Matrix Games Forums

New information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42?

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 6:49:12 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4381
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I see things the opposite way, TD.

There's a morale problem starting to emerge in the game, as I see it.
Germany desperately needs as many 86-morale (or more) infantry divisions as it can make. They need this because if they can't catch the Soviets on foot, they can't launch deliberate attacks.

But the game permanently tries to draw 86-morale infantry units back down to 70-ish. If they lose a fight it's almost a certainty that morale will drop. If they don't fight, they will regress to the mean (over time) and re-enter/remain below the 85-morale mediocrity threshold(if I understand the national morale function right, and I may not). So German infantry needs to fight and win just so it can pursue the Soviet at a reasonable speed eastward.

While I applaud the roleplayers of WitE who attach priorities based on the actual history, I still have to prepare for the typical American gamer, who is ruthlessly focused on exploiting mechanics to achieve unanticipated strategies until the game is broken.

And I think Soviets can now break the game by running east faster than Germans can get to you, pausing only to fight only at key points (which seem to fall along the axis of Valdai/Moscow/Voronezh/Rostov) and when armaments need more time to evacuate.

The advantages to running east are too high to ignore: preserve Soviet equipment, preserve Soviet unit morale, Preserve Soviet manpower. I can see no down-side, because the manpower of the cities isn't necessary over the long-game, and you're also preserving bodies by not fighting.

While running away, you're also simultaneously making Germany weaker because all of those non-fighting 86-morale divisions are seeing that advantage erode steadily over the first 11-14 turns of the game (the runaway phase, which might impact Germany's advance into Russia by as much as 20-30 hexes). The reality is losing all that land is meaningless to the Soviet production macro-game in 1941.

A VP system, or an insta-lose if Leningrad/Moscow/Rostov/Voronezh fall to Germany, etc., could go a long way here.

I don't envy the Soviet the loss of the forts. But even with Germany doing as well as it is, we're not seeing, I don't think (maybe you differ) Germany scoring insta-wins or games where we can clearly see that the Fort rules are THE determinant in causing the Soviet to be doomed in the long-game.


I think you're being way too harsh with your countrymen (and yourself). And anyway, this has nothing to do with a particular culture. It's a typical human trait: some people really want to win, at all cost... that's all. That is not a bad thing, not even close. I only play for fun, yes, but once I play I will do my best to smash (I never leave aside fair play though) my opponent.

I personally will never blame for example Pelton (his buildup spam that is). After all, he is only using (or abusing) a tool which IS in the game He is guilty of that, yes. As I see it, he simply is an ultra-competitive person who will try to find anything that will lead him to victory. The tactics he uses might be wrong or right, that's totally irrelevant.

I insist, with the current few Soviet losses (ergo the Soviets have MUCH more forces to defend) the Germans are basically doing better than their counterparts... Leningrad in their bag. So what else do you want? If the Soviet hordes don't retreat (as you want) the Germans might bag these 3 million soldiers AND get to Gorky and Stalingrad itself by november 1941... who knows... Would that be coherent? NOT on my book.

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 61
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 7:45:38 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
I don't want to make the Soviet stand and fight until he wants to stand and fight. 

I do think that designers might take a look at the distance that FBDs can move over the 17 turns and release a little pressure on the Germans by somehow making it a little easier to get an extra hex on each line each turn.

What I have found in my game vs. Cannonfodder compared to all my other games before is that  HQ buildup is required about each turn in the south and center just so you can advance a path of friendly hexes for the infantry to move across (it's like 1941 is a big game of curling, with armor sweeping smooth ice-paths ahead of the infantry rocks).  To ensure the availability of HQ buildup, you have to double-down the 2 FBDs in the south, starting instantly, and you have to double-down the center around the time the land bridge is cleared.  To me, these are now the sine-quo-non of Axis operations.  Otherwise you'll get to Moscow and the Donbas regions right as the Soviets are finishing their first real line of fortifications, and you're reaching the very end of your supply line.

Where I think this is problematic is that the Soviet, as far as I can tell, really doesn't suffer any down-side in the choice of an orderly withdrawal strategy.  If the German tries to catch him using the double-down rail conversion, he's putting his entire army group supply into one line, with a random partisan attack having the opportunity to neuter an entire army group.  In my game vs. CF, I'm devoting lots of regiments on that rail line's security, but when one gets through, I'm going to lose a whole army group for a whole turn, which doesn't seem exactly well-balanced.  Don't get me wrong, it's not like I think this rail conversion approach  should come without risk, but there's a problem in that when that risk does catch me, a whole AG is out of action. 

There's quite a difference in sacrifices made for optimization in this game, where the Soviet (at least in my opinion) rarely has to make any difficult strategic tradeoffs, whereas the Axis are making them each and every turn.

As I think about the double-FBD issue, it's a horrible inefficiency, but it's the only way to ensure you can be doing HQ buildup in the Moscow and Donbas regions in the latter half of the summer (turns 12 through 17).  Generally the extra-FBD only converts 1 more hex than otherwise, but sometimes with river, or swamp to cross, it's 2. 

I think basically Germany should be able to convert 1 more hex away from the railhead in 1941 than they can right now. 


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 62
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 8:16:12 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I do think that designers might take a look at the distance that FBDs can move over the 17 turns and release a little pressure on the Germans by somehow making it a little easier to get an extra hex on each line each turn.

...

I think basically Germany should be able to convert 1 more hex away from the railhead in 1941 than they can right now. 




I actually argued the opposite and suggested to the devs that they make the rail repair rate slower. The Axis are just not hitting any logistical walls during the Summer campaign. They should.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 63
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 8:45:45 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6329
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Indeed, the rails can be pushed very far as is. Which in of itself isn't the problem -- the real issue is the carrying capacity of said rails, which is treated as essentially infinite by the game engine.

The Germans can attack Moscow all summer long as a result. No need for a pause as per the historical post Smolensk breather.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 64
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 8:58:36 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Why should they have to pause if the enemy is retreating ahead of him?  Why wouldn't rail repair be faster/more secure when the Soviet Union is continuously picking up camp and moving east?

Yes, the supply system is simplistic: the tantamount supply game is HQ buildup + railhead distance = German ability to do stuff.  We're a long way, I think, from having any kind of change to the infinite rail line/infinite throughput stuff.

Meantime, what seems to be missing from the 1941 game battles compared to the real battles are Soviet operations that can surprise the Germans with tenacity and determination. 

I really don't know where the design team should press at the moment.



(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 65
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 9:00:12 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5538
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
If it's much slower, though, the Donbas might be out of reach.


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 66
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 9:33:37 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1900
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Why should they have to pause if the enemy is retreating ahead of him?  Why wouldn't rail repair be faster/more secure when the Soviet Union is continuously picking up camp and moving east?





The soviets are retreating because it is very VERY hard to effectively defend or counterattack. The risk of encirclement (due to HQ buildup and one week turns) is always present. You caught me ofguard in our game Helio and the result is around 600.000 men in a pocket (I'll admit I made it worse then it should have been).

Still, if the Soviets actually had a decent fighting chance it would be easier to at least try to stand and fight. Now your best chance is to checkerboard and retreat...

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 67
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 10:15:37 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Why should they have to pause if the enemy is retreating ahead of him?  Why wouldn't rail repair be faster/more secure when the Soviet Union is continuously picking up camp and moving east?





The soviets are retreating because it is very VERY hard to effectively defend or counterattack. The risk of encirclement (due to HQ buildup and one week turns) is always present. You caught me ofguard in our game Helio and the result is around 600.000 men in a pocket (I'll admit I made it worse then it should have been).

Still, if the Soviets actually had a decent fighting chance it would be easier to at least try to stand and fight. Now your best chance is to checkerboard and retreat...

Damn, down to 600K already? I thought it was a million. I'm doomed.

But I agree with you that the uniform feeble status of the Red Army throughout the first 10 turns is something that ought to be looked into from a playability standpoint (which is to say, favoring that over realism). Without a backbone, CF's right: there's never a tactical reason to stand and fight (sometimes there are strategic reasons that compel you to do so anyway).






(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 68
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 10:45:10 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


The soviets are retreating because it is very VERY hard to effectively defend or counterattack. The risk of encirclement (due to HQ buildup and one week turns) is always present. You caught me ofguard in our game Helio and the result is around 600.000 men in a pocket (I'll admit I made it worse then it should have been).

Still, if the Soviets actually had a decent fighting chance it would be easier to at least try to stand and fight. Now your best chance is to checkerboard and retreat...

Damn, down to 600K already? I thought it was a million. I'm doomed.

But I agree with you that the uniform feeble status of the Red Army throughout the first 10 turns is something that ought to be looked into from a playability standpoint (which is to say, favoring that over realism). Without a backbone, CF's right: there's never a tactical reason to stand and fight (sometimes there are strategic reasons that compel you to do so anyway).



I disagree with this, to a certain degree. In 1.05.xx, I think the Soviets need, more than they have since the pre-1.03.xx versions, to stand and fight whenever practical. Further, I think that many Soviet players are misjudging what is practical. With 1.05.xx versions, Axis attacks are regularly causing at least 5:1 average loss ratios. I've found that in my Soviet games, Soviet attacks during the 1941 season are regularly averaging 1:1.5 loss ratios. This is a huge differential. Especially since some of the more recent changes have dialed down the amount of frontline attritional losses, it is important to start causing some direct damage back to the Axis, to keep his replacements (manpower and armaments) from accumulating. By engaging his forces more often, you also put a strain on his supply state, which can cause further morale degradation, and unrepaired equipment loss, beyond that which the lost battles might themselves cause.

Now, that said, if the Soviet player is not making the "good" attacks, and is not mindful of being able to return to his fortified positions, favorable terrain, or simply withdrawing out of reach of the Landsers, then he may overcommit himself to attacks that cause more harm than good. However, to simply run away, or hunker down and wait for the Axis to attack each turn will lend the initiative wholly to the opponent, and reduce the number of victories that your units need to overcome their loss totals and qualify for Guards status.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 69
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/9/2011 6:46:08 AM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1900
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


The soviets are retreating because it is very VERY hard to effectively defend or counterattack. The risk of encirclement (due to HQ buildup and one week turns) is always present. You caught me ofguard in our game Helio and the result is around 600.000 men in a pocket (I'll admit I made it worse then it should have been).

Still, if the Soviets actually had a decent fighting chance it would be easier to at least try to stand and fight. Now your best chance is to checkerboard and retreat...

Damn, down to 600K already? I thought it was a million. I'm doomed.

But I agree with you that the uniform feeble status of the Red Army throughout the first 10 turns is something that ought to be looked into from a playability standpoint (which is to say, favoring that over realism). Without a backbone, CF's right: there's never a tactical reason to stand and fight (sometimes there are strategic reasons that compel you to do so anyway).



I disagree with this, to a certain degree. In 1.05.xx, I think the Soviets need, more than they have since the pre-1.03.xx versions, to stand and fight whenever practical. Further, I think that many Soviet players are misjudging what is practical. With 1.05.xx versions, Axis attacks are regularly causing at least 5:1 average loss ratios. I've found that in my Soviet games, Soviet attacks during the 1941 season are regularly averaging 1:1.5 loss ratios. This is a huge differential. Especially since some of the more recent changes have dialed down the amount of frontline attritional losses, it is important to start causing some direct damage back to the Axis, to keep his replacements (manpower and armaments) from accumulating. By engaging his forces more often, you also put a strain on his supply state, which can cause further morale degradation, and unrepaired equipment loss, beyond that which the lost battles might themselves cause.

Now, that said, if the Soviet player is not making the "good" attacks, and is not mindful of being able to return to his fortified positions, favorable terrain, or simply withdrawing out of reach of the Landsers, then he may overcommit himself to attacks that cause more harm than good. However, to simply run away, or hunker down and wait for the Axis to attack each turn will lend the initiative wholly to the opponent, and reduce the number of victories that your units need to overcome their loss totals and qualify for Guards status.


Helio is doing a great job of denying me these possibilities. There are always a couple of attacks I can make, and I make them, but nothing that slows his advance..

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 70
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/9/2011 11:41:31 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3064
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I disagree with this, to a certain degree. In 1.05.xx, I think the Soviets need, more than they have since the pre-1.03.xx versions, to stand and fight whenever practical. Further, I think that many Soviet players are misjudging what is practical. With 1.05.xx versions, Axis attacks are regularly causing at least 5:1 average loss ratios. I've found that in my Soviet games, Soviet attacks during the 1941 season are regularly averaging 1:1.5 loss ratios. This is a huge differential. Especially since some of the more recent changes have dialed down the amount of frontline attritional losses, it is important to start causing some direct damage back to the Axis, to keep his replacements (manpower and armaments) from accumulating. By engaging his forces more often, you also put a strain on his supply state, which can cause further morale degradation, and unrepaired equipment loss, beyond that which the lost battles might themselves cause.

Now, that said, if the Soviet player is not making the "good" attacks, and is not mindful of being able to return to his fortified positions, favorable terrain, or simply withdrawing out of reach of the Landsers, then he may overcommit himself to attacks that cause more harm than good. However, to simply run away, or hunker down and wait for the Axis to attack each turn will lend the initiative wholly to the opponent, and reduce the number of victories that your units need to overcome their loss totals and qualify for Guards status.


I'm on James camp. I tried to do this against Q-Ball, but I think I chose a few of my battles poorly. In any case, I only felt the need to really break contact by early to mid September. At that point, the Red Army was just falling apart. Fortunately, Q-Ball's Wehrmacht reached the limit of their supply range, especially in the South.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 71
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/9/2011 5:03:37 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1900
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I'm on James camp. I tried to do this against Q-Ball, but I think I chose a few of my battles poorly. In any case, I only felt the need to really break contact by early to mid September. At that point, the Red Army was just falling apart. Fortunately, Q-Ball's Wehrmacht reached the limit of their supply range, especially in the South.



There is no such thing as a supply range limit for the axis in summer of 1941 if you play your cards right (like helio)

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 72
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/9/2011 6:02:23 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6329
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Cannonfodder, it really depends on where the doubled up FBDs are, and in the south especially the Axis does run into problems by the time they get to the Donbas/Rostov. The trick down south is holding on until you get the factories out. Then you can fade away into the interior.

Elsewhere, however, supply is a non factor. A drive to (and even past) Moscow can be supplied with ease, and coupled with HQ buildups, makes Moscow a more than viable target. Only when mud hits does this fall apart. But hanging on until the mud is tough if the German wants to get Moscow.

This possibly makes it even more important to hold on to Leningrad as long as possible, if only to delay transfer of PG4 to the center. It will fall. (Leningrad cannot be defended, period, against a German who knows what he is doing.) But if you can hang on to it until turn 16 or so, then that may be good enough.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 73
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/9/2011 6:51:27 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Elsewhere, however, supply is a non factor.

Disagree. Supply on offense is always the single-most important consideration of every move I will make in a turn. What I discovered when I really started paying attention to optimizing my army performance as Axis was that unless you double-up on FBDs (for a basic gain on the single line of 1 or 2 rail hexes per turn, sacrificing 2 or 3 gross hexes between the two FBDs) Germans receive such small and inconsistent levels of supply for their armor that you might as well not move every other turn with every panzer corps.

Realistic as that may be to how the Wehrmacht conducted operations, the fact was that without a double-FBD line the German ends up on the end of a yo-yo where the Soviets crept eastward just fast enough to stay out of range of deliberate infantry attacks, so you were quite typically having to abandon 3-5 MPs per infantry division per turn, while giving the Soviet more rest and time. When you weren't reaching Kaluga until Turn 14 with supply, the game had a derth of both tactical and strategic options.

However, with the double-FBD in the south starting on Turn 1, and starting around Vitebsk on Turn 6 or 7-ish, you can actually drive right down the throat of the best avenues of approach to Moscow (Daugava->Vitebsk->Kaluga), and Rostov (where there are more paths available depending on how you handle the Dnepr).

A railhead at Kaluga gives Germany tremendous leverage from Kalinin in the north to Ryazan in the east, to Tula (a real armaments jackpot if you're lucky). Just as Leningrad is a city that usually falls because it's the only city with a true incentive to take (and a limited ability to be defended based on geography), I would perhaps assert that the best course of action that AGC can pursue is to drive to Kaluga with a double-FBD rail supply line as fast as earthly possible. Now that Germans CAN fight for Moscow, one could argue that there is a trend that German players ARE fighting for Moscow. I thought that was a good thing.


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 74
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/9/2011 6:59:31 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6329
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Helio, all you are doing here is confirming what I said: logistics just isn't an issue for the Germans outside the south.

Here's my problem with the Moscow business -- not logistically doable in real life. The capacity of the rail lines converted couldn't properly support AGC. This as much as anything else mandated a pause in operations and was a large reason the panzers got temporarily diverted north and south.

That kind of logistical bottleneck isn't really reflected in the game. You just need to push the railheads forward as fast as possible, and throw in some buildups for good measure. This makes a Moscow (and past Moscow) drive in the high summer feasible in a way that really shouldn't be.

The problem will come back and haunt the Germans later on, too: when the Soviets are on the offensive, they too aren't terribly restrained by logistics. (They are however hamstrung by a crippling truck shortage.) The game logistics, imo, are really incredibly forgiving for the offensive. I don't pretend to know what to do about this, but there it is. Pavel is working on stuff, but any kind of overhaul of the logistical system is going to be a long haul project.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 75
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/9/2011 9:19:49 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
Interesting here with the situation about advancing on Moscow.

Historically, the Germans had all sorts of issues with supplying AGC not only with gas, but ammunition as well, etc. The Germans had to not only beat off the Russian counter attacks, but then work on building up enough supplies for a thrust against Moscow. According to one book I have, it took them about a month to get enough supplies built up. (This was done while PG 2 and 3 went on other missions and took longer because the Russians were far more active than the Germans had thought they would be). It wasn't until the end of September that forces and supplies were in place. The Russians were caught off guard because they thought the Germans would stand where they were so late in the year.

Now, while I agree that logistics issues are a bit too easy for the attacker, I would also point out that the vast majority of games do not have nearly the heavy fighting (and ammunition/supply expenditure) that the Germans had historically simply because the Russians typically are running and the Germans are advancing, doing very little actual fighting.

I would say this is yet another reason for the Russians to look at standing and fighting more (run the German supplies down), but the way the game is right now, I don't think it will make any difference.

Ideally, we would get to the point that due to logistics issues, the Germans would have to give more thought before reaching for the deliberate attack button (Deliberate attack uses a lot of ammo/supply) and that the Russians getting more in the face of the Germans; even attacking more, would be a strategy itself to drain the German supplies. Unfortunately, I did some tests on this awhile ago and even attacked by a pile of Russians, German units don't burn much supplies defending themselves. The big one is doing deliberate attacks.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 76
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/9/2011 9:24:58 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
I definitely agree that the supply system fosters unrealistic pace of operations, and because of that, WitE currently doesn't reflect Barbarossa particularly accurately.  I'm UNsure whether the game balance is okay from a competitive standpoint. 

One of the reasons I switched from an operational tempo where I rested panzer divisions for a turn or two when they reached a supply bottleneck was that waiting a turn or two often produced no meaningful recovery in movement points.  Were the bonus for sitting idle for a turn meaningful, buildup wouldn't be such a more meaningful tool.  I still rest panzers, but because the railhead is closer to begin with, the recovery is much more impactful.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 77
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/10/2011 2:07:43 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4381
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I definitely agree that the supply system fosters unrealistic pace of operations,


This was the biggest issue in WitP. By march 1942 you could have 200 B-17s in Port Moresby Still, maximum a Japanese player could grab New Caledonia and then New Zealand (South Pacific); north Australia and the whole New Guinea (Southwest Pacific); and some really bold guys could even capture Pearl Harbor (Central Pacific) and even India (Southeast Asia Command). But the West Coast was still IMPOSSIBLE. And that's where the CVs (carriers, no "combat value") grew. Your doom.

In fact this weird logistical thing was finally fixed in 2009 (the Admiral's Edition). But most of us, if not all, kept playing the same WitP from 2004 to that date. That forum was (and still is) the most active -and by far- Matrix forum. This should tell you something. Patience is the word.

WitE is just a baby: a tender 11 months old. It will be VASTLY improved, I bet my Buzz Light Year toy on that one.

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 78
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/11/2011 9:07:53 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Here's my problem with the Moscow business -- not logistically doable in real life. The capacity of the rail lines converted couldn't properly support AGC. This as much as anything else mandated a pause in operations and was a large reason the panzers got temporarily diverted north and south.

That kind of logistical bottleneck isn't really reflected in the game. You just need to push the railheads forward as fast as possible, and throw in some buildups for good measure. This makes a Moscow (and past Moscow) drive in the high summer feasible in a way that really shouldn't be.

The problem will come back and haunt the Germans later on, too: when the Soviets are on the offensive, they too aren't terribly restrained by logistics. (They are however hamstrung by a crippling truck shortage.) The game logistics, imo, are really incredibly forgiving for the offensive. I don't pretend to know what to do about this, but there it is. Pavel is working on stuff, but any kind of overhaul of the logistical system is going to be a long haul project.


+1...hit the nail on the head. This -- IMHO -- is one of the main issues with the game in it's curent form.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 79
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/12/2011 1:15:20 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1345
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Micheal T took Moscow from me on turn 9 and Stalino/Tula on turn 10 because he has found a way to keep essentially all of his motorized units maximally supplied every turn; defense in depth is virtually meaningless even checkerboards 3 - 4 lines deep. There is nothing to be done about it - it is like universal acid eating through everything. It is really cool to watch - every turn his forces have cut through everything and advanced almost as if nothing was in their way. In the context of playing a fantasy game, it is great fun.

But, in terms of playing a simulation with an modicum of logistical constraint, no way, not even close. The supply aspect of the game needs a serious objective analysis and overhaul. I would like Micheal T to get what he wants: a way to funnel logistics and use them as in a discretionary manner. What he has now is the ability to attack full throttle with no restraint for over 2 straight months.

Marquo

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 80
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/12/2011 2:08:05 AM   
JFalk68


Posts: 219
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline
Reading through this post makes me not want to fire this game up and try it again. I am not trying to troll here, just frustrated at what seems to be a game of whac-A-mole with bugs and balance issues. Fix one issue and you unbalance something else.

Should I invest time into this game at this point or just sit on it for another few months?

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 81
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/12/2011 3:21:02 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2169
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
The game as it is currently is nothing like the game that was released. The game that it will end up as, is nothing like the game is currently. Are the changes going in the right direction? We don't know yet - we have not gotten that far in the games yet. Many of the campaign games are dropped too early to really tell - until some of the 1.05 games get into 43-44 we don't even know if the current Axis and Soviet strategies are valid ones!

I have begun to suspect in my studies of AARs and playing the game that we are all pretty far off-base as to what will really work on either side at the moment. I think that Soviets conserving their strength by running away and protecting the ARM factories over the HVY could very well not be able to support the size of army that they end up with. I think that the Axis putting it all into a "I just don't gain enough from a 42 offensive to make it worth my while" does not slow down the Soviet build up enough in troop quality and formations. There have to be MUCH heavier fighting and casualties in 1941 for both sides to have a chance to keep the game going and interesting. Until there are incentives (either through VP or game experiences) to do so, the game will flop back and forth in design balance. Unfortunately, we all want the finished and polished product NOW! Realistically, it takes about 6 to 8 months in real time just to fully test the current version.

(in reply to JFalk68)
Post #: 82
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/12/2011 3:54:22 AM   
JFalk68


Posts: 219
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline
carlkay58,

Thanks for the insightful and honest reply. I am in your camp in that I want a polished and finished product now LOL :) I have plenty of games and distractions, I have no problem shelving this game for a long while.
I seem to have a lot of bad luck with my game purchases. I recently bought Sword of the Stars 2 and that is in much worse state then this game. WiTE can at least be played and its stable.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 83
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/12/2011 12:21:21 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7167
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: online
As I stated around release, WitE is a rough gem. It will become more polished over time, or at least the engine will, but we're by no means quite there yet.

Still, as an overall experience, it has been fairly dramatically improved since release in some ways.

As to the whac-a-mole: it's natural for a monster game. You fix something, something else might get broken or the fix might do more than you intended it to. It all takes time. WitE is not a broken product, it's a product that gets and requires constant polishing.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JFalk68)
Post #: 84
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/12/2011 12:46:02 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3064
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
But, in terms of playing a simulation with an modicum of logistical constraint, no way, not even close. The supply aspect of the game needs a serious objective analysis and overhaul. I would like Micheal T to get what he wants: a way to funnel logistics and use them as in a discretionary manner. What he has now is the ability to attack full throttle with no restraint for over 2 straight months.


I suggested on another thread that a possibly interesting experiment to do would be to cut down Supply scenario parameters, radically, and see what would be the effect. I'm pretty much convinced by now that there's too much supply stuff around and it flows with uncanny efficiency (and it's not only the rails, also overland supply seems to me way too efficient). By increasing the AP multiplier, one would be able to use the HQ build up function to, as the name implies, build up an attacking force :)

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 85
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/12/2011 4:18:24 PM   
Attack

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline
To JFalk68:

I agree with you (and with Pelton): the game needs some polishing work.

But still, is the better strategic game I´ve never played. The problem is:

First, is a very complex game. If you changes a thing, can be undesirable consecuences.
Second, there are a lot of brains thinking how to win, how to strech the rules to advance a little more, to fight a little better...

We are playing beta because we love this game, and we´re trying to do a perfect game (well, this is not possible, but we´re trying it). It´s some kind of natural selection: the comunity of players find some holes, the developpers try to polish these holes with new rules, the comunity try to find another holes in the new rules...

I´ve not too much experience, I played only 4 PBEM, but I´d like to say something not about the supply in 41, but about the original post: why the Germans can´t attack in 42, as historically did:

I think that the air war is very important, too. Without air superiority is not possible to do a movement war.

Playing as russian, at the 42 spring I see my entire red air force with an experience of 70 and a moral 80-99. With this experience and moral, and lots of aircrafts, Luftwaffe simply can´t support the advance of Panzers or any other offensive.

I´m not an expert in the history of air war in the East, but I thing that during 41 the Luftwaffe reached total air superiority; in 42, Luftwaffe has air superiority only in the sud, was parity in the others fronts; in 43 was parity; and in 44 the Soviet Union had total air superiority. More or less.


(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 86
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/12/2011 6:42:32 PM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
1942 as Sov: With 1 = 2 and fort spam gone. I am finding it much tougher to counter-attack panzer spearheads or exposed units. I should have stopped and fortified end Jan 42 vice mid Feb. Another lesson learned - Front HQs will suck all the RR Brigades out of your Army HQs if there is a lot of RR repair work to do - such as in a successful Blizzrd advance. I found out the hard way that is is prioritized over entrenching help, so you really need to set up and lock HQs for a Blizzrd advance.

(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 87
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/13/2011 12:57:13 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1900
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Attack

I´m not an expert in the history of air war in the East, but I thing that during 41 the Luftwaffe reached total air superiority; in 42, Luftwaffe has air superiority only in the sud, was parity in the others fronts; in 43 was parity; and in 44 the Soviet Union had total air superiority. More or less.




That is not entirely true. The soviets did have huge problems in the early war and they were far behind in tactics and strategy but there never was a shortage of aircraft and pilots. In fact, the axis were starting to struggle coming end of 1941. They did however manage to create LOCAL superiority where it mattered most! The drain on machines and men was however huge.

Having aces shoot down hundreds of aircraft is all well and good but if the enemy easily replaces those losses and if your own industry and pilot training plan barely keeps up with front needs you are screwed..

I think the VVS is allowed to build up to much experience and morale currently but the actual aircraft count is not that far off....

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 88
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/13/2011 2:16:21 PM   
Attack

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline
May be, Cannonfolder, I said I´m not an expert about air war in WWII. But to me is strange that in a PBEM game, with me as German, with Moscow and Leningrad conquered, the bombers of Luftwaffe in turn 18 have a moral of 19.
And in turn 27, the russian fighters will have a moral of 90+ (in another PEBM game, this time playing as soviet)


In any case, in 1942 and without air superiority is near impossible to breach a carpet of Russians and after to maneouvre. At least in a sector of the front, the Germans need air superiority.

Only a opinion.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 89
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/13/2011 2:25:49 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1900
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Thats why I said: the VVS is allowed to build up to much experience and morale...

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.129