RE: I don't want to play anymore

RE: I don't want to play anymore (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

karonagames -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 1:11:11 PM)
Unless we see the screen shot with control set on, we can't tell. The ss motorised brigade has a weaker ZOC than the SS division, so the hex next to the brigade may not have switched to Axis control.

ComradeP -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 1:11:55 PM)
It does seem most of those units should not be able to get out.

JudgeDredd -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 1:12:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm For chrissake, if that pocket does count as "closed", what does? Unless they attacked and threw back at least one of those German units on each side of the gap, how did ANY of the Soviet units move out (I understand that they could have routed out...). TMR Would they be able to rout without being attacked? He said he didn't attack the turn he formed this pocket

Rasputitsa -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 1:29:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, The WitE is IGYG ("I Go - You Go") type of game where both sides play the same turn on same date! [;)] Thus, what you see as, for example, German attacker as solid encirclement is not considered solid encirclement in game engine terms - this is because the other side has opportunity to do something about it - the only "true" encirclement is the encirclement that extends to two (2) or more turns! Therefore if you really want to eliminate trapped enemy units in some pocked you should never encircle and attack in your single turn - you should encircle in your 1st turn and attack in your 2nd turn! This is all explained in manual BTW... [8D] Leo "Apollo11" I am aware of this feature in IGYO (one of the reasons I liked WIR WeGo so much), but in any combat one side, or other, usually has the initiative and moves, whilst the other side reacts. If a unit has moved behind another unit and has attacked it from the rear, then the movement options for the defending unit should be limited. If encircled units are in a position to be attacked then they obviously didn't do anthing about being encircled. Therefore, the defending unit has spent most of it's potential move, whilst the attacking unit moved up, if there had been no attack it probably would not have moved. It is then strange to see encircled units being attacked on the first of encirclement bouncing out to freedom. I don't see much problem in routed units' movement being limited by ZOC and positions of encircling units, they should not easily be able to bounce through enemy units and enemy ZOC. After all when it comes to a standard turn you cannot just leap units over enemy positions on the grounds that they are simply reacting to enemy movements. I am not saying that routed units should never escape (bounce out), as obviously this happened in reality, but there should be odds applied, or MP penalty, depending on whether the encirclement is solid enemy units, or has a proportion of ZOC. If there is no clear path then certain odds/MP will apply, if there is a path, but through enemy ZOC, then easier odds/MP will apply. The mass emptying of a pocket by all units should at least be subject to some traffic rules, I thought that there did not seem to be any restriction on how many units could pass through a hex in any one move. There should be some disruption factor if too many units try to pass through the same hex in the same move [:)]

Rasputitsa -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 1:50:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fsp FYI, here is a screenshot I made of the pocket, seen without FOW. Again, looks like I stand corrected on most units, still not sure how ALL of them got out of there. I would have been disheartened to have pulled of move like that and see it fail, it is perhaps a bit ambitious, but there should have been some reward. A lot of Soviet units might have escaped, but you should be able to 'bag' a significant number. [:)]

mmarquo -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 1:57:53 PM)
"In response to the OP... If I had plopped down $80 for a monster game on the East Front and 3 days later figured out how to win with only 11 turns under my belt towards a 225 turn scenario, I would be screaming for my money back for being sold a game with such a cheesy AI." No game for 80$ will ever be dosed with an AI that can beat a human who knows and uses the all the rules as well as the AI [:)]; once you know the rules than the rest is your brain against a set of inflexible alorithims. Trying to beat the AI without knowing the manual inside and out is like trying to win the battle of Stalingrad without proper recon and intelligence; you will be counterattacked on your weak flanks, enveloped, seiged and eventually surrender - just like the AI does to an unwary human. BTW, it has taken me 2 weeks to do 11 moves - and I am at it 4 - 6 hours/day with manual open and making a cheat sheet which has goodies on it like how close I need to be on the defense and offense for reserves to commit, MPs for cross river attacks, deliberate attacks, etc... Anyway, everyone's mileage will vary - when I bought this I understood that there would be a very steep learning curve and that the gates of Moscow would be very far off... Enjoy the game [:)]

Jim D Burns -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:06:36 PM)
It all comes down to that contested hex near the motorized brigade, so you need to turn on hex control so we can all see if you actually closed the pocket or not. The Soviets have 2 divisions adjacent to the hex, so I doubt the pocket was closed given all you have there is a brigade. And given the size of the pocket, most units would have enough movement to move out of there if the pocket wasn’t actually closed. What I mean by that is they don’t have to contend with ZOC penalties to their movement since they have a big area of non contested hexes they can move through inside the pocket. I doubt anything warped out in some hidden AI cheat process. I just had a similar (but smaller) pocket near Pskov in my game. Again a single hex was all they had and I had a single regiment next to it, but most Soviet units managed to escape. Several did not get all the way out though, they ended up along the coast of Lake Pskov, so it’s obvious there was no warp move involved. Jim Edit: Although I understand your anger over seeing the hens flee the hen house right as you came through the door. It is actually a good… no, it’s a very good thing that the AI managed to evade you. Think about that, what other AI ever have you seen that can recognize and then react to a threat like that? It did exactly what any human player would do in the same situation.

henri51 -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:20:49 PM)
If I may, let me summarize a bit. The OP is understandably frustrated because after spending a lot of time on the campaign, he realized that he is losing, and in addition does not understand how his huge pocket suddenly turned up empty. This is what most people are referring to when they say it is better to learn with smaller scenarios - the time invested is much smaller so it is less frustrating to have to start all over again.This is why in my case I have not tackled the GC yet. I think I understand the response about porous pockets on the first turn of encirclement, but doesn't this lead to gamey tactics? In other words, it is clearly better NOT to attack units in the pocket on the first turn because it is likely that they will rout out of the pocket. ("No Colonel, do NOT attack those Russians, because we don't want them to escape the pocket!"). Would it not be better to have a routine to take into account the porous nature of the pocket without encouraging gamey tactics? OTOH there WERE cases in WW2 where porous pockets allowed huge numbers of enemy troops to escape, the best (or worse)example being the Falaise pocket where hundreds of thousands of Germans escaped without their equipment through he neck of the pocket before it was closed. Many of use are waiting with bated breath to see the developers' response to the specific pocket of the OP, because even if the pocket were not completely closed, it is unlikely that such a large number of units could escape the pocket in a week without serious casualties. Well at least many of us will appreciate this discussion if it brings about a better understanding of how pockets work, or the correction of a bug if there is one. Henri And just an additional thought: I thought I read somewhere that surrounded enemy units with low morale could just "evaporate" during the enemy turn. Could this be the case here?

JudgeDredd -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:22:01 PM)
Ted - don't bother sending me private messages - if you have something to say then say it. And please don't kid yourself that you sent me a PM because you didn't want to start a flame war (which you so did by the way!) - you didn't post here because you know verbally attacking another forum member, regardless of what you think of them, is against forum rules. And you most certainly wanted your little virtual attack - bully for you m8. I didn't say he couldn't play the Grand Campaign - I was suggesting that starting the Grand Campaign up so early and then getting disheartened by your feeble attempts might not be the best course. I didn't word it like that - I asked how he could know the rules so well to start a Grand Campaign and expect to do well... Now...in response to this juvenile tirade... quote: ORIGINAL: tevans6220 What are you? Some kind of wise ass? You admit to not completely understanding the game and yet you're trying to give advice. Only thing is you didn't give any advice. You made fun of the guy because he only played 11 turns of the GC and decided his game was lost. You and others assumed he hadn't read the manual or played any other scenarios. Tell me something, where does it say you can't start out with the GC? Just because you or I have grasped the game yet doesn't mean he hasn't. Your posts were elitist and condescending. One other thing. I don't know what the smartass "Dad" thing was but it was stupid and brought absolutely nothing to your post to me. I took this private because I don't want to start a flame war that will get the thread locked. You my friend are an idiot. And no I was not joking. Did it sound like I was joking from my post? Guess you can read minds now too. So read my mind. I'll give you a hint. It has something to do with my ass and you kissing it. No need to respond. We're done here. No - I'm not a "wise ass" - funny sometimes, not so others. I can be emotional, happy and angry. I'm a father to two beautiful teenage girls and husband to a beautiful wife. I have a car but I cycle to work everyday and I have my own home. I lead a life pretty much like most civilised humans. I didn't know that not fully understanding the game yet exempted me from giving advice? Is knowing the game inside out a pre-requisite for giving advice? If it is, I most certainly do apologise. I offered what little help I could. I read someone going to stop playing and (whilst having a crack at his expense) then offered what little help I could. Whilst I had a tongue in cheek dab at the OP - I was helpful after (that is ABSOLUTELY regardless of whether you thought it was helpful or not) - I offered what little help I could to save him wasting his money - you jumped right in and attacked several people here and then specifically targeted me for your deranged outburst. Myself and others assumed he hadn't read the manual or played the Road To scenarios because he didn't say in his post he had done so. I have no investment in whether he plays the game he paid for or not. I wish I hadn't bloody posted now, presumably as do you - unless of course you were chomping at the bit anyway If you think my posts are condescending and elitist, then that is your opinion and you are absolutely entitled to it. I'm sure others on this forum and others may actually join you. But I have never and will never be elitist and whilst I might have a jab at people from time to time, it's just because I'm human...red rag - bull and all that (sorry - is that making a smart ass comment again?) I'm most definitely not apologising to you for who I am. If you don't like who I am or how I post then green button me and your life will be ever more peaceful (except when people quote what I say - but I can't really be held responsible for that)

fsp -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Edit: Although I understand your anger over seeing the hens flee the hen house right as you came through the door. It is actually a good… no, it’s a very good thing that the AI managed to evade you. Think about that, what other AI ever have you seen that can recognize and then react to a threat like that? It did exactly what any human player would do in the same situation. If the AI did not cheat, and I now think it probably did not, it is indeed a very good thing. However, how did it get the units with just 1 MP out of there? Also, even if the AI did not cheat, is it realistic to get ALL of those units out of such an almost encirclement without even any loss? I have to admit that a lot of my "not wanting to play anymore" had to do with the feeling of having been cheated out of this. If that's not the case, I am a bit more comfortable. quote: Many of use are waiting with bated breath to see the developers' response to the specific pocket of the OP, because even if the pocket were not completely closed, it is unlikely that such a large number of units could escape the pocket in a week without serious casualties. Exactly. Honestly, I did expect some units to escape. When I formed this pocket, first I was thinking "OK, this is my Kiev." Later, as the neck was left open: "Ok, this is my Falaise. I will at least have lots of stuff and equipment destroyed by the Luftwaffe". Neither of that happened. Still very much liking the game though. It has huge potential.

76mm -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:35:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Edit: Although I understand your anger over seeing the hens flee the hen house right as you came through the door. It is actually a good… no, it’s a very good thing that the AI managed to evade you. Think about that, what other AI ever have you seen that can recognize and then react to a threat like that? It did exactly what any human player would do in the same situation. Another problem I have is that even if a small gap is open, how realistic is it that ALL of the Soviet units would know where it was in the chaos of the pocket? It seems to me that many units in a pocket are bagged because they don't know they are in a pocket, or don't know which way to go to get out of the pocket, and end up blundering around in the wrong direction. In this case a human player would at least have FoW to deal with, and might not see all of the enemy units, or at least not know where the pocket might be weakest. Therefore, I still see this AI behavior as rather unrealistic.

Jim D Burns -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:41:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henri51 I think I understand the response about porous pockets on the first turn of encirclement, but doesn't this lead to gamey tactics? In other words, it is clearly better NOT to attack units in the pocket on the first turn because it is likely that they will rout out of the pocket. ("No Colonel, do NOT attack those Russians, because we don't want them to escape the pocket!"). Would it not be better to have a routine to take into account the porous nature of the pocket without encouraging gamey tactics? You have to give the opposing side a chance to respond. To have a system that would allow you to surround and eliminate your opponents units in the same turn would be inherently unfair to the defender. The system we have works, players just need to adjust their thinking when it comes to pockets. A pocket is not a pocket until it’s been isolated for at least 1 turn. Until then the units you have in place are just plotted to be there, the enemy has a chance to prevent those units from actually sealing off their plotted position. quote: ORIGINAL: henri51 OTOH there WERE cases in WW2 where porous pockets allowed huge numbers of enemy troops to escape, the best (or worse)example being the Falaise pocket where hundreds of thousands of Germans escaped without their equipment through he neck of the pocket before it was closed. Understood, but not a good example to use for the eastern front. Overwhelming allied air power is the reason the equipment got left behind. That level of air power was never even remotely achieved on the eastern front. If Falaise had occurred on the eastern front most of the equipment would have escaped as well. quote: ORIGINAL: henri51 Many of use are waiting with bated breath to see the developers' response to the specific pocket of the OP, because even if the pocket were not completely closed, it is unlikely that such a large number of units could escape the pocket in a week without serious casualties. Again I stress that the German units should be considered as getting into position during the Soviet players turn due to the system the game uses. Penalties should not be imposed until 1 turn of isolation has occurred, otherwise it’s not fair to the defense. Jim

Rasputitsa -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:47:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henri51 I think I understand the response about porous pockets on the first turn of encirclement, but doesn't this lead to gamey tactics? In other words, it is clearly better NOT to attack units in the pocket on the first turn because it is likely that they will rout out of the pocket. ("No Colonel, do NOT attack those Russians, because we don't want them to escape the pocket!"). Would it not be better to have a routine to take into account the porous nature of the pocket without encouraging gamey tactics? +1 - It would be a shame if success depended on 'gamey tactics' [:)]

Jim D Burns -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:48:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fsp If the AI did not cheat, and I now think it probably did not, it is indeed a very good thing. However, how did it get the units with just 1 MP out of there? Also, even if the AI did not cheat, is it realistic to get ALL of those units out of such an almost encirclement without even any loss? Can't speak to the 1 MP issue, perhaps a dev will chime in. As to whether it's realistic or not, all I can say is it's the only fair way to handle this issue in a turn based system like we have. If it helps, think of the Soviet move to evacuate occurring at the same time your units are moving to try and cut them off. They got out just as your panzers rolled up. Jim

PyleDriver -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:49:57 PM)
The concept that Gary put into place was hard on my brain at first. But as Leo said things are going on at the same time. Defenders are allowed counters to regain supply. If you don't keep a tight grip on the pocket men escape. The first few turns you can make wide sweeping pockets, after that you need to put a body in every hex. Breakdown divisions if needed. Now in 42, regiments won't hold a breakout, the AI will break it open and regain supply...

Erik Rutins -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 2:55:56 PM)
That pocket has a pretty big "hole" at the top with only a brigade to keep things shut. A save file, a screenshot with hex control and a next turn save or screenshot showing where the Soviet units were one turn later would be a big help. Regarding the rest, please keep things civil everyone. A lot of people are learning the game and getting adjusted, let's keep open minds and not make assumptions. Regards, - Erik

PyleDriver -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 3:10:27 PM)
If you guys go to my 41 AAR, you'll see how theres a progression of how you form pockets. Bigger may not be better as the war goes on. Also you'll notice I captured alot of men and stuff...

Rasputitsa -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 3:12:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Again I stress that the German units should be considered as getting into position during the Soviet players turn due to the system the game uses. Penalties should not be imposed until 1 turn of isolation has occurred, otherwise it’s not fair to the defense. I think it would be reasonable to impose some penalty on the defence, as the escaping units are not making a normal planned military movement, envisaged by the usual expenditure of MP, but scrambling for their lives in a potentially chaotic situation. There should be some additional disruption, or loss of equipment, morale, etc, but I don't know how it could be applied. [:)]

PyleDriver -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 3:18:18 PM)
I really don't see in my games units escaping. Once the pocket is reduced they do add to PC units...

Jim D Burns -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 3:30:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa I think it would be reasonable to impose some penalty on the defence, as the escaping units are not making a normal planned military movement, envisaged by the usual expenditure of MP, but scrambling for their lives in a potentially chaotic situation. There should be some additional disruption, or loss of equipment, morale, etc, but I don't know how it could be applied. [:)] But in an I go, you go system, everything is assumed to be going on at the same time even though we move in separate turns, so technically the Russian units got out long before his German units got into place to create the threat of a pocket. I don’t know how else to explain it better except to say, if the Germans spent 98% of their movement getting into those final hexes and the Russians only spent 60% of theirs to get out, they were gone long before the Germans were around to threaten them. Perhaps ZOC penalties should increase if the unit exerting the ZOC has a lot of its movement left. As to interdiction, that is already modeled in game. If you don’t use all your air assets in your turn, it’ll be available to interdict your opponent’s moves during his turn. If you do use it up in your turn, then there is none left to interdict with. Jim

JudgeDredd -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 3:54:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins That pocket has a pretty big "hole" at the top with only a brigade to keep things shut. A save file, a screenshot with hex control and a next turn save or screenshot showing where the Soviet units were one turn later would be a big help. Regarding the rest, please keep things civil everyone. A lot of people are learning the game and getting adjusted, let's keep open minds and not make assumptions. Regards, - Erik Erik With all due respect - it wasn't that people made any assumptions - they were just things that came to mind after reading his post. Given my lack of knowledge of the game, it was certainly all I could provide. APparently unless tyou know the game inside out you're to keep your pathetic attempts of help to yourself! (and how is that for being elitist?!) He's got every right to come on here and ask for clarification on the way the AI behaves - but his post was about not playing anymore because it didn't look like he could win. Most people on here (regardless of how they worded it) were suggesting he keep going. No-one was suggesting the OP was thick. Contrary to what some people think, we were only trying to help by suggesting reading the relevant manual parts whilst playing the smaller scenarios and I only suggested that because that is how I am trying to learn - I admit my first post was a little tongue in cheek dig, but his post did sound like he was giving up on what appears to be a great game because he couldn't win the Grand Campaign on his first go! - but it certainly wasn't offensive.

76mm -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 3:55:34 PM)
All this talk about IGOUGO is all well and good, but I'm confused about whether the AI has some sort of advantage in avoiding ZoCs (to allow escapes)?

Flaviusx -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 4:06:10 PM)
The pocket doesn't appear to be cut off from supply. Note that brigade sized units do not flip over contested hexes in terms of control, although their ZOC can impede movement. (This is one of the many reasons I hate Soviet rifle brigades, parenthetically.) Here there's a hex with control contested by a Soviet HQs. A single hasty attack on the SS motorized brigade up north would easily have cleared a ZOC free path out of the pocket. There's a monster 9 point tank division nearby that with a couple of other units would have done this. I don't know if the AI did this, but against a human this pocket wouldn't hold. All that said, it would have been difficult for the southernmost units to get clear away and I'd expect a substantial number of these to cluster at or near the weak spot up by the north of the pocket. I'd be curious to see the Soviet dispositions after breaking out. Most of the units inside the pocket do have quite a bit of movement points, though. The pocket was a little too ambitious and not properly sealed off. Leaving aside whether or not the AI cheated here somehow, don't expect this sort of thing to fly in PBEM. I'd bust out of it with ease. Of course, I'd never allow myself to get so near being bagged in a big way like this to begin with. [;)]

Flaviusx -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 4:15:59 PM)
Also, is this really turn 2 as displayed on the Soviet screenshot? That doesn't seem right.

JudgeDredd -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 4:17:26 PM)
Some of those units in the south - are they saying they only have 1 MP though? If so, how would they get out? [image]local://upfiles/10786/1D1F4EA09BA84F60956504AB94AB300C.jpg[/image]

Mifune -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 4:18:28 PM)
I am not quite sure, but I think part of what is frustrating fsp from what I see in my games so far. Is if you are playing the Axis and fall behind there seems to be no recovery possible, the initiative is lost. A Soviet wall 6 deep. So to go on in a campaign is fruitless because you can not take the initiative back.

Flaviusx -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 4:19:53 PM)
Those units I have to assume were set on static. They could have been reactivated and moved away some. But I doubt they could have gotten clear away. Typically a freshly reactived leg unit like that is going to have 8 mps or so. So that is strange. But that's not the only odd thing about the screenshort. The turn showing as 2 is decidedly odd.

ComradeP -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 4:44:59 PM)
Flavio: reactivated infantry units should be motorized, but it's still a lot of ground to cover, especially with the ZOC's.

Toby42 -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 4:45:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Those units I have to assume were set on static. They could have been reactivated and moved away some. But I doubt they could have gotten clear away. Typically a freshly reactived leg unit like that is going to have 8 mps or so. So that is strange. But that's not the only odd thing about the screenshort. The turn showing as 2 is decidedly odd. Odd? Because of what??

fsp -> RE: I don't want to play anymore (12/22/2010 4:50:24 PM)
I don't even have the slightets doubt that this pocket would be relieved in PBEM. Against a human, I would not even have tried to form it this way. It is "turn 2", as I loaded the save as a scenario, that kind of screws up the turn count I guess. The two hexes in question were Soviet controlled at the start of the Soviet turn. This is the Soviet save 1 turn later (turn 11). [image]http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1646/pocket2k.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.703125