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: T20

 
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 2 >> After Action Reports >> RE: T20 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 5:15:39 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Am I wrong or it seems the best way to go around is 'Hog the ports to help logistics and get Sebastopol and Leningrad for points, screw go deeper in the East' type of approach?



Yup, what I said before :-) Couple that with getting as many level 2 railyards into your supply network is even better. That is what I do even at the expense of deep penetrations.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 61
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 6:31:05 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Can't kill enough Soviets because Soviets have no need to stay and fight in general.

VPs need to be more granular (more VP cities dotting the landscape).
VP Bonuses should only be awarded to the one presently having Initiative. If Rostov fall historically and is secured back by the Soviets in W41 they should not get a bonus. Once they will seize it in their own Initiative game-phase before the historical date (and probably these things will be mega easy due to the snowball effect of Germans not killing Soviets enough in '41) they will net a bonus.

I'd not be against an interregnum of initiative period where both sides have bonuses to enable counterattacks and efforts. - Still if there are more dots here and there that give VP instead of super diluted huge cities ... there will be more action.

(in reply to RoadWarrior)
Post #: 62
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 9:31:40 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Can't kill enough Soviets because Soviets have no need to stay and fight in general.

VPs need to be more granular (more VP cities dotting the landscape).
VP Bonuses should only be awarded to the one presently having Initiative. If Rostov fall historically and is secured back by the Soviets in W41 they should not get a bonus. Once they will seize it in their own Initiative game-phase before the historical date (and probably these things will be mega easy due to the snowball effect of Germans not killing Soviets enough in '41) they will net a bonus.

I'd not be against an interregnum of initiative period where both sides have bonuses to enable counterattacks and efforts. - Still if there are more dots here and there that give VP instead of super diluted huge cities ... there will be more action.


Please map out your VP's needed for wins in 41 on a map or on paper for the VP turn. The first one is turn 16. You will see all roads go through Moscow for a quick victory. Otherwise you would have to go deeper in the South to compensate for not getting Moscow. Map it out and you will see your path to victory for the Germans in 41 or early 42.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 63
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 9:51:06 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		What I mean is to review the VP checks (ie, instead of 525 make it 1050 for ex) but then add VPs to other Cities. Inclusive of the bonuses.
Cities as Gomel, Novgorod, Cherkassy, Vinnitsa, etc etc etc etc...

Have them worth 5 VP each for instance, but with the Bonus swing. (Maybe a lesser swing than +6)

That type of granularity will set the side not on the initiative to hold grounds and fight for it or risking a higher enemy High Watermark.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 64
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 10:02:02 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

What I mean is to review the VP checks (ie, instead of 525 make it 1050 for ex) but then add VPs to other Cities. Inclusive of the bonuses.
Cities as Gomel, Novgorod, Cherkassy, Vinnitsa, etc etc etc etc...

Have them worth 5 VP each for instance, but with the Bonus swing. (Maybe a lesser swing than +6)

That type of granularity will set the side not on the initiative to hold grounds and fight for it or risking a higher enemy High Watermark.


Could make it interesting. I would support a redistribution of VP's for sure. But from experience the VP's wont be changed by the powers to be :( Just not enough data to draw a conclusive result yet although we are seeing a trend.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 65
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 10:45:45 PM   
jubjub

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 5/2/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

What I mean is to review the VP checks (ie, instead of 525 make it 1050 for ex) but then add VPs to other Cities. Inclusive of the bonuses.
Cities as Gomel, Novgorod, Cherkassy, Vinnitsa, etc etc etc etc...

Have them worth 5 VP each for instance, but with the Bonus swing. (Maybe a lesser swing than +6)

That type of granularity will set the side not on the initiative to hold grounds and fight for it or risking a higher enemy High Watermark.



Why should there be points awarded for capturing Novgorod? It has no manufacturing, low pop, no propaganda value etc. Its capture does not affect the Soviet Unions capacity to wage war in any sense. However, it does have strategic importance because it defends the double rail line and one of the paths to Leningrad. The current VP system requires the player to assign an arbitrary value to Novgorod relative to the points in Leningrad based on the assessed strategic value and the on-map situation. This reasoning can be applied to every minor city on the map.


For example, Gomel is one of the only lvl 2 railyards in the area, and it's on an important rail line that leads to Bryansk, Orel, Kursk, and Kharkov. The Soviet player can choose to give it up for free, but this decision makes it easier on the Axis player to keep the FBD moving and capture the VP cities. Part of the challenge is knowing what is important to defend and what's not, and assigning VP to every minor city would be a hamfisted approach that would take away a lot of the agency that is given to the players.



< Message edited by jubjub -- 8/14/2021 10:46:24 PM >

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 66
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 10:52:22 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

hamfisted




The visions this word brought up you would not believe ;-P

(in reply to jubjub)
Post #: 67
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 10:53:24 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

hamfisted




The visions this word brought up you would not believe ;-P


I had to do a double take look because at first I thought it said, "handfisted". LOL

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 68
RE: T20 - 8/14/2021 11:03:55 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Factories and railroads are another thing on the map.

VPs are an abstraction, a matter of prestige, of popular perception of how the war is proceeding, etcetera.

Every nation historically defended its territory. Poland was not bunkering around Warsaw. Yugoslavia defended all of its border. Greece hugged the mounts bordering Albania. France shaped the Maginot Line, and advanced in Belgium.
A perceived lack of will to fight, or possibility of collapse could well have also Allied power not keen to lend lease assets and weapons to a power that on the map is losing ground at lightning speed!

No nation just -runs backward- with their armies because the gameplay allows. Population would feel abandoned, not protected. It's not the enemy dislodging you. It's your armed forces marching the wrong direction.

Thus conceptually from historical view point -AND- for gameplay benefit a dilution / review of Victory Points allocation and ratings needed could be extremely healthy for the scope and purpose of the game.

I'd litterally tie VPs to other factors too but that's another tale.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 69
RE: T20 - 8/15/2021 1:32:25 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 8650
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline 		The limited amount of VP Cities is a limitation in the software, it can not handle more at this time. This may be able to be changed though it would take a good argument for it to happen.

The VP limits are easily changed. So the Sudden Death/Victory limits are really something to focus on for easy changes to the game balance and the powers that be are interested in long games to look at and determine the balancing.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 70
RE: T20 - 8/15/2021 2:18:15 AM   
IanW

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/12/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN


No nation just -runs backward- with their armies because the gameplay allows. P


Russia in 1812 comes to mind.

However, it's pretty transparent you want the Soviet Army to be forced forward by the VP system where they can be pocketed.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 71
T25 - 8/31/2021 3:52:37 PM   
RoadWarrior

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 5/8/2020
Status: offline 		Turn 25
SHC 1 battles with 0 held results, losses were 13k. GHC 0 battles with 0 held results, losses were 11k





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Skritshell)
Post #: 72
RE: T25 - 8/31/2021 3:56:09 PM   
RoadWarrior

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 5/8/2020
Status: offline 		South




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RoadWarrior)
Post #: 73
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> After Action Reports >> RE: T20 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.703