Looking for an opponent with possum exp.

[czerpak]

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501

Well thought out rules are in place to ensure that games played are both fun and enjoyable. As there are no patchs for WIR, players have kept this game alive with rules. Tactics and issues that you may have had 2 years ago may be very different to the ones today. I strongly suggest you rethink your use of airmissions unless you plan to play Germany.

partially agree and partially dont - house rules IMO should cover bugs, gamey tactics and things which cannot be covered by game itself because of technical limits. And those should be agreed by community and always used, unless stated different before game start.

And another thing are rules for specific game, when somebody looks for special historical limits not covered by game, or trying to create new setup or balance because he is bored with the one designers provided.

While playing against generall rules I would considered cheating, specific rules are always negotiable and up to prospective opponent.

Thats how I see this, if anybody cares for my opinion.

Kingtiger_501, I would be very disapointed if people couldnt develop new, better tactics and strategies since I dropped playing. I just hope I will be able to adopt mine before it will be too late. And if not - well, I will rethink it and take another try.

But, as an experienced player, you well know some basic rules (tactics, strategies) never change since Sun TZu or Alexander the Great up till now. You win in your head first, only then you have the chance on battlefield.

btw I dont really understand your comment about airmissions ? I dont think I ever said how I will use my air, regardless of being it german or soviets ?

regards

[DavidFaust]

partially agree and partially dont - house rules IMO should cover bugs, gamey tactics and things which cannot be covered by game itself because of technical limits. And those should be agreed by community and always used, unless stated different before game start.

And another thing are rules for specific game, when somebody looks for special historical limits not covered by game, or trying to create new setup or balance because he is bored with the one designers provided.

While playing against generall rules I would considered cheating, specific rules are always negotiable and up to prospective opponent.

Thats how I see this, if anybody cares for my opinion.

Kingtiger_501, I would be very disapointed if people couldnt develop new, better tactics and strategies since I dropped playing. I just hope I will be able to adopt mine before it will be too late. And if not - well, I will rethink it and take another try.

But, as an experienced player, you well know some basic rules (tactics, strategies) never change since Sun TZu or Alexander the Great up till now. You win in your head first, only then you have the chance on battlefield.

btw I dont really understand your comment about airmissions ? I dont think I ever said how I will use my air, regardless of being it german or soviets ?

regards

I have more time so I can explain myself alot better...
I agree with all that you have said here and I could not of worded it better myself.

Yes, and thats exactly why you want to use interdiction, right ? Kill the hex, with your carefully trained 5 Stuka groups consisting of 1000 planes, working hard for 7 days on single target. Dont you think they really SHOULD kill that hex? Why dont you take into account the simple fact that if you bomb one target with all your planes you cant bomb other units in other positions ?

I see what you are saying here but you are missing the bugs/gamey tactic that you stated needed to be covered by rules

What is more powerful
1) 1000 stuka's working hard on a single target in 1 air attack? or
2) 1000 stuka's working hard on a single target in 5 different airmissions?

Both of these attacks should get the same result but that is not the case. Would you not call this a bug or a gamely tactic that is not covered by the game itself because or technical limits?
You must remember how air missions work on Second Front? Only 1 type of airmission per HQ?
They changed it to fix the limmits on airwings but created new problems in doing so.

I understand at times when playing a turn that you can be intrepted mid way through a turn and forget how many times you bombed a unit. A good comander has a plan that he will follow and identifys the hexes he conciders important. If I consider a certain hex important, I never forget how many times it has been bombed.

Your responce to Veroporo post was harsh and uncalled for. Veroporo stated a Lorenzo house rule that you would of put alot of effort into. I hope you can use your skill and EXP to add flavour to this game and not take it away.

Would you like to add you thought in the new house rules section?

Best Regards

David

[czerpak]

I see what you are saying here but you are missing the bugs/gamey tactic that you stated needed to be covered by rules

What is more powerful
1) 1000 stuka's working hard on a single target in 1 air attack? or
2) 1000 stuka's working hard on a single target in 5 different airmissions?

Both of these attacks should get the same result but that is not the case. Would you not call this a bug or a gamely tactic that is not covered by the game itself because or technical limits?

Certainly I am in minority here, but that's exactly what I dont agree with. I think 5 attacks by 200 planes each SHOULD cause more damage than single attack of 1000 planes. Why ? Simple things, like sky too crowdy, grunts preparing for next attacks after first planes unleashed their bombs etc.
If I can imagine being a soldier (theoretically, as I never was in the army, not talking about actual fighting, I am typical armchair general, you know) If I could choose being under air attack by 1000 planes all in once or 5 seperate attacks by 200 planes, I would go for first option.
Thats why I dont consider it gamey or buggy. Anyways IIRC air to ground attacks effectivness was already greatly reduced in 3.3 ver.

I understand at times when playing a turn that you can be intrepted mid way through a turn and forget how many times you bombed a unit. A good comander has a plan that he will follow and identifys the hexes he conciders important. If I consider a certain hex important, I never forget how many times it has been bombed.

LOL you got me here. Right, I am not as good as I say. Fair enough ? But it doesnt hurt if your opponent is afraid of you, does it ? [:D]

Very intelligent and sophisticated way of saying you doubt my skills
Made me want to play you some day in the future....should be good fight and lots of fun.

Your responce to Veroporo post was harsh and uncalled for. Veroporo stated a Lorenzo house rule that you would of put alot of effort into. I hope you can use your skill and EXP to add flavour to this game and not take it away.

I didnt really take any offence at his post, and also dont think Veroporo took any at my answer.
As I never played him, I couldnt say if he was good or player, and Veroporo knows it. My words were more generall, too many times I saw peoples whining they lost because of a bug or gamey tactics.
When I loose I always admitt my opp was better player. People easilly call others cheaters without proving the fact. I hate that.

Would you like to add you thought in the new house rules section?

Best Regards

David

dont think so at the moment, I worked on original rules and some strategy/tips/tactics articles back in the past and I dont think I could add anything new right now.
I am pretty sure you guys do excellent job in keeping this game alive and I can only say Thank you for your efforts and keep it going.

However, if you ever think you might need my help in anything, I will be glad to give you a hand.
I read the board on regular basis, and rest assured whenever I have something to say I will,
regards
czerpak

[EvilWeevil]

Have you still have that old strategy/hints/tips document? Some people here are putting a new one together for beginners and there might be some info they don't have.

p.s. I need all the help I can get [:'(]

[czerpak]

I think it was made a mix of different notes from different players and was published somewhere in one piece of sheet.

I dont have it anymore, but it definetely was bit different than hints which come together with Lorenzo's House Rules.

Anyways, I remember writing about air strategy.

If you wish, send me what you have at mczerkas@poczta.fm , I'll have a look and maybe can help.

[DavidFaust]

quote:

I see what you are saying here but you are missing the bugs/gamey tactic that you stated needed to be covered by rules

What is more powerful
1) 1000 stuka's working hard on a single target in 1 air attack? or
2) 1000 stuka's working hard on a single target in 5 different airmissions?

Both of these attacks should get the same result but that is not the case. Would you not call this a bug or a gamely tactic that is not covered by the game itself because or technical limits?



Certainly I am in minority here, but that's exactly what I dont agree with. I think 5 attacks by 200 planes each SHOULD cause more damage than single attack of 1000 planes. Why ? Simple things, like sky too crowdy, grunts preparing for next attacks after first planes unleashed their bombs etc.
If I can imagine being a soldier (theoretically, as I never was in the army, not talking about actual fighting, I am typical armchair general, you know) If I could choose being under air attack by 1000 planes all in once or 5 seperate attacks by 200 planes, I would go for first option.
Thats why I dont consider it gamey or buggy. Anyways IIRC air to ground attacks effectivness was already greatly reduced in 3.3 ver.

I think you are missing the 1 point Im trying to make here. This is a stratigic game and turns are 1 week. Im not saying 1000 stuka's are attacking 1 target at 1 time. Im saying 1000 stuka's are attacking 1 target over a week. This is why I asked you the question above to show you that this is a bug. I recall reading that a patch was made to fix this bug but they have failed to make it work. This is why it has been added as a rule and im sure after you play the game again, you will agree.

[czerpak]

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501

quote:

I see what you are saying here but you are missing the bugs/gamey tactic that you stated needed to be covered by rules

What is more powerful
1) 1000 stuka's working hard on a single target in 1 air attack? or
2) 1000 stuka's working hard on a single target in 5 different airmissions?

Both of these attacks should get the same result but that is not the case. Would you not call this a bug or a gamely tactic that is not covered by the game itself because or technical limits?



Certainly I am in minority here, but that's exactly what I dont agree with. I think 5 attacks by 200 planes each SHOULD cause more damage than single attack of 1000 planes. Why ? Simple things, like sky too crowdy, grunts preparing for next attacks after first planes unleashed their bombs etc.
If I can imagine being a soldier (theoretically, as I never was in the army, not talking about actual fighting, I am typical armchair general, you know) If I could choose being under air attack by 1000 planes all in once or 5 seperate attacks by 200 planes, I would go for first option.
Thats why I dont consider it gamey or buggy. Anyways IIRC air to ground attacks effectivness was already greatly reduced in 3.3 ver.

I think you are missing the 1 point Im trying to make here. This is a stratigic game and turns are 1 week. Im not saying 1000 stuka's are attacking 1 target at 1 time. Im saying 1000 stuka's are attacking 1 target over a week. This is why I asked you the question above to show you that this is a bug. I recall reading that a patch was made to fix this bug but they have failed to make it work. This is why it has been added as a rule and im sure after you play the game again, you will agree.

OK, lets say you are right. I still cant see where the real problem is ? That you loose some more readines in one hex ?
BTW I am not trying to argue or convince you, I am trying to understand what lays behind the rule.
Also I personally believe, after having experience with Second Front designers WANTED to give more control over air to players.

well, if multiple attacks from one HQ are not realistic, then what you say about one target being attacked from different HQs ? Hey, thats a fantasy !

[Agent Smith]

well, if multiple attacks from one HQ are not realistic, then what you say about one target being attacked from different HQs ?

Multiple attacks from one HQ ARE realistic - these attacks are incorrecty represented by game mechanics - target hex loses more readiness if you attack it separatly by each air group - and yes this readiness loss IS the problem - it is 10% for attack, so it is 40% (!) in our example (1000 stukas in 5 groups.

[Forward_March]

And what is fair? ...should we have told the Allies in WWI that they couldn't fire as many times as they could afford with their huge preponderance of cannon during the Paschendaele and other offensives? Killing men and reducing readiness...somehow, I think that is what it's all about.

The VVS has a reason for existence: To take some of the teeth out of the German fighter and bomber formations. It wasn't meant to sit safely behind the Volga wasting fuel until it's pilots were ready for the Top Gun Competition. There are a few thousand Russian fighters in the pool plus the number that the German bombers couldn't wipe out on their first turn. Uncle Joe certainly wouldn't have stood by while only his grunts filled the soil with their blood.

If I were to author a house rule to clear up this nonsense, it would be THUS: Russian fighter groups must be brought to the front whenever they reach 150 planes, or 50% experience...whichever comes first. No point in letting those I-16's collect dust.

[JagdFlanker]

actually, i'm pretty sure the airstrike limit was created for 1 reason only - each airstrike reduces entrenchment by 1, so if you do 6 airstrikes on 1 target in 1 turn you have just eliminated what took that army on average 8-10 turns to create! IMO entrenchment is too slow in the game (it shouldn't be random beyond 3) if it can be reduced that easily with airstrikes. i think the bottom line is that in reality airstrikes should never be able to reduce entrenchment, only cause casualties, but since that is not the case i think the airstrike limit is fair to both sides.

[czerpak]

Forward March,
you are the man of my heart, I couldnt say it better myself.

[czerpak]

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader

actually, i'm pretty sure the airstrike limit was created for 1 reason only - each airstrike reduces entrenchment by 1, so if you do 6 airstrikes on 1 target in 1 turn you have just eliminated what took that army on average 8-10 turns to create! IMO entrenchment is too slow in the game (it shouldn't be random beyond 3) if it can be reduced that easily with airstrikes. i think the bottom line is that in reality airstrikes should never be able to reduce entrenchment, only cause casualties, but since that is not the case i think the airstrike limit is fair to both sides.

air strike does not reduce entrechmnent, thats something I am pretty sure about. Must be some misunderstanding, it actually never worked so.

[JagdFlanker]

sorry - i was too tired to test it last night, but i was almost positive it did reduce entrenchment. however, after testing, airstrikes do not reduce entrenchment. oops! i coulda swore...

i would say that changes things for me considerably, unless each airstrike causes a massive readiness hit (i see no evidence that it does).

[czerpak]

no need to be sorry - thats why we have this board to clear such things up.

But, if people think it does reduce entrechment, I now understand why they fight so desperatly for this rule.
Fortunately it is not the case, so this rule has very little impact on the game.

IMO air strikes are LESS effective than they should be anyways.

Good we have it cleared, no more hassle about that, I hope.

[czerpak]

btw it is theoriticaly possible for air strike to reduce entrechment, but you are not able to meet ratio needed for this to happen.

[DavidFaust]

Multiple attacks from one HQ ARE realistic - these attacks are incorrecty represented by game mechanics - target hex loses more readiness if you attack it separatly by each air group - and yes this readiness loss IS the problem - it is 10% for attack, so it is 40% (!) in our example (1000 stukas in 5 groups.

Disruption causes extra readiness loss. I think massive is 40%.

I have no problem with having no rules covering airmissions. I have just not met a brave enough Soviet player who would agree to it. Maybe you are that man? You will be begging for air limits before your 1st non clear weather turn.

[DavidFaust]

Czerpak's points are all valid in theory but the way the game/program handles these issues is a concern. Its effect on play balance especially in the opening year needs to be addressed and fixed. I have no problem if a commander wishes to bulk his forces in a certain area, only the way the game computes this decision.

[Forward_March]

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501
I have no problem with having no rules covering airmissions. I have just not met a brave enough Soviet player who would agree to it. Maybe you are that man? You will be begging for air limits before your 1st non clear weather turn.

If the Soviet player wants to thwart this kind of activity, he must commit his air forces to the battle. Like I said before....Uncle Joe wouldn't let the VVS sit idle in the east until they were at 80% experience. The Russian player has tons of wings that can be brought up to almost 200 planes before the rains. And I can tell you from personal experience that 160 I-16's at 40% experience can stop 80 He-111's at 90% experience.

That we have to pander to people who say "it's not fair, it's unbalanced" is ridiculous. It is the way it was. Russian planes and Russian pilots were totally inferior until very late in the war. Making your German opponent pull his punches while your air fleets twiddle their thumbs in safety is more unfair than any player balance.

You want to weaken the air threat, then fight fire with fire. You want your opponent to pretend to want to win while making half an effort...then certainly don't sign up with Don King hoping to make a million.

And if all of these airstrikes are against one hex, so what. If your entire game hinges on one hex, you're in deep trouble. The Germans won't take Moscow if they play the game one hex at a time.

Defense in depth backed up by masses of Russian airpower. It works! It's expensive and it's fair! Been there, and done that.

[DavidFaust]

I have no problem with having no rules covering airmissions. I have just not met a brave enough Soviet player who would agree to it. Maybe you are that man? You will be begging for air limits before your 1st non clear weather turn.

You have stated alot of points for your case but the question still remains unanswered.

[czerpak]

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501

I have no problem with having no rules covering airmissions. I have just not met a brave enough Soviet player who would agree to it. Maybe you are that man? You will be begging for air limits before your 1st non clear weather turn.

You have stated alot of points for your case but the question still remains unanswered.

if none of your opps was skilled enuff to agree to that, I understand now why you THINK you are that good...

I personally cant recall ANY soviet opp who would insist on having such rule.