Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike)

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 6:37:33 AM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T69. 08.10.1942. Orel!!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 271
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 6:41:48 AM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
GHC surrendered. If someone wants to defend Germany in this game please contact Kamil for password.

I thank Kamil for honest and clever game and everyone who read this AAR for attention. Good luck!

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 272
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 10:28:47 AM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1890
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
I surrendered and I would like to congratulate Mike

I was bested, but I think I didn't play particulary bad.


In '41 I haven't managed to get Leningrad, Moscow or destroy industry, but I have succeded in inflicting way over 3M losses.

Blizzard wasn't tagic either. Losses were light, neither of strategic locations lost.

March and May were quite good as well. Few small pockets help reduce size of Soviet Army and rebuild my morale.


Then came summer and battle of Orel.

I expected to beat Mike where he was strongest and then continue damaging his army on turn-to-turn basis.

It didn't worked out the way I expected. It was combination of Mike clever play and my not underestanding of game mechanics (Germany CV is inflated, not reflecting battle reality - both in offence and defence - despite good commanders and great amouny of pioniers my units struggle with level 1 and 2 forts and Red Army in opposition to me was often fighting with increased CV when defending).

Orel was bait I was willing to take, because I was confident of victory. It was begining of my end.

I managed to pocket around 10 divisions, then untill end of summer I destroyed 30 more, but due to intensive fighting my units were melting away. So to have any chance of draw I started to play more risky way, exposing flanks and pushing as long as I could.

Once again I overestimated potential of my forces and understimated opponent and it ended in spectacular defeat. I was confident my troops in Orel area were strong enough, and my withdrwawal from salient will be safe. My next planned steps were withdrwals in centre and south and counter-offensive near Riga - that is why I let front near Riga take such wierd shape. It was dangerous, but gave some options too.

Generaly speaking, creating salients and faking withdrwals was my was of conduting agressive defence. It didn't work, but I enjoyed it.



I could have go on defence and slowly withdraw west, but I saw no point of playing 100 turns of dull game. It was all or nothing.

It turned out to be nothing in the end.



Generaly speaking I think game beyond summer of '42 is ... loosing most of its charm. It forces German player to play boring trench warfare, punishes active defence and I find it dull and unrewarding.



Once again respect for Mike.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 2/21/2013 10:34:54 AM >

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 273
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 11:43:02 AM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
Yes all correct. In this game Orel become Stalingrad for Kamil.

I made my bet on many counterattacks, saving elite units at all cost, intensive fight and maximum tank and infanrty corps in 42. As a result I had small but veteran army with many guards with average morale 60. I think the most important matter was Leningrrad, GHC must take it first of all - without Finnish guys Germany has another Soviet front in Blizzard. 360 armaments were effective, so I could rebuilt my army relatively fast. Kharkov and Leningrad tanks were evacuated in full amount, so I have 3500 T34-41 in factory lubrication which did not made a single shot. I lost a lot in pockets but I did not lost even one "yellow morale" unit in 41 and very few guards were pocketed in 42. War is war, we pray for their soles.

I tried to micromanage aviation, so I had a lot of IL2 guards and 2 guards airbases, but no guards interceptors (best group on La5 killed 89 planes). Final rate of losses in the air is 10 000 to 29 000. Kamil why the hell you did not switch off interdiction??

Finally, I would like to say that I saw that GHS did not prepared for defensie war neither in 41 nor in 42. This is quite historical but there is no fun to suffer 70 turns of retreats and pockets to see German surrender after first serious successfull operation.

Anyways, this is my longest PBEM game and thanks to Kamil for this.


T 68 situation. Kamil you saw all of this, why you needed that damned salient?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mike29 -- 2/21/2013 11:46:12 AM >

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 274
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 12:23:12 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1890
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Mike29

T 68 situation. Kamil you saw all of this, why you needed that damned salient?



What can I say? hmmm

I didn't grasp situation correctly and wanted to save infantry encircled in Orel. I made mistake and paid price.


Btw. It is not, that I abandon game because I am annoyed and can't suffer being defeated. I just see no point of dragging you through all of this dull offensive actions of '43. But, if you want to do it I am happy to continue, for the sake of respecting your time put in this game.

Up to you. I would prefer not, but I almost don't mind playing untill bitter end.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 2/21/2013 2:45:26 PM >

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 275
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 1:29:45 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
No problem it is all clear now I think. GG!

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 276
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 3:38:04 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
The game was up for Kamil and he did the wise thing in conceding.

Definitely pounding your head against the massive brick wall of Soviet reserves around Orel wasn't the best idea.

I remain very concerned about the replacement system. Once you are on the back foot as the German it seems almost impossible to push the stuff forward. Ironically, it is easier for them to top off formations when they are on the offensive than than on the defense, because less of their army will actually be in contact with the enemy at any given time. This isn't exactly an obvious result, it is an artifact of the replacement system.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 277
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 3:40:10 PM   
morvael


Posts: 4513
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil
Generaly speaking I think game beyond summer of '42 is ... loosing most of its charm. It forces German player to play boring trench warfare, punishes active defence and I find it dull and unrewarding.


And I thought this game is about East Front 41-45, not about Operations Barbarossa and Blue It's a pity that victory conditions in this game does not give more incentives for the Axis players to enjoy the defensive part of war.

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 278
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 3:48:43 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
It's not the victory conditions that are causing the problem. It's the game mechanics. You can pick any set of victory conditions you want and we will still see problems. It is almost impossible to recreate the late war conditions in this game. A late war Red Army simply steamrolls over any historical Axis equivalent at a rate well beyond historical. Don't believe me? Try out a 44 GC and see for yourself. Or even a 43 GC. The game is severely biased towards the offense.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 279
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 4:09:34 PM   
morvael


Posts: 4513
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: online
I played '44 as Axis against AI and it was good game. Of course human player would have steamrolled me. I also agree that offense is overpowered (perhaps due to supply being too generous, perhaps due to retreat losses being increased by stacking, perhaps due to quirks in the replacement system working only when you have the chance to send units for refit). However I will defend to the death my idea of victory point system that IF it would be encouraging historical play and offering immediate gratification, would make players play for the "VP result", nevermind if the Germans are attacking or the Soviets are attacking.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 280
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 4:11:31 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
Why you care about victory conditions? This all about fun, what the matter when Russian take Berlin?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 281
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 4:19:04 PM   
morvael


Posts: 4513
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: online
These are not the victory conditions that I have in mind. I am thinking about those that make you want to fight forward as the Soviets in '41 and be rewarded for it, those that want you make bloody offensives in early '42 and be rewarded for it, those that want you to get overstretched as Germans in late '42 and be rewarded for it. Then one wouldn't need fake balancing in terms of totally crap Soviets in '41 and Blizzard of Death(TM). I call such victory conditions "soft caps" instead of "hard caps" that the current system offers in terms of it's special rules. Soft in the sense that you can retreat in one or two places or do not attack in one or two places but if you do it all along the front, you will not win the game in terms of VP. Systems with "soft caps" balance well because players are rewarded for doing things as if without hindsight. There are no "all or nothing" choices caused by "hard caps", which tend to unbalance the game.

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 282
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 4:25:43 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
If victory conditions force the Soviet to fight forward in 1941 games will end in 1941. Same problem: the offense is too strong in this game. No matter how you slice it, it comes back to game mechanics. Once those are addressed then yes, maybe victory conditions can be adjusted accordingly.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 283
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 4:42:34 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 493
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Try out a 44 GC and see for yourself. Or even a 43 GC. The game is severely biased towards the offense.


I'm playing a '44 GC as the Axis right now.
I'm enjoying my stint as Heinrici trying to staunch the red horde long enough for a few more Germans to escape to the West. I didn't accept it with visions of marching into Moscow, but to see if I could hang on. My opponent is playing as over-confidently as the OOB says he can, and consequently this turn I've cut off and routed several of his armored spearheads. Does it mean Berlin won't fall? I doubt it, but I'm having fun, and I bet he is too.

Kobayashi Maru!

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 284
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 5:01:52 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1226
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
Too bad this ends. It was interesting to watch. The two of you seemed to be a good match of players. None so much more experienced that the other was beaten (too) quickly. Until a few turns ago, it looked still like a game hanging in the balance.

It would still be nice to see this game fought out. This is now a Stalingrad, but by design, and by replicating history, GHC should be able to recover to a point where a draw should still be in the cards. Half the game is still waiting to be fought...

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 285
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 5:26:49 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
We now discussing with Kamil that it might be continued.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 286
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 5:33:43 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
I think this game suffers not only from the far too generous logistics, but also the combat system. Retreat losses are of course too high, but another issue is the low losses for attackers when their attacks succeed. Just open up the 1944 scenario as the Soviets and conduct a few attacks. It is more than easy to achieve 2-1 or even 3-1 loss ratios - as the Soviets! Historically, however, the Soviets still lost twice as many men as the Germans during Bagration. The German side also suffers from this problem. In 41-42 it is (aside from the Blizzard) close to impossible to lose more than 110.000 men per month, like they did historically.

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 287
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 7:00:41 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Yes, the disparity between attacker and defender combat losses is a large part of the reason the system favors the offense. I also think retreats are far too easily achieved in this game to begin with. The 2-1 final combat odds modifier ought to imo be modified to take into account fortification levels, including intrinsic terrain. So that for each level of fortification remaining at the end of combat (including terrain which cannot be reduced by engineers) will raise the odds requirement for retreat by one. This by itself will make cities a much tougher proposition and would also go a long ways towards making Leningrad a tougher nut to crack.

Even open terrain will be difficult to shift with level 2 forts...those will all of a sudden now require at least 4:1 odds. (Unless the engineers reduce the forts.) This will lower op tempo considerably.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/21/2013 7:04:07 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 288
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 7:17:13 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
Well, aside from cities (especially when encircled) and swamps I don't think that retreating too easily is too much of an issue. An issue is, however, the problem of encircled units turning into crap once they are cut off, even if they have enough supplies to stay alive. Thus German attacking losses are even lower when facing encircled Soviets. Furthermore it is very hard for encircled units to break out of a loose pocket by themselves. Last but not least those famous German pockets that survived for a long time like Demyansk or Stalingrad are not possible. And those operations that needed the encircled units to help in their relieving like Cherkassy-Korsun or Kamenec-Podolski are not possible.

Another issue I have (though I know that the air model is broken beyond repair) are the low air losses, especially for the Red Airforce after 41. It seems to be the common theme for the Red Airforce to balloon to well over 20.000 planes in 43 or so. Never in an AAR have I seen a realistically big Red Airforce in the latter stages of the war. Losses are far too low. With this engine Soviet air losses won't come close to those 100.000+ planes lost. Let alone losing 4.200 planes in six weeks like in the Orel - Kursk - Kharkov area in July / August 43.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 289
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 7:26:03 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 290
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 7:34:39 PM   
morvael


Posts: 4513
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: online
Of course that some (major?) changes would be required (and the false balancers removed), only then a new victory point system could breathe some life into the game. It's different experience if you know that by doing this or that (launching a failed but bloody offensive, holding fast in an encircled city) you scored 12 VP this turn, while your opponent due to cowardly withdrawal here and there scored only 4 VP, so the end result moves 8 VP towards your victory, etc.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 291
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/21/2013 8:20:48 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 972
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I agree that the combat system needs improving for WITE 2.
I think retreat odds should vary according to a number of factors:
1. Fortification level.Forts also shouldn't be reducible below level one and not more than one level per week.Pioneers can only do so much.Having a level four fort that's taken a year to build leveled before the first shot's been fired is ludicrous.
2. Defending unit morale.
3. Defender leadership ratings.I also think leadership ratings could determine retreat casualties.Disengaging with the enemy was a difficult skill and some were better at it than others.
4. Player preference.This would be an option to order a hold at all costs type of stance.The combat ratio needed to force a retreat would go up, but so too would the defender casualties.

Of course this would make attacking more difficult, but the idea would be to magnify the attacking side's combat power wherever they have local air supremacy and sufficient supplies.Both these aspects also need improving as part of the overall package.

On the subject of clearing pockets, I think the strength of cut off units should be partly determined by their ammo levels.I'd favor something like half CV for being isolated representing ammo rationing and then further CV reduction as ammo levels fall.On the plus side ammo usage would be half of normal.In general I think the game could make far more use of ammo supply rules.


(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 292
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 3:00:15 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6044
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.


The attacker simply does not take enough loses, because the hole system is based on retreat loses and not on the rounds of combat.


_____________________________

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 Flaviusx)
Post #: 293
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 8:00:27 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.


The attacker simply does not take enough loses, because the hole system is based on retreat loses and not on the rounds of combat.


Well, you can put it that way. Thks leads to the effect that the successful side takes too few losses. The defender when he holds, and the attacker when he pushes the defender back.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 294
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 12:40:38 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6044
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.


The attacker simply does not take enough loses, because the hole system is based on retreat loses and not on the rounds of combat.


Well, you can put it that way. Thks leads to the effect that the successful side takes too few losses. The defender when he holds, and the attacker when he pushes the defender back.


Historically speaking the ( no surrenders straight up combat) attacker almost always took more loses then defender, unlike the current combat engine.

_____________________________

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 SigUp)
Post #: 295
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 2:25:25 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 493
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The 2-1 final combat odds modifier ought to imo be modified to take into account fortification levels, including intrinsic terrain. So that for each level of fortification remaining at the end of combat (including terrain which cannot be reduced by engineers) will raise the odds requirement for retreat by one. This by itself will make cities a much tougher proposition and would also go a long ways towards making Leningrad a tougher nut to crack.

Even open terrain will be difficult to shift with level 2 forts...those will all of a sudden now require at least 4:1 odds. (Unless the engineers reduce the forts.) This will lower op tempo considerably.


According to 15.8.1 fortification is being taken into account when determining modified CV (and thereby who gets bounced from the contested hex).
I would think doing it your way would just reward the Soviet for being able to make more and more sappers while the Germans are stuck with however many pioneers btns they have on hand at any one time.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 296
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 3:13:29 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Seminole, 15.8.1 notwithstanding, the final modified CV force ratio to force a retreat is always 2-1. I propose to jack up that requirement depending on fortification levels. This is not the way the game works now.

The Germans have never had a problem building oodles of fortifications. They dig in faster, too. And they can by more or less as many fortified region as they want.

Note that the entire reason we got rid of the +1 modifier for Soviet attacks past 41 was because it made it way too easy to force retreats. I think it is probably still too easy to do this from 43 on. Well constructed German defense lines simply wither away once the Soviet reaches a certain point. I'm not looking to help the Soviets here in particular, but the defense in general for both sides. The game's operational tempo needs to be taken down a notch or two, with fewer attacks succeeding, and more holds occurring, and the more holds occur, the greater the attacker casualties will be. Attacker attrition right now is much too low.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/22/2013 3:32:45 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 297
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 3:43:35 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 493
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Seminole, 15.8.1 notwithstanding, the final modified CV force ratio to force a retreat is always 2-1. I propose to jack up that requirement depending on fortification levels. This is not the way the game works now.


The modified CV is 'jacked up' by the remaining fort value, yes?
So if manmade fort level 2 remains after combat, and the terrain is swamp, the modified CV for defending the hex is 5x the modified CV if the unit was simply out in the clear, correct? That's a fairly significant impact.
Is there a significant difference in requiring higher odds vs. keeping the odds the same and multiplying the defending CV?

Say the attacker's modified CV is 300. If the defender's modified CV (without fortifications) is 100 (let's imagine he's in the clear with no manmade forts), he's going to get bounced. But if he was in level 2 fort, swamp terrain, his modified CV will be 500. He's not getting bounced. Would it be better in that situation to say the CV should be left unmodified at 100 for the defender, but require the attacker to attain 4 to 1 odds (2 + 2 for fort levels)? Or do you propose the defender get the bonus CV (5x under current rules) and the attacker has to mount 4 to 1 odds against that 500 CV (requiring 2000 modified CV)?

I think that would overpower forts a tad myself, and because the Soviets can build oodles of sappers and the Germans can't build pioneers (German made forts are useless when they need help taking down Soviet forts, so the comparison is not apples to apples when you state that the Germans can make FZs) I think this would do more to halt German offensives than anything else.

When the Russians can start bringing 9, 18 or 27 sapper regiments to the hex in assault, the mandmade forts I think are not going to matter a whole lot. This was the part of MT-Pelton I wanted to see play out, but the bug/corruption was interfering. Perhaps MT can comment from the assaults he made how heavy the sapper concentration was and how the manmade forts withstood.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 298
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 3:53:17 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
The final modified CV is an absolute value. The 2-1 ratio is a relative one. I'm not looking to do anything to affect final modified CVs, but rather, what is necessary to clear the bar to force a retreat. So CV calculations won't change at all. But you'll need more than 2-1 to get that retreat assuming any kind of surviving fort levels, and perhaps a lot more in certain areas with intrinsic terrain benefits than can never be reduced by engineers.

As far as the late war goes even with massive sapper support, Soviet attacks rarely clear more than 2 fort levels at once. But they can still reach 2-1 odds doing this and bounce the defenders very often. Under my proposed system this typical situation would require 3-1 odds to succeed assuming no terrain whatsoever. Very frequently it will be more like a 4-1 requirement if there is woods thanks to the intrinsic fort level. Swamp and heavy forest would turn this into a 5-1 requirement. Cities would also be tougher.

This is going to slow down the Soviet steamroller, guaranteed.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 299
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 4:01:59 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 493
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The final modified CV is an absolute value. The 2-1 ratio is a relative one. I'm not looking to do anything to affect final modified CVs, but rather, what is necessary to clear the bar to force a retreat. So CV calculations won't change at all. But you'll need more than 2-1 to get that retreat assuming any kind of surviving fort levels, and perhaps a lot more in certain areas with intrinsic terrain benefits than can never be reduced by engineers.


Forts already do this by modifying CV. From what you originally wrote I wasn't sure if this was clear to you. I see you want to add this bonus on top of the existing CV multiplier that the defender gets from fort levels (manmade and natural). I think that would overpower forts.

quote:

This is going to slow down the Soviet steamroller, guaranteed.


I think it will be sand in the gears for the Wehrmacht sooner, and to greater effect (because they can't spawn oodles of engineers to contend with it like Stavka).

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   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

0.125