RE: T26 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> After Action Reports



Message

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: T26 (9/2/2021 3:38:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: RoadWarrior
...

Loki don’t be so defensive and simply look at the results.

Gundam is basically mocking the whole system by having 1,000,000 men in reserve and still achieving an unhistorical great 41/42 winter. SHC does not need to defend Leningrad, black sea ports, planes or those 1,000,000 men. Just run at just the right speed, because of a poorly designed logistics system.

The current model is all about SHC running at the correct speed as Q-ball and I have talked about in PMs. It has zero to do with trucks and trains, player skills ect ect. If SHC runs at the correct speed you will get unhistorically low Russian loses and an unhistorical 41/42 winter SHC offensive which German army simply can’t recover from because it causes a feedback loop and than SHC is on a unhistorical offensive in 42. This running at just the right speed tactic is used because of special rules put on the Germans logistics system.

As AlbertN points out “ the issue is that hardly Germans can achieve historical results as of now - which should be the 'Average' of the game. How many Axis players get to Orel, Rostov, Kursk etcetera. And how many can also keep a good portion of these through the coming winter?”

This is all caused by special rules to the German logistics system. If the logistics system is so great why all the special rules that cause the game to be so unhistorical?

This will become more unhistorical and more boringly predictable as more and more AARs show players how to game the poor logistics model.




no body is being defensive, but I'd strongly suggest that its not the logistics system. I have a game to T12, I have 40 MP+ mobile units, 14+ infantry and can do very little with that asset.

The issue lies in the Soviet use of assault fronts, that solves their command problems, gets most units under good commanders, avoids the problem of how to rest and refit when on a strategic retreat, plus the movement and combat capacity to inflict serious damage.

play without that and you get the game we saw late in the beta, plenty of variation, plenty of instances of perfectly ok German players (like me) doing fine. I ran one test game into mid-42, did less well in the north, was running around the Caucasus, in other words the sort of situation you'd broadly expect to see.

You've done a good job so far of not being too Pelton like to raise no concerns ... thats something worth keeping up [;)]


O.O last sentence!!! I have to agree. But yes, Assault HQ's are the problem and I have been bringing that up along with others. Need another look see for sure. Thank you all



Q-Ball -> RE: T26 (9/2/2021 5:04:38 PM)

I will say that in my game vs. RW as Soviets, I did not use any Assault HQ until November of 1941. In other words, all through the retreat phase. Red Army was fine by the end. RW is a very good opponent and I made some mistakes, and yet I still have a large Red Army that is giving him trouble I think in December of '41....I think he's going to have to give up alot of ground.

I think there's more than the Assault HQ, but good place to start

If Soviets can just avoid getting tons of units pocketed, that's all you really need to have a really strong Red Army by winter and rest of way



AlbertN -> RE: T26 (9/2/2021 5:18:28 PM)

I agree with Q Ball there.

That is why I was already trying to push for reasons to make the Soviets struggle and fight - VPs and not ensured Factory migrations.



Aurelian -> RE: T26 (9/2/2021 7:19:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree with Q Ball there.

That is why I was already trying to push for reasons to make the Soviets struggle and fight - VPs and not ensured Factory migrations.


Why should a Soviet player be hobbled to play the way you want? And in case you didn't know, in WiTE-1 the Axis made of point of hunting down factories. Which is why that was changed.

The factories got out, sometimes even under fire. And the Axis player should have better things to do than go on a factory hunt. IMHO anyway.



SigUp -> RE: T26 (9/2/2021 8:05:49 PM)

I agree that it's not only the Assault HQs for the Soviets in 1941 that cause problems. It's part of the wider issue of what I feel is the game overstating Soviet command and control, which especially the further down one went the worse it became. In the game the Soviet player can essentially move the whole army as one coherent block as one desires. Attacks can be (fairly) well coordinated and I don't feel the losses are quite as bad as they sometimes were when the Red Army assaulted German lines. Supply can be managed accurately to units needing them through air drops. Yet this is not exactly what historically the Soviets were capable of in 1941.

So I think there needs to be a wider range of discussion on how to simulate the lack of proficiency in Soviet command and control in 1941 and deep into 1942. Just throwing some random ideas out there: Restricting assault HQ usage. Introduce some admin roll penalties that ease over time until mid 1942. Add a larger potential variance in amount of MP. Reduce MP needs of Soviet forces in 1941 and early 1942 for conducting deliberate attacks but at the same time introduce a casualty multiplier that depends on a successful admin roll (that is subjected to the admin roll penalties mentioned earlier).



AlbertN -> RE: T26 (9/2/2021 10:53:33 PM)

@Aurelian

It is not about 'forcing the Soviet to play the way I want'.

It is about balancing the game so that the Axis side is not smashed in the teeth royally and brutally at player parity of skill or the like.

I do not know how many here play PvP - some are merry to play with the AI. One fine tunes the AI for their tastes with percentages. The AI is scripted not to attack for 4 turns, and the like, etc. Fine and fair.

Good grace I am not the only one perceiving the issue here - but a variety of players, so I am not a single singer but a part of a chorus.




gundam1985 -> RE: T26 (9/3/2021 3:43:09 AM)

The Red Army is weak in 1941, many Soviet player stop the game before T13. The game system is very complex so only few players can ruling battlefield. In other words, I think A level Axis player VS A level Soviet opponent can lead to Axis's victory in 1945. Don't try to simulated history because bothside players have more information than the generals of history. We know how to avoid the tragedy of the battle of Stalingrad, Smolensk in actual combat and so on. All AARs show different battlefront in map, there is no standard answer in reality.



smokindave34 -> RE: T26 (9/3/2021 10:50:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I will say that in my game vs. RW as Soviets, I did not use any Assault HQ until November of 1941. In other words, all through the retreat phase. Red Army was fine by the end. RW is a very good opponent and I made some mistakes, and yet I still have a large Red Army that is giving him trouble I think in December of '41....I think he's going to have to give up alot of ground.

I think there's more than the Assault HQ, but good place to start

If Soviets can just avoid getting tons of units pocketed, that's all you really need to have a really strong Red Army by winter and rest of way


I would agree. I believe the logistics system is a huge improvement over WTIE1 (no more supplying 4 panzer armies from a singe rail line) and would not recommend any changes at this time. The size/strength of the Red Army appears to be the issue to me. A review of assault HQ seems like a good place to start.

I tend to think the VP system can be tweaked as well in an attempt to force more combat in '41. My only hesitation is that this change would attempt to force the Soviets to commit to some obvious mistakes (pockets) that were made by the Soviets however there would be no corresponding method to force the Axis to make the same foolish "mistakes" that were made in '44/45



Beethoven1 -> RE: T26 (9/3/2021 12:15:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gundam1985

The Red Army is weak in 1941, many Soviet player stop the game before T13.


This seems correct to me. It is definitely possible for the Soviets to collapse quickly in the early turns if the Axis player knows very well what they are doing and/or the Soviet player does not. In those cases, there have been games where the Soviets quickly surrender.

But if the Soviet player does know what they are doing and retreats and deploys units in a way that allows them to avoid excessive losses in the first few turns, it becomes very difficult for the Axis player to inflict historical Soviet losses if the Red Army is allowed in the early turns to reach a critical size/strength.

So the early turns are very high stakes and can have a substantial snowball effect. That is a major part of the overall balance issue, in my view.



AlbertN -> RE: T26 (9/3/2021 12:52:09 PM)

@SmokingDave

As I suggested, VPs and Economics.

Make resources valuable for Germany late war, they may want to cling to them as long as possible.

Granular VP diffusion makes fights for localized Cities a matter of 'prestige'.
Not just the BIG names of Cities.



IanW -> RE: T26 (9/3/2021 2:40:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Granular VP diffusion makes fights for localized Cities a matter of 'prestige'.
Not just the BIG names of Cities.


Not that that ever happened in the actual war.

No locations were ever declared as fortresses that could not be retreated from.

Nope. That never happened.

Neither were counter attacks ever ordered to relive said cities. Nope.



Zemke -> RE: T26 (9/28/2021 2:02:51 AM)

Is this AAR still in progress?



gundam1985 -> RE: T26 (9/28/2021 3:17:09 AM)

I'm allways ready, but RoadWarrior didn't show up since Sep 9.



Aurelian -> RE: T26 (9/28/2021 5:11:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

@Aurelian

It is not about 'forcing the Soviet to play the way I want'.



"That is why I was already trying to push for reasons to make the Soviets struggle and fight - VPs and not ensured Factory migrations."

Tells me otherwise. Ah well.



Aurelian -> RE: T26 (9/28/2021 5:27:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

@SmokingDave

As I suggested, VPs and Economics.

Make resources valuable for Germany late war, they may want to cling to them as long as possible.

Granular VP diffusion makes fights for localized Cities a matter of 'prestige'.
Not just the BIG names of Cities.


The resources in Ukraine that they fought to hold on to, well, they had no way to get them back to Germany. I would think denying the Soviets the bonus for retaking cities early would cover that anyway.



Nix77 -> RE: T26 (10/5/2021 12:34:20 PM)

Commenting a bit late here, and my WitE2 skill have become rusty for sure, so take my observations with a salt shaker full of salt...

To me it seems the GE player somehow missed the tempo in the middle, perhaps due to diverting panzers to north? Smolensk gates were reached on turn 5, but in December only 70-100 miles were gained past the city. Even though Land Bridge - Vyazma - Moscow is bad terrain, the GE player should (imo) force the SU defender to make desperate choices in that region, thus either creating openings for pockets, or steadily gaining ground.

On Soviet Reserves, 1M is quite a lot, but if the SU player is rotating rifle divisions, and preserving some units for future use the amount of men in the Reserve is going to be quite big. This is to some extent due to the forced 50% minimum MaxToE. One might have 20k-30k men in severely depleted AT units that are not receiving enough guns for quite a while, 50k-100k men in rotating/depleted artillery regiments etc. Disbanding units is an option to get those men on the field, but preserving experience and unit count is a reason to keep them in reserve.

I think in one of my AI games I opted to keep my Rifle Brigades in the reserve on 50% ToE so they wouldn't eat up manpower from the divisions. That brigade reserve alone amounted to 100k men in October '41. AI games are a different matter naturally, having the brigades on field could be a better option for HvH game, just to keep the counter density or CVs high enough in key areas.

Rotating rifle divisions may temporarily bump the reserves 100k-200k easily. Guards rifle divisions are best restored in the reserve, rather than in an active front area where supply might be scarce. Later on they can be deployed where needed for winter offensives, without using too much rail capacity.



deaniks -> RE: T26 (11/5/2021 12:33:22 AM)

Does anyone know what happened to road warrior? does anyone know if he's doing fine



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375