RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (Full Version)

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



Message

timmyab -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/25/2011 11:33:40 AM)

Yes I've noticed this as well.It seems to me that there should be a small penalty for units that get attacked whilst on refit to reflect a certain level of unpreparedness and disorganization.



neuromancer -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/26/2011 10:06:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
The difference in defender casualties between a hasty and deliberate attack is pretty huge...is that solely a result of less effective artillery, or are there also fewer restreat losses after a hasty attack?


I find in general the difference between Hasty and Deliberate is huge. Against a weak foe where you are just trying to break through - or where you have a significant advantage in strength - a hasty attack is quite adequate. But where the opponent is well entrenched, in favourable terrain, a little stronger period (I look at both their estimated attack and defence strength, a higher attack strength with green supply indicates the unit is in good shape, and then the defence strength to estimate my required commitment), or whatever, then you need that deliberate attack.

Personally I have found this to work - When in doubt, Deliberate Attack. Their casualties are higher, and mine are much lower.

With the proper setup you can punch through even well defended positions (I took three units in three hexes against three units in a Level 4 fort and threw the entrenched guys out, even got an arbitrary surrender - I had StuGs and pioneer units attached directly, and the HQ had 4 or 5 units of artillery including a heavy unit of 350s),

Plus of course a softening up air attack helps - although I wish I had an idea how much disruption an attack caused, I never know how many aircraft are necessary for the job. Its also annoying that each unit can only do one directed attack a week, I think Allied bomber command in June of 1944 would have been a little surprised at that restriction.

<<<>>>

For me the problem reading the AARs isn't that the Soviet players aren't taking enough damage, its that they are running like hell from the front. As one forum member put it, the Allied player has to deal with the stupidity of Hitler (the seemingly arbitrary reassignment of units from East to West and back again for example), but the Soviet player doesn't have to deal with the stupidity of Stalin (both men were insane and convinced they were the greatest generals of all time - among other things - and both had an annoying tendency to tell their generals to do stupid things).

While I don't think the Soviets should be ordered to make the foolish attacks that cost them much of their mechanized forces in 1941, they should be forced to make at least a limited defence of certain places instead of just retreating at high speed across the country.

By the same token, the Germans shouldn't be allowed to just retreat at high speed from '43 onwards.

Hitler and Stalin both made 'no retreat' orders that cost their troops dearly. They were also ignored by their generals on occasion (I would say the player should be able to ignore a No Retreat Directive for a corps, but at a significant cost of Admin points).

I'm not sure how this could be implemented however.

I have a few ideas, but they are difficult to explain, and the developers could probably come up with something better anyway.

<<<>>>

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab
Yes I've noticed this as well.It seems to me that there should be a small penalty for units that get attacked whilst on refit to reflect a certain level of unpreparedness and disorganization.


I was surprised to discover there was no combat or movement penalty for being in Refit mode either. I was left wondering why you wouldn't just leave all your units in Refit mode all the time - at least for the Germans and Soviets when they have plenty of manpower and equipment (I don't, but its been a thought).

<<<>>>

Having read more of this thread I'm inclined to agree with the notion that Brigades and Regiments should be treated as smaller and less effective than full size divisions (or Corps for the Russians). Less effective or non-existent ZOCs would make a lot of sense for these smaller units.

The basic idea of a ZOC is not so much that simply the presence of the unit acts as a Stop (or at least Yield) sign for enemy units. Its that either the unit extends its flanks outwards so actually extends into those other hexes (this most applies to 'hard' ZOCs - may not move from one ZOC to another ZOC - and isn't the case in WitE). Alternately the ZOC represents a force's outriders, screening units, recon, and patrol units, perhaps some fast reaction forces as well (not sure how many units had such a thing though). In this case its not that entering the hex brings you into direct combat with the enemy (and thus you have to force the enemy to retreat before you can advance) its that the enemy force is going to harass you as you advance, and you have to advance in a combat formation which is much slower, thus slowing your advance (i.e., costing more MPs, this is appropriate for 'soft' ZOCs like you see in WitE).

But as the smaller units are physically smaller, and sometimes lacking in any sort of mobile assets, they won't have much of a ZOC.

What I would suggest is that the smaller units like the sea of Soviet Brigades, the weird little German single Regiment that shows up in 1941 (and I have no real idea what to do with), the various minor axis brigades, and the German motorized regiments - which already have some special rules - should have reduced ZOC effects.

The infantry probably should have no ZOC at all, or perhaps 1/4 the current effect. The mobile units (cavalry, motorized infantry, and mechanized units) should have half the current effect (they have faster mobile units which can harass units that are slipping around their flanks, but aren't numerous enough to be a real hindrance).

Artillery and AT gun units - no matter the size - should probably have no ZOC at all. They are largely static units with few if any mobile combat units, that are going to just sit in one place and do their thing.

I would further suggest that the smaller units (brigades, regiments, etc.) also be more vulnerable to attacks from larger units.

An infantry on infantry battle would be about the same, if the defender has to retreat they will probably decide to do it before things get too messy and can probably do so quicker than the larger force can follow. Same with armour on armour.

A fast unit (armour, mechanized unit, cavalry) on infantry however would likely result in the fast heavy force over-running the infantry before they could retreat, this should result in more shatters.

By the same token, a surrounded small unit (enemy units in all six hexes) should automatically shatter if forced to retreat (none of this small unit routing through the enemy business). Sure its possible a lot of guys are going to escape, but they are not doing it as a unit, and not carrying anything heavier than a rifle, they are now just random guys who used to be the Finnish 8th border regiment (or whatever). If you want to rebuild the unit, you have to do it from the ground up.


I like these ideas because this way the Soviets still would have a sea of units, but they wouldn't be quite as effective as they are now. The Soviets will thus have to pack their forces more densely to have the same effect as they do now (not like they don't have the units...) and probably want to use larger corps to create some back bone in key areas.

<<<>>>

That's my 8 cents (four sets of thoughts, 2 cents each).



abulbulian -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/26/2011 11:45:22 PM)

neuromancer,

I agree with your thoughts. It's unfortunate that the big picture of a Soviet strategy of spreading out single units across in depth on the front is even a viable strategy. Because of the combat mechanics, it's not only a viable strategy but definitely the best. Although, realistically this would be folly in practice as these single(small) units would just be overrun by German concentrations at the front.

I'm very surprised and a bit disappointed in WitE that this trend has not be spotted sooner and adjustments made in combat mechanics to expose the actual issues with this type of strategy. Look at any AAR in 1942 and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. I think the example combat results shown by jzardo's posts and seen by myself show that relatively small Soviet forces (low exp and morale) are able to retreat(route . IMO almost same as retreat) with at most 30% loses and cause a very satisfactory amount of loses to their axis foe. Which in most cases are seasoned German veterans with good morale.

I know that this type of change will take time and more balancing issues may surface. Although, keep in mind introducing the concept of overruns(defender eliminated) at high combat odds would work both ways. Sure, in 41-42 it would work well for the axis, but later in the war this would work in the Soviet favor. This is assuming a somewhat historical path given equal players skills is accomplished in a campaign 41 game. What a wonderful world it would be to see these bizarre-o single depth Soviet lines in 42 finally become things of the past. [:'(]

I can maybe see adding the overrun concept either coupled with a necessary Soviet strength boost in 41 or a way to cause more supply issues for German mobile units pushing too hard and gaining an unrealistic amount of territory. Either way any improvements to realistic battle mechanics should be considered priorities.





heliodorus04 -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/26/2011 11:49:46 PM)

+1 to "When in doubt, do a deliberate attack."
In the long run, Germany must be more interested in preserving its manpower than taking Soviet terrain. 

I disagree that Hitler and Stalin were alike in their treatment of their generals.
Stalin proved himself capable of absorbing expert information from his generals, changing his outlook on how to conduct the war, and playing to Soviet strengths/German weaknesses.  There is an arc of proficiency one can see developing in Stalin between the failure of the Spring 42 offensive, the failure of operation mars, and the end of the 3rd battle for Kharkov (was the 3rd the Manstein 'back-hand blow'? I forget because there were so many).

The longer the war went on, the more Hitler became ever more convinced that his generals were weak-willed, defeatist, or worse.



neuromancer -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/27/2011 12:48:39 AM)

I didn't say they were identical, just that both were fond of giving stupid orders to their generals (this incidentally has also been said of Mussolini and even Winston Churchill as well). Stalin did order attacks that were to be disasters, and did order men to hold when they should have retreated. The 'not a step back' order (no 227) was created at the end of July 1942, among other things it stated that officers who ordered retreats without permission were to be tried for cowardice, and 'blocking detachments' were to be created to shoot routing soldiers (although that last idea only lasted a few months - but wasn't officially dropped until 1944).

But yes, Stalin was capable of learning - very slowly, but he could learn.

Prior to the war he did actually stop having any officer who might be competent convicted of treason and executed (competent underlings were apparently a threat to him - although as a few hundred thousand of those executed in the Great Purge were just normal citizens, its possible that simply being in the wrong place was deemed a threat to Stalin).

Of course, Stalin had only stopped his purges once he felt his position was solid, and was even willing to permit a few competent people in the government around him. Although he still specifically told the Red Army to ignore the few million Germans lining up on the border - he was paranoid about his power until it was absolutely secured, but wasn't paranoid about the expansionistic nation with no one else to attack but him lining up troops on his border? WTF?

Its hard to say if the Ukrainian famines (recognized as an attempted Genocide by a couple dozen counties, specifically including Ukraine) were an attempt to remove a perceived threat, merely a brutal application of 'the rules' no matter the consequences, or simply an attempt to make sure that the favoured sections of the Soviet Union had enough grain (presumably Russia and Georgia) at the expense of the second class Ukrainians.

Conservative estimates based on Soviet records indicate that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of over 3 million Soviet citizens through executions, induced famines, and forced relocations. Some estimates are much higher (as high as 20x as much, although I think that extreme a bit unrealistic, although not impossible).

As a side note, I always find it interesting that if the Nazis hadn't brutalized the people of the Baltic States and the Ukraine even more than the Soviets did, they would have had a huge core of manpower that absolutely hated the Soviets and would have gladly gone to war against them. But as has also been said, the Nazis couldn't have been who they were and not brutalize the Eastern Europeans (although apparently some senior officials in the Nazi party suggested they delay any actions against the conquered Eastern Europeans until after the Soviets were defeated so that they could use the manpower as cannon fodder).

And this is the guy who the people of the former Soviet nations (except presumably the Ukraine) still revere as a 'Strong Leader'. Yeah... if you like being led by a paranoid psychopath.

<<<>>>

Hitler, yeah... as things deteriorated for the Third Reich his fragile hold on his sanity deteriorated as well.

"You made a fool of Hitler!"
"He didn't need our help!"
from The Producers

<<<>>>

And now watch as this thread degenerates from a single off hand comment I made.

Admittedly I probably shouldn't defend said comment either, but oh well.



neuromancer -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/27/2011 1:08:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
I know that this type of change will take time and more balancing issues may surface. Although, keep in mind introducing the concept of overruns(defender eliminated) at high combat odds would work both ways.


Certainly, although I was specifically referring to smaller forces being somewhat fragile in battle against much larger and faster forces. But there should be some kind of ability for a weak force to shatter if hit by a much stronger force, specifically if the unit is already heavily damaged - which would definitely be an issue for the Germans in the late war period.

quote:


or a way to cause more supply issues for German mobile units pushing too hard and gaining an unrealistic amount of territory.


This is an interesting question, because Guderian was known for advancing rapidly beyond the lines of the rest of the army, and operating away from direct support. Rommel also made some long range rapid advancement, although his problems with resupply led to his defeat in Africa (although he still held off Monty for a month and cost the British heavy casualties in the process.

Obviously Guderian and Rommel were exceptional commanders, and perhaps the problem is that any mobile unit is capable of this kind of blitz, where as maybe available MPs should also have something to do with a unit's commanding officers ability (Mechanized, Initiative, Admin?)

I think a problem here is that war is immensely complicated, and very hard to recreate in any kind of war game (even the ones the professional militaries use).



herwin -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/27/2011 7:22:52 AM)

Guderian and Rommel were excellent commanders, but the Germans had a lot of commanders just as good.

In reality, the ant strategy would have produced a short delay and just a few casualties as the Germans generated a shallow but adequate penetration at a few points in the front, and then both forces would have headed east as fast as they could march. Think of it as slow-moving forces marching in parallel. Without a mobility advantage, the Red Army units would not have been able to deploy, forcing the German units to deploy--which was what really slowed an advance. So the ZOC rules need to be changed to reflect whether the formation of the defending units is ployed or deployed. To move, they ploy and lack a ZOC. Deploying gives them a ZOC, but takes time (and movement points)--this is what is known as solidifying a defence. The better-trained German infantry could deploy and ploy faster.



neuromancer -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/27/2011 8:05:23 PM)

Herwin - That's a fair point, even 10,000 men when spread out over 20 km is a pretty thin line (1 hex - plus spreading into the neighbouring hexes - 1 man every 2 meters, 1 deep). That wouldn't exactly take a lot of effort to breach, and after punching a hole two hundred meters wide (only killing or driving off 100 men), you can happily drive an army through that hole while leaving a token force protecting the flanks of the hole. Meanwhile the remaining 9,900 men of the defending unit are spread all over the remaining 19.8 km line in no form of concentration and wouldn't be able to bring any kind of concentrated strength to bear for a few hours, by which time a rather significant amount of motorized units could have driven through the hole.

Obviously this is not how they actually did defensive formations.

It could therefore be argued - and some games do exactly this, and I suggest it for WitE - that an all infantry unit below a certain size has no ZOC because its ability to project meaningful force into neighbouring hexes is too limited. As was said, weak scattered defences would result in a quick punch through and the defending force pursuing the advancing force with only skirmishing going on because the defending force could not force the advancing force into meaningful combat - at least not until something happened to slow the advancing force so the pursuing force could force an engagement.

In that sort of situation armoured forces are at a significant advantage because they have all their weapons on mobile platforms that can stop, shoot, and move again. Infantry needs to stop, unlimber their guns, set up their heavy MGs and heavy mortars, etc. before they can do more than skirmish.

In fact, Guderian pointed out in the 20s that in order for armoured forces to be meaningful in a future war, that it was necessary for their support units be as mobile as armoured units, able to move, stop, fire, and move again without the need to set up, and be able to move at the same speed as the tanks. Thus SP artillery, support guns, AA, MGs, etc.

Of course infantry can be a tremendous problem to those mobile forces, as lone guys scattered about are hard to see and can sneak up and cause trouble. But this is really only a major problem in full combat, or in built up/ rough terrain where a mobile unit can't move at full speed. Thus the Germans had 'schützen' (aka 'panzertruppen' - later 'panzergrenadier') infantry that would deploy when the combat was going to become slow and close (lone units moving at speed could be destroyed by hidden infantry, but it wasn't practical or effective to engage an entire force as it drove by at 30+ mph).

<<<>>>

It occurs to me, that perhaps what is necessary is cumulative ZOC. One weak unit in a hex can't cover the hex worth a darn, and so will have little effective ZOC. Two would be a little better at covering the area, and thus have a more effective ZOC. And three would be better still.

Obviously the units aren't all sitting piled on each other, they are deployed around the area, and the more companies you have to deploy, the more area you can cover. Also equally obvious is that a larger formation will have more men to deploy than a smaller formation.

This is practical in a computer game where the computer could do the calculations for this sort of thing automatically, while it is not practical in a board game where counting the units in a hex and calculating the effects of ZOC for each hex would become a serious PITA.

<<<>>>

Commanders wise, I agree, the Germans had some damn fine commanders in WW2. It was the army and their commanders that made Nazi Germany a force to be reckoned with, not Hitler and his band of loons who did everything they could to screw it up (that wasn't their intent, its just the effect). When I stated MPs would be affected by a general's rating that would still be of benefit to the Germans as most of their armour commanders have pretty good ratings.

Also, its worth noting that it took time for allied armies to create a counter to the blitz tactics of the Wehrmacht. The cumbersome and slow Red Army of 1941 definitely could not. The 1942 army was a little better but it took more than just reorganization of the army OOB to make those changes, it required officers in place that could understand what needed to be done, and soldiers that could carry out those orders ("great tanks, poor tankers"), and that was only really developing during 1942, some units would learn it faster than others obviously. By '43 the Red Army seemed to have hammered itself into shape for the most part.

<<<>>>

In lower level games - such as Panzer Campaigns - what you would have is that units could go into 'Road mode'. Mobile units would deploy for road movement, guns would limber for towing, etc. You could move much quicker this way (and in fact, towed units couldn't move at all unless in road mode) but you weren't in combat formation, and if you took fire while in this mode your casualties would be worse, and any counter-fire would be weaker (Panzer Campaigns had the non phasing side able to take opportunity fire if an enemy came close enough, usually a hex over). You generally tried to get your armour out of road mode before moving next to the enemy, although your AT and infantry guns needed to be moved next to the enemy before deploying, which meant they often took some fire before they could deploy (even the act of deploying could cause reaction fire which was a bit of a pain).

Unfortunately I don't think that is practical it this level (Panzer Campaigns - at least the Normandy one I have - is company/ battalion level with day time turns being only an hour or two long.



herwin -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/28/2011 7:10:22 AM)

OCS is 5-10 miles per hex, two turns per week, and uses unit formation. It works fine on the same scale. The game system I designed many years ago (that was used in a published game) had formations at the corps/division level with weekly turns. Ployed, you move better; deployed, you fight better.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375