RE: 43 GC Soviet side

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: 43 GC Soviet side

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: 43 GC Soviet side

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/9/2011 9:30:14 PM

bevans

Posts: 109
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline

For what it is worth, the SU could almost certainly have captured Berlin in late '44 if they had so chosen. Instead, they decided to expand the Russian Empire by conquering Rumanian, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Balkans. Plus they had excellent seats to watch those pesky Polish freedom fighters dealt with, saving them the bother of having to do it later. They knew that if Germany surrendered with SE Europe unconquered, there would have been an immediate surrender to the Western Allies, with whom these governments were already talking.

Bob seems to think that the scenario is unbalanced which means that for the Axis, they will always do worse than historical. I have no opinion as I haven't played it, although it is one of the scenarios that definitely interests me. Germany might still be able to 'win' (i.e. lose less quickly) with some sort of potentially interesting game play. It might very well be that Bob did not choose the optimum approach; still I see very little data proving the inherent superiority of other approaches. There may be lots of ground to give up in '43 but the Germans have to stop and fight someone and I expect that 95%+ of German players would choose the Dnepr for that line. I am a little puzzled by the view expressed here that a bridgehead across the Dnepr is unimportant and not worth fighting for, because you are just going to lose anyway. So why play? Bob's strategy was to hold east of the Dnepr until the mud, then use that time to rebuild and dig in. Doesn't strike me as a pathetically flawed strategy. My preference would have been a more mobile defense but that is made really hard by the fact that the infantry is all static and you don't have enough CPs to free 'em up for that type of defense. And maybe that is how this scenario is unbalanced; the scenario forces a non-mobile defense which is doomed. If I ever do play this one, I'll certainly visit the editor first and make sure both sides have lots of CPs.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 31

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/9/2011 9:35:53 PM

Aditia

Posts: 573
Joined: 3/27/2011
Status: offline

The big problem with the Dnepr line is that it's so close to the starting front when the soviets have yet to start their offensive. Of course, after the Dnepr it is all open tank country

(in reply to bevans)

Post #: 32

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/9/2011 9:44:10 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

His "fight hard" Dnepr hex was one clear hex in the north between Vitebsk, Smolensk and Mogilev, it's a funny hex to be stubborn about, because it's not even a real bridgehead. Two hexes away is Smolensk landbridge, that I was about to push back anyway, with no river to hide behind. So I would approach that pointless hex in 2-3 turns anyway, from north or from the east (or both). No reason for him to retake it. I picked this battle as an example of battles he was too stubborn about, instead of just conceding and retreating, there were other similar battles too.

Taking and retaking hexes, under 7000 Soviet guns, is not something Germans should be doing in 43. Concede the battle, and retreat. And if you're hit with massive arty concentration, then retreat, no questions asked, before you're hit again in the next turn.

In the south Dnepr it's somewhat different, but basic premises are the same...

(in reply to Aditia)

Post #: 33

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/9/2011 9:51:31 PM

Ketza

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

His "fight hard" Dnepr hex was one clear hex in the north between Vitebsk, Smolensk and Mogilev, it's a funny hex to be stubborn about, because it's not even a real bridgehead. Two hexes away is Smolensk landbridge, that I was about to push back anyway, with no river to hide behind. So I would approach that pointless hex in 2-3 turns anyway, from north or from the east (or both). No reason for him to retake it. I picked this battle as an example of battles he was too stubborn about, instead of just conceding and retreating, there were other similar battles too.

Taking and retaking hexes, under 7000 Soviet guns, is not something Germans should be doing in 43. Concede the battle, and retreat. And if you're hit with massive arty concentration, then retreat, no questions asked, before you're hit again in the next turn.

In the south Dnepr it's somewhat different, but basic premises are the same...

That is an excellent point.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 34

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 1:49:25 AM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

I think there's probably two different questions at work when evaluating a scenario:

1) Is it historically balanced in that equally skilled players should generally achieve historical outcomes
2) Is it fun to play

I have a feeling that the problem with the 1943 player as an axis isn't so much that its imbalanced relative to history, but rather that playing 2 years of grinding defense with no real chance to counterattack and a "best case" outcome of holding Berlin past April of 1945 is no fun.

I abandoned my most recent 1942 game vs the AI in summer of 1943. I was sure I could have kept the Soviets out of germany proper into 1945, but I was also sure that there really wasn't anything else I could *do* with the game. I was going to get pushed back; it was just a matter of how far and how fast.

Wasn't fun.

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 35

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 1:54:20 AM

Oleg Mastruko

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

IGO UGO games are generally more fun for the attacker, by design. You only play the game when attacking. Otherwise you just move some counters in *expectation* what enemy might do. However once the enemy sees your defensive dispositions during his turn, in a IGO UGO game he will simply decide to strike somewhere else

I agree it can be frustrating and not fun in a "gaming way"

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 36

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 3:23:29 AM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

IGO UGO games are generally more fun for the attacker, by design. You only play the game when attacking. Otherwise you just move some counters in *expectation* what enemy might do. However once the enemy sees your defensive dispositions during his turn, in a IGO UGO game he will simply decide to strike somewhere else

I agree it can be frustrating and not fun in a "gaming way"

That's probably a better way of putting it than I managed.

I think the problem with 1943 is that, as the axis, when your turn comes up there really isn't much you can do except retreat a few hexes. The whole cadence of the game breaks down once the soviets reach critical mass and that's no fun for a soviet.

I've thought for a while that a radically ahistorical scenario which tried to keep the game better balanced (meaning the axis player has something to do on his turn other than retreat) longer would be better suited for PBEM use than the current historical scenarios.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 37

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 4:39:38 AM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Now if we look at the Soviet side of things - arty, AFV and aircraft numbers seem totally OK and very realistic for the kind of combat we were having.

Oleg, you gaining a million men in your OOB in the middle of what should be a costly summer campaign is not "totally OK and very realistic" it is ahistorical and unrealistic.

I also don't see how ~80-90 experience mobile units attacking ~50-60 experience Soviet units yet getting at best 2:1 or 3:1 casualty ratings means German tanks are too powerful. I'd be more inclined to say that the Germans are not causing enough casualties for their experience level, which makes counterattacking uneconomical and thus somewhat pointless as a strategy in the long term.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 4/10/2011 4:43:35 AM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 38

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 11:11:03 AM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevans

For what it is worth, the SU could almost certainly have captured Berlin in late '44 if they had so chosen. Instead, they decided to expand the Russian Empire by conquering Rumanian, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Balkans. Plus they had excellent seats to watch those pesky Polish freedom fighters dealt with, saving them the bother of having to do it later. They knew that if Germany surrendered with SE Europe unconquered, there would have been an immediate surrender to the Western Allies, with whom these governments were already talking.

Sorry to go OT, but this is and interesting point. But I wonder how accurate this is. If they really could have finished Germany in 44, I would have thought the prize of occupying all of Germany, rather than just the eastern zone, would have been enormous, far bigger than, say, occupying Bulgaria.

I think it's certainly true that the Soviets were keen to occupy the Eastern European countries as a 'buffer' between them and a hostile West, but at the expense of occupying the most powerful nation in Europe, and Russia's traditional tormentor?

As far as I understood it, Stalin more or less challenged Zhukov and Konev to get to Berlin as fast as possible, regardless of the losses involved.

(in reply to bevans)

Post #: 39

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 11:59:13 AM

Emx77

Posts: 419
Joined: 3/29/2004
From: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

Sorry to go OT, but this is and interesting point. But I wonder how accurate this is. If they really could have finished Germany in 44, I would have thought the prize of occupying all of Germany, rather than just the eastern zone, would have been enormous, far bigger than, say, occupying Bulgaria.

What Beavans wrote here was also mentioned in a History Channel documentary. Unfortunatelly I can't remember title of that documentary.

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 40

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 12:07:51 PM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

Sorry to go OT, but this is and interesting point. But I wonder how accurate this is. If they really could have finished Germany in 44, I would have thought the prize of occupying all of Germany, rather than just the eastern zone, would have been enormous, far bigger than, say, occupying Bulgaria.

What Beavans wrote here was also mentioned in a History Channel documentary. Unfortunatelly I can't remember title of that documentary.

Usually a good indication of inaccuracy!

(in reply to Emx77)

Post #: 41

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 1:42:49 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Oleg, you gaining a million men in your OOB in the middle of what should be a costly summer campaign is not "totally OK and very realistic" it is ahistorical and unrealistic.

I also don't see how ~80-90 experience mobile units attacking ~50-60 experience Soviet units yet getting at best 2:1 or 3:1 casualty ratings means German tanks are too powerful. I'd be more inclined to say that the Germans are not causing enough casualties for their experience level, which makes counterattacking uneconomical and thus somewhat pointless as a strategy in the long term.

You're doing some selective quoting Pieter. I said: "Arty, AFV and aircraft (I repeat arty, AFV and aircraft NOT infantry) numbers seem totally OK and very realistic for the kind of combat we were having. Infantry numbers are probably too high, I'd be first to admit it, probably need some tweaking, but it's too early to say conclusively."

So, yes, AGAIN, arty, AFV and aircraft numbers are OK to me. Infantry is too high, I would agree with that.

German counterattacking I won't comment. His counterattacks always succeed, though. I don't remember having one hold on his attack. And routings of my very good mech units are quite common. So please, let this not be the case of another classic German whine "I always win combats, but I want to win even easier and with smaller casualties".

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 42

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 2:06:26 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

You're doing some selective quoting Pieter. I said: "Arty, AFV and aircraft (I repeat arty, AFV and aircraft NOT infantry) numbers seem totally OK and very realistic for the kind of combat we were having. Infantry numbers are probably too high, I'd be first to admit it, probably need some tweaking, but it's too early to say conclusively."

But it isn't too early to say conclusively, you have an extra million men that you shouldn't have, and at least a large part of them will be removed.

quote:

German counterattacking I won't comment. His counterattacks always succeed, though. I don't remember having one hold on his attack. And routings of my very good mech units are quite common. So please, let this not be the case of another classic German whine "I always win combats, but I want to win even easier and with smaller casualties".

Of course, you already again start attributing statements to whining, whilst I'm trying to have an argument, so this debate might go south again soon. You won't hear me saying that the Germans should win every battle with low casualties. You will hear me saying that the Germans at best getting 3:1 casualties, still with high losses of their own, is not how it should be when you have a ~55 experience army. You say you want an accurate representation of the war in the east: the current German casualties for successful attacks are not an accurate representation of the war in the east, plain and simple.

Your units routing is in many cases simply due to your choice to place 3 unit stacks behind your spearhead, so your units will rout.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 43

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 6:25:31 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Of course, you already again start attributing statements to whining, whilst I'm trying to have an argument, so this debate might go south again soon.

The debates with you are quite surreal, that's why they "go south" as you say. You're the beta tester and yet you seem to do your best to kill the enjoyment other people have, do your best for people to STOP playing, in other words, do things that I cannot explain and that go against normal beta team behavior.

Lets leave the numbers, analyses, hair splitting, disagreements about combat results or manpower levels, for a moment.... just tell me, as a beta tester or fan of the game, what would you suggest ME to do? It appears that I can either:

a) overanalyse everything, whine, complain and never play the game, always waiting for the next version
b) PLAY

I consciously chose b), I consciously chose to reduce my complaints and over-analyses, and enjoy the damn product. I was truely hoping Bob follows the same logic for this particular game, but apparently not - the "analysis virus" overtook him and he abandoned the game - not only the game, but testing and the community altogether (overreaction, anyone?).

I am not against analysing numbers and improving scenarios, yes, lets do this by all means! However for me tweaking the product does not mean I have to stop playing. I played all thru the bugs other players considered "cataclysmic" (I pushed two games, one as German one as Soviet, though so called armaments bug and never said a word). After everything strange I've seen in 41GC scenarios, this one seems absolutely GREAT by comparison.

I never quit a game, I have one "on hold" but I didn't quit. I surrendered my game to Emir because it was quite simply utterly lost. I haven't seen a bug so big that would make me abandon a PBEM, and I've seen them all. Compared to some other really big bugs I've played through, 43GC is totally playable and very enjoyable.

I think it is ridicolous that we have this big and important game, and the community chooses to waste its time in THIS, instead of playing, and the games rarely go beyond the turn 20 because someone loses interest, is a bad loser, of finds something to complain about. Oh, and there are beta testers (of all people!) to help quitters find good reasons to stop.

That, to me, is quite bizarre.

I asked Bob the same question: what does he suggest me to do? - he didn't answer (yet), even though he is still pretty talkative in our e-mails.

I suggest you keep your work in improving the scenarios and the game, but otherwise leave us, regular players, to enjoy the game if we can, for at least 30 turns, uninterrupted. Is that possible? I doubt it. I am doing my BEST and still have only one PBEM advancing beyond turn 30 (my game with ACR, who is GREAT opponent is at turn 46 - a world record maybe)

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 44

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 7:21:46 PM

Emx77

Posts: 419
Joined: 3/29/2004
From: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Status: offline

After I finished my game with Oleg, I stopped playing WitE for couple of reasons, most important one - work overload. Also, I thought it wouldn't be bad to stop as there is patch 1.04 coming. Every day since then I visit forum and, as work pressure is starting to decrease, I am actually more far from playing it again then before two months.

It is very demoralized to find out that, beside GC41, GC43 also need significant tweaking, plus players quiting too often and to early, beta testers almost saying not to play game in this state etc. If I remember correctly, after relase, top priority was improvement of air model. Does anybody talk about air model now? I am very sad to say this but It seems that is best to put WitE on hold for another couple of months and play something else more enjoyble. The last think that anyone wants is to invest X hours into scenario which opponent will abandon for whatever reason.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 45

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/10/2011 11:19:07 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

You're the beta tester and yet you seem to do your best to kill the enjoyment other people have, do your best for people to STOP playing, in other words, do things that I cannot explain and that go against normal beta team behavior.

I am indeed the beta tester, which makes me very different from you. You see something you don't like, don't investigate what could possibly cause it or check how justifiable your claims are, but just jump on the forum and start yelling. It is my job, by that NDA you're saying we're all breaking by giving some information about the "behind the scenes" processes, to check results and analyse. Just like it is/was Bob's.

It would be a fine test for your honesty if you could just admit that you're insulting beta testers, because you did it again in your last post. You're insulting Bob. You don't know much about him, you don't know how much time he spend on testing, but you make your issues with him public and now you say he's overreacting.

The most telling part of your post is that when you quit a game way before the campaign end date, that's perfectly legitimate, because your own reasons always make sense. When Bob does so, he's whining and overreacting. That's a main theme with what and how you post: your own observations are always correct, even if they're not backed by any actual evidence.

quote:

It is very demoralized to find out that, beside GC41, GC43 also need significant tweaking, plus players quiting too often and to early, beta testers almost saying not to play game in this state etc. If I remember correctly, after relase, top priority was improvement of air model. Does anybody talk about air model now? I am very sad to say this but It seems that is best to put WitE on hold for another couple of months and play something else more enjoyble. The last think that anyone wants is to invest X hours into scenario which opponent will abandon for whatever reason.

For starters: it's a monster game, the quirks take a long time to iron out. WitP took several years AND another commercial release to get where it's at now. The release of WitE was just several months ago and, in my what you could call biased opinion, is in a better shape than it was in at release.

Just because you're not talking about the air model doesn't mean we're not. Like I said: you as the public don't know what we testers are doing until we tell you. You can only make assumptions, and assumptions are by their nature less accurate than facts. Pavel has been working on many things, he's spending a lot of time on fixing bugs and major changes (such as an overhaul of the air system) take a long time. The engine also has its limits, so maybe like with WitP another, different release is necessary to change the engine a bit and get more out of it. I don't know, I can only say that we're doing our best to improve the product.

If you don't find WitE enjoyable: that's your opinion, but not mine as you can understand. If you want to stop playing WitE until issues you feel are crucial are fixed, that again is your opinion and choice. I can only say that many of the problems we're facing don't have easy answers or a quick possible fix. Editing manpower values is easy, changing the air system or the ground combat system to a system that produces different results is not.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Emx77)

Post #: 46

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 12:09:42 AM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
It would be a fine test for your honesty if you could just admit that you're insulting beta testers, because you did it again in your last post. You're insulting Bob. You don't know much about him, you don't know how much time he spend on testing, but you make your issues with him public and now you say he's overreacting.

here we go again, The Pieter Syndrome.... your problems with reading and understanding plain English.... I don't have anything against Bob, my episode with him ended the moment he sent me his long mails with apologies. I mean, I was disappointed and I don't understand why would he abandon the game or surrender, but it's his decision. I don't understand why people eat frogs or support some football club or deity but it's their thing, and I don't care. I have nothing against him. We still talk via e-mail.

Plus, I keep confidential about lots of stuff he said in the emails and it will remain so. Don't hide your own insanity behind some imaginary Oleg-Bob quarrel. Do as I do: just leave him out of this.

So I went looking for a replacement player and THAT is where the problems started (read my first post in this very thread)

I could not understand your and Keke's and some other guy's reaction to all that. I would not call my posts insulting, but if you want to use that term then fine. You are demoralising people, putting off not only potential customers, but also regular players. I do believe you also break the NDA, even though that's not my problem at all.

quote:

The most telling part of your post is that when you quit a game way before the campaign end date, that's perfectly legitimate, because your own reasons always make sense. When Bob does so, he's whining and overreacting.

It's OK to surrender the game if the situation is lost. Ending with "I surrender, you won, I congratulate" is perfectly honest way to end any game. When I am faced with unsaveable situation that's how I end my games: "I surrender, congrats"

Read again. Bob is overeacting because he left the beta team, the boards, the whole community... etc. That's why he's overreacting. As for the game... I don't think he lost (yet) but if he thinks so and wants to surrender - then fine. There is a difference between "I surrender" and "bugs killed my army boo hoo" (dog ate my homework).

BTW you skipped very simple question I asked you in the last post so I'll repeat: just tell me, as a beta tester or fan of the game, what would you suggest ME to do? It appears that I can either:

a) overanalyse everything, whine, complain and never play the game, always waiting for the next version
b) PLAY

I will add another question: in your opinion is there any GC scenario in the game CURRENTLY worth playing?

Answer those simple questions, so that we know where you stand, and leave the emotion-filled babbling and other people out of this.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 47

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 12:20:55 AM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic
It is very demoralized to find out that, beside GC41, GC43 also need significant tweaking, plus players quiting too often and to early, beta testers almost saying not to play game in this state etc. The last think that anyone wants is to invest X hours into scenario which opponent will abandon for whatever reason.

Emir, THAT is exactly the result of Pieter's campaign

That's what I am talking about.

He's a beta tester, he knows how broken this game and every individual scenario is, and, hey, why do we idiots even play it?

I would be OK with that opinion but he's scaring away potential PBEM opponents for me, plus making people abandon games.....

(in reply to Emx77)

Post #: 48

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 1:08:53 AM

Emx77

Posts: 419
Joined: 3/29/2004
From: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Status: offline

Oleg, don't be too harsh to Pieter. At least he's honest about GC43 issues. I don't know what is NDA, but I know that it would be even worse if they just cover up game breaking issues (if they are game breaking issues after all. We have opinions of two-three beta testers that they are).

Pieter, and even earlier Bob in his AAR, acknowledge problems, and trying to solve it. Unfortunatelly it will take some time and that's why I think it's maybe better to wait at least next patch before starting new game.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 49

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 2:11:37 AM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

I sort of have to agree with Oleg on this one.

I don't accept that you have to be a beta tester to have a valid opinion as to the nature of the game.
I don't accept that you have to be a beta tester to void an opinion (valid or otherwise) as to the nature of the game.
I don't think its good practice for the beta team to be dismissive of the feedback of actual players.
I don't accept that the game is unplayable in its present state.

I can't actually see why there's such a large subset of the community that seems inclined to jump down his throat every time he posts either. Perhaps he's upsetting sacred cows, but that's hardly a reason from what I can see.

(in reply to Emx77)

Post #: 50

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 9:53:07 AM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

here we go again, The Pieter Syndrome.... your problems with reading and understanding plain English.... I don't have anything against Bob, my episode with him ended the moment he sent me his long mails with apologies. I mean, I was disappointed and I don't understand why would he abandon the game or surrender, but it's his decision. I don't understand why people eat frogs or support some football club or deity but it's their thing, and I don't care. I have nothing against him. We still talk via e-mail.

Plus, I keep confidential about lots of stuff he said in the emails and it will remain so. Don't hide your own insanity behind some imaginary Oleg-Bob quarrel. Do as I do: just leave him out of this.

So I went looking for a replacement player and THAT is where the problems started (read my first post in this very thread)

I could not understand your and Keke's and some other guy's reaction to all that. I would not call my posts insulting, but if you want to use that term then fine. You are demoralising people, putting off not only potential customers, but also regular players. I do believe you also break the NDA, even though that's not my problem at all.

You should have kept everything confidential if Bob did not intend to share it, it's why they're private e-mails after all. You not simply posting everything he said doesn't mean you posting some of the things he said is suddenly the correct thing to do.

The fact that you don't find any of your posts insulting, combined with your sentiments posted earlier that when you were calling people fanboys and bashing them you were just having a laugh means I don't have anything else to say about your posting style. You see what you do, or you don't. And you don't.

quote:

BTW you skipped very simple question

You have already given your answer, so it is essentially a rhetorical question. I have better things to do than reply to your preconceived debates or rhetorical questions.

quote:

He's a beta tester, he knows how broken this game and every individual scenario is, and, hey, why do we idiots even play it?

I would be OK with that opinion but he's scaring away potential PBEM opponents for me, plus making people abandon games.....

I made a promise at release that I'd be honest, and I am, unlike you who just says "hey, I didn't say that" when you notice someone doesn't like what you said.

If me being honest scares people away, than that is unfortunate but it's not something that troubles me. I'm Pieter the beta tester, not Pieter from marketing.

Also: who did I force to abandon their games?

You know, it would really be nice if you would try to prove any of the things you say. It would be rather refreshing actually, considering that you're currently championing the rhetorical tactic of making hollow statements and strawman arguments.

quote:

I don't know what is NDA

A non-disclosure agreement. According to Oleg's interpretation, that seems to mean I can't talk about the game at all after release. NDA's are generally relaxed post-release to the extent that people can talk about what's currently there, but not about what's in development if they've not been told to do so.

quote:

I don't accept that you have to be a beta tester to have a valid opinion as to the nature of the game.
I don't accept that you have to be a beta tester to void an opinion (valid or otherwise) as to the nature of the game.
I don't think its good practice for the beta team to be dismissive of the feedback of actual players.
I don't accept that the game is unplayable in its present state.

Oleg can post what he wants within the forum's limits. I'm not saying my opinion is the one true opinion, it is an opinion like Oleg's. What I'm saying, or at least trying to say is that Oleg doesn't offer an actual argument, backed by verifiable facts. He posts something and goes on to the next issue.

How can a statement like "the Germans are supermen in 1941" (just that statement, he rarely provides an example) be considered feedback that will help improve the game? Where is the actual indication of what is wrong?

I am dismissive of what Oleg posts because I don't see him as someone who is trying to improve the game, he just voices his opinion about whatever bugs him today.

My point about me being a beta tester was also more aimed at me knowing what we're working on and Oleg not having a clue about any of that, which is a hard fact no matter how you want to spin it.

The moment Oleg actually wants to prove anything, and gives detailed descriptions of what he sees as problems and why they're problems, and is also willing to prove that in a game, his opinions would probably reach out more to those currently improving the game. He's currently just a voice in the crowd, and for every time he says "the Germans are supermen", there are two or three people who feel they can't get to the historical summer/autumn 1941 lines of advance. If you want to see something changed, it's time to start dealing in facts and not opinions.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 51

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 8:55:29 PM

Aditia

Posts: 573
Joined: 3/27/2011
Status: offline

I have been rerereading BigA's AAR and something weird seems to have happened in his game.

Here is a screenshot of my production screen at the end of my turn 6. Unless I am reading this wrong this means I have a 100k squads ready to replace fallen comrades on the front (is this even historical?)

At turn 4, BigA had like zero rifle squads in the pool and about 50k men in the manpower pool and over 3 million armament points. He also disbanded a bunch of HQ's and airbases.
It's almost like he triggered some kind of routine in the engine to decide he doesn't need riflesquads, and actually recycle the armaments of the rifle squads and discharge the men in them from the Wehrmacht
You can see his screenshot at page of the following thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2767950&mpage=2 post #37[image][/image]

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 52

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 9:03:39 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aditia

I have been rerereading BigA's AAR and something weird seems to have happened in his game.

You probably better report this in the bug report subforum, if you think it is a bug or weirdness.

This game is still ongoing (Mynok took over) and I don't want to read Bob's old thread, or actually seeing what he did or planned...

(in reply to Aditia)

Post #: 53

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 10:17:03 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

"Rifle Squads" in the pool are not 12 men and all their equipment.

It's JUST their equipment, i.e. crated Mausers and MG-42s

You need trained men to Operate that equipment; that comes from the MANPOWER pool.

Bob had excess Armaments. His problem was lack of MANPOWER. Without Manpower, you can't use all the Rifle Squads in the pool.

Contrast that with Tarhunnas's 1942-45 AAR; he has plenty of Manpower in the pool, over 800K, just no Armaments at all. Not even Rifles. Nothing.

This is a complex game and like WITP will take many tweaks to make it right, but there are clearly some issues right now with mid-late German production.

_____________________________

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 54

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/11/2011 10:43:08 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

Aditia, those numbers definitely look bugged. Notice how extraordinarily high the Armaments pool is, while the Manpower pool is zero? I'm wondering if there is an overflow situation going on here.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 55

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/16/2011 10:20:06 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Oleg, no more udates?

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 56

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/16/2011 1:30:39 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Oleg, no more udates?

I have zero interest in writing the AAR and wasting time arguing with forum clowns, disgruntled beta testers, German fanbois and such.

I am simply playing the game and enjoying it. I think Mynok is updating his part of the game (AAR), so you can get the idea what is going on from there.

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 4/16/2011 1:32:17 PM >

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 57

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/16/2011 3:53:32 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

I do think it would be helpful to post at least some info from the Russian side of things in terms of manpower, losses, etc to help give some feedback on what is going on and help make the game better in the long run.

That is all purely optional of course and up to you.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 58

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/16/2011 4:18:33 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

Well we had 5 turns of mud which seemed to last forever, his pocket in the center hung on the one single hex but because of BRUTAL mud combat rules I could not remove Germans from that hex, and pocket remained open, he slowly evacuated units through the opening. (Funny, in the very last turn he played Bob commented that "if the next turn is mud pocket is screwed" - it turned out to be exactly the opposite, his pocket was actually SAVED, not screwed, by mud).

His infantry numbers rose during mud, not too much though, because I had some small 2-3 division pockets formed before mud, and after couple turns his units there became so weak I could eliminate them EVEN in mud, only after several rounds of combat though, but I was eager to incur some losses even during mud to keep his numbers down. Eliminating a 2-3 division pocket slowed down the rising of the German numbers. Still a mud is a bad bad news for Soviets. I need to destroy Germans and/or liberate territoty at a VERY fast rate in order to win. 5 turns of mud are 5 turns wasted, and this scenario is only 118 turns long.

We already played 21 turns, it's more than 1/6th of the scenario, and I haven't liberated nowehere near 1/6th of the way to Berlin... I really don't get where people get this idea scenario is too easy for Soviets? Look at the damn official victory conditions! Not your wet dreams etc.

The destruction of German infantry and AFVs I managed to achieve in the 14 turns may seem impressive, but with mud periods forcibly breaking the pace of destruction, and allowing him to regain strength, it's not going to be walk in the park.

His armor was especially quick to gather strength in mud (probably more through repairs than through new production). He started the scenario with 4.423 AFVs. At the end of turn 14 he had 2.234 operational AFVs (roughly 50% of starting numbers but Bob used them mercilessly it has to be said). After 5 turns of damned mud his AFV number rose to 4.162 (!!!) almost back to the starting number, thus making all my hard effort to kill 2.200 AFVs almost pointless. Damn mud.

Of course, during mud my AFV numbers rose as well, but it's kinda irrelevant. 14k starting, 11k before mud, then back to 13k AFVs.... I need to destroy HIS power in order to win. My own numbers are not that important (it is given that Soviets will have huge numerical superirority in the late war scenarios, but they have to translate that superiority into planting a Red Flag on the Reichstag and BEFORE historic date if possible, and that's going to be HARD).

Elsewhere, it's quite obvious that Mynok will play this differently than Bob. He will sacrifice territory in order to preserve his fighting stregth, which is exactly what I am afraid of. He is also very cautious about employment of his armor forces. We had two turns of snow after mud, and the fighting resumed. He carefully retreated in some sectors, reducing the fighting, and thus reducing his casualties (smart, exactly what I would recommend to the German player, maybe he read my posts

) He is preserving his armor, not completely, but certainly does not drive Panzers as hard as Bob did.

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 4/16/2011 4:20:21 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 59

RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/16/2011 4:42:45 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

I am not posting screenshots because they are not too interesting, the frontline in the north (Leningrad and Volkhov) didn't move from the start of the scenario. Then, between Vitebsk and Dnepr I made some progress but his strongest forces are here, I am seeing Panzer Grenadiers, three stacked, with defensive factors of 60+. Slow grind with lots of artillery will work here, but no spectacular breakthroughs that's for sure.

Then, from Mogilev all the way to Cherkassy frontline follows Dnepr. He retreated behind Dnepr without combat in some sectors, leaving pretty huge gaps for my infantry to catch up. In the Dnepropetrovsk-Zaporozhje sector I crossed Dnepr (even before mud) with huge forces, and most post-mud combat is taking place here, with huge losses and even some mini breakthroughs on my part. I am hex or two away from Krivoj Rog.

My armored forces are mostly sitting on the railheds some way back from the front. Fighting, in sectors where there is fighting (not retreating), is very hard. So hard that I have to attack with full stacks of 3x rifle corps, expanding all their MPs, and having to use mech units to occupy the empty hex (which I avoid doing like plague - mech forces are used for exploatation and deep thrusts, not this one-hex crap).

In sectors where he chose to retreat instead of fighting, because of mud and Mynok's retreats, there are huge gaps between my railheads and the front. Another reason why retreating is smart for German player.

So, in most sectors, mech forces are sitting on the railheads pretty far from the front, which is bad as they can't exploit a breakthrough if it happens. However, for as long as the front follows the Dnepr there will be no huge deep thrusts so I better use this time to rest and refit my armor and mech units.

That, in short, is the outline of war, late November 43, from the Soviet side. Eating away territory and/or strength from the Axis will be a big challenge in the future of this war.

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 4/16/2011 4:45:41 PM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 60