Cities… just another terrain hex

Cities… just another terrain hex (Full Version)

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

Message

Jim D Burns -> Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 8:58:12 AM)
I’m finding I’m not too pleased with the treatment of cities in game. There is no real incentive to fight for them. The fact isolated units generally surrender in a single turn means there aren’t going to be any long siege battles for the cities in game unless there is tons of air transport available, which wasn’t the case for most pocket battles. The Germans held out at Velikie Luki for about a month with just supply stocks they had on hand, but in game the Germans in a Velikie Luki situation are going to go poof after just one turn. I’m finding it’s better game play practice to simply abandon cities rather than lose units trying to hold onto them, because there is no threat of long city sieges in the game model. I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn. Then reduce the isolation penalty by about half if units can trace to a city stockpile. This would give units some ability of trying to fight their way out of a pocket as happened at Velikie Luki and in many pocket battles during the war. The above may be too complex of a fix to hope for, if so a less complex way of handling it may be to give cities some limited ability to keep units supplied. You could say cities keep 1 unit supplied, light urban 2 and heavy urban 3. This would be a less appealing fix due to the abstract nature of it and the fact you'd want supplies to eventually run out, but anything is preferable to the total lack of importance we see for cities in game currently. Jim

Kaletsch2007 -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 9:15:08 AM)
+ 1

Tarhunnas -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 10:12:24 AM)
I agree. It is hard to see sieges at all in the game, not just in cities. The Demyansk or Kholm pockets are extremely unlikely to happen in the game. And a surrounded 6th army in Stalingrad would probably not hold out for 2 months = 8 turns, even with all the air supply you can muster. I believe German forces in particular should have a better capability to hold out when surrounded than they currently have in the game.

color -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 11:24:07 AM)
I like the concept of this suggestion

saintsup -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 11:27:40 AM)
+1

Blind Sniper -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 12:08:15 PM)
Moreover you have to divert sone units to handle this pockets, that can be change the strategy for both opponents. Anyhow Leningrad would became impregnable.

timmyab -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 12:36:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn. I'd definitely like to see this. I also think that if the road and rail network were better simulated then cities would have far more significence as transport hubs than they currently do and therefore as important objectives.After all that is the main importance of cities in military terms.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 3:23:58 PM)
+1

Texas D -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 4:07:30 PM)
+1

bwheatley -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 4:30:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns I’m finding I’m not too pleased with the treatment of cities in game. There is no real incentive to fight for them. The fact isolated units generally surrender in a single turn means there aren’t going to be any long siege battles for the cities in game unless there is tons of air transport available, which wasn’t the case for most pocket battles. The Germans held out at Velikie Luki for about a month with just supply stocks they had on hand, but in game the Germans in a Velikie Luki situation are going to go poof after just one turn. I’m finding it’s better game play practice to simply abandon cities rather than lose units trying to hold onto them, because there is no threat of long city sieges in the game model. I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn. Then reduce the isolation penalty by about half if units can trace to a city stockpile. This would give units some ability of trying to fight their way out of a pocket as happened at Velikie Luki and in many pocket battles during the war. The above may be too complex of a fix to hope for, if so a less complex way of handling it may be to give cities some limited ability to keep units supplied. You could say cities keep 1 unit supplied, light urban 2 and heavy urban 3. This would be a less appealing fix due to the abstract nature of it and the fact you'd want supplies to eventually run out, but anything is preferable to the total lack of importance we see for cities in game currently. Jim +1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out. And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 4:36:42 PM)
+1 [:)]

heliodorus04 -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 4:46:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley +1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out. And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless. One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed. And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway). But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up. The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis.

bwheatley -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 4:56:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley +1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out. And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless. One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed. And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway). But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up. The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis. Ya i know if you re-connect you get a 75%ish boost again in CV I saw it with my smolensk pocket. But that means you can NEVER break out you always have to break in. Which does not "feel" right. Case in point my smolensk pocket in my game vs ara. He encircled my best units all had at least 2-3CV they had been resting all game. They get pocketed and on the same turn (yes 7 days abstracted) my best morale units were reduced to <1 CV. So no break out was possible. I had to break in with some high MP cav units. Then i magically (yes it's not magic i'm just saying magic for effect) got 75% of my cv back and was able to start doing some counter attacks. Which just does not feel right. I'd be willing to see routed units stay routed for one of my turns in order to have units properly handle isolation. I also actually don't like seeing most of my routed units come back to life in the same turn. I'd like to see some leadership check penalties for units in early 41 to help keep routing units from getting themselves back into fighting order.

bwheatley -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 4:57:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley +1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out. And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless. One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed. And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway). But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up. The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis. But yes i agree with you about not liking the way isolation feels. :) In 41 its me losing units to german encirclements but in late 42-43 it will be the germans on the other side asking for isolate to be changed.

GFelz -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 4:59:36 PM)
I have only seen a city hold out once. It was Smolensk versus the AI. Three rifle divisions sat in the hex for five turns ('41). Their CV slowly dropped but only after an attack otherwise would not change between turns. I do not know how the game managed it but I would love to see it happen more often for both sides. After all, the Soviets had some tough nuts to crack in '45.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 5:48:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley Ya i know if you re-connect you get a 75%ish boost again in CV I saw it with my smolensk pocket. But that means you can NEVER break out you always have to break in. Which does not "feel" right. Case in point my smolensk pocket in my game vs ara. He encircled my best units all had at least 2-3CV they had been resting all game. They get pocketed and on the same turn (yes 7 days abstracted) my best morale units were reduced to <1 CV. So no break out was possible. I had to break in with some high MP cav units. Then i magically (yes it's not magic i'm just saying magic for effect) got 75% of my cv back and was able to start doing some counter attacks. Which just does not feel right. I'd be willing to see routed units stay routed for one of my turns in order to have units properly handle isolation. I also actually don't like seeing most of my routed units come back to life in the same turn. I'd like to see some leadership check penalties for units in early 41 to help keep routing units from getting themselves back into fighting order. Your points are well taken. The universal strategy for re-connecting (in real life) an isolated pocket is for the strongest units INSIDE to attack toward units that are simultaneously attacking toward them. And the way it presently works, there's no point using the encircled units.

jomni -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 10:32:16 PM)
Isolation penalties are way too harsh. But fun game though as it's an exciting fight during the encirclement process.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 10:32:31 PM)
I would refer you to my posts complaining about this same issue back when the game was released, but I can't locate them in the forum - search doesn't seem very useful here for some reason :) Hopefully, you will get acceptance of your point and the response from the developers that I never got... The treatment of cities in the game is a huge flaw that should never have made it to the commercial release, IMO.

Senno -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 10:35:17 PM)
Yes. In my current game the AI withdrew from Moscow (!). I can't imagine that would have happened at all. They didn't get far as they were mostly 1=1 units and the rails were cut, but they withdrew.

Mynok -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 10:58:33 PM)
It's not the treatment of cities that are the problem. It is how isolation is treated. That could use some rethinking.

Pford -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/23/2011 11:25:05 PM)
Maybe some kind of 'hoard supplies' switch is desirable for isolated units. Or an option to discard the vehicle pool. I can't envision a plausible 'Winter Storm' scenario incorporating a 6th Army breakout in WITE as things stand. But beefing up CV factors in cities will also have the effect of slowing the Blitzkrieg in '41, already a bone of contention.

blam0 -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 3:25:16 AM)
+1

alfonso -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 8:34:59 AM)
Well, I do not agree completely. I think our perceptions might be a little biased by those instances in which there was heroic fights in cities or by isolated units, which are the ones that are more widely known. But I would tend to think that the rule was for those fights being rather short, not the struggle expanding weeks or months which is usually assumed. I think we need a greater sample of cities to measure how many weeks did the fight last. Let's see Minsk (in 1941 and in 1944), Riga, Rostov, Vitebsk, Kharkov, Mogilev, Kiev, Warsaw, Berlin, Praga, Rzhev, Velikiye Luki...how many weeks were necessary to take those cities? (it is not a rhetoric question, I do not know the answer for most of them, so I am only asking). But we have also Breslau 1945 (a long siege), so, what is the rule and what is the exception? I will try to make some searches, to see if I can find out.

alfonso -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 9:51:35 AM)
I have made some searches at the Wikipedia (yes, not the most authoritative source, but…) Berlin 1945: 24 April- 2 May (1 TURN) Riga 1941: 29 June-1 July (1 TURN) Kharkov 1943: 7 March-15 March (1 TURN) Kiev 1941: isolated 16 September, city itself surrendered 19 September, last forces in the pocket 26 September (less than 2 TURNS) Minsk 1944: Bagration commenced 22 June, Minsk fell 4 July, 8 July surrender of 4th Army (2-3 TURNS) Rostov 1941: German assault began 17 November-city captured 21 November (1 TURN) Breslau 1945: 13 February-6 May 1945 (buff, 12 TURNS ??!!!) Smolensk 1943: “On 25 September, after an assault-crossing of the northern Dnieper and street fighting that lasted all night, Soviet troops completed the liberation of Smolensk” The Smolensk operation had begun 7 September, but the battle for the city itself was shorter. We have also the battles of Konigsberg and Sevastopol, although it is difficult discern between a “simple” siege and the real fight In the game, after Leningrad is isolated, you need about 4 Turns to force the surrender. I do not know how many turns would be necessary to force the surrender of a 6th Army at Stalingrad, athough I think it is unlikely it could last more than 5 turns under heavy attack. The Soviet troops in the Kharkov operation in May 1942 (not a city battle, though) were surrounded during 24 May, and surrendered the “next turn”, 30 May. Well, that would be another (but related) topic, that of the surrounded troops, not necessarily inside a city. And, as a final note, a pocket can subsist more or less indefinitely if it is not attacked seriously, so it could be a little tricky to deduce conclusions from a real-life pocket without making references to the efforts made to force its surrender (in one game as Russian I still have some surrounded NKVD regiments at the frontier two months after the war began)

76mm -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 10:09:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso And, as a final note, a pocket can subsist more or less indefinitely if it is not attacked seriously... We must be playing different games--I routinely kill off pockets by attacking with my weakest units, often with a CV of 1 or 2. I would not call this being "attacked seriously".

alfonso -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 10:36:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso And, as a final note, a pocket can subsist more or less indefinitely if it is not attacked seriously... We must be playing different games--I routinely kill off pockets by attacking with my weakest units, often with a CV of 1 or 2. I would not call this being "attacked seriously". I was referring to the real-life pockets in this case. But, in the game, with my 1=1 Soviet Units I cannot kill surrounded PanzerDivs, so perhaps we are playing different games

76mm -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 11:19:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso I was referring to the real-life pockets in this case. But, in the game, with my 1=1 Soviet Units I cannot kill surrounded PanzerDivs, so perhaps we are playing different games Ah, didn't understand your reference. But my lowly 1 CV units (or at least 2 CV) can indeed force the surrender of isolated panzer divisions, although usually it takes several hasty attacks, sometimes by a couple of units. But I still wouldn't call that a serious attack.

alfonso -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 12:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso I was referring to the real-life pockets in this case. But, in the game, with my 1=1 Soviet Units I cannot kill surrounded PanzerDivs, so perhaps we are playing different games Ah, didn't understand your reference. But my lowly 1 CV units (or at least 2 CV) can indeed force the surrender of isolated panzer divisions, although usually it takes several hasty attacks, sometimes by a couple of units. But I still wouldn't call that a serious attack. Ok, yes. I sometimes can force the surrender of a PanzerDiv, but it requieres some planning (at least select a good commander) , normally a hasty attack don't do the trick. Even a deliberate attack sometimes fails. And that for a PanzerDiv in the open, normally with 0 fort level. Perhaps my word "seriuos" was not very precise, but I meant that many times the surrender is not that automatic. I said that because in some real-life pockets that lasted weeks, in reality there was no fight each single day during the whole period. Obviously, the NKVD regiments I mentioned before in my game were not attacked at all, and they cannot be used as examples of how strong pocketed units are in the game. But the same should be applied to real-life pockets. For instance, Konigsberg was under siege many weeks, but not every week saw assaults on that city. That is the point I was trying to transmit...

Tarhunnas -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 12:40:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso And, as a final note, a pocket can subsist more or less indefinitely if it is not attacked seriously, so it could be a little tricky to deduce conclusions from a real-life pocket without making references to the efforts made to force its surrender (in one game as Russian I still have some surrounded NKVD regiments at the frontier two months after the war began) Nope! Playing the Soviets, some of my surrounded units seem to surrender of themselves after a couple of turns. This is displayed as a "Soviet" (Red) combat indicator that just says that the unit has surrendered. Naturally I try to discourage this deplorable lack of spirit by sending their relatives to the Gulag, but unfortunately that seems to have only limited success...

Farfarer61 -> RE: Cities… just another terrain hex (2/24/2011 12:40:44 PM)
I must have a bug in my game. I have played 9 GC games vs AI now and I have never, ever seen the mass surrender of units. Perhaps 10%, but usually none. Only some terrain 'turns colour' when a couple of units give up. Most try to cruch out towards a supply source, often (thankfully) abandoning Forts. It is to the point now where as soon as the Sovs 'turn Red" I attack them all. I have sat for turns waiting for the big surrender to no avail. Time to uninstall and re-install I guess.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8