HQ Buildup in 1.08

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: loki100


Aurelian's comment way back in this thread is valid. In AGEOD's ACW if a Union player just builds up in the east, sends the best commanders over there, then its game over in 1862. AGEOD are working on a possible solution but of course the best is if you want a plausible (realistic) tussle then simply don't do it. In WiTE I'd suggest that German players forego the Lvov trick and Soviet players don't rail SW Front to Leningrad. That alone will get things more balanced.

The South can do it too. And with better leaders and brigades, it's game over before the first winter. (It was done to me.. )

... .

aye to me too, as we'd agreed some rules to force the Union not to prioritise the east, as well as a general discussion that we didn't want this to happen, I was less than impressed when I found myself outnumbered 2-1 come September 1861 in the East.

which of course supports your second observation:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The problem is if you run into a rules lawyer, one who games the system, and you don't, you're toast. And then you have the ones who want to put restrictions on how the Soviets play because they want to be a Guderian. (Stalin didn't run away, so you can't either. To which I'll say, "Well Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad was never taken so you can't take either.")

The designers, and I addressed this long ago, deliberately did not want either side to be hamstrung with Hitler/Stalin boobery. So you get to make your own boobery.

But forcing such? No.

I actually think a lot of German players are missing the importance of the lower Soviet industry multipliers and the resulting need to extract more HI means its harder for the Soviets to run in 1941. And then as M60A3TTS says rightly, that 40 NM in the summer of 1942 is like having the bottom kicked out of a boat (and I can assure you, you really do not want to see what 38 does to the Red Army [8D]).

So the old mindset of what was needed to achieve in 1941 in order to win or draw I think needs a lot of reconsideration. And thats before, as Morveal says, you get into differentials of skill etc.

[darbycmcd]

The problem with the 'difference in skills' as a method of balance tuning, is it is still just treating it like a game that has to be balanced for each player to 'win'. Traditionally, wargames use victory conditions to do that, but try to present players with historically accurate-ish force capabilities. It is way easier to just say, look this is how far an armored division could move over a week in a move to contact posture. and, well, soviet rail capacity meant they could move about this many tons of equipment a week.

Moravel, you mentioned that you read a book which had the Germans doing the equivalent of HQBU, what was that in your mind? It is just so we know what we are really talking about. The thing is, I always assumed it was forward stockpiling of supply, primarily munitions, for offensive operations. It is not clear to me how that should work to give mechanized formations the 50 MPs they get. Over one week, the logistics trail to move all that extra supply forward with the spearhead would be.... difficult. Most of the problem is the really far too high MP allowance of German mech/mot units, they can cruise through 100s of km of enemy territory. Combined with hex conversion (which sort of suggests that there are forces in the hex to prevent enemy movement/supply) it ends up being too much. But I get that it is the way it is.

In the end you are right, ultimately it is just better to find a player that agrees with you about the way it should be played. And by the way, I really do appreciate the work you have put in on the game, it continues to improve mostly through your work.

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, I've revisited past posts and discussed this with Pelton in private. He has edited his original post, posted an apology and understands that he caused damage to the community, which was not his intention. While I would not normally revisit this decision, had I seen the older post before I made my decision it would have warranted a ban. As a result, I've decided to ban Pelton from the forums for one week and he has promised to stay within the forum rules when he returns. I feel his apology is sincere and I hope he will earn a second chance when he returns.

If there are any further issues like this, please let me know at erikr@matrixgames.com.

Regards,

- Erik

[micheljq]

Just my little 2 cents, Oshawott most forums have an ignore feature that allow you to not see the comments of a particular member. This is practical if someone's comments are offensive, or rude, you suffer intimidation, etc. I am not sure if this forum has the feature, you can check with admins.

Michel

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Just my little 2 cents, Oshawott most forums have an ignore feature that allow you to not see the comments of a particular member. This is practical if someone's comments are offensive, or rude, you suffer intimidation, etc. I am not sure if this forum has the feature, you can check with admins.

Michel

There is that little green button. But since *everyone* who doesn't use it can read the post, it is *not* a solution.

[micheljq]

I did use it on a couple of occasions. In MMOs, online games like CoH2 and MWO (where there are a lot of immature people), one other forum not related to here at least. It is a great feature, if a member wants to lower himself down(I don't pinpoint anybody). I do not have to read the posts, if others read it I don't really care it is their choice and their problem. But i mean it is for heavy cases.

Michel.

[darbycmcd]

Eric, you might think his apology was sincere, but he has been posting with a different username for the last 4 days.... seems to indicate a certain lack of sincerity.

I am just so aware of how game forums can melt down, and it is definitely linked to a type of behavior that would be very sad to see here at matrix. I think it is great that more games are offered on steam for example, and you are reaching out to a broader audience with different games, but posts with rants and namecalling, lots of emoji and little substance are going to lose you your core.

[Wuffer]

Did somebody else has anything to contribute, which is at least that little bit useful?

[>:]
[>:][>:][>:]

[KamilS]

Wuffer

Did somebody else has anything to contribute, which is at least that little bit useful?

hehe, it doesn't seem so


I think introducing 20 hexes instead of 20 MP wasn't good idea.

Additionally I would like to see nerf of air-supply and increase cost of armament industry evacuation.

[charlie0311]

Hey Wuffer,

Might be "useful" if you weren't going to sit in judgement over what other guys post. Ya know, to encourage participation.

Taking my own advice, feel free to comment on the usefulness of my suggestion. Post away.

On HQBU. New version(s) you can move the HQ before the build up, massive change.

[darbycmcd]

I think Wuffer is just giving an example, and an excellent one, of what we are all worried this forum can become. Thanks for the good work.

Kamil and Charlie, I agree with both of you on all points re HQBU. I am curious about the reason for the changes. 20 hexes vice MP doesn't make any sense to me, of course conditions should make it more difficult to stockpile supply, the german logistics trail was notorious for having problems keeping up because of the conditions. Air supply should not drop fuel, full stop, and it overstates the capacity even for normal supplies. Much of the problem is the way airfields are shown (they aren't) as completely mobile. But I think these things are better in WitW and will be better for WitE 2... fingers crossed.

I also agree with Kamil that arm factories are too easy to move now. Even in my disaster game, I managed to evac nearly all the factories. The extra turn of waiting makes the situation more tense, but it seems still a bit easy. And dialing down the Sov ability to bug out factories would make them think harder about more forward defense, at least to delay a bit longer. I think I remember the devs saying that Sov production was sort of calibrated to match historical if they lose about 50% of the on-board factories... but I don't think many sov players do. Something to think about.

Charlie, you are right about HQ moving, it is a big change and also doesn't make sense. I mean, the HQ has literally hundreds of extra tons of supply sitting around, how is it moving those forward at all? It should be a turn of no move, to represent prep for the buildup, then no move without losing most of it, at least what it can't carry organically. It is the same with motorized divs. In the game, extra fuel means massive move allowance. But how are they moving all that extra fuel? Giving that much more fuel to a division is in reality not useful without a huge support element to move it along with the tanks.

Seriously, I think HQBU is just not a great idea, at least as we are talking about with early war German armored thrusts. These kinds of buildups are suppose to support setpiece offensive operations, but it is almost always used to get tanks 50 MPs (seriously where does that number even come from) It allows freakishly ahistoric rates of advance and forces ahistoric gameplay. But some players just like a turbo button.

[morvael]

I have some changes to HQBU planned. Most of MP do not come from fuel on hand but from auto passing of leader rolls.

[darbycmcd]

Ah, Morvael, I hope it doesn't come across like I was being critical of your work, I reread my post and think it comes across that way. I honestly have an enormous amount of gratitude for what you have done with this game, seriously it makes an huge difference. I think that the original game design had some
design for effect decisions that were not the best because they only give the right effect when played with a certain mindset. Grigsby and I suspect most of the folks who were originally testing are probably somewhat serious wargames, and it didn't occur to them to push the game in these ways.

[morvael]

Don't worry, there is always the struggle to make the option interesting but not overpowered. And power gamers have different view on what is ok and what is not from people playing with no intent to fully exploit the system. Also fans of one side also want the be able to achieve what they imagine their side achieved, and this is based on which books did they read and which not, resulting in different beliefs what's historical and what not. So it's hard to please everyone.

[darbycmcd]

I guess what I was driving at with the MP thing is that excess supply, beyond organic capacity for the unit, is actually disadvantageous for movement. Divisions are not typically running with surplus transport capacity and are usually designed to carry just 3-5 days of combat supplies, maximum. The extra, beyond 100%, how does it move? Usually HQBU means something more like forward stockpile of artillery allowing for more intensive operations at the beginning of an advance/assault, but not usually stuff that will follow a armored column 250 miles into enemy territory in a week.

[charlie0311]

the axis could run wild in 41, big encirlements, etc, and again in 42. Sov players need a vastly speeded up unit replacement rate.

[c00per]

Well I would like to thank Oshawatt for the two games we played. My very first game ever was against him and it was ugly he hammered me. The second game I lasted until spring 1942 when he got an auto victory. He patiently waited for my hard drive issue to be resolved and our game restored to the server so I could see it. Anyways thank you for the HQ buildup hammering and the experience of it. The funniest interaction I had was his email said Gordon Freeman or something like that and I called him Gordon for months before he corrected me lol

c00per