Matrix Games

quote:

engine values morale/experience way more than the airplanes quality. In most AARs the best soviet air groups will normally be flying obsolete craft, as they have the highest experience/morale, whilst the newer fellas have little to no chance to shoot down the luftwaffe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

Seminole it does because the engine values morale/experience way more than the airplanes quality. In most AARs the best soviet air groups will normally be flying obsolete craft, as they have the highest experience/morale, whilst the newer fellas have little to no chance to shoot down the luftwaffe. Personally I think the Axis should be more aggressive with the VVS, as this has a snowball effect- higher losses leads to lower morale/xp, which leads to higher operational losses and worse combat performance, which leads to lower morale/xp and so on. Whilst the Soviets can train their planes in the national reserve, this is a very slow process with diminishing returns. Keeping the proficiency of the red airforce down will pay dividends in the decisive years of 42 and 43, where the Axis need any edge they can get.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

Seminole it does because the engine values morale/experience way more than the airplanes quality. In most AARs the best soviet air groups will normally be flying obsolete craft, as they have the highest experience/morale, whilst the newer fellas have little to no chance to shoot down the luftwaffe. Personally I think the Axis should be more aggressive with the VVS, as this has a snowball effect- higher losses leads to lower morale/xp, which leads to higher operational losses and worse combat performance, which leads to lower morale/xp and so on. Whilst the Soviets can train their planes in the national reserve, this is a very slow process with diminishing returns. Keeping the proficiency of the red airforce down will pay dividends in the decisive years of 42 and 43, where the Axis need any edge they can get.

Frankly, since I consider the air war a crapshoot anyway, and would like to try new and novel things, what would you recommend then for settings, and how would you handle fighter/bomber fatigue and morale? I find over-use and over-movement of airbases to be big generators of fatigue, which snowballs into worse performance of the Luftwaffe (but this was back in 1.05, when I was being bombed into 200 fighters by December).

quote:

I have to say I quite liked Pelton's defense in the center this turn. Also there's a strong chance your spearhead's going to get cut off next turn. As you can see it only requires a move to occupy one enemy hex on either side. That's what I would do.

quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by unit stacking, but I assume you mean the bunching up around 6. and 17.Armies, maybe also the stacks around Minsk. At Minsk, it's HQs and airfields under those (look at the CVs).

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

I go back and forth in regards to stacks. Stacking greatly increases losses from air bombardment, for example. These early 41 stacks are great for that because a) they have a lot of undamaged elements b) the luftwaffe is far behind 3) they aren't in forts 4)they are often in clear terrain. Whenever I spot panzers gasing behind the front I'll hit them mercilessly, disrupting and damaging hundreds of elements. Late 41, especially if you run the puppies hard, triple stacks become vulnerable if the Soviets can get enough frontage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm happy to see the changes I see so far, and I've seen more SEC routs already than I
ever remember before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

I go back and forth in regards to stacks. Stacking greatly increases losses from air bombardment, for example. These early 41 stacks are great for that because a) they have a lot of undamaged elements b) the luftwaffe is far behind 3) they aren't in forts 4)they are often in clear terrain. Whenever I spot panzers gasing behind the front I'll hit them mercilessly, disrupting and damaging hundreds of elements. Late 41, especially if you run the puppies hard, triple stacks become vulnerable if the Soviets can get enough frontage.

Open question about intentions versus capabilities in the engine:
I would have never thought of empty HQ muling. It's just outside my imagination level. Even if I had thought of it, I probably wouldn't have employed it, because I try to play within the intended capabilities of a game. Even back to my 2nd Edition D&D days, I frowned on min/maxing, and I still do, because it undermines the spirit of sportsmanship as I perceive and practice it . I frowned on muling, and I frowned on factory raiding, and I frowned on Army Airbase fuel muling.

That's my personal ethics, like obeying traffic laws when I'm on my bicycle. Abuse of systems breeds contempt for system and abuser alike, and contributes to further abuse.

I think the War in the East air war engine is easily measurable as favoring Soviet quantity over German quality, and it's a snowball that slowly builds and can be wielded too easily in favor of the Soviet side (which I already feel has tremendous systemic advantages in its gameplay). When I have played against Soviets who bomb furiously in 1941, I have objected to the tactic. When I played Soviet, I did not bomb indiscriminately, but only for support of planned ground attacks.

If the Soviet player wants to min max every advantage the game engine gives him, I see little, if any point playing a game like that. I think the foreknowledge that the Soviets have hordes of Aircraft to burn in the hands of players who orchestrate Overlord style strategic and tactical bombing turn after turn after turn, are abusing the capabilities of the air war engine, and violating the spirit of fair play. Certainly reasonable people can disagree on that and on a number of assertions/generalizations I'm making.

It's the kind of thing that, like empty HQ muling, and coordinated 1941 airborne pocket breaking, would have left me to leave the game in frustration that the designers didn't have more foresight to code against the abusive nature of competitive gaming. I like to play the game. I don't like to have to invent counters to strategems that are so 'outside the box' that they border on exploitative.

Yes, I practice Lvov, and that is exactly the counter example to my high-horse-edness. One person's rationalization is another person's transparently self-serving bias. That's why I say this post is a discussion. I do not mean this personally against anyone or any side or any strategem. It's just that I like to play the KIND of gamer who doesn't seek to rules-lawyer, who is seeking fun experience, not a successful outcome.

The only reason I'm playing a person again is because it's Pelton, a person I know will help give me the kind of game I will enjoy, as in my Admin bonus.

quote:


I also, let us never forget, need to improve as a player. I also hope to learn in this game some of the things I am not doing that a German player must do in order to succeed at driving the Soviet back in 41/42 to make 43/44 manageable (not going for the 260 VPs - I do not think I'm skilled enough to obtain them).