Matrix Games Forums

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! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

 
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: A question about current state of balance and tactic Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:54:14 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

One a side note: How would the idea of counterattacks and fighting forward change, if attacking a unit would also cost the defender MP for the next turn? Such a rule would be terrible for the Germans later, but I always wondered why binding the defender in counterattacks didn't have any effect on his mobility.


This is a good point. Other games do this. As a related issue generally Soviet Inf have more MP than German Inf. Totally wrong. If you averaged out Inf MP over the course of the summer of 1941 I bet the Russians are at least 25% more mobile. Thats just crazy. There is no real Soviet C&C chaos in 1941 as there should be. WITE must be the first game on this subject I have ever seen that dutifully assigns higher MP rates to Soviet Inf over German Inf. Go figure.


Those are good points both! I must say that playing the Soviet side, one is not much constrained by any C&C chaos. It is possible to rail units around rather freely on turn 1, and especially as evacuations are not allowed on turn 1, this is almost an invitation to rearrange anything you want rearranged as Soviet player. I am not sure I agree that Soviet infantry MPs are higher than the German MPs, but I think it might be realistic if they were somewhat lower than they are, or maybe the table or whatever is used to generate MP values could be stretched downwards for the Soviets in 41 to give more possibilities of lower MP values.


_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 31
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 11:35:21 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2088
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV
Personally, I believe what he is saying is simply that he will play you for $1000, he takes the Soviet side, you (or anyone else) take German side- would you play him?

I would not bet against him because I believe his claim that a competent Russian can win every time.
And he means win as in the victory conditions laid out in the game.


I wouldn't take the German side for free, or for $1000, I just don't enjoy it, partly because I don't have the skills/technical expertise to get what you need out of the German side, and partly because the parts of the game that I particularly enjoy (building/organizing the army) are largely absent for the German side.

I don't believe that a competent Sov will win every time, although it takes a very good German to defeat a merely competent Sov player. I don't think anyone is arguing that the German side is as easy to play as the Sov side, and obviously for good balance you would want average players on both sides to have an equal chance of winning.

While that's not how this game plays, I think it is the nature of the game rather than some bias on the part of the devs. The fact is that unless you force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes, all else being equal, the Sovs will do better than historically. I'm not sure how to fix this, but until it is fixed it will necessarily warp the game in favor of the Sovs. I've been reading some accounts of the early war in Russia, and one of the things that strikes me is that the Sovs had more combat power than depicted in the game, but had virtually no command and control ability: units receiving no orders, or contradictory orders, or orders moving them back and forth across the battlefield for no effect other than to waste the units via attrition. So in my view, the Sovs in this game conducting a neatly-coordinated withdrawal is wildly unrealistic. I would say the Sov combat units should be made somewhat stronger CV wise, but it should be difficult to move them as the commander wants. I've suggested in the past a mechanic similar to interdiction, ie, a Sov player would never really know whether a unit would complete all, or any, of its intended movement/combat orders. This effect would gradually fade over the initial summer and would depend on commander quality. I think this could an interesting way to limit run-aways...


(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 32
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 11:38:53 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

I've been reading some accounts of the early war in Russia, and one of the things that strikes me is that the Sovs had more combat power than depicted in the game, but had virtually no command and control ability: units receiving no orders, or contradictory orders, or orders moving them back and forth across the battlefield for no effect other than to waste the units via attrition. So in my view, the Sovs in this game conducting a neatly-coordinated withdrawal is wildly unrealistic. I would say the Sov combat units should be made somewhat stronger CV wise, but it should be difficult to move them as the commander wants. I've suggested in the past a mechanic similar to interdiction, ie, a Sov player would never really know whether a unit would complete all, or any, of its intended movement/combat orders. This effect would gradually fade over the initial summer and would depend on commander quality. I think this could an interesting way to limit run-aways...


+1 Totally concur.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 33
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 1:50:05 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 887
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I've been reading some accounts of the early war in Russia, and one of the things that strikes me is that the Sovs had more combat power than depicted in the game, but had virtually no command and control ability: units receiving no orders, or contradictory orders, or orders moving them back and forth across the battlefield for no effect other than to waste the units via attrition. So in my view, the Sovs in this game conducting a neatly-coordinated withdrawal is wildly unrealistic. I would say the Sov combat units should be made somewhat stronger CV wise, but it should be difficult to move them as the commander wants.

For me this is one of the fundamental problems with the game as it stands.If you don't simulate the Soviet 41 C&C chaos then the game makes no sense as an historical simulation.The Soviets can just withdraw fast enough to prevent large parts of the red army being surrounded and the Axis can throw caution to the wind because they have no reason to fear a genuinely dangerous Soviet counterattack.This combined with overly generous Axis logistics ensures that Leningrad and Moscow are both taken in 41 as a matter of course, whereas the capture of either should be felt as a major event.


(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 34
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 2:12:41 PM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
The logistics is overly generous to both sides. The Axis in 1941, the Soviets during the first blizzard, and the soviet offenses late in the game.

The Germans were able to go anywhere they wanted to go as long as they brought their tanks. They could have had Moscow, but instead took Kiev. The Soviet forces lost in the Lvov pocket if not "lost" would give the Soviet player a better position to resist in the south or elsewhere. I generally agree though the Soviets are weaker than they should be. In a way they have to run and since there is no repercussions to running it is done.

Soviet flat out running is as big as a problem as mulling is. Get rid of mulling and the Lvov pocket and code in some repercussions to Soviet flat out running.

The mulling, etc is addressing concerns in the early stages of the war. The late stage game balance isn't even being discussed yet.

The German army and the Russian soldier deserve some more respect.

The Soviets in WW2 launched a lot of attacks against the Axis that were never going to succeed. Its overall effect was that it did wear down the German divisions. The way the game is modeled with moral no one wants to launch attacks that will lose.

The way moral is done should be rethought. If this same system was used for a civil war game then the Army of the Potomac would be rated no better than militia when the problem was leadership. The AOP remained a well trained and high moral army even through its loses.

< Message edited by RCH -- 5/8/2012 7:44:13 PM >

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 35
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 2:52:47 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2088
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
I should also point out that another reason for Sov runaways is that it just doesn't make sense to try to hold cities once they are threatened by encirclement--why bother, if they will be dead in a week?

I'm reading Glanz' book, Barbarossa Derailed, and he is talking about a three week siege of Mogilev, which held 10-12 divisions. Can you imagine? Stick three puny WitE rifle divs in Mogilev and you can be CERTAIN that tney will be POWs in a week (if the German bothers to attack them, that is). If you want to give Sovs some incentive to stand and fight, part of the solution must be to allow encircled units more ability to survive, and defend themselves, and hold up the Germans, for longer.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 5/8/2012 2:54:02 PM >

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 36
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 3:28:50 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1220
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I should also point out that another reason for Sov runaways is that it just doesn't make sense to try to hold cities once they are threatened by encirclement--why bother, if they will be dead in a week?

I'm reading Glanz' book, Barbarossa Derailed, and he is talking about a three week siege of Mogilev, which held 10-12 divisions. Can you imagine? Stick three puny WitE rifle divs in Mogilev and you can be CERTAIN that tney will be POWs in a week (if the German bothers to attack them, that is). If you want to give Sovs some incentive to stand and fight, part of the solution must be to allow encircled units more ability to survive, and defend themselves, and hold up the Germans, for longer.


Good point, very good actually. The only reason for the Soviets to fight forward and possibly to counterattack feverishly despite very uneven odds can be the time factor. The evacuation of facilities is not limiting, as it wasn't limiting back then. I also don't believe that the political/propaganda side of surrendering cities is critical as both sides knew how to set up proper propaganda coups for any mishaps.

My thinking is that they might have countered so decisively either because they believed that they had the means to stop the Wehrmacht (meaning they lacked the exact knowledge of forces, reinforcements, combat values and the future as we do now), and/or because they saw in this a means to weaken the Wehrmacht and delay it so that new, stronger rearward defensive lines could be prepared.

This delaying would be the effect that in my opinion would be missing to some degree here. Imagine if the "out-of-supply and command" effect of pocketing wasn't just that instantaneous for the next turn, but the penalty would add up turn by turn. Turn 1 75% of MP, command, supply, turn 2 50 and turn 3(+) 25%. That would probably introduce the pocket reduction fight that are in the books, and would delay the infantry, which also is a fact.
Hence, this might require the lead Panzers to stop now and then, and possibly even assist in securing the pocket borders or participate in reducing them, taking attrition casualties that are commonly avoided by good Axis players presently. On a positive note, this also would reduce the harm to overextended, isolated Axis spearheads, which wouldn't turn so weak, basically instantly (from the viewpoint of the opponent in his next turn).

That sounds like an idea to explore, at least for future titles.

The idea with the MP cost to the defender was along the same lines, i.e. binding the enemy like for example the role that the Armored Cavalry Regiments, scouts etc. had in the past, and possible even in present doctrine. Think of the 2nd ACR in Desert Storm. This effect is also absent with the present I-Go-U-Go system. Imagine that every deliberate attack, cost the defender the combat MPs (i.e. 2 or 3). You could half that penalty for hasty attacks, or double it or whatever in detail. To ensure the defending unit would still be able to disengage and move off a little within the 1-week time frame of the next turn, you could cap that "penalty" so that MPs for Inf are maximally reduced to say 10 and that of the rest to say 20. Then Soviet players would have some gain from attacking even if the losses were terrible, and the dynamics of 1941 might change dramatically. The disadvantage would be that the Axis would have to bite the same bullet later. But this "abstracted rule" would be plausibly based on the real world mechanisms.

Nothing for this title anymore, certainly, but sounds like a good approach in order to improve the I-go-U-go system in the next ones. The I-go-U-go isn't ideal, but probably best for a game to be kept "relatively simple". I think it has future but it can also be improved by other rules, such as this reaction move discussion that was there earlier (and in essence was also just a means to reduce the chance of getting pocketed too easily).

LATE EDIT: btw, thinking about delaying, this would also give rise to a critical difference to an Axis withdrawal during blizzard. The latter had probably little point besides avoiding to loose material and the arguable risk of a total breakdown of the Wehrmacht line, and a lot of Generals seemed to have pushed for quicker retreats including Guderian (which got him sacked). Although both forward holding strategies came top down from Hitler or Stalin, it would seem that in the Soviet case it appears more sensible whereas in the German case it looks more like a mistake. Of course no one knows this for sure. A game mechanic that would cost a defender MPs, would also result in this logic. The Germans, if used in the same fashion as in history and being overextended and weakend, i.e. ripe for a blizzard counteroffensive, would have no use in holding ground or even countering, whereas the Soviet would. Doesn't sounds that bad in mimicking this whole issue, does it?


< Message edited by janh -- 5/8/2012 4:08:55 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 37
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 4:51:29 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 705
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
Replied to far earlier comment that now doesn't make any sense...retracted.

< Message edited by hfarrish -- 5/8/2012 4:54:18 PM >

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 38
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 5:31:58 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 651
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I've been reading some accounts of the early war in Russia, and one of the things that strikes me is that the Sovs had more combat power than depicted in the game, but had virtually no command and control ability: units receiving no orders, or contradictory orders, or orders moving them back and forth across the battlefield for no effect other than to waste the units via attrition. So in my view, the Sovs in this game conducting a neatly-coordinated withdrawal is wildly unrealistic. I would say the Sov combat units should be made somewhat stronger CV wise, but it should be difficult to move them as the commander wants. I've suggested in the past a mechanic similar to interdiction, ie, a Sov player would never really know whether a unit would complete all, or any, of its intended movement/combat orders. This effect would gradually fade over the initial summer and would depend on commander quality. I think this could an interesting way to limit run-aways...


Good comments. I really like your idea of movement randomness due to lack of C&C. Perhaps a simple die-roll random MP modifier. You move a unit, and a die-roll at some random time in the movement will stop the unit. It may move its full MPs, or it may move just one hex. You will never fulllly know ahead of time.

EDIT: I feel that in WitE the Soviets DO suffer from C&C COMBAT penalties, but very little from C&C MOVEMENT problems like they did historically. I've always felt the Soviet ability to conduct a rather orderly strategic withdrawl to not even be historically plausible. The player should have the ability to do a little better than historical in this area in terms of a gradual fighting retreat, but to conduct a fell scale orderly withdrawl is not something the Soviets were capable of in 1941 and to a lesser extent 1942.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 5/8/2012 5:37:07 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 39
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 5:39:00 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21041
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

One a side note: How would the idea of counterattacks and fighting forward change, if attacking a unit would also cost the defender MP for the next turn? Such a rule would be terrible for the Germans later, but I always wondered why binding the defender in counterattacks didn't have any effect on his mobility.



Gary already added this rule into WitW several months ago. Depending on the combat odds, defending units lose MPs in their next turn. This will take a lot of balancing to get right, but the idea is in, as are many combat and logistics changes. When taken along with the new interdiction air directive that blankets a designated area with air attacks and causes interdiction points to be added to hexes (which increase the cost of moving into the hex during the next player-turn), you can find yourself with very limited movement options.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 40
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 5:56:53 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 651
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
The idea with the MP cost to the defender was along the same lines, i.e. binding the enemy like for example the role that the Armored Cavalry Regiments, scouts etc. had in the past, and possible even in present doctrine. Think of the 2nd ACR in Desert Storm. This effect is also absent with the present I-Go-U-Go system. Imagine that every deliberate attack, cost the defender the combat MPs (i.e. 2 or 3). You could half that penalty for hasty attacks, or double it or whatever in detail. To ensure the defending unit would still be able to disengage and move off a little within the 1-week time frame of the next turn, you could cap that "penalty" so that MPs for Inf are maximally reduced to say 10 and that of the rest to say 20. Then Soviet players would have some gain from attacking even if the losses were terrible, and the dynamics of 1941 might change dramatically. The disadvantage would be that the Axis would have to bite the same bullet later. But this "abstracted rule" would be plausibly based on the real world mechanisms.


I can't remember what it was called, but TOAW had a 'disengagement penalty' when moving the last unit in a hex that started adjacent to an enemy unit away and into friendly ZOCs. "Last unit in the hex" was the important part of the rule, as one could thus move in a high MP unit to evacuate the others first, and then pull out the high MP unit. I always liked this feature, as it gave a certain realism to withdrawing, and that disengaging from the enemy isn't always easy. It was based on various factors (IIRC moreso the difference between MP of the enemy unit(s) and your own. You could thus try to hold enemy units on the line by putting your high MP units adjacent to them. The reason being that for example, it's difficult for infantry to disengage from armour, but much easier for armour to disengage from infantry.), but sometimes the unit wouldn't disengage (or rather, lose so many MPs that it didn't have enough left to move away) and could suffer notable combat losses. In an extreme case, a weak unit could even shatter/evaporate trying to disengage. Usually, disengaging resulted in lost MPs and perhaps a small 'attrition' strength loss.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 41
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 6:09:11 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21041
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Nice rule. I have to say though that some rules are better for humans than an AI. I can't imagine getting an AI to understand the subtleties of the last unit withdrawing rule.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 42
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 8:10:33 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 651
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Nice rule. I have to say though that some rules are better for humans than an AI. I can't imagine getting an AI to understand the subtleties of the last unit withdrawing rule.


Now that I think about it, I believe HQ units were exempt so ideally one would move in the HQ, evacuate the units, and pull out the HQ (obviously different HQ rules than WitE, and also being able to stack 9 units vs 3 changes the dynamic). Of course you still needed enough MPs to move the HQ in and out, lest the HQ unit can't pull back as far as the evacuated units. It often forced a player to keep HQs closer to the front (simluating HQ vulnerability and C&C distances), or at least having a trade-off between keeping HQs closer to the front or not.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 43
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 8:22:50 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
In early versions of TOW, the disengagement penalties were horrible. It was all but impossible to withdraw. Maybe they changed it later, I don't know, I stopped playing it rather fast. Don't say they didn't have some good rules, but I never liked it.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 44
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 9:52:28 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
For all the complaining about the Soviet players withdrawing in the Summer of '41, just remember many Axis players do exactly the same thing come blizzard.

76mm is right on about Soviets defending cities.  Once isolated, the defenders are goners.  And even under normal combat, WiTE really doesn't simulate urban combat very well.  The PBEM game with SJ80 vs glvaca is a good example.  The Germans lost a few thousand men but in two attacks took Moscow, a heavy urban hex.  I mean really- tell me where the incentive is to fight for cities at the risk of getting hordes of divisions swallowed whole.   
I'm not saying they should be fortresses, but if cities had a higher intrinsic defense value and units in them were less susceptible to fatigue in the urban hex, and make them a source of supply such that if isolated they would support X # of units that could trace ZOC to that city week 1, .5X week 2, .25X week 3, then I'd have a reason to stay.


< Message edited by M60A3TTS -- 5/8/2012 9:55:24 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 45
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:03:18 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 316
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
76mm is right on about Soviets defending cities.  Once isolated, the defenders are goners.  And even under normal combat, WiTE really doesn't simulate urban combat very well.  The PBEM game with SJ80 vs glvaca is a good example.  The Germans lost a few thousand men but in two attacks took Moscow, a heavy urban hex.  I mean really- tell me where the incentive is to fight for cities at the risk of getting hordes of divisions swallowed whole.   
I'm not saying they should be fortresses, but if cities had a higher intrinsic defense value and units in them were less susceptible to fatigue in the urban hex, and make them a source of supply such that if isolated they would support X # of units that could trace ZOC to that city week 1, .5X week 2, .25X week 3, then I'd have a reason to stay.

+1


(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 46
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:11:30 PM   
Aurelian

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

For all the complaining about the Soviet players withdrawing in the Summer of '41, just remember many Axis players do exactly the same thing come blizzard.



But they, (Axis), don't talk much about that.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 47
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:12:23 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

What I find amusing in these debates is the constant contradiction that Soviet fanboys have in history versus game. Here we have a guy claiming he needs a reason (in game terms) to fight for a city. Damn it all to hell that historically Stalin would have had him shot for abandoning any city at all.

Curiously now that 2BY3 are moving on to WITW we see some rules emerging that will hinder the structuring of a defensive line during a withdrawal. While I applaud this, surely such a rule should have been in WITE from day one as it helps model a critical factor in the Soviet chaos of 1941. Perhaps its because in WITW the rule will mainly hinder German units and not Allied/Soviets.

Sorry to get so negative but after spending so much time on WITE I am getting a little peeved that all these new features that I and many others have helped to progress are being left out of the game we all have been so passionate about.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 48
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:25:51 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T


What I find amusing in these debates is the constant contradiction that Soviet fanboys have in history versus game. Here we have a guy claiming he needs a reason (in game terms) to fight for a city. Damn it all to hell that historically Stalin would have had him shot for abandoning any city at all.



And Hitler wouldn't have shot German commanders retreating or giving up Moscow in blizzard as Axis players do?
It works both ways Michael.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 49
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:32:41 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4379
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

For all the complaining about the Soviet players withdrawing in the Summer of '41, just remember many Axis players do exactly the same thing come blizzard.



But they, (Axis), don't talk much about that.


They're only interested in aberrations when it's about the Red Army. Defying the laws of logistics (Germans on the move in 1941 that is), etc. etc. has always been perfectly normal to them... If only they could get to Gorky and Stalingrad before the winter of 1941...

They are indeed a really noisy lobby. A Wild Bunch, given the quantity of personal attacks, vitriol and even insults (!)... And I am not thinking about Michael, who has never shown a thuggish behaviour

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 50
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:36:18 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
It seems that, behind all the mud-slinging at percieved fanboys of the "other" side, there is an agreement that there should be some kind of incentive in the game for taking and/or holding key terrain for both sides.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 51
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 10:57:38 PM   
Aurelian

 

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

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T


What I find amusing in these debates is the constant contradiction that Soviet fanboys have in history versus game. Here we have a guy claiming he needs a reason (in game terms) to fight for a city. Damn it all to hell that historically Stalin would have had him shot for abandoning any city at all.



And Hitler wouldn't have shot German commanders retreating or giving up Moscow in blizzard as Axis players do?
It works both ways Michael.


Said claim that Stalin would of shot him for abandoning a city is false on its face. The only commander who was executed was Pavlov. Didn't stop the loss of all those cities on the way to Moscow or Rostov. The NKVD firing squads were silent.

Very amusing indeed.

Hitler didn't shoot his generals for that either. Rather they just got dismissed. Some, like Guderian, never held a field command again. (Something that doesn't happen in the game. *We* can always put him back.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/8/2012 11:05:27 PM >

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 52
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 11:03:52 PM   
Aurelian

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

For all the complaining about the Soviet players withdrawing in the Summer of '41, just remember many Axis players do exactly the same thing come blizzard.



But they, (Axis), don't talk much about that.


They're only interested in aberrations when it's about the Red Army. Defying the laws of logistics (Germans on the move in 1941 that is), etc. etc. has always been perfectly normal to them... If only they could get to Gorky and Stalingrad before the winter of 1941...

They are indeed a really noisy lobby. A Wild Bunch, given the quantity of personal attacks, vitriol and even insults (!)... And I am not thinking about Michael, who has never shown a thuggish behaviour


As I said in a different thread. Put in all the Stalin rules you want. But then you have to put in Hitler rules too. That works for me.
Especially as that as the war went on, Hitler interfeered more and more, while Stalin went the other way.

The Axis players have been thunderingly silent on that. Strange when they claim balance issues.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 53
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 11:18:23 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4379
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It seems that, behind all the mud-slinging at percieved fanboys of the "other" side, there is an agreement that there should be some kind of incentive in the game for taking and/or holding key terrain for both sides.


This will make sense when the pace of advance is NOT irrational. Until it is not fixed don't count on me, with some exceptions, because they might suit my strategy

This said, I have had two issues, which I aired: 1) Soviet blizzard is not rational (the old patches, but I still think it is not rational, I'm a weirdo, you see) and 2) Germans were too weak in 1942 (other patches: forts mattered + higher soviet morale).

In other words, as a Soviet player I was speaking about issues which concerned, favoured the Soviets. Not the other way around, which is without exceptions (well maybe there are one or two) the modus operandi of the Wild Bunch...

Well, now it's true that I'd kill to have a [Soviet] historical OOB. I hate those pesky APs. Death to them!

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 54
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/8/2012 11:31:42 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 651
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T


What I find amusing in these debates is the constant contradiction that Soviet fanboys...


Care to name some names? I don't know who it is that you're talking about. Vague insults like this confuse the matter, resulting in mis-judgements and mis-communication...

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 55
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 12:56:02 AM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
Lets be fair here.

The Soviet running in 1941 and the Axis running in the blizzard of 1941 are totally different.

I don't think the Soviet player wants to run and several Axis players are willing to lose the Lvov pocket to see a more historical Soviet combat ability(with the understanding that they use this combat ability and not just run). The Soviet can make several mistakes and will be okay. The Soviet player can bend and bend and bend they will never break.

The Axis player in the blizzard doesn't want to run, but must out of necessity. The Axis player is not allowed any mistakes. The Axis player has no options.


I can expound on this much further, but if we are all honest then we must admit that each side is in earnest and both want the same things.



(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 56
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 1:10:36 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Aurelian, the reason not many Soviet generals were shot for giving up cities is that the said cities were not given up for the *fear* of being shot. It's common knowledge that orders from above about not one step back were backed up by the NKVD hit squads. I really should not have to spell this out

_____________________________

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

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 57
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 1:12:45 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Guys any of you who have read my comments over the past months would realize that I advocate both Hitler and Stalin rules. Not just one or the other.

Name names! Come on you know who you are

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 58
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 1:28:22 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

The Kiev debacle in 1941 is the perfect example. Everyone knew of the impending disaster bar Stalin and Stavaka, the Generals on the spot wanted to withdraw. They did not. Why? Fear of Stalins wrath and the firing squad. Result 600,000 POW's. The same deal at Stalingrad. I would love to see a rule where the loss of key cities would result in the permanent or temporary removal of key leaders. How many players would abandon Kiev if it meant losing Zhukov and several other top notch leaders. Same boat for Hitlers crew during the blizzard and beyond.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 59
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 2:03:26 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4379
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T


The Kiev debacle in 1941 is the perfect example. Everyone knew of the impending disaster bar Stalin and Stavaka, the Generals on the spot wanted to withdraw. They did not. Why? Fear of Stalins wrath and the firing squad. Result 600,000 POW's. The same deal at Stalingrad. I would love to see a rule where the loss of key cities would result in the permanent or temporary removal of key leaders. How many players would abandon Kiev if it meant losing Zhukov and several other top notch leaders. Same boat for Hitlers crew during the blizzard and beyond.



Michael, Stalin's ruthlessness is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact What you say is undoubtedly true.

BUT, and that's a big BUT:

On the game as it is, if the Soviet lose those many forces, Moscow, Leningrad, hell, everything, will fall. And still, it's curious, despite these nonsense pockets, Moscow, Leningrad were still in Soviet hands in the real thing. And please, don't tell me you German players know better than professionals (Wehrmacht). In the real word, logistics, exhaustion mattered. In the game apparently not.

Therefore the conclusion is obvious: we can't have these will to fight unless the whole thing is well simulated (a rational pace of advance that is; and I don't think swallowing -as you skillfully did- the 16th Stavka army on the very first turn is rational). Again, on game terms, if you allow the Germans to swallow those many historical (yes) forces, you are DOOMED. And you know it

This will to fight is a dead horse if real life conditions (well known as the conflict is there for anyone to see) don't apply, sorry. Well, at least to me.

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.133