What's wrong with this picture? (Full Version)

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



Message

*Lava* -> What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 6:40:32 PM)

The shot included in this post is from an ongoing AAR between Flaviusx vs Pelton. Nothing personal guys... [:)]

Personally, I think there is something really wrong here. The Soviet player, Flaviusx, is basically cheating. Call it the "retreat gambit". He is cheating because he forces the Axis player to have to expend movements points just to come to grips. It is a gambit based on the ZOC rules which force the Axis player to "convert" enemy ZOCs, even when the territory is not "held" by the Sov player. That is "not cool." EDITED to be more polite. [;)]

According to the rules:

quote:

6.3.2. ZONES OF CONTROL

Zones of Control (ZOC) represent the ability of ground combat units to exert control over the map area in their vicinity and the area that they move through. In Gary Grigsby’s War in the East, ZOC’s are used to change enemy hexes into pending friendly hexes as well as to increase the cost of moving or tracing supply out of or between enemy units with ZOC’s. All combat units have a ZOC that extends into the six adjacent hexes surrounding each unit for purposes of increasing the cost of enemy units moving out of a ZOC as well as from ZOC to ZOC. Routed or depleted combat units, headquarters units, rail repair units and air base units do not have a ZOC.


"the ability of ground combat units to exert control over the map area in their vicinity" which according to the rules for combat forces, generally, is one hex in all directions. So why is this exploit available to the Sovs??? [&:]

This needs to change. It is the biggest exploitation of the rules there ever was and totally unhinges gameplay. IMHO... [;)]



[image]local://upfiles/10922/0826579B56E24338888220FCC645988C.gif[/image]



OTZ -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 6:44:03 PM)

Perhaps the solution is to reduce MP through hexes that are not in a valid ZOC by 50%?

I wouldn't call it bull, as the current system may represent the cost of having to advance over terrain not previously occupied by the advancing force.



Flaviusx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 6:50:36 PM)

Pelton is also cheating. So I figure I can cheat too. He's cheesing the buildup. So I'm deploying my own cheese.

Anyways, there is a solution for this cheese. It just took Pelton a while to figure it out.

You won't be seeing this again in our game as it is too expensive to do for any length of time.





Joel Billings -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 7:02:24 PM)

I don't understand. The rules are clear that the first week new territory is taken there are extra movement costs involved. These include but are not limited to:

1) Lack of understanding of the terrain.
2) Unknown of when enemy will be encountered.
3) Road congestion as units are moving in ways that were not predicted in advance.
4) Small scale delaying actions by enemy units that are abstracted.

I argue the rule is a good one and working fully as intended. Now if you want to discuss whether high commands of either side would allow a retreat of the scope shown, I can understand that. For many reasons we elected not to apply high command restrictions on either the Axis or the Soviet player. If you want to develop house rules that account for these factors, be my guest. In PBEM games there is no limit to the number of house rules you want to come up with.



gingerbread -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 7:26:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OTZ

...represent the cost of having to advance over terrain not previously occupied by the advancing force.



Nobody told Heinz Guderian that he had to stop once every 16 km to read the territorial ownership signs. He rolled!

Brest Litovsk to Minsk in 5 days,

Mogilev to Smolensk in 15

Point betw Gomel and Bryansk to Lubny in 9

Were it not for the havoc it would create in the game, I would argue that motorized units under his command should not have to pay any extra MP to enter enemy territory. But a morale bonus to the calculation to determine this entry cost is certainly within reason.



Ketza -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 7:38:06 PM)

It seems reasonable to me that you have to expend extra to move through previous held enemy territory.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 7:43:08 PM)

I'd like to bring this to your attention Joel,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
I don't understand. The rules are clear that the first week new territory is taken there are extra movement costs involved. These include but are not limited to:

1) Lack of understanding of the terrain.
2) Unknown of when enemy will be encountered.
3) Road congestion as units are moving in ways that were not predicted in advance.
4) Small scale delaying actions by enemy units that are abstracted.


One real problem with hex ownership conversion is that it can generate situations were:

1) The main line of defense is breached, motorized divisions break through.
2) Rather than looking for an encirclement or whatever, MP's are spent just for the sake of converting as many hexes as possible, "raiding" cities and blocking enemy paths of retreat.
3) Motorized units go back to their start line, laughing at the rather immobile non-phasing player forces.

Flavio has pointed out that air interdiction is a possible counter, but I don't think that aerial interdiction was so effective in the Eastern Front as to really hinder operational movement in a significant way, much less in 1941-1943. Positioning during your phase (the much hated hedgehogs) and reserve mode aren't flexible enough, and the former are too predictable to be really useful. More so with the increased mobility of German motorized units due to the morale increase which came with 1.05.

I think that some sort of limited reaction rules are needed, to generate "meeting engagements", as janh and myself have been arguing during past week. Which such rules in place, there's no need for "cheesing out" anything: one could put units in the operational depths in "reaction" mode, which would move to intercept enemy units entering a certain radius. That these interceptions occur or not, should necessarily be mediated by suitable morale, experience, leader rating checks and possibly unit type (motorized, cavalry, etc.)

Not sure if that's feasible or fits your vision of WitE, but I sincerely think that would be a very nice refinement for an already very elegant ruleset.



Ketza -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 8:25:11 PM)

If reserve units could have a reaction radius like WITPAE where they could go to a potential hex instead of just a battle in progress that would make for some rather exciting game situations.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 8:30:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza
If reserve units could have a reaction radius like WITPAE where they could go to a potential hex instead of just a battle in progress that would make for some rather exciting game situations.


[:)] Indeed. I was thinking more of spending MP's until getting adjacent. Forcing a hasty attack by the intercepting unit would even spice things more. Plenty of possibilities open up while in the offensive or the defensive for both sides.



*Lava* -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 8:36:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton is also cheating. So I figure I can cheat too.


[:D]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't understand. The rules are clear that the first week new territory is taken there are extra movement costs involved. These include but are not limited to:

1) Lack of understanding of the terrain.
2) Unknown of when enemy will be encountered.
3) Road congestion as units are moving in ways that were not predicted in advance.
4) Small scale delaying actions by enemy units that are abstracted.



I understand the rules when terrain is DISPUTED... however...

Let's look at your list. All of those items are good examples of what Clausewitz referred to as "Friction in War" and are summed up in a very famous quote... "Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult."

In his book "On War" he reflects that although a battalion may be expected/calculated to march a certain distance, in War, chance or even an insignificant event can throw that calculation to the wind... friction.

But though the rules you have applied to the game work well in the simulation of combat, taking into account the friction of war, one must also understand that friction is directly correlated to what Clausewitz referred to as "Danger in War." As he writes, "The danger which War brings with it, the bodily exertions which it requires, augment this evil (friction) so much that they may be regarded as the greatest causes of it."

*italics is my word.

Thus friction increases as danger increases. Conversely, friction decreases as danger decreases. It the situation illustrated with the above graphic the Soviet army has retreated. As your enemy retreats, danger fades and with it... so should friction.

Your model is incomplete because it does not include danger. Every time a Sov player retreats a significant distance, you model still penalizes the Axis player because it models friction as though each hex brings with it the same amount of danger, whether there is an actual ZOC there or not. Because of that modeling, retreat is actually an exploit available to the Soviet player, because whether or not the area is contested, the Axis player still receives the same attrition and fatigue even though the level of danger has dropped dramatically.

Ray (alias Lava)



Flaviusx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 8:40:46 PM)

Or, we could fix HQ buildups, the Lvov opening, dial back down German morale a bit, and then maybe this kind of strategic retreating wouldn't be necessary.

German operational tempo in this patch is imo quite fast as it is. Too fast. It doesn't need to be any faster.






BletchleyGeek -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 8:59:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Or, we could fix HQ buildups, the Lvov opening, dial back down German morale a bit, and then maybe this kind of strategic retreating wouldn't be necessary.


I don't think German morale is wrong at all. They should be mobile, but there should be some way to tackle those guys running all the way to touch down rather than having units with full MP allowance waiting for their turn to move staring blankly at them. I don't see how to fix the Lvov opening strategic effects without giving some reaction ability to non-phasing player units. Other than to put chains, in the form of special rules, on AGS or AGC command structure and mobility. That doesn't seem to me as a good thing for the game. HQ buildup should certainly be "fixed", but I think that rather than with introducing new rules, introducing some nasty side effects in short and mid term.

If there are no prospects of adding new - admittedly complex - rules to WitE, well, that's the way things are. But I'd love to see them on upcoming titles such as WitW and WiE [:)]



Rafo35 -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 9:36:01 PM)

quote:

Personally, I think there is something really wrong here. The Soviet player, Flaviusx, is basically cheating. Call it the "retreat gambit". He is cheating because he forces the Axis player to have to expend movements points just to come to grips. It is a gambit based on the ZOC rules which force the Axis player to "convert" enemy ZOCs, even when the territory is not "held" by the Sov player. That is bullshit.


Actually, as Betchley wrote, the main problem with the rules (at least in 41) is that it allows the Germans to make pockets with thin air by converted hex. The cost of ennemy hex is not much for the German motorized units, but very few Soviet units can cross 3 hex of empty "ennemy" land in their own country, even if the first German is 100 km away.[&:]


In my Opinion, the cost of empty ennemy territory should not depend on moral at all. After all, it isn't truly ennemy. Maybe the game need a special status for "no man's land" hexes.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 9:38:01 PM)

Ray,

A point about enemy hexes and the friction of war. Once again the "week in a vacuum" problem is skewing the analysis - this time wondering why the Axis has to spend more to get to grips with the enemy that is so far back.

They aren't so far back. The enemy is pulling back, admittedly faster than the Axis due to friendly terrain. They are forcing the Axis to advance through terrain that, while not defended actively, could be. This is why it takes more time/MP to get to grips. Though the IGO system makes it seem this isn't so.

This in no way addresses BGs notion of reaction - though that is a whole other kettle of fish...



*Lava* -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 9:40:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It doesn't need to be any faster.


If the area is not disputed... then yes, one would reasonably expect an advance to be faster.

BTW... I bring these things up not to gain advantage for one side or another. Don't really care actually. I bring them up to try to help bring more realism, at least theoretically, to the game.

Perhaps attrition, fatigue and morale could be scaled more robustly based on the distance (i.e., danger) each side is from the other. As the danger increases, so should the friction, just as when the danger decreases, so too the effects of friction should decrease.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 9:41:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafo
Actually, as Betchley wrote, the main problem with the rules (at least in 41) is that it allows the Germans to make pockets with thin air by converted hex. The cost of ennemy hex is not much for the German motorized units, but very few Soviet units can cross 3 hex of empty "ennemy" land in their own country, even if the first German is 100 km away.[&:]


In my Opinion, the cost of empty ennemy territory should not depend on moral at all. After all, it isn't truly ennemy. Maybe the game need a special status for "no man's land" hexes.



This really isn't true. A cavalry outside of the converted region can get 1 or often 2 hexes into the conversion, a division inside can easily get at least up next to the conversion (if not 1 hex into it). The huge swath of converted is rather easily broken, even a pretty good defended pocket is broken if the German is not careful.

What the large Axis movement does do is make the Soviet have to defend in depth, to slow down such armor exploitation (which they really should be doing on defense anyway).



Rafo35 -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 10:04:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafo
Actually, as Betchley wrote, the main problem with the rules (at least in 41) is that it allows the Germans to make pockets with thin air by converted hex. The cost of ennemy hex is not much for the German motorized units, but very few Soviet units can cross 3 hex of empty "ennemy" land in their own country, even if the first German is 100 km away.[&:]


In my Opinion, the cost of empty ennemy territory should not depend on moral at all. After all, it isn't truly ennemy. Maybe the game need a special status for "no man's land" hexes.



This really isn't true. A cavalry outside of the converted region can get 1 or often 2 hexes into the conversion, a division inside can easily get at least up next to the conversion (if not 1 hex into it). The huge swath of converted is rather easily broken, even a pretty good defended pocket is broken if the German is not careful.




I overstated it, you are right. And I didn't want to imply "thin air" everywhere, obviously some units and some zoc are needed in some/most places. Yet, most of the pockets I have seen were effective only because of the converted hex phenomenon.



*Lava* -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 10:04:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

A point about enemy hexes and the friction of war. Once again the "week in a vacuum" problem is skewing the analysis


Point noted.

Nevertheless, friction, at least from a theoretical POV, is based on what is happening now. So for example, a unit which is moving unopposed will suffer vastly less friction than one moving into battle not because of "anticipated" danger but because of "perceived" danger. As the old Prussian wrote, the greater the danger, up to and including bullets whizzing past your head, the greater the friction.

Which again leads one to believe that perhaps a more robust scaling based on actual distance would be a more accurate model.

Ray (alias Lava)



Peltonx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 10:43:55 PM)

Its not cheating.

Its called a strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy

Basiced on the current rule set vs me, Flaviusx is forsed to retreat. I think out of fear more then what was really possible he pulled back way more then was needed and it will cost him during blizzard turns.

We both play the game by the numbers, thats why there has been so little fighting to date. My losses are at an all time low compared to my other 13 campiagns.

Basicly the current rule set favors the Russian player retreating after turn 4 in the south. If you slow down German mech units then the Russian player simply retreats a little slower.

There is ZERO reason for the Russian player not to run in the south. You can nerf the Lvov pocket, but after turn 2 or 3 the Russian player will run, because all production will be out of German reach and if they hang around to fight they just get bagged.

If you nerf German MP's the game will be nothing more then WWI on the Eastern front in 1941.

If I was Flaviusx I do same thing, why fight when I can retreat and have a huge army during Blizzard.

Flaviusx is not the first person to do this vs me. I have fought several poeple that have had 6 million men during blizzard and I have lived to tell about it.

Your never going to get poeple to fight in the south, because the Russians simply don't have to and they never be as dumb as Stalin was.

You can't forse the Russian players to play stupid.

Pelton



Peltonx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 10:46:07 PM)

Making German tempo faster would be huge mistake. I am going about as fast as possible, I have even doubled up on some railheads to get as far east as possible.




*Lava* -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 10:53:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Your model is incomplete because it does not include danger.


Okay Joel, apologies.

I checked around the game again to be sure of myself and it does appears that the game models "danger," as in the closer you are to the enemy, the more fatigue the unit faces.

Drat! [:@]

But perhaps one could scale things a bit more to keep the Sovs from taking such large retreats without, on the face of it, apparent detriment.



*Lava* -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 10:55:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Its not cheating.


Yep...

Made a fool of myself... [sm=00000007.gif]



Peltonx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 11:12:48 PM)

1.05 is probably about right, plus a few tweaks. Unless they plan on doing a major overhaul which I am thinking is not going to happen because of WiTw.

Pelton



Speedysteve -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 11:15:37 PM)

A few tweaks like removing HQ buildup spam?[;)]

Pav's mentioned before that more work will be done on the air war etc



Peltonx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 11:16:45 PM)

I really like your post personally.

If you feel soomething is wrong, throw up a nice flaming post and get someone to refute it.

There is 100% nothing wrong with asking questions as long as you are humble enough to admit a good answer to your question.

Devs and mods do a good job most of the time answering questions. I have asked allot of them myself.

And opening your thread with a good old your cheating ect will get it answered 5x as fast as being a nice guy, sorry just how world works.

Pelton



Peltonx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 11:20:14 PM)

Sure what is HQ build up spam?

1 hq build up a turn? I use less then 1 a turn on average.

At this point poeple are just running from me before I get a chance to use them heheh.

Which is ok because I can save on trucks ect hehe



Peltonx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/1/2011 11:24:30 PM)

Yes the air war is a mess and I really am surpised at the time these guys have and are putting into this game. That alone speaks volumes for the company tring to get it 100% right.



KenchiSulla -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/2/2011 12:10:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

There is ZERO reason for the Russian player not to run in the south. You can nerf the Lvov pocket, but after turn 2 or 3 the Russian player will run, because all production will be out of German reach and if they hang around to fight they just get bagged.


It is pretty hard defending with a fast advancing axis player. I tried to apply pressure on the flanks but you need a ton of infantry to force a retreat and any thin advance gets cutof in no time... New soviet divisions are very weak and many veteran divisions die in the first 2 weeks of fighting..

And now soviet production is out of reach in 2 or 3 turns?

Don't be silly Pelton...



*Lava* -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/2/2011 12:15:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

throw up a nice flaming post and get someone to refute it.


[:D]

Well, all I can say is that I give up. I bought this game with the expectation that playing the Axis would be very difficult. Only I didn't expect it to be THAT difficult. [:@] [;)]

So I've been thinking something must be wrong here... [:)]

Guess the best thing for me is, like all old soldiers (sailor in my case), to just fade away... shut up, and just play the game.

Cheers and sorry for the unruly behavior.

BTW... I'm really enjoying the AARs and especially Flaviusx vs Pelton. Great game guys!

Ray (alias Lava)



Flaviusx -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/2/2011 12:34:27 AM)

It takes about 10 turns to pull off a successful evacuation. So, no, you cannot just run away from turns 2-3 on. You have stick around for a while and get throttled.

After the industry is out though, you really can and should run. Otherwise the Red Army melts away in the mid Ukraine. I ran it down to 4 million at one point, which I regard as a danger zone. At that level it is practically outnumbered by the Axis, if you include the minor.

BG went even deeper into the red zone, dropping down to 3.5 million in about the same time frame. (He's taking heavier losses because Q-ball is actually fighting on the whole map, not just the south.)

There are very few Soviet answers for German mobility in this game in 1941. Space is one of those answers. The proper use of space is an essential tool for the Soviet, and taking away that tool to make the Germans go even faster than they already are is preposterous. Their speed has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. (There are some very remarkable advances out there which some of you folks haven't seen. Stuff which imo shouldn't even possible on sheer logistical grounds.) The game is already much too forgiving of German logistics as is, or, really, the logistics of the attacking side in general. I really cannot put it more plainly than that.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625