RE: Strat movement & game balance (Full Version)

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



Message

alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 5:54:20 PM)

Do the Soviets have 60 full blown 100% TOE Rifle Divs after the frontier battles? And, really no one has any data on how many Divisions the Soviets were able to transfer in one week? What was their record? 10? 20? 40?



Flaviusx -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 6:00:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

Do the Soviets have 60 full blown 100% TOE Rifle Divs after the frontier battles? And, really no one has any data on how many Divisions the Soviets were able to transfer in one week? What was their record? 10? 20? 40?


They do, if you count the various frozen units scattered around the map. But you don't actually get access to all of this immediately. (Or even very soon, for places like the Transcaucus.)




Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 6:32:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Once again: nobody is moving 60 full strength divisions a turn by rail. That's a fantasy. They aren't moving even half that.

Reduce the rail cap in half, give the Soviets the German cap and you'll get the same exact results by and large. However, this would make factory evacuations more difficult.



Effective German cap for quickly rail moving reserves near the front in '41 is exactly: Zero.
Effective Soviet cap for quickly rail moving reserves near the front in '41 is around 60 combat ready Divisions. Can this be used to significantly stiffen Soviet defenses in '41, yes or no?


Edit: Not "... near the rail front ..." but "... near the front ...".



Flaviusx -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 6:35:32 PM)

In practical terms, no.

There aren't 60 available full strength rifle divisions in reserve that you can just magically rail somewhere. The capacity to do this exists purely at the theoretical level.

If the forces did exist, then yeah, your case would be stronger. But they don't, this simply isn't the way the game is being played on the Soviet side.

You won't have that kind of reserve until much later on. (At which point you actually can leverage your very high rail cap in creative ways. This is especially true in the 43 scenario.)




Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 6:48:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

Flav: I am slightly concerned about this as well, although mostly from the standpoint of the underrated cost of multiple turn factory movement. Please don't let the adversarial tone of some of the posters affect your normal objectivity.



"Adversarial" was probably me. Sorry if my patience suffered.

I just felt that my arguments are being shoved aside by Soviet players who defend a pet instrument which makes their pbem-life too easy in pre-Blizzard '41, and to make it worse: by Soviet players who could hold their own easily without Wunderwaffen-logistics in '41.




karonagames -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 6:56:52 PM)

quote:

You won't have that kind of reserve until much later on. (At which point you actually can leverage your very high rail cap in creative ways. This is especially true in the 43 scenario.)


I definitely don't want Axis rail capacity reduced in 1943. You have to be able to strategically redeploy 4-6 motorised divisions as fire-brigades.



Aurelian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 7:51:53 PM)

Between getting factories out of harms way, along with routed units, and moving all those shell units foreward, I don't see it in 1941.




Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 9:35:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

I say let the man with the beef load up as the Soviets and try and move 60 full blown divisions around.

If he has the patience[:D]


Yep, I'm here, I'd be happy to find an Axis player who knows how to put pressure on a Soviet player in pre-Blizzard '41, I am not an expert Soviet player so under pressure I'll probably have to lean more heavily on the rail pool than proven good ones like Flaviusx claim to do, and I'm more than willing to document Soviet rail movements to hit home my point. The game wouldn't have to be continued after first Blizzard starts or ends, therefore I'd release the Axis player if he doesn't want to continue (my splint in the eye is Soviet strategic movement in '41, come '42 both sides fight with the same tools).

I'm all game. Pity that people defending Soviet rail capacities are not, because they'd be top for exploiting Soviet weaknesses.




Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 9:41:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

You won't have that kind of reserve until much later on. (At which point you actually can leverage your very high rail cap in creative ways. This is especially true in the 43 scenario.)


I definitely don't want Axis rail capacity reduced in 1943. You have to be able to strategically redeploy 4-6 motorised divisions as fire-brigades.


This thread was opened to deal with the strat movement situation in '41. Please refrain here from discussing later situations when both sides fight with the same tools. '41 is when only one side has overblown strat movement capabilities.




Zovs -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 9:45:25 PM)

Technically in this game both sides never have the same tools, one has to use the Germans one way and the Soviets another way, each sides 'tools' must be used differently and I think this game portrays those differences quite well.



alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 9:55:59 PM)

Yours seems to be a very poorly designed experiment, because if you happen to stall the Germans, there are so many variables that there is no guarantee that your success is due only to rail pool issues. Perhaps you are the most talented player. Your victory would not add a microgram of evidence to your point.

What you have to do is to play two (ideally a higher number, to get statistical significance) games against a Soviet player, and show that you can beat him only if he reduces his railpool (perhaps using the editor, perhaps through a gentlemen pact), at a level that suits you, everything else being equal.

And then, you still have to prove that the railpool that creates the conditions for Axis successes has any relationship to reality.

And then you will have hit home your point.



karonagames -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 9:58:23 PM)

quote:

This thread was opened to deal with the strat movement situation in '41. Please refrain here from discussing later situations when both sides fight with the same tools. '41 is when only one side has overblown strat movement capabilities.


Ummmm... 1941 is not mentioned in the initial post. The campaign game lasts 4 years, and for the SU to win they need to capture Berlin, and they will need all the rail capacity they can lay their hands on to achieve that.

The WITE "engine" has to attempt to recreate 4 years of warfare between 2 armies that evolve in two completely different directions, and it has to deal with some "Spikes" that happen over very short periods out of the full 200+ turns. 12 Turns of Blizzard in 1941/42 is one spike, and industry relocation is another that occurs over the first 15-20 turns. It is important that changes in the rules to deal with these spikes does not unbalance the remaining turns.

IMHO.



Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:00:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

Technically in this game both sides never have the same tools, one has to use the Germans one way and the Soviets another way, each sides 'tools' must be used differently and I think this game portrays those differences quite well.


I love this game, really, developers and testers and AI designers have done an outstanding job. My problem is that I don't see any AAR in which Axis could develop working tactics against a capable Soviet player's fast pace of shifting around significant reserves to hotspots in '41. This is what this discussion is all about: Soviet strategic mobility in '41 pbem, when Axis have zero railing capabilities within useful distance of front regions.




Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:04:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

Yours seems to be a very poorly designed experiment, because if you happen to stall the Germans, there are so many variables that there is no guarantee that your success is due only to rail pool issues. Perhaps you are the most talented player. Your victory would not add a microgram of evidence to your point.

What you have to do is to play two (ideally a higher number, to get statistical significance) games against a Soviet player, and show that you can beat him only if he reduces his railpool (perhaps using the editor, perhaps through a gentlemen pact), at a level that suits you, everything else being equal.

And then, you still have to prove that the railpool that creates the conditions for Axis successes has any relationship to reality.

And then you will have hit home your point.



If I document each turn with which pool size what kind of units (shell, unready, ready) or factories I moved to which regions with what reason with what success, then we'd have a more solid base for discussing Soviet rail movement capabilities. I can't get solid data on Soviet rail movements when I play Axis...






alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:08:29 PM)

You can try playing both sides. Play yourself the Russians with 75% 50%, 25% or 5% of the railpool, or whatever. Then try to smash them (you) with Axis.



Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:19:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

This thread was opened to deal with the strat movement situation in '41. Please refrain here from discussing later situations when both sides fight with the same tools. '41 is when only one side has overblown strat movement capabilities.


Ummmm... 1941 is not mentioned in the initial post. The campaign game lasts 4 years, and for the SU to win they need to capture Berlin, and they will need all the rail capacity they can lay their hands on to achieve that.

The WITE "engine" has to attempt to recreate 4 years of warfare between 2 armies that evolve in two completely different directions, and it has to deal with some "Spikes" that happen over very short periods out of the full 200+ turns. 12 Turns of Blizzard in 1941/42 is one spike, and industry relocation is another that occurs over the first 15-20 turns. It is important that changes in the rules to deal with these spikes does not unbalance the remaining turns.

IMHO.


Okay, my bad. I tried to focus discussion to '41, when only Soviets can raildrop lots of troops near hotspot front regions until late in the year. I think that the ability to shift tons of reserves (up to 60 combat ready Divisions) up to 55 hexes per week blocking Axis offensives is mainly responsible for all these AAR-pbem in which Axis get stalled before achieving major goals.






Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:24:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

You can try playing both sides. Play yourself the Russians with 75% 50%, 25% or 5% of the railpool, or whatever. Then try to smash them (you) with Axis.



I'd be utterly surprised if I could achieve operational surprise against myself... No solution, sorry.




alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:29:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

... is mainly responsible for all these AAR-pbem in which Axis get stalled before achieving major goals.



as happened historically.



FredSanford3 -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:39:50 PM)

My suggestion to the devs that would help prevent ahistorical excessive retreating by BOTH sides:  Raise the probability of leader execution substantially whenever an HQ unit moves east (Soviet) or west (German).  Have a little 'cushion' so that minor moves don't trigger this, but if "heads roll", people will tend to stand and fight more.  I think this has the benefit of (a) simplicity, and (b) historical accuracy.  That will make the rail capacity question moot.

edit: combine this with a national morale penalty hit for abandoning population centers for added punch, but that might be more complicated to implement.



Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:40:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

... is mainly responsible for all these AAR-pbem in which Axis get stalled before achieving major goals.



as happened historically.


You aren't a lawyer by chance?

I could have written: ... before being able to significally weaken Red Army pre-Blizzard. But let's not discuss "significally" please, there won't be two people here who'd agree how much Red Army /Soviet industrial capacities could/should be hurt in '41. Do that somewhere else and let's focus here on Soviet strat movement capacities in '41, ok?






Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:44:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

My suggestion to the devs that would help prevent ahistorical excessive retreating by BOTH sides:  Raise the probability of leader execution substantially whenever an HQ unit moves east (Soviet) or west (German).  Have a little 'cushion' so that minor moves don't trigger this, but if "heads roll", people will tend to stand and fight more.  I think this has the benefit of (a) simplicity, and (b) historical accuracy.  That will make the rail capacity question moot.


Could be exploited by assigning the poorest leaders to Sov armies and fronts before you execute withdrawals. There are a bunch of guys among your generals you'd be happy to get rid of.






alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:47:08 PM)

You think that the capacity to move 60 Rifle Divs at full range in one week is "overblown".
How many RifleDiv you would consider OK to move in one week at full range? 40? 20? 10?



FredSanford3 -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:55:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet


quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

My suggestion to the devs that would help prevent ahistorical excessive retreating by BOTH sides:  Raise the probability of leader execution substantially whenever an HQ unit moves east (Soviet) or west (German).  Have a little 'cushion' so that minor moves don't trigger this, but if "heads roll", people will tend to stand and fight more.  I think this has the benefit of (a) simplicity, and (b) historical accuracy.  That will make the rail capacity question moot.


Could be exploited by assigning the poorest leaders to Sov armies and fronts before you execute withdrawals. There are a bunch of guys among your generals you'd be happy to get rid of.


And you'd waste APs doing so. Also bear in mind that the wholesale retreats this is meant to minimize are multi-turn events, you are looking at lots of dead leaders even if you try to set up the suckers.

OR, what if, say a retreat is 'big enough', what if it raised the possibility of Stalin/Hitler conducting a major "purge", and all leaders, even unassigned, were at some risk?

edit: and FWIW, what you suggest isn't necessarily unheard of. It wouldn't be the first time in history patsies were "promoted" to positions destined to fail.



Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 10:58:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

You think that the capacity to move 60 Rifle Divs at full range in one week is "overblown".
How many RifleDiv you would consider OK to move in one week at full range? 40? 20? 10?


What would a lawyers answer be? Maybe: What would be your suggestion?

I'd love it if somebody from the developing team came along, giving reasons why rail pool numbers are where they are at the moment. Because it felt playable for soviet rail mobility plus factory evacs? Or did they base it on logistical data available from WWII?






Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 11:01:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

what you suggest isn't necessarily unheard of. It wouldn't be the first time in history patsies were "promoted" to positions destined to fail.



Agreed. [:D]

But let's get back to Soviet rail movement capacities in '41. [:)]




Aurelian -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 11:03:07 PM)

As previously stated, it's playable and easily understood. If I want to worry about timetables, which trains go where, how far they move, single vs double track, well, I have all three Railroad Tycoons and Rails across America.

I just want to tell my Minister of Transport "Move the 5th Guards Tank Army to here." And all I want from him is to click his heels and say "Yes Comrade." Or the 2nd Panzer Army as it were.

And the system allows that.

In all the Russian Front games I've played, the Russians do have a far greater ability to move units by rail. And until now, that was never a problem.



FredSanford3 -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 11:07:15 PM)

Fair enough, I'll post the suggestion in a separate thread. I just don't see the Devs doing a major revamp of the rail movement system, especially since there seems to be a lack of hard data, but lots of opinionated conjecture about what "seems" right.



alfonso -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 11:13:36 PM)

My suggestion: 60, because having no idea myself I would tend to trust the developers.

I was pretty sure that I was not going to get an answer from you.

Anyhow, I have found this, for those interested.

"Railroads made the evacuation possible. As the railroads moved 2.5 million men to the front in June, July, and August, they moved industrial machinery on their return journeys. For example, on August 7, 1941, 3,000 rail cars per day evacuated iron and steel manufacturing equipment from the Dnieper area--1,000 cars per day for the electrical industry, 400 cars per day for the chemical industry, and others. From August 8 to August 15, 1941, 26,000 rail cars evacuated industries in the Ukraine. In Moscow, 80,000 cars transported 498 factories, including 75,000 lathes, leaving only 21,000. Production by many factories resumed by December."

Anyone knows how many railcars are needed to move a Division?



Reconvet -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 11:17:10 PM)

I'm trying to get a good Axis player, to get some data. No Soviet fanboy is going to do that. I'll stick to my theory that strat rail movement is a holy cow for Soviet players right now. I like a good steak any time. [8D]




Mynok -> RE: Strat movement & game balance (1/22/2011 11:18:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

As previously stated, it's playable and easily understood. If I want to worry about timetables, which trains go where, how far they move, single vs double track, well, I have all three Railroad Tycoons and Rails across America.

I just want to tell my Minister of Transport "Move the 5th Guards Tank Army to here." And all I want from him is to click his heels and say "Yes Comrade." Or the 2nd Panzer Army as it were.

And the system allows that.

In all the Russian Front games I've played, the Russians do have a far greater ability to move units by rail. And until now, that was never a problem.



It's only a problem in one person's head.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1