RE: Need help (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa



Message

wadortch -> RE: Need help (7/21/2016 2:37:01 AM)

Hello Michael

Isokron and I started our game without nailing down all the options ahead of time and I have offered to restart it with all that clear.

The goal of that game from my point of view is to test the present balance of the human v human state of the game.

Given that, I ask you, others and Cameron and Vic to weigh in on what options we should agree on to make this test?




Philippeatbay -> RE: Need help (7/21/2016 8:16:35 PM)

Historical should be on.

And if you play a hundred games and the Soviets win more often than the Germans, then the model is doing what it should be doing.

The Germans lost in real life (tm).



EdinHouston -> RE: Need help (7/21/2016 9:50:56 PM)

I would go so far as to say that, in real life, it is debatable if Barbarossa could have succeeded in defeating the Soviet Union no matter what military decisions the Germans made once the invasion started.



Michael T -> RE: Need help (7/21/2016 11:39:05 PM)

quote:

And if you play a hundred games and the Soviets win more often than the Germans, then the model is doing what it should be doing


No this is wrong. Ideally win/loss ratio should be 50/50. Winning the game does not equal winning the war. This is so often confused by posters.

Game balance and who actually won the war/campaign are entirely different issues.



wadortch -> RE: Need help (7/22/2016 2:50:30 AM)

Agree with Michael here, the purpose of this thread is all about a balanced game (PBEM) between two equally talented players.

There was a very similar discussion when WITE was released about whether WITE was a simulation or a game.

We could all spend the rest of our lives arguing about who would have won the war under what circumstances. That is not the topic here.

Likewise about who have "won" the campaign in 1941. If it were a simulation totally consistent with history, the Soviets would have to attack in the opening rounds. PG 2 would have to turn south and head for Kiev.

What is so appealing about this game is that Cameron and Vic have tried to introduce a decision making scheme into the game that addresses all this and by and large they have surely achieved their goal.

So where I am on this point is that the Germans cannot presently make the decisions they should be able to make within the context of the GAME, that Halder actually could have made (reallocation of trains for example).

Now Isokron may very well change my mind about where the balance presently is, but that is irrelevant to the pursuit of modifying the game so that odds of winning or losing are in the neighborhood Michael suggests.




lancer -> RE: Need help (7/22/2016 3:38:05 AM)

Hi,

I'd go with Historical OFF as, with it on, it gives a set Soviet layout at the start of the game which makes it easy for a good German player to exploit a known disposition.

It'd be better to have a measure of variability here that better reflects the unknowns on the day.

When it comes to outcomes it's worth keeping in mind that a lot of people, probably most, view the Germans as a binary proposition. They either conquer Russia or they don't. Once it looks like that don't is likely there is a tendency to quit.

The victory conditions allow for a range of outcomes that encompass games where the Germans don't take their objective and still manage to eke out a minor victory (and vice versa for the Soviets). Unless it's evident that you are about to get completely clobbered it's almost always worth playing on as the outcome is rarely as preordained as people think.

Cheers,
Cameron



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125