RE: Strat movement & game balance

RE: Strat movement & game balance (Full Version)

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

Message

abulbulian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 7:38:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585 +1 I don't see the need for 7 pages of discussion. Reconvet already thinks after years of hard work the devs screwed up horribly. no need trying to convince him otherwise. Bad bad wildweasel, don't do crap like that and try and make Reconvet out to look like some 'bad guy' because he's trying to ask some important questions about the game. He's bringing something to the table to discuss. Mistakes happen and this development team is not beyond making corrections if they can see the 'data' to support such mistakes. This forum is in part a channel for customers to convey experiences and concerns. The large issue right now is people have not played enough human vs human to provide them with sufficient information to make certain changes. I strongly suspect that when enough of this is supplied that some significant changes will be made in the 41-45 campaign. That's just my 'gut' feeling after playing countless war games on this eastern front war along with my vast knowledge of studies on the topic(s) as well. Time will tell. But don't put words like that into other peoples mouths to stir up trouble where there is none. Oh and the 7 pages is partly because comments like yours, wildweasel, are diluting the thread. And now mine too, but I couldn't just bite my tongue on this one. [:-]

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 9:53:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet quote: ORIGINAL: pompack whatever[>:] Brilliant, this really enriches this discussion. Thank you for showing your potential. [:D] Zort has contributed and properly enriched this discussion by bringing real numbers and some level of analysis into this discussion. My contribution was earlier when I agreed with you that I felt the Soviet rail model is too generous, at least in 41, and brought the Soviet factory evacuation burden into the discussion. I did not bring it out in detail because it has been discussed in great detail with hard numbers in another thread. My concern now is that it is difficult for anyone to contribute due to the high level of whine that is drowning out any reasonable discussion of the problem (and yes, I will say it again: I THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM). The fact that I happen to agree with you in no way changes my opinion of how unproductive this thread has become (with the exception of Zort of course) [>:] is no contribution. I reacted to your smiley use. High level of whine? If you don't like what's discussed here, stay out. Bring substance, not insults, buddy.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 10:05:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet quote: ORIGINAL: dlazov66 Technically in this game both sides never have the same tools, one has to use the Germans one way and the Soviets another way, each sides 'tools' must be used differently and I think this game portrays those differences quite well. I love this game, really, developers and testers and AI designers have done an outstanding job. My problem is that I don't see any AAR in which Axis could develop working tactics against a capable Soviet player's fast pace of shifting around significant reserves to hotspots in '41. This is what this discussion is all about: Soviet strategic mobility in '41 pbem, when Axis have zero railing capabilities within useful distance of front regions. I think in the latest release that's because there are no successful strategies for an axis player vs a capable sov player. Given that anybody with any sense will just retreat the sov masses leave some token units in swamp and other areas to make these incredible defensive stands. The axis player will out run supply lines as they pursue (don't get caught in mud with bad supply lines.. R.I.P) and when 1st turn blizzard hits... it's all over. Just went through a blizzard and my axis army was in the best shape to withstand it: rested, supplied, dug-in, high moral, high TOE, high exp. But forget any of that as WitE factors none of that in. Unless units in basically a urban or city they will be smacked around by attrition and any sov units t hat can attack them. My loses went from 500k end Nov to 1.7 million starting March. Yeah, loses were 1.2 million in 3 months of blizzard. All documented. So my 1942 will be crap even though my 1941 was much better than historical for loses and did manage to take Leningrad with some luck before winter. At this point I won't be starting anymore axis games until some changes are made. Axis player in a 41-45 campaign has maybe 17-24 turns of ability... then it gets tanked. That's my opinion from playing against a decent human opponent. And before somebody is going to reply with the old remark of "well don't you know sov are suppose to win". Save it. I know the history better than most. The problem I have is the inability for the Axis player to mount any sort of decent (sure limited) offensive in 42. Sure I can still attack and go against a sov player with 3 months of digging in (march, April, part May) and and army 2x the size of mine. My opponent already has lines of 3 (avg) units deep all along the front and reserve behind. Already this by March and I can't attack until sometime in May. The other thing that the blizzard did was to reduce the exp and moral of my men (replacements) .. so low that I'm guessing sov units almost equal to my German units. All I'm saying is if the axis player is able to have a good 41, he should have the POSSIBILITY to have some decent attacking in 42. Remember the initiative didn't really change until 1943. All though some could argue it could very well have changed after the Stalingrad fiasco. Good analysis. Covers my concerns that pbem Axis can't perform as it should in pre-Blizzard '41. And I have seen nothing here yet convincing me that the current early Soviet rail mobility is not a major factor.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 10:15:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet quote: ORIGINAL: pompack whatever[>:] Brilliant, this really enriches this discussion. Thank you for showing your potential. [:D] Lol, Reconvet. It's funny cause I've dealt with this in my threads before. You give them historic facts or REAL game experiences and when they nothing to counter with, they give you that type of reply. Or better yet they will throw in an 'axis fanboy' remark and have nothing of any value to say. Just ignore them. I think you're on to something myself. But if you get close to something that will look as if a change is needed, these same people will just start to get frustrated and their remarks become even more delusional and unrelated to the subject. What historical facts has he given? Complaining that the Sovs have the ability to move some 60 full strength or near full strength divs? What facts has he presented that shows that they coild not? "As the railroads moved 2.5 million men to the front in June, July, and August, they moved industrial machinery on their return journeys." How many divisions does that make? Where are the facts that refute that? Real game experience? Flaviusx's real game experience is being ignored. Why? In my own game, I would just love to have these 60 divisions to rail around, but I don't have them. I just railed all the KV-1 factories out of Leningrad. That took a huge chunk out of my rail cap. You might be surprised, but: We are talking about a GAME, not history. I present GAME FACTS. You CAN move 60 combat ready Divisions fight now, come on and present something which might contribute to make this good game even better. And getting a better challenge playing as Soviet in '41 should be in your interest too. Current rail mobility in '41 makes for an easy mode for Soviets, that's my opinion. You're welcome to have your own, but don't travel down the insult road too... I am not dealing with historic balance, but with GAME balance. Early Soviets are overpowered I believe, and my analysis is that early Soviet rail mobility is mainly responsible. Why do you feel so much threatened? Is overblown rail mobility a holy cow for you too?

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 10:20:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack The fact that I happen to agree with you in no way changes my opinion of how unproductive this thread has become (with the exception of Zort of course) I agree that the level of discussion and analysis is ebbing up and down. Way down when people jump in and throw around whining complaints and insults. Should that scare more serious people away and choke off something which might yet end in improving an already excellent game?

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 10:30:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585 +1 I don't see the need for 7 pages of discussion. Reconvet already thinks after years of hard work the devs screwed up horribly. no need trying to convince him otherwise. I analyze what I see, and may come to wrong conclusions, but I'm always open for good arguments. Problem is, most if not all arguments against my theory have been way more emotional than substantial so far. Holy cow threatened to be slaughtered, and the fanatics come out... I never said devs screwed up horribly, they just took a short cut with rail movement, with - as I think - severe consequences in '41. And again: I thinks this is a terrific game, which could still be improved in some sectors, for example in giving Axis some better perspectives in '41 when playing a competent human opponent.

KenchiSulla -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 10:44:23 AM)
The problem is not the railcapacity. If you want to have a decent arms industry during the later years you will have to evacuate most of it.. It is the tendency of some players to withdraw huge chunks of, for example, the Southwestern front after 4 days of combat. There is no way the Soviets would have done that. Also, with free reign of the Luftwaffe over a large part of the front the player should be severely punished for moving his troops in railwagons under an umbrella of bombers...... This is key! Interdiction should be upgraded...

alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 12:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notenome Ultimately, though, none of this matters because both sides of this debate prefer to call each other's point of view science fiction and/or fantasy, which means any valid points will probably be ignored. As a matter of fact, one side of the debate has called the other's point of view HISTORY...

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 12:33:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder The problem is not the railcapacity. If you want to have a decent arms industry during the later years you will have to evacuate most of it.. It is the tendency of some players to withdraw huge chunks of, for example, the Southwestern front after 4 days of combat. There is no way the Soviets would have done that. Also, with free reign of the Luftwaffe over a large part of the front the player should be severely punished for moving his troops in railwagons under an umbrella of bombers...... This is key! Interdiction should be upgraded... Factory evacs can be planned x turns ahead. 20% of the rail pool each week should be comfortably enough for not losing any factory. Would leave 80% of the pool for troop transports. Interdiction is a very good point I think. Train pool size may be as high as you like, if those trains don't dare driving closer than 8 or 10 hexes to the front for fear of bombing damage, then Axis would face less stiff opposition while advancing in '41.

Flaviusx -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 3:14:24 PM)
You do not need 80% of your rail to transport troops. You will at most need maybe half that. If you limit yourself to 20% of your rail cap to factory evacuation what will wind up happening in practice is a third or more of your rail will go unused. Reconvent, play the Soviets. Get some familiarity with the Red Army. The one in the game isn't like the one in your mind. The legions you imagine mostly do not exist.

pompack -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 3:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet quote: ORIGINAL: pompack The fact that I happen to agree with you in no way changes my opinion of how unproductive this thread has become (with the exception of Zort of course) I agree that the level of discussion and analysis is ebbing up and down. Way down when people jump in and throw around whining complaints and insults. Should that scare more serious people away and choke off something which might yet end in improving an already excellent game? I'm glad we agree again because that was precisely my point. Providing numbers, reasoned logic and especially source material (once removed of course since I don't read Russian) is stimulating, thought provoking and can lead to convincing the developers to make changes. Repetitive whining is simply boring as well as unproductive.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 3:33:38 PM)
I got a pbem offer of an Axis player via e-mail, the game has not started yet because he seems to be live in a different time zone. I'll document my rail pool usage, try to put it in context with the strategic situation for each turn as good as I can (giving reasons why I used rail movements the way I did). I'm curious if I'll have to revise my theory that Soviets have too much rail mobility in '41. I'll publish this stuff in this forum (AAR-section would make sense I guess). I have no problem if my current assumptions are proven wrong. If this data proves that there has to be more finetuning, then all of us will get more interesting pbem-games in the future.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 3:35:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack I'm glad we agree again because that was precisely my point. Providing numbers, reasoned logic and especially source material (once removed of course since I don't read Russian) is stimulating, thought provoking and can lead to convincing the developers to make changes. Repetitive whining is simply boring as well as unproductive. Good post, except the whining part about whining...

wildweasel0585 -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 4:18:15 PM)
You're the only one trying to turn this into some crusade against good and bad. i was merely making an observation of this thread. "The large issue right now is people have not played enough human vs human to provide them with sufficient information to make certain changes." exactly... remember I havent't been saying for 7 pages that something needs to be changed. Reconvet has his mind set that something is broken or needs to be changed despite not having sufficient info to back up his claim. just like you don't have info to back up your claim of me stirring up trouble. I don't like people claiming to be psychic so you're getting the GB. [:-]

Aurelian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 4:36:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet quote: ORIGINAL: pompack whatever[>:] Brilliant, this really enriches this discussion. Thank you for showing your potential. [:D] Lol, Reconvet. It's funny cause I've dealt with this in my threads before. You give them historic facts or REAL game experiences and when they nothing to counter with, they give you that type of reply. Or better yet they will throw in an 'axis fanboy' remark and have nothing of any value to say. Just ignore them. I think you're on to something myself. But if you get close to something that will look as if a change is needed, these same people will just start to get frustrated and their remarks become even more delusional and unrelated to the subject. What historical facts has he given? Complaining that the Sovs have the ability to move some 60 full strength or near full strength divs? What facts has he presented that shows that they coild not? "As the railroads moved 2.5 million men to the front in June, July, and August, they moved industrial machinery on their return journeys." How many divisions does that make? Where are the facts that refute that? Real game experience? Flaviusx's real game experience is being ignored. Why? In my own game, I would just love to have these 60 divisions to rail around, but I don't have them. I just railed all the KV-1 factories out of Leningrad. That took a huge chunk out of my rail cap. You might be surprised, but: We are talking about a GAME, not history. I present GAME FACTS. You CAN move 60 combat ready Divisions fight now, come on and present something which might contribute to make this good game even better. And getting a better challenge playing as Soviet in '41 should be in your interest too. Current rail mobility in '41 makes for an easy mode for Soviets, that's my opinion. You're welcome to have your own, but don't travel down the insult road too... I am not dealing with historic balance, but with GAME balance. Early Soviets are overpowered I believe, and my analysis is that early Soviet rail mobility is mainly responsible. Why do you feel so much threatened? Is overblown rail mobility a holy cow for you too? You might be surprised, but my GAME EXPERIENCE shows shows you are wrong. My GAME FACT is that there is that the Sviets are not overpowered. Why do "you" fell so threatened? Is this because of your inability to deal with it? Your holy cow?

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 4:42:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585 Reconvet already thinks after years of hard work the devs screwed up horribly. no need trying to convince him otherwise. This, my good lad, is not merely making an observation, that's an accusation (an utterly wrong one at that) and an attempt to choke off a discussion to which no one was trying to force upon you. Participate or leave it be, your kind of participation is utterly useless... quote: ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585 You're the only one trying to turn this into some crusade against good and bad. i was merely making an observation of this thread. Crusade?? You are one of those fanatics rushing to the defense of a holy cow in threat of getting slaughtered. I merely put up one or the other theory and proposition... Theories are not turned worthless with your kind of input. quote: ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585 Reconvet has his mind set that something is broken or needs to be changed despite not having sufficient info to back up his claim. just like you don't have info to back up your claim of me stirring up trouble. I don't like people claiming to be psychic so you're getting the GB. [:-] I very early invited guys defending the current Soviet strat mobility to play Axis against me. No one chose to accept... I now got a pbem offer as mentionned, let's see what data we get out of that. See my post above. As for psychic etc: Shows your potential. GB works two ways. Begone, boy, there had to be a first time for this...

abulbulian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 4:45:10 PM)
Aurelian, what is your game experience? Against human or AI? It's not necessarily about sov being OP IMO. It's the fact that some considerable constraints are enforced on the Axis (harsh winter conditions no matter what you do to prep for it) and the ability for the sov army to retreat vast portions of his army each turn not allowing for the possibility historical pockets. I'm fine with being consistent. Thus, allow one then allow the other. If you want a simulation at the expense of playability then force constraints on both sides. If you want to allow players to chose unhistorical directions, which game does mostly, except for blizzard penalities on def axis units. I've gone into more detail on this subject in other threads. Off topic, Aurelian I'm looking for an axis opponent (41-45) .. would you like to play me? It will give you a chance to beef up your game experience as axis. [;)]

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 4:53:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian You might be surprised, but my GAME EXPERIENCE shows shows you are wrong. My GAME FACT is that there is that the Sviets are not overpowered. Why do "you" fell so threatened? Is this because of your inability to deal with it? Your holy cow? A claim is a claim and remains a claim. I can base my observation on accessible AAR's by other people. Go watch notenome's enormous checkerboard pop up in turn 2 for example... I'm starting a pbem and will DOCUMENT '41 Soviet railway capacities. Facts convince, I'll get facts and publish them (see my post above). Maybe I'll have to revise my theory, I'd have no problem with that, maybe the holy cow defenders will have to revise theirs. As simple as that.

Flaviusx -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 4:56:05 PM)
Reconvet, if I had the time, which I do not, I'd pose a counterchallenge: I'd play you as the Soviet with rail transport set to 50%. The result of such a playtest would of course be a litany of complaints that the Soviets are still overpowered. But at least it would clarify matters and demonstrate that if they are overpowered, it's not because of the rails.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 4:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian You might be surprised, but my GAME EXPERIENCE shows shows you are wrong. My GAME FACT is that there is that the Sviets are not overpowered. Why do "you" fell so threatened? Is this because of your inability to deal with it? Your holy cow? And by the way: I don't feel threatened, I'm being insulted by several people. One weasel just got a ticket doing so. Once more: No one gets a gun to his head to participate here. Those objecting my theory and don't feel compelled to participate, agree or oppose constructively, they can simply stay out and live their merry life else where.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/23/2011 5:10:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Reconvet, if I had the time, which I do not, I'd pose a counterchallenge: I'd play you as the Soviet with rail transport set to 50%. The result of such a playtest would of course be a litany of complaints that the Soviets are still overpowered. But at least it would clarify matters and demonstrate that if they are overpowered, it's not because of the rails. Thanks for the proposal. Might have come sooner. But I can't gather data on Soviet capabilities while playing Axis. As said: I got a pbem offer, I'll document Soviets and report. I'd really enjoy playing Axis against you to try out tactics against a good Soviet player. I hope you have an open game slot for me after this pbem (I have no time for playing two games at once), I have full respect for your playing skills and would feel happy to meet a tough opponent. But factfinding before pleasure.

Jakerson -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/24/2011 2:11:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus Don't forget the Soviet forces in the Russian Far East (facing the Japanese in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia). Quite many forces there. When the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, the Japanese said they would respect the pact, but of course the Soviets kept many forces there... The only thing which really stopped the Japanese (and the Turkish) from attacking the Soviet Union was the Moscow counter-offensive. And the fact that the Japanese Army truly feared the Russians [:D] And of course Pearl Harbor. But even after the winter counter-offensive and the Pearl Harbor attack, there were many troops in the Russian Far East. I already said the Germans had zero chance of winning (if the 1941 Blitzkrieg failed that is) so I will not repeat that again [:)] Yeah but Germans could still mount up pretty nasty defensive warfare even if they can�t harm Soviets properly 1941 Blitzkrieg phase there are plenty of tactical and strategically options for defensive warfare. Historically Finland was able to consume Soviet troops in the way that made them wanting peace with Finland and Finland remained as only nation on the losing side witch capital was never occupied by foreign troops. I think Germans could have made the same by fortifying Polish Soviet border and German Border heavily and pulling most of their troops intact this way German troops could have fought their war properly supplied with good logistics and not the other end. Defensive line would also be a lot shorter allowing Germans to actually have some reserves supporting first line rather than huge line of defense in soviet territory with full of gaps. German tanks would have been able to fight their tanks full fuel and ammo instead of empty as need for fuel would have been a lot smaller in shorter logistical lines. Same like in the WITP Japanese end up being overwhelmed but they could still mount up nasty defensive warfare with proper planning and consume USA resources in the way that USA start to want peace with Japan. Soviet and Allied having larger resources than German do not mean that allied resources is limitless.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.03125