Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Historical play

 
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: Historical play Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Historical play - 3/24/2012 8:28:10 PM   
entwood

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: entwood

Regimental Breakdown should cost Admin Points. This is one small step against Lvov and other regiment gambits. It won't fix them but Regimental Breakdown is currently exploited. It is a commander's decision and action as much as any other and should cost AP, and is a doable fix.


That wouldn't be my fix. The real problem is the surprise turn mechanics are borked and need a do over.

Quick and dirty fix: give Soviet units full movement on the first turn. Then they'd probably break the pocket every time. But even that is a band aid.




...pretty good idea...actually that Front or District, forces under Kirponos, were much better prepared than the other districts. An exception could/should apply there and is very justifiable.

seems pretty easy to do with Leader Rolls, then things won't be the same every game.


< Message edited by entwood -- 3/24/2012 8:34:12 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 31
RE: Historical play - 3/25/2012 3:40:53 PM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
I am not a Axis only player. I would like to have historical plausibility with either side I play. If the Axis and more especially the Soviet play testers had spoken up about the 1941 blizzard before the games release a lot of problems would have been headed off. The main argument would have been that it is unacceptable because it is completely unhistorical. The released blizzard and the current less severe blizzard are unhistorical. Imagine if this would have been addressed when it should have been?


(in reply to entwood)
Post #: 32
RE: Historical play - 3/25/2012 3:54:08 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Many of the testers, myself included, felt the blizzard was too strong before release. I fully expected changes.

The problem with the blizzard is that in order to get it right, the logistical system needs a do over. The game imposes a variety of penalties during the blizzard that really should occur naturally as a result of logistical failure, but don't. So it tries to deal with that indirectly via CV hits, attrition, etc. As I already said, it is a fudge. Until that happens, we're stuck with what we've got. Indeed, many of the problems the game has right now are a product of the logistical system.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 33
RE: Historical play - 3/25/2012 5:08:20 PM   
Magnum88

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
As an Axis player, I feel that the Lvov pocket is unrealistic historically but feel without it the game would be seriously unbalanced in the Soviet's favor. Even with it the Soviets still typically have a stronger Red Army going into the winter and the Axis advance is limited by logistics anyways. I feel some mechanism would be needed to force/encourage a Soviet player to put his forces at risk or he would even be stronger going into his winter offensive. Perhaps slower factory evacuations, spanning a variable amount of turns, or a phased manpower evacuation requiring time after the Axis gets within a certain distance. Both would necessitate a strong forward defense if either were to evacuate fully. If too costly the Soviet player could still withdraw and save his forces but at a long-term cost.

Also, from an admittedly bias point of view, I feel the first winter rules should be avoidable, perhaps with an AP expenditure. This was discuss (and rejected) during the initially discussion after the game was released but if the Soviet player can have perfect foresight and know he risks nothing by withdrawing why shouldn't the Axis be afforded the same courtesy. An Axis player knows that it will not be a one season war, winter is cold (a Russian winter especially so), and taking Moscow will not end the war. I feel a historic "standard" is being imposed to give the feel of the Eastern front, even when it veers off history from turn 1. I understand this also applies to the Axis with the rules changes that give them a the chance at a '42 offensive, even against a much stronger Red Army that avoids the huge historic blunders.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 34
RE: Historical play - 3/25/2012 6:10:02 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 861
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
That the Germans cannot "afford" to have the Lvov Pocket taken away from them in the context of the progress of the overall campaign does not mean that its continued existence is justifiable or acceptable. It just means that the removal of the Lvov Pocket cannot be done in a vacuum.

(in reply to Magnum88)
Post #: 35
RE: Historical play - 3/25/2012 6:28:17 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
There is a funny mix-up going on in this thread between the terms "historically ..." and what most people seem to refer to, "technically feasible", or "realistically accurate".
In some respects, both are somewhat linked: e.g. the logistics should have the historically correct, equaling technically feasible, supply rates, but with historical orders, these are quite arbitrary, and many may as well never have happened. Thus, it seems quite arbitrary what some ask for, i.e. historical orders for one side, but not the other. It just kills some of the freedom of a game if you tune it too far away from a "physically accurate simulation towards a reenactment with very narrow freedom.

The logistics model, on the other hand, which partially adds to high op-tempos (besides our hindsight, the non-existing "personal" consequences for rashness or commanding failures, and further factors) and requires "artificial rules" to mimic the 41 winter disaster and surprise, could theoretically be nailed down to facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88
As an Axis player, I feel that the Lvov pocket is unrealistic historically but feel without it the game would be seriously unbalanced in the Soviet's favor. Even with it the Soviets still typically have a stronger Red Army going into the winter and the Axis advance is limited by logistics anyways. I feel some mechanism would be needed to force/encourage a Soviet player to put his forces at risk or he would even be stronger going into his winter offensive.


With regard to Lvov, I consider it primarily an "artificial" consequence of the I-Go-U-Go system of the game, and the ratio between "long" turn length/high movement rate. If there were reaction orders for the units of the non-phasing player that would allow units with sufficient excess MP to move into a path of advance or blocking position (very much along the lines of reserve stance, or like the reaction feature for naval assets there are in WitP), Lvov would be much harder to pull off, and if it came so with strong detachments from AGC, much more plausible to accept. Such orders would make "defensive" fighting more fun, more systematic (rather than preposition guessing games), and ultimately would also decrease op-tempo in offensive moves.

The other thing to be noted about Lvov, seems to me still to be more general about Soviet forces in 41, and 42. Especially in 41 I find Soviet counters weak, quite weak, and nothing much to recon with on the advance until December. Their biggest threat is ZOC Locs, or cutting of my advanced spearheads, which could cost me valuable MPs for the next jump forward. But other than that, I fear a random mud turn more. And obviously, without fighting value, you cannot blame a Soviet for trading space versus ground. Which, for reasons of the 1st blizzard rules, you can presently neither blame Axis.

If you play AI, you have to bump levels of to >=130% moral in 1941 to get somewhat resistance-capable Soviet counters. And even then, I still lack the feel that the Soviets permanently counterattack, costly or not, to delay etc. -- perhaps I might be mislead by my choice of literature, but not only in the 1st two weeks against AGC they heavily counterattacked and created some crisis as well as heavy permanent losses to PzGrp 1, but also at Bialystok, Minsk, later at the landbridge between Vitebesk and Smolensk or at the Dauga bridgheads and Pskov/Ostrov the Russian attacked multiple times on tactical as well as strategic levels. In the process, they severely attrited themselves, but also in some occasions successfully delayed advances, endangered the rings of pockets, and also caused losses to the Germans.

If the Soviet units were more dangerous -- for PBEM as well as against AI -- Axis op-tempo in 41 would have to be slower and more cautious, and not with probabilities to close to certainty result in the loss of Leningrad and Moscow. Gaining these two cities would mean a lot more in terms of challenge and skill. So since you can't bump up moral by skill settings in PBEM, I would think patching up Soviet intial morale a bit would help. Could be done with the editor in part, but unfortunately the NM proficiency factor can't be modded. For AI games, the morale setting is your friend.

Another factor to be considered when talking about the weak Soviets in 41 and their lack of ability to put up a fight (without useless waste of counters), is certainly in this context also the consequence of the 1st turn surprise, and there mainly again the Lvov opening: after a Lvov opening, a lot of the strongest Soviet units are gone, after which a Soviet player is in the disastrous situation to shuffle forces down south and stabilize the AO there; necessarily this means that his forces contesting AGN and AGC will also be much weaker than the contemporary ones, and the rest you can guess yourself. Similarly, aided by hindsight, Axis successes in AGN and AGC areas are much accelerated compared to contemporary progress, and Soviets loose more units quicker.
Riga and Minks, for example, fall quicker than they did, maybe because Axis mobile movement rater are "quite high" (with respect to the situation), maybe just because hindsight gives us perfect knowledge of the force setup of the Soviets, and which allows us -- in conjunction with purely static defense stances -- to optimize the 1st turn to gain the most at the least risk.

All that must necessarily have far reaching consequences for game play. Essentially after an "optimized 1st turn", the Soviet side is in a much worse position than back in history, and it will take a long time to recover -- long after 1st blizzard it seems from most present AARs.
When playing the AI I can only suggest you not to do Lvov, and to dial up AI moral setting at least for the initial ca 8 turns to 130, until you feel your situation becomes a bit more strained. You should see some AI attempts to counterattack on a small scale, which feels much more interesting than at <=110%. I find it a lot more challenging, and closer to what I "imagine" that the fighting and uncertainties of war must have been. If you want to feel more strain on the logistics level, you can even not use the RR units for the first few turns, or just limit them to two hexes per turn -- you will really outrun your supply, and between Minsk and Smolensk you will have to take a refit break!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88
Also, from an admittedly bias point of view, I feel the first winter rules should be avoidable, perhaps with an AP expenditure.


One of the design decisions is obviously that Germans always live through the logistic breakdown and the blizzard surprise of Soviet large scale counterattacks. Much as it is a design decisions that force positioning at the start of each GC is a constant. Neither side can apply hindsight there. It would be nice, though, if those special rules like the 1st blizzard ones, or the 1st turn surprise, were open to modding. As much as it would be nice if there was a "fictional GC", where players prior to the first turn could repositions and reassign units, even just within some limits. That would recreate some nice uncertainties and interesting games?

If you do not like the 1st winter penalties, and want to introduce some of them from supply, then you can avoid to move all units into cover early, as well as tone down the AI moral level to 100, which will remedy some of the force multiplier issues. You could reduce it to 80-90 as well as increase you admin, logisitics and transport levels in december if you want to mimic a farsighted preplanning. Continuously dial AI moral level back up to 110 by February, after which I keep it stable (or reset it to higher values, if you want a bigger challenge). Try and find your own recipe...

< Message edited by janh -- 3/25/2012 6:37:13 PM >

(in reply to Magnum88)
Post #: 36
RE: Historical play - 3/25/2012 6:35:39 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
That the Germans cannot "afford" to have the Lvov Pocket taken away from them in the context of the progress of the overall campaign does not mean that its continued existence is justifiable or acceptable. It just means that the removal of the Lvov Pocket cannot be done in a vacuum.


It has a lot to do with expectations, and amongst Axis players, the expectations seem to be prevailing that taking a line much further East than historical, i.e. including Leningrad, Moscow and at least the Stalino area taken, should be rather reliably achievable. It all just depends on these expectations, where people think the balance ought to be, and what they think the Germans could and should have done historically.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 37
RE: Historical play - 3/25/2012 6:47:07 PM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
How would the game play if all movement was halved and the turns doubled?


This game relies so much on pockets that it is hard to imagine.


I have never been a fan of the IGUGO system, but for this type of game its hard to envision an alternative until AIs get much better which is not possible now.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 38
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Historical play Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.082