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? (3/16/2011 12:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP 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. Here is a link to the place where I post all 'complaints' as you call them. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2653027 Points to note: 1. That list is intended to be a rational list of issues, a substantial percentage of which have actually been reported by other players and not by me. I am just logging them in a central location. 2. If you don't accept the issues you see listed there, please point out which ones are inaccurate or invalid and I will remove them happily. I have already removed several that have been fixed. 3. I am maintaining that list because I don't believe it is commercially proper that consumers should be sold a 'rough diamond' (I am amazed you admit it so openly) wrapped up as a polished gem by marketing. Tell me it's a rough diamond, invite me to play with it, accept my inputs - that would be fine. 4. I am modding everything I can, within the constraints of the limited skills I have and the limitations of the game itself, to improve the game experience for myself and others - I am not merely complaining. See my map mod here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2755516 WiTE is not an open source freeware development project. It is a commercial product sold for profit. It is one of the most expensive games on the market (sure, I can afford it, but that's beside the point) and the developers have a responsibility to address all bugs found. Design issues are subjective and we can only offer opinions; Matrix can ignore them as they wish, but we are entitled to express them. I am merely one voice and I am certainly not preventing anyone else from expressing their own views or starting their own threads to praise the product. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read my posts.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 12:06:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas 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. +1

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 12:10:01 PM)
And by the way, as a closing remark, I don't think I said the game was "broken" - that was somebody else in another thread. My strongest remark was that it's "a game that needs some really serious work before it can be described as a convincing representation of WW2 operations in Russia". Toys > Pram > Out

ComradeP -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 1:13:28 PM)
quote: 1. That list is intended to be a rational list of issues, a substantial percentage of which have actually been reported by other players and not by me. I am just logging them in a central location. Initially, that thread was just "what redmarkus doesn't like about the game", which is not the same thing as "a rational list of issues". quote: 2. If you don't accept the issues you see listed there, please point out which ones are inaccurate or invalid and I will remove them happily. I have already removed several that have been fixed. My experience with how you posted around release was to me a clear indication that even when issues are inaccurate or invalid, you'll just keep hammering them. That makes it difficult to take your list seriously sometimes. quote: I don't believe it is commercially proper that consumers should be sold a 'rough diamond' (I am amazed you admit it so openly) wrapped up as a polished gem by marketing. Can you point me to a post by the developers or testers proclaiming this is a perfect game (you've failed to answer the previous question on that)? If it's not perfect, that means the game is automatically a rough diamond. If you interpret that as "unfinished": that is your interpretation, not mine. It is also not what I said. I've made it perfectly clear a vast number of times that the game could certainly use some improvement. The developers have also made that perfectly clear. If you feel you were somehow misinformed, you have only yourself to blame as the position of developers and testers has been voiced quite clearly a number of times: WitE is a good product, and we keep working on making it better. quote: 4. I am modding everything I can, within the constraints of the limited skills I have and the limitations of the game itself, to improve the game experience for myself and others - I am not merely complaining. See my map mod here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2755516 I said you complained a lot, instead of offering suggestions, I didn't comment on whether or not you're doing anything for the community. Your work is probably appreciated by those that make use of it. quote: WiTE is not an open source freeware development project. It is a commercial product sold for profit. It is one of the most expensive games on the market (sure, I can afford it, but that's beside the point) and the developers have a responsibility to address all bugs found. What are you implying? In your previous post you yourself posted that the developers are addressing bugs quickly. quote: Design issues are subjective and we can only offer opinions; Matrix can ignore them as they wish, but we are entitled to express them. Like I said, this game wasn't specifically designed for you, so "design issues" you see might not be design issues the other 99,99% of the community sees, or that the developers see. You've had some difficulty with understanding that since release, as you generally behave as if the game should suit your tastes. It doesn't, and shouldn't. This is Gary Grigsby's War in the East, not Redmarkus's War in the East.

Tarhunnas -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 1:29:18 PM)
I am sorry to see that this thread is getting very personal instead of concentrating on the issue. I do not think that is the fault of any one person, and I for one would appreciate if everyone could keep their posts respectful and objective. This is not fun to read for those not involved.

76mm -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 1:35:17 PM)
+1. But I do hope that this part of the map is reviewed and ultimately fixed, because the Ardennes it is not, and the existence of this essentially open corridor is both unrealistic (IMO) and has a very adverse impact on the Sov's ability to defend Lgrad. Is it a coincidence that Lgrad has fallen, or is about to fall, in almost all of the current AARs?

karonagames -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 1:49:42 PM)
quote: Is it a coincidence that Lgrad has fallen, or is about to fall, in almost all of the current AARs? Most of the time the Axis got to Leningrad through the "back door", over the River Neva, not the wide "right hook" linking with the Finns. Personally I have never pulled off the right hook against the AI or a human, ironically because my supply situation was too bad, but this was also before HQ build up was introduced, and I think it is this that has made the "right hook" more achievable. Throughout testing, it was obviously that the resources used to get Leningrad meant they could not be available in other sectors such as Kharkov, the Donbas and the Crimea, so in terms of manpower and industry the soviets come out even, but the capture of Leningrad does help the Axis survive the blizzard in better shape, and this is probably the biggest benefit from capturing Leningrad.

76mm -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 1:54:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak Most of the time the Axis got to Leningrad through the "back door", over the River Neva, not the wide "right hook" linking with the Finns. But the point is that such a back door approach is made much easier because the Sov player has to divert signicant troops to guard against a right hook. Once the Germans get past the river south of Lake Ilmen, there are no choke points between there and the Finnish border, so the Sovs have to commit significant troops to stop this kind of attack, and do so early enough to allow them to dig in.

karonagames -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 2:04:45 PM)
quote: But the point is that such a back door approach is made much easier because the Sov player has to divert signicant troops to guard against a right hook. Once the Germans get past the river south of Lake Ilmen, there are no choke points between there and the Finnish border, so the Sovs have to commit significant troops to stop this kind of attack, and do so early enough to allow them to dig in. The Soviet is faced with tough decisions that is for sure,and I can only speak from experience of one test game against Speedy, but I posted my turn 6 Digging plan for Leningrad in one of the other threads, where I was digging in the "back door" hexes from Turn 3, and had "right hook" defences digging from turn 5.

Tarhunnas -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 2:16:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak Most of the time the Axis got to Leningrad through the "back door", over the River Neva, not the wide "right hook" linking with the Finns. But the point is that such a back door approach is made much easier because the Sov player has to divert signicant troops to guard against a right hook. Once the Germans get past the river south of Lake Ilmen, there are no choke points between there and the Finnish border, so the Sovs have to commit significant troops to stop this kind of attack, and do so early enough to allow them to dig in. Interesting points. Good discussion!

Schmauser -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 2:34:32 PM)
I can send you a series of saved games showing the progression of the right hook if you like. It is of course against the AI which has both it's pros and cons. I only used one HQ buildup for the final thrust to the finns. The rest involved 1) Allocation of almost all of the infantry reinforcements to AGN. 2) Allocation of the 4th Army (really one Corps) to the right flank of AGN. 3) An all out effort to push the railhead behind PZ group 4 to reduce the supply distance. 4) Constant pressure by the infantry fom AGN. They were always attacking so that the AI had to patch the line, deal with routers and extract units from potential pockets. I think I managed the pocket around turn 13 and I am still clearing out LG on turn 22. Am going slow with the cleanup since they aren't going anywhere and I wanted to use additional forces from AGN to help pocket Moscow.

76mm -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 2:35:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak The Soviet is faced with tough decisions that is for sure,and I can only speak from experience of one test game against Speedy, but I posted my turn 6 Digging plan for Leningrad in one of the other threads, where I was digging in the "back door" hexes from Turn 3, and had "right hook" defences digging from turn 5. I try to do pretty much the same, but in my experience, Sovs players have to commit too many troops to guard against the right hook. Since Lgrad is probably the chief strategic prize in the entire game, this is not an insigificant point. As mentioned, I am really surprised that Lgrad generally falls so easily, and some of the German players seem little less surprised. [EDIT] And I'm not trying to suggest that Lgrad should be invulnerable; many German players commit additional troops to the drive on Lgrad, and of course at some point we should expect Lgrad to fall. That said, that does not mean that an unrealistic map should be used for play balance purposes. I have not heard a single coherent rationale (ignoring rather erroneous comparisons to the Ardennes, etc.) for why this area should be so easy to move through for the Germans. I understand that the devs are working on lots of issues, and this is probably not at the top of the list, but I really hope that this is addressed sooner or later, and preferably sooner...

karonagames -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 2:41:52 PM)
The point remains that the commitment needed to get Leningrad means the Sovs can send less reinforcements to the south and centre, and build defences in front of Kharkov and Stalino instead of behind, and plan to torment the axis from the Crimea during the blizzard. I don't think the AARs that show Leningrad being captured also see the Crimea, Stalino and Rostov fall - apart from mine[;)] It really is a case of self-balancing "swings and roundabouts"

76mm -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 2:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak The point remains that the commitment needed to get Leningrad means the Sovs can send less reinforcements to the south and centre, and build defences in front of Kharkov and Stalino instead of behind, and plan to torment the axis from the Crimea during the blizzard. ooops, I edited my previous post before seeing yours--please see my point about not using an unrealistic map for play balance issues. The fact is that even if the Germans don't divert any extra troops towards Lgrad, the Sovs have a harder time than they should defending it. I guess I have a hard time understanding why this is so controversial?

karonagames -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 3:12:57 PM)
quote: I guess I have a hard time understanding why this is so controversial? I don't see any controversy - there has always been and always will be debate as to the reasons the Germans switched from capturing to besieging Leningrad - the debate in the development forums was very "robust". I have the just been watching the "Battlefield" DVD, and they suggest that Hitler feared that Leningrad would be booby trapped in the same way Kiev was, and did not want to risk the same situation - just one of the many theories, but impossible to replicate in a game.

76mm -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 3:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak I have the just been watching the "Battlefield" DVD, and they suggest that Hitler feared that Leningrad would be booby trapped in the same way Kiev was, and did not want to risk the same situation - just one of the many theories, but impossible to replicate in a game. I have heard this before on this forum...dunno, but it is hard to believe that Hitler was worried about little things like boobytraps when he was willing to doom millions of men at Stalingrad, etc. But anyway, there is an easy "realistic" fix, allow the Sov player to "boobytrap" Soviet cities via the expenditure of AP [:D]

karonagames -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 3:32:20 PM)
quote: But anyway, there is an easy "realistic" fix, allow the Sov player to "boobytrap" Soviet cities via the expenditure of AP And have a big sign pop up saying "Booby trapped - do not enter"!

Sabre21 -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 4:13:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 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? It is pretty easy to get annoyed on any public forum [:D] As for the second comment, there is a lot of truth to fine-tuning your skills to play the game more effectively, especially against a skillful opponent. It's all a matter of how one presents this or how it is perceived on whether it comes across as condenscending. I try and provide help in the form of advice to players on both sides, such as I am doing now with both Oleg and Senno. I know other testers like Pieter and Bob are doing the same. But as you indicate, it is easy at times to get annoyed at how some posts are written and both sides are guilty of this at times. Testers are people too and they can get passionate (and protective), but I don't know any of us in this group that think we are perfect. You should see some of the discussions on the tester forum, they get pretty opinionated and in many cases reference is made to the public forum on issues that you guys bring up. I also wouldn't look at the number of fixes and changes that have been made since release as an indication that the game has serious problems. No game or any software is going to be perfect upon release. There is always going to be room for improvement as new ideas are brought up or improvements made, and of course in any software program, when something gets tweaked, something else may get broken. This is more of an indication that you have a dev team that really cares about the game and want to get it as good as it can be, but you know as well as I that not everyone is going to be happy. Andy

Joel Billings -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 6:29:49 PM)
Thanks Andy, good points all. My last comment on this before I exit stage right from this thread is that the map is not going to change anytime soon, and probably never in WitE. It's really the one constant in the game, for many reasons. Now, we are beginning to work on War in the West by producing a full map for an eventual War in Europe. This map will be completely new. Now it is possible in the course of that work that the map maker will determine that the terrain should be different. Much of this is a judgement call even when you have great sources. Believe it or not, Pavel's first assignment when he came on as a tester was to review the existing map and improve it. He did a heck of a job, leading to a much better map than we had before his review. I remember a discussion of an area of the map north of Smolensk that he said was just terrible terrain that really limited activity, but that it's really hard to get at this given 10 mile hexes. As much as we want WitE to be "perfect" it's not going to happen (if only because we could never all agree on what perfect is).

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 8:08:17 PM)
Personally I am OK with the map (although my opinion is low value as I've never been to that part of Russia personally). I'd concentrate more on fatigue having greater effect on combat capability, and improving supply effects that would make events like the one described in this thread harder to achieve (not impossible, just harder).

CharonJr -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 8:16:10 PM)
Personally I am in the swamps/heavy woods should cost more MPs for mech/armor camp here as well, this has the additional benefit of making the supplies getting through this terrain more expensive, too.

Klydon -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 9:26:37 PM)
The other issue with capturing Leningrad was that Hitler did not want the responsibility of feeding the masses there. The German war economy was having enough food issues as it was and to add Leningrad's population to the mix would have been very tough. The preference at this point was to bomb and shell a city to induce flight of the population towards the east and make it the Russian government's issue to feed/care for the civilian population. The initial orders for Typhoon were to surround Moscow, but not enter it. The plan was to shell/bomb it into surrender and send the population packing to the east. Booby traps were also a concern as well after Kiev, but I think the food issue was the big reason. Better to starve the city out and not take the casualties was the thought. I also agree about having heavy woods/swamps motor/mech movement costs getting bumped a bit. While the swamp combat was silly (much better since it was fixed) and rough is tough ( [:D] ) I don't know that woods (light or heavy) seem to have a lot of effect on movement or combat to a point although they have a huge effect when it comes to recon. Not a strong topic to me, but it would be interesting to test it a bit.

Senno -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 10:00:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak Throughout testing, it was obviously that the resources used to get Leningrad meant they could not be available in other sectors such as Kharkov, the Donbas and the Crimea, so in terms of manpower and industry the soviets come out even, but the capture of Leningrad does help the Axis survive the blizzard in better shape, and this is probably the biggest benefit from capturing Leningrad. My AAR says "hi". Err, +1

Senno -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 10:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: 1. That list is intended to be a rational list of issues, a substantial percentage of which have actually been reported by other players and not by me. I am just logging them in a central location. Yeah, gonna have to +1 here also. -------- I'm with Oleg on the map. It's ok, and presents a balanced set of circumstances. You know what you get across all terrain types. It would be decidedly unfun to have to memorize or reference different costs for different zones of the map. Or even different terrain types. Is this heavy forest, or heavy heavy heavy forest? "Oh, jeez it was heavy forest to the 10th power, I am so screwed now..." How many grades of forest do we really need in a game? It's a conscious design choice that you disagree with. And that's fine. Of course.[:)] Edit: Sorry to DP your thread.

Senno -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 10:19:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm ooops, I edited my previous post before seeing yours--please see my point about not using an unrealistic map for play balance issues. The fact is that even if the Germans don't divert any extra troops towards Lgrad, the Sovs have a harder time than they should defending it. I guess I have a hard time understanding why this is so controversial? 76mm, how many troops should the Germans need to commit to take Leningrad in your estimation? Should all OKH reserves through mud be sufficient? An extra army? What in your estimation, please. ----------------------------- Wow, a TP. Should I go for the fabled fourth P? I remain undecided. Sorry, Red. Second edit: I won't take the cheesy opportunity to hit the fabled fourth P. But 76mm, did you run off to read my AAR after I asked my question? I see you in there.[;)] I'm just kidding around.[;)] I really want your opinion here.[:)]

randallw -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/16/2011 11:42:38 PM)
Perhaps the future projects could have a medium forest, to stick in between the light and heavy. [;)]

Senno -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/17/2011 12:13:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: randallw Perhaps the future projects could have a medium forest, to stick in between the light and heavy.�[;)] Perhaps. That doesn't seem to be what the OP's point was though. Away with your reasonableness, I say. Away![;)]

PeeDeeAitch -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/17/2011 12:19:53 AM)
"Slightly heavier forest with a bit of underbrush and some swampy bits that make a sucking sound"

Encircled -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/17/2011 12:29:13 AM)
In game terms, its light woods, so its perfectly possible In real terms, it isn't I have to be honest, I look at a game map, and if I see light woods, then I treat them as light woods, and defend them accordingly. What it does do is make Leningrad a lot harder to defend, especially against a human.

Aussiematto -> RE: How realistic is this? (3/17/2011 1:51:14 AM)
quote: 76mm, how many troops should the Germans need to commit to take Leningrad in your estimation? Should all OKH reserves through mud be sufficient? An extra army? What in your estimation, please. I have just taken Leningrad in 2 PBEMs as the Axis player and found it easy on both counts vs Human than AI (because, I think, the AI is designed to defend Leningrad). The answer lies in a combination of how many forces and where you position them. 18th Army and 16th Army should be able to do the job, with 4th PzGroup, PLUS - around 6 divisions from the OKH (so, yes, most of the reserve infantry, including the corps) and attach 1-2 divisions to 4th PzG from 3rd PzG - probably 1 armour and 1 mot inf. One alternative is to put the most northerly 9th Army corps into the drive north and, after a few turns, transfer it to 16th Army and put the weaker infantry into 9th or 2nd Army. Transferring the 9th army corps means you send lots of support units too. I rail the RHG HQ from AGS up to the north and stick all the artillery from it into the 16th and 18th army corps, and then disband the HQ. Where they go depends on the opponent's defensive posture. I'm not comfortable with the Nerva line of attack but you need to threaten it with at least 1 corps. Getting to the river north of Pskov as fast as you can is essential. Getting armoured units in the corridor to the east of Leningrad, west of the Volkhov to drive on the ports is essential. Getting infantry over the Volkhov helps too. But, in both cases, taking Leningrad came about because I was able to pick out the weak hexes, hammer them with infantry, then push mobile forces through the hole. So it was probably operational stuff that made it work, once I'd assembled the force. of course, for future opponents, the real strategic delight is to locate the forces in such a way that they can threaten Moscow from the north :). That way it's a guessing game. My view is that Leningrad must be taken before the mud so as to allow you to redistribute forces south via rail in time for winter - otherwise it could be a hollow victory.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875