Yeah, if a game models historical forces and capabilities very closely, but if one side is able to avoid major strategic or tactical mistakes, but the other isn't, you may have some serious play balance problems. It sounds like the Russian side in WitE can avoid the uber mistakes made by Russia in 1941, but that Germany can't avoid the uber effects of the winter blizzards...so that German will start the 1942 offensive in much worse shape than it did historically.
Fortunately, this being a Matrix product, the designers are probably all over it making tweaks to iron out problems like this. But how much can they do?
I suppose they could put in a player selectable switch for German Winter Prep - sort of like PDU On/Off.
Yeah, if a game models historical forces and capabilities very closely, but if one side is able to avoid major strategic or tactical mistakes, but the other isn't, you may have some serious play balance problems. It sounds like the Russian side in WitE can avoid the uber mistakes made by Russia in 1941, but that Germany can't avoid the uber effects of the winter blizzards...so that German will start the 1942 offensive in much worse shape than it did historically.
Fortunately, this being a Matrix product, the designers are probably all over it making tweaks to iron out problems like this. But how much can they do?
I think a random option in many cases is a good patch. Hard to ignore history, but randoms are good for games. I always play AE with max +/- on reinforcement dates. I'd really like more randoms in AE. The Japanese Man. Garrison AV being a random would be fantastic. So would the locations of the LODs. Maybe the kami activation/distance hex number too.
In addition to that being a Russian winter, the bigger problem was the lack of preparation on the part of the German forces. Should that be modeled, as I'm sure it is? I think it's a critical part of the whole deal so it has to be factored in. Heck, even a year later in Stalingrad they had warm weather uniforms! From what I've read, that first winter of the German invasion of the SU was not at all unusually severe. The problem for the Germans was that preparations were based on the political assessment that the war would already be decided by then.
How many times have we heard that one? WWI, 1914. Iraq, 2003 . . .
NW Oz: Up at Daly Waters, Allied units are moving in and out of the hex. It looks like a beehive. I have control of four of the six hexsides now, with units moving towards the other two. I have a "spare" armored unit I'll send over to Katherine to see what's up over there. Meanwhile, additional troops are moving down the road towards this vicinity from Alice Springs. All told, the Allies will probably have about 750 AV in the theater. Perhaps not enough to threaten strong Japanese lodgements, but probably enough to create great consternation when Brad finally wakes up and realizes Allied units have "flooded the zone."
Exmouth: The Exmouth invasion troops (two Aussie brigades) are loading aboard transports at Esperance, with the carriers about three days to the east. D-Day could be in a week. I have some flankers and picket ships getting set to fan out to the north. When Brad turns his attention down here, I feel sure he'll "notice" the troops up around Daly Waters. I won't do anything up there until he finds them, because I think the "shock" factor will be greater if he is the one who discovers he's been negligent.
Calcutta: An Allied deliberate attack comes off at 1:2 and doesn't touch two forts. More troops are on the way, but it may take awhile to bludgeon 1st IJA Division enough to take this major urban hex.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Bullwinkle, I remember an eery experience I had about eight years ago. The US had just gone into Iraq. I was sitting in my pickup reading a newspaper and News Week magazine reports that the Army would have great difficulty getting into Bagdad, and once there would take frightful losses. Then I flipped on my radio and listened as the Army entered Bagdad and Iraqi citizens were pulling down Saddam's statues. The press had gotten that about as wrong as it is possible to get something wrong.
The press is a odd entity. It has lofty ideals and a highly exalted opinion of its mission and integrity, but it makes tremendous mistakes and does a great deal of harm at times.
We southerners are supposed to disdain General William T. Sherman, but he was right about the press.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Actually, this was the same press, during the 1st Gulf War that was highlighting the Iraqi defensive abilities & that any advance against them would be difficult and bloody.
Of course, we know what happened......just because the media or some expert says something, doesn't mean it is true.
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...
Bullwinkle, I remember an eery experience I had about eight years ago. The US had just gone into Iraq. I was sitting in my pickup reading a newspaper and News Week magazine reports that the Army would have great difficulty getting into Bagdad, and once there would take frightful losses. Then I flipped on my radio and listened as the Army entered Bagdad and Iraqi citizens were pulling down Saddam's statues. The press had gotten that about as wrong as it is possible to get something wrong.
The press is a odd entity. It has lofty ideals and a highly exalted opinion of its mission and integrity, but it makes tremendous mistakes and does a great deal of harm at times.
We southerners are supposed to disdain General William T. Sherman, but he was right about the press.
Well, I wasn't talking about the press. I was talking about Rumsfeld. Mr. "We need only 25,000 troops plus airpower, we'll be greeted as liberators, and a budget estiimate for the war of $50 billion is 'wildly off the mark and you're fired Mr. Budget Man'."
Yeah, all that stuff happened.
I f you want ACW refs, go look up how long the Southern public thought that splendid little war would last.
Bullwinkle, I wasn't commenting on your comment. Rather, your comment just tickled my memory a bit to make me recall that "reading in the pickup" experience from 2003.
As for the southern public and the Civil War, the politicians were telling everybody that the North wouldn't fight if the South remained unified. Many southerners genuinely believed that they could secede without war. The press fanned that "wisdom," of course.
There were a substantial number of "unionists" in the South - mainly older men with some expirience in life and a few who had served during the war with Mexico. They were loyal southerners. Most owned slaves. Most supported slavery. But they also felt that the United States was a remarkably peaceful and prosperous nation; that it had been bequeathed to them by the founding fathers; that it was best to remain in the union and resolve differences through the political process; and that war would be a titanic calamity. Those guys were right on the money about what would happen.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Bullwinkle, I wasn't commenting on your comment. Rather, your comment just tickled my memory a bit to make me recall that "reading in the pickup" experience from 2003.
As for the southern public and the Civil War, the politicians were telling everybody that the North wouldn't fight if the South remained unified. Many southerners genuinely believed that they could secede without war. The press fanned that "wisdom," of course.
And then everyone went out in their carriages wearing their Sunday best to watch "their boys" push over those other sods at that splendid little battle at Bull Run . . .
Eventually Vicksburg fell, Atlanta was on fire, then some other stuff happened, and then the New South was born in the 1970s.
Bullwinkle, I wasn't commenting on your comment. Rather, your comment just tickled my memory a bit to make me recall that "reading in the pickup" experience from 2003.
As for the southern public and the Civil War, the politicians were telling everybody that the North wouldn't fight if the South remained unified. Many southerners genuinely believed that they could secede without war. The press fanned that "wisdom," of course.
And then everyone went out in their carriages wearing their Sunday best to watch "their boys" push over those other sods at that splendid little battle at Bull Run . . .
Eh? Which battle? Weren't most of the Southern spectators there to see the first battle of Manassas? Get yer terms right, Bull. [:'(]
I believe the vast majority of spectators at Manassas came from nearby Washington, D.C., so they were probably pulling for the boys in blue.
I believe my reference to the Southern spectators referring to the battle of Manassas is probably sound. I've never been one to root for whom the majority of the crowd mandates. BANZAI!
I believe the vast majority of spectators at Manassas came from nearby Washington, D.C., so they were probably pulling for the boys in blue.
Come on! You know more ACW history than that! Washington was very much a southern city despite the label.
Regardless, I'll expand my comments to include the North also thinking it would be a splendid little 90-day war with much glory, fancy balls in fulll-dress, and the CSA imploding forthwith accompanied by a sincere apology for that kerfluffle at Ft. Sumpter, along with a nice fruit basket.
Eh? Which battle? Weren't most of the Southern spectators there to see the first battle of Manassas? Get yer terms right, Bull. [:'(]
I went to Virginia public schools in the 1960s where "the Civil War" was marked incorrect on a history test, and 7th grade required a for-credit field trip to Battle Abbey in Richmond. Top it off with serving in USS Stonewall Jackson, then living in MN for 14 years, and I'm very confused.
For the past twenty years, I've occassionally been asked to make addresses about local history to schools, social organizations, and civic groups. Usually, there might be 15 or 20 people present, but one month ago I was delighted to find 150 people present for the kickoff of our town's Civil War Sesquicentennial observance.
In part, I told the audience about the sharply-divided debate over secession and the percentage of southern soldiers from our town (Rome, Georgia) that had "a direct economic interest in the perpetuation of slavery." My research shows that it ranged from at least 25% to more than 50%, depending on the unit.
The fact that I contradict the widely-held if totally misleading notion that "the vast majority of southern soldiers did not own slaves" and speak forthrighly about the extent of the anti-secession (read: anti-southern in the view of most neo-Rebels) sentiment gets me into hot water among certain circles.
During the question-and-answer session at the end of last month's program, I was pointedly questioned about my use of "Civil War" instead of "War between the States" or "War of Northern Aggression." I replied that since prominent Georgia officers including James Longstreet and John B. Gordon used "Civil War" following the war, that was good enough for me.
So, down here I'm considered a bit of a non-comformist, whereas I suspect that most of you familiar with my comments over the past few years might (accurately) consider me a proud southerner and American. I don't mind being a bit of a contrarian, though, as long as I'm sticking to what I believe, and as long as I believe I have a reasonable basis for the opinions I'm sharing.
I think almost everyone else I've met in the forums is the same. I certainly enjoy the comments and insights you guys share, and it's a lot of fun to exchange good-natured ribbing with my Yankee friends.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
You better be careful the guys with the pointy white hats dont get you.
But what you are doing is acknowledging the facts of the past, not the myths and legends that politicians and some parts of the press fed the gullible.
Its always so hard to comment from OZ, we were so lucky in the founding of our Country.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Oz: Brad just discovered the presence of Allied troops at Daly Waters, per his email. It only took him about four weeks or so, an indication of the attention he's not giving the game. He has three units about 11k strong, which is probably too much for me at the moment. I have about 350 AV there, but only 200 of that is decent infantry. More is on the way. An armored unit departs Daly tomorrow to make the run to nearby Katherine on scouting duty. Down south, the Exmouth invasion transports are loaded and depart Experance tonight. D-Day in less than a week, though I have to take a rather circuitous route around Oz's SW cape, lest an enemy sub catch wind of this move.
India: Still no supply at Madras and Trivandrum, a vexing problem. The Allies will claim two additional vacant bases in NE India tomorrow, and will try another deliberate attack at Calcutta the day after. I may even try a shock attack to try to get the forts down.
xAK Joseph Holt: This ship just arrived at Los Angeles. Until a few months ago, I wouldn't have recognized the name, but now I do. Joseph Holt was the U.S. Army's Judge-Advocate General during the Civil War and immediately afterwards. It was under his leadership that the Lincoln conspirators were tried. It was under his leadership that Henry Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville Prison was tried. He letter to Andrew Johnson after the Wirz trial was a scathing indictment of that Confederate officer, and based upon my recent research it appears that Holt was completely wrong. My article "No Darker Field of Crime" about Wirz's trial was just published this week.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
