Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Musing on 1942

 
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: Musing on 1942 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 7:09:44 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Loki- Im not saying divisions should shatter but in effect if a division take 25%+ losses its CV will reduce thus making it more apt to be successfully assaulted again in later turns. Right now a corps level assault hits a corps level defense and like 1-2 Battalions get disabled for the winner and 2-4 for the loser if they are soviets....

Higher losses equals not continuous offensives due to lack of CV and a more fluid possible frontline because the Germans then cant maintain 50+ CV across the whole frontline and still attack.

Keep in mind though even with the losses I have inflicted on Pelton he still has 3.8M men+ in the German army....so it shows no matter what the Soviet player does loss wise to the Germans the end effect is it matters very little at current.

On the air war- I pressed a strong air campaign from summer 1942 on as you can see the air losses in me and Peltons game are much higher than the other two even accounting for 3 month time difference.

During the height of the air war I was knocking out about 300 axis aircraft per turn and losing about twice that myself which I considered acceptable losses. I dont feel its a system issue though that I was able to smash the Luftwaffe- if you read my AAR you can see I feel it was how the Luftwaffe was played from 1941 on that cost Pelton the airwar in the summer of 1942 instead of more historically summer 1943.

I have played the red-airforce very aggressively got it built up to about 9K aircraft and have kept it at that level since the winter of 1941. I bomb the axis ground units almost every turn with pretty much all of my planes then during the air war I was bombing every axis airbase I felt I wouldn't be completely slaughtered bombing. Which is the reason for the massive air losses to both sides in our game lol.

The Axis with good play can avoid the worst of the Soviet airforce bombing tho IMO. As the soviet bombers have very limited range esp the fighter bombers.

Also another possible fix is maybe extend German first winter penalties into March 1942.....As every game we are also seeing a massive German assault/encirclement first thing in march 1942. This is a massive edge for German players as it effectively is giving them a month headstart on the Summer 1942 offensive.



What your asking for is not possible because 42-44 loses when Russians win a battle need to be 1000 dead Germans and 3000 to 4000 dead Russian.
We alrdy had a pissing match about this and I used the same web site to back up my historical loses for 42-44.
Yes Russian loses are 4x to low and German 1.5

The engine is based on retreat loses. M+D can not make apple pie with sticks.

IF IF the loses were historical then things would be historical, but they are not.

Historically the Reds attacked until they bleed to death and had to stop. Rested formations to full strength then
attacked until bleed dry again.

The engine is not set up to give historical loses because it based on retreat loses.

HMM

Did I say that the engine is based on retreat loses?

I think what is in .05 will make winning impossible for Germany all things being equal, but if your below average and you play me you will loss in 42 still instead of 41 ( unless your a newbie).

I think over all people will be happy if they can forget about making apple pie out of sticks.


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 31
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 7:34:44 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1721
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Looking forward to seeing what LW looks like in our game. As I have said many times I want to see the LW balance in pvp. Ive played LW vs the AI but its not the same game.

1943 should be interesting to say the least based on current events in our game.

45NM for soviets in 1942 will be abit of a help....the rifle bde nerf just about balances that out tho as you in effect get 45 NM divisions from the rifle bde forming into Divisions. The big help it will be is to Soviet cav/mech/tank forces which will start out alittle better as that overall should make those units about 5-10% more effective in 1942.

An yes i agree more digital men on both sides need to die in every battle. Weird that the game engine has no tweak that can make that happen and be balanced over the long game.

But trying to make apple pie out of sticks is so fun lol


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 32
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 9:27:12 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 196
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
I think this is an interesting discussion but as this is a game, I think almost everyone's experience is completely colored by the person who is controlling the troops opposite them, their individual play style, strengths and weaknesses, etc.... As Pelton has played the most games, I tend to view his comments about the game with more weight than others save perhaps that he wins too much (weak opponents?) and he doesn't play the Russians.

To me, I find the game has the right balance and feel to it. Chaos thinks the Germans are too powerful in '42, but in his game the Germans have pretty much penetrated to near historical depths. And remember, his experience is also colored by playing against someone widely regarded as a top German player. So perhaps against a GHC player not as experienced, he would think differently. Almost every one of his comments talk about the Soviets being too weak and the Germans being too powerful. Yet in the end, he has a decent chance of drawing or winning against a top German player in what his first (or one of) games of WiTE. What more do you want, a crushing Soviet win in every game in 1943? I do understand that many of the comments are driven by the desire to have the game be more "historical" but it's a game and the opposing general is by far the biggest factor and it wouldn't be an interesting game at all if it were totally one sided.

In my current game as SHC it's March 19th '42 and the soviet losses are probably average (3.7m) and German losses are higher than normal (1.15 M). My guess is that I'll be over 5 million losses by end of summer and he'll be around 1.4 million or so which are low and high respectively compared to other games here. I still hold Lenningrad and Moscow and in the south, the lines are west of Kharkov and Kursk. I have tons of space to fall back, but don't really feel the need to (yet). Every turn I launch probably 25 attacks just to continue building morale and usually win most of them. I have 222 HI and 356 Armaments, so production shouldn't be an issue, though I have 7 million men OOB but another 415k in the pool because I can't arm them quickly enough despite all the armament industry.

Here is a screenshot of the entire front showing the very start of my turn. I have only done some recon and attacked one panzer division to push it forward so that I can encircle it and route it. This game is probably as typical as any other game. Without the artificial weakening of the soviets and the Germans continuing to build new forces at faster than historical rates, I probably go over to the offensive much sooner than historical. But in this game, that probably won't happen and eventually his panzer forces will rebuild and he'll drive me back to probably Voronezh by the end of the summer and that will most likely be the extent of his advance. As for German players almost always attacking in the south in '42, well who the hell wants to tangle with the ridiculous CV walls, horrid terrain, and soviet commitment to hold Moscow? The south is far more panzer friendly so all GHC are going to push there because it's also far more weakly defended than the north. In my current game I'm still waiting to see where he'll make his major push (panzers west of Moscow, west of Rostov, and west of Kharkov) and once he concentrates, i'll thin my lines in other places and shift massive force to oppose the concentration.

I point all of this out because I feel the game is balanced and doesn't need major changes. The player controlling the troops matters more than anything else and who you are playing definitely colors your perspective. Is it coloring mine - a little perhaps, but my perspective is that the SHC is just fine, takes it's lumps, but has a never ending capacity to rebuild itself and without the game settings as they currently are, GHC will never ever win a game. Look at Pelton's game v Smokeindave. He nearly pushed him off the map and there's a chance he'll lose, most likely draw. In my current game, at one point in late September my opponent finally made a major breakthrough and encircled almost the entire western front. I probably lost nearly a million men. If it weren't for the mud, Moscow may have been in trouble. But there was mud, new lines were built, and my OOB is now 7+ Million March '42 and I hammered him all winter long. I think these examples show just how hard it is to actually win as the Germans unless you win on turns 1 to 18 by knockout. Which by the way, are by far the most interesting turns in the game. After that the game settles into a slugfest of static lines and more limited breakthroughs and becomes more tedious to play. Turns 1-18 as BOTH soviet and German are tense and exciting. So given the massive size and increased power over '41 of the Soviets at the start of '42 in most games, in order for the game to be viable, the Germans need the tools currently available to them because otherwise they'll get crushed. How many times have the Germans actually won the game in 1942 after failing to deliver the knockout in '41 (by knockout I mean massive losses, capture Moscow, advance to the Volga, etc...)? It's rare in the extreme for the Germans to win if they don't essentially win the game in 1941. Chaos - you are a good player, but you complain too much over minor issues and losses that don't impact the overall result of the game. Pelton's encirclement south of Rostov in your game won't matter. It's like crushing 500 ants in a pile of 100,00 of them. Even in his follow up which my guess is that he ends up destroying a few more armies after mud in that area, it won't matter. Come '43 you'll have a massive army and will begin the long drive to the west and my prediction is at worst you'll draw and have about a 25% chance to win. So a never ending series of posts about how the Soviets are too weak and the Germans are too strong and there is no way you lose the game, at worst you'll draw, decent chance of winning. If the changes you suggest are added, it would be near impossible to play the Germans with any success. It's hard enough to play the Germans now. As you say, you need to play the game out to the end to see how it goes and perhaps if you're in Berlin in spring '45 you'll change your thinking.... But your game with Pelton is definitely one of the most tense and well matched games going right now, so obviously the game system is working on the important levels and major changes aren't necessary. Historically, the Germans totally controlled the initiative in '42 and they should in the game as well. Again, Chaos, you really need to play the Germans to get an understanding of just how challenging it is. Simply never enough stuff to accomplish what you need to accomplish in '42 and you push in one area while the Red Army hammers you mercilessly in others. Strong soviet players will begin hammering you in '41 in more quiet parts of the front as the Germans never really have enough strength to both adequately hold the length of the line AND launch the type of hell for leather high risk advances that are necessary to have any shot at winning the game.

Between equally talented players, the SHC will win probably 40% of the time, draw 50% of the time, 10% german wins. And remember, a draw is not a draw in the war, it's based on the Soviets not totally destroying the Germans and capturing Berlin by a certain date. So historically speaking, other than the 10% German victories, 90% of the time the Russians win the war. Feels about right to me...

As to my game, I have no doubt that I will face at least another 500,000 man encirclement as '42 progresses along with several other smaller ones. It's part of my play style as I don't abandon heavily fortified positions until I'm forced out of them. I don't mind losing a million men so long as it takes many many weeks to lose them and so long as I'm forcing the Germans to bash their head against high CV stacks to earn the encirclements. THe further west that is held, the more the troops build up due to tons of manpower and the more the Germans have to fight rather than just get cheap encirclements the better. So if you consider a game between two average players, which I'll say my game is (perhaps I'm on the cusp of almost being "good" as SHC), the Germans have a hard road ahead of them in just about every game, '42 included. When designing or balancing a game, I would think you have to use average play as the measuring stick, you can't use perfect play as the measuring stick. And given average play, the Germans need all the help they can get.

Just my .02 cents. Oh, and to me, Vigabrand's post regarding his game as SHC is probably similar to my game and a more accurate assessment of what is going on in most digital battlefields....

Very large map image link below!

Situation March 42








< Message edited by mattp -- 8/30/2015 10:36:57 PM >

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 33
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 10:04:24 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1721
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Mattp- I would say your game is already over. No matter what the German player does in your game you have won already. They didnt push near hard/fast enough in 1941. The game is alot about how well the Germans do in 1941, they can make up for abit in 1942 but if they have a very poor 1941 its already game over. Again kinda realistic.

Right now the Germans have a shot if played well to win in 1941- probably somewhat realistic.

By the end of 1942 the momentum should be turning- think the complaints are that Soviets that survive to the end of 1942 aren't seeing the initiative start to turn. We are still just seeing entire fronlines with few if any weak points to begin picking at to gain an offensive. None of us are asking to start driving back to Berlin in the summer of 1942 but to at least be able to blunt German offensives and start to turn the tide would be nice.



(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 34
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 10:34:21 PM   
SCAR

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 6/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

.05 is heavly favors Russia.

With Russian NM in 42 getting a boost +5 and German logistic taking a major hit. The Rifle brigade exploit has been removed. There are a lot of other fixes ect, but over all a + for Russia.

Also for all the whining about things all 4 games will end with Russian wins or draws and you guys want even more? REALLY? You want 1.05 all over again with Russia on an across the front offensive in July 42?

Choas what you want was tried and was an epic failure.

The game engine is all about who is attacking there is no middle ground.
I have personally played every single patch 4+ games and a small tweak can case huge run away games for one side or the other.

1.07 was ok, but 1.08 really is about as good as it can get.

I am not in favor of some of what is in .05, but it is what the masses want. The mob is almost always wrong, because they feel first and think 2nd.

1. German offensive in 41 will be weaker
2. German offensive in 42 will be weaker.

morveal and d-man are a month ahead of you guys.





I am not sure about everyone else, but I am not advocating balance issues. I don't necessarily care which side has an advantage. I am not a fanboy advocating for one side, and playing only one side. I am certainly not saying one side needs to be able to do X or the other Y. I am suggesting the whole game can benefit from a more realistic feel, and there are two areas that can help that. Otherwise, why bother with the historical subject matter. Just call it Blue v Red game. If there is no grounding in the historical capabilities and limitations, then its fantasy land.

I am also not even suggesting historical outcomes, as it appears from the posts here on the forum that some people will never agree on even historical numbers etc. No need to even have that argument. Just make it more realistic and the other items will fall more into place. By making losses in manpower/equipment mean something, and by having actual shortages (for both sides based upon results in the game) would do wonders for the game, even without getting into the specifics of what those losses should be.

I think that almost everyone agrees, absent the super fanboys advocating for one side, that the game needs some changes. The most important seem to be:

1) increase losses - to slow down attacks, focus effort from the current attack everywhere to specific offensives, and to add the historical limitations of manpower, training time for new troops, and the resultant reduction in unit efficiency, moral and capabilities when adding numerous replacements. This change would affect both sides, and there would be no winner rus/ger. It would just require new tactics and game play. And give the game a more realistic feel.

As units take replacements from losses, moral and unit efficiency should go down. The more replacements the harder the unit should get hit. It then takes time to bring this back up. It would work against the Soviets in 41 and into 42/43. It would also work against the Germans steadily as losses mount. With the right implementation here, much of the arguments about national morale settings and unit strength etc might be fixed, and be resultant from what happens in the game rather than hard coded at certain times.

2) the logistics - the current mechanism doesn't work, and allows super gamey tactics. A fix here could in essence fix lots of other areas that people disagree upon. The German running wild in 42 issue can be limited with a better logistics model, it would focus effort into areas rather than the current attack anywhere and everywhere as the game sits now. This would also limit the Soviets later.

These two issues, supply/logistics and the losses go hand in hand, they have an effect on everything else. These need to be addressed.

Finally, I don't care who is favored. If its simulating a historical event, someone might very well be the favorite to win. Makes the upset that much more fun. But arguing for parity in the effort to make it all fair seems like the wrong thinking to me.








(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 35
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 10:39:46 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 196
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
For all intents and purposes, it probably is over Chaos, but we're going to keep playing particularly as I want more work building the 2.0 soviet army and getting into the late war which very few games make it to.

But the point is that I bet more games look like mine given average play on both sides. The Russians can recover from mistakes, the Germans can't really. Which I why I think '42 is good just the way it is as coupled with a strong '41 as you have pointed out an equally strong '42 is the only hope the Germans have and really their chances aren't very good. And personally speaking, I'd rather play tense balanced games then potentially more historical routs. So as I said, if the Germans don't win in 41 they don't have too much chance to win in 42 anyway.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 36
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 11:30:54 PM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1042
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Well, a lot of discussion... But w/o any comment about best settings of balance factors. Seems that unacceptable Axis supply and transportation could be put to rest by discounting those factors. Soviets too weak, there are adjustments for that also.

Remember, the "100" value is established by the developers as representing their proposal for a "balanced" game. And ceterus paribus the Axis should loose. Its a matter of when and how badly.


(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 37
RE: Musing on 1942 - 1/27/2016 10:11:35 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
You guys really need to understand that this is a game and not a simulation, and would not be very fun for the German player after the summer of 1941 if it were a simulation.

There are many things not historical in this game. For example, both the German and Soviet players have complete operational freedom to do what they like without the historical constraints placed on you by either Hitler or Stalin. You want to move an entire panzer group to a differ et army group? No problem! You want to give the Germans space to protect your troops and manpower? Abandon Kiev? No problem! You want to not waste tanks on that Soviet formation you know you won't be successful attacking? No problem!

In the final analysis, WiTE is a game that needs to balance each sides chance to "win" while still being fun, no matter what the historical outcomes and constraints were.

That's why we deal with abstractions.

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 38
RE: Musing on 1942 - 1/28/2016 8:56:58 AM   
No idea

 

Posts: 477
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Loki,

Also no Lvov- means your game is a very different game- as you will have more industry than most other Soviet players

I want to play through the late game against Pelton and see how it goes. I personally feel the German Army in 1942 is much, much to powerful compared to what the Soviets can do. Even with massive amounts of counterattack forces you are pretty much nothing but a punching bag for the German player. This to me is complete BS compared to what the real situation was in 1942.

Many old hats at the game say you need a pathetic Soviet Army in 1942 to prevent the Germans being crushed to quickly. IDK will have to play late game and see still.

Maybe if NM stays at 40 the Soviets need a small bone thrown their way to make up for in order of Free AP units such as Tank Army HQs for free or something to reduce the AP crunch so you can rebuild and get on the offensive in late 1942 like you should be.

I can see in our game there will be no massive Soviet winter offensive 1942 in fact it already looks like Im going to lose another army or two to continued german offensives because the German army just has to much manpower in 1942 even late 1942. Its the whole fantasy game of the Germans maintaining almost 4M man armies all through 1942. Yes the Soviets are maintaining armies larger as well but it doesnt matter as much because all of the Soft factors are still crushing Soviet CV.

Also isolated units drop CV way, way to fast....4+ CV units going to 1 CV on the first turn makes breakouts almost impossible even against completely pathetic surrounding forces. This is the only game I have ever played where surrounded units collapse and become so worthless in 1 turn....which is another massive benefit to the Axis side. If the axis surround a strong soviet unit(s) it should require a decent blocking force to keep them pinned in, not a security regiment or some crap axis allied unit.

If the German infantry divisions never weaken due to lack of casualties then the Soviets cant really get counteroffensives rolling on anything near a historical timeline.

Alot of factors in the game conspire to make Stalingrad type operations impossible for the Soviets to pull off.

Also this whole disband the luftwaffe to provide manpower for the Army should come at a much higher AP cost, as it was a political impossibility.

In general im not impressed with some of the ways the game models things. Maybe supermen germans in 1941/1942 is needed to balance supermen Soviets in 1944/1945 IDK havent played that far.

Right now 1941/1942 almost feels like there isnt much of a reason to play the game as a soviet player. Your only objective is dont lose moscow 1941 and save industry....then in 1942 try not to get killed to bad but dont really challenge the German player because his counter strength alone will win out.

Like I have said in many other threads combat losses for both sides are to low, and from my understanding its an unfixable issue. So with that said not sure how much replay value the game will have for me even in pvp because the game is fixed basically.

I prefer a game where my choices and decisions matter. If I repeatedly beat back German armored units they should take enough losses to not be able to keep encirclement me turn after turn. Encirclements being the only to inflict losses means the Soviets are basically completely worthless on the counterattack in 1941/1942 as the movement penalties to get into german areas and the ability of german armor to rush 30+ hexes and still smash you makes them impossible to pull off for soviets as their units to weak and to slow moving in the current game. Even in 1943 the morale bonus wont be enough to make soviet movement into german hexes matter much for encirclements.

Morale probably needs to be removed from the hex movement equation completely and a set penalty used. This would make German players actually guard their flanks especially since the isolated penalty in this game is effectively an automatic death sentence.

So unless they can fix the casualty model to make the Germans pay in losses when attacks fail and pay when the soviet player makes good counterattacks soviet play matters very little.

My next turn ill grab some casualty screens for the soviets its never good news tho lol.

As I said though I want to see the late war game and see how it works before making a final judgement, but so far no impressed with how Soviet play matters so very little in 1941/1942. As in 1941 you are just trying to play good enough to prevent an auto loss then in 1942 trying not to be wiped out because your units are all the biggest wimps ever. Not only does that 5 Morale difference mean you defend worse but it also means your counterattack forces are worse off.

Hmm just a thought maybe adjust up Soviet tank/mech/cav corps forces another 5 points in 1942 to keep them more lethal but not the entire Soviet army....or lower German infantry morale 5 points in 1942.....that might be a thought. Something to make the German player have to worry about Soviet counterattacks/breakthroughs.


I understand many of your points and "complaints".

The soviets untis are really lame during 1941 and 1942 if we compare them to their real counterparts. Soviet horrible performance during 1941 is already taken into account with the various penalties given to the soviet side during first turn and several more (you dont get enough trucks for your army until T 4 or 5). Making the soviet units artificially lame (CV wise) make a 1941 and, partially, a 1942 game were soviet units cant do really anything, when irl that was not the case. The german player knows he can slap your face left and right with impunity.

The high cost the soviet player pays to get into an enemy hex, even when that hex is not adjacent to any enemy unit, is a bit ridiculous and it is the last nail to the coffin most encirclements mean for the 1941 and, to a lesser extent, 1942 soviet player. Again, irl the germans had to guard the pockets well, or they would break. In the game you can left security ot crappy units guarding them, because there is no way the soviet player can do to break the pockets even against security units.

I also agree the game seems a bit "fixed". No matter what you do, the end result will be the same. And I am not referring to the 1945 end result, but to every single year. You can tell, in general terms, what is going to happen in every year and you wont be mistaken by much. However, if you want to keep things realistic to some extent, there arent so many choices that can really matter, UNLESS the game changes its nature to some extent by letting you take big strategic decisions regarding production or politics. And those choices should have their pros and their cons.

One thing that I feel is completely out of reality is the replacement the axis units get. IRL most axis units never fought, after the first few months of 1941 with the TOE % they have in the game. You rarely see a german unit under 75/70 % TOE (at least during the first years), while irl it was very common after the first months (not to talk about many panzer divisions, which had just a few dozen operative tanks or even less BEFORE the winter counteroffensive began). Hitler, irl, had a strategic tank reserve, and he was very cautious about its use, he didnt want it handled as reinforcements except for operations like Typhoon. Again, these sort of decisions might be given to the player to make the game different and more interesting, having both pros and cons.

That said, I understand that things were made to keep as historical as possible WHILE keeping some "balance" (this is, giving the germans a bigger chance than they had irl). The game would be, otherwise, pointless for most players.

< Message edited by No idea -- 1/28/2016 10:00:52 AM >

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 39
RE: Musing on 1942 - 1/28/2016 5:20:01 PM   
RKhan


Posts: 325
Joined: 1/17/2016
From: My Secret Bunker
Status: offline
I agree with a lot that is said above about the powerlessness of the Soviets.

While the macro level result feels right it is also starting to feel repetitive and I'm a new player. I having been comparing my results to other players via the AARs and find the games very similar in macro level result, almost to the turn. I would prefer a game that allowed more variation in result so long as the variation is tied to my decisions, or my opponents.

It raises the old questions about all historical simulations. I'm of the school that says many things in history, particularly campaigns, would likely have very different results if we could rerun them for real.

(in reply to No idea)
Post #: 40
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/3/2016 5:50:47 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
if you really want t make this type of game a simulation, you need to look to DC:B, where mechanics are added that simulate command and control difficulties and operational constraints. I.e Soviet paralysis and NO moving units between Army groups, or even operating outside their assigned sector. Even then, it's hard to simulate:

1. Real lack of clarity about the final outcome
2. Political risk in abandoning cities
3. The player fearing that their failure to not hold this salient means they will be shot

In the end I like what DC:B has done though, because most games aren't designed to simulate one of the biggest concerns of theatre commanders--the politics of war, command, and national morale.

(in reply to RKhan)
Post #: 41
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/3/2016 6:44:45 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

if you really want t make this type of game a simulation, you need to look to DC:B, where mechanics are added that simulate command and control difficulties and operational constraints. I.e Soviet paralysis and NO moving units between Army groups, or even operating outside their assigned sector. Even then, it's hard to simulate:

1. Real lack of clarity about the final outcome
2. Political risk in abandoning cities
3. The player fearing that their failure to not hold this salient means they will be shot

In the end I like what DC:B has done though, because most games aren't designed to simulate one of the biggest concerns of theatre commanders--the politics of war, command, and national morale.


To the bitter end solves 2

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 42
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/3/2016 6:49:00 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RKhan

I agree with a lot that is said above about the powerlessness of the Soviets.

While the macro level result feels right it is also starting to feel repetitive and I'm a new player. I having been comparing my results to other players via the AARs and find the games very similar in macro level result, almost to the turn. I would prefer a game that allowed more variation in result so long as the variation is tied to my decisions, or my opponents.

It raises the old questions about all historical simulations. I'm of the school that says many things in history, particularly campaigns, would likely have very different results if we could rerun them for real.


Not sure what AAR's your looking at but your WRONG as most are.

There are all kinda of results that are not historical at all.

1. Leningrad falling.
2. Lvov pocket.
3. Moscow falling 41
4. Berlin falling late 44 early 45.
5. Moscow falling in 43 yes great AAR get off your butt and find it.
6. Berlin not falling in May 45

The list goes on and on.

Your full of **** and being completely dishonest.

Spend some time reading ALL the AAR's not just the ones that fit your Middle Earth BS




_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to RKhan)
Post #: 43
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/3/2016 8:12:55 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3473
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
these new guys don't know nuckin,

EDTI:

Removed a jovial ditty, it may have offended some :)

< Message edited by Michael T -- 2/3/2016 9:18:17 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 44
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/3/2016 9:30:18 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

these new guys don't know nuckin,

EDTI:

Removed a jovial ditty, it may have offended some :)


Why?









Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 45
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/3/2016 9:48:50 PM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 947
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
I'm offended!!! "nuckin" is not a word..

Charlie Law. I always win even when my opponents don't think so.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 46
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/3/2016 9:59:33 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:



To the bitter end solves 2


How? It might for a German player who needs to keep the Soviet player as far away from Berlin as possible. Maybe; however, as a Soviet player I will still gladly give the Germans space to preserve manpower and equipment. Apart from a few exceptions there isn't anything the Soviet player cannot survive without in 1941 or 1942 if he's at risk of encirclements and can prevent it by running away.


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 47
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 12:31:23 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1721
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Bitter End scenario points are based on turns of occupation so the longer each side holds certain cities the more VPs they get since its per turn.

Gives both sides more reason to fight over key places.

Looking forward to seeing the new patch and what changed once more to me the game is getting very balanced and was already very close to even before 1.08.05

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 48
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 6:59:56 AM   
RKhan


Posts: 325
Joined: 1/17/2016
From: My Secret Bunker
Status: offline
Pelton the troll, smacking down the noobs! Where the heck did middle-earth come in?

In the same vein: I'm glad you have one thing in life you're good at. Keep with it. I submit I have not spent more of my life playing WITE than some of the original participants spent in the war.


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 49
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 7:29:13 AM   
loki100


Posts: 5405
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: RKhan

Pelton the troll, smacking down the noobs! Where the heck did middle-earth come in?

In the same vein: I'm glad you have one thing in life you're good at. Keep with it. I submit I have not spent more of my life playing WITE than some of the original participants spent in the war.




well said

_____________________________


(in reply to RKhan)
Post #: 50
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 10:39:02 AM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1042
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Thanks, chaos45, for explaining "Bitter End" points. Didn't know and it makes that scenario attractive.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 51
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 1:06:18 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RKhan

Pelton the troll, smacking down the noobs! Where the heck did middle-earth come in?

In the same vein: I'm glad you have one thing in life you're good at. Keep with it. I submit I have not spent more of my life playing WITE than some of the original participants spent in the war.




Old 1v1=2v1 debate that went on for a good long time.

1v1=2v1 was from turn 1 to turn 211 at one time.

I coined a few phases over the years.

When pigs fly and Middle Earth rule set.

and I don't consider myself that good at WitE compared to the rest of my life

Hot happy wife and we put 3 kids though collage all doing great in their own lifes.

Been lucky as we are all happy and healthy to-date.

Allot of people here (if you spend a little time to get to know them) have very happy lifes outside of WitE ect.

This is simply a hobby and for 2by3 a labor of love, as many people work on game for free.


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to RKhan)
Post #: 52
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 3:32:05 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Bitter End scenario points are based on turns of occupation so the longer each side holds certain cities the more VPs they get since its per turn.

Gives both sides more reason to fight over key places.

Looking forward to seeing the new patch and what changed once more to me the game is getting very balanced and was already very close to even before 1.08.05


I'd have to look at the VP math of the scenario then to see wether clinging to say, Kiev, at the risk of encircling the entire front in 1941 really is worth putting as much effort as the Soviet's actually did.

Or if the scenario tuleset, in general, even minorly imparts the "not one step back" orders commanders on both sides were given. Maybe adding instant political "sudden deaths" could help with this. I.e. Hitler/Stalin are unsatisfied with a players performance on the defensive, and you are thus "replaced."

You'd have to do some work balancing the criteria though. Maybe the ratio of VP locations ceded to losses?

Edit

WiTE is the better, more fun game; however, DC:Bs attempt to integrate the political aspect of Theatre Command is genius. I wouldn't mind in future iterations of WiTE tried to model this, even in a small way.

< Message edited by Revthought -- 2/4/2016 4:38:48 PM >

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 53
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 8:06:11 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3473
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Sudden death is the way to go. There is such a scenario and the one I will be playing, with a sudden death HR level for 1941 as well (the official scenario only has SD conditions for 42 on).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 54
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 8:30:33 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 1947
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
I'd have to look at the VP math of the scenario then to see wether clinging to say, Kiev, at the risk of encircling the entire front in 1941 really is worth putting as much effort as the Soviet's actually did.

It's not worth the risk. If you hold Kiev for example for an extra two or three turns you get 80 or 120 extra VPs, but that's a drop in the ocean when you consider that the Germans are likely to occupy the city for something like two years or more. i.e. 4000+ VPs worth.
Stronger incentives are needed.

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 55
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 8:55:32 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3473
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

Stronger incentives are needed


Yep for sure. That's why I will be introducing SD for 41 in my games going forward. I argued for this in the official SD scenario but it fell on deaf ears.

EDIT: SD for both sides I might add. I detest just as much as the runaway by the Soviet the 'lets prepare for winter in September' by the German.

< Message edited by Michael T -- 2/4/2016 9:57:58 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 56
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 9:30:14 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

Stronger incentives are needed


Yep for sure. That's why I will be introducing SD for 41 in my games going forward. I argued for this in the official SD scenario but it fell on deaf ears.

EDIT: SD for both sides I might add. I detest just as much as the runaway by the Soviet the 'lets prepare for winter in September' by the German.

Been using your old SD house rules myself for the last two yrs.

No point in wasting everones time .

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 57
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/4/2016 10:43:07 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3473
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I am going to change them to a VP value in 1941 rather than the capture of Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov/Voronezh. Reason? In my last game as German my opponent gave up the whole country pretty much bar Moscow. He must have had 80% of the Soviet army within 100 miles of Moscow. It was impregnable. But I had overrun a huge chink of European Russia so he was crippled in manpower and industry losses and dying a slow death. So I will calculate the VP value of the line Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov/Voronezh. And whatever value that is, that will be my SD condition for Germany at end November 1941. I will also do another for a Soviet SD VP at end November 1941. Not sure on that line yet. But when I resume playing I refuse to have the possibility of the runaway being a viable strategy. You run you lose. Don't like it, don't play me.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 58
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/5/2016 2:00:46 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11217
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Since Bitter End VP were based on historical dates of conquest/reconquest I think every turn over historical dates matters. But don't hold your breath that BE is super balanced. It's not because that would require several playthroughs with stable (unchanging) base game. What BE will be good at, is for two players to play two games with switched sides (in paraller or one after the other). One with better final VP ratio (from both games) can consider himself a winner. And in this case holding a week or two longer than your opponent also matters.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 59
RE: Musing on 1942 - 2/5/2016 3:01:35 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am going to change them to a VP value in 1941 rather than the capture of Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov/Voronezh.
Reason? In my last game as German my opponent gave up the whole country pretty much bar Moscow.
He must have had 80% of the Soviet army within 100 miles of Moscow. It was impregnable.
But I had overrun a huge chink of European Russia so he was crippled in manpower and industry losses and dying a slow death.
So I will calculate the VP value of the line Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov/Voronezh. And whatever value that is,
that will be my SD condition for Germany at end November 1941. I will also do another for a Soviet SD VP at
end November 1941. Not sure on that line yet. But when I resume playing I refuse to have the possibility of
the runaway being a viable strategy. You run you lose. Don't like it, don't play me.


With tighter logistics/-1 FBD unit its hard to get much past Donet river bend/ Boguchar, Voronezh to Ryazan,
but can be done vs Good or poor Russian players.

only real difference is Moscow.

You can VP out using Sudden Death easly if someone does that now, but you win out in 42 instead of 41. Not sure you can come up with anything fair, games more about KOing people in 42 now.

April 1942
German Victory if victory points are >=242
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=191
April 1943
German Victory if victory points are >=255
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=188
April 1944
German Victory if victory points are >=210
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=150


My game vs Dave we played under VP260 and I was at 258 not taking Moscow, but I would have won in April 43 (257 VP's) and I believe April 44 (218 VP's).


But we used VP 260 game ended in draw

You can still VP out at 260 at any time during game.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/5/2016 4:18:28 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Musing on 1942 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.152