Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2



Message

76mm -> Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/18/2020 2:27:36 PM)

I played WitE quite a bit when if first came out, but have not played in several years now. Some of the "mechanical" additions in WitE2 sound quite good, and the game looks beautiful, but my main problem with games covering Barbarossa (including but not limited to WitE) is that IMHO the campaign is very difficult to make "gameable" in a satisfying way.

By this I mean that historically Barbarossa played out the way it did because of the various blunders and misjudgments by both sides as the campaign progressed: Soviets defending too far forward then not pulling back, Germans assuming a brief campaign and delaying a decision about campaign objectives, lack of foresight into a harsh early winter, etc, etc. Inevitably, with hindsight most players will not make these kinds of errors, and so the resulting game ends having a totally different character from the real campaign.

Before people get started, this is not some kind of request for Barbarossa to play out exactly as it did historically, but rather a question of how to allow/force players to take into account the same issues that shaped the historical campaign without forcing them to act in certain ways?

One example is that the Germans apparently assumed that the Red Army, and the Soviet Union along with it, would collapse within 6-8 weeks, and based much of their operational/logistical planning on that assumption. Without this assumption, the campaign takes on a completely different character. While we can argue (and have argued!) about whether there was ever a real chance of the Soviet Union collapsing, the main thing for the purposes of campaign planning is that the Germans believed it to be true, and so IMHO any game that does not allow for the possibility of an early Soviet collapse is going to have significant impact on German campaign plans. Same issue for harsh winter weather...knowing that "Winter is Coming," most German players will hunker down to avoid massive winter attrition...

What are other players' thoughts on this topic?



Light4bettor -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/18/2020 4:51:56 PM)

Since many of the key decision points in Barbarossa were driven by Hitler and Stalin's thinking and impulses, (and to be clear I'm not necessarily suggesting this change particularly for the WitE series) there could be a game with a mechanism where points (or certain rewards/perks) are given for following certain directives from above even if they are tactically/operationally/strategically unsound. Because as happens to us in real life, doing the "wrong" thing can sometimes have the right results, and that probably no other action except the doing of that "wrong" thing would have produced the results. Also, not following these directives is allowable but you could see yourself losing the game (in points) even if you are winning it on the ground.

For example, the consequences of Stalin's callous insistence on counterattacks and holding certain objectives early in Barbarossa (e.g.,see Glantz's "Barbarossa Derailed") may have significantly contributed (in combination of course with everything else going on that we know of), in aggregate and cumulatively, to the dissipation of the Wehrmacht's offensive/defensive capabilities enough to render it vulnerable (especially in excessively worn-down units) to a vigorously prosecuted counter-offensive in that December's weather. Even though this was not the primary reason for Stalin's insistence for those actions (if it was indeed even occurring to him or his thought process that this was a beneficial result of his orders).

Or, at some point late in 1941, Hitler decides a Typhoon type operation towards Moscow is mandatory and the player must make some effort making those attacks or face losing victory points. Where this could be a situation where you fake Hitler out by making the attacks with the minimum possible so that you're able to say "we tried" boss (although, even without a Soviet winter counter-offensive, Hitler would still have sacked many for the Typhoons "failure," for he wasn't going to take any blame for sure). Thereby, minimizing your losses but still looking loyal. Which in turn results in more points/ special perks (e.g.,Panther is developed with less teething troubles). But the overall goal would be achieved, namely making Army Group Center more vulnerable to a Winter counter-offensive, and not allowing it to unreasonably be pulling troops back to "winter quarters."

Maybe the rewards could be extra victory points (and these points would be rewarded regardless of the result of the battle), more replacement tank engines, or more freedom of action on certain sectors of the front (more Movement points maybe?).

The game as a whole would still play with WitE's objectives but the player would have to learn to deal with occasional interference. There are a lot of problems with my line of thinking, but I think it opens avenues worth exploring.

WitE doesn't account for the two main leaders' pride, prestige, and idiosyncrasies. Like "oh ****, this whole Barbarossa thing didn't work out like 1940/France, and now I've got to salvage something so I don't look like a fool on the world stage"(I know taking Moscow won't win the war but if we do, then it will read well at home and abroad this December, especially since we didn't win outright like I and many others thought we would; and if we don't, I can blame someone other than myself, win/win yay). Or "regardless of my miscalculations prior to Barbarossa that ended up costing millions of lives I'm still the boss who can, if I feel like it, have you ordered shot at my whim." (RIP Gen. Dmitry Pavlov).

But you bring up the right point, you cannot get a similar historical experience, unless the players are operating under similar circumstances (and just giving the same "toys" to play with is not usually sufficient to achieve this). Again, this would require some "boxing in of players," but at the same time, there are still many things the player can do to influence the outcome and it would be fun and satisfying to try to gain and achieve those rewards/perks, like in a video game.

Personally, I would like to see a rethinking of how leadership values are determined and how they play out. It's clearer now, to me at least, that Guderian, Manstein, Model etc etc, and esp Rommel- that although they were products of a German system that was certainly of high standards, and that while at times they could be clever and aggressive, they were not necessarily as brilliant as I once thought they were and were in many cases more interested in self-aggrandizement and climbing the social ladder (I don't say this is unnatural). Zhukov wasn't necessarily the most gifted General either-- but you didn't have to be in order to achieve success. There were reasons for the Bock-Kluge-Guderian dynamic(AGC-4th Armee- 2nd Panzer Gruppe) in the first couple months of Barbarossa but games don't explore stuff like this and their effect, if any, on operations.



cdsys -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/18/2020 7:38:59 PM)

Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa tries to model the leadership of Stalin and Hitler, and the in fighting between branches of the militarily for scare resources... and you have to take decisions on ethical/criminal questions, and that impacts how you will end the game... definitely adds to the historic feel of the campaign for me. Have not seen this in another war game.

Adding the authority/doctrine/political layer on top of the operational and tactical layer could be a great addition in WITE too I think.



76mm -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/18/2020 7:53:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cdsys
Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa tries to model the leadership of Stalin and Hitler, and the in fighting between branches of the militarily for scare resources... and you have to take decisions on ethical/criminal questions, and that impacts how you will end the game... definitely adds to the historic feel of the campaign for me. Have not seen this in another war game.

Yes, it's a nice idea, but I actually I didn't like Decisive Campaigns at all. Frankly, I found the "interactions" to be superficial, repetitive, and opaque, and so a huge distraction from actually playing the game. While I like the idea of this kind of "flavor" in theory, in practice I think it would be very difficult to pull off properly.



CapAndGown -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/19/2020 5:59:30 AM)

Go read Generalsky vs Seminole AAR (just completed). Or read the Tyronnec vs BrianG AAR. There is no need for Stalin's or Hitler's interference to hinder our decision making. We can make horrendous mistakes all on our own.

Germans will always pull back to winter quarters? Yeah, no. Soviets can't be defeated? Yeah, no.

The constraints should be the logistical and operational constraints of real life and nothing more. The point of a war game is "what if", not to be a a mechanical replay of what actually happened.



loki100 -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/19/2020 1:43:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I played WitE quite a bit when if first came out, but have not played in several years now. Some of the "mechanical" additions in WitE2 sound quite good, and the game looks beautiful, but my main problem with games covering Barbarossa (including but not limited to WitE) is that IMHO the campaign is very difficult to make "gameable" in a satisfying way.

By this I mean that historically Barbarossa played out the way it did because of the various blunders and misjudgments by both sides as the campaign progressed: Soviets defending too far forward then not pulling back, Germans assuming a brief campaign and delaying a decision about campaign objectives, lack of foresight into a harsh early winter, etc, etc. Inevitably, with hindsight most players will not make these kinds of errors, and so the resulting game ends having a totally different character from the real campaign.

Before people get started, this is not some kind of request for Barbarossa to play out exactly as it did historically, but rather a question of how to allow/force players to take into account the same issues that shaped the historical campaign without forcing them to act in certain ways?

One example is that the Germans apparently assumed that the Red Army, and the Soviet Union along with it, would collapse within 6-8 weeks, and based much of their operational/logistical planning on that assumption. Without this assumption, the campaign takes on a completely different character. While we can argue (and have argued!) about whether there was ever a real chance of the Soviet Union collapsing, the main thing for the purposes of campaign planning is that the Germans believed it to be true, and so IMHO any game that does not allow for the possibility of an early Soviet collapse is going to have significant impact on German campaign plans. Same issue for harsh winter weather...knowing that "Winter is Coming," most German players will hunker down to avoid massive winter attrition...

What are other players' thoughts on this topic?



We'll come back to a lot of this in the coming previews and the planned AARs.

What is worth noting is there is a lot more variability - both big things like when the really bad winter weather (ie blizzards) will start and then small variations, so light rain might generate enough mud to be annoying and increase your supply costs but its not going to bring your offensive to a halt. And that can happen pretty much in any turn.

As with all the WiTx games, the underlying design of near complete player agency. Want to pull the Wehrmacht back to Poland in November 1941 - no one is stopping you. Want to just run with the Red Army in 1941 ... ok.

What is different to WiTE1 is there are lots more trade-offs, you don't have to do what is suggested (& the game picks up on some of the surrounding political imperatives, indirectly) but you may find you can't afford the related cost.

As in a lot else, and we hope to emphasise this in the pre-release information, this is not WiTE1+some enhancements. Play it as you would WiTE1 and bad things will happen.

So picking up on this

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapAndGown

Go read Generalsky vs Seminole AAR (just completed). Or read the Tyronnec vs BrianG AAR. There is no need for Stalin's or Hitler's interference to hinder our decision making. We can make horrendous mistakes all on our own.

... .


Not only can you make your own mistakes, you can have all the fun of picking the least worst option from the menu ...



governato -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 5:05:52 AM)

I loved DCB. While one could argue the details, it was a never seen before game and I had a clear feel of what role I was playing (a six stars general trying to win the war and dealing with a complex political and military machine beyond their full control). I liked WITE1 but the precise role of the player was never clear to me and the "full agency" I had (complete freedom from superiors and fanatic obedience from the lower ranks) made me feel I was in full charge of an alien hive army ..there I said it :0. I totally understand it's a design philosophy but I hope WITE2 is a bit more realistic that way. I am looking forward to it, if a little more for the scenarios than for the full campaign. And I *really* hope variability will stop people from playing the first turns like a chess game...let's call it 'Pelton Gambit' for those grognards who were there an still remember the good players of a few years ago.



Meteor2 -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 10:39:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

I loved DCB. While one could argue the details, it was a never seen before game and I had a clear feel of what role I was playing (a six stars general trying to win the war and dealing with a complex political and military machine beyond their full control). I liked WITE1 but the precise role of the player was never clear to me and the "full agency" I had (complete freedom from superiors and fanatic obedience from the lower ranks) made me feel I was in full charge of an alien hive army ..there I said it :0. I totally understand it's a design philosophy but I hope WITE2 is a bit more realistic that way. I am looking forward to it, if a little more for the scenarios than for the full campaign. And I *really* hope variability will stop people from playing the first turns like a chess game...let's call it 'Pelton Gambit' for those grognards who were there an still remember the good players of a few years ago.


Good summary!!!
This chess-like system, where every of the first ten moves were set in stone [>:] / optimized after some time of play by the experts
(Pelton, to remember one), drove me away from playing.
DCB was a totally different game feeling and despite its limitations, a very welcome one for me. So unique!
Hopefully WitE2 makes chess openings unlikely and offers more of the uncertainty in the chain of command, where 100 % of
obedience and fulfillment is not the norm.



Omnius -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 2:03:14 PM)

I detest games with gamey forced historical requirements like Hitler or Stalin rules. Let us play either side the way we want or why should we bother? Might be ok for a scenario option for those who want it but the main scenarios shouldn't include restrictions on how we play.



Meteor2 -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 2:36:22 PM)

To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not proposing a conversion into DCB.
But the min/max strategy of the experts (after a serious time of play), drove me away.
If any deviation from the „best“ openings (think of all the well documented and in depth analysed openings in chess)
leads to a high probability for failure, then it’s not a game for me.
Pelton was a real expert in determining the absolut best strategy ([&o]) but that was to much for me.



76mm -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 3:11:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapAndGown
The point of a war game is "what if", not to be a a mechanical replay of what actually happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
I detest games with gamey forced historical requirements like Hitler or Stalin rules. Let us play either side the way we want or why should we bother?


To be clear, I am NOT advocating a "mechanical replay of what actually happened"--I agree that playing games with those kind of rules is very unsatisfying. The problem for me is that without some kind rules that put me into the same situation as the historical one, I don't feel like I'm replaying Barbarossa, but rather some generic wargame on the map of Russia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
I loved DCB. While one could argue the details, it was a never seen before game and I had a clear feel of what role I was playing (a six stars general trying to win the war and dealing with a complex political and military machine beyond their full control). I liked WITE1 but the precise role of the player was never clear to me and the "full agency" I had (complete freedom from superiors and fanatic obedience from the lower ranks) made me feel I was in full charge of an alien hive army ..there I said it :0. I totally understand it's a design philosophy but I hope WITE2 is a bit more realistic that way.

Actually I totally agree with you, except that I really didn't like DCB's implementation of the concept, and in fairness to DCB I think that the concept would be very, very difficult to implement in a way that I found convincing and interesting. It is very difficult for any game (actually any computer program) to reflect all the nuances of the real world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
And I *really* hope variability will stop people from playing the first turns like a chess game...let's call it 'Pelton Gambit' for those grognards who were there an still remember the good players of a few years ago.

I agree on this as well. IIRC one of the keys to preventing this was giving the Soviet player more freedom for the initial placement of his units. This is a good example of how a focus on "realism" can lead to unrealistic results. In other words, by enforcing "realism" by saying that Soviet units must deploy where they did historically, you get an unrealistic result--German players, with the advantage of hindsight from playing the scenario 20 times, not to mention historical hindsight--get a significant advantage.

Anyway, these are all reasons why for me Barbarossa has always been "ungameable"--for one reason or another--either too many historical restrictions or, ironically, not enough historical context resulting in a generic campaign--I've found just about every East Front game I've played to be rather unsatisfying.



governato -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 3:18:18 PM)

I think some randomness in the initial set up 'd go a long way in breaking any chess-like opening strategy and still staying true to the approach of WITE style games. This could be an optional set up option and honestly, do we really know the start location of every Russian division within a one hex precision or the exact fuel stock of each German division? Blessed the quartermasters....



cdsys -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 6:02:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

I think some randomness in the initial set up 'd go a long way in breaking any chess-like opening strategy and still staying true to the approach of WITE style games. This could be an optional set up option and honestly, do we really know the start location of every Russian division within a one hex precision or the exact fuel stock of each German division? Blessed the quartermasters....


I hope that the scenario editor will be handy enough to let the community create some alternate start position scenario's for both German and Russian players (I created one in WITE1 with an extra army group (just a headquarter) in the south and moved almost all of 2nd Panzer Army there and the most southern armies under it's command). Playing those with fog of war would help with the hindsight.

An option to have fog of war on the enemy OOB would be nice too. It's kind of strange that you know the exact number of tanks... your opponent has and the number of operational ones on a weekly basis...



governato -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 6:34:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cdsys


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

I think some randomness in the initial set up 'd go a long way in breaking any chess-like opening strategy and still staying true to the approach of WITE style games. This could be an optional set up option and honestly, do we really know the start location of every Russian division within a one hex precision or the exact fuel stock of each German division? Blessed the quartermasters....


I hope that the scenario editor will be handy enough to let the community create some alternate start position scenario's for both German and Russian players (I created one in WITE1 with an extra army group (just a headquarter) in the south and moved almost all of 2nd Panzer Army there and the most southern armies under it's command). Playing those with fog of war would help with the hindsight.

An option to have fog of war on the enemy OOB would be nice too. It's kind of strange that you know the exact number of tanks... your opponent has and the number of operational ones on a weekly basis...


I agree. Some people like to nerd about it and that is what makes WITE unique, but I think it's also a missed opportunity for an extra challenge.

I think it'd be easy to include a FOW option to add some `noise' to those figures when they get shown to the players.



76mm -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 6:35:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cdsys
I hope that the scenario editor will be handy enough to let the community create some alternate start position scenario's for both German and Russian players (I created one in WITE1 with an extra army group (just a headquarter) in the south and moved almost all of 2nd Panzer Army there and the most southern armies under it's command).

It sounds like the scenario editor will be quite powerful, and almost certainly capable of stuff like this. The problem is that the vast majority of players probably only use the stock scenarios...so hopefully some flexibility will be built into the stock scenarios as well--perhaps a "set-up" phase for both players allowing limited (unlimited?) redeployments.



governato -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 6:40:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: cdsys
I hope that the scenario editor will be handy enough to let the community create some alternate start position scenario's for both German and Russian players (I created one in WITE1 with an extra army group (just a headquarter) in the south and moved almost all of 2nd Panzer Army there and the most southern armies under it's command).

It sounds like the scenario editor will be quite powerful, and almost certainly capable of stuff like this. The problem is that the vast majority of players probably only use the stock scenarios...so hopefully some flexibility will be built into the stock scenarios as well--perhaps a "set-up" phase for both players allowing limited (unlimited?) redeployments.


The editor will be great to model some forgotten battles and to make Glantz proud, but in my opinion FOW has to come from the developers :)

Such a constructive discussion btw.



76mm -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 6:44:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
The editor will be great to model some forgotten battles and to make Glantz proud, but in my opinion FOW has to come from the developers :)

Of course FoW will probably need to come from the devs (although maybe not--many Matrix games now have very powerful scripting tools)--but alternate start positions for Barbarossa--a type of FoW--should be easily achievable in the editor. But as mentioned in my previous post, I think it would be much better if it could be done by players during an in-game set up phase rather than having to rely on "alternate" scenarios.



governato -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/20/2020 6:49:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
The editor will be great to model some forgotten battles and to make Glantz proud, but in my opinion FOW has to come from the developers :)

Of course FoW will probably need to come from the devs (although maybe not--many Matrix games now have very powerful scripting tools--but alternate start positions for Barbarossa--a type of FoW--should be easily achievable in the editor. But as mentioned in my previous post, I think it would be much better if it could be done by players during an in-game set up phase rather than having to rely on "alternate" scenarios.


YES

random (and optional) small changes to spoil chess like apertures or variable set up positions ala Flashpoint campaigns at least for some units. Have people set up their tanks away from railheads and have them learn the hard way. .. I do favor both venues.



Dave25210 -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/21/2020 10:23:45 AM)

I personally enjoy both above mentioned approaches; WITE/WITW concept of most detailed micromanagement and accounting detailed to every fired shot, and the Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa sort of role playing concept, with some parts of game abstracted which allows concentration elsewhere. Either way, game engine (with its detailed air operations ,as well as supply system etc) of WITW I enjoy generally more then the older WITE, however WITE gives me the whole favored East Front 1941-1945... So, at the end I like all these 3 games about equally, and I play them alternately.



RedLancer -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/21/2020 10:46:38 AM)

If you play with FOW on then the figures that you see in game are not accurate. As in real life you choose how much to believe the intelligence that is presented to you.

On the subject of the much debated first turn let me offer the following:

- Adding a free setup to players was not possible without completely re-writing the game code because of the order of the game phases.
- The experience / ready / damage settings of soviet units' ground elements are randomised on T1. See screenshot which shows the difference between the Editor and what happens after you load the scenario.
- WitE2 has much more randomness built in - as combat delay and CPP loss is dependent on final attack odds then die rolls are more influential.
- Reserve activations play a much greater role in the response to any attack.
- Baltic rail is no longer cheaper to repair but this is offset by not all hexes being damaged. This is random.

Beyond T1

- Weather is more random.
- Events can vary.
- With Theatre Boxes 'ON' arrivals and withdrawals are not set.


[image]local://upfiles/18789/2E909F7D6B4D42A5AC10B4DE70FFEEEE.jpg[/image]



governato -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/21/2020 4:19:27 PM)

Hopefully these changes will help with the first turns!



keitherson -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/21/2020 10:45:28 PM)

18 out of 325 AFVs ready in the editor screenshot? Is the actual result on the right randomized based on this those numbers?



Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/21/2020 11:41:41 PM)

I think this will always be an interesting, albeit much repeated, philosophical debate.

quote:

I don't feel like I'm replaying Barbarossa, but rather some generic wargame on the map of Russia.


This is probably the heart of it. In the end there is an inherent tension of game design between trying to model a simulation of Barbarossa and the EF and producing a game that is based on, but not restricted by, that context. The closer you get to a simulation the more restricted a players options become in game terms and visa-versa the more options a player has in 'gaming' terms the quicker things depart from feeling like a simulation. Either end of that spectrum will frustrate one set of players - the trick is to find a balance.

Personally I think that WITE1 has a good balance by that measure - the full campaign has enough flexibility to allow players to play 'their way' and there are the smaller scenarios available to play that give a more 'historical' feel. In the context of this debate personally I think the latter are underplayed - in the Roads to Leningrad/Kiev scenarios the Soviet player has to find a way to fight 'forward' in order to get a win, an Axis player trying to get a win in the Typhoon scenario can't afford to just shelter from the blizzard, in the Stalingrad scenario the Axis player doesn't have the opportunity to correct the historical mistakes and has to 'troubleshoot' their way through the scenario. To be honest I'm a little surprised that as far as I'm aware over the shelf life of the game nobody has ever tried (or at least reported) a series of PvP matches through those scenarios in chronological order.

In terms of WITE1 --> WITE2 I think all the signs are really encouraging. In particular it seems like things like the logistics system and the air war are much more comprehensive and robust so that the players that have an advantage in those areas will be those that better understand those systems on a holistic/intuitive level rather than those who are putting hours into trying to 'min/max' the mechanics.

In terms of the first turn, in an ideal world I'd agree it would have been nice to have had the possibility of more variation in the Soviet T1 setup. I'm not sure if I'm on board with fully 'player defined' setups but it would have been nice to either have some randomness in the unit placement or conversely having 3-4 predefined setups (chose at random at the beginning of the game) rather than just the one. Hopefully the changes Red Lancer has described above will go some way to mitigating against pre-planned 'optimal' openings.

My own view is that nobody has ever 'cracked' the game in a way that they have come up with a set of moves for the first few turns that was not defendable against by the Soviets. Pelton has been mentioned but I would suggest that whilst he was extremely successful that success was based not so much on having a 'chess-style' opening that always worked but more on a combination of him having an exceptional grasp on the way the mechanics worked for the Axis in the early turns and also if I'm honest an element of him often beating up on less experienced players who were not prepared for the extent to which he was able to squeeze so much power/mobility from the Axis side in turns where most players were reaching the end of the logistical leash. Sadly I think all his AARs have been deleted but from memory whenever he came up against an opponent who was at a similar standard the games tended to go the distance.



Simon Edmonds -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/22/2020 10:47:11 PM)

All of the games start with June 22 and the Germans try to gain as much as possible out of their advantage and the soviets try to drag themselves out of the poo. I would like to the a scenario that starts on the second turn of October where the tables were turned.



Sardaukar -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/23/2020 8:13:48 AM)

There is Stalingrad to Berlin scenario.



No idea -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/23/2020 10:19:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not proposing a conversion into DCB.
But the min/max strategy of the experts (after a serious time of play), drove me away.
If any deviation from the „best“ openings (think of all the well documented and in depth analysed openings in chess)
leads to a high probability for failure, then it’s not a game for me.
Pelton was a real expert in determining the absolut best strategy ([&o]) but that was to much for me.



Well, IRL, if you could start exactly the same campaign again and again, you would eventually find the optimal way to do things, so what Pelton and others did was unrealistically realistic.



821Bobo -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/23/2020 11:15:28 AM)

Better option is to play equally experienced player than adding another layer of changes/complexity that will have no other purpose only make opening moves harder. Pelton's opening was not much help for him when he has been facing, lets say, MT.



fsp1978 -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/27/2020 10:55:33 AM)

So - if a full free placement is not possible (and I don't think that would be a good idea, as things would get too random), would it be possible with the current engine to have something similar to AGEODs WW1 game?

There you could choose one of three or four war plans before the game started, either an offensive one, or a defensive one or something in between.

Of course, with WITE you could have different scenarios, but then your opponent would already know which version you'd have. Would it be possible with the current engine to let both players choose at campaign start?



loki100 -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/27/2020 12:24:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fsp1978

So - if a full free placement is not possible (and I don't think that would be a good idea, as things would get too random), would it be possible with the current engine to have something similar to AGEODs WW1 game?

There you could choose one of three or four war plans before the game started, either an offensive one, or a defensive one or something in between.

Of course, with WITE you could have different scenarios, but then your opponent would already know which version you'd have. Would it be possible with the current engine to let both players choose at campaign start?


Some of this is naturally captured by the game mechanics. You can think of the entire German June set up as a giant deception operation and work out your own variants. Certainly in testing we are seeing successful use of the basic German plan (with operational tweaks) and pretty radical reworks.

the other bit is the game captures the debate the Germans never solved. Moscow/Leningrad as political/strategic targets vs tbe Ukraine as an industrial/agricultural target - we'll come back to how this is done in a later post.

In addition, at an operational/tactical level the game has far more trade offs than WiTE1 does. So a great opening that solves one set of problems may well leave you to exposed to a different one and so on. Red Lancer's showcase #1 starts to give a lot of information here. One is the importance of getting your infantry into clear corridors to advance (so they are not picking up fatigue/spending time active patrolling as they move). But to achieve that has implications for what the Pzrs are up to. There is an (un)holy trinity in the game of admin movement/CPP gain & retention/high mobility. Break one leg and the stool falls over (to mix in a new metaphor [;)]).

and thats before the much more subtle logistics system with its dynamics that again you need to solve - and every solution leaves a problem somewhere else.

So what I'm saying is I personally think that WiTE2 is less vulnerable to the perfect opening than WiTE1 became.

We'll try and show all this both as concepts and applied in AARs as we move forwards with providing the information ... [;)]



wpurdom -> RE: Making Barbarossa "Gameable"? (12/29/2020 4:43:31 PM)

If there's really that much variance in the strength of the units CV of .8 versus 5.4, I can't see the opening move being as scripted as WITE1. It'll take at least a month or 2 after release to know for sure, but the problem may be solved!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.59375