Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
Why not 1941 to the death. 1941
German victory 7.
1942 German victory 5.
any German victory 4
1941 Russian Victory 7.
1942 Russian Victory 4.
1941 Russian Victory 3.
1942 Russian Victory 2.
The aim of less points for a Russian victory is that it is so much easier to win being Russian.
But this may change in new patch.

Matt

Hey Matt

Not quite sure how to interpret your numbers. For example, what does 1941 German victory 7 mean? ARe you referring to city VPs or something else?

Mark

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

Sorry, but I think this play is very good to play with friends, but not good to play a tournament: It?s too easy to cheat.
- The famous “save”, and “save”, and “save”, and in every turn you can fight with aircrafts, move units by railroad, supply...

Lorenzo

The famous "save" and "save".. You of course realise that the other player can see this being done.
1. No combat reports. Good indicator.
2. Your air suddenly seems to have gained a hell of a boost. This is the best indicator.
3. Strategic allied attacks are moved forward from the hardcoded start 1 turn for every 'save'.
And others.
We are sensitive to what happens to our forces, Little inconsistancies throw up big questions.

Nick

PS. Why would you cheat?? I'm sorry but i fail to see the point. In a test of skill to cheat is an admission of lack of skill.

Interestin idea, but...

This would seem to be quite a complicated system. First of all it would require determining who historically controlled each hex each week throughout the length of the game. Although this would seem to be just a huge amount of fairly straightforward work even here there are a few issues that need to be considered:

1) How would the value of a hex be defined?
2) What about surrounded troops, such as russian armies in fall -41 and 6th army in Stalingrad. Does the are they control still count even though they have no contact with the rest of the forces?

I think the value of a hex would be defined by its importance historicaly and in the game.

eg Brest-Litovsk the Soviet player normaly moves out of this hex to save his divisions in the game (Unless Shattered). Historicaly the the Soviets held the city for a while. So if one holds the city in the same amount of time historicaly one would recieve basic points, for longer bonus points. This would allow the soviet play to get bonus points early in the game by a dogged defence while the German player races ahead to recieve bonus points by clearing areas before the historical time.
In a way it handicaps the Soviets and makes them defend to gain bonus points and to stop the Germans from recieving bonus points and keeps the game more historicaly accurate. On the other hand it forces the Germans to make ground fast early in the game (1941 and '42) which when tallied could mean that by 1945 the germans could have won on points even though the Soviets maybe in Berlin.

Of course my system would be based on 'pure player honesty'. I know I could be trusted but??...enough said on that.

Its a crazy idea but it just may work.

For it balances......rapid german advances early, rapid Soviet advances later and defense points for either side.

eg for a German player to hold Stalingrad until say...November '42 they would recieve 5 points, if they hold past January they recieve 15 points. It forces players to fight an historical battle. You may gamble the loss of 12 divisions to gain extra points and then gain bonus points for defence afterwards.

It is complicated but forces an historycaly true campaign.


Mighty Muzrub...... If you need me to explain more let me know.

An abbreviated version of the war would create a different game entirely. Winning battles never means winning the war. With long term consequences removed, players will be winning tournaments with untenable positions.

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:



Why would you cheat?? I'm sorry but i fail to see the point. In a test of skill to cheat is an admission of lack of skill.

I agree with you: I can´t understand people who cheat. But I know they exist. May be not in WIR (it´s so old game...)

Thanks. I didn´t know the lack of combat reports. They lack in "util" and "axis or soviet combat", or at the end of every turn?

Originally posted by Muzrub:


I think the value of a hex would be defined by its importance historicaly and in the game.


<Example clipped>

In a way it handicaps the Soviets and makes them defend to gain bonus points and to stop the Germans from recieving bonus points and keeps the game more historicaly accurate. On the other hand it forces the Germans to make ground fast early in the game (1941 and '42) which when tallied could mean that by 1945 the germans could have won on points even though the Soviets maybe in Berlin.

Of course my system would be based on 'pure player honesty'. I know I could be trusted but??...enough said on that.

Its a crazy idea but it just may work.

For it balances......rapid german advances early, rapid Soviet advances later and defense points for either side.

<Another example clipped>

It is complicated but forces an historycaly true campaign.


Mighty Muzrub...... If you need me to explain more let me know.

Yes, I see now how it could work, assuming that this system is only applied to some rather limited number of locations and not to every hex (which was the first impression I got). Actually this idea looks very much like a points-per-turn-victory-location kind of
a system.

Actually I like this idea very much.

Originally posted by JustAGame:
An abbreviated version of the war would create a different game entirely. Winning battles never means winning the war. With long term consequences removed, players will be winning tournaments with untenable positions.

A shorter game would certainly change the nature of the game, but thats the idea isn't it?

Besides the scenarios already have a set end time, don't they? So towards the end of the game you can take risks you wouldn't be able to take historically because you know how many turns there are left and thus can "calculate" somewhat unhistorically.