Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now?

Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (Full Version)

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

Message

Farfarer61 -> Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 3:00:29 AM)
It would be nice to see a historical game once in a while. Y'know, one where Pg 2 and 3 stay in the center, Kiev gets bagged in September not July, Moscow isn't attacked until October as opposed to August, etc. The whole 41 campaign is just whack right now. < Message edited by Flaviusx -- 4/10/2012 12:24:42 AM > Thought I would stave off an AAR thread hijack. Begin!

pompack -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 3:42:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Farfarer It would be nice to see a historical game once in a while. Y'know, one where Pg 2 and 3 stay in the center, Kiev gets bagged in September not July, Moscow isn't attacked until October as opposed to August, etc. The whole 41 campaign is just whack right now. < Message edited by Flaviusx -- 4/10/2012 12:24:42 AM > Thought I would stave off an AAR thread hijack. Begin! How did he do that?[X(]

Klydon -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 4:08:53 AM)
Not sure what Flaviusx edited or perhaps it was moved here from a post in a AAR so the AAR would not get hijacked would be my guess. The OP (for this thread) isn't mentioning anything new. I am sure there are a ton of Russian players who would enjoy escaping with a good chunk of forces that start in the border areas between the swamp and the Rumanian border, especially mountain units and then be free to do whatever they would like to do, including running as far away as they possibly can. I am sure the German players would enjoy a historical minded Russian who decided to stand and fight all along the front too, but I don't see that happening either. It just highlights the issues with the logistics in game on both the German and Russian side and until that is addressed (along with other things), the game is going to have issues. Want a more "historical" game? Play against the AI.

sj80 -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 9:43:46 AM)
100% agree with Klydon. Axis players need the Lvov pocket to prevent a massive unit evacuation of that units on Sovjet turn 1 and 2. Otherwise most units of Lvov area will sit at turn 3 behind the Dnepr. In the current situation the Sovjet evacuation of the western Dnepr area is the best thing a Sovjet player can do because there is no reason to fight forward in the south. Glvaca and my other opponents did excatly the same thing and it worked best for them. To solve this problem the developers have to create a mechanism that forces the Sovjet players to fight forward. After that we don't need the Lvov pocket anymore. Seriously, nobody believes that we will see a change regarding forward fighting in WITE.

76mm -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 11:17:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sj80 To solve this problem the developers have to create a mechanism that forces the Sovjet players to fight forward. After that we don't need the Lvov pocket anymore. Sure, and then we need to create a corresponding mechanism that forces the Germans to not take Leningrad or Moscow, etc. Boy that sounds fun! Even if the game were somehow a perfect reflection of the military capabilities of both sides, the 1941 campaign will be whacked as long as the players are free to adopt non-historical strategies. With hindsight (actually, probably even without it), it sure seems that the Sovs' attempts at forward defense were a major blunder, so who is going to repeat that? Nonetheless, they adopted this strategy for some reason which they regarded as compelling, and yet that reason is compmletely absent from the game.

Flaviusx -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 11:48:26 AM)
You guys have this exactly backwards. The Lvov opening isn't a cure for runaways -- it causes runaways. SW Front is perfectly capable of fighting a forward defense against a stock AGS. Don't believe me? Play the Road to Kiev scenario and see for yourself.

AFV -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 11:58:34 AM)
I don't think its whack. You have players of varying abilities playing against each other using varying strategies, and somehow, with all those variables, you want the game to turn out just like it did historically? Even if God revamped the game, and made it PERFECT, in all areas, supply, combat, the whole works- throw in two humans and you just won't get the same outcome everytime.

janh -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 12:28:41 PM)
I think the GC is quite fine now. What I am missing is a Soviet GC major victory, or victory at all from the AARs, but I guess it will follow some time. Else, it is very playable. There is some room for improvement for WitE2, though, I believe. If you read a lot and compare, it seems that summer and autumn 41 are the phases that least compare to historical reports. Not in terms of actual progress, but more in the spirit and toughness of the contest. Read Glantz book on the German defensive doctrine, and you wonder where the tough battles for AGS are, that delayed the fall of Kiev by 2 months, depleted PzGr. 1 formations severely and ultimately prompted the assistance by AGC. You wonder about the tough counterattacks at Minsk and Bialystok, and the month-long hard fighting around Yelnya ending in a German retreat, with several divisions suffering more than 30% infantry casualties. It kept strain on the supply net, forcing a delay to refit and resupply and leaving AGC stranded in a defensive stance for a while, allowing the Soviets to attrit them. You wonder about the heavy fighting AGN found itself in, also causing depletion and delays. You look in other literature, and find similar things. In the daily Wehrmachtsberichte (the "Lageberichte OKW", situation reports), the hard fighting is also pronounced, and such is the resistance that the Soviets pockets presented for clean-up, which took quite a bit longer and heavier efforts in real life, it would seem. You wonder about the summer rain that started early July in the south, and moved up to the center by late July, hampering even road movement and causing hold-ups and supply shortages. Not as thick mud as the "Rasputiza" represented by the mud turns in-game, but something worse than a "clear" turn. It doesn't yet feel perfectly right in comparison to this, even when taking into account the Lvov pocket and the correspondingly easy advances for AGN and AGC the first turn. Given hindsight, the huge movement radius in this turn in conjunction with the surprise rules, and the lack of any "defensive reaction orders" in-game make the first turns a lot easier for the Axis and eliminate a lot of the fighting forces that the Soviets used historically to cause this trouble. Logistics isn't a big break, and players can act with greater rashness and better risk-management than their historical counterparts since we all know the initial Soviet setup, capabilities, and likely reactions, probably much much better than our counterparts did. Nor do we have to be more cautious as this is just a game, there is nothing at stake. What reasons had the Soviets to fight so hard and so long far forward? From what I read, the limiting factor seems not to have been the evacuations. Rail transport was plentiful, and Luftwaffe largely failed to interdict successfully. The game seems to mimic that quite well. It seems primarily due to Stalin's orders, as well as the Red Army's plan to stop and deplete German formations. My impression is that within the first 4 weeks the Soviets didn't really know what they were up against, and fought "old-style", probably truly expecting to be able to grind the Germans to a halt after a few 100 miles. This is consistent with their sustained and heavy counterattacks. It also appears that the Soviets overestimated the effect of their resistance, and underestimated their own losses, else, for example, they probably would have ordered a retreat behind the Djnepr two weeks earlier, or less of these enormously bloody cavalry and unsupported infantry assaults. What it would take to get there, I think, is threefold: First, some mechanism to prevent exploits so large like Lvov without a chance to defend against. It would take a little more random force setup (or player manipulated before turn 1) so that the both players have to exert more caution, keep reserves etc. Not for no reason AGN's true pace what a lot slower than typically in-game (add-in logistics, which plays more and more important roles the further the advances). But the main point missing I find from my point of view (mostly Axis player), is "Soviet teeth": The Soviet units seem quite weak -- against AI you have to use >>110% settings in order to for them to counterattack you at least occasionally, and also for them to be not too weak so you can just overrun almost everything with hasty attacks. This would probably make pockets also more resilient, taking longer to clean up. And it would probably lead to some very interesting and nerve-whacking fighting for bridgeheads (Soviet counterattacks), which so much characterized the early stages of Barbarossa. It would lead to depletion of ammo stocks, maybe lending more weight to the logistics chain. And it would deplete German units, which would perhaps enter blizzard in a weaker state, in better accordance with the state the Germans found themselves in when the Soviets started their winter offensives. Hence, dialing down the 1st blizzard combat rules would be necessary as consequence, hopefully reducing the impact of another one of these "artificial"-seeming, non-avoidable-no-matter-how-you-prepare rules. I would really support the latter deal, weaker blizzard against initially stronger Soviets. Ultimately, it would allow to recreate the reason why the Soviets kept fighting forward, because the casualty ratio wasn't good, but also not as desperate is it is now. Add-in a more flexible setup, a rework of logistics, and perhaps a "reaction order", and it might be almost perfect. [But certainly there is no need for another artificial constraint, first to force the Soviets to fight, and after November to the end of the war to force Germans not to retread but rather (risk and) get pocketed]. The last thing missing, perhaps, is a change in mindset... Perhaps (we) Axis players should expect harder fighting, and no longer take it as a minimum expectation to be able to take Moscow, Leningrad, and much more by October. Perhaps we should not expect Lvov to work out always, but rather expect that our forces could indeed be fought to frazzles by the time they reach the gates of Moscow. Not sure where is expectation stems from, but I always try to compare my expectations to the reality: i.e. is it just that the Germans committed so huge screw-ups that it is but them to blame for not having taken Leningrad with comparable ease?

karonagames -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 12:48:58 PM)
Ummmm... I thought the whole point of playing was to achieve things that were not done historically. My mindset has always been to use strategies that I consider are reasonably historical/feasible and could have/should have been achieved historically, hence I do not use the "Lvov Gambit", preferring a smaller tighter pocket, nor do I use HQBU until I am over the Dneiper, usually after T6. I do doubt that I could change my strategy to exclude going all out for Leningrad, as it is the key to a chain of events that gives the Axis the chance of winning in 1942 i.e. freeing the Finns, shortening the blizzard defensive line and allowing more units to take up winter quarters, so be stronger for the 1942 campaign. I have played 2 GCs under 1.05/1.06, firstly against an aggressive forward defence, and ended up forcing a surrender on T60, the second against a runaway that resulted in a surrender on T80. I am also playing a Barbarossa scenario as Soviets, to see how the game has changed since I last played a test game, about a year ago. So far at turn 8 the lines are uncannily close to the historical front lines and the axis have not crossed the Dneiper South of Kiev (although the next turn could see them get across). One thing has not changed, and that is the amount of fun to be gained from figuring out how to deal with the panzers, and trying to keep them out of Moscow. So for me, the 1941 campaign is challenging for both sides; 1.05/06 has meant that the soviets have to work harder to get into a position to damage the Axis in the blizzard and weaken their potential for a 1942 campaign, and then defend againt whatever the axis throw at them in 1942. For the axis, putting together a potent 1942 offensive is not easy nor can it be maintained indefinitely. I think the real answer to the OPs' question, is not How you play, but Who you play. The players relative skill levels will determine how closely the game will match the historical ebb and flow of the campaign.

hmatilai -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 12:53:09 PM)
I just recently read David Stahel's Kiev 1941. Most of the book dealt with other things than Kiev pocket, and in my opinion it was quite interesting to read! As we know, logistics was huge problem for Germans, and for me the book provided some interesting statistics I hadn't seen before. Or maybe my library is just limited? For example, the total strength of Guderian's Panzer Group 2 when performing flanking move for Kiev pocket was exactly one panzer division. Meaning that average division tank strength was down to something like ~20% of starting strength for Barbarossa (according to recorded panzer stregth in war diaries). All the other tanks were either destroyed or in repair shops waiting for replacement parts, which were never coming, because: 1) Railheads were just too far away, so replacement parts weren't coming in. Also, Hitler didn't allow new tank engines to be sent to the front until just before Operation Typhoon. They were allocated for new formations. 2) Supply trucks had to drive thousands of kilometers back and forth for supply so they broke down in tens of thousands. Individual armies had to sent trucks to Germany past reqular supply chain to obtain needed parts 3) Trucks themselves were obtained from all over Europe, so almost every truck was unique. After trucks broke down, it was extremely hard or impossible to get a replacement part for it too, as there were just too many different models employed by German army to maintain efficient supply. As logistics in game is quite different than reality, I guess that's one reason why campaigns play out quite differently. On the other hand, I'm not sure if there would be anyone playing Germans, if logistics was exactly like it happened, as German side really would be doomed from the beginning without any chances.

Klydon -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 1:57:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx You guys have this exactly backwards. The Lvov opening isn't a cure for runaways -- it causes runaways. SW Front is perfectly capable of fighting a forward defense against a stock AGS. Don't believe me? Play the Road to Kiev scenario and see for yourself. Flav, I know this has always been your stance, but it makes no sense at all and doesn't pass the smell test because there is absolutely no reason what so ever to fight west of the Dnepr and most any Russian is going to evac the bulk of their forces to the east side of the river while leaving a screen of units behind to delay the Germans. The Russians will also have the option of sending their third echelon reserve armies (those that are on or just behind the river) to the north to help with the land bridge defense. If the Lvov pocket is done in the south, the Russia player is far less likely to send these armies north. I can't imagine that leaving more units (some of them good units) in the hands of an experienced Russian player like Flaviusx is a good thing. Even if the Russians didn't run right off the bat, they always have the option to run in a big way should things start to go sour on them because this game gives no incentive at all for trying to hold ground, so we get the typical track meet with the Germans chasing first, then the Russians chasing during blizzard. Finally the Russians will potentially have more mountain divisions to play with during the blizzard. Why do I make a big deal out of mountain units? Because they move a lot faster in the blizzard than regular Russian infantry and it takes a lot more to counter attack them than compared to say a cav division or tank brigade.

Aurelian -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 2:04:15 PM)
Well, people have complained in the past about Soviet "running away". Of course those same also did the Lvov.

Flaviusx -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 4:04:15 PM)
Klydon: play the scenario. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you have not. The last time I was able to play without a Lvov opening in a campaign game was my first game against James long ago...and I had him slowed down to a crawl down south. So it can be done. He went right back to the Lvov opening in our second game, and that one he did much better and only narrowly missed taking Moscow. Standing your ground pays big dividends in the south...provided you have an army to do it with. Running away is what happens when all 3 border Front get annihilated. You literally have no choice but to runaway, there's no way you can form a coherent front after a standard Lvov opening. You can delay and harass a bit, but not more.

Flaviusx -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 4:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hmatilai I just recently read David Stahel's Kiev 1941. Most of the book dealt with other things than Kiev pocket, and in my opinion it was quite interesting to read! An outstanding book, btw. The final word on German logistics in Barabrossa, for my money. When you compare the reality to what is done in the game...

Flaviusx -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 4:10:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak Ummmm... I thought the whole point of playing was to achieve things that were not done historically. Well in that case, we have succeeded amazingly well because nobody plays a historical game anymore. Everybody is doing Lvov openers, and they are doing this purely because it is the best way to leverage game mechanics and the poorly designed surprise turn. And that opening is so powerful that it completely distorts the entire rest of the campaign. How can it be otherwise, when AGC is stripped for panzers from the getgo to fuel AGN and AGS? This is standard play, Bob, and I submit that said play is purely driven by optimizing flaws in the game.

karonagames -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 4:52:22 PM)
quote: hence I do not use the "Lvov Gambit", Perhaps you missed this. It is possible to have a fun and interesting game without using it. In my next game I will make it a house rule, and maybe other experienced Axis players could do the same. Maybe the Lvov gambit has become as contentious to you as the variance in modified CVs was for me. I have learned to live with the variance, maybe you can learn to live with this as there is no sign of a fix on the horizon. I am all in favour of some form of randomisation of the starting positions of tank and motorised divisions. At the very least the set up should change to close the gap that MichaelT is driving his panzer Army through. I have been guilty as charged of stripping AGC in the past, but in my last game against Gids, I actually concentrated on AGC and captured Moscow on Turn 10, so I am not sure there is any such thing as "standard play" - I intend to try another variant in the next game I play. Without some form of "fix" for the Lvov Gambit, it is unlikely to fall out of favour, as it can give a good leg up to the Axis, unlike other "fad" strategies such as factory raiding, which turned out to have no real long term benefit. I am happy to play with only the benefits that Leningrad will give me, as this has proved to be enough in the last 2 campaigns I have played.

Farfarer61 -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 6:10:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak quote: hence I do not use the "Lvov Gambit", I have been guilty as charged of stripping AGC in the past, but in my last game against Gids, I actually concentrated on AGC and captured Moscow on Turn 10, so I am not sure there is any such thing as "standard play" - I intend to try another variant in the next game I play. We must stop this "Moscow Gambit" and this ahistorical concentration in AGC! :)

AFV -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 6:22:48 PM)
I generally post from a non-fanboy (of either side) point of view. The debate could go on about whether the Llov opening should be done, could have been done historically if they had tried, etc. I won't go there.� I just think in the game, the original setup should be changed so its simply not possible. I think it would make for a more interesting game. With that said, it would change the balance of the game, and possibly greatly. Early on, this opening just simply was not conceived, and the game was not balanced with the Llov opening in mind.�The AI does not do a Llov opening, and that move is scripted, as Apollo likes to point out "by an expert" (Sabre). No offense is meant to Sabre, but I think with what we know now, after a couple of years worth of Axis players tinkering with move 1, is that a much better turn 1 is possible than was ever thought possible back then. I think Michael T could script a better turn 1 (from Axis viewpoint at least) than what we currently have.I think a lot of people could (I diverge: it might be an interesting contest to see who could script the best Axis opening). This is not a bash of Sabre- its simply that when the game was developed, a million man hours later of Axis tinkering has shown what can now be done on turn 1. And I dont think the devs were taking that into account as they designed, balanced and patched it (early on). Now, its standard, and of course it is. My first time against the AI, I did this opening. Why would you not? (except for reasons that Anorak has). But still, I think that the game would be better (funner)�with those Soviet units in play.�The first 10 turns would have a different feel, more like what it should feel like. The fanboys will either say this would make the game impossible to win (Axis fanboy) or its the best idea ever (Soviet-philes). They are anything, if not predictable. I still think the game would have a better, more historical, *funner* feel to it with no Llov opening. And that is just my opinion. And the fix would be quite easy- (either change CV or location of a few Soviet units).

entwood -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 7:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Farfarer It would be nice to see a historical game once in a while. Y'know, one where Pg 2 and 3 stay in the center, Kiev gets bagged in September not July, Moscow isn't attacked until October as opposed to August, etc. The whole 41 campaign is just whack right now. < Message edited by Flaviusx -- 4/10/2012 12:24:42 AM > Thought I would stave off an AAR thread hijack. Begin! Yes, it is whack because everybody is now a genius and does the same thing and can mostly get away with it, on both sides. I am glad for the OP post, in that, I hope it can keep a flicker of flame alive for some more patches/'enhancement' type changes. I suggested: 1) charging an AP point per regimental breakdown. 2) Many Panzer and Motorized Divisions were based on 2 regiments? or 2 'kampgruppe' and not 3 so those motorized units with 2 pz battalions might only be allowed to breakdown into 2 'brigades'. 3) Assets from Pz Group 2 should need to be attached to some AGS command if they go south. How to implement that, I am not sure though. 4) Maybe the Turn1 script can be changed or there can be more than 1 script and a choice. The real problem is the leader rolls and movement point system. There should be lower starting movement points that can only be increased by good commanders. A unit that physically can go 50 MP is still not going to do so or do anything without orders. The orders come from the player but through leaders in this game. Why should units all have the same starting MP? Max MP could be tied to leaders. Pz Group 1 does not have the ultimate leaders; such as a Guderian or Manstein to pull of Lvov, which might have been deemed to-risky. An aggressive leader chain may result in 50 MP, but a cautious Army or Army group commander may not want the motorized forces to go to far, so unit MP might be braked at 45, 40, 35 etc. Same for soviets.

Joel Billings -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 7:26:52 PM)
Not so easy as you might think. Andy and I spent hours trying to create setups that would prevent a guaranteed Lvov opening, and couldn't do it (since we can't prevent borrowing from AGC, among other things). Also, there is a difference between a human move and the AI script. A human can react to an unexpected result during the move, the AI can't. Because of the way the scripting is done, there is again, no easy way to script a Lvov opening, but you are welcome to try. Also, the AI will not play as well on turn 2 as a human player (at least with regards to the pocket), so a weak Lvov pocket might turn into a disaster for the AI. There are many ways that a Lvov pocket could be prevented, but the easiest way might be a house rule of some kind. And if this throws the balance off, then perhaps another house rule to force something from the Soviet side. But alas, this path leads to madness... [:)]

Klydon -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/10/2012 9:25:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Klydon: play the scenario. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you have not. The last time I was able to play without a Lvov opening in a campaign game was my first game against James long ago...and I had him slowed down to a crawl down south. So it can be done. He went right back to the Lvov opening in our second game, and that one he did much better and only narrowly missed taking Moscow. Standing your ground pays big dividends in the south...provided you have an army to do it with. Running away is what happens when all 3 border Front get annihilated. You literally have no choice but to runaway, there's no way you can form a coherent front after a standard Lvov opening. You can delay and harass a bit, but not more. Actually, I have played that scenario along with most of the other 1941 scenarios. It is what I started out with before making the jump to the full campaigns. It can be brutal. There are a lot of Russians to deal with and I did win the scenario in the end, but not by a lot. The Russians seemed very strong for a long time and eventually I was able to wear them down and got some pretty good advances the last couple of turns of the scenario. I have not recently said it, but I have mentioned in the past the same point you have and that is for players who think the southern tier of Russian armies simply isn't up to snuff in slowing down the Germans, they need to play that scenario and they will learn otherwise. What blows them out of the water is the extra forces brought down from PG2. Last I checked, it should be the objective of the Germans to destroy all three border fronts as much as possible while making an advance as deep as possible with as much as possible. We (the community) can go back and forth on the RL feasability of the Lvov opening and if the Germans had the ability to carry it out or not. Everyone seems fine with AGC getting to (and past) Minsk on the first turn because it happen historically but there are a lot of people that are up in arms over a shorter German drive in the south that results in the Lvov pocket, despite the terrain being more open and the use of the equivalent of 4 panzer corps vs the initial 2 panzer corps that AGS has to work with on the opening turn. (essentially using 7-8 strong mobile units vs the 4 that are available).

Manstein63 -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/11/2012 3:29:14 PM)
If the German Player does the historical move with 1st Panzer Gruppe there is nothing to stop the Russian player from railing out all of those forces that would have been trapped by the Lvov gambit so basically the german player is dammed if he does or dammed if he doesn't. I think the best way to solve the problem would be by tweaking the supply rules so that to be in full supply a unit will have to trace supply as normal but it parent HQ will also have to trace a path to its higher HQ but incresing the distance allowed as you go to a higher HQ for example unit to Korp/corp HQ 10 hexes Korp/corp HQ to Armee /Army HQ 20 hexes Armee / Army HQ to Armee Gruppe / Front HQ 40 hexes & finally Armee Gruppe / Front HQ to OKH ? STAVKA 100 hexes. You could then limit the supply to the unit by giving them 25% drop in supply for each turn that they didn't fulfill supply rules up to a maximum of 75%. This would still allow the Lvov pocket on T1 but any subsequent combat by the divisions transferred from AGC less and less effective the longer they stayed outside their regular supply chain. You could always transfer the units from the AGC PzGs to AGS PzG control by expending admin points but I think that would be more accurate historically. Manstein63

marcpennington -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/12/2012 1:51:49 AM)
To prevent the Lvov pocket, would it be possible to add in a line which Army Group Center units couldn't operate south of on turn 1, similar to the already existing line in the game which Axis satellite forces can't operate north of? There might also need to be a line on turn 1 where Army Group South can't operate south of, as a partial (yet in the end pretty much doomed in the long run) Lvov pocket is pretty easy to pull off with AGS forces alone.

entwood -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/12/2012 2:04:23 AM)
Quite a few good ideas have been submitted. I hope that these topics can spur some new development. New games in this series are a long way off...

Klydon -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/12/2012 3:33:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: map66 To prevent the Lvov pocket, would it be possible to add in a line which Army Group Center units couldn't operate south of on turn 1, similar to the already existing line in the game which Axis satellite forces can't operate north of? There might also need to be a line on turn 1 where Army Group South can't operate south of, as a partial (yet in the end pretty much doomed in the long run) Lvov pocket is pretty easy to pull off with AGS forces alone. I am trying to understand the logic here. Why would such restrictions need to be put into the game simply to prevent a Lvov pocket? Would you put the same type of restrictions on PG3 so the Germans can't use it for a heavier than historical drive/opening towards the Leningrad area? Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history.

marcpennington -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/12/2012 3:53:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon quote: ORIGINAL: map66 To prevent the Lvov pocket, would it be possible to add in a line which Army Group Center units couldn't operate south of on turn 1, similar to the already existing line in the game which Axis satellite forces can't operate north of? There might also need to be a line on turn 1 where Army Group South can't operate south of, as a partial (yet in the end pretty much doomed in the long run) Lvov pocket is pretty easy to pull off with AGS forces alone. I am trying to understand the logic here. Why would such restrictions need to be put into the game simply to prevent a Lvov pocket? Would you put the same type of restrictions on PG3 so the Germans can't use it for a heavier than historical drive/opening towards the Leningrad area? Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history. Put simply, given that the game is IGO-UGO, the Soviets have no chance to respond to the Lvov pocket in game terms. By the time the Soviet player starts his turn, the Lvov pocket (or semi-pocket) is doomed. Restricting Axis behaivor of turn 1 would simply even the field a bit---- while Soviet deployments are set, so too are (very) basic restrictions in place for German units in area of operation. In game terms, the Germans have a signifigant surprise advantage on turn 1, such as the low cost in MP for deliberate attacks and such. Their panzers are fully gassed with extra fuel stocks. I would argue that a large reason for these advantages was that the Germans had developed detailed plans and logistical resources tied to specific axes of advance. For the German to be able to veer wildly off course such as diverting the bulk of one's armor from AGC to AGS on turn 1, but still take advantage of these surprise rules, while the Soviet side has no opportunity to modify his deployments accordingly, strikes me in game terms as a serious problem. Obviously, this is only a factor on turn 1--- after that, I of course am all in favor of allowing alternate histories to take it's course.

Klydon -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/12/2012 1:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: map66 quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon quote: ORIGINAL: map66 To prevent the Lvov pocket, would it be possible to add in a line which Army Group Center units couldn't operate south of on turn 1, similar to the already existing line in the game which Axis satellite forces can't operate north of? There might also need to be a line on turn 1 where Army Group South can't operate south of, as a partial (yet in the end pretty much doomed in the long run) Lvov pocket is pretty easy to pull off with AGS forces alone. I am trying to understand the logic here. Why would such restrictions need to be put into the game simply to prevent a Lvov pocket? Would you put the same type of restrictions on PG3 so the Germans can't use it for a heavier than historical drive/opening towards the Leningrad area? Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history. Put simply, given that the game is IGO-UGO, the Soviets have no chance to respond to the Lvov pocket in game terms. By the time the Soviet player starts his turn, the Lvov pocket (or semi-pocket) is doomed. Restricting Axis behaivor of turn 1 would simply even the field a bit---- while Soviet deployments are set, so too are (very) basic restrictions in place for German units in area of operation. In game terms, the Germans have a signifigant surprise advantage on turn 1, such as the low cost in MP for deliberate attacks and such. Their panzers are fully gassed with extra fuel stocks. I would argue that a large reason for these advantages was that the Germans had developed detailed plans and logistical resources tied to specific axes of advance. For the German to be able to veer wildly off course such as diverting the bulk of one's armor from AGC to AGS on turn 1, but still take advantage of these surprise rules, while the Soviet side has no opportunity to modify his deployments accordingly, strikes me in game terms as a serious problem. Obviously, this is only a factor on turn 1--- after that, I of course am all in favor of allowing alternate histories to take it's course. But you appear to have no issue at all with the Germans doing the exact same thing in the AGC sector, where they must drive further, without the Russian forces reacting, to reach Minsk (and beyond) and in terrain that is not as open as the south. The Germans had developed several plans, including a stronger drive in the south. (In fact, the southern plan is the one that probably had the most varients/changes), so it isn't like a stronger drive in the south just comes out of the blue. It appears that many want to put severe restrictions on the Germans on their turn 1, simply because they move first, yet have few or no restrictions on the Russians on the Russian first turn.

Smirfy -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/12/2012 5:20:31 PM)
Quite simply command and control in WitE as a mechanic does not work. Look at any military map of WWII and you will see Divisional, Corps and Army boundaries moving outside redesignating or passing through someone elses was a considerable effort and the operational range of HQ's much shorter. In WitE there is zero c+c and logistics gravity. Its a nonsense really. The admin idea in itself was good, the support unit idea credible but apart from that implementation and interaction with the units and map is poor. Hopefully WitW will have a better system after all practically every work covering the war in the west is about actual command and control successes or failures.

entwood -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/12/2012 7:41:47 PM)
I would really like to see something or better yet 'some things'/enhancements still get implemented. I am pretty sure it could still be done, as this game deserves it.

EisenHammer -> RE: Is the 1941 campaign Whack right now? (4/12/2012 8:25:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon Part of the reason to play the game is to do something different, not replay history. Just saying... If that is the case, then maybe the Germans shouldn't have a first turn surprise advantage. [;)]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6416016