Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Couple of criticisms

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Couple of criticisms Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 9:05:19 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away.

I wouldn't have any problem with this, reserves are often controlled by higher level HQ's, it's normal.The problem is that you can attach hundreds of divisions directly to Stavka with no intermediate HQ's and still have a viable force.In peace time you might just about get away with this but in war time Stavka would be hopelessly overloaded and your entire army would become paralyzed.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 151
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 9:12:26 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.



[Trey.


Are those armies marching one hundred miles to engage the enemy? Nope. Are they are sitting in reserve ready to be released to a front? yes. Would they go into combat attached to Stavka, nope. Is it a case of just like Hitler in France Stalin was keeping them on a tight rein. As for the 7th I imagine if it was directly attached to Stavka and in a combat zone it was for very very specific reasons.

quote:

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.


I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?




(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 152
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 9:18:03 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

their loss in combat value has been nearly zero,


Well that is different to "no loss in combat value". Was there no increase in fatigue after their 100 mile march? It is usually 3-4 points per hex.

9.4.1. GROUND ELEMENT FATIGUE
Fatigue impacts the Combat Value of a ground element and this is reflected in the CV value
shown for a unit in the game. The CV of a ground element is reduced by 1/3 of the fatigue level.
Thus, an element that has a fatigue of 60 will have its basic CV value reduced by 20 percent
when calculating the CV of the unit. Fatigue also impacts movement point allowance (14.1.2).


This is my last attempt honestly, you guys have gamed for years, your all inteligent guys and can respect you even though we are at odds over this so bear with me I will try another angle to get my point across.

You guys kept ZOC that age old mechanic why did we not keep Overun that other age old mechanic?

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 153
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 9:18:40 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?

I suspect that it was because it was an isolated area defended by a single army, therefore no need for a front HQ.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 154
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 9:30:58 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?

I suspect that it was because it was an isolated area defended by a single army, therefore no need for a front HQ.



Yup the most likely reason

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 155
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 9:41:18 PM   
Senno

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

At least as Axis and vs AI you might be OK counter-shoving when the combat is freewheeling. But when you run into forts you will wish that you had maintained an orderly C&C to get Support Units in the form of pioneers attached to your Corps (at least) or Divisions.

This newest game I left 11th Army alone on their way to Sevastopol. First by XI Corps failed, due to lack of Pioneers. Fortunately I had II Rum Corps (lol) on hand with proper C&C established and they were able to reduce the forts of 2 hexes and kick out the Soviets. Rather embarrassing result for the Germans, lol. So, now Model has been promoted to 11th Army, Support units moved into 11th Army and on down to the rest of the Corps and next turn Sevstopol will fall. Perhaps I should allow II Rum the honors however? =P


Yup this is one of the good songs on the Album. 10/10 for support unit operation and how it dovetails with leadership. Now if there was a few more features as good you would be talking a classic


Well, maintaining the theme, I think I detect a slight "change of tune".




I have no difficulty complimenting the game on what it does well, it just does not do enough well to justify A/ The hype B/ The price. Like I have said before I was Beta in a few game before so I understand a bit about the process and the personality. Alot of people invest time and effort into making a game the best they can, they dont try and do a bad job so they can be understantibly a bit defensive. Now Ive seen a few things right and wrong with the game and pointed that out in equal measure but sometimes critcism does more harm than good and I have hit this wall before and got the same deaf ears so there comes a point were banging on is pointless as you have generated antipathy. I hope people can step back and think this stuff through because in beta I have seen these sort of problems before and it is not good.


I am trying to be light hearted and not develop any antipathy. But from my reading you have gone from "HQ's are are no value" to a more moderated message. So, perhaps your message isn't as clear as you think it is, and my reading of what you are saying probably isn't perfect as well.

Anyway, I'm off to a Doctor's appt. so I shall have to leave this here for now.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 156
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 9:51:41 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		Yep. I apologize as I only read the first half of your response before I replied. However, I was just answering your disbelief that armies were attached to Stavka and be in combat at the same time so I guess I don't understand what your issue is since you seem to accept that. I'll have to go back and re-read your issue as I thought your problem was that combat units attached to STAVKA should have no combat effectiveness.


Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.



[Trey.


Are those armies marching one hundred miles to engage the enemy? Nope. Are they are sitting in reserve ready to be released to a front? yes. Would they go into combat attached to Stavka, nope. Is it a case of just like Hitler in France Stalin was keeping them on a tight rein. As for the 7th I imagine if it was directly attached to Stavka and in a combat zone it was for very very specific reasons.

quote:

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.


I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?







_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 157
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 10:01:34 PM   
Senno

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away.

I wouldn't have any problem with this, reserves are often controlled by higher level HQ's, it's normal.The problem is that you can attach hundreds of divisions directly to Stavka with no intermediate HQ's and still have a viable force.In peace time you might just about get away with this but in war time Stavka would be hopelessly overloaded and your entire army would become paralyzed.



Ahh, time for one last question. From my reading "Stavka" is laregely a misnomer for Stalin, and directives from "Stavka to HQ", is likely direct contact between Zhukov and Stalin, or Rohkovvisblah and whatever other Stavka member was in the area and gave a new order. Stavka the game counter is in Moscow most likely, but in reality Stavka representatives were out and about. So with the simplified command structure, doesn't that help and simplify person to person directives, and lessen the impact of Staff work done at various HQ's which could bog down in layers of HQ staffs and whatever?

Basically, it seems to me that the simplified command structure makes it more likely for Stavka to be overloaded (you will still fail many many admin roles though) and feel that you are being successful. But when you need those Support units at a specific place and time, well they might just not arrive, and your limited counter-attack remains just that, it doesn't develope into any kind of counter-offensive. There is a price to be paid ultimately, seems to me.


(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 158
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 10:10:02 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Yep. I apologize as I only read the first half of your response before I replied. However, I was just answering your disbelief that armies were attached to Stavka and be in combat at the same time so I guess I don't understand what your issue is since you seem to accept that. I'll have to go back and re-read your issue as I thought your problem was that combat units attached to STAVKA should have no combat effectiveness.


Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.



[Trey.


Are those armies marching one hundred miles to engage the enemy? Nope. Are they are sitting in reserve ready to be released to a front? yes. Would they go into combat attached to Stavka, nope. Is it a case of just like Hitler in France Stalin was keeping them on a tight rein. As for the 7th I imagine if it was directly attached to Stavka and in a combat zone it was for very very specific reasons.

quote:

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.


I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?








At Kursk and at other big offensives Stalin would have kept a tight rein on reserves those units would have had a combat effectivness sure but to embark on operations they would have attached to a front it was a bit like Hitler freeing the Panzer Reserves at Normandy. Most other units, like exist in our game attached to Stavka/OKH/SHAEF would be be resting, refitting, in billets all over the place, training etc and nowhere near ready for combat. Once activated for operation they would come together and be a cohesive unit. But to do that they would invariably come under the revelant front HQ.


(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 159
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 10:25:07 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		Okay. I see what you're saying and it does make sense that combat units would be assigned to a tactical headquarters while commited to combat for guidance and direction. I just don't know what kind of change you could implement and would it be worth it to implement? You already have a CV loss for units in different HQs participating in an attack and there is a clear case of a defending army attached directly to STAVKA (several hundreds of miles away) which didn't affect its performance.

Trey

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 160
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 10:55:05 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Okay. I see what you're saying and it does make sense that combat units would be assigned to a tactical headquarters while commited to combat for guidance and direction. I just don't know what kind of change you could implement and would it be worth it to implement? You already have a CV loss for units in different HQs participating in an attack and there is a clear case of a defending army attached directly to STAVKA (several hundreds of miles away) which didn't affect its performance.

Trey


Your getting close but not quite there yet, these "Stavka/OKH" units have their full movement allowance as well, these units in reserve like at Kursk were there for a specific purpose they would not have the facilities be able to head to Stalino on their own steam on a whim except by rail.

< Message edited by Smirfy -- 1/27/2011 10:56:14 PM >

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 161
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 11:30:01 PM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		Well gameplay-wise the individual army commanders may have more influence than STAVKA in your case.
They get to "roll the dice" first.  STAVKA only matters if the Army commanders fail. 
How do you propose to change this game mechanic and how will it affect the Axis as this game mechanic is crucial for them to do their blitz with limited forces?


_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 162
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/27/2011 11:56:19 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		I just don't see how units attached to OKH/STAVKA wouldn't get their full supplies, ammo, and fuel necessary to move and conduct operations. If anything, the fact that these units are attached to STAVKA and OKH as the designated high command reserve would give them priority over all other units for supplies. Its not like these units have to draw their rations, fuel, and ammo directly from Berlin and Moscow. They would be drawn locally from whatever resources were available at this level of command. Now, I could see combat units attached to Corps and Armies that were outside of the command radius having problems being resupplied. What about the 5th Panzer Army in Normandy that was assigned directly to OKH right before th invasion. Was it combat ineffective because its fuel trucks had to drive all the way to Berlin? Instead, is it more reasonable to think that only OKH could order 5th Panzer Army but yet it was drawing supplies alongside all the other units in Normany?

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Okay. I see what you're saying and it does make sense that combat units would be assigned to a tactical headquarters while commited to combat for guidance and direction. I just don't know what kind of change you could implement and would it be worth it to implement? You already have a CV loss for units in different HQs participating in an attack and there is a clear case of a defending army attached directly to STAVKA (several hundreds of miles away) which didn't affect its performance.

Trey


Your getting close but not quite there yet, these "Stavka/OKH" units have their full movement allowance as well, these units in reserve like at Kursk were there for a specific purpose they would not have the facilities be able to head to Stalino on their own steam on a whim except by rail.



_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 163
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/28/2011 1:08:13 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

Nope Hitler could not decide were the attack would land so he created Panzer Group West which on paper reported to OB West but had to be activated by Hitler himself. This convoluted setup came about because of the famous dispute between Rommel and Everyone else about the deployment of Armour. When the invaision came the commander of the 21 Pz (Feuchtinger) did not no whether he was commanded by 84th Korps, 47 PZ Korps, Pz Group West so he waited for orders from Army Group B. Geyr the commander of Panzer group west could not activate his command until Rundstedt got permission from OKW. When Jodl at OKW finally gave permission at 4pm to release forces 12SS and Lehr were placed under the command of 7th Army which was part of army Group B. 12 SS attack on the 7th was delayed because the nessecary petrol was not available. When Pz group HQ west arrived (incidently not 230 miles away :D) It took charge all under army Group B (Rommel) 7th fought the Americans and PZ West took over the British sector as units were released they joined one or the other. Pz Grp West changed name to 5th Pz. So basically when a High command interferes in operation there is chaos thats why they leave it to the HQs. These Reserve formations might be sitting on depots of supply but they are in reserve for a purpose so as they dont expend resources like Front, units niether are they at 100% readiness they also cant take those supplies with them because their deports are usually at place easy to supply like railheads. Next you have the chain of command to actually get them to move. Then you need supply dumps in place at their destination. Nope High command units should have no flexibilty at all sure they should have a lower CC and use less supply but no way should they be performing like they do in game.


(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 164
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/29/2011 11:38:48 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
I'm following an AAR presently and one thing I motice is one player has created over 100 fortified regions attached to OKH. OKH must have alot of spare staff officers I aint heard about.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 165
RE: Couple of criticisms - 1/29/2011 11:47:13 AM   
karonagames


Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline 		If a player wants to spend 400 APs on fortified zones, that is his choice. It is 400 less points he will have available to re-organise his army with and to be able to transfer better leaders to head up counter attacks etc., so there could well be occasions when he won't have the "staff officers" he wants because they are sitting in fortified zones.

APs are a multi-purpose abstract resource that needs to be managed the same as any other resource in the game. They represent different things for each side, but they are very clever design feature, IMHO.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 166
RE: Couple of criticisms - 2/2/2011 12:24:03 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Sorry to dig this one up again, I notice an AAR that has generated alot of lively debate about combat the player has 70 Russian units in various sections of the front that are just attached to Stavka and is doing pretty well.

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 167
RE: Couple of criticisms - 2/2/2011 12:35:02 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		In fact there are in game bonuses (refit) and penalties (combat) of being attached to high command. It could be those are not sufficient, but all instruments like leader rolls and command penalties are already in the game. In general only some Independent Army should be on the frontline under STAVKA. Probably some extra command penalty is required.

I'll take a look what could be done.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 168
RE: Couple of criticisms - 2/2/2011 12:53:46 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

In fact there are in game bonuses (refit) and penalties (combat) of being attached to high command. It could be those are not sufficient, but all instruments like leader rolls and command penalties are already in the game. In general only some Independent Army should be on the frontline under STAVKA. Probably some extra command penalty is required.

I'll take a look what could be done.


Good job

If you look at Notenome v CP AAR you will see the scale of the problem

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 169
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Couple of criticisms Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.969