Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward
I'm not sure what can be done about the AI movement, I'm not sure how hard it is to change.

I'm no programmer, but I expect that this would be fairly hard to fix. The German AI in WitE has essentially the same problem.

But what do other players think about this "out of supply" issue? I had a couple of frustrating situations: around Stalingrad I had a traffic jam of units crossing the Volga, and I moved one regiment onto the island south of the city. Unfortunately for some reason it got stuck there and could not move back off the island until the river froze a couple of months later. Another time I had a security unit chasing a partisan unit up by the north map edge, and the partisan unit moved on, leaving a trail of Sov-controlled hexes which immobilized the security unit, which I found very odd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

But it would have been very difficult to do either in real life, precisely because there was no bridge, just a very wide river... :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

But it would have been very difficult to do either in real life, precisely because there was no bridge, just a very wide river... :)

True but they were able to run ferry's across and these are not portrayed in the game nor do you have the ability to build temporary bridges.
It's a little odd that to advance past Stalingrad you need to capture a city hundreds of miles north or south of it and convert a rail line all the way back to Stalingrad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stonestriker
I think that ferries and temporary bridges are abstracted in the movement/supply rules. The capacity of these bridges and ferries are just so low, that it takes a lot of AP to cross it.

Men, tanks and supplies are all able to cross rivers in the game, and how would they do this otherwise?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bonners

Is that quite correct?

I seem to recall that major cities act as supply centres in the rules, but take a few turns to get their new supply status once you take them? I'm sure in my game against the Soviet AI I was able to gradually advance down the east bank of the Volga as the supply net gradually recovered in the turns after Stalingrad was taken, i.e. major supply centres increase the length of the supply line.

I', sure I've got an old saved game so I'll have a check when I get home from work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Once the rail is converted and the damage to the city is repaired it can be the point where supply leaves the rail net but it costs to count supply over the Volga, a LOT in some cases. You are very limited on how far you could advance without taking one of the two bridges that cross the Volga and convert the rail lines.
I have had to play a speed card just to move a unit back across the Volga even though there was a rail line two hexes away with the HQ on it. It just didn't have the supply/AP's to make the move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward
You are very limited on how far you could advance without taking one of the two bridges that cross the Volga and convert the rail lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward
You are very limited on how far you could advance without taking one of the two bridges that cross the Volga and convert the rail lines.

Which rail lines are you talking about, the one through Palloschovka? After taking Stalingrad I took Saratov but never took that rail yet was able to advance to Astrakhan and then to Baku, and to Chapaev in the east.

The rail leading south from Saratov is on the wrong side of the Volga so that shouldn't help...

quote:

I'm not at the game right now but isn't there is a road/rail line down the east side of the Volga that runs basically from Saratov to Astrakan? If you want to move east from Stalingrad you need one of those cleared to get supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

I'm not at the game right now but isn't there is a road/rail line down the east side of the Volga that runs basically from Saratov to Astrakan? If you want to move east from Stalingrad you need one of those cleared to get supply.

There is a line from Stalingrad to Astrakhan which basically hugs the east side of the Volga. From Saratov, however, the rail stays more than ten hexes east of the Volga, and only joins the Stalingrad-Astrakhan line at the town of Bastunyak, SE of Stalingrad and about 16 hexes east of the Volga. I only managed to capture part of the rail to the north, towards Saratov but was able to continue south without much of problem.

[EDIT] You can actually see these rail lines on the map posted above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
The cost in AP's to move over the Volga is +100AP. For supply as well. In other words, it is a brick wall to the Germans, who will not be able to cross it and fight effectively on the other side. The same goes for the Russians..at least, until winter hits (which effectively eliminates ALL rivers)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The cost in AP's to move over the Volga is +100AP. For supply as well. In other words, it is a brick wall to the Germans, who will not be able to cross it and fight effectively on the other side. The same goes for the Russians..at least, until winter hits (which effectively eliminates ALL rivers)

The Russians did build a bridge over the Volga into Stalingrad. They finished it just before the Germans reached the city, and where told to dismantle it right after, to prevent it falling into enemy hands. (In Beevor's book, Stalingrad). The Russians do have a rather large number of river craft which can be used as ferries, and should be able to cross the Volga for a cheaper ap cost then the germans, who have no way of building or capturing their own rivercraft.

In the game, the only way to fight over the Volga is at Saratov (an impossible scenario, given the size of the Russian forces north of the map), or at Astrakahn... but then, you only need Baku and Stalingrad to get an auto victory. No need to even cross it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

Surely the whole point was to take and hold Stalingrad as well as advancing to the south. If it was a worthless objective it would bring in to question the whole context of the game. Its a historical political important objective and the ones in the south are important strategic resource goals that the military were directed to be taken together.

I ofc avoid mentioning the primacy of focusing on the destruction of enemy forces rather than taking ground. But political and strategic considerations are very much a limiting factor even on to days operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

Think your mixing up political and military objectives. I totally agree with your point from a purely military point of view. But Stalingrad like Moscow and Leningrad to a lesser extent had a lot of political and moral importance for the leadership and the nation.

von Clausewitz on war stressed the moral and political nature of war. There are not divisible. Often misquoted as meaning war is the extension of politics by another means. Can I recommend Eric Von Manstien by Mungo Melvin for a feel for the political interference and although this is from the German perspective Churchill but other leaders such as Churchill ignored their military advisors (Alanbrooke) and military disasters or dissipation of effort inevitably followed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

In terms of real life Stalingrad wasn't the objective at the start of Case Blue but it came to symbolize the whole thing after the German defeat there.

I'm mostly talking about it in terms of the game for automatic victory. The oil fields were the main objective of the campaign so I get Baku. Saratov opened a route to Moscow so I get that. Stalingrad led nowhere and was not a goal of the campaign so I don't get why it is included.

quote:

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

Think your mixing up political and military objectives. I totally agree with your point from a purely military point of view. But Stalingrad like Moscow and Leningrad to a lesser extent had a lot of political and moral importance for the leadership and the nation.

von Clausewitz on war stressed the moral and political nature of war. There are not divisible. Often misquoted as meaning war is the extension of politics by another means. Can I recommend Eric Von Manstien by Mungo Melvin for a feel for the political interference and although this is from the German perspective Churchill but other leaders such as Churchill ignored their military advisors (Alanbrooke) and military disasters or dissipation of effort inevitably followed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bonners
Totally agree with you about political interference, but when the goals for the campaign were originally made the taking of the flank on the Volga was supposed to have been completed first. It was only when political interference happened that the objectives got widely expanded. Totally agree with you about the Mungo Melvin book by the way, it was about time there was a more critical appraisal made of Manstein whilst still recognising he was a masterful and skilful general.

Anyway, I think everybody is kind of right as this game does mix up the political and strategic objectives for the Germans quite well. yes strategically all the Germans needed to do was to anchor the flank and disrupt the Volga traffic, but politically I dont think you can take Stalingrad out of the objectives. If you take away the barmy high command objectives doesnt it become a totally non historic setting on a historic map?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Another thing I wanted to mention: I was surprised by the high morale of the Sov units in this game, often it was higher than my German units, although morale was certainly all over the map, I think the lowest I saw was 7, and the highest 100. Overall I would have expected Sov morale to be lower.

Real men go to war on Real tanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Another thing I wanted to mention: I was surprised by the high morale of the Sov units in this game, often it was higher than my German units, although morale was certainly all over the map, I think the lowest I saw was 7, and the highest 100. Overall I would have expected Sov morale to be lower.

I'm still far from understanding how unit stats influence combat resolution, but I've noticed some oddities in unit stats as well, which might or not be related to some surprising combat results I'm getting, such as GD being badly mauled by one of the typical single-hex based human wave - or meat ball, more properly - attacks that DCCB AI likes to do.

I say this is surprising because GD was well able to defeat, inflicting massive casualties, a similar assault by 3rd Mech Corps, months later, on the banks of the Luchessa River during Operation Mars.

Morale and experience values for certain German divisions seem to be a bit low. I mean, I have noticed that, in the Voronezh scenario, Grossdeutschland is modeled with its regiments having 50 experience. I need to check the values for Soviet formations on the editor, but I'd be surprised if I find experience values for 5th Tk Army tank corps units to be above 10. That is, I'm fine with elite German units not having 100's in all departments, but I'd be surprised to see that they're rated similarly as freshly formed Soviet formations.

PS: I bought this after reading Flaviusx endorsement above