Possible Lvov pocket fix? (Full Version)

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



Message

Peltonx -> Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 4:10:10 PM)

Units are not out of supply ( south of Marsh) on turn 1 and have full MP's.

This would reflect SHC more, as they counter attacked as much as possible the first 2 weeks slowing GHC advance enough to beable to get semi organized to the east.

SHC had ammo dumps set-up so how they would be considered cut -off seems kinda weird in the first place.

They knew before hand the general routes of Geman advances because of terrain and had some good leaders (for SHC) in the south.

IF SHC can reopen pockets and counter attack this would atleast by a turn and cause more losses for GHC.

Just an idea to float that I don't beleive is a total game changer.

Seems more balanced for both sides without totally screwing up whats been done to date to balance game.



Peltonx -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 4:15:30 PM)

Opening German pocket would have to be smaller and would have a very high chance of being opened in SHC round. Basicly even vs a skilled GHC a skilled SHC could atleast break the pocket with strong forses making the 2nd German move sealing the first pocket and not simply ignoring the first pocket and going for a 2nd in most cases.




mmarquo -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 4:38:37 PM)

The problem is the fantasy flight of Axis armor all the way over to Roumanian border; actually I just had an idea which may help: what if most of these units were placed in Reserve Mode? All it would need is for one or 2 units to react to screw up this flight of fantasy and maybe halt the drive.

Marquo



carlkay58 -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 4:41:07 PM)

If you check it out, much of the Soviet units in the South are in Reserve mode already. Occasionally it can really bite the German advance in the rear.



mmarquo -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 4:44:11 PM)

Well, alot are already in Reserve but the MPs are too low and leader morale stinks so little chance for meaningful reaction, but still...



Klydon -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 4:54:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

The problem is the fantasy flight of Axis armor all the way over to Roumanian border; actually I just had an idea which may help: what if most of these units were placed in Reserve Mode? All it would need is for one or 2 units to react to screw up this flight of fantasy and maybe halt the drive.

Marquo


Here we go.. so tell me how this "fantasy flight of Axis armor" took place in the center historically, which was over rougher terrain and a longer distance than what is accomplished with the Lvov pocket manuver?

Careful of how you approach a Lvov pocket "nerf" because the things you impose there may screw things up elsewhere.



carlkay58 -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 5:05:05 PM)

The problem in the south with the MPs is that they are subject to the Turn 1 Soviet rules which really lowers their MPs. I think that someone at one time (MT?) suggested that the Southwestern Front be exempt from this rule as it was historically ordered to mobilize for combat two days before the attack in direct contradiction to Stalin's commands.



mmarquo -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 5:08:17 PM)

I am not asking to "nerf" anything; what about a chance to restage the Battle of Brody-Rovnno, the single largest tank battle in the entire history of warfare? Not possible in WITE and the Lvov Gambit.



Peltonx -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/16/2012 5:55:43 PM)

Thats why I thought giving SHC units max MP's at start would be a help and units from inside the pocket would or could be used to breakout. This way units out side can help break or retreat.

Should make for not as big of losses as before and a net gain of a turn over all.

Again most of the balancing models to date have been based on a Lvov pocket. So this will not throw everything out of balance, but help SHC enough to make the south more interesting and lower losses some.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 12:43:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Thats why I thought giving SHC units max MP's at start would be a help and units from inside the pocket would or could be used to breakout. This way units out side can help break or retreat.

Should make for not as big of losses as before and a net gain of a turn over all.

Again most of the balancing models to date have been based on a Lvov pocket. So this will not throw everything out of balance, but help SHC enough to make the south more interesting and lower losses some.


You might want to check the alternate GC 41 scenario I started working on a few months ago.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2934258

I basically pursued the approach you guys discuss here (increased Soviet units MP's and Morale to top up reserve activation chances, some changes in deployment, etc.). The big problem is the Surprise Turn rules, which basically leave the Soviet player with very little room to maneuver during his turn.

I've found, however, that if I raise - ahistorically - experience elements, Soviet units tend to hold their lot together much better (less chances to become routed, losses when retreating are substantially lower).

This extra experience will eventually go away as losses mount. Another possibility would be to freeze Axis forces northwest and west of Lvov for one turn (and freeze the Soviet armies there, as well, to avoid premature withdrawal).

Last, but not least, I'd also recommend to play the scenario with Logistics reduced to 75% for both sides, to keep the pace more in line with historical timelines.

Besides that, I'm quite convinced by now that this wouldn't work well without alternate victory conditions, to make sure the historical strategic constraints are in place. This involves separate, manual tracking over a spreadsheet. I plan to do some 'work' on this during the Holiday Season, so if people is interested in playtesting it, I would be delighted.



gradenko2k -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 2:43:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Here we go.. so tell me how this "fantasy flight of Axis armor" took place in the center historically, which was over rougher terrain and a longer distance than what is accomplished with the Lvov pocket manuver?

Careful of how you approach a Lvov pocket "nerf" because the things you impose there may screw things up elsewhere.

I don't think it's so much a claim that Axis armor cannot or should not be able to cover that kind of distance, but more that the Soviets are completely powerless to stop it and the political implication that such a link-up with Romania would instantly create such a Kessel.



sjohnson -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 2:43:50 AM)

Why not simply reduce the 1st panzer army mobile unit MPs to say 30? This would be the simplest fix.



gradenko2k -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 3:00:28 AM)

Because it doesn't make sense in the context of the 1st Panzer Army actually having enough fuel stockpiled to make that kind of trip. They absolutely did. That they did not get to drive as far was because of Soviet reactions and counter-attacks, which are currently under-represented at best, and completely missing at worst.



AFV -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 3:08:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sjohnson

Why not simply reduce the 1st panzer army mobile unit MPs to say 30? This would be the simplest fix.


Which would also make sense in that its a 3 day turn, not 7 days. But still does not compel the Soviet player not to flee east.



sjohnson -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 4:13:08 AM)

No doubt, but, it's hard to deal with the surprise turn effects in the traditional sense of the game model. This is a first turn anomaly - greatly affected by the fact that the whole WitE model is a IGO-UGO play style centered on 1 week turns; hard to capture the responsiveness that ordinary field commanders would have in a full week of action; this is always magnified in exceptional situations (eg the first week of the campaign where the situation is very fluid). Unless you change the base game turn length to 1/2 its current length then I doubt you are going to be able to find consistent model solutions for these type of extreme situations (not the Lvov gambit; but the first turn surprise).



SigUp -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 4:23:24 AM)

The responsiveness is surely hard to capture with 1-week turns. But on the other hand I like the 1-week turns, as it speeds up the gameplay somewhat. Of course this messes with the surprise turn. But it is not like its unsolvable. Many possibilities exist like decreasing the MPs of German Panzer units, or increasing the readiness of the Southwestern Front. Another issue I would like to see is an increase in the vulnerability of German units. The Wehrmacht, even with the fewer combat opportunities in WITE, suffers far too few casualties up until the blizzard (where they are artificially boosted). If I attack a German infantry division in the open field with a 92% TOE tank division with 300 tanks, it should take more than 10-30 men casualties, even on hasty.



Klydon -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 1:38:41 PM)

@Bletchley: How did the reduction in logistics affect the game? This is one of the key issues in that logistics is too generous as far as allowing units to sustain drives over multiple turns and it applies to both sides.



jwduquette1 -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 4:29:34 PM)

It currently costs too many movement points for Soviet armor to launch deliberate attacks in 1941. There's a ton of big Soviet Mech units in the south that could potentially play havoc with the overextended German Lvov pincers, and German regimental breakdown units. But without the ability to mass high movement point units in deliberate attacks the Soviet player is left with the option to either run-away and leave the Lvov pocket to its eventual fate, or launch a series of ineffective piecemeal hasty assaults against the German cordon. And invariably sticking around to counterattack the German Cordon, just means more Red units get encircled on turns 2 & 3.

It also costs soviet units too many movement points to move back into hexes that were moved thru by Axis units. I think hex "possession" should have three possible states. Friendly Controlled -- Enemy Controlled -- AND CONTESTED. Contested hexes include any Friendly hexes that were moved thru during the opposing players movement phase by enemy units. Movement penalties for moving thru "contested" hexes should not be nearly as steep as movement penalties when passing thru "Enemy hexes. Contested hexes become Friendly Controlled\Enemy Controlled in the next friendly movement phase rather than the current system in which hex control switches during the enemy players movement phase.

And I also agree with some of the other posters above that the first turn surprise rules also act to limit Soviet counterattack options in the South during the first turn. Draw a demarcation line thru the Pripet Marshes. Soviet units North of the line get hit with the 1st Turn surprise rules -- Soviet units south of the line don't get penalized by the first turn surprise rules.



timmyab -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/17/2012 5:07:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1
I think hex "possession" should have three possible states. Friendly Controlled -- Enemy Controlled -- AND CONTESTED. Contested hexes include any Friendly hexes that were moved thru during the opposing players movement phase by enemy units.

Great idea!
Although I would change that to "Contested hexes include any Friendly hexes that were moved thru during the opposing players movement phase by enemy units that aren't in enemy ZOC at the end of the turn"
For the extra cost of entering contested hexes I'd suggest simply +1 MP.



mmarquo -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 1:17:02 AM)

The point is that the Soviets did "react" in the game sense of "reserve activation" - maybe uncoordinated, disjonted - but they did react and the Lvov pocket did not occur. This really needs to be fixed. And as for upsetting the current "balance" of the game (Pelton's comment) --> Good.

Marquo



Aurelian -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 3:00:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

The point is that the Soviets did "react" in the game sense of "reserve activation" - maybe uncoordinated, disjonted - but they did react and the Lvov pocket did not occur. This really needs to be fixed. And as for upsetting the current "balance" of the game (Pelton's comment) --> Good.

Marquo


Now now, you'll upset more Axia fanboys than you already have.



SigUp -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 3:17:21 AM)

This comment is kind of funny, considering the threadstarter is Pelton. [;)]

This aside, a fix to the Lvov situation is needed (albeit hand-in-hand with other issues, like the more than generous blizzard penalites, all in all the Soviets in 41 should cause more casualties, while the effect of the blizzard has to be lessened), as it really breaks the Southern front. The toughest area for the Wehrmacht in the Summer of 41 turns into a laugher with the Lvov opening.



Klydon -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 4:17:53 AM)

This is nothing new for Pelton as he has often made suggestions for play balance that don't necessarily help the Germans; something a lot of people seem to miss.

As far as being a "Axis fanboy" over the Lvov opening; please. I have also made a lot of suggestions for both sides, so don't even go there. The fact is for the Russian fanboys is they badly want to make sure history is followed when it comes to the opening of the game and totally ignore the fact the panzers advanced a further distance over worse terrain in the center to complete the Minsk pocket than what it would take to pull the Lvov pocket off. They also have a tendency to ignore that most Lvov pocket manuvers require strong forces from PG2 (almost doubling the striking power of the available panzer formations on turn 1).

My comment is play the game as is with just the forces of AGS and it plays out fairly well as far as the amount of resistance and progress that takes place. The forces coming down from PG2 make all the difference in the world.

Sorry Russian Fanboys, you got enough "I win" keys already. It just takes a bit longer and only if you can find some German willing to put up with the track meet that takes place with or without the Lvov opening. Oh yeah, you have to have house rules in place as well in order to keep the Luftwaffe from being turned into smoking ruin by the middle of 42 and then bombing the snot out of any German in sight.

Fact is right now, the Russians still usually win with or without the Lvov opening in most cases. It just takes longer and maybe.. just maybe the Germans have a shot at a minor victory.



Michael T -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 4:46:45 AM)

I have to agree with Klydon here. The Lvov opening with just the historical forces is asking for trouble really. It's only when the extra Pz Corp or 2 is committed that it's a closed deal.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 4:49:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

@Bletchley: How did the reduction in logistics affect the game? This is one of the key issues in that logistics is too generous as far as allowing units to sustain drives over multiple turns and it applies to both sides.


I need to playtest further, to be honest. Right now I´m playing a GC as the Soviet with Logistics reduced to 50% and with my alternate VCs.

Things in the South were far different: it's also true that my gracious opponent didn't pursue the Lvov opening. Southwestern Front could put up a fighting withdrawal, losing as many divisions as it would have lost in the Lvov pocket rather than in one turn, in eight. Kiev had to fall (and with it quite substantial VP) when my opponent got too greedy and tried a too wide re-enactment of the Kiev encirclement.

Since things in the South were more or less under control, I could deploy most of the STAVKA 2nd echelon armies into more or less their historical positions between Vitebsk and Rogachev, covering Smolensk, by turns 4 or 5. Not that it made a great difference: my opponent concentrated 3 Panzer Gruppes along the Minsk - Smolensk - Moscow axis. He's now 50 miles out of Moscow, this is the last clear turn before Mud, having destroyed three times already the thrice rebuilt Western Front. He's forgone Leningrad, but I can't hardly criticize that move.

I think that reducing Logistics to 50% is too harsh, though. Maybe my opponent (Rafo) would like to chime in the thread. Or if he doesn't want to give away any intel, maybe anyone interested can get in touch with him over PM.

I would like him to try and capture Moscow: that would allow me to calibrate better my alternate VP scoring rules. I consider that the Axis should be highly rewarded by capturing Moscow and holding it for a significant amount of time. Perhaps as much as in ruling out the possibility of a Decisive Soviet Victory (that is, a 3:1 ratio in VP's).



janh -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 1:10:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I have to agree with Klydon here. The Lvov opening with just the historical forces is asking for trouble really. It's only when the extra Pz Corp or 2 is committed that it's a closed deal.


The question shouldn't be whether the Germans could have done a Lvov pocket similar to the opening in game, but what chance they had to succeed so with or without additional divisions from AGC.

Apparently without AGS struggled for weeks (turns) before the Kiev encirclement and going was expensive and slow and with reverses. In game, one doesn't need much assistance from AGC to seal the "small Lvov" encirclement on turn 1 and this is a pretty safe bet. Almost never fails. That's what doesn't feel right. With an addiotional Pz. Korps from Pz. Gruppe II logically chances should and must be much better for the small Lvov, (i.e. a safe or almost bet ok) and the large Lvov becomes an option as well, a tough one though. No question one or two additional Korps justify something like the Lvov pocket, but shouldn't it be a bit more of a challenge and less certain given that Soviets in this area did react?

What doesn't feel right is just the chance with which it can be done. The end result is probably the same in most cases after 2-8 turns, but is it the correct result for the right reason? I think no, the defender being too idle while the attacker has 3-7 days until the isolation mechanics kicks in with its harsh penalties before the Russian player can even do a thing, not even to mention to react as the Russian did.



turtlefang -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 2:59:38 PM)

I'm not so sure that I agree that the Lvov opening is "ahistorical". The Germans made a strategic decision to drive on Minsk/Moscow line and the Northern Front, starved the south of resources as they didn't see a major strategic objective there outside of Odessa and Kiev initially.

If the Germans had decided to make a major effort in the south, I don't see any real reason to believe that they couldn't have driven as far and as fast as they did in the center.

At least by the operational reports, the Soviet forces didn't really react much better than elsewhere EXCEPT they faced fewer mech forces, didn't initially have to fight surrounded, and had some better equipment (more T34s and KV1s). And the Germans had fewer support guns, fewer tanks, and less artillery per division after corps assignments. Truth is, if anything, I think some of the Soviet mech units are over rated in the south initially based on their historical performance.

So, I'm not sure that the Lvov opening is that non-historical if the German's willing to commit the resources. Strategically, they weren't. But with a change in priorities by a player - I'm going after a grind, AP crunch, and manpower centers - then that could can the focus of the campaign.

We can argue that the isolation mechanics need to be relooked at - but I think that true for the entire campaign not just the opening move. However, someone pointed at in the forum that if the units in an encirclement kept full movement and CV for the first turn, it would be virtually impossible to isolate anyone. And that's not historical. So there is no easy fix.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 4:16:16 PM)

Why this fascination with ensuring the game corresponds to history on Turn 1, when the rest of the game enables the Soviet to unshackle itself from the various doctrine and organizational problems it had? It's not like the Soviets are losing game after game after game.




janh -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 5:16:37 PM)

You misread me if you think I consider it ahistorical. Quite the contrary, it should be a possibility to pursue, so eliminating it entirely would be... foolish. Especially with extra Pz Korps from the north at least the small Lvov should be a feasibility with very good chances to succeed. If not even also the large one.

I am putting out the question whether it is too easy to achieve given that the South saw the heaviest fighting in the campaign up to the stalemate at Smolensk?

And that's not possible once you decide to do the Lvov as all the forces are gone that could give you that fight, or they are encircled and can be considered dead at an operational level for the Soviet player due to the isolation. The Soviet player in that case never has a single chance to get anything out of them. The rest, aka hindsight and game experience suggestion to redirect everything to delay at Leningrad in order to better the chances for a final stand at Moscow and consequently the retreat in the far spaces of the South are clear by now.

Might be tampering with the initial MPs and stats to enable better reserve actions, or looking at the isolation rules (which I would also think wise in terms of German units isolated later...), or a new way at calculating hex possession/movement costs could help to make the Lvov attacks seems more believable, and give the Soviet side a little more of a chance to play with these units, and maybe in some more or less rare cases, really put up a fight for a couple of turns... So the question is not "that", but "how"...



SuluSea -> RE: Possible Lvov pocket fix? (12/18/2012 8:54:06 PM)

I could be very wrong here, someone please point me in the right direction if so.

I'm a plankowner with the game but have litteraly hours on the Soviet side. The amount of evacuations not only from ports under enemy air cover without the threat of troop laden ships getting sunk and the sheer amount of troops the Soviets are able to rail out are just as big a problem if not more so than the LVOV pocket. Atleast the GHC has to make a strategic choice to invest assets at costs elsewhere.

Also factories should not be able to be broken down in a week, it takes much longer to break down and move equipment especially if transportation is limited.






Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.40625