Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!
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]
[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 ... - 2/26/2012 5:59:52 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 803
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I haven't added up the points, but I think they are still pretty far from 260 VP.

Just talking about that specific game, Pelton mentioned in his AAR thread that he was 32 points away from auto-victory, so if he was playing the alternate scenario he would have already won.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
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.

How do you mean that the Soviets don't have a sudden death condition? The game ends as soon as the Germans lose Berlin and have less than 40 VPs.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 181
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 6:21:47 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
The Soviets, if the Axis player is at all competent, isn't going to get to Berlin before 45. If even then.

So no, they don't really have a SD condition.

But, at least, the new CG is not being forced anyone who doesn't want it.

So at least whine---er wild will have to find something else to attack .

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/26/2012 6:24:11 PM >

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 182
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 8:06:20 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
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.

heh heh, I think you're being a little dramatic... As a Sov player, I don't want the game to end in 1942, I want to storm Berlin as early as possible. As far as I am concerned, the sudden death option for the Germans is like stopping a fight in boxing when it already completely obvious who is going to win.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 183
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/26/2012 9:24:55 PM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The Soviets, if the Axis player is at all competent, isn't going to get to Berlin before 45. If even then.

So no, they don't really have a SD condition.

But, at least, the new CG is not being forced anyone who doesn't want it.

So at least whine---er wild will have to find something else to attack .


Yeah, asking for a balanced game is whining Guess your finally gonna have to learn to play the game. All your brown nosing didn't help you on this one.

I must commend players like 76mm. Who being a soviet player wasn't biased and wanted to see changes for the good of the game. This forum could use more level headed guys like him.

Thanks to all the soviet players who supported this.


< Message edited by Wild -- 2/26/2012 9:29:01 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 184
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/27/2012 6:32:59 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild
I must commend players like 76mm. Who being a soviet player wasn't biased and wanted to see changes for the good of the game.


Great, I'm expanding my fan base. But you'd better watch what you say, because right now I'm not sure if I am "unbiased" or "gullible/misguided". I would at least like to see a few games played out with these rules, and play one, to see how the cards fall; if I am wrong I will be the first (well, maybe not the first, but certainly not the last) to admit it.

And while we are talking about my level-headed, unbiased opinion, from the AARs I've seen, the Germans seem over-powered in 1.05, not sure how/if that has changed under 1.06.

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 185
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/27/2012 9:56:40 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5929
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild
I must commend players like 76mm. Who being a soviet player wasn't biased and wanted to see changes for the good of the game.


Great, I'm expanding my fan base. But you'd better watch what you say, because right now I'm not sure if I am "unbiased" or "gullible/misguided". I would at least like to see a few games played out with these rules, and play one, to see how the cards fall; if I am wrong I will be the first (well, maybe not the first, but certainly not the last) to admit it.

And while we are talking about my level-headed, unbiased opinion, from the AARs I've seen, the Germans seem over-powered in 1.05, not sure how/if that has changed under 1.06.


We all "see" what we want to see that fits into our own personal option box.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2902711

I see game as balanced. The Blizzard is still over powered "if' you know how to game the basic logistics and combat system as a Russian player.

I personally think following ALL the AAR's is better then following just the ones that fit my point of view.

I started 3 games under 1.05.

1 I am winning http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2920420

1 I am losing http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2902711

1 that is still up in the air. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2962633

I am a good test case as my skill is the same vs all 3 players.

Its more then clear a skilled Russian player can easly win vs a good German player, but yet also clear a less skilled russian player can be bested by a good German player.

I can say "Based on the data and not my personal option that the game is balanced all things being equal."

Pelton

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

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

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 186
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/27/2012 10:08:04 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5929
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The Soviets, if the Axis player is at all competent, isn't going to get to Berlin before 45. If even then.

So no, they don't really have a SD condition.

But, at least, the new CG is not being forced anyone who doesn't want it.

So at least whine---er wild will have to find something else to attack .



Again a person looking at only the data that fits into there personal option box.

Data is more important the bias personal options.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2851126

I have played or am playing in 20 games and have lost 1 easly in early 1944 (1.04) and will easly lose this one listed vs Kamil (1.05) My game vs TDV is 1.05, but mostly (1.06)

Again all things being equal under 1.04, 1.05 or 1.06 a skilled Russian player can defeat a good German player AND less skilled Russian player can be defeated by a good German player as my personal record shows.

Bias is not helping 2by3 balance the game. Data is what can help them better understand what they are doing each patch.

Poeple posting The game is totally bias towards German or Russian side are just being 100% silly and boring by most.

If your skills are lacking play more whine less.

Pelton

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

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

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 187
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/27/2012 2:28:30 PM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
Pelton I have to disagree with your conclusions. The devs intentions maybe good, but the Soviet side has abilities and options not available to the Axis. The game design supports a Soviet steamroller regardless of how much skill the Axis player has or how well he preserves his army. I think most everyone knows it is a game and will accept shortcomings, but it is the bias and pro Soviet design that turns players off.

If the sides are well played then WITE should become very fluid and interesting for both sides by 1943 and into 1944. Instead the steamroller must be started. The Soviet player should recognize this and must understand that if the game was acceptable to both sides it would be enjoyable for both sides. This is all historically plausible.

It is their game and they stand by there decisions. This game can be played as a game and you can have some fun with it, but their are many designs that are not going to be changed that don't sit well with me like supply, air power, igougo system, C&C, first blizzard, moral, etc.

< Message edited by RCH -- 2/27/2012 2:35:27 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 188
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
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]
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

0.072