Simple Fix for German Raiding (Full Version)

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



Message

DicedT -> Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 2:35:53 PM)

There is a serious problem with the HQ buildup/Soviet factory evacuation dynamic. As it stands, the Germans only need to move a single panzer regiment next to Kharkov or Stalino to pin down 50 factories. They don't need to take the city. Just stay adjacent for a turn until reinforcements arrive. So the Germans have every incentive to buildup and send the tanks out on totally ahistorical factory-hunting expeditions.

So here is a simple solution. Allow Soviet factories to be evacuated even if German units are adjacent to the city. If the Germans want the factories, they will have to cut the rail lines. They can do this, especially with HQ buildup. But they will have to work a little harder than sending a lone panzer division on a raid. For the Soviets, this would lead to more realistic play. They would have an incentive to fight to keep factory cities from being encircled as long as possible.



jaw -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 3:14:26 PM)

Let's see we have an unrealistic rule (HQ Buildup) which leads to unrealistic tactics (panzer raid) and the solution is to change a realistic rule (can't evacuate factories if enemy is besieging you). Am I the only one that sees a problem with that?



DicedT -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 3:17:41 PM)

Let me get this straight. Moving a single panzer regiment next to Stalingrad means that the entire city is besieged?



76mm -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 3:56:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

Let me get this straight. Moving a single panzer regiment next to Stalingrad means that the entire city is besieged?


I guess it depends on your definition of besieged. It does mean that you can't move factories out...



DicedT -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 4:23:16 PM)

A city is not besieged just because a German armored car appears 10 miles away.

In the real world, cities are besieged when the attacker cuts the routes into and out of the city. In WITE, all you need to do is move adjacent. That doesn't make any sense, and it leads to bizarre game play. Let's fight like hell to stick a panzer division out of supply just to keep the Soviets from evacuating. Let's set the Soviet defense lines up not to keep cities from being encircled, but to keep a lone panzer division from moving adjacent to the factories.



Flaviusx -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 4:35:10 PM)

I don't think this goes far enough, but it's a real point. The inability to rail factories from a city that is merely placed in zoc surely encourages raids.




PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 4:41:41 PM)

I agree. I dislike the whole "we need to do this in order to have a chance" sort of play. Hell, just make HQ buildup not allowed until turn 10, quadruple the AP cost, and make the number of trucks that get lose actually mean something. Then lets see the raids.



JAMiAM -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 5:01:13 PM)

How about defending in depth, with rear cities garrisoned by something of substance and with deep strategic reserves that can move in, and stomp the raiders? It's not that hard to rout away a strung out Pz Division, if you keep reserves about. Do that a few times and you'll likely get the raiding Hun to change back to a more sustainable and realistic form of play.



Flaviusx -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 5:05:00 PM)

Yeah, I drop a division on pretty much any city within 15 hexes of the front.




DicedT -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 5:32:21 PM)

It's not garrisoning the city that's the problem. It's garrisoning the six hexes adjacent to it. We're talking here about significant forces needed to keep a panzer regiment from halting evacuation. Defend in depth? You can't defend in depth everywhere. The Germans don't need to achieve a massive breakthrough. Just enough of a penetration to get a unit adjacent to a factory city until reinforcements arrive.

Counterattacking panzer raiders is easy? Not in my experience. But even if true, it's the threat of factory busting that helps distort the game. Instead of concentrating on forming sensible defense lines in depth, the Soviets have to worry about a couple of raiders popping up next to Kharkov. Counterattack the raiders? Sure, let's rearrange the entire Soviet defense system to muster a counterattack to save the factories.



lastdingo -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 5:53:24 PM)

I'm sorry, but I saw factories being evacuated by AI when I had entirely surrounded Kharkov - all six neighbouring hexes had 1-3 German divisions. The Soviet AI still evacuated the tank factory and all else.

I say THAT is a bug that cries out loud for a fix!



heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 6:15:43 PM)

Once again, the Soviet fanbois want the German to be limited to what he accomplished in history, while the Soviet fanboi player gets complete benefit of history to avoid his side's mistakes (C&C, can put any leader he wants anywhere, can build any support units he wants at any time, can overwhelm the German air force with bi-planes).

To some of you fanbois, it seems as though it's not enough that the German is doomed to lose: It's not enough until the guy playing the German isn't having any fun playing.

HQ buildup is the ONLY strategic tool in Germany's arsenal (AND it's available to the Soviet in the EXACT same form). Neuter it, and you'd better be neutering something SERIOUS on the Soviet side, else you're just throwing dirt in people's eyes who want to enjoy playing the losing side.

How about this:
You get to evacuate factories according to their historical timetable, and nothing else. Then you can neuter HQ buildup.



Pawlock -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 6:35:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Once again, the Soviet fanbois want the German to be limited to what he accomplished in history, while the Soviet fanboi player gets complete benefit of history to avoid his side's mistakes (C&C, can put any leader he wants anywhere, can build any support units he wants at any time, can overwhelm the German air force with bi-planes).

To some of you fanbois, it seems as though it's not enough that the German is doomed to lose: It's not enough until the guy playing the German isn't having any fun playing.

HQ buildup is the ONLY strategic tool in Germany's arsenal (AND it's available to the Soviet in the EXACT same form). Neuter it, and you'd better be neutering something SERIOUS on the Soviet side, else you're just throwing dirt in people's eyes who want to enjoy playing the losing side.

How about this:
You get to evacuate factories according to their historical timetable, and nothing else. Then you can neuter HQ buildup.



And once again one of the more vocal Axis fanboys are whining, oh wait what a suprise.

Lemme see, apart from a small fix to HQ b/up recently , and by recently most patches for want of a better word have been nerfing Soviets, blizzard rules, factory evac doubling, fort restrictions, armaments modifiers, 2:1 rule moral changes to name but a few. Seems like us soviet fanboys are getting it all our own way[8|] If HQ buildup is being gamed it needs looking at.
As for soviets using hq b/up, you show your naivity by even suggesting soviets could use it. In the real world no soviet player could use it until perhap 44 onwards when they have trucks.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 6:44:27 PM)

I admit it, I am a soviet fanboy. That is why I play so poorly as the Axis.



Pawlock -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 6:53:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I admit it, I am a soviet fanboy. That is why I play so poorly as the Axis.



I think most people would argue against that, not many people create the mega Kiev pocket you did on me.



KenchiSulla -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 7:20:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

How about this:
You get to evacuate factories according to their historical timetable, and nothing else. Then you can neuter HQ buildup.



The issue with that is that the axis player doesn't have to play by timetable... And you would know when what can be evacuated.

The nature of the problem is more complex. People are creative and are constantly trying to find a way to win. Take away HQ buildup and the soviets would gain the upperhand.. Limit evacuating and the axis will crush the soviet rifle divisions up 1943 because they don't have heavy weapons..

You guys are discussing balancing issues with the 1.05 beta being a newborn... Play more turns before you make up your mind..



heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 7:55:16 PM)

I use the word fanboi because that's what everyone accused me of being for the German side when I advocated for balancing. I play both sides, and I'm undefeated as the Soviet in 5 campaigns. The 1.04 game was so horrifically lop-sided that it defied credulity, and thus, it was changed- changed massively- because the Soviets were able to milk so much ahistoric leverage out of the game mechanics. The only games that looked close to historical were games where an experienced German player took on an inexperienced Soviet player.

I remain on the fence regarding the armament point multiplier possibly being too severe, but we shall see in time. The rest of the changes were in fact long overdue, and the Soviet fanbois became weaker players because it took so long to balance things for playability. Maybe the root cause of Soviet whining is that they became atrophied from such an easy game, and the whining is a logical extension of acquired weakness of thought.

The Soviet side had every single game mechanic stacked in his favor starting on turn 18, and in fact, still does. The German gets 17-24 turns to do something regarding factories, and then there's nothing more he can do on factories for the rest of the game.

The German gets weaker every turn after t1, the Soviet gets stronger, yet still, the German is too powerful! German players were ROUTINELY surrendering prior to the historical start of Case Blue, and now that there is re-balancing to address that, fanboi-babies act like the German can reach Vladivostok on T5.

Before ANYONE waits to see how the macro game plays out, now we have Soviet whiners, who already have EVERYTHING stacked in their favor compared to the mechanics the Axis face, complaining that there pwecious factowies can actually be fixed in place so they can be captured.

Human beings respond to incentives. WitE has only 3 incentives for Axis gameplay.
1) Take Leningrad to survive the winter in the North via Fins.
2) Kill or capture 3.5 million Soviets by blizzard to avoid horrific blizzard counter-attacks.
3) Destroy X number of factories of armament points (since the mathematics prove nothing else matters in production, long term) in order to slow down the growth rate of the Soviet army over the next 100 turns or so. X used to be 100, and now X is unknown given the new factory multiplier.

If you're going to take something away from the Axis side (like HQ buildup), you have to either give an incentive, or also remove something from the Soviet side.

I simply cannot believe the oleaginous thought-processes of Soviet fanbois. Anything the German player can do that can hurt the Soviet side they want to be removed from the game (except combat, apparently).

The Soviet fanboi attitude is ruining this title. Such a sense of entitlement- they act as though there's nothing they should have to EARN for their side. So many act as though the game should simply beat the Germans without them having to do anything.

I'm aware of Pelton's novel approach and how problematic it can be, but to remove HQ buildup entirely, or to give the Soviet even MORE freedom to pack up shop and move stuff east, this is a solution that destroys German fun, and I am an unashamed advocate that German players deserve to have a game that is fun to play.

Soviet fanbois do not think of the impact their wild ideas will have on German players - your own actual opponents. How many of you are aware that if the Soviet has a ZOC anywhere along an axis rail line, an FBD unit cannot repair anywhere past that Soviet ZOC along that line? Even if a friendly unit is on that ZOC hex, AND the FBD unit is 5 hexes from the ZOC and surrounded entirely by friendly territory/units. This is the same issue in action for your side, with a far larger impact on the axis. Hold up my FBD unit by a turn and you've restricted my geographical advance by 5 full hexes, which, over time, compounds into a major problem.

You're asking that it be REQUIRED for the German to either entirely surround a city, or to take it in direct combat, in order to be able to keep a factory from being relocated. You are asking that the German advance panzer thrust have no relevant impact at all on your strategic planning. For god's sake, listen to yourselves!








Flaviusx -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 8:06:00 PM)

Nobody is suggesting that buildups be removed from the game entirely. I have not. I think it needs to adjusted somehow, which is a very different thing altogether. This hysterical ostrich defense of it in its present form is dishonest and unconstructive. Axis players would do themselves more favors here recognizing that it's extremely problematic and coming up with good ideas of how to tame it.






heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 8:15:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Nobody is suggesting that buildups be removed from the game entirely. I have not. I think it needs to adjusted somehow, which is a very different thing altogether. This hysterical ostrich defense of it in its present form is dishonest and unconstructive. Axis players would do themselves more favors here recognizing that it's extremely problematic and coming up with good ideas of how to tame it.





Agreed.

Pelton's creativity exposes something that is unfun for the Soviet player to have to deal with (and a-historic on a scale that I believe is not justified by the 'aggregation of play aspects'). Giving the Soviet player more flexibility that the German will not share is not an answer (speaking to Factory re-locations from ZOCs). Removing a German operational tool (Buildup) is not the answer.

I think fixes might be something akin to these:
-HQ buildup requires all corps(Army for Soviet) units to remain stationary for the entire turn.
-HQ buildup must be done as the first thing on your turn
-HQ buildup can only be used once per Army/Panzer Gruppe (Front for Soviet) per turn.
-Divisions/regiments that change HQ are not eligible for HQ buildup during the turn they change HQ.

The goal needs to be to fix ONLY what's broken.

HQ buildup is an awesome tool that gives the German (I've never used it as Soviet) tremendous ability to change his operational emphasis (or maximize it, if it's consistent) between turns. In a game where the Soviet has a much easier time avoiding disasters than his historical predecessor, it is essential that the German have some ability to create an operational feint.

Soviet players have to understand that Armament Factories are 1 of the 3 incentives that the Axis has to emphasize: You must emphasize your defense around them as well. It should be difficult to prioritize, and there should be consequence for failure to do so.



Flaviusx -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 8:23:33 PM)

I've used it as the Sov, but never before late 1943. And the Soviet truck situation is such that it must be used sparingly even if you've got the APs to burn, something which doesn't happen until late in the game.

The Red Army is driven differently than the Wehrmacht anyways -- it's the artillery divisions and rifle corps that are the real backbone of the army, and getting too far ahead of these with your mobile units is asking for trouble, German mobile reserves will punish you. I remember Bob's infamous rescue of 1. Panzer Army back in testing days quite vividly...




Mehring -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 8:58:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

Let's see we have an unrealistic rule (HQ Buildup) which leads to unrealistic tactics (panzer raid) and the solution is to change a realistic rule (can't evacuate factories if enemy is besieging you).

Yes.
Yes.
Methodically yes, but in this particular case, no.

While I strongly disagree that a tank regiment adjacent to a city should prevent evacuation, what you're bringing to light is is a grossly mistaken approach to making good wargames, or anything built to last- pragmatism. The problem here is HQ buildup. Why not reduce the movement allowance for tank regiments to solve the problem? Because very obviously this will create problems elsewhere, but the same goes for any solution that doesn't go to the root of the problem. You solve one issue and a whole load more crop up elsewhere.

Yes, Flaviusx, I'm suggesting get rid of HQ buildup completely. Its a grotesque fudge and excuse for a proper logistics simulation. Make this game system last and grow by getting to the essence of the problem. Logistics isn't working.



Farfarer61 -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 9:12:00 PM)

Leave it and let the German exploit it all he/she wants. Its a game, so everyone wants a chance at Decisive Victory. I tried the "Pelton Tactic" and you can actually time it wrong, achieve little and burn your trucks for nothing. Remember that your alter ego playing 12Oclockhigh/BTR (which I play) has hammered flat all those vehicle factories in the West. If you want to see why the German should NOT burn trucks, try playing the excellent Keke 1943 GC mod. Against the AI you can decide to shift your Panzers anywhere - Leningrad, Kuban or try Citadelle and have great fun. Unfortunately you have no supply after your marvellous operational breakthroughs as some bastage used up all your trucks in 1941 ;)



heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/16/2011 9:36:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

Leave it and let the German exploit it all he/she wants. Its a game, so everyone wants a chance at Decisive Victory. I tried the "Pelton Tactic" and you can actually time it wrong, achieve little and burn your trucks for nothing.


This is an under-appreciated aspect of any particular tactic, and especially of HQ Buildup.
You can screw it up two ways. You can be out of position where you can't use it when it's needed. Or you can use it when it didn't do you much good (enemy in the way that you didn't see, failed in a deliberate attack, etc.).

You don't see the times when these 2 mistakes happen on the German side. Pelton is obviously exceptionally good at 5-turns-ahead movement of his entire AGS. Not many people are that good (anyone?). True, if his strategem works, it will be replicated in time(thus, why I'm in favor of restricting Buildup in some minimalist fashion).

I don't personally do this with Buildup. But when I do use Buildup, I generally get something amazing to happen. And that's what Soviet players are remembering: all the successes their German opponent had with Buildup. The failures are generally overlooked completely, same with the massive truck attrition.

I know that when I have a great success with Buildup, it is because I was tracking my opponent's habits and figuring out how to exploit them with maneuver warfare, and I had to plan timing correctly AND rail distance correctly, several turns in advance.

This is another reason why I advocate playing both sides of the 1941 GCs. What looks like magic to one side is the product of hard work, good admin, hard-won experience with the game engine, and one player's patience and good analysis.(*)

(*)Except the Soviet side, which has 1 iwinbutton and a bunch of failsafes in case something goes wrong with it.(**)

(**) I kid.



Peltonx -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/17/2011 3:31:40 AM)

The problem with the game and has been stated 1000+ times is there is zero reason for the russian player to fight.

HQ buildup can be removed, but then the game simply becomes the russian player doing Hilly Billy tactics and running for hills. Every single arm pt will be evaced other then Minsk. Very very boring game. As Tarhunnas has put it why as the german do I bother advancing if I will acheive nothing?

Their is no reason to fight. Russian players simply run game after game, yes woot totally historical- they do not have to fight. There is way to much baby sitting going on for the Russian side at this point.

As you know Flavousx the germans cant advance faster then railheads. Its a cake walk to evac factorys, thats the only reason at this point for the german player to advance. Citys mean nothing. HVY,Manpower, factorys zip. They have no real effect on the game.

The over all factory/HQ build up needs to be fixed, NONE of it is historical or realistic.

Like the Russians could move a T-34 factory in a week, 100,000 troops and a bunch of supplys to the front, lol get real.

Fixes:

1. German HQ's withen 25 hexes get more supplies, there by totaly removing HQ build up from game. Increase supplys as per they are now.
2. Russian rail is about 200% over powered. Lock production in plase or make moving them allot harder. Its a joke at this point what can be railed around in 7 days.

The rail system is as big of a flying pig rule as tank being 200 miles from a railhead then advances another 100 miles the next turn.

Don't make me start posting pictures of pigs driving tanks 300 miles from railheads of pigs dismantling factors and driving trains.

Don't get me wrong I think 1.05 was a huge step in right direction, but someone on the dev team needs to get out a gun and start killing off these flying pig rules that have zero place in a historical game.

I lov playing and will be for yrs to come, because I know at some point they get it right.

I hope these "rules" do not make there way into the new games you guys are working on.

The good or bad press will come from these very forums on your next projects.

Lets all hope 1.06 fixes the logistic issues that are now the major things that need to be addressed.

Keep up good work.

Pelton




Flaviusx -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/17/2011 3:49:30 AM)

Pelton, the only way you can get all the armament points out is if you totally ignore HI and do bare minimum afv/plane evacs. And dedicate 100k+ rail cap each and every turn from turn 3 onwards.

In other words, stuff is going to burn.

I totally disagree with you about Soviet runaways. I absolutely despise running away. It is your raiding style which is promoting Soviet runaways. Play differently, and then maybe you'll see Soviet players fighting you up front -- and maybe you can sucker them into making pockets. You are stuck on this factory raiding business, and it is by no means the only way to play the game. It may not even be the most effective way to play it.

If I can stand and make a fight of it, I'll do it. You can't ignore the manpower now, btw, the 42 multiplier for that has been reduced.

Ask James how much and how often I counterattack. Perhaps even to a fault. But against you, everything has to be tailored to this one trick pony of raids. What you are seeing is a direct consequence of the way you play. Change it up.



Ketza -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/17/2011 4:40:26 AM)

I have found that HQ buildup raid success typically hinges upon under garrisoned or not garrisoned at all cities.

In all my Soviet games I have never had a problem with raids or have I had an issue with losing factories. I think its because I defend against it.



JAMiAM -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/17/2011 4:54:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Ask James how much and how often I counterattack. Perhaps even to a fault. But against you, everything has to be tailored to this one trick pony of raids. What you are seeing is a direct consequence of the way you play. Change it up.

If I don't see at least a half-million Soviets throw themselves against my spearheads each turn, I seriously begin to start worrying about Flavio...[;)]

The point of adapting playstyles, offensively and defensively, to counter opponent-specific playstyles should not be neglected here. Most players have a fairly distinct method of play. An adept player, after a time or two, playing, or studiously observing AARs, can get a feel for their opponent's playstyle, and use the tools within the program to counter.

Personally, I think that the best counter to Pelton's style is something different from what Flavio shows in his screenshot in the HQ Buildup thread in the War Room. Then again, Flavio may be keeping some techniques "in reserve" that will later become active as the game develops. Myself, I would alternate between (redacted) and (redacted) depending on what the railhead distances are and what my recon of the approach axes of the "Pelton Spear Points" reveals.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/17/2011 5:03:06 AM)

I have been known in the past for lots of pockets. I suppose that is how I play. I am not the deep threat (well, I did some against Cpt Flam, but that was because he waited to evac Stalino and I went for it), but instead I concentrate on killing units. In those games I have done well, and yes skeptics, against rather good players I have managed well over 3m russian killed, the winter has been ok. The real problems in 1942 were more the level of fortifications and the size of the Soviet armies, again addressed (we shall see if too much) in 1.05. The caveat is that I have also failed miserably...c'est la guerre.

I am not the best player, but it is is important to remember that a different strategy can and will yield different results. The gaming of buildup will end up with changing of the rules - because it is not realistic to do the HQ swap or what have you. Not just not realistic, but against the basic thrust of the game as I see it.

In the end, it is good to see those who figure out how to push the rules, not to say "let's play that way" but rather in how it might need to be changed.

(note - all opinions in this post are as I see it. They do not reflect anything other than my meglamania.)



Klydon -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/17/2011 2:23:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, the only way you can get all the armament points out is if you totally ignore HI and do bare minimum afv/plane evacs. And dedicate 100k+ rail cap each and every turn from turn 3 onwards.

In other words, stuff is going to burn.

I totally disagree with you about Soviet runaways. I absolutely despise running away. It is your raiding style which is promoting Soviet runaways. Play differently, and then maybe you'll see Soviet players fighting you up front -- and maybe you can sucker them into making pockets. You are stuck on this factory raiding business, and it is by no means the only way to play the game. It may not even be the most effective way to play it.

If I can stand and make a fight of it, I'll do it. You can't ignore the manpower now, btw, the 42 multiplier for that has been reduced.

Ask James how much and how often I counterattack. Perhaps even to a fault. But against you, everything has to be tailored to this one trick pony of raids. What you are seeing is a direct consequence of the way you play. Change it up.


Couple points here:

First, I agree that with the changes, more industry will likely burn unless the Russians make more of a stand than they have been in most AAR's.

Flaviusx, while your position on the Sir Robin defense is well known, the fact is the vast majority of the Russian players do in fact run for the hills. I do not expect them to allow themselves to be encircled if they can help it, but the vast majority of Russian players absolutely fear seeing a lot of troops being surrounded that is not on level with the actual capability of the Germans in many cases. They feel they can preserve as much of their army as possible for the big winter offensive and in past versions, they can easily survive losing what industry they lose. The lack of garrisions in the rear cities is also disturbing as well in many AAR's.

The short version is they were running before Pelton showed up and they have been running after he showed up, so to say the Russians have changed tactics in response to what Pelton has done is not correct imo.

What I am hopeful of is that the 1.05 games in progress will show the community it is in fact the Russians who must change tactics and get rid of the runaway as a pat Russian defense that occurs in 80+% of the AARs if the Russians hope to preserve enough industry in order to continue the war and come back with an eventual win. My concern is the downside of running away is not immediately apparent and it will continue for some time.

I play both sides, so I don't have an ax to grind one way or another here except for the desire to see a better overall game and I think 1.05 is a great step in that direction. I also heartily recommend players sample both sides in order to gain a better appreciation of the issues facing a particular side.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple Fix for German Raiding (9/17/2011 3:06:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

What I am hopeful of is that the 1.05 games in progress will show the community it is in fact the Russians who must change tactics and get rid of the runaway as a pat Russian defense that occurs in 80+% of the AARs if the Russians hope to preserve enough industry in order to continue the war and come back with an eventual win. My concern is the downside of running away is not immediately apparent and it will continue for some time.

I play both sides, so I don't have an ax to grind one way or another here except for the desire to see a better overall game and I think 1.05 is a great step in that direction. I also heartily recommend players sample both sides in order to gain a better appreciation of the issues facing a particular side.


Seconded.

My chief concern with 1.05 is the issue with how long it will take the playing community to recognize that the Soviets can't simply run to the Volkhov/Rzhev-Rzhev/Kiev-Kiev/D-town 'unofficial Soviet start line'.

The Soviet community MUST start to anticipate how losing industry in 1941 is going to affect their 1942 & their 1943 armies. Not knowing how the testing of 1.05 went, I'd argue we could really use some tester input on what to expect, because Soviet play is about to undergo radical forced evolution (which was required for the good of the game), and most Soviet players aren't going to understand how different 1942 will look until games get to 1942.

If they screw up the anticipation of 1.05 outcomes based on industry loss/forts/AP loss (from having to build forts meaning they can't build as many new units), they could end up feeling unable to compete, and we could see a lot of complaining that 1.05 is a bad patch.

I have a fear that Soviet play is so akin to EasyMode (deal with it; Soviet is much more forgiving of mistakes than Axis) that the exclusive-Soviet-side players are going to come back to the forum and complain about how they are hopelessly neutered by 1.05 without ever having tried to evolve their pre-set notions about Soviet strategic tradeoffs, and the tactics they require. I'd hate to see future patches swing back against the Axis because the Soviet side's accumulated wisdom for that side's game play toolbox isn't actually that robust.

That being said, I am concerned for the Soviet side regarding the future unknown of the Armament Point multiplier (it may or may not be too severe and we won't know until new games reach 42). I'm also concerned although less so, with the loss of AP Soviets will face for fort creation.

Just as I hated being a Soviet player when a German resigned on Turn 25 or whatnot, I will not enjoy getting into late 1942 only to have a Soviet resign because he can't equip enough divisions with rifles or guns.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625