Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

+1
I don't see the need for 7 pages of discussion.
Reconvet already thinks after years of hard work the devs screwed up horribly. no need trying to convince him otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

whatever

Brilliant, this really enriches this discussion. Thank you for showing your potential.

Zort has contributed and properly enriched this discussion by bringing real numbers and some level of analysis into this discussion. My contribution was earlier when I agreed with you that I felt the Soviet rail model is too generous, at least in 41, and brought the Soviet factory evacuation burden into the discussion. I did not bring it out in detail because it has been discussed in great detail with hard numbers in another thread.

My concern now is that it is difficult for anyone to contribute due to the high level of whine that is drowning out any reasonable discussion of the problem (and yes, I will say it again: I THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM). The fact that I happen to agree with you in no way changes my opinion of how unproductive this thread has become (with the exception of Zort of course)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

Technically in this game both sides never have the same tools, one has to use the Germans one way and the Soviets another way, each sides 'tools' must be used differently and I think this game portrays those differences quite well.

I love this game, really, developers and testers and AI designers have done an outstanding job. My problem is that I don't see any AAR in which Axis could develop working tactics against a capable Soviet player's fast pace of shifting around significant reserves to hotspots in '41. This is what this discussion is all about: Soviet strategic mobility in '41 pbem, when Axis have zero railing capabilities within useful distance of front regions.

I think in the latest release that's because there are no successful strategies for an axis player vs a capable sov player. Given that anybody with any sense will just retreat the sov masses leave some token units in swamp and other areas to make these incredible defensive stands. The axis player will out run supply lines as they pursue (don't get caught in mud with bad supply lines.. R.I.P) and when 1st turn blizzard hits... it's all over. Just went through a blizzard and my axis army was in the best shape to withstand it: rested, supplied, dug-in, high moral, high TOE, high exp. But forget any of that as WitE factors none of that in. Unless units in basically a urban or city they will be smacked around by attrition and any sov units t hat can attack them. My loses went from 500k end Nov to 1.7 million starting March. Yeah, loses were 1.2 million in 3 months of blizzard. All documented. So my 1942 will be crap even though my 1941 was much better than historical for loses and did manage to take Leningrad with some luck before winter. At this point I won't be starting anymore axis games until some changes are made. Axis player in a 41-45 campaign has maybe 17-24 turns of ability... then it gets tanked. That's my opinion from playing against a decent human opponent.

And before somebody is going to reply with the old remark of "well don't you know sov are suppose to win". Save it. I know the history better than most. The problem I have is the inability for the Axis player to mount any sort of decent (sure limited) offensive in 42. Sure I can still attack and go against a sov player with 3 months of digging in (march, April, part May) and and army 2x the size of mine. My opponent already has lines of 3 (avg) units deep all along the front and reserve behind. Already this by March and I can't attack until sometime in May. The other thing that the blizzard did was to reduce the exp and moral of my men (replacements) .. so low that I'm guessing sov units almost equal to my German units.

All I'm saying is if the axis player is able to have a good 41, he should have the POSSIBILITY to have some decent attacking in 42. Remember the initiative didn't really change until 1943. All though some could argue it could very well have changed after the Stalingrad fiasco.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

whatever

Brilliant, this really enriches this discussion. Thank you for showing your potential.

Lol, Reconvet. It's funny cause I've dealt with this in my threads before. You give them historic facts or REAL game experiences and when they nothing to counter with, they give you that type of reply. Or better yet they will throw in an 'axis fanboy' remark and have nothing of any value to say. Just ignore them. I think you're on to something myself. But if you get close to something that will look as if a change is needed, these same people will just start to get frustrated and their remarks become even more delusional and unrelated to the subject.

What historical facts has he given?

Complaining that the Sovs have the ability to move some 60 full strength or near full strength divs? What facts has he presented that shows that they coild not?

"As the railroads moved 2.5 million men to the front in June, July, and August, they moved industrial machinery on their return journeys." How many divisions does that make? Where are the facts that refute that?

Real game experience? Flaviusx's real game experience is being ignored. Why? In my own game, I would just love to have these 60 divisions to rail around, but I don't have them. I just railed all the KV-1 factories out of Leningrad. That took a huge chunk out of my rail cap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

The fact that I happen to agree with you in no way changes my opinion of how unproductive this thread has become (with the exception of Zort of course)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

+1
I don't see the need for 7 pages of discussion.
Reconvet already thinks after years of hard work the devs screwed up horribly. no need trying to convince him otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome
Ultimately, though, none of this matters because both sides of this debate prefer to call each other's point of view science fiction and/or fantasy, which means any valid points will probably be ignored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

The problem is not the railcapacity. If you want to have a decent arms industry during the later years you will have to evacuate most of it.. It is the tendency of some players to withdraw huge chunks of, for example, the Southwestern front after 4 days of combat. There is no way the Soviets would have done that.

Also, with free reign of the Luftwaffe over a large part of the front the player should be severely punished for moving his troops in railwagons under an umbrella of bombers...... This is key! Interdiction should be upgraded...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

The fact that I happen to agree with you in no way changes my opinion of how unproductive this thread has become (with the exception of Zort of course)

I agree that the level of discussion and analysis is ebbing up and down. Way down when people jump in and throw around whining complaints and insults. Should that scare more serious people away and choke off something which might yet end in improving an already excellent game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

I'm glad we agree again because that was precisely my point. Providing numbers, reasoned logic and especially source material (once removed of course since I don't read Russian) is stimulating, thought provoking and can lead to convincing the developers to make changes. Repetitive whining is simply boring as well as unproductive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

whatever

Brilliant, this really enriches this discussion. Thank you for showing your potential.

Lol, Reconvet. It's funny cause I've dealt with this in my threads before. You give them historic facts or REAL game experiences and when they nothing to counter with, they give you that type of reply. Or better yet they will throw in an 'axis fanboy' remark and have nothing of any value to say. Just ignore them. I think you're on to something myself. But if you get close to something that will look as if a change is needed, these same people will just start to get frustrated and their remarks become even more delusional and unrelated to the subject.

What historical facts has he given?

Complaining that the Sovs have the ability to move some 60 full strength or near full strength divs? What facts has he presented that shows that they coild not?

"As the railroads moved 2.5 million men to the front in June, July, and August, they moved industrial machinery on their return journeys." How many divisions does that make? Where are the facts that refute that?

Real game experience? Flaviusx's real game experience is being ignored. Why? In my own game, I would just love to have these 60 divisions to rail around, but I don't have them. I just railed all the KV-1 factories out of Leningrad. That took a huge chunk out of my rail cap.

You might be surprised, but: We are talking about a GAME, not history. I present GAME FACTS. You CAN move 60 combat ready Divisions fight now, come on and present something which might contribute to make this good game even better. And getting a better challenge playing as Soviet in '41 should be in your interest too. Current rail mobility in '41 makes for an easy mode for Soviets, that's my opinion. You're welcome to have your own, but don't travel down the insult road too...

I am not dealing with historic balance, but with GAME balance. Early Soviets are overpowered I believe, and my analysis is that early Soviet rail mobility is mainly responsible. Why do you feel so much threatened? Is overblown rail mobility a holy cow for you too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

Reconvet already thinks after years of hard work the devs screwed up horribly. no need trying to convince him otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

You're the only one trying to turn this into some crusade against good and bad. i was merely making an observation of this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

Reconvet has his mind set that something is broken or needs to be changed despite not having sufficient info to back up his claim.

just like you don't have info to back up your claim of me stirring up trouble. I don't like people claiming to be psychic so you're getting the GB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

You might be surprised, but my GAME EXPERIENCE shows shows you are wrong. My GAME FACT is that there is that the Sviets are not overpowered. Why do "you" fell so threatened? Is this because of your inability to deal with it? Your holy cow?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

You might be surprised, but my GAME EXPERIENCE shows shows you are wrong. My GAME FACT is that there is that the Sviets are not overpowered. Why do "you" fell so threatened? Is this because of your inability to deal with it? Your holy cow?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Reconvet, if I had the time, which I do not, I'd pose a counterchallenge: I'd play you as the Soviet with rail transport set to 50%.

The result of such a playtest would of course be a litany of complaints that the Soviets are still overpowered. But at least it would clarify matters and demonstrate that if they are overpowered, it's not because of the rails.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Don't forget the Soviet forces in the Russian Far East (facing the Japanese in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia). Quite many forces there. When the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, the Japanese said they would respect the pact, but of course the Soviets kept many forces there... The only thing which really stopped the Japanese (and the Turkish) from attacking the Soviet Union was the Moscow counter-offensive. And the fact that the Japanese Army truly feared the Russians And of course Pearl Harbor. But even after the winter counter-offensive and the Pearl Harbor attack, there were many troops in the Russian Far East.

I already said the Germans had zero chance of winning (if the 1941 Blitzkrieg failed that is) so I will not repeat that again