Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aditia

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Now, after reading almost every post in this thread, I was thinking the following:

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Now, I cannot say anything about the changes that are being tested for 1.04, I want to make a different kind of suggestion:

- How about modifying the mechanics that influence the soviet side depending on how well the germans are doing, during the first phase of the war, as to simulate the depth of the sense of panic/crisis in the Soviet political and military high command? At least reducing the ability of the Soviets to crush the Axis in the beginning of 1942 if the Axis achieves weak results in 1941 (and perhaps increasing the ability of the Soviets to hold the line if the Axis player achieves spectacular results)

To explain; in general, the course that any military conflict takes has an effect on the mindset of the people in charge politically and militarily. Historically, the sense of crisis in Stalin's mind during the second half of 1941 was so great, that he seriously considered surrender to Nazi Germany (Anthony Beevor; Stalingrad) and made him, quite uncharacteristically be more trusting towards the advise that his top soldiers and administrators gave him. Basically, military disaster usually has the effect of forcing leadership to rethink its ways, increases the urgency to correct inherent faults, results in the swift replacement of commanders, etc. etc. Vice versa, military succes usually enforces a belief in the correctness of oneself, hubris, the lack of urgency to asess the shape and effectiveness of the armed forces, etc. etc.

In my opinion, WITE is suited to simulate this in one and maybe two ways:

- firstly through the system of administration points. I'd like to suggest a system wherein the the magnitude of the sense of crisis within the Soviet command structure is simulated by the succes of the German advance in 1941 by decreasing the Soviet AP allowance if the Axis advance in 1941 is weaker than normal. This would simulate a less effective Soviet political response to the events of 1941 due to Stalin not recognizing the extent of changes needed to shape the Red Army into an effective fighting force.
- secondly through delaying the introduction of new/more effecient weapons and command structures to simulate the same thing.

Both effects can be based on losses suffered, losses inflicted and the ownership of victory hexes.

These suggestions would hopefully result in a reduction of the Soviets' ability to mount a decisive offensive in the first months of 1942, altho perhaps the changes that you are testing for 1.04 already fix that issue.

In the mean time I am looking forward to learn the game better and getting some PBEM games in :)

Cheers,

Adi

I like the idea of the campaign game being more flexible for both sides depending on how the war goes. For one I believe that had Moscow not been so threaten and the Soviets doing fairly well along the fronts there's a chance the Siberian transfers don't occur or maybe not in such depth. It would not be easy to code and even harder to test/balance, but if this game flexibility were to ever be added and tested it would make this game truly a pioneer in the realm of war games.

I go back to an idea that I think abulbulian had about adding some variant cards that could be purchased by APs.
Thus, these variant cards are added to a players hand based on how the war is going for them. Axis player is struggling in the south in 41-42, maybe a card to purchase(APs) another Rom or Hun army is made available. The Soviets find Moscow in real danger of being lost in 41 (based on near cities take or some formula on axis CV strength near city), then a AP card for additional Siberian troops becomes available. I personally think it's a great idea and could add so much variation to each and every game!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aditia

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Now, after reading almost every post in this thread, I was thinking the following:

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Now, I cannot say anything about the changes that are being tested for 1.04, I want to make a different kind of suggestion:

- How about modifying the mechanics that influence the soviet side depending on how well the germans are doing, during the first phase of the war, as to simulate the depth of the sense of panic/crisis in the Soviet political and military high command? At least reducing the ability of the Soviets to crush the Axis in the beginning of 1942 if the Axis achieves weak results in 1941 (and perhaps increasing the ability of the Soviets to hold the line if the Axis player achieves spectacular results)

To explain; in general, the course that any military conflict takes has an effect on the mindset of the people in charge politically and militarily. Historically, the sense of crisis in Stalin's mind during the second half of 1941 was so great, that he seriously considered surrender to Nazi Germany (Anthony Beevor; Stalingrad) and made him, quite uncharacteristically be more trusting towards the advise that his top soldiers and administrators gave him. Basically, military disaster usually has the effect of forcing leadership to rethink its ways, increases the urgency to correct inherent faults, results in the swift replacement of commanders, etc. etc. Vice versa, military succes usually enforces a belief in the correctness of oneself, hubris, the lack of urgency to asess the shape and effectiveness of the armed forces, etc. etc.

In my opinion, WITE is suited to simulate this in one and maybe two ways:

- firstly through the system of administration points. I'd like to suggest a system wherein the the magnitude of the sense of crisis within the Soviet command structure is simulated by the succes of the German advance in 1941 by decreasing the Soviet AP allowance if the Axis advance in 1941 is weaker than normal. This would simulate a less effective Soviet political response to the events of 1941 due to Stalin not recognizing the extent of changes needed to shape the Red Army into an effective fighting force.
- secondly through delaying the introduction of new/more effecient weapons and command structures to simulate the same thing.

Both effects can be based on losses suffered, losses inflicted and the ownership of victory hexes.

These suggestions would hopefully result in a reduction of the Soviets' ability to mount a decisive offensive in the first months of 1942, altho perhaps the changes that you are testing for 1.04 already fix that issue.

In the mean time I am looking forward to learn the game better and getting some PBEM games in :)

Cheers,

Adi

I like the idea of the campaign game being more flexible for both sides depending on how the war goes. For one I believe that had Moscow not been so threaten and the Soviets doing fairly well along the fronts there's a chance the Siberian transfers don't occur or maybe not in such depth. It would not be easy to code and even harder to test/balance, but if this game flexibility were to ever be added and tested it would make this game truly a pioneer in the realm of war games.

I go back to an idea that I think abulbulian had about adding some variant cards that could be purchased by APs.
Thus, these variant cards are added to a players hand based on how the war is going for them. Axis player is struggling in the south in 41-42, maybe a card to purchase(APs) another Rom or Hun army is made available. The Soviets find Moscow in real danger of being lost in 41 (based on near cities take or some formula on axis CV strength near city), then a AP card for additional Siberian troops becomes available. I personally think it's a great idea and could add so much variation to each and every game!

Agree that the game should be more responsive and each side should have the opportunity to change doctrine. It is going to be a very dry game if there turns out to be only one way to succeed and, if you get it wrong, there will be no hope. With all options it should be something selectable, so that you don't need to use it if you don't want to.

Whatever the criteria are for triggering events, there would need to be some variation (chance element), so that events would not be too predictable, or may not even happen at all, to introduce uncertainty.

The more 'what-ifs' that can be made available, the more interesting the game will become.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Yes, necessity being the mother of invention and a stimulant for craetive change, failure often is the prelude to success, not further failure- but that's hardly a universal law. There are other factors- demoralisation, technical and cultural limitations, disorganisation are some of really too many to mention, that work the opposite way.

To work well, what you are contemplating would have to be an incredibly complex model with individual events possibly having opposite effects, depending upon a balance of other factors which should necessarily be unfathomable to the players. Otherwise you could all too easily end up with the German player musing, "hmm, I better not take Tula just yet, it will give the Russians XXX technology points and a new model T34 tank, and I don't want them to have that untill I've got my panthers." or the Russian making suicide attacks to raise his manpower multiple etc etc. It could then become the epitome of gameyness.

I'm all for it, done well it would put the game on another level altogether, but there's a load of other more basic stuff to sort out beforehand in my view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Andy has got to the first turn of blizzard in his schizo test. Looking good so far. The AAR is so funny watching the best Axis attacker take on the best Soviet defender.

quote:

Just curious...what's funny about the AAR?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Oh I get it, he is playing HIMSELF. You lose the element of surprise!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Oh I get it, he is playing HIMSELF. You lose the element of surprise!

Indeed, but that should in this case help Andy the Schizo Soviet. The fact that Andy the Schizo German is making this immense progress vs opponent that can literary read his mind, goes in favor of my argument about German summer supermen