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: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 10:56:13 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

To me it boils down to math.

In order for me to risk Axis troops getting out of their entrenchments there has be some type of incentive. If that incentive does not involve creating situations where I can get 3-1 casualty ratios or better against Soviet troops then there is no point doing it because that is the average of casualties when Soviets attack me in my trenches.

Granted if I see opportunities to creat pockets I do so as long as I have a good feeling that the ratio will be maintained. The one time in my game against 76mm I neglected that rule my Panzer troops took a pounding. Now some of that was because of the 1-1 rule which is now gone so I will have to see if those ratios change when I go on the offensive again.

Now if there was some major strategic goal that could be obtained that would lower Soviet capabilities for the duration of the game I would weigh whether or not the casualties incurred in obtaining that goal would be worth the negative impact on Soviet forces. Once the Soviet has evacuated all of the factories there really is no way you can impact them other then taking manpower centers.

Once you obtain a certain level of manpower centers the cost of "reaching" for more would typically be way to high compared to the actual long term damage you would do to do the Soviet army. A 1943 full blown Axis offensive to take Moscow in my current 1943 game would probably cost me a million casualties and completely trash my Panzer troops. It is the only real manpower center in my reach left but it is surely not worth that effort.


The 2.6 to 1 rule has been tested by more then a few players.

Why attack during 42 if you cant pocket units?

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 61
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:00:01 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sticking with history, which we all know runnian players hate to do.

I am sorry that the I win button was taken away from the Red players, but the game needed to be based on history and not fairytales.

Ask Hoooper for a few pointers and stop cring for your I win button back.

Pelton


Pelton

You are trying to highjack this thread with inflammatory drivel. Since I started this thread, I will not be so kind as others who have already asked you to tone it down: please leave my house, you are no longer welcome.

Thanks,

Marquo


**** I am

I am an old school forumbane trooper.

I guess I have to convert Shadowbane talk to WiTe talk.

I am an old school forumbomber.

Only former Shadowbane players would get that joke.

Marquo check out the more smileys tab, heheheh


Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/21/2011 11:01:41 PM >

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 62
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:18:26 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
Whoa Pelton!

I was an old Asherons Call forum guy and later other games such as AOC, Warhammer online and Darkfall. I went by the name of Aztek which is where I got the name Ketza from.

Its hard for me to not revert to my old ways sometimes

_____________________________


(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 63
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:50:58 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Yes I played allot of AC before SB come out.

My guild TT "The Tenth" played AOE, Warhammer and Darkfall. Mainly SB then Darkfall.

MMO's are fun, but a uber time sink, heheh. Wife kinda put the brakes on my MMO days hehehe.

I simply used my name Pelton hehehe.

Pelton

Crap we are both

Sorry Marquo


< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/21/2011 11:53:33 PM >

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 64
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:54:52 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
I remember "the tenth". Small world. I was the Guild Leader of Harm.

Sorry Marquo!

< Message edited by Ketza -- 10/21/2011 11:56:34 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 65
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 12:07:06 AM   
Farfarer61

 

Posts: 698
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
SFC OP Rules! KBF forever! ( since we are exploring our past lives...)

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 66
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 6:14:27 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1621
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Typing this on an iPhone...

Stalingrad was SUCH an inefficient operation for the Soviets. They used much more force around the city than was necessary, took ferocious casualties, overestimated their logistics, underestimated the Germans quality and leadership.

All of this culminated in Mansteins February offensive that recaptured the initiative for the German.

That being said, 'useless' was Pelton's dramatic license and the adjective should not be taken as Gospel.

I realize it's not programmable at this point but it would be interesting to be able to spend APs, as Soviet, to gain an odds shift after the 42 date.

I do agree with Soviet player who said there is too little FOW in game.



< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 10/22/2011 6:16:57 AM >


_____________________________

Spring 2018-Playing: Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress; Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Bonhoeffer
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Holland'44, Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress

(in reply to Farfarer61)
Post #: 67
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 7:02:52 AM   
Oskkar

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Typing this on an iPhone...

Stalingrad was SUCH an inefficient operation for the Soviets. They used much more force around the city than was necessary, took ferocious casualties, overestimated their logistics, underestimated the Germans quality and leadership.



...but they won!! (a lot of hexes in game terms)

By the way, you could say practically the same about Seelow Heights. Many Soviet operations
were not the perfect examples of cost-efficiency....

quote:

That being said, 'useless' was Pelton's dramatic license and the adjective should not be taken as Gospel.


I add that there are many examples of "hexes" won by the Soviets in Spring 1943 in the Central and Northern portions of the front before Kursk. I suppose that the time limit of late summer 1943 is anothe "dramatic license".

But, wait, then the whole phrase was a dramatic license?

"The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 and that was only because the Germans through away their reserves on the stupid battle at Kursk"

Ahhh, the Kursk battle, that veritable turning point....

In any case, I must agree with you and concede that Pelton's words should not be taken as Gospel.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 68
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 10:29:04 AM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4279
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I realize it's not programmable at this point but it would be interesting to be able to spend APs, as Soviet, to gain an odds shift after the 42 date.



You actually can do that by assigning leaders and SU's (especially big artillery SU's), both things costing AP's. Creating on-map Arty units it's also a bit like that, only that it's most efficient in terms of AP's.

_____________________________

Wite2 - Lead Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 69
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 1:58:32 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 988
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

This post very nearly got a Green Button from me. How do these comments add anything constructive to the debate on the changes in the +1 rules?

You really need to re-consider the manner in which you make your points, as I think you are alienating people and causing threads where people want genuine discussion to get sidetracked.

I assume you don't do it on purpose, but if you are, you definitely get a green button.


+1.

_____________________________


(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 70
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 3:29:13 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Now into 1943 in my AI test (AI Axis on difficult), I now longer fear the Blizzard of '41, or anything for that matter, as the Axis in my game against TD. IMHO the Axis should rip into the Soviets in 1942 so as not to allow them to bloat too much. It is also important to push deep into Russia to create as long a trail as possible to Berlin. In 1943 the SU will still have serious problems on the offense - rip 'em up again; leaving only 1944 and '45 to be a real force to fear. But with forts, delays and a slow retreat to Berlin (coupled with appropriate use of armour), the Soviets will have a very hard time to win.

Maybe instead of a dichtomous win/lose situation of 2:1 yes/no, there needes to be more of an element of chance allowing for victory sometimes at < 2:1 and sometimes not at > 2:1.

Marquo

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 71
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 3:40:39 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
As I see it the German '42 summer offensive should be somehow like in 1941. I mean, the hordes facing them should be quite weak (à la 1941). Ok, there will be Guards units and some Corps but still, the Soviets should get some. In the real thing, the Red Army suffered tremendous losses in spring, summer 1942: 7 COMPLETE armies.

So as a Soviet, 1942 is not about offensives (absurd), not even about stopping the Germans. Slow them down: not in the whole front (because the Germans simply cannot afford another Blitzkrieg -that would be another absurd. And of course lose some dozens of divisions in the process (this IS on my agenda). Let's see if this is possible under 1.05.xx

I don't think you have to fear the Blizzard Massacres. After that you should still have the upper hand. At least that's what I would like to see.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 72
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 4:22:55 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2559
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

This post very nearly got a Green Button from me. How do these comments add anything constructive to the debate on the changes in the +1 rules?

You really need to re-consider the manner in which you make your points, as I think you are alienating people and causing threads where people want genuine discussion to get sidetracked.

I assume you don't do it on purpose, but if you are, you definitely get a green button.


+1.


+2

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 73
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 4:37:25 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1.05 made WiTe about 95% right on.



If the rabid Axis fanboy says, in RED LETTERS, that the game is now 95% right on I find that pretty alarming So do Ruskies still have any chance in the long run?

I was away from boards, just keeping my PBEM games on life support for quite a some time, so I don't yet have an opinion on the changes introduced in the meantime. Nowe I am back, started some new games, and I notice there were quite a few of them (changes). Not easy to keep track...

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 74
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 6:35:56 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4279
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1.05 made WiTe about 95% right on.



If the rabid Axis fanboy says, in RED LETTERS, that the game is now 95% right on I find that pretty alarming So do Ruskies still have any chance in the long run?

I was away from boards, just keeping my PBEM games on life support for quite a some time, so I don't yet have an opinion on the changes introduced in the meantime. Nowe I am back, started some new games, and I notice there were quite a few of them (changes). Not easy to keep track...


Well, if you make a cursory glance over most AAR's you'll see that by December 1941 Gebirgsjäger divisions are camped on the Elbruz summit, 6. Armee has already conquered Stalingrad and the Kremlin is being redecorated to suite the tastes of the General Governor of the "Ostmark", Hermann Göring.

That's about right, isn't it?

_____________________________

Wite2 - Lead Tester

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 75
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/22/2011 9:12:14 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

As I see it the German '42 summer offensive should be somehow like in 1941. I mean, the hordes facing them should be quite weak (à la 1941). Ok, there will be Guards units and some Corps but still, the Soviets should get some. In the real thing, the Red Army suffered tremendous losses in spring, summer 1942: 7 COMPLETE armies.

So as a Soviet, 1942 is not about offensives (absurd), not even about stopping the Germans. Slow them down: not in the whole front (because the Germans simply cannot afford another Blitzkrieg -that would be another absurd. And of course lose some dozens of divisions in the process (this IS on my agenda). Let's see if this is possible under 1.05.xx

I don't think you have to fear the Blizzard Massacres. After that you should still have the upper hand. At least that's what I would like to see.



The Russians lost much because of their ill-advised and poorly coordinated attack at Kharkov...if they had not been mauled so bad by their own premature offensive, Stalingrad would not have happened...so in a circular, strange way losing at Kharkov led to victory

Now, as to our game, you just sent me yet another mud turn; so by turn 12 we have had 3 muds turns...stop the Voodoo

Marquo

< Message edited by Marquo -- 10/22/2011 9:14:00 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 76
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/24/2011 7:01:58 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I think, but don't know, that the intention of removing the +1 was to force the SU player to plan the building of his army better than he has had to heretofore. Artillery definitely is the key, and in the pre-1.05 AARs that got even close to 1943, it was clear that the Soviet players were not building enough artillery units, but because of +1 they did not need the artillery because the rifle corps could stroll up and use +1 to gain the ground anyway. Anyone who has played the 1943 campaign with the historic artillery OOB knows the pain that +1 inflicts.


I agree with this. I'm working on putting together a guide for building the Soviet army along historical lines, and I've found that both in my own games and watching AARs, the Soviet army is typically very infantry heavy. I was surprised to find out how much on map armour and artillery is not being built in games. Support Unit armour and artillery is also being neglected, I think. Building a more historical Soviet army could have important impact on gameplay, IMHO.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 10/24/2011 7:06:40 PM >

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 77
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/24/2011 7:20:57 PM   
Richard III


Posts: 611
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
Assuming your trying to re- balance the Game OOB to something even close to Historical Accuracy, resulting in the Sov. player being able to do something besides running all the way to Moscow in 41, digging in ( and hope Pelton not playing his top Game ) it would be worthwhile to look at this.

Specifically the section on the Soviet Mech Corps in 22 June `41.......



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks

From that documented link:

"The next day, a single KV heavy tank managed to cut off at a crossroads in front of Raseinia, elements of the 6th Panzer Division which had established bridgeheads on the Dubysa. It stalled the division's advance for a *** full day *** while being attacked by a variety of antitank weapons, until it finally ran out of ammunition. " Note : In 6th. Paz Div. history it states they had to bring up a Flak 88mm to knock it out after 24 hours.

< Message edited by Richard III -- 10/24/2011 7:45:24 PM >

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 78
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/24/2011 7:46:53 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks

From that documented link:

"The next day, a single KV heavy tank managed to cut off at a crossroads in front of Raseinia, elements of the 6th Panzer Division which had established bridgeheads on the Dubysa. It stalled the division's advance for a *** full day *** while being attacked by a variety of antitank weapons, until it finally ran out of ammunition. " Note : In 6th. Paz Div. history it states they had to bring up a Flak 88mm to knock it out after 24 hours.


That's what that extra MP cost partly accounts for when tromping through enemy controlled hexes. Rear guard actions amongst other things -- or the occasional diehard KV-1 or KV-2 camped on a key road that halts an entire Panzer Division for a day.

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 79
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/24/2011 9:41:44 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks

From that documented link:

"The next day, a single KV heavy tank managed to cut off at a crossroads in front of Raseinia, elements of the 6th Panzer Division which had established bridgeheads on the Dubysa. It stalled the division's advance for a *** full day *** while being attacked by a variety of antitank weapons, until it finally ran out of ammunition. " Note : In 6th. Paz Div. history it states they had to bring up a Flak 88mm to knock it out after 24 hours.


That's what that extra MP cost partly accounts for when tromping through enemy controlled hexes. Rear guard actions amongst other things -- or the occasional diehard KV-1 or KV-2 camped on a key road that halts an entire Panzer Division for a day.


A Churchill heavy tank was considered capable of holding up an entire WP division for a day if it happened to break down in a good firing position.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 80
RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/24/2011 9:44:17 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
I might add, a KV required a gorilla to shift the gears.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 81
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.148