determined outcome

determined outcome (Full Version)

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

Message

bodmerm -> determined outcome (4/12/2011 9:47:02 AM)
If you dont win as Axis in 1941 you are determined to loose. Somehow the game feels "fixed" whether or not you survive blizzard reasonably or not. What is the fun part uf such determinism? I dont know.

kirkgregerson -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 4:24:46 PM)
Well it's a historical game. So if you think you're going to ever win(conquer) the Soviets against any decent human opponent.. umm you playing the wrong game. I think because the game is somewhat 'fixed' for axis units and resources that participated in the east, it's going to be almost impossible to conquer the Soviets. Maybe in some games where you have more control over your forces and production globally could you possible force some temporary soviet surrender if you're a great strategic mind. But WitE is not this type of global game. You 'WIN' as axis by not having Berlin taken before mid/late 45.

bodmerm -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 4:56:29 PM)
I realize that we play a (very nice and extremely well made) historical game, no doubt against that. But I want to suggest to be able to do better as historical germany did if not making their mistakes (Stalingrad, Leningrad, stand to the last man). It would be very motivating to drain manpower from lagre cities and/or see that industry works for you when you hold the Donez bassin, capture the oil of Maikop or let the Kolpino tank factroy work for your cause. We have to distinguish between gaming and "real war" (which cannot be simulated anyway). BUT: no doubts that the developers made every effort to deliver a deep experience. Thats the biggest reward (and not halt the soviets in Romania...)

pompack -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 5:30:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bodmerm If you dont win as Axis in 1941 you are determined to loose. Somehow the game feels "fixed" whether or not you survive blizzard reasonably or not. What is the fun part uf such determinism? I dont know. Well, I have gotten auto-victory (against the AI but at least on Challanging) twice, but both time it took me until 1943 to do it. Against human opponents it is much harder but I would hardly call it pre-determined except in the sense that Germany did lose after all. If you want the see a REAL pre-determined game, go read PDH's most recent AAR.

Commanderski -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 6:08:10 PM)
\quote]the developers made every effort to deliver a deep experience. Thats the biggest reward (and not halt the soviets in Romania...) [/quote] I totally agree with that. While I don't have the time to play to the extent that some of you have I find the game fascinating and totally enjoyable. The AI is quite good on Normal, Challanging and Hard are exactly that. And as posted above the outcome is not predetermined, as long as you don't make the same mistakes they did. If you do what they did the results would be the same, that's what great about this game. You have the opportunity not to make the same mistakes and make decisions that give you a chance to win.

Angelo -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 7:16:50 PM)
WitE is an operational game and the grand campaign in 41 is really a strategic level scenario. The designers did leave out many what if's, optional rules, optional scenarios etc... it has been discussed many times in other threads, and I haved stop playing the grand camapign because of the limited options available; may try it again when a major patch is released [;)] With good game play and taking advange of the AI's limations it is very possible to force an AI Russia to surrender. Although forcing a AI Germany to surrender is fairly easy. Against a good Soviet player you'll be lucky to last till 45! The smaller scenarioes are much better; having definded objectives really helps. Really showns the strengths of the game design. Most of these games can be played in a week or two and both sides have a good chance at winning. There are some players designing new scenarioes as well. Tried a Stalingrad scenario and it looks promising, may still need some balancing. I know everyone wants to play the grand campaign but really what's the point of spending several hundred hours playing only to find out that Russia won the war! For some this is enough. For me no where near. I'll have to wait of a war in Europe to get all the bells and whistles I would like. And I'm sure with the success of WitE many game design companies will try to emulate and improve on the 'monster' game design, which would be great news for me.

kirkgregerson -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 7:49:51 PM)
quote: I'll have to wait of a war in Europe to get all the bells and whistles I would like. Don't get your hopes up for doing any better in the west against the US and UK. If you thought Soviet production was endless, wait till you face the US. The manpower won't be as endless as the Soviets, but some sort of victory will be still along the lines of survival past the historical German surrender date. I'm already afraid to see the combat reports when US/UK P-51's attack the tanks of my Panzer Div. When you think about the total air superiority the allies had in the West, it's enough to make any axis fanboy cry 'Mommy'. [sm=sign0063.gif] I think what some of you are looking for is some 'what if' scenarios. I admit that those would be fun, although I'm not sure what human opponents would want to play under the same circumstances.

pompack -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 8:32:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Angelo The smaller scenarioes are much better; having definded objectives really helps. Really showns the strengths of the game design. Most of these games can be played in a week or two and both sides have a good chance at winning. There are some players designing new scenarioes as well. Tried a Stalingrad scenario and it looks promising, may still need some balancing. I Ah yes. The age-old Grigsby-game Forum issue. Should this be a "game" in which each side has an equal chance to win with the issue solely determined by the skill of the players or should this be a "Strategic Simulation" that faithfully reproduces the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. And on the gripping hand, should it be a "sim" that absolutely models the physics of each possible event. I drink to the many, many terabytes that have been sacrificed on that altar, all to no avail (and mostly because it been noted that Gary himself has read only one forum post in his life and he designs these things strictly to suit his view of the Universe (and he does it very well in most people's opinions whatever these games are)) [sm=00000436.gif]

fbs -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 9:51:41 PM)
But that's the thing... several WW2 wargames provide a condition for winning in points even if you're defeated in the battlefield. The criteria, imho, should be to have better or worse results as compared to historical. So if the Soviets enter Berlin in 1944, that adds win points for Soviets; if they enter in 1946, adds win points for the Germans. Similarly, if the Germans enter Moscow then that adds win points for the Germans, but if they don't come even close by 1941, then that's win points for the Soviets. And so forth. Thanks,

Angelo -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 10:21:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack quote: ORIGINAL: Angelo The smaller scenarioes are much better; having definded objectives really helps. Really showns the strengths of the game design. Most of these games can be played in a week or two and both sides have a good chance at winning. There are some players designing new scenarioes as well. Tried a Stalingrad scenario and it looks promising, may still need some balancing. I Ah yes. The age-old Grigsby-game Forum issue. Should this be a "game" in which each side has an equal chance to win with the issue solely determined by the skill of the players or should this be a "Strategic Simulation" that faithfully reproduces the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. And on the gripping hand, should it be a "sim" that absolutely models the physics of each possible event. I drink to the many, many terabytes that have been sacrificed on that altar, all to no avail (and mostly because it been noted that Gary himself has read only one forum post in his life and he designs these things strictly to suit his view of the Universe (and he does it very well in most people's opinions whatever these games are)) [sm=00000436.gif] Hear you dude +1. I really liked Gary's Steel Panther games. I did buy War at War(?) it was crap. And had to get this game because I love big detailed games [:D]. But found that it was a light weight.

1jasonoz -> RE: determined outcome (4/12/2011 11:23:48 PM)
I have to disagree regarding the comment that if you don't win in 41 your destined to lose. I am playing the 42-45 game and instead of doing an advance into the Cauacus did a left hook up and behind Moscow. This drew the Soviet forces out and I was able to bag loads of Soviets who stood to defend their capital. I have Moscow, Leningrad and have caused 9.7 milion Soviet casualties versus mine of 2.8 million, and am only 19 victory points away from from achieving victory in 1944.

Aditia -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 12:32:06 AM)
most of the current scenarios are historical scenarios, the game leaves plenty of room for "what if" scenarios (which would interest me more than a WitW, the scope of the war in the west is more suited for battalion level games like Panzer Campaigns). Exciting "what if's" could be: - England defeated in 1940/1941: with OOB changes for: occupational forces in Britain, Afrikakorps on the eastern front, stronger luftwaffe, use of captured British equipment, British SS units and use of British factories, Mid Eastern Oil production for the Germans. - Japan invades Soviet Union: with OOB changes for less Soviet reinforcements in 1941, divisions from the far east arrive later, but understrength and with higher morale/experience. - Rommel victorious in Afrika against the English: with OOB changes for more Italian forces in Russia, Afrikakorps in Russia, North African SS division in Russia, withdrawals due to operations in Italy/Mediterranian delayed for a year. - Red Army prepared: Probably a way shorter campaign, with Germans lacking the advantage of complete operational surprise they had in the opening period of Barbarossa and disposition of the Red Army in the Northern and Central sector more in depth. - U-boot victory in the Atlantic in 1942 British war production breaks down, with OOB changes for stronger Luftwaffe in Russia, and less divisions on the Atlantik wall. Delay for withdrawals due to operations in Mediterranian and Normandy for 6 months - Full participation of the Finnish army in 1941 Finns are allowed to make attacks when Germans are within 30 miles of Leningrad

runyan99 -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 1:14:30 AM)
Another good alternate campaign would be Full Economic mobilization for the Germans earlier in the war, either in 41 or 42.

jwarrenw13 -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 3:04:34 AM)
I have just played some "road to" scenarios as well as reading a lot of threads here, and I keep thinking back to Gary Grigsby's The War Between the States. I love that game and think it is in philosophy somewhat similar to WITE. Playing the Confederacy in WBTS, the goal is not to militarily defeat the Union but to do better than the Confederacy and win on points. There are automatic victory conditions for both sides and a point system to declare victory at game's end, vaguely similar to WITE. There are many, many differences, of course, among them of course being the scale and that the Germans start with a chance to blitz their way to a win. But in the end, as the Germans you just might win by holding on to the end and doing better historically than the real Germans did. But my point is that I enjoy playing the Confederacy in WBTS, even though I know that in most cases I will simply be fighting a desperate defensive struggle for a large part of the game. In WITE, I fully expect to enjoy playing the Germans in the campaign game even if I have to end up fighting a desperate defensive struggle for a large part of the game. Thus both games are very roughly historical, with chances to do far better than the real life participants did, or far worse, but the odds being that the results will be very roughly similar in the end. I think that is how the base game should be set up. But I also hope that scenarios will be added that give variants, as discussed above, that can significantly alter the starting situation. I've kind of rambled, but my bottom line is that I am amazed at how good the game is, having just barely tasted it, and am in the camp that doesn't mind at all if it is weighted toward roughly historical results. It also is the only game I've ever played where I've watched the intro video and listened to the intro music more than once. That is very well done.

Panama -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 4:16:32 AM)
There are some things you can do as the Axis player that could change how the GC goes that would not be a what if option. However, because certain conditions are hard coded into WitE you would still be screwed. If the Axis player did not exhaust his forces trying to reach any objective but instead advanced to Vyazma and stopped for the winter. Part of the reason the Soviet winter offensive went so well was because the Germans were at the end of their logistic and physical tether. Even if you, as the Axis, do not advance as far you are still screwed because of the 'blizzard' being hard coded to screw you. [:D] That is a determined outcome.

Remmes -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 9:53:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama There are some things you can do as the Axis player that could change how the GC goes that would not be a what if option. However, because certain conditions are hard coded into WitE you would still be screwed. If the Axis player did not exhaust his forces trying to reach any objective but instead advanced to Vyazma and stopped for the winter. Part of the reason the Soviet winter offensive went so well was because the Germans were at the end of their logistic and physical tether. Even if you, as the Axis, do not advance as far you are still screwed because of the 'blizzard' being hard coded to screw you. [:D] That is a determined outcome. This is a valid point; if the Germans would have dug in and shipped greatcoats and mittens -not bullets and fuel- to the front, the winter would not have hit them as hard as it did when the were stretched to the limit in every sense. It would add to replayability if the game would take this into consideration. It would be nice if you could mitigate the effects of the first winter, this will make the rest of the war different as well because of altered power ratios. Not sure whether the scope of the game is to be historically accurate or that these hypothetical scenario's are acceptable as well. Loving the game by the way....doing at least 1 turn each day......

jomni -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 9:59:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bodmerm If you dont win as Axis in 1941 you are determined to loose. Somehow the game feels "fixed" whether or not you survive blizzard reasonably or not. What is the fun part uf such determinism? I dont know. As stated by some earlier posts, they have achieved some sort of progress even if not winning in 1941. Also you still have a chance of not losing by surviving and achieving a draw result by delaying Soviet progress if you cannot mount counter attacks anymore. All is not lost in 1941.

molchomor -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 10:53:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni quote: ORIGINAL: bodmerm If you dont win as Axis in 1941 you are determined to loose. Somehow the game feels "fixed" whether or not you survive blizzard reasonably or not. What is the fun part uf such determinism? I dont know. As stated by some earlier posts, they have achieved some sort of progress even if not winning in 1941. Also you still have a chance of not losing by surviving and achieving a draw result by delaying Soviet progress if you cannot mount counter attacks anymore. All is not lost in 1941. Yes, that is the game's definition of not losing. Possibly supported by some (Charlie Sheen anyone?), but, I seriously doubt that it corresponds with how the majority of players would define being pushed back towards the starting point by endless waves of Soviets and not being able to do anything at all about it. [image]local://upfiles/33643/C32ADDB8516C43B4A86C8FC7CF93DE6E.jpg[/image]

Panama -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 11:46:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: molchomor quote: ORIGINAL: jomni quote: ORIGINAL: bodmerm If you dont win as Axis in 1941 you are determined to loose. Somehow the game feels "fixed" whether or not you survive blizzard reasonably or not. What is the fun part uf such determinism? I dont know. As stated by some earlier posts, they have achieved some sort of progress even if not winning in 1941. Also you still have a chance of not losing by surviving and achieving a draw result by delaying Soviet progress if you cannot mount counter attacks anymore. All is not lost in 1941. Yes, that is the game's definition of not losing. Possibly supported by some (Charlie Sheen anyone?), but, I seriously doubt that it corresponds with how the majority of players would define being pushed back towards the starting point by endless waves of Soviets and not being able to do anything at all about it. [image][/image] Attempting to mitigate that manpower pool in 1942 would be a possible solution. [image]local://upfiles/33191/77FE25D5BFAC418EAE78594A2C6D624A.jpg[/image]

molchomor -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 2:08:39 PM)
Better to draw manpower from the dead-pool, as this seems inexhaustible [:D] [image]local://upfiles/33643/2B1435812D364DBB8EB4655AAFCB6F4A.jpg[/image]

barkman44 -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 5:19:06 PM)
What is interesting is that germans went all out to capture Moscow in real life,were beaten back by the soviet winter offensive but not routed. And then were able to muster the resources to launch major operations in the south in a relatively short period of time. From what I've read this is not replicable in game[hav'ent gotten that far myself keep patching and starting over].

Panama -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 7:19:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: molchomor Better to draw manpower from the dead-pool, as this seems inexhaustible [:D] [:D] An army of Zombies.

Skanvak -> RE: determined outcome (4/13/2011 7:52:09 PM)
Fun as some people think that being push to its capital by endless mass of soviet is less fun than being push to its capital by unstoppable German onslaught.

bodmerm -> RE: determined outcome (4/15/2011 9:11:01 PM)
Still, i believe you can do as axis whatever you like and keep destroying soviet forces (January 1943 8.7 millions vs 2.2 millions) and they gain every turn more men, tanks and planes. No reward for taking and holding most big towns in western russia. It cannot be that you play (yes, it is a game) for hundreds of hours only to be smashed because it was real. There should be some rewards (conquer material, men as "HIWIS", disoukrupt soviet morale or decrease production (as it was in 1942). At least one should see some progress when pocketing hundreds of thousands of russian every 5-8 turns. Give us (or me) some more reason to keep playing and not resign because of adetermined outcome.

Wild -> RE: determined outcome (4/16/2011 12:08:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bodmerm Still, i believe you can do as axis whatever you like and keep destroying soviet forces (January 1943 8.7 millions vs 2.2 millions) and they gain every turn more men, tanks and planes. No reward for taking and holding most big towns in western russia. It cannot be that you play (yes, it is a game) for hundreds of hours only to be smashed because it was real. There should be some rewards (conquer material, men as "HIWIS", disoukrupt soviet morale or decrease production (as it was in 1942). At least one should see some progress when pocketing hundreds of thousands of russian every 5-8 turns. Give us (or me) some more reason to keep playing and not resign because of adetermined outcome. Not only can it be. It should be. However, there is reason to keep playing to try to do better than your historical counterparts. If people have purchased this game with the perception that both sides have an equal chance to crush the other, than i can only say that this game is based on events that happened in the real world. In the real world, the Germans had no chance to crush the soviets after 1941.(Personally,i don't think crushing them in '41 was possible either.) This is how it should be. If i wanted to play fantasy i'd play World of Warcraft.

Klydon -> RE: determined outcome (4/16/2011 12:16:36 AM)
I disagree on the German's only chance to crush the Russians was 1941. I think the Germans have a shot in 1942, both in the real war and also in this game, especially in this game if they plan for it and can execute their plan. I have been giving this some thought lately. Part of the issue for the Germans in 1942 in this game is what can they do in order to finish off the Russians. I think most people have been thinking of some geographical location, be it Baku or someplace else and I don't think that will do the job to be honest. Even if you managed to capture a lot of economic centers in the 41 campaign, it doesn't seem to matter too much. (I need to do some more research on what percentage of their industry the Russians may get nailed, but I don't think it is high enough to cripple them). I think what the Germans have to concentrate on in 1942 is the destruction of the Red Army. They must remove Red Army units off the map faster than the Russians can replace them with command points. Continue to do this and eventually I think the army will collapse. The Russians simply won't have enough units to plug holes and offer serious resistance to the Germans trying to encircle them. In a way, it makes sense because in most scenarios that you figure the Germans would win in, the destruction of the Red Army has to take place. This is one of the reasons I am not happy with playing against the Russian AI (unlimited command points) because destruction of the Red army in terms of counters can't take place.

Wild -> RE: determined outcome (4/16/2011 12:23:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon I disagree on the German's only chance to crush the Russians was 1941. I think the Germans have a shot in 1942, both in the real war and also in this game, especially in this game if they plan for it and can execute their plan. I have been giving this some thought lately. Part of the issue for the Germans in 1942 in this game is what can they do in order to finish off the Russians. I think most people have been thinking of some geographical location, be it Baku or someplace else and I don't think that will do the job to be honest. Even if you managed to capture a lot of economic centers in the 41 campaign, it doesn't seem to matter too much. (I need to do some more research on what percentage of their industry the Russians may get nailed, but I don't think it is high enough to cripple them). I think what the Germans have to concentrate on in 1942 is the destruction of the Red Army. They must remove Red Army units off the map faster than the Russians can replace them with command points. Continue to do this and eventually I think the army will collapse. The Russians simply won't have enough units to plug holes and offer serious resistance to the Germans trying to encircle them. In a way, it makes sense because in most scenarios that you figure the Germans would win in, the destruction of the Red Army has to take place. This is one of the reasons I am not happy with playing against the Russian AI (unlimited command points) because destruction of the Red army in terms of counters can't take place. I agree, it still should be possible to win in the game in '42.(In the real world i don't think it was possible) It just shouldn't be the norm. It should be rare. I believe the norm should equate with history.

Mynok -> RE: determined outcome (4/16/2011 12:38:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bodmerm Still, i believe you can do as axis whatever you like and keep destroying soviet forces (January 1943 8.7 millions vs 2.2 millions) and they gain every turn more men, tanks and planes. No reward for taking and holding most big towns in western russia. It cannot be that you play (yes, it is a game) for hundreds of hours only to be smashed because it was real. There should be some rewards (conquer material, men as "HIWIS", disoukrupt soviet morale or decrease production (as it was in 1942). At least one should see some progress when pocketing hundreds of thousands of russian every 5-8 turns. Give us (or me) some more reason to keep playing and not resign because of adetermined outcome. You should take a look at PeeDee's AAR. He's in 42 in a 41 GC game. And doing very well I might add.

kswanson1 -> RE: determined outcome (4/16/2011 1:05:36 AM)
Was the actual event preordained? I've been an avid reader of books relating to the war in the east for as long as I can remember. My chief impression or main lesson I have taken away from most of my reading is that the war in the east was not preordained. It could have gone either way in both 1941 or 1942 - but for a few very crucial errors. While my impression of the history of the war is that it was far from pre-ordained, I sometime wonder if some of the posters above are correct in interpreting WiTE as being a preordained simulation - with the obvious exception of what appear to be AARs between mismatched opponents

Aurelian -> RE: determined outcome (4/16/2011 1:36:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bodmerm If you dont win as Axis in 1941 you are determined to loose. Somehow the game feels "fixed" whether or not you survive blizzard reasonably or not. What is the fun part uf such determinism? I dont know. And you have several AARs to show your statement is true.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.185547