Romania Capitulation (Full Version)

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



Message

knilli -> Romania Capitulation (2/16/2011 11:53:26 AM)

Hi there,

i am playing my first game as soviets. after applying the latest beta 5 patch i thought that i might try to land some soviet divisions in romania (just to interrupt the train lines there). so i sent 2 divisions towards constanza and landed them in a neighbour hex. constanza was guarded by an romanian unit. i did not attack any romanian units.
next turn, romania and its troops where suddenly soviets.
i am not sure if that should be. that was a better raid from my side, no harm done and romania changes sides?



Shellshock -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/16/2011 12:22:29 PM)


You might want to read this thread advising Axis players to guard Contanza.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2718838



knilli -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/16/2011 12:36:29 PM)

maybe i was not precise enough in my description.
i play as soviets against the AI (normal). the AI had a romanian unit in constanza. constanza was guarded. i did not attack constanza, because i just had landed my 2 divisions in the hex next to constanza.
somehow the AI decided that my two probing units where such a threat, that romania surrendered.
my question now is: should that be?



Shellshock -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/16/2011 1:10:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: knilli

somehow the AI decided that my two probing units where such a threat, that romania surrendered.
my question now is: should that be?


Probably shouldn't, but for now it is. So to provide a more challenging game you probably have to impose a home rule on yourself about early turn invasions.



pyguinard -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/16/2011 2:35:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: knilli

maybe i was not precise enough in my description.
i play as soviets against the AI (normal). the AI had a romanian unit in constanza. constanza was guarded. i did not attack constanza, because i just had landed my 2 divisions in the hex next to constanza.
somehow the AI decided that my two probing units where such a threat, that romania surrendered.
my question now is: should that be?


Have you tried landing near Helsinki?
What about Copenhagen or Oslo? (if they appear on the map, of course)



Joel Billings -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/16/2011 5:27:28 PM)

Is it possible that you took control of one of the Rumanian towns that is near Constanta? Rumanian surrender requires that a town or city be captured by the Soviets. Even had you taken the town, it should have to trace a path back to a Soviet supply source, so if you had not captured a port I'm not sure how this could happen. If you have a save just prior to the surrender please send it to 2by3@2by3games.com. Thanks.



abulbulian -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/17/2011 12:36:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Is it possible that you took control of one of the Rumanian towns that is near Constanta? Rumanian surrender requires that a town or city be captured by the Soviets. Even had you taken the town, it should have to trace a path back to a Soviet supply source, so if you had not captured a port I'm not sure how this could happen. If you have a save just prior to the surrender please send it to 2by3@2by3games.com. Thanks.


IMO, this really needs to be fixed. If one Rom town under sov control will force Rom to switch sides... um.. somebody didn't do there research about this period of time. Sorry if that's being harsh, but it's the truth. I worked with somebody that is Rom and had relatives on east front. When I mention him how this game handles Rom morale (minor allies morale) he was offended by that and doesn't agree about the morale. Was more a question about training and equipment. I agree with him. He won't go near game now. I haven't the heart to tell him about the switching sides after one town is captured issue yet.

I know it's a game, but one must consider how you can offend people by having inaccurate national setting in a supposedly historical game.




knilli -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/17/2011 6:59:02 AM)

Hi Joel,

sorry, have no save game.

since i am a slow player, i have this game going since patch 2 of the last series. i just patched it with each new patch (now patch 5).

but i can tell you what i did:

it is september 1942 and the axis is putting pressure on my southern line (near odessa)
so i decided to relief some of the pressure by sacrificing some of my units. (also knowing that the amphibious assault was fixed :) )

unit one (1 rifle div) was landed behind the enemy lines at village 1502 "tarabunary" (x74, y113). mainly because i could interrupt 2 train hexes there.
one turn later i landed two units (2 rifle div) one hex above constanta at x69, y123. another turn later i moved one of these units, via village 1743 "medgidia" (x68, y124) to the south of constanta (hex x69, y124). during the whole time constanta was guarded by the 11th rum infantry div (which is now one of mine).

i finished the turn (turn 65 in the game).

next thing i see is, that the soviets lost 16 units. as i was not watching, i was quite stunned. even more so, when i saw that all 16 units where romanian units.

the only supply i had, was an airforce base based in the village 998 "yevpatoviya" (x93, y117) on the krim with mostly transporters. so there was no direct supply line other then the black sea.


sorry that i can not provide more.

@pyguinard:
sorry mate, i only used amphibious down there, to relief my frontline a bit. only in the south (up to kiev)i am better then history. from a bit north of kiev up to kalinin (bit north of moscow) i am more or less historical. from kalinin up, i am worse off then in reality. i lost leningrad quite early (mainly me not figuring out how to refresh my units an a little bit to the fact that the fins came across the line before the time. but 99% it was me) and only general winter saved my. in the north, i am in the middle of nowhere.



76mm -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/17/2011 7:26:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
I worked with somebody that is Rom and had relatives on east front. When I mention him how this game handles Rom morale (minor allies morale) he was offended by that and doesn't agree about the morale. Was more a question about training and equipment. I agree with him. He won't go near game now. I haven't the heart to tell him about the switching sides after one town is captured issue yet.

I know it's a game, but one must consider how you can offend people by having inaccurate national setting in a supposedly historical game.


This is what you call research? Determining that someone's feelings are hurt? [8|] In any event, in game terms, I'm not sure how much it matters whether Romanian units perform poorly because of poor morale, or poor training/equipment--the result would seem to be pretty similar.

While it does seem odd that Romania would capitulate if a mere town is captured, ultimately the devs have to make some assumptions about what might have happened. Is it more "correct" if Romania would only surrender after Bucharest is captured? Who knows? Also, as I understand it, there is only a chance that Romania will surrender after a town/city is captured, although it seems to be an awfully high chance, perhaps it could be reduced.



Skanvak -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/17/2011 8:49:59 AM)

Well, I begin to believe that the surrender ruels should check the year and the relative VP. Rumanian can surrender with only one city taken or even none (Bulgaria WWI did surrender before the French army enter their territory) IF Germany is losing. If Germany is winning, I don't even see Rumania switching side if their capital is taken (they will surrender, but not switch side).



Joel Billings -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/17/2011 5:47:47 PM)

Morale as used in War in the East is not your typical "Morale". It doesn't so much reflect the fighting spirit of the troops but their ability through doctrine and training to perform at a high level. We certainly didn't intend to insult anyone, but the reality is that most of the Axis Allied nations had serious limitations.

As for the surrender rules being simple, guilty as charged. They are very simple rules. We did not spend a lot of coding time coming up with complex surrender rules. Our basic feeling was that if the Axis player allowed a situation where the Soviets were inside Romania, then Romania should have the chance to surrender. This situation would not be an indication that the war was going well for the Axis. The fact that an amphibous invasion of the Romanian coast was not blocked is probably an oversight on our part, one that is easily fixed by players using a house rule to not allow these invasions. The Axis AI clearly doesn't know what to do about them, and a human player shouldn't take advantage of this. In the future we will probably add a block so that invasions cannot be done (Pavel's belief is that this would have been very difficult for the Soviet navy given mines and coastal defenses). We do require that a captured town have a valid supply source so as to prevent an airborne drop from causing a surrender. I would have expected that without a valid supply source other than beachhead supply, the capture of the Romanian towns would not have caused surrender, so there may be a bug there (or it may allow tracing to the beachhead supply). We'll look into this.

The bottom line at the moment is the Axis player should not allow Soviet units into Romania, or risk Romanian surrender.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Romania Capitulation (2/17/2011 7:04:27 PM)

Given that the Romanian switching of sides after the coup of August 1944 basically happened right when the country proper was invaded, the game's rules don't seem outrageous. The wrench in the machine is the chance of invasion, which should just be an agreed-upon rule (oulawing invasions west of Odessa, say).



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875