RE: The meaning of pockets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

Christolos -> RE: The meaning of pockets (1/28/2017 3:21:27 PM)

I haven't studied this carefully enough to be sure, but it seems like surrounded units with 0 supply only drop in moral and readiness when attacked. Is this so?

C



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: The meaning of pockets (1/28/2017 5:38:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CC1

I haven't studied this carefully enough to be sure, but it seems like surrounded units with 0 supply only drop in moral and readiness when attacked. Is this so?

C



Units with 0 supply (but not 1 or more) should lose steps points every turn IMHO, even if not attacked - in CEAW-GS they lose one per turn at 0 supply.



BillRunacre -> RE: The meaning of pockets (1/29/2017 4:29:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CC1

I haven't studied this carefully enough to be sure, but it seems like surrounded units with 0 supply only drop in moral and readiness when attacked. Is this so?

C



No, their low supply will reduce their Morale and Readiness, with it falling more as more turns pass.



Bylandt11 -> RE: The meaning of pockets (1/31/2017 3:26:34 PM)

I agree with most others here. Being cut off should be more severely penalized. Like 1 strength point loss each turn. Or simply mass surrender after two turns or so.

This would actually make the game a lot more interesting. Less slogfest, more war of manoeuvre.

This game is better than Order of Battle or Unity of Command. But it could use their harsh treatment of pockets.



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: The meaning of pockets (1/31/2017 3:50:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bylandt11

I agree with most others here. Being cut off should be more severely penalized. Like 1 strength point loss each turn. Or simply mass surrender after two turns or so.

This would actually make the game a lot more interesting. Less slogfest, more war of manoeuvre.

This game is better than Order of Battle or Unity of Command. But it could use their harsh treatment of pockets.


If the pocketed units are actually at 0 supply, then I agree they should start to suffer step losses, lose entrenchment and a ton of morale/readiness

If the pocketed units and/or nearby HQs can't trace supply to a primary or secondary supply source, but can to a city/town that provides some supply then I don't think they should lose step points, but they perhaps shouldn't be able to increase entrenchment and should be more harshly penalised on morale/readiness than currently each turn they remain this way (unless in a fortress, perhaps).



Ironclad -> RE: The meaning of pockets (1/31/2017 7:12:10 PM)

The game seems to handle pockets well given the historical record at least in respect of Russians and Germans. Reducing the pockets in 41 was no cake walk for the Germans and the forces required and the losses that resulted played a significant part in the strategic exhaustion that led to the failure of Barbarossa. In 42 the bitter fighting that characterised the successful advance of Operation Blue may have destroyed Soviet armies but the pockets proved more resilient and illusory because of insufficient German troops (particularly infantry formations) to stop large numbers of Russians escaping. On the German side we have the long record of tough fighting by their surrounded troops with numerous breakout attempts, some successful others failures throughout the first Russian winter offensive, Stalingrad and the later campaigns of 43-45.

I agree that a step reduction for 0 supply troops as in CEAW-GS would be helpful though.



Christolos -> RE: The meaning of pockets (1/31/2017 8:04:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre


quote:

ORIGINAL: CC1

I haven't studied this carefully enough to be sure, but it seems like surrounded units with 0 supply only drop in moral and readiness when attacked. Is this so?

C



No, their low supply will reduce their Morale and Readiness, with it falling more as more turns pass.

Thanks Bill.

So how fast is morale and readiness supposed to fall in relation to supply level 0? What about at 1 and 2, does it fall at all?

It would be nice if they also lost steps too...[8|]...

C



BillRunacre -> RE: The meaning of pockets (2/2/2017 3:25:55 PM)

The decline will take place over a number of turns, with actual figures depending on the unit's morale and readiness before it reached this supply state, as well as whether or not it might be under a HQ's command or not.



Christolos -> RE: The meaning of pockets (2/2/2017 3:46:22 PM)

Thanks Bill...but shouldn't the rate also be determined by the level of supply such that it would faster if at supply level 0 versus 1 or 2?

C



KorutZelva -> RE: The meaning of pockets (2/4/2017 10:39:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK

Pockets are often a net loss for me as surrounding a unit takes more guys than you would think and I do lots of low damage to units with sub 20 morale and readiness.

There should be a flanking bonus. If I encircle a unit on 5 sides that unit should die quickly no linger on for months.


amen... If it takes cycling 4-5 to down one (wounded) unit, you're never going to get to Moskow in time.

Yeah, either a flat flank bonus or have it that unit next to the one being attack get a free bombardment shot (which might or might not cause additional casualties). Suddenly a unit bordering 3 is not so safe.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.078125