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 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:31:15 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

I'm a bit astounded by some of the views to be honest. After all the work and effort that's has gone into this. As Joel has stated elsewhere is this a perfect game? No but it's a darn sight more balanced, improved and enjoyable experience than it was previously.

Despite the conspiracy theorists out there us testers don't have agendas. We just test and some also have a great historical knowledge to contribute as well. We also do this of our own free will and time.

I really wish people would just give it a shot rather than bitching and whining to their hearts content. I mean do you really think Gary, Pavel, Joel et al and us testers would really do our best to create a massively biased, fanboy and derisive update?!?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 121

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:33:49 PM

darbycmcd

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

I am actually curious about the reduction of CC for the Soviet armies as the war goes on. It doesn't on the face of it seem like a 'realism' change, so what was the game intent? I could see perhaps it incentivizes creating a smaller force structure overall, maybe more dudes in fewer units. Just curious.

(in reply to bdtj1815)

Post #: 122

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:42:23 PM

Flaviusx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I am actually curious about the reduction of CC for the Soviet armies as the war goes on. It doesn't on the face of it seem like a 'realism' change, so what was the game intent? I could see perhaps it incentivizes creating a smaller force structure overall, maybe more dudes in fewer units. Just curious.

I don't think it is myself, at least not in the context of the game engine. But there it is. I believe it can be managed, but only by accepting imperfect C&C and taking steps to mitigate that. It's extremely unlikely imo that the Soviet will ever be able to perfect the command and control to the point where every army is perfectly under command cap and so is every front. You won't have the APs to do this. So some stuff somewhere is going to be overloaded. On the plus side, you can put Zhukov in charge of STAVKA and he's good enough to make some command rolls now that high commands cannot be overloaded.

The argument in favor of it is that in absolute terms, Soviet armies tended to shrink over time. That's true as far as it goes, and certainly by the end of the war many rifle divisions in Berlin were under 3000 men and of course their parent corps were necessarily quite understrength Unfortunately, command costs are not linearly associated with absolute numbers in this game. So a 30,000 man rifle corps is treated the same way as a 10,000 man one despite this lack of complete correspondance. The game's command system lacks the granularity to make these kinds of finer distinctions.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 123

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:44:04 PM

ComradeP

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

Soviet C&C was too efficient/could be made to be quite a bit more efficient than in real life, so it was made less efficient. Now you need more HQ's and more leaders. Previously, the Soviets could place their best leaders in a fairly small number of HQ's and there was no real need to use the bad ones.

If what Flavio suggests still works, namely filling an army up to 24 points, that's probably something that will need to be balanced over time too, as taking a 6 point penalty to rolls should matter.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 124

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:46:52 PM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

I think the germans just need to reach down, grab a hold and start blasting in'42. The Germans can force the pace if they want to. They can completely choose whether to be static or not. Me personally, I'm going to choose to go all out and try to win, rather than sit back, look at a couple of stacks of russians and start thinking about digging in on the dnepr. I'm goiing to look at all those nice stacks of brown counters and blast a path around them with my panzers and dare the russians to counterattack into the teeth of my reserve mode panzers. Then the next turn I'm going to kill off the pocket and blast another hole and do it all over again. I'm going to slaughter tank corps by the dozen, and I'm gonna eat guards divisions every week for breakfast. And when the infantry corps come rolling up, I may think about stopping for a rest, but untill the Russians STOP my digital Wehrmacht, I'm Driving to Baku and Beyond!!!

edit *** maybe got carried away with peptalk, but at least im not reciting poetry

***

< Message edited by Baelfiin -- 2/3/2012 11:48:10 PM >

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 125

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:50:41 PM

ComradeP

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

quote:

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.

But...that's more or less the war on the Eastern Front as it was historically too. Neither the Soviets nor the Germans regained the initiative prior to the enemy exhausting itself during the war, and there were long periods where very little happened on large sectors of the frontline, primarily in the north. If anything, the front wide attacks in WitE each turn are ahistorical, but improvements to static mode have made those more rare for the Axis, although the Soviets can still launch them.

An Eastern Front game that allows both sides to attack, without stalemates, would not be a true Eastern Front game.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 126

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 11:51:15 PM

Flaviusx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Soviet C&C was too efficient/could be made to be quite a bit more efficient than in real life, so it was made less efficient. Now you need more HQ's and more leaders. Previously, the Soviets could place their best leaders in a fairly small number of HQ's and there was no real need to use the bad ones.

If what Flavio suggests still works, namely filling an army up to 24 points, that's probably something that will need to be balanced over time too, as taking a 6 point penalty to rolls should matter.

Except that we have plenty of armies over 18 command points in the 1944 scenario, Pieter. (Including, significantly, most of the guards armies.) The Sovs somehow made those work.

I also don't think you need to overload everything everywhere. I would definitely avoid doing this with the mobile armies. But you're going to have to do it somewhere. The AP budget simply isn't there to make your picture perfect Red Army with all armies under 18 command points (an army which actually never existed if we take the 1944 scenario seriously.)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 127

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 12:00:24 AM

ComradeP

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

quote:

Except that we have plenty of armies over 18 command points in the 1944 scenario, Pieter. (Including, significantly, most of the guards armies.) The Sovs somehow made those work.

Any CP number is going to be rather arbitrary. Fact remains that Soviet armies were too large and too efficient in earlier versions compared to their historical counterparts. They probably still are during the early part of the war, but things are somewhat better now.

As to the 1944 scenario: 12 out of 60 army HQ's are overloaded, the average army HQ isn't overloaded.

quote:

The AP budget simply isn't there to make your picture perfect Red Army with all armies under 18 command points (an army which actually never existed if we take the 1944 scenario seriously.)

I'm still not entirely sure why you keep talking about AP's when discussing armies. You get most army HQ's for free, and if you plan corps attachment right, you probably won't have to detach most of them ever again, so what would the AP sink be later in the war?

You prefer to reassign troops when you give them R&R earlier in the war, but I'm still not convinced that's really necessary. But yes: if you insist on reassigning everything, it's an AP sink. That is, however, no different from the previous situation, where you just had a couple more divisions per army.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 128

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 12:06:08 AM

Flaviusx

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

Pieter, the Red Army isn't going to naturally align itself into perfect 18 point armies across the length of the front, nor will the game provide you with sufficient armies to pull this off and keep each one under command limits. These aren't self executing game functions.

You will have to spend APs, and quite a few of them, to do this. The 1944 scenario, I once again note, does not provide you with any such perfected army. (On a happier note, you'll have little else to spend your APs on at this point except to correct the dispositions of the real life Red Army. Those silly buggers didn't know they were over cap, evidently.)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 129

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 12:06:57 AM

Klydon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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.

You missed the next line:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

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

I realize something has to be done with the "March Madness", but I think it perhaps went too far the other way. Testing should show that one way or another with some AAR's.

I would also toss the historical card out. Why? Historically, the Germans didn't have a pool of reserves that are fresh and not worn out by winter. In the AAR's, most of the German units conducting these "March Madness" offensives are reserve units that spent the winter in Poland/Germany out of harms way and are specificially brought back in to help restore order from a German standpoint of view. Not only are they fresh units, but they are typically elite moral units (IE, the cream of what was left of the 1941 army). In the real campaign, the Germans had less than 200 operational tanks in March of 42. In the AAR's we see, the Germans have many times more concentrated in crack units.

So, is the game going to once again tie the German's hands based on how the campaign unfolded in history? Sure looks like it to me.

This is the same type of thinking that will perhaps see the Lvov pocket opening nerfed as well because it wasn't done "historically".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I'm a bit astounded by some of the views to be honest. After all the work and effort that's has gone into this. As Joel has stated elsewhere is this a perfect game? No but it's a darn sight more balanced, improved and enjoyable experience than it was previously.

Despite the conspiracy theorists out there us testers don't have agendas. We just test and some also have a great historical knowledge to contribute as well. We also do this of our own free will and time.

I really wish people would just give it a shot rather than bitching and whining to their hearts content. I mean do you really think Gary, Pavel, Joel et al and us testers would really do our best to create a massively biased, fanboy and derisive update?!?

The testers and staff deserve a lot of praise and kudos for producing such a game. It is an award winner as it should be. That doesn't mean it is not without flaws, which everyone realizes.

In my eyes, perhaps part of the issue is the WITE staff/play test group face a credibility issue. They have put a lot of restrants on the Germans in the game in part because the rest of the series is not ready. (Forced withdraws, inability to custom make units to name a few issues). In addition to a lot of the issues the Germans have faced in this game, while the community has a strong presence of testers who post from the Russian perspective, there never has been a steady poster that has helped the Axis in the same way that the community has gotten help from the primarily Russian testers. I am not picking on the primarily Russian testers here; they do a terrific job and offer keen insight into the Soviet side and also give good perspective of the German side. It is that the community does not have a Axis version of the same thing.

Now, the staff/testers can come out in a big uproar of the above and say it isn't true, etc but I am sorry, the perception is there.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 130

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 12:27:32 AM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

Klydon

You make some good points. There are some very vocal "german side" posters that tend to drown out more moderate posts about issues on the german side. It was not just one person who identified problems with 1-1, spam airfield attacks, and the entire blizzard of 1.03. I think people may be missign a lot of the changes that are benefits (especially work in air war) because of all the side chatter flame-counterflame that goes on.

I truly beleive that the Germans will still be able to attack in march/april they just will not be able to romp and stomp like they used to be able to.

_____________________________

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 131

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 12:41:16 AM

ComradeP

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

quote:

You will have to spend APs, and quite a few of them, to do this.

I still don't entirely understand your point. To do what? Assign units to armies? How is that different from the previous situation? The AP situation has actually been improved somewhat now that MD units can be reassigned for free.

quote:

In my eyes, perhaps part of the issue is the WITE staff/play test group face a credibility issue. They have put a lot of restrants on the Germans in the game in part because the rest of the series is not ready. (Forced withdraws, inability to custom make units to name a few issues). In addition to a lot of the issues the Germans have faced in this game, while the community has a strong presence of testers who post from the Russian perspective, there never has been a steady poster that has helped the Axis in the same way that the community has gotten help from the primarily Russian testers. I am not picking on the primarily Russian testers here; they do a terrific job and offer keen insight into the Soviet side and also give good perspective of the German side. It is that the community does not have a Axis version of the same thing.

Now, the staff/testers can come out in a big uproar of the above and say it isn't true, etc but I am sorry, the perception is there.

I don't think the inability to create combat units for the Germans is all that much of a constraint, and I say that from the Axis perspective of things. You just don't get the replacements. I'd say the historical German setup works quite well. People give examples of support units they'd like to create, but that's about all that would be possible with the German replacements/production. Likewise, even with the forced withdrawals, you still have substantial forces on the Eastern Front at all times. The only thing that annoys me about forced withdrawals is that the morale of my returning mobile units is usually lower than it was when they left.

I play both sides more or less equally, I just tend to comment on the Soviet side of things more because there are more general guidelines that can be given. The Axis player mostly needs advice for a certain situation, not general strategies.

I agree, though, that having the testers who are more familiar with the Axis side post more could be beneficial. Taking Flavio and me as an example, as we started at the same time, Flavio indeed comments mostly on the Soviet side and I tend to comment more on general strategies or mechanics nowadays, with other testers commenting on various things with their own responses from time to time.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 132

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 12:49:13 AM

Flaviusx

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

Sigh. Pieter, you have to spend more APs now because you need more armies and each army has a smaller carrying capacity. And you'll need more SUs to trick out each army. And if you want to get rid of the 4 point wonders, sacking them will cost you. (There's enough 5 pointers out there for every army I think.) So, yeah. More APs. Lots more.

Furthermore the 18 point cap is...awkward. 16 or 20 would be better. You're probably going to have some command point wastage resulting from this, unless you hang on to a lot of non corps units. I suppose this gives you a reason to keep a few tank brigades late in the war. The guards airborne can fill in those slots too I guess.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 133

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 1:06:09 AM

ComradeP

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

quote:

Sigh. Pieter, you have to spend more APs now because you need more armies and each army has a smaller carrying capacity. And you'll need more SUs to trick out each army. And if you want to get rid of the 4 point wonders, sacking them will cost you. (There's enough 5 pointers out there for every army I think.) So, yeah. More APs. Lots more.

The decrease in CP is fairly slow. I believe I already posted on the tester forum that corps consolidation will probably go a long way to closing the gap. For the second half of 1942, you'll feel the reduction, but after that corps consolidation should cover a large part of it.

If anything, the CP reduction makes a smaller army even more attractive for the Soviet player.

I'll wait on the results of some games before I'm convinced that you'll really be spending a lot more AP's than you normally would, and that there's no way around doing so.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 134

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 1:28:02 AM

Toidi

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline

It seems to me that now:
- thanks to relatively safe winter/spring of '42 SU can get back to the trench warfare in '42 (I'm pretty sure I can do it with some effort & engineering armies)
- Reduced armies capability is going to hurt in the long turn, but not as much as people are fearing; I have no problem with it
- vehicles are going to hurt much more than the armies reduction; even 10k reduction in vehicles in '43 for SU is hurting; fair enough
- impact of making shock/guards armies a window dressing only (as +1 admin is really not that important imho) will affect the game; maybe it is a good idea
- it seems to me that now chances for major victory for German are nil again; chances for draw are probably same or higher
- impact of weather on reinforcements (especially in blizzard) will hurt Germany a lot. This change will lead to a much more difficult blizzard defense, especially for those who like to fight in blizzard (which was pretty much achievable, not sure anymore); it is the only change I like a lot (as it removes inconsistencies), but I think it may backfire badly

What I would change?
- my choice would be to further nerf odds on attack (3:1 not 2:1)
- I would also nerf terrain/fort modifiers, instead of multiplication by 1,2,3 etc, I would make the first 2 fort increases at most 0.5, so the forts lvl 1 in clear terrain would give 1.5 CV in total (50% more than no fort), level 2 2.0 cv (100% more than no fort), level 3 would give 200%, so equal to the lvl2 fort at the moment. lvl 4 & 5 may stay without changes, as they are horribly difficult/impossible to build. Terrain probably should follow the same increases (so light forest will give 50% more defensive CV, not 100% more).
- I would give slightly more armaments to Germany, but not more manpower; I would remove the heavy industry from the game; alternatively I would increase the number of ARM industry for SU, but make some of it (20-30%) unmovable and usable for Germany in captured cities
- I would reduce the maximum Movements Points for all mechanized units, depending on their TOE (i.e. the unit after HQ build up can only has eg. 50x%TOE max movements points, no lower than 18)
- I would work to make the numbers on the counters much closer to reality, so it will be more visible whether this 3:1 odds are achievable or not. I believe the numbers should include leadership modifiers, otherwise the game is too much of guess work to my taste;
- Also, I would consider changing the way the artillery works - its effects should be dependable on terrain & trenches - rough/mountain terrain artillery role should be much diminished for the attacker and somewhat for the defender; also, the effects of artillery should be quite a bit lower for the defending side which is entrenched, and almost nil at level 3 or more, but no reduction in efficiency for defender (unless in rough/mountain terrain).
- also, I would allow Germany building infantry divisions, but not support units. Cost of infantry division should be around 100 AP, twice as much for SS units. Not sure whether to allow building tank divisions, but with the new rules about movement points, it should be perfectly fine to do it. Some support units cannot be allowed as some German support units are a bit overpowered (they have CV of 40-50 in the battle screen, which corresponds to cv of 5 on the map display, which is too much to allow them being build without limits; some artillery SU etc should be fine).

I would leave rules for March unchanged, so no attack nerf in good weather/ random weather if the SU national morale is up to 45; Actually, the way the National Morale works is far from desired; anyway, if it is reduced to 45 only and March attacks are nerfed, I would change the rule about resting - in resting the morale may quickly raise only to the higher of 50 or national morale.

< Message edited by Toidi -- 2/4/2012 1:31:28 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 135

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 1:37:29 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it�s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that�s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Toidi)

Post #: 136

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 2:05:37 AM

KamilS

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

quote:

Klydon

I realize something has to be done with the "March Madness", but I think it perhaps went too far the other way. Testing should show that one way or another with some AAR's.

I would also toss the historical card out. Why? Historically, the Germans didn't have a pool of reserves that are fresh and not worn out by winter. In the AAR's, most of the German units conducting these "March Madness" offensives are reserve units that spent the winter in Poland/Germany out of harms way and are specificially brought back in to help restore order from a German standpoint of view. Not only are they fresh units, but they are typically elite moral units (IE, the cream of what was left of the 1941 army). In the real campaign, the Germans had less than 200 operational tanks in March of 42. In the AAR's we see, the Germans have many times more concentrated in crack units.

So, is the game going to once again tie the German's hands based on how the campaign unfolded in history? Sure looks like it to me.

This is the same type of thinking that will perhaps see the Lvov pocket opening nerfed as well because it wasn't done "historically".

Again, really good point.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 137

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 2:09:30 AM

Flaviusx

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

Micheal T, everybody is biased. Neutrality is an illusion -- as is observer independence. The only interesting question is who is biased in what way.

When you claim you are not biased, you're just kidding yourself. I'm willing to grant that your own biases are not crudely in favor of one side or the other -- but it's fairly clear to me that you lean strongly on the game end of the spectrum versus the simulation one. Time and again you propose things from that perspective. Historicity isn't particularly your concern. You and I are bound to clash because I'm more of a simulation guy, and most of the things you propose don't make much sense to me from that standpoint. We already went through this with the VP business a while back.

That being said, I actually agree you with on the very late end date for 45 -- I don't like it either, it's fantasyland. It ought to be truncated.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/4/2012 2:11:06 AM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 138

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 2:29:46 AM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I'm a bit astounded by some of the views to be honest. After all the work and effort that's has gone into this. As Joel has stated elsewhere is this a perfect game? No but it's a darn sight more balanced, improved and enjoyable experience than it was previously.

Despite the conspiracy theorists out there us testers don't have agendas. We just test and some also have a great historical knowledge to contribute as well. We also do this of our own free will and time.

I really wish people would just give it a shot rather than bitching and whining to their hearts content. I mean do you really think Gary, Pavel, Joel et al and us testers would really do our best to create a massively biased, fanboy and derisive update?!?

No one is bitching about if or if not 2by3 works hard or not.

The patch is clearly a German nerf.

it clearly sets the game back months pre 1.05.

1.05 needed a tweak not and A-Bomb.

Again your all about feelings and not facts.

Its clear that patch has

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.

Those are the facts.

I play this game far more then anyone and I personally want a balanced game not some unbalanced Red fanboy heaven as 1.06 clearly has made the game.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 139

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 2:30:54 AM

Peltonx

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

To slow down the red machine until 1944.

This is to offest the static front we will see in 1942 all things being equal

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 140

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 2:33:38 AM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

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.

But...that's more or less the war on the Eastern Front as it was historically too. Neither the Soviets nor the Germans regained the initiative prior to the enemy exhausting itself during the war, and there were long periods where very little happened on large sectors of the frontline, primarily in the north. If anything, the front wide attacks in WitE each turn are ahistorical, but improvements to static mode have made those more rare for the Axis, although the Soviets can still launch them.

An Eastern Front game that allows both sides to attack, without stalemates, would not be a true Eastern Front game.

The game is sold as a what if game not a cookie cutter you must follow history.

Read the adds.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 141

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 2:41:54 AM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it�s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that�s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.

You speak the truth as have many poeple who are getting sick and tired of the constant German nerf after german nerf. Then the constant Russian baby sitting patch after patch.

Its to the point that 2by3 just doesnt care if they sell another game, they are going out of there way to piss as many poeple off as possible.

They just 100% do not give a dam what anyone thinks.

The game is not follow anything historical at this point. Combat system needs a major overhaul and they are tring to sell push some exp pack loaded with a joke rad fanboy patch.

Pelton

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 142

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 2:58:00 AM

Peltonx

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

WE ARE BACK TO THE OLD WORLD WAR ONE on the eastern front again.

quote:

Pelton

Its clear that patch has

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.

Those are the facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it�s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that�s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi

It seems to me that now:
- thanks to relatively safe winter/spring of '42 SU can get back to the trench warfare in '42 (I'm pretty sure I can do it with some effort & engineering armies)
- Reduced armies capability is going to hurt in the long turn, but not as much as people are fearing; I have no problem with it
- vehicles are going to hurt much more than the armies reduction; even 10k reduction in vehicles in '43 for SU is hurting; fair enough
- impact of making shock/guards armies a window dressing only (as +1 admin is really not that important imho) will affect the game; maybe it is a good idea
- it seems to me that now chances for major victory for German are nil again; chances for draw are probably same or higher
- impact of weather on reinforcements (especially in blizzard) will hurt Germany a lot. This change will lead to a much more difficult blizzard defense, especially for those who like to fight in blizzard (which was pretty much achievable, not sure anymore); it is the only change I like a lot (as it removes inconsistencies), but I think it may backfire badly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

As the combat system won't be overhauled for the moment, that means the oddities of the combat system (like retreat losses probably being too high for smaller attacks and too low for big ones and wildly fluctuating Soviet losses when attacking) will be there for the future, and they can't be balanced because the problem is with the combat system, not something that's easier to balance like replacements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

March Madness is a side effect of the too permissive logistics in WITE.

IMO the current March Madness is a result of overextended Soviets low on supply meeting well supplied Blizzard-sheltered Germans. The results are not unreasonable. "March-Madness" isn't occurring with German units that had to man the line, that would be unreasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colberki

I just hope WITE does not end up like many games especially those from Russian or Eastern European developers where the Germans (in the game) are destined to lose. It maybe not politically correct for the Germans to win but this is a game. But this new rule reducing German CV during the winter of 1941-42 is feeling like the last straw for me. And I have been enjoying playing both German and Soviet sides - seems GG is giving in the the ever vocal minority on the forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

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.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/4/2012 3:05:03 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 143

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:01:34 AM

wadortch

Posts: 259
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 144

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:02:49 AM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

I have become fully aware that this is a game and in no way a simulation.

The blitzkrieg was made possible by the Luftwaffe. Everyone remembers the Germans for their tanks. How many battles were won by the Tiger or Panther? Very very few. The victories that the Germans had in France, Poland, Greece, and Russia in 1941 were with the Panzer III and a few Panzer Mark IVs. If you follow the air war you can see a trend in WW2. The trend is with planes and not tanks. This game has inexperienced Soviet pilots with biplanes in parity with German 109s with battle experienced pilots and in 1941. The Germans in 1941 really can do without the Luftwaffe, I don't see how that is realistic. This game has not been developed by looking at two sides, but is overly influenced on one side.

Large problems exist. One example is that of supply. This game routinely allows armies of both sides to operate miles from their supply bases with little or no ill effects. I know the Panzers run out of gas and that is a real problem, but overall the entire supply situation for both sides is really unbelievable.

Why don't some players play some historical games and then we can see how it plays out? Let's test this game as a simulation. Hitler and Stalin are back in charge and the player generals have their hands tied to actual decisions that were made in WW2. That means the Soviet player has to counter attack in 1941. The German player must fight right up to the blizzard without any preparation. Once the blizzard hits only the German generals who retreated will be allowed to do so, such as Guderian, then Guderian will be removed from the game and never given another command, just like actual history. In 1942 the Germans must push into Stalingrad and allow themselves to be flanked and cut off. If there is a test for this simulation then lets play it out. It is possible to do. If the game ends in Berlin in April 1945 and results from 1941 to 1945 are historically feasible within a certain degree of error then we have a good game. It is my assumption that the Axis will prove to be too strong in 1941 and the Soviets too strong after 1942 and unhistorical situations will develop(out of the bounds historical irregularities). I know for sure that the current air war will not follow any kind of historical accuracy at any time in the war. I would do it myself except I am not that strong of a player. We have players that can do it if they wish. I say test the game and lets see.

I am tired of the Axis players being driven away with insults. If the Soviets are so sure of their position they should all be for this test. I am also tired of the apologetic Axis players who say yes I'm going to lose, but please give me a piece of cheese. You yourselves know that this game is biased, but don't want to be attacked and marginalized and want to get along.

Test this game and then let the results be accepted. Is there a scientist or mathematician here who can disagree that this game can be modeled and tested.

I think we all deserve historical results if this game is going to be marketed as a simulation. If it is only a game , well then the Soviets just about have their game.

< Message edited by RCH -- 2/4/2012 4:31:22 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 145

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:05:46 AM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?

Nothing because its a cool thing that Russians can do. 100% none historical, but possible.

The German Snow O is 100% historically possible, but is nerfed because this game is about nerfing German what ifs and supporting Russian what ifs.

Patch after patch thats the standard 2by3 MO.

Russians get gifts and German get the nerf bat

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to wadortch)

Post #: 146

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:08:45 AM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

I have become fully aware that this is a game and in no way a simulation.

The blitzkrieg was made possible by the Luftwaffe. Everyone remembers the Germans for their tanks. How many battles were won by the Tiger or Panther? Very very few. The victories that the Germans had in France, Poland, Greece, and Russia in 1941 were with the Panzer III and a few Panzer Mark IVs. If you follow the air war you can see a trend in WW2. The trend is with planes and not tanks. This game has inexperienced Soviet pilots in parity with German 109s with battle experienced pilots and in 1941. The Germans in 1941 really can do without the Luftwaffe, I don't see how that is realistic. This game has not been developed by looking at two sides, but is overly influenced on one side.

Large problems exist. One example is that of supply. This game routinely allows armies of both sides to operate miles from their supply bases with little or no ill effects. I know the Panzers run out of gas and that is a real problem, but overall the entire supply situation for both sides is really unbelievable.

Why don't some players play some historical games and then we can see how it plays out? Let's test this game as a simulation. Hitler and Stalin are back in charge and the player generals have their hands tied to actual decisions that were made in WW2. That means the Soviet player has to counter attack in 1941. The German player must fight right up to the blizzard without any preparation. Once the blizzard hits only the German generals who retreated will be allowed to do so, such as Guderian, then Guderian will be removed from the game and never given another command, just like actual history. In 1942 the Germans must push into Stalingrad and allow themselves to be flanked and cut off. If there is a test for this simulation then lets play it out. It is possible to do. If the game ends in Berlin in April 1945 and results from 1941 to 1945 are historically feasible within a certain degree of error then we have a good game. It is my assumption that the Axis will prove to be too strong in 1941 and the Soviets too strong after 1942 and unhistorical situations will develop(out of the bounds historical irregularities). I know for sure that the current air war will not follow any kind of historical accuracy at any time in the war. I would do it myself except I am not that strong of a player. We have players that can do it if they wish. I say test the game and lets see.

I am tired of the Axis players being driven away with insults. If the Soviets are so sure of their position they should all be for this test. I am also tired of the apologetic Axis players who say yes I'm going to lose, but please give me a piece of cheese. You yourselves know that this game is biased, but don't want to be attacked and marginalized and want to get along.

Test this game and then let the results be accepted. Is there a scientist or mathematician here who can disagree that this game can be modeled and tested.

I think we all deserve historical results if this game is going to be marketed as a simulation. If it is only a game , well then the Soviets just about have their game.

I have "tested' 19 games now more then anyone far more then anyone.

I have the results and have stated them over and over, but still its German nerf after nerf an gift after gift to the russian side.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 147

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:12:56 AM

Wild

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Changes look balanced to me.

Even though the drop in Soviet army span doesn't look good at first blush, it's in the right direction. (I think. If not, one will get used to it.)

And wild, I had nothing to do with all this either...........

You may be right Aurelian,but if you are i won't know it. Unfortunately i am finished with this game. It is very sad, but i like to play the Germans and as it stands they are just not fun to play. This patch does nothing to correct that and will probably make it worse.

It's a shame because as an AI only player i see all Gary's hard work on the AI going for naught. But the game just leans too far to the Soviets to make it enjoyable. If they would have only given us some of the options they gave the soviets or for that matter anything really to do after '41. Sigh...

Goodbye.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 148

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:24:04 AM

JAMiAM

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

Honestly, as a 70:30, Axis:Soviet Player, I feel that the changes are more of a hit against the Soviets, than the Axis. I think that people are getting worked up against a relatively minor, and short-termed effect against the Axis (the March effect) and totally neglecting the game-long, (from 9/41) of the declining Soviet army level command capacity. This will have effects against them before the first winter even hits, allowing the Axis better gains in late 1941. To offset this, the Soviets are going to have to divert a lot of resources (manpower and APs) to increasing their REMF percentage. This, in turn, has the effect of lessening boots on the ground, and slowing the conversion of the Soviet army. Else, they will be suffering from those boots on the ground being less effective.

Anyone claiming that this patch somehow favors the Axis over the Soviets is simply not looking at the big picture.

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 2/4/2012 3:42:55 AM >

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 149

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:32:36 AM

wadortch

Posts: 259
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

I share this perception. Pelton takes his hits for his style but I think many of his point are on point. What is the ultimate goal for the game if both sides play a "perfect" game? I would think a draw. What I sense is that the Soviet play testers who I believe are exerting a bias on the game seek is Soviet win which may be historically supportable and proper for a simulation but makes for a lousy GAME.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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.

You missed the next line:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

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

I realize something has to be done with the "March Madness", but I think it perhaps went too far the other way. Testing should show that one way or another with some AAR's.

I would also toss the historical card out. Why? Historically, the Germans didn't have a pool of reserves that are fresh and not worn out by winter. In the AAR's, most of the German units conducting these "March Madness" offensives are reserve units that spent the winter in Poland/Germany out of harms way and are specificially brought back in to help restore order from a German standpoint of view. Not only are they fresh units, but they are typically elite moral units (IE, the cream of what was left of the 1941 army). In the real campaign, the Germans had less than 200 operational tanks in March of 42. In the AAR's we see, the Germans have many times more concentrated in crack units.

So, is the game going to once again tie the German's hands based on how the campaign unfolded in history? Sure looks like it to me.

This is the same type of thinking that will perhaps see the Lvov pocket opening nerfed as well because it wasn't done "historically".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I'm a bit astounded by some of the views to be honest. After all the work and effort that's has gone into this. As Joel has stated elsewhere is this a perfect game? No but it's a darn sight more balanced, improved and enjoyable experience than it was previously.

Despite the conspiracy theorists out there us testers don't have agendas. We just test and some also have a great historical knowledge to contribute as well. We also do this of our own free will and time.

I really wish people would just give it a shot rather than bitching and whining to their hearts content. I mean do you really think Gary, Pavel, Joel et al and us testers would really do our best to create a massively biased, fanboy and derisive update?!?

The testers and staff deserve a lot of praise and kudos for producing such a game. It is an award winner as it should be. That doesn't mean it is not without flaws, which everyone realizes.

In my eyes, perhaps part of the issue is the WITE staff/play test group face a credibility issue. They have put a lot of restrants on the Germans in the game in part because the rest of the series is not ready. (Forced withdraws, inability to custom make units to name a few issues). In addition to a lot of the issues the Germans have faced in this game, while the community has a strong presence of testers who post from the Russian perspective, there never has been a steady poster that has helped the Axis in the same way that the community has gotten help from the primarily Russian testers. I am not picking on the primarily Russian testers here; they do a terrific job and offer keen insight into the Soviet side and also give good perspective of the German side. It is that the community does not have a Axis version of the same thing.

Now, the staff/testers can come out in a big uproar of the above and say it isn't true, etc but I am sorry, the perception is there.