Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

C&C: REALLY important

 
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 >> C&C: REALLY important Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 1:58:20 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5188
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
What I am going to say is possibly known by most of you. But maybe there are some guys (like ME) who ignore this

I did a small test.

But first a few words: on my first blizzard I had used the Cavalry Corps very incorrectly. I hadn't attached support units (2 x Tank Bns + 1 x Sapper Regiment). These units (offensive CVs = or > 5) could not even defeat miserable ants (1:1)! And yes, they were directly attached to Stavka. Fact number one.

So on my current game (playing the blizzard turns), I had assigned these support units. The corps are finally ready BUT I wanted to test something, just in case... So I attacked a miserable 1:1, a hasty attack and the unit was directly attached to STAVKA, very far away. The unit held... I did that 5 times. 4 helds... Fact number two

Then I did the following: I attached the corps to a nearby army. Bingo! All 5 attacks were retreats. Fact number three.

Conclusion: support is NOT enough, because the Corps had plenty of support and still they were as useless as without support. C&C is really the key. Believe me (or do a similar test) or you will learn the hard way (banging your head against the wall, as I did myself).

Maybe you think I should not use the word "fact", still the test is pretty conclusive to me.

EDITED: incomplete description

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 11/15/2011 5:43:01 PM >


_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke
Post #: 1
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 2:39:53 AM   
Northern Star


Posts: 1881
Joined: 2/17/2008
Status: offline
Nice to know, I always try to manage the support units correctly but there's always something to improve

_____________________________

War in the East alpha tester

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPV9JWWtOQ0

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 2
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 2:40:30 AM   
Franklin Nimitz

 

Posts: 566
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline
Look at the combat reports and you'll see something like a 20% penalty for having units attached directly to STAVKA/OKH.  For that reason, I'd rather put them in an overloaded corps/army than leave them at high command.  So I ALWAYS attach them to a nearby HQ.  FWIW, I don't have "STAVKA Armies" i.e. army HQ's attached to STAVKA and operating in field.  I have STAVKA divisions. All of my army HQ's are assigned to Fronts, and divisions are attached to/from STAVKA directly to/from the army HQ's.  All fronts have 5 or so armies, but the strength of each army can vary.  Usually about 6 divisions (12 CP) as a 'base' army, and augment that with additional attachments when warranted.  Small armies (as the SU) are the way to go- just because an army can have a dozen divisions doesn't mean it's a good idea, especially if the excess army HQ's are just sitting around.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 3
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 4:00:31 AM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 2307
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz
Look at the combat reports and you'll see something like a 20% penalty for having units attached directly to STAVKA/OKH. 


Do you have a screenie? I've had numerous attacks by STAKA armies and haven't seen such a penalty unless I'm not looking in the right place.

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 4
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 4:06:51 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1411
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Heh, heh - TD is being schooled.


(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 5
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 7:45:48 AM   
stone10


Posts: 240
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline
I remember that the penalty is 38% for unit directly attach to OKH?

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 6
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 12:34:59 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5188
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS


quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz
Look at the combat reports and you'll see something like a 20% penalty for having units attached directly to STAVKA/OKH. 


Do you have a screenie? I've had numerous attacks by STAKA armies and haven't seen such a penalty unless I'm not looking in the right place.


I have confirmed this with a new test. On my first test I was attaching the Corps to a Southwestern Front army. Now I have done another test, attaching the unit to a nearby STAVKA army. Again bingo! 5 attacks = 5 retreats! Good news given that I tend to have lots of small Stavka armies.

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 11/15/2011 12:36:31 PM >


_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 7
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 12:40:32 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15360
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
Besides direct penalties displayed on the battle report you will have many missed leader rolls which will decrease a final CV, when your unit is directly attached to the high command HQ. The longer the command chain and closer the HQs are, the more chances to have positive leader rolls.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 8
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 1:27:29 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7181
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Yes. Provided the STAVKA/OKH leader doesn't have a very low mechanized/infantry rating, as long as it's within 5 hexes of the units it is supposed to report, you should normally be hit just with the negative CV modification, but having units attached to STAVKA when STAVKA is dozens of hexes away is a problem.

One particularly nasty surprise is if you're attacking with multiple units from multiple commands, including STAVKA and STAVKA is picked as the "main" HQ commanding the battle.

Units directly assigned to STAVKA also seem to attract only a small amount of supplies.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 11/15/2011 1:38:03 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 9
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 1:45:14 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1411
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Hey TD,

Enough testing and experimenting, you may get blown up in your laboratory. Send me your move and get ready to take it like a man.

Les putes de Moscou s'attendent le printemps avec impatience - Moscow's whores are impatiently waiting for the spring.


Marquo

< Message edited by Marquo -- 11/15/2011 1:46:10 PM >

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 10
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 3:05:48 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2255
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
I always keep my pretty little colors together.

_____________________________


(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 11
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 4:20:39 PM   
Mike13z50


Posts: 344
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS


quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz
Look at the combat reports and you'll see something like a 20% penalty for having units attached directly to STAVKA/OKH. 


Do you have a screenie? I've had numerous attacks by STAKA armies and haven't seen such a penalty unless I'm not looking in the right place.


It is ok to have an ARMY attached to Stavka, just not divisions/brigades/combat Corps.

The penalty only applies if there is no HQ in the COC between the unit in combat and Front/HiCOM.


< Message edited by Mike13z50 -- 11/15/2011 4:22:20 PM >

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 12
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 5:37:15 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4014
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Units directly assigned to STAVKA also seem to attract only a small amount of supplies.


This is somewhat important to consider when using Armies under the STAVKA direct command in prolonged offensives. Having a Front HQ helps a bit, especially when you're operating far from a railhead in bad weather, both because of the additional chance to pass leader checks and the Front internal stockpiles.

_____________________________

Wite2 - Lead Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 13
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 8:16:08 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 2307
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
This discussion raises a side-issue, which is how much over the limit do you go on CUs in a front.  With 72 as the early maximum, does 80 cause issues?  90?  Clearly the admin rating of the front commander has an effect, but it's not clear how much better the units fare with a front commander with an admin rating of 7 than one with 6.  You would think Vasilevsky would stand up well with his high admin rating, but how well with an 80's CU front is the question. 

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 14
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 8:27:38 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
Someone crunched the math on HQ overloading a while back. Can't find the thread, but I seem to recall that the conclusion at the time was that slight overloading wasn't all that much different from major overloading. In other words, it's a very narrow tipping point: once you're over, you're over.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 15
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/15/2011 11:14:35 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7181
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
As the Soviets have to attach air bases to fronts in order for them to support that front, at least for the first year the front HQ's are likely to be overloaded if you assign 3 full armies to each front HQ. When the command capacity increases in mid 1942, front HQ's will usually no longer be overloaded (unless you start assigning more units to them or had heavily overloaded them, of course). I don't really bother with keeping front HQ's at or below their command capacity in 1941-early 1942. I assign a leader with a good admin rating and preferably poor combat ratings to them and wait until 1942. Leaders with good combat ratings are essentially wasted there and can be put to better use in airborne corps or (tank) army HQ's.

The first roll is essentially always more likely to succeed than the second one, so it's also the most important. Keep in mind that if a front leader needs to make a roll, that normally means lower level leaders failed theirs, which is a bad thing.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 11/15/2011 11:15:31 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 16
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 12:29:41 AM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1931
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
For me one of many mysteries of that game is terrible C&C of Axis side, much much inferior to Soviet.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 11/16/2011 12:48:32 AM >

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 17
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 2:24:15 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

For me one of many mysteries of that game is terrible C&C of Axis side, much much inferior to Soviet.

+1

Soviets have for more flexibility in organizing their fronts because transferring divisions is so inexpensive. Germany pays 2 to 5 times the cost to move divisions around, which makes no historic sense.

_____________________________

Spring 2018-Playing: Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress; Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Bonhoeffer
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Holland'44, Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 18
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 3:45:53 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7181
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
On the other hand, the Axis also have very little to spend AP on after they get their leaders in order in late 1941/early 1942 other than shifting divisions and support units from one HQ/unit to another.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 11/16/2011 3:46:46 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 19
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 3:57:01 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

On the other hand, the Axis also have very little to spend AP on after they get their leaders in order in late 1941/early 1942 other than shifting divisions and support units from one HQ/unit to another.


How is that material to the subject? Germans are forced to pay for changing command far more heavily than the Soviet. How is that historically accurate, and not just another free gift to the Soviet side so it's not as hard to manage?

Since the German army is only able to conduct operations with initiative for the first 17 turns, the handicap this creates has a-historic leverage when it does the Soviet the most good.

It doesn't matter that the German eventually ends up with a surplus of AP. It matters that the German is handicapped in one of its major strengths (command and control flexibility), depriving it of that strength entirely, while the Soviet is given a boon of C2 when he had no such advantage historically.



_____________________________

Spring 2018-Playing: Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress; Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Bonhoeffer
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Holland'44, Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 20
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 4:43:13 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
I agree that the game does seem to overly restrict the Axis C & C, but it's easy enough to go into the Preferences screen and change the Admin percentage to suit your own historical individual taste.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 21
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 5:19:36 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

On the other hand, the Axis also have very little to spend AP on after they get their leaders in order in late 1941/early 1942 other than shifting divisions and support units from one HQ/unit to another.


How is that material to the subject? Germans are forced to pay for changing command far more heavily than the Soviet. How is that historically accurate, and not just another free gift to the Soviet side so it's not as hard to manage?

Since the German army is only able to conduct operations with initiative for the first 17 turns, the handicap this creates has a-historic leverage when it does the Soviet the most good.

It doesn't matter that the German eventually ends up with a surplus of AP. It matters that the German is handicapped in one of its major strengths (command and control flexibility), depriving it of that strength entirely, while the Soviet is given a boon of C2 when he had no such advantage historically.




The Soviet costs reflect the fact that their divisions weren't amazing. Soviet corps reassignment costs are much higher and are the proper units to compare to German divisions so far as these costs go.

Once the Soviet switches over to corps, he is limited to anywhere between 4-8 reassignments/turn depending on how his leadership rolls go. This isn't a huge number of units.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 22
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 5:58:53 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1931
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Flaviusx

The Soviet costs reflect the fact that their divisions weren't amazing. Soviet corps reassignment costs are much higher and are the proper units to compare to German divisions so far as these costs go.

Once the Soviet switches over to corps, he is limited to anywhere between 4-8 reassignments/turn depending on how his leadership rolls go. This isn't a huge number of units.




I agree it gets harder for Soviets to transport their corps around whole front at will as they can easily do with divisions. But once their strength is concentrated in corps formation they do not need to use their secret weapon - rail transfer and units re-designation.

Thanks to fact that they can spawn armies and new fronts are coming into action they have don not have such problem with overloaded command as Germans.


Germans are much less flexible with reassigning their units, especially in summer of '41 when HQ build-up is key to any meaningful breakthrough.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 23
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 6:08:22 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

I agree it gets harder for Soviets to transport their corps around whole front at will as they can easily do with divisions. But once their strength is concentrated in corps formation they do not need to use their secret weapon - rail transfer and units re-designation.




I totally disagree with this. The importance of this never really goes away. Creating strategic surprise means having reserves on hand even in the late war period. Shifting around 2-3 strong armies in one turn with railing and reassignment can catch the German flat footed. The late war period becomes a game of shifting reserves on both sides, and the Soviet has to contrive to play the last trump and find a place on the German line where the German hasn't got reserves to match a Soviet commitment.

If you just mindlessly throw everything up front and grind away, then yeah, I guess you won't need to do this.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 24
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 6:09:16 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

On the other hand, the Axis also have very little to spend AP on after they get their leaders in order in late 1941/early 1942 other than shifting divisions and support units from one HQ/unit to another.


How is that material to the subject? Germans are forced to pay for changing command far more heavily than the Soviet. How is that historically accurate, and not just another free gift to the Soviet side so it's not as hard to manage?

Since the German army is only able to conduct operations with initiative for the first 17 turns, the handicap this creates has a-historic leverage when it does the Soviet the most good.

It doesn't matter that the German eventually ends up with a surplus of AP. It matters that the German is handicapped in one of its major strengths (command and control flexibility), depriving it of that strength entirely, while the Soviet is given a boon of C2 when he had no such advantage historically.




The Soviet costs reflect the fact that their divisions weren't amazing. Soviet corps reassignment costs are much higher and are the proper units to compare to German divisions so far as these costs go.

Once the Soviet switches over to corps, he is limited to anywhere between 4-8 reassignments/turn depending on how his leadership rolls go. This isn't a huge number of units.


That's just another apology rationalizing mechanically a corruption of one of Germany's biggest 1941 strategic advantages and grossly limits the disadvantage of the actual Soviet army in 1941.

Further, you're trying to make it seem like corps have a down side. They have zero down side for the Soviet army.

_____________________________

Spring 2018-Playing: Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress; Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Bonhoeffer
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Holland'44, Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 25
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 6:18:53 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1931
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Flaviusx


I totally disagree with this. The importance of this never really goes away. Creating strategic surprise means having reserves on hand even in the late war period. Shifting around 2-3 strong armies in one turn with railing and reassignment can catch the German flat footed. The late war period becomes a game of shifting reserves on both sides, and the Soviet has to contrive to play the last trump and find a place on the German line where the German hasn't got reserves to match a Soviet commitment.



It only mean, that once Red Army is on offensive Soviets loose their advantage over Germans in that department, nothing more.



quote:

Flaviusx

If you just mindlessly throw everything up front and grind away, then yeah, I guess you won't need to do this.



Was it necessary?

< Message edited by Kamil -- 11/16/2011 6:19:48 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 26
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 6:21:46 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Helio, it's not an apology. Plain fact of the matter is Soviet rifle divisions on average were half the strength of German ones, had very limited combat support elements, and were designed to be easy to control by stripping them down to the bone. They weren't strong units with a highly articulated force structure. The Soviets tended to centralize engineering, artillery and other such assets, too.

So it's a perfectly valid design decisions to discount their reassignment costs. They were, in western terms, demidivisions, glorified brigades.

The true counterpart in the Red Army for western divisions was the corps, although when up to strength they were even stronger than a western division. (Usually they weren't up to strength.) Hence the higher reassignment costs.



< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 11/16/2011 6:22:36 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 27
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 9:15:09 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, it's not an apology. Plain fact of the matter is Soviet rifle divisions on average were half the strength of German ones, had very limited combat support elements, and were designed to be easy to control by stripping them down to the bone. They weren't strong units with a highly articulated force structure. The Soviets tended to centralize engineering, artillery and other such assets, too.

So it's a perfectly valid design decisions to discount their reassignment costs. They were, in western terms, demidivisions, glorified brigades.

The true counterpart in the Red Army for western divisions was the corps, although when up to strength they were even stronger than a western division. (Usually they weren't up to strength.) Hence the higher reassignment costs.



You and I don't agree on what a fact is, so we can't have an informed discussion. My "fact" is that Soviet C2 in WitE is the equivalent of 1986 NATO capability while the Germans have 1986 WarsawPact capability. Both are 45 years ahead of their time based on the freedom the engine gives players, but one of them has the good leadership efficiency (Soviet) compared to his opponent Germany, does not (we can leave the minors out of it entirely).

Soviet divisions were, in theory, manageable. In practice in 1941, the Red Army purges were so devastating that Soviet C2 was FUBAR for all intents and purposes throughout 1941 and 1942 until Uranus/Mars (and even then, Mars was an utter failure and Uranus lead to 3rd Kharkov and the destruction of several more armies).

WitE COULD implement a design decision (cheap re-assignment for German, expensive reassignment for Soviet) that takes a step toward the C2 realism of 1941/42 (and a step, I might emphasize, that would not cost Soviet players any movement autonomy so they would still have full control of the ability to run away). Instead it makes things far easier on the Soviet player while making things harder comparatively on the German.

The German army through 1942 was the quintessential example of effective C2 being their battlefield differentiator. Does WitE reflect this at all to you, Flavius? To me, it's an utter failure in this regard. Soviets get the same AP as Germany throughout the game, and their divisions are cheaper to re-assign.

I defy anyone to give me examples that demonstrate how Soviet ineffectiveness of command and control is reflected in this game, and I further defy anyone to demonstrate how WitE German command & control is superior to WitE Soviet C2 in meaningful game terms (in other words, stuff the German can do in the C2 arena that the Soviet cannot do equally well).

It's an absurdity to argue that this isn't a significant problem in play-balancing WitE.

What's more, an adjustment to the C2 costs of switching divisions (down for Germany, up for Soviet) would have immediate realism effects in that routing far away from your HQs would have an efficiency impact against the Soviet that would further penalize routing. Right now, when Soviet divisions route so far away from an HQ that they're inefficiency rises to the level of hopelessness, the Soviet can pay 1 or 2 points (rarely 3) and reassign to the closest HQ around without worrying about being over-command (because Soviet leadership is so bad it's irrelevant when they're over-loaded).

The WitE Soviet-side-only players' community does not have much of a clue of the synergies that come together to make the 1941/42 red army far more efficient than it had any basis in fact being.

_____________________________

Spring 2018-Playing: Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress; Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Bonhoeffer
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Holland'44, Demyansk Shield: Frozen Fortress

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 28
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 9:49:29 PM   
Mike13z50


Posts: 344
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I defy anyone to give me examples that demonstrate how Soviet ineffectiveness of command and control is reflected in this game, and I further defy anyone to demonstrate how WitE German command & control is superior to WitE Soviet C2 in meaningful game terms (in other words, stuff the German can do in the C2 arena that the Soviet cannot do equally well).

(because Soviet leadership is so bad it's irrelevant when they're over-loaded).

You did it yourself.

Unless you don't think the horrible numbers that 9/10 of the Soviet generals have are a C2 advantage to the Germans?

Not to mention that the typical German Division has 4 quality leaders rolling for him. Corps/Army/AG/OKH

The Russian unit has two. Army/Front. (with Stavka being permanently overcap)

< Message edited by Mike13z50 -- 11/16/2011 9:52:46 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 29
RE: C&C: REALLY important - 11/16/2011 10:12:37 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2817
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Its not an AP problem.. Soviet have to use AP for a lot of other stuff.. AP is artificial

Many civil war games have an option to randomize and hide leader statistics untill they are tried in combat... That would work great in this game as it would benefit the axis the most due to higher overal quality (and one could argue that axis officer quality was pretty wel known as they were in fact combat tested). Right now the soviets just put the best guys in command of the critical areas and try to get the worst of the lot killed....



< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 11/16/2011 10:33:35 PM >


_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"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 survivo

(in reply to Mike13z50)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> C&C: REALLY important Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148