Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
It's not like everyone is lining up behind one change.

Well don't forget about us, the silent or not so loud majority/minority who think that forts basically work fine already.

There are other things in game that need improvement, but forts in my opinion are not one of them.

Don't let the people (German players) who played only till 42 make you nerf the forts, because then those same people will whine again when their German games get deep into 43 and suddenly it's them (Germans) who need forts for the rest of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

My preferred method would be for a fort to protect only as many hex-sides as it's fort level (or perhaps it's level +1), but you could argue to give maximal benefit to certain sides and less to others (define a front of a unit and it protects at 100% there, and less at other sides).

I have never heard of a military unit digging ad-hoc defenses being taught to prepare forts for a 360-degree attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you start with the obvious avenues of approach, and as time and resources dictate, you then work on integrating larger avenues and omni-directional protection.

From my experience in the military, usually if you have that long, you're probably attacking before you start worrying about 360-degree defense.

I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps, but frankly I'm not having enough fun to start another game right now. Maybe later, or maybe I should take my whiney whine whine and leave you all alone.

But I wanted to put that out there as my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps, but frankly I'm not having enough fun to start another game right now. Maybe later, or maybe I should take my whiney whine whine and leave you all alone.

But I wanted to put that out there as my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

let me know when you want to play a game with those handicaps :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

Just a head's up, this thread gets directly mentioned in an editorial on Rock, Paper Shotgun:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/20/heavily-engaged-ignorance-is-bliss/

Can't say I agree with all of the editorial, but it is well written.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun, BTW, for those not aware, is a blog fast turning into one of the best general gaming sites--- certainly its highly opinionated reviews of new games are among the best out there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Cool! Helio, you're famous!

Thanks for posting the link map66.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.

Yes, and also:

* Reduce the AP bonus for going into static mode and the AP penalty for coming out of static mode. A player that creates a lot of static units to fortify won't be able to pull them out and run if it costs 2 bazillion APs to do that.

* Reduce or eliminate attrition losses for static units in level 1+ forts. Static units stacked next to enemy hexes eventually go into unready (and eventually depleted) mode because they suffer so many attrition losses and can't get the benefits of refit.

* Static units should be harder to retreat (higher odds level required), but if forced to retreat should automatically rout.

* Increase the damage done by artillery to forts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I don't think that units retreating from fortifications should autmatically rout; on the contrary they would presumably have a series of fall back positions that would make it easier for them to retreat in good order.

quote:

I am only talking about static units here -- units without mobility that won't be able to retreat quickly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

I am only talking about static units here -- units without mobility that won't be able to retreat quickly.

I hear what you're saying, but if all units in Fort 3s have to be static, it is kind of the same thing (fortified = static). While I understand the logic, I'm not sure if I agree that all units with Fort 3+ should be assumed to give up ALL of their vehicles and have to leave all heavy equipment behind in case of a retreat (ie, rout).

You could also argue that they would have protected positions/routes for their vehicles and would have throroughly planned any withdrawal, including with their heavy weapons. The bottom line is that it seems strange and counter-intuitive to me that if you push a unit out of a Fort3+, the defending unit will essentially evaporate (at least for that turn) rather than retreat to the next hex and continue to defend, but if you push a unit out of a Fort 2, it will retreat rather than rout.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
That's the mechanism used in the OCS series.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste
OTOH, fortifications should be easily buildable in winter (and shelter too, as snow/ice makes excellent bullet-proof/camouflaged/wind-proof shelters), it seems that troops are stuck with what they had 'before the freeze'. These improvised fortifications should of course evaporate with the coming of mud, and a double track should account for pre-winter permanent shelter, and that made from ice - with a limited re-building in mud after the end of the freeze eliminating the trench-warfare situation of 1942 to a large degree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.

+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.

+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

Yes, I agree, and would be a better option than requiring static units.

Perhaps allow either static units or FZs to get past level 2.