Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

River Entrapement

 
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] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> River Entrapement Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
River Entrapement - 1/23/2016 10:29:27 PM   
VANorm

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 2/3/2007
Status: offline
It seems like rivers provide a little too much of a barrier to non-activated Russian units.

Even cross an adjacent river into open terrain would cost 25 + 20 = 45 APs; early in the game, most non-activated Russian movement will be 40 APs.

For instance, my entire 12th Army is just sitting south of the Dniestr, waiting to eventually be by-passed. It's like there were absolutely no crossing points for 3-400 miles.

I wonder if it would be better to have a Foot AP for Open terrain 20 rather than 25 APs - the river would certainly still present a significant barrier, but would not trap entire armies. Maybe a discount for starting adjacent.

Unless this is a really an accurate portrayal?
Post #: 1
RE: River Entrapement - 1/24/2016 8:53:31 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2799
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
I think of it this way.. the river isn't trapping your army, the actual army is trapping the army..... No initiative and no orders to withdraw (abandon bridgehead) equals death...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivo

(in reply to VANorm)
Post #: 2
RE: River Entrapement - 1/24/2016 2:23:18 PM   
RickInVA

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline
You can think about it any way you want to, the result is the same, can't cross the river. I would support a rule that 40 APs means you can always move 1 hex regardless of the actual AP cost.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 3
RE: River Entrapement - 1/24/2016 2:43:17 PM   
James Ward

 

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nstewart

It seems like rivers provide a little too much of a barrier to non-activated Russian units.

Even cross an adjacent river into open terrain would cost 25 + 20 = 45 APs; early in the game, most non-activated Russian movement will be 40 APs.

For instance, my entire 12th Army is just sitting south of the Dniestr, waiting to eventually be by-passed. It's like there were absolutely no crossing points for 3-400 miles.

I wonder if it would be better to have a Foot AP for Open terrain 20 rather than 25 APs - the river would certainly still present a significant barrier, but would not trap entire armies. Maybe a discount for starting adjacent.

Unless this is a really an accurate portrayal?


It is certainly possible there is no way across within a few hexes. I don't know what that particular river looks like but there are plenty of places on the Mississippi that you couldn't cross no matter how much energy you had without boats.

(in reply to VANorm)
Post #: 4
RE: River Entrapement - 1/24/2016 9:20:29 PM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2819
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi,

Soviet units that don't activate will now receive 50 AP instead of 40 for exactly this reason.

Next update. Soon.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to James Ward)
Post #: 5
RE: River Entrapement - 1/24/2016 11:53:54 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3434
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
This is a good fix. I hate that 12th Army gets stuck on the wrong side of that river. It means Zhukov can perhaps go elsewhere now other than the Southern Front.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 6
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 2:22:24 AM   
Tweedledumb

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/29/2015
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
This is a HUGE change!

Getting the 12th Army over the Dnestr (?) guaranteed, will immeasurably help the Soviets in the south.

One less thing for Zhukov to worry about, as Michael said.


(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 7
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 5:04:40 AM   
Drakken


Posts: 500
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
Nice! I agree this will help the Soviets tremendously.

Can't wait to see the other fixes proposed.

(in reply to Tweedledumb)
Post #: 8
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 2:26:12 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Hmmm. Rules change has some interesting consequences besides crossing rivers.

It'll double movement rates of non activating armies across clear terrain lacking roads, at least the leg elements. They'll be able to move 2 hexes now instead of just one.

It also means non activating forces can probably now mostly keep out of reach of German infantry attacking them as they fall back. The mobile elements will still be able to smack them around, to be sure, but it will be more possible now to conduct an organized retreat.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 9
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 2:48:10 PM   
Amicofritz

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 8/31/2009
Status: offline
Oops. Flaviusx has a good point. Wouldn't it be better to allow all units one hex minimum movement, river or not, like in many other wargames on this scale?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 10
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 3:08:54 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amicofritz

Oops. Flaviusx has a good point. Wouldn't it be better to allow all units one hex minimum movement, river or not, like in many other wargames on this scale?


On the contrary, I think these secondary consequences are GOOD things.

Infantry should struggle to keep up and maintain the offensive against a retreating enemy. Right now that is not the case.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Amicofritz)
Post #: 11
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 4:04:52 PM   
Isokron

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 7/31/2012
Status: offline
Wont this just make the russian early armies try to run away that much faster and then form a solid wall?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 12
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 4:32:27 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Isokron

Wont this just make the russian early armies try to run away that much faster and then form a solid wall?


I think the idea here is to find some kind of middle ground between the iron wall and a gaping hole. 1.02 replaced the former with the latter. (If you were very good you could actually make the gaping hole even in 1.01, but set that aside.)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Isokron)
Post #: 13
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 5:49:38 PM   
Isokron

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 7/31/2012
Status: offline
But they arent equivalent, the current reinforcement schedule mean you cant create a wall far forward, but given how little holding territory is generally worth to the soviets in this game they could with the new rules retreat far enough with the frontier armies that they can still get the reinforcement ones. So now you will get a wall further back with the frontier+reinforcements rather than a wall further forward with just the reinforcements.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 14
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 7:00:22 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3434
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
The whole runaway problem needs to be addressed. As Flavius showed us in our last game. The Soviet can run all the way back to the 3 objectives and just fight it out there. Not much fun or historic.

There needs to be a reason to fight.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Isokron)
Post #: 15
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 7:17:37 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 15474
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Same old challenge that has occurred for all east front games.....

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 16
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 7:26:38 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The whole runaway problem needs to be addressed. As Flavius showed us in our last game. The Soviet can run all the way back to the 3 objectives and just fight it out there. Not much fun or historic.

There needs to be a reason to fight.


Ironically, this rule change might convince me to fight more forward, for various reasons. Firstly, as you've noted, it frees up Zhukov. I can imagine myself, say, throwing him at Western Front now and trying to make a bit of a stand on the Berezina.

Secondly, knowing that non activating armies can still maneuver a bit makes me more willing to risk dropping them in forward locations, as opposed to deep in the rear.

So let's see how this shakes out.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 17
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 7:42:42 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3434
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
The problem is you should be forced to fight forward. And the game should be balanced enough so that fighting forward does not mean you lose.

But let's wait and see. Maybe the issue will be addressed somehow in the next beta.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 18
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 7:49:44 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3434
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

Same old challenge that has occurred for all east front games....


I know, its like all East Front game designers work in a vacuum and have no idea of the problem. It seems only us players know of it....

And it can be so easily be remedied if only they were aware of it in the early design stages.

This game already has a great structure to implement "Stalin goes crazy" episodes if certain cities fall too soon. So easily it could have been worked out if they were alerted to the problem.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 19
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 10:53:58 PM   
James Ward

 

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The problem is you should be forced to fight forward. And the game should be balanced enough so that fighting forward does not mean you lose.

But let's wait and see. Maybe the issue will be addressed somehow in the next beta.


Why should you be forced to fight forward? The russians did retreat, and mostly as fast as they could in the center and north. Retreat is what russians do in june 1941. To force them to stand against a far superior army doesn't make any sense. They should not move as fast as the germans but they should certainly be able to retreat.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 20
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 11:19:21 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3434
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I give up.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to James Ward)
Post #: 21
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 11:29:00 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The problem is you should be forced to fight forward. And the game should be balanced enough so that fighting forward does not mean you lose.

But let's wait and see. Maybe the issue will be addressed somehow in the next beta.


Why should you be forced to fight forward? The russians did retreat, and mostly as fast as they could in the center and north. Retreat is what russians do in june 1941. To force them to stand against a far superior army doesn't make any sense. They should not move as fast as the germans but they should certainly be able to retreat.


Cuz Stalin.

It's a valid reason. And the game even takes a stab at this in the form of paranoia, which does sting. But maybe not enough.

Unlike MT I think it stings enough that if you give the Soviet the tools to fight in a more forward fashion, he's got reason to do so.

There's no economic reason to do so, alas, because the game has no replacement system. Reinforcements are a fixed quantity. So paranoia has to bear all the traffic here.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to James Ward)
Post #: 22
RE: River Entrapement - 1/25/2016 11:40:51 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
One way, maybe, to address this is with PP carrots: award the Soviet extra PPs for holding objectives past certain dates. For me, at least, that would be a major draw, because the 10 PP budget is slim. If I can squeeze out 5+ PPs a turn for making a stand in vulnerable places, that might just be enough incentive to do so. In addition to that I'd lower major garrison costs to 5 PPs and fix them there. Those things are priced out of sight at present and frankly I'm only willing to sink enough PPs to buy 3 of them at most.

Which means you're not going to try very hard to hold on to anything other than the big 3 objectives.

Being able to drop those major garrisons in a more liberal fashion would make a difference, it does so against the AI which actually can slow down the German in ways a PBEM Soviet cannot.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 23
RE: River Entrapement - 1/26/2016 12:20:02 AM   
Drakken


Posts: 500
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The whole runaway problem needs to be addressed. As Flavius showed us in our last game. The Soviet can run all the way back to the 3 objectives and just fight it out there. Not much fun or historic.

There needs to be a reason to fight.



Running away without a fight just surrender space and time to the Germans. They'll be knocking on Stalin's door before September.

Preventing the Germans to be at the front door of Moscow, Leningrad, and Rostov before the mud season, or with more than enough time to prepare the last offensive, is IMHO a very good reason to fight. The German player is on a timer. And already the German Infantry can cover way more ground than realistically expected in four days time, and the Panzers can run all the way to Vyasma without seriously breaking down.


< Message edited by Drakken -- 1/26/2016 1:22:10 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 24
RE: River Entrapement - 1/26/2016 12:27:51 AM   
Tweedledumb

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/29/2015
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

One way, maybe, to address this is with PP carrots: award the Soviet extra PPs for holding objectives past certain dates. For me, at least, that would be a major draw, because the 10 PP budget is slim. If I can squeeze out 5+ PPs a turn for making a stand in vulnerable places, that might just be enough incentive to do so.

Which means you're not going to try very hard to hold on to anything other than the big 3 objectives.



This is not a bad idea. In fact, a full reverse scenario of the Germans gaining PP for the capture of cities could be implemented for the Soviets, i.e. some measure of Soviet PP's are related to geographic objective retention. This would require quite a bit of work for Cameron but might be a real game intensifier.

It would also address Michael's concern that, historically, the Soviets didn't just run 1,000 km east and hope the German supply system collapsed! They fought for every river line and major city with tenacity and lost millions of men as a result. We, omniscient players using hindsight, entrench at the edge of perceived German supply - this isn't what really happened.

The game currently makes Soviet counterattacking attractive by starting the front line armies in Offensive mode - this is a great design choice. How to incentivize the Soviet player to try and hold Kiev into September yet lose 750,000 men in an encirclement? Not easy.

These are tough, tough design decisions, but I think DC3 has all the levers and knobs in place which, if properly twiddled, will make the game flow tense, exciting, and near historical.

Keep up the good work, team!


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 25
RE: River Entrapement - 1/26/2016 12:34:29 AM   
Drakken


Posts: 500
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Why should you be forced to fight forward? The russians did retreat, and mostly as fast as they could in the center and north. Retreat is what russians do in june 1941. To force them to stand against a far superior army doesn't make any sense. They should not move as fast as the germans but they should certainly be able to retreat.


First, the Soviets didn't flee in June. They tried to stand their ground and got utterly annihilated. The Soviets certainly didn't retreat in July and August, ether. In fact, they threw everything they had on Central Front in the Timoshenko Offensives in vain attempt stop AGC dead in its tracks in and around Smolensk, recover the the lost ground, and destroy both its Panzergruppes. STAVKA relentlessly ordered counterstrokes upon counterstrokes, despite bad communications, disorganized command and control, inexperienced officers, and poor airforce support. They crippled their front so badly that Western Front crumbled when AGC resumed their offensive in September.

Right now, there is no incentive at all to attempt to fight the Germans. At all. The Soviets get no replacements, no PP, nothing. If it were me, the Soviet players would get PPs on each German division they cause to retreat, panic, or worse: 1 PP per Division backing off (they already get 2 PPs if they are destroyed), and a number of PPs per city retaken (2 for grey dots, 5 for red dots). The more you fight, the more you should have PPs to spend next turn. Stalin rewarded fighting generals, and berated generals who fled or showed cowardice. If the devs allow that, you'll quickly see the Soviet player at least attempt to fight out where it can, and it would make the Germans a bit more careful with their casualties when they move forward.

On the other hand, Smolensk, Orsha, Vyasma, and Rzhev should be red cities. That would make it worthwhile for the Germans because quickly taking these cities would make Stalin lose his wits anyway. These cities lead directly to Moscow and were to be defended at all costs.


< Message edited by Drakken -- 1/26/2016 1:51:52 AM >

(in reply to James Ward)
Post #: 26
RE: River Entrapement - 1/26/2016 1:40:27 AM   
RickInVA

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline
I think a valid idea is to generate Victory Points each turn to a grand total for the game. The game already bases Victory Points on cities and hexes controlled. While the exact amounts would need to be determined, if the Soviet player gets VP each turn, then by definition he gets more for holding on to territory.

Giving up the rest of Russia to save the three objectives would not be a winning strategy as the Soviet player would generate too few VPs to win the game.

My other idea relates to the unbelievable resiliency of the Soviet Army. Every turn that Soviet forces are below a certain level, say 1.5MM (just an example) a check is made of the percent of total VPs possible (cities and hexes) still in Soviet hands compared to the whole. Let’s say that the Soviets still control 70% that turn. The Soviets would then have a 70% chance to get a "bonus" army reinforcement that turn (or next turn, to be worked out). This would represent the seemingly inexhaustible supply of men that the Soviets fielded, and incent the Soviets to try and keep as much of Mother Russia as possible to improve the chance to get the extra forces.

Just a couple of ideas I have been toying with. I hope you like them.

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 27
RE: River Entrapement - 1/26/2016 1:44:40 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 3434
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I have played lots of games. With so many different systems of victory.

The best, hands down is that used by a board game I still play. In this game there is a list of cities that are worth VP. Each city has two values. The VP that it's worth if you capture it at any time, and bonus VP it is worth if you capture it by a set time. From this it is plainly obvious that to hang on as long as you practically can to objectives will in the end pave the way to victory. And as the German there is a big incentive to go for broke an capture objectives quickly.

The VP are also used as currency to do other stuff, not unlike VP are used in DC3.

IMO the current Victory conditions need a fix. Keep the Auto End VC. But for games that go the distance just have a level that decides a win or draw. Make lots of cities worth VP like the example above with standard capture VP and early capture VP.

Use the VP as the game now does to purchase what is needed above and beyond the normal course (helpers and political variations) too.

Then you will have a game that allows a player in trouble to get some help but at the cost of making it harder to win. You will also have a big incentive for both sides to fight right across the map, not just for the current big 3 objectives.

I am very tempted to construct my own set of VC and use them as a HR and play the game that way. It will work for me much better. And I am fairly sure I could find enough like minded players to keep me busy with opponents.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 28
RE: River Entrapement - 1/26/2016 2:57:30 AM   
governato

 

Posts: 851
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

Why should you be forced to fight forward? The russians did retreat, and mostly as fast as they could in the center and north. Retreat is what russians do in june 1941. To force them to stand against a far superior army doesn't make any sense. They should not move as fast as the germans but they should certainly be able to retreat.




I completely agree, both on the description of the historical situation and on the nature of the problems with the game. It'd have been unthinkable for the Red Army to abandon a *major* city without a fight. The political cost would have been too much, plus the factories were still being evacuated, a reason to hold the line that is surprisingly not present in DC:B.

In my opinion it is the red army early combat penalties *combined* with the lack of incentives to counterattacks that makes the game unhistorical and forces the Soviet player to run back. These two features need to be changed together.

It'd be easy to 1) add some conditions linked to how early a major city falls, compared to the historical timetable (Stalin paranoia increase or say a 5% chance for a Sudden Death if Kiev falls before September 20th) and 2) some decreased combat penalties for the red army during the first turns. These two changes should really improve the game.

[added:] making 50 the minimum number of AP points for inactive units may help too.



< Message edited by governato -- 1/26/2016 4:05:47 AM >

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 29
RE: River Entrapement - 1/26/2016 6:54:09 PM   
James Ward

 

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The problem is you should be forced to fight forward. And the game should be balanced enough so that fighting forward does not mean you lose.

But let's wait and see. Maybe the issue will be addressed somehow in the next beta.


Why should you be forced to fight forward? The russians did retreat, and mostly as fast as they could in the center and north. Retreat is what russians do in june 1941. To force them to stand against a far superior army doesn't make any sense. They should not move as fast as the germans but they should certainly be able to retreat.


Cuz Stalin.

It's a valid reason. And the game even takes a stab at this in the form of paranoia, which does sting. But maybe not enough.

Unlike MT I think it stings enough that if you give the Soviet the tools to fight in a more forward fashion, he's got reason to do so.

There's no economic reason to do so, alas, because the game has no replacement system. Reinforcements are a fixed quantity. So paranoia has to bear all the traffic here.


The only hope Russia has is to fall back and save as many troops as possible until they can find a place to make a stand. They are just outclassed by the Germans at the start of Barbarossa. In the time frame of this game is the only way they have any chance. It is also basically what happened during the war, after the first week or so it was basically a retreat to find a place to stand. They have to stand at some point and the Germans have to make sure as few of the initial troops make it to that point as possible.

Now if the victory conditions were changed to make the loss of cities to early a way to win or if you could win by just capturing enough minor cities or if the campaign was expanded to cover a much longer period where the Russian would need to recapture territory then as the Russian you might not run as far or as fast. But you would still not try to make a stand at Minsk with the whole central front or launch an Operation Bagration in 1941, it's just not going to happen.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> River Entrapement Page: [1]
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

0.184