RE: How realistic is this?

RE: How realistic is this? (Full Version)

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

Message

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 5:46:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP If you can't prevent at most 6 mobile units from moving 11-12 hexes through terrain like that, there's something seriously wrong with your defensive strategy. No doubt I have a huge number of gamey tricks I need to learn before I can master WiTE. But anyone who thinks you can drive 6 divisions cross-country in terrain like that which exists here has something seriously wrong with their appreciation of the ground and real world logistics. The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality.

Mynok -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 5:50:07 PM)
Sheesh if it bothers you so much, stop playing. [8\|] Or find an opponent who will accept your endless list of houserules banning this or that.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 5:53:42 PM)
Your signature says it all, my friend.

karonagames -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 5:54:21 PM)
quote: The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality. Are you being serious? The reason the area was poorly defended was that you defended it poorly. I can understand your embarrassment at allowing your defences to be so poor as to allow the breakthrough, but to cast the blame at everything other than yourself is ludicrous. You made a mistake - learn from it.

ComradeP -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:11:48 PM)
quote: The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality. Even the quickest glance at the MP cost chart, specifically the values for light woods hexes, would've made it clear that it's possible in the game. This was a failure by you, not by the game. If the terrain isn't accurate, that still doesn't remove the fact that you can see the hex types in that area and can guestimate with a pretty good certainty how far your opponent will go in that area with the current MP rules. One of the first things to learn when playing computer games is that the game is almost always right, it does what it's programmed to do except when it bugs. In this case, the terrain in that area is primarily composed of light woods hexes, so the game allows mobile units to move into that area with relative ease. You've allowed yourself to be caught with your pants down even though this move was entirely predictable. That says more about your defensive planning than about the game, doesn't it?

gids -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:16:48 PM)
atm im playing against tarhunnas and several times i really got shocked but tbh it was my doing totally and love the game :)learning while playing mate.i only had 1 prob and that was the blizzard in 1941 ,and from what i read its being taken care off.Against humans its tottaly different playing,they test your defenceline,find holes make em and exploit em.MAke sure as a russian you have ALWAYS 2 to 3 defence lines at weakspots.IF possible make OBVIOUS weakspots with Strong units behind em so he gets lured in there.try to make him attack where you want him to attack

IdahoNYer -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:24:42 PM)
Redmark - Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem. Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:27:43 PM)
Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect. Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws?

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:29:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer Redmark - Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem. Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass. Fair enough, but an M1 with todays logistics trail is one thing, a Pz 3 followed up by an army still using horses is another. If you google the 'log roads' that the Soviets had to build through here during the Tikhvin operation, you'll get an idea of just how tough the terrain really was.

Mynok -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:31:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect. Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws? Utter bullscheiss. They continue to tweak the game, including a major overhaul of the first winter. You're whining because they disagree with your pet little rants. Time to green button your waste.

Sabre21 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:31:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 Gents - you are all missing the point. Nobody has complained when units drive 20 hexes in a turn across the Ukraine. The issue here is the ACTUAL terrain that exists E and NE of Leningrad in the REAL WORLD. Even with zero opposition, the idea of moving multiple armoured and mech divisions against the grain of the few roads that exist in this region is ludicrous. I'm still waiting to hear a comment from an ex-military player on this. I live in the northwest of the US and we have vast forests up here that would be extremely difficult for even infantry to get thru let alone vehicles and I've seen similar terrain in places like the Huertgen and Black forest and southern Bavaria along the Alps. While the maps are not going to be perfect, a lot of time and effort was taken into using maps of the time to create these and have been reviewed in excrutiating detail. You have to look at the scale here. These are 10 mile hexes and while some forests are going to be tough or impossible to get thru and cover wide areas, there are usually plenty of dirt roads that in clear weather won't hinder movement much. If no one is there to defend it, it might as well be an autobahn.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:32:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak quote: The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality. Are you being serious? The reason the area was poorly defended was that you defended it poorly. I can understand your embarrassment at allowing your defences to be so poor as to allow the breakthrough, but to cast the blame at everything other than yourself is ludicrous. You made a mistake - learn from it. Also, take note that a number of people have the same complaints. Are they all jerks, or is that only me?

Schmauser -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:35:26 PM)
I'll bite. When I was enlisted I did dismounted reconnaissance in all kinds of terrain. Used the Leather Personnel Carrier MK I. As an officer in an Armored Cavalry Squadron I trained in terrain from hill country Kentucky/Colorado to that god forsaken place known as Fort Irwin CA. To varying degrees we used M48 A5's, M60 A3's M1A1 Abrams, M113's, ITV's, Bradley Fighting vehicles, Gama Goats, Deuce-and-a-halfs, Hummers, jeeps and an occassional military pickup. You would be surprised where you can take a good tracked or all terrain vehicle. To me the limits were where you could route your supply trains since AFV's need POL/maintenance and troopies need beans, bullets and batteries. In the end that proves nothing since none of us know what it was like to manuever in one of those old rigs. You have the limits of the movement system and that is all you have to work with. Perhaps you can use the editor and mark any number of hexes as impassable to satisfy your need for terrain constraints?

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 6:47:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Schmauser I'll bite. When I was enlisted I did dismounted reconnaissance in all kinds of terrain. Used the Leather Personnel Carrier MK I. As an officer in an Armored Cavalry Squadron I trained in terrain from hill country Kentucky/Colorado to that god forsaken place known as Fort Irwin CA. To varying degrees we used M48 A5's, M60 A3's M1A1 Abrams, M113's, ITV's, Bradley Fighting vehicles, Gama Goats, Deuce-and-a-halfs, Hummers, jeeps and an occassional military pickup. You would be surprised where you can take a good tracked or all terrain vehicle. To me the limits were where you could route your supply trains since AFV's need POL/maintenance and troopies need beans, bullets and batteries. In the end that proves nothing since none of us know what it was like to manuever in one of those old rigs. You have the limits of the movement system and that is all you have to work with. Perhaps you can use the editor and mark any number of hexes as impassable to satisfy your need for terrain constraints? Point taken, but its the point you touch on regarding supplies that's key. To maneuver for a week with a force of 60-100k men and vehicles through that kind of terrain, and then launch a major ground assault just doesn't look right to me. Now, I have learned the game lesson, and no doubt have many more I need to learn before I can play effectively, but if common sense has to be suspended while playing, well...

Sabre21 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 7:12:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect. Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws? First off, that's pretty condenscending to indicate this and is not really called for. I've spent over 2 years of my life working on this project as a tester as have many others and have spent upwards of 16 hours a day doing it. I've been testing games for 12 years and have to say this has been the best bunch of testers I have ever worked with..including Pieter (haha). That's not saying though that we have always agreed. Far from it. Some testers get pretty emotional or vocal about various aspects of the game, but in the end we usually come to a consensus even though we may still disagree. So is the game perfect, of course not, and there isn't a tester or developer that would claim this, but IMO it is the best that is out there and hopefully will get better as we go along.

Ketza -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 7:27:13 PM)
The bottom line is whether ot not that area of the world can sustain operations of that sort is irrelevant. The game allows the move so you should be prepared for it. As Don Rumsfield was said in a Iraq war briefing.. it is what it is. What would you say the solution should be? Make the area impassable?

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 7:33:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabre21 quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect. Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws? First off, that's pretty condenscending to indicate this and is not really called for. I've spent over 2 years of my life working on this project as a tester as have many others and have spent upwards of 16 hours a day doing it. I've been testing games for 12 years and have to say this has been the best bunch of testers I have ever worked with..including Pieter (haha). That's not saying though that we have always agreed. Far from it. Some testers get pretty emotional or vocal about various aspects of the game, but in the end we usually come to a consensus even though we may still disagree. So is the game perfect, of course not, and there isn't a tester or developer that would claim this, but IMO it is the best that is out there and hopefully will get better as we go along. Well, sincere apologies for my tone, but if you read the remarks from the testers above, maybe you can understand why I might have been annoyed? Frankly, for people who have had the luxury of playing with the game and being involved in the design changes for a year or two to respond to a customer's complaints by say that the game is fine, it's just his skills that are rubbish, is a lot more than "pretty condescending". We all honor the testers, but that doesn't mean that every word you speak is gospel. Maybe the embarrassment factor plays both ways? When one looks at the number of fixes already released (all credit to the Devs for their speed) and the long list of fixes still awaited, there are some real questions here. Is it possible that there is an over-reaction on the part of the testers to any criticism of the game? Is that potentially going to slow the process of fixing it?

paullus99 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 7:33:48 PM)
Historically - terrain isn't as much as an obstacle & can be more easily overcome than defended terrain. If you didn't defend properly, it isn't the game's fault. The allies "assumed" the Ardennes were impassible & failed to defend the area adequately twice.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 7:40:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 Historically - terrain isn't as much as an obstacle & can be more easily overcome than defended terrain. If you didn't defend properly, it isn't the game's fault. The allies "assumed" the Ardennes were impassible & failed to defend the area adequately twice. True, and on the second occasion the Germans were unable to pass through the region, despite having superior forces at the outset, and they eventually had to abandon many of their prime movers due to lack of fuel. Which is what I would expect to happen in the woods and marshes up to the NE of Leningrad.

Joel Billings -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 7:55:37 PM)
The ongoing cost in the game is that the supply lines to that area will indeed be very long, so supplying forces for long over that bad terrain with no rail going that way would put the attacker at a big disadvantage for ongoing operations. Of course, there has to be a defending force to take advantage of this. It's got to be 50MP from Staraya Russa to the tip of the attack point. I can't imagine much supply is getting through. On the other hand, the one thing I have concluded previously (several weeks ago when I was playing several short scenarios) that this game could reinforce is that we have to be careful how many generic vehicles we make available in limited map scenarios because the longer term cost of vehicles lost due to HQ buildups will not come through in a shorter scenario.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 8:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings The ongoing cost in the game is that the supply lines to that area will indeed be very long, so supplying forces for long over that bad terrain with no rail going that way would put the attacker at a big disadvantage for ongoing operations. Of course, there has to be a defending force to take advantage of this. It's got to be 50MP from Staraya Russa to the tip of the attack point. I can't imagine much supply is getting through. On the other hand, the one thing I have concluded previously (several weeks ago when I was playing several short scenarios) that this game could reinforce is that we have to be careful how many generic vehicles we make available in limited map scenarios because the longer term cost of vehicles lost due to HQ buildups will not come through in a shorter scenario. Yes, I do have the sense that the impact of penalties that would be painful in the GC is not felt to a serious degree in the Road To scenarios.

squatter -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 8:18:23 PM)
Not that I agree with everything the OP says on this thread, I've always felt that MP cost to armour is not quite high enough in heavy woods and swamp within the game. It's not like they're massively off - adding a couple of MP cost to heavy woods, and maybe four to swamp would do it I would have thought. The argument that there are always tracks, roads, paths etc, I dont think applies to swathes of the Russian wilderness. As our Swedish friend attests, this stuff is thick. Hurtgen is a better comparison than the Ardennes. The Ardennes is a populated area of Western European villages and towns, roads and paths. Hurtgen is a thick, generally uninhabited forrest, with just the odd trail. Armour was unsuited to the Ardennes, but feasible. At Hurtgen it was practically impossible, hence the infantry vs infantry bloodbath. I believe armour was comitted during later stages at Hurtgen, but only after engineer blasted paths, etc. Out of interest, are the testers unanimous that the MP costs for swamp and heavy forrest should be tweaked upwards at least a little?

76mm -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 8:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem. Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass. Wow, I really disagree. I also served as an armor officer in Germany and in Desert Storm, and to compare your average Russian forest to the Ardennes, the "impassable" forests of Germany, or Iraq is just not right. Morever, we are not talking about where a tank can go, but whether the horse-drawn and truck logistics tail can follow. As previously mentioned, I found some topo maps of this part of Russia, although they are from later than I thought, namely the late eighties: http://mapo36.narod.ru/map2/indext.html Look, for instance, at maps 0-36-XV through 0-36-XVIII [MAP NUMBER CORRECTED, NOT GOOD WITH ROMAN NUMERALS!], which show some of the areas that we are discussing. A glance at the maps will show that: 1)at least in the eighties, there seems to be some roads, but whether they existed at all in 1941, and if so, whether they could support several mechanized corp and the logistic tail moving through, is subject to doubt; and 2) the terrain basically consists of forest, bogs, and lakes; if not "tank-proof" probably awfully close. Look, for instance, at the lower half of map 0-36-XVII. No meaningful roads there. And to the extent that single roads existed, they could be easily blocked by simple log barriers and rifle squads armed with molotov cocktails. Knock out the lead tank, and the rest of the column comes to a halt, at least temporarily. In my opinion, the mobility the Germans have in this region--panzers basically swooping through at will--is wildly unrealistic, and it has very significant game play consequences because it makes it much harder to defend Lgrad by forcing the defender to spread out his already thin troops. I don't mean this as an overly harsh criticism of the game--I would hardly expect them to do an exacting survey of every ten mile hex depicted on the map--but I believe that in this area the "abstraction" should be revisited, and most of this area should be heavy forest and/or swamp.

ComradeP -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/15/2011 8:43:01 PM)
quote: Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect. Could you quote a single post by any of us saying that the game is perfect? I'm giving you the reasons for the event you're complaining about and I'm indicating that, as everything you needed to know to predict this is information that is either available (light woods motorized movement cost) or can be guestimated (German mobile unit MP's), the fault is your own here. quote: We all honor the testers, but that doesn't mean that every word you speak is gospel. Similarly, not every single one of your numerous complaints since release (they were more often than not complaints, not suggestions or indications that something might not be working, but complaints) is something that needs to be taken seriously. We're not testing this game for you nor have the designers designed it for you, we're testing this for the community as a whole, and has also been designed for that community. quote: Maybe the embarrassment factor plays both ways? When one looks at the number of fixes already released (all credit to the Devs for their speed) and the long list of fixes still awaited, there are some real questions here. What questions would those be, preferably questions that have not been answered, like "why was the game released like this?" or "how much testing went into the 1941-1945 GC?" The game at release was a rough diamond, it's a little less rough now but still rough. Why? Because it's a monster title. Take a look at a game like WitP:AE, people are still voicing concerns they had around release, such as those about the maximum airfield size of some locations. Things don't change overnight. WitE is the first game I've seen in a long time where so many fixes were released in short order to fix some issues that were found. In some ways, compared to beta a real release leads to a game of Whac-A-Mole as numerous bugs will be found that the testers couldn't or didn't find. As such, fixes are required. There's also a difference between a fix and a new feature being added. quote: Is it possible that there is an over-reaction on the part of the testers to any criticism of the game? Is that potentially going to slow the process of fixing it? In my case, it's probably an overreaction to people who've been blaming the game, the testers, or "fanboys" not in love with their preferred side for the real or imagined problems they have with the game. The non-issues being presented as problems can slow down the process of fixing the real issues, as unfortunately they're presented by vocal members of the forum. You want quicker fixes, focus on real issues and let the developers or us testers know in a clear, no nonsense way. Don't start a "OMG this is BROKEN" thread, but clearly point out the nature of the problem, how you encountered it and your historically accurate justification for the claim that it's a problem. If people keep saying that the game is broken, and that the testers have as such essentially been slacking, that angers me even though I've only tested the game for a short period compared to people like Andy or Jon.

76mm -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 8:01:13 AM)
Hmmm, I kind of thought that posting the links to the maps would generate some discussion, but so far nothing... In my opinion, in that kind of terrain, a couple of dozen peasants armed with axes and hunting rifles could slow the Germans to a crawl, and a lowly Sov rifle division could literally stop a panzer division in its tracks, not through combat power, but by the effect that several thousand determined men could have on demolishing/blocking/flooding the limited trail network (I think "road network" would be kind of overstatement here).

karonagames -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 10:31:47 AM)
quote: Also, take note that a number of people have the same complaints. Are they all jerks, or is that only me? Please show me where I used the word "jerk". I just find it so disappointing, that someone who has done such great work to help the community, with your great work on the maps, and organising the team games and tournaments, should throw your toys out of the pram so dramatically, when there are clearly other areas of the game that need a lot more attention. Could the terrain/supply model be improved? Of course, but so could 101 other things, all of which are on the developers agenda, and will be dealt with when and if they feel it is appropriate. Until such time as the changes of made, we play by the current rules, and use the resources we are given within those rules. If it was just the rules that caused your distress, then I think most people would be more sympathetic to your case, but if you are not willing to admit that your use of the available resources is not partially to blame, then that is your problem, and not the game's, and calling every technique you disagree with "gamey", is also not going to help make your case any stronger.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 11:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: squatter Not that I agree with everything the OP says on this thread, I've always felt that MP cost to armour is not quite high enough in heavy woods and swamp within the game. It's not like they're massively off - adding a couple of MP cost to heavy woods, and maybe four to swamp would do it I would have thought.�� The argument that there are always tracks, roads, paths etc, I dont think applies to swathes of the Russian wilderness. As our Swedish friend attests, this stuff is thick. Hurtgen is a better comparison than�the Ardennes. The Ardennes is a populated area of�Western�European villages and towns,�roads and�paths.�Hurtgen is a thick, generally�uninhabited forrest, with just the odd trail. Armour was unsuited to�the Ardennes, but feasible.�At�Hurtgen it was practically impossible, hence the infantry vs infantry bloodbath.�I believe armour�was comitted during later stages at Hurtgen, but only after engineer blasted paths, etc. Out of interest, are the testers unanimous that the MP costs for swamp and�heavy forrest should be tweaked upwards at least a�little? � Absolutely correct, IMO. The key word you use is 'wilderness'. I was thinking about this as well. The map and MP rules make no distinction between populated areas and wilderness areas. There should probably be different hex types, but the absence of roads on the map, particularly during summer, compounds the problem. Roads + a 'Wilderness' hex type would eliminate most of the issues and make the game a lot more realistic for those interested in the actual historical challenges that faced both sides. To make it really authentic, a player should be able to spend AP to change a hex type (e.g. Light Woods with no roads could be changed to Clear with dirt roads). A huge amount of effort went into building roads up to the front (notably the Soviet log roads in the north and through the Pripyat in 1944) and roads were a critical facet of operations for both sides. In reality: 1. You can't move troops and supply them through most of the rough terrain shown on the map without building roads. 2. Roads take weeks or months to construct. 3. After turn 2-3 the kind of lightening moves observed in the game were generally not possible, even in weakly defended sectors, except when conducted across wide areas of open country.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 11:34:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem. Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass. Wow, I really disagree. I also served as an armor officer in Germany and in Desert Storm, and to compare your average Russian forest to the Ardennes, the "impassable" forests of Germany, or Iraq is just not right. Morever, we are not talking about where a tank can go, but whether the horse-drawn and truck logistics tail can follow. As previously mentioned, I found some topo maps of this part of Russia, although they are from later than I thought, namely the late eighties: http://mapo36.narod.ru/map2/indext.html Look, for instance, at maps 0-36-XV through 0-36-XIII, which show some of the areas that we are discussing. A glance at the maps will show that: 1)at least in the eighties, there seems to be some roads, but whether they existed at all in 1941, and if so, whether they could support several mechanized corp and the logistic tail moving through, is subject to doubt; and 2) the terrain basically consists of forest, bogs, and lakes; if not "tank-proof" probably awfully close. Look, for instance, at the lower half of map 0-36-XVII. No meaningful roads there. And to the extent that single roads existed, they could be easily blocked by simple log barriers and rifle squads armed with molotov cocktails. Knock out the lead tank, and the rest of the column comes to a halt, at least temporarily. In my opinion, the mobility the Germans have in this region--panzers basically swooping through at will--is wildly unrealistic, and it has very significant game play consequences because it makes it much harder to defend Lgrad by forcing the defender to spread out his already thin troops. I don't mean this as an overly harsh criticism of the game--I would hardly expect them to do an exacting survey of every ten mile hex depicted on the map--but I believe that in this area the "abstraction" should be revisited, and most of this area should be heavy forest and/or swamp. A common sense opinion informed by practical experience and good research. Thank you. Wildly unrealistic is spot on.

Tarhunnas -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 11:40:52 AM)
Just for the record, I don't think anything is "broken" with the game. I love this game, I think it is great! However, there are a few details that need tweaking. One of them, IMHO, is that most of the woods east and southeast of Leningrad should be heavy, not light. There are German maps of Russia made during the war available, they were subsequently captured by the US somehow. I happen to have access to those maps, data measured by areial photography in 1942-1944. I believe they are commercially available, but I don't know how. Not that I am saying that this makes me some kind of expert that cannot be refuted, and maps don't say it all, but checking those maps, there are a lot fewer roads and trails in the area we are discussing compared to say western Ukraine. As others have pointed out, there is a whole lot of difference when comparing Russia in the 1940-ies to anywhere else in Europe. The infrastructure was much more primitive, unpaved roads or trails. And just because a tank can be made to move through terrain that doesn't mean that it can fight effectively, and more importantly, its logistical trail, composed of citroen trucks made for delivering croissants in Paris, certainly can't deliver supplies across that kind of terrain. Not to mention pulling the artillery.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 11:43:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak quote: Also, take note that a number of people have the same complaints. Are they all jerks, or is that only me? Please show me where I used the word "jerk". I just find it so disappointing, that someone who has done such great work to help the community, with your great work on the maps, and organising the team games and tournaments, should throw your toys out of the pram so dramatically, when there are clearly other areas of the game that need a lot more attention. Could the terrain/supply model be improved? Of course, but so could 101 other things, all of which are on the developers agenda, and will be dealt with when and if they feel it is appropriate. Until such time as the changes of made, we play by the current rules, and use the resources we are given within those rules. If it was just the rules that caused your distress, then I think most people would be more sympathetic to your case, but if you are not willing to admit that your use of the available resources is not partially to blame, then that is your problem, and not the game's, and calling every technique you disagree with "gamey", is also not going to help make your case any stronger. I think you need to re-read my first post in this thread, to see how I started out. If I got upset later, it was in response to some of the subsequent posts, not as a response to losing the battle I was referring to. Please note that 90% of my comments regarding bugs or design issues relate to things I discovered in games I have won, or am well positioned to win.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.390625