RE: Winter Idea......Comment (Full Version)

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



Message

pat.casey -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 12:11:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

Alfonso I think you are asking wrong question. Chess have simple rules which are same for whole course of game. In WitE you have sudden changes in rules, and there is a problem. I'm ok with rules but not with rules which balance game besides of what player have achieved to that point. It would be same as if all your pawns on turn X become queens, bishops, knights and all of my strong figures suddenly becomes pawns.


Agree with Emir on this point.

Its not a question of complexity, its a question of control.

Players of games like to feel as though they have control of the situation. Even if I make bad decisions and lose because of them, I can at least think "well, had I done x instead of y I would have won".

Chess, to use your example, is a game of perfect control.

Arbitrary game mechanics though, over which the player has no control, and which exist to achieve a specific, predetermined, outcome are no fun and are, frankly, damaging to gameplay.

To use an example from another genre of game, if you ever played the early, unpatched version of civ iii, there was a very annoying arbitrariness mechanism that they eventually patched away.

In brief, in early civ iii you needed certain strategic resources to build stuff. Bronze to build spearmen, iron to build swordsmen, horses to build cavalry, etc. The critical one from a gameplay standpoint though was coal, since you needed coal to industrialize and if you didn't industrialize, you were doomed to lose.

The kicker though was that resources didn't show up until you'd researched something that needed them, and they were not evenly distributed around the map.

So what would happen is you'd invest, say, 6 hours into a game of civ iii, research steam engine, and then discover that *you had no coal*, and, in point of fact, all the coal was in the center of another nation on the other side of the map, at which time you either abandoned or busted out the editor to give yourself a coal deposit.

Point being, that wasn't fun as a mechanic since there really was nothing you could do about it. It was just a big random dice the game rolled for you and if it came up wrong, you lost. Nothing you did could control it.

Fundamentally that's the problem I have with both the axis summer and soviet winters; there's really no way a player can control them (although I think axis summer is less of a problem since a soviet player can at least mitigate it). Give a player a mechanism to control winter attrition, even at a crippling cost to some other aspect of their war effort, and suddenly the player has a choice and feels better about the situation.

As long as there's nothing you can do about it though, its going to rub a lot of folks (me included) the wrong way.



2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 12:17:57 AM)

Turn 32 versus Kelblau.

85 attacks this turn.
13 held results
1 scouted

So we had 71 retreat results. Most of these are hasty attacks. But that is because my army has vaporized with an average strength of 6500 men......Many are below 6000 men.

This is what a once proud German Div looks like on turn 32.

[image]local://upfiles/9971/313B26F97C0D4D98BCB0DDA75B3E292F.jpg[/image]



2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 12:20:26 AM)

Here is the div on turn 24.

[image]local://upfiles/9971/0B1122408BA14258B7BCB9CF00EBE39B.jpg[/image]



alfonso -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 12:20:36 AM)

Emir Agic, I think you are mixing two different discussions

a) Blizzard: some players think it is awfully implemented. My opinion: I don't know. Your opinion: it is awfully implemented

b) Experience: this game is complex (more complex than chess). My opinion: Yes (but not 100% sure...) Your opinion:?

First you say that my complexity argument does not hold because it is less complex than TOAW ( I said WITE is more complex than chess and you "refute" it by saying it is less complex than Hearts of Iron?). Then you say that the blizzard rules are messing up everything?.

Please note that it is possible to believe that the blizzard rules are wrong and that the game is complex. It would be harder to believe that the game is complex and that it can be mastered in 3 months (in fact, less, due to patches).

My opinion is that perhaps some blizzard issues might be due to inexperience. Your opinion is that the game is flawed. I would like to ask you why? Only because there are no AARs with succesful strategies? You are one of the most skilled Axis players, your Axis army also vaporizates during blizzard?



2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 12:21:48 AM)

I can understand the huge morale loss, I would have a huge morale loss too if I knew I was about to get the crud kicked out of me no matter what I did. Or how deep I was dug in.



Michael T -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 12:33:47 AM)

I think this is a big part of the problem. I think many of the German players who are doing all the jumping up and down just don't do well enough in summer41. The Russian should be limping in to winter41. The changes made to the rail costs mean the Russians can't run away. Lest they lose much of their industry. So forced to stand and fight means a competent German should be cutting the Russian army to pieces. A cautious German will be toasted. Long games like the CG will sort good players from the average. Because of the snowball effect the disparity in skill runs up every turn. To get some good data on the CG you need a good German who really knows how to play up against a good Russian. Only then can some valid judgements be made. This will take time and I expect many tweaks along the way. I can't make any absolute call because I am yet to find a player who can take me in to a winter scenario no matter which side I play. But my gut feeling is as someone else mentioned before, the Germans are a little too strong in summer and a little to weak in winter.So a tone down of each will most likely be the result.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 12:37:36 AM)

The problem with entrenchements in the blizzard is that there are plenty of cases where they just didn't hold. The 18th Army saw the 2nd Shock Army go through the lines and advance perhaps 20-30 miles across the Volkhov...in February when one would assume the 18th had time for at least lvl 2 or 3 forts all along the line.  Now, the supporting Soviet armies didn't help out and come the warmer temperatures the 2nd Shock Army was surrounded and captured, but that is not a winter issue, it is a Soviet coordination issue.

Even the 6th panzer division (the one that blew holes to make heated bunkers) was forced to retreat because they had the spare explosives and the know-how to use them, units on their sides did not and they were outflanked.  Very few units had enough know-how (and that was key, better use of charges could have dug holes for many.

Just the use of logs burning to keep warm pin-pointed entrenched positions and could be brought under fire.

The myth that entrenched units held better has some support - towns and villages did indeed become focal points and places where units could defend.  However, it also has some liabilities in that there just weren't enough towns, and entrenchments in the open had some serious problems.  Accounts from that winter speak of not the snowfall, but rather the extreme temperatures that kept the snow soft and blowing - the drifts cut off units as easily as roaming cavalry or ski troops.

I find the anecdote about the Russians swarming a burning out village the germans retreated from for the sole purpose of using the softened ground to dig into for their own shelters enlightening.  The Soviet Armies suffered mightily as well in the weather, but they did have more persons able to deal with it.

Not until the Germans learned to deal with it could they fight in it, then (in a bit of irony) the next winters were never as cold.



Farfarer61 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 1:19:49 AM)

IThe SU ability to sustain a crushing blow to the front lines followed by a sort of penetration to the rear is perhaps the key. On the Volkhov , a Shock Army pushed though tiny hole then of course withered. Perhaps it is not the combat model, but the combat logistics model which needs work for the SU. If I had to to it quick and dirty, I would try a beta like Shock Armies consume 200% ammo and 150% supply on the offence, Huge punch, but hard to sustain. You cold morph this into a genral SU 'penalty' in 41-42.



Klydon -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 1:35:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think this is a big part of the problem. I think many of the German players who are doing all the jumping up and down just don't do well enough in summer41. The Russian should be limping in to winter41. The changes made to the rail costs mean the Russians can't run away. Lest they lose much of their industry. So forced to stand and fight means a competent German should be cutting the Russian army to pieces. A cautious German will be toasted. Long games like the CG will sort good players from the average. Because of the snowball effect the disparity in skill runs up every turn. To get some good data on the CG you need a good German who really knows how to play up against a good Russian. Only then can some valid judgements be made. This will take time and I expect many tweaks along the way. I can't make any absolute call because I am yet to find a player who can take me in to a winter scenario no matter which side I play. But my gut feeling is as someone else mentioned before, the Germans are a little too strong in summer and a little to weak in winter.So a tone down of each will most likely be the result.


I don't consider myself a "German player".

The vast majority of games, the Axis simply can't repeat what happen in history simply because even average Russian play will mean the Russians did not make nearly as many mistakes (and suffer losses) like what happen. IMO, while there are typically more Russians come winter for the Germans to face, it isn't what is causing the issues with the winter campaign.

The fact that the Russians typically can attack at will across the entire front and keep attacking repeatedly with hasty attacks and have a very high success rate is the basic issue, even against a Axis who has "prepared" for the winter.

As far as the changes to rail, sorry but while it helps tighten up the rail surplus, the Russians are not really having to sweat moving industry and still have enough left to make critical troop movements.



Michael T -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 1:50:55 AM)

The problem is that most players can't play German well enough. So there is a perceived problem of balance. The fact is that to play Germany well in 41 requires a much greater skill level than to play Russia well in 41. Hence if two players of roughly equal skill play each other but neither is much good at German then Russia always wins. The problem that developers face is they MUST design the game in the expectation that the German knows how to play. For the majority this won't happen for some time yet. So you need some guys who know how to play German well to make some objective reports. I still don't think there is a huge problem with the game, perhaps a tweak here and there. I actually think the game as it stands might just be in favour of Germany as long as the German knows how to play.



Klydon -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 2:06:22 AM)

They can play the German as well as they want. In around 5% of the games I have seen, the German has won outright. This is the exception rather than the rule. What turned the corner for me was Q-Balls AAR and also I got tired after killing over 100 Axis units by mid Jan 42. It was ridiculous. Even most Russian players are saying there is an issue. I don't know what else to say to convince you if you think what is happening to the Germans in the winter is a result of sub-par play by the Germans during the summer and fall.



quote:

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

on your idea

and this is out to developers or modders,

is it possible to change operation Typhoons end date in the scenerio's menu to give those who want to tinker with winter options a starting benchmark to work with. My thoughts are extending the offensive until mid June.

edit
if it is to restrictive in scope maybe an agreed benchmark save in the late 41' grand campaign would be helpful. If it is already out there sorry for the wasted post.



I posted this elsewhere, but here is a modified Typhoon with the end date going at least to March. It is easy to change the end date.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2740449&mpage=1&key=�



bednarre -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 2:16:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

But whining about the developers not listening when you are not overwhelming them with evidence sounds like slinging mud not real interest in making the game better.



+1

We need more methodology and back the argument with evidence. Look at the debate on the airfield in the warroom, they try to used evidences.

If people are interested we can put in a methodology to check our assertion. I hope the designer are doing something correct.

For me the following thing should be done :

_ Collect historical weather information and compare the system to it (may be ask a meteorologist to design the weather model, it is their jobs, and they are good at it).

_ Compare this average to the game model to see if it is correct or not as the the weather frame and change speed. correct as needed.

_ Design a 5Dec41 scenario which mean researching the exact situation of both side at the time.

_ Reseach about what each side did as offensive, then play the test scenario trying to replicate the historical move by both side. See if the result is coherent or not.

_ do research on both side to identify structural causes of the result that are beyond player decision and shoudl result in tweak in the game. Those that are well in the player decision should be ignored.

_ from the test result, change the CV modifiers (I share Q-Ball opinion that it is on of the main problem) or other if justified by previous research until the test scenario reproduce the historical result.






It would also be interesting to see a Russian player trying to duplicate some of the stand fast disasters in 1941 and seeing if the Russians could still recover!



mmarquo -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 2:24:49 AM)

And Color is starting a very interesting thread in the main WITE forum about his rubberband defense.



bednarre -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 2:28:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case...



...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad?


Historically, the axis made one last push in October and November, operation typhoon. Most of the pictures you see of staff cars being lugged through the mud and whatnot date from this period when the Wehrmacht wore itself out (and gutted its supply infrastructure), in a fruitless effort to take moscow before winter really set in.

I think the relative strengths of the two sides actually favored the germans more prior to operation Typhoon than after. The germans lost about 400k men in the operation and ended up in very exposed forward positions away from their railheads, ripe for a counterattack.

On oct 2, had the axis chosen instead to stand pat and wait for spring they'd have been much better off relative to the sovets. They could have used the time to dig in while the ground was still workable. There'd have been less strain on the supply system so they could have brought forward winter supplies, etc.

The thing you have to remember is that historically, the Germans really wore themselves down during Typhoon, which is one of the reasons the winter counterattack did so well against AGC.

To my mind the historical lesson isn't that the blizzard makes soviets into supermen, but rather that if you stretch an army to the breaking point and then bad weather hits you can spank them back to their railheads.


Well, as you probably know there can be some debate about successes and mishaps of Germany in WWII. For instance, probably due to Typhoon the Siberian Divisions were sent to the Moscow axis, which somehow would help to explain the German catastrophe there. With no Typhon perhaps they would have been sent to Leningrad to create havoc in AG North....

But, well, perhaps it is another debate. My point here is why is it possible for many of you as early in the history of this game, to know that the game is flawed? How do you know that most of the balance issues are not due mostly to inexperience? How do you know that winter is wrong?



Does anyone have a recent version AAR going from June 1941 to late 1942 that is head-to-head?



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 2:36:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre
Does anyone have a recent version AAR going from June 1941 to late 1942 that is head-to-head?


No because - how many times do we have to repeat? - people give up by march 42, because the model is either broken or all Axis players are unable to deal with blizzard. Most tenacious Axis players seem to be Q-Ball and ACR, you can find their AARs vs Beanie, Kelblau and myself in the AAR section, getting beaten senseless.



Michael T -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 2:42:14 AM)

I realize I am rowing against the tide but I am yet to be convinced. Maybe I will at some stage. Probably when some fiesty Russian player kicks my butt :)



bednarre -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 2:44:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

quote:

So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942.


Though I totally agree with this expectation, I'd like a simulation to not be designed to give an expected result as it kill exploration of alternative strategy. Beside this expectation is about player of same capability. I have played "Defiant Russia" which I like a lot as a game and see russia destroyed in 41 and in another game, the wermach totaly exploded before winter (the Russian took warsaw). This make strating a game always a good experience.
What I mean is that the game average the expected result but is not define or driven by them. I think it is good.

Which means that we might not reach the expected result with some players matching. We have to kkep that in mind.


This is one of those cases where there's two perfectly reasonable ways to approach balancing a wargame like this, and I think I just happen to come down on a different side from you :).

My "ideal" game if you will gives both players historical capabilities, *even if* human players cannot be expected to achieve historical results with them.

For players of the same game who wanted a most historical experience, I'd offer an alternate start scenario with modified starting forces.

Applying that to WITE, I'd eliminate both the super summer germans and the super winter soviets, even though I'm fully aware that the result would be a very limited blitzkrieg and, likely, a kursk style materialskrieg in 1942 because I think that's the most likely outcome had both sides made good decisions in the actual war.

I'd then offer an alternate campaign in which the axis was substantially reinforced for the summer 1941 campaign for those players who wanted to play a scenario with more historical flow.



Do you really think the German reinforcement schedule would not have been radically changed, or would the German High Command have rather let the Russians enter Berlin in 1943? Also, the Germans would have gone to full scale war production a year earlier, with Panther and Tiger designs starting. Also, Allied Bombing was in its infancy in 1941-1942. Finally, the Germans would have slowed the Russians even more than they historically did if the German Generals suggestions to straighten the line and avoid encirclements had been heeded. If the Germans could successfully fight outnumbered 6:1, why can't this be duplicated in the game? Either the German Generals were dead wrong or the game has some gross inaccuracies.



Klydon -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 3:08:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I realize I am rowing against the tide but I am yet to be convinced. Maybe I will at some stage. Probably when some fiesty Russian player kicks my butt :)


Understood and when this point was brought up when the game first came out about the Axis opening moves, there were several threads started up, tactics discussed, strategies gone over, etc and the results were much improved Axis opening turns in many games. So far, there has not been the same level of success when going over the blizzard issues so that is why most of us consider the game in need of adjustment at the moment.



pat.casey -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 3:40:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre
<snip>

Do you really think the German reinforcement schedule would not have been radically changed, or would the German High Command have rather let the Russians enter Berlin in 1943? Also, the Germans would have gone to full scale war production a year earlier, with Panther and Tiger designs starting. Also, Allied Bombing was in its infancy in 1941-1942. Finally, the Germans would have slowed the Russians even more than they historically did if the German Generals suggestions to straighten the line and avoid encirclements had been heeded. If the Germans could successfully fight outnumbered 6:1, why can't this be duplicated in the game? Either the German Generals were dead wrong or the game has some gross inaccuracies.


I think a lot of things would have changed, and I've no objection to in-game triggers that, for example, improve german production if more than 10 soviet divisions cross into poland or rommania.

As for the secondary point though, no I do not agree that the Germans should have been able to fight the soviets at 6:1 odds regardless of the time frame. If you look at the actual correlation of forces in major battles in the eastern front, the germans typically broke down when the force ratio was more like the conventional 3:1

Kursk: 2.5 :1 -> german defeat
Bagration: 3:1 -> german defeat
Fall of Berlin: 4:1 -> german defeat

The germans definitely had a qualitatively superior army vis a vis the russians, but they were not 6X better.

One thing I always try to keep in mind when reading post-war German memoirs is that its in the interest of the surviving german generals to assert that:

A) All mistakes were made by hitler
B) All good decisions were made by the general staff
C) If only the memoirist had been given proper support in operation X he could have won the war

Basically, the surviving german generals want to make themselves look good in their memoirs, which tends to make them less than neutral reporters of fact.



LiquidSky -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 6:12:42 AM)



D) Every Russian is a Siberian



LiquidSky -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 6:34:24 AM)

Quote from Guderian:

Written Nov.21, 1941.

Only he who saw the endless expanse of Russian snow during this winter of our misery and felt the icy wind that blew across it, burying in snow every object in its path;
who drove for hour after hour through that no-man's land only at last to find too thin shelter with insufficiently clothed, half-starved men; and who also saw by contrast the well-fed,
and fresh Siberians, fully equipped for winter fighting....can truly judge the events which now occured.




Skanvak -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 7:13:42 AM)

I have always been convince that it is not much the winter, but this fresh and battle experience soldiers that allow the counter-attack...



randallw -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 7:58:50 AM)

Perhaps those people running AARs and mentioning successful/failed battle results in the winter could further divide them by deliberate/hasty types.



1275psi -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 9:07:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think this is a big part of the problem. I think many of the German players who are doing all the jumping up and down just don't do well enough in summer41. The Russian should be limping in to winter41. The changes made to the rail costs mean the Russians can't run away. Lest they lose much of their industry. So forced to stand and fight means a competent German should be cutting the Russian army to pieces. A cautious German will be toasted. Long games like the CG will sort good players from the average. Because of the snowball effect the disparity in skill runs up every turn. To get some good data on the CG you need a good German who really knows how to play up against a good Russian. Only then can some valid judgements be made. This will take time and I expect many tweaks along the way. I can't make any absolute call because I am yet to find a player who can take me in to a winter scenario no matter which side I play. But my gut feeling is as someone else mentioned before, the Germans are a little too strong in summer and a little to weak in winter.So a tone down of each will most likely be the result.



I don't think any player -great, magnificent, or just average -is going to make any difference
come the blizzard -game over.

again, I will pretty much agree with 2nd ACR.
look - I played a game against the AI on easy for heavens sake -took moscow - inflicted massive losses on the russians -massive -they were down to 500 tanks and i still was nearly 1600 -dug in well before the mud -and constructed fortification zones the entire line -level four forts.
It took just 6 turns of blizzard -and war over
I replayed -tried a sir robin
War over in about ten turns
tried slow retreat
Same

again -why play if the result will always be the same - no matter what you do -the russian army smashes your units.
heavens -I had units, in fortified zones, level 4 and 5 -5 forts -that at end were at 50% TOE -and never attacked!
Attrition?
hell -no -the game is pre programmed to see you at historical 1942 manpower levels - thats probably wrong but thats how I feel.
I think i will read a book or go back to WITPAE -at least there you can have some control over your getting smashed! LOL



alfonso -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 9:59:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I realize I am rowing against the tide but I am yet to be convinced. Maybe I will at some stage. Probably when some fiesty Russian player kicks my butt :)


Understood and when this point was brought up when the game first came out about the Axis opening moves, there were several threads started up, tactics discussed, strategies gone over, etc and the results were much improved Axis opening turns in many games. So far, there has not been the same level of success when going over the blizzard issues so that is why most of us consider the game in need of adjustment at the moment.


Klydon, maybe you are right with the blizzard issue, but not with this argument in particular. There have been much more experience with the opening turn than with blizzard. How many FirsTurns are there? How many blizzards? You can train your opening twice a day. You need weeks to train the blizzard once.



bednarre -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 4:02:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs


Turn 27, and we are getting through roughly a turn a day, so middle of next week should see us at the end of the blizzard. Going into the blizzard we have seen differences in the morale and experience levels compared to the pre 1.03 versions. I am seeing a lot of differences to the tests I was doing between June and November last year.

Feedback is going back to Joel each turn.



BigAnorak, how far do you think the Russian Army should advance during the winter against a German Army in prepared defenses in a coherent, straight line, assuming the Russians have 2 million more men? In other words, do you think the additional Russian numbers will grossly outweight the some additional German numbers and much higher unit density, compared to historical?



bednarre -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 4:20:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
Applying that to WITE, I'd eliminate both the super summer germans and the super winter soviets, even though I'm fully aware that the result would be a very limited blitzkrieg and, likely, a kursk style materialskrieg in 1942 because I think that's the most likely outcome had both sides made good decisions in the actual war.

I'd then offer an alternate campaign in which the axis was substantially reinforced for the summer 1941 campaign for those players who wanted to play a scenario with more historical flow.


I agree with you on both accounts, and I am willing to bet that once the game and community mature, exactly this will be the result, ie the most played best versions, mods, scenarios or whatever....

People hate artificially produced supermanism (lets just remember the outcry about first Japanese turn in WITP, and that was ONE turn in a 1000+ turn game).



I have played numerous games on the campaign from different companies, and feel that allowing the Russians to have some effective counterattacks in summer/fall 1941, and Germans to have some effective counterattacks in winter 1941, is essential both for accuracy as well as player satisfaction! The key is to have a combat results system that is flexible enough to predict this somewhat contradictory capability. Most games tend to allow each player to have an uberman control/coordination of the entire army. This results in amassing both coordinated, mass retreats (always a general's nightmare), as well as overwhelming attacks across the entire front with chess-like precision. The British Army conducted numerous retreats in the early part of the war, and they were not pretty. A good campaign to look at is the June 1942 Gazala disaster, which resulted in the British Army having to retreat all the way to El Alemain. Massive retreats are very bad for moral as well. Finally, the 1943/1944 phases of the campaign will be much more interesting, and worth playing.



bednarre -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 4:30:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I too will be happy to see someone prove me wrong. I have played strategy games since the C64 days. I have tried every strategy against the AI I can come up with. I played the original WIR for years. Then came WITP, I played the BTR to death when it first was released. But I am more of a land guy. So this game is right up my alley and for that reason, I can get passionate about things.

I will concede that I am not the risk taking player, I have a tendency to pull up short or slow my advance to allow rail repair to get closer, I prefer not to take huge risks with my guys. So my advances are short of historical, but also tempering that is my multiple games during blizzard turns. I know what to expect so refuse to go farther than I can defend. I pull up short and start digging (since it does not help, not sure why) and try make sure my guys start the blizzard fully supplied and rested (that does not help so not sure why I do it). 95% of my blizzard games are versus the AI to try different strategies, but the AI is not a human. So if the AI can clobber me 90% of the time, a human will do it almost every time.







It would be interesting to see some AI versus AI campaigns! I know the AI is not perfect, but neither where the opposing generals. The key is to get a gross feeling for the combat results table/losses. The computer can go through many more iterations than via human control. This allows the quickest early adjustment of changes. Perhaps this is already being done by the developers, but it would be interesting to see the results in an AAR. Of particular interest, would be when the Russians reach Berlin.



bednarre -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 4:32:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre
Does anyone have a recent version AAR going from June 1941 to late 1942 that is head-to-head?


No because - how many times do we have to repeat? - people give up by march 42, because the model is either broken or all Axis players are unable to deal with blizzard. Most tenacious Axis players seem to be Q-Ball and ACR, you can find their AARs vs Beanie, Kelblau and myself in the AAR section, getting beaten senseless.




My question is for the developers/play testers as well ...



Speedysteve -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 4:37:39 PM)

I have an AAR going on the Development Forum for mine and BA's game. We're upto Turn 28 at present.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.6875