Slitherine

quote:

Mike29

T 68 situation. Kamil you saw all of this, why you needed that damned salient?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil
Generaly speaking I think game beyond summer of '42 is ... loosing most of its charm. It forces German player to play boring trench warfare, punishes active defence and I find it dull and unrewarding.

quote:

Try out a 44 GC and see for yourself. Or even a 43 GC. The game is severely biased towards the offense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.

The attacker simply does not take enough loses, because the hole system is based on retreat loses and not on the rounds of combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.

The attacker simply does not take enough loses, because the hole system is based on retreat loses and not on the rounds of combat.

Well, you can put it that way. Thks leads to the effect that the successful side takes too few losses. The defender when he holds, and the attacker when he pushes the defender back.

quote:

The 2-1 final combat odds modifier ought to imo be modified to take into account fortification levels, including intrinsic terrain. So that for each level of fortification remaining at the end of combat (including terrain which cannot be reduced by engineers) will raise the odds requirement for retreat by one. This by itself will make cities a much tougher proposition and would also go a long ways towards making Leningrad a tougher nut to crack.

Even open terrain will be difficult to shift with level 2 forts...those will all of a sudden now require at least 4:1 odds. (Unless the engineers reduce the forts.) This will lower op tempo considerably.

quote:

Seminole, 15.8.1 notwithstanding, the final modified CV force ratio to force a retreat is always 2-1. I propose to jack up that requirement depending on fortification levels. This is not the way the game works now.

quote:

The final modified CV is an absolute value. The 2-1 ratio is a relative one. I'm not looking to do anything to affect final modified CVs, but rather, what is necessary to clear the bar to force a retreat. So CV calculations won't change at all. But you'll need more than 2-1 to get that retreat assuming any kind of surviving fort levels, and perhaps a lot more in certain areas with intrinsic terrain benefits than can never be reduced by engineers.

quote:

This is going to slow down the Soviet steamroller, guaranteed.