Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready status not unready enough

 
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 >> Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready status not unready enough Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready status n... - 2/28/2011 12:59:56 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
I'm still working on getting and processing the data from the GC I'm playing but I think that the RKKA I have in my game is working too well.

What does mean "too well"? By too well I mean that its logistical situation strikes to me as too rosy.

I'd like to share with you a couple changes which I think are easily implemented and easy to analyze as well:

* Unready units

According to the manual - and the patch notes I've been able to find - a unit is in "Unready" status, that is, unable to attack after moving whenever TOE+Morale < 50. I would suggest that this should be changed so that, units are unready whenever (TOE+Morale) * supply level < 50. Unready units shouldn't be allowed to participate on deliberate attacks.

* Increasing attrition for Soviet trucks

While the concept of vehicles in WiTE looks to me to account for supply transported either by means of wheeled, hoofed or leg movement. What I'm seeing is that my Soviet Motor pool is too well furbished.

I'm going to start a thread on the AAR section with my game data as soon as time allows, and I will try to compare what I am able to do with current rules with what would I be able to do with such changes.

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 2/28/2011 1:00:25 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 1:08:24 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4678
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

According to the manual - and the patch notes I've been able to find - a unit is in "Unready" status, that is, unable to attack after moving whenever TOE+Morale < 50. I would suggest that this should be changed so that, units are unready whenever (TOE+Morale) * supply level < 50. Unready units shouldn't be allowed to participate on deliberate attacks.

* Increasing attrition for Soviet trucks

While the concept of vehicles in WiTE looks to me to account for supply transported either by means of wheeled, hoofed or leg movement. What I'm seeing is that my Soviet Motor pool is too well furbished.

I'm going to start a thread on the AAR section with my game data as soon as time allows, and I will try to compare what I am able to do with current rules with what would I be able to do with such changes.


Those are very interesting ideas, especially bringing supply into the equation for unready units.

I won't get drawn on the truck attrition, as I spent a lot of effort getting the truck numbers reduced. There was a late reduction in numbers for both sides. I am surprised at the number that I have in my game against Speedy, but unfortunately reducing the numbers does not directly reduce the attacking ability of the soviets, but if your 2 ideas were linked together, that might have an impact.

This is definitely going into the development forums for discussion.

_____________________________

(old version)It's only a game
(new version)Gary Grigsby's War in the East is not a game - it is a way of life!

War in the East Alpha/Beta Tester

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 2
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 1:16:07 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
I won't get drawn on the truck attrition, as I spent a lot of effort getting the truck numbers reduced. There was a late reduction in numbers for both sides. I am surprised at the number that I have in my game against Speedy, but unfortunately reducing the numbers does not directly reduce the attacking ability of the soviets, but if your 2 ideas were linked together, that might have an impact.


Yeah, I was about to leave out that part - I'm also very unsure it's going to be impacting things. But the basic idea is that to keep good operational abilities one has to take into account supply as well. What I see missing on my game is the ebb & flow of operational warfare: weeks of intense activity, followed by some time of supply stockpiling (that's might be because I'm a devoted OCS player, dunno).

Beautiful thing is that this change would have an effect on both sides at different points in the game

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 3
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 3:38:04 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7181
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
The problem is that the early war Soviet supply situation is pretty awful, without much the player can do about it, so ready units will be even more scarce in the first couple of turns than they are now, which could cause Soviet lines to implode quickly.

Due to the higher Axis morale and likely TOE%, it will only theoretically affect the Axis as much as the Soviets, at least initially.

There's not much either side can do to iron out supply difficulties in a certain area, as the only way the logistics system can be influenced is through air transporting supplies or HQ build-up.

Supply being a part of the equation would require more player control over where supplies end up.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 4
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 4:40:48 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The problem is that the early war Soviet supply situation is pretty awful, without much the player can do about it, so ready units will be even more scarce in the first couple of turns than they are now, which could cause Soviet lines to implode quickly.

Due to the higher Axis morale and likely TOE%, it will only theoretically affect the Axis as much as the Soviets, at least initially.

There's not much either side can do to iron out supply difficulties in a certain area, as the only way the logistics system can be influenced is through air transporting supplies or HQ build-up.

Supply being a part of the equation would require more player control over where supplies end up.


If I have understood "unready" status right, it doesn't entail anything to units defending, it just precludes them from attacking. So, in principle, I don't see any reasons for that alone being a cause for Soviet lines to implode. It would certainly make more difficult for the Soviet player to launch counterstrokes, at least until the RKKA supply network starts to work as vehicles get mobilized from the civil sector and produced.

About the effect on the Axis. It will certainly have an impact on how long can panzer spearheads sustain intensive offensive operations if not managed through air drop or HQ build up, as you say. Tools which, especially on the second case, are perhaps a bit too severe on the "global" penalizations they entail. On the other hand, I don't see a case for having rules modelling German trucks lack of endurance - and thus increased attrition. For the Soviets, there are, at least until they get US Studebackers.

And finally, yes, I agree with you that one thing missing in WiTE is more control on how supplies flow to the units (I think Tarhunnas commented on that elsewhere).

Perhaps "Refit" mode could accomodate that, perhaps not: would it make sense that units in refit, not only receive replacements first, but also get their supply needs satisfied "first"?

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 5
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 4:57:31 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7181
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

If I have understood "unready" status right, it doesn't entail anything to units defending, it just precludes them from attacking. So, in principle, I don't see any reasons for that alone being a cause for Soviet lines to implode.


In order for a unit to be unready, it would need to be in a pretty poor shape. As such, it has a low CV when attacking or defending. I've never seen an unready unit retreat, for starters. As such, more Soviet units will rout rather than retreat when supply is added to the rules determining when a unit is ready or unready. You just don't want to hold a line with unready units.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 6
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 5:01:13 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6149
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The problem is that the early war Soviet supply situation is pretty awful, without much the player can do about it, so ready units will be even more scarce in the first couple of turns than they are now, which could cause Soviet lines to implode quickly.

Due to the higher Axis morale and likely TOE%, it will only theoretically affect the Axis as much as the Soviets, at least initially.

There's not much either side can do to iron out supply difficulties in a certain area, as the only way the logistics system can be influenced is through air transporting supplies or HQ build-up.

Supply being a part of the equation would require more player control over where supplies end up.


Hi Pieter,

I bolded parts of your quote for emphasis. In fact, I think that they argue even more forcefully for this inclusion into the ready status equation, even if you perhaps didn't intend them to.

I like the idea - a lot!

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 7
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 5:11:10 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
quote:

If I have understood "unready" status right, it doesn't entail anything to units defending, it just precludes them from attacking. So, in principle, I don't see any reasons for that alone being a cause for Soviet lines to implode.


In order for a unit to be unready, it would need to be in a pretty poor shape. As such, it has a low CV when attacking or defending. I've never seen an unready unit retreat, for starters. As such, more Soviet units will rout rather than retreat when supply is added to the rules determining when a unit is ready or unready. You just don't want to hold a line with unready units.


Not really, a unit with morale 50 and TOE 100 - say a good summer 1941 Soviet Rifle Division - would need to have a supply level of at least 70% to qualify for ready status.

Shatter and surrended results are linked to the morale status of the unit, rather than it being labelled as "ready" or "unready". Units with poor morale and poor TOE - qualified as Unready under current rules - surrender or get shattered more often as implied in the rules (page 218, first paragraph):

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTE manual
A unit that is in supply and forced to retreat may shatter at the conclusion of the combat instead of retreating if it is extremely weak due to a combination of low morale, experience and TOE percentage


No idea if the code just checks the label "Unready" and checks experience to determine if it shatters of not, but it shouldn't be a big change to change the test

if ( unready && random(100) > experience ) shatter();

for

if ( morale+toe < 100 && random(100) > experience ) shatter();

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 8
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 6:37:37 PM   
map66

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline
I do rather like the harsher readiness penalty tied to supply suggested above, and think it might work well in combination with a suggestion in a separate house rules thread that the Soviets be limited to attacking on 4 fronts in December, 3 fronts in January etc, though strongly agree with Comrade P's comments that more control would need to be added to where supply goes.

To implement this, I would suggest adding an option to "Prioritize Offensive Supply" at the Front Level for the Soviets and the Army level for the Germans at the cost of administrative points. Ideally, I think the effects should be much more subtle the the existing "HQ Buildup" and without the dramatic negative consequences, but (in combination with the above supply/readiness suggestion)would be enough to impact operations at certain times when historically supply became a major issue (the German army operating at the end of its supply tether in Summer '41, offensives in bad weather conditions like the Blizzard turns). As a game mechanic, it may be enough to just have the "Priortize Offensive Supply" option reduce the theshold at which units are unready based again on the above suggestion. In my thinking, the benefits of the prioritization should wear off through movement but especially by offensive combat by the Front or Army (in order to prevent exploits where one simply withdraws say 10 hexes from an enemy to negate the advantage). As the benefit disappears, one would be forced to decide between expending more admin points or letting the offensive peter out as the units increasingly loose their ready status.

One advantage I see to a combination of the above suggestions is it might allow a bit better "throttle" for the scenario designers, rather then the current "supermen" dynamics that are in play (to over-state it obviously.) For example, if it's decided that the Russians need a bit more offensive power in December, give them more admin points for that month, or if one wants to cut down the German advance in September, reduce them there. From a historical perspective it might do a good job of modeling the decisions around the Winter '41 counter-offensives, as well as points such as the decision to turn south to Kiev rather then on to Moscow. It might also help model the staggered Soviet offensives, for example those in the Summer of '44 from Byelorus to the Romania (though I have to admit I haven't played WITE at all in this period, so not sure of the dynamics in play). Further, it might be an interesting mechanic for the Soviets during the early stages of the Blitzkrieg to be able to give certain Fronts a little bit more counter-offensive juice, such as historically happened in the early days in the Ukraine or around Smolensk in August '41.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 9
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 2/28/2011 9:53:02 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7181
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Very few units shatter currently, we've discussed on the tester forum by how much the chance for shattering should be increased in some circumstances, but the discussion ended without a real conclusion, but it will probably be continued in the future.

quote:

Not really, a unit with morale 50 and TOE 100 - say a good summer 1941 Soviet Rifle Division - would need to have a supply level of at least 70% to qualify for ready status.


An average Rifle division would have a morale of around 40-45 and a TOE of around 80% if it's lucky, so it would need around 80% supplies to be ready.

One thing the implentation of the rule would do is force the Soviet player to iron out C&C problems quickly, in order to get maximum supply to the units.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to map66)
Post #: 10
RE: Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready stat... - 3/2/2011 6:31:11 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
Hi,

I've updated my Mini-AAR

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2741810&mpage=1&key=�

with the data I promised.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Not Really a Winter Idea, but related: Unready status not unready enough Page: [1]
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

0.168