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

randallw -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/11/2011 11:30:56 PM)

My experience is that routed units do end up in a location, if you draw a straight line from where the battle was, that is often not directly to the front lines; in other words there is some scattering.

They often end up in towns, by the game mechanics; I suppose this represents some form of hiding an attempt to pick a rally point.  If the unit can't reach a town then it may shatter ( it's mentioned in the rules ).



*Lava* -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 12:15:56 PM)

On the one hand we have folks saying the Germans move too quickly and on the other we have folks who say the Sovs just don't put up much of a fight.

I agree with both.

I have tried to address how you fix that problem and my view is that much can be done by changing the way routing works. By allowing/forcing the Axis folks to "attack" routed units you slow them down as they expend movement points. Let us take AGS for an example. If the initial attacks on the Soviet line leave routers all over the place (not just in tidy little groups), these folks will get in the way of the Panzers and must be attacked if you want to try a Lvov type maneuver. Forcing the Axis player to expend movement points slows them down, very possibly to the point of being unable to close the pocket. Who knows, depends on how much the Axis player is willing to divert to the south, I would imagine.

The same can be said for AGC. The Germans weren't at Minsk in 3 days. They arrived there on the 27 of June... that is turn 2 plus 1 day. As it is, if I bypass Minsk altogether I can almost make it to Mogilev by turn 2. [X(] And once again my hypothesis is if you scatter the Sov routers more randomly and even have some break up into regiments, they will force the Axis player to expend movement points and the advance will actually slow towards more historic gains.

By reducing the distance that units rout you encourage an "across the board" offensive by the Axis player because he will not be tied to this mentality of "I have to pocket everything I can in turn 1 or I'm screwed" mentality. And it will be replaced by a more historic simulation as folks see routers as targets with a big "surrender" sign painted on their backs.

As for the Sovs...

Well let's remember that evacuation of industry should not be allowed until turn 3... period. Evacuation is not a game play option from the start of the game because evacuation was a reaction to the Soviet army collapse. The Soviet player should have this option begining on turn 3 on a limited basis and as the game progresses that limited basis should slooooowly increase, but the Sov player should never be able to have full access of the rail system to evacuate everything in sight... just not realistic. The Sovs were fighting to the death here. Stalin had given a "fight or die" order and at the same time raising upwards to five new conscript armies per month and moving them onto the line. So let's get a little real with industrial evacuation right off the bat. Perhaps we might find, with much more limited evacuation of industry available to the Sov player, he will, as his historic counterpart, have to fight hard to hold territory, if nothing else to preserve his industrial base.

When it comes to Sov movement, they should be moving forward... not backward. And that's why I said cut the Sov movement in half in '41. The Sovs didn't stop fighting after week 1 of the war! And they should be fighting for every square inch of Russian territory. Kiev held out for 1 week... and they were given the honor of being a "Hero City" for that feat. There are no Hero Cities in PBEM. Let's face it, with all the rail capability the Sovs have, they can set up defenses with follow on forces without even having to move off the rail lines, for God's sake.

But even if you think it is "insane" to cut Sov movement by half in '41, at least slow down the routers and give the Sov player a reason to fight.

Another, and probably better, way to attack the problem is forcing morale checks, similar to a retreat situation caused by combat which could result in routing, on Sov units who withdraw large distances. The vast majority of soviet follow on troops are conscripts, with no experience, training and buffoons for officers. Yet in this game they can be marched about like veterans. They have joined to fight and die for the Motherland... running away should unravel whatever discipline they have.

There are ways to bring the game more in line with history without having to always nuke the Axis players, because after turn 2, the initiative really swings to the Sovs as they prepare deep defensive positions which they eventually fall back on.

I've throw out a lot of ideas. Maybe some are good and some not so good. But I do it in the spirit of making for a better game. Folks can give me as much sht as they want, doesn't bother me.

In sum, the AI puts up a great fight and single player has a real War in the East feel to it and I like it. But the PBEM AARS that I have read for the most part are so removed from history as to make one wonder what war is being fought and put me completely off playing against another person. I would like to play PBEM... but not they way it is setup right now.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)



Ron -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 1:32:20 PM)

I think the myopic fixation of the Lvov pocket on Turn 1 of a 225 Turn game is questionable and misses the point. I agree with Lava in many aspects who highlights some real fundamental issues.

The routing issue and the proposed solution has some real merits imo. Think right now, one of the favored tactics of Russian players to slow down the German is to carpet the area with ant units. If Routed units broke up and dispersed in the general area instead of moving as they do now, it would serve that purpose of delaying the German and allow the Russian to build up real defenses. This in turn would result in more fighting and more casualties for both sides, slowing the general advance of the German side. The idea that somehow the German needs to suffer more casualties in a vacuum is a red herring at best or pure bias at worst, when the Russian is currently so far from suffering historical casualties already.

I agree in theory in putting the brakes, or delaying, the evacuation of industry also. It was a response the the collapse of the Russian Army. Putting some historical rationale to the Russian side would force them to stay and fight a little longer instead of what we are currently seeing.



Ketza -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 2:39:19 PM)

My AAR against DAK41 shows what happens when there is no Lvow pocket and the Axis player does not make good use of HQ build ups. The game has a historical feel to it and is quite fun but from a strategic perspective the Axis player in that game is way behind.



Flaviusx -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 3:22:55 PM)

Ketza, the guy you are playing against is making every mistake in the book. It's a pretty clear case of veteran demolishing rookie. He's stalled everywhere. Without the Lvov opening the south is much harder, sure, and that is as it should be. It doesn't explain failures across the entire front.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 4:34:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Let's face it, with all the rail capability the Sovs have, they can set up defenses with follow on forces without even having to move off the rail lines, for God's sake.


Again the rail thing [8|] Please, what are your SOURCES? What are the documents that prove the Soviets could NOT rail 10, 20... 30 divisions in one week [&:] Or if you prefer, what are the documents that prove the Soviets should only move 2 or 3 divisions per turn (as I'm thinking that would be fair to you)?

Let me make a wild assumption: I very much doubt you can back this claim with sources.

On the other hand I DO know -because that's a historical fact- that the use (and/or creation) of Strategic Reserves was the central part of ANY Soviet strategy. We can safely assume that they did so because they could EASILY rail these strategic reserves to any place. As they did many many times during the war. Don't you think that makes sense? [;)]

P.S.: again, show your sources or I will consider yours is simply a wild assumption.



Ketza -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 4:56:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Ketza, the guy you are playing against is making every mistake in the book. It's a pretty clear case of veteran demolishing rookie. He's stalled everywhere. Without the Lvov opening the south is much harder, sure, and that is as it should be. It doesn't explain failures across the entire front.




He is actually doing many things correct from my perspective as a "usual" Axis player. His main failures are with lack of HQ buildup usage and his turn one strategy. I think he is struggling more with my style of play as Soviet at this point.



janh -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 5:03:02 PM)

Didn't Helpless post some good source showing that the industry evac started as early as the first week of the war, i.e. r that a committee was formed for that purpose that early? This seems well researched before put into design.

If at all, the ease, i.e. speed with which a whole, large facility full of tools and engines can be moved right on order and without much preparation, surprises me a little, but I have honestly also no clue how that happened historically.  Might well be very close on the truth.  My intuition would be that such an undertaking would be stepwise and each week more of the stuff is removed.  That's why I made that suggestion about only moving say 50% (or whatever exact number) of any IndPts at a location per turn (e.g. first 8 of 16 pts, then 4 of 8 etc.).  That would force an even more forward defense, and likely cause higher industry losses.  Consequently, the Soviet would need more IP in order to be allowed to loose without ending up worse than presently tuned to.  Just a random thought, though, and nothing important compared to other aspects that probably impact the flow of the war much more.

I have no idea as this topic is hardly covered in the common military literature.  Would be nice if someone had a good reference about that!



76mm -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 5:13:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
On the other hand I DO know -because that's a historical fact- that the use (and/or creation) of Strategic Reserves was the central part of ANY Soviet strategy. We can safely assume that they did so because they could EASILY rail these strategic reserves to any place. As they did many many times during the war. Don't you think that makes sense?


We've missed you TD, where ya been?



76mm -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 5:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza
The game has a historical feel to it and is quite fun but from a strategic perspective the Axis player in that game is way behind.


That's exactly the dilemna: if you free the Sovs from historical mistakes the Sovs WILL be much stronger than historically in Dec 1941, basically ending the game at that point for most Axis players. The only way to keep them playing is if they can use the Lvov Gambit, which goes some way to evening things up. Other than the Lvov Gambit, the only fix would be to give the Sovs some reason to defend to the West, so they would deliberately choose to risk making the same mistakes as Stalin (so they are not really freed from making the same historical mistakes...).

Kind of a tough one to resolve if you ask me.



Flaviusx -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 6:00:16 PM)

There's nothing historical about bulldozing and not pocketing on turn 1. This kind of mistake on the surprise turn of course has dramatic effects.

It's leverage in the opposite direction. Just as the Lvov opening grossly exaggerates the Axis advance in the South, a very poor Axis opening across the board will have big effects as well.

I think people are underestimating how big a deal those first couple of turns really are. They really set the tone of the game for the entire summer period of 1941. It's not easily recovered from. (In either direction.)




TulliusDetritus -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 6:15:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
On the other hand I DO know -because that's a historical fact- that the use (and/or creation) of Strategic Reserves was the central part of ANY Soviet strategy. We can safely assume that they did so because they could EASILY rail these strategic reserves to any place. As they did many many times during the war. Don't you think that makes sense?


We've missed you TD, where ya been?



Eh? Always been here [:)] I bought Revolution Under Siege (highly recommended) 2 weeks ago. And given that I am playing this game along with WitE and Witp AE, I have little time (I will even be forced to drop the AAR) [8D]

Anyway, not really interested in these heated debates. All I have to say before I vanish is... death to this Lvov pocket thing! [sm=scared0018.gif] No, really, kidding. In my last two games there was such a pocket, and still the games were/are really fun. So I don'care that much, that's the truth. Now, for those who want to win AT ALL COST, it might be a problem.



pinebull -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 8:07:25 PM)

Well actually the fix is conceptually simple - if the Soviets are freed from making their historical mistakes, why isn't the Axis? Or to put it differently, if the Soviets don't fight forward and counterattack as heavily as they did historically, yes they will be stronger. But the Axis should be stronger as well as their casualties will also be lower. And if the fighting is less and supply usage lower, that would also have freed supply capacity for the Axis to move winter uniforms and equipment to the front. But with a hard-coded blizzard, there is no way for the Axis to avoid those mistakes.



janh -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 8:50:48 PM)

Presently the Axis is free NOT to make a lot of mistakes either.  He is not forced to perform a strongpoint defense a la Hitlers wish, and get pocketed by the Soviets for little gains. No need to push to utter exhaustion during Typhoon, and end up on the verge of destruction during the blizzard counteroffensives. No need to push similarly hard next summer wasting value assets, or even be forced to overextend into a disastrous situation like Stalingrad  etc etc.  Any push for asking for a rule to have the Soviet perform historical mistakes is likely going to backfire by a similar rule for the Germans.  In my opinion it is best that this was designed with so much freedom, for both sides, and that is what make such a game. interesting.

However, this freedom, which allows to employ experience and lessons learned from that war, may mean that certain things cannot be repeated. Thus, for example, holding Leningrad as a Soviet against a good German opponent might not be possible as Erik Rutins suggested, since the Germans made some important mistakes in history that a player is not going to do commonly.  Similarly, I imagine that in a few months a conclusion could be that a drive in south so far as to take Rostov may require the Soviets to make some very foolish moves, and may hard or nearly impossible to repeat against a classy Soviet opponent. That's were you might have to cut freedom through some "induce mistakes" rules, if you wanted that by all means.

I suppose the only and best thing is to wait for some more AARs to get into 43+.  So far nothing seems to be greatly off if you accept that this is a game which needs some approximations to remain simple enough, and that some "a little artificial" benefits that one side has are countered by similar ones of the other.  It's perhaps not perfect in all details, but probably the closest anybody as yet come to simulate that war, and who can expect that for such a complex problem to be solved so quickly?  As already said by many others, it took WitP/AE quite some time to become the landmark that it is today. 



Klydon -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 8:58:40 PM)

Not to go off on another tanget, but.. [;)]

Just shipping some winter uniforms to the front and calling it good for the Axis for blizzard overlooks way too much in terms of other issues the Axis faced in the blizzard. Their material attrition was horrible because their equipment was not made with that type of cold in mind. They could have had all the logistics they wanted and it still would have changed the amount of attrition they took in terms of equipment because they had to go through the learning curve of what to do and what not to do with the equipment in order to deal with the weather.

Now perhaps in the future, there may be some optional rules about the effects of blizzard, but for the most part, it should likely stick to reducing the amount of disabled manpower from a big reduction in frostbite casualties. Anyway you slice it, there should be no escaping material attrition for the Germans in that first winter and they should take bad losses from it, especially if they are forced to retreat from combat or move around in general.



Aurelian -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/12/2011 9:45:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Let's face it, with all the rail capability the Sovs have, they can set up defenses with follow on forces without even having to move off the rail lines, for God's sake.


Again the rail thing [8|] Please, what are your SOURCES? What are the documents that prove the Soviets could NOT rail 10, 20... 30 divisions in one week [&:] Or if you prefer, what are the documents that prove the Soviets should only move 2 or 3 divisions per turn (as I'm thinking that would be fair to you)?

Let me make a wild assumption: I very much doubt you can back this claim with sources.

On the other hand I DO know -because that's a historical fact- that the use (and/or creation) of Strategic Reserves was the central part of ANY Soviet strategy. We can safely assume that they did so because they could EASILY rail these strategic reserves to any place. As they did many many times during the war. Don't you think that makes sense? [;)]

P.S.: again, show your sources or I will consider yours is simply a wild assumption.


The Soviet rail was impressive.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/railroad-2.htm

"From July to November 1941, some 1.5 million carloads of freight were moved eastward. The railroads also carried troops and military matériel from rear areas to the front. All of the operations were accomplished under threatened or actual enemy fire."



*Lava* -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/13/2011 1:52:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Again the rail thing


Nope... I'm not an expert on the campaign and never said I was. In fact I stopped studying the nitty gritty stuff of campaigns long ago. As I mentioned in a post, that you probably didn't see, my middle age has centered on the study of war from a conceptional viewpoint.

I'll happily admit that I was exaggerating a bit on "the rail thing." [;)]

Having said that... picking out a single phrase doesn't help a whole lot in the discussion. There have been a lot of suggestions made as to how the simulation can be made better, but I have tried to stick to things which I believe can be done without adding in whole new features or dramatically changing the code. Things which can be done "relatively easily" by the developers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinebull

Well actually the fix is conceptually simple - if the Soviets are freed from making their historical mistakes, why isn't the Axis? Or to put it differently, if the Soviets don't fight forward and counterattack as heavily as they did historically, yes they will be stronger. But the Axis should be stronger as well as their casualties will also be lower. And if the fighting is less and supply usage lower, that would also have freed supply capacity for the Axis to move winter uniforms and equipment to the front. But with a hard-coded blizzard, there is no way for the Axis to avoid those mistakes.


An excellent point which I have often thought about as well. I have been thinking about trying a multi-year Axis strategy but haven't had the time to test it out in game.


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Didn't Helpless post some good source showing that the industry evac started as early as the first week of the war, i.e. r that a committee was formed for that purpose that early?


Helpless posted that a committee was formed very quickly for industrial evacuation but the date the Sovs actually began to do so would equate to Turn 3. As for the "how" it was done, I haven't a clue, though your recommendation would appear to have merit.

BTW... for those of you "arguing", I'm just having a discussion which I find interesting so take all the shots you want... they are like water running off a duck.

But I do think we have a problem as far as PBEM is concerned (from what I gather from reading the AARs) and trying to come up with a better simulation which doesn't require major recoding I think is a worthy goal.

[:)]

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)



76mm -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/13/2011 4:49:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinebull
But the Axis should be stronger as well as their casualties will also be lower. And if the fighting is less and supply usage lower, that would also have freed supply capacity for the Axis to move winter uniforms and equipment to the front. But with a hard-coded blizzard, there is no way for the Axis to avoid those mistakes.


Well, depending to a certain extent on their opponent's tactics, the Axis can already reduce their casualties by fighting differently; that's already in the game, so I'm not sure what needs to be fixed?

As to the blizzard, I think it more or less works at this point. To say that the Germans would have suffered no adverse effects during the blizzard if only they'd brought forward more blankets, uniforms, etc. is very simplistic in my view. The point is that the Germany army had never fought in such extreme conditions, and in the first winter they were virtually guaranteed to suffer a significant reduction in fighting power. With the benefit of the practical experience gained in 1941, (and the fact that subsequent winters were less sever than 1941), they did much better in later winters, as in the game. So I'm not sure what to fix here... [oops, just saw Klydon's post making essentially the same point].



Don77 -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/13/2011 5:05:25 AM)

G'day All,

To build on 76mm, WiTE can still be about how you use the army (fighting differently). In reality the blizzard wasn;t in reality nor is it in WiTE, just more 'personal' supplies. With my limited understanding, could I suggest Wrays excellent analysis of the failings of elastic defence which were affected by cold - the first blizzard is just another challenge that (I think) the game models well as a challenge to play WWII in the east. See http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/wray/wray.asp. But I think I am now taking us off the topic of the Lvov pocket.

Don



gradenko2k -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/13/2011 5:40:24 AM)

With regards to the whole reaction/IGOUGO discussion, didn't the original War in Russia use a WEGO system? I didn't really get into it (not my time), but I remember you would Plot your moves first, then execute them afterwards.



janh -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/13/2011 10:22:46 AM)

Yes, it did. It was a mix of I-Go-U-Go for administrative moves through friendly territory, as Herwin calls them, and WeGo otherwise. Was fine, but even with only 5 hexes to plan ahead you could be busy organizing each turn. Now imagine a system like that for a much small hex size... Perhaps some kind of preview phase feature allowing to plot phase-wise could have helped that, but likely the decision attempt a much simpler, more game-like approach like this turns out to be a good one.  Though it still might benefit from some refinement to avoid too static a look during the turns. ;-)

Lava, no worries, I have been following your suggestions -- it can be to an advantage to ignore something without having it thought over.  I do agree with the basic routing mechanics although the distance could be argued about (but otherwise, imagine being broken, defeated, out of contact and command, hungry, cold... where are you going to run? into the woods, or to a settlement?) However, at the present, waiting is the order of the day.  Anything else is for the wishlist...

There is one more thought about the phenomenon now famously known as the Lvov pocket: about the general issue of static opponent units i.e. having "reserves on stand-by" not react to anything but a direct battle. As B-G also pointed out, such a rule would benefit the Germans during all phases of the war, as their leadership and unit quality are great. It would make breakthrus and pocketing late war more complicated for both sides. But early, Lvov or Minsk wouldn't be interfered much, at worst causing a 1 turn delay and see the pockets closed nearer to historical timelines, and may at a cost in men and vehicles. This benefit the Germans have presently with their 1st turn opening might come back at them in 44+, if the Soviets are ready for the steamroller. With many more mobile formations packing a big punch, they might achieve a similarly high op-tempo as the Axis in 7-9/41, and might rush faster and create bigger pockets than they could if the German reserves, notably the armored "firebrigades", would react.  Probably accepting Lvov and similar pockets for the Soviet players could actually be a nice bargain and a fair balance, so if you don't care so much about this being more a basic shortcoming, discussion resolved...



*Lava* -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (10/13/2011 10:50:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

With regards to the whole reaction/IGOUGO discussion, didn't the original War in Russia use a WEGO system? I didn't really get into it (not my time), but I remember you would Plot your moves first, then execute them afterwards.


[:D]



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 8 [9]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375