RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

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: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

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: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 11:31:49 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

Michael with current mindset of German players, May 42 seems too big to ask

Most quit before that.

Otherwise, I am really interested in how will my game vs Mynok play out. It will definitely be decided in the ruins of German cities, probably well into 45, one way or another. After that I may support the idea of "hold till June 45 to win" or not, but I'd like to see it firsthand....

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 61

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 11:36:33 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Be careful what you ask for, because I really see this idea of yours as going HEAVILY against Germans in the long run.

I am trying to be careful.
If my idea were hypothetically implemented in your particular game, if forts protected a number of hex-sides equal to Fort Level +1, then a level 2 fort protects 3 sides.

Serious question asked out of respect for your (and Mynok's) greater experience: how badly does that hurt the German in 1943/1944?

My extrapolated analysis is that this hurts the Soviet more than the German in 41/42, and is an even trade thereafter.

Level 3 forts protect 4 sides (and there are usually a lot of German level 3s from what I've seen).

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 6/13/2011 11:37:07 PM >

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 62

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:10:55 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Realistically it should be difficult for a Soviet player to lose the game.

The same can be said for the Allies in War in the Pacific Admirals Edition.

I think expecting to be able to play as the underdog and reach historical lines is abit strange.

Balancing the game to help achieve this is also not ideal.

Why play as the underdog and expect impressive results, when you must fully utilize a finely tuned yet small military to the maximum.

With all of histories disasters avoided and offensive and defensive strategies known, all what will happen is the German War machine will be overpowered quicker than in history.

If you have the guts to play as the underdog and be overpowered then fine.

Otherwise play the Soviets.

Other than that, go play something with equal sides, cos WitE sure ain't equal.

Ants vs Supermen then an unstoppable 10 million strong Soviet Army with Infantry Corps with XX as a defensive figure.

This game will never morph into anything different, no matter how much the game mechanics are discussed.

Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head Cookie.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but i really think peoples expectations are a bit out of touch with the historic situation. The Germans were never going to defeat the soviets in '41 or otherwise, and thus the game should be quite difficult for them.

For people who are interested in the Eastern Front realities, this game is fun, fun, fun. For people who are interested in a more balanced game, then i can see why it wouldn't be as much fun.

As Cookie said the game is not going to morph into anything different. But maybe adding a morale hit for loosing Moscow and having captured resources count for a bit more would help to give the Germans some more strategic choices.
Unlike Pelton i don't believe cities are just real estate that are not worth much, but it probably wouldn't hurt to ramp up their importance just a touch.

(in reply to cookie monster)

Post #: 63

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:37:57 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Realistically it should be difficult for a Soviet player to lose the game.

The same can be said for the Allies in War in the Pacific Admirals Edition.

I think expecting to be able to play as the underdog and reach historical lines is abit strange.

Balancing the game to help achieve this is also not ideal.

Why play as the underdog and expect impressive results, when you must fully utilize a finely tuned yet small military to the maximum.

With all of histories disasters avoided and offensive and defensive strategies known, all what will happen is the German War machine will be overpowered quicker than in history.

If you have the guts to play as the underdog and be overpowered then fine.

Otherwise play the Soviets.

Other than that, go play something with equal sides, cos WitE sure ain't equal.

Ants vs Supermen then an unstoppable 10 million strong Soviet Army with Infantry Corps with XX as a defensive figure.

This game will never morph into anything different, no matter how much the game mechanics are discussed.

Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head Cookie.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but i really think peoples expectations are a bit out of touch with the historic situation. The Germans were never going to defeat the soviets in '41 or otherwise, and thus the game should be quite difficult for them.

For people who are interested in the Eastern Front realities, this game is fun, fun, fun. For people who are interested in a more balanced game, then i can see why it wouldn't be as much fun.

As Cookie said the game is not going to morph into anything different. But maybe adding a morale hit for loosing Moscow and having captured resources count for a bit more would help to give the Germans some more strategic choices.
Unlike Pelton i don't believe cities are just real estate that are not worth much, but it probably wouldn't hurt to ramp up their importance just a touch.

Well, here's what I think of that outlook:
Brigades with 1,000 men and 5 tanks exert the same movement penalty on enemy units as a stack of 3 mechanized corps.

Forts protect in 360-degree arcs, and scale to fit aforementioned corps even when aforementioned brigade is the one that built it in 1 week.

You can't have it both damn ways. Is it realistic or is it contrived and abstracted? If it's the former, fix the unrealistic bullshit. If it's the latter, then the Germans get a chance to win in 42, and a chance at a decisive in 45.

So what I think of that outlook is that the hard-core history book readers want a game that validates the wasted reading time and useless knowledge they collected about the war in Russia, and they're more than happy to look past unrealistic mechanics because it suits their egotistical sense of superior knowledge of history.

_____________________________

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 64

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:47:37 AM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
For me it is not a question of morphing it into something different, the issue for me is that the historical 1942 situation and campaign will simply not happen in the game. The game works well for 1941, but the resulting Kursk-like situation all over the front in 1942 does not feel historical.

Wouldn't you need a historical 1941 for a historical 1942 to develop? I don't think the Germans would have been able to launch a second campaign season as successfully as they did if the Soviets didn't lose so many troops in 41 in the first place.

EDIT: I do think there's some merit to Tarhunnas' suggestion of major city losses causing the Soviet player's AP/turn to decrease. This would give some importance to actually defending specific geographic points by causing greater unit creation bottlenecks that the Soviet needs to undertake offensive operations.

< Message edited by gradenko_2000 -- 6/14/2011 12:55:49 AM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 65

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:48:54 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

Don't be an ass, Helio.

Do you really think studying history is a waste of time? If so i feel sorry for you.

As far as game mechanics i gave you a couple of suggestions that might make the German side more "Fun" as you call it. By the way i only play the German side.

I really don't see fort building as that much of a problem and it will cause the Germans grief down the road if it is nerfed like Oleg said.

You might wanna try being a little less reactionary.

Also you should change your sig. as it's obvious the part about respect is pure B.S. on your part.

< Message edited by Wild -- 6/14/2011 12:58:19 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 66

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:50:03 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

Double Post.

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 67

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 3:04:12 AM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Serious question asked out of respect for your (and Mynok's) greater experience: how badly does that hurt the German in 1943/1944?

My extrapolated analysis is that this hurts the Soviet more than the German in 41/42, and is an even trade thereafter.

Having been through a 42 campaign into 44 as the German, I can attest that limiting forts would be absolute murder for the German. It shouldn't necessarily be this way, but it is. Once the pounding starts, your units become ants unless in level 3-4 forts, and the war is a progression of retreats to these lines. If they are even harder to build than now, you will simply be running all the way to Berlin without stop...

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 68

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 3:12:51 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

And I can add that getting to level 3 forts is well nigh impossible with the pressure the Soviets can apply. It takes giving much ground up to buy time to dig and even then, unless you have enough grunts to man them, the Soviet artillery will devastate any area he brings them to bear. They are but speed bumps for me now, and I use them as best I can.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 69

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 5:37:39 AM

kirkgregerson

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

To me the two biggest issues are:

Forts not costing anything past level 1 or 2. (I really like the static mode idea to get to level 3 and beyond)

Ants in forts that cause as much casualties and expenditure of resources to dislodge as do larger units.

Ditto. Anybody that is honest with themselves and knows the game can't argue these two points. To me the second issue is not only a play balance issue, but something that makes WitE combat engine fall on it's face. IMO

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 70

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 5:53:41 AM

kirkgregerson

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

Don't be an ass, c.

Do you really think studying history is a waste of time? If so i feel sorry for you.

As far as game mechanics i gave you a couple of suggestions that might make the German side more "Fun" as you call it. By the way i only play the German side.

I really don't see fort building as that much of a problem and it will cause the Germans grief down the road if it is nerfed like Oleg said.

You might wanna try being a little less reactionary.

Also you should change your sig. as it's obvious the part about respect is pure B.S. on your part.

Once again Wild you show your true ignorance for the history of WWII and the east front conflict. It's almost sad that you have no clue that starting in 1941 there did exist opportunities/strategies for the German to defeat the Soviets. Granted some of those avenues the game does not allow (ex: better occupation policies - Ukraine case and point, winter prep, etc.). If you had ever read some of the top German generals memoirs you'd have been exposed to strategies in which the Germans had an opportunity to conquer the Soviet Union. Yes, 1941 was definitely the most crucial year to do it. To just split out some history of WHAT did happen is pure ignorance, since players are not recreating each and every mistake that nation made. What Helio is trying to say is that the historical parameters are just not quite right and favor the Soviets more than historically in the early war.

This is not a conversation about who won the war or how much the Germans were underdogs once the U.S entered. It's about making sure a game has sensible and realistic parameters for the time period it's trying to recreated. Playing both sides, I agree that the Soviets just have to save men and give ground. Say would you will, but to me it's much harder playing the axis since there's very little room for any mistakes.

BTW: one strategy for the Germans was to have the panzers race ahead of infantry in deep penetrations to key targets and to be supplied from air. This was nixed by Hilter as he wanted to use the mobile forces for classic battles of encirclement. Infantry type generals were still running the show in the German general staff.

< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 6/14/2011 5:54:47 AM >

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 71

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 6:59:59 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

Don't be an ass, c.

Do you really think studying history is a waste of time? If so i feel sorry for you.

As far as game mechanics i gave you a couple of suggestions that might make the German side more "Fun" as you call it. By the way i only play the German side.

I really don't see fort building as that much of a problem and it will cause the Germans grief down the road if it is nerfed like Oleg said.

You might wanna try being a little less reactionary.

Also you should change your sig. as it's obvious the part about respect is pure B.S. on your part.

Once again Wild you show your true ignorance for the history of WWII and the east front conflict. It's almost sad that you have no clue that starting in 1941 there did exist opportunities/strategies for the German to defeat the Soviets. Granted some of those avenues the game does not allow (ex: better occupation policies - Ukraine case and point, winter prep, etc.). If you had ever read some of the top German generals memoirs you'd have been exposed to strategies in which the Germans had an opportunity to conquer the Soviet Union. Yes, 1941 was definitely the most crucial year to do it. To just split out some history of WHAT did happen is pure ignorance, since players are not recreating each and every mistake that nation made. What Helio is trying to say is that the historical parameters are just not quite right and favor the Soviets more than historically in the early war.

This is not a conversation about who won the war or how much the Germans were underdogs once the U.S entered. It's about making sure a game has sensible and realistic parameters for the time period it's trying to recreated. Playing both sides, I agree that the Soviets just have to save men and give ground. Say would you will, but to me it's much harder playing the axis since there's very little room for any mistakes.

BTW: one strategy for the Germans was to have the panzers race ahead of infantry in deep penetrations to key targets and to be supplied from air. This was nixed by Hilter as he wanted to use the mobile forces for classic battles of encirclement. Infantry type generals were still running the show in the German general staff.

I don't know which is sadder Helios contempt for history or you thinking your the only one who knows it.

The game has "sensible and realistic parameters" , i don't know what it is that inspires that kind of arrogance to think you know better then all the people who have sunk thousands of hours developing this game.

I have already heard from two of you that means Ara is next.

(in reply to kirkgregerson)

Post #: 72

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 10:29:58 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Wild:

War in the East features extremely easy-to-exploit game mechanics that favor the Soviet Union far beyond what your blessed history books show was the real C&C issue for STAVKA in 1941/1942, making the game un-fun for 1942 and thereafter. That you can't grasp the breadth and scope of my criticism of poor game design is of no concern to me, personally.

_____________________________

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 73

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 10:36:30 AM

Chris10

Posts: 114
Joined: 6/7/2011
From: Germany,living in Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
Infantry type generals were still running the show in the German general staff.

@Kirk
Thats nowhere near the truth. Actually Hitler disempowered the OKH pretty early but did not tempered to much with operational/tactical decisions early in the war except a few very stupid decisions (not crushing Dunquereque pocket with Tanks) which on the long run backfired and wrecked havoc on german efforts but this is another story...

Whats important to know is that Hitler did not disturbed the operational plannings for Poland/France/Jugoslawia and Greece and these ended up all "mobile" campaigns where the Wehrmacht blitzed the enemy with armoured spearheads in no time.
Quite a few in the OKH in 42/43/44 did agree with Mannstein, Guderian, Rommel and other high commanders on the front that the way to win the war (not only) in the east was the mobile warfare where the Wehrmacht could use to full advantage their superior leadership, mobility, organization and the unrivaled cohesion of their units but Hitler was to much of a jerk and to limited by his mental problems and the shortcomings of his personality to take reasonable decisions and there where not enough "characters" in the OKH to make a stance against him (of course Hitler made sure to fill the OKH with spineless brownnoses so he had less to argue with them and those who opposed got dismissed sooner or later like Halder and von Brauchitsch before him). As well Zeitler who followed Halder as Chief of Staff in Sept.42 had massive arguments with Hitler afer the 6th Army got encircled and continued to have conflicts with him until mid 44 when he was discharged.

btw when Hilter ordered Heeresgroup south to split in A and B to take Stalingrad and Caucasus at the same time Halder was one of the few with the balls to oppose (July 23rd 42,Directive No45) but got belittled and ridiculed by Hitler.
At the same night Halder wrote in his diary:
"The continous subestimation of the enemys possibilites is taking grotesque forms and its becoming dangerous"
later he added:
"Hitlers decisions have stopped to have anything in common with military strategys. They are the product of a violent nature who follows momentary impulses, refusing limits and allowing that his primitive wishes are taking control of his actions"

As you can see the german OKH was very well aware of the discrepancy between Hitlers "wish objectives" and those objectives who could be achieved in reality with the available forces in an acceptable timeframe.

< Message edited by Chris10 -- 6/14/2011 2:16:25 PM >

(in reply to kirkgregerson)

Post #: 74

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 11:06:16 AM

Taipan61

Posts: 27
Joined: 5/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Be careful what you ask for, because I really see this idea of yours as going HEAVILY against Germans in the long run.

Why do the fort size capibilities have to be the same for both sides? Russian level 1 forts defend only one one side; German level 1 forts defend on two sides; This scales up as the fort levels increase.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 75

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 11:10:42 AM

herwin

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

Hitler believed his intervention during the winter of 1941/42 saved the German position in Russia. He may well have, but using the same approach failed later in the war when the Soviets had learned how to overcome it.

_____________________________

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 Chris10)

Post #: 76

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 11:15:09 AM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taipan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Be careful what you ask for, because I really see this idea of yours as going HEAVILY against Germans in the long run.

Why do the fort size capibilities have to be the same for both sides? Russian level 1 forts defend only one one side; German level 1 forts defend on two sides; This scales up as the fort levels increase.

What would happen if building a single fort level>1 in a hex required enough supply tonnage to run a Panzerkorps for a week of offensive operations?

_____________________________

(in reply to Taipan61)

Post #: 77

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 11:55:46 AM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taipan

Why do the fort size capibilities have to be the same for both sides? Russian level 1 forts defend only one one side; German level 1 forts defend on two sides; This scales up as the fort levels increase.

Now this is getting too ridicolous to comment seriously....

(in reply to Taipan61)

Post #: 78

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:00:41 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
Ditto. Anybody that is honest with themselves and knows the game can't argue these two points. To me the second issue is not only a play balance issue, but something that makes WitE combat engine fall on it's face. IMO

I can understand the concerns expressed by Heliodorus, you and others, I am just saying that messing with forts (making them less powerful in any way) will screw the Germans in the long run.

Anybody who thinks he can argue that, hasn't played the game beyond 42.

In the war taken as a whole, 41-45, it's the Germans who make the use of forts FAR more than the Soviets do. Since your concerns, valid or not, are motivated by the wish to "help" the Germans, I am merely saying nerfing forts is definitely not the way to help them. Whoever thinks that nerfing forts would help Germans is either very naive, or never even plans to play beyond 42.

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 6/14/2011 12:02:28 PM >

(in reply to kirkgregerson)

Post #: 79

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:07:54 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
Ditto. Anybody that is honest with themselves and knows the game can't argue these two points. To me the second issue is not only a play balance issue, but something that makes WitE combat engine fall on it's face. IMO

I can understand the concerns expressed by Heliodorus, you and others, I am just saying that messing with forts (making them less powerful in any way) will screw the Germans in the long run.

Anybody who thinks he can argue that, hasn't played the game beyond 42.

In the war taken as a whole, 41-45, it's the Germans who make the use of forts FAR more than the Soviets do. Since your concerns, valid or not, are motivated by the wish to "help" the Germans, I am merely saying nerfing forts is definitely not the way to help them. Whoever thinks that nerfing forts would help Germans is either very naive, or never even plans to play beyond 42.

What I (and some others I think) have been advocating is not reducing the effectiveness of forts, just the number of them that can be built and the thickness of fortified belts. I am not concerned about "helping" the Germans, I want to see a more or less historical 1942 campaign, and the game is not producing that at present.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 80

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:10:59 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Fair enough Oleg, but does everything have to be absolute in scale?
For example, at certain arbitrary time points, HQ units gain the ability to command more units.
Certain actions cost the Soviet more AP at early times than at later times.

Why couldn't fort-building scale over time, and why couldn't it scale differently for the Soviet than for the German. For example, someone on staff (I think it was Joel) said that Germans already build forts more quickly than Soviets.

So I'm not sure why you couldn't design something around such an issue. If not forts, I would consider something else. I still see hex-side facing forts is a rational way to go in terms of realism.

_____________________________

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 81

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:41:11 PM

Taipan61

Posts: 27
Joined: 5/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taipan

Why do the fort size capabilities have to be the same for both sides? Russian level 1 forts defend only one side; German level 1 forts defend on two sides; This scales up as the fort levels increase.

Now this is getting too ridicolous to comment seriously....

Geez, tough crowd.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and the rational way in which you dismissed the idea.

Why does everything to scale the same on both sides? There has to be a way of breaking down the WWI front line mentality that seems to appear in later games. Nurfing forts is not the answer. That much we agree on. Changing the mechanics of fort development/defence is needed to get rid of this three hex deep front line WWI crap which seems to infest every damn game. Saying there is no a problem with the current fort mechanics is just putting your head in the sand.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 82

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 12:52:43 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

"I will still be met by a Kursk-style defense from north to south that I have to batter my way through. And even if I do that and survive to level 4 there is no way to kill the enemy boss..."

Why batter through? In terms of VPs you are winning; so let the Soviets batter thorough instead and try to win. My view of the game: damage the Soviets as much as possible in 1941/1942 and penetrate as deep as possible - then stop and defend for the rest of the game. The Axis should win at the gates of Berlin on the last turn of the game.

Marquo

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 83

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 1:02:25 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

When I was part of the testing process, I feared that what we are seeing now would come to pass, in that we would have to get over the "Blizzard is broken" hurdle, to then be faced with the "axis can't break through 4 deep level 4 entrenchments in 1942" hurdle (although some axis players clearly can get through the 1942 defensive belts), before we even got anywhere close to the "how do the Axis players stay motivated to play through 1943-1945 without feeling they are totally overwhelmed and nothing they do makes a difference" hurdle. Any Axis player that has got beyond October 1944 in PBEM has my whole-hearted admiration.

Well, it only took 6 months to get over the "Blizzard is broken" hurdle. I am sure that from now on the ability to get over the other hurdles will be exponential, and I therefore look forward to playing a hurdle-free game next week, maybe?

With regard to the OP's original point, IMHO there is no single common denominator that is the root cause of the game's current issues i.e. entrenchments/facings, but rather a combination of factors will have to be adjusted to enable the game to remain fun for both sides for the 220 odd turns of the 1941 campaign, some of the recent test ideas such as "rule 3" look like strong moves in the right direction to achieve better balance.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 84

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 2:01:26 PM

Manstein63

Posts: 688
Joined: 6/30/2010
Status: offline

What about this for an idea limit the size of fortifications that can be built for example brigade & regiments can only build to a maximum of L2 fortifications if they go into static mode that can increase to L3 if they come out of static mode it drops back to L2. the same could apply for divisions & corps except they could have a fort level of L3 increasing to L4 if they go static & dropping back to L3 if the unit becomes mobile again. if you want to have a level 5 fort you must have a fortification unit in place & the hex must also be occupied by a division / corp in static mode otherwise it remains as a L3 fort untill the fort unit is removed. also it might be an idea to slightly increase the AP cost for fortifications that are not within lets say 2 hexes of a city.
Manstein63

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 85

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 2:54:03 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"I will still be met by a Kursk-style defense from north to south that I have to batter my way through. And even if I do that and survive to level 4 there is no way to kill the enemy boss..."

Why batter through? In terms of VPs you are winning; so let the Soviets batter thorough instead and try to win. My view of the game: damage the Soviets as much as possible in 1941/1942�and penetrate as deep as possible - then stop and defend for the rest of the game. The Axis should win�at the gates of Berlin on the last turn of the game.

Marquo�

I was jokingly putting the game in arcade terms. That does not mean I want to see the Germans regularly battering their way to absolute victory in 1942. What I really wanted to say was the second part of my post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I do think it is a problem that, given reasonably matched players, even if I do extremely well in 1941 as the German compared to the historical Germans, I am still faced with a situation in 1942 where there is no way I can replicate the advance to Stalingrad.

Since I wrote that I have somewhat embarrassingly broken through the Soviet lines in my 1942 campaign and is now merrily crossing the Don with the panzers in open country, but that is another matter...

Edit: Clarification: The campaign was started in 1941, but it is now in summer 1942.

< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 6/14/2011 3:02:27 PM >

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 86

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 2:56:12 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
Since I wrote that I have somewhat embarrassingly broken through the Soviet lines in my 1942 campaign and is now merrily crossing the Don with the panzers in open country, but that is another matter...

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 87

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 3:10:34 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

quote:

(although some axis players clearly can get through the 1942 defensive belts

QED!

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 88

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 4:43:29 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

(although some axis players clearly can get through the 1942 defensive belts

QED!

Good to see you back BigA!

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 89

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/14/2011 6:23:59 PM

saintsup

Posts: 133
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline

To put a personal experiment on the table.

I played and I'm playing an experienced wargamer but total WITE PBEM noob (he is a fast learner though ...) in 1.04, upgrading as patches came out.

I made a good 41 campain (more than 4 M SU losses, took Leningrad, Karkhov, ...).

I still was faced with a multi layer, 3+ fort level front at the beginning of fair weather in 42. I could'nt break the front in the point I decided to attack including massing pionners, artillery, best generals, full refited infantery armies and all my 4 refitted panzer armies.

Things I could have done better:
- there was not really a surprise about where I attacked. After careful examination, the rest of the front was almost as strong though (no weak points)
- I didn't attack in the snow turns

For me 41 (including blizzard) feels almost right with equal experienced player but I have the conviction that defensive capabilities of SU is too much in summer 42.

I understand that as I didn't burned out my troops attacking hopelessly, I will probably 'win' the game in 150 turns but I still feel 'cheated' in my fun factor of one more offensive campaign.

I'm not sure about the solutions though ...

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 90