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: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed)

 
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 2 >> RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 4:19:38 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6842
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:


I have played both sides and my experience is a bit different.

@#2 para = Logistics is tearing me apart in my current game. (Even in my earlier games Logistics were eating me up) My casualty rate has skyrocketed, most units don't have full ammo or fuel. Keep killing any type of logistics for the Germans and the Germans will be down to bow and arrows that they make from wood on the land.... now to find out where I can produce the string from for the bow....

@#3 Para = to fill up TOE on a German Division that starts with a 49 TOE is 3-4 turns(still was in low 90's when I needed to move it forward). I know, I just did it with one of my Divisions that got murdered during fighting and I am still semi close to western Europe supply. That is "not" easy when you are also trying to supply your Army.



From my experience, ID and motorized divisions can typically be refit to 90% or more in 1-2 turns if they are placed on a depot with an HQ boost. This is more on a static front though. Panzer divisions take time get back above 90% TOE even refitting in the reserve.



Yup, to fill up(100% ToE) takes time depending on what it is. My point exactly since the last 10% is harder because you can be running into equipment shortages & other factors that affect supply on the map. Refit doesn't live in its own microcosm that is for sure.

(in reply to jubjub)
Post #: 61
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 4:22:45 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6842
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:


I have played both sides and my experience is a bit different.

@#2 para = Logistics is tearing me apart in my current game. (Even in my earlier games Logistics were eating me up) My casualty rate has skyrocketed, most units don't have full ammo or fuel. Keep killing any type of logistics for the Germans and the Germans will be down to bow and arrows that they make from wood on the land.... now to find out where I can produce the string from for the bow....

@#3 Para = to fill up TOE on a German Division that starts with a 49 TOE is 3-4 turns(still was in low 90's when I needed to move it forward). I know, I just did it with one of my Divisions that got murdered during fighting and I am still semi close to western Europe supply. That is "not" easy when you are also trying to supply your Army.



From my experience, ID and motorized divisions can typically be refit to 90% or more in 1-2 turns if they are placed on a depot with an HQ boost. This is more on a static front though. Panzer divisions take time get back above 90% TOE even refitting in the reserve.



Yup, to fill up(100% ToE) takes time depending on what it is. My point exactly since the last 10% is harder because you can be running into equipment shortages & other factors that affect supply on the map. Refit doesn't live in its own microcosm that is for sure.

So, getting back to the original post the easy refit isn't so easy for the Germans, especially deep in the Soviet Union the 1st year. PZ Divisions are horrid to get back up. (Soviet Armor Divisions are another difficult one to bring up because of many different reasons)

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 62
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 5:14:40 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3506
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: online
Personally I feel logistics are far from being generous, the opposite.

Sorry but if Germans are let's say about Kiev - logistics should be excellent in summer for sure (and sorted by winter).

The fact on the other hand that the Germans struggle when they're at let's say Stalino or Kharkov - well one can take it as they want. Yes it is okay that they struggle.
Can the logistic system here allow for Axis to retain these 'eastward' cities in Winter?

If the answer is 'Not really' or along these lines certainly it is not generous, but the opposite.

This is a digression from the main topic - on which anyhow I expressed myself already in abudance previously in this thread.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 63
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 5:54:13 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6842
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
LOL, I love the game and may take another one to get punished by another Soviet. Yes, I know what I wrote :-) But gotta put in the effort to get results even if I am going to get my ass handed to me.

Working out the details but the Soviet player is asking for full use of Assault HQ's. The flip side is using a form of Motorization for the Germans.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 64
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 7:26:38 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10759
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Personally I feel logistics are far from being generous, the opposite.

Sorry but if Germans are let's say about Kiev - logistics should be excellent in summer for sure (and sorted by winter).

...


but they weren't. AGS had to delay its part of the Kiev encirclement as it didn't have enough fuel

_____________________________


(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 65
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 7:39:45 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3506
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: online
And do you feel you always have enough fuel to do what you need in the game?

I do not. At times I cannot even close a tiny pocket due to being -1- hex short.
That before Kiev.

Then that may be well due to the fact that Soviet just -run- the hell away and do not fight.
Germany struggles already to catch up.

Anyhow I assume we agree to disagree there on the perception of present logistic system for what concerns the Axis.
As per usual I worry to see how the Soviet Army is well supplied and attacks across the whole front in Winter '41.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 66
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 7:44:42 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10759
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
I've a game in late 42, fighting half way to Saratov and finally I can't get my motorised units into the mid-30 MP. None of the feeling of the real axis campaign in the Caucasus where they were cannabilising vehicles just to get enough fuel into a few.

_____________________________


(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 67
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 7:53:57 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3506
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: online
If that feeling comes across - the whole game will go down the toilet.

It is baseline design concept.

IF you struggle to fuel and supply your own forces there, how can you expect to extract and get home the fuel from Caucasus?
You'd have to -supply- your own troops there AND bring home the raw oil.

That feeling should not be there, should not be mirrored in the game. I've not read in depth tomes and I doubt the effect of 'cannibalizing' veichles there goes beyond the 'trucks lost' due to depot to unit movement.

BUT if a player even remotely sniffs that 'I go in Caucasus, I cannot get my oil and I self trash my own veichles' gets to have the same business of the current state of some air missions.
Oh, I fly. I self immolate my planes due to absurd operationa losses.

I simply won't.

Dang.
Caucasus can be removed from the game.


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 68
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 8:07:38 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10759
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
I'm sorry but that answer worries me. You seem to want a sandbox game where the hyper-powerful Axis can do as they wish? Lets ignore the historical constraints, mostly logistical, that so badly hampered their efforts?

If you are having the problems you report, I'd suggest sit down with one of the AARs that discuss logistics and work out how to meld that to your preferred variant.

There is a huge difference between sending fuel to combat formations in location x and repairing and sending fuel/oil that can be extracted at location x. I really can't see the design flaw?

edit - we are all agreed that there is a problem with play balance in 1941, It could be:

a) assault fronts as suggested in this thread
b) it could be that Soviet players have worked out their side quicker
c) it might be something else that over-states Soviet capacity in 1941

I really don't think the solution is to remove all realistic constraints on the Axis side.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/8/2021 8:09:41 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 69
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 8:20:55 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3506
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: online
I've not said to remove the constrain - right now I do not have an issue (yet eventually) with logistics. For the Axis.
Just I do not feel them 'generous'.

I do agree there is a problem on Soviet end in '41 presently - inflating their operational capabilities - (and other problems that may or may not be shared).

One of the selling point (for me) of WITE2 is the 'railroad capacity' - that should dictate how many troops can be supplied adequately (that does not mean lavishly) in remote campaigns.
I am used to tabletop games - that in general have a binary system (or tertiary at best with some limited / partial supply status but that is often for oversea stuff). Either in Supply or Out of Supply.

But my gaming philosophy is 'history dictates the average' not the 'maximum or best'.
And player merits should bundle in - within boundaries.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 70
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 8:28:02 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6842
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I'm sorry but that answer worries me. You seem to want a sandbox game where the hyper-powerful Axis can do as they wish? Lets ignore the historical constraints, mostly logistical, that so badly hampered their efforts?

If you are having the problems you report, I'd suggest sit down with one of the AARs that discuss logistics and work out how to meld that to your preferred variant.

There is a huge difference between sending fuel to combat formations in location x and repairing and sending fuel/oil that can be extracted at location x. I really can't see the design flaw?

edit - we are all agreed that there is a problem with play balance in 1941, It could be:

a) assault fronts as suggested in this thread
b) it could be that Soviet players have worked out their side quicker
c) it might be something else that over-states Soviet capacity in 1941

I really don't think the solution is to remove all realistic constraints on the Axis side.


Definatly "A"
Not "B" since "B" is tied to "A"
Not "C" since "C" is also tied to "A"


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 71
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 8:47:55 PM   
tyronec


Posts: 4866
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

edit - we are all agreed that there is a problem with play balance in 1941, It could be:

I'm not agreed with this statement, last time I played Soviets in '41 I got totally trashed and frankly if it was played switching sides would expect Axis to win again.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5020609

However am also not disagreeing, I just don't know. Will probably have more of an opinion after my present Campaign game has got a bit further.


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 72
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 8:59:57 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6842
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

edit - we are all agreed that there is a problem with play balance in 1941, It could be:

I'm not agreed with this statement, last time I played Soviets in '41 I got totally trashed and frankly if it was played switching sides would expect Axis to win again.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5020609

However am also not disagreeing, I just don't know. Will probably have more of an opinion after my present Campaign game has got a bit further.



quote:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5020609


The link is a scenario. Do you have an AAR or a game where you played against or with the Soviets using Assault HQ's in 41 grand campaign? Granted I am not a scenario guy and you probably have assault HQ's in that scenario, I don't know. But what makes it different is that the campaign 41 has units you can min/max a great deal more and funnel those two Soviet Assault HQ's where they are needed. When I am talking Assault HQ's I am specifically referencing the 41 campaign game and a Soviet using the Assault HQ.

In my game it has been rough but am doing OK. At least I think I am. But if I didn't get behind VL I would have been in for a much rougher time I believe. I am sure Jubjub is using Assault HQ's because pretty much everything I attack is looking to be beefy and big and when those units retreat they take a great deal less losses. Couple this with the Soviet retreating 4-5 hexes a turn and the Germans barely get within fingers reach. That is the the thing to do in my opinion. Only Leningrad and Moscow will the Soviets have to stand and fight. Can pretty much delay the Germans the whole way if done correctly. It isn't an easy task for the Soviets by any means but the added benefit of the command control, less losses, and have the 2 assault HQ's where you need them makes the Germans fight a very difficult battle that was not present in WITE1. At this point I think just putting the command capacity of Assault HQ's to normal levels, meaning no added command capacity at the start would work. If the Soviets require bigger ones later in the war then up that capacity as was the case in real life.

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 9/8/2021 9:02:51 PM >

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 73
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 9:16:26 PM   
Jack_the_Eagleheart

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 4/16/2021
Status: offline
In wite1 soviet side before the blizzard was “unplayable” becouse no mather what you build in the first weeks, it would get smashed. Holding Leningrad was imposible and playing as the soviets was harder. But in wite2, finnaly soviet forces now have some balance and axis player can feel the supply problems and now playing german side is hard too. In wite1 making small mistakes as soviets were often result in losing many divisions to pockets. Now german players must also be preceise about their actions especially in the first weeks. As i see from many AARs that gameplay in 41 is fairly balanced (Gameplay can shift drastically to both sides).

I think for the assaults HQs,

Additional cap can be removed and soviet shock armies can have increased capacity.

Divisions that assigned to asaault hqs can not have construction value. So they will stage their offensives from prepared defenses and must pull other formations to consolidate their gains or remove their assaults status.

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 74
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 9:35:44 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32102
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
There is a bug in the game that Gary has just attempted to fix. The units in assault HQs were getting their bonuses even when the HQs 2 or 3 levels up the chain of command were overloaded or outside of command range. That means for the German Assault HQs, they could have the Army HQ overloaded but as soon as the corps were not overloaded, all the units in the Army would get their bonuses. So yes, you could dramatically overload an Assault HQ or spread it out and not lose the benefits of AHQ. I suggest until the fix for this is released, players agree not to overload any HQ in a AHQ formation, including the AHQ itself. This may not solve the issue being discussed, but clearly the rule was subject to extra abuse.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Jack_the_Eagleheart)
Post #: 75
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/9/2021 3:41:18 AM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 906
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
In an off forum game, I am discussing this with my opponent. One of the things in discussion is just how soon the real Germans lost what we would think of as a "game mechanics" edge and started to commit to major operations that required the commitment of almost theater wide assets if they wanted to get anywhere. It's really, really, early.

The NW front evaded being pocketed and withdrew and AGN reported resistance and local counterattacks driving them to a near standstill on or around 08 July. The release of a panzer corps from AGC helped get things moving again around 10 August. Or, in other words, the real AGN couldn't count on "gameplay mechanics" winning for them by T4. They required a "player decision".

AGC was unable to close a pocket with two committed PGs by 18 July, and then Yelnya began 19 July. So, T5 or so and the ability to counter shuffle your way to victory as the Germans is already done.

Of course, simultaneous to these discoveries panzergruppe 1 is reporting that it has had to assume a defensive posture due to Russian counterattacks on or around 15 July. The situation near Kiev will cause Hitler to divert PG2 and the 2nd army to the Kiev encirclement.

And then Taifun of course required all 3 PGs to reconverge. So basically from T6 plus the "game balance" of the war is that the Germans are only scoring big where they can mass forces at the expense of other fronts, and that this is largely a result of "player decision" wins where those massed forces can pull off some astounding pockets(which, to be fair, you can do with multiple PGs in AGS) rather than having the "right game mechanics" which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 76
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/9/2021 4:30:40 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6842
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

rather than having the "right game mechanics" which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer.



Nice write up and seems to be following what is happening in my game. BUT... I give up & have to ask. What is the "right game mechanics which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer" you are talking about???? The developers aren't budging from current ruleset until more testing. Plus, the only recommendation I made was that Assault HQ's should "not" give a benefit of extra command points over what a normal Corps or Army could command, "for both sides". Then ramp it up for the Soviets later in the war if that was the case in real life. Is this the mechanic which is creating some mythical tide of unstoppable panzers you are referencing?

(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 77
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/9/2021 6:57:54 AM   
tyronec


Posts: 4866
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

The link is a scenario. Do you have an AAR or a game where you played against or with the Soviets using Assault HQ's in 41 grand campaign?

Not to my knowledge, that is why I am saying I don't know where the game balance lies.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 78
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/9/2021 7:56:27 AM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline
Although, I am off playing other stuff ... GG got too much staff work for me. I just want to blow sh*t up!

I wanted to say small development and beta teams are tough.

You don't get a professional SQA department and staff. This means you don't get commercial tools for regression testing, diagnostic collections, and 300 PCs which autoplay every night.

You get betas. And who are the betas? They are your hardcore players with lives and jobs. So, in many ways, they are not representative of the casual customer base. I have beta'd seriously for over 10 years, and I never saw any beta play on the training wheel noob options. We all tended to play on max settings.

I did have one shorter scenario I replayed every build. It was the best way to get a gut sense of impact of changes. But even that was iffy, since the game was supposed to not just be an OPFOR script.

(Now, imagine the '41 game ... even an expert will take months to complete it.)

All I can say is cut people some slack. I know a lot of small game developers, but not GG, but I have no doubt he is no PDS HOI4 Johan laughing all the way to the bank how cut/paste made, him rich, yet another $25 USD/DLC for 110 total EU4 DLCs. And the betas, well their people and also your forum support staff.

In an entire Internet, I can name a few unique individuals who if they didn't do it and associated teams, you could not have it any price. (Also, the price here is very reasonable for what you get.)

I am sure all of this is being discussed internally. You don't want to make knee jerk changes in anything this complex. Believe the law of unintended consequences will definitely make itself known in such complex systems.

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 79
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 4:52:48 AM   
Bitburger

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 2/21/2015
Status: offline
Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...

(in reply to MarkShot)
Post #: 80
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 5:11:48 AM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...


The ASHQ seems to just encourage such reorg chaos on the eve of battle as its reward is greater. But assume you got rid of ASHQ tomorrow, it would still be in your best interest to pack the best HQs and units into armies, and leave the dregs to just act as a rear guard. You can do this quite readily as you can make 50 reassignments in a single turn. It seems odd that to replace an officer costs AP, but to totally reorg HQs cost nothing but some disarray in the current turn.

I have no service experience; just management. But you would not launch a major project by completely changing the org chart. Granted the new org chart might be superior, but disruption which could result might well be disastrous. Now, perhaps military folks are more professional than corporate, but I can tell you in the business such a wholesale shake up might still be causing issues after 6 months.

Of course, I realize one of the sandbox aspects of the game is your are in control of organization, SUs, supply, and strategy. To constrain you to only a minimum of changes consistent with the behavior of real armies removes one of your sandbox dimensions.

So, I think this is an independent issue. The ASHQ just gives you more incentive to go do it.

< Message edited by MarkShot -- 9/10/2021 5:13:29 AM >


_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)

(in reply to Bitburger)
Post #: 81
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 5:45:46 AM   
jubjub

 

Posts: 473
Joined: 5/2/2021
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...


Placing everything under assault HQ's is an obvious optimization move that anyone can figure out after their first game or two, and has very little to do with HYLA's exceptional success. His success derives from his skill and experience that allows him to create pockets out of nothing and dismantle defenses that others can only bludgeon their way through. He's also very adaptable, and has an amazing command of the Luftwaffe. These are skills that can't be replicated easily and must be trained and learned.

Tyronec is on turn 3 in his AAR, and all we've seen is the Soviets run for the hills, so I'm not sure how you are drawing conclusions from his game.

I agree that emptying armies to fill up the 6 assault HQ's is very gamey and unrealistic tho, and I've already shared my thoughts on how the assault HQ's should be allowed per year.

(in reply to Bitburger)
Post #: 82
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 7:48:38 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10759
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. ...


Historically the Pzr Grps were subordinated to the relevant infantry army till late in 41. Hence a lot of the stushies and strops from Guderain et al.

Now the game needs some clear rules so they appear (as they de facto were) as independent armies. I'm not sure its a massive issue but one solution could be to have them like the Soviet Tank Armies on a variable scale of CP. So say 20 up to Nov 41 and then the normal army loads thereafter?

But like a lot of complications, probably really not worth it.



_____________________________


(in reply to Bitburger)
Post #: 83
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 9:13:37 AM   
tyronec


Posts: 4866
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...

Some infantry in the Panzer armies is historical, as many people have said over sized assault HQs are not.
As to whether that is significant and if it is going to cause an Axis victory is an open question.

Whatever issues there are with the game, and there are always going to be many, I do not go along with the view that it is seriously broken. Better play is gaining an advantage most of the time and if there are things that are not right, like the assault HQs, it still takes good play to make use of them. For me the game is eminently playable as it is and I would hope it will continue to be going forwards.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 84
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 11:11:04 AM   
RedJohn

 

Posts: 290
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline
I think assault HQs for the Soviets, combined with the need to consistently and constantly perform well as Germany, leads to a soviet dominated game more often than not. If the German player fails to find the pockets needed to drain the red army, then things very quickly reach an essential standstill in many parts of the front. The soviet ability to create immense walls of units is pretty staggering, in particular I remember one game where by campaign season of 42 I had the entire red army sitting on full TOE (more or less), on level 3 forts, with multiple lines of depth, under the best commanders. My opponent could not break the lines.

I am a very mediocre player though, but there's my two cents.

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 85
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 11:52:22 AM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline
Also, the manual states that one of the new styles of play for the Germans is that it not necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. You can drive them back very hard and take advantage of no combat delay and retreat/route attrition.

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)

(in reply to RedJohn)
Post #: 86
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 12:03:12 PM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

There is a bug in the game that Gary has just attempted to fix. The units in assault HQs were getting their bonuses even when the HQs 2 or 3 levels up the chain of command were overloaded or outside of command range. That means for the German Assault HQs, they could have the Army HQ overloaded but as soon as the corps were not overloaded, all the units in the Army would get their bonuses. So yes, you could dramatically overload an Assault HQ or spread it out and not lose the benefits of AHQ. I suggest until the fix for this is released, players agree not to overload any HQ in a AHQ formation, including the AHQ itself. This may not solve the issue being discussed, but clearly the rule was subject to extra abuse.


Joel,

As this is such a key aspect to play, could you provide some graphic indicator or border color for the counter so that one can know the ASHQ is broken due to failure to conform to the rules?

Thanks.


_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 87
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 12:10:48 PM   
RedJohn

 

Posts: 290
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Also, the manual states that one of the new styles of play for the Germans is that it not necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. You can drive them back very hard and take advantage of no combat delay and retreat/route attrition.


That's where I would disagree, it absolutely is necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. Grinding can do massive amounts of damage, I've noticed, especially if the Soviets keep unready units on the front, but the fact that these units exist - which they wouldn't if they were surrendered (for a bit anyway) - is a huge boost, because even in unready shell states they exert ZOC and will force an attack if placed well.

When you combine this with liberally retreating in most places, a wall of chaff does a pretty great job of protecting the actual core of the red army because combat delay is only mitigated with 10-1 odds on a hasty. Keeping the unit cards on the map is a massive benefit.

So long as the units aren't actually shattering, which is common enough unless they are genuinely literal shells, routing units en masse just doesn't work long-term. I think, anyway.

(in reply to MarkShot)
Post #: 88
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 1:16:05 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6842
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedJohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Also, the manual states that one of the new styles of play for the Germans is that it not necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. You can drive them back very hard and take advantage of no combat delay and retreat/route attrition.


That's where I would disagree, it absolutely is necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. Grinding can do massive amounts of damage, I've noticed, especially if the Soviets keep unready units on the front, but the fact that these units exist - which they wouldn't if they were surrendered (for a bit anyway) - is a huge boost, because even in unready shell states they exert ZOC and will force an attack if placed well.

When you combine this with liberally retreating in most places, a wall of chaff does a pretty great job of protecting the actual core of the red army because combat delay is only mitigated with 10-1 odds on a hasty. Keeping the unit cards on the map is a massive benefit.

So long as the units aren't actually shattering, which is common enough unless they are genuinely literal shells, routing units en masse just doesn't work long-term. I think, anyway.



You aren't going to get shatters on units in Assault HQ's. Matter of fact those units will be well lead, high CCP, and retreat with about the same losses the Germans take if not less on the attacks. Which pretty much the whole area the Germans will be fighting will have Soviets in Assault HQ's. Major problem. On top of that the Supply system for the Germans exacerbates that as much as the Soviets Fan-bois cries the logistics is too great for the Germans. I can tell you it sucks from this side. I rarely use my airforce and when I do it is in limited quantity.

You would have to get 5,000,000 men surrendered to even come to a decent amount eliminated for the Germans. You just are NOT going to get it in current ruleset.

At this point I have NO IDEA why anyone in their right mind would want to play the Germans against a player in H2H in current ruleset when playing against a BEEFED up late 1942 Soviet Army in 1941 with Assault HQ's. At this point I am questioning my own sanity and thinking I should just reclaim my time from this game and move on.

(in reply to RedJohn)
Post #: 89
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/10/2021 1:19:22 PM   
erikbengtsson


Posts: 126
Joined: 3/29/2020
Status: offline
HLYA,

Why not simply discuss with your opponents about house ruling 1941 and 42 Soviet assault HQ's until it is patched?

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) 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

0.309