Hell bent on Lebensraum (no 821Bobo)

[vicberg]

Flav, I hear what you are saying.  I don't think that Michaelt has played anyone at his caliber.  Muling in my hands would be a lot less effective than with Michaelt. 
 
What would be the matchup of the century would be Pelton (axis) vs. Michaelt (soviet).  These two guys seems to know the game better than anyone else.  If that happened, I would bet that Pelton's muling would be matched by Michaelt's muling.
 
It comes down to players.  Because one of clearly superior to everyone that he's played doesn't mean you drop HQBU entirely. 

[vicberg]

Flav, house rules is a choice between two players.  Both players accepted it.  One could have said no.   

Besides, there's some terrible abstractions in this game:
1) Supply - I agree with you
2) Paratroops allowed to break into brigades and drop all over the map. Would fighters intercept and prevent if staged back to prevent? Doubtful the way the air mechanics work. Paradrops in 20 spots would derail any game. Drop as a division and I'm on board providing fighters can intercept. A division affects one spot not 20.
3) Air mechanics in general
4) APs in general are bit too generous for both sides

[Flaviusx]

At this point I would be happy with just getting rid of muling. The total elimination of HQBUs probably cannot be done in a vacuum without a reworking of the supply system, and that's for the future. Besides which, buildups don't break the game if done in limited numbers and without the muling.

[karonagames]

I'm looking at my depleted infanty corps and seeing huge stacks in front of me and wondering how much I actually can attack.

It is a tightrope, as I have to manage attrition by putting sections of the front in and out of static, and I am also relying on the armaments multiplier in 1943 to get my manpower pool into the front line. If I have got that wrong I could be in trouble.

Once the sovs reach a certain proportion of artillery, the deliberate attacks lose the return on their investment, and I change tactics.

[Balou]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

....., buildups don't break the game if done in limited numbers and without the muling.

Flavius,

Basically, I agree. Now I want to get your opinion on the following move I discovered today: it’s the “XIV Pz Korps- case”. Those guys (part of Pz Group 1) are frozen until turn 2, but a HQBU is possible in turn 1. It costs APs, but amazingly almost no trucks, less than 200, and probably because it’s home soil. Now, by attaching lets say 3 Inf Divs to XIV (e.g. the “white” 99Jager Div, still assigned to Army Group South), I can create a HQ filled with almost 2000 tons of fuel, leave the Inf Divs behind, and will start as scheduled in turn 2 with an awsome amount of stuff that brings its (original) 2 mobile divisions to the Dnepr in 3 to 4 weeks without railhead considerations. My question: am I a vilain in your book?

[Michael T]

The problem with doing that (and any HQ BU for that matter) Balou is that after moving your gased up HQ on turn 2 you won't be able to move it very far at all on turn 3 without leaving all your gas behind. As you only keep those trucks needed to move all the fuel for one turn. So doing a HQ BU on turn 1 is pretty much a total waste as you have enough fuel already in your other HQ's to keep the tanks rolling on turn 2. Its from turn 3/4 on you need the gas.

[Balou]

Thanks for the info. I am actually in a test game vs the AI to see how long that fuel in XIV holds.

[Michael T]

I should not say it’s a total waste. You will get a benefit. But it’s a very inefficient use of your AP's. Its better to save what you can early so you can burn them up from turn 3 on when you need it most.

[darbycmcd]

How would it be if build-up was changed to providing supply based on only on the requirements of attached units at the time of buildup, ie nothing for an empty HQ. You could even leave the system as is with using AP to determine supply take, but discount the HQ itself. Wouldn't that end the abuse of muling but still allow for buildups when it is appropriate? I agree that the results we are seeing are quite ahistorical and if they become standard practice probably could dampen interest in the game.

[darbycmcd]

having said that, maybe we should check and see if Michael wants this conversation on his AAR thread, it is sort of dominating the post count and he may not appreciate it.....

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

How would it be if build-up was changed to providing supply based on only on the requirements of attached units at the time of buildup, ie nothing for an empty HQ. You could even leave the system as is with using AP to determine supply take, but discount the HQ itself. Wouldn't that end the abuse of muling but still allow for buildups when it is appropriate? I agree that the results we are seeing are quite ahistorical and if they become standard practice probably could dampen interest in the game.

This has been proposed and is the best solution for the problem I've seen thus far, matter of fact.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Balou

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

....., buildups don't break the game if done in limited numbers and without the muling.

Flavius,

Basically, I agree. Now I want to get your opinion on the following move I discovered today: it’s the “XIV Pz Korps- case”. Those guys (part of Pz Group 1) are frozen until turn 2, but a HQBU is possible in turn 1. It costs APs, but amazingly almost no trucks, less than 200, and probably because it’s home soil. Now, by attaching lets say 3 Inf Divs to XIV (e.g. the “white” 99Jager Div, still assigned to Army Group South), I can create a HQ filled with almost 2000 tons of fuel, leave the Inf Divs behind, and will start as scheduled in turn 2 with an awsome amount of stuff that brings its (original) 2 mobile divisions to the Dnepr in 3 to 4 weeks without railhead considerations. My question: am I a vilain in your book?

More like a Hero of the Soviet Union. [:D]

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

How would it be if build-up was changed to providing supply based on only on the requirements of attached units at the time of buildup, ie nothing for an empty HQ. You could even leave the system as is with using AP to determine supply take, but discount the HQ itself. Wouldn't that end the abuse of muling but still allow for buildups when it is appropriate? I agree that the results we are seeing are quite ahistorical and if they become standard practice probably could dampen interest in the game.

This has been proposed and is the best solution for the problem I've seen thus far, matter of fact.

+1

[Peltonx]

MT was not the first person to mule or chain. Others were dumped on for using HQ build up to much when in truth they were only chaining. 1 or 2 HQ's in north, 2 in center and 6 in south.

Check your Old AAR's.

MT is the first person to perfect the chain/mule train in the center of the map.

I had Faviusx running for the hills in the south in a test game.

MT made the chain happen in the center.

Which means Moscow falls, game set match. Under the current lower manpower numbers.

The down fall of WiTE was old play testers. The guys were to old school( nice/played by the rules ect ect).

If 2by3 has the same lamo bunch testing WiTW, guys like MT myself and others will have a field day making 2by3 look silly again.

Get some guys play test WitW that can think out side the box. The old school bunker mo is failing alrdy.

For all the hard work put into wite, its so easy to game the system because of piss poor play testing before release.

witw alrdy has some loop holes that any "gamer" can exploit.

Just an fyi.

Hugs and kisses

Pelton

[Flaviusx]

Piffle, I had you right where I wanted you in that game, Pelton. You were still doing factory raids back then and I led you on a wild goose chase in the south. And you were totally stalled up north.

Now if you had actually been doing what Michael does and concentrate on force destruction, then I would have caught wind that something was up. I concluded at the time that the buildup abuse was manageable, and it was, but only because of your raiding strategy, which can be shut down by a good evac schedule.

[randallw]

This brings up a question I have for you testers: were you looking to just see if the game 'works' by whatever rules given you, or did you also look for these exploits?

[Flaviusx]

Both. But some things never occurred to us, like muling.

[Farfarer61]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Both. But some things never occurred to us, like muling.

LOL I only discovered it by accident when I HQBU'd the wrong ( empty ) HQ. I was first annoyed, then thought "Hey, that's a lot of useful gas..."

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The down fall of WiTE was old play testers. The guys were to old school( nice/played by the rules ect ect).

If 2by3 has the same lamo bunch testing WiTW, guys like MT myself and others will have a field day making 2by3 look silly again.

Get some guys play test WitW that can think out side the box. The old school bunker mo is failing alrdy.

For all the hard work put into wite, its so easy to game the system because of piss poor play testing before release.

witw alrdy has some loop holes that any "gamer" can exploit.

Just an fyi.

Hugs and kisses

Pelton

Testers are usually volounteers who basically work for free to make games better for us all. They cannot be expected to find every bug or exploit, especially not with a game as complicated as WITE. They deserve respect, and not being denigrated in a forum!

[vicberg]

Tarhunnas, when alpha or beta testing, you can't be nice. You have to be honest. Judging by WITE, a number of people believe that the game should be historical, to a fault. As a result, there's a lot of faults. Honest, wait, we need to think of this as a game, feedback, didn't seem to happen.

I'm a developer. I build based on what I think the user needs. I often don't believe the user, even if it's not really working. It needs some serious honesty to break through. Why? Because I put a sh@tload of work into it, and don't feel like redoing it. I have deliverables. I have other work. My company doesn't want to lose money because I have to rework. This is basic system design 101.

If Pelton has found exploits in the WITW, then let him express it, without velvet gloves. Velvet gloves will not get the game fixed.