One thing that annoys me (Full Version)

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



Message

Hortlund -> One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 3:32:15 PM)

Is the number of German players who just fade away if they havent taken Moscow by the start of the blizzard. Or if they feel their Barbarossa isnt going according to plan.

Its really frustrating to notice how the turn frequency suddenly starts dropping, and eventually just stop alltogether.

I mean &%#¤"




Hortlund -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 3:38:03 PM)

I think I have played something around 20 games as the soviets now. I lost 3 to Birger (he is that good), had to drop one myself because of real life issues. But ALL the other games have either gone into hibernation around December 41, like going from one or several turns per day to perhaps one turn per week, or been dropped by a dissappearing German player.

Then, mysteriously you can see that same player looking for new oponents.




charlie0311 -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 4:18:42 PM)

Yeah, real common. Should be a thread for schooling new axis guys re how to blitzkrieg.

PZJ@ Maybe you should think some more about what is ok for game set up.



Sardaukar -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 5:02:48 PM)

To be fair, some actually may have real time concerns to quit, to balance things. But it's not fair to quit if you don't succeed first time...[8D]



sanderp02 -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 5:08:43 PM)

I hope you were not thinking about me when you wrote that post. Turns will keep coming, and if i feel i need to give up i WILL let you know...



Telemecus -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 5:09:47 PM)

Also the departing player is missing out on most of what the game has to offer. How to conduct a blizzard defence, what to do in 1942, fighting with really big armies, and how to make the end fighting retreat are just as interesting if different kinds of games. Once you have paid for the game why not try all its aspects? The Barbarossa blitzkrieg is fun, but there are only so many times you can play just that.



Commanderski -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 6:09:18 PM)

Opponents disappearing from PBEM games has been going on as long as there has been PBEM games. In the early days the common excuse was 'computer problems" which just happened to be a coincidence when things weren't going their way.

The mechanics of this game gives players on both sides the capability to correct most mistakes they make (unless like you lose an Army Group). All you have to do is to be able to take the time to look at the big picture of the situation and be able to change objectives, strategies...etc.

If certain players continue to drop out then there should be no reason a list of their names be posted so other players would not waste their time.

Also playing against the AI can be very interesting. It never drops out and is always patiently waiting.



Telemecus -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 6:15:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski
If certain players continue to drop out then there should be no reason a list of their names be posted so other players would not waste their time.


Except that they can just get another user name, forum rules not withstanding. A list of those who do complete games might be more useful - name and praise rather than name and shame! [:)] It is something worth being stickied.



Hortlund -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 6:38:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderp02

I hope you were not thinking about me when you wrote that post. Turns will keep coming, and if i feel i need to give up i WILL let you know...

No, absolutely not, you are a good and honest opponent



Hortlund -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 7:44:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Also the departing player is missing out on most of what the game has to offer. How to conduct a blizzard defence, what to do in 1942, fighting with really big armies, and how to make the end fighting retreat are just as interesting if different kinds of games. Once you have paid for the game why not try all its aspects? The Barbarossa blitzkrieg is fun, but there are only so many times you can play just that.


I agree completely! Who would not want to see what 1943 brings? Who would not want to defend Berlin in a desperate struggle into 1945. I just dont get the ones who just leave.

As for the Soviets, 1941 is a nightmare to get through. You are litterary hanging on by your fingernails waiting for that mud, and then waiting for that blizzard. Its not really fun in 1941 as the soviets, there are only degrees of pain. But you keep struggling, because you wait for that blizzard, and you try to counter that 1942 summer offensive. But to just have the other guy quit because he is hurting during the mud and snow and blizzard? I mean come on.



Searry -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 7:50:42 PM)

I need someone to hold my hand with the Germans. People saying to have done only a few games or played against the AI are doing REALLY good against my Soviets.
I don't know if just because I literally started playing this game two weeks ago or I just suck as the Germans too. I really wanna learn and will play all my games, except the one I dropped against a more skilled player than I thought.
In two Soviet games I'm near losing Moscow soon and in the German game I just abandoned the drive for Moscow with the tanks as the Soviet divisions are just way too many even though I've destroyed 1.5 million Soviets.

For some reason these two German players are really good at moving their mobile divisions around even though I always have problems with them. Somehow they just punch through the line and do what they want and I do big damage control to just delay delay delay into the eternity.

I think the guides on these forums are really outdated and some people need to tell us newbies how to do things right.



charlie0311 -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/11/2017 8:38:10 PM)

Ok then, since I'm the one who shot off my big mouth, it's real big, now I have to deliver.

Should ??? only take about 4 or five turns to get the axis player going, errr, errr, well maybe.

@Searry, PM me and we get started.

ps I create monster players, fear and loathing, like the song.. hehe



sillyflower -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 6:52:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Searry

I need someone to hold my hand with the Germans. People saying to have done only a few games or played against the AI are doing REALLY good against my Soviets.
I don't know if just because I literally started playing this game two weeks ago or I just suck as the Germans too. I really wanna learn and will play all my games, except the one I dropped against a more skilled player than I thought.
In two Soviet games I'm near losing Moscow soon and in the German game I just abandoned the drive for Moscow with the tanks as the Soviet divisions are just way too many even though I've destroyed 1.5 million Soviets.

For some reason these two German players are really good at moving their mobile divisions around even though I always have problems with them. Somehow they just punch through the line and do what they want and I do big damage control to just delay delay delay into the eternity.

I think the guides on these forums are really outdated and some people need to tell us newbies how to do things right.



It's a v. hard game to master. I suspect you may be fighting too far forward and not sending enough from the south to the centre/north to give your defences the depth they need to prevent big pockets.

Current AARs are the best guide, though the game is continuing to evolve so what worked a year ago may not be possible now. Game balance is probably impossible to achieve for both v. experienced and inexperienced players. Tweaks to the game settings and/or HR may help. For example IMHO the game favours the soviets when inexperienced players meet, but the opposite occurs when the G player really knows his stuff.



sillyflower -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 7:04:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Who would not want to see what 1943 brings? Who would not want to defend Berlin in a desperate struggle into 1945.


Almost everyone. In all the years I've played as R only Smokindave and 1 other (who's name escapes me atm [&:]) have held on that long. End of T2 is the earliest quitter I've had but at least he didn't waste much of my time and his AAR of our game must be the shortest ever [:D].
I now have the opposite problem. An opponent who won't quit even after I won our alt VC260 game...............



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 11:03:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I think I have played something around 20 games as the soviets now. I lost 3 to Birger (he is that good), had to drop one myself because of real life issues. But ALL the other games have either gone into hibernation around December 41, like going from one or several turns per day to perhaps one turn per week, or been dropped by a dissappearing German player.

Then, mysteriously you can see that same player looking for new oponents.




So.... Where does our game fall into the category above? ;) But that is not my point. I dropped our game because there was a "huge" discrepancy in our two skill levels. Maybe because you just returned to WiTE. But what really made up my mind to drop this game was when I received a PM from you stating you had no idea how to stop the Panzers. So instead of continuing the slaughter I felt it best to drop the game since it was so lopsided out of kindness to you. (Game turn 6 dropped)

So my question to everyone is when a game is so lopsided should the time be spent by one or both sides in continuing the endeavour so early in the game?




No idea -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 11:53:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski
If certain players continue to drop out then there should be no reason a list of their names be posted so other players would not waste their time.


Except that they can just get another user name, forum rules not withstanding. A list of those who do complete games might be more useful - name and praise rather than name and shame! [:)] It is something worth being stickied.



I like playing against the AI because it lets me play at my own pace, without feeling compelled to make my turn because the other players plays quickly.

On the other hand, the problem with playing against the AI is that it is terrible, awful. The only way to make things interesting is giving the AI big bonuses, especially if the AI plays the axis.

Themain problem is, imho, the AI has zero idea of how to make an ecirclement. Except for thevery first turn, which I think it is scripted to some extent, the AI just pushes, pushes and pushes. It is impossible to lose against the AI even if you try it.



No idea -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 11:58:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Also the departing player is missing out on most of what the game has to offer. How to conduct a blizzard defence, what to do in 1942, fighting with really big armies, and how to make the end fighting retreat are just as interesting if different kinds of games. Once you have paid for the game why not try all its aspects? The Barbarossa blitzkrieg is fun, but there are only so many times you can play just that.


I agree completely! Who would not want to see what 1943 brings? Who would not want to defend Berlin in a desperate struggle into 1945. I just dont get the ones who just leave.

As for the Soviets, 1941 is a nightmare to get through. You are litterary hanging on by your fingernails waiting for that mud, and then waiting for that blizzard. Its not really fun in 1941 as the soviets, there are only degrees of pain. But you keep struggling, because you wait for that blizzard, and you try to counter that 1942 summer offensive. But to just have the other guy quit because he is hurting during the mud and snow and blizzard? I mean come on.


I think the problem with some german players is that, once they have failed, and it is easy to make things wrong with Germany, they face that "Only degrees of pain" for the next four years. Even if you play well, but you havent won by 1942, it is just "degrees of pain" for a few years.



Hortlund -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 1:39:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I think I have played something around 20 games as the soviets now. I lost 3 to Birger (he is that good), had to drop one myself because of real life issues. But ALL the other games have either gone into hibernation around December 41, like going from one or several turns per day to perhaps one turn per week, or been dropped by a dissappearing German player.

Then, mysteriously you can see that same player looking for new oponents.




So.... Where does our game fall into the category above? ;) But that is not my point. I dropped our game because there was a "huge" discrepancy in our two skill levels. Maybe because you just returned to WiTE. But what really made up my mind to drop this game was when I received a PM from you stating you had no idea how to stop the Panzers. So instead of continuing the slaughter I felt it best to drop the game since it was so lopsided out of kindness to you. (Game turn 6 dropped)

So my question to everyone is when a game is so lopsided should the time be spent by one or both sides in continuing the endeavour so early in the game?





Well, to be honest I dont give much for the "Im too good for you so Im going to drop the game out of kindness"-attitude. If you are that good, it shouldnt be a problem to take say Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Kazan. That should make any further resistance pretty pointless and be a clear win.

In our game you were somewhere between Smolensk and Vyazma on turn 6, and then you just vanished. Now you're here saying you wanted to spare me the slaughter out of kindness. I think the decision to concede or not should be up to the player against the ropes, but apparently you feel differently.

As all soviet players know, stopping the German panzers in 41 and 42 is hellishly hard.



Hortlund -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 1:40:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Also the departing player is missing out on most of what the game has to offer. How to conduct a blizzard defence, what to do in 1942, fighting with really big armies, and how to make the end fighting retreat are just as interesting if different kinds of games. Once you have paid for the game why not try all its aspects? The Barbarossa blitzkrieg is fun, but there are only so many times you can play just that.


I agree completely! Who would not want to see what 1943 brings? Who would not want to defend Berlin in a desperate struggle into 1945. I just dont get the ones who just leave.

As for the Soviets, 1941 is a nightmare to get through. You are litterary hanging on by your fingernails waiting for that mud, and then waiting for that blizzard. Its not really fun in 1941 as the soviets, there are only degrees of pain. But you keep struggling, because you wait for that blizzard, and you try to counter that 1942 summer offensive. But to just have the other guy quit because he is hurting during the mud and snow and blizzard? I mean come on.


I think the problem with some german players is that, once they have failed, and it is easy to make things wrong with Germany, they face that "Only degrees of pain" for the next four years. Even if you play well, but you havent won by 1942, it is just "degrees of pain" for a few years.


Well, that is what happened in real life after all...yes? It should be something you are aware of when starting a game about ww2



charlie0311 -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 2:13:04 PM)

Axis players may counter-attack the advancing Reds in all of 43 and even in in winter 43/44.

Quite fun to see stacks of commie tank xxx set to rout.

Play the game a lot and discover the "what can" be type of stuff.

These forums, well, everybody knows.



Stelteck -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 2:29:55 PM)

It would be interesting to switch the high command in some games, for fun (and it was happening IRL all the time) :

- A newbie player fail its german 1941 campaign.
- Then starting from 1942 he is replaced by a german very good player and see what happened.

Server game should be transferable. If a player drop the game, another one should be allowed to take its place and carry on.

Maybe it is already possible by creating a matrix ticket ? [8|]




HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 4:11:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I think I have played something around 20 games as the soviets now. I lost 3 to Birger (he is that good), had to drop one myself because of real life issues. But ALL the other games have either gone into hibernation around December 41, like going from one or several turns per day to perhaps one turn per week, or been dropped by a dissappearing German player.

Then, mysteriously you can see that same player looking for new oponents.




So.... Where does our game fall into the category above? ;) But that is not my point. I dropped our game because there was a "huge" discrepancy in our two skill levels. Maybe because you just returned to WiTE. But what really made up my mind to drop this game was when I received a PM from you stating you had no idea how to stop the Panzers. So instead of continuing the slaughter I felt it best to drop the game since it was so lopsided out of kindness to you. (Game turn 6 dropped)

So my question to everyone is when a game is so lopsided should the time be spent by one or both sides in continuing the endeavour so early in the game?





Well, to be honest I dont give much for the "Im too good for you so Im going to drop the game out of kindness"-attitude. If you are that good, it shouldnt be a problem to take say Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Kazan. That should make any further resistance pretty pointless and be a clear win.

In our game you were somewhere between Smolensk and Vyazma on turn 6, and then you just vanished. Now you're here saying you wanted to spare me the slaughter out of kindness. I think the decision to concede or not should be up to the player against the ropes, but apparently you feel differently.

As all soviet players know, stopping the German panzers in 41 and 42 is hellishly hard.


I am not going to invest my time into a game where it is easy to walk all over an opponent. As such I saw no further point in the continuation of a game with mismatched skill levels no matter "HOW EASY" it would have been to take Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad & Kazan. This type of game is NO FUN at all.

I didn't vanish, I sent you a PM, you replied, I resigned from game since I didn't agree with your assessment. Simple as that. You had 57 units in pockets on turn 6 with 3.3 million men in OOB.

My point is that this game is a large investment of time and skill levels should be close for an enjoyable game for all. During all my games I give opponents the chance to back out our of courtesy up to turn 12ish. Some may not agree with it but I feel it is necessary for both opponents to have an enjoyable time.




Hortlund -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 4:59:43 PM)

Yeah, whatever dude.



Dinglir -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 5:04:36 PM)

I believe there are several things to consider in this discussion:

1) Noone wants to dedicate time to a game that is effectively "over". If you just end up pushing cardboard pieces around on a board without thinking about what you are doing, then I see no point in continuing the game.
2) It is rude to simply stop playing a game without informing your opponent. I usually send a PM asking for a status if a turn is not forwarded for a week.
3) If, as a German player, you simply wish to play the blitzkrieg and then stop - then find a scenario that supports this (or at least state so in your "looking for opponents" thread.

In my current game as the Soviets versus Hermann, I have destroyed some 50+ German divisions during the first winter, and I believe the game is already won, if looking merely at the victory conditions. So the question for me is this: Do I set myself another challenge, eg finishing the Germans off in 1944, or do I stop the game and get another game going as the Germans?

For now I play on, but playing another 100 turns at 4-5 hours pr turn is a serious commitment, and I would hate to play for another 50 turns or so, just to see the game "fizzle out" by then.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 5:14:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Is the number of German players who just fade away if they havent taken Moscow by the start of the blizzard. Or if they feel their Barbarossa isnt going according to plan.
Its really frustrating to notice how the turn frequency suddenly starts dropping, and eventually just stop alltogether.
I mean &%#¤"


I think many of those problems can be solved by describing exactly which kind of Player you are yourself and for which sort of player you are looking for:
-skill level
-approach to the game: historical/relaxed/competitive
-AAR allowed?
-turns per week, including things like "I will have exams in September, turns might Slow down during this time"
-Willingness to talk about gameplay/to exchange tips&tricks
-suggested game settings and house rules
-ppre-defined points to drop the game if one side loses the will to fight on. I myself am completely fine both as Soviet and Axis Player to end in 03.1942 as both sides had their fun and the game is usually pre-decided by that time I think.

You Hortlud vs Hardluck looks like a mismatch because you seem to be a historical player while Hardluck looks more like a competitive player. No approach has higher/lower value, but if they play together, it will lead to conflicts (I count myself to the competitive players, but I still Lack the skill to be a challenge I think :) )

Just my view on this topic.



STEF78 -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/12/2017 6:08:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Is the number of German players who just fade away if they havent taken Moscow by the start of the blizzard. Or if they feel their Barbarossa isnt going according to plan.

Its really frustrating to notice how the turn frequency suddenly starts dropping, and eventually just stop alltogether.


WITE requires a lot of hours to be masterized and also takes hours to be played.

I don't think players like Hardluckyetagain are the problem. They are very good (too good for me[:(]) but fair play and do not disapear without a message.

What I don't like is the kind of player who click on the button "resign" without sending a single mail.

But above all, fun is the key! If both players enjoy the game, it will go on and on. If the game is obviously desequilibrated. It's not fun, even for the winner.

Bobo gave up in our game because he didn't have fun anymore. I fully understand it.

PS: If you are looking for a player (either side) who doesn't resign (see presious AAR), I'm your man... but I can only handle one game at a time.



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/13/2017 12:35:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Yeah, whatever dude.


I mean no disrespect to you at all Panzerjaeger Hortlund. I think you are a great assest to this community, to this game and to this forum. If I offended you in anyway it was not my intention & I apologize for that.



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/13/2017 12:39:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Is the number of German players who just fade away if they havent taken Moscow by the start of the blizzard. Or if they feel their Barbarossa isnt going according to plan.
Its really frustrating to notice how the turn frequency suddenly starts dropping, and eventually just stop alltogether.
I mean &%#¤"


I think many of those problems can be solved by describing exactly which kind of Player you are yourself and for which sort of player you are looking for:
-skill level
-approach to the game: historical/relaxed/competitive
-AAR allowed?
-turns per week, including things like "I will have exams in September, turns might Slow down during this time"
-Willingness to talk about gameplay/to exchange tips&tricks
-suggested game settings and house rules
-ppre-defined points to drop the game if one side loses the will to fight on. I myself am completely fine both as Soviet and Axis Player to end in 03.1942 as both sides had their fun and the game is usually pre-decided by that time I think.

You Hortlud vs Hardluck looks like a mismatch because you seem to be a historical player while Hardluck looks more like a competitive player. No approach has higher/lower value, but if they play together, it will lead to conflicts (I count myself to the competitive players, but I still Lack the skill to be a challenge I think :) )

Just my view on this topic.



EwaldvonKleist you always have some very good ideas ;-} Skill level really does come into play for an enjoyable game for both. As such I think your above recommendations could go further into getting competitive games between players.



sillyflower -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/13/2017 12:36:04 PM)

Reading this thread, it seems to me that the main problem is usually a misunderstanding of the expectations, and sometimes the experience level, of one's opponent. Very few on the losing side want to play right up to fulfilling the VCs, and some of the winners too. These can, and perhaps should, before the start of the game or at an early stage if the skill gap is bigger than expected. For example, I like the HR that if 1 side owns L'grad, Moscow, V'nezh and Rostov at the end of '41 that is an auto victory.

What cannot be agreed in advance is that an opponent won't change their mind in mid-game. I have had several games vs G players who promised at the start not to surrender but did so in '42 or '43. I can understand and accept such changes of heart when accompanied by an explanation and apology. Facing 100-150 turns of 1-sided kicking is rather demoralising unless one enjoys setting oneself other targets. What makes a kicking in the summer of '41 just about bearable for the R is the knowledge that it's only 17 turns and then better times come. The G player has nothing to look forward to once stalemate has been reached other than perhaps avoiding R auto-victory: hardly a great motivator for most. In many ways, I have only 1 motivation for playing on vs BrianG. His doggedness in the face of 2 years' disasters means that he has IMHO earned the right to have some positive moments.

The people who annoy me are those who just disappear without a word. Stef is lucky to get opponents who even bother to press the resign button. This is just appalling manners, though there may occasionally be a RL problem that warrants forgiveness and sympathy.



Telemecus -> RE: One thing that annoys me (6/13/2017 3:39:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
it seems to me that the main problem is usually a misunderstanding of the expectations, and sometimes the experience level... Very few on the losing side want to play right up to fulfilling the VCs, and some of the winners too. These can, and perhaps should, before the start of the game or at an early stage if the skill gap is bigger than expected. For example, I like the HR that if 1 side owns L'grad, Moscow, V'nezh and Rostov at the end of '41 that is an auto victory.


Perhaps more extensive break and review points agreed up front would help a lot. I would appreciate a sticky with a list of suggestions which players could select from. At the moment that one seems to be the only common one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck
It would be interesting to switch the high command in some games, for fun (and it was happening IRL all the time) :
- A newbie player fail its german 1941 campaign.
- Then starting from 1942 he is replaced by a german very good player and see what happened.
Server game should be transferable. If a player drop the game, another one should be allowed to take its place and carry on.
Maybe it is already possible by creating a matrix ticket ? [8|]


I have at various times swapped sides with another player, given them my password while they kept theirs secret etc. But really WitE needs to be developed more to be able to keep games alive. At one time I would have liked to change options to both +1 attack and full blizzard to even things up - but not possible mid-game. If both players agree you should be able to change options. Also changing sides involves both sides knowing each others passwords. In addition there is no way to get an opponent to pass on their password to someone else if they just disappear.

There are ways of balancing a game with options at the outset. But no way to rebalance mid game. Having made the time (and emotional) commitment to a long game it is grueling to see it end prematurely. And yes it can be said to be bad manners or human failing. But there are also ways to design human failings out. Perhaps food for thought for WitE 2?

On another note one of my first games started with us as novices and ended with both of us as experienced. Even if a Soviet player starts of less experienced that will correct itself and unlike a German player time is on their side.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.9375