RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (Full Version)

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

Message

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 11:46:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Well, it's only one piece of the puzzle, to be sure. You could arguably leave it as is and throw in all the other changes we've got going and be ok. My own playtesting at this point is showing a very different metagame, and these tester versions haven't altered the 1:1 rule. There's a lot of new stuff being tested at the moment (not all of which has been revealed.) Now THAT is intringuing [:)]

janh -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 1:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The 1:1 rule is mostly irrelevant in 1943. If you have anything resembling the historical 1943 Red Army you will blast your way through any German fortified position. It's merely a question of the proper application of overwhelming force, and particularly your artillery. You cannot do this across the entire front, to be sure, but you don't need to. It's in 1942 that it is a problem. So basically after 42 the rule is superfluous, and the capabilities of the Red Army are already represented properly by their improved morale (training, part of doctrine?), leadership (another part of doctrine?), and better devices and formations? So the common agreement is that for 41/42 the Red Army needs it as a benefit to achieve some offensive successes: i.e. without it, assuming average losses on both sides to match historical proportions, the Red Army cannot pull off limited, more-or-less local offensives like the 41/42 winter offensives, or the May Iszum operations with similar to historic progress (i.e. good in some areas, and quickly dissolving offensives in others), right? Does it need it only against well-entrenched units, or does it also need the extra benefit if attacking poorly fortified low-quality units like the Axis Allies units at the flanks of the Stalingrad operation in winter, for the Uranus offensive? Well, then it seems like this rule, or anything similar to the Red Army's beneft, has to remain in place until winter 42/43, if that ensures that the Soviet capability is a closer match to the historical one (assuming correspondingly similar progress/losses on both sides).

Klydon -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 1:25:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm Frankly, I've never felt that strongly about this issue and am generally only posting about it now because I don't want Pelton's rather fanatical rants to be the only opinion expressed on the forum. Any fix needs to be carefully considered and tested and not a knee-jerk reaction to the loudest voice on the forum on the topic. I think you are missing the boat if you think Pelton is the only one speaking out against the 1:1 rule. There are a lot who have posted on the subject and posted the reasons why they oppose it, not that it just "sucks" as a rule. I also agree that any fix with it should be carefully considered and I think the staff and testers are doing just that as it represents a major change to game play. The rule has a lot of hidden ramifications in the game. As Flaviusx has mentioned as well, a Russian who is absolutely trying to use it as part of their offensive doctrine can cause some severe damage. What is interesting to that particular issue is if the reserve role would work more frequently, it would put a stop to using it as a deliberate tactic. Of course, then the Russians could try for fewer attacks and go for higher odds so that any reserves showing up would not matter.

76mm -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 2:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon I think you are missing the boat if you think Pelton is the only one speaking out against the 1:1 rule. There are a lot who have posted on the subject and posted the reasons why they oppose it, not that it just "sucks" as a rule. I also agree that any fix with it should be carefully considered and I think the staff and testers are doing just that as it represents a major change to game play. The rule has a lot of hidden ramifications in the game. As Flaviusx has mentioned as well, a Russian who is absolutely trying to use it as part of their offensive doctrine can cause some severe damage. What is interesting to that particular issue is if the reserve role would work more frequently, it would put a stop to using it as a deliberate tactic. Of course, then the Russians could try for fewer attacks and go for higher odds so that any reserves showing up would not matter. Of course Pelton isn't the only one who doesn't like it, he is just the most repetitive, and it has gotten kind of old. I think even he thinks the 1:1 rule could stay until some point in 1942, so maybe I'd even agree with him, dunno... I think that given all of the other changes the devs are making, changes to the 1:1 rule as well should be tested very very thoroughly, which is very difficult in a game of this complexity and length. A couple of points about using 1:1 attacks as a deliberate tactic: First, I think if it is possible to deliberately use 1:1 attacks, there is a problem with the combat engine. Combat results are supposed to be variable, right? So Sov players should not be able to launch multiple attacks with initial 1:1 odds and assume that they will win enough of them to make it worthwhile (bearing in mind that they will lose 10x casualties if they lose, and maybe 2x casualties if they win). I suggest that if the Sovs are launching lots of 1:1 attacks, Sov losses should exceed any acceptable range, unless they are winning more of these 1:1 battles than they should be. Second, your comment on reserves is interesting. I've noticed reserves being committed fairly often during my attacks, and while I don't think it has ever turned a loss into a victory, it is one of the reasons why I go for higher odds.

Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 2:30:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm By "cheap wins" I presume you mean wins that squeak in at just above 1:1? Let's say the Sovs launch ten attacks in which their initial CVs match the German CVs at 1:1. If the combat engine is functioning as it should, the Sovs should lose many of these combats, and when they lose, they typically lose 10x what the Germans lose. So how are any wins a "cheap win"? For the Sovs to be reasonably confident of ending up with a 1:1 result, they should presumably start with at least 3:2 odds, maybe 2:1. Given the disparity between the German and Sovs in experience/morale/CVs in 1941 and 1942, I think that it will generally be very difficult to get 2:1 odds in most instances in 1941-1942. I my campaing 1:1 attack has backfired for my opponent many times when my 10-15cv panzer reserves activate it results combat where soviet lose 10k men and german 200. It has sometimes happened like 5 times per turn. I dont think 1:1 can be abused if there is proper reserves around without considerable risks of those massive hold casulties.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7192383