RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (Full Version)

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

Message

janh -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 3:37:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton I beleive the one major thing that would give the game a historical feel is a turn by turn VP system or make railing out industry harder. I'd wish for a modified VP system in WitE2, if so be. The industry capacities and railing seems to be well-researched by the devs, and appears to recreate things within limits credibly. If you'd now artificially modify that toward unrealistic levels just to rebalance a GC, you might not only create your own version of LoTR as you call it, but open a box of pandora. Changing VPs is a "soft", a rather arbitrary thing, just as politics and population war morale would be, and might be easier to justify without causing side effects?

mevstedt -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 5:43:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian Perhaps you should run through the forums to read all the complaints and accusations from some Axis players first. What makes you think I haven't? ... I've been stalking this forum for quite some time tbh. My point was though, as have also been pointed out previously, that two wrongs don't make one right. Especially not so when the two issues (wrongs) are unrelated, ie there is no point in using the Lvov opening as an excuse to keep the Blizzard the way it is as they are unrelated. quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The only way the Germans could have avoided their total supply breakdown in 1941 would have been to not invade the Soviet Union. They were not even close to being prepared logistically for the winter. The war was supposed to be over by then, according to their plan. There was no expedient or makeshift that could have avoided the catastrophic supply failure they experienced. The blizzard rule in this game has a lot of problems. But causality isn't one of them. This is fairly accurate, there are alot of underlying causes but in essence the germans did not have a contingency plan in the case that the Soviet Union managed to hold out until the winter. Lack of winter clothing, low manpower reserves, lack of spare parts for tanks and vehicles overall, overstreched supply lines and so on, there are numerous issues they were facing that all together left the german army in a very weak state by the end of operation typhoon. (I have no figures but a guess would be that the germans were on overall somewhere around 50% TOE average, a german army in equal state in the game facing a soviet army in the blizzard with the rules as they are would stare down at Operation Bagration on steroids. That is also the point I am arguing, the germans were in bad shape at the start of the soviet counteroffensives but they were not in much worse state when the frontlines consolidated in late february/early march 42). Peltons suggestion may give a somewhat more accurate depiction, although the exact numbers would have to be tested as well as how long the effect should last, my gut feeling is that 2 turns [might] be too little and maybe 3 or perhaps 4 turns might be needed but that is what playtesting is for. If we compare to history, what he suggests is essentially to give the soviets the capacity to knock the germans out of fortified positions (this may require more than 1 turn which is why I'm not sure 2 turns are enough) and then the game becomes alot more open as the germans, unlike the soviets, can not commit large number of units to dig defenses in depth. The Blizzard rule in its current form simply dictates the entire 41 campaign for the axis side. It's all about getting far enough to be able to give ground, transport troops to germany so they don't suffer penalties and even the strategical value of Leningrad is highly increased since a large part of the axis ability to be able to cope with the blizzard to even a slight degree depends on the ability to free up the Finns. If the blizzard rule is rewritten then the focus shifts from trying to survive the blizzard and to a more open (and hopefully more enjoyable) game, for both sides. The reason I believe this is because Leningrad will not automatically be the number one priority of any decent axis player, which means it opens up choices again for both sides. Do the germans go for Leningrad, Moscow or both Leningrad and Moscow? As it is now, an axis player who has atleast a bit of experience, will almost always aim for Leningrad first and after that, go for Moscow once Leningrad is taken. Never the other way around, atleast from what I can tell. I'll just end up with some historical speculation just to flesh things out. The germans reached Leningrad in august 41, there is nothing that actually says they could not have assaulted the city (whether it would have fallen or not is another matter). However, it is likely that if an assault on such a major city had been undertaken it would probably not have started until late august or early september and had probably taken most of september (and more) to reach a conclusion. From a game pov this would essentially have made it too late to regroup AGN to participate in offensive operations against Moscow, which seems fine to me, as it would force the axis player into a similar situation as the german high command, ie: do we commit (in force) to taking Leningrad or should we aim for Moscow.

Ketza -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 8:32:11 PM)
Fix the Lvow pocket and the majority of Soviet players will run anyway and save all those prime divisions for other fronts while stalling the Axis in the south. They can also save all those nasty mountain units for the blizzard. When I run into an Axis player that does not do a Lvow pocket it is a guarantee that both Moscow and Leningrad hold as I shuttle all those juicy units to the landbridge and Leningrad lines. Now this may be because only an unseasoned Axis player will not accomplish a Lvow pocket [:D]

Peltonx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 11:53:45 PM)
Moscow is simply not possible now because of the logistics nerf .13 vs just about anyone. There have been several dozen games post .13 and in none has it fallen in 41 that I know of. Leningrad is really not takable if the SHC simply rails up 20+ units from the south as they are not needed at this time. Basicly for GHC 1941 is setting up for 1942. The game all things being equal hvy favors SHC not because of .13, but because the blizzard in the past was used to balance out the poor logistic system which has now been fixed. So the Blizzard is totally unbalancing the game to the point GHC is forsed to retreat to Poland because of the massive SHC armys come blizzard +5 million in many cases. Massive historical morale losses are just not historical or the 10+ divisions being lost in AAR after AAR.

turtlefang -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 1:34:33 AM)
While the blizzard rules may need to be changed, I don't think you can base it on how the Soviets performed historically. At that point, I think your your comparing an apples and oranges situation here when you compare what the SHC can do in the game versus what happens historically. Historically, the Soviets really lost a huge number of men in 1941. Based on the research I've seen, the average estimates run about: USSR (millions, KIA, MIA, WIA - note that some of the WIA will return to action) 1941 - 7.423 1942 - 8.369 1943 - 7.957 If a German player inflicts these losses on the SHC, then the SHC is unlikely to kill 10 to 20 divisions in the Winter or launch major offensives across the entire front - although the SHC will inflict a lot of losses and be able to take a territory back. On the other hand, if the GHC kills inflicts 3MM losses, the Germans going to face a relatively strong SHC and end up in trouble and he will face a SHC that 70% stronger than he was historically. So changing the blizzard rules - by itself - is probably not the way to go. Your really talking some major changes: - increasing the ability of the GHC to inflicit losses (could be enhanced cbt values in 41, morale, or whatever) - increasing the SHC ability to replace losses, (a whole lost, especially after suffering losses) - adding in a LOT of SHC units that simply don't currently make an appearance, - fixing the first turn surprise rules, - increasing German attritrion (losses for tanks and art don't get to historical norm by factors of five, and infantry losses are still too light to get to 41 losses), - based on history, rail transportation for the Soviets is too low (the Soviets actually park a large number of engines and frieght stock so losses didn't decrease rail ability in the least - net for the war, Soviet engine losses were a -1000 engines and about 100,000 rolling stock - and they parked nearly 200,000 rolling stock out of the 600,000 they started with so they should have a fixed rr level thoughout the war, and yes, I understand the issue of marshalling yards, I have 30 years transportation, logistics experience) That's a lot of changes and moving parts. And a lot of testing and balancing to get it right. Anyway, my 2 cents

Flaviusx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 2:26:35 AM)
There is no need whatsoever to retreat to Poland for the first blizzard, whatever problems the blizzard rule has. This is sheer hyperbole. I'm in fact very critical about this "strategy" as imo it basically hands over the game to the Soviet, provided he isn't dumb about taking advantage of this freebie runaway. (I.e., don't chase him all the way back with your MLR, just use pickets to establish a buffer zone, and park the real strength of the Red Army on defensible terrain well to the east that buffer zone. Make the Axis waste spring and early summer reaching the MLR, rebuilding rail lines, etc.) Such a retreat on the part of the Axis is voluntary, not anything forced by game mechanics or the opponent. It amounts to a declaration of strategic bankruptcy.

Peltonx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 5:15:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx There is no need whatsoever to retreat to Poland for the first blizzard, whatever problems the blizzard rule has. This is sheer hyperbole. I'm in fact very critical about this "strategy" as imo it basically hands over the game to the Soviet, provided he isn't dumb about taking advantage of this freebie runaway. (I.e., don't chase him all the way back with your MLR, just use pickets to establish a buffer zone, and park the real strength of the Red Army on defensible terrain well to the east that buffer zone. Make the Axis waste spring and early summer reaching the MLR, rebuilding rail lines, etc.) Such a retreat on the part of the Axis is voluntary, not anything forced by game mechanics or the opponent. It amounts to a declaration of strategic bankruptcy. Facts are and its happening allot now, Germans are losing 10+ divisions and are unable to mount even a feable offensive in early 42. The blizzard is totally unhistirical. If your a SHC player and loses more then 2.7 million men your not doing much right. SHC 5+ million men armys are normal now. Pocketing 10 divisions is normal. I am playing my first SHC and pocketing 10+ divisions is realyy really easy and the SHC player is running 20 to 30 miles per turn. Hheheheh kinda hopeless at this point. If he was fighting forward I could easly pocket 30+ german divisions. I am a 100% total newbie and its a cake walk. I am losing 70% of the battles but still pocketing some units every turn. The blizzard is so unhistorical is silly at this point. If your dont run as GHC 300 miles to east your toast and you will still lose 17 points of morale and 10+ units. Its not This is sheer hyperbole. If you read the AAR's is a matter of fact of the game. I am doing it in my game and I am a total moron. So as GHC you lose in 44 if you stand and fight or run. It is what it is read the AAR's vs someone that knows the exploits. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3160793&mpage=3 smokendave is retreating at least 80 miles in 4 turns, I can hardly win a battle to save my life, and its still np to pocket units. Of cource I have the replasement snowball exploit going now so this retreat will be 17 turns or 300+ miles or e will lose allot more then 10 divisions and again I cant even merge units an have a rainbow of chaos going for my unit heheheh

Peltonx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 5:23:34 AM)
So whats better try and fight or start running for Poland. If he sticks around GHC army will be 100% usless in 42 summer. Its just to easy, I can even do it and I am a newbie. The SHC side is as easy as MT siad it would be.

Flaviusx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 6:18:50 AM)
Pelton, a gradual withdrawal is all that is necessary. Running away to Poland is not. That's just giving the game away. Also: if future games, don't do any more right hooks. Only works against somebody not expecting it. At this point everybody knows this is your MO and it can be shut down.

Peltonx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 10:02:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Pelton, a gradual withdrawal is all that is necessary. Running away to Poland is not. That's just giving the game away. Also: if future games, don't do any more right hooks. Only works against somebody not expecting it. At this point everybody knows this is your MO and it can be shut down. Not even talking about that game, thats another story all together. A gradual withdrawal only means GHC will lose 10-20 divisions which is not historical by a long shot. Historically the only large formations of troops pocketed were russian and not german. This is the normal now in many AAR's. If you stand and fight its a complete disaster. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3173669&mpage=5 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3142279&mpage=4&key=

janh -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 10:48:18 AM)
On a side note -- there is another screw for tuning the level of blizzard effects and penalties (&& the SHC staunchness and speed of the 41 summer campaign): The survivability of units in pockets (w/ and w/o air/beachhead supply). The penalty units in pockets fall under is also severe, much like the blizzard penalties for at least Dec. 41. Tuning one up a bit, and the other down to the January or February penalties would impact the whole GC, but if fine-tuned gently, the effect would go in the direction desired by most people here (i.e. if my impression is right). Soviets pockets taking perhaps a turn longer or two to digest in summer 41 would slow Axis, cost more supplys, erode Axis numbers more -- effectively like increasing SHC morale, or adding additional counters. In return, German units pocketed during blizzard (a la Demyansk), or later years (Korsun), would stand a chance to hold out for some 3-4 turns or so. If they managed to survive until say January or better February, German CV would be perhaps allow relieve efforts or so. That effectively would reduce the impact of SHC hordes doing ZOC locks and the whole blizzard offensive could remind of the largely uncoordinated brawl it at large was, and would occasionally run out of steam at the moment the decisive breakthrus could really be exploited. In return, Soviets might probably need a manpower upping? Basically the only way to figure this out properly would be (a) a reference case scenario with historical setups as well for the blizzard offensive, (b) slowly adjusting one thing before the next. After the latest announcement of another addon including -- surprisingly -- adding the blizzard special rules to the editor, one can hope that we soon have the tools to adjust at least of those parameters ourselves.

morvael -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 12:39:39 PM)
How much of this can be fixed by players doing a custom scenario and/or a mod for the game? Surely stronger Soviets, more units, slower motorized units are doable? Blizzard rules are probably unmoddable? I ask this because I am a fan of Paradox moddable games - one could alter a lot in them one didn't like. So maybe instead of trying to convince the developers (which may be difficult, since they did things the way they want so why change that), a group of players should try to work together on a mod that would make them happy?

Flaviusx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 1:01:29 PM)
Pelton, I refer you to Kamil's game versus Saper. Kamil destroyed a cool two dozen divisions or so and it just didn't matter very much. Saper went on and spanked him in 42 anyways. The Wehrmacht is much more resilient than you think and almost impossible to destroy in the first blizzard. It practically gets a reset in spring of 42, this is hard coded. Between Hiwis kicking in and ahistorically low losses in summer of 41, it's very hard to bring it down much below 3.3 million going into summer of 42. Even the most outstanding Soviet blizzard counteroffensive isn't going to knock it out. So you are prematurely writing off the Germans in this game and may be in for an unpleasant surprise in 42. Don't misunderstand me. I agree that the existing blizzard rules are a horrible kludge. But the blizzard isn't really that important anymore and won't win games by itself. As for the stupidity of Soviet generalship, for myself I never cease to be amazed at the stupidity of the German plan to invade Russia. Not up to scratch at all, piss poor contingency planning, completely unrealistic logistical underpinnings, etc. etc. Extremely amateurish. The German genius for war has perhaps been overblown.

Klydon -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 4:54:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morvael How much of this can be fixed by players doing a custom scenario and/or a mod for the game? Surely stronger Soviets, more units, slower motorized units are doable? Blizzard rules are probably unmoddable? I ask this because I am a fan of Paradox moddable games - one could alter a lot in them one didn't like. So maybe instead of trying to convince the developers (which may be difficult, since they did things the way they want so why change that), a group of players should try to work together on a mod that would make them happy? Part of the issue with player made mods for this particular game is there doesn't seem to be much interest in them from the player community since they are not "official". Some items are hard coded in that make it a bit tougher to make some desirable changes, but my understanding is they are working on a version that allows more modding to take place. The issue this game has had from day 1 is the fact that neither side has any penalty (or very minimal penalty) for running away depending on the situation. The eastern front campaign was a clash of titans, a brawl, a slug fest, etc. This game represents the first part of the campaign (well into 1942) as a track meet with one side or the other generally running. Until this basic mechanic is fixed (little or no penalty for running for the hills), then both sides are going to continue to use it and the game will never ever achieve its potential. Now, that is not to say there are not issues for both sides that need to be addressed if the running is fixed. For the Russians, they need to be made more resiliant. Right now, they can't take historical losses in 1941 and be viable. More of everything is needed in 1941 to allow the Russians to take the beating they took historically and still be viable. They also need to be able to inflict some damage on the Germans. Right now, Russian counter attacks are extremely far and few between and that simply is not what happen historically. For the Germans, the Russians need to be tweaked down a bit in the winter, especially in the mobility department. Should the Germans decide to stand and fight as they did historically, they are going to lose a lot of units against good Russian players while they never lost any major formations like divisions during the real winter campaign. There are other things, but this is sort of the tip of the ice berg here.

morvael -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 5:46:44 PM)
Maybe instead of asking the developers to "fix" things, which they may not respond to because they may not agree with some players, or it would amount to a lot of work for which they get no pay (patches are free), we could ask for them to open up the engine for modding. Like putting all constants used in hardcoded formulas to an external text file so people could alter them, or allowing to turn off/modify blizzard rules and who is affected with them. This would be easier to implement, would not change game balance for the official scenarios, while people could experiment more with the engine.

Peltonx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/30/2012 5:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx As for the stupidity of Soviet generalship, for myself I never cease to be amazed at the stupidity of the German plan to invade Russia. Not up to scratch at all, piss poor contingency planning, completely unrealistic logistical underpinnings, etc. etc. Extremely amateurish. The German genius for war has perhaps been overblown. Very true on your pts. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3160793&mpage=3&key=� I am not so sure on your thinking about wiping GHC forses, but 42 will tell.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875