Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 10:00:17 PM   
Jimbo123

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 10/11/2011
Status: offline
I read these " balance " posts and wonder if some of the "everything is OK with the Germans posters" have even played the German side. I have started 12 GC's and won 4 as the Germans. Only 2 of the 12 games have gotten into 42. I have not yet tried a game as the Russians. If I have learned anything, the quality on the opposing Russian player is the #1 factor in deciding the game. I do not believe the German has a chance against a quality Russian player. By chance I mean the danmage and penetration in 41 to make it an interesting game. With the rail repair reduced to 3/4 hexes per turn and the the better players understanding how to maximize the use of reserves, I find it almost impossible to make enough progress in the South to scare the Bear! I believe I have played some excellent player in my last few games based on their posts and AAR's I have read. I am able to get Leningrad, get close to Moscow but really struggle to get even close to the Karkov/Stalino/Kursk line. To me it is pointless to play on if the penetration into Russian doesen't cause enough damage and gain enough space. I haven't used muling but have used the Lvov gambit. Love the game and will keep trying to fingure out " how to get to Rostov"! I just don't see it happening.

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 151
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 10:08:34 PM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I read these " balance " posts and wonder if some of the "everything is OK with the Germans posters" have even played the German side. I have started 12 GC's and won 4 as the Germans. Only 2 of the 12 games have gotten into 42. I have not yet tried a game as the Russians. If I have learned anything, the quality on the opposing Russian player is the #1 factor in deciding the game. I do not believe the German has a chance against a quality Russian player. By chance I mean the danmage and penetration in 41 to make it an interesting game. With the rail repair reduced to 3/4 hexes per turn and the the better players understanding how to maximize the use of reserves, I find it almost impossible to make enough progress in the South to scare the Bear! I believe I have played some excellent player in my last few games based on their posts and AAR's I have read. I am able to get Leningrad, get close to Moscow but really struggle to get even close to the Karkov/Stalino/Kursk line. To me it is pointless to play on if the penetration into Russian doesen't cause enough damage and gain enough space. I haven't used muling but have used the Lvov gambit. Love the game and will keep trying to fingure out " how to get to Rostov"! I just don't see it happening.

I do agree with the basics of your post. I have played against AI 3 as German, winning 0, and 3 as Soviet, winning 3, all three I won before the end of '42 as Soviet. I think that a fairly competent Soviet player will always win this game.
I have changed some of this now with the mod I am trying to finish, one of which change was adding a couple of the "FBD" units to Germany, giving them 6 rather than the 4 they began with in "stock". This makes it possible to do some things that were not possible before, but I am toying with the idea of leaving them in or not, as rail truly was a hassle for the Axis side. Mostly I put them in to counter some other disadvantages I saw as unrealistic, but will see if I leave them in or not when I see how the next patch affects things.
The key though is that it is possible to fix a lot by tinkering with the editor, but you have to be careful that a small "fix" does not vastly change things, which I think is the worry of the designers who probably agree with a lot of the things brought up here, but it is delicate to "fix" one thing without knocking out something else.

(in reply to Jimbo123)
Post #: 152
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 10:17:03 PM   
Jimbo123

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 10/11/2011
Status: offline
I wonder if lowering the ability to repair rail was a reaction to muling. Hopefully you contine to make progress with you Mod!

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 153
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 2:46:13 AM   
entwood

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Actually this isolated thing is a case of us agreeing in principle but the code being harder to deal with than you'd think. The system now has all kinds of factors in it to try to give higher morale units more staying power when isolated. It was tweaked several times during development and I think after release, but it never yielded the results that I'd like to see. I agree it should be very much a morale/experience thing, with the early Soviet units not being able to survive (the pockets did not last long when you realize that the current system takes at least 2 weeks to surround, isolate and destroy a pocket), while better units would survive longer. Unfortunately the code at this point is probably much more complicated than it should be. Another factor that we deal with is that the AI is not good at cleaning up pockets and dealing with units in the rear. We didn't want the early Soviets to be able to totally screw up the AI timetable. Bottom line is this item is on my list for some redoing as we work on altering combat in general in WitW in anticipation of WitE 2.0 and WiE.


I am a programmer and I have seen and worked on heinous code. You just don't want to go into it, but if it has been worked on before, at least you know where that code is, and it can be tweaked again....no? or add a little algorithm at the end of the routine; seems doable

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 154
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 3:17:41 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 662
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I wonder if lowering the ability to repair rail was a reaction to muling. Hopefully you contine to make progress with you Mod!


I understand why the developers wanted to kill muling, but I am still not sure why anyone thought it was necessary in the first place...where are these mysterious Soviet players who totally run away and ruin the game? I haven't seen them - but I understand why they would now. Quite frankly, being a non-runner (I will run to the Dnepr but generally try to fight from there) the fort nerf makes it extremely difficult to do anything but run, even with a house rule against muling!

Right now playing as a Soviet with no Lvov pocket restriction against a good German player is almost impossible if you try to actually fight. That's what makes me laugh about the commenters who claim that runners are such criminals...it is the only sane response! Fighters can get 3-4 German units to retreat a turn...and then get 20 divisions immediately pocketed for their efforts.

Not a pleasant experience...

(in reply to Jimbo123)
Post #: 155
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 5:10:19 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I wonder if lowering the ability to repair rail was a reaction to muling. Hopefully you contine to make progress with you Mod!


I understand why the developers wanted to kill muling, but I am still not sure why anyone thought it was necessary in the first place...where are these mysterious Soviet players who totally run away and ruin the game? I haven't seen them - but I understand why they would now. Quite frankly, being a non-runner (I will run to the Dnepr but generally try to fight from there) the fort nerf makes it extremely difficult to do anything but run, even with a house rule against muling!

Right now playing as a Soviet with no Lvov pocket restriction against a good German player is almost impossible if you try to actually fight. That's what makes me laugh about the commenters who claim that runners are such criminals...it is the only sane response! Fighters can get 3-4 German units to retreat a turn...and then get 20 divisions immediately pocketed for their efforts.

Not a pleasant experience...

Showing my ignorance here as I did when asking what muling was before..but what is the "fort nerf"?

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 156
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 5:15:08 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2056
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

but what is the "fort nerf"?

When the game came out, it was much easier to build level 3, 4 and 5 forts, resulting huge, deep, belts of fortifications stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas and, in most cases, stalemate and trench warfare beginning in 1942.

One of the patches made it much more difficult to build forts beyond level 2, and since such forts are almost worthless, the utility of building forts is much reduced.

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 157
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 5:21:52 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Ahh..that was something I had not heard, that indeed would indicate one thing that is not "pro-Soviet" at all, as that takes away one of their better advantages.
Was that intentionally done? Or just an accident noticed after the fact?

< Message edited by kg_1007 -- 5/12/2012 5:22:08 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 158
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 5:30:48 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2056
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
The nerf? Of course it was done intentionally, it was hard to miss the 5-hex-deep carpet of forts all across Russia and the resulting lack of 1942 offensives by the Germans.

But, shhhhh, we might upset the players who are convinced that the devs have a deep-seated pro-Sov bias.

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 159
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 5:55:02 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3122
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The Biyalastok pocket was cleared by july 5 as far as I can determine. That is roughly two weeks from the start of the operation on june 22, which fits rather neatly in the time frame of WITE, one turn to surround them, one turn to mop them up. But I do agree that many pockets did take longer, and it seems that Soviet pockets were more resilent the longer the war lasted, that is why I suggested a connection with morale and leadership. And of course German isolated units were quite tough from the beginning.

Demyansk, Kholm or even Stalingrad are not possible to replicate in the game, they will fall much too fast. The air supply rule is a well intended, but since it is pure luck if you happen to have an airbase in the pocket, it is meaningless. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever had any benefit from that rule?

IMHO normal air supply, provided it is possible to fly in a sufficient amount, and coupled with decent morale and leadership, should make surrounded units largely immune to isolation effects.


In my last game (versus AI on Hard) I held Orel surrounded for 4 turns in January/February 1942 (i.e., first winter) with a panzer division, an infantry division, and an airbase in the city. I saw that it was going to be surrounded, realized I wanted it held, and moved the airbase in deliberately. It was only attacked twice in 4 turns (and it was relieved of isolation at least once) but overall I was very happy with the results of a (small) pocket and an airfield.


Hmm, interesting, thanks! I don't think I would dare to do that against a human opponent though.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 160
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 5:57:44 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Do I understand that to mean that if you are surrounded but you have an airfield in your pocket, you are more survivable? I have not noticed this against the AI..as the German against a Soviet AI, the airfields fall in the pocket easily or simply run away, and as a Soviet against a German AI it seems the same.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 161
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 6:51:54 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3122
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Do I understand that to mean that if you are surrounded but you have an airfield in your pocket, you are more survivable? I have not noticed this against the AI..as the German against a Soviet AI, the airfields fall in the pocket easily or simply run away, and as a Soviet against a German AI it seems the same.


Yes, you are in beachhead supply. But you need to fly in a certain amount of supply IIRC.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 162
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 7:48:47 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1242
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I read these " balance " posts and wonder if some of the "everything is OK with the Germans posters" have even played the German side. I have started 12 GC's and won 4 as the Germans. Only 2 of the 12 games have gotten into 42. I have not yet tried a game as the Russians. If I have learned anything, the quality on the opposing Russian player is the #1 factor in deciding the game. I do not believe the German has a chance against a quality Russian player. By chance I mean the danmage and penetration in 41 to make it an interesting game. With the rail repair reduced to 3/4 hexes per turn and the the better players understanding how to maximize the use of reserves, I find it almost impossible to make enough progress in the South to scare the Bear! I believe I have played some excellent player in my last few games based on their posts and AAR's I have read. I am able to get Leningrad, get close to Moscow but really struggle to get even close to the Karkov/Stalino/Kursk line. To me it is pointless to play on if the penetration into Russian doesen't cause enough damage and gain enough space. I haven't used muling but have used the Lvov gambit. Love the game and will keep trying to fingure out " how to get to Rostov"! I just don't see it happening.


I believe I'm playing you now.

I don't consider myself a particularly competent Soviet player although I post a bit. I have really only played 2 x 1941 GCs against PBEM/online players and have been beaten badly each time, well before 1942. Mostly I play the 1943 GC against FTF players locally, and that's about my level.

I have played against one player who uses mules and I lost Leningrad on turn 4, Moscow on turn 7, and Rostov on turn 12, well before I had a chance to put together a defensive line or get a significant amount of the industry out. So it certainly can be done -- I'm glad to see the muling tactic go away.

I think that muleing makes the game a lay down win for the Germans, based on that one experience.

In response to that probably the balance needs to be to reduce the number of VPs the Germans need to have at the end of the game to be able to win, but that's something the devs are probably already looking at.

Del


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Jimbo123)
Post #: 163
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 8:13:53 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In response to that probably the balance needs to be to reduce the number of VPs the Germans need to have at the end of the game to be able to win, but that's something the devs are probably already looking at.

Del



There is an alternate campaign that does that.


(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 164
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 9:36:32 AM   
glvaca

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

but what is the "fort nerf"?

When the game came out, it was much easier to build level 3, 4 and 5 forts, resulting huge, deep, belts of fortifications stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas and, in most cases, stalemate and trench warfare beginning in 1942.

One of the patches made it much more difficult to build forts beyond level 2, and since such forts are almost worthless, the utility of building forts is much reduced.


I'd like to add that you can only build 1 lvl per turn now. Previously, you could build multiple.
In addition, supply was worked into the equation and the effects are noticeable.
I'm also finding that as the Soviet I cannot build forts in just captured hexes (even with supply, movement, and plenty of digging power available).
Lastly, even with FZ as the Soviet it's VERY hard to get to level 4 as the FZ have very few sappers in the TOE.

On a simular topic, fort degrading was very much accelerated and non-combat units cannot be used these days to keep forts from degrading creating real problems to digin in depth for the Sovs.
In fact, brigades alone during mud have a hard time keeping up a lvl 2.

I wouldn't say forts lvl 2 are useless but they have nowhere the impact of a lvl 4.

As I have said before, many of the things being hashed over now have been hashed over MANY times in the past and a lot has already been done by the devs to fine-tune these things. That is why many of the first hour find it so absurd that these same topics are once again a source of such debate and that some deliberately pretend nothing has been done previously. I don't envy you for being a new guy on these forums. The amount of disinformation to serve a personal end is breathtaking.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 165
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 9:42:28 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3122
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

As I have said before, many of the things being hashed over now have been hashed over MANY times in the past and a lot has already been done by the devs to fine-tune these things. That is why many of the first hour find it so absurd that these same topics are once again a source of such debate and that some deliberately pretend nothing has been done previously. I don't envy you for being a new guy on these forums. The amount of disinformation to serve a personal end is breathtaking.


+1 Well put! It would be much more helpful to others, especially new playes, if there was a more balanced tone and less of taking opportunities to grind personal pet peeves.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 166
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 2:58:09 PM   
Jimbo123

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 10/11/2011
Status: offline
@ del

Yes we are playing and I would think you qualify as a hasrt retreat player. ( avoid lables ). Its the first week of Sept and I am close to taking Leningrad, solid progress in the center and in front of Moscow and have just hit a brick wall in the South again in front of Karkov with supplies several turns away. My last game was against Hooper ( amazing Player ) and I still have Russian reserve divs pouring out of my computer. I can't seem to crack the South even with the Lvov move. You can attest to my non use of muling. I love the game and would like to become a better player that can give a solid game to the Russian. I have to be missing something in my play if other players can give the russian such problems. I can't seem to keep the pace of opps in the South to do the damage I believe necessary.

I actually chose the Germans because I like defending which is what the Germans do for most of the game. I just can't get there and it is frustrating!!!! The game is amazing and the support making it better has been outstanding in my opinion. It's funny, I learned a lot in my Hooper game esp with regard to Reserves. I'm all set to try them out and I find myself in a game against a totally different style. Winning or losing is not at the top of the list when I play. Quality of play is and I seem to be be stagnant in my improvement.

Now back to chipping bricks!

Jimbo

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 167
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 4:50:51 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1242
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123
Yes we are playing and I would think you qualify as a hasrt retreat player. ( avoid lables ). Its the first week of Sept and I am close to taking Leningrad, solid progress in the center and in front of Moscow and have just hit a brick wall in the South again in front of Karkov with supplies several turns away. My last game was against Hooper ( amazing Player ) and I still have Russian reserve divs pouring out of my computer. I can't seem to crack the South even with the Lvov move. You can attest to my non use of muling. I love the game and would like to become a better player that can give a solid game to the Russian. I have to be missing something in my play if other players can give the russian such problems. I can't seem to keep the pace of opps in the South to do the damage I believe necessary.


I didn't use to be a retreat player, I used to be a forward defensive player. I then played one game where I had about 3/4 of my front surrounded on about turn 4 or 5 and now I get the hell out as fast as I can. I stop retreating once I have enough units to form a line and a second line, which is why you're now seeing defenses around Kharkov. You haven't hit my Moscow defenses yet but you'll find them soon enough.

Muling is what makes all the difference. As I said in another post I have an opponent who now believes he can take Leningrad on turn 3 with mules which is scary. He's yet to demonstrate it but he did take Leningrad from me on turn 4 which is bad enough.

If anything I'd say you've now committed too much armour and SS motorised to the north. You will take Leningrad (but find it mostly empty) and probably Moscow, but unless you move some of that armour south you won't make much more headway in the Ukraine. That's probably the difference you're seeing between yourself and other players. You can't really take D-town, Z-town, or Kh-town with a frontal assault, you need to get your armour organised to encircle, which is how you nearly had me trapped in Kiev and forced me to pull out early. The same applied to Kharkov and you'd take it easily.

You only have so much armour, though, and you can't use it everywhere. You have to decide what you want, which is probably based on what has worked for you in the past.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Jimbo123)
Post #: 168
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/12/2012 4:58:20 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

As I said in another post I have an opponent who now believes he can take Leningrad on turn 3 with mules which is scary. He's yet to demonstrate it but he did take Leningrad from me on turn 4 which is bad enough.



There's really only one way to make Leningrad a fight against a good Axis player determined to take it: send all the reserve armies north of the Kiev on turn 1 to the Pskov-Vitebsk area. All of them.

Yes, this means the center will be swiss cheese covered by remnants of Western Front. But so be it.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 169
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 1:59:28 AM   
von altair


Posts: 290
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline
I was away for a week and came back here to read this and... wow just another thread
hijacked by the same people who just want to argue about EVERYTHING with anyone who
says a word.

Thanks to all of you who had something constructive to say about topic issue.

I still want to repeat my question:

Has anyone - ever - won the game against "runnaway" soviet tactic?

If answer is no, what we should think about it?


_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 170
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 2:20:14 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 662
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
Not trying to be annoying, but have we seen an AAR where the Soviet "runaway" tactic has been successful? There's a lot of talk about how it is a can't-fail strategy, but I have yet to see it. How are we defining "runaway"? If that means running to the Dnepr, then I guess so, but that's hardly some kind of crazy move and I doubt you'd ever stop it. If running away means running even farther than that, my experience is as a Soviet (and I am not a "runner" by the second definition) is that you may set yourself up to lose outright, and you are definitely setting yourself up to never come close to taking Berlin.

As a contrast - forts were obviously a humongous problem in making the game unplayable in '42. This was dealt with (arguably overly harshly for '41) but it was clear for everyone to see in every single AAR. This runaway problem seems to just be wisps and whispers...

By "win" are we defining win as a win in '45 or an outright, conquer the SU and end the game win?

BTW I tend to think stregthening the Soviets in '41 combined with some of the C&C reduction changes that have been suggested and a revision of the VP system to reward holding territory past historical would be the best way to deal with this supposed problem, to the extent it actually exists. Furthermore, currently if a Soviet player gets pocketed anything like the historical Red Army, its goodnight, primarily b/c the German logisical model is insanely overgenerous and the isolation mode means pockets immediately are destroyed. I think most Soviet players would prefer to fight forward (defined as not abandoning cities and not falling back 5-6 hexes at the sign of the panzers, not wholesale "running" way back to the east, which I perceive to be the complaint) from minute one. Running away every time the panzers show up is not fun for anyone, but the game as currently constructed makes not doing this an exercise in futility.

< Message edited by hfarrish -- 5/13/2012 3:11:53 AM >

(in reply to von altair)
Post #: 171
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 2:44:54 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 662
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
Also - went back to your original post. If you are taking Leningrad on turn 11 and at Kharkov and Stalino (including industry) at turn 10, what more do you want? Seriously? I have to restate what others have said many times - the game as currently structured means that Leningrad always falls to a decent German, Moscow usually falls, and Rostov is a dicey proposition for the Soviet to hold...and the game is still problematic for the German?

As noted before, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but having played this game a lot I just fail to understand where all this comes from...

< Message edited by hfarrish -- 5/13/2012 2:48:31 AM >

(in reply to von altair)
Post #: 172
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 4:00:49 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2189
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
@von altair: I have won several games against the runaway. But that was with either unlimited range HQBU, doubled up Rail engineers and/or Muling. All three mechanisms are now nerfed. I theorise, under the next patch, that a competent Russian who uses run away wisely will ultimately prevail. Thats is my opinion. I will test it by playing each side as time permits.

So in short, as far as my personal experince goes, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree. The unknown for me is how this new brigade/reg rule will influence things. I can't form an opinion on that till I test it.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 173
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 4:08:56 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 662
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

In all seriousness, and I respect Michael T who is obviously an amazing player, what are we defining as the "runaway"? I don't think we can have this discussion without that fact...

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 174
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 4:41:47 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2189
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

In all seriousness, and I respect Michael T who is obviously an amazing player, what are we defining as the "runaway"? I don't think we can have this discussion without that fact...


Very true. But it will probably ignite a whole new debate....

_____________________________

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

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 175
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 7:12:08 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2056
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.


Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 176
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 8:39:17 AM   
NavalNewZ


Posts: 86
Joined: 8/19/2009
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by NavalNewZ -- 5/13/2012 8:41:37 AM >


_____________________________

..there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 177
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 11:44:47 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.


Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.


This "runaway", aka trading space for time doesn't win. How do I know that? Because I did it in three games. And I lost in three games.

I would say that it baffles me why some Axis players want to force Stalin's political decision to fight on Russian players. Especially as way back in 2010 it was stated that A: Political decisions are not in the game. (something that one would think would make Axis players happy. Laying seige to Leningrad instead fo taking it was a political decision after all.) And B: The players would not be forced to replicate Hitler's/Stalin's blunders. (Another thing that one would think would make Axis players happy.)

But it doesn't baffle me.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 178
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 1:32:16 PM   
glvaca

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.


Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.


This "runaway", aka trading space for time doesn't win. How do I know that? Because I did it in three games. And I lost in three games.

I would say that it baffles me why some Axis players want to force Stalin's political decision to fight on Russian players. Especially as way back in 2010 it was stated that A: Political decisions are not in the game. (something that one would think would make Axis players happy. Laying seige to Leningrad instead fo taking it was a political decision after all.) And B: The players would not be forced to replicate Hitler's/Stalin's blunders. (Another thing that one would think would make Axis players happy.)

But it doesn't baffle me.


And it doesn't make Soviet players happy?
Perhaps you should try to at least "sound" impartial?
What you are saying I interpret as: neither side is forced to make the same errors as were made historically. I'm all for.
In the same breath you mention that Germany can't win because they didn't win historically. Hmmm, you notice the contradiction?


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 179
RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/13/2012 2:00:29 PM   
Jimbo123

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 10/11/2011
Status: offline
Since this is my first time being up against a retreat strategy I think that loss of early chances to increase moral thru easy wins will be what I feel the most. Only on turn 13.

Jimbo

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125