Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Defense too strong

 
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 West >> Defense too strong Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Defense too strong - 5/9/2015 12:06:00 PM   
Alex1812


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline 		After reading all AARs and play my own pbem games I can say that defense is too strong here. There are no example where Allies player can broke the German defense line in Italy or France.

The protection value of terrain is too high and there are no penalty for concentrating a lot of troops in one hex. It feels like First World War combat in static front, to the WW2
Post #: 1
RE: Defense too strong - 5/9/2015 6:30:04 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		There is some discussion goes on on beta forum regarding this issue. There is no definite consensus on this, but it seems that is easier to play defensive game. So any kind of such feedback is important especially with some saves and data.

quote:

It feels like First World War combat in static front, to the WW2


There were many cases during WW2 when battles have been fought on static fronts for the quite long period of time...

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 2
RE: Defense too strong - 5/9/2015 8:57:32 PM   
barkhorn45

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline 		Anzio and cassino come to mind,also the huertgenwald among other's.

< Message edited by barkhorn45 -- 5/9/2015 9:55:48 PM >

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 3
RE: Defense too strong - 5/10/2015 5:28:36 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I have no issue with Mountain and Rough terrain being tough to crack. That's the way it was in Italy.

I would look at some of these (not all; implement all and Germany will be screwed)

--RESERVE: Reserve activation is too easy, even with lots of interdiction around. 4-5 SS units can hold a long front this way, even with junk up front. It's a massive force multiplier for the defense. I think this is the biggest problem.
--MANPOWER: You can keep the Wehrmacht in the field a long time by disbanding units like FLAK units. Allies have to kill LOTS of Germans
--ARTILLERY: The game doesn't really model the difference in Artillery quality. Allied artillery had better communications equipment, mobility, and more shells. The Germans really feared it. German artillery was limited by logistical factors. This is a big reason also, IMO, why historical kill ratios were higher than in the game
--MORALE: Wehrmacht morale doesn't really suffer much, particularly among elite units. "Morale" is not really a measure of attitude, but rather of combat efficiency, and for the Wehrmacht it was on a slow degradation of combat efficiency from 1943 on.

I would look very closely at RESERVE commitments. Way too powerful.

_____________________________


(in reply to barkhorn45)
Post #: 4
RE: Defense too strong - 5/10/2015 6:03:52 PM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		Being the devil's advocate here Q, but if you reduced reserve activation's much, that may affect the allies ability to get thru those huge defense numbers in the first place. In my game against Pelton he had such a huge wall that I had every division except the attacking ones on reserve. I took Rennes because almost every armor division on reserve activated and I had over 200k men in that one attack. I couldn't exploit it because of the combat delay, my morale, and the units that activated didn't have enough MP left to push further. Not once in any game have I ever achieved any break out, like Falise (no I can't spell it either).

In my game with Q I would have to stack all my armored units behind the lines, and we are talking about 14-20 armored divisions in a small area, with infantry divisions at the front, and not once did I ever get any sort of break out, even when the axis were slogging thru level 6+ interdiction.

My vote for the two most detrimental to the allied cause is manpower and morale. There were times in all my games that made it to 44, where for up to 8 turns, axis forces were taking on average 50k casualties a week. If you take that out to 400k, and it's october 44, and with strategic bombing, I don't see how the axis can replenish that many men so quickly. It's done by disbanding HQ, and Flak outside of Germany, and honestly I don't see any impact from bombing manpower except to gain vp's.

Morale is another key factor against the allies. Once you actually do break thru the defense lines and start to exploit, you find you can't go but a one or two hexes thru the combat delay. I've had every armored unit in France in a small area, got the hex, but then can't exploit more than a hex or two. This happened consistently thru all my ground campaigns. I've also opened up three hex avenues to exploit thru, but only one or two high morale units could go much more than three or four hexes and one or two armored divisions will not make a good break thru against what the axis have in reserve. If I did attempt this, every time that lone division was sent back, routed. The axis high morale units, I've never had a problem making it thru the combat delay to exploit behind the allies when I could.


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 5
RE: Defense too strong - 5/10/2015 6:41:52 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Not once in any game have I ever achieved any break out,


I wonder if it is the inability to create a supply crisis for the German army that causes this.
I see break outs (from both sides) in scenarios, where supplies start limited or non-existent. But it seems after a few months in a campaign the Axis have pretty solid supplies to fall back on. I haven't run an Allied GC against a human to tell if this supply crisis can be forced (e.g. in western France).
The Axis depots are smaller, so presumably if you could annihilate his railyards (not railway bombing) and force action on the front to soak up freight in supplies/replacements, you could create this supply crunch.
Basically 1/3rd of Allied bombing was going after the transport network, but I'm not sure how much people are doing this in game between chasing VP, fighting to maintain naval interdiction, and tactical support.
When I've done it in scenarios it has worked, but the key is getting depots drained in the first place for a campaign game.

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 6
RE: Defense too strong - 5/10/2015 6:46:30 PM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		I've thought long and hard why people's enthusiasm seems to be waning in the past month or two, so I'll share my thoughts on why I think this is happening.

1. The allies have such a narrow scope within which to win, and cannot afford to make any mistakes along the way.
I have not won one game that went the distance, or is going the distance. All of them should have at least ended in a draw. I was never able to achieve any break outs to reach Berlin on time. Two games were with the EF Box on, which is a whole another can of worms. In the game with the EF box off, that game was my poor management of my strategic air force. I had landing in Brittany in 43, and used my strategic bombers for a lot of ground support and I allowed the score to get too high. I was over confident about getting to Berlin early that I wasn't too concerned with the score, and by the time I figured out my blunder, it was too late. I had fallen outside the scope to win. This is very frustrating to put a few months into a game and know for the last month your can't win.

2. The air war learning curve is huge (which doesn't bother me personally), and if you can't handle your air, your not going to even get close to winning as the allies. It is possible to be getting 19-20 bombing points a turn in 43, and you can rack up the score with that, by getting Rome in 43 also. There are very few people I've seen that truly understand the air war, and I'm still learning stuff to do with it.

3. I've tried to bomb out several different types of industry (except taking the tanks out in those 8 cities, that's cheesy), and there really isn't any point to it. It never seems to affect them any earlier if you do, so sticking to the vp targets is the way to go, which feels so scripted. Having only one strategy you can use to win is a little of a waste. That whole aspect of Strategic bombing is missing imo. That way the axis player has to evaluate what your trying to hit, and he can either defend against it in the air or not. As it is, the axis player knows exactly what, when, and where you have to be bombing (which I know can't be helped) since you really only have one strategy to win.

I still think the games awesome, so I'm not being negative here. But I had seen someone else talking about the lack of forum activity in a post, and thought I'd kick the sleeping dog a little. The allies need some help, but I also have changed my mind on the VP's. I think the vp's are fine, but it's actually the allied ground forces that need a little help. I have no problem invading nor bombing. I can get ashore and stay ashore, but busting out of the huge defense wall turn after turn, only to find the next one in the hex behind it just as well defended is very frustrating. In open terrain I would think that anyone's tanks would be more mobile, and the allied tanks aren't moving thru heavy interdiction. Just combat delay and zoc's.

Me personally, I just don't like that the only games I've won were thru resignation. I find it very disheartening to do everything well enough, land in France, and it takes me till April 45 to breach the Rhine, and I landed in Calais. Every game that's gone all the way was this way. The last 9 months of the war are just frustrating, knowing that your trying your best, but there's no way your going to reach Berlin early or win. I slogged those games out so that we would have some data on this, but it was worth it I hope.

< Message edited by meklore61 -- 5/10/2015 7:50:22 PM >

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 7
RE: Defense too strong - 5/10/2015 7:21:10 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		I don't think the reserve reaction as such is the problem, in a way you can turn that against the Germans. Set up high interdiction over where their armoured reserve is and try to trigger them to respond = fatigue/disruption et al.

I think there are two fundamental problems once the game moves onto 1944. First, as in WiTE, there is no reason to repeat a historic mistake. Neither a German player nor the AI will let the allies manage a Falaise style slaughter, so inevitably the retreat to whereever they choose to stand is going to be controlled rather than an outright collapse.

Add on, the German economy is too strong. I'm not a believer that the strategic air war was decisive but it added another source of attrition, add on to that the Soviets gradually taking key resources and the Soviets ripping the core of the German army to pieces and in reality you had - diminishing resources/increasing demand. The combination was to put the Germans on a shoestring and that just doesn't seem to happen.

Problem is the game has to be fun for both sides. If you seriously constrain the Germans then you end up with a pretty deterministic attack v defence game that really lacks any reason to play from the axis side. Think overall its a very hard time frame/game to get well balanced to be honest

edit - that periods are more like WW1 doesn't worry me. Some periods were, and most of the campaign in the West was a series of attritional battles followed by significant moves when the Germans lost decisively in that phase. So Normandy was attrition, but led to the allies reaching eastern France/western Netherlands. The West Wall battles were attritional, but resulted in the allies breaking out across Germany pretty much at will.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 5/10/2015 8:24:12 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 8
RE: Defense too strong - 5/11/2015 8:28:02 AM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline 		I just finished my first full campaign (starting when 1.021 came out). Even if I lost, it was a lot of fun.
I concur with meklore61 that the allies need a bit of help on the ground.
Maybe you could split the manpower pool into two pools, untrained and trained, similar to the pilot pools.
Also Recon should be able to identify depot locations and units on trains, so the allied player could attack them directly them.

_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 9
RE: Defense too strong - 5/11/2015 3:30:36 PM   
whoofe

 

Posts: 211
Joined: 1/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

Add on, the German economy is too strong. I'm not a believer that the strategic air war was decisive but it added another source of attrition, add on to that the Soviets gradually taking key resources and the Soviets ripping the core of the German army to pieces and in reality you had - diminishing resources/increasing demand. The combination was to put the Germans on a shoestring and that just doesn't seem to happen.



^^^
I was thinking this as well. no matter how much I bomb, I don't see much effect upon the German economy. maybe its there, but its very difficult to see the results causing a toll on the German war effort.

I kept the Rumanian oil fields in flames for 6 months until the Soviets captured them, plus bombed several other oil/fuel areas in Germany proper, and never saw any drop in fuel stores on the graphs. I was not expecting a complete run out of fuel, but I was looking for a drop in the graphs, perhaps getting to a point where some units had to reduce their vehicles used or in some way reduce the effectiveness of motorized/armored divisions



(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 10
RE: Defense too strong - 5/11/2015 4:31:45 PM   
EddyBear81

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 2/10/2012
From: Lille, France
Status: offline 		I agree with Soeren : it would be better if the manpower pools were split into several "troop qualities" (which could determine their starting morale). For example : A, B and C troops.

There would be movements between the three pools so that C troops that saw many combats could be transferred to the B pool to be used in better units. And you can also imagine an A+ pool that is made only of combat-proven A troops, in order to fill special troops units.

Even in WITE, I found it weird that the same "manpower point" could be used in Volksgrenadier Divs. or as 2.Pz SS replacement

(in reply to whoofe)
Post #: 11
RE: Defense too strong - 5/13/2015 3:52:28 PM   
Davekhps

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/10/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I think there are two fundamental problems once the game moves onto 1944. First, as in WiTE, there is no reason to repeat a historic mistake. Neither a German player nor the AI will let the allies manage a Falaise style slaughter, so inevitably the retreat to whereever they choose to stand is going to be controlled rather than an outright collapse.


A more dynamic VP system could potentially account for that, e.g. a system that rewarded German counter-offensives higher than German defenses would produce an incentive to attempt alternate strategies. Just spitballing here, but imagine if German VP locations were worth more in the immediate turns after the Allies captured them, thus if the Germans could re-gain those locations in a counter-attack they would get a nice VP bonus. (Or, alternatively, they could forgo the counter-attack and husband their resources for a stronger defense... or a later counter-attack at a different location at a more advantageous time).

As it stands now, once the beachheads are secure from German counter-attack, the Germans have incentive to turtle down and defend, prolonging the war as long as possible. Obviously, IRL, Hitler still maintained the fiction that he could drive the Western Allies back into the sea. No human player, however, would ever launch a "Bulge" style offensive in the game, because they knew it would fail.

Crafting a VP system that rewards only a certain style of play, however, doesn't make for a game, it just makes a *script*.


< Message edited by Davekhps -- 5/13/2015 4:54:36 PM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 12
RE: Defense too strong - 5/13/2015 4:48:03 PM   
tiger111

 

Posts: 451
Joined: 11/25/2005
Status: offline 		Replying to Meklore61`s post no 6

I think the lack of enthusiam of this game has a lot to do with the game mechanics inability to inform the player what is/was happening.
The info is there but buried behind menus-it seems like playing war with a speadsheet.

I know of two avid WITP AE players who bought WITW and both took one look at it and after about 2 hours play lost interest permanently.

< Message edited by Augustas -- 5/13/2015 5:51:04 PM >

(in reply to Davekhps)
Post #: 13
RE: Defense too strong - 5/13/2015 5:04:33 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		The problem with the German side is that in RL, Germany being conquered in July 1945 was almost indistinguishable from being conquered in May 1945. The only difference (though not to Hitler) was who they surrendered to when the inevitable happened. Hitler wanted Germany reduced to a smoking ruin if it couldn't win, so he wasn't bothered by bringing the end forwards once inevitable. In game the difference between May and July is (potentially) victory or defeat. Thus there is no incentive to take any risk to try and stop the WA invasion of Germany. Hitler probably thought the Bulge could make a difference, being fully delusional by that point. But even game theory in the mind of a rational person would state that a 1% chance of causing the Allies to falter, vs. a 99% chance of speeding the end of the war, when that end has no negative (or even a positive) is going to consider (at least) the Bulge offensive, when the alternative is 100% lose anyway.

The trick is to find a (non-scripted or artificial) way to incentivise the Germans to not just dig in and retreat, or at least offer a sensible alternative. WA casualties is one factor already present (although people don't seem to like that), so more VP for them seems out.

There is the problem that I don't think the Bulge had even 1% chance, and Hitler had no idea of the material superiority he was dealing with (they could never imagine how quickly Bodenplat was made good, or the tank losses in Normandy), and player 20:20 hindsight kicks in. So there should not be a way to do too much damage to the WA (or the game becomes fantasy). Thus I think we are forced to some sort of VP based system.

Short term city VP for recapture (as suggested above) feels very scripted to me. However, WA losing all VP for a city gained up to that point if it is recaptured might be a way forwards (although data hungry). In other words you only count VP for a city from the point it is permanently yours. This gives incentives for mad dashes to Rome, or Paris etc without in any way forcing it, and also discourages silly WA raids and thinks as a bonus.

There are undoubtedly better methods as well...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Davekhps)
Post #: 14
RE: Defense too strong - 5/13/2015 5:24:34 PM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		I really don't mind the VP's the way they are, and you can win don't get me wrong, but you just can't falter along the way.

There are some reports that you can never find out what happened and just have to guess, but they are working on that, and it will show shipping losses too I believe. That's were most mystery casualties come from, and they're making several other changes to, and although I may be a bit frustrated, my enthusiasm for WitW has not.

(in reply to tiger111)
Post #: 15
RE: Defense too strong - 5/13/2015 7:30:37 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

I really don't mind the VP's the way they are, and you can win don't get me wrong, but you just can't falter along the way.


With respect to VP, what would be considered balanced?
If we presume players of equal skill don't make any mistakes, does the game always end in a draw (in VP, not on map situation)?
Or would we expect, given equal players, that on the canvas of WitW the Allies are going to have a hard time securing that draw?

So far all of my grand campaign games have been as the Axis, and in each of them the opponent has resigned or quit sending turns. Farthest I've made it is turn 21.
So I can't really comment on how the VP system balances out over the course of a game - I haven't had a chance to see it.


(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 16
RE: Defense too strong - 5/13/2015 9:18:58 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

I really don't mind the VP's the way they are, and you can win don't get me wrong, but you just can't falter along the way.


With respect to VP, what would be considered balanced?
If we presume players of equal skill don't make any mistakes, does the game always end in a draw (in VP, not on map situation)?
Or would we expect, given equal players, that on the canvas of WitW the Allies are going to have a hard time securing that draw?

So far all of my grand campaign games have been as the Axis, and in each of them the opponent has resigned or quit sending turns. Farthest I've made it is turn 21.
So I can't really comment on how the VP system balances out over the course of a game - I haven't had a chance to see it.




for what its worth I think the allies 'lost' ... in the sense that the Soviets won (in the short term, and then overplayed that victory to the point that the west had to respond agressively which the Soviets couldn't cope with as their economy was also in ruins). Two of the three major powers (Britain and France) were bankrupted and out of manpower by the end of the war.

so I'm relaxed that getting a draw out of the campaign game as the allies is a challenge but that leads to a discussion as to what a 'draw' in game is meant to reflect. At the moment, I *think* its based on outperforming the real outcome.

I also think too many allied players are bailing out too soon. They can't see how to manage a marginal victory and give up which is a pity. There is a very limited evidence base at the moment for the what happens over the longer term which is one reason why I intend to finish both my current games - if only to provide evidence that may help.

There are two balance points that could be worth looking at. One is no-one seems to be seeing the German economy match its historic late 1944 collapse. This maybe due to ineffective bombing strategies but I don't believe that. The underlying pools are too high (or the German player can scrap too much) ... in effect they can rebuild their army up to 3 times when in reality they never managed to replace the losses from the Normandy battles. The second is I think the simple scoring approach is off centre - I've got no problem with the basic concept, just that the scoring/value routine seems wrong (which takes me back to why I think its important to have some fully completed games to provide evidence)

_____________________________


(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 17
RE: Defense too strong - 5/13/2015 11:38:49 PM   
cmunson


Posts: 6238
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline 		I'm off three straight 43 Campaigns as Allies against AI.

My musings over the victory points is this, what do we consider the Allies should receive if they duplicate historical performance? In game terms I think we would be looking at a draw (but game doesn't end first week of May). I would propose matching Allies historically would be a minor victory. The -100 pts per turn starting in May for not taking Berlin means a minor loss almost certainly unless Allies are substantially ahead of historical.

This is from my last game. I'm happy where I am at the end of April (which is past historical) but know the carefully husbanded 100 vps will disappear rapidly in the 4 turns it will likely take me to reach and take Berlin. In the south I did way better than historical (too well, should put more forces north). In Italy I did less well as casualties and their vp point cost not worth the gain.

I do think German fuel availability a little too rich. I think the Allied logistics is working very well and felt historical (take Antwerp early!).

My perception before playing game is Allies had plenty of forces to do the job. Not so. The long left flank as you push towards Berlin is problematic. For Germans, they have loads of low value units to cover the area but the Allies have to allocate first tier units they can ill afford to spare. Can't expect 2x3 to give us Allied Landwehr but perhaps like with the FF mountain battalions some of the units could come in broken down to that level for the Brits. With the FF you can combine into a regiment or leave as battalions which I use to screen French Alps.

I find the game challenging as either side and have enjoyed each game. Next time, I will pull even more troops from Italy and move 3rd Army farther north. I will get to Berlin in April yet.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Chris

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 18
RE: Defense too strong - 5/14/2015 12:49:36 AM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

I really don't mind the VP's the way they are, and you can win don't get me wrong, but you just can't falter along the way.


With respect to VP, what would be considered balanced?





I'm not sure what your asking me? My quote says "I really don't mind the VP's the way they are". If your asking about the you can't falter statement then I mean that as the allies you cannot afford one mistake and I don't mean just a failed invasion that will probably result in you getting a minor loss, or draw. On the other hand I find it very easy as the axis to make some blunders and still come out on top. It's more complicated than just vp's, but I've played 6 games to the end, and Pelton to Nov. 44 and I have never won 1. 3 Of those games were against the ai and granted I was new to the game, but as the axis I've never lost one yet and most people resign way before they get to late 44 due to mistakes.

The main thing is that the allied bombing needs to have an affect so that the rest of the game works. If your not really stopping the flow of supplies and men to the front, and you can disband, and merge all the way across the map, then the allies will have a hard time of it. Red Lancer summed it all up on the Beta forums in one post, so if you can read it I would.

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 19
RE: Defense too strong - 5/14/2015 3:51:11 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

If your asking about the you can't falter statement then I mean that as the allies you cannot afford one mistake and I don't mean just a failed invasion that will probably result in you getting a minor loss, or draw. On the other hand I find it very easy as the axis to make some blunders and still come out on top. It's more complicated than just vp's, but I've played 6 games to the end, and Pelton to Nov. 44 and I have never won 1. 3 Of those games were against the ai and granted I was new to the game, but as the axis I've never lost one yet and most people resign way before they get to late 44 due to mistakes.


I agree regarding the margin for error, and I think that coupled with the requirement that the WA player understand the air war is why we've seen Allied players struggling out of the gate.

Question is, if both the Axis and the Allied player have played through the game a few times and have a good (and at least equal) grasp of the air war, will the outcome be a draw more often than not? I tend to think not, so long as the German player stays conservative.
I don't have any bright ideas as to how you stop a German player from 'turtling' and trying to just run the clock on you. I guess because this game interests me more as a canvas for refighting WW2 than the subjectively assessed outcome of my 'painting'. Consequently, I fight forward as Germany, as though I were trying to win the war. Because that's what I find fun.

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 20
RE: Defense too strong - 5/17/2015 5:49:52 AM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 1505
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		Returning to the statemant of the OP, I would like to add my two cents. I have two suggestions. The strength of the defender is something that has buggered me too, all the way since WitE. It somewhat takes away the fluidity of battle. On the other hand, the ability to ’dig in again’ gives the game the natural effect that the attacker have to stop from time to time and decide for a point to start a new offensive, rather than pushing unnaturally all along the line. So any change in the abilities of the defender has to be a carefully calculated one.

I agree with the above speakers pointing the finger at the great advantage of reserve actions by the defender. Since the attacker must better the number of units thrown into battle in order to reach at least twice the force encountered by defending reserve formations to get at 2-1, the defence have a clear advantage, probably stemming more from the game engine than from historical autenticity.

Perhaps the term ’reserve’ should be split into two – ’reserve’ and ’follow-up’ – with the former being an action chosen by the defender while being in the active phase, and ’follow-up’ chosen by the attacker going for a specific assault. When battle starts, ’reserve’ should have a certain chance of sending supporting units as now, while ’follow-up’ should suffer a certain risk of not sending units; i.e. in most cases, ’follow-up’ is more likely to add to the combat resolution than 'reserve'. Before ending the phase, the active player can change any ’follow-up’ units to ’reserve’, making them eligible for action in the opponents turn.

My second suggestion regards the 2-1 rule. Once the calculation reaches the final odds, as it is now, the outcome is decided. This is where I think a further calculation should kick in – the determination of retreat. Instead of having the fixed value 2-1 as an ’always’, I’d like to see that a 1-1 gave a 5 % chance of retreat, a 1,7-1 a 10 % chance, with the now fixed 2-1 giving perhaps 80 % chance of success, 3-1 giving 90 %, 4-1 giving 95 % and so on, up to the level where any chance of holding ground would be ludicrous. Likewise, even results less than 1-1 should have a very rare chance of throwing the defender back.

As it is now, one sometimes feel that the 2-1 inevitability is not like facing a very high wall, but a wall that stretches to a ceiling, locking the attacker into a closed room. Now I don’t say the above percentages has to be the exact numbers, it’s just a crude example, but loosening the 2-1 rule a bit could go a some way of alleviating the problem with too strong a defence.

I know, mixing with the reserve system the way I suggest, is probably not doable without a massive effort in programming, but wouldn't the addition of a more random retreat system be possible?



< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 5/17/2015 8:00:31 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 21
RE: Defense too strong - 5/17/2015 11:42:29 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline 		In the old Second Front game from the 90s, I was routinely able to get victories as early as in November of 1944.

I did that by strategic bombing of just Oil targets as well as attritioning the Germans through air attacks and the bombardment attacks that game had. Eventually they couldn't replace what they lost and they collapsed.

With this new War in the West Strategic Bombing won't work for the simple reason that, if one looks in the game Editor, the Germans also have National Supply Sources. You can't collapse their economy when they have cities which automatically give them 250,000 supplies and 25,000 fuel from each source. They don't get their supplies from converting resources they receive from cities into fuel/supplies. Bombing the city for resource, oil, etc. has no effect when it should since those two items seems to be the key according to the industry chart in the manual.

THERE IS NO GERMANY ECONOMY TO COLLAPSE.

In order for the Germans to HAVE an economy they would need to get their oil and resources from cities which they would then have to convert in factories into supplies and fuel. They don't. Like the Allies, they get the same amount of supplies and fuel each turn.

My question and (somewhat of a) challenge to the forum is: Since collapsing the German economy is a major reason for strategic bombing does the forum think it would be possible to REMOVE (actually drastically reduce) the automatic supplies and fuel the Germans receive and replace with increasing their OIL and RESOURCE locations? That way they would have a direct effect on what the Germans can do.

The caveat to the above is that I do believe (if I remember right) that even with the Allied Strategic bombing that the Germans still had some industry. That may mean instead of totally eliminating the auto supplies/fuel they get to drastically reduce it maybe to a mere maintenance level. Another possible question to the forum.

Thanks for letting me rant on this. Next rant I may have is the nerfing of allied tactical air.


_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 22
RE: Defense too strong - 5/18/2015 3:11:27 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

With this new War in the West Strategic Bombing won't work for the simple reason that, if one looks in the game Editor, the Germans also have National Supply Sources. You can't collapse their economy when they have cities which automatically give them 250,000 supplies and 25,000 fuel from each source. They don't get their supplies from converting resources they receive from cities into fuel/supplies. Bombing the city for resource, oil, etc. has no effect when it should since those two items seems to be the key according to the industry chart in the manual.



I think you misunderstand what a national supply source does.

National supply sources have unlimited freight.
They have unlimited access to whatever is in any of the pools.
Everything in the pools must be produced somewhere.
If all of the pools are exhausted then the national supply source has nothing.


_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Defense too strong 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

0.860