I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier

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 >> I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:32:52 AM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

Am I just really uneducated about the historical Eastern Front? What is the basis for the +1 Soviet odds modifier exactly? From what I know of the Eastern Front, the Germans were quite successful in pocketing huuuuge numbers of Russians. But that's pretty tough to do in this game when the Soviets get an automatic +1 odds modifier on all attacks, and can fairly easily re-open a pocket unless the Germans just throw an unrealistically high number of motorized/tank divisions to make it completely impossible to break through. I mean, it's not really that terribly hard for the Soviets to make it so any encirclement is faced with the threat of being attacked by 3-4 stacks of 3 rifle divs, all at around 2-3 CV apiece. At best, the Germans might have 3 panzer divs stacked to defend, and after going into EZOC's, in a clear hex that stack will probably be 3x6 CV = 18 CV. So all the Russians need to do is get 2 stacks of 3 rifle divs with 3 CV apiece, and now they are attacking with 18 CV as well, 1:1 odds... but with the auto +1 bonus, that jumps to 2:1, and seems to always force a retreat on my panzers. Frankly, I think it should be well nigh impossible for the Russians to break a 3 panzer division stack under just about any circumstance in 1941, but from what I've seen, that's not hard to do when the panzers end up facing multiple enemy hexes and are in clear terrain.

The big problem is it really hinders what the German player can do when it comes to risky encirclements. If the encirclement is broken, all those troops inside the pocket immediately become much more dangerous, which makes the situation even more dire.

I'm just trying to understand how on earth this can be of any sort of historical basis. I know the Russians attacks panzers a lot, but weren't they usually rather unsuccessful at actually breaking through? I'd be okay with taking higher losses, just so long as I didn't get forced into retreat so much (and thus ruining just about any pocket I manage to make).

Post #: 1

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:35:14 AM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

The best way to seal a pocket is with depth not density. Even this pocket was broken not buy attacks but by my units not getting enough depth at one point.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ketza -- 4/2/2011 3:41:23 AM >

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 2

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:48:21 AM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

Good point, later things change to density...Go as fast and as far as you can early. Get those horses running...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 3

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:49:58 AM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

Yes, I've heard the argument about depth already. I'm not some noob that just started the game, I get that having depth will likely hold a pocket. But that's not always possible or feasible to do. You can't move infantry very far at all into a carpet of Soviet units, so the only possible way you could make much depth is using several Panzer Armies, which is just ludicrous in mirroring anything with basis in history.

I'm just looking for the justification behind the +1 odds modifier. It seems like the completely wrong approach to making the Soviets fight like they did historically (which was with extreme courage and bravery, but not with concise attacks that forced loads of retreats in 1941).

BTW, it becomes especially annoying when the Soviets continue receiving this as the Germans take an ungodly CV hit in blizzard. I can only imagine it becomes excessively worse in 1942 and 1943 as the Soviet armies actually get pretty good base CVs.

I just don't understand or agree with it, trying to figure out why on earth it was implemented this way in the first place.

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 4

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:55:16 AM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

LOL, my opponent would've raped the pocket shown in the screenshot above. Here's a screenshot of what I faced. I circled in red the hex that got beaten (and only because of the +1 odds modifier pushing roughly even CV forces to 2.1:1 in favor of Soviets). I could've moved an INF division into the Clear hex east of it, but I wanted to beef up the defenses in that critical hex and keep the pocket sealed... I sitll think I made the best choice I had available.

There was no way I could've made that pocket any deeper on this turn. I did seal it up better on the next turn, but I don't think it should've been breakable in the first place. And it wouldn't have been breakable without the +1 Soviet odds modifier.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 5

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:57:26 AM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

Not really, early you can do alot of things, about turn 5 things change...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 6

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:16:01 AM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

Well many of the points you mentioned in your initial posts were addressed by the screenshot of my turn 4 pocket in one particular game. There are tons of examples of pockets that hold in the AARs and very few examples like your Lenigrad example. Personally I have never had a result like the one you show and I have had some very nasty in close fighting in Leningrad. I have had people try it but they have been on the wrong end of some nasty hold results which in turn weakened their position considerably.

Im not exactly sure why the rule is there but I beleive I read something about being put in place to give the Soviet player a "chance" to counterattack.

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 7

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:22:36 AM

PeeDeeAitch

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

Not sure I would have tried to blow through there - but instead (and maybe a turn earlier) I would have had the 4th panzer group and the 18th army concentrate to blow through to the Volkhov.

Also, with such a concentration of armies here (3 german armies) perhaps you are overplaying your hand and thus seeing the concentration of Soviet forces in turn.

_____________________________

"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 Ketza)

Post #: 8

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:25:05 AM

Rugens

Posts: 213
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hoosierland
Status: offline

At least in my opinion it is not your imagination. Designers need to make lots of balance decisions in any game as to how closely elements in history will be followed. In this game's design it appears to be important to the designers not to force the Soviets to make the suicidal attacks that were conducted historically in 1941. I'm glad they chose this path but it does have a large effect on the balance of the game. It's not much fun to play a historical simulation if you are forced to make all of the same poor decisions as did your historical counterparts. The problem you are running into is an extension of the above decision. In the game the Soviets get to choose to make only attacks that have a high chance of success and not have to make the attacks that would get them plastered. Historically the Soviets were able to stall the Germans frequently in 1941 with their attacks but almost never forced significant German units to retreat. I don't remember the German officer that said it but the quote as near as I can remember it was essentially that in 1941 his unit was usually able to repluse Soviet attacks even when outnumbered 10-1 or more. The continual attacks however eventually reduced his unit to only a fraction of it's opening strength. I think that is a generally fair statement for combat on the front in 1941. In the game the quality/experience of the players has a lot to do with success in forming pockets. Between two players of roughly equal quality however, the ability of the Soviets to make successful attacks is much greater than was historical in 1941. That allows them to frequently open pockets. Don't know why the designers have chosen to allow the Soviets this ability. Perhaps it is to give the Soviet side some fun & challanging offensive activity in 1941. If it is any comfort, the issue you are addressing is much less severe than the current treatment of the first winter. It is important to remember though that Matrix continues to work on refining the game. The way they approach game design is truly wonderful in that they continue to seek improvement suggestions from the community well after the game is published. The 1.04 patch that is currently being worked on appears to have some great changes.

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 9

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:37:35 AM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

1. Do not forget that the CV ratio is applied after to combat to determine who retreats, not before.

2. The Soviets were very hard for the Axis to bag; the pockets leaked like sieves; yes many were captured but also many escaped.

Marquo

(in reply to Rugens)

Post #: 10

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:39:08 AM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

You already picked out your mistake (not leaving a unit in the hex to the east). By not leaving a unit in that hex (would have been attacked and removed no doubt, but the encirclement would have likely held), you gave the Russians too many hexes to load up on you with a big deliberate attack. He may have gotten lucky with all the die rolls too; you just don't really know without running the attack several times. The other thing you may have been able to do is to do some bombing on the hex in the pocket next to you to chew them up a bit and make them less effective in attacking. Lastly, that is a pretty tired stack. (average 7 per unit). I am guessing you have a panzer division, infantry division and probably a motorized division in there. (I don't think a lot of motorized divisions trying to defend against anything since they are fairly weak).

I may also be wrong on this point, but how are you command wise? Everyone there in the same corp? My guess is no, in which case between some Russian luck and the overall combat penalty, you got bumped.

As far as it being "realistic", the fact is the Russians counter attacked the Axis from the start of the campaign. A lot. In most cases, they got their butts kicked, but there are absolutely plenty of examples to point out where the Russians made the Germans give ground temporarily and that includes against armor. If you are not a "noob" then you would absolutely know as a German that you just can't go waltzing around in a sight seeing tour with a pile of Russian units around you and not expect to get popped from time to time by a good Russian player, especially when you are a fair distance from your logistics base with tired troops that may or may not be suffering a command penalty.

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 11

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 5:02:25 AM

Oleg Mastruko

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

Talking about asymetric rules, please whenever you complain about Soviet 1:1 modifier NEVER forget to mention the rule inflicting much more (double, I think, but am not sure) casualties to Soviets from enemy defensive fire.

I mean, just to be fair, to avoid risk of being accused of being a fanboy

BTW, I think 41 scenarios are already pretty skewed and are easy to "break" ie get some marginal results. I posted about supermen from both sides (Germans in summer, Soviets in winter), so with things already skewed and one sided for most of the first year, it's easy to get some fluke results.

I am currently playing 43 campaign in a PBEM and it's great GREAT fun, also, supermen are GONE, and to be honest both of these asymetric rules make a lot of sense. Results seem very very realistic IMO. Try the 43 campaign, and then judge the rules and combat results. 41 is OK but is really too skewed already with all the special rules and sumermanism.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 12

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 5:17:33 AM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, it was a choice between occupying the clear hex with that INF division, and leaving 2 panzer divisions alone by themselves in the hex that got attacked, or having 2 panzers + 1 infantry in a single hex. I went with the latter, and I stand by that decision. The panzers got banged up pretty bad that turn, and if I hadn't reinforced them, I would've had about 12 CV in that hex rather than roughly 22. He'd have still been able to attack me with all but 3 of the units he hit me with, and it still would've been 2:1 odds, with the INF division just being bypassed (and possibly routed later if it got surrounded).

The INF division was in a different command, and that did give me some penalty, but it still was better than the alternative, IMO.

One thing that hurt me really bad was my CV didn't get doubled. That seems odd to me, since Mainstein is the Corps leader for the 2 panzer divs, and I hardly ever see a missed roll under him. Does having mixed command greatly interfere with the doubling CV roll? I.E., did having an INF division of a different command put me at a serious handicap on the roll? How does that work exactly? Is there only one doubling CV roll made with an average over the leaders, or does the doubling get calculated per command? I do suppose that could've been a major factor.

I had considered that issue, but I didn't have the AP's to switch the infantry div over to another command. This is Road to Leningrad scenario, having only 15 AP's a turn is rough going.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 13

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 5:22:51 AM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

And again, I"m just trying to understand what the rationale behind the rule is. I could understand something that greatly fatigued and beat up German divisions in Soviet counterattacks (slow war of attrition mentality), as that is largely what happened in the war. Guderian in Panzer Commander talks about how few tanks they had by the time Typhoon came around, largely from the beatings they had taken and wear and tear. But the pockets didn't get routinely bashed open from what I know of the Eastern Front (I'm not an expert, mind you, so perhaps I'm wrong there, but I seem to recall hundreds of thousands of Russians getting pocketed from what I've read... that seems largely impossible to do beyond the first few turns in my experience).

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 14

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 5:29:17 AM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris

I'm not an expert, mind you, so perhaps I'm wrong there, but I seem to recall hundreds of thousands of Russians getting pocketed from what I've read... that seems largely impossible to do beyond the first few turns in my experience).

Well your experience is obviously limited. Read some AARs and see people doing MASSIVE encirlements with ease even against solid human opponents. Tarhunnas and fiva55 were doing insane encirlements even in 42 scenario in PBEM (ie long after Barbarossa)

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 4/2/2011 5:30:23 AM >

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 15

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 5:34:50 AM

Oleg Mastruko

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

Besides, Altaris, I would understand if you were complaining about 1:1 modifier, say, during blizzards, or during any other Soviet offensive activity.

However, to complain about it as related to encirclements - I simply can't understand that. As it stands, encirclements are ridicolously easy to do during Barrbarossa, as Soviet movement rates are low and MPs they have to pay to enter enemy ZOC are very high. You can close most encirclements just by "drawing" a semicircle around hapless, barely movable Soviets.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 16

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 6:10:55 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

I agree with Oleg, the +1 modifier for the Soviets has nothing to do with any percieved difficulty to form pockets in 1941.

I have played more than 100 turns of PBEM, both as the German and the Soviet, in 1941, 42 and 43, and I am completely happy with the Soviet odds modifier coupled with the mechanisms to make the Soviets take bigger losses in combat.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 17

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 11:32:59 AM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I agree with Oleg, the +1 modifier for the Soviets has nothing to do with any percieved difficulty to form pockets in 1941.

I have played more than 100 turns of PBEM, both as the German and the Soviet, in 1941, 42 and 43, and I am completely happy with the Soviet odds modifier coupled with the mechanisms to make the Soviets take bigger losses in combat.

+1

Belphegor gave my germans hell for the 1st 3 turns in the south in particular, breaking pockets and isolating some of my units each turn. However I just kept at it and eventually ended up by T5 vitually wiping out SW Front that had poured troops into breaking the pockets. In the end his tactics didn't work (1.25M Russian casualties in the 1st 5 turns). It was a very good try though on his part and worried the heck out of me for the first 4 turns. He's being a lot more cautious now and I only caused another 550K casualties in the next 3 especially as Leningrad ( with its factories

) will be isolated in 2 turns max now as the agressive defence in the north left a gap.

Advice to Germans - don't think you can do everything in 1 turn. Be patient -which can be hard with a 17 turn clock ticking. It can take a few turns to set up a major attack and execute it but that longer-term thinking can really reap rewards. Once Russians have been weakened by over-aggression or whatever life becomes a lot easier.

The other most important thing for Germans is to have a very clear plan at the getgo as to where you want your railheads to be and work out the quickest route before you start T1. Do these things right and you should kick serious ass. What belphegor will do for payback remains to be seen but I intend to hold Berlin until 6/45 to claim a win.

Apologies for lack of screenshots to demonstrate my points but I don't know how and it's a bit late anyway as it's a PBEM game.

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 18

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 11:41:05 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Apologies for lack of screenshots to demonstrate my points but I don't know how and it's a bit late anyway as it's a PBEM game.

Just press alt + PrntScrn. This will put a copy of the active window on the clipboard. Fire up paint, paste the picture into paint or some other graphics program, then edit the picture with arrows or whatever you want. Finally save it as a jpg file and then upload to forum. Don't forget to check the "embed picture in post" box when you upload.

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 19

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 11:56:01 AM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Apologies for lack of screenshots to demonstrate my points but I don't know how and it's a bit late anyway as it's a PBEM game.

Just press alt + PrntScrn. This will put a copy of the active window on the clipboard. Fire up paint, paste the picture into paint or some other graphics program, then edit the picture with arrows or whatever you want. Finally save it as a jpg file and then upload to forum. Don't forget to check the "embed picture in post" box when you upload.

Thanks for trying to educate me but that is all beyond my comprehension. The failing is entirely mine as I understand every individual word. You would probaly have more success teaching a stoneage tribe this stuff. I'm a lost cause

_____________________________

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 20

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 12:10:05 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris
LOL, my opponent would've raped the pocket shown in the screenshot above.

Not bloody likely. In case you haven't noticed, at this point in the war, most Soviet units can move 1-2 hexes through enemy territory, so if the encirclement is wide enough, it doesn't matter how few German troops there are. DAMHIK!

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 21

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 2:48:36 PM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris
LOL, my opponent would've raped the pocket shown in the screenshot above.

Not bloody likely. In case you haven't noticed, at this point in the war, most Soviet units can move 1-2 hexes through enemy territory, so if the encirclement is wide enough, it doesn't matter how few German troops there are. DAMHIK!

Oh please, look at the north of that pocket. There's several unguarded one hex spots along the north part of it. All that's needed to open it up for the trapped units is to break into any one of those spots. Then look at the CV's of the units inside that pocket. Once they are freed of the pocket, some deliberate attacks would simple demolish those weaker 6-8 CV motorized/tank units. All that's going to end up being here is some trashed motorized units very early on (though I imagine this pocket would eventually end up bagging a good number of units).

I can look at this screenshot and tell you the Soviet player's problem though. He's stacking units in stacks of 3 rather than a wave of 1 several hexes deep. It's all about ZOC control for the Soviets at this point. A carpet wave even 3 hexes deep is going to keep any grand encirclements like this from happening by even Turn 4.

But for the third time, I'm just trying to understand why and if the Soviets need to have that big a bonus in forcing retreats in 1941. What's the historical basis for it exactly?

Perhaps I should just stop posting on this forum. Everyone here is so ultra-sensitive and prone to attacking gameplay that even the most basic and direct of questions gets swamped by essentially "you-suck" posts. I've asked a couple of questions, whether the +1 odds modifier is needed and why, and what effects having multiple commands has on the doubling-CV roll. I can't get an answer for the tirade of accusations that I can't make a pocket because I don't know how to play the game. If it will get me an answer to my questions, then okay, I'm a terrible player, now can someone pretty-please answer the specific questions??

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 22

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 2:59:36 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris
Perhaps I should just stop posting on this forum. Everyone here is so ultra-sensitive and prone to attacking gameplay that even the most basic and direct of questions gets swamped by essentially "you-suck" posts. I've asked a couple of questions, whether the +1 odds modifier is needed and why, and what effects having multiple commands has on the doubling-CV roll. I can't get an answer for the tirade of accusations that I can't make a pocket because I don't know how to play the game. If it will get me an answer to my questions, then okay, I'm a terrible player, now can someone pretty-please answer the specific questions??

Only person being sensitive here is you.

Go read the AARs with people making pockets of MINDBOGGLING size. Go read them. Then come back. Pockets in Barbarossa are ridicolously easy! Good players have no problems making pockets even in 42 scenario.

BTW Leningrad suburbs are not really a "pocket friendly" area. If you choose to complain about pockets (something I cannot begin to comprehend, as they are easy to make) go make some in the Ukraine.

BTW, if the Soviet chooses to attack and reopen the path to pocket, attacking troops will spend ALL of their movement and usually just be added to a new, even bigger pocket in the next turn.

Now all this has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with 1:1 modifier. It was most probably added to help Soviets during blizzard conterattacks, during spring 42 perhaps, and simply to overcome other maluses (what's the plural of malus? LOL) they have. I would understand if you were to complain about being pushed in blizzard due to 1:1, but this pocket whining is just totally unfounded.

Now stop being "sensitive" about it, read the AARs, play more and learn to make proper pockets. It's EASY!

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 23

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:17:00 PM

marty_01

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I agree with Oleg, the +1 modifier for the Soviets has nothing to do with any percieved difficulty to form pockets in 1941.

I have played more than 100 turns of PBEM, both as the German and the Soviet, in 1941, 42 and 43, and I am completely happy with the Soviet odds modifier coupled with the mechanisms to make the Soviets take bigger losses in combat.

(-)1 I don't who you guys are playing as Ruskies but they are obviously not employing every gamey means to cover frontage IN-DEPTH. Nor do these guys seem to know how to keep pockets open via aggressive use of low odds counterattacks. Each turn a pocket is held open by just one hex, is one more turn of good weather lost by the Germans. I mean if the Germans desire to conduct Pocket reduction of units in isolated state. The Russians can still trace supplies through ZOC and pending control hexes. It makes closing and reduction of pockets difficult -- if the Soviet player understands the game system and employs the combination of the low odds attack modifiers and hex control\pending hex control rules to maximum effect he can delay pocket closure for multiple turns.

The Soviet low odds modifier to their attacks routinely results in retreats to Axis units doing the pocket closure. At least in the head to head games I have been playing. And it�s obviously far simpler to gather together enough combat power to conduct a 1:1 attack and obtain a retreat results than having to drag together enough troops to conduct a 2:1 assault.

All of these subtle little aspects to the game which taken by themselves do not seem like they have much effect on game play -- such as the low odds bump and hex control, and interior lines of supply, and proximity of rail heads, and movement of supplies through ZOC -- all combined have a very marked effect on game play.

< Message edited by marty_01 -- 4/2/2011 3:19:02 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 24

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:19:52 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris

Oh please, look at the north of that pocket. There's several unguarded one hex spots along the north part of it. All that's needed to open it up for the trapped units is to break into any one of those spots. Then look at the CV's of the units inside that pocket. Once they are freed of the pocket, some deliberate attacks would simple demolish those weaker 6-8 CV motorized/tank units. All that's going to end up being here is some trashed motorized units very early on (though I imagine this pocket would eventually end up bagging a good number of units).

I can look at this screenshot and tell you the Soviet player's problem though. He's stacking units in stacks of 3 rather than a wave of 1 several hexes deep. It's all about ZOC control for the Soviets at this point. A carpet wave even 3 hexes deep is going to keep any grand encirclements like this from happening by even Turn 4.

But for the third time, I'm just trying to understand why and if the Soviets need to have that big a bonus in forcing retreats in 1941. What's the historical basis for it exactly?

Perhaps I should just stop posting on this forum. Everyone here is so ultra-sensitive and prone to attacking gameplay that even the most basic and direct of questions gets swamped by essentially "you-suck" posts. I've asked a couple of questions, whether the +1 odds modifier is needed and why, and what effects having multiple commands has on the doubling-CV roll. I can't get an answer for the tirade of accusations that I can't make a pocket because I don't know how to play the game. If it will get me an answer to my questions, then okay, I'm a terrible player, now can someone pretty-please answer the specific questions??

We will do things in a bit different order than the post here.

First, the reason the 1:1 bump is in the game is because of Soviet doctrine from what the game designers/developers have said. In a practical sense, it doesn't matter why its in the game to the gamers; its there, deal with it. If you don't like it and think its so great, play the Russians.

Second, Ketza's pocket is very secure from what I see. The Russians can come close in a couple of spots, but I don't see it getting broken. Just a reminder that Russian mech divisions moving and doing anything other than a hasty attack doesn't belong in the same line in 1941 in almost every case. Please point out the German unit that will get hit to get displaced or where a Russian has enough movement to go through 2 German ZoC's to break the encirclement. Laughing off what appears to be a solid pocket only shows that you are inexperienced and damages your credibility.

Third, it may not be your intent, but your posts are coming across as Axis fan boy whining and it isn't anything most of the posters that have responded have not seen before.. a lot. It shows the poster has not done much research/looked at other AAR's to see what is possible, etc and since they had something they felt strongly should not have gone against them, then obviously the game is broken and there are issues. The poster is not willing to accept that they may have made a mistake (mixed commands, not placed a unit someplace else, etc) or that the other side may have gotten lucky with the attack because the game is broken.

Most of the posters that have responded have generally tried to be helpful. Not all are "Russian" players and in fact, several have played the Axis in AAR's. You can accept their views or not; that is up to you, but I would consider their view point.

Finally, its up to you if you do or don't want to post anymore. The community can be pretty intolerate on someone coming in saying "oh noez, because I can't do what I want to do or because XYZ side was able to attack and actually beat me, then the game must be broke!" when the community has heard it all before, repeatedly, and it is actually a case of someone who is a noob or very inexperienced who has not spent the time to check the AAR's and other areas of the board to learn about the game. Heavily tilted fanboyz don't appear to be really liked here. Other than that, I think you will find most posters fairly friendly and helpful.

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 25

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:20:01 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris

But for the third time, I'm just trying to understand why and if the Soviets need to have that big a bonus in forcing retreats in 1941. What's the historical basis for it exactly?

Perhaps I should just stop posting on this forum. Everyone here is so ultra-sensitive and prone to attacking gameplay that even the most basic and direct of questions gets swamped by essentially "you-suck" posts. I've asked a couple of questions, whether the +1 odds modifier is needed and why, and what effects having multiple commands has on the doubling-CV roll. I can't get an answer for the tirade of accusations that I can't make a pocket because I don't know how to play the game. If it will get me an answer to my questions, then okay, I'm a terrible player, now can someone pretty-please answer the specific questions??

In my understanding, the combat mechanisms are made so that the Soviets nearly always take much more casualties then the Germans, especially when the Soviets are attcking. To sort of compensate, the Soviets are given the +1 that applies at the end of combat, to determine who retreats, that is how I have understood it.

I pointed out above that in my experience of 100+ turns of PBEM this seemed to even out and work fine, but my comment was not meant to denigrate anyone elses playing style, or disparage anyone with less experience. Keep posting, this forum is for everyone!

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 26

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:31:37 PM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

Okay, can anyone answer me about the multiple commands and their affect on doubling of CV? What I want to know is if I have 2 panzers in Manstein's corps and 1 INF division in a different corps stacked together, how is the double-CV rolled handled? Is it an all-or-nothing for the whole stack, and if so, how do the leaders affect it? Or does each Corps get it's own roll, so that it's possible the panzers get doubled but not the INF division?

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 27

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:38:41 PM

marty_01

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

First, the reason the 1:1 bump is in the game is because of Soviet doctrine from what the game designers/developers have said. In a practical sense, it doesn't matter why its in the game to the gamers; its there, deal with it. If you don't like it and think its so great, play the Russians.

The point of a game forum is to discuss the game. Ultimately it's up to the designer to decide what goes into their design. AND given the WiTE patch system, it would appear that the Designer's do in fact reassess from time-to-time what is in the game, and they make decisions to either keep things as they are, or tweak things, or completely dump things from the design.

If I am the game designer I'm going to look at the game forum commentary as a second set of eyes -- or a second set of play testers. We all paid $80 or $90 to help play test a rather innovative game design. I don�t have a problem with that.

If I'm the game designer I probably won�t gather much value from continual forum posts of "Like it or lump it". If players want to comment on what they're seeing occur within the game and why it is they feel such and such could be done differently -- why shouldn't they post to the game forum? Or if players want to know why something within the game is done a certain way it�s seems perfectly reasonable that we be allowed to ask such questions.

The only time a designer needs to worry about his game is when folks stop coming to his forum to talk and to complain. A vacant forum is a pretty good indication of a failed game design.

So what is the logic behind the low odds bump for Soviet attacks? I�ve seen it said it has something to do with Soviet doctrine? Ok. What is that doctrine? If that�s explained maybe this thread goes away and people slap their foreheads and say --- Ohhhh � OK � I get it now.

< Message edited by marty_01 -- 4/2/2011 3:45:23 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 28

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 3:41:11 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

quote:

Okay, can anyone answer me about the multiple commands and their affect on doubling of CV? What I want to know is if I have 2 panzers in Manstein's corps and 1 INF division in a different corps stacked together, how is the double-CV rolled handled? Is it an all-or-nothing for the whole stack, and if so, how do the leaders affect it? Or does each Corps get it's own roll, so that it's possible the panzers get doubled but not the INF division?

This will be changing in 1.04, but at the moment the command penalty is applied to the whole attack, but in 1.04 each unit will have it's own command penalty if mixed units attack.

The "doubling/halving" bonus/malus is calculated for each individual element in each individual unit, so in many cases the doubling/halving gets cancelled out. Obviously if the tanks get doubled this can have a large swing effect compared to units that don't have tanks.

_____________________________

It's only a Game

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 29

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:07:30 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

I thought it was 90% of the CV if the units are from different corps, or am I misunderstanding this and you are discussing some other effect?

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 30