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

[Speedysteve]

Oleg. Your attutude stinks. Next time try to be civil. At least think that way for starters [:-]

Also has it actually occured to you that maybe Bob DIDN'T think the Scenario was unbalanced before starting and as such decided to play this as a challenge (i.e. taking the Axis side).

Green button on!

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Oleg. Your attutude stinks.

Yeah, imagine that, a guy who just wants to play the game, and not deal with quitters behind every corner using every possible excuse in the book. THAT attitude really stinks....

I don't care about the state of the scenario. It's not my job. We started it, we should play it until some reasonable resolution. Next version might be "more balanced" and less "utterly horrible". Fine, then I'll play the next version too. (Not with any of you guys though).

Until then, this version is what we have, what we agreed to play no matter what, and that's it.

[ComradeP]

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.

Is this an AAR started by you, or by Bob?

You invested hours in the game, we invested months. That's the difference between you and us. You see a problem, and you immediately start whining about it. We see a problem and try to find a solution, which sometimes takes months. We're still trying to find the solution to the two pressing problems of this scenario and other non-1941 scenarios:

1) The Soviets get more AP's and can thus activate units earlier. Simply reducing AP's isn't a solution.

2) Counterattacking is not nearly as effective as it should be for the Germans, as losses tend to get close to 2:1 and the Soviets have too many instant force multipliers, like artillery divisions and VVS concentrations, that the Germans are lacking due to the often lackluster performance of the Luftwaffe. As such, the Axis are trapped in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation: counterattacking is as suicidal as defending.

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...

So now you're accusing Bob of not being a reliable opponent? When was he not a reliable opponent? He returned your turns didn't he? He explained why he wanted to quit, so what's unreliable about that? Unreliable would be simply not sending turns without telling you anything.

Bob wanted to play the scenario because he wanted to try it against a human player, presumably. As Steven indicated, he did not know the scenario was truly unbalanced when he started. His games with Flavio could not provide a definite answer to that question, as it took him some time to find a defensive playing style that worked.

And remind me not to play any of you whining beta bunch ever again.

You chickened out when I challenged you, remember? So I don't need to remind you, considering that you're too scared of playing against me.

and not deal with quitters behind every corner using every possible excuse in the book.

Again: you didn't want to prove your point about the Germans being supermen as you were too scared of playing against me. You didn't even really provide an excuse, you just said you wouldn't play as the Axis.

[karonagames]

OK, enough is enough.

I surrender. Oleg beat me fair and square.

I have apologised to Oleg for wasting his time twice, privately. Which I felt would be sufficient, but now it seems I must make a public apology too, as my last act on these forums for a while.

My time as a tester has come to an end. I have thouroughly enjoyed the last 14 months, and have done my best to make a great game better, but all good things must come to an end. It is unfortunate that this has coincided with a game that I decided to make public, because I genuinely believed it would show that the Axis can survive a very tough situation.

I made a mistake. I am human. I am sorry to have wasted Oleg's time. Oleg is a good player. I asked him to keep the contents of my e-mail confidential, but he has decided to take this thread in this particular direction. Well that is his choice, and he obviously has his own agenda that I am not privy to.

Please no more Beta tester bashing - they are are great bunch of guys, and it has been a pleasure to work and play with them.

[JJKettunen]

No Bob, please don't go. I was planning you to take over the Axis against Don's Soviets for playtesting the revised version.

[ComradeP]

It would be really unfortunate if you would leave the testing team Bob. If you need a break for a while that's perfectly understandable, we all did/do once in a while.

[Speedysteve]

This is a true shame[:(]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

OK, enough is enough.

I surrender. Oleg beat me fair and square.

The thing is..... I don't think I really beat you, if I really did I'd have no problems with the game being stopped. No point in playing a game that's been clearly lost or won.

But I didn't beat you, it's a long long long way to Berlin, and in fact I think my forces are BEHIND the historic schedule. Now, isn't it supremely bizarre to quit in that situation, and claim that the scenario is broken to the point of being unplayable? With my forces being behind the schedule?

Even if you think the scenario is "horribly broken" or whatever, I think you should have played more, at least, say, 40-50 turns for all of us to be able to asses the true state of "horribleness" better.

Nevermind, I accepted your point of view in the emails, and that for me was over. What I could not accept is other beta testers suddenly coming out of the woodwork claiming the "horrible" state of the scenario is a known thing. Why play 14 turns then? Let's play at least 40-50, or none at all. 14 turns is too little to even be sure of how horrible this thing really is.

(And for the record, I don't think it's horrible at all, the scenario seems fine to me. But my opinion here is moot.)

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I made a mistake. I am human. I am sorry to have wasted Oleg's time. Oleg is a good player. I asked him to keep the contents of my e-mail confidential, but he has decided to take this thread in this particular direction. Well that is his choice, and he obviously has his own agenda that I am not privy to.

I have no other agenda at this moment than to PLAY. No more whining about bugs, unbalances, restarts, quits..... just play. That I hoped to find in this game but it didn't work. And I kept the contents of the e-mails confidential, I merely reported that the game is over, because you didn't want to play no more. That's all.

The rest of this thread is arguing with other guys and their arguments I find ridicolous, not you.

[ComradeP]

What I could not accept is other beta testers suddenly coming out of the woodwork

Considering that this AAR was off limits until Bob resigned, how can you say we "suddenly" came out of the woodwork? You don't even know what has been discussed.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Nevermind, I accepted your point of view in the emails, and that for me was over. What I could not accept is other beta testers suddenly coming out of the woodwork claiming the "horrible" state of the scenario is a known thing. Why play 14 turns then? Let's play at least 40-50, or none at all. 14 turns is too little to even be sure of how horrible this thing really is.

Ahem, my blunt statement, and mine only, was about historical accuracy in terms of OOBs, TOEs, and deployment. Nothing to do with any balance issues whatsoever. This AAR had brought some very useful info regarding other aspects into the fore. I thank ye for that.

[Aditia]

I am not a tester, in fact, I am a noob. I still want to make a few comments (mostly about forts) about what I have seen in Bob's AAR and my own limited experience with the '43-'45 scenario (just started a PBEM as axis).

- Forts and reserve commitments:
It looks like reserves commited to the defence do not benefit from fort levels, is this correct? I would think that any mobile unit commited to the defence should be quite able to reach frontline fortified positions in relatively good order, while a good deal of the defences are not yet compromised (depending on how much offensive airpower is available, wether the move is made in day/night, and how well spotted the approaches are by artillery, and probably also on how the initial CV odds are, simulating on how quickly defended positions will become compromised), whereas units on foot take way longer but are probably harder to detect. I am not saying that reserves shoud benefit from full fort levels, but depending on leadership/airpower/artillery/hostile experience they should benefit from at least some of the force multipliers offered by fortifications.

- effects of artillery and airpower on fortified positions.
I understand why Art/Air are CV nerfs for the defence, as they knock out artillery, mines, vehicles and AAA and generally work suppresively. I also understand why they are CV buffs for the offence when the defenders are in the open or in flimsy fortifications (simulating a higher willingness to withdraw when under indirect fire in such positions when confronted with an assault), but when attacking a well fortified position shouldn't they be less of a force multiplier for the offence? As the actual fighting depends more on the effectiveness of direct assault by infantry/engineers and direct fire weapons?

- Counter attacking does seem very bloody indeed. But I lack sufficient knowledge to make any statement about that. I do have a question: does the game model the disruption effects that a unit suffers when it is involved in an assault and it is subsequently counter attacked? Should it?

[Ketza]

I dub Oleg the John Macenroe of WITE.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
My time as a tester has come to an end. I have thouroughly enjoyed the last 14 months, and have done my best to make a great game better, but all good things must come to an end. It is unfortunate that this has coincided with a game that I decided to make public, because I genuinely believed it would show that the Axis can survive a very tough situation.

These are sad news BigA. You, Flavio and Pieter have been a precious resource - pure gold actually - only available on these forums, explaining away game concepts, giving advice and generally doing an awesome "crowd control" work.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Please no more Beta tester bashing - they are are great bunch of guys, and it has been a pleasure to work and play with them.

This is perhaps the most surreal ending for an AAR I've ever seen.

Now regarding the scenario "balance": I don't see any reason for the Soviets starting with 1M guys available on the pools. Oleg suffered very heavy losses that should have taken some time to be replaced. His armies looked - from the Axis perspective - as being in pretty good shape.

[ComradeP]

- Forts and reserve commitments:
It looks like reserves commited to the defence do not benefit from fort levels, is this correct? I would think that any mobile unit commited to the defence should be quite able to reach frontline fortified positions in relatively good order, while a good deal of the defences are not yet compromised (depending on how much offensive airpower is available, wether the move is made in day/night, and how well spotted the approaches are by artillery, and probably also on how the initial CV odds are, simulating on how quickly defended positions will become compromised), whereas units on foot take way longer but are probably harder to detect. I am not saying that reserves shoud benefit from full fort levels, but depending on leadership/airpower/artillery/hostile experience they should benefit from at least some of the force multipliers offered by fortifications.

I believe reserve units do benefit from fort levels, at least my experience thus far indicates that. For example, in the 1942 campaign, attacking Rostov in my case usually pulls in a Guards Rifle division which gets a CV of 256 or so, which means it needs to be attacked first as attacking Rostov with a hasty attack is not going to work until it's gone. Support artillery not assigned to fortified zones/regions don't benefit from the fort modifier for artillery, as they're considered as being not physically present in the hex even when attached to normal combat units I believe. On-map artillery units and artillery assigned to fortified zones/regions do benefit from it.

- effects of artillery and airpower on fortified positions.
I understand why Art/Air are CV nerfs for the defence, as they knock out artillery, mines, vehicles and AAA and generally work suppresively. I also understand why they are CV buffs for the offence when the defenders are in the open or in flimsy fortifications (simulating a higher willingness to withdraw when under indirect fire in such positions when confronted with an assault), but when attacking a well fortified position shouldn't they be less of a force multiplier for the offence? As the actual fighting depends more on the effectiveness of direct assault by infantry/engineers and direct fire weapons?

Artillery and air power doesn't actually hurt the forts (well, there's a minor chance very heavy artillery will reduce fort levels) but will disrupt units, so it reduces CV. That's what happens in those battles Bob posted about: the defenders were blasted with artillery and were as such disrupted, so the attacker had a much easier time dislodging them. With no serious artillery support, well entrenched German stacks are nearly impossible to dislodge unless hundreds of thousands of men are used.

- Counter attacking does seem very bloody indeed. But I lack sufficient knowledge to make any statement about that. I do have a question: does the game model the disruption effects that a unit suffers when it is involved in an assault and it is subsequently counter attacked? Should it?

Technically, the combat phase models both the attack and regular defence as well as the counterattack during a battle (in abstracted form), but I'm guessing you're referring to attacking units that are attacked in the enemy player's next turn. Those will at the least be fatigued and will generally have a fair share of damaged squads after an attack, so their capabilities to resist are much reduced. That's also why a Panzer division that appears like 15 CV to you can appear like a ~8 CV division to the Soviets in their next phase to fatigue and damaged elements.

[Aditia]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

- effects of artillery and airpower on fortified positions.
I understand why Art/Air are CV nerfs for the defence, as they knock out artillery, mines, vehicles and AAA and generally work suppresively. I also understand why they are CV buffs for the offence when the defenders are in the open or in flimsy fortifications (simulating a higher willingness to withdraw when under indirect fire in such positions when confronted with an assault), but when attacking a well fortified position shouldn't they be less of a force multiplier for the offence? As the actual fighting depends more on the effectiveness of direct assault by infantry/engineers and direct fire weapons?

Artillery and air power doesn't actually hurt the forts (well, there's a minor chance very heavy artillery will reduce fort levels) but will disrupt units, so it reduces CV. That's what happens in those battles Bob posted about: the defenders were blasted with artillery and were as such disrupted, so the attacker had a much easier time dislodging them. With no serious artillery support, well entrenched German stacks are nearly impossible to dislodge unless hundreds of thousands of men are used.

Thanks for all your answers. The point I am making is that I usually see a big increase in attacker modified CV in addition to the reduced defender CV when big numbers of artillery are used against fortified hexes.

About reserves, I just had a defensive fight in my current PBEM in which a panzer division was commited to a lvl 3 fort and it had its nominal CV (counter value was 11, battle CV was 105)

[ComradeP]

Hmm, it was discussed a while ago on the tester forum, I might've remembered it incorrectly or possibly it was a bug and something was changed. The way CV modifications work for units belonging to different HQ's has been changed, so maybe it had an effect on this too.

The point I am making is that I usually see a big increase in attacker modified CV in addition to the reduced defender CV when big numbers of artillery are used against fortified hexes.

That might just be due to the Soviets making successful leader rolls, I'm not entirely sure whether artillery units also have a significant effect on attacker CV (artillery units tend to have low CV's), considering that they're mostly reducing defender CV through disruption/casualties.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

What I could not accept is other beta testers suddenly coming out of the woodwork

Considering that this AAR was off limits until Bob resigned, how can you say we "suddenly" came out of the woodwork? You don't even know what has been discussed.

That is true, I still haven't looked at the first 5 pages, and I won't for as long as there is chance game will be continued. But it's irrelevant. I say again, I only wanted to PLAY the damn game. Is there a better "guarantee" of having a good reliable game than playing with the beta tester, a scenario that he suggested himself?

I started the game with that premise, only to learn, mere 14 turns later, that the scenario is "horribly broken" and that it appears to be widely shared opinion at least among some betas. Hey, why play it for 14 turns then? Why play it at all? Why is it even included in the game, let alone chosen by fellow beta tester as preferred scenario???

Do you think those are legit questions to ask in my position?

Some betas are acting as if they are enemies of the game. How do they expect anyone would play 43GC if they openly, and with complete disregard for tact, etiquette and the NDA, publicly say the scenario is horribly broken?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Now regarding the scenario "balance": I don't see any reason for the Soviets starting with 1M guys available on the pools. Oleg suffered very heavy losses that should have taken some time to be replaced. His armies looked - from the Axis perspective - as being in pretty good shape.

Surreal indeed. Not only with this forum aftermath, but also the fact a guy resigned when he was doing BETTER than history.

I *think* - but of course I can't be sure - he could have tried some other, potentially more successful strategies and doctrines in the defence, that would reduce his casualty rates. But how can we say if the game ends after mere 14 turns?? It's too early to tell, and even if the scenario is "horrible" 14 turns is too short to even get the idea what is so bad, and what needs to be improved.

Now for some guys 14 turns is not "too early to tell" it appears they KNOW scenario is horrible even before turn 1.

In fact I wanted to play Germans in 43GC as my next game to test those different strategies myself, but I read on the boards, from the members in the know, that the scenario is "horribly broken". That's good to know so we can avoid playing it (<= sarcasm)

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I dub Oleg the John Macenroe of WITE.

Why? Because I want to play the damn scenario for more than 14 turns??

Whew, what a crazy idea.... playing the game, who would have thought.....