Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

rtb1017
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 am

Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by rtb1017 »

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.
bwheatley
Posts: 3654
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:08 pm
Contact:

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by bwheatley »

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.
-Alpha Tester Carrier Force
-Beta Tester ATG
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's WAW mod
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's GPW mod
-Beta Tester WITE
-Alpha Tester WITW
-Alpha Tester WITE2
-Alpha Tester Wif
-Beta Tester Command
rtb1017
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 am

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by rtb1017 »

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.
User avatar
CarnageINC
Posts: 2208
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Rapid City SD

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by CarnageINC »

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.
User avatar
Zemke
Posts: 665
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:45 am
Location: Oklahoma

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by Zemke »

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"
User avatar
KarlXII
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: Stockholm

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by KarlXII »

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
User avatar
ool
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by 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.
glvaca
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by 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.
glvaca
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by glvaca »

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.
roflbinflood
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:14 am

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by roflbinflood »

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.
"If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else!"
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by Redmarkus5 »

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.
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
rtb1017
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 am

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by rtb1017 »

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'
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by Redmarkus5 »

Have you logged this in a Tech thread?
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
glvaca
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by glvaca »

ORIGINAL: rtb1017

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

rtb1017
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 am

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by 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

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]
rtb1017
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 am

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by rtb1017 »

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Have you logged this in a Tech thread?


How is this done and what qualifies as a tech thread
glvaca
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by glvaca »

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
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...
timmyab
Posts: 2046
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:48 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by timmyab »

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.
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: rtb1017

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.
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: Surrounded units are too weak-seems ahistorical

Post by Redmarkus5 »

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?
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”