Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 7:32:35 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1242
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Someone abuses the game system to produce an ahistorical outcome and someone else abuses the game system to counter it.

Funniest thread ever.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 61
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 8:02:24 AM   
AFV


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
Aurelian, I did miss that one.

But the point is not that they could not try.  To be effective, it takes more than a few planes and a few hundred men and some petrol. I never said they could not try- of course they could. Did they have the capability to pull off what was done in the game in '41?

We will have to simply agree to disagree, I say no, you say, apparently, yes.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 62
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 2:22:07 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
AFV,

The point is that there were in fact well organized Soviet airborne forces in Southern Russia, and they were trained and able to particiapte in combined arms operations. That the Soviets use of paras in 2 large scale operational manuvers met with mixed/dismal results does not mean that other outcomes were not possible. But in the case of Pelton's game, it is a single raiding brigade being dropped into a hex not so far from Odessa. Is this plausible, the use of paras as "partisans?" Well yes, and here is the source:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/geronimo/index.html

"Other missions carried out by Red Army paratroopers were generally on a small scale. Small parachute sections are believed to be attached to armies for espionage and sabotage purposes. Small groups of troopers have been used in cooperative roles with partisan groups behind enemy lines, and one entire brigade was dropped near Smolensk, in 1941, behind German lines. Many of the personnel in this drop were dressed in civilian clothing, and were expected to operate as Partisans."

This vindicates the use of para brigades as partisans to disrupt RR?

Marquo


< Message edited by Marquo -- 2/19/2012 2:25:00 PM >

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 63
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 2:27:03 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

We might not have this airdrop exploit if the game had supply that could move by roads


Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. The game does have supply by road. The motor pool is utilized moving supply between rail head and units. The issue here is the severing of the German rail net far to the west (because it had no redundancy, for reasons Pelton hasn't offered to explain yet).
The Western allies faced the same issue in France, having demolished the French rail net in '44, that after they got a certain distance from the controlled ports their motorized supply network couldn't maintain operations and the previous tempo.

quote:

For those that have not played the German side, you get a total of 5 units that can fix rail lines that you have control over. 3 start in the north and 2 in the south.


So why does Pelton only have ONE rail line leading from Rumanian (11th Army's FBD 5)? What happened to FBD 1 (starts the war NE of Lvov)? Only Pelton can tell us, and so far he's mum on the issue. He just wants a nerf to allow him to do things in the gamey way he's become accustomed to. I don't think that's the solution to the problem he faces.
Had he built the line from Lvov to Prosukurov (or through Rovno to Zhitomir) with FBD 1 the operation staged in Odessa could not have severed his rail net.

quote:

You have no control over the other repair units and as someone else mentioned, they are typically great at fixing lines going to nowhere that you could care less about instead of working on cross connects that would actually be useful.


I asked about this, but didn't receive an answer, so I'll repost in the hope someone can answer:

Does it not work as the manual indicates?

quote:

For human players only, there is a limit to the distance that the automated rail repair units will operate from the HQ unit that they are attached, which is based on command range (7.6.4). For example, if a construction battalion is assigned to a Corps HQ unit, it can only repair rail line hexes up to 5 hexes from that HQ, but the same construction battalion attached to a High Command HQ unit (e.g. OKH or STAVKA) could operate up to 90 hexes away.


Wouldn't placing a Corps HQ, with the appropriate construction SUs, at the sites you want interconnected result in the AI performing this function during the logistics phase (and restricting them from going to Courland)? Sounds like you're leaving them in the Army Group, which while useful for repairing partisan damage, isn't necessary early on and results in leaving that element of rail construction up to the AI. [edited to add: from your description is sounds like the AI prioritizes rail repair of the construction SU it controls from West to East, so assign them to lower HQs with that in mind and see what your results are)

I'd like to hear what Pelton did with his construction SUs, and FBD 1. Hopefully he didn't disband them for manpower or something on turn 1.
A picture of his entire rail net at this phase would be interesting.

quote:

The Germans will sometimes "partisan proof" a line with units every two hexes, which is not very realistic either, but if they now have to "para proof" it, give me a break.


As I've stated previously, the para drops should include a strong element of randomness in the target hex, based on distance. Drops made a few miles from the front should have a high probability of hitting the target hex, but those at longer distances should be more likely to miss (possibly by several hexes) than hit the target hex.
Furthermore, para drops from behind the front line (the airbase is unlikely to sit on the front itself) cover a limited amount of the rail net, so 'para proofing' the line as a whole is unnecessary.
The readiness and strength hit a para unit suffers appear to make it unready, and thereby unable to move, once dropped.

The Soviets were pioneers in airborne operations. Had apparently conducted them during the Winter war and the seizure of Bessarabia, so there is no historical basis for denying them this capability until some arbitrary date.

quote:

Seminole, have you ever played the German side?
Because your crap attempt to teach the most successful German player in the game about 'lateral rail lines' wreaks of the kind of player who never played the German against a human opponent.


No, I haven't played the German side (I've played through one campaign, and am playing two concurrently now), that's why I asked what he had done with FBD 1, and why he hadn't assigned his construction SUs to Corps HQs to focus their attention where interconnects were needed as the FBDs push east. So far, no one is addressing this, which would have prevented the severing of Pelton's rail net. Pelton has avoided several opportunities to answer questions I've posed about this. Even his original picture was self serving in that it conveniently didn't show Odessa was still under Soviet control and led to the assumption by 'Germanophiles' that the para drop had occurred at a range of 500 miles!
My 'crap attempt' is to get him to explain to me how he's utilizing the existing FBDs, and construction SUs. Does it not work as the manual suggests? From the rail net picture Pelton provided, he's using them in a way that creates what I would consider an unacceptable level of risk, and a 'crap' rail net. But of course he sees "no weakness on my logictic's system", whereas a look at the map suggests otherwise to me.

quote:

Please, ANYONE, find me an example of a partisan unit or airborne drop in 1941 that stopped ALL supply from going to an army group for two weeks?


Did the German Army actually try to support itself in '41 on a single rail line from Rumania? Perhaps it didn't happen because the DRG had a more redundant rail net than Pelton chose to build. Perhaps that's why they didn't build as far east as fast as Pelton did. Is there no room for trade-offs and risk/reward considerations? Pelton relies on a 100+ mile section with single point of failure. He places himself at the mercy of partisans, and apparently left an airborne brigade and airbase in range of this bottleneck without any air cover. And yet all the fault lies with the Soviet player for seeking advantage in this and baiting Pelton east with the appearance of weakness?

quote:

It did not happen, yet a ZOC break in the right place of any of the 3 Army Group's will require at LEAST a 2-turn break.


As in real life, the German player needs to create a rail net, and protect chokepoint/bottleneck positions in that rail net, to obviate this risk.
I think that introducing randomness to the drop zones will go a long way in nerfing this problem in a historical manner (without arbitrary distance limits, or airborne operation time frames). Air transports groups are precious few, so it's not like these attacks can be spammed. Risk would still exist (as Pelton currently entertains with partisans given his approach), but dropping on a particular 10 mile hex shouldn't be automatic.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 64
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 2:29:15 PM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Also, the reason why you never saw this kind of long range sacrificial drop in RL was that no army would ever expose itself with such an obvious critical supply bottleneck. If any army identified such a vulnerability you can be they would throw the dice with just about any portion of their airborne to try and exploit it. He is lucky it was the small break it was, can you imagine what a brigade of highly motivated air dropped rail wreckers could do in the time it would take him to react... trains wouldn't get through for a while. But you really have to be careful crying about 'ahistorical' when the underlying situation is itself very very 'ahistorical'.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 65
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 2:59:14 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
To answer the issue with construction units, most start at the army and AG level. Some are in corps, but not many. Part of the issue of using a corps for what Seminole suggests is the corps is typically right at the front in order to keep its units within range of supply/command, so 5 hexes is a fairly short leash. I think the range on army HQ's is 30 for the Germans, which is better, but is such a big increase from 5 that you don't have the control on where the construction units go. For AG and OKH level, (I think 60 and 90 respectively) forget it.

There is some evidence/belief (or I have heard mention) that some players will keep German army HQ's up close to the front because they have a better chance of backing up the corps commanders with die rolls and you also have the truck transport issue (IE, keeping them closer means the trucks go less distance pulling supplies).

To do something as Seminole suggests would probably mean using a minor Allied HQ (Rumanian probably) and getting construction units assigned to it and then moving it up to where you want rail repair to take place. Part of the issue is both sides are AP starved for this in the early going and to do so is not a insignficant AP investment when so much else needs to be done.

The other issue is even if you lock HQ units, construction units are not affected by this and generally can go where they please at the whim of the AI.

Seminole also mentions Pelton's Germans relying on a single section of 100+ mile track. Umm, the Germans did that in the actual campaign as well.

One final note as well about Odessa. Historically the Germans went well past Odessa, leaving the Rumanians to siege and take the city. They didn't do so hot and required German help. The city didn't fall to the Axis until the middle of October. Why should Pelton catch heat for "screening" Odessa at this stage of the game? Mounting a paratroop operation out of a area that is cut off. Yeah, that would have happen.

I wonder how long it will be before the Russians figure out a way to come up with a paradrop on Berlin to not only wreck the manpower there, but also any and everything in it. But hey, that isn't broke since the Russias have airborne troops and could do it since it isn't protected.

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 66
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 3:31:39 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6314
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Klydon, yes, but the Germans in game can get a lot more juice out of that single line than the Germans ever did in real life or would have dared to try. That's a problem with the game engine.

Doesn't make this suicide drop business right, mind you, but there's little doubt that the limitations of the logistics system are being pushed to extreme limits by good Axis players. It is far too generous and abstracted. There's a real mismatch between the abstraction of the game at this level and the detail of it elsewhere that can be leveraged in a big way.





_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 67
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 5:45:23 PM   
AFV


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

As I've stated previously, the para drops should include a strong element of randomness in the target hex, based on distance. Drops made a few miles from the front should have a high probability of hitting the target hex, but those at longer distances should be more likely to miss (possibly by several hexes) than hit the target hex.
Furthermore, para drops from behind the front line (the airbase is unlikely to sit on the front itself) cover a limited amount of the rail net, so 'para proofing' the line as a whole is unnecessary.
The readiness and strength hit a para unit suffers appear to make it unready, and thereby unable to move, once dropped.


The Soviets were pioneers in airborne operations. Had apparently conducted them during the Winter war and the seizure of Bessarabia, so there is no historical basis for denying them this capability until some arbitrary date.



Quoting source:
The closest the paratroopers came to an airborne combat operation was in 1940, when three brigades were dropped ahead of ground troops during the Russian reoccupation of the Romanian province of Bessarabia. There was no opposition during this operation, so it was basically another training exercise.

Not denying what you said, just clarifying it. So again, yes they could put men in planes and drop them. However unlikely they would hit the target, and be effective, as was done in the game in question.

However, it appears from your post you seem to agree regarding how effective they should be. I agree, in concept, to the first part of your sentence above. The Soviet ability would get better as the war moved on- but in '41 it would be quite limited, and pulling off what was done in game would equate to multiple very lucky die rolls- although I believe the range needs to be dialed back as to what they could even attempt.

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 68
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 6:09:20 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
AFV,

Please read the link I posted above about the Soviets dropping an entire para brigade to be used as partisans.

Klydon,

"Why should Pelton catch heat for "screening" Odessa at this stage of the game? Mounting a paratroop operation out of a area that is cut off. Yeah, that would have happen."

He is not catching flak, rather the result of allowing a robust combined force to remain in Odessa, which is not cut off, rather supplied by sea. Players should pay attention to their flanks and rear.

Marquo




(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 69
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 7:08:36 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Klydon, yes, but the Germans in game can get a lot more juice out of that single line than the Germans ever did in real life or would have dared to try. That's a problem with the game engine.

Doesn't make this suicide drop business right, mind you, but there's little doubt that the limitations of the logistics system are being pushed to extreme limits by good Axis players. It is far too generous and abstracted. There's a real mismatch between the abstraction of the game at this level and the detail of it elsewhere that can be leveraged in a big way.



Absolutey agreed the rail line capacity is very simplified as it stands now for both sides. To "fix it" would require a ton of code and a new level of detail on logistics not to mention a new overlay of trying to keep track of differing capacities over such and such a stretch of rail line. In short, it would be a nightmare to a point to try to figure all that out and deal with it. I don't have a good solution to the situation unfortunately, but do realize that the entire logistics situation needs to be looked at and something better that what exists would probably go a long way to fixing a lot of underlying issues with the game. In addition to all this would be trying to deal with upgrading lines, etc as of course, rail line capacities didn't stay the same throughout the war.

The basic issue will be the Germans are going to have at most 2 rail head lines going in the south because you have 3 repair units in the north and 2 in the south and those lines generally don't connect for a long time or if they do, it is usually well back from the front.

Pointing out that Odessa is supplied by sea and could do the para drop from there also brings to light continued issues with the air model that has intercept that sucks at times and also totally ignores the ability to interdict ships coming into Odessa let alone how Odessa is treated on the Russian supply grid (treated as connected, meaning it can even evac whatever industry is there, even tho there are no connecting rail lines, because that part is also simplified).

< Message edited by Klydon -- 2/19/2012 7:09:52 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 70
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 7:22:48 PM   
AFV


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
Marquo
I went back and read the article.
I do not deny they had men, planes and petrol. Unless you can quote the length of that drop (I suspect something like 100 miles, unless I missed it), and the actual results (cut off entire Army Group supplies for 2 weeks?), I am still not convinced in 1941 the Soviets had the 1989 capability of a Spetznatz team, and the effectiveness of para drops (particularly lengthy ones) should be scaled way back in 1941, similar to what Seminole posted.

As a side note, I think RR repair units should be able to use any length of connected rail not just rail that is connected to the rail network. That too is an abstraction- it works ok for large combat units but for a smallish RR unit does not make that much sense (for either side). The abstraction is good, the last thing I want is to have another couple dozen RR train units I have to move about, but it works better for some things than others.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 71
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 8:00:19 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The other issue is even if you lock HQ units, construction units are not affected by this and generally can go where they please at the whim of the AI.


That's a problem that should be addressed. Locked should mean locked. The point of the AI RRR is to allow the player to focus on the main axes and the AI to fill in the interconnects. If it does this to poor effect the player needs more control over where they do this (which is the point of assigning them to lower HQ). AP cost could even be removed from construction SU assignment.

quote:

I wonder how long it will be before the Russians figure out a way to come up with a paradrop on Berlin to not only wreck the manpower there, but also any and everything in it. But hey, that isn't broke since the Russias have airborne troops and could do it since it isn't protected.


Once the Russians get to Bromberg, look out! Berlin will be in range...

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 72
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 8:59:39 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
"Pointing out that Odessa is supplied by sea and could do the para drop from there also brings to light continued issues with the air model that has intercept that sucks at times and also totally ignores the ability to interdict ships coming into Odessa let alone how Odessa is treated on the Russian supply grid (treated as connected, meaning it can even evac whatever industry is there, even tho there are no connecting rail lines, because that part is also simplified)."

I have had moving ships interdicted before; but I think it was in the Baltic as I was moving troops from Riga to Tallinin.

Marquo

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 73
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 10:23:18 PM   
JAMiAM

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
I have had moving ships interdicted before; but I think it was in the Baltic as I was moving troops from Riga to Tallinin.

Not to add to a thread derailing here, but...

This is the problem with the game engine's unit recon level deciding the probability of interdiction, rather than the having a hex-based recon level factoring into the formula. Units moving from areas that haven't been reconned (through lack of range, or effort on the player's part) are immune to interdiction attacks, no matter how close to the front lines they move. So, you get the silliness of being able to freely sea transport units into a bypassed port with hundreds of nearby aircraft absolutely blinded to your movements. The reverse, however, as you note is a bit dicier, since the units in the port may very well have a decent enough recon value against them that they are "spotted" the entire sea move back to your rear, and subject to interdiction all along the way.

In other words, interdiction, IMO, is only working for half the cases that it should be.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 74
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 10:46:58 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2118
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM]

In other words, interdiction, IMO, is only working for half the cases that it should be.


But is that something easily fixed?

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 75
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 11:14:12 PM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM]

In other words, interdiction, IMO, is only working for half the cases that it should be.


But is that something easily fixed?


Unfortunately, it doesn't look to be an easy fix. With the current data structures set around unit-based recon, rather than hex-based recon values, saved games wouldn't be compatible, without a lot of specific code to make the transition. This type of design decision needs to be made at the beginning of development, and not afterwards. Hopefully, future War in the (fill in the blank) titles will incorporate hex-based recon, rather than unit-based.

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 2/19/2012 11:15:09 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 76
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 11:19:38 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Pointing out that Odessa is supplied by sea and could do the para drop from there also brings to light continued issues with the air model that has intercept that sucks at times and also totally ignores the ability to interdict ships coming into Odessa let alone how Odessa is treated on the Russian supply grid (treated as connected, meaning it can even evac whatever industry is there, even tho there are no connecting rail lines, because that part is also simplified)."

I have had moving ships interdicted before; but I think it was in the Baltic as I was moving troops from Riga to Tallinin.

Marquo




The point is it happened in center and in more games then just mine.

I was told by another player the crap this guy was pulling and only way to prove it was by playing him.

You can drop 3 units or 5 units in a single turn and cut all 5 rail lines.

Its clearly and exploit that is a HUGE game changer and reading poeple defend it is really a hoot.

Marquo I know you play German side from time to time.

Turn 8 you get a breakthrough that could be a huge pocket its almost closed with 80 units in it. You also get one in the south. You send in turn. Get it back and because of 3 para drops Tula south is cut off, no supplies for 3 turns. the SHC player simply walks out of trap and laughs at you for your complete lack of skills.

You would be here posting it so fast it would not be funny.

Get out of the mud and stop defending stuff thats 100% turning poeple off from the game.

Who wants to play a game when someone can pull this crap at will?

Zero skill needed.

You could make Jamiam look like a newbie doing stuff like this.

Pelton





_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

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

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 77
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/19/2012 11:26:13 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6314
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I don't think there's enough airlift to drop 5 units at once in autumn of 41. I'd be surprised if they can do more than 2 drops at once.

But this is just quibbling. Even a single drop is a big deal.


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 78
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 12:07:29 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
I have to agree with Flaviusx on this one; using airborne in this way seems to me to be an exploit. I don't think the Russians should be resrticted to not using airborne until the blizzard, but there should be a range restriction of 10 hexes or so.

Having said that I can certainly see why Savanniperkele did what he did. I wouldn't have done it myself, but I don't necessarily fault him for doing it. I have yet to play an expert German Player who, as Flaviusx puts it, "severely games the supply system of the game", but I can see where I would be tempted to do the same as Savanniperkele or something similar.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 79
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 12:09:44 AM   
AFV


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
Pelton, where did he drop from, do you know for sure?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 80
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 12:52:51 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
quote:

The point is it happened in center and in more games then just mine.

I was told by another player the crap this guy was pulling and only way to prove it was by playing him.

You can drop 3 units or 5 units in a single turn and cut all 5 rail lines.

Its clearly and exploit that is a HUGE game changer and reading poeple defend it is really a hoot.

Marquo I know you play German side from time to time.

Turn 8 you get a breakthrough that could be a huge pocket its almost closed with 80 units in it. You also get one in the south. You send in turn. Get it back and because of 3 para drops Tula south is cut off, no supplies for 3 turns. the SHC player simply walks out of trap and laughs at you for your complete lack of skills.

You would be here posting it so fast it would not be funny.

Get out of the mud and stop defending stuff thats 100% turning poeple off from the game.

Who wants to play a game when someone can pull this crap at will?

Zero skill needed.

You could make Jamiam look like a newbie doing stuff like this.

Pelton



For whatever reason you has chosen not to answer this question on several occasions. The airdrop was not gamey, and the para unit was most probably based in Odessa which you chose to simply ignore. I posted a link which corroborates that the Soviets did launch a such a brigade level para drop in 1941 to function as partisans. When one puts all of one's eggs in one basket, then one has to accept the consequence of one's actions. You say it was the center, but that is a half truth as the target hex was really not too far from Odessa which you chose to ignore. Just man up, learn from your mistake and move on.

You clearly have never played the Soviet side; a Soviet player could never airdrop 5 brigades in one turn.

"Get out of the mud and stop defending stuff thats 100% turning poeple off from the game.

Please elaborate; what have I done but document that the Soviets actually did launch a successful para-partisan air drop in 1941? FWIW, a little gem like this is actually a magnet for people to play; it shows that the devs paid alot of attention to historical capabilities which are modeled in the game. Further, it gives hope that overly aggressive Axis players who ignore their logistics and flanks, can be made to pay dearly for their exploits. This is actually turn on, not a turn off.

For the record, do you ever play with random weather? If not, why not?

Enjoy the game


< Message edited by Marquo -- 2/20/2012 1:01:44 AM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 81
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 1:20:43 AM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

You say it was the center, but that is a half truth as the target hex was really not too far from Odessa which you chose to ignore.


There was an earlier drop SW of Vilnius on turn 9. Not sure where it was airbased from: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3009329&mpage=1&key=�

quote:

For the record, do you ever play with random weather?


I haven't seen an AAR from him where he does. He usually writes of having X turns to accomplish Y.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 82
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 2:08:29 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2138
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
If I recall correctly, there were four airdrops (or at least attempted airdrops) in September, 1941 of brigades by the Soviets. Each of them were of the type mentioned earlier where the Soviet paratroopers were to supplement or create partisan groups. Since they were being prepped for this, they were trained and meant to be airdropped over 300 miles (30 hexes) in the rear of the front lines. Two of the brigades were meant for the Pripet marshes, one brigade into the Kaunus area, and one brigade near the Rovno area. In each case only about 2-300 men were actually airdropped and most were never heard of again.

The major airdrops were 10 airborne brigades dropped behind enemy lines between Smolensk and Veli Luki (SP?) in the first few weeks of December 1941. These were VERY successful drops that set up the counter attack by the Soviet armies in front of Moscow. Two full cavalry corps were used to join up with them and were promptly isolated by German counter attacks. If you look at the weird and contorted lines in the Rzhev - Smolensk - Veli Luki area you will see where the major drops and fighting occured - it was the cause of this bulge and confusion.

I have been practicing using the airborne to duplicate this feat in the game and it is pretty difficult to do - but possible if you are careful with the Soviet airborne and transports. Historically they caught the Axis by surprise and it sounds like that can still happen in the game.

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 83
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 3:11:43 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

You say it was the center, but that is a half truth as the target hex was really not too far from Odessa which you chose to ignore.

There was an earlier drop SW of Vilnius on turn 9. Not sure where it was airbased from: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3009329&mpage=1&key=?

quote:

For the record, do you ever play with random weather?

I haven't seen an AAR from him where he does. He usually writes of having X turns to accomplish Y.




Pelton ignores his flanks; that air drop probably came from an air base on the unmoltested island in the Gulf of Riga.

< Message edited by Marquo -- 2/20/2012 3:15:37 AM >

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 84
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 3:15:51 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
The airborne brigades need at least 50 experience to be drop capable.
NW Front, Western Front, SW Front, and Southern Front each have one corps, of 3 brigades each, making 12 brigades total.
About half have experience at 35 or below when the war begins, and the best of the 12 are in the mid 40's.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 85
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 3:19:00 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

If I recall correctly, there were four airdrops (or at least attempted airdrops) in September, 1941 of brigades by the Soviets. Each of them were of the type mentioned earlier where the Soviet paratroopers were to supplement or create partisan groups. Since they were being prepped for this, they were trained and meant to be airdropped over 300 miles (30 hexes) in the rear of the front lines. Two of the brigades were meant for the Pripet marshes, one brigade into the Kaunus area, and one brigade near the Rovno area. In each case only about 2-300 men were actually airdropped and most were never heard of again.


What would be nice is if this were coded such that during the Axis logistics phase, as Partisan attacks are resolved, any Soviet airborne brigade > 10 hexes from a supplied Soviet unit is treated as a full strength Partisan battalion, and can then resolve rail attacks, per normal rules. After the unit conducts its attacks, it is then disbanded with its elements being distributed among existing nearby partisan cadres and battalions.

This will allow this particular historical use of the paratroops, as well as the possibility for autorepair of the rails. As it is now, having a fully supplied Airborne brigade sitting on a rough terrain hex will likely require a deliberate attack by a German combat division to budge it. This is something that is not likely to happen in fewer than two turns, if the front lines are sufficiently advanced.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 86
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 3:24:24 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

If I recall correctly, there were four airdrops (or at least attempted airdrops) in September, 1941 of brigades by the Soviets. Each of them were of the type mentioned earlier where the Soviet paratroopers were to supplement or create partisan groups. Since they were being prepped for this, they were trained and meant to be airdropped over 300 miles (30 hexes) in the rear of the front lines. Two of the brigades were meant for the Pripet marshes, one brigade into the Kaunus area, and one brigade near the Rovno area. In each case only about 2-300 men were actually airdropped and most were never heard of again.

The major airdrops were 10 airborne brigades dropped behind enemy lines between Smolensk and Veli Luki (SP?) in the first few weeks of December 1941. These were VERY successful drops that set up the counter attack by the Soviet armies in front of Moscow. Two full cavalry corps were used to join up with them and were promptly isolated by German counter attacks. If you look at the weird and contorted lines in the Rzhev - Smolensk - Veli Luki area you will see where the major drops and fighting occured - it was the cause of this bulge and confusion.

I have been practicing using the airborne to duplicate this feat in the game and it is pretty difficult to do - but possible if you are careful with the Soviet airborne and transports. Historically they caught the Axis by surprise and it sounds like that can still happen in the game.


Piffle; don't confuse us with historical facts. The first 4 airdrops you alluded to are of the variety that some are currently belly aching about; the kind that the Soviets "were not able to do, could not have done, blah, blah blah." The very kind of partisan activity meant to wreck havoc with the RR logistical net.

The later ones at Smolensk and Kanev were more operational in nature; one near Smolensk caused a world of hurt for the hapless Axis, the other was a disaster.

Thanks for the intel,

Marquo

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 87
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 3:27:58 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
quote:

What would be nice is if this were coded such that during the Axis logistics phase, as Partisan attacks are resolved, any Soviet airborne brigade > 10 hexes from a supplied Soviet unit is treated as a full strength Partisan battalion, and can then resolve rail attacks, per normal rules. After the unit conducts its attacks, it is then disbanded with its elements being distributed among existing nearby partisan cadres and battalions.

This will allow this particular historical use of the paratroops, as well as the possibility for autorepair of the rails. As it is now, having a fully supplied Airborne brigade sitting on a rough terrain hex will likely require a deliberate attack by a German combat division to budge it. This is something that is not likely to happen in fewer than two turns, if the front lines are sufficiently advanced.


Great idea; when dropped behind lines they are OOS the next move and very vulnerable.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 88
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 3:28:42 AM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

As it is now, having a fully supplied Airborne brigade sitting on a rough terrain hex will likely require a deliberate attack by a German combat division to budge it.


I think the 'instant partisan' idea has merit (and should definitely still be coupled with the random LZ element).

But more to your point, they lose a lot of strength in the lift if moved by a single air group. I'd be surprised if the brigade in this example is even in a ready state, and it is also isolated. I bet a strong wind will blow it away. It's the time lost getting a combat unit there, and then the follow up of rail repair once it is eliminated.

I tried something similar in my game, but closer to the front lines (about 10 hexes back of the line), in AGC where my opponent doesn't even have a solid screen of regiments holding the line. My hope was to disrupt supply and breakthrough with cavalry to the rescue, but the subsequent turn he pulled back (thwarting a clean breakthrough) and the turn after that destroyed the airborne.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 89
RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? - 2/20/2012 5:09:06 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

As it is now, having a fully supplied Airborne brigade sitting on a rough terrain hex will likely require a deliberate attack by a German combat division to budge it.


But more to your point, they lose a lot of strength in the lift if moved by a single air group. I'd be surprised if the brigade in this example is even in a ready state, and it is also isolated. I bet a strong wind will blow it away. It's the time lost getting a combat unit there, and then the follow up of rail repair once it is eliminated.


The airborne unit won't be isolated until one full turn after the drop, as the logistics phase check for it, occurs after the following player turn. It may lose some strength in the lift, but if placed properly will likely be well able to repulse any local Sec Regiments/Brigades that might be able to reach it during the player turn that it is in full supply.

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 2/20/2012 5:11:11 AM >

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Can we nerf this at some point next patch? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

0.116