs to resign by late 1942, they've got nothing to look forward to other than another 2.5-3 years of tedious gameplay. Not many of them seem to stick around. I think so far we've had a mere handful of AARs reach 1944, although of course part of that is because of patch changes, etc.

Also, I am not sure that the "all-ins" that you refer to are gamey at all. In fact, this is exactly what the Germans did, is it not?

< Message edited by 76mm -- 2/24/2012 5:30:02 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 141
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 5:44:27 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6369
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Fall Blau will look positively rational and even timid compared to what I expect to see happen.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 142
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 6:10:28 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Fall Blau will look positively rational and even timid compared to what I expect to see happen.


hmmm, maybe, although I would think that such extreme measures would be vulnerable to counter-measures.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 143
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 8:02:37 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2189
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
From Joel in the other poll thread:

"Sure, you can make the scenario yourself. Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded, so they won't work. Of course, you could agree to what they are ahead of time as a house rule, in which case there is no need to create the scenario. That's the basic issue here. In the ideal world this would be in the editor, but it isn't, so any changes in victory conditions require coding changes. I wish campaign victory conditions were in the editor like the scenario victory conditions because then you could make all the changes you wanted and create alternate scenarios, but they aren't, and getting them into the editor is not a trivial task."



(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 144
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 8:05:03 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2189
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
No matter which number is picked, you're going to get more unhappy than happy people.

That is not a valid excuse to avoid change, seeing as how keeping the status quo is also going to result in unhappy people.


And that is not a valid excuse to change either.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 145
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 8:08:58 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2189
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

So is 280 :)

And so is 289, etc. So what? The fact is that a majority a lower number, and moreover, some number (unlike 290 or 280) which is achievable (albeit with difficulty).


Has anyone achieved say, 265-70?

Terje's AAR showed that a German win is possible under current conditions.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 146
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 9:23:57 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Has anyone achieved say, 265-70?

Terje's AAR showed that a German win is possible under current conditions.


I think a couple of people might have achieved 265-270, not many. But the point is that currently no one has any reason to try, because 290 is almost impossible. So best to conduct smallish encirclements or turtle (leading to mid-game stalemate).

I am certainly not saying that the Germans can't win the game without auto-win; in fact, under 1.05 I think the Germans have an advantage, as they can push the Sovs back far enough that the Sovs will not be able to reach Berlin by May 1945.

My main issue is not who wins or loses--this can be adjusted without any auto-win conditions by changing the end-game dates--but how the game plays out in the meantime.

I think Flavius has a valid point about the potential for gamey "Super-Blaus", but think that in most games Germans would either not try for an auto-win at all (because it will still be very difficult) or try for an auto-win if the opportunity presents itself (without going to gamey extremes).

I'd be interested in hearing the views of some of the prolific German players, who have been rather silent in this thread...

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 147
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 10:59:45 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1223
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
If this goes through, I think we're going to see a lot of unhappy folks once they realize how this plays out. You're not going to see a lot of games play past 1943. Axis players will go for broke, and either win via the conditions...or wreck themselves in the process and resign. You can expect all sorts of gamey all ins.

Either way, the Grand Campaign will become the 1941-3 campaign for all practical purposes.

Eventually, Soviet players are going to refuse to play under conditions. It's a sucker's bet for them.

Replace the word "Soviet" with "Japanese" and you get to wondering if this exact conversation happened during WITP's early days


That's what I have been trying to recall... There was some discussion, but in the end very little. Most players seem to play for fun, and the latter comes from different parts of the game play for different people. Some like the offensive phases, some production and administration, and some like to defend at poor odds. But if you read most AARs, they are very little about the winning itself, and certainly even less about wining early. Perhaps that's because R&D and production are there, and allow the underdog to toy with some fun stuff during the long lull between Japanese expansion and Allied build-up and counterinvasions. or once everything around him goes south. Even if objectively viewed, in the historical scenario 1 even optimizing Japanese war economy doesn't add up to much besides a faint hope -- but that might do the trick?

I wouldn't dismiss Flavius comments, though. If there are many PBEM games to shape around too low VP conditions for auto-victory, I would fear the same. Besides, things the initial Barbarossa offensive appears to run so smoothly these days that not even taking Moscow (while also pushing hard past Leningrad and Rostov!) is a feat that impresses any longer -- and that easy it perhaps should not be?

For a 260VP auto-victory, any side attempting it should have a real challenge at hand as 76mm implies. But the catch is that for those players who want to "win a game" rather than to "make it through the struggle on the East", a challenge could easily result in a gambit -- and a failed gambit may not be worth playing any further for an Axis player, much like you presently can't blame a Soviet player for resigning who by end of 42 is still pushed back by Axis past Volga and towards Gorky. There may be some truth to Flavius words, but only future would show. And those who plan to play it out to the end, will not go for too challenging auto-victory conditions if at all, but carefully husband their forces for what is known to come.

Nonethless, I find there is some aspects in 76mm suggestion that one should think about. The problem might come down to both sides knowing the VP conditions exactly, and hence optimizing their strategy and game play by the latter, and not playing by the war situation at hand. It is the same with commander changes, platform upgrades, etc -- too little FOW leads to number-crunching optimizations and a game more like chess, rather than situational decisions and (human) mistakes.
A human player in AE will not build poorer planes when better are available -- because in contrast to his historical counterparts, he will already know all the stats. Much like we swap out Generals in WiTE.

Perhaps randomizing and hiding the VP limit would be the only choice to get a more pushy behavior by both sides, defending and attacking harder to the point of a futile struggle, if that is what you desire. Say if the VP level was randomized between 250 and 290 VP each game, on average being 270, but no side knew, an Axis player would probably push a within reasonable limiting to avoid overexposing himself in hope that he VPs in his actual game could be in the low 250s or 260s. But he would neither sit tight, nor gamble?

< Message edited by janh -- 2/24/2012 11:03:32 AM >

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 148
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 11:39:29 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2101
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
Perhaps randomizing and hiding the VP limit would be the only choice to get a more pushy behavior by both sides, defending and attacking harder to the point of a futile struggle, if that is what you desire. Say if the VP level was randomized between 250 and 290 VP each game, on average being 270, but no side knew, an Axis player would probably push a within reasonable limiting to avoid overexposing himself in hope that he VPs in his actual game could be in the low 250s or 260s.

I think random VP levels is a good idea to make things more interesting, although if the numbers are random I think they would have to be lower (230-260?) or no Germans would take the bait. This might also make Sov players defend harder too, because they wouldn't know how much real estate they could give up.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 149
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 11:53:47 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
That's what I have been trying to recall... There was some discussion, but in the end very little. Most players seem to play for fun, and the latter comes from different parts of the game play for different people. Some like the offensive phases, some production and administration, and some like to defend at poor odds. But if you read most AARs, they are very little about the winning itself, and certainly even less about wining early. Perhaps that's because R&D and production are there, and allow the underdog to toy with some fun stuff during the long lull between Japanese expansion and Allied build-up and counterinvasions. or once everything around him goes south. Even if objectively viewed, in the historical scenario 1 even optimizing Japanese war economy doesn't add up to much besides a faint hope -- but that might do the trick?

You actually hit upon the point I was trying to make. Despite the general hopelessness of the late-war Japanese situation, I'd say that most Japan players slug it out to the bitter end anyway, and I'd like to think it's because of the fluidity of the campaign. Even when it's already 1944, there's still a lot of maneuvering going on and chances to give the Allied player a bloody nose. It remains entertaining, for both players, all throughout the 1000+ turns.

In contrast, once WITE enters the German-defensive phase, there doesn't seem to be all that much punch-and-counter-punch going on. Perhaps part of it is due to the nature and scale of the game, which we can't really change, but I daresay it's also influenced by the distance of the auto-victory conditions. Without a game-ending goal to aim for, there's not a lot of incentive for the German to go on the offensive in 1942 unless he can deal some really bad body blows to the Red Army, but the loss rates don't really encourage that either. So you turtle up without a Fall Blau, much less a future Zitadelle. German defense and Soviet mobility being what it is, much of it is slow going as well. That arguably is a lot less entertaining.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.115