RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (Full Version)

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



Message

Mynok -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/17/2011 11:45:49 PM)


Have you heard me complaining about forts, Oleg? [:D][:D][:D]



Michael T -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/18/2011 12:50:01 AM)

I play and enjoy both sides in WITE. I think multiple lines of forts (level 3 and 4) is obsurd and well beyond the capability of either side. I am fine with level 1 and 2. But level 3 and 4 should have a limiting factor, a cost in AP's seems the simplest solution, with maybe a cap on each type, bar the 1's and 2's.



Mynok -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/18/2011 2:53:57 AM)


While I don't disagree with you as far as the Soviets are concerned, let me assure you that if you are the Axis, you will desperately want those levels in the late war. Trust me.



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/18/2011 7:11:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
It's not like everyone is lining up behind one change.


Well don't forget about us, the silent or not so loud majority/minority who think that forts basically work fine already.

There are other things in game that need improvement, but forts in my opinion are not one of them.

Don't let the people (German players) who played only till 42 make you nerf the forts, because then those same people will whine again when their German games get deep into 43 and suddenly it's them (Germans) who need forts for the rest of the war.



Oleg, I have repeatedly said that I don't suggest to reduce the effectiveness of forts, just the present ability to build multiple lines of them for no cost. This should not have a great impact on the Germans in 1943 or 1944. The Germans don't have the number of units the Soviets have to put on digging, but they have APs and could therefore build prepared lines if they pay for them in APs. I feel like you are ignoring what I say and just repeat yourself. I am not a German player, I play both sides (I am a Swedish player [;)]). I am interested in having a realistic 1942 summer for both sides.

I have played until october 1943 (see sig for AAR), so even if I have more playing experience in 1941 - 1942, I don't regard myself as belonging to "the people (German players) who played only till 42".

In the autumn of 1943, I did certainly feel the need for forts as the German. I am also quite certain that the Germans will never have the units to dig the deep fortified belts the Soviets can have when the 1942 summer starts.

You dismiss the views of others with limited experience beyound 1942, but might you not yourself be primarily influenced by your 1943 campaign? How many campaigns have you played that went from 1941 into summer 1942? Did the situation in early 1942 feel like the beginning of the historical 1942 campaign, or like the setup in the 42 - 45 scenario?

I mean no disrespect, It is only natural that the most recent experiences tend do be large in our thinking, but I think we all have to try to take a broad and balanced view, and take into account all phases of the game.



sillyflower -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/19/2011 10:50:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

My preferred method would be for a fort to protect only as many hex-sides as it's fort level (or perhaps it's level +1), but you could argue to give maximal benefit to certain sides and less to others (define a front of a unit and it protects at 100% there, and less at other sides).

I have never heard of a military unit digging ad-hoc defenses being taught to prepare forts for a 360-degree attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you start with the obvious avenues of approach, and as time and resources dictate, you then work on integrating larger avenues and omni-directional protection.

From my experience in the military, usually if you have that long, you're probably attacking before you start worrying about 360-degree defense.

I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps, but frankly I'm not having enough fun to start another game right now. Maybe later, or maybe I should take my whiney whine whine and leave you all alone.

But I wanted to put that out there as my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

let me know when you want to play a game with those handicaps :)



gradenko2k -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/19/2011 11:39:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps

I think we also need to consider what consists of a "victory" in the first place. Yes, the German probably isn't going to eke out an auto-victory if he hasn't won yet by 1942, but simply ending the game at the pre-war borders is going to net a minor victory/draw. Isn't that worth fighting for?



JAMiAM -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/19/2011 6:35:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps, but frankly I'm not having enough fun to start another game right now. Maybe later, or maybe I should take my whiney whine whine and leave you all alone.

But I wanted to put that out there as my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

let me know when you want to play a game with those handicaps :)

No kidding. I'd take him up on it too, if I had more time, and if he were still game. Just to have a good b*tch slapping game...[:D]



marcpennington -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/20/2011 4:29:04 PM)

Just a head's up, this thread gets directly mentioned in an editorial on Rock, Paper Shotgun:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/20/heavily-engaged-ignorance-is-bliss/

Can't say I agree with all of the editorial, but it is well written.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun, BTW, for those not aware, is a blog fast turning into one of the best general gaming sites--- certainly its highly opinionated reviews of new games are among the best out there.



kvolk -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/20/2011 4:40:04 PM)

That was awesome...the grognard dilemn captured perfectly...



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/20/2011 5:02:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

Just a head's up, this thread gets directly mentioned in an editorial on Rock, Paper Shotgun:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/20/heavily-engaged-ignorance-is-bliss/

Can't say I agree with all of the editorial, but it is well written.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun, BTW, for those not aware, is a blog fast turning into one of the best general gaming sites--- certainly its highly opinionated reviews of new games are among the best out there.


Cool! Helio, you're famous!

Thanks for posting the link map66.



heliodorus04 -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/20/2011 5:47:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Cool! Helio, you're famous!

Thanks for posting the link map66.


At least I wasn't quoted with that intemperate rant about other people's 'wasted time' spent reading history books...



delatbabel -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 12:51:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.


Yes, and also:

* Reduce the AP bonus for going into static mode and the AP penalty for coming out of static mode. A player that creates a lot of static units to fortify won't be able to pull them out and run if it costs 2 bazillion APs to do that.

* Reduce or eliminate attrition losses for static units in level 1+ forts. Static units stacked next to enemy hexes eventually go into unready (and eventually depleted) mode because they suffer so many attrition losses and can't get the benefits of refit.

* Static units should be harder to retreat (higher odds level required), but if forced to retreat should automatically rout.

* Increase the damage done by artillery to forts.



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 1:34:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.


Yes, and also:

* Reduce the AP bonus for going into static mode and the AP penalty for coming out of static mode. A player that creates a lot of static units to fortify won't be able to pull them out and run if it costs 2 bazillion APs to do that.

* Reduce or eliminate attrition losses for static units in level 1+ forts. Static units stacked next to enemy hexes eventually go into unready (and eventually depleted) mode because they suffer so many attrition losses and can't get the benefits of refit.

* Static units should be harder to retreat (higher odds level required), but if forced to retreat should automatically rout.

* Increase the damage done by artillery to forts.



That sounds like good suggestions!



76mm -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 1:44:57 PM)

I don't think that units retreating from fortifications should autmatically rout; on the contrary they would presumably have a series of fall back positions that would make it easier for them to retreat in good order.



delatbabel -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 1:52:02 PM)

I am only talking about static units here -- units without mobility that won't be able to retreat quickly.

Maybe not "automatically" rout, but have a higher chance of routing.




Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 1:52:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I don't think that units retreating from fortifications should autmatically rout; on the contrary they would presumably have a series of fall back positions that would make it easier for them to retreat in good order.


Not units in forts, static units. A static units would have much less transportation, thus a retreat would force it to abandon much of its equipment. This could be simulated by a rout. Not sure it is the ideal solution, but I like the thinking.



76mm -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 2:58:27 PM)

quote:

I am only talking about static units here -- units without mobility that won't be able to retreat quickly.


I hear what you're saying, but if all units in Fort 3s have to be static, it is kind of the same thing (fortified = static). While I understand the logic, I'm not sure if I agree that all units with Fort 3+ should be assumed to give up ALL of their vehicles and have to leave all heavy equipment behind in case of a retreat (ie, rout).

You could also argue that they would have protected positions/routes for their vehicles and would have throroughly planned any withdrawal, including with their heavy weapons. The bottom line is that it seems strange and counter-intuitive to me that if you push a unit out of a Fort3+, the defending unit will essentially evaporate (at least for that turn) rather than retreat to the next hex and continue to defend, but if you push a unit out of a Fort 2, it will retreat rather than rout.



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 3:09:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

I am only talking about static units here -- units without mobility that won't be able to retreat quickly.


I hear what you're saying, but if all units in Fort 3s have to be static, it is kind of the same thing (fortified = static). While I understand the logic, I'm not sure if I agree that all units with Fort 3+ should be assumed to give up ALL of their vehicles and have to leave all heavy equipment behind in case of a retreat (ie, rout).

You could also argue that they would have protected positions/routes for their vehicles and would have throroughly planned any withdrawal, including with their heavy weapons. The bottom line is that it seems strange and counter-intuitive to me that if you push a unit out of a Fort3+, the defending unit will essentially evaporate (at least for that turn) rather than retreat to the next hex and continue to defend, but if you push a unit out of a Fort 2, it will retreat rather than rout.


Good point 76mm, and well argued!



Mynok -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 3:45:59 PM)


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.



hfarrish -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 5:19:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.


+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.



Lieste -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 7:11:54 PM)

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.



herwin -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 7:42:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.



That's the mechanism used in the OCS series.



Lieste -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 8:13:01 PM)

Yes, but not WITE, where the whim-of-god rules. "Too many guns" is not a problem, as in supply means in supply. Even the overstacking rules are only a partial salve, and you can still pack your stacking limit, in-depth, over a short length of front and attack at immediately full-offensive supply with multiple echelons with limited/no penalties.

Everything uses the supply capacity too... building extensive fortifications is really hard on local/operational supplies, each bunker/minefield taking considerable resources to build, with at least increased supply usage for the building troops (in forage and rations), and at worst huge quantities of lumber/cement/concrete/mines.

OTOH, fortifications should be easily buildable in winter (and shelter too, as snow/ice makes excellent bullet-proof/camouflaged/wind-proof shelters), it seems that troops are stuck with what they had 'before the freeze'. These improvised fortifications should of course evaporate with the coming of mud, and a double track should account for pre-winter permanent shelter, and that made from ice - with a limited re-building in mud after the end of the freeze eliminating the trench-warfare situation of 1942 to a large degree.



amatteucci -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/23/2011 8:27:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
That's the mechanism used in the OCS series.

And that's the the very mechanism that makes OCS stand head and shoulder above similar games.
The ability to manage supply is the key to realism in a strategic level simulation.
I presume that some variation on the theme "HQ buildup" could give WitE some mechanics that replicate this kind of stockpiling.
Now think for a moment how many perceived "problems" will have a direct solution: limiting the overall offensive ability of the Red Army in 1942, making selected pocket more likely to resist... etc. etc.



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 6:51:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste
OTOH, fortifications should be easily buildable in winter (and shelter too, as snow/ice makes excellent bullet-proof/camouflaged/wind-proof shelters), it seems that troops are stuck with what they had 'before the freeze'. These improvised fortifications should of course evaporate with the coming of mud, and a double track should account for pre-winter permanent shelter, and that made from ice - with a limited re-building in mud after the end of the freeze eliminating the trench-warfare situation of 1942 to a large degree.



Snow and ice is NOT very bulletproof. You need several meters of ice and snow is worthless as bullet protection. It is not practical to build any kind of fortifications using snow and ice, all it will do is give some cover and concealment. I did learn the amount of ice needed for adequate protection in the army, but I have forgotten it, but I do remember it was much more than you would have expected. With ground frozen it is extremely difficult to dig. The game models this correctly IMHO.



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 6:54:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.


+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.


But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 6:57:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.



I agree, supply could have been better used for limiting the tempo of operations. In a game as detailed as WITE, there must surely be the possibilities for simulating the connection between supply and offensive operations in more detail.



JAMiAM -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 7:18:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.


+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.


But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

I agree, and have brought this up several times. One more time can't hurt, can it?[:D]



delatbabel -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 7:59:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.


Yes, I agree, and would be a better option than requiring static units.

Perhaps allow either static units or FZs to get past level 2.



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 10:50:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.


Yes, I agree, and would be a better option than requiring static units.

Perhaps allow either static units or FZs to get past level 2.



That would also give the Soviets the choice in early 1942 of either digging in or creating new units and expanding and organising the army. That seems like a reasonable tradeoff.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25