RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (Full Version)

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



Message

Flaviusx -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 11:43:42 AM)

Savanniperkele, it is actually possible to manage Pelton's raids without this sort of thing. (The really scary guys are the grinders, and they're playing it straight.)

You're right that he (and others, Micheal T comes to mind here) are severely gaming the supply system of the game and doing a lot of impossible things. You could say that this para drop is rough justice from that standpoint. I'd rather not go down that route.

Eventually logistics is going to need a second look...as is the silly way the game handles HQ buildups. This is not an easy thing to fix. This para drop thing, however, is easy to fix, and two wrongs don't make a right.






whollaborg -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 1:34:48 PM)

Good answer Flaviusx and I do agree with all that the supply system has a flaw.

Perhaps we could conjure a house rule with Pelton to restrict paradrops to 200 miles from the front line or so as well, if he agrees.



Michael T -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 2:58:07 PM)

You know Flav no matter what logistics system you come up with there will be players who can squeeze more juice out of it than others.

I thought of this para ploy yonks ago and did several trials with it. But in the end I thought if I do that my opponent would scream 'blue murder' and quit. I wouldn't blame him either. In the end I thought there is no way I would tolerate this being done to me so I left it alone. I am a bit surprised it took this long to surface. Now that its out there I won't play a game without a house rule limiting it.



AFV -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 3:32:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

I find it ridiculous as hell anyone would defend a Soviet para drop 500 miles in.


No one has defended a 'para drop 500 miles in'.
But I don't support removing from the game the types of drops that actually happened.

quote:

Its really irrelevant of what the German player did or didn't do with his rail line.


Actually, it's not. Had there been any redundancy, the move would have been moot and not occurred. Pelton eschewed redundancy for distance. Why should that have no risk?

Here's a look at my PBEM opponents southern rail net on turn 15. Note how he doesn't lack the rear area interconnects that Pelton needs.
I think all of those are performed by the subunit FBDs. Why doesn't Pelton have them? Is he keeping his HHQs too close to the front (perhaps to garner the command range modifier advantage conferred?)?

[img]http://s16.postimage.org/ai57nfrqp/Supply_grid_015_axis_south.jpg[/img]

I believe the devs should create a degree of randomness based on the distance for para drops, as navigation was nowhere near as precise as the current setup permits. At long distances the troops would be more likely to land in any hex but the one they targeted.

The airborne can't be moved once dropped, so this would neatly solve the issue he encountered, and he can keep up his rail building without nearly as high a risk (just partisans).


I will try and type slower for you.
Regardless of what Pelton did, or didnt do- there should be no way that the game allows a para drop 500 miles in. I really don't give a crap about Pelton's game- the only issue here is the para drop. Maybe you will understand this- lets assume that Pelton did everything "right" by your definition. The capability to make this drop still exists. It might not be effective, again thats not the point.

Every word you say is defending a 500+ mile para drop. I do agree with you there should be a degree of randomness on drops but they should also be limited to 10 or so hexes.

So, try and focus on the actual point here. The point is not how Pelton could prevent this, the point is not how well or poorly he is doing in his game. The point, and the ONLY point here to consider is that the game allows the Soviet to make a 500+ mile para drop, and that is unrealistic, undoable in that era (particularly that year for the SU), and should not be allowed. Forget Pelton, forget other games, focus grasshopper, and quit defending such drops. The SU simply did not have the capability to do this at that time, and the game should not allow it.

And this is ignoring the fact that the supply/logistical system is so basic and simplified, that even doing this type of paradrop is just an exploit.

EDIT: To the devs- house rule? Should not be my job! I BOUGHT the game, I did my part, you do your part and work to fix bugs and glitches (not to say you have not been).



Seminole -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 4:25:19 PM)

quote:

I will try and type slower for you.


Drop the attitude, it's unbecoming, unproductive, and unnecessary.

quote:

Regardless of what Pelton did, or didnt do- there should be no way that the game allows a para drop 500 miles in.


Let's have Savanniperkele provide the details of what he did and when, because the limit I see with the Li-2 is 18 hexes. 180 miles isn't that far.
As Savanniperkele himself said, if Pelton wasn't gaming the supply system this would have never come up. Make gamey supply lines and get gamed. Made me laugh. [:D]

quote:

I do agree with you there should be a degree of randomness on drops but they should also be limited to 10 or so hexes.


I think better than an arbitrary distance limit would be increased randomness in the drop itself based on distance flown from the airbase.

Questions remain: what happened to Pelton's construction battalions (which can be deployed to create the interconnects without detracting from the march forward)? How is the game letting him still double up on rail building?






AFV -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 5:09:11 PM)

The question does not remain about Pelton's construction battalions. All irrelevant, at least for this thread.
For the sake of argument, I will agree he could have minimized this exploit being effective in his game. And will repeat, thats still irrelevant.

The game should not allow something to be done that that side did not have the capability to do. And a paradrop takes a lot more than several aircraft and a few hundred men, especially if your going to drop some 500 miles in, and the SU did not have that capability. Savanniperkele can provide details, but its not really needed- from the screenshot it looks like the drop was at least 40 hexes, and occurred in Sept 41. I say not doable, not historic, they never did that nor even attempted, and if tried you should expect to land 5 hexes from target, and likely have the unit destroyed/routed on landing. (Yes, they did paradrops but not that distance with that accuracy- if you find historical basis of something different, provide the details and source).

If he is still able to double up, then that is a new topic and should be discussed- because you should not be able to do that. You could not double up in 1.05.45 (if you can, show me how its done, I launched a new game, tried and I simply can't do it). Maybe it was changed in 1.05.61, but I didn't see that in the version change log.



Seminole -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 5:46:48 PM)

quote:

Savanniperkele can provide details, but its not really needed- from the screenshot it looks like the drop was at least 40 hexes


You know what they say happens when you assume, right?

Maybe the airbase/airborne were stationed in the Odessa region which Pelton bypassed according to this post:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3009329&mpage=2&key=�

"Here's a screen capture from turn 12 soviet side. Pelton forgot to show off how well the Romanians are doing with Odessa still in the Soviet hands. The city is censored as after a month from this picture Odessa is still safe."

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/17292/25E11E2F772B49208269D7C07E4B0DA6.jpg[/image]

Perhaps he didn't want to reveal the airbase/airborne?
By my count, the "O" in Odessa is within 18 hexes of the spot Savanniperkele dropped his airborne.

I suspect in future campaigns Pelton will devote more attention to his rail net, and his flanks.



mmarquo -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 6:09:32 PM)

Face it, all we need is an Axis Auto Win button.

Marquo [:)]



Peltonx -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 6:23:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Face it, all we need is an Axis Auto Win button.

Marquo [:)]


Try to keep your self out of the mud.

It doesn't help the game.



AFV -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 7:15:56 PM)

Seminole, point taken it could have been shorter than 40 hexes. It definitely was Sept 41. Even if only 18, I don't think that was doable.
And its still an exploit considering how rail supply is represented in the game. (I'm not saying its bad, or I want it changed/fixed. I like it abstracted- I have no interest in playing a game where I have 200 counters for combat units and another 500 for supply/logistic units.)

I sure as hell don't want an Axis win button, especially when I am playing the Soviet side.
Marquo, perhaps you can approach the devs with your request. Be sure to include your reasons why, and how you feel it would improve the game.
I will be on the lookout for your thread.



Seminole -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 7:48:19 PM)

quote:

It definitely was Sept 41. Even if only 18, I don't think that was doable.


Why? If you mean the accuracy of the drop, we agree. I think distance should introduce randomness (perhaps even with a chance to drop on an enemy unit and be eliminated), with drops near the limit of range being much more likely to land anywhere but the target hex.
If you mean the Soviet military was incapable, I think there is room for dispute. According to newspapers of the time they used paratroops in their efforts to take Petsamo in the Winter War. How far was that drop from the airbase? Anyone know?

quote:

And its still an exploit considering how rail supply is represented in the game.


Can you elaborate on this.
As I understand it the Russian rail net was a sad joke. There were but a handful of lines moving east-west, and the Germans weren't running a Red Ball Express from Poland to the Ukraine. The supplies had to follow the rails, and the difficulty in converting the rails was a key factor curbing Axis advance historically.

What I see exploited is Pelton's lack of a redundant rail net and failure to secure his flanks.
His 'min-maxing' of the game engine bit him in the butt here, but that should be obviated with more historical game play, not patches to eliminate existing capabilities merely to permit gamey rail building.



Flaviusx -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 7:52:21 PM)

Seminole, the real problem was the capacity of the lines. It was very low. This is something that the existing game engine doesn't address. So one line can feed the entire Wehrmacht -- ridiculous, but there it is. Clever players get this and tailor their game accordingly. We can mess around the edges of the problem by slowing down or speeding up rail conversion rates, but that's not the heart of it.




randallw -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 9:01:13 PM)

We might not have this airdrop exploit if the game had supply that could move by roads ( which don't exist in the game and barely existed in Russia [:'(][:D] ).



mmarquo -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 11:39:33 PM)

It would be most helpful if posters would consider revealing all relevant data so issues can be critically analyzed. Is Seminole's observation true that the origin of the paradrop may have been from Odessa which is only 18 hexes away, and not from greater than 40 hexes? This makes a huge difference in the conclusions one may infer. On the one hand it may be a gamey Soviet tactic; on the other hand it may the result of a gaffe committed by an overzealous Axis player driving east with reckless abandon and in total disregard of his/her logistic net.

Did the drop emanate from Odessa, or not?

And furthermore, the Soviets were quite prepared to make air drops early in 1941. This as part of plan, some posit, to rush into Roumania with air and amphibious landings. No need to for a house rule against this; the Luftwaffe will annhilate any such attempts, unless of course it has been moved in it's entirety just west of Kharkov by early September.

Marquo [:)]





heliodorus04 -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/18/2012 11:42:04 PM)

Seminole, have you ever played the German side?
Because your crap attempt to teach the most successful German player in the game about 'lateral rail lines' wreaks of the kind of player who never played the German against a human opponent.

Please, ANYONE, find me an example of a partisan unit or airborne drop in 1941 that stopped ALL supply from going to an army group for two weeks?

It did not happen, yet a ZOC break in the right place of any of the 3 Army Group's will require at LEAST a 2-turn break.

Again, Sovie-o-phile players will use an anecdote (a terrible 1941 drop) to justify an exploit, but when Germany does something (like get an FBD further east than it did historically) the Sovie-o-phile has a canniption fit about the lack of realism in the game. Hey, the reason that FBDs are moving so far east so fast is because the Soviets are running so far east so fast (and there are a myriad of unrealistic factors requiring this as Soviet doctrine in WitE; I'm not saying it should be removed).

The Soviet army has the initiative in 1941 in this game, and even the best German player out there (Pelton) acknowledges that as Germany, you can only 'take what they give you.'

This game continues to get more biased to produce the best-case Soviet army throughout the war while historically anchoring Germany throughout the war. Whenever it is decided by the Sovie-o-phile players that something that Germany does is a-historic, it's GONE (railroad and logistics continue to get adjusted in favor of the Sovie-o-phile community, limiting German strategic gameplay options). Whenever something gets abused by the Soviets, it's argued as "plausible."

Even the best case 1943 Soviet airborne drop was an unmitigated disaster, with all the logistical planning that went in to it...

But no, in WitE, as soon as Germany invades you, your 1989 style Spetznaz commandos drop in on Mi-24s, cut the rail lines, and self-imolate, all for the cost of a regiment. Nice strategy if you can get the game designers to overlook the complete and utter disengagement from the actual 1941 war situation...

But hey, this goes along with the 1986 style Nato checkerboard, perfect defense! Great, you have a 1985 WarsawPact army fighting an army 40 years outdated... This should help the Soviets get into Berlin in 1943 again! Apparently, the changes from 1.04 are going to slowly be undone (well, those that helped the Germans...)

Enjoy another 6 months of beta testing the game, German-o-phile players!





AFV -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 1:51:28 AM)

Good points heliodorus.

They will ignore them, as any exploit that favors the Soviet is apparently ok.

You and I agree, the SU was simply not capable of this type operation, in 1941. They ignore that and point to the possibility it was only 18 hexes.
They blame it on the German player, yet do not even acknowledge it is all even made possible by an abstracted supply system.
They defend that this can be done, yet are unable to point to any airborne drop that stopped all supply going to an entire army group (because it simply did not happen).
I especially like the point about 1989 Spetznaz commandos in 1941.
Of course the SU could make airdrops in 41. At the best, it was a cluster f when they did so. At the best!

I read one thread where a Soviet-phile complains that his last game several patches ago, as the Soviet against, we'll say, "Jim" ended with the Soviets in Berlin in 43, but now in a new game against the same opponent the Germans are near Kharkov after 9 turns, and the game sucks. There was no problem when the Soviets were in Berlin in 43, but now that it actually takes some skill to play the Soviet, he's pissed.

What happens is once you push all the rules favoring the Axis out, and add rules that favor the Soviet, everyone ends up in Berlin in 43. And then, you have trouble finding an Axis player, because simply no one wants to play Axis, so you're left with only playing the AI, which compared to a human sucks. Now you end up in Berlin in early 43, and you're bored, and then you leave WITE to play another game. WITE slowly dies, before it really had to, because we as a community could not set our player bias down and try to make suggestions to improve the game, not just one sides chances of winning.

I think this thread is the epitomy of the current situation. The SU does something in game that would have been completely impossible (in 41 anyways), its a completely gamey tactic, its an exploit of an abstracted supply system yet it still gets defended.

Shame on you.



Aurelian -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 2:20:20 AM)

You don't game the supply system, I won't game it either. (With the paratroops.)



Flaviusx -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 2:24:46 AM)

The Red Army has the initiative in 1941? Hyperbole much?




mmarquo -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 2:49:25 AM)

"Because your crap attempt to teach the most successful German player in the game about 'lateral rail lines' wreaks of the kind of player who never played the German against a human opponent."

IMHO Michael T is the most dangerous Axis player; he has figured out how to completely use/abuse the logistical system to maximum advantage better than anyone else. Check out his most recent AAR to see what he can do. And to Michael's credit he plays both sides.

It is sort of curious that Pelton's screen shot shows no labor/construction units working on anything; they are very useful for expanding the railnet.






mmarquo -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 3:04:02 AM)

"the SU was simply not capable of this type operation, in 1941."

Not factual. The SU created the first airborne/parachutes units; and in fact, some small airborne drops were carried out very early during the war in the vicinity of Kiev, Odessa, and the Kerch peninsula. The more well-known larger ones at Vyazma and Kanev were of course much later. The Soviets were more than capable of a brigade-size para drop in 1941, especially in the South...where some airborne units are to be found...and they were there for a reason.

Marquo :-)



Aurelian -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 3:09:33 AM)

They were capable of it. But circumstances forced them to be used as infantry.

http://warandgame.com/2008/04/05/the-first-and-worst-luck-paratroopers/



mmarquo -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 3:15:29 AM)

Well, if the Axis bypasses them, allows them to hole up in Odessa, then these are different circumstances.



JAMiAM -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 3:39:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

It is sort of curious that Pelton's screen shot shows no labor/construction units working on anything; they are very useful for expanding the railnet.

Not claiming this is the case, but the absence of those autobot construction units has another explanation. They could have been sent back to their HQs during the player turn. I doubt this is what Pelton does, but it is a nasty little obsession of mine, to click back all of the autobots who are on rail lines that have been fully repaired.



mmarquo -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 3:45:57 AM)

I do that also, but I am not sure it makes any difference if the AI moves them from the repaired RR hex or the HQ to the next mission.
Any idea?



Klydon -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 3:54:35 AM)

Most any other game I know of that deals with the Eastern front AND allows para drops has range limitations on the Russian paratroopers. The record of Russian paradrops of any size during WW2 was not good in terms of getting units down in a concentrated organized fashion. The two best known were the drop in the center during the winter offensive (already discussed) and the Kiev debacle later in the war. In neither case were paratroopers landed as a cohesive unit.

Part of the issue is the air model has issues in the game, particularly for intercept. Lets say the aircraft and paratroopers came from Odessa. You can have a hoard of Axis fighters next to Odessa and not one of them took off to intercept slow moving transports. That would have put an end to the nonsense of these long range drops right there. Same thing with transports flying over a pile of German fighters at the front on the way to the rear. The German pilots will just sit there and watch them go by since they are not bombing/doing anything close by.

The Russians should have a short leash (10-12 hexes is fine) on paradrops. The Germans didn't exactly fly a long way to drop paratroopers either. For the person that asked, the 22nd airlanding division is not parachute capable. The 7th Flieger division is if you break it into regiments, so the Germans at some point in the fall get 3 units they can paradrop for all the good it does them.

For those that have not played the German side, you get a total of 5 units that can fix rail lines that you have control over. 3 start in the north and 2 in the south. Some players will switch one from the north to the south, but they lose at least 2 turns of activity by moving it, so my guess is it isn't done that often. You have no control over the other repair units and as someone else mentioned, they are typically great at fixing lines going to nowhere that you could care less about instead of working on cross connects that would actually be useful. That means the two lines in the south generally don't connect with each other for a long, long time, so it is very easy to put the entire half of the map out with a well placed paratrooper. The Germans will sometimes "partisan proof" a line with units every two hexes, which is not very realistic either, but if they now have to "para proof" it, give me a break.

For those that want to beat the crap out of Pelton for having just the one line, I would point out that the Germans had just one line east of D/Z-town because the bridges were not only down, they stayed down over the entire winter and even into the following year. It was one of the reasons that Case Blue had so many issues later on was because of the rail bridges over the Dnepr. (Or lack thereof). That would fit right in with some of these Russian fan boys tho. Just send in the paratroopers to blow up the bridge and cut off the entire army group.




mmarquo -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 4:00:25 AM)

"Part of the issue is the air model has issues in the game, particularly for intercept. Lets say the aircraft and paratroopers came from Odessa. You can have a hoard of Axis fighters next to Odessa and not one of them took off to intercept slow moving transports."

Agreed; but look at the screen shot that was posted; all of the Axis airbases bases are just west of Kharkov with no serious attempt to take Odessa. The air drop was easily within a reasonable distance.



Flaviusx -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 4:13:19 AM)

My vote is still with James, Marquo, but then again I've never played Michael T. Raiders just don't scare me as much as cleavers and grinders.






Michael T -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 5:07:53 AM)

Flav please don't label me a raider. That I am not. Never have been or will. My priority is the destruction of the Red Army. However if an opportunity exists tho to grab an ARM centre then who wouldn't take it?

FWIW I make no claimes on being a great player. I just do the best I can with what I have, within the rules of the game.



AFV -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 5:59:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"the SU was simply not capable of this type operation, in 1941."

Not factual. The SU created the first airborne/parachutes units; and in fact, some small airborne drops were carried out very early during the war in the vicinity of Kiev, Odessa, and the Kerch peninsula. The more well-known larger ones at Vyazma and Kanev were of course much later. The Soviets were more than capable of a brigade-size para drop in 1941, especially in the South...where some airborne units are to be found...and they were there for a reason.

Marquo :-)


Factual.
Per the source listed above from Aurelian:
Three of these brigades were used for the largest Russian airborne operation to date, and the first deliberate attempt to use parachutists to support a major operation. On September 23, 1943, the three brigades were dropped in the vicinity of Kanev to assist the crossing of the Dnieper River. The airborne assault was a failure. It was too hastily organized and the careful preparation required was simply not there.

They were not even ready in '43, much less '41.



Aurelian -> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? (2/19/2012 7:13:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"the SU was simply not capable of this type operation, in 1941."

Not factual. The SU created the first airborne/parachutes units; and in fact, some small airborne drops were carried out very early during the war in the vicinity of Kiev, Odessa, and the Kerch peninsula. The more well-known larger ones at Vyazma and Kanev were of course much later. The Soviets were more than capable of a brigade-size para drop in 1941, especially in the South...where some airborne units are to be found...and they were there for a reason.

Marquo :-)


Factual.
Per the source listed above from Aurelian:
Three of these brigades were used for the largest Russian airborne operation to date, and the first deliberate attempt to use parachutists to support a major operation. On September 23, 1943, the three brigades were dropped in the vicinity of Kanev to assist the crossing of the Dnieper River. The airborne assault was a failure. It was too hastily organized and the careful preparation required was simply not there.

They were not even ready in '43, much less '41.


Ready or not, the drop took place. The fact that it failed doesn't mean that they couldn't try.

You missed this one:

1940, 29-30 June: In the first combat use of Soviet airborne forces in an air assault, two airborne brigades parachuted from TB-3 bombers into Rumanian Bessarabia and captured the cities of Bolgrad, Kagul, and Izmail.




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.859375