Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Territory matters!

 
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: Territory matters! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Territory matters! - 2/26/2013 12:57:53 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1270
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have spruiked ... since day one.


I hesitate to try to guess what spruiking is but wonder if this is appropriate language for a forum read by the young and old; admittedly far more of the latter?

< Message edited by sillyflower -- 2/26/2013 1:15:53 PM >


_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 31
RE: Territory matters! - 2/26/2013 3:47:21 PM   
The Guru

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline
quote:

SD VC wouldn't harm I guess. I'd like the VC in GC to be following the same pattern as in the smaller scenarios, points per turn held.

That is what I have been pleading for.

And if possible, allow some variance for the VC so that from campaign to campaign the center of attention might be shifted a bit.

That’s precisely what the points system allows for. You can compensate not holding X in the North by capturing Y in the south. Delay here by being ahead of schedule there. Less territorial gains by more losses inflicted, or the opposite; The points system allows for a lot of flexibility, but not absurdity, as it still requires a minimal measure of success.


quote:

With territory all of you mean only cities, right?


It’s the easiest to measure, and, as mentioned before, cities constituted a emblematic reference for propaganda.

quote:

That the territory itself was merely problem for the attacker role, but could be a somewhat value currency to generate time/delay for a defender with an intact army



Hence the « End of Turn » points for holding ground. So delaying tactics will be rewarded, as well as stubborn defense (unless it is “too” stubborn, of course, which happened a good many times too). But of course, territorial gains have to be mitigated with the military losses. That essential dilemna is at the crux of strategy, and somewhat absent from the game.

quote:

I'd say territory in WitE is not worthless, but merely has the value based purely on military consideration (within the limits of the logistic engine). Any political value beyond pure VP is absent.


Territory in itself only has value from a tactical or operational perspective. From a strategic point of view, and unless its possession means deprive the enemy of resources that affect its military strength (which is only marginally the case in WitE, (and it’s about right), it is essentially political, in the same way as war is essentially a political undertaking with military means. Victory in war can only be political. So the eclipse of that aspect in WitE is very damageable to the game as a conflict simulation.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 32
RE: Territory matters! - 2/26/2013 5:55:29 PM   
janh

 

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

ORIGINAL: The Guru
quote:

SD VC wouldn't harm I guess. I'd like the VC in GC to be following the same pattern as in the smaller scenarios, points per turn held.

That is what I have been pleading for.

quote:

And if possible, allow some variance for the VC so that from campaign to campaign the center of attention might be shifted a bit.


That’s precisely what the points system allows for. You can compensate not holding X in the North by capturing Y in the south. Delay here by being ahead of schedule there. Less territorial gains by more losses inflicted, or the opposite; The points system allows for a lot of flexibility, but not absurdity, as it still requires a minimal measure of success.


The thought of a VP system, in which VP are not merely another value "for the exact same" as manpower power points, factories etc., i.e. a city like Kiev becoming in one campaign more valuable in terms of VPs than it is really worth in terms of the former hard factors, sounds quite intriguing. It would make for much more variance in the GCs.
Each city could have a base value, and a variance/randomization range assigned by GC design. That range could even depend on the date, or perhaps be hardcoded to vary due to other factors such as the distance to the front. The latter would favor holding out longer, and could lead to more risk-taking and pocketing?

If it was randomized somewhat, you could consider it a Hitler/Stalin effect, and perhaps the VP assignment would then determine what objectives players would have to go after for each GC. One could, like in AE, even have two different VPs per city, one for Axis and one for the Red Army -- one side not knowing the actual ones of the other.

That way a "victory" by VP would mean holding or taking the cities that the little that are (randomly) valued higher, i.e. satisfy the wishes of the little electronic dictator. Pretty much like some generals of both sides kept trying to follow the orders and ideas of both heads, no matter whether that meant violating (military) logic and matter of fact doing more damage to the overall effort. One could loose the war in the long run, but win by victory points? Or allow that option only if it does not lead to total defeat? On the reverse, one could ignore those VPs, and just play the game as if it were like is now, choose the terrain and time to fight and when to run wisely, and win by plainly defeating the enemy?

Sounds like that would be a very different game in the end.

< Message edited by janh -- 2/26/2013 5:58:09 PM >

(in reply to The Guru)
Post #: 33
RE: Territory matters! - 2/26/2013 8:43:28 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 514
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The fact that a German full retreat, back to starting poistions, after a mere 6 months of campaign, could be considered, within the context of the game, as a winning strategy, illustrates this.


It might have been considered a winning strategy the conductor, but I'm not sure anyone else saw it that way. Most saw it as a losing strategy, and I think they were right.
I'm not sure the game benefits if we try to alter the VC to discourage bad strategies. Results will do that just fine.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 34
RE: Territory matters! - 2/26/2013 9:01:26 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2410
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
Austral. slang spruik to give a speech, make a barker's spiel (of unknown origin) + -er

Wots rong wiv ya, carnt ya speek propa mate

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 35
RE: Territory matters! - 2/26/2013 10:17:39 PM   
The Guru

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline
quote:



quote:

The fact that a German full retreat, back to starting poistions, after a mere 6 months of campaign, could be considered, within the context of the game, as a winning strategy, illustrates this.



It might have been considered a winning strategy the conductor, but I'm not sure anyone else saw it that way. Most saw it as a losing strategy, and I think they were right.
I'm not sure the game benefits if we try to alter the VC to discourage bad strategies. Results will do that just fine.


Well, I didn't say it was a winning strategy, I say that the simple fact that such strategy could be contemplated as a viable course of action was a bit absurd

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 36
RE: Territory matters! - 2/26/2013 10:24:49 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1270
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline
I only speak 'Pom', I'm afraid.

I think it's Aussie slang for 'properly' but I may be wrong..............

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 37
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 12:44:38 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2410
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
Joel has indicated he would support a community based set of SD house rules for the game.

But you will just never get any kind of consensus in a free for all type forum. We got the Alt 260 scenario in to the game through a series of Polls on this board and the fact that it did not take too much effort from the devs. But it was a very tiresome experience (as one of the drivers behind it I can attest to that) as there is always a body of thought that will not accept a change even if it is optional.

I think you are better off establishing your own set of SD house rules for each game you play. Naturally your opponent will need to agree to them. Since my experience in the Pelton game I will be doing that very thing. My current game has some SD rules for 1941. They are crude but they will evoke the kind of game in 1941 that I desire. With each new game I will enhance them.

Good house rules tend to get picked up by other games so a natural process of improvement will occur if other players are like minded and desire some SD conditions. Whether they be an improvement on mine or someone's else's if enough players desire the same thing it will evolve. And maybe they might make it to WITE 2.0

I think this is your only realistic option for SD VC.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 38
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 1:46:25 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1362
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Well-lead Soviets would have stymied the Axis much sooner, and better-lead Axis may have finished off the Soviets.

Questions: What would have happened if better lead Axis faced off against better lead Soivets?
Answer: GG's WITE.

There will never be any accounting for the historical hindsight most players bring to the game.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 39
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 2:59:02 AM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3123
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think you are better off establishing your own set of SD house rules for each game you play. Naturally your opponent will need to agree to them. Since my experience in the Pelton game I will be doing that very thing. My current game has some SD rules for 1941. They are crude but they will evoke the kind of game in 1941 that I desire. With each new game I will enhance them.

I think this is your only realistic option for SD VC.


Yes... I think Michael has hit the nail on the heat, and that any refinement of VC rules can only be done on a one to one or individual game basis. The simple fact is that any modification to the game VC code, would never be excepted by the two sides (Axis/Soviet) of the game.

Just as a side note; I have wargamed this campaign for over thirty-five years now, and WitE with it's wort's and all. Is still one-millions times better than playing on a tabletop with cardboard counters, and a rule book written in indecipherable Mayan text.


_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 40
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 3:12:55 AM   
AFV


Posts: 372
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

Yes... I think Michael has hit the nail on the heat, and that any refinement of VC rules can only be done on a one to one or individual game basis. The simple fact is that any modification to the game VC code, would never be excepted by the two sides (Axis/Soviet) of the game.



I respect your opinion, but I must disagree. The Alt scenario, that is quite popular, disproves this. Not to say that creating victory conditions that take into account territory/cities on a turn by turn cumulative basis is trivial- it certainly is not- and balance would be tricky to say the least- which is why I think making it slightly random, as someone suggested above, is a good idea. I think Michael's point was that it would have to be on an individual basis because, for WITE 1.x at least, its doubtful the devs will offer such a scenario, due to the risk it would be unbalanced and would lead to additional work/manhours to get it right.

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 41
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 3:57:41 AM   
Baelfiin


Posts: 1445
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88



Just as a side note; I have wargamed this campaign for over thirty-five years now, and WitE with it's wort's and all. Is still one-millions times better than playing on a tabletop with cardboard counters, and a rule book written in indecipherable Mayan text.




Much easier to set up and take down as well 8)

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 42
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 4:28:59 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 895
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


What I think would work well for victory is for the two sides to gain/lose victory points for different reasons.

The Germans should gain victory points for causing casualties to the Russians. That's it.

The Russians should gain victory points for taking territory from the axis, and lose points for losing Manpower Centers (by certain dates). That's it.

When the differential reaches a certain point....you win. So no massive retreats from Russian manpower centers for the Red Army. They will lose too many points. The Germans have the incentive to fight, even in bad conditions. The Russians want to push forward to regain lost victory points and score new ones (in Axis territory).

Of course, the devil is in the details.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 43
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 2:13:32 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 696
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Given the very interesting suggestions being discussed, developers might become more focused on VP effects than on the combat engine, logistics model, 2nd front effects, or who knows what.

Waiting to see WitW & WitE 2.0 and hoping for improvements to the essential game engines and realistic detailing of elements.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 44
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 3:18:29 PM   
The Guru

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline
May I ask Mr Michael T what his "crude SD VC" are?

I'm afraid I'll have to devise my own, so I'd love to see what others, who seem to agree with my point of view, have thought of already.

< Message edited by The Guru -- 2/27/2013 3:19:42 PM >

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 45
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 5:54:59 PM   
Flaviusx


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Given the very interesting suggestions being discussed, developers might become more focused on VP effects than on the combat engine, logistics model, 2nd front effects, or who knows what.

Waiting to see WitW & WitE 2.0 and hoping for improvements to the essential game engines and realistic detailing of elements.



This is exactly wrong, imo. Without addressing basic mechanical problems in the game it will be impossible to implement the sorts of VP changes being suggested here.

I can tell you right now that any attempt to force a forward defense on the Soviets in 1941 by VPs, leaving everything else as is, will be a disaster. It is impossible to do this as things presently stand. So you are putting the cart before the horse. VPs won't fix problems with the game, they will actually make them worse. Likewise, nobody is very happy about the way the blizzard works in this game. And the late war Axis has the same problems that the Soviets do in 1941, again due to mechanical problems with the game.

I therefore am far far more interested in getting those other things fixed up before seriously addressing VPs. The combat engine and logistics have to actually make sense in the first instance.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 46
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 7:22:50 PM   
janh

 

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

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
This is exactly wrong, imo. Without addressing basic mechanical problems in the game it will be impossible to implement the sorts of VP changes being suggested here.


They surely have a list of priorities, and I am pretty convinced they'll make sure the foundations will be strong before the raise the walls, so to speak. VPs are one area to improve, but surely the basic mechanics ranks a lot higher.

So many people have voiced their concerns about the blizzard penalties being to strong or coming from nowhere, and they already present a new logistics model for WitW. Probably that model will be detailed enough, or designed such that it can be expanded for WitE2 or WiEurope so that winterization and logistic breakdown can occur naturally, and locally at some parts of the front, while in others Wehrmacht can still counterattack or hold tight.
Hopefully that system will now also make the steadfastness of pocketed units a function of detailed supplies, and enable enduring pockets etc.

So many people have brought up the issue of Soviet reinforcement numbers being too low (manpower wise, and unit shells/AP cost wise), that I am sure they'll consider that when re-balancing the blizzard period. Even amongst everyone here playing the game, and having to equal degrees experience with both sides, there is no consensus whether the Soviet side is too strong or two weak. No one has proof, and many games are so divergent, so different with course and opponents, strategies etc. I almost think seeing no consensus means that for the whole course of a GC, the balance is right, though not for the right reasons since during certain periods, like blizzard, things cause severe debate.

My experience is still that it is now too weak after the latest patches taming blizzard (which was a good thing, though, and not even far enough), not only from comparing bare numbers, but the real, overall combat value. If one side plays it carefully with using all hindsight, and the other repeats historical mistakes, i.e. counterattacking oft wastefully and holding when wisdom would dictate to retreat and fight another day with more favorable conditions, the latter gets thrashed. You don't need a PBEM with an equal or better opponent to reproduce this, you can play fool with the AI. And it holds true for both sides, just that in one case it is the blizzard penalties causing the issue, and in the other it becomes an issue due to the Wehrmacht advancing faster, and smarter with to hindsight while the Soviet numbers and/or counters are too weak. During the Barbarossa phase, it seems like Wehrmacht benefits most from hindsight. In both cases the logistics system makes things more critical, and the I-go-U-go that leaves you blind-guessing for large periods, a week, while the phasing attacker only can move units.

Let's hope they'll carefully reevaluate these questions that surfaced with WitE for its successor.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 47
RE: Territory matters! - 2/27/2013 9:01:23 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2410
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
@Guru

go here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3268003

_____________________________

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

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 48
RE: Territory matters! - 2/28/2013 4:14:54 PM   
The Guru

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline
quote:

Without addressing basic mechanical problems in the game it will be impossible to implement the sorts of VP changes being suggested here.

I can tell you right now that any attempt to force a forward defense on the Soviets in 1941 by VPs, leaving everything else as is, will be a disaster. It is impossible to do this as things presently stand. So you are putting the cart before the horse. VPs won't fix problems with the game, they will actually make them worse. Likewise, nobody is very happy about the way the blizzard works in this game. And the late war Axis has the same problems that the Soviets do in 1941, again due to mechanical problems with the game.


I guess you might be right. It's just that I wouldn't even dream for such majors changes (with which I agree 100%) to be implemented anytime soon. Whereas VC changes leave the core of the game mechanisms untouched, so I hoped maybe they would make it to be, at least, considered.

But then, I suppose WitE 1.X has reached the final stage of its evolution. 2.0 Will be a whole new battle.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 49
RE: Territory matters! - 2/28/2013 10:45:51 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1270
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin


quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88



Just as a side note; I have wargamed this campaign for over thirty-five years now, and WitE with it's wort's and all. Is still one-millions times better than playing on a tabletop with cardboard counters, and a rule book written in indecipherable Mayan text.




Much easier to set up and take down as well 8)


But nothing beats taking an opponent's counters/model soldiers off the table or watching him do it

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 50
RE: Territory matters! - 3/2/2013 1:04:17 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 696
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
@flaviusx: Oh my... I stated my comment about VP poorly. Meant that the combat engine should reflect the value of defended areas or objectives. Seems that forces should expend more strength for higher VP sites than for open terrain.

Of course, designers should prioritize the game engine faults. Goes w/o saying. IMO, the term v2.0 suggests that a much improved product is coming. Less "buggy" through wise design reflecting experience. One hopes for many things, not just correction to V 1.nn shortcomings. Many things.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Territory matters! 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

0.094