RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now...

RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (Full Version)

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

Message

Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 2:27:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: enael i just start with WITE. it's a very good game. Someone one can explain what you all talk about : 1:1= 2:1 ? It IS a great game, it's just us grognards like to grumble a bit [;)]. See post # 21 for an explanation.

ComradeP -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 4:01:17 PM)
quote: What I really wanted to say with my example was: Flavio said the rule only kicks in at odds between 1-1 and 2-1, but apparently it always kicks in whenever the odds in a Soviet attack is greater than 1-1. I am wondering if this doesn't matter since the odds are 2-1 and that's it, or if the odds have some other effect besides causing a retreat. Do they affect retreat casualties for example? Aside from retreats, the odds also matter for routs, but there's a minimal chance the odds modifier will help in that case as German units are not likely to rout, so it might help once or twice against minor Axis units but that would be about it.

mmarquo -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 4:33:37 PM)
"1v1 = 2v1 100% effects the game totaly throwing it out of balance starting in December 1942" I disagree with the finality and defeatest tone of this reflection. I find it most enjoyable to figure out how to solve a difficult puzzle rather than abdicate in face of adversity. I enjoy the 1:1 rule and beleive that there may be ways for the Axis to solve it on a strategic level. The strategic game is a question of balance: where to deploy the assets which affect the final CV values is quite intruiging. Tarhunnas' first example only served to show the power of air assets not reflected in the initial CV tally; the second raises the question: "Where in Germany is Tambov?" Marquo [:)]

tigercub -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 7:54:36 AM)
Marquo good luck with that...

mmarquo -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 1:09:40 PM)
The point is assets need to be concentrated in critical sectors and much less elsewhere. The point about Tambov is that it so far from Berlin that to give ground and not get stomped that far east is self evident. At some point the Axis does have to go on the defense; sometime in 1942 (summer? fall?) is when the Battle of Berlin begins. And this is how is should be. If the Soviets had not squandered resources at the second battle of Kharkov in 1942, the war may well have been over even sooner. But they claim to have learned much from that defeat which helped them win later, so who knows [&:] Until we see a good sample of at least 10 or more games of 1941 - 1945 played to the bitter end, then all crticisms about "unfair," "broken," "pig rule," etc. are tantamount to emotional diatribe unsubstantiated by fact. Marquo

pompack -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 1:39:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo Until we see a good sample of at least 10 or more games of 1941 - 1945 played to the bitter end, then all crticisms about "unfair," "broken," "pig rule," etc. are tantamount to emotional diatribe unsubstantiated by fact. Marquo +1

Tarhunnas -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 2:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo Until we see a good sample of at least 10 or more games of 1941 - 1945 played to the bitter end, then all crticisms about "unfair," "broken," "pig rule," etc. are tantamount to emotional diatribe unsubstantiated by fact. I would say that such sentiments are always a sign of emotional diatribe, however long you have played! Are you implying that I have used those words? If so, could you kindly quote those specific posts? If not, I would prefer that you expressed yourself more clearly so that your posts do not indirectly ascribe such expressions to me.

heliodorus04 -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 3:24:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo Until we see a good sample of at least 10 or more games of 1941 - 1945 played to the bitter end, then all crticisms about "unfair," "broken," "pig rule," etc. are tantamount to emotional diatribe unsubstantiated by fact. Marquo +1 I was going to say something about Marquo's highly biased hypothesis, but thought I might come across too critical. Now I'm afraid I must. WHAT IF: The reason you are not seeing games go to 1945 is that the game so favors the Soviet side that your target market (see note) simply doesn't have the endurance to play through a boring game in which poorly executed mechanics (theoretically speaking; I'm not asserting any specific mechanic here) create the foregone conclusion of a particularly early Soviet victory ? Under your hypothesis, you default to "L2P kthxbai" and no changes are made to the game (unless they are advocated by the coterie of people who believe everything is right in WitE). This is a 'good-old-boy' system, in which you end up in an echo chamber without new perspective. I think this is the way WitE is headed currently. I'm not a fan of waiting for more data because the game is 9 months old, and you already can see that German players find the game tedious to slog through and the Soviets clearly out-perform their historical counter-parts on the path to a final victory. At the present rate of patching and at the present rate of AAR data accumulation (don't get me started on that), and given that Matrix appears (to me at least) to throw out gobs of AAR data whenever they make a new update, forcing players to start all over again (and in fact and effect making it impossible to collect the data Marquo would like to see from the latter years of a game), you're just never going to get what you're looking for, and while you continue to wait for latter-game data, more and more owners are going to stop playing, or at a minimum, stop writing time-consuming AARs. Target Market Note: There are a variety of target markets for the game when you consider people who only play vs. AI and only play vs. human, the great readers, the grognards, and the people who want to play a fun strategy game based on WW2). I don't think any game can satisfy them all, and ultimately WitE will have to favor one segment over others.

Flaviusx -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 3:58:38 PM)
At this point we've got enough good data on the 42 period to contemplate changes. Playing the game through to 45 won't really add much to this, since the issues in question are peculiar to the 42 period, although I'm sure as more and more games go into 43 and on we may find a need for further adjustments based on the results of those games.

Q-Ball -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 5:09:35 PM)
There are some good points in here, and some rants too, but I am in the club where the Germans need more help somehow. I hope the game I am playing with Tarhunnas will help. At this point I am fairly confident that there Wehrmacht will be smashed earlier historical, and that there isn't alot Tarhunnas can do about it. I look at the OOB and loss trajectories, and the numbers don't look very good for the Germans. I hope Tarhunnas plays as well as he can, and I will, and the result should be an "honest" look at what works and what might need to be looked at. I also caution anyone who rants about the game: Any of us who played WITP-AE know that it takes a long time to get it "right". The more complex a game, the more levers to pull or push to get the desired result. This game is less complex than WITP-AE, but that engine took 6 years to get basically "right". Hopefully this won't take as long, but the fact that Matrix is in it for the long-haul to fix that rather than fire-and-forget is what you are also paying extra for.

Pawlock -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 5:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball There are some good points in here, and some rants too, but I am in the club where the Germans need more help somehow. I hope the game I am playing with Tarhunnas will help. At this point I am fairly confident that there Wehrmacht will be smashed earlier historical, and that there isn't alot Tarhunnas can do about it. I look at the OOB and loss trajectories, and the numbers don't look very good for the Germans. I hope Tarhunnas plays as well as he can, and I will, and the result should be an "honest" look at what works and what might need to be looked at. I also caution anyone who rants about the game: Any of us who played WITP-AE know that it takes a long time to get it "right". The more complex a game, the more levers to pull or push to get the desired result. This game is less complex than WITP-AE, but that engine took 6 years to get basically "right". Hopefully this won't take as long, but the fact that Matrix is in it for the long-haul to fix that rather than fire-and-forget is what you are also paying extra for. +1 My current pbem is more or less a mirror of Q-Balls albeit about 5-10 turns behind. I wont name my opponent , but he is one of the best offensive guys around so my current finding are not against a novice. In a nut shell for me, it is not so much the soviets are overpowered in 42 as more like the Germans are underpowerd. Im still out on the 1:1 bump as the soviets do need something to give them the ability to attack in 41 and 42. As some have said perhaps a gradual toning down say 1.5 summer 42 -43 and then phase out completely in 43. Id be more in favour of giving the german units a one off moral boost after the blizzrd perhaps. Anyway , my opponent is still giving me a kicking if I step out of line too much[:D]

PeeDeeAitch -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 5:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pawlock +1 My current pbem is more or less a mirror of Q-Balls albeit about 5-10 turns behind. I wont name my opponent , but he is one of the best offensive guys around so my current finding are not against a novice. In a nut shell for me, it is not so much the soviets are overpowered in 42 as more like the Germans are underpowerd. Im still out on the 1:1 bump as the soviets do need something to give them the ability to attack in 41 and 42. As some have said perhaps a gradual toning down say 1.5 summer 42 -43 and then phase out completely in 43. Id be more in favour of giving the german units a one off moral boost after the blizzrd perhaps. Anyway , my opponent is still giving me a kicking if I step out of line too much[:D] I won't name me either!

Nikademus -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 9:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harovan To be won, a combat needs at least 2:1 odds. The Germans have to achieve these odds by themselves, the Soviets only have to achieve 1:1 odds and get another 1 for free: (1+1):1. I have to admit.....this rule boggles me. Don't understand it. Then again i'm old school War in Russia....the final combat odds were the combat odds, no hidden shifts. Being a WitP vet.....i can relate to concerns about retreats as those cost the biggest losses in WitP...and in prior incarnations of War in Russia.

randallw -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/8/2011 9:08:10 PM)
If the Germans are underpowered would it be fair to give them a better recovery rate of wounded troops? This will be especially critical for the 1942 spring/summer, which is the main year that is being debated about.

glvaca -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/9/2011 2:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP It's a bigger problem. Opinions differ on what the problem consists of, but to me it's mostly a problem of casualties. -Even though high experience units fire more often in battle, effects of having high experience are generally underwhelming for the Axis in terms of the casualties they take from indirect fire. Soviet Rifle squads rarely hit anything even if they fire, but as soon as the Soviets get their mortars out even barely trained conscripts give the Axis infantry a pasting that tends to ruin the loss ratio for the Axis. -Hasty attacks usually don't do a lot of damage (which is fine), but mobile units don't have the MP's to make deliberate attacks and advance in the same turn, which is a problem. -As there's no "chase" segment for combat, casualties caused by mobile units are often a bit underwhelming. A unit with very little mobility and no safe route for a retreat, like a Rifle brigade/division in a clear hex, can just walk away with low losses from a 90 morale/experience mobile unit. -Retreat attrition for guns is fairly high. The Soviets can take that, the Axis can't. -There is no period for recovery for the Axis due to the constant attrition, which shrinks the Wehrmacht every turn. The odds modifier leads to some of these problems, it's not the direct cause of any of them. I think that sums it up quite well. Good to see this is being looked at. Especially the underwhelming effect of tanks is a bit disturbing. Overall, maybe add (but I'm not sure if this has already been changed): - First winter frost bites, returning at low experience, degrading exp. levels and lowering CV's. - Reduction in the chances of (re)gaining morale (was done some patches ago but never tested to see the impact). These are certainly important after the first winter for the Germans to rebound. Just a crazy idea, if the reason why the Soviets can easily break the german forts later in the war is the tremendous amount of arty they can field, which makes sense, then why not allow the Germans to attach Arty directly which would then make it easier, not easy but possible for them to break the 1942 fort problem? This has been discussed before, maybe it's time to look at it again? I mean, looking from the German perspective, morale and as such the possibility to regain experience is everything in 1942 after the winter. It means your infantry can be strong again and hit the forts. Allowing your panzer divs to exploit. Certainly more difficult in 42 than 41 but with high morale experience it is possible even against carpets. Giving the Axis a chance to increase arty in the attacks certainly will help to break the deadlock that seems to arrise. Together with fixing the things you mention that might be a good way to make 42 more interesting. Just some thoughts...

Q-Ball -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/9/2011 2:16:09 PM)
Testers: Is anyone thinking about increasing the number of Disabled that re-enter play? This change would favor the Germans, who generally have around 1/2 the disabled in later years as the Soviets, but that ratio favors the Axis generally. The Wehrmacht should be able to grow if it's only suffering attrition, but that is barely true at the moment.

mmarquo -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/10/2011 12:44:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo Until we see a good sample of at least 10 or more games of 1941 - 1945 played to the bitter end, then all crticisms about "unfair," "broken," "pig rule," etc. are tantamount to emotional diatribe unsubstantiated by fact. I would say that such sentiments are always a sign of emotional diatribe, however long you have played! Are you implying that I have used those words? If so, could you kindly quote those specific posts? If not, I would prefer that you expressed yourself more clearly so that your posts do not indirectly ascribe such expressions to me. Tarhunnas, WTF???? You prefer that I express myself more clearly??? Okay: It's not about you. :)] My comments were meant to refute Pelton's oft scribed diatribe against the 1:1 rule. Peace and let's play one day. Marquo

mmarquo -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/10/2011 12:48:43 AM)
I do not understand how one can make substantive changes to the game until it has been played through to the bitter end a statistically appropriate number of times. IMHO the piecemeal approach can have unintended upstream and downstream consequences. Just my two cents. Marquo [;)]

mmarquo -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/10/2011 1:04:59 AM)
"I was going to say something about Marquo's highly biased hypothesis, but thought I might come across too critical. Now I'm afraid I must." Highly biased hypothesis; really?? I advanced no hypothesis, my friend. Au contraire, I opined for restraint until enough data is accumulated to properly ajudicate the facts. "The reason you are not seeing games go to 1945 is that the game so favors the Soviet side that your target market (see note) simply doesn't have the endurance to play through a boring game in which poorly executed mechanics (theoretically speaking; I'm not asserting any specific mechanic here) create the foregone conclusion of a particularly early Soviet victory ?" Your reflection is the is the poster child of a highly biased hypothesis. "Under your hypothesis, you default to "L2P kthxbai" and no changes are made to the game (unless they are advocated by the coterie of people who believe everything is right in WitE). This is a 'good-old->boy' system, in which you end up in an echo chamber without new perspective." Frankly preferable to the echo chamber of self appointed pundits who feel that their opinions should prevail, choking the bandwidth with self-righteous indignation if anyone dares to advance a contrary point of view. "I'm not a fan of waiting for more data because the game is 9 months old, and you already can see that German players find the game tedious to slog through and the Soviets clearly out-perform their historical counter-parts on the path to a final victory. " So stop playing, stop posting and stop whinning; your choice. "At the present rate of patching and at the present rate of AAR data accumulation (don't get me started on that), and given that Matrix appears (to me at least) to throw out gobs of AAR data whenever they make a new update, forcing players to start all over again (and in fact and effect making it impossible to collect the data Marquo would like to see from the latter years of a game), you're just never going to get what you're looking for, and while you continue to wait for latter-game data, more and more owners are going to stop playing, or at a minimum, stop writing time-consuming AARs." You have no idea what I want because you never asked; you appear to be an expert in highly biased hypothesis generation. Enjoy the game [;)]

Flaviusx -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/10/2011 1:31:05 AM)
Marquo, I get what you are saying about unintended consequences, but there's a clear pattern emerging here in game after game between relatively equal opponents in 1942. And it's not a good pattern. We don't need to play it out to 45 to see this. I'm going to be candid here. Changes are coming. I can't tell you what they are, or exactly when, but the decision has been made that tweaks are needed.

heliodorus04 -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/10/2011 1:36:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo "I was going to say something about Marquo's highly biased hypothesis, but thought I might come across too critical. Now I'm afraid I must." Highly biased hypothesis; really?? I advanced no hypothesis, my friend. Au contraire, I opined for restraint until enough data is accumulated to properly ajudicate the facts. "The reason you are not seeing games go to 1945 is that the game so favors the Soviet side that your target market (see note) simply doesn't have the endurance to play through a boring game in which poorly executed mechanics (theoretically speaking; I'm not asserting any specific mechanic here) create the foregone conclusion of a particularly early Soviet victory ?" Your reflection is the is the poster child of a highly biased hypothesis. "Under your hypothesis, you default to "L2P kthxbai" and no changes are made to the game (unless they are advocated by the coterie of people who believe everything is right in WitE). This is a 'good-old->boy' system, in which you end up in an echo chamber without new perspective." Frankly preferable to the echo chamber of self appointed pundits who feel that their opinions should prevail, choking the bandwidth with self-righteous indignation if anyone dares to advance a contrary point of view. "I'm not a fan of waiting for more data because the game is 9 months old, and you already can see that German players find the game tedious to slog through and the Soviets clearly out-perform their historical counter-parts on the path to a final victory. " So stop playing, stop posting and stop whinning; your choice. "At the present rate of patching and at the present rate of AAR data accumulation (don't get me started on that), and given that Matrix appears (to me at least) to throw out gobs of AAR data whenever they make a new update, forcing players to start all over again (and in fact and effect making it impossible to collect the data Marquo would like to see from the latter years of a game), you're just never going to get what you're looking for, and while you continue to wait for latter-game data, more and more owners are going to stop playing, or at a minimum, stop writing time-consuming AARs." You have no idea what I want because you never asked; you appear to be an expert in highly biased hypothesis generation. Enjoy the game [;)] I'm not impressed with your personal criticism. I like bigger words than those you used. I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me; I did not assign any adjectives to you or your position, and in fact, responded to the substantive claims you advocate. My position is one of scientific hypothesis, test, and rationale. I think we have enough data. Your HYPOTHESIS is that we do not have enough data, therefore no changes should be made. Both of our hypotheses advocate positions and rest on assumptions (yours assumes nothing can be changed until sufficient 1943-45 data are collected) Had Matrix taken your position, mind you, German TOE changes in 42 would still be devastating German experience levels, and winter would be ravaging the axis despite any preparations, and several more. (Might I remind you that you yourself advocate changes to the air war - but there's not enough data according to your own position). That you are so quick to attack me personally says a lot about you, not me. It reinforces my assertion that a certain faction doesn't like outsiders with differing points of view.

mmarquo -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/10/2011 2:11:53 AM)
[/quote] I'm not impressed with your personal criticism. I like bigger words than those you used. I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me; I did not assign any adjectives to you or your position, and in fact, responded to the substantive claims you advocate. [/quote] Makes sense, since I did not criticise you; further I did not "attack" you. I do, however, disagree with your ideas, your position statement and the verbage you used as a prelude to retort my post. [/quote] My position is one of scientific hypothesis, test, and rationale. I think we have enough data. Your HYPOTHESIS is that we do not have enough data, therefore no changes should be made. Both of our hypotheses advocate positions and rest on assumptions (yours assumes nothing can be changed until sufficient 1943-45 data are collected) [/quote] Again, I have no hypothesis to advance; I have an opinion, which is not the same as advancing a hypothesis. [/quote] That you are so quick to attack me personally says a lot about you, not me. It reinforces my assertion that a certain faction doesn't like outsiders with differing points of view. [/quote] Reread the posts - no personal attack. We should all appreciate that one's posts are not one's self. For all I know you could be the nicest and most cordial person in the world [:)] Have a nice life; over and out.

glvaca -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/10/2011 7:35:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Marquo, I get what you are saying about unintended consequences, but there's a clear pattern emerging here in game after game between relatively equal opponents in 1942. And it's not a good pattern. We don't need to play it out to 45 to see this. I'm going to be candid here. Changes are coming. I can't tell you what they are, or exactly when, but the decision has been made that tweaks are needed. Good news! Any chance you could give toss us a bone [:D]

DorianGray -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/12/2011 2:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pwieland quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Ketza, that makes a lot of sense, and is in fact the kind of macro effect I would take seriously. We're seeing this happening in some games. It's not clear if the problem is the result of the 1-1 rule as such, or that in combination with other things, but it has to be considered. It's the stalemated games in 1942 that are testing the game engine to destruction. This game that Tarhunnas is using here just isn't very interesting from a design standpoint, it isn't showing anything wrong or overpowered about the Soviets. (If we were looking at this game only, we might even consider the Soviets need help, or that the Germans needed to be ratcheted back. Note I do not actually believe this, but that's the conclusion I would draw from this single and very exceptional example. I don't in fact believe this is going to be a standard game result. It's an outlier.) I dont think it should matter if the particular game in question is one in which the Germans are rolling. If this is the game between him and Q-Ball, then Tarhunnas got smacked around fairly well by an opponent that not only lost its largest industry base in the north, but its own capital. And I bet when 1943 and 1944 rolls around the crushing manpower advantages are going to allow Q-Ball to field massive stacks of doom. Already, German spearheads are getting pushed aside. What should matter is if the rule is needed or simply used as a fudge factor in order to generate more than the usual German casualties. I dont know, but am reading the arguments for both side with interest. Ok, I had to do a double-take on this one, as my initial reaction was the same - "What does the 1-1 retreat rule have to do with this particuliar example?" But it is clear now that the DISPLAYED ODDS RATIO has been further modified from the calculated CVs. From your examples you have: ATT CV DEF CV DISPLAYED RATIO ACTUAL RATIO 92 64 2.4 : 1 1.4375 : 1 133 106 2.2 : 1 1.2547 : 1 hmmm.....

Flaviusx -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/12/2011 3:08:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: glvaca quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Marquo, I get what you are saying about unintended consequences, but there's a clear pattern emerging here in game after game between relatively equal opponents in 1942. And it's not a good pattern. We don't need to play it out to 45 to see this. I'm going to be candid here. Changes are coming. I can't tell you what they are, or exactly when, but the decision has been made that tweaks are needed. Good news! Any chance you could give toss us a bone [:D] I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. And Joel would still kill me. More seriously, Joel himself has laid it out, see the 1.05 thread.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9023438