RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (Full Version)

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



Message

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/2/2011 6:00:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Now, try the same thing with a reenforced AGS and with most players not playing random weather, those two factors make absolutely a huge difference, yet we have Russian fan boys who want to absolutely ignore the fact the advance to the Rumanian border is a SHORTER distance over EASIER terrain compared to AGC's drive on Minsk and they also want to absolutely ignore the fact that reenforcing AGS with extra panzer units available from turn 1 and not playing historical weather doesn't make that much of a difference. Sorry, but it makes all the difference in the world.


Klydon, mate, easy, this discussion isn't about fanboyism. See the reference I provided just above.



wosung -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/2/2011 6:30:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
yet we have Russian fan boys who want to absolutely ignore the fact the advance to the Rumanian border is a SHORTER distance over EASIER terrain compared to AGC's drive on Minsk.


IRL considering traffic and logistics the drive in Minsk was much more easy than the one along the Black Sea because of the density of roads and railroads. Sure, for combat the South was easier because of its lack of dense forests. But not for movement. Some summer rain and the Southern black earth soil turned into mud.

German Barbarossa planning and force allocation reflected this. Arguably the game in this respect is lacking.

Edit: See Van Crefeld, Supplying War.






*Lava* -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/2/2011 7:09:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Prove that. One counterexample to your assertion:

[image]http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/8910/t16stalinobattles3.png[/image]



So are you saying that 29 bombers caused 116 AFV loses here? [8|]

How do you explain this?



[image]local://upfiles/10922/DDD196CCD6F043DAA353824077002855.gif[/image]



EisenHammer -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/2/2011 7:18:14 PM)

This is a map of AGS from July 7 to July 14 after the battles around Lutsk, Dubno, and Brody that slowed down the German advance. As you can tell there are still some very heavy Russian counter-attacks going on, even one that surrounds the 11pz Div. And The Germans would not form a pocket in the South until August at Uman. I think the SW Front is way to weak in the game.

[image]local://upfiles/30051/4502CC8ABC63433A83ACA431C51B046F.jpg[/image]



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/2/2011 8:02:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

So are you saying that 29 bombers caused 116 AFV loses here? [8|]


No, I'm saying that 29 bombers operating in support of motorized divisions, with high morale , experience and good leadership destroyed 116 AFVs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lava
How do you explain this?
[image]local://upfiles/10922/DDD196CCD6F043DAA353824077002855.gif[/image]


Where are your ground forces? Ground Attack alone has never caused much damaged to anything, barring Support, Vehicle and the odd artillery piece or infantry squad. That's a very ineffective use of the Luftwaffe in WitE.

EDIT:

Hint #1: Check the Show Details for the combat and see how many damaged and disrupted ground elements you got with that attack.

Hint #2: did you read my comment to Herwin before? Units on the map aren't really entirely there for some purposes, especially for air action. Only when battle is joined they get pinned to a discrete place in the map and hence the effectiveness of air action.



Wild -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/2/2011 8:24:29 PM)

"I am really surprised to see how many german players believe the Lvov pocket is fine because it is their only chance of winning the game. Sorry but the russian german contest was not a equal match."

[Quote] Asdicus



German players do not believe that the Lvov Pocket is fine because it is their only chance to win. They believe it is fine because it is a plausible alternative strategy the Germans could have used, especially with the application of additional forces.


Also Klydon, i agree with you completely. It's just a shame that some of the soviet players will not bother to read what you are saying and basically would just like to accuse the Germans of cheating.



*Lava* -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/3/2011 12:02:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Only when battle is joined they get pinned to a discrete place in the map and hence the effectiveness of air action.


Totally agree. [:)]

Nevertheless... even after specifically flying recon on the unit and then attacking it, it certainly leaves me wondering just how many losses are attributed to aerial attack during combined operations.

Would this be in the detailed battle report... or some such?



KenchiSulla -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/3/2011 6:35:06 AM)

In game terms, the only reason to ground attack is to cause disruption (it is carrying over) prior to a supported ground assault... It works quite well..



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/3/2011 10:26:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Only when battle is joined they get pinned to a discrete place in the map and hence the effectiveness of air action.


Totally agree. [:)]

Nevertheless... even after specifically flying recon on the unit and then attacking it, it certainly leaves me wondering just how many losses are attributed to aerial attack during combined operations.

Would this be in the detailed battle report... or some such?


Yes, in the detailed Battle detail you can check the number of ground elements destroyed/damaged/disrupted depending due to ground action, air action or during retreat.

In any case, as Cannonfodder, says, Ground Attack alone is above all useful to cause disruption (i.e. increase ground element fatigue). So in some occasions it pays off to "soften" up a stoutly defended hex, more so when the defenders already have high fatigue (you can't get this from the soft factors display, but low supply level usually goes together with high fatigue level).

Another use of Ground Attack, I think perhaps the most useful indeed, is to bomb the daylights out of HQ's. You'll have to fight some thick AAA but destroying or damaging Support squads and supply dumps in a regular basis isn't going to be good for the health of your opponent forces. Some people use this same thing to "hunt" for enemy commanders, but I think that's a lottery. The support and supply are prime targets for your air forces.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/10/2011 11:13:16 PM)

I'm starting a new GC'41 versus Cannonfodder (a highly recommended opponent, btw), and I practice a ton of ways to try to do Lvov, and attached is a simple screenshot of one try.

I'm not sure what is "customary" but I bring down 46 Panzer Corps (because XXXXVI is simply ridiculous to type), which is how I learned the maneuver.

The problem with Lvov is not that Germany can re-allocate the Corps: these are the kinds of freedoms both players benefit from, and they are fun freedoms. I'd hope we can prevent the discussion from becoming one in which we simply restrict players from freely moving their units as they desire.

The problem is made up of 2 parts:
First, Turn 1 freedoms allow the German player to effectively operate certain units in a time-warp, others to operate in a different time-warp, and constrains the Soviet to yet a third time warp.

Second, the Soviet simply can't react while Germans strain the limits of the physical universe.

See the attached Screen Shot:


[image]local://upfiles/30405/719ECDC4FD7E4B188E97DA2C101AB4F7.jpg[/image]



heliodorus04 -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/10/2011 11:21:25 PM)

I'm not sure how we solve this:  the "time-warp" effects are a keystone of the gameplay dynamic, and just because they're "weirdest" on turn 1 does not mean we should abandon them.

Rather, I think the problem is one of an effective "free" setup that T1 enables the German.  It's not free, of course, it costs movement and fixes in place units for turn 2, which may be negatives in certain ways.

Now I'm not the most knowledgeable Barbarossa guy on here, but as I understand the first day of Barbarossa, the units AT the border were there to attack, and the units BEHIND the border were reserves waiting on front-line units to execute their attacks before they were to move forward. 

The way T1 works now, the Germans get to throw out the historic Barbarossa and instead maximize their effectiveness given the game dynamics.  This is the only turn that such leverage exists.

For better or worse, I am pondering the thought of making Turn 1 a 1-day turn rather than a 3-day turn.  I would like to see Turn 1 look something like this:

Part 1:  German attacks.
All German units on the front get 1 free deliberate attack - no movement point costs.  You can attack a unit, but you cannot move.

Part 2:  German moves.
All German units can move, and movement would be restricted to an MP allowance that represents 1 day.  Maybe Soviet ZOCs would be eliminated or reduced in effectiveness.

Part 3:  Soviet moves.
Soviets get a similar 1-day's worth of MPs. I'm not sure if you'd need to restrict these to prevent the Soviet from maximizing his eastward retreat, which would be bound to happen.

Turn 2 starts on the 23rd, somehow, whether that's a 7-day turn or something less, I dunno.



Michael T -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/10/2011 11:34:31 PM)

You can't get away from this time warp thing in a model that has time increments of one week. The only way around that is 'real time' modelling, a click fest. No thanks. I actually prefer the HPS TWIE systems time scale of 2 days turns. You would see less of the problems we now encounter with time warps. But people would still complain and the game would be 3 times as long. You just have to accept it is a GAME, loosely based on a historical period and just play it. I love it warts and all. But if HPS ever get a TWIE East Front game up and running my loyalties may be tested.

3 day turns work well in OCS too, but OCS has a reaction phase for the defender. I really think the way forward in WITE is some kind of AI reaction phase where units can be set to react to units that move within a certain radius where they (the re-actors) would launch a mandated attack, then we would see some of the crazy and uncoordinated attacks that the Soviets tried.

I really can't see North Africa working either under the current mechanics.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/10/2011 11:35:54 PM)

I have been thinking a lot that 3.5 day turns would be great.



Lieste -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/10/2011 11:41:59 PM)

Several turn based games have got around the 'time-warp', but enforcing % usage in hexes in which fighting has already been done - so you cannot fight using deep reserves to breach the front for the front-line troops to exploit through (though you can reasonably do the 'correct' method - punching through with the first attacks and moving deep reserves into the breach). (TOAW IIRC did something along this line?)

Other games use phasing to replace the alternate turns entirely - from the 'mild' version of we-go used by eg V4V, to continuous time without order's phasing as in AA/CmdOps.

Different games, but WITE mechanics of multiple echelon attacks and movement seems implausible and incorrect in numerous ways.




Michael T -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 12:19:24 AM)

V4V was great and well ahead of its time. Sad it did not continue. The Stalingrad game was really fab. I especially liked the 'hold attack' option where you could tie down the enemy and make it difficult for them to disengage. Its too easy to disengage in WITE. Running away is way to easy.

But its always the 'playability versus realism' balance. AI reaction is the way to go IMO.

EG. Soviet Army HQ has a Tank xx and Mot xx placed in Reaction mode. German Panzer XX moves within 3 hexes, AI passes some leader check, said Soviet units have enough fuel and MP to move and attack the German unit. The game takes control from the player momentarily (like interdiction) and resovles the move and the attack. The results from the attack would obviously vary from complete disaster to success (maybe just suck up some MP's from the German for great loss of Soviet armour), but either way they will hinder the German unit during the Axis player turn. Much more real, more decision making during exploitation, more exciting and more fun!




gradenko2k -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 4:14:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I have been thinking a lot that 3.5 day turns would be great.

Wouldn't there still be time-warp effects even then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste
Several turn based games have got around the 'time-warp', but enforcing % usage in hexes in which fighting has already been done - so you cannot fight using deep reserves to breach the front for the front-line troops to exploit through (though you can reasonably do the 'correct' method - punching through with the first attacks and moving deep reserves into the breach). (TOAW IIRC did something along this line?)

Yes, TOAW has a system that counts how much of the time you've expended when conducting movement and combat. If you expend all of the MPs of a rear-area unit as the first move of the turn, then the game considers your turn to be completely spent and you won't get a second movement phase after combat resolution, preventing exploitation of a breakthrough.

However, I for one would hate to go into this kind of system, as having to deal with that kind of micromanagement is a major turn-off. You can fault WITE's chosen method of time resolution all you want, but it's a much easier game to get into.



Bayes -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 8:02:24 AM)

In OCS there were some discussions several years ago about time-warp effects. In OCS one can for instance make a 5 mile breach in the front line, slip a tank battalion through, and place it adjacent to forces in reserve behind the front. This could be followed up by an air barrage, with the tank battalion being used as spotters. As a result, the reserve, which could be a whole panzer division, could become disorganized, leaving it "out of action" for the rest of the turn, as well as for the following turn conducted by the opposite player.

Some players found this unrealistic and wanted to introduce "instant" activation of reserves. However, the consensus was that such instant activation was unrealistic, and part of the challenge of playing the game was to build defenses that minimized the damage of breakthroughs, etc., by garrisoning and defense in depth.



janh -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 10:55:16 AM)

In regard to the latter discussion, you might want to look at Bletchley_GeeK's recent AAR. He has drafted up a detailed ruleset for some sort of "reaction orders" that could be given to units that are ready with sufficient MP and can act then either by the usual reserve action to support a battle, or doing basically the identical thing by reacting into a hex within its range and ZOC to either block an advancing enemy, or engage in a special type of "meeting engagement".  Both causes friction, less predictable movement and sudden fighting (no more pure MP counting tactics), causes some defensive fighting during the opponents turns (no more pocketing by sneaking through gaps) and thus would deal with a lot of the issues caused by the combination of long 7 day turns and small 10 mi hexes.  It ain't the same as 1 or 2 day turns with simultaneous execution of movement orders like in WitP/AE, but it would add a lot in term of "realistic feel" without sacrificing the easiness of a "beer and pretzels" game desgin chosen for this title.

Ultimately, the reserve action is in essence the same thing as such a reaction order, and indeed feels a bit incomplete with units only exerting their reserve role when it comes to a fight, but remaining in "beer and bbq" mode while the enemy sneaks into the rear of the front line units. Being of the same nature,  both would follow similar rules.

BG's reaction feature would benefit both sides, as units with good experience (=morale) and good leaders would react more readily and smartly.  So early in the war, the Russians would only occasionally benefit from it, but maybe enough to prevent a Lvov pocket to be easily closed on turn 1, but maybe only after brushing aside some Russian units on turn two. Later in the war, with Guards units and good leaders, the benefit would be greater. Correspondingly, the Germans would always benefit from it when dealing with Russian attacks/break thrus.

As most of the development team is (hopefully) now moved to WiTW, it is very unlikely that this will come through, though. Would be nice, but understandable if there or other features that need more attention presently -- and there could be a lot of side-effects like much increased loss rates which would require then to tune other features (again). And AI is also another question. But maybe this suggestion will be of use for a new title, like WitW, or future WiEurope, if it ever happens. Just head over to B-G's AAR and have a look!




BletchleyGeek -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 12:50:09 PM)

The whole mechanism is quite similar to that of OCS, with the following provisions:


  • Reaction takes place during phasing player movement, not afterwards as in OCS. We can do this because we have the computer to check for reaction triggering, but in the process we lose some "control", which is not necessarily a bad thing in itself (Bayes example is a really good one).
  • There's no "surprise" in WitE, all tactical considerations regarding firepower and mobility in WitE boil down to experience, leader ratings, ground elements' devices, ammo level and terrain. OCS surprise mechanism is completely deterministic, and "WitE" surprise - the combination of terrain, leader ratings effect, etc. - is non-deterministic.
  • The conjunction of WitE Reserve mechanism with the proposed Reaction mechanisms are the rough equal of OCS Reaction rules (i.e. Reacting in OCS also can be used to "reinforce" hexes, though OCS can't model the fact that the reserves are moving into the hex, and WitE can).


If people is interested in this, I can expunge the discussion that took place on my AAR and start a thread on the War Room. Fleshing out an actual example of gameplay, going through the computations and all that would be the next step. Michael's example is a very good one, but it would be also good to work out a later war an example from the Axis perspective.



KamilS -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 12:57:55 PM)

If Germans won't be able to created Lvov pocket then balance of summer campaign will be disrupted what will have to be countered by some adjustments. In the shorter run it will lead to few restarts.



janh -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 1:55:03 PM)

I think it would not achieve its intended purpose if it would generally prevent the Lvov pocket, esp. in case the Axis player reinforces AGS. Then the probabilities of a react to occur would need to be tuned down. But it should give the Soviets a statistically significant chance to open turn 1 and see that one to a few of his divisions reacted and engaged the advancing mechanized columns, and maybe stopped the spearhead 1-4 hexes before closing with the Hungarian border. I.e. the Soviet player won't be able extract many if any at all of his (low MP) divisions, and the pocket will surely be closed a week later. And the Soviet forces, if reacting into a serious meeting engagement, might suffer bloodily against the experienced Germans -- though if some KV or T-34 join a counterattack, the southern Panzer Divs might be weakened as evidenced by what the Soviets achieved historically with those units under similar circumstances.
It would allow for lower and more realistic op-tempo, and some fierce counterattacks as history in fact saw both in the south, as well as with similar examples around Minsk etc, or the inverted case of the Demjansk pocket etc.

But for sure the balance would be different than presently with the Lvov opening being almost always considered as default, and done without sacrifice of significant combat losses as AGS did historically suffer in the first four weeks. That would mean one would need to search for the present causes why AGS does seemingly have a hard time of reaching Rostov, and if necessary tune those.  Yet perhaps it is similar to what Erik Rutins posted in BG's thread in regard to holding Leningrad as a Soviet -- that it simply cannot be held against a good German player, especially if he draws more arty, engineers or Stugs to AGN -- the Germans might have made some critical mistakes historically which a hindsighted player won't repeat. Similarly, the far advance of AGS to Rostov might prove to be a unique feat that would require not-expectable mistakes by the Soviet opponent to be made?



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 3:56:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
But for sure the balance would be different than presently with the Lvov opening being almost always considered as default, and done without sacrifice of significant combat losses as AGS did historically suffer in the first four weeks. That would mean one would need to search for the present causes why AGS does seemingly have a hard time of reaching Rostov, and if necessary tune those.  Yet perhaps it is similar to what Erik Rutins posted in BG's thread in regard to holding Leningrad as a Soviet -- that it simply cannot be held against a good German player, especially if he draws more arty, engineers or Stugs to AGN -- the Germans might have made some critical mistakes historically which a hindsighted player won't repeat. Similarly, the far advance of AGS to Rostov might prove to be a unique feat that would require not-expectable mistakes by the Soviet opponent to be made?


I would like to separate the "Lvov pocket" thing from the problem with Victory conditions in the GC. We, the players, can enact whatever House Rules we can agree with our opponent regarding Victory Conditions with ease. I posted a spreadsheet that could be used to keep track of alternative Victory Conditions on a thread on the War Room, and I think it's quite easy to use (and customize). Anybody can come up with their own scoring function, all is needed is that it doesn't involves more than 5 minutes work while doing your turn.

This remark about House Rules indeed also applies to the Lvov pocket. The "Lvov pocket" is simply fixed by agreeing with your opponent that he won't play it. But you'll just fix one issue and the game will be just as predictable as it was. As janh points out, Reaction doesn't preclude the Lvov pocket from happening, it just becomes one possible situation amongst many.

The problem with non-phasing player units not reacting phase during phasing player Movement and Combat phase is a general issue. One instance is this "Lvov pocket" thing. Another are "hedgehog" defensive formations in general (a stopgap strategy that is effective when motorized operations in the game are gilded, and people not mastering Retreat Rules). Yet another is hex ownership "raiding" (breakthrough, breakout, retreat to start line to avoid counterattacks). There are many issues which we haven't put a "name" on them, basically because change from game to game, and do not happen always in the same places.

HR regarding VP's are workable and easy to do. All you need is to reach a gentlemanly agreement and keep the spreadsheet up to date with the game. The rule itself is only enforced once: when the Turn count reaches 225 or when one of the players does some extrapolation from the trends on VP's and sees that he's going to lose, so he surrenders. Do not like the RKKA just refusing to fight and fleeing into the vast depths of the Steppes east of the Don? Enact simple rules like the following:


  • Kiev falls to Axis before Turn 5: +100 VP's for the Axis
  • Kharkov falls to Axis before Turn 8: + 100 VP's for the Axis


etc. which penalize - not kill, just penalize - Soviet players who do not put up some resistance. With a VP system which takes into account VP's due to keeping VL's each turn and takes into account losses, 100 VP's would be the equivalent of losing 500,000 men (less than the number pocketed at Kiev) in one pocket, or that of "awarding" the Axis a 0.5 VP/per turn bonus. These bonuses can be tweaked to players' pleasure and taste.



*Lava* -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 7:31:29 PM)

Why are folks trying to force a "historic" outcome to a non-historic event? [:D]

I mean if the Axis players were regularly kicking Soviet butt and killing 4+ million in the summer of '41, I could understand where some tweaking would be necessary. But that is not the case. In fact, the opposite is the norm, with the Soviets normally taking half that amount of casualties and then complaining when the Axis player quits playing. [8|]

I say half Sov movement points for 41 so that even if they want to run like rabbits... the Axis can run them down. The same goes for routers. The distance they rout is waaaaaay too far and if attacked a second time in the same move they should shatter.

The router thing is a real mess, IMO and causes all kinds of distortions such as the Lvov Pocket. It forces the Axis players to do all kinds of weird movement so they can pocket these folks (routers) when really they should be able to just roll them over into oblivion.

As I have stated before, if the Axis player was forced to expend movement points and attack routers or bypass them while taking a ZOC penalty, you would see a much closer historic simulation.

[:)]



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 8:29:40 PM)

I might agree with you that Routed units retreat too far. I'd rather say than there should be a hard limit on how far they can run away (not retreat, they're running away). So if a defending unit gets a ROUT result in combat, and finds itself having to displace more than X hexes, then the ROUT result becomes SHATTER instead.

On the other hand, Routing means three things.

One, they get extra "retreat" losses (damaged ground elements, abandoned equipment, etc.). I don't know what's the actual relationship between displacement distance and attrition, but I guess that attrition grows as the distance grows as well.

Second, Routed units aren't combat units anymore. Non-combat units are always displaced (and incur in extra losses). A routed unit which gets displaced several times can really get to places. For instance, having a Northwestern Front Rifle Division reforming in Zhitomir on Turn 3 or so happens sometimes. If this was the norm, which isn't, I'd agree that there's a big problem with routing mechanics.

Third, Routed units are destroyed when forced to displace and isolated. This is quite important, but it's sort of difficult to achieve, because units rout towards towns, and towns usually lie in key RR hubs and the like.

I fail to see how these three things result in ahistorical results - other by the odd unit displaced 1,000 kms something I can live with - if these units are severely mauled in the process. In any case, "routed" means that they have become a mob, and their combat effectiveness is close to nil. The more fitting example I remember is the long and unfortunate rout of 8th Italian Army. Most of the italians had abandoned their equipment, and while a few units - units as in platoon sized or so - which had kept cohesion and discipline tried to open up a escape path, there could be as many as 10 times more guys just waiting idly a mile behind the action.

What historical example of fighting "routing" units in the Eastern Front do you have in mind?



Flaviusx -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 8:31:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Why are folks trying to force a "historic" outcome to a non-historic event? [:D]

I mean if the Axis players were regularly kicking Soviet butt and killing 4+ million in the summer of '41, I could understand where some tweaking would be necessary. But that is not the case. In fact, the opposite is the norm, with the Soviets normally taking half that amount of casualties and then complaining when the Axis player quits playing. [8|]

I say half Sov movement points for 41 so that even if they want to run like rabbits... the Axis can run them down. The same goes for routers. The distance they rout is waaaaaay too far and if attacked a second time in the same move they should shatter.

The router thing is a real mess, IMO and causes all kinds of distortions such as the Lvov Pocket. It forces the Axis players to do all kinds of weird movement so they can pocket these folks (routers) when really they should be able to just roll them over into oblivion.

As I have stated before, if the Axis player was forced to expend movement points and attack routers or bypass them while taking a ZOC penalty, you would see a much closer historic simulation.

[:)]

Your suggestions are quite insane.



*Lava* -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 9:10:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Your suggestions are quite insane.


Thank you! [:)]

So how come routed divisions never break up into regiments? How come they almost always land on road hexes? How come they end up in nice 3 per hex formation? They do that in 3 days, the disciplined little buggers...

THAT is insane. Routed divisions should be littered all over the countryside.

My take anyway.

But doesn't really matter does it? In PBEM the Axis can't come close to achieving Sov historical casualties. Of course, the Sov player can be "helpful" and try to get his Axis player to keep on fighting. I recommend someone write a tutorial... "How to string along your Axis opponent so that he doesn't quit before the winter begins."

But for the Sov folks to be bleating about the "Lvov exploit"... [:D][:D][:D]



Flaviusx -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 9:17:40 PM)

No, you lost me with the proposal that all Soviet movement points should be cut in half. This is worse than the surprise turn movement penalties by the way. It would also in many cases drop Soviet units below the minimum MPs required to make a deliberate attack. That's just asking for an IWIN button. The war would be over by summer 1942 at latest.




BletchleyGeek -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 10:12:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
So how come routed divisions never break up into regiments? How come they almost always land on road hexes? How come they end up in nice 3 per hex formation? They do that in 3 days, the disciplined little buggers...

THAT is insane. Routed divisions should be littered all over the countryside.


They're littering the countryside, that's why they're not combat units. They tend to cluster around towns, because they run away towards towns. There are no "road" hexes in WitE. Read the manual. You'll find it enlightening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
But for the Sov folks to be bleating about the "Lvov exploit"... [:D][:D][:D]


And for those that bray like donkeys, green button.



*Lava* -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 10:28:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
And for those that bray like donkeys, green button.


Feel free, though guy! [:)]

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)



entwood -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 11:24:40 PM)

A potential solution is this maybe; which I posted awhile back.

One other thought on gambits and the overall movement and leader system;

I still have a reverse leader roll theory. As the player, you shouldn't exactly know you can accomplish a gambit or even have complete PERMISSION to try it. I think the game needs to reflect the doctrines and commands of the Higher HQ's and their Leaders a bit better, with Initiative and Admin DOWN the chain of command. Currently, the system works UP the chain of command, and works to decrease MP rather than increase it.

For example, the base Axis mechanized movement MP could be 40, Bold and organized commanders could increase it, conservative and disorganized commanders could decrease it.
+4 for OKH successful roll, +3 for Army Group, +2 for Army, +1 for Corps, max of 50. Or, the other way around,
+1 for OKH successful roll, +2 for Army Group, +3 for Army, +4 for Corps, max of 50
depending on the theory.

The theory is whether or not the overall doctrine permits lower level commanders to make their own decisions to a greater or lesser extent. For the Axis side (or at least the Germans perhaps) yes, but otherwise more emphasis from higher HQ orders.

Currently, the chain is looking for "Yes-Men". If a Corps commander roll fails, the next guy up tries only to say "wait a minute - good idea go ahead" EVEN THOUGH the lower HQ decided to back off or it couldn't be done (if it's roll was missed). There is nobody that ever says 'No, you are not permitted to do so’. If there should be a German advantage to letting lower level leaders make their own decisions then more potential MP from lower levels would apply but that should not as readily apply to the Soviet side. Who is really the boss? The lower or the higher ranks?

or if you exceed a doctrine you have exceeded orders and can be dismissed! That would be a lot of fun.

Sir Robin Soviets running away Gambit could lead to shot leaders also in some manner. Hitler would not approve of fort building in preparation for winter is another example.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.28125