Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request

 
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 >> New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/23/2012 10:41:13 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		We have around 100 respondents to each poll. There is a clear majority of people who would like the 1941-45 CG game length reduced to late May 1945 and the Auto VP reduced to 260-265.

Joel, can we please have an 'alt' scenario added to the game in the next patch that has the above changes included.

That way all concerned will be happy. People who want no changes can still play the original version and the other majority of players can play the 'alt' version.

Please can we have this. Surely this is a very simple and quite reasonable request that will not create a problem for any reasonably minded person.

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/23/2012 11:19:47 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline 		No arguments, just a suggestion that IDEALLY, there should be check box option setting, rather than two separate scenarios. Keeps things simple, especially for community moded scenarios in the future.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 2
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/23/2012 11:29:35 PM   
Ron

 

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

We have around 100 respondents to each poll. There is a clear majority of people who would like the 1941-45 CG game length reduced to late May 1945 and the Auto VP reduced to 260-265.

Joel, can we please have an 'alt' scenario added to the game in the next patch that has the above changes included.

That way all concerned will be happy. People who want no changes can still play the original version and the other majority of players can play the 'alt' version.

Please can we have this. Surely this is a very simple and quite reasonable request that will not create a problem for any reasonably minded person.



The best suggestion yet to come out of the two poll threads, and I think the only reasonable solution to keep everyone happy. I wonder which one would get played most.


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 3
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/23/2012 11:46:04 PM   
Oloren

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 3/24/2007
Status: offline 		I'm very much in favor of Michael T's request and also Schmart's revision.

Oloren

(in reply to Ron)
Post #: 4
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/23/2012 11:50:20 PM   
Michael T


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

ORIGINAL: Schmart

No arguments, just a suggestion that IDEALLY, there should be check box option setting, rather than two separate scenarios. Keeps things simple, especially for community moded scenarios in the future.


Yes this was our first approach a while back but Joel has since pointed out that with the current code optional rules are difficult to implement.

So I am hopeful this way may just be easier to do with the same result really.

_____________________________


(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 5
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/23/2012 11:54:31 PM   
stone10


Posts: 238
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline 		less than 1/3 of the voters = "majority"?

So can we have new poll: give the red army to counter attack in early war.
If nearly 1/3 of the voters vote yes then we need a new alt. campaign in the extension.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 6
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 12:05:12 AM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		At least 67% of the respondents feel that the game should end sooner than Sept 1945, while 70% of the respondents feel that the amount of VP should be lowered from 290. I would say that that's a majority, albeit one that does not necessarily agree on the specifics just yet.

(in reply to stone10)
Post #: 7
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 12:32:18 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Thanks for posting the numbers stone10. It clearly shows the majority are seeking a change.

_____________________________


(in reply to gradenko2k)
Post #: 8
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 3:03:16 AM   
AFV


Posts: 435
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		My thanks also stone10! Hadn't realized it was that lopsided!

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 9
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 3:27:40 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline 		Rome was not built in a day.


Pelton

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 10
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 4:11:26 AM   
Aurelian

 

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

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Thanks for posting the numbers stone10. It clearly shows the majority are seeking a change.


But the majority doesn't want the change you want. You want 260-265. The majority doesn't.

So you'll be happy with 280 then?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 11
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 4:36:35 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		No one wants to change what you have already. We want a new alt scenario that best fits what the majortiy want. Clearly most people who responded are not happy with the stock scenarios conditions.

Around 50% want a change to May 45. 60% want 265 or less Auto VP.

I just don't get why some people want to shackle other players to their idea of whats best.

Its no different to those who like random weather and those who don't. They have a choice. Thats all that is being proposed.

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 12
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 4:42:38 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline 		So you'd be happy with 280 then.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 13
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 6:13:57 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		No. Its obvious from the poll that 260-265 would be a good middle ground.

I honestly don't know why 280 was even an option. Its still in the realm of the impossible.



_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 14
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 6:35:20 AM   
Gefreiter Wardstein

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 9/17/2011
Status: offline 		I would be wary of making changes simply because 30+ people think its a good idea. I have no idea how many, but there must be a host of players who have bought the game but have never considered using the forums for whatever reason. When one compares these 30+ players (or even the total number of voters) to the total number of War in the east sales I would guess that it would hardly consitute a majority.

On a second point, changing either the victory conditions or the end date affects the balance of the game in favour of the German player which should be considered before making any amendments.

The existing parameters were obviously chosen for a reason & I would recommend that Matrix base its decision on other factors in addition to this selective poll

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 15
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 10:25:11 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stone10

less than 1/3 of the voters = "majority"?

So can we have new poll: give the red army to counter attack in early war.
If nearly 1/3 of the voters vote yes then we need a new alt. campaign in the extension.





I agree with upping the strength of the Russians a bit (besides tuning down the supply situation in general for both-- it can't be real to fully supply an Army group on a single double-track railline from the outset). But the firsts part should be possible with the editor, i.e. at least for the first wave of Russian units in 1941? I was thinking of upping the EXP and moral of Infantry Divisions a bit for my next GC, maybe 5 or 10 points each?

Btw, is there any way to modify the NM trend for the Soviets in the editor, so I can also up the 42 NM a bit? I would prefer that solution over a general moral increase via the difficulty levels, since as it stand the immediate change to blizzard rules already quite discontinuous. I would like to mod it so that force-ratios and initiatives change a little slower, the German offensive in 41 slowly trickling out, while the Soviets by that time should already have slowly but markedly improved.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Thanks for posting the numbers stone10. It clearly shows the majority are seeking a change.


I am afraid, you are stretching the argument a little. The results are quite spread out, and all it really comes down to is that even within this community there is plenty of wishes.

Reading the first poll in the fashion you do, you could arrive at opposite conclusion: 52% of the voters would want an end no earlier than late June, and preferably by late September as it is. Thus, especially for May there is no majority. Perhaps late June could be the compromise, but even here only 1/3 of the players would be truly happy with that. As for VP, the compromise might indeed be somewhere between 260 and 270VP, but again hardly 1/3 of the players really want that. Besides, as Wardstein already pointed out, what fraction of WiTE owners is represented by this tiny number of voters? The turn-out really doesn't seem impressive, rather as if most people don't care for any changes?

Somehow I have the feeling that this whole VP discussion is a placeholder discussion. Lower VP levels or other end dates in a PBEM could be easily kept track of by the players. Does it need to be forced on to all players? Why? Because otherwise it will be hard to find two players that would agree to play by the alternative VP conditions? What happened with the "Sudden death" rules formulated by a group of players a while ago? Is there really no game or AAR come from that?

The best thing to ask Joel and the GG team for does seem to be opening the VP conditions in the editor, even if it is not a trivial task. Then players can modifiy the campaign to their liking. And G&G wouldn't be continually critized for it.

< Message edited by janh -- 2/24/2012 10:28:42 AM >

(in reply to stone10)
Post #: 16
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 11:45:50 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline 		What is wrong with having an alternate version of the campaign that fits some players better? And how would that "force" people to do something? If there are two varieties, then players can chose whatever version they want. I think Michael Ts suggestion was good.


_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 17
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 11:58:40 AM   
gradenko2k

 

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

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
What is wrong with having an alternate version of the campaign that fits some players better? And how would that "force" people to do something? If there are two varieties, then players can chose whatever version they want. I think Michael Ts suggestion was good.

I'm guessing it's what Joel Billings said about having to leap some technical hurdles in order to allow victory levels and end dates to become user-editable. Our options would seem to be limited to:

* Hope that the devs can and are willing to leap that hurdle and port the victory levels and end dates to the editor
* Track alternative victory levels manually via gentleman's agreement
* Create a Hakko-Ichiu type scenario where the victory levels are the same, but Germany is artificially and ahistorically stronger, allowing an "easier" win even with the original victory levels

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 18
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 12:06:58 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
What is wrong with having an alternate version of the campaign that fits some players better? And how would that "force" people to do something? If there are two varieties, then players can chose whatever version they want. I think Michael Ts suggestion was good.


No, that's not what I meant. I wanted to raise the question why nobody seems to care for houserules, that are apparently not difficult to track in this case. And some people did set up "sudden death rules", simple and complicated ones. And yet I can't recall an AAR that used/s such rules? Is there any PBEM game going on with auto-victory houserules?

There is nothing wrong with it, more variety can only add to the game! Something like an Axis production enhanced "scenario 2" a la "Iron Man" would also be nice.

What I meant was that to suit everyones taste, Joel would have to come up with 10 new alternative scenarios. It might be easier to try to open up the VP conds in the editor instead.

< Message edited by janh -- 2/24/2012 12:11:27 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 19
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 12:14:07 PM   
Ron

 

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline 		I don't understand why the same trolls are allowed to continually derail threads here?

I also don't understand why anyone would be opposed to an alternate campaign with a different end date and VPs. No one is forcing them to play that alternate version. We currently have different scenarios and campaigns included in the game - where is the outcry to remove those because so and so doesn't like them??

The devs put up two polls, any rationale person can see people want a change to what's offered currently. If the devs are responsive to the community, then they will provide one based on that feedback, end of story and everyone is happy.

(in reply to gradenko2k)
Post #: 20
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 6:34:30 PM   
AFV


Posts: 435
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		Janh

Clearly, the majority would an additional scenario based on this- exactly what is in the details. Its not possible to please 100% of the people, as that will never happen, and as a basis for not doing anything, that is not a valid argument. In fact, if Joel presented 10 alternate scenarios, 100% of the people would still not be pleased.
And no, it is not easier for me to mod the game than the devs to present an alternate scenario, if that is what you meant.

Also, regarding polls in general: When many options are presented, you will get a wide variety of responses. If the poll had been worded "Would you like the VP for German auto-win lowered?" you would have seen roughly 78% say yes, so again, its really not valid to say we have no agreement because no single option was chosen by over 50% of the respondents.

< Message edited by AFV -- 2/24/2012 6:35:25 PM >

(in reply to Ron)
Post #: 21
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 6:49:24 PM   
marcpennington

 

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline 		I'm all for variants of the grand campaign game being available, and I would also really like to see the addition of shorter roughly year- long "chunks" of the GC: i.e. scenarios based on 1941 through spring '42, 42-3 etc. These could have different VP schemes similar to the current "Road to" scenarios that encourage (IMHO) both all-out German attack and forward Soviet defense, and allow for experimentation with how alternate victory conditions might effect the grand campaign game itself.

Plus, as someone who has never gotten past around turn 10 of the GC without opponents disappearing (my guess being that they only then realized how long a 200 turn game would really take), I feel having these shorter chunks might actually lead to quite a few games lasting longer. At the least, I think a scenario with "balanced" victory conditions that lasts from the start of Barbarossa to the end of the Russian winter offensive would be rather entertaining...

< Message edited by map66 -- 2/24/2012 9:21:02 PM >

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 22
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 6:50:58 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded, so they won't work. Of course, you could agree to what they are ahead of time as a house rule, in which case there is no need to create the scenario. That's the basic issue here. In the ideal world this would be in the editor, but it isn't, so any changes in victory conditions require coding changes. I wish campaign victory conditions were in the editor like the scenario victory conditions because then you could make all the changes you wanted and create alternate scenarios, but they aren't, and getting them into the editor is not a trivial task.


I suspect that the necessary code changes Joel alludes to in this other post will prevent any meaningful change in the victory conditions in this game. A trivial VP number reduction from 290 to 260 or whatever in the code may help make an Axis Decisive Victory possible in 1942, but doesn't do anything to implement further reductions for 1943 and 1944, nor address Soviet Decisive Victory possibilities for anything sooner than 1944. A house rule to implement the old AH Russian Front victory conditions or something comparable may be the way to go. Those could be easily enough drafted up, agreed upon by both players at the start of a game, and checked manually at the appropriate dates.

At this point it might be best to look ahead to the WITW game engine and work to ensure flexible victory conditions are in the editor and not hard coded like they are now.

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 23
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 8:18:22 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV
Janh

Clearly, the majority would an additional scenario based on this- exactly what is in the details. Its not possible to please 100% of the people, as that will never happen, and as a basis for not doing anything, that is not a valid argument. In fact, if Joel presented 10 alternate scenarios, 100% of the people would still not be pleased.
And no, it is not easier for me to mod the game than the devs to present an alternate scenario, if that is what you meant.

Also, regarding polls in general: When many options are presented, you will get a wide variety of responses. If the poll had been worded "Would you like the VP for German auto-win lowered?" you would have seen roughly 78% say yes, so again, its really not valid to say we have no agreement because no single option was chosen by over 50% of the respondents.


Well, the latter is a bit of aproblem. It may be too early to interpret the polls. In fact, it bears some resemblance on the way the Nazi's got to power in 1933 -- too many small parties to choose from in the Weimar Repulic. In the end, no one was happy, no party could secure a majority to govern, and one party saw it's chance to dislodge the democratic processes...

You are certainly right, almost 4/5 of the voters desire some change. And as and optional additional rule or scenario as proposed, no one will reject it. I just hope picking one set of new VP conditions will not lead to just another such discussion a few weeks later, since it seems you'll make barely 1/3 of the people happy either way (and perhaps less in combination of both the VP value and end time factors, perhaps more if people are more flexible to compromise).
It would seem really the way to avoid further conflict to open these options in the editor. About a handful clicks and the VP level or deadline could be moved. That doesnt sound like a big effort to me. But neither do houserules.

I support such a change, more variety in scenarios and options can just make this game better and add more hours of fun. I would just read 270VP and late June into the poll, not 260 and late May. The latter seems to be a bit early, the Soviet player should also have a fair amount of extra time to catch up if he messes up earlier. And since these are purely "game" options, with not consideration of when the Western Allies could have overun Berlin, or whether the Soviets would truly have given up early, why not late June?

There is one other proposal that I find actually more interesting than any with a fixed, previously known VP amount, and that is the suggestion by 76mm proposed in the other thread. I really like that. His idea is not just about the game aspect of auto-victory, but also about using it as a tool to recreate the guiding principles of the struggle a little better. It acts as incentive for a more determined defensive fighting by both sides and offers rewards for Axis pushing harder on the offense instead of "early" force preservation or turteling:
VPs randomized for each game, say between 230 and 290, on averge 260. With no side knowing what exactly will trigger victory, this might be an incentive to for the Soviets to defend more determined despite bad odds, and the Axis to attack more rigorously, but not to overextend unreasonably in a purely rule-driven "victory" raid for the last points known to be missing. This kind of uncertainty not only sounds fun to me, it might also could avoid "strange gameplay", and ugly situations in which the Axis players forces are so weakened after a failed victory raid that he just quits.

If some coding changes need to be done anyway, and the GG team would be willing and able to do this, I think 76mm's suggestion would be something worth discussing...

< Message edited by janh -- 2/24/2012 8:20:10 PM >

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 24
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/24/2012 9:18:14 PM   
ragtopcars_slith


Posts: 66
Joined: 8/2/2004
Status: offline 		janh

+1 on the above post



(in reply to janh)
Post #: 25
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/25/2012 5:49:57 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline 		late may for me...

Tigercub

_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to ragtopcars_slith)
Post #: 26
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/25/2012 9:39:42 AM   
Meteor2


Posts: 429
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		janh

+1

I am following this forum for a long time now, but less and less I can understand, why changes (as Michael T suggests and others supports) are so hard to implement.
At the end, the customer is demanding a change of something (although the 100 person based poll, is not that big, I know).
And here, it is an easy change. Lets see afterward, if the majority of players is pleased...

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 27
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/25/2012 5:16:38 PM   
Aurelian

 

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

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

janh

+1

I am following this forum for a long time now, but less and less I can understand, why changes (as Michael T suggests and others supports) are so hard to implement.
At the end, the customer is demanding a change of something (although the 100 person based poll, is not that big, I know).
And here, it is an easy change. Lets see afterward, if the majority of players is pleased...


Because as Joel pointed out, it isn't an "easy" change because the campaign victory conditions are hard coded.

From Joel in the other poll thread:

"Sure, you can make the scenario yourself. Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded, so they won't work. Of course, you could agree to what they are ahead of time as a house rule, in which case there is no need to create the scenario. That's the basic issue here. In the ideal world this would be in the editor, but it isn't, so any changes in victory conditions require coding changes. I wish campaign victory conditions were in the editor like the scenario victory conditions because then you could make all the changes you wanted and create alternate scenarios, but they aren't, and getting them into the editor is not a trivial task."


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/25/2012 5:22:03 PM >

(in reply to Meteor2)
Post #: 28
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/25/2012 8:02:57 PM   
jazman

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 1/20/2007
From: Crush Depth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded


This game looks at modders and tweakers with a brutal, ruthless gleam in its eyes.



_____________________________

BS, MS, PhD, WitP:AE, WitE, WitW

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 29
RE: New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request - 2/25/2012 8:15:31 PM   
Wild


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


< Message edited by Wild -- 1/30/2021 6:23:36 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750