Cities, Is there a problem?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Cities, Is there a problem?

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 >> Cities, Is there a problem?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 12:12:06 AM

Wild

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

Would like to get peoples feedback on cities.
It really bothers me that cities currently seem unimportant. I think their importance needs to be increased to force the Germans to fight for them and to force the soviets to try do defend them. Right now land doesn't count for much.

As i see it first we have to fix Heavy industry which should be your most important factories. I would then increase the importance of vehicles and other factories thereby forcing the Soviets to have to make choices about what he evacuates and to try to hold the cites as long as possible to evacuate more.

I would also make oil and resources have some greater importance to force players to fight over these resources.

Manpower distribution should be looked at as well as it seems right now you cannot hurt the Soviets much by capturing manpower.

Lastly it just seems like the game would be a lot more fun if there were important objectives to fight over other then just the destruction of ground forces.

Looking for others thoughts and ideas. Is this an area we can make better or not?

< Message edited by Wild -- 10/16/2011 12:13:25 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 12:33:01 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

How about a small drop in National Morale for each major city lost? How about a major drop for the loss of Moscow?

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 2

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 1:51:42 AM

governato

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

That seems like an excellent idea IMO. I am reading Vasily Grossman's "A Writer at War" and he reported at length how the morale of the SU troops had been affected by the loss of Orel and Kiev and how it suddenly improved after Stalingrad.
Another idea: when a large city is taken there could be a possibility for the Commander of the Army nearest to it to be fired. Same for the Front bearing the city's name.
That would add a realistic tension to the game. One wants the best commanders to be in charge of defending strategic objectives, but they would also be the most at risk in case of failure...again that would be quite historical.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 3

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 2:06:59 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

More than likely, it improved after Stalingrad due to the surrender of 6th Army as oppossed to a city they never lost.

I don't see why losing Moscow should give a morale loss. Not to a foreign enemy. (A civil war is a different story.)

The Soviet gov't wasn't there.

The center of power was wherever Stalin was.

(in reply to governato)

Post #: 4

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 2:22:41 AM

Wild

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

Keep the suggestions coming guys.

Does anyone feel the current layout of factories, oil and resources is a problem that needs to be addressed.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 5

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 2:51:30 AM

Peltonx

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

Its a big problem, very nice post.

The general problem with game now is that the Russian players can evac all the important prodution units and then just basicly run east.

1. Rail system is overrated.
2. Manpower can only be slightly dented. You can as the German capture, Leningrad, Moscow, Tula and the way south to Rostov and it only lowers the manpower output 10 to 15 k a turn. So instead of 120,000 a turn in manpower the overall is lowered to 105,000 for the loss of these huge manpower centers.
3. Hvy industry is totally meanless. So the Russian players exploit this to death by only evacing armerment pts and running east with the bulk of the red army.

At this time there is no reason for the red army to fight so they run east waiting until 43 before moving back to the west.

There needs to be atleast some kind of a VP system so we can get the Russians to do something other then evac and run the first 2 yrs.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/16/2011 2:52:00 AM >

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 6

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 3:00:47 AM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

How about a small drop in National Morale for each major city lost?�

Ah....a man who thinks like I do, but...National Morale is not morale per say... it has something to do with quality of training and such stuff like that. I looked back at some of my older posts but I can't find the explanation for 'National Morale' give by one of the testers.

_____________________________

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 7

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 3:42:20 AM

heliodorus04

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

One of the things I've noticed in the game recently is the importance of the morale thresholds for moving through enemy territory.

I like Larry's idea of small swings in national morale for certain places, but that can be a self-fulfilling problem though.�
Lose cities, lose morale > lose morale, lose battles > lose battles, lose cities, lose morale again.

Right now it might be too hard in the game for units to gain morale for victories.� Tying the possession of cities to increased chances of morale increases (rather than automatic, national morale for all your side) is a little more subtle of a bonus/penalty.� And LOSING cities wouldn't make it more likely you lose morale.

Obviously a calibrated set of victory points like the scenarios goes a long way to incentivizing holding the cities.
The cities are a problem, for certain.

_____________________________

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 CarnageINC)

Post #: 8

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 3:44:41 AM

Peltonx

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

Back in the day Tarhunnas had a good idea for a VP system that would have addressed these issues.

Mybee someone can get him to bring his idea back and someone can take a look at it.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 9

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 4:28:22 AM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

A VP system like the SSG series would work best. You get so many VPs holding these cities this long and then they increase as time goes by. Something has to be done to make population centers worth holding, otherwise a nations people will feel worthless and overall moral will plummet as it should but doesn't as things stand now.

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 10

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 5:52:40 AM

gingerbread

Posts: 2994
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Well, there is the manpower aspect. Current public AAR's show that in the south, it is not feasible in '41 to aim much east of Stalino due to RR conversion distance. So it is not to hazardous a guess that the next iteration of Axis plans for '41 will be to see just how many of the cities roughly on the line Leningrad-Moscow-Voronesh are in play. Greater Moscow area alone is 100+ MP.

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 11

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 7:13:19 AM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Morale already drops for an entire year for the Soviets to compensate for the damage the Germans did in the first year of war.

Cities already have VP's

Plenty of the testers are telling people on the posts that big population losses affect the Soviets later on in the game.

Historically, whether liked or not, after Kursk, the Germans got pushed back all the way to Berlin. A good German player (ie one who thinks about fighting the long war) should be able to do very well in '41 and '42, even '43 and probably hang on for a win.*

*I'm basing this on no evidence of '44 and '45 whatsoever, but with the new rules, I can't see a good German player not being between the Don and the Volga by the end of '42, and its a bloody long way to Berlin from there!

_____________________________

(in reply to gingerbread)

Post #: 12

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 8:58:32 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

While I agree that cities generally seem completely irrelevant in this game (other than as good defensive terrain), the problem with many of the proposed solutions is that they in essence force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes while allowing the Germans to avoid them. To avoid this, any incentives/requirements for the Sovs to defend West must be accompanied by incentives/requirements for the Germans to attack East (as in Stalingrad, etc.).

I also don't like the idea of losing cities being tied to automatic morale losses, as a major defeat can as often induce steely resolve as a reduced will to fight (OK, maybe not as often, but often enough); moreover, as Encircled points out the Sovs already suffer a morale drop for the overall pounding that they take in 1941.

I think the best way would be for the loss of certain places to have the potential to cause various problems, so that the Sovs would know that losing Moscow (for instance) could be "bad" but never really be sure how bad. For instance, maybe the Sov government would collapse (x%)? Maybe the Finns would decide to attack Lgrad (y%)? Maybe the Sovs would lose some morale (z%)? Maybe some good generals would be shot (xx%)?

For less important cities, my guess is that some kind of VP sistem would be best, but it seems like it would have to be very finely-tuned...in other words, if I lose Smolensk on turn 5 instead of turn 10, how much effect should it really have on whether I lose the campaign game? While appropriate VP levels could probably be figured out eventually, it could be rather complicated and would certainly be a source of endless argument...

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 13

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 10:02:28 AM

Empire101

Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While I agree that cities generally seem completely irrelevant in this game (other than as good defensive terrain), the problem with many of the proposed solutions is that they in essence force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes while allowing the Germans to avoid them. To avoid this, any incentives/requirements for the Sovs to defend West must be accompanied by incentives/requirements for the Germans to attack East (as in Stalingrad, etc.).

I also don't like the idea of losing cities being tied to automatic morale losses, as a major defeat can as often induce steely resolve as a reduced will to fight (OK, maybe not as often, but often enough); moreover, as Encircled points out the Sovs already suffer a morale drop for the overall pounding that they take in 1941.

I think the best way would be for the loss of certain places to have the potential to cause various problems, so that the Sovs would know that losing Moscow (for instance) could be "bad" but never really be sure how bad. For instance, maybe the Sov government would collapse (x%)? Maybe the Finns would decide to attack Lgrad (y%)? Maybe the Sovs would lose some morale (z%)? Maybe some good generals would be shot (xx%)?

For less important cities, my guess is that some kind of VP sistem would be best, but it seems like it would have to be very finely-tuned...in other words, if I lose Smolensk on turn 5 instead of turn 10, how much effect should it really have on whether I lose the campaign game? While appropriate VP levels could probably be figured out eventually, it could be rather complicated and would certainly be a source of endless argument...

Excellent ideas here from 76mm. The idea of some sort of 'unknowns' being factored in could lead to some very interesting operations/campaigns. It would be great if this could be incorporated for both sides, a sort of blind set of victory/penalty conditions for both sides.

Also touched on in this post is the problem of addressing less important cities, and I agree that they would have to be fine tuned much more than the majors. As for endless argument, well, this forum speaks for itself, does'nt it!!?

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 14

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 1:38:08 PM

heliodorus04

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While I agree that cities generally seem completely irrelevant in this game (other than as good defensive terrain), the problem with many of the proposed solutions is that they in essence force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes while allowing the Germans to avoid them. To avoid this, any incentives/requirements for the Sovs to defend West must be accompanied by incentives/requirements for the Germans to attack East (as in Stalingrad, etc.).

I also don't like the idea of losing cities being tied to automatic morale losses, as a major defeat can as often induce steely resolve as a reduced will to fight (OK, maybe not as often, but often enough); moreover, as Encircled points out the Sovs already suffer a morale drop for the overall pounding that they take in 1941.

I think the best way would be for the loss of certain places to have the potential to cause various problems, so that the Sovs would know that losing Moscow (for instance) could be "bad" but never really be sure how bad. For instance, maybe the Sov government would collapse (x%)? Maybe the Finns would decide to attack Lgrad (y%)? Maybe the Sovs would lose some morale (z%)? Maybe some good generals would be shot (xx%)?

For less important cities, my guess is that some kind of VP sistem would be best, but it seems like it would have to be very finely-tuned...in other words, if I lose Smolensk on turn 5 instead of turn 10, how much effect should it really have on whether I lose the campaign game? While appropriate VP levels could probably be figured out eventually, it could be rather complicated and would certainly be a source of endless argument...

Excellent ideas here from 76mm. The idea of some sort of 'unknowns' being factored in could lead to some very interesting operations/campaigns. It would be great if this could be incorporated for both sides, a sort of blind set of victory/penalty conditions for both sides.

Also touched on in this post is the problem of addressing less important cities, and I agree that they would have to be fine tuned much more than the majors. As for endless argument, well, this forum speaks for itself, does'nt it!!?

Another WitP: AE question:
Does WitP:AE do anything like this in emphasizing important locations?

_____________________________

(in reply to Empire101)

Post #: 15

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 1:42:47 PM

Panzeh

Posts: 155
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline

I think the problem is that the Red Army is so worthless in 1941 that soviet players are not rewarded at all for fighting, and the Germans can basically do whatever with very little risk or casualties. This basically makes an a-historical fabian approach inevitable.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 16

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 2:53:51 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzeh

I think the problem is that the Red Army is so worthless in 1941 that soviet players are not rewarded at all for fighting, and the Germans can basically do whatever with very little risk or casualties.� This basically makes an a-historical fabian approach inevitable.

Agreed, there is just no reason to fight unless there is some incentive/requirement for the Sovs to do so, which there currently is not.

(in reply to Panzeh)

Post #: 17

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 3:05:21 PM

Q-Ball

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

I advocated a Turn-Based VP system awhile ago. I would rather the devs energies be spent at this point on perfecting the game model itself, but the code is there to do a turn-based approach, because several scenarios have it. It would be up to one of us to develop and propose one that's fair.

RE: WITP-AE, while I think the game engine has gotten to a very good and playable state, the VPs have not ever been addressed. It's almost impossible for the Japanese player to "win" on VPs against a reasonably competent Allied opponent.

Places in WITP-AE are not a good model. For example, the Japanese do get a large VP haul if they hold Noumea, on New Caledonia, at the end of the game..........in August 1945! But not a single point for taking it in 1942 and holding it 2 years.

_____________________________

(in reply to Panzeh)

Post #: 18

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 3:35:13 PM

Wild

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

Some really interesting ideas here.

I suggest we start by fixing Heavy industry and make the production model make sense. This alone will force Soviet players to choose carefully what factories to evacuate. Then maybe add some sort of cap on how many factories per turn can be evacuated. I would also nerf Hq buildup a bit so the Germans can't exploit this. Maybe only PZ Group Hqs can do buildups?

Then i would add more manpower to major cities, so it really makes a difference if you lose them.

I would also make oil and resources more important to give the Germans an incentive to try for a Case Blue.

I also like the idea of something random happening when an important city is lost. A couple of Generals shot or something.

I personally like these ideas more than victory points,(although i wouldn't be against that as well) because they have more in game effect if you get what i mean.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 19

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 4:11:24 PM

Panzeh

Posts: 155
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline

I actually think the solution probably has more to do with slowing the slope of Red Army effectiveness by making them better in the summer-autumn and nerfing the blizzard effects a little bit, because the sudden change just seems really gamey.

Simply making the Red Army as is try to defend forward by toning down factory relocation will basically tip the balance pretty heavily toward Axis.

I just think if they actually had a chance of accomplishing anything, they would defend their cities simply to do some damage or slow down the Axis.

< Message edited by Panzeh -- 10/16/2011 4:15:38 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 20

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 4:39:48 PM

Wild

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

I wouldn't be against giving some help to the Soviets if that is whats needed. But my primary focus is to make cities an important part of the game, as now it is more one dimensional focusing only on the destruction of the Red Army.
I would like to add some strategic objectives to this to make the game more enjoyable.

(in reply to Panzeh)

Post #: 21

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/16/2011 4:59:56 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

Well, to quote Manstein, "I'd rather lose a city than an army."

US Grant certainly knew it. He said "Lee's army is your objective point. Where he goes you will also."

He didn't say Richmond.

Napoleon got all the way to Moscow. And he couldn't hold it.

Washington DC was taken by the Brits during the War of 1812. And yet......

Destroy the Red Army, and the cities will fall.

Concentrate on things like panzer raiding of factories, and one gets what they deserve.

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 22

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/18/2011 8:41:55 PM

Oskkar

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

Historically, there were 3 possible German victory scenarios

a) political: the Soviet regime would collapse after the first weeks of war (option defended by Hitler in 1941).

b) militar: destruction of the Red Army in 1941 (option defended by the German Generals)

c) economic: capture of the oil fields in the Caucasus (rationale for Case Blau)

As far as I know, no historian has suggested that the capture of Kiev, Orel or Leningrad could be determinant in this war (well, they were not). If the Soviets thought that cities per se were so important, they had not implemented their evacuations plans. Introducing the concept of "critical cities" is therefore, in my opinion, ahistorical: but as a houserule anybody can choose its pet city...

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 23

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/18/2011 10:19:21 PM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzeh

I think the problem is that the Red Army is so worthless in 1941 that soviet players are not rewarded at all for fighting, and the Germans can basically do whatever with very little risk or casualties.� This basically makes an a-historical fabian approach inevitable.

Agreed, there is just no reason to fight unless there is some incentive/requirement for the Sovs to do so, which there currently is not.

That`s the issue IMHO as well.

Axis Fans complain that the Soviets just run, and they do because the German Army is way overpowered and over supplied in `41 and the Red Army is useless in the early Game. Any Soviet attempt at an encirclement/maneuver warfare or worse, trying to hold a city in strength to slow them down always meets with defeat in 1 turn. What`s the point

.

The issue ( among others ) in WITE is of course the AI combat routines. You fight in `41, the Germans win, just like Garry`s other classic WITP, you fight , the Japanese always wins in any CV vs CV or LCU combat up to late `42.

The combat routines need to be stretched so ( and the Terrain Modifiers actually work ) the Sov gamer may get a" Hold " or a "Germans Retreat" at least once in awhile.....so they roll the dice sometimes in the `41 GC.

Makes for a much more interesting game for both players.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 24

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/18/2011 11:26:20 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I advocated a Turn-Based VP system awhile ago. I would rather the devs energies be spent at this point on perfecting the game model itself, but the code is there to do a turn-based approach, because several scenarios have it. It would be up to one of us to develop and propose one that's fair.

+1.

The spreadsheet I made might be a good starting point for discussion. It's a reverse engineering of the VP scoring in WitE scenarios (not counting airframes, though). I hope we'll see something like that in the game sooner or later. It's really at the devs fingertips.

If anybody really feels this issue to be a game breaker for them, nothing as easy as take the spreadsheet and use it to determine Victory levels. You just need to convince your opponent :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 25

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/19/2011 12:45:41 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While I agree that cities generally seem completely irrelevant in this game (other than as good defensive terrain), the problem with many of the proposed solutions is that they in essence force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes while allowing the Germans to avoid them. To avoid this, any incentives/requirements for the Sovs to defend West must be accompanied by incentives/requirements for the Germans to attack East (as in Stalingrad, etc.).

I also don't like the idea of losing cities being tied to automatic morale losses, as a major defeat can as often induce steely resolve as a reduced will to fight (OK, maybe not as often, but often enough); moreover, as Encircled points out the Sovs already suffer a morale drop for the overall pounding that they take in 1941.

I think the best way would be for the loss of certain places to have the potential to cause various problems, so that the Sovs would know that losing Moscow (for instance) could be "bad" but never really be sure how bad. For instance, maybe the Sov government would collapse (x%)? Maybe the Finns would decide to attack Lgrad (y%)? Maybe the Sovs would lose some morale (z%)? Maybe some good generals would be shot (xx%)?

For less important cities, my guess is that some kind of VP sistem would be best, but it seems like it would have to be very finely-tuned...in other words, if I lose Smolensk on turn 5 instead of turn 10, how much effect should it really have on whether I lose the campaign game? While appropriate VP levels could probably be figured out eventually, it could be rather complicated and would certainly be a source of endless argument...

Excellent ideas here from 76mm. The idea of some sort of 'unknowns' being factored in could lead to some very interesting operations/campaigns. It would be great if this could be incorporated for both sides, a sort of blind set of victory/penalty conditions for both sides.

Also touched on in this post is the problem of addressing less important cities, and I agree that they would have to be fine tuned much more than the majors. As for endless argument, well, this forum speaks for itself, does'nt it!!?

Another WitP: AE question:
Does WitP:AE do anything like this in emphasizing important locations?

Yes. In WitP:AE everyplace is worth a little bit and some places are worth a lot and victory levels are based upon a point ratio. Furthermore, in general the victory points that one side gets for holding a base that you own at start are less than the opponent gets for taking it. If the Allies run away too quickly they can lose the game due to Japanese auto victory; if fact that is about the only way the Allies can loose (unless I am playing the Allies

)

< Message edited by pompack -- 10/19/2011 12:49:35 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 26

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/19/2011 11:34:29 AM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
the problem with many of the proposed solutions is that they in essence force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes while allowing the Germans to avoid them.

What historical mistakes can the Axis player avoid?

Late spring attack... nope.
Overstretched supply lines... nope.
No collapse of Soviet regime... nope.
Partisan attacks in rear... nope.
Disastrous '41 winter ... nope.

I see all the really important Axis mistakes clearly hard coded in the game. Am I missing something here?

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 27

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/19/2011 12:02:57 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

I see all the really important Axis mistakes clearly hard coded in the game. Am I missing something here?

You really think that those are the only mistakes that the Germans made?!

What about attempting to take Stalingrad and the Caucauses? What Hitler's "hold fast" policy which facilitated Sov encirclements? There are others of course but I think those two suffice...

I think that at least in the game (and almost certainly IRL as well) trying Case Blue is almost guaranteed to be a disaster.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 10/19/2011 12:05:41 PM >

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 28

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/19/2011 12:24:11 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

You really think that those are the only mistakes that the Germans made?!

What about attempting to take Stalingrad and the Caucauses? What Hitler's "hold fast" policy which facilitated Sov encirclements? There are others of course but I think those two suffice...

Condescending posts are of little value in a discussion.

If you want to be constructive, give me some examples of mistakes the Axis made in '41 which he can avoid? As per your original statement.

Then we can start making a comparison of the those mistakes the Axis player can avoid in '41 and those the Sov player can avoid in '41.

I've stated that the Axis player cannot avoid ANY of the historical mistakes. Can the Sovs say the same?

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 29

RE: Cities, Is there a problem? - 10/19/2011 12:31:44 PM

Empire101

Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

I've stated that the Axis player cannot avoid ANY of the historical mistakes. Can the Sovs say the same?

Ray (alias Lava)

+1

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 30