RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

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: A question about current state of balance and tactic

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: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 10:06:40 AM

randallw

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

For the sake of curiosity it is unfortunate that games are dropped far from reaching the point where one side actually gets enough VPs for a victory screen, with people dropping out believing they are doomed to lose, or at least not win. Yes, some one-sided games have almost no hope of stabilizing, but in others we'll never know how much impact the national morale changes, heavy industry multipliers, manpower multipliers, and whatever else patched will have.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 121

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 10:30:50 AM

Tarhunnas

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Tarhunnas, you are not exactly playing an average game right now with Bob since he is taking a pass on a number of tried and true gambits which is allowing you play things in a historical fashion. Don't draw too many conclusions from that. The vast majority of good Axis players, including ones in the testing team, don't do what Bob does. (My last two test 41 games had Lvov openers.) He is almost the only person I know who doesn't frontload AGS. As you can see in your game with him, it changes things completely. He's actually distributing the panzers in a near historical fashion, but most players don't do this: they raid AGC for armor from the getgo and load up the flanks.

He did forgo the Lvov pocket, or at least the large Lvov pocket. But where he concentrates his panzers is surely a matter of choice. I myself have done well with a historical distribution of armor, and I understand Bob won his last GC as the Axis mainly by taking Moscow early.

Edit: For that matter, I didn't really base anything in my post above on my present game. Whatever the merits and demerits of that game, it is much too early to tell how it's going to end.

< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 5/10/2012 11:02:53 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 122

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 11:08:06 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

Sigh... it is tiring to see that, maybe at start from genuine misunderstandings but later stemming from pure bad faith, these threads turn into trolling fests. Not only this but the trolls are the biggest posters on the forum.

Guys you all know how forum dynamics work. Once you get a group of 10 or 15 posters that invade any single thread and highjack it, turning it once more into the same old battleground, new posters are scared away, don't come back, and the forum dies out. So would you please for gods sake behave yourselves instead of getting all righteous and quoting, again, the same authors, your personal experience, yada yada yada...

Now just to get back on topic somewhat. As a player of historical wargames I want a game to be 1/fun and 1/to give me that historical feeling. Now those two priorities are not always perfectly compatible, so there needs to be compromises.

But the way I see in WITE there is one big problem : Some key elements of historical feeling are not there. 41 doesn't give you the feeling you are looking for. The Soviet can't buy time to hold Leningrad or Moscow or big southern cities through fighting somewhat forward, because his troops are pathetically weak, even moreso when surrounded. On the other hand he has perfect C&C to organise there move, therefore some cleverly calibrated retreat with a purely ZOC/MP based delaying strategy, moving everybody back in stages to the end defense line. On the other hand the Axis is absurdly fast, can conquer the Ukraine, Leningrad and Moscow quite easily, and yet nothing happens. Here the game just doesn't work as it should. That historical feelind derived pleasure is lost. I would like the soviet units to be actually individually stronger, pocketed units to be able to fight longer, but the overall C&C of the soviets to be randomised and on average significantly poorer...And I would like it to be nay impossible for the Germand to get Moscow, Leningrad and the Ukraine in 41..

Now part of the fun is also playing with Chrome features. We all know that wargames can always be reduced to some variables that have to be optimized, and the rest is more or less chrome. But that chrome is part of the pleasure. In WITP the managing of production, and organising of forces is a major source of fun. Why couldn't we agree that it seems lots of players, who find the axis quite painful and boring after 42 could enjoy it more with some chrome ? No point in saying condescendly "peuh, really building SUs or toying with TOEs wouldn't make much difference and is actually a pain".. Just let it go and let's try it out. The axis being able to adjust his TOE as war goes on (less men, less fuel, etc...), not being forced to, would be fun. Is a few more SUs here and there going to change the balance of the game ?

So could you just please please please not lose that perspective, keep an open mind and have a starting point that as long as something can improve the fun for the other players, and doesn't appear to massively alter the balance of the game, it might be worth trying it out ?

So please long time forum members, stop trolling and be constructive.

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 123

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 11:33:59 AM

Meteor2

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

veji1: Good post !

Summarizing my thoughts: A lack of "feeling" for the struggle and, of cource, a wish for a contructive discussion.

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 124

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 12:11:17 PM

Tarhunnas

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

Yes indeed, good post veji!

(in reply to Meteor2)

Post #: 125

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 12:11:23 PM

Blubel

Posts: 287
Joined: 6/22/2011
Status: offline

Thanks verji1!

(in reply to Meteor2)

Post #: 126

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 12:19:05 PM

karonagames

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

@Michael T: Like you, I would claim to be a "pro-balance" advocate, and throughout testing I concentrated mostly on the axis side of things - I am also in the "not-too-alternate,alternate-history" camp. I also think most of the testers would say that I argued in favour of pro-axis changes most of the time.

All I can say is that in the 2 1.05/1.06 GC's I have played I have not seen the need for muling, but of course everyone's experience is different, due to relative player skill/experience.

I am constantly reminded of the "Hare and the Tortoise" when I see all these attempted 1941 knock out blow strategies - Pelton's armaments raid proved to have no long term value,but did scare several soviet players into submission, as does your muling, "let's get to Stalingrad on T12" strategy. My approach is to try to get myself into a winning position by T100, not T10. If I don't do that, then I know I am playing for a draw at best; but I fully understand many axis players not being willing or able to cope with 100+ turns of grinding defensive play. Personally I don't mind this aspect of the game,but that's just me.

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 127

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 1:22:14 PM

Michael T

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

FWIW I only muled in 3 out of 9 games as German. The other 6 were won without muling. I began to mule to counter the runaway. But muling on its own did not win the games. There is much more going on than muling. But the 'mule' is a thing of the past. The next patch is killing it.

_____________________________

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 128

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 4:08:39 PM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Besides, my thread has been highjacked and I want it back

You must pay a ransom :)

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 129

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 8:40:10 PM

AFV

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

Cities should provide some supply- the larger the city, the more supply. I find it ludicrous that the German can make a HUGE pocket, and (barring Llov pocket on turn 1), can totally clean it up in one turn. Regardless whether there is a city, urban area, supply dump, etc in that pocket, the whole thing surrenders the next turn because due to the massively reduced CV its simple to obtain 2:1 odds (yes, there are exceptions, like when the next turn is mud, but barring obvious exceptions like that).

And if you do make city/urban hexes provide some sort of intrinsic supply, then as a Soviet hell yes, I am more likely to try and hold on to it, if I know that even if my stack of 3 divisions in a city get surrounded, it will take more than a couple of depleted Rumanian divisions to take them out the next turn.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 130

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 9:02:47 PM

Tarhunnas

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

The problem is that some Soviet pockets did fold completely in a week in 1941, and most cities were not turned into fortresses like later in the war. But I do agree that in general, isolated units are too weak. It is not only the Soviets, the same goes for German units later in the war. I would suggest that their combat values were raised some, maybe with some random factor depending on leadership and/or morale rolls. The better leaders and the better the units morale, the larger chance that it would keep a decent combat ability.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to AFV)

Post #: 131

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 9:18:41 PM

heliodorus04

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
...but we are allowed to hope, I think, and should not be attacked by players on the other side, who must admit that their side already is incredibly forgiving unless they are just tactical dolts...it seems nearly impossible to lose as the Soviet player, for sure against AI, will try it against a person one of these days when I have time.

sigh...while it is certainly easier to play as Sovs than as Germans, it is a wild exaggeration to say that the Sovs will win unless they are "tactical dolts" or that "it is impossible to lose" as the Sov side. Have you been reading any of the (few) post-1.05 AARs?

Why are there so few post 1.05 AARs? Because people gave up on playing Germany.

Why are there post 1.05 AARs that show great German performance?
Because those guys were either beta-testers (over 50% of them were beta testers), with the commensurate level of familiarity and skill. The rest are merely the best German players in the game.

You have fallen prey to the bias that because the best German players can win, anyone can win. Flavius himself conceded this point to me in prior argument.

The rest of us have moved on, and only show up to support the new players asking the same questions that we did months ago about the awful game balance created by deeply flawed design mechanics.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 132

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 9:52:38 PM

Tarhunnas

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The rest of us have moved on, and only show up to support the new players asking the same questions that we did months ago about the awful game balance created by deeply flawed design mechanics.

This is just unconstructive carping on the same subject over and over again. While you have made several good points in the past that I agree with, deliberatly spreading malcontent in the forum in each and every post is doing new players a disservice. There are certainly things that could be improved in WITE, but I think the verdict above is wildly exaggerated.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 133

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/10/2012 10:35:47 PM

AFV

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The rest of us have moved on, and only show up to support the new players asking the same questions that we did months ago about the awful game balance created by deeply flawed design mechanics.

This is just unconstructive carping on the same subject over and over again. While you have made several good points in the past that I agree with, deliberatly spreading malcontent in the forum in each and every post is doing new players a disservice. There are certainly things that could be improved in WITE, but I think the verdict above is wildly exaggerated.

To be fair, this should also be directed at the Trolls who hijack thread after thread, killing constructive discourse on subjects.
At least within Helio's posts there are some logical points made.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 134

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 12:27:43 AM

NavalNewZ

Posts: 118
Joined: 8/19/2009
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

.

< Message edited by NavalNewZ -- 5/11/2012 1:20:58 AM >

_____________________________

..there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today

(in reply to AFV)

Post #: 135

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 12:34:09 AM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

I never bought the game, one reason is is I'm not sure I have the patience to learn it, another reason is I see lots of problems made by players on these lines which sort of puts me off as historical accuracy is important to me but so is fun. Things like German units that were destroyed in Stalingrad have to leave the East front even if Stalingrad never happened in game strikes me as bizarre game design (I take it back if this is the wring info I've garnered). Finally reading between the lines it feels like I'm best waiting for WITE 2 as I'm in no rush.

Anyway surely the victory conditions should be as follows for the GC. If the Germans hold off the final defeat to a later date than historical they win, if the Russians finish Germany off before the historical date they win. Or have a 6 month buffer either way and call it a draw if you fall within the buffer. Rather simple yet seems right to me.

< Message edited by wodin -- 5/11/2012 12:45:39 AM >

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to NavalNewZ)

Post #: 136

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 3:26:16 AM

76mm

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Why are there so few post 1.05 AARs? Because people gave up on playing Germany.

Why are there post 1.05 AARs that show great German performance?
Because those guys were either beta-testers (over 50% of them were beta testers), with the commensurate level of familiarity and skill. The rest are merely the best German players in the game.

A casual perusal of the "Opponents Wanted" subforum seems to show about half the people asking for German opponents, half for Sov. If your argument were correct, it sure seems like that subforum would be full of posts like "please, where is a German opponent...".

Actually I think the reason for the fewer AARs is that people have realized that the game has some serious flaws, and got tired of having to stop on-going games because of patches or because one side or the other wanted to surrender.

I don't know who were beta-testers, but I don't know if you do either, and I'm not sure how you can determine who are the "best German players in the game," so I'm not sure how you can make your second statement. No one denies that the German side is harder, but it is pretty obvious that recent patches have significantly boosted German prospects.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 137

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 3:29:57 AM

Joel Billings

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

Re the Stalingrad withdrawal issue. It is one part myth, one part design. Many units destroyed at Stalingrad were rebuilt and sent to the Western Front. These are the units that we have set to withdraw with the assumption that had they not been destroyed, they, or units like them would have been sent to the Western Front. Now there is some disagreement about this because some of the units were being formed in Germany and took on the names of units that had been destroyed in Stalingrad. IIRC the guys working on this replied that many/most of these units were just starting to be formed and that resources did come from the main pool that would have otherwise been available to go east. In the game, if you have a unit destroyed, it is rebuilt by resources otherwise available in the East and if was set to withdraw it is still rebuilt and then withdrawn. Bottom line is if you don't lose these units at Stalingrad you end up better off than if you lose them, which is as it should be.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 138

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 3:50:34 AM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The rest of us have moved on, and only show up to support the new players asking the same questions that we did months ago about the awful game balance created by deeply flawed design mechanics.

This is just unconstructive carping on the same subject over and over again. While you have made several good points in the past that I agree with, deliberatly spreading malcontent in the forum in each and every post is doing new players a disservice. There are certainly things that could be improved in WITE, but I think the verdict above is wildly exaggerated.

Don't forget this gem: "Give me a $20 refund (and another $10 for the manual I bought) and I'll be more accommodating. Else, you will have to put up with me abiding by your forum rules and calling you out on the myriad hypocritical, a-historical, or just plain 'poor design decisions' in your product."

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 139

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 6:15:40 AM

Tarhunnas

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The rest of us have moved on, and only show up to support the new players asking the same questions that we did months ago about the awful game balance created by deeply flawed design mechanics.

This is just unconstructive carping on the same subject over and over again. While you have made several good points in the past that I agree with, deliberatly spreading malcontent in the forum in each and every post is doing new players a disservice. There are certainly things that could be improved in WITE, but I think the verdict above is wildly exaggerated.

Don't forget this gem: "Give me a $20 refund (and another $10 for the manual I bought) and I'll be more accommodating. Else, you will have to put up with me abiding by your forum rules and calling you out on the myriad hypocritical, a-historical, or just plain 'poor design decisions' in your product."

We could start a collection.

I would certainly be ready to pitch in a few dollars just to get rid of this dreary carping. And I think I have had very much game for the bucks for the money I paid for this game.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 140

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 9:08:57 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

Funny, this last exchange of posts is exactly what I meant. Couldn't you just ignore the baiting posts of someone you have argued countless times and try to focus on the discussion at hand :

How could we, within the constraints of a game that isn't going to be completely rebuilt, tweak it so that we get a better historical feeling in 41/42 (more fighting capabilities for the Sovs, less c&c ; less speed from the Axis) and more fun in 42-45 for the side that has repetedly expressed that at this stage, fun is lacking (ie axis players : Give us some funky Chrome !).

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 141

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 9:21:25 AM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The rest of us have moved on, and only show up to support the new players asking the same questions that we did months ago about the awful game balance created by deeply flawed design mechanics.

This is just unconstructive carping on the same subject over and over again. While you have made several good points in the past that I agree with, deliberatly spreading malcontent in the forum in each and every post is doing new players a disservice. There are certainly things that could be improved in WITE, but I think the verdict above is wildly exaggerated.

Don't forget this gem: "Give me a $20 refund (and another $10 for the manual I bought) and I'll be more accommodating. Else, you will have to put up with me abiding by your forum rules and calling you out on the myriad hypocritical, a-historical, or just plain 'poor design decisions' in your product."

We could start a collection. I would certainly be ready to pitch in a few dollars just to get rid of this dreary carping. And I think I have had very much game for the bucks for the money I paid for this game.

LOL!!!

I have yet to win as..... the Soviets. But the ROI has been dang good.

I just don't get it. There's games I don't play anymore. Either because they *really* are bad, (Braveheart anyone?), or I found something I like better. (Ageod's WW1 instead of Guns of August. Or AACW over GG WBTS.) Nothing wrong with WBTS. I like some of the concepts. I just like AACW better.

And despite losing 20 straight games as......... the North.

My point, (finally!!), is that I don't post on those forums or badmouth the games/designers over and over.

It isn't like it's Battlecruiser 3000 by Derek Smart. :)

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/11/2012 10:04:05 PM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 142

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 9:25:59 AM

janh

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
The problem is that some Soviet pockets did fold completely in a week in 1941, and most cities were not turned into fortresses like later in the war. But I do agree that in general, isolated units are too weak. It is not only the Soviets, the same goes for German units later in the war. I would suggest that their combat values were raised some, maybe with some random factor depending on leadership and/or morale rolls. The better leaders and the better the units morale, the larger chance that it would keep a decent combat ability.

As far as I have it on mind, the larger pockets took 2-3 weeks on average to reduce. And that took quite an effort for the German infantry.

I'd go a step further, pointing towards the occasionally cut-off German Panzer or Mot Div during 41 or 42, that certainly is a well known to any Axis player. Just happens sometimes, and it is also in the book with some exciting breakthru-fighting to relieve a cut-off spearhead during Barbarossa, or cut-off Demyansk (though here you could argue an airbase unit was in that pocket in game terms). The cut-off units turn to weak too quickly in my opinion, which is the same with the pockets. I'd wish for the supply in these units to decay slower, and hence combat values stay higher. I'd be happy to have to lower my optempo and accept higher losses when reducing the pockets in return for a little less punishment on cut-off spearheads.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 143

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 10:26:28 AM

Tarhunnas

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

The Biyalastok pocket was cleared by july 5 as far as I can determine. That is roughly two weeks from the start of the operation on june 22, which fits rather neatly in the time frame of WITE, one turn to surround them, one turn to mop them up. But I do agree that many pockets did take longer, and it seems that Soviet pockets were more resilent the longer the war lasted, that is why I suggested a connection with morale and leadership. And of course German isolated units were quite tough from the beginning.

Demyansk, Kholm or even Stalingrad are not possible to replicate in the game, they will fall much too fast. The air supply rule is a well intended, but since it is pure luck if you happen to have an airbase in the pocket, it is meaningless. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever had any benefit from that rule?

IMHO normal air supply, provided it is possible to fly in a sufficient amount, and coupled with decent morale and leadership, should make surrounded units largely immune to isolation effects.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 144

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 12:19:21 PM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

On the subject of isolated units, I'd like to see something of this sort implemented in any future games in this series.
Isolated units would have a strength related to a combination of their morale, ammo and supplies.Units with very high morale, say in the 80s, would fight at close to full strength as long as they had plenty of supplies and ammo.As their supplies and ammo diminish so would their CV.Morale would also drop for every turn isolated and in contact with enemy units.Perhaps in the region of 5 points per turn?
Whether a unit surrendered or not when isolated and attacked would depend on a combination of unit morale and the morale of any leader isolated in the same pocket.
In this way Soviet pockets would tend to be reduced quickly because of low morale units and leaders and historical long lasting German pockets would be possible.

< Message edited by timmyab -- 5/11/2012 12:28:13 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 145

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 7:09:37 PM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The Biyalastok pocket was cleared by july 5 as far as I can determine. That is roughly two weeks from the start of the operation on june 22, which fits rather neatly in the time frame of WITE, one turn to surround them, one turn to mop them up. But I do agree that many pockets did take longer, and it seems that Soviet pockets were more resilent the longer the war lasted, that is why I suggested a connection with morale and leadership. And of course German isolated units were quite tough from the beginning.

Demyansk, Kholm or even Stalingrad are not possible to replicate in the game, they will fall much too fast. The air supply rule is a well intended, but since it is pure luck if you happen to have an airbase in the pocket, it is meaningless. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever had any benefit from that rule?

IMHO normal air supply, provided it is possible to fly in a sufficient amount, and coupled with decent morale and leadership, should make surrounded units largely immune to isolation effects.

A way to simulate "fierce, desperate, resistance would be nice. I know that in SPI's War in the East 2nd edition, if the Soviet units could trace to a Personel Center, like say, Minsk or Kiev, they were considered in supply. As far as defending that is.

The Germans, yeah, would fight as hard as they could to not end up as Russian prisoners.

Not sure how you could do that in this game though.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 146

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 7:23:12 PM

Joel Billings

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

Actually this isolated thing is a case of us agreeing in principle but the code being harder to deal with than you'd think. The system now has all kinds of factors in it to try to give higher morale units more staying power when isolated. It was tweaked several times during development and I think after release, but it never yielded the results that I'd like to see. I agree it should be very much a morale/experience thing, with the early Soviet units not being able to survive (the pockets did not last long when you realize that the current system takes at least 2 weeks to surround, isolate and destroy a pocket), while better units would survive longer. Unfortunately the code at this point is probably much more complicated than it should be. Another factor that we deal with is that the AI is not good at cleaning up pockets and dealing with units in the rear. We didn't want the early Soviets to be able to totally screw up the AI timetable. Bottom line is this item is on my list for some redoing as we work on altering combat in general in WitW in anticipation of WitE 2.0 and WiE.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 147

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 8:25:52 PM

kg_1007

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

I agree actually with both Joel and Aurelian here...I think this code is desirable, but would likely be a total bear to create...and even the best AI often has trouble with things such as mopping up pockets, etc..it does seem to work quite well at evading pockets when on the defensive, but not as good at creating them or finishing them off on offense, at least from how I see it thus far from trying both sides some against AI in trying to finish my mod.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 148

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 8:31:36 PM

kg_1007

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I never bought the game, one reason is is I'm not sure I have the patience to learn it, another reason is I see lots of problems made by players on these lines which sort of puts me off as historical accuracy is important to me but so is fun. Things like German units that were destroyed in Stalingrad have to leave the East front even if Stalingrad never happened in game strikes me as bizarre game design (I take it back if this is the wring info I've garnered). Finally reading between the lines it feels like I'm best waiting for WITE 2 as I'm in no rush.

Anyway surely the victory conditions should be as follows for the GC. If the Germans hold off the final defeat to a later date than historical they win, if the Russians finish Germany off before the historical date they win. Or have a 6 month buffer either way and call it a draw if you fall within the buffer. Rather simple yet seems right to me.

I think WITE 1 is still better than many, not sure I would wait for WITE2 as by my calculations that is probably 5 yrs away :-)

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 149

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic - 5/11/2012 9:32:29 PM

heliodorus04

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The Biyalastok pocket was cleared by july 5 as far as I can determine. That is roughly two weeks from the start of the operation on june 22, which fits rather neatly in the time frame of WITE, one turn to surround them, one turn to mop them up. But I do agree that many pockets did take longer, and it seems that Soviet pockets were more resilent the longer the war lasted, that is why I suggested a connection with morale and leadership. And of course German isolated units were quite tough from the beginning.

Demyansk, Kholm or even Stalingrad are not possible to replicate in the game, they will fall much too fast. The air supply rule is a well intended, but since it is pure luck if you happen to have an airbase in the pocket, it is meaningless. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever had any benefit from that rule?

IMHO normal air supply, provided it is possible to fly in a sufficient amount, and coupled with decent morale and leadership, should make surrounded units largely immune to isolation effects.

In my last game (versus AI on Hard) I held Orel surrounded for 4 turns in January/February 1942 (i.e., first winter) with a panzer division, an infantry division, and an airbase in the city. I saw that it was going to be surrounded, realized I wanted it held, and moved the airbase in deliberately. It was only attacked twice in 4 turns (and it was relieved of isolation at least once) but overall I was very happy with the results of a (small) pocket and an airfield.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic