Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But at this point we've moved on to a fantasy game, not a historical wargame,

This is the way I feel about it. And also the reason way I don't really play it anymore.

I still do, but only against the AI. No Lvov. No running. No silly house rules.

Till I get bored and go back to Civ5

The thing is, I'm not sure the AI can take all the rules changes that been made to the campaign game so far. The last time I played as the Germans against the Russian AI on challenging difficulty I quit playing after the Russian winter offensive. Because there was no Russian winter offensive. And I knew I won the game already.[>:]

I am thinking about trying a game that's closer to the original design. Like version 1.03 or something and see how it is after the Russian winter offensive. Can't be as bad as it is now were there is no winter offensive.

I recently tried a solo game on 125/100 as the Sovs...but it was like stealing candy from a baby. I wiped out an entire panzer group by turn 10 and kind of lost interest after that.

I may need to go all the way back up to hard and not only give the Germans steroids, but tie one arm behind my back on 85. The last time I tried that AI gave me real problems.

Any experienced player that wants to be pushed should be playing the game at Hard. Challenging should be just that for casual players that have gotten familiar with the game, but for the vets, it's going to be too easy. Also, remember that the attacking side, especially one attacking with finesse and not numbers is going the be harder for the AI to play, so the play level has to be boosted even more when playing against the German AI in the early years. With the appropriate amount of help given your skill level we think the computer can put up a decent fight.

I think the best way is probably to have one scenario that's setup for single player and another that's setup for multiplayer.

I want the Russian to counterattack in 41 even if it a total fail. I want to see the Russian do human wave attacks that wear down German units.
I want the Russian to surround German troops into pockets in the winter of 41/42 and the entire front line is in total chaos as the Germans try to hold out in a last stand fight or relief operation.
I want the Russian to have a chance to surround and destroy AG Center in battle and not just push the Germans back in the south. I want the Germans to recover in the spring and summer of 42. And launch a major offensive. But not along the entire front.
I want the unending Russian costly counterattack and offensives of 42. I want the war to go back and forth.
I want.
I want.
I want.

good point.

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

The point is to re-create the situation that existed and to enjoy the challenge of experiencing (at second hand) the difficulties experienced managing the combat not to find gamey ways to "win" in my view.

This is one way of playing the game. But I don't understand why so many people are trashing Axis players who try to think out of the box. Playing the game your way is fine but in my opinion it gets boring very quickly. Why not adept to the Axis strategy and come up with a counter? Isn't that what the game is all about.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I recently tried a solo game on 125/100 as the Sovs...but it was like stealing candy from a baby. I wiped out an entire panzer group by turn 10 and kind of lost interest after that.

I may need to go all the way back up to hard and not only give the Germans steroids, but tie one arm behind my back on 85. The last time I tried that AI gave me real problems.

Realise this is dependent on your own abilities but using these settings:



By the start of the winter campaign season in late 1944, the main front is:




In addition, in Hungary I'm at the gates of Budapest.

The AI has gone through a number of shifts. In 1941 it was over-aggressive but very hard to fend off, in 1942 it collected 60-70% of its Panzers in a single sector, and drove me back badly (and had picked my weakest sector). The only problem was it chose to put all this effort into a grand campaign to take Cherepovets and Rybinsk. In 1943 it shifted to a very effective mobile defense with the Panzers well back and acting as a firebrigade (reserve activation) as well as being aggressive if I stuck my nose out too far.

1944 was a bit of a disappointment as its been running for most of the year - but I think it overdid the commitment to defending all its gains in 1943.

Having said that, at the moment its heading for a draw/minor victory - depends on how much I can gain before the mud sets in again.



ignore this image - it just seems to be needed to make the rest show

as a small grumble, it would help if the forum software supported the usual html for embedding images from a hosting site

Interesting, but I think I need to actually handicap myself. Those slightly custom settings aren't much different than an across the board 125.

The problem is, the AI's flank security is kind of lax and I know how to set traps for it. It will drive its motorized units right into situations where they can be trapped, surrounded, and destroyed. It is indeed hyperaggressive...that is perhaps the issue.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Interesting, but I think I need to actually handicap myself. Those slightly custom settings aren't much different than an across the board 125.

The problem is, the AI's flank security is kind of lax and I know how to set traps for it. It will drive its motorized units right into situations where they can be trapped, surrounded, and destroyed. It is indeed hyperaggressive...that is perhaps the issue.

my logic was this was my first full campaign and, from the Soviet side, I wanted a default baseline that I could work from to what to expect in PBEM (hence the 100s down my side).

I do think the AI is too aggressive, or maybe needs a 'mud-warning'. The good thing in 41-2 was it went hunting for weak spots and exploiting them mercilessly. The bad thing was this over-rode any other concept, hence that impressive 1942 summer offensive was in the far north - when a conventional southern strategy or an attritional battle for Moscow would have been better choices.

The problem with the aggression in 1941 was its final breakthrough around Bryansk put 3-4 Pzr and Mot divs into my rear - dislodged most of my HQ and airbase network - but they were abandoned in a sea of mud, giving me an easy cull once their CVs had dipped.

I was very impressed though when for the first 3 blizzard turns the AI did a neat 2 hex fall back across most the front.

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer







This is the way I feel about it. And also the reason way I don't really play it anymore.

I still do, but only against the AI. No Lvov. No running. No silly house rules.

Till I get bored and go back to Civ5

The thing is, I'm not sure the AI can take all the rules changes that been made to the campaign game so far. The last time I played as the Germans against the Russian AI on challenging difficulty I quit playing after the Russian winter offensive. Because there was no Russian winter offensive. And I knew I won the game already.[>:]

I am thinking about trying a game that's closer to the original design. Like version 1.03 or something and see how it is after the Russian winter offensive. Can't be as bad as it is now were there is no winter offensive.

I play the Sovs . Maybe 1.03, or whatever the setup version is would be better AI wise?

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
I play the Sovs . Maybe 1.03, or whatever the setup version is would be better AI wise?

Maybe... I don't know.

It takes so long to get to the winter turns. And so many other games I want to spend time on like Strategic Command AoD and Civ 5.

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
I play the Sovs . Maybe 1.03, or whatever the setup version is would be better AI wise?

Maybe... I don't know.

It takes so long to get to the winter turns. And so many other games I want to spend time on like Strategic Command AoD and Civ 5.

Got SC WW1 and the Breakthrough expansion myself. Like it so far.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

My view to the letter.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

My view to the letter.

Mine as well.