RE: What's wrong with this picture?

RE: 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* -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/4/2011 11:02:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley quote: ORIGINAL: Lava 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) You'd need to also account for FOW at all times. +1 That's what the "old Prussian" says.. The more danger, the deeper the FoW... the more friction intensifies.

carlkay58 -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 2:41:00 AM)
Just curious, but has anyone tried doing the Lvov pocket in the latest beta version? It seems to be MUCH harder now - my opponent had a panzer division in AGS stopped dead for five attacks by a Soviet cavalry division before he did a deliberated attack and then forced it to retreat. He had several other things like that happen to his opening attack and when it got to my turn I had very few *unready units - most were up and running with good CVs reported.

Gargoil -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 2:55:01 PM)
I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way: Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time. The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn. It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 3:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gargoil I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way: Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time. The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn. It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis. This is a very good and clear explanation for the rule.

Puhis -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 3:37:28 PM)
Your problem is that you have reason and imagination. [:D]

herwin -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 4:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gargoil I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way: Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time. The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn. It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis. There is a concept in Soviet military operations of the stability of the defence. That is, it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around. The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column. In NATO Division Commander--particularly after the errata were released--this was modelled, with a number of possible formations, and the OCS system uses a somewhat simplified version of the same system. Beck's inter-war delaying defence envisioned the use of motorised machine gun Abteilungen, which could--due to their professional skill and motorisation--ploy and deploy much more rapidly than the French Army. With heavy firepower, they were expected to delay a French advance almost indefinitely. (Some of these Abteilungen were used to organise the 5th Light Division.) This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods. As Red Army infantry forces approached in column, they deployed and forced the Red Army to deploy and organise an attack. Meanwhile they were ploying and falling back to the next position. That meant that the Red Army infantry was reduced to pursuing about 3-5 miles a day. This local tactical dance is also the reason forces in contact were limited in how fast they could retreat. They couldn't simply form up in column and move out--they had to leave a screen in contact, and the screen was vulnerable to penetration by the mobile forces that even infantry divisions possessed. They could also conduct a tactical retreat and stay in formation to receive an attack--although once out of the organised position they were much weaker and more vulnerable. The Red Army lacked the training to conduct a successful retrograde, so once forced to retreat, things got messy.

heliodorus04 -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 5:34:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Gargoil I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way: Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time. The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn. It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis. There is a concept in Soviet military operations of the stability of the defence. That is, it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around. The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column. In NATO Division Commander--particularly after the errata were released--this was modelled, with a number of possible formations, and the OCS system uses a somewhat simplified version of the same system. Beck's inter-war delaying defence envisioned the use of motorised machine gun Abteilungen, which could--due to their professional skill and motorisation--ploy and deploy much more rapidly than the French Army. With heavy firepower, they were expected to delay a French advance almost indefinitely. (Some of these Abteilungen were used to organise the 5th Light Division.) This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods. As Red Army infantry forces approached in column, they deployed and forced the Red Army to deploy and organise an attack. Meanwhile they were ploying and falling back to the next position. That meant that the Red Army infantry was reduced to pursuing about 3-5 miles a day. This local tactical dance is also the reason forces in contact were limited in how fast they could retreat. They couldn't simply form up in column and move out--they had to leave a screen in contact, and the screen was vulnerable to penetration by the mobile forces that even infantry divisions possessed. They could also conduct a tactical retreat and stay in formation to receive an attack--although once out of the organised position they were much weaker and more vulnerable. The Red Army lacked the training to conduct a successful retrograde, so once forced to retreat, things got messy. All well and good and accurate to real-world warfare. But almost meaningless to game design in the sense that you're only looking at 1 part of the picture: The Soviets. A German panzer division did not advance in wedge formation covering 20-ish miles wide (for the ZOC abstraction) and 280 miles deep. If you want ploying/deploying modes, what are you willing to give up for it? Would you like to lose the terrain that you now "own" when there are open hexes without ZOC coverage by your side? Do you want to give up ZOC conversion of adjacent hexes? Do you want to give up Axis panzer movement points to go from moving to attacking (as many games with move mode/deployed mode do)?

herwin -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 6:00:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Gargoil I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way: Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time. The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn. It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis. There is a concept in Soviet military operations of the stability of the defence. That is, it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around. The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column. In NATO Division Commander--particularly after the errata were released--this was modelled, with a number of possible formations, and the OCS system uses a somewhat simplified version of the same system. Beck's inter-war delaying defence envisioned the use of motorised machine gun Abteilungen, which could--due to their professional skill and motorisation--ploy and deploy much more rapidly than the French Army. With heavy firepower, they were expected to delay a French advance almost indefinitely. (Some of these Abteilungen were used to organise the 5th Light Division.) This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods. As Red Army infantry forces approached in column, they deployed and forced the Red Army to deploy and organise an attack. Meanwhile they were ploying and falling back to the next position. That meant that the Red Army infantry was reduced to pursuing about 3-5 miles a day. This local tactical dance is also the reason forces in contact were limited in how fast they could retreat. They couldn't simply form up in column and move out--they had to leave a screen in contact, and the screen was vulnerable to penetration by the mobile forces that even infantry divisions possessed. They could also conduct a tactical retreat and stay in formation to receive an attack--although once out of the organised position they were much weaker and more vulnerable. The Red Army lacked the training to conduct a successful retrograde, so once forced to retreat, things got messy. All well and good and accurate to real-world warfare. But almost meaningless to game design in the sense that you're only looking at 1 part of the picture: The Soviets. A German panzer division did not advance in wedge formation covering 20-ish miles wide (for the ZOC abstraction) and 280 miles deep. If you want ploying/deploying modes, what are you willing to give up for it? Would you like to lose the terrain that you now "own" when there are open hexes without ZOC coverage by your side? Do you want to give up ZOC conversion of adjacent hexes? Do you want to give up Axis panzer movement points to go from moving to attacking (as many games with move mode/deployed mode do)? I'm responding to an attempt to interpret the game behaviour as in a sense 'real', and discussing how a real model of these operations would work. BTW, the wedge formation of a Panzerdivision was on a 4 km wide front. Once through the defence, the columns it would send out were one road wide, controlling perhaps a kilometre to each side, and occupying a couple of digits in kilometres of road space. More like a snake than a counter. The maps in the Glantz books show this well. It can be done--you can play the OCS series using Vassal.

Puhis -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 7:34:48 PM)
Constructive criticism is one thing, but all mr. erwin can ever do is claim that this result is wrong! this model is wrong! All is wrong! [>:] Game development needs people who do, not people who just talk.

herwin -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 9:35:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Constructive criticism is one thing, but all mr. erwin can ever do is claim that this result is wrong! this model is wrong! All is wrong! [>:] Game development needs people who do, not people who just talk. Go back to the first post to see the context of the argument.

LiquidSky -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 10:08:33 PM)
The largest problem with the OCS model of supply is that Trace Supply is free. There is no accounting for food/boots/medals/hats/whatever. It all magically shows up to the troops, free of transport. UNLESS you cut those troops off, in which case you get to magically turn all the bullets/grenades/ammo/fuel into food.. mmm yumm. And if you happen to not have the combat supply to eat, then 'poof' you magically disappear off the map. Don't even need to 'surround'. As well...that one point of supply can be used to fuel up your trucks, or if you need to fire artillery, used for that instead. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person could claim this be the be-all end-all of logistical supply for any game. At a bare minimum you can subdivide 'logistics' into sustenance/support for the troops (food, clothing, spare parts), Ammo (bullets, grenades, shells, armaments) , and fuel (hay, gas, diesel, lubricants). OCS just gives you one type of supply. You get to turn it into what you want when you want it. Quite the abstraction.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/5/2011 10:18:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Constructive criticism is one thing, but all mr. erwin can ever do is claim that this result is wrong! this model is wrong! All is wrong! [>:] Game development needs people who do, not people who just talk. LOL You've followed Herwin from the WitP AE forum! Both of you are regulars there. Obsession anyone? [:D]

herwin -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/6/2011 5:58:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky The largest problem with the OCS model of supply is that Trace Supply is free. There is no accounting for food/boots/medals/hats/whatever. It all magically shows up to the troops, free of transport. UNLESS you cut those troops off, in which case you get to magically turn all the bullets/grenades/ammo/fuel into food.. mmm yumm. And if you happen to not have the combat supply to eat, then 'poof' you magically disappear off the map. Don't even need to 'surround'. As well...that one point of supply can be used to fuel up your trucks, or if you need to fire artillery, used for that instead. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person could claim this be the be-all end-all of logistical supply for any game. At a bare minimum you can subdivide 'logistics' into sustenance/support for the troops (food, clothing, spare parts), Ammo (bullets, grenades, shells, armaments) , and fuel (hay, gas, diesel, lubricants). OCS just gives you one type of supply. You get to turn it into what you want when you want it. Quite the abstraction. Actually, there are three kinds of supply in the OCS system--subsistence (trace supply), combat, and replacements. The requirements for subsistence were so much smaller than the requirements for combat that managing them in detail was not worth doing. They could be collected from local sources and the division carried several days of supply with it in any case. Remember, a detailed logistics model goes well beyond the available data. I think the last is the key point: In any game, you want the effects of logistics, not the (unavailable) details.

christenberryd -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/6/2011 7:39:33 PM)
For board games I've always thought it would be interesting to have non-motorized units halved if they have just moved into non-prepared positions. I hope that in WITE a level 1 fort is the basic prepared defensive position for infantry. With 1 week turns, combat vs. move formations are hard to model? Perhaps it could be argued that zoc mp costs somewhat model this. As you get close to an enemy unit and try to move, you spend time going into combat formation. Furthermore, the high moral units go through zoc with much less movement penalty, directly attesting to German mobile or Soviet Guards unit "operational tempo" superiority. So if one side "suddenly" vacates several hexes, and in a real time situation we expect that the retreating units are being pursued with perhaps low level combat happening, what's wrong with the current situation of having to pay extra MP to advance into enemy territory? Especially when one considers the small bands of men left behind that can interfere with follow on supply columns?

herwin -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/6/2011 7:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: christenberryd For board games I've always thought it would be interesting to have non-motorized units halved if they have just moved into non-prepared positions. I hope that in WITE a level 1 fort is the basic prepared defensive position for infantry. With 1 week turns, combat vs. move formations are hard to model? Perhaps it could be argued that zoc mp costs somewhat model this. As you get close to an enemy unit and try to move, you spend time going into combat formation. Furthermore, the high moral units go through zoc with much less movement penalty, directly attesting to German mobile or Soviet Guards unit "operational tempo" superiority. So if one side "suddenly" vacates several hexes, and in a real time situation we expect that the retreating units are being pursued with perhaps low level combat happening, what's wrong with the current situation of having to pay extra MP to advance into enemy territory? Especially when one considers the small bands of men left behind that can interfere with follow on supply columns? You can think of it that way, but administrative movement is what you use when you're in your own rear area, and it's even faster.

76mm -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/6/2011 8:23:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin You can think of it that way, but administrative movement is what you use when you're in your own rear area, and it's even faster. FAster than what? There are only two modes in WITE; admin (ie, behind your own lines) and advance-to-contact (ie, advancing into enemy territory). I still don't understand at all why anyone would consider this unrealistic, much less "cheating". Anyone, anyone? I think the Germans are lucky that they do not receive MP penalties when moving through partisan-infested areas.

Attack -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/6/2011 9:17:48 PM)
IMHO: The advance of the Germans is limited by the INFANTRY rithm. The panzers can run a lot, but without infantry they can´t penetrate a good soviet defensive line, with HQ build up or without it. If I´d fight against the Flaviusx strategy, I´d encircle with my pzs great spaces, they will be converted for free. Then, the infantry will be advance at 12 hexes a turn, not at 6 hexes a turn. Moscow will fall. The Flaviusx strategy is not cheating, but it has a problem: Moscow, Leningrad, Donbass... will fall.

Stoat -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/7/2011 7:47:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin (snip) ... it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around. The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column... (snip) ... This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods... (snip) Some very good points patiently made throughout this thread! I also feel that an expanded use of formation or stance would add to the game. I'd just recently heard of Viktor Suvorov & had been reading his 1990 "Icebreaker" while playing through my most recent GGWitE 1P CG (Axis). Naturally I enjoyed defending Europe from Bolshevik enslavement and pre-empting the pending Soviet attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy One of the central elements of Suvorov's thesis is that the Sowjetunion was deeply, deeply screwed by Barbarossa, because their immense forces and assets (stockpiles, use of rail net etc. etc.) were entirely deployed in furtherance of their plans for a huge offensive to commence July 1941, and that this deployment, although entirely sensible for an offensive, was entirely unsuited to the good conduct of a defensive war. I started to think about how, while GGWitE could represent the physical disposition of Soviet forces, it could only represent the shift in stance by broad, special rules, e.g. Turn 1 Surprise rules, morale rules to the effect that the Soviets "suck in 1941, but not so much in 1942", etc. As an aside, it thus seems to me that GGWitE implicitly rejects the Soviet Offensive Plans hypothesis, and that's fine, and not my main point, which is about modeling unit stance/formation. The game does offer some abstraction of stance or formation in its treatment of Static Units and units in Reserve Mode. I fully accept what you say about the importance of stance/formation, and if I were hacking up the GGWitE engine, would put a few thoughts out for consideration: 1) Goal: Implement satisfying representation of unit stance/formation to GGWitE while avoiding big structural changes to the great engine. 2) Provide expanded representation of unit stance through the Unit Mode interface (e.g. Ready/Reserve/Refit) to include other Modes which could include STATIC, MOBILE (Elastic Defence/Hasty Attack), BUILDUP (preparation required to BLITZ), BLITZ (breakout/exploitation), MARCH (Route March/Column), ROUTED or whatever small number of stances are deemed best to incorporate. 3) Bring the Static Units rules and HQ Buildup rules into the Unit Mode rules for consistency. 4) Impose costs for changing Unit Modes. The costs of the changes are in different units, e.g in Movement Points (MP), Action Points (AP). For instance the intent of current rules regarding changes in vehicles or supplies for a unit entering/leaving Static or Buildup mode can largely be preserved. 5) Special rules for changing Unit Mode can add to the richness of the very simple underlying abstraction (a small list of Unit Modes). For instance, the cost (and/or effect) of a unit going to 'MOBILE' (Elastic Defence) can be affected by its Leader's (Init + Mech) ratings. A cost in MP to change Unit Modes could be partially a function of Unit Morale, modelling the greater capability & flexibility of better formations. 6) A GC which accepts the Soviet Offensive Plans hypothesis could be created, wherein the Soviet forces are rather capable from the start, but will suffer heavily initially because the strategic offensive stance is unsuited to the current situation, and it will take months worth of AP and other spending & reorg to remedy this. 7) The Unit Mode changes can be administered by the existing GUI with minimal changes, i.e. by adding a few more options to the Unit Mode field wherever it appears (e.g. Commander's Report, unit view etc.), with some altered/additional messages in the Battle Report (e.g. "Wiking SS Motorized Division is conducting an Elastic Defence", informing the user of combat effects granted by a successful Rock-Paper-Scissors test of their MOBILE Unit Mode vs. the attacker's). 8) The Unit Mode changes would have effects principally on movement and combat, and also on some other rules, e.g. Fortifications and Supply. 9) Combat Effects: In order to simplify implementation, use a 'Rock-Paper-Scissors' chart for each combat effect (an x, y grid with the Unit Mode for the attacking unit on one axis & the Unit Mode for the defending unit on the other axis). The value in this lookup table is the multiplier for that combat effect. E.g. for the 'Attacker Losses' lookup table, If attackType = 'MOBILE_DELIBERATE' And defenderMode = 'STATIC' Then attackerLossesMultiplier = 3 (3x normal). In this way, Unit Mode can affect many aspects of combat in a fairly straightforward way through a small number of lookup tables that are used to add relevant effects to specific 'Rock-Paper-Scissors' scenarios. While simple, these multipliers can add quite a lot of satisfaction to the abstraction. 10) Movement Effects - Regular Ground Movement: Simply, the MP cost to enter a hex is affected by Unit Mode. 11) Movement Effects - ZOC costs: In order to simplify implementation, use a 'Rock-Paper-Scissors' chart for each ZOC effect (an x, y grid with the Unit Mode for the moving unit on one axis & the Unit Mode for the (most restrictive) defending unit on the other axis). The lookup value is the malus or multiplier imposed by the defending unit. E.g. a German unit in MARCH Unit Mode moves through the ZOC of two Soviet units, one in BUILDUP and the other in MOBILE Unit Mode. The MOBILE enemy imposes a greater ZOC cost than the enemy in BUILUP, so the table is consulted to get the (significant) ZOC cost imposed by a MOBILE enemy on a moving unit on the MARCH. Tweaked regular MP costs & these changes to ZOC costs could add significant richness to how easy or hard it is to "gobble up space" in different scenarios. 12) Effects on Fortifications, Supply, etc. Effects of Unit Mode on other game rules & data structures can be just about the same as they are now, except there could be a consistent refactoring or restatement of all these special rules to use the Unit Mode enumeration and refer to the (existing) Unit Mode field of the Unit objects where this would be beneficial. Whew, quite a few thoughts just came out there, you got me thinking. Anyway, wanted to write them down & share them while I had them.

herwin -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/7/2011 9:12:08 PM)
NATO Division Commander used a log scale for combat, which was performed unit against unit by subtracting the defensive value from the attacking value. +3 corresponded to x2 in combat power. Assume battalions with four companies and sixteen platoons for the following. Here are the modes: Mode/DA/DD/MP/Comments Position Defense/NA/-6/0/Dismounted. Defensive combat power x4, center of gravity back, halved vulnerability, heavy weapons deployed, all four companies firing on defence, two firing over the other two. Mobile Defense/+2/-1/10/Mounted. Two subunits leading, two trailing, six platoons firing when attacking, three platoons defend. Hasty Defense/NA/-3/0/Dismounted. Defensive combat power x2, center of gravity back, halved vulnerability, two companies firing on defence. Reserve/NA/-1/0/Dismounted. No offensive ability, defense slightly stronger than tactical movement. Double Zone/-2/+3/40 (3 units)/Tactical movement on a double front, fire density two thirds of standard in attack (some concentration), halved on defense. Triple Zone/-3/+5/30 (3 units)/Tactical movement on a triple front, fire density half of standard in attack (again some concentration), one third on defense. Deliberate Attack/+6/+2/10/Unit in line, center of gravity forward, heavy weapons deployed, all four companies attacking, 2-3 platoons defending if counterattacked. Hasty Attack/+5/+3/6/Unit in line, center of gravity forward, three companies attacking, 2 platoons defending if counterattacked. Relief Infiltration/-2/-1/7/Variant of mobile defense. Less effective attacking with only two platoons firing, but less vulnerable than tactical movement. Tactical Movement/0/0/20/Four companies in column, leading company attacking or defending. Administrative Movement/-2/+6/40/Sixteen platoons in column, three platoons deploy to attack, one platoon defends and dies in place. Urban or wooded hills subtracts 3 from the attack power.

Stoat -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/7/2011 11:28:33 PM)
That's excellent, Jim Dunnigan FTW! [:D] I guess Hasty vs. Deliberate Attack is modeled fine with the 2MP vs. 6MP attacks. Maybe a unit in Static mode could conduct a 6MP attack that would be unlikely to cause retreat, but would represent extra shelling, aggressive patrolling, etc. with a view to increasing the level of attrition.

PzKw43 -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/8/2011 12:43:50 AM)
quote: I'd just recently heard of Viktor Suvorov & had been reading his 1990 "Icebreaker" while playing through my most recent GGWitE 1P CG (Axis). He has written a new book Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II, published by the Naval Institute Press. It has some interesting facts in it.

Stoat -> RE: What's wrong with this picture? (10/8/2011 5:54:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PzKw43 quote: I'd just recently heard of Viktor Suvorov & had been reading his 1990 "Icebreaker" while playing through my most recent GGWitE 1P CG (Axis). He has written a new book Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II, published by the Naval Institute Press. It has some interesting facts in it. Yes, thank you, I'm looking forward to finding & reading that one of these days. Suvorov published Icebreaker in 1990, having recently defected to the West from his work in the GRU (Soviet foreign military intelligence). The book was criticised by some Western experts on several points (& I hope to read some more of this criticism too), & to the small extent that I have read it, some of this criticism seems fair, including that he did not have his academic "ducks in a row" regarding his sources. I'm interested to know how his thesis has matured over the past 20 years. On the other hand, I found the testimony of several Soviet General-grade officers coming out and saying, "yup, that's what we were up to" compelling, especially those who discussed the nature of their business in memoirs & in a time & place when it was against their interests to do so.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.421875