Matrix Games Forums

The fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Cities… just another terrain hex

 
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 >> Cities… just another terrain hex Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 8:58:12 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3225
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
I’m finding I’m not too pleased with the treatment of cities in game. There is no real incentive to fight for them. The fact isolated units generally surrender in a single turn means there aren’t going to be any long siege battles for the cities in game unless there is tons of air transport available, which wasn’t the case for most pocket battles. The Germans held out at Velikie Luki for about a month with just supply stocks they had on hand, but in game the Germans in a Velikie Luki situation are going to go poof after just one turn.

I’m finding it’s better game play practice to simply abandon cities rather than lose units trying to hold onto them, because there is no threat of long city sieges in the game model. I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn.

Then reduce the isolation penalty by about half if units can trace to a city stockpile. This would give units some ability of trying to fight their way out of a pocket as happened at Velikie Luki and in many pocket battles during the war.

The above may be too complex of a fix to hope for, if so a less complex way of handling it may be to give cities some limited ability to keep units supplied. You could say cities keep 1 unit supplied, light urban 2 and heavy urban 3. This would be a less appealing fix due to the abstract nature of it and the fact you'd want supplies to eventually run out, but anything is preferable to the total lack of importance we see for cities in game currently.

Jim


_____________________________


Post #: 1
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 9:15:08 AM   
Kaletsch2007

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline
+ 1

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 2
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 10:12:24 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3157
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
I agree. It is hard to see sieges at all in the game, not just in cities. The Demyansk or Kholm pockets are extremely unlikely to happen in the game. And a surrounded 6th army in Stalingrad would probably not hold out for 2 months = 8 turns, even with all the air supply you can muster. I believe German forces in particular should have a better capability to hold out when surrounded than they currently have in the game.

(in reply to Kaletsch2007)
Post #: 3
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 11:24:07 AM   
color

 

Posts: 324
Joined: 7/24/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
I like the concept of this suggestion

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 4
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 11:27:40 AM   
saintsup

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline
+1

(in reply to color)
Post #: 5
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 12:08:15 PM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 762
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
Moreover you have to divert sone units to handle this pockets, that can be change the strategy for both opponents.
Anyhow Leningrad would became impregnable.


_____________________________

Advanced Squad Leader; Grand Tactical Series; Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager; War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition


(in reply to saintsup)
Post #: 6
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 12:36:50 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 1010
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn.

I'd definitely like to see this.
I also think that if the road and rail network were better simulated then cities would have far more significence as transport hubs than they currently do and therefore as important objectives.After all that is the main importance of cities in military terms.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 7
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 3:23:58 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1438
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
+1

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 8
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 4:07:30 PM   
Texas_D


Posts: 115
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Republic of Texas
Status: offline
+1

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 9
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 4:30:34 PM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3350
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I’m finding I’m not too pleased with the treatment of cities in game. There is no real incentive to fight for them. The fact isolated units generally surrender in a single turn means there aren’t going to be any long siege battles for the cities in game unless there is tons of air transport available, which wasn’t the case for most pocket battles. The Germans held out at Velikie Luki for about a month with just supply stocks they had on hand, but in game the Germans in a Velikie Luki situation are going to go poof after just one turn.

I’m finding it’s better game play practice to simply abandon cities rather than lose units trying to hold onto them, because there is no threat of long city sieges in the game model. I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn.

Then reduce the isolation penalty by about half if units can trace to a city stockpile. This would give units some ability of trying to fight their way out of a pocket as happened at Velikie Luki and in many pocket battles during the war.

The above may be too complex of a fix to hope for, if so a less complex way of handling it may be to give cities some limited ability to keep units supplied. You could say cities keep 1 unit supplied, light urban 2 and heavy urban 3. This would be a less appealing fix due to the abstract nature of it and the fact you'd want supplies to eventually run out, but anything is preferable to the total lack of importance we see for cities in game currently.

Jim



+1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out.


And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.


_____________________________

-Alpha Tester Carrier Force
-Beta Tester ATG
-Beta Tester WITE
-Alpha Tester WITW
-Alpha Tester Wif
-Beta Tester Command

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 10
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 4:36:42 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1706
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
+1

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 11
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 4:46:02 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1438
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley




+1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out.


And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.



One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed.

And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway).

But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up.

The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis.

(in reply to bwheatley)
Post #: 12
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 4:56:28 PM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3350
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley




+1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out.


And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.



One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed.

And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway).

But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up.

The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis.


Ya i know if you re-connect you get a 75%ish boost again in CV I saw it with my smolensk pocket. But that means you can NEVER break out you always have to break in. Which does not "feel" right. Case in point my smolensk pocket in my game vs ara. He encircled my best units all had at least 2-3CV they had been resting all game. They get pocketed and on the same turn (yes 7 days abstracted) my best morale units were reduced to <1 CV. So no break out was possible. I had to break in with some high MP cav units. Then i magically (yes it's not magic i'm just saying magic for effect) got 75% of my cv back and was able to start doing some counter attacks. Which just does not feel right. I'd be willing to see routed units stay routed for one of my turns in order to have units properly handle isolation.

I also actually don't like seeing most of my routed units come back to life in the same turn. I'd like to see some leadership check penalties for units in early 41 to help keep routing units from getting themselves back into fighting order.

_____________________________

-Alpha Tester Carrier Force
-Beta Tester ATG
-Beta Tester WITE
-Alpha Tester WITW
-Alpha Tester Wif
-Beta Tester Command

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 13
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 4:57:41 PM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3350
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley




+1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out.


And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.



One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed.

And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway).

But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up.

The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis.


But yes i agree with you about not liking the way isolation feels. :)
In 41 its me losing units to german encirclements but in late 42-43 it will be the germans on the other side asking for isolate to be changed.

_____________________________

-Alpha Tester Carrier Force
-Beta Tester ATG
-Beta Tester WITE
-Alpha Tester WITW
-Alpha Tester Wif
-Beta Tester Command

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 14
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 4:59:36 PM   
GFelz

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
I have only seen a city hold out once. It was Smolensk versus the AI. Three rifle divisions sat in the hex for five turns ('41). Their CV slowly dropped but only after an attack otherwise would not change between turns. I do not know how the game managed it but I would love to see it happen more often for both sides. After all, the Soviets had some tough nuts to crack in '45.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 15
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 5:48:52 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1438
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

Ya i know if you re-connect you get a 75%ish boost again in CV I saw it with my smolensk pocket. But that means you can NEVER break out you always have to break in. Which does not "feel" right. Case in point my smolensk pocket in my game vs ara. He encircled my best units all had at least 2-3CV they had been resting all game. They get pocketed and on the same turn (yes 7 days abstracted) my best morale units were reduced to <1 CV. So no break out was possible. I had to break in with some high MP cav units. Then i magically (yes it's not magic i'm just saying magic for effect) got 75% of my cv back and was able to start doing some counter attacks. Which just does not feel right. I'd be willing to see routed units stay routed for one of my turns in order to have units properly handle isolation.

I also actually don't like seeing most of my routed units come back to life in the same turn. I'd like to see some leadership check penalties for units in early 41 to help keep routing units from getting themselves back into fighting order.


Your points are well taken. The universal strategy for re-connecting (in real life) an isolated pocket is for the strongest units INSIDE to attack toward units that are simultaneously attacking toward them. And the way it presently works, there's no point using the encircled units.

(in reply to bwheatley)
Post #: 16
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 10:32:16 PM   
jomni


Posts: 2769
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
Isolation penalties are way too harsh. But fun game though as it's an exciting fight during the encirclement process.

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 17
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 10:32:31 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4122
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
I would refer you to my posts complaining about this same issue back when the game was released, but I can't locate them in the forum - search doesn't seem very useful here for some reason :)

Hopefully, you will get acceptance of your point and the response from the developers that I never got... The treatment of cities in the game is a huge flaw that should never have made it to the commercial release, IMO.

_____________________________

Cyberpower tower PC
Intel Core i7-3930k CPU, 3.20GHz processor
32 GB RAM
2TB HD
2xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards, each with 4095 MB
Realtek sound card
Dell 3007WFP (running at 2560x1600) 32 bit monitor
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit O

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 18
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 10:35:17 PM   
Senno

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
Yes. In my current game the AI withdrew from Moscow (!). I can't imagine that would have happened at all. They didn't get far as they were mostly 1=1 units and the rails were cut, but they withdrew.

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 19
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 10:58:33 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

It's not the treatment of cities that are the problem. It is how isolation is treated. That could use some rethinking.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Senno)
Post #: 20
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/23/2011 11:25:05 PM   
Pford

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline
Maybe some kind of 'hoard supplies' switch is desirable for isolated units. Or an option to discard the vehicle pool. I can't envision a plausible 'Winter Storm' scenario incorporating a 6th Army breakout in WITE as things stand.

But beefing up CV factors in cities will also have the effect of slowing the Blitzkrieg in '41, already a bone of contention.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 21
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 3:25:16 AM   
blam0

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 3/24/2004
Status: offline
+1

(in reply to Pford)
Post #: 22
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 8:34:59 AM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
Well, I do not agree completely. I think our perceptions might be a little biased by those instances in which there was heroic fights in cities or by isolated units, which are the ones that are more widely known. But I would tend to think that the rule was for those fights being rather short, not the struggle expanding weeks or months which is usually assumed. I think we need a greater sample of cities to measure how many weeks did the fight last.

Let's see

Minsk (in 1941 and in 1944), Riga, Rostov, Vitebsk, Kharkov, Mogilev, Kiev, Warsaw, Berlin, Praga, Rzhev, Velikiye Luki...how many weeks were necessary to take those cities? (it is not a rhetoric question, I do not know the answer for most of them, so I am only asking). But we have also Breslau 1945 (a long siege), so, what is the rule and what is the exception?

I will try to make some searches, to see if I can find out.

(in reply to blam0)
Post #: 23
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 9:51:35 AM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
I have made some searches at the Wikipedia (yes, not the most authoritative source, but…)

Berlin 1945: 24 April- 2 May (1 TURN)

Riga 1941: 29 June-1 July (1 TURN)

Kharkov 1943: 7 March-15 March (1 TURN)

Kiev 1941: isolated 16 September, city itself surrendered 19 September, last forces in the pocket 26 September (less than 2 TURNS)

Minsk 1944: Bagration commenced 22 June, Minsk fell 4 July, 8 July surrender of 4th Army (2-3 TURNS)

Rostov 1941: German assault began 17 November-city captured 21 November (1 TURN)

Breslau 1945: 13 February-6 May 1945 (buff, 12 TURNS ??!!!)

Smolensk 1943: “On 25 September, after an assault-crossing of the northern Dnieper and street fighting that lasted all night, Soviet troops completed the liberation of Smolensk” The Smolensk operation had begun 7 September, but the battle for the city itself was shorter.

We have also the battles of Konigsberg and Sevastopol, although it is difficult discern between a “simple” siege and the real fight

In the game, after Leningrad is isolated, you need about 4 Turns to force the surrender. I do not know how many turns would be necessary to force the surrender of a 6th Army at Stalingrad, athough I think it is unlikely it could last more than 5 turns under heavy attack.

The Soviet troops in the Kharkov operation in May 1942 (not a city battle, though) were surrounded during 24 May, and surrendered the “next turn”, 30 May. Well, that would be another (but related) topic, that of the surrounded troops, not necessarily inside a city.

And, as a final note, a pocket can subsist more or less indefinitely if it is not attacked seriously, so it could be a little tricky to deduce conclusions from a real-life pocket without making references to the efforts made to force its surrender (in one game as Russian I still have some surrounded NKVD regiments at the frontier two months after the war began)



(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 24
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 10:09:58 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2153
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

And, as a final note, a pocket can subsist more or less indefinitely if it is not attacked seriously...


We must be playing different games--I routinely kill off pockets by attacking with my weakest units, often with a CV of 1 or 2. I would not call this being "attacked seriously".

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 25
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 10:36:43 AM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

And, as a final note, a pocket can subsist more or less indefinitely if it is not attacked seriously...


We must be playing different games--I routinely kill off pockets by attacking with my weakest units, often with a CV of 1 or 2. I would not call this being "attacked seriously".



I was referring to the real-life pockets in this case. But, in the game, with my 1=1 Soviet Units I cannot kill surrounded PanzerDivs, so perhaps we are playing different games

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 26
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 11:19:14 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2153
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso
I was referring to the real-life pockets in this case. But, in the game, with my 1=1 Soviet Units I cannot kill surrounded PanzerDivs, so perhaps we are playing different games


Ah, didn't understand your reference. But my lowly 1 CV units (or at least 2 CV) can indeed force the surrender of isolated panzer divisions, although usually it takes several hasty attacks, sometimes by a couple of units. But I still wouldn't call that a serious attack.

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 27
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 12:13:55 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso
I was referring to the real-life pockets in this case. But, in the game, with my 1=1 Soviet Units I cannot kill surrounded PanzerDivs, so perhaps we are playing different games


Ah, didn't understand your reference. But my lowly 1 CV units (or at least 2 CV) can indeed force the surrender of isolated panzer divisions, although usually it takes several hasty attacks, sometimes by a couple of units. But I still wouldn't call that a serious attack.



Ok, yes. I sometimes can force the surrender of a PanzerDiv, but it requieres some planning (at least select a good commander) , normally a hasty attack don't do the trick. Even a deliberate attack sometimes fails. And that for a PanzerDiv in the open, normally with 0 fort level. Perhaps my word "seriuos" was not very precise, but I meant that many times the surrender is not that automatic.

I said that because in some real-life pockets that lasted weeks, in reality there was no fight each single day during the whole period. Obviously, the NKVD regiments I mentioned before in my game were not attacked at all, and they cannot be used as examples of how strong pocketed units are in the game. But the same should be applied to real-life pockets. For instance, Konigsberg was under siege many weeks, but not every week saw assaults on that city. That is the point I was trying to transmit...

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 28
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 12:40:22 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3157
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

And, as a final note, a pocket can subsist more or less indefinitely if it is not attacked seriously, so it could be a little tricky to deduce conclusions from a real-life pocket without making references to the efforts made to force its surrender (in one game as Russian I still have some surrounded NKVD regiments at the frontier two months after the war began)



Nope! Playing the Soviets, some of my surrounded units seem to surrender of themselves after a couple of turns. This is displayed as a "Soviet" (Red) combat indicator that just says that the unit has surrendered. Naturally I try to discourage this deplorable lack of spirit by sending their relatives to the Gulag, but unfortunately that seems to have only limited success...

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 29
RE: Cities… just another terrain hex - 2/24/2011 12:40:44 PM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 670
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
I must have a bug in my game. I have played 9 GC games vs AI now and I have never, ever seen the mass surrender of units. Perhaps 10%, but usually none. Only some terrain 'turns colour' when a couple of units give up. Most try to cruch out towards a supply source, often (thankfully) abandoning Forts. It is to the point now where as soon as the Sovs 'turn Red" I attack them all. I have sat for turns waiting for the big surrender to no avail. Time to uninstall and re-install I guess.

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Cities… just another terrain hex Page: [1] 2   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

1.402