The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


el hefe -> The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 3:19:07 PM)

First of all, before I go into the specifics, I am not going to get dragged down into a mud slinging heated debate over this. I am simply presenting the facts of this contested issue and the factors behind it.

1. Why is the German player punished by having the entire 6th Army withdraw when it was destroyed around the end of January 1943?

A. The German player is not being punished for the 6th Army being destroyed. The German player has to deal with the siphoning off of combat resources to the Western and Italian Fronts. It just happens that these resources belonged to units that were rebuilding from the shattered 6th Army and sent to Italy in the summer of 1943. There are numerous other examples of units destroyed in pockets that are not withdrawn. The forces destroyed in Bagration and The Rumanian Iasi-Khisinev operation are also not withdrawn from the game because they were destroyed. The ONLY reason for a unit being withdrawn from the game is if that unit got re-deployed to another theater. If there is a unit in the game that gets withdrawn and it should not be, by all means let me know. I think it is a reasonable design decision that the OKH player have resources withdrawn as part of a multi-front conflict. Now the method in which this has been implemented is debatable. I personally prefer the holding box method which is being implemented in WitW.

B. Not all of the 6th Army units destroyed are withdrawn in the game. Here is a list which shows seven of the twenty divisions get withdrawn to other theaters. Notice that the 6th Army does not go *Poof* on 31 January 1943.

44th Infantry Division - no withdrawal
71st Infantry Division - withdraws 12 August 1943 to Italy
76th Infantry Division - no withdrawal
79th Infantry Division - no withdrawal
94th Infantry Division - withdraws 15 April 1943 to Italy
100th Jager Division - no withdrawal
113th Infantry Division - no withdrawal
295th Infantry Division - withdraws 22 July 1943 to Norway
297th Infantry Division - withdraws 17 June 1943 to Serbia
305th Infantry Division - withdraws 11 March 1943 to Italy
371st Infantry Division - no withdrawal
376th Infantry Division - no withdrawal
384th Infantry Division - no withdrawal
389th Infantry Division - no withdrawal

3rd Motorized Division - withdraws 27 May 1943 to Italy
29th Motorized Division - withdraws 20 May 1943 to Italy
60th Motorized Division - withdraws 27 May 1943 but rebuild as the FHH PzG Division so really not a withdrawal

14th Panzer Division - no withdrawal
16th Panzer Division - no withdrawal
24th Panzer Division - no withdrawal

C. The "Replacement Army Assumption". There is a circulated belief that if these units were not destroyed at Stalingrad, then the replacement army would have shipped other formations to the West and Italy with manpower that was not used to rebuild the shattered 6th Army. This is an assumption at best and one that is clearly an unknown. Germany was loathe to make any manpower adjustment unless a crisis forced the administration to make changes. You can look at the Barbarossa Plan - 250k replacements planned for the operation with over a million sustained losses through January 1942. It wasn't until December-January 1942 that Hitler agreed to move a portion workers from the factories and into combat units. Losses dictated that homeland defense flak units were manned by teenagers. It took the diasters of Bagration, Iasi, and Normandy in the Summer of 1944 for the Germans to finally ruthlessly comb through their bloated Armed Forces manpower to get the needed manpower to the combat units. This is obviously a highly debatable topic with merits on both sides of the argument. The fact is that it is unknown what would have happened if the Stalingrad diaster did not occur. Would Germany have sent other units? Don't know. Would Germany have sent even more units in an attempt to utterly crush the landings since it had the extra assets available? Again, dunno. In the end, the developers choose the rout in which the German player would have to feel the strain of commitments to other fronts and I don't feel that is unreasonable.

Trey




Klydon -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 3:30:20 PM)

Thanks for the info Trey and some good points here.

One thing that has always bugged me that you may be able to help with is that when withdrawing, units are first brought up to full strength before withdrawing when in fact a lot of formations transferred when they were depleted. They were brought up to strength and then sent to other theaters (or rehabilitated in other theaters like France before the landings).

While I understand this might be a game and programing decision (game decision based on preventing abuse by players to totally wreck a formation just as it is withdrawing and programing decision in that everything is the same, so easier to code), it still isn't right and the German player is forced to deal with it. I wish I had a easy solution from the standpoint that the Germans already abuse units set to withdraw from a moral standpoint of view and tend to take better care of units they know will be in theater for the long haul. Perhaps a solution would be to introduce a random factor so that instead of knowing for fact that no matter what, the 94th infantry division is going to withdraw on 15 April 1943, the AI instead picks a division at random and the player gets the two turn notice as usual. Some divisions you can't get around this issue (7th Flieger for example), but for the standard divisions, it could be possible.




Tarhunnas -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 3:42:43 PM)

Thanks for the explanation Trey! I am totally happy with that.

@ Klydon: That suggestion has some merit, but not sure it would be possible to implement. Some units come and go, and there would have to be several types of divisions infantry, panzer, mot, SS etc. It might get complicated.




Joel Billings -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 4:32:30 PM)

There were a few reasons for the rebuild in the east before withdrawal. You mentioned the obvious one which was to prevent player abuse by wearing out units they know will be withdrawn. Second, we use very general percentages for replacements in manpower and equipment going east versus west. We think that charging the player from the "east" pool for rebuilding these was reasonable. You can argue that this alters the percentages that should be used, and you're welcome to do a study of east versus west and let us know if you feel are percentages are off. We felt doing it this way was the best way to have players take responsibility for the losses they are taking in the Eastern Front.




el hefe -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 4:38:04 PM)

Klydon, I really don't like the withdrawal system myself and there could be some better ways of implementing the loss of these resources without a lock step rigid system. What I really don't like is that the withdrawal schedule is clearly known without any changes. I would be all for a more flexible system with some more randomness thrown in for uncertainty. I think that the game needs to model resources being withdrawn, I just wish it was a little more dynamic and even unpredictable at times.

I agree with you as well on rebuilding the withdrawing units but you are totally correct on the reasoning. The rule is there to prevent abuse of players recklessly using these units in suicide missions since they are withdrawing anyways.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Thanks for the info Trey and some good points here.

One thing that has always bugged me that you may be able to help with is that when withdrawing, units are first brought up to full strength before withdrawing when in fact a lot of formations transferred when they were depleted. They were brought up to strength and then sent to other theaters (or rehabilitated in other theaters like France before the landings).

While I understand this might be a game and programing decision (game decision based on preventing abuse by players to totally wreck a formation just as it is withdrawing and programing decision in that everything is the same, so easier to code), it still isn't right and the German player is forced to deal with it. I wish I had a easy solution from the standpoint that the Germans already abuse units set to withdraw from a moral standpoint of view and tend to take better care of units they know will be in theater for the long haul. Perhaps a solution would be to introduce a random factor so that instead of knowing for fact that no matter what, the 94th infantry division is going to withdraw on 15 April 1943, the AI instead picks a division at random and the player gets the two turn notice as usual. Some divisions you can't get around this issue (7th Flieger for example), but for the standard divisions, it could be possible.





Joel Billings -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 4:43:52 PM)

Having a system that asked the player to voluntarily withdraw a certain amount of formations with only a little notice and based on some kind of randomization around a norm could of course be done. It would involve more coding and more interface. Sometimes decisions get made because they're not considered essential and it's better to take the easy/quick approach. If we didn't approach the game with this attitude I don't think we'd ever get one of these monsters released. Some prefer historical withdrawals, and for smaller scenarios it's essential, so that has to be an option in any case. So doing something different for the grand campaign means extra work.




Naughteous Maximus -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 6:46:26 PM)

You forgot the 384th Infantry division. This division except the HQ elements, was encircled in Stalingrad with the rest of the 6th Armee and destroyed.




Aurelian -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 8:55:02 PM)

384th Inf was reconstituted in France in Apr 43.

Trained in France Apr-Oct 43.

Afterward, Oct 43-44, was in action Eastern front til it was destroyed in Aug 44.

Officially disbanded Oct 44.

To borrow Trey's list.

71st Infantry Division -Reconstituted in Denmark Mar 43
94th Infantry Division - Reconstituted in Brittany Mar 43
295th Infantry Division - Reconstituted in Saxony Mar 43
297th Infantry Division - Reconstitued near Blaye-et-St. Luce France Mar-jun 43
305th Infantry Division - Reconstituted near Le Mans France Mar 43

3rd Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France 43
29th Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France Mar 1943
60th Motorized Division - Reconstituted in France Feb 43




RCH -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 9:53:01 PM)

In this discussion, in the past, I have held the opinion that it is a minor issue. It has been stated that this particular issue is easily resolved in the editor.

The more important issue for the Axis player is TOE, TOE upgrades, C&C, moral. In trying to field the most effective army possible it is these items that are the most influential.

The TOE, Toe upgrades and even the C&C should be dealt with in another way. One that considers available manpower. I think it is the devs design decision that any excess from the Eastern Front probably would have been sent West and the Axis should consider these issues in that respect. This is an assumption that cannot be argued to the Axis players satisfaction.

C&C doesn't work as designed and causes a lot of frustration to both sides.

The Moral model (in my opinion) doesn't work very well. I'd like to see it represented in another way.

The Stalingrad issue has taken up a life of its own. It is too bad such a minor issue has taken up so much discussion; and since it is mod-able it would be better to discuss the other more important issues that cannot be modded. Even if the discussion only makes a future game better.

I am aware that TOE changes can be made in the editor. The C&C and national moral cannot be. Making a mod agreeable to both sides may prove problematic. It is easier if things are coded or changes are allowed within game parameters.




Klydon -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/14/2012 11:58:41 PM)

Part of the issue with mods is the community has shown no inclination that they would be receptive to anything any player came up with. I am not sure as to why this is, except perhaps any changes would supposedly favor one side or the other at which point the other side would dismiss it out of hand. At this point it would have to be something that is done by the staff/testers (which they don't have time to test/develop) in order to make it "official".




janh -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 9:38:30 AM)

Trey, Joel, just to clarify what I think to recall from your earlier explanations:

The resources used to reconstitute these historically destroyed formations are figured into the resource pools that the German player gets, right?
(a) Meaning that if 6th is not destroyed, in essence what is happening is that he experienced formations leave, but at least the replacements can make up for the numerical loss by boosting the remainder of the Eastern Wehrmacht? So in principle you "just" loose some shells?
(b) If 6th Army were to be destroyed in your particular game, then you are going to see things happen just they way they did back then, i.e. units being rebuild from the pools before leaving. So net, no difference here?

Sounds like an alternative solution to case (a) would be if the engine would create some "extra" shells that the player could then fill or disband (in case the remainder of his units were in acceptable shape), or even better, the player could decide to built extra units.

Trey, I agree with more randomization and uncertainty, as well as the idea to have players determine which sufficiently powerful formations could be easily spared in the actual game. Ultimately I think the combat boxes in old days were a neat little idea. I am already very curious about the new boxes system in WitW!




jaw -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 1:22:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Klydon, I really don't like the withdrawal system myself and there could be some better ways of implementing the loss of these resources without a lock step rigid system. What I really don't like is that the withdrawal schedule is clearly known without any changes. I would be all for a more flexible system with some more randomness thrown in for uncertainty. I think that the game needs to model resources being withdrawn, I just wish it was a little more dynamic and even unpredictable at times.



Sorry Trey but I have to disagree with you on that one. You get advanced notice on when a unit is going to withdraw so randomizing the date has no practical game effect beyond shifting the date a combat unit comes off the line in preparation for withdrawal. Like random weather it just adds goofyness in the guise of realism. A better solution would be to allow the Axis player to delay withdrawal at a cost in victory points.




Von Hindenburg -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 4:52:20 PM)

quote:

Sorry Trey but I have to disagree with you on that one. You get advanced notice on when a unit is going to withdraw so randomizing the date has no practical game effect beyond shifting the date a combat unit comes off the line in preparation for withdrawal. Like random weather it just adds goofyness in the guise of realism. A better solution would be to allow the Axis player to delay withdrawal at a cost in victory points.


.... or AP points.




RCH -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 5:04:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Trey, Joel, just to clarify what I think to recall from your earlier explanations:

The resources used to reconstitute these historically destroyed formations are figured into the resource pools that the German player gets, right?
(a) Meaning that if 6th is not destroyed, in essence what is happening is that he experienced formations leave, but at least the replacements can make up for the numerical loss by boosting the remainder of the Eastern Wehrmacht? So in principle you "just" loose some shells?
(b) If 6th Army were to be destroyed in your particular game, then you are going to see things happen just they way they did back then, i.e. units being rebuild from the pools before leaving. So net, no difference here?

Sounds like an alternative solution to case (a) would be if the engine would create some "extra" shells that the player could then fill or disband (in case the remainder of his units were in acceptable shape), or even better, the player could decide to built extra units.





I'd like to see a response to this.




notenome -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 5:22:36 PM)

I agree with Von Hindenburg, using AP points to delay withdrawals would make more sense, and the Axis has an overflow of APs, anyway. I completely agree with the op, though there is one thing that I don't if the game takes into account. Basing myself off of Rauss's book, German generals constantly improvised ways of drawing off more manpower. These included using HQ staff, dismounted panzer units, artillerymen, and air base crews as combat units (to hold sections of the front or as reserves). Many of the changes that began as improvisations would latter be included formally in the eastern front. Now of course improvisation is not limited to any side in the conflict, but the Wehrmacht was more receptive to improvisation than any other army of the time.

What I suggest (and I apologize if this is running away from the original post, but hefe's last part reminded me of this) is that German formations be allowed to canabalize their own organic reserves in order to maintain combat effectiveness. For example, if a division's combat power goes down to 50% of its paper value, it organically converts some support squads into rifle squads. Or if a below set strength division is attacked, it converts some support squads into rifle squads to try to boost its combat power.

I also find that something similair is desperately needed for panzer divisions, as most of the crews of knocked out tanks, particularly in 41, kept fighting. By the winter many of the panzer divisions had become de facto understrength infantry divs. But this is going waaaay off topic.




Von Hindenburg -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 8:34:31 PM)

To offer an idea on the withdraw: include a pop-up to withdraw the unit and maybe highlight units that withdraw in 2 turns or are past due, pink perhaps. If you click "withdraw" before its due, you get a few AP points. Each addititional turn past the withdraw you pay an exponential amount of AP points: 1st turn 5, 2nd 10, 3rd 20.... (or thereabouts). If a player lacks the AP points, the unit withdraws. It would however be nice for the unit to be highlighted within a couple of turns of withdrawing so that divisions in key points don't disappear at key times.




Joel Billings -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 9:13:10 PM)

What I see is a request for German players to be able to postpone withdrawing units by spending APs, something people have noted they have in abundance later in the war. I can see the desire to pick which units withdraw, but how would it be right to let the Germans keep more resources on the Eastern Front than they had in the war without a cost? What if you had to pay APs to get your reinforcement units? In that case it might come out fair, but then that's a lot of new code and balancing for what real gain? I understand you want flexibility, but remember you are still only the East Front commander and are not running the entire war. We would need to implement a West Front holding box to make that make sense.




Michael T -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 9:17:12 PM)

quote:

but remember you are still only the East Front commander and are not running the entire war


Some players need reminding of this fact. In relation to certain large scale withdrawal strategies.... [8|]




carlkay58 -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 10:32:50 PM)

One of the problems in the game is that the Axis Player is just the Eastern Front commander but the Soviet Player is the Soviet commander - so we have Halder vs Stalin rather than Hitler vs Stalin. This will not change much in WitW except that you then have the Allied Player as the Commander of both the US and Great Britain, although both have units fighting elsewhere, it is nowhere close to the Axis Player (Western Front commander) dealing with the demands of the Eastern Front.

It is WiE where the Axis will finally get what they are demanding now - complete control while the Soviet will remain in the overall commander spot and the US and Great Britain spots will be the ones complaining because of their lack of control over the Pacific Theater requirements . . .

Yep, it will never end.




Schmart -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 10:58:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

One of the problems in the game is that the Axis Player is just the Eastern Front commander but the Soviet Player is the Soviet commander - so we have Halder vs Stalin rather than Hitler vs Stalin.


Actually, the Russian player is a little below Stalin. While he can create new units he can't, for instance, pull additional troops away from the Far Eastern or northern Karelian Fronts, or decide not to occupy Iran, etc.




el hefe -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/15/2012 11:17:23 PM)

Joel will need to answer this one. I'm just not sure.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Trey, Joel, just to clarify what I think to recall from your earlier explanations:

The resources used to reconstitute these historically destroyed formations are figured into the resource pools that the German player gets, right?
(a) Meaning that if 6th is not destroyed, in essence what is happening is that he experienced formations leave, but at least the replacements can make up for the numerical loss by boosting the remainder of the Eastern Wehrmacht? So in principle you "just" loose some shells?
(b) If 6th Army were to be destroyed in your particular game, then you are going to see things happen just they way they did back then, i.e. units being rebuild from the pools before leaving. So net, no difference here?

Sounds like an alternative solution to case (a) would be if the engine would create some "extra" shells that the player could then fill or disband (in case the remainder of his units were in acceptable shape), or even better, the player could decide to built extra units.

Trey, I agree with more randomization and uncertainty, as well as the idea to have players determine which sufficiently powerful formations could be easily spared in the actual game. Ultimately I think the combat boxes in old days were a neat little idea. I am already very curious about the new boxes system in WitW!





jaw -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 1:00:36 PM)

No, Administrative Points are designed to simulate the difficulty of doing certain things like transferring units between corps/armies or organizing men and equipment into new formations (Soviet). If you delay a withdrawal then the military situation on the front that unit was supposed to go to (and almost all withdrawals are going to other fronts) will be adversely effected for every turn the unit is delayed. That adverse effect should cost you victory points not AP points.




Aurelian -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 1:58:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

No, Administrative Points are designed to simulate the difficulty of doing certain things like transferring units between corps/armies or organizing men and equipment into new formations (Soviet). If you delay a withdrawal then the military situation on the front that unit was supposed to go to (and almost all withdrawals are going to other fronts) will be adversely effected for every turn the unit is delayed. That adverse effect should cost you victory points not AP points.


And every turn you keep it.




Panzer Meyer -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 3:20:50 PM)

I think the issue many are having here is that the 6th Armee wasn't withdrawn to serve on the Western front. It was destroyed at Stalingrad and then reconstituted in the West. When several crises arose in North Africa and Italy Germany had no choice but to use those divisions to fill in the gaps. It simply made sense given their proximity to the Mediterranean theater. The problem many people have with the seemingly arbitrary withdrawal schedule is that the game makes no allowance for players who chose a different path from history. If the Axis does not suffer a "Stalingrad" like disaster in the winter of 42/43, then it makes no sense to remove the 6th army. Of course since we do not have command of all theaters, it is reasonable to siphon off strength from the eastern front to deal with developments in the west. In my opinion it would be better to have a withdrawal schedule that forces the axis player to remove X number of infantry, motorized, and panzer formations at the end of their turn.




Von Hindenburg -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 3:33:29 PM)

Or both? As you say, "Administrative Points are designed to simulate the difficulty of doing certain things like transferring units between corps/armies," so why not take the axis corps/armies one step further and include axis fronts? I kind of view Victory Points as rewards for deystroying the enemy and capturing various locations but agree incentive is needed.

That aside, I do feel the front holding boxes from The Second Front and requiring AP points would be a better solution. And again, my lazy self would like a holding box for country side partisan duty with diminishing supply delivery for fewer units in this box.




Jeffrey H. -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 7:38:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer Meyer

I think the issue many are having here is that the 6th Armee wasn't withdrawn to serve on the Western front. It was destroyed at Stalingrad and then reconstituted in the West. When several crises arose in North Africa and Italy Germany had no choice but to use those divisions to fill in the gaps. It simply made sense given their proximity to the Mediterranean theater. The problem many people have with the seemingly arbitrary withdrawal schedule is that the game makes no allowance for players who chose a different path from history. If the Axis does not suffer a "Stalingrad" like disaster in the winter of 42/43, then it makes no sense to remove the 6th army. Of course since we do not have command of all theaters, it is reasonable to siphon off strength from the eastern front to deal with developments in the west. In my opinion it would be better to have a withdrawal schedule that forces the axis player to remove X number of infantry, motorized, and panzer formations at the end of their turn.


Another old board game era solution to the same problem. The player must withdraw a certain number of units with a certain strength at a certain time. Not specific units, just a number of the type.




Schmart -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 8:14:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.
Another old board game era solution to the same problem. The player must withdraw a certain number of units with a certain strength at a certain time. Not specific units, just a number of the type.


Man...in many ways the old board games were much easier to deal with: "Create new holding box on scrap piece of paper. Remove from board counters totaling 50 CV before March 1943." Done! No prgramming, no bugs, etc.




jaw -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 8:50:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer Meyer

I think the issue many are having here is that the 6th Armee wasn't withdrawn to serve on the Western front. It was destroyed at Stalingrad and then reconstituted in the West. When several crises arose in North Africa and Italy Germany had no choice but to use those divisions to fill in the gaps. It simply made sense given their proximity to the Mediterranean theater. The problem many people have with the seemingly arbitrary withdrawal schedule is that the game makes no allowance for players who chose a different path from history. If the Axis does not suffer a "Stalingrad" like disaster in the winter of 42/43, then it makes no sense to remove the 6th army. Of course since we do not have command of all theaters, it is reasonable to siphon off strength from the eastern front to deal with developments in the west. In my opinion it would be better to have a withdrawal schedule that forces the axis player to remove X number of infantry, motorized, and panzer formations at the end of their turn.


As I thought Trey had explained above and I have said before myself, the withdrawals have NOTHING TO DO WITH STALINGRAD. Had we withdrawn any other divisions to the West nobody would have given them a second thought. Simply because the Germans chose to re-deploy those particular divisions to the West instead of sending them back to the East they become game withdrawals. Dozens of other divisions were destroyed on the Eastern front and re-built but because they were sent back to the Eastern front they are not withdrawals and you never "see" the destruction, re-build, return cycle.

PLEASE, PLEASE get it out of your heads that we are simulating Stalingrad. Besides a few re-organizations, the ONLY reason units are withdrawn in the game is that they were ultimately re-deployed to another front regardless of whether that re-deployment was directly from the East or from some off map location the unit was re-building at. If the Axis player suffers no Stalingrad-like defeat then it actually "costs" him less to send those divisions west since destroyed units would have to be re-built to 75% strength before they could withdraw. The Axis player is NOT being "punished" for Stalingrad; he is paying the price for that fool in Berlin starting a two front war.




Panzer Meyer -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 10:36:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.
Another old board game era solution to the same problem. The player must withdraw a certain number of units with a certain strength at a certain time. Not specific units, just a number of the type.


Man...in many ways the old board games were much easier to deal with: "Create new holding box on scrap piece of paper. Remove from board counters totaling 50 CV before March 1943." Done! No prgramming, no bugs, etc.
That's how I remember Rise and Fall of the Third Reich handling it if you played the Barbarossa scenario.




Aurelian -> RE: The Stalingrad Withdrawal Decision (5/16/2012 11:38:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer Meyer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.
Another old board game era solution to the same problem. The player must withdraw a certain number of units with a certain strength at a certain time. Not specific units, just a number of the type.


Man...in many ways the old board games were much easier to deal with: "Create new holding box on scrap piece of paper. Remove from board counters totaling 50 CV before March 1943." Done! No prgramming, no bugs, etc.
That's how I remember Rise and Fall of the Third Reich handling it if you played the Barbarossa scenario.



But, being that the designer likes to make his games as historically accurate as possible, the divisions that go are the ones that did go.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625E-02