RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (Full Version)

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



Message

Aurelian -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 6:57:30 AM)

If the Soviet can't use his paratroopers when/how he wants, then the Axis player can't use HQ buildup in its various forms either.



karonagames -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 11:57:36 AM)

@MichaelT. I hope you get invited to the WITW beta test team, as you are clearly going to make sure that the new logistics system based on rail capacity is going to work and therefore be applied to WITE2.

If you had been a tester for WITE, and had discovered the muling/chaining technique, and posted 18 AARs showing how you had used it to achieve Axis victory before 1942, would you have expected WITE to have been released with HQBU in it's current form?

The fact is that HQBU was introduced 2 months before the game shipped, and none of the testers discovered the muling/chaining technique. In the November before shipping, I raised a concern in the Dev forums saying that I thought HQBU was OP as it could be used in scenarios for end-run grabs of VPs as that is what I was testing at the time, but my concerns were not considered.

I fully understand that everyone plays the game for their own reasons and get's satisfaction from achieving certain things within the game; I have always played within the "how am I doing against history", and am I using "historically feasible strategies and tactics". In the 2 41 GCs I have played that have got into 1942, I am happy that both objectives have/can been achieved without muling/chaining.

I am less sure that the game should lose HQBU altogether, as I feel that there are some circumstances where a so-called "average" player will need it to reach historical benchmarks.

While HQBU remains in it's current form, I have absolutely no problem with what you are doing, as it is perfectly "legal". What I do have a problem with is with you developing a strategy that can be derailed (pardon the pun) by something as simple as a parachute drop, and then trying to protect this strategy by preventing the one thing that counters it.

Would I play paper, scissors, stone with you if you had all three and I had just paper and scissors? WITE does self- balance, and as you noted there exists a mechanic to counter every other mechanic, but it relies on both players having access to those mechanics.

Imagine how your strategy would be affected if partisans were player-controlled.



sillyflower -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 12:29:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Supply priority by definition cannot exist in a situation where supply is infinite. This game does not limit supply in any meaningful way save distance to railhead. Once that single condition is satisfied, everybody is in supply. This is a very crude model and doesn't really allow for supply "priority."

I don't agree that the Axis would stall without buildups. I've seen very convincing Axis advances made with just a handful of buildups. They are, imo, a crutch. But it's not buildups per se that bother me. It is this muling crap, which takes an already extremely generous supply model and breaks it.

Muling reminds me of the bad old days of Fire in the East (Europa series) when the Axis could chain as many truck counters as he wanted to and extend the range of supply at no cost to the rest of his army.


I remember FitE too - but it was OK because there were only fixed no. of trucks.

I think you are wrong about axis not needing buildups. I agree you don't need many ( I think 6 is my max in a game and I've won every game as German except one against Baelfiin which is going to the wire). It is also eqally important as a threat in being, to use Mahan's expression. Playing a German with house rule of no HQBU would be as pointless at the moment as playing Michael or someone as good as him, with muleing etc allowed.




Michael T -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 12:36:42 PM)

Big A the Para drop thing derails any strategy. In my book it is a no brainer to limit it. As far as I am conerned if I play Russian with all unrealistic advantages I listed above I will kick any German's ass who is limited to playing without so called muleing. Without muleing, as German you consign yourself to merely a war of survival. Thats not why I play German.

I would be more than happy to play without muleing if most of the Soviet abuses were outlawed as well. But I leave it too the devs to sort that out. If HQ mueling goes with no Russian quid pro quo then I just play as Soviets. No problem.

One thing I find amusing is the theme in this thread that asumes doing muleing guarantees a German victory in 1941. Its laughable. There are so many other factors at play here too. And a failing of any can potentially bring the whole machine to a grinding halt. Its a recipe for success but its also a recipe for disaster.

If someone said to me pick a side to play and if you win you will collect a million bucks I would still choose to play Russia. Its money in the bank if you know your business.




Michael T -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 12:42:55 PM)

I still play FITE/SE. I actually have just started a new game last week. It too is (RAW) heavily in favour of the Soviets. But we created some house rules to overcome the NODL's. I believe the new version, if it is ever printed has solved the NODL problem as well.



sillyflower -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 1:04:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T



I would be quite willing to adopt a bunch of house rules as long as some Soviet abuses we ruled out as well. Like:

The use of super human security regiments as a screen
The ridiculous over power of putting every unit in reserve
Carpet defenses that abuse the overly simplistic zoc rules
The oh so so flexible Soviet command structure
Totally unrealistic run aways



Secirity regt problem much reduced now they disappear soon anyway
since when did any of your opponents have enough units left after 3 turns to weave a carpet in '41. What was Kursk if not a carpet defence?
soviet command flex - you have point but hardly a game changer
runaways - simply doing in 41 what russians did in 42 so not that ahistoric. I just don't think it's a very good tactic either except when russian army has no option and then there is an economic price to be paid.
use of ants to delay, reserves and runaways are all open be used by both sides and are. You've never played german long enough to see they can save your bacon too. Whilst some of these tactics may be silly ( thinking of v small units that delay with fewer casualties than divisions as opposed to simply being destroyed) they don't unbalance the '41 GC as a whole. In GCs with later start date they help axis more.

The only real 'abuse' russians can do is unlimited air attacks per hex to soften up for ground attacks or vs airbases -tho' the latter is far less effective now. Not many german stacks hold their ground after being bombed 20 times first. Would work for Germans too but they don't need and don't have enough aircraft. Resticting to say max 5 per turn is what I would want as house rule whichever side I'm on to go with no muleing/chaining.



Flaviusx -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 5:04:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

I remember FitE too - but it was OK because there were only fixed no. of trucks.

I think you are wrong about axis not needing buildups. I agree you don't need many ( I think 6 is my max in a game and I've won every game as German except one against Baelfiin which is going to the wire). It is also eqally important as a threat in being, to use Mahan's expression. Playing a German with house rule of no HQBU would be as pointless at the moment as playing Michael or someone as good as him, with muleing etc allowed.



I dislike the buildup in general and can't wait until we get a proper supply model that allows us to dispense with it. (A model with actual supply limits also makes it possible to prioritize supply, but that won't be via buildups.) But it's not a game breaker. Muling is.

So far as FITE goes, the trucks were ridiculous when combined with the fact that you could also burn them to resupply units. Even if you somehow managed to cut off the supply lines of the spearhead, they'd just flip over a truck, and be good to go. The whole model was extremely crude and biased heavily towards the offensive. I think we can do better than this in the 21.st century.



vicberg -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 5:43:58 PM)

Michaelt is right. You can't remove players from the equation when it comes to HQBU. If you get a better German player than a Soviet, the German players looks like a great player. The opposite situation and the German player looks awful. Very rare to get two equal opponents and this game almost demands that because the game can get lopsided so quickly. For example, in my game against Viktor, he denuded the south because of the logistical "dead" zone and put everything in front of Moscow. I should have seen that and sent my panzers where he was weak and made progress elsewhere. Instead, I wasted turns trying to pound through his strength and succeeded in depleting my infantry and armor.

BigA's approach is the first viable strategy I've seen that removes the need for muling. However, even with that strategy, I'm looking at my depleted infanty corps and seeing huge stacks in front of me and wondering how much I actually can attack. Viktor is also aggressive and consistently attacks back, even in 41, so I'm not sure yet against him that I'll be able to win a war of attrition.

It seems to me that this game really comes down to players and play style.



gids -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 5:52:27 PM)

well my game now i getting ridiculous the front line is getting so close to the edge of the map :p,dont know how this wasnt tested or checked out ,i play on because i actually want to see how far it goes and its silly to give up :p tbh if the germans had this supply in WW2 there wouldnt have been a debacle "stalingrad"  ;)
anorak didnt make Huuuge superpockets  ,he just grinded and grinded and switched his panzers left and right  like a madman;hes a great player and only uses the system in place there ,but there is still a major flaw in the game
i dont even think he uses HQ BU that much
But yea please adjust that ridiculous german supplymodel ,its not even coming close to reality anymore ,in my game he should have been run out of gas a long time ago after that offensive ,but i start to think he will get to
grozny and then he will roll over that flank towards finland



Flaviusx -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 5:53:48 PM)

Vicberg, in the hands of a strong Axis player, muling is nigh impossible to stop. Nobody has figured out how to do it. I myself don't believe I could. Michael's list of past opponents include what I consider to be some competent players.

After a while it starts looking like this has no counter save:

1. Random weather, or;

2. The egregious 20 hex paradrops. (And it's very telling that you need to do something this ridiculous to stop the ridiculous muling. Two wrongs don't make a right.)

Michael refuses to play with either of these.

Maybe Kamil will be the first to crack this invincible strategy. I am very much doubting it.



vicberg -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 6:02:36 PM)

Flav, I hear what you are saying.  I don't think that Michaelt has played anyone at his caliber.  Muling in my hands would be a lot less effective than with Michaelt. 

What would be the matchup of the century would be Pelton (axis) vs. Michaelt (soviet).  These two guys seems to know the game better than anyone else.  If that happened, I would bet that Pelton's muling would be matched by Michaelt's muling.

It comes down to players.  Because one of clearly superior to everyone that he's played doesn't mean you drop HQBU entirely. 



vicberg -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 6:04:43 PM)

Flav, house rules is a choice between two players.  Both players accepted it.  One could have said no.   

Besides, there's some terrible abstractions in this game:
1) Supply - I agree with you
2) Paratroops allowed to break into brigades and drop all over the map. Would fighters intercept and prevent if staged back to prevent? Doubtful the way the air mechanics work. Paradrops in 20 spots would derail any game. Drop as a division and I'm on board providing fighters can intercept. A division affects one spot not 20.
3) Air mechanics in general
4) APs in general are bit too generous for both sides




Flaviusx -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 6:11:27 PM)

At this point I would be happy with just getting rid of muling. The total elimination of HQBUs probably cannot be done in a vacuum without a reworking of the supply system, and that's for the future. Besides which, buildups don't break the game if done in limited numbers and without the muling.



karonagames -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 8:30:58 PM)

quote:

I'm looking at my depleted infanty corps and seeing huge stacks in front of me and wondering how much I actually can attack.


It is a tightrope, as I have to manage attrition by putting sections of the front in and out of static, and I am also relying on the armaments multiplier in 1943 to get my manpower pool into the front line. If I have got that wrong I could be in trouble.

Once the sovs reach a certain proportion of artillery, the deliberate attacks lose the return on their investment, and I change tactics.



Balou -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 8:58:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

....., buildups don't break the game if done in limited numbers and without the muling.


Flavius,

Basically, I agree. Now I want to get your opinion on the following move I discovered today: it’s the “XIV Pz Korps- case”. Those guys (part of Pz Group 1) are frozen until turn 2, but a HQBU is possible in turn 1. It costs APs, but amazingly almost no trucks, less than 200, and probably because it’s home soil. Now, by attaching lets say 3 Inf Divs to XIV (e.g. the “white” 99Jager Div, still assigned to Army Group South), I can create a HQ filled with almost 2000 tons of fuel, leave the Inf Divs behind, and will start as scheduled in turn 2 with an awsome amount of stuff that brings its (original) 2 mobile divisions to the Dnepr in 3 to 4 weeks without railhead considerations. My question: am I a vilain in your book?



Michael T -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 10:07:21 PM)

The problem with doing that (and any HQ BU for that matter) Balou is that after moving your gased up HQ on turn 2 you won't be able to move it very far at all on turn 3 without leaving all your gas behind. As you only keep those trucks needed to move all the fuel for one turn. So doing a HQ BU on turn 1 is pretty much a total waste as you have enough fuel already in your other HQ's to keep the tanks rolling on turn 2. Its from turn 3/4 on you need the gas.



Balou -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 10:29:42 PM)

Thanks for the info. I am actually in a test game vs the AI to see how long that fuel in XIV holds.



Michael T -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 11:28:48 PM)


I should not say it’s a total waste. You will get a benefit. But it’s a very inefficient use of your AP's. Its better to save what you can early so you can burn them up from turn 3 on when you need it most.



darbycmcd -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 11:48:49 PM)

How would it be if build-up was changed to providing supply based on only on the requirements of attached units at the time of buildup, ie nothing for an empty HQ. You could even leave the system as is with using AP to determine supply take, but discount the HQ itself. Wouldn't that end the abuse of muling but still allow for buildups when it is appropriate? I agree that the results we are seeing are quite ahistorical and if they become standard practice probably could dampen interest in the game.



darbycmcd -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 11:49:07 PM)

having said that, maybe we should check and see if Michael wants this conversation on his AAR thread, it is sort of dominating the post count and he may not appreciate it.....



Flaviusx -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 11:57:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

How would it be if build-up was changed to providing supply based on only on the requirements of attached units at the time of buildup, ie nothing for an empty HQ. You could even leave the system as is with using AP to determine supply take, but discount the HQ itself. Wouldn't that end the abuse of muling but still allow for buildups when it is appropriate? I agree that the results we are seeing are quite ahistorical and if they become standard practice probably could dampen interest in the game.


This has been proposed and is the best solution for the problem I've seen thus far, matter of fact.



Flaviusx -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/1/2012 11:58:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Balou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

....., buildups don't break the game if done in limited numbers and without the muling.


Flavius,

Basically, I agree. Now I want to get your opinion on the following move I discovered today: it’s the “XIV Pz Korps- case”. Those guys (part of Pz Group 1) are frozen until turn 2, but a HQBU is possible in turn 1. It costs APs, but amazingly almost no trucks, less than 200, and probably because it’s home soil. Now, by attaching lets say 3 Inf Divs to XIV (e.g. the “white” 99Jager Div, still assigned to Army Group South), I can create a HQ filled with almost 2000 tons of fuel, leave the Inf Divs behind, and will start as scheduled in turn 2 with an awsome amount of stuff that brings its (original) 2 mobile divisions to the Dnepr in 3 to 4 weeks without railhead considerations. My question: am I a vilain in your book?



More like a Hero of the Soviet Union. [:D]



sillyflower -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (4/2/2012 2:10:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

How would it be if build-up was changed to providing supply based on only on the requirements of attached units at the time of buildup, ie nothing for an empty HQ. You could even leave the system as is with using AP to determine supply take, but discount the HQ itself. Wouldn't that end the abuse of muling but still allow for buildups when it is appropriate? I agree that the results we are seeing are quite ahistorical and if they become standard practice probably could dampen interest in the game.


This has been proposed and is the best solution for the problem I've seen thus far, matter of fact.

+1



Peltonx -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (5/1/2012 2:44:55 AM)

MT was not the first person to mule or chain. Others were dumped on for using HQ build up to much when in truth they were only chaining. 1 or 2 HQ's in north, 2 in center and 6 in south.

Check your Old AAR's.

MT is the first person to perfect the chain/mule train in the center of the map.

I had Faviusx running for the hills in the south in a test game.

MT made the chain happen in the center.

Which means Moscow falls, game set match. Under the current lower manpower numbers.

The down fall of WiTE was old play testers. The guys were to old school( nice/played by the rules ect ect).

If 2by3 has the same lamo bunch testing WiTW, guys like MT myself and others will have a field day making 2by3 look silly again.

Get some guys play test WitW that can think out side the box. The old school bunker mo is failing alrdy.

For all the hard work put into wite, its so easy to game the system because of piss poor play testing before release.

witw alrdy has some loop holes that any "gamer" can exploit.

Just an fyi.

Hugs and kisses :)

Pelton



Flaviusx -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (5/1/2012 3:45:20 AM)

Piffle, I had you right where I wanted you in that game, Pelton. You were still doing factory raids back then and I led you on a wild goose chase in the south. And you were totally stalled up north.

Now if you had actually been doing what Michael does and concentrate on force destruction, then I would have caught wind that something was up. I concluded at the time that the buildup abuse was manageable, and it was, but only because of your raiding strategy, which can be shut down by a good evac schedule.




randallw -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (5/1/2012 8:44:44 AM)

This brings up a question I have for you testers: were you looking to just see if the game 'works' by whatever rules given you, or did you also look for these exploits?



Flaviusx -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (5/1/2012 11:23:27 AM)

Both. But some things never occurred to us, like muling.



Farfarer61 -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (5/1/2012 1:58:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Both. But some things never occurred to us, like muling.



LOL I only discovered it by accident when I HQBU'd the wrong ( empty ) HQ. I was first annoyed, then thought "Hey, that's a lot of useful gas..."



Tarhunnas -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (5/1/2012 8:51:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The down fall of WiTE was old play testers. The guys were to old school( nice/played by the rules ect ect).

If 2by3 has the same lamo bunch testing WiTW, guys like MT myself and others will have a field day making 2by3 look silly again.

Get some guys play test WitW that can think out side the box. The old school bunker mo is failing alrdy.

For all the hard work put into wite, its so easy to game the system because of piss poor play testing before release.

witw alrdy has some loop holes that any "gamer" can exploit.

Just an fyi.

Hugs and kisses :)

Pelton


Testers are usually volounteers who basically work for free to make games better for us all. They cannot be expected to find every bug or exploit, especially not with a game as complicated as WITE. They deserve respect, and not being denigrated in a forum!



vicberg -> RE: Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo) (5/2/2012 2:13:24 AM)

Tarhunnas, when alpha or beta testing, you can't be nice. You have to be honest. Judging by WITE, a number of people believe that the game should be historical, to a fault. As a result, there's a lot of faults. Honest, wait, we need to think of this as a game, feedback, didn't seem to happen.

I'm a developer. I build based on what I think the user needs. I often don't believe the user, even if it's not really working. It needs some serious honesty to break through. Why? Because I put a sh@tload of work into it, and don't feel like redoing it. I have deliverables. I have other work. My company doesn't want to lose money because I have to rework. This is basic system design 101.

If Pelton has found exploits in the WITW, then let him express it, without velvet gloves. Velvet gloves will not get the game fixed.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625