Poor Russians. Balance in 3.101

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Thu Nov 15, 2001 3:32 pm

Originally posted by Xanthro:
Balance in WIR.

I actually have a three ring binder of Second Front and WIR info. Week by Week lists of item and general availability, mapped out lists of what to take by what date. It's pretty sick.

Xanthro

thanks God, I'm not the only one who needs to visit his doctor <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

BTW, anyone tried PBEM new version with balance set to help Soviets ? I always play with even balance, but maybe changing this will balance the game.
Jesus, hope you will understand what I just wrote. If not, let me know, I'll repeat in Polish <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Just started a PBEM as Soviet and after two weeks of combat cant see much chance of winning without using mules (and I dont want to use them)
Probably this means I'll have to stick with German side and allow my op's to use mules.

czerpak

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Thu Nov 15, 2001 6:40 pm

I myself do not use mules and am doing fine as the soviets.

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Thu Nov 15, 2001 7:45 pm

Who against? Are they also not using mules? Otherwise it could be trouble.

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Thu Nov 15, 2001 7:46 pm

Originally posted by Muzrub:
I myself do not use mules and am doing fine as the soviets.

thanks,
this gives some hope for my future as Red Army marshall

Xanthro · Post by **Xanthro** » Thu Nov 15, 2001 9:21 pm

Originally posted by czerpak:

thanks God, I'm not the only one who needs to visit his doctor <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

BTW, anyone tried PBEM new version with balance set to help Soviets ? I always play with even balance, but maybe changing this will balance the game.
Jesus, hope you will understand what I just wrote. If not, let me know, I'll repeat in Polish <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Just started a PBEM as Soviet and after two weeks of combat cant see much chance of winning without using mules (and I dont want to use them)
Probably this means I'll have to stick with German side and allow my op's to use mules.

czerpak

From my experience even setting the balance to help the Soviets won't let them win a 1941 scenario. The Germans can destroy too much production for the Russians to attack in winter and survive 1942.

At least everyone posting here still plays, I haven't played in years, yet still know exactly where my notes are. That's what is sick.

Have they changed the air supply rules in this version? In Second Front air supply wouldn't allow the Germans to control terrority when out of land supply, in WIR they could. This allowed the Germans to have cut off panzer korps surround and cut out of supply the Russian corps.

That was the biggest change.

Now I need to see if I can find my saved opening PBEM game. I'd sometimes get 15,000 squads on the first turn, and the Russian could never recover.

Xanthro

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Fri Nov 16, 2001 12:57 pm

Who against? Are they also not using mules? Otherwise it could be trouble.

Against Varjager- I doubt he would be using mules, he is a fair player.

The line runs from:
East= one hex

Leningrad
East Novgorod
East of Demyansk
Rzhev
Vyasma
Orel
Kharkov
East Kursk
East Dnepeprovpetrovsk
Crimea

Its the 7/12/41

Losses:

ger 12,519 sq- sov 44,115
ger 3,625 Pz- sov 7,133
ger 3,771 guns- sov 15,762
ger 2,473 air- sov 15,340

Soviet units stand in good stead and are now forcing German units back in the blizzard.

I used Varjagers defensive srtategy- which is quite good and played for time.

As you can see the Germans did take losses so it was not just a retreat- we fought in places and I gave ground only to save units from being surrounded but still remained in contact with the enemy when I did retreat.

Moscow defences were built early and I moved units as little as possible to keep readiness up.

Place units south of Gomel and west of Orel as soon as you can. along river fronts while leaving a few to slow the Germans down before he can reach crossing points at rail-river hexs.

Also defended Kiev and the surrounding river areas on the Donetz? with strong tanks forces with hight readiness and then retreated after a about 3-4 weeks leaving minor- but strong inf units there and then slowly pulled them out just keeping in touch with German units so as not to give them free moves.

All rail lines were held to the last always retreating along them leaving flank units to protect them- but only weak ones.
German Blitzkrieg allowances wont work if you keep them rail lines oocupied.

While training many fighters+ bombers and CAP the other fighters.

It works- play for time, save tanks, stay in touch with the enemy- do allow him to surround you in just one turn of plots and keep the weak units so as to slow the enemy down on raillinks to cities- and hold until you think you are sure you cannot any more.

varjager · Post by **varjager** » Fri Nov 16, 2001 1:13 pm

Muzrub my friend are you trying to tell everone how to win against me? I dont use mules in any game since i dont think that its logical.The reason the Germans lost was because they dident recive the replacement they needed.But in WIR there is no problems to simulate this.Just dont use mules.As russian you just have to hold on to the key places as long as possible.If you have troops left behind,cut the railways.I like to win,but i have no problems lossing if it is against another player who fights fair.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Fri Nov 16, 2001 2:17 pm

Muzrub my friend are you trying to tell everone how to win against me?

Not at all.

I think its a good strategy- and I think its only fair to let others in on a possible solution <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Fri Nov 16, 2001 5:21 pm

Varjager and Muzrub

Thanks guys, now i feel like a piece of shit.
As germans i used this mule tactic (i call it flying HQ's) against both of you in the Gotterdammering games. I assumed that you were doing this also to buttress the defence so things evened out.
Now you tell me neither of you used it at all??
Great.
Varjager. Maybe i would have got to envelope Moscow a month latter than i actually did. Still time to burn down the Kremlin in late July'42.
But still........
Muzz.. From now on i'll only use special supply from any HQ on units of less than 50% readiness.
This should remove the problem. Then again we are playing the historical path now so if my caucasus attack goes up the spout you will be the one restricted in '43 and'44.
You see.. I thought i was a very realistic player and yet i've had this glaring inconsistancy pointed out to me. Human beings are so good at rationalising, and i still feel like a shit.

Nick

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Fri Nov 16, 2001 6:38 pm

Thanks guys, now i feel like a piece of shit.
As germans i used this mule tactic (i call it flying HQ's) against both of you in the Gotterdammering games. I assumed that you were doing this also to buttress the defence so things evened out.
Now you tell me neither of you used it at all??
Great.
Varjager. Maybe i would have got to envelope Moscow a month latter than i actually did. Still time to burn down the Kremlin in late July'42.
But still........
Muzz.. From now on i'll only use special supply from any HQ on units of less than 50% readiness.
This should remove the problem. Then again we are playing the historical path now so if my caucasus attack goes up the spout you will be the one restricted in '43 and'44.
You see.. I thought i was a very realistic player and yet i've had this glaring inconsistancy pointed out to me. Human beings are so good at rationalising, and i still feel like a shit.

Nick

Dont worry about it.

Nor do I use special supply either.
I just play with the cards I'm dealt.

History a sweet fruit- Alright lets only use the offensives and the defensive strategy of both sides- I hope you dont mind not giving ground and fighting to the last man- the last bullet- no retreating from Stalingrad- hell no retreating anywhere unless forrced, then counter attacking.

This will be fun- Hurrah for mother russia

varjager · Post by **varjager** » Fri Nov 16, 2001 7:42 pm

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
Varjager and Muzrub

Thanks guys, now i feel like a piece of shit.
As germans i used this mule tactic (i call it flying HQ's) against both of you in the Gotterdammering games. I assumed that you were doing this also to buttress the defence so things evened out.
Now you tell me neither of you used it at all??
Great.
Varjager. Maybe i would have got to envelope Moscow a month latter than i actually did. Still time to burn down the Kremlin in late July'42.
But still........
Muzz.. From now on i'll only use special supply from any HQ on units of less than 50% readiness.
This should remove the problem. Then again we are playing the historical path now so if my caucasus attack goes up the spout you will be the one restricted in '43 and'44.
You see.. I thought i was a very realistic player and yet i've had this glaring inconsistancy pointed out to me. Human beings are so good at rationalising, and i still feel like a shit.

Nick

No problems Loki!
I dont use it and we should hade said something before the game.But alas i thought that you where a history freak like me.But you won fair in the end.

g00dd0ggy · Post by **g00dd0ggy** » Sat Nov 17, 2001 1:10 am

I suppose you just need to sort your house rules out first.

i never use Hq mules, but in one game where I knew the opponent was using HQ mules, multiple interdictions from 1 hq and various other abuses (as I see it) I had to - otherwise my readiness never got over 40 odd %. It left a bad taste though.

GET TRANSPT · Post by **GET TRANSPT** » Sat Nov 17, 2001 2:10 am

Looks like the same discussion here as in everywhere else: game structuralists unaware of their biases while trying to determine and dictate to others what is fair, right, correct, historical, accurate, etc. Ironic, but I'm doing it too, sure.

Why not play with the game as is ("deal with the cards one is dealt") and use human ingenuityto solve game problems? Is there fear in the unknown or unsolved not being fun? (it's fun for me)

If I get dealt a hand of cards that sucks, I may bluff , or i may think the hand doesn't suck, or I may forget, or...? Is bluffing "cheating"? Is it lying? Who here has never lied?

I think play should be playful, but maybe i don't even know what I'm thinking-- it just feels good in my tummy

Why does play or games, have to be structured for everyone? Is life structured? Is history?

Do structures last? How long? How wide? Do rules? rulemakers?

Do questions need answers? What do you or I or them need?

do I need italics?

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Sat Nov 17, 2001 9:00 am

Originally posted by GET TRANSPT:
Looks like the same discussion here as in everywhere else: game structuralists unaware of their biases while trying to determine and dictate to others what is fair, right, correct, historical, accurate, etc. Ironic, but I'm doing it too, sure.

Why not play with the game as is ("deal with the cards one is dealt") and use human ingenuityto solve game problems? Is there fear in the unknown or unsolved not being fun? (it's fun for me)

If I get dealt a hand of cards that sucks, I may bluff , or i may think the hand doesn't suck, or I may forget, or...? Is bluffing "cheating"? Is it lying? Who here has never lied?

I think play should be playful, but maybe i don't even know what I'm thinking-- it just feels good in my tummy

Why does play or games, have to be structured for everyone? Is life structured? Is history?

Do structures last? How long? How wide? Do rules? rulemakers?

Do questions need answers? What do you or I or them need?

do I need italics?

Get Transpt

Do you consider the subjective knowledge of your own existance to be an 'a priori' truth.

GET TRANSPT · Post by **GET TRANSPT** » Sat Nov 17, 2001 9:46 am

I don't know what "existance" is (I don't know much!). Do you mean existence? We make up our truths, until we decide they aren't truthful and don't exist, or partially exist.

Now, how do you know I'm telling the truth?

That's what makes life fun to me.

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Sat Nov 17, 2001 5:30 pm

Originally posted by GET TRANSPT:
I don't know what "existance" is (I don't know much!). Do you mean existence? We make up our truths, until we decide they aren't truthful and don't exist, or partially exist.

Now, how do you know I'm telling the truth?

That's what makes life fun to me.

get transpt

Ahh! You can spell! I can't. How clever of you.

I see, so you made up the subjective truth of your existance and when you feel it is no longer truthfull you will cease to exist or only partialy exist. Neat trick

Well seeing that you could not have made up the 'a priori' truth of your subjective existance before you actually existed then you did not actually do so.
Therefore you do not exist and could not be telling the truth or anything else. So i expect all you past posts to vanish at any moment along with all memory of them.

Bye!! Hope you had fun while you were with us.

loki

GET TRANSPT · Post by **GET TRANSPT** » Sat Nov 17, 2001 8:16 pm

I just got this email: Try this out for fun.

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Sun Nov 18, 2001 6:43 am

Originally posted by GET TRANSPT:
I just got this email: Try this out for fun.

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Get transp

Ok i went there iven though it had 'postmodern' in the url.

What i found was an essay by a verbal masterbator.
As an example here is a para chosen at random

"Sexual identity is part of the dialectic of consciousness," says Sartre; however, according to d'Erlette[3] , it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the dialectic of consciousness, but rather the economy, and some would say
the fatal flaw, of sexual identity. Foucault uses the term 'dialectic neocapitalist theory' to denote the role of the observer as reader. It could be said that Baudrillard's analysis of subtextual construction suggests that consensus
comes from the masses, given that narrativity is equal to sexuality."

Just another 'Philosopher quoter' with a large vocabulary and an agenda to impress others with his abillity to string other peoples ideas together without actually saying anything new.

You call this fun??

Loki

Landser · Post by **Landser** » Sun Nov 18, 2001 1:25 pm

Hello all,

I have read various posts and I am sure there are some inconsistancies with the game play virsus reality. However, I do believe that at least from 41-42 at least in game play that the Soviets need to survive on the seat of thier pants. When I play the Germans, I rarely play as Hitler directed the Campaign. With that being the case the Russians rarely see the Summer of 42.

Well just wanted to wieght in on the subject. Hope to get to play against some of you in the future.

Take care

GET TRANSPT · Post by **GET TRANSPT** » Sun Nov 18, 2001 3:55 pm

Landser, If a game is unbalanced, one can always switch sides after being pasted as the Soviets and play the Axis the next time. I've done that. Or read philosophy.

Loki, the site I posted is a joke . Go back and you'll get another "essay" if you reload and so on. The site makes funof such language. Laughter makes points better than crankiness.

I also happen to know a few philosophers who are a)wargamers b)have sex with their wives in addition to masturbating c)think the Russians need balancing in WIR 3.101 d) would like to see more play balance tips e)with just a bit of SPAM in it

s.