Political layer (Full Version)

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



Message

jimhatama -> Political layer (9/19/2016 7:17:28 AM)

Seen in Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa imho not just a gimmick. It has crucial significance in ww2. Some balance things ppl stated here actually can be solved as politicall figures = like constant retreat of USSR in 1941 or allied bombers used as CAS/. It boils down to whatever you see game as math exercize (to maximize efficiency ) or as some sort of a simulator of war , where min-maxing not always work as intended.



Michael T -> RE: Political layer (9/19/2016 8:00:51 AM)

Political aspects +1

Hitler and Stalin shaped the entire character of the Russo-German 41-45 war. To play without these to leaders influence is not really a Russo-German 41-45 war game.



swkuh -> RE: Political layer (9/19/2016 3:04:22 PM)

Political aspects ++

Seems Adolph & Joe need to be assigned as commanders to GHQ/Stavka, and consequently leadership profiles are required. And they would not be 9999999, nor constant over all years, but dependent on situations.

Any thoughts?



loki100 -> RE: Political layer (9/19/2016 3:31:00 PM)

I don't think the model used in DC:B would transfer that well - not least it seems to be the core system that the rest of that game was built (and balanced around).

I'd suggest there are two levels to this and its worth trying to think around them.

At one level, at times, both Hitler and Stalin forced actions that were disastrous (and clearly so at the time). If you impose that on a player I suspect you risk considerable frustration? And I say this as someone who tends to emphasise the plausible/realistic over doing whatever the game code allows.

The other issue is that WiTE encourages some behaviours (by both sides) that clearly only make sense in the context of the WiTE rule book. One easy eg is the Soviet sapper spam - which has arisen due to the excessive amount of fortifications the Germans can erect. I don't want to start another balance dispute, just trying to make the point that a lot of the unrealism (in often very realistic game) comes from player responses to common strategies used by the other side.

The sort of thing I'd like to see encouraged are not the big ticket lunacies - stand at Kiev/stand at Stalingrad/Kursk offensive etc - but the smaller apparently ineffective actions (at least as determined by the rule book). Such as forcing the Soviets to a measured retreat in 1941, rewarding high intensity/low odds attacks by the Soviets - so you start to see how the Yelnya offensive (as an eg) had the effect of weakening both armies (with the choice then being do you think its worth it?). In turn, encouraging a stand/slow retreat by the Germans in the winter (and perhaps to attack up the end of November), maybe by modelling high attrition in artillery etc if they move to far?

No idea how feasible any of this is, but it helps bring in a degree of apparent irrationality reflecting political constraints but not going so far as to the Stalin paranoia rules etc of DC:B?



mrchuck -> RE: Political layer (9/19/2016 4:58:47 PM)

There is no political layer in WITE because there is no diplomacy in the game for it to be about.
In the actual conflict, Hitler needed to impress his allies and overawe the remaining neutrals because it mattered at the strategic level, which is wished away by the assumptions underpinning the game (Finn/HU/RUM belligerence, Turkish neutrality, US entry etc). All this only shows up in WITE as the production proportion for off-map theatres and the bizarre unit withdrawals mechanism.
Stalin and STAVKA needed maybe a year or more to work out that the war they thought they were fighting wasn't the one that was actually in progress, and pragmatic leadership (Zhukov mainly) didn't get a free hand until around 5/43.
I do not see how you can deal with these factors without expanding the scope of the game to cover WitW (war in the world) and including a rich diplomatic and political subsystem where prestige and internal stability matter--sort of like HOI but less crap.
As long as you have a game which models just one theatre in isolation, it is hard to imagine what sort of rules you could include and not end up with a big nerf.
Now in a WEGO game you maybe have some scope, because units might not obey orders or perhaps mess em up to some extent, which was one of the nice things about Pacwar and Second Front/War in Russia, and is one of the infuriating things about witp (because of the amount of micromanagement needed to get anything to happen), but in wite not so much. So unless WITE2 is WEGO, which I don't think it is, I wouldn't expect much to change.



SuluSea -> RE: Political layer (9/20/2016 4:51:18 PM)

I'd hate the political layer in WITE. I find it corny and the drawing card with so many other things
abstracted in other games. WITE already lets the user be Hitler or Stalin and that's all that's needed.No Gimmicks PLEASE!!!



jimhatama -> RE: Political layer (9/21/2016 11:12:02 AM)

Its not a gimmick. Game representaion (ie cars in DC B) can be different, but its not a gimmick in sense how the war fought = division movement, units useage , army cooperation all was comanded by ppl and it wasnt perfect movement in a way leader want. So Paulus desperate situation is literally impossible in WITE

Commanders even have that politic number in WITE it just not fleshed out, being another number.



Capitaine -> RE: Political layer (9/21/2016 7:33:08 PM)

I am not in favor of forced decisions to replicate Hitler or Stalin. I am in favor of consequences of doing things the opposite of what was done. For instance, immediate headlong retreat in 1941 without a fight would have had political ramifications at all levels of Soviet command and government. It shouldn't be a casual matter at all.



SuluSea -> RE: Political layer (9/22/2016 12:17:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimhatama

Its not a gimmick. Game representaion (ie cars in DC B) can be different, but its not a gimmick in sense how the war fought = division movement, units useage , army cooperation all was comanded by ppl and it wasnt perfect movement in a way leader want. So Paulus desperate situation is literally impossible in WITE

Commanders even have that politic number in WITE it just not fleshed out, being another number.


Okay we'll agree to disagree.
I'm a believer the political system that is a black and white decision in DC-B is played out on the battlefield in WITE. IE if one sector gets too many assets another is vulnerable. I find the political system in DC-B overhyped and don't believe it would add anything
to this game but instead detract from it.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.296875