Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: sveint

What is really needed is a scenario with a free setup turn for each side.

+1 to that

This issue with the Lvov pocket opening being some sort of issue is silly, as other have already mention.  Do people know what they are really asking for here?  Where does it end?  Maybe the game should control each turn to make sure a historical path is followed by both side.  My goodness, can we please not dilute the developers time with this utter nonsense.  There's several more pressing issues that need to be looked at.

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

This issue with the Lvov pocket opening being some sort of issue is silly, as other have already mention.  Do people know what they are really asking for here?  Where does it end?  Maybe the game should control each turn to make sure a historical path is followed by both side.  My goodness, can we please not dilute the developers time with this utter nonsense.  There's several more pressing issues that need to be looked at.

+1
Germany's invasion was a surprise. You're going to have a lot of pretty toys broken by their invasion, but you'll get 20x more to replace them.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

3. WiTP AE has two start options, IIRC, one of which allows you to start on December 08, after Pearl Harbor. Maybe WITE needs an option to start the Grand Campaign in week 2, with the historical successes of the first week of operations already played out and the surprise factor removed?

I think this would be an excellent option for starting the 1941 campaign in week 2 with all the historical gains implemented etc. It would avoid all the problems with the russian forces in the south being forced to stand still while the germans just drive around and encircle them. witp ae has exactly the same problems if you allow a free for all on the dec 7 turn. The japanese can land next to singapore at rabaul etc knowing full well the weakness of the allied starting garrisons - the whole game start can just move into 'fantasy mode' if you are not careful.

If the week 2 start is impractical ( lot of work to create a new scenario) would it be possible to alter some of the russian starting dispositions on south west front to make the russian defense stronger in this sector ?

I'm calling slight shenanigans on the idea of a Turn 2 start:

You will STILL have the problem that the German will always know exactly what force is facing him, where it is located, and how best to min/max the Soviet/German capabilities of the 'new turn 1'.  It might not be a Lvov pocket, but maybe it would be a Zhitomir pocket, or some such.  Regardless, in the IGOUGO system, the guy who goes first gets an incomparable advantage. The point I'd ask you to take note of is that they only get that incomparable advantage once per game.

An option for a turn 2 start is interesting, but I wonder how many players would really use it. A lot of folks, myself included, would prefer to bake their own cake as it were.

It will be used as often as the turn 2 option in WITP:AE...

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I'm calling slight shenanigans on the idea of a Turn 2 start:

You will STILL have the problem that the German will always know exactly what force is facing him, where it is located, and how best to min/max the Soviet/German capabilities of the 'new turn 1'.  It might not be a Lvov pocket, but maybe it would be a Zhitomir pocket, or some such.  Regardless, in the IGOUGO system, the guy who goes first gets an incomparable advantage. The point I'd ask you to take note of is that they only get that incomparable advantage once per game.

For sure. Anyway you slice it the guy moving first is going to have an advantage in any fixed deployment scheme. As I said before somewhere, a double blind deployment phase prior to game start is the best bet on giving total control to both sides on how they want to start the game.

I'll pass the idea along to Trey...as if he didn't have enough on his plate right now. [:D]

Y'know, we could actually do this in a rough and ready way right now.

The scripted AI for turn 1 has the historical German moves, more or less. Run that, maybe with some settings tweaks, save it, and presto. Won't be exact, but if you want a quick fix...

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

This issue with the Lvov pocket opening being some sort of issue is silly, as other have already mention.  Do people know what they are really asking for here?  Where does it end?  Maybe the game should control each turn to make sure a historical path is followed by both side.  My goodness, can we please not dilute the developers time with this utter nonsense.  There's several more pressing issues that need to be looked at.

+1

I'm also very tired of this discussion about some sort of issue with the Lvov pocket. I've yet to heard one objective argument as to why this is a problem in the game. I've heard a lot of 'subjective' crying by some players about it. If the game mechanics work, the parameters for the eastern conflict are in place, then let the players play.

Will there be some openings that are better than others...sure. Should they all be nerfed? Ummm, you have to be out of your mind to even consider this option. There's no guarantee each pocket will be completely successful.

Of course this discussion goes away if we let players have some freedom of setting up units. But does that mean a player could put all his Pz Grps in the south? Without some limits in a 'free-setup', a new 'can of worms' will be opened and many more people complaining. Of course just make it an optional setting like the random weather, then players can choose historical or free setup.

I'm shocked this issue is even being talked about. Yes plenty of things will happen in this game that are not historic. The main concern should be balance. Does the Lvov pocket on turn 1 unbalance the game and make it harderd on the Russian player than it was historically. The answer is certainly no way. Have some people play out the first 17 turns and look at the results if the German plays it historically and does not do the Lvov pocket. As difficult of a time that they are having think what it will be like otherwise.

LOL. Not interested. 40+ hours of work for one week of advancement from the stock 1941 campaign? No thanks. I'd rather work on something new

Trey

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'll pass the idea along to Trey...as if he didn't have enough on his plate right now. [:D]

I figured as much, Trey. [;)]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

This issue with the Lvov pocket opening being some sort of issue is silly, as other have already mention.  Do people know what they are really asking for here?  Where does it end?  Maybe the game should control each turn to make sure a historical path is followed by both side.  My goodness, can we please not dilute the developers time with this utter nonsense.  There's several more pressing issues that need to be looked at.

+1

+1 No problems here. Time to move on.

In the boardgame FITE there was a variable set up option. It was great until people figured out the optimal Soviet defense which eventually led to the optimal Axis attack.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
3. WiTP AE has two start options, IIRC, one of which allows you to start on December 08, after Pearl Harbor. Maybe WITE needs an option to start the Grand Campaign in week 2, with the historical successes of the first week of operations already played out and the surprise factor removed?

This is kind of good idea but it wont stop German players making new type of totally optimized opening move for week 2 and forming new pockets from week 2 setup.

This optimized start up moves is bit of problem for every turn based game.

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
3. WiTP AE has two start options, IIRC, one of which allows you to start on December 08, after Pearl Harbor. Maybe WITE needs an option to start the Grand Campaign in week 2, with the historical successes of the first week of operations already played out and the surprise factor removed?

This is kind of good idea but it wont stop German players making new type of totally optimized opening move for week 2 and forming new pockets from week 2 setup.

This optimized start up moves is bit of problem for every turn based game.

Only on those IGOUGO where the opponent hasn't the ability to react (automatically or manually) to enemy movements. I made elsewhere the suggestion that a nice refinement for WitE rules would be to have some sort of automatic "operational level" reaction/interception (think of TOAW Local Reserves but tying it to specific areas rather than battles).

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
3. WiTP AE has two start options, IIRC, one of which allows you to start on December 08, after Pearl Harbor. Maybe WITE needs an option to start the Grand Campaign in week 2, with the historical successes of the first week of operations already played out and the surprise factor removed?

This is kind of good idea but it wont stop German players making new type of totally optimized opening move for week 2 and forming new pockets from week 2 setup.

This optimized start up moves is bit of problem for every turn based game.

It's a question of leverage. Surprise turn effects can be leveraged in a way that ordinary turns cannot. You can optimize future turns, sure, but the pay off won't be anywhere near as big or have as huge strategic consequences.

I'm pretty well convinced at this point that the Lvov opening is greatly accelerating the pace of operations in AGS, by a good month or so. It's having a non trivial impact on the game. SW front is just getting wrecked way too easily. Wonder why Soviets are running away so much? Well...because after turn 1 they haven't got a whole lot left to defend with. In real life 2 of the 3 front were demolished from the getgo. The Lvov gambit turns it into 3.