Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

If you can't prevent at most 6 mobile units from moving 11-12 hexes through terrain like that, there's something seriously wrong with your defensive strategy.

quote:

The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality.

quote:

The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Redmark -

Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem.

Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect.

Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws?

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Gents - you are all missing the point. Nobody has complained when units drive 20 hexes in a turn across the Ukraine.

The issue here is the ACTUAL terrain that exists E and NE of Leningrad in the REAL WORLD. Even with zero opposition, the idea of moving multiple armoured and mech divisions against the grain of the few roads that exist in this region is ludicrous.

I'm still waiting to hear a comment from an ex-military player on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality.

Are you being serious?

The reason the area was poorly defended was that you defended it poorly.

I can understand your embarrassment at allowing your defences to be so poor as to allow the breakthrough, but to cast the blame at everything other than yourself is ludicrous.

You made a mistake - learn from it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmauser

I'll bite.

When I was enlisted I did dismounted reconnaissance in all kinds of terrain. Used the Leather Personnel Carrier MK I.

As an officer in an Armored Cavalry Squadron I trained in terrain from hill country Kentucky/Colorado to that god forsaken place known as Fort Irwin CA. To varying degrees we used M48 A5's, M60 A3's M1A1 Abrams, M113's, ITV's, Bradley Fighting vehicles, Gama Goats, Deuce-and-a-halfs, Hummers, jeeps and an occassional military pickup. You would be surprised where you can take a good tracked or all terrain vehicle. To me the limits were where you could route your supply trains since AFV's need POL/maintenance and troopies need beans, bullets and batteries.

In the end that proves nothing since none of us know what it was like to manuever in one of those old rigs. You have the limits of the movement system and that is all you have to work with. Perhaps you can use the editor and mark any number of hexes as impassable to satisfy your need for terrain constraints?

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect.

Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect.

Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws?

First off, that's pretty condenscending to indicate this and is not really called for. I've spent over 2 years of my life working on this project as a tester as have many others and have spent upwards of 16 hours a day doing it. I've been testing games for 12 years and have to say this has been the best bunch of testers I have ever worked with..including Pieter (haha). That's not saying though that we have always agreed. Far from it. Some testers get pretty emotional or vocal about various aspects of the game, but in the end we usually come to a consensus even though we may still disagree.

So is the game perfect, of course not, and there isn't a tester or developer that would claim this, but IMO it is the best that is out there and hopefully will get better as we go along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Historically - terrain isn't as much as an obstacle & can be more easily overcome than defended terrain. If you didn't defend properly, it isn't the game's fault.

The allies "assumed" the Ardennes were impassible & failed to defend the area adequately twice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The ongoing cost in the game is that the supply lines to that area will indeed be very long, so supplying forces for long over that bad terrain with no rail going that way would put the attacker at a big disadvantage for ongoing operations. Of course, there has to be a defending force to take advantage of this. It's got to be 50MP from Staraya Russa to the tip of the attack point. I can't imagine much supply is getting through. On the other hand, the one thing I have concluded previously (several weeks ago when I was playing several short scenarios) that this game could reinforce is that we have to be careful how many generic vehicles we make available in limited map scenarios because the longer term cost of vehicles lost due to HQ buildups will not come through in a shorter scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem.

Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass.

quote:

Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect.

quote:

We all honor the testers, but that doesn't mean that every word you speak is gospel.

quote:

Maybe the embarrassment factor plays both ways? When one looks at the number of fixes already released (all credit to the Devs for their speed) and the long list of fixes still awaited, there are some real questions here.

quote:

Is it possible that there is an over-reaction on the part of the testers to any criticism of the game? Is that potentially going to slow the process of fixing it?

quote:

Also, take note that a number of people have the same complaints. Are they all jerks, or is that only me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

Not that I agree with everything the OP says on this thread, I've always felt that MP cost to armour is not quite high enough in heavy woods and swamp within the game. It's not like they're massively off - adding a couple of MP cost to heavy woods, and maybe four to swamp would do it I would have thought.  

The argument that there are always tracks, roads, paths etc, I dont think applies to swathes of the Russian wilderness. As our Swedish friend attests, this stuff is thick.

Hurtgen is a better comparison than the Ardennes. The Ardennes is a populated area of Western European villages and towns, roads and paths. Hurtgen is a thick, generally uninhabited forrest, with just the odd trail. Armour was unsuited to the Ardennes, but feasible. At Hurtgen it was practically impossible, hence the infantry vs infantry bloodbath. I believe armour was comitted during later stages at Hurtgen, but only after engineer blasted paths, etc.

Out of interest, are the testers unanimous that the MP costs for swamp and heavy forrest should be tweaked upwards at least a little?  

Absolutely correct, IMO.

The key word you use is 'wilderness'. I was thinking about this as well. The map and MP rules make no distinction between populated areas and wilderness areas. There should probably be different hex types, but the absence of roads on the map, particularly during summer, compounds the problem.

Roads + a 'Wilderness' hex type would eliminate most of the issues and make the game a lot more realistic for those interested in the actual historical challenges that faced both sides.

To make it really authentic, a player should be able to spend AP to change a hex type (e.g. Light Woods with no roads could be changed to Clear with dirt roads). A huge amount of effort went into building roads up to the front (notably the Soviet log roads in the north and through the Pripyat in 1944) and roads were a critical facet of operations for both sides.

In reality:

1. You can't move troops and supply them through most of the rough terrain shown on the map without building roads.

2. Roads take weeks or months to construct.

3. After turn 2-3 the kind of lightening moves observed in the game were generally not possible, even in weakly defended sectors, except when conducted across wide areas of open country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem.

Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass.

Wow, I really disagree. I also served as an armor officer in Germany and in Desert Storm, and to compare your average Russian forest to the Ardennes, the "impassable" forests of Germany, or Iraq is just not right. Morever, we are not talking about where a tank can go, but whether the horse-drawn and truck logistics tail can follow.

As previously mentioned, I found some topo maps of this part of Russia, although they are from later than I thought, namely the late eighties: http://mapo36.narod.ru/map2/indext.html

Look, for instance, at maps 0-36-XV through 0-36-XIII, which show some of the areas that we are discussing. A glance at the maps will show that:
1)at least in the eighties, there seems to be some roads, but whether they existed at all in 1941, and if so, whether they could support several mechanized corp and the logistic tail moving through, is subject to doubt; and

2) the terrain basically consists of forest, bogs, and lakes; if not "tank-proof" probably awfully close. Look, for instance, at the lower half of map 0-36-XVII. No meaningful roads there. And to the extent that single roads existed, they could be easily blocked by simple log barriers and rifle squads armed with molotov cocktails. Knock out the lead tank, and the rest of the column comes to a halt, at least temporarily.

In my opinion, the mobility the Germans have in this region--panzers basically swooping through at will--is wildly unrealistic, and it has very significant game play consequences because it makes it much harder to defend Lgrad by forcing the defender to spread out his already thin troops.

I don't mean this as an overly harsh criticism of the game--I would hardly expect them to do an exacting survey of every ten mile hex depicted on the map--but I believe that in this area the "abstraction" should be revisited, and most of this area should be heavy forest and/or swamp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

Also, take note that a number of people have the same complaints. Are they all jerks, or is that only me?

Please show me where I used the word "jerk".

I just find it so disappointing, that someone who has done such great work to help the community, with your great work on the maps, and organising the team games and tournaments, should throw your toys out of the pram so dramatically, when there are clearly other areas of the game that need a lot more attention.

Could the terrain/supply model be improved? Of course, but so could 101 other things, all of which are on the developers agenda, and will be dealt with when and if they feel it is appropriate.

Until such time as the changes of made, we play by the current rules, and use the resources we are given within those rules. If it was just the rules that caused your distress, then I think most people would be more sympathetic to your case, but if you are not willing to admit that your use of the available resources is not partially to blame, then that is your problem, and not the game's, and calling every technique you disagree with "gamey", is also not going to help make your case any stronger.