atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (Full Version)

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



Message


Pelton -> atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 6:34:54 AM)

Back in the day when a few of us GHC nuts were running amuck and camping out in Moscow on turn 12/Leningrad turn 4 and rostov turn 7 2by3 patched in higher then normal german loses for just moving tanks ect.

Can this get patched out seeing you guys have finally figured out how we were making you all look silly?

As can be seen in AAR after AAR after 1.06.13 went into effect, taking Moscow is impossible/ taking Rostov is hard and taking Leningrad will be impossible vs a good SHC player.

And with the blizzard being based on historical weather from The Lord of The Rings (Middle Earth) and not historocal weather from planet earth, most games now (all things being equal) will be are over in 1944.

So nerf the nerf 2by3 installed or nerf the Middle Earth 41/42 winter.

Both are based on nothing to do with WW2 eastern front historical records.




delatbabel -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 10:05:54 AM)

"As can be seen in AAR after AAR after 1.06.13 went into effect, taking Moscow is impossible/ taking Rostov is hard and taking Leningrad will be impossible vs a good SHC player."

Actually that's only been seen in one AAR so far, one in which you appear to be playing deliberately badly in order to make your point. Most AARs show Leningrad falling fairly early and Moscow falling in 1941 in about 50% of them.

The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.




Savanniperkele -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 10:31:24 AM)

Is Pelton not winning again? We all remember he was just recently claiming that less panzers is actually good for him for those eat less fuel. Why chancing hes mind so rapidly again?




TulliusDetritus -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 11:59:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.


In fact it is not. And this coming from an only-Soviet player [:)] You can basically push & trash the Germans & Co. from the Baltic to the Black Seas. And this is (historically speaking) an aberration: when the original counter-offensive was expanded it showed the poor coordination between the Soviet Fronts (this was aknowledged by the Soviets themselves).

Big Anorak's winter rule is still a must on my book. Problem is I can't see how the current engine could limit this counter-offensive.

Cheers




TulliusDetritus -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 12:06:03 PM)

Not to mention that you actually CAN destroy German units during this counter-offensive using er... some tricks... And the cold fact remains that the Germans tried to hold ground (Hitler's famous orders) and yet the Red Army did NOT destroy enemy divisions... which proves we are necessarily using tricks to do what the historical counterparts couldn't achieve. So... [;)]




mevstedt -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 12:26:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Not to mention that you actually CAN destroy German units during this counter-offensive using er... some tricks... And the cold fact remains that the Germans tried to hold ground (Hitler's famous orders) and yet the Red Army did NOT destroy enemy divisions... which proves we are necessarily using tricks to do what the historical counterparts couldn't achieve. So... [;)]


I concur. I was writing up a pretty large post to prove how ahistorical the blizzard rule is (unfortunately I haven't been active on the forum long enough to be allowed to post links to my sources so the post ended up scrapped despite "Go back to post" and hoping I could have edited them out [:(]).

Anyways, as you sum up, the russians did not destroy a large amount of axis/german divisions during this winter. In fact, there isn't even a large spike in actual losses in the months of dec 41 to mar 42 in comparison to the earlier months of operation barbarossa or the months after, where as in the game I end up taking as much as +100% more losses by attrition alone!!

I am unfamiliar with what Big Anoraks winter rule contains but imo all the morale affecting stuff should be scrapped as well as the increased attrition rate while keeping the artificial cut on axis combat values (so as to allow the soviets to actually be able to push the axis back) as well as the reduced replacement/supply rates that are in effect as they seem to reflect the low overall level of preparedness for winter warfare and overstretched supply lines of the german army. The damage on equipment/vehicles also seem to be in accordance with actual history.

Anyways, historically the germans were surprised by the sudden and vicious soviet counteroffensive but they did however recover. The way the rule is written now, any axis player attempting to hold the line is looking at a situation worse than the 42/43 winter and in worst cases they may end up with an army that can't recover. Historical? I think not.





TulliusDetritus -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 12:48:28 PM)

Big Anorak's rule tried to simulate a more "historical" offensive. A maximum of 3 fronts could attack per turn. But then x front could only attack 2 turns in a row. It had to rest on the third one.

Then I think in some turns (february?) only 2 fronts could attack.

It was still way too much LOL But, ok, I'm an extremist. Still I had used this winter rule on my second game so in theory I know what I am talking about ie the Germans were trashed the same. And yes, all over the place.




morvael -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 1:11:43 PM)

In order to achieve historical flow of the game the rules that nerf and buff opposing sides are too harsh IMO and always have been. The starting advantage of Axis over Soviet is too big, but the German power declines very fast, while the Soviet increases very fast as well. Reducing this start and end gap would make for a more enjoyable game.




Aurelian -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 1:47:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.


In fact it is not. And this coming from an only-Soviet player [:)] You can basically push & trash the Germans & Co. from the Baltic to the Black Seas. And this is (historically speaking) an aberration: when the original counter-offensive was expanded it showed the poor coordination between the Soviet Fronts (this was aknowledged by the Soviets themselves).

Big Anorak's winter rule is still a must on my book. Problem is I can't see how the current engine could limit this counter-offensive.

Cheers



The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.




mevstedt -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 1:59:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.


So one ahistorical move = 12 turns of ahistorical countermoves?[8|]

I agree with Morvael though so take that comment with a grain of salt.

As a person who has played both sides, with the majority of the games as the axis though, I still believe the soviets are too weak overall during the early stages of the game/campaign compared to history. How this can be changed however is a big problem as simply boosting them would just make them too strong when a person employs the "run for the hills" type of strategy, ie the game needs an incentive for the russians to actually fight (as well as the strength to do so) where as the germans have incentive to hold the line during blizzard but are completely unable to do so by the current state of the blizzard rule.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 2:21:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.


In fact it is not. And this coming from an only-Soviet player [:)] You can basically push & trash the Germans & Co. from the Baltic to the Black Seas. And this is (historically speaking) an aberration: when the original counter-offensive was expanded it showed the poor coordination between the Soviet Fronts (this was aknowledged by the Soviets themselves).

Big Anorak's winter rule is still a must on my book. Problem is I can't see how the current engine could limit this counter-offensive.

Cheers



The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.


I know [:)] But in my opinion we have to criticize the bad things we see on our side (and only then, perhaps, what's wrong with the other side). Others may prefer to air first the bad things they see on the opponent's side [:D]




Klydon -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 2:42:36 PM)

On the tank attrition, I have to disagree with you on this one Pelton.

If anything, the attrition isn't quite high enough yet. Remember, the Germans had 165 operational tanks on the entire eastern front in March 42. Now, this number swelled to around 3000 by the time the German offensive jumped off. The game has not been able to replicate that as most games I have seen have tank strength down to around 1k at the lowest and upwards of close to 3k tanks by the summer.

Guderian states in his book his lead panzer division during the encirclement of Kiev was down to 11 operational tanks (and 7 of those were panzer II's). This was after both PG2 and PG3 had been rehabbed.

At the start of August, German tank strength was at around 44% of ToE available for deployment. 20% were disabled and 30% were deadlined for repair (no parts). (Book does not explain the other 6%). Start of September it was 47% available for deployment.

For the Moscow offensive, there is a note that says if the GHC had deployed all tanks at its disposal to the Moscow divisions, they could be brought up to 60.5% ToE. Trucks were at 77%, prime movers at 67.9%. The GHC did not move a lot of new tanks to the front because Hitler was intent on forming new panzer divisions. (The rail system may have played a role in that as well in terms of trying to get a pile of new tanks to the front).

Pelton, I don't disagree with you on the weather (I said something long ago and 2 by 3 mentioned there were no plans to change it, so I dropped it), but I think they have the tank attrition fairly accurate and if anything, it might be a little generous, but then I think most German commanders are a bit more careful with their panzers than their historical counterparts.




janh -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 3:52:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Not to mention that you actually CAN destroy German units during this counter-offensive using er... some tricks... And the cold fact remains that the Germans tried to hold ground (Hitler's famous orders) and yet the Red Army did NOT destroy enemy divisions... which proves we are necessarily using tricks to do what the historical counterparts couldn't achieve. So... [;)]


Tullius is right on. In a game, where Axis has not overrun SHC beyond the average, and SHC has not outdone GHC in turn, SHC can punish Axis very badly if GHC doesn't give ground where it is weak to defend. If Axis holds forward a la a Stand-Fast order, or SHC fares too well in the previous summer, uuhh, blizzard is a major game changer. I suppose it was designed that way, though, to force a definite change of initiative and independent of pretty much all previous events, enable a SHC offensive to punish GHC and rebalance both sides for summer 42.

In an average game, it would seem the combat penalities are too severe while SHC can act better coordinated, with more hindsight (which in Axis terms would mean a retreat!), and logistics is another matter. I wonder how a game would work out, in which both side would be set up with historical positions and ToE for December 41, and slug is out following the same attack and holding pattern the contemporary counterparts followed -- I imagine it would be bad.

Ideally the prerequisite that allowed the SHC to conduct the successful (more or less) blizzard and late winter offensives ought to be the same in this game as in history: an badly-overextended, under-supplied and attrited Wehrmacht in a deadlock with SHC fronts. And a supply and weather situation, that deteriorated and hurt GHC more than SHC, which had more experience and better equipment for it. So if an Axis player should chose to conserve his forces better, avoid overextension, or managed to hurt SHC more than usual, SHC should not be able to push Axis around so badly as of yet. Just my two cents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
If anything, the attrition isn't quite high enough yet. Remember, the Germans had 165 operational tanks on the entire eastern front in March 42. Now, this number swelled to around 3000 by the time the German offensive jumped off. The game has not been able to replicate that as most games I have seen have tank strength down to around 1k at the lowest and upwards of close to 3k tanks by the summer.

At the start of August, German tank strength was at around 44% of ToE available for deployment. 20% were disabled and 30% were deadlined for repair (no parts). Start of September it was 47% available for deployment.

Pelton, I don't disagree with you on the weather, but I think they have the tank attrition fairly accurate and if anything, it might be a little generous, but then I think most German commanders are a bit more careful with their panzers than their historical counterparts.


Not sure about the attrition rates in summer and blizzard, but they generally look reasonable I would say. Such heavy attrition already by August seems rare though. In my AI games you can say never, though in some GCs I had heavy and in others much lesser tank losses despite not actually doing much different -- I believe. Playing with hindsight 70 years later, in a time where doctrines and knowledge (also the "home by christmas" race) have changed so much, one probably is far less reckless and aggressive with (hasty) attacks with Panzers than a Rommel or Guderian was at the time back? I would start looking there for the difference.




morvael -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/28/2012 11:07:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

As a person who has played both sides, with the majority of the games as the axis though, I still believe the soviets are too weak overall during the early stages of the game/campaign compared to history. How this can be changed however is a big problem as simply boosting them would just make them too strong when a person employs the "run for the hills" type of strategy, ie the game needs an incentive for the russians to actually fight (as well as the strength to do so) where as the germans have incentive to hold the line during blizzard but are completely unable to do so by the current state of the blizzard rule.



This is actually quite simple, if taken care of during game design (which unfortunately is not the case here). Developers should look into boardgames that solved the issue, like Napoleon's Triumph and Twilight in the East. The logic is simple: players want to win the game. Players will not repeat historical mistakes that make their victory less possible. There must be an incentive to repeat historical mistakes. Look into victory conditions. Award players for doing historical mistakes. Examples: in Napoleon's Triumph, the Allied player would never march into the trap and let his flank be smashed from Pratzen. The game solves this by requiring the Allies to capture objectives on the French side of the battlefield to win (otherwise they lose), unless the French player will deploy his reserves (two corps), which changes the objectives so that now the French player must capture objectives on the Allied side to win. Simple as that, and you never see the Allies camping in their deployment zone. Twilight in the East awards players for making prepared attacks, so they are forced to use the bloody tactics of early WWI, there is no gain in digging and being passive. Also, some armies start with mandated objectives (according to pre-war plans) and they may not move away, only closer to them, unless they abandon the plan, which costs the more VP the farther is your objective. Two simple VP related rules and you have the armies marching into historical traps with bloody battles all along the frontlines. Suddenly "stupid" things are worthwile for the players to pursue, because they are awarded for that with VP. And the ultimate goal of every player is to win the game.




AFV -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 12:30:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.


I would like the first turn fixed. The Llov pocket is just too harsh. However, it has become a way to balance out all the other imbalances in the game, which is unfortunate.





AFV -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 12:37:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael


quote:

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

As a person who has played both sides, with the majority of the games as the axis though, I still believe the soviets are too weak overall during the early stages of the game/campaign compared to history. How this can be changed however is a big problem as simply boosting them would just make them too strong when a person employs the "run for the hills" type of strategy, ie the game needs an incentive for the russians to actually fight (as well as the strength to do so) where as the germans have incentive to hold the line during blizzard but are completely unable to do so by the current state of the blizzard rule.



This is actually quite simple, if taken care of during game design (which unfortunately is not the case here). Developers should look into boardgames that solved the issue, like Napoleon's Triumph and Twilight in the East. The logic is simple: players want to win the game. Players will not repeat historical mistakes that make their victory less possible. There must be an incentive to repeat historical mistakes. Look into victory conditions. Award players for doing historical mistakes. Examples: in Napoleon's Triumph, the Allied player would never march into the trap and let his flank be smashed from Pratzen. The game solves this by requiring the Allies to capture objectives on the French side of the battlefield to win (otherwise they lose), unless the French player will deploy his reserves (two corps), which changes the objectives so that now the French player must capture objectives on the Allied side to win. Simple as that, and you never see the Allies camping in their deployment zone. Twilight in the East awards players for making prepared attacks, so they are forced to use the bloody tactics of early WWI, there is no gain in digging and being passive. Also, some armies start with mandated objectives (according to pre-war plans) and they may not move away, only closer to them, unless they abandon the plan, which costs the more VP the farther is your objective. Two simple VP related rules and you have the armies marching into historical traps with bloody battles all along the frontlines. Suddenly "stupid" things are worthwile for the players to pursue, because they are awarded for that with VP. And the ultimate goal of every player is to win the game.


Excellent points. Points could be awarded for the Soviet holding x on turn x. The hard part is determining those variables so they are fair and balance the game.




turtlefang -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 2:02:01 AM)

Morvael has identified the biggest issue here. In general, a good Soviet player against an equal German player should do much better than the Soviet player did in real life. The Soviets just did a bad job especially in regards to allowing too many encirclements. Even if getting pounded with losses, the Soviets should still manage to not loss as many divisions to surrounds.

So the Soviets has the better chance to do better than historical.

Reality is that the Soviets, if not so incompetent in 41, should have done better than they did. And the Soviet player has more room to do better than the German player in this case.

And like it or not, command incompetence is hard to program in a wargame. Most players don't like getting saddled with the type of rules required to do that.




Aurelian -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 2:32:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.


So one ahistorical move = 12 turns of ahistorical countermoves?[8|]



Perhaps you should run through the forums to read all the complaints and accusations from some Axis players first.




Aurelian -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 2:35:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael


quote:

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

As a person who has played both sides, with the majority of the games as the axis though, I still believe the soviets are too weak overall during the early stages of the game/campaign compared to history. How this can be changed however is a big problem as simply boosting them would just make them too strong when a person employs the "run for the hills" type of strategy, ie the game needs an incentive for the russians to actually fight (as well as the strength to do so) where as the germans have incentive to hold the line during blizzard but are completely unable to do so by the current state of the blizzard rule.



This is actually quite simple, if taken care of during game design (which unfortunately is not the case here). Developers should look into boardgames that solved the issue, like Napoleon's Triumph and Twilight in the East. The logic is simple: players want to win the game.


The designers did not want to force players to make the same mistakes made by both sides.




MechFO -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 4:17:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.


The Russians had trouble making headway against depleted German units at 30-40% Inf TOE. What killed German units (besides supply situation) was having to retreat to prevent being outflanked. This was both due to their severe overextension as well as the sudden loss of tactical mobility. The constant exposure to winter in the open from having to keep moving killed both the transport (horses and broken down trucks) leading to the vast majority of equipment losses as well as leading to many attrition losses.

Even so, spent German units still managed to conduct Army scale successful manoeuvre warfare in January/February 41.

German units should lose ZOC and have severe supply and movement penalties as well as suffering heavy attrition if having to displace, but the current blizzard penalties (especially cv) are a joke. If anything they are ass-backward rewarding running while running was pretty much what killed the combat value of units in real life....

The summer 41 campaign also has more than it's share of structural issues but that's for another thread.




MechFO -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 4:23:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I wonder how a game would work out, in which both side would be set up with historical positions and ToE for December 41, and slug is out following the same attack and holding pattern the contemporary counterparts followed -- I imagine it would be bad.



Something I asked for...in December 2010...., since this is the only way to see if the special rules actually made sense.




RCH -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 4:48:12 AM)

I'd like to post here and again state how much I hate this games' 1941 blizzard. For reasons already covered in the thread and I think all the posters are in general agreement on the 1941 blizzard.




morvael -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 7:11:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The designers did not want to force players to make the same mistakes made by both sides.


The VP system is a "soft" force. You don't have to do things you don't want, for a price. On the other hand you have now a "hard" force. No matter what you do, the Soviets are crap first, and the Germans are crap next.




terje439 -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 8:27:19 AM)

Posted originally in my AAR;

"The Blizzard is debated over and over, and there are indeed imo some issues that makes it somewhat OP for a good USSR player (espesially when playing someone like me).
-the Germans inability to counterattack
-the extremely low German defensive CV
-the high mobility of the USSR units
-the low mobility of German units
This leads to a situation where an entire army can be jeopardized by two unlucky dice throws, and German losses are appaling if this happens.

What I was thinking was the following;
-give rivers defensive values even at winter (been saying this for a long time, I know) ***
-give German units a % chance each turn during the Blizzard to be "winterized" (to simulate the effort to make emergency deliveries of winter clothing, skis etc that actually took place), where their defensive CV is increased (not their offensive CV).
*****

And I get that people think that the blizzard penalties are justified due to the German opening moves. Well, I have no issue with reducing the MPs on the German panzers on T1 (should remove the Lvov-pocket, rush to Riga etc) if this is what is needed to look at the Blizzard.

Anyway, just my tired brain thinking after making yet another blizzard turn as the Germans.
I also agree to the fact that better players will do better during Blizzard than me, and that there are issues arising that I have myself to thank for."

*** Ice and snow, flat surface, up to several miles across. Yup, not at all a good defensive position...
***** This would make things a little unpredictable as you would not know what unit(s) if any would become winterized each turn, and could indeed cause some probles for the USSR as the unit he wants to remove can suddenly have normal defensive CV, or it could unhinge an uncautious German player that gambles on a specific unit to become winterized and hold an important hex.


Terje




janh -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 11:43:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The Russians had trouble making headway against depleted German units at 30-40% Inf TOE. What killed German units (besides supply situation) was having to retreat to prevent being outflanked. This was both due to their severe overextension as well as the sudden loss of tactical mobility. The constant exposure to winter in the open from having to keep moving killed both the transport (horses and broken down trucks) leading to the vast majority of equipment losses as well as leading to many attrition losses.

Even so, spent German units still managed to conduct Army scale successful manoeuvre warfare in January/February 41.

German units should lose ZOC and have severe supply and movement penalties as well as suffering heavy attrition if having to displace, but the current blizzard penalties (especially cv) are a joke. If anything they are ass-backward rewarding running while running was pretty much what killed the combat value of units in real life....

The summer 41 campaign also has more than it's share of structural issues but that's for another thread.


+1

The present blizzard rules are basically not causal -- totally out of context. If the Germans don't make the same major mistakes like they did before blizzard, but played conservative, with hindsight, saving strengths and avoiding overextension or uneconomic attacks, the blizzard offensive still can happen and be (somewhat) "devastating".

Imagine you'd play the game trying to mimick historical doctrine against a human player, play shortsighted for a 41 end? And you'd end up with half-wasted units stuck in the mud just outside of the gates of Moscow and Leningrad, in deadlock with increasing Russian resistance when blizzard strikes. Unless your SHC opponent committed also to throw hindsight out of the window and waste his force in summer and autumn in plenty pockets and countless, pointless counterattacks (as if a division of BT-7 made the Germans falter...), you can probably tell yourself how with the present blizzard rules it would end otherwise.

If both played "fools" though, and played to get the most historical feel out of it, it still would hurt the Germans -- they have too little offensive power to "clean" situations up.




janh -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 11:59:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV
I would like the first turn fixed. The Llov pocket is just too harsh. However, it has become a way to balance out all the other imbalances in the game, which is unfortunate.


+2

The only thing that presently limits the impact of Lvov a bit is the equally gamey bottling of the Finnish up in the northern map corner. Both ought to be a matter of house rules, in this form they are purely due to game limits or mechanics.

Ideally make Lvov a possibility within the realm of a historical position setup, and present MPs and flexibility, but not a given every single time attempted. It should at least sometimes require a 2nd turn to succeed. Ideally do so by adding a kind of reaction/interdiction move or such that we don't have this more or less unbroken (air interdiction) I-Go-U-Go system with what gives the impression of a 1-week BBQ of your units while the opponents walk around you unmolested. Less ideally by randomizing the historical positions at each start, or the German starting MPs.

Right now we have Lvov and extended Lvov, which move the course immediately a world away from history (or gain 4 weeks time in a half) -- and people wonder why the Russians react to that and run for the hills in the south... Then you have blizzard rules that are too harsh under normal conditions, and you wonder why the Germans in a typical game give ground...

Preventing both from running, which in both cases in the absence of political factors seems to be advisable from purely military considerations, could perhaps be enforced better by a turn by turn VP system. In principle this would force players to repeat those mistakes though, else we will have to be happy with the fact that each side will optimize its strategy and chose when to fight or to run for its own sake. That surely doesn't give the feel of a brawl and struggle to death, but more like the Africa campaign. A matter of preference, perhaps?




Pelton -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 12:58:46 PM)

I beleive the one major thing that would give the game a historical feel is a turn by turn VP system or make railing out industry harder.

Both would forse fighting forward.

This in turn would require that SHC gets more forses early or nerf Lvov pocket some how.

Lvov pocket solution: The first turn would be SHC, some units in south would be given ( x ) MP's, a small amount 6? Enough so they cant just run, but enough so making a huge pocket would be impossible or unlikely.

OR

Give them full movement, but only in a small boxed in area.

I beleive both can easly be coded in and it is a simple fix

With a Lvov pocket fix if a VP system is not possible then simply totally nerf the blizzard effects of 41/42.

A more historical "fix" would be that the effects only last 2 turns, which is more in line with historical.

or

The increase in cv to SHC is 25% and lower GHC by 25% and completely nerf the silly magic boots for increased SHC MP's




Flaviusx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 2:00:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The Russians had trouble making headway against depleted German units at 30-40% Inf TOE. What killed German units (besides supply situation) was having to retreat to prevent being outflanked. This was both due to their severe overextension as well as the sudden loss of tactical mobility. The constant exposure to winter in the open from having to keep moving killed both the transport (horses and broken down trucks) leading to the vast majority of equipment losses as well as leading to many attrition losses.

Even so, spent German units still managed to conduct Army scale successful manoeuvre warfare in January/February 41.

German units should lose ZOC and have severe supply and movement penalties as well as suffering heavy attrition if having to displace, but the current blizzard penalties (especially cv) are a joke. If anything they are ass-backward rewarding running while running was pretty much what killed the combat value of units in real life....

The summer 41 campaign also has more than it's share of structural issues but that's for another thread.


+1

The present blizzard rules are basically not causal -- totally out of context. If the Germans don't make the same major mistakes like they did before blizzard, but played conservative, with hindsight, saving strengths and avoiding overextension or uneconomic attacks, the blizzard offensive still can happen and be (somewhat) "devastating".

Imagine you'd play the game trying to mimick historical doctrine against a human player, play shortsighted for a 41 end? And you'd end up with half-wasted units stuck in the mud just outside of the gates of Moscow and Leningrad, in deadlock with increasing Russian resistance when blizzard strikes. Unless your SHC opponent committed also to throw hindsight out of the window and waste his force in summer and autumn in plenty pockets and countless, pointless counterattacks (as if a division of BT-7 made the Germans falter...), you can probably tell yourself how with the present blizzard rules it would end otherwise.

If both played "fools" though, and played to get the most historical feel out of it, it still would hurt the Germans -- they have too little offensive power to "clean" situations up.


The only way the Germans could have avoided their total supply breakdown in 1941 would have been to not invade the Soviet Union. They were not even close to being prepared logistically for the winter. The war was supposed to be over by then, according to their plan. There was no expedient or makeshift that could have avoided the catastrophic supply failure they experienced.

The blizzard rule in this game has a lot of problems. But causality isn't one of them.




Flaviusx -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 2:05:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV
I would like the first turn fixed. The Llov pocket is just too harsh. However, it has become a way to balance out all the other imbalances in the game, which is unfortunate.


+2

The only thing that presently limits the impact of Lvov a bit is the equally gamey bottling of the Finnish up in the northern map corner. Both ought to be a matter of house rules, in this form they are purely due to game limits or mechanics.

Ideally make Lvov a possibility within the realm of a historical position setup, and present MPs and flexibility, but not a given every single time attempted. It should at least sometimes require a 2nd turn to succeed. Ideally do so by adding a kind of reaction/interdiction move or such that we don't have this more or less unbroken (air interdiction) I-Go-U-Go system with what gives the impression of a 1-week BBQ of your units while the opponents walk around you unmolested. Less ideally by randomizing the historical positions at each start, or the German starting MPs.

Right now we have Lvov and extended Lvov, which move the course immediately a world away from history (or gain 4 weeks time in a half) -- and people wonder why the Russians react to that and run for the hills in the south... Then you have blizzard rules that are too harsh under normal conditions, and you wonder why the Germans in a typical game give ground...

Preventing both from running, which in both cases in the absence of political factors seems to be advisable from purely military considerations, could perhaps be enforced better by a turn by turn VP system. In principle this would force players to repeat those mistakes though, else we will have to be happy with the fact that each side will optimize its strategy and chose when to fight or to run for its own sake. That surely doesn't give the feel of a brawl and struggle to death, but more like the Africa campaign. A matter of preference, perhaps?


No, the Finnish bottleneck doesn't even come close to balancing Lvov. All it does is prevent the fall of Leningrad (a nearly automatic event and that itself is a problem) from spiraling out of control. What happens in Leningrad is quite unrelated to Lvov and a whole different problem. It's just too easy to take barring a massive commitment of forces.

The proper way to fix the whole Finnish front is to remove it altogether. It is more trouble than it's worth. Just get rid of it and remove 23. and 7. Armies along with it to represent Soviet forces committed to offmap operations.




janh -> RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch (9/29/2012 3:33:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The only way the Germans could have avoided their total supply breakdown in 1941 would have been to not invade the Soviet Union. They were not even close to being prepared logistically for the winter. The war was supposed to be over by then, according to their plan. There was no expedient or makeshift that could have avoided the catastrophic supply failure they experienced.

The blizzard rule in this game has a lot of problems. But causality isn't one of them.


While you are certainly right that bottling the Finns isn't an effect at the same order of Lvov, or does anything about saving LG, I disagree about blizzard. If the combat penalties were somewhat light, but supply even tighter than now, I would see this as a good representation of this German logistics breakdown it is supposed to model. But presently, if you cling tight to a Soviet Army with about the historical strengths on both sides and in many areas don't take a step unless forced by combat, I think with the present rules it totally spins out of control. Maybe ask Scar what happened, but their recent game appeared to be somewhat representative of that situation.

Even if one conserves forces well, enters blizzard with high moral infantry at >>80% ToE, one gets a whipping during December and January unless SHC has been cut to well below 5M, perhaps even down to 4M. This is independent of the type of opponent, though a human player will make pockets and hurt GHC worse than AI, which even at 100% or 110% still can push you back basically everywhere it wants, but doesn't cause you too much headaches as it rarely pockets. GHC, in such a conserved state, and at least against a reasonably weakened SHC, should have a better ability to conduct relieve attempts or attacks during blizzard, or at least shouldn't suffer so heavy moral losses when attacking and failing/or get greater gains when winning as well. Else, this makes the fighting during that time mood -- even if you win 1 out of 3 times, the moral is going to pummel and you get punished for attempting to hold, but with no gain in VP or anything else (except when SHC makes mistakes, i.e overextends and attacks with overly heavy losses -- then you get a payback, perhaps even a good one if you can start with a spring 42 offensive).

The effects are just a bit too strong. Maybe adjust them to the January level for December, and to the February level for January as well. That would "feel" more in accordance with the reference case.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.417969E-02