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: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov)

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/3/2013 1:52:32 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Looks like this game has taken same track as WitP, but faster.

Flushing out late war bugs is only possible by H v H testing really. AI vs AI helps but is never a true stress test like players can do.

I helped with late beta testing( stress testing) of WoW and allot of issues were found. Then once game went gold the human factor really kicked in and it was a good 6 months before all the bugs/exploits were worked out.

Then balancing of rases/ classes in PvP took another full 12 months.

WoW had a huge budget and crew, most popular game ever and the time line was no different then WitP and WitE's.

I have yet to see or be part of any game thats any good/complete thats "done" in less then 18 months after release.

I am simply amazed that 2by3 has two of the all time best strategy games out there with such a small budget and crew.

Mybee in Middle Earth games are released 100% finished, but here on earth it takes at least 18 months.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 5/3/2013 1:56:46 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 61
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/3/2013 10:33:45 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
I am amazed that some of you have the time and energy to set up these AI vs AI and other sorts of tests, especially since WITE2 is supposed to be on the horizon. All I see happening now are a few dedicated vocal gamers flushing out bugs. the developers kindly reacting with patches/work arounds, only to find new bugs and more disequilibration. There is no way, no how I am going invest any more of my time in another year long campaign under these conditions. MT and Kamil aborted this game due to bugs, you aborted your game with MT....a patch is released to fix the Army HQ megafuel harvest which only MT found, but oops, the fix is not in the patch, so we will have to patch up again??? And oh btw, new Lost Battles are being published and to be marketed but the underlying engine is still in need of desperate repair to the point that players are abandoning current games in progress???

I did get my money's worth and am eagerly awaitng the second generation: WITW and WITE2.




(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 62
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/3/2013 11:40:48 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4257
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I hear you Mark but the fact is it is the best PC game on the subject. So I persist with it until something better comes along, ala WITE2.0.

I only get one night a week for my boardgaming fix, currently EFS. The rest of my gaming time is WITE, and has been so since its release. It's a frustrating process some times bit I still get more enjoyment from this game than any other PC game I have played.

41 was fine. I don't know why they introduced the morale rule when 41 was ok. If it were up to me I would simply leave 41 as it were and only initiate the *new* morale rule from 42 on. I am curious as to what they will come up with this time.

BTW, with repect, to those who can't see a problem with the *new* morale rule in 41, you simply don't know enough about the game and how it can snowball very quickly v human players who know how to exploit such things.

_____________________________


(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 63
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/3/2013 11:46:39 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 1549
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
MT, do you play any scenarios (H2H or vs AI) besides '41 GC?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 64
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/4/2013 12:06:48 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
I think one of the issues with the other Campaigns is that they have not been adjusted to account for the updated HQ command capacity rules; so you could find yourself spending APs upfront just to sort the mess out. But your are correct, maybe it would be better to start in '42.

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 65
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/4/2013 12:42:05 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4257
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I only play 41 CG HtH. But I would play the 42 CG if it were fixed. The new Lost battles game has a Stalingrad to Berlin CG, so I am very interested in that one as well.

_____________________________


(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 66
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/4/2013 1:16:28 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 5042
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
I think that all of the scenarios - original, DtD, and the new Lost Battles have all been reworked for the new rules. Version 1.07.07 should include the re-worked scenarios. Note that I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that it was reported as such to the play testers of Lost Battles.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 67
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/4/2013 8:07:00 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I would play the 42 CG if it were fixed.


In what sense do you mean "fixed"? The static setup? That could be easily edited. What else is it?

Playing the 1942 GC would be a major challenge for Axis players. Especially with the offensive bias the game naturally has. If one look through the OOBs of both sides, or even only the German side, it is pretty shocking. Hardly any AAR shows a German Army in such a trashed state, let alone any vs-AI games. It could make for some interesting, but probably desperate AARs...

The next thing I want to try in earnest is a 1943 GC start, but the first two tries the Russian attacked heavily all along the front, with predictable results. I might need to add extra AP to the start setup first.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 68
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/4/2013 9:37:26 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4257
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

In what sense do you mean "fixed"? The static setup? That could be easily edited


Yes that's the primary reason. Modified scenario's are no good to me as I only play server games. So that limits me to 'official' scenario's only.

But a sorted 42 CG would be great.

_____________________________


(in reply to janh)
Post #: 69
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/4/2013 1:07:35 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Maybe the H2H game should be played with Axis morale a1 105 - 110%

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 70
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/22/2013 10:33:11 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4257
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Not sure if Kamil is going to resume this AAR or not. But we are up to T5 in the restart and I tried my new opening (which sounds very similar to what Saper is doing). Any way I sent most of PzGp 2 south and trapped as much as I could north of Proskurov and drove as far east as possible. Then on T2 attacked out of Rumania with Germans sent south on T1 by rail. By T3 I was at Odessa, trapping many more troops than with the usual Lvov opening.

The opening puts a lot of pressure on the Soviets on T1 and T2. As they have to make some tough decisions.

The opening takes advantage of the triggers for the Southern Front (i.e. it remains fixed) while you get in to position with a reinforced AGS.

I don't have any screenies, prehaps Kamil does.


_____________________________


(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 71
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/23/2013 8:11:25 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 1971
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I've long been of the opinion that the Romanian 5th and 6th cavalry brigades should be moved away from the border at setup.An operational Southern rail line makes the delayed Lvov openings much more problematic for the Axis player.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 72
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/23/2013 8:58:28 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
T1 north & centre (German)


First turn of restarted game vs Michael.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 73
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/23/2013 9:00:52 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
T1 south (German)


New fancy opening in the south.

I massively underestimated it.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 74
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/23/2013 9:18:33 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
T1 north & centre (Soviet)

Textbook cowardice in north and centre.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 75
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/23/2013 9:23:18 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
T1 south (Soviet)


According to my estimation of movement points available to German units I should have been save .. but I forgotten about possibility to rail troops through Romania




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 76
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/24/2013 3:45:27 AM   
Shupov


Posts: 214
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
This opening is painfully similar to Saper's!

_____________________________

Two broken Tigers on fire in the night,
Flicker their souls to the wind...

Al Stewart, "Roads to Moscow"

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 77
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/26/2013 1:38:37 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
T2 north & centre (German)

Nothing terrible hasn't happened here, but due to tragedy in the south north and centre will have to be weakened what might prove disastrous.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shupov)
Post #: 78
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/26/2013 1:41:32 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
T2 south (German)


My plan to extract semi-encircled units end up in disaster. Many quality formations were committed and now there is nothing in the south that I can fight with.

That is the price I paid for forgetting about possibility of railing troops through Romania.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 79
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/26/2013 4:42:49 PM   
Lictuel

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 4/18/2013
Status: offline
Ouch that looks painful. So MT railed a whole panzer corps down there on turn 1? Not sure how much mp they would have if he railed them on turn 2.

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 80
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/26/2013 6:34:54 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
Ouch, that hurts. I recall someone arguing a year ago that going for the Lvov was forgoing bigger chances- this probably what that would look like.

Did Michael rail that Panzerkorps south? It didnt make it all the way via Rovno and Vinnitsa, right?

I hope your southern front will recover from this before Michael reaches for Kursk and Kharkov. Thumbs up! The south isn't good defensive terrain with the Djenpr breached usually easily anyway, but with AGN being still far from Pskov and apparently not committed to Leningrad, you have a big chance there. With LG held, the Wehrmacht's left flank would be in trouble by 43 latest...

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 81
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/26/2013 9:24:49 PM   
juret

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 10/17/2011
Status: offline
coool ags opening

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 82
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 12:55:41 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 5042
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
That is close to the Sapper opening, except his opening closes the pocket on turn 3 in Odessa without the Southwestern Front being activated before that and isolated without the ability to do anything about it.

(in reply to juret)
Post #: 83
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 1:22:10 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Again why do you people insist on fighting MT in the south.

Its 20+ disasters in the south and still people keep fighting forward?

The next person that fights MT should simply rush all forces to the front the first 4 turns then surrender, lol

Its like watching the same rerun of X-files over and over.

You could have made it easyer for MT, BUT I doubt it.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 84
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 2:49:53 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7222
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
And this is why the Soviets run, run, run away nowadays.

The Lvov opener continues to produce stupidities in ever more elaborate ways. All 4 border Fronts gone in 2 turns.

I flatly refuse to PBEM anymore because of this. It just defies my suspension of disbelief. That the game can go so badly awry from the getgo like this is pretty sad and I dearly hope this is the first thing that gets fixed up in 2.0. Everything else follows from this and is why it is impossible to get anything resembling a historical 1941 campaign in PBEM.





_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 85
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 5:18:10 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
Flavius they always ran. Well most of them anyway

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 86
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 7:02:25 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1250
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
"Why do people insist on fighting" -- remember that the Saper variant of the Lvov opening sees the entire of SW front encircled before it activates. It's a bit hard to run or rail out units that have zero movement points.

"And this is why the Soviets run, run, run away nowadays." -- and yet several people want to put additional restrictions stopping the Soviets from running in the first summer. We've already seen what happens when they don't run.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 87
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 9:06:43 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7222
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Ketza, no running is necessary if SW Front starts off against an unreinforced AGS. Lock that in, and you can start doing things with the VPs to prevent runaways.

As things presently stand the entire opening turn is ridiculous and leads to grossly ahistorical play in every PBEM game. It just keeps getting worse and worse as folks optimize the opening and the inevitable response to that is for Soviets to run more and more.

1941 is flat out broken for PBEM. Has been for a very long time. No game ever develops historically thanks to this preposterous dynamic driven by the first turn; everything just snowballs from there. None of this is believable to me, not the running, nor the opening. But there it is. The whole thing needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 88
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 9:49:29 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1250
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Ketza, no running is necessary if SW Front starts off against an unreinforced AGS. Lock that in, and you can start doing things with the VPs to prevent runaways.

As things presently stand the entire opening turn is ridiculous and leads to grossly ahistorical play in every PBEM game. It just keeps getting worse and worse as folks optimize the opening and the inevitable response to that is for Soviets to run more and more.

1941 is flat out broken for PBEM. Has been for a very long time. No game ever develops historically thanks to this preposterous dynamic driven by the first turn; everything just snowballs from there. None of this is believable to me, not the running, nor the opening. But there it is. The whole thing needs to be redesigned from the ground up.


I agree with what you're saying, including "1941 is flat out broken for PBEM" and "grossly ahistorical play", however in terms of exactly what needs fixing I think I'm a bit left field.

If you compare what really happened in the summer of 1941 vs what actually happens in 1941 in most PBEM games, then you'll find that the real Soviet losses in 1941 were actually much higher than those suffered by most players. In turn, the actual Soviet replacements and reinforcements were actually much higher than the game provides. I don't believe that the VP system needs fixing to solve this, but it is a fundamental change that needs making. Hear my argument for a moment if you will:

* Historically, the Soviets didn't run as much as most Sir Robinovsky (myself included) players do. If they did they would have had much lower losses in 1941 than they really did, probably in line with what most players achieve in the game.
* If the game produces a historical level of reinforcements in 1941 *and* most Soviet players run, then the game will be a runaway (excuse the pun) victory for the Soviets in 1943 or at the earliest 1944. Facing a 12+ million man army isn't going to be fun for the Germans.
* If the game enforces "stand and hold" orders on the Soviets and doesn't increase the level of reinforcements to the historical levels then the game will be a runaway victory for the Germans by end of 1942. Trying to mount a winter offensive with a 3.5 million man army isn't going to work, and trying to hold the Germans at bay in 1942 with a 4.5 million man army isn't going to be any fun either.
* In reality, the level of Soviet reinforcements provided to the front line by RVGK was a certain amount of "panic buying" on the part of the Soviets in 1941. This was because they lost unprecedented amounts of men and material on the front line in early summer, far higher than had been envisaged by Stavka or even by OKW. So they dug deep into the Soviet manpower pool and produced, at an enormous cost to the Soviet peacetime economy, a huge number of replacements.
* I put forwards the view that if the Soviet front line units had retreated in good order and not lost vast numbers of men, then RVGK would not have had to dig so deep into Soviet manpower as they did, and in order to retain some semblance of balance in the economy would not have done so. No nation would risk doing so if it didn't have to -- Germany didn't until towards the end when they had to, Britain didn't, Australia didn't, and neither (really) did the USA or Japan.

So, in theory, either tactic should work. The Russians should be able to run, maintain their original troops but at the cost of receiving lower replacements into the manpower pools, or stand and fight, losing their up-front army but then expect a much larger troop commitment from RVGK at the cost of the economy.

The problem with building that into the game system is that the game system at the moment is hard coded to produce the reverse -- if you stay and defend your front line manpower centres (assuming you're successful, perhaps against a weak German opponent) then you will produce vast numbers of reinforcements and quickly overwhelm the German army. Conversely, if your army is demolished and your manpower centres get hosed then you won't be able to produce the replacements to get back into the war.

In reality the USSR had vast numbers of manpower reserves, not just numbers living in cities such as Kiev, but the agricultural population (of what was still essentially an agrarian peasant economy) and the huge population of districts such as the Caucasus region which could have been called on even if Kiev and Moscow both fell, but would they have done so if they didn't have to?



Now I'm not an economist nor a professional war strategist (and certainly not a communist economist, there wouldn't be much in the way of paying jobs for that these days) so I haven't looked at the numbers in detail, but surely within the game system there is room for some balance either way.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 89
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 10:40:17 AM   
loki100


Posts: 5829
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Ketza, no running is necessary if SW Front starts off against an unreinforced AGS. Lock that in, and you can start doing things with the VPs to prevent runaways.

As things presently stand the entire opening turn is ridiculous and leads to grossly ahistorical play in every PBEM game. It just keeps getting worse and worse as folks optimize the opening and the inevitable response to that is for Soviets to run more and more.

1941 is flat out broken for PBEM. Has been for a very long time. No game ever develops historically thanks to this preposterous dynamic driven by the first turn; everything just snowballs from there. None of this is believable to me, not the running, nor the opening. But there it is. The whole thing needs to be redesigned from the ground up.


agree, in reality Kirponos managed an impressive fighting retreat back to Kiev that included a number of very bruising counterstrokes by all those powerful mech corps in the SW Front. The flaw was with Stalin's refusal to let SW Front abandon Kiev when it had been outflanked to the south.

I find looking at this new opening rather depressing. I know that any game has a tension between realism and players looking to win but this is taking pushing the rules to a limit. In many ways it would now be better to have a game start on say 25 June with the impact of the border battles already built in (and the German army groups committed), build onto that some sort of sliding scale of VP losses to force the Soviets to the real dilemna that faced Stavka that summer and the game comes back to a decent balance between realism and playing fun.

_____________________________


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.176