Proposal to make Russians fight for territory

Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (Full Version)

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

Message

MrLongleg -> Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/6/2011 9:42:56 PM)
I think we saw quite a number of AAR's where the Russians gave away territory without a fight to avoid losses. I think the game does not punish the Russian player sufficiently. Even if you loose towns and cities, a part of the population is beamed star trek like to areas further east. I think the automatic evacuation feature should be switched of and replaced with a manual one. If the Russian player decides to evacuate population it should cost rail capacity, meaning he has to make a balancing act between moving troops, factories or population to the east. I saw 250,000 people leaving Kiev when it was completely surrounded by German troops. No train would go in such a situation. So that would also help to balance the enormous Russian manpower and for the Germans it would be even more interesting to capture as many towns as possible while the Russian player would loose a lot of manpower if he decides to retreat fast. Just an idea - all in all I think the game is great and I am spending a lot of time with it.

Altaris -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/6/2011 10:02:07 PM)
Good suggestion. I'm all for anything that makes the Soviets have to put up a fair fight, without iron shackling the strategies. It annoys me to no end as well to see encircled populations leaving en masse.

Flaviusx -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/6/2011 10:04:46 PM)
Running away is dumb. The really dangerous Soviet players don't do it.

Aurelian -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/6/2011 10:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Running away is dumb. The really dangerous Soviet players don't do it. Sure is dumb, as I found out.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/6/2011 10:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Running away is dumb. The really dangerous Soviet players don't do it. Despite this fact, the OP's suggestions for manpower re-location costing rail capacity (or being outright impossible when isolated) is a great one, as I see it. Another point of consideration: Retreating in 1941 ought to count as negatives toward Soviet commanders win/loss ratio the way losing a battle does to German ones. How that's calculated, don't ask me. People tell me I'm a moron, and I believe them.

2ndACR -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/6/2011 10:50:07 PM)
We need the new Beta so we can see how that effects things. In the big picture.

kfmiller41 -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 12:03:12 AM)
As one of the people who has an AAR I hope people don't think I just ran away. I conducted a fighting withdrawal and fought when I had an opportunity and I take exception that anyone thinks the Russian can have a "Fair Fight" with the german army in 41. If you stand and fight for no reason, you will get surrounded and destroyed. Now i have no problem with making things more realistic but remember the Russians made about as many stupid decisions as possible in 41 and I doubt any sensible player will do the same[:D].

timmyab -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 12:06:48 AM)
I'd also like to see rail movement tweaked a bit.At the moment huge forces can be moved from one side of the map to the other with no regard to the practicalities what so ever.This is making the Soviet defence far too flexible and I think is a factor in the early game balance favouring the Soviet side. One idea I like is to limit the ammount of traffic that can be railed on individual lines with main lines being able to carry more.Also rail juntions could be given finite capacities aswell, with large cap rail junctions becoming important objectives, as they were historically.

Klydon -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 3:50:48 AM)
I think a lot of people need to try out the Russians in 1941 to understand their limitations and exactly where their new troops show up at before jumping off the deep end claiming Marshal SirRobin is in charge of all Russian forces. First off, a well executed opening turn by the German AGC and AGN will leave the Russians with very little left north of the marshes. There are a couple of rifle corps and some of those are frozen, but in general there is very little left between the German spearheads and Moscow. What can be moved generally sets up shop to try to delay the Germans as much as possible. Unless the Russians rail in troops for a forward defense, there just isn't a lot there to work with the first couple of turns, giving the impression that the Russians have run for the hills. Now, in the south with AGS, it is an entirely different matter. There are tons of Russian units and even a perfect opening move by the Axis still means there are significant forces left in the south. Historically, these forces put up a strong fight and caused a lot of issues. On top of it, most of the new Russian units are either east edge and/or in the southern military districts, so there is a tendency to have more mass in the south. A Russian intent upon saving Leningrad needs to send troops up there from other military districts to give them time to dig in at key positions and also to eventually delay the Germans if he expects to save Leningrad.

Skanvak -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 10:48:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Running away is dumb. The really dangerous Soviet players don't do it. Despite this fact, the OP's suggestions for manpower re-location costing rail capacity (or being outright impossible when isolated) is a great one, as I see it. Another point of consideration: Retreating in 1941 ought to count as negatives toward Soviet commanders win/loss ratio the way losing a battle does to German ones. How that's calculated, don't ask me. People tell me I'm a moron, and I believe them. Thought I agree with the above, I do think that for the sake of the game interest the soviet strategy should be free and rail-driven. retreating without fighting should be an option evenif not the best one. That is the game that will tell us that.

ComradeP -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 12:08:14 PM)
Many evacuations were pre-planned according to Pavel, so they're not literally all happening in the week you see them happening in. With the rail capacity requirements being doubled for factory evacuations, I'd say the Soviets should finally be feeling some rail capacity crunch, so there's no need to further limit the available rail capacity in my opinion, at least not for now.

MrLongleg -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 3:16:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: miller41 As one of the people who has an AAR I hope people don't think I just ran away. I conducted a fighting withdrawal and fought when I had an opportunity and I take exception that anyone thinks the Russian can have a "Fair Fight" with the german army in 41. If you stand and fight for no reason, you will get surrounded and destroyed. Now i have no problem with making things more realistic but remember the Russians made about as many stupid decisions as possible in 41 and I doubt any sensible player will do the same[:D]. I am not accusing you of having done anything "gamey", in fact I think the strategy you chose was perfect, because you were able to save a lot of forces and made a stand where it was needed (remember our battle for the Leningrad rail line - you stopped me one hex before I could cut the last rail). The problem for the overall game is, that the German player then faces 7 million Russians in 42, far more than historically. As a Russian player I would have done the very same ting you did - it is smart and sensible. My point is - if you can save your forces that easily there should be a price to pay in population points due to huge amounts of lost territory. So you save your forces from destructions, but will receive less reinforcement due to lost population.

MengJiao -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 3:32:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962 I think the game does not punish the Russian player sufficiently. Several alternatives spring to mind. You could start the game in 1939 and nobody would know what was supposed to happen so the war would just have to be fought -- perhaps to a ceasefire even. You could suppose Hitler delayed Barbarossa until 1942 and had plenty of winter clothing ready and the Russians would have say 3000 more T34s and possibly have redeployed in some deceptive fashion in depth (secret weapon stuff eg kaytushas). Then you could just fight the war as is and see if Berlin would fall in one year or two. You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941.

GBS -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 3:36:53 PM)
I'm doing the same thing right now in Jan. 42 as Germans. I am slowly pulling back trying to stay just out of reach and using rivers to park behind. I choose not to fight in the blizzard except in the north where I have the Fins active with some good CV. I have to say this is very boring way to play and it just doesn't seem right, even though I'm doing it. I haven't had a Panzer Div engaged for weeks, laying on the rail line well behind the front.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 3:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941. Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44. This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations. This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)]

CapAndGown -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 4:01:50 PM)
Should the Germans also be forced to stand and fight ala Stalingrad? No retreats during the first blizzard?

MengJiao -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 4:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941. Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44. This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations. This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)] The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941.

Tarhunnas -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 4:23:21 PM)
How about some "sudden death" victory conditions that would trigger an automatic victory for the Germans if certain objectives are met by certain dates? This would a) Force the Soviet player to fight for territorry and b) Give the German player the incentive to try to reach those objectives (and hold them through the winter). This is very nicely done in the excellent little East Front boardgame "No retreat".

Rasputitsa -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 5:15:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941. Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44. This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations. This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)] The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941. You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies. Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin.

MrLongleg -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 5:44:44 PM)
We wil have to see how the patch will change things. With the current version a smart Russian player can avoid having historical losses and then have 7+ million men in 42. At that point the game is practically over for the German player and the rest is a slow fighting retreat to Berlin. Nothing wrong with that - probably it was never possible for the Germans to win that war in the first place.

carnifex -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:07:37 PM)
I doubt evacuating civilians used any extra train stock at all, nor would they be allowed to if there was a need to move troops and supplies.

MengJiao -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:09:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941. Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44. This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations. This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)] The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941. You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies. Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin. I don't see how "balance" is a feature of 1941 when the measure of the balanced characteristic is that one side has its one chance to knock the other out in six months at least if it would just sit still and let itself get wiped out ( the "capability" it had in the real 1941) which is what really happened and they still were not knocked out. This just seems like a recipe for frustration based on the very poor assessment the Germans had of what was going to happen when they attacked Russia: ie the idea that 1941 is balanced is based on the idea that the Germans had a reasonable chance of knocking the USSR out of the war in six months. The basic problem is that even if the Russians do as badly as they really did (which no decent player is going to do), they still win. I just don't see what there is to get out of that, no matter what you do with "capabilities"...

MengJiao -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:10:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941. Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44. This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations. This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)] The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941. You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies. Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin. A better plan for a better 1941 would be to make it 1940, beef up the Russians and see if they can take Berlin in six months.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941. Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44. This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations. This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)] The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941. You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies. Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin. A better plan for a better 1941 would be to make it 1940, beef up the Russians and see if they can take Berlin in six months. Well start a thread and see if you can get it to fly, in the mean time could we get back to the main point.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: miller41 As one of the people who has an AAR I hope people don't think I just ran away. I conducted a fighting withdrawal and fought when I had an opportunity and I take exception that anyone thinks the Russian can have a "Fair Fight" with the german army in 41. If you stand and fight for no reason, you will get surrounded and destroyed. Now i have no problem with making things more realistic but remember the Russians made about as many stupid decisions as possible in 41 and I doubt any sensible player will do the same[:D]. A 'sensible' player who wants to understand the challenges actually faced by the real Soviet commanders from late '41 onward might :)

Lrfss -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:26:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962 I think we saw quite a number of AAR's where the Russians gave away territory without a fight to avoid losses. I think the game does not punish the Russian player sufficiently. Even if you loose towns and cities, a part of the population is beamed star trek like to areas further east. I think the automatic evacuation feature should be switched of and replaced with a manual one. If the Russian player decides to evacuate population it should cost rail capacity, meaning he has to make a balancing act between moving troops, factories or population to the east. I saw 250,000 people leaving Kiev when it was completely surrounded by German troops. No train would go in such a situation. So that would also help to balance the enormous Russian manpower and for the Germans it would be even more interesting to capture as many towns as possible while the Russian player would loose a lot of manpower if he decides to retreat fast. Just an idea - all in all I think the game is great and I am spending a lot of time with it.

LiquidSky -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:39:48 PM)
The russian army suffered a number of disasters in 1941. A smart player will be able to minimize those disasters. The encirclement at Smolensk/Vyazma. The Kiev encirclement. These two alone will give the Russian player an extra 1M troops. As soon as the game starts, history is changed. Perceived mistakes will be fixed by both players, and it is the Russians who will benefit most from this. As for 'Balance', it is a game. It has a victory condition, which apparently a lot of you think involves the Germans knocking the Russians out of the war. This is not true. A MINOR Victory can be had by the Germans, by keeping the Russians back at the original start lines. A Draw if you can keep most of Germany. I am not sure where the myth that Stalin wanted his armies to stand and die (aka Hitler). What Stalin wanted is for the Russian soldier to not retreat in the face of the enemy. At a personal level. What he wanted was for armies that retreat, to destroy anything the enemy might find usefull. He didnt shoot/discipline generals for retreating, he shot them for poor performance.

Skanvak -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:47:12 PM)
Well, one of the problem with territory loss is not loss of population but loss of food as in WWI. Guns of August does it very well (htough simplistic). I think that losing territory should impact the Russian hability to feed its population which should result in starvation and eventually lack of supply. The Russian should have the possibility to chossoe to give preference to Army feeding or civilian feeding (resulting in less supply but less death of civilian due to starvation). Historically Stalin let its civilian population starve to death. With a huge army the problem could be far worse. May that is already model in the game? If not we should research about the impact.

Zort -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 6:56:19 PM)
Supply is suppose to do that I think. I go back to the 'there is too much supply' available. There is currently no need to concentrate supplies/ammo/fuel over time to start a major operation. I think there is a simple way to assist in this endeavor. Since the Soviet has no real need to attack during the winter it seems how about this. (the next patch should greatly impact the amount of manpower available) 1. Reduce the blizzard effects on the Germans to the same as Feb for all three months. 2. and/or Increase the Soviet attrition just a little for the winter. This will mean that the Germans will be stronger come spring and if the Soviets want to slow down any advance then they should have to attack. Historical maybe not but the goal is to get the game to 45 with fun had by both sides. Now to see if the patch does good things. [:D]

MengJiao -> RE: Proposal to make Russians fight for territory (2/7/2011 7:16:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941. Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44. This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations. This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)] The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941. You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies. Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin. A better plan for a better 1941 would be to make it 1940, beef up the Russians and see if they can take Berlin in six months. Well start a thread and see if you can get it to fly, in the mean time could we get back to the main point. My point is that if you want the Russians to have a reason to fight pretty far forward, you might consider a scenario where it makes sense to fight pretty far forward.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.015625