RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (Full Version)

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



Message

Aurelian -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/1/2012 2:21:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58


What I would like to see done is simple. Revamp the supply rules to be more restrictive.



They are being done. But you won't see it in this game. Not until WiTE 2 IIRC.



bednarre -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/1/2012 7:00:11 PM)

I think the current debate is really over the topic of simulation versus game. If Stalin was replaced by Zhukov, the Russians would have averted such massive disasters. If Hitler was replaced by Runstedt, the Germans would have averted massive disasters. Yet the critical factor is German manpower, not Russian manpower. Even without a Stalingrad, the German Army would have been bled to death. There will be now be more Russians than historical, in better defensive positions. The Germans will still continue to suffer significant losses attacking. Why did the Germans attack along three sectors in 1941 but only 1 in 1942, with Moscow just a few miles away? The Germans did not think they could afford the losses by taking on the prime of the Russian Army in that sector, and opted for the southern sector. The Russians had enough manpower to counter-attack at Rzheh before Stalingrad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Rzhev , causing casualties in 1942 equal to the losses at Stalingrad! There were no major breakthroughs, and the attacks there are not well known.

So what is the best compromise? For those willing to play both sides, simply play two games and compare results. It seems necessary for some time to pass before a large sample of 1.06.14 campaigns can be finished, and perhaps the victory conditions can then be re-evaluated. It still seems unreasonable for Russia to "lose" in a military sense with decent leadership at the top.



sillyflower -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/1/2012 10:50:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


I would think we would be looking for game balance not to make sure your side has the I win button all the time.[:-]


I don't want an 'I win every time' button as russian but this [sm=00000023.gif] as a 'make Pelton chew carpet in frustration' button would be both entertaining and add a bit more of the historical realism you seek.

I'm just in favour of changes that make the game last longer ie not have almost every one end in 1st 12 months.



AFV -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/2/2012 6:50:56 AM)

I would like cities to provide supply to units, which would make towns more defendable.

Also, I would like the factor used to determine isolated units CV to be changed- I think it is currently too drastic. It seems CV is reduced to 20% (maybe even more), I think 40% would be a better number.



morvael -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/2/2012 7:17:23 AM)

I agree. It should be mostly offensive CV that's affected by supplies & weather. Defensive CV should reduce much, much slower (either from lack of supplies or weather).



timmyab -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/2/2012 2:05:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

I would like cities to provide supply to units, which would make towns more defendable.

Also, I would like the factor used to determine isolated units CV to be changed- I think it is currently too drastic. It seems CV is reduced to 20% (maybe even more), I think 40% would be a better number.


Both good suggestions I think.

Would also be nice if you could create supply dumps in towns and cities relative to their population size.These dumps could be paid for in APs.

I think the initial CV reduction for isolated units should be heavily geared towards their morale and experience.So that for example an elite SS unit with morale and experience in the 90s would initially have only a small CV reduction.At the other end of the scale, a Romanian infantry division with morale and experience in the 30s would have it's CV reduced considerably.
One of the reasons that isolated units don't fight so well is because ammo and supplies are rationed therefore I think that ammo and supply consumption should also be lowered once units are isolated.Once the levels drop far enough then CV should be further reduced and supply consumption further lowered.



morvael -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/2/2012 8:41:03 PM)

Yeah, WitE does not have the concept of rationing supplies (before cut off). V for Victory had it solved properly (on HQ basis though, not unit basis) with several levels of supplies that player was able to choose from (except "none"): attack, general, defensive, minimal. Attack increased strength beyond 100%, general was 100%, defensive reduced attack strength, minimal reduced both. Supplies were stockpiled by HQ so several turns of saving would allow for big push using attack supply, or a long defense.



Schmart -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/2/2012 10:08:33 PM)

It certainly would be nice to include the aspect that supplies need to be built up before offensives, rather than simply clicking a button (HQ BU) and voila!



Michael T -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/2/2012 10:32:40 PM)

The V for Victory games were ahead of their time and its sad that many of the innovative things in those games have not been adopted by others....

Meanwhile I would advocate for some NKPS rail conversion dudes for the Soviets in 1941. My esteemed oppoonent (Pelton) has run for the hills in 1941 and I have to rely on the idiotic AI controlled rail dudes. Could they be anymore stupid?

Please please please give the Russians some sensible ability to repair track in 1941 and early 42.



hfarrish -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 1:56:25 AM)


+1 - Soviet rail repair management pre-NKPS is comical, and not in a good way.



Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 2:44:21 AM)

Oddly enough, I'm totally ok with the present Soviet rail repair situation, as it basically simulates Soviet supply issues in a roundabout way. Soviet logistics were extremely sketchy until lend lease trucks from 43 on made it possible to sustain advances (and they had problems even after that.) Rail supply in this game makes things way too easy. If it worked more realistically then I could see a case for giving the Soviets improved rail repair early on. But as things stand, let it alone.



Michael T -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 3:24:25 AM)

You can candy coat it any way you like. But its just another form of sandboxing or scripting. A player who is faced with an Axis opponent who runs back to Poland in 1941 should be able to pursue them without totally wrecking the truck pool.



Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 3:53:46 AM)

Michael, if your opponent is running to Poland in 41, you've got the game in the bag anyways (provided you don't overextend yourself marching forward.) I don't get this strategy at all. It relies on the Soviet doing some dumb things, and if they don't, the German is cooked.

So I wouldn't fret too much over it. You need to wait until 43 to get Red Army 2.0 anyways and close the deal (in the meantime your replacement pools will accumulate to the moon.)






Michael T -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 4:31:57 AM)

I know full well the game is mine. But this rail thing just drags on a foregone conclusion for about another 50 turns or so. Thats the problem. Think of all those poor Russian mothers who will be crying for their sons, all for the sake of a few rail engs!

How about an auto victory level that ends such madness in 41 or 42.



Ketza -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 1:02:22 PM)

I think there should be a geographical point at which these rail repair assets become avail such as when Minsk is recaptured or Kiev.



Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 2:04:42 PM)

Ketza, not clear to me why the Soviet supply situation would ease as they go further west...there's nothing magical about reaching Kiev or Minsk so far as logistics are concerned. Rather the opposite if anything.

If the Soviets are being limited by their truck pool, I say that is exactly how it ought to be. (It's a pity the same isn't true for the Axis.) Rail supply is altogether too generous in this game, for both sides, but at least the Sovs have a built in leash until 43 with their lack of manual rail repair.



Joel Billings -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 4:34:03 PM)

Yes there probably should be a auto victory level for the Soviets as of the end of 1941 and/or mid 1942. Anyone want to propose a number (or two)? This is the kind of thing that can always be proposed and tested easily as a house rule first before going in the official code.



Schmart -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 5:26:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You can candy coat it any way you like. But its just another form of sandboxing or scripting. A player who is faced with an Axis opponent who runs back to Poland in 1941 should be able to pursue them without totally wrecking the truck pool.


Historically speaking, did the Russians have such a capability in 1941? Seems to me that they were noticeably limited even in 44/45 in what could be acheived logistically.



Michael T -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 10:27:08 PM)

As for a Soviet early war Auto Victory I would suggest a level of 176 pts and the check made in March 1942. I would be happy to see this in the Alt Scenario.

As is the case for all Auto Victory levels they are in place to end games that are clearly heavily in favour of one side or the other. Players who don't like them can ignor them and use the standard CG scenario. I reiterate this proposal should be used in the alt scenario only.



Michael T -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/3/2012 10:58:33 PM)

In regards to the full blown Axis retreat in 1941 all I was asking was to give the Soviets some manually controlled rail eng dudes. Not enhance their truck pool. Can you imagine Zhukov explaining to Stalin ' Sir, we cannot reclaim our territory because we cannot reguage our rail lines' I would think in such a situation where the Germans retreat 100's of miles without a fight that the Russians would simply have raised more rail repair battalions. Its not like there is a shortage of Manpower or a desperate need for troops with rifles. Hell, make them cost 20 AP each, but make them available for such situations. What is so unrealistic about that?



Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 12:38:35 AM)

Michael, as always, you are seeking to loosen the logistical reins of the game, and as always, I want to tighten them. I'll grant you this: at least you're consistent about it, regardless of the side you play.

Bottom line for me: op tempo is already much too fast. (Yes, this applies to the Soviets as well when they are on the offensive.) This will increase it. And people are complaining about the blizzard as is. Throw in premature manual rail conversions, and those complaints will get louder, as the Soviets will be able to sustain offensives they really shouldn't -- and I'm talking about in normal games where people aren't running to Poland. The lack of such manual conversions is one of the things that keeps the blizzard down to a dull roar.

Just be patient and collect your win the old fashioned way.[;)]









Michael T -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 3:34:04 AM)

To be clear I am not asking for a leg up in my current game. I accept my problem an will work around it.

I think the fundamental difference I have with you Flavius and some others is that my priority is not totally focused on realism as opposed to what makes a better game. I might be for example be 50-50 on playability versus realism where as you and others may be more 10-90.

The question for me is, does it make for good 'gaming' when the Axis player runs to Poland in Oct 1941 and the Soviet player can't really punish him due to a lack of rail dudes? No it does not make for good gaming. I want to be able to lay track at a faster rate and/or in a more sensible direction. It may or may not be totally realistic, its arguable. I would argue that Stalin would simply lay the tracks at a faster rate in a more sensible manner. You argue otherwise. I respect that. But I would hope you could see that, in so much as it being a question of is it an enjoyable gaming experince to watch your enemy run in a pure fantasy (Lets face it Hitler would never subcribe to this strategy, nor his Generals, or the troops themselves I suspect) manner and not be able to respond is not much fun.

I accept this situation, I will win in the game I have used as an example. Either through playing it to its conclusion or through a resignation. But I would hope that perhaps in the future the devs put something in place that makes this strategy an Auto win for Russia or gives them some tools to really allow them to pursue the offender without trashing all their trucks.

Anyway that’s all I have to say on it. It would be very unfair to change the rules mid game. I am advocating for a change for new games that have not started yet.



Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 3:56:24 AM)

Well, an auto win option for Sovs is another matter. Less problematic at any rate.

As a practical matter I expect these games where the German runs to Poland early on not to be very common, especially once it becomes clear that it really does amount to a declaration of strategic bankruptcy that cannot be recovered from if the Sov knows his business. It's sufficiently novel now that it may catch some players off guard and lead them to making avoidable errors. I don't expect that from you; the best thing you can do here is offer proof positive that this is just a bad idea for the Axis and there's no pay off. Nip this thing in the bud as it were. Definitely don't want to see this becoming a trend.

As an aside, there was at least one German proponent for this Polish runaway strategy: von Rundstedt. But he is the only one I can think of. The withdrawals most other generals sought were limited ones to more defensible lines but still deep within the Soviet Union. Hitler obviously didn't agree with any of this and sacked generals left and right for even minor tactical withdrawals, let alone a Polish runaway.



Schmart -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 6:27:16 AM)

I think the simplest way to nip this would be to declare an auto victory if the Russians control Riga, Minsk, Kiev, and Odessa at anytime in 1942 (or whatever the VP total for the Russians holding such a line. Undoubtedly under those circumstances, Barbarossa would have been deemed an utter failure.

That would be a realistic political victory, without having to fudge the game and give the Russians a magical logistical ability.



76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 6:40:34 AM)

I've been meaning to start a thread like this, but titled "I won't buy WITE 2.0 unless...", but this thread will probably do. But at least in my opinion, we are clearly not talking about patch, but a almost a complete do-over.

/Rant On/

I hate the Lvov opening but eliminating it without changing the VC to encourage/force the Sovs to fight forward would be a disaster (for the Germans).

I hate that if I suffer historical losses as the Sov player, I'm complete toast, because the Sovs don't get historical replacements/units, but fixing that would also be a disaster (for the Germans).

I hate that all of my Sov units in 1941 are completely helpless, when in fact the Sovs could put up a stiff fight on occassion, but could not cope with the Germans maneuvering around and encircling them.

I hate that a couple of German units can create in impenetrable "encirclement" simply by flipping hex control and relying on low Sov movement rates, and that the combat value of encircled units immediately falls to virtually zero.

I also don't like the opaque, convoluted combat system, the weak supply system. or the pointless Sov evac/production system.

While I don't want to force players to repeat historical mistakes, players need to recognize that if these mistakes are not repeated, their games may bear very little resemblance to historical reality; in particular, the Red Army will be much much bigger if the encirclements don't happen.

The two main things which must be fixed are that the Sovs must be incentivized/forced to fight forward, and they must receive something closer to historical replacements.

/Rant off/

I don't mean to fault 2x3--what they are trying to model is fiendishly complex, and they have made valiant efforts to get things right, including post-release (even though many of these defects should have been detected pre-release), but as Pelton points out, the inter-relationships between the numerous factors are very complex and any "fixes" require very careful thought and play-testing.



janh -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 9:42:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
To be clear I am not asking for a leg up in my current game. I accept my problem an will work around it.

I think the fundamental difference I have with you Flavius and some others is that my priority is not totally focused on realism as opposed to what makes a better game. I might be for example be 50-50 on playability versus realism where as you and others may be more 10-90.


Michael, this is a huge difference in priority, but so is personal preference often. In a perfect world, WitE would offer more difficulty and optional settings, or alternative campaigns that vary between "strictly historical capabilities, and goals", to "expanded railroad building, Axis unit building, and sudden death conditions". Maybe along the route the European WitX series will get there.

Though I would support your argument about Stalin choosing to repair rail quicker in case of an Axis flight to Poland, I think it is circular in that it goes back to the rail track capacity, and the same reason Axis advances in 41 require still much shorter breaks after long hops than they did in reality. After all, the typical op-tempo is still comparably fast. Unless the new logistics model from WitW finds its way into WitE(2), I would refrain from any changes that speed up ops in this game -- for both sides.

I can follow Flavius expectations, though. A real Soviet rail repair capacity would allow for deeper, more extended blizzard offensives, perhaps as bad as it was a couple of patches ago with typically 10-20 whole divs lost. Right now, Axis casualties and pocketing have gone to quite reasonable levels, I find, but only when doing a steady withdrawal. With a typically pinned Soviet Army at say 5M, that should even be achievable without retreating almost everywhere in AGC and AGS area, and without loosing any major formations despite fighting for it.

I'd rather go with a similar set of sudden death victory conditions for SHC. I'd leave Riga out, but put a general line from Pskov via Minsk, Kiev to Odessa. Perhaps even Smolensk rather than Kiev, as probably any campaign where Axis hasn't gotten further than that by March 42 is doomed to end within 2 years anyway.



janh -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 9:52:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
/Rant On/

I hate the Lvov opening but eliminating it without changing the VC to encourage/force the Sovs to fight forward would be a disaster (for the Germans).

I hate that if I suffer historical losses as the Sov player, I'm complete toast, because the Sovs don't get historical replacements/units, but fixing that would also be a disaster (for the Germans).

I hate that all of my Sov units in 1941 are completely helpless, when in fact the Sovs could put up a stiff fight on occassion, but could not cope with the Germans maneuvering around and encircling them.

I hate that a couple of German units can create in impenetrable "encirclement" simply by flipping hex control and relying on low Sov movement rates, and that the combat value of encircled units immediately falls to virtually zero.

I also don't like the opaque, convoluted combat system, the weak supply system. or the pointless Sov evac/production system.

While I don't want to force players to repeat historical mistakes, players need to recognize that if these mistakes are not repeated, their games may bear very little resemblance to historical reality; in particular, the Red Army will be much much bigger if the encirclements don't happen.

The two main things which must be fixed are that the Sovs must be incentivized/forced to fight forward, and they must receive something closer to historical replacements.

/Rant off/


There is a very tricky balance here. I wonder what the ultimate conclusion would be, if both sides had had perfect hindsight -- would the campaign have folded quicker for Axis, i.e. has the Soviet greater potential to improve, or would Axis have gained proportionally more by avoiding its huge mistakes and have saved it in the short or long run?
It would be interesting to figure out where the result would end under such "optimized" conditions.

Dialing up Soviet fighting power (or national morale) in 41, tuning up the manpower factor and adding more empty shells (or making buying them cheaper), upping Soviet movement to counter hex flipping versus its slowness required for pocketing ... I would guess that giving the Soviets more historical capacities without requiring them to repeat bone-head mistakes such as wasting its units doing bloody counter assaults or allowing them to be pocketed easily etc. would leave the Axis player in a dire position. Although the Axis side can also overcome some of that by putting focuses better than their historical counterparts (as seen with Leningrad routinely falling first, then Moscow usually falling). Axis, especially in the later part of the GC, seems to be able to outgrow its expectations as well, so does this mean it must be required to repeat mistakes like "feste Plätze" orders as well? Or does this lead back to leaving everything open, not requiring any forward fighting, or withdrawals or other mistakes at all?



76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 11:22:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I wonder what the ultimate conclusion would be, if both sides had had perfect hindsight -- would the campaign have folded quicker for Axis, i.e. has the Soviet greater potential to improve, or would Axis have gained proportionally more by avoiding its huge mistakes and have saved it in the short or long run?
It would be interesting to figure out where the result would end under such "optimized" conditions.

It is difficult to guess, but either way, the war would look totally different from the historical events. And you also have to consider what mistakes should be able to be avoided--only deployement mistakes, or mistakes in planning ("Gee, maybe we should bring some cold-weather gear?"). All of this could have enormous effect on game balance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
Dialing up Soviet fighting power (or national morale) in 41, tuning up the manpower factor and adding more empty shells (or making buying them cheaper), upping Soviet movement to counter hex flipping versus its slowness required for pocketing ... I would guess that giving the Soviets more historical capacities without requiring them to repeat bone-head mistakes such as wasting its units doing bloody counter assaults or allowing them to be pocketed easily etc. would leave the Axis player in a dire position.

Clearly you are right, and I'm not suggesting that those changes would "fix" the game, because they would give the Sovs a huge advantage--but in my view these are serious flaws in the game, and to fix them while keeping the game playable would require an almost total re-write.

Also, I think we need to distinguish between "mistakes" and "capabilities"; I think that to some extent the massive defeats suffered by the Sovs were not as a result of "mistakes", but rather the fact that they were simply not capable of controlling their army in the manner necessary to avoid these defeats. The degree of control that the Sovs have over their units in the summer of 1941 seems very unrealistic to me, as well as the lack of any reason to fight forward. I think Sov units should be made much more robust (at least some of them), but harder to control, so that you could not be sure that you could move them, etc. This of course would totally change the game.

Frankly, I don't have any easy solutions to many of these issues, and I'm not really sure that there are any solutions to some of them.



timmyab -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 12:17:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Also, I think we need to distinguish between "mistakes" and "capabilities"; I think that to some extent the massive defeats suffered by the Sovs were not as a result of "mistakes", but rather the fact that they were simply not capable of controlling their army in the manner necessary to avoid these defeats. The degree of control that the Sovs have over their units in the summer of 1941 seems very unrealistic to me, as well as the lack of any reason to fight forward. I think Sov units should be made much more robust (at least some of them), but harder to control, so that you could not be sure that you could move them, etc. This of course would totally change the game.

This is precisely right.The Soviet command paralysis in 41 should be fundamental to the game.Without simulating it, what happened in 41 makes no sense and the entire game has to be distorted to achieve any kind of historical outcome.
With realistic C&C restraints the Soviet army can be powered up to give it real bite at the local level on the rare occasions when the command system works optimally.
This combined with a compulsion to fight forward will set the scene on 1941.




Zonso -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 1:25:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I've been meaning to start a thread like this, but titled "I won't buy WITE 2.0 unless...", but this thread will probably do. But at least in my opinion, we are clearly not talking about patch, but a almost a complete do-over.




This in a nutshell. I think WitE has suffered enough with crude mechanisms to enfore some semblance of historical balance. What's needed is a total ground up redesign to better reflect the opposing sides and challenges throughout the war, whether C&C, logistics, combat capabilities, historical VPs etc. The whole enchilada. It's not like there are not any examples to take inspiration and insight from, computer or board, and perhaps in the process create something truly groundbreaking. The developers need a clear vision from the get go, something WitE lacks imo no matter, or in spite of, the attempted cover up of glaring flaws. Don't get me wrong, I have played WitE religiously since release despite that as it does have that undefineable something that hooks me, and I will likely buy WitE 2 on day 1 as well. It is just disappointing that there are so many defects that made it through to the final product when the promise of so much more was right there.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875