Turn 1 Lvov New Patch

[mmarquo]

IGOUGO Hell [:)] This is the bane of most wargames.

It seems that what is really busted is the full Axis mvt points in what is temporally 1/2 time on the first move. Maybe Moravel is correct: half the Axis mvt points, but retain all of the other penalties for the Soviets. Further, simply not allow any Soviet railroad mvt on the first move - given the surprise/shock/awe it is too much to expect well coordinated rr mvt on the first turn surprise move.

[Numdydar]

But then you have the issue for a large number of player who really need the German's movement to stay high because, they do not do this kind of opening. Like me [:)]. I do pocket some troops in AGS, but nothing like what we are talking about here.

What is odd, is that in WitP AE (another Gary game) you do not have this behavior. As both sides plot their turns (even land units too) and then the turn resolves movement and combat. Plus you can set up TFs to react to enemy moves.

So what I think would work best, would be giving HQs a set of orders and stances and then allow the game engine execute them. As Flaviusx has repeated over and over again, the issue with Lvov and AGS is that there is no reaction by Russian units while the Axis are running amok in their rear. So we need a system that either allows a reaction phase by units or have the player only control HQs and the game engine takes care of the actual movements/combats after both sides have set up their orders.

[Joel Billings]

I understand the complaints about the Lvov pocket. I do want to point out that the progress made by the German units in the north and center are what they were historically (at least within a hex here or there). Pretty much every one one of those MPs and first turn rules are needed to make this happen, and my understanding is that other computer games on the topic have tended to have the Germans not be able to complete their historical progress on the first 4 days of the war. We may be off in the south, but we're not off in the north and center AFAIK, so any ideas of a global adjustment would cause problems in the north/center.

BTW our new Europe map (which we're using now for WitW) has a few more hexes between the Polish border and the Rumanian border in this area, and the terrain between the border and Brody is much worse, so it will be harder to move in fast on the first turn in this area in WitE 2.0. Of course, other things will change too, but I wanted to point that out.

As for changing the IGOUGO system, it's not going to happen. Gary's done WEGO games before on the Eastern Front and decided this system would be different. Changing to giving orders would be a fundamentally different game/system.

[Flaviusx]

Oh, I'm not asking to toss out IGOUGO here, it's an essential part of the game design and by and large I like it and think that mutual plotting of movement in this game would be incredibly inconvenient. I do note that in RT designs (like the Hearts of Iron games) this Lvov issue never comes up. It doesn't even come up in any other traditional IGOUGO game; near as I can tell it is unique to WITE. Certainly this doesn't happen in the old style IGOUGO boardgame designs at this scale, including Fire in the East, SPI, or even Proud Monster (possibly the finest board game covering this subject of all of them.)

Nor do I expect a quick solution here. I recognize that the runaway issue has to be addressed in tandem with the surprise turn. This isn't an either or question, it's both.

But I do want to make a point here that this is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed at some point. I hope that WITE2 gets around to it. Maybe even Dominick here will take a crack at it before then, he's doing some yoeman work even now on matters I personally didn't anticipate getting any attention until WITE2.

But let's please not just sweep this under the rug and say it is okay. It's not. Even if we accept it on pragmatic grounds for the time being I don't want this to harden into a permanent design feature of the game.

[Arstavidios]

You can find some incentives to force the soviet to fight.
Increase a little the cost of evacuating factories. modify population evacution so that the more delay there is the more of the population gets evacuated. You can also give some temporary penalties to the soviet morale when cities fall to fast and a bonus if some cities hold fast a long time.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Arstavidios

You can find some incentives to force the soviet to fight.
Increase a little the cost of evacuating factories. modify population evacution so that the more delay there is the more of the population gets evacuated. You can also give some temporary penalties to the soviet morale when cities fall to fast and a bonus if some cities hold fast a long time.

the problem is it is a case of finding a balance. Forcing the Soviets to make a fighting retreat (a goal I fully support) means not setting them up for utter disaster due to other mechanisms. As long as some of the logistic abuse is there, any forward defense, esp after a Lvov opening has destroyed SW Front, is just a means to hard code a short game.

the good thing is by combinations of testing settings (esp logistics) and the excellent work on the new patch, things are moving in the right direction. A toned down turn 1, a dampened logistical system (which should also hold back Soviet offensives), a dangerous but limited winter offensive should set games up for a dramatic 1942.

If that pattern can be constructed, and part of the price is some retention of the Lvov exploit, then I'd happilly accept that in the goal of balance and accepting that WiTE is approaching its end of development.

From experience, I've had more fun in the south with the Road to Dnepropetrovsk scenario, where the axis is constrained to the historical OOB. That tends to see a direct thrust at Kiev stall, a swing south to take advantage of the weaker Southern Front and an epic battle along the Dniepr and back to Kharkov.

[morvael]

Yes, these are all valid ideas, but they would have to be implemented in the engine. Currently there are no such incentives (factories are the only concern, but they evacuate pretty quickly), so saving army (run!) looks like best choice for now. Having some incentives for the Soviet player to fight forward could be then offset by simple reduction of available movement points for the German mobile forces in the south.

Of course it's impossible to contemplate WEGO mechanics in a game designed from ground up to work using IGOYOUGO mechanics. Personally, I don't like turn-based WEGO, as I come from boardgame roots and I don't like the feeling of giving up my forces for the AI to play with. Real time is other matter, see Panther Games products - I love them. The problem with both types of games (WEGO/IGOYOUGO) stems from the need to have multi-day turns in order for long campaigns to end in reasonable time. In games were a counter can move at most 3-4 hexes per turn, the problem when one force stares with dumb faces as the other encircles it, is limited to minimum. But having WitE in 2 days per turn time scale (about 14MP mobile units and 5MP infantry units, limited to 1 deliberate or 2 hasty attacks) would result in a 784-turn long grand campaign. The latency (time where the turn is "in transfer", waiting for one of the players to do his turn) would be enormous, so it would play much slower than current game.

For IGOYOUGO engine with long turns it's still possible to try and limit the deep raid problem by using a solution found in some board games - by introducting a separate "mobile exploitation phase". This also helps to alleviate the problem of using rear-line forces to blast a hole in the line and then use front-line forces to penetrate very deep (as they start on the former front line with full MP). In the core phase units should get half of their MP, to be spent in the usual way. Once the player would advance to the mobile phase, he would get the other half of MP (but the first half would be lost, even if not used), but then he would be limited only to hasty attacks. This is a very elegant solution, as it doesn't require changing number of turns or their length and fixes a lot of big pocket and time-continuity problems at the small cost of a player having to move his entire force twice at half speed.

[Michael T]

Flav, FWIW it doesn't occur in FITE because of a virtual free setup. If an historical deployment is enforced in FITE a Lvov can occur.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

1. Could a Lvov pocket have been done? We will never know, but probably yes. Given surprise and the state of Soviet forces, 2 panzer corps probably could have blasted south. But to what effect????

If u take the time to get hold of the pz corps in questions war diaries u would know why it wasnt a possibility. Why adding more troops is a "wargamer" thing = more troops = always better and why that wasnt true in this particular case. Some times more troops = more friction as it was alrdy friction that was holding the pz corps in question back, adding more troop = more frition not = more power.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I understand the complaints about the Lvov pocket. I do want to point out that the progress made by the German units in the north and center are what they were historically (at least within a hex here or there). Pretty much every one one of those MPs and first turn rules are needed to make this happen, and my understanding is that other computer games on the topic have tended to have the Germans not be able to complete their historical progress on the first 4 days of the war. We may be off in the south, but we're not off in the north and center AFAIK, so any ideas of a global adjustment would cause problems in the north/center.

Why necesarrily make it a global adjustment?
The game alrdy has a line that divides the that very close to seperates AGC/AGN areas from AGS and rules in place that differentiate between the two.
An obvious solution is making first turn rules and what ever is wanted 1 thing N of that line and another S of that line. U could even if so wishes and im not necesarrily saying its my want make so units from AGS/AGC couldnt go south of it as u how have it so certain Axis allies cant go north of it.
I mean there is a line that with very little adjustment and in terms of balance could possibly be moved a few hexes S. As that is alrdy in place and that the game code some how has to recogniese for the rules concerning it for it to work as it does. One could expand from that make the differences N/S of that line more in line with how supprise rules could work N/S of it to make sure both the progress N of it actually happens while S of it the same isnt true to the same extend.

If i was to design from the current design as the only time that progress is terms of hexes/miles is as far as it is in the first 2 turns, the adjust the MP rules/possible advance into enemy territory more inline with what was generally possible = lower than now and then make the supprise rules such that for those first 2 turns certain progress possible. Instead of having it globally be so that the advance rate of the first 2 turns which isnt matched by any one in the entire threather nor for that matter in the West outside of those 2 weeks. Use the supprise rules to make teh first 2 turns possible instead of making the the advance of the first 2 turn globally possible through out the game.
Just saying that is another way to achieve it. It does however fundametally requires a different line of thot on the MP system/possible advance than the one used so far and a complete overhaul of the MP system as every thing woudl have to be adjusted. Combat MP usage, fall back rates and so on.

Im of the fundemetal design thinking of what i i like to call the 95% vs 5% rule. If some thing was done 95% of the time and another 5% of the time u make the 95% the rule not the 5%. Not that u cant make allowance /special ruels for teh 5% but u better make sure it it becomes in special cases.

I seen plenty a games both as player and as tester while IMHO many times from popular demand the designers fall into the 5% trap. If it was possible once it should always be possible. The problem in that is just that then players will find ways of using that the ops tempo always gets to high with following consequences.
I remember in one ACW game i was tester for, where based cuz on 1 particular event while was historical enough in it self marches rates was adjuested from that cuz ppl with a CSA leaning could point to by hey in this case i a CSA army was able to march X far in X days. The overall consequnce was just that the march rates made ops temps so high that the games was nearly always over before end of 62 as u as the USA easily made it to the Gulf coast in the West using the upped ops rate. Some times in reality ppl dont want what the wish for... just take to see the consequences of teh wish and then its usually to late.

Just seems an obvious possible solution on how to approche that problem,(Again i woudl rather see this in place for WiTE2 than fudging with it now.)

Rasmus

[Radagy]

IMHO, most of the troubles in turn 1 come from fixed setup at start and the consequent chess-like ouvertures. I would suggest a free units deployment within precise front boundaries with severe restrictions (NKVD linked to the border, each border hex within a ZOC, etc.).
Russian should setup first, then German, and the latter should benefit from free recon/no FOW close to the border.
I know that after a few games we would see "The perfect Soviet deployment", but it could be easily countered by "The perfect German deployment". Anyway we would have an interesting and various T1 instead of the current mandatory one.

[janh]

Interesting discussion. Given the disparity between far movement or action ranges and long turn durations, something like a reaction phase or an automatic reaction/counterattack/repositioning move along the lines of the reserve order would be direly needed. The idea with a separation of the turns in two shorter phases that Morvael mentioned, so in essence halving turn length and movement radius, might do the same, although it would not remove this "static" bowling feeling one has when not phasing.

ORIGINAL: Marquo
1. Could a Lvov pocket have been done? We will never know...

Clearly we don't know, can never know for sure, so anything remains no more than speculation. It is pretty hard to judge what could have been done and where friction or logistics would have rendered things inefficient (like in "too costly in terms of material or time/manpower consumption") or not doable at all.

One thing that the Germans might have needed in addition besides Soviets failing to react entirely during the first view days (speaking in game terms), would have been a lot more hindsight, both regarding to the strengths, dispositions and abilities of the opposing Soviet units there, but also of the way the advance of AGC would/did unfold. In practice: knowing that some of AGCs Panzers could easily be spared, but would be needed with AGS.

This knowledge is ours, so just like knowing that battling for poor defensive ground with little value, we know as Axis how to maximize the damage to the Soviet in the first turns. I think to remove this hindsight, one good way would be to allow for some more randomization to occur before the first move, and before the Germans get the detailed recon info. This could be done by either one or a combination of randomizing unit strengths/morale/exp, changing positions at a small scale (Army boundaries), or even by giving both sides possibilities to move certain formations, say Panzer- or Soviet corps beyond Army or theater/AG boundaries.

Not knowing exactly what Panzer strength each AG would ultimately require for its (player-) chosen goals would shift the situation of the Axis away from a blunt "first turn optimization" problem to a situation more closely relating to what the Germans faces back in spring of 1941, more towards contingency planning, true reserves, and erring on the side of caution. I hope some sort of pre-setup turn will be a part of furture WitE2. It could be a major asset to counterbalance hindsight.

[Flaviusx]

Janh, here's the thing: there's no opportunity cost here for the Axis. Would AGC do as well short one panzer corps? In WITE the answer is yes. Which almost certainly indicates that WITE is simply making things way too easy for the Axis on the first turn.

I do not believe that a single extra panzer corps = Lvov pocket, period. For me it is absolutely an artifact of the design of WITE in particular. No other game on this subject produces this result, and that's not because WITE got this right and the rest of them goofed.

This is leaving aside all the complicated historical arguments that can be made against the hypothetical.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Clearly we don't know, can never know for sure, so anything remains no more than speculation. It is pretty hard to judge what could have been done

I think Walloc has correctly explained why this is not possible. You just can't add two Panzer Corps to AGS and expect them to form the Lvov pocket if in reality the exisiting mechanized forces are already stuck in a giant trafic jam.

The Lvov pocket is fantasy. Of course, I'm playing a game, so this is fine with me.

There are many interesting suggestions in this thread. But I fear that they are all too complicated. Has anyone ever thought about removing the movement penalty for SHC on turn 1. If the Soviet troops get normal movement it would be much easier to counterattack and break the pocket. Therefore the Axis player would have to be much more careful forming the pocket. That would at least prevent the extended Lvov pocket. Also the Axis player would have to be more careful further North as those pockets might be broken too if he decides to route two full Panzer Corps south.

No idea if that would work. But at least the programming would be easy.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Janh, here's the thing: there's no opportunity cost here for the Axis. Would AGC do as well short one panzer corps? In WITE the answer is yes. Which almost certainly indicates that WITE is simply making things way too easy for the Axis on the first turn.

I do not believe that a single extra panzer corps = Lvov pocket, period. For me it is absolutely an artifact of the design of WITE in particular. No other game on this subject produces this result, and that's not because WITE got this right and the rest of them goofed.

This is leaving aside all the complicated historical arguments that can be made against the hypothetical.

I think this is the core of the matter. Was a Lvov pocket possible for the Germans to pull off historically? Perhaps, but then why didn't they? There was some military, logistical, or political obstacle that was too difficult for them to overcome. WITE doesn't have enough consequences for major strategic or operational switches that come with real life. Maybe the Germans can do the Lvov pocket at the expense of AGC logistics, resulting in a much reduced Minsk pocket. Or AGN is grounded for a month to compensate for the logistical drain Lvov creates. Or maybe a successful Lvov pocket creates political effects on the Russian side, bringing the Siberian divisions into play much sooner... Etc.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Joel
Ive quoted you here,

I do want to point out that the progress made by the German units in the north and center are what they were historically (at least within a hex here or there). Pretty much every one one of those MPs and first turn rules are needed to make this happen

Im not sure this is right.
i looked into this in this thread,
tm.asp?m=3303482

after testing I found that the Germans did not need the MPs and first turn rules to achieve historical penetrations. this is because the MP bonus doesnt apply to the high moral panzer units they can move just as far on the first turn without the first turn bonus. (as long as the infantry can bash a hole in the front for them to slip through)

So the first turn bonuss can be safely removed.
In compensation the Rail repair rate should be improved.
I believe the germans had 60 divs of winter clothing ready in germany but shipped petrol and ammo forward instead.

Best Regards Chuck.

[Joel Billings]

From what I can tell from the rules, 11 out of the 25 mobile German motorized divisions on turn 2 would pay +2 for entering an enemy ZOC instead of the +1 due to the bonus.

I'm not trying to sweep this problem under the rug, just saying that the adjustments need to still allow what happened in the north and center to happen. Obviously there are ways to get things to move slower in the south on turn 1, including just making the Soviet units in the south stronger. And I realize this doesn't in and of itself solve the issue of it being too easy for the Soviets to run or what appears to be a need for a Lvov pocket to happen in order for the German player to do well (not sure about this given all the recent changes, but realize that is the current perception and may be true). I just wanted to mention that the WitW map shows that the area the Germans moved through was much swampier and not very good, and this will have it's own large impact on the opening move of WitE 2.0 when we get to it.

Could the Germans have made a Lvov pocket had they wanted to and committed enough troops, maybe, although if the terrain is as bad as it looks in the new map, maybe this was not really possible. In any case there's a lot that will happen between now and WitE 2.0, but wanted to make sure people realized that changing IGOUGO is not one of them.

[chuckfourth]

? Sorry do you mean turn 1?
I would make two points here.

The whole motorised division doesnt need to get the maximum penetration on turn one. (and probably didnt historically, flanks are often a consideration and the deep penetrating spearhead may consisit only of recon type units)

and

Easier to give those 11 "slow" motorised divisions 85 + morale so they can move the historical maximum amount rather than the turn one axis MP benefit for -every- axis unit.

Best regards, Chuck

[Blubel]

Most of these 11 division have a moral of 85. As an attack costs only 1 MP on turn one only the ones starting with moral of 75 should enter enemy territory with non elite moral. But the surprise movement costs are needed for the infantry!

[Gabriel B.]

I do not give up, even on the 75 morale divisions , 18th and 20th panzer start with 200+ tanks that burn a lot of fuel , so in the first turn i make as much attacks with them as posible.

they do not get to 86 morale, in the first turn, but they do get close and the fuel cost is much reduced due to armor losses.

[morvael]

It would be really great if some of you, especially the pro players, would try a revised campaign scenario on latest patch with southern Axis mobile forces down to 30MP with and without Soviet Great Retreat. That could help to assess if such change to the default campaign scenario would be wise or not. The only problem - we would have to wait a year for results, unless you would be playing around the clock