|
janh -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/23/2011 10:58:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pelton
The German player are smarter then the Germans at the time just like the Russians. Why to hell is it dam ok for the Russians to screw around with history, but bad when Germans do?
The Germans do as much as the Soviets -- you have pretty much have no worries about absurd orders ("brainfarts" I'd almost have said...) coming from Hitler, for example forcing the German player to halt value Inf or even Armored Divisions in stronghold like Smolensk or such, which are evident to be surrounded by the Russians soon and sure to be lost. Image the game would give you such orders, and require you to watch a few of your divs to be pocketed in 44 and 45 at random? Fortunately that isn't there (though I don't say it wouldN'T add to increase the historic accuracy).
Anyway, the Russians have lost some of their "freebies" like the 2:1 and some perhaps initially overestimated production. The developers try to get the game right, for the right reason. It is an iterative process, sometimes slow as other side-effects need to be watches and adjusted, but as far as I know Matrix and G&G games by know, they are not going to cut support until that is achieved satisfactorily. The thing that makes them different is that they are listening to their customers, and eventually will incorporate one or the other wish from the wishlist. Yet I am not sure whether they keep reading if a thread turns into ranting, or in circles.
Just arguing that the Lvov pocket needs to remain because the Germans are otherwise too much disadvantaged, and balance would be better, would be accepting one shortfall to fix another. At present, it is a total freebie to the Germans as pretty much nothing can go wrong: huge gains with no risk. It is quite a "no-brainer" (aside from failing to copy the moves from Klydon), and not an achievement by a German player, rather a free present of the game design.
That brings me to 76mm's second point: if the Russian opponents tend to withdraw too fast, it is either a good feature and freedom of the game to allow you to test its military sensibleness (which some advanced testers have already stated that it will hurt in the long run), and that also allows the Germans in the later campaign years or blizzards to use such withdrawals/"winter quarters in Poland", or alternatively, it could be countered with some additional rules. I need to say, though, that in some recent 1.05 AARs it doesn't look as if the Russians perform their bug-out as quickly any more, it rather appears a slow fighting withdrawal. If you really wanted to fix the Russian forward and force him to fight for each city until losses will be critical, and want to force Soviets to allow their forces to be trapped in huge pockets, then in all logical consequence (and fairness), I would feel that the German should be forced to hold strongholds with value divisions, even if militarily equally stupid. I'd doubt anyone would favor this, unless as an optional rule.
For the idea of additional rules, I recall that Q-Ball (or was it Cannonfodder?) suggested that VP points for holding cities on a per turn basis, maybe even skewed upward for the more forward cities for the initial turns in 7 and 8/41, would be an incentive to hold on to them as long as possible. Another idea would be coupling the national morale to retreat speed, i.e. if certain cities fall to early (say Kiev before turn 12), the national morale is reduced a bid, and if the places hold longer, if is upped. Both are a significant changes, though, and especially the latter could lead to more balance issues through side effects, though it sounds a lot more dynamic and might represent the peoples mood.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 76mm
2) I agree that one of the problems with the game is that the Russians have no incentive to defend to the West, and a too-perfect ability to retreat out of the way of the panzers. Does anyone really think that the Sovs could retreat without any thought of defending the Motherland? Politcally impossible, even if militarily justifiable. Does anyone really think that such considerations are not important?!
PS. Important typo corrected...
|
|
|
|
