RE: Where are my Mules?

RE: Where are my Mules? (Full Version)

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

Message

Aurelian -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 6:16:26 PM)
And starting the first blizzrd turn, each Axis unit must pay a 10 AP cost to move westward. This reflects Hitler's determination to stand and fight instead fo retreat. And the command cost of a local leader disobeying Hitler at (personal) cost.

colberki -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 6:58:04 PM)
Hey Aurelian! I think your suggestion makes great sense alongside my suggested rule change. This pair of new rules will likely increase Soviet losses in Barbarossa among the frontier troops, but in turn, will restraint the Axis from reckless drive East lest they become severely over stretched when the blizzards arrive.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 7:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colberki Have we considered a simple new rule to balance the 1941-45 campaign as such to moderate the Soviet dash to the Steppes during Barbarossa? "Each Soviet unit on the Eastern Front in the area from the June 22 border and west of Riga, Minsk, Kiev and Odessa must pay ten AP one time cost to move eastwards by land before December 1, 1941 No unit in the area may rail eastwards." This rule reflects STAVA determination to stand and fight at the start of the war, and the command cost of a local leader disobeying STAVA at (personal) cost. Interested to hear what forum members and Matrixgames think of this proposed new rule? There's simply nothing in the present game mechanic that counter-balances the awful Soviet unit strength in 1941. The running east is a symptom of the "all my units suck" problem. Even if VPs were awarded per turn for places like Kiev, there's no point getting units surrounded and cut off for them. In addition, since the same disincentive applies to Germany during the Blizzard of 41/42, you cannot leash the Soviets to land without doing likewise to Germany at that time period. And Germany stands to lose much more for mistakes in the winter than the Soviet does in the summer. At this point, the abstractions are what they are and we must work within them, if for no other reason than the developers are done supporting this product's play balance/engine problems. Given that we're left with this (redacted) system, I'm a proponent of players agreeing to settings that work for them in terms of fun, competetive games. I'm a fan of 105 logistics for Germany, and 200 Admin. Germany gains a great deal from that, without dramatically changing anything on the Soviet side. A little extra logistics gives Germany some tactical surprise options, but should be balanced by house rules to HQ buildup limits. The extra admin points combat the hard-coded punishment Germany takes - the ability to swap divisions, corps, and armies as necessary, and to choose optimal commanders, creates efficiency in a number of arenas that help fight off the TOE change problems, the National Morale drop in 42, and evens up some of the hindsight advantage that the Soviets get. The admin point issue should be balanced with house rules about Axis fort creation in 41/42 (I've pondered a rule that axis forts must always be set to 100 TOE, or that they cannot be disbanded until a Soviet unit is adjacent (meaning they carry risk). Your mileage may vary, but I'm interested in trying out some of these ideas if I decide to play another game versus a person.

Aurelian -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 7:23:24 PM)
It was made to show just how nonsensical such suggestions are. You're not going to find a sane Russian player to play with such a rule. Especially considering the ahistorical result of the Lvov opening. You're not going to find a sane Axis player to play under such a condition as mine either. There's enough acrimony from some who claim that the Axis are in a straight jacket. Putting in Hitler/Stalin rules will only increase that.

Klydon -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 7:28:50 PM)
@Colberki: I am not sure how much you have played WITE as either side, but honestly, the Russians would never pay to activate any units because they are simply not worth it and so much more needs to be done with their AP. The only exceptions I would even consider might be for mountain units and only if I know I can get them away. Against a good German, you are going to lose everything that started at the in the north border in about 3-5 turns anyway. Every single unit. In the south, where there are more reserves from the front to the Kiev area, the Russians can and do often deploy these units to delay the Germans or at the very least, move them behind the river to form the river defense. The Odessa units would be screwed over the most since they can't pull back behind the rivers in good order, which is what they did historically. Regardless, the Russians could lose all this and they will get it all back (shells at least) without making it a significant advantage for the Germans, so it doesn't solve anything. @Aurelian. Once again, you are so pro-Soviet as to be laughable when it comes to solving issues with this game. Having said that, lets look at your proposal that you tossed up in retort to someone trying to make a suggestion. First, the Germans are in better position to afford the admin points to free up certain units in order to retreat and the fact is that Hitler did authorize some retreating. Not often, but he did. Secondly, the Germans will just run a bit early during frost, much like they do now so once again, it won't solve a lot of issues. Both proposals have issues with trying to solve "attacking to the rear". Would this be allowed? The eastern front was a brawl and a massive battle of attrition, not a track meet. Until things are fixed with the game (logistics, air, etc) it is going to remain a track meet for both sides.

Farfarer61 -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 7:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian It was made to show just how nonsensical such suggestions are. You're not going to find a sane Russian player to play with such a rule. Especially considering the ahistorical result of the Lvov opening. You're not going to find a sane Axis player to play under such a condition as mine either. There's enough acrimony from some who claim that the Axis are in a straight jacket. Putting in Hitler/Stalin rules will only increase that. I would readily play Soviet with the Axis at 105 logistics. In fact I will suggest to for future games. An admin increase is not needed, save for perhaps the initial Axis AP pool. Lvov, Mule, Build Up away!

Klydon -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 9:51:51 PM)
Once again, claims that the Lvov opening is so terrible, yet nothing on the fact the Germans drive further, through worse terrain, to get to Minsk. Change both or leave both alone, but at least try to be consistent.

Aurelian -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 10:13:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon @Aurelian. Once again, you are so pro-Soviet as to be laughable when it comes to solving issues with this game. Having said that, lets look at your proposal that you tossed up in retort to someone trying to make a suggestion. First, the Germans are in better position to afford the admin points to free up certain units in order to retreat and the fact is that Hitler did authorize some retreating. Not often, but he did. Secondly, the Germans will just run a bit early during frost, much like they do now so once again, it won't solve a lot of issues. If I was as pro Soviet as you claim, I would be attacking 2by3 for the changes they have made. You know, things such as shrinking command points of the Soviet armies. Removing the ability to make static units in 1941. And all the other changes. Read all the changes made to the Soviets over the various patches, then show just where I claimed 2by3 has a pro Axis bias. And then, you can explain why I currently am at 1.06.6. So tell me, if what you claim is true, just why would I patch up to that? Of course, I haven't, and you can't. So your claim is false. Now, that that falsehood is exposed, let's move on. You've been here long enough to know just how much complaining and accusations have been made because the Axis can't get those massive pockets. How much they want to implement so called "Stalin rules." And all the rest But what you don't see, or just ignore, is the thundering silence when they can do what the Axis could not. I can't find any Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad before winter. Or how they can take Moscow. Or how they can retreat during the blizzard. I have yet to see any Axis complaint that they have to launch Fall Blau, whether they want to or not. Or any Axis complaint on how they have to stand their ground. Nor do I complain about how 2by3, or the game, is pro Axis because of that. "pro Soviet bias............ riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight." Can you find those complaints? You want Stalin rules to force the Soviets to act a certain way. Then you should be willing to accept Hitler rules to force the Axis to act the same way. That works for me. And since Hitler interfered more and more as the war went on, while Stalin did the opposite, well.........

Farfarer61 -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/29/2012 10:32:30 PM)
I ruthlessly exploited the harvest of APs and trucks from static mode, then shed not a Red tear when caught out by the Devs and this went away. By far the best suggestion so far is the slight 105 tweak to Axis logistics in PBEM games and be done with it.

RCHarmon -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/30/2012 4:01:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian You've been here long enough to know just how much complaining and accusations have been made because the Axis can't get those massive pockets. How much they want to implement so called "Stalin rules." And all the rest But what you don't see, or just ignore, is the thundering silence when they can do what the Axis could not. I can't find any Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad before winter. Or how they can take Moscow. Or how they can retreat during the blizzard. I have yet to see any Axis complaint that they have to launch Fall Blau, whether they want to or not. Or any Axis complaint on how they have to stand their ground. Nor do I complain about how 2by3, or the game, is pro Axis because of that. "pro Soviet bias............ riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight." Can you find those complaints? You want Stalin rules to force the Soviets to act a certain way. Then you should be willing to accept Hitler rules to force the Axis to act the same way. That works for me. And since Hitler interfered more and more as the war went on, while Stalin did the opposite, well......... You are being disingenuous. I for one have commented on all the items that you have mentioned. Several Axis players have commented on how they have no problem with loss of the Lvov pocket. The Soviets did put up a fight against AGS. Allowing the Soviet player to "keep" these troops would go a long way in addressing this; but if the Soviet player just takes these troops and runs then the complaints about Soviet running is compounded. I have no problem the Soviet player running, I just believe that there must be some repercussions. It is easy to tell a player that his concerns are unfounded. It is impossible to make a player believe that his concerns are unfounded. It doesn't do any good to pit Soviet player against the Axis player anywhere except in game. Both players are essentially in the same boat.

Klydon -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/30/2012 4:08:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon @Aurelian. Once again, you are so pro-Soviet as to be laughable when it comes to solving issues with this game. Having said that, lets look at your proposal that you tossed up in retort to someone trying to make a suggestion. First, the Germans are in better position to afford the admin points to free up certain units in order to retreat and the fact is that Hitler did authorize some retreating. Not often, but he did. Secondly, the Germans will just run a bit early during frost, much like they do now so once again, it won't solve a lot of issues. If I was as pro Soviet as you claim, I would be attacking 2by3 for the changes they have made. You know, things such as shrinking command points of the Soviet armies. Removing the ability to make static units in 1941. And all the other changes. Read all the changes made to the Soviets over the various patches, then show just where I claimed 2by3 has a pro Axis bias. And then, you can explain why I currently am at 1.06.6. So tell me, if what you claim is true, just why would I patch up to that? Of course, I haven't, and you can't. So your claim is false. Now, that that falsehood is exposed, let's move on. You've been here long enough to know just how much complaining and accusations have been made because the Axis can't get those massive pockets. How much they want to implement so called "Stalin rules." And all the rest But what you don't see, or just ignore, is the thundering silence when they can do what the Axis could not. I can't find any Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad before winter. Or how they can take Moscow. Or how they can retreat during the blizzard. I have yet to see any Axis complaint that they have to launch Fall Blau, whether they want to or not. Or any Axis complaint on how they have to stand their ground. Nor do I complain about how 2by3, or the game, is pro Axis because of that. "pro Soviet bias............ riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight." Can you find those complaints? You want Stalin rules to force the Soviets to act a certain way. Then you should be willing to accept Hitler rules to force the Axis to act the same way. That works for me. And since Hitler interfered more and more as the war went on, while Stalin did the opposite, well......... My point is you can absolutely be counted on to champion anything and everything Soviet. To you, there appears to be no rule that inhibits the Axis that you don't like and in fact you would like to see more done to inhibit the Axis like the Lvov opening nerfed, etc. There are plenty of people that just want a a playable game that is good. The game without a lot of house rules, is just not there yet and it won't be since the majority of time and effort is now concentrated on WITW.

AFV -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/30/2012 7:01:10 AM)
Aurelian you owe the jar yet another dollar.

glvaca -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/30/2012 9:22:07 AM)
I was looking at the start of the 1942 scenario. Seems pretty interesting and perhaps a good alternative for those who want to skip 1941 because of all the "problems" they attribute to the game. You should check it out.

hfarrish -> RE: Where are my Mules? (4/30/2012 4:32:46 PM)
I played the '42 scenario once as the Germans and really enjoyed it - a lot of different directions you can take the campaign in. The German army did seem to collapse too quickly in late '43/ early '44, and not sure whether patches have lessened this impact over time. The reduction of forts could make the late war period particularly challenging as the German.

Tarhunnas -> RE: Where are my Mules? (5/1/2012 12:19:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian But what you don't see, or just ignore, is the thundering silence when they can do what the Axis could not. I can't find any Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad before winter. Or how they can take Moscow. Or how they can retreat during the blizzard. I have yet to see any Axis complaint that they have to launch Fall Blau, whether they want to or not. Or any Axis complaint on how they have to stand their ground. There has been lots of discussion on the forum about how relatively easy it is to take Leningrad.

Aurelian -> RE: Where are my Mules? (5/1/2012 1:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian But what you don't see, or just ignore, is the thundering silence when they can do what the Axis could not. I can't find any Axis complaint about how they can take Leningrad before winter. Or how they can take Moscow. Or how they can retreat during the blizzard. I have yet to see any Axis complaint that they have to launch Fall Blau, whether they want to or not. Or any Axis complaint on how they have to stand their ground. There has been lots of discussion on the forum about how relatively easy it is to take Leningrad. Yes there has. But still, they take it. Which goes to show that they are not tied to the rails some over and over claim they are. I've certainly never complained about it falling. (I always took Lgrad in 41 then Moscow in 42 in the boardgame.) Heck, lost it in my current game.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875