From: Denver Colorado
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 >
Summer 2017-Playing: D-Day at Omaha Beach, Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Kampfgruppe Walther & Panzerbrigade 107 (Magnificent). Lots of Osprey stuff.
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL)