Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Are German units in Yugoslavia abstracted/do units that get send to Yugoslavia from the Eastern Front disappear from the map even though they technically remain on-map?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus

I am glad that the 2nd Panzer army will appear in Nov/Dec '44. My question its release do to the time or will certain action trigger its release? I would also like to know if it is just the 2nd Panzer army HQ's that is released or will it contain those units that were under its command at the time? I do have the OOB of that army for that time period if you guys need it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Not sure why anybody would be so hot on starting Barbarossa in May as the Axis. Historical weather in the east was mud; but if you want to waste the surprise attack turn on a mud march, be my guest, I'd be perfectly delighted with that as the Soviet player. It was the weather as much as anything else that precluded an attack before June.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Janh, all this seems to me like an excuse to pile on all the chances in favor of one side while leaving everything the same for the other. Doesn't strike me as very sporting or interesting. You might as well, say, delay US entry in the European war and dabble with all sorts of other alternate history what ifs.

I could come up with a similar list of things for the Soviet side, but, why bother?

I doubt I'd ever find a PBM opponent willing to play with such blatant and lopsided handicaps against him, nor would I want to play under such handicaps myself.

quote:

Janh, all this seems to me like an excuse to pile on all the chances in favor of one side while leaving everything the same for the other. Doesn't strike me as very sporting or interesting. You might as well, say, delay US entry in the European war and dabble with all sorts of other alternate history what ifs.

I could come up with a similar list of things for the Soviet side, but, why bother?

I doubt I'd ever find a PBM opponent willing to play with such blatant and lopsided handicaps against him, nor would I want to play under such handicaps myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus


There is nothing wrong with trying out hypothetical scenarios. You have to understand that everything is by chance and WWII didn't have to happen as it did. Just playing it by the historical situation with maybe some minor tweaks would be interesting but if this is all you could do game after every game would pretty much be like an endless re-run. This game would lose its play ability. I, myself would like to play like I was Hitler, or Stalin in charge and not be subordinate like the OKH or Stavka just following the orders. I believe the play ability of this game will depend on how much freedom the player has to fulfil his wishes. I also like to play the underdog, not because I like having my arse kicked, but because of the challenge and the thrill of seeing how long I can last If you are looking for an opponent to fight blatant and lopsided handicaps agaist him, than I am your man. I might get my arse kicked, but I will try my best to bloody your nose!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

Janh, all this seems to me like an excuse to pile on all the chances in favor of one side while leaving everything the same for the other. Doesn't strike me as very sporting or interesting. You might as well, say, delay US entry in the European war and dabble with all sorts of other alternate history what ifs.

I could come up with a similar list of things for the Soviet side, but, why bother?

I doubt I'd ever find a PBM opponent willing to play with such blatant and lopsided handicaps against him, nor would I want to play under such handicaps myself.

May is an unlikely month to start the campaign, March would be more likely so that's snow/mud in many regions.

In the case of an early Barbarosa, I don't really see why you're saying that it's not very interesting if the Soviets are caught in an unprepared state (you suggest it favours the Germans), as that's exactly the state they will be in during the historical first few months too. Do you also suggest that is uninteresting and should be changed? That would mean it wouldn't be Barbarossa. I can think of little to no historical evidence supporting the case that, somehow, the Soviets would've been better prepared for Barbarossa in March 1941 than in June 1941.

quote:

In a huge monster game like this, it's difficult enough to find an opponent without having to negotiate alternate history conditions on top of it. All this has the tendency to lead to accusations of bad faith. Quite frankly, any German player who starts telling me that he wants fair weather and an early start and who knows what else is somebody who I'm going to suspect of Nazi fanboyism. This stuff is wildly ahistorical for any number of reasons. He would be and should be equally suspicious of me if I made it a precondition of play to get early Siberian reinforcements, a free opening setup, and other such handicaps.

Stop gaming the system and play the game. This genre of operational level monster games isn't really conducive to alternate history anyways.

quote:

ComradeP, give me mud, and I'd happily take the early start as the Soviet. If not, not. The opposite applies for the German player.

This seems like a pretty shaky basis to start a game and is a recipe for trouble. Somebody is going to wind up very unhappy.

quote:

I'm leaving aside entirely the questionable idea that the German could totally ignore events in the Balkans. That's not even an operational decision within the parameters of this game, it's something at the head of state level and most definitely takes us into weird and ahistorical places.

quote:

This game really isn't designed to deal with that kind of thing

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP



There is one thing that has been troubling me, well the theory in any case as naturally I haven't touched the game yet. The 7 day turns, which are basically 14 day turns as first the Axis play their 7 days without the Soviets being able to respond and after that the Soviets play their 7 days without the Axis being able to respond, could create some problems in the first few months, possibly in 1942, but perhaps especially when the Soviet counteroffensive starts (if there will be one). The main problem I'm seeing is encirclements.

We know isolated units can't disband, which is a good thing, but player units that start the player turn in a pocket, but can trace supply after some player actions are, if I'm interpreting the AAR's correctly, no longer isolated. That would mean they can disband. In the dead units thread, there's no mention of what happens to disbanded units. If the Axis disband units, and they indeed don't get them back as they're not "destroyed or shattered and have not surrendered", that could be a problem for them. The Soviets, on the other hand, can build now units. Some Soviet units seem to return after being automatically disbanded, and if all pre-November 1941 Soviet units return after being disbanded, the Soviet player has little reason not to disband units in a pocket if he can.

The Axis player might cry foul and will interpret it as a gamey strategy, even though the fact that he created the pocket in 7 days worth of moves which the Soviet player couldn't respond to probably isn't gamey in his opinion. The pocket that will form west of Minsk is probably unreachable in most cases, but perhaps supply can be restored to smaller pockets.

Personally, I'd be fine with the Soviet units disbanding as it would model the historical problems the Axis had with sealing a pocket with insufficient forces. Soviet units would escape in small groups and reform later. Isolated units in a pocket will tend to surrender with most of their manpower, so the Axis player already gets the benefit that there's a slim chance as many men will escape from pockets as they did historically.

When the Soviets are attacking, the problems might also apply to Axis. If units formerly in a pocket, but in supply during the player turn can disband, I'm guessing a houserule would be needed to decide whether they can, as it can seriously annoy the other player if nothing was officially agreed on and it happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

<SNIP>

There is one thing that has been troubling me, well the theory in any case as naturally I haven't touched the game yet. The 7 day turns, which are basically 14 day turns as first the Axis play their 7 days without the Soviets being able to respond and after that the Soviets play their 7 days without the Axis being able to respond, could create some problems in the first few months, possibly in 1942, but perhaps especially when the Soviet counteroffensive starts (if there will be one). The main problem I'm seeing is encirclements.

We know isolated units can't disband, which is a good thing, but player units that start the player turn in a pocket, but can trace supply after some player actions are, if I'm interpreting the AAR's correctly, no longer isolated. That would mean they can disband. In the dead units thread, there's no mention of what happens to disbanded units. If the Axis disband units, and they indeed don't get them back as they're not "destroyed or shattered and have not surrendered", that could be a problem for them. The Soviets, on the other hand, can build now units. Some Soviet units seem to return after being automatically disbanded, and if all pre-November 1941 Soviet units return after being disbanded, the Soviet player has little reason not to disband units in a pocket if he can.

The Axis player might cry foul and will interpret it as a gamey strategy, even though the fact that he created the pocket in 7 days worth of moves which the Soviet player couldn't respond to probably isn't gamey in his opinion. The pocket that will form west of Minsk is probably unreachable in most cases, but perhaps supply can be restored to smaller pockets.

<SNIP>

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

This really isn't as big an issue as you might think it is. Pockets work both ways. It takes the attacker units to contain and eliminate pockets which costs time and slows the advance. While you never want to get units pocketed (surrendered men never come back), once units are pocketed you want them to extract as much time and lives from the enemy as possible. The men and equipment you might save disbanding a unit are usually worth less (speaking from the Soviet side) to you than slowing the advance of even a single German unit. For the German player the situation is a little different since you ultimately have less of everything but surprisingly not that much different.

As the attacker I find pockets fun to create but annoying to reduce. Whenever possible I try to eliminate all the pocketed units either in the turn I pocket them or the turn immediately after. A pocket that persists more than one turn is a real pain in the you know what.

quote:

WitE is IGYG (I Go - You Go) type of game. Turn is 7 days but for EACH player (thus there is no 14 days turns)!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

WitE is IGYG (I Go - You Go) type of game. Turn is 7 days but for EACH player (thus there is no 14 days turns)!

I know the turns are one week, but due to way IGOUGO works, players play a different 7 day period (as the first player already made his move), so there are essentially two 7 day periods in one turn. In a WEGO game, turns are the same for both players.

quote:


As to reserves: for that to work, reserves would have to be available and strong enough to slow down the attacker. In the first few months, that's unlikely to happen for the Soviets. It's mostly something that will save a few Soviet and German lines later on in the game.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

Nope... it works just as I described in my first message...

quote:

You are arguing hypotheticals that have very little chance of occurring in an actual game without any experience playing the game yourself.

quote:

You dismiss contrary views by people who have been playing the game for months as if they have no more relevance than our personal opinions of military history.

quote:

We're trying to tell you how the game plays and your replies suggest we don't know what we are talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Now, to finish the day with a question: if the Soviet units are attacked on the turn the encirclement is made, and are bumped (routed?) out of the pocket, can they move/rout "through" hexes with Axis units on them, or only through unoccupied Axis hexes (it being a pocket, the pocket would be surrounded by Axis hexes, either captured that turn or earlier)?

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: BvB

I don't see why some folks are so dead set against allowing the editor to change the start date. ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BvB

I don't see why some folks are so dead set against allowing the editor to change the start date. If they don't want to use it, fine. But for those that want to experiment with earlier or later (1942?) why not? More flexibility, more fun. The biggest downside I see is an extra headache/work/release delay from the designer's point of view.
The May 41 what if I think is based on the original Barbarossa plan before the decision to go into Yugoslavia and help bail Italy out of Greece? For the sake of argument maybe even allow the editor to change the end or even be open ended. Or what if Japan went against Russia vs US in 41? Not likely, but whatever a player wants to explore, if it isn't too big of a headache for the designers, why not give the option in the editor?
Salute! Baron von Beergut

PS be glad to see this when it comes out. Loved it from the first release way back in the Apple II days when it had minimal graphics and the tedious adding replacements to each division one at a time! I forget but it seems like 1987 or so?