RE: Extended Lvov (Full Version)

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



Message

Michael T -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/18/2012 9:26:38 PM)

I agree its way over the top. But this is what you have to resort to to get past the Soviet advantages. One thing balances another. If you don't mule and do stuff like this I can't see how the German has a chance against a top notch Soviet. You need lots of house rules to bring the game back in to the realm of reality IMO. But rather than struggle with that (it would be a list a mile long) I prefer anything goes bar the para thing, which is even more nuts. A PC game should not need house rules.



Flaviusx -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/18/2012 9:37:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I agree its way over the top. But this is what you have to resort to to get past the Soviet advantages.


No, this is what you need to do to win the game in 1941. It has nothing to do with balance. It's very difficult to take this line of argument seriously since you have yet to play a game into 1942.



Michael T -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/18/2012 10:15:08 PM)

I have probably played more east front games than you have had hot dinners Flav, I know what I am talking about. It's my job to build, analyse and interpret model results. WITE is just a model like any other. Once the system is understood an output can be predicted with a known set of inputs. Simple really.



Flaviusx -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/18/2012 11:05:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have probably played more east front games than you have had hot dinners Flav


Not likely. I've been at this for a quarter century and have tried out just about every major title and written strategy articles for several board games.





gids -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/18/2012 11:48:12 PM)

a pissing contest...gotta love it ;)



Michael T -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 1:31:39 AM)


Well I have been offered *paid* work by a very high profile PC company, which I reluctantly had to decline. I have been war gaming for over 35 years. Not trying to say I know more than you about this Flav but you don't seem to respect the view of anyone bar yourself unless they concur with your own thinking. You ought to try playing German some time without muling etc etc and see how you go.

In the end players will make up their own minds. All they need to do is negotiate some boundaries before they play, if they feel it is needed. For me I just wouldn't play German without muling or this opening unless the Soviet player was prepared to play with some restrictions on the use of reserves, runaways etc etc. But I would rather just play open slather to be honest. Hopefully many years down the track WITE2 will address a lot of these shortcomings.

I also am very interested in Schwerpunkt's WW2IE game. I really like the take they have on supply and the hard limits on attacks they have. Plus the system is out in the open, no black box.

But until WITE2 or WW2IE I will stick with WITE for my PC East Front fix. But I still prefer my EF boardgames in comparison to WITE.

Over and out [:)]



Flaviusx -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 9:31:58 AM)

Michael, you do not need to mule in order to make very convincing advances in 1941; right now the state of the game is such that Leningrad is practically an autoloss and Moscow is a 50/50 proposition in games where no muling is done.

What muling allows you to do is to win the thing outright in 41, as you have done every time.

I repeat: if you were to play yourself I'm morally certain that you'd thrash the Soviets. You yourself don't appear to believe that there's any good way to respond as the Soviets to these expedients you have perfected.



janh -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 12:31:06 PM)

There is no point in fighting over this... it is just a game. People play for all sorts of reasons -- all that matters is that they have fun.

Some want "fair games" and a GC that's more balanced than history, a bit like chess. Some want to be limited only by hard realism, and some want to that to be carried further by some "softer" political rules. Some want to play only those limits that the game engine enforces, and use all the available options to win. Some even have made it a contest to see which side benefits most from loopholes. Others wish to stay more in the realm of plausible possibilities and use houserules to fix loopholes, or ask them to be patched, no matter which side benefits. I think it all has been there with WitP before. And as long as your opponent knows, it is all fair game. Just pick the right opponent.



gids -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 12:44:50 PM)

+1



darbycmcd -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 12:45:31 PM)

This is same argument that has been going on since people have made games about the Eastern Front. It really boils down to people that are approaching it from an historical point of view vs those who approach it from a gaming point of view. Michael, what you mean when you say you need to mule is that you need to mule in order to win outright in 41/42. That is probably a fair observation.
But for a player who is interested in an historical model, it is also an outcome that is indicative of a broken system. I don't have your experience gaming, but I do have experience as a military intel analyst with a focus on the SU, and I can tell you I strongly believe games that have outcomes like yours diverge from the realm of realistically possible outcomes from a military point of view.
So, on one hand you have folks that want a game that allows the Axis to win in the early war. On the other, folks that want a more historical 'simulation' even if it means it sucks for one of the players much of the time and has a foregone conclusion. These sides will not agree about game design decisions. Because what I think the first group is missing is that the actual war, you know the baseline model if you will, was really in the 'sucks for one side most of the time and has a foregone conclusion' category. Any decision to fundamentally change that is going to diverge from, not just history, but historical possibility.
In the end you are both right, but about different ends.



karonagames -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 1:06:16 PM)

Hi MichaelT, you didn't really answer my post. You mentioned soviet advantages, but were not specific about what they are and how you apply them in the early stages of the game to counter your extended Lvov opening.

How do you personally counter it and go on to achieve an easy victory as the soviets?

I do not want to get into a pissing match to say who is a better player, and I can only speak from the experience of 2 GCs run under 1.05/1.06, in which I did not use the "Lvov Gambit", did not Mule and used HQBU no more than 6 times. The only house rules I asked for were to restrict Red Airforce spamming, nor did I place any restrictions on the use of paras and I ended up forcing surrenders in turns 60 and 80 respectively, the second on the verge of getting 260 VPs. My first opponent used an aggressive forward defence, the second a runaway,so I really don't think you can generalise about Axis chances of winning without muling.


There is a saying "Do unto others as you would be done by", which is why I asked for your counter to the extended Lvov move. Personally I would never use a move that I would not be happy to defend against myself (I can show you AARs where I have pulled back deliberately). Of course I want to provide my opponents with a challenge, and likewise I expect them to set challenges for me to overcome. Pushing the limits beyond what was historically and strategically feasible by exploiting the perfect knowledge of the opponent's deployment and their lack of ability to react serves no purpose other than leave a bitter taste in your opponents mouth, which is not the point of playing the game IMHO. Players need to be looking forward to receiving their next turn, not dreading it. If I was to pick up a random Multiplayer campaign with no pre-agreed house rules, I would playing Russian Roulette, hoping that my opponent hadn't learned your extended Lvov opening.

I appreciate that you are in the (hopefully small) group of players who have to win at all costs, but have some empathy for opponents and players who want to play for fun,education and enjoyment regardless of the result.

I stopped playing WIR, a game I truly loved, because I realised the stupidity of all the exploits I was using simply to win the game.

If I felt the only way to win the game was to use muling and extended Lvov opening moves then I would stop playing this game, which I don't love quite as much as WIR, but it is close.



Magnum88 -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 1:57:19 PM)

One thing that would help is remove the fact that the pocket units' CV are immediately and drastically reduced. The basic idea is fine but the malus is imposed before the player can react due to the IGOUGO system, essentially pocketed units CV goes down WHILE the pocket is being formed not after. The units would not be considered isolated until after the player's turn.

Also, an odd result of the mechanics is that if a weak unit is in a hex a player can defeat him and gained control of the hex even if I could not have moved into the hex due to insufficient MP. How about allowing a player the option to attack an empty hex and the opposing force would be a fraction of the neighboring units that exert the ZOC, representing the forward forces that are maintaining control of the hex.

Both options are probably not reasonable for a patch but perhaps for future games in the series.



Flaviusx -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 3:16:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Hi MichaelT, you didn't really answer my post. You mentioned soviet advantages, but were not specific about what they are and how you apply them in the early stages of the game to counter your extended Lvov opening.



He didn't answer this because there is no good response to this opening. He has stated as much and indeed challenged James to find one, which he didn't. (It took me all of about 10 seconds to arrive at this conclusion. None of the usual Soviet tricks are going to save you here.)

MichaelT is completely ok with 1941 Axis blowouts. He very plainly thinks this is a plausible result. So he will do whatever it takes to get that result. To him, a game that doesn't allow for this, all other things being equal, is the problem. So it's all good.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 3:30:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

There is no point in fighting over this... it is just a game. People play for all sorts of reasons -- all that matters is that they have fun.

Some want "fair games" and a GC that's more balanced than history, a bit like chess. Some want to be limited only by hard realism, and some want to that to be carried further by some "softer" political rules. Some want to play only those limits that the game engine enforces, and use all the available options to win. Some even have made it a contest to see which side benefits most from loopholes. Others wish to stay more in the realm of plausible possibilities and use houserules to fix loopholes, or ask them to be patched, no matter which side benefits. I think it all has been there with WitP before. And as long as your opponent knows, it is all fair game. Just pick the right opponent.


Chess is not balanced at all. Space and time are everything (especially the latter). The player with the white pieces has a huge advantage. It's up to him to lose the game. The player with the black pieces will be looking for a draw [8D]

When you have achieved a certain level (as I think I did myself) if your opponent is wasting a single turn = he has lost the initiative = it is up to you to lose the game [:)]



janh -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 3:42:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Chess is not balanced at all. Space and time are everything (especially the latter). The player with the white pieces has a huge advantage. It's up to him to lose the game. The player with the black pieces will be looking for a draw [8D]

When you have achieved a certain level (as I think I did myself) if your opponent is wasting a single turn = he has lost the initiative = it is up to you to lose the game [:)]


This is funny, I knew it was coming when I typed the sentence. :) You are right, there is the start benefit. Huge? Well, I read there was a group of Russians who had done a statistical analysis of numerous competitions, and they came up with a ratio of 51 point something percent to 48.x percent for white victories. If you are really good and serious about it, it probably counts, and you need to play even numbers of games to get even. For me, well, I have more serious problems to worry about when playing chess...



Flaviusx -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 3:51:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88

One thing that would help is remove the fact that the pocket units' CV are immediately and drastically reduced. The basic idea is fine but the malus is imposed before the player can react due to the IGOUGO system, essentially pocketed units CV goes down WHILE the pocket is being formed not after. The units would not be considered isolated until after the player's turn.



I get what you are saying here but if we delayed the isolation penalties it would be exceedingly difficult to make any pockets at all. I'm pretty sure I could bust out of the great majority of post turn 1 pockets I've had made against me if the guys caught in the bag could attack without penalty for one turn.

Just fix the surprise turn.



HITMAN202 -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 3:59:58 PM)

I'm a newbie at this game (enjoying it and learning) but I do know chess and it is balanced and space and time are not really the issue, but development... ie... postioning of your pieces and the potential in what they can do. Time and space can create wonderful postions based on space (more manuerablity ) and time (speed of development) but are frequently miss-used and wasted. Development sets the stage for both effective attacking and counter-attacks. Finally chess is very balanced and the White side has a minimal advantage. In top level chess often 80 % or more of games are drawn. Often times one side or the other has to take risks to "unbalance" the position, and this can backfire.

In regards to WITE the German and Rukies are very unbalanced and that's what makes the game so wonderful. What makes chess so fun is that there is the potential that each game can be very unique. If the opening of WITE involved options for both sides (which the Ruskies don't have) or a variety of opening postions for both sides, then a more exciting, uncertain game is created. Weather should always be random, creating another variable that would increase the tension of the game.



comsolut -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 4:09:30 PM)

Get Mud on turn 2 as the German player to see the effect Random Weather can have on the whole offensive (pockets last an extra turn, supplies stretched). As a normally Russian player I pray for Mud early, middle, late - just something to throw the German advance off its time schedule and unbalance (since that is being tossed around) the players strategy.

Plus it just seems right not to know what the weather will be with 100% accuracy.




karonagames -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 4:16:01 PM)

quote:

He didn't answer this because there is no good response to this opening.


I prefer to hear from MichaelT himself, as he must have had his reasons for letting the Genie out of the bottle.



JAMiAM -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 4:58:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

This is same argument that has been going on since people have made games about the Eastern Front. It really boils down to people that are approaching it from an historical point of view vs those who approach it from a gaming point of view. Michael, what you mean when you say you need to mule is that you need to mule in order to win outright in 41/42. That is probably a fair observation.
But for a player who is interested in an historical model, it is also an outcome that is indicative of a broken system. I don't have your experience gaming, but I do have experience as a military intel analyst with a focus on the SU, and I can tell you I strongly believe games that have outcomes like yours diverge from the realm of realistically possible outcomes from a military point of view.
So, on one hand you have folks that want a game that allows the Axis to win in the early war. On the other, folks that want a more historical 'simulation' even if it means it sucks for one of the players much of the time and has a foregone conclusion. These sides will not agree about game design decisions. Because what I think the first group is missing is that the actual war, you know the baseline model if you will, was really in the 'sucks for one side most of the time and has a foregone conclusion' category. Any decision to fundamentally change that is going to diverge from, not just history, but historical possibility.
In the end you are both right, but about different ends.


Well said.



Walloc -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 5:50:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: comsolut

Get Mud on turn 2 as the German player to see the effect Random Weather can have on the whole offensive (pockets last an extra turn, supplies stretched). As a normally Russian player I pray for Mud early, middle, late - just something to throw the German advance off its time schedule and unbalance (since that is being tossed around) the players strategy.

Plus it just seems right not to know what the weather will be with 100% accuracy.


I agree that mud can be a huge relief for the soviet side. Just a minor thing, u cant get mud on turn 2, even with random weather.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



entwood -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 7:33:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
As a patch, what about a HR somehow limiting Regt. breakdowns on Turn 1?



This was one of my suggestions also. including a 1 point AP cost per breakdown, and some if not most of the German motorized divisions can only breakdown into 2 Panzer Battalion KG's ("brigades", depending on the TOE).


I am glad Michael T opened this thread. It highlights and is play-testing openings to the max I suppose, where notably,
Michael T says/admits there are loop-holes in the game.

This is truly beta level play testing really, look what I can do? Is this ok?

If I was a Dev, I would say no, and make corrections even if they were optional ones, so players can proceed in one 'mode' or another.

You see, this is obviously a game that you can play over and over and not get yourself killed, but the game should try to be more immersive, and a good game should not have 'easy' or even very controversial exploits.

If this was a little 'toy' game ok, let it go, but this game is a grognard game, so it should have a higher standard here (and in some other places) I submit.




Disgruntled Veteran -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 8:57:22 PM)

It seems the best solution in the short term is a house rule. This game already had arbitrary boundries for your axis allies so why not set a boundry for AG's. AGC must stay north of the Marshes till after T1. It would make a decent house rule. The main problem is that everyone is going to know this move and it will be standard procedure from now on. I've only played a couple mp games and I have mastered this move for my next one. Honestly, I doubt I'll use it...it would probably destroy the fun, but I will use a weaker version of it from now on.



Flaviusx -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/19/2012 9:25:42 PM)

Entwood, the Lvov opening was identified in beta testing and raised a lot of eyebrows but in the end was allowed to go through. This was a mistake, I don't believe the testers ever anticipated how much it could be optimized, especially in conjunction with muling, which I confess was not identified as an issue at all in testing.

Over time, people post release have kept pushing the opener to the limits and seeing just how far they could go with it, and here we are. It may even be possible to do yet more with it, incredible as that may seem.




comsolut -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/20/2012 12:27:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: comsolut

Get Mud on turn 2 as the German player to see the effect Random Weather can have on the whole offensive (pockets last an extra turn, supplies stretched). As a normally Russian player I pray for Mud early, middle, late - just something to throw the German advance off its time schedule and unbalance (since that is being tossed around) the players strategy.

Plus it just seems right not to know what the weather will be with 100% accuracy.


I agree that mud can be a huge relief for the soviet side. Just a minor thing, u cant get mud on turn 2, even with random weather.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



You are correct, I went back and checked, it was Turn 3. Sigh.



Michael T -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/20/2012 12:50:33 AM)


People play games for many reasons. Personally, I just don't get why people who are 100% historical sticklers play these games. They are never going to be happy. I don't even know what they are trying to achieve. Because it seems unless the exact same historical result is reached they claim 'the game is broken'. I just don't get it. Why bother putting so much time and effort in to something that you hope ends up being the same result as reality? And then whinge when its not. These same guys will moan on and on when the Axis go further than they did in reality. Like the German high water mark of 1941 was the utmost best that the German Army could have achieved, all game results should be equal to that or less. Funny though these same people are quite happy for Germany to be overrun sometime in early 1944.


I read serious studies of military history to satisfy my interest in military history, not play games. I look at wargaming from a point of it being an intellectual challenge to defeat another intelligent mind on a field that is *loosely* based on a historical conflict. I am competitive by nature and what motivates me more than anything is a challenge.*I am not a win at all costs person*. But I try my best to win *and* have fun doing it. Generally I am happy with a wargame if the outcomes are within the realm of possibility. You have to include player skill here. So what is possible? Really that question cannot be answered. We are all guessing. People will be happy or unhappy with results based upon there own perceptions of what is reasonable.


WITE is not the perfect East Front simulation/model. That will never exist. What we have is a game, loosely based on history. If you want it to be more restricted than what it is, play with a bunch of house rules, but I suspect you will still be disappointed. There are just too many fundamental problems to overcome.


What would I do if faced with this opening and muling? First, I would not be concerned. I would use my superman security regiments and para units to screen my headlong retreat. Delay long enough to evacuate key industry. Don't worry about losing Moscow or other cites. Just get out the industry. If you do that and avoid massive loses, from the blizzard of 1941 on you will be in the drivers seat if you know your business.

But the real question should be how can Germany hope to have any chance of winning the *game* without muling or the Lvov opening? The answer is they cannot. I would bet a very large sum of money that I would beat any Axis player who took me on without muling and the Lvov opening.


I have spent just as many turns playing as Soviet as I have German in game time. But I have spent many many more hours trying to think of ways to make myself more completive when playing as German. I have spent much less time thinking about Soviet tactics as it is not required. They are the much easier side to play. If you want a challenge and some stress play German. For a nice enjoyable relaxing game, play Russian.


Since it has been asked here is what I consider is just as 'unrealistic' as muling and the Lvov opening but on the Soviet side. In no particular order except number one.


1. Top of the list. Being able to run run run to where ever they like. With no repercussions what soever. Without mulng the Russian's can avoid pitched fights and encirclements until they have a huge army that is overwhelming. Totally wrong. The game needs a mechanism to stop this rubbish. Muling counters this to a degree in that they need to run much further much earlier. To wrongs make a right for once :)


2. Super ants. The Sov's can use Security Reg's and Para's to soak up MP's and fuel to delay the German mech units in the first 6 or so turns. This gives the Sov's breathing space that they need with a very small price in units. The game desperately needs and overrun rule to prevent this crap.


3. No real C&C chaos in the Soviet command structure in 1941. Soviet units should have much more severe movement penalties. Some should get stuck and not move at all. Its also way too easy to attack under one Army HQ. There is too much flexibility in the changing HQ's on the fly.


4. Zoc's. This is a real pet peeve of mine. It defies common sense. Why would a 800 man Security reg have the exact same zoc as a stack with 50000 men and 500 tanks. Its totally nuts. This allows for things like checker boards and carpets. If we had a set of over run rules and some proper zoc rules there would be no more checker boards or carpets.


5. Reserves. Sure lets put the whole, entire, I mean every unit, in reserve mode. Its nuts and a blight on the game. Sure it helps Germany too in 43 and beyond but it needs to be fixed. The current reserve rules are way over powered. They are very simple rules, but with a little intelligent thought could be way better.


6. Soviet mech units that can have 45+ MP in 1942. Wrong.


7. The blizzard is still too harsh. Cav units overpowered in 1941 winter. Coupled with the front wide steam roller attack from Stavaka. Wrong.


There is more but that will do. Fix all that up and I would be happy to play without muling or the Lvov thing.

There is a key fundamental flaw in the design of WITE. That is that fuel expenditure is directly linked to MP spent, its linear. On the face of it you think well why not? Well here is an example. Why should crossing a major river in a zoc (might just be a ant zoc) cost around 50-60%% fuel? There are many other examples. But the crux of the matter is that MP expended equals fuel expended. But fuel expended should be equal to miles per gallon or kilometres per litre. If I drive a tank to a river, cross a bridge or pontoon then continue on why would it cost me 10 times more in fuel when not crossing a river? Sure I lose MP to the time lost in crossing but the equivalent of fuel lost is wrong. Same with moving through zoc's. Fuel used should be based/weighted more on hexes traversed rather than MP expended. At the moment its totally based on MP. I know its valid that fuel consumption will increase due to combat manoeuvring and such but there are numerous cases like my example above where the link between MP expenditure and fuel used is too linear.


I find it incredulous that GG creates these complex models and then neglects fundamental and very crucial mechanisms like the fuel/MP link. Its just too simple. No doubt there are many complex formulae used in logistics and combat but if you then end it all with a linear MP to fuel used outcome, what is the point? Its like building a formula one car and racing it on a dirt track.


Like I have said many many times. I am not a fanboy of either side. But playing Germany in *this* East Front game is by far the greater challenge and as such it appeals to me. I wish when playing Russian it was equally challenging but sadly it is not.

Lastly there are other loopholes in this game that I am aware of but have not commented on. I leave those for others to discover themselves. One point here though, I do not spend my time trying to find loopholes in systems, their discovery is merely a consequence of spending time trying to understand how the system works in order to maximise the efficency of the force at hand.


The problem we have is that we are looking at this from many different perspectives. Some guys want a virtual replay of the actual war. Others are more like myself. Many are somewhere else. I accept it for what it is. A game.


That’s all from me on this subject. Of course some people will disagree with my take on it. I expect that. But I am not going to be drawn in to arguing over it. People can play the game however they like. Just be upfront about what you expect at the start and all should be good :)



Tophat1815 -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/20/2012 1:11:11 AM)

I actually agree with some of your points and much would have been alleviated with a better logistics model. Also security rgts and para's also army brigades for that matter having the same Zoc benefits as divisions is a problem for me as well.

The forced TOE upgrades I'll not get into either. It's a problem,granted.

But this crazy Hq muling and lvov pocket gambit is pure exploit and if done right the soviet southern front disappears. Then you have wide open spaces and all thats been achieved is a major waste of 2 players time. So we are at the why bother point. Just my opinion.



Michael T -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/20/2012 1:27:02 AM)

Its circular. Muling v runaway. Both must stay or both must go. If you only use one without the other its a onesided affair.



AFV -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/20/2012 3:14:09 AM)

Note to self:
If I ever figure out how to do something really well in this game, never, ever, ever post it here.



entwood -> RE: Extended Lvov (4/20/2012 3:26:29 AM)

Thanks for your insights. I just re-applied some of your overall sentiment.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T


Totally wrong.
stop this rubbish.
The game desperately needs
prevent this crap.
Its way too easy
defies common sense.
Its nuts and a blight on the game.
needs to be fixed.
Wrong.
Wrong.
neglects fundamental and very crucial mechanisms
Its just too simple.
sadly
Lastly there are other loopholes in this game


I accept it for what it is. A game.




I don't accept this. That is my issue.






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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.765625