Matrix Games Forums

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

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: March Madness '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 >> RE: March Madness '42 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:14:57 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4122
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

The entire way the game deals with blizzard is kind of a kludge.


The issue may be that the start line is probably 4-6 hexes east of historical on average.


My point, entirely.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 31
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:15:33 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
This is a POS myth really.

I am playing TDV and hes pocketed 30 German divisions and has pushed me over both rivers.

The problem with Russian players they have become chicken really, building 43 tto 45 armys during the 41/42 blizzard.

I see how TD has build his army and it seems totally different then what poeple are messing with normally.

As Russian player you guys should be building a blizzard army and not some infantry corp based slow pos army thats going to get smoked come 42 anyways.

If you inflict enough pain on the German army during blizzard which can be done still, you will not have to worry so much during 42 summer.

Think out side the box more.

German players are forsed to think, russian players are just cookie cutter players.

Play for fun some and stop worring about winning. Try out different things.

I try out different stuff almost every game, some stuff works some stuff doen't so what?




< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/15/2011 7:16:38 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 32
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:18:28 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I have a good idea how TDV is doing this Pelton, because it's something I'm planning to do to you if you ever want to play. It's not an ideal solution and incurs a serious long term AP cost, but it will deal with your blizzard tactics.

(Hint: cavalry shock armies.)





_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 33
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:19:46 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Some AARs I'm seeing bad Soviet play. But all of them? No. Once is chance, twice coincidence, three or more times is a trend.






Not all are the same. I post mine next turn I get from TDV.

Try out some new tactics you guys are all so cookie cutter, Zombie's, lack new ideas.

German player think, Russian players whine.


_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 34
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:20:37 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I have a good idea how TDV is doing this Pelton, because it's something I'm planning to do to you if you ever want to play. It's not an ideal solution and incurs a serious long term AP cost, but it will deal with your blizzard tactics.

(Hint: cavalry shock armies.)







You hit nail on head.

_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 35
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:21:49 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I tried it long ago and abandoned it because it was problematic under the old rules set for various reasons.

But it's perfect the present game.

We may nerf cavalry corps at some point btw. They are probably a bit too good.






_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 36
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:23:12 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I have a good idea how TDV is doing this Pelton, because it's something I'm planning to do to you if you ever want to play. It's not an ideal solution and incurs a serious long term AP cost, but it will deal with your blizzard tactics.

(Hint: cavalry shock armies.)







I was going to quit because I was getting my ass handed to me, but after looking at his low AP# and how many cav and armor units he had I figured I stick it out.

I have saved all my mech and armor, so I am hoping to bag allot of units.

Its really been a very fun game. Hes the only guy I have played more then once because he thinks out side the box.

I tried delaying tactic as per M60, but still didnt work.

My armys down to 2.7 million and my morale sucks skunk ass.

You want a fun game Q-ball play TDv20

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/15/2011 7:25:04 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 37
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:25:33 PM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

We're stuck with the logistical model we've got, alas, and have to work around it. It's not ideal. The entire way the game deals with blizzard is kind of a kludge.

That being said, it mostly has been tortured into something resembling reality -- except for this last bit.




I'm starting to think that the only viable option is to try something like:

1. Crank down Logistics level to 50% to both sides
2. Increase AP's so that Build Up is the only way to get an offensive going on

I wonder however, what exactly would entail setting the Logistics level to 50%. The manual is very vague in this respect as it enumerates the following factors being affected:

1. Amount of supply and replacements a unit receives based on its supply trace
2. Amount of attrition unit suffers due to movement
3. Amount of fatigue added or removed from a unit during a turn
4. Amount of fuel expended by generic vehicles
5. Ability of leaders to conduct successful Admin checks

would I be right if I assumed that:

1. Supply and replacements get reduced by a 50%
2. Attrition due to movement increased by 50%
3. Fatigue added increased by 50%, removed decreased by 50%
4. Fuel expended increased by 50%
5. Leaders success chance for Admin checks reduced by 50%

I don't know about the details, but I agree with the concept, and argued for something similar (admittedly, not very forcefully) months ago in the dev forum when there was talk about doing away with HQ Buildups entirely. IMO, the logistics model for the game is too cookie-cutter, and the differentiation between offensively capable forces, and 'merely' defensively capable forces should be made through a game device similar to HQ Buildup. Of course, the game is way too far along in development to be retrofitted in its current iteration for that model. However, if enough wheels squeek long enough, then maybe in the next few utilizations of the game engine (through the WitW/WiE series), they might consider overhauling the supply model to include this level of (need for) control.

Edited for clarification, and to whine about Pelton using the phrase "cookie cutter" in two posts while I was composing mine. Damned thread ninja...

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 12/15/2011 7:30:23 PM >

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 38
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:28:39 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 657
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Is the WiTE model simply too complex? I played table-top Fire in the East (GDW - looking at it on my shelf now) for years and the results were generally very satisfying, yet it has none of the complexity around CV drops etc. If it's mud, the Combat Results and Movement tables take care of it. Likewise snow/blizzard.

IMO, PC games of this type should focus on enhancing the visuals, enhanced production and logistics and the AI. The basic game mechanics were designed for these simulations 40 years ago, and should be adopted without major changes.


I tend to agree. With a detailed monster the likes of WitE, the nit picky details need to be worked out. There's a lot that is greatly detailed and so much more potential in WitE, yet a lot that is oddly fudged ('hard coded').

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 39
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:29:19 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

We're stuck with the logistical model we've got, alas, and have to work around it. It's not ideal. The entire way the game deals with blizzard is kind of a kludge.

That being said, it mostly has been tortured into something resembling reality -- except for this last bit.




I'm starting to think that the only viable option is to try something like:

1. Crank down Logistics level to 50% to both sides
2. Increase AP's so that Build Up is the only way to get an offensive going on

I wonder however, what exactly would entail setting the Logistics level to 50%. The manual is very vague in this respect as it enumerates the following factors being affected:

1. Amount of supply and replacements a unit receives based on its supply trace
2. Amount of attrition unit suffers due to movement
3. Amount of fatigue added or removed from a unit during a turn
4. Amount of fuel expended by generic vehicles
5. Ability of leaders to conduct successful Admin checks

would I be right if I assumed that:

1. Supply and replacements get reduced by a 50%
2. Attrition due to movement increased by 50%
3. Fatigue added increased by 50%, removed decreased by 50%
4. Fuel expended increased by 50%
5. Leaders success chance for Admin checks reduced by 50%

I agree with the concept, and argued for something (admittedly, not very forcefully) months ago in the dev forum when there was talk about doing away with HQ Buildups entirely. IMO, the logistics model for the game is too cookie-cutter, and the differentiation between offensively capable forces, and 'merely' defensively capable forces should be made through a game device similar to HQ Buildup. Of course, the game is way too far along in development to be retrofitted in its current iteration for that model. However, if enough wheels squeek long enough, then maybe in the next few utilizations of the game engine (through the WitW/WiE series), they might consider overhauling the supply model to include this level of (need for) control.



before you go screwing things up, ask TDV20 for a game.

Your ideas about Blizzard will change quicky or play Flaviusx, hes got same idea that TDV has been doing.

You winter will not be so boring and your ideas on how gimp Blizzard is will change.

Pelton

_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 40
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:30:19 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I agree with the concept, and argued for something (admittedly, not very forcefully) months ago in the dev forum when there was talk about doing away with HQ Buildups entirely.


That would have been a terrible mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
IMO, the logistics model for the game is too cookie-cutter, and the differentiation between offensively capable forces, and 'merely' defensively capable forces should be made through a game device similar to HQ Buildup. Of course, the game is way too far along in development to be retrofitted in its current iteration for that model. However, if enough wheels squeek long enough, then maybe in the next few utilizations of the game engine (through the WitW/WiE series), they might consider overhauling the supply model to include this level of (need for) control.


I completely and wholeheartedly agree. It's not the first time I missed the very simple and very clear notion of HQ Logistic Levels (Attack/Normal/Defence/Minimal) in Atomic Games operational war games.

I just need time - which I don't really have - to test it (and somebody to play with me).

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 41
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:30:40 PM   
BigAnorak


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

If you inflict enough pain on the German army during blizzard which can be done still, you will not have to worry so much during 42 summer.


This is exactly my point - The axis can weaken the Red Army enough to have a below average Blizzard offensive, likewise the Red Army can weaken the Axis enough in the blizzard so they can't rebound in March.

< Message edited by BigAnorak -- 12/15/2011 7:31:10 PM >

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 42
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:30:41 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Pelton, you're conflating two different issues that are both problems in their own right, and shouldn't be lumped together as somehow offsetting each other.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 43
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:35:52 PM   
JAMiAM

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
before you go screwing things up, ask TDV20 for a game.

Your ideas about Blizzard will change quicky or play Flaviusx, hes got same idea that TDV has been doing.

You winter will not be so boring and your ideas on how gimp Blizzard is will change.

Pelton

My Blizzards are never boring. I defend forward and make the Soviets fight for every freaking inch of Russia that they get. Then, when the Blizzard ends, both players are worn out, and sitting around with a bunch of burnt out shells of crappy units. This plays into the Axis hands since the March-May period will allow the Axis to rebuild their low morale units with attacks of opportunity, and keeps the Soviet Army too low on armaments/manpower to field the 6.5-7.0 million man armies that everyone seems to complain about in mid 1942.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 44
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:36:53 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


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

ORIGINAL: Pelton
before you go screwing things up, ask TDV20 for a game.

Your ideas about Blizzard will change quicky or play Flaviusx, hes got same idea that TDV has been doing.


And I see any Cavalry Division on the map being designated a key target by the OKH during summer. I don't feel like keeping those in the Urals, safe from the Panzers. And sacrificing everything in order to guarantee I have 72 Cavalry divisions (so I can build 24 Cav Corps to max my Shock Armies) is so one-dimensional it reminds me of Eve On-line. Where, periodically, there was a "flavor of the patch" combo of ships and modules that was - in Eve-O community parlance "teh pwn" - and making the rest of ships and stuff completely irrelevant in PvP. In the next patch, it got nerfed, and things went one-dimensional again, with a different set of ships and modules. Rinse and repeat. Until the thermodynamical death of the Universe.

Because devs couldn't invest the time (money) to start from a blank slate.

It's a story that gets really old with me, man.

I stopped playing Eve On-Line 3 years ago, and I've only gone back to say hi to the many friends I had there. I had no interest whatsoever in playing that kind of game, Pelton. I think you've got also a past in MMORPG's and will understand what I mean.

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 12/15/2011 7:37:46 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 45
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:38:00 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
James has this fondness for bizarro salients.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 46
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:38:14 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

If you inflict enough pain on the German army during blizzard which can be done still, you will not have to worry so much during 42 summer.


This is exactly my point - The axis can weaken the Red Army enough to have a below average Blizzard offensive, likewise the Red Army can weaken the Axis enough in the blizzard so they can't rebound in March.


Thats does not always happen.

Vs Good or very good russian players they do not get gimped by German player and kick ass during blizzard.

Your skill or lack of skill during 41 summer has an effect on the blizzard, which in turn has an effect on 42 summer.

Before 1.05 that was not true.

Now if you suck during 41 your blizzard will suck and so will 42 summer.

That goes for both sides.

Again this thread is asking devs to save sorry russian game play with a patch that will make up for an over all lack of skills during 41.

If you suck during 41 then why should the German player get nerfed for your lack of game play?

Same old sht different thread.

Pelton


_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 47
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:40:46 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7182
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Again, people seem to have a very narrow perspective on things, mostly on their own situation.

The game's combat results depend on a number of factors, amongst the most prominent ones are experience, morale which result in CV.

If the Axis rest their mobile units during the blizzard, which most do, they'll have close to full strength mobile units with excellent CV's.

Could anyone give me a single historical reason why, purely from the perspective of time, German mobile units in 1942 should automatically, without any variability or exception, perform worse than in 1941?

To me, it's a perfectly logical 1+1=2. Good quality German mobile units+worn out Soviet units because players attack themselves to death during the blizzard=the Soviet army getting slapped around.

There is no reason why you can't have in depth level 2 forts or a deep defence in place during March. People just need to realize that when they play the Soviets, the Soviet army is not a real steamroller in the blizzard. Its CV's are artificially boosted, the Soviets get a pretty significant MP cost reduction for moving into enemy hexes and losses are generally so severe if they attack during the entire blizzard that there are too few credible formations at the frontline to hold the Axis.

I can agree with the statement that attacking in March is probably too easy for the Axis, but as a counter argument I point to the MP reductions the Soviets get in the blizzard, without which their offensive would probably get stuck in a hurry.

The Wehrmacht is not as good in March 1942 as it was in November 1941, as the infantry has generally spent the blizzard in the open and has lost morale. The mobile units, however, are normally in good shape. All of this is well known, if you don't prepare for that as the Soviets or just place 3 unit stacks at the frontline or some weak carpet, you're just asking for a pocket and a disaster.

As an aside: good to hear that you're thinking about what I talked about a while ago, Flavio, namely using cavalry armies. I wouldn't use actual cavalry shock armies, though, because cavalry gets no national morale bonus from being attached to a shock army I believe due to already getting the cavalry national morale bonus.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 48
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:42:48 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Same old Russian bitching as before.

If the game is not 100% static in 42 and the russians are not marching west in 43 then the german side has to be nerfed.

They (russian players) were bitching last month we need to play the games into 44 atleast and now its 42 and the cring has begun.

Take your own dam advise and play until 44 and stop cring.

Pelton

_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 49
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:43:36 PM   
JAMiAM

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

James has this fondness for bizarro salients.


They're not bizarre. What's bizarre are the artificially straightened lines that run 1000+ miles dead along a hex grid line. Now, THOSE are bizarre. The lines in my games look like lines on a historically based map of the war.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 50
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:44:18 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Again, people seem to have a very narrow perspective on things, mostly on their own situation.

The game's combat results depend on a number of factors, amongst the most prominent ones are experience, morale which result in CV.

If the Axis rest their mobile units during the blizzard, which most do, they'll have close to full strength mobile units with excellent CV's.

Could anyone give me a single historical reason why, purely from the perspective of time, German mobile units in 1942 should automatically, without any variability or exception, perform worse than in 1941?

To me, it's a perfectly logical 1+1=2. Good quality German mobile units+worn out Soviet units because players attack themselves to death during the blizzard=the Soviet army getting slapped around.

There is no reason why you can't have in depth level 2 forts or a deep defence in place during March. People just need to realize that when they play the Soviets, the Soviet army is not a real steamroller in the blizzard. Its CV's are artificially boosted, the Soviets get a pretty significant MP cost reduction for moving into enemy hexes and losses are generally so severe if they attack during the entire blizzard that there are too few credible formations at the frontline to hold the Axis.

I can agree with the statement that attacking in March is probably too easy for the Axis, but as a counter argument I point to the MP reductions the Soviets get in the blizzard, without which their offensive would probably get stuck in a hurry.

The Wehrmacht is not as good in March 1942 as it was in November 1941, as the infantry has generally spent the blizzard in the open and has lost morale. The mobile units, however, are normally in good shape. All of this is well known, if you don't prepare for that as the Soviets or just place 3 unit stacks at the frontline or some weak carpet, you're just asking for a pocket and a disaster.

As an aside: good to hear that you're thinking about what I talked about a while ago, Flavio, namely using cavalry armies. I wouldn't use actual cavalry shock armies, though, because cavalry gets no national morale bonus from being attached to a shock army I believe due to already getting the cavalry national morale bonus.



1+1=2

_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 51
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:45:40 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Pieter, we both talked about it way back when and I tried it. It worked well except for one thing: it costs a fortune in APs to switch out the cavalry corps as you must eventually do. (Because in the long run, you need the shock armies to do what they are supposed to do, namely, rupture strongly held enemy lines. Not really a cavalry job -- it is, properly speaking, infantry work.)

So I dropped it in future games.

At any rate, Soviet cavalry is perhaps a little too good, between its mobility and ability to mostly ignore logistics (such as they are.)



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 52
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:46:55 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

James has this fondness for bizarro salients.


They're not bizarre. What's bizarre are the artificially straightened lines that run 1000+ miles dead along a hex grid line. Now, THOSE are bizarre. The lines in my games look like lines on a historically based map of the war.


They're bizarre. What's even more bizarre, is that I wind up doing the same thing in response. I can't let you be strange all by yourself.




_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 53
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 7:49:24 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6293
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pieter, we both talked about it way back when and I tried it. It worked well except for one thing: it costs a fortune in APs to switch out the cavalry corps as you must eventually do. (Because in the long run, you need the shock armies to do what they are supposed to do, namely, rupture strongly held enemy lines. Not really a cavalry job -- it is, properly speaking, infantry work.)

So I dropped it in future games.

At any rate, Soviet cavalry is perhaps a little too good, between its mobility and ability to mostly ignore logistics (such as they are.)





But 43 is static so you have 52 weeks to change out stuff.

I am thinking most russian tactics now are for building the Machine way to early. Crippling the German infantry is key and it can be done during 41/42 winter.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/15/2011 7:50:12 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
23 - 4 - 8

16 games ended in 41 (16-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 54
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 8:05:11 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7182
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Flavio: As stated, I don't think there's any benefit to attaching them to shock armies anymore.

In my current vs. AI game, I've attached my cavalry to regular army HQ's with a good mech leader (it's pre-summer 1942, so I don't have Tank armies yet). Worked like a charm in the blizzard.

As cavalry already get a +5 national morale now, you can attach them to regular armies although their morale will generally be only about 50-ish in 1941/1942 for non-Guards units.

There are some tricks to save AP's when creating corps, as if you attach the unit on top of the stack to STAVKA, the corps will be attached to STAVKA too.

Maybe eventually you'll want to attach the corps to a Tank army, but I'm not entirely sure whether there's a lot of benefit in doing so as you don't really have fuel requirements to meet and probably fewer initiative problems either as all your cavalry can and probably will become Guards, whereas your Tank and mechanized corps won't be. That is: unless you keep all the brigades you start with until the point when you have ~15 Guards Tank corps after which you disband all the other Tank brigades.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 55
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 8:09:56 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
There was back when I tried this, Pieter. In beta. Yes, we were talking about this that long ago.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 56
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 8:10:21 PM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I tried it long ago and abandoned it because it was problematic under the old rules set for various reasons.

But it's perfect the present game.

We may nerf cavalry corps at some point btw. They are probably a bit too good.



Eventually the game will have to allow Germans to build units in order to clean out the pools from stuff that should be at the front fighting, OR restrict the Soviet OOB to its historical predecessor. Until then, the Soviets can min/max every unit type to suit a given Axis strategy, while the Axis is, meanwhile, stuck with the same armies, OOBs, and divisions each and every game.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Soviets get all units back for free through November 1941, and the fact that Soviet admin costs are much, much cheaper than German enable the Soviet player to employ in 1941 tactics that did not appear until winter 1943.

This is why I encourage all players with German gameplay interests to stop playing so long as we're forced to fight with 1 full hand, and 3 fingers of the other tied behind our backs.

Soviet C2 is far superior to German in 1941, and the hindsight advantage combined with design advantage create a game where the Soviet player effectively dictates the entire course of options to the Axis player throughout the entire war.

Don't get me wrong, Soviet offensive CVs are BS, but the game compensates for that by making the German gameplay experience arbitrarily constricted, which is, to most people with German gameplay sympathies, unfun and
unacceptable.

We could take the logistics system we have, which most people admit won't be changed any time soon, and pair it with more equanimity (even if not complete) between the two sides for C&C freedom (German division re-designation should cost the same as Soviet), and the game would be better, not worse.

Despite its lack of realism (I'm talking to you SMG squads!), game balance isn't too far from nominal. And I wish we could quit talking about 'realism' in a game where 120mm mortars outperform 155mm radio-directed field artillery. We must take it as a fact that our combat system rewards close-range weaponry over long-range, because it's not likely to be changed soon (or ever). We must take it as fact that the logistics system is too lenient on offense, because it's not likely to be changed soon. We should focus future change on making a better game, rather than a 'more realistic' one; we cannot create a more realistic one given the pig-with-lipstick (the tasty kind, mind you, that you have for Christmas dinner) combat and supply engine that we are currently saddled with.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 57
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 8:15:37 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7182
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

There was back when I tried this, Pieter. In beta. Yes, we were talking about this that long ago.


I know, I was just referring to what you implied when you said that what didn't work before can work now, because now there's no longer a reason to use shock armies.

Armies with only cavalry: good idea.
Shock armies filled with cavalry: waste of the +5 national morale that 12 Rifle units could use.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 58
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 8:19:02 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1040
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
I'm not sure that any change will allow the German player to build 10 Tiger Panzer Divisions by Sept 1941, so unlucky there guys.

Still not quite sure though what the Russian players on here are bitching about, it should be tough for the Soviets in '42, and as a Soviet player, I welcome that.

It is the unrealistic logistics that are the problem (as has been said) but as they can't be changed, then the Soviets better get their thinking caps on and find a way to combat it.

Love the comment about German players "not whinging". I guess they do not have irony across the pond!

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 59
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/15/2011 8:23:39 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Hmmm. In that case attach them to any old STAVKA army and disband that sucker post blizzard. Although you'll take a command hit in combat doing it this way. But the corps revert to STAVKA and are freely reassignable.

Pretty gamey.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
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: March Madness '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

0.926