Matrix Games Forums

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch! Hell is now available!War in the West Wacht am Rhein AAR Deal of the Week Panzer Corps: Allied Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Run Like Hell

 
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 >> Run Like Hell Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Run Like Hell - 8/24/2013 8:09:57 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1356
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
I am playing a Soviet player who is running east so fast he can't be stopped. He does not use RR to move troops forward until industry assets are evacuated, and then will then use left over RR points to move shells forward.

Here is the question: if he does not lose units to surrender (except the usual Lvov/Minsk) pockets, then these units will not be rebuilt for free. Is there a point of diminishing return when it is better to lose units instead of fleeing to save them?

Questions of sudden death, etc. aside, if the Soviet trades land for evacuation of production assets and refuses contact, what happens in terms of units and manpower? Even if the manpower pool is big/enormous, no units to fill up has to be an issue??? Or not???

< Message edited by Marquo -- 8/24/2013 8:12:12 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/24/2013 8:29:11 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3066
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Hi Marquo,

With out seeing it and there is some thing that seem contradcitory, but ill come ot that later. If he does a full run strategy with no stopping u go for full industry/Manpower/rail destroy/raid mode, as a general rule IMO.

U say he trades land for evac. Not quite sure what u in effect mean by that, as generally speaking those are opposites.
If he runs like hell there shouldnt be much to stop u from rushing ahead to lock down/destroy industries. The only thing stopping u is then the supply system and more importandly how much u are able to use/abuse that system.

Could u expand a bit on what u mean by trading land for evacuations?
If he runs fast enough he cant evac all he runs from, why im a little púzzled. So u give some more info, ofc it also depending on fast u follow up on the running.

As u say surrounded units come back in a 1 to 1 fashion for divs so there is no difference on the number of units he will have to put manpower into. Either way that part makes little difference, only thing is that they come back X turns later. Where as if they arent destroyed u will have them on map where u possibly can training/upping moral that ofc isnt possible if they are destroyed, until they come back. As said the numbers of units are the same. This counts up until nov ofc then its another ball game.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/24/2013 8:55:14 PM >

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 2
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 2:51:42 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2306
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
It is obviously better to never lose a unit than it is to lose one. The Soviets need almost all of their manpower in 41 to fill their starting army, whether it is still in existence because it ran or whether it was returned for free. If manpower does get high enough, then the Soviets have that nice capability to build more using APs.

There is an optimal size for the Soviet Army, if you exceed that size, your industry, even if you have been able to evacuate everything, will have a hard time keeping it all supplied. The Heavy Industry which is usually not a problem for the Soviets becomes very important as the size of the Soviet Army gets large. These problems start showing up in mid 42 during the Soviet Army upgrades and continue to the end of the war.

Running too far and too fast is a strategy which is getting to be more and more of a losing one for the Soviets. As Pelton likes to tell everyone, a running Soviet player is giving up ground and resources too easily and making it cheap for the Axis to advance and destroy them. Every hex retreated by the Soviets in 41 is one more hex that has to be recaptured on the way to Berlin later in the war. Manpower losses will affect the Soviets, maybe not in 41 and probably not too badly in 42 but definitely in 43 and later.

So it all comes down to what type of game you are playing. The Sudden Death campaign scenario makes it almost impossible for the Soviets to retreat too much in 41 without making it possible for the Axis to win in April 42 if the Axis does an MT style winter defense. Or if the Soviets gave up too much ground in 41 to recover enough of it in the Winter to make the cut in April.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 3
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 3:30:30 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

The Sudden Death campaign scenario makes it almost impossible for the Soviets to retreat too much in 41 without making it possible for the Axis to win in April 42 if the Axis does an MT style winter defense. Or if the Soviets gave up too much ground in 41 to recover enough of it in the Winter to make the cut in April.


I don't agree with this. All the SD rules do is make it impossible for the Axis to do a runner in the first blizzard. The SD rules need a check in Aug or Sept 41 to stop the Russian running. Kamil ran a long way in our game but still regained enough ground in the blizzard to prevent a SD check going my way in Apr 42. BUT he will fail the check in Apr 44, assuming we get that far. I have a HR planned that adds a SD check in the last turn of August 41 to prevent the Russians running.

The SD rules work for everything bar the Russian running in summer 1941. The blizzard is just to hard on the Axis to hold on the enough VP for the Apr 42 check to kick in.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 4
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 12:17:47 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6260
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

The Sudden Death campaign scenario makes it almost impossible for the Soviets to retreat too much in 41 without making it possible for the Axis to win in April 42 if the Axis does an MT style winter defense. Or if the Soviets gave up too much ground in 41 to recover enough of it in the Winter to make the cut in April.


I don't agree with this. All the SD rules do is make it impossible for the Axis to do a runner in the first blizzard. The SD rules need a check in Aug or Sept 41 to stop the Russian running. Kamil ran a long way in our game but still regained enough ground in the blizzard to prevent a SD check going my way in Apr 42. BUT he will fail the check in Apr 44, assuming we get that far. I have a HR planned that adds a SD check in the last turn of August 41 to prevent the Russians running.

The SD rules work for everything bar the Russian running in summer 1941. The blizzard is just to hard on the Axis to hold on the enough VP for the Apr 42 check to kick in.


Hes not going to have any trouble getting to the 44 SD as by design GHC will fall apart in Dec 43-Jan 44

_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 5
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 12:21:07 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6260
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

It is obviously better to never lose a unit than it is to lose one. The Soviets need almost all of their manpower in 41 to fill their starting army, whether it is still in existence because it ran or whether it was returned for free. If manpower does get high enough, then the Soviets have that nice capability to build more using APs.

There is an optimal size for the Soviet Army, if you exceed that size, your industry, even if you have been able to evacuate everything, will have a hard time keeping it all supplied. The Heavy Industry which is usually not a problem for the Soviets becomes very important as the size of the Soviet Army gets large. These problems start showing up in mid 42 during the Soviet Army upgrades and continue to the end of the war.

Running too far and too fast is a strategy which is getting to be more and more of a losing one for the Soviets. As Pelton likes to tell everyone, a running Soviet player is giving up ground and resources too easily and making it cheap for the Axis to advance and destroy them. Every hex retreated by the Soviets in 41 is one more hex that has to be recaptured on the way to Berlin later in the war. Manpower losses will affect the Soviets, maybe not in 41 and probably not too badly in 42 but definitely in 43 and later.

So it all comes down to what type of game you are playing. The Sudden Death campaign scenario makes it almost impossible for the Soviets to retreat too much in 41 without making it possible for the Axis to win in April 42 if the Axis does an MT style winter defense. Or if the Soviets gave up too much ground in 41 to recover enough of it in the Winter to make the cut in April.



The problem is if not using SD rules and GHC does not win out in 42 then the game WILL be a draw.

GHC has to take Moscow in 41 or 42(SD rules set) or game will be a draw, which is probabaly historical.

Game now is basicly balanced as good as it is going to get.

SHC simply has to hold Moscow and will by default get a draw or minor win.

The key for GHC is keeping the best 12-16 infantry divisions under cover during blizzard so a good frontal assault can be made on Moscow. It is possible to get all of them above 90 morale, which makes this group untouchable even vs rifle Corps in 42 if you have them set-up right.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 8/25/2013 12:25:55 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 6
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 12:50:00 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Sudden death is just the wrong and gimmicky way to deal with this running nonsense. There has to be a penalty, but prematurely ending the game isn't the right one.

I think the side that gives up too much ground ought to perhaps get hit in APs and be subject to mass and random firing of generals. That would more represent the massive command turbulence and political reaction to an officer corps not following guidance from above. In any event, none of this can be done in a vacuum. That is to say, you have to fix all the other issues in the game that are contributing to all the running. Then, and only then, can you think about putting together some kind of system to prevent it. Running is a completely rational response to the ridiculous op tempo the game creates for the offensive. It becomes very nearly suicidal to do anything else. You probably have to fiddle around with the replacement system, too, especially on the Soviet side: the existing one in no way allows the Soviet to recover from historical 41 losses. That too encourages running. But the replacement system also bites the Germans in the ass down the line, as the Soviet can pick one part of the line and keep beating it up knowing that front line units can't easily take in replacements and the Axis can't play musical chairs with his units to anything like the same degree as the Soviet. So that part of the line just crumbles in due course.

Get the surprise turn and blizzard working right and then we can talk. Get the logistics right, too. The game is offensively biased and therefore we ought not be surprised that there is so much running around, as disgusting as it is. Slow it the hell down and you'll get less running.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 8/25/2013 12:58:54 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 7
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 4:37:53 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1689
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Sudden death is just the wrong and gimmicky way to deal with this running nonsense. There has to be a penalty, but prematurely ending the game isn't the right one.


Why not?

Most every other game simulating the Russian Front has had periodic sudden death victory conditions. Precisely to prevent this wrong and gimmicky Russian strategy to simply run like hell.

It's a game, but it has to have challenging victory conditions along the way. Play considerably worse than historical results and fail to meet minimum conditions, then Game Over is an appropriate penalty. For a game.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 8
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 5:23:10 PM   
morvael


Posts: 4783
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Not good at all. Sudden death that is. It's appropriate for a game, like Worms, where a match lasts 5 to 10 minutes. In a game where you decide to invest hundreds of hours of your precious free time and expect to be taken on a grand voyage from '41 to '45, sudden stop in the middle is a very bad solution. All this time spent can be considered wasted (at least partially), you will have to start anew and repeat the early campaigns. After one such SD I would never return to a game. Good that there are scenarios without those harsh SD conditions. Players doing good (and good also means not using too much hindsight, playing closer to the mindset of your chosen side) should be awarded victory points, those doing bad should lose victory points; but each player would be able to learn from his mistakes during a single game, adjust, and try to close the gap in VP, ultimately winning (or not) - but never being forced to stop the game before 75%-90% of alloted turns would come to pass.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 9
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 6:01:05 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 500
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Somewhere else
Status: offline
quote:

I am playing a Soviet player who is running east so fast he can't be stopped. He does not use RR to move troops forward until industry assets are evacuated, and then will then use left over RR points to move shells forward.


There are too many people in this forum who are afraid of losing! The guy you are playing with goes for an easy win. Only the veteran players with their bomber fuel deliveries and perfectly timed HQ buildups will be able to defeat a Soviet player who just retreats. It seems to me that a lot of players now even give up Leningrad without a real fight just to preserve their army. And Axis players start counting hexes to Berlin in 42 so that they can at least get a draw. It's just sad!

There is a lot you can criticize about this game but in the end it's all about the players. I'm in my third game as SHC and in all these games I'm counter-attacking like mad. Attacking in the middle with tanks, cutting of supply routes with cavalry in the south. And the battles I've fought in the Crimea are epic with amphibious landings etc. Yes, I'm loosing way more units then I need to but it's a lot of fun playing like this. And I'm hoping that my opponents have fun too.

You need to play with the right people. Otherwise the game sucks!


< Message edited by Bozo_the_Clown -- 8/26/2013 3:05:37 PM >

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 10
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 6:07:24 PM   
Flaviusx


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Sudden death is just the wrong and gimmicky way to deal with this running nonsense. There has to be a penalty, but prematurely ending the game isn't the right one.


Why not?

Most every other game simulating the Russian Front has had periodic sudden death victory conditions. Precisely to prevent this wrong and gimmicky Russian strategy to simply run like hell.

It's a game, but it has to have challenging victory conditions along the way. Play considerably worse than historical results and fail to meet minimum conditions, then Game Over is an appropriate penalty. For a game.


Why not? Because it never made a lick of sense to me. This was always going to be a fight to the finish and to the knife. Sudden death has victory conditions which are gamey in the truest sense: they end the war based on some arbitrary numbers of objectives. I don't think this was going to happen at all for either side. They were playing for keeps, not victory points. There was no room here for a negotiated settlement (even if Stalin might have considered a Brest Litovsk 2.0, Hitler never would have, trapped as he was by his own ideology. A different leadership in Nazi Germany might actually have gotten a very favorable settlement while they were doing well, but Hitler, like Napoleon, never knew when to stop while he was ahead.)

That said, I recognize that running away is a problem and needs to be reigned in. Hence my proposal uptopic regarding loss of APs and random dismissal of generals.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 11
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 7:04:14 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1689
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

they end the war based on some arbitrary numbers of objectives


No!! They end a GAME based on a comparison between player results versus historical results. That's a fair victory condition for a game, which compels both players to fight like hell rather than allowing one player to run like hell.

But obviously there are many who choose to believe this isn't just a game but some sort of alternative reality that somehow matters. This never made a lick of sense to me. But hey, if you're having fun then so be it. Carry on, eh?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 12
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 10:34:21 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I like SD so I use it. And will continue to do so. Same with HQBU and Air Supply. My opponents will know this going in. They will also know I will be prepared to play either side under the same conditions. I want to play games where desperate fighting is the norm, not a runfest. And I want to play knowing I have a chance to win no matter which side I play. Primarily based on skillful application of operational tactics and strategy.

Find a like minded opponent and have some fun. If you are in to rigid historical type games then its entirely possible with a like minded opponent. There are others who like it pretty much open slather. But never should the two types meet. It will be an early divorce. FWIW I lie somewhere in between.

One thing I do find surprising is the lack of foresight by the development group in relation to the runaway thing. It's been the bane of so many East Front games, its not a new problem. But WITE has one of the worst afflictions of it that I can recall.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 13
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/25/2013 11:51:57 PM   
el hefe


Posts: 3219
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
Until you introduce the factors that influenced the real-life decisions that were made in these conflicts, you are not going to get a long term campaign that is going to resemble historical campaigns. Campaign games like WitE will almost always be a sandbox game of pushing around counters in a quasi-realistic setting. Smaller sized campaigns can be fairly well and realistically modeled because they deal with short term operational objectives that can be modeled in games but not the longer "Campaign" games. These long campaign games introduce strategic decisions that were not made by a lone military commander (ie the player) and then executed by said military commander who benefits from having both a long term vision and the singular focus to carry out his will.

The reality is that these strategic objectives often had little to do with any military advantages but had economic (Baku), political (Leningrad), or even personal motives (Stalingrad). These courses of actions were made by a flawed man and often with input from other flawed men. These orders were then carried out by a wide variety of competent and incompetent men leading to a dynamic that almost cannot be replicated in a game without arbitrary rules that can be easily gamed.

The only way I can see around this without adding the arbitrary rules (which I detest) is to put the player in a role of a commander who is trying to accomplish a set of objectives that is dynamically assigned by the AI. Every campaign season in the Spring, the AI would assign strategic goals to be achieved before the onset of winter to the player. Success in capturing these objectives would result in more support (more units, more resources, and promotions of good generals). Failures would result in unit withdrawals and dismissals of generals. Periodically during the campaign season, the AI would assign a handful of operational objectives which could be at odds with your strategic objectives and thus forcing critical decisions on the player. Success or failures in these operational objectives would have positive or negative benefits. Get rid of the arbitrary rules and the sandbox and introduce some real tension and dynamics. Then you have a game in which territory means something and you eliminate some of the hindsight. That's the kind of game that I dream about.

Trey

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 14
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 12:06:55 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2162
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

One thing I do find surprising is the lack of foresight by the development group in relation to the runaway thing. It's been the bane of so many East Front games, its not a new problem. But WITE has one of the worst afflictions of it that I can recall.



"Back in the day" when the game first came out, there wasn't nearly as much running by the Russians after the first several turns and the reason why was easy.

The ability to dig fortifications was way overpowered.

Germans would run into lines 4-5 deep with at least level 3 fortifications and after a bit, level 4 fortifications. After the Russian counter offensive of the winter, the Germans had a choice of trying to crack lines 4-6 deep with a pile of fortifications all up and down the line and their infantry just wasn't up to it, so we saw a lot of German turtles for 1942.

The game was broken then and changes were implemented in order to try to fix it. Of course, there were side effects.

The game still has issues between two players unless a lot of house rules are invoked and that isn't going to change for this version of the game.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 15
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 12:25:33 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I really beleive all this running is totally unnecessary. Players do it because its the easy way out. To stand and fight takes a lot more effort and creates a lot more stress on the player mindset. But ultimately a much more rewarding experinece. If I thought the only way to play this game was by running I wouldn't bother with it. Running is just lazy or a complete lack of confidence in your ability to play the game as it should be played.

Of course there are degrees of running. I fully accept that running in some parts of the front is a sensible and realistic approach. I do it myself. Above I am refering to whole right across the front type running. There is no reason why the Reds can't make a stand on at least half the length of the front during the summer or the same for the Axis during the blizzard.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 16
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 12:50:27 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1436
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
I have not before heard of this "sudden death" scenario.
Can someone explain it, or reference a thread?

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 17
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 1:16:48 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
It comes with the Lost battles expansion. There are SD checks in April 42, 43 and 44. You really don't need the expansion if all you are after is SD game. Just use the VP levels from the SD scenario for the stock game. Thats what Kamil and I have done.

SD Conditions Beginning of 1st Turn


Apr-42 Ger 242
Sov 191

Ap-43 Ger 255
Sov 188

Apr-44 Ger 210
Sov 150

For example if the Axis holds 210 VP in April 44 he wins. If he only has 150 the Soviet wins. If the VP level is between 210 and 150 the game goes on.

< Message edited by Michael T -- 8/26/2013 1:18:14 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 18
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 4:26:30 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2250
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
I am currently playing a Soviet player who just took off and ran across the map. I have lost count of what I have overrun. I am interested in seeing what impact it has in 42 on the army he fields.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 19
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 6:18:20 AM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 657
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
The only way I can see around this without adding the arbitrary rules (which I detest) is to put the player in a role of a commander who is trying to accomplish a set of objectives that is dynamically assigned by the AI. Every campaign season in the Spring, the AI would assign strategic goals to be achieved before the onset of winter to the player. Success in capturing these objectives would result in more support (more units, more resources, and promotions of good generals). Failures would result in unit withdrawals and dismissals of generals. Periodically during the campaign season, the AI would assign a handful of operational objectives which could be at odds with your strategic objectives and thus forcing critical decisions on the player. Success or failures in these operational objectives would have positive or negative benefits. Get rid of the arbitrary rules and the sandbox and introduce some real tension and dynamics. Then you have a game in which territory means something and you eliminate some of the hindsight. That's the kind of game that I dream about.


^^^ I believe we have a winning idea!

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 20
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 7:07:37 AM   
morvael


Posts: 4783
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
This is already implemented, in Case Blue I think. Good that this guy is already doing full East Front game. I would miss the detailed TOEs though :-)

Dynamically changing VP are a good thing, especially for a computer game, dealing with long campaigns. As the nature and goals are changing, so should the sources of vp.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 21
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 7:55:35 AM   
Dangun

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 7/8/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
The only way I can see around this without adding the arbitrary rules (which I detest) is to put the player in a role of a commander who is trying to accomplish a set of objectives that is dynamically assigned by the AI. Every campaign season in the Spring, the AI would assign strategic goals to be achieved before the onset of winter to the player. Success in capturing these objectives would result in more support (more units, more resources, and promotions of good generals). Failures would result in unit withdrawals and dismissals of generals. Periodically during the campaign season, the AI would assign a handful of operational objectives which could be at odds with your strategic objectives and thus forcing critical decisions on the player. Success or failures in these operational objectives would have positive or negative benefits. Get rid of the arbitrary rules and the sandbox and introduce some real tension and dynamics. Then you have a game in which territory means something and you eliminate some of the hindsight.


Excellent idea - a slight randomization of objectives.
Which is similar to the other often suggested idea - a slight randomization of set-up.

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 22
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 8:08:06 AM   
Gabriel B.

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline
red army 1942 , no refit bonus, no combat , just keeping reserves out of the fight .







Attachment (1)

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 23
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 1:40:33 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2162
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I really beleive all this running is totally unnecessary. Players do it because its the easy way out. To stand and fight takes a lot more effort and creates a lot more stress on the player mindset. But ultimately a much more rewarding experinece. If I thought the only way to play this game was by running I wouldn't bother with it. Running is just lazy or a complete lack of confidence in your ability to play the game as it should be played.



I think part of the issue with the run away is there isn't a clear downside that is known to most players. The SD conditions will help with that, but there needs to be some encouragement along those lines to not run for the hills in terms of "you do it, you will likely lose" and have that known to the community.

The Eastern front was a brawl, not a track meet.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 24
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 2:34:03 PM   
Commanderski

 

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

The only way I can see around this without adding the arbitrary rules (which I detest) is to put the player in a role of a commander who is trying to accomplish a set of objectives that is dynamically assigned by the AI. Every campaign season in the Spring, the AI would assign strategic goals to be achieved before the onset of winter to the player. Success in capturing these objectives would result in more support (more units, more resources, and promotions of good generals). Failures would result in unit withdrawals and dismissals of generals. Periodically during the campaign season, the AI would assign a handful of operational objectives which could be at odds with your strategic objectives and thus forcing critical decisions on the player. Success or failures in these operational objectives would have positive or negative benefits. Get rid of the arbitrary rules and the sandbox and introduce some real tension and dynamics. Then you have a game in which territory means something and you eliminate some of the hindsight. That's the kind of game that I dream about.


I really like that idea. Not only for this issue but for game play in general. it would really add a lot to this game.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 25
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 8:48:04 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1356
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Gabriel,

Upgrade to the latest patch and perhaps the morale will climb so high.

Marquo

(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 26
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/26/2013 10:03:46 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2306
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
The new version will not allow a unit to exceed its National Morale level the new way. There is still a small chance that morale will increase by one - but that does not happen too often.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 27
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/27/2013 12:14:45 PM   
Gabriel B.

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline
After 40-50 turns in the rear ,even a 10% chance to increase morale by one is enough .


(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 28
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/27/2013 9:13:30 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1356
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
What Soviet player has the luxury of keeping units 40 turns in the rear in 1941???

(in reply to Gabriel B.)
Post #: 29
RE: Run Like Hell - 8/27/2013 10:17:34 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I have no problem with a small core of 'elite' Soviets training up in the rear for 8-10 months. Good luck to you if you can manage it.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Run Like Hell Page: [1] 2   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

1.789