Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 4:12:21 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
I am looking forward to the France 1940 discussions!

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 91
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 4:12:57 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

What about the fact that Kiev's 600,000 prisoners is never going to happen?
How, exactly, does that impact the delay of operations in the South, Flavius?
Might I remind everyone that the Germans took Rostov in 1941...

I thought it was you who yesterday was arguing that there is a tradeoff for the Germans in that parts of 6th and 17th Armies can end up 4 turns behind their historical advance as they try to destroy this Lvov pocket.

I can show you a screenshot of a game of mine on Turn 8 where I have 2 corps of 17th Army, 1 of which is a little west of Krivoi Rog and the other is barely east of the Romanian NE frontier, because I had to chase SEC brigades around the Hungarian mountains at 1 hex a turn.

Two more points:
1) Half of the Soviet AARs I see still advocate taking the strong units from SW front and railing them north towards Leningrad on Turn 1. If you guys end up stealing more advantage from the Axis via this unctuous whining about the Soviet not moving first on Turn 1, I want all rail prohibited of Soviet units west of the Dnepr for the first 3 turns. You f@ckers can stand and fight all along the front like Stalin expected.

2) We all know that no matter what changes you make to TUrn 1, Soviets are going to run to Kiev and D-town as fast as they damn-well can, no matter how many pop centers there are there, and the Germans will be denied what they accomplished in the first 8 weeks of the war. So start planning how you're going to take something away from the Soviets while you're busy trying to ensure the Germans can't actually you know, challenge you.






Great point, again the German player does something great and it must be nerfed quickly, because of "history". Where is the history of the Russian player building what units they want ect.

The desk is alrdy stacked HVYly against the German to the pt there is almost zero reason to adance into Russia now.

How about getting the Russians to do something other then run? If you nerf the southern opening the russians will just run like chickens still and the historical 600,000 pocket will never happen. The game balance will be 100% freaking screwed AGAIN because of somes pet project.

The German player are smarter then the Germans at the time just like the Russians. Why to hell is it dam ok for the Russians to screw around with history, but bad when Germans do?

Guys get of the nerf bat wagon, its getting old and your arguments are all about how big of a Russian fanboy you can be.

Take your own advice and look at things from both sides not one side every single time. Your really starting to bore poeple with this Lvov nerfbat crap.

Pelton

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 92
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 4:22:22 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
I a new game going as the Soviet and I am finding it much more of a challenge then before. Time will tell but the game feels more "right" atm.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 93
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 4:43:08 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The desk is alrdy stacked HVYly against the German to the pt there is almost zero reason to adance into Russia now.

How about getting the Russians to do something other then run? If you nerf the southern opening the russians will just run like chickens still and the historical 600,000 pocket will never happen. The game balance will be 100% freaking screwed AGAIN because of somes pet project.

The German player are smarter then the Germans at the time just like the Russians. Why to hell is it dam ok for the Russians to screw around with history, but bad when Germans do?


Several points:

1) I hate to keep bringing this up, but IRL life the war was very heavily stacked against the Germans; in fact the current version of the game IMO is slanted too far in favor of the Germans, but I guess we'll see. I don't want to see changes just to make the game "fair", I want a game as realistic as possible, with "fairness" determined by the victory conditions, not hacks to the game to keep it "balanced".

2) I agree that one of the problems with the game is that the Russians have no incentive to defend to the West, and a too-perfect ability to retreat out of the way of the panzers. Does anyone really think that the Sovs could retreat without any thought of defending the Motherland? Politcally impossible, even if militarily justifiable. Does anyone really think that such considerations are not important?!

3) While I'm accustomed to your hyberbole by now, to say that preventing the Lvov Gambit would "100% screw the freaking game balance" is a bit much, dontcha think?

4) Not sure what you mean when you say that the Germans can't "screw with history" in this game, of course they can, to great effect. That doesn't mean that they should be able to do whatever is possible under current game mechanics on Turn 1 (ie, Lvov Gambit). If you want to give both sides an unlimited ability to "screw with history," why not allow the Sovs to pull all of their units back to Vinnitsa before the war starts? I mean, that is something the Sovs could have done, right?

< Message edited by 76mm -- 9/23/2011 7:25:03 AM >

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 94
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 6:52:07 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Pelton.. the knight in shining armor fighting a crusade for the german side

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 95
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 8:31:20 AM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
What you describe as bellicose is passion, and as you refuse to state directly: a sometimes penchant for being right.

There are opinions.  Ours differ. I'm not one of your students, professor. You don't get to mark me down because you dislike my tone.


More than your tone, it is that your n-th rant lacked any facts. And I don't like the way you answered to PDH.

You say that doing something to prevent the "T1 Grand Opening" would prevent anything like the Kiev Pocket. The Germans didn't do anything like the "T1 Grand Opening" - actually we should call it Klydon Grand Opening, since I think it was Klydon the one who came forward with the concept first. And they got their Kiev pocket - and another one, which wasn't either small around Uman - basically at the same time. In terms of game time, that was in Turn 12? And AGS got to Kharkov, Stalino and Rostov...

PDH has pointed you that a few AARs have shown similar - because exact reenactment is impossible unless both players agree to do so - pockets. So? Are you basing your assertion on personal experience with WitE? On what, precisely?

I still remember the first post I saw by you on the WitE forums. Curiously enough, it was a discussion on how to prevent the fall of Leningrad into Axis hands (that was something like 10 months ago). I posted a screenshot, where I had to leave a 1 hex gap on the Svir line (because I needed one division to bolster Leningrad defenses). My opponent and fellow spaniard sitito - a master in psychology - had squiggled a Finnish infantry div on the gap, trying to rile me and have me to do something dumb (like attacking it). Do you remember your answer? It was something like

"lol how did he [that's me] allow his opponent to do that?"

helio, some of your proposals are interesting, and give some food for thought. But about 50% of your incensed replies and complaints show to me that you're one of those guys that project your expectations on your opponents: he should do that, because that is the most convenient thing for me. Human opponents do not necessarily comply and do the most convenient thing for you. And when they don't you tend to look for real or imaginary problems in the game mechanics.

Are you always right helio? Do you ever make a mistake? Seems to me that you don't, ever.

_____________________________


(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 96
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 10:23:26 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
..."actually we should call it Klydon Grand Opening"...


I like that -- sounds like chess... well, in the end it is, just more complex, with many more parameters and some random numbers. Let's call it that way!

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 97
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 10:52:22 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Pelton.. the knight in shining armor fighting a crusade for the german side



Someone has to.

Many pts are valid, but really nothing thats not possible under real world conditions at the time. I can see nerfing the old HQ build up rules and switching between HQ corps build up ect. But the Lvov pocket is nothing azing and could have happened if the German committed more units.

Not a knight thats for sure and no one wants a red win button, we all looking forlong games. 1.05 has done that probably.

Again great patch best ever. Lvov pocket is nothing amazing at all. Poeple are assuming it was not possible.

Pelton

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 98
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 10:58:28 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The German player are smarter then the Germans at the time just like the Russians. Why to hell is it dam ok for the Russians to screw around with history, but bad when Germans do?


The Germans do as much as the Soviets -- you have pretty much have no worries about absurd orders ("brainfarts" I'd almost have said...) coming from Hitler, for example forcing the German player to halt value Inf or even Armored Divisions in stronghold like Smolensk or such, which are evident to be surrounded by the Russians soon and sure to be lost. Image the game would give you such orders, and require you to watch a few of your divs to be pocketed in 44 and 45 at random? Fortunately that isn't there (though I don't say it wouldN'T add to increase the historic accuracy).

Anyway, the Russians have lost some of their "freebies" like the 2:1 and some perhaps initially overestimated production. The developers try to get the game right, for the right reason. It is an iterative process, sometimes slow as other side-effects need to be watches and adjusted, but as far as I know Matrix and G&G games by know, they are not going to cut support until that is achieved satisfactorily. The thing that makes them different is that they are listening to their customers, and eventually will incorporate one or the other wish from the wishlist. Yet I am not sure whether they keep reading if a thread turns into ranting, or in circles.

Just arguing that the Lvov pocket needs to remain because the Germans are otherwise too much disadvantaged, and balance would be better, would be accepting one shortfall to fix another. At present, it is a total freebie to the Germans as pretty much nothing can go wrong: huge gains with no risk. It is quite a "no-brainer" (aside from failing to copy the moves from Klydon), and not an achievement by a German player, rather a free present of the game design.

That brings me to 76mm's second point: if the Russian opponents tend to withdraw too fast, it is either a good feature and freedom of the game to allow you to test its military sensibleness (which some advanced testers have already stated that it will hurt in the long run), and that also allows the Germans in the later campaign years or blizzards to use such withdrawals/"winter quarters in Poland", or alternatively, it could be countered with some additional rules. I need to say, though, that in some recent 1.05 AARs it doesn't look as if the Russians perform their bug-out as quickly any more, it rather appears a slow fighting withdrawal. If you really wanted to fix the Russian forward and force him to fight for each city until losses will be critical, and want to force Soviets to allow their forces to be trapped in huge pockets, then in all logical consequence (and fairness), I would feel that the German should be forced to hold strongholds with value divisions, even if militarily equally stupid. I'd doubt anyone would favor this, unless as an optional rule.
For the idea of additional rules, I recall that Q-Ball (or was it Cannonfodder?) suggested that VP points for holding cities on a per turn basis, maybe even skewed upward for the more forward cities for the initial turns in 7 and 8/41, would be an incentive to hold on to them as long as possible. Another idea would be coupling the national morale to retreat speed, i.e. if certain cities fall to early (say Kiev before turn 12), the national morale is reduced a bid, and if the places hold longer, if is upped. Both are a significant changes, though, and especially the latter could lead to more balance issues through side effects, though it sounds a lot more dynamic and might represent the peoples mood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
2) I agree that one of the problems with the game is that the Russians have no incentive to defend to the West, and a too-perfect ability to retreat out of the way of the panzers. Does anyone really think that the Sovs could retreat without any thought of defending the Motherland? Politcally impossible, even if militarily justifiable. Does anyone really think that such considerations are not important?!



PS. Important typo corrected...

< Message edited by janh -- 9/23/2011 12:15:34 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 99
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 11:02:36 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
It's amazing enough that it is happening in each and every game. (The few Axis players who are not doing it are consciously playing under a handicap.) The only question is how much AGC sends south. Somebody out there, that is to say, everybody out there, evidently thinks this is a pretty sweet move. Hell, I'd do it myself as a German. It's that good.

And of course it's going to keep happening because the game heavily rewards it. But this I believe to be largely a result of game design, and most unlikely to have happened in real life.





_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 100
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 11:05:24 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
For the idea of additional rules, I recall that Q-Ball (or was it Cannonfodder?) suggested that VP points for holding cities on a per turn basis, maybe even skewed upward for the more forward cities for the initial turns in 7 and 8/41, would be an incentive to hold on to them as long as possible.


I guess I wasn't clear enough...this is the same thing I've been suggesting. I am not suggesting to "force" the Sovs (or the Germans) to do anything, but to give them some incentives to defend west (or attack east) which are generally lacking at the moment. They can ignore the incentives if they don't think they are worth it.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 101
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 11:08:28 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
It could be an option players pick to use.

Your pt is valid for sure, but players are going to copy other players opening moves no matter what if they work. Thats not a reason to nerf it.

A good move or tactic should not be nerfed just because its possible historicaly.

The Russian never would have freely given up so much ground in the south, as per the general Russian tactic happening now.

Russian players have no reason to fight historically now, so if the Lvov option is nerfed they keep retreating and have a huge army come winter. This will throw the game way off and 1.05 has the balance very close.

Sure some poeple will be nice and fight forward, but they dont have to.

Pelton

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 102
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 11:20:27 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Well the thing about this Lvov pocket business that annoys me is that it forces a runaway.

SW Front can actually put up a good fight against AGS west of the Dnepr for quite a while absent the Lvov pocket. You do not in fact want to run away as the Soviet here, provided you actually had the forces available.

Don't believe me? Try the Kiev scenario.

So Axis players claiming that the pocket is a cure for Soviet runaways have this exactly wrong. The pocket largely removes the ability to fight a stubborn defense in the western ukraine. The early activation of the Romanians is also a significant factor. The Dnepr itself is being crossed around turn 6 in most of these games now. This is a fantastically accelerated advance.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 103
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 12:21:49 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Russian players have no reason to fight historically now, so if the Lvov option is nerfed they keep retreating and have a huge army come winter. This will throw the game way off and 1.05 has the balance very close.


This sentence is really the essence of the issue.

The fact that the Sovs don't have to repeat the dumb Sov mistakes of 1941 means that 9 time out of ten, the Russian army will be stronger, perhaps much stronger, than it was historically. This will "throw the game way off" in that it will no longer be very close to what happened historically, but that is an INEVITABLE consequence of freeing Sov players from historical strategic blunders. And it is Sov players that supposedly complain about the Germans being free to deviate from history? In fact it is German players who are mistaken to think that no matter what, they are "entitled" to a weak Sov army in 1942, along with a glorious 1942 offensive. [EDIT] In other words, "Let the Sovs avoid the historical mistakes in 1941, but the Sovs should still be as weak as they were historically in 1942." Doesn't really make sense to me...

The only real solution (or actually potential solution, because I think it would be difficult to get right) is to either give the Sovs more incentive to defend West (and thus put more troops at risk), or to make it harder for them to retreat as quickly as they would like (with the same effect).
Forcing a "balance" where none is warranted inevitably reduces the realism of the game.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 9/23/2011 12:52:04 PM >

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 104
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 12:22:40 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
So Axis players claiming that the pocket is a cure for Soviet runaways have this exactly wrong. The pocket largely removes the ability to fight a stubborn defense in the western ukraine. The early activation of the Romanians is also a significant factor. The Dnepr itself is being crossed around turn 6 in most of these games now. This is a fantastically accelerated advance.


Though fighting a flexible defense in the Western Ukraine is difficult, yet doable (I think).

The Runaway strategy seems to offer an effective counter to an early Dnepr crossing. But I have yet to see anyone playing an effective Lower Dnepr defense in 1941 (i.e. the Germans don't cross). The line is too long, Soviet weak divisions are deployed too thin to realistically contest the crossing and might find themselves into big trouble when flanked. So I consider fortifying it as a waste of time, since holding it is wishful thinking (very much like the Upper Dnepr and the Land Bridge). I think is much more effective to regard it as "speed bump" while you fortify somewhere you can really defend yourself.


< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 9/23/2011 12:23:49 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 105
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 12:42:17 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Personally, I don't like the Lvov pocket opening as I think it does fly in the face of history, however, as an Axis player you really have no other viable option. For example, note that Pelton has stated (and I have read others AARs who have done so), that it is possible to create a Kiev pocket... but this only occurs as a result of first using the Lvov pocket.

Overall, in most AARS the Axis create pockets well West (i.e., the border) than actually happened in the war. So something is, IMHO, out of wack.

I have on a number of cases theorized that the reason for this is because the routing mechanism doesn't reflect historical unit behavior. And I think every Axis player out there intrinsically knows this because as they open the game they do the best they can to avoid "touching" routed Sov units for fear they will almost literally fly across the map.

Fix the routing mechanism so that the Axis can push across the board and then encircle deeper into Sov territory and the Lvov pocket will disappear and the Kiev pocket will instantly present itself.

The problem, IMHO, is not the specific opening moves of the Axis players, it is a flaw in the way the war is simulated.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 106
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 1:42:43 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
The Lvov pocket is definitely not historically possible, I agree there. But getting across the Dnepr in force in September, and still making it to Rostov, isn't possible in-game vs. a reasonably competent Soviet player. The Germans will have a very tough time coming close to history without it.

_____________________________


(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 107
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 4:40:47 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
The Lvov pocket is definitely not historically possible, I agree there. But getting across the Dnepr in force in September, and still making it to Rostov, isn't possible in-game vs. a reasonably competent Soviet player. The Germans will have a very tough time coming close to history without it.


By September, things in Smolensk and whereabouts would have long gone south. And I mean it literally and metaphorically. Any Soviet player with eyes would see the concentric movement coming (perhaps too late, but they would see it nonetheless).

If there's something that terrifies me as a Soviet player is when AGC and AGS decide to work together :) People tend to use AG's in isolation (historical). But they work much better when cooperating (ahistorical). And "cooperation" is not slicing one chunk of AGC to be given to AGS :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 108
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 5:33:16 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
1) I hate to keep bringing this up, but IRL life the war was very heavily stacked against the Germans; in fact the current version of the game IMO is slanted too far in favor of the Germans, but I guess we'll see. I don't want to see changes just to make the game "fair", I want a game as realistic as possible, with "fairness" determined by the victory conditions, not hacks to the game to keep it "balanced".


In that case, the Germans should in all fairness be given a 0% chance of winning WITE, because realistically with hindsight, we can see that the German war effort in the east was doomed from the start. Why bother wasting time to create a 'game', when we can sit and watch a well made documentary (or read a well written/researched book) that will take us through the battles, events, politics, and tough dicesions made on the Eastern Front?

But then, we DO want to 'waste' our time (or maybe avoiding the wife/girlfriend!?) creating and playing a game and in the end, it is just that: a game that involves fun. To make any game fun, it must give a reasonable chance of winning to either side.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 9/23/2011 6:13:52 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 109
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 5:47:28 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
Personally, I think the game as it currently exists is about realistically balanced, assuming that both sides play historically. However of course neither side will play historically, because that would firstly mean that the Russians should be incapable of carrying out an organized fighting retreat in the summer of 41. If the Russian player did NOT play some kind of organized fighting retreat in the summer of 41, the German player would tear him to shreads, much moreso than historically. The only way for the Germn player NOT to tear the Russians to shreads in a fighting retreat, would be for the German to play more historically. Neither side will end up playing historically, because part of the whole point of the game is to explore what one can do by avoiding the mistakes of history.

Go ahead and nerf the Lvov pocket (and the opening Bialystok pocket, and the Lenningrad right hook, and the shifting of a Pz Korps from AGC to AGS, etc...), but one must then also nerf the ability of the Russian to conduct any semblance of an organized fighting withdrawl in the summer of 41, among other items.

I think that as long as production, game mechanics, combat engine, etc. are all reasonably accurate and realistic, anything that the players do is fair game, barring 'gamey' tactics which exploit the system, such as HQ Build-up, carpet defence in 41-42, etc. Shifting forces from one part of the front to another or making a stronger drive in one area than was done historically, are simply in-game choices made by the players to try something different, and make strategic or operational decisions based on preference or the game situation.

I don't see the Lvov pocket as gamey and needing to be nerfed. The German players simply decides to push 1st Pz Group on a southern hook, rather than drive due east. Would the Germans realistically have gone for a Lvov pocket? The inital German plan in France was for a mechanized version of the Schlieffen Plan. Instead, Hitler took von Manstein's proposal...Who's to say a Lvov Pocket wasn't suggested at some point during German staff planning for Barbarossa and rejected for one reason or another? If the game mechanics are correct and allow for the possibility to pull off a Lvov pocket, then it is fair game.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 9/23/2011 6:12:36 PM >

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 110
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 6:35:01 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
I think that as long as production, game mechanics, combat engine, etc. are all reasonably accurate and realistic, anything that the players do is fair game, barring 'gamey' tactics which exploit the system, such as HQ Build-up, carpet defence in 41-42, etc.


Sorry, I think this statement is rather funny. What you call "gamey" tactics others consider either an integral part of the game (HQ Build-Up) or tactics necessitated by the game engine that you consider reasonably accurate (carpet defense). You probably consider a checkerboard defense gamey too (I do!), but try playing as Sov without it.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 111
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 6:38:23 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
In that case, the Germans should in all fairness be given a 0% chance of winning WITE, because realistically with hindsight, we can see that the German war effort in the east was doomed from the start. Why bother wasting time to create a 'game', when we can sit and watch a well made documentary (or read a well written/researched book) that will take us through the battles, events, politics, and tough dicesions made on the Eastern Front?

But then, we DO want to 'waste' our time (or maybe avoiding the wife/girlfriend!?) creating and playing a game and in the end, it is just that: a game that involves fun. To make any game fun, it must give a reasonable chance of winning to either side.


Well, I wouldn't say 0%, but it should be quite low. If people want an 50% chance to win the WAR as the Germans, they should play Hearts of Iron or something like that, it just fantasy. That is why victory points are important, to allow German players to win the GAME while losing the WAR.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 112
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 6:52:40 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
Why do people think AG South could supply more Panzer forces or even another full Panzer group in Summer 1941?

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 113
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/23/2011 7:03:18 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

That is why victory points are important, to allow German players to win the GAME while losing the WAR.


Which is exactly why I bought the game.

Nevertheless, even with all the "exploits" that the Axis players have, don't be surprised during PBEM when the Axis player quits in the winter of 41/42.

I think most folks who read the forum know there is a "threshold" that the Axis must obtain in order to remain competitive into 42. I am certain that I could not reach that threshold against a human player so I don't even bother with PBEM.

From my POV when folks are searching for "gimmicks" just to try to be competitive, it means something is wrong with how the game plays.

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 114
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/24/2011 12:31:56 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


You say that doing something to prevent the "T1 Grand Opening" would prevent anything like the Kiev Pocket. The Germans didn't do anything like the "T1 Grand Opening" - actually we should call it Klydon Grand Opening, since I think it was Klydon the one who came forward with the concept first. And they got their Kiev pocket - and another one, which wasn't either small around Uman - basically at the same time. In terms of game time, that was in Turn 12? And AGS got to Kharkov, Stalino and Rostov...



Well, as much as I would like to take credit for a manuver like that, in the interest of public disclosure, I can't claim it as my own.

I was one of several involved in a discussion that started in January as we were trying to evolve tactics to help the Germans with their opening when it had become clear the Germans absolutely have to have a couple of good initial turns or they can forget it in terms of a meaningful game (IE, the game is very unforgiving for a German who does not have a good plan and/or makes a lot of mistakes).

Most of the conversation revolving around AGS discussions was in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2694636&mpage=1&key=

I will point out a few things (in one case, make the point again).

The drive to the Rumanian border is a shorter distance than going to Minsk and the terrain is easier. AGC had 2k+ of tanks that open the campaign with very few mobile units frozen. AGS started with 600 tanks on the eve of the invasion along with over half of PG1's mobile units unavailable. No one here (or anyone for that matter) can state categorically that if PG1 had additional forces available (Units pulled from PG2) that the manuver could not have taken place. They can offer opinions and that is perfectly fine, but to flat out say it was impossible, not so much.

Even with hitting the pocket and putting all those units out of the war, the Russians still have plenty to fight with in the area because of their strong second and third echelon forces. This is a huge difference between south of the marshes and north. Leningrad area has very few second echelon forces to speak of and Western Front has some, but not nearly the quantity or quality available in the south. A typical well executed turn 1 German offensive should see few to no units in the north sector, about 15-20 units in the center and yet they will still see a pile of Russian units in the south, no matter what they throw down there or how well their first turn offensive went. Progress is going to naturally be slower in the south, just because there is more army to initially chew up down there.

Should the Germans not at least knock out the rail lines, allowing the Russians to rail out all those mountain divisions along with a pile of other troops simply has a lot of short and long term issues for the Germans. It also allows a Russian to do something unhistorical; move part of their second and third echelon troops north. These units instead moved forward to help counterattack the Germans in the south, slowing their progress even more, but you won't see Russian players do that in this game, because they are not needed in the case of a German that doesn't hit the big pocket and allows the bulk of the border forces to retreat or be railed out.

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 115
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/24/2011 12:49:02 AM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
This is from my game with PDH(I concur his modesty would prohibit showing you the damage he done to me) and shows first hand for the unbelievers that the Kiev pocket was certainly possible under 1.04. And 500,000 plus loss is fairly accurate too.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 116
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/24/2011 1:52:30 AM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
The only real solution (or actually potential solution, because I think it would be difficult to get right) is to either give the Sovs more incentive to defend West (and thus put more troops at risk), or to make it harder for them to retreat as quickly as they would like (with the same effect).

I think a combination of the two would be ideal.The poor Soviet leadership was crucial in 41 and 42 and this needs to be built into the game somehow.At the moment the Soviet leaders are really not that bad once you've spent a few APs swapping them around.This shouldn't be nearly so easy to do in the early game.I also think MPs could be reduced severely on a semi-random basis, especially for units with poor commanders, to reflect the utter paralysis that effected the Red army at times in 41.This reduced MP allowance could occasionally apply to an entire front, vitually forcing that front to stand and fight where it is.The game would require a fair bit of tweaking, for instace HQ buildup would probably need to be removed otherwise the Germans would be too strong, but I think we'd be getting closer to the reality of what it was like.
On the subject of leaders, I'd really like it if leader ratings were randomised and unknown to the players.The only way to know for sure how good a leader is would be through trial and error and even then because of the random nature of the system, you'd never know for sure.In order to give a nod to history, you could have a top tier of leaders like Tolbukin and Vatutin who are more likely to have good ratings and a bottom tier who are more likely to have bad ratings, but as in the real world, only the furnace of battle would sort the wheat from the chaff.
I think that C&C and logistics should be the foundations of a really good war game.
By the way, is there any concrete evidence that the Lvov pocket was impossible?Looking at the map, it looks like such an obvious maneuver that I'm thinking that the Germans must have considered it and rejected it for a very good reason.

< Message edited by timmyab -- 9/24/2011 1:57:50 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 117
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/24/2011 5:43:43 AM   
Wild


Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
Like i have said before, i believe the Lvov pocket was plausible if the Germans had allocated more forces to AGS and made that decision.

I don't know why we are still debating this. Do we really want the Devs to spend their time on changing this and rebalancing due to the consequence of said change. There are more important things for them to spend their time on.

If people really don't like it, find an opponent who agrees to a house rule not to use it.

Problem solved.




(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 118
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/24/2011 6:35:31 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild
Do we really want the Devs to spend their time on changing this and rebalancing due to the consequence of said change.


Yes, I do. If you ask me, if the Germans have to have the Lvov Gambit for the game to be "balanced", then the game is broken and should be fixed.

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 119
RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers - 9/24/2011 7:53:03 AM   
Wild


Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
Well your certainly entitled to your opinion. But making a move that was plausible in history given the will and adequate force to do so does not seem broken to me, any more then taking Lenningrad by reinforcing AGN is broken.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.063