RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision

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: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision - 5/21/2012 7:50:50 PM

RCH

Posts: 176
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

The Germans could not send the quantity of troops that were needed in the West so they sent quality of troops.

Withdraws and TOE upgrades were the result of available manpower and equipment. That is the way it should be dealt with in game. The triggers should be in the players hands.

With the exception of the elite SS units I don't see a problem with having a few more counters around. As long as the manpower is available to fill them. Redesignate them however you will numbers are infinite.

The Stalingrad withdraws can be edited.

< Message edited by RCH -- 5/21/2012 7:58:39 PM >

(in reply to Rufus T. Firefly)

Post #: 61

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision - 5/21/2012 11:20:46 PM

el hefe

Posts: 2849
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline

Heliodorus, I don't disagree with some of your points. I would not oppose an alternate system of German unit withdrawal as I personally like the holding box system as long as it isn't gamed to ridiculous proportions. This holding box system is being implemented in WitW. I also agree with you about the automatic annual changes in national morale. I think that a system that uses a combination of permament losses and territory held would be superior to locked in national morale changes. Having a player's efficiency tied to results on the ground would make for a much more intense game IMO.

I have advocated many changes including these above within the design of the game as there are many other areas that I would like to see addressed as well. We've discussed these issues numerous times and the decisions were made by the design team based on resource constraints. I'm a soldier by trade and when the team leader asks for input, I provide it and I back it up with reasoning and data and then we debate. Joel informs the team of the decision, explains the reasoning, and then we move on. Every now and then we revisit some of these topics and I provide my own opinions and suggestions and so it goes. I have been frustrated with some decisions and also proud when some of my recommendations make it into the game. I make observations and recommendations for every issue that bugs me. Some get resolved to my satisfaction and some do not. Thus is life.

In short, I think your gameplay consequences are valid and have merit as there is room for improvement. I don't comment on the forums often because regurgitating these same discussions that we have had on our own forums is tiring. These changes however would require extensive programming and testing without financial support. Decisions like these are made way above my head and without my input as I am not privy to the financial situation of 2by3. I do know that Gary and Joel have provided excellent wargames for what? Almost 30 years? They are a great team and I trust their judgement even if they still haven't quite perfected the genre. For almost three years I have participated in this adventure with 2by3 and the game is constantly evolving. The amount of time I have spent playing and editing would amount to pennies on the dollar with the amount of time I have put into this game (if I had bought it).

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I guess the question that comes to me is this:

What reason would you have to oppose an alternate system to German unit withdrawal?

Why would you oppose giving the German player the choice of which unit to withdraw, even if you force withdrawals at the specific times for things that may not happen, like Demyansk (totenkopf withdrew much later than the other SS) and Stalingrad?

If you don't oppose it, you should advocate it.
If you do oppose it, odds are you're biased at forcing Germany downward arbitrarily even if that side's gameplay justifies a superior Wehrmacht at that time and place in the time continuum.

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 62

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision - 5/22/2012 2:58:08 AM

Klydon

Posts: 1874
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

The Germans could not send the quantity of troops that were needed in the West so they sent quality of troops.

Not true. A lot of the troops in the west were less than stellar quality and a lot of the units in the west were considered unfit for duty in the east. Some examples are the "stomach and ear" units. There were units that had former Russian troops in them. Certainly the 30 SS division can't be counted on as a "quality" unit.

(in reply to RCH)

Post #: 63

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision - 5/22/2012 3:46:20 AM

RCH

Posts: 176
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

What I meant was that there was a number of quality formations used against the Allies. They had a number of divisions that really were not of good quality. They used eastern troops in France etc. Even Polish troops were in the German army. The Germans did have a number of good divisions that they intended to counter the invasion with.

< Message edited by RCH -- 5/22/2012 4:12:46 AM >

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 64

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision - 5/22/2012 5:19:18 PM

Schmart

Posts: 552
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The difference would mean that you can hand-choose which units leave the map and which stay, ensuring high morale units stay in theater. If you do not understand what difference this will make to German gameplay, you shouldn't be entrusted to beta test such products as these. I mean that in all seriousness. If you are so fallow-minded that you can't think through this very simple exercise, then I was wrong to place any esteem in your opinions.

Since you want to only send the crappiest low-morale units, then you should have to withdraw twice as many units to make up for the lack of quality. This sounds just like the gamey play in WIR of loading up the Western and Italian fronts with Rumanians and Hungarians. Sometimes, the Germans withdrew quality units from the Eastern Front, because they needed quality units in other fronts...

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 65

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision - 5/22/2012 6:46:05 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 1430
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The difference would mean that you can hand-choose which units leave the map and which stay, ensuring high morale units stay in theater. If you do not understand what difference this will make to German gameplay, you shouldn't be entrusted to beta test such products as these. I mean that in all seriousness. If you are so fallow-minded that you can't think through this very simple exercise, then I was wrong to place any esteem in your opinions.

Since you want to only send the crappiest low-morale units, then you should have to withdraw twice as many units to make up for the lack of quality. This sounds just like the gamey play in WIR of loading up the Western and Italian fronts with Rumanians and Hungarians. Sometimes, the Germans withdrew quality units from the Eastern Front, because they needed quality units in other fronts...

What he constantly doesn't get, either through willfull ignorance or a need to troll, is that the Axis player has no control over what the other fronts want. As much as he would like it to be, WiTE doesn't take place in a vacuum. As it's been stated over and over, the player is not Hitler/OKW.

This is a game that strives to be as historically accurate as possible with out hamstringing gameplay. I would submit that if he or the other disgruntled minority can't or won't accept that, then this game is not for them.

One would think that after Uncommon Valor and WiTP and ED/BTR, one would understand just how 2by3 does these games.

And before we get another round of "pro Soviet bias", let me remind them fo the following: 1: There are more Soviet SUs than there are slots for. (per jaw.)
2: There are 10 Engineer Armies not in the game (per TD). 3: The 10 Reserve Armies formed in Apr-Jul 42 are not there either. (Well, I know the 50th and 5th Shock were formed from 2 of them, but I haven't found the others yet.) And I don't see soviet players getting bent out of shape over it.

Nor over the units that Trey brought up.

edit: Forgot one. Soviet divisions don't break down to brigades. Not because they couldn't, but for game play reasons. (Think carpet spam.)

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/22/2012 9:02:23 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 66

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision - 5/22/2012 6:57:36 PM

Klydon

Posts: 1874
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

What he constantly doesn't get, either through willfull ignorance or a need to troll, is that the Axis player has no control over what the other fronts want. As much as he would like it to be, WiTE doesn't take place in a vacuum. As it's been stated over and over, the player is not Hitler/OKW.

This is a game that strives to be as historically accurate as possible with out hamstringing gameplay. I would submit that if he or the other disgruntled minority can't or won't accept that, then this game is not for them.

One would think that after Uncommon Valor and WiTP and ED/BTR, one would understand just how 2by3 does these games.

And before we get another round of "pro Soviet bias", let me remind them fo the following: 1: There are more Soviet SUs than there are slots for. (per jaw.)
2: There are 10 Engineer Armies not in the game (per TD). 3: The 10 Reserve Armies formed in Apr-Jul 42 are not there either. (Well, I know the 50th and 5th Shock were formed from 2 of them, but I haven't found the others yet.) And I don't see soviet players getting bent out of shape over it.

Nor over the units that Trey brought up.

I really tried to stay away from calling you out once again on your place as the Russian shill, but geeze, give the rest of us a break with your extreme Russian view.

We all get it. There isn't a German nerf you don't like or won't support.

This game has so many issues that are obvious to just about anyone from the way the air war goes to how logistics works to name two of the more serious considerations, (without bias to either side). You can't even begin to discuss getting balance straight for real without fixing those two issues and several others.

It is obvious to me that many short cuts/design decisions were made with the game and when a choice had to be made, it seems like the easiest path was taken. That there will be no meaningful support for this game to address a lot of the fundamental flaws until WitW comes out should speak volumes.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 67

RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision - 5/22/2012 8:49:21 PM

Cannonfodder