1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality

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 >> 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 3:04:25 AM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

Has anyone tested or played with the new 1:1 --> 2:1 twist into 1942 or further? I am currently fooling around against the Axis AI set on difficult; remarkably in 1942 it is virtually impossible to dislodge almost any Axis unit whether fortified or not. It is almost impossible to get 2:1 and a successful attack against a German unit; some of the lower CV Roumanians can be successfully attacked. Now, on the first move of the blizzard there (Turn 76) is still little hope. I think the only way will be to attack with 6 corps and artillery back up, and even then it will be problematic. There are not enough APs to muster more a few of such clusters for the attack.

Time shall tell.

Marquo

Post #: 1

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 3:32:28 AM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

Marqo

I have a game in late 43 with hooper where I have a lot of big forts and defensive values. He is able to bust my lines up most of the time when he can roll in the mass artillery. I hold a hex somewhat more often now than i did before the change, but not always. Casualties are heavy. Most of the russian piles that are attacking have cv's of 30 plus and there are LOTS of artillery. I can post some screenies if you are interested.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 2

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 3:50:20 AM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

I beleive you because that is what I am seeing; did you start your game with 1.05? The only way to crack the lne is with huge masses of artillery and stacks of 30+; the challenge is that the Soviet can only masses a few of these horrors...

2:1 really limits the number of successful attacks.

Marquo

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 3

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 4:41:06 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

I've been out of the game for so long... So they finally got rid of 1:1?

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 4

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 10:27:12 AM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

I have replayed 78 turns of a 100 turn test of 1942 against the AI with +1 removed.

I dare not tell you you what the difference in the advance rates were - let's just say the Red Army was a long way from The Dneiper in 1944, but the AI is a poor performer on attack anyway, so human v. human tests with their higher operational tempo will better demonstrate the difference.

The date chosen for losing the +1 and the casualty penalty was not the date I would have chosen, as I don't think it reflects when the Soviet, command and control and leadership structure had developed to the point it was truly able to co-ordinate its attacks in the "proper" manner.

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 5

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:15:38 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Yes, due to many repeated "flying pig" graphics from a few players like Pelton, the rule that allows the Soviets to force a retreat at 1:1 is now gone after early 1942. It's not the date I would have chosen either. Basically I'm finding much the same as OP, the Soviets can't launch a successful attack until well after the 1942 blizzard, which means that their overall morale is lower in 1943 and 1944 and the game turns into even more of a slow grind than it was.

Probably the only thing keeping the Soviets going forwards at this stage is the overwhelming superiority of the Soviet air force (this is now 1944). I'm occasionally able to pile 400+ bombers into ground support for an attack, and that produces enough German losses to get over the 2:1 line.

I haven't played past mid 1944 yet, but in my current PvP game the Russians haven't retaken Kiev yet and it's early June 1944. I can't see how they are going to force the Germans back into Romania and beyond in 1945, let alone win the war. Mind you, a lot of 1943 was spent moving units back and forth between the front line and the second line and hence doing very few attacks, and in the latest 1.05 beta they have reduced the attrition losses a bit so that may not be required as much so that may change things.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 6

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:21:00 AM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Yes, due to many repeated "flying pig" graphics from a few players like Pelton, the rule that allows the Soviets to force a retreat at 1:1 is now gone after early 1942. It's not the date I would have chosen either. Basically I'm finding much the same as OP, the Soviets can't launch a successful attack until well after the 1942 blizzard, which means that their overall morale is lower in 1943 and 1944 and the game turns into even more of a slow grind than it was.

Probably the only thing keeping the Soviets going forwards at this stage is the overwhelming superiority of the Soviet air force (this is now 1944). I'm occasionally able to pile 400+ bombers into ground support for an attack, and that produces enough German losses to get over the 2:1 line.

I haven't played past mid 1944 yet, but in my current PvP game the Russians haven't retaken Kiev yet and it's early June 1944. I can't see how they are going to force the Germans back into Romania and beyond in 1945, let alone win the war. Mind you, a lot of 1943 was spent moving units back and forth between the front line and the second line and hence doing very few attacks, and in the latest 1.05 beta they have reduced the attrition losses a bit so that may not be required as much so that may change things.

I'm just coming into 1942 with a 1.04 campaign updated to 1.05 in mid December 1941, so Soviet experience and morale is much better than it would be in a pure 1.05 game.

What I'm trying to avoid is that my opponent turtles up. If he does, well, then it'll be a Dr�le de Guerre until 1943. If he attacks, things will be different.

(We're palying with HR regarding Victory Conditions, where Soviet victory levels are set to obtain a significantly better performance than historically).

_____________________________

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 7

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:44:35 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
(We're palying with HR regarding Victory Conditions, where Soviet victory levels are set to obtain a significantly better performance than historically).

Being a long time WiF player, I believe that any result other than the fall of Berlin before 1st April 1945 should count as a German victory. It will be interesting if the devs address the victory conditions issue at some stage.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 8

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:46:50 AM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

I think, but don't know, that the intention of removing the +1 was to force the SU player to plan the building of his army better than he has had to heretofore. Artillery definitely is the key, and in the pre-1.05 AARs that got even close to 1943, it was clear that the Soviet players were not building enough artillery units, but because of +1 they did not need the artillery because the rifle corps could stroll up and use +1 to gain the ground anyway. Anyone who has played the 1943 campaign with the historic artillery OOB knows the pain that +1 inflicts.

The SU definitely shouldn't need +1 in summer 1943 if they do have enough artillery, but not having it during the summer and winter of 1942, to me, is still debatable, but trying to get the game to reach the "correct" tipping point for when the Axis truly lose the initiative has been tricky.

While 1.05 has made huge strides towards achieving a better tipping point, the +1 issue may not be helping achieve the desired long-term result.

< Message edited by BigAnorak -- 10/21/2011 11:52:34 AM >

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 9

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:51:24 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

Sticking with history, which we all know runnian players hate to do.

The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 and that was only because the Germans through away their reserves on the stupid battle at Kursk.

The 1v1=2v1 rule was tested and found to allow the Red army to break the Germans army totally in 43 and not mid 44 to late 44 as historical.

I am sorry that the I win button was taken away from the Red players, but the game needed to be based on history and not fairytales.

The Red army will have no problem breaking the German army in 44 as historical, unless you aren't that good of a player and deserve to lose.

Ask Hoooper for a few pointers and stop cring for your I win button back.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/21/2011 11:54:50 AM >

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 10

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 11:57:53 AM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
(We're palying with HR regarding Victory Conditions, where Soviet victory levels are set to obtain a significantly better performance than historically).

Being a long time WiF player, I believe that any result other than the fall of Berlin before 1st April 1945 should count as a German victory. It will be interesting if the devs address the victory conditions issue at some stage.

Let me dig them out for you:

Decisive Soviet Victory - Germany surrenders before 7/1/1944
Major Soviet Victory - Germany surrenders between 7/1/1944 and 12/1/1944
Minor Soviet Victory - Germany surrenders between 12/1/1944 and 5/1/1944
Draw - Germany surrenders between 5/1/1944 and 10/1/1945, or it has less than 100 VPs at the end of the game.
Minor German Victory - Germany has between 100 and 142 VPs at the end of the game.
Major German Victory - Germany has between 142 and 200 VPs at the end of the game.
Decisive German Victory - Germany has more than 200 VPs at the end of the game.

On the German victory levels: the idea is to reward a truly outstanding result, such as holding the 1942 start line all the way until 1945. A major victory involves keeping under the hobnailed Axis boot a significant portion of the Ukraine, the Baltic States and Bielorrussia. Minor Victory means keeping the Red Army out of the - roughly - 1939 Reich frontiers.

(All the above with the understanding that if things become a Dr�le de Guerre it's game over).

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 10/21/2011 12:00:33 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 11

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:02:53 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 and that was only because the Germans through away their reserves on the stupid battle at Kursk.

"Generally useless in the offensive" is by far a wide shot. I'd rather say that the Wehrmacht was outstanding in the defense (check the work Model did on August 1942 stopping the onslaught Western Front throw at 9. Armee in the Rzhev - Sychevka direction). If anything, these "useless" offensives paved the way for the huge victories later in the year. The Germans lost their edge after so much fighting, not to mention that Stalin finally saw the point his STAVKA advisors made about not squandering away preparation and troops.

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 12

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:06:50 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sticking with history, which we all know runnian players hate to do.
*****
Ask Hoooper for a few pointers and stop cring for your I win button back.

Do you have to act like a 12 year old in every single post? People can't discuss anything without your gratuitous comments ("Sticking with history, which we all know runnian players hate to do") and your whining about someone else whining.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 10/21/2011 12:15:51 PM >

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 13

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:07:08 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

DOUBLE-POST

< Message edited by 76mm -- 10/21/2011 12:09:29 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 14

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:07:48 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

quote:

The Red army will have no problem breaking the German army in 44 as historical, unless you aren't that good of a player and deserve to lose.

This post very nearly got a Green Button from me. How do these comments add anything constructive to the debate on the changes in the +1 rules?

You really need to re-consider the manner in which you make your points, as I think you are alienating people and causing threads where people want genuine discussion to get sidetracked.

I assume you don't do it on purpose, but if you are, you definitely get a green button.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 15

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:14:20 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
I think, but don't know, that the intention of removing the +1 was to force the SU player to plan the building of his army better than he has had to heretofore. Artillery definitely is the key, and in the pre-1.05 AARs that got even close to 1943, it was clear that the Soviet players were not building enough artillery units, but because of +1 they did not need the artillery because the rifle corps could stroll up and use +1 to gain the ground anyway. Anyone who has played the 1943 campaign with the historic artillery OOB knows the pain that +1 inflicts.

The SU definitely shouldn't need +1 in summer 1943 if they do have enough artillery, but not having it during the summer and winter of 1942, to me, is still debatable, but trying to get the game to reach the "correct" tipping point for when the Axis truly lose the initiative has been tricky.

The problem that I see with the removal of the 1:1 rule is that 1942 will be, if possible, even more stalemated than previously. Sovs simply won't be able to attack fortified German lines, and the Germans don't have any real reason to attack the Sovs unless they are suicidal. Result: no one will do anything until 1943, when the Sovs have built enough rifle corps and arty to do some damage to the Germans. But by then the Germans will be so well dug in that any advance will be a very tedious slog.

I can't really critize the lack of Sov offensive punch in 1942, but coupled with the lack of incentives for the Germans to leave their forts, I think the games will be very tedious.

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 16

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:27:12 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

The 1941 Campaign is and was always going to be the most susceptible to hindsight, with players correcting the mistakes of history, which maybe makes the 1942 stalemate phase we see currently inevitable, which is why I started playing more 42 and 43 campaigns, where you are taking over situations that reflect the historical mistakes.

Maybe a change to the GC1941 victory conditions is needed that gives the Axis the chance of an "instant" win in 1942, based on capturing Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku or a combination thereof, as this definitely reflects a better than historical performance, even though it is well short of the Axis' own victory conditions which were the control of the whole WITE map!

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 17

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:28:05 PM

heliodorus04

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

Pelton,

I need to agree with 76mm here. We all know your feelings.
You're coming off like a bully, and its undermining the respect people have for you.
You're losing your authority.
Please change course.

_____________________________

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 76mm)

Post #: 18

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:43:19 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

quote:

Result: no one will do anything until 1943, when the Sovs have built enough rifle corps and arty to do some damage to the Germans.

In testing the discussions about 1942 revolved around the Axis being able to apply sufficient AP pressure, to force the SU to rebuild a chunk of his army using APs and slow down the rate at which he could build his Artillery/mechanised Juggernaut so that in turn the rate at which the juggernaut could advance would be slowed. Unfortunately testing before the game released was never able to explore this issue.

If the Axis do nothing in 1942, the Soviets can build their Juggernaut unmolested and start hammering away well before summer 1943.

The debate which the OP started was as to whether the removal of +1 is adding or subtracting from the rate of advance, and unfortunately until we see more games where the SU player has built as much artillery or more than is in the 1943 OOB, we will not see the true impact of the new +1 rules.

The rate of attrition, which ultimately causes the collapse of the Axis armies is a separate issue, although partially linked to +1, there are many other factors than determine if the breaking point is occurring too early. For example, we have not seen the long term impact of the new static rules and the lower attrition that results.

< Message edited by BigAnorak -- 10/21/2011 12:46:33 PM >

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 19

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:44:40 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
The problem that I see with the removal of the 1:1 rule is that 1942 will be, if possible, even more stalemated than previously. Sovs simply won't be able to attack fortified German lines, and the Germans don't have any real reason to attack the Sovs unless they are suicidal. Result: no one will do anything until 1943, when the Sovs have built enough rifle corps and arty to do some damage to the Germans. But by then the Germans will be so well dug in that any advance will be a very tedious slog.

I can't really critize the lack of Sov offensive punch in 1942, but coupled with the lack of incentives for the Germans to leave their forts, I think the games will be very tedious.

I think it would be worth keeping a close eye at some of the AARs of more conservative players now entering blizzard and then spring, they might show how the balance between 2:1 and then dropping it with the new fort rules could be affected. If the new fort rules lead to a new dynamics of some forth-and-back swinging in winter, and consequently fewer static, strongly dug-in fortifications for either side in spring, then also the spring and summer fighting might see some good opportunities for the Germans to break the Soviet lines a second time. Also opportunities for the Soviets to pursue some local counteroffensives a la Izum might arise if the Germans leave winter with lower fort levels.

In fact, if a German player pushes the 41 offensive similarly to history right until blizzard hits and stops his "engines" cold, he'll be much more exhausted than most players drive their Axis forces presently (and the Soviets consequently also more attrited), but most importantly he will be weakly dug-in for the Soviet blizzard counteroffensive. I would say that for example the Q-Ball vs. Bletchley AAR shows something more towards that end, and recent turns I find have shown that the Soviet player here is able to push forward quite well in the blizzard since the German fort levels are low compared to 1.04 or earlier. That made me wonder whether Bletchley at all needs the 2:1 rule for a successful offensive here? Time will tell!

However, if the Germans start turtling earlier, and don't push to exhaustion to reach Moscow or Rostov, the fort levels might be comparably high again. In which case a Russian blizzard offensive should probably be much bloodier and perhaps even fail, given the German decision to invest in defense rather than paying for the last yards towards the goal line.
What do you think about this trade-off?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 and that was only because the Germans through away their reserves on the stupid battle at Kursk.

Suppose then the history books must be rewritten if the Soviets could have pulled of the Stalingrad offensive before summer of 43, right?????

The Soviets pulled off small scale counterattacks against infantry or exposed Panzer formations right from the start, and the subsequently learned to coordinate those to bigger scales. See the 41/42 winter offensives, the 42 spring offensives such as Izum, or the 42 winter offensives including SG. The catch is, the planning apparently lacked, sufficient reinforces to exploit were often not available, or had to be used to achieve the breakthru still, and once the Soviets did indeed break free, no such panic spread thru German ranks as previously thru the Soviet conscripts. The Germans often reacted fast and well, improvised blocking and delaying actions, attempted to hold both of the flanks of breakthrus until the latter could be sealed of themselves... Soviets did have a very bloody and steep learning curve, one that likely will not be repeated in such dimensions by a skillful player with good knowledge of history though. But for sure they were not totally useless.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 20

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:54:15 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Maybe a change to the GC1941 victory conditions is needed that gives the Axis the chance of an "instant" win in 1942, based on capturing Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku or a combination thereof, as this definitely reflects a better than historical performance, even though it is well short of the Axis' own victory conditions which were the control of the whole WITE map!

I don't consider auto victory to be out of reach for the Axis in 1942. People focus a lot on "Clausewitzian" approaches, in such a "pure" way they become non-sense.

One thing I'm thinking about is the following. Take a GC 41 game where the Axis comes out well out of Blizzard (there are quite few games like that, let's us not deceive ourselves). Now, imagine the Soviet player chooses to turtle up with his low experience and low morale units. Possibly building a lot of forts, and maybe straining his supply situation (since he lost a lot of HI in 1941), which also has a negative effect on Morale in 1.05.

What should the Axis player do? Sit down in his trenches and wait for the Soviet to come to him? Not really. What he should, what he needs to do is to do the Clausewitzian thing in an operational way, to achieve strategic results. What he should do is to create the conditions so that going after the Oil in Grozny, Maikop and Baku becomes such a realistic threat that the Red Army is forced to fight it out on the steppe. That's the best terrain for mobile operations and the rail system there is the thinnest.

What are the chances of the Red Army fighting there? Actually that's the worst place for it to fight, moreso with the high morale and low MP cost of moving into enemy territory for the Germans. Would it be acceptable to just kiss goodbye to Baku for the Soviet player? No, it isn't.

Raiding the Caucasus and destroying huge chunks of the Red Army is the best bet for the Axis. After all, the whole affair of the Nazi Soviet war can be summarized as a HUGE Nazi gamble.

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 10/21/2011 12:57:46 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 21

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 12:55:56 PM

Oskkar

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 ...

....URANUS...that useless offensive operation....

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 22

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 1:04:49 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I think it would be worth keeping a close eye at some of the AARs of more conservative players now entering blizzard and then spring, they might show how the balance between 2:1 and then dropping it with the new fort rules could be affected. If the new fort rules lead to a new dynamics of some forth-and-back swinging in winter, and consequently fewer static, strongly dug-in fortifications for either side in spring, then also the spring and summer fighting might see some good opportunities for the Germans to break the Soviet lines a second time. Also opportunities for the Soviets to pursue some local counteroffensives a la Izum might arise if the Germans leave winter with lower fort levels.

The question is not - in my opinion - the fort levels at the front line. But rather that the Axis has several prepared lines in the rear. Elastic defense requires places to fall back. People commit too much to stop enemy operations right on the start line. Russian real state is very cheap, and 1.05 fort rules have really crashed its price :)

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 23

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 1:10:15 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Raiding the Caucasus and destroying huge chunks of the Red Army is the best bet for the Axis.

Raiding the Caucauses is the best bet if the Germans want to lose. I don't think they can really pose a credible threat to Baku, and an attempt puts them in a much more hazardous position than the Sovs. As a Sov player I would like nothing more than to have my German opponent try that... I have actually tried to lure Germans down there but they were too smart to take the bait.

The best German bet in 1942 is to encircle large chunks of the Sov carpet and kill them, without any grand strategic designs. And I'm not even sure if that will be possible if the Sovs have a huge army in 1942 because they were able to avoid large casualties by retreating.

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 24

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 1:12:39 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
The question is not - in my opinion - the fort levels at the front line. But rather that the Axis has several prepared lines in the rear.

While you are generally correct, without the 1:1 rule in 1942 if the Germans have level 3 or 4 forts on the front line the Sovs will have a very hard time getting through them before they have built a large number of rifle corps.

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 25

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 1:25:52 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The best German bet in 1942 is to encircle large chunks of the Sov carpet and kill them, without any grand strategic designs. And I'm not even sure if that will be possible if the Sovs have a huge army in 1942 because they were able to avoid large casualties by retreating.

Like you, I think that has to be the realistic German objective in 1942: swallow as much Red Army units as you can.

Still, you should't put the "carpet" in this equation, in my opinion. If you have carpets = NO Strategic Reserves (only 10 or 15 divisions will not make ANY decent Reserve). Have a thin front and you will be able to have 100 Rifle Divisions as Strategic Reserves... Not to mention the Tank and Cavalry Corps (and then infantry).

Realistically, the Germans can only attack maximum in two places. if they attack in 3, 4, etc. places, they will simply lack strenght. Now look at your Strategic Reserves... You could mass 50 rifle divisions in each threatened area (+ the corps). That would be a huge concentration of forces and should help you (a lot) to at least slow the Germans down...

That's what I did on my '42 summer campaign and it worked like a charm. Not 1.05, right... but still, 50 rifle divisions + lots of corps are not a joke, I suspect

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 26

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 1:36:54 PM

Klydon

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

For those pointing to a successful Stalingrad offensive as "proof" of Russian offensive capability to refute Pelton's claims, I would ask/remind said players as to who exactly the Russian offensive hit, because it didn't include very many Germans at all. (IE, the Russians kicked the snot out of Axis minor allies, which they can do even in 1941). Can the Russians really attack a section of a fortified German line that has good troops in it in 1942 and expect success? Was there any major shifting of the lines during all of 1942 north of Voronezh? The Russians tried several operations and pretty much got bloody noses for their efforts.

Part of the issue with the game continues to be no incentive at all for the Germans to attack. What geographical objectives do anything for them other than Baku, which is not really realistic for them to try for? If the Germans launch any type of major offensive towards a geographical objective, most Russians are just going to run some more. This is where perhaps a turn to turn VP system would come into play.

The first thing is I think the community needs some time to adapt to the new rules revolving around the 1:1 rule to see if they can come up with the tactics/changes to not be so reliant on it as they were before. That takes time.

The second thing is it may not be possible to have a "happy medium" with an all or nothing 1:1 rule. (Unbalanced game if it is in, unbalanced if it is not). This is not something "house rules" can deal with easily either. One suggestion I would have is to somehow limit the amount of 1:1 attacks per turn (like 1 per front. At 1 per army, Russians would just create tons of armies and there are too many armies anyway and would result in too many 1:1 combats). Unfortunately that probably requires quite a bit of code work, which I don't think the time is available to do right now.

The other thing to remember during 1942 is the Germans are taking attrition damage all up and down the front and it isn't something they can really afford to take. Even with no combat, their losses will add up.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 27

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 1:37:31 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Like you, I think that has to be the realistic German objective in 1942: swallow as much Red Army units as you can.

Still, you should't put the "carpet" in this equation, in my opinion. If you have carpets = NO Strategic Reserves (only 10 or 15 divisions will not make ANY decent Reserve). Have a thin front and you will be able to have 100 Rifle Divisions as Strategic Reserves... Not to mention the Tank and Cavalry Corps (and then infantry).

Yeah, we've had this debate before...to reiterate, if you have thin lines the Germans will punch through them very easily, encircle an army or two or three, kill them, and do it all over again. Your reserves will not be able to save them. and pretty soon your "reserve" will be manning the frontline because of all the troops you've lost in pockets...

I had very large losses in 1941 but still had enough troops for a wall-to-wall carpet and two entire fronts as a reserve, which proved to be adequate.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 10/21/2011 1:39:53 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 28

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 1:49:20 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

Yes, we debated this before

I don't know if this is related to this 1:1 thing but on my current game (Turn 10 as Soviet, post 1.05.xx) I notice I ALMOST cannot counter-attack at all

Is this normal? Am I simply incompetent and my opponent (Marquo) very competent? All I can do is forming defensive lines which (I hope

) will slow him down. One inevitably falls => no counter-attacks are possible => prepare the next lines (minimum 2). I cannot infiltrate either as Marquo is competent. Is anyone seen this as well?

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 29

RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality - 10/21/2011 2:02:02 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
I don't know if this is related to this 1:1 thing but on my current game (Turn 10 as Soviet, post 1.05.xx) I notice I ALMOST cannot counter-attack at all Is this normal?

I don't know how to break this to you, but on Turn 10 you are still enjoying the benefits of the 1:1 rule

; I certainly would not call you incompetent, so maybe you are just encountering a new style of play.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 10/21/2011 2:04:40 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 30