RE: T52

RE: T52 (Full Version)

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

Message

carlkay58 -> RE: T52 (8/28/2021 12:38:19 PM)
I would like to point out that Glantz, Sharp, and Neufizinger (sp?) all agree that Soviet losses by the end of December 41 were close to 6M men. At the start of May 42 WitE2 has 10M men total available for the Soviets - so if the Soviets have lost 5M by May 42 then the Soviets will have 5M able to be on the map. I am not sure how many men are available to the Soviets by Jan 42 but I also don't know of any Axis player who has hit the 6M Soviets out of the war by then. All of the sources also agree that the Soviets lost about 1M men in Dec 41 so Soviet losses should be about 5M by the end of Nov 41. Once again, I don't know if any Axis have achieved that yet. So where did they lose those men? The opening border battles (and pockets), Kiev, and Operation Typhoon. Soviet players are aided by historical knowledge to avoid Kiev and very few Axis players launch a major operation like Typhoon that late in 41. So it goes both ways here. It seems that the Soviet players are benefiting more from historical knowledge than the Axis players are. Without those large losses in 41 the Soviets SHOULD be in a better place in 42. As to Assault commands, the Soviets use them to reduce their Command Point penalties - which I think is the major change for the Soviets. Without the increased command levels of the Assault Fronts the Soviets suffer immense command penalties that essentially eliminate leadership above the corps/army level and seriously hinder the army level with the penalties for direct army attachment until the end of Nov 41. With an assault HQ and a good Front commander the Soviets are much better on leadership than historically.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (8/28/2021 1:17:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson I think the biggest difference is a Soviet player has historical hindsight, and doesn't commit the catastrophical and self-defeating errors that Stalin and Stavka did in 1941 and during much of 42. Germany lost the war on June 22nd of 1941. Soviet errors simply made that less than obvious for a while. yep, fully agree. assuming a reasonable match, then the axis shouldn't be able to win (in the sense that the Soviet Union is reduced to some sort of rump state over the Urals). What we are currently seeing is reports of quick German wins (usually in the sense the Soviet player gives up leaving no real idea of how well they can recover). Take 'received wisdom' and Leningrad. At one stage in testing, it was declared it was impossible to take, then players started to work out how to take it. Ok, we now see games where Leningrad is taken. Its a nice VP bonus, shortens the line, but beyond that? My concern at the moment is a feeling that the balance pt should be roughly the historical German advance in 1941. No its feasible, and sensible, that German players may wish to pull up short of this, but that should be something regularly seen. And its actually near to impossible, even vs the AI (on 110) you can forget about achieving it Reading this makes me want to find another game if the Germans can't or should never win :(. Game wise you have a game that is going to see a mass exodus of players leaving once the realization is that playing Germany is a no-win scenario. Matter of fact I already see that with a few die hards trying to prove it is possible to still win as Germany. Well the question should be, "Is it possible at the same skill level"? Is it? Probably not, so why play a game then when you can't win? Most won't. I am one of those die-hards that loves the German side & will try my best but even my best I don't feel is going to be good enough.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (8/28/2021 1:27:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlkay58 I would like to point out that Glantz, Sharp, and Neufizinger (sp?) all agree that Soviet losses by the end of December 41 were close to 6M men. At the start of May 42 WitE2 has 10M men total available for the Soviets - so if the Soviets have lost 5M by May 42 then the Soviets will have 5M able to be on the map. I am not sure how many men are available to the Soviets by Jan 42 but I also don't know of any Axis player who has hit the 6M Soviets out of the war by then. All of the sources also agree that the Soviets lost about 1M men in Dec 41 so Soviet losses should be about 5M by the end of Nov 41. Once again, I don't know if any Axis have achieved that yet. So where did they lose those men? The opening border battles (and pockets), Kiev, and Operation Typhoon. Soviet players are aided by historical knowledge to avoid Kiev and very few Axis players launch a major operation like Typhoon that late in 41. So it goes both ways here. It seems that the Soviet players are benefiting more from historical knowledge than the Axis players are. Without those large losses in 41 the Soviets SHOULD be in a better place in 42. As to Assault commands, the Soviets use them to reduce their Command Point penalties - which I think is the major change for the Soviets. Without the increased command levels of the Assault Fronts the Soviets suffer immense command penalties that essentially eliminate leadership above the corps/army level and seriously hinder the army level with the penalties for direct army attachment until the end of Nov 41. With an assault HQ and a good Front commander the Soviets are much better on leadership than historically. I am turn 7 "Operation Typhoon" in my game with Jubjub which will have an update later today. No German player that I know of has hit 5 million Soviet Losses sustained to the Soviets in 41. I have had a 4.2 million but that is as close as I have gotten in 41. My estimate to turn 16 in my Jubjub game, if I keep current pace, is ~2.5 million to ~ 3 million Soviet losses. To turn 25, which is too faint in the crystal ball for this game should be ~3.3 to ~4.3 million if nothing catastrophic happens to me. And those losses are me staring at the map long hours to figure out how to get them. But please note without the VL path that was left open in this game the number of losses to the Soviets would have been far far less. I have already given my 2 cents on the issues I see in the game and looks like you said the same thing I have iterated before.

erikbengtsson -> RE: T52 (8/28/2021 2:08:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 My feeling (& its not much more than that), is the problem of Soviet recovery (which is too fast) comes off a few issues: a) in the main the game models Soviet capacity rather than practical capability This is close to the Soviet pre-37 defensive plan where an offensive is absorbed by the first echelon forces, stalled by the second echelon and thrown back by the third. Now the latter was clearly an over-estimate (& mostly is not what is happening) but the first 2 reflect what we are often seeing? b) some easy hits on capability b1) raise the command divisor to /14 for army level till say 1 December, its not much but it removes the real value of getting the top 10 commanders into the main forces early on b2) as others have said, no assualt fronts before december and only 1 then. That not only hampers the CPP regain, it adds to the leadership problems. In testing, most Soviet players didn't go for early assault fronts as the perception was there were better uses for the admin pts. In consequence the game played a lot better - now its inevitable that people experiment, report and that gets copied, and we get a new feeling for overall balance. b3) Admin movemement is removed after an attack, that should stop the hit and run stuff that a lot of Soviet players now indulge in. Worth remembering that Kravchenko's tank victory in late Sept 41 was essentially a defensive ambush not a mobile operation. c) don't mess with logistics, despite some claims the system works and hits both sides in the right way d) I'd be cautious about reducing the time to level 1 fort, mainly as that could make a real mess of any later Axis defences in the Ukraine If there is a simple fix, its take off Soviet assault fronts in 1941. I'd be more interested in that than any of the more esoteric house rules being adopted. As above, I know that until quite late in testing it wasn't regularly used and it did make for very different play dynamics. I don't think there have been any really major code changes since then so (wearing my social policy evaluation hat), if there is something big and different focus on that rather than something small and marginal? I really like this.

loki100 -> RE: T52 (8/28/2021 4:52:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson I think the biggest difference is a Soviet player has historical hindsight, and doesn't commit the catastrophical and self-defeating errors that Stalin and Stavka did in 1941 and during much of 42. Germany lost the war on June 22nd of 1941. Soviet errors simply made that less than obvious for a while. yep, fully agree. assuming a reasonable match, then the axis shouldn't be able to win (in the sense that the Soviet Union is reduced to some sort of rump state over the Urals). What we are currently seeing is reports of quick German wins (usually in the sense the Soviet player gives up leaving no real idea of how well they can recover). Take 'received wisdom' and Leningrad. At one stage in testing, it was declared it was impossible to take, then players started to work out how to take it. Ok, we now see games where Leningrad is taken. Its a nice VP bonus, shortens the line, but beyond that? My concern at the moment is a feeling that the balance pt should be roughly the historical German advance in 1941. No its feasible, and sensible, that German players may wish to pull up short of this, but that should be something regularly seen. And its actually near to impossible, even vs the AI (on 110) you can forget about achieving it Reading this makes me want to find another game if the Germans can't or should never win :(. Game wise you have a game that is going to see a mass exodus of players leaving once the realization is that playing Germany is a no-win scenario. Matter of fact I already see that with a few die hards trying to prove it is possible to still win as Germany. Well the question should be, "Is it possible at the same skill level"? Is it? Probably not, so why play a game then when you can't win? Most won't. I am one of those die-hards that loves the German side & will try my best but even my best I don't feel is going to be good enough. I think there are 2 issues and you are conflating them [;)] a wee bit. Could the Germans win this war - I actually don't think so. Laying aside they were stretched everywhere else, quite simply the Soviet system was that horrible (to deal with) combination of very robust and very dispersed. Once it stoppped losing on the battlefields it was going to start winning. Now maybe that spins off into a long brutal slogging match but only one side wins when wars in this era in the end come to raw resources. Now should a German player have a route to win the game? Yes, and they are in the game (quite a few of them). There are enough vs AI reports of German players managing this. My main concern here, is less can the German win, more why are we not seeing them lose historically? I actually think the answer to one (in game turns) is the answer to the other.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (8/28/2021 5:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson I think the biggest difference is a Soviet player has historical hindsight, and doesn't commit the catastrophical and self-defeating errors that Stalin and Stavka did in 1941 and during much of 42. Germany lost the war on June 22nd of 1941. Soviet errors simply made that less than obvious for a while. yep, fully agree. assuming a reasonable match, then the axis shouldn't be able to win (in the sense that the Soviet Union is reduced to some sort of rump state over the Urals). What we are currently seeing is reports of quick German wins (usually in the sense the Soviet player gives up leaving no real idea of how well they can recover). Take 'received wisdom' and Leningrad. At one stage in testing, it was declared it was impossible to take, then players started to work out how to take it. Ok, we now see games where Leningrad is taken. Its a nice VP bonus, shortens the line, but beyond that? My concern at the moment is a feeling that the balance pt should be roughly the historical German advance in 1941. No its feasible, and sensible, that German players may wish to pull up short of this, but that should be something regularly seen. And its actually near to impossible, even vs the AI (on 110) you can forget about achieving it Reading this makes me want to find another game if the Germans can't or should never win :(. Game wise you have a game that is going to see a mass exodus of players leaving once the realization is that playing Germany is a no-win scenario. Matter of fact I already see that with a few die hards trying to prove it is possible to still win as Germany. Well the question should be, "Is it possible at the same skill level"? Is it? Probably not, so why play a game then when you can't win? Most won't. I am one of those die-hards that loves the German side & will try my best but even my best I don't feel is going to be good enough. I think there are 2 issues and you are conflating them [;)] a wee bit. Could the Germans win this war - I actually don't think so. Laying aside they were stretched everywhere else, quite simply the Soviet system was that horrible (to deal with) combination of very robust and very dispersed. Once it stoppped losing on the battlefields it was going to start winning. Now maybe that spins off into a long brutal slogging match but only one side wins when wars in this era in the end come to raw resources. Now should a German player have a route to win the game? Yes, and they are in the game (quite a few of them). There are enough vs AI reports of German players managing this. My main concern here, is less can the German win, more why are we not seeing them lose historically? I actually think the answer to one (in game turns) is the answer to the other. Who is conflating what now ? ;-). Seems you just did it too. For instance you are comparing with AI vs player we are not comparing the same apple. When the conversation deviates from player vs player I am out since I already know the bread and butter money maker is player vs AI with the majority of the player base playing against the AI. @ last para are we talking in PvP game terms or in PvAI game terms? I still feel the Germans can win even if it is a Phricc victory in 44 after getting beat to crap with current ruleset. It will be a long tough road with equal skilled players for the Germans. At least that is what I am trying to prove. This is just what I read, and then wrote about, is the "feeling" I got from reading all the above comments in the previous post.

loki100 -> RE: T52 (8/30/2021 8:40:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain ... Who is conflating what now ? ;-). Seems you just did it too. For instance you are comparing with AI vs player we are not comparing the same apple. When the conversation deviates from player vs player I am out since I already know the bread and butter money maker is player vs AI with the majority of the player base playing against the AI. @ last para are we talking in PvP game terms or in PvAI game terms? I still feel the Germans can win even if it is a Phricc victory in 44 after getting beat to crap with current ruleset. It will be a long tough road with equal skilled players for the Germans. At least that is what I am trying to prove. This is just what I read, and then wrote about, is the "feeling" I got from reading all the above comments in the previous post. I thought you were conflating what would be a real world axis victory (impossible in my opinion) with how an axis win is represented in game - if not then my apoligies I think its been made clear before that the great majority of players only play the AI, a substantial further number do both AI and HtH, pure HtH is a small minority. Hence all the work that went into (& goes into) the AI development. So, and many apologies for this, but yes I will carry on talking about both HtH situations and those vs AI.

AlbertN -> RE: T52 (8/30/2021 11:49:53 AM)
The point in general is that - besides some AI improvements - once the game is balanced HvH, it will 'naturally' be also vs the AI as a player fine-tune the AI with percentages and the like. The Master level player going vs the AI will probably seek a 90 my own side, 120 AI side type of conflict - if they stick to play vs the AI. The Human vs Human does not have this type of 'scaling' (or well it is not common that anyone is to accept to play at 100 and give the other side 110). But in general what is balanced and tuned for HvH goes hand in hand with the gameplay vs the AI. The issue is that the AI cannot get 'smarter' unless coded in deeper and more time consuming detail. A player tend to improve as the game goes. Til their own limits or game limits (or a mix) are reached.

loki100 -> T57 - Verdun was fun (9/6/2021 9:30:18 AM)
T57 � 19 July 1942 I'll do some reports as this progresses, not least there are no other 1942 AARs being reported so it has some value. Even if the outcome is scarcely in doubt. Nothing much has happened for AGN. Somewhat to my surprise I took Pushkin last turn. Some localised Soviet attacks but have a decent reserve, so can rotate out a battered division and replace it with fresh. Defensive line is mostly divisions, that plus forts and terrain mean it will take a serious effort to really dent my lines. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8248/HDPrI6.jpg[/image] This is what passes fora summer offensive. Finally took Orel a few turns back, 2 and 4 Armies are in good defensive terrain and I'm building up a fort belt back towards Smolensk. 2 and 3 Pzr basically grind there way north a hex a turn. Every now and then I surround a hex. Essentially pointless but I can't face just sitting on the defensive till the Soviets are able to launch an offensive. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/1770/xwnulz.jpg[/image] I lost most of the armour of 1 Pzr A in an attack towards Voronezh so lack both the capacity and interest in doing anything here. Can fall back to a well fortified line along the Donets under pressure. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/2286/5Ydl6M.jpg[/image] 11A has finally recovered from the Sevastopol battles so I'll try something here next turn together with 4 PzrA. Not going to achieve anything but may damage some of the Soviet rail net. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/1315/OZdth3.jpg[/image] State of my Pzr divisions. All those are combined divisions (regiments just die), about 60% of some use. Production is building up so its a delivery issue. Would rather not release them to the national reserve as I have the problem of regaining their trucks when they return but I'll do that if needed. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/5052/spQWMa.jpg[/image] OOB. Best I can say is I'm stopping the growth of the Red Army, that slow offensive north does generate a lot of routs and the occassional shatter. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/91/M0OGmI.jpg[/image] Losses. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/7875/APyUkh.jpg[/image] Destroyed units � you can see the pattern of small pockets. Not going to make any difference. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/241/uPJyig.jpg[/image] Manpower pools, unfortunately the Soviets can form up quite a lot, guess they are a bit short of admin pts. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/4577/SvWQz6.jpg[/image] [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/1354/8b2MCc.jpg[/image] And the VP chart. At least I won't lose in October 1942. I guess I might take Tula (but I really doubt it), so may just get a HWM over 600. As it is the Soviets will get +36 bonus on initiative change and then the early bonus for retaking Orel, Kharkov etc (they have already had Kursk). Reckon on a net -66 just for the cities in the south. So I doubt we'll see an end game as once they attack seriously they'll meet one of the sudden death tests. [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/160/CSdYVs.jpg[/image] Really the only merit to this game now is that the Soviets deserve the chance to be on the offensive and its going to be interesting to see a HtH game where the initiative changes naturally � and at least in 1942 not at T10. Not worth saying much about logistics. I would have set it up better but its fine. My issue is not MP or really CV, its the endless wall of Soviet formations.

Chama -> RE: T57 - Verdun was fun (10/17/2021 9:55:35 PM)
Is this the only pvp AAR that goes into 42?

loki100 -> RE: T57 - Verdun was fun (10/18/2021 6:09:25 AM)
there is the one by Bread that is probably a better example. In this game at the moment, there isn't much happening (& turns are slow), so I'll do some sort of update when there is anything to really say

Oberst Hausser -> RE: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU) (10/18/2021 11:15:25 AM)
It is close to pointless, however much enthusiasm there is therein, to glean much information about the game. With the advent of a substantial new patch as of 18/10/21 this makes it even more so. You spent 2.5 hours before playing so that we could learn what? Lets just calm down and read many AAR to get RELEVANT well understood pointers to the game. AFTER 4 or so full play ( tests) both the reader and the player may be a in a better position to properly analyse the game.

Oberst Hausser -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 11:26:55 AM)
There have been some well argued suggestions that ASSAULT HQ should be reduced quite a bit. 1941 German 2-3 Russian 1 1942 German 3? 4 Russian 2 1943 German 3 Russian 3 1944 German 2 Russian 4 The AHQ artificially bolster each side in a way that TOTALLY alters the combat and supply situations. It is these that actually REPRESENT the war in 1941. With what I have read of the new patch of 18/10/21 ( Making Panzers and possibly all motorised stronger) the makeup of Assault HQ as above " feels right" in relation to the historical account. Anyone with a better understanding of the game with a sound historical knowledge is welcome to comment herein :)

Speedysteve -> RE: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU) (10/18/2021 12:50:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst Hausser It is close to pointless, however much enthusiasm there is therein, to glean much information about the game. With the advent of a substantial new patch as of 18/10/21 this makes it even more so. You spent 2.5 hours before playing so that we could learn what? Lets just calm down and read many AAR to get RELEVANT well understood pointers to the game. AFTER 4 or so full play ( tests) both the reader and the player may be a in a better position to properly analyse the game. Sorry I don't understand what you mean? You don't think a game started ages ago and continuing into late 42 onwards is worth continuing?

loki100 -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 1:05:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst Hausser There have been some well argued suggestions that ASSAULT HQ should be reduced quite a bit. 1941 German 2-3 Russian 1 1942 German 3? 4 Russian 2 1943 German 3 Russian 3 1944 German 2 Russian 4 The AHQ artificially bolster each side in a way that TOTALLY alters the combat and supply situations. It is these that actually REPRESENT the war in 1941. With what I have read of the new patch of 18/10/21 ( Making Panzers and possibly all motorised stronger) the makeup of Assault HQ as above " feels right" in relation to the historical account. Anyone with a better understanding of the game with a sound historical knowledge is welcome to comment herein :) I'll be honest and confess I don't have a clue what you are trying to say, in either this post or the other one. Any game that gets much beyond T20 (even vs AI) is going to be bridging patches, but handily quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst Hausser ... AFTER 4 or so full play ( tests) both the reader and the player may be a in a better position to properly analyse the game. I've played full games to 1944 or 1945 victory points three times so maybe I have some glimmer of how to analyse the game?

Speedysteve -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 1:11:58 PM)
The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky[;)] Simples [;)]

Beethoven1 -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:04:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Speedysteve The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky[;)] Simples [;)] Yep, Loki made the mistake of playing Germany. [8D]

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 I've played full games to 1944 or 1945 victory points three times so maybe I have some glimmer of how to analyse the game? Versus the AI. Head to Head games are always different & this game with one other that I know about has made it to 42 from a 41 start.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:11:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Speedysteve The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky[;)] Simples [;)] Ouch!!!

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:11:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Beethoven1 quote: ORIGINAL: Speedysteve The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky[;)] Simples [;)] Yep, Loki made the mistake of playing Germany. [8D] And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany?

Beethoven1 -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:17:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany? Nothing, if you like to lose. [8D] Or alternatively, you can perhaps play Germany and not lose if you wait for a favorable patch (this is the best strategy), like the current patch seems to be more favorable to an as yet unknown degree.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Beethoven1 quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany? Nothing, if you like to lose. [8D] Or alternatively, you can perhaps play Germany and not lose if you wait for a favorable patch (this is the best strategy), like the current patch seems to be more favorable to an as yet unknown degree. I disagree 100% the German side will lose. I know there was a great deal of propaganda that was spewed out the last couple of months by many proponents, and I too fell into that despair at the beginning of my AAR's. But I no longer believe at all the Germans will lose. I find it quite on the contrary that the Germans are very strong and very capable to win with in WITE2 and too many have fell into the trap of the propaganda.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:29:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: Beethoven1 quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany? Nothing, if you like to lose. [8D] Or alternatively, you can perhaps play Germany and not lose if you wait for a favorable patch (this is the best strategy), like the current patch seems to be more favorable to an as yet unknown degree. I disagree 100% the German side will lose. I know there was a great deal of propaganda that was spewed out the last couple of months by many proponents, and I too fell into that despair at the beginning of my AAR's. But I no longer believe at all the Germans will lose. I find it quite on the contrary that the Germans are very strong and very capable to win with in WITE2 and too many have fell into the trap of the propaganda. I started believing this under patch .09.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:32:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: Beethoven1 quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany? Nothing, if you like to lose. [8D] Or alternatively, you can perhaps play Germany and not lose if you wait for a favorable patch (this is the best strategy), like the current patch seems to be more favorable to an as yet unknown degree. I disagree 100% the German side will lose. I know there was a great deal of propaganda that was spewed out the last couple of months by many proponents, and I too fell into that despair at the beginning of my AAR's. But I no longer believe at all the Germans will lose. I find it quite on the contrary that the Germans are very strong and very capable to win with in WITE2 and too many have fell into the trap of the propaganda. I started believing this under patch .09. Just like Joel Billings has said & I paraphrase, "There is a learning curve for the Germans to overcome to be on current level of play as the Soviets". Once those pistons start firing on all cylinders you are going to see a German war machine that can accomplish feats in the game. /off soapbox

loki100 -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 2:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Speedysteve The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky[;)] Simples [;)] really no need to say any more ... [;)] actually in this game, my core problem was my own fault in that I had a brief opportunity (around T12-14) to do real damage and rather lost the plot with grandiose fantasies of what I might be able to do so while 1941 took place at a time when I think the game was off kilter, I don't particularly think that was the core reason for this bit of a guddle in 1942 - and the inevitable fall out as the game develops and to HLYA, yes I play the AI, even worse, I quite enjoy vs AI games. They also have the huge merit of getting into the mid/end game and thus chuck up a lot of bugs, oddities and undocumented 'features'. Over time we then deal with the bugs and get the 'features' documented. quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain ... Versus the AI. Head to Head games are always different & this game with one other that I know about has made it to 42 from a 41 start. that we don't have any documented HtH games that went to (never mind past) the initiative change is one reason I'm sticking with this, I want to understand how the AI baseline compares. We have StB but inevitably no 1941 GC is going to map onto that. Tyrone has stated that the Germans can't defend post-43, I think he may well be right but we don't know. My AI test says opposite so again the capacity is there, but whether a HtH allows that latent capacity to have an effect is a different question

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 3:06:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 and to HLYA, yes I play the AI, even worse, I quite enjoy vs AI games. They also have the huge merit of getting into the mid/end game and thus chuck up a lot of bugs, oddities and undocumented 'features'. Over time we then deal with the bugs and get the 'features' documented. quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain ... Versus the AI. Head to Head games are always different & this game with one other that I know about has made it to 42 from a 41 start. that we don't have any documented HtH games that went to (never mind past) the initiative change is one reason I'm sticking with this, I want to understand how the AI baseline compares. We have StB but inevitably no 1941 GC is going to map onto that. Tyrone has stated that the Germans can't defend post-43, I think he may well be right but we don't know. My AI test says opposite so again the capacity is there, but whether a HtH allows that latent capacity to have an effect is a different question Nothing wrong with playing against the AI and support it 100% to find answers. Just saying that H2H is different and we won't have answers there for at least a year when h2h games can possibly get there :( I appreciate all the AI work you have done for the game. I love Tyronec a great deal but many times I have not agreed with him on many items, many items I have agreed. This is another one I feel that the Germans are capable of making it to 44 & 45. Granted this is just a feeling at the moment & I have no hard evidence besides my own experience as the Germans up to Dec 41 & a StoB scenario. I hope to have two AAR's up to a minimum of Dec 44 to find out which will take a few years to accomplish.

Speedysteve -> RE: T52 (10/18/2021 3:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: Speedysteve The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky[;)] Simples [;)] really no need to say any more ... [;)] actually in this game, my core problem was my own fault in that I had a brief opportunity (around T12-14) to do real damage and rather lost the plot with grandiose fantasies of what I might be able to do so while 1941 took place at a time when I think the game was off kilter, I don't particularly think that was the core reason for this bit of a guddle in 1942 - and the inevitable fall out as the game develops and to HLYA, yes I play the AI, even worse, I quite enjoy vs AI games. They also have the huge merit of getting into the mid/end game and thus chuck up a lot of bugs, oddities and undocumented 'features'. Over time we then deal with the bugs and get the 'features' documented. Yes I agree with you overall. It was that crucial late summer/early autumn period which could have made things different through 1942 onwards. From my side I've, naturally, learnt and improved my play a lot throughout. I feel I've got the Soviet side to a reasonably well oiled machine right now. I've defended in depth, placed my units in what (I think) are good positions, build the right balance of SU's, logistics is fine for now etc....now it's time to think of the offensive side of the Soviet gambit

Speedysteve -> T63 - Soviet Update (10/18/2021 4:00:50 PM)
Hi All, I decided I'd post a brief update as to the current state of play as it's been a strange summer of 1942 with no substantial Axis gains. Since mid-August the Axis have pulled back to a defensive line and stopped attacking any further. For now I won't hide anything from view since I simply cant conduct any substantial offensive due to the NM disparity and weaker TOE's compared to later in the war. Here's the overall view: [image]local://upfiles/4211/1354FB2513434D33BDE68AE56FFF055A.jpg[/image]

Speedysteve -> RE: T63 - Soviet Update (10/18/2021 4:13:59 PM)
One of my mini-games right now is to get as much as possible to Guards status and the extra vodka rations that Uncle Joe provides to those men....I've got 29 units sitting there over 8 wins that aren't Guards status as well so many more should be joining the 'Vodka Club' soon [:)] [image]local://upfiles/4211/7C897F5FDF104353934092623379405B.jpg[/image]

Speedysteve -> RE: T63 - Soviet Update (10/18/2021 4:18:21 PM)
Losses. I won't show the Air losses as I've effectively stood down the VVS for the last 6-8 weeks. This has been for 3 main reasons: 1.) With no chance of an Axis victory why sacrifice my men when: 2.) NM disparity is so great even if they fly Eurofighters they'd get annihilated and 3.) I'm training my pilots and ensuring they're flying the latest machines [image]local://upfiles/4211/E3AC9D38A9AA47A281DBC3D599A4C291.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875