I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now...

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"I was going to say something about Marquo's highly biased hypothesis, but thought I might come across too critical. Now I'm afraid I must."

Highly biased hypothesis; really?? I advanced no hypothesis, my friend. Au contraire, I opined for restraint until enough data is accumulated to properly ajudicate the facts.

"The reason you are not seeing games go to 1945 is that the game so favors the Soviet side that your target market (see note) simply doesn't have the endurance to play through a boring game in which poorly executed mechanics (theoretically speaking; I'm not asserting any specific mechanic here) create the foregone conclusion of a particularly early Soviet victory ?"

Your reflection is the is the poster child of a highly biased hypothesis.

"Under your hypothesis, you default to "L2P kthxbai" and no changes are made to the game (unless they are advocated by the coterie of people who believe everything is right in WitE). This is a 'good-old->boy' system, in which you end up in an echo chamber without new perspective."

Frankly preferable to the echo chamber of self appointed pundits who feel that their opinions should prevail, choking the bandwidth with self-righteous indignation if anyone dares to advance a contrary point of view.

"I'm not a fan of waiting for more data because the game is 9 months old, and you already can see that German players find the game tedious to slog through and the Soviets clearly out-perform their historical counter-parts on the path to a final victory. "

So stop playing, stop posting and stop whinning; your choice.

"At the present rate of patching and at the present rate of AAR data accumulation (don't get me started on that), and given that Matrix appears (to me at least) to throw out gobs of AAR data whenever they make a new update, forcing players to start all over again (and in fact and effect making it impossible to collect the data Marquo would like to see from the latter years of a game), you're just never going to get what you're looking for, and while you continue to wait for latter-game data, more and more owners are going to stop playing, or at a minimum, stop writing time-consuming AARs."

You have no idea what I want because you never asked; you appear to be an expert in highly biased hypothesis generation.

Enjoy the game [;)]

I'm not impressed with your personal criticism. I like bigger words than those you used. I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me; I did not assign any adjectives to you or your position, and in fact, responded to the substantive claims you advocate.

My position is one of scientific hypothesis, test, and rationale. I think we have enough data. Your HYPOTHESIS is that we do not have enough data, therefore no changes should be made. Both of our hypotheses advocate positions and rest on assumptions (yours assumes nothing can be changed until sufficient 1943-45 data are collected)

Had Matrix taken your position, mind you, German TOE changes in 42 would still be devastating German experience levels, and winter would be ravaging the axis despite any preparations, and several more. (Might I remind you that you yourself advocate changes to the air war - but there's not enough data according to your own position).

That you are so quick to attack me personally says a lot about you, not me. It reinforces my assertion that a certain faction doesn't like outsiders with differing points of view.

[mmarquo]

[/quote]
I'm not impressed with your personal criticism. I like bigger words than those you used. I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me; I did not assign any adjectives to you or your position, and in fact, responded to the substantive claims you advocate.
[/quote]

Makes sense, since I did not criticise you; further I did not "attack" you. I do, however, disagree with your ideas, your position statement and the verbage you used as a prelude to retort my post.

[/quote]
My position is one of scientific hypothesis, test, and rationale. I think we have enough data. Your HYPOTHESIS is that we do not have enough data, therefore no changes should be made. Both of our hypotheses advocate positions and rest on assumptions (yours assumes nothing can be changed until sufficient 1943-45 data are collected)
[/quote]

Again, I have no hypothesis to advance; I have an opinion, which is not the same as advancing a hypothesis.

[/quote]
That you are so quick to attack me personally says a lot about you, not me. It reinforces my assertion that a certain faction doesn't like outsiders with differing points of view.
[/quote]

Reread the posts - no personal attack. We should all appreciate that one's posts are not one's self. For all I know you could be the nicest and most cordial person in the world [:)]

Have a nice life; over and out.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Marquo, I get what you are saying about unintended consequences, but there's a clear pattern emerging here in game after game between relatively equal opponents in 1942. And it's not a good pattern.

We don't need to play it out to 45 to see this.

I'm going to be candid here. Changes are coming. I can't tell you what they are, or exactly when, but the decision has been made that tweaks are needed.

Good news!
Any chance you could give toss us a bone [:D]

[DorianGray]

ORIGINAL: pwieland

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Ketza, that makes a lot of sense, and is in fact the kind of macro effect I would take seriously. We're seeing this happening in some games.

It's not clear if the problem is the result of the 1-1 rule as such, or that in combination with other things, but it has to be considered.

It's the stalemated games in 1942 that are testing the game engine to destruction. This game that Tarhunnas is using here just isn't very interesting from a design standpoint, it isn't showing anything wrong or overpowered about the Soviets. (If we were looking at this game only, we might even consider the Soviets need help, or that the Germans needed to be ratcheted back. Note I do not actually believe this, but that's the conclusion I would draw from this single and very exceptional example. I don't in fact believe this is going to be a standard game result. It's an outlier.)

I dont think it should matter if the particular game in question is one in which the Germans are rolling. If this is the game between him and Q-Ball, then Tarhunnas got smacked around fairly well by an opponent that not only lost its largest industry base in the north, but its own capital. And I bet when 1943 and 1944 rolls around the crushing manpower advantages are going to allow Q-Ball to field massive stacks of doom. Already, German spearheads are getting pushed aside.

What should matter is if the rule is needed or simply used as a fudge factor in order to generate more than the usual German casualties. I dont know, but am reading the arguments for both side with interest.

Ok, I had to do a double-take on this one, as my initial reaction was the same - "What does the 1-1 retreat rule have to do with this particuliar example?"

But it is clear now that the DISPLAYED ODDS RATIO has been further modified from the calculated CVs.

From your examples you have:

Code: Select all

 
 ATT CV     DEF CV      DISPLAYED RATIO    ACTUAL RATIO
    92        64             2.4 : 1          1.4375 : 1
   133       106             2.2 : 1          1.2547 : 1
 
 

hmmm.....

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Marquo, I get what you are saying about unintended consequences, but there's a clear pattern emerging here in game after game between relatively equal opponents in 1942. And it's not a good pattern.

We don't need to play it out to 45 to see this.

I'm going to be candid here. Changes are coming. I can't tell you what they are, or exactly when, but the decision has been made that tweaks are needed.

Good news!
Any chance you could give toss us a bone [:D]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. And Joel would still kill me.

More seriously, Joel himself has laid it out, see the 1.05 thread.