Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (Full Version)

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



Message

raizer -> Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 5:58:04 PM)

with the abundance of AP points the sovs get Early, one can use these ap points to fine tune your effort once you are done with the chaos of fighting. You can be sure to assign all your units that are grouped together into the same command at the end of each turn, even units that you reassigned at the start of the turn! In the road too scenarios, esp MOscow when you get the 130 ap dump, I have extra aps every turn. I can take a chunk of units that just happen to be together/near each other at the start of my turn, assign them all to one army, unifying their command and avoiding that penalty, and attack. Based on the results, the troops might be jumbled with other units, or I might have fresh units coming forward, I can then take those same units and re unify them to whatever command at the end of my turn. This is by turn 7 and is really early in the war. So my russians can avoid that organization penalty in both the attack and the defense, even in early 41, when the germans really need to keep moving and more likely than not, dont have the ap luxury the russians do in those early turns to ensure unity of command/effort.

Maybe units should only be able to be assigned to one HQ per turn



Commanderski -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 6:47:54 PM)

I haven't had the chance to play the Soviets yet. But this very good information.. Thanks for the tip!



marty_01 -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 7:43:54 PM)

quote:

Maybe units should only be able to be assigned to one HQ per turn


Or maybe the Soviets should get fewer APs in 1941? With the large numbers of APs they also have the ability to fine tune leadership during a period of time when Red Army leadership should -- in general -- be in a state of disarray. The Player-Gerneralisimo can put the very best into command slots from day one. Yet without the history of the war to go on -- how is it the Player-Generalisimo would realistically know leadership capabilities of many of the Generals within their leadership pool? Cherry picking the Best leaders for command slots in 41 makes it that much more challenging for the Axis. How many game functions have some sort of command check involved?

I think the ability for players to play with their leadership is a very interesting game design concept. It's a nice feature -- but at the same time it is also a not so nice feature given the ramifications of command checks upon game flow. It seems to be a very significant aspect of overall game balance when the sum total effects of each command check are all lumped together as a whole.

I had talked about this before, but should players really have the level of knowledge concerning all leaders’ capabilities? Certainly some leaders would be somewhat known quantities based upon past battlefield performance. But given the purges and etc. the majority of generals within the Red Army Command structure in 1941 should be completely unknown quantities.

In addition, once you elevate leaders into levels of command outside of their direct experience, you are again looking at a somewhat unknown quantity. For example a good Corps commander isn’t always a good Army commander.

The Player knows precisely what he is getting by assigning so-and-so to such-and-such position. However, in reality a man’s particular set of god given tools is not always a known – particularly not at the level of detail we are provided in game. Those forced to make decisions about who does what within a command structure will not know that General-X will be a +9 for mechanized units. If in reality those making the decision to place General-X into command slot-Y knew with such precision General-X's leadership attributes, we would never have seen a general like Burnside placed in a position to command the Army of the Potomac, or General Gamelin functioning as Generalisimo of the French Army.

There is a huge amount of fog-of-war effort put into this game by the designers. Yet this rather crucial element of leadership capability is completely transparent to the player. He can cherry pick generals and promote based upon a crystal ball that details exact leadership qualities of the individual. I think the end result is a much stronger leadership cadre within the Soviet Army much earlier in the war.



raizer -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 7:45:29 PM)

you can do the same with your leaders- You find yourself at a threatened point of attack-throw zuk in there as army commander and assign all the divisions to him that can attack a stack...attack it and wait for next turn to zing him to another point of attack you want to blunt, assign him to an army and then assign all the nearby divs to his army.  Pretty much in the road to scnearios there is no excuse not to have zuk,vaut, tolb or puk in charge of 4 armies-any of which have their divisions hard up against a panzer corps (a body on a body).  Then let the all the checks do their magic-all you need is 1-1.  APs should be used to build support units for these armies, moving leaders around and assigning units at the start of turns to fight and the end of turns to defend in order to avoid the organization penalties-which the germans cannot escape, esp when their infantry gets up into the fight



Zort -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 8:15:35 PM)

Has anyone played into 42 in the GC41 and have an idea of how many APs the soviets have?  As the german I think I was at 400.  In the GC42 scenario the russian has 60 a turn, not near enough to do everything which makes the game interesting.  Reason I asked is if both sides are seeing maxed out aps in 42 should there be a reset at some time to bring them down?  Or if you hit 500 then you don't get any until you are back to 60 or so?  Just wondering.



CheerfullyInsane -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 10:05:06 PM)

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

There might be a problem with the 'Road to...' scenarios re. AP-pools, but there is no such problem with the GC.
I mainly play the Russians, and I never have enough APs to do what I want.

Example: Front HQs keep coming online in the fall/winter of '41, and as they enter the frontline I'd like to transfer Armies from the overloaded HQs that have been fighting since June.
Trouble is that it'll cost you 56-57 APs to do so (half if the leader-check is passed), and with 50 APs coming in each turn, this is something of a slow going. And this is before '42 and the massive AP cost of reorganizing the Red Army into corps.
Add to that the use of APs for SUs, reattachments, Fortified Zones and disbanding, and the Russian player certainly can't go around (re-)attaching units on every whim.

Well.....Either that, or I'm not a very good player. [:D]




JAMiAM -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 10:15:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CheerfullyInsane

Well.....Either that, or I'm not a very good player. [:D]



It may be my ego speaking, but I'd say that good players have the most difficulty in keeping any "excess" APs. There always seems to be something important requiring my APs and except for the occasional forced lull (mud, overextension, et al) I rarely have more than a turn's worth saved. Most turns, I'm spent down to zero, or very close to it.



pompack -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 10:18:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: CheerfullyInsane

Well.....Either that, or I'm not a very good player. [:D]



It may be my ego speaking, but I'd say that good players have the most difficulty in keeping any "excess" APs. There always seems to be something important requiring my APs and except for the occasional forced lull (mud, overextension, et al) I rarely have more than a turn's worth saved. Most turns, I'm spent down to zero, or very close to it.


Same here. There are always things I would like to do but the APs just are not there. I consider myself well-off if I am able to do the things I must do without running out.



raizer -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/26/2011 11:29:23 PM)

see there is your problem...wouldn't you get a better return on a 56 Ap cost army transfer, than to take a fresh army hq that is under some other front hq, stick a good  leader in charge of it-and THEN transfer those divisions belonging to that overloaded army, piecemeal, at only 1 point per division, to your freshly made army?  I dont understand how you could stomach a 55+ point, in one mass army transfer, over taking each division out of that overloaded hq, separately at only 1 ap point at a time, and sticking them under a place holder army at another front, and then putting a cherry picked leader in charge of that army.  You talking 10 points for 10 divisions and say 8 for a leader-18 points maybe 20 TOPS and you have 10 divs under a fresh army command, instead of transferring the whole army


and fortified zones? why waste precious aps and buy them? I think you get better ap returns by putting leaders where you want them, and unifying your command, than buy fortified zones



pompack -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/27/2011 1:11:41 AM)

Actually I NEVER buy fortified zones as the Russian. And I don't think I have ever transferred more than two Front armies in three campaign games (there are so many excess STAVKA armies I just let an excess Front army wither rather than transferring it)



CheerfullyInsane -> RE: Rotating units-excess aps ensure Soviet unity of command (3/27/2011 1:35:24 AM)

Okay, maybe I'm not getting this so just to clarify here's a situation:

Southern Russia, Caucasus Front has just been released (and thus nearly empty)
I've got 4 fully-stocked armies in the Southern Front, and wish to transfer the 9th Army to the Caucasus Front.

9th Army consist of:
9 infantry divisions,
3 infantry brigades and
3 armored brigades.
With 4 artillery regiments, 1 sapper regiment and 2 RR brigades as support.
(The above is pretty much a standard army for me in '41-'42)

Transferring he HQ to Caucasus command will take 54 APs (give or take, this is just an example), and usually will only cost 27, if you've got decent Admin leaders in your Front HQs.

If I've read it correctly, you want to bring in an empty Army HQ, transfer the divisions piecemeal, and then attach the Army HQ to Caucasus.
Okay, so transferring the CUs will cost you 15 APs, 7 more for the SUs makes 22 APs.
Since the HQ was empty, I'm assuming there's a sucky leader in charge, so that's another 8-15 APs to appoint a new Army commander.
And this is assuming that you have an empty HQ attached to STAVKA. If it's attached to another Front, the AP costs go up.
Plus, now you have what I assume was a decent leader in the 9th Army HQ twiddling his thumbs, so you'll need more APs to transfer him out again.

I'm not even going to bring up the whole micro-management issue, since that is up to the individual player.
Me, I hate this level of management, but to each his own.

As to the FZs, their use is a matter of debate, I quite agree.
But even if you don't build them, you'll still have to use APs on disbanding especially in '41, where motorcycle regiments and Sec regiments gets dissolved ad libitum to gain the manpower.

Suffice it to say that there is always something to be done with those APs, at least in the GC.
And again, I still haven't played into the summer of '42 when the grand Corps reorganization starts.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375