Matrix Games Forums

It's 30-36 VPs though, you don't think it's worth it?

ORIGINAL: Rosencrantus

It's 30-36 VPs though, you don't think it's worth it?

If there is a large German force in the Crimea I would leave it and keep going West.

Well if the germans leave a force large enough for the Soviets to bypass it completely, they are probably getting hurt pretty bad on the main front. There's a sweet spot for the Germans to hit between stalling the Soviets and a large force.

its a tricky choice, the Soviets can't write off 30/36 VP, but I think they can take it with a minimal effort, they must have stuff still east of Kerch and a couple of armies on a rotating attack will clear the city over a few turns.

the best I can do, practically, is 2 divisions and a HQ, plus SUs.

And that can't hold against a serious attack. To remove any time bonus I somehow need to hold it to T154 (so a mere 47 turns) and that is just not going to happen.

Going by my HWM workings, I need to keep the Soviets under 24 bonus pts, assuming I can cling to the Rumanian VP cities. I worked out vs AI how to do that, and actually keep eastern Rumania under control too at the point of Rumanian surrnder - thats good for all sorts of reasons, not least the less of the Rumanian rail net that they get undamaged, the worse their problems in Hungary become (& unless the Soviet player knows the logistics system, Hungary is going to be grim in any case).

I don't think I can push them under 24, the Dneipr bend will be gone by October and then Helsinki (a guarenteed +6) plus Talinin and Pskov (that I somehow need to hold into late Summer 1944) remove that test. There's no point having fantasiess of holding onto any VP locations east of the 1941 start line by 1 Jan 1945.

This is why I'd never play without the VP system, it adds a rich layer to the game in terms of analysis and setting the tempo.

In this case, I don't think I can deny the 36 VP unless I seriously stall the Soviets east of Dnepropetrovsk, so its then a judgement, are 2 good German divisions better on the Bug/Dnestr or locked up in a secondary fortress? I know I get them back if the city falls (unless I've already lost Constanta) so its a case of best use over the next 40+ turns.

I don't think the Soviets have to worry that much about taking the VPs. Those are guaranteed to fall sooner or later. They just need to remove more and more Axis forces from the equation, at which point they'll take the VPs without much fuss. If the Axis preemptively retreat to more favourable defensive locations, then the VPs fall anyway.

ORIGINAL: Jango32

I don't think the Soviets have to worry that much about taking the VPs. Those are guaranteed to fall sooner or later. They just need to remove more and more Axis forces from the equation, at which point they'll take the VPs without much fuss. If the Axis preemptively retreat to more favourable defensive locations, then the VPs fall anyway.

I agree, they have a game year (pretty much to take Sevastopol) so its at their leisure.

From experience, I can hold a fair bit over 1943 but come 1944 its a matter of retreating, I'll need to use the PGr divisions just to hold the line in places which makes anything but the most limited of counter-attacks off the menu.

So, assuming no massive collapse, I can mostly avoid outright lost divisions for some time, sort of control my retreat and that puts the auto-win values out of reach till places like Budapest start to fall. Vs the Axis AI I would have got a win in April 45 that way as I had all the 30 VP locations - in that game I took Berlin at the end of March so won on that rule.

So if auto-win is probably out of reach (before 1945) and vs HWM utterly implausible then we are looking at the Berlin tests and a game that may well go into 1945 ... which is rather good and far better than I thought I was looking at in June 42.

I agree. I think this will go into 1945. I also think (from my perspective of the Axis forces I’ve faced in 42/43) that a WW1 defence set up in 1942, with strong level 3 forts, forces not strung out in some wild gamble to the east, close to a fully restored supply network is the way to go for Axis. I naturally haven’t tested that just based on what I’ve had to face. Either that or I’m just a **** player and massively underperforming vs what I’m facing

Caveat = if Axis are close to an auto victory then no need to go WW1 defence

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

I agree. I think this will go into 1945. I also think (from my perspective of the Axis forces I’ve faced in 42/43) that a WW1 defence set up in 1942, with strong level 3 forts, forces not strung out in some wild gamble to the east, close to a fully restored supply network is the way to go for Axis. I naturally haven’t tested that just based on what I’ve had to face. Either that or I’m just a **** player and massively underperforming vs what I’m facing

Caveat = if Axis are close to an auto victory then no need to go WW1 defence

This is why I keep on arguing that there is no substitute for playing the game as designed - ie its not some T1-12 thing to bail from if the axis don't already have an auto win. The transition points can be partly tested in Stal-Berlin but neither side is going to enter Nov 42 where the historical war was.

Here, I'm now looking at a situation where maybe 30-40 more points would make the HWM test more important, still unlikely to get a win there but its something that imposes the need to take risks on the Soviets.

This is now my fourth GC going into the late mid-game (2 Soviet, 1 Axis) and it gives me a framework to judge trends (& of course get them wrong). I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can.

its also why I didn't suggest an end in Spring 42 despite this sort of analysis

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I see you two are still bashing each other from the beginning of release ;-P Will see what rabbit Loki pulls out of the hat here in a few turns of how 42' may show what the year has in store. But I have my hypothesis already. ...

the game is far less linear than WiTE1

now given I didn't get those VPs (& not for lack of trying), I do have another, different, advantage. The northern half of the front is locked down, I doubt you have sufficient first rate assets to really push there and in the Ukraine (do hope I'm right on this). In the south, you can't play with my Pzrs in the open so while you could cut open gaps and exploit, there would be a price to pay.

As you say, I'm sat on a first rate logistics infrastructure ... now if E-Adolf would get on with those wonder weapons we'll be in Moscow by 1944 ..

Roger

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

I agree. I think this will go into 1945. I also think (from my perspective of the Axis forces I’ve faced in 42/43) that a WW1 defence set up in 1942, with strong level 3 forts, forces not strung out in some wild gamble to the east, close to a fully restored supply network is the way to go for Axis. I naturally haven’t tested that just based on what I’ve had to face. Either that or I’m just a **** player and massively underperforming vs what I’m facing

Caveat = if Axis are close to an auto victory then no need to go WW1 defence

This is why I keep on arguing that there is no substitute for playing the game as designed - ie its not some T1-12 thing to bail from if the axis don't already have an auto win. The transition points can be partly tested in Stal-Berlin but neither side is going to enter Nov 42 where the historical war was.

Here, I'm now looking at a situation where maybe 30-40 more points would make the HWM test more important, still unlikely to get a win there but its something that imposes the need to take risks on the Soviets.

This is now my fourth GC going into the late mid-game (2 Soviet, 1 Axis) and it gives me a framework to judge trends (& of course get them wrong). I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can.

its also why I didn't suggest an end in Spring 42 despite this sort of analysis

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I see you two are still bashing each other from the beginning of release ;-P Will see what rabbit Loki pulls out of the hat here in a few turns of how 42' may show what the year has in store. But I have my hypothesis already. ...

the game is far less linear than WiTE1

now given I didn't get those VPs (& not for lack of trying), I do have another, different, advantage. The northern half of the front is locked down, I doubt you have sufficient first rate assets to really push there and in the Ukraine (do hope I'm right on this). In the south, you can't play with my Pzrs in the open so while you could cut open gaps and exploit, there would be a price to pay.

As you say, I'm sat on a first rate logistics infrastructure ... now if E-Adolf would get on with those wonder weapons we'll be in Moscow by 1944 ..

Roger

The whole game is scripted(less scripted when playing with full control of TB). Thus, WITE2 it is just as linear (I give you your words, "I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can" There is a deviation but that deviation is what sits in front of the monitor.

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
...

The whole game is scripted(less scripted when playing with full control of TB). Thus, WITE2 it is just as linear (I give you your words, "I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can" There is a deviation but that deviation is what sits in front of the monitor.

well I'm sure you'll forgive me for not being convinced by your statement, at the end of the day you have no experience of this phase of the game (with either side).

yes of course I'm heading for trouble as the NM dips, but I've managed to, for the moment, turn around what you'd decided was resolved ('I have my hypothesis already') to the point where its looking like the decision point falls into 1945. Now it could slip again, certainly would if I got overconfident or managed to trash a core of my armoured formations in a mistake. So the shape of tha trouble is up for grabs

And that is one huge reversal, and not something that was really feasible in WiTE1? Now till I'd played my AI game to 1945 I was pretty convinced where I sat in early 1942 was disastrous - I still think it was pretty dire. But I've had some of the moving parts go against me and slotted others into place to compensate.

Plus you’ve had an incompetent opponent according to some[;)] Uncle Joe has even threatened to limit my vodka rations!

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

I agree. I think this will go into 1945. I also think (from my perspective of the Axis forces I’ve faced in 42/43) that a WW1 defence set up in 1942, with strong level 3 forts, forces not strung out in some wild gamble to the east, close to a fully restored supply network is the way to go for Axis. I naturally haven’t tested that just based on what I’ve had to face. Either that or I’m just a **** player and massively underperforming vs what I’m facing

Caveat = if Axis are close to an auto victory then no need to go WW1 defence

This is why I keep on arguing that there is no substitute for playing the game as designed - ie its not some T1-12 thing to bail from if the axis don't already have an auto win. The transition points can be partly tested in Stal-Berlin but neither side is going to enter Nov 42 where the historical war was.

Here, I'm now looking at a situation where maybe 30-40 more points would make the HWM test more important, still unlikely to get a win there but its something that imposes the need to take risks on the Soviets.

This is now my fourth GC going into the late mid-game (2 Soviet, 1 Axis) and it gives me a framework to judge trends (& of course get them wrong). I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can.

its also why I didn't suggest an end in Spring 42 despite this sort of analysis

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I see you two are still bashing each other from the beginning of release ;-P Will see what rabbit Loki pulls out of the hat here in a few turns of how 42' may show what the year has in store. But I have my hypothesis already. ...

the game is far less linear than WiTE1

now given I didn't get those VPs (& not for lack of trying), I do have another, different, advantage. The northern half of the front is locked down, I doubt you have sufficient first rate assets to really push there and in the Ukraine (do hope I'm right on this). In the south, you can't play with my Pzrs in the open so while you could cut open gaps and exploit, there would be a price to pay.

As you say, I'm sat on a first rate logistics infrastructure ... now if E-Adolf would get on with those wonder weapons we'll be in Moscow by 1944 ..

Roger

The whole game is scripted(less scripted when playing with full control of TB). Thus, WITE2 it is just as linear (I give you your words, "I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can" There is a deviation but that deviation is what sits in front of the monitor.

If I’d have known it was scripted I would have just sat back and let the AI save me weeks of my life playing. Darn it

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
...

The whole game is scripted(less scripted when playing with full control of TB). Thus, WITE2 it is just as linear (I give you your words, "I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can" There is a deviation but that deviation is what sits in front of the monitor.

well I'm sure you'll forgive me for not being convinced by your statement, at the end of the day you have no experience of this phase of the game (with either side).

yes of course I'm heading for trouble as the NM dips, but I've managed to, for the moment, turn around what you'd decided was resolved ('I have my hypothesis already') to the point where its looking like the decision point falls into 1945. Now it could slip again, certainly would if I got overconfident or managed to trash a core of my armoured formations in a mistake. So the shape of tha trouble is up for grabs

And that is one huge reversal, and not something that was really feasible in WiTE1? Now till I'd played my AI game to 1945 I was pretty convinced where I sat in early 1942 was disastrous - I still think it was pretty dire. But I've had some of the moving parts go against me and slotted others into place to compensate.

You have "NO CLUE" what I have experience with or not. I may not have written items on this forum late game, which you are using as proof of no experience, but I most sure-able do have experience late game on BOTH sides. It was a shot in the dark by you to downplay me and it is TOTALLY WRONG as usual. As for convincing you I care not, it really isn't for you anyway and as always I will be proven correct later down the road.

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: loki100




This is why I keep on arguing that there is no substitute for playing the game as designed - ie its not some T1-12 thing to bail from if the axis don't already have an auto win. The transition points can be partly tested in Stal-Berlin but neither side is going to enter Nov 42 where the historical war was.

Here, I'm now looking at a situation where maybe 30-40 more points would make the HWM test more important, still unlikely to get a win there but its something that imposes the need to take risks on the Soviets.

This is now my fourth GC going into the late mid-game (2 Soviet, 1 Axis) and it gives me a framework to judge trends (& of course get them wrong). I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can.

its also why I didn't suggest an end in Spring 42 despite this sort of analysis



the game is far less linear than WiTE1

now given I didn't get those VPs (& not for lack of trying), I do have another, different, advantage. The northern half of the front is locked down, I doubt you have sufficient first rate assets to really push there and in the Ukraine (do hope I'm right on this). In the south, you can't play with my Pzrs in the open so while you could cut open gaps and exploit, there would be a price to pay.

As you say, I'm sat on a first rate logistics infrastructure ... now if E-Adolf would get on with those wonder weapons we'll be in Moscow by 1944 ..

Roger

The whole game is scripted(less scripted when playing with full control of TB). Thus, WITE2 it is just as linear (I give you your words, "I've got a pretty good idea when the German army is going to start falling apart so I'm trying to get as much out of it now as I can" There is a deviation but that deviation is what sits in front of the monitor.

If I’d have known it was scripted I would have just sat back and let the AI save me weeks of my life playing. Darn it

Are you playing the AI? No, you are not. At least that is what this AAR is supposed to be showing. OMG wake up people. What is scripted are the reinforcements. Right? Yes. Thus every game has the same scripted scenario played out (unless using full TB control) and the only deviation are the people playing the sides. So the stage is set for a scripted game using that reinforcements schedule. Sheesh, I would think you would know that

..

can I strongly suggest

a) calm down, this is not your AAR. this sort of comment really is on the border of acceptable

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

You have "NO CLUE" what I have experience with or not. ... It was a shot in the dark by you to downplay me and it is TOTALLY WRONG as usual.

b) I personally would never make a claim like

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

as always I will be proven correct later down the road.

really? You are never wrong in your analysis of a game this complex? I make innumerable errors of interpretation in terms of cause/effect, I even misremember rules some of the time. You are vastly overclaiming, you have no experience of this stage of the game MP (& by your own claims, never play vs AI)


I mean, yes, since I don't like to play with TB control, I know that the reinforcements and NM are mostly hard wired, that still leaves a huge amount of player agency

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

...
Are you playing the AI? No, you are not. At least that is what this AAR is supposed to be showing. OMG wake up people. What is scripted are the reinforcements. Right? Yes. Thus every game has the same scripted scenario played out (unless using full TB control) and the only deviation are the people playing the sides. So the stage is set for a scripted game using that reinforcements schedule. Sheesh, I would think you would know that

and, as ever, vs AI games are completely valid

ORIGINAL: loki100

can I strongly suggest

a) calm down, this is not your AAR
b) I personally would never make a claim like

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

as always I will be proven correct later down the road.

really? You are never wrong in your analysis of a game this complex? I make innumerable errors of interpretation in terms of cause/effect, I even misremember rules some of the time

I am not wrong on what I said. I do admit when I am wrong but not on that one. It will play out.

Your AAR or not will comment to your accusation that I had no experience.

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: loki100

can I strongly suggest

a) calm down, this is not your AAR
b) I personally would never make a claim like

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

as always I will be proven correct later down the road.

really? You are never wrong in your analysis of a game this complex? I make innumerable errors of interpretation in terms of cause/effect, I even misremember rules some of the time

I am not wrong on what I said. I do admit when I am wrong but not on that one. It will play out.

Your AAR or not will comment to your accusation that I had no experience.

ok, you have an insight I'm lacking. Fine, describe it, show why my view this game is heading for a 1945 end is so clearly wrong. I can't see it, unless I do something catastrophic, Steven can't get near the auto-win pts till April(I know this from playing out full 1941 GC as the Soviets - that target is out of reach till you collect Budapest. Vienna etc)

this is an AAR, since the game play is rather mired at the moment, a well informed discussion of that position in terms of the VP system is very useful

ORIGINAL: loki100



can I strongly suggest

a) calm down, this is not your AAR. this sort of comment really is on the border of acceptable

So you can take this to another thread and link it if you like. But when you "blatantly" lie to the forum in your AAR that I have no experience in this thread then that IS lying and will comment.

Guys, have some "Peace and Love" please!!! The two of you are amongst the most valued posters on this forum - it really doesn't do the game's community any favours to have you at each other's throats. Like my gran used to say - if you've got nothing nice to say say nothing at all.

I think the idea of the game being scripted is an interesting one - the way I see it is that (with the VP system in place) any game that goes into 44/45 is going to feel 'scripted'. As any major departure from the historical 'script' will result in a sudden death victory for one side or the other. So if you have two roughly equal players the tide will inevitably turn against the Axis in late 42/1943. For me at least if that is happening that is not a negative thing about the game being 'scripted' but a positive thing that the game is reflecting the historical reality???

As far as I can tell from the AARs that have been posted if there is a large enough gap in player ability the game will go 'off script' and will end either by sudden death or by resignation.