What's the big deal with Admin Points?

[heliodorus04]

Listen, Glvaca, I've been playing the game since December 2010, and I have played a lot of campaigns, both German and Soviet (estimated 6 total, half each side, and at least 3 German campaigns versus AI too).

I've been challenged before, and I get that you think this makes you masculine. I rode 4,000 miles on a bicycle in Colorado hills and mountains last year at an average elevation over 6,000 feet (with asthma). I assert this makes me manly, too. I'll play your game just as soon as you come out here and get on a bicycle with me, mkay? I assert that will just as viably separate the men from the boys between us, wouldn't you agree?

That being said, I've never LOST a game as the Soviets, and in fact, I've never been threatened. On the other hand, I've never won a game as Germany, but I'd bet that if the logistics of Germany weren't tied down to a rail line that is 100% predictable by any decent Soviet player, and the admin problem of 1941 were remedied to the way it historically ought to be in 1941 (i.e., Germany at its administrative best, given it had a year to prepare, and Soviets at its administrative worst given a surprise attack and an illiterate, out-dated peasant army), I might give a great showing of the Wehrmacht.

If you think you're johnny bada$$, then volunteer to take me on as the Soviet giving me the settings I want (400 German admin setting, and either 110 to truck transport or 105 to logistics, you decide. Any settings except Admin that I get over-100, you can add to morale, fortification, vehicles, or logistics as you like in compensation, BUT we set Soviet admin to 95...). There's my counter-challenge. Let me know if you're interested.

You can say I over-state my case, but frankly you're obviously too congealed intellectually to grasp it, and now are punching back like a boy at a paper target (that resides on the internet, no less). Mature. Level-headed...

But no, I can't even take that challenge on, because I'm so sick of Turn one after all the re-starts that post release beta-testing and constant patching required. I've had to abandon and re-start at least 6 games, three of which were against people (i.e., wasting both of our time by starting before a major patch). The only fun I'm having is against the AI with a 400 setting for Admin. Now my armies can be fluid and react to changing circumstances, rather than being stove-piped into the Turn 1 bull**** that "comrade" Gary Grigsby shackled the Germans to.


Now, on to Flavius:
You and I do agree that IF things were changed administratively, then AP allocations would have to be balanced. In saying so, you do not state whether or not you see my point about the Admin differences created for 1941 by these default division change costs. But it's beyond worrying about now, since support of War in the East is now in maintenance mode. The bad parts of WitE are thrown out with the bathwater and the formerly loyal customer base.

You cannot argue that 'eventually Germany sits on a ton of APs' when I am talking about 1941/early 1942.

Point of Fact:
Germany was strongest and best organized for the War in Russia on June 21, 1941. But in gameplay terms, actually Germany can get better organized with the expenditure of APs to sort out the horrible situation with Romanians in 11.Army (and Army Group South), and several others.

But the way Gary Grigsby sees it, he sees no problem with punishing the German army's effectiveness by saddling it behind mechanics that commit Germany to the cumbersome organizational structure it starts with. Look at 8.Corps/9.Army and it's SU situation. Germany starts with 30 APs to try to fix that c1usterf*ck. Thanks Gary! Is that not arbitrary and punitive relative to game design mechanics? Or is there some historical reason that the game mechanics were designed to inflict poor performance on the part of 8.corps (and several others, like every panzer corps in the game) that justifies that AP trap just so you can get 8.corps to use its SUs effectively?

Do you even get that point, Flav? Even before Germany starts turn 1, you're punished by the way GG's mechanics impact OKH's decisions for artillery in 9.army. And these are the kinds of decisions Germany is LOCKED into! All over the place but even when I can make a point, you don't care, because "This will negatively impact the Soviet player" NO SH1T! That's because he already has every in-game advantage already, and that's why I have an in-box (that Matrix can spy on, since it's on their forum, I'd bet) filled with e-mails from German players who quit. I get them every month.

So back to 1941.
Germany starts with this punitive organization, and a cost structure that makes organizing that cost-prohibitive given the other priorities (SU re-allocation, leader re-assignment, fort creation). That's one thing.

The Soviets, each and every turn, can re-assign units where and when necessary for an average cost of 1.2 APs (prior to leadership check). This creates the ability to ensure fresh divisions constantly cycle in and out of your best HQs. This also ensures that any 1941 defensive stack you have can be refocused into 1 army HQ for 2 APs (the first one is in the right HQ, the other 2 will cost an AP), and thus, obviate any command problem for multiple HQs in a combat. THIS is the thing Germany needs (and I bring up the Kampfgruppe, because this is how the game can abstractly reflect the German operational flexibility.

See, I have this habit - again, I use history to justify a capability that the REAL German army had (agility, flexibility), whereas the Sovie-o-phile uses historical anecdote to justify giving the Soviet a-historical capbility (like the ability to retreat a cumbersome, offense-first doctrine, army of illiterate, unskilled peasants whose leadership was constantly looking over its shoulder at the Kommisars pistols into a 1986-Nato style, staggered defense in depth, instantly.)

I've showed how this is important to 1941 German success. It gives Germany the same operational flexibility that the 1941 WitE Soviets already have: Why is it bad for German divisions to do what Soviet divisions do? Why is this a-historical? Why, when Germany is already tied to fixed morale drops, fixed production problems, with fixed withdrawals based on history even when the history deviates at turn 1, must we continue to act as though the 1941 Soviet army isn't WAY more flexible than A) its historical capability, and B) The wehrmacht!? I don't even care about the Soviets: JUST GIVE GERMANY WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE IN THIS INSTANCE.

The only reason I see you giving, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this would negatively impact the Soviet player. I hear that the way I have always heard that: German players' enjoyment does not matter (we are only here to enable the Soviet player a sense of accomplishment), and Soviet players are not to be challenged by things like history or complexity.

There is rank hypocrisy in the 'enforcement' of history in this game, and the bias specifically creates an optimal Soviet army that gets to fight against a tightly constrained (and in fact artificially constricted) German Army.

[Flaviusx]

Helio, set up a game with Micheal T. I bet he'd thrash you.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, set up a game with Micheal T. I bet he'd thrash you.

I'm not having fun, so why play?
Answer me that, and I'll consider it.

Riveting response, by the way.

[Flaviusx]

Helio, you are stuck on this idea that matters are hopeless for the Germans. I'm offering you a chance and an opponent to prove you wrong. There are indeed plenty of AARs where the Axis is doing very well indeed right now. A lot of Soviet players are struggling at present (which is why I have been beating the drum on reserve stance among other things, but I digress.)

For that matter, you could take your chances with Pelton. But I think Micheal T is possibly the stronger German player.

I personally would hesitate seriously in playing Micheal T without him agreeing to random weather, which I doubt he would ever do.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, you are stuck on this idea that matters are hopeless for the Germans. I'm offering you a chance and an opponent to prove you wrong. There are indeed plenty of AARs where the Axis is doing very well indeed right now. A lot of Soviet players are struggling at present (which is why I have been beating the drum on reserve stance among other things, but I digress.)

For that matter, you could take your chances with Pelton. But I think Micheal T is possibly the stronger German player.

I personally would hesitate seriously in playing Micheal T without him agreeing to random weather, which I doubt he would ever do.

The desire to see me beaten in gameplay is derived from the inability to counter my intellectual argument. How I play the game is immaterial to the gameplay points I am discussing. Deal with my argument.

PS: I only play with random weather.

[Flaviusx]

Games are empirical data, Helio, and evidence always trumps argument. I judge it a waste of time to get into this discussion again, because it's been done before.

Somebody out there has figured out how to win with the Germans, and do so consistently. (A lot of somebodies, actually, judging by recent AARs.)

Your best bet, rather than chopping logic with me or anybody else would be to figure out what they are doing and how, and playing them will give you some insight.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, you are stuck on this idea that matters are hopeless for the Germans. I'm offering you a chance and an opponent to prove you wrong. There are indeed plenty of AARs where the Axis is doing very well indeed right now. A lot of Soviet players are struggling at present (which is why I have been beating the drum on reserve stance among other things, but I digress.)

For that matter, you could take your chances with Pelton. But I think Micheal T is possibly the stronger German player.

I personally would hesitate seriously in playing Micheal T without him agreeing to random weather, which I doubt he would ever do.

So your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that if I continue to play without becoming further disillusioned by the the punitive game mechanics German gameplay faces, I might someday develop the skill to belong among the top 5 players of the game (most of whom were beta testers) and then I might find the game fun for Germany?

Again, no thanks. The game did not mention "Not fun for German play or winnable as Germany until you're among the top 5 players."

I agree, if you're among the top 5 players in the game, Germany can be fun, and perhaps 10% of the time can achieve a victory that doesn't feel empty by 1945...

For the rest of us who wanted a competitive wargame where German gameplay options were relatively diverse compared to the historical options, well, War in the East (and by extension I can assume the entire War in the Blank" series) is not for us.

And that, dear readers, is the point of my continued protest. Those of us who wanted a competitive wargame where German gameplay options were relatively diverse were not the intended market for this product, and should consider themselves not welcome among the community.

[randallw]

How do you think this 'illiterate peasant army' trait should be reflected in the game? Do you want experience levels of raw fighting elements ( rifle squad slots, mortar slots, AT gun slots, etc. ) to be really low? They start out at about 30. Or do you want national morale to be lower?

Does this 'illiterate peasant army' include lots of illiterate peasantry among lower ranking officers?

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: fbs


I suspect that the number of truly exceptional generals has been, through history, quite small. I imagine that there were other quite capable generals in the red army - after all, they had a few thousands of them.

LOOOL

I once read something like 3,000-4,000 generals in the red army by end of WW2, but I can't find the reference again. It should be in that range, as the US Army had 38+151+304+476 = 969 generals (grades O-7 to O-10) in active duty as of Jan-2009, for an army size of 1.1 million men (data from US Dept of Labor).

Of course, the number of generals with a field command is much smaller.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, you are stuck on this idea that matters are hopeless for the Germans. I'm offering you a chance and an opponent to prove you wrong. There are indeed plenty of AARs where the Axis is doing very well indeed right now. A lot of Soviet players are struggling at present (which is why I have been beating the drum on reserve stance among other things, but I digress.)

For that matter, you could take your chances with Pelton. But I think Micheal T is possibly the stronger German player.

I personally would hesitate seriously in playing Micheal T without him agreeing to random weather, which I doubt he would ever do.

Now hang on a minute. The challenge was made and I don't need your interference. I can loook after myself thank you very much.

[glvaca]

Helio, Your bycicle story is impressive but has nothing to do with the reason I made the challenge in the first place.

You make a repetitive arguement the Germans don't have a chance. I disagree.
So, simple, let's play and prove your point.
All that BS about other settings than standard is just a way for you to get out of it pretending you have a good reason. You don't.
I'll take the Germans as they can't win according to your position. Standard rules and you can have your random weather too.

Now again, put up or shut up.

[Aurelian]

Doubt it will come about glvaca. It's a comfort for some to not put the claim to the test.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Helio, Your bycicle story is impressive but has nothing to do with the reason I made the challenge in the first place.

You make a repetitive arguement the Germans don't have a chance. I disagree.
So, simple, let's play and prove your point.
All that BS about other settings than standard is just a way for you to get out of it pretending you have a good reason. You don't.
I'll take the Germans as they can't win according to your position. Standard rules and you can have your random weather too.

Now again, put up or shut up.

And again, the reason you challenge me to a game is because you cannot refute my points in reasoned debate, so you resort to the bullying. That's what 5th graders do on a playground. If I don't accept your 'fight' then I'm a coward.

My point isn't particularly that Germany can't "win". There are cases - clearly I cannot make that argument. What I'm saying is that the game is not fun to play for Germany (for me and the market segment of which I am a member), that the Soviet side gets everything handed to it in easy mode, that the given Soviet capabilities in game over the first 12 to 24 months of the war are completely unhinged from history, and that the freedom given the Soviets is made more anti-competitive by the bullshit design decisions that keep Germany railed to a timetable of degradation that is completely unavoidable by the German player.

That's one sentence.
Counter it with your mind, jackass, if you are capable, not your false bravado.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Helio, Your bycicle story is impressive but has nothing to do with the reason I made the challenge in the first place.

You make a repetitive arguement the Germans don't have a chance. I disagree.
So, simple, let's play and prove your point.
All that BS about other settings than standard is just a way for you to get out of it pretending you have a good reason. You don't.
I'll take the Germans as they can't win according to your position. Standard rules and you can have your random weather too.

Now again, put up or shut up.

And again, the reason you challenge me to a game is because you cannot refute my points in reasoned debate, so you resort to the bullying. That's what 5th graders do on a playground. If I don't accept your 'fight' then I'm a coward.

My point isn't particularly that Germany can't "win". There are cases - clearly I cannot make that argument. What I'm saying is that the game is not fun to play for Germany (for me and the market segment of which I am a member), that the Soviet side gets everything handed to it in easy mode, that the given Soviet capabilities in game over the first 12 to 24 months of the war are completely unhinged from history, and that the freedom given the Soviets is made more anti-competitive by the bullshit design decisions that keep Germany railed to a timetable of degradation that is completely unavoidable by the German player.

That's one sentence.
Counter it with your mind, jackass, if you are capable, not your false bravado.

Helio,

3 sentences for you:
Never argue with an idiot,
He will bring you down to his level,
And beat you with experience.

Cheers!

[randallw]

It seems to me, if the Axis player has no fun for most of the later part of the war, that mirrors history. [:D] [;)][:'(]

[randallw]

Whoops, somehow it double posted.

[henri51]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Games are empirical data, Helio, and evidence always trumps argument. I judge it a waste of time to get into this discussion again, because it's been done before.

Somebody out there has figured out how to win with the Germans, and do so consistently. (A lot of somebodies, actually, judging by recent AARs.)

Your best bet, rather than chopping logic with me or anybody else would be to figure out what they are doing and how, and playing them will give you some insight.

Well Flavius, all one has to do is to look at the conditions for the GErmans to avoid a loss (hold on to Berlin). So although some players can indeed "win" the game against the AI, it seems that no one can achieve what the real Germans would have considered a win, that is destroy the Soviet Army. I think that aside from all the heated rhetoric, this is what is being argued: unless one is a fan of playing fighting retreats, playing the Germans in this game is "no fun" after the original Blitzkrieg peters out.

Now in fact there have been historians (and German Generals - including Manstein) that claimed that the Germans COULD have won the war if they had avoided certain mistakes (like splitting AGS between the Caucasus and Stalingrad). But as far as i can tell, the game makes no allowance for any such possibility: I could be wrong, but I don't think that any German player will ever get close enough to Stalingrad to have to make that choice - nor will he be able to make the choice between encircling Kiev or going for Moscow.

Having said this, I still think that this is one of the best wargames of all time, but I strongly suspect that it was designed to be played from the Soviet side. Of course the balance problem remains for pbem play.

What I suggest for those who find playing the Germans too hard is to play the game on "easy". At this level, any half-competent German player should be able to take Moscow and encircle Leningrad by September.

Perhaps it would be possible for the designers to modify the game the give the Germans a better chance for an outright win and also to modify the victory conditions with "what-if" scenarios that might be more or less realistic.

Henri

[karonagames]

@Helio. I really recommend that you take a break from the game, and work on losing your fixation with organising the German army into a perfect model of C&C. In the same way I saw that the huge variance in modified CVs that freaked me out did not really ruin the game, maybe if you took a step back you can see that German army C&C is not the key to having fun as the German.

The point at which C&C and leadership has the most impact is at the korps level, and this is where the Germans have the biggest advantage, as the Soviets soon lose this level of command and have less tiers of command to make the "saving throws". It does not cost very much to run an army of 3/4 division korps. Admittedly it does take longer to construct "perfect" Armies and Army groups, but generally the leader ratings for Army and AG commanders, to help with saving throws,can be adjusted without spending a fortune.

Unlike you I have never seen C&C as the reason for Axis under-performance, as the weaknesses of the logistics model which heavily favours the Axis in 1941 more than compensates for the weaknesses in the C&C model, and there is plenty of evidence that players who exploit the weaknesses in the logistics model can achieve high levels of success. Indeed, it is the over-investment of APs that allows the logistics to be overstretched, so imagine what Axis players could achieve if there were enough APs available for perfect C&C and enhanced logistics.

With regards to the representation of kampfgruppe, you may want to consider that divisions split into regiments in reserve mode that then have SU's attached directly achieve the same function, I have found that motorised infantry regiments with Tiger battalions attached to them very effective in achieving hold results and inflicting significant losses on the attackers.

Despite what you may think, there genuinely are many self-balancing elements within the game. Each time I have stopped playing the game I have come back with a different strategy to compensate for the things that had previously un-balanced the game for me, and in every case, the strategy worked and my enjoyment of the game increased each time I returned after a break.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: henri51



Now in fact there have been historians (and German Generals - including Manstein) that claimed that the Germans COULD have won the war if they had avoided certain mistakes (like splitting AGS between the Caucasus and Stalingrad).

Henri

From what I've read of them though, they depend on the Russians doing the same thing they did in history. We did A, so the Russians did B. Now if we did C, the Russians would do B and we win. (Never occurs to them that the Russians would do D.)

[janh]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...i.e., Germany at its administrative best, given it had a year to prepare, and Soviets at its administrative worst given a surprise attack and an illiterate, out-dated peasant army...

...

Point of Fact:
Germany was strongest and best organized for the War in Russia on June 21, 1941. But in gameplay terms, actually Germany can get better organized with the expenditure of APs to sort out the horrible situation with Romanians in 11.Army (and Army Group South), and several others.

But the way Gary Grigsby sees it, he sees no problem with punishing the German army's effectiveness by saddling it behind mechanics that commit Germany to the cumbersome organizational structure it starts with. Look at 8.Corps/9.Army and it's SU situation. Germany starts with 30 APs to try to fix that c1usterf*ck. Thanks Gary! Is that not arbitrary and punitive relative to game design mechanics? Or is there some historical reason that the game mechanics were designed to inflict poor performance on the part of 8.corps (and several others, like every panzer corps in the game) that justifies that AP trap just so you can get 8.corps to use its SUs effectively?

...

There is rank hypocrisy in the 'enforcement' of history in this game, and the bias specifically creates an optimal Soviet army that gets to fight against a tightly constrained (and in fact artificially constricted) German Army.

I do believe even your "point of fact" is debatable, if not outright simply wrong. The Wehrmacht underwent drastic transformations, and often pre-Kursk 43 it is considered to be at the peak height. Now of course this requires to weigh in importance of Infantry versus Armored parts, the former which were in better shape in 41. As you desire...

The way I interpret the design, looking at the effects of C&C on both sides, is that naturally both sides have potential to improve, but the German C&C starts out much more stable and more capable than the Soviet that finds itself in turmoil just after turn one. The German C&C is in very good shape, that is clear from the outset. It is not perfect, as it probably should not be: also Wehrmacht wasn't manned by geniuses, only, and:

More importantly, by mid June large parts of the Wehrmacht had basically managed a "just-in-time" deployment for the Russian campaign. Some units arrived less than a week before from their deployments in Greece or Yugoslavia in their staging areas, and were still being refreshed. Richthofen's VIII Flieger Korps, for example, made a delay necessary since its transfer from the Mediterranean by train was troubled. All this is also evident from the Wehrmacht force setup, not only if you look at the placement of mobile units for AGS initially, but also the partially imperfect command assignments.

But still, that was what it was, and I would guess that is how Gary & Co seem to have "tuned" the effects of the rules: i.e. that with this slightly suboptimal organization, a "historically comparable" outcome of the campaign ought to be the norm. Perhaps you are being mislead into the thought that the goal and norm is to operate everything every-time at 100% efficiency with no penalties, whereas in truth often things happened just-in-time and were improvised, even in the Wehrmacht.

Besides, the effects that for e.g. a 4 vs. a 5 div Korps has, are being a bit exaggerated in this respect. The penalties, given the excellent officers and die rolls you enjoy already over the Soviets as Wehrmacht, are really not that big in comparison to the advantage in CV that Wehrmacht counters in 41 have over the Soviets anyway. If I were you, I would be arguing about those rules that really make a huge impact in the game, and don't hide in the statistical noise: the harsh way in which these CV suddenly get halved in winter, in addition to the attrition and supply issues, which further hit the combat value of Wehrmacht. Playing Axis that seems a bit "too much/too immediately" -- all my units become very weak overnight. Attrition is fine, supply reduction is perfect, but the CV modifier...uuuh. Wouldn't the attrition and supply issues rather quickly and naturally erode the combat power alone so that the Soviet can successfully attack in blizzard? Or does it really need an "artificial" multiplier?

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
You cannot argue that 'eventually Germany sits on a ton of APs' when I am talking about 1941/early 1942.

I kind of wonder what you are doing with all your APs? Perhaps switching out too many high ranking officers too early? For negligible statistical gains? I tend to be more conservative, and aside from reassigning SUs for the Leningrad, Svevastopol or Moscow assaults, and switching a few aircraft models, I need them in fact largely for HQ build-ups and stocking. Switching out Model is fine, and a few minor reassignments of divisions to prevent Korps HQ overstacking in some cases, but mostly for reattaching mobile formations to obtain most gain from the HQ build-ups. But I usually still have a good AP reserve when entering blizzard!?