Matrix Games Forums

A new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Endgame Ger infantry losses

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Endgame Ger infantry losses Page: <<   < prev  18 19 20 21 [22]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Endgame Ger infantry losses - 7/11/2012 2:09:42 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 1111
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
as requested




Attachment (1)

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 631
RE: Sep 1945 Endgame in sight - 7/11/2012 2:32:01 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1226
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
Aurelian - yep, the axis can win, but in 1945, not 1941.....

Perhaps now with the new alt victory conditions the Germans have a chance to get that decisive victory in 41/42, but to me the original victory conditions were pretty much a pipe dream in most PBEM.

I think most players in PBEM embark on what they think is a going to be a short "victorious" campaign, and when that doesn't happen in 41 or 42, abandon the field.


From your experience now, how would you plan your long-term strategy in another GC?

That is, do you think going all out in 41 and, if necessary, once more in 42 for a decisive victory as Axis is the best strategy, or would it be more sensible ("force economical"?) to plan for a 45 minor victory and conserve your forces in 42 instead? Are short-term "all out" and long-term strategies more or less mutually exclusive/counterproductive, or does an Axis player have a serious chance to win decisively in 42 without overextending himself and wasting precious resources (perhaps much) needed to keep the chance for a minor victory later?

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 632
RE: PBEM Endgame Epilogue - 7/11/2012 2:52:12 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 1111
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
quote:

First, hats off to both of you. This was my favorite AAR thus far, and for a good reason. You both played a very interesting game, and it was as much fun to watch the Soviet hordes to rush forward and push the Germans occasionally to the breaking point, as it was fun to watch how a German player can organize a defense and counterattack, saving some cut-off units or punishing the Red hordes. Lastly, this ARR also had a great style, it often read like the summary of a Wehrmacht's situation report.

I hope there will be more, maybe a 1942 or 43 GC start to compare what difference a historical 41 would now make? Or another GC with swapped roles?

I'd really also like to hear the opinions of both of you, where the present engine resides in terms of balance, or what you think isn't caught well with the rules or mechanics we have. Maybe some "constructive criticism" could still make it into WitW, or at least influence the future development of this series.



Janh -

First, the game has changed considerably since we started with numerous updates done by Matrix as players encountered issues. That has been great! (Although I'm a bit concerned that thier focus is now WiTW and we won't see much in the future....).

Major issues for me were the Soviet ability to construct forts and the impregnable swamps - that has been addressed. As Scar pointed out, the abundance of supply with offensives not really hindered by a limited logistics have been discussed at length by many in the forum. I fully agree.

To me, the problem is that the HQs, which function as a combination of command/control as well as supply. While the tactical C2 could easily move, moving a corps or army supply echelon is much more difficult. Realistically, supply units could either carry their basic load, or perform distribution to units. In the game, they can do both. My recommended fix would be to drastically reduce the abilty for HQs to "carry" supply if they move. Once they move, they should be reduced to about 25% supply on hand - all types. That would drastically slow offenses and force armies to "build up" supply - attack - advance and repeat (as was the case historically)

Another issue I found (which I think has been fixed somewhat in patches) is that units gain replacements all too quickly. Put a zero CV Soviet Rifle Division on the rail in the Urals, move if full movement west, and next turn it has 7000 men on hand. Advance 6th Pz toward Leningrad, fighting as it goes, and all sudden, the Pz35s are replaced by PZIIIs! When did these logistical personnel/equipment happen, along the rail lines or in the heat of battle? Not likely. To me, a unit should only be able to repair damage units (at greatly reduced rate) and not recieve additional replacements (or greatly reduced) or equipment upgrades unless it is in refit mode - and a unit should not be able to be placed in refit mode if it moved. The effect of that would be to have units wear down on the offensive forcing armies to conduct operational pauses.

The auto unit upgrades and equipment upgrades were a minor nuisance throughout. First PzIVf2s of course went to 10th Pz Div just before it was withdrawn! The TOE changes are based largely on historical manpower/euipment constraints. What if in the game, you don't have those constraints? In our game, my entire Panzer force was gutted in Mar 45 when the new TOE took effect - divisions that had 200 panzers went to 100 in the blink of an eye. My recommendation - allow the player to enact the TOE change, either by unit or across the board.

The conversion of the security units in 1945 to infantry hurt as all the sudden the cities were not garrisoned. Minor in the scheme of things, but a better solution would be to withdraw the sec divisions, then have them appear as infantry div reinforcements so the German player will know its going to happen. The is no advanced warning when a unit "changes".

The air game to me worked fairly well as after the initial airfield attacks on turn 1, I realized they are best left alone. About once every couple of months I'd check my airbases and re-allocate units from the reserve, but except for bombarding units prior to select deliberate attacks, I really didn't do much.

I've read that some folks want the partisan "game" reduced. To me, I want more detail. I think the Soviets should be able to "trigger" conversion from cadre to partisan beginning in 1943 - to coordinate their actions with ground attacks as happened historically. A random roll on maybe 3 per turn or something (similar to the board game War in the East by SPI). Yes, the destruction of rail should be reduced - my RR repair units were kept busy through the last turn of the game! I also think that the Axis allies should be prohibited from garrisoning cities (except security units). I used the entire Italian 8th Army to garrison the Ukraine freeing up many a German unit. I'd love to see the Germans to be able to conduct partisan sweeps - using a few units to isolate and destroy partisans - can't do that now.

Perhaps my biggest "issue" is that there is no real benifit of taking Moscow in 1941 - no collapse of the Soviet Union. I really disagree with this. I know, militarily, the Soviets would not have collapsed if Moscow fell. But what about politically? If Stalin abandoned Moscow, or was killed, could the Soviet Union have fell apart? I think there was that possibility. Politcal upheaval happend to Russia in 1917 and the Soviet Union in the 1990s. The public was unaware of what German "liberation" meant in 1941. By 1942 onward, much less likely I think. The shock had warn off and the German "occupation" was becoming known. What gets me is that the designers seemed to be dead set against a possible political collapse, butit the Germans take Leningrad, the Finns WILL continue forward. Why is this "certain"? It didn't happen in real life, right? What I'd propose is an optional rule that would make both (the Finns moving into Russia if Lenningrad falls and a total Russian collapse if Moscow falls) random. This would at least give the Germans some incentive to focus on Moscow and not the all hands to Leningrad to release the Finns approach. The "collapse" of course could be further randomized to endgame to a loss of morale. And only in 1941.

For the game, I think its important that there is more incentive for the Germans to "stick there neck out" in 1941 to force a collapse - because if they don't they are better prepared for the blizzard, and the Soviets then have a real uphill battle. Few German players will do a Stalingrad and lose an army early on, allowing the intitiave to shift rapidly.

Overall, WiTE is a tremendous accomplishment and plays very well - the above issues to me are all realatively minor overall. Will continue to play it and as Scar mentioned, we're going to go at it again.

Thanks for all the positive comments throughout the AAR....I'll need some help I think with the Soviets and yes, will try to keep up an AAR

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 633
RE: Sep 1945 Endgame in sight - 7/11/2012 2:57:18 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 1111
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
quote:

From your experience now, how would you plan your long-term strategy in another GC?

That is, do you think going all out in 41 and, if necessary, once more in 42 for a decisive victory as Axis is the best strategy, or would it be more sensible ("force economical"?) to plan for a 45 minor victory and conserve your forces in 42 instead? Are short-term "all out" and long-term strategies more or less mutually exclusive/counterproductive, or does an Axis player have a serious chance to win decisively in 42 without overextending himself and wasting precious resources (perhaps much) needed to keep the chance for a minor victory later?


Similar strategy as the Germans if I'd do it again. Leningrad first to free the Finns, then Moscow. Destroy Russian formations at all costs in 1941 - including late 1941 to force the Sovs to buy them back.

Assess your situation after the Blizzard. With the new fort rules, you can probably successfully attack in 1942, but look toward a 1945 endgame. Start fortifying your rear areas. Start the Dneipr line in spring/summer 1942 if not earlier.

I enjoyed the "defensive war" - Manstein had it right - the mobile defense behind a fortified line can bleed the Soviets down

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 634
RE: Sep 1945 Endgame in sight - 7/11/2012 6:20:15 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1054
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar23

Plane problems.


The Soviet player has to decide how much of an effort to commit to managing the air force which from what we see has a minimal impact on the game. If one does want to manage it to a degree, one thing I recommend is come late '42, early '43 start disbanding on every turn all the fighter and fighter bomber regiments that the AI tries to form. Their experience is in the 30's and are just fodder for the Luftwaffe. This way, the aircraft can remain in the production pool to be used by the existing and more experienced air regiments.

The real constraining factor in Soviet airpower are the airbase #s. Flavius says he prefers 60, I come closer to 70. Mileage will vary depending on how much air support you want and to some extent can afford to supply on the map. In some cases you may end up with so much excess within the production pools that you will consider a token rail move of aircraft plants just to reduce their production #s that of course will grow back over time.

(in reply to Scar23)
Post #: 635
RE: Sep 1945 Endgame in sight - 7/11/2012 7:05:31 PM   
Scar23


Posts: 147
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Dallas Texas
Status: offline
My issues were not so much the effectivness of the Russian airforce, although I never had air superiority as I would have thought, but some sort of 'glitch' wherein my planes would not fill into air units. I had airfields, and plenty of planes, but the planes would not fill them. I tried manual, and AI controlled, to no effect. I even got to the point where I was afraid to manually upgrade an air unit, as the new planes might never come on board, and I would lose another air unit.

I had the same problems with artty and engineers, not wanting to fill into units, even when there were plenty in the pools.

I am putting these replacment problems down to our patching as we went, although I do not know if that was really what caused the issue. I hope in our game, if Ed is not in Berlin in 43, that he can see if the issues continue. I am not sure that the game was play tested deep into 44 and 45 much. I know when IdahoNYer and I helped play test for the PzC series, the big scenarios (campaign for B44 for example) never got much past the opening phases, as new revisions would come out all the time, forcing a new start. I never made it past the first 1/3 of that campaign scenario just due to the time and restarts. When the game got released it had never been played deep into the campaign to see how it worked, and if things were on track late in the game. If more and more games of WiTE get taken into the later years, I hope there is a chance we will see a bit more interest from the designers into possible glitch production issues. In addition, things like the entrenchment model may work fine in 41 and 42, but getting into 43, 44 and then 45 might see them needing a different approach as they just behave differently due to where the game has gone and the capabilities and make up of the units.

Scar

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 636
RE: Return to Smolensk and Beyond, IdahoNY vs Scar - 8/15/2012 6:25:36 PM   
Cripes A Mighty


Posts: 47
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
As you can probably tell, I sort of drifted over here from the Bombing the Reich board.

I want to thank you guys for having me waste the better part of a day reading this thread. I thoroughly enjoyed ever minute of it. I especially appreciate your willingness to stick it out to the end. I'm sure there were occasions when you were not as enthusiastic about continuing as you were at other times.

The first computer wargame I ever played was this game's great-great-grand-daddy... WAR IN RUSSIA, played in 1987 on my Apple IIC. It was a fun game, played in 16 colors with 128K of RAM.

I'll probably invest in WitE as soon as I get done battering the Luftwaffe into submission over in Western Europe.

In retrospect I'm glad I didn't stumble across this thread until you guys had completed the game - otherwise I would have been checking in ever day or two for an update. IdahoNY, your nefarious pauses for real life (work/vacations) would have driven me nuts!

Anyhow, thanks again for the nerdy enjoyment.


(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 637
RE: Return to Smolensk and Beyond, IdahoNY vs Scar - 6/28/2014 4:01:57 AM   
forgorin

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Africa
Status: offline
Wow this game looks awesome. I like the pictures.

_____________________________

Stress is the confusion created when ones own mind over rides the bodies desire to choke the living **** out of some asshole who really deserves it!

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 638
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 20 21 [22]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Endgame Ger infantry losses Page: <<   < prev  18 19 20 21 [22]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.078