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

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



Message

Apollo11 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 6:47:51 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Interesting discussion. Hope the devs are reding it.


Yep... interesting... [:)]

BTW all thread are always read (and interesting ideas / possible issues are always copy&paste to developers forum)... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"



Skanvak -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 9:37:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

If you shorten the number of Blizzard turns, though, you won't have the attritional effect on the Wehrmacht. This seems to me like it's not too far off right now; the Germans should suffer piles of attrition losses in Winter. Even in my game, this still accounts for the bulk of the losses, as it should.

The problem is that the Russians are able to easily push around the Wehrmacht, and do so on a sustained, multi-front pace for three months. That's what needs to change, either by propping-up German CVs, or by restricting Soviet supplies enough that they can't sustain a full-frontal offensive for any length of time.

I would like to play the Soviets one day, and they need to be able to retain an offensive capability for the entire winter. Just not a full-front one, IMO.

For these reasons, I am in favor of keeping Blizzard 3 months. I would probably end it for the South Region (Crimea), but I would keep it 3 months. I would make Germans units more combat capable though, and better able to resist.



I see two flaws in the reasonning.

1/ We don't give actual weather reports to back our opinion so until we have something to compare the turn weather to the real weather we don't back our opinion on blizzard duration.

2/ Your reasonning start with "the soviet shouldn't be able to mount a front wide offensive" which prevent all exploration of possibility or for letting the Soviet do better. Beside according to an historian the Soviet always launch front wide offensive, they just did not succeed everywhere.

The reasonning should be the other way round, you should first explain if and why soviet suffer suffer supply problem and where the game model is wrong. Otherwise we kill all possibility to explore alternative strategy.

The logical point is that you don't rule out (with facts) that ohter theory are wrong :
_ the russian mount a front wide offensive but they were defeated because German line can resist in winter in the other part of the front
_ the russian could have mounted a wide front offensive but just chose not to either by error of judgment or to save supply and manpower for later time.



karonagames -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 11:29:23 AM)

quote:

The problem is that the Russians are able to easily push around the Wehrmacht, and do so on a sustained, multi-front pace for three months. That's what needs to change, either by propping-up German CVs, or by restricting Soviet supplies enough that they can't sustain a full-frontal offensive for any length of time.


I am still very early into my blizzard offensive in my test game with Speedy, but I have always felt that there needs to be some sort of logistic brake applied to the Soviets, but it is difficult to do within the current games mechanics, but lets say we wanted the SU to attack about 20-25% less than they are able to atm, would turning 3 of the 13 turns of blizzard to snow be the answer?

I have been brainstorming this as an idea to try to extrapolate what the net outcome would be, and whether this would "fix" the blizzard, and can see some pluses and minuses;

The pluses are that the soviet would have to have to advance more cautiously and ensure that the front line could deal with a snow turn. The axis would also have the opportunity to repair the damage to his lines to restrict the amount of retreating he has to do.

The minuses are, that if you used a random system to give one turn of snow in January and two in February, the axis could have 2 periods of 3 weeks of snow, which would allow substantial recovery or a continuous period of 5 turns of snow that could allow the axis to mount a substantial counter attack, and gain back more than they lose. The other unknown is whether the extra attacks will generate a similar amount of casualties to what would have been suffered in a snow turn.

Another option may be to use admin/initiative checks to apply an extra MP penalty to soviet armies and fronts to the point where they would be prevented from making deliberate attacks and forced to make riskier and more expensive (in terms of casualties) hasty attacks. This option could also force the Soviets to use HQ buildups to guarantee he has enough MPs to attack, with the costs in APs and trucks, that would make the SU think twice about attacking up and down the front.

I think we need feedback from some soviet players about how they would feel about having a stop/start winter offensive and/or having attacking options restricted.



Pipewrench -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 12:01:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

The problem is that the Russians are able to easily push around the Wehrmacht, and do so on a sustained, multi-front pace for three months. That's what needs to change, either by propping-up German CVs, or by restricting Soviet supplies enough that they can't sustain a full-frontal offensive for any length of time.


I am still very early into my blizzard offensive in my test game with Speedy, but I have always felt that there needs to be some sort of logistic brake applied to the Soviets, but it is difficult to do within the current games mechanics, but lets say we wanted the SU to attack about 20-25% less than they are able to atm, would turning 3 of the 13 turns of blizzard to snow be the answer?

I have been brainstorming this as an idea to try to extrapolate what the net outcome would be, and whether this would "fix" the blizzard, and can see some pluses and minuses;

The pluses are that the soviet would have to have to advance more cautiously and ensure that the front line could deal with a snow turn. The axis would also have the opportunity to repair the damage to his lines to restrict the amount of retreating he has to do.

The minuses are, that if you used a random system to give one turn of snow in January and two in February, the axis could have 2 periods of 3 weeks of snow, which would allow substantial recovery or a continuous period of 5 turns of snow that could allow the axis to mount a substantial counter attack, and gain back more than they lose. The other unknown is whether the extra attacks will generate a similar amount of casualties to what would have been suffered in a snow turn.

Another option may be to use admin/initiative checks to apply an extra MP penalty to soviet armies and fronts to the point where they would be prevented from making deliberate attacks and forced to make riskier and more expensive (in terms of casualties) hasty attacks. This option could also force the Soviets to use HQ buildups to guarantee he has enough MPs to attack, with the costs in APs and trucks, that would make the SU think twice about attacking up and down the front.

I think we need feedback from some soviet players about how they would feel about having a stop/start winter offensive and/or having attacking options restricted.



agree with what you are saying

would this idea be a possibility?

as skies did clear in January for relief operations to commence for the luftwaffe, would it not be possible to put that in the game. I think for now the blizzard should be kept as is as the soviets need this advance but if extra supply could be targeted by the german player with the use of air assets to a point where localized counterattacks could be made it might keep the russian player from overextending and applying too many envelopements?




mmarquo -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 1:22:51 PM)

An alternative way to adjust the balance of the game without tinkering too much with the historical weather pattern or logistical challenges would be to give VPs for losses of men, AFVs, etc in addtion to geographical VPs. This is palpably lacking in the campaigns. The Axis player gets no VP reward for operational successes leading to the loss of 3 - 4,000,000 Soviets in 1941, etc. Furthermore, the Axis player does not get a reward for operational successes leading to the capture of key large cities; if Kharkov is captured in 1941 and then the Axis is ejected, this should at least lead to some accumulation of permanent VPs, etc.

Currently a heavy urban hex is worth 5 points at end of 224 move game; what if each turn of possion gave the possessor 1/224 points? This would interject the concept of time in addition to space into VP consideration.

Marquo [:)]



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 1:55:19 PM)

I stopped playing two of my PBEMs (one Sov one Axis) because of blizzard. I never thought I'd say it but it's just ridicolous really.

Was this game ever playtested HvH thru winter and spring 42?

I played through one blizzard before (as Soviet) beating and kicking my opponent senseless. It was just unspeakably easy. In fact I restrained myself of kicking him even more because I didn't want him to leave the game in disgust. I also thought he deserved the beating because he must have been doing something wrong. Now I see he didn't do anything wrong, it's just the way it is.

So first we have 17 turns of skewed rules and numbers to get totally helpless Russians (hard to reproduce setbacks like Smolensk or Yelnya). Then after mud we have 13 turns of even more ridicolously skewed rules to get totally helpless Germans to compensate. It's all too contrived if you ask me.

Both are wrong, it's just that we've seen only few German players play that good to abuse German "superhumans" in the opening turns (Emir and James can do it). Russians played by humans are so easily used and abused, that almost every PBEM that gets to the blizzard phase turns into comedy (see Q-Ball vs Beanie). I am starting to have Q-Ball winter experience, but unlike him I just don't have the nerve to play through it and describe it on the boards. I don't see myself playing this game until blizzard is patched (unfirtunatelly nothing can be done in game editor as this is hard coded).



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 2:13:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
The minuses are, that if you used a random system to give one turn of snow in January and two in February, the axis could have 2 periods of 3 weeks of snow, which would allow substantial recovery or a continuous period of 5 turns of snow that could allow the axis to mount a substantial counter attack, and gain back more than they lose. The other unknown is whether the extra attacks will generate a similar amount of casualties to what would have been suffered in a snow turn.


Well, isn't one of the problems obvious from what you wrote - that snow and blizz turns are just too different, like night and day, when in reality they are pretty similar. And they are applied over ALL map, every single hex. My last game looked so contrived and gamey. October, Germans stop. 5 turns of mud, not one attack. Last two turns of mud, Russians crawling like zombies towards me, they are not attacking because they have psychic powers so they know what is about to happen so why waste energy attacking. First turn of blizzard: 99 attacks (90% successful). Forts falling down like cards. Very contrived, gamey and artificial.

Simplified weather model that applies mud accross all map (no hex is spared), then blizzard in same manner, is in BIG part to blame.

Then after mud we have this blizzard, that is so easily abused by Sov player, lasts for three months over every single hex etc.

To me the biggest problem is the weather model.

- We need more randomness in weather.
- More "granulation", difference between hexes or far more weather zones.
- Less pre-programmed weather.
- Less difference between snow and blizz.
- Blizzard lasting NO MORE than 5 turns UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. 13 turns of this silliness turns even the best games into comedy.

When all or some of this is applied, we won't have Sov players abusing the weather model and blizz benefits like we have now.

The problem of German players abusing their own superpowers in opening turns will remain, but so far only few German players know what to do with it.

quote:

I think we need feedback from some soviet players about how they would feel about having a stop/start winter offensive and/or having attacking options restricted.


See above. I had one Sov blizz experience in PBEM and it was just ridicolously easy. Took third of Ukraine back, killed 5 Panzer and IIRC 20-some infantry divisions. At time I thought my opponent must have been doing something wrong now I see he didn't, it's just the way game works.

Refine and randomize the weather model.



Angelo -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 2:31:08 PM)

I concur.

A detailed weather system and it's effects on operations (especially the first winter) is required as the current one is broken.

Personally I feel the supply system is a major culprit with the 41/42 issues but I'm not an expert on supply systems. If the supply system is historically realistic then command and control rules will need to be added to enable a more accurate historical result, not changes to the combat values.



Klydon -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 2:43:16 PM)

Initially, I like the idea of shortening the blizzard as suggested above and/or the random snow weather turns inserted as BigA mentions. In regards to BigA's comment about being worried about many successive turns of snow, it could happen, but under your suggestion in Jan and Feb, the Germans may know for sure that the next turn in January may be snow if he is in the last week of January, but the first week of February could  be blizzard or snow and he has to plan accordingly.

One other issue of a "short" blizzard stretch is if I were the Germans, I would just pull back in as many spots as I could and while I would give up a fair amount of territory, not having most of my army get touched by the Russians when I am most vulnerable (and my army would get its butt kicked anyway) would probably make it a very attractive consideration, especially if I know I can launch limited counter attacks during snow in Jan/Feb.

I do agree the weather zones and how they work for especially fixed weather needs to be looked at. To think it instantly goes from snow to blizzard at the same time in Leningrad as it does in the Crimea makes it a stretch I think. Same with thaws in the spring going from winter to mud to clear.



mmarquo -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 2:43:26 PM)

"My last game looked so contrived and gamey. October, Germans stop. 5 turns of mud, not one attack. Last two turns of mud, Russians crawling like zombies towards me, they are not attacking because they have psychic powers so they know what is about to happen so why waste energy attacking. First turn of blizzard: 99 attacks (90% successful). Forts falling down like cards. Very contrived, gamey and artificial."

It's a bitch when one's best contrived plans are of no avail. Maybe the Axis should be forced to launch a certain number of attacks/turn or get serious VP penalties -this will maybe hinder the incredible foresight the Axis player currently has to build a hundred forts and prepare fallback positions given the robust nature of their meteriologic services [;)]     Maybe even give them a, "Winter logistical preparation boost" for let's say for the loss of 250 VPs or 50 APs/turn.

The only thing wrong with the blizzard it that the Germans are not punished for stopping their attack prematurely...[:D] 




Skanvak -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 2:58:18 PM)


quote:

The only thing wrong with the blizzard it that the Germans are not punished for stopping their attack prematurely...


That can be solve by giving year by year victory point. Which means that the Germans will have more victory point if they take Moscow early and less if they go for latter.

Otherwise, the random weather is the best, but sometime we want to feel the true 41 blizzard experience.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 3:06:08 PM)

Both sides knew to a great extent what was about to happen:

- They had both studied Napoleon's campaign in great detail.
- The German army had fought in Russia through most of WW1 and many of its senior WW2 officers had served on that front, as had their Soviet counterparts only 20+ years earlier.
- The Soviets were building up reserves under Zhukov for their planned winter counter-offensive.

The key factors that led to the debacle experienced by the Axis were over-confidence and a sense that the Soviets could not have any more reserves of manpower remaining after their losses in '41, plus the severity of the '41 winter. However, even if -40 weather was extreme, the Axis would have suffered in -20 or even -10 given that they were not equipped.

I agree that the winter needs to be better modeled, but there was a certain dreadful inevitability to the events that occurred in real life, which was anticipated by commanders on both sides.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 3:15:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
The only thing wrong with the blizzard it that the Germans are not punished for stopping their attack prematurely...[:D] 


I made 2-3 attacks as German during MUD. My 16 CV attacks failed against his 1=1 units.

As I wondered why, I read Joel's newest and apparently undocumented explanation that CVs get divided by 8 (!!!! thats EIGHT) on attack during mud.

Ah so that explains it.... [X(]

Far too many contrived, artificial weather-related rules, that, because of very crude and global-wide every-hex-turns-into-mud-and-blizz weather model, make the game silly at times.



Pipewrench -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 3:16:25 PM)

marco that is an interesting idea.

this might be a brain-fart but here it goes.

a leadership check every turn in 41 when a german tries to fortify beyond 2. if it check fails a penalty is assessed. This would reflect the hitler hold at all cost option.(very rough around the edges)

a leadership check in blizzard for the soviets and if it fails will only give a partial bizzard bonus to the units it is attached to, hence strong commanders will gain more ground but will create flanks because weak commanders cannot keep up.the failed commanders are still able to keep up a forward advance but take blizzard attrition.

I can just see this thread go on forever until a compromise is reached...lol








Q-Ball -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 4:49:38 PM)

Wouldn't a simple fix be changing the CV modifiers?

Currently, the Germans are 1/3 on defense, and 1/4 on attack.

What if it was simply just 1/2?

This would force the Soviets to concentrate forces to make progress. Triple-stacks of Rifle Divisions would probably be needed to make progress on dug-in Infantry. Eventually they would due to attrition, but it might take some time.

1/2 would also preserve a German counterattack ability, which isn't really there right now

Historically, the Russians didn't make alot of progress against prepared positions; most of the progress was against over-extended AGC, wasn't it? Am I wrong?



Zebedee -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 4:50:37 PM)

Forgive a silly question, but what game penalties do the Soviets suffer in winter and do they adequately reflect the difficulties the SU had both in movement and supplying units (outside of inherent logistic weakness) and the non-combat losses taken?




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:07:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee
Forgive a silly question, but what game penalties do the Soviets suffer in winter and do they adequately reflect the difficulties the SU had both in movement and supplying units (outside of inherent logistic weakness) and the non-combat losses taken?


None. No.

Have you been following the thread up to now? [:-]



mmarquo -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:09:20 PM)

"Far too many contrived, artificial weather-related rules, that, because of very crude and global-wide every-hex-turns-into-mud-and-blizz weather model, make the game silly at times"

Everyone reading this thread knows of the Rasputitsa and the horrendous blizzard of 1941 - so why try to contrive that it was anything rather than what it was? Come on - bitching because Axis attacks fail in mud up to the waist? Really? Bitching because the Werhmacht gets it's ass handed to it during the blizzard? Really? Maybe the 1/8 modifer is too generous...see below.   [;)]

Marquo




mmarquo -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:10:37 PM)

Is the 1/8 Mud modifier too generous? Umm....



[image]local://upfiles/1355/BDA6866544274DF5AF2704673C888BE2.jpg[/image]



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:16:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
1/2 would also preserve a German counterattack ability, which isn't really there right now


Counter attacking ability, or the seemingly TOTAL lack of it, is another problem I have with the current 41-42 game model.

I admit I was believing Flavio, the eternal optimist, and his talk about brave Soviets counterattacking German spearheads in summer, then Germans counterattacking Soviet spearheads in blizzard. I think he was even optimistic about attacking in mud (!!). But Flavio was wrong.

The fact of the matter is none of these attacks really work. Sovs can counter-attack in summer with tons and I mean TONS of luck, only in south, with perhaps 2-3 units on the map strong enough to think of attacking. Mud attacks just don't work, at ALL (with 1/8 malus, no wonder - who ever suggested them?).

Counterattacking in blizzard... had three rested Panzer divs held in cities unable to dislodge meagre 2 Tank corps intrusion. It just does not work!

We have superhuman Germans, impervious to attack in summer, only to become wussies overnight, and super-super human Russians in winter to compensate. Counterattacking is a forlorn hope in both cases, so we have rampant one-sidedness in key periods of play.

I admit I don't like both current super-human models, but the Soviet winter superhuman model is a tad bit more silly IMO. (or it just lasts longer in game - 13 turns of perfectly predictable weather over every hex on the map)



CapAndGown -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:17:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Forgive a silly question, but what game penalties do the Soviets suffer in winter and do they adequately reflect the difficulties the SU had both in movement and supplying units (outside of inherent logistic weakness) and the non-combat losses taken?




Movement penalties apply to both sides



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:18:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Is the 1/8 Mud modifier too generous? Umm....


In situation like on that picture, perhaps it is. But not every mud hex looks like that, and certainly not every hex on the map should be muddy really.



CapAndGown -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:24:49 PM)

Question: is there any trade off between number of units moved by rail and amount of supply delivered?

I ask because the Germans' basic problem was their horrible supply network that could not deliver both bullets and clothes.

I was struck by the fact that the reinforcement divisions that arrive during the winter suffer the same penalties as those divisions that have been on the front all winter. The divisions that arrived during the winter did bring winter gear with them. Yet in the game they are no more winterized than any other division.

It seems to me that there needs to be a concept of winterized divisions. Not just mountain divisions, but any divisions can be winterized. The trade off, however, needs to be the amount of supply delivered. For every divisions winterized, the amount of supply delivered to the front needs to go down.



mmarquo -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:27:03 PM)

Oleg,

You can't expect a game where every single hex has an independent chance of weather effects to varying degrees...at least not for the price of WITE. Be happy with a reasonable abstraction; and yes - the Germans did very little of offensive significance duing the mud or blizzards of 41/42 - why resist the facts?

My son once saw me reading yet another book about the Eastern Front, and commented, "Dad, no matter how many books you read about it, the outcome will always be the same." Interesting reflection from a 14 year old.

Marquo [;)] 



cookie monster -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:31:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Question: is there any trade off between number of units moved by rail and amount of supply delivered?

I ask because the Germans' basic problem was their horrible supply network that could not deliver both bullets and clothes.



No rail cap is seperate from supply deliver.




AKCLIMBER -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:45:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

To me the biggest problem is the weather model.

- We need more randomness in weather.
- More "granulation", difference between hexes or far more weather zones.
- Less pre-programmed weather.
- Less difference between snow and blizz.
- Blizzard lasting NO MORE than 5 turns UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. 13 turns of this silliness turns even the best games into comedy.

When all or some of this is applied, we won't have Sov players abusing the weather model and blizz benefits like we have now.


I completely agree with this assessment and was in fact planning on starting another thread with much the same sentiment (with the added twist that without implementation of your suggestions, the "replayability" of the game will, for me, suffer greatly). Weather, at least in 1941, is as much of an influencing factor on the combatants as the combatants are on each other. As such, the handling of weather should be as refined and variable as that of any other major aspect of the game. FOW should also apply to weather. Seems to me, weather has at least four aspects that can and should be addressed, all of which can be variable: (1) timing - when the effect occurs, (2) duration - how long the effect occurs, (3)intensity - level of impact on your forces and (4) location - where it occurs. I'd love to see a choice added to the game to give us a the ability to have a statistically realistic model throw weather at us in a realistic but not telegraphed fashion. Heck, we could also be given the choice of intensities of the mud, snow or blizzard (mild, average, severe?) effects or just have it be random. Of course, the option of historically accurate weather should also be kept available (but tweaked to address concerns raised in this and other threads).

Here's a plea to the developers to consider these suggestions! [&o]

Cheers!



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 5:47:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
You can't expect a game where every single hex has an independent chance of weather effects to varying degrees...at least not for the price of WITE. Be happy with a reasonable abstraction; and yes - the Germans did very little of offensive significance duing the mud or blizzards of 41/42 - why resist the facts?

My son once saw me reading yet another book about the Eastern Front, and commented, "Dad, no matter how many books you read about it, the outcome will always be the same." Interesting reflection from a 14 year old.


Yes that's why we play games, the only way to actually change the outcome [8D]

I don't think a slightly better weather model would make the game more expensive. I mean we have insanely (in a good way) detailed OOBs and TOEs where every rifle squad is simulated etc, then BLAMMO mud or blizz fall accross every damn hex on the map, and suddenly these incredibly detailed lovingly modelled units and squads all lose some huge amount of detail, and could all be abstracted into.... well, almost nothingness.

Why model units to such detail if snowfall all turns them adhere to a very simple rule: wherever Sovs attack, they will advance. Repeat for 13 turns. Then go back to detailed modelling, again.

(For the record, superhuman Germans in the opening turns irritate me almost as much as superhuman Sovs in winter, but that's another matter, as in this thread we discuss winter.)



Zebedee -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 6:06:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
None. No.

Have you been following the thread up to now? [:-]


Yes. Some interesting ideas (bednarre and Q-Ball in particular), some ludicrous ones and more than its fair share of ranting to little useful purpose. Fair summary?

----

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Movement penalties apply to both sides


But that's currently all we're aware of and may be the only one? I couldn't find anything documented, but... well, you know ;)



Zemke -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 6:58:13 PM)

I REALLY hate to say this, but for me the game is broken.  There I said it publicly.  I bought the game, so I am out the $100 dollars, but if many of the issues are not fixed, I just won't play it.  I bought it when it first came out, very excited, and at first I was very pleased till I played it more and more, then the detail problems start to show up.  I have read and posted on several threads about the following listed issues, and will not go into detail:
1.  German Winter loses in 41-42 due to Blizzard used as the primary game balancing tool in the game: the big deal breaker for me
2.  Super Germans in summer, super Russians in winter: deal breaker
3.  The attrition loses come back with lower morale, lower trained: deal breaker
4.  The Isolation model does not ring true to me: don't like it, but can live with it
5.  Combat model seems a bit off, but still "ok"....but I think is the key to fixing the biggest probems of 1 and 2.

I would support the 2nd ACR's idea, at least it does something to fix the problem.

I just hope the Devs are reading and planning to tweak, change/fix these problems, which I have confidence they will be addressed at some point, and until them I will play WitP:AE.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/26/2011 7:06:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Forgive a silly question, but what game penalties do the Soviets suffer in winter and do they adequately reflect the difficulties the SU had both in movement and supplying units (outside of inherent logistic weakness) and the non-combat losses taken?




Movement penalties apply to both sides



Playing as the Soviets during the blizzard I felt the penalties quite clearly. Although I was able to attack on a very wide front (too many units?) I couldn't exploit effectively. I don't think the Soviet MPs need changing at all



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625