RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941

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: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/22/2011 10:07:27 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

Russian command and control are way over rated in this game.

You can still win the game come 42, mybee?

Its worth playing into late 42 atleast heliodorus04

Heheheh just think 1.05 evened the playing field, you should have tried playing German side before then. You won the game by 42 or the russian was rolling into Berlin in late 43 to early 44 and it did not matter if you to Moscow or not.

Tarrunhas vs grids. He still has to hang on for 100 turns, no way he can his army has fallen appart.

I still see games ending in late 44 to early 45, even if The german player takes Leningrad/Moscow to Rostov during 41 and has an ok 42 summer. In my game vs M60 I have taken all the major city's and he still has 5 million men December 1st.

Moscow means zero the same as the rest of the citys.

There needs to be a morale hit for some citys and the CC of the Red army needs a major nerf bat hit.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/22/2011 10:15:21 PM >

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 301

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/22/2011 10:19:30 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

Flaviusx makes a very good point.

AGS needs more Panzers. If you had them you be way farther east.

I like to say you are kinda new to playing the German side, but you done good.

I think you need atleast 4 or 5 41-45 games before you start to get the hang of it.

One huge plus you have like MT Katza and some others is you have played both sides.

The game is not perfect, but better then anything esle out there for sure by allot.

2 by 3 will get it right, but its going to be another 6 to 12 months.

Pelton

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 302

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/22/2011 11:59:02 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

B) The free divisions are sure to come back (as in my game here) when they are exactly the most needed (turns 15 through 25).

This is where you're wrong, as you can as the Axis decide when to make pockets. There's nothing stopping you from trying to create big pockets in September, as opposed to trying to create as many pockets as possible early on. At least some of those divisions you just pocketed and destroyed, for example, will either have worthless morale/experience during the blizzard or won't be there to begin with.

Two counters:
1. It is only a viable game option to create pockets later because the divisions come back for free, incentivizing a-historical warfare (let alone Russian Front simulation) in not isolating units as soon as you have the opportunity. This is an extreme problem of realism with the gameplay that nobody really bemoans.

2. The Soviet often denies me the ability to create pockets, so I'm not sure how I have complete freedom here, as you seem to imply. See my pockets at Kharkov the last two turns, and Valdai two turns ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

To which Soviet players will say "But we have so few APs to create SUs and forts" to which I reply: Germany also has to be conscientious of how it saves and spends APs, whether it's transferring SUs from HQs into units (something Soviets don't get until corps combat units), using HQ Buildup, or replacing some of the bad leaders in infantry armies with better ones. But we can never spend them on new SUs or units...

You're seriously underestimating the AP costs that would be associated with recreating all the divisions that were lost. If I had to pay AP's, there's a good chance a lot of the divisions would never be recreated as the Soviets have a surplus in any case.

While I realize the AP cost would be prohibitive (and would require a re-balancing of how many APs the Soviet gets and how much it pays in 1941 to create units), I would rather have an engine where nothing happens for free, even if it meant giving the Soviet more APs to create them. When the Soviet player pays for them, then he's actively controlling his game (and there is a chance he will make mistakes, as well as a chance he stumbles on a better grand strategy somehow in excellent budgeting). When the game hands him something for free, it's baby-sitting him no matter how he plays.

Furthermore, your last quoted sentence above "If I had to pay AP's, there's a good chance a lot of the divisions would never be recreated as the Soviets have a surplus in any case." appears to reinforce my larger point: the Soviets don't need these units for free because they already have a surplus of counters. With a surplus of counters on the map (a game condition that Germany will never know), all you need to slow the German down with a NATO 1986 defense are counters with 1 body in them.

My point with these two issues is that, after the summer I have had, there should be a turn or two of nearly empty "holy **** where did all the Russians go". But because all these units from Turns 1-5 for free, the success that I achieved was obviated by the failsafe of free Soviet counters. The game mechanic snatched the consequence my victory should have helped with (in terms of recreating the geographic advance of the Axis in 1941) from me more than CF's play did, and that's a gameplay point that is fundamentally wrong.

It's not that I think I should be able to win in 1941 (or 42 for that matterr!): I think I did well enough that the Soviet needed to do what he did historically: trade land wholesale for time because they knew that creating a defensive line too close to the German breakthrough would result in more wholesale envelopments. And CF should have had to make strategic decisions about what ground he was going to retreat from (Voronezh? Stalino? Kharkov?). With a 1986 NATO elastic defense, you don't need a solid line, so you don't have to give up ground.

Because he didn't have to give up ground, I will not take armaments, nor will I take manpower centers that would, should they be captured and/or damaged, make a large difference in my ability to hold out until 1945 (I am not advocating that I should be able to capture the centers for an auto-win).

Now, for those who (correctly, and I don't mean any of this at ComradeP specifically) note that I don't have "enough" armor in the south, let's keep our arguments cohesive: Is my performance at Moscow a result of the game engine being FUBAR (rail distance bug notwithstanding), or is it a factor of my allocation of resources fostering my success? AGC used all of its armor in its own sector (minus 1 corps for Leningrad)? Leningrad applies here as well: is my taking of Leningrad a factor of the engine showing Axis favoritism, or is it a factor of my allocation of resources to finish the job at hand (and the logistics map which make Leningrad the easiest objective to take in the first 17 turns)?

The reason there are fewer panzers in the south than historical is because I committed resources for Leningrad and Moscow. So don't slight my success at Moscow and Leningrad as being the result of the engine's Axis favoritism if you're going to turn around and slight my performance in the south as operator error. I think that's too duplicitious a stance.

Germany has enough resources to prioritize 2 of the 3 regions. My prioritization of Moscow may even not be enough (even factoring in the rail distance bug which was entirely in my favor). I'm not complaining about Moscow (I don't think) because it is what it is: It's a hard damn place to take, one expects the fiercest Soviet resistance here, and we've seen Germany trying its hardest to win set-piece battles against organized defensive lines: It all looks the way you'd want a 1941 Moscow attack to go: tooth and nail.

I'm complaining about the Nato 1986 defense being too successful for too few tradeoffs (and legitimizing my complaints with appeals to its a-historic nature, which does not make me a history buff).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

Cheap transfer of units between armies and fronts immediately blunts the effects of chaos made by Germany's surprise attack.

Not necessarily. The individual units are still weak, the HQ's would need to be available and personally I consider it to be a waste of AP's to reassign units like you describe. The gains are not really worth it in most cases.

First, in your counter-argument, you allow room for my argument's validity with the terms "not necessarily" (implying sometimes it can be so) and "The gains are not really worth it in most cases." (implying in some, it is).

Etymological gotchas aside, if you agree that there's room for significance here, then by over-ruling its possibility you are closing the door to gameplay strategies. I believe that the comparatively high cost of division transfers that the Germans experience (for no good reason, I assert) deny the German the ability to conduct meaningful operational offensives. This is not to even mention the game artifices that screw most of AGS with over-burdened commands that likewise artificially limit German play strategies.

I have a problem with how much it costs Germany to transfer divisions, and my attempts to whittle away at the Soviets by comparison isn't as important to me as making it cheaper for Germany to have operational flexibility, which was more doctrinally consistent with the way it organized, trained, and fought than this 1986 Nato crap.

If I could easily move divisions in THIS game from 2.Panzer group into 4.Army, and vice versa, or possibly even whole corps if it made more sense (and it does for 4.Army, which is well rested in this game), I could rotate out my worn-out divisions and continue the offensive. That is denied me by an artifice that, in my opinion (and perhaps my lack of reading Glanz et al undermines my arguments here again), is reversed from how it should be: Germany should have the flexibility that the Soviet does (and if it had it, I wouldn't care so much that the Soviets also have it).

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 303

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/23/2011 3:20:34 AM

krupp_88mm

Posts: 406
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline

The game is an abstraction, alot could be improved, but the real problem with the balancing of the game is that both sides playing eachother (if they are experienced at the game) already know the optimal strategies to play. And know about what their opponent will do if hes good. When trying to balance a historical wargame the outcome has to be ahistorical or the inputs have to be ahistorical. Because if in reality the Germans and Russians had both been appraised fully of the situation and watched the battle play out in the past multiple times at the start of Barbarossa, then the Germans wouldn't have gotten half the distance. The attackers greatest advantage is surprise and the defenders greatest advantage is forewarning, so you can see how quickly the game is completely smacked out of whack especially when the capabilities of units are hardcoded and you can 'count' the distance and know with precision the result of any action especially movement or battle results ect.

Every game that has an experienced german and russian player should end (in my opinion) with the germans stuck at kiev in 1942 if it were to be based on historically accurate gameplay and omnipotent commanders. The real question is do you want historical outcome? or historical rule sets because they are different things?.

The only way you could play with historical rule sets and still have a historically balanced match, is if the front lines and OOB's are randomized for each game by an algorithm so neither side knows the others strength technical power, battle plan, men dispositions ect, except maybe the attacker has a advantage in preparation and surprise in some areas and of course both know the preceding history of events to the current scenario. So what im saying the only way to get a fair game in historically accurate rule terms would be a AND chance and simulation are also oxymorons... (also we could have a long discussion about dice and nuclear decay and probability of electrons but thats for another time to discuss about the theory of relativity being imperfect.) and this is a historical game, well the end result from the thought exercise is a historically accurate replay of a war controlled by Omnipotent outside forces is an oxymoron and an impossibility because history only happens once.

edit*
When i type stuff like this i know its a sure sign i missed my medication dosage again.

< Message edited by krupp_88mm -- 11/23/2011 3:38:11 AM >

_____________________________

Decisive Campaigns Case Pony

RRRH-Sr Mod Graphix ed V2: http://www.mediafire.com/?dt2wf7fc273zq5k

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 304

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/23/2011 3:48:07 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

If you concede that you don't have enough mobile resources in the south, then everything else you're saying is quite moot.

The defense of the south is not amazing. It isn't even optimal. It's actually giving up more than it ought to given what you have down there. He can go with a more linear defense as a result of the lack of Axis mobile units. Would you feel better if he did? I doubt it. You'd be no less stymied.

All this stuff about NATO 1986 defense and whatever is just completely missing the point. You seem determined to find fault with the game rather than mastering it.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to krupp_88mm)

Post #: 305

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/23/2011 4:41:20 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you concede that you don't have enough mobile resources in the south, then everything else you're saying is quite moot.

The defense of the south is not amazing. It isn't even optimal. It's actually giving up more than it ought to given what you have down there. He can go with a more linear defense as a result of the lack of Axis mobile units. Would you feel better if he did? I doubt it. You'd be no less stymied.

All this stuff about NATO 1986 defense and whatever is just completely missing the point. You seem determined to find fault with the game rather than mastering it.

Why is it moot? I've given you a quite reasoned analysis, and I'm supposed to concede it's moot because you say so? WHICH SPECIFIC points of mine do you care to refute, and with what evidence. You can clearly see mine, but you're not engaged with it.

I can't have discussions with you because you can't agree as to the facts. If we don't agree on facts, we can't begin an attempt to persuade one another.

I'm not trying to find fault with the game. I'm telling you what a key fault right now is: The game baby-sits the Soviet player in a manner that punishes Germany in multiple ways, depriving the game of depth, and depriving German players of gameplay options. One sentence...

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 306

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/23/2011 4:58:18 AM

M60A3TTS

Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

I'm curious, since you deem it unfair for the Soviets to get the divisions replaced free through October, what would you see as fair or appropriate?

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 307

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/23/2011 7:49:42 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

I'm curious, since you deem it unfair for the Soviets to get the divisions replaced free through October, what would you see as fair or appropriate?

I think for the game's dynamism, and to make things as easy as possible on the programmers, it's time to assign one of two constrictions to the free units.

1) Do not assign a cost to the lost divisions; allow them to return for free as currently. But when they arrive, they get assigned to the closest Army/Corps HQ to their arrival point. (Simulate the chaos of 'throwing units at the front' because that's essentially what free units allows the Soviet to do)

2) Assign a cost to creating the lost divisions. The lost divisions could either be cheaper than creating a brand new division (i.e., avoids the 1941 penalties) or the whole process of creating units could be simplified, with the creation of divisions in early 1941 (and fortified zones) being the same as 1942 et al.

I definitely prefer 2. I think the way WitE gives free divisions to the Soviet promotes lazy play by the Soviet community. And I think it's time to stop seeing the 1941 unit creation AP-cost penalty as sufficient in context to what we now know about Soviet strategic chokepoints in 1941.

In lieu of these, if it's simpler (which I doubt), one could scale back Soviet APs, and it would be very justifiable to give them different amounts at different times (and likewise for Germany - more in summer 41, less in mud through blizzard, etc.), but these kinds of long-reach changes are usually avoided by Matrix (see: Sudden Death Victory Conditions), and I understand why - the playtesting would be arduous.

The combat mechanic solutions I favor just aren't programmable. I'd want to see either/and/or a penalty in defending when one doesn't have a unit adjacent/bonus for having a friendly defender adjacent, or hasty attacks allowed from adjacent hexsides into one target hex. These would create better disincentives to the shell-ZOC defense (in the case of the former) and would help obviate the ridiculous ZOC movement penalties one suffers trying to move through the Nato defense shells (which helps minimize the diffusion of movement energy that is the real hallmark of the Nato 1986). Shell units should be shattered at a very high percentage if attacked by motorized forces (i.e., an over-run effect of some type), and/or attacks against shells could be less expensive (or retro-actively free if the combat power differential/leadership success is sufficient).

Separately, I want German divisions to be able to move from commands cheaply within army groups and on par with the cost a Soviet unit would pay to switch command: 5 should be the maximum cost prior to leadership rolls. 2 should be the average. I've made my arguments why I believe this is historically justifiable and an easy win for game balancing.

I don't believe this change will upset the balance of power in the game, but I do believe it opens new avenues for German players to pursue in affecting the long-term growth of the Soviet army, and more directly control the degradation of the German army. It increases the efficiency of the German army over the essential 1941/1942 time period, which is desperately needed so that German players aren't so badly handcuffed by Soviet mechanics they'll never have access to (like creating your own units, SUs, HQs, etc. while having 100 divisions come back for free attached to Stavka)

Also separately, since the OKH/Stavka free-transfer of SUs is the preferred method to move SUs around, and it is a tedious exercise in moving around an HQ in completely unrealistic ways (it is essentially an exercise in fighting the interface to do something it should already do), it's time to abandon the AP-sink of moving SUs around (for both sides).

Any SU should be able to move up or down 1 level within its immediate chain of command for free, per turn. Stavka SUs could get to armies in 2 turns, Army group SUs could get to corps in 3 turns. If you wanted it done "now" (i.e., you assign from Stavka/OKH to a corps-unit/division immediately) you could still spend the AP to move it anywhere (from one front to an army in a separate front) immediately. Make the command chain meaningful and give benefit to those who know how to organize well...wait... the benefit would only apply to a German who knows how to organize well: If a Soviet isn't well organized, he has the option to create any SU at any HQ for 1 point at any time. Another failsafe I hadn't identified before...

You guys honestly don't see how many redundant failsafes the Soviets get?

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 11/23/2011 7:54:23 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to M60A3TTS)

Post #: 308

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/23/2011 11:53:26 AM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Two counters:
1. It is only a viable game option to create pockets later because the divisions come back for free, incentivizing a-historical warfare (let alone Russian Front simulation) in not isolating units as soon as you have the opportunity. This is an extreme problem of realism with the gameplay that nobody really bemoans.

2. The Soviet often denies me the ability to create pockets, so I'm not sure how I have complete freedom here, as you seem to imply. See my pockets at Kharkov the last two turns, and Valdai two turns ago.

Late summer campaign season pockets are not ahistorical, both the pockets in the AGS area and the ones west of Moscow happened late in the season. In game terms, many of those divisions would not be ready for combat at the time when they're most needed (which is basically early on in the blizzard, where they can contribute the most).

As to the Soviets denying you pockets: this is one area where you're dead wrong. You're denying yourself pockets. With a dozen or so 50 MP mobile units, you would cut through those defences like Cannonfodder wouldn't believe. It's not the game's fault that you have little to no mobility in the south, or that almost no one actually rests their mobile units for a turn or two so they can get back to 50 MP's. That's the player's fault. Blaming the game is just trying to find an excuse for the downsides of your own strategic decisions in that case.

quote:

I would rather have an engine where nothing happens for free

So support units moving up the chain of command should not be free, and units that arrive attached to OKH should not be able to reassign anywhere for free either? You're mostly talking about the Soviets here, but you need to make a consistent point. Either no side gets anything for free, or both sides get some things for free.

quote:

Germany has enough resources to prioritize 2 of the 3 regions.

Actually, the Axis have enough resources to make good advances in all parts of the front, the thing you're missing is that the game doesn't force you to commit forces anywhere. It's all your own choice. YOU chose to fight near Moscow and prioritize the capture of Leningrad. YOU chose to keep a minimum of mobile units in AGS. You've fallen into the trap that almost every Axis player still falls into from time to time: commit to a more or less set piece battle with a clear target, in this case the capture of Moscow. That removes a large part of your initiative, the benefit of surprise and also a part of your unit's strength as the enemy can offer a determined defence.

quote:

You guys honestly don't see how many redundant failsafes the Soviets get?

We see the things you mention, we just disagree with what you imply, namely that they're game breaking flaws and that the Axis don't have a single comparable advantage (you haven't really commented on any of the ahistorical Axis advantages yet, which is telling in a way).

Stop blaming the game for the things you do, as if a magic hand forces you to. Stating that the rewards for doing X are greater than the reward for doing Y is one thing, but you're essentially blaming the game for you not having enough mobile units in the south to wreck that checkerboard defence.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 309

Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:30:12 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Getting back to the game at hand, and tabling debate for now (more or less):

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 11/23/2011 2:31:20 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 310

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:32:16 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

After I conduct recon and look at the general state of aircraft on the commander�s report, I conduct the minimalist attacks on pockets. Leningrad was one giant battle with air support, and the city fell. I�m trying to do some relaxation exercises to guide my attitude back to neutral, and whereas I think I�m doing poorly at taking important manpower centers in the south, I have (without consciously intending to) conducted a good �North-first� campaign that might see the fall of Moscow before the blizzard arrives (but it�s unlikely). More on that later.

I ensured I had the resources to take Leningrad without too much struggle. It�s going to cost me 20 to 30 APs to move all the pioneers around (since they don�t auto-sort up and down commands), and I�ll probably spend another 10 to 15 moving Stugs and heavy artillery into position for turn 17 attacks around Moscow (more on that later!).

I set the TOEs for infantry and SUs in the 16. & 18.Armies to 60% (since most were in the 70s already).

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 311

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:32:55 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

You will see between the previous railroad map, and this one covering the Valdai-Kalinin axis, that Vyshny Volichek is going to be in a very difficult supply situation on Turn 18.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 312

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:33:38 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Next turn should see rail get to Torzhok, and over a couple mud turns, I can build to Vyshny. The problem is that the rail line is vulnerable, so perhaps what will happen up here is that the FBD will move to Vyshny and then continue westward toward Pskov on the line south of Ilmen. It�s subject to disruption, but I think overall, my northern front is going to be easily maintained through the Blizzard. I get the impression that this area has sacrificed defensive depth for other regions. So my only real plan here is to push him further east to make a more even line.

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 313

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:34:04 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Start of Turn Moscow SitRep & Rail Situation

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 314

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:34:37 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

So you can more clearly see the supply problem not only to the units northeast of the Oka at Ryazan, but to Ryazan itself. There is no easy way to get supply even from Tula to Ryazan in mud and snow. My hope is for those units to work their way west across the northern side, but it might not be possible. Those units are the weakest on TOE in the local area, and some of the weakest I have in the field right now.

North of Moscow, I may need to divert the FBD that is north of Rzhev eastward along the Rzhev-Moscow line (making the situation in Vyshny more problematic for a longer period of time). So it�s just really bad in terms of supply. I don�t know whether to evacuate now, but I believe it�s probably best not to. There will still be time next turn. Meanwhile, he continues to threaten the salient from the south with cavalry, and won 1 of 2 attacks in the area.

The only positive thing, and it�s not small, is that the threat to his supply line caused him to diversify the depth of his defense, and the approach from the west of Moscow, which is where my strongest units are, with the best supply situation. I�m a little more hopeful about the Snow offensive potential (but maybe a snow offensive should target the south).

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 315

RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941 - 11/23/2011 2:34:49 PM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

From a mere osberver point of view (so certainly ignorant!) I see a significant problem in the game in the overall predictabiliy of results once the warfare is if not static, not purely manouver. Furthermore, there is too much operational control for both sides and not enough unpredictability.

If we compare it to WITP and WITP-AE, it is a bit like comparing checkers to chess : In WITP-AE the opening week is more or less scripted, but past that, even for the predictable Japanese expansion phase the variability is much bigger, and it is also the case later in the war : either the battles are quite unpredictable, or if the stronger party wants to make it a certain win, they have to bring so much too bear that it considerably slows down their pace : 1943 or even 1944 Allies have to account for KB and either amass overwehlming force for an invasion, meaning a slow pace of operations, or risk failure. And the variability of outcomes in this game, with considerably greater unpredictability, makes it richer as a playing experience. Even with massive recon a player can be foiled by the force composition of hist ennemy. or the sudden apparition of massive LBA or CVs

For me the weaknesses in WITE are :
-Not enough FOW on the force composition, fortification and therefore combat strength of the ennemy, therefore one can too effectively tailor its offensive package to the operation planned.
- Not enough unpredictability in results. This coupled to the fact that, as opposed to WITP, there isn't a decisive battle between fleets but rather a continuum of operations, makes it too easy to optimize, whether talking about the ideal force composition and tactic for the germasn to take Lgrad, or the Soviet steamroller later on.
- Poor logistical simulation : too much supply for everybody, not long term logistical planning necessary for operations.
- Way too much operationnal control of the forces. It can be strange to say this coming from WITP perspective, where a player controls individual ships and squadrons, but in WITP the sheer complexity of the force structure and number of units one controls contributes in the end to the unpredictability by being almost "unoptimizable".

In WITE, there is a deadly cocktail of abstraction (logistics, command structure, tactical combat) and control of counters and information on the ennemy that it leads to optimal strategic and operational gameplay. This is a dangerous slope for a wargame.

If not too copmplicated, the game should :
- increase FOW massively, not on the type of units so much as on the CV values, MP values and fortification values.
- increase variability of combat outcomes, through the use of reserves or just simple die rolling
- increase significantly and almost randomly the combat quality of soviet forces early on but make their C&C a lot poorer, with die rolls for MP allocations, temporary and random lowering of MPs necessary to attack but raising of the MPs necessary to move so that somer Soviet armies are forced to fight but nearly unable to move. Soviet units should be able to hurt the Germans a lot more, getting held results on defense and smacking units in counterattacks quite often, but having overall disastrous manouver capabilities in 41 at least...

just a few cents.

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 316

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:35:15 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

After sorting it out in my head, basically most of AGS is converging on the town of Izyum.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 317

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:39:42 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Note that I have more than 3 panzer divisions. I have the entire starting OOB of 1.Panzer Group here. Note also that they�re run ragged because they got caught in that narrow supply corridor when we went back and forth encircling units and freeing them west of Kharkov. So I think that line of criticism has been unfair. Feel free to re-read turns 12 through 15 to see what happened at Kharkov, but I have the historical number of panzer divisions that started in AGS. The 40.Panzer reinforcement was committed to Moscow.

This turn, I could have taken a little more ground, but it would have been precarious (it already is). Two or three Held results were achieved by units at that critical point in the envelopment, and I didn�t have the MPs to seal it, so I backed off as best I could. And I made a deliberate decision to use HQ buildup for 3.Panzer Corps. I know I�m going to have encircled or almost-encircled units (on both sides) next turn, and a half-pocket that has to be cleared on turn 17 ahead of the mud� I can�t have units cut off going in to turn 18.

I expect this is as far as AGS will get, and next turn there should be a lot of heavy fighting for these units that are half-pocketed. I�ll have to rely on route casualties and morale loss, but I won�t be reaching the population centers in the south. Disheartening, but maybe Moscow will change things more in my favor.

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 318

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:40:16 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Moscow at end of turn (HQ/airbase moves notwithstanding).

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 319

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:41:26 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Battles of note are circled. The key victory was 112, 50, where my record-keeping on all Soviet divisions showed that the unit defending had under 8K men, 60 guns, and had been beaten 6 times over the prior 3 turns (although it also had 3 held results). I figured it was heavily damaged, so I searched for and found 3 infantry divisions that could get to the southern banks with enough MP to conduct a deliberate attack. It succeeded, and 1 panzer and 1 motorized division were able to cross.
I think CF over-reacted to my moves at the Klyazma and NE of the Oka. You can see where my maximal rail advance is unless I take a tremendous amount of land north of the Okay & south of Moscow, or south of the Pronya and east of Tula. The Pronya, by the way, has been a real battleground, but now that 4.Army is here in force, it�s no sweat. I was never worried, but he did surprise me last turn isolating a couple of corps. Through that experience I learned that the second turn of the HQ buildup can be delayed a turn by being isolated. On the turn of isolation (T15), they had no MPs despite it being the second turn following Buildup. But this turn it was in the mid 40s.

Which I needed desperately to turn the corner on the Oka east of the (minor) Moskva river. To take the last swamp hex I needed deliberate attacks from 1 panzer and 1 motorized division that had a combined 50 tanks and 9 CV (to which I added another 2 infantry division deliberate attack CVs. I then pulled the Oka perimeter back, because on T17, either they cross the Oka or via fighting, they cross west of the Moskva and stay north of the Moskva. If they pull that off, they will be winning iron crosses.

My hope is that CF pulls his forces back from the SW of Moscow (west of the Moskva) now that I�ve crossed the Oka again. In my opinion, he should not have gone single-stack in as many places as he did.

I�m really happy with this slow, deliberate, 3-pronged Moscow attack. I think I played the game pretty well here (criticisms from Flavisus and Comrade notwithstanding, and I�m not meaning to dismiss your points): my use of threat has forced CF off of his strongest positions. He thinned his defenses on the western side, where I concentrated for the set-piece battle, which is all I could expect to logistically support beyond Turn 17.

Now that I�ve gotten across the northern and western barrier rivers to Moscow, I feel very good about the prospect of a coup de main in the snow� I really do. I will have 3 hexes adjacent to the western Moscow cites, and several turns to move the necessary SUs into position. I did it in Leningrad against a major river, I can do it here. Though it could be my Stalingrad, right? I feel relatively good about my strategic tradeoffs, and the attempt at Moscow. If nothing else, it�s entertaining (probably to us both, and to some readers, despite my flaws of temperament). I�m not sure whether I should be concerned about the manpower factories in the south based on my less-than-historical (and typical WitE) advance, I don�t know whether I can breathe any easier given the general bad state of the Soviet army, and I know I�m concerned about the lack of armament captures. But as I glance at the OOBs, the Soviets have 4.050 Million, and Germany has 3.173, so I�ve gotten the (ready) manpower differential under 900,000, which bodes well for the Blizzard.

I have become quite good, in my own opinion (based only on where I started this GC personally, and not compared to others) that I�ve learned how to read Soviet defenses to optimize how much force I need to apply to move them. That being said, CF has done a really good job staying organized, as I�ve watched armies rotate in and out of the action at Moscow and in the south. I only get Held results 2 or 3 times a turn (I can accumulate better stats, and probably will try after Turn 18 arrives), and that�s most often from 1 of 2 cases: either a much better than average leader roll (and I�m starting to see which armies perform better, and thus probably have better leaders) or a combination of successful leader roll for Soviet and failed (or poor) leader roll for Germany.

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 320

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 2:48:54 PM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

Nicely done getting across the Oka.

I think you have a pretty good chance of getting moscow, barring a massive infusion of well trained Reds.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 321

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 3:34:08 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

veji1: you can't really compare WitP:AE to WitE in terms of unpredictability. In WitP:AE, you have hundreds if not thousands of options of where to land forces or move your ships. That's due to the nature of the game you're playing, with a strong focus on naval warfare. In WitE, the Axis try to move the front from west to east and the Soviets from east to west. There's not an awful lot of room for surprises, as in many cases the targets that offer the most benefits are also fairly clear.

The CV information you get is still a rough estimate and can be misleading, not to mention changed by leader rolls. You can get more information in WitP:AE by recon shelling or - bombing than from counters in WitE.

The difference between modified CV and regular CV seems to have decreased for the Soviets in recent patches and increased for the Axis as well.

Helio: I would be more worried about the state of logistics of the forces north of Moscow than those near Ryazan based on the state of your rail lines. Keep a close eye on their supplies and fuel, you might need to fly supply missions to your mobile units to make sure they don't lose morale in the mud.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 11/23/2011 3:36:21 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 322

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/23/2011 4:30:08 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

veji1: you can't really compare WitP:AE to WitE in terms of unpredictability. In WitP:AE, you have hundreds if not thousands of options of where to land forces or move your ships. That's due to the nature of the game you're playing, with a strong focus on naval warfare. In WitE, the Axis try to move the front from west to east and the Soviets from east to west. There's not an awful lot of room for surprises, as in many cases the targets that offer the most benefits are also fairly clear.

The CV information you get is still a rough estimate and can be misleading, not to mention changed by leader rolls. You can get more information in WitP:AE by recon shelling or - bombing than from counters in WitE.

The difference between modified CV and regular CV seems to have decreased for the Soviets in recent patches and increased for the Axis as well.

WitP:AE has a much larger parameter space since there is a full-blown naval component and the air war is modeled also with a lot more visible detail. Not to mention the economic side of running the empire if you don't use the historical options. Plus, Japan being very limited in what it can do can't push in every direction simultaneously but has to make choices, which in turn means it also has a lot of options to choose from: India, OZ, NZ, Pearl, yes even West Coast has been tried. So it would make much more sense to compare to a "War in Europe" of perhaps similar detail level, one day.

The tricks you mention in AE are also a matter of concern there, often limited by house-rules. It would be better to address it by code refinements, though. But in general C&C in both games is quite good I also find, and allows to avoid bad surprises quite well. If you don't use these tricks, AE becomes a lot less predictable even if you just reduce the scope to land war in Burma or China. Maybe I am wrong there in my expectations, but I find it weird that I always have a 100% perfect knowledge of the status of my units as supreme commander. There are not mess-ups in the reports, no commanders falsifying returns, and I can see the moral of my soldiers or the fuel situation with perfect accuracy to the digit. In AE this holds true as well, and is in some respects even more gamey if you consider at the leader stats. I suppose often times commanders like Rommel, Guderian or Timoshenko, for that matter, had only a crude knowledge of their own forces, especially if some of them were in poor communication or supply, or cut-off. Nor did the ones assigning and promoting officers look at personal files and compare "Guderian, administration Xx" to ...

I suppose adding a bit more C&C disorder/FOW/errors to unit specs and translating unit properties like moral, experience or leader stats into a "human scale" (excellent, good, poor etc) would sound more reasonable. Ideally the game start would also allow a custom setting where some stats could be randomized within a determinable range. But this kind of "friendly FOW" could already lessen the "subjective(?) problem" of rather high predictability.

< Message edited by janh -- 11/23/2011 4:34:01 PM >

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 323

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/24/2011 12:58:44 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

I suppose adding a bit more C&C disorder/FOW/errors to unit specs and translating unit properties like moral, experience or leader stats into a "human scale" (excellent, good, poor etc) would sound more reasonable.

I generally have more problems with limited FOW on smaller scale games, with a limited timeframe for turns than for divisional scale wargames with weekly turns. Even if reports are initially incorrect, within a couple of days the truth should generally be clear at least to the corps commanders. I consider better than historical C&C to be another abstraction of the IGOUGO system, as the system essentially assumes that everything you do during a turn can technically be considered to take an entire turn or less.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 324

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/24/2011 1:22:36 PM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

I diddn't mean that WITE should be more like WITP-AE. I used AEs example to underline the fact that its mechanisms and gameplay made for more unpredictability,and therefore a richer gaming experience. The real question (again what I say is only based on avidly reading AARS so feel free to rubbish it) ist how does one make WITE a richer game experience in what is a linear game (Germans push east, than get pushed west...).

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 325

RE: Turn 16 Moves - 11/24/2011 8:37:46 PM

krupp_88mm

Posts: 406
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline

if their was a way to do a same turn execution with this game it would help immensely with operational realism, the turn back and forth is more panzer generalish, also it would be nice if their was no limit on units in hexs but instead maybe the more men the more inefficient with no hard cap of three counters, as it is i think simulating battles like kursk is near impossible you cant stack enough units in a hex to simulate it, and how silly is it that having three units behind a retreating unit causes a rout.. heh, if anything it should prevent a rout unless its a bridge hex or something, completely counter intuitive... also why not let both sides have counters in the same hex,t the germans often advanced into enemy territory in a corridor around 2-10 miles wide, its definitely possible, this is impossible in this game but would be possible if counters could share hexs, maybe just make the ZOC penalty greater for moving through dual occupied hex's, a dual occupied hex could simulate a break through lines where the enemy didnt retreat, for instance a panzer division rushes a russian corps and they both end up in the same hex the corps didnt retreat it just got penetrated, the germans could either continue attacking it to create a bigger breakthrough thereby retreating the corps form the hex, or ignore it and press further behind lines as long as another unit or a fragment or regiment ect can hold the hex control, this business where every successful attack causes a retreat / rout is kind of silly, often divisions where penetrated straight through the middle, successful attacks were most often the ones where the enemy wasn't retreated but passed by with minimal effort, the unit might remain a pain and slow down other advancing forces for a wile it may not retreat at all but hold on and get surrounded or even counter attack if morale is high enough, the game mechanics kind of prevent this currently.

_____________________________

Decisive Campaigns Case Pony

RRRH-Sr Mod Graphix ed V2: http://www.mediafire.com/?dt2wf7fc273zq5k

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 326

Turn 17 - 11/25/2011 5:36:18 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Turn 17 arrived, and it was a very good one for Germany. And I will have to eat some crow, probably, since my attacks seem to have produced the nearly broken Red Army (according to CF).

It looks like either I�ve benefitted from a bug or the design of the partisan attack/rail repair routine was done in a way that really benefits me. You can see from this picture that a partisan took out a hex of rail that supplied everybody east of it, including basically all of AGC.
But for some reason, AGC HQ at Vitebsk was able to spit out an automated rail battalion, which fixed the railroad immediately, and while supply to my tanks is not great around Moscow (buildups and air resupply notwithstanding), infantry supply is definitely normal. Note that I displaced the Partisan already.

The same exact thing happened further to the south of Vyazma.

If this isn�t how the partisan attack/rail repair routine is supposed to work, can someone explain to me what should have happened here? I�m wondering if this isn�t a bug in my favor.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to krupp_88mm)

Post #: 327

RE: Turn 17 - 11/25/2011 5:37:20 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Up in the Leningrad area, I have set up some basic defensive positions around the Valdai hills.

I have also taken the Sviritsa port on Ladoga (SE corner at the Neva River) in order to hopefully help a little bit with a supply situation that the Finns around Ladoga area are going to have to deal with in mud. They�re going to be in bad, bad shape. It�s not like CF can counter-attack there due to the raw strength of the units, but it�s not a good situation.

I am withdrawing a corps worth of good divisions, and 1.Corps HQ, to go somewhere for a winter offensive. The remaining motorized division and panzer division from 4.Panzer Group will remain local for counter-attack purposes. Both are in pretty good shape (except in tanks). My only strategic imperative up in the north this last turn is to consolidate my line, and to attack Soviet strong points just to keep him taking casualties.

I�m pretty worried about what will happen on T18 with the supply situation. my FBD is in Torzhok, with the railhead limit next turn being 1 hex SW of Torzhok, so it�s almost there. I don�t want to pull back now, because he may not attack me on his turn. He�s got a badly mauled army, and I�m relying on him being conservative here (and inexperienced, not knowing how bad the supply situation will be for me next turn).

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 328

RE: Turn 17 - 11/25/2011 5:37:53 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

The Valdai hills are free of Soviets.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 329

Turn 17 - 11/25/2011 5:38:55 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I�m not sure how bad supply will be next turn on the NW side of Moscow.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 11/25/2011 5:39:01 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 330

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Behold: Nato 1986 defense in 1941