Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points?

 
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: What's the big deal with Admin Points? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 3:08:29 PM   
heliodorus04


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

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak


At the end of the day, we have to accept that Gary is one of the few designers that gets to include their name in the title, and he has earned that right because he comes up with concepts like APs. I have returned to playing the game 3 times, by learning to live with the things that still bug me and accept that they do not affect my overall enjoyment of the game.


Well, he should see Cid Meier's Civilization V if he thinks he's beyond the reach of epicfail. No matter how great the press releases say Civ 5 is, the playing community tells people it sucks a$$, and its sales figures are the lowest of any Civ release. War in the East has taken GG very, very close to that threshold. It is over-specified, historically unreflective of actual combat, and, my largest complaint and the biggest anchor around 2by3's neck: The game is uncompetitive. Oh, and it was the most expensive PC game (not a deluxe/collector's edition) released in the last 24 months.

Now, back to the original subject:
Back when I did this with maths to back it up, I proved that the German starting command proficiency (by assigned leaders in each army) is only 20%-30% superior to the Soviets (frankly, Germany begins the game with a lot of corps commanders that could be improved upon easily).

Back at that time, before the AP constraint-over-time was implemented on Soviet Army HQs, this was an even bigger problem. Since Soviet armies commanded more CP than German corps, it was easier for Soviets to create "Hammer & Anvil" armies with great commanders, and 10 divisions in each. Note that this is still the case in 1941: Soviets have an operational leadership advantage over Germany by virtue of the flexibility their Army HQ CP levels provide them.

When your HQ commands more divisions, if the command rating of the commanders are equal, the larger CP capacity has the advantage. The Soviets are given this advantage in 1941, when their army should be at its least capable and least flexible. Over and over again the Soviets are given a-historic means of being an agile army operationally that they should not have in 1941.

Now, regarding Flavius's comment:
quote:

Helio, I'm not seeing how the huge costs of HQ transfers favors the Soviets. It sucks equally for both sides, near as I can tell.


Where armies are concerned, both sides pay exorbitant costs, yes. And having played a game (versus AI) with 200% AP modification for Germany, I can tell the user community that straightening out Army Group South and Army Group Center does not enable these Army Group HQs to change much. The best I can do with AGC is about 20 points over command limit (moving a panzer corps to AGN, along with all of 2nd Army), and even with all the Romanians under Army Group Antonescu, AGS is hosed for command. So the idea that Germany can do a lot by straightening that out is false - it won't provide any meaningful help.

But the AP issue hurts Germany TREMENDOUSLY.
Germany can make its life easier in two key ways, and two ways that are historically aligned to the way it trained, and to the way it fought the actual war.

First, extra APs are best invested in assigning good Morale/Infantry ratings in your infantry corps. Better leaders means more movement, which means more advance to the east with better combat results.

Second, and the ultimate goal of my AP crusade is so that Germany can have tactical flexibility that reflects the Kamfgruppe, which was the Keystone of German effectiveness from 1940 to 1945.

The big deal preventing this in game is the AP cost to move DIVISIONS, not necessarily Army HQs. Germany pays an exorbitant cost. For one division, the basic cost is more than 5% of its single-turn AP awards. Again, when I did the maths before, I proved that when you open any given German division and try to change it's HQ, it will cost you on average 5 APs (prior to a leadership check, and remember that Germany's leadership advantage is only 20% over Soviet).

By contrast, I can prove that the average cost for a Soviet division is 1 in all circumstances (or some fraction below 1.2 AP, if you want to be picky).

I don't care what Soviet players DO with that advantage - that is immaterial to my purpose. I wish the Soviets paid more - they SHOULD pay more, and frankly, the Soviets are handed to them an a-historic ability to optimize and organize their defense since every single reinforcing division and HQ is assigned to Stavka.

If that's not enough to justify raising the AP cost of Soviet division re-assignment, then I revert back to my criticism of the player community: You don't care when the Soviets get a-historic capability that borders on fantasy (1986-Nato staggered defense in depth as soon as Germany invades; the ability to airdrop a regiment 200 miles behind enemy lines?). You also don't care when Germany is forced into Army degradation irrespective of on-map performance (specific unit withdrawals, etc.).

What I care about is what Germany can do if it is provided with the same AP cost to move divisions that the Soviets get.

Here is the case (in an AI game, so don't get too excited about the situation I describe):

In the drive to Leningrad, as usual, one corps of 18.Army drives on Kalinin while the remainder drives on Novgorod. 16.Army drives on the Valdai hills south of Lake Ilmen, and 2.Army is marching into the Pskov area to reinforce as necessary.

In the process of the advance on Leningrad, 4.Panzer Group sees a way to divide the Soviets at Leningrad in two, with half being in Leningrad, and the cut-off half being around the east side of Lake Peipus. Kalinin is still in Soviet hands.

Note that 2.Army has been used as was my operational plan: Reinforce as necessary. The tactical necessity was to ensure the pocket held while maintaining proper pressure against Leningrad.

Due to the Army HQ re-assignment problem, I would have no hope of streamlining my command to the tactical situation (move some 2.Army corps to 18.Army, and move the Kalinin corps into 2.Army so it can go into an appropriate reserve role after taking Kalinin. It would be nice to have that ability, certainly.

But if you’re the Soviet, you can effectively get around that problem because you can re-assign 10 divisions to the HQ you want for only 10 APs! Efficiency for the win! No point in assigning 11.Army to Northwest front when you can assign 10 divisions from 11.Army directly into the appropriate, nearby HQs! Viola, a-historical flexibility achieved for the Soviets, meanwhile Germany would have to spend an entire turn’s AP to move those same 10 divisions. THIS is the capability Germany needs. The one the Soviets already have.

Now, if Germany has this capability, it reflects, via game mechanics, the ability to create kampfgruppes.

Here is a screenshot:










Now let’s examine this picture.
Germany has lost the ability to maneuver, and so it’s ability to conduct deliberate attacks is highly constricted, but proper combat selection can go a long way here. What the German army could do in this situation is form kampfgruppen out of the units I have circled. None need to move far, and all can move and get probably one deliberate attack in.

Unfortunately, if those units fight together, command is going to be uncontrollable, maybe 1.Corps will direct it (Model), maybe 41.Panzer corps will lead (Rheinhardt), maybe 26.Corps will lead (Wodrig). The inability to control with certainty the command will have a huge impact on the combat in the SUs assigned. More significantly will be the impact of the combat percentage DEDUCTED from the German units based on the command levels involved. Maybe Germany loses 6 to 16% from the panzer unit, or from Model’s units.

Now can you see the difference in AP switch cost for divisions between Germany and the Soviet? The Soviets can get around this situation for 8 APs (1 per unit circled).

If Germany can move divisions for the 1 AP average cost that Soviets pay, then all of these divisions can be assigned to Model (who has the heavy artillery and Stugs), and the combat will take place at full efficiency (minus any overload Model may be under).

This is how kampfgruppen worked. As War in the East stands, it is the Soviet who has the ability to create Kampfgruppen in the field, while Germany cannot.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 31
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 3:55:09 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
Thank you for your interesting and well reasoned treatise in response to my comment. As noted in my post, the AP system is not perfect, but I think it does a reasonable job preventing both sides operating "perfect" C&C from Day1 and allows both sides to mould their armies in their own image over a reasonable period of time. I fully understand you wanting things to happen sooner.

Despite it's many problems, and there are plenty more that I could mention that you have yet to identify and turn into a treatise; the game is fun for me and the people I play against. When it stops being fun I will stop playing.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 32
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 6:28:02 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1047
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
This is how kampfgruppen worked. As War in the East stands, it is the Soviet who has the ability to create Kampfgruppen in the field, while Germany cannot.



This is an interesting point of view.

Perhaps the german side should have much smaller penalties for mixed-HQ attacks - that should bring back to life the Kampfgruppe concept. And leave those penalties high for the Soviets, to reflect the inflexible command structure.

Now, my main beef with the high cost for army/general changes with the soviets is that I can't understand how changing an army cost much more than purchasing, while changing a division costs much less than purchasing, and changing a support unit costs the same as purchasing.

I think that administrative changes should have a consistent cost in admin points (relative to purchase of new unit) through the board, and some cost in morale or supplies or damaged elements.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 33
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 6:53:12 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


I suspect that the number of truly exceptional generals has been, through history, quite small. I imagine that there were other quite capable generals in the red army - after all, they had a few thousands of them.



LOOOL

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 34
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 7:05:30 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
By the way Helio, the way to partially avoid paying to high a price for transfers as the Axis, is to transfer to OKH (Halder) with his 9 admin rating, and more often than not you will only pay 1 or 2 AP's. Then transfer to the Corps you want.
The trick is to have OKH "close" enough so it can be selected, but that's not to hard. And please 2by3, don't close this loophole!!!

As to SU's, use the (very bad) auto transfer for the heavy lifting to OKH, then reassign either directly to Corps (No AP cost) or select what you want from the list and pay 1 AP.

As usual, you are overstating your case, by several miles. So here's my offer, if you think Germany has no chance, consider yourself challenged. I'll take the poor Germans, lets see what you can do with the Russian supermen, unbelievable C&C, and what not.

Oh, and lets make an AAR to prove your point.

what say the?


(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 35
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 7:10:56 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6299
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
In order to make admin costs fully consistent across the board, the Soviet per turn budget would have to go up, and this would lead to balancing problems. Perfect symmetry here is not really a good idea. Alternately, the German per turn budget would have to go down, if their costs were reduced to Soviet ones. Already the Axis player in a typical game spends much of it sitting on hundreds of APs. APs just are not a limiting factor for the Axis as a practical matter to anything like the same degree as the Soviets, for the basic reason that they don't do nearly as much for them as the Soviets. Many Axis players indeed are remarkably wasteful about how they spend APs in a way that a Soviet could never be. (You will never see a Soviet player building literally hundreds of FRs the way some Axis players do.)

Anyways, this has gone completely off the original topic and has about as much to do with it as the price of fish in Helsinki.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 36
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 7:26:19 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
Whether or not some are wondering about the price of fish in Helsinki or not , the challenge stands.

So put up, or shut up.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 37
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 7:40:10 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

...And please 2by3, don't close this loophole!!!...


I'll add this to the but list right away! Just kidding.

_____________________________

We don't stop playing games because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing games - Anon.

WitE Alpha/Beta Tester

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 38
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 7:42:53 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 608
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
In the Wehrmacht most Kampfgruppen were battalion-sized formations. If their impact is to be enhanced, wouldn't it be better to pimp the impact of SUs, of reserve orders & stick with higher German division quality, etc.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgruppe

Regards

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 39
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 9:03:13 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

...And please 2by3, don't close this loophole!!!...


I'll add this to the but list right away! Just kidding.

Well, it was a worthy sacrifice for a worthy cause, so be it

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 40
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 10:11:27 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Listen, Glvaca, I've been playing the game since December 2010, and I have played a lot of campaigns, both German and Soviet (estimated 6 total, half each side, and at least 3 German campaigns versus AI too).

I've been challenged before, and I get that you think this makes you masculine. I rode 4,000 miles on a bicycle in Colorado hills and mountains last year at an average elevation over 6,000 feet (with asthma). I assert this makes me manly, too. I'll play your game just as soon as you come out here and get on a bicycle with me, mkay? I assert that will just as viably separate the men from the boys between us, wouldn't you agree?

That being said, I've never LOST a game as the Soviets, and in fact, I've never been threatened. On the other hand, I've never won a game as Germany, but I'd bet that if the logistics of Germany weren't tied down to a rail line that is 100% predictable by any decent Soviet player, and the admin problem of 1941 were remedied to the way it historically ought to be in 1941 (i.e., Germany at its administrative best, given it had a year to prepare, and Soviets at its administrative worst given a surprise attack and an illiterate, out-dated peasant army), I might give a great showing of the Wehrmacht.

If you think you're johnny bada$$, then volunteer to take me on as the Soviet giving me the settings I want (400 German admin setting, and either 110 to truck transport or 105 to logistics, you decide. Any settings except Admin that I get over-100, you can add to morale, fortification, vehicles, or logistics as you like in compensation, BUT we set Soviet admin to 95...). There's my counter-challenge. Let me know if you're interested.

You can say I over-state my case, but frankly you're obviously too congealed intellectually to grasp it, and now are punching back like a boy at a paper target (that resides on the internet, no less). Mature. Level-headed...

But no, I can't even take that challenge on, because I'm so sick of Turn one after all the re-starts that post release beta-testing and constant patching required. I've had to abandon and re-start at least 6 games, three of which were against people (i.e., wasting both of our time by starting before a major patch). The only fun I'm having is against the AI with a 400 setting for Admin. Now my armies can be fluid and react to changing circumstances, rather than being stove-piped into the Turn 1 bull**** that "comrade" Gary Grigsby shackled the Germans to.


Now, on to Flavius:
You and I do agree that IF things were changed administratively, then AP allocations would have to be balanced. In saying so, you do not state whether or not you see my point about the Admin differences created for 1941 by these default division change costs. But it's beyond worrying about now, since support of War in the East is now in maintenance mode. The bad parts of WitE are thrown out with the bathwater and the formerly loyal customer base.

You cannot argue that 'eventually Germany sits on a ton of APs' when I am talking about 1941/early 1942.

Point of Fact:
Germany was strongest and best organized for the War in Russia on June 21, 1941. But in gameplay terms, actually Germany can get better organized with the expenditure of APs to sort out the horrible situation with Romanians in 11.Army (and Army Group South), and several others.

But the way Gary Grigsby sees it, he sees no problem with punishing the German army's effectiveness by saddling it behind mechanics that commit Germany to the cumbersome organizational structure it starts with. Look at 8.Corps/9.Army and it's SU situation. Germany starts with 30 APs to try to fix that c1usterf*ck. Thanks Gary! Is that not arbitrary and punitive relative to game design mechanics? Or is there some historical reason that the game mechanics were designed to inflict poor performance on the part of 8.corps (and several others, like every panzer corps in the game) that justifies that AP trap just so you can get 8.corps to use its SUs effectively?

Do you even get that point, Flav? Even before Germany starts turn 1, you're punished by the way GG's mechanics impact OKH's decisions for artillery in 9.army. And these are the kinds of decisions Germany is LOCKED into! All over the place but even when I can make a point, you don't care, because "This will negatively impact the Soviet player" NO SH1T! That's because he already has every in-game advantage already, and that's why I have an in-box (that Matrix can spy on, since it's on their forum, I'd bet) filled with e-mails from German players who quit. I get them every month.

So back to 1941.
Germany starts with this punitive organization, and a cost structure that makes organizing that cost-prohibitive given the other priorities (SU re-allocation, leader re-assignment, fort creation). That's one thing.

The Soviets, each and every turn, can re-assign units where and when necessary for an average cost of 1.2 APs (prior to leadership check). This creates the ability to ensure fresh divisions constantly cycle in and out of your best HQs. This also ensures that any 1941 defensive stack you have can be refocused into 1 army HQ for 2 APs (the first one is in the right HQ, the other 2 will cost an AP), and thus, obviate any command problem for multiple HQs in a combat. THIS is the thing Germany needs (and I bring up the Kampfgruppe, because this is how the game can abstractly reflect the German operational flexibility.

See, I have this habit - again, I use history to justify a capability that the REAL German army had (agility, flexibility), whereas the Sovie-o-phile uses historical anecdote to justify giving the Soviet a-historical capbility (like the ability to retreat a cumbersome, offense-first doctrine, army of illiterate, unskilled peasants whose leadership was constantly looking over its shoulder at the Kommisars pistols into a 1986-Nato style, staggered defense in depth, instantly.)

I've showed how this is important to 1941 German success. It gives Germany the same operational flexibility that the 1941 WitE Soviets already have: Why is it bad for German divisions to do what Soviet divisions do? Why is this a-historical? Why, when Germany is already tied to fixed morale drops, fixed production problems, with fixed withdrawals based on history even when the history deviates at turn 1, must we continue to act as though the 1941 Soviet army isn't WAY more flexible than A) its historical capability, and B) The wehrmacht!? I don't even care about the Soviets: JUST GIVE GERMANY WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE IN THIS INSTANCE.

The only reason I see you giving, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this would negatively impact the Soviet player. I hear that the way I have always heard that: German players' enjoyment does not matter (we are only here to enable the Soviet player a sense of accomplishment), and Soviet players are not to be challenged by things like history or complexity.

There is rank hypocrisy in the 'enforcement' of history in this game, and the bias specifically creates an optimal Soviet army that gets to fight against a tightly constrained (and in fact artificially constricted) German Army.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 3/12/2012 10:13:21 PM >

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 41
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 10:13:13 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6299
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Helio, set up a game with Micheal T. I bet he'd thrash you.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 42
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 10:16:31 PM   
heliodorus04


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

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, set up a game with Micheal T. I bet he'd thrash you.



I'm not having fun, so why play?
Answer me that, and I'll consider it.

Riveting response, by the way.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 3/12/2012 10:17:16 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 43
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 10:23:49 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6299
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Helio, you are stuck on this idea that matters are hopeless for the Germans. I'm offering you a chance and an opponent to prove you wrong. There are indeed plenty of AARs where the Axis is doing very well indeed right now. A lot of Soviet players are struggling at present (which is why I have been beating the drum on reserve stance among other things, but I digress.)

For that matter, you could take your chances with Pelton. But I think Micheal T is possibly the stronger German player.

I personally would hesitate seriously in playing Micheal T without him agreeing to random weather, which I doubt he would ever do.





_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 44
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 10:28:45 PM   
heliodorus04


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

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, you are stuck on this idea that matters are hopeless for the Germans. I'm offering you a chance and an opponent to prove you wrong. There are indeed plenty of AARs where the Axis is doing very well indeed right now. A lot of Soviet players are struggling at present (which is why I have been beating the drum on reserve stance among other things, but I digress.)

For that matter, you could take your chances with Pelton. But I think Micheal T is possibly the stronger German player.

I personally would hesitate seriously in playing Micheal T without him agreeing to random weather, which I doubt he would ever do.


The desire to see me beaten in gameplay is derived from the inability to counter my intellectual argument. How I play the game is immaterial to the gameplay points I am discussing. Deal with my argument.

PS: I only play with random weather.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 3/12/2012 10:30:00 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 45
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 10:35:59 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6299
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Games are empirical data, Helio, and evidence always trumps argument. I judge it a waste of time to get into this discussion again, because it's been done before.

Somebody out there has figured out how to win with the Germans, and do so consistently. (A lot of somebodies, actually, judging by recent AARs.)

Your best bet, rather than chopping logic with me or anybody else would be to figure out what they are doing and how, and playing them will give you some insight.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 46
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/12/2012 10:55:10 PM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, you are stuck on this idea that matters are hopeless for the Germans. I'm offering you a chance and an opponent to prove you wrong. There are indeed plenty of AARs where the Axis is doing very well indeed right now. A lot of Soviet players are struggling at present (which is why I have been beating the drum on reserve stance among other things, but I digress.)

For that matter, you could take your chances with Pelton. But I think Micheal T is possibly the stronger German player.

I personally would hesitate seriously in playing Micheal T without him agreeing to random weather, which I doubt he would ever do.


So your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that if I continue to play without becoming further disillusioned by the the punitive game mechanics German gameplay faces, I might someday develop the skill to belong among the top 5 players of the game (most of whom were beta testers) and then I might find the game fun for Germany?

Again, no thanks. The game did not mention "Not fun for German play or winnable as Germany until you're among the top 5 players."

I agree, if you're among the top 5 players in the game, Germany can be fun, and perhaps 10% of the time can achieve a victory that doesn't feel empty by 1945...

For the rest of us who wanted a competitive wargame where German gameplay options were relatively diverse compared to the historical options, well, War in the East (and by extension I can assume the entire War in the Blank" series) is not for us.

And that, dear readers, is the point of my continued protest. Those of us who wanted a competitive wargame where German gameplay options were relatively diverse were not the intended market for this product, and should consider themselves not welcome among the community.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 47
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/13/2012 6:11:15 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
How do you think this 'illiterate peasant army' trait should be reflected in the game? Do you want experience levels of raw fighting elements ( rifle squad slots, mortar slots, AT gun slots, etc. ) to be really low? They start out at about 30. Or do you want national morale to be lower?

Does this 'illiterate peasant army' include lots of illiterate peasantry among lower ranking officers?

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 48
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/13/2012 2:40:53 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1047
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


I suspect that the number of truly exceptional generals has been, through history, quite small. I imagine that there were other quite capable generals in the red army - after all, they had a few thousands of them.



LOOOL



I once read something like 3,000-4,000 generals in the red army by end of WW2, but I can't find the reference again. It should be in that range, as the US Army had 38+151+304+476 = 969 generals (grades O-7 to O-10) in active duty as of Jan-2009, for an army size of 1.1 million men (data from US Dept of Labor).

Of course, the number of generals with a field command is much smaller.



< Message edited by fbs -- 3/13/2012 2:44:28 PM >

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 49
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/14/2012 1:34:02 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, you are stuck on this idea that matters are hopeless for the Germans. I'm offering you a chance and an opponent to prove you wrong. There are indeed plenty of AARs where the Axis is doing very well indeed right now. A lot of Soviet players are struggling at present (which is why I have been beating the drum on reserve stance among other things, but I digress.)

For that matter, you could take your chances with Pelton. But I think Micheal T is possibly the stronger German player.

I personally would hesitate seriously in playing Micheal T without him agreeing to random weather, which I doubt he would ever do.







Now hang on a minute. The challenge was made and I don't need your interference. I can loook after myself thank you very much.

< Message edited by glvaca -- 3/14/2012 1:37:02 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 50
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/14/2012 1:37:00 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
Helio, Your bycicle story is impressive but has nothing to do with the reason I made the challenge in the first place.

You make a repetitive arguement the Germans don't have a chance. I disagree.
So, simple, let's play and prove your point.
All that BS about other settings than standard is just a way for you to get out of it pretending you have a good reason. You don't.
I'll take the Germans as they can't win according to your position. Standard rules and you can have your random weather too.

Now again, put up or shut up.

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 51
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/14/2012 7:25:02 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2108
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Doubt it will come about glvaca. It's a comfort for some to not put the claim to the test.

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 52
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/16/2012 5:49:23 AM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Helio, Your bycicle story is impressive but has nothing to do with the reason I made the challenge in the first place.

You make a repetitive arguement the Germans don't have a chance. I disagree.
So, simple, let's play and prove your point.
All that BS about other settings than standard is just a way for you to get out of it pretending you have a good reason. You don't.
I'll take the Germans as they can't win according to your position. Standard rules and you can have your random weather too.

Now again, put up or shut up.

And again, the reason you challenge me to a game is because you cannot refute my points in reasoned debate, so you resort to the bullying. That's what 5th graders do on a playground. If I don't accept your 'fight' then I'm a coward.

My point isn't particularly that Germany can't "win". There are cases - clearly I cannot make that argument. What I'm saying is that the game is not fun to play for Germany (for me and the market segment of which I am a member), that the Soviet side gets everything handed to it in easy mode, that the given Soviet capabilities in game over the first 12 to 24 months of the war are completely unhinged from history, and that the freedom given the Soviets is made more anti-competitive by the bullshit design decisions that keep Germany railed to a timetable of degradation that is completely unavoidable by the German player.

That's one sentence.
Counter it with your mind, jackass, if you are capable, not your false bravado.

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 53
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/16/2012 6:47:06 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Helio, Your bycicle story is impressive but has nothing to do with the reason I made the challenge in the first place.

You make a repetitive arguement the Germans don't have a chance. I disagree.
So, simple, let's play and prove your point.
All that BS about other settings than standard is just a way for you to get out of it pretending you have a good reason. You don't.
I'll take the Germans as they can't win according to your position. Standard rules and you can have your random weather too.

Now again, put up or shut up.

And again, the reason you challenge me to a game is because you cannot refute my points in reasoned debate, so you resort to the bullying. That's what 5th graders do on a playground. If I don't accept your 'fight' then I'm a coward.

My point isn't particularly that Germany can't "win". There are cases - clearly I cannot make that argument. What I'm saying is that the game is not fun to play for Germany (for me and the market segment of which I am a member), that the Soviet side gets everything handed to it in easy mode, that the given Soviet capabilities in game over the first 12 to 24 months of the war are completely unhinged from history, and that the freedom given the Soviets is made more anti-competitive by the bullshit design decisions that keep Germany railed to a timetable of degradation that is completely unavoidable by the German player.

That's one sentence.
Counter it with your mind, jackass, if you are capable, not your false bravado.



Helio,

3 sentences for you:
Never argue with an idiot,
He will bring you down to his level,
And beat you with experience.

Cheers!

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 54
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/16/2012 7:39:50 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
It seems to me, if the Axis player has no fun for most of the later part of the war, that mirrors history.

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 55
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/16/2012 7:40:41 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
Whoops, somehow it double posted.

< Message edited by randallw -- 3/17/2012 2:22:08 AM >

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 56
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/16/2012 12:53:32 PM   
henri51


Posts: 1079
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Games are empirical data, Helio, and evidence always trumps argument. I judge it a waste of time to get into this discussion again, because it's been done before.

Somebody out there has figured out how to win with the Germans, and do so consistently. (A lot of somebodies, actually, judging by recent AARs.)

Your best bet, rather than chopping logic with me or anybody else would be to figure out what they are doing and how, and playing them will give you some insight.


Well Flavius, all one has to do is to look at the conditions for the GErmans to avoid a loss (hold on to Berlin). So although some players can indeed "win" the game against the AI, it seems that no one can achieve what the real Germans would have considered a win, that is destroy the Soviet Army. I think that aside from all the heated rhetoric, this is what is being argued: unless one is a fan of playing fighting retreats, playing the Germans in this game is "no fun" after the original Blitzkrieg peters out.

Now in fact there have been historians (and German Generals - including Manstein) that claimed that the Germans COULD have won the war if they had avoided certain mistakes (like splitting AGS between the Caucasus and Stalingrad). But as far as i can tell, the game makes no allowance for any such possibility: I could be wrong, but I don't think that any German player will ever get close enough to Stalingrad to have to make that choice - nor will he be able to make the choice between encircling Kiev or going for Moscow.

Having said this, I still think that this is one of the best wargames of all time, but I strongly suspect that it was designed to be played from the Soviet side. Of course the balance problem remains for pbem play.

What I suggest for those who find playing the Germans too hard is to play the game on "easy". At this level, any half-competent German player should be able to take Moscow and encircle Leningrad by September.

Perhaps it would be possible for the designers to modify the game the give the Germans a better chance for an outright win and also to modify the victory conditions with "what-if" scenarios that might be more or less realistic.

Henri

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 57
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/16/2012 1:12:24 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
@Helio. I really recommend that you take a break from the game, and work on losing your fixation with organising the German army into a perfect model of C&C. In the same way I saw that the huge variance in modified CVs that freaked me out did not really ruin the game, maybe if you took a step back you can see that German army C&C is not the key to having fun as the German.

The point at which C&C and leadership has the most impact is at the korps level, and this is where the Germans have the biggest advantage, as the Soviets soon lose this level of command and have less tiers of command to make the "saving throws". It does not cost very much to run an army of 3/4 division korps. Admittedly it does take longer to construct "perfect" Armies and Army groups, but generally the leader ratings for Army and AG commanders, to help with saving throws,can be adjusted without spending a fortune.

Unlike you I have never seen C&C as the reason for Axis under-performance, as the weaknesses of the logistics model which heavily favours the Axis in 1941 more than compensates for the weaknesses in the C&C model, and there is plenty of evidence that players who exploit the weaknesses in the logistics model can achieve high levels of success. Indeed, it is the over-investment of APs that allows the logistics to be overstretched, so imagine what Axis players could achieve if there were enough APs available for perfect C&C and enhanced logistics.

With regards to the representation of kampfgruppe, you may want to consider that divisions split into regiments in reserve mode that then have SU's attached directly achieve the same function, I have found that motorised infantry regiments with Tiger battalions attached to them very effective in achieving hold results and inflicting significant losses on the attackers.

Despite what you may think, there genuinely are many self-balancing elements within the game. Each time I have stopped playing the game I have come back with a different strategy to compensate for the things that had previously un-balanced the game for me, and in every case, the strategy worked and my enjoyment of the game increased each time I returned after a break.

< Message edited by BigAnorak -- 3/16/2012 1:50:48 PM >

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 58
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/16/2012 2:41:20 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2108
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51



Now in fact there have been historians (and German Generals - including Manstein) that claimed that the Germans COULD have won the war if they had avoided certain mistakes (like splitting AGS between the Caucasus and Stalingrad).

Henri


From what I've read of them though, they depend on the Russians doing the same thing they did in history. We did A, so the Russians did B. Now if we did C, the Russians would do B and we win. (Never occurs to them that the Russians would do D.)

(in reply to henri51)
Post #: 59
RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? - 3/16/2012 3:17:21 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...i.e., Germany at its administrative best, given it had a year to prepare, and Soviets at its administrative worst given a surprise attack and an illiterate, out-dated peasant army...

...

Point of Fact:
Germany was strongest and best organized for the War in Russia on June 21, 1941. But in gameplay terms, actually Germany can get better organized with the expenditure of APs to sort out the horrible situation with Romanians in 11.Army (and Army Group South), and several others.

But the way Gary Grigsby sees it, he sees no problem with punishing the German army's effectiveness by saddling it behind mechanics that commit Germany to the cumbersome organizational structure it starts with. Look at 8.Corps/9.Army and it's SU situation. Germany starts with 30 APs to try to fix that c1usterf*ck. Thanks Gary! Is that not arbitrary and punitive relative to game design mechanics? Or is there some historical reason that the game mechanics were designed to inflict poor performance on the part of 8.corps (and several others, like every panzer corps in the game) that justifies that AP trap just so you can get 8.corps to use its SUs effectively?

...

There is rank hypocrisy in the 'enforcement' of history in this game, and the bias specifically creates an optimal Soviet army that gets to fight against a tightly constrained (and in fact artificially constricted) German Army.


I do believe even your "point of fact" is debatable, if not outright simply wrong. The Wehrmacht underwent drastic transformations, and often pre-Kursk 43 it is considered to be at the peak height. Now of course this requires to weigh in importance of Infantry versus Armored parts, the former which were in better shape in 41. As you desire...

The way I interpret the design, looking at the effects of C&C on both sides, is that naturally both sides have potential to improve, but the German C&C starts out much more stable and more capable than the Soviet that finds itself in turmoil just after turn one. The German C&C is in very good shape, that is clear from the outset. It is not perfect, as it probably should not be: also Wehrmacht wasn't manned by geniuses, only, and:

More importantly, by mid June large parts of the Wehrmacht had basically managed a "just-in-time" deployment for the Russian campaign. Some units arrived less than a week before from their deployments in Greece or Yugoslavia in their staging areas, and were still being refreshed. Richthofen's VIII Flieger Korps, for example, made a delay necessary since its transfer from the Mediterranean by train was troubled. All this is also evident from the Wehrmacht force setup, not only if you look at the placement of mobile units for AGS initially, but also the partially imperfect command assignments.

But still, that was what it was, and I would guess that is how Gary & Co seem to have "tuned" the effects of the rules: i.e. that with this slightly suboptimal organization, a "historically comparable" outcome of the campaign ought to be the norm. Perhaps you are being mislead into the thought that the goal and norm is to operate everything every-time at 100% efficiency with no penalties, whereas in truth often things happened just-in-time and were improvised, even in the Wehrmacht.

Besides, the effects that for e.g. a 4 vs. a 5 div Korps has, are being a bit exaggerated in this respect. The penalties, given the excellent officers and die rolls you enjoy already over the Soviets as Wehrmacht, are really not that big in comparison to the advantage in CV that Wehrmacht counters in 41 have over the Soviets anyway. If I were you, I would be arguing about those rules that really make a huge impact in the game, and don't hide in the statistical noise: the harsh way in which these CV suddenly get halved in winter, in addition to the attrition and supply issues, which further hit the combat value of Wehrmacht. Playing Axis that seems a bit "too much/too immediately" -- all my units become very weak overnight. Attrition is fine, supply reduction is perfect, but the CV modifier...uuuh. Wouldn't the attrition and supply issues rather quickly and naturally erode the combat power alone so that the Soviet can successfully attack in blizzard? Or does it really need an "artificial" multiplier?


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
You cannot argue that 'eventually Germany sits on a ton of APs' when I am talking about 1941/early 1942.


I kind of wonder what you are doing with all your APs? Perhaps switching out too many high ranking officers too early? For negligible statistical gains? I tend to be more conservative, and aside from reassigning SUs for the Leningrad, Svevastopol or Moscow assaults, and switching a few aircraft models, I need them in fact largely for HQ build-ups and stocking. Switching out Model is fine, and a few minor reassignments of divisions to prevent Korps HQ overstacking in some cases, but mostly for reattaching mobile formations to obtain most gain from the HQ build-ups. But I usually still have a good AP reserve when entering blizzard!?

< Message edited by janh -- 3/16/2012 3:19:51 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: What's the big deal with Admin Points? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.125