Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion

 
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: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 2:19:46 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4387
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I think the lesson here is people just need to be up front about what they expect in their games. A list of conditions and HR and go from there.

FWIW MKT I would be happy to take you on at some stage. Just can't fit any more games in though right now.

IMO the game is fine as long as both parties make some agreements before hand and are willing to quid pro quo.

Playing without HQBU and LB supply would be fine if your Red opponent fights forward and there is some limitations on the blizzard.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dangun)
Post #: 31
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 3:23:27 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Tours,

I am not arguing about anything After I told you that there was no point in continuing, you remarked: "I didn't believe you could cut off the troops you mention, please do it, :)" So, I did.

This thread is not about our match, rather what the game engine allows. Since Dangun asked, I will show what is happening, what the game engine allows.

This picture shows a hex far from a RR getting 11 separate airlift missions, most of which are bombers. I presume a HQ was there, received it's airlifted gifts, then moved to sit on some panzer divisions further south. This sort of logistical feat was not possible, it is a pure fantasy. Yes, some converted He-111's were used to bring airlift supplies, but not in the quantity or type allowed by the game.

The RR conversion rate had to restrained as it was too generous in earlier versions of WITE; now it is time to reign in the airlift capability.

Cheers,

Mark






Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)
Post #: 32
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 3:28:38 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 34398
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
I think this is a fairly dramatic conclusion based on the results of one PBEM game that's not all that well understood. I appreciate the information provided so far in terms of the strategy mktours is using, but would like to understand a bit better why when many Axis players use Air Resupply we haven't seen this level of success before. I assume it's a unique combination of HQ buildups and air resupply, along with very careful move and attack planning, but the more information provided the better.

As Joel has said many times, the logistic system in WITW (and WITE 2.0) is completely overhauled and we're reluctant to change much in the old WITE code base at this point. The logistic system in WITE is not a fantasy, though it does have some potential loopholes and it's not as comprehensive as the new WITW system. I see a lot of hyperbole on various issues, but would love to see more detailed information on what exactly the perceived problem is and how it should be solved. House Rules are also a perfectly valid solution if an issue is identified and cannot (yet) be addressed.

Regards,

- Erik


< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 8/30/2013 3:29:46 AM >


_____________________________


Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 33
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 3:37:57 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Erik,

That Vladimir, Tambov and Ryazan all fell on turn 14 could also be in part due utterly incompetent play on my part, but probably not. No doubt MTours is a prodigious player who has learned to use the what the game engine allows to his best advantage. My point is exactly as stated: the airlift capacity allowed by the WITE engine is way too generous and affords an disproportionate logistic advantage.

Thanks,

Mark

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 34
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 5:15:24 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3133
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I think this is a fairly dramatic conclusion based on the results of one PBEM game that's not all that well understood.


If it indeed was one game i would be in agreement, it just isnt. MT when his game actually last as long made it to Stalingrad and Penza some 25 Hex rows EAST of Moscow on the turn 16, start of Oct 1941. MTs other AARS as german tend to stop before ever reaching that far so nothing conclusive can be made of that but there is a reason they all stop before that. Throw in all of Sappers as german and Peltons AARs they made quite a few showing near the same capabilties.

U can go back 1 thread and see how vs the AI ur at the outskirts at Moscow at turn 5, thats still july. Yes its an AI game and all of the impressivness of the AI in WiTE one shouldnt make to much out of it. Still it shows u can actually advance to teh outskirts of Moscow in 5 turns.

Or u can take game Bozo reaching Tambow 14'ish hexes from Penza on turn 11, only to give up after some minor mistakes after that.

So is this the full story. Is it some thing that is always happening, no obviously not, but looking through the AARs on the first page of the AAR page its around 50-50 as in 50% of cases where advances outpace this historic plausible by lengths, where is any info in the AARs on it. Is the AAR skewed probably, ppl presumably less inclines generally speaking to do AARs if they arent do to well and perphase know this before hand. Where as those that know they are good, wants to show it. Still.

I cant see how this can be seen as an example of a single AAR.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I appreciate the information provided so far in terms of the strategy mktours is using, but would like to understand a bit better why when many Axis players use Air Resupply we haven't seen this level of success before. I assume it's a unique combination of HQ buildups and air resupply, along with very careful move and attack planning, but the more information provided the better.


Clearly player ability/experience/understanding of the system plays a big role. The latter part of statement is ofc a big part of the answer. Do u know how to take full advantage of the possibilites the game gives u and possibly takes that too the "extrem", ur gona get results that those, that dont or wont, doesnt achieve. There is more to it tho, as fuel planning. Some times it pays to wait to move as MP and fuel are so directly tied together with MP, that at times it pays to move back and so forth. Miminize ur MP usage(getting maximum carnage along the way) = minimize fuel usage, mazimixe/plan ur RR repairs reaching the furthest at the shortest amount of time, along with the things u mention. There is no big mystery here.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/30/2013 5:25:35 AM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 35
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 5:47:13 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7366
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Erik, this isn't a one off. The only real novelty about it is the extended Lvov opener (which others have abused to great effect.)

The entire supply system has been gamed for a very long time now on the Axis side by players with the skill and stomach for it.

Now, I agree with you that WITW and future iterations of WITE should improve on this situation.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 36
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 8:04:18 AM   
Gabriel B.

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline
Level bombers can deliver 350 tons (one panzer division worth of fuel )per army group , irc mktours robed peter (ags -ju-88 ) to pay for paul (agc ), and i suspect he also used Agn airforce at least iniatialy .

Since you have 17 panzer divisions and 10 motorised , geting the most of what was delivered requires a lot of skill, which mktour obviusly has.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 37
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 10:31:56 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I think this is a fairly dramatic conclusion based on the results of one PBEM game that's not all that well understood. I appreciate the information provided so far in terms of the strategy mktours is using, but would like to understand a bit better why when many Axis players use Air Resupply we haven't seen this level of success before. I assume it's a unique combination of HQ buildups and air resupply, along with very careful move and attack planning, but the more information provided the better.

As Joel has said many times, the logistic system in WITW (and WITE 2.0) is completely overhauled and we're reluctant to change much in the old WITE code base at this point. The logistic system in WITE is not a fantasy, though it does have some potential loopholes and it's not as comprehensive as the new WITW system. I see a lot of hyperbole on various issues, but would love to see more detailed information on what exactly the perceived problem is and how it should be solved. House Rules are also a perfectly valid solution if an issue is identified and cannot (yet) be addressed.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik this is really nothing weird as these results have been going on for a while in many AAR's even under the latest rule sets.

Bombers dropping fuel/supplies is a massive loophole that's been exploited from day 1 by some and now by everyone.

I did the same thing playing SHC during blizzard. Cut off units are never cut off so to speak. This loophole is also causing Middle Earth results during blizzard for SHC

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 38
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 1:06:12 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
One data point certainly is to be taken with caution only, but as Walloc said there are quite a few examples with impressively deep and quick advances not only with the most recent patch. This seems to be in stark contrast to me since Wehrmacht back then already struggled severely with setting up its backward supply chain, so even with little or no opposition it would not have been likely to get any more than a small detachment to Moscow by turn 5. Not to mention whole Armies. There would in all likelihood have been stops due to the logistics alone, so it doesn't matter whether is requires AI or incompentence on the Soviet side -- it should be more of a struggle against its own logistics capabilites.

The other thing that strikes me about this: I was already astonished earlier that despite his impressive SuperLvov feat, MkTours seemed to maneuver himself in a defeat position all by himself in Pelton style with narrow, snake-like advance in the Valdai. It looked like he'd also give away all advantages voluntarily. Add little flank cover he provided, and this ought to have ended as a huge disaster for Axis, but that he now is able to sustain an advance with such a tactic sounds to be against any military basics. Weired.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 39
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 1:20:32 PM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline
Thanks, Michael
It would be an honor for me to play with you as you are certainly way better than me in terms of playing this game. I studied some of your AAR carefully and learned a lot from you, especially your AAR with Pelton, thanks for sharing them. Some people said you win because you know the best of the logistic system, they didn’t see the good game playing and strategic reasoning you are sharing in your AARs.

I am also short of time at this moment. I have to work at week days so I could only do the game in the evening. I have played 4 games in the last 2 months and this has used up the time budget my wife allowed to me. I need to stop for a while and attend to my family now. I hope we could find some time to play the game when WITE 2.0 comes out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think the lesson here is people just need to be up front about what they expect in their games. A list of conditions and HR and go from there.

FWIW MKT I would be happy to take you on at some stage. Just can't fit any more games in though right now.

IMO the game is fine as long as both parties make some agreements before hand and are willing to quid pro quo.

Playing without HQBU and LB supply would be fine if your Red opponent fights forward and there is some limitations on the blizzard.


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 40
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 1:26:57 PM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline
Erik,
You certainly got the point. What you comment here is exactly what I want to say. I am resuming the AAR and you would see how the game developed in my AAR of the game.I would update it one turn each day to allow space for comments.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3381109
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I think this is a fairly dramatic conclusion based on the results of one PBEM game that's not all that well understood. I appreciate the information provided so far in terms of the strategy mktours is using, but would like to understand a bit better why when many Axis players use Air Resupply we haven't seen this level of success before. I assume it's a unique combination of HQ buildups and air resupply, along with very careful move and attack planning, but the more information provided the better.

As Joel has said many times, the logistic system in WITW (and WITE 2.0) is completely overhauled and we're reluctant to change much in the old WITE code base at this point. The logistic system in WITE is not a fantasy, though it does have some potential loopholes and it's not as comprehensive as the new WITW system. I see a lot of hyperbole on various issues, but would love to see more detailed information on what exactly the perceived problem is and how it should be solved. House Rules are also a perfectly valid solution if an issue is identified and cannot (yet) be addressed.

Regards,

- Erik



< Message edited by mktours -- 8/30/2013 1:27:42 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 41
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 1:32:01 PM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline
janh,
I have updated the AAR to T6, you could go to have a look and imagine how the T7 would be, T7 would be updated tomorrow.
quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

One data point certainly is to be taken with caution only, but as Walloc said there are quite a few examples with impressively deep and quick advances not only with the most recent patch. This seems to be in stark contrast to me since Wehrmacht back then already struggled severely with setting up its backward supply chain, so even with little or no opposition it would not have been likely to get any more than a small detachment to Moscow by turn 5. Not to mention whole Armies. There would in all likelihood have been stops due to the logistics alone, so it doesn't matter whether is requires AI or incompentence on the Soviet side -- it should be more of a struggle against its own logistics capabilites.

The other thing that strikes me about this: I was already astonished earlier that despite his impressive SuperLvov feat, MkTours seemed to maneuver himself in a defeat position all by himself in Pelton style with narrow, snake-like advance in the Valdai. It looked like he'd also give away all advantages voluntarily. Add little flank cover he provided, and this ought to have ended as a huge disaster for Axis, but that he now is able to sustain an advance with such a tactic sounds to be against any military basics. Weired.


(in reply to janh)
Post #: 42
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 1:56:23 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 839
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

Or u can take game Bozo reaching Tambow 14'ish hexes from Penza on turn 11, only to give up after some minor mistakes after that.


Major mistakes in my opinion. But the fact that a newbie like me gets to Tambov on turn 11 using fuel exploits and HQ buildups and despite partisans cutting the main rail line twice shows that there is something wrong.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 43
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 3:40:18 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2033
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
What some of you guys are forgetting is that the cheesemeisters provide an invaluable service in revealing glitches and exploits. They didn't design the game, just expose what's wrong with it. While I tend to shy away from the worst cheese these days, I didn't always and I don't resent people like saper who infamously pocketed my SW Front and delayed destroying it until after the divisions would not return as shells. That won him the game but as long as the devs close the loops, thank you saper!

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 44
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 3:50:07 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 34398
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Next question for you all to consider is what would be the proposed house rules and/or design changes to make it harder to exceed what was historically possible in 1941-1942, without creating new problems later in the war and while keeping 1941-1942 historically competitive?

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________


Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 45
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 4:14:40 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1104
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Next question for you all to consider is what would be the proposed house rules and/or design changes to make it harder to exceed what was historically possible in 1941-1942, without creating new problems later in the war and while keeping 1941-1942 historically competitive?

Regards,

- Erik



As a house rule no fuel drops at all. Other types of supply can be delivered only by Ju-52s' to 1-2 divisions per turn. As a design change - the supply drops should be proceeded by a costly, HQ build up of the relevant air HQ. I would still vote for no fuel drops at all as a permament design change.

In order to prevent a ahistorical, premature Soviet withdrawal - adjustment of the victory conditions. The Soviets should recivie huge bonus for being able to hold some locations for as long as possible ( e.g Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev ). Also holding those locations for x turns, could maybe speed up the arrival of the Siberian Reinforcements or the recovery of the industrial production in the new locations?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 46
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 4:54:43 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Next question for you all to consider is what would be the proposed house rules and/or design changes to make it harder to exceed what was historically possible in 1941-1942, without creating new problems later in the war and while keeping 1941-1942 historically competitive?

Regards,

- Erik


Lower overall logistics level (at least 80, if not lower), no airdrops via bombers. Limit on HQ buildups (or increase of the costs). The problematic aspect, however, is, if the results up until December 1941 is historical, the following blizzard will knock it out of the whack. And adjusting the blizzard is probably too big a task. Anyway, my thoughts on the blizzard, end the Soviet attack doctrine in November, end the automatic morale loss of German units in February, reduction of the German or Soviet CV modification.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 47
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 5:56:18 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7366
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

What some of you guys are forgetting is that the cheesemeisters provide an invaluable service in revealing glitches and exploits. They didn't design the game, just expose what's wrong with it. While I tend to shy away from the worst cheese these days, I didn't always and I don't resent people like saper who infamously pocketed my SW Front and delayed destroying it until after the divisions would not return as shells. That won him the game but as long as the devs close the loops, thank you saper!


Sorry, but at this point all I can feel is a sense of disgust for people who don't give a damn about history and just want to win, baby.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 48
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 6:32:05 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 839
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

Sorry, but at this point all I can feel is a sense of disgust for people who don't give a damn about history and just want to win, baby.


I kind of agree. Or to quote George Costanza from Seinfeld: WE ARE LIVING IN A SOCIETY!

Tonight I will start a game with Marquo with strict house rules regarding bomber fuel supply. He was going let me use the He 111 for supplies but I'm not going to do it. I've even decided not to do the Lvov opening because it's so boring to do the same stuff over and over again. And nothing will be railed to Romania.

< Message edited by Bozo_the_Clown -- 8/30/2013 6:39:57 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 49
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 6:56:01 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7366
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Well, make sure he agrees to fight a forward defense in return. No running to the Dnepr on turn 1 with SW Front and all that. Nor indeed should it be necessary for him to do so, the south can put up a spirited fight if it can get past the turn 1 crap. There's a reason Hitler diverted Guderian to the south in due course.

But that being said, it's going to be hard to recreate anything like the Kiev pocket without a game equivalent of a Stalin directive. If it was up to the real life Soviets themselves besides Stalin it wouldn't have happened, as pretty much everybody knew it was coming well ahead of time (there was no surprise here) and wanted to pull back.

While I don't care for sudden death, I think something needs to be done to address this in the long run.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 50
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 7:00:35 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6703
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Next question for you all to consider is what would be the proposed house rules and/or design changes to make it harder to exceed what was historically possible in 1941-1942, without creating new problems later in the war and while keeping 1941-1942 historically competitive?

Supply drops by bombers should only be possible at ~50-66% of aircraft loading capacity assuming the aircraft have to drop supply containers via parachute, both containers and parachutes cost supplies to produce and weight to transport. Transporters usually had more/larger internal storage so percentage ould be higher (bombers usually had to use externally carried supply containers.
Similar restrictions to fuel drops + extra supply costs for producing containers and paras.
HQs are somewhat special as one could send a hell of airdrops to specific HQ so they'll distribute their stuff in the next logistic phase. Could be treated as normal unit with the airdrop restrictions from above
No limit to fuel/supply deliveries to airfields by both bombers/transports assuming landing and unloading at the field using local personnel.


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 51
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 7:47:29 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2033
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
Supply drops could be controlled a number of ways as I've suggested before, without stopping them, which would be plain wrong. You could-

1. Reduce the recipient's MPs as the supply echelon particularly are presumably in place collecting and administering the drops.
2. Make any drops to non-isolated units dependant upon a command morale roll, perhaps modified by leader initiative. Fail the roll, no drop.
3. Stop bombers carrying fuel outright if, as someone here suggested, it is ahistorical.
4. Sort out the supply flows and throughputs so only historical levels of supply are available to be transported. I'm perhaps wrong here, but it often seems air forces draw from an unlimited pool of supplies.

Here's some suggestions I was putting together a while back which might be of use-

Having ranted at length over the current logistics system for some while, it’s good to see that the issue is getting some attention in WitW and doubtless future incarnations of WitE. A number of other players have also raised the issue, including the aspect of player determined supply prioritisation as a replacement for the gamey HQ build up. Here’s what has been forming in my mind over the months as an alternative sub-system. That ports, roads and rail tracks are all rated for throughput capacity and rolling stock used for supply is deducted from the national capability is a given. Transport capacity could be allocated to various, perhaps player determined logistics zones and travel between them. Each zone would have a carriage pool.

Each nation generates supplies from its resources and industries and the means to move them about. While a player could attend to supply allocation to some extent during their normal player turn, logistics could be finalised for the next turn in a new game phase (I’m also considering a system in which supply/transport for the upcoming turn is allocated prior to the normal game turn- more fiddly but fun).

Set to default, the computer will attempt to evenly distribute supplies to all friendly units within supply range, up to 100% for each supply type. This might be reduced by throughput choke points, lack of rolling stock and vehicles.

A new map mode would show the throughput capacity of friendly transport infrastructure and estimate that of enemy controlled territory, from friendly supply centres to any point on the map. Surplus might be stored or moved to forward supply centres if possible. If poor weather, interdiction or changes to the anticipated supply route prevented its timely delivery, the supplies and transports should remain in transit, using throughput capacity in their location, for the next week. Likewise, if the supply route were excessively long, it might take more than a week for a supply allocation to arrive, leaving it in transit. Avoidance or the latter situation might make advantageous, the establishment of forward supply centres.

In this map mode, HQs (and units not drawing supply from HQs) would indicate their supply need for the upcoming turn. Subject to transport and infrastructure, a player could then manage the supply his logistics system would attempt to deliver each HQ, enabling supply build-up or, to some extent, player determined deprivation.

As each HQ is allocated supplies, the game computes the use of transport along the entire route, which is deducted from a visible pool of available ships/trucks/rolling stock/carts etc. by logistics zone. Until finalised, supply can be adjusted and transport returned to the pools if desired. A player could modify their transport allocation by needed + x% in anticipation of adverse weather conditions or other problems, more transport enabling more supplies to reach their destination on time.

Interdiction by artillery, partisans and aircraft along the supply route would then delay, damage and destroy supplies and transports, in the first case, leaving surviving material in transit should the delay be greater than the time needed to deliver the supplies.




_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 52
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 9:14:40 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4387
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
If you take away air fuel drops without a quid pro quo on the Runaway by the Reds in 41 its game over for the Axis in WITE. You all need to bare that in mind.

Even with all the so called logistical benefits the Axis are getting the game is still ultimately (due to running and the blizzard) well in favour of the Soviets. Killing air refuelling will just make the game unplayable for the Axis unless you address running and the blizzard. I hope some reasonable and fair minded people will see this.

I have had a lot of success as Axis, this is true. But I have never come close to losing a game as the Soviets either. And given a choice if playing for a ton of cash I still choose to play as the Reds.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 53
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 10:40:41 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1104
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Supply drops could be controlled a number of ways as I've suggested before, without stopping them, which would be plain wrong.


There is no WW2 example of Luftwaffe delivering large quantities of fuel to the advancing Panzer formations on the Eastern Front. There are two famous examples of air suppling operations by the Luftwaffe, namely Demyansk and Stalingrad. In both cases only basic suplies were being delivered to the static infantry formations. Ultimatelly only Demyansk operation was successful but at a stagering cost. Also, in order to supply a corps size formation, all the available transport aircraft had to be involved ( including those operating in the Mediterranean ). The Stalingrad operation failure is well known. Supplying by air an army was well beyond the German capabilities. So all in all, only symbolic quantities of fuel and other supplies could be delivered by Luftwaffe on the regular basis. The current system in the game, is totally unrealistic in representing this and by the moment the gamepeplay is much better if no air supply missions are performed by the players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Stop bombers carrying fuel outright if, as someone here suggested, it is ahistorical.


At times, some older bombers were converted into the transport role. It would be realistic if the players had to spend some admin points if they want to switch the bombers to that kind of mission.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 54
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 11:03:56 PM   
juret

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 10/17/2011
Status: offline
just play 42 campaign and stop whining haha

super soviet moral thread 15 pages
super flying tankers 10 pages

blah blah

game is soppused to be played 250 turns. not by super optimizing 15 turns

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 55
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/30/2013 11:52:59 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
If you take away air fuel drops without a quid pro quo on the Runaway by the Reds in 41 its game over for the Axis in WITE. You all need to bare that in mind.

Even with all the so called logistical benefits the Axis are getting the game is still ultimately (due to running and the blizzard) well in favour of the Soviets. Killing air refuelling will just make the game unplayable for the Axis unless you address running and the blizzard. I hope some reasonable and fair minded people will see this.

I have had a lot of success as Axis, this is true. But I have never come close to losing a game as the Soviets either. And given a choice if playing for a ton of cash I still choose to play as the Reds.


As Erik already implied, for the balance of the game, versus AI or PBEM, a wider view is good. Michael also has a (this) point. I think some way of toning down without eliminating air supply is one aspect of it, but toning down the blizzard penalties should be part of that as well. Presently Axis can and uses the extensive and exaggerated territory gains before blizzard to buffer the blizzard itself and remain competitive in 42. It may look weired if looked at in small, but at the longer term picture you get a reasonable result.

From what I have understand, air supply was done to a degree in 41 , but mainly with the transport Geschwader. It was also done with bombers in numerous cases, and not only in Russia. But the way I read the impact of it, it was affecting battalions or regiments, in order to get over a short term supply shortage to maneuver/defend for another day or two or three, or advance "another" 100 kilometers, aka 4 hexes or so. The effect it seemed to have had, and for which it had been done, seems smaller than the effect it can be used in game. Now is this a lesson to be taken as a fault of the Wehrmacht? Or an issue with the underlying simulation of logistics, fuel consumption or whatever in the game? Who trusts that if it could have been so accelerating the progress, the Germans wouldn't have figured it out quickly? Or couldn't they do it because actually the tempo and supply situation was worse for other reasons, say erring on the side of caution for lack of knowledge of Russian potential?

Perhaps one solution as pointed out would be reducing the amount delivered effectively by anything else but Ju52. That would need coding. Another could be limiting the max fuel to gain by air drops im HQ and units to some percentage, or alternatively, and perhaps much more sensibly, reduce the overall supply/logistic factors such that the new normal would be what many AI players face with the 80% difficulty setting (for both sides) -- as SigUp pointed out. That could be done with the setting, though adjusting it in code to make it the new normal sounds sensible. For AI it works well it feels, and it does also affect the late Soviet offensives in a favorable fashion.

Then also the player presently more interested in a competitive and more equal contest could simply use the difficulty settings to dial it back up to 120% or so, getting back from the historical normal to the present state if they desire. Nonetheless, if anything is touched, one needs to also consider touching blizzard or introducing houserules there as well.

< Message edited by janh -- 8/30/2013 11:54:28 PM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 56
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/31/2013 1:35:52 AM   
Disgruntled Veteran


Posts: 613
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

Who trusts that if it could have been so accelerating the progress, the Germans wouldn't have figured it out quickly?


Yup. If the Germans could have done Barbarossa half a dozen times they would have figured out an exploit too.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 57
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/31/2013 2:09:25 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
The logistical preparation for Barbarossa was inept, and if the Germans had the mindset or assets to improves logistics on the Eastern Front they would have, but had neither. This is not speculative. Flying bomber fairies fueling marauding panzer corps 500 km behind the front is a WITE hallucination.

Pelton articulated it succinctly: there is no penalty for being cutoff and surrounded. HQs and divisions can only receive/stock so much fuel, so if it is airlifted to them, even before they move, and then they move with the anticipation of being cutoff by the Soviets, nothing happens because they are already maximally supplied, and being in range of a RR or not means nothing. It is a very poor excuse to justify this by clamoring that this is needed because of the blizzard, as if 2 wrongs makes everything right. The Germans were not prepared for the winter and got their ass kicked, the WITE player can/should retreat to avoid annihilation. The real lesion here is that the cut off units survived in urban areas which were stocked somewhat before the harsh winter, and WITE does not allow isolated units any degree of "Demyansk" or "Stalingrad" survivability.

My solution:

1. Any unit receiving air supply can't move (like HQ build up)that turn.
2. No air lifting fuel only supplies.
3. Only Tante JU's can air transport.
4. If He 111 airlifts, then no other missions allowed that turn - debatable because this was a limited use.

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)
Post #: 58
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/31/2013 3:00:45 AM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline
Mark,
this kind of thing certainly didn't happen in our game, if I remember correctly. IF I am wrong, please pose the picture to prove,
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Flying bomber fairies fueling marauding panzer corps 500 km behind the front is a WITE hallucination.



(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 59
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 8/31/2013 4:33:20 AM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Katukov is correct, but he is being a bit kind. Both major air supply operations used fixed airfield and group support elements. There is NO successful air drop supply operation of a division sized unit in offensive operations for a week long period on the East front (actually, I don't think I can think of a single one ever, maybe you could argue some phases of the Burma campaign, but it is iffy, I don't even think in Viet Nam....hmmm). Jahn is correct, air drop supply was used, rarely, to support grand tactical objectives by divisional subunits... basically things that happen below the scale of the game. Some times it just seems like some of the german players are upset because the war sort of sucked for the germans! I mean, ok, you think it is really unfair for the germans to have logisitics constraints on operations.... I bet the germans did too.... but they had them! Logistic problems are a MAJOR feature of an historic based East Front game.... sorry about that. Trying to horsetrade game flaws is unhelpful and actually sort of odd. The blizzard is a separate issue, morale is a separate issue...

(in reply to mktours)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.262