RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike)

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: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike)

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: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike)

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 4:09:33 PM

Flaviusx

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

Right now it seems to me that forts need some love. Defense in this game sucks right now.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 301

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 7:43:15 PM

KamilS

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline

I totally disagree with concept of increasing bonuses given by forts. It artificially decreases speed of operation, creating dull trench warfare. It is just another attempt to patch up poor and simplistic design of combat engine, reserves mode and logistic.

At the moment game have two modes - trench warfare and steamroller. Increasing impact of forts would make game depressingly boring.

In ideal world of proper game design I would decrease impact of forts (especially level 1 to 3) making battles more dynamic. Losses and especially logistics would be limitation.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 2/22/2013 8:14:40 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 302

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 11:37:29 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I am more in line with Kamil here. There are way too many forts in the game as is. People complain that post mid 42 we are seeing WWI. I tend to agree. And to be honest what we have is what we are stuck with. Nothing is going to change. FWIW though I wouldn't mind seeing forts improved but I would argue less forts in total and limits on fort size in open terrain. When I see these German fort lines 4 and 5 deep along the front I just shake my head. It should not be possible. Each side should have an absolute limit on a total that they can have in place at any one time. It's nuts ATM. But it is what it is.

_____________________________

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 303

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 11:59:36 PM

Disgruntled Veteran

Posts: 615
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

I totally disagree with concept of increasing bonuses given by forts. It artificially decreases speed of operation, creating dull trench warfare. It is just another attempt to patch up poor and simplistic design of combat engine, reserves mode and logistic.

At the moment game have two modes - trench warfare and steamroller. Increasing impact of forts would make game depressingly boring.

In ideal world of proper game design I would decrease impact of forts (especially level 1 to 3) making battles more dynamic. Losses and especially logistics would be limitation.

I agree. Forts are plenty strong as it is.

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 304

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 10:02:04 AM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

But on the other hand it can't be that a handful of engineers / sappers can reduce a mighty fort in a single turn. If there is a limit on forts, which I don't disagree with, a level 3-4 fort should not get reduced in a single attack. Fort WITE2 a new definition of fort is needed. Perhaps something along the lines of level 1 representing basic trenches etc, level 2 more sophisticated systems with minefields, anti-tank trenches etc (like the systems in Kursk). Level 3 and above are reserved for real fortifications and fortresses. So normally at the front forts should not exceed level 1 and only for certain stretches level 2. As a sidenote, perhaps decay should also not occur that fast. I tend to agree to the previous few that strengthening forts would be an artificial prop, like the blizzard or surprise turn right now.

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)

Post #: 305

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 10:20:52 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

One of the things I remember from reading lost victories by Von Manstein was his claim that well dug in and fortified troops were very, very reluctant to leave the shelter they had. Guns were well dug in, supply dumps were established and lines of communication were clear.

In the game troops do not suffer from this at all. Perhaps you could increase fort strength but decrease mobility by (x) amount for troops (infantry) that are dug in beyond level 1. That would encourage the attacking player to focus strength on a certain point of the line, knowing that troops on the flanks might have difficulty retreating from a possible pocket.

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 306

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 12:36:51 PM

timmyab

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

I agree that forts can't really be changed in this game, the whole combat system needs reworking from the ground up and a more realistic fortification system is a fundamental part of it.The idea of engineers reducing forts to nothing needs to be significantly toned down.I'm guessing their main roll would have been to clear mines and obstacles, they couldn't just magic away a trench system or prevent presighted artillery and machine guns from bringing down devastating fire.The position would also have been chosen to favor the defender in the first place, again nothing they can do about it.

The most important force multipliers for the attacking side should be local air superiority and commander ability.This would give the Germans a great advantage in 41 which would gradually decrease through 42 and 43 as the Soviets gained air supremacy and better leadership.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 307

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 1:10:41 PM

KamilS

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline

Apart from the fact that it is far to easy to reduce pocket of entrenched, supplied from air quality troops another annoying thing is, that my divisions that were scheduled to withdrawal (already on withdrawal status) are being rebuild.

Ridiculous.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 308

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 1:13:22 PM

Mike29

Posts: 368
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline

Of course fort system is simplified if it would be correct regarding the most complicated war strategy. Of course we want mine-fields, long-term concrete fortifications, ships of Baltic and black-sea fleet, armored trains etc. I think we must basis on what can be changed withoutdestruction of balance.

I think there should be something ery expensive and long-produsing but more serious than useless forts, something like superforts of Atlantic wall. Germany has no intrique now in distributing their AP, let it be choise - good commanders and micromanagement or old-school generals bit some strongholds on Dnepr, Wisla and Oder.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 309

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 1:57:14 PM

Peltonx

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

The basic issue is the combat engine is based 75% on retreat loses therefor whatever usless window dressing that is hung up is just that window dressing.

The combat engine should be based on mordern warfare ( firepower ) and not you lose so u take a bunch of loses based on nothing.

Until the combat engine is based on something other then retreat loses the game will always be about attacking.

A ****ty combat engine makes for trench warfare or completely unrealistic 1000 miles never ending drives west or east.

Messing with the logistic and air systems for witw is not going to help anything other then possibly make matters more of a disaster.

Until this combat engine is throw out or over hauled we will keep seeing the same BS

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Mike29)

Post #: 310

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 2:05:24 PM

Flaviusx

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

The combat engine definitely underestimates the attritional component of modern combat. It feels almost like something designed for classical/ancient warfare with the emphasis on retreats, which in that era was indeed the overwhelming cause of combat losses. That's just not the case anymore.

The butcher's bill needs to go up for the attacker especially, whether or not he succeeds. Right now only holds punish the attacker (which is why I still believe that retreats are too easily achieved in this game. 2-1 is just too low a bar. People may not like my fort changes, but I still think this 2-1 requirement is necessarily biased in favor of the offense. It's way too easy to reach.)

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/23/2013 2:08:42 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 311

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 2:25:01 PM

timmyab

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

Yes I agree.
Higher casualties for the attacking side.Lower for retreating units especially high experience, well lead units.Keep high casualties for routed units.Combat losses should also be related to the final odds ratio.At the moment there seems to be no relationship at all.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 312

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 3:17:11 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

Yes, if one looks at the Red Army's gigantic losses while slowly but surely pushing back the Germans in the year between Kursk and Bagration the current system is a joke.

As for encircled units, a certain reduction of CV is necessary, but on the other hand a very important issue for encircled units is the organisation. When encircled units kept great cohesion it was hard to dislodge them when they were half-way supplied, especially when the ring was not tight. However, when they were in the state of confusion like in the border battles of 41, they easily broke.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 313

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 9:44:00 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Another thing that is plainly wrong is the very high levels of German OOB that can be maintained. The return rate of disabled should be 0.005 just like the Russians. All these OOB's of 3.5 million plus are over the top. Either Attrition itself needs to be ramped way up or the return rate dropped way down. The Russian rate seems ok to me, both attrition and returns. But not so the Germans. They are getting too many advantages for morale/exp in the attrition game.

_____________________________

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 314

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/24/2013 9:15:23 AM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

Well, it is a combination between high return rate and low losses. I would like to see calculations of the German OOB with historic losses. But for sure German OOB after 41 should not top out 3.5 million, rather remain at like 3 million, unless the Soviet player runs away without fighting the entire time.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 315

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/25/2013 11:32:23 PM

KamilS

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline

We keep playing and in the meantime I just looked at the situation at the end of different "chapters" of my game with Mike.

Blitzkrieg (until end of Nov '41)

I haven't captured any major cities, I failed to destroy industry, but offensive wasn't complete failure.

Casualties: (captured)

Ger: 750k (3k)
Sov: 3.530k (2.020k) units destroyed in November: 48 divisions (40 inf) and 9 brigades (5 inf)

OOB:

Ger: 3.268k
Sov: 4.420k

Winter Counter-offensive

I was running away along whole front. Lots of territory lost, but managed to hold on to Smolensk and Kharkov.

Casualties: (captured)

Ger: 750k (7k) units destroyed: 1 inf reg
Sov: 580k (10k)

OOB:

Ger: 3.360k
Sov: 5.870k

Spring offensive (until mid June '42)

I managed to regain half of lost territory. Summer looked promising.

Casualties: (captured)

Ger: 225k (13k) units destroyed: 1 inf division
Sov: 880k (290k) units destroyed: 2 corps (1 cav, 1 tank), 34 divisions (inf) and 5 brigades (4 inf)

OOB:

Ger: 3.697k
Sov: 6.853k

Failed summer offensive of '42 (until beginning of Oct '42)

Intensive fighting culminated by disastrous Stalingrad-like pocket. Total failure.

Casualties: (captured)

Ger: 645k (28k) units destroyed: 2 divisions (1 pz, 1 mot), 3 regiments (2 inf, 1 sec)
((Ger 785k (168k)) including pocketed units)

Units the were encircled during last turn of summer of '42 - 140k: 13 divisions (3 Pz, 2 Mot, 7 inf, 1 Mot) and 1 mot brigade, 1 inf regiment

Sov: 1525k (505k) units destroyed: 4 corps (2 inf, 1 cav, 1 tank), 49 divisions (47 inf) and 2 brigades

OOB:

Ger: 3.093k
Sov: 6.511k

Situation is beyond critical.

Just to tease a bit - Fast forward few turns - Mike got his Stalingrad, I (probably) managed to pull Kharkov.

I am dead, dead but not buried yet.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 2/26/2013 12:50:29 AM >

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 316

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/26/2013 9:59:20 AM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Another thing that is plainly wrong is the very high levels of German OOB that can be maintained. The return rate of disabled should be 0.005 just like the Russians. All these OOB's of 3.5 million plus are over the top. Either Attrition itself needs to be ramped way up or the return rate dropped way down. The Russian rate seems ok to me, both attrition and returns. But not so the Germans. They are getting too many advantages for morale/exp in the attrition game.

Not really.

The reason why GHC OOB is so high is because combat tempo is so low.

The key is SHC simply runs which causes a very low tempo very unlike the historical time frame.

You can't handy cap one side because the other simply does something completely unhistorical.

Just simply not logical.

1st you need to give SHC a reason to fight forward and tools. Then you can look at German OOB.

Sig

You answered your own question/statement " unless the Soviet player runs away" Thats basicly all that goes on the first 5 turns in north, first 10 turns in center and from June-Dec in south.

The GHC OOB is high because of the dance that goes on every game.

SHC runs east until Dec 41, then GHC runs west until April 42, then SHC with draws all spring,summer and fall of 42 only fighting where needed.

Fight forward and OOB will be in line with historical.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 317

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/26/2013 4:05:33 PM

Mike29

Posts: 368
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline

Some statistics. Two tank divisions and 1 SS MB escaped from Orel pocket. We werent able to destroy them completely during mud turns. Somehow each turn they could rebuild 2nd level forts, so it was nesessary to attack air-supply and fortified hexes multiple times. Half of my army sturmed this pocket and we lost morale of many units.