RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (Full Version)

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



Message

karonagames -> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (4/4/2011 3:48:11 PM)

quote:

and no panzer divisions were routed


According to Glantz (see the youtube video I posted in another thread), 7th panzer was routed.

The soviets have a hard enough job in 1941 without adding further restrictions. In my game with speedy I could count the number of attacks I could make in one turn on less than one hand and I usually had to spend APs to get them organised to avoid command penalties and get the best leaders in charge.

If these attacks are costing the Sovs APs then this is to the benefit of the Axis, because it is less APs to spend of Rifle corps and Artillery divisions. If the soviets want to spend APs to give themselves the best chance of success, IMHO they should be allowed to.



Klydon -> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (4/4/2011 3:49:35 PM)

I think some of the changes coming with 1.04 will help with the "mass" attacks unless the Russian really has his command house in order.

8) Rule Change - Introduced the concept of a commanding HQ for each side for each combat. Generally this commanding HQ is selected because it has the most CVs directly reporting to it in the battle. Units not reporting directly to the commanding HQ will suffer command battle modifiers that will reduce their CV for the battle. The battle report now lists the units in the battle grouped under the name of the HQ they report to. If an HQ’s units are suffering a command battle modifier, the amount of the CV reduction is shown next to the name of the HQ (for example XXIV Panzer Corps -36% indicates that each unit listed in this corps has had its CV reduced by 36%). The greater the number of HQ’s that the unit must trace through to reach the commanding HQ, the greater the modifier. In addition, units that report directly to a high command HQ suffer an additional 20% modifier, and those that report directly to an Army Group or Front suffer an additional 10% modifier (these are shown as part of the total modifier percentage displayed).

From a German perspective, if the Russians want to waste command points moving units in and out of HQ's to take advantage of good leaders, more power to them. That is fewer Corps formed later, fewer really crappy leaders gone, fewer good support units formed, fewer crappy support units disbanded, etc.

As far as the Russians "achieving" odds, etc, my comment would be to look at German ToE strengths from the campaign and while a lot of it was wear and tear, the fact is the fighting efficiency of the German units eroded a lot as the summer campaign went along and this is due to the fighting that went on including Germans attacking and Russians also attacking. I would also disagree with the "ahistorical" as far as the mass of weak infantry divisions go. The Russians absolutely attacked and were somewhat successful (at the very least, causing losses) around Smolensk (the pocket there was "leaky" for a long time in part due to these attacks keeping the panzers from slamming the door completely shut), in the south (6th army was constantly attacked and taking losses as they advanced towards Kiev) and south of Lake Ilmen where the Russians launched an attack near the border of AGN and AGC. Keep in mind the Russians typically have a lot of "unready" divisions, so the ones typically doing the attacking are at least "ready" (over 100% combined TOE and moral).

To simply expect that the Germans can run around like they are invincible and the Red Army can do nothing to them during the summer months is crazy and total Axis fanboyzdom.




squatter -> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (4/4/2011 3:54:17 PM)

"According to Glantz (see the youtube video I posted in another thread), 7th panzer was routed."

Sure, I'm not challenging that. But my point it that 7th Panzer wasnt routed by an uncordinated mass of weak infantry divisions, rather by heavy armoured assault by strong Soviet tank/motorised divisions (another thing the game currently doesnt represent very well!).  



karonagames -> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (4/4/2011 4:04:11 PM)

quote:

uncordinated mass of weak infantry divisions


because he is spending the APs to make them less un-coordinated and better led. If you want to argue that they could never achieve that in the first 6 months then most German generals would disagree with you. "War without Garlands" contains many first hand accounts. I am currently reading excepts from von Bock's diary on the difficulties 2nd Panzer group had in closing the jaws of the Kiev pocket, in which he praised the soviets for the strength and co-ordination of soviet attacks on bridgeheads.



Altaris -> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (4/4/2011 9:17:42 PM)

Some good points made in this thread. In my game, I ended up recovering from the initial push-back from the first post and pocketing those units anyway the second turn. So it wasn't a drastic loss. Though of the 161 AFV's I had in that panzer stack that got hit, I lost about 90 of them. That hurts, and those panzers haven't been nearly as good since then.

Having had a few days to think about it, I can see the argument for the +1 odds modifier. Lord knows the Russian CV stinks to high hell as it is in 1941. And that was a risky attack for the Soviets, it only barely passed as it was, had it failed, it would've been an even worse blow to the Soviet units that attacked.

I do think the retreat attrition is too high, particularly if it's panzers getting attacked by infantry only. I mean, if it was obvious they were going to be overwhelmed, wouldn't the Germans just turn their tanks around and outrun the infantry? I think the retreat attrition should be directly proportional to the CV ratio. So that a 2:1 retreat would basically be an orderly retreat with few attrition losses, while 10:1 would be an overrun/route with high attrition losses. This was something I took issue with in WitP too, where retreats were always horrible on the retreating defender, despite situations where intuitively it would seem more of an orderly retreat situation than a route.

However, I really don't think there's any justification for the +1 modifier being in play in blizzard. As for later in the game, I have no idea as I haven't gotten that far.



squatter -> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (4/4/2011 9:57:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

uncordinated mass of weak infantry divisions


If you want to argue that they could never achieve that in the first 6 months then most German generals would disagree with you. "War without Garlands" contains many first hand accounts. I am currently reading excepts from von Bock's diary on the difficulties 2nd Panzer group had in closing the jaws of the Kiev pocket, in which he praised the soviets for the strength and co-ordination of soviet attacks on bridgeheads.


Well, again, my argument is not that the Russians should never be able to rout a panzer division in 41, far from it. My argument is only that this result should be made more difficult to achieve WHEN USING MASSED WEAK INFANTRY DIVISIONS. I'm not arguing for abolition of the +1 odds modifier, rather some rules that would make co-ordinated attacks by huge amounts of very poorly trained, low morale and limited experience infantry divisions more difficult. I actually think its important that the Sovs have the ability to inflict retreats/routs in counterattacks, only that this generally be only possible when committing better trained and prepared forces.

For the record, other than the example of the 7th Panzer, what other examples IRL do we have of panzer divisions (or any German divisions for that matter) being routed in 41? And when Glantz describes the 7th as being 'routed', does he mean decimated by losing 50% of its heavy equipment as in the case with most routs in-game, or does he mean 'forced to leave the field in disarray'?

Currently it is perfectly possible for the former scenario to play out several times in 41, let alone 42. If some restrictions along the lines of those I proposed earlier in the thread were implemented, perhaps it would become rare - though possible in given the right circumstances - for massed infantry to cause such routs, as I believe was the case IRL, as opposed to routine.





Klydon -> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (4/4/2011 10:08:04 PM)

What is your definition of a weak infantry division? The game already has the distinction of "unready" divisions that can't move and attack in the same turn.

Also, between leadership, fatigue and everything else including training and moral, most Russian infantry divisions don't have close to full movement points available and it takes at least 6 mp to do a deliberate attack. Unless the German moving is silly and just insists on parking next to a pile of Russian divisions, then it is going to be very difficult as it is for the Russians to dog pile in enough infantry divisions that are not only "ready" but also have the movement points, etc to pull off an attack. And you want to make this harder?



squatter -> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier (4/4/2011 10:23:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

What is your definition of a weak infantry division? The game already has the distinction of "unready" divisions that can't move and attack in the same turn.

Also, between leadership, fatigue and everything else including training and moral, most Russian infantry divisions don't have close to full movement points available and it takes at least 6 mp to do a deliberate attack. Unless the German moving is silly and just insists on parking next to a pile of Russian divisions, then it is going to be very difficult as it is for the Russians to dog pile in enough infantry divisions that are not only "ready" but also have the movement points, etc to pull off an attack. And you want to make this harder?



When I say weak, I'm talking about CV1 or 2, roughly speaking. Unready divisions are exactly that: unready for combat, defence or attack.

I presume you have played as Russians in the GC? If so, I presume you have noticed that the fact it is 6MP for an infantry division to deliberate attack as opposed to 16MP for a motorised/armoured unit, which means that infantry becomes your primary asset in counterattacking when you consider that most Sov mobile units dont even start their turn with 16MP in 41, let alone having some spare MPs to move into position before engaging, and forget about disengaging with armour if you are able to get them into a deliberate attack. On average, a Sov INF unit of any quality can move further and conduct a deliberate attack in the same turn, than can any armoured or motorised unit. This is where my issue lies.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625