Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:15:14 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 1767
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
It appears to me that what is happening is that in December the Axis gets the blizzard penalty. Once the blizzards are over in March, the Axis loses the blizzard penalty and is right back up to where they were in November 1941. The Axis have no recovery time needed - they are instantly back to where they were when the blizzards started. It seems that there is a change where the blizzard penalty is no longer am accumulated penalty that requires recovery but rather a temporary modifier that is removed when the first winter is over. This seems to be the real issue here.

The fact that the display shows the Soviet CV dropping back to where they were in November 41 (displayed CVs of 1 to 3) and the Axis suddenly back into CV 10+/infantry division is disconcerting because that is all we see - that and the Axis troops able to instantly start their 42 offensive three months early in Snow conditions before the Mud season. We feel that something is wrong - but the display is all we see - we cannot see the specific Morale, Exp, Fatigue, and TOE of the Axis units to know what is really going on - just the displayed CVs.

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 121
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:26:42 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 1767
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
Further thoughts:

What are we trying to simulate here? The fact that the Axis supply situation went to heck in the Blizzard conditions - the equipment failed to work, the men froze, and the blasted Soviets were swarming everywhere! And what happens when the blizzard/winter ends? The Axis supply situation improves (as it did slowly during the entire winter as the rail heads slowly forged ahead and branched out). Did the Soviets suddenly become supermen and Axis mice? No not really - the Axis suffered from lack of supply over a majority of the front while the Soviet supply situation improved as it was able to settle down and not keep getting overrun by Axis mobile forces.

So the true fix is to throw out the special rules and just make it so that supply delivery in blizzard is really bad for the Axis - something that will only happen in 1941 before the railheads and the branches are done. The Axis will slowly begin to recover as the supply situation improves and the Soviets will have to make do with being able to recover due to lack of pressure from the Axis and the committment of reserves that have been built up in the rear.

Bletchy is probably on the right trail on saying that the supply situation overall needs to be looked over very closely. If Pelton is right (!) and the supply situation is such that the Soviets could lose all of the HI and not suffer, then the supply amounts are what is wrong here - and that should fix a lot of the problems we are all having and seeing in the game.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 122
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:30:12 AM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

It appears to me that what is happening is that in December the Axis gets the blizzard penalty. Once the blizzards are over in March, the Axis loses the blizzard penalty and is right back up to where they were in November 1941. The Axis have no recovery time needed - they are instantly back to where they were when the blizzards started. It seems that there is a change where the blizzard penalty is no longer am accumulated penalty that requires recovery but rather a temporary modifier that is removed when the first winter is over. This seems to be the real issue here.


That is a 'problem' to me in the same way that Soviets having more efficient Admin Point costs for transferring divisions is a 'problem' for people playing the Soviet Union.

This game handles things differently than both history, and predecessor games. Here again in this thread, we see people arguing that Germany should have it harder than it does in WitE, but no commentary about how much easier the Soviets have it already. So people argue that the German recovery from weather is easier than it should be given the history.

But what about Soviet recovery from a surprise attack being easier than it should be given the history?

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 123
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:33:10 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 1767
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
Helio, I agree that the Soviets do tend to recover too fast. But how would you handle it? Perhaps having all Soviet movement points ramp up over a period of a few weeks (probably no more than four weeks - by then the Soviets had settled many of their command issues - it was the situation that was past saving at that point).? I really do not see an easy to program fix for this. What are your ideas?

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 124
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:36:43 AM   
heliodorus04


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

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Helio, I agree that the Soviets do tend to recover too fast. But how would you handle it? Perhaps having all Soviet movement points ramp up over a period of a few weeks (probably no more than four weeks - by then the Soviets had settled many of their command issues - it was the situation that was past saving at that point).? I really do not see an easy to program fix for this. What are your ideas?


My beef right now is with the Soviet admin point cost for moving divisions around. It's 1 or 2 (when it's not 0 due to freely returning divisions arriving attached to Stavka, which is more than half the time in 1941), whereas Germany pays 2-to-7 (and much more for Romanians to move out of Army Group South). This has to end. Soviets have to have an Admin Point problem in 1941. Right now they absolutely do not (based on my play of Soviet side in a game against Sveint).

Soviet command and control (as measured by admin point expenditures) is superior to German, and this flies in the face of reason, doctrine, and history.


< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 12/18/2011 2:37:02 AM >

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 125
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:45:05 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
If you have no admin point problem as the Soviet side in 1941, then you aren't doing anything with them.  You aren't disbanding motorcycle regiments, replacing bad leaders, ordering support units, reassigning divisions out from the Southwest Front...nothing.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 126
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:53:16 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 1767
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
I, on the other hand, believe that the Soviets have a HUGE shortage of Admin points in 1941! In order to build up the fortifications of Leningrad (just the immediate area) will take a full turn's worth of AP just for the fortified areas so forts can be higher than level 2. Remember that in 1941 Soviet units outside of forts are at 80%, fort level 1 are at 90%, and at fort level 2 at 100%. So for any improvement of their combat ability, the Soviets require fort level 3+. Changing leaders for the Soviets (almost mandatory for the Soviets but not for the Axis) requires between 15 to 25 points (dismissal and appointment costs). Especially since the majority of leaders at the start of the war have a huge political cost to remove. Waiting for Stalin to do it for you is too much of a turkey shoot.

The first time I have spare admin points as the Soviets is when the Finns enter the war and you get a bonus. You can then allow the Finn Stop Line to be garrisoned by brigades (so no cost to fortify there) but those are the points that I find will FINALLY start to organize the Soviets into coherent armies and fronts. And that is not even counting trying to build a fortified line to slow down the Axis on the Moscow drive or anywhere else.

As to reassignment costs, the Soviets re-assigned divisions regularly. Doctrine had armies split between fighting, reserve, and training armies. As units became trained they were re-assigned forward to a reserve army. As units in the fighting armies were worn down, they were re-assigned to a training army and replaced with a division from a reserve army. This happened all of the time and was straight army doctrine. Once they were organized into corps things changed a bit - but try to re-assign a Soviet Corps in that game - they cost as many AP as Axis Corps to re-assign. So yes, transferring divisions of 4 to 6,000 men was a regular thing for the Soviet Army to do - although they were usually MUCH smaller while being re-assigned to the rear.

But, that is my take on having traced Soviet OBs from one end of the war to the other on divisional and brigade levels. Anything smaller is just darn near impossible.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 127
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:53:12 AM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 4/26/2010
From: Mannheim, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I think displaying a 0 for .5 would not be wise, because true 0 CV units rout move when they move next to the enemy, and you which units are in that condition.

I think the easiest solution would be to display the more exact combat values on mouse-over (so, x10 just like in the battle summaries).

As the soviets, there are simply so many CV 1 units, that it would help to have some way of seeing if they are 0.1 or 0.9 or 1.4 CV units.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 128
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 4:20:42 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Carlkay, the reason Soviet PLAYERS have a shortage of AP is that they build an a-historic number of railroad construction brigades, sapper regiments, and mortar artillery, and spend points a-historically disbanding motorcycle regiments and motorized divisions, purging inefficiencies that the historic Red Army had no idea were inefficient... 

It's because I, as a Soviet player, have carte blanche to remove all inherent weaknesses of the 1941 Soviet Army.  The incentive to spend AP on ahistoric capability early in the war is the reason Soviets spend their AP on ahistoric capability in 1941.  All unknowns are known.  The low cost transfer of divisions from anywhere to anywhere is an added multiplier to that efficiency gain of optimal SU creation that only the Soviets get.

Leningrad can be lost without significant or meaningful damage to the red army warfighting capability (if you remove the armaments, which does not constrain Soviet railroad capability at all).

As far as moving divisions around, Germany moved whole panzer groups in 1941, several times, with conflicting orders, to speak only of 2nd and 4th, without losing significant command performance.  In War in the East, Army Group South is the least efficient command structure in the game, which hardly seems to align itself to how it performed in 1941.  Army Group Center is only slightly behind it in inefficiency.  Germany is required to either deal with this ineffectiveness, or sacrifice multiple turns of AP to sort it out, which Germany cannot spare since it has to replace commanders at corps level (Soviets do not) and in order to rest at the army level, which Germany did as effectively (administratively) as the Soviet Union, Germany has to spend 3 to 5 times the amount of AP to move divisions from a corps to an army HQ - things that doctrinally would have been ordinary to a German command system.  For the Soviets, it's "doctrine" even though the game effect is to make the Soviet Army superior in C2 to Germany in game. 

This is a classic double-punishment of Germany by design decision.
A) Soviet command and control is superior to where it should be historically
B) German command and control is inferior in game to Soviet, when it should be superior based on doctrine, experience, and politics (e.g., things like the purge of Soviet officers).

The cost savings gained from these two facts then contribute to the Soviets spending most of their AP building perfect support unit configurations in each and every army in 1941.

Seemingly innocuous design decisions combine and Germany is triple-screwed.
I honestly don't know why anyone is playing games as Germany any more, and I discourage everyone from doing so unless it's versus the AI.  Fighting a human Soviet player is to submit to being a support actor in a play where only the Red Army gets any lines.



(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 129
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 9:49:53 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 914
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
quote:

This has to end. Soviets have to have an Admin Point problem in 1941. Right now they absolutely do not (based on my play of Soviet side in a game against Sveint).


Simply not true, as randallw has already mentioned.

We are going around in circles here, but yet again the impression is that German players want the situation in '41 to continue ad infinitum.

The 1.05 rules make the possibility of large advances in '41 and '42 for the German army possible.

Is that not a good thing?






< Message edited by Encircled -- 12/18/2011 9:54:41 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 130
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 9:52:05 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Carlkay, the reason Soviet PLAYERS have a shortage of AP is that they build an a-historic number of railroad construction brigades, sapper regiments, and mortar artillery, and spend points a-historically disbanding motorcycle regiments and motorized divisions, purging inefficiencies that the historic Red Army had no idea were inefficient... 

It's because I, as a Soviet player, have carte blanche to remove all inherent weaknesses of the 1941 Soviet Army.  The incentive to spend AP on ahistoric capability early in the war is the reason Soviets spend their AP on ahistoric capability in 1941.  All unknowns are known.  The low cost transfer of divisions from anywhere to anywhere is an added multiplier to that efficiency gain of optimal SU creation that only the Soviets get.

Leningrad can be lost without significant or meaningful damage to the red army warfighting capability (if you remove the armaments, which does not constrain Soviet railroad capability at all).

As far as moving divisions around, Germany moved whole panzer groups in 1941, several times, with conflicting orders, to speak only of 2nd and 4th, without losing significant command performance.  In War in the East, Army Group South is the least efficient command structure in the game, which hardly seems to align itself to how it performed in 1941.  Army Group Center is only slightly behind it in inefficiency.  Germany is required to either deal with this ineffectiveness, or sacrifice multiple turns of AP to sort it out, which Germany cannot spare since it has to replace commanders at corps level (Soviets do not) and in order to rest at the army level, which Germany did as effectively (administratively) as the Soviet Union, Germany has to spend 3 to 5 times the amount of AP to move divisions from a corps to an army HQ - things that doctrinally would have been ordinary to a German command system.  For the Soviets, it's "doctrine" even though the game effect is to make the Soviet Army superior in C2 to Germany in game. 

This is a classic double-punishment of Germany by design decision.
A) Soviet command and control is superior to where it should be historically
B) German command and control is inferior in game to Soviet, when it should be superior based on doctrine, experience, and politics (e.g., things like the purge of Soviet officers).

The cost savings gained from these two facts then contribute to the Soviets spending most of their AP building perfect support unit configurations in each and every army in 1941.

Seemingly innocuous design decisions combine and Germany is triple-screwed.
I honestly don't know why anyone is playing games as Germany any more, and I discourage everyone from doing so unless it's versus the AI.  Fighting a human Soviet player is to submit to being a support actor in a play where only the Red Army gets any lines.


I'm sorry but I disagree here...

1. I never disband motorcycle squads, and still run out of AP all the time
2. Soviet army organisation is worse than German during the whole game. That is shown by:
a) Soviet Leaders are much, much worse than the German leaders - best Soviet are those you think you 'have to' change as Germany, because you believe they are inefficient. And yes, this is organisation.
b) If you have an overloaded army/ front, the only thing happen is that the checks are failed at this level. This is not a big issue for Germany as the checks are most often fine at the corps level. The only thing is that corps should not be overloaded
c) Romanian troops should not be in the AGS, which is why assigning them there is so expensive

In short, the average leaders for Soviets has ratings of around 5-6. Same for Germany is 7. As such, optimised Soviet leadership is comparable to overloaded corps leadership for Germany, by at least 1 division (1 division gives penalty of 2 points for checks, so effecively reduce some stats of the leader by 2; some stats are unaffected by overloading though, so it is still better to have corps overloaded than a leader with all the stats reduced by 2).

As such, because of the leader quality, German Command is much better. Leader quality is not only the ability of leading in battle, but also deals with all the administrative checks etc. Those are much, much better done by German leader (even if no backing by higher HQ, they have so high ratings that the checks are generally fine 80% of time. As such, sure, you can improve things further, but even unimproved they are much better than most optimised Soviet Union army. And improved, are vastly superior, due to more checks at various levels (Soviet has a check at army level, and front only; checks by HQ really does not matter at all). I would love to have the corps-army-front structure as Soviet - I could keep my corps HQ much closer than the army HQ to some units (again, this leads to much easier passable checks).

And yes, you can move panzer corps 2 or 3 times during summer '41 if you like; at a cost -but you can.

And sorry, there are no 'optimised' Soviet units. Actually, all you can do in '41 is pretty much rubbish, including famous cavalry corps Pelton is so unhappy about. All Soviet units are good for 1 battle. If it is a won battle, maybe another one and if you are lucky, one more. But a single lost battle means that unit needs to go to refit for a month (that's how refit works, for some reasons the number of guns increase very slowly, even when in town far away from front and with arm in the pool). And as Soviet you loose battles a bit, even in Blizzard (again, due to superior leadership and bad Soviet one, I generally experience my CV being divided by 2-4 in each battle, whereas German sometimes is, sometimes is not). And unit needs to go to refit after some time just due to standing next to German unit as the attrition is still high...

Sure, things change comes '43 and especially '44. But you seem not to be unhappy about those. I actually think the game is unbalanced - Soviet Union is way too weak in '41 and now '42, and too strong in '44. Also, the wrong weighting of Soviet troops vs German troops (which is initially like 1 German soldier is worth 10 Soviet, sometimes 1 is worth 5 in trained units (in CV and losses in '41), being gradually improved later on - but due to this initial 1:10 the Soviet army must be massive, bigger than it was - and than when this 1:5 shifts to 1:3 and maybe 1:2 in the middle of '44 leads to issues. Actually in blizzard '41, in December, the weighting is close to 1:1.5 in CV, after all the bonuses applied, but losses are such as before (i.e. not modified and still can be massive for Soviets even when they win a battle; on the other hand German losses are generally 10x less than Soviets when they win the battle, either defense or attack).

Finally, people play Germans because it is much more fun to play than Soviet. And careful German player, with careful management and knowledge of the rules can achieve a lot. As some of the micromanaging for Germany is not possible, players can often make a turn in an hour or two. But still, you can have a lot of fun with aircrafts and support units.
On the other hand, just going through the routine stuff as Soviet, the turn takes 2-3 hours during mud. And you have to go through all the micromanaging to make your army move from the state of 'total rubbish' to the state 'giving some hope' in '41. Now '42 is even worse.
In short, if you don't micromanage as Soviet, you lose a lot of edge. [nota bene that is even more true as Germans, but is generally under-appreciated as at the beginning Germany is so strong that you cut through everything like through butter; still command structure is not the priority for me when playing Germany; neglecting micromanagement has long term effects i- maybe you will see some results in turn 14, when you do micromanage sensibly from the beginning, but the effect is maybe 5 or 10% - most people think it does not matter]
And all the micromanaging is really expensive in terms on AP. As Soviets, you do not have points to micromanage everything - so you do something. Same as Germans - you do not have points to make both your command structure fully optimised, transfer your tank corps several times between armies, micromanage SU and do many HQ buildups. Later on it is easier for Germany, whereas Soviet runs low on AP until the very end of the game.

Also, note that each encirclement can cost maybe a hundred AP [and trust me, both in '41 and '42 they will happen, you can't do much about that]. After Oct '41, units do not get back for Russia (for Germany they always get back for free), and recreating lost division is 10 AP [sure, you have some cushion with the number of divisions you have, but due to game design you cannot fight Germany unless your army has 2-3x German manpower]. So, figure out how squeezed Soviets are for AP in this game [not to mention the required constant reshuffling of the units from the front and back, to keep them in some fighting shape, sure it is 2mp for each (1+1, if you leave it at Stavka at just 1ap, refitting is slower), but you have to do it for tens of divisions each turn].


< Message edited by Toidi -- 12/18/2011 9:54:16 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 131
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 9:55:47 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 914
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline


Great post

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 132
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 10:37:54 AM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1617
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I think displaying a 0 for .5 would not be wise, because true 0 CV units rout move when they move next to the enemy, and you which units are in that condition.


Again, personally:

The true 0 CV units does not have a combat value at all - the concept is not applicable. They should be displayed with '/'.
There is already 'x' representing a CV of 100+ so non-numeric symbols have been introduced.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 133
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 11:27:39 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Carlkay, the reason Soviet PLAYERS have a shortage of AP is that they build an a-historic number of railroad construction brigades, sapper regiments, and mortar artillery, and spend points a-historically disbanding motorcycle regiments and motorized divisions, purging inefficiencies that the historic Red Army had no idea were inefficient... 


I have played only 2 starts of the GC as Soviet yet, both into 42, and can assure you that AP are really short. I focused on building fort units and getting my defensive lines staggered, and saved some on reassigning only a few leaders as it was obviously very costly. Consequently I guessed that also the leader rolls wouldn't improve much by straightening out my command structures, and didn't reassign Divisions as I would attempt in an Axis game. With typically 1-3 CV Infantry there isn't too much potential to be gained there anyways.

I generally think that this Admin cost for switching is convoluted with the consequences it would have to change command structures. Generally staffs had to figure out how to work with the new superior units and iron out anything from the connections in communications to logistics as a new HQ wouldn't necessary operate exactly the same way the old one did. So in general you could switch units around, which barely comes down to a written order, but then there should be friction for a while until both units had ironed out the new procedures and worked together like a swiss clockwork again. And it is here that the Germans should benefit mostly, e.g. they might do so in 1 week rather than the Soviets, for whom penalties should last 2 weeks. However, in this engine (or WiTP-AE for that matter), no such effects are considered. Would be important as it affects op-tempo, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Leningrad can be lost without significant or meaningful damage to the red army warfighting capability (if you remove the armaments, which does not constrain Soviet railroad capability at all).


Leningrad was in effect neutralized back in history, as good as lost, but still did not make a big impact on Soviet capabilities to recover and fight back... I know people were starving there badly, but I don't recall whether any factories were left intact at any point, or even producing. Surely not.
In fact, I believe the fact that Axis in WitE typically takes Leningard is a major benefit for Soviet players. Else, this area would gobble up lots of Soviet units for defending the longer outer lines around the besieged city, and surely also very good ones. This way pretty much nothing is left further north, and a disproportionate number of units can be moved elsewhere even despite adding the Finns to the problem. There is no AAR showing this as it is pretty much impossible to hold Leningrad due to ease of supplying advancing columns, and the weakness of the Soviet CV, but I am sure holding it will not necessarily be an Soviet victory...

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 134
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 11:33:13 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
Toidi, great analysis, haven't seen it that way.  But of course the generally lower level of Soviet leadership across the categories is a factor to represents the poorer generalship and command&control that Helio is annoyed about.  With so many G&G games you really have to look at all the details to see how certain factors are modeled by the many details.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 135
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 12:13:25 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3030
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
Toidi deserves the Order of the Red Banner. Excellent post. I especially appreciated the assessment of how long can take a turn - even in Mud - in order to get some chance.

_____________________________

Nullius in Verba since February 2013 - http://panthergames.com
-----
Life in the Internets: http://steamcommunity.com/id/mvorkosigan
----
I'm a real person as well: http://au.linkedin.com/in/miguelramirezjavega

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 136
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 1:43:08 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7166
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
When efficiently managing the Soviet army, AP's should start to increase after the opening months. Running out of AP's is not a natural state for the Soviets in my opinion, at least not until you have a lot of stuff to buy/replace in 1942. AP's are tight, yes, but that's purely due to having a lot to do with them. I have never really been a believer in the Soviet AP crunch theory.

I'd also disagree that the Soviets have little to no capability to resist in 1941. Yes, initially units are generally really bad, but 2-3 CV units in forts or stacks will slow down the Germans, maybe even stop them in some areas. Keep in mind that the Germans still need about 2x your CV in order to win a battle, as long as you both have decent leaders in place.

What you're also forgetting is that you usually have more units in the field than the Germans and that through proper management you can prevent the Soviet army from becoming powerless. The Axis want the initiative, don't just give it to them.

Most multiple unit encirclements can at least theoretically be prevented by moving back. The people placing 3 division stacks at the front and the people with minimal depth in their defensive lines post-blizzard will suffer the most from "March Madness" (I still insist that it isn't some unique event, it's a return to a previous situation, not a new rule).

You need about 2x as many men as the Germans to really keep pushing, but even with a 4-5 million army you can do some serious damage. The Soviets have a number of advantages: interior lines with generous rail cap, plenty of free army HQ's, sort of a surplus of divisions, lots of terrain they can give up.

Most of the people that are suffering in 1941 or 1942 have little to no reserve forces and (in 1942) don't tend to use interior lines. Now, some of you might say "but where would those reserves come from?" As long as you have the units, you can create a reserve. It's that simple, and I'm actually a bit surprised more people don't use strategic reserves. An army of 2-3 CV units can in many cases do more good behind the front than at the front. Aside from their edge in CV, the main thing you need to worry about is German mobility. No reserves mean you're not really doing anything to prevent the Germans from being mobile.

I do agree that, overall, the Soviets are too weak initially and too strong later in the war, but you can do something about the weakness, and when the Soviets are strong they quickly become unstoppable with good management. The Soviets require a lot more planning and babysitting on a strategic level, but there is a serious reward for taking your time to manage Soviet units.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 137
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:10:37 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Pieter, you'll run into that crunch in PBEM. The AI will never really stress you.

You haven't had the lovely experience of having to deal with the Axis grind in 1.05. That alone puts a real crimp on APs, particularly by Moscow.



< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 12/18/2011 2:15:57 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 138
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:43:43 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7166
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
It depends on what you do with the AP's. AP's are the same in a vs. AI game. You can economize on AP costs by not disbanding support units early, for example. I don't see the need to constantly switch units to different HQ's. The benefit is often not very substantial to begin with, and you end up draining your AP's on something that gives you only a marginal bonus, because the Germans will wreck any stack they want to wreck in any case.

As to the grind: if you don't stage a suicidal forward defence for 17 turns, the grind won't hit you nearly as much as it hit Bob's opponent for example.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 12/18/2011 2:46:03 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 139
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:48:52 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Pieter, when the Axis has the bit on its teeth, and is crunching its way to Moscow, you have two choices: run and abandon the place, or stand your ground.

If you stand your ground, be prepared to drop a fortune in APs. This is really the bottom line. You must constantly rotate fresh units in and get the battered ones out, and that's going to cost you. The AI doesn't know how to grind. (It does know how to simply bulldoze if you set it high enough, but that's a different thing.)


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 140
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:57:02 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 1767
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
Helio - the only thing I disband are the SAD Airbases - they go away at the wrong time and always in the wrong places. Besides, in the summer of 41 they are only targets and the VVS just is not very strong anyways. Better to start the replacement procedure with the airbases in 41 than in 42 when the Axis is trying to re-enact 41 on me.

I find that the Armaments picture for the Soviets means that producing new SUs limits my infantry production - and infantry production is more important in my eyes than the artillery. I also tend to use my mechanized and armor divisions to counter-attack the Axis wherever possible. The typical Soviet division comes in with under 100 men, a morale of around 40, and no experience. It takes 2 to 3 turns to bring it up to about 80% TOE (mostly infantry) and another few turns to get the experience and morale up high enough to be ready - which MAY mean a CV of 2! And this is all under REFIT so you must keep them over 10 hexes from any Axis units at the start of YOUR turn - so they really must be kept back about 20 hexes to be safe. This does give a smart Soviet player the reserve armies that are mentioned above. Very important. However, committing these units too soon are just throwing them away.

Defending Leningrad may be impossible, but if the Soviet player does not try then the Axis player can capture it too easily and redirect all of those troops against other areas - such as Moscow or the South - so part of any attempt by the Soviets to slow down the Axis involves forcing a fight over Leningrad. Which means an early stand near Pskov, defending the Luga River line, etc.

The only SUs I do build in 41 tend to be construction (RR or normal) and sappers - light on the armaments costs but necessary for the digging that is so important on defense. Is this unrealistic? Not really - the Soviet real life OOB has over 200 construction brigades created by November, 1941. This is the largest non-infantry concentration of manpower that the Soviets did - so very historical.

Toidi covers it all in excellent form.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 141
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 2:58:06 PM   
heliodorus04


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

ORIGINAL: Toidi
I'm sorry but I disagree here...



Many disagree with me. That does not make me wrong. Nor do your points, which I will now refute directly.

Say what you like about the terrible combat power of the Soviet Union in 1941: that issue is the single driving factor for the decisions that I despise about the German side. Fix the 1941 Soviet offensive ability, but quit handcuffing German gameplay by these design decisions.

quote:



1. I never disband motorcycle squads, and still run out of AP all the time


How many different types of SUs do you spend your APs on?
Please describe how many railroad construction units you build per army, the number of mortar artillery you build (you know, the ones that out-perform 150mm howitzers), how many sapper battalions?
What other SUs does the perfectly efficient Red Army build when you're at the helm?

You don't deny doing the a-historic stuff like disbanding motorized divisions to save the trucks (benefiting your blizzard offensive), disbanding corps HQs, etc. So just because you don't disband the 20 or so motorcycle regiments the game starts with, don't expect me to be sympathetic. The Soviets have too much freedom with their AP in an army that's already saving tons by the return of units attached at Stavka command.

quote:


2. Soviet army organisation is worse than German during the whole game. That is shown by:
a) Soviet Leaders are much, much worse than the German leaders - best Soviet are those you think you 'have to' change as Germany, because you believe they are inefficient. And yes, this is organisation.

FAIL.

Please define "Much Much Worse" and allow me to show you the commander's report for Soviet Front/German Army comparisons, and Soviet Army and German Corps comparisons

In the first picture in this post (because it's simplest to put 1 picture per post, subsequent posts will continue refuting the original points, and include further pictures of the actual game data; if you're reading this very recently to its being posted, I'm probably still writing refutations so come back later), you have German Armies compared to Soviet Fronts. For purposes of this discussion, we will focus only on Admin Ratings, since we are discussing the expenditure of Admin Points.

To try to measure the command difference, I added the Admin values of all 12 Generals on each side, and compared them to one another.




Please note that the German commanders in the image are actually ones that were replacing worse commanders; this is from my current game versus Cannonfodder, and I replaced several army commanders, such that you're seeing an upwardly biased German Command rating of these leaders. So in actuality, this comparison is more favorable to Germany than it ought to be when comparing Turn 1 commanders (which is what the Soviet commanders are)



Germany Admin Ratings at Army Level: 83/12 = 6.9
Soviet Admin Ratings at Front Level: 69/12 = 5.75 (rounding to 5.8)

5.8/6.9 = .84
So Germany's command superiority at Army level is about 16 percent.
To me, that does not sound like "Much Much Worse"

Now, let's immediately add more facts that are germane (LOL) to the point:
At game start, the following German armies are over command point allowances:

2.Panzer Group (-7 CP at start)
9.Army (-5 CP at start)
17.Army (-5 CP at start)
11.Army(-5 CP at start)
4.Army (-3 CP at start)

(Doesn't anyone find it perhaps a-historic that Germany would handicap its commanders so badly at the start of the operation that they planned for more than a year? Here again we see game design showing Soviet fan-boy-ism)

Whereas on the Soviet side, fewer fronts start out of command than German armies, and more significantly, there is a noteworthy difference in how those comparative commands will straighten themselves out:

The Soviet command limit will correct itself with no meaningful requirement to spend APs:
As divisions are destroyed in the opening turn pockets, these burdens will be alleviated for zero cost in AP. By comparison, Germany has to spend AP to fix this.

But there is another distinction in this comparison favoring the Soviets, which is that Fronts can command "Much much" more units, so the Soviet command is not punished administratively at this level as quickly for being over CP allowances as Germany is...

When you say that Soviets don't have corps HQs, remember that German Army HQs are punished routinely through 1942 by not having sufficient command point allowance, and this punishment acts to OBVIATE ANY ADVANTAGE OF THE ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF CORPS COMMAND .

because:
Once an HQ is over its command allowance, it quickly loses its ability to make successful rolls (of all types).

What good does it do Germany to have an Army HQ roll when it is over command? What good does it do Germany to have an Army Group roll when it is also over command? From what I've read designers say: once you're over command, rolls are severely modified downward.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 12/18/2011 3:02:28 PM >

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 142
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:11:57 PM   
heliodorus04


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

ORIGINAL: Toidi

b) If you have an overloaded army/ front, the only thing happen is that the checks are failed at this level. This is not a big issue for Germany as the checks are most often fine at the corps level. The only thing is that corps should not be overloaded



This is a bait and switch refutation. As I have said, if Army and Army Group are over-loaded, then Corps failures, in practice, means that only the corps commander leadership will be used. I don't know if you've looked at German corps commanders, but there are a LOT of mediocre ones.

Let's compare German corps commanders to Soviet Army commanders:
Oh, hey, I have another screen shot!

Now, 44 German leaders are sorted, but only the first 32 make the screen shot, and I will compare the Admin ratings of the first 32 German leaders to the 32 Soviet Army leaders. Bear in mind that the average leadership value I will give for Germany will be INFLATED because the worst commanders (by Admin) are not included in the German rating, and would bring it down.






German Admin: 197/32 = 6.2
Soviet Admin: 168/32 = 5.3

German command advantage = 5.3/6.2 = .85, so again Germany has about a 15% leadership advantage (less than that as indicated before).

But again, remember that a German corps is commanding less than half of units that an Army commands, meaning the Soviet Union has an efficiency advantage that is greater than Germany's leadership advantage.

And this is before we have even looked at the AP cost to move divisions, which I'm getting to next.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 12/18/2011 3:13:39 PM >

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 143
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:17:30 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 1767
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
Helio - Let's look at the ratings other than Admin:

Morale: Axis 74/12 = 6.2, Soviets 67/12 = 5.6 -> Axis advantage 67/74 = .91 -> 9% edge
Initiative: Axis 84/12 = 7, Soviets 53/12 = 4.4 -> Axis advantage 53/84 = .63 -> 37% edge
Mech: Axis 67/12 = 5.6, Soviets 38/12 = 3.2 -> Axis advantage 38/67 = .57 -> 43% edge
Infantry: Axis 81/12 = 6.8, Soviets 64/12 = 5.3 -> Axis advantage 64/81 = .79 -> 21% edge

So Axis commanders have better movement (37% edge in Initiative) and better control of Mech units in combat (43% edge to increase the odds) and Infantry (21% edge). Note that there is not a single area where the Soviets are better or on parity with the Axis.

I will also point out that your Soviet general list is NOT the starting list. Several of the Soviet leaders have already been replaced in your list from the starting commanders - at a large Admin Point cost!

I will take some time and compare the ORIGINAL commanders on each side and be back in a bit.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 144
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:19:57 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The place where the Axis leadership edge is most pronounced is with initiative ratings. The Soviets actually do OK on admin ratings. The have a fair number of good infantry leaders, too. (They are very short on good mech leaders. The historical tank army leaders I have always thought to be severely underrated, excepting Rotmistrov, who is arguably overrated.)

Edit. Carlkay beat me to it.

The thing Helio doesn't get and refuses to get is that the Soviet have many many more demands on their budget than the Germans do. In AAR after AAR we see the Germans accumulating and sitting on a very large AP reserve. This doesn't really happen with the Sovs until 1944 or so.

It would be more or less impossible to manage a 450 rifle division army on a 60 AP/turn budget if they paid the same costs as the Germans do, while dealing with new builds, corps conversions, etc. Leaving aside the fact that a rifle division is hardly comparable to a German infantry one.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 12/18/2011 3:32:28 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 145
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:27:33 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Finally, let's look at administrative costs to move divisions:

I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence, but the Soviet fanboy crowd appears to need facts shoved deep inside their throats before they can even begin go contemplate their meaning, so I'll do this for you. These are randomly selected divisions examined for the cost to change HQ:






Average cost to move a division for Germany compared to Soviet Union:
German armor: 107/19 = 5.6
German infantry: 174/19 = 9.2

Soviet armor: 21/19 = 1
Soviet infantry: 20/19 = 1

German average AP to change command based on this sample:
281/38 = 7.4

Soviet average AP to change command based on this sample:
41/38 = 1

Look at this side-by-side comparison of the cost to move a German armor and infantry division to a new HQ compared with the cost to move the Soviet armor and rifle division to a new HQ.

Don't insult my intelligence: this is more than a 15% advantage to the Soviet Union.

Germany is weaker in leadership administratively than the Soviet Union.
Proven.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 12/18/2011 3:29:11 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 146
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:30:06 PM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Helio - Let's look at the ratings other than Admin:

Morale: Axis 74/12 = 6.2, Soviets 67/12 = 5.6 -> Axis advantage 67/74 = .91 -> 9% edge
Initiative: Axis 84/12 = 7, Soviets 53/12 = 4.4 -> Axis advantage 53/84 = .63 -> 37% edge
Mech: Axis 67/12 = 5.6, Soviets 38/12 = 3.2 -> Axis advantage 38/67 = .57 -> 43% edge
Infantry: Axis 81/12 = 6.8, Soviets 64/12 = 5.3 -> Axis advantage 64/81 = .79 -> 21% edge

So Axis commanders have better movement (37% edge in Initiative) and better control of Mech units in combat (43% edge to increase the odds) and Infantry (21% edge). Note that there is not a single area where the Soviets are better or on parity with the Axis.

I will also point out that your Soviet general list is NOT the starting list. Several of the Soviet leaders have already been replaced in your list from the starting commanders - at a large Admin Point cost!

I will take some time and compare the ORIGINAL commanders on each side and be back in a bit.


Carlkay, this is about ADMIN, and nothing else. When we want to isolate other leadership points, we will do so, and things won't be as rosy as this for the Soviet Union, but the FACT remains, administratively, the Soviet Union is far, far superior to Germany, and I have proved this mathemtatically.

This is wrong, and it's why I encourage all players to STOP playing Germany, because you are a bit player in a game designed for Soviet freedom and German constriction beyond the scope of what was historically factual in the war.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 147
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:32:45 PM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The place where the Axis leadership edge is most pronounced is with initiative ratings. The Soviets actually do OK on admin ratings. The have a fair number of good infantry leaders, too. (They are very short on good mech leaders. The historical tank army leaders I have always thought to be severely underrated, excepting Rotmistrov, who is arguably overrated.)

Edit. Carlkay beat me to it.

The thing Helio doesn't get and refuses to get is that the Soviet have many many more demands on their budget than the Germans do. In AAR after AAR we see the Germans accumulating and sitting on a very large AP reserve. This doesn't really happen with the Sovs until 1944 or so.

It would be more or less impossible to manage a 450 rifle division army on a 60 AP/turn budget if they paid the same costs as the Germans do, while dealing with new builds, corps conversions, etc. Leaving aside the fact that a rifle division is hardly comparable to a German infantry one.


Both you and Carlkay are IGNORING the downstream consequence of the German army being horrifically inefficient compared to the Soviet Union.

Please use your head: how does this impact game balance that the Soviets save on average, 5 points per switched division over Germany?

Riddle me that.

You are willfully ignorant.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 148
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:38:18 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The German army has many constraints down the line, but APs just aren't one of them. Armament point production is possibly still to low. Manpower is obviously an issue. But APs? I have yet to see a single AAR where this the case.

We have some late war AARs going on right now. I do not see any of these German players talking about their AP problems in any of them. This is your hobby horse alone.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 149
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:46:50 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3030
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It would be more or less impossible to manage a 450 rifle division army on a 60 AP/turn budget if they paid the same costs as the Germans do, while dealing with new builds, corps conversions, etc. Leaving aside the fact that a rifle division is hardly comparable to a German infantry one.


Yes, we already discussed this issue. Corps sized Soviet units cost between two and three times to re-attach as German divisions.

I suggested that AP costs should be changed to make them consistent with unit sizes for both sides. You made the point very clearly that this would require to increase substantially AP allocation for the Red Army in order to avoid it becoming unmanageable. I read between the lines that this might not be a good idea, since people could use that AP for uses other than organization (same as with Static mechanics). A way to dissuade people from this could perhaps be to further increase combat penalties for units directly attached to OKH/STAVKA and or increase MP costs for attacks involving units belonging to several commands (rather than affecting their combat power further).

_____________________________

Nullius in Verba since February 2013 - http://panthergames.com
-----
Life in the Internets: http://steamcommunity.com/id/mvorkosigan
----
I'm a real person as well: http://au.linkedin.com/in/miguelramirezjavega

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: March Madness '42 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.117