Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
BTW, Oleg, did you start PBEM with Pieter as well?

I didn't, I think Pieter is kinda angry with me because I don't feel ready to take the game as German vs his Soviets. I'd try Soviets vs him gladly, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

It's OK I am pretty thick skinned. I started an AAR of the game with Senno here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2744334

Read the opening post at least (not you Senno )

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Jazman as fan of NBA I take comparison with BW as a compliment!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno
Ahh, I can see the title on the front page. It burns..... Must....resist....desire.....to.....read.....AAR......so.....I......don't......look......like.....a......complete......tool. Darn screenshots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Pompack is absolutely correct. Now that I've learned the model a bit better, I find that I can (using 1.02) actually maintain some fighting strength as the German for 1942 and survive the winter in relative decent shape. BUT, I have to do ahistorical actions to do that. I have to withdraw everywhere and anywhere that I see strong Soviet units forming for an attack, coupled with sheltering as many good units as I can, when I can. If I were to adopt the German strategy of not withdrawing, then I would be decimated.

To me, that IS the point though. I think the game should reflect what actually happend, if, and only if, the historical strategies are followed on both sides. Sure, there should be some variablility, but it should be relatively minor. What I see in the game is that the 1942 offensive capability for the Germans can only be recreated by doing something that the Germans simply did not do.

Now, all that said, I also don't think the game is all that much out of whack at all. Once I restart with 1.03, I'll see if the situation is a little better. I think it might be.

I'm not so sure it's the effects of the winter so much as the Germans inability to recover from them. If the effects are just slightly changed, and the recovery rate can be increased, then perhaps all will be well. I, too, have thought that a slider could solve the problem for most players.

But, to say that the game is broken is just plain silly.

That's my stroy and I'm sticking to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Pompack is absolutely correct. Now that I've learned the model a bit better, I find that I can (using 1.02) actually maintain some fighting strength as the German for 1942 and survive the winter in relative decent shape. BUT, I have to do ahistorical actions to do that. I have to withdraw everywhere and anywhere that I see strong Soviet units forming for an attack, coupled with sheltering as many good units as I can, when I can. If I were to adopt the German strategy of not withdrawing, then I would be decimated.

To me, that IS the point though. I think the game should reflect what actually happend, if, and only if, the historical strategies are followed on both sides. Sure, there should be some variablility, but it should be relatively minor. What I see in the game is that the 1942 offensive capability for the Germans can only be recreated by doing something that the Germans simply did not do.

Now, all that said, I also don't think the game is all that much out of whack at all. Once I restart with 1.03, I'll see if the situation is a little better. I think it might be.

I'm not so sure it's the effects of the winter so much as the Germans inability to recover from them. If the effects are just slightly changed, and the recovery rate can be increased, then perhaps all will be well. I, too, have thought that a slider could solve the problem for most players.

But, to say that the game is broken is just plain silly.

That's my stroy and I'm sticking to it.

Yes - well this was exactly my opinion. Some people have posted about chess like machinations of 'types' of defence. ie these are based on gaming the game rather than it actually - as you say - reflecting what happened historically. Basically - the germans dug in and via hitlers no retreat order fought the russians to a stalemate. They did this without getting destroyed and in a position to launch a major offensive in the south. Basically - if the game cannot simulate this - and in fact - the same strategy leads to a german army virtually destroyed - then it is in fact broken as a simutlation of the eastern front. I am not interested in analyzing the engine to such an extent I eventually find a (ahistorical) way of surviving winter. I should be able to do what the germans did and come out of it in much the same way - or at least not with an army that is an empty shell.

However - the single most disturbing thing for me is that as I said before - the winter rules seem to me nothing more than a self contained set of variables that seem easy to tweek. Again - I can find - despite what someone said earlier in the thread - no concrete statement from 2 by 3 that they are looking at it and will do something about it. Given the impact and whats being said I find that staggering. I am therefore surprised that 1.03 has gone official before at least something was done to put in place a solution for this issue that could be tested. We are after all not talking about something that is threaded througout the game engine - its a one time set of variables that should be easy to change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

Again - I can find - despite what someone said earlier in the thread - no concrete statement from 2 by 3 that they are looking at it and will do something about it. Given the impact and whats being said I find that staggering. I am therefore surprised that 1.03 has gone official before at least something was done to put in place a solution for this issue that could be tested. We are after all not talking about something that is threaded througout the game engine - its a one time set of variables that should be easy to change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Yes - well this was exactly my opinion. Some people have posted about chess like machinations of 'types' of defence. ie these are based on gaming the game rather than it actually - as you say - reflecting what happened historically. Basically - the germans dug in and via hitlers no retreat order fought the russians to a stalemate. They did this without getting destroyed and in a position to launch a major offensive in the south. Basically - if the game cannot simulate this - and in fact - the same strategy leads to a german army virtually destroyed - then it is in fact broken as a simutlation of the eastern front. I am not interested in analyzing the engine to such an extent I eventually find a (ahistorical) way of surviving winter. I should be able to do what the germans did and come out of it in much the same way - or at least not with an army that is an empty shell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.39
Because shelter was essential to survival, villages became the focal points of local battles during winter 1941-42, just as they had been in 1918-19. During the Soviet counteroffensive General Rendulic, commander of the 52nd Infantry Division, initially tried to conduct an orthodox defense which included holding open terrain. That, however, led to so many frostbite casualties that he had to restrict his lines to populated points and their immediate environs. When the Russians penetrated the gaps between German-held villages and fanned out laterally to threaten the roads leading to the rear of those villages, the Germans were forced to retreat again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.40
Conducting defensive operations in open country around the turn of the year, 6 PzDiv was sustaining about 800 frostbite casualties a day. It had some five tons of explosives on hand, however, and on 3 January 1942 its engineers blasted enough craters to accomodate all of the combat elements. Covered with lumber and heated with open fires, each crater sheltered three to five men. New frostbite cases immediately fell from eight hundred to four a day. With minefields, antitank obstacles and paths trampled between and behind the craters, the position held out for ten days and was only abandoned when outflanked. Eventually, in order to free them from dependence on the engineers, the Germans trained both combat and service units to 100-gram cartridges for blasting shelters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan


But, to say that the game is broken is just plain silly.

Yes - well this was exactly my opinion.

Basically - if the game cannot simulate this - and in fact - the same strategy leads to a german army virtually destroyed - then it is in fact broken as a simutlation of the eastern front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Yes - well this was exactly my opinion. Some people have posted about chess like machinations of 'types' of defence. ie these are based on gaming the game rather than it actually - as you say - reflecting what happened historically. Basically - the germans dug in and via hitlers no retreat order fought the russians to a stalemate. They did this without getting destroyed and in a position to launch a major offensive in the south. Basically - if the game cannot simulate this - and in fact - the same strategy leads to a german army virtually destroyed - then it is in fact broken as a simutlation of the eastern front. I am not interested in analyzing the engine to such an extent I eventually find a (ahistorical) way of surviving winter. I should be able to do what the germans did and come out of it in much the same way - or at least not with an army that is an empty shell.

This is the legacy of German memorists at work. Before claiming ahistoricity, you should perhaps spend some time reading history.

Like this very fine (yet old) article by Allen F. Chew, "Fighting Russians In Winter: Three Case Studies":

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=u7guk073i_gC&oi=fnd&pg=PP4&ots=W1BePHfNDc&sig=P5-o6uemQn8PV6HC4V22W4Jvlbw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Which google allows us to read for free.

Some extracts:

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.39
Because shelter was essential to survival, villages became the focal points of local battles during winter 1941-42, just as they had been in 1918-19. During the Soviet counteroffensive General Rendulic, commander of the 52nd Infantry Division, initially tried to conduct an orthodox defense which included holding open terrain. That, however, led to so many frostbite casualties that he had to restrict his lines to populated points and their immediate environs. When the Russians penetrated the gaps between German-held villages and fanned out laterally to threaten the roads leading to the rear of those villages, the Germans were forced to retreat again.

Sounds familiar?

There's however a point which it's unclear how it is accounted for:

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.40
Conducting defensive operations in open country around the turn of the year, 6 PzDiv was sustaining about 800 frostbite casualties a day. It had some five tons of explosives on hand, however, and on 3 January 1942 its engineers blasted enough craters to accomodate all of the combat elements. Covered with lumber and heated with open fires, each crater sheltered three to five men. New frostbite cases immediately fell from eight hundred to four a day. With minefields, antitank obstacles and paths trampled between and behind the craters, the position held out for ten days and was only abandoned when outflanked. Eventually, in order to free them from dependence on the engineers, the Germans trained both combat and service units to 100-gram cartridges for blasting shelters.

Blizzard penalties going down from January on, reflecting how the German Heer adapted to the circumstances, might account for this.

I could quote more passages, but I find terribly unfair to 2by3 developers statemens like the ones you - and many others - have been doing. WiTE is the most accurate depiction of Winter conditions I've ever seen. And that doesn't mean they got it completely right: they got it really really close to perfect!

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan


But, to say that the game is broken is just plain silly.

Yes - well this was exactly my opinion.

Basically - if the game cannot simulate this - and in fact - the same strategy leads to a german army virtually destroyed - then it is in fact broken as a simutlation of the eastern front.

Does it mean that you did not think the game was broken before, but that now you think it is? Or that your IFs are not being fulfilled?

I agree with you that if there is a problem it does not seem a priori very difficult to change some variables (let's say, divide the CV by 3 and not by 4 when check fails, or insert a snow turn, or something like that). I suppose the dificult thing is testing it afterwards. Maybe it could even be configurable by the user so everybody can find the values that suit him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Mmmm.. yes I know my history thankyou very much ... however what you are doing is equating open terrain on the WITE map with the open terrain the article talks about ... even in a clear terrain hex on the WITE map there would have been hundreds not if not thousands of hamlets villages, etc ... I am well aware of the hedgehog nature of the german defence in winter 41 and the absolutely vital nature of housing in that defence. the point is the game doesnt take any of this into account ... A single dot on the WITE map - for which there is some limited benefit in game does not an argument make. The point is the effects on this scale are too severe - the effects of villages, hamlets etc are tactical and I think should be simulated at a more abstract level than in the game. I am struggling somewhat to see your point other than it reinforcing those who are arguing the effects are too severe - indeed your last point serves only to illustrate this in that there appears to be no benefit in being fortified in game as far as the first winter effects goes when your quote illustrates that in reality - even a simple dug out had a massive impact.

Sorry - but leaving your somewhat insulting critisism of my knowledge aside I really think you have entirely failed to make any kined of valid point that they have it anywhere near right - indeed - quite the contrary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Mmmm.. yes I know my history thankyou very much ... however what you are doing is equating open terrain on the WITE map with the open terrain the article talks about ... even in a clear terrain hex on the WITE map there would have been hundreds not if not thousands of hamlets villages, etc ... I am well aware of the hedgehog nature of the german defence in winter 41 and the absolutely vital nature of housing in that defence. the point is the game doesnt take any of this into account ... A single dot on the WITE map - for which there is some limited benefit in game does not an argument make. The point is the effects on this scale are too severe - the effects of villages, hamlets etc are tactical and I think should be simulated at a more abstract level than in the game. I am struggling somewhat to see your point other than it reinforcing those who are arguing the effects are too severe - indeed your last point serves only to illustrate this in that there appears to be no benefit in being fortified in game as far as the first winter effects goes when your quote illustrates that in reality - even a simple dug out had a massive impact.

Sorry - but leaving your somewhat insulting critisism of my knowledge aside I really think you have entirely failed to make any kined of valid point that they have it anywhere near right - indeed - quite the contrary.

I didn't mean to insult anyone here.

I agree with you that protective properties of towns should be extended to neighboring hexes to better reflect WiTE scale and leaders Admin rating should have a role in the damage units take from blizzard. I also think that there's something missing - as a limiting factor - regarding logistics in the concept of offensive combat readiness (see my "over analyzing" posts regarding including Supply into the Ready/Unready equation).

You mention "simple entrechments". They weren't that simple, it seems, because if not I wonder why the units on the flanks of the 6. PzDiv didn't do the same thing. Obviously, it wasn't something common.

You know your history? You should cite it then, as I do.

My point is very clear: WiTE designers did their homework - just take a look at the Suggested Reading chapter on the manual - and put forward reasonable rules for simulating weather conditions. That these rules need balancing, yes, indeed. That's something already acknowledged by 2by3, as cookie monster has pointed out.

It took me half an hour to answer your post. You felt insulted and you took a mere five minutes on trying to portrait me as trolling you.

Perhaps should be better than you avoid these forums after all: the quality of the discussion would improve substantially.

Oh, and have a nice day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan


But, to say that the game is broken is just plain silly.

Yes - well this was exactly my opinion.

Basically - if the game cannot simulate this - and in fact - the same strategy leads to a german army virtually destroyed - then it is in fact broken as a simutlation of the eastern front.

Does it mean that you did not think the game was broken before, but that now you think it is? Or that your IFs are not being fulfilled?

Sorry - but you will have to explain IF ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

@DBeves. When I joined the test team just over one year ago, my interest was, like you, solely focused on the 1941 campaign, hence I made it my mission in the testing to make sure that gamers like me could get through the blizzard in decent shape to try out their pet strategies in 1942. In June 2010 I documented my results against the AI in the Field Marshall Noob AAR. The results - better than historical with the Axis stronger and in a better start position for 1942. In PBEM, the AAR of my test with Trey has just moved into the Public AARs. Results - better than historical with the axis in a better starting position.

As a result of these tests changes were made to get the results closer to historical.

It is clear that since release the first winter rules have not changed the AI results, as there are several AAR's boasting decisive victories for the Axis in 56turns. Determining why the PBEM AAR results seem so different to the test game played in October has been clouded by many issues, not least of which is the lack of experience of players, and degree of shock caused by the first winter rules compared to how the first winter was handled in other games like TOAW and WIR.

Combined with this has been a series of patches that have introduced bugs and/or changes to the mechanics that caused a "chain reaction" that has lead to an Axis Army arriving at Turn 25 less able to cope with the impact the first winter rules applies to it compared to the Army we were testing in June and October.

So either the condition of the Army needs to be improved and brought closer to what was being tested in October, or the Army stays as is now, and the impact of the first winter is changed to enable the Army to come out of the blizzard in a condition both sides would be happy to fight with and against in 1942.

Some Soviet players consider the current Axis army to consist of "supermen", while many testers feel the Axis is "not as good as it was before", so it may take some debate to finalise that side of the equation, before the first winter side of the equation is considered and applied.

Once the designers have decided how to balance out the 2 sides of the equation, the testers will get code to test. At the moment bug fixing is taking priority, but I am pretty sure game balancing is next on the list, as indicated by Joel's post referred to previously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Some Soviet players consider the current Axis army to consist of "supermen", while many testers feel the Axis is "not as good as it was before", so it may take some debate to finalise that side of the equation, before the first winter side of the equation is considered and applied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
I think it finally worked!!!! Trying since december I know the "apply" thing. I got the error before. When I tried to upload the new avatar an error message appeared. Thank you anyway

You're certain to find a GF with this new avatar

However it's good to know it works, I had problems changing Adele for something new - no newly uplodaded pic worked, but some of those already available on the server did so I settled for this artillery icon on the left....

Sure I will find her. And I hope a rich one (with plenty of "cash"). Does anybody know if Bill Gates has a daughter?

He has two. Born in 1996 and 2002.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves
Yes - well this was exactly my opinion. Some people have posted about chess like machinations of 'types' of defence. ie these are based on gaming the game rather than it actually - as you say - reflecting what happened historically. Basically - the germans dug in and via hitlers no retreat order fought the russians to a stalemate. They did this without getting destroyed and in a position to launch a major offensive in the south. Basically - if the game cannot simulate this - and in fact - the same strategy leads to a german army virtually destroyed - then it is in fact broken as a simutlation of the eastern front. I am not interested in analyzing the engine to such an extent I eventually find a (ahistorical) way of surviving winter. I should be able to do what the germans did and come out of it in much the same way - or at least not with an army that is an empty shell.

This is the legacy of German memorists at work. Before claiming ahistoricity, you should perhaps spend some time reading history.

Like this very fine (yet old) article by Allen F. Chew, "Fighting Russians In Winter: Three Case Studies":

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=u7guk073i_gC&oi=fnd&pg=PP4&ots=W1BePHfNDc&sig=P5-o6uemQn8PV6HC4V22W4Jvlbw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Which google allows us to read for free.

Some extracts:

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.39
Because shelter was essential to survival, villages became the focal points of local battles during winter 1941-42, just as they had been in 1918-19. During the Soviet counteroffensive General Rendulic, commander of the 52nd Infantry Division, initially tried to conduct an orthodox defense which included holding open terrain. That, however, led to so many frostbite casualties that he had to restrict his lines to populated points and their immediate environs. When the Russians penetrated the gaps between German-held villages and fanned out laterally to threaten the roads leading to the rear of those villages, the Germans were forced to retreat again.

Sounds familiar?

There's however a point which it's unclear how it is accounted for:

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.40
Conducting defensive operations in open country around the turn of the year, 6 PzDiv was sustaining about 800 frostbite casualties a day. It had some five tons of explosives on hand, however, and on 3 January 1942 its engineers blasted enough craters to accomodate all of the combat elements. Covered with lumber and heated with open fires, each crater sheltered three to five men. New frostbite cases immediately fell from eight hundred to four a day. With minefields, antitank obstacles and paths trampled between and behind the craters, the position held out for ten days and was only abandoned when outflanked. Eventually, in order to free them from dependence on the engineers, the Germans trained both combat and service units to 100-gram cartridges for blasting shelters.

Blizzard penalties going down from January on, reflecting how the German Heer adapted to the circumstances, might account for this.

I could quote more passages, but I find terribly unfair to 2by3 developers statemens like the ones you - and many others - have been doing. WiTE is the most accurate depiction of Winter conditions I've ever seen. And that doesn't mean they got it completely right: they got it really really close to perfect!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Oleg, we could not see what you did on the other games where you faced the German "supermen". Now we can. Said this, from the screenshots of your German AAR opponent, I remember you had a linear defense in the Ukraine (west of Dnper), clear hexes aka tank country, and just in contact with the enemy (Panzers included) That was rather dangerous

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Some Soviet players consider the current Axis army to consist of "supermen", while many testers feel the Axis is "not as good as it was before", so it may take some debate to finalise that side of the equation, before the first winter side of the equation is considered and applied.

Just a minor correction - they are supermen up to turn 17. Perhaps it's not really that bad, I still am not sure myself. If the "supermanism" of 41 is the only way for Axis to win the PBEM game, then let it be. However, I'd like to see more possibilities for Axis to win (42 offensive or slow defensive game till the very end)

Axis being too strong for too long, makes sudden drop from supermen to super-retards that occurs on first turn of blizz that much more painful and unrealistic.

Otherwise I agree with and support everything you said.

quote:

I have read more than enough history on this war - but I make the assumption in posting that others have too. I certainly dont arrogantly suggest they havent as my opening gambit. For reference its whats called good manners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Oleg, we could not see what you did on the other games where you faced the German "supermen". Now we can. Said this, from the screenshots of your German AAR opponent, I remember you had a linear defense in the Ukraine (west of Dnper), clear hexes aka tank country, and just in contact with the enemy (Panzers included) That was rather dangerous

Uhh, is this about our current game? Shhhh, put it where I can't see it, por favor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Oleg, we could not see what you did on the other games where you faced the German "supermen". Now we can. Said this, from the screenshots of your German AAR opponent, I remember you had a linear defense in the Ukraine (west of Dnper), clear hexes aka tank country, and just in contact with the enemy (Panzers included) That was rather dangerous

Uhh, is this about our current game? Shhhh, put it where I can't see it, por favor.

No, of course not This was in another AAR, humm, vs 2ndACR (as Germans) perhaps?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Why on earth did you send that armor div to Riga? You should have shot him towards Pskov.

Nice AGC pocket there though. You might pay for missing the Lvov pocket. That is a bunch of good troops sown there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

LOL, just messing with you. Oleg is good on the defense as Russian. Don't give him any breathing space. You really need to be at Pskov on turn 4 or sooner.

And a cherry at PBEM to boot. Brave man. LOL