Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Strat movement & game balance

 
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 >> Strat movement & game balance Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 12:33:03 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline 		Hi. Strat movement (rail/ship) might need some additional programming. At the moment the transport pool is only reduced by the load cost of the transported unit, no matter if you move that unit only 1 hex or half way across the map.

Right now - as I perceive it - one of the main problems of game balance in a pbem is, that early in the game the Soviet player can shift too many of his units too fast and too far while at the same time evacuating industries, because he is not limited by transport distances. Load costs are calculated adequately as is, but ton-miles (strat pool reductions depending on movement distance) are not.

I have no problem with an abstracted strat movement pool (no need to simulate single train engines), but please code it in a way that makes the transport distance of single units/factories relevant.

In my book the player should have to consider if he wants to move 5 units forward 400 miles, or with the same transport pool 10 units only say 200 miles or rather less because of repeated loading/unloading procedures. That is not the case right now, as you only have to pay the cargo points of transported units only once.

Please don't take this post as a rant. This is the strategy game I've been waiting for many years and I absolutely love it. It shows the dedication and talent of the envolved team, and they have done a tremendous job already (special hat off to the guy/s responsible for AI behavior). I just decided to join this forum hoping to help polish this gem.

(title edit)

< Message edited by Reconvet -- 1/20/2011 12:54:55 PM >

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

Post #: 1
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:07:43 PM   
Muzrub


Posts: 1780
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline 		I am finding that Soviet units can withdrawal way to fast- I understand the AI works in such a way, (not defending the cities and such) but it is getting tiresome.

Its at a point where I am fighting 6-7 deep of units (using up movement points and attack with each push) or an entire front runs away for miles, and miles at a time- turn after turn.

And to make it a little more frustrating the ZOC has no effect on undecided hexes, so unit after unit slips on through- then retreats for miles.


I must admit it is getting boring.



_____________________________

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.


Matrix Axis of Evil

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 2
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:22:41 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline
One consequence of the current strat movement of units is exactly this: The defensive player can swing his reserves around too fast, leading to really deep lines that have to be pierced. Spreading out units for forming and digging in fallback-lines is too easy right now, because transport distances are not adequately factored in.

After turn 1 achieving strategic surprise on the offensive and being able to exploit it is not an easy job because of the current strat transport system.


(in reply to Muzrub)
Post #: 3
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:29:00 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

I must admit it is getting boring.


LOL! Well, how many Soviet divisions do you want to swallow? 10, 20, 80? The whole Red Army except some lousy reserves in Moscow and Leningrad to make a last, decisive stand...?

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 4
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:29:23 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Your panzers have 50 (thats fifty) MPs per turn, they can spend in week-long trips thru the Russian countryside, practically without any interference from the Soviet player, because of the turn based mechanism.... and you complain about being unable to achieve surprise on the offensive or exploit, or enemy being too fast to plug the gaps using TRAINS?


(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 5
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:34:23 PM   
MengJiao

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

I am finding that Soviet units can withdrawal way to fast- I understand the AI works in such a way, (not defending the cities and such) but it is getting tiresome.

Its at a point where I am fighting 6-7 deep of units (using up movement points and attack with each push) or an entire front runs away for miles, and miles at a time- turn after turn.

And to make it a little more frustrating the ZOC has no effect on undecided hexes, so unit after unit slips on through- then retreats for miles.


I must admit it is getting boring.




You could play as the Soviets if you are bored.

(in reply to Muzrub)
Post #: 6
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:36:20 PM   
MengJiao

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet


One consequence of the current strat movement of units is exactly this: The defensive player can swing his reserves around too fast, leading to really deep lines that have to be pierced. Spreading out units for forming and digging in fallback-lines is too easy right now, because transport distances are not adequately factored in.

After turn 1 achieving strategic surprise on the offensive and being able to exploit it is not an easy job because of the current strat transport system.




I don't know. The Axis AI on Normal in 1942 doesn't seem to be able to completely neutralize the Average Tank Army on the Prowl.

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 7
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:41:26 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao


quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

I am finding that Soviet units can withdrawal way to fast- I understand the AI works in such a way, (not defending the cities and such) but it is getting tiresome.

Its at a point where I am fighting 6-7 deep of units (using up movement points and attack with each push) or an entire front runs away for miles, and miles at a time- turn after turn.

And to make it a little more frustrating the ZOC has no effect on undecided hexes, so unit after unit slips on through- then retreats for miles.


I must admit it is getting boring.




You could play as the Soviets if you are bored.


Most people on these forums prefer the Axis. Which is of course perfectly repectable. The Soviet side is MUCH more attractive to me. Someone said it very well a few weeks ago. You are on the verge of the total collapse, catastrophe, and then... somehow... you manage to survive and strike back (red flag over the Reichstag) It's epic. I can't see the epic thing on the Axis side

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to MengJiao)
Post #: 8
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:41:46 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Your panzers have 50 (thats fifty) MPs per turn, they can spend in week-long trips thru the Russian countryside, practically without any interference from the Soviet player, because of the turn based mechanism.... and you complain about being unable to achieve surprise on the offensive or exploit, or enemy being too fast to plug the gaps using TRAINS?




50 MP is hard to get once you advance deeper into Russia, your comment must have been with tongue in cheek, hm?

Without any interference? Any hexes with rails can be checkerboarded with units from across the map by the soviet within 1 turn because the strat movement pool doesn't suffer if you move units on longer distances.

You really don't see the problem that you can move 30 tank divisions as easily across half the map without gaining any benefit if you only move them 10 hexes? There just has to be a trade-off, it just has to make a difference on the strat movement pool.



(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 9
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 1:46:29 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The Soviet side is MUCH more attractive to me. Someone said it very well a few weeks ago. You are on the verge of the total collapse, catastrophe, and then... somehow... you manage to survive and strike back (red flag over the Reichstag) It's epic. I can't see the epic thing on the Axis side



I had to smile when I read "... somehow ...". Any correlation with strat movement allowing you to easily swing half your Southwest Front to the defense of Smolensk for example?



(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 10
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:03:12 PM   
PMCN

 

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Easily?  It is not easy at all to move an army a long distance by rail.  Loading and unloading takes 40% of your movement allowance for example.  You have new units showing up on the eastern edge of the map which need to rail forward, your change would cripple the Soviet just because of that alone.

Then there is moving factories at 5000 per point or 3000 per point.  That adds up fast; very, very, very fast.

Any turn where I did extensive rail movement, which you need to do at least a few times in the first few turns means you move nearly no factories east those turns.

I think this is very much a case of:  "the grass is always greener."

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 11
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:03:15 PM   
raizer

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 12/6/2010
Status: offline 		the boiler plate response...if you bored play sovs...hehe


< Message edited by raizer -- 1/20/2011 2:04:19 PM >

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 12
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:04:03 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet
You really don't see the problem that you can move 30 tank divisions as easily across half the map without gaining any benefit if you only move them 10 hexes? There just has to be a trade-off, it just has to make a difference on the strat movement pool.


It should be the other way round, the reverse logic. You probably should get benefits for smaller distances.

Strat movement pool represents rolling stock. It's a week long turn. You can practically move anything within European Russia in a week, the only problem is getting enough rolling stock (railway cars, wagons).

So, moving anything, anywhere, within a week should not be a problem. Are you arguing there should be benefits for moving shorter distances? There probably should be. In fact units are limited by their organic movement points. You can't move units accross the map using trains, because their original "infantry based" MPs were too low. Now that's unrealistic. If the unit is loaded (enough rolling stock) within a simulated time (one week) it should be able to go anywehere within the area covered by the map.

If you think there are too many strat pool points to begin with, you might have a point, but if you think units, once loaded, move too far without any tradeoff, I disagree.


(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 13
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:06:14 PM   
raizer

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 12/6/2010
Status: offline 		I wish there was some kind of interdiction in the game involving moving units by rail/sea.  I mean to be able to flit about in rail cars or ships with no threat of interdiction is crazy.  And this helps the sovs in the beginning and will help the germans in the end.  Stuff moving strategically gets killed by air/subs/surface ships

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 14
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:07:36 PM   
raizer

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 12/6/2010
Status: offline 		isnt this engine being used to make a war in the west game?  There has got to be strategic interdiction for that right?

(in reply to raizer)
Post #: 15
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:08:42 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

Easily?  It is not easy at all to move an army a long distance by rail.  Loading and unloading takes 40% of your movement allowance for example.  You have new units showing up on the eastern edge of the map which need to rail forward, your change would cripple the Soviet just because of that alone.

Then there is moving factories at 5000 per point or 3000 per point.  That adds up fast; very, very, very fast.

Any turn where I did extensive rail movement, which you need to do at least a few times in the first few turns means you move nearly no factories east those turns.

I think this is very much a case of:  "the grass is always greener."



As I already wrote: No problem with the load cost itself. But you don't answer my question: Shouldn't rail movement distance matter? Forget loading/unloading consequences on remaining MP. The real point is: Doesn't it disturb you that rail movement of 1 hex or 30 hex has no consequence on the pool?



(in reply to PMCN)
Post #: 16
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:09:01 PM   
MengJiao

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao


quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

I am finding that Soviet units can withdrawal way to fast- I understand the AI works in such a way, (not defending the cities and such) but it is getting tiresome.

Its at a point where I am fighting 6-7 deep of units (using up movement points and attack with each push) or an entire front runs away for miles, and miles at a time- turn after turn.

And to make it a little more frustrating the ZOC has no effect on undecided hexes, so unit after unit slips on through- then retreats for miles.


I must admit it is getting boring.




You could play as the Soviets if you are bored.


Most people on these forums prefer the Axis. Which is of course perfectly repectable. The Soviet side is MUCH more attractive to me. Someone said it very well a few weeks ago. You are on the verge of the total collapse, catastrophe, and then... somehow... you manage to survive and strike back (red flag over the Reichstag) It's epic. I can't see the epic thing on the Axis side


Well, its respectable to play Axis, but if it is so painful to do, why not just play the Soviets? You get so many benefits: you are the despised, sub-human underdog, you get slaughtered by the steppe-load, you produce insanely wonderful gear like the T-34 and the Katyushas, you have a deranged leader far more brutal than Hitler, but with a certain touch of subhuman, animal cunning. You survive the winter like arctic beasts and in the end, you flat out pound the Axis to a pulp.

Can't beat that story line.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 17
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:10:46 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

I had to smile when I read "... somehow ...". Any correlation with strat movement allowing you to easily swing half your Southwest Front to the defense of Smolensk for example?


Actually, er... I was replying to MengJiao. In fact you can see I was quoting him

Again:

"Its at a point where I am fighting 6-7 deep of units (using up movement points and attack with each push) or an entire front runs away for miles, and miles at a time- turn after turn.

And to make it a little more frustrating the ZOC has no effect on undecided hexes, so unit after unit slips on through- then retreats for miles."

You can easily deduce that er, it looks like he wants to swallow lots of enemy units (but he can't). Or better said, he does not want the enemy units to avoid total destruction

As for the Soviet rail capacity, I have nothing to say because I have no idea. If you know the number of Soviet divisions moved per week in the real war (I mean by train), then I'd like to know that data... I trust the game developers though. I have to

EDITED: I was quoting Meng Jiao, not the other person

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 1/20/2011 2:30:21 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 18
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:13:18 PM   
jay102

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 8/15/2005
Status: offline 		Ok guys let's not start another fanboy war. After all it's a problem that the Soviet's has unrealistic rail capacity to shift every single division around the whole map in the same time evacuating every single factory.

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 19
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:13:47 PM   
PMCN

 

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Units have 100 strategic movement points.  They loose 35 of them loading and 15 of them unloading so you can only move 50 hexes if you want to both load and unload in a turn.  This is assuming you start with a unit on the rail line.  If they have to move to the rail line you loose proportional to the cost, so if you used 10% of your movement points to get to the rail hex then you have only 90 strategic movement left...less 35, so 55 and if you want to unload that is now 40 hexes...that leaves you with 0 tactical movement left so you are stuck on the rail line.


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 20
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:18:31 PM   
MengJiao

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

Ok guys let's not start another fanboy war. After all it's a problem that the Soviet's has unrealistic rail capacity to shift every single division around the whole map in the same time evacuating every single factory.


Well, its respectable to play Axis, but if it is so painful to do, why not just play the Soviets? You get so many benefits: you are the despised, sub-human underdog, you get slaughtered by the steppe-load, you produce insanely wonderful gear like the T-34 and the Katyushas, you have a deranged leader far more brutal than Hitler, but with a certain touch of subhuman, animal cunning. You survive the winter like arctic beasts and in the end, you flat out pound the Axis to a pulp.

After being very sneaky in an advanced superior with a few million trainloads of advanced superior factory gear.

Can't beat that story line.

It seems only fair that if the Germans get hypersuperior superhuman mental abilities, the Russians should be very very good at loading and unloading
trains, in a strictly subhuman, antlike way, of course.


[

< Message edited by MengJiao -- 1/20/2011 2:19:22 PM >

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 21
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:19:03 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Strat movement pool represents rolling stock. It's a week long turn. You can practically move anything within European Russia in a week, the only problem is getting enough rolling stock (railway cars, wagons).



Exactly: Rolling stock matters. If a train is finished with his job after 1 day (say moving a division 50 miles) then the train has extra capacity to move more divisions in this week.

This is not the case it is programmed right now, once the load cost of the division is taken out of the pool, movement distance (resulting possibly in remaining capacity of this exact train) is irrelevant, movement distance has no consequence on the pool.

Savings for the pool for shorter distances or penalties for longer transports are not implemented right now.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

If you think there are too many strat pool points to begin with, you might have a point, but if you think units, once loaded, move too far without any tradeoff, I disagree.



Actually I don't care about total size of the pool, though this can be an artificial way to balance transport capacity. What bothers me is lacking consequence of shorter/longer transports on the available pool size. The pool of train engines is mirrored, not so the time for which single trains are used (transport distance), which should matter.



(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 22
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:40:14 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

Units have 100 strategic movement points.  They loose 35 of them loading and 15 of them unloading so you can only move 50 hexes if you want to both load and unload in a turn.  This is assuming you start with a unit on the rail line.  If they have to move to the rail line you loose proportional to the cost, so if you used 10% of your movement points to get to the rail hex then you have only 90 strategic movement left...less 35, so 55 and if you want to unload that is now 40 hexes...that leaves you with 0 tactical movement left so you are stuck on the rail line.




Again: Forget loading/unloading and consequences on remaining MP of this unit. What matters to me is why it has no consequence on the pool if you move a unit 50 hexes (say you use the train for the full week) versus moving the unit for 7 hexes (say you use the train for one day).

Why do you have to pay the same transport cost (load cost of a unit) if you rail it 7 hexes or 50 hexes? The player should have a tradeoff, if he moves his units lower than max distance versus max distance, and the price should be mirrored in how much the strat transport pool (max train capacity) suffers during each transport. It DOES make a difference if a train is only used for 1 day or for 7 days....


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

...that leaves you with 0 tactical movement left so you are stuck on the rail line.



If you rail the unit to make a checkerboard, to make an additional obstacle (ZOC!) for the enemie's spearhead after a breakthrough, then remaining movement points don't matter much.

My point is: Creating checkerboards via strat movement is too easy right now, leading to obvious imbalances in pbem games at the moment: Bigger encirclements after turn 1 are just not possible if the (human) Soviet player acts reasonably careful, resulting in a huge-sized Red Army come Blizzard time. One possible remedy would be to confront the defending player with trade-offs when considering transport distances.

Moving half fronts across half the map in one turn is just too easy at the moment, methinks. The current strat transport system makes running away too easy for the Soviet side right now.



(in reply to PMCN)
Post #: 23
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 2:44:51 PM   
PMCN

 

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Yes and no. The way the pool stands it doesn't bother me because it is a fixed cost thing and when I need it I burn through it in no time. First weeks of the campaign I am constantly struggling with that pool number, it isn't "easy" to do what you are suggesting.

If it cost a certain amount to load a unit and then I paid per hex I could live with that but the pool itself would be a different number and it would depend a lot of what that number was what I said about it. I would rather have it done the way you say because I use my rail for a lot of operational shifting to save my troops fatigue and spare trucks. I move everything I can by rail if the distance is more than 50 km. So I would win big time in such a change.

You are proposing something that in the end changes nothing of significance in my view. Probably doing it as you propoose is a net benefit to the Soviet player in the later stages of the game. It is, when I think more about it, significantly better to do it the way you suggest for me at least. I'd support it depending on how many tonne-km I get as an allowance. Especially if it means I can shift combat units more than 40 or so hexes per turn.

As Oleg said, if you argued the number of rail points is too generous there is scope for discussion. I can only say it is certainly not overly generous in those hectic first weeks. Also if you shift 30 tank divisions you don't move much else as each tank division is around 5000-8000 if memory serves. So you can't move that and move any factories, and I doubt you could move 30 tank divisions by rail even if you moved no factories. Moving heavy bomber airbases by rail is extremely expensive as well, upwards of 12000 per air base.

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 24
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 3:19:02 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

I'd support it depending on how many tonne-km I get as an allowance. Especially if it means I can shift combat units more than 40 or so hexes per turn.



It makes sense to limit max transport distance, that's not something I would want to take away. Siberian reinforcements didn't make the trip to moscow in one week.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

You are proposing something that in the end changes nothing of significance in my view.


I have to insist it would. If you have a fix pool, and you could move 50 units max distance (say 50 hexes), the I should be able to move with this same pool 100 units (or a few less because of loading/unloading time that gets lost for every train each time) half of max distance. That's just not the case right now, you get no benefit for moving units less than max distance (remaining MP profit, sure, but you don't profit pool-wise), you always pay a fix price pool-wise regardless of moving distance.

At the moment the Sov player just has no real hard choices after turn 4 because he is too flexible moving his reserves around while at the same time evacuating his industry from threatened cities. The Soviets should face more tougher choices for a better pbem balance.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

As Oleg said, if you argued the number of rail points is too generous there is scope for discussion. I can only say it is certainly not overly generous in those hectic first weeks. Also if you shift 30 tank divisions you don't move much else as each tank division is around 5000-8000 if memory serves. So you can't move that and move any factories, and I doubt you could move 30 tank divisions by rail even if you moved no factories. Moving heavy bomber airbases by rail is extremely expensive as well, upwards of 12000 per air base.


In a game as SU vs German AI I'm in turn 5. I have 139'581 rail capacity at turn start, no factories to be evacuated this turn (if you plan ahead and use remaining rail capacity at the end of every turn you'll NEVER have to emergency evac ANY factories), and my strongest tank div (10th TD) has a transport cost of 4590.

So I could not move 30 such divisions, but at least 25. Stack such units 3 high and you can severely restrict movement of German spearheads even in unfortified clear terrain in any region with rail hexes. Not to mention throwing reserve units into blocking positions in swamps.

Understand why I want to restrict beaming around sizeable reserve forces along rail tracks? Exploitable breakthroughs are hardly achievable after the first few turns against a competent Soviet player in circumstances like this. Players just should have to make the choice if they want to move fewer units for longer distances oder more units for shorter distances.






_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.


(in reply to PMCN)
Post #: 25
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 3:50:58 PM   
PMCN

 

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline 		As I said the real issue is the the number in the pool, not the mechanics of it specifically.  Dropping 3 units on a rail hex won't stop a break through in a human on human game.  They will just go around them, pocket them and the follow up infantry kills them.  You want to stop the Germans in the first few months you need: high entrenchment levels behind a river.  Nothing else works.  Even that won't stop them when they decide they want to attack but it will make them take a bit of time moving their units up and force them to use a determined rather than hasty attack.

You can't stack them 3 high except along the rail line anyway which opens them up to being pocketed you must have movement points left to get out of the hex otherwise your reserves don't amount to much till the next turn so you, in general, can't use them to stop gaps that show up that turn.  There are exceptions to this, such as near Bryansk but to exploit such things you must have "local" reserves to call on.  That sort of thing would happen under your proposal as well and probably would be easier to accomplish since I would use much less ton-miles to get them to the breach in the first place.

As far as changing the mechanism I'm for it depending on what the final number is but I honestly don't think it will make any significant difference as compared to the existing system.  I certainly don't see how it would stop the soviet player from shifting reserves if they choose to do so.  But if you shift significant reserves you can't move many factories.  There were more than a few turns where I did large scale troop movements, during those turns I could move no or very few factories.  I have an AAR on going so you are more then welcome to look and see what I was doing it is pretty much all there in brown and grey.

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 26
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 3:51:40 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

Savings for the pool for shorter distances or penalties for longer transports are not implemented right now.




but you said previuosly: "...early in the game the Soviet player can shift too many of his units too fast and too far while at the same time evacuating industries..."

Do you see that if savings for shorter distances are implemented, more units could be shifted? Perhaps you have two contradictory complains.

From a point of view of weekly turns, the time difference between 100 miles and 800 miles by train is not so relevant. I understand that railpoints are an abstraction not for distance, but for capacity, staffwork, train schedules,... I have no idea of the time lapses necessary to load 80 T-34s in a train (and unloading them from the train), provide a logistic network at the point of arrival, and re-establishing the chain of command, recognizing the terrain, searching housing for the troops, etc...but I like to imagine that they are together more relevant that the physical duration of the railtrip. Therefore all units can be thought of as if they were moving a long distance.

As a matter of fact a train at 40 miles/hour travels 960 miles/day, 6720 miles/week. But in the game it is not possible, because there is some degree of abstraction, averaging, etc...Maybe in the future even coal consume and train-driver fatigue is modeled, but that will be another game...




< Message edited by alfonso -- 1/20/2011 3:57:14 PM >

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 27
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 4:09:22 PM   
MengJiao

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

Savings for the pool for shorter distances or penalties for longer transports are not implemented right now.




but you said previuosly: "...early in the game the Soviet player can shift too many of his units too fast and too far while at the same time evacuating industries..."

Do you see that if savings for shorter distances are implemented, more units could be shifted? Perhaps you have two contradictory complains.

From a point of view of weekly turns, the time difference between 100 miles and 800 miles by train is not so relevant. I understand that railpoints are an abstraction not for distance, but for capacity, staffwork, train schedules,... I have no idea of the time lapses necessary to load 80 T-34s in a train (and unloading them from the train), provide a logistic network at the point of arrival, and re-establishing the chain of command, recognizing the terrain, searching housing for the troops, etc...but I like to imagine that they are together more relevant that the physical duration of the railtrip. Therefore all units can be thought of as if they were moving a long distance.

As a matter of fact a train at 40 miles/hour travels 960 miles/day, 6720 miles/week. But in the game it is not possible, because there is some degree of abstraction, averaging, etc...Maybe in the future even coal consume and train-driver fatigue is modeled, but that will be another game...






I think you are totally correct.

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 28
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 4:39:11 PM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		I don't see where you're all coming from that the Soviets have no limitations on rail movement: Strategic movement points is the cap.

After all, the limit on how far a unit can travel in a week by train should be expressed as something WITHIN the unit, shouldn't it?

(in reply to Reconvet)
Post #: 29
RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/20/2011 5:27:02 PM   
Reconvet

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

but you said previuosly: "...early in the game the Soviet player can shift too many of his units too fast and too far while at the same time evacuating industries..."

Do you see that if savings for shorter distances are implemented, more units could be shifted? Perhaps you have two contradictory complains.




Implementing movement distance impact per unit move does not mean NOT adapting - meaning reducing - the already abstracted strat movement point pool. Do one thing is good, do both even better (and absolutely necessary because calculating travelled cargo-miles into pool use cost would require finding a new balance for total cargo capacity of course).


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

From a point of view of weekly turns, the time difference between 100 miles and 800 miles by train is not so relevant. I understand that railpoints are an abstraction not for distance, but for capacity, staffwork, train schedules,... I have no idea of the time lapses necessary to load 80 T-34s in a train (and unloading them from the train), provide a logistic network at the point of arrival, and re-establishing the chain of command, recognizing the terrain, searching housing for the troops, etc...but I like to imagine that they are together more relevant that the physical duration of the railtrip. Therefore all units can be thought of as if they were moving a long distance.




I admit you half convinced me here. But if you are consequent, then you remove any remaining movement points of every strat transported unit at the end of the move. If getting organized for and after a train trip is responsible for the pool cost, and if this makes travelled miles irrelevant, then you have to remove remaining MP after every rail trip, not only the longer ones. Thus taking away the chance to move short-trainhopping troops into a nearby swamp for example. If you give the unit MP after a shorter train trip then you have to give back part of the strat movement cost to the pool.

In the end for pbem-balance it's important that not dozens of units can be beamed behind a breakthrough-region via rail. I haven't seen any AAR yet in which even an experienced Axis player had a remote chance to beat checkerboard tactics, and checkerboarding in combination with overproportionned strat movement capacities (allowing forming solid fortified fallback positions) obviously can't be beaten at the moment, leading to lesser losses, higher exp and OOB-gains for Soviet units. That's why we see this many Axis players hitting a wall in pbem way before they should.


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

As a matter of fact a train at 40 miles/hour travels 960 miles/day, 6720 miles/week. But in the game it is not possible, because there is some degree of abstraction, averaging, etc...Maybe in the future even coal consume and train-driver fatigue is modeled, but that will be another game...




I am no expert in which condition the Soviet railway system was in WWII. I think I remember reading that most tracks back then could be used in one way only, and that because of the soft ground many tracks had to be built on and because of the harsh climate tracks were in quite poor condition, not allowing maximum train speeds.

How long does the Transsiberian express from Moscow to Vladivostok take to travel nowadays? 10 days? How much longer would it have been in WWII with poorer tracks and rolling stock? 6720 miles per week may be possible with today's rail technology, no way 70 years ago in Russia...

I have to come back to my request to implement lower strat pool costs for shorter trips and a higher cost for max range trips.



_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.


(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Strat movement & game balance Page: [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

2.734