RE: Winter Idea......Comment

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

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

Message

LiquidSky -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 8:45:46 AM)
You shouldn't be able to build forts in Blizzard turns. And it should be damn hard to do it in Mud or Snow. Except in Urban hexes and maybe forest hexes. The earlier example of a Panzer unit using TNT to dig in failed to mention that it used up most of its supply of explosives to do so, and had to abandon the position when the Russians outflanked it by a mile or two away.

color -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 9:41:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky You shouldn't be able to build forts in Blizzard turns. And it should be damn hard to do it in Mud or Snow. Except in Urban hexes and maybe forest hexes. The earlier example of a Panzer unit using TNT to dig in failed to mention that it used up most of its supply of explosives to do so, and had to abandon the position when the Russians outflanked it by a mile or two away. That's absolutely right. That particular panzer division did have a sizeable surplus stock of TNT from Barbarossa which really helped their digging in efforts. It wasn't mentioned as the example was not intended as an argument in a digging-in capability discussion and I did not feel it added anything to what the example was meant to illustrate; - what kind of protection prepared positions can give from the elements, no matter how/when they constructed. Having said that I see the validity in the argument that digging in should be harder in SNOW/MUD and pretty tough in blizzard. That they had to abandon the position later I my opinion does not add much to the discussion about what kind of protection forts can offer.

karonagames -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 10:30:32 AM)
One of the parameters I used in testing was to measure the number of successful attacks each turn to calculate the the average number of hexes the front line would move based on a 120 hex front line. Against the AI, the AI would make 90+ attacks but over 50% would be "hold" results so they would net about 40-45 hexes per turn. So over 13 turns they would take 520-585 hexes, and I maybe had to retreat from 120-150 hexes that were outflanked, so the average movement of a 120 hex front line would be between 5 and 6 hexes, split between the Army Groups as noted in other threads. Against a human, there were fewer attacks but a higher % of retreats, but the average number was pretty similar to the results against the AI (40-45 retreats per turn). The biggest difference was in the number of hexes that I voluntarily had to retreat from, due to the human being better able to co-ordinate attacks to produce outflanking and breakthroughs that required bigger retreats. It is this voluntary retreat that is the biggest variable in the AARs I have seen to date. Some of it is being forced by the SU, but some arepurely voluntary and doesn't always need to be. The only evidence I have from my tests is that if the Axis can get to or beyond the historical front line as at 1st December 1941, the Axis can start 1942 in front of the historical 1942 front lines with higher manpower and equipment levels, except in AGS's sector. I have have made recommendations to Joel to fix this, but as yet we have not been given a version to test that incorporates these changes. Prior to v5 there were problems with morale and experience levels that were not present in my tests, which was causing infantry division CVs to be 1.1 points lower than the 1942 campaign start benchmark. I have a test going with Speedy that is just about to enter the blizzard, and we are working as fast as we can to pull in data to see if the changes fix this.

sillyflower -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 12:26:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: color - what kind of protection prepared positions can give from the elements, no matter how/when they constructed. Eskimos/Inuits seem to do quite well using igloos, but I don't suppose they would add much to a unit's DV

color -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 1:11:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower quote: ORIGINAL: color - what kind of protection prepared positions can give from the elements, no matter how/when they constructed. Eskimos/Inuits seem to do quite well using igloos, but I don't suppose they would add much to a unit's DV Yeah, pretty hard to have a firefight from inside an igloo if you can't see anything outside the walls :) It seem reasonable to assume that staying inside those igloos would help to lower the amount of frostbites the eskimos might have during winter, while allowing them to go out for limited periods of time avoiding prolonged exposure to elements that would eventually provoke frostbite injuries.

Tarhunnas -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 2:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky You shouldn't be able to build forts in Blizzard turns. And it should be damn hard to do it in Mud or Snow. Except in Urban hexes and maybe forest hexes. The earlier example of a Panzer unit using TNT to dig in failed to mention that it used up most of its supply of explosives to do so, and had to abandon the position when the Russians outflanked it by a mile or two away. It IS harder to dig in in mud and snow, and even harder in Blizzard. See the manual.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 3:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 From a game-play perspective, who wants to play a game where - in human v. human games, 1941 is a waste because, no matter how far the German player gets, he knows he's going to be demolished in the blizzard (regardless of what he does to prepare). We haven't seen a lot of 1942 combats yet - post blizzard, but I have my doubts that the German Army can be anyway near historically combat effective against a human Red Army - which leads to a very, very boring game. Quite true. 1942 may be the death of us all...

Tarhunnas -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 3:18:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 Quite true. 1942 may be the death of us all... I started a 1942 campaign PBEM partly because I wanted to avoid the winter, but I think there are some balance issues even without the winter, see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2732315&mpage=1� my last post. BTW the 1942 GC is fun, both sides can do stuff, it is not as one-sided as 1941.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 3:18:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower quote: ORIGINAL: color - what kind of protection prepared positions can give from the elements, no matter how/when they constructed. Eskimos/Inuits seem to do quite well using igloos, but I don't suppose they would add much to a unit's DV Actually, 5 minutes in a good trench with a rain cape, a blanket and some warm bodies crammed up against you will answer that question for you. The wind chill just a foot away over over the parapet will be the difference between living and dying. Even better still is a bunker with a brazier!

PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 3:43:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 Actually, 5 minutes in a good trench with a rain cape, a blanket and some warm bodies crammed up against you will answer that question for you. The wind chill just a foot away over over the parapet will be the difference between living and dying. Even better still is a bunker with a brazier! In my younger and more stupid days, I did some trench line work in Wyoming during winter. The problem was not that we didn't stay warm when working, but when we stopped, we had to be careful. Cooling down too fast (core either being not well reinsulated - new jacket - or sweating) meant that there could be troubles. We had a truck to go to to warm up, I do not wish to have tried it in a denim overall with light gloves and not woolen socks... (edit: it was -10f/-20c actual temp)

Skanvak -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 5:40:57 PM)
Even if I tend to play germans, I think that we should keep the weather effect (even if made optional) but I really like Iron Duke analysis that the combat value of Germans was not impacted that much compare to soviet value. I remind that most game divide german CV in attack only.

NinetyNine -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 5:50:49 PM)
The main problem for me with the blizzard isn't the hit the Axis take, nor with the lack of a hit the Soviets take, but it's in the fact that, historically, the Soviets did perform a counterattack during the winter, but it was not a Leningrad to Rostov wide push-back for hundreds of miles. It was fairly localized. This wasn't because the Soviets wanted to be sporting. They were still suffering from serious problems at that point. In the game, however, if you expose a Soviet division to snow they develop superpowers and can suddenly punch holes in the entire German line.

abulbulian -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 6:31:15 PM)
Ok, well I've been trying to fight the battle for play balance since I noticed the seriously issues back in Jan. It's not been an easy road, because many of the resistance was due to lack of real game experience data (release version), soviet fanboys (j/k. we all love our certain sides), and partly maybe my somewhat aggressive approach to getting my point across. Sorry, but I'm passionate in what I know and believe. Recently I think my warnings about play balance finally took a step in the right direction with the last few beta version. I know Joel and especially Gary are hesitant to change the blizzard mechanics. But, now I feel it again is time for them to see what most of us already know...it's not working. Blizzard is too harsh on the axis player, as those have seen, the game is almost always over (maybe draw?) by the spring of 42. The assumption here is a human competent sov player. There's just no way for the axis player to avoid getting hammer in those 13 turns of blizzard even for those that 'plan' accordingly. As people have already stated, all axis players are forced to receive the same punishment as the axis forces did in winter 41-42, even if they don't recreate the same variables as were in 41-42. Even if you retreat as axis, you still can be attacked unless you retreat many hexes a turn ... that x 13 = game over in 42. Also, the way the sov can build forts means the spring 42 line will be something out of the Great War. Not hard for the sov player to have mostly lvl 3-4 forts in depth of 3 hexes where it matters. I experienced this first hand in my PBEM human vs human game. Sure, the axis player push some of these forts, but each hex they gain they will be countered attack by masses of rifle corps. So if no changes are made regarding blizzard we are left with: - a game that is mostly likely a draw for even the best axis players - axis fun factor is very low, maybe first 17 turns or so.. unless you like defensive play.. which can be fun.. but not with axis in 42, IMO. - weather system that leaves something to be desired .. zones need to be used better. Northern and southern Soviet Union could have very different weather conditions. So keep in mind it's a game, thus, there has to be some balance between for fun both sides as well as historical realism. Maybe there can at least be an settings option to have some reduction in blizzard or option that forts reduce attrition and blizzard CV penalties. It seems most of the community feels there is an issue here with first winter blizzard in the 41 campaign. So, I'd like to hear why the developers don't seem to want to deal with this issues? I'm happy to have a more in depth discussion on what possible solutions could be. Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away. [;)]

Pipewrench -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 7:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away. [;)] I don't really think that the development community is ignoring this problems. As to everything else you have stated I support your ideas 100%. For myself, I will be watching the team play AAR as this should really bring out the strength and weaknesses in a human vs human game. again , gread post abulbulian

color -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 7:38:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pipewrench quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away. [;)] I don't really think that the development community is ignoring this problems. + 1 Knowing 2by3Games they listen a lot to the community, so I am pretty sure they are well aware of the developments. They put a lot of details into their work, it's kinda their trademark [;)] And their love for the subject & craftsmanships really shines through in this product. The game was made this way for a reason, and I outmostly respect their efforts to strike a balance here. Let's not forget the blizzard has been a hot topic for months now, so it is bound to become a little tiresome when everybody has an opinion to share about it [:D] I think you can rest assured they listen and are more than willing to deal with unbalances. There's more than the blizzard on the topic list, and some changes are already being tested. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with us discussing the topic until we all die of old age, so just bring it on [:'(]

abulbulian -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 7:41:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pipewrench quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian Ignoring problems like these don't make them go away. [;)] I don't really think that the development community is ignoring this problems. As to everything else you have stated I support your ideas 100%. For myself, I will be watching the team play AAR as this should really bring out the strength and weaknesses in a human vs human game. again , gread post abulbulian Sorry, that wasn't what I meant and was not to be a insult to a fine group of devs. Just wanted them to share their ideas on a future solution or what might be on the table for that first blizzard? I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe there is anything in the 'works' to change blizzard mechanics. Just looking for some feedback from the dev team.

Skanvak -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 7:44:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian So keep in mind it's a game, thus, there has to be some balance between for fun both sides as well as historical realism. Maybe there can at least be an settings option to have some reduction in blizzard or option that forts reduce attrition and blizzard CV penalties. after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there.

NinetyNine -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 8:07:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there. I'm not looking for that either, personally. I don't mind the winter hit, or losing as Germany, or inbalance. What I mind is that pretty much my entire line gets shoved back like clockwork in late 41, early 42. I exit winter not weakened, but pretty much shattered. I've tried the linebacker defense and it just delays the same result slightly. I have tried 15 times now and can't exit the winter in anywhere near the shape that the Axis start the '42-'45 scenario in. Maybe it's just me, though.

abulbulian -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 8:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian So keep in mind it's a game, thus, there has to be some balance between for fun both sides as well as historical realism. Maybe there can at least be an settings option to have some reduction in blizzard or option that forts reduce attrition and blizzard CV penalties. after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there. I umm ... [sm=crazy.gif] I didn't buy this game as a historical simulation, but rather as a realistic WWII strategy war game about the eastern front. I know what happened in 41-45 on the eastern front very well. Reading about hundred books on the subject was my resource for that aspect. I'm guessing the majority of people also bought the game to attempt to play either side and create their own strategies and results under the guide of some realistic and historical parameters. Who buys a game for a historical simulation? That almost sounds like you just put both sides as AI and watch them fight it out? Really? What am I missing with your remarks that this game should be a historical simulation?? Also, I don't see anything where Matrix or 2by3 Games marketed WitE as a 'historical simulation': http://www.matrixgames.com/products/372/details/Gary.Grigsby%27s.War.in.the.East:.The.German-Soviet.War.1941-1945 You bought a 'game' not a simulation.

paullus99 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 8:28:24 PM)
Of course, given that most players are able to beat the AI under the current blizzard rules (German vs. AI) any tweaks to balance PvP may really break things on the AI side - unless there is a way to make the changes conditional only for human vs. human games.

abulbulian -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 8:29:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 Of course, given that most players are able to beat the AI under the current blizzard rules (German vs. AI) any tweaks to balance PvP may really break things on the AI side - unless there is a way to make the changes conditional only for human vs. human games. Add a setting as I suggested to factor in forts a bit for blizzards. Not a large coding task, IMO.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 8:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there. Please explain to me, then, what you want to add to WitE that historically reflects the piss-poor Soviet command and control of 1941/1942. Because right now, that's not in the game. And that is a huge matter of historical accuracy, would you not agree? I'm not calling you a hypocrite, but people who want a "historically accurate" simulation seem to be just fine with what a human player can do in total command of all Soviet forces, when what they can do utterly defies the history of Soviet politics. I am finding a lot of players who want historical accuracy have two things in common right now: 1) They prefer to play the Soviet side 2) They have no desire to add historical accuracies that negatively impact the Soviet side. This is an integrity issue that makes me see this winter debate as an "Us vs. Them" thing. My signature says what I need to say about historical accuracy. I play both Soviet and Axis. I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play.

Pipewrench -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 8:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 Of course, given that most players are able to beat the AI under the current blizzard rules (German vs. AI) any tweaks to balance PvP may really break things on the AI side - unless there is a way to make the changes conditional only for human vs. human games. exactly, no point in changing the human vs computer. it seems that just introducing a new scenerio in an update with the modified changes would keep all sides happy. You could go head to head with the old 41 start or the new modified 41 start

abulbulian -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 9:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there. Please explain to me, then, what you want to add to WitE that historically reflects the piss-poor Soviet command and control of 1941/1942. Because right now, that's not in the game. And that is a huge matter of historical accuracy, would you not agree? I'm not calling you a hypocrite, but people who want a "historically accurate" simulation seem to be just fine with what a human player can do in total command of all Soviet forces, when what they can do utterly defies the history of Soviet politics. I am finding a lot of players who want historical accuracy have two things in common right now: 1) They prefer to play the Soviet side 2) They have no desire to add historical accuracies that negatively impact the Soviet side. This is an integrity issue that makes me see this winter debate as an "Us vs. Them" thing. My signature says what I need to say about historical accuracy. I play both Soviet and Axis. I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play. Amen, brother. I really find the humor in people that support the 'blizzard is fine, don't change it as axis need to suffer as they did historically' opinion. These are the same foos (yes, foos) that are more than happy to take the Sir Robin strategy and move the majority of sov units east even when this was not the reality at the time. Yeah, nothing wrong there ... [sm=00000734.gif] There was no real orderly planned retreat in summer 41 for the sov forces. Far from it... I'll be more than happy to call anybody a 'hypocrite' that would take this nonsensical stance for WitE.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 9:18:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian Amen, brother. I really find the humor in people that support the 'blizzard is fine, don't change it as axis need to suffer as they did historically' opinion. These are the same foos (yes, foos) that are more than happy to take the Sir Robin strategy and move the majority of sov units east even when this was not the reality at the time. Yeah, nothing wrong there ... [sm=00000734.gif] There was no real orderly planned retreat in summer 41 for the sov forces. Far from it... I'll be more than happy to call anybody a 'hypocrite' that would take this nonsensical stance for WitE. Pardon me while me and Abulbulian high-five each other... [sm=sign0066.gif][sm=00000946.gif]

Skanvak -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 9:23:52 PM)
quote: I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play. "Balanced" and "enjoyable" generally don't go well together in my experience. Beside, I am generally playing the German side and what you say on politics is true for the German sides too. The command and control of the player on the German army is far more ahistorical than on the Soviet side, unless you demonstrate something due to organisational regidity (I thought that was already in the game). Beside before flaming someone with "a priori" read the previous post...

2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 9:32:45 PM)
Easy, I don't want my thread going down hill with petty arguments. So, please refrain. I want a thread of ideas, both pro and con. Clarification "arguments" okay, general spats, no. As for coding, only Pavel, Joel, Gary would be able to say what is and what is not do-able. Looking at some of the changes we got in WITP, I bet there are alot of do-able things.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 9:40:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak quote: I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play. "Balanced" and "enjoyable" generally don't go well together in my experience. Beside, I am generally playing the German side and what you say on politics is true for the German sides too. The command and control of the player on the German army is far more ahistorical than on the Soviet side, unless you demonstrate something due to organisational regidity (I thought that was already in the game). Beside before flaming someone with "a priori" read the previous post... I'm going to respect 2ndACR's request that we keep this constructive and focused on topic. Skanvak I specifically went out of my way to say that I was not accusing you of being a hypocrite, and then I went on to describe a problem I'm seeing with factions developing in these debates. I didn't include you as being a part of any faction. I resent being falsely accused of attacks against anyone. My integrity matters a great deal to me. I have flamed people on a couple of occasions here, and when I do, I always use 5-syllable words, so please note that there were none in that last post in response to you. I do assert our goals for the end-state of the game are incompatible, and you are standing in opposition to the game I want, so I must defeat your ideas with logic and better ideas. That's what I'm trying to do.

bwheatley -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 10:54:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian So keep in mind it's a game, thus, there has to be some balance between for fun both sides as well as historical realism. Maybe there can at least be an settings option to have some reduction in blizzard or option that forts reduce attrition and blizzard CV penalties. after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there. I umm ... [sm=crazy.gif] I didn't buy this game as a historical simulation, but rather as a realistic WWII strategy war game about the eastern front. I know what happened in 41-45 on the eastern front very well. Reading about hundred books on the subject was my resource for that aspect. I'm guessing the majority of people also bought the game to attempt to play either side and create their own strategies and results under the guide of some realistic and historical parameters. Who buys a game for a historical simulation? That almost sounds like you just put both sides as AI and watch them fight it out? Really? What am I missing with your remarks that this game should be a historical simulation?? Also, I don't see anything where Matrix or 2by3 Games marketed WitE as a 'historical simulation': http://www.matrixgames.com/products/372/details/Gary.Grigsby%27s.War.in.the.East:.The.German-Soviet.War.1941-1945 You bought a 'game' not a simulation. +1 I think it's a game that is always going to end in germany losing. But it's a win for germany if they can hold out past historic dates. As winter stands now that will not happen.

bwheatley -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 10:55:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak after tens of years of playing wargame there one thing I don't want to play : a balanced game. I have bought an historical simulation and I want to play that. I share concern with the winter only in so far that it make the German unhistorically weak according to most player reports, but this end there. Please explain to me, then, what you want to add to WitE that historically reflects the piss-poor Soviet command and control of 1941/1942. Because right now, that's not in the game. And that is a huge matter of historical accuracy, would you not agree? I'm not calling you a hypocrite, but people who want a "historically accurate" simulation seem to be just fine with what a human player can do in total command of all Soviet forces, when what they can do utterly defies the history of Soviet politics. I am finding a lot of players who want historical accuracy have two things in common right now: 1) They prefer to play the Soviet side 2) They have no desire to add historical accuracies that negatively impact the Soviet side. This is an integrity issue that makes me see this winter debate as an "Us vs. Them" thing. My signature says what I need to say about historical accuracy. I play both Soviet and Axis. I want a balanced game that is enjoyable to play regardless of which side you play. I'd be all for modeling a random chance until winter 41 of russian units not listenign to orders and staying static etc etc. Anything that adds a little spice is good.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.703125