So medium-size cities have no effects on combat...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

So medium-size cities have no effects on combat...

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 >> So medium-size cities have no effects on combat...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/19/2011 9:35:58 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Find the city of Beltsy in the map. It has has population = 4, or 150,000-200,000 inhabitants. Now go to Google Maps and search for that city (it will find as Balti). It will show a reasonably large city, nowadays with 148,000 pop. So today's size and 1941's size shouldn't be too different, guess 1/2 in actual built area in 1941.

Now, as the game places it in clear terrain, it has zero effect on combat. Meanwhile, if I put some engineers in the middle of nowhere, they will get me a level 1 fortification in almost no time. The Germans seem to do that very quickly.

If I was infantry, I'd rather fight in Beltsy rather than in some trenches dug in open plains. Perhaps that's just me, but I still don't understand what's the point of having all those small/medium cities in the map, if they only seem to have some effect in the winter.

I can understand the argument of unprepared city not adding very much to defense on a 1-week scale (wooden buildings, cover 1/10th of the hex and such), but I'd expect at least that units would fortify faster in small/medium cities rather than in plain fields. Can cities get a fortification rate bonus based on their size, please?

Post #: 1

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/19/2011 9:43:21 PM

cookie monster

Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Find the city of Beltsy in the map. It has has population = 4, or 150,000-200,000 inhabitants. Now go to Google Maps and search for that city (it will find as Balti). It will show a reasonably large city, nowadays with 148,000 pop. So today's size and 1941's size shouldn't be too different, guess 1/2 in actual built area in 1941.

Now, as the game places it in clear terrain, it has zero effect on combat. Meanwhile, if I put some engineers in the middle of nowhere, they will get me a level 1 fortification in almost no time. The Germans seem to do that very quickly.

If I was infantry, I'd rather fight in Beltsy rather than in some trenches dug in open plains. Perhaps that's just me, but I still don't understand what's the point of having all those small/medium cities in the map, if they only seem to have some effect in the winter.

I can understand the argument of unprepared city not adding very much to defense on a 1-week scale (wooden buildings, cover 1/10th of the hex and such), but I'd expect at least that units would fortify faster in small/medium cities rather than in plain fields. Can cities get a fortification rate bonus based on their size, please?

Those so called pointless cities provide manpower...

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 2

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/19/2011 10:03:47 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Those so called pointless cities provide manpower...

Even as manpower they are pointless, as the Soviet player won't defend them for the manpower they have, and the German one won't capture for manpower either. Could just put all that manpower in the big cities and it would be pretty much the same. Also, there is a lot of size-0 cities with no manpower.

But, anyway, the point is that they don't affect combat. Bastgone had 10,000 inhabitants, but in WitE it would be less than a non-entity.

(in reply to cookie monster)

Post #: 3

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/19/2011 10:16:16 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs
less than a non-entity.

This reminds me of old Blackadder joke about a fate worse than a fate worse than death:

Oberleutnant von Gerhardt: Prepare for a fate worse than death, english flying fellow.
Blackadder: So, it�s a traditional warm german welcome?
Oberleutnant von Gerhardt: Also, he is saying do not try to escape, or you shall suffer even worse.
Blackadder: A fate worse than a fate worse than death. That�s pretty bad.

Otherwise I agree cities should be more important for defense, but there are so many of them German players would complain, they already complain about fort building ability being too strong/fast.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 4

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/19/2011 10:34:36 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Remember that the population is not just for the town itself, but all the surrounding countryside (for many hexes) as all population has been distributed to a city or town. So the town may look big now, but it may not have been all that much back then. With 10 mile hexes there are going to be some abstractions. Bastogne was important because all roads ran into it. I'm not sure that the town itself was the difficult terrain that caused a problem. The fighting wasn't even in Bastogne, but was in the countryside surrounding the city. I don't know for sure, but perhaps the hex that Bastogne is in would be considered something other than clear. We put towns on the map for several reasons:

1) have a place to put population points and possibly factories
2) add some color to the map
3) add towns of historical interest
4) provide waypoints for the AI

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 5

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/20/2011 5:30:05 AM

TargAK

Posts: 40
Joined: 4/5/2010
Status: offline

Can they be used for shelter in the winter?

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 6

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/20/2011 7:05:16 AM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

They provide some level of shelter, depending on the size.

(in reply to TargAK)

Post #: 7

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/20/2011 7:17:26 AM

Berkut

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Those so called pointless cities provide manpower...

Even as manpower they are pointless, as the Soviet player won't defend them for the manpower they have, and the German one won't capture for manpower either. Could just put all that manpower in the big cities and it would be pretty much the same. Also, there is a lot of size-0 cities with no manpower.

But, anyway, the point is that they don't affect combat. Bastgone had 10,000 inhabitants, but in WitE it would be less than a non-entity.

BUt Bastogne was a non-entity. The only reason it was important was its road network. The town itself was not particularly useful as a defensive position, nor was it used as such.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 8

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/20/2011 11:55:59 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

BUt Bastogne was a non-entity. The only reason it was important was its road network. The town itself was not particularly useful as a defensive position, nor was it used as such.

So you support the idea that cities ("towns" in the game) of up to 200,000 people should have no effects in combat?

On one hand, when the "town" becomes a "city" of 250,000, it gets a fort +2. So if a 250,000 city multiplies the defender's force by 3, it would be reasonable that smaller cities of some minimum size would have some effect too, say of fort +1. Or make the fortifications go up faster. Or make resupply go faster. Or decrease defender's losses in combat. Or make the combat ranges to be shorter. Or supply my partisans. Or something else. I just can't grasp the idea of level 4 cities being completely ignored for combat.

By the way, NATO's "checkerboard of hedgehogs" concept was, I understand, based on the idea of using anything viable as a hedgehogs - from 1,000-people villages to forests and so forth. I don't think they said "Nein-nein-nein! Dieser stadt has only 200,000 people!! Wurstchen! Small sausage! Wir will platz the panzerabwher kanonen only in BIG wurtz!".

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 9

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/20/2011 3:09:28 PM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

There are always "map edge" problems. A town of 199,999 is a dot vs the city with 200,001 people which gets the bonuses. Any cartographer, game designer, history teacher (who knows a student will complain that their "79" on a test is really close to an "80" and they should get a B) will tell you so.

Eventually adding many, many more levels of gradation might help get rid of such, but where to stop? Ask the panzer pusher who want just one more morale point to move better in enemy territory, or the soviet player who needs just one more CV point to make the .9/1 into a 1/1.

I understand your question, the problem is that arbitrary lines do have to be drawn in my opinion.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 10

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/20/2011 4:25:32 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

I agree with Pee Dee, there has to be some kind of limit, and 200.000 is as good as any other. And many of the smaller villages didn't have a large effect on combat. Giving them a defensive value would transform many areas of the map into forts with little historical justification.

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)

Post #: 11

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/21/2011 3:24:20 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I agree with Pee Dee, there has to be some kind of limit, and 200.000 is as good as any other. And many of the smaller villages didn't have a large effect on combat. Giving them a defensive value would transform many areas of the map into forts with little historical justification.

I don't disagree with your agreement. But then there are probably 10x more light wood hexes in the game, which already provide +1 fort, so I'm not sure that providing some little bonus to cities will make things all that different.

You see, I put myself in the shoes of the 49th Rifle Division: I say "Rats, no forest anywhere!!". I see a city with 200,000 population, several roads (every city has some roads) and some 1,000 buildings (between city and nearby farms) for my grunts to hide, but then I think: "Fbsovich, you idiot! That city provides no bonus of any kind! Wait, look there! There is a magical swamp that multiplies my defense's worth by 3! Comrades, For Stalin and the Motherland, everybody jump into the swamp!". Is that realistic?

I'm not saying to give +5 fort bonus on medium cities - just a little something like increased supply for HQ units if placed there, or better rolls for HQ units placed there, or increase fortification rate, or decrease losses on defense (without changing the CV results). If you give say +10% supply rate for units in cities (to reflect their road infrastructure), then they will become relevant as defensive positions without changing the game balance.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 12

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/21/2011 4:38:19 AM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

Wait, I am suspicious...how does FBSovich know exactly how many people are there and how many buildings? Hmmm, he knows too much at a glance...call in the NKVD.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 13

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/21/2011 5:52:26 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

A population 4 town is not a city with 200,000 population in the town. It represents a town with 200,000 people in the surrounding countryside, which could be as many as 10-15 hexes. The town itself may have 15,000 people or less as there are really towns and villages in every hex. My guess is that towns that had 200,000 actually in the town are probably at least cities in the game.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)

Post #: 14

RE: So medium-size cities have no effects on combat... - 3/21/2011 6:23:27 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

A population 4 town is not a city with 200,000 population in the town. It represents a town with 200,000 people in the surrounding countryside, which could be as many as 10-15 hexes. The town itself may have 15,000 people or less as there are really towns and villages in every hex. My guess is that towns that had 200,000 actually in the town are probably at least cities in the game.

Point taken. The population at Beltsy in 1939 was actually 31,000 according to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (not 70,000 as I estimated from the current population of 140,000). Still, that's about 5,000 homes (at 6 people per home), plus shops and factories. And a city of that size is a road hub for the nearby region, and has telephone links with the rear, plus stored supplies and whatnots.

It must have some sort of effect, even if only for HQs located on it, or for being more popular than digging trenches in a swamp...

< Message edited by fbs -- 3/21/2011 6:26:07 PM >

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 15