|
heliodorus04 -> RE: Will you keep playing after this patch? (2/12/2012 7:10:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 76mm
quote:
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
This is a game where Germany has no chance at improving on its historical performance.
eh? I think we're playing different games. I'm not sure when you played this game last, or if you read any AARs, but to say that since 1.05 (if not from the beginning) Germany has no chance at improving on its historical performance is rather funny.
When last I played a few months ago, the only exceptional performance seen by Germany (Lvov pocket and the first 6 turns excepted) were the result of the 1942 weather changes and the over-aggressive morale nerf to the 1942 Soviet. Those are now adjusted in the Soviet's favor (which is to say is probably more historically realistic).
I don't know of a single AAR in which Germany outperforms history through to 1945, though I haven't read AARs in a long time, having given up any hope of extracting fun playing Germany myself over the super-brigades and Soviet admin superiority. The super-brigades problem just got much, much worse. Frankly, to me the game will never play accurately while the Soviets can field brigades that by themselves can effectively delay panzer corps. Soviets should not be allowed to field brigades on the map, but only as SUs.
The Admin Superiority issue is only half-handled by the CP reduction; Soviets were brought down in line with history. Germany still has nowhere near the administrative organizational capability it had historically. Germany continues to be railed to the historic 'glide slope' (see below).
I've been re-reading some Barbarossa divisional accounts (particularly Totenkopf by Charles Trang - there's a gratutious 'I read history books too' reference for those who find them necessary) and it's rather amazing how easily the Germans switched divisions from Korps to Army, and in between korps as necessary. This superiority is what cost France the war in 1940. Indeed, the whole point of having korps-level commands was for operational flexibility, and for units to go from front to reserve, and to be moved between korps when logistical distances between commands required it.
But today, in WITE still the Soviet has a greater ability to move divisional sized units between commands than Germany... AND has thusly to spend fewer AP on leadership changes, since it's often more cost effective to move 10 divisions (5 into your good leadership Army HQ, and 5 out into a reserve Army HQ for passive refit), costing about 10 AP, than it is to switch commanders (and it is more operationally useful in game terms to move fresh divisions in with a good commander than to move fresh divisions into combat with a mediocre commander).
The Soviets get still too much for free and/or without strategic tradeoff (to give two examples: 1) no need to move heavy industry, vehicle, etc. factories, and no reduction in Soviet rail capacity to make up for this advantage that only hindsight gives to WitE Soviet commanders; 2) No need to build the inferior 42a and 42b Rifle Corps because those formations are inefficient compared to divisions in the same time period, and even when seeing Soviets play this way, there is no adjustment to Soviet AP (downward) to make up for this efficiency gain that only historical hindsight gives to WitE Soviet commanders.
Meanwhile, Germany had too much advantage when Blizzard changed to Snow, and that's nipped in the bud. Can't have Germany doing TOO well... threatens Soviets for some reason... (nevertheless, this is a good change for realism, but Sovi-o-philes only advocate realism when it benefits them/hurts Germany, and not vice versa - see above).
Meanwhile, Germany had some advantages in its logistics network, and that is adjusted downward. Can't have Germany doing TOO well... threatens Soviets for some reason... (this is a bad change for the game)
Over and over and over again, the Soviets get to keep the advantages of hindsight with no downward adjustment of strategic capabilities resulting in a Soviet Army in 1942/43 that STAVKA would have literally ejaculated to possess.
Against which, no matter how well Germany survives the winter of 41/42, it's national morale is going to take a significant hit that accelerates regression to the mean, immediately and without question, in January 1942.
Germany must always withdraw HQs and critical divisions by specific name, often stripping the German player of units that through no fault of his own (lucky die rolls) became the center-pieces of his ability to convert terrain quickly and maintain a 1942 or 1943 offensive stance.
Germany is ALWAYS held within a glide slope that gets narrower and narrower until Germany crashes. In aviation, a glide slope is a 3-dimensional cone that steers an aircraft toward the point in space where the runway converges with the its flight path in a way that it is oriented to land. Germany starts 1941 at the open end, and the game forces it downward and into narrower dimensional space with each step forward in time and space.
The glide slope is the metaphor for German gameplay. You start 1941 at the most distant point, but no matter what you do, your pathway to 1945 is fixed for you, and gets narrower and narrower, no matter how you play, how your opponent plays, as time moves toward 1944. It ends with the German army in exactly the position it needs to be in for a Bagration type offensive to shatter it irrevocably.
It is true that some German AARs prove Germany can score a victory. Occasionally a Soviet player bets the farm without knowing it (allowing a super-major encirclement by not paying attention to German Buildup possibilities), or a new player gets beaten.
And certainly I welcome criticism of my gameplay, but let me emphasize this: I am not a dumb person and I am not a person inexperienced in the many facets of land combat on the eastern front from 1941 to 1945. I was never able to get out of 1942 in a way that looked like it was going to be a fun game to play from that point forward (because a Case Blue style offensive is simply stupid to conduct as Germany in this game, due to the constraints Germany is under).
Moreover, I never got to June 1942 in a game where I played Soviets (albeit I abandoned my last game as Soviet). I never came close to feeling threatened as a Soviet player in all but my first game. I never lost as Soviet, and I never had to work as hard as the Soviet side compared to how ungodly hard I had to work to get everything right playing Germany.
I've played the same number of boardgame and computer game East-Front simulations as most of you. I'm as well read as most of you.
If it's this hard to figure out for me, then it's too complicated, because I put in my work, my research, and my repetitions of play. I've drawn out for you my analysis of the game and there are the flaws I, and many like me, see in it. I yelled and screamed and turned blue in the face to get listened to, and occasionally I got angry.
Eventually, one recognizes that what I call the Sovie-o-phile group of players (no disrespect intended) IS the target market for the game, and it would appear, you are the people who strongly identify with the Matrix brand. You guys want a best-case Soviet defense to go against a historic German offense. The results are too predictable for me, but you guys like it, and all my reasonable attempts to persuade you failed. I didn't like the direction I was going with unreasonable attempts to persuade you. Reasonable people must agree to disagree.
I disagree that WitE is the best ever simulation of eastern front warfare 1941-to-1945. I can think of a number of cardboard counter games that were superior, some more simple (Russian Front), some equal in complexity (Fire in the East/Scorched Earth, et al.). Gary Grigsby's War in the East failed to deliver on the most replete collection of data ever used in a wargame. It's not fun to play either side for me.
You're welcome to disagree. Nothing we say seems to be able to pursuade one another. I speak for a relatively small cadre of wargamers who wanted what I wanted: a game with an equal chance for both sides to score a meaningful victory. Germany has no chance to score one, and I find the Soviet victory completely without meaning...
"Adieu, adieu, remember me..."
|
|
|
|
