heliodorus04
Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pelton
If HQ build up is removed it would be 100% impossible vs an averge Russian who understands how the game engine works at this time to destory more then 12 arm pts.
Also as Tarhunnas has pointed out 100 times there is 100% no reason for the Russians to do anything then delay, because the German supply chain is so so short without HQ build up.
Evacing out 95% of production with HQ build-up removed is a piece of cake and you never lose more then 3 million men, because again there is zero reason to fight in south.
Simply "game" the system. Move most of troops to Moscow and Leningrad fronts, delay a little in south and you lose next to nothing.
And your not going to get anyways near Stalingrad in 41 vs anyone with a clue.
Sure being 100 to 200 miles from railheads is not realistic, but simply running east and not fighting as the Russian player is 100% not realistic at all.
So the system can be gamed by both sides.
1.05 is about balanced all players being equal.
If hq build-up is removed then you will have to atleast double the cost of moving production or there is zero reason for the German player to advance past 2 rivers. You never pocket any troops or destory any production unless the Russian player is a totally newbie to game.
Pelton
ALL Soviet players must play the Axis a time or two. It allows a Soviet player to understand exactly how long the Axis supply-line "leash" is. There are only 1 or 2 viable railroad paths in 1941 for the German per FBD. Once you exceed about 30-40 MPs from railhead, your panzers aren't getting more than 20 MPs without air resupply. Once you understand how the supply line leash works against the Axis, you know where you should place your ZOC 'maginot line'.
You can already afford to lose half the Soviet starting army to the Germans, and as long as you lose the factories that are historically lost, you're going to be fine for historical army growth (and thus, counter-attack potential) over time (well, let me leave wiggle room since we don't know the armament point factory issue yet in 1.05).
The Soviet has every advantage possible in 1941 to out-perform the historical predecessor. Complete C&C, excellent supply, parity of air force with the Luftwaffe in 1941, and plenty of unimportant ground to cede...
Without HQ buildup, you might as well play chess: Soviet players will be able to calculate Axis supply distances entirely from the turn number and the distance to the Starting border, and can set up the ZOC maginot each turn to delay rail conversion along the desirable paths, then retreat to ensure panzers will not be moving around and isolating anyone(since there's no HQ buildup).
What some Soviet players appear to me to want is a historical German advance and an ahistorical (i.e., superior to history) Soviet ability to react to the historical German advance. You guys consistently seem to want to take the tools away from the German side to remove strategic options.
I think you fail to take into account how the macro-strategy (the 1942-45 outcomes) game depends entirely on Germany's 1941. Limit Germany's 1941 options, and you remove variety from the game. Remove variety from the game, and you lose fun for both sides.
The German must complete BOTH of the following goals:
kill 3.5 million men (almost impossible versus a veteran Soviet)
AND
destroy Arm Factory points (currently not known how many are essential, but it used to be 100, and that was also virtually impossible against an experienced Soviet).
Without HQ buildup, those goals become out-and-out impossible.
The 'HQ buildup realism' matches to the Soviet 'perfect C&C realism'. If you want Buildup removed/toned back down (again), then let me know what you plan to do to limit the Soviet player's strategic gameplay options.
One thought I mused about regarding factory relocation is to have a bell-curve style cost system for transporting factories. The idea being that efficiency goes up the more you do of something, so that the first points of moving any kind of factory are more expensive, but costs scale down the more of a factory you move.
So for example, to move 10 points of armament from a single hex, I'd want something like 10,000 rail cap for the first point (instead of 6,000 uniform per point as it is now), then 9,000 for the second, 8,000 for the third, etc. etc., until your cost to move the ENTIRE factory is about the same if you move it ALL in one sitting, but you are punished for trying to "min/max" the system by taking small numbers of points from multiple factories over multiple turns.
Right now the Soviet can take 1 Arm point from 10 of his most vulnerable factories over multiple turns without penalty. If instead, he had to choose to spend 30,000 points to move 3 Arm points from 3 factories, versus say 24,000 to move all 3 from one place, well, that's a strategic limit that the German can align his strategy to.
_____________________________
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
|
Printable Version
RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics - 
will change the game if there is consensus and the game is more historical and more playable. 
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