Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
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 12:23:50 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
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.


I suppose it is in part because of the different nature of this struggle versus WitP, where a lot of naval maneuvering is key and adds excitement. A loss of an Allied carrier or other vessel, that can still occur "rather easily" even in 44, stands out differently as just another bloody nose for a Russian Tanks Corps. Also, I feel in AE due to the reaction options for fast-timescale moves (planes and ships), and the slower "we-go" of landwarfare, that on playing the defense on can still actively influence onces luck -- while in WiTE you either set up your units and reserves luckily in the attack avenue, or you didn't. It is just a bit more static gameplay than the offense.

But I enjoy defensive fighting in the late war almost more than the initial campaign now. I have taken Moscow and Leningrad, and many others do so routinely. But the late war period offers totally new, different challenges since I have managed to get there only once, when playing more half-heartedly. For the same reason I enjoy reading the late war AARs, be it Gids-Tarhunnas, Terje-Oloren, IdahoNyer-Scar or the new Speedy-BigAnork "Decision in the Ukraine" AAR a lot more meanwhile than those in the starting year. I find Axis in all these cases does very well, and Soviets have a lot of trouble to make real headway.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 151
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 1:35:45 PM   
Flaviusx


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

ORIGINAL: 76mm


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.


Undoubtedly. I don't doubt many attempts will result in the Wehrmacht being utterly wrecked, and I mean a total flame out, not just a Stalingrad. And then we'll get the inevitable Axis resignation.

Either way, game ends around 1943. It won't be a grand campaign. It will be a stupid Axis slanted deathmatch. This will be exciting, I suppose, for the Axis player. The Soviet player will never get a chance to march on Berlin. Some of us actually like the late game as the Soviets. I suppose we'll have to start advertising for 43 campaigns once the Axis player base signs on to this incredibly unsporting new "grand" campaign.

On a side note, you will note that none of the usual suspects beating this drum have played the 43 campaign. (Some of them haven't even played into this period at all in any game. Hi Micheal T.) This is not an accident.



< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/24/2012 1:40:00 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 152
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 1:57:45 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2219
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The Soviet player will never get a chance to march on Berlin. Some of us actually like the late game as the Soviets. I suppose we'll have to start advertising for 43 campaigns once the Axis player base signs on to this incredibly unsporting new "grand" campaign.


As usual, you raise good points. That said, many Sov players don't get a chance to march on Berlin anyway. I think I would like the late game, but have never gotten there... I actually enjoyed the mid-game as well but got the impression that my opponent got rather bored, as there was absolutely no "cut and thrust".

And I guess I'm rather less pessimistic than you about the likelihood of German players quitting after failing to achieve an auto-win: I would argue that more of them would rather play an interesting, desperate, fluid defense after a botched auto-win attempt than a safe, plodding, tedious defense under the current victory conditions. Like I say though, I would be interested to hear the views of more of the German players.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 153
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 2:31:54 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The 43 campaign is pretty fluid, if you want to give that a shot. German defensive dispositions aren't amazing, the game doesn't begin in a turtle, it begins with them in an offensive posture. It's a classic example of "too weak to defend, therefore must attack." But Citadel is disastrous. Smart Axis players indeed will cancel it from the getgo and then try to keep the Red Army down to a dull roar.

On the Soviet side, it takes a while to get the steamroller moving.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 154
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 2:34:16 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2250
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
Rather then change the VP number why not make Berlin worth more? This would give the Axis players the opportunity to go for a knock out blow mid game but also give them an incentive to possibly win in 1945.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 155
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 2:44:24 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2219
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza
Rather then change the VP number why not make Berlin worth more? This would give the Axis players the opportunity to go for a knock out blow mid game but also give them an incentive to possibly win in 1945.


Don't understand...Axis players always have the opportunity to try a knock-out blow, but no incentive to do so. Wouldn't making Berlin more valuable simply make turtling a more attractive option?

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 156
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 2:50:10 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
It is already possible to force a draw by keeping Berlin. That's good enough incentive imo. The real problem is that the stock game goes all the way to October, which is much too long and something the game engine frankly isn't designed to handle.

That said, I could see lowering the requirements for a minor victory. Instead of holding on to the initial start line more or less, perhaps something like holding on to a VP equivalent of greater Germany.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 157
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 2:53:56 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2250
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
My thought is (and it may be over simplified) that an Axis player may find himself in a position to go for knock out blow and attempt it. If he fails he may continue the game knowing that there may still be a possible win if he manages his forces or Soviet play is inferior late in the war.

From what some players are saying is if you lower the victory points too much an all out Axis assault that fails and wrecks their army may very well lead to an early Axis exit.

Just a thought. I had not been staying up on the game recently as I await the the big patch and expansion.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 158
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 3:19:22 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2219
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
well, I had planned on taking a break from the game for a while, but might have to pick up a game with some sudden death and earlier end-date house rules once the next big patch is out, just to see how it goes.

For some reason, I'm only interested in the GC game, so don't want to play the 1943 scenario...I want to bake my own cake I guess.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 2/24/2012 3:20:38 PM >

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 159
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 3:38:12 PM   
vicberg

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It is already possible to force a draw by keeping Berlin. That's good enough incentive imo. The real problem is that the stock game goes all the way to October, which is much too long and something the game engine frankly isn't designed to handle.

That said, I could see lowering the requirements for a minor victory. Instead of holding on to the initial start line more or less, perhaps something like holding on to a VP equivalent of greater Germany.

quote:

It is already possible to force a draw by keeping Berlin. That's good enough incentive imo. The real problem is that the stock game goes all the way to October, which is much too long and something the game engine frankly isn't designed to handle.

That said, I could see lowering the requirements for a minor victory. Instead of holding on to the initial start line more or less, perhaps something like holding on to a VP equivalent of greater Germany.


An end game lowering of VP would be good. But there needs to be a chance for outright German victory. It was possible that conditions could have forced a Soviet sue for peace. But to this would require a few adjustments to the game that may or may not be out of scope.

The Soviets are too weak first year. The Germans are too weak during winter (except against Soviet shock troops), Leningrad is too weak overall. VPs should be adjusted. Economic loss of *some* cities should be greater. This would widely open the game up. It wouldn't be a German romp by any means. If 2by3 tweaks the game correctly, it should be a touch and go for both sides based on German first year objectives. It would see widely varying gameplay focusing on either capturing of cities for economic purposes, capturing of VPs (and going for economic centers such as Stalino should give lesser VPs than Moscow or Leningrad, but greater economic impact) or destruction of the Red Army. An improved first year Red Army would force the Germans to focus on what they want rather than being able to push everywhere, as they currently can.

It would see widely varying responses by the Soviets. Forward defense, preserve army (with economic consequences later, slowing the game down a bit), defend key locations. Germans go for victory and Soviet economy should remain intact. Germans go for economy and the game will last for sure into 44/45. Destroy the Red Army, who knows, depends on how much of the Red Army is destroyed.

That would be a very fun game and widely varied.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 160
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 5:01:56 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2219
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg
The Soviets are too weak first year. The Germans are too weak during winter (except against Soviet shock troops), Leningrad is too weak overall. VPs should be adjusted. Economic loss of *some* cities should be greater. This would widely open the game up. It wouldn't be a German romp by any means. If 2by3 tweaks the game correctly, it should be a touch and go for both sides based on German first year objectives. It would see widely varying gameplay focusing on either capturing of cities for economic purposes, capturing of VPs (and going for economic centers such as Stalino should give lesser VPs than Moscow or Leningrad, but greater economic impact) or destruction of the Red Army. An improved first year Red Army would force the Germans to focus on what they want rather than being able to push everywhere, as they currently can.

It would see widely varying responses by the Soviets. Forward defense, preserve army (with economic consequences later, slowing the game down a bit), defend key locations. Germans go for victory and Soviet economy should remain intact. Germans go for economy and the game will last for sure into 44/45. Destroy the Red Army, who knows, depends on how much of the Red Army is destroyed.

That would be a very fun game and widely varied.

I generally agree, but it's not a tweak, it's a new game. Don't see this happening...

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 161
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 5:03:38 PM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
You are probably right

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 162
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 3:34:47 PM   
TDV

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 11/7/2001
Status: online
I’m Russian and I play only the Russian side. I must say there is not enough challenge to play for Russia now because the Germans are too weak, even in 1941. Germany has to have high chances to win in 1941-1942. If the Soviet player loses Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh, Tambov, Rostov (roughly)  the game is over. It doesn’t mean Russia  lost the war, it means this certain chief of High Command is dismissed and executed. The game is over for him because of incompetence. I vote for 240 VP

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 163
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 5:25:41 PM   
AFV


Posts: 372
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
If its not fun to play the Axis side, Axis players will gravitate to other games, and it will get harder and harder to find an Axis opponent. We won't be bitching about how hard it is to get to '44, we will be complaining that we can't even start '41. And that the AI needs improvement, since thats all we will  play against.
And that works both ways. Lets keep this game alive, and balanced. More creative victory conditions are a start.

(in reply to TDV)
Post #: 164
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 5:48:27 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza
From what some players are saying is if you lower the victory points too much an all out Axis assault that fails and wrecks their army may very well lead to an early Axis exit.


Exactly my thought (or fear)... We might see a mega massive push à la Pelton, disregarding completely other areas... Then of course if the Germans fail, the route to massive counter-attack is open. Either way, Axis resign, the Soviet player will never get to be on the offensive (1943/4/5)

Not to mention that as I see it, as long as the logistics are not fixed (or a workaround is found) the whole thing is absurd. German units should not be able to get to x target at y time in the first place

_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 165
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 5:50:33 PM   
Ron

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline
For those that don't or haven't played WitE let's keep something in perspective here - in order for the Axis player to have accumulated 260 VPs, he has literally crushed his Russian opponent. While it can be argued the Russian player will win back some territory in later years, there is no question the "game" is lost. And to quote Erik Rutins - "War in the East is definitely a game, not a simulation."

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 166
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 5:51:11 PM   
Flaviusx


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TDV

I’m Russian and I play only the Russian side. I must say there is not enough challenge to play for Russia now because the Germans are too weak, even in 1941. Germany has to have high chances to win in 1941-1942. If the Soviet player loses Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh, Tambov, Rostov (roughly)  the game is over. It doesn’t mean Russia  lost the war, it means this certain chief of High Command is dismissed and executed. The game is over for him because of incompetence. I vote for 240 VP


The Germans are too weak in 1941? Are you kidding me?



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to TDV)
Post #: 167
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 6:20:05 PM   
TDV

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 11/7/2001
Status: online
I played against Pelton my very first game. I was able to hold both Moscow and Leningrad. In the second game against Pelton I held Moscow and Leningrad again. If a green Russian player can do it against very experienced German opponent I would say the Germans are weak

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 168
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 6:37:19 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TDV

I played against Pelton my very first game. I was able to hold both Moscow and Leningrad. In the second game against Pelton I held Moscow and Leningrad again. If a green Russian player can do it against very experienced German opponent I would say the Germans are weak


TDV, perhaps you held these two cities because Pelton did not really want them? Just a thought... I simply can't see how you are going to resist enemy stacks offensive CVs > 20 with your 1, 2 or 3 (now that's luck) offensive CV units. Especially when enemy units can get to Leningrad approaches on turn 4, 5 or 6... Now if he does not bring enough forces that's another story. In fact I affirm he did not bring "enough troops" ergo Leningrad was not on his radar...

_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to TDV)
Post #: 169
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 7:32:48 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2319
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TDV

I played against Pelton my very first game. I was able to hold both Moscow and Leningrad. In the second game against Pelton I held Moscow and Leningrad again. If a green Russian player can do it against very experienced German opponent I would say the Germans are weak


This green Russian player *always* loses Leningrad. In every game.

I'm no Pelton fan. Due to the past attitude. But, if he wanted Leningrad and Moscow, he would take them.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/25/2012 7:38:19 PM >

(in reply to TDV)
Post #: 170
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 7:47:30 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
Not to mention the defensive CVs. 1.05 made it certain the Soviets during the Blitzkrieg could NOT get high fort levels... ergo, your "mighty" stacks melt as snow under the sun... Yes or yes.

Said this, almost one year ago I had concluded Leningrad could be held too. I was playing vs 2ndACR and had massively (and I mean it ) reinforced Leningrad... Top leaders in charge of the Front and Armies in the area, not incompetent clowns. Little I knew I was utterly wrong. Sabre21 (where has he gone?) was there to tell me that Leningrad should be in the bag of every German player (IF he wanted the city that is).

In other words I held it because 2ndACR did not want it in the first place. And it turned out that was indeed his strategic choice: major push in the south, just like Pelton and his legendary industry raiding thing... in the *south*

_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 171
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 7:59:10 PM   
Flaviusx


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

ORIGINAL: TDV

I played against Pelton my very first game. I was able to hold both Moscow and Leningrad. In the second game against Pelton I held Moscow and Leningrad again. If a green Russian player can do it against very experienced German opponent I would say the Germans are weak


I've held Leningrad and Moscow against Pelton as well, but honestly the only reason I was able to hold onto Leningrad was because Pelton didn't commit to it. If the German player really wants it, and knows what he is doing, is willing to throw in what is needed to get the job done...he'll usually get it.

Moscow is a 50/50 proposition right now in between two good and solid players. Pelton has his strengths, but he tends to shy away from a tough and grinding fight and Moscow won't come cheaply. It's also going to depend a lot on what happens in Leningrad -- if that falls quickly and easily, it becomes a lot harder to hold Moscow. If the Soviet can actually keep Leningrad then his chances of holding Moscow go up a lot.

If the Axis player has a southern bias, and commits to a factory raiding strategy, then both Leningrad and Moscow can be held (rather easily in fact.) That kind of strategy I think is played out in 1.05 and even Pelton isn't doing it anymore. But as I recall he was doing this in your earlier games.


< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/25/2012 8:04:00 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to TDV)
Post #: 172
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/25/2012 9:56:31 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2946
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TDV

I’m Russian and I play only the Russian side. I must say there is not enough challenge to play for Russia now because the Germans are too weak, even in 1941. Germany has to have high chances to win in 1941-1942. If the Soviet player loses Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh, Tambov, Rostov (roughly)  the game is over. It doesn’t mean Russia  lost the war, it means this certain chief of High Command is dismissed and executed. The game is over for him because of incompetence. I vote for 240 VP


Interesting point because it does bring in the whole POV of the player. What role the player is supposed to be taking in the game. I think the devs originally tried to say the player was a high level unit commander and in that case, you certainly have a point about the game ending for the player.



_____________________________

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

Ron Swanson

(in reply to TDV)
Post #: 173
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 1:04:53 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1698
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Exactly my thought (or fear)... We might see a mega massive push à la Pelton, disregarding completely other areas... Then of course if the Germans fail, the route to massive counter-attack is open. Either way, Axis resign, the Soviet player will never get to be on the offensive (1943/4/5)


These fears are unfounded and completely distract from the issue. Sure, some idiots will go for a reckless strategy and quit early; always have and always will. But the idea of having automatic victory conditions in a WITE-type game has a very long positive legacy going back to boardgames like AH The Russian Campaign, Russian Front, etc. Between competent and experienced players, most games would go the distance and rarely end early with an automatic victory for one side or the other. Why? Simply because both players had incentives throughout the game to push hard not only to try for an early victory but also to deny one to their opponent. The natural result was to have challenging and enjoyable games for both sides. At least that's how I remember it, and every August at the World Boardgaming Championships there are many players who still continue to play and enjoy these old relics with such 'preposterous' victory conditions. It kinda makes me wonder if the naysayers are even old enough to remember such games. They are just games, after all...


(in reply to Jeffrey H.)
Post #: 174
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 1:49:29 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I've played those old games as well, and newer ones such as PM, and am less impressed with the results.

Anyways we will find out soon enough if this new alt campaign can truly go the distance or if it is just "Deathmatch 1942."

Also just took another look at the M60 v. Pelton game. I think that one would be over under the DM 42 conditions. And I for one have a difficult time believing in that result. Plainly the Soviets have made many mistakes, but a surrender? Not likely.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 175
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 2:39:26 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Exactly my thought (or fear)... We might see a mega massive push à la Pelton, disregarding completely other areas... Then of course if the Germans fail, the route to massive counter-attack is open. Either way, Axis resign, the Soviet player will never get to be on the offensive (1943/4/5)


These fears are unfounded and completely distract from the issue. Sure, some idiots will go for a reckless strategy and quit early; always have and always will. But the idea of having automatic victory conditions in a WITE-type game has a very long positive legacy going back to boardgames like AH The Russian Campaign, Russian Front, etc. Between competent and experienced players, most games would go the distance and rarely end early with an automatic victory for one side or the other. Why? Simply because both players had incentives throughout the game to push hard not only to try for an early victory but also to deny one to their opponent. The natural result was to have challenging and enjoyable games for both sides. At least that's how I remember it, and every August at the World Boardgaming Championships there are many players who still continue to play and enjoy these old relics with such 'preposterous' victory conditions. It kinda makes me wonder if the naysayers are even old enough to remember such games. They are just games, after all...




I am not against this death matches if people want them (OPTIONAL). I still think this VPs thing will turn the Grand Campaign into a War in The Twilight Zone but I am no one to say how other players should be playing. To each his own

There is still a problem. This whole issue is ignoring that the pace of operations is WAY TOO FAST (not to mention the logistics: what can or can't be done in the REAL world). Now the essence of this VP things is that you have to get to x, y and z places to win... But as we have seen the pace of advance is irrational, ergo the whole thing is a castle of cards on my book, sorry.

In fact if this fulgurant advance (along with logistics) is fixed the VPs might not be necessary at all... because you will hardly get to the proposed x, y and z places...

I have bad news... The first big issue in WitP was the really fast, irrational pace of operations. They DID fix that. Back in 2004 you could send 400 B-17s to Port Moresby by march 1942 LOL

When in fact the Americans ONLY sent 198 B-17s to the Pacific! Forget the numbers. Prosaic logistical constraints now make these aberrations IMPOSSIBLE. You really feel what the real commanders felt... as it should be. Now you will be happy if you manage to send a single fighter squadron (supplied + support) there by spring 1942...

The day they will fix this in WitE there is going to be some crying. Wait & see

P.S.: and I still don't get it. The developers already included a scenario which 100% reflects these death matches...

_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 176
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 4:25:30 PM   
Wild


Posts: 310
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
Thank you to 2by3 for finally listening to people who wish to give the axis at least a small chance to win the game.

I know the usual suspects are terrified of this because they think they will no longer find axis players to play the original scenario and be their whipping boy.This might actually force them to play the game instead of the game playing itself to the inevitable conclusion.

This still hasn't gone far enough as the axis still need to be able to build support units and both sides need to have control over which tanks go to which units, and i probably won't go back to playing until that happens, but it is a big step in the right direction.

Thank you 2by3 this can only be good for keeping a large player base. I will be keeping my eyes open for future developments.


< Message edited by Wild -- 2/26/2012 4:42:39 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 177
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 5:38:26 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2219
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Also just took another look at the M60 v. Pelton game. I think that one would be over under the DM 42 conditions. And I for one have a difficult time believing in that result. Plainly the Soviets have made many mistakes, but a surrender? Not likely.


I haven't added up the points, but I think they are still pretty far from 260 VP. And again, we are not talking about a Sov surrender, we are talking about a German player that has won the game because he achieved much more than the Germans did historically. I can see your concern about gamey rushes, but I don't get your equation of winning the game with winning the war?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 178
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 5:40:35 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

I know the usual suspects are terrified of this because they think they will no longer find axis players to play the original scenario and be their whipping boy.This might actually force them to play the game instead of the game playing itself to the inevitable conclusion.


I take it the Gestapo is harvesting the names of these "usual suspects"? What makes you think every Soviet player will play vs the robber hordes of Hitlerite bandits? And by the way, I think 2by3 has said the game would be over in july 1945... For all I care the game should finish in MAY 1945 so big deal

You seem to ignore that the VP crowd were asking for victory checks in 1942... and even at the end of 1941... Now it seems they are happy with a 1945 ending... or not?

_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 179
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 5:42:53 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
So far as I am concerned, winning the campaign game is winning the war, or should be. That's still going to be the case with the Soviets in this brave new world of DM 42, btw. There are no shortcuts for the Red Army, they have to take Berlin and pretty much everything else on the map. Only the Wehrmacht gets this dubious sudden death option. The fix is in.





_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 180
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

0.135