Pass the Kryptonite - Oleg's Supermen are coming! 1943 AAR.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


We all know why you're in here. You're just drooling over your future SuperHordes. [:D]

Nah [:D] I like fair combats (that's why I'm keeping rifle divisions in the Finnish No Attack Line. The truth is I could put these 7 rifle divisions to good use elsewhere. How many Soviet players are doing that?).

Those who say blizzard might be too harsh may have a point [:)] So I'd like to know if 1.04 beta will make the blizzard more just... to the Germans that is [8D]

Still... hmmm... I think I will definitely need the thing below... [:D]

[center][/center]

[randallw]

There is a bright side to all of this, Bob: you don't have to worry about 200 Tigers waiting in the pool.

[karonagames]

Big Anorak, sorry to hijack your AAR, but I am not sure you will read what I need to know.

Should I wait for the 1.04 beta thing before blizzard hits? If yes, should I still use your blizzard rule thing?

Thanks in advance.

We have not seen enough data from the current 1.04 blizzard tests to see what the overall effect of the changes will be.

The same overriding principle applies to 1.03 and 1.04, that the better you do before the blizzard, the better you will do during the blizzard. Having seen your AAR, I think the house rules might help your opponent arrive in 1942 in decent enough shape for him to want to carry on with the game, which is the objective of the house rules

[karonagames]

There is a bright side to all of this, Bob: you don't have to worry about 200 Tigers waiting in the pool.

There are plenty of bright sides - as Flavio is no longer available for testing, this is the only 1943 game going that involves a tester, so my feedback is being used by Jyri(keke) for the 2.0 version of 1943 that he is working on.

I don't think the balance is badly out. If the soviets are slowed down just slightly, then the battle to hold the Dnepr before the winter will be more touch and go than it seems at the moment. I have tried 3 different strategies, and none of them has worked but I have learned a few things from this game that I can apply next time.

It is still a long way to Berlin, and even then the Sovs don't necessarily win the game. In many ways I hope he over-focusses on Berlin, so I can hold Vienna and Bratislava, which could swing the game in my favour.

[BletchleyGeek]

The situation is indeed very bleak, BigA.

That initial 1M manpower in the pool is a freebie for the Soviets that I think shouldn't be there at all. He's lost almost 1M men during his offensive which had been completely replaced. His breakthrough armies should be hurting for replacements, and they don't quite look like hurting at all.

Your losses are also very high - the elastic but active defense you have done came along a quite high price tag - and how much have you recovered? 25% perhaps?

The 1943 GC for the Axis seems very hard - which is good [:)]. I was thinking that a possible solution would be to apply an "inverse 1941 Soviet strategy" as the Axis, based on delaying and digging along major terrain features. But looking at your AAR that doesn't look too promising. Wherever the Soviet player commits his artillery, a breakthrough is quite likely. And there's the thing you mention with the AP's, a major limiting factor on the mobility and flexibility of the Axis armies.

I still think that supplies should be factored in units offensive capability, besides TOE and morale. The supply lines for the pincers that are putting the 2. Armee and the 9. Armee between a rock and a hard place look quite long. But that's not going to happen soon, I think.

Anyways, a very interesting game BigA. Thanks for sharing the tale. An impressive show of tenacious defense against terrible odds.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

There is a bright side to all of this, Bob: you don't have to worry about 200 Tigers waiting in the pool.

There are plenty of bright sides - as Flavio is no longer available for testing, this is the only 1943 game going that involves a tester, so my feedback is being used by Jyri(keke) for the 2.0 version of 1943 that he is working on.

I don't think the balance is badly out. If the soviets are slowed down just slightly, then the battle to hold the Dnepr before the winter will be more touch and go than it seems at the moment. I have tried 3 different strategies, and none of them has worked but I have learned a few things from this game that I can apply next time.

It is still a long way to Berlin, and even then the Sovs don't necessarily win the game. In many ways I hope he over-focusses on Berlin, so I can hold Vienna and Bratislava, which could swing the game in my favour.

[karonagames]

As a tester I get used to playing with silly numbers until the fix comes along. As it stands the game is playable, but possibly "broken" - I would not say definitely broken at this stage, but I expect many would disagree with me. and the longer I play the more data we will get to make sure v2.0 is a better game.

There are still 100 turns to go and I get a net increase of 50 full-strength divisions added to the current OOB, so there is plenty of manpower and AFVs in the pipeline. I know I can't beat the attrition, and in the first phase I have not managed to achieve the Dnepr River defence that would have given me a chance to reduce the attrition, so I have no choice now but to give ground to get some protection. The next phase is all about not allowing a repeat of a loss of an Army Group in the Summer of 1944. I have a line pegged out that I will retreat to and fight to hold until the April mud gives me the first real chance to recover.

As long as my rifle squad numbers are OK, I am not giving up.

[randallw]

Does the Axis player have enough armament points to replace lost artillery close to historical levels?  Those individual German divisions take a crushing in arty losses ( i'm almost shocked that even 20% survive ).

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Bob, I presume Oleg is at WinDays and unavailable?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Aditia]

No idea how your forces in the north are deployed, but I have a question for ya. Is there ever any risk of the Soviets Launching an amphibious deployment into the baltic states?

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Aditia

No idea how your forces in the north are deployed, but I have a question for ya. Is there ever any risk of the Soviets Launching an amphibious deployment into the baltic states?

neither side has amphib capability up there

[Oleg Mastruko]

Well, Bob decided to resign this game... what can I say? Are my games damned so that whenever they become really interesting and enjoyable my oppponentes decide to quit???

I have no idea.... Bob sent me couple very long e-mails, that I will not quote here, because they touch on some issues he finds sensitive (he's a beta tester). The gist of his e-mails is that he feels his manpower pools are shrinking too fast, and he thinks he stands no chance, and the scenario (or the game, or whatever) is in his opinion broken.

Well, 43 scenario was his choice, and I have to say I found it very enjoyable, also, in 14 turns played, all results seemed very realistic to me, no 41 winter/summer supermen anymore, no bugs, no strange results. In short, to me this scenario seemed perfect. He made some tactical decisions that might have been wrong, but I won't comment on that right now. From the technical perspective, this game, up to turn 14, seemed perfect to me. Yes his manpower pools are shrinking fast, but that's the result of my very hard and meticolous work on the attack. Also, I believe he could have made some decisions to save his manpower ie reduce the rate of losses that I was incurring, but we can comment on that in separate posts, not now.

I will file this game as "victory" for my personal statistics purposes, because I always need some sensible closure to something that took many hours of my life... but this is certainly not the way I wanted it to end. I did smack him pretty good, turn after turn, but it is still a long long long LONG way to Berlin.

I would like very much if someone would take over this game from Bob's side. Please guys, consider this offer. If anyone is interested in taking over the game let me know via PM. I didn't read this thread at all, so any strategic ideas Bob might have had are still unknown to me. I came here only to post this appeal for volunteers to take over this interesting game.

I understand the disappointment, but it does get pretty tiresome having the games cancelled right at the moment when they become really interesting for me and the readers of the AAR [:@]

[ComradeP]

Winning a currently seemingly unbalanced scenario isn't much of a challenge for you, so I can see why Bob decided to quit. Too many things were working in your favour that should not be working in your favour in 1943. I saw a number of strange results, primarily you being able to launch offensives in a number of areas much earlier than historical, even though you're still behind schedule in the south.

[Speedysteve]

I tend to agree with P.
 
Some of the stuff doesn't seem quite balanced/right with the initial setup as well.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Winning a currently seemingly unbalanced scenario isn't much of a challenge for you, so I can see why Bob decided to quit. Too many things were working in your favour that should not be working in your favour in 1943. I saw a number of strange results, primarily you being able to launch offensives in a number of areas much earlier than historical, even though you're still behind schedule in the south.

Well this is getting more and more bizarre....

It wasn't me who suggested 43 GC, it was Bob. He is a beta tester. I was under impression scenario is tested, playable, balanced. Bob and Flavio played it couple times, as documented in one of the AARs. Now, he quits the game and there are betas coming out of the woodwork claiming the scenario is "unbalanced" as if it's some sort of common knowledge? Why did we even play it then?

And if it's not tested/balanced how will it ever be if we can't get a game past turn, say, 20?

I mean come on guys....

How many scenarios will be "unbalanced" once one side thinks he's starting to lose or simply does not enjoy the game anymore? Is it so hard to type the damn words "I surrender the friggen game" and keep the unbalanced speak out of playing circle? I mean, it's not like there will be any difference (except moral) but that's how I see it.

This guy says the scenario is unbalanced, that guy wants a "restart", the other day one guy stopped the game, claiming he won (!!!) and does not want to play anymore.... the ways to quit are getting more and more bizarre and IMO there is only one way to quit like a gentleman, that's by writing: "I surrender, you won, congrats".

As far as the imbalance goes, I didn't see anything worth quitting. A tweak here or there might be needed, but nothing too dramatic. I think Bob's defensive doctrine was somewhat flawed, and before quitting (surrendering) he ought to have tried at least some changes to his overall strategy (doctrine might be a better word here).

Now, please put the "unbalanced" whining out of this thread, are there any takers to take over this game?

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As far as the imbalance goes, I didn't see anything worth quitting. A tweak here or there might be needed, but nothing too dramatic.

Oleg, the stock version is, to put it bluntly, horrible. That's why I have spent last month improving it, for more historical accuracy in all respects.

[Oleg Mastruko]

OK Mynok agreed to take over the game from the Axis side, even though he agrees that the situation is bad (as it should be, for Axis, in late 43)

Thanks Mynok! [&o]

This game will continue in couple days, and as for the AAR we'll see if it's going to be updated, and by whom.

Now put the "unbalanced" speak out of this thread. If you feel the scenario has problems, discuss it on the beta boards. I was "lured" to play this scenario by one of the beta testers, and certainly don't want to hear about it being unbalanced by... the beta testers?!?!

[ComradeP]

Oleg, you're not a tester for starters, so you essentially have a much reduced view of the state of the game compared to the testers, so you claiming you can describe a scenario more accurately than the testers is a logical fallacy by you. You can't.

There is nothing bizarre about some scenarios being unbalanced. Some are historically unbalanced. The Axis have to create a pretty amazing defence if they want to win the 1944 campaign.

There have been a number of patches since release, and all the scenarios were tested with release or pre-release versions. It's only natural that problems start to pop up if the scenarios are not adjusted to the latest changes. A revised 1943 scenario is currently being worked on. Obviously aside from the changes there has also been a massive increase in the number of times a scenario has been played by public users compared to how often the original versions were played, so post-release it is only natural that some things pop up that were not spotted by the testers, primarily due to lack of time and rapidly changing versions.

If anything is bizarre, it's you calling someone saying something is unbalanced a whiner, considering how you tend to go around the forum shouting about your imaginary German supermen.

Now put the "unbalanced" speak out of this thread. If you feel the scenario has problems, discuss it on the beta boards. I was "lured" to play this scenario by one of the beta testers, and certainly don't want to hear about it being unbalanced by... the beta testers?!?!

Cry me a river.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Keke
Oleg, the stock version is, to put it bluntly, horrible. That's why I have spent last month improving it, for more historical accuracy in all respects.

Getting better and better, now another beta tester says it's simply "horrible".

Well my friends the beta testers, it was YOUR job to make it.... not horrible.

It is also your job to keep the "horrible unbalance" speak out of the public boards and strictly on beta boards. Did you sign any NDA for this?

Why the HELL did Bob the beta tester wanted me to play this, then?

Now please stop polluting my game with these remarks. I invested XY hours in this, based on BETA tester Bob suggestion, so let me enjoy what's left of this debacle.

And remind me not to play any of you whining beta bunch ever again. [8|]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Keke
Oleg, the stock version is, to put it bluntly, horrible. That's why I have spent last month improving it, for more historical accuracy in all respects.

Getting better and better, now another beta tester says it's simply "horrible".

Well my friends the beta testers, it was YOUR job to make it.... not horrible.

It is also your job to keep the "horrible unbalance" speak out of the public boards and strictly on beta boards. Did you sign any NDA for this?

Why the HELL did Bob the beta tester wanted me to play this, then?

Now please stop polluting my game with these remarks. I invested XY hours in this, based on BETA tester Bob suggestion, so let me enjoy what's left of this debacle.

And remind me not to play any of you whining beta bunch ever again. [8|]

Well, fuck off Oleg, you miserable git! Get off your moral high horse for starters.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Oleg, you're not a tester for starters, so you essentially have a much reduced view of the state of the game compared to the testers, so you claiming you can describe a scenario more accurately than the testers is a logical fallacy by you.

That's perfectly OK, I enjoy my "reduced view", and not being the beta tester for this particular game (I was for some other games). I know how it works, and I am perfectly content by being "only the regular player" as I explained to Bob before we started playing.

I am not even trying to "describe the scenario", it's not my job. I may give a comment here or there based on my playing it but that's all. I don't care what you do with the scenario, I am playing the current version (be it horrible or not) and try to enjoy it.

I just wanted to play the game and enjoy it. For that, I relied on BETA tester's suggestion of scenario, and for him as the reliable partner. Now it appears both counts were wrong.

Why he wanted me to play this scenario at all, then? Just wasting my time...