Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

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 >> Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:20:04 PM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

It seems that willingly surrendering vast chunks of territory for the sake of force preservation is a viable tactic both sides can use at times. This was obviously not feasible IRL since neither Stalin nor Hitler would have authorized such a move.

So how about making the penalty similar to 'reality'? If an HQ moves east (Soviet) or west (German) more than X hexes, the probability of the commander getting executed goes WAY up. The threshold (X) should be high enough that normal tactical manuevering isn't affected, nor are combat-induced displacements.

I suggested this in the Stat move thread and Reconvent noted that a player could exploit this by appointing poor leaders prior to a retreat. My reply was (a) you'd be wasting APs, and (b) that wouldn't be the first time some patsy was promoted to a position doomed to fail.

I think it would be fairly easy to implement, and have the virtue of being realistic. If the German army withdrew wholesale from Russia in the late fall of 41, I'm fairly confident that there would have been a bunch of dead German generals as a result.

Post #: 1

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:32:05 PM

Zort

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline

This is always a discussion with the east front. The soviet players aren't going to let themselves get pocketed so they give up land. Therefore having a larger army during the winter.

No player wants to be restricted by Hitler or Stalin since that does away with the what if factor. The only real Hitler rule in the game is that the army is not allowed to prepare for winter.

If you put in any type of restrictions it should be in the form of an option IMO.

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 2

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:40:14 PM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

Leaders get executed now without player approval. Withdrawals happen regardless of what the player wants. There's more than the just the winter prep, which I wouldn't lay at Hitler's feet exclusively anyhow. I think they developed the game with the explicit understanding that the player is not Hitler or Stalin.

edit: if allowing ahistorical retreats for the sake of force preservation is 'optional', why not make free setup, player controlled withdrawals, the whole thing optional? Not that that would be a bad thing, an unrestricted 'what if' option can be as entertaining as well, but I think the intention was to attempt to create a simulation of what the opposing sides were faced with historically. And historically, neither STAVKA nor OKH had the authority to willingly concede huge chunks of land.

< Message edited by Franklin Nimitz -- 1/22/2011 11:44:57 PM >

(in reply to Zort)

Post #: 3

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:44:34 PM

cookie monster

Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline

Hitler and Stalin were kinda extreme in some of the things they did.

Executions etc.

Why would the player have to emulate any of their strategies?

Most Russian players would rather give up territory than have divisions encircled to a panzer blitzkrieg.

If the Germans are using a World War One slugfest you'll find the Russians up for it.

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 4

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:47:24 PM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

This option cuts both ways. The Soviets would be compelled to stand and fight in 1941 for the same reasons as they were compelled to fight IRL. The game does not put the player in Hitler or Stalin's shoes now.

(in reply to cookie monster)

Post #: 5

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:49:45 PM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

Mainly I'm trying to keep the large retreats from happening, like Germany pulling back to Poland for winter, or Russia falling back past Kiev without a fight.

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 6

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:51:29 PM

cookie monster

Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline

Its encirclement everyone scared of.

Not much option but to retreat when a salient develops.

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 7

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:54:42 PM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

That's why I said there should be a threshold distance before this kicks in. You could withdraw from pockets, but not 30 hexes back.

(in reply to cookie monster)

Post #: 8

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:56:29 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

If you are running away 30 hexes, you're doing it wrong.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 9

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/22/2011 11:59:43 PM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

My friend and I are about to restart a game where he ran back as fast as he coud as the Russians, only for him to discover that a lots of crap is still crap. With Moscow about to be taken, he has decided that letting the Germans take land for free is a very bad idea.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 10

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 12:01:38 AM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

The '30 hex' thing wasn't meant to be literal.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 11

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 12:14:36 AM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

My friend and I are about to restart a game where he ran back as fast as he coud as the Russians, only for him to discover that a lots of crap is still crap. With Moscow about to be taken, he has decided that letting the Germans take land for free is a very bad idea.

I agree, make the Germans pay for the terrain. Don't be stupid (that goes out to any Budenny's reading...) but fight, use the terrain. A mass wholesale retreat means the Germans will just be closer to the objectives when they decide to HQ buildup and surround the entire lot in August or so.

You don't have to be Stalin, but you don't have to surrender everything at the first sight of a panzer either.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 12

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 12:16:38 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

I make a strong stand on the Dnepr, myself, including the Smolensk landbridge.

If you do a pure runaway past that the entire map opens up with terrain far more favorable to the Germans, especially in the south, but even the Moscow area isn't particularly amazing defensive terrain.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)

Post #: 13

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 12:21:50 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

I'd rather not force players to behave the way their counterparts did IRL.

Unless of course you like playing Germany, knowing from the start you can't win because it would be ahistorical if you did.

Huge waste of time that would be.

Really, how far is one willing to go to prevent "ahistorical" play?

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 14

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 12:23:34 AM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I make a strong stand on the Dnepr, myself, including the Smolensk landbridge.

That seems to me (again, speaking from my VAST experience

) as a perfect spot - the Panzers are over their intial 2-turn rush and in need of a rest, the infantry is struggling to catch up, and even a seemingly light presence is enough to build on and force the German player to in turn plan and build up - perhaps at worst 3-4 turns of time, the one thing that is in short supply.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 15

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 12:26:43 AM

Zemke

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

As it stands the Germans have great difficulty killing enough Russians, but are massacred in and by the41 winter. What if you invaded, killed as many Russians as possible then retreated back to Poland for the winter. Shorter front, the likelihood of "winning" against a human is slim, and then try to expand your front in 42, where in Poland would you have to go to get out of the Blizzard?

< Message edited by Zemke_4 -- 1/23/2011 12:48:17 AM >

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 16

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 1:42:30 AM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

What about a penalty on national morale if the other side captures a major city?

(in reply to Zemke)

Post #: 17

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 1:53:29 AM

Zort

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline

I say let the russians retreat but give the germans the ability to reduce the blizzard effects by digging in or something. To me making the germans have to be stupid is like freezing all the russian units every other turn...

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 18

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 4:09:11 AM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

Just to be clear, both sides authorized large retreats on the east front. It's a fallacy to say that neither side was able to retreat.

If we want to simulate Soviet command problems in 1941 it might be possible to do that by randomly decreasing the movement value of Soviet units attached to an army at start of the turn. So for example on turn 3 the Soviets might have 5 armies randomly affected. All divisions attached to these 5 armies would lose 75% of their movement points. Something like that.

_____________________________

AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1649732

(in reply to Zort)

Post #: 19

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 4:30:24 AM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

Someone on this forum messed around with different strategies; he mentioned he pulled back as much of the Axis units he could for the winter, as far back as his own border, caused a lot of Soviet computer casualties since they retook ground beyond their railhead.

The casualties were from his offensive once the winter passed.

< Message edited by randallw -- 1/23/2011 4:31:18 AM >

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 20

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 4:52:07 AM

abulbulian

Posts: 1047
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

As it stands the Germans have great difficulty killing enough Russians, but are massacred in and by the41 winter. What if you invaded, killed as many Russians as possible then retreated back to Poland for the winter. Shorter front, the likelihood of "winning" against a human is slim, and then try to expand your front in 42, where in Poland would you have to go to get out of the Blizzard?

+1
have experienced this already.

(in reply to Zemke)

Post #: 21

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 4:54:38 AM

abulbulian

Posts: 1047
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

I say let the russians retreat but give the germans the ability to reduce the blizzard effects by digging in or something. To me making the germans have to be stupid is like freezing all the russian units every other turn...

Amen. Have been preaching this for a while now. I don't think it should be one without the other. If you don't have something to limit sov retreat which changes things massively, then you can't treat German units that are prepared (as much as game allows) to suffer crazy loses. The combo is will be fatal to an axis player playing a decent sov opponent.

(in reply to Zort)

Post #: 22

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 6:09:28 AM

VictorCharlie

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

This is the sort of retreating by the AI that I think is a bit excessive.

I went a bit reckless to try and encircle Moscow but didn�t expect a withdrawal on this scale.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to abulbulian)

Post #: 23

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 7:19:32 AM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

This was obviously not feasible IRL since neither Stalin nor Hitler would have authorized such a move.

A big part of the appeal of these games is the ability to perform moves which you know wouldn't have ever been authorized by the nation's respective leaders, such as Manstein's Backhand Blow, Guderian not redeploying to AGS or STAVKA actually retreating to form proper defensive lines.

I suppose that may also imply that it should be allowed to assume the Germans were properly prepared for a winter campaign, although it depends on how "fluid" we allow the pre-game assumptions to be, since the game starts on June 22, 1941, and proper winter preparation might have needed to be started prior to that.

(in reply to VictorCharlie)

Post #: 24

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 3:08:31 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

This was obviously not feasible IRL since neither Stalin nor Hitler would have authorized such a move.

A big part of the appeal of these games is the ability to perform moves which you know wouldn't have ever been authorized by the nation's respective leaders, such as Manstein's Backhand Blow, Guderian not redeploying to AGS or STAVKA actually retreating to form proper defensive lines.

I suppose that may also imply that it should be allowed to assume the Germans were properly prepared for a winter campaign, although it depends on how "fluid" we allow the pre-game assumptions to be, since the game starts on June 22, 1941, and proper winter preparation might have needed to be started prior to that.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I at least would be opposed to any "fixes" to the current system which involve limiting player choice.

I do think that many posters here have a valid point though, which is that the ability to "not repeat history's mistakes" actually helps the soviets more so than the germans. This really works on two levels I think:

1) Historically, the soviets made a lot of bad decisions, especially, but not limited to the early war. To be sure, the Germans made a lot of bad decisions too, but I think that on balance the Germans made significantly better military decisions than the Russians did.

2) Arguably the worst decision the soviet made was Stalin's disasterous "no retreat" policy in Summer of 1941. Players have no obligation to follow this policy. Arguably the worst decision the german's made was Hitlers "ignore the winter" policy that resulted in massive German casualties in the winter of 1942. Players *are* required to make this decision since the game engine hard-codes the soviet 1942 blizzard advantage.

I'd naively assume that a game mechanic change which allowed one of the following might help:

a) Units within x hexes of their railhead have significantly reduced blizzard casualties (this would encourage the Germans to dig in and not push for the last few yards)

b) For a cost of (a lot) of rail points, the Germans could "winterize" a division in the same way they can render it static. Winterized divisions take reduced blizzard casualties.

Idea would be that if the Germans were willing to sacrifice some of the depth of their summer offensive they could likewise reduce the impact of the blizzard.

(in reply to gradenko2k)

Post #: 25

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 3:41:43 PM

MilRevKo

Posts: 293
Joined: 11/8/2006
From: Main Line, PA
Status: offline

The Soviet player should not be forced or chained to the mistakes that were made during the invasion of 1941. And, no Soviet player worth his salt should have 70 divisions pocketed. (that was just one of the pockets: 59 Inf divs and the equivalent of 11 armor) in 1941

This is in reference to PBEM games. It is by far the most important decision of the summer of 41, how far to pull back??? To far and the German takes the land for no cost, not far enough and STAVKA will be fighting supplied German units. But, in no way should a player be forced keep a distanced based on where the enemy is or is not.

_____________________________

Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes -Publilius Syrus

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 26

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 3:46:27 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MilRevKo

The Soviet player should not be forced or chained to the mistakes that were made during the invasion of 1941. And, no Soviet player worth his salt should have 70 divisions pocketed. (that was just one of the pockets: 59 Inf divs and the equivalent of 11 armor) in 1941

This is in reference to PBEM games. It is by far the most important decision of the summer of 41, how far to pull back??? To far and the German takes the land for no cost, not far enough and STAVKA will be fighting supplied German units. But, in no way should a player be forced keep a distanced based on where the enemy is or is not.

I agree on the merits (I don't want to keep the soviets chained in place either), but just because I don't like a proposed solution doesn't mean I don't think there's a problem :).

Right now I think the game favors the soviets for the aforementioned reasons.

Other mechanics need to be put in place to balance this out or, alternately, victory conditions need to be adjusted.

Frankly I'd speculate that against two skilled human players, lasting into 1945 as the axis would be something of a surprise so the "historical" outcome, far from being a draw, actually should represent an axis minor victory.

(in reply to MilRevKo)

Post #: 27

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/23/2011 4:20:46 PM

schwarm

Posts: 10
Joined: 7/4/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

Frankly I'd speculate that against two skilled human players, lasting into 1945 as the axis would be something of a surprise so the "historical" outcome, far from being a draw, actually should represent an axis minor victory.

Since the western allies ended up occupying most of Germany, holding off the Russians until 1945 was a minor victory of sorts.

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 28

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 1:38:10 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Also another point about retreats is that it is presently too easy to escape a pocket if it is not completely sealed, zoc or no zoc. All you need is one open hex...

Presently, the game as various posters suggested, punishes the Axis for mistakes that a player may avoid with a little more common sense (ie blizzard) while the Soviet player can actually make a run for it initially, and thus is not tied to same historical preconditions as the Axis. Coupled with several other advantages that the SU enjoys and that have (little) to do with history (like garrisoning the Finnish border with forts or the ability to have factories run away even if a city is surrounded or the teleporting of half their army to any place in one week etc) while the Axis are tied down to historical outcomes or supposed outcomes (like not allowing Axis minor divisions to rebuild if destroyed or attach SU), the Axis are basically hamstrung from the get go because only the SU has the ability to substantially modify its army etc.

(in reply to schwarm)

Post #: 29

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 2:24:29 PM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

Making this suggestion I think has maybe left an impression that I'm in favor of a 'strict' historical approach. I'm not actually, I'd think that ideally there'd be a variety of settings that were optional. There could even be an editable VP 'handicap' cost associated with them that pbem players could agree on in advance. These could also be used to adjust the AI's challenge. I'd think that in the perfect nonbudgetary world the devs would like to have the ability to give the players more options. Things I'd like as options:
1. No Retreat enforced/not enforced.
2. German winter preps allowed/not allowed.
3. German production all automatic/player controlled
4. Weather- historical/random/variable w/ 1 week forecast
5. Player- controlled TOE's and equipment assignments on/off
6. 'Handicapping' Rail Points adjustment for either player
7. German unit withdrawal substitutions

any others? I don't really see many of these being likely, but I'm just stirring the pot.

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 30