Matrix Games Forums

Nada

Nada

A few comments:

1) I REALLY dislike people just quitting a game without even bothering to surrender. Seriously, if you ego is so small you cannot bear to admit a defeat, then go play against the AI at "EASY" or something like that. Stay away from PvP games.
2) I would be extremely reluctant to take Kaluga on turn seven, as the rail system is nowhere near good enough to supply the forward troops.
3) Losing an SS division is bad, but nowhere near fatal. After all it is "only" 14K men, 180 guns and 30 AFV. Learn from your mistake and get back into the game (or surrender, if you cannot bear the thought).

Nada

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
I really don't think these fanatics surrendered, if you know what I mean ;-P

I needed to look properly at the battle results to get that reference. So a new battle result category is needed... "Annihilated" perhaps?

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

A few comments:

2) I would be extremely reluctant to take Kaluga on turn seven, as the rail system is nowhere near good enough to supply the forward troops.

;-P People that do this kind of penetration are lashing out in a form of "desperation" attempt. ;-P

I'm not saying I couldn't be tempted if the circumstances were right.

I'm just saying that Kaluga, as a prize, is worth no more than eight Armament points and three Heavy Industry.

Nada

Nada

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Hehehe, yeah. To the history buffs smarter than me. Was there any instance of SS surrendering on the East Front????

Just doing a brief search and surprisingly not. I know in Halder's diaries there was a reference to Soviet treatment of those from the Death Head (Totenkopf) units - but that does not necessarily mean they were SS. I would have thought there would be circumstances when they would have been ordered to surrender at least.

As there were surrenders on the western front I think it is fair to say in the end this was more out of fear of reprisals rather than fanaticism.

Be curious to find a proper historians answer though.

Niall Ferguson's history of the first world war traced the probability that a surrender would be successful (not shot in no man's land, not shot by enemy etc.) to the number of surrenders, and then to war success. Being nasty to the SS was not a war winning strategy even if it may have been a desirable one.

I am not aware of any division sized SS units surrendering on the eastern Front, but of course SS men did surrender in smaller numbers/units.

I remember a few years back an unmarked mass grave of eight SS soldiers was found in Rumania. They had all died by a single shot to the back of the head.

I have no doubt that the political indoctrination combined with the knowledge of how the SS themselves had behaved would make an SS soldier think twice before surrendering.

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

A few comments:

1) I REALLY dislike people just quitting a game without even bothering to surrender. Seriously, if you ego is so small you cannot bear to admit a defeat, then go play against the AI at "EASY" or something like that. Stay away from PvP games.
2) I would be extremely reluctant to take Kaluga on turn seven, as the rail system is nowhere near good enough to supply the forward troops.
3) Losing an SS division is bad, but nowhere near fatal. After all it is "only" 14K men, 180 guns and 30 AFV. Learn from your mistake and get back into the game (or surrender, if you cannot bear the thought).

I think hardluckyetagain will be more selective in his opponents. Though his post only, I have no experience to derive from, I assess that his opponents need to understand they will be getting quite a ahistorical challenge with game optimization. Thus if the German player compares against history - he is doomed for an ego thrashing.
I am waiting for one of Hardluckyetagain's more recent opponents to get into the stalemate phase of the game to see these strategies in action. In is PSOV AAR that opponent is at the gates of Moscow ...

Nada

The definition of game has many contributors but one common agreement is some sort of enjoyment. (Certainly to some S&M has an element of fun but beyond that [:'(] ) If a strategy, like Pelton developed prior to 1.08 for the Germans or if your strategy after the next proposed patch becomes more like a fixed script more like a movie than a game -- WitE I or II will eventually die.
The GG War Between the States is a good example in my opinion. Great rules with very unique gameplay, really challenging -- at first then one discovers that the East is impossible to break and all the action is in Kentucky with a fixed result. If the rules, and play structure ends up favoring one strategy (say defend Pskov with the following units .. and then play a script to defend Moscow ).. the community will lose interest.

BTW) The game sort of starts with a script today Courtland Pocket, The Battle of Bialystok-Minsk Pocket, Lvov Pocket ... and given that opening you have developed a pretty good defense to force the action toward Moscow ...as I said above .. when supply changes with the next patch the Germans I suspect will be very frustrated [8D]

Nada

ORIGINAL: Dinglir
3) Losing an SS division is bad, but nowhere near fatal. After all it is "only" 14K men, 180 guns and 30 AFV. Learn from your mistake and get back into the game (or surrender, if you cannot bear the thought).

Also just remembered that Das Reich is one of those divisions that withdraws very early anyway. So not a question of losing, just of how soon. Or maybe lose an extra 75% of replacements who would not be as good anyway?