RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (Full Version)

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



Message


76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 1:50:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonso
I think WitE has suffered enough with crude mechanisms to enfore some semblance of historical balance.


Exhibit 1 of course being the whole 1:1->2:1 mechanism. The fact that this mechanism is necessary at all tells me that the combat model is fundamentally broken.




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 2:03:01 PM)

People keep saying they want to see Soviet command and control be worse than it is, but I for one am not sure what they mean by this. It's already quite poor and it takes months and years and hundreds of APs to tease it into shape. The command structure is quite a mess early on. Their leadership across the board is considerably worse than the German. They hardly have any decent mech leaders. Their initiative ratings are a good two points worse on average. And their morale ratings are 30-40 points lower in 41.

What is missing here, perhaps, is the close and overbearing Stalin directives which produced many of the disasters of 41. Certainly the Kiev pocket was a product of said leadership. But the same stupidity is missing on the other side.




76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 2:13:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
People keep saying they want to see Soviet command and control be worse than it is, but I for one am not sure what they mean by this.


Other people might have different views, but my main beef is that I command a division, army, front to move somewhere, and boom, they move exactly as requested. I can choreograph complex retrograde movements, etc. with exactly no hiccups.

This is more than a little unrealistic; in the first summer, Stavka didn't even know where many units where, much less how to get the armies to move to the right place at the right time. During the first weeks of the war, many Sov units were frittered away by being ordered to move back and forth with contradictory orders until their tanks broke down, they ran out of fuel, they bumbled into a German unit, etc. All of this is completely absent in this game.

Sure, the Stalin directives also played a role, but I would classify those as "mistakes" rather than "capability" so are more difficult to deal with.

Finally, of course as a Sov player it would be frustrating to no end to not be able to move units exactly as I like, but to play otherwise is simply venturing into fantasy territory.




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 2:23:41 PM)

To the extent they were unable to pull off retrograde movements, this wasn't because of command and control by and large.

It was because Stalin made them stay put. Once again, I point to Kiev. This was no command and control failure. If you want to fix that, look elsewhere. That's a victory point issue, if anything.





76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 2:35:37 PM)

I gave retrograde movements as one example, but the point is that they can also execute perfectly-coordinated attacks or any other type of maneuver effortlessly.

I guess the goofy combat system means that all of the units that seemed to have shown up for a battle might not really be there, because the combatants are penalized by 90% for command reasons, or not, or whatever, and then the results are bumped up from 1:1 to 2:1... I have no idea what the hell is going on, but for me it is simultaneously too detailed (individual weapons firing?) and too abstract (why on earth did my CV fall by 97%?).

Sure Kiev and other disasters were largely caused by bone-headed command decisions, but particularly in the first weeks of the war I think that there should be distinctly more chaos. Morever, even the mistakes were based on a lack of understanding of German capabilities (sometimes by Stalin alone, sometimes by lower commanders), which is itself a form of lack of capability. All of this would be very difficult or impossible to replicate in a game in which players have hindsight and understand their opponent very well.




timmyab -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 3:08:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It was because Stalin made them stay put. Once again, I point to Kiev. This was no command and control failure. If you want to fix that, look elsewhere. That's a victory point issue, if anything.

This would certainly help the game dynamics a lot and could presumably be done within the current game framework.
As well as using VPs I think fighting forward can also be encouraged in other ways.For example by hitting national morale and by reducing AP allowance.Victory locations could start the game at a certain level and gradually reduce turn by turn so that they must be held early on but can gradually be abandoned, eventually with no penalty at all if held for long enough.




janh -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 3:21:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
People keep saying they want to see Soviet command and control be worse than it is, but I for one am not sure what they mean by this. It's already quite poor and it takes months and years and hundreds of APs to tease it into shape. The command structure is quite a mess early on. Their leadership across the board is considerably worse than the German. They hardly have any decent mech leaders. Their initiative ratings are a good two points worse on average. And their morale ratings are 30-40 points lower in 41.

What is missing here, perhaps, is the close and overbearing Stalin directives which produced many of the disasters of 41. Certainly the Kiev pocket was a product of said leadership. But the same stupidity is missing on the other side.


It is worse on many levels, not only that. Leadership points, which includes the staff capabilities in this depiction, are largely worlds behind for the Soviets. Also, to in principally achieve the same, the whole Soviet command structure is a lot bulkier in the beginning than the German one, there is plenty of manpower absorbed in HQs in the initial Soviet Army. One should calculate it when at that point, but if you are down to 4.5M Soviets by the end of the 41 summer offensive, probably a good ~500K of the poor survivors are in HQs, and likely the same number in airbase units. That is a lot of useless manpower to waste there. Much as Stalin might invoke an emergency railrepair program if the Germans flee to Poland in winter, he probably would have converted a lot of that manpower into fighting cadres (at no AP cost in that situation -- maybe what is needed is more AP boosts if events occur like falling below the 5M limit or such? -- that would be a nice feature for WitE2).




morvael -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 3:26:25 PM)

And now you arrive at the conclusion I presented earlier, to which many (board) game designers adhere, that it's the victory conditions that must make player want to do certain things in game. The player plays the game to win. He will care about victory conditions more than for anything else. If there is no victory penalty for doing a-historical things, player will happily do them, breaking the game. If at that point you start adjusting wrong things to arrive at historical results (like making every individual Russian unit very weak for half a year or making a blizzard-to-end-all-blizzards) then you mutate and mutilate the game, by twisting the reasons for achieving historical results.




janh -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 3:40:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Sure Kiev and other disasters were largely caused by bone-headed command decisions, but particularly in the first weeks of the war I think that there should be distinctly more chaos. Morever, even the mistakes were based on a lack of understanding of German capabilities (sometimes by Stalin alone, sometimes by lower commanders), which is itself a form of lack of capability. All of this would be very difficult or impossible to replicate in a game in which players have hindsight and understand their opponent very well.


Not sure how much chaos there should be, or how it should be modeled. My impression from books was more that coordination was an issue, and that often bone-headed orders where given or followed (Stalin's counter attack demand, holding -- it isn't all that much different from boneheaded Hitler orders if such a feature was truly desired, and I would probably want to play without such a hopefully optional rule, no matter what side) in fear of loosing a generals head. That's two very different things, though.

"Forge of Freedom", a civil war game had a rule that simulated misinterpretation or loss of orders. Units had a probability to take a misstep or two, depending on the general's and the "container" ratings (container = staff of corps etc.; I think it was independent of the unit experience, though). At first I thought this a nice feature, but after a while I turned it off. Maybe with a "We-Go" system with simultaneous turn resolution, sort of like the NSD Scourge of Gettysburg where you truly give orders to subordinates and see them interpreted, I would like this more.

Translated it would mean SHC units would be likely to take missteps until their exp (in principle their commanders values...) raised to some value, say 65, and above that missteps are unlikely, yet still happen. Wehrmacht would see them rarely, but imagine your morale 99 LAH taking 3 steps south instead of northwest to close a key pocket... it wouldn't be unreasonable since C&C failures wasn't a purely Soviet issue.

With "missteps", though, a raising of the MPs for SHC would seem necessary as I understand the low MPs do actually cover this case, as well as poor coordination (often insufficient MPs to generate "deliberate", well-organized attacks with numerous stacks).

What could perhaps be implemented in easier fashion in WitE/WitW might be more "coordination penalties", i.e. what I believe the Soviets suffered most from: for e.g. a deliberate attack by stacks of SHC randomly breaking down in sequential single attacks, with predictable outcome. Again the question would be whether that isn't basically covered by the low MPs, or whether it would be better to have higher MPs (i.e. lower morale dependency on MPs) and instead more often suffer unforeseen failures.

Perhaps rather the true inadequacy of Soviet C&C in summer of 41, what you (or Helio) are truly missing is an impression, a surprise effect of things falling randomly apart, in contrast to having everything sort of "orderly" determined and controlled by the MP value?




rrbill -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 3:52:57 PM)

Game is a lot of fun as is and looking forward to WitE II.

Worst effect to me is the sudden "switch" that, when pulled, reduces German effectiveness and/or improves Russian effectiveness winter 41/42, and whenever such techniques are employed in later time frames. Effects that should be modelled should be integral to the models for logistics, combat, etc. and the conditions of the state of the game. Clearly a big "should be," but always worth working towards.

Would be interesting to choose different top leaders than Joe & Adolph to see what might obtain, given the models of the game. But if Joe & Adolph are in place then their leadership has to be modelled. Maybe that's too difficult a demand for the development teams.

There is marvelous detail in the equipment list, leader list, unit list, but some detail just appears to be "optics." OK, but not the best. Try as I might I just don't see the logistic cost and combat effects of German's huge seige artilliary, or the effects of Joe's tactics in re massive manpower.

Think its too late for WitE II to be given a good dose of KISS, so expect to see more details, more scope, more refined algorithms, etc. Can only hope that the "switches" are better masked, less visible.

BTW, can always read a map and statistics to know who's winning, who's won, etc. The fun is in the play more than in programmed pats-on-the-back.




Schmart -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 5:45:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Also, I think we need to distinguish between "mistakes" and "capabilities"; I think that to some extent the massive defeats suffered by the Sovs were not as a result of "mistakes", but rather the fact that they were simply not capable of controlling their army in the manner necessary to avoid these defeats. The degree of control that the Sovs have over their units in the summer of 1941 seems very unrealistic to me, as well as the lack of any reason to fight forward. I think Sov units should be made much more robust (at least some of them), but harder to control, so that you could not be sure that you could move them, etc. This of course would totally change the game.


Very well put. I've thought now for a long time that Russian movement capabilities especially in 1941 are far too generous. A combination of reduced Russian MPs and increased robustness would make them stronger but slower, allowing/forcing them to fight forward but making it difficult to avoid encirclements.

Additionally, Russian APs are also far too generous in 1941, allowing far more unhistorical optimizing of C&C.




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 5:57:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Also, I think we need to distinguish between "mistakes" and "capabilities"; I think that to some extent the massive defeats suffered by the Sovs were not as a result of "mistakes", but rather the fact that they were simply not capable of controlling their army in the manner necessary to avoid these defeats. The degree of control that the Sovs have over their units in the summer of 1941 seems very unrealistic to me, as well as the lack of any reason to fight forward. I think Sov units should be made much more robust (at least some of them), but harder to control, so that you could not be sure that you could move them, etc. This of course would totally change the game.


Very well put. I've thought now for a long time that Russian movement capabilities especially in 1941 are far too generous. A combination of reduced Russian MPs and increased robustness would make them stronger but slower, allowing/forcing them to fight forward but making it difficult to avoid encirclements.



I completely disagree with this on all counts. Soviet rifle formations move at ordinary speeds, ranging from 12-16 MPs. These are unremarkable march rates, especially over the course of a week. Their mobile units are already heavily penalized at 18 MPs. Only the cavalry is truly mobile. The Red Army rifleman was no more or less mobile than the landsers, or indeed the Roman legion. Sustained infantry march rates haven't varied for thousands of years. Why are so many folks convinced that Russians walk slower than anybody else?

Furthermore, what kept the Red Army tied to any particular piece of real estate was political requirements, not some alleged lack of marching ability. If you think the game doesn't reflect this, that's one thing, but let's not conflate this with the allegedly exaggerated movement rates of the Red Army which are in fact not all that spectacular.




76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 8:17:34 PM)

I don't think that movement rates per se have to change, its just that I don't think that in summer 1941 if I command a Sov unit to move somewhere, that I should expect it to end up exactly where and when I tell it to go, every time. That just didn't happen.

Units started movements late. Units received conflicting orders. Units got lost. The commissar disagreed with the commander. Units didn't know where enemy, or even friendly units were. **** happened, and units were disrupted. This is what I think would be more realistic.

In the past I've suggested something like interdiction, in which when you tell a unit to go somewhere, and it might lose 1 MP, 2, 8 MPs on a random basis (influenced by commanders, etc.). This effect would gradually decline over the summer. Not a perfect solution but seems like it would be fairly easy to implement if there was interest.

Flavius is right that if a unit was tied to a particular piece of real estate, it was probably political considerations. But if a unit tried to get to a different piece of real estate, but failed to do so in a timely manner, it was probably some other sort of C&C failure.




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 8:29:35 PM)

76mm, you are grossly exaggerating these CC effects about lost orders, units marching into swamps, etc. Primarily, that's already represented by the surprise turn. Secondarily, it is represented by failed admin rolls. No more than that is required.

What the game is missing is robust air interdiction. That did mess up Soviet movement considerably. We've had iterations of the game in the past where interdiction could do this, now it seems to have been watered down considerably. The side with air superiority ought to have much more ability to restrict enemy movement than is presently the case. That's being addressed in WITW.





76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 9:04:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
76mm, you are grossly exaggerating these CC effects about lost orders, units marching into swamps, etc. Primarily, that's already represented by the surprise turn. Secondarily, it is represented by failed admin rolls. No more than that is required.

What the game is missing is robust air interdiction.


You might be right, but these effects persisted beyond the first few days of the war (the surprise turn), and I don't think that failed admin rolls address the issue of not being sure whether Sov units will end up where you tell them to go (as they always do).

More robust air interdiction would be helpful, but I don't think a complete solution, because Sov units often failed to move as commanded even in the absence of German interference.

And I've never mentioned lost orders, it is more a lack of situational awareness, unpreparedness, and overall uncertainty and confusion.

And just to be clear, VCs also would need to be revised to represent the political factors preventing wholesale withdrawals to the east.




el hefe -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 10:03:30 PM)



Moving units is not a matter of simply marching. You have to organize and plan for feeding stops, route security, refuel operations, rest plans, etc. You have to coordinate with headquarters to determine who controls the routes so you don't end up units moving into each other and causing a c&c nightmare. If your staff and leadership is weak, a simple road march can be extremely slow and stressful event. Then throw on top of that the chaos of the initial attack, interdiction, morale, etc. I remember a quote that said something like "In war, even the simplest things are hard."


Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Also, I think we need to distinguish between "mistakes" and "capabilities"; I think that to some extent the massive defeats suffered by the Sovs were not as a result of "mistakes", but rather the fact that they were simply not capable of controlling their army in the manner necessary to avoid these defeats. The degree of control that the Sovs have over their units in the summer of 1941 seems very unrealistic to me, as well as the lack of any reason to fight forward. I think Sov units should be made much more robust (at least some of them), but harder to control, so that you could not be sure that you could move them, etc. This of course would totally change the game.


Very well put. I've thought now for a long time that Russian movement capabilities especially in 1941 are far too generous. A combination of reduced Russian MPs and increased robustness would make them stronger but slower, allowing/forcing them to fight forward but making it difficult to avoid encirclements.



I completely disagree with this on all counts. Soviet rifle formations move at ordinary speeds, ranging from 12-16 MPs. These are unremarkable march rates, especially over the course of a week. Their mobile units are already heavily penalized at 18 MPs. Only the cavalry is truly mobile. The Red Army rifleman was no more or less mobile than the landsers, or indeed the Roman legion. Sustained infantry march rates haven't varied for thousands of years. Why are so many folks convinced that Russians walk slower than anybody else?

Furthermore, what kept the Red Army tied to any particular piece of real estate was political requirements, not some alleged lack of marching ability. If you think the game doesn't reflect this, that's one thing, but let's not conflate this with the allegedly exaggerated movement rates of the Red Army which are in fact not all that spectacular.





Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 10:06:15 PM)

For all practical purposes, they always did. A game subjecting each and every unit in the Red Army (amounting to hundreds), including those making purely administrative movements well behind the front line, to random lurches in one direction or another would be neither playable nor realistic. This is just an exaggeration of Soviet incompetence. In order to truly restrict movements enemy action is required, not mere Soviet command incompetence.




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/4/2012 10:12:53 PM)

Trey, this is why we have surprise attack rules and on top of that admin rolls which mostly get failed early on and reduce movement rates. What people are asking for here is something well beyond that. But I do hear you on interdiction. It's much too weak in WitE, at least at present.




carlkay58 -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/5/2012 1:19:44 AM)

A few comments:

1) My one true wish is that if a unit, such as a regiment or brigade, cannot flip adjacent hexes, then it should not have a ZOC effect against the other side's troops. That would fix the NKVD Security regiments (and other small stuff like the AT Xs) from slowing down entire Panzer Corps.

2) Thoughts on the runaway actions can be countered by making it more expensive to move in certain directions (such as eastward for the Soviets in 1941 or westward for the Axis in the winter of 41/42). If it cost 3x to move eastward, the Soviets just aren't going to go very far very fast to the east and the Axis will be able to run them down. Or at least the Soviet units that don't start in the Urals . . .

3) Expanding on #2 and thinking on it a bit, the best solution may be to calculate the unit's MP at the end of the friendly turn. Any attacks by the enemy will also expend the unit's MP BEFORE you get to use it. This gives the initiative to the side that is able to attack while allowing the defenders to do spoiling attacks and bombing missions to slow down the opponent during their own turn. I seem to recall somewhere that there was a mention of this for WitW - but not sure. It seems at first thought that it would solve several problems but it would definitely require a major re-write of the code and the AI to do - not something that would be a 'patch'.





76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/5/2012 3:34:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
A game subjecting each and every unit in the Red Army (amounting to hundreds), including those making purely administrative movements well behind the front line, to random lurches in one direction or another would be neither playable nor realistic. This is just an exaggeration of Soviet incompetence. In order to truly restrict movements enemy action is required, not mere Soviet command incompetence.


I'm not saying that units should make "random lurches", I agree that that would be unplayable. The main difference between your position and mine is that you are saying that unit movement rates can be reduced at the beginning of the turn via an admin role result and shown to the player, and I am saying that reductions in movement rates not be known until the player actually moves the unit, so the player won't know exactly how far the unit will be able to move that turn. Frankly I don't see how that is unrealistic.

[EDIT] The issue is not how far Sov units can move, but how well unit movements can be coordinated--that is the problem in my view.




janh -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/5/2012 9:54:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
3) Expanding on #2 and thinking on it a bit, the best solution may be to calculate the unit's MP at the end of the friendly turn. Any attacks by the enemy will also expend the unit's MP BEFORE you get to use it. This gives the initiative to the side that is able to attack while allowing the defenders to do spoiling attacks and bombing missions to slow down the opponent during their own turn. I seem to recall somewhere that there was a mention of this for WitW - but not sure. It seems at first thought that
it would solve several problems but it would definitely require a major re-write of the code and the AI to do - not something that would be a 'patch'.


+1

Something I found missing as well. That would change dynamics for both sides, and even "wasteful" brigade and division strength counterattacks against the Germans would sudden serve some sort of "attrition purpose", even if essentially not causing any casualties.

In order to avoid having to adjust MPs to account for it, I would set MP cost for defensive action at say 2 / 3 MP per attack. As long as you compute the MP prior to the next turn start, AI should be able to cope. It could act a bit more aggressive in that case, but that should be tunable thru general threshold in the code (those, that are also affected by the morale difficulty setting for example).




janh -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/5/2012 9:59:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I'm not saying that units should make "random lurches", I agree that that would be unplayable. The main difference between your position and mine is that you are saying that unit movement rates can be reduced at the beginning of the turn via an admin role result and shown to the player, and I am saying that reductions in movement rates not be known until the player actually moves the unit, so the player won't know exactly how far the unit will be able to move that turn. Frankly I don't see how that is unrealistic.


As long as MPs are clearly know (with all other unit or leader stats) to the player at the beginning of the move, you will not get the impression of "chaos" at all. A sluggish slow move, which is perfectly good as Trey stated, but there won't be bad surprises or chaos -- you'll always feel in control, no matter whether you are to slow to retreat or not.
As you say, it requires some sort of effect that "randomly" kicks in during the move. A random reduction of MPs possible after each step, a break down of a deliberate attack, or even more along the lines of the order issues you raised: random lurches. Both should in principle be in effect throughout the game, affect low proficiency units worse than high, but occasionally also a Guards unit or Panzerdivision should screw up. If not overdone, it would be a fun feature.




76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/5/2012 11:25:29 AM)

For the record, I'm not in favor of these "random lurches", which I guess means units moving in the wrong direction altogether. That's neither playable, necessary, nor realistic under most circumstances in my opinion.

In fact, the whole point of losing a random number of MPs during movement would be to reflect a unit's difficulties in executing its orders for whatever reason, including any random lurches it made during the intitial stages of its movement (ie, any random lurches it made are not shown explicitly but simply reflected in the reduced MP of the unit towards its designated destination).

To explain again, this mechanism is really very simple--players would simply not be shown the results of the admin roll prior to moving the unit, and when they directed a unit to move to a particular location, it might not be able to reach the location because its MP had been reduced by some amount.




Uxbridge -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/6/2012 10:36:23 PM)

Small thing, but ... I dearly like to see the feature that pressing an "F-key" a second time would revert the view back to the former mode (except for F1).

When air scouting, for instance, and working in F5-mode, it would be great to only have to press F11 to move between seeing where I have alreday scouted and being able to continue doing it. If I'm in F1-mode and want to see the battle reports, it would be great if I didn't have to locate the F1-key to get back to normal, but pressing F11 a second time instead.




Zonso -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/7/2012 4:29:54 PM)

The random lurches thing would simply be annoying. I think it was Forge of Freedom or Crown of Glory, or both, that implemented that 'feature' and I disliked it immensely.

The Russian army in '41 and '42 suffered from many handicaps not reflected in WitE. As mentioned above there is the whole administrative tail of route planning, supply and fuel etc. and then the 'simple' act of conducting the military operations themselves, from company level to army, which requires training and experience. It is one thing to draw or write up a plan on a piece of paper, quite another to have the competent men, top to bottom, on the ground able to implement it, something the Russian Army clearly did not have for some time. The Russian Army in 1943/44 was quite the different beast from the one in 1941, and vice-versa for the German Army.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/7/2012 7:00:30 PM)

The simplest solution that might actually stand a chance at getting done would be to simply add one more calculation to a units calculated movement points. If a units higher HQ passed its admin check, it gets full movement points as normal. If it fails, it gets its movement halved to simulate the sometimes crippling command confusion/inaction the Russians suffered from in the first months of the war.

This would be a halving of the final movement allowances that we see now. Then you gradually reduce the reduction penalty each month. So in June you lose 50% of your movement, in July you lose 40%, August 30%, September 20% and finally October 10%. By November we're back to what we have now.

I'm no coder, but I'm thinking adding this to the end of the current calculations might actually be doable in a patch. Perhaps not. But the thinking should be to make any changes as simple as possible if we want to see a change actually get done.

Jim




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/7/2012 7:17:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The simplest solution that might actually stand a chance at getting done would be to simply add one more calculation to a units calculated movement points. If a units higher HQ passed its admin check, it gets full movement points as normal. If it fails, it gets its movement halved to simulate the sometimes crippling command confusion/inaction the Russians suffered from in the first months of the war.

This would be a halving of the final movement allowances that we see now. Then you gradually reduce the reduction penalty each month. So in June you lose 50% of your movement, in July you lose 40%, August 30%, September 20% and finally October 10%. By November we're back to what we have now.

I'm no coder, but I'm thinking adding this to the end of the current calculations might actually be doable in a patch. Perhaps not. But the thinking should be to make any changes as simple as possible if we want to see a change actually get done.

Jim




Good luck ever getting your reinforcements anywhere with this mass of bumblers in 1941. I note that by mid July an enormous mass of reserve units had shown up in front of AGC and was giving it a very hard time. This would be more or less impossible if half or more these guys were running (I use the word advisedly) around at 8 mps.

Just gobsmacked by how many folks buy into this image of the Red Army.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/7/2012 7:27:24 PM)

Guess I should have made it clear, I'd only advocate for this change if you made the Soviets much more durable in combat, no more 1 CV counters all over the place. The goal is to make the Soviets tougher but less mobile in the first few months of the war.

Jim




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/7/2012 7:34:02 PM)

Regardless of how durable they were, reinforcements and reserves simply would never reach lines they were able to do so historically. This would actually encourage runaways. People will move the Red Army in unison at the speed of their slowest units, and place them that much further east, rather than feed them into battle in dribs and drabs. No battle for Smolensk. Leningrad even more vulnerable than is already the case. No line on the Dnepr, etc.







76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/7/2012 7:57:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Regardless of how durable they were, reinforcements and reserves simply would never reach lines they were able to do so historically. This would actually encourage runaways. People will move the Red Army in unison at the speed of their slowest units, and place them that much further east, rather than feed them into battle in dribs and drabs.


I think you're right if something like this were not accompanied by revised VC to encourage holding ground, which is also important.

While you might not agree with some of the proposals being bandied about, personally I am mystified as to why you think that everything is hunky-dory with how weaknesses in Sov C&C are reflected in the game. You say that the surprise turn and admin rolls are all that are needed, but I don't agree for the reasons outlined in this thread (but please don't go on about random lurches or reducing MP outright, as I've never suggested these).

Let me ask this--do you think that when the Sov player moves his units in the summer of 1941, he should have the same degree of confidence that his units will execute their orders properly as the German player?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625