Siberians (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> The War Room



Message

Markiss -> Siberians (12/17/2018 3:13:50 AM)

Every single PBEM game I have had as Allies, the Siberians do not arrive until April 27th, 1942, and arrive at the end of my turn, and so are not available to actually be moved until late May. By the time you operate them, it is June. I understand that there are triggers for this, but in my latest game, the Germans are less than 10 hexes from Moscow, and have been for several turns. And STILL, April 27th. Really? What does it take? The designers of this game do realize that, historically, they were deployed and saw combat in December 1941, right? How is it that over an over again, they arrive at the latest possible date allowed by the scripts?
I think the scripts need to be adjusted. It is not right the the Soviets are denied the Siberians with such consistency when they are in such desperate straights. Don't the Germans have enough advantages? The Siberians are not available for actual combat until at least 6 months later than historical, every time, and the effect is devastating.
Am I just having bad luck, or have other people noticed this?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Siberians (12/17/2018 7:41:53 AM)

quote:

Every single PBEM game

Your opponent knows the triggers better than you ??



Taxman66 -> RE: Siberians (12/17/2018 11:48:39 AM)

I had them arrive 'early', and miss out on getting Inf Weapons 2 because of it. :(



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Siberians (12/17/2018 4:27:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Every single PBEM game

Your opponent knows the triggers better than you ??



ouch

sPz spreading the holiday cheer[sm=00000436.gif]




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Siberians (12/17/2018 5:59:36 PM)

I thought that was a rather nice response, compared to my other thoughts on the matter.



BillRunacre -> RE: Siberians (12/18/2018 2:08:06 PM)

This does sound like your opponents might be studying the scripts and acting accordingly.

If there is a consensus that this is the case then I can make things a bit more variable, as although Taxman66 makes a fair point that the USSR can actually benefit from them being delayed, I'm not really a fan of having things where someone who digs deep into the scripts can use that knowledge to their advantage against someone who doesn't know the game so well, or who doesn't have time to adopt the same approach.



bfcj -> RE: Siberians (12/19/2018 7:16:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre
... I'm not really a fan of having things where someone who digs deep into the scripts can use that knowledge to their advantage against someone who doesn't know the game so well ...


From what I've read on here, I think that most of the best players know the scripts like the back of their hands.



BillRunacre -> RE: Siberians (12/20/2018 3:44:37 PM)

In which case spicing it up a bit might not be a bad thing. [;)]



Markiss -> RE: Siberians (12/21/2018 12:27:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Every single PBEM game

Your opponent knows the triggers better than you ??


The point was that if the Germans can get that close to Moscow in fall 1941 without triggering the arrival of the Siberians, the triggers should be adjusted.
I am sure that they do know the triggers better than I do, but the Siberians still come under the circumstances stated.
Thanks for the nastiness, it always makes my day. [8|]
Merry Christmas.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Siberians (12/21/2018 5:37:25 AM)

I don't take what I said as being nasty, the same way that you weren't being nasty with this comment [although some could interpret it that way]:

quote:

The designers of this game do realize that, historically, they were deployed and saw combat in December 1941, right?


But don't get yourself upset over nothing, I saw your post and looked at the scripts in order to figure out why the Siberians would not arrive consistently until the Failsafe Date. It seemed that the best possibility might be that your opponent knew the script and was playing in a way to delay the Siberians on you. So I asked if that might be the answer to your question, that is all.
Your opponent should answer if such is true, after all he is doing nothing wrong, he is simply reading the 'fine print' that comes with the game.



bfcj -> RE: Siberians (12/21/2018 2:25:53 PM)

Agreed (on both points). As long as that info is available to both players, there's nothing wrong with using it. A good commander uses all available information when planning. And feel free to ridicule my blunders (it's the only way I'll learn... [:(])



Markiss -> RE: Siberians (12/22/2018 6:57:02 AM)

You are still missing the point completely, perhaps I am not making myself clear. I will try one last time.
First, I will lay some ground work, please do not take this the wrong way.
One side of this war game is referred to as "Allies", and the other side "Axis", and the year "1939" is given as a starting point. This means that the game takes place in a historical context, and it should be more than just a collection of rules and scripts.

If you wanted to be completely free of historical restraints, the game could have been set on the planet Zirkon between the Zirkon Collective and the Tarkalean Alliance. Then you could make whatever rules you wanted, and it would be the players fault for not learning them intimately.
Do you know why it not set on Zirkon? Because you would not sell very many games.

The game has been made to appeal to history buffs, and I am willing to bet that they make up the vast majority of people who buy the game, like myself. I want to be able to play the game through my knowledge of history, not through reading code and counting units and hexes. When I see see something ahistorical happen in the game, like, say, if the Germans advance near Moscow in December 1939 and, through some quirk in the rules, the Siberians do not show up, I see a problem with the game, not with my understanding of the rules. I have no interest in learning rules that do not reflect history. If that makes me a "bad commander", so be it.

I understand that when you are involved in the design of a game, it is easy to get lost in rules and script details, and have the trees block your view of the forest. I also understand that when someone criticizes the game you helped make, is is easy to get insulted (Bill is a saint).

Especially when that criticism is inartfully expressed, as was mine, for which I humbly apologize.
As for how you meant your original comment, you second comment leaves little doubt as of the spirit in which it was given, as does the reaction of the other posters. Never the less, I should not have reacted the way I did, and should have just let it go. But I did not, for which I apologize again.

I will endeavor to express myself more artfully in the future, and be less thin-skinned.
Please understand that I am only trying to make the game better, and that I respect and appreciate your contributions.




LLv34Mika -> RE: Siberians (12/22/2018 7:20:40 AM)

Maybe a compromise?
As you said we start in 1939... everything went historical up to this point. Austria and Czechoslovakia are a part of the Third Reich and the military is stron again and ready to strike.

But from this point things do not have to take the historical way. And the longer the game runs the more we usually drift away. Why? That is clear. We know the history. We know that using carriers for scouting subs is no good idea. We know that France will have no chance. We know that taking Malta might be a really important thing. We know that taking Egypt is vital for winning the war. We know that the economical power of the USA an the millions of soldiers in the USSR might be a problem sometime. Knowing all that it would be very very strange to follow the historical path. At least when you play the Axis.

What the developers did was giving the game a chance to follow that path but also try something else. Both works, for both sides. If you do it the right way. At the moment I couldn't even tell what side has a little advantage.

Making the changes you suggest might be interesting as well... in fact I can't know. But it will definitely require a new balancing. And to be honest, I like the scripts as they are. Sure, there could be room to improve but your initial example is a very good one. The Sibiians arrived too late. In one of my games GB was conquered and North Africa about to fall. The result was that the USA joined very early. And that also gives you some advantages. If your opponent is not advancing far enough you gain more MPPs anyway and you have more time to recover, your western Allies have more time to prepare and so on.

I also might add that the latest beta patch (waiting for the final version) will bring some important changes too. Now GB was almost uncapable of sinking any subs. You really needed luck, 5 - 6 destroyers (at least) and 5 - 10 turns to sink ONE sub. With the new changes GB won't have such a hard time defending against the Kriegsmarine. It may be a little change but I think it will have a huge impact on the game.

btw, really looking forward to playing against you. Please have some capacities to start a new game soon ;)



Taxman66 -> RE: Siberians (12/22/2018 11:46:35 AM)

You can sink subs before these changes. You just have to invest in ASW (level 1 at least and preferably level 3), and building the CVLs and Maritime Bombers helps a ton.



LLv34Mika -> RE: Siberians (12/22/2018 12:48:10 PM)

sure... you can. But even with ASW 1 it takes ages and they dive and dive and dive...
you won't have any chance before mid 1941.

And the worst case is several subs at one spot diving like crazy and while you try to hunt them the large surface ships kill your destroyers. But I am more than happy with the changes that have been made so there is no problem anymore.



bfcj -> RE: Siberians (12/22/2018 3:19:18 PM)

According to the manual, “The USSR will transfer forces from Siberia to Kazan from the 1st December 1941 if there are Axis units within the proximity of Archangelsk, Vologda, Moscow, Voronezh, Rostov, Tbilisi, Stalingrad, or Perm.” Are you saying that the rule is bad, or that it is not firing correctly? I will admit, I've never toyed with the conditions to verify that it always fires correctly. And I'm not savvy enough to deduce from the scripts what "proximity" means in terms of hexes.

If it is a bug, then by all means fix it. But if you just aren't happy with that particular design decision, I'd say "get in line". We all have our gripes, but nothing will ever satisfy everyone. Nothing is perfect.



Taxman66 -> RE: Siberians (12/22/2018 3:53:27 PM)

quote:

And the worst case is several subs at one spot diving like crazy and while you try to hunt them the large surface ships kill your destroyers. But I am more than happy with the changes that have been made so there is no problem anymore.


This is a function of the problem of the naval system as a whole, where ships can't support each other.

It gets rather expensive, but it does help to give the capital ships ASW as well to protect them from the subs while they are there to protect the Destroyers.
CVL's, particularly with Long Range upgrades, help a ton in this issue as well.



BillRunacre -> RE: Siberians (12/22/2018 6:58:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bfcj

If it is a bug, then by all means fix it. But if you just aren't happy with that particular design decision, I'd say "get in line". We all have our gripes, but nothing will ever satisfy everyone. Nothing is perfect.



Hi

Just to explain that I think the issue here with the Siberians is that a player who knows how the scripts work and takes the time to look at them, could tell from the relevant script how to avoid it happening before they want it to.

I don't really like the idea of people being able to control events too much by having a great in-depth knowledge of the scripts, at least not beyond a certain point, so if I make the trigger for the Siberians slightly more variable then it should fix this, without really changing any details in game.

quote:

According to the manual, “The USSR will transfer forces from Siberia to Kazan from the 1st December 1941 if there are Axis units within the proximity of Archangelsk, Vologda, Moscow, Voronezh, Rostov, Tbilisi, Stalingrad, or Perm.”


This was deliberately vague. [;)]

Firstly, for the reason specified above, and secondly so that if we tweak it we don't need to amend the Manual. [:)]



Dorky8 -> RE: Siberians (12/22/2018 9:03:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre


Just to explain that I think the issue here with the Siberians is that a player who knows how the scripts work and takes the time to look at them, could tell from the relevant script how to avoid it happening before they want it to.

I don't really like the idea of people being able to control events too much by having a great in-depth knowledge of the scripts, at least not beyond a certain point, so if I make the trigger for the Siberians slightly more variable then it should fix this, without really changing any details in game.






Don't the people who spend the time to research the game the most deserve an advantage? It would be nice if there was an easy manual that would describe all of these things.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Siberians (12/23/2018 7:09:18 PM)

It's all in the Strategy Guide, if someone fails to read it and takes on a PBEM game and gets surprised it's on them, it's not the fault of the game and the game should not be changed to accommodate such things. The laugh is that if the other player actually is playing the scripts [I asked but he hasn't answered] then he has halted his advance, and that is to the advantage of the complainer. That again has nothing to do with the game. Learn the rules, find a different opponent, don't PBEM. These are appropriate responses, blaming the game is not.



Sugar -> RE: Siberians (12/23/2018 8:14:00 PM)

So what's the logic behind leaving the informations in the manual vague, but enable some nerds to extract more precise informations out of the code? Is this a strategy game, or do you have to study informatics to succeed?

Making the outcomes more random doesn't help that much, if the triggers are changed from a certain distance from a city to a range of distances, if this information is also only available to the nerds. In this case it`s hardly changing anything, cause the affected player has no influence at all.

Imho many of the DEs are examples of misconceptions, especially in this case. The Siberians arrived in late 41 because of the russian knowledge of japanese strategy and planning, not because the Germans occupied Rostov and Voronesh.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Siberians (12/23/2018 10:28:04 PM)

I wanted to suggest that the proximity triggers be replaced with a date [which might end the grumpiness], but I don't think I can unless I see something that backs that up. I looked in my two best references, Glantz and Seaton, for a statement as to when and why the Siberians were brought westwards, but neither source actually specifies anything. Nor is there any list of units, only a statement that about a dozen divisions were involved.



Sugar -> RE: Siberians (12/23/2018 11:16:45 PM)

That's not secret knowledge:

quote:

On 25 August 1941, Sorge reported to Moscow: "Invest [Ozaki] was able to learn from circles closest to [Japanese Prime Minister] Konoye...that the High Command...discussed whether they should go to war with the USSR. They decided not to launch the war within this year, repeat, not to launch the war this year."[9] On 6 September 1941, an Imperial Conference decided against war with the Soviet Union, and ordered that Japan start preparations for a possible war with the United States and the British Empire, which Ozaki reported to Sorge.[9] At the same time, Ott told Sorge his efforts to get Japan to attack the Soviet Union had all failed.[9] On 14 September 1941, Sorge reported to Moscow: "In the careful judgment of all of us here…the possibility of [Japan] launching an attack, which existed until recently, has disappeared...."[9] Sorge advised the Red Army on 14 September 1941, that Japan would not attack the Soviet Union until:

Moscow was captured
The Kwantung Army was three times the size of Soviet Far Eastern forces
A civil war had started in Siberia.[40]

This information made possible the transfer of Soviet divisions from the Far East, although the presence of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria necessitated the Soviet Union's keeping a large number of troops on the eastern borders...[41]

Various writers have speculated that this information allowed the release of Siberian divisions for the Battle of Moscow, where the German Army suffered its first strategic defeat in the war. To this end, Sorge's information might have been the most important military intelligence work in World War II. However, Sorge was not the only source of Soviet intelligence about Japan as Soviet code-breakers had broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, and Moscow thus knew from signals intelligence that there would be no Japanese attack on the Soviet Union in 1941


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge

According to the german Wikipedia, 700.000 troops were transferred from Siberia.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Siberians (12/24/2018 3:00:42 AM)

Thanks for the details, but they don't confirm anything specific. I mean, when preparing historic simulations, I would like to find something substantial, as opposed to admitted speculation. Based on that I would still lean toward proximity event triggers because the fact that the front was in crisis would have forced the Soviets to steal some units from Siberia.



Sugar -> RE: Siberians (12/24/2018 3:12:52 AM)

The finding of the sovyet intel. were the reason they transferred the troops, not the appearance of the Wehrmacht. The only speculation here is if the findings of Sorge or others were the reason. And according to the report, losing Moscow could potentially trigger a japanese attack (at least before the attack at PH), an even more convincing argument to defend at all costs.

In any case it's been the decision of the Sovyets whether to transfer the troops, not that of the OKW like in this game.



Dorky8 -> RE: Siberians (12/24/2018 11:07:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

It's all in the Strategy Guide, if someone fails to read it and takes on a PBEM game and gets surprised it's on them, it's not the fault of the game and the game should not be changed to accommodate such things. The laugh is that if the other player actually is playing the scripts [I asked but he hasn't answered] then he has halted his advance, and that is to the advantage of the complainer. That again has nothing to do with the game. Learn the rules, find a different opponent, don't PBEM. These are appropriate responses, blaming the game is not.





I'm talking about a concise strategy guide, the strategy guide at the end of the manual is fine but it is far from concise and is missing many things. You nicely laid out the things effecting SU & US mobilization in a thread, something like that for each side would be great. I'm looking for an easy to read "cheat sheet" that clearly lays out the ramifications for ALL the choices (DE's, troop placement, declaring war, rail lines etc). How about Diplomacy effects of declaring war - just a list the Axis & Allies diplomacy effects for declaring war on each country.

Is something like this exists let me know.

This would greatly improve the experience for current & new players.



BillRunacre -> RE: Siberians (12/31/2018 2:40:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

So what's the logic behind leaving the informations in the manual vague, but enable some nerds to extract more precise informations out of the code? Is this a strategy game, or do you have to study informatics to succeed?

Making the outcomes more random doesn't help that much, if the triggers are changed from a certain distance from a city to a range of distances, if this information is also only available to the nerds. In this case it`s hardly changing anything, cause the affected player has no influence at all.


Hi Sugar

I've been thinking about this and the problem is that as the game is accessible to anyone to inspect and amend, as we've deliberately made as much as possible editable, so there will always be a certain amount of information contained within the scripts that isn't necessarily included in the Strategy Guides or the game itself.

Over the years we have increased the amount of information available. Indeed, when I first started working on Strategic Command I don't think we were producing Strategy Guides at all, and it was something I introduced as the lack of information available bothered me both as a player and as a designer. Not even I can remember everything! [:)]

I certainly have no desire to penalize those players who do spend a bit more time delving into the scripts, but neither do I want them to gain any significant or unfair advantages from doing so.

Unfortunately the work that would be involved in producing comprehensive and fully detailed guides to everything in the scripts would be far too time consuming for us to undertake, and also update as things change.

This will likely always be the case to some extent, although with the War in Europe and World at War games far more is included within the game itself than ever before. For example, it used to be that there was no information in game as to what any research categories meant and the bonuses they provided, and this is all now explained within the research panels.

Hopefully we can import more information automatically like that into future games, as it will be easier for all players then, and hopefully save us some time in writing the Guides etc too.

I hope that explains things a bit better.

Bill




Sugar -> RE: Siberians (12/31/2018 3:08:35 PM)

Hi Bill,

many thx for your answer. I have witnessed the bescribed changes myself, from the first SC onwards, and I must admit your policy on information has increased hugely.

Nevertheless my suggestion would be to reduce DEs as much as possible (especially conditions, timeframes and prerequisites), and implement as much information as necessary into the strategy guide, otherwise the accessibility would suffer and also influence balancing badly, especially if it enables exploitation.

IIrc KZ has already started a thread revisiting DEs months ago, I'm going to search and link it up here if possible.

Here it is: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4362980



Markiss -> RE: Siberians (1/1/2019 4:59:59 AM)

Thanks for chiming in again Bill. You are truly a gem.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the Siberians arrival be tied to a specific date.
It is the current en vogue strategy to launch a late Barbarossa, and in such a case I completely understand why the Siberians would arrive late.
I have also had several PBEM games where my opponent obviously avoided approaching Moscow, likely for the sole purpose of not triggering the Siberians, and these games did not prompt me to write a post about it, as I understood why the Siberians did not arrive at the historical date.
What did prompt me to write a post was a game where my opponent launched a Barbarossa on time, and followed almost exactly the historical advance schedule, and yet did not trigger a Siberian arrival. This is what bothered me.
My opponent did eventually capture Moscow, but not until nearly 2 years later, so I do not have a problem with the game play aspect of it, just the ahistorical response of the Soviets.
I was just suggesting a review of the scripts to maybe allow a historical response if the historical situation was closely replicated.
I do not expect any given game to follow a historical course, but if it does follow closely the historical course, I would like to see a historical response.
Thanks again for your efforts, you guys are the best.



LLv34Mika -> RE: Siberians (1/1/2019 6:28:45 AM)

Actually it would be easy to change the script. If the Sibirians get triggered when one of the following cities gets captured... Leningrad, Moscow, Voronesz, Rostov.

Or you pull the line closer to the Germans and make it Leningrad, Moscow, Dneprpetrovsk and Kursk.
Or you trigger these units when a certain number of NM objectives are captured. Can vary from 3 - 5... Smolensk and Kiev usually get captured first.

And if the developers really stick to their events (what I hope) I would make them more a two-edged-sword. You get something now? That means you have to pay in a certain way later. And as requested... please remove always yes/always no events. Nice to read the fluff but no decision necessary. The other way is to make some always yes DEs more expensive and some always no DEs more attractive. I really love the events and in some cases they could add some strategic value to the game.

Warsaw Ghetto rising? Why not place some weak (Str 3 - 5) partisans somewhere in Poland! Doenitz changing the strategy to more U-Boats instead surface ships? Give the Germans an event to pay for some subs that will arrive later (of course cheaper than buying them)

I would also add some DEs that make it easier for the Germans to defend. As soon as the Allies start to fight their way back the game really turns into a slaughterhouse for the Axis player. So a "total war" event would be nice to trigger when the Germans lost the first one or two NM objectives (or like above, when the Russians re-capture 2 out of 5 cities) giving the Germans a huge national morale bonus and/or some more units.

Just some ideas... glad if you like it, also glad if not.
Happy 2019!!!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625