Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fortifications too much too fast

 
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 >> Fortifications too much too fast Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 8:35:01 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
I know this has been threaded previously, but its just reared its ugly head in my PBEM campaign to the extreme.

Situation is Jul 23, 1942. We've been updating with each beta, and are now on 1.04.15.

As the Germans, I survived the blizzard what I thought was fairly intact, and went about starting my summer 1942 offensive only to run into Kursk 1943 like fortifications, in carpet depth, everywhere I attacked. I am now on the strategic defensive in Jul 1942. Welcome to France 1916...

I think the ability to fortify is too much, too quickly.

The screen shot shows an example. Note the LEVEL 5 fortifications protecting Moscow. The interesting thing here is that this area west and south of Moscow to Kaluga was taken by the Germans in 1941, only to be retaken by the Soviets in the blizzard. So all those Level 5 forts were built from scratch from Jan 42 to Jul 42!

Now if a level 5 fort is representative of a pre-war fixed installation such as Sevastopol, this is a bit too much!

The fortifications have turned a war of maneuver into a WW1 trench fight across the front. This is far from realistic.

My recommendations would be the following:
1. Limit max fortifications in non city/urban hexes to be set at a max of Level 2 from 1941-1943. This would represent not just an abilty to dig, but rather the ability to integrate fires and fieldworks into a defensive plan - something that was not very capable for either side in the early stages of the campaign
2. Increase the max fortification to level 3 in 1943-45 outside of city/urban areas.
3. No, or greatly reduced abiltiy to fortify in mud turns. Spring just means dig, dig, dig right now - resulting in robust fault lines after the thaw.

Anyway, just my thoughts and obserations from one campaign - obviously a narrow viewpoint of course.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by IdahoNYer -- 5/6/2011 8:37:03 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 8:49:06 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
That's nothing. At least his line is barely 2-3 hexes deep. I seen opponents an in AARs where the Soviets have a line 4-5 hexes deep in some places with lvl 3-5 forts.

I'm not suggestion anything be changed, because I've seen axis player in other AARs just blow through some of these lvl 3-4 forts with easy. It really depends on the game and how long the Soviet player has had units sitting and digging in. I image around Moscow they've been them for 6-8 months which makes sense for lvl 5 forts.

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 2
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 9:03:27 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline
Hum, Andy when I spoke to you you said the level 5 forts were almost impossiable to get now. Whats up guys? I saw level 5 around Leningrad in my game but in open terrian as Kirk states?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 3
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 9:12:47 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline
Someone made a suggestion, not sure where its posted, that level 4 & 5 forts should cost admin points to build up, I like the idea...Concreate is not cheap...One for level 4, two for level 5...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 4
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 9:25:17 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
How many turns have you been playing with a 1.04 version? I ask because these changes were made in 1.04.10:

6) Rule Changes to fort level construction rules:
(a) (Section 15.3.2.1) Decreased the fort build rates as follows:
Fort Level 0 3.0 (was 3.0, no change)
Fort Level 1 1.0 (was 1.0, no change)
Fort Level 2 0.25 (was 0.33)
Fort Level 3 0.05 (was 0.10)
Fort Level 4 0.01 (was 0.02)
(b) Construction values are reduced based on the supply level of the unit. In no event will they be reduced below 20% of normal due to supply level.
(c) Level 5 forts may continue to build up to 10% over level 5. This allows them to take some damage and still remain at Level 5.
(d) Artillery (especially Heavy Artillery) can cause small fort reductions during combat.
(e) Fort build rates for building forts greater than 3 can be divided by 2 if a leader admin check fails.

As you can see the time to build a level 4 or 5 fort should be much greater than it was (at least double the time and probably longer due to the new admin check). Of course, areas near major cities will get a boost with population helping to dig in. The AP cost to allow a level 4 or 5 is an interesting idea, but would require some interface to add. Units dig at 1/3 during mud turns, but it's true a lot of digging can get done during a long period of inactivity (less now with the 1.04.10 changes).

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 5
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 9:29:47 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Hum, Andy when I spoke to you you said the level 5 forts were almost impossiable to get now. Whats up guys? I saw level 5 around Leningrad in my game but in open terrian as Kirk states?


Jon

In my game there wasn't a single level 5 fort other than the one that starts the game in Sevastopol, but I only played it to turn 38. Remember around urban areas you have the population to help dig, especially if the enemy is within 20 hexes. There were even very few level 4 forts built, but those were around Moscow and Leningrad. Forts seem harder to destroy than they used to be too. I had to isolate them before I could take them out.

If the construction continues up until mid summer of 42, I can see where there would probably be a line of forts like shown above. At least they aren't all level 5.

The idea of costing an ap for a level 5 might work but I doubt it. Considering the number of ap's the Soviet gets or can get by placing a few motorised in static positions, he could easily make a hundred or so level 5 forts. Maybe just get rid of level 5 forts outside cities and urban areas.

_____________________________


(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 6
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 9:33:45 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline
If we do go with an ap cost..it probably should be in the 5 and 10 point range rather than 1 or 2 otherwise you will still see a couple hundred of them.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 7
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 9:48:04 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
I dont think its unreasonble to see lvl 5 forts in Moscow at your time scale, if hes anything like me he has been fortifying that area since turn 2.

6 months to build, with const brigades and all the manpower Moscow can yield helping dont sound to much

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 8
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:02:11 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
Joel - not sure exactly when we updated to 1.04. By checking my AAR posts, I can say that the area in question was under German control at the end of Dec turns, which was about March 9th, 2011 or so. We upgraded each Beta within a week of it coming out.

Sabre - APs are a good idea, but two comments - I think it should take more than a few months to construct something as robust as a level 5. And it should be an expensive cost going from 2+ and take lots of time to construct. 41-42 campaigns were characterized by maneuver, not breaching fortifications other than in isolated pre-war areas or cities.

(in reply to Pawlock)
Post #: 9
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:04:41 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
Pawlock - if it was turn 2, I might agree with seeing the level 5. But this area was under German control until Jan 42....so he's had max about 5- 6 months.

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 10
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:07:32 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

I dont think its unreasonble to see lvl 5 forts in Moscow at your time scale, if hes anything like me he has been fortifying that area since turn 2.

6 months to build, with const brigades and all the manpower Moscow can yield helping dont sound to much


Civilian manpower doesn't kick in until you get within a 25 hex range and there is a limit on how big a fort can get to (level 2) until the enemy also gets within 25 hexes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Pawlock)
Post #: 11
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:13:08 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
I like the concept of the 25 hex rule for maximum lvl 2 forts. However, I would like to see a future change that would allow construction past this lvl 2 ceiling for an AP cost. The reason being it would be beneficial and prudent for Axis players and maybe Soviet players to continue building up forts behind the lines for various reasons. Some being invasions, airborne drops, etc.

I think this is a reasonable suggestion. Probably not a simple slam dunk for coding, but nothing excruciating.




< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 5/6/2011 10:14:51 PM >

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 12
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:14:03 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Joel - not sure exactly when we updated to 1.04. By checking my AAR posts, I can say that the area in question was under German control at the end of Dec turns, which was about March 9th, 2011 or so. We upgraded each Beta within a week of it coming out.

Sabre - APs are a good idea, but two comments - I think it should take more than a few months to construct something as robust as a level 5. And it should be an expensive cost going from 2+ and take lots of time to construct. 41-42 campaigns were characterized by maneuver, not breaching fortifications other than in isolated pre-war areas or cities.


Right now it does take a lot longer than a few months to build a level 5 fort. Like I mentioned earlier, in my game after 8 months there was not a single level 5 fort built. I did take Moscow on T23 which had a level 4's. These were being built from T2 on.

The cost idea might work as long as it was something painful like 10 ap's..or maybe even 20. If it was only 2, you might as well not even bother changing the code because there will still be a ton of them out there.

_____________________________


(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 13
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:24:59 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
25 hexes is a long way, using Moscow as our example, he would have needed to kick the Axis back 3 hexes past Smolensk!

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 14
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:27:31 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline
I wrote something about this in Klydon's AAR, and I'm copying and pasting it for the debate here:

The game is more fun and better (and easily) balanced for human vs. human play by dropping the Soviet fortification level to 90 rather than 100.  The problem is how quickly 1 Soviet division can dig to a level 3 fort, and the fact that forts are interchangeable in terms of the omni-directional defensive bonus and the fact that a level 3 fort offers the same protection to several divisions even when only 1 division builds it.  Because they do not scale, its advantageous for the Soviet to do linear defenses in depth and when you need to switch from linear to hedgehog (primary example of this need is Leningrad's area) the Soviet has a plethora of level 2 and level 3 forts to choose from in which to place stacked defenses.  It's too flexible, and it gives the Soviet a level of operational flexibility in defense that they really didn't have in 1941 (probably even 1942).  Just a thought to consider.  In my GC'41, I've taken that hit, and it's harsh in 1941, but will probably make 1942 and 1943 a bit more fun for the Axis player, but we shall see.

Refer to my GC'41 here, in which I am playing Soviet with the 90 setting on Fortification.  It's much harder in 1941, but I suspect we will have a much more fun and fluid 1942 even into 1943. 

I don't think there's a problem with realism in the way forts are currently modeled.  I think it's another example of the omniscient human controller knowing exactly the optimal way of exploiting the game mechanics to his advantage.  While certain play balance issues are manipulable in this fashion, I encourage house rules and game settings to bring the fun into the simulation in place of less fun but more realistic entrenchment.


_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 15
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:33:48 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline
Hell I'm amazed at how fast a division can come from no where and build to level one in the same turn...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 16
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:41:14 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I wrote something about this in Klydon's AAR, and I'm copying and pasting it for the debate here:

The game is more fun and better (and easily) balanced for human vs. human play by dropping the Soviet fortification level to 90 rather than 100.  The problem is how quickly 1 Soviet division can dig to a level 3 fort, and the fact that forts are interchangeable in terms of the omni-directional defensive bonus and the fact that a level 3 fort offers the same protection to several divisions even when only 1 division builds it.  Because they do not scale, its advantageous for the Soviet to do linear defenses in depth and when you need to switch from linear to hedgehog (primary example of this need is Leningrad's area) the Soviet has a plethora of level 2 and level 3 forts to choose from in which to place stacked defenses.  It's too flexible, and it gives the Soviet a level of operational flexibility in defense that they really didn't have in 1941 (probably even 1942).  Just a thought to consider.  In my GC'41, I've taken that hit, and it's harsh in 1941, but will probably make 1942 and 1943 a bit more fun for the Axis player, but we shall see.

Refer to my GC'41 here, in which I am playing Soviet with the 90 setting on Fortification.  It's much harder in 1941, but I suspect we will have a much more fun and fluid 1942 even into 1943. 

I don't think there's a problem with realism in the way forts are currently modeled.  I think it's another example of the omniscient human controller knowing exactly the optimal way of exploiting the game mechanics to his advantage.  While certain play balance issues are manipulable in this fashion, I encourage house rules and game settings to bring the fun into the simulation in place of less fun but more realistic entrenchment.



As Joel mentioned, fort construction was slowed down quite a bit. Also the Germans can build forts much faster than the Soviets can so only slowing down the Soviets give the German even a better advantage.

To solve the trenchline situation that occurs come summer 42 is a tough one since without decent forts, the Soviets will be pummeled pretty hard in 41. Right now most German players do the Rumanian and Riga first turn gambits neither of which is historical. In most cases, leningrad also falls and Moscow can be taken fairly readily too. It takes a very good Soviet player to hold onto both of those cities against a determined German opponent and even then it is iffy.

Increasing fort time even more will make it even that much harder for a Soviet player to survive with anything close to historical in 41. I'm up for the idea of using ap's to build level 5's (maybe even level 4's) as long as it is in the 10 to 20 ap range.

_____________________________


(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 17
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 10:45:31 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Hell I'm amazed at how fast a division can come from no where and build to level one in the same turn...


Remember at one time it was an automatic for it to occur in 1 turn. Besides..level one are simple fortifications. In a week a guy with an entrenching tool can make one heck of a foxhole. So in reality, level 1 is really nothing, nor is level 2.

By the way, level 5 forts were never meant to represent maginot line fortifications. Trey had a pretty good description of what these levels should represent which is probably floating around the forum somewheres.

_____________________________


(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 18
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/6/2011 11:21:15 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


As Joel mentioned, fort construction was slowed down quite a bit. Also the Germans can build forts much faster than the Soviets can so only slowing down the Soviets give the German even a better advantage.

To solve the trenchline situation that occurs come summer 42 is a tough one since without decent forts, the Soviets will be pummeled pretty hard in 41. Right now most German players do the Rumanian and Riga first turn gambits neither of which is historical. In most cases, leningrad also falls and Moscow can be taken fairly readily too. It takes a very good Soviet player to hold onto both of those cities against a determined German opponent and even then it is iffy.

Increasing fort time even more will make it even that much harder for a Soviet player to survive with anything close to historical in 41. I'm up for the idea of using ap's to build level 5's (maybe even level 4's) as long as it is in the 10 to 20 ap range.


What would be ideal (to me, at least) is the 'old' system where you could modify gameplay during the game. I understand why that exploit was removed in terms of humans sort of cheating against one another by changing settings for their turn, or whatnot, it would be an easy way to manage what I consider to be the inevitable problem with the current game (granted, I'm not actually playing 1.04 yet, and it looks good on the whole), which is that human players who understand the system are going to create a world war 1 style detente that the Soviets slowly hammer down (only the Soviets get to start in 1942).

Forts are creating that issue (in my estimation, and I could be wrong).

On the one hand, I really like the tradeoff between moving and digging - the balance feels right. On the other hand, forts are omni-directional and scale automatically to the size of whatever occupies them, whether created by an NKVD regiment and later occupied by a guards corps. As I understand it, there's not really anything we can do about it, which I accept (while accepting, I do mumble under my breath that Gary Grigsby should be ashamed of himself for that abstraction from time to time).

I still wonder if the exploitation of game mechanic that forts are omni-directional should be that an attacker, when attacking from different hexsides (including hasty attacks that come at different times from different directions, or deliberates using multiple simultaneous attackers) gets a bonus 10% combat modifier (the same scaling modifier used for having different commands involved in an attack). Maneuver is how forts are rendered ineffective...

Would love to see that discussion get serious, but I'm happy to be talking this one for now.

As for the hit my game is taking on the Soviet but not the Axis: everything about the war is stacked in the Soviets favor (this is not a complaint about the game). I want my opponent to enjoy his game, and I want there to be an incentive for him to see opportunities for an enjoyable game that goes into 1945. The Soviet CAN lose everything between Leningrad and Rostov in 1941 and still win.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 19
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 12:34:19 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
If this is the AAR game you are writing about in the forum, the day after the 1.04 version came out you posted screenshots from May 14, 1942. So it sounds like the construction for most if not all of the Spring was under the old 1.03 rules. I'm betting you would see many fewer 4 and 5 forts if you had the 1.04 changes for all of 42.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 20
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 2:14:56 AM   
Farfarer61

 

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
I would agree with level 5 being only Sevastopol-like forts, and equally hard to make. Layers of Level 4 forts are enough. It is a good 'game' wherein both players want to think ( or they won't play) that it is possible to win or lose irrevocably before winter 43.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 21
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 4:43:54 AM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
quote:

So it sounds like the construction for most if not all of the Spring was under the old 1.03 rules. I'm betting you would see many fewer 4 and 5 forts if you had the 1.04 changes for all of 42.


Joel - I hope you are right that the 1.04 changes will help reduce the forts. Most of the PBEM campaign we've been playing are prior to 1.04. Will be interesting to see how some of the newer post 1.04 campaigns fare.

I realize its a tough balance and reducing fortification capabiltiy too much may let the panzers run too wild in 41-42 and the Soviet Steamroller in 43-45. I think counterweight to the lesser forts are the increased attrition and stringent supply to have offenses peter out quicker after a 100+miles. HQ buildup is a great concept and in the right direction, but even that can't overcome multiple level 3-5 fortifications in depth.

One of the comparisons we were asked to look at in a campaign started in Jun 41, was to see how it stacked up in forces avail by the time the game reached the 1942 Campaign. I think we need to not only look at the forces, but the amount of fortifications on the map as well. In mine, granted, mainly not in version 1.04, there is just too many.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 22
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 5:16:09 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
I agree that in 1.03 there were too many high level forts. That's why we made the 1.04 changes. If you look at the formulas, you'll notice that we didn't change the low level fort building, but once you get to level 2 it gets a little harder to get to 3. Then the big changes kick in at the higher levels, where not only is the building time doubled, it can also be slowed further by missed admin rolls. Now if you looked at the time it takes to build the various fort levels, almost all of the time is going into getting from 3 to 4 and from 4 to 5, so doubling these times should be a significant change. We need to see more games with 1.04 fort building rates before we can say it's enough or if more changes are needed. Bad weather fort building of level 4 and 5 forts should be very very slow. I just checked an AI test game I ran last month and saw that even with 3 divisions in a Moscow hex, it was looking like it would take about 40 turns to get from level 4 to level 5. In two months another Moscow hex got about 40% of the way from level 3 to level 4. This was during the March to May 42 time frame. That's just one sample and the AI was no doubt going slower than a human player, but I think we need more data to decide for sure whether we've already fixed the fort issue.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 23
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 6:48:10 AM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
Think 1.04 has things on the right track Joel. But my gut tells me its going to take some more tweaks. Really appreciate all you guys do!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 24
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 9:02:26 AM   
saintsup

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


Right now most German players do the Rumanian and Riga first turn gambits neither of which is historical.


I know of the Riga gambit (not really a gambit because you don't sacrifice anything) but what is the rumanian first turn gambit ?

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 25
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 9:30:59 AM   
cpt flam


Posts: 2352
Joined: 1/16/2011
From: caen - France
Status: offline
for me going 2-3 hexes of Rumania to trigger they release

_____________________________


(in reply to saintsup)
Post #: 26
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 9:32:41 AM   
Scarz


Posts: 325
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Dallas Texas
Status: offline
I hate to jump into this discussion as it looks like its mostly for those playing the axis. I am the opponent IdahoNYer is playing in the campaign game with all the forts.

I agree that some of the fortifications seem to be a bit much. It might help if the game gave an explanation as to what the levels approximated, ie is level one simple fighting positions that can be dug in a night of hard digging, and is level 2 the same fighting positions with good overhead cover and some wire and mines and nicely drawn fire plans etc? I would think that in six months some pretty hefty positions could be dug, especially with lots of engineers.

Here is an example of what the Leningrad defenses were composed of that I pulled off the net.

"On June 27, 1941 the Council of deputies of the working people of Leningrad decided to mobilize thousands of people for the construction of fortifications. Several defences were built. One of the fortifications ran from the mouth of the Luga River to Chudovo, Gatchina, Uritsk, Pulkovo and then through the Neva River. The other defence passed through Petergof to Gatchina, Pulkovo, Kolpino and Koltushy. Another defense against the Finns was built in the northern suburbs of Leningrad. In all, 190 km of timber blockages, 635 km of wire entanglements, 700 km of anti-tank ditches, 5,000 earth-and-timber emplacements and ferro-concrete weapon emplacements and 25,000 km of open trenches were built by civilians. Even the gun of the cruiser Aurora was mounted on the Pulkovskiye Heights to the south of Leningrad. However, when Soviet troops of the North-Western Front in the end of June were defeated in the Baltic Soviet Republics, the Wehrmacht had forced its way to Ostrov and Pskov. On July 10 both cities were captured and the Germans reached Kunda and Kingisepp whereupon they advanced to Leningrad from Narva, the Luzhski region, and from the south-east and also to the north and south of the Lake Ilmen in order to isolate Leningrad from the east and to join the Finns at the eastern bank of Lake Ladoga."

All that was done in what two months? What would it look like in six months of uninterrupted digging?

However, the Russian troops are so brittle, too brittle in my opinion in 41 and 42, that without these entrenchments, its just too easy for the axis. Unless the supply can be restructured in 42 to prevent the Germans from having the ability to attack virtually everywhere and with HQ build up, and if the Russians are not beefed up a bit the Germans are too powerful in 42.

So I am not sure we are really arguing, or debating, what the fortifications should look like, or how quickly they should be built. What the debate is really about, is how tough the Russians should be in 42, and how can the game be structured to allow for historical gains by the Germans in 42. Of course this should be relative. Some games, where the Russians did extremely well in 41, and saved much of their army and factories, the Russians should be tougher come 42. In games where the Germans made big gains, Russian losses were exceedingly high, like in my game, the Germans should have an easier time of it in 42.

In the end, in my humble opinion, while we want the game to follow the historical possibilities, we shouldn't force it to follow the same path as in the history books. Could the Germans have been stopped in 42 short of Stalingrad? Maybe, but probably not. Likewise, could the Germans have launched attacks both in the south towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus and made an attack against Moscow? Maybe, but the supply situation would probably have prevented such an ambitious undertaking.

As far as the fun of the game, I think everyone would like to see a fluid 42. If that's the case, make the entrenchments lower, and harder to get, but bump the Russians strength, so its not a walk in the park for the Germans, and so that they will have to choose a focus rather than attack everywhere as in June 41.

Scar

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 27
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 11:38:56 AM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
The outstanding issue for forts right now in my book is how long they stick around when the troops have left.

In late 42, I've still got belts of forts behind my lines dug six months ago, even though no units have been any where near.

I think the decay factor for unoccupied fort levels should be much higher. In fact, a fort should ideally take something like a 10% hit even when one unit takes over from another sitting in the fort hex during the same turn. The incomming unit wouldnt be so used to the layouts, fire zones, ranges, etc. Especially though weather conditions like mud - I dont think unoccupied trench lines would be in much shape after a couple of weeks of raputista.

(in reply to Scarz)
Post #: 28
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 1:39:53 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline
I think what Scar said has some bearing (cool avatar pic, too, Scar.)
The Soviets cannot stop the Germans, anywhere in light terrain, without at least a level 2 fort.


_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 29
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 6:53:09 PM   
Altaris

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline
I'd personally rather see the Soviet divisions be made a bit better early on, and have forts vastly reduced. As it stands now, every PBEM game I've played is a race to stop fortifications. Even when they reach lvl 2 but are 5-6 hexes deep, any offensive gets beaten to crap within a few turns. I just quit a PBEM Operation Blue scenario, where once I started approaching the Volga I was hitting waves of lvl 2 forts everywhere. I did OK for 2 turns, but by the time I had advanced a few hexes, all my units were around 40% TOE. Some of that was the new reserve system as well. Had Tank Corps coming up (from 7-8 hexes away, no less!) that completely ravaged even my winning attacks.

IMO, game still has massive balancing issues in favor of Soviets.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Fortifications too much too fast Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.969