Re: Realism, vs History, vs Gamey! (the Statistical Advantages of Playing the Germans)

[lastkozak]

I am aware that there is much discussion regarding the three items I listed in the subject. Such is dependent upon the individual players' likes and dislikes. Myself, I like to be eclectic in gaming, sometimes the gamey things is ok, because you convince yourself the game is unbalanced anyway, and you want to kick the crap out of an arrogant opponent, who takes victory as an indication of their superiority over other players.

Sometimes, it isn't really gamey, just an option that was never chosen or perhaps available to be pursued historically, or over ruled by higher ups. Sometimes, following a Historical trend, just gives one the idea of how things got messed up, due to circumstances beyond the players control. Many of these types of acts in a game, could theoretically be placed as options.

One option, I would love to see, and I place this on the scenario Mod board, because I do not know enough how to create a scenario; and don't really have the time to figure it out; life gets in the way of life, and gaming gets in the way of conjugal obligations[:D]!

It has occurred to me that since the German Player gets to move first, and the Soviet player is already set up the same way each and every time, that the German player has much better intelligence than the Germans really had during the war; as the German player has seen the set up for the Soviets, and has repeated their first move many times. (I am pretty sure the Game Designers, did not know about that "Perfect German First Move", when they released the game).

Statistically this results in the German player developing a "Perfect First Turn Move", thus eventually everybody learns that move, and the Soviets start there turn in a situation that is far worse than the Soviets ever faced, and has nothing to do with the competence or skill of the German Player, just game mechanics and perfect Intelligence, very unhistorical and not realistic; such a first turn move is replicated by every German Player and every Soviet player is stuck having to face the same situation. Thereby the Soviet player is at a extreme disadvantage, from the very beginning.

Yet, if you started the game, with the Axis already part way into the USSR, in the positions the Germans were really in by June 26th, 1941, eventually the Soviets would have the first turn move advantage, by knowing where all the German Units start, and knowing which Soviet units can get out of being pocketed, and which ones cannot, and what to do to stop the Germans from completing a perfect encirclement. We then find ourselves in the same situation, where the Advantage falls to the Soviets, and the Germans are at a disadvantage from the beginning.

The other option is, that the Soviets get a 'pseudo redeployment move', where either so many units the Soviet player gets to redeploy, or move, change some things, but not all and not everything entirely. Thus this would create a game where the Germans cannot ever have perfect intelligence, and the Soviets can prevent this "Perfect First Turn Move" by German Players. As each Soviet player is different, what they do would be difficult for every German Player to predetermine. Even if the Soviets figure out a "perfect change deployment" move, this leaves the option for the Axis Player to find a counter "Perfect First Turn Move". Once there are several "perfect First Turn Moves for the Germans and "Perfect First Turn redeployment" for the Soviets, the result of the first turn will be more determined based upon skill, since nobody knows what the other player has done or will do.

Is this Historical? It could be argued as possible! Is this Gamey? MAYBE! Is this Realistic? Hmmm....I think so! There is a valid argument, since STAVKA did not all agree with the set up of the Soviet army, since they really were not sure if the Germans would invade or not; there was intel saying different things.

Well, if the Germans do not know for certain, how turn one will turn out, and the Soviets, do not know for certain, how turn one will turn out, then that sounds realistic, and thus more historically possible. Since every General and war gamer knows, "SHIT HAPPENS", but this gives both opponents control over the unhistorical predestined destruction of mass amounts of the Soviet Army. It would prevent a German Player using the "Perfect first turn move", something which cannot has anything to do with German Player skill.

I believe that such eliminates this advantage that the German Player presently has, which relies entirely on the Game Mechanics (Gamey First Move), and nothing very realistic about the first turn, once "The Perfect First Turn Move is learned for the German Player!"

So anybody out there that knows how to create scenarios, would love to try this one! For German Players that like to win, win and win, keep playing the original scenario! For Soviet and German Players out there, that would like a fighting chance to test there skill, without this predetermined German advantage? I think this would add another few years of interesting possibilities for this game; at least until WITE2 comes out!

[Great_Ajax]

The problem that you are going to run into is that you cannot start the game prior to 22 June 1941 and the first two turns are half-week turns. The only option is to start the game on 22 June but have the Soviets start first with reduced MPs. The German player would have to forfeit his first half-week turn with the extra benefits that go along with the first two turns (see 14.1.4 June 22, 1941 and Early War Movement Costs).

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: el hefe
The problem that you are going to run into is that you cannot start the game prior to 22 June 1941 and the first two turns are half-week turns. The only option is to start the game on 22 June but have the Soviets start first with reduced MPs. The German player would have to forfeit his first half-week turn with the extra benefits that go along with the first two turns (see 14.1.4 June 22, 1941 and Early War Movement Costs).

I am aware that there obviously would be difficulties in designing such a scenario; was not sure if it could be done with the scenario editor or not.

I am surprised as I did not expect one of the scenario designers for the game to comment back to me; thank you (wow, do you guys really offer service!)

And thank you for not telling me that I'm crazy, for putting such an idea forward!

[Great_Ajax]

No, you aren’t crazy. I wouldn’t mind trying it to see if it could work but I think there are too many hard coded aspects that cannot be worked around.

Trey

ORIGINAL: lastkozak

ORIGINAL: el hefe
The problem that you are going to run into is that you cannot start the game prior to 22 June 1941 and the first two turns are half-week turns. The only option is to start the game on 22 June but have the Soviets start first with reduced MPs. The German player would have to forfeit his first half-week turn with the extra benefits that go along with the first two turns (see 14.1.4 June 22, 1941 and Early War Movement Costs).

I am aware that there obviously would be difficulties in designing such a scenario; was not sure if it could be done with the scenario editor or not.

I am surprised as I did not expect one of the scenario designers for the game to comment back to me; thank you (wow, do you guys really offer service!)

And thank you for not telling me that I'm crazy, for putting such an idea forward!

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

No, you aren’t crazy. I wouldn’t mind trying it to see if it could work but I think there are too many hard coded aspects that cannot be worked around.

Trey

Well, thanks for reinforcing that. As you are a scenario designer, you would have much better idea than I, as to how the editor works. My computer programming hopes disappeared after I learned DOS on my XT, just before the switch to Windows 3.0!

I have attempted to look at the Editor, but it appears very intimidating. Having a Psych background and understanding the complexity of how neurons work, I do not delude myself into thinking in terms of 'tiny cardboard pieces and house rules'.

I can see numerous ways to approach the problem with the 'perfect first turn move', but that does not mean it is possible to implement them with the editor's design.

I would be tempted into seeing it like a human brain, thus finding a way to trick it, like a magician would. If you say turn one has to be on June 22, 1941, does the computer use that as a label only, and thus would respond to a Turn 0.9 on June 22, before Turn 1, on June 22?

Life was so much simpler with a hexagonal map and tiny cardboard pieces; although even playing solitaire, your opponent still cheated![:D]

Well, if you are tempted to see if such a scenario can be created, I am more than willing to test it!

Thanks for your response.

[Aufklaerungs]

I must admit, I was sorry to see that an option for initial setup by the players was not a feature of WitE when released. I think Turn One would be much more interesting if the players were responsible for deployment of units, restricting placement to the historical zones and military districts. Don't recall the rules for board games like Russian Campaign or Russian Front, but I believe the Soviet player placed his units first and the Axis player followed. Soviet player exercised his discretion to implement a defensive strategy and Axis player had to conceive his own offensive operational plan for turn one.

On a somewhat related note, lastkozak, if your background is clinical, I'd be curious to get your opinion regarding any causative risks or therapeutic benefits of gameplay for those of us suffering (or at risk) from OCD and avoidance issues.

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: SPNILHOB

I must admit, I was sorry to see that an option for initial setup by the players was not a feature of WitE when released. I think Turn One would be much more interesting if the players were responsible for deployment of units, restricting placement to the historical zones and military districts. Don't recall the rules for board games like Russian Campaign or Russian Front, but I believe the Soviet player placed his units first and the Axis player followed. Soviet player exercised his discretion to implement a defensive strategy and Axis player had to conceive his own offensive operational plans for turn one.

Well, thus far, that makes two of us! I do think following an entirely historical set up is a good idea, because everybody wants to know, can they do better? But it can get either boring, or as I pointed out, leaving the Germans in a very advantages position. Board war games were always best for such, as you could just agree for a free set up between players.

What you propose can be done, via the editor. But then the Germans just memorize another perfect move for a scenario that has different, but permanent soviet positions.

What I am suggesting is, a way so that the Soviets can change a few things, but not all, and a way to do it, so that the German Player cannot play the scenario alone, and learn the new Soviet set up, bc the Soviet player gets to change the set up a bit, just before the German turn and all done in fow. Just to create a variable that, forces the Germans to use their learned skill, and each 1st German turn, cannot be the same, bc the German does not know which soviet units were moved, or where, until their Panzers pull up against them, or recon planes reveal them.

As I see it, the Germans may find that they can make a pocket for sure, but not as big as before, or risk going to Turn two in hopes of pocketing a larger group of units, but risk losing a guaranteed kill with a smaller pocket. Further it could force the Germans to either drive deep, as Guderian had strongly proposed to Hitler, or following what Hitler wanted and pocket units in groups. I just feel the Germans have to have their perfect intelligence advantage removed, for a truly fair game.

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: SPNILHOB

On a somewhat related note, lastkozak, if your background is clinical, I'd be curious to get your opinion regarding any causative risks or therapeutic benefits of gameplay for those of us suffering (or at risk) from OCD and avoidance issues.

I can see how one can find war gaming addicting, and thus fear being obsessive about it. I am sure one could argue both benefits and risks, of playing war games, but such would be dependent upon individual personalities, and thus all the factors going into such, DNA mix, and unique environment during development.

I thus would not know what to say. Somebody with OCD, may wish to monitor their behaviours, and converse/report such to a professional, to assist them, so that the gaming does not become a problem behaviour. Equally so, I would suggest the same thing to somebody who is aware of or knows they tend to have avoidance issues and are concerned that their gaming is an avoidance behaviour in order to avoid dealing with said avoidance issues!

Most PhD professionals, would most likely compare the amount of time playing, with population norms, and amount of time in social interaction, also with population norms. Each person is unique, thus there will always be a variation in those tallies, but if that variation exceeds the statistical probability of the mean amount of variation of the population, then depending on how far an individual deviates from the mean variation of a population for a certain behaviour, would it be indicative of a possible problem, or the potential for one developing.

Only a professional in Human behaviour could answer such questions; but when in doubt, ask a GP about it, and if they think a person requires a consultation with an expert, I am sure they will suggest it.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Some really nice suggestions and would be nice if some form of alternate setup could be done in WITE 2.0. But with WITE 1.0 we are stuck with house rules, gentleman agreements to find a opponent of like mind. But I implore you to not get lost on just turn 1 as the deciding factor of who is going to win the match. Is an outstanding opening in the current GC the end all for the Soviets? No. But it will tip the scales towards Germany that 1st turn and that German player "must" have the skill to back up later turns after the 1st turn too. Otherwise you will have someone with a great 1st turn but mediocre play afterwards. In which case an Average/Expert Soviet player will win the game hands down. So in my opinion what each player does turns 2-10 and what the Soviets does to counter that is going to play more than the 1st turn imo.

In essense I believe the outstanding opening of the 1st turn isn't your cup of tea. I can understand that. But we just have to make due with what we have at the moment with house rules and gentleman agreements. At the Moment WITE 1.0 is the best damn game there is on the Russian front WW2 at this level. Of course that is my opinion too but I'm sure many will concur with it also.

*PS. I too used to play a ton of board games back in the day too(started in 1977) I can tell you even with the alternative setup in Russian Campaign you devastated the Russians the first turns.

[lastkozak]

It is difficult to compare board wargames to computer games with FOW. An alternate setup in a board game, does not eliminate the advantage of the players to see their opponents troops.

There were a couple board games that did attempt to create a FOW set up, and they did prove to be unique and exciting, though very time consuming. Alternately people would set up a three board tournament, with referees, each player having a sealed off area for their troop lay out, and a third board which only showed what the other player knew. These were also very time consuming, but most excellent, and when alternate set ups were done, proved much more balanced.

I did not write this post to criticize WITE1, and I am quite aware of WITE1's superiority in gaming; reminds me of the Europa series, and I suspect that it was influenced by the Europa series.

I do not believe in 'making due'. My original post queried as to whether anybody who knew the Scenario editor, knew if my proposal was doable. That said, Trey initially said he did not think so, but later indicated that he would like to try it, though clarifying his belief that it may not be so easy due to his suspicion that there were too many 'hard coded' aspects that prevent that (I presume he means the codes that dictate the games design itself). But that does not mean it is not possible. (we are limited only by our imagination)

However, raising this issue and discussing it, may in fact create a dialogue on this 'phenomenon', of German Advantage, and perfect intelligence. I believe my proposal could in fact counter that advantage, thus there is a possibility, that such may be included for WITE2, or perhaps Trey may at least raise it with the designers; no point in redesigning a game without contemplating what else are gamers thinking or options they wish they had.

Myself, I am intrigued, even playing the AI, if it meant that the game would make some changes in the initial deployment of the Soviets. That would totally change the first turn if one were German, and no first turn would ever be alike (such would be first, I believe, in wargaming, and could raise the bar in wargame design, and with it the designers and no doubt their remuneration).

I am surprised that German Players do not want that extra challenge, and enjoy the novelty of being in a similar situation the German generals were in, where they had a Good Idea of the Soviets' deployment, but knew that they did not know everything, and knew that all can go wrong if they over extended themselves. What would the Germans do if they lunge deep into the south with a corps, but turns out that there are several large Soviet Tank and mech corps, close enough, not to just cut their communications off, but strong enough to hit them hard enough they need a few turns to refit. I bet that would cause the german players to play a little bit more cautiously, and gain a better insight, in the various discussions of the German General Staff. Manstein, wanted to lunge deep, but it wasn't just Hitler who was concerned about the risks.

Myself, I am still not sure how long til WITE2 comes out. Other then a few mentions on this forum, I have seen nothing to indicate that the beta testing is even close! Myself, I do not want to wait 2 or 3 years, especially if there is a variation that can re-instill the enthusiasm for playing WITE1 in the mean time.

[RedLancer]

I think there is a compromise way that might work.

If there were a selection of initial setups (the more the better) that only change the Soviets. When the Soviet player sets up a PBEM game for his Axis opponent then he picks one - but doesn't say which. I'm not sure when you get the turn you can see the detail of the precise scenario. The key bit would be to make sure that it's difficult to see the differences although with recon you could even with FOW. The disadvantage is that given enough time each setup could be gamed, if you spot what you are up against, but it is an improvement.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: lastkozak


I do not believe in 'making due'. My original post queried as to whether anybody who knew the Scenario editor, knew if my proposal was doable. That said, Trey initially said he did not think so, but later indicated that he would like to try it, though clarifying his belief that it may not be so easy due to his suspicion that there were too many 'hard coded' aspects that prevent that (I presume he means the codes that dictate the games design itself). But that does not mean it is not possible. (we are limited only by our imagination)

I admire your enthusiasm here and hope your endeavors succeed since I would like to see such an event occur

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I think there is a compromise way that might work.

If there were a selection of initial setups (the more the better) that only change the Soviets. When the Soviet player sets up a PBEM game for his Axis opponent then he picks one - but doesn't say which. I'm not sure when you get the turn you can see the detail of the precise scenario. The key bit would be to make sure that it's difficult to see the differences although with recon you could even with FOW. The disadvantage is that given enough time each setup could be gamed, if you spot what you are up against, but it is an improvement.

I can see what you mean, of course one would need many many versions of the scenario. However, as you said, the more the better, would in fact force the Germans into creating a perfect 1st move for each one (statistically 15 would be the magic number). The key for the Soviets, is that they set something up, so recon always has the ability to show two or more setups to be similar, but the actual units are different, thus the Germans could never be sure that the unit they notice in a different spot is; a weak inf div? or a strong tank div.?

lastkozak

PS Red Lancer; interesting, I noticed you did not comment on the question I raised regarding waiting for WITE2![;)] For some people, you said absolutely nothing[&:], for me, you communicated enough[:D] that I reiterate my point for other WITE gamers; do not abandon WITE1 yet!

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I admire your enthusiasm here and hope your endeavors succeed since I would like to see such an event occur

It comes with the citizenship; enthusiasm, being hopeful and polite, is the only thing that keeps us Canadians on the map. We are taught from our first steps, Bald Eagles eat Beaver!

However, by the time we reach adulthood, we realize, Bald Eagles cannot swim, and will never know what we Beavers do, think and say in the privacy of our Lodges![:D]

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: lastkozak



I am surprised that German Players do not want that extra challenge, and enjoy the novelty of being in a similar situation the German generals were in, where they had a Good Idea of the Soviets' deployment, but knew that they did not know everything, and knew that all can go wrong if they over extended themselves. What would the Germans do if they lunge deep into the south with a corps, but turns out that there are several large Soviet Tank and mech corps, close enough, not to just cut their communications off, but strong enough to hit them hard enough they need a few turns to refit. I bet that would cause the german players to play a little bit more cautiously, and gain a better insight, in the various discussions of the German General Staff. Manstein, wanted to lunge deep, but it wasn't just Hitler who was concerned about the risks.

How do you know that German players don't want this extra challenge? I believe this is a generalization here categorizing all German players the same. I can't speak for other Germans but there is nothing wrong with a challenge and I invite such opportunities.

What you wrote in the rest of the paragraph I quoted above you have done a pretty good job of representing already in your current game here .tm.asp?m=4423057 If I may say so, "with excellent skill and enthusiasm". Now my question is, "are you being challenged"? If I answered this question I would say you have the upper hand here & you have had it since turn 1 and aren't being fully challenged to your full skill level against an opponent of like skill based on the AAR up to this day. I predict you will pull this game out as an easy win if you keep up your play on the current level you are operating at. So my question is, "are you being challenged here"?

[Bitburgerdraft]

There will always be two types of players. One's that like history and want a fun game that roughly simulates plausible outcomes, and one's that want a competitive game, realism being second. Launching the first turn surprise air attack from airfields 150 miles behind enemy lines for example, while impressive, may not be everyone's cup of tea. Lastkozak has made an excellant proposal as to how to possibly accommodate one line of thinking and i suspect that many players would be interested in what he has proposed. Somehow that has been turned into, it's not the game, your opponent (me) sucks. nice

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: Bitburgerdraft

There will always be two types of players. One's that like history and want a fun game that roughly simulates plausible outcomes, and one's that want a competitive game, realism being second. Launching the first turn surprise air attack from airfields 150 miles behind enemy lines for example, while impressive, may not be everyone's cup of tea. Lastkozak has made an excellant proposal as to how to possibly accommodate one line of thinking and i suspect that many players would be interested in what he has proposed. Somehow that has been turned into, it's not the game, your opponent (me) sucks. nice

In Reply to Bitburger!

To reiterate: "enthusiasm, being hopeful and polite, is the only thing that keeps us Canadians on the map. We are taught from our first steps, Bald Eagles eat Beaver!

However, by the time we reach adulthood, we realize, Bald Eagles cannot swim, and will never know what we Beavers do, think and say in the privacy of our Lodges!"[;)]

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Bitburgerdraft

There will always be two types of players. One's that like history and want a fun game that roughly simulates plausible outcomes, and one's that want a competitive game, realism being second. Launching the first turn surprise air attack from airfields 150 miles behind enemy lines for example, while impressive, may not be everyone's cup of tea. Lastkozak has made an excellant proposal as to how to possibly accommodate one line of thinking and i suspect that many players would be interested in what he has proposed. Somehow that has been turned into, it's not the game, your opponent (me) sucks. nice

No one is stopping or demeaning what Lastkozak is pursuing. As for my statements above I stand by them that on a skill level Lastkozak is playing well and you will be hard pressed to pull out a victory if you continue to play as you do and Lastkozak plays the way he is currently. That is my prediction. If you take it as a "sucking" player comment that is not, nor has it been my intention. It is my intention to show that Lastkozak statements about a challenging game points both towards the Germans and the Soviets and we have to find our ground where we want to play to be challenged and hence my question which has yet to be answered. If he is being challenged then great. If you are being challenged, then great. Continue on because I was liking the AAR.

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

...It is my intention to show that Lastkozak statements about a challenging game(,) points both towards the Germans and the Soviets and we have to find our ground where we want to play to be challenged and hence my question which has yet to be answered.

Well in light of the direction and tone this topic has taken, from what I had hoped (A wargamers equivalent of a peer review/discussion, that perhaps may even be of some assistance to the designers). I am not inclined to answer the question, whether I feel challenged or not, anymore than I would answer a question about my satisfaction in conjugal activities.

As I stated in my original solicitation for an opponent, I wanted somebody who could make me sweat a bit, think out of the box etc.. It can be assumed that since I am only playing one game, that I probably am not the type to waste my time, and thus only my opponent will know if I am feeling challenged enough, based upon my continuation of our game.

I had an Aikido Master who often defended the new students, when those with higher cues, insisted that the new students were not at their level, and thus they did not want to practice with the new students. My Sensei pointed out to the higher cues, that they will never get their black belt, as they had not yet learned what Aikido actually is!