Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The whole game is a sh!tshow, and we all should have walked away when we realized that Billings thinks it's right and proper to remove divisions that surrendered at Stalingrad irrespective of Stalingrad happening. If that doesn't tell you who he's in the bag for, then you're a Soviet fanboy.

I have explained this treatment over and over again but it appears it still not understood. The divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, rebuilt and returned to the Eastern Front NEVER leave the game. Only the divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, rebuilt and SENT ELSEWHERE are withdrawn. Those divisions are withdrawn AFTER they were rebuilt not when they surrendered at Stalingrad so they are no different from any other withdrawal in the game.

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The whole game is a sh!tshow, and we all should have walked away when we realized that Billings thinks it's right and proper to remove divisions that surrendered at Stalingrad irrespective of Stalingrad happening. If that doesn't tell you who he's in the bag for, then you're a Soviet fanboy.

I have explained this treatment over and over again but it appears it still not understood. The divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, rebuilt and returned to the Eastern Front NEVER leave the game. Only the divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, rebuilt and SENT ELSEWHERE are withdrawn. Those divisions are withdrawn AFTER they were rebuilt not when they surrendered at Stalingrad so they are no different from any other withdrawal in the game.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The whole game is a sh!tshow, and we all should have walked away when we realized that Billings thinks it's right and proper to remove divisions that surrendered at Stalingrad irrespective of Stalingrad happening. If that doesn't tell you who he's in the bag for, then you're a Soviet fanboy.
*****
The playtesters were all Soviet fanboys from Europe who wanted nothing more than to stomp Germany into the ground, no matter how unrealistic the mechanics that get them there.
*****
The point that all the dunderheads at Matrix are missing is that the game is so biased in favor of the Soviet that MOST PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THE GAME QUIT PLAYING because they were not having fun. That's the market research that I've accumulated. I'm sure it falls on deaf ears.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The point that all the dunderheads at Matrix are missing is that the game is so biased in favor of the Soviet...

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


The playtesters were all Soviet fanboys from Europe who wanted nothing more than to stomp Germany into the ground, no matter how unrealistic the mechanics that get them there.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Pelton please don't take offence but your Axis 1941 play is not up to par anymore. You need to spend some time reinvigorating your operations. Against competent Soviet players your tried and tested just won't get the results you want anymore. You certainly have the ability to reinvent it.

I am quite confident that I can better most Soviets (playing as German) in 1942. But you need a good 1941. You can improve in this area a lot. If you weaken the Soviets enough in the summer this will translate to a weak Soviet blizzard O. I fully appreciate that 1941 victories over Russia are now fairly remote. The 1942 KO is still a real chance. Yes the game overall favours the Soviets ultimately. But I do not agree it is to the level you are advocating.

ORIGINAL: vandev

76mm, the new thing I was trying to suggest was the effect on the soviet army of 15+ turns of continual attack in the north and center.

Encirclement tactics are great when they work, especially if the soviet is already weak. But how much damage is done to the soviet in the turn movement points are spent positioning panzer and inf to create and close a pocket? if the pocket is relieved during the soviet turn, german infantry is idle again as the pocket closes. Also, in the center during turns 3 to 8 or 9 german supply is tenuous. If german armor has movement in the 25 range it is hard to do really grand pockets. One deliberate attack causes 2k soviet casualties. One a stack of 3, you can cause 8k. If the german can inflick 120k of attrition like casualties a turn plus any pockets that naturally form, that is alot of damage over time. 200k of damage means the soviet army is not growing.

I like pockets that are unbreakable, i like to attack with infantry. I will do both if offered. But if the soviet is retreating 3 to 4 hexes a turn, it is very hard to launch a successful pocket making attack. So what do you do? I suggest just hitting the front line units. Over time it really hurts. In the game I referred to, pockets did occur. Some early, most later. Pockets are easier to form against exhausted soviets and pockets are easier to hold when soviet counterattacks are weaker. In the beginning the soviet has the tools to break pockets. Attrition relentlessly applied can blunt that tool and then allow true damage to take place.

The soviet becomes vulnerable when they decide they do not need to retreat 3 to 4 hexes a turn. The axis is vulnerable when they are 20 mp's from a rail head. Turns 5 to fall of leningrad, the soviet often decides to stand and fight in the north. Turns 12 to 17, the soviet will slow its retreat and fight for moscow. How can the german maximize combat power to fight when the soviet chooses. How can the german do damage when the soviet decides he is willing to retreat each turn.

Believe me, I try to do HQB's to have gassed up panzers to take advantage or create situations but I need a soviet to convince himself that he does not need to retreat this turn to really put down the hurt. The german does not make the decision to stand and fight, only the soviet can. If the soviet is retreating, then I say deliberate attack the screening units to maximize casualties. If they retreat to0 fastthe axis will arrive in front of moscow strong and insupply. The german can be within 10 hexes of a railhead from turn 13 onward. That is 6 clear and 3 snow turns of attacks. Whether you hold moscow or not, that is alot of damage if the german is prepared to dish it out. Also, it is inevitable that a good soviet line will have hexes that panzers cannot really do a hasty assualt. In that situatuon, just admit that you cannot really form a good pocket and suck it up and do the deliberate attack.

Last but not least, the only thing the german can really control is where his units are. To me the key skill of the german is having the right units in the right place at the right time. This does not always mean mass. But if often does.

vandev

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm surprised to see that some German players think that encirclements are not the key to 1941, as a Sov player I am much more worried about encirclements than attrition.

And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how Sov players can "not allow pockets"; against an aggressive German player a Sov player does not have much choice about it...

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. SHC losses under 2.5 million.
2. Moscow has yet to fall in a single AAR and there are over 2 dozen AAR threads posted 1.06.13+ now. So this is basicly set in stone.
3. Leningrad holding 50% of the time. Some guys hold it everytime.
4. Blizzard beat downs. Because in most cases the SHC takes less then 2.5 million in losses by Dec 1st the SHC OOB is at 5 million+. If GHC doesn't run they will get completely smoked.
5. Industry is as we all know window dressing and means zip, not really even worth talking about any more other then manpower centers.

This is the current condition of the game. I am talking about games started after 1.06.13 was released. There are a few games on going that started long before its release.

Pelton if you are saying that the game is currently biased towards the Soviets I agree with you (but not for the reasons you suggest). But if you are saying that recent changes have made it less historically realistic than I disagree. I assume that when you say that Soviet losses are under 2.5 million you mean over the first 17 turns. Historically Soviet casualties were much greater than this over this time period but that is only because they were incredibly stupid. You can't expect a skilled human opponent to be as dumb.

I did a quick count myself and I don't think there are over two dozen 1.06.13+ AAR games played to turn 17 yet, but I could be wrong as I didn't have the time to check them all. I do know that in at least 2 games the Soviets resigned long before turn 17 so it is hard to say if Moscow would have fallen or not (but certainly the Russian players thought they were doomed). In any event, as ineptly as the real Russian high command performed the Germas were unable to take Moscow, so I think it should be a long shot for the Germans to take it given equal opponents.

With respect to Leningrad holding 50% of the time, my own count was less than that though it may depend on what you mean by "hold". In a few games Leningrad was either isolated or doomed by the end of summer but the German player held off liquidating it until after October. And of course, again, historically the Soviets were able to hold Leningrad despite their intial stupidity. The only way Soviet players seem to be able to hold Leningrad is by committing about twice as many units to it's defence as historical. This should be looked at.

I do agree with you that the Soviets are too powerful, or the Axis too weak, in the Blizzard. This should also be looked at.

I disagree that industry "window dressing" but no point debating that now.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Pelton, I think you need to re read the post. I only infered that 'you' can improve your 41 play as German. And that I am confident that I can better most Soviets when playing German. The whole post is merely trying to balance your claim that Germany is pretty much kaput now. I disagree with your ascertion that the game is hopelessly biased to the Soviets. I agree it is biased to the Soviets per se but not to the level you are ranting on about. I am not blowing my own trumpet at all. Just trying to offer an alternate view to your take

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Then we have no disagreement then, apart from your rather lofty ranking of my abilities as a player

I would say our difference is that I will go all out in 1941 (as Axis). No matter what.