Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Both HLYA and Tyronec did it against me in 41 during the playtesting (the first two games I ever played as the Soviets vs humans). I have seen several where Leningrad is isolated or falls in 41 or early 42. So many people have written off Leningrad pushes because of the bad terrain that an alert Axis player could surprise the Soviet player with a quick redirection of panzer forces. If the Axis can burst through to the Luga River line then the 10 hex limit will not allow Soviet reinforcements near Leningrad and it will take some time to move them into defensive positions.

The Axis player must do some misdirection OR put enough pressure on the Soviets in the Leningrad/Moscow/Ukraine axis that force the Soviets to have to defend everywhere. With this pressure the Soviets will have to make some decisions about where to thin the defenses. Currently the Soviet defenders appear to decide that the southern flank will be defended by supply limitations alone. It will not. If the Axis player knows their logistic system well enough you can supply a thrust out to Stalingrad in 41 without more than small supply problems. Thrusts that deep in 41 will severely damage the Soviets for 42 and later. The hit in the replacement rates alone will damage the Soviets in the long run.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

I have looked at several H vs H AARs, trying to find the one with the German player adjacent to Moscow in Dec 1941 and Leningrad isolated? Where is that unicorn?

I mean seriously, there should be some, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

I have looked at several H vs H AARs, trying to find the one with the German player adjacent to Moscow in Dec 1941 and Leningrad isolated? Where is that unicorn?

I mean seriously, there should be some, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

I have looked at several H vs H AARs, trying to find the one with the German player adjacent to Moscow in Dec 1941 and Leningrad isolated? Where is that unicorn?

I mean seriously, there should be some, right?

oddly this public AAR shows the Axis take Leningrad and threaten Moscow - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4953967

even better its stickied so easy to find

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

I have looked at several H vs H AARs, trying to find the one with the German player adjacent to Moscow in Dec 1941 and Leningrad isolated? Where is that unicorn?

I mean seriously, there should be some, right?

oddly this public AAR shows the Axis take Leningrad and threaten Moscow - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4953967

even better its stickied so easy to find

Is that AR a Human vs Human game? It looks like an AI game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

I have looked at several H vs H AARs, trying to find the one with the German player adjacent to Moscow in Dec 1941 and Leningrad isolated? Where is that unicorn?

I mean seriously, there should be some, right?

oddly this public AAR shows the Axis take Leningrad and threaten Moscow - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4953967

even better its stickied so easy to find

Is that AR a Human vs Human game? It looks like an AI game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

...

My name is Robert and with Tim we are going to give you an insight into a Gary Grisby's War in the East 2 multiplayer game. As I have more experience with the War in the East series, I will play the bad guys.
.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: karonagames


I too doubt that the unicorn will seen in the foreseeable future in AARs of equally skiiled and expereinced opponents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: karonagames


I too doubt that the unicorn will seen in the foreseeable future in AARs of equally skiiled and expereinced opponents.

Germans are pretty capable of doing this already. You just need to get the dance steps correctly orchestrated to do so, even against equally skilled Soviets. And currently many Germans are in the process of learning to "dance". I know that I now have a great deal more confidence in the Germans achieving their goals then when I first started the recent AAR. Before I chalked up my success based on inexperienced play on both sides. Now I believe what Joel Billings said is true. Thus I am learning & improving my dance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

I have looked at several H vs H AARs, trying to find the one with the German player adjacent to Moscow in Dec 1941 and Leningrad isolated? Where is that unicorn?

I mean seriously, there should be some, right?

oddly this public AAR shows the Axis take Leningrad and threaten Moscow - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4953967

even better its stickied so easy to find

Is that AR a Human vs Human game? It looks like an AI game.

yep HtH, fairly clearly stated in the second sentence of the first post?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

...

My name is Robert and with Tim we are going to give you an insight into a Gary Grisby's War in the East 2 multiplayer game. As I have more experience with the War in the East series, I will play the bad guys.
.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

He also TOOK Leningrad, and opted not to launch Taifun for all the same reasons we say Taifun was a bad idea. And took Tula, as well as scoring super early bonuses on the bulk of the cities in the center steppes.

So if the Unicorn is a perfect hex by her day by day repeat of history, I think we can say that you're unlikely to see it. If the Unicorn is the Germans having succes in AGC and AGN, he most certainly qualified, much to my chagrin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kursk1943

...and a few Soviets!

quote:

If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke


The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked.

A historical outcome would require historical decision making.

Neither OKW nor STAVKA in PBEM play tend to slavishly follow their historical counterparts.

Expecting a slavish recreation of what happened historically is begging for disappointment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke


The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

Emphasis mine. You bought a game, not a recreation of the Eastern Front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked.

A historical outcome would require historical decision making.

Neither OKW nor STAVKA in PBEM play tend to slavishly follow their historical counterparts.

Expecting a slavish recreation of what happened historically is begging for disappointment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke


The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

Emphasis mine. You bought a game, not a recreation of the Eastern Front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked.

A historical outcome would require historical decision making.

Neither OKW nor STAVKA in PBEM play tend to slavishly follow their historical counterparts.

Expecting a slavish recreation of what happened historically is begging for disappointment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke


The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

Emphasis mine. You bought a game, not a recreation of the Eastern Front.

You and Aurelian seem to be are missing the point. I am asking IF the game was tested using historical as you say decision making, yes, and if so, did the results mirror history. Ideally the results should be the same. If not, then there is a problem. I am not saying players have to make those decisions, that is another thing entirely.

Aurelian, I know you think I am trying to get some sort of scripted play for the Soviets, I am not. I am only wondering how much testing was done based on historical examples. I would assume everyone is striving for that, are we not? The fun of the game for both sides is "can we change history". For the Soviets I think that means if the same decisions are not followed, then different results should come from that, which I agree with that. Same applies to the Axis, if instead they push for the South, different results should come from that, or lets say both sides tried to mirror history, then the results should be very close what took place.

quote:


That's a bad premise for testing a game point-blank, and if that was the direction that testing and balance went, there would be howls of protest from all corners.

The other aspect is that it isn't how the game works. There's an element of randomness in the game that will prevent any recreation of the historical outcome with any fidelity. The game departs from history on June 1941, and after that point it only diverges further as the game progresses.

The appropriate way to look at the game is with a view that is sufficiently high level to avoid misinterpretation. Tracking specific hexes is a sure way to misinterpret the state of the game.

Looking at the high level strategic picture is best. What we see there largely mirrors history, in that the Axis make substantial gains in 1941, before slowly running out of steam as the Red Army rebuilds itself into the winter and a 1942 where there is a fine balance between the two sides.

That, to me, feels in the historical space even if a specific hex isn't reached by a specific date.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I think one thing that is often ignored is that is that in November 1941 the Soviets had amassed several reserve Army’s near Moscow. If I recall correctly, they released one or two of them to hold onto Tula, but they held back to the others. I know few players that would let the axis drive next to Moscow when they had reserve armies sitting nearby unused. How do you factor that into your thinking? It’s for this reason that we purposely create an event to release reserves in late November, but I don’t think we hold back everything. In testing we never told players to purposely play historically. So now I can’t say that we’ve tested that, however the eye place fairly historically and we have test of that. Yes we’d like to think that everything being equal the game would play out historically. That’s our goal, but I can’t for sure that we’ve met it. I don’t think we’re that far off though. We keep finding things to fix and improve and hopefully the game will just keep getting better. In the meantime we think the game is fun to play, but of course we’re biased..