RE: Strat movement & game balance

RE: Strat movement & game balance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

Flaviusx -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 4:10:06 PM)
Pieter is a good guy, but he's not one of our ace German testers. This might even be his first GC as the Axis. He mostly tested things as a Soviet, like myself. It's a pity Andy is swamped right now (he's working on Important Game Stuff) because that's the guy you want to play against to really see what's possible from the Axis end.

JAMiAM -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 4:34:32 PM)
The Axis do have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout. I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have the other wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D] That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 4:34:36 PM)
You know the Soviet side as well as any other guy around here, weaknesses and strenghts. As Axis you definitly would do a good job too against a rather inexperienced Soviet player like me (only played AI yet, got bored before mud). Come on, take my gauntlet, and let me document the Soviet strat movement capabilities in the process. Or are you afraid that Soviets might get nerved as a result of it? [8D] I release you again at the start of the first Blizzard season if you wish. I'm principally interested if my theory that a mediocre Soviet player can hold his own with the current tools gets confirmed or not.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 4:38:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM The Axis do have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout. I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have the other wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D] That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players. As I already said: I'm looking for the major cause for the failing of experienced Axis players before the first Blizzard season. After both sides have built up their railways, both fight with the same weapon, logistic-wise. I'm definetly not Axis biased, I'd just like to be able to get a really challenging and nerv-wrecking pbem-experience as Soviet. [:)]

Flaviusx -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 4:40:30 PM)
My dance card is quite full, thanks. But I am presently playing the Axis in one of my games if that makes you happy. (Playtesting a new scenario called Decision on the Dnper, the battles of the Ukraine during the 43-44 winter.)

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 4:48:29 PM)
What a shame. Axis in '43 is not the same as in '41. '41 is is when the decision is made if Axis can achieve a draw (if having the opportunity to perform well enough) or will face an early defeat (if the Soviets go into the first Blizzard season too strong).

Jakerson -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 4:59:32 PM)
1) Soviet Union can strategic transfers about 30 infantry divisions per week / one turn assuming that there are no factory transfers. This is about 300 000 men. I do not know how much cargo and passenger’s soviet rail system at 1941 could handle in one week but this doesn’t sound horrible high number of passengers and cargo for whole week. 2) Most of rifle divisions that soviet gets at start as shell units that takes 2-5 turn to have them toe filled up from the point they arrive. Soviet units also start very low experience and morale. This means that these shell units almost always lose every combat agent German units. 3) Fact number three is that even Hitler was stunned Soviet ability to bring more troops to the front. Germans destroyed 34000 tank, million men and tens of thousands soviet artillery just in one year of war still 1942 Soviet had ability bring up more men, tanks and artillery to the front that they had at start of the war.

alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 5:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jalla Now, I think that there are some misconceptions about how railroads operate that are the reason for some of the argument going on here. Being a professional railroader myself, I will try to give you some insight into railroad operation. First, the strategic movement cost is really not a factor of time. The cost of doing a railmove in the game comes from the needs to marshal the necessary rolling stock required to move an entire unit. For an infantry division, this would be about 500 railroad cars of different types and at least 20 engines. This rolling stock would have to be brought together and used to build at least 15 trains of differing length. Then the trains have to move to where they're needed for entraining. After completing the strat-move of the unit, the trains have to be moved back to where they're needed next, rebuilt, engines changed etc. All this consumes a lot of time. I guess the game assumes that this rolling stock cannot be used for other purpose in the limited timeframe of a week (excluding ad-hoc moves of supplies, personnel along the line), which I feel is probably right. Second, the real limiting factor on strategic railmoves which currently is not simulated is the capacity limits of a single line. If you wanted to move a lot of troops up a single-track line, the limiting factor is the length of, and distance between, the passing-loops. If we assume that it takes 20 minutes to move from a passing loop to the next, the maximum number of trains that can be moved along such a line (in any direction) is 3 per hour, 72 per day, and 504 per week. Now this is of course in practice impossible to achieve, so let's cut the practical capacity by 33%, to about 330 trains/week. Now, to move an infantry division using 20 trains one way would consume a capacity of 40 trains (the trains have to get back as well). That gives us a total capacity of said single line of about 8 infantry divisions per week. So, if you wanted a more realistic railmove-model to be implemented, I guess every piece of track had to be rated for capacity, with every move across the line being deducted from the total capacity. This would probably be a bit too much to ask for, and I think the current model is working well enough. As for the argument that the the soviets have too many railmove-points in the game, you have to consider that the soviet union had a very efficient railway system in place by 1941. Unless someone comes up with some raw data to suggest the railmove capacity is too much, I say we leave it as it is. [:)] Jalla, thanks for your info. Maybe the most valuable post in this thread.

bwheatley -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 5:38:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM The Axis do have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout. I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have the other wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D] That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players. Yea that's what happened to me constantly losing huge chunks of territory in a single turn. Then with isolation system you can't break out ever you have to try to break in. And the thing with the "history only" critics is fine. I mean people want to play their way. The only way to solve the issue will be preference checkboxs (like in witp) so the history only people can play their game that you'll always follow history. And people like me and ara can start out with history and then play our way and see what happens. That would make both sides happy. I can understand people (including myself) giving their view points. They want the game they want. Only way you can do both is to have a preference checkbox at the beginning of the game.

bwheatley -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 5:39:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM The Axis do have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout. I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have the other wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D] That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players. As I already said: I'm looking for the major cause for the failing of experienced Axis players before the first Blizzard season. After both sides have built up their railways, both fight with the same weapon, logistic-wise. I'm definetly not Axis biased, I'd just like to be able to get a really challenging and nerv-wrecking pbem-experience as Soviet. [:)] Play a game with ara he'll give you a run for your money.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 5:59:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM The Axis do have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout. I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have the other wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D] That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players. Yea that's what happened to me constantly losing huge chunks of territory in a single turn. Then with isolation system you can't break out ever you have to try to break in. And the thing with the "history only" critics is fine. I mean people want to play their way. The only way to solve the issue will be preference checkboxs (like in witp) so the history only people can play their game that you'll always follow history. And people like me and ara can start out with history and then play our way and see what happens. That would make both sides happy. I can understand people (including myself) giving their view points. They want the game they want. Only way you can do both is to have a preference checkbox at the beginning of the game. In WitP, no matter what your preferences are the Japanese will NEVER invade the West Coast. They will NOT invade Panama Canal... You will hardly capture Pearl Harbor, in fact [;)] The Japanese player will not do so because he could NOT do that in the real war to begin with... An Iron Man scenario was made though. The Japanese got many toys. A What-if scenario for those who want to play a science-fiction game. But the vanilla game per se is a hardcore REALISTIC game. And not only the Japanese were castrated... the Allied side too. Hard to have few squadrons operating let's say in Port Moresby in let's say may or june 1942... The logistics on that game are simply amazing (an awesome game inside the game). I want to do WHAT could be done. I am not interested about science-fiction games, sorry. To each, his own taste. And above all, the market is already full of what-if games. Games like WitP and now WitE are GEMS, unique, mere exceptions. People should realize this.

Mynok -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 6:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet Another shot from the hip, and a wide miss. Nope, I'm asking for more than a pool reduction. I know you are. I disagree with everything else you are asking for except the pool reduction. The current design is very playable and understandable. This is a good thing for a game. If the Soviets need tweaking down, do it with pool reductions. That's the playable way to do it. Oh, and distance already is factored into the strat move equation, though apparently grossly "unsatisfactorily" for you. It's called MP = Time. I think it works just fine based on my play so far (strictly as Axis).

abulbulian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 8:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM The Axis do have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout. I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have the other wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D] That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players. Yea that's what happened to me constantly losing huge chunks of territory in a single turn. Then with isolation system you can't break out ever you have to try to break in. And the thing with the "history only" critics is fine. I mean people want to play their way. The only way to solve the issue will be preference checkboxs (like in witp) so the history only people can play their game that you'll always follow history. And people like me and ara can start out with history and then play our way and see what happens. That would make both sides happy. I can understand people (including myself) giving their view points. They want the game they want. Only way you can do both is to have a preference checkbox at the beginning of the game. In WitP, no matter what your preferences are the Japanese will NEVER invade the West Coast. They will NOT invade Panama Canal... You will hardly capture Pearl Harbor, in fact [;)] The Japanese player will not do so because he could NOT do that in the real war to begin with... An Iron Man scenario was made though. The Japanese got many toys. A What-if scenario for those who want to play a science-fiction game. But the vanilla game per se is a hardcore REALISTIC game. And not only the Japanese were castrated... the Allied side too. Hard to have few squadrons operating let's say in Port Moresby in let's say may or june 1942... The logistics on that game are simply amazing (an awesome game inside the game). I want to do WHAT could be done. I am not interested about science-fiction games, sorry. To each, his own taste. And above all, the market is already full of what-if games. Games like WitP and now WitE are GEMS, unique, mere exceptions. People should realize this. Here's where I have to completely disagree with your premises and narrow view of what could have been done on the eastern front starting on Jun 22, 1941. If you like I can give you many sources (using mostly Glantz and a few others) to confirm the follow. Could have it been possible for the Germans to ... - capture Moscow before end 41: YES - capture Leningrad before end 41: YES - capture Kharkov before end 41: YES - capture Stalingrad before end 41: NOT LIKELY - capture Sevastopol before end 41: NOT LIKELY - ceased offensive operations and prepared suitable defensive positions in Autumn 41: YES ** keep in mind I'm not suggesting they could do all of the above items in 41 marked with 'YES'. Choices have to be made on certain focuses. So let me ask you why you play WitE? Sounds very different from why I play WitE. For me playing as axis (example) is to try my OWN strategies given the tools the game allows to have a successful campaign in the Soviet Union. Do I care to try and recreate the mistakes and bad choices the Germans made to see where they lead? Probably not, unless I was tester for WitE or just curious with time to burn. I think for most of us want the ability to make choices with unique outcomes that didn't occur historically. Given all that, what needs to happen is the WitE game mechanics has to be tweak to realistic parameters for the warfare and conditions that took place. This is where lots of personal opinion can be formed and argued. The only choice I see is to leverage this knowledge from the professionals that have done the research and sifted through the millions of documents to formulate all these capabilities. Not an easy chore to say the least. This is not about fantasy what-if scenarios at all. This is about having the control to make choices other the ones that were actually made and facing those consequences, good or bad. It's not fantasy to expect a flak 88 to have penetration on a t-34 at 1000m. Similarly, it's not a fantasy to expect that units in well fortified/prepared positions, with good supply sources, high moral/exp, and ample ammo/supplies will be able to put up an effective defense in the face of extreme conditions..mud, cold, whatever. To me WitE is not a simulation of the historical battles on the eastern front, but rather a game that allows re-playability, fun, and enough realism for those that purchase it to enjoy it and created alternate strategies to the conflict.

Smirfy -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 8:47:02 PM)
I think you will find that Glantz does not think the Germans had a snowballs chance in hell of capturing Moscow in 41 "This argument too does not hold up to close scrutiny. Had Hitler launched Operation Typhoon in September, Army Group Center would have had to penetrate deep Soviet defenses manned by a force that had not squandered its strength in fruitless offensives against German positions east of Smolensk. Furthermore, Army Group Center would have launched its offensive with a force of more than 600,000 men threatening its ever-extending right flank and, in the best reckoning, would have reached the gates of Moscow after mid-October just as the fall rainy season was beginning" "The argument that Hitler would have won the war if the Wehrmacht had been able to capture Moscow, a corollary to the arguments described above, is also subject to serious question. If Hitler’s legions had actually reached and tried to capture Moscow, it is likely that Stalin would have assigned one or more of his reserve armies to fight and die in its defense. Although the Germans might have seized the bulk of the city, they would likely have found themselves facing the same lamentable dilemma that the Sixth Army faced at Stalingrad a year later. More ominous still, had it captured Moscow, the Wehrmacht would have faced the daunting task of trying to winter in Moscow, with the inherent danger of emulating the fate of Napoleon’s army in 1812." I will also think you will find that Hitler was wise not to pay the butchers bill to fight a "Stalingrad" against Lenningrad in 41 thirdly it is now widely accepted as it was in 41 that the Germans had no choice than to push on in 41 because of a risk of stalemate. Many German generals after the war off cousre try to paint a different picture but their memoirs are now largely debunked when it come to what was possible. As the strategic situation in 41 was the same in 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 that the allies had greater recuprative powers and Germany had no logistics the choice to push on was a no brainer and Bock, Brauchitsch and Halder all supported it. The simple fact is Germany would have been in a worse position strategically had they halted in October the Russians after all lost 650,000 men at in the pockets of Bryansk and Vyazma, 650,000 men who would have been better equiped and trained in 1942.

abulbulian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 8:59:06 PM)
Umm, not talking about winning the war with capture of Moscow. I'm mention that if the axis army had focused on Moscow and Moscow alone they could have probably taken it. So what are you talking about? You picking up something based on previous time line events occurring. Glantz and others have stated that had Moscow been the focus this been the plan from June 22, 41 it had a chance for success. If you read the events and how Hitler continue to shift forces or how Pz units were faced to wait for week for inf to catch up, you realize all the missed opportunities. Players don't have to be making Hitler's decisions and probably don't want to. So please don't spin this out of context and post an attempt to refute something I posted with no documentation and something that has nothing to do with what I mentioned. So you want to go on the record right now and say that you've read some of Glanzt's books and can say that GIVEN an operation plan that focused on the capture of Moscow before end 41, he believed it would have had no chance for success? lol? really? Would have it won the war, probably not. But that's not even close to what I was posting about.

abulbulian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 9:18:06 PM)
quote: . As the strategic situation in 41 was the same in 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 that the allies had greater recuprative powers and Germany had no logistics the choice to push on was a no brainer and Bock, Brauchitsch and Halder all supported it. The simple fact is Germany would have been in a worse position strategically had they halted in October the Russians after all lost 650,000 men at in the pockets of Bryansk and Vyazma, 650,000 men who would have been better equiped and trained in 1942. I understand the pockets and what was accomplished. But you don't seem to understand the price that was paid in the long run by typhoon leaving the German army is a state of shambles. What it cost them in men an material when they were utterly unprepared for the Sov Dec41 counterattacks and had to finally retreat and lose vast equipment stocks, and moral. What I've read from those that seem to have insight into what would have occurred in the Germans had halted and prepared a solid defensive line is that the loses from the Sov attacking these lines would have almost equated to what Nov and early Dec pockets produced at Bryansk and Vyazma. Keep in mind that the Stalin would have thrown the kitchen sink at this German line no mater what the costs. Given most accounts of how well prepared German lines did against Sov attacks in 41.. the outcome is fairly certain. Not to mention the Germans are able to keep most of their hvy equipment somewhat intact rather than being forced to leave it. Now the spring of 42 the German army is in better shape. This is really my entire point. Allow players to choose their strategies and give them realistic consequences based on those choices. As it stands I think the blizzard is more of a 41-42 is a balancing tool with little regard to the other key factors that cause such an issue for the German army other than the sever weather. There's nothing an axis player can to do to defend himself no matter how many of the factors he can control are in his favor: supply, fort lvl, rested, exp, moral, supply lines... etc. **Please keep in mind I don't think given the sheer manpower advantage and western allied help, that chances for any real victory were slim if almost non-existent for Germany conquering the Soviets. What I'm hoping for is the axis have the ability for successful operations on some level in 42 and 43. At the moment in my game, it already looks very grimm for the Germans to accomplish either. It could be just I'm being outplayed by bwheately. I was a little taken back by the 1.2 million loses just for the three months of blizzard (now at 1.7 million total). Keeping in mind I only had about 6 div equivalent units surrender (2 Rom)in pockets and did a decent job to keep retreating out of harms way. Bwheately can speak to this too. Also, I had almost all my armor units resting in urban or cities.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 9:28:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Oh, and distance already is factored into the strat move equation, though apparently grossly "unsatisfactorily" for you. It's called MP = Time. I think it works just fine based on my play so far (strictly as Axis). And wrong again. MP mirrors UNIT time, not POOL ASSET time. Go back and read more carefully before disagreeing with any argument scratching at designers choices please. If you refor to strategic movement points (SMP) you made a near miss, but ignored my argument that if SMP are left (transport time), then this transport package could to be used for one or the other additional assignment, with the result that the short-range transported unit should not have to pay full price for the transport (not all capacity of this very transport used). As explained before several times...

Smirfy -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 9:30:45 PM)
Lets read the second passage again shall we The argument that Hitler would have won the war if the Wehrmacht had been able to capture Moscow, a corollary to the arguments described above, is also subject to serious question. If Hitler’s legions had actually reached and tried to capture Moscow, it is likely that Stalin would have assigned one or more of his reserve armies to fight and die in its defense. Although the Germans might have seized the bulk of the city, they would likely have found themselves facing the same lamentable dilemma that the Sixth Army faced at Stalingrad a year later. More ominous still, had it captured Moscow, the Wehrmacht would have faced the daunting task of trying to winter in Moscow, with the inherent danger of emulating the fate of Napoleon’s army in 1812." Glantz although he does use technical data still gives a nod to Classical and Enlightenment historians who felt it was a failing to have to resort to such ignorant means to elucidate how proposterous the idea of capturing Moscow was with millions of Russians in the country side

abulbulian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 9:45:37 PM)
quote: More ominous still, had it captured Moscow, the Wehrmacht would have faced the daunting task of trying to winter in Moscow, with the inherent danger of emulating the fate of Napoleon’s army in 1812." Once again you're not getting it. This is talking about attack Moscow in the winter, totally another topic and not mine. I'm done with you on this topic. Either don't really understand the question or are just trying to be obtuse with this obscure reference. You still have no documentation to prove the counter of what I have posted. So why are you arguing to just argue? You want to put want to make a statement about Moscow not attainable even if it was the MAIN focus of the June 22, 41 campaign? Didn't think so. The use of bold is funny, cause you have no point that relates to anything I've been discussing. [>:]

madgamer2 -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 9:53:43 PM)
Red Flag in Berlin? You don see any epic things on the axis side? Try opening your eyes. What if the Axis puts the Russians out of the war? not conquest but simply gets them to stop the struggle? Unlikely you say? Ah but what an Epic (your word) achievement! The Axis could then trasfer troups to the west sort of like WW1 but with more impact and better chances. I have found your posts to be a bit on the esoteric side for the most part but then you have seen most of mine as a complainer but i have been learning that thia is not the way to do things. This is not to say you have not stated some interesting items and i do like reading them even if they mean very little to me ant least your making some contributions of sorts. Madgamer2

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 10:03:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jakerson 1) Soviet Union can strategic transfers about 30 infantry divisions per week / one turn assuming that there are no factory transfers. This is about 300 000 men. I do not know how much cargo and passenger’s soviet rail system at 1941 could handle in one week but this doesn’t sound horrible high number of passengers and cargo for whole week. I have to admit I didn't proceed further than turn 5 as Soviet. In T5 I have a rail pool of 139'395. My strongest Inf unit (133rd Rifle Div) has a transport cost of 1744 (TOE 91). Let's round that up to 2k. That would mean I could strat rail more than 60 such Inf Divisions in one week, loading & unloading included with rail range of 55 hexes. Whopper of a blocking force in front of any Axis breakthrough.... These are extreme figures, and of course I know a reserve of 60 Divs is not feasible for a single threatened region. But let this number melt on any Soviet players tongue: strat moving 60!!!, repeat 60!!! near max TOE Inf Divisions in 1 turn.... quote: ORIGINAL: Jakerson 2) Most of rifle divisions that soviet gets at start as shell units that takes 2-5 turn to have them toe filled up from the point they arrive. Soviet units also start very low experience and morale. This means that these shell units almost always lose every combat agent German units. Nice to rail move these shell Divs to any digging site you can image being in use in 2 turns, easy to create a nice fallback line or a humongous checkerboard with dozens of Divs building up nicely in '41 within 2 turns. Nice tool, creating headaches at the moment even for experienced Axis players in pbem... quote: ORIGINAL: Jakerson 3) Fact number three is that even Hitler was stunned Soviet ability to bring more troops to the front. Germans destroyed 34000 tank, million men and tens of thousands soviet artillery just in one year of war still 1942 Soviet had ability bring up more men, tanks and artillery to the front that they had at start of the war. Yep, but these very Germans DID bag all this Soviet stuff in '41, not possible if facing a moderatly skilled Soviet player in a pbem right now. Any Soviet Division not pocketed and bagged early in the '41 campaign can be railed back and forth at leisure, creating tougher and tougher defenses, ending up in Axis hitting a wall way too early. And one factor responsible for this is the currently overblown Soviet rail mobility. Pool reduction falls short on what should happen. If the use of scarcer pool points has to be decided, the player should also be faced with the choice of moving fewer units a longer rail distance, or more units for a shorter rail distance (shorter distance has to result in lower transport costs as mentionned above). That's why I also plead to throw the fixed transport cost overboard. It just feels dead wrong that I have to pay the same pool point reduction if I rail move a unit 10 hexes or 40 hexes. Early Soviets get way too much strat mobility this way. This matters in '41, when Axis only has a rudimentary railway to use, come '42 both sides fight with the same weapons. I'm still waiting for a currently successful Soviet player denying these arguments to play Axis against me and proving me wrong in a pbem. I'd be happy to document how many of what kind of units and how many factories I was able to rail transport in each and every turn. We obviously lack data, and it should be from a pbem with a good axis player to see if Soviets really get confronted with hard choices at the current state of the game.

Smirfy -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 10:06:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian quote: More ominous still, had it captured Moscow, the Wehrmacht would have faced the daunting task of trying to winter in Moscow, with the inherent danger of emulating the fate of Napoleon’s army in 1812." Once again you're not getting it. This is talking about attack Moscow in the winter, totally another topic and not mine. I'm done with you on this topic. Either don't really understand the question or are just trying to be obtuse with this obscure reference. You still have no documentation to prove the counter of what I have posted. So why are you arguing to just argue? You want to put want to make a statement about Moscow not attainable even if it was the MAIN focus of the June 22, 41 campaign? Didn't think so. The use of bold is funny, cause you have no point that relates to anything I've been discussing. [>:] I am getting your arguement just fine you believe if the Germans had of set up Barbarossa to go all out for Moscow they could have got there and taken it, you are also arguing that if the Germans had of stopped in October it would have been sunshine and sangria. Im merely pointing out like Glantz A/ That the the Germans really over performed in Barbarossa anyway and that not capturing Russians was insane and would have led to a hasty defeat B/ That stopping in October would have favoured the Russians (and Allies) more than the Germans I dont think there is anything in the game stopping you from going all out for Moscow except of course Logistics and Russians, overcome them and why not. Sorry I thought you had trouble understanding when a Historian thought an idea was ludicrous.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 10:19:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley Play a game with ara he'll give you a run for your money. Thanks for the tip. If I can get hold of him I'll be happy to play his victim. It seems somebody will have to present hard pbem facts showing if Soviet strat movement capability in '41 is overblown or not. I'd be happy to document Soviet rail pool use in pre-Blizzard '41 when under pressure by a competent Axis player.

LiquidSky -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 10:31:48 PM)
You won't win or lose a game as the Soviets because of Strategic Movement. I somehow think the Blizzard of 1941 has a slightly bigger impact on the Germans.

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 10:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky You won't win or lose a game as the Soviets because of Strategic Movement. I somehow think the Blizzard of 1941 has a slightly bigger impact on the Germans. Your view. I'm a firm believer that mobility can break AND make good defenses. Blizzard is another topic, I'm mainly worried by Soviet pbem performance pre-Blizzard for which I hold early Soviet rail mobility als mainly responsible. Your post wasn't a shy offering yourself as competent Axis player to test my theory, or was it? [;)]

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 11:01:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian Here's where I have to completely disagree with your premises and narrow view of what could have been done on the eastern front starting on Jun 22, 1941. If you like I can give you many sources (using mostly Glantz and a few others) to confirm the follow. Could have it been possible for the Germans to ... - capture Moscow before end 41: YES - capture Leningrad before end 41: YES - capture Kharkov before end 41: YES - capture Stalingrad before end 41: NOT LIKELY - capture Sevastopol before end 41: NOT LIKELY - ceased offensive operations and prepared suitable defensive positions in Autumn 41: YES "Could have it been possible for the Germans to". That's not history, sorry. It's science-fiction (because it never happened)... The Germans can only win in 1941. Their army, economy, manpower can only afford a short campaign against a BIG industrialised country, with plenty of manpower, raw materials, factories, oil like the USSR (and then the US). Hitler might be crazy but he got that one right: he wanted to force the Soviets to surrender on 1941 (his famous "kick in the door and the rotten structure will collapse"). His expectations were simply wrong though, after each big pocket he would say "come on, they are on the verge of total collapse, one more little push and they are finished". Oh well, just like the Japanese in the Pacific (the US were a decadent bunch, right?) he made a big mistake, grossly underestimating his enemy. Because what happened after 1941 proves what I say is 100% true. Have you ever wondered why they Germans -after the many casualties taken since day one of the invasion and until the 1941-42 winter counter-offensive- never EVER managed again to fill their depleted divisions? Gremlins, perhaps? They could not fill them simply because they lacked manpower. In other words, this conclusively PROVES the Germans were NOT prepared for this war. It would only have worked if the Soviets had surrendered during the Blitzkrieg, on 1941 itself (that was the German plan, philosophy). But it looks that didn't work, right? What happened on the 1942 summer German offensive? They ONLY could attack a portion of the front (in the south, taking men and equipment from the AGN and AGC) aka Germany IS now weak and can't attack the whole front and there is more!, to conduct that offensive they need the assistance of their allies... Italians, Hungarians and Roumanians. We all know how trustful these allies were, don't we? What are those things telling us? If you're not blind then you can only conclude that this war was (on 1942, YES) well beyond the realms of the possiblity... They were already scraping the bottom of the barrel. Literally... On 1943, 1944, the manpower thing would be even more grotesque... Many German divisions only existed on paper. And Hitler would insist that these ghost divisions should maneuver and attack the Red Army... So attacking Moscow on 1941 (your soldiers, machines and horses not prepared) was a "gamble", as someone said, eh? What's this? An Euro Sport poker game? Is this how military operations are conducted? To me this sounds the most pure ADVENTURISM... It could have worked? well, one thing is certain: the Soviets did NOT surrender (despite the astronomical losses) ergo the Germans were forced to fight a long war... that they could NEVER win against a big industrialised state with plenty of manpower, factories and modern equipment... So to me the answer is pretty obvious. Don't know what those military historians might say. The problem I have with them is that they focus almost entirely on the battlefields, and you know, the answer is NOT really on the battlefields, it's on the rear... And that's what Historians study. I mostly read the latter, by the way [8D]

Muzrub -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 11:03:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky You won't win or lose a game as the Soviets because of Strategic Movement. I somehow think the Blizzard of 1941 has a slightly bigger impact on the Germans. You will if the Soviets incur no prisoners

alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 11:19:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reconvet ... ending up in Axis hitting a wall way too early... Smolensk, July-August 1941 is too early?

Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/21/2011 11:51:48 PM)
We could argue about Smolensk. But Pskov after a good turn 1 only in turn 9? Sov player notenome shows in his AAR for this game that he had substancially reinforced Pskov as of turn 2, as well as formed a nice riverline defense running south of this city. Many of these units must have been thrown to this region via rail. Skillful move, painful for Axis. Nicely illustrates that mobility has a huge impact for building defenses. If you further follow notenomes AAR have a look at the AGS situation on page 2, post 38, where notenome created a huge checkerboard, after railing in units from "everywhere", as he wrote. Poof, up went a carpet in front of the axis spearheads... Now tell me again Soviet rail capacity does not create problems for Axis early in the game.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 12:01:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian So let me ask you why you play WitE? Sounds very different from why I play WitE. For me playing as axis (example) is to try my OWN strategies given the tools the game allows to have a successful campaign in the Soviet Union. Do I care to try and recreate the mistakes and bad choices the Germans made to see where they lead? Probably not, unless I was tester for WitE or just curious with time to burn. I think for most of us want the ability to make choices with unique outcomes that didn't occur historically. Given all that, what needs to happen is the WitE game mechanics has to be tweak to realistic parameters for the warfare and conditions that took place. This is where lots of personal opinion can be formed and argued. The only choice I see is to leverage this knowledge from the professionals that have done the research and sifted through the millions of documents to formulate all these capabilities. Not an easy chore to say the least. This is not about fantasy what-if scenarios at all. This is about having the control to make choices other the ones that were actually made and facing those consequences, good or bad. It's not fantasy to expect a flak 88 to have penetration on a t-34 at 1000m. Similarly, it's not a fantasy to expect that units in well fortified/prepared positions, with good supply sources, high moral/exp, and ample ammo/supplies will be able to put up an effective defense in the face of extreme conditions..mud, cold, whatever. To me WitE is not a simulation of the historical battles on the eastern front, but rather a game that allows re-playability, fun, and enough realism for those that purchase it to enjoy it and created alternate strategies to the conflict. Abulbulian, I have nothing against players using different strategies. It's part of the fun. All I'm saying is that IF this game is well designed and made (and I am pretty certain it is), the Germans CANNOT win (just like the Japanese will not win in WitP). Ok, maybe the red flag won't be over the Reichstag, but the Soviet hordes will be at 5-10 hexes of Berlin. Whatever. In fact, if the German player could hold Moscow (against a competent Soviet player) on let's say 1945, I doubt I would be buying this game... [;)] That's what I mean when I say I want a REALISTIC game. Give me the tools and let's see what can I do.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.90625