Boring Opening Moves?

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Unlike any other Russian theater game, the PG1 panzer/mech units that are frozen on turn 1 pretty much force the Germans to send at least some help to AGS from AGC on turn 1. Not to do so pretty much means the bulk of good Russian units escapes the initial onslaught.

I just want to note that it is possible to bag the southern forces on the opening turn AND activate the Romanians without using a single AGC unit.

I think this may be part of the OP's complaint though.

WITE openings are starting to look like extremely scaled up chess openings e.g.

follow these steps in *exactly* this order and you can create the AGS only southern pocket on turn one.
follow these steps in *exactly* this order and you can execute the "riga gambit" and get two infantry corps up there on turn one, etc

If the community has min/maxed openings to the point where the game is balanced around a *perfect* german execution of a predictable opening move sequence, then you may as well remove that opening sequence and just start the game a week later.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
If the community has min/maxed openings to the point where the game is balanced around a *perfect* german execution of a predictable opening move sequence, then you may as well remove that opening sequence and just start the game a week later.

All that will do is to shift the perfect plan to turn 2. Not much of a point to it.

In my opinion, the real joy and challenge of gaming is not so much to formulate the "perfect plan" as it is to frustrate it, and undo it.

[abulbulian]

I agree that with a set starting location for units in 41 and predictable weather you'll have people that will have determined an 'optimal' start for both sides.  For some that might not take out the enjoyment initially, but for others that continue to play it will.  I've tried to offer some suggestions regarding optional variants for both sides.  The concept of CARDS, as somebody has pointed out in Ted Raicer's board games is a great way to add a ton of flavor to any WitE game.  Would you be diverging from history in some cases, sure.  Would that make the game less fun or playable?  IMO, absolutely not and would in fact exponentially raise both (re)playability and the fun factor.  With having cards that could be bought with admin points or some other newly introduced point type, you now have a game which will be more unpredictable and could require constant adjustments to your tactics and strategy. 

This is from a previous post of mine:

The basic idea would be it would be a UI toggle to use variants if players desired before starting a game. Each side would have a list of variants with appropriate AP costs that could be activated. Some variants would of course have date ranges.

Here's a sample list for Axis:

- occupation policies lvl 1: less partisans overall (none in Ukraine?)
- occupation policies lvl 2: axis gain Vlasov units ( one a month?)
- winter prep (lvls here too?): axis units suffer less attrition in winter and blizzard turns
- larger Italian commitment to east: Mussolini kisses more Hitler ass and send another Army(?)
- larger Hungarian commitment to east
- larger Romanian commitment to east
- larger Bulgarian commitment to east
- Rommel is not needed in the Med and part/all of his forces (Pz Army Africa) is sent east
- 12th SS Panzer formed a year early ( for Adolf's b-day) and committed to east
- Herman Goring Pz Div committed to east
( can do this for a few more units as well)
- successful propaganda speech to soldiers: all German units get 2-4 point bump in morale?
- auto industry more efficiently convert to war effort: 2500(?) trucks enter motor pool
(could always use same auto industry efficiency for maybe a slight afv increase too_
(can do same for air and tanks)
- successful propaganda recruitment speech: + 50,000 manpower
- rail workers brought over from France to help in east: +1 to axis rail construction units (now 6)

** have many more ideas for axis

Some Soviet ideas:

- Sorge transmits more optimistic report on needed commitments in far east: more Siberian units freed to fight fascists
- western allied lend lease has extra shipment (planes, tanks, trucks, or ?)
- Stalin gives another Great Patriotic speech: all soviet units receive a 5-10 morale bump
- soviet spies infiltrate axis high command: random Army level general is assassinated
- laborers organized successfully: new factory in east (type?)
- Navy converts more men to fighting units: add a few extra naval inf brigades
- civil workers inspired by NVKD and 5 new level 2 forts may be placed on map.

** have many more ideas for soviets


Of course the trick would be the correct cost in APs for each. Probably would have to increase weekly AP amounts receive a bit each week. Also, some of the variants would only be available after or during certain dates.

Just though I'd start a discussion how people might like some optional variants in the game. It would allow for a little 'what ifs', keeping it more to what ifs that could have happened.

A little more detail would be to have different types of cards as well.  Events, reinforcements, battle cards, etc.  So each side has a deck of cards for each year.  Players get a random draw of cards to start each years and can play 1-2? cards each turn provided they have the points to BUY the cards. New cards would fill a players hand at the beginning of the subsequent turn.  Certain cards can only be played once a month (special reinforcements).  Keep in mind there's still the normal reinforcement schedule for both sides, just some what-ifs for reinforcements. 

So one possibility is the Axis player saves up a bunch of points in hope that he gets a winter prep type card (maybe preps 10-20 units or decreases winter effects by a notch?).  But, the Axis player has given up other variants to gain this large variant.  So I'm not intending this concept to throw off play balance with cards that would be too powerful.

Just my thoughts to make WitE playable for decades to come.  After all it's a game and SHOULD be fun and not turn into some type of chore when you decide to play it over and over again.  The possibility for card variants, to some extent, is endless.

[Pawlock]

abulbulian

Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Unlike any other Russian theater game, the PG1 panzer/mech units that are frozen on turn 1 pretty much force the Germans to send at least some help to AGS from AGC on turn 1. Not to do so pretty much means the bulk of good Russian units escapes the initial onslaught.

I just want to note that it is possible to bag the southern forces on the opening turn AND activate the Romanians without using a single AGC unit.

While I acknowledge that PG1 can get to the border and trigger Rumanian activation on turn 1, I have never seen an opening with just AGS units that not only does that, but also pulls off a Kovel pocket as well. There are strong starting forces in the Kovel pocket and these will likely escape with no help from AGC.

In addition, there are likely to be "pocket issues" as well. I don't really consider it a good opening if it takes creating the pocket, have it broken, create it again, etc type of maneuvers. There is simply too much time wasted in waiting to mop up the Lvov pocket if you can't get started on it before turn 3 because you got the pocket broken on turn 1 and had to reestablish on turn 2.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

abulbulian

Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.

Yes, I think it would be almost like a WitE Expansion module. If 2by3 games were looking for another revenue stream this could be one. I think a majority of WitE players would buy it for $19.99.

[:D]

I've already toyed around with the idea of making a Stalin's War campaign driven by card variants in Advanced Tactics Gold with Bill Wheatley. Just a question of allocating the free time, which is at a premium ATM.

[Michael T]

Advanced Third Reich has a similar setup as cards but with 'chits'. Each side has 25 chits that can be randomly drawn from. The player might be allowed to draw say 4 chits, then keep two that he likes. Then start game. Lots of variation, room for surprises and uncertainty.

[DTurtle]

While completely new features might be interesting, I think everybody would agree that such extensive changes would not be implemented any time soon. Instead, the goal has to be to introduce ways - using the current features in the game - to add some variation to the early gameplay. So here are my suggestions:

A very simple way to add some variation to the German turn 1 moves would be to randomize to some extent the movement points that the German units start with. That way there wouldn't be an optimal that could be achieved every time. For example. it might be that the units for the Riga gambit simply do not have the movement points needed. This could be implemented by running a somewhat modified normal supply routine before the first German move.

In order to add some challenge for the Soviet player - after all, we can't just weaken one side - it could be possible to start large parts of the Soviet army in static mode, with greatly decreased activation costs. That way, the Soviet player would be a lot less mobile in the first few turns, such that the German player has a chance of getting additional pockets after the first turn. While the Soviet player inevitably has a much better overview over the situation than the Soviet commanders had in real life, he would still have some hard decisions to make as to what he could save - or maybe how he could prevent a potential pocket from being closed, such that he can activate more units to retreat.

And yes, I do realize that there are some AARs where just recently the whole idea of static units was being decried as terrible.

[henri51]

I am surprised that no one mentioned the main factor making the game practically unwinnable for the Germans: the Russian Winter. The 1941 Winter was the coldest Winter in 50 years, and the mud came much earlier than usual. How about an option where the Russians have the mildest and less muddy Winter in 50 years?

I haven't played this game since last January, when I realized that no matter what I did as the Germans, unless i killed 4 million Russians in my initial offensive, the result of the game was a foregone conclusion: the Winter would stop the Germans dead in their tracks and it would be only a matter of time before the Russians won after a long and boring retreat of the Germans. The Vyazma and Kiev pockets are impossible, and forget about reaching the historical German high water mark.

Henri

[Aussiematto]

Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.

The replay factor comes from playing different opponents no? Or trying different ideas? Hell if we want more replayability in WITE we will all need age-extension treatments LOL.

But, perhaps yes, the version of the game vs the AI (which to be fair a lot of ppl will play only) could be improved with a 'card play' or 'random events'. I'd not want it in a PBEM though.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: henri51

I am surprised that no one mentioned the main factor making the game practically unwinnable for the Germans: the Russian Winter. The 1941 Winter was the coldest Winter in 50 years, and the mud came much earlier than usual. How about an option where the Russians have the mildest and less muddy Winter in 50 years?

I haven't played this game since last January, when I realized that no matter what I did as the Germans, unless i killed 4 million Russians in my initial offensive, the result of the game was a foregone conclusion: the Winter would stop the Germans dead in their tracks and it would be only a matter of time before the Russians won after a long and boring retreat of the Germans. The Vyazma and Kiev pockets are impossible, and forget about reaching the historical German high water mark.

Henri

mega dittos! [&o]

I don't play anymore, just read the forum. [:'(]

IMHO, I would much prefer the standard winter be statistically normalized to the previous 20-100 years (with options for historical).

Why the many, perhaps most, people seem adamant to use only this unusual winter is completely baffing to me!

(For that matter, all of the hard coded asymetrical handling of combat, et. al., is baffling to me) [8|]

[DTurtle]

I'm wondering what the first winter rules have to do with boring opening moves?

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: majeloz

Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.

The replay factor comes from playing different opponents no? Or trying different ideas? Hell if we want more replayability in WITE we will all need age-extension treatments LOL.

But, perhaps yes, the version of the game vs the AI (which to be fair a lot of ppl will play only) could be improved with a 'card play' or 'random events'. I'd not want it in a PBEM though.

I disagree. If you want to give yourself the best chance to win as either side, you're going to try and accomplish the stock moves to do so. There's already some basics for the CG41 that both the Axis and Sov players will try and accomplish. So I don't care who you are playing under the current stock scenarios and non-random weather, you'll be trying to accomplish those standard best win paths.

Sure if you play a noob or an idiot, you can probably have more flexibility to try some other non-optimum strategies. But I think you play WitE long enough, you'll find I'm correct about having variants to keep the game fresh and re-playable.

I don't see randomizing the German movement factors as adding much replay, but more so in adding the opportunity for some serious issues on t#1 for the axis. That turn is very critical and by having a few pz/mot divs with lower than 'at-start' MPs could be very detrimental to play balance.

[Ketza]

The way the game is currently set up Soviet "best moves in 41" completely trump Axis "best moves in 41".

This in my opinion leads to an eventual erosion of the Axis player base and early Axis exits from games.

The game actually portrays the historical situation very well but that is the heart of the problem. No player with any amount of experience as the Soviets will make the same mistakes they made. Most aggressive minded Axis players will get frustrated and quit as they realize they have very little chance for offensive ops in 1942 and 1943 or the opportunity to signifigantly change the historical outcome of the war.

A system of events that could be driven by APs would breathe new life into the system and create greater replayability for the longterm.


Since this option will most likely not be introduced I think some potential changes should be introduced in the GC to make the Axis side more attractive. Bear in mind some of these changes may not be completely historical but they may make for a more enjoyable game for the Axis and a bigger challenge for the Soviet. I also dont think they should all be introduced but perhaps a few. I write this as it looks like I have lost another Axis player this time at turn 12....

1) Harder to move Soviet factories or cut down on Soviet rail the first 3 or 4 turns.

2) Axis units are getting very weak early in the campaign. Earlier versions of the game saw the Axis spearhead units able to take much more punishment. What has happened with the patches as the Soviets get better at tactics Axis mech units are getting pummeled by counterattacks and wearing down to CVs of 5-7 just by moving. This may be historical but the chances of matching historical advances are getting slimmer and slimmer.

3) Free up the Axis frozen mech units in AGS area.

4) Either take away the 1-1 to 2-1 odds shift or make it a random dice roll or something. I find when I play Soviet this makes attacking much to easy.

5) Allow Axis rail movement in Rumania/Hungary turn one. This adds some potential strategic developments to the early campaign.

Just a few thoughts. I love the game and only want it to succeed longterm.

[abulbulian]

Ketza,

Funny you bring up the play-balance issue. When I tried 4 months ago to bring up these issues, their were those that had no problem calling me an Axis 'fan-boy' or saying I didn't know how to play axis. I'm glad those that had been quiet before are now seeing for themselves that there still exists some issues with balance. IMO, a lot of this is caused by Soviet 'ants' and how the can be spawned in depth by spr/sum 42 to make the axis player fight in WWI type bizarre conditions. I blame in part the WitE combat engine which allows it. Just add a simple sanity check on the combat engine to NEVER allow a Soviet ant unit (1k-7k?) to be able to accomplish much of anything when getting hit by 2-3 exp German divisions. Especially in 42 when the Soviet command and communication structure was not doing them in favors in coordinating a defense or offense. Most agree the +1 combat shift for a Soviet offensive should not apply before maybe 43 (or never?). Also, how about introducing the concept of an OVERRUN?? That would end this issue with any side ant type units.

Even with some of the bug fixes to Soviet manpower and some of use remember the terrain def multiplier bug too which was fixed. Sill we're see a very tough time for the axis to be motivated or have the capability to attack in 42 to gain ground. Way too much Soviet arty in 42 is another issue I'm seeing with games.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: henri51
I am surprised that no one mentioned the main factor making the game practically unwinnable for the Germans: the Russian Winter. The 1941 Winter was the coldest Winter in 50 years, and the mud came much earlier than usual. How about an option where the Russians have the mildest and less muddy Winter in 50 years?

I brought this up in the game suggestions thread on page 8 (still no response to it). I am advocating for random weather to be truely random! The German and Russian General Staffs didn't have the thought in the back of their mind during the whole summer 41 campaign that come December, the Russians will be launching a major counter-offensive to take advantage of the unprepared Germans due to an unpredictably cold winter.

I think WitE is a great simulator of the operational aspects of the Eastern Front, but the scope of the game (on a strategic level) is far too predictable. There needs to be some strategic variation and additional options to boost the long-term replayability of the game.

[henri51]

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

I'm wondering what the first winter rules have to do with boring opening moves?

It has to do with the German player knowing in advance what will happen to him when the mud and cold strike, and having to plan accordingly using the aforementioned boring moves.

I like the suggestion to have the random weather based on historical 20-100 year weather, rather than on the present system, where the German can only avoid the historical weather by risking having mud turns in July![:-] The latter is the reason that practically no one uses random weather.

There are other "what-if" possible scenarios, after all everything that happened historically was not pre-ordained. For example, what would have happened if the Germans had attacked earlier? What would have happened if the Germans had not split AGS to attack both the Caucasus and Stalingrad? What would have happened if Manstein were right in his book "Lost Victories" and the Germans had won certain battles (like Kursk) that Manstein claimed could have been won? What would happen if the Soviets were forced to apply Stalin's "not one step back" order thus preventing the best Soviet strategy in the game of preventing encirclements by retreating? There are many other possibioities.

Henri

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
I think this may be part of the OP's complaint though.

WITE openings are starting to look like extremely scaled up chess openings e.g.

follow these steps in *exactly* this order and you can create the AGS only southern pocket on turn one.
follow these steps in *exactly* this order and you can execute the "riga gambit" and get two infantry corps up there on turn one, etc

If the community has min/maxed openings to the point where the game is balanced around a *perfect* german execution of a predictable opening move sequence, then you may as well remove that opening sequence and just start the game a week later.

That is precisely my concern. Only if we get into a situation where doing A gets you X, but B gets you Y, and C gets you Z - and there is a lot of debate about which is better - will we not have the 'chess oppening'. Something on this scale and this complicated shouldn't have chess move openings, and if you have 'the one way to (maybe) win WitE as the Axis - any other way is a much lower chance' you are doing something wrong.

As has been stated elsewehere, bagging a bunch of units on the first couple turns, getting AGN moving for Leningrad fast, and generally starting to push the rest of your forces East ASAP is making for the first turn to be pretty formulaic. There may be better ways of doing it, but they will be found and adopted. Which comes back to the desire for there be more than one way that is just as viable for victory.

As has been stated, by making some of the other cities have short or long term effects other than as sign posts and denying manpower to the Soviets* might go some distance towards correcting that issue.


* Other than Minsk, does any industry get bagged in '41? Right now it all seems to get railed away at no negative impact to the Soviets.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
In my opinion, the real joy and challenge of gaming is not so much to formulate the "perfect plan" as it is to frustrate it, and undo it.

But you can't. Its got almost nothing to do with what the Soviet players does, its about the Axis player executing his first turn moves properly. Perhaps even the first couple turns.

As has been noted, the Soviets do have several options on how to retreat, which is all they want to do, run away - its only a question of how, and that is where things do change in the game. But the Soviet ability to actually harm the Germans through offensive - or even strong defensive - actions in the first few turns is very limited.

In fact the Axis player would like it if the Soviet player sticks around for a stand up fight, means he gets to kill more Russians.

ORIGINAL: Pawlock
Actually I really like the sound of this concept, but Im gonna hazard a guess it its probably gonna be very hard to implement. Hell, Im no developer, I could be wrong, but I think elements of randomness is needed somewhere to get the replayability factor up.

It is a very interesting idea, and does bring interesting things to some board games I play. But you are correct, the engine is written one way now, and any dramatic change is just not going to happen.

I was going to say 'not in the cards', but figured the pun was too bad to use.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
In my opinion, the real joy and challenge of gaming is not so much to formulate the "perfect plan" as it is to frustrate it, and undo it.

But you can't. Its got almost nothing to do with what the Soviet players does, its about the Axis player executing his first turn moves properly. Perhaps even the first couple turns.

Maybe you can't, but other players seem to manage to throw some sand in the gears of the mighty Axis war machine. Some of them may manage it due to skill, some to luck, some to a combination. It's NOT all about the Axis.

Even "chess-like" moves have counters. It's up to the players to show the ingenuity in figuring them out, to the extent that the engine allows. I'm not fool enough to suggest that the Soviet players have it easy in the first few turns, but they do have tools at hand to frustrate and undo those "perfect plans".

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Ketza
The game actually portrays the historical situation very well but that is the heart of the problem. No player with any amount of experience as the Soviets will make the same mistakes they made. Most aggressive minded Axis players will get frustrated and quit as they realize they have very little chance for offensive ops in 1942 and 1943 or the opportunity to signifigantly change the historical outcome of the war.

This is the great flaw of ALL games based on historical events, and why I never call them 'simulations'. The real participants had to deal with a massive amount of unknowns, very few of which we don't have to deal with. I won't bother trying to list the historical unknowns that we don't have to deal with, but I'm sure most anyone on this board could come up with a bunch.

As an example, after the war for a while the USN tried to wargame Midway, and could never reproduce the exact chain of events that occured, that led to the huge victory for the USN over the IJN. Simply there were some decisions made that no one would voluntarily reproduce, and some luck that also played a huge factor. Most likely the biggest factor there was an indecisve Japanese Admiral and the FOW of not knowing where (or even IF) the US carriers were. Plus the blind luck of the Devestator torpedo biombers all coming in alone and getting slaughtered meant the Air Screen was barely above the waves when the Wildcats and Dauntless bombers showed up at high altitude, meaning the bombers had an unimpeded run on the carriers, and the Wildcats had a significant advantage of position on the Zeros.

Now that is a single battle instead of the entire war - although it has been seen as one of those crucial deciding moments of the war - but the premise holds. You can't have the same outcome to the battle unless you force events along a certain path - forcing certain decisions, making certain events of good and bad luck occur at key moments - and if you do that, what is the point in playing at all? I think WitE may perhaps be leaning too much towards the second case.