RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (Full Version)

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



Message

mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 1:01:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Thanks WitE devs for finally taking a stand and cutting through all the Soviet player fanboys (sorry hate to use that work but it fits here) propoganda trying to dismiss a need to time-box this rule.



This term I find particularly offensive. I know you do not mean it as a personal affront [:)], but there is a tendency in this forum to accuse anybody who has an contrary opinion as a "fan" of either camp. FWIW, I am not an Axis or Soviet "Fan," rather a fan of a historically accurate good game which affords the players an opportunity to determine the outcome based on relative skill levels and a modicum of luck. I play either side with equal intellectual curiosity and enjoyment. Since there were doctrinal differences in Axis versus Soviet tactics and strategy, the game developers made a brilliant attempt to reflect this in the CRT. Only a few games have had the ambition to attempt such a methodolgy to reflect doctrinal difference - Red Star Rising comes to mind. Once again, I think there are enough variables in the final CV calculations to make them dynamic and variable over time to effect needed game balancing changes. To evoke mythical doctrinal changes which occur at a magic point in time simply to allow the Axis the upperhand in 1942 is just plain silly; especially in a game which uses armor thickness in combat calculations.

Food for thought: the Soviet offensive doctrine called for deep operational armor advances of 100s of miles into the enemy's rear; when have we seen this in any of the AARs? Is there one example of a Bagration-like penetration and encirclment; or anything which comes close to the performance of Operation Gallop? No - all we have seen is a slow, boring Soviet steamroller grind; which btw, maynot have enough time to reach Berlin in the time limits of the game. Some of the AARs haved shown the Axis getting drained to death on the banks of the Volga, or between the Volga and the Dnepr. This makes perfect sense to me; if the German player stands 2,000 km deep in Russia, what is supposed to happen? What changes are being made to reflect the crushing operational blows so that game does not devolve into trench warfare stalemate deep in Russia? The V 1.05 changes guarantee a boring, stagnant game.

In summary, in Spring 1942, WITE now simulates a fantasy alliance between the Axis and their Alien allies; new wonder weapons deployed in the east have the desired effect.



[image]local://upfiles/1355/6AF836B7AE444ADF9E1B58B06CF8232F.gif[/image]



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 1:28:25 PM)

I'd be really curious to know how much testing has been done on these aggregate changes, and the results of these tests?

I realize that given the size and length of the game it is impossible to comprehensively test every single change, but to me that is an argument for making a series of incremental changes over time, rather than the massive and sweeping changes included in this patch.

I think I'm going to give this patch a pass rather than waste more time starting another game...



Magnum88 -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 1:31:28 PM)

I have not played the game in probably 5 months but lurk on the forums almost daily. One thing on the 2:1 discussion I have not seen discussed is the magnitude of the increased Soviet casaulties due to their doctrine that is the justification for the 2:1 rule. Would not another way of dealing with the problem be to increase the casaulty rate, if the Soviets are indeed being too sucessful due to this rule? More casualties equates to a lower final CV and less sucessful attacks.



janh -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 1:43:27 PM)

Marquo, I'd counter that:  Didn't in fact the 2:1 rule favor sluggish warfare?  And that the German players resents to a slow fighting withdrawal?  The latter surely is in part due to the fact that he won't sacrifice large formations at "Feste Plätze", having learned from history -- much as the Russian player doesn't waste a good fraction of his Army in 41 by withdrawing far too late, or by assaulting too early and carelessly, or by overextended counteroffensive that get pocketed.  So hindsight benefits both sides, and will lead to a somewhat different character of the conflict.

Yet looking at the Q-balls vs Tarhunnas game, as just one example, my impression was that the extension of the 2:1 rule actually also favors a slow trench-style warfare. Gaining a breakthrough against a well fortified line has always been a costly thing, and therefore the key concept of blitzkrieg developed, which, much simplified, is to quickly gain the depth of the enemy rear, and head free of the grinding WWI trench warfare, hit the enemy communications and force him into the open.  The German players naturally do this, as evidenced by the fact that they will otherwise simply stop all offensives in 1942 if such an exploitation after a painful breakthrough cannot be realized.

With the 2:1 rule, and the fact that the loss ratios suffered typically favor the Red Army (aside from the retreat issue), especially when easily-replaceable tanks are used extensively, a slow advance is much more favorable than a strike in depth.  The latter bears much greater risks, as it can be cut and pocketed, and does not bring out such nice fruits like getting numerous units promoted to guards from even marginal ("artificial") victories.  The latter alone renders this strategy quite useful -- it is slow, unstoppable, and bears little risk for large benefits.  You couldn't do this so easily and successfully without this rule, don't you think?






Erik Rutins -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 2:48:55 PM)

Hi guys,

I just want to add that you all may have noticed that this is an early Beta. You may want to play the beta through to 1942 in a new game to see how things work. While I understand that there's plenty to discuss just based on the list of changes, you really need to see how it all works together in the game. We've been testing changes to the 1:1/2:1 rule in the internal beta team for months now. The shape of the final 1.05 release will also be largely based on the testing and feedback we receive on the 1.05 public beta.

Regards,

- Erik



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 3:45:25 PM)

Marquo, you have got this exactly wrong. 1.04 promoted trench warfare in the east for both sides. This beta is designed to open things up and make it more mobile...on both sides.

The south in particular is going to see some wild swings of fortune.

The slow attritional grind seen prebeta inevitably led to an early collapse of the Wehrmacht well ahead of schedule. Games were getting called early as a result of this, nor were the players insane for doing so. Once the German army reaches a certain tipping point in this kind of relentless attritional grind, it collapses like a bad souffle and doesn't recover. I've seen this happen -- but not so early as was happening in 1.04 games, where the process was being accelerated by a good year or more. (I've managed to do it sometime in 1944 from a 1943 scenario starting point.)

I'm pretty well convinced that the old 1:1 rule was a major factor in this, although by no means the only one. (Forts were at least as important in promoting this WWI type of fighting, if not more important. And the lack of Hiwis also made the German replacement situation more fragile than necessary.)

We're taking a chance here with these changes, sure. They may or may not pan out under heavy play. (I personally think we may have gone too far with the new armaments multiplier. It's gotten to the point now where these are almost the only thing you want to evacuate. It's now a very hard chokepoint in the Soviet replacement situation. The lower manpower multiplier in 1942 is also imo somewhat dubious. And the new 40 NM in 1942 is I think also perhaps too far.) Caveat emptor and all of that. But plainly tweaking was necessary the state of the metagame in 1.04 had reached a very predictable result between equal players, and not a very good one.

One thing I'm going to be watching very very very carefully with this beta: the HQ buildup rule. If there's anyplace the game is way way way too favorable to the Germans, this is it.



Mehring -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:09:32 PM)

quote:

I am somewhat incredulous that Soviet Attack Doctrine would somehow forgivingly change at a discrete point in time after the blizzard offensive to obligingly allow a more robust Axis 1942 offensive.


It's pragmatism. And because pragmatism can only deal with superficial issues, the problem just reappears elsewhere in a different form.

The fundamental problem is the lack of logistical representation in the game which allows players, and particularly the Russian from 1942, to attack ad infinitum. There are other tweaks that could be made to make realistic changes to play balance, like reducing the command capabilities of Russian commanders at start and allowing them to increase more than at present, with experience, both from victories and defeats. Representing aviation fuel would limit both airforces operational abilities. Loads of tweaks, too many to mention here, but so many good suggestions have been made in one thread or another. But above all, it's logistics that fail.



marty_01 -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:36:31 PM)

I'm glad to see that the 1:1 > 2:1 rule has been reeled in a bit and I applaud the designers for taking this sort of step. I think most here will admit that this is not an easy decision by any means as it was bound – as this thread clearly shows – to be an unpopular decision with some proportion of players.

I enjoy playing both the Axis and Soviet sides in the game. I guess I prefer playing the Russians, but don’t have a problem with trying to play the Axis. But I had come to the conclusion some time ago that the 1:1 > 2:1 rule -- while probably a necessary balance feature in the first year of a 41-45 PBEM GC -- became too much an advantage for the Soviet side by the time late 42 to 43 started rolling around. Or at least that's what I was seeing in my own PBEM GCs. I might have been tempted to temper the change in odds required for retreat over a more extended period. For example perhaps switch it to 1.5:1 > 2:1 Post Feb 42 thru Perhaps Feb 43. Than bump it again to both sides have to live with and find appropriate tactics to deal with the 2:1 Odds rule for retreats post Feb 43. But ending the rule after Feb 1942 is a very logical time line as it comes at the tail end of the first year blizzard period.

The net effects of the 1:1 > 2:1 rule change along with what looks to be a reassessment of the entrenchment rules are yet to be determined from public play. It could be that the combination of these two aspects of the game will be all the major tweaking that's needed. But if not, I suppose something else to kick around in-light of the 1:1 > 2:1 thingy might be to reconsider stacking limits. If hex stacking were increased to four units per hex for both the Axis and Soviets it would likely prove to be a much greater advantage to the side that holds the initiative. And it might go a long way to circumvent the 1:1 > 2:1 crutch that some players have become accustomed. A 4-unit stacking limit would be very useful in allowing players to concentrate greater amounts of combat power at focal points of an offensive. During my Soviet offensive periods, Axis unit concentrations often become stretched thin in-order to maintain a continuous front. Conversely, when I am holding the initiative as the Soviets I can easily concentrate enough formations locally whereby a four unit stacking limit would provide the needed combat power I might need to force a retreat even when I can't rely on a 1:1 > 2:1 rule.



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:58:42 PM)

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?



KenchiSulla -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 5:39:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?


Tarhunnas, you are 100% right... you are a killjoy....






And you are right!



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 5:46:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?


That has never stopped people from making statements before.



MechFO -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 6:08:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

quote:

I am somewhat incredulous that Soviet Attack Doctrine would somehow forgivingly change at a discrete point in time after the blizzard offensive to obligingly allow a more robust Axis 1942 offensive.


It's pragmatism. And because pragmatism can only deal with superficial issues, the problem just reappears elsewhere in a different form.

The fundamental problem is the lack of logistical representation in the game which allows players, and particularly the Russian from 1942, to attack ad infinitum. There are other tweaks that could be made to make realistic changes to play balance, like reducing the command capabilities of Russian commanders at start and allowing them to increase more than at present, with experience, both from victories and defeats. Representing aviation fuel would limit both airforces operational abilities. Loads of tweaks, too many to mention here, but so many good suggestions have been made in one thread or another. But above all, it's logistics that fail.


This, a thousand times this.

Too lenient logistics allows German units sticking to the "historical" timetable to be too well supplied. Because they are too well supplied, the Soviets have no chance even against nominally overextended units without the 2:1 help.

Too lenient logistics allows the Soviets to have a much too high optempo later on, which in turn brings the Wehrmacht to a collapse much too soon.

There is no way to prioritise (what should be) scarce Logistics except via HQ buildup. However the current form is a defacto abuse by largely ignoring timeXdistanceXcarrycapacity constraints, however too expensive to be widely used.

IMO HQ buildup is a wonderful mechanism. Make the general supply situation much worse, make HQ buildup much cheaper but much less powerful, f.e. 10 hex limit from nearest Railhead-> instant simulation of having finite logistical capacity and the cost/benefits of prioritising it.

But anyway...in the meantime we have 2:1 at least partly eradicated....



pompack -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 6:24:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?


That has never stopped people from making statements before.


yes, one of the joys of this forum is the fact that lack of data does not constrain the Forumites [:D]



Ketza -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 7:26:16 PM)

I think the 1.5 changes will go along way to balancing the game. I am sure there will be more tweaks but this is a positive step. I for one am looking forward to a game as Soviets that will be more challenging and where I can spend hours and hours of time reorganizing the Soviet forces without having the Axis player surrender after 10 turns [:)]



jzardos -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 7:50:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I think the 1.5 changes will go along way to balancing the game. I am sure there will be more tweaks but this is a positive step. I for one am looking forward to a game as Soviets that will be more challenging and where I can spend hours and hours of time reorganizing the Soviet forces without having the Axis player surrender after 10 turns [:)]



Amen! [:'(]



Pipewrench -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 8:39:11 PM)

what ? kick the tires ,check under the hood, start the car but you want a test drive before forming an opinion??

heresy I say, Killjoys are not productive to the discussion at hand. A preconceived rationalization to form half-baked conclusions must be maintained.   ;)



Mehring -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 9:03:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

No, but someone might call you a sceptic. If logistics is the problem, in a complex game like this with so many inter relations, deleting an historical representation of Russian tactics won't solve the play imbalance. You don't need to try it to know it, it's entirely predictable.

Some of the changes, like the cost of fortification are steps in the right direction but we need roads, port capacity, double and single track rail, supply stockpiling to make attacking possible.



cherryfunk -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 9:58:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Some of the changes, like the cost of fortification are steps in the right direction but we need roads, port capacity, double and single track rail, supply stockpiling to make attacking possible.

But then we also need the ability to lay new rail, and distinctions between hard and dirt roads, and density of road networks, no? I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but if the logistics modeling becomes too complex the game risks becoming unplayable for some of us. That said, perhaps there are simple and intuitive ways to handle these issues, but it would take some very skillful game design to realistically model East Front logistics in a way that doesn't drive players to hair-pulling frustration...





KenchiSulla -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 10:13:26 PM)

Supply stockpiling to be able to attack sounds interesting, but you have to be careful not overmodeling this game.. Not everything can be put in you know...

Perhaps just lower the supply throughput and model the limited amount of trains on both sides would be sufficient to deal with the problem. Von Manstein describes the importance of supply and reinforcement trains in his memoirs.. You have to be careful what you wish for though..



Mehring -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 10:29:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Some of the changes, like the cost of fortification are steps in the right direction but we need roads, port capacity, double and single track rail, supply stockpiling to make attacking possible.

But then we also need the ability to lay new rail, and distinctions between hard and dirt roads, and density of road networks, no? I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but if the logistics modeling becomes too complex the game risks becoming unplayable for some of us. That said, perhaps there are simple and intuitive ways to handle these issues, but it would take some very skillful game design to realistically model East Front logistics in a way that doesn't drive players to hair-pulling frustration...



I don't know if you're familiar with the Operational Combat System (OCS), but it's a board game with, given the medium, a pretty good logistics system. It has all the disadvantages of board games but it works pretty well. One of the good things about computer games, and many aspects of this game are testament to it, is that the computer (and programer) does the hard work while gamers do the gaming. Complex calcualtions are done in seconds without bothering the player.

There's been much discussion about road type and density. Personally, I'm not for trying to replicate all the detail of the OCS road net at a game of this scale but roads were a vital feature of the operational level.

There are some features of the game which are already present but in an undeveloped way. Two examples-

The three types of supply are, potentially, a better logistics solution than the two types in OCS. But there's something wrong with its production, transport and the effects of (not) having enough of it. Attention to how this works, and in the different relations of attack and defence, could greatly improve logistics probably without adding anything radically new.

There is the mechanism for employing captured equipment but the levels at which the game does this are both ahistorically low and virtually pointless in game terms. Why have the mechanism and not use it?




BletchleyGeek -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 10:46:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?


That has never stopped people from making statements before.


Indeed. Soviet attacks with the 1:1->2:1 rule are a lottery. And I also hate attacking with 10:1 odds and suffering thousands of losses because of the extra shots Axis ground elements get at attacking Soviet ground elements.

Nonetheless, the concern about the armaments is true, but I don't think it was more true than in 1.04. If anything, now the choices are more clear cut and easier to do. Not evacuating much heavy industry hurts, but let me remind everyone that the Soviet Unit gets a fair deal of supplies and vehicles through Lend and Lease.

Anyways, to keep the tone of the thread ( although I don't agree with Marquo I appreciate the sense of humour). Even if this beta feels like having to do this

[image]http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/00618553f33c0af2931cde6339b0d135_1M.png[/image]

I think the possibilities of achieving this

[image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F8rgqQe_ZdU/TmCMpIPDsNI/AAAAAAAAHD4/i8oIR3gBkok/s1600/german-tanks-outskirts-stalingrad.jpg[/image]

and this

[image]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lonvb8tFHj1qz9tkeo1_500.jpg[/image]

are yet in the game.

Keep the games rolling!



Jakerson -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 12:20:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Food for thought: the Soviet offensive doctrine called for deep operational armor advances of 100s of miles into the enemy's rear; when have we seen this in any of the AARs? Is there one example of a Bagration-like penetration and encirclment; or anything which comes close to the performance of Operation Gallop? No - all we have seen is a slow, boring Soviet steamroller grind; which btw, maynot have enough time to reach Berlin in the time limits of the game. Some of the AARs haved shown the Axis getting drained to death on the banks of the Volga, or between the Volga and the Dnepr. This makes perfect sense to me; if the German player stands 2,000 km deep in Russia, what is supposed to happen? What changes are being made to reflect the crushing operational blows so that game does not devolve into trench warfare stalemate deep in Russia? The V 1.05 changes guarantee a boring, stagnant game.


One way to solve this could be make artillery divisions more powerful busting trough forts but make them replenish ammo more slowly.

This way Soviet can go through fortified lines faster and start exploiting faster (and more historically) but artillery divisions cannot be used with full potency very often as their ammo recover very slowly. Slow ammo recovery would limit use of artillery divisions only for few selective operations during year.

Slow ammo recovery would also limit how much soviet can use their super fort buster artillery.



glvaca -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 12:36:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring


quote:

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Some of the changes, like the cost of fortification are steps in the right direction but we need roads, port capacity, double and single track rail, supply stockpiling to make attacking possible.

But then we also need the ability to lay new rail, and distinctions between hard and dirt roads, and density of road networks, no? I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but if the logistics modeling becomes too complex the game risks becoming unplayable for some of us. That said, perhaps there are simple and intuitive ways to handle these issues, but it would take some very skillful game design to realistically model East Front logistics in a way that doesn't drive players to hair-pulling frustration...



I don't know if you're familiar with the Operational Combat System (OCS), but it's a board game with, given the medium, a pretty good logistics system. It has all the disadvantages of board games but it works pretty well. One of the good things about computer games, and many aspects of this game are testament to it, is that the computer (and programer) does the hard work while gamers do the gaming. Complex calcualtions are done in seconds without bothering the player.

There's been much discussion about road type and density. Personally, I'm not for trying to replicate all the detail of the OCS road net at a game of this scale but roads were a vital feature of the operational level.

There are some features of the game which are already present but in an undeveloped way. Two examples-

The three types of supply are, potentially, a better logistics solution than the two types in OCS. But there's something wrong with its production, transport and the effects of (not) having enough of it. Attention to how this works, and in the different relations of attack and defence, could greatly improve logistics probably without adding anything radically new.

There is the mechanism for employing captured equipment but the levels at which the game does this are both ahistorically low and virtually pointless in game terms. Why have the mechanism and not use it?




You have a lot of praise for the OCS supply system but it's not all sunshine and glory. How about having so little supply that you can't even fuel your panzer divisions for turns (3d per turn) on end. While foot can just march along when in trace supply which is also very easy to have. not very historical either.

The big difference with OCS and why, it plays so fluently versus more stagnation in WitE, is the map scale difference. For each WitE hex, you have 4 OCS hexes (15 miles versus 5km). Its just not possible to have a coherent line from the top down everywhere. To aggrevate this you are at very simular unit "order" lots of Div. and only the panzer and tank/mech and some other formations are slit in regiments and battalions. Add to this that the maximum stack per hex is slightly higher (not counting Rifle Corps) than WitE and defending is much harder in OCS.

I really don't think you can compare the two. I'd certainly buy an Empire eddition of WitE with 4 hexes per hex now [X(][&o]

Regarding the 1:2 rule, here too the scale of the game is a bit too high to accurately follow history. While the Germans certainly at times retreated before an assault of the Sovs. I haven't found any example that Panzer divisions were thrown back 15miles by a Russian attack up until September 1941. Ther eis one counter offensive in late August when Konevs 19th Army pushed back and mauled serveral Germans divisions, and beat back a counter attack by the 7th Panzer, even then they advanced only a few km.

My hunch is that perhaps it would have been better to modify the combat engine to produce more losses for the Germans at lower odds, but without retreats. But I'm certainly not complaining as things are changed now.

Let's see how it goes. About to go into one Winter with the Russians and one with the Germans, will be interesting to see it both ways.



glvaca -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 12:37:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Food for thought: the Soviet offensive doctrine called for deep operational armor advances of 100s of miles into the enemy's rear; when have we seen this in any of the AARs? Is there one example of a Bagration-like penetration and encirclment; or anything which comes close to the performance of Operation Gallop? No - all we have seen is a slow, boring Soviet steamroller grind; which btw, maynot have enough time to reach Berlin in the time limits of the game. Some of the AARs haved shown the Axis getting drained to death on the banks of the Volga, or between the Volga and the Dnepr. This makes perfect sense to me; if the German player stands 2,000 km deep in Russia, what is supposed to happen? What changes are being made to reflect the crushing operational blows so that game does not devolve into trench warfare stalemate deep in Russia? The V 1.05 changes guarantee a boring, stagnant game.


One way to solve this could be make artillery divisions more powerful busting trough forts but make them replenish ammo more slowly.

This way Soviet can go through fortified lines faster and start exploiting faster (and more historically) but artillery divisions cannot be used with full potency very often as their ammo recover very slowly. Slow ammo recovery would limit use of artillery divisions only for few selective operations during year.

Slow ammo recovery would also limit how much soviet can use their super fort buster artillery.


That is a good idea. +1
Simular to TOAW which models ,that very well. You just can't effectively fire your arty every turn in TOAW. You need to stock up.



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 1:02:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

Why should discussion be postponed? I'd be interested to see prognosis on how things will turn out, especially from the devs. Moreover, the discussion is hardly about the effects of 1:1, but rather all of the changes they've decided to make at one time, including 1:1, fortif rules, and decrease in Sov production. I think making all of these changes at once is a travesty, but let's see how it turns out.



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 1:12:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We've been testing changes to the 1:1/2:1 rule in the internal beta team for months now.

Well gee, somehow this is far less than reassuring...how long have you been testing changes to the 1:1 rule + changes to fortifs + changes to Sov production?

I mean seriously, if you're going to make these kind of massive changes to the game I have very little interest in starting a new game, because a couple-several months into it you'll change the rules and I'll need to scrap the game.



glvaca -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 1:23:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We've been testing changes to the 1:1/2:1 rule in the internal beta team for months now.

Well gee, somehow this is far less than reassuring...how long have you been testing changes to the 1:1 rule + changes to fortifs + changes to Sov production?

I mean seriously, if you're going to make these kind of massive changes to the game I have very little interest in starting a new game, because a couple-several months into it you'll change the rules and I'll need to scrap the game.


To be fair 76, a lot of people (including myself) have been asking for changes and I also play both sides. I think it really looks promising and they didn't just do this without thinking. I still wonder how supply will impact fort building for the German before winter. Far from the supply lines and the cost becomes higher and higher the higher the level. I wouldn't be surprised if that balances out again.

Also, higher forts can be build, you just need to pay AP for forts so it can be done, you'll have to be more careful though and good play will be rewarded.




CarnageINC -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 2:49:39 AM)

I'm all for these changes.  If they are too harsh on the Soviet player I do believe the developers will adjust and fire again.  Just like arty, fire short (original)...fire long (possible betas)...adjust and hit the target (finalized versions).  Make no mistake about this Matrix game, just like other Gary Grigsby games, this will have continued support for a very long time.[;)]  Let the developers experiment with the formula they get it right.



mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 3:42:28 AM)

> Marquo, you have got this exactly wrong. 1.04 promoted trench warfare in the east for both sides. This beta is designed to open things up and make it more mobile...on both sides.

Okay; time will tell. Hard to see how neutering the Soviets and strengthening the Axis will make things more mobile. The AARs showing slugfests on the Volga are humorous; of course the Axis player is going to get bled to death in that manner.



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 3:52:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Well gee, somehow this is far less than reassuring...how long have you been testing changes to the 1:1 rule + changes to fortifs + changes to Sov production?

I mean seriously, if you're going to make these kind of massive changes to the game I have very little interest in starting a new game, because a couple-several months into it you'll change the rules and I'll need to scrap the game.


You're certainly welcome to stay with the official version, but if you strongly disagree with these changes on paper, my best advice to you is to try them out in the game. Within a complex system, it's very hard to judge how things will interact purely in theory. We will be watching the public beta feedback and results and making further adjustments as necessary. The consensus on the development team is that these changes (yes, all of them in combination) are for the better, though we want to make sure we have enough testing and that the balance is where it should be before 1.05 becomes official.

Regards,

- Erik



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.421875