Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am not the one with issues about what is going on here. I am merely providing a counter some of the remarks made by others. Having said that I agree the discussion should go elsewhere and leave this as an AAR. Not an axe grinding millstone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I am always open to new strategies in a game. As things evolve on the forum the game changes for the better or worse. Soon what were the most optimal moves become obsolete and fall by the wayside to be replaced with "omg I thought that was impossible" moves.


My most favorite game on WITE was against 76mm back when the game first came out and I wrote my first AAR. Neither one of us were experts and many mistakes were made but the game was very fun and in the end almost historical until we quit due to major patch changes sometime in 1943.

I will never forget that first blizzard as the Axis. I almost lost the entire 17th army only to come storming back in the spring.

Awesome game back when we were noobies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saper222

"The game is unbalance and greatly in favor of the GHC after T3"
I not consent. The Soviet can make a good defence, I can play with you and see this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

Saper have made a very good remark earlier in the AAR:
"After clik start button players create other history - difference for each game - that is the best fun!"
unfortunately many people are not see things in this way, I believe they don't like Guderian as well.
Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making. Yet many people still insisted that the GHC must comply with this plan.
Thanks for the couters you made towards some of the remarks. I am afraid we could not convince them that there are other ways to do a game and these ways are nothing more than providing some new challenge,which could certainly be handle by many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

open-minded person like you certainly deserve to have more fun,

quote:


Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

Saper have made a very good remark earlier in the AAR:
"After clik start button players create other history - difference for each game - that is the best fun!"
unfortunately many people are not see things in this way, I believe they don't like Guderian as well.
Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making. Yet many people still insisted that the GHC must comply with this plan.
Thanks for the couters you made towards some of the remarks. I am afraid we could not convince them that there are other ways to do a game and these ways are nothing more than providing some new challenge,which could certainly be handle by many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

open-minded person like you certainly deserve to have more fun,

Lets look at some examples and general conception on these forums and rather typical when it comes to looking at the WWII.

quote:


Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making

So the asssumption is that and the this is usually the case when it comes to view on the german side of things.
Germans underpreformed and could have done much better.
Never they overpreformed and this could actually have gone worse and they never should have been as succesfull as they were. It isnt a concievble option.
Same applies oppositely to the russian side. What if the russian stopped them long before historical is never the discussion. They could have had others in charge and be more prepared. Instead the instict is they actually overpreformed and if just little more of X would it have taken before the the russians would have surrendered.


Typically said things on the forum or conceptions.

I have np with thing in 41 going much better than historically for the axis side. Its just the players making better plans. Ppl need to play the game and from turn 1 on its up to the players.

Russian run strategies need to be nerfed, Stalin was a fool and in charge. So apparently russian side cant choose their own strategies, but need to be under some degree of limits based on their political leadership.

Hitler in 1941 interfered on 17 seperate occation as far i as know with the operational conduct of the german forces. Most famously in the Supplement to Directive No. 34 concerning the cancellation of the drive towards Moscow to make what evetually becomes the Kiev pocket
Never ever have i heard this raised as a possibilty nor is it apparently some thing that should influence the german side/ability to unhindered choose their own paths of the game, from the same ppl saying that the russian sides should be limited in their ability to choose where and how to defend, directly or indirectly via tying forces down to defend to VPs.

The russian side from 43 is a bulldozer and their offensives never stop, this need to be reined in. This might very well be true. Just as german side in 41 is able to use the same lack of logistical constraints to make it far beyond historical gains at times in 41. Where are the complaint from these ppl that this is just as unhistorical for the german in 41 as for russains in 43 44. Apparently its np as the russians gets their blizzard and again the conception is that germans doing better than historical is the expected thing. Where as if the same happens to the russian side it needs to be reined in. Not saying it necesarriy shouldnt be but the standarts isnt the same.

Blizzard offensives. They need to be nerfed historiclly the germans didnt lose any formations the same should be true in game. Right again the conception that in this when and i use when not if on purpose the russian side does better than historical this needs to be reined in. The possibilty that the russian actually making it better than historic as in german formation could be lost is shouldnt be a possibilty. Which isnt the same as saying things shouldnt be changed but again the standart isnt the same.

In the few cases where u actually have seen but its spoken of as it happens quite frequently that the russian make it to Berlin in 43(some one point me to the AARs) or in 44. This is unrealistic and a stop need to be put in place. Again Russian side doing better than historical, it needs to be reined in.
We have seen a few number of AARs with axis side Auto Victories. In these cases things have clearly gone alot better for ther axis side in order to achieve that. No issues with that. Again we're back. Germans underpreformed so when they overpreform its as it should be. where as russian side overpreforms its "profe" the game is unbalanced.

Its clear that the two sides isnt even remotely treated by the same standarts. Ppl inherit bias affects the way the view on discussions of game issues when things go better or worse for the 2 sides. The natural instinct is the germans underpreformed so when they do better its a question of ppl just playing the game and using better plans. Ppl should be allowed to do as they wish. Not that this is a conception that is in any way limited to this forums as said. This means discussions on gaming issues are equal. The preconceived notions make it so it starts slanted toward one of the sides.
When objections are made vs german doing better they are "automaticly" countered by, yes but other side has X Y and Z so this is fine. One makes up for the other. Usually followed by a when discussing these on the russian side. We need to limit the discussion to this issue aka u cant look at the whole.

So when ever the russian side overpreforms it just shows the game is unbalanced. If they underpreform it is as it should be or to be expected.
Where as when ever the german side overpreforms, this is to be expected. If they underpreformed not that its really an option and again if so its just the sign of the game being unbalanced

It couldnt be much clearer.


These are the "open minded" persons?
Not that ppl doesnt deserve fun nor that the game doesnt have issues for both sides.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

I rest astounded that surrounded, cut off units suffer no logistical penalty concerning stocks of supplies on hand. They would break column and assume a defensive perimeter...this consumes fule/supplies; in this game no penalty; the stocks on hand remain...

I will post a situation shot in a day or so after MT has pondered the next move.

Marquo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schattensand

I playtested that opening against myself.
The north: Up to turn 2 take Velik Luki. Why not? For me more a good start against Moskwa than to a big sweep north. From turn 3 on what you do is hasardous. Create a pochet and just to let it stay alive sacrifice 2 PAs and 1.5 HGs is sheer nonsense. Your opponent will see by turn3 what you plan and since there is a one line attack only he could concentrate fully one that attack and by turn 8 or nine you will face lev 3 forts in dense wood before you reach the last RR. and the danger to be cut of is always there. Not at all my taste.
The south: Very good. Taking Proskurov with a regiment would be more mine but essentially all units west of Proskurow are doomed. In fact you catch 2/3 of SW and 3/4 of S. Not much SHP can do against it. But not defending Kiew and the Dnepr line is anyway a nono. If SHP can make a stand than there. The SHP can so easily see what GHP plans in the south and if he defends the Dnepr it is a hard work to cross the river.
If GHP does not activate Romania he definately will link PA 1 at turn 3 and cut the south in two parts. So SHP has to guard the Dnestr with all brigades from SW he can manage to slow down XIV PC on its way to Northeast Odessa. And he has to rail out SW units and S tanks at turn2 as possible. I tried to open the Romanian RR by displacing the 2 Cav Brigades at turn 1, I've seen somebody doing it, but no chance. Still some units will find the way to RR in the south to be evacuated in turn 2. Even if you dont make it in turn 2 to Kiev or even east Dnepr that opening will cost the Sov side much more troops than a simple Romania activation turn 1 opening.
What I not like are the big pockets in your game that always break. I wont create such balagan or try to not do. And I would not neglect Pripjet.
Facit: 2 very good turns, but from turn3 on not my play.