Do you want total war? An AAR-Guide for Axis player

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

@HLYA: We do not need to discuss if it is nice to have the unit in the blue circle encircled on T1 and the one in the red box hugged tightly. No debate necessary and I would gladly take this if it is for free. But it is not and the question always comes down to if it is worth the cost to the Centre/Northern Centre.

This is a "GUIDE" per your title. I have an opposing view to what you did in the South and I provided it here in your "Guide" for the south. Those that are using this guide should understand this.

As for going down the "Rabbit hole" on the different units has gotten a bit out of hand. You took what I came up for the Super Lvov pocket (along with other people having similar thoughts)on the super Lvov pocket and posted an updated addendum of your take. That is GREAT! You did an excellent job. That is what this game is about helping others. But now I am getting the impression you are making this into a battle You (Evk) versus Me (HLYA) way of doing something. It should not be. Let people decide what they want to do. Hell, I would rather players come up with their own addendum to this and beat both of our ways. I personally am not defending my ways as the "right" or "only" way. I implore people to experiment and do better than me and anyone else that is out there. I am pretty sure I said this many times in my AAR's. Again there is no wrong or right way & with a few adjustments in the North and Center I can pretty much do what you did in the North and Center and still do what I did in the South locking down units.

BTW, you first said "Center" for unit difference between our games But as for your numbers of 8 blue units, one orange unit, one light blue unit, and 4 green units is "not correct" at all as the difference between our games. We can debate this all day and night but this is detracting from what people should be getting from the guide. I will leave that lie and let people come up with their own better ways since this IS NOT about "You" versus "ME" but about others bettering themselves in WITE from our experiences given in Guides and AAR's

[EwaldvonKleist]

This is a "GUIDE" per your title. I have an opposing view to what you did in the South and I provided it here in your "Guide" for the south. Those that are using this guide should understand this.

As for going down the "Rabbit hole" on the different units has gotten a bit out of hand. You took what I came up for the Super Lvov pocket (along with other people having similar thoughts)on the super Lvov pocket and posted an updated addendum of your take. That is GREAT! You did an excellent job. That is what this game is about helping others. But now I am getting the impression you are making this into a battle You (Evk) versus Me (HLYA) way of doing something. It should not be. Let people decide what they want to do. Hell, I would rather players come up with their own addendum to this and beat both of our ways. I personally am not defending my ways as the "right" or "only" way. I implore people to experiment and do better than me and anyone else that is out there. I am pretty sure I said this many times in my AAR's. Again there is no wrong or right way & with a few adjustments in the North and Center I can pretty much do what you did in the North and Center and still do what I did in the South locking down units.

BTW, you first said "Center" for unit difference between our games But as for your numbers of 8 blue units, one orange unit, one light blue unit, and 4 green units is "not correct" at all as the difference between our games. We can debate this all day and night but this is detracting from what people should be getting from the guide. I will leave that lie and let people come up with their own better ways since this IS NOT about "You" versus "ME" but about others bettering themselves in WITE from our experiences given in Guides and AAR's

All I do is opening and game analysis. It is something completely natural to do, it happens for chess and other games too. It includes saying things like player XYZ's approach has advantages here and ZYX's approach there.
You criticised certain aspects of my opening and I replied with a detailed post to that to outline pro and cons of the two approaches. The post contains praise and criticism of aspects of both openings. The forum is full of such back and forth discussions and I personally have learned much from those discourses. Sometimes they are even more useful than textbook style treatises.

The names for both openings (opening HLYA, opening EvK) are completely arbitrary, I chose some which easily indicate which one is is meant. Replace them with plan Red and plan Blue if necessary.
If you think certain formulations are aggressive or offensive I am grateful for hints to avoid that in the future, I am not overly experienced in English.

It has always been my intention to help people and learn from their feedback with the AAR-Guide. The last line in my reply explicitly asks people to share their ideas for improvements. I never claimed to have invented a final or perfect opening.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

This is a "GUIDE" per your title. I have an opposing view to what you did in the South and I provided it here in your "Guide" for the south. Those that are using this guide should understand this.

As for going down the "Rabbit hole" on the different units has gotten a bit out of hand. You took what I came up for the Super Lvov pocket (along with other people having similar thoughts)on the super Lvov pocket and posted an updated addendum of your take. That is GREAT! You did an excellent job. That is what this game is about helping others. But now I am getting the impression you are making this into a battle You (Evk) versus Me (HLYA) way of doing something. It should not be. Let people decide what they want to do. Hell, I would rather players come up with their own addendum to this and beat both of our ways. I personally am not defending my ways as the "right" or "only" way. I implore people to experiment and do better than me and anyone else that is out there. I am pretty sure I said this many times in my AAR's. Again there is no wrong or right way & with a few adjustments in the North and Center I can pretty much do what you did in the North and Center and still do what I did in the South locking down units.

BTW, you first said "Center" for unit difference between our games But as for your numbers of 8 blue units, one orange unit, one light blue unit, and 4 green units is "not correct" at all as the difference between our games. We can debate this all day and night but this is detracting from what people should be getting from the guide. I will leave that lie and let people come up with their own better ways since this IS NOT about "You" versus "ME" but about others bettering themselves in WITE from our experiences given in Guides and AAR's

All I do is opening and game analysis. It is something completely natural to do, it happens for chess and other games too. It includes saying things like player XYZ's approach has advantages here and ZYX's approach there.
You criticised certain aspects of my opening and I replied with a detailed post to that to outline pro and cons of the two approaches. The post contains praise and criticism of aspects of both openings. The forum is full of such back and forth discussions and I personally have learned much from those discourses. Sometimes they are even more useful than textbook style treatises.

The names for both openings (opening HLYA, opening EvK) are completely arbitrary, I chose ones so everyone knows which one is meant. Replace them with plan Red and plan Blue if necessary.
If you think certain formulations are aggressive or offensive I am grateful for hints to avoid that in the future, I am not overly experienced in English.

It has always been my intention to help people and learn from their feedback with the AAR. The last line in my reply explicitly asks people to share their ideas for improvements. I never claimed to have invented a final or perfect opening.

Oh! I am not criticizing your play at all!!! Far from it. I think what you have provided here is great & makes people do better. I have said numerous times in my post on this thread you did Great! I love it when people do this. Plus makes me look at what I did and try to squeeze out more. So please don't think I am criticizing you, I am not.

[EwaldvonKleist]

@HLYA: I have no problem with critique. It is necessary and good if focused on the topic and structured and I appreciate it and criticise other people myself. Maybe there is a problem between languages, what I mean with critique/criticism is the process of challenging argumentation or concepts.

If I decide to fortify Berlin in June 1941 and someone argues "That is a waste of resources, because 1)..., 2)... and 3)..., that is what I understand under criticism and I apply that to other people's play as I do to mine.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

@HLYA: I have no problem with critique. It is necessary and good if focused on the topic and structured and I appreciate it and criticise other people myself. Maybe there is a problem between languages, what I mean with critique/criticism is the process of challenging argumentations or concepts.

If I decide to fortify Berlin in June 1941 and someone argues "That is a waste of resources, because 1)..., 2)... and 3)..., that is what I understand under criticism and I express that kind of critisim to other people's play as I do to mine.

Understood.

Again, I like your take on this opening and your moves you have done. You have invested a great deal of time and effort into this guide and you should be applauded for doing so.

[joelmar]

This discussion puts emphasis on what fascinates me the most about that game: The depth of the mechanics, the endless possibilities and thus the importance of the Commander in Chief, namely, the player.

I realise that every player has exactly the same ratings as the Leaders in the game. Some are good in pushing units and choosing paths of attack or defense, so high Mec or Inf rating, others are good at logistics, so high Admin, or timely attribution of support to attacking spearheads, which also uses initiative ratings etc... Others have steely nerves and will play more aggressively or make gambit, won't despair in face of difficult odds, showing high morale... So many things to think about and master that it must be really rare to have a player with all those ratings above 7 or 8, a Model, Manstein, Weiss or a Rendulic

This is exactly in line with the thinking of Clausewitz on the mechanics of war and the importance of the leader and morale. And it's quite a great achievement in a game design I think.

So I think that to have a complete and thorough analysis of openings and deciding which is best might not be possible. In this case, both openings will make for very different following turns, with different opportunities, and those are entirely up to the talent and vision of the player as to how they will develop. And also to a great degree to the reactions of his opponent, also depending on his talent and vision. So past experiences in games with a specific opening might not be full proof as maybe the Soviet best tactics or strategies against it has never been fully implemented, even if that game was against an experienced and talented soviet player.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and this is only a green player with not much experience in game play, and also no experience at all in MP games... but it might also be that against some players with the right ratings, a standard historical Axis attack on the first turn might still be the best option, even if less devastating at first.

At least, I hope it is the case else a lot of those forces of depth and complexity are lost.

I was reading in your AAR HLYA that some nerfs of the last patches were for twarting elite players and that they made the lives of average players really tough... I can understand why. Balance in this game is probably an impossible razor edge to find for the programers and game designers. And even with house rules, if you accept some to give a edge to a player that is not as good as you are or experimented, and suddenly the guy understands things and becomes better while playing, then you suddenly are in trouble! lol!

Best attitude is maybe not to play for winning, but for the sheer enjoyement of analysing tasks and problems and finding the best solutions possible.

[Michael T]

There's always more than one way to skin a cat.

[Crackaces]

“Best attitude is maybe not to play for winning, but for the sheer enjoyement of analysing tasks and problems and finding the best solutions possible. “

+1

[joelmar]

Michael T: Or for the cat to skin you if it turns out to be a tiger!

Crackaces: thanks. I think it's a bit of a shame when a player abandons after 3-4 turns because of a bad start, thus missing great learning opportunities. And possibilities of taking advantage of mistakes by the oppononent to amend a bad situation, mistakes which I think are bound to happen due to the complexity, the lenght and the changing nature of the game. But I understand that continuing a game one is almost certain or certain to lose might be tough on morale if your focus is only on winning and proving yourself to the universe I also understand there might come a point when you know for sure nothing can be done, but I doubt this moment comes after 4 turns. I mean, I'm at the 12th turn of a campaign against the AI, and even though it plays quite stupidly most of the time and I did hit hard and it is in the ropes, that thing still has ressources to throw at me. I can only guess how much more efficient and ressourceful a human will be, even an average opponent should be able to do much better.

In the end, Stalin and Zhukov didn't abandon even though the Russians had a really bad start. And most German generals already knew in late 1941 that they wouldn't win the war. Yet they fought on.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Best attitude is maybe not to play for winning, but for the sheer enjoyement of analysing tasks and problems and finding the best solutions possible.

Thank you for your sacrify my Pixeltruppen, I have learnt a great deal about operational warfare and it was a really interesting to find the best solution to win the war with just 2 million of you dead. Is that what you are going to tell your troops in the end?

I for my part fight for final victory&Lebensraum or to liberate europe from capitalist pigs respectively.

You mentioned Clausewitz, I really enjoyed reading "On war", I think it has quite a number of useful concepts for wargamers, highly recommended. The art of war of Jomini has something too but is less abstracted and as such not so useful as On war for other time periods/theatres.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Best attitude is maybe not to play for winning, but for the sheer enjoyement of analysing tasks and problems and finding the best solutions possible.

Thank you for your sacrify my Pixeltruppen, I have learnt a great deal about operational warfare and it was a really interesting to find the best solution to win the war with just 2 million of you dead. Is that what you are going to tell your troops in the end?
I for my part fight for final victory&Lebensraum or to liberate europe from capitalist pigs respectively.

Although the Axis may have appreciated a replay or make it the best of three?

[joelmar]

Thank you for your sacrify my Pixeltruppen, I have learnt a great deal about operational warfare and it was a really interesting to find the best solution to win the war with just 2 million of you dead. Is that what you are going to tell your troops in the end?

lol! You have a high level of virtual compassion for you Pixeltruppen! A pity neither Hitler or Stalin had any of that for the real humans under their command.

I understand you, I am a fighter, I have a strong sense of pride, and I love to win. To be honest, I used to play only to win, whatever the game. But I'm getting old I guess... Anyway, I feel there is too much time investment to put in this game to stake the fate of my pleasure only on victory with a big "V". And I hope to find opponents who won't give up after 4 turns, like I was some kind of invicible and infaillible war lord when in fact there are plenty of chances of mistakes and twists of fate, which I know I'll be making...

And I intend to keep on fighting as long as I can even if I'm getting creamed. At least until one of the opponents means of action are almost wiped out and nothing can be done to redress that. But like I said, I don't think that can happen in the early stages of the game and certainly not on turns 3-4.

For Clausewitz, I'm a big fan. I read the book twice over a 20 years period, finding very different insights both times. Jomini I didn't read, because of Clausewitz who as you know didn't like him much for exactly the reasons you mention. Maybe I should come round to him, there must be interesting things for sure and I know he influenced many.

[wkuh]

Thanks for this guide...

+++Ewald von Kleist and all that contributed.

[EwaldvonKleist]

You are welcome, if you have any questions or remarks which you think should be included make sure to notify me!

[Gamer64]

[/quote]

The retreat path taken by a unit in WitE is deterministic, meaning that the same conditions will always lead to the same behaviour. The manual is vague on the details of the mechanism. From experience and testing, the program works down a list of priorities until at last only one hexagon remains as candidate for retreat.
1. Avoid retreat over more than one hexagon
2. Chose the retreat hexagon with the least hexagons with an enemy unit adjacent.
3. Chose the retreat hexagon with the least enemy controlled hexagons adjacent. Pending hexagons controlled by the enemy are counted as hexagons controlled by the enemy.
4. Chose a hexagon with an undamaged rail. The rail does not necessarily have to be connected to a national supply source.
5. Chose the hexagon with the least friendly units in it.
6. Retreat East (Soviet side) or West (Axis side).
7. Minimize the retreat path MP cost
8. Retreat to a hexagon with fortifications in it and in the direction of the unit’s HQ

Do these rules still hold? I have units that retreat adjacent to my unit even though there is an open hex with no enemy adjacent. Perhaps this is what is being fixed in the patch?

Excellent resource btw thanks.

Gamer

[joelmar]

Those rules were true in 1.11.03.

Now in 1.12.03, the retreat paths have been changed. They are way more random.

If you want to know the details of the new rules, they are in the patch release notes, point #45 and #46 in the change log

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4690852

[EwaldvonKleist]

@Gamer64: The rules were updated as Joelmar was so kind to explain. I have added the changes in the guide.
Thanks, glad you like it!
Regards
EvK

[Gamer64]

Thank you for the responses guys. It is so frustrating when they retreat adjacent to my units instead of into hexes with no enemy adjacent. Violates 30 years of war gaming experience [:)]

Gamer

[joelmar]

yes annoying, but maybe more realist? One thing certain, very true that it makes some of our (well at least mine) instinct of how to attack obsolete.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

yes annoying, but maybe more realist? One thing certain, very true that it makes some of our (well at least mine) instinct of how to attack obsolete.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4690852

I have played two games in 1.12.03 and have found the new retreat priorities not a problem at all. If you are really trying to alleviate knowing where a unit will retreat just make it random 100% of the time.