RE: 1.05.59 rule changes?

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: 1.05.59 rule changes?

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: 1.05.59 rule changes?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 6:52:24 PM

JAMiAM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Gee that was quick......................

So that means that basically if a German player has some reserves, he can easily substitute burned out units at the front with reserves and still stop the Red Army cold, setting them up for a counterattack once the mud turns run out. Interesting........

In a way makes the capture of Leningrad in '41 more important in order to create a pool of reserve infantry divisions.

Undeniably, it will make the Axis 1942 Winter/Spring recovery period more difficult. However, that is clearly the intent, since they were recovering too fast and immediately. Even factoring out "March Madness" it does make it more difficult for the Axis to conduct morale-building attacks during the pre-Summer months. This is what I feel to be the biggest hit, since IMO "March Madness" is manageable by the Soviets, if they would just play out the end of the Winter Counteroffensive with a bit more finesse. But, that is another story...

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 91

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 6:59:22 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

James, nah, that's not the biggest hit.

The biggest hit is that it kind of cripples the whole blizzard runaway strategy for the Germans. They gave up all that real estate banking on the fact they could recapture it come March. Now they can't count on that, and will likely only retake the lost ground in May and June. The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- not in the hysterical sense that Pelton is saying of laying down a maginot line that can't be cracked a la 1.04, but at least having a nice buffer zone to absorb the first shock of the summer 42 offensive.

Now, I know you don't believe in a blizzard runaway for the Axis, but that's just you.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 92

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:04:47 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Rules clarification -- I had misunderstood the tank army change as only incorporating a mech bonus. They actually have both an admin and a mech bonus. So they are very much worth building, at least for your mech units.

I'm still liking my cavalry shock armies, though.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 93

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:09:06 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, you asked me some narrow and specific questions. I gave you narrow and specific answers. You don't have all the facts on hand. I'm trying to fill in the blanks here, but you're simply ignoring my points.

Nor is any Soviet player getting 120k men/turn in 42 now. They're lucky to crack 110k.

You've convinced yourself that we are back to 1.04. Now you need to convince everybody else. The only way to do this is by playing the bloody game.

I asked you just what I knew I needed to know. The cost of rebuilding what has been the average losses during snow turns per 1,05.
The games have basicly played out all them same during March and some like myself keep hitting in spring.

Ok getting 110k so only 1.26 million extra hehehe

I beleive I have played more then anyone esle before 1.05 and during 1.05. So playing is not an issue.

I know how the system works, Germans do something historically possible and get nerfed each patch patch after patch.

Then 2by3 can't understand why only a handfull of games get completed, hmm less then a handful. They can't understand why poeple keep dropping out, hmm

Its the same old German nerf beat down patch after patch. There is still talk of nerfing the germans when the retreat during blizzard WTH is wrong with you poeple, just have the dam computer play the game, because thats what you based 90% of these screwball patchs on.

Then the player base is stuck playing each nerf beat down patch. Then another boat load of players quit because of the German in the box BS. They find its a cake walk playing the Russian side and next to impossible playing the german side and move on hoping someone makes a game what haves a few what ifs in it for the german side.

I knew 1.04 was a joke as soon as that was released and it was proven to be a disaster, russians winning in 43 lol
I knew 1.05 was good and poeple got back to playing, it needed a little tweak.
I can see 1.06 is a joke. I have clearly made my case why as I did with 1.04

You can't forse the German side back into a box because some poeple planned ahead and did an offensive that is 100% historically possible.

It makes the game a bore PLUS cranking up the Russian side will simply make the game WWI on the eastern front.

its the same old nightmare and I can't beleive 2by3 put out another way over board patch.

A tweak was needed not another Red Fanboy patch.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/3/2012 7:18:23 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 94

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:15:52 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

For me, March was always consolidation time as the Axis. Only minor counterattacks and preparation for summer offensives. The point is that now, from my perspective, the Axis have to think defensively for longer and possibly be ready to give up some real estate to 'straighen the line'. Either that or just pincer soviet forces that threaten vital areas like Smolensk or Bryansk. Once the Germans recover mobility in summer, I guess that even in human vs human games, the Soviets will be hard put to preserve all their blizzard gains.

One thing that seems to be imperative for the Axis is to be ready to launch multiple offensives in at least two areas of the map in summer '42. Putting all the eggs in one basket by doing one massive offensive just allows the Soviet side to concentrate and counterattack. And it is perfectly feasable to launch two offensives at once both because once the rail network is repaired, supplies are not that much of a problem and because in '42 the Germans do have enough armour to conduct multiple offensives, and if he did his work well, the Soviet side would be short on armoured formations (which are anyway too weak to do much for most of '42)

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 95

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:29:00 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

James, nah, that's not the biggest hit.

The biggest hit is that it kind of cripples the whole blizzard runaway strategy for the Germans. They gave up all that real estate banking on the fact they could recapture it come March. Now they can't count on that, and will likely only retake the lost ground in May and June. The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- not in the hysterical sense that Pelton is saying of laying down a maginot line that can't be cracked a la 1.04, but at least having a nice buffer zone to absorb the first shock of the summer 42 offensive.

Now, I know you don't believe in a blizzard runaway for the Axis, but that's just you.

yes another hit and even bigger morale beat down James, so much for your morale offensive.

Flaviusx is happy its back to WWI on the eastern front starting in March 1942.

No Flaviusx it makes running even more important then before. You have to rail everything I mean everything back to Germany.

That way you have not lost 1 million men during blizzard or any morale at all.

This stupid patch has forsed the German side into a total retreat before Blizzard even starts. Do the math the only way no possible for a good german 1942 is a complete retreat. Staying and fighting only crashes moral.

And you will do the complete retreat east during 1942.

Then stalamate 43 ect ect boring.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 96

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:32:55 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

It's not going to be WWI, Pelton. And March Madness certainly bore no relation to WWII. This is the part you're refusing to get.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 97

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:35:03 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

katza is in 43 I am in 44.

He is alrdy in trouble and 76 mm army is 7.5 million strong and not over 9 million as Kamils was. I held the front until 44. You cant defend terrain, because as Katza alrdy has stated and Tarhunnas has also the game is 100% based on a morlae time line, nt and in game results time line. Once your morale tanks its over.

I had 100's of forts, read the hole AAR not the end.

The forts as Katza nd Tarhunnas have stated are usless during 44 and almost usless during 43. Forts during 42 and 43 just keep the Russian player from attriting you do death over the hole front.

You cant defend terrain with out forts after late 42.

You got know idea what your talking about clearly. defending is easy to a point. Once the morale timeline is reached and IF the russian player built the right units your in trouble and your helpless.

Your opponent, at least in Kamil's case, had very significant trouble with getting anywhere until 1944 due to the massive carpet of fortified zones initially and you turtling (as well as, probably, some mistakes with building the army until 1944), but you're convinced that the Soviets will be in Berlin way before their historical timeframe, even though in one of the games you use as evidence to support your theories, that is quite unlikely to happen.

The game is also not based on a morale timeline. You continue to confuse morale with national morale, or rather: insist they're more or less the same thing per definition. That's more true for the Soviets than for the Germans most of the time.

You also complain when the Soviets withdraw a significant distance or turtle, but you use those strategies yourself and accept them for the Axis it seems.

Your points about the Axis being doomed in the sense that they will lose by default doesn't correspond with even some of your own experiences. I'd agree that the Axis face a very difficult time later in the war, but that doesn't mean they're doomed per default.

Whenever even the slightest change is made to the Axis, it's an "uber nerf bat patch" aimed at ruining the game for the Axis in some way.

2by3 designed the game this way dont cry to me about bitch to them.

german national morale has zero effect on the game as in zero it means nothing simply window dressing.

German units do not recover morale while stilling above 50 this has been stated by 2by3 so stop the lies.

German NM is 50 and always has been.

German morale can go up but has a hard cap again as per 2by3 own words.

this hard cap is lowered every yr.

German Morale is on a time line this issue is closed and has been for some time ask katza or tarhunnas they both dont like it and both dont like the stupid combat ratios after 1941.

Both the combat ratio and morale issue are set in stone.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 98

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:37:47 PM

Peltonx

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

It is also set in stone that the Russian army will

1. be bigger then 1.05 by 1.25 million men
2. have 4 months to build forts
3. be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

Therefor based on them facts 1942 will be WWI again on the eastern front as before 1.05 all things being equal.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 99

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:42:50 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's not going to be WWI, Pelton. And March Madness certainly bore no relation to WWII. This is the part you're refusing to get.

Flaviusx said"You alrdy see that 1942 will be a stalemate, The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- "

1. be bigger then 1.05 by 1.25 million men
2. have 4 months to build forts
3. be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

You know it will be and so do many others.

Al things being equal its WWI on the eastern front.

Its a joke patch as was 1.04 you know it, but you have to push the product.

Like I said not everyone on the team likes it. We both know this.

It is what it is a disaster.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 100

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 7:51:24 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Nice editing job there, Pelton. Try reading the paragraph in full. You're being willfuly obtuse and deliberately misunderstanding my meaning.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 101

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 8:02:11 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Looks fair to be honest, though that will obviously depend on your standpoint.

I have three games on the go at the moment

April '42 as Soviet (got creamed by March Madness)
T6 joint game
T92 as axis (slow game that I took over that has been going since 1.04)

Realistically, they all need to restart, don't they?

I don't think the T6 join game needs a restart. The rule changes have only a marginal impact on the first 6 turns, and you will have them all going forward. The only things you will be missing are the data changes. Although we like to think the new data is always better, 6 turns of a joint game could be a serious time investment. If it were me, I'd keep going with the old data (but then I played a team game of the original boardgame War in the East for 5 months realtime before finding out that SPI had made major changes, so I appreciate the situation). The April 42 game situation is much tougher since the recent changes mostly hurt the Soviets after Spring 42 while hurting the Germans some before then. It's really impossible to comment on the T92 game. All three could be continued with the new version, although the April 42 game is going to be tougher on the Soviets than a new game.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 102

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 8:27:50 PM

KamilS

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline

There are few nice tweaks, but they do not answer most important problems - practically non-existent logistics, too efficient high ROF elements plus simplistic national morale system.

For me so called "march madness" is logical consequence of the fact that neither of the sides have to fight. During summer of '41 Soviet do not have to defend too much (it is too easy to evacuate industry, plus losing cities is not significant), situation is similar during blizzard - Germans run away and save their army. Both sides are too numerous, but quality advantage favours Germans.

By logic of mechanics situation is very different in June - Soviet build their strength much faster then Germans and I am not sure if without March counter-offensive Germans will be able to mount summer offensive that can damage Red Army - gaining land is of little significance.

Soviet command nerf looks terrifying, especially with ridiculously high AP cost of corps reassignments.

It will weaken Soviet considerably.

I think these changes will lower dynamics of fighting in '42. Germans will be less able to attack, but it will take more time to mount serious offensive by Red Army. So both sides will grow grow and grow while front remain static.

I hope I am wrong.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 103

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 8:55:37 PM

sj80

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

I think Kamil and Pelton are right. 1942 will become much more static now.

I fear this patch is a half step backwards in WITE "evolution".

It will become now much more important to run as Axis backwards during blizzard to save morale and manpower. Without a snow offensive during winter 1942 the Sovjet strength and the fort levels will increase much. Axis offensive actions in 1942 will become weaker now.
I'm really waiting for the patch that prevents Axis retreats during blizzard with high equipment losses. I think it's only a matter of time until the last loophole for the Axis player is closed.
Pelton is also right with naming the major problem: Germany is bound to historic results, Sovjets are free. It seems there are too few Axis fanboys and too many Sovjet fanboys out there.

sj80

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 104

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:13:06 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's not going to be WWI, Pelton. And March Madness certainly bore no relation to WWII. This is the part you're refusing to get.

Thats 100% your personal option.

An offensive is 100% withen historical limits.

Your problem is like "most" of the guys at 2by3 they 100% want the German side to be stuck in a historical box. This just a fact backed up be patch after patch of German nerfs.

Your option is a joke as it is totally withen the limits of history if the German planned ahead they could have easly had a snow Offensive.

Your only intereted in the whats if for the Russian side, this is clear to everyone. Any what if for the Germans is quickly KIA by the staff at 2by3.

Then you cant under stand why sales blow and the forums have been basicly dead other then a few holdovers.

Any patch you have liked has been a disaster as this one is.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 105

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:15:23 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

There are few nice tweaks, but they do not answer most important problems - practically non-existent logistics, too efficient high ROF elements plus simplistic national morale system.

For me so called "march madness" is logical consequence of the fact that neither of the sides have to fight. During summer of '41 Soviet do not have to defend too much (it is too easy to evacuate industry, plus losing cities is not significant), situation is similar during blizzard - Germans run away and save their army. Both sides are too numerous, but quality advantage favours Germans.

By logic of mechanics situation is very different in June - Soviet build their strength much faster then Germans and I am not sure if without March counter-offensive Germans will be able to mount summer offensive that can damage Red Army - gaining land is of little significance.

Soviet command nerf looks terrifying, especially with ridiculously high AP cost of corps reassignments.

It will weaken Soviet considerably.

I think these changes will lower dynamics of fighting in '42. Germans will be less able to attack, but it will take more time to mount serious offensive by Red Army. So both sides will grow grow and grow while front remain static.

I hope I am wrong.

The sad part is your 100% right Kamil. You alrdy know what the outcome is based on your exp.

This patch is simply a Red fanboy patch.

We have been patched back to 1.04, here we go again with the WWI crap on the eastern front. Flaviusx got his wish.

Good for him bad for the player base.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/3/2012 9:16:50 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 106

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:18:24 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Cripes Pelton - want some whine with your cheese????

Play the damn game, come back with real results and then we can talk - until then, I'm back to the campaign to see what effect these have for real, as opposed to your bitching and moaning.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 107

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:21:56 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sj80

I think Kamil and Pelton are right. 1942 will become much more static now.
I fear this patch is a half step backwards in WITE "evolution".

It will become now much more important to run as Axis backwards during blizzard to save morale and manpower. Without a snow offensive during winter 1942 the Sovjet strength and the fort levels will increase much. Axis offensive actions in 1942 will become weaker now.
I'm really waiting for the patch that prevents Axis retreats during blizzard with high equipment losses. I think it's only a matter of time until the last loophole for the Axis player is closed.
Pelton is also right with naming the major problem: Germany is bound to historic results, Sovjets are free. It seems there are too few Axis fanboys and too many Sovjet fanboys out there.

sj80

Its amazing to me how the player base can see this horrible patch for what it is and 2by3 is blind to this Red Fanboy madness that is never ending patch after patch.

Again not all the "team" likes this crappy fanboy patch. not sure they will be willing to stick their neckout. Look how long it took to get that joke of a 1v1=2v1 rule changed.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to sj80)

Post #: 108

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:22:50 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

There are few nice tweaks, but they do not answer most important problems - practically non-existent logistics, too efficient high ROF elements plus simplistic national morale system.

...

It's been said elsewhere but you're not going to see major parts of the game redesigned at this point. What you will see are tweaks as the devs feel the need, based on game results not forum trolling (I'm not talking about you), and bug/data fixes as they are reported and confirmed.

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 109

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:24:31 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Cripes Pelton - want some whine with your cheese????

Play the damn game, come back with real results and then we can talk - until then, I'm back to the campaign to see what effect these have for real, as opposed to your bitching and moaning.

Facts baby facts, stop the personal attacks and stay on topic. but then again why would you start now.

Flaviusx said"You alrdy see that 1942 will be a stalemate, The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- "

1. be bigger then 1.05 by 1.25 million men
2. have 4 months to build forts
3. be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 110

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:27:04 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

There are few nice tweaks, but they do not answer most important problems - practically non-existent logistics, too efficient high ROF elements plus simplistic national morale system.

...

It's been said elsewhere but you're not going to see major parts of the game redesigned at this point. What you will see are tweaks as the devs feel the need, based on game results not forum trolling (I'm not talking about you), and bug/data fixes as they are reported and confirmed.

Yes true I have played 19 games son unlike you who is here to troll for 2by3

Play more troll less is all I have to say to you.

Have you even played this game? If so point out an AAR if not troll less and play more.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 111

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:35:47 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Pelton - the 2by3 Shill gambit is getting old too - you've made some good points in the past, but seriously, this is getting old. How about canning the attitude (nobody like a brat) and how about being constructive for a change.

In the real world, people with an attitude like yours don't get very far....

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 112

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:35:48 PM

barbarrossa

Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

There are few nice tweaks, but they do not answer most important problems - practically non-existent logistics, too efficient high ROF elements plus simplistic national morale system.

...

It's been said elsewhere but you're not going to see major parts of the game redesigned at this point. What you will see are tweaks as the devs feel the need, based on game results not forum trolling (I'm not talking about you), and bug/data fixes as they are reported and confirmed.

Yes true I have played 19 games son unlike you who is here to troll for 2by3

Play more troll less is all I have to say to you.

Have you even played this game? If so point out an AAR if not troll less and play more.

You are such a gem. You know that?

_____________________________

"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 113

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 9:46:28 PM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

It's both annoying, and amusing, that some of what he says conflicts with itself.

(in reply to barbarrossa)

Post #: 114

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 10:00:45 PM

JAMiAM

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

In the shuffling madness
Of the locomotive breath
Runs the all time loser
Headlong to his death

Oh, he feels the piston scraping
Steam breaking on his brow

Old Charlie stole the handle
And the train, it won't stop going
No way to slow down
Oh, oh

He sees his children jumping off
At stations one by one
His woman and his best friend
In bed an' having fun

Oh, he's crawling down the corridor
On his hands and knees

Old Charlie stole the handle
And the train, it won't stop going
No way to slow down
Yeah, yeah

He hears the silence howling
And catches angels as they fall
And the all time winner
Has got him by the balls

Oh, he picks up Gideon's Bible
Open at page one

I thank God, he stole the handle
And the train, it won't stop going
No way to slow down

No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down
No way to slow down

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 115

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 10:16:47 PM

Klydon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Pelton - IMO you won't be happy with WitE until the Axis can stomp all over Russia, they can build oodles of everything, have no historical limitations, have flying Panzers that can travels 1000's of miles continuously away from Railheads etc. My suggestion is you use the editor to make your version of the game and be happy with it.

Anyone who has read Pelton's stuff will have taken note that he has made suggestions to IMPROVE the Russian side (He was one of the first to call for a bump in the armaments multiplier after a new patch dropped it by a lot). This is no different than Flav and ComradeP who have made good suggestions for the Germans, although they are more associated with the "Russian side". While Pelton can sometimes get a bit passionate about the topic of the game, it would be a mistake to assume he wants the "I win" button. If you look at his record, he wins pretty regularly as it is.

As far as my view on this patch, I think it is a step back.

The Russians now are going to probably be able to continue to attack well into February if not all the way to the end of February. Right now, they start looking to wind it down the first part of February and certainly by the middle of the month, most Russian offensives are done. Nothing wrong, but the Russians now know the Germans probably can't do anything to them if they extend themselves.

I understand the desire to nerf the March counter offensives to tone them down some. Part of the issue is not the fact that the Germans are busy attacking, but that they have so much mobility to go with it. Do I have a suggested fix for it? Not really.

The Soviet command nerf is big. It will cause the Russians to either overload commands or have more poorer commanders in the line. In addition, the Russian "superstar" commanders will have fewer troops under their command and that will absolutely make a huge difference.

With the front being more inactive, it will give the Russians a chance to come up with more defense in depth as they will be able to get more fortifications into the field during the downtime and still build up to full AP's. In addition, the Russians will have more time to deploy new troops and get them better trained by the time the big fighting starts. While Flav makes a good point about the overall limit to the size of the Russian army, the Russians will have more time to recover from a disasterous 1941 and also make good their losses during the winter.

I have to say the patches and the constant massive changes they are triggering in the game have turned me off to the game to a point. I don't have any active games going at this time and I won't be starting one under this patch either, although I will be watching AAR's, etc to see how things go. One of the biggest turnoffs for me in this game has been the fact that it is either WW1 style or one side or the other gets the track shoes on and both armies spend far more time running than fighting.

< Message edited by Klydon -- 2/3/2012 10:17:09 PM >

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 116

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 10:50:50 PM

KamilS

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Klydon

One of the biggest turnoffs for me in this game has been the fact that it is either WW1 style or one side or the other gets the track shoes on and both armies spend far more time running than fighting.

I agree.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 117

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:06:48 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Cripes Pelton - want some whine with your cheese????

Play the damn game, come back with real results and then we can talk - until then, I'm back to the campaign to see what effect these have for real, as opposed to your bitching and moaning.

Facts baby facts, stop the personal attacks and stay on topic. but then again why would you start now.

Flaviusx said"You alrdy see that 1942 will be a stalemate, The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- "

1. be bigger then 1.05 by 1.25 million men
2. have 4 months to build forts
3. be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

Pelton. Please stop misquoting me. I have said no such thing. I do not in fact believe any such thing. This just a product of your fevered imagination and feeble copy editing skills.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 118

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:07:01 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

My jeebus, the gnashing of teeth in here. Really look what the rule does. Four (4!!!!) turns during non-random weather, the Germans will be less able to commit offensive operations, (which is actually more historical not that any of the 'world is ending' people seem to care about historical accuracy). During this time the Soviets will, yes, be able to replace losses and build up forces, but will NOT be able to undertake massive fort build-up because of the slow rate of construction during snow/mud (which covers both months, March and April, in question). So how much will that really, really, change the spring offensive operations for the Germans? really. pretty much not much if you ask me. You might have to do what the Germans did in the actual war (gasp, could it be!!!???!!!) and stand down a large portion of the front to concentrate on getting results in a weak sector. If the Soviet player guesses right, you have problems, if he guesses wrong, you have Fall Blau. Why is that so terrible?
Complaining BEFORE PLAYING A SINGLE TURN OF THE NEW PATCH is (fill in your favorite derisive comment here).

_____________________________

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 119

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:22:06 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The Russians now are going to probably be able to continue to attack well into February if not all the way to the end of February. Right now, they start looking to wind it down the first part of February and certainly by the middle of the month, most Russian offensives are done. Nothing wrong, but the Russians now know the Germans probably can't do anything to them if they extend themselves.

And you know what, that's what happened in real life too. The Soviet Union didn't stop attacking in early February and start making preparation for March Madness -- which never in fact happened in real life. (The real life March madness happened in March...of 1943. March 1942 was a mutual exhaustion society.)

I'm gobsmacked by the number of people here who are defending this March stuff. It's blatantly ahistorical. Nobody should be surprised to see attempt to bring it in line. It is every bit as indefensible as the 1.04 Maginot line business -- nor does getting rid of it mean that we are going back to 1.04. This isn't a binary solution, folks.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 120