Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 3:41:15 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Right, I've been speaking to the superior Soviet Command and Control (compared to the Germans). Regardless of the sh1tsh0w that your Red Army starts in, you can fix it by the 0 AP new arrivals, and when you really really really need to move a division to a different HQ, it costs you 1 AP on average.

Germany, meanwhile, costs on average 3 AP (including the half-cost reduction for successful die roll).

Romania/Hungary, which were organized about as effectively as the Red Army, pays a minimum of 8 AP to move a division.

This translates to superior efficiency in the Red Army due to better organization (due to hand-outs that WitE gifts to the Soviet over and over again) than the Wehrmacht in 1941.

Between its disproportionately easy-to-raise morale (and Germany's hard-wired morale degradation due to National Morale), and the Soviet's fantasy-land super-efficiency, the game is barely a challenge for any Soviet player.

Remember, all you have to do to win as the Soviet is reduce your own casualties and wait for what Flavius calls "Soviet Army 2.0" (the superior TOEs of late 42/43 take care of everything you lack). That's it - just be a passive turtle till 43, and the game is yours in 1944.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 31
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 7:40:08 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

when you really really really need to move a division to a different HQ, it costs you 1 AP on average.


Have you seen what it costs to move a Corps for the Red Army?
I think that is a better 'apples to apples' comparison when it comes to battlefield utility.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 32
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 8:02:52 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 707
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Have you seen what it costs to move a Corps for the Red Army?
I think that is a better 'apples to apples' comparison when it comes to battlefield utility.



Not to mention the other things that Soviet players have to spend APs on (the whole 0 AP thing only works for 6 months). Obviously its not a major problem for GHC given that most German players build hundreds of FZs and still have APs to spare.



(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 33
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 8:35:35 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Obviously its not a major problem for GHC given that most German players build hundreds of FZs and still have APs to spare.


German units also return the battlefield free the whole game, correct?

We have strategies promulgated under the auspices of exhausting Soviet APs simply rebuilding destroyed counters, as if such administrative considerations were the crux of the war.

Death by a thousand paper cuts!

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 34
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 8:53:40 PM   
morvael


Posts: 3678
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Once paid for, every unit should reform for free, as do the German ones. It should be a matter of manpower (first and foremost) and equipment, not APs, that could be drained by Germans killing a lot of units.

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 35
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 8:56:40 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I play both sides without bias and honestly the Axis do not have an AP problem at all. The Soviets however do have a problem with AP's. And that the Axis can use the so called 'AP crunch' as a viable strategy to win games is ridiculous.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 36
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 8:59:07 PM   
morvael


Posts: 3678
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
So maybe each killed unit could add AP for the Soviets? That would be easier to implement than making their units rebuild automatically.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 37
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 10:23:17 PM   
morvael


Posts: 3678
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Even better idea: keep the early '41 special rule in effect for the entire game, so that destroyed units return after 4-27 turns, but with no AP cost.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 38
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/13/2012 11:48:48 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
AP are an issue for GHC I am finding as I find better and better ways to do things. They surely are not as a big an issue for SHC.

In all my games I am at 400, but only because I have allot of units in static mode, but nearly every turn I can spend the 50 NP.

As you go from offensive to defensive mode which is 2/3 of the game for GHC you have to completely change the C&C of the GHC.

Very very few poeple even get to this point most games end with GHC rolling the SHC or SHC rolling west in late 42 to early 43. The few who do get to 1943 have done so few times that they never try anything "new".

I only use a handfull of HQB now as it is better in long run to save the trucks and don't build that many forts. Once the GHC breaks forts will not help until close to Berlin when your disbanding divisions because you dont have the room for them.

I wish I had allot more AP's not for forts or HQB's. Allot of little things add up to big things over time.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 39
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/14/2012 12:17:59 AM   
Michael T


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

Even better idea: keep the early '41 special rule in effect for the entire game, so that destroyed units return after 4-27 turns, but with no AP cost.



Yes this should be the case. The limit should only be whether you have the armaments and manpower to fill them out. Seems to make perfect sense to me.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 40
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/14/2012 2:06:00 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

Even better idea: keep the early '41 special rule in effect for the entire game, so that destroyed units return after 4-27 turns, but with no AP cost.



Yes this should be the case. The limit should only be whether you have the armaments and manpower to fill them out. Seems to make perfect sense to me.


I think thats good idea, but the time should be longer. 16-28. More ants to build moral.


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 41
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/14/2012 2:21:37 AM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1712
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
I tried floating an idea that rebuilds should cost 1/5th of new (after the free revival period) but it sank.

I think the so called AP crunch is an intended constraint/vulnerability to keep the game somewhat fluid during '42.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 42
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/14/2012 9:42:11 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

I tried floating an idea that rebuilds should cost 1/5th of new (after the free revival period) but it sank.

I think the so called AP crunch is an intended constraint/vulnerability to keep the game somewhat fluid during '42.


Its a way for GHC to delay the Red tide wave. Any units you pocket/Destory after Oct 1941 is a delay to the Red Army no matter how one looks at it.

Its like lost production, you can never make up for it, its a delay. Right now in most cases the SHC has a buffer of about 60 turns. The GHC has several ways to cut into that and SHC has many ways to make mistakes, building wring stuff/waiting to long attacking to early ect ect.

GHC can go turtle in 41 and the buffer is the same as pushing forward in 1942 ect ect. Unless you cut into that time some how game ends in late 1944 at same time because of built in limiting factors on both GHC/SHC by design.

There are only a handfull of ways to limit or change the designed timeline by players on eather side.

There is nothing random about the December 1944 built in time line. The trick now for 2by3 is to tweak things until the built in time line is May 1945. So then basicly only player skill determines the winning.

Right now the GHC has to out play the SHC player by 60 turns with few tools to change the time line if they take historical land.

Right now Katza/MT and Flaviusx are all 90-0 (guess) as SHC. If they took turns playing each other as SHC vs GHC( all combo's) SHC would win in late 1944 or early 1945 basicly by design. Very little has to do with player skill. Most of it is hard coded into production/loses/NM ect ect.

Turn 60 from 4 very different games.

MT

GHC Totals KIA: 622,251 POW: 11591
SHC Totals KIA: 1,019,675 POW: 1,090,369 Disabled: 1,837,910
GHC OOB: 3,600,000
Russian Men OOB: 8,560,000


Bobo
GHC Killed total: 636,000 GHC POW: 156,400
SHC KIA Total: 1,374,300 SHC disabled Total: 2,131,000 SHC POW: 2,182,700
Russian OOB: 6,536,000
GHC OOB: 3,312,000

Hugh

Russian OOB: 7,159,000
GHC OOB: 3,240,000
GHC Killed total: 676,000 GHC POW total: 77,678
SHC KIA Total: 1,217,000 SHC POW: 1933964 SHC disabled Total: 1,870,000

Brian

Russian OOB: 5,630,000
GHC OOB: 3,215,000
GHC Killed total: 772,000 GHC POW total: 30,900
SHC KIA Total: 1,603,500 SHC POW: 2,774,964 SHC disabled Total: 2,130,000

The KIA is basicly the same in all 4 games. If its higher its because there has been more fighting.

So only POW's/static mode/production are things that effect the built in time lines.

Might be a few other factors but hard for players to move end dates other then those factors. POW's is biggest factor by far.

Limiting factor on SHC is total GHC disabled- the more that are disabled the more GHC replasements.

Land helps, but it does not effect the time that GHC will break (2.8 million or 20K rifle squads) only GHc moral/exp of troops can delay its some what because of built in NM designed forsing down of NM

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/14/2012 10:28:27 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 43
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/14/2012 12:58:39 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6299
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

So maybe each killed unit could add AP for the Soviets? That would be easier to implement than making their units rebuild automatically.


Why would this be easier?

Given a choice, I would take the APs, btw, and believe this to be a little bit too good. APs are fungible. Auto rebuilds are not. I don't think it's particularly realistic to refund APs here as if they were merely currency without any reference to the choices made already in spending them. A military structure isn't quite this flexible.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 44
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/14/2012 1:06:39 PM   
morvael


Posts: 3678
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I like the auto-rebuild option better as well, than giving back AP (which may be spent on different things). Though I would not make it longer to return as Pelton suggests, rather shorter than in '41. Germans have instant rebuild. For Soviets it should be 2-5 turns at most (and then frozen for 2 turns minimum). Once a division was created I guess there was enough groundwork laid in the back of the front to have it rebuilt (on paper) faster. Actually this option could be better for Germans. Once they kill many Soviet divisions they kill less and less each turn because there are no units. With units returning (but poor quality) the Germans would be able to inflict even more ARM and Manpower casualties, while on the other hand the Soviets would retain the ability to plug the holes in their front faster.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 45
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/14/2012 8:00:31 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2104
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
Currently the German units return immediately (as shells) with frozen for 5 turns and gaining experience and morale each turn. The Soviets return more randomly (4 to 27 turns), but are usable immediately (although often as shells and always with poor experience and morale). Note that Axis allied units do NOT return at all. The Germans definitely have a faster turn around than the Soviets - I would guess that it would be based on each side's ability to allocate the proper command structure and officers - the Germans have a much larger pool of officers available than the Soviets do.


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 46
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/15/2012 5:55:25 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
It is not my point that the GHC ends up with more AP than it can spend after the winter.
It is not my point to deny that the Soviet has an AP crunch

It is my point to show, yet again, two things:
1) This game does not reflect historic capabilities of the armies at all well, and the superior C&C of the Soviets in 1941 (versus his historical capabilities to organize) is a major problem to the German doing better in 1941. The Soviets get something Zhukov and Timoshenko could only dream of in 1941 - the ability to re-organize your army starting immediately so that it's C&C is far more efficient than it was in history.

2) Germany is handcuffed to its historical performance, rather than its capabilities. Inefficient command structure in 1941 is FORCED on the German player for 1941. Imagine if Romanian divisions could be re-assigned for 1 or 2 APs, and the improved performance you would see in AGS. This advantage is GIVEN the Soviet (via free-to-reassign replacements) and denied the German by artifice.

For those who argue that Soviet corps are expensive, I agree. Had the designers any interest in a well-designed game that reflected history, they would be testing various hypotheses on adjusting these AP costs, and the AP awards for each side. They punted that since release.

For those who argue that each side gets divisional replacements for free re-assignment, you willfully overlook the scope of the aggregated advantage, particularly in 1941 (and 1941 is critical to a fun game, win or lose, for Germany - a bad 1941 means the German player resigns, and both sides end up having wasted their time).

For those who argue that Germany benefits more from Leadership die rolls, remember that the average leadership advantage for the major arenas (Admin, Morale, Inf., Mech., etc. rather than Air and Political) is only 20-30 percent. That advantage is rendered moot by the need to re-assign commanders (especially in 1941, where most of the leaders are average in the critical arenas - see 11.Corps, AGS for example). Germany also needs to shuffle SUs around throughout the game, and in 1941, this uses almost all of your APs over the first 17 turns. The Soviet, by contrast, has that wonderful hindsight advantage knowing to get SUs out of the line, which can be done for free via the otherwise clumsy SU settings in the HQs.

My ultimate point is that the Soviet fanboy club wants to nail Germany down to a maximum possible performance in 1941, while being unhinged from history ENTIRELY via the artifices that give the Soviet side the initiative in 1941. Germany can only take what the Soviets give them.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 47
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/15/2012 10:32:24 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2104
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
Helio, reading your message above, you state that it is bad that the Axis (who you admit have no AP crunch at all) have a hard time switching units from corps to corps while the Soviets (who you also admit DO have an AP crunch) have an easier time to switch units from army to army.

So, do you propose that the Axis cost is reduced and thus giving them even more of a surplus? Or should the Soviet cost be increased and thus have even more of a shortage? Or perhaps understand that the current situation seems to be more of a game play balance than the ideal situation?

But, you also stress above, that the real problem is that the German army was badly organized in June, 1941 and that it requires too many AP to optimize the proper Axis organization and leaders to get the maximum benefit for the Axis in 1941. Which, unfortunately, hits my "pet peave" button about people who insist that everything must be able to be optimized to the absolute best and ignore the historical realities of politics and actual unit composition. Thus we have players who will send factories of equipment that they do not like into the path of the advancing Axis forces so that resources are not spent building the "useless stuff". They disband entire units and hierarchies in order to move the manpower and such to the ones that they favor. And then they complain that something or other is broken because it relies on the very stuff that they changed.

To be productive in this, however, use the editor and optimize the Axis forces to your desires in the Barbarossa scenario and then PM me and I will be the Soviets against you. You can even use the options to give your self the maximum APs per turn and reduce the Soviets to the minimum. Then you will be able to what the effect would be.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 48
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/16/2012 5:27:45 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
There is no surplus at all. I can hardly keep ap at 360 in any of my games as army size/leaders have to be changed allot defending to keep max reserve mode reactions of regimnets and SU's at enemy point of attack.

I could use another 50 a turn anyways as GHC.

There is no surplus for SHC or GHC

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 49
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/16/2012 10:59:11 AM   
cpt flam


Posts: 1162
Joined: 1/16/2011
From: caen - France
Status: offline
seems strange to listen
no surplus but 360 in "reserve"

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 50
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/16/2012 11:18:48 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpt flam

seems strange to listen
no surplus but 360 in "reserve"


I try to keep 60 divisions in static mode so I always have 360 in the bank to reactivate them

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to cpt flam)
Post #: 51
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/16/2012 5:34:58 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Helio, reading your message above, you state that it is bad that the Axis (who you admit have no AP crunch at all) have a hard time switching units from corps to corps while the Soviets (who you also admit DO have an AP crunch) have an easier time to switch units from army to army.

So, do you propose that the Axis cost is reduced and thus giving them even more of a surplus? Or should the Soviet cost be increased and thus have even more of a shortage? Or perhaps understand that the current situation seems to be more of a game play balance than the ideal situation?

But, you also stress above, that the real problem is that the German army was badly organized in June, 1941 and that it requires too many AP to optimize the proper Axis organization and leaders to get the maximum benefit for the Axis in 1941. Which, unfortunately, hits my "pet peave" button about people who insist that everything must be able to be optimized to the absolute best and ignore the historical realities of politics and actual unit composition. Thus we have players who will send factories of equipment that they do not like into the path of the advancing Axis forces so that resources are not spent building the "useless stuff". They disband entire units and hierarchies in order to move the manpower and such to the ones that they favor. And then they complain that something or other is broken because it relies on the very stuff that they changed.

To be productive in this, however, use the editor and optimize the Axis forces to your desires in the Barbarossa scenario and then PM me and I will be the Soviets against you. You can even use the options to give your self the maximum APs per turn and reduce the Soviets to the minimum. Then you will be able to what the effect would be.


My point is not simply that "It's bad that Germany pays so much in AP compared to the Soviet.”

My argument is that by removing this particular imbalance in the way the two sides must experience and interact with the game mechanic, let’s call it the “Germany pays way more to move divisions than the Soviet (particularly for Axis Minors)” problem, a more enjoyable 1941 will be experienced. I assert that it will be more enjoyable for both sides, and will enable new strategies (and require new strategies) by both sides that are not the kind of mechanical abuse that muling is, but I’m sure a Fire Brigade will descend in short order to tell me how wrong I am and how my rationales are foolish (or worse).

I am saying that if the German player in War in the East experienced divisional HQ allocation costs identically to the Soviet player, specifically in 1941, then the 1941 game would be much more dynamic, with more numerous and more varied approaches to playing the game would follow (maybe just 41, maybe 41-42, who really knows). That is the simple sentence I assert should be the reality.

I advocate that people open their mind to this kind of game where Germany can more quickly optimize the arbitrary command problems that it has when it begins on Turn 1. To give an example, I always refer to 8.Corps, 9.Army and the insane number of SUs it starts with.

Yes, 8.Corps 9.Army started with a gazillion support elements in the real war, but in game terms, this historical fact is translated mechanically by the game engine into a “expletive you” to the German player. 8.Corps, 9.Army in the game (and every panzer corps on Turn 1) is trapped by under the heavy penalty of diminishing returns because the real Wehrmacht had no idea Gary Grigsby was going to arbitrarily set the diminishing return point at 5 SUs.

Note what I mean about the difference between German and Soviet: whatever the Soviet CV problem in 1941 (and I do not assert that it is small), the passive SU removal system is a marvel of efficiency for the 1941 Soviet, doing exactly what the Soviets need it to do – save lives and AP at the same time. In addition, the free-to-assign new arrivals, like Cavalry, and high-strength rifle divisions, can be staged at precisely the right place, and assigned into precisely the right commander, at precisely the optimal time, because each and every turn, all your divisions arrive as free-to-assign.

So the mechanical effect is that the game engine passively optimizes the Soviet army without the Soviet having to spend AP to improve what historically was one of their biggest inefficiencies in 1941 – Organization and C&C. Why does the Soviet get passive but continuous improvement whereas Germany not only starts being punished by the arbitrary (in terms of WitE mechanical penalties) real life organizations in the corps, it is punished again by an arbitrarily unequal AP cost structure?

Moreover, for the Soviet 1941 game army, being over-burdened in a Front is not particularly noticeable in terms of unit performance for most units and most leaders. For the Soviet as well, being un-attached to any Front or lower HQ is also not particularly harmful to second and third-tier defensive units whose main purpose is to dig, and take on replacements (these problems are far more negatively impactful to the German 1941 performance).

For the German, the SU problem and the AP cost sink translate into loss optimization opportunities derived when Germany organizes its army around the mechanics of the engine (having only 5 SUs per Corps, for example, and getting the over-burden penalties out of 11.Corps, for example).

Imagine for a moment that the AP cost structure is a part of the game map of War in the East. In this scenario, it is as though the map is scaled differently for the German side, and the difference in scale results in degraded performance than Germany would experience if it got to play on the same map as the Soviet got to play on.

I’m not advocating that anything be done to the current Soviet C&C costs. I’m not asking for Soviet divisions to be force-assigned to HQs. I’m not asking for Soviets to pay more APs, or reduce their available AP. I’m not asking for any mechanical changes in how the Soviet interfaces the game. I’m asking for Germany’s interface to match the Soviet interface in price and at scale. Re-assigning a division is re-assigning a division.

For those of you who argue that both sides receive replacement divisions for free, I make two counter-arguments. First, in saying that this equality balances things out, you voluntarily overlook two key points, which is intellectual negligence. 1) On the aggregate, the Soviet benefits by orders of magnitude more than the German will benefit from free replacements – it cannot be denied. 2) The 1941 free HQ allocations in arriving units is a tremendous advantage over the historical problems that the actual Soviet army had in 1941 with C&C and execution of higher HQ orders at the front line. Note also in this argument that I’m not trying to take this advantage away from the Soviet.

As for your pet peeve, I respond to that in two points: 1) Empowerment of the player to be free from historical imperatives of the respective armies is always better than static attachment that constricts strategies from the player, and: 2) The game is so vastly inaccurate to history anyway that any argument which attempts to justify War in the East mechanics with World War 2 are easily destroyed by several important facts about the game (the supply model is arcade-style in simplicity, and totally tilts in favor offensive operations compared to history; the air war is ridiculous; Soviets can save every single important factory without worry, etc.).

I refuse to let anyone get away with historical justifications because it is a justification always founded on inconsistency and hypocrisy– it is the height of hypocrisy for 1941, that the Soviet command structure, literally the biggest handicap that the 1941 Red Army faced, is optimized by facile, mostly passive effort on the Soviet’s player’s part.

None of us bought this game to be tethered to history, but to deviate from it. There is no justification for the difference in mechanical costs that the German and the Soviet pay for movement of units within the command structure. We both play on the same hex grid super-imposed over the real earth, but Germany has an artificial net thrown over it by the arbitrary assigned cost differences of command change costs.

Make them even.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 52
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/24/2012 1:30:30 AM   
Sorta

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/30/2009
Status: offline
Helio, great points. the fun in wargames is making decisions. Would be a great option to have in the game. An option like this to make the Germans more flexible plus an option to add some variability to starting positions (eg Lvov) would be good.

As SU in early 42 my airforce is huge - keep attacking with it but losses are small. Not sure what to make of it.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 53
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/24/2012 1:05:12 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Heliodorus has identified some issues that all war games might have, quirky algorithms and set-ups to achieve someone's idea of balance or historicity in outcomes. Of course, critics do seem to complain based on their own ideas of balance and outcomes. Well, there is some value in understanding the developers and the critics views.

But play of the game is what all games are about. Surely there can be useful suggestions to reconfigure starting points and game rules that go towards individuals' views on balance and historical play.

Must say that unanticipated changes to battle algorithms are very disappointing.


(in reply to Sorta)
Post #: 54
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/25/2012 2:52:24 AM   
AFV


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
Would this be solved if Germany started with 500 points?

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 55
RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio - 12/25/2012 12:05:42 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Well, something like that would work.

Vs. AI, I grant the Axis maximum points per turn until things get organized, then resume to game normal. But then, that's a personal preference. For a head-to-head I can't imagine negotiating mutual solutions, so I'd go with normal start. There are just limits to what game designers can do. Do appreciate posts that discuss historical reality, though.

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Slaughter on The Eastern Front 15.82 : 1 Ratio Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.129