Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



I used to play my younger sister chess, when she was learning the game, without having my queen on the board. I would win most games, even without it. Now...you can blame the game of chess and say well...there must be a problem with the rules for me to be able to win without having my queen on the board. Or you can blame the fact I am playing against my sister. HQ's do have a function, but that function doesnt have to be used by you. If you win anyways, well, hurrah!

Play against a human, leave your HQ's at home, and then come back and tell us how 'useless' they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

It really depends on how we decide to define "function well in the line" or "function reasonably well"

I mean, we know for a fact that trying to run a division attached to STAVKA is going to result in lowered supply, lowered MPs and lowered combat performance due to failed rolls and checks.

At the same time, all of these effects might still not be enough to cause a player to lose if he's playing as the Soviets against a Normal Axis AI, so when smirfy says that the difficulty level of the game is irrelevant, it becomes a little difficult on our part to carry on the discussion.

Is there a C+C system in place? Yes
Are there quantifiable disadvantages to mismanaging your C+C? Yes
If you give yourself a large enough advantage, or penalize the AI enough, is it possible to win without paying much attention to the C+C system? YES

quote:

ORIGINAL: madgamer2

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
As for the supply and C&C discussion taking place here -- if it were not a general mechanics problem, why not add optional parameters in the game menu that to adjust them for PBEM and AI if this adds to the game experience?

Interesting point I hadn't considered.It may be that C&C is never properly implemented in computer war games because it's feared that the AI couldn't begin to cope with it, which I'm certain it wouldn't.Perhaps, with almost everybody online these days, and human opponents relatively easy to find, it's time for game developers to forget about AI altogether until someone works out how to put the "I" into it


What you say makes sense for the multitudes who flock to PBEM games and this is the future. What about those of us who still like to play against the AI? I guess I am a simple minded old fart when it comes to computer design but is it that hard to create an AI that has to use the C&C rules. If you not in supply as a human vs. the computer you suffer the out of supply consequences. At least that is what I thought till this thread tells me you can play against the computer as a Russian and win using only Rail head Supply.
Correct me if I am wrong but it would appear that the Russian human player can ignore the C&C rules. How about no in command then no or little supply. I have seen it coming for a long time that game design is turning to PBEM as being more important than human vs. AI. I had hopes for this game as it is an East front game and There was a lot of work to create an AI that would at the highest levels at least give you a run for your money, I to am of the opinion that because of rules like the Blizzard beating the Russian with a human German and a computer Russian would be very hard, although the Blizzard rules are the same regardless of the difficulty level, Right
I can even understand a game in which the computer AI did not use C&C the same way the human has to but for a human to be able to do what has been described here in this thread makes me very sad. it should not be possible so I only hope it can be corrected.

Madgamer2

+ 10

(in reply to madgamer2)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: 39battalion


This is a depressing thread.

If Smirfy is correct he deserves a medal for finding a fatal flaw.

However if he is correct it essentially means the game is broken for the Soviet player, at least against the AI.

Very sad for a game that was receiving so many early accolades.

Humm, I haven't seen anyone playing PBEM (me included) complaining. Au contraire, we all are very happy

So someone captured Berlin in 1943 vs the AI? So? I've been playing vs WitP AI since 2004. A game MUCH more complex than this one. I had a lot of fun. The recipe? Simply DO NOT SAVAGE THE AI, play historically, it's just easy If you want to try dirty little tricks, find a human being. You will break the AI = game over = you will be unhappy

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Smirfy, if you put everything under STAVKA, it will overload, and you'll blow a lot of leadership rolls and admin rolls. Just sayin'. Now, If you're content to shove counters around and have 25-30 mp mobile corps, then no worries, and that's probably going to work out just fine in an AI situation.

I feel most of your frustration is the inevitable consequence of disillusionment with the solo game. At some point you're going to hit this and that's the point where you should probably start hunting for a human opponent.


Just about EVERY war game Matrix sells says "outstanding AI for single play" or some other such thing. Now we also know and have ever sense WitP at lest if not earlier that the depth of play was beginning to out strip the ability to create an AI that can play a decent game. I guess its hard to understand that there are some of us who want to play a single player game. I now see that it looks like to play another human you have to use a server no less. If I had wanted to play a PBEM I would have preferred the non server email game.
The last game I played that had a good AI was the game that this one comes from. You can even get it free but It is different than the original version. The free version looks like they started a revision and sort of quite in the middle. It sure would be nice if there were rules for that game.
No I can see the single player game is on its way out, and this old guy will miss it. I can be happy playing the computer German against a difficult level but unless some options are created for the winter rules for those of us who want a non historical game. What if winter had been earlier or later, but that has been over discussed and I do not think Matrix will change things.

Madgamer2





_____________________________

If your not part of the solution
You are part of the problem

(in reply to Flaviusx)

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

If you had read my post with a little less haste, you would have noticed I was talking about playing PBEM.

Yes we do know for a fact that values are lowered when run from STAVKA, but the very simple point that Smirfy is making that many dont seem to be engaging with despite his many reiterations, is that the lowering involved is arguably not low enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I don't think enough hard evidence has been presented either way. If Smirfy wants to help the test team and developers by playing a game with all his forces attached to Stavka, playing the AI on challenging or hard then that is up to him. When he posts a victory screen showing a decisive victory, then he may have a case, and I will be the first to pat him on the back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I don't think enough hard evidence has been presented either way. If Smirfy wants to help the test team and developers by playing a game with all his forces attached to Stavka, playing the AI on challenging or hard then that is up to him. When he posts a victory screen showing a decisive victory, then he may have a case, and I will be the first to pat him on the back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

What's your point? Units whose CNC aren't handled well suffer penalties precisely because they're lacking all that infrastructure.

quote:

The point is a unit attached to Stavka or OKH can march 100 odd miles without any loss of combat value.

quote:

What is the point of modeling a T-34 or Tiger the best it can be if it exists in middle earth not the russian front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

The point is a unit attached to Stavka or OKH can march 100 odd miles without any loss of combat value.

Not true, they will suffer march attrition and fatigue, so their combat value will be lower at the end of the move than it was at the beginning. Mechanised units will lose AFVs to march attrition so this will weaken them.

9.5.3. VEHICLE MOVEMENT ATTRITION
A certain percentage of a unit’s organic vehicles will be destroyed and damaged during its
side’s logistics phase based on the number of movement points the unit expended during
the previous turn. If a unit expended 100 percent of its allowed (not base) movement points,
2 percent of the unit’s vehicles will be destroyed, and 18 percent will be damaged. Reduced
expenditure will result in proportionally reduced destruction and damage. For example, if a unit
only expended thirty percent of its MPs, .6 percent of its vehicles would be destroyed and 5.4
percent would be damaged. Movement attrition for a support unit’s organic vehicles will be
based on the movement point expenditure of the unit to which it is attached.

It is when you make these sort of claims, you are making it harder for people to respond to your concerns seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

At least as Axis and vs AI you might be OK counter-shoving when the combat is freewheeling. But when you run into forts you will wish that you had maintained an orderly C&C to get Support Units in the form of pioneers attached to your Corps (at least) or Divisions.

This newest game I left 11th Army alone on their way to Sevastopol. First by XI Corps failed, due to lack of Pioneers. Fortunately I had II Rum Corps (lol) on hand with proper C&C established and they were able to reduce the forts of 2 hexes and kick out the Soviets. Rather embarrassing result for the Germans, lol. So, now Model has been promoted to 11th Army, Support units moved into 11th Army and on down to the rest of the Corps and next turn Sevstopol will fall. Perhaps I should allow II Rum the honors however? =P

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

What's your point? Units whose CNC aren't handled well suffer penalties precisely because they're lacking all that infrastructure.

The point is a unit attached to Stavka or OKH can march 100 odd miles without any loss of combat value. As I have explained that makes a nonsense out of armoured warfare. The point is that I can operated a tank Army 230 miles aways from its HQ I can operate a Tank corps (I aint tried a tank army but I dont see why not) a 500 miles from stavka. What is the point of modeling a T-34 or Tiger the best it can be if it exists in middle earth not the russian front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

At least as Axis and vs AI you might be OK counter-shoving when the combat is freewheeling. But when you run into forts you will wish that you had maintained an orderly C&C to get Support Units in the form of pioneers attached to your Corps (at least) or Divisions.

This newest game I left 11th Army alone on their way to Sevastopol. First by XI Corps failed, due to lack of Pioneers. Fortunately I had II Rum Corps (lol) on hand with proper C&C established and they were able to reduce the forts of 2 hexes and kick out the Soviets. Rather embarrassing result for the Germans, lol. So, now Model has been promoted to 11th Army, Support units moved into 11th Army and on down to the rest of the Corps and next turn Sevstopol will fall. Perhaps I should allow II Rum the honors however? =P

Yup this is one of the good songs on the Album. 10/10 for support unit operation and how it dovetails with leadership. Now if there was a few more features as good you would be talking a classic

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.



[Trey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.



[Trey.

Are those armies marching one hundred miles to engage the enemy? Nope. Are they are sitting in reserve ready to be released to a front? yes. Would they go into combat attached to Stavka, nope. Is it a case of just like Hitler in France Stalin was keeping them on a tight rein. As for the 7th I imagine if it was directly attached to Stavka and in a combat zone it was for very very specific reasons.

quote:

their loss in combat value has been nearly zero,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

At least as Axis and vs AI you might be OK counter-shoving when the combat is freewheeling. But when you run into forts you will wish that you had maintained an orderly C&C to get Support Units in the form of pioneers attached to your Corps (at least) or Divisions.

This newest game I left 11th Army alone on their way to Sevastopol. First by XI Corps failed, due to lack of Pioneers. Fortunately I had II Rum Corps (lol) on hand with proper C&C established and they were able to reduce the forts of 2 hexes and kick out the Soviets. Rather embarrassing result for the Germans, lol. So, now Model has been promoted to 11th Army, Support units moved into 11th Army and on down to the rest of the Corps and next turn Sevstopol will fall. Perhaps I should allow II Rum the honors however? =P

Yup this is one of the good songs on the Album. 10/10 for support unit operation and how it dovetails with leadership. Now if there was a few more features as good you would be talking a classic

Well, maintaining the theme, I think I detect a slight "change of tune".