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


76mm -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 11:05:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
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.


While the tradeoff is reasonable, I'm not sure that it is particularly realistic: why would creating/organizing new units prevent existing units from fortifying?

I've seen lots of references to concrete, etc., but am not convinced that you would necessarily need loads of concrete to take fortications to levels 3 or 4: I think that the main thing would be whether any bunkers/entrenchements were well-placed and extensive, even if the bunders were based on wooden beams, etc. While I've seen a few WWII Soviet bunkers made of concrete in places like the Valdai hills, my general impression has always been that they relied much more on the shovel and axe than the cement mixer.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 2:48:49 PM)

And yet people keep ignoring (why, that's what I would like to know) that the Soviets fortified many places behind their front, as I already said quite many times [8|] It's a Socialist society, they concentrate on ONE thing and do it EN MASSE! They had engineer A R M I E S.

Yes, they were caught pants down the same in the south in 1942. But of course they expected agressive German moves in Moscow area. That's where they had concentrated their efforts, ressources.

If the Soviets cannot dig behind the frontline then I'm sorry this game is NOT about the Great Patriotic War...




heliodorus04 -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 3:09:42 PM)

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 3:23:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.



Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know. No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.




saintsup -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 4:35:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.



Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know. No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.


I follow you. Problem IMHO starts when you make a good/very good 41 summer campaign against a PBEM noob and you are still facing a 3/4 layers deep of units + level 3 forts when the end of spring mud 42 starts. And it's not that this fortified front is in one place or one zone and you can by careful observation find some weaker place. It's all over the whole north/south line.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 5:36:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: saintsup


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.



Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know. No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.


I follow you. Problem IMHO starts when you make a good/very good 41 summer campaign against a PBEM noob and you are still facing a 3/4 layers deep of units + level 3 forts when the end of spring mud 42 starts. And it's not that this fortified front is in one place or one zone and you can by careful observation find some weaker place. It's all over the whole north/south line.



Some German players have already proven these apparently intimidating carpets might be the DOOM of the Soviet player in fact [:)] PDH for example. Mega pockets, yes in 1942 vs these carpets = game over.

And it makes sense. IF you have everyone in the front (AND you must have them to form these massive carpets) AND your opponent knows how to destroy this defence you are -as I have said- doomed, because all the eggs are in one basket. So where's the problem? I guess the German players should learn HOW to destroy this defence. Just like PDH and some others did [:)]

EDIT: just for the record, my [Soviet] frontlines in 1942 are VERY thin, except of course in front of the panzers.




kvolk -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 6:18:41 PM)

Is there an AAR of PDH fighting the carpet defense do you know? I would like to learn that paticular skill.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 6:43:54 PM)

Sure, this one [:)]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2738900&mpage=14&key=




kvolk -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 6:49:40 PM)

Thanks TulliusDetritus [:)]




heliodorus04 -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 7:11:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

I tend to agree - the digging in is only a problem from Spring 42 to Summer 43. There ought to be some restrictions on it until that point, IMO.

quote:

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

This isn't the advantage I'm referring to, and I get your point about freedom of action benefiting both sides, probably equally. This isn't the a-historic advantage that I'm referring to.

quote:


I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know.

No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.

Okay, first, this is NOT an operational game, nor is it an operational simulation. The fact that you and I don't have to move artillery shells from a stockpile in the rear to a stockpile in the front completely nullifies the idea that this is an operational game. This may be an arbitrary definition, but operational warfare involves the hard math of logistical operations, and this game ain't got none of that (that the player need concern himself with), so it fails by my definition (and by the standard military meaning of the term operational warfare). What logistics are done by abstraction are unrealistic, I think logisticians here would agree.

Second, your ideal everyman corporal also knows that he digs in to face a particular avenue of approach, and if he's got time and materials, then he digs additional trenches and hull-down positions to face at most a 180-degree threat. I say again: Well-read and experienced Grognards need to be consistent in what they argue feel is tactical and common sense. 360-degree forts are neither tactical, operational, nor common sense. Even the Maginot Line faced only certain directions...

Third, any given brigade commander who was ordered to slow down a 1941 German panzer division with his 1500 men and 42 tanks would know that he was doomed unless he did not engage - his goal would be not to get fixed in position (or launch a suicide attack that would last about a day). Yet the model in this game enables him to successfully slow a force 10 times his size in men, and 3 to 4 times his size in tanks while taking minimal losses.

Even in the winter of 42/43, Manstein and the SS Panzerkorps were able to maul such units over and over, despite their tenuous supply situation, fatigue, mechanical breakdown of equipment and weather conditions for a month (February/March 43), rendering those brigades combat ineffective for the remainder of the operation.

Fourth, a real Soviet army or front commander would not be able to abandon important population centers until after the NKVD had gone in and rounded up all the useful stockpiles of food, fuel, and able-bodied men & women who could either hold a rifle (or, alternately, 5 rounds of ammo) or are able to hobble around an assembly line enough to build T-34s and 122mm guns. But in WitE, all you need to do is wait for the Germans to arrive and all of that stuff magically enters teleporters and ends up in the Urals, where, next week, they are issued rifles and grease guns and they go to work as normal. A real Soviet commander would have to care about evacuating everything in as good an order as possible, and this would affect operations as well.

So please, spare me the idea that these things are realistic. The game is an algorithm of abstractions, and some of the abstractions are ideal, and some of them were thought to be good at release, but clearly they can be readily exploited to unrealistic advantage. MOST of the abstractions are a-historic, whether they work ideally or not. It's the exploitable ones that create grossly inaccurate leverage that I concern myself about, and the ones that are fun-sucks because they force the player to wait on the algorithm to get its **** together (I'm specifically thinking of the PzkwIV N models lying in the motor pool doing nothing, or the BF109s going to Romania when you damn well need them in the Luftwaffe) that need to be addressed.

Hopefully that helps you better understand where I'm coming from.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 7:19:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Okay, first, this is NOT an operational game, nor is it an operational simulation.


Yes it is, sorry. Just like in WitP you are Nimitz, MacArthur, Zhukov, Rokossovski. You plan OPERATIONS. The execution (the tactical thing that is) is automatically done.

[image]local://upfiles/11562/B6F7FE675C9247178BF312891BEEFD19.jpg[/image]




heliodorus04 -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 7:23:05 PM)

No it's not.
Am I to believe that you believe all advertising is completely truthful?
You're just being specious now.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 7:31:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Okay, first, this is NOT an operational game, nor is it an operational simulation. The fact that you and I don't have to move artillery shells from a stockpile in the rear to a stockpile in the front completely nullifies the idea that this is an operational game. This may be an arbitrary definition, but operational warfare involves the hard math of logistical operations, and this game ain't got none of that (that the player need concern himself with), so it fails by my definition (and by the standard military meaning of the term operational warfare).


I thought you'd be mentioning the toilet paper (as many people do in the WitP forum) [:D]

In WitP you have to move the fuel and supplies, right (convoys, AND thousands of miles). Utter Logisitics! But even in this case supplies are abstracted: it's food, clothes, bullets, etc. etc... and toilet paper... [:D]

Here the movement of stuff is simply automatic. You don't need to move it (trains, trucks, some hundreds of kilometers). I can't see where's the problem: overland movement [;)]




TulliusDetritus -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 7:38:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

No it's not.
Am I to believe that you believe all advertising is completely truthful?
You're just being specious now.



I trust people. Always. That's perhaps a bad thing to do, eh? Well, I would not trust a guy who wants to introduce me to a Nigerian millionaire willing to share his many millions with me [8D]

Can't you read what I say? You are planning OPERATIONS on this game. Is this false? How you prepare them [along with random luck] will determine the result (which is automatic). What part do you not understand? [&:]




heliodorus04 -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 8:00:43 PM)

I'm carefully considering what you say.  No disrespect to you, nor to the game designers and coders.

To me, and by MY definition of an operational wargame (which I think is fairly normal from the old-school boardgamer definitions), WitE is not an operational wargame because there is no involvement by the player with your supply throughput.  "My" (definition of) Operational wargames emphasize the importance of logistics, and no amount of tactical prowess will make up for poor logistical methodologies.  WitE emphasizes tactics, and occasionally logistics gets in the way, but as long as you're not isolated, your supply situation is disturbingly immaterial to your combat effectiveness. (And a true operational wargame would see isolation handled far differently)

At best, the logistical aspects of WitE only affect movement distances.  This is hardly a dynamically robust logistics simulation.

Operational warfare means that to succeed, you need ENOUGH of the stuff that a unit NEEDS in the QUANTITY it needs at the TIME it needs at the LOCATION it needs it.  Given you play WitP:AE (which I did not) I'm surprised you don't seem to understand my point but maybe I'm being unclear. 

The abstractions of logistics in WitE amount to: how far am I from a rail line, and how many trucks do I have versus the need.  That's it - that's the only operational aspect of WitE, and the player has precious little ability to impact it.

As the Soviet, as long as you're within railhead distance, which you are until you take the offensive, then your units are only concerned with fortification levels, TOE levels, experience, and morale (the latter two you have as little control over as supply).

Calling WitE a 'strategic' level wargame is even more of a stretch.  You cannot control production, you cannot control Axis withdrawl issues, and you cannot even make use of captured raw materials (which, as we've discussed elsewhere, sometimes makes sense).  In a Strategic wargame, I could get Finland to attack beyond the no-move line, or I could get Turkey in the war, or I could prepare for the first winter.

Hopefully this explains better what I mean when I say "WitE is not an operational game or simulation..."




jzardos -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 9:09:05 PM)

heliodorus04
+1

Completely agree with your rational about WitE not being a 'operational' strategy war game. I still have loads of fun with it, but it would be VERY nice to have a bit more control over certain aspects of the game. For me the biggest problem I have is the lack of control of production and TOEs. Find my pools filled with arty and tanks as axis is a bit more than annoying when my troops on the front could use them ASAP.

[&:]

just my 2 cents




saintsup -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 9:26:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: saintsup


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.



Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know. No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.


I follow you. Problem IMHO starts when you make a good/very good 41 summer campaign against a PBEM noob and you are still facing a 3/4 layers deep of units + level 3 forts when the end of spring mud 42 starts. And it's not that this fortified front is in one place or one zone and you can by careful observation find some weaker place. It's all over the whole north/south line.



Some German players have already proven these apparently intimidating carpets might be the DOOM of the Soviet player in fact [:)] PDH for example. Mega pockets, yes in 1942 vs these carpets = game over.

And it makes sense. IF you have everyone in the front (AND you must have them to form these massive carpets) AND your opponent knows how to destroy this defence you are -as I have said- doomed, because all the eggs are in one basket. So where's the problem? I guess the German players should learn HOW to destroy this defence. Just like PDH and some others did [:)]

EDIT: just for the record, my [Soviet] frontlines in 1942 are VERY thin, except of course in front of the panzers.


Well I could'nt break through even with 4 Pz Armies, all the Su's (including pionneers) I could muster.




Joel Billings -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 9:26:41 PM)

Let me say that first off, I don't want to get into a big argument over definitions. Helio states "To me, and by MY definition of an operational wargame" ... it does not qualify as operational. That's fine. Helio has a right to his opinion and definition. However, I would like to point out that for all the boardgames made in the 70s and 80s (and many made since then along with many computer games), many were classified and considered Operational by the publishers and wargaming public even though their idea of dealing with supplies was to determine if a unit was in supply or out of supply. That's it. No quantification of supplies, no build up's of supplies, basically no logistics period. Yet they were considered operational games by the wargaming community. By the normal definitions of "operational" as used by wargamers for over 40 years, WitE is an operational game. There used to be games called Grand Tactical, and in some ways this is a Grand Operational game in that it covers a huge area with multiple operations going on across the broad front at any time. In that way I think it can be considered Strategic, but of course, it's all in how you define the terms. I strongly disagree that there is any false advertising/classifying going on regarding War in the East.




saintsup -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 9:27:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sure, this one [:)]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2738900&mpage=14&key=


You should notice that it is not really a carpet defense but more like a one line with three units stacking defense in this exemple.




76mm -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 9:27:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Some German players have already proven these apparently intimidating carpets might be the DOOM of the Soviet player in fact PDH for example. Mega pockets, yes in 1942 vs these carpets = game over.

And it makes sense. IF you have everyone in the front (AND you must have them to form these massive carpets) AND your opponent knows how to destroy this defence you are -as I have said- doomed, because all the eggs are in one basket. So where's the problem? I guess the German players should learn HOW to destroy this defence. Just like PDH and some others did


Gross simplification, and thus incorrect. No one has ever said that you put ALL of your forces into the carpet, of course you must have reserve armies in the rear to react to potential breakthroughs, which is easily achievable with any kind of carpet defense. It would be nice if you would recognize at some point that the game can be played other than as you play it.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 9:57:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Some German players have already proven these apparently intimidating carpets might be the DOOM of the Soviet player in fact PDH for example. Mega pockets, yes in 1942 vs these carpets = game over.

And it makes sense. IF you have everyone in the front (AND you must have them to form these massive carpets) AND your opponent knows how to destroy this defence you are -as I have said- doomed, because all the eggs are in one basket. So where's the problem? I guess the German players should learn HOW to destroy this defence. Just like PDH and some others did


Gross simplification, and thus incorrect. No one has ever said that you put ALL of your forces into the carpet, of course you must have reserve armies in the rear to react to potential breakthroughs, which is easily achievable with any kind of carpet defense. It would be nice if you would recognize at some point that the game can be played other than as you play it.


76mm, people are certainly talking about mega carpets. Do the maths... From the Baltic to the Black Seas... You need a LOT of units. All of them in fact [;)]

As I see it, we have to learn from other people's mistakes. 2, 3, 4 months ago, that's what we saw during the '42 defensive campaign (your mega carpet included [:D]). It was the normal thing to do. Nothing wrong here. It's part of the learning process. That's why PDH's amazing massacres were er... eye opening [:)]

And people forget on the screenshots FOW is on. I'm pretty certain cpt flm was using (again, like EVERYONE else) the standard carpet. Just like when the weakest football team parks the bus in front of the GK. Natural.




saintsup -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 10:08:28 PM)

This is the beginning my turn 51 after recon:

[image]local://upfiles/10516/2F938451FBDA4EDBAA8E518D348960C6.gif[/image]





saintsup -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 10:11:29 PM)

More south:



[image]local://upfiles/10516/464F660888C3468B9AD782DCEAB57A60.gif[/image]




saintsup -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/24/2011 10:15:58 PM)

More south it's somewhat thinner. Notice the level 3 forts and two digits CV's. And it's not as you can move 1 or two Pz armies (which takes 3-4 turns) without anyone noticing;



[image]local://upfiles/10516/B5EB03452675431EB9D5AD0D384CE89A.gif[/image]

NB: All this with a good 41 campaign, with Leningrad and more than 4 Mil. soviet losses.




76mm -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/25/2011 3:39:05 AM)

quote:


76mm, people are certainly talking about mega carpets. Do the maths... From the Baltic to the Black Seas... You need a LOT of units. All of them in fact


If you look at my AAR, you'll see that I had that kind of carpet, and still had powerful forces in reserve. You DON'T need ALL of your units on the frontline for a carpet.

I should emphasize again that in fact I don't think that the carpet is an effective defensive architecture--it is just more effective than the other options in my opinion.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375