RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (Full Version)

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

Message

janh -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 10:27:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek Interesting carlkay58. Would you say that a GC with a 50% level reduction to each side does really constrain players in a significant way? Or is it just a relatively minor nuisance? Yes, great to see you back here in the forums! It has been an interesting time, imagine that some of those formerly convinced of the rumored pro-Soviet bias have meanwhile switched sides and now are getting roughly handled... seems to be an eye-opener as well. Discussion here have gotten a lot more constructive and unbiased of late. Interesting thought, you mean to half HI for both sides? What do you plan to achieve with that? Make HI more of a factor in the GC, to be evacuated more often (i.e. an alternative history scenario?)? Not sure that HI is underestimated already as Pelton pointed out elsewhere. The second aim here could be getting the logistics rates down, i.e. the forward delivery, so that at times of increased consumption parts of your frontline will run dry and require a pause. If you manipulate anything that corresponds to the global pools instead, I think what you will get is a shortage across the whole front? One thing to look at would be either the manpower pool or manpower centers, and possibly adding a number of empty shells to boost reinforcements from August to say November or so (I believe it was Klydon's suggestion). I think the recent reduction of the manpower multiplier was a bit too much. The best counter might be adding a constant of say 1M to the pools, or adding more "big" centers west of the Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov stop-line so that pretty much only the summer campaign is affected (however, even the destroyed centers could come back haunting Axis in 44/45). It would be fun to throw the kitchen sink at any Axis player, if you knew you'd loose most of those poor guys and yet increase your chances to win with that rather than too lose, as now. With increased replacements, Lvov also may not be as serious anymore. Although any change that would turn it into a possibility, but not a given would be great. Someone suggested that initial MPs for the surprise turn can be modded. Maybe reducing AGS Panzers MPs for the first turn by a bit ought to be one point, and may some Soviet counters should be repositioned to make a deep penetration less lightly/require more attacks -- even if it is not historically accurate, the result might be more plausible and fun still. The other thing I have no clue how it could be modded is the blizzard. How can you prevent a too huge disaster (assuming the other changes work, Soviets will likely be stronger commonly)?

janh -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 10:35:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer Rasmus - I fully agree an external threat unifies, and the situation in the Soviet Union in 1941 was different than 1917. However, while not PROBABLE, it was POSSIBLE that the Soivet Union disintegrated if the Stalin Regime disolved. Wasn't that the premise of success to the German plans? Valid or not, especially with hindsight, it should be included in the game - if not, why - as the Germans, invade? The Alt victory is a step in the right direction. Taking away the auto Finnish activation if Leningrad falls would balance the chance of Soviet collapse if Moscow falls - and I'm talking maybe a 10% or chance - in 1941. And no I don't want a Hitler assasination check every turn..... Although I also have my doubts about a Soviet disintegration, I agree that we don't really know. We can only speculate about the probability. It would make a fun "optional rule", though. Maybe a dice roll every month, and the probability affected by the course of the campaign: e.g. once Moscow falls, the probability raised from 0.5% to 5%, and Leningrad, Rostov, etc. add another 0.5% each. Maybe troop losses would add also, say 1% for each 1M. This rule could be implemented in a "PBEM balanced" fashion, with the Hilter assassination given similar rules... As for the Finnish, a similar logic can be applied: Would we have known how far that could have gone if say Moscow had fallen in October 41? Some chance of them doing all, just as now, or sitting tighter than now would also be a fun optional rule. Perhaps more ideas for WitE2...

76mm -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 10:36:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer However, while not PROBABLE, it was POSSIBLE that the Soivet Union disintegrated if the Stalin Regime disolved. Wasn't that the premise of success to the German plans? Valid or not, especially with hindsight, it should be included in the game - if not, why - as the Germans, invade? I agree with this--while I consider it highly unlikely that the Sovs would have collapsed in 1941, there is some chance that it could have happened, and more important, I expect that both the Germans and the Sovs thought that it could happen, and this impacted their strategies: The German plan for a brief campaign was surely premised on an expectation that the Sovs would suffer a military and/or political collapse, and while they turned out to be very very wrong, their strategy was ultimately based on this expectation. Similarly, the Sovs did not run for the Urals, but started to fight back, and hard, once they'd been pushed back to Moscow.

Flaviusx -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 11:30:52 AM)
There isn't the slightest evidence that the USSR was on the verge of cracking up in 1941, guys. No, not even if Moscow fell. The government had already evacuated a lot of its functions to Kuybyshev and would have been able to carry on the war from there. It's true that Hitler invaded based on the premise of such a crack up. But the entire way he conducted the war made such an implosion a non starter. His whole genocidal policy tended to strengthen the Soviet regime. In order for the Nazis to force the Soviet Union to fall apart, they needed to, well, not be Nazis. It's really that simple. It was part of Hitler's "genius" that he found a way to make Stalin look good. What I find difficult to understand is why people have a such hard time believing this. It seems to me that most westerners suffer from a severe lack of imagination here; they really just don't get it. This was war to the knife, folks, no short cuts. It was going to end in utter ruin and defeat for one or the other side.

76mm -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 11:43:56 AM)
Flav, while I agree with you, it is sort of beside the point: a Germany which assumes that the Sovs are on the verge of collapse will use a different strategy than a Germany which knows it is in for a four year war (in which case they presumably would not have invaded at all). Although maybe in this game it doesn't really matter, since the Germans are so overpowered in 1941 that they stand a good chance of forcing a Sov "collapse" in the form of the Sov player quitting...

mmarquo -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 1:53:54 PM)
"Although maybe in this game it doesn't really matter, since the Germans are so overpowered in 1941 that they stand a good chance of forcing a Sov "collapse" in the form of the Sov player quitting..." The main frustration and paradox of this and perhaps every other East Front game is that if one plays like a Russian one loses. As an aside, this is why I really enjoy GMT's East Front Series as the VPs degrade over time, forcing the Soviet player to defend certain cities while imposing a timeline on the Axis player - and it is on the edge. There is also the concept of mandated attacks; i.e. a certain amount of offensive activity has to occur or the Soviet player loses even more VPs. As for the Lvov pocket, it is utterly ridiculous, especially when coupled with muling as we suffered with until recently. This combo lead to some of the most absurd fantasy AARs I have ever read. It is not "gamey" because the rules and engine of the game allow it to happen; the problem is not with the players who play the game to their advantage, rather with the mechanics of the game itself. And it is really only a problem if one desires a simulation which is more rigidly adherent to historical capabilities. For me, I now accept it for what it is, and realize that I am playing more of a Star Wars East Front game. Despite the warts I am very happy with the game as it entertaining and enjoyable as such, and I will play if without reservation until WITE2 arrives. Marquo

Klydon -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 3:33:50 PM)
Some othere interesting observations in this thread. On the possibility of a Russian collapse. I disagree and think it was a real possibility. Of course the government in control is not going to think it is going fall, but the fact is Stalin imposed draconian measures to both keep the Red army from collapsing (some of this happen anyway, but more on that in a minute) and to also prevent the communists from losing control. I am sure the Czar didn't think he and his family would wind up dead at the hands of communists either and that was after they were out of power. The best time line for this was in 1941 and both Leningrad and Moscow (along with other reverses) could have pushed things to the limit, despite whatever measures Stalin may have taken. Even with all those measures taken, it didn't prevent the Red army from surrendering and/or running when the German summer offensive open in the south. (This despite Stalin's order of "not one step back"). It was clear that Moscow had lost some control of the army in the south during the German advances. (A good comparision might be the French army mutiny of 1917). Even with all this going on early, there were some peace feelers sent out to see what the terms would be. Stalin was willing to temporarly write off a lot of the country if it meant the revolution would survive. He likely had no intention of sticking with the terms of any deal long term, but rather use it as a delaying tactic before trying to recapture what was lost and then some. While I think Sevastopol was high on Hitlers list to capture due to political considerations, to mandate that the Germans take it out in 1941 is a very tall order. He also ordered Moscow and Leningrad be taken as well and that didn't happen either in 1941 or ever. The issue with a manditory take out of Sevastopol with both sides knowing the Germans have to take it in 1941 (especially in the face of fact it didn't fall until mid 1942) means some potential "gamey" reactions, especially the way the game is modeled. The Russians could put 12 infantry divisions down there digging from the start of the game and the Germans would be faced with a wall of forts 3 deep and that was after trying to get into the Crimea in the first place. The Germans are hard pressed in the far south to start with and I don't think 11th Army is capable of the task should the Russians dig in like that. In the past, I have advocated for there to be a reason for the Germans to take the Crimea as it was a important pollitical target, but from a military standpoint of view, it makes no sense from the German standpoint of view to go into the place for the most part. Making Sevastopol a manditory capture in 1941 is a bit much tho. I also agree it makes a difference for the German to plan for a 4 year war rather than a short one. Unfortunately I don't think you are getting that genie back in the bottle. :D

janh -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 3:45:59 PM)
I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go. Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given.

Walloc -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 3:46:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer Rasmus - I fully agree an external threat unifies, and the situation in the Soviet Union in 1941 was different than 1917. However, while not PROBABLE, it was POSSIBLE that the Soivet Union disintegrated if the Stalin Regime disolved. Wasn't that the premise of success to the German plans? Valid or not, especially with hindsight, it should be included in the game - if not, why - as the Germans, invade? Your right it was it was the german premise that it would happen, it didnt. It isnt isnt the first time some one have been wrong and it wont be the last. Neither was it the first time some one made a decision in this case to invade based on a wrong assumption and again it wont be the last time. Any how it is actually in the game Normal scn 290 VP and alt scn 260 VP. quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer The Alt victory is a step in the right direction. Taking away the auto Finnish activation if Leningrad falls would balance the chance of Soviet collapse if Moscow falls - and I'm talking maybe a 10% or chance - in 1941. And no I don't want a Hitler assasination check every turn..... So u dont want a Sword of Damocles hanging on one side, but u do on the other. While claiming both are plausible. From a gaming POV this makes absolutly no sense. Nor is it fair in any way. The only fair way is as it more or less is, to remove that factor from both sides. No one want to be subject to random die rolls ending the game arbitrarily at any given time. quote: ORIGINAL: janh Although I also have my doubts about a Soviet disintegration, I agree that we don't really know. We can only speculate about the probability. It would make a fun "optional rule", though. Maybe a dice roll every month, and the probability affected by the course of the campaign: e.g. once Moscow falls, the probability raised from 0.5% to 5%, and Leningrad, Rostov, etc. add another 0.5% each. Maybe troop losses would add also, say 1% for each 1M. This rule could be implemented in a "PBEM balanced" fashion, with the Hilter assassination given similar rules... As for the Finnish, a similar logic can be applied: Would we have known how far that could have gone if say Moscow had fallen in October 41? Some chance of them doing all, just as now, or sitting tighter than now would also be a fun optional rule. Perhaps more ideas for WitE2... While i cant disagree in adding optional rules at all. Still see above, i cant see any one wanting to play with all of the hard work going into the game being decided by a arbitrary die roll. I wasnt very understanding there was i, No. I dont actually think any one want actually wants a Sword of Damocles hanging over any ones head. What u in realty want is shaping a game that is flawed to a feel that is more historic. I can understand that and i agree in that the feel and balance of 1941 is off. Problem is the above becomes a strawman arguement. Instead of fixing the issues creating the cuircumstances creating the current 1941 u try a another approche to force it. Now such can work and with the knowledge that there wont be any more real balancing from Devs side it could have merit. Problem is IMO the above suggested just exchange one set of problems with another set of problems. Not really solving any thing. As to sudden death rules. I would by far prefere such to the above, but again u here encounter problems that ppl seems to pass by with little expressed thot. I remember reading Joels suggestion to 1941 SD cities and remember almost falling off my chair. Leningrad, Kalinin and Sevastopol was the three 41 cities IIRC, but i could remember wrong. Tho german side didnt know which of the 3 cities in question was the one. One should be aware of the way such will shape the game. Not saying every one would do so but those wanting to win with knowing those 3 cities would alter the game from now hugely. For those wanting to win above all. The following will be true in my estimation. Since nada between Moscow and Krim has any importance now. The game would play out as following. At leased one more pz group/corps from AGC would race to Leningrad. Making 100% sure this will fall. Since every thing south of Moscow is irrelevant AGC would press on Moscow and just N of it, largely ignoring every thing from Tula to Stalino. Freeing up most of the inf in AGC to such a pressure. U just need to screen any thing from Smolensk and south. Forcing SU side to defend not only Moscow cuz of facs/manpower but u now equally have to defend Kalinin. So in all Kalinin would fall. AGS / 4th pz group would now ignore Kiev/Donbas area. Do Lvov and then shoot strait for Krim. Only russian option is to pack 1,5m man on Krim hoping, what i deem to be in vain, to be able to dig enough forts to slow /stop the axis. Do this sound like a historic 41? My reasoning isnt to dizz Joel, while he tries to improve stuff, but to show that when u have SD options. Set to some limited objectives. Since this is known by the attacker. It WILL inenvitably influence the way one will attack and advance, more than any other factor and no matter what else happens. Cuz they have a certain knowledge if A B and C is true then D = surrender will happen. They could care less that is actually a house of cards and 4 turns after D happened in game the whole german army would have been surrounded in Krim. They are vindicated by winning so what would happened after is of no consequence. Problem is and we all agknowledge it is non of us in fact really know if A B and C happend if indeed D would have happend, but we do know it will influence how the game plays out. A B and C will trumph what ever else happens in the game. Russians could be at the out skirts of Berlin for all, not that any one cares. In real life u never would have the certainty of consequence of ur actions, given here. It has consequence on game play. I by far prefere the current methode cuz there is many way to 260/290 and many ways to defend against is. If any thing, all the above mussings puts the game in a box. The thing ppl seems to hate. Kind regards, Rasmus

janh -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 4:07:27 PM)
The Sword of Damocles so to say... That's why being optional would make most sense, just with every other rule that limits player operational freedom. Right now we can optimize our strategies by hindsight in a vacuum of all other soft factors, and while this also has its merits, having optional rules that would limit this freedom (by VP accumulation, VPs changing over time forcing players to definitely go after certain targets at given points/else miss those VPs etc.) can only add to the game. And with optional rules you can more people happy than otherwise, which is probably a point when thinking about sales. Back to the Sword, I would tune those percentages to a low level, i.e. even if Moscow fell make sure that the probability peaks in the next 4 turns, and decays after. And tune it so that it is primarily a teaser, something that players can try to go after, but still a "rare event". Perhaps only every 20th game or fewer that sees Moscow fall should also see Stalin's end. Same way for Hitler's fall.

76mm -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 4:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Walloc While i cant disagree in adding optional rules at all. Still see above, i cant see any one wanting to play with all of the hard work going into the game being decided by a arbitrary die roll. I guess I'm the exception [:D]. The problem with this game, as with many wargames, is that the VP are fully known and do not change, and players know exactly what to do and to avoid doing to win. For instance right now I know what will happen if Lgrad and Moscow fall--absolutely nothing (I know, I know, manpower blah blah). The same problem applies to any sudden-death VP that people come up with--players will soon determine the max strategy to achieve SD (or find out that it is generally not possible). For me it is much more interesting to wonder what would happen if Moscow falls...I'll probably be OK, but maybe my regime will collapse? What might happen if the Germans take Kiev and Kharkov too quickly? While a Sov collapse was a very remote possibility, I think including such a possiblity in the game is the best way to achieve more realistic behavior by both sides.

timmyab -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 4:50:08 PM)
Here's an idea for house rules to stop the Lvov pocket and at the same time rebalance the game. Stopping the pocket should be easy enough I suppose.Just disallow any movement South of Tarnopol on turn one would probably do the trick. To rebalance the game and enforce a Soviet forward defense I'd suggest allocating points to cities.At the start of each Axis turn the total controlled by the Axis player is added up and if the points total is greater than the turn number then the Axis player is awarded a certain number of VPs per point above the turn number which would remain for the duration of the game and count towards the sudden death total of 290 (or 260). So the Soviet player gets to keep his Lvov armies but is forced to defend forward in the Summer of 41.It could also be used to give the German player an incentive to go after places like Tallinn and Sevastopol and also to push hard with a snow offensive. Obviously this would need play testing to work out the exact allocation of points and to which cities.It would also mean a small amount of book keeping although nothing compared to the old cardboard days.

Schmart -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 5:41:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo The main frustration and paradox of this and perhaps every other East Front game is that if one plays like a Russian one loses. As an aside, this is why I really enjoy GMT's East Front Series as the VPs degrade over time, forcing the Soviet player to defend certain cities while imposing a timeline on the Axis player - and it is on the edge. I agree. Fighting forward and launching counter-attacks results in swift and massive encirclements and irreplaceable losses for the Russians. I scratch my head when wargames like this often actively DISCOURAGE historical behaviours. There should be legitimate options and trade-offs between historical and alternate strategies, but to fight as the Russians historically did will basically result in slaughter. To add to that, the Russian player cannot in fact actually fight like they did historically, with stand fast orders etc. Perhaps it could in some way be tied to production: Fight more or less like the Russians did historically and get historical production. Run away (or even a fighting withdrawl) to preserve your forces and you get less than historical production. Basically, a Russian player would be choosing between a larger but lower quality army or a smaller and higher quality army. Much of the unhistorical fighting in WitE has to do with HQ build up and the unlimited logistics. It still boggles the mind that the Axis in WitE have a continual SURPLUS of trucks, when every book I've read suggests just the opposite. Perhaps the truck penalties for a build up should be significantly increased (in truck losses, supply used, and AP cost), so that the player actually has to think carefully about when to use it, rather than simply managing APs. quote: There is also the concept of mandated attacks; i.e. a certain amount of offensive activity has to occur or the Soviet player loses even more VPs. I've thought about that too. There should be some negative effect for the Russians not carrying out attacks like they did historically. It shouldn't cripple them but some kind of trade-off to make a player think carefully about which strategy (historical attacks or preservation of forces) to pursue. Perhaps even tie the decline in national morale to the fall of cities, so that there is incentive and in-game benifits (NM) to fighting harder as the Russians, in 1941 especially. I think generally the game needs more options and trade-offs for varying strategies. There shouldn't be more or less optimal strategies for either side to take.

Schmart -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 6:05:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon The issue with a manditory take out of Sevastopol with both sides knowing the Germans have to take it in 1941 (especially in the face of fact it didn't fall until mid 1942) means some potential "gamey" reactions, especially the way the game is modeled. The Russians could put 12 infantry divisions down there digging from the start of the game and the Germans would be faced with a wall of forts 3 deep and that was after trying to get into the Crimea in the first place. The Germans are hard pressed in the far south to start with and I don't think 11th Army is capable of the task should the Russians dig in like that. Then VPs could be randomized to an extent at the start of the game. The game would self-generate a list of objective cities for the Axis to take, but this list is only known to the Axis player. You could have variable VPs awarded for those cities should they fall earlier or later than required. A similar but different list of cities would be generated for the Russian player. A new list would be generated for both sides each year, shaping each's strategy without the other overtly knowing right away. There would be a lot more guess work trying to figure out your opponents objectives, as well as faints and trickery to throw the other guy off. There would also be cases as happened historically, like how the Russians massively fortified and reinforced the Moscow sector anticipating a renewed German attack there, only to have the Axis push into the Caucasus...

Schmart -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 6:11:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janh I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go. Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given. Perhaps another option is to code the Russian Tank and Motorized Divisions for having a much better chance of activating as defensive reserves for the period Jun-Jul 1941. This might create much more of the meeting engangements that occured historically, and also slow the German advance a bit in the south. This enhanced reserve activation could maybe be even more pronounced in the first 2 turns, giving the Russian player a semi-reactive turn capability. With enhanced Russians reserve activation, it would also prevent turn 1 optimization for the Axis, as the reserve activation would give too much unpredictability as to Russian defensive strengths and positioning.

Flaviusx -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 6:46:31 PM)
Klydon, the Moscow panic was put down immediately. It had no effect at all on the fighting at the front. It was totally inconsequential. The surprising thing here isn't the panic, but how rapidly it ended and how little it mattered. There is no, zero, el zippo evidence of an army strike or mutiny in 1941. There is no there there and comparing the situation to that of France in WWI is preposterous. Despite the staggering losses, the Red Army soldiered on. Not many people or armies could have withstood such losses, but then, death and slavery will concentrate the mind. No Frenchman in WWI (or even WWII) was facing the kind of annihilation that the Russians were in WW2. Excepting perhaps the Jewish ones.

Klydon -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 7:50:15 PM)
Flav, the time period I am mentioning there were issues with the Red army itself was in 1942 when the German offensive opened in the Rostov area. Units did not follow orders, did not hold and there were a lot of surrenders. A lot of these units were non-Russian units and there were even issues with Russian units. Vlasov should also serve notice that even tho Stalin/Moscow ordered things to take place, they always did not have total control. My point is that while Stalin may have decided he was going to fight to the end, events and other issues could have overtaken what he desired to do and what actually may have happen. I am sure Assad intends to fight to the bitter end and is employing every means he can to ensure he remains in power and in control of Syria. My guess is he won't be successful, but a lot of people are going to die before he gets knocked out. Hitler also intended to remain in power until the end and he did. However, there were several attempts on him and it would have been interesting to see what would have happen had he been removed. My guess it could have ranged from little change to Germany deciding to quit the war. edit Asaid = Assad.

Flaviusx -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 8:15:54 PM)
Vlasov is an interesting case. But ultimately he was a non factor because the Nazis were Nazis. They just couldn't help themselves. Their entire eastern policy was at odds with Vlasov's and in the end, he got very little support from them. Two divisions were raised. If the Germans had put themselves at the head of a genuine war of liberation, then the USSR might have cracked. Pick apart the nationalities, use Vlasov and other like minded rebels for real, and who knows? But then, they wouldn't be Nazis now, would they. Lebensraum and liberation just don't mix. The German policy in WWI towards Russia was far more realistic and sophisticated and got dramatically better results.

Rosseau -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/8/2012 11:51:31 PM)
Good book for $5 if you guys haven't read it already: The Moscow Option: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0450046257/ref=sr_1_4_up_1_main_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344466170&sr=1-4&condition=used Sorry to interrupt...great discussion.

Sorta -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/9/2012 3:09:30 AM)
This seems a very realistic suggestion - I'm having a very enjoyable GC pbem game but having some variability in the first turn would be an improvement. How tricky is it to mod the start? quote: ORIGINAL: janh I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go. Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/9/2012 5:45:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janh quote: ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek Interesting carlkay58. Would you say that a GC with a 50% level reduction to each side does really constrain players in a significant way? Or is it just a relatively minor nuisance? Yes, great to see you back here in the forums! It has been an interesting time, imagine that some of those formerly convinced of the rumored pro-Soviet bias have meanwhile switched sides and now are getting roughly handled... seems to be an eye-opener as well. Discussion here have gotten a lot more constructive and unbiased of late. Thank you [:)] I have noticed that last part about constructiveness, hence that I felt it was about time to jump in again. quote: ORIGINAL: janh Interesting thought, you mean to half HI for both sides? What do you plan to achieve with that? Make HI more of a factor in the GC, to be evacuated more often (i.e. an alternative history scenario?)? Not sure that HI is underestimated already as Pelton pointed out elsewhere. The second aim here could be getting the logistics rates down, i.e. the forward delivery, so that at times of increased consumption parts of your frontline will run dry and require a pause. If you manipulate anything that corresponds to the global pools instead, I think what you will get is a shortage across the whole front? I don't have the manual with me, so I am speaking from memory. As far as I recall, Logistic level affects both production of supplies and the efficiency of its distribution. The basic idea - to have the game pace to resemble actual historical operations - is to reduce the production of Supplies and also make them harder to reach front line units. The problem is that it would have a global effect and the player doesn't have the tools to prioritize certain commands to receive supplies, fuel and replacements (as we could do with supplies in V4V/WAW). quote: ORIGINAL: janh One thing to look at would be either the manpower pool or manpower centers, and possibly adding a number of empty shells to boost reinforcements from August to say November or so (I believe it was Klydon's suggestion). I think the recent reduction of the manpower multiplier was a bit too much. The best counter might be adding a constant of say 1M to the pools, or adding more "big" centers west of the Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov stop-line so that pretty much only the summer campaign is affected (however, even the destroyed centers could come back haunting Axis in 44/45). It would be fun to throw the kitchen sink at any Axis player, if you knew you'd loose most of those poor guys and yet increase your chances to win with that rather than too lose, as now. Creating bogus brigade size 'cadres' with 0 MPs appearing on major Soviet population centers east of the Volga, that players can use by disbanding them (and spending AP's) might be something worth considering (and give something to do to those Military District HQs). Actually the Red Army training cadre unit organization was the Rifle Bde... quote: ORIGINAL: janh With increased replacements, Lvov also may not be as serious anymore. Although any change that would turn it into a possibility, but not a given would be great. Someone suggested that initial MPs for the surprise turn can be modded. Really? When I looked into it, I couldn't find any way of affecting surprise effects. quote: ORIGINAL: janh Maybe reducing AGS Panzers MPs for the first turn by a bit ought to be one point, and may some Soviet counters should be repositioned to make a deep penetration less lightly/require more attacks -- even if it is not historically accurate, the result might be more plausible and fun still. That's one possibility, indeed. However, the real problem would come after the first Soviet Logistics phase... after that SW units become useless crap and we can't tweak German armor MP's... quote: ORIGINAL: janh The other thing I have no clue how it could be modded is the blizzard. How can you prevent a too huge disaster (assuming the other changes work, Soviets will likely be stronger commonly)? That's gonna be the most difficult part. My take is that the only way to curb that is to impose severe constraints on the scope and - most critically - duration of Soviet offensive operations. Reducing Logistics levels somehow should keep the Red Army from engaging in simultaneous offensive operations from Leningrad to the Black Sea that go on for two months. That's just over the top.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/9/2012 5:51:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janh I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go. Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given. Your suggestions are duly noted, and are right on the spot. Freezing/reducing MP's is too much like hamstringing people... and there's quite a difference between 'constraining' and 'hamstringing'. I think it would be better that you post these observations on that thread. So when I have time (and the will) to go over that mod again I'll remember (or if someone wants to take it up, that someone will be able to have this in mind).

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/9/2012 5:52:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sorta This seems a very realistic suggestion - I'm having a very enjoyable GC pbem game but having some variability in the first turn would be an improvement. How tricky is it to mod the start? quote: ORIGINAL: janh I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go. Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given. Modding is relatively easy. The hard part is to get something interesting with some lasting effect on the dynamics of the campaign.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/9/2012 5:55:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Schmart quote: ORIGINAL: janh I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go. Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given. Perhaps another option is to code the Russian Tank and Motorized Divisions for having a much better chance of activating as defensive reserves for the period Jun-Jul 1941. This might create much more of the meeting engangements that occured historically, and also slow the German advance a bit in the south. This enhanced reserve activation could maybe be even more pronounced in the first 2 turns, giving the Russian player a semi-reactive turn capability. With enhanced Russians reserve activation, it would also prevent turn 1 optimization for the Axis, as the reserve activation would give too much unpredictability as to Russian defensive strengths and positioning. The most obvious way to achieve that would be to buff the Morale levels of the Tank Divisions... and hope that the Surprise effect removes that entirely. I think I actually did that for some selected units (the ones for which I found reports about good Division CO's marching to the sound of the guns fast according to pre-war contingency plans).

Schmart -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/9/2012 6:38:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek The most obvious way to achieve that would be to buff the Morale levels of the Tank Divisions... and hope that the Surprise effect removes that entirely. I think I actually did that for some selected units (the ones for which I found reports about good Division CO's marching to the sound of the guns fast according to pre-war contingency plans). A better permanent fix would require some coding by the devs to allow for greater reserve activation for specific types of units during a specific period of time.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/10/2012 12:46:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Schmart quote: ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek The most obvious way to achieve that would be to buff the Morale levels of the Tank Divisions... and hope that the Surprise effect removes that entirely. I think I actually did that for some selected units (the ones for which I found reports about good Division CO's marching to the sound of the guns fast according to pre-war contingency plans). A better permanent fix would require some coding by the devs to allow for greater reserve activation for specific types of units during a specific period of time. I'm starting to think that one thing we could propose to Joel would be to try "crowdfund" a WitE 1.5 patch. I mean, in this thread we've been discussing quite a few things which would be only feasible - or easier and sounder - with relatively small tweaks on the engine. Maybe we could collect such a list and ask to 2by3 for a quote, and we try to raise the money. One such possible list may include stuff like: * Make Blizzard, 1:1 -> 2:1, 22nd June 41 Surprise rules to be optional (at game start) * Allow to define logistics, admin and morale levels on a per year (or amount of X turns) basis * Make room in the editor to specify temporary bonuses (or negative modifiers) to reserve and rout checks * Introduce short scenario framework for VP tracking in GC scenarios(which would prevent from using the computer player, that is, only meant for H2H play) What do you think guys?

Michael T -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/10/2012 1:04:25 AM)
I would pay.

Farfarer61 -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/10/2012 3:39:29 AM)
Hmm... Are you trying to make Soviet victory additionally available to catatonics as well?

janh -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/10/2012 10:34:48 AM)
I like the idea, and would gladly add my part. Maybe if they'd do that, some more "small options" would be in the cards (depending on the sum): * Introduce a "zero-th" turn for both sides: Pay from a "setup-AP" pool to move a few selected units around. Either make it a very limited rule, maybe only be able to move up to 25 units by a max of 2 hexes or so ("10 AP per hex"), or a more flexible "what-if", allowing a total of 25x2 hexes displacement to be distributed to one or more units. * Do something about the pockets, i.e. make their combat power decay slower (with supply state or so, not just the next turn). I doubt G&G would be interested, though. If they want to develop a WitE2, and sell it successfully, they'll by now keeping a long list of improvements and new ideas to introduce there to make us want it... Amusingly there was a discussion not long ago over at the AE forum, some brainstorming what a "new AE" could come up with that would make it a worthwhile idea to sell to G&G. With such monster games with a small auditory, maybe crowd-funding is a more viable way than hoping for sales?

mmarquo -> RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey" (8/10/2012 9:16:21 PM)
I noticed that the editor allows assigment of campaign or scenario VPS; the scenario VPs account for time of possession of VPs and causualties; is it possible to reedit a campaign to play with scnario VP conditions; if so, then many things could be changed for free.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.984375