Trying To Like The Game But...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Trying To Like The Game But...

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 >> Trying To Like The Game But...

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 3:32:36 AM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

1) Has anyone else considered what the practical effect of the commander "win loss" recording system has on the Russian command structure over the turns during '41-'42 ? It seems obvious to me that the entire Russian command staff will be executed by the end of '42 if they attempt to defend at all. While this element of the game might have been thought a "cute" addition, it is actually a pretty stupid "fail circle" simulation wise. Additionally, the "automatic" removal of commanders that were selected manually by the "Supreme Commander" (i.e. - the player) is a ridiculously conflicted concept. It should be removed. (Note: I'm being sarcastic, of course. Not suggesting that they are actually executed, but I am pointing out what seems to me to be overly high command penalties that accrue to commanders that rack up more losses than wins in a system where the Russian commanders are destined to lose almost every battle from 41-42.

(EDIT 12/21/13 - IT'S OFFICIAL ! FOR THE RECORD ! I HATE THIS COMMAND MODEL ! INCREDIBLY STUPID SYSTEM. IT SEEMS I'M NOT PLAYING THE GAME... SOME RANDOM B.S. MODEL IS. IM SUPPOSED TO BE THE SUPREME COMMANDER, NOT SOME GHOST IN THE MACHINE. TOTALLY DEFEATS THE POINT OF PLAYING IT ! DID I MENTION HOW MUCH I HATE THIS PART OF THE GAME ?)

2) I think the combat system is not working properly. When I stack fully supplied Russian infantry divisions (morale levels in excess of 50) in clear terrain that has a fortification level of 2 and is under the command of a single HQ commander (such that there is no multi HQ CV penalty) and the commander is rated 7 for infantry and 6 morale.... and then this stack is attacked by German troops with nebelwerfer, artillery, and engineers... the defending Russian troops GET NO BENEFIT OF FORTIFICATION AT ALL apparently. If I understand correctly, the presence of attacking engineers is supposed to have a "reducing" effect on the fortification (the rules talk about some multiple of 2 percent reduction), but the combat system is allowing the presence of engineers to eliminate the fortification effect entirely. If you look at the modified CV listed on the combat results report you will see this. The modified CV shows no benefit of fortification at all that I can tell. In fact, in most cases the modified CV is LESS than the raw CV shown on the detail report. Is this broken?

3) Since morale values seem to matter more than CV values for determining battle outcomes and since the Russian side has absolutely no CV worthy troops until they combine them into Corps (and no morale worthy troops for that matter either)... don't you think the game system is a little harsh when the addition of a SINGLE BRIGADE with low morale taints the morale level of the TWO other high morale DIVISIONS that are combined to form a Corps ? Why isn't the morale weight averaged ? And on the subject of morale, I thought the new Russian brigades were supposed to come in at 50 morale ? After the .11 patch they were still entering as low as 35-38... Is this normal ?

I also find it humorous that the Russian is required to keep units more than ten hexes from the enemy in order to build morale. All units begin morale in the toilette... So how exactly is the Russian supposed to defend the front, if all his troops must be 10 hexes away from the front ? Pretty much a perfect "Catch - 22" don't you think ? Apparently Grigsby's answer is "Run !... Don't defend !". I begin to think Grigsby was drinking heavily when he designed this one.

(NOTE: I think I should clarify that these comments apply to the .11 patch version of a PBEM game.)

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 12/22/2013 11:22:09 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 3:54:46 AM

Peltonx

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

You have allot to learn newbie.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 2

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 4:13:26 AM

Flaviusx

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

1. Executions are actually surprisingly rare. But Stalin does have an itchy finger when it comes to dismissing commanders. You can control this to some extent. You will never have enough first class commanders to staff all your HQs. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to man the bulk of them with the average Joe Schmoes and withhold some of your superstars until winter when they can run up their win numbers.

2. Engineers can knock down fortifications, yes. Basically you cannot count on anything below level 3 resisting this if the assets are concentrated. Nevertheless, said engineering assets are limited and you want to force said concentration.

Terrain is not subject to engineering reductions and is therefore extremely important. Work with the lay of the land, even a simple forest is nice, and dense forests, swamps, rough or urban will be particularly tough to clear.

3. CV is calculated in large part based on your unit morale -- and the relationship is not linear. A 100 morale unit is far more than twice as strong as a 50 morale unit with the same TOE, supply, leadership, etc. So you are drawing a false distinction here between the two. As for disparities in morale between different units in a single hex...well, yeah. It is what it is. If you want to hold a hex you just have to make sure that you've got first class units in them, across the board as this will generate a larger total CV between them.

And back them up with reserves.

New units do not always or even usually enter at the national morale cap. You may have to train them. Very rarely they may exceed those caps. (There's a handful of 55-60 morale Soviet Units coming in from Siberia in 41, treasure them.) You can train units up to their national morale cap in the rear, 10+ hexes from the front line.

Or they can learn in the school of hard knocks by winning fights on the front.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 12/15/2013 5:19:52 AM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 3

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 10:42:39 AM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

Flaviusx and Pelton:
You two Gentlemen are psychic in your appearance here because you both are individuals who, in addition to 2BY3 and Matrix, I got up at 5:00 AM in the morning to address this diatribe to specifically. Now before I say anything else, I want to salute Flaviusx for his balanced and rational (non Russian/German-fanbois) commentary on the forum which has greatly helped me understand the inner workings (and flaws) of this game. To Pelton, I want to apologize for my misunderstanding of his demeanor and approach to this game (which I was honestly initially repulsed by). I stand corrected, Pelton IS NOT a mere "exploiter". My opinion of him is now entirely changed because I now understand how completely flawed, broken, and unfinished the coding in this game is. What Pelton IS, is an intelligent individual who is aware that the game is so broken that the only way to successfully play it is to exploit the daylights out of it's many flaws. Now having said that, let me say what I came here to say.

The point that I was attempting to make about the troops in clear terrain in "2" level fortification was that the modified CV in such a positon, when not negatively affected by supply, morale, or command penalties, should NOT be less than the raw CV values of the units.... yet often, they are. This tells me the combat system is NOT working as intended.

It also bothers me greatly that the flawed command combat "win-loss" record model, combined with non-existent CV and morale levels of the Russian forces in 41-42 and the ridiculously unrealistic "instant pocketing decimation" effects of the isolation rules forces the Russian into simply not playing the game for 41-42 and running for the east edge of the map, instead of a fighting retreat. Very unsatisfactory as a simulation. (I'm not saying the Russian can't attack, but it is suicidal in long term consequences.)

TO 2BY3 and MATRIX and GRIGSBY:
I realize that a game of this scope and attempted complexity is not an easy piece of work to pull off successfully. The coding of the game design model is so convoluted that I am sure there are unintended circular consequences that are nearly impossible to iron out. I would suggest, however that you change your marketing pitch regarding this product to let consumers know that they are purchasing a participation ticket in a beta test and not a finished product. On the other hand, I DO NOT want to harp too negatively on this point, as your continued willingness and determination to patch the game to repair the flaws has been exemplary (and I applaud you for this). I will try to hold on to that thought as I wade through this magnificent mess.

P.S. Yes, Pelton... while I am an ancient wargamer, I am completely new to WITE.

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 12/26/2013 2:13:02 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 4

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 11:17:18 AM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

Flaviusx:

Concerning the appointment of Russian Commanders in 41-42... I am converting to Pelton's school of thinking for my approach to this ass-backward "feature" of the game. Using his logic, I intend to appoint my worst officers to all positions... and why not ? They won't be intentionally engaging in ANY combat and will be running for the Urals until late 42. In any event, the design model of this game destines the Russian to lose ANY battle they didn't "choose" to initiate until late 42 (and the way the logistics work, the Russian won't be doing most of the "choosing" other than choosing to retreat), so the commander in charge will only incur "losses" on his record and be shot or otherwise command penalized into perfidy. So why would I want to expose my best commanders to that punishment? Better reserve them for assignment in 43, after the Russian Army has formed Corps with which to fight and morale levels that are functional.

(A very cheesy approach, but I bet Pelton is smiling in approval at my shedding of noobness.)

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 12/26/2013 2:17:36 AM >

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 5

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 11:43:45 AM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Flaviusx:

Concerning the appointment of Russian Commanders in 41-42... I am converting to Pelton's school of thinking for my approach to this ass-backward game. Using his logic, I intend to appoint my worst officers to all positions... and why not ? They won't be intentionally engaging in ANY combat and will be running for the Urals until late 42. In any event, the design model of this game destines the Russian to lose ANY battle they engage in until late 42, so the commander in charge will only incur "losses" on his record and be shot or otherwise command penalized into perfidy. So why would I want to expose my best commanders to that punishment? Better reserve them for assignement in 43, after the Russian Army has formed Corps with which to fight and morale levels that are functional.

(A very cheesy approach, but I bet Pelton is smiling in approval at my shedding of noobness.)

Honestly, aside from against the best German players out there, who know how to push the broken logistics system to the limit there is no reason to run for the Urals. In the North a tough defense can be mounted in the area around Lovat and Valdai and in the Centre in front of Moscow starting at around Vyazma when the German logistics still haven't caught up. Only in the South is running the logical strategy if the Lvov pocket is implemented. You have to discard the thought of semi-permanently stopping the Germans (and that shouldn't be possible in Summer 1941, the Germans made it to the gates of Moscow after all). If you can turn the match into a grind with the Germans needing multiple divisions on deliberate attacks, you have already gained much. Running does not win the game, not with the new blizzard rules.

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 6

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 1:55:50 PM

swkuh

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline

Appears "Flaviusx" has met your request quite well, although more could be said. As for "Pelton," see his most recent AAR, "PeltonVBozo" for an insightful explanation of his tactics as GHQ (I think.)

Looking forward to your forum posts.

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 7

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 4:51:27 PM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

SigUp: I agree that it is unnecessary to retreat much further east than along a line roughly from Moskow to Lake Onega in the North. This is more due to the terrain and the fact that the German has easier industrial targets in the South to attack and will simply not attack in the North because of it. That result has little to do with what a Russian player does and everything to do with what a German player chooses to do though, not any defensive strategy on the part of the Russian player.

In the Center at Moskow and the South toward Rostov and beyond, again the question of where the German DECIDES to attack and when the Mud hits are the ONLY factors controlling what gets taken and when. Given the game's messed up logistics, morale mechanisms and combat models (which despite multiple patches, I don't believe are even yet working as Grigsby intended) the Russian player has nothing to do but spend his moves reorganizing the Red Army, while avoiding ALL combat with the German player wherever he can until January 1943.

"Running for the Urals" is just my sarcastic way of registering my disappointment with Grigsby's apparent way of dealing with the fact that Germany did historically run over everything from Poland to Stalingrad before they ran out of steam. Unfortunately, in this approach, Grigsby forgot that there was a lot of "combat" in between those two points and has failed to model that in this simulation. No such participation in combat is even possible for the Russian player in 41-42 because of bad balance design or possibly broken code. The only practical thing for the Russian player to do is "go away" and not play the game until 43. It irks me.

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 1/20/2014 10:38:43 PM >

(in reply to swkuh)

Post #: 8

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 5:06:31 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

Every East Front game is faced with the problem of how to enable the Red Army to defend without the Germans getting completely stifled by August. I don't know whether you already played the game back then, with patch .09 I think a fix was introduced to morale gains that wasn't working correctly. As a result of that patch Soviet morale skyrocketed towards 50 and due to that those German players that weren't the top 5 or so regularly faced entrenched 4-5 CV rifle divisions on the landbridge and even experienced players were getting stopped at the Dnepr. Even now it's tough to play the German side. I don't think the average German player can flat-out dominate the Soviets until 1943.

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 9

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 5:11:40 PM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Every East Front game is faced with the problem of how to enable the Red Army to defend without the Germans getting completely stifled by August. I don't know whether you already played the game back then, with patch .09 I think a fix was introduced to morale gains that wasn't working correctly. As a result of that patch Soviet morale skyrocketed towards 50 and due to that those German players that weren't the top 5 or so regularly faced entrenched 4-5 CV rifle divisions on the landbridge and even experienced players were getting stopped at the Dnepr. Even now it's tough to play the German side. I don't think the average German player can flat-out dominate the Soviets until 1943.

Play Wheat... and get back to me. He will give you directions to the Urals.

Game balance should be based upon the assumption that both sides are played by fully competent opponents.

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 3/12/2014 6:30:09 PM >

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 10

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 5:26:15 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

really don't want to get involved in another cheese vs realism debate

(so here goes

)

There will always be people who play competitive games with the mindset that winning is all that matters and that anything not banned is legal. I somehow think the subject matter of games like WiTE tends to bring this out (esp for those who take it personally that Germany lost), as it has been, so far, less common in the AGE PBEM community (and those with that mindset tend to run out of opponents).

So on that view, leveraging turn 1 to something unrealistic, plus all the abuses of the lax logistics system is standard. After that, a Soviet player either becomes another victim of Pelton's tricks (and not just Pelton there are others) or reacts with their own pile of cheese - chief amongst which is running off to the east.

Now, as I'll freely admit, I don't have a clue where cheese begins and good game play ends. But its one of those things I know it when I see it.

Equally I think the fun part of PBEM is finding an opponent you share an approach with, the email chat around turns and the horror/joy or getting back a turn and finding your moves worked. In other words beating the living daylights out of your opponent.

So I'm not a huge fan of house rules except the very simple that can't be breached by accident. I'd suggest if you want a realistic game, then agree no Lvov, and no Soviet mass evac of the Ukraine, and then think about the key game settings - logistics and relative morale values. I've no firm idea what is right, or the best balance, but those tools exist and one advantage is they help to constrain the game. The ideal is of course a Soviet fighting retreat in 1941, a winter counteroffensive that maims the Axis and then enough residual German strength to make 1942 a realistic long shot at victory (or at least at bettering history). I think it can be done.

_____________________________

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 11

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 5:35:49 PM

Wheat

Posts: 154
Joined: 6/17/2011
Status: offline

Let me give a digest of our game to date. We began with a house rule of no German advances on the Southern front of more than 5 hexes on the first turn. Gamesaurus' Russian strat was basically run for the hills.
This kept his losses to a minimum at the expense of giving ground. I quickly took Leningrad, but elected to drive further in the south than to take Moscow, which was heavily defended. I took Rostov and the first blizzard approached. His armament losses were 55-60. For the blizzard Gamesaurus chose to NOT attack, and preserve strength. I think he should have attacked, as I was prepared to retreat. I also pulled most armor and some elite infantry back to Germany.

So, come late June 42, the German army prepares to attack a daunting 9 MILLION Russians.

His beef and to some extent mine, is that for the first 50 turns its run run run with little combat. The game has some great flavor and works well, but it needs a few tweaks to bring it all the way.

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 12

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 5:49:25 PM

Flaviusx

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

The first blizzard is a gift for the Soviet and he certainly should be attacking then.

Nobody hates the Lvov business more than I. But if you as the German are willing to forego it, there has to be some give on the Soviet side, and not merely flat out run away in response. Ultimately the game may have to enforce discipline on this score in the form of sudden death (much as I dislike this.) It frustrates me to see this time and again where the German player agrees to not do the Lvov pocket and the Soviet just takes all of SW Front and rails it to the Dnepr. This isn't even necessary.

All of you fraidy cat Soviets need to sit down and play the Kiev scenario. You will not be allowed to do this runaway in that scenario. Nor can the Axis player do a Lvov pocket since he is limited to historical AGS forces. Learn how to make do with what you have and defend in the south. Then try this for real in a campaign game with both sides making concessions so the south plays out reasonably.

There are a lot of issues with the 1941 campaign that won't be ironed out until 2.0, unfortunately.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Wheat)

Post #: 13

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 6:04:26 PM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheat

Let me give a digest of our game to date. We began with a house rule of no German advances on the Southern front of more than 5 hexes on the first turn. Gamesaurus' Russian strat was basically run for the hills.
This kept his losses to a minimum at the expense of giving ground. I quickly took Leningrad, but elected to drive further in the south than to take Moscow, which was heavily defended. I took Rostov and the first blizzard approached. His armament losses were 55-60. For the blizzard Gamesaurus chose to NOT attack, and preserve strength. I think he should have attacked, as I was prepared to retreat. I also pulled most armor and some elite infantry back to Germany.

So, come late June 42, the German army prepares to attack a daunting 9 MILLION Russians.

His beef and to some extent mine, is that for the first 50 turns its run run run with little combat. The game has some great flavor and works well, but it needs a few tweaks to bring it all the way.

And here Wheat has stated it well... the game has incredible appeal in scope, scale, and subject matter. What it lacks is a combat system that allows the two sides to actually engage in combat in 41-42. With the current situation, early combat is suicide for the Russian with no means of recovering even if he decides to do so for the sake of "Mother Russia".

I believe the isolation effects are too extreme (the pocketed troops should be able to fight to some extent and the mopping up should cost the Germans more than it does).

I believe the combat system is not calculating the CV correctly (when the modified CVs are registering less than the raw CVs in fortified battles where there are no command, supply, morale, or other penalties... you have a problem).

I believe there is no real incentive for the Russian to fight west of Moskow, and given the low replacement rate of men and material available to the Russian, there is no practical way a Russian player can engage in combat in 41-42 and survive and recover to fight in 43. (If you greatly increased available replacements, maybe they could.)

I believe all these things can eventually get fixed if the Patching Gods keep up the good work, at least I'm hoping so.

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 12/15/2013 7:10:14 PM >

(in reply to Wheat)

Post #: 14

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 6:09:53 PM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

I do think we should all give .12 a chance here - the games I am playing in it are a lot of fun, as I (the Red) assume I have to fight forward since I don't have the luxury of a three month mega blizzard to take back territory a d create guards. I lose a lot more men but so does the Hun, which creates a good blizzard where both armies are weak and the Sobiets can only push in spots (as it should be). Meta-game deign decisions aside, I think things are the best they've ever been.

_____________________________

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 15

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 6:18:28 PM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

We played with the Reduced Blizzard and it is a non-event. If anything, it makes the situation worse for the Russian who must run all the harder. As for a Russian counteratttack in the blizzard... LOL Why ? What is to be gained ? Certainly not German losses as they retreat anyway to avoid the weather effects. In any event, the rails are damaged from prior German advance and will not be repaired at a rate that would enable the LOW MORALE, WEAK BRIGADED, BADLY DISORGANIZED COMMAND STRUCTURED, Russian Army to attack anything under the combat/morale/command penalties existing in the 41-42 time frame. This was made worse under the last patch because it removed the Russian CV surge during the blizzard. Attack the Germans ? WITH WHAT ??

The Russian time and energy is better spent reorganizing their command structure and digging multiple lines of fortified positions (which will be penetrated by the Germans anyway due to the freakish logistics system that allows the Germans to penetrate 150 miles at a stretch through any front with impervious troops that are immune to attack and seemingly suffer no attritonal effects.

The only thing that eventually stops this is the fact that IF the Russian can survive in to late 42, he will have begun to regroup the Red Army into Corps level units that are capable of engaging the German Army. Prior to this event, the Russian has NO COMBAT EFFECTIVE TROOPS TO SPEAK OF. NONE !

(and Flaviusx.. before you reiterate that Russia needs to attack during the blizzard, you need to play Wheat (with Wheat taking the German side) so he can give your Russian troops the directions to the Urals). There is just not enough of anything for the Russians to take the offensive that early. If they do so, they will face the German onslaught of summer of 42 in a weakened state and with little in the way of fortified lines.

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 12/15/2013 7:51:11 PM >

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 16

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 6:40:25 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

I guess all the experienced Soviet players out there will disagree with you.

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 17

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 6:53:12 PM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I guess all the experienced Soviet players out there will disagree with you.

I guess you haven't played an experienced German player.

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 18

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 6:54:12 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I guess all the experienced Soviet players out there will disagree with you.

I guess you haven't played an experienced German player.

That's because I play the Germans.

Besides, Flav disagrees with you and he is one of the best Soviet players out there.

< Message edited by SigUp -- 12/15/2013 7:55:15 PM >

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 19

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:01:15 PM

Flaviusx

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

Well, nobody is very experienced at this point in playing with the mild blizzard as it is brand new. But I very much doubt that this new blizzard means that no offensive whatsoever is the optimum strategy. I can imagine wanting to stop early with it or limiting the scope of the offensive, but simply sitting in place everywhere for the duration?

At a minimum I'd want to grab as much real estate west of Moscow as possible in order to provide a bigger buffer to it come summer of 42. There's some good defensive terrain in this area. And attacking is the best way to generate morale and guards which helps you get past 42 where the morale cap is very low.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 20

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:01:25 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

All of you fraidy cat Soviets need to sit down and play the Kiev scenario. You will not be allowed to do this runaway in that scenario. Nor can the Axis player do a Lvov pocket since he is limited to historical AGS forces. Learn how to make do with what you have and defend in the south. Then try this for real in a campaign game with both sides making concessions so the south plays out reasonably.

This is completely correct. The best PBEM I had in the 'Road Tos' was Dnepropetrovsk. The German can't do a Lvov and the Soviets can't run (first is lack of units, second is the victory conditions). The result was a brilliant tussle that came down to just holding Kharkov at the last.

It unfolds very realistic with the Germans struggling with SW Front, swinging into the gap between SW and S Front and then back north.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, nobody is very experienced at this point in playing with the mild blizzard as it is brand new. But I very much doubt that this new blizzard means that no offensive whatsoever is the optimum strategy. I can imagine wanting to stop early with it or limiting the scope of the offensive, but simply sitting in place everywhere for the duration?

At a minimum I'd want to grab as much real estate west of Moscow as possible in order to provide a bigger buffer to it come summer of 42. There's some good defensive terrain in this area. And attacking is the best way to generate morale and guards which helps you get past 42 where the morale cap is very low.

I've an AI game that I keep on going back a few turns on purely to try and get a handle on what works with the new changes. Since in my game the AI has vastly overloaded the Volkhov Front, I've made no useful counterattacks up there, managed to regain some key river lines and that is that. Around Moscow I only got Rzhev back because at the end of the day the AI is ... an AI. In Feb on the Moscow sector its down to 2 punch drunk boxers trading blows. In the south, I've regained a lot of ground but am thinking about where I need to call a halt as my gains are pretty fragile.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 12/15/2013 8:05:57 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 21

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:19:04 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

I believe the isolation effects are too extreme (the pocketed troops should be able to fight to some extent and the mopping up should cost the Germans more than it does).

I believe the combat system is not calculating the CV correctly (when the modified CVs are registering less than the raw CVs in fortified battles where there are no command, supply, morale, or other penalties... you have a problem).

I believe there is no real incentive for the Russian to fight west of Moskow, and given the low replacement rate of men and material available to the Russian, there is no practical way a Russian player can engage in combat in 41-42 and survive and recover to fight in 43. (If you greatly increased available replacements, maybe they could.)

I believe all these things can eventually get fixed if the Patching Gods keep up the good work, at least I'm hoping so.

Isolation - I would like to see one turn of little to no penalty for isolation, because those units would usually act at the same time as their opponent, trying to break out (unless they were ordered to stay). IGoYouGo systems, especially with a supply check between player turns create this problem, in a WeGo game with a single supply check that would never be an issue. But such is this design. I try not to (even if I would like to) change things in the original design if they are documented fully / clearly in the manual. When something is missing I can interpret things and this gives me some space for maneuver :-)

CV in combat is a problem. As I have proven using math, that what you see on counters is not what you will see in combat. Expected value of combat CV is not scaling linearily with those you see on counters (simple case: unit with morale 100 has double CV in combat, with 0 it has half CV - thus morale 100 is four times better than morale 0; formula used for on-counter CV introduces completely different relation: normal CV for morale 100, half for 50, zero for 0). Modified CV in combat is divided by 10, to bring it closer to on counter values, but it has different spread. I could have put expected values on counters but it was decided players will be confused by completely new values and those values would have trouble to fit on the counters - a panzer division could have a CV of 60 for example. At least I have made the AI know of those values (which the players learns to "feel" by experience).

The best incentives to fight when it's not optimum choice from pure battlefield result perspecitve is making victory conditions that reward "suicidal" tactics, which cannot be otherwise expected to be used by any sane player. Twilight in the East or Napoleon's Triumph boardgames have been my inspiration in this matter. Unfortunately WitE campaign conditions are not giving any incentives for that. Good VC are the base on which any wargame must be built. Here, they look like they were added half-baked, without real thought behind them ( this is not a sandbox game to which such VCs belong).

All can't be patched without touching core foundations of the design. Effort & time questions aside, this can't be done by me, I have no authority, and the original team is busy with new games (they do it for living so I understand them). I try to patch the biggest problems I face as the player, without removing or redoing core design features, also trying to do it in a way that allows to do it in relatively short time, as I don't have the luxury of having no need for a day job or a family to care for.

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 22

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:24:09 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

If you get rid of some or most of isolation CV reduction you must also get rid of the 1:1 = 2:1 rule. Otherwise the Germans will have it very hard to keep pockets closed. Furthermore, some isolation is necessary. A pocket always causes breakdowns in communications and chaos etc. It's tough to mount an organized counterattack out of a pocket with full strength in such a situation.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 23

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:27:21 PM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

Flaviusx:
Are we playing the same game ? Do your Russian troops come into the game (with a few exceptions) at a morale level of 35 to 38 like mine do ? Does your game have the rule requiring those units to remain 10 hexes away from the front for 5 to 10 turns in order to gain morale to 45 like mine do ? (This represents more than half the Russian force, you can leave them out of any proposed attack.) Can the German Army in your game routinely penetrate 150 miles through any front you assemble and suffer little to no attrition while doing so and then remain impervious to attack because their CV values are beyond anything you have in your entire arsenal ? Can you not assign your good leaders to your troops because to do so will only saddle them with multiple "lost battle" penalties during 41-42 ? Does your game calculate your modified CVs at levels that are lower than the raw CVs in places where you should be getting at least some fortification bonus and you are not suffering supply, command, morale, or other extraneous penalties ? (like mine does).

If not, we are not talking about the same game and I need to know where I can get a copy of yours.

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 3/1/2014 9:49:35 PM >

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 24

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:29:18 PM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

I don't really see the isolation rules as being as terrible as others do. Certainly not a problem of the scope that logistics were prior to the fuel bird fix, or the fort spam of years ago, or the four month all front blizzard offensive. Could they use some minor tweaks? Possibly...but I've never really found them to be the thing that made me pound the table that the game was broken.

For all the pockets that lasted for months, there were many that were mopped up relatively quickly. Game is not going to handle every nuance perfectly.

_____________________________

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 25

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:31:14 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Does your game calculate your modified CVs at levels that are lower than the raw CVs in places where you should be getting at least some fortification bonus and you are not suffering supply, command, morale, or other extraneous penalties ? (like mine does).

loki broke a pocket from the inside against me by getting a CV roll from 39 to 142 and another from the outside from 67 to 277. Oh, and ask terje about the dice rolls he routinely gets.

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 26

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:33:45 PM

Flaviusx

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

I don't wait until they reach 50. I consider 45 morale or better to be adequate for front line duty. This is a case of the best being the enemy of the good.

And you might consider banking exceptional troops clocking in at 50 or better until the winter. They can occupy reserve positions, garrison cities, etc. Use them as immediate reserves but don't expose them directly to the front line. Since they don't need to be trained (indeed cannot be trained) they can be placed in reserve mode.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 27

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:46:23 PM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

morvael:

I salute you and your heroic effort, Sir, for the cause of tweaking this game. If you are doing this "Pro Bono" for the good of the cause, Sir, then I applaud your efforts all the more !

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 28

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:50:41 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

What it lacks is a combat system that allows the two sides to actually engage in combat in 41-42.

That is just not the case. You can counter-attack with ease. The problem is the price you pay as the Russians because if you stick around to long your troops get encircled.

I just had one of those counter-attacks in my game with Pelton. 150 tanks destroyed on T2. In many cases the combat system favors the Soviets. It's the logistics that favors the Germans. As the Russians you have to figure out how far you can go with this approach. Not much point in counter-attacking if you lose half your army in the process.

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 29

RE: Trying To Like The Game But... - 12/15/2013 7:56:47 PM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

Flavuisx:
I hear what you are saying and I do use troops before they reach 50 out of necessity... but I am still confused... don't your troops that are in the range of 45 just rout and disappear like mine do routinely ? Then when you are down to the 43 morale and lower troops, doesn't your army just fold like a cheap camp chair ? At least, this has been my experience. How do you manage to attack the German Army in the blizzard with such troops ? And after you have attacked, are your troops not spent in the pursuit and then out of supply for lack of rail coverage and not dug in fortified and just more weak in defense than they were before you made the mistake of thinking you could attack the German Army before you had assembled Russian Corps level units to do so effectively ?

(And then there is the real problem that I don't use illegitimate methods like those here that do who claim they make 10 to 20 1:1 counterattacks per turn that decimate the German Army in '41 and early '42. They achieve these results by rerolling each attack multiple times until they get the result they want. Otherwise, this sort of claim is impossible to achieve honestly.)

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 1/20/2014 11:32:55 PM >

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 30