Page 2 of 5
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:59 pm
by bwheatley
ORIGINAL: Klydon
The Soviets basically have 4 planes that can make the trip. PE-8, IL-4, TB-3, and DB-3B.
Considering that TB-3's are no longer in production and are basically used for transport, it would be nuts to try to use them for bombing there. There are no operational groups of PE-8's to start the game with and with a production value of 1, there are never going to be very many. DB-3B's are obsolete and not in production. IL-4's are the best aircraft the Soviets could mount an offensive with and they have fair production, but considering the range of other aircraft available to the Soviets, they would be wise to conserve as many of these aircraft as possible in the early going because they are going to be needed later.
IF the air system is working correctly, then I would think a couple of units of ME-109's would quickly wear out any desire of the Russians to bomb in Rumania AND also if air field bombing would somewhat work as well, I would see the Luftwaffe launching bomber raids against any airbases in the Crimea trying to launch attacks on Rumania.
Basically, it would tie up some Luftwaffe assets in compensation for conserving troops elsewhere. It is something the Axis must weigh the pro's and con's of in a grand campaign game.
+1 yea i'd probably launch 1 try at a sneak attack on polesti. Just to see if the german player was keeping cap over the oil resources. It would be an attack similar to the doolittle raid over japan. Very little actual damage would be done but it would help keep the german player on guard.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:03 pm
by ComradeP
We knew the air war wasn't ideal, but the majority of the bugs/issues that have been popping up were somewhat unexpected due to the limited time to test the latest changes. The air war was quite different just a few weeks before release.
Even with my passionate statements and the equally passionate statements of others about parts of the game, the developers did not release a knowingly broken game. As you can read in posts by Joel, they're aware of the games current shortcomings and are constantly trying to improve the game. Pavel, Gary and other supporting staff are finalizing bug fixes at astonishing rates.
2by3 isn't the kind of developer that sells you a knowingly broken game, takes your money and completely ignores customer support. They're aware of the issues and are working on improving numerous areas of the game. Considering what has been achieved since release or how the game became more and more polished in the few months I've tested it, the future looks bright.
As pompack already implied, "new and exciting" bugs were discovered within days. With around or so dozen or so guys+a lady, you can't cover everything.
Many of the bugs, like many great inventions, were noticed through sheer coincidence, as I described in my example that we noticed the issues with strategic bombing due to verifying a completely unrelated event.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:05 pm
by Ametysth
In real life Soviets bypassed Crimea in November 1943. They claimed it was biggest and best POW camp in the world; Prisoners fed and clothed themselves and when they got leave, they came back. They only assaulted it in April 1944.
I don't think the same can be true with Germans as Crimea can be reached from across Kerch Straight. When German player can't secure this crossing it leaves his entire rear exposed against assault from Crimea.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:11 pm
by ComradeP
Soviet reinforcements are difficult to bring into the area, as they can't be railed there in one turn. They have to be moved to the Kerch Strait, cross it and get on a train again or become fatiqued moving to the front, so it takes at least 2 or 3 turns to get a unit there. It's much easier to reinforce for the Axis, and as stated the narrow entry points work both ways: it's as difficult to break in as it is to break out. One hex is a swamp hex across a major river, another hex is a clear hex across a major river so that leaves the Perekop peninsula which can only be attacked from 1 hex.
I'd be pretty happy if the Soviets move a front there, as most of those divisions are wasted until a breakthrough can be made and even then a breakthrough is going to be difficult to sustain.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:24 pm
by bwheatley
ORIGINAL: ComradeP
We knew the air war wasn't ideal, but the majority of the bugs/issues that have been popping up were somewhat unexpected due to the limited time to test the latest changes. The air war was quite different just a few weeks before release.
Even with my passionate statements and the equally passionate statements of others about parts of the game, the developers did not release a knowingly broken game. As you can read in posts by Joel, they're aware of the games current shortcomings and are constantly trying to improve the game. Pavel, Gary and other supporting staff are finalizing bug fixes at astonishing rates.
2by3 isn't the kind of developer that sells you a knowingly broken game, takes your money and completely ignores customer support. They're aware of the issues and are working on improving numerous areas of the game. Considering what has been achieved since release or how the game became more and more polished in the few months I've tested it, the future looks bright.
As pompack already implied, "new and exciting" bugs were discovered within days. With around or so dozen or so guys+a lady, you can't cover everything.
Many of the bugs, like many great inventions, were noticed through sheer coincidence, as I described in my example that we noticed the issues with strategic bombing due to verifying a completely unrelated event.
Ok let me replace the word knowingly broken with "wasn't ideal".
My point is still valid and was people knew it wasn't ideal when the game was launched. And that's fine but for someone to come through and say no the air war was fine at launch is hogwash.
Yea bugs happen all the time i could regale you with stories of the weirdest bugs that we would rake our brains for weeks sometimes trying to see how they manifested themselves much less how we resolved them.
Like all matrix games and all 2by3 games i know it will get resolved in the end.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:28 pm
by bwheatley
One reason i can think of that the germans would want to take it is specifically since you should be able to move units across the kerch strait towards the oil at baku. Or is that not the case.
It's probably not really feasible but any good soviet player is going to devote a few divisions to securing the eastern side of the straights.
But we're not that far in yet. I'm trying to reserve most judgement until we finish our first GC. At turn 10 now the rail line to leningrad is cut far east and kiev has just been evacuated to avoid getting cut off from the rear. I have about 12 divisions blocking all the entries to the crimea in almost level 4 forts. Along with some rear guard units to guard against any german amphib attacks into the crimea.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:29 pm
by ComradeP
And that's fine but for someone to come through and say no the air war was fine at launch is hogwash.
That's why nobody is officially telling you that the air war was completely functional at release in the way it was envisioned it should work. We, developers and testers, acknowledge the problems, but like I said: we were not aware of all them until they manifested themselves post-release.
One reason i can think of that the germans would want to take it is specifically since you should be able to move units across the kerch strait towards the oil at baku. Or is that not the case.
It's highly doubtful the Axis can use it as a staging area for such a move. Too many swamps and mountains in the way. The quickest and most convenient approach to Baku is an approach from the north, where the terrain's virtually flat as a pancake, not from the west through swamps and mountains.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:47 pm
by DuckofTindalos
You know what "bwheatley", you can quit your highjacking of my thread. Start your own whine-athon somewhere else.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:26 pm
by KenchiSulla
If you are planning on taking the Crimea, I would try to get it the first summer. If you let the Soviets entrench to much you will have a thorn in your flank for as long as you fight east of it...
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:01 pm
by Klydon
Part of the issue with the Crimea from a game standpoint is there were a lot of political issues involved that are difficult to represent in game terms.
Hitler considered the Crimea very important from a political standpoint of view both in attacking there and also defending it. The politics were considered to have an effect on Turkey and also Rumania. (I have seen books mention the Rumanian leadership considered the Crimea to be important as they were concerned about bombing attacks from there, etc). Be difficult to represent in game terms, especially with Turkey since there is no chance they will enter the war. For Rumania, I don't know if bumping their national moral by a couple of points would be a good incentive to have the Axis consider a Crimean campaign or not. Right now, the Axis simply do not have a big reason to commit the Army it would take to conquer the Crimea against a Russian who puts even moderate effort into holding it. The Axis would then have quite a bit of extra coast to defend against Russian naval invasions.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:21 pm
by KenchiSulla
So you wouldnt mind dedicating a sizeable force to lock russian forces on the peninsula? A breakout from that area, even only by raiding forces, would surely be bad for your supply situation? Or am I overestimating the potential here...?
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:27 pm
by pompack
T, you were right again. You would think that I would learn my lesson, but I'm afraid that I don't. I keep trying to be polite and help people but I am totally unable to recognize a troll. I should have green-buttoned the good brother bwheatley and gone on with my life. So I will just put another little check mark in my "Terminus was right again" column.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:11 pm
by bwheatley
ORIGINAL: pompack
T, you were right again. You would think that I would learn my lesson, but I'm afraid that I don't. I keep trying to be polite and help people but I am totally unable to recognize a troll. I should have green-buttoned the good brother bwheatley and gone on with my life. So I will just put another little check mark in my "Terminus was right again" column.
Yea i'm totally a troll. If you bother to look at who talked about air being boned first it was comrade. So lets get off our high horse ok? Trolls don't bother posting 1800 times over 6 years. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a troll. I'd actually wager personal attacks is more troll like. But to each their own.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:12 pm
by bwheatley
ORIGINAL: Terminus
You know what "bwheatley", you can quit your highjacking of my thread. Start your own whine-athon somewhere else.
Like i said if you look back comrade brought up air. So please don't say i hijacked it. While i might have answered valid posts it's really not that big a deal. Being a public forum and all. I wasn't going off on anything not related to the game. Thicker skin and less personal attacks would be appreciate. But snark +1 again lol.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:32 pm
by kirkgregerson
ORIGINAL: pompack
T, you were right again. You would think that I would learn my lesson, but I'm afraid that I don't. I keep trying to be polite and help people but I am totally unable to recognize a troll. I should have green-buttoned the good brother bwheatley and gone on with my life. So I will just put another little check mark in my "Terminus was right again" column.
NO.. No don't even go there again Mr Pompack.
I have to step in and say that from what I have seen so far, Terminus is just an antagonistic angry person with emotional issues. All he does is try and find some obtuse angle to make a personal attack on somebody's comments even if it means twisting what people are trying to convey. I've seen him do this with abulbulian posts and now bwheatley.
I don't like being brought down to this level, but Terminus and not Pompack's posts are really diluting this forum into some sort of silly circus. Is it that fricken hard to make a conscious effort to try and avoid confrontation posts? Stick to what is trying to be accomplished. If you don't agree with somebody's post do it in a manner that is respectful and document your position.
Yes, my post was a bit based on emotion, but I had to step up as these guys are making me ill.
I too remember some sort of posts about more work needed in the air war for WitE. But I'm very glad they released the game when they did and I've SEEN more work to correct what they need to in a very short amount of time.
Keep in mind that Joel and Gary have been working hard and probably had less of a holiday break than any of us.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:34 pm
by Klydon
ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder
So you wouldnt mind dedicating a sizeable force to lock russian forces on the peninsula? A breakout from that area, even only by raiding forces, would surely be bad for your supply situation? Or am I overestimating the potential here...?
I think you are perhaps over estimating the potential. The Soviets won't be using rail supply and port supply is the end point I believe (so they start counting from a port for their overland and since the ports are on the south coast, they have a ways to go to get to the troops at the "front"). I think 1 good German Corps and some Rumanians can keep them from going anyplace, which is a lot less force than using an entire army trying to clean them out. (Probably 2 stacks of 2 German divisions with some Rumanians to help with digging, etc).
I also think the Axis run their supply lines a bit north to start with there, so the Soviets would have to go quite a distance before the Axis rails would be threaten.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:47 pm
by Mynok
ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
I have to step in and say that from what I have seen so far, Terminus is just an antagonistic angry person with emotional issues. All he does is try and find some obtuse angle to make a personal attack on somebody's comments even if it means twisting what people are trying to convey. I've seen him do this with abulbulian posts and now bwheatley.
I don't like being brought down to this level, but Terminus and not Pompack's posts are really diluting this forum into some sort of silly circus. Is it that fricken hard to make a conscious effort to try and avoid confrontation posts? Stick to what is trying to be accomplished. If you don't agree with somebody's post do it in a manner that is respectful and document your position.
Yes, my post was a bit based on emotion, but I had to step up as these guys are making me ill.
I too remember some sort of posts about more work needed in the air war for WitE. But I'm very glad they released the game when they did and I've SEEN more work to correct what they need to in a very short amount of time.
Keep in mind that Joel and Gary have been working hard and probably had less of a holiday break than any of us.
Terminus is the one supporting Joel and Gary, not the fracking weasels whining about the tiniest glitches...incessantly...when they already know they are being worked on.
You are grossly deluded.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:06 pm
by ComradeP
So you wouldnt mind dedicating a sizeable force to lock russian forces on the peninsula? A breakout from that area, even only by raiding forces, would surely be bad for your supply situation? Or am I overestimating the potential here...?
The main problem would probably be a large scale Soviet amphibious operation being possible, with a maximum of 500x~50 amphibious points being accumulated. They can launch an operation with around 15 divisions or 5 to 7 corps and an HQ depending on what they're invading with. Their supply state would probably be fairly awful when they're some distance from their beachhead, but it should be possible, especially if they capture a port. Of course, the Axis can quickly rail forces to the area, but it could prove problematic if it happens at the wrong moment.
It could be interesting to watch, especially as the Soviets can land in Romania (although that would probably be a bad idea as it would soon unfreeze most minor Axis forces). If planned right and in coordination with other attacks, it could be quite a success. An amphibious invasion alone, even in the blizzard, would be a suicide mission.
The possibility of a couple of corps suddenly appearing way behind the front is a lot more threatening than some non-escorted level bombers trying to bomb Ploesti.
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:27 pm
by abulbulian
ORIGINAL: Mynok
ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
I have to step in and say that from what I have seen so far, Terminus is just an antagonistic angry person with emotional issues. All he does is try and find some obtuse angle to make a personal attack on somebody's comments even if it means twisting what people are trying to convey. I've seen him do this with abulbulian posts and now bwheatley.
I don't like being brought down to this level, but Terminus and not Pompack's posts are really diluting this forum into some sort of silly circus. Is it that fricken hard to make a conscious effort to try and avoid confrontation posts? Stick to what is trying to be accomplished. If you don't agree with somebody's post do it in a manner that is respectful and document your position.
Yes, my post was a bit based on emotion, but I had to step up as these guys are making me ill.
I too remember some sort of posts about more work needed in the air war for WitE. But I'm very glad they released the game when they did and I've SEEN more work to correct what they need to in a very short amount of time.
Keep in mind that Joel and Gary have been working hard and probably had less of a holiday break than any of us.
Terminus is the one supporting Joel and Gary, not the fracking weasels whining about the tiniest glitches...incessantly...when they already know they are being worked on.
You are grossly deluded.
Terminus is the one supporting Joel and Gary, not the fracking weasels whining about the tiniest glitches...incessantly...when they already know they are being worked on.
You are grossly deluded.
Mynok, I don't think it's correct or appropriate to make comments about people by calling them 'weasels' and 'whinners'. Why do you feel like you have to put down somebody in order to support somebody's else personal attack comments?
I think Gary and Joel can stand up for themselves, they don't need people making these rude attacks to 'support' them? I'd hardly call that support. What Gary and Joel would like is useful comments and concerns about the game so the can look into it with their testers and take the appropriate steps to correct anything in a timely fashion.
I think bwheatley was a bit concerned about the air war and he wants to make sure it's being looked into. No reason to attack him. He's a friend and a class act, he knows how hard all the testers and developers are working to make WitE an incredible experience for us all. Best money I spent in five years in terms of fun factor. Yes, still things to do to make it better. I think we all want that and may not exactly always agree as to the best way to get there.
I agree with Kirk in that I feel some people are looking (call it trolling if you like) through the forum to find something just to attack and figure they're doing it to support WitE. I got news for them, we're all here trying to support WitE!
So please chill on the hating..... [;)]
RE: Crimea? We don't need no schtinkin' Crimea!
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:36 pm
by kirkgregerson
Well from what I've seen on this thread and others, Mynok just has no control over his posting of insults.
Not sure if his thinks he's being cute, funny, or what. But it's becoming very annoying when I try and read through posts and see comments like his.
Can't change a person like that's behavior and I don't want to even attempt it. Better just to ban them if that can't contribute and be respectful to other's comments without bashing them personally.