The new noraml for 1.06.13+

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The whole game is a sh!tshow, and we all should have walked away when we realized that Billings thinks it's right and proper to remove divisions that surrendered at Stalingrad irrespective of Stalingrad happening. If that doesn't tell you who he's in the bag for, then you're a Soviet fanboy.

I have explained this treatment over and over again but it appears it still not understood. The divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, rebuilt and returned to the Eastern Front NEVER leave the game. Only the divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, rebuilt and SENT ELSEWHERE are withdrawn. Those divisions are withdrawn AFTER they were rebuilt not when they surrendered at Stalingrad so they are no different from any other withdrawal in the game.

You're wasting your time. You've explained it, I put out a list of what happenned to said divisions, it's been explained over and over.

At this point I'd just say it's trolling for the sake of trolling. Same old Soviet "fanboy" nonsense.

[Great_Ajax]

Here's the discussion again.


tm.asp?m=3104200&mpage=1&key=withdrawals

Trey

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The whole game is a sh!tshow, and we all should have walked away when we realized that Billings thinks it's right and proper to remove divisions that surrendered at Stalingrad irrespective of Stalingrad happening. If that doesn't tell you who he's in the bag for, then you're a Soviet fanboy.

I have explained this treatment over and over again but it appears it still not understood. The divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, rebuilt and returned to the Eastern Front NEVER leave the game. Only the divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, rebuilt and SENT ELSEWHERE are withdrawn. Those divisions are withdrawn AFTER they were rebuilt not when they surrendered at Stalingrad so they are no different from any other withdrawal in the game.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The whole game is a sh!tshow, and we all should have walked away when we realized that Billings thinks it's right and proper to remove divisions that surrendered at Stalingrad irrespective of Stalingrad happening. If that doesn't tell you who he's in the bag for, then you're a Soviet fanboy.
*****
The playtesters were all Soviet fanboys from Europe who wanted nothing more than to stomp Germany into the ground, no matter how unrealistic the mechanics that get them there.
*****
The point that all the dunderheads at Matrix are missing is that the game is so biased in favor of the Soviet that MOST PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THE GAME QUIT PLAYING because they were not having fun. That's the market research that I've accumulated. I'm sure it falls on deaf ears.

Your juvenile ranting and insults about the devs have really gotten out of hand. You don't like the game, great, we all pretty much understand that at this point. I actually agree with many of your actual criticisms of game mechanics, but comletely disagree that the game, and the devs, are hopelessly biased in favor of the Sovs, and that it becomes more biased in "every single iteration of the game". Frankly, that is simply a ridiculous statement.

I think that the game balance/feel issues which exist stem from some fundamental flaws in the game design, and even more so, the difficulty (infeasibility?) of getting the various parts of the game to work together to replicate the war in the east from start to finish with anything like "historical" results. But this has nothing to do with dev bias...

As to your "market research": I'm not sure how you got the idea that everyone stopped playing because the game is biased in favor of the Sovs (and yet supposedly most of the players are also Sov fanbois, hmmm)? I'm on my last game, but for reasons I've mentioned in other threads, and certainly not because of pro-Sov bias.

At this point your rants reveal more about your own bias rather than that of the devs, and I hope that in future posts (if any) you limit your comments to something approaching constructive criticism rather than your repeated, unwarranted, and wholly inappropriate insults directed at the devs.

[randallw]

My personal supply of nerf bats has run out. [:'(]

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The point that all the dunderheads at Matrix are missing is that the game is so biased in favor of the Soviet...

Personally, I've found that insulting people doesn't usually get very good results, and doesn't usually reflect very well on the person throwing them about. You've consistently ignored any counter-arguments and counter-facts posed to you regarding such things as the Stalingrad 'withdrawls' and AP transfer costs, to name a few. All you do is repeatedly shout out your dogma.

You don't play the game anymore, you don't post here anymore, until you suddenly pop up to (un-constructively) slag the game and throw around some insults. I believe that's the definition of a troll...

[Aurelian]

My regular opponent and I stopped playing. Not because of any so called bias, but because we wanted to try other games. We've played AACW, Rise of Prussia, and are currently playing Battleground Gettysburg. We'll play Tiller's Campaign Waterloo when he gets it, and Madden 13 when I get comfortable with it.

Stick that in your "market research."

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


The playtesters were all Soviet fanboys from Europe who wanted nothing more than to stomp Germany into the ground, no matter how unrealistic the mechanics that get them there.

Still venting your frustration on the forums Helio? Just a question, but what the hell has coming from Europe have to do with wanting to stomp germany into the ground. The war has been over for a long, long time you know... Did you ever visit Europe?

[elmo3]

Since I have access to the tester list, and Helio doesn't, I can tell you that about half the testers are from the US with the rest from around the world including Australia. We even have a few Germans on the team but I guess they are all just Soviet sympathizers. [:'(]

[Aurelian]

I'm still waiting to hear how reducing Soviet command points is pro Soviet.

Or how every destroyed German division comes back for no AP cost is pro Soviet

Or how, IIRC, there are many German units that don't withdraw in the game, even thougn they did in the real thing. The pro Soviet bias is obvious.

And so on....

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Pelton please don't take offence but your Axis 1941 play is not up to par anymore. You need to spend some time reinvigorating your operations. Against competent Soviet players your tried and tested just won't get the results you want anymore. You certainly have the ability to reinvent it.

I am quite confident that I can better most Soviets (playing as German) in 1942. But you need a good 1941. You can improve in this area a lot. If you weaken the Soviets enough in the summer this will translate to a weak Soviet blizzard O. I fully appreciate that 1941 victories over Russia are now fairly remote. The 1942 KO is still a real chance. Yes the game overall favours the Soviets ultimately. But I do not agree it is to the level you are advocating.

I have 4 GHC 1.06.13 on going.

1. 4 million KIA
2. 3.3. KIA
3. 3 KIA
4. 2.2 KIA

One SHC 2.6 KIA

Your saying your the only competent Soviet player of the 5?

I did not take a beating in any of the 5 games, only 1 player has given me a beating during blizzard. Play style is different with each player. Suffering less then 2.6 million in losses is not that hard as you know you have done it over and over vs the best GHC players. I did it in my first game its easy.

So do they all have to improve? Other then you of course.

I guess your saying your the only good GHC or SHC player?

I am not seeing anything in your post other then a general rant about how uber you are and everyone esle blows.

Am I missing something?

Your getting a little to predictable in your posts.

MT please don't take offence but your spending way to much time blowing your own horn, its kinda tacky.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: vandev

76mm, the new thing I was trying to suggest was the effect on the soviet army of 15+ turns of continual attack in the north and center.

Encirclement tactics are great when they work, especially if the soviet is already weak. But how much damage is done to the soviet in the turn movement points are spent positioning panzer and inf to create and close a pocket? if the pocket is relieved during the soviet turn, german infantry is idle again as the pocket closes. Also, in the center during turns 3 to 8 or 9 german supply is tenuous. If german armor has movement in the 25 range it is hard to do really grand pockets. One deliberate attack causes 2k soviet casualties. One a stack of 3, you can cause 8k. If the german can inflick 120k of attrition like casualties a turn plus any pockets that naturally form, that is alot of damage over time. 200k of damage means the soviet army is not growing.

I like pockets that are unbreakable, i like to attack with infantry. I will do both if offered. But if the soviet is retreating 3 to 4 hexes a turn, it is very hard to launch a successful pocket making attack. So what do you do? I suggest just hitting the front line units. Over time it really hurts. In the game I referred to, pockets did occur. Some early, most later. Pockets are easier to form against exhausted soviets and pockets are easier to hold when soviet counterattacks are weaker. In the beginning the soviet has the tools to break pockets. Attrition relentlessly applied can blunt that tool and then allow true damage to take place.

The soviet becomes vulnerable when they decide they do not need to retreat 3 to 4 hexes a turn. The axis is vulnerable when they are 20 mp's from a rail head. Turns 5 to fall of leningrad, the soviet often decides to stand and fight in the north. Turns 12 to 17, the soviet will slow its retreat and fight for moscow. How can the german maximize combat power to fight when the soviet chooses. How can the german do damage when the soviet decides he is willing to retreat each turn.

Believe me, I try to do HQB's to have gassed up panzers to take advantage or create situations but I need a soviet to convince himself that he does not need to retreat this turn to really put down the hurt. The german does not make the decision to stand and fight, only the soviet can. If the soviet is retreating, then I say deliberate attack the screening units to maximize casualties. If they retreat to0 fastthe axis will arrive in front of moscow strong and insupply. The german can be within 10 hexes of a railhead from turn 13 onward. That is 6 clear and 3 snow turns of attacks. Whether you hold moscow or not, that is alot of damage if the german is prepared to dish it out. Also, it is inevitable that a good soviet line will have hexes that panzers cannot really do a hasty assualt. In that situatuon, just admit that you cannot really form a good pocket and suck it up and do the deliberate attack.

Last but not least, the only thing the german can really control is where his units are. To me the key skill of the german is having the right units in the right place at the right time. This does not always mean mass. But if often does.

vandev

Basicly what I have been doing as getting pockets vs average SHC is very hard if basicly not possible. Farm morale and get pockets lat if possible to start an early AP crunch

Put up as few picture if you have them.

[Michael T]

Pelton, I think you need to re read the post. I only infered that 'you' can improve your 41 play as German. And that I am confident that I can better most Soviets when playing German. The whole post is merely trying to balance your claim that Germany is pretty much kaput now. I disagree with your ascertion that the game is hopelessly biased to the Soviets. I agree it is biased to the Soviets per se but not to the level you are ranting on about. I am not blowing my own trumpet at all. Just trying to offer an alternate view to your take

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm surprised to see that some German players think that encirclements are not the key to 1941, as a Sov player I am much more worried about encirclements than attrition.

And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how Sov players can "not allow pockets"; against an aggressive German player a Sov player does not have much choice about it...

If you read many of the AAR's pockets now are not that easy to get in most cases.

Sure you get the SHC player thats been holding Kiev for 4 games in 41 vs newer GHC and you can mop the floor with them. But most good SHC withdraw in the south turning refit off. Load up Tula north with 30 divisions from south.

Its very hard to get more then 3 million kia.

As I stated months ago I have changed my play style allot. The woot I win in 41 stuff is over, when muling/airfield supply depots and 2000 fuel in a single Corp HQ got nerfed.

I beleive most GHC players now have to look at 42 as the key, sure 41 will help as MT and others have stated. But winning after having a poor or average 41 is more then doable IF you have that as your game plan before turn 1 starts.

Sure I take pockets, but lets be real. Who in their right mind after reading the AAR's is going to fight forward vs me/MT/Sapper ect ect? Its possible, but not easy at all.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. SHC losses under 2.5 million.
2. Moscow has yet to fall in a single AAR and there are over 2 dozen AAR threads posted 1.06.13+ now. So this is basicly set in stone.
3. Leningrad holding 50% of the time. Some guys hold it everytime.
4. Blizzard beat downs. Because in most cases the SHC takes less then 2.5 million in losses by Dec 1st the SHC OOB is at 5 million+. If GHC doesn't run they will get completely smoked.
5. Industry is as we all know window dressing and means zip, not really even worth talking about any more other then manpower centers.

This is the current condition of the game. I am talking about games started after 1.06.13 was released. There are a few games on going that started long before its release.

Pelton if you are saying that the game is currently biased towards the Soviets I agree with you (but not for the reasons you suggest). But if you are saying that recent changes have made it less historically realistic than I disagree. I assume that when you say that Soviet losses are under 2.5 million you mean over the first 17 turns. Historically Soviet casualties were much greater than this over this time period but that is only because they were incredibly stupid. You can't expect a skilled human opponent to be as dumb.

I did a quick count myself and I don't think there are over two dozen 1.06.13+ AAR games played to turn 17 yet, but I could be wrong as I didn't have the time to check them all. I do know that in at least 2 games the Soviets resigned long before turn 17 so it is hard to say if Moscow would have fallen or not (but certainly the Russian players thought they were doomed). In any event, as ineptly as the real Russian high command performed the Germas were unable to take Moscow, so I think it should be a long shot for the Germans to take it given equal opponents.

With respect to Leningrad holding 50% of the time, my own count was less than that though it may depend on what you mean by "hold". In a few games Leningrad was either isolated or doomed by the end of summer but the German player held off liquidating it until after October. And of course, again, historically the Soviets were able to hold Leningrad despite their intial stupidity. The only way Soviet players seem to be able to hold Leningrad is by committing about twice as many units to it's defence as historical. This should be looked at.

I do agree with you that the Soviets are too powerful, or the Axis too weak, in the Blizzard. This should also be looked at.

I disagree that industry "window dressing" but no point debating that now.

I am stating the state of the game as per 1.06.13 is all. I beleive evrything I stated assumes a skilled opponent nothing less. I can and have gotten more kia. I guess I am talking the highest skilled SHC players, nothing less.

As far as resigning goes I see more GHC the SHC in 41.

I agree that Moscow should be a long shot.

I think we also agree holding Leningrad should be possible and that blizzard is over powered.

Industry is important, but it is very very very easy to evac. SHC players even new ones have the basic skills to rail out everything easly.

Hmm I beleive we agree on everything, unless I am missing something?

[Peltonx]

[/quote]


PS: Thanks Pelton, for the kind words. Not in the mood to play WitE (obviously). Moving on to other things (but reserve the right to buy WitW to continue legitimate criticism of bad game design & horrible patching decisions).

[/quote]

I have high hopes for witw.

Hopefully they take the time and play test it unlike wite. I mean have some guys push the system not just make sure the game doesn't crash.

Most testing gruops have a few guys that try to game the system during testing once its out of alpha and into beta. Its clear that this never happened with wite as some players were sitting in Leningrad on turn 4/ Moscow turn 12 and Rostov turn 7. Its should have been clear withen 3 months that something was very wrong.

I want a great WITW so at some point TWIE will be done and I can produse what I want a German heheh.

WITE is hands down the best eastern front game to date.

Hope to see you when witw comes out.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Pelton, I think you need to re read the post. I only infered that 'you' can improve your 41 play as German. And that I am confident that I can better most Soviets when playing German. The whole post is merely trying to balance your claim that Germany is pretty much kaput now. I disagree with your ascertion that the game is hopelessly biased to the Soviets. I agree it is biased to the Soviets per se but not to the level you are ranting on about. I am not blowing my own trumpet at all. Just trying to offer an alternate view to your take

I am not saying Germany is kaput at all.
I am just stating how the game is all things being equal and that there is more then one way to win vs the most skilled SHC players.

I clearly out line what as GHC you are up against vs a skilled SHC player

and

I also clearly out line a 3 + yr plan that a GHC could follow to still get a draw and possibly a win.

I personally do think your the best GHC player and one of the top SHC players if not the best.

Kinda hard to rate SHC players as there are allot that are 10-0 +

I beleive your the only 10-0 GHC player left.

[Michael T]

Then we have no disagreement then, apart from your rather lofty ranking of my abilities as a player

I would say our difference is that I will go all out in 1941 (as Axis). No matter what.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Then we have no disagreement then, apart from your rather lofty ranking of my abilities as a player

I would say our difference is that I will go all out in 1941 (as Axis). No matter what.

We all have yet to see that as you yourself stated you were done playing the Axis side because of the 1.06.13 nerfs to airfield fuel supplys depot exploits/muling exploit nerfs and HQ fuel pts exploit nerfs being dropped from 1200 to a few hunderd.

We as you know exchanged info on these exploits long before they saw the 2by3 nerf bat.

Unless you have come up with a new fuel exploit the only 41 tools out there are grinding/farming morale and chaining.

The one good thing and bad thing is I will be playing you and will figure out the new exploit first. The bad thing is I will be the first to feel the results hehehehe.

What are internet friends for?

[Michael T]

No new exploit. A new idea.

[heliodorus04]

I'm sorry you guys can't accept the prima facie evidence that the game designers are biased in favor of the Soviet side. I can't prove anything to people who are blind.

But let's look at the Stalingrad thing again, because y'all say I don't have the facts:
The fact is that those divisions are removed from the east, taking manpower and gear with them. Historically, that manpower and gear were lost at Stalingrad. We can all agree on the fact, though, right, that in WitE, those divisions withdrawn actually take their man and material with them? Is that a fact? Yes, that's a fact, I'm sure of it. Disagreeing there means you're the one who is biased...

Is it also a fact that the replacement system for both men and material diverts both to the east & west based on the year of the game? That's a fact, yes. If you disagree, then you're the one who is out of touch with facts.

So... In 1943, is the number 75% that allocates to the eastern front, and 25% to the west? I forget, but let's assume it's 75% (because I forget the actual number). So it's March 1943, and you're divisions leave the eastern front. Meanwhile, in March 1943, you have 25% manpower/material going to the Western front.

Historically, when the divisions at Stalingrad surrendered and were re-created on paper in the western theater, they drew their actual manpower and material from the home front and went west. Did that manpower/material in the home theater subtract from men who would go east? We cannot know. Because Germany didn't have a 75/25 rule in history.

What you all conveniently overlook is that the pooled replacement system already counts the manpower that historical Germany used to fill those divisions in the west. In War in the East, Germany loses twice: You lose 125% of the manpower actually on map (plus the counter, which is big in and of itself). If these divisions were intact (rather than surrendered at Stalingrad) then you would expect the manpower pools to go UP by the amount of manpower in the division (then perhaps the pool system would re-allocate 75/25). But that's not what happens. The historical manpower that used to fill those divisions is still derived from the 25% that War in the East keeps unavailable. So the abstracted manpower that went west historically is taken west by the game, and whatever survived in the game (because of no stalingrad) leaves anyway too.

That's double the loss factor (though not necessarily 200%). How are these facts in dispute?

The reason I am petulant is because your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You guys consistently fail to address how the abstracted replacement system accounts for the divisions at Stalingrad surrendering (historically) and moving west. And then you call me the one who is detached from facts.

These are simple facts. The only reason that they can still elude you is because you are biased.