RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (Full Version)

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



Message

76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 12:17:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
I think throwing away a unit for such a purpose is wasteful and gamey.


Dunno, I think that risking a single divistion for the chance of taking out all of Moscow's production is probably worth it. Even now I don't think it is clear that he will lose that division, and meanwhile all of the industry is stuck. But I agree that is is very gamey, it is difficult to imagine panzers tearing into Moscow and zooming around town blowing up factories, which is what this amounts to...Panzer raiding par excellence!

I also want to disagree on this whole reaction phase proposal...while it is appealing in a purely theoretical sense, I don't see why people think it will make the slightest practical difference, at least in 1941. For instance, are we to expect that a weak, entrenched rifle division will leave its position to do a reactive hasty attack on a nearby panzer division? I sure hope not, and if it did I don't see that it would accomplish anything other than mass slaughter of the attacking Russians. Moroever, think about it--it seems that a smart German player would simply figure out a way to attract the reacting units and then crush them. I really can't figure out why people think this would be a good idea?



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 12:41:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

BG I must say that the more I read your AAR that this is the best in-depth AAR out there. If my AAR's are the cheap gossip tabloids, this is the NY Times in comparison. [:D] You have put a lot of effort and thought into this one I think all who follow this one appreciate the effort you put into it. [;)]

I'm not a big fan of the 'suicide' raids, Q-Ball's was a good one but IMO, and this is just me, I think throwing away a unit for such a purpose is wasteful and gamey. Of course I'm looking at this from a more realistic reasoning and not a 'game' one. I guess its how some people want to play the game, to each their own I guess. [8D]


Thank you for the kind words Carnage :) It certainly reassures me that people appreciate that I try to analyze the situation in depth. But don't be so tough on yourself! This is a personal option: AAR's style and scope are entirely optional. I just wanted to make justice to WitE complexity, though. The most rewarding aspect of AAR is to find newcomers to WitE finding this AAR useful. Second to that, is that devs find the AAR also informative on how players approach the game. That gives them a more faithful picture of how us - players - perceive all the hard work they have devoted to the game system. That allows them to leverage what they suppose we're going to do with what we actually do.

Regarding your second paragraph, I'll answer to that along with 76mm remark.



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 12:50:57 PM)

Gamey, yes. Wasteful? Hell, no. Very cost effective. The division will come back. The industry is gone forever.

You just have to take these raids into account and garrison stuff is all.




BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 12:58:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I realize that these divisions are really light on AFVs, almost to the point that these are PzDivision just in name:


Kind of early for this to happen, but he has pushed them hard, so perhaps what one should expect. Historically the Germans of course pushed hard as well, especially in Typhoon towards Moscow, and by then many German divisions were divisions only by name indeed -- not only due to lack of Panzers and AGs, but also men-material wise.


Yes, it's really early. I think this will have a major consequence during Winter, especially because I'm no fan of offensives raging along 40 hexes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
The latter is not obvious, here, as in other AARs, though. Probably that Flavius sensed that correctly, but future will show. Also, Q-Balls INF has spend much time trailing behind, not participating much in combat, so losses might be lower -- but on the other hand, wasn't that also exactly what the INF did historically, and still got bled? Or were the Germans Panzers in fact not as fast and far ahead at their time as in this AAR? Something is clearly different, but what? Would be worth a very close look at the books to understand that correctly.


Not really, German infantry had a major role in the success that Typhoon was, opening up the Soviet lines for the Panzers to break through (very much like in Barbarossa). Infantry losses were quite high there and in the Leningrad - Volkhov region. Winter battles were mostly infantry battles for the Germans - they really had very few AFVs serviceable - and that's going to be a major factor in this game. If I manage to inflict enough damage on infantry formations, we might well have a quite historical 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I still agree with the need for some reaction orders (blocking and counterattack) for idle units. Sort of a certain chance based on leader values of the units and higher HQ, its remaining MP and combat readiness, as well as the enemy detection or speed or so, to either move into the advance path of the unit entering its ZOC, or alternatively, order it to counterattack there. That way the issue with the long statc 7-day turns would be mitigated, the ZOC rule would gain more sense by that (I believe Lava also has some good points there), the openings like Lvov or Minsk might be slowed a bit to more realistic pace and appear more plausible (without having to neuter the former entirely, and with some tough fighting as historically seen there, a tiny chance to keep open communications for the Soviets for another turn, though unlikely if another Panzerkorps would be dispatched south), and ultimately the German defense will also strongly profit from them in 1944/45.
The lack of such reaction order presently seems in stark contrast to the neat "Reserve Commitment" in battles. Ironically, it kind of seems like the higher Commands think "Yeah, battle, let's send the division to assist!" but "ah, there is a Russian Cavalry division (or German Mech, whatever) sneaking around in our rear -- ah, who cares, get the BBQ table ready for the boys and have them feast for a week!".


Precisely. Non-phasing player options are too limited, and quite a few of the implausible outcomes we observe can't be explained away by WitE IGOUGO system abstractions. The point is not to "rule out" entirely implausible tactics or maneuvers, but rather, that the game system models faithfully the reasons for certains maneuvers being implausible.





janh -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 12:59:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I also want to disagree on this whole reaction phase proposal...while it is appealing in a purely theoretical sense, I don't see why people think it will make the slightest practical difference, at least in 1941. For instance, are we to expect that a weak, entrenched rifle division will leave its position to do a reactive hasty attack on a nearby panzer division? I sure hope not, ...


You are right about that of course, and it shouldn't be an auto-setting. On order option, such as the reserves, that a player can set on units with sufficient left-over MPs. And even then, it shouldn't happen 100% guaranteed, but depending on the various factors that influence such initiative moves, i.e. commander ratings, detection value of the unit entering ZOC, whether the unit has to leave good entrenchments, whether the enemy is much overstrengths anyway, etc. Many ways that could be implemented, but it would function to mitigate the static properties of the 7-day turns, refine the reserves employment, and benefit both sides and not only one. It would introduce come more friction and uncertainty as well, and limited "hex-counting" based tactics as you'd never be sure which enemy units are set to react and how.

Digressing a bit, perhaps you still know good old Sid Meiers Gettysburg, where with comparable ease you could get the Confederates to overrun the Union since your units did exactly what the player ordered without "problems". There is a new approach, by Norbsoft, "Scourge of War", where friction is presented in many forms, including leaders mistunderstanding dispatches or having their own mind, and with such friciton, that simulation comes out much more plausible it seems. Still on my list, though, once I find more time for gaming again. AE remains such an addicting time loss machine.

But probably that kind of change would be hard to make, particularly with some AI adaption likely necessary. So it is quite surely no more than wishful thinking. However, at some point a group of WiTP players entered wishful thinking, and sometime later it became AE...



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 1:10:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
Regarding Q-Balls raid... very bold, and perhaps even brilliant game terms! And as long as you consider it just a game, equally valid as everything else the game allows. But of course that would have been very unlikely to have happened intentionally in reality.



quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
I think throwing away a unit for such a purpose is wasteful and gamey.


Dunno, I think that risking a single divistion for the chance of taking out all of Moscow's production is probably worth it. Even now I don't think it is clear that he will lose that division, and meanwhile all of the industry is stuck. But I agree that is is very gamey, it is difficult to imagine panzers tearing into Moscow and zooming around town blowing up factories, which is what this amounts to...Panzer raiding par excellence!


I am always very careful about deeming anything "gamey" (or as an "exploit") because both terms are extremely subjective. The reason for not doing these moves shouldn't be "a gentlemanly agreement" but because they're anti-economic. Very much like the Red Army isn't forced to defend the Rodina as historically, the Axis in this game don't have to worry about the home front perceiving the whole issue as "hopeless" or "too costly" leading to dissent. So I think it's fair game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I also want to disagree on this whole reaction phase proposal...while it is appealing in a purely theoretical sense, I don't see why people think it will make the slightest practical difference, at least in 1941. For instance, are we to expect that a weak, entrenched rifle division will leave its position to do a reactive hasty attack on a nearby panzer division? I sure hope not, and if it did I don't see that it would accomplish anything other than mass slaughter of the attacking Russians. Moroever, think about it--it seems that a smart German player would simply figure out a way to attract the reacting units and then crush them. I really can't figure out why people think this would be a good idea?


First, the Axis player will have to "guess" if units are in reaction mode or not. He might guess well, or not. No guarantees on that. Feinting to attract reserves seems to me as a completely fair thing to do. And this is what would make the feature to be far from "overpowered" or making defense "too easy". One would have to strike a balance between mobile and static reserves.

Second, just putting into ZOC an enemy units makes it to spend many more MP's. Enough to avoid the kind of excursions - and more importantly the ability to return to a covered position - we now see behind the lines. They would probably achieve something similar, but those units would be badly exposed to encirclement or flanking attacks. The hasty attack makes the defender to be careful about what forces are put into reaction mode, raises attackers fatigue, and make them spend supply, fuel and ammo. They might cause losses which might affect the enemy unit mobility.

Third, any Soviet attack in 1941 entails to some degree the "mass slaughter of the attacking Russians". Hasty attacks result in "lower losses", especially when attackers have good morale and experience. And will entail even less losses when the 1:1 rule derived Axis defenders bonuses are gone.

However, I agree that just making vague remarks isn't good enough. Drafting the rules, and putting concrete examples is certainly a necessary (and useful) thing.



abulbulian -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 2:52:56 PM)

Great AAR. Makes me feel how much more I could/should put into mine. [:(]

Just don't have the time atm. Curious as to what the loses are at now? OOB?

Thanks



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 3:33:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
Curious as to what the loses are at now? OOB?



Petition noted for next turn AAR :)



76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 4:07:36 PM)

BG, I enjoy reading your well-reasoned, adult responses, but I don't always agree, so I thought I'd respond.[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I am always very careful about deeming anything "gamey" (or as an "exploit") because both terms are extremely subjective. The reason for not doing these moves shouldn't be "a gentlemanly agreement" but because they're anti-economic.

Sorry, but I consider sending a panzer division on a suicide mission to take out some factories to be completely gamey and unrealistic. You can start with the fact that the Germans in fact couldn't even be sure whether the factories were still there, or with the fact that even if the panzers made it to Moscow, it would not result in the automatic and instaneous destruction of all factories, or whatever, but the point is that this kind of panzer raid is completely unrealistic and ahistorical. I don't really think it is subjective at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
First, the Axis player will have to "guess" if units are in reaction mode or not. He might guess well, or not. No guarantees on that. Feinting to attract reserves seems to me as a completely fair thing to do. And this is what would make the feature to be far from "overpowered" or making defense "too easy". One would have to strike a balance between mobile and static reserves.

Second, just putting into ZOC an enemy units makes it to spend many more MP's. Enough to avoid the kind of excursions - and more importantly the ability to return to a covered position - we now see behind the lines. They would probably achieve something similar, but those units would be badly exposed to encirclement or flanking attacks. The hasty attack makes the defender to be careful about what forces are put into reaction mode, raises attackers fatigue, and make them spend supply, fuel and ammo. They might cause losses which might affect the enemy unit mobility.

Third, any Soviet attack in 1941 entails to some degree the "mass slaughter of the attacking Russians". Hasty attacks result in "lower losses", especially when attackers have good morale and experience. And will entail even less losses when the 1:1 rule derived Axis defenders bonuses are gone.

I just can't see how this would help the Sov player at all in 1941. I would keep my ants in fortified positions, thank you very much, rather than sending them into the open, adjacent to a panzer division, where they could be routed without the PD even having to expend the MP to move adjacent.

And I don't think it is realistic at all to expect 1941 Sov rifle divisions to "react" to fast-moving panzer divisions.

And the difference between current Sov 1941 hasty attacks and this kind of reaction attack is that currently all hasty attacks are conducted by players, which can pick and choose when such attacks are necessary and/or useful. The AI would certainly be incapable of such distinctions and would launch any number of suicide attacks by 1-8 rifle divisions vs panzer divisions.

Maybe maybe maybe such a feature would be useful in 1942, but in 1941 I don't see this whole reaction idea as being very useful or realistic.



veji1 -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 4:16:59 PM)

Well for me it depends on the type of suicide raids : Sending a unit on a mad dash to the Donbass or Rostov to trap some factories, yes I find it gamey. Sending a Panzer div to Moscow whatever the cost, seems perfectly doable for me. It is easy to rationalise with a bit of role play : a plyer should never ever ever leave his capital ungarrissoned and for Hitler, having some panzers on the Kremlin square would be worth a division easliy for its moral boosting effect. Not to be critical, but BG is the one to blame for this move if you want to think in terms of gameyness, or rather unhistorical behaviour : Moscow and all big cities should be garrisoned at all time, not doing so is as "unhistorical" or more than a suicide panzer raid...



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 4:43:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
BG, I enjoy reading your well-reasoned, adult responses, but I don't always agree, so I thought I'd respond.[:D]


Both form and content are important, of course ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I am always very careful about deeming anything "gamey" (or as an "exploit") because both terms are extremely subjective. The reason for not doing these moves shouldn't be "a gentlemanly agreement" but because they're anti-economic.

Sorry, but I consider sending a panzer division on a suicide mission to take out some factories to be completely gamey and unrealistic. You can start with the fact that the Germans in fact couldn't even be sure whether the factories were still there, or with the fact that even if the panzers made it to Moscow, it would not result in the automatic and instaneous destruction of all factories, or whatever, but the point is that this kind of panzer raid is completely unrealistic and ahistorical. I don't really think it is subjective at all.


The problem I see with this argument is that I could have garrisoned the city with more divisions (historically there were quite a few elite formations NKVD and other around Moscow that you can find on Typhoon scenario OOB but not in the campaign). So yes, it's unrealistic, but it's not like Q-Ball is gaming the borders of the map to secure flanks and the like, as some people do on board games. I also attach to the term "gamey" the term "unfair", and I don't think there's anything unfair here. It's just the kind of discussion that doesn't get you anywhere, does it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I just can't see how this would help the Sov player at all in 1941. I would keep my ants in fortified positions, thank you very much, rather than sending them into the open, adjacent to a panzer division, where they could be routed without the PD even having to expend the MP to move adjacent.

And I don't think it is realistic at all to expect 1941 Sov rifle divisions to "react" to fast-moving panzer divisions.

And the difference between current Sov 1941 hasty attacks and this kind of reaction attack is that currently all hasty attacks are conducted by players, which can pick and choose when such attacks are necessary and/or useful. The AI would certainly be incapable of such distinctions and would launch any number of suicide attacks by 1-8 rifle divisions vs panzer divisions.

Maybe maybe maybe such a feature would be useful in 1942, but in 1941 I don't see this whole reaction idea as being very useful or realistic.


Very good objections 76mm, hence the reasons for my remark about getting a concrete proposal written down.

Certainly, expecting 1941 Sov rifle division to do something like moving 80 miles (8 hexes) to intercept are completely unrealistic. The mechanism I envision - and I think janh will also agree would if he's not said it yet would be like this:

15. 2x. Reaction Rules

1. The phasing player can set eligible Combat Units into Reaction Mode.

2. The only Combat units eligible for Reaction mode are Ready, unfrozen units.

3. Units put into Reaction mode will be able to move to intercept up to a max of 4 hexes. NOTE: This number needs to be fixed to avoid unreal reaction but high enough to be meaningful. I think 40 miles is quite reasonable.

4. Resolving interception move during opposing player phase:
a) An enemy units entering a hex, a check is done on what (if any) combat units are within 4 hexes range of that hex.
b) For each of the units in reaction mode the following checks are done to determine whether they become active and react:
i) If the Combat Unit is of size Bde(Rgt) will receive a bonus for successive checks
ii) If the Combat Unit is of type Armored, Motorized or Mechanized all successive checks receive bonuses
ii) Die(10) against HHQ leader initiative rating (+1 if condition i) holds, +1 if condition ii) holds)
iii) Die(100) against average experience and morale (+25 if condition i) holds or Cavalry division, +10 if ii) holds).
c) The first unit that passes the check becomes "allocated" and no further units are checked.
d) The selected unit attempts to reach the active hex, spending MP's as per normal terrain costs, but ignores additional costs due to ZOC and/or enemy ownership. NOTE: ignoring them or paying reduced costs, since this is modeling a very fluid situation so the enemy unit which is marching and hasn't much ability to project much force around it.
e) The above can have either the following results:
i) The reacting unit enters an adjancent hex to the "hotspot" hex. If it has enough MP's to do a hasty attack on the adjacent , such an attack is performed. This attack will have a high chance of getting a RECONAISSANCE result.
ii) The reacting unit falls short of the hex, but in its general direction.

What do you think now? Still useless? Making examples with screenshots would take me too much time ;)

EDIT: Changed point e) in the rules proposal, wasn't clear enough.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/5/2011 5:19:40 PM)

I'm feeling creative right now. Some details about how to implement this effectively:

It's reasonable to assume that WitE represents the situation (the map) as one huge table, with one entry for each hex. Hexes are identified by their coordinated (X,Y) and units are uniquely identified by an integer number. To accomodate this into the data representation one would need to add to this hypothetical table a list of unit identifiers, which is lazily updated whenever the user selects the "Reaction mode" from the UI (i.e. all hexes within 4 hexes get added the corresponding unit ID to this list). The size of this list would be bounded by 3 (3 units per hex as per stacking limits) x 48 (the # of hexes lying within 4 hexes of any other hex) = 144. This is obviously a far shot, hardly one sees this kind of concentration of combat units around one single hex.

Checking eligible units is non-expensive, just generating the appropiate random numbers and the like.

It's pretty reasonable as well that WitE engine has an efficient shortest-path routine, the AI needs it that takes into account stacking limits.

Doing these checks shouldn't be much more expensive than the checks done for Interdiction attacks.

EDIT: Nonetheless, this wouldn't be peanuts. Someone would need to invest some time to implement it, and there might be quite a few border conditions I haven't thought about.



76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 11:59:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
4. Resolving interception move during opposing player phase:
a) An enemy units entering a hex, a check is done on what (if any) combat units are within 4 hexes range of that hex.
b) For each of the units in reaction mode the following checks are done to determine whether they become active and react:
i) If the Combat Unit is of size Bde(Rgt) will receive a bonus for successive checks
ii) If the Combat Unit is of type Armored, Motorized or Mechanized all successive checks receive bonuses
ii) Die(10) against HHQ leader initiative rating (+1 if condition i) holds, +1 if condition ii) holds)
iii) Die(100) against average experience and morale (+25 if condition i) holds or Cavalry division, +10 if ii) holds).
c) The first unit that passes the check becomes "allocated" and no further units are checked.
d) The selected unit attempts to reach the active hex, spending MP's as per normal terrain costs, but ignores additional costs due to ZOC and/or enemy ownership. NOTE: ignoring them or paying reduced costs, since this is modeling a very fluid situation so the enemy unit which is marching and hasn't much ability to project much force around it.
e) The above can have either the following results:
i) The reacting unit enters an adjancent hex to the "hotspot" hex. If it has enough MP's to do a hasty attack on the adjacent , such an attack is performed. This attack will have a high chance of getting a RECONAISSANCE result.
ii) The reacting unit falls short of the hex, but in its general direction.

What do you think now? Still useless? Making examples with screenshots would take me too much time ;)


hmmm, well, yes, probably still useless and unrealistic IMHO[8D] Here's why:

First, regarding the reaction range: I think that 40 miles is awfully far for a rifle div in 1941. The question is not only how far the unit could move, but what C3 capabilities it has that will allow it to determine where an enemy is, and then react quickly in a proper "intercept" location. At least in 1941, I just don't see that as being realistic. Maybe one hex, or more likely, none...

Second, if you allow that reaction is realistic and useful, the fact that only one unit could react per hex is also kind of odd--presumably any commander that could figure out where the enemy would be would send all available combat power to that location, not a lone rifle division, tank brigade, etc.

Third, the sistem would inevitably be "gamed", in that German players would figure out how to bait the reaction forces to uncover the true avenue of attack. This would be realistic enough if the player were determining how to react, but having the AI do so would almost certainly result in clever German players taking advantage of it.

Fourth, I stil don't see the benefit of a 1-8 rifle division conducting a hasty attack on an advancing panzer division. What purpose would it serve other than incremental fatigue and supply costs for the Germans? Now if they could react and then dig in to level 1 right in front of the panzers, that might be helpful, but again it doesn't seem particularly realistic.

In general, I think I would rather decide where to put my ants, dig them in as deeply as possible, and hope for the best.

All of this being said, some kind of reaction would be more realistic and helpful for the Sovs later in the war, although even then I would probably restrict its use to tank or cav corps with morale/experience over x/y and with good leaders. But by this point in the war, a reaction phase would generally be of more benefit to the Germans than the Sovs.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 12:58:31 PM)

Just for the record: in WitP AE the land units CANNOT react. Only the naval units can (up to six hexes). The submarines only one hex though. Don't forget there are daily turns and hexes are supposed to represent 40 miles.

Now you can put a land unit in "reserve" mode. In defence they might reinforce your fighting units, if attacking and the enemy is forced to retreat they will PURSUE them.

And of course not a lot of highways, roads in the Solomons, New Guinea or any other place for that matter [;)] Welcome to the Logistical Nightmare, wonderfully simulated by the way.



76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 1:10:06 PM)

One other point I forgot to mention: it seems to me that the main objective of the Sovs in 1941 should be to simply slow down the Germans. In my view, this is better accomplished by forcing a German unit to move into the ZOC of a Sov unit THEN attack; using this reaction stuff, the Sov player loses because he himself is putting his unit next to the German unit, so the German unit only has to expend MPs for attacking, not moving into a ZOC.



janh -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 1:28:46 PM)

I think B-G's suggestion are a good starting point, but you have some points there that surely must be considered to make this feature useful, as well as hard to misuse against AI and other players -- both is surely possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
First, regarding the reaction range: I think that 40 miles is awfully far for a rifle div in 1941. The question is not only how far the unit could move, but what C3 capabilities it has that will allow it to determine where an enemy is, and then react quickly in a proper "intercept" location. At least in 1941, I just don't see that as being realistic. Maybe one hex, or more likely, none...


Was my first thought as well. In reality it would depend strongly on situation awareness of the commanding element, i.e. what "recon value" of the approaching unit is available. For an infantry formation I would think it would already be a quantum leap to have 1 hex reaction range, i.e. direct spotting. If considering Cavalry, Mech or Amored, one could think along the lines taken in WiTP with the reaction range (0-6) setting for naval formations. But also here I would set a much shorter cutoff, perhaps 2 hex if sufficient MP are left, and for the 2nd hex have a lower probability to react? Linearly or exponentially lower, whatever the exact mechanics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Second, if you allow that reaction is realistic and useful, the fact that only one unit could react per hex is also kind of odd--presumably any commander that could figure out where the enemy would be would send all available combat power to that location, not a lone rifle division, tank brigade, etc.


That is a tough question. Any unit with a ZOC hex being equal to the hex to be entered by the unit should react to that, with a certain probability calculated from the rules and factor discussed above. Why have one react and not the other? Hmmh, should there be a fixed rule, basically implying that all units would coordinate perfectly and only move together when the detected enemy CV is much higher than that of a single reacting unit? I would suggest that this be one factor, and another that again there be a dice roll depending on the unit readiness, moral and leader qualities whether they will coordinate successfully, or wastefully move together on a weak enemy, or failing to coordinate on a strong one. Some friction again...


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Third, the sistem would inevitably be "gamed", in that German players would figure out how to bait the reaction forces to uncover the true avenue of attack. This would be realistic enough if the player were determining how to react, but having the AI do so would almost certainly result in clever German players taking advantage of it.


That indeed is a big problem. With the reaction setting I would used a different design, i.e. not just Hasty attacks on a unit that has entered a ZOC.
I would allow for 3 different order settings (besides the competing attachment as a reserve for a higher HQ): "Hold tight", "Blocking" and "Countermoving". This would introduce some uncertainty as the player would have to use it carefully, and the opponent never could be 100% sure what might happen although he of course could guesstimate a bit from what he knows about the unit and leader qualities.
(i) Blocking: Once an OPFOR unit is selected to enter a hex in the ZOC, the unit exerting this control of that hex could get a dice roll to enter that hex first IF the entering unit was sighted or well reconned in the last turn ("sort of assuming its axis of approach was tracked by air recon or so").
The advancing OPFOR unit could get a special dice role, depending on whether the reacting unit was identified before, and its known relative strength, whether it will perform the targeted move. If both forces enter, then there should be a special type of engagement, not one following standard rules of deliberate or hasty engagements, but a Meeting engagement with represents that both sides come up piecemeal/unordered/in marching formation and, thus, a like light, sometimes heavy fight ensues in which no side has some initial benefit.
(ii) Countermoving: as described by B-G above, making a Hasty attack into a moving opponent formation, thus also representing a bit that the opponent unit is in march and not prepared to defend, and losses will be a little worse than in case that unit would be waiting in a defensive posture.
Perhaps the Countermoving could also get a dice roll making it a meeting engagement instead.

This is harder to game (and since it is based on probabilities, can only gamed with a certain chance, else the gaming fails), but as always with anything in a game, it probably can also be broken by some inventive players...


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Fourth, I still don't see the benefit of a 1-8 rifle division conducting a hasty attack on an advancing panzer division. What purpose would it serve other than incremental fatigue and supply costs for the Germans? Now if they could react and then dig in to level 1 right in front of the Panzers, that might be helpful, but again it doesn't seem particularly realistic.

In general, I think I would rather decide where to put my ants, dig them in as deeply as possible, and hope for the best.

All of this being said, some kind of reaction would be more realistic and helpful for the Sovs later in the war, although even then I would probably restrict its use to tank or cav corps with morale/experience over x/y and with good leaders. But by this point in the war, a reaction phase would generally be of more benefit to the Germans than the Sovs.


I think it is already a very sensible concept B-Gs presented -- especially if I think of why German or Allied lower echelon leaders where so much ahead of the Russians in the early, why the concepts of Kampfgruppen or ad hoc combat groups, and the blitzkrieg tactics worked so well, or at all. In a good part because the subordinates were trained to exert initiative and react to unforeseen circumstances, rather than continuing to follow strict orders or calling a halt. So clearly the unit quality (i.e. the abstracted moral) and the leader values of the unit must play a critical role when determining whether the unit reacts to a sudden threat.

This would be more beneficial the better the training gets, and the leader are, so the Germans will always benefit from it by being able to counter encircling or breaking-in units. The Soviets would benefit from it 43 onwards more and more, but have poorer chances to gain much from it in 41 and 42, which is exactly what it should (i.e. make Minsk- and Lvov-like pockets possible, but not without at least a minimal chance of throwing some speed-bumbers into the avenues of approach and thus perhaps delaying the closing of the pockets by a turn, and also costing both side some battle losses). /IF/ it could be made work like this without screwing anything else including AI up, I think it would be a worthy advance.



Ketza -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 1:59:26 PM)

Well as a Soviet player in 41 I would probably not put rifle divisions on react but the more powerful mech units perhaps.

Also this type of reaction would make playing the Axis even more interesting.

Imagine reaction in the western desert of France as well. Its a good concept that would make the game more realistic and interesting.



76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 2:06:18 PM)

My comments have been focused on the usefulness/realism for Sov players; I think it would be much more useful and realistic for German players.

But in general the whole reaction idea sounds enormously complicated and probably not worth it to me; I would certainly rather have the devs spend their time fixing the air war and tweaking various balance issues which arise with every patch.



M60A3TTS -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 3:34:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
This last turn I also applied Flavio's advice to max out Interdiction starving Ground Support missions with the hopes of generating many aerial interdictions.


I had seen this and wanted to point out if it hadn't already been mentioned that raising that number should commit that % more aircraft to the individual mission the AI flies for you. Logically then you would get fewer missions with more planes in each with a high percentage set in the doctrine screen. More missions with fewer planes with a lower percentage. That's how I read the manual.

"Determines the number of bombers that the computer will attempt to have participate in
a ground support or strike mission as a percentage of what the computer would normally
attempt to send. For example, a setting of 50 results in the computer selecting air group units
in an attempt to equal half the number of bombers it would select in a notional strike."



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 5:01:36 PM)

Yes, you don't need or want to crank up the interdiction settings, as this will necessarily lower the number of missions launched.

That being said, interdiction in 1941 is kind of sketchy regardless of the settings. It picks up considerably in 1942. I'm not quite sure why this is. Ground support is even sketchier, however. I'm not getting a whole lot of that in 41 either. It shows up in extremely limited numbers during ground combats. This also picks up in 42 when you have large numbers of shturmoviks.

I'm finding myself starting to launch attritional airbase attacks towards the end of 41, just to get the damned planes doing something. I can't seem to fly more than a very limited number of direct ground attack missions, whereas you can launch greater numbers of airbase attacks. The results of these airbase attacks are not amazing, however. The Red Air force is an exercise in frustration overall early on.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 8:30:28 PM)

Turn 14 – 18 September 1941

As we enter the last stage of Barbarossa, some things seem to settle out, others are still disputed. Q-Ball has finally managed to cross the Neva, and Leningrad is lost, as we'll see. Q-Ball continues pushing hard in the Moscow, Voronezh and the Dnepr bend regions, but German sword seems to have become blunted. Out of 80 battles, Q-Ball just won 75% . This is the poorest success ratio so far. Also worth of note is that Rout results have gone down by half, perhaps a sign of RKKA divisions getting a bit tougher nuts to crack, perhaps not.

Q-Ball AFV losses are still extremely high, he lost 110 AFVs this turn. I see him trying to keep this under control, but if he wants to do a last “push” eastwards I think these losses will become even greater. Of special note are the Luftwaffe losses

[image]http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/390/t14airlossessummary.png[/image]


while the Air Combat losses reported for the Axis are completely bugged, the partial totals aren't. The VVS is really winning the air war. You'll remember I wasn't betting one ruble on them putting up a decent fight. The first time in this game I'm glad I was wrong. The air losses details is even more telling:

[image]http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/1783/t14airlossesdetail.png[/image]


I've always been under the impression that German level bombers were nice looking but their survivability was extremely low. Note the He-111 and Ju-88 numbers and compare them with the sitting duck, as folk wisdom goes, that Ju-87 should be. He's lost 4 times more Level Bombers than CAS aircraft. I haven't seen this in any of my previous games. In any case you'll be right to say that the air war is mostly a sideshow in WitE. However, this is a very extreme result and I wonder what will be its implications in the mid term.

I need to thank M60 for pointing me out a detail on the rules regarding Air Doctrines that hadn't registered. Certainly, increasing priorities in air doctrines generates less AI missions. Which is not clear to be a bad thing for Support and Attack missions. I guess that for Intercept it would depend on the situation an general plane availability. For Interdiction where it seems that the chance of sapping MP's is independent of the number of planes involved in the sortie, then certainly a very low setting is the way to go. Is it really independent.

Regarding Flavio's remark about the air bases. I do really think we're much better off attacking HQ's. When massed (i.e. Ground Attack priority to 300) and one gets good rolls, you can really do some logistical damage, which is not too shabby. Also there's a chance of killing the leader attached to the HQ, which isn't either a bad thing (in another game, currently in March 1942, I nuked 2. Armee HQ with 100 IL-4's, resulting in Generaloberst Von Weich's becoming KIA).

Albubulian asked for the OOB screen, and here is it:

[image]http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2715/t14oob.png[/image]


The RKKA has suffered really heavy losses, the Axis armies combined are fielding almost twice as many men.

No broken windows

The 12th PzDiv vandals are rounded up and now are on their way towards Siberia

[image]http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1628/t1412pzdestruction.png[/image]


I must admit I'm really relieved this worked without having to use any more troops. This greatly simplifies the defense of Moscow. Q-Ball told me that 12th PzDiv commander was named Field Marshall. Well, that'll be the FIRST Field Marshall the RKKA captures :)

Operational Situation Report

Leningrad is gone, 18. Armee infantry has setup a extremely strong bridgehead across the Neva. There's no way I can dislodge those guys

[image]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/9623/t14leningradsitrep.png[/image]


time to salvage as much troops and material as possible and pull back to the southeast, to avoid being flanked by the Finns.

I knew I was very thing north of Rzhev, and Q-Ball has seen it as well. A full ArmeeKorps has flanked the position of Northwestern Front 8th and 11th Armies on the Valdai Hills

[image]http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/4482/t14torzhoksitrep.png[/image]


that's an excellent defensive position for Q-Ball, that seems that he's going to get as well in this game. Note the FZ to the southeast of Peno. He's starting to work on his winter lines.

He hasn't pressed too much Moscow defenses right flank. Either he's preparing for another build up or my counterstrokes left his forces a bit shaken

[image]http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2571/t14northmoscow.png[/image]


haven't seen a trace of 4. PzGruppe units that went unaccounted for last turn. I think I'll be finding where they're sooner or later. To the south 4. Armee and 3. PzGruppe Motorized divisions have pushed hard and encircled a couple divisions in Kaluga, crushing Malinovsky's 10th Army in the process:

[image]http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/9596/t14southmoscow.png[/image]


I'm certainly being thrown out of balance, and I'm not sure I can regain it I don't retreat. However, something says to me there isn't anywhere to retreat to.

Very heavy combat around Voronezh, 2. PzGruppe supported by 2. Armee and 6. Armee (these are my guesses) have pushed back the forces I had blocking the spearhead:

[image]http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/155/t14voronezhsitrep.png[/image]


not much of a disaster and the fight has resulted in a satisifyingly high number of German casualties. I think I will have to retreat to the river lines, before Q-Ball denies them to me. A noteworthy defensive battle took place northwest of Voronezh:

[image]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/802/t14167idbloodied.png[/image]


167th Infanterie Division received quite a bloody nose. I've been setting to Reserve Mode all units within 4 hexes of the front line – what I deem the “operational depths” - and over time I'm seeing more and more of this. I'm a heavy user of Reserve mode, now I'd like my units also to React :)

1st PzGruppe just did again in the Dnepr bend this thing I hate so much

[image]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5599/t14dneprbend.png[/image]


Breakthrough, raid my rearguard and then back to the safety of the start line. This has just spoilt Southern Front position, though nobody got encircled this time.

Q-Ball's plan for the Crimea is a big mystery to me:

[image]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6488/t14crimeasitrep.png[/image]


Recon hasn't told me much about his dispositions here but there should be at least two more German infantry divisions around. Either way he has to choose between reducing Sevastopol or trying to cross the Kerch straits. Both are going to be tough battles.

Logistics & Organization

Armaments pool has dropped again by 30,000 points, and the situation TOE picture has got a bit worse. However, production pool doesn't look to me as depleted

[image]http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/763/t14productionpool.png[/image]


substantial amounts of Rifle squads, machine guns, mortars and light and medium artillery are piled inside RKKA magazines. Being the pool in that state I'm sort of reassured. Obviously there should be a one turn delay before seeing the actual effect of the TOE policy I set. Let's wait one more turn before getting really worried :)

Factory Evacuation

I get 91,000 railcap points this turn. Since the 12th Panzer hooligans have been eradicated I can move the industry trapped in Moscow. I'm evacuating from West Moscow 8 ARM and 5 Vehicle factories, with a cost of 78,000 railcap. The rest is kept for troop movement.

Operations

Leningrad turns are numbered, and I take some measures. I've been able to evacuate two divisions this turn, which adds to the other four I had already evacuated in the last two turns:

[image]http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9167/t14northnortwestern.png[/image]


I also pull back Northern and Northwestern Front to the east, which results in a substantial shortening of the line. I'm betting on Q-Ball not being able to either make contact with the Finns or conquer Leningrad in one single turn:

[image]http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/1364/t14leningradops.png[/image]


If I'm lucky, the units sitting on Osinovets will get routed, and perhaps evacuated “for free” over the Ladoga.

I try to organize as well as I can the defense of Moscow

[image]http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1926/t14moscowops.png[/image]


I'm blocking with some stout stacks the “direct” approach, Q-Ball should find problematic getting good Hasty attacks. I've organized 13th Army and used it to start the fortification of the “last line” of defense, I've built a couple FZ's to build up that really soon. I'll be following James advice and reducing their TOE's as soon as they become “combat units”, that is, get a CV of 1.
I pull back towards the Don river line, this should be tough for 2. PzGruppe:

[image]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6138/t14voronezhops.png[/image]


those PzDivs are really low on fuel – soft factors are mostly red, deep red. I think there's a 50-50 chance of this German formation going north to press onto Moscow, or to try its hand at encircling my forces around Voronezh.

I'm very disatisfied with the best thing I could devise for the Dnepr Bend defense

[image]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/804/t14dneprbendops.png[/image]


those excursions German motorized units make not only raid cities, also flip quite a few hexes and usually manage to throw off balance the whole deployment. I'm trying to hold fast here, basically to win some time for the defense of Rostov, where 29th Army is forming up.

Nothing noteworthy to report about the Crimean campaign. I'm still wondering about how much troops does Q-Ball have there. But if he's looking forward to conquer Sevastopol with a force consisting mainly of Romanians he's going to be disappointed.

Here you can see one of the air attacks on HQ's I was talking about before

[image]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7231/t14airattack.png[/image]


no leader killed, though. That's really rare. But note numbers of destroyed, damaged and disrupted ground elements. The numbers for the Soviet side seem to be bugged, but those on the left make some sense. I don't know exactly what effect, if any, does have to increase fatigue in the ground elements assigned to an HQ – support, supply and fuel dumps – but it seems that on that department I'm doing some damage.

I am under the impression that support squads and their fatigue levels are the most important parameter to determine whether damaged elements become destroyed or are sent back into the pool. If I'm right, then I think that hitting the Axis where it hurts most – the logistic aspect – is certainly worth the effort of manually hunting down across the map HQ's. But BDA is more a mix of wishful thinking than anything else

[image]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9237/t14bda.png[/image]


maybe Lava might have some advice for me :)

I usually check how many Support, Vehicle and Dump ground elements are lost after each attack. Most of these logistic losses are surely because of 12th PzDiv surrender, but some, probably something like 20% of them, could be due to air attacks.



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 8:38:46 PM)

I don't disagree that ground attacks on HQs are preferable to airbase strikes.

But the numbers of such ground attacks you can make are extremely limited. Very quickly they refuse to fly any further missions.

Once you've exhausted them, you're left with a lot of airframes with plenty of mileage that can squeeze in a substantial number of airstrikes. And the heavy air losses in my game with James is also encouraging me to do such strikes. I really want to get his annoying recon planes on the ground in particular.



JAMiAM -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 8:53:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't disagree that ground attacks on HQs are preferable to airbase strikes.

But the numbers of such ground attacks you can make are extremely limited. Very quickly they refuse to fly any further missions.

Once you've exhausted them, you're left with a lot of airframes with plenty of mileage that can squeeze in a substantial number of airstrikes. And the heavy air losses in my game with James is also encouraging me to do such strikes. I really want to get his annoying recon planes on the ground in particular.

I was wondering why you were suddenly targeting my airbases. I thought you were doing some more testing of the airbase attack routines...[:D]



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 9:37:41 PM)

This is a very long post. For those who think TL;DR don't worry, there will be an abridged version of the discussion soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I think B-G's suggestion are a good starting point, but you have some points there that surely must be considered to make this feature useful, as well as hard to misuse against AI and other players -- both is surely possible.


Thank you janh, that's really the point. That draft was mainly meant to be something concrete we can think about and discuss. If it sounded like I thought it was perfect, far from my real intention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Just for the record: in WitP AE the land units CANNOT react. Only the naval units can (up to six hexes). The submarines only one hex though. Don't forget there are daily turns and hexes are supposed to represent 40 miles.

Now you can put a land unit in "reserve" mode. In defence they might reinforce your fighting units, if attacking and the enemy is forced to retreat they will PURSUE them.

And of course not a lot of highways, roads in the Solomons, New Guinea or any other place for that matter [;)] Welcome to the Logistical Nightmare, wonderfully simulated by the way.


These points about scale are quite on topic. In WitP:AE the situation is quite different, for the reasons Tullius points out. Some of the flexibility it offers - such as the pursuit option - certainly is necessary since in WitP:AE is WEGO. Reaction rules in WitP:AE make a lot of sense for TF's, for a variety of reasons. First, that they're ships equipped with radios and are immersed in a much less constrained "battlespace". However, they're highly influenced by Commander ratings - aren't they? - so if you have a meek commander at the head of a strong SAG with plenty of BB's, it could well mean that those CVLs will be butchered by that BB-ridden IJN SAG ;)

I certainly think features such as Reaction moves - either in a WEGO or IGOUGO setting - are much more than just "chrome".

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
First, regarding the reaction range: I think that 40 miles is awfully far for a rifle div in 1941. The question is not only how far the unit could move, but what C3 capabilities it has that will allow it to determine where an enemy is, and then react quickly in a proper "intercept" location. At least in 1941, I just don't see that as being realistic. Maybe one hex, or more likely, none...


Was my first thought as well. In reality it would depend strongly on situation awareness of the commanding element, i.e. what "recon value" of the approaching unit is available. For an infantry formation I would think it would already be a quantum leap to have 1 hex reaction range, i.e. direct spotting. If considering Cavalry, Mech or Amored, one could think along the lines taken in WiTP with the reaction range (0-6) setting for naval formations. But also here I would set a much shorter cutoff, perhaps 2 hex if sufficient MP are left, and for the 2nd hex have a lower probability to react? Linearly or exponentially lower, whatever the exact mechanics.


Not really. I've been reading that "Bloody Triangle" book by V. Kamenir - my youngest brother just brought it to me yesterday - and I certainly see that in the period that goes from June 22nd to June 26th Kiev Military District 5th and 6th Army's second echelons really moved forward (infantry included). More than 40 miles, from as far as from Rovno to Lutsk. This caused quite a few operational-level "meeting engagements", which usually ended badly for the RKKA. But also really threw a monkeywrench into AGS gears and set up the scenario for the huge tank battle that raged from June 26th to July 1st in the triangle whose vertices roughly are Lutsk, Rovno and Tarnopol. Kamenir's book is a bit amateurish, but his sources on Soviet operations are primary and quite reliable, since it seems to me he's cross checking them.

We all know how big a clusterf*ck was RKKA C3 at the eve of Barbarossa, don't we? While this "agility" partly is the result of pre-war plans, it's also true that 5th and 6th Armies got on the move within 24 hours. So the "shock" effect seems to cancel out with the pre-planning. Which is "slow" but really "fast" given WitE time scale.

1 hex are just 10 miles, and I think that 10 miles is really feasible for a Rifle Division to move - even a 1941 Rifle Division! - in the span of one day, or even less. Note that in the proposed draft rule, units have to spend MP's to get to the vicinity of the "hotspot" hex. These costs could certainly be increased - as it already happens with units in Reserve mode - but not too much - say 4x - depending on Leader ratings.

janh proposal to take into account range to modify reaction chances is a good one. The actual number is more of a guess than anything else. Note that a 16 MP's 1941 Sov Rifle Division can already move quite a distance on friendly territory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Second, if you allow that reaction is realistic and useful, the fact that only one unit could react per hex is also kind of odd--presumably any
commander that could figure out where the enemy would be would send all available combat power to that location, not a lone rifle division,
tank brigade, etc.


That is a tough question. Any unit with a ZOC hex being equal to the hex to be entered by the unit should react to that, with a certain probability calculated from the rules and factor discussed above. Why have one react and not the other? Hmmh, should there be a fixed rule, basically implying that all units would coordinate perfectly and only move together when the detected enemy CV is much higher than that of a single reacting unit? I would suggest that this be one factor, and another that again there be a dice roll depending on the unit readiness, moral and leader qualities whether they will coordinate successfully, or wastefully move together on a weak enemy, or failing to coordinate on a strong one. Some friction again...


Well, note the part about the "commitment" checks. It's really flexible, I'm just borrowing on Joel's and Gary's original style :) They take into account all the factors I think actually matter. Why just one single unit? I didn't want to make the first proposal too complex. We can certainly borrow the concept from current Reserve rules, where the chances of Reserve units to intervene in battle is inversely proportional to the number (and size!) of reserves already committed.

Regarding "coordination": well, this is an "instant" effect. Everybody would move in a straight line - as straight as the hex grid allows, of course - towards the "hotspot" hex.

On the other hand, the mechanism can't certainly be as "smart" as a human player. This is just not feasible. The goal is to have a mechanism that accounts for "common sense" decisions in most cases. The alternative would be to have a Reaction Phase, doubling the number of e-mail's one has to exchange. A similar approach didn't work for John Tiller's PanzerCampaigns with its weird Napoleonic-cum-Grand-Tactical-WW2 system, and I don't think it would work for us either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Third, the sistem would inevitably be "gamed", in that German players would figure out how to bait the reaction forces to uncover the true avenue of attack. This would be realistic enough if the player were determining how to react, but having the AI do so would almost certainly result in clever German players taking advantage of it.


That indeed is a big problem. With the reaction setting I would used a different design, i.e. not just Hasty attacks on a unit that has entered a ZOC. I would allow for 3 different order settings (besides the competing attachment as a reserve for a higher HQ): "Hold tight", "Blocking" and "Countermoving". This would introduce some uncertainty as the player would have to use it carefully, and the opponent never could be 100% sure what might happen although he of course could guesstimate a bit from what he knows about the unit and leader qualities.
(i) Blocking: Once an OPFOR unit is selected to enter a hex in the ZOC, the unit exerting this control of that hex could get a dice roll to enter that hex first IF the entering unit was sighted or well reconned in the last turn ("sort of assuming its axis of approach was tracked by air recon or so"). The advancing OPFOR unit could get a special dice role, depending on whether the reacting unit was identified before, and its known relative strength, whether it will perform the targeted move. If both forces enter, then there should be a special type of engagement, not one following standard rules of deliberate or hasty engagements, but a Meeting engagement with represents that both sides come up piecemeal/unordered/in marching formation and, thus, a like light, sometimes heavy fight ensues in which no side has some initial benefit.
(ii) Countermoving: as described by B-G above, making a Hasty attack into a moving opponent formation, thus also representing a bit that the opponent unit is in march and not prepared to defend, and losses will be a little worse than in case that unit would be waiting in a defensive posture. Perhaps the Countermoving could also get a dice roll making it a meeting engagement instead.

This is harder to game (and since it is based on probabilities, can only gamed with a certain chance, else the gaming fails), but as always with anything in a game, it probably can also be broken by some inventive players...


Regarding "gaming" stuff. The German players would really need to be clever. Actually, über-humanly clever. They would have to compute (by hand, or write a computer program for it) all the possible combinations of units which might be in reaction mode or not (this is not visible to the opponent, very much like Reserve mode isn't either) and their paths. One could certainly "guess" or compute with few units, but man, just don't buy any more lottery in a couple months, because it might well be that you just broke your Bank of Luck ;)

The part about the opponent not being 100% sure of what's going to happen is key. Current reserve mechanics can certainly surprise - I just showed a little surprise Q-Ball got this turn - but it's a really rare happening unless you have Ace commanders. And I don't think you need a Guderian or a Rokossovsky to react adequately to an enemy breakthrough.

Currently, we have to rely on positioning and units in reserve mode. Reserve mode is hard, since it means that the defense needs to be coordinated. And positioning is obvious to the opponent, more so if he's not lazy and does proper recon. With a fixed, perfectly observable enemy position anybody can herd any static defense in the game to complete or partial destruction in two turns (encirclement and surrender). What if the defender position is dynamic? Well, the "herding" part becomes much harder. Counting MP's isn't going to help, you'd need to get an actual probability distribution on MP's and reason on that. Something that I think humans aren't really good doing.

I like jahn's "Blocking" suggestion, but I'm afraid some players would feel "cheated" but I don't really see it to be that different from countermoving.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Fourth, I still don't see the benefit of a 1-8 rifle division conducting a hasty attack on an advancing panzer division. What purpose would it serve other than incremental fatigue and supply costs for the Germans? Now if they could react and then dig in to level 1 right in front of the Panzers, that might be helpful, but again it doesn't seem particularly realistic.

In general, I think I would rather decide where to put my ants, dig them in as deeply as possible, and hope for the best.

All of this being said, some kind of reaction would be more realistic and helpful for the Sovs later in the war, although even then I would probably restrict its use to tank or cav corps with morale/experience over x/y and with good leaders. But by this point in the war, a reaction phase would generally be of more benefit to the Germans than the Sovs.


I think it is already a very sensible concept B-Gs presented -- especially if I think of why German or Allied lower echelon leaders where so much ahead of the Russians in the early, why the concepts of Kampfgruppen or ad hoc combat groups, and the blitzkrieg tactics worked so well, or at all. In a good part because the subordinates were trained to exert initiative and react to unforeseen circumstances, rather than continuing to follow strict orders or calling a halt. So clearly the unit quality (i.e. the abstracted moral) and the leader values of the unit must play a critical role when determining whether the unit reacts to a sudden threat.

This would be more beneficial the better the training gets, and the leader are, so the Germans will always benefit from it by being able to counter encircling or breaking-in units. The Soviets would benefit from it 43 onwards more and more, but have poorer chances to gain much from it in 41 and 42, which is exactly what it should (i.e. make Minsk- and Lvov-like pockets possible, but not without at least a minimal chance of throwing some speed-bumbers into the avenues of approach and thus perhaps delaying the closing of the pockets by a turn, and also costing both side some battle losses). /IF/ it could be made work like this without screwing anything else including AI up, I think it would be a worthy advance.


Precisely. The idea is to level the playing field, not to tip it to any other side. I can't add anything useful to what janh already said.

And incremental attrition is WAY underrated!

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
One other point I forgot to mention: it seems to me that the main objective of the Sovs in 1941 should be to simply slow down the Germans. In my view, this is better accomplished by forcing a German unit to move into the ZOC of a Sov unit THEN attack; using this reaction stuff, the Sov player loses because he himself is putting his unit next to the German unit, so the German unit only has to expend MPs for attacking, not moving into a ZOC.


Well, the Axis unit has either to move around the unit that just came to hug her or attack it. It can certainly backtrack and try another avenue of approach. Either way, those are MP's - i.e. time - the German would be wasting. Therefore, he'd be slowed down. Did I answer your concern?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
My comments have been focused on the usefulness/realism for Sov players; I think it would be much more useful and realistic for German players.

But in general the whole reaction idea sounds enormously complicated and probably not worth it to me; I would certainly rather have the devs spend their time fixing the air war and tweaking various balance issues which arise with every patch.


Well, we can certainly pave the way for it by discussing it and getting forward a concrete proposal. We can only do the "fun" job of thinking a
workable mechanism. So perhaps we're stealing the fun from them [:)] About the implementation, as I posted before, we can only make educated guesses which might be well off the mark.

If there's one thing we can do to help the devs is to discuss issues like this in the way we've done so far. Respectfully, not leaving any
angle for "fanobyism" accusations and actually proposing something "concrete".

It's nearly as much fun as playing the game!



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 10:02:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't disagree that ground attacks on HQs are preferable to airbase strikes.

But the numbers of such ground attacks you can make are extremely limited. Very quickly they refuse to fly any further missions.

Once you've exhausted them, you're left with a lot of airframes with plenty of mileage that can squeeze in a substantial number of airstrikes. And the heavy air losses in my game with James is also encouraging me to do such strikes. I really want to get his annoying recon planes on the ground in particular.


You just made me check - again - today Air Combat rules with your remark. Indeed there's a choice to be made between Ground Attack and Airfield Strike and moving the base itself. However, I don't get the last paragraph. Is that the reason for you preferring Airfield Strikes over Ground Attack Strikes?

I don't disagree either with that, given the situation you outline. You might be also
quite accelerating the Luftwaffe collapse, which can only play in your favor. I don't know if the VVS is having too easy a time, I need to get to Summer 1942 in another game to check, but incremental attrition certainly works in the air.

In my case I think that were I should hurt Q-Ball's is in the logistics, rather than on his intel capability. More so since Winter Is Coming! [:D]



janh -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 10:12:00 PM)

Your concept was already quite good, and I think your recent points are all valid, including the range question.  I don't have much of a feeling for scale on the Russian territory, but you are right -- the map says the Soviets did move quite a bit even in the first week (turn).  I also agree that the reserves and reaction should using very similar or even the exact same, existing algos since basically both types of action represent the same thing: HQ ordering reserves standing by in readiness to interfere.

The difference between countermoving and blocking was just the thought that one ends up in a meeting engagement, while in the other case the advancing unit can still stop once the reacting unit pops up in the hex he wanted originally to enter, and the player change his path. But maybe that after all ain't such a good idea, and makes it unnecessarily complex. Cross it.

I didn't realize until your last post that we are actually talking about exactly the same solution taken with WiTP and AE to solve the corresponding problem, i.e. that you hardly got would get mid-ocean intercepts without such a reaction setting that could draw units to each other and intercept them. The problem is the same, the naval units have a large movement radius given the time scale of the moves (that's why land units don't need it there, they can't move at >1 hex a turn except by rail). So pretty sure the devs  already know it all ;-)  In AE there are sometimes complaints about this causing some weired, or extremely bold moves, but they typically end up having been due to incompetent commanders assigned to TFs. Otherwise, with commanders ratings entering, it results in a reasonable spread of outcomes and works very well.

I just little sorry for highjacking this great AAR with this brainstorming... I probably should delete the above posts sometime!






BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 11:10:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I just little sorry for highjacking this great AAR with this brainstorming... I probably should delete the above posts sometime!



Don't DARE to do that! [;)] At least until I have all of this discussion transcribed somewhere else :)



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 11:13:39 PM)

I run as many ground attack missions as the game allows. This isn't a lot. Maybe 2-3 strikes per front, if that. The game severely limits these. Then, airfield strikes. And that is limited only by mileage flown.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/6/2011 11:24:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I run as many ground attack missions as the game allows. This isn't a lot. Maybe 2-3 strikes per front, if that. The game severely limits these. Then, airfield strikes. And that is limited only by mileage flown.


No wonder why that's limited. Nobody wants those WITP nuclear strikes with hundreds of level bombers vaporizing enemy formations :) It would get silly really soon.

Thank you for the advice Flavio [:)]



Peltonx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/7/2011 12:02:04 AM)

That really nasty air bug has imbalanced all the games started under 1.05 as far as the air war goes.

So judging the air battles from any of the games we are playing is a total waste of time.

Many of the Russian formations have way higher moral then they should at this time.

Its really having an abnormal effect on all the games unless you started after the patch that fixed it.

I would not waste time cheering or putting poeple down because of a nasty bug.

Pelton



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125