Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Hold at all costs!

 
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 >> Hold at all costs! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Hold at all costs! - 8/11/2011 11:03:08 PM   
sveint


Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline 		Actually nevermind, retreat as soon as the odds are even! (Soviet 1:1 => 2:1 rule)

Could we please have a game option to turn this effect ON/OFF. That would settle the problem, those who like it can play with it on.

And no I don't want it even when playing as the Soviets.

< Message edited by sveint -- 8/11/2011 11:13:30 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 12:10:25 AM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

Actually nevermind, retreat as soon as the odds are even! (Soviet 1:1 => 2:1 rule)

Could we please have a game option to turn this effect ON/OFF. That would settle the problem, those who like it can play with it on.

And no I don't want it even when playing as the Soviets.


+1

I vote for it to be toggled on/off per year.
That would allow more player vs player games to come to an agreement as to what might be fair.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 2
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 12:14:55 AM   
abulbulian


Posts: 1047
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline 		Better yet, give German units a 'Hold or Die' order(for some small AP expenditure?) which would allow them to negate the Soviet attack bonus, but introduce a possibly for higher casualties.  This would be the case if they still were forced to retreat.


So you'd have 'Refit', 'Ready', 'Hold or Die' choices 



< Message edited by abulbulian -- 8/12/2011 12:15:58 AM >

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 3
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 12:22:18 AM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		Generally, the order was issued after they were encircled, so it's not like they had much choice. Fortress Stalingrad es kaput!

It isn't quite as easy as a toggle, from what I have read about the 1:1 rule. Russians take more casualties from using the 1:1, so you have to remove the odds and the extra casualties. So methinks it's hard coded in there.

(in reply to abulbulian)
Post #: 4
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 2:48:07 AM   
WingedIncubus


Posts: 512
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline 		Why would a player issue an order to resist to the last man in WITE? What results would it accomplish, aside from tying large numbers of enemy units to the kessel?

There's no Hitler or Stalin to impose it on you. Only players who really want to roleplay Hitler or Stalin would do that.

< Message edited by Drakken -- 8/12/2011 2:49:37 AM >

(in reply to Scook_99)
Post #: 5
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 3:46:08 AM   
sveint


Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline 		Well the example in the game I just played was to hold a bridgehead at all costs until next turn.

(in reply to WingedIncubus)
Post #: 6
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 4:49:59 AM   
Jakerson

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline 		Does this hold at all cost means that Germans just stand still when Soviet hammer them with every artillery piece and bomber plane they have in the theatre as long as something moves there and even more when there is nothing left to move?



(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 7
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 5:13:54 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		A "hold at all costs" order would be useful in holding a bridgehead, or (for example) a land bridge between two rivers or between sets of swamps. I think it should be added to the game, but of course will result in extra casualties for the defending units. I think that a prudent German player is likely to use it when pressed when there's a fair bit in the pool, but as the replacements start to dry up it would be extremely hard to justify using it.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Jakerson)
Post #: 8
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 6:30:00 AM   
Jakerson

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A "hold at all costs" order would be useful in holding a bridgehead, or (for example) a land bridge between two rivers or between sets of swamps. I think it should be added to the game, but of course will result in extra casualties for the defending units. I think that a prudent German player is likely to use it when pressed when there's a fair bit in the pool, but as the replacements start to dry up it would be extremely hard to justify using it.



I am not happy about these kinds of chances in game of this scale of game that simulate whole eastern front as it adds more micromanagement in game.

Player already have option defending important bridgeheads with best and strongest units, assign best generals lead units that defend most important places and also deploy more SU and air support in important sectors and commit reserves that can help bridgeheads. These are all more important factors than some vague hold at all costs order to boost defense.



(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 9
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 1:45:26 PM   
Commanderski


Posts: 927
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		I think it depends on the individual player. If a player, either German or Soviet, thinks a bridgehead, land bridge , city or whatever piece of ground is worth holding onto he will hold at all costs. Especially if he thinks it by holding it he will tie up the opposing forces for an extended period of time.

An Admin option does not need to be added as they can do that now. Making it an option to have a unit stay in one hex regardless of the overwhelming odds and not move until totaly wiped out would make that unit a "super unit" and would be out of context of this game and unrealistic.

(in reply to Jakerson)
Post #: 10
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/12/2011 2:51:14 PM   
abulbulian


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

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

I think it depends on the individual player. If a player, either German or Soviet, thinks a bridgehead, land bridge , city or whatever piece of ground is worth holding onto he will hold at all costs. Especially if he thinks it by holding it he will tie up the opposing forces for an extended period of time.

An Admin option does not need to be added as they can do that now. Making it an option to have a unit stay in one hex regardless of the overwhelming odds and not move until totaly wiped out would make that unit a "super unit" and would be out of context of this game and unrealistic.



This is obviously false as it entirely depends on how you implement it. I've played several games that allow axis players to give units a 'Hold at all costs' posture. What I was suggesting in WitE in reality doesn't mean to the last man, just negating the Soviet attack bonus.


So here is what I'm suggestion:

German units only may be placed in a 'Hold at all Cost' posture which has the following considerations:

- small AP expenditure to set this status on a German unit
- unit must have a minimum of 75 morale and TOE 50%
- unit must make a leader check in order for this order to actually be carried out when defending
- status will revert back to 'Ready' the following turn (so only lasts 1 turn)
- if unit passes check(one for every attack) then it will negate the Soviet attack bonus.


I think this is sensible and realistic. This could also be a posture available to certain Soviet units at some point in the war?


(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 11
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/13/2011 1:17:12 PM   
Commanderski


Posts: 927
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

German units only may be placed in a 'Hold at all Cost' posture which has the following considerations:

- small AP expenditure to set this status on a German unit
- unit must have a minimum of 75 morale and TOE 50%
- unit must make a leader check in order for this order to actually be carried out when defending
- status will revert back to 'Ready' the following turn (so only lasts 1 turn)
- if unit passes check(one for every attack) then it will negate the Soviet attack bonus.


If it was set to those conditions and not able to do that until maybe the winter of '42 that would sound reasonable.

(in reply to abulbulian)
Post #: 12
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/14/2011 12:41:33 AM   
Truppenstab


Posts: 12
Joined: 2/4/2011
Status: offline 		Yes I think the current game mechanisms work very well to simulate hold at all costs. That any of changes would possibly make a unit in a strong positions too good.

Paul.

(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 13
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/14/2011 12:52:49 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

Actually nevermind, retreat as soon as the odds are even! (Soviet 1:1 => 2:1 rule)

Could we please have a game option to turn this effect ON/OFF. That would settle the problem, those who like it can play with it on.

And no I don't want it even when playing as the Soviets.


How do you really feel?

Wasn't this in the SPI boardgame too?

_____________________________


(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 14
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/14/2011 2:31:36 PM   
Jakerson

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Truppenstab

Yes I think the current game mechanisms work very well to simulate hold at all costs. That any of changes would possibly make a unit in a strong positions too good.

Paul.


This is reason why I oppose game design chances that add micromanagement and are exploitable numerous ways. This you say it is just one way to exploit feature hold at all cost. I am not fan of any feature that makes busting trough heavily fortified hexes harder than it is like hold at all cost mode.

Current mechanics already in the game give plenty of ways holding most important hexes.

Also it is debatable from military strategy point of view that holding at all cost even should boost defense as it is not every case best way to defense. In game of this scale I mean grand strategy I assume that generals and troops always do the best they can with resources I give them it is no sense to let player meddle with operational level of leadership.

(in reply to Truppenstab)
Post #: 15
RE: Hold at all costs! - 8/14/2011 8:36:30 PM   
Der Lwe


Posts: 15
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline 		But at the strategic level you did not decide if a division would use hasty or deliberate attack either. This game spans from military strategic down to tactical level. We have to ways to attack, why not two ways to deffend? Deliberate deffence and "normal" defence. In deliberate you need to get a shatter or rout before the unite moves. This might have to be ballanced by giving rout and shatter results easier when attacking deliberate deffence and maybe other mecanism, like costing admin point for defenders everytime someone set up a deliberate deffence.

(in reply to Jakerson)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Hold at all costs! Page: [1]
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

2.516