Russian Pig Cavalry (Full Version)

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



Message

Peltonx -> Russian Pig Cavalry (12/15/2011 9:50:19 PM)

The Cav thing is a beast that only a few russian players have messed around with to-date.

Question #1 Why do they not require fuel?

Russian answer: Its all horses or mostly horses so they require little or no fuel, ammo or supplies they live off the land.

Question #2 why do horse divisions have same cv as German mech divisions?

Russian answer: It was really not all horses, but AT guns, trucks, atrillary ect ect.

Another shinning example of the Russian side getting to have its cake and eat it to.

Russian Pig Cavalry: Its as fast as panzers, requires no fuel and they sht 122mm ap rounds.

I am thinking this is just not historical.

Feel free to keep them as is in game, but can I atleast get a none circular answer to questions 1 and 2?

Pelton

[&o]1+1=2[&o]

Now I just need a picture of pigs running faster then tanks and shtiing 122mm rds at a tiger tank.




Schmart -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/15/2011 10:10:20 PM)

You really need to tone down the hyperbole in your posts. It's bordering on trolling...



alfonso -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/15/2011 10:41:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The Cav thing is a beast that only a few russian players have messed around with to-date.

Question #1 Why do they not require fuel?

Russian answer: Its all horses or mostly horses so they require little or no fuel, ammo or supplies they live off the land.

Question #2 why do horse divisions have same cv as German mech divisions?

Russian answer: It was really not all horses, but AT guns, trucks, atrillary ect ect.

Another shinning example of the Russian side getting to have its cake and eat it to.

Russian Pig Cavalry: Its as fast as panzers, requires no fuel and they sht 122mm ap rounds.

I am thinking this is just not historical.

Feel free to keep them as is in game, but can I atleast get a none circular answer to questions 1 and 2?

Pelton

[&o]1+1=2[&o]

Now I just need a picture of pigs running faster then tanks and shtiing 122mm rds at a tiger tank.




Yes, an AT gun consumes a lot of fuel...



Flaviusx -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/15/2011 10:42:50 PM)

Actually, it's your infantry they are outrunning. If you stood your ground and dug in, the cavalry wouldn't be as effective. It will of course murder you infantry running in the open in blizzard conditions.

I have reservations about Soviet cavalry, but your own blizzard runaway tactics are making it that much more effective. You can run, but you can't hide.




heliodorus04 -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/15/2011 11:22:44 PM)

Listen, Flavius, you are on the side of nerfing cavalry: that's all that needs to be said.

Your conservatism for reigning in the Soviet abuse of game mechanics is well known.  If even you think something Soviets do is over-powered, it's beyond over-powered, it is being abused for unrealistic gain. 



ComradeP -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:05:11 AM)

I'm against just nerfing cavalry, as I would prefer other solutions. Nerfing cavalry is also a non-solution.

Again, I can only stress that cavalry corps CV's (purely the corps) are not impressive. 4 for 41 and 42 cavalry corps at 50 morale/experience, 6 at 60 morale/experience. The 43 cavalry corps get 87 T-34's, so they have a CV of 7 at 50 morale/experience and 10 at 60 morale/experience. It's mostly the tanks that increase CV.

Over time, the CV will increase further as morale will increase, so in late 1943/1944 they might be as good as German mobile units, but to me that is not a problem of cavalry corps being too good, but of Soviet national morale of 60 being too high in combination with Guards and unit or HQ type national morale bonuses.

As an easy fix to make them less good in the blizzard: make sure the blizzard MP reduction doesn't apply to them, as they already get the cavalry bonus.

In any case, they're not as good as German mobile units, not by a long shot, and they're not as mobile either. They're often "as mobile as Soviet mobile units" because those rarely have full fuel tanks or good enough morale for deep penetrations. Keep in mind that due to the reduced MP cost for cavalry to move into enemy hexes, they pay the same MP costs as a Soviet mobile unit 1 morale "level" lower than them (for example: a 71> morale Soviet mobile unit pays the same enemy hex entry MP costs as a 56>/<71 morale cavalry unit). Cavalry units also get some additional mobility indirectly due to not being motorized, which makes travelling through difficult terrain easier.

They are not a war winning weapon by themselves, the Rifle units will still have to do most of the work, but they can be quite good as exploitation units and in the first blizzard, mostly because relative to the poor CV's of other Soviet units, the CV is reasonably good (with support units attached).

Simply put: I doubt most people would consider them to be powerful in the first blizzard if Soviet CV's weren't so low.



Flaviusx -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:16:16 AM)

Pieter, they are more mobile through ZOCs, thanks to their cav bonus. I'm pretty sure a high morale, late war GCC can pierce through ZOCs as effectively or more than a panzer. And they can handle terrain better. On an administrative road march, sure, the 50 mp panzer division wins, but most the time it's not that kind of march and not that many mps.

But ultimately it's their lack of reliance on logistics that make them so dangerous. Nothing will beat their sustainable march rates. (Interestingly, I believe that Genghiz Khan still holds the record in this regard. So maybe the game isn't as crazy about this as it seems. Still.)



Aurelian -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:19:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


. (Interestingly, I believe that Genghiz Khan still holds the record in this regard. So maybe the game isn't as crazy about this as it seems. Still.)


You beat me too that.



ComradeP -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:27:40 AM)

They are more mobile than their Soviet counterparts, certainly, but I can't really think of many situations where they'll reliable outperform a 86> morale German mobile unit in clear terrain provided the mobile unit has fuel (and keeping the Panzers at around 30 MP's is possible for a while). They can move through one or more ZOCs, but they still have a maximum of 22 MP's and as the Soviets don't have corps HQ's, it will be difficult to keep them in command range unless you assign them to airborne corps HQ's or the like so you have pseudo-Panzer Corps.

When defending, it doesn't really matter that you don't have corps HQ's as the Soviets, but when you're attacking and trying to keep all units in command/supply range, you'll miss corps HQ's.



Flaviusx -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:32:04 AM)

My experience is that they can be kept up at 16 MP minimum more or less indefinitely until they are in the red zone for supply. That doesn't sound like a lot. But it's huge because it's each and every turn. In an exploitation situation they need to be run down by the enemy, they will not stop off their own accord due to lack of supply for all practical purposes.

They can also hit their maximum MP a lot more frequently than mech units.



ComradeP -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:36:09 AM)

That's true, but that has more to do with flaws in the logistics system than with anything else.

In terms of sustained mobility, they're better than Soviet mobile units, I just disagree with Pelton that they're as good as German mobile units, at least not before getting some impressive morale in late 1943/1944.



Peltonx -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:53:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Actually, it's your infantry they are outrunning. If you stood your ground and dug in, the cavalry wouldn't be as effective. It will of course murder you infantry running in the open in blizzard conditions.

I have reservations about Soviet cavalry, but your own blizzard runaway tactics are making it that much more effective. You can run, but you can't hide.




I know your not stupid so I will assume your just being a smart ass.

As we both know Cav units dont make a hole.

Infantry and mech push back one the north side and south side of a hex. The cav hit the units again that retreated. Cav units can also do this if you hit the right spots.

Now the unit is not cut off, but during its turn it can only retreat 1 hex, so its gets cut off the following turn.

Now you do this at 5 to 8 spots along line and you get 50% of the units you were tring for.

This goes on turn after turn for 16 turns sunshine. which equals 30ish units bagged by Russian.

Kamil did this some vs me but with no wheres the skills TDV20 has.

Its an easy tactic I find most russian players are compleatly ignorant of thankfully, including you I guess Flaviusx,

Pelton



Peltonx -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:58:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

That's true, but that has more to do with flaws in the logistics system than with anything else.

In terms of sustained mobility, they're better than Soviet mobile units, I just disagree with Pelton that they're as good as German mobile units, at least not before getting some impressive morale in late 1943/1944.



During blizzard ComradP they are far far better then any mobile unit.

They can easyly with the help of strong units trash any german defence including when your retreating 2 hexes per turn.

Thye simply hassy attack.

They lose allot of men as per the Germans during 42, but the pocket units more then make up for the losses.




Peltonx -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:59:23 AM)

If more russian did this they find themselves having easyer Marchs.



Peltonx -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 2:01:14 AM)

Also they can run far past railheads and suffer no ills for low supplys.

They live off the land with there lt tanks, at guns and art.


No answer on my 2 questions?

Pelton



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 2:22:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Actually, it's your infantry they are outrunning. If you stood your ground and dug in, the cavalry wouldn't be as effective. It will of course murder you infantry running in the open in blizzard conditions.

I have reservations about Soviet cavalry, but your own blizzard runaway tactics are making it that much more effective. You can run, but you can't hide.




I know your not stupid so I will assume your just being a smart ass.

As we both know Cav units dont make a hole.

Infantry and mech push back one the north side and south side of a hex. The cav hit the units again that retreated. Cav units can also do this if you hit the right spots.

Now the unit is not cut off, but during its turn it can only retreat 1 hex, so its gets cut off the following turn.

Now you do this at 5 to 8 spots along line and you get 50% of the units you were tring for.

This goes on turn after turn for 16 turns sunshine. which equals 30ish units bagged by Russian.

Kamil did this some vs me but with no wheres the skills TDV20 has.

Its an easy tactic I find most russian players are compleatly ignorant of thankfully, including you I guess Flaviusx,

Pelton



EDITED as I had got all wrong: alrite, I got it now! They attack the hexes north and south of the chosen victim. Nice! Yes, it has to work. Ahhh, human creativity. Kudos to TDV [:)]



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 2:45:20 AM)

The Germans should not lose a single division until 1943 minimum. There's indeed a problem here.

You're 100% right on this one, Pelton.



JAMiAM -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 5:18:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The Germans should not lose a single division until 1943 minimum. There's indeed a problem here.

You're 100% right on this one, Pelton.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

I shoulda been a millionaire.
I woulda been one, if I married rich.
I coulda been one, if I spent more time working and less time playing games.

What cosmically vital rule did I miss out on regarding why Germans shouldn't lose a single division until 1943 minimum?



Klydon -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 5:26:02 AM)

Not as high of profile, but the Russian Mountain units can also be very deadly during the blizzard as well due to their mobility and they can hit very hard for Russian units. They have the ability to run rings around regular Russian infantry when moving in enemy territory.



randallw -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 7:05:09 AM)

I believe some German units in the blizzard were ground down, though this is much different from the mass encirclement of Stalingrad.



hmatilai -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 12:42:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The Germans should not lose a single division until 1943 minimum. There's indeed a problem here.

You're 100% right on this one, Pelton.


German VIII corps was badly mauled in August 1941 during Battle of Smolensk. 161st infantry division lost 75% of its combat strength and was overran.

I've always thought some Soviet blizzard success was also due to the burned out state of German units and units being greatly understrength (also local manpower superiority, better winter equipment).

In the game I don't much notice this, as Germans are always over 3 million men at the beginning of the blizzard, as losses are being replaced efficiently. I always thought that before blizzard German strength was 3.2 million men minus 0.8 million men already lost. Of course losses were being replaced, but was it really as efficient as it is in the game?





TulliusDetritus -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 12:51:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The Germans should not lose a single division until 1943 minimum. There's indeed a problem here.

You're 100% right on this one, Pelton.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

I shoulda been a millionaire.
I woulda been one, if I married rich.
I coulda been one, if I spent more time working and less time playing games.

What cosmically vital rule did I miss out on regarding why Germans shouldn't lose a single division until 1943 minimum?


Perhaps because the Red Army could hardly do that? Successful attacks, ok (in fact I would like to see Soviet units with bigger offensive CVs), but annihilated divisions...

One thing is bad play (here the player should be indeed punished). But here we see the Germans can have a more or less continuous line and yet the Soviets can do that; luck is also important as from my experience Cavalry Corps in 1941-42 winter only guarantee victories vs 1:1 ants. Above of that, helds are quite common.

The tactic is simple and yet effective.

And the problem is, if it is possible to do it, what is going to stop a Soviet player from doing this in many places along the whole front? 5, 10, 15, or 30 in Pelton's case German divisions (or a mix of divisions and regiments) annihilated... Not Stalingrad but...



ComradeP -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 12:59:10 PM)

You can destroy divisions the way you describe Pelton. It's not a particular new idea nor does it only work in the blizzard, in fact the Germans can use it to good effect to in summer 1941 if they want to pocket divisions with their infantry. The easiest way to prevent being a victim of that is not trying to hold a line (and always making sure HQ's are close to their units, as with somewhat reasonable MP's you can move out of the trap the Soviets set for you).

quote:

During blizzard ComradP they are far far better then any mobile unit.


Due to their CV's being doubled and there not being any other corps sized Soviet mobile units. I don't think we should base any changes on special situations, such as the doubling of CV's, but instead should look at what their CV's are in normal situations.

As I said, removing the blizzard MP reduction for cavalry units would already help a bit probably.



Flaviusx -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:05:43 PM)

It's not new at all. It's just the old zoc lock.

Pelton, the best procedure for seeking game adjustments is a well documented AAR. As humiliating as this might be for you in this case. Hopefully an AAR that doesn't involve pigs.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:07:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The easiest way to prevent being a victim of that is not trying to hold a line (and always making sure HQ's are close to their units, as with somewhat reasonable MP's you can move out of the trap the Soviets set for you).


But as far as I know the Germans did not run away during the blizzard... ergo... you're basically saying the historical tactic will lead to x, 1x, 2x divisions annihilated. But this is not what happened [&:]



ComradeP -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 1:24:39 PM)

The ZOC locking isn't "a historical tactic."

The blizzard offensive was a classic case of attacking an exhausted, overextended foe. In the game, the Germans are neither exhausted nor overextended in the sectors where the Soviet blizzard offensive hit the hardest (AGC near Moscow, most players are overextended roughly south of Kursk, but not north of it). The game tries to create a somewhat historical situation by doubling Soviet CV's and halving German ones, in combination with the odds modifier.

All I can tell you regarding how to counter it is how to counter it within the constraints of how the game works now.

If the game gives you lemons, you could try to make orange juice but it isn't going to work.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 4:25:58 PM)

Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. Trying to force the game to suddenly impose a historical set of conditions mid-war, regardless of what the players have done, is hugely problematic. This cuts both ways:

1. An Axis player has been more cautious than his historical counterparts, stopped attacking at the end of the summer and spent months digging in for winter. Nevertheless, the blizzard still drops his CVs massively. (The designers need to look back to the German WW1 experience in Russia to see that they were quite capable of enduring the winter if they planned for it).

2. A Soviet player attacks less recklessly during the Blizzard and ends up with a very large, relatively unscathed army in the spring. The game engine drops his CV to almost nil anyway, to ensure that the Axis can drive on Stalingrad.

This design philosophy is destined to fail. All a developer can do in reality is to set the starting conditions historically and apply a historical context (the rains will come, the snow will fall, movement/combat/supplies will be a problem, etc.). The relative strengths of the two armies mid-game should never need to be manipulated in this way - they should be a simple function of base numbers, logistics, production and losses.

If the players make the historical choices (say, by agreement beforehand) then, and only then, the game should produce results that are reasonably close to historical.



dazoline II -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/16/2011 4:45:37 PM)

Seems the requirement is working from the other end Red:
Have historical outcomes no matter what the game play determines.


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. Trying to force the game to suddenly impose a historical set of conditions mid-war, regardless of what the players have done, is hugely problematic. This cuts both ways:

1. An Axis player has been more cautious than his historical counterparts, stopped attacking at the end of the summer and spent months digging in for winter. Nevertheless, the blizzard still drops his CVs massively. (The designers need to look back to the German WW1 experience in Russia to see that they were quite capable of enduring the winter if they planned for it).

2. A Soviet player attacks less recklessly during the Blizzard and ends up with a very large, relatively unscathed army in the spring. The game engine drops his CV to almost nil anyway, to ensure that the Axis can drive on Stalingrad.

This design philosophy is destined to fail. All a developer can do in reality is to set the starting conditions historically and apply a historical context (the rains will come, the snow will fall, movement/combat/supplies will be a problem, etc.). The relative strengths of the two armies mid-game should never need to be manipulated in this way - they should be a simple function of base numbers, logistics, production and losses.

If the players make the historical choices (say, by agreement beforehand) then, and only then, the game should produce results that are reasonably close to historical.




jazman -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/18/2011 6:06:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. Trying to force the game to suddenly impose a historical set of conditions mid-war, regardless of what the players have done, is hugely problematic. This cuts both ways:

1. An Axis player has been more cautious than his historical counterparts, stopped attacking at the end of the summer and spent months digging in for winter. Nevertheless, the blizzard still drops his CVs massively. (The designers need to look back to the German WW1 experience in Russia to see that they were quite capable of enduring the winter if they planned for it).

2. A Soviet player attacks less recklessly during the Blizzard and ends up with a very large, relatively unscathed army in the spring. The game engine drops his CV to almost nil anyway, to ensure that the Axis can drive on Stalingrad.

This design philosophy is destined to fail. All a developer can do in reality is to set the starting conditions historically and apply a historical context (the rains will come, the snow will fall, movement/combat/supplies will be a problem, etc.). The relative strengths of the two armies mid-game should never need to be manipulated in this way - they should be a simple function of base numbers, logistics, production and losses.

If the players make the historical choices (say, by agreement beforehand) then, and only then, the game should produce results that are reasonably close to historical.


Yes, this design philosophy will fail. All this gets hardcoded in the source code. God only knows the spaghetti code that results, in dealing with all these "special" cases.



janh -> RE: Russian Pig Cavalry (12/18/2011 11:45:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazman
quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. ...

Yes, this design philosophy will fail. All this gets hardcoded in the source code. God only knows the spaghetti code that results, in dealing with all these "special" cases.


The only way to get all those "forced transitions" like to and from blizzard modeled correctly (and naturally shift the initiative, not abruptly) in a simulation is to account for the proper mechanics. In this example it would come down to the logistics backbone of the game again. Yet there is no such differentiation between summer equipment, or changed winter needs etc.

However, would it already be a sufficient approximation if supply would be a lot tighter? Either generally reduced across the board, or perhaps the delivery distances from railheads reduced by say 5 hexes?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6855469