Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Von Beanie's idea on Stalin/Hitler directives is a good one. The political imperative is missing, and that might be a way to put it back in. Both players can shrug-off defeats, or ignore certain objectives at will, when in reality doing so might get you a "Call back to Moscow for consultations".

I'm sure every Soviet general knew what happened to Pavlov, and acted accordingly......

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

This is why I proposed "Hitler Directives" and "Stalin Directives," hidden to the opponent, that force the players to fight for certain computer-determined objectives, or lose significant victory points for each turn they fail (up to a set amount).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevans

Finally, the terrain, especially swamps, along the Dnepr, make the replication of the actual rate of advance by the Germans impossible to replicate against a competent defense (see first point). The AI in fact seems to be well programmed to do this. The whole Russian defense in '41 is infinitely better co-ordinated and rational than was the real case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso



Finally, what is really wrong about imbalance? Chess is an old game, and every chess player knows it is unbalanced: white has the upper hand. But in the chess forums you will not see “Black Players” requesting changes in the game of chess. Balance is obtained because a player plays 50% of the times with white, and 50% with black. Ideally PBEM games could be played in tandem, one after the other, (or simultaneously if it is the players' wish ). The player who holds Berlin during more turns, wins (or any other rule).

But..thinking about it...it is so funny seeing “Soviet” players arguing with “Axis” players….

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1jasonoz

How do i win as the German.

I am playing the 1941-45 campaign as the German, on Easy just to assess the game mechanics of the game.

By turn 8 i had taken Moscow, and pretty much had a line running north south from their with slight bends at the ends with the Soviets still holding Leningrad and a thin corridor to the east, and down south was fast approaching Rostov. 

Turn 11 Leningrad taken, the Crimea masked, Soviet forces really consist of nothing more than massive amounts of HQ, Airbases and either 0-0 or 1-1 units. Total Axis forces of about 5.5 million, and Soviets down to less than 3 million but still no Victory for the Germans.

Turn 15 Rostov taken, Crimea still masked with Romanian's, Axis forces including Finn's pretty much advanced to the main river line 15 hexes East of Moscow (River Volga?), and about 75% holding this line from the North to Gorky, down to opposite Stalingrad, then holding the Don all the way to Rostov, with pockets of soviet forces west of the line at the moment. Axis forces about 6 million men in total about 3000AFV's, Soviets only 2.6 million with less than 1800AFV's, and i would say 50% airbases, 20% HQ units and the rest either 0-0 or 1-1 ground units.  Current victory points at 268 for a 290 point decisive victory win, Germans are suffering supply issues as they have advanced past their rail limits, but still no victory.

How do i do it, win that is, how do i get the required 22 points to win decisivly? The Soviets are really nothing now except airbases, HQ units and 1000 man ground units of 0-0 or 1-1 with no combat ability to speak of. Do i take Stalingrad which may give me another 5 points, kill more soviet units, my units are worn out from the almost constant combats against 1-1 units who seem to suddenly appear in previously open steppes, to only rout away as soon as combat is carried out.

Do i bite the bullet, fortify the river line, reserve/refit my panzers/mech troops and sit out the winter/blizzard to allow my supply lines to catch up, and move South for the Oil and crimea in 42? Or should i do a final lunge and take the Crimea and/or Baku before the winter blizzard occurs in the hope of winning?

I really just want to know what else the German has to do to win after what i have seemingly done, captures his capital, main population areas, and destroyed over 4 million troops, 10,000 AFV's, 9000 aircraft and reduced him to less than 3 million men consisting of essential rabble!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso



Finally, what is really wrong about imbalance? Chess is an old game, and every chess player knows it is unbalanced: white has the upper hand. But in the chess forums you will not see “Black Players” requesting changes in the game of chess. Balance is obtained because a player plays 50% of the times with white, and 50% with black. Ideally PBEM games could be played in tandem, one after the other, (or simultaneously if it is the players' wish ). The player who holds Berlin during more turns, wins (or any other rule).

But..thinking about it...it is so funny seeing “Soviet” players arguing with “Axis” players….

Actually there's a cadre of master chess players, and that Bobby Fisher grand poobah was among them, who want chess setup to be randomized, because Chess is too static and predictable a game, where white is 'overpowered' due to first move advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

No, just saying that what I am currently seeing, is I see no way to even hold my line if he decides to come play seriously. I don't even like the date thing or the whole TOE changes based on real history even if I don't suffer near the losses the real German army suffered. I will steadily get weaker and weaker while he gets stronger and stronger. I know there are the purists out there, and I love the game, but I hate being penalized by history just because that really happened. History went out the window the moment I started the game.

Like I said above, waiting on Beta 3 and then a re-start to see how it works out with balancing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Personally....

I don't think it is a question of balance. Balance implies that both the Germans and the Soviets have the same capability of "winning" the game.

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

This isn't that kinda game.

My own opinion is the Axis player must realize that with this game, if he plays as good as the Germans did during the actual war... he will lose.

Now given all the "hindsight" we have concerning the conflict, the German player should be able to do better. In this game the question is... how much better?

That is the challenge that is presented for the Axis player. And that is why IMO, it is one super game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

Historically,
except for the turn south to Kiev, key German generals such as Mainstein in Lost Victories argue the Wehrmacht had a chance in 1941 except for Hitler's orders.
This also, if one agrees with Suvorov, was also due to Stalin placing the Soviet armies in the wrong posiitons in 1941 as he prepared to attack Germany, allowing them to be surrounded and destroyed by the Germans.
I therefore believe two things:
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.

In my game I could stop the Germans approacing Leningrad, them stop them approaching Moscow, allowing them only to advance in the South which could not be held, but could be retaken in the blizzards.
For me, this was too easy, and was not the historical reality.
Thoughts?
How close have people got to Leningrad?
Who has reached the suburbs of Moscow by the 10th of December 1941 as the Germans did?
Again balance.

2 - if this is not accepted in the standard scenario a survorov scenario should be created placing the Soviet forces in an extremely dangerous position, to give the germans a chance in the GC. If anyone is interested I would be willing to cooperate iwth someone to help them create this.

3 - If someone is willing, it would be fun as a historical possible variant that never happened, to create the suvorov variant, as one in which on June 15th, the Soviets attacked first.

Anyone interested in helpng create these?

Do other players believe Mainstein that the Germans did ever have a chance of winning in 1941?

All comments will be eagerly read.

Dr Matthew Buttsworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?

The problem is that gaming the system on the Soviet side results in ridiculous situations because the actual (mostly side/unintended) benefits to playing historically aren't modeled in the game, and thus the Soviet Union player doesn't have to deal with all those other factors that would have been an issue had they come to pass in history. For example, in history the stand and fight/counter-attack meant more time was allowed for supplies/materials/future recruits to be extracted.

In game terms you just don't see that because of the scale, but if you translate between the game and real life, the Soviet Union gets all the benefits of having delayed the German's (by retreating) while also keeping their troops because they weren't fighting, because the time span of a few days is rolled together in-game, but god awful powerful (relatively speaking) in real life. Sure it also means the Germans have a bit more freedom and cover more ground, but the disparity in advantage to the Soviet Union is tremendous.

Just take a few minutes to think of all the little things that the historical counterparts would have had to deal with, that you just don't worry about in-game.