Slitherine

Plaid wrote:

NotaPacifist wrote:

Plaid wrote: This is wrong. It's been documented many times.

Khimki was the site of the closest German advance to Moscow in November–December 1941.

Its 26 kilometers from Moscow.

So now, you're telling me that the Cliffs of Dover, 51 miles from France can't be seen?

How can you see structure in the heart of the city without even entering city? Its not open groud.

I think there are so many changes here, these really need to be tested. It seems like it is just change after change after change. Should the game changes not stop at some point? But either way, these changes made/suggested need a great deal of testing I would think. It's May now, will GS2 see summer release?

Blathergut wrote:I think there are so many changes here, these really need to be tested. It seems like it is just change after change after change. Should the game changes not stop at some point? But either way, these changes made/suggested need a great deal of testing I would think. It's May now, will GS2 see summer release?

If GS team will introduce build limits by unit type it will affect most games (without blobbing) in totally no way. Not like I support or protest against it, just a note.
From my point german armor blob is stoppable if you know that it will be used, but with surprise effect it can be a killer to traditional USSR build up.

P.S. I have seen soviet surrender myself playing both axis and allies, and both times there was no any blobbing.

Stauffenberg wrote:

NotaPacifist wrote:

Stauffenberg wrote:If you don't then you can alter general.txt and set the limit to 99 or whatever value you want. There are actually many values that can be changed in general.txt.

Nobody wants to do this in a PBEM environment.

Why not? If people feel like you do then I'm sure they would change that value. If they feel the current restriction is better they keep it at 2. I've only heard you speak about the airstrike limit of 2 as a problem. So it doesn't seem that most people agree with you there.

It's not possible to get people to agree upon every little rule. When we introduce changes we vote on that and most often follow the majority of votes. That means a minority didn't agree upon that rule. Still they accept that and move on. Some even change their minds later.

Sometimes we make a change that was stupid and we go back. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened. So far I have heard very few arguments that having an airstrike limit of 2 is worse than no limit.

How do you intend to prevent the cheesy way of taking Rome with unlimited airstrikes that I just described? That was the situation in vanilla CeaW. Do you reallly feel that's better? Players will exploit every possibility they can if it's allowed in the game engine.

There are other circumstances to consider. Would it be fair if he was able to amph into Rome because the units was down to 2 SP's(same result, different means)? What was done to interdict Allied air and naval units? Did he have units adjacent to Rome with which to counterattack? History shows that troops get ashore. They cross rivers, land on beaches. etc. You just can't kill them all. But in all the cases where naval invasion succeeds there is one common factor. That factor is the inability of the defender to counterattack the beach head effectively. In the case of Normandy this inability was a direct consequence of allied air might.

All of these things interlock. If you fail at defence, most of the time it means you have failed in preparation. If you don't put a roof over your house...you're gonna get wet. Why should people be rewarded when they choose not to defend with air units?

Blathergut wrote:I think there are so many changes here, these really need to be tested. It seems like it is just change after change after change. Should the game changes not stop at some point? But either way, these changes made/suggested need a great deal of testing I would think. It's May now, will GS2 see summer release?

We're actually having a release candidate and we're waiting for Slitherine to get time to release it. As soon as they tell us they can make the installer the official release will be ready.

The problem now is that we have a situation which has the potential to ruin the game balance. Do you really want to release as is without considering an easy fix to this? We have the time at the moment because Slitherine doesn't have time yet to make the installer. Next week they will start working on it so we have a day or two.

I aslo think some people may not understand the level of testing and knowedge that 'exists' the team - these aren't random changes

and at some point you have to release

off topic, one of the worlds biggest software companies started life with a - 'if it compiles, ship it' attitude

back on topic

I want to reiterate my thanks to the tireless efforts of those responsible for bringing us this mod - great job, again!

NotaPacifist wrote:There are other circumstances to consider. Would it be fair if he was able to amph into Rome because the units was down to 2 SP's(same result, different means)?

You don't get a German mech unit in Rome down to 2 steps from 2 airstrikes. Units in cities don't retreat so you need to eliminate the unit to be able to advance. The chance of killing a unit in Rome with an amph is very low.

With unlimited airstrikes you can actually kill the unit. A tac bomber will on average make 1-2 hits. So you need 5-10 bombers to kill a full strength unit.

So I don't think these situations are comparable.

Stauffenberg wrote:

Blathergut wrote:I think there are so many changes here, these really need to be tested. It seems like it is just change after change after change. Should the game changes not stop at some point? But either way, these changes made/suggested need a great deal of testing I would think. It's May now, will GS2 see summer release?

We're actually having a release candidate and we're waiting for Slitherine to get time to release it. As soon as they tell us they can make the installer the official release will be ready.

The problem now is that we have a situation which has the potential to ruin the game balance. Do you really want to release as is without considering an easy fix to this? We have the time at the moment because Slitherine doesn't have time yet to make the installer. Next week they will start working on it so we have a day or two.

I do understand. I would go with the supply change, since it is easy and from your perspective (Me a newbie unknowing) it helps to fix the problem. It seems to me, unless you scripted in exactly what units each side received each turn, things like this will come up. I would tweak the supply and go from there, esp. if you have some time. It sounds like behind the scenes a small group has been working through this.

It's already implemented and distributed to the alpha testers. Neil will make a quick run today starting in May 1941 playing both sides using the updated supply rule. Rule is very simple. Supply range is 15/30 for 1939-1941 and 20/40 for 1942+. So for 1942+ there is no change. In the west there is virtually no change either because supply level 3 will only be experienced in southern Spain. Madrid falls before you get to that area.

We hope to see that Neil will be able to survive with the Russians so the winter offensive can be a threat to the Germans and thus they have to dig in before December to stand a chance. That means they won't move so deep into Russia as they do now.

Regardless of the tweak we made we will still see the German armor blob as a serious threat. Allied players who don't know how to defend properly will be crushed by this Axis strategy. You simply have to make your stand far to the east and not try to slug it out west of Moscow and Rostov. All we need to make the release is to know that if you defend properly you might survive the blow and make the Germans pay in 1942 and beyond for ignoring air tech and not building for the west.

We should accept alternative strategies and give them a fair chance to succeed. So we should not nerf every ahistorical possibility with silly special rules. Therefore I think we should not put build limits for armor. That's a nerf that will ruin the freedom players have to decide their own strategies. The only nerf we add is that the supply range is lowered for 1939-1941 in Russia and that's because of the need to convert the rail lines from broad gauge to standard gauge. That's a rule existing in many wargames so we're not doing something silly by adding that.

Also remember that the Germans can still fight well in supply level 3. So it's not like the Russians can stand and fight in the east. They need to keep the distance until winter begins

Supply range change in Russia is definitely a good way to represent supply problems that the germans had because of the different rail network system that the soviets used. And restored supply range to 20 hexes in 1942 also simulated well the huge effort that the germans made for converting the soviet rail network into one compatible with the german trains. So regardless of this new supply range rules are going to be effective or not against german armoured blob I would like to see this change in the definitive release.

There is a joke, why russian gauge is wider then in Europe.
When emperor Nicholas I was going to build 1st railroad in russia, his chief endineer asked him, shall they made gauge same as in Europe or wider.
Nicholas was quite a crude man and he answered "for what the d*ck it should be wider?", so gauge was made ~10 cm wider

I also read somewhere that the Russian rail gauge was made just so much wider so it was not possible to mount a wheel outside the standard trains to be able to run on the broad gauge. That means you have to build new trains to convert the rail lines.

I think this decision was actually very important for the outcome of WW2. If the Russians had used standard gauge too then maybe the Germans could have got deeper into Russia and maybe captured Moscow and the Caucasus. So it was very good for the Russians that the Emperor made the decision about broad gauge.

Neil and I are test playing solo runs using the situation in the game between Morris and Neil in April 1941 as the base.

Without any modifications Neil managed to get as far into Russia as Morris did when mud began in October.

I added the modification about the reduced supply range in 1939-1941 and also increased the surprise remaining drop from 5 to 8 (meaning that efficiency will regain normally in Russia after 4 turns instead of 6 turns). I got mud in October as well and failed to take Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. Rostov and Voronezh were overrun and Stavropol and Penza were next on the list. Stalingrad would have fallen in the next fair turn. Germans were adjacent to Moscow and Leningrad.

The -1 MP once I moved past Smolensk, Kiev and Kherson definitely had an impact. The Germans could still attack at will, but the reduced movement meant the corps units had to be railed to the spearheads instead of moving. So most of the attacks had to be done by the armor and mech. So in October most armor were down to 7-8 steps, some even being repaired before. Since the armor were attacking so heavily it meant the oil that started almost at 800 in April was down to 290. So in 1942 the Germans definitely would have to capture Russian oil fields and that means a weaker punch towards Omsk.

So with the changes it seems the Russians hang in the game by a thread and would survive till 1942. Then the Allies could make so much noise that the Germans would fail to take Omsk. From 1943 the Germans would have to go on the defense and with just 5 air units and no air tech I think they would struggle.

So I think the German armor blob can more easily be maintained with the proposed changes. I just wait for a confirmation from Neil about his experience using the same 2 modifications. If he gets the same result then I think we can go for release. Ronnie and Paul will send you the hotfix that will be part of the release version.

I have a question. Historically it took the Russians much longer to make back what they lost in 41. Will they have to re-gauge their rails, or do they automatically get supply level-5?

ah, why do you say it takes the Russian's less now?

NotaPacifist wrote:I have a question. Historically it took the Russians much longer to make back what they lost in 41. Will they have to re-gauge their rails, or do they automatically get supply level-5?

Historically, most of the russian offensives did actually halt because of supplies. Hot fix 9 does not impact the latter years of the war so the russians in v200.09 will be able to advance as though they have rail capability. Its tricky to try and simulate it late war.... Usually winter slows the russian offensive due to the movement penalties....

It's tricky, so we're not even gonna bother with it? This is just another 'what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander' issues.

Everyone had supply issues. The Western Allies had supply issues shortly after D-day and again before the Battle of the Bulge until Antwerp was fully usable. You've already said the Russians had supply issues. But we're only gonna hit the Axis with supply issues?

NotaPacifist wrote:It's tricky, so we're not even gonna bother with it? This is just another 'what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander' issues.

Everyone had supply issues. The Western Allies had supply issues shortly after D-day and again before the Battle of the Bulge until Antwerp was fully usable. You've already said the Russians had supply issues. But we're only gonna hit the Axis with supply issues?

We're trying to strike a delicate balance, pardon the pun, between historical realism, playability and balance (i.e., which side wins) within the constraints of the CEAW-GS game engine and scale (i.e., corps level). In terms of historical realism we do NOT mean that the historical sequence of events much, or should, be followed every game. Otherwise; you could buy a DVD series on the war in Europe and just watch that. What we do mean is that between experienced and equally talented players that the historical sequence of events will produce approximately the same chance of winning as an alternate sequence of events. AND any alternate sequence of events that produce the same chance of winning as the historical one is consistent with the historical record of that time as we understand and can represent it in GS. Sounds easy doesn't it?

How long do you think folks would play if there was one strategy that guaranteed victory 80 to 100% of the time even between equally matched and talented opponents?