Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

 
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 >> Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 6:06:06 AM   
rtb1017

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 12/13/2010
Status: offline
The turn after executing a pocket (so it is now finalized right). I find the surrounded units drop precipitously in combat value. I can understand if the units have been in constant combat, attacked or have been moving but even units that have not moved, been attacked etc are now extemely weak. A four day encirclement would not necessarioly deplete their supplies if they have been idle and the Corp has a stockpile. It makes it almost impossible to mount a breakthru.

A Stalingrad kessel would last a couple of turns.
Post #: 1
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 6:13:08 AM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3484
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline
Ya I'm not constantly digging the surround mechanic either. When i have units surrounded i always fly in supplies and they still give up without a hard fight. if you read Von Mellethins book and Hans Von lucks book they talk repeatedly about how while surrounded the Russian forces would still fight with fierce and dogged determination.

(in reply to rtb1017)
Post #: 2
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 6:15:10 AM   
rtb1017

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 12/13/2010
Status: offline
I agree if there was a Stalingrad scenario, it would only last two turns, The foirst one to get nexdt to them and the second to attack and make them surrender.

(in reply to bwheatley)
Post #: 3
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 6:37:31 AM   
CarnageINC


Posts: 2222
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline
I think it depends if your playing as the Germans or Russians.  I've found that the Germans and their morale are much better surviving in pockets then the Russians.  They can't last weeks but some last a turn or two.  The larger the pocket and the more space to 'live' in allows for more time.

_____________________________


(in reply to rtb1017)
Post #: 4
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 6:42:05 AM   
Zemke


Posts: 417
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
I agree with the poster, something is not right. A unit with high morale and a fair amount of supplies on hand, depending on terrain should last longer. This would also create the "floating" pockets of Russians you read about in the opening weeks of the war.

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
"Pass the salt, please"

(in reply to CarnageINC)
Post #: 5
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 8:15:07 AM   
KarlXII


Posts: 225
Joined: 8/21/2005
From: Stockholm
Status: offline
I also might agree that it is a little too easy to destroy a pockets content, especially units that have not moved or been in a fight. They should perhaps endure a little longer. But I´ll await the developers comments on this thing.

_____________________________

Värjan måste göra det bästa, ty den skämtar intet

Been playing strategy games since 1987 and the Commodore 64 days

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 6
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 8:41:16 AM   
ool


Posts: 460
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Odessa historically held out in a siege for 93 days. Frankly under this system I can't imagine that happening. The Russian unit seem too weak to last for 93 days.

_____________________________


(in reply to KarlXII)
Post #: 7
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 8:43:39 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
Try attacking a pocket of Russian troops in forts 4 or 5.
Happened to me in Leningrad and it was a serious fight to kill them. Took several turns & serious losses by very high quelity and morale infantry, backed up with plenty of pioneers, stugs and arty.
Experience and morale should also make it a lot more difficult.
So take Stalingrad and imagine high experience and morale Germans in level 5 forts. Hmmm, might take a while.

< Message edited by glvaca -- 12/29/2010 8:44:47 AM >

(in reply to KarlXII)
Post #: 8
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 8:45:34 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ool

Odessa historically held out in a siege for 93 days. Frankly under this system I can't imagine that happening. The Russian unit seem too weak to last for 93 days.



But historically, Odessa was bypassed by the Germans and left to the Rumanians to deal with.

(in reply to ool)
Post #: 9
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 9:30:16 AM   
roflbinflood

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 12/8/2010
Status: offline
I actually had the historical odessa siege in my first game but found it impossible for the rumanians to take.. lvl4 forts are a pain. It also stayed in supply via sea, even though i bombed the ¤#! out of it's ports.

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 10
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 9:45:53 AM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4310
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
I also agree that most pocketed troops give up way too easily. I am playing as the Soviets and I always eliminate Axis (German) pockets on the following turn, even large ones with 14+ divisions.

However, my units in Odessa held until turn 50, probably because Odessa is a port and also because the AI didn't attack it.

My thoughts are:

1. A pocket that includes a higher HQ should be in full supply for at least the next turn to represent higher HQ supply dumps etc.
2. A pocket that includes a minor urban hex should be in full supply for 3 weeks.
3. A pocket that includes a major urban hex should be in full supply for 6 weeks.
4. A pocket that includes a port that is in supply from another friendly port should be in full supply for 6 weeks and then 50% supply for the rest of the game until attacked.

The above would also give the devs another reason to make the AI defend its cities more effectively.

_____________________________


(in reply to roflbinflood)
Post #: 11
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 10:28:49 AM   
rtb1017

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 12/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Try attacking a pocket of Russian troops in forts 4 or 5.
Happened to me in Leningrad and it was a serious fight to kill them. Took several turns & serious losses by very high quelity and morale infantry, backed up with plenty of pioneers, stugs and arty.
Experience and morale should also make it a lot more difficult.
So take Stalingrad and imagine high experience and morale Germans in level 5 forts. Hmmm, might take a while.



You are pointing out something that is working and modelled correctly whereas I am referring to something that is broken'

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 12
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 10:31:37 AM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4310
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
Have you logged this in a Tech thread?

_____________________________


(in reply to rtb1017)
Post #: 13
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 10:32:47 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtb1017


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Try attacking a pocket of Russian troops in forts 4 or 5.
Happened to me in Leningrad and it was a serious fight to kill them. Took several turns & serious losses by very high quelity and morale infantry, backed up with plenty of pioneers, stugs and arty.
Experience and morale should also make it a lot more difficult.
So take Stalingrad and imagine high experience and morale Germans in level 5 forts. Hmmm, might take a while.



You are pointing out something that is working and modelled correctly whereas I am referring to something that is broken'


Not quite, what I'm pointing out is that it seems to me that under certain conditions surrounded troops are quite capable of putting up a fight of several weeks even when isolated.

which I think means is that one should concetrate on creating these conditions to simulate historical outcomes. Being:
1. Excellent defensive terrain.
2. High level forts (4 or 5)
3. Room to retreat out of ZOC.
4. High experience/morale units.
5. Perhaps also (probably) enough supplies and ammo flown in.

Not sure about the order.

Cheers,
Glenn


(in reply to rtb1017)
Post #: 14
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 10:38:36 AM   
rtb1017

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 12/13/2010
Status: offline


Not quite, what I'm pointing out is that it seems to me that under certain conditions surrounded troops are quite capable of putting up a fight of several weeks even when isolated.

which I think means is that one should concetrate on creating these conditions to simulate historical outcomes. Being:
1. Excellent defensive terrain.
2. High level forts (4 or 5)
3. Room to retreat out of ZOC.
4. High experience/morale units.
5. Perhaps also (probably) enough supplies and ammo flown in.

Not sure about the order.

Cheers,
Glenn

Odessa and Leningrad are set piece situations. I am talking about a soviet mech division with CV of 20 not moved and attacked being forced to surrender by a security regiment. This same Sec regiment then forced an entire tank division to surrender as well. Maybe the soviet unit had no commisars to shoot them when they surrendered..


[/quote]

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 15
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 10:39:33 AM   
rtb1017

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 12/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Have you logged this in a Tech thread?



How is this done and what qualifies as a tech thread

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 16
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 10:45:27 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtb1017



Not quite, what I'm pointing out is that it seems to me that under certain conditions surrounded troops are quite capable of putting up a fight of several weeks even when isolated.

which I think means is that one should concetrate on creating these conditions to simulate historical outcomes. Being:
1. Excellent defensive terrain.
2. High level forts (4 or 5)
3. Room to retreat out of ZOC.
4. High experience/morale units.
5. Perhaps also (probably) enough supplies and ammo flown in.

Not sure about the order.

Cheers,
Glenn

quote:


Odessa and Leningrad are set piece situations. I am talking about a soviet mech division with CV of 20 not moved and attacked being forced to surrender by a security regiment. This same Sec regiment then forced an entire tank division to surrender as well. Maybe the soviet unit had no commisars to shoot them when they surrendered..






It's a week turn, there is plenty of historical evidence that Russian troops surrendered on mass after they had been cut of, and certainly within a 1 week period. After all, the Germans did capture 3 million of them fairly quickly.

that's not to say that many Russian soldiers fought very hard/fanatical as long as they where not surrounded. Or when circumstances where in their favor (high fort levels). Also, the Russian troops are very green, low experience and morale at the start of the campaign. I'm assuming things will get a lot more difficult in 43-44-45.

5-6 weeks seem to me extreemly long and only justifyable in extreem circumstances. Even 2 weeks seem long in most historical cases. For instance, the border pockets were eliminated in about a week...

(in reply to rtb1017)
Post #: 17
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 10:46:05 AM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 1947
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

1. A pocket that includes a higher HQ should be in full supply for at least the next turn to represent higher HQ supply dumps etc.
2. A pocket that includes a minor urban hex should be in full supply for 3 weeks.
3. A pocket that includes a major urban hex should be in full supply for 6 weeks.
4. A pocket that includes a port that is in supply from another friendly port should be in full supply for 6 weeks and then 50% supply for the rest of the game until attacked.

Excellent suggestion.

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 18
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 10:59:50 AM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4310
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtb1017


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Have you logged this in a Tech thread?



How is this done and what qualifies as a tech thread


Hi. If you go up a level and scroll to the top of the page there is a Tech forum link. Just start a new thread and post your observation. The tech team will read it.

_____________________________


(in reply to rtb1017)
Post #: 19
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 11:02:38 AM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4310
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
Shock should allow for most early pockets to be eliminated quickly, and later pockets to last longer.

Did you know that the Soviet border troops in Brest fought on until January 1942 or something?

_____________________________


(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 20
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 11:44:10 AM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 368
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
My thoughts are:

1. A pocket that includes a higher HQ should be in full supply for at least the next turn to represent higher HQ supply dumps etc.

I wonder whether this could already be done via the HQ BUILDUP function.

quote:


2. A pocket that includes a minor urban hex should be in full supply for 3 weeks.

But the game should also keep track of the "supply status" of the city. I mean an unban hex just ravaged by furious combat and that hosted a starving garrison until the precedent turn isn't going to offer much supplies.
I thought that one could tie the supply level to the current population level but I'm afraid this is not the optimal solution.
Moreover a player should be able to decide for a scorched earth policy.

quote:


3. A pocket that includes a major urban hex should be in full supply for 6 weeks.

See above.

quote:


4. A pocket that includes a port that is in supply from another friendly port should be in full supply for 6 weeks and then 50% supply for the rest of the game until attacked.

In my present CG as the Soviets I had no difficulty in holding Riga for a month, even if my units were pocketed. Same for Odessa. AFAIK you can already trace supply from a port, even if pocketed.



(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 21
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 12:00:38 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7182
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

2. A pocket that includes a minor urban hex should be in full supply for 3 weeks.
3. A pocket that includes a major urban hex should be in full supply for 6 weeks.


This would be every Soviet player's wet dream in 1941, but it would seriously unbalance the game.

Keeping in mind that the game uses weekly turns and that isolated units still need to be attacked, and might retreat instead of surrendering, as well as keeping in mind that a number of encircled Soviet troops escape after a battle, I don't think it's ahistorical that a unit loses cohesion and surrenders after a week in a pocket. Also keep in mind that you do have to commit forces to clean up the pocket most of the time, as the Soviets won't surrender automatically in one or two turns if it's a big pocket.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 12/29/2010 12:01:28 PM >


_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 22
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 12:17:50 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4310
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

2. A pocket that includes a minor urban hex should be in full supply for 3 weeks.
3. A pocket that includes a major urban hex should be in full supply for 6 weeks.


This would be every Soviet player's wet dream in 1941, but it would seriously unbalance the game.

Keeping in mind that the game uses weekly turns and that isolated units still need to be attacked, and might retreat instead of surrendering, as well as keeping in mind that a number of encircled Soviet troops escape after a battle, I don't think it's ahistorical that a unit loses cohesion and surrenders after a week in a pocket. Also keep in mind that you do have to commit forces to clean up the pocket most of the time, as the Soviets won't surrender automatically in one or two turns if it's a big pocket.


As I said above, "Shock should allow for most early pockets to be eliminated quickly, and later pockets to last longer", so I am not suggesting a 1941 Soviet player's 'wet dream', as you put it.

Axis pockets historically lasted for months (Demyansk, Stalingrad, etc.) but in the game they just melt away in a week. See my AAR for examples.

What is the "optimal solution", if not the above? Or do we just have to live with what is clearly an a-historical set of outcomes?

_____________________________


(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 23
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 12:28:15 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7182
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Pockets, especially Axis pockets, don't "melt away". You have to attack them. What you're essentially saying is that committing a fairly large force to reduce a pocket, with the units in the pocket surrendering at some point during the turn is ahistorical. I disagree with that. If you use a significant number of units, pockets will be mopped up in one or two turns, if you don't it could take months.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 24
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 12:46:32 PM   
henri51


Posts: 1153
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline
The battle of Stalingrad is not a good example: 1) the Germans could easily have broken out early on;2) they held a major city and had an airfield;3)the pocket was much larger than usual;4) the soviets were allowed to complete a double encirclement while Hitler dawdled;5) the Soviets had enough control of the air to prevent sufficient airdrops and the Germans did not have enough planes to supply the encircled forces even if they DID control the air.

From reading the forums, the Soviets already have a major advantage making it almost impossible for the Germans to win. Implementing some of the suggested changes would make the Soviets unbeatable even in the early weeks of the campaign. Th result would be what happens in AI vs AI games: a stalemate in front of Smolensk in 1941 followed by a battle of attrition ensuring an early win for the soviets.

Henri

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 25
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 4:01:46 PM   
Davekhps

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/10/2010
Status: offline
Once again, this appears to be a thread best answered by "keep playing the game, you'll see."

I'm into the summer of 1943 in an Axis GC. What I've noticed about Soviet pockets is confirmed by the longtime playtesters:

-- They're easiest to take down in 1941, as they should be.

-- It becomes harder to form them in 1942 and 1943 as Soviet forces become better at defending en masse.

-- The larger the pocket, the longer it takes to reduce them (unless you're using your panzer forces, but then *you* are the one playing ahistorically, not the AI-- and your overall advance will suffer due to the lack of your panzers at the front).

-- The AI definitely resupplies key forces within pockets.

-- Dug in forces within pockets survive much better than those that aren't: I've been HELD any number of times when underestimating the amount of force required to cause a retreat / surrender.

Really, the game mechanic isn't perfect-- there are exceptions to every situation-- but as a generic model on this time scale, it does a fantastic job.

Also, remember that the AI, while good, isn't as good as the lamest human player. Humans would fight not to get pocketed, would fight hard to get out of pockets, would form relief forces to get into pockets (which provide instantaneous pocket-wide supply when successful!), and would launch heavy air resupply of pockets. The AI does all these things, but it just doesn't do them as well as a human player would. Can't criticize that too much.

THAT ALL SAID... if there was *one* thing I would tweak about pocket defense, it's that armored units appear to surrender far more quickly than infantry units. I can rationalize this-- tanks need fuel, far likelier to be scarce in any pocket-- but playing against the AI my repeated experience has granted me the foresight to know that when reducing pockets, if I see a lone tank brigade, division or even corps, I can generally use a fairly weak Axis unit to attack it with a likelihood of causing its surrender, reserving my stronger forces for dealing with Soviet infantry (which tend to better defend in pockets).

While I'm fine with the pocket mechanic at it is, might be worth a look at whether there is something to this, and that armor in pockets shouldn't be penalized as much (IRL, it'd be a case of fewer armor available, but that armor would still be capable as long as the gas didn't run out... maybe a higher attrition mechanism for armor in pockets, but no other penalties?)

(in reply to henri51)
Post #: 26
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 4:16:40 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4310
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Pockets, especially Axis pockets, don't "melt away". You have to attack them. What you're essentially saying is that committing a fairly large force to reduce a pocket, with the units in the pocket surrendering at some point during the turn is ahistorical. I disagree with that. If you use a significant number of units, pockets will be mopped up in one or two turns, if you don't it could take months.


Comrade P - They don't melt away to nothing, but within 1 week the Axis pockets I created were reduced to CV 1 or 2 and mopped up in a single turn - 1 turn to create the pocket and 1 turn to mop it up.

This was despite Axis air supply being dropped.

Henri - the battle of Stalingrad is actually a great example, and you have just explained why. "1) the Germans could easily have broken out early on;2) they held a major city and had an airfield;3)the pocket was much larger than usual." So, in WiTE a large pocket around a major city SHOULD be able to either break out of last for several turns. But it can't. Game issue.

Everybody has a reason to disagree with suggested changes, but where are the alternative suggestions for fixing the problems? I can pretty much guarantee you that once other players get to turn 70+ you're going to see new threads on this issue.

< Message edited by redmarkus4 -- 12/29/2010 4:17:46 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 27
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 4:18:27 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4310
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
I pocketed and destroyed 39 Axis divisions vs. the AI on 110%. Not one pocket took more than 1 turn to eliminate.

_____________________________


(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 28
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 4:24:35 PM   
Pawsy

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
Odessa fell to the Romanians and those three German units that I railed from reinforcements. I use a concentric attack. Get units on either side of the objective to attack before the main (at least Corp level) planned attack.

Dont forget to keep your air units forward too as they help and have the HQ close for added sp units.

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 29
RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical - 12/29/2010 4:32:56 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4310
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
I am the Soviets. The pocket is about to form. Note the German CVs.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Pawsy)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

0.180