RE: Boring Opening Moves (Full Version)

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



Message


neuromancer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (5/31/2011 10:28:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: majeloz
So, it's not about a turn zero, but about a turn 2 :) Turn 1 is already, effectively, Turn zero.


Some War in the Pacific games start on Dec. 8 (or have the option to), basically saying that everything that happens on Dec. 7 is more or less fixed and there is little point in reproducing it every time.

So maybe we need a Turn 2 start option for WitE? Skip over the tedium of the first few days and then go to the Soviet turn for a reaction. Put the Germans in their aproximate historical June 26 position, and get rid of all the units that were smacked in the first four days.

"Half your army has just been destroyed, over-run, forced to surrender, or routed. What are you going to do now?"




neuromancer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves? (5/31/2011 10:34:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

In the AAR "The Anti Bolshevik Crusade - Tarhunnas vs Q-Ball" the topic of the giant Lvov pocket - and its predictability came up.


So, I'm an example of the predictable and boring! [X(]. Should I take this as sign that I need to be more exciting? Hope my wife doesn't think the same...[;)]


Heh, no actually it was because of a side discussion going inside your AAR. I originally started this post there, and then decided not to further side track your AAR and moved it out here.




neuromancer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves? (5/31/2011 10:58:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
I wish that ground HQ's had to use ADM points to activate. If you wanted to have a HQ activated on game turn 2 you had to activate it in game turn 1. If the HQ is inactive during the present turn, the units fight and behave normally, but have drastically reduced movement capabilities. This way the player have to think ahead: where will his own offensives fall and where might the enemy attack. In the beginning of the game, the USSR player should be lacking in ADM.


There is something to be said for that, for the most part the idea of constant attacking and moving is impossible - or at least extremely difficult - in reality. The Germans were prepared for their initial offensive so could do it for a few weeks, but after that they would have slowed dramatically. The same for the Russians, they were mostly acting like chickens with their heads cut off for a while. Around Kiev that was literally the case, their C2 was breaking down due to the German assault, then the general in command of the region was killed, and that was it, the entire sector collapsed into chaos and they were surrounded and forced to surrender.

A board game - Third Reich I beleive it is - has an interesting system, you have HQ activations. You have to 'buy' the activations and its possible that not all the activations purchased will come into effect. You can also do a General Offensive (the major broad campaigns like Barbarossa) but you can only do that once a year. An HQ activation activates one HQ and it can activate units within a few hexes. Each turn is one season in that game, so if you are doing something like France you would pile up units in an area, and then activate one HQ to attack with some units, in a future activation you would activate another HQ and some more units in attempt to capitalize on the gains your earlier attack made.

The Barbarossa to Berlin and Stalin's War games has another concept, this one is probably more applicable here. You have a number of cards in your hand that can be played for various things (special events, reinforcements, replacements, or Operations). When played for Operations you get a certain number of activations. In Stalin's War units are at least a corps in size, you can move every unit that does NOT start in an enemy ZOC for free, and then you spend activation points to leave a ZOC or to attack. One activation triggers an entire stack, you can trigger multiple stacks to combine for attacks. In the early game the German player has a number of decent cards he can use for OPs, while the Soviet player is a bit leaner, he also wants to pull units back while leaving other for road blocks. This system is interesting in that you never have enough points to do everything you need. Each turn is a month or two long, but has 5 phases that go back and forth. If you use OPs in succession it gets less effective to represent fatigue, straining your supplies, etc.

Something similar could be done here - although its unlikely as it would require a major rewrite of the engine - using admin points as Uxbridge suggests.

The amount of admin points would vary a little bit randomly, and would slowly change over the course of the war. The Germans would start out with a lot, but would only slowly renew them, burning them faster than they earn them in 1941. The Soviets meanwhile would start out with a limited amount until the fall or winter. The German refresh would fall over the winter, then pick up again in the spring of 42, then fall off some and never recover in the Fall of 42 (probably slowly reducing over the course of the war). The Soviets would get more for the Winter offensies, and then fall off in the spring, and then start picking up again slowly to a hgh point that they would maintain until starting to lose them again in 45 when exhaustion started to set in.




neuromancer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (5/31/2011 11:05:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch
For the record, while many of my openings have been similar, there are changes. I have experimented of late with other moves as well. The "same opening" is also in part because we as players are all about at the same point in our learning. I expect more interesting things in the future.


Fair enough, and Flaviusx had an interesting thought there as well.

Sadly I think that no matter what we are going to eventually find an optimal first turn and then every Axis player is going to follow that to try and maximize their chances. After that things will start to go differently as the Soviet player follows his own strategy, the Axis player pursues his own strategy and reacts to the Soviet player, etc.




neuromancer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves? (5/31/2011 11:15:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: majeloz
I love the idea of different activations for AP... for a whole series of things. It doesn 't make the game ahistorical, it represents the making of alternative history from possible choices at the time. So, no APs for hovertanks, but yes, you can create different options. But from what I can tell the aim of the game is to make the Germans play within historical limits, perhaps testing all those claims from various generals that they could have won but for Hitler ;)


I think my main complaint is I don't think the Soviets are nearly as limited. Both sides had their own share of problems, and I'm not sure the Soviets are getting enogh of their own imposed.


quote:

ORIGINAL: majeloz
I think there should be a morale penalty when Moscow falls and that the capture of resources have a greater impact.

That way there would be 3 big objectives Lenningrad to release the Finns, Moscow for the effect on morale, and resources in the south. Thus giving the game some real strategic decisions. I think this would improve things a lot.


+1 !!

Different vaible objectives would make things much more interesting. Right now to not go for the big pockets you can get in the first few turns, or not to go for Leningrad in '41 isn't a strategy, it seems to be attempting to play with one arm tied behind your back.



Thanks for all the comments guys, appreciate it.




Klydon -> RE: Boring Opening Moves? (5/31/2011 11:31:23 PM)

I tried something different with the "panzers out of Rumania" gambit on turn 3, so I am doing my part to be different. [:D]




neuromancer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves? (5/31/2011 11:41:45 PM)

Cool! [8D]

What I want to see is a serious disagreement on what the best Axis stratgeies for the first few turns are. If there is no One Clearly Best Option, then the first few turns shouldh't be so repetitive any more as people consider those options.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 12:02:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

Some War in the Pacific games start on Dec. 8 (or have the option to), basically saying that everything that happens on Dec. 7 is more or less fixed and there is little point in reproducing it every time.


That's the scenario I always choose when I play WitP. But differences will not be that big [;)] Ok, if you start the 7 you [Japanese player] might sort of bypass the Philipines and send your Amphibious TFs to Jolo or Tarakan instead... You will NOT achieve decisive objectives though. And every Japanese player fears the Marblehead (Light Cruiser) which might appear and trash some transports along with their troops!

Well, some gamey guys might not attack Pearl Harbor and attack Cavite instead [:D] BBs are nothing, SSs will cripple your merchant marine in the long run... So they target the 27 American submarines whilst they are in Cavite (2 are at sea)... Welcome to the Twilight Zone...

A different disposition of Soviet troops on this game (WitE) might be catastrophic though (to the German player that is).




Michael T -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 1:11:49 AM)

"Necessity is the mother of invention". New gambits will be developed by the more ingenious players as required.




carnifex -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 4:08:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Unlike any other Russian theater game, the PG1 panzer/mech units that are frozen on turn 1 pretty much force the Germans to send at least some help to AGS from AGC on turn 1. Not to do so pretty much means the bulk of good Russian units escapes the initial onslaught.



I just want to note that it is possible to bag the southern forces on the opening turn AND activate the Romanians without using a single AGC unit.




pat.casey -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 4:55:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Unlike any other Russian theater game, the PG1 panzer/mech units that are frozen on turn 1 pretty much force the Germans to send at least some help to AGS from AGC on turn 1. Not to do so pretty much means the bulk of good Russian units escapes the initial onslaught.



I just want to note that it is possible to bag the southern forces on the opening turn AND activate the Romanians without using a single AGC unit.



I think this may be part of the OP's complaint though.

WITE openings are starting to look like extremely scaled up chess openings e.g.

follow these steps in *exactly* this order and you can create the AGS only southern pocket on turn one.
follow these steps in *exactly* this order and you can execute the "riga gambit" and get two infantry corps up there on turn one, etc

If the community has min/maxed openings to the point where the game is balanced around a *perfect* german execution of a predictable opening move sequence, then you may as well remove that opening sequence and just start the game a week later.




JAMiAM -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 5:02:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
If the community has min/maxed openings to the point where the game is balanced around a *perfect* german execution of a predictable opening move sequence, then you may as well remove that opening sequence and just start the game a week later.

All that will do is to shift the perfect plan to turn 2. Not much of a point to it.

In my opinion, the real joy and challenge of gaming is not so much to formulate the "perfect plan" as it is to frustrate it, and undo it.




abulbulian -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 5:23:17 PM)

I agree that with a set starting location for units in 41 and predictable weather you'll have people that will have determined an 'optimal' start for both sides.  For some that might not take out the enjoyment initially, but for others that continue to play it will.  I've tried to offer some suggestions regarding optional variants for both sides.  The concept of CARDS, as somebody has pointed out in Ted Raicer's board games is a great way to add a ton of flavor to any WitE game.  Would you be diverging from history in some cases, sure.  Would that make the game less fun or playable?  IMO, absolutely not and would in fact exponentially raise both (re)playability and the fun factor.  With having cards that could be bought with admin points or some other newly introduced point type, you now have a game which will be more unpredictable and could require constant adjustments to your tactics and strategy. 

This is from a previous post of mine:

quote:


The basic idea would be it would be a UI toggle to use variants if players desired before starting a game. Each side would have a list of variants with appropriate AP costs that could be activated. Some variants would of course have date ranges.

Here's a sample list for Axis:

- occupation policies lvl 1: less partisans overall (none in Ukraine?)
- occupation policies lvl 2: axis gain Vlasov units ( one a month?)
- winter prep (lvls here too?): axis units suffer less attrition in winter and blizzard turns
- larger Italian commitment to east: Mussolini kisses more Hitler ass and send another Army(?)
- larger Hungarian commitment to east
- larger Romanian commitment to east
- larger Bulgarian commitment to east
- Rommel is not needed in the Med and part/all of his forces (Pz Army Africa) is sent east
- 12th SS Panzer formed a year early ( for Adolf's b-day) and committed to east
- Herman Goring Pz Div committed to east
( can do this for a few more units as well)
- successful propaganda speech to soldiers: all German units get 2-4 point bump in morale?
- auto industry more efficiently convert to war effort: 2500(?) trucks enter motor pool
(could always use same auto industry efficiency for maybe a slight afv increase too_
(can do same for air and tanks)
- successful propaganda recruitment speech: + 50,000 manpower
- rail workers brought over from France to help in east: +1 to axis rail construction units (now 6)

** have many more ideas for axis

Some Soviet ideas:

- Sorge transmits more optimistic report on needed commitments in far east: more Siberian units freed to fight fascists
- western allied lend lease has extra shipment (planes, tanks, trucks, or ?)
- Stalin gives another Great Patriotic speech: all soviet units receive a 5-10 morale bump
- soviet spies infiltrate axis high command: random Army level general is assassinated
- laborers organized successfully: new factory in east (type?)
- Navy converts more men to fighting units: add a few extra naval inf brigades
- civil workers inspired by NVKD and 5 new level 2 forts may be placed on map.

** have many more ideas for soviets


Of course the trick would be the correct cost in APs for each. Probably would have to increase weekly AP amounts receive a bit each week. Also, some of the variants would only be available after or during certain dates.

Just though I'd start a discussion how people might like some optional variants in the game. It would allow for a little 'what ifs', keeping it more to what ifs that could have happened.


A little more detail would be to have different types of cards as well.  Events, reinforcements, battle cards, etc.  So each side has a deck of cards for each year.  Players get a random draw of cards to start each years and can play 1-2? cards each turn provided they have the points to BUY the cards. New cards would fill a players hand at the beginning of the subsequent turn.  Certain cards can only be played once a month (special reinforcements).  Keep in mind there's still the normal reinforcement schedule for both sides, just some what-ifs for reinforcements. 

So one possibility is the Axis player saves up a bunch of points in hope that he gets a winter prep type card (maybe preps 10-20 units or decreases winter effects by a notch?).  But, the Axis player has given up other variants to gain this large variant.  So I'm not intending this concept to throw off play balance with cards that would be too powerful.

Just my thoughts to make WitE playable for decades to come.  After all it's a game and SHOULD be fun and not turn into some type of chore when you decide to play it over and over again.  The possibility for card variants, to some extent, is endless.




Pawlock -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 6:12:05 PM)

abulbulian

Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.





Klydon -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 6:47:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Unlike any other Russian theater game, the PG1 panzer/mech units that are frozen on turn 1 pretty much force the Germans to send at least some help to AGS from AGC on turn 1. Not to do so pretty much means the bulk of good Russian units escapes the initial onslaught.



I just want to note that it is possible to bag the southern forces on the opening turn AND activate the Romanians without using a single AGC unit.



While I acknowledge that PG1 can get to the border and trigger Rumanian activation on turn 1, I have never seen an opening with just AGS units that not only does that, but also pulls off a Kovel pocket as well. There are strong starting forces in the Kovel pocket and these will likely escape with no help from AGC.

In addition, there are likely to be "pocket issues" as well. I don't really consider it a good opening if it takes creating the pocket, have it broken, create it again, etc type of maneuvers. There is simply too much time wasted in waiting to mop up the Lvov pocket if you can't get started on it before turn 3 because you got the pocket broken on turn 1 and had to reestablish on turn 2.




abulbulian -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 8:15:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

abulbulian

Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.





Yes, I think it would be almost like a WitE Expansion module. If 2by3 games were looking for another revenue stream this could be one. I think a majority of WitE players would buy it for $19.99.

[:D]

I've already toyed around with the idea of making a Stalin's War campaign driven by card variants in Advanced Tactics Gold with Bill Wheatley. Just a question of allocating the free time, which is at a premium ATM.




Michael T -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/1/2011 10:57:58 PM)

Advanced Third Reich has a similar setup as cards but with 'chits'. Each side has 25 chits that can be randomly drawn from. The player might be allowed to draw say 4 chits, then keep two that he likes. Then start game. Lots of variation, room for surprises and uncertainty.




DTurtle -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 2:08:11 AM)

While completely new features might be interesting, I think everybody would agree that such extensive changes would not be implemented any time soon. Instead, the goal has to be to introduce ways - using the current features in the game - to add some variation to the early gameplay. So here are my suggestions:

A very simple way to add some variation to the German turn 1 moves would be to randomize to some extent the movement points that the German units start with. That way there wouldn't be an optimal that could be achieved every time. For example. it might be that the units for the Riga gambit simply do not have the movement points needed. This could be implemented by running a somewhat modified normal supply routine before the first German move.

In order to add some challenge for the Soviet player - after all, we can't just weaken one side - it could be possible to start large parts of the Soviet army in static mode, with greatly decreased activation costs. That way, the Soviet player would be a lot less mobile in the first few turns, such that the German player has a chance of getting additional pockets after the first turn. While the Soviet player inevitably has a much better overview over the situation than the Soviet commanders had in real life, he would still have some hard decisions to make as to what he could save - or maybe how he could prevent a potential pocket from being closed, such that he can activate more units to retreat.

And yes, I do realize that there are some AARs where just recently the whole idea of static units was being decried as terrible. :)




henri51 -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 2:39:24 AM)

I am surprised that no one mentioned the main factor making the game practically unwinnable for the Germans: the Russian Winter. The 1941 Winter was the coldest Winter in 50 years, and the mud came much earlier than usual. How about an option where the Russians have the mildest and less muddy Winter in 50 years?

I haven't played this game since last January, when I realized that no matter what I did as the Germans, unless i killed 4 million Russians in my initial offensive, the result of the game was a foregone conclusion: the Winter would stop the Germans dead in their tracks and it would be only a matter of time before the Russians won after a long and boring retreat of the Germans. The Vyazma and Kiev pockets are impossible, and forget about reaching the historical German high water mark.

Henri




Aussiematto -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 12:56:28 PM)

quote:

Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.


The replay factor comes from playing different opponents no? Or trying different ideas? Hell if we want more replayability in WITE we will all need age-extension treatments LOL.

But, perhaps yes, the version of the game vs the AI (which to be fair a lot of ppl will play only) could be improved with a 'card play' or 'random events'. I'd not want it in a PBEM though.




willgamer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 2:54:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51

I am surprised that no one mentioned the main factor making the game practically unwinnable for the Germans: the Russian Winter. The 1941 Winter was the coldest Winter in 50 years, and the mud came much earlier than usual. How about an option where the Russians have the mildest and less muddy Winter in 50 years?

I haven't played this game since last January, when I realized that no matter what I did as the Germans, unless i killed 4 million Russians in my initial offensive, the result of the game was a foregone conclusion: the Winter would stop the Germans dead in their tracks and it would be only a matter of time before the Russians won after a long and boring retreat of the Germans. The Vyazma and Kiev pockets are impossible, and forget about reaching the historical German high water mark.

Henri



mega dittos! [&o]

I don't play anymore, just read the forum. [:'(]

IMHO, I would much prefer the standard winter be statistically normalized to the previous 20-100 years (with options for historical).

Why the many, perhaps most, people seem adamant to use only this unusual winter is completely baffing to me!

(For that matter, all of the hard coded asymetrical handling of combat, et. al., is baffling to me) [8|]




DTurtle -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 5:12:11 PM)

I'm wondering what the first winter rules have to do with boring opening moves?




abulbulian -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 6:28:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: majeloz

quote:

Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.


The replay factor comes from playing different opponents no? Or trying different ideas? Hell if we want more replayability in WITE we will all need age-extension treatments LOL.

But, perhaps yes, the version of the game vs the AI (which to be fair a lot of ppl will play only) could be improved with a 'card play' or 'random events'. I'd not want it in a PBEM though.



I disagree. If you want to give yourself the best chance to win as either side, you're going to try and accomplish the stock moves to do so. There's already some basics for the CG41 that both the Axis and Sov players will try and accomplish. So I don't care who you are playing under the current stock scenarios and non-random weather, you'll be trying to accomplish those standard best win paths.

Sure if you play a noob or an idiot, you can probably have more flexibility to try some other non-optimum strategies. But I think you play WitE long enough, you'll find I'm correct about having variants to keep the game fresh and re-playable.

I don't see randomizing the German movement factors as adding much replay, but more so in adding the opportunity for some serious issues on t#1 for the axis. That turn is very critical and by having a few pz/mot divs with lower than 'at-start' MPs could be very detrimental to play balance.





Ketza -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 6:32:08 PM)

The way the game is currently set up Soviet "best moves in 41" completely trump Axis "best moves in 41".

This in my opinion leads to an eventual erosion of the Axis player base and early Axis exits from games.

The game actually portrays the historical situation very well but that is the heart of the problem. No player with any amount of experience as the Soviets will make the same mistakes they made. Most aggressive minded Axis players will get frustrated and quit as they realize they have very little chance for offensive ops in 1942 and 1943 or the opportunity to signifigantly change the historical outcome of the war.

A system of events that could be driven by APs would breathe new life into the system and create greater replayability for the longterm.


Since this option will most likely not be introduced I think some potential changes should be introduced in the GC to make the Axis side more attractive. Bear in mind some of these changes may not be completely historical but they may make for a more enjoyable game for the Axis and a bigger challenge for the Soviet. I also dont think they should all be introduced but perhaps a few. I write this as it looks like I have lost another Axis player this time at turn 12....

1) Harder to move Soviet factories or cut down on Soviet rail the first 3 or 4 turns.

2) Axis units are getting very weak early in the campaign. Earlier versions of the game saw the Axis spearhead units able to take much more punishment. What has happened with the patches as the Soviets get better at tactics Axis mech units are getting pummeled by counterattacks and wearing down to CVs of 5-7 just by moving. This may be historical but the chances of matching historical advances are getting slimmer and slimmer.

3) Free up the Axis frozen mech units in AGS area.

4) Either take away the 1-1 to 2-1 odds shift or make it a random dice roll or something. I find when I play Soviet this makes attacking much to easy.

5) Allow Axis rail movement in Rumania/Hungary turn one. This adds some potential strategic developments to the early campaign.

Just a few thoughts. I love the game and only want it to succeed longterm.




abulbulian -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 6:48:34 PM)

Ketza,

Funny you bring up the play-balance issue. When I tried 4 months ago to bring up these issues, their were those that had no problem calling me an Axis 'fan-boy' or saying I didn't know how to play axis. I'm glad those that had been quiet before are now seeing for themselves that there still exists some issues with balance. IMO, a lot of this is caused by Soviet 'ants' and how the can be spawned in depth by spr/sum 42 to make the axis player fight in WWI type bizarre conditions. I blame in part the WitE combat engine which allows it. Just add a simple sanity check on the combat engine to NEVER allow a Soviet ant unit (1k-7k?) to be able to accomplish much of anything when getting hit by 2-3 exp German divisions. Especially in 42 when the Soviet command and communication structure was not doing them in favors in coordinating a defense or offense. Most agree the +1 combat shift for a Soviet offensive should not apply before maybe 43 (or never?). Also, how about introducing the concept of an OVERRUN?? That would end this issue with any side ant type units.

Even with some of the bug fixes to Soviet manpower and some of use remember the terrain def multiplier bug too which was fixed. Sill we're see a very tough time for the axis to be motivated or have the capability to attack in 42 to gain ground. Way too much Soviet arty in 42 is another issue I'm seeing with games.





Schmart -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 7:24:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51
I am surprised that no one mentioned the main factor making the game practically unwinnable for the Germans: the Russian Winter. The 1941 Winter was the coldest Winter in 50 years, and the mud came much earlier than usual. How about an option where the Russians have the mildest and less muddy Winter in 50 years?


I brought this up in the game suggestions thread on page 8 (still no response to it). I am advocating for random weather to be truely random! The German and Russian General Staffs didn't have the thought in the back of their mind during the whole summer 41 campaign that come December, the Russians will be launching a major counter-offensive to take advantage of the unprepared Germans due to an unpredictably cold winter.

I think WitE is a great simulator of the operational aspects of the Eastern Front, but the scope of the game (on a strategic level) is far too predictable. There needs to be some strategic variation and additional options to boost the long-term replayability of the game.




henri51 -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 7:53:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

I'm wondering what the first winter rules have to do with boring opening moves?


It has to do with the German player knowing in advance what will happen to him when the mud and cold strike, and having to plan accordingly using the aforementioned boring moves.

I like the suggestion to have the random weather based on historical 20-100 year weather, rather than on the present system, where the German can only avoid the historical weather by risking having mud turns in July![:-] The latter is the reason that practically no one uses random weather.

There are other "what-if" possible scenarios, after all everything that happened historically was not pre-ordained. For example, what would have happened if the Germans had attacked earlier? What would have happened if the Germans had not split AGS to attack both the Caucasus and Stalingrad? What would have happened if Manstein were right in his book "Lost Victories" and the Germans had won certain battles (like Kursk) that Manstein claimed could have been won? What would happen if the Soviets were forced to apply Stalin's "not one step back" order thus preventing the best Soviet strategy in the game of preventing encirclements by retreating? There are many other possibioities.

Henri




neuromancer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 9:32:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
I think this may be part of the OP's complaint though.

WITE openings are starting to look like extremely scaled up chess openings e.g.

follow these steps in *exactly* this order and you can create the AGS only southern pocket on turn one.
follow these steps in *exactly* this order and you can execute the "riga gambit" and get two infantry corps up there on turn one, etc

If the community has min/maxed openings to the point where the game is balanced around a *perfect* german execution of a predictable opening move sequence, then you may as well remove that opening sequence and just start the game a week later.


That is precisely my concern. Only if we get into a situation where doing A gets you X, but B gets you Y, and C gets you Z - and there is a lot of debate about which is better - will we not have the 'chess oppening'. Something on this scale and this complicated shouldn't have chess move openings, and if you have 'the one way to (maybe) win WitE as the Axis - any other way is a much lower chance' you are doing something wrong.

As has been stated elsewehere, bagging a bunch of units on the first couple turns, getting AGN moving for Leningrad fast, and generally starting to push the rest of your forces East ASAP is making for the first turn to be pretty formulaic. There may be better ways of doing it, but they will be found and adopted. Which comes back to the desire for there be more than one way that is just as viable for victory.

As has been stated, by making some of the other cities have short or long term effects other than as sign posts and denying manpower to the Soviets* might go some distance towards correcting that issue.


* Other than Minsk, does any industry get bagged in '41? Right now it all seems to get railed away at no negative impact to the Soviets.


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
In my opinion, the real joy and challenge of gaming is not so much to formulate the "perfect plan" as it is to frustrate it, and undo it.


But you can't. Its got almost nothing to do with what the Soviet players does, its about the Axis player executing his first turn moves properly. Perhaps even the first couple turns.

As has been noted, the Soviets do have several options on how to retreat, which is all they want to do, run away - its only a question of how, and that is where things do change in the game. But the Soviet ability to actually harm the Germans through offensive - or even strong defensive - actions in the first few turns is very limited.

In fact the Axis player would like it if the Soviet player sticks around for a stand up fight, means he gets to kill more Russians.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock
Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.


It is a very interesting idea, and does bring interesting things to some board games I play. But you are correct, the engine is written one way now, and any dramatic change is just not going to happen.

I was going to say 'not in the cards', but figured the pun was too bad to use.




JAMiAM -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 9:51:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
In my opinion, the real joy and challenge of gaming is not so much to formulate the "perfect plan" as it is to frustrate it, and undo it.


But you can't. Its got almost nothing to do with what the Soviet players does, its about the Axis player executing his first turn moves properly. Perhaps even the first couple turns.

Maybe you can't, but other players seem to manage to throw some sand in the gears of the mighty Axis war machine. Some of them may manage it due to skill, some to luck, some to a combination. It's NOT all about the Axis.

Even "chess-like" moves have counters. It's up to the players to show the ingenuity in figuring them out, to the extent that the engine allows. I'm not fool enough to suggest that the Soviet players have it easy in the first few turns, but they do have tools at hand to frustrate and undo those "perfect plans".




neuromancer -> RE: Boring Opening Moves (6/2/2011 10:02:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza
The game actually portrays the historical situation very well but that is the heart of the problem. No player with any amount of experience as the Soviets will make the same mistakes they made. Most aggressive minded Axis players will get frustrated and quit as they realize they have very little chance for offensive ops in 1942 and 1943 or the opportunity to signifigantly change the historical outcome of the war.


This is the great flaw of ALL games based on historical events, and why I never call them 'simulations'. The real participants had to deal with a massive amount of unknowns, very few of which we don't have to deal with. I won't bother trying to list the historical unknowns that we don't have to deal with, but I'm sure most anyone on this board could come up with a bunch.

As an example, after the war for a while the USN tried to wargame Midway, and could never reproduce the exact chain of events that occured, that led to the huge victory for the USN over the IJN. Simply there were some decisions made that no one would voluntarily reproduce, and some luck that also played a huge factor. Most likely the biggest factor there was an indecisve Japanese Admiral and the FOW of not knowing where (or even IF) the US carriers were. Plus the blind luck of the Devestator torpedo biombers all coming in alone and getting slaughtered meant the Air Screen was barely above the waves when the Wildcats and Dauntless bombers showed up at high altitude, meaning the bombers had an unimpeded run on the carriers, and the Wildcats had a significant advantage of position on the Zeros.

Now that is a single battle instead of the entire war - although it has been seen as one of those crucial deciding moments of the war - but the premise holds. You can't have the same outcome to the battle unless you force events along a certain path - forcing certain decisions, making certain events of good and bad luck occur at key moments - and if you do that, what is the point in playing at all? I think WitE may perhaps be leaning too much towards the second case.





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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875