Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up

 
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 >> RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/29/2011 11:43:52 PM   
heliodorus04


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

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

I have in a current game seen the focus in the south on the Odessa Nikolaev Z-town rout. This is shorter than Chernovtsy D-town and a couple of hexes can be stolen with an extra FBD (with the 4-hex max rule in effect) around Odessa. It does make the void in the centre even larger, so there is an opportunity cost to the max eastward supply reach choice.

This means that there is an early game, long duration effect decision for the Axis, that's good!


Like a Soviet player would know anything about having to make tradeoffs...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
It would be interesting to know if you play a more historical Russian stand fast/linear defense, or a historically implausible pull-back carpet/checkerboard defense. If the former, I'd like to know your secret because no Russian player on this planet could hold up the WitE German advance. If the latter, then I've made my point. Exploited a-historical attack vs. exploited a-historical defense = out of whack (both sides need nerfing).

I can agree both sides have stuff that's out of balance. But my major contention with complaints that Germany gets this or that boils down to a couple factors:
1) Soviets can squeeze FAR more advantage from historical hindsight than Germany can
2) Soviets get to build units, making all but 1941 far more flexible in strategy choices than Germany gets.

You can't go around taking stuff from Germany without taking more from Soviets in the process, because the Soviets already have every conceivable advantage after 1941.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 11/29/2011 11:46:45 PM >

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 31
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/29/2011 11:44:31 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04



Units not inside the Baltic zone could often stretch the rail distance to 5 hexes (by doubling down on rail FBDs especially).


quote:



Even doubled up in earlier games I only ever managed 4 hexes as the stuka flies so sometimes 5 only where rail line is very wiggly. Has that gone so it's now only 40 miles of track?

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 32
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/29/2011 11:57:43 PM   
jwduquette1

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 3/5/2011
Status: offline
Speaking of reloads in PBEMs, the problem has been brought up before here. This is just one of a number of threads folks here have already asked if something rational can be done to limit cheat potential in PBEMs.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2856190&mpage=1&key=�

It sounds like sever games have some tracking stuff going on already. However, I also hope 2by3 can offer some sort of solution for PBEMs.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 33
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 12:25:28 AM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1770
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

I have in a current game seen the focus in the south on the Odessa Nikolaev Z-town rout. This is shorter than Chernovtsy D-town and a couple of hexes can be stolen with an extra FBD (with the 4-hex max rule in effect) around Odessa. It does make the void in the centre even larger, so there is an opportunity cost to the max eastward supply reach choice.

This means that there is an early game, long duration effect decision for the Axis, that's good!


Like a Soviet player would know anything about having to make tradeoffs...


Well, the standard '41 tradeoffs are trading space for units and units for time - I have seen an AAR in which Leningrad is given up, after evacuation.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 34
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 1:35:58 AM   
Phenix

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
Jesus Mike!
This :"no strategy skills required for Germans, just reload and push. " implies that only German players cheat, oh come on what a bunch of horse....
You come off as a really bad loser, did you loose a game and therefore suspect cheating?

And then this:
And HQ buildup a cheat? come on ,why? if you do no chaining , why is it cheating? soon there will be no tools left for the German player early...

I dont really understand this...its in the rules so how can it be cheating?

this discussion never dies it seems

Ah now i see , you play Pelton, Might that be the reason of the sore comments about Hq -buildups and evil German players that cheat?



< Message edited by Phenix -- 11/30/2011 1:43:52 AM >

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 35
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 3:45:55 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have no problem with HQ Buildups, but do have a problem with what is commonly called HQ Chaining. This is where a player (usually the Axis but I suppose it could be the Russian) empties an unmoved HQ of all attached units on one turn and performs an HQ Supply Buildup (at I believe a cost of only 5 APs). This causes the HQ to recieve a massive buildup of supplies with nowhere to go. On his next turn he moves the HQ forward (even beyond 20 mp from railhead) and than attaches several panzer/motorized units to the HQ. On hs next turn these units will have 45+ mps.


Thats muling supplies and not chaining. It is a real waste of trucks and is not nessary. Its been used by poeple but only works when you really have a russian over matched.

I have explained chaining more then once but here we go again.

I got the idea from the opening 2 turns of the game I am not smart enough to figue it out myself so basicly every sigle person thats played as a German has used it. HQ builds last 2 turns.

Chaining is when you HQ up one corps at a time over 4 or 5 turns. You start close to the border or on a railhead and work your way away from it over several turns.

AGN is never done
AGC turns 10-14 ish depends on when railheads get to front. New rules conserning rail repair have nerfed this somewhat. So taking Moscow is much harder.
AGS vs a runner you start turn 2 vs normal tactics (evac and run)you start turn 3.
Vs fighting forward russians of which there are few who have the skills to do this Hoooper, Kamil and Flaviusx only 3 I know of that can, you start turn 4 or 5.

The one HQ switching ect thing does not work like that at all. The fuel does not sit there for turns, they bleed off ect. Not sure why, but they dont just sit there for ever.

Muling is stupid doesn't work.

Chianing works because it keeps pressure on the enmey for 3 to 5 turns.

There is nothing amazing about it 1 HQ build up per turn I dont see it as cheating or even exploiting. It can be countered, but requires skills.

If your having an issue with chaining and can't figure out how to stop it, ask Kamil/Hoooper/TDV or Flaviusx for some advise.

M60 was doing fine then assumed I was going to start digging in for blizzard and let his guard down for a few turns.

Chianing is not some uber tactic that wins every game hehehehe.

I agree nerf muling no ones doing it, but sure nerf it. MT and I both dont mule its a waste of time, trucks and supplies.

The rail repair nerf is going to make taking Moscow and Rostov much harder now even with chaining,because its tied to the railhead.


So all the 1.05 games that were started before the nerf was put in is not a true reflextion of how hard it will be to take Moscow and Rostov now.


Leningrad is still easy, but that is a true reflextion of history. Germans were there early, but assummed the russians would surrender,which was a stpid move by Hitler and OKH.

Pelton


In my defence, if I confused "HQ Buildup Chaining" with "HQ Muling" I relied on the following exchange between Michael T and myself on a previous thread:

ME: " Ok, so I've read this post, but I still don't think I understand the mechanics of HQ Buildup chaining. Does it work like this?:

1. On turn 3, for example, you empty an HQ by assigning all of it's units to other HQs and perform a HQ BU with this HQ. Of course this HQ must be within 19 MPs of a railhead and can't move on this turn. This causes a massive amount of supplies to be stored in the HQ with no where to go.

2. On turn 4 you move the HQ forward (even beyond 19 MPs from a railhead) and attach panzer and motorized units to it.

3. On turn 5 the excess supplies in the HQ are disbursed to the panzer and motorized units, all of which end up with 45+ MPs.

Is this it? If not, what is the correct procedure"

MICHAEL T: " Thats it. But its 20MP now for the limit."


So there appears to be some general confusion as to the differences between the two.

But OK, I think HQ Muling is an exploit then, whether it is worth it or not is irrelevant.

Pelton, having read your post explaining HQ Chaining I still don't understand the procedure fro HQ Chaining. For example you don't say if you detach units from the HQ before you do the Buildup or if you attach units to the HQ on the turn after the Buildup. If you are simply doing one HQ Buildup a turn and units are attached to the HQ at the time you do the buildup and you don't attach any more units to the HQ that turn or the turn thereafter, then I say that is perfectly fine. If that is all HQ Buildup chaining is then I have no problem with it. In fact I don't see how anyone can complain as it is clearly what HQ Buildup is designed to allow and I do agree that the Axis need to be able to do this against a competent Soviet player.

But if units are being attached to the HQ on the turn after the Buildup, than, IMHO, that is an exploit.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 11/30/2011 3:49:40 AM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 36
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:06:08 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2384
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Do you guys really understand how HQBU works? When you do it all attached units get 99% fuel, ammo and supplies. The HQ itself also gets loaded up with extra fuel. Depending on how many units are attached this could be between 1000 to 2000 tons give or take. This extra fuel is then made available to whatever units are attached in a logistics phase 2 turns later. The terms chaining and muling are related as I see it. There are elements of each in both so called methods.

If you BU a HQ that only has one or even no units attached it will cost less AP's and have less extra fuel assigned to it (and expend less trucks naturally). BU a HQ with 5 units and it will cost much more in AP's and trucks but it will have a huge stock pile of gas.

The said HQ can move up to its allowance with all this gas (because it will still have extra trucks assigned to it) and it will refuel any units attached to it within 5 hexes next logistics phase. The players can naturally change the attached units.

I don't see any problem with this because it is a game. And as such many things are abstracted. Including supply. When I look at a HQ I see C&C plus a supply infrastructure. Some games seperate this. Not WITE. Perhaps this is the difficult part for players to accept. A HQ loaded up with extra gas is simply a commander creating an adhoc temporary mobile supply dump. These exist in many other games. They are the norm in operational wargaming.

Perhaps people would be happier if we had a little truck unit created every time we did a HQ BU rather than assign the trucks to a HQ. But the end result would be the same. All HQ BU does is allow a player to direct extra supply to units he desires. What is so wrong with that? It is not gamey. Its a legitimate method to keep spearheads going.

Have a look at OCS, GMT's Barbarossa series, FITE/SE, explicit supply in HPS Panzer Campaigns. They all have abstract methods to create mobile supply dumps. WITE does nothing more than these other games. Just differently. The effect is the same. Get over it. It's part the established method of forward supply in wargaming.





_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 37
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:15:56 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Harry, I think the answer to your question about the implementation that is NOT "muling", it depends. Have I attached units to an HQ right before it's going to use BU? Often, but only once that I can remember did I over-load a corps (4 divisions) and do it, and then it was simply because it logically made sense.

Just like the Soviet, the Axis does not get enough Admin Points to optimize everything. If you are moving your corps around the map efficiently, a rotating series of HQ buildups is seamless. If you're not efficient, it's an admin point sink to have to attach and re-attach divisions to the 'right' corps so it has the buildup benefit.

Sometimes the same HQ does it on alternating turns, sometimes you can rotate them through in sequence. It depends on what your opponent is doing. It depends on terrain.

I've never heard of 'muling' an HQ with zero units attached before, though. Never known anyone who did that.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 38
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:22:49 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I just fail to see how 1 HQ build-up per turn is an exploit or cheating. Thats like saying every russian player that only evac armaments is cheating becaus they know hvy means nothing and armament points everything.

Its how the game is designed and all russian players evac only hvy, just like all german player use HQ build-ups.

Pelton


Speak for yourself. When I play Axis, I don't use build-up. I think its a gamey (and exploitable) addition to the game. Halting the Panzers and waiting for supplies to build back up again gives me a far more historical feel. Neither do I evac only armaments as the Russians. I pick a city and only move on to another city when the first city has had everything evac'ed.

And yes, I would consider evac'ing only armaments as much of an exploit as build-ups. For the record, I also consider carpet and/or checkerboard defense as gamey as well.

HQ build-up exploit is only required to offset factory evac and carpet/checkerboard exploits, none of which is any fun. I say nerf it all!


I feel the same way, but there are far far to many russian fanboys that refuse to give up all their toys. They only want one sided nerfed.

When one side can build whatever they like and the other is stuck with hisorical, things will never be even.

Thats the biggest sticking point to game.

Pelton


(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 39
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:30:47 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I just fail to see how 1 HQ build-up per turn is an exploit or cheating. Thats like saying every russian player that only evac armaments is cheating becaus they know hvy means nothing and armament points everything.

Its how the game is designed and all russian players evac only hvy, just like all german player use HQ build-ups.

Pelton


Speak for yourself. When I play Axis, I don't use build-up. I think its a gamey (and exploitable) addition to the game. Halting the Panzers and waiting for supplies to build back up again gives me a far more historical feel. Neither do I evac only armaments as the Russians. I pick a city and only move on to another city when the first city has had everything evac'ed.

And yes, I would consider evac'ing only armaments as much of an exploit as build-ups. For the record, I also consider carpet and/or checkerboard defense as gamey as well.

HQ build-up exploit is only required to offset factory evac and carpet/checkerboard exploits, none of which is any fun. I say nerf it all!


I think anyone who believes HQ buildup, in and of itself, is exploitive, has probably not played Germany much, or at least not against an experienced human opponent. Without buildup at all, the game is unplayable as Germany because so much is simply given to the Soviets (hindsight advantages, at a minimum).

Pelton is absolutely 100% right that the bug-fix/(nerf to Germany) on rail distance is going to fundamentally change what is possible for Germany in the center and south. It's handing a lot of the power back to the Soviets, which is why I'm done playing Germany for a while.

The German-hating side is winning the argument to make sure Germany can't threaten them in any meaningful way during 1941. There's less and less room for variety in how German players approach the game. With fewer options for strategy, the game is less fun for the people playing that side.


The problem is that the russian side can be unhistorical cowards and evac and run. They are rewarded for crappy skilless game play.

I will never play the russian side because a monkey can win. How hard is it to just evac and run? Moscow Leningrad ect ect mean nothing in the long run. Manpower grows back by 43 so as russian just run east give up citys who cares? Its meaningless.

Flaviusx and the russian fanboys got what they wanted with the rail nerf. Whoever in good faith started a 1.05 game has wasted there time. The rail nerf came into effect long after most games started.

Any game that started withen a week of 1.05 being released is not a true reflection of 1.05.


(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 40
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:32:28 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The rail repair nerf is going to make taking Moscow and Rostov much harder now even with chaining,because its tied to the railhead.



What is this nerf? I though rule was always you can build RR up to 4 hexes away + 6 in baltic. Has this changed and if so how? I know I'm only on T3 as G but I haven't noticed any difference yet



Before patch you could as German repair up to 8 rail hexes on a single line with 2 rail units and more in north.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 41
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:35:00 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I use whatever type of defence is neccesary. Its usually a mix of linear, linebacker and checker. How on earth are you going to control where and how a defender places his units? The only way to nerf checker boards is to make them less effective. That would mean reducing zoc costs, morale penalities for non-adjacent units and improving the overun rules. Both have been raised early on and gained no traction at all.

WITE 1.0 is fundamentally finished. I can't see any major changes happening until WITE 2.0. The devs themselves have said this. There may be the odd tweak here and there but that's about it. Removing HQ BU and replacing it with something else would be a big change. I may be wrong but I don't see it happening any time soon.




Its about cash and they have moved on to witw.

Time is money and wite has cashed out basicly.


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 42
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:41:26 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

I have in a current game seen the focus in the south on the Odessa Nikolaev Z-town rout. This is shorter than Chernovtsy D-town and a couple of hexes can be stolen with an extra FBD (with the 4-hex max rule in effect) around Odessa. It does make the void in the centre even larger, so there is an opportunity cost to the max eastward supply reach choice.

This means that there is an early game, long duration effect decision for the Axis, that's good!


Like a Soviet player would know anything about having to make tradeoffs...


Well, the standard '41 tradeoffs are trading space for units and units for time - I have seen an AAR in which Leningrad is given up, after evacuation.


Leningrad, Moscow,Tula to Rostov who cares?

As russian you can give them up. Ecav armaments and run east. You will have a 5+ million man army come blizzard and can easly take it all back. By 43 all the manpower will be back on line and you have a 9 million man army. Head west bah bah bah ect ect.

This sht is just basic math an way to easy to figure out.

The deck is 100% stacked in the reds favor, you have to have a lower IQ then a monkey to lose now.

MT is 100% right vs a Russian player that knows the basic system its impossible to lose.

You want to be bored play russian side you want a challage play german side.

You win as russian so what? you should win.

You win as german that something to be happy about, because it should not happen.

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 43
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:54:33 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5931
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
I just dont get, if russian players can't win by 43 they are fing pissed off.

They want ther 1v1=2v1 I win button back I guess.

You got your rail nerf and your still pissed of that the germans can take Kiev, so they want to nerf the Lvov pocket, but thats not good enough!!!

Lets nerf hq build-ups to and bring back endless bombing of airfields and the super blizzard rules and pump production back to 230 and ect ect.

If the russian players can't win every single time then the Gemans must be nerfed ect ect bah bah bah bah.

It never ends.

If you lose vs a German its because the game is complex and dam hard to figure out. So your skills suck and get off your lazy ass and figure out how to play or stop bitching.

If your lossing as Russain its because you dont know the game mechanics. Read the AAR's and take the advise the guys are giving you that have been playing for years.

"Your never as smart as you think you are and the other guy is never as stupid as you think he is."

Pelton 2005



< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/30/2011 5:55:57 AM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 44
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 6:47:47 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Harry, I think the answer to your question about the implementation that is NOT "muling", it depends. Have I attached units to an HQ right before it's going to use BU? Often, but only once that I can remember did I over-load a corps (4 divisions) and do it, and then it was simply because it logically made sense.

Just like the Soviet, the Axis does not get enough Admin Points to optimize everything. If you are moving your corps around the map efficiently, a rotating series of HQ buildups is seamless. If you're not efficient, it's an admin point sink to have to attach and re-attach divisions to the 'right' corps so it has the buildup benefit.

Sometimes the same HQ does it on alternating turns, sometimes you can rotate them through in sequence. It depends on what your opponent is doing. It depends on terrain.

I've never heard of 'muling' an HQ with zero units attached before, though. Never known anyone who did that.


I have no problem with attaching units to an HQ before doing HQ Buildup; I do the same thing myself when playing Axis (and would probably do the same as the Soviets if I ever got far enough into a game). I also have no problem with a player doing HQ Buildups every turn if he can afford the APs. I also have no problem with a player "rotating" the HQ Buildups as you say to maintain a steady offensive. That just makes good sense and, IMO, is an effective tactic when employed by the best players.

However, "Muling" (as I now understand it) is when units are attached to an HQ the turn after it has done an HQ Buildup. I have never done this myself but I understand it results in those newly attached units gaining significant MPs over what they would otherwise have had. If so, I do have a problem with this and do believe it is an exploit. That is my opinion and others are welcome to theirs of course. This is why I was hoping the game designers would say something here about whether this "Muling" (ie attaching units to an HQ the turn after supply buildup to gain the MP boost for several units) was anticipated by them and is WAD or if they consider it an exploit of the HQ Buidup/supply system. If they come on board and say it is WAD then I for one will shutup about it, accept it and start using it myself. But if it is not WAD then I would like to know that as well.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 11/30/2011 6:48:44 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 45
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 6:56:15 AM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I use whatever type of defence is neccesary. Its usually a mix of linear, linebacker and checker. How on earth are you going to control where and how a defender places his units? The only way to nerf checker boards is to make them less effective. That would mean reducing zoc costs, morale penalities for non-adjacent units and improving the overun rules. Both have been raised early on and gained no traction at all.

WITE 1.0 is fundamentally finished. I can't see any major changes happening until WITE 2.0. The devs themselves have said this. There may be the odd tweak here and there but that's about it. Removing HQ BU and replacing it with something else would be a big change. I may be wrong but I don't see it happening any time soon.




Its about cash and they have moved on to witw.

Time is money and wite has cashed out basicly.




FOUL!
Dude, I may think a lot of people in the community, playtesters here, designers there, don't see the game as clearly in certain perspectives as do I, but I would NEVER accuse Matrix of selling out.

If it were true, neither you nor I would be spending any time here at all; Matrix has supported the game exceptionally well, even if they are the nanny-state to the Soviet fanboys This is the first title in wargames that I've stuck with for a year in... well, since Steel Panthers...

And even though the game and the community frustrate the hell out of me at times, I have to say I generally enjoy the game more than any other wargame I've ever played.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 46
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 7:02:14 AM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Harry, I think the answer to your question about the implementation that is NOT "muling", it depends. Have I attached units to an HQ right before it's going to use BU? Often, but only once that I can remember did I over-load a corps (4 divisions) and do it, and then it was simply because it logically made sense.

Just like the Soviet, the Axis does not get enough Admin Points to optimize everything. If you are moving your corps around the map efficiently, a rotating series of HQ buildups is seamless. If you're not efficient, it's an admin point sink to have to attach and re-attach divisions to the 'right' corps so it has the buildup benefit.

Sometimes the same HQ does it on alternating turns, sometimes you can rotate them through in sequence. It depends on what your opponent is doing. It depends on terrain.

I've never heard of 'muling' an HQ with zero units attached before, though. Never known anyone who did that.


I have no problem with attaching units to an HQ before doing HQ Buildup; I do the same thing myself when playing Axis (and would probably do the same as the Soviets if I ever got far enough into a game). I also have no problem with a player doing HQ Buildups every turn if he can afford the APs. I also have no problem with a player "rotating" the HQ Buildups as you say to maintain a steady offensive. That just makes good sense and, IMO, is an effective tactic when employed by the best players.

However, "Muling" (as I now understand it) is when units are attached to an HQ the turn after it has done an HQ Buildup. I have never done this myself but I understand it results in those newly attached units gaining significant MPs over what they would otherwise have had. If so, I do have a problem with this and do believe it is an exploit. That is my opinion and others are welcome to theirs of course. This is why I was hoping the game designers would say something here about whether this "Muling" (ie attaching units to an HQ the turn after supply buildup to gain the MP boost for several units) was anticipated by them and is WAD or if they consider it an exploit of the HQ Buidup/supply system. If they come on board and say it is WAD then I for one will shutup about it, accept it and start using it myself. But if it is not WAD then I would like to know that as well.


Again, I think you're over-estimating the benefit of buildup (unless there are some complicated exploits that I'm not aware of or understanding here).

Let's say 1.Panzer Corps has 3 divisions on T5 and it uses buildup at the end of T5.
On T6, those 3 divisions will have excellent movement.
On T7, those 3 divisions will have very good movement.
(there are exceptions for isolation; having built-up units isolated throws off the whole thing).

Scenario 2, starts the same.
On T6, those 3 divisions will have excellent movement.
If, on T6, you add 2 more divisions, on T6 those divisions get no benefit of the new HQ in terms of movement. And on T7, all 5 divisions will be sharing the same supply source (the HQ) and so, while on the average you might have 5 units with higher MP in total, but the total number of MPs divided between the 5 units is probably going to be about the same (with variation based on unit morale, fatigue, and distance to HQ). So you're not gaining much that isn't a very short-term, advantage, and you're paying AP for it.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 47
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 7:04:23 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Do you guys really understand how HQBU works? When you do it all attached units get 99% fuel, ammo and supplies. The HQ itself also gets loaded up with extra fuel. Depending on how many units are attached this could be between 1000 to 2000 tons give or take. This extra fuel is then made available to whatever units are attached in a logistics phase 2 turns later. The terms chaining and muling are related as I see it. There are elements of each in both so called methods.

If you BU a HQ that only has one or even no units attached it will cost less AP's and have less extra fuel assigned to it (and expend less trucks naturally). BU a HQ with 5 units and it will cost much more in AP's and trucks but it will have a huge stock pile of gas.

The said HQ can move up to its allowance with all this gas (because it will still have extra trucks assigned to it) and it will refuel any units attached to it within 5 hexes next logistics phase. The players can naturally change the attached units.

I don't see any problem with this because it is a game. And as such many things are abstracted. Including supply. When I look at a HQ I see C&C plus a supply infrastructure. Some games seperate this. Not WITE. Perhaps this is the difficult part for players to accept. A HQ loaded up with extra gas is simply a commander creating an adhoc temporary mobile supply dump. These exist in many other games. They are the norm in operational wargaming.

Perhaps people would be happier if we had a little truck unit created every time we did a HQ BU rather than assign the trucks to a HQ. But the end result would be the same. All HQ BU does is allow a player to direct extra supply to units he desires. What is so wrong with that? It is not gamey. Its a legitimate method to keep spearheads going.

Have a look at OCS, GMT's Barbarossa series, FITE/SE, explicit supply in HPS Panzer Campaigns. They all have abstract methods to create mobile supply dumps. WITE does nothing more than these other games. Just differently. The effect is the same. Get over it. It's part the established method of forward supply in wargaming.



Michael,

The problem I have with this is that HQs recieve a lot of MPs. So if you buildup an HQ one turn you can move that HQ an incredible distance (particularly as the Axis) the second turn before attaching units to it. You can therefore effectively move a lot of supply and gas a long way from your railheads. I hear what you are saying about the system being abstracted, but I personally think that is taking things too far and the Axis (and the Russians) could not have overcome the logistical problems that easily. I would have no problem if the game included mobile supply dumps (in fact it is too bad that it doesn't). But I would have a problem if those mobile supply dumps recieved 50 mps per turn.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 48
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 7:06:01 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As the game stands now Germany cannot win the game without HQ BU against a *competent* Soviet player, period.


I agree.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 49
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 7:09:37 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


It would be interesting to know if you play a more historical Russian stand fast/linear defense, or a historically implausible pull-back carpet/checkerboard defense.



Schmart,

Why do you say the "pull-back carpet/checkerboard defense" is historically implausible? Is it because the Russians didn't use this type of defense, or because you believe they were incapapable of doing so, or some other reason?

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 50
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 8:32:11 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1225
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Do you guys really understand how HQBU works? When you do it all attached units get 99% fuel, ammo and supplies. The HQ itself also gets loaded up with extra fuel. Depending on how many units are attached this could be between 1000 to 2000 tons give or take. This extra fuel is then made available to whatever
units are attached in a logistics phase 2 turns later. The terms chaining and muling are related as I see it. There are elements of each in both so called methods.

If you BU a HQ that only has one or even no units attached it will cost less AP's and have less extra fuel assigned to it (and expend less trucks naturally). BU a HQ with 5 units and it will cost much more in AP's and trucks but it will have a huge stock pile of gas.

The said HQ can move up to its allowance with all this gas (because it will still have extra trucks assigned to it) and it will refuel any units attached to it within 5 hexes next logistics phase. The players can naturally change the attached units.

I don't see any problem with this because it is a game. And as such many things are abstracted. Including supply. When I look at a HQ I see C&C plus a supply infrastructure. Some games seperate this. Not WITE. Perhaps this is the difficult part for players to accept. A HQ loaded up with extra gas is simply a commander creating an adhoc temporary mobile supply dump. These exist in many other games. They are the norm in operational wargaming.

Perhaps people would be happier if we had a little truck unit created every time we did a HQ BU rather than assign the trucks to a HQ. But the end result would be the same.


Nice. I think so too, in principle this is no magic "oops, 2000t of supplies beamed to the middle of nowhere", but you have to use the trucks to really transport the stuff. In principle nothing that couldn't be done in real world. The use of HQs to just act as a storage and transport is very limited I find, though. You can gain some extra 20 MPs or so, but pay dearly in trucks, loose some 2% overall supply on the whole front for a long time, plus you waste some say 60 AP just for de- and reattaching units. Not to mention the overload penalty of the other HQs during that time. Who ever wants to do it, it is a good way to prevent him using APs and valuable trucks more impactful...

It is more sensible to try to keep a pressure on the enemy, in "Forrest style" so to say. Or was it Jackson who said that: Once you have the enemy running, never let up until he is destroyed? So patiently staggering the HQ build-ups of a Panzergroup at a critical time seems to do much more to gain a faster pace than anything else, and is also very sound.
It seems to just to be a tid bit to efficient, especially since the defender can never react to such fast and deep movement bursts. Maybe it shouldn't be an auto 100% refill at all times, but undergo some friction to reduce the cap like so many other factors in-game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
The problem I have with this is that HQs recieve a lot of MPs. So if you buildup an HQ one turn you can move that HQ an incredible distance (particularly as the Axis) the second turn before attaching units to it. You can therefore effectively move a lot of supply and gas a long way from your railheads. ... I would have no problem if the game included mobile supply dumps (in fact it is too bad that it doesn't). But I would have a problem if those mobile supply dumps recieved 50 mps per turn.


That is one of the catches with the supply system, which also then blends as problems into the HQ build-up. But I think here is the true origin of the problem, since the idea of HQ build-up, or prioritizing supply, or well-conceived stocking of a certain amount of supplies is within reason. HQ have their organic transport, e.g. 250 trucks for a Germans Corps level HQ. I am not sure whether this only represents trucks used for tasks other then dissipating supply, but I assume so since this truck level doesn't seem to change with the number of attached units (i.e. true supply amount to be moved) nor with the size of stocks that need to be moved together with the HQ. I guess both of the latter are covered with the more abstracted truck pool. However, this makes moving fully stocked HQs on the 2nd turn quite easy. Maybe the movement range of HQs should also be a function of its properties, but then there would need to be a way to assign extra trucks?

On the other hand, the latter might mean that the amount of trucks required to be payed for HQB might be on the low side? Surely the designers have also for this done a very solid assessment and used reasonable averages? Generally, though, it presently just seems that supply, fuel etc generally reach units to easily in all the possible mechanisms. More like under peace conditions. For example, since there are no small dumps, storage facilities for larger front depots, or rear depots, no real trains or supply columns of any kind, also important things like interdiction and partisans reducing supply and replacement transfer efficiency are only taken into account in a very abstracted way. This is one factor that would cause friction in the supply chain. Perhaps factors like these have been a little underestimated, allowing very effective supply tracing, and therefore an op-tempo that can be generally surprisingly fast for extended periods?

When playing Axis, and knowing the logistics tricks a bit, it feels like going a little to fast. The best experience, which felt most related to the original happening, I had when not using HQ build-up and limiting rail repair for AGN and AGC on the first 3 turns. Especially in the North, where the 66% reduction in RailRep cost already speeds up things significantly. What I miss in turn, though, is some aggressive counterattacking by AI. It plays most conservative, which of course in hindsight is right and best for a challenging gaming experience, but would be neat if you could switch it to historical tactics as well.

< Message edited by janh -- 11/30/2011 8:33:21 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 51
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 10:05:21 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The rail repair nerf is going to make taking Moscow and Rostov much harder now even with chaining,because its tied to the railhead.



What is this nerf? I though rule was always you can build RR up to 4 hexes away + 6 in baltic. Has this changed and if so how? I know I'm only on T3 as G but I haven't noticed any difference yet



Before patch you could as German repair up to 8 rail hexes on a single line with 2 rail units and more in north.


Tx for this. I must be very silly then as I never managed to.

Re monkeys being able to win as Russians maybe you should play one as you do not seem to have lost vs a human

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 52
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 10:59:36 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Sillyflower, I'm pretty sure I had Pelton's number in our game.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 53
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 11:55:54 AM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
@Pelton, one day your may wake up and realise that WITE is not about winning and/or losing, it is a game to be enjoyed by two players who use each turn to provide their opponent with various intellectual challenges and puzzles to figure out how to solve them. Many people find those challenges to be intellectually stimulating and fun and do not give a toss whether they "Win" or "Lose" the game.

The sooner you lose your fixation with winning and start enjoying the game for what it is, the sooner we will see you stop making such pathetic posts as you have made in this thread and elsewhere.

Trying to match the level of challenge each player faces to reflect the historical challenges the historical participants faced in the different phase of the Russian Front 1941-45, is very difficult given the myriad of game rules and game mechanics that have to integrate to reflect some very abrupt changes e.g. the first winter. Some rules and mechanics can be exploited to unbalance the challenges players face (Lvov, HQBU etc.), and some undiscovered bugs can have a similar impact (47mm AT guns).

1.05 is a BETA and although Matrix does not cover itself in EULAs and other terms of use documents that players need to agree to, most players know that a BETA is not the finished article. I am hoping and praying that there are no "game-stoppers" lurking in the games that I am currently playing under 1.05, as I have got further, and am having far more fun than I ever did as a tester, because too many bugs were game stoppers. If the games do stop because a major change is made to the rules or a bug makes it unplayable or less fun for either player, then I am grown up enough to accept it is because I played a beta version of a game.

< Message edited by BigAnorak -- 11/30/2011 1:03:42 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 54
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 1:14:00 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3064
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
I agree with Build Up being an essential feature, and Michael's has laid very clearly what does chaining account for. However, this is THE real issue in my opinion with supply and pace of operations

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
On the other hand, the latter might mean that the amount of trucks required to be payed for HQB might be on the low side? Surely the designers have also for this done a very solid assessment and used reasonable averages? Generally, though, it presently just seems that supply, fuel etc generally reach units to easily in all the possible mechanisms. More like under peace conditions. For example, since there are no small dumps, storage facilities for larger front depots, or rear depots, no real trains or supply columns of any kind, also important things like interdiction and partisans reducing supply and replacement transfer efficiency are only taken into account in a very abstracted way. This is one factor that would cause friction in the supply chain. Perhaps factors like these have been a little underestimated, allowing very effective supply tracing, and therefore an op-tempo that can be generally surprisingly fast for extended periods?


Supply flows too easily. And HQ Build Up should have strong short term side effects on units not built up. I really miss the Supply Level mechanics from Atomic Games

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 55
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 2:10:32 PM   
Ron

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 6/6/2002
Status: offline
I think Pelton continues to raise some very important points even in his over the top style. After reading the WitE boards since release I have come to realize he is necessary and a natural outgrowth, foil if you will, to the 'Russian fanboy' POV prevalent in the game. No doubt games have been German-centric in the past and WitE has definitely changed that. However, after playing one game as Russia early on it was pretty evident to me it was a Russian fan's wet dream. Now with 1.05 trying to inject some balance into the Russian juggernaut after several months of player 'testing', we immediately have calls to remove the Lvov pocket, HQ buildup, German Army too large-advances too fast etc without ever playing the games past the first blizzard or looking at the overall context. There are many things requiring fine-tuning in this game, but is nerfing German capabilities really one of them?

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 56
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 2:19:02 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
I'm pretty certain the "mule" technique was not considered when the HQBU rule as introduced. I certainly never tested the technique and I don't think other testers tried to "break" it, as it arrived just before release. I assumed it was introduced to give the Axis the opportunity to recreate "Typhoon" type operations and to support drives towards Rostov where testing was showing it was extremely difficult to get to by T25.

I did post in the development forums that I thought HQBU was OP, particularly in scenarios where players did not care about the long term damage to their truck pool and could therefore use it wholesale as an "end run" tactic to grab VP locations. In the campaign game test it was introduced at about turn 17, so I could not see the impact in the earlier turns,but I did use it to get to Rostov and 1 hex of Moscow, so I assumed this was indeed the objective for introducing it.

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 57
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 2:19:19 PM   
Phenix

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
Very good post RON, i feel the same way.
It seems that if the players playing SU is not in Berlin by 43 (or earlier) a nerf is in order.

(in reply to Ron)
Post #: 58
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 3:40:50 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


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

ORIGINAL: Ron
I think Pelton continues to raise some very important points even in his over the top style. After reading the WitE boards since release I have come to realize he is necessary and a natural outgrowth, foil if you will, to the 'Russian fanboy' POV prevalent in the game. No doubt games have been German-centric in the past and WitE has definitely changed that. However, after playing one game as Russia early on it was pretty evident to me it was a Russian fan's wet dream. Now with 1.05 trying to inject some balance into the Russian juggernaut after several months of player 'testing', we immediately have calls to remove the Lvov pocket, HQ buildup, German Army too large-advances too fast etc without ever playing the games past the first blizzard or looking at the overall context. There are many things requiring fine-tuning in this game, but is nerfing German capabilities really one of them?


At least, from my point of view, the answer is No. However, I don't think it's fair that calls to common sense, such as the observations other have been making about logistics being too unforgiving for both sides, or non-phasing player helplessness to react in a flexible way to highly mobile units, are thoughtlessly thrown into the "Fanboy" trash bin.

The pace of operations possible for the Soviets - even during 1941-42 blizzard - is just too high, and it certainly doesn't look good when it gets toys to even the playing field in later 1942. While it's wise to concentrate focus on two major offensives, the sad truth is that the Soviet can basically attack all over the front giving little thought to accumulate supplies. Just 4 or 5 turns of intense combat along two axis, supported by low-intensity pounding elsewhere, will bring down the Wehrmacht unless the Axis player decides to retreat, and it never stops.

The only limiting factor to offensives are replacements, not supply. And that's true both for the Soviet and the Axis side.

The perception of the Axis "meekness" in WitE is distorted because of the many bugs in the replacement and production system which got solved from 1.00 to 1.05. Most of these seem to be gone now. The picture we're seeing right now is probably still distorted - who can assure there are no bugs yet? - but much less than in earlier versions. In my opinion three have been the really important changes in game mechanics - not bug fixing:

* Fort rules brought down into reason.
* First Winter rules impact decay along three months (this was HUGE, as the Jan-Feb period allows the Axis to actually recover its balance).
* National Morale changes, which involved setting a lower bound for Motorized units morale and more realistic Morale (profficiency) levels for the Red Army.

The fourth big change - and I think will be the definitive one - which surely involve supply being something so "harsh" as replacements are. The fifth one - non-phasing player reaction rules - I know won't happen anytime soon.

To be very honest, if we made an AAR of our games replacing the graphics with those of Panzer General, and skipping all discussion regarding the lower level details, nobody would be able to tell the difference from the moves on the map and the results of combat.

(in reply to Ron)
Post #: 59
RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up - 11/30/2011 5:30:46 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron

I think Pelton continues to raise some very important points even in his over the top style. After reading the WitE boards since release I have come to realize he is necessary and a natural outgrowth, foil if you will, to the 'Russian fanboy' POV prevalent in the game. No doubt games have been German-centric in the past and WitE has definitely changed that. However, after playing one game as Russia early on it was pretty evident to me it was a Russian fan's wet dream. Now with 1.05 trying to inject some balance into the Russian juggernaut after several months of player 'testing', we immediately have calls to remove the Lvov pocket, HQ buildup, German Army too large-advances too fast etc without ever playing the games past the first blizzard or looking at the overall context. There are many things requiring fine-tuning in this game, but is nerfing German capabilities really one of them?


Any kind of attempt to create a balanced, objective game like this is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

The plain fact of the matter is a lot of folks have real problems dealing with the Soviet Union. We're mostly a bunch of old farts and relics from the Cold War. In the back of our minds, the reds are the enemy. A few of us are Russophiles (as opposed to commie sympathizers) but that was definitely a minority taste back in the day.

You never saw this kind of problem with the WitP game. You will not see it in WitW, either. You're going to see it here and in any other game of this type.

I'm going to be quite honest here: I don't think Germany had a very good chance to win the war in the east. I think the game is if anything far too forgiving of the Germans, at least early on. (It is too forgiving for the Soviets later on. The game engine is systemically biased towards the offense, mostly due to logistics.) The krauts bit off way more than they could chew. The more recent scholarship in the Glantz era just reinforces this.

We're never going to satisfy a large number of people playing this game because they have utterly unrealistic expectations about the Axis and aren't willing to give the Soviets a fair shake. It probably cannot be otherwise given the subject and the game's demographic.


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Ron)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: RELOADS and HQ Build Up 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

0.137