Musing on 1942

[Revthought]

if you really want t make this type of game a simulation, you need to look to DC:B, where mechanics are added that simulate command and control difficulties and operational constraints. I.e Soviet paralysis and NO moving units between Army groups, or even operating outside their assigned sector. Even then, it's hard to simulate:

1. Real lack of clarity about the final outcome
2. Political risk in abandoning cities
3. The player fearing that their failure to not hold this salient means they will be shot

In the end I like what DC:B has done though, because most games aren't designed to simulate one of the biggest concerns of theatre commanders--the politics of war, command, and national morale.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

if you really want t make this type of game a simulation, you need to look to DC:B, where mechanics are added that simulate command and control difficulties and operational constraints. I.e Soviet paralysis and NO moving units between Army groups, or even operating outside their assigned sector. Even then, it's hard to simulate:

1. Real lack of clarity about the final outcome
2. Political risk in abandoning cities
3. The player fearing that their failure to not hold this salient means they will be shot

In the end I like what DC:B has done though, because most games aren't designed to simulate one of the biggest concerns of theatre commanders--the politics of war, command, and national morale.

To the bitter end solves 2

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: RKhan

I agree with a lot that is said above about the powerlessness of the Soviets.

While the macro level result feels right it is also starting to feel repetitive and I'm a new player. I having been comparing my results to other players via the AARs and find the games very similar in macro level result, almost to the turn. I would prefer a game that allowed more variation in result so long as the variation is tied to my decisions, or my opponents.

It raises the old questions about all historical simulations. I'm of the school that says many things in history, particularly campaigns, would likely have very different results if we could rerun them for real.

Not sure what AAR's your looking at but your WRONG as most are.

There are all kinda of results that are not historical at all.

1. Leningrad falling.
2. Lvov pocket.
3. Moscow falling 41
4. Berlin falling late 44 early 45.
5. Moscow falling in 43 yes great AAR get off your butt and find it.
6. Berlin not falling in May 45

The list goes on and on.

Your full of **** and being completely dishonest.

Spend some time reading ALL the AAR's not just the ones that fit your Middle Earth BS

[Michael T]

these new guys don't know nuckin,

EDTI:

Removed a jovial ditty, it may have offended some

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

these new guys don't know nuckin,

EDTI:

Removed a jovial ditty, it may have offended some

Why?

[charlie0311]

I'm offended!!! "nuckin" is not a word..

Charlie Law. I always win even when my opponents don't think so.

[Revthought]

To the bitter end solves 2

How? It might for a German player who needs to keep the Soviet player as far away from Berlin as possible. Maybe; however, as a Soviet player I will still gladly give the Germans space to preserve manpower and equipment. Apart from a few exceptions there isn't anything the Soviet player cannot survive without in 1941 or 1942 if he's at risk of encirclements and can prevent it by running away.

[chaos45]

Bitter End scenario points are based on turns of occupation so the longer each side holds certain cities the more VPs they get since its per turn.

Gives both sides more reason to fight over key places.

Looking forward to seeing the new patch and what changed once more to me the game is getting very balanced and was already very close to even before 1.08.05

[RKhan]

Pelton the troll, smacking down the noobs! Where the heck did middle-earth come in?

In the same vein: I'm glad you have one thing in life you're good at. Keep with it. I submit I have not spent more of my life playing WITE than some of the original participants spent in the war.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: RKhan

Pelton the troll, smacking down the noobs! Where the heck did middle-earth come in?

In the same vein: I'm glad you have one thing in life you're good at. Keep with it. I submit I have not spent more of my life playing WITE than some of the original participants spent in the war.

well said [;)]

[swkuh]

Thanks, chaos45, for explaining "Bitter End" points. Didn't know and it makes that scenario attractive.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: RKhan

Pelton the troll, smacking down the noobs! Where the heck did middle-earth come in?

In the same vein: I'm glad you have one thing in life you're good at. Keep with it. I submit I have not spent more of my life playing WITE than some of the original participants spent in the war.

Old 1v1=2v1 debate that went on for a good long time.

1v1=2v1 was from turn 1 to turn 211 at one time.

I coined a few phases over the years.

When pigs fly and Middle Earth rule set.

and I don't consider myself that good at WitE compared to the rest of my life

Hot happy wife and we put 3 kids though collage all doing great in their own lifes.

Been lucky as we are all happy and healthy to-date.

Allot of people here (if you spend a little time to get to know them) have very happy lifes outside of WitE ect.

This is simply a hobby and for 2by3 a labor of love, as many people work on game for free.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Bitter End scenario points are based on turns of occupation so the longer each side holds certain cities the more VPs they get since its per turn.

Gives both sides more reason to fight over key places.

Looking forward to seeing the new patch and what changed once more to me the game is getting very balanced and was already very close to even before 1.08.05

I'd have to look at the VP math of the scenario then to see wether clinging to say, Kiev, at the risk of encircling the entire front in 1941 really is worth putting as much effort as the Soviet's actually did.

Or if the scenario tuleset, in general, even minorly imparts the "not one step back" orders commanders on both sides were given. Maybe adding instant political "sudden deaths" could help with this. I.e. Hitler/Stalin are unsatisfied with a players performance on the defensive, and you are thus "replaced."

You'd have to do some work balancing the criteria though. Maybe the ratio of VP locations ceded to losses?

Edit

WiTE is the better, more fun game; however, DC:Bs attempt to integrate the political aspect of Theatre Command is genius. I wouldn't mind in future iterations of WiTE tried to model this, even in a small way.

[Michael T]

Sudden death is the way to go. There is such a scenario and the one I will be playing, with a sudden death HR level for 1941 as well (the official scenario only has SD conditions for 42 on).

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Revthought
I'd have to look at the VP math of the scenario then to see wether clinging to say, Kiev, at the risk of encircling the entire front in 1941 really is worth putting as much effort as the Soviet's actually did.

It's not worth the risk. If you hold Kiev for example for an extra two or three turns you get 80 or 120 extra VPs, but that's a drop in the ocean when you consider that the Germans are likely to occupy the city for something like two years or more. i.e. 4000+ VPs worth.
Stronger incentives are needed.

[Michael T]

Stronger incentives are needed

Yep for sure. That's why I will be introducing SD for 41 in my games going forward. I argued for this in the official SD scenario but it fell on deaf ears.

EDIT: SD for both sides I might add. I detest just as much as the runaway by the Soviet the 'lets prepare for winter in September' by the German.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Stronger incentives are needed

Yep for sure. That's why I will be introducing SD for 41 in my games going forward. I argued for this in the official SD scenario but it fell on deaf ears.

EDIT: SD for both sides I might add. I detest just as much as the runaway by the Soviet the 'lets prepare for winter in September' by the German.

Been using your old SD house rules myself for the last two yrs.

No point in wasting everones time .

[Michael T]

I am going to change them to a VP value in 1941 rather than the capture of Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov/Voronezh. Reason? In my last game as German my opponent gave up the whole country pretty much bar Moscow. He must have had 80% of the Soviet army within 100 miles of Moscow. It was impregnable. But I had overrun a huge chink of European Russia so he was crippled in manpower and industry losses and dying a slow death. So I will calculate the VP value of the line Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov/Voronezh. And whatever value that is, that will be my SD condition for Germany at end November 1941. I will also do another for a Soviet SD VP at end November 1941. Not sure on that line yet. But when I resume playing I refuse to have the possibility of the runaway being a viable strategy. You run you lose. Don't like it, don't play me.

[morvael]

Since Bitter End VP were based on historical dates of conquest/reconquest I think every turn over historical dates matters. But don't hold your breath that BE is super balanced. It's not because that would require several playthroughs with stable (unchanging) base game. What BE will be good at, is for two players to play two games with switched sides (in paraller or one after the other). One with better final VP ratio (from both games) can consider himself a winner. And in this case holding a week or two longer than your opponent also matters.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am going to change them to a VP value in 1941 rather than the capture of Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov/Voronezh.
Reason? In my last game as German my opponent gave up the whole country pretty much bar Moscow.
He must have had 80% of the Soviet army within 100 miles of Moscow. It was impregnable.
But I had overrun a huge chink of European Russia so he was crippled in manpower and industry losses and dying a slow death.
So I will calculate the VP value of the line Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov/Voronezh. And whatever value that is,
that will be my SD condition for Germany at end November 1941. I will also do another for a Soviet SD VP at
end November 1941. Not sure on that line yet. But when I resume playing I refuse to have the possibility of
the runaway being a viable strategy. You run you lose. Don't like it, don't play me.

With tighter logistics/-1 FBD unit its hard to get much past Donet river bend/ Boguchar, Voronezh to Ryazan,
but can be done vs Good or poor Russian players.

only real difference is Moscow.

You can VP out using Sudden Death easly if someone does that now, but you win out in 42 instead of 41. Not sure you can come up with anything fair, games more about KOing people in 42 now.

April 1942
German Victory if victory points are >=242
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=191
April 1943
German Victory if victory points are >=255
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=188
April 1944
German Victory if victory points are >=210
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=150


My game vs Dave we played under VP260 and I was at 258 not taking Moscow, but I would have won in April 43 (257 VP's) and I believe April 44 (218 VP's).


But we used VP 260 game ended in draw

You can still VP out at 260 at any time during game.