RE: The core problem with WitE+

RE: The core problem with WitE+ (Full Version)

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

Message

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/28/2014 2:15:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Saper222 1:1=2:1 can do this attack. WiTE is strategic game, not casino. Maybe 1,5:1 (1,3 ore 1,4) for victory more right then 1:1 [image]local://upfiles/37821/7F28973860B043C884560A6B00D92DF8.jpg[/image] The 1:1 -> 2:1 rule is fudge. There's no need to further beat that old horse. By focusing on that single problem alone, you guys are glossing over how it is possible to get an attacker such as a random 1941 rifle division to engage and defeat an enemy 3 times its size anywhere close to 1:1 effective odds: How much sense it makes that 3 Soviet engineer regiments can be concentrated in that way, at such an early date, and they have such an effect in 1941. How is it possible that a Soviet commander can turn the tables so dramatically on a defending enemy in open terrain like that (note that the Soviet CV got multiplied by 4, those are the leader checks). That Soviet infantry fight like Finns in the forests. If 75% of the Rumanian losses happened during the Retreat phase - as I imagine, even if you don't show it - I can't other than wonder how awesome is that an infantry force, poorly motorized, without armour support, would be able to conduct a pursuit battle in such an effective manner. WitE tactical combat, in that respect, harks back to the times of Hannibal and Alexander, where most of the casualties happen when one side starts to run. That's a quite barefaced example at 'gaming the game': 1) fill a Soviet army with engineers up to the gills, 2) send the very best and brightest to the Crimea, of all places and 3) rely on the odds of leader checks multiplying your CV. That's one of the things that I most hated in WitE: that in order to win I had to toss out of the window everything that I had been learning about how war was conducted in World War 2 over the years. Who needs combined arms? That's wasting your time, when all you need is the magical Spade of Destruction and leaders with an ability to influence outcomes that would make the Witch-King of Angmar glow green with envy. The actual problem with the game balance is, therefore, that Germans don't have as many of those spades and witch-kings as the Soviets do. Sapper, you say that WitE is like playing in a casino. But if the owners of a real-life casino had a player able to influence the outcomes like the guy behind that attack in the screenshot did, chances are that player house would mysteriously burn one night, or suffer some other untoward unhappy mishap. Some measure of self-restraint, in the form of HR's or customized scenarios, is required in a game like WitE, especially when bugs/loopholes are notorious and well-known.

loki100 -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/28/2014 7:00:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael T This example really makes the game look farcical. No more need be said. agree, but its the result of Saper222 exploiting every gap in the game system. The problem is there are two groups of people playing this game. Saper, you, Pelton, etc to whom if it is not banned its valid is the underlying frame of mind. No complex game is going to cope with that, so we end up in an arms race of exploits. Saper would probably argue this nonsense is needed in response to a super-Lvov or something. If a game is well enough played by a small group to whom winning is all and any grounding in reality totally irrelevant then this will happen. The game isn't farcical, but it can be made to appear so. This sort of idiocy, Pelton encircling Moscow on T12, Pzrs in Stalingrad in T14 - yeah the game engine obviously allows it, but these are things that couldn't, not didn't happen. In a way, its the player base that needs to take care here or it will become something you either play for cheese (like fiddling with AGEOD's ACW so the Confederates capture New York in summer 1861) or against the AI. Both will be a real pity, as ever the fun is to be had PBEM and its a shame that some of you are intent on wrecking any scope for good competive PBEM for the rest of us.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/28/2014 11:11:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 In a way, its the player base that needs to take care here or it will become something you either play for cheese (like fiddling with AGEOD's ACW so the Confederates capture New York in summer 1861) or against the AI. Both will be a real pity, as ever the fun is to be had PBEM and its a shame that some of you are intent on wrecking any scope for good competive PBEM for the rest of us. Loki, I think that's going a bit too far. Just sayin' mate. As players or former players, I gave up on H2H long ago yet I've started several GC's playing against myself and giving up every time as my other 'evil half' found himself doing the same old thing on my 'good half', we will probably be right when identifying an issue with gameplay or balance. But we'll most probably be wrong when it comes to actually find a solution for those problems. Here, the only one who has chance to set things right is Morvael, at the moment, as I imagine that Gary and Pavel are working full-time on WitW. And that doesn't mean he needs his PM inbox to melt because of an avalanche of messages either [:)]

Michael T -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/28/2014 8:07:43 PM)
Err, Loki. What has Sapper done here that is exploitation? Looks like he bombed the defenders first then made an attack. What on earth is the cheese? The example shows how warped the combat engine is. Nothing else. As for your other ramblings. Well I can only say you belong in the group that believe that no matter how bad a player is he should never be thrashed by good players. You seem to think the game should be idiot proof and save bad players from defeat. Thank goodness I am not part of that group. And why do you think if something did not happen therefore it cannot happen? That is a silly belief. The reason many gamers play these games is to see if they could do better than there historical counterparts. It's like you have this fixation that the historical high water marks must never be crossed.

RedLancer -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/28/2014 8:52:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael T The reason many gamers play these games is to see if they could do better than there historical counterparts. Absolutely Michael - I am completely in this Camp. But when does divergence from history become evidence of a broken game? This argument cuts both ways. Unfortunately the answer seems subjective and depends on where it is applied: tactical or operational (and perhaps strategic). I know that I don't have the answer.

Michael T -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/28/2014 9:02:58 PM)
My comment about farce relates to the example Sapper provided. Which is an example of how bad the combat engine is working. First the 1:1 > 2:1 thing, which thankfully will be a thing of the past for most of us. Second is the X5 CV mulitplier, which is just nuts. But AFAIK nothing can or will be done about that. IIRC it has been toned down for WITW. Third the 3 Sapper Regiments attached to the Soviet XX is IMO wrong, but lies in the realm of the possible so I can live with it. But really there should be a limit of perhaps 1 Sapper unit per XX in the attack.

RBednar -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/28/2014 10:41:49 PM)
Instead of redesigning the entire combat mechanism, why not simply have another random roll to see if the defender retreats. The probability could be linearly extrapolated from the following points, for example: Final Odds Probability of Defender Retreat 0.80 0% 1.00 25% 2.00 70% 3.00 95% 4.00 100% This makes attacking at low odds acceptable if high casualties can be tolerated, and advances are required. The Germans and Russians could then use the same combat table, since the German player cannot afford the extra casualties in the long run.

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/28/2014 11:59:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Lancer quote: ORIGINAL: Michael T The reason many gamers play these games is to see if they could do better than there historical counterparts. Absolutely Michael - I am completely in this Camp. But when does divergence from history become evidence of a broken game? This argument cuts both ways. Unfortunately the answer seems subjective and depends on where it is applied: tactical or operational (and perhaps strategic). I know that I don't have the answer. Sure, do better. But it has to be plausible, No "imagine German planes landing on the grass and rolling gas cans down a plank" stuff. Gaming the system does not mean you did better than the historical counterparts.

Michael T -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/29/2014 12:55:51 AM)
Your not going to get a bite out of me Aurelian. No matter how many times you try. If you want to start another thread to debate the merrit of having an imagination versus not having one feel free. I will be glad to discuss the physical possibilty of the example you cite in the full context of the statement. But regardless, don't you think its time to move on? I mean the issue was resolved. I accept it. They took with one hand and gave with another. In balance nothing really changed.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/29/2014 3:57:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RBednar Instead of redesigning the entire combat mechanism, why not simply have another random roll to see if the defender retreats. The probability could be linearly extrapolated from the following points, for example: Final Odds Probability of Defender Retreat 0.80 0% 1.00 25% 2.00 70% 3.00 95% 4.00 100% This makes attacking at low odds acceptable if high casualties can be tolerated, and advances are required. The Germans and Russians could then use the same combat table, since the German player cannot afford the extra casualties in the long run. Indeed, making the "defender retreats" trigger to be non-deterministic is something worth exploring. I'd say something similar was proposed a long time ago. It would make it harder to line up things so that outcomes of attacks become so predictable. But it wouldn't solve the problem with pursuit: I can see three rifle corps achieving those 4:1 final odds against a Panzer division, triggering retreat losses all the same. And tying it to the odds - which I think are basically measuring effective unit fire power - is a bit counter intuitive. Superior fire power pins down the defender, encouraging troops to bunker down. That superiority enables maneuver - i.e. overrunning or outflanking - which is what actually makes troops to withdraw, or destroys the enemy when it becomes exposed, and that depends on mobility, command & control. The Red Army usually had more trouble executing maneuver than in achieving superior firepower, from my point of view.

RBednar -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/29/2014 11:47:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek quote: ORIGINAL: RBednar Instead of redesigning the entire combat mechanism, why not simply have another random roll to see if the defender retreats. The probability could be linearly extrapolated from the following points, for example: Final Odds Probability of Defender Retreat 0.80 0% 1.00 25% 2.00 70% 3.00 95% 4.00 100% This makes attacking at low odds acceptable if high casualties can be tolerated, and advances are required. The Germans and Russians could then use the same combat table, since the German player cannot afford the extra casualties in the long run. Indeed, making the "defender retreats" trigger to be non-deterministic is something worth exploring. I'd say something similar was proposed a long time ago. It would make it harder to line up things so that outcomes of attacks become so predictable. But it wouldn't solve the problem with pursuit: I can see three rifle corps achieving those 4:1 final odds against a Panzer division, triggering retreat losses all the same. And tying it to the odds - which I think are basically measuring effective unit fire power - is a bit counter intuitive. Superior fire power pins down the defender, encouraging troops to bunker down. That superiority enables maneuver - i.e. overrunning or outflanking - which is what actually makes troops to withdraw, or destroys the enemy when it becomes exposed, and that depends on mobility, command & control. The Red Army usually had more trouble executing maneuver than in achieving superior firepower, from my point of view. The retreat losses can be adjusted independently of the combat computations. It seems some of the changes were to give the Russians more attack capability (or encourage more attacks) by lowering initial losses. If the main loss mechanism is to be based on the defender retreating, the combat mechanism gets downplayed. It seems low odd attacks should result in heavy attacker casualties, whether the defender retreats or not. Postulating theoretically what would happen if 3 understrength Rifle Corps attacked 1 understrength Panzer Division, the infantry ratio for the attacker would be overwhelming! It looks like somewhere between 18 to 27 infantry battalions against 4 infantry battalions. If the German were 6:1 better at the beginning of the campaign, they certainly weren't that during the middle and last stages of the war. So I would expect the Panzer Division to retreat, more than not. Of course, using Uber-fortifications clouds up everything, since there is no historical precedence outside of the battles for major German cities. For the latter, dwindling supplies quickly eroded combat capability. I would expect the Russian infantry to take massive losses since the Panzer Division had so much firepower, especially in the tank and self-propelled artillery areas.

GamesaurusRex -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 2:06:15 AM)
Sapper's example is ridiculous... EVEN IF the retreat outcome is common. Why?... Because in that very example, that Russian Division would be isolated and exterminated on the next move... So no intelligent Russian player would ever expose that division in that way. You can't afford it in 41-42, if you want to have an army in 43. I don't agree with the combat system outcome either, but once again, as throughout this forum, German Fanbois continue to post ridiculous crap to justify further nerfing of the Russian side of the game. This includes all the whinning for sudden death rules for quick German wins... in a simulation of a WW2 Front that took 4 years to resolve... The stench of German Fanbois bias is strong on this thread.[8\|]

Michael T -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 6:59:42 AM)
quote: This includes all the whinning for sudden death rules for quick German wins Let me be the first to inform you of some good news. You don't need to play sudden death. Its an alternative scenario. You and your opponent can freely play the original scenario [:)]

hfarrish -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 9:15:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex Sapper's example is ridiculous... EVEN IF the retreat outcome is common. Why?... Because in that very example, that Russian Division would be isolated and exterminated on the next move... So no intelligent Russian player would ever expose that division in that way. You can't afford it in 41-42, if you want to have an army in 43. I don't agree with the combat system outcome either, but once again, as throughout this forum, German Fanbois continue to post ridiculous crap to justify further nerfing of the Russian side of the game. This includes all the whinning for sudden death rules for quick German wins... in a simulation of a WW2 Front that took 4 years to resolve... The stench of German Fanbois bias is strong on this thread.[8\|] Gamer - I exclusively play the Russian side (at least in the GC) and am supportive of early SD rules. With the end of the flying gas can circus the Russians really do need to fight forward for a good game. A runaway / wall of steel strategy will work all too easily otherwise.

Tarhunnas -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 9:55:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex The stench of German Fanbois bias is strong on this thread.] That kind of accusation will not bring the debate forward. We all want a better game, I Think no one here wants certain victory for one side or the other. I have played both sides extensively, but nowadays I mostly play the Soviets. I am definitely in favour of some kind of SD or VP system that discourages Soviet runaways.

76mm -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 10:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas I am definitely in favour of some kind of SD or VP system that discourages Soviet runaways. I'm hardly a German fanboi and I am, and have consistently been, in favor of SD rules for the same reason. But I did have a couple of experiences where when the German player missed the SD, they suddenly disappeared, which was very frustrating for me as Sov player, I got tired of playing the first ten or twelve turns and then the game ending. And it's not like I was even doing that well...

mmarquo -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 11:04:03 AM)
"Why?... Because in that very example, that Russian Division would be isolated and exterminated on the next move... So no intelligent Russian player would ever expose that division in that way. You can't afford it in 41-42, if you want to have an army in 43. " Gamer: While I appreciate your spirit, best to have deeper understanding of the game's mechanics. Isolation and extermination takes at least 2 moves, can't be done in one move. Just saying....[:)]

Tarhunnas -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 11:15:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas I am definitely in favour of some kind of SD or VP system that discourages Soviet runaways. I'm hardly a German fanboi and I am, and have consistently been, in favor of SD rules for the same reason. But I did have a couple of experiences where when the German player missed the SD, they suddenly disappeared, which was very frustrating for me as Sov player, I got tired of playing the first ten or twelve turns and then the game ending. And it's not like I was even doing that well... That is a very good point, and actually that is the reason I mention both VP or SD. A VP system could be made to be more forgiving, with a possibility to recover or at least play the game to an end. Personally, I lean towards a VP system rather than pure SD, or some combination.

timmyab -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 12:46:33 PM)
A VP/SD combination sounds good to me. So that VPs gained due to early city captures affect the total required for SD. The difference between 260 and 250 is significant and 240 is downright dangerous for the Soviets. Compensate by nerfing Lvov and HQ buildup. Also lose the 1-1 rule and reduce Soviet leader ratings in 41/42. That would probably work but I'd actually like to see a more complex system where every city on the map had a VP value, some more important than others.

SigUp -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 1:00:25 PM)
Yes, the VP system in the campaign isn't really well thought out. Kind of puzzling seeing that the VP system in the scenarios is quite good in my opinion. I'd like to see more of that, or a system like in WITP.

Tarhunnas -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 1:33:05 PM)
Yes, the present system with all cities being the same VP value based purely on size is too simplistic. Especially as some areas, the Crimea for example, are totally devoid of VP cities despite being of great importance to both Hitler and Stalin. It would be far better with a value set to reflect the relative importance of the various cities as percieved by the Soviet and German leasership of the time.

76mm -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 2:04:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas That is a very good point, and actually that is the reason I mention both VP or SD. A VP system could be made to be more forgiving, with a possibility to recover or at least play the game to an end. Personally, I lean towards a VP system rather than pure SD, or some combination. But I don't think that VP will really solve the problem, which is that from what I've seen many German players don't want to play a 4 year game, they want to win by '42 or they lose all desire to continue the game.

timmyab -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 2:32:38 PM)
^That's always going to be a problem with Eastern front games. Main thing is to find a reliable opponent either through previous experience or recommendation.

Wheat -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 6:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex The stench of German Fanbois bias is strong on this thread.[8\|] Now now, we are on patch 11, and are having a good game. And YOU have 3 and 3/4 years to get to Berlin. I apologize to the forum for my opponent, who is old and grumpy and missing his dacha in Moscow. But the combat system that allows these ridiculous results IS a problem.

Tarhunnas -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 6:09:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas That is a very good point, and actually that is the reason I mention both VP or SD. A VP system could be made to be more forgiving, with a possibility to recover or at least play the game to an end. Personally, I lean towards a VP system rather than pure SD, or some combination. But I don't think that VP will really solve the problem, which is that from what I've seen many German players don't want to play a 4 year game, they want to win by '42 or they lose all desire to continue the game. True, but with a better VP system that generated continuous excitement, I think playing as the Germans late war would be more interesting.

gingerbread -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 6:45:57 PM)
An alternative victory system would be the way it is done in the AH game 'Russian Front', where there is a check every 6 months and Campaign Points (CP) are awarded, 1 to 3 depending on victory points held at the time. It is possible to score enough CP to win at the first check, but in practice that requires a blow out. This method allows granular scoring and thereby a trade off decision for the players on how far/fast to run & how hard and for how long to push during their respective offensives. It would also give the Axis something to fight for in '43 and later.

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 7:29:59 PM)
Russia Besieged has a different system. The Axis�have to have a certain number of major cities at the end of the Russian player turn or they lose. 16 in 42, 9 in 43, 4 in 44. Something similar could be made for WiTE I suppose After all, the Germans were the invaders, so any kind of AV/SD should be their burden to avoid.

Tarhunnas -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 7:42:27 PM)
I think we need something to put pressure on both sides! Especially we want to discourage Soviet runaways in 1941.

Michael T -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 8:10:40 PM)
The SD scenario does put pressure on both sides. It was inspired by the old AH Russian Front system. It's failing is that it puts no pressure on the Soviets in 1941, something I advocated for at the time but was not taken up by the devs. Anyway thereafter it works. For example if the German runs away in late 41 or simply does not do well enough in summer 41 he will lose the game in the April 42 check. Which is what may well happen to Pelton in his game v Sapper if its SD.

Schmart -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/30/2014 8:12:53 PM)
A SD or VP system should not only include 41-42 regarding a German victory/blowout or Russian runaway. It should also include 43-45 to pressure the Russians if they are taking their time moving west, as well as discourage a German runaway. The German player should be rewarded for solid defensive play in later war years. Also, I'm convinced that the use of Admin Pts for unit creation by the Russians is not the way to go. It puts AP pressure/crunch on the Russians that wasn't historically there. Currently, the Russian player needs to play carefully after Nov 41 because they don't get any auto rebuilds and losing too many units creates an AP downhill runaway. Historically, the Russians just built more and more replacement units. It was a meatgrinder on a gigantic scale, but they kept on rebuilding Rifle Divisions, seemingly endlessly from the German point of view. I think a Russian player that knows they will have a virtual endless supply of units (not replacements, just unit shells), would play more aggressively and a more forward defense like they did historically. Right now, losing units for the Russian player is a major punishment, resulting IMO in less reckless Russian game play.

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 [12] 13 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9199219