RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German Design [8D]

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German Design [8D] - Bread (Axis) vs Beethoven (Soviet)

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 2 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German Design [8D] - Bread (Axis) vs Beethoven (Soviet)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 4:55:28 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Isn't this an example of the game being balanced though? Assuming you aren't seeing lots of the opposite outcomes where the Axis player is losing by the late 1941/1942 sudden loss checks? I'd only be expecting to see Axis auto victories in 1941 where there is a big mis-match in experience. If the players are broadly similarly matched I'd be expecting the majority of games to be going into 1944.

That said I think I agree with the general principle of this experiment - that if the Soviet side is able to avoid Sudden Loss despite all the restrictions there may be balance issues that need to be addressed. Will be interested to see how it turns out.

+1

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)

Post #: 31

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 5:06:43 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Isn't this an example of the game being balanced though? Assuming you aren't seeing lots of the opposite outcomes where the Axis player is losing by the late 1941/1942 sudden loss checks? I'd only be expecting to see Axis auto victories in 1941 where there is a big mis-match in experience. If the players are broadly similarly matched I'd be expecting the majority of games to be going into 1944.

That said I think I agree with the general principle of this experiment - that if the Soviet side is able to avoid Sudden Loss despite all the restrictions there may be balance issues that need to be addressed. Will be interested to see how it turns out.

I agree that it is reasonable to regard it as being historically balanced if Axis has a very difficult time winning an outright 1941 sudden loss victory. However, I don't think it is reasonable that Soviets should be able to totally abandon an entire broad sector of the front (e.g. the entire south) and still avoid a sudden loss, at least if it is intended for Axis to ever be able to "win" in terms of the VP system.

I think a big part of the issue is tied to the fact that bonus VPs are related directly to whether you take a given VP faster or slower than historical. However, the actual normal game balance does not normally correspond to historical progress. Axis usually advances faster than historical in the south. And in the north/center, Axis *can* be made to advance slower than historical, although much of that depends on the decisions of the Soviet player and how much they voluntarily retreat.

In previous games, for the most part Soviet players have made at least some attempt to defend the south, if for no other reason that it is sort of cheesy not to. However, good game balance should not rely on players having self restraint and playing in a certain way. Ideally good game balance should occur when players are attempting to play as well as they can, using the game mechanics to their advantage as best as they can to their advantage.

< Message edited by Beethoven1 -- 2/6/2022 5:09:09 PM >

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)

Post #: 32

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 5:24:50 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Armament factories that does not affect anything, very poor supply in the south for the Axis, useless Axis allies.
Add to this only 2.5 - 3 mil max Soviet losses and a result is that in the winter they are 5mil. Or even more in some extreme cases like in the RedJohn Soviet AAR, he is actually 5.7mil

Absolutely insane numbers.

Personally I wanted to play my first pvp game as no early end as I want to go where I want and not follow real Axis path. But such approach is even more beneficial for a Soviets as they do not care at all about sudden death rules.
And if there are VP - well, they don't care either. With airsupport doing some real damage, Soviets might be even in a better shape as they can throw planes almost without a limit.

My opinion: if Soviets are not forced to defend upfront, like it was in real life, there will be no reasons to play as an Axis at all.

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/6/2022 5:26:36 PM >

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 33

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 5:36:14 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

My opinion: if Soviets are not forced to defend upfront, like it was in real life, there will be no reasons to play as an Axis at all.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think it is as simple as just forcing Soviets to defend in the front. If the VPs were changed so that e.g. Kiev had 30 VP, I still would not defend it as Soviets, because it is totally indefensible. If you want Soviets to defend the south in the front, it has to be both more feasible to do so and also necessary in terms of things like VPs or industry or manpower or political support or what have you. As it is now, even if Soviets go all out trying to defend Kiev, it is not realistically going to hold longer than turn 7-8 or so against a Germany player that knows at all what they are doing.

So I do think Soviets should have more incentive to defend in the front (in the south particularly, I don't think it is a problem in the north-center particularly), but they also need to have more actual ability to do so to the degree that they did historically.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 34

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 5:45:14 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Its a good question - how can they defend as long as historically? Without complete revisit of a combat system it is probably impossible. As clear hexes are very easy to push and you can not make whole south as light/heavy woods.

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 35

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 6:17:18 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Its a good question - how can they defend as long as historically? Without complete revisit of a combat system it is probably impossible. As clear hexes are very easy to push and you can not make whole south as light/heavy woods.

Well, on that note, one thing that I have thought for a while might help is if it were made slightly easier to defend on clear terrain, and slightly harder to defend on heavy forest/swamp.

This would also, implicitly, be a slight buff to defending rivers (the main defensive obstacles in the south). Why? Because a river defense is pretty much busted as soon as you cross a river. And for basically any river, there is going to be at least one weak spot (almost always clear terrain), and that is where the attacker will cross. So if clear terrain were just slightly more defensible, that would make those weak spots in river defenses slightly less weak.

So this would, on the one hand, make it a bit easier to push in the north, so it would make it harder for Soviets to (ahistorically) totally shut down the German advance on Leningrad before Axis even gets close to Leningrad (and similarly harder to totally shut down Valdai/Velikie Luki/etc).

And on the other hand, it would incentivize defending in the south a bit more. I think that might help a little bit, although it is important to keep in mind that a large part of the reason why the south is extremely difficult to defend is 50 MP Panzer/motorized divisions, so I don't think it would risk overcorrecting and making it too hard on the Axis to get historical results.

Ideally, that might encourage Soviets to fight a bit more in the south, especially in the first few turns, but sooner or later Axis would get some good encirclements.

And in the later game, currently a lot of Soviet players don't bother attacking particularly in the north, and do all of their offensives in the south for a similar reason, and it would encourage/enable Axis to hold ground in the south a bit better also.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 36

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 7:04:57 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

I underlined already that VPs are not the solution in another thread.
People play for 'fun-win' in general and VPs are ever relative to player-sentiment and commitment over time.
VPs bonuses should be rebatable anyhow only by the side that has the Initiative. (So Axis has only incentive to grab Voronhez early, if Soviets get it back during Winter, no +6 for them).

In general a player needs something that directly relates to their possibilities to win, that is not abstract. Factories / Economical factors are the ties in many situation. In a tangible way. Or other forms of bonuses (or penalties for the opponent).
Something like 'Ah Axis gained this resource hub, each point of resource gained allows a +X Gun / AFV of that type built per turn' type of bonus. This is an example obviously.
One of the main resources in general is not part of the game - which is food.
A more granular diffusion of resources can somehow help too where economics invest a deeper relevance.

Penalties can be that a too premature fall of Kiev for instance gives a X turn boost to Germany NM or a penalty to Soviet NM - something that affects combat for instance so that a collapse in the south demoralizes / bolster the other fronts too in case they're overloaded.

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 37

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 7:08:53 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Actually I was thinking about the same, but. Lets looks onto this:
Slightly easier to defend clear terrain. Ok, some changes are made and now defenders in hexes with clear terrain fight a little bit better. So instead of 5:1, 4:1 etc you will get 3:1 and so on. Maybe you will lose a bit less soldiers but it is irrelevant. As an Axis players you want pockets, not grind through Soviets forces, at least in the South.

And if we want to have a hold where previously there was a retreat (still talking about clear terrain) - it will lead to a situation that light forest and swamp/heavy woods will be not pushable at all.

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 38

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 7:14:10 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I underlined already that VPs are not the solution in another thread.
People play for 'fun-win' in general and VPs are ever relative to player-sentiment and commitment over time.
VPs bonuses should be rebatable anyhow only by the side that has the Initiative. (So Axis has only incentive to grab Voronhez early, if Soviets get it back during Winter, no +6 for them).

In general a player needs something that directly relates to their possibilities to win, that is not abstract. Factories / Economical factors are the ties in many situation. In a tangible way. Or other forms of bonuses (or penalties for the opponent).
Something like 'Ah Axis gained this resource hub, each point of resource gained allows a +X Gun / AFV of that type built per turn' type of bonus. This is an example obviously.
One of the main resources in general is not part of the game - which is food.
A more granular diffusion of resources can somehow help too where economics invest a deeper relevance.

Penalties can be that a too premature fall of Kiev for instance gives a X turn boost to Germany NM or a penalty to Soviet NM - something that affects combat for instance so that a collapse in the south demoralizes / bolster the other fronts too in case they're overloaded.

I was also proposing dynamic NM in other thread. Losing cities too quickly? Have a penalty and opposite side gets a boost. But how Soviets can actually defend this cities? I have no answer for the South
Economy is just non a factor in this game, unfortunately. Exceptions are only air planes/tank factories like in Kharkov. But they can be evacuated in any time, and if somebody told a truth - in 1 week. It was huge disappointment for me. Firstly with a fuel. Later on with armament points.

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/6/2022 7:16:11 PM >

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 39

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/6/2022 9:16:59 PM

carlkay58

Posts: 8650
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline

Beethoven1:

A few comments.

1. First I agree in general with you. I would also like to say that Matrix Games does not balance the Victory Conditions in their game releases until they have had a lot of data from games from the public.

2. You do a good job of explaining the lack of ability for the Axis to do well against Leningrad because a typical Soviet player will reinforce the north much heavier than historical. This explanation can also be used to explain the Axis advance into the center as MOST Axis players send parts of 2nd PG south to help out 1st PG. As a matter of fact, when Tyronec did not do so recently he was met with disbelief over that failure. This is an example of players decisions resulting in major historical divergence.

3. I would like to point out that my latest AAR does have a PG (I chose the 3rd PG rather than 2nd PG due to positioning at the time) being sent south to help out against the Soviet AI just to shorten the lines the Axis has to spread out to cover. Which was behind the historical Hitler decision also. Against a Soviet player, however, the Soviet defensive line would have retreated well before this could have happened so most Axis players do not have to make that decision.

4. The fall of Vyazma is usually because the Soviets are pulling back faster than the Axis can pocket them. Smolensk may hold a bit longer than historical because historically the Soviets were stretched too thin in the area early on and were pocketed around Smolensk, but later Soviet reactions actually over reinforced the area and were conducting major counter offensives to drive the Axis back.

So let's look at various things players tend to do that make the game divert from history rather quickly.

Axis players send help from AGC to AGS particularly panzer units. This is replaced in the center by either driving the infantry faster forward or diverting 4th PG units to help in the center.

Soviet players run away from the Axis particularly in the south and reinforce more against AGN and AGC than historically was done.

Air units are not being used as much as they should be in HvH games. Part of this is admittingly because of problems that have cropped up in the Air Game due to some 'quick fixes' that have broken other things and made matters worse. This should hopefully be cleaned up in the future but this is the state of the game currently.

Odessa falls quickly because the Soviets MUST counter the Axis naval interdiction. Even if the Axis player is able to intercept and cause the VVS casualties in the counter interdiction, the Soviets have the forces early in the war to counter despite the losses. Without this counter, the Axis Naval Interdiction will starve Odessa out quickly. And it will starve out quickly. See any of my AARs as I can do that against either the AI or Soviet players that do not contest it. This is the game system showing what could easily have happened historically given the same responses.

So player decisions matter - on both sides.

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)

Post #: 40

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 1:31:09 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

One common comment regarding Soviets abandoning the south is, "oh, well then don't let Soviets transfer units to the reserve!"

However, that would not particularly change very much, and would not really prevent Soviets from abandoning the south. In order to try to demonstrate this, I am basically not using the reserve, other than for a small number of units. Instead, basically all of the troops in the Southwestern and Southern fronts are abandoning the south by using rail transport, rather than using the reserve functionality:

I am sending some low morale tank divisions to the Transcaucasus. Once they arrive, I will pull strong Mountaineer and Infantry divisions with higher morale to the map to replace them.

However, the low morale tank divisions I am sending to the Transcaucasus include at least as many low morale tank divisions escaped from the Western Front (and also from other places in the map like the Caucasus). Insofar as I am sending tanks from the south there, it is actually mostly ones from the Southern front, not the Southwestern front, because most of the Southwestern Front tanks have decent morale (and experience). So I want them on the map, and they are being railed to safety rather than using the reserve mechanic.

Here are the tank divisions that are headed to the Transcaucasus:

(in reply to carlkay58)

Post #: 41

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 1:43:03 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

Won't the TB prioritization system get these divisions in TransCaucasus filled up as priority or so and pretty much drain your tank production for a while?

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 42

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 1:52:18 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Won't the TB prioritization system get these divisions in TransCaucasus filled up as priority or so and pretty much drain your tank production for a while?

It will, but:

1) T-26s and BTs are not being produced right now, those are most of what will end up in the tank divisions. The only AFVs that are being produced at the moment are T-34s and KV-1s, along with a handful of T-40s and T-50s.

2) There are other tank divisions in other theater boxes already such as the Far East, which will already be sucking up basically all the T-34s and KV-1s, so that hardly any of those will get onto the map early on regardless of whether I send extra tank divisions to the Transcaucasus.

3) In the AFV column of the screenshot, you can see that at least half or so of the tank divisions being sent to the Transcaucasus have a good # of AFVs in them already. They are not necessarily low TOE, just low morale and low experience.

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 43

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 2:16:39 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

On turn 1, the Soviets get 25 AP. I spent it as follows:

A) Make Leningrad an assault front - 20 AP
B) 3 depots scattered in the north/center - 3 AP
C) 1 fort in Kerch - 2 AP

There are a lot of additional depots and forts I would have liked to have built, so it was a tough call making an assault front the first turn. However, this will help my best units to gain CPP more quickly. I can build more forts and depots next turn. I would also like a 2nd assault front soon, however.

Why make the Leningrad front be the first assault front? Because it is the only front that doesn't start off with a lot of units pocketed, so it has more available capacity. Although actually, I suppose I could have done the same for the Southern front, since it was unlocked.

The 3 depots I built are circled in blue here:

The yellow highlighted hexes are some other good places to build depots, I may build them at a good # of those next turn.

Why the fort in Kerch? Because I am planning to city fort it and shove 10 strong divisions in there. Kerch is normally very important because as long as Soviets control it, it can block the Axis from sending supply through the Strait of Kerch to the other ports on the northern side of the Sea of Azov. Those ports can help Axis supply a lot around Stalino and Rostov. So this is especially important given that I am for the most part abandoning the south, and consequently I want the fort to get up and running as quickly as possible (and I would like to get it up to level 4 ideally by the time the Germans arrive). There are other places where I want forts as well, but in particular because they don't need to get up to level 4 as quickly, they are less important to start on turn 1.

< Message edited by Beethoven1 -- 2/7/2022 2:23:34 PM >

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 44

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 2:53:05 PM

shermanny

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12/11/2007
Status: offline

If the game is going to be historically accurate, there can hardly be any way for the German player to win early.

Historically, Stalin "played" badly for the first year, but the Soviet Union won anyhow. Players will not make so many mistakes, not with hindsight being 20-20 and all that.

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)

Post #: 45

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 6:46:23 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

End of Soviet Turn 1

In the north, I cut off a Panzer division. Many very low quality NKVD and Airborne units were railed in to the north to try to get in the way and slow down the advance here. Is this the first ever 3 deep Ventspils defense? (3 deep pure NKVD border guards on the most direct path!). I would like for lots of trashy units to get in the way of things in the Baltic, so that there is less free rail repair there than normal, ideally.

On the land bridge, I put up a 4 deep pile of garbage units. The only non-garbage units are circled in blue. The tank, for example, is not a good tank division, it is a 4800 man, 48 AFV Western Front tank division that could not retreat to anywhere safe. The infantry divisions are 5-7k men or so each, so althouggh I will probably lose some (and certainly some will be routed), the losses will hopefuly not be too horrendous. And this should give me time to get a good Smolensk defense set up using with all the units that are on trains from the south. Along the Dnieper, I am relying on ZOC to raise the movement cost to cross the river. Hopefully he won't have enough MP to cross.

And around Gomel, here are a lot of those units that are headed to the north/center. Depending on where and how Bread advances, with so many units on rails, I should have a lot of options to plonk down units all over the place as they disembark from their trains. That is, as long as they are not routed this turn before they get off the trains.

And here is the south, pretty much abandoned. I am refitting a lot of the higher morale/experience tank/mech units in various cities/depots (assigned to the Leningrad assault front). After they are refit and gain some CPP for another turn or two, they will be ready to strike at any German Panzers that try to advance too quickly. This and small numbers of screening units like cavalry/NKVD/airborne are pretty much all I will have in the south for a while.

(in reply to shermanny)

Post #: 46

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 7:00:06 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

And in looking at this screenshot, I noticed one tank division (circled) which I had accidentally forgotten to move. So then I moved it (railed it out far away to safety):

There are 2 or 3 other units left behind, but those were all ones that did not have MP to escape, this one had full MP and could have reached safety in any of 3 ways - by rail, by transfer to reserve or theater box, or by regular movement.

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 47

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 7:37:48 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

quote:

And here is the south, pretty much abandoned. I am refitting a lot of the higher morale/experience tank/mech units in various cities/depots (assigned to the Leningrad assault front).

Are this unit out of range? If so - they should not get any CPP bonuses.

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 48

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 7:44:12 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

quote:

And here is the south, pretty much abandoned. I am refitting a lot of the higher morale/experience tank/mech units in various cities/depots (assigned to the Leningrad assault front).

Are this unit out of range? If so - they should not get any CPP bonuses.

Right now (at end of Soviet turn 1) they are out of range, but all the units have 0 MP or close to 0 anyway at the end of this turn, and you don't get assault front bonuses until units have been on an assault front (and assigned to the front) for at least one turn anyway, so I have a turn to get them in range. The Leningrad Front HQ already started moving southwards last turn.

Also I thought you did gain CPP while out of range - at least I remember gaining it before. Maybe it was changed in a patch or something.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 49

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/7/2022 7:54:21 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

All the units that report (directly and indirectly) to an
Assault HQs are affected by the following changes:
� Double the rate of gaining Combat Preparation Points
compared to other units (23.2).
� An increased chance to pass all relevant support checks.
� Soviet artillery gain 50% extra ammunition (before
1944) compared to the normal rules.
� Units may not build fortifications beyond level1.

These advantages do not accrue if:
� The unit itself or its HQ has just been attached to the

relevant Axis Army or Soviet Front this turn.
� If either the Assault HQ or any other HQ in the

command chain is overloaded in terms of Command
Points (21.11.6).

� If any HQ in the command chain is outside the command

range for the Assault HQ (21.11.4).
I am talking about CPP bonuses, not base value, they should still get base value, I think

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 50

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/8/2022 1:02:41 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

Soviet Turn 2

In the north, Bread routed pretty much all of my low quality screen units, and he busted through my 3 deep Parnu defense (actually 4 deep if you count that first line, I guess). However, my losses were not that bad, despite all the units being directly under STAVKA command with no generals/HQs to lead them. This tank division for example (which was unready) only lost half of its AFVs and less than 600 men. The losses were probably low due to hasty attacks, I guess. Bread did not get across the river to Pskov due to fear of being cut off by pesky NKVD/airborne etc that had been railed north.

Not much advance in the center, other than advancing up to the river. My 4 deep wall of trashy units on the land bridge was too intimidating.

Advance to the river near Gomel, but not across the river:

The south:

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 51

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/8/2022 1:11:46 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

My manpower pool actually increased this turn. You don't see that everyday, normally it plummets on turn 2, due to units reinforcing. However, all the extra manpower from disbanding artillery/HQs/air force means it actually increased.

Supply is ok so far despite the fact that the entire southern half of my army is on trains heading north and also despite only building 3 depots on turn 1.

Bread killed more Soviet leaders in the Bialystok pocket, including good ones like Sokolovsky.

Good thing that I am not using generals/HQs this game, or I would be pissed!

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 52

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/8/2022 11:00:46 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

Bread killed more Soviet leaders in the Bialystok pocket, including good ones like Sokolovsky.

Good thing that I am not using generals/HQs this game, or I would be pissed!

Ya, Joel Billings said that the numbers are what he expects for leader kills. I am totally ok with that. But for killing of good leaders for the Soviets up front the first few turns, I call it "Bullshit" in my own opinion. You have to play to "save" good leaders with the Soviets now. It is a perfect strategy for Germany to pursue & I am sure it will be going forward. I know I will the next time I take up Germany. As for the Soviets you might as well "relocate" your HQ's out of the pocket & try to save them. BUT you have to relocate them during the Air phase, if you do it in the Ground phase they love to relocate back towards the enemy!!!!!! A few of mine did!

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 2/9/2022 2:32:03 AM >

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 53

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/9/2022 7:24:39 PM

jubjub

Posts: 493
Joined: 5/2/2021
Status: offline

quote:

Ya, Joel Billings said that the numbers are what he expects for leader kills. I am totally ok with that. But for killing of good leaders for the Soviets up front the first few turns, I call it "Bullshit" in my own opinion. You have to play to "save" good leaders with the Soviets now. It is a perfect strategy for Germany to pursue & I am sure it will be going forward. I know I will the next time I take up Germany. As for the Soviets you might as well "relocate" your HQ's out of the pocket & try to save them. BUT you have to relocate them during the Air phase, if you do it in the Ground phase they love to relocate back towards the enemy!!!!!! A few of mine did!

I'm still not convinced that the 15% rate is being applied to HQ's that displaced out of a pocket earlier in the turn. I have had too many occasions where the same HQ's keep losing leaders at a very high rate after they've been displaced from a pocket.

Does anyone have a save they are using to test this stuff?

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 54

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/10/2022 12:21:59 AM

curricular1

Posts: 1
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Odessa falls quickly because the Soviets MUST counter the Axis naval interdiction. Even if the Axis player is able to intercept and cause the VVS casualties in the counter interdiction, the Soviets have the forces early in the war to counter despite the losses. Without this counter, the Axis Naval Interdiction will starve Odessa out quickly. And it will starve out quickly. See any of my AARs as I can do that against either the AI or Soviet players that do not contest it. This is the game system showing what could easily have happened historically given the same responses.

i have to say, there's zero need for the german to try and starve out odessa. just bump it with a handful of german IDs with a few SUs and it'll fall in a single battle.

(in reply to carlkay58)

Post #: 55

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/10/2022 12:30:46 AM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:

Ya, Joel Billings said that the numbers are what he expects for leader kills. I am totally ok with that. But for killing of good leaders for the Soviets up front the first few turns, I call it "Bullshit" in my own opinion. You have to play to "save" good leaders with the Soviets now. It is a perfect strategy for Germany to pursue & I am sure it will be going forward. I know I will the next time I take up Germany. As for the Soviets you might as well "relocate" your HQ's out of the pocket & try to save them. BUT you have to relocate them during the Air phase, if you do it in the Ground phase they love to relocate back towards the enemy!!!!!! A few of mine did!

I'm still not convinced that the 15% rate is being applied to HQ's that displaced out of a pocket earlier in the turn. I have had too many occasions where the same HQ's keep losing leaders at a very high rate after they've been displaced from a pocket.

Does anyone have a save they are using to test this stuff?

I am ok with the killing of leaders but the rate is not 15%, it is higher. The problem is tied to the "pseudo random number" I bet. In theory if 100 HQ's are displaced then 15 of them should have a leader casualty. We aren't having that since K62 in our game did not displace 100 HQ's. He maybe displaced maybe up to 25ish and some a couple of times. The simple math dictates that that is not 15%. It seems on the first turn that when a German completes a pocket it treats it as surrounded and could be applying the 50% kill rate. Guess on my part but seems likely.

(in reply to jubjub)

Post #: 56

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/10/2022 12:31:21 AM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:

Ya, Joel Billings said that the numbers are what he expects for leader kills. I am totally ok with that. But for killing of good leaders for the Soviets up front the first few turns, I call it "Bullshit" in my own opinion. You have to play to "save" good leaders with the Soviets now. It is a perfect strategy for Germany to pursue & I am sure it will be going forward. I know I will the next time I take up Germany. As for the Soviets you might as well "relocate" your HQ's out of the pocket & try to save them. BUT you have to relocate them during the Air phase, if you do it in the Ground phase they love to relocate back towards the enemy!!!!!! A few of mine did!

I'm still not convinced that the 15% rate is being applied to HQ's that displaced out of a pocket earlier in the turn. I have had too many occasions where the same HQ's keep losing leaders at a very high rate after they've been displaced from a pocket.

Does anyone have a save they are using to test this stuff?

I am ok with the killing of leaders but the rate is not 15%, it is higher. The problem is tied to the "pseudo random number" I bet. In theory if 100 HQ's are displaced then 15 of them should have a leader casualty. We aren't having that since K62 in our game did not displace 100 HQ's. He maybe displaced maybe up to 25ish and some a couple of times. The simple math dictates that that is not 15%. It seems on the first turn that when a German completes a pocket it treats it as surrounded and could be applying the 50% kill rate. Guess on my part but seems likely.

Moving this to the HQ kill thread. Moved to post 60 here https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5140310&mpage=2&key=�

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 2/10/2022 12:35:31 AM >

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 57

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/10/2022 12:54:03 AM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

Soviet Turn 2

I pulled back in Estonia I have a pretty strong defense in Tallinn, and also have various units strewn around to try and cut off the Germans and/or mess up some of the free rail conversion if they advance too wildly.

I put a LOT of paratroopers and other assorted low quality units in front of Pskov to hopefully absorb German MP and help bog down their advance early.

I evacuated the land bridge and concentrated on defending the Dnieper. Normally I would probably keep contesting the land bridge more, but in this game I am aiming to show that abandoning the south and retreating/defending good terrain is a good strategy which quickly leads to a large OOB, so I want to limit needless casualties somewhat.

Although they can probably cross the river if they really want, hopefully the ZOC and river crossing cost are enough to stop them from getting more than a small bridgehead. If he can manage to do anything serious, I have a lot of strong units which can hopefully counterattack.

This is, I dare say, a stronger than usual Gomel defense. Thanks to the south for providing the extra troops for it. Due to all the swamps and the big river etc hopefully their Panzers will get stalled.

The south is at this point pretty much abandoned, with the exception of quite sparse screening units and high morale tanks/mech which are refitting and gaining CPP. Hopefully by the time the Germans get in range we will be at 100 CPP. Most of them gained TOE nicely last turn while refitting on depots.

I only have a couple of HQs left now, other than a few left in the Bialystok pocket, a few that I could not get to a rail hex > 8 hexes from an enemy to disband yet. But soon they will be gone and we will be rid of these cursed generals. Instead, our leaders will be political commissars with no military experience or knowledge whatsoever, who will unquestioningly follow centralized direction from STAVKA.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 58

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/10/2022 1:11:03 AM

Lovenought

Posts: 227
Joined: 8/21/2017
Status: offline

Speaking of STAVKA, where is Kulik?!? Are German diversionist squads getting him lost on the road from Leningrad or something?

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 59

RE: Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German De... - 2/10/2022 6:00:01 AM

RedJohn

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

For my part there is little to report on, besides the fact we broke both river defences at the Dnepr and whatever the pskov river is called. Odessa also fell this turn to a lone panzer regiment, and we reach the outskirts of kiev.

I was considering not breaching either and waiting a turn, but the Soviets will soon release the hordes of men saved in the south and could make breaching either extremely difficult with the reinforcements.

All of my AP is going towards building depots. Some may say too much - to them, I whisper politely "carlkay". We shall see how this holds up. I am repairing 4 out of the 5 (I think?) dual track railways into the USSR, which will hopefully be good for my supply.