Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I read these " balance " posts and wonder if some of the "everything is OK with the Germans posters" have even played the German side. I have started 12 GC's and won 4 as the Germans. Only 2 of the 12 games have gotten into 42. I have not yet tried a game as the Russians. If I have learned anything, the quality on the opposing Russian player is the #1 factor in deciding the game. I do not believe the German has a chance against a quality Russian player. By chance I mean the danmage and penetration in 41 to make it an interesting game. With the rail repair reduced to 3/4 hexes per turn and the the better players understanding how to maximize the use of reserves, I find it almost impossible to make enough progress in the South to scare the Bear! I believe I have played some excellent player in my last few games based on their posts and AAR's I have read. I am able to get Leningrad, get close to Moscow but really struggle to get even close to the Karkov/Stalino/Kursk line. To me it is pointless to play on if the penetration into Russian doesen't cause enough damage and gain enough space. I haven't used muling but have used the Lvov gambit. Love the game and will keep trying to fingure out " how to get to Rostov"! I just don't see it happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I wonder if lowering the ability to repair rail was a reaction to muling. Hopefully you contine to make progress with you Mod!

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I wonder if lowering the ability to repair rail was a reaction to muling. Hopefully you contine to make progress with you Mod!

I understand why the developers wanted to kill muling, but I am still not sure why anyone thought it was necessary in the first place...where are these mysterious Soviet players who totally run away and ruin the game? I haven't seen them - but I understand why they would now. Quite frankly, being a non-runner (I will run to the Dnepr but generally try to fight from there) the fort nerf makes it extremely difficult to do anything but run, even with a house rule against muling!

Right now playing as a Soviet with no Lvov pocket restriction against a good German player is almost impossible if you try to actually fight. That's what makes me laugh about the commenters who claim that runners are such criminals...it is the only sane response! Fighters can get 3-4 German units to retreat a turn...and then get 20 divisions immediately pocketed for their efforts.

Not a pleasant experience...

quote:

but what is the "fort nerf"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Do I understand that to mean that if you are surrounded but you have an airfield in your pocket, you are more survivable? I have not noticed this against the AI..as the German against a Soviet AI, the airfields fall in the pocket easily or simply run away, and as a Soviet against a German AI it seems the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I read these " balance " posts and wonder if some of the "everything is OK with the Germans posters" have even played the German side. I have started 12 GC's and won 4 as the Germans. Only 2 of the 12 games have gotten into 42. I have not yet tried a game as the Russians. If I have learned anything, the quality on the opposing Russian player is the #1 factor in deciding the game. I do not believe the German has a chance against a quality Russian player. By chance I mean the danmage and penetration in 41 to make it an interesting game. With the rail repair reduced to 3/4 hexes per turn and the the better players understanding how to maximize the use of reserves, I find it almost impossible to make enough progress in the South to scare the Bear! I believe I have played some excellent player in my last few games based on their posts and AAR's I have read. I am able to get Leningrad, get close to Moscow but really struggle to get even close to the Karkov/Stalino/Kursk line. To me it is pointless to play on if the penetration into Russian doesen't cause enough damage and gain enough space. I haven't used muling but have used the Lvov gambit. Love the game and will keep trying to fingure out " how to get to Rostov"! I just don't see it happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In response to that probably the balance needs to be to reduce the number of VPs the Germans need to have at the end of the game to be able to win, but that's something the devs are probably already looking at.

Del

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

but what is the "fort nerf"?

When the game came out, it was much easier to build level 3, 4 and 5 forts, resulting huge, deep, belts of fortifications stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas and, in most cases, stalemate and trench warfare beginning in 1942.

One of the patches made it much more difficult to build forts beyond level 2, and since such forts are almost worthless, the utility of building forts is much reduced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

As I have said before, many of the things being hashed over now have been hashed over MANY times in the past and a lot has already been done by the devs to fine-tune these things. That is why many of the first hour find it so absurd that these same topics are once again a source of such debate and that some deliberately pretend nothing has been done previously. I don't envy you for being a new guy on these forums. The amount of disinformation to serve a personal end is breathtaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123
Yes we are playing and I would think you qualify as a hasrt retreat player. ( avoid lables ). Its the first week of Sept and I am close to taking Leningrad, solid progress in the center and in front of Moscow and have just hit a brick wall in the South again in front of Karkov with supplies several turns away. My last game was against Hooper ( amazing Player ) and I still have Russian reserve divs pouring out of my computer. I can't seem to crack the South even with the Lvov move. You can attest to my non use of muling. I love the game and would like to become a better player that can give a solid game to the Russian. I have to be missing something in my play if other players can give the russian such problems. I can't seem to keep the pace of opps in the South to do the damage I believe necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

As I said in another post I have an opponent who now believes he can take Leningrad on turn 3 with mules which is scary. He's yet to demonstrate it but he did take Leningrad from me on turn 4 which is bad enough.

quote:

In all seriousness, and I respect Michael T who is obviously an amazing player, what are we defining as the "runaway"? I don't think we can have this discussion without that fact...

quote:

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.

Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.

Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.

This "runaway", aka trading space for time doesn't win. How do I know that? Because I did it in three games. And I lost in three games.

I would say that it baffles me why some Axis players want to force Stalin's political decision to fight on Russian players. Especially as way back in 2010 it was stated that A: Political decisions are not in the game. (something that one would think would make Axis players happy. Laying seige to Leningrad instead fo taking it was a political decision after all.) And B: The players would not be forced to replicate Hitler's/Stalin's blunders. (Another thing that one would think would make Axis players happy.)

But it doesn't baffle me.