RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (Full Version)

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



Message

76mm -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/14/2012 3:46:11 PM)

I can kind of sympathize with the guys complaining about the Stalingrad units--while they were withdrawn because they were sent west, they were sent west at least partly because they were rebuilt after being destroyed. I guess Joel's point is that if these divisions had not been sent west, other equivalent units would have been, so it is a wash.

Personally I don't think it is completely clear how these units should be treated but personally (as a Sov player...) am willing to give the devs the benefit of the doubt.



Aurelian -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/14/2012 9:10:31 PM)

They didn't go west because they were rebuilt. They were rebuilt *in* the west.

At least one, the 384th Inf, went back east after being reconstituted and trained in France.



76mm -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/14/2012 9:20:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

They didn't go west because they were rebuilt. They were rebuilt *in* the west.

But they were rebuilt in the west because they were destroyed, so if they weren't destroyed?

I think the other thread has more info on the topic, so I guess the topic is better discussed there.



Joel Billings -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/14/2012 9:23:24 PM)

If they weren't destroyed, then some unit would have to be withdrawn to fill the need in the west.



Aurelian -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/14/2012 9:30:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

They didn't go west because they were rebuilt. They were rebuilt *in* the west.

But they were rebuilt in the west because they were destroyed, so if they weren't destroyed?

I think the other thread has more info on the topic, so I guess the topic is better discussed there.


I meant to include this:

To borrow Trey's list.

71st Infantry Division -Reconstituted in Denmark Mar 43
94th Infantry Division - Reconstituted in Brittany Mar 43
295th Infantry Division - Reconstituted in Saxony Mar 43
297th Infantry Division - Reconstitued near Blaye-et-St. Luce France Mar-Jun 43
305th Infantry Division - Reconstituted near Le Mans France Mar 43

3rd Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France 43
29th Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France Mar 1943
60th Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France Feb 43





76mm -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/14/2012 9:33:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

If they weren't destroyed, then some unit would have to be withdrawn to fill the need in the west.


Understood, that's why I ultimately accept the mechanism.



Aurelian -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/14/2012 9:38:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

If they weren't destroyed, then some unit would have to be withdrawn to fill the need in the west.


Understood, that's why I ultimately accept the mechanism.


When War in Europe arrives, it will be the Western Allies who get that problem :)

Or should IMHO anyway.



kg_1007 -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/15/2012 12:26:24 AM)

I think that for many, including myself..the 2 worst parts of this (unit withdraw) are:
1: That they pull from the front to fill up, then leave..though I actually can see the logic in the reason above(doesn't mean that I like it or even agree, but I can see the logic).
2: That it comes regardless of current game conditions..and while I understand the logic here, as well.. I disagree with it still. If you are leading your pixeltruppen to glorious victory after glorious victory, the Red Army is running away, and all is beautiful in your little Axis world...it still seems arbitrary to see that somehow in the West, it is not going so well, and you need to pull units from the East to fix.. In the real world, the Wehrmacht as I posted in another thread some weeks ago...devoted 60+% of their entire war effort to the East Front, where they saw their "real enemies" If the Soviets were indeed crumbling, it is quite likely that the Western allies would never have even attempted their landings, or, if they did so, the timing for them would have been much delayed as the British, in particular, had a very specific set of prerequisites which they needed to achieve before they attempted, at least, the "big one" in Normandy.
Having said that, I also think that with only one front in the game, I can understand 2x3's reason for this design choice..it definitely makes me more anxious to try an eventual "War in Europe" where we can make the decisions for both fronts however.[;)] Then again, perhaps that is their secret plan after all...lol



Aurelian -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/15/2012 12:44:02 AM)

Ahh, but if you're winning glorious victory after glorious victory, surely you can spare the troops for the front that is suffering inglorious defeat after inglorious defeat :)




kg_1007 -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/15/2012 3:26:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Ahh, but if you're winning glorious victory after glorious victory, surely you can spare the troops for the front that is suffering inglorious defeat after inglorious defeat :)



Lol..touche'



misesfan -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/15/2012 7:13:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I see he is falling for helio's Stalingrad myth. I see he fails to understand, either on purpose or because of lack of research, that those units lost at Stalingrad were *rebuilt*. And that they were sent *west*. Thus, said units are withdrawn. Not because they were lost. But because they went west.

He really should read what Joel posts.


I have read those posts. In fact there is a new post regarding the Western Front reinforcement schedule. I have also read Helio's posts as well. Glad you have presumed what I have been thinking.

Mr. Billings states that the withdrawn units are to reinforce the Western Front. I presumed that they were removed because of the destruction of the Sixth Army - since those are the units removed from play and at he same time they were historically removed from the OOB. I guess my assumptions were totally irrational according to you.

I was incorrect and defer to the designer regarding this issue.




misesfan -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/15/2012 7:26:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Uh, actually, I've said previously and fairly frequently that the Sov's ability to conduct this kind of coordinated withdrawal is "wildly unrealistic" and have suggested some ways to fix it. I'm too lazy to post a link the to post, but trust me on this one.


I am sure you have. The point being is that you accused those who disagree and feel as if they are shouted down within the forum are presented with historical fact and pristine logic. I have presented two instances within the same thread where that is not the case. Therefore, the premise is demonstrably false.


You failed with the Stalingrad nonsense. The units are not withdrawn because they were lost. They are withdrawn because the rebuilt units were.............wait for it.........................................sent elsewhere.

Read Joel's post here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3097828&mpage=5&key=?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3104200 for Trey's


Heh - umm wait for it? Okay.

My demonstration of your faulty logic was in reference to the fact that you stated that the Germans (who actually LOST the war) did not have the Soviet capital as a prime objective and therefore should be the correct strategy for players. Your quote
quote:

If Moscow was so important, why did the Germans divert forces from their drive on Moscow to other fronts? Hmmm...I guess they didn't think that taking Moscow would win the war for them, so I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion.


My demonstration of your talking down to others with ahistorical BS regarding the following quote from you:
quote:


I find it humorous that so many pro-German posters claim that they are being "shouted down" by having to deal with inconvenient facts and credible historical sources.

And yet I didnt mention Stalingrad at all. We were discussing the occupation of Leningrad and Moscow. My discussion of Stalingrad, which I admit is incorrect based on the designers comments, was in an itemized listing of ahistorical factors in the game that needed attention.

You corrected my discussion on the Stalingrad withdrawls, and yet dont discuss the lowering of German morale which is much more critical, but was listed by me in the same sentence. Of course, discussion about wholesale retrograde Soviet operations is quite off the table as well.



76mm -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/15/2012 9:51:44 PM)

pwieland, you seem to be mixing up who said what...you seem to be quoting me and responding to Aurelian?

In any event, I understand that your argument is as follows:
1) It is ludicrous that the Sovs could have beaten Germany if Moscow had been lost;
2) The Germans, who had staked the fate of the country on the issue, decided that they would pursue objectives other than Moscow; and
3) The Germans lost the war, thus proving your claim that taking Moscow would have won the war.

Do I have that about right? Are you sure that it is my logic that is faulty?



Aurelian -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/15/2012 10:23:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland


And yet I didnt mention Stalingrad at all. We were discussing the occupation of Leningrad and Moscow. My discussion of Stalingrad, which I admit is incorrect based on the designers comments, was in an itemized listing of ahistorical factors in the game that needed attention.



quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

Removing units wholesale from the Axis OOB because of historical battles, that may never occur? (I am thinking the Stalingrad OOB removal as a prime example here...)




So much for not mentioning Stalingrad at all.



Aurelian -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/15/2012 10:24:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

pwieland, you seem to be mixing up who said what...you seem to be quoting me and responding to Aurelian?

In any event, I understand that your argument is as follows:
1) It is ludicrous that the Sovs could have beaten Germany if Moscow had been lost;
2) The Germans, who had staked the fate of the country on the issue, decided that they would pursue objectives other than Moscow; and
3) The Germans lost the war, thus proving your claim that taking Moscow would have won the war.

Do I have that about right? Are you sure that it is my logic that is faulty?


I'm still waiting for him to show that Russia would not have had a functioning capital if Moscow fell.



Panzeh -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/20/2012 12:22:23 PM)

The thing about the whole "What if Guderian had focused on Moscow" is that there's no consequence to the counterpoint. The Soviet army has nerf guns in 1941 so 600,000 men in Kiev are no real threat to anything and just looking to get encircled. In reality, a push on Moscow with a massive force on its southern flank might have resulted in total disaster if a counterattack managed to break through behind him, and the Soviets were counterattacking.

Of course, in WitE, soviet units are so bad in combat in 1941 that counterattacks are nothing, and it's mostly a campaign of maneuver rather than of fierce battle. I think the Soviets should get some combat help in 1941 while getting a lot less help in the blizzard. The "Blizzard" should come because the Axis is worn down, not because of some lame gamey benefit.



Tarhunnas -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/20/2012 12:46:36 PM)

The Soviets can counterattack effectively in 1941, especially if the Axis player cannot constantly keep the Soviet off guard.

But I agree with you point about the blizzard, I guess it is overpowered to compensate for a lack of realistic logistics. Logistics should be much more of a limiting factor to offensives than it is, both to the Germans in 1941 and 1942 and the Soviets in later years.




76mm -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/20/2012 1:30:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The Soviets can counterattack effectively in 1941, especially if the Axis player cannot constantly keep the Soviet off guard.


Two things:

I've seen your attacks, and don't know how you do it. Mine fail miserably, almost without exception. That's besides the fact that massing units for an attack is very likely to cause them to get bagged next turn.

Even your attacks amount to forcing a division or two back; while is great for slowing the Germans down, I don't know if I would call it an "effective counter-attack" in the sense that Panzeh meant.

In any event, I think it is kind of a stretch to say that the Sovs can counterattack effectively.



hfarrish -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (5/20/2012 2:56:36 PM)


My experience is that the reality is somewhere in between - its true you have little chance of doing more than throwing back a German unit here or there (as opposed to some kind of more coordinated counter offensive) unless the German player totally ignores his flanks. On the other hand, it is possible to make the one offs count, whether in reopening pockets or particularly in pushing a unit that crossed a major river back over; this often can set the Germans back an entire turn.

The risk of pockets is a big one so prudence is key...yet another limiting factor on trying to do anything more than little stuff here or there.



Michael T -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (8/7/2019 2:20:44 AM)

Arhh the memories.

Some newcomers might be interested in this thread. It contains *interesting* discussions about the runaway strategy amongst other things. There are other old threads that also discuss the same subject ad nauseam, but this is one of the most *entertaining*

Food for thought for the guys who have asked me about this aspect of WITE/WITE 2.0



Telemecus -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (8/7/2019 9:48:12 AM)

So I guess there was never a time when there were no discussions about game balance! [:D]



joelmar -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (8/7/2019 12:36:44 PM)

quote:


ORIGINAL: Michael T

It contains *interesting* discussions about the runaway strategy amongst other things


Interesting for sure. I read quite a few comments and it seems there is nothing new under the sun!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

So I guess there was never a time when there were no discussions about game balance!


lol! What is game balance exactly? Ok, let me get some pop-corn!



Wheat -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (8/7/2019 8:04:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Arhh the memories.

Some newcomers might be interested in this thread. It contains *interesting* discussions about the runaway strategy amongst other things. There are other old threads that also discuss the same subject ad nauseam, but this is one of the most *entertaining*

Food for thought for the guys who have asked me about this aspect of WITE/WITE 2.0


Good to see you posting again Michael T.

And it's a soldiers prerogative to complain.



Michael T -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (8/8/2019 12:43:59 AM)

What else do Grognards do other than complain?



corbon -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (8/8/2019 1:26:05 AM)

Well, grognard does literally mean grumbler in French - its origin in military terms is Napoleon using it for his Old Guard veterans in 1804.



Beria -> RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic (8/11/2019 12:33:34 PM)

It certainly relieves the stress and tension to have a good old moan and whine afterwards I think! [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875