Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Forts in 42

 
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 >> RE: Forts in 42 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/16/2011 12:26:00 PM   
olivier34

 

Posts: 1055
Joined: 5/10/2010
From: montpellier
Status: offline
ok but we as players should have the need to put some part of the front in a static mode.

(in reply to davetheroad)
Post #: 31
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/16/2011 12:58:26 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
My suggestion would be:

1. Units build to level 1 and 2 as is the case now.

2. Only FZs and STATIC units can build to 3.

3. To build to 4, same as 2. above, but with added AP cost also.

4. Unoccupied forts reduce MUCH quicker.

5. Soviets lose 1-1 bonus after first blizzard, thus encouraging German adventurism in 42 and 43.

(in reply to olivier34)
Post #: 32
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/16/2011 2:16:00 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline
How about something like this:

1941-1942: Maximum fort level is 2, unless you are within 8 hexes (arbitrary value for now) of Leningrad and Moscow, and Soviet. 1943+, unlimited fort building. This of course, would require more 1st Blizzard balancing once this is implemented.

I am not a fan of putting this on AP points, unless there are changes to support unit assignment cost.

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 33
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/16/2011 3:06:42 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
You have to allow the Soviets to get to lvl 3 in certain places, like around Moscow or Leningrad, where it was certainly historical. Requiring FZ would prohibit this, because they are too expensive for the Reds to buy in 1941, and really too expensive for most of the war.

Note that AP buys are basically Red Army penalties only, because after the first few weeks, the Germans should have plenty of APs to burn. At least I do. The Red Army, on the other hand, is always using APs; it's a limited resource for the Reds.

_____________________________


(in reply to Scook_99)
Post #: 34
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/16/2011 3:45:13 PM   
lastdingo

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
Ready-refit-train-unready  these are the four states afaik. Add a fifth "fortifying" and require this for the production of higher than fort 2 (+ 50%, so fort 2 doesn't get reduced to fort 1 too easily).
It should entail a penalty in case the formation is under attack during its work (maybe -1/3 morale).

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 35
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/16/2011 4:05:29 PM   
Tarhunnas


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

You have to allow the Soviets to get to lvl 3 in certain places, like around Moscow or Leningrad, where it was certainly historical. Requiring FZ would prohibit this, because they are too expensive for the Reds to buy in 1941, and really too expensive for most of the war.

Note that AP buys are basically Red Army penalties only, because after the first few weeks, the Germans should have plenty of APs to burn. At least I do. The Red Army, on the other hand, is always using APs; it's a limited resource for the Reds.


Someone suggested above to allow level 3 within a number of hexes of cities. That would solve that problem.

FWIW I am out of APs in november 42 as the Axis, so it is not a Soviet only problem, though it is certainly more manageble as the Axis.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 36
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/16/2011 5:03:42 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline
That is what I am saying above, if you are within so many hexes of Leningrad or Moscow, there is no limit to fortification level at any time, just the rest of the map. I pick just those cities, as Russia fought tooth and nail for them. Probably can add in Kiev, but that would be about it. Then it won't be tied to AP points, I see doing that as a nightmare for the designers. Once 1943 rolls around the limitation rules are lifted. Kinda gamey? Yes. I don't care though, I want something of a quick and dirty fix for play balance, history be damned.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 37
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/16/2011 5:31:45 PM   
kvolk


Posts: 50
Joined: 5/26/2011
Status: offline
I know this has been mentioned before but seperate build times solve alot of problems with forts. Then play balance can be tweaked by side. It already is a given both sides have unique operational qualities this would just be more of the same. Not sure technically how much a burden this is for coding but the one size fits all system right now seems to not be the solution.

_____________________________

Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it.
Omar N. Bradley

(in reply to Scook_99)
Post #: 38
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 7:04:11 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
So I decided to do some testing on fort building and pay very close attention to what exactly happens.

First, this was a simulated campaign game. I don't have time to play both sides in a regular campaign. Essentially, the Germans passed their first turn, the Russians put themselves into semi neat gatherings on their turn and the Germans surrounded and destroyed a lot of Russians on turn 2 and 3. 2nd Panzer was my test group to advance since it matters if enemy units are close or not. I pushed all combat units out of the Moscow area as quickly as they came in as they would be headed to the "front".

Fast forward to the end of turn 12 when the Russians get some tank brigades. Reminder that tank brigades are basically 1-3 construction value each. I have a test army down by Tula that will be in charge of the first wave of diggers that show up. That HQ has 3 RR brigades and 3 sapper regiments. Stavka is in Moscow and has a pile of sapper regiments called up from a previous turn. The wave of brigades in front of Moscow stay attached to Moscow. As you can see, only two spots where the tank brigades are have had any activity in terms of fortifications.

Germans pass and we get to turn 13. If there is a number next to the tank brigade, that represents where the current fort is in terms of progress (same as putting your cursor over it). Any tank brigade that has a 1 fort level and "0" next to it maxed out digging that turn since you can only gain max 1 level a turn. Some more tank brigades are brought in to start digging.

Turn 14, I bring in another wave of tank brigades and another HQ. The guys in pink belong to the HQ in the box and the guys in red belong to the HQ there. The rest of the tank brigades you see belong to Stavka. Stavka moves out of Moscow to the west a bit and is sitting under 1 of the tank brigades so it can be within 5 of as many tank brigades as possible.

Turn 15, I move a couple of units of PG2 to be within 10 of the line. Turn 16 and 17 are just noting the changes in fortification values.

Now, I could have brought in more tank brigades. At the start of turn 17, the Russians have 86 of them. To a point, that really doesn't matter. I could be using border regiments and still do the same thing. Same goes for depleted whatever you care to mention. Just as long as there is a unit in a hex, there is going to most likely be a big fort in it in nothing flat, regardless of its construction value.

*EDIT* Map was too small to see, so I broke up the original into thirds.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Klydon -- 7/17/2011 7:09:16 AM >

(in reply to kvolk)
Post #: 39
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 7:09:59 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
Next two turns:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 40
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 7:10:34 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
And the last two turns




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 41
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 3:01:37 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
So I stay up late last night to get this done, thinking it should at least get a few comments/observations and I get on this AM to find.. nothing.

No comments about how absolute dog meat units with a 1-3 construction value can have level 2 forts in 2 turns across a good section of territory and level 3 forts start popping a couple of turns later.

If this doesn't make it clear in spades that there are issues with how fort construction works in this game and why it is so easy and simple to put up multiple rows of level 3 and 4 forts, then I don't know what will.

This is bad enough under normal conditions. When the Russians reach critical mass in terms of numbers of units where they can just have any crappy unit behind the lines digging like a pro and it results in heavy fortifications in nothing flat, then it turns into something very broken indeed.


< Message edited by Klydon -- 7/17/2011 3:02:06 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 42
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 3:06:20 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Klydon, I think you're referring to the Urban bonus. In the open, those units wouldn't accomplish much as you know.

I think a simple fix would be to decrease the range of the urban bonus. I agree that 8 hexes in every direction from every city covers half of Russia. It's too much.

I don't have a problem with small units constructing forts within that zone, because after all, many defenses were contstructed with no units in the hex.

But there needs to be a limit; maybe 3 hexes? 8 is too much.

_____________________________


(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 43
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 3:38:07 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
The urban bonus would be a start, but even 3 hexes is a fair amount if you look at the line south of Kaluga (which is why I put it there as a test). The line south of Kaluga is not quite as good or fast as what is in front of Moscow, but the line does have Kaluga, Tula, and Orel to draw on to help. Even if you knock the range down to 3, look at how much would still be covered along that line. It is still a lot. The guys down south are also getting help from sappers and RR construction guys. I put that line down there because someone mentioned the seeming ease of having fort spam even in the middle of nowhere. The other thing about this would be is there evidence as to how far the urban help came out on a consistent basis to help with field fortifications? 80 km one way is a long way to go, especially if it happens to not be along a rail line. How are they getting there and digging and getting back or did they stay on site? Finally, I don't see much help coming from urban workers during cold weather, but my guess is there is nothing in game about this.

Originally, I had thought that some sort of match multiplier on a unit might be the way to go (unit there has a construction value of 10 for instance and the max help they can get from urban construction bonus would be 10). I don't know now if that would work very well because clearly the Russians had civilians out digging ditches on a wide scale in certain areas of the country. The other thing I was thinking about with the Urban bonus is it reflects the use of raw labor; women and children digging ditches. Is such labor capable of siting and constructing more complicated field fortifications? Perhaps some sort of penalty for building over level 2 fortifications.

All in all a big headache to program, but getting it figured out would likely help restore a lot of the playability in 1942 and even late in 1941 where this issue starts showing up due to the huge amount of units the Russians start having show up. (The late 41 masses of fortifications almost guarantee no snow offensive).


< Message edited by Klydon -- 7/17/2011 3:39:28 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 44
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 3:39:01 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
*edit* Double post because Klydon hasn't had enough coffee yet.

< Message edited by Klydon -- 7/17/2011 3:40:15 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 45
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 4:06:39 PM   
Flaviusx


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The other thing I was thinking about with the Urban bonus is it reflects the use of raw labor; women and children digging ditches. Is such labor capable of siting and constructing more complicated field fortifications?


It is. Many of the major fortification lines were built using such civilian labor, including the Luga line, the Mozhaisk line, and the infamous Kursk fortifications. Note that said labor was being directed and supervised by professional Red Army engineers.

That said, I hear what you are saying with regards to the coverage.


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 46
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 5:35:17 PM   
Tarhunnas


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

So I stay up late last night to get this done, thinking it should at least get a few comments/observations and I get on this AM to find.. nothing.


I read it but didn't understand what the numbers on the maps meant, and I was afraid to ask cuz that might make me seem stupid...

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 47
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 5:46:25 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
In game, if you put your mouse over the unit, the box pops up and tells you the unit name, etc and also what the fortification percentage level is. So for instance, if a unit has a level 2 fort showing and a number next to it, that means it is that percent complete of a level 3 fort. In other words if a unit has a level 2 fort and "54" next to it, that means it is level 2 fort, 54% (just over halfway to a level 3 fort).

Hope that helps; if not, I will try to explain it better with another screen shot.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 48
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 6:58:23 PM   
Tarhunnas


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Hope that helps; if not, I will try to explain it better with another screen shot.



Np, I get it (finally).

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 49
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/17/2011 10:04:13 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
I think you have to at least make the distance for civilian fort assistance 3 from an urban hex. That may mean Moscow and the surrounding area build a lot of forts, but anything less and the defense of Moscow in '41 could be a lot more problematic for the Soviets. Leningrad is already lost in most cases even with the current rules. On the other hand, 3 hexes will give the Germans a better chance at launching Blau in '42, especially if Rostov and Voroshilovgrad end up in Axis hands. The only other city along the Axis line of advance to the east is Boguchar. Next stop is Stalingrad.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 50
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/18/2011 12:35:59 AM   
heliodorus04


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I've posted this elsewhere, but am copying it here, since it is germaine to the discussion...

quote:

With regard to the fort issue, I still believe that the most elegant solution to this problem is to restrict the ability to transition from level 2 > level 3 fort to those hexes that have a FZ, FR, City, or Urban terrain feature present in the hex. This would be the simplest to code.

For the Soviets in 1941/1942, it would create some tough decisions as to how they should allocate their precious AP pool. Early on, it would force a decision between setting up some prime rear area locations (Leningrad's "backdoor", Perekop Isthmus, etc.) for Level 3+ building, and the creation of the "Soviet All-Stars command reshuffle, and the typical restoring of the C&C disaster in the first few turns. Later on, it will create AP spending tension for setting up good belts around important locations, and the need to conserve APs for the transition to the more "modern" Soviet Army structure. At present, there is little in the way of resource spending tension in these crucial points in time, as the Soviets (as demonstrated) can simply carpet their rear areas and have 50-70 mile thick bands of level 3-4 forts across virtually the entire front by the time Summer 42 rolls around.

The argument that the mid-to-late war Axis *needs* to be able to build high level forts is not negated by this proposed change and indeed, the Axis really have little to spend their APs on in that period. Requiring them to build the FZs to break the Level 3 threshold will be most felt in the need for replacements to go into the FZs (at least temporarily) as they are built, reducing the manpower and armaments to flesh out their army. However, this is still, in my opinion, a more realistic condition, reflecting the redirection of resources on their side.




I must've missed whatever discussion that was on originally.
+1
Eloquently thought out.

_____________________________

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 JAMiAM)
Post #: 51
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/18/2011 3:31:54 AM   
highblooded

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 5/27/2004
Status: offline
Hello,

quote:

I suspect the static units are there to stop players doing unhistorical things like attacking all along the front.


Not sure of why the designers placed them in static but in reality, by 1942 the german truckpark had been decimated. For Barbarossa they had 3x20,000 vehicle supply groups (one for each Army). To get this amount many Inf Divs had to give up trucks and make do with handcarts. Most of these vehicles were captured French/British/Civilian etc. The Russian roads took a terrible toll on them and the lack of parts finished many more. I noticed over 200,000 in the starting motorpool for '41 Campaign. From what I have seen this should be very reduced in the game.

The spamming of Sappers/engineers by the Soviet player in AARs and guides seems overboard. Increase the cost or cap to get closer to reallife levels. Qualified engineers for officers dont grow on trees. The soviets may have just stated "Hey you... you're an engineer now" but it does not mean he can get people to build forts.

The major fort building unit sounds like a good idea. Limiting combat units to level 2 is great(and have it take longer as well?). Combat Units should not be able to train or refit while digging in... period.

The limiting of the city bonus to Moscow and Leningrad may solve part of the problem( or to just Heavy and Light Urban hexes). As well as decreasing the distance it works at.

My initial thoughts.

(in reply to davetheroad)
Post #: 52
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/18/2011 5:27:04 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
Freshly made Soviet eng/construction units do have a low experience, probably about 20 or 30.  Should that be considered too high?

(in reply to highblooded)
Post #: 53
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/18/2011 8:23:18 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
"The extensive field fortifications that had been constructed by Soviet troops and civilian labor proved useless because of shortages of skilled engineers and of barrier materials". Glantz & House "When Titans Clashed" p 120, describing the Soviet difficulties in stopping the German 1942 offensive.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 54
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/18/2011 12:36:51 PM   
Flaviusx


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

"The extensive field fortifications that had been constructed by Soviet troops and civilian labor proved useless because of shortages of skilled engineers and of barrier materials". Glantz & House "When Titans Clashed" p 120, describing the Soviet difficulties in stopping the German 1942 offensive.


Quite so. But a little context might help -- this was with regards to the lines scratched out in the south in 1942. You are reading the book a bit selectively.

The same civilian labor threw up very good lines elsewhere and at other times. See their comments on the Moscow and Leningrad lines built with civilian labor as opposed to the hasty foxholes of September 1941 the Western Front was in sans said labor.

Civilian labor mattered, and the deepest and most effective fort systems were built with them.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 55
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/18/2011 12:50:52 PM   
Tarhunnas


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

"The extensive field fortifications that had been constructed by Soviet troops and civilian labor proved useless because of shortages of skilled engineers and of barrier materials". Glantz & House "When Titans Clashed" p 120, describing the Soviet difficulties in stopping the German 1942 offensive.


Quite so. But a little context might help -- this was with regards to the lines scratched out in the south in 1942. You are reading the book a bit selectively.

The same civilian labor threw up very good lines elsewhere and at other times. See their comments on the Moscow and Leningrad lines built with civilian labor as opposed to the hasty foxholes of September 1941 the Western Front was in sans said labor.

Civilian labor mattered, and the deepest and most effective fort systems were built with them.


Not reading selectively, just quoting selectively

Seriously, I meant it to be in the context of effectiveness of forts in 1942, it was not intended to dismiss civilian labor, just to point out that forts apparently didn't always live up to their expectations.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 56
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/18/2011 1:39:18 PM   
Klydon


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

Freshly made Soviet eng/construction units do have a low experience, probably about 20 or 30.  Should that be considered too high?


I would have to do some checking, but I think this does affect the construction value. I noticed newer sappers/RR engineers don't have as good of a construction value as ones who have been around for awhile and the spread is pretty good from below 20 to over 40 for the RR guys.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 57
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/18/2011 2:32:52 PM   
Sorta

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 11/30/2009
Status: offline
+1
quote:

ORIGINAL: highblooded

Hello,

quote:

I suspect the static units are there to stop players doing unhistorical things like attacking all along the front.


Not sure of why the designers placed them in static but in reality, by 1942 the german truckpark had been decimated. For Barbarossa they had 3x20,000 vehicle supply groups (one for each Army). To get this amount many Inf Divs had to give up trucks and make do with handcarts. Most of these vehicles were captured French/British/Civilian etc. The Russian roads took a terrible toll on them and the lack of parts finished many more. I noticed over 200,000 in the starting motorpool for '41 Campaign. From what I have seen this should be very reduced in the game.

The spamming of Sappers/engineers by the Soviet player in AARs and guides seems overboard. Increase the cost or cap to get closer to reallife levels. Qualified engineers for officers dont grow on trees. The soviets may have just stated "Hey you... you're an engineer now" but it does not mean he can get people to build forts.

The major fort building unit sounds like a good idea. Limiting combat units to level 2 is great(and have it take longer as well?). Combat Units should not be able to train or refit while digging in... period.

The limiting of the city bonus to Moscow and Leningrad may solve part of the problem( or to just Heavy and Light Urban hexes). As well as decreasing the distance it works at.

My initial thoughts.


(in reply to highblooded)
Post #: 58
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/20/2011 10:51:00 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
One thing that could be changed with forts IMHO is the ability of units with high engineer support to dig in to level 1 after taking a hex. That makes it impossible for the opposing player to conduct swift counterattacks against advancing units and leads to players maximising engineer and sapper support in order to dig their way forward. I think it should not be possible to construct forts unless the hex was under your control at the beginning of the turn.

(in reply to Sorta)
Post #: 59
RE: Forts in 42 - 7/20/2011 11:01:29 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

One thing that could be changed with forts IMHO is the ability of units with high engineer support to dig in to level 1 after taking a hex. That makes it impossible for the opposing player to conduct swift counterattacks against advancing units and leads to players maximising engineer and sapper support in order to dig their way forward. I think it should not be possible to construct forts unless the hex was under your control at the beginning of the turn.



The first thing infantry does when it stops, is dig in. Can't recall how long it takes to build proper fortifications...a week is more than enough for foxholes and trenches.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Forts in 42 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.895