RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (Full Version)

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



Message

carlkay58 -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/22/2011 3:32:46 AM)

Actually, the "leaking sieve" picture that we all have about the pockets were German Intelligence rationalization on why there always seemed to be another d*** Soviet defensive line when the numbers showed that the entire Soviet Army had been captured twice over by the end of August! Studying the new numbers and such from the Soviet Archives information that has been coming out over the past 10 to 15 years shows that the Soviets lost an immense amount of men during the first three months due to the encirclement and that those were brand new troops that kept showing up - something that the German intel just could not envision.

Remember that the Germans put the losses of Soviet men around 6 million for the war, with about a third of that occuring in the first three months. We now know that the Soviets actually lost about 12 million soldiers (and another 8 million civilians) and that about a third of those occured in the first three months. A majority of the Soviets that escaped capture became partisans or slowly made it back to the front lines several months later. Soviet archives show that the original border armies had less than 10,000 troops left from ALL of them by the start of August. So the pockets in the game work well enough over all - I just think the immediate reduction in CV (despite having ammo and other supplies on hand) is too much and that the surrounded forces (of both sides) should be able to hold out longer.



Michael T -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/22/2011 5:30:40 AM)

quote:

I just think the immediate reduction in CV (despite having ammo and other supplies on hand) is too much and that the surrounded forces (of both sides) should be able to hold out longer.


I agree with this but there needs to be more losses from routed units. As is too many escape.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/22/2011 12:21:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
That is more than 20 prisoners per German soldier it is no way that can even guard that much prisoners.


There are many images of 1000s of prisoners being guarded by small groups of German guards.

[image]local://upfiles/3593/EC47B71831DC4AB9A0961FF129A74AF9.jpg[/image]



Panama -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/22/2011 3:43:55 PM)

I never bother to quote anything from before the opening of the Soviet archives. The 'sieve' reference is one of Glantz's own. Other authors since then have also made reference. I do not see any reason to doubt a reference made by several respected East Front historians.

BTW, I've seen similar pictures to that above. But there were German uniforms on the prisoners. I should also add, Italian prisoners, French prisoners, Polish prisoners. [:D]



*Lava* -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/24/2011 11:45:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

In this game, you get the Lvov pocket, and a number of smaller pockets, but you will never see the likes of the Minsk and Kiev pockets after the initial Lvov pocket.


I believe this is because Soviet units route so far away. If units were only routing two or three hexes then you would have a Minsk pocket (for example)... and the game would play more on a par with history.



carlkay58 -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 2:05:04 AM)

I have come to the conclusion over the past few days of thinking that the Rout of units out of pockets (before they become isolated) represents the "sieve" effect. This also applies to the airbase and HQ ability to displace out of isolation. Several reports from Soviet archives and generals refer to army HQs escaping pockets with 2 to 3,000 men and minor equipment after a period of time (some as long as two or more months) from the opening pockets in 41.



tigercub -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 3:21:03 AM)

The Rout of units running so far and lossing from what i see low losses for what has happened to them, sticks in my side like a Thorn. It just does not seem right!




herwin -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 4:20:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The Rout of units running so far and lossing from what i see low losses for what has happened to them, sticks in my side like a Thorn. It just does not seem right!




Guderian's Blitzkrieg II and Case Blue (OCS) has some special rules to deal with the same problems. Look up Tree Bark Soup, Sausages, and Breakout Movement in the game-specific rules on the OCS site. Breakout Movement is particularly interesting--infantry units not in an enemy ZOC and out of supply trace can use a special kind of administrative movement mode that allows them to move up to 250 miles in 3.5 days. (Normal administrative movement is 100 miles in 3.5 days, and operational movement is half that.)



*Lava* -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 12:15:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I have come to the conclusion over the past few days of thinking that the Rout of units out of pockets (before they become isolated) represents the "sieve" effect.


I'm not referring to units routing out of pockets, I'm simply stating that units rout too far in general.

Look how it effects the game at the very start:

If you want to pocket as many units as possible, then you avoid combat. What?? If you rout a unit on the front line and it displaces what can only be called its full movement allowance and then "touch" them again... they rout another 6 hexes to the rear. Huh? A routed unit can be moved just like any other unit. Really?

Why does the German player end up facing incredibly thick defensive layering within 4 to 5 moves, in some cases? Well hell, it is pretty obvious, I think.

Why does the German players execute the Lvov pocket and not a Minsk pocket. Well hell, it is pretty obvious, I think.

Let me be right up front with ya'll. I enjoyed the game... for awhile. But the mechanics just don't feel right. A unit that routs over 2 or 3 hexes should be at the point of complete disintegration. It should be an uncontrollable mob. Historic pockets such as at Minsk or around Smolensk happened because the Soviets couldn't run faster than German tanks. But in this game... the Soviets can run faster than German tanks. Something is really wrong here and up to this point I have given the devs the benefit of the doubt, but to be quite honest, I've given up on the game for now because it is just too detached from reality, IMHO.

You all may disagree, fine. But that won't change my impression of game mechanics, of which Routing units are but only one.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)



Panama -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 1:07:07 PM)

I guess it all depends on what the routing is supposed to represent. Is it the command personel moving away from the defeat and gathering what troops they can? Seven days would be sufficient for that and much of the administrative section could and did get away. Probably shouldn't end up with much heavy equipment if any. That get's left behind when the guys are running away. Hell, many of the troops won't even leave with their weapons. Some will go to the extreme of changing into civilian clothing.

When you start using full week game turns some things have to be simplified. There just isn't enough room for detail. I'm not crazy about units displacing in any game but it has it's place.



Jakerson -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 1:23:14 PM)

I have pocketed 1.2 million men pocket of Soviet troops near Stalingrad in one pocket and killed them in one turn. This is almost 3 full Soviet Fronts worth of troops. I just do not see the point this entire German player whining. German players who say Soviet troops cannot be pocketed when playing German just don’t understand game mechanics and Soviet capabilities to counter pockets.

I do not understand all this whining that German cannot pocket in historical places German cannot pocket in historical places if Soviet player choose not to defend in historical places. German has to go to pocket where Soviet player deploy troops. Sooner or later Soviet have to start defend before Urals. Sometimes it takes careful planning through multiple turns to be able to pocket large number of Soviet troops.



*Lava* -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 7:14:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
I do not understand all this whining that German cannot pocket in historical places German cannot pocket in historical places if Soviet player choose not to defend in historical places.


The Germans cannot pocket the Soviets in historical areas (i.e. deep in Soviet territory), because the game mechanics don't allow it. How hard is that for you to understand????

The question is not where the Soviet player chooses to defend, because the way this game plays, he can defend EVERYWHERE! That is bullshit.

The Germans should be able to bolt out of the gate and plunge deeply into Russia... on all fronts. This should force the Soviet player into making some hard decisions. And that is not happening.

There is not a single thread on this forum about what trade-offs the Soviet player must make in order to survive the German offensive. The only kinds of things that are chatted about here are ahistoric crappola concerning different types of defenses setup WELL FORWARD of any coherent line made in the actual war.

And until the Soviet players are talking trade-offs and having to make difficult decisions as to where to draw their lines, then the game is just in another universe.

Look, I bought this game because I understood it was really hard to win as the Germans... but equally, it should also be quite difficult for the Soviets as well. So overall, I'm fairly disappointed in how the Operational nature of this war has been so poorly interpreted. But hell, I had fun for awhile, and I got my money's worth, so I'm not complaining... nor whining.

Just stating why this game has lost it's appeal to me, nothing more.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)



Tarhunnas -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 8:34:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

I have pocketed 1.2 million men pocket of Soviet troops near Stalingrad in one pocket and killed them in one turn. This is almost 3 full Soviet Fronts worth of troops. I just do not see the point this entire German player whining. German players who say Soviet troops cannot be pocketed when playing German just don’t understand game mechanics and Soviet capabilities to counter pockets.

I do not understand all this whining that German cannot pocket in historical places German cannot pocket in historical places if Soviet player choose not to defend in historical places. German has to go to pocket where Soviet player deploy troops. Sooner or later Soviet have to start defend before Urals. Sometimes it takes careful planning through multiple turns to be able to pocket large number of Soviet troops.



Are you playing what you would judge to be an equal opponent? Or the AI perchance?



Mynok -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 9:00:45 PM)

quote:

There is not a single thread on this forum about what trade-offs the Soviet player must make in order to survive the German offensive. The only kinds of things that are chatted about here are ahistoric crappola concerning different types of defenses setup WELL FORWARD of any coherent line made in the actual war.


Bullcrap. Read some AARs.



Panama -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 10:22:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
I do not understand all this whining that German cannot pocket in historical places German cannot pocket in historical places if Soviet player choose not to defend in historical places.


The Germans should be able to bolt out of the gate and plunge deeply into Russia... on all fronts. This should force the Soviet player into making some hard decisions. And that is not happening.



Hmm...let me think about that. Oh I know. The Soviet player KNOWS the German is going to attack, where and with what. Historially the real Soviets didn't know all that much and if they did they didn't do anything about it. That just might make a bit of a difference, hmm?

Probably too much recon in this game too.



carlkay58 -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/25/2011 11:28:43 PM)

quote:

1. The Germans cannot pocket the Soviets in historical areas (i.e. deep in Soviet territory), because the game mechanics don't allow it. How hard is that for you to understand????

2. The question is not where the Soviet player chooses to defend, because the way this game plays, he can defend EVERYWHERE! That is bullshit.

3. The Germans should be able to bolt out of the gate and plunge deeply into Russia... on all fronts. This should force the Soviet player into making some hard decisions. And that is not happening.

4. There is not a single thread on this forum about what trade-offs the Soviet player must make in order to survive the German offensive. The only kinds of things that are chatted about here are ahistoric crappola concerning different types of defenses setup WELL FORWARD of any coherent line made in the actual war.

5. And until the Soviet players are talking trade-offs and having to make difficult decisions as to where to draw their lines, then the game is just in another universe.


A few quick replies to the above. Numbers have been inserted in the quote from Lava to tie it all together.

1. The game mechanics do allow pocketing deep in Soviet Russia. I myself have pocketed Moscow, Leningrad, and Rostock in '41 - against a human opponent and without using HQ buildup at any time. So it is possible. Not very likely maybe (but then that is historically accurate).

2. The Soviet player can "defend anywhere" simply because there are Soviet units that are capable of moving to anywhere in Soviet-controlled territory. I really do not understand this statement but I will venture that MOST Soviet players defend where they feel that they are able to defend the best and have the best odds of doing so successfully. I have never even thought of trying to defend Minsk as the Soviet.

3. Historically the Germans went deep and fast in AGN and AGC and got stuffed in AGS "right out of the gate". The fact that this rarely happens to AGS (because of the Lvov pocket ability) is actually in the Germans' favor. The Soviet player has many decisions to make "right out of the gate" on defense and organization. I will say that the Soviet side is MUCH more flexible for the player because all of production and unit creation/mix is up to the player - something the Axis does not get to do. Sometimes this is a good thing, something it is just overwhelming, and sometimes the Soviet player just plain goofs it all up even worse.

4. I personally have read and participated in several of these discussions in The War Room. Have you bothered to read any of the Soviet strategy threads? There are some that are very good and detail what the trade offs a typical Soviet player must face - such as army and front organizations, corps disband or use until gone, how to get the most out of the limited AP availability, etc. There are hundreds of decisions each turn for the Soviet player that can deeply effect the future of the Soviet chances.

5. See above. I will admit that while the divisions will come back (before November 1941) it is easier to throw some to the wolves as panzer speed bumps, but eventually that goes away and you have to change your tactics. When it costs 40% of a single turn's AP allowance to create a single infantry division, you really cannot afford to throw too many of them away before your army starts to disappear. You could cut that to 20% since you can combine two infantry brigades into a division, but that still limits you to only 5 divisions per turn at most and a single good pocket by the Germans could easily be more than that.

There are many discussions and examples on how the Germans can cut through a three, four, or even five hex deep Soviet defense in one or two turns. Even just pocketing a few divisions in three or four spots on the line each turn will see the Soviets really hurting in 1942 and beyond.



neuromancer -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/26/2011 12:12:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
So the pockets in the game work well enough over all - I just think the immediate reduction in CV (despite having ammo and other supplies on hand) is too much and that the surrounded forces (of both sides) should be able to hold out longer.


Interesting information. And I agree with you about the CVs. My reading has indicated that the Germans found reducing the pockets to be a tremendous Schmerzen in den Hintern. Many of the surrounded troops held on for some time, fighting like demons. And of course later German units were stuck in pockets which took time reduce as well, and in some cases were able to successfully break out without any external aid.

I've argued for modifications to the supply system that if a unit has supply and ammunition, it should still have a significant CV - probably reduced somewhat as the units are rationing, but not the massive reduction that you see now, and that once their supply drops to a certain (low) level they should start having the chance to surrender without a shot being fired (the troops have no effective ability to resist, and are starving, they may as well surrender).

Of course I also beleive that any enveloped unit that is forced to retreat or rout and has no where to go (i.e. any hex they would fall back to has an enemy unit in it) should immediately surrender, not magically teleport out of the pocket. Sure, some of the troops will escape, but like you say, those will either trickle back into the manpower pool or become partisans.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
There are many images of 1000s of prisoners being guarded by small groups of German guards.


Hungry, unarmed, demoralized men don't generally face men with submachine guns and have surges of hope about escape. Some may say "they couldn't have gotten them all", to which logic responds, "obviously not, but the first dozen or two men per armed soldier would have a problem, and not many people are eager to be one of the ones that do get shot."



neuromancer -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/26/2011 12:49:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
There are many discussions and examples on how the Germans can cut through a three, four, or even five hex deep Soviet defense in one or two turns. Even just pocketing a few divisions in three or four spots on the line each turn will see the Soviets really hurting in 1942 and beyond.


That isn't quite holding up in practise. The ability to replace any lost unit before November with ease (the unit pops back into existence and quickly refills from the pool - which may or may not be historically appropriate), combined with the fact that the Germans need to be entrenching by October or get slaughtered in the winter means that in order for the Soviet player to lose enough troops to 'see the Soviets really hurting in 1942 and beyond', the Soviet player has to screw up rather significantly.

And then of course in 1942 you find the Russians in great condition, and entrenched three deep with level 3 forts all over the place. And the game degenerates to trench warfare that generally spells the end of the game.

I think the only thing that seems to actually hurt the Soviet player in the long run is if he falls back faster than he can evacuate industry and thus permenantly loses a bunch of factories. Also by doing that he isn't bleeding the Germans, which he needs to do.

The game appears to be more than a little forgiving to Soviet mistakes, while Axis mistakes are often significant. The Soviets have such an overwhelming supply of manpower and equipment and can get units back into the field so quickly (Training? Bah! Who needs training?) that as long as they don't get too carried away they can throw units away in 1941 by the gross and not feel it.



Panama -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/26/2011 1:14:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

The game appears to be more than a little forgiving to Soviet mistakes, while Axis mistakes are often significant. The Soviets have such an overwhelming supply of manpower and equipment and can get units back into the field so quickly (Training? Bah! Who needs training?) that as long as they don't get too carried away they can throw units away in 1941 by the gross and not feel it.



This is fairly a historical summation of what happened.



Tarhunnas -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/26/2011 9:53:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

My recent game as a Soviet found My Axis opponent not pocketing anything but attacking everything in sight. This lead to an interesting "no pocket" infantry rush. The jury is still out but it has got his infantry closer quicker.


How did this one go? Just curious...



76mm -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/26/2011 10:40:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
Look, I bought this game because I understood it was really hard to win as the Germans... but equally, it should also be quite difficult for the Soviets as well.


Well, that's exactly what you get. It is very difficult for the Germans to win the war, but it has been done in several AARs. And the Sovs struggle in most AARs in 1941, althoughs sometimes more than others. Similarly, there are many AARs which describe large German pockets after the initial turns. I don't really understand what your complaint is?



neuromancer -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 1:01:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
It is very difficult for the Germans to win the war, but it has been done in several AARs.


The only times I've seen the Germans win is because the Soviet player screwed up badly. The German player has to put in a top notch performance, but even if he does its moot as long as the Soviet player doesn't completely screw himself.

My biggest example of this is Tarhunnas vs. Q-Ball. By the end of 1941 several people were telling Q-Ball that he was completely screwed and should concede. But then we see the summer of 1942 and find that in actual fact Q-Ball is just fine and that he can carry on offenses while Tarhunnas is stuck on the defensive already.

Now, Tarhunnas did push longer than he should have, and did take more damage than he should have (he should have started digging in sooner), which everyone seems to think is the problem. There are four problems with that theory however.

1. The Germans did push until Dec. 5, 1941, and only when the blizzard hit did they actually stop. Unlike us they didn't know they should stop in October and start to dig in and fortify for the brutal winter to come (some preparation did occur, but nothing like is necessary in the game).

2. The Germans did take significant losses to men and equipment in the winter of 1941 and 1942. They weren't in the greatest of shape come the spring, the Soviets pushing them back in several places - but the Soviets largely exhausted themselves in the process, using up the available supply, and many of their units needing to retire for refit. Although it is worth noting that the Germans didn't just crawl into holes during that period, they performed some counter offensives as well!

3. The Germans didn't take Leningrad and Moscow historically, but Tarhunnas did. Despite losing these two important locations, the worst that Q-Ball can say is "I lost some bomber factories, but its okay now, I'm back up to making 80 IL-2s a turn."

4. Historically the Germans and Soviets fought like mad over the summer of 1942, the lines moving about dramatically, in the center and north they ended up almost back where they started while in the South the Germans pushed all the way to Stalingrad.

So despite doing a dramatically better advance in 1941 which should have resulted in a Soviet army on the ropes thinking "oh crap! How do we keep them from going further?" we know that the game is done. Tarhunnas has no where to go but down, Q-Ball has no where to go but up, and while I think they are going to play it out I'm now wondering how Q-Ball could not take Berlin.

So the problem is that some people are more than happy to say how X or Y is historically accurate, but when the complete and utter reversal that occurs post Winter '41 arrives, these same people are suddenly silent.

After the end of 1941, the game's historical plausibility gets up and leaves. The Germans are too weak in 1942, the Russians too strong, and instead of the back and forth struggle that would make for an interesting 1942 and 1943, we get a reprise of the static trenches from 1915 to 1917.

That is the problem.


quote:


And the Sovs struggle in most AARs in 1941, althoughs sometimes more than others.


Define 'struggle'. From what I can see, the only struggle is psychological.

Oh sure, the Soviets lose 3/4 as many men as historical, they lose a bit more territory than historical, they lose a small fraction of as much industry as historical, they sing the woes about how screwed they are - and I'm sure they believe they are, logically they should be! But they aren't. They find instead that they have a massive front in 1942 that resembles 1915 France more than 1942 Russia, and an ineffective summer campaign season follows that the only way ends at the gates of Stalingrad is if the Soviet player decides to skip a few turns, or if the Germans had already been there in the first place.

And when the best German players out there are having this problem, its even pretty hard for the Soviet fanboys to say "lrn2play n00b". So instead they point to a handful of Soviet losses that only occurred because the player made one gross mistake or another in 1941 and deny that there is any problem at all.



Panama -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 2:14:34 AM)

One side historical production + One side whatever they want production = Some crazy s**t. [:D]



heliodorus04 -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 2:23:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
It is very difficult for the Germans to win the war, but it has been done in several AARs.


The only times I've seen the Germans win is because the Soviet player screwed up badly. The German player has to put in a top notch performance, but even if he does its moot as long as the Soviet player doesn't completely screw himself.

My biggest example of this is Tarhunnas vs. Q-Ball. By the end of 1941 several people were telling Q-Ball that he was completely screwed and should concede. But then we see the summer of 1942 and find that in actual fact Q-Ball is just fine and that he can carry on offenses while Tarhunnas is stuck on the defensive already.

Now, Tarhunnas did push longer than he should have, and did take more damage than he should have (he should have started digging in sooner), which everyone seems to think is the problem. There are four problems with that theory however.

1. The Germans did push until Dec. 5, 1941, and only when the blizzard hit did they actually stop. Unlike us they didn't know they should stop in October and start to dig in and fortify for the brutal winter to come (some preparation did occur, but nothing like is necessary in the game).

2. The Germans did take significant losses to men and equipment in the winter of 1941 and 1942. They weren't in the greatest of shape come the spring, the Soviets pushing them back in several places - but the Soviets largely exhausted themselves in the process, using up the available supply, and many of their units needing to retire for refit. Although it is worth noting that the Germans didn't just crawl into holes during that period, they performed some counter offensives as well!

3. The Germans didn't take Leningrad and Moscow historically, but Tarhunnas did. Despite losing these two important locations, the worst that Q-Ball can say is "I lost some bomber factories, but its okay now, I'm back up to making 80 IL-2s a turn."

4. Historically the Germans and Soviets fought like mad over the summer of 1942, the lines moving about dramatically, in the center and north they ended up almost back where they started while in the South the Germans pushed all the way to Stalingrad.

So despite doing a dramatically better advance in 1941 which should have resulted in a Soviet army on the ropes thinking "oh crap! How do we keep them from going further?" we know that the game is done. Tarhunnas has no where to go but down, Q-Ball has no where to go but up, and while I think they are going to play it out I'm now wondering how Q-Ball could not take Berlin.

So the problem is that some people are more than happy to say how X or Y is historically accurate, but when the complete and utter reversal that occurs post Winter '41 arrives, these same people are suddenly silent.

After the end of 1941, the game's historical plausibility gets up and leaves. The Germans are too weak in 1942, the Russians too strong, and instead of the back and forth struggle that would make for an interesting 1942 and 1943, we get a reprise of the static trenches from 1915 to 1917.

That is the problem.


quote:


And the Sovs struggle in most AARs in 1941, althoughs sometimes more than others.


Define 'struggle'. From what I can see, the only struggle is psychological.

Oh sure, the Soviets lose 3/4 as many men as historical, they lose a bit more territory than historical, they lose a small fraction of as much industry as historical, they sing the woes about how screwed they are - and I'm sure they believe they are, logically they should be! But they aren't. They find instead that they have a massive front in 1942 that resembles 1915 France more than 1942 Russia, and an ineffective summer campaign season follows that the only way ends at the gates of Stalingrad is if the Soviet player decides to skip a few turns, or if the Germans had already been there in the first place.

And when the best German players out there are having this problem, its even pretty hard for the Soviet fanboys to say "lrn2play n00b". So instead they point to a handful of Soviet losses that only occurred because the player made one gross mistake or another in 1941 and deny that there is any problem at all.


+1
Nicely ranted, and I'm with you 100%



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 3:10:54 AM)

The problem with such extremes is that we have statements that boil down to "The Axis always get a stalemate in 1942, unless the Soviets have screwed up massively, then they don't get a stalemate."

Axis play has a role in this, as does Soviet play. Luck, aggressiveness of either player, willingness to understand and play within what the rules give you...all these affect the game and the outcome. Perfect? Hardly. Still, I find fault with the notion that everything is doomed unless the Soviets are incompetant boobs...and the only time there has been positive outcomes is when the Soviet player is a knee-biting dweeb.



carlkay58 -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 3:11:40 AM)

I have been reading interviews done by John Erickson in the 70s with Soviet commanders and staff from WWII. One thing that leaps out in several of the interviews is the amount of work, transport, and trouble that the Soviets had in moving factories further East. I believe the manual states somewhere (probably the designer notes?) that the Soviets managed to move 50% of the factories to the East. From the interviews, it took an immense effort to move enough factories to (about 4 to 5 weeks and a huge number of trains (10,000+)) to move the 60% of the factories out of the city. Perhaps you should initiate the move (and pay the rail cost) on one turn but it takes four turns to complete the move (or some such thing). This would force the Soviets to try and hold the city for longer periods while giving the Germans a better shot at capturing or destroying more of them.



Panama -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 3:19:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I have been reading interviews done by John Erickson in the 70s with Soviet commanders and staff from WWII. One thing that leaps out in several of the interviews is the amount of work, transport, and trouble that the Soviets had in moving factories further East. I believe the manual states somewhere (probably the designer notes?) that the Soviets managed to move 50% of the factories to the East. From the interviews, it took an immense effort to move enough factories to (about 4 to 5 weeks and a huge number of trains (10,000+)) to move the 60% of the factories out of the city. Perhaps you should initiate the move (and pay the rail cost) on one turn but it takes four turns to complete the move (or some such thing). This would force the Soviets to try and hold the city for longer periods while giving the Germans a better shot at capturing or destroying more of them.



The Soviets used 1/3 of their rail capacity for factory evacuation. Different factories took different amounts of time to move. The steel mills took consideralby longer than say, a textile plant.



kvolk -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 3:25:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

The problem with such extremes is that we have statements that boil down to "The Axis always get a stalemate in 1942, unless the Soviets have screwed up massively, then they don't get a stalemate."

Axis play has a role in this, as does Soviet play. Luck, aggressiveness of either player, willingness to understand and play within what the rules give you...all these affect the game and the outcome. Perfect? Hardly. Still, I find fault with the notion that everything is doomed unless the Soviets are incompetant boobs...and the only time there has been positive outcomes is when the Soviet player is a knee-biting dweeb.


to add to that the game mechanics will never be good enough to make a such a complex game perfectly balanced in it's play...unless HAL is the AI then look out...[:D]



kvolk -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 3:27:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I have been reading interviews done by John Erickson in the 70s with Soviet commanders and staff from WWII. One thing that leaps out in several of the interviews is the amount of work, transport, and trouble that the Soviets had in moving factories further East. I believe the manual states somewhere (probably the designer notes?) that the Soviets managed to move 50% of the factories to the East. From the interviews, it took an immense effort to move enough factories to (about 4 to 5 weeks and a huge number of trains (10,000+)) to move the 60% of the factories out of the city. Perhaps you should initiate the move (and pay the rail cost) on one turn but it takes four turns to complete the move (or some such thing). This would force the Soviets to try and hold the city for longer periods while giving the Germans a better shot at capturing or destroying more of them.


I think that you have to have a meaningful impact on soviet production for this idea to work...less units or lower CV's or something....



DesertedFox -> RE: Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild (7/27/2011 6:43:39 AM)

Quoted by neuromancer and a +1 by heliodorus04

quote:

Oh sure, the Soviets lose 3/4 as many men as historical, they lose a bit more territory than historical, they lose a small fraction of as much industry as historical,
.

I was wondering what refernce you have available that the game allows the SU to evacuate FAR MORE industires than they did historically?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1941.html#lesser_known_1941

RELOCATION MIRACLE
As the German forces advanced eastwards the Russians started a unprecedented relocation of its war industries. In July, 1941, their vast manpower was employed to move its industrial cargoes to safer regions of the Soviet Union. A total of 1,523 complete factories were dismantled and moved further east. Soon, 667 plants were back in operation in the Urals, 226 in the Volga region, 322 in Siberia and 308 in Central Asia. On October 16, the Soviet government moved from Moscow to Kuibyshev, 525 miles to the east leaving Joseph Stalin, the only high official, remaining in the capitol.

That seems like a LOT of factories evacuated historically to me.

A further refence is available here , but you only get the first page, unfortunately.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09668138308411460

The eastern front in WW2 is extremely hard to balance for many reasons, most of the sensible and non sensible reasons have already been posted, so I will not repeat them here.

The fact the Germans have a hard time attacking in 42 in the game is indeed reflective of the hardiness of the soviet industrial power combined with a vast population. But most importantly it also reflects the SU player of NOT making stupid decisions from June 41 through to May 42 ,which they did historically and thus allowed the Germans the opportuniy for a second bite at the cherry in 42.

Thus, like most of my games today i try and play them mirrored against the same opponent, and you can judge your results from both games combined. If in one game the Soviets capture Berlin in March 45 and the other they don't, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out who played the best.

I realise of course that not everyone has time to play two games simultaneously.

For my money, the game fairly well represents the military power of both sides in the struggle on the eastern front fairly well.

I am NOT saying its perfect, but the best i have seen to date.

Mark



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875