janh
Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
|
First, hats off to both of you. This was my favorite AAR thus far, and for a good reason. You both played a very interesting game, and it was as much fun to watch the Soviet hordes to rush forward and push the Germans occasionally to the breaking point, as it was fun to watch how a German player can organize a defense and counterattack, saving some cut-off units or punishing the Red hordes. Lastly, this ARR also had a great style, it often read like the summary of a Wehrmacht's situation report.
I hope there will be more, maybe a 1942 or 43 GC start to compare what difference a historical 41 would now make? Or another GC with swapped roles?
I'd really also like to hear the opinions of both of you, where the present engine resides in terms of balance, or what you think isn't caught well with the rules or mechanics we have. Maybe some "constructive criticism" could still make it into WitW, or at least influence the future development of this series.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Scar23
There were lots of refit "bugs/issues' but these could have been caused by our patching as we went.
Would you mind positing your production and OOB screens as well? Looking at the overall casualties, 11M Russian and 5M German, it sounds like the fighting was a bit less. Could you in retrospect have pushed the Germans harder in the past years? Or were the manpower losses in 41 too crippling in the long run?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Scar23
I don’t believe the supply model works at all. Both sides can launch broad attacks, all across the map, and all at once. No need to focus or worry about supplying multiple areas while on the attack. This seems too basic for a game with this much detail. I should be husbanding my supply resources, as should the Germans at some point.
Yeah, I think no one would argue with that point any longer. Even if it presently would skew the whole production model away from the numbers based on research, I would favor toning down the supply production across the board for both sides. Make it artificially scarce, basically. And then also increase the penalties for supply flow forward, maybe add a penalty rule that affects an attacker more so than a defender: add a reduction in the supply phase for say Panzers/Mech/Armor that end the turn below 10 MP, and Infantry below 6 MP or so. Something that after 2 or 3 turns pushing forward will require at least 1 turn pause.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Scar23
I think isolated units fold too quickly. The reduction to their CV should be linked to supply better. A 12-15 CV unit with 80% supplies will go to 1 CV as soon as isolated, if it still has enough supplies on hand to continue to fight effectively there should be a drop to moral for being isolated, but if they have the supplies there should not be such a big drop in CV. Now if it is attacked, and burns through its supply, I could see the drastic reduction… so multiple attacks on an isolated unit would cause use of supply, thus reducing its CV. I don't see how a Stalingrad encirclement could ever be simulated by the game, as it would never hold out more than a turn or two unless it was level 4 entrenched in a city. Then maybe two turns.
Nothing to add here either, I think the community generally agrees with that. This would also greatly lower OP-Tempo, hence not going overboard with any other penalties, and it would make pockets last "much more realistically" longer. Maybe increase "wastage" so that the CV drops 30% per turn by depleting supply quicker? In the end, imagine if the Lvov pocket lived for 3-4 turns -- and left the pockets units enough strength to inflict some more casualties until they are gone; it would do a lot to make the Lvov fighting more credible, not purely an I-Go-U-Go artifact.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Scar23
Something still seems wrong with the entrenchments. At times our game seemed to be too attritional. Maybe tie entrenchments to Action points or something. I know the Russians need the entrenchments to hope to stand against the Germans early on (and this could be fixed by making the Russians a little better so they would not rely so heavily on entrenchments, but most of their units are 1-3 CVs, put 25-30 CVs in a level 3 entrenchment and it’s not possible to successfully assault the hex. I was losing 6-8k in men on assaults for no real gain, even if I won the hex…there was another level 2-3 entrenchment behind the first one.
Obviously the Soviet fort spam is done for, but now the Germans in the later years have the APs, often the manpower, and always the construction units to create quite a few eastwalls. I am not sure where the problem here really is, i.e. is it because your Army was not growing strong enough, quick enough anymore to overcome those fort lines (i.e. your offensive potential was effectively robbed in 41/42), or whether it was just to easy for the Germans to erect them. The balance in this game seems to hinge on a very narrow line, and of course your Army being weaker resulted in Axis defense being stronger, Axis losses lower, and more manpower for more fort zones being available. Maybe the balance in this aspect as much as in a few others should be more forgiving?
BTW, the Axis material pools are impressive, especially manpower and no question, also planes. Imagine this were a "War in Europe" game where you'd have these spares now available in the West or South...
|
Printable Version
RE: Sep 1945 Endgame in sight - 
RE: Sep 1945 Endgame in sight - 
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