Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
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 - 5/9/2012 2:58:03 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2285
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

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


I wish you would. The cities were lost. And no generals were shot. The "hit squads", as you call them, were not employed against the generals/marshalls.

Oh, and Pavlov was shot not for abandoning a city, but losing the Battle of Bialystok–Minsk.

You said, "Damn it all to hell that historically Stalin would have had him shot for abandoning any city at all."

No one even got shot for losing all those armies *and* Kiev

So list them.

Oh, BTW, the order known as "Not one Step Back" was 1942. And still, they stepped back when necessary. Thus the lack of huge numbers of prisoners unlike 1941. All without generals/marshalls getting shot. At least I haven't found any.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/9/2012 3:15:38 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 61
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 3:08:02 AM   
notenome

 

Posts: 600
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline
Gonna toss my hat in the ring here:

In most wargames I favour Axis but I've been playing WITE as Sov (trying to get a new GC started, btw). I find WITE has some problems, some which could be solved as tweaks, others go deeper. Still great game though. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here typing away, after all.

Beginning with some major problems. Maybe the largest problem in WITE is actually the air war. The greatest advantage the Axis had in the war, and the last one to peter out, was in the air. Several of the large Soviet counterattacks of the early weeks were stopped not by panzers or panzerjagers, but by aircraft. Not only that, but Axis interdiction positively wrecked large scale soviet troop movements in the early part of the war, especially for the Soviet cavalry units (its hard to hide horses).

The second major problem is that, tactically both armies fight the same. This makes very little sense to me. The soviet army had a mass/quantity echelon doctrine, whilst the Germans had a mobility doctrine. The entire point of the mobility doctrine (as theorized by Guderian) is that a numerically inferior force can achieve local numerical superiority by concentrating its assets where they are needed. But instead what we have in WITE is every combat element firing on every combat element, which effectively turns every attack into a frontal assault.

Continuing on mobility, the absence of flanking rules is a severe blow to the Axis. TOAW, for example, had a rule that if a unit was attack simultaneously on two flanks, its assets were split in half, which is to say, half the combat power would fire at each attacker, except for mobile elements, which could shift around to where they were needed. This is true of combat at every scale, be it army or tactical level, and yet its not in the game. Things such as tactical suprise become impossible, and yet most of the Germans offensive victories were the result of mobility, not frontal assaults. It aslo is worth mentioning that the Soviets won the decisive battle of the Eastern front (in Glantz's view) at Stalingrad by a combination of whitling away of German combat power and by outmaneuvering them.

There are other larger problems, but these are well documented, such as logistics and infinite railroad supply.

As for things which would be solved by tweaks: disabled soldiers come back much too slowly, which leads the blizzard to have a harder effect than it normally would have, this has been well documented before and so I won't talk it more now.

Also, the experience and morale of the Red Army in 42 seems to be too high. The average red army soldier suffered from being rather green and there was a shortage of heavy weapons at the time (a consequence of the realocation of industry and the large pockets of 41). This came to a head during the second battle of Kharkov. Whereas south of the city Soviet cavalry units were able to exploit far thanks to the clear terrain, in front of Kharkov proper the soviet advance stalled as Axis soldiers in entrenched positions refused to surrender and the soviets often could not dislodge them. This is largely forgotten thanks to the ensuing flank attack that lead to another large soviet pocket.

Bombardments in general also appear to be somewhat lacking. Though the Soviets eventually get artillery divisions, pre assault bombardments were a major part of soviet doctrine but also by the Axis powers (Sevastopol and lest us forget, the actual beginning of operation Barbarossa featured a gigantic artillery bombardment).

Another tweak has to deal with manpower, we've seen games where the Axis have taken Leningrad and moscow and hugh swathers of the south (the wolf and the bear, stickied AAR) and the soviets wtill had a flood of units by games end despite much higher losses in both manpower and cities. Not only that but they were still able to bash the Germans back to Germany due to morale and experience being higher than it should (as aforementioned).

HQ mulling, of course, is an exploit, a gamey exploit, and has to go. This can clearly be seen by the defense of muling coming not from a historical explanation (as there is none, its basicaly the American Red Ball express on steroids) but from a balance perspective. Indeed, there are many balance problems, but they need to be solved by adapting and creating adequate in game systems, and not through exploits.

Lastly, an issue I've brought up before, I think that the Smolensk-Moscow highway should be included on the map. I understand everything that's been said about not including roads and the scale of the game etc, and I understand. My counterpoint is simple: when reading Rauss and other generals, especially come winter 41, that is almost there only preocupation (and the object of many of the soviets attacks). Pretty much the entirety of their defensive considerations revolved around holding key villages (for both sides, this is modeled well for the Axis, less so for the Soviets) and protecting the highway at all costs, no matter how crazy their defensive set ups would appear to be.

EDIT:

As for the soviets running away, I agree with Flaviusx, its a bad soviet strategy. That said, with a good implementation of air interdiction, it would also become an impossible soviet strategy. Such things should not be hardcoded out of the game, but be made infeasible though changes in the actual mechanics.

And in regards to paradrops, well the only large scale use of soviet paratroopers (IIRC) was a catstrophe for the soviet union. That said the soviets made great use of smaller sclae paradrops to aid partisans, which is already partially modeled. In order to simulate what a bad idea large scale paradrops are for the sovs, one need to simply make the casualties from paradrops be a combination of both the units experience/moral combined with the aircrafts experience/morale. As soviet transport aircraft are very shoddy, that would result in very high losses.
So yeah, those are my observations, haven't played PBEM in a while though, so maybe a lot has changed. Here's hoping the improvements being developed for WITW will be patched into WITE.

< Message edited by notenome -- 5/9/2012 3:21:52 AM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 62
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 3:08:49 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2285
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


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.


Especially when one, who looks for an opponent, says he will use the exploit of HQ buildip/muling in all its forms, (very pro Axis), but won't allow a Soviet player to use the rules and drop paras at the limit of a transports's range.

The pro Axis want those big pockets. They want those historical results. So long as those results are one sided.

My own 43 offensive started in Winter 42. Thanks to those attacker favoring logistics, I don't have to worry about stopping. Except for mud. And that's more of a bump in the road.

I don't expect the Axis player to stand in place. I don't expect or wish, unlike pro Axis players, for them hold on to cities at all costs. No Hitler rules. (Oh, and I never used paratroopers more than 5-6 hexes from the front. And only to make HQs/Airfields run away. Needless to say they all died.)

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/9/2012 3:27:49 AM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 63
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 3:32:07 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Arh... earth to Aurelian, Muling is dead.

Also the Soviet cities that fell, fell with armies and the their Generals. The commanders either died fighting or went in to captivity. IIRC some Kiev commanders reached friendly lines some weeks later only to be arrested.

The bottom line is Soviet commanders generally were in fear of being executed for disobeying orders from above. To refute this is nonsense. I am not going make any further comment on it. People can make up there own minds.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 64
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 5:25:31 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2156
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
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.


I have to say that I find this statement to be completely bizarre. Of course I need a reason (in game terms) to fight for a city, or do you really think I am supposed to pick my strategy without any regard for how the game works?

In this thread you said "Joel why not code something that disuades running away. Like all manpower factories lost in 1941 is permanent ...". In other words, you yourself have asked for a "reason (in game terms)" to fight for cities. What am I missing here?

I guess from now on I'll just have to ignore the game's rules and think "what would Stalin have done?"


< Message edited by 76mm -- 5/9/2012 5:27:24 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 65
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 5:26:04 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2156
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
DOUBLE-POST

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 66
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 5:31:36 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Michael is actually quite correct. And As I am reading his posts, he is not calling for one-sided pro-Axis rules, but rather an equalization. I began here purchasing this game as someone not involved in the back and forth arguments on this board. I have seen though, rather constant personal attacks by some who, for the sake of simplicity, we shall call "pro-Soviet"..and I do not intend that as an insult, but rather, that people named such, quite obviously prefer to play the Soviet side. Michael above challenged any of them to play against him as the German to his Soviet, and was replied to by one of them, that he preferred not to play the German because he did not have the skills to play the German side well(hence, admission of its higher difficulty) as well as the parts of the game he enjoyed are absent from the German side(building armies, etc) This honest admission by 76mm to Michael's point, exactly sums up my feeling..why is it, that part of the game is absent from one side?
I Love the game , if I was rating it out of 100, I would probably give it a 80(considering that I have played very few games I would rate higher, that is great)..but, it COULD easily be a 100. I think that realistic tactics should have a chance to win the war, the Germans came quite close to doing it in the real event. It should not require "gamey" tactics to at least have a fighting chance. As a real world operations officer myself, my impression thus far, is that is not the case for the German side. I still hold out hope. The game has incredible potential, and quite obviously a great amount of work has been, and continues to be, put into this. I would love to see it set up where there is incentive to hold cities, and also, as is realistic, where it is easier to do so, cities like Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad survived long fights, with Leningrad actually essentially cut off even. It should not be so that simply surrounding an army immediately makes it ineffective, so I am not simply in favor of "making it easy for the Axis" either, I just want it to be more realistic..the Axis should have to press for the oil in southern Russia(the entire reason for Blau, anyway) the Rumanian oil fields should be a vital asset to the Axis, and a serious target to the Soviets, also.
All said, a game will always be missing something that someone sees as important, I realize, but we are allowed to hope, I think, and should not be attacked by players on the other side, who must admit that their side already is incredibly forgiving unless they are just tactical dolts...it seems nearly impossible to lose as the Soviet player, for sure against AI, will try it against a person one of these days when I have time.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 67
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 5:36:52 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2156
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

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 that they are different at all; both sides are doing what they think maximizes their chances to win under existing game rules, which do not give any incentive to hold ground.

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 68
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 5:43:30 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2156
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
...but we are allowed to hope, I think, and should not be attacked by players on the other side, who must admit that their side already is incredibly forgiving unless they are just tactical dolts...it seems nearly impossible to lose as the Soviet player, for sure against AI, will try it against a person one of these days when I have time.


sigh...while it is certainly easier to play as Sovs than as Germans, it is a wild exaggeration to say that the Sovs will win unless they are "tactical dolts" or that "it is impossible to lose" as the Sov side. Have you been reading any of the (few) post-1.05 AARs?

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 69
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 5:51:06 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
...but we are allowed to hope, I think, and should not be attacked by players on the other side, who must admit that their side already is incredibly forgiving unless they are just tactical dolts...it seems nearly impossible to lose as the Soviet player, for sure against AI, will try it against a person one of these days when I have time.


sigh...while it is certainly easier to play as Sovs than as Germans, it is a wild exaggeration to say that the Sovs will win unless they are "tactical dolts" or that "it is impossible to lose" as the Sov side. Have you been reading any of the (few) post-1.05 AARs?


Thus far for myself at least, I have not been able to lose as the Soviet player against AI, which I did specify..have not played against a person yet, plan to do that when I have time to do more that a slow-paced pbem(I know from experience how annoying it is to have an email opponent who only does a turn every week or so lol, and that is currently about all I would have time for)

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 70
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 7:43:46 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
76mm. Let me clarify for you

I am refering to the attitude of some Soviet Fanboys that carry on about ahistorical German play eg. Lvov, Muling etc. Yet they themselves have no qualms in doing a runaway. So on one hand they want German players to play historically even if the rules allow ahistorical play. But they want to be forced in to defending a city or encouraged to defend it, rather than playing by the same historical voluntary limits they are willing to impose on German players. Can you see the hypocricy?

As for myself I have always maintained that I play by the rules, regardless of what is considered historical or ahistorical. Where I differ is that I want the rules to enforce a more rigid historical shackle on the players in some circumstances, equally for both sides. Not just for historical accuracy but even more so for game balance.

I only used muling to counter the runaway freedom of the Soviets. If the Soviets were forced to fight forward, like Stalin ordered I would certainly be happy with the removal of muling.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 71
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 8:50:25 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2156
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I am refering to the attitude of some Soviet Fanboys that carry on about ahistorical German play eg. Lvov, Muling etc. Yet they themselves have no qualms in doing a runaway. So on one hand they want German players to play historically even if the rules allow ahistorical play. But they want to be forced in to defending a city or encouraged to defend it, rather than playing by the same historical voluntary limits they are willing to impose on German players. Can you see the hypocricy?
***
I only used muling to counter the runaway freedom of the Soviets. If the Soviets were forced to fight forward, like Stalin ordered I would certainly be happy with the removal of muling.


I actually don't see anything hypocritical, or if so, it is exhibited by both sides, because your argument is rather circular: some Sov players justify run-aways because of the Lvov Opening and muliing, and some German players justify the Lvov Opening and muling because of Sov runaways...

Good rules should prevent wildly unrealistic strategies and encourage realistic ones. In the absence of good rules, players will take advantage of bad rules to tilt, or even wreck, the game. Getting rid of muling and giving the Sovs some reason to fight forward would both be good rules and should be encouraged in my view.

Note that I did not say "force the Sovs to fight forward," as no one will play the game on either side if they have to repeat all of the historical mistakes. Are you also going to require the Germans to advance to the Caucuses, Stalingrad, etc? In any event, it should be harder for the Sovs to conduct a coordinated withdrawal, and they should be given more incentive for fighting forward--current Sov runaways are not realistic either from a C&C or strategic perspective.


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 72
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 10:29:41 AM   
SBD

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 2/18/2010
Status: offline
If the production system worked as intended & the Soviet player had to worry about losing heavy industry then he would have a lot more incentive to fight forward without being forced to do so.

< Message edited by SBD -- 5/9/2012 10:32:26 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 73
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 12:18:14 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
76mm you are right in that it is circular. However, we are seeing the end of muling in the next patch but apparently the run away without any ramifications will remain....

I don't think the devs see the run away as a problem. That is the main issue.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to SBD)
Post #: 74
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 12:46:08 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4440
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
I would gladly fight forward even if I knew (suicide) I would be losing almost 6 million men (as the Soviets did). But I should also know that I could successfully hold Leningrad and Moscow no matter these lunatic losses.

Has anyone lost those many men in the AARs? No, you lose much less men even if the campaign is a disaster (run away or hold your positions).

The Soviet players (no conspiracy) correctly perceive that if they fight as in the real life they will be annihilated. But with NO reward, as the system will allow the Germans to advance at an irrational pace and grab every single objective under the sun.

It appears some German players want the whole pie. Share it!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 75
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 1:00:20 PM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
I have to laugh. The Soviet bias of the game has already driven away 90% of axis players. But i got to hand it to guys like Aurelian, who won't be happy until the last 10% are gone.
This could have been the best game ever but the soviet bias is so overwhelming and so obvious to all but rabid soviet fanboys.

I think 2by3 is at long last starting to realize this. I for one will give them one more chance and will gladly pay 200 dollars for a game that makes the axis fun to play , with all the cool options that the soviets have.

But i am not buying WitW to protest the sheer stupidity of how the axis were treated in this game, as well as how the axis players were treated on this forum.


< Message edited by Wild -- 5/9/2012 1:01:09 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 76
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 1:08:23 PM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I would gladly fight forward even if I knew (suicide) I would be losing almost 6 million men (as the Soviets did). But I should also know that I could successfully hold Leningrad and Moscow no matter these lunatic losses.

Has anyone lost those many men in the AARs? No, you lose much less men even if the campaign is a disaster (run away or hold your positions).

The Soviet players (no conspiracy) correctly perceive that if they fight as in the real life they will be annihilated. But with NO reward, as the system will allow the Germans to advance at an irrational pace and grab every single objective under the sun.

It appears some German players want the whole pie. Share it!

I agree with you on this Tullius. I think I mentioned it above also, I do think the Soviets should have to defend the cities, but I also think those cities should be easier to defend, not simply that once surrounded they pretty much automatically fall. That would go into the logistics, primarily and would be probably a slow process.. Leningrad was surrounded for the most part, for quite a long time, and survived. The Soviets first also defended Stalingrad against incredible odds, and then the encircled German 6th Army also held there surrounded for several months. I think the weakening that takes place in the game to surrounded units should be a more gradual thing. There would often be time to at least try to break the encirclement, not to mention that cities themselves should provide some support to their own side at least, the Soviet ones early, and if the Germans retreat into Berlin later.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 77
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 1:23:36 PM   
janh

 

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

ORIGINAL: Wild
I have to laugh. The Soviet bias of the game has already driven away 90% of axis players. But i got to hand it to guys like Aurelian, who won't be happy until the last 10% are gone.
This could have been the best game ever but the soviet bias is so overwhelming and so obvious to all but rabid soviet fanboys.


I really can't follow you with this Soviet bias thing. The benefits the Soviet has, i.e. building the Army to own taste, don't amount to much. Ask Helpless or Flavius how much bigger a Red Army following a similar fixed reinforcement scheme would be compared to the custom tailored ones. The Red Army needs 3 year to reach a proficiency and C&C organization to gets close to what the Wehrmacht begins, and even the is still below that level. It hardly has any good Generals, and the last patch made over-stacking Armies with Corps a bit harder.

I like playing Axis and usually get deep into Russia in 41. It is possible to take Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov etc. deep in Russia, and sometimes it is not even that difficult -- I rather think it is a little on the easy side: it is unlikely to get stuck half way by means of Russian resistance unless you commit big fubars. The Russians have a hard time to get to Berlin, and it feels like the chance for major victories are quite even. I really don't how big advantages you are expecting, but I feel the Axis side has some much more powerful cards in its deck than the Soviet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SBD
If the production system worked as intended & the Soviet player had to worry about losing heavy industry then he would have a lot more incentive to fight forward without being forced to do so.


Doesn't it work as intended? I thought this discussion has been shelved. It may not be how it should work in your intention, but given what huge feat the Soviets managed back then, the present system and common results look quite reasonable. After all, it is manpower that makes the difference, not those 84,000 tanks (T-34s only!) that the Soviets produced (and as far as I followed the AARs, usually no Soviet player even reaches that number). The Soviet is a bear, it is just the way it was and as it is. It was a very uneven contest, and only the Victory conditions ought to balance that.

If you want a less powerful Soviet economy, or a better prepared German one, you can always create a fictional scenario. That may be then more balanced, and interesting in its own right, but very different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
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.


+1
I am really curious to follow this evolution, much as PacWar evolved to AE. Seems like you guys are really changing some fundamental concepts in WitW, and this sounds like the right direction to go.

< Message edited by janh -- 5/9/2012 1:33:30 PM >

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 78
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 1:24:05 PM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

I have to laugh. The Soviet bias of the game has already driven away 90% of axis players. But i got to hand it to guys like Aurelian, who won't be happy until the last 10% are gone.
This could have been the best game ever but the soviet bias is so overwhelming and so obvious to all but rabid soviet fanboys.

I think 2by3 is at long last starting to realize this. I for one will give them one more chance and will gladly pay 200 dollars for a game that makes the axis fun to play , with all the cool options that the soviets have.

But i am not buying WitW to protest the sheer stupidity of how the axis were treated in this game, as well as how the axis players were treated on this forum.


I somewhat agree with what you are saying here, and agree a little more each day with at least the part about some posters essentially trying to drive away others.
I do not really agree that the game is intentionally biased however, even though I do see the same issues mentioned. I could be wrong however.
The United States Navy for many years in their fleet exercises had a standing rule that aircraft carriers are not able to be sunk. This was because they were so certain that it is not possible that they refused to admit it actually is, as the unsinkable Titanic found out a century ago. There are many people posting here who believe the Soviets were "unsinkable" also, and that any rule that may open up a hole to sink them, is inaccurate. The reality is that even the Soviets' own records show just how close to sinking they really were in the war's first 15 months, and a chance even into 1943 with Kursk. The fact they did not is testament to their people's incredible spirit, it is not the result of simply "what was guaranteed to happen" especially as anyone with a real world military knowledge above primary school level should know that there are no guarantees at all once bullets start flying. Perhaps it makes people feel better about themselves somehow thinking that there was no way Germany could have won 70 yrs ago..for those people the only solution is impossible...a trip back in time to see just how desperate things really were back then. In the meantime there is nothing unrealistic about those changes that would help both sides actually, increasing the survivability of surrounded units, especially those defending cities in their own homeland, punishing those who run away without a fight(in the real world, once you begin to run away, it can be near impossible to get your men to stop and reform defenses once the panic sets in with them wondering why everyone is moving away from the enemy),as well as allowing the army that historically was the inventor of the ad hoc battle group, to actually create units as the Soviets can.

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 79
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 2:33:52 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3157
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I like playing Axis and usually get deep into Russia in 41. It is possible to take Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov etc. deep in Russia, and sometimes it is not even that difficult -- I rather think it is a little on the easy side: it is unlikely to get stuck half way by means of Russian resistance unless you commit big fubars. The Russians have a hard time to get to Berlin, and it feels like the chance for major victories are quite even. I really don't how big advantages you are expecting, but I feel the Axis side has some much more powerful cards in its deck than the Soviet.


Do you base this on play against the AI or against a human oponent?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 80
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 3:18:19 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2285
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
I see w(hine)ild is back.

His fantasys are amusing.

Maybe he should actually read all the patch notes and show where this Soviet bias is.

Maybe he should actually, I dunno, *play* the game.

Not buying WiTW? That is surely good news. One less whiner.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/9/2012 3:19:58 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 81
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 4:21:16 PM   
Flaviusx


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

76mm you are right in that it is circular. However, we are seeing the end of muling in the next patch but apparently the run away without any ramifications will remain....

I don't think the devs see the run away as a problem. That is the main issue.


What some of us are seeing is this: in a standard game with no muling, Leningrad is gone, Moscow is a 50/50 proposition, and the south up to Rostov is also gone. This is better than historical.

The problem that you have Michael, is that you want a knock out blow win in 1941 for the Axis. If the game falls short of that, then it's never going to be good enough for you. Yet 1941 without any of your gimmicks is already a pretty rough year for the Sovs.

If running away was so wonderful, where are all the Soviet wins? I'm not seeing hardly any of these in the recent AARs. The Axis is doing very well right now across the board, even without resorting to your expedients.


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 82
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 6:02:09 PM   
notenome

 

Posts: 600
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline
so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 83
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 6:34:07 PM   
janh

 

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

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
Do you base this on play against the AI or against a human oponent?


Mostly against AI on both sides, tuned up a bit, granted, but you can draw the same conclusions from the more detailed of the recent AARs. I don't think I can find the time to be a reliable PBEM opponent, unfortunately. I regret that even more with AE, but I simply cannot expect anyone to understand my unpredictable freetime.

Anywho, even playing AI you notice quickly that Axis does have a few strong cards, such as mulling, air supply, the logistics model, or the rather plentiful AP points that allow me to swap stuff around much faster and more flexible than when playing Soviet. The big difference is that these cards are worth most in the early stages, when on the offensive and while the Soviets are weak, whereas on the Soviet side I find that the freedoms such as tailoring the Army and C&C to the balance possible with limited APs only gives fruits in the later stages. But it gives also some benefits, so I don't see any huge bias. Look at the AARs, and you also see this, but you won't see any strong disparity. Take Tulius latest AAR - I find it scary how far East one of the strongest PBEM players here has been pushed. And he is not the only example. There is not tendency for this engine to produce major Soviet of the majority here.

The advantages through the logistics model and HQ-buildup in the early stages result generally in unusually high op-tempos, and that ought not to be, independent of whether playing a human or not. There supply and especially fuel shortages that led to almost month-long resupply and refit halts of AGC and AGN should happen in most cases, but don't, even without extensive use of mulling or air supply. That alone is a pretty good card in the Axis hand. So if bias, I would say through the logistics model, the early interval is biased in Axis favor, blizzard on Soviet, 42 in Axis, and thereafter things shift in a natural fashion over to the Soviet side. Seems quite right to me, but definitely not biased in the overall sense.

BTW, I am watching your game against BigAnorak closely. You two seem to be a good match, and the opening with the small Lvov pocket and the forward defense you conduct will hopefully shed some light on how viable this Soviet strategy is in 41, given both sides do not exploit the rules and logistics. I am curious whether you can hold more than usual, or whether you'll just suffer more than usual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome
so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.


Yep, did read your ideas, and some of them have been mentioned here already and make some sense. I'd probably like it if the German had some "artillery counters" on the map for bombardment, but their formations are just much smaller to be represented here in a huge number. Don't know, maybe one could create a special counter that you could assign these nebelwerfer battalions etc. to and use "similarly to artillery divisions"? There would only be rare occasions for the Germans to force such concentrations, but sounds like a nice "idea". The catch is, ideas are cheap and plentiful. Developer time isn't...

< Message edited by janh -- 5/9/2012 6:36:49 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 84
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 6:56:57 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2156
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
The reality is that even the Soviets' own records show just how close to sinking they really were in the war's first 15 months, and a chance even into 1943 with Kursk. The fact they did not is testament to their people's incredible spirit, it is not the result of simply "what was guaranteed to happen" especially as anyone with a real world military knowledge above primary school level should know that there are no guarantees at all once bullets start flying. Perhaps it makes people feel better about themselves somehow thinking that there was no way Germany could have won 70 yrs ago..for those people the only solution is impossible...a trip back in time to see just how desperate things really were back then.


Well, the patronizing tone of your post forces me to respond...I'm afraid that I have "a real world military knowledge above primary school level" and notwithstanding your odd assertion that it might make me "feel better about myself" to say that Germany could not have won, but I will say it anyway--there is virtually no way Germany could have won. Most serious military historians--who presumably also possess more than a primary school level knowledge of military affairs--also hold this position. To say that the Germans had a chance of winning as late as Kursk is, well, different...

Yes, Stalin did help the German cause considerably with bone-headed orders, but even he could not completely squander the Soviet's massive advantages.

Hmmm, maybe you're right after all, I do feel better about myself for (once again) refuting the nonsense argument that Germany "came really close to winning" blah blah blah.

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 85
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 8:09:44 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4440
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
BTW, I am watching your game against BigAnorak closely. You two seem to be a good match, and the opening with the small Lvov pocket and the forward defense you conduct will hopefully shed some light on how viable this Soviet strategy is in 41, given both sides do not exploit the rules and logistics. I am curious whether you can hold more than usual, or whether you'll just suffer more than usual.


He [Tarhunnas] can do whatever he wants: run away or hold. There's no way he's going to lose 6 million men. And especially 3 million captured. To do that he should first send this mass to the frontline and then be stubborn aka not one step back. The panzers should do the rest (and this on the first 23 turns)...

What I'd like to know is what would happen to the Soviet side on the game after those many losses were taken? I predict a total annihilation, a German military parade (after those many masses are in the bag). And yet this is not what happened in the real thing. Anyone might care to explain why?

Finally, could anyone (testers included) say if this scenario (almost 6 million losses -3 million prisoners) ever appeared? What were the consequences? Did the Soviets keep Moscow and Leningrad?

When the Germans want a historical not-one-step-back, they are asking exactly for these 3 million men captured. No less

In other words, Tarhunnas may call it "fight forward", he is NOT going to be as stubborn as the authentic Red Army. He only has to show us the losses screen on turn 25. I predict maximum 2 million prisoners (and I suspect I'm generous: losses will be lower)

I am not saying that these should be the average Soviet losses. What I am trying to say is that if these are to be the Soviet average losses, Moscow and Leningrad should be the same (on average) in Soviet hands... No less. So how do you solve this problem?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 86
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 8:19:53 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4440
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.


You're not anymore on my blacklist

quote:

Also, the experience and morale of the Red Army in 42 seems to be too high.


This is not true anymore. This was changed since 1.05 [despite the sad icon, this is correct in my opinion, by the way]

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 5/9/2012 8:26:48 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 87
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 8:33:09 PM   
Meteor2

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
I have followed a lot of topics in this forum from the beginning, but I am more and more convinced, that all the guys, who tried desperately to make the game more interessting for both sides (expecially for the German one), are leaving or they are frustrated.
And there, IMHO, Wild is not totally wrong...
To stay for a long while on my PC, a little more "fun and feeling" is needed for this game. And for this, some guys are fighting really hard.
It is hard for me to imagine, that WITW will have a good start, after the shortcomings of WITE will not be ironed out after all.
And the immediate bashing of all players, finding axis problems and bringing them forward, is not understandable any more (for me).
The series has to be satisfying for the customers, to be succesfull. Maybe some players have forgotten these fundamentals.


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 88
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 9:11:15 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2285
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
The reality is that even the Soviets' own records show just how close to sinking they really were in the war's first 15 months, and a chance even into 1943 with Kursk. The fact they did not is testament to their people's incredible spirit, it is not the result of simply "what was guaranteed to happen" especially as anyone with a real world military knowledge above primary school level should know that there are no guarantees at all once bullets start flying. Perhaps it makes people feel better about themselves somehow thinking that there was no way Germany could have won 70 yrs ago..for those people the only solution is impossible...a trip back in time to see just how desperate things really were back then.


Well, the patronizing tone of your post forces me to respond...I'm afraid that I have "a real world military knowledge above primary school level" and notwithstanding your odd assertion that it might make me "feel better about myself" to say that Germany could not have won, but I will say it anyway--there is virtually no way Germany could have won. Most serious military historians--who presumably also possess more than a primary school level knowledge of military affairs--also hold this position. To say that the Germans had a chance of winning as late as Kursk is, well, different...

Yes, Stalin did help the German cause considerably with bone-headed orders, but even he could not completely squander the Soviet's massive advantages.

Hmmm, maybe you're right after all, I do feel better about myself for (once again) refuting the nonsense argument that Germany "came really close to winning" blah blah blah.



I'll irritate people like wild and say I agree.

Germany planned for short campaigns. "Real world military knowledge above primary school level." knows that they never planned for the long haul until it was too late. They expected, based on Soviet preformance in the Finnish War, and their own racial idealogies, (The Slavic subhumans), the great Purge, etc,that the Soviets would just roll over.

Their own real world military knowledge above primary school level was that they would win before winter. A six month campaign. almost, but not quite, "Home before the leaves fall."

Their "real world military knwoledge above primary school level" was wrong.


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/9/2012 9:14:30 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 89
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/9/2012 9:22:20 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3157
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.


It seems that unless you spice up your posts with some personal attacks and conspiracy theories, they will not be interesting enough to take seriously...

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 90
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

0.219