Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (Full Version)

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



Message

mmarquo -> Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:05:05 PM)

Here is Turn 15, September 25 from my match with MTours. Nonrandom weather, unbridled/aggressive air supply - sometimes 10 -14 drops per hex - he has figured out a way to play with utter disregard for any semblance of logistical restraint. Everyone of his spearheads has been cutoff multiple times, isolated, etc., all to no avail.

On this turn he has captured Tambov, Ryazan and Vladimir and encircled virtually the entire Russian army [X(] Now the entire game has been these massive encirclements which I fight out of; Soviet losses thus far 2,300,000 and I still field 4,700,000. I will end up with perhaps 5,800,000 by the time of the blizzard. He is moving forward at will, as if there are no Soviet units on the map.

TURN 15



[image]local://upfiles/1355/6A284047BB4A43AEB750B8A5A7F153D3.jpg[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:07:29 PM)

More of the East Front Fantasy TURN 15

[image]local://upfiles/1355/EEB894201A2640BCB104F7F5EAEBF510.jpg[/image]



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:12:24 PM)

Deja-vu?! I am playing (PBEM) just the Road to Kiev as Soviet and it's turn 5 and I am already screwed... and I am not a rookie. How on earth did your opponent get passed Voronezh in 15 turns? Surely he's not Pelton with his 100x exploits. But then... how did Michael T did achieve this? HQ build ups, etc?

Klink, Oberst



mmarquo -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:13:00 PM)

And east of Moscow to Vladimir by a hook around [:D] Super flying fuel birds ensue that the thirsty panzers never go wanting....



[image]local://upfiles/1355/383066EF6D6F41A5887CE54552E667C0.jpg[/image]



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:15:24 PM)

WTF? So, basically one doesn't give a toss about flanks, units cut off, etc. Just supply whole Panzer Armies with Goering's Luftwaffe??? If only Paulus had 10% of that support back in Stalingrad. A WitE Paulus would have had a well supplied 6th Army with a nice x-mas cake for everybody and plenty of fuel to guzzle for the Panzers?

Klink, Oberst



Aurelian -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:27:12 PM)

That's why I only play against the AI now.



Flaviusx -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:43:24 PM)

Just resign, man. This is just stupid. Him and Sapper should play each other, and find out who is the King of Cheese.



mmarquo -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:50:16 PM)

For the record this is MTours, not MT. MTours plays with absolutely no regard for his flanks, and does not care about exposing marauding forward panzer units to encirclement because it simply does not matter. He fills up the unit and/or HQ to the maximum with fantasy flying fuel and simply breaks out and pushed forward. Hopefully a developer is seeing this and taking note. I will be glad to forward files. My recommendation:

Unless you want to play a fantasy role playing game, never play with anyone who will use bombers to fly fuel; and restrict bombers only to He-111's to drop supplies (not fuel). I would go further: the units can't move the turn they get air supplied by any means (like HQ buildup; would consider only allowing air resupply to units on a city/urban hex. Even this is a stretch for various reasons.

Marquo



SigUp -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 8:51:34 PM)

That's just ridiculous. [8|]
Honestly, that's exploiting on the highest level, not caring about game balance etc. I am impressed that you managed to play on until turn 15.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

That's why I only play against the AI now.

Well, it's another thing, if you can find an opponent who is willing to avoid cheesing and also strives for more historic play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Unless you want to play a fantasy role playing game, never play with anyone who will use bombers to fly fuel; and restrict bombers only to He-111's to drop supplies (not fuel). I would go further: the units can't move the turn they get air supplied by any means (like HQ buildup; would consider only allowing air resupply to units on a city/urban hex. Even this is a stretch for various reasons.

Or set logistics at 75 and only Ju-52s are allowed to fly supplies and fuel.



mmarquo -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 9:09:59 PM)

Flaviux,

I resigned the turn before, but did one more turn for him because he was dubious that I could have cut off a huge mass of his troops. Here is the situation before his move:



[image]local://upfiles/1355/FEA8882A6AE8493FA25DBCBC77E577CB.jpg[/image]



timmyab -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 9:13:26 PM)

I think you could easily get rid of bomber supply and HQ buildup and the game would be much better off for it.I've hardly used either in my game against Bobo and I'm roughly historical I think.Maybe even a little ahead?I'm not certain.Without these things 41 is actually starting to feel pretty good, i.e it's a massive struggle for the German player with counterattacks a constant menace.It's after turn 17 that it all goes mad.Removing the 1:1 rule at the start of the blizzard would be a start.



Walloc -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 9:14:01 PM)

Well, my term for LW never did take. The Heers fuel truck number 1. Hopefully by WiTE 2.0 changes will be made. Why use the LW for GS that is sadly unneeded in the current setup, if u instead can have ur Pz Groups milling around at near max MP. Incentives is what makes the world go around.

Rasmus



mmarquo -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 9:16:01 PM)

"That's just ridiculous.
Honestly, that's exploiting on the highest level, not caring about game balance etc. I am impressed that you managed to play on until turn 15."


Well, I am not a quitter and prefer to go the long haul, but this is too much. I do not blame MTours and applaud his ingenuity; the devs should take note that there is still work to do. It would be a pity if this exploit stands unaddressed.

Marquo [;)]



mmarquo -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 9:28:58 PM)

"Or set logistics at 75 and only Ju-52s are allowed to fly supplies and fuel."

Sig,

Have you tried this? 75 for both sides or only the Axis?



SigUp -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 9:32:28 PM)

Yeah, I am always impressed by people coming with with such solutions. On the other hand I don't think it is in the interest of fair play to do something like this.

As for logistics settings, first of all, I am a bad player, so what I have tried is not representative. Last week me and loki did a little test game with the Road to Smolensk scenario on 75, a little AAR is there in the AAR section. I am also playing a game against the AI on 60 and indeed, the logistics are pretty restrictive, if one declines on spamming HQ buildup and aerial supply.



Lobster -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 10:31:58 PM)

This game has a complete and utter disregard for time and space. Why should anything surprise anyone? Why do you look for realism when that is totally impossible?



Flaviusx -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 10:34:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I think you could easily get rid of bomber supply and HQ buildup and the game would be much better off for it.I've hardly used either in my game against Bobo and I'm roughly historical I think.Maybe even a little ahead?I'm not certain.Without these things 41 is actually starting to feel pretty good, i.e it's a massive struggle for the German player with counterattacks a constant menace.It's after turn 17 that it all goes mad.Removing the 1:1 rule at the start of the blizzard would be a start.


Need to do a lot more than that to tame the blizzard, imo. I think the morale hit all the way through February is too much. And I don't buy the globalized effects. It seems to me that as the Germans fall back west their situation ought to improve. (And by "falling back west" I do NOT mean Poland. The Soviets should have a difficult time sustaining their own drive.) Nor did the Soviets manage to drive the Axis back along the whole front, only against AGC did they enjoy marked success. Elsewhere things stabilized relatively quickly. As the game presently stands, you can do just as well across the entire line and that seems very dubious to me.



SigUp -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/29/2013 11:24:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Nor did the Soviets manage to drive the Axis back along the whole front, only against AGC did they enjoy marked success. Elsewhere things stabilized relatively quickly. As the game presently stands, you can do just as well across the entire line and that seems very dubious to me.

This. In the area of Army Group South, with the exception of the breakthrough at Izyum, the Soviets failed to achieve any significant gains. And also at Army Group Centre did the Soviets struggle in areas where the Germans were not overstretched come January. The East facing front of the army group basically stayed the same and even in December did the Red Army need the entire month to push 4th Army out of its positions at Naro-Fominsk. Furthermore, currently the Germans can't conduct counteroffensives like the relief operation for Suchinichi in late January 42.



Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 12:05:00 AM)

quote:

Need to do a lot more than that to tame the blizzard, imo. I think the morale hit all the way through February is too much. And I don't buy the globalized effects. It seems to me that as the Germans fall back west their situation ought to improve. (And by "falling back west" I do NOT mean Poland. The Soviets should have a difficult time sustaining their own drive.) Nor did the Soviets manage to drive the Axis back along the whole front, only against AGC did they enjoy marked success. Elsewhere things stabilized relatively quickly. As the game presently stands, you can do just as well across the entire line and that seems very dubious to me.


This is really the main point. You can deal with the Axis exploits by setting up house rules. But what about the blizzard? I've never seen anyone try to impose a house rule that deals with the blizzard. Maybe only allow hasty attacks? Maybe only allow one division per hex? I don't have any experience but without a blizzard house rule the game falls apart after turn 25 unless you've beaten the Russians to a pulp.



timmyab -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 12:30:05 AM)

Someone did come up with some house rules not long after release when the blizzard was more like the Black Death than anything else.I can't remember exactly what they were though.

Ideally the Soviets should only have offensive capability over roughly half the front.I've always thought that ammo doesn't play enough of a part in the game.This could be the limiting factor.Under a certain amount - no deliberate attacks, lower still and no attacks allowed at all.The player would have a limited stockpile which he could allocate to Front or Army HQs.This system would actually work well throughout the game.



mktours -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 12:32:31 AM)

mark,
I would continue the AAR with detail report. You would see you make a wrong conclusion.
I stopped to continue the AAR because you made many big mistakes in the process and I didn't want to offend you by continuing the AAR. Now I have to continue with every details.



mktours -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 12:41:00 AM)

the cut off troops in this map didn't receive air drop, they can move because they have fuel in stored in HQs, the rail head is almost in Moscow now in T15. indeed, we could also see in this picture that your troops in Moscow area has been cut off in T14 (released after your Turn), did they just froze to die? certainly not, being temporarily cutting off for one turn didn't spell the death of an army. You should see it from your experience of your encircled armies.
Mark, my suggestion is that you upload your file to the tech forum, let the experts judge if I did any thing wrong or not. I would continue the AAR with detail reports, your indictment is wrong.


[image]local://upfiles/1355/FEA8882A6AE8493FA25DBCBC77E577CB.jpg[/image]
[/quote]



hfarrish -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 12:50:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

quote:

Need to do a lot more than that to tame the blizzard, imo.


This is really the main point. You can deal with the Axis exploits by setting up house rules. But what about the blizzard? I've never seen anyone try to impose a house rule that deals with the blizzard. Maybe only allow hasty attacks? Maybe only allow one division per hex? I don't have any experience but without a blizzard house rule the game falls apart after turn 25 unless you've beaten the Russians to a pulp.


I am starting a game with the following house rules:

-Non-Random weather
-No HQBU or bomber fuel runs (transports ok)
-Soviets fight forward (with rules + gentlemen's intent to enforce)
-In blizzard, Germans fight forward + only deliberate attacks by Soviet

I really feel this might get us somewhere. The 41 running is due to insane logistical exploits. The blizzard insanity is due to the ability of Sov players to annihilate the German army if it holds its ground due to crazy blizzard rules. Without the logsitical boosts in summer or hasties in winter, you might actually see a normal game (that is the theory anyway).

Will try to post an AAR once things get rolling...



mktours -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 12:54:31 AM)

Mark,
your didn't formally resign to me, from our communication in emails I could only thought you are willing to continue the game, that is why I do my T15. You have said you want to stop the game, but I was asking to continue, and then you sent the turn, I reply and said I am happy to see you are willing to continue the game. and you didn't say you are quitting before I sent you my turn. I saw you did a T14 with full effort, so I could only react to do a turn with my best. You didn't ask me to stop in your mail with your T14. Indeed, after your T14 you have some hope, but in German T15 the south cracked and your Moscow troops are almost hopeless.
I didn't accept your indictment of my exploiting the game, I just didn't want to argue in the email. you could upload any detail to the tech forum. Your got wrong conclusion that my spearhead units could always move regardless of being cutting off, I didn't want to argue with it as our game is still ongoing, then why bother to correct the false conclusion of your opponent? Now the game is over and I am willing to point out your were wrong, please pay attention to my AAR and feel free to correct me if I say anything wrong in the AAR.
You are losing the game. you could not say you are unhappy with my exploiting and stop, if you want to claim it in this way, please demonstrate it.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Flaviux,

I resigned the turn before, but did one more turn for him because he was dubious that I could have cut off a huge mass of his troops. Here is the situation before his move:







mmarquo -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 1:08:04 AM)

Tours,

Of course your railhead eventually caught up; however there were multiple times when your units far outstripped rail logistics and you air supplied to the maximum. It is not wrong that you did it and this not an indictment. You have found a way to move your units without any semblance of logistical restraint. Anybody versed in Barbarossa will look at these situation maps and simply laugh at the notion that the logistic model in this game is anything but pure fantasy.

Please post everything so the developers can take steps to fix the broken engine.

Cheers,

Mark










mktours -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 1:11:47 AM)

Mark,
I will do a detail AAR. I am working now and I would have to do it later.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Tours,

Of course your railhead eventually caught up; however there were multiple times when your units far outstripped rail logistics and you air supplied to the maximum. It is not wrong that you did it and this not an indictment. You have found a way to move your units without any semblance of logistical restraint. Anybody versed in Barbarossa will look at these situation maps and simply laugh at the notion that the logistic model in this game is anything but pure fantasy.

Please post everything so the developers can take steps to fix the broken engine.

Cheers,

Mark












Disgruntled Veteran -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 1:16:46 AM)

While I agree that the Bomber fuel run is a bit excessive I am skeptical that it is a home run like it is being made out to be. In my current game I used all bombers to drop fuel before every turn and yes it helps, but I still had average to mediocre mp's. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the difference between 25 and 35 mp's can make all the difference but it doesn't make for an unstoppable panzer force. I feel there is many other variables at play here.

Its also possible I am not utilizing it to maximum effect but I am dropping several thousand tons of fuel a turn and I am loathe to get my tanks cut off. Instead of simply cutting off forward spearheads and ending turn why not rout them if possible? This would be far more devastating than a single turn of isolation.



mmarquo -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 1:18:38 AM)

Tours,

Normally I would not respond to what you posted, but out of respect and considering that there is a minor language barrier (your English is excellent by the way), here is what I emailed you:

"As for your attack to the north of the railroad, it convinced me to stop our game. You have figured out a way to bypass the need for railroad supplies, and there is simply no way of stopping the Axis under these conditions. This, coupled with nonrandom weather gives you a mathematical certainty to do just about anything you want. By a quick glance I could completely cut off all of your troops southeast and southwest of Moscow (the entire southern pincer), but I notice that you have air supplied some units north of Moscow 17 times with air supplies.

So, thanks for the good game, but there is no point in continuing as you have figured out a fatal flaw in the logistical system; good job."

Tours, this was my resignation.

So again, thanks for the game




Dangun -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 1:41:20 AM)

These conversations about 'fantasy fuel air-drops' seem to show that most people - me included, don't understand what is being done to them.

If someone (MKTours?) could explain how to get such a profound positive effect from air-dropping fuel, this conversation would probably move along better and be more constructive.



mktours -> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion (8/30/2013 2:16:26 AM)

mark,
I did get what you meant in this message. That was when you just received my T14 and I have confirmed that you said you want to stop the game in my post above. I replied your email and asking to continue, then you said you would do the turn, and I replied this message to you:
"Mark,
I am glad to learn that you are willing to continue the game, :)
I am expecting a good turn from you. I still think our game is challenging for each other, and I am looking forward to defending your blizzard assault. It would be a pity for you to give up with only 3 more clear turns left."
you didn't mention you would quit the game again with your T14 (which has been done with full effort), that is why I did my T15. If you replied my message, which I quote above, and said you didn't want to continue, then I would not do my T15.
Anyway, it could be some misunderstanding here in the communication, let us stop arguing about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Tours,

Normally I would not respond to what you posted, but out of respect and considering that there is a minor language barrier (your English is excellent by the way), here is what I emailed you:

"As for your attack to the north of the railroad, it convinced me to stop our game. You have figured out a way to bypass the need for railroad supplies, and there is simply no way of stopping the Axis under these conditions. This, coupled with nonrandom weather gives you a mathematical certainty to do just about anything you want. By a quick glance I could completely cut off all of your troops southeast and southwest of Moscow (the entire southern pincer), but I notice that you have air supplied some units north of Moscow 17 times with air supplies.

So, thanks for the good game, but there is no point in continuing as you have figured out a fatal flaw in the logistical system; good job."

Tours, this was my resignation.

So again, thanks for the game





Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3