Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21
Looks to me like the junction has been passed and the Soviets are on the wrong track. Too many losses too early, Axis will be able to march forwards and take a mass of terrain in '41.M60 is at the critical junction now
The new supply rules are pretty rough.
ORIGINAL: tyronec
Looks to me like the junction has been passed and the Soviets are on the wrong track. Too many losses too early, Axis will be able to march forwards and take a mass of terrain in '41.M60 is at the critical junction now
Congratulations on your (pending) victory.
ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
ORIGINAL: tyronec
Looks to me like the junction has been passed and the Soviets are on the wrong track. Too many losses too early, Axis will be able to march forwards and take a mass of terrain in '41.M60 is at the critical junction now
Congratulations on your (pending) victory.
Pending no more. I've resigned and decided to step away from all but the one 8MP game.
I won't get into a long discussion, I'll just say I'm rather put out by the current version of WiTE. If it has been imbalanced in the past in one direction, it certainly is the other way now with no prospect for change. You and HardLuck would certainly make an entertaining matchup, and I would bet heavily on whichever one took the Axis side.
Pending no more. I've resigned and decided to step away from all but the one 8MP game.
I won't get into a long discussion, I'll just say I'm rather put out by the current version of WiTE. If it has been imbalanced in the past in one direction, it certainly is the other way now with no prospect for change. You and HardLuck would certainly make an entertaining matchup, and I would bet heavily on whichever one took the Axis side.
ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
Pending no more. I've resigned and decided to step away from all but the one 8MP game.
I won't get into a long discussion, I'll just say I'm rather put out by the current version of WiTE. If it has been imbalanced in the past in one direction, it certainly is the other way now with no prospect for change. You and HardLuck would certainly make an entertaining matchup, and I would bet heavily on whichever one took the Axis side.
I am not quick enough to play a huge number of games under each version, but have exp. with three games with 1.10.00 and one with 1.11.01 (some as Axis, some as Soviets), and I disagree with that. As I see it: 1.11.00 was completely pro Axis.
1.11.01 has increased the AP cost so much that you will not be able to do even one every turn and the rail modifier has been reduced. This combined makes runaway strategies with stiff defense at key points very powerful.
You fought too far forward with too little in the center during the early turns, same at Pskov, and this caused a snowball effect. IMO you would have done much better by not defending there at all, using the troops to prepare a line further back.
Thanks to both of you for the AARs, great read!
Of course HLYA is excellent at exploiting the game engine and made you pay for even tiny mistakes.
Note I am not saying that I would have been able to win this game, But would like to point out certain mistakes the game could have been much different hadn't they been there.
(or a guys chest if you are a lady) Interesting you got close to 30 at all. I haven't followed the AAR as closely as I should have but it looks like you operated at quite some distancce from the railheads.But I can say 100% the new patch has really hit the Germans hard. Only from experience was I able to do what I was able to do. Most of the time I was fighting to have 30ish MP's.
ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
7. You say you do this with the Axis too, you are talking about attacking in 1941 I believe. Which advantages do you aim for with that tactic?
(have some ideas but would like to hear your reasoning)
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
7. Set up reserve activation for both sides on this. I do with the Germans.
ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
Interesting you got close to 30 at all. I haven't followed the AAR as closely as I should have but it looks like you operated at quite some distancce from the railheads.But I can say 100% the new patch has really hit the Germans hard. Only from experience was I able to do what I was able to do. Most of the time I was fighting to have 30ish MP's.
Re your points:
1. Doing that is possible but absolutely brain exhausting. Maybe it becomes intuitive once you have done that 10000 times but I right now can't convince myself to do this unless I have the feeling that the next turn in an area will be a game changer I must win. Ideally you would do many iterations of the defense setup in your head and simulate the possible attack paths, but the memory in my brain definitely isn't sufficient for that.
4. That is interesting. If you have any more to post on that matter I would be interested.
7. You say you do this with the Axis too, you are talking about attacking in 1941 I believe. Which advantages do you aim for with that tactic?
(have some ideas but would like to hear your reasoning)
ORIGINAL: Telemecus
ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
7. You say you do this with the Axis too, you are talking about attacking in 1941 I believe. Which advantages do you aim for with that tactic?
(have some ideas but would like to hear your reasoning)ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
7. Set up reserve activation for both sides on this. I do with the Germans.
I use reserve activation a lot and from conversations with others I seem to be unusual in this. It is worth reading the algorithm for this. A unit with three movement points left is unlikely to get any activations (or indeed it may be impossible at all). One full of movement points or fuel can get lots. So again it is better to set up the unit for an activation in advance and if on the defence let the enemy come to you - especially in winter. It also means those minor allied cavalry units, whose 20+MPs are lost paying 4 MPs or more to enter an enemy hex in offence, can be quite useful in defence.
Used in offence reserve activation is even rarer - which really means it needs to be prepared for a turn in advance. But in my opinion should be used in all those critical points like crossing the Neva or breaking into Sevastopol. Crossing the Neva should not be done with 6 infantry divisions only, typically I get two more to reserve activate.
The great thing about reserve activations, a bit like air power, is it self selects to when you most need them. They will not commit to hopeless battles or ones you are bound to win any way. So just as a die roll can increase the variation on a battle result, reserve activation can decrease it. And in defence, just as an opponent can select the hex they will attack you on, the reserve activation can selectively defend that hex. It allows units to defend an area and not just one hex leaving their neighbours vulnerable.
ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits
The cost of HQBU does get lower as the turns go on and TOE's get lower I find around turn 10 onwards I can reliably get around 3 HQBU every 2 turns but would likely be dependant on how hard people push their panzer arms
1. The bane of my existence is when Soviet players play against my MP with rivers, ZOC, hedgehog in their defence instead of playing against my CV it always means gains are going to be more limited in aim in the short term and means I have to plan both my moves and Soviet moves ahead of time to get my aims by gauging my opponents reaction and planning for it instead of simply being able to punch through a line and pocket the good stuff and keep moving forward.
I feel when used it is another possible mechanic that can help the attrtional steamroll this games flow has as the effect becomes cumulative for both sides in opposite spectrums as the turns go on and I feel is one of the biggest differences in setting up a Soviet for a strong winter/42 and onwards
2. I do feel like 1 bulwark of strength works well for Soviet atleast again myself when I either mess up/go to slow on piercing lines and level 2 forts start to pop up or if level 2 forts are planned ahead of time as HLYA said
3. Do not do this I just calculate possible avenues of attacks for each thrust, possible gains and all the other things that entails for an hour or two depending on complexity of attack but if it is a simple affair I just go for it after 10 minutes of thinking which is probably dumb
4. I find if a Soviet uses mainly I series with the odd modern fighters only when needed and high pool LB at first and saves most of their modern fighters for when exp/morale is up the game seems to turn into a turtling affair where you cannot knock out the Soviet airforce quickly enough for it to be dulled but as Axis you place far enough back with staging bases that your fighters cannot be sufficiently hit then it becomes a stalemate or a fight over ground support but I am still grasping the more complex mechanics of the air war so I am very sure there are better ways to deal with it
5. I love it when Soviets don't recon means they generally save for a 42 that is less likely to happen and effectively hands an Axis player full reign with initiative which is a killer
6. Same as before if this demands thought I will replan and rethink for as much time is needed but otherwise will just plod along within 10 minutes if I see a quick and easy new options. Again probably dumb [:D]
7. Do not do this much in 41 unless a panzer is in need of extra CV but do not want to put another division ontop of stack (It uses less resources if you reserve though I believe so could have some very nice uses in that regard?)
ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
In terms of balance I think that it is an almost impossible task to achieve 'perfect' balance for two main reasons:
1) The differing skill levels of the player base. There will always be the 'elite' players that are able to get far more out of the game engine than the rest. Because of the nature of the game (see point 2 below) these players tend to have their best success playing as the Axis. The problem is that if you balance the game to reign in those players you end up in a situation where the 'average' players start getting bogged down early on as Axis even when playing opponents of an equivalent skill level.
2) The (understandable) design decision to start the main campaign on 22nd June which by necessity means the Axis player having the first turn. In itself this doesn't unbalance the game but for me it makes it really hard to get balanced games. The first few turns are so fluid that the smallest mistakes (or in the case of 'elite' games the smallest advantage in terms of managing the game engine) can end up snowballing and the game ends up as being over before it has really had a chance to get started.
For me, to have a more 'stable' campaign in terms of balance you would need the game to start somewhere around the current T4 (for example how the forces are set out at the beginning of the Smolensk scenario).
Obviously people want to fight the war from its very beginning and I think it is also fair to say that the early turns are the ones where the game is most fluid and exciting and tactical/operational skill and knowledge of the game engine is best rewarded. But in order to enjoy that I think that the players have to accept that the consequence is that the majority of games will be won/lost in the first 6 months and that from that starting point there will always be problems balancing the game for everyone.
ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
In terms of balance I think that it is an almost impossible task to achieve 'perfect' balance for two main reasons:
1) The differing skill levels of the player base. There will always be the 'elite' players that are able to get far more out of the game engine than the rest. Because of the nature of the game (see point 2 below) these players tend to have their best success playing as the Axis. The problem is that if you balance the game to reign in those players you end up in a situation where the 'average' players start getting bogged down early on as Axis even when playing opponents of an equivalent skill level.
2) The (understandable) design decision to start the main campaign on 22nd June which by necessity means the Axis player having the first turn. In itself this doesn't unbalance the game but for me it makes it really hard to get balanced games. The first few turns are so fluid that the smallest mistakes (or in the case of 'elite' games the smallest advantage in terms of managing the game engine) can end up snowballing and the game ends up as being over before it has really had a chance to get started.
For me, to have a more 'stable' campaign in terms of balance you would need the game to start somewhere around the current T4 (for example how the forces are set out at the beginning of the Smolensk scenario).
Obviously people want to fight the war from its very beginning and I think it is also fair to say that the early turns are the ones where the game is most fluid and exciting and tactical/operational skill and knowledge of the game engine is best rewarded. But in order to enjoy that I think that the players have to accept that the consequence is that the majority of games will be won/lost in the first 6 months and that from that starting point there will always be problems balancing the game for everyone.
