Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

22.3. FIRST WINTER RULE
The following rules impact the Axis player in the section of the map area delineated by
coordinates X>72 or X>54 AND Y<95 during Blizzard turns in any scenario that includes the
months of December 1941 through February 1942.

First winter rule has no impact in November, you do not have to retreat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran

You asked about Cavalry earlier. Your Cavalry division (now withdrawn) is one of your best divisions at start IMO. While not as strong as a 100% tank division it has good attack values against swamps, over rivers, and is great at establishing bridgeheads. Too bad he doesn't hang around around December.

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439
As to blizzard effects, my main gripe is (as it is with all winters) that the rivers give no bonus for the defender. I live close to the biggest river in Norway, which in international standards is a small large river, yet it is up to 2 km wide in some areas. When it freezes, you can easily drive tanks across it, that is fine, however since we are talking a frozen river with snow on top of it, those tanks/inf etc have to cross those 2kms with no cover of any kind. So 2kms with no cover, and the defenders gets no bonus? Yup, that makes sense...

Another thing I have some issues with, as I also do with Witp is the fixed withdrawals of units. This happens no matter what. I understand that IRL those units did indeed withdraw, but would OKH have sent some of their more elite units to France in -43 if the USSR was in Poland in force? I think not. Would the Australians have sent their forces to Africa if the Japanese were occupying half of Oz? I think not. So what I would have loved to see, is some set of trigger.
Unit XXX will withdraw at turn YYY unless condition ZZZ is in effect, in which case it remains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mevstedt
Fixed withdrawals of units in a game that may end up ahistorically has been debated among strategy game players and designers for as long as I have played them and probably long before that. I feel that there could or should have been a way to better take care of this, for instance by having an "emergency threshold" value be calculated which would allow you to override withdrawals if the game is on the line (ie as with your last game vs oloren).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: mevstedt
Fixed withdrawals of units in a game that may end up ahistorically has been debated among strategy game players and designers for as long as I have played them and probably long before that. I feel that there could or should have been a way to better take care of this, for instance by having an "emergency threshold" value be calculated which would allow you to override withdrawals if the game is on the line (ie as with your last game vs oloren).

Regarding fixed withdrawls and that units should stay if things are worse, well the reverse can also be said. Who's to say Normandy or the Italian Campaign must proceed historically? Maybe those fronts could have collapsed sooner, or gone wrong quicker, etc, so that now OKH withdraws MORE units from the eastern front or has to withdraw them sooner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

Regarding fixed withdrawls and that units should stay if things are worse, well the reverse can also be said. Who's to say Normandy or the Italian Campaign must proceed historically? Maybe those fronts could have collapsed sooner, or gone wrong quicker, etc, so that now OKH withdraws MORE units from the eastern front or has to withdraw them sooner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439
Well, never seen Yanks or Brits outside Berlin, but HAVE seen the USSR there

No, it is a good and valid point, and ofc a problem with games that deals with one single theathre. However, I am not saying that units should not withdraw at the given dates, but if say the USSR has taken Warsaw in -43, I think units should be kept in the east. And that was my initial post about this, "Unit XXX will withdraw at turn YYY unless condition ZZZ is in effect, in which case it remains"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
Also, it brings up gamey possibilities. Now the Russian player knows the Germans get to keep extra units if Warsaw falls before 1944, so he deliberately lets the Germans hold Warsaw to trigger those scheduled withdrawls... A gamey and non-historically plausible strategy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
One thing I would like to see with the scheduled withdrawls is a bit of variability, say withdraw +/- 5 turns, or something, so that players don't necessarily know exactly when a unit is schuduled to withdraw. Another idea someone brought up a while back was having holding boxes, where a player must keep XXX value CV units, or take a VP hit, or something like that. It's a good idea to spice up the withdrawl system, but it can be so situation specific and complex that it would be difficult to replicate a robust system. And then, how does an AI control it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439
Well, never seen Yanks or Brits outside Berlin, but HAVE seen the USSR there

No, it is a good and valid point, and ofc a problem with games that deals with one single theathre. However, I am not saying that units should not withdraw at the given dates, but if say the USSR has taken Warsaw in -43, I think units should be kept in the east. And that was my initial post about this, "Unit XXX will withdraw at turn YYY unless condition ZZZ is in effect, in which case it remains"

I understand, but again, could we not also say that if the Germans occupy Lenningrad and Moscow, OKH would withdraw troops because things seem about wrapped up in Russia? Historically, the Germans did gear down a bit and start withdrawing/disbanding units in late 1941 because it looked like the Russians were close to collapse. So if the Axis capture and hold Moscow (or maybe better yet, if the Russians fall below 4 million men) meaning that the Axis are doing better than historical, then why shouldn't 3rd Panzer Army be sent to North Africa to help Rommel's drive to the Suez as a Russian collapse appears iminent? Of course the reverse is again possible: Rommel succeeds and OKH sends the Afrika Korps to the Russian Steppes...or Wacht Am Rhein succeeds in 1944, 21st British Army Group is annihilated and 1st Para Army is freed up for the east!

Also, it brings up gamey possibilities. Now the Russian player knows the Germans get to keep extra units if Warsaw falls before 1944, so he deliberately lets the Germans hold Warsaw to trigger those scheduled withdrawls... A gamey and non-historically plausible strategy.

One thing I would like to see with the scheduled withdrawls is a bit of variability, say withdraw +/- 5 turns, or something, so that players don't necessarily know exactly when a unit is schuduled to withdraw. Another idea someone brought up a while back was having holding boxes, where a player must keep XXX value CV units, or take a VP hit, or something like that. It's a good idea to spice up the withdrawl system, but it can be so situation specific and complex that it would be difficult to replicate a robust system. And then, how does an AI control it...

Personally, I've always figured that if I was doing better or worse in game, then in my mind I logically conclude that my other off map fronts are going similarly as good/bad also, so that they (psychologically) cancel out, and any pre-scripted withdrawls or other in game events are simply matched to other fronts. Example: Warsaw falls in 1943 and a couple SS Divisions are withdrawn a couple turns later? I would think "Well, damn, the Italian Front obviously had a really bad collapse and the Allies are close to crossing the Alps, and holy crap, the war is really going bad for us right now!" I guess I just roll with it and have a little historical fun with it at the same time. No biggie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

What is the breakdown so far on your divisional losses for blizzard?

It's still far better than the 20+ you lost last game!