lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Wadortch,
I'm away for a short while so I'll tackle this now.
quote:
- Wagner and the influence he has on the game. Anything that makes him happy makes the Army Group (AG) Commanders unhappy. Example—captured trucks. On the other hand, when decisions are made that adopt his recommendations (truck overhaul and secondments for example) they have no effect on his usual BAD attitude. Once he gets unhappy he appears to exercise way too much power to unhinge things, particularly in the south where his interference with unloading trains and such can paralyze AGS for several turns or more. That may be somewhat historical, but the inability of Halder to change this after 4th PG has sat without fuel for a month seems unhistorical at best. Related to this is the fact that in the game AGS can sit starving for fuel because of lack of trains, while AGN is awash in fuel (7 plus moves worth in the bank). Seems like there should be an option for Halder (or Hitler to intervene) to order some redistribution of train resources to where they are needed particularly if his relationship with Gerke is good and especially if playing the support Hitler option and PG’s headed for his objective stall because of misallocation of trains.
Wagner and Gercke represent the flaky logistical system that the Germans invaded Russia with. There was constant conflict and argument between all parties and the situation was held together with matches and glue for all of '41. It was a mess from start to finish.
AGS is where your logistical shortcomings will be the most acute due to it being the geographically largest theatre. Whereas a supply line to Leningrad is a fair distance, to Rostov it's an overstretched rubber band. There were several occasions in '41 where the Germans had a PG, or two, immobilised for a month at a time due to logistical problems. When this happens in the game is variable as a lot depends on the decisions that are made but, in general, AGS is the most likely because of the sheer distances involved.
The design of the game has an underlying tension between how far you can push you PG's versus being able to keep them supplied in fuel. It's a lot easier to do one than the other. I'm O.K with what you've described above as being within the realms of a feasible historical outcome. The personality tensions, conflicts and resultant shortages of trains and trucks is about right.
I'd recommend the book 'Supplying War' by Martin Van Creveld if you want a good read on that aspect of Barbarossa. It's what I based that part of the games design on.
quote:
-Start of game relationships. In my most recent game as Germans, I started the game with Bock in a distrustful mood, and it continues with no decisions being presented (the usual ones like captured trucks, rear area security) that will improve Bock’s state of mind. It does not seem reasonable to me that Bock could have withheld the focus of PG’s in AGC from the very first day of the campaign.
The decisions are probability based as to when they appear. There are other triggers that influence them but Bock doesn't affect the captured trucks so I'd mark that down as a coincidence.
As far as you and Bock starting the game with a poor relationship, there isn't much point in having this if it didn't affect anything. There's the option to turn past relationships off but Bock's (and Kluge's) views of Guderian in '41 were ambivalent at best.
quote:
-PG reassignment. I have seen the option to redeploy a PG appear once in a Military Independence game and perhaps that was triggered by an AG capturing a major objective (e.g capture of Leningrad producing a card to redeploy 4th PG). I think that should be a nearly certain outcome if it is not already. In the same vein, if playing a “do what Hitler wants scenario” the redeploy a PG card should appear when Hitler changes the objective of the campaign.
Stalin Episodes
That's a tricky one and it was given a lot of thought before hand. The end result was to keep the PG's within their respective theatres with the option to shift one out when needed. Going the other way with free range Panzergruppes negates the theatre system that underpins so much of the rest of the game. It was, historically, a major undertaking to permanently reassign a PG from one theatre to another and when it was done in '41 for Operation Typhoon the logistical system in AGC immediately went into spasms and never really recovered. The game lets you, as you've mentioned, do so once you've taken a theatre objective.
quote:
-In several games as Soviets, I have had Stalin throw a fit late in the game when the Germans are being crushed. Don’t understand how this can happen when, for example, the turn before 4 panzer divisions were destroyed by the Soviets.
Stalin's paranoia is a gradual build up over time, not generally an instant reaction to the previous turn. Being probability based you can get a low roll which can create an unexpected episode. The idea is to represent mental instability which is mainly derived from the perceived threat from his own officers & politicians rather than from the external, German, one.
Good job taking down 4 Panzer divisions, though. Not easy. Stalin probably shot the guy in charge of doing so.
quote:
-Severe weather (frostbite conditions) seems to adversely affect Soviet Activations and most importantly supply, even the 58th army. This does not seem to comport with history and the preparations the Soviets made to operate in such conditions.
The Soviets have a huge advantage in cold weather conditions but when extreme weather hits even they have problems. This ties in with what I've read to date but if you've got an example to the contrary I'll take a look at it.
quote:
Towers of Doom
-I have commented on this topic before and after playing another host of games come back to it. The stacking rules and their effect, on in supply defending stacks in particular, do not seem to be working as designed. I find NO incentive as Soviets to NOT pile up huge stacks, that if in supply and attacked even from 4 hexes by the Germans are 99% of the time unbeatable. There are no exponential losses to the Soviet defenders in such combats and it appears as if all the piled up troops in such a hex fight.
That shouldn't be happening. It's more of a core engine issue that is in Vic's domain so it might be best if I leave this one to him.
quote:
-It appears to me that too much information is revealed about opposing forces in nearly all circumstances. As Soviets, I shop around looking for German units changing posture, with low AP’s and readiness, etc. and I wonder in a dynamic 4 day turn environment in 1941 just how accurate this kind of intel is, especially for the Soviets. On the other hand, way too little information is displayed (or provided in the intel report) when, as in an ongoing game, Soviet units sneak into Brest-Litovsk (a lonely HQ of all things and an unidentified Soviet unit sits adjacent to AGC HQ in Warsaw. I admit to having missed seeing the changing border of Soviet territory, even so, the notion that a Soviet formation could reach these places without detection seems farfetched (and the HQ in Brest-Litovsk and the other adjacent to Warsaw only appeared with a anti-raider Panzer Division moved adjacent to Brest-Litovsk). See screenshot below. There are a lot of decisions offered related to the rear area security units, perhaps an easy fix that could be considered here would be to actually show some of these units on the map and that they could be moved (as was the case historically) to chase marauding Soviet raiders including very powerful HQ’s (it turns out at is just walked into Brest-Litovsk) sneaking around on their own.
Yep, I agree with this. It's a case of game play versus realism. The Soviets do have a significantly higher Fog of War barrier than the Germans. There were many instances of Soviet units advancing full tilt into unexpected German forces but cases where the opposite occurred were rare (largely due to the superior Luftwaffe recce and signals intel).
The sneaky units in the rear is a bit of an issue but not one with an easy solution. Providing rear area German units that can roam around dealing with these raises a lot of curly problems that I've never managed to come up with satisfactory solution for.
quote:
Fuel Shortages
-In my most recent and ongoing game as Germans, all three PG’s are experiencing fuel shortages at the beginning of Turn 3 which has continued into Turn 4. Is this WAD? Hard to believe that this reflects anything historical this early in the campaign and with the PG’s so close to the frontier.
WAD. It happened. Getting fuel to the fast advancing Panzers was a problem right from the start of Barbarossa. Getting enough fuel anywhere was a problem from Smolensk onwards.
On another matter how, after 15 games, do you find the balance of the game?
Cheers,
Cameron
|
Printable Version
Some Suggestions for the Next Patch - 
) 
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