RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG

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: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG

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: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/11/2013 8:26:25 PM

Flaviusx

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

There's lots of incentive for everybody to game the system, German and Soviet alike. In the end, the design is simply dated at this point and we're all a bit too clever for own good anymore.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 31

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/11/2013 8:39:34 PM

STEF78

Posts: 2094
Joined: 2/19/2012
From: Versailles, France
Status: offline

Taking Kiev and Veliki Luki on turn 2 is totally a-historical.

Kiev-Belz (closest border city) = 524 km
Veliki Luki- East Prussia border = 604 km

Even after mid june 1940 when France stopped fighting, the GHC didn't advance so fast. Germans were in Paris (city opened) the 14th and only in Angoul�me or Saint Etienne the 24th.

Paris Angoul�me: 452 km
Paris Saint Etienne: 523 km

And the roads in France were better than in Russia...

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 32

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/11/2013 9:35:02 PM

Gabriel B.

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

Well, the germans did advance as far as Idritsa by july 9 , and from there to Velikie Luki are only 6 hexes or 60 miles.

I am surprised the soviet player did not take advantage of the swamps and woods north of dvina thou.

< Message edited by Gabriel B. -- 8/11/2013 9:38:57 PM >

(in reply to STEF78)

Post #: 33

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/11/2013 10:06:43 PM

STEF78

Posts: 2094
Joined: 2/19/2012
From: Versailles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Well, the germans did advance as far as Idritsa by july 9 , and from there to Velikie Luki are only 6 hexes or 60 miles.

I am surprised the soviet player did not take advantage of the swamps and woods north of dvina thou.

The 2 first turns represents only 11 days.

It means the germans should have been able to reach Veliki Luki and Kiev the 3rd of July....

< Message edited by STEF78 -- 8/11/2013 10:08:06 PM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 34

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/11/2013 11:23:07 PM

Gabriel B.

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

Depends on what is in front of them, by july 2, 3rd panzer division was at Roghacev , that just deep into SU and across more dificult terain than pz gr1 had from his staging area to kiev.

as for velikie luki, that hapend becase , the soviet player did not defend that area properly .

(in reply to STEF78)

Post #: 35

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 1:07:52 AM

M60A3TTS

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

I'd suggest a simple house rule, no German unit may use Rumanian rail until turn 3 or 4.

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 36

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 1:13:41 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

Mark,
Thanks for your patience for keeping the game playing and did not complain to me in our communications. I didn't know you are unhappy with the game, if I knew, I would stop earlier.
I am very sorry for doing the game in a way which you didn't like. I didn't anticipate it. I have now decided to cancel the game and this AAR and apologize to you. To be happy is more important than win.
The success of getting the panzers move succesively is more relating to saving than air_supply, in my game with Darbymcd, we have the house rule of no allowing air_supply by bombers, but the Panzers still move on. that is the last tip I want to add.
I have play 3 times of this opening and I don't want to do it any more, so I have disclosed all the details.
Thanks again for your patience and kind commnications,

Best regards
Tours

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

For me this well-planned opening by Tours defines the end of WITE 1 as a competitive game. The Dnepr was breached on turn 2, and virtually the entire Southern and Southwest Fronts were surrounded on turn three. Even though the pockets were porous, the massive number of units removed from effective play meant that I had to divert some reinforcements to the south, and was unable to send much of anything to the center or north. The extended massive Lvov pockets coupled with the trans-Hungary/Rumanian rail express is unbeatable.

Also, the use of bombers as flying fuel tanks makes any notion of logistics a pure fantasy. He is advancing columns in a straight line wherever he wants. I was successfully counterattacking and cutting off spearheads, but it makes no difference because the units behind are well-supplied by the bombers and surge ahead.

No doubt Leningrad will fall by a massive hook around the Lake, and Moscow is no better shape.

I will play on for a while. However, for the record: I will never play WITE with non-random weather again; this is my second time and the predictability of it, coupled with the massive Ukrainian pockets, trans-Rumanian railroad and flying fuel tanks creates too much imbalance.

Hats off to Tours.

Marquo

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 37

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 1:16:54 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

The game has been cancelled by MKtours and this aar closed.

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 38

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 1:18:30 AM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Depends on what is in front of them, by july 2, 3rd panzer division was at Roghacev , that just deep into SU and across more dificult terain than pz gr1 had from his staging area to kiev.

as for velikie luki, that hapend becase , the soviet player did not defend that area properly .

Heard this before... calling Klydon. U guys should really try reading the war diaries of the different corps. As in the case here for example. LVI Pz korps/XXIV Pz Korps vs III and XXXXVII Pz korps.

Terrain means nothing if there is no enemy to utilize it. Its just as fast driving a car over roads on the ukraine stepps for 500km as it is driving down a road 500km in the wooded northern russia. There is no noticeble difference.

It wasnt the terrain that didnt stop XXIV pz korps/ 3rd Pz div. Just looking at the map of WiTE gives the answer as soon as u had cleared the initial border forces. There wasnt much to stop and their location was spotty so usually was easily side stepped. The war diaries of the divs/korps of LVI/XXIV relects that.

Simplfied said. They read in those day(first 2 turns). Drive, drive drive, side skirt an enemy, wait for suppply, drive, drive, drive and do a coup de main to get across a river/ capture some bridges, drive, drive, drive.
No enemy , aka no combat = u can keep moving most of the time.

Then there is the korps diaries III and XXXXVI Pz Korps. They made 2 yes TWO hexes from the border in the first 3 days aka the first turn.
Waiting in huge trafic jam as the first line of russian troops arent cleared yet. Cant deploy the Korps as there is no room cuz of continued fighting, one kampfgruppe is battleing the enemy, but there are only slow Progress, another inserted and making limited progress.

Next 3 days, still cant deploy korps as still not enough room as been made for deploying fully. Getting troops in the frontline and and finally making progress. Progressed stopped as enemy is counter attacking. Taking time to deploy into combat formation. Fight, fight fight, drive, counter attacked, having to redeploy in combat formation again. At end of turn 2 u from 8 to 10 hexes from border at the highpoints, and the korps still having problems deploying their full force as there is a lack of room for deployment.

Insert usual wargamer responce. Yes but what if i just had taken 2 korps from AGC and added those. Now i get a 6-1 instead of a 3-1 so im assured to go faster.
Right, it had changed nothing in real life. As the problem was a lack of room for deployment, enemy resistance and trafic jams. Adding more forces just increase the problems, not help them. U could have had an extra Pz army but if it cant deploy it cant fight or advance and if u cant fight or advance it helps nada.
Terrain has zero influence here Its all a question of the enemy having many more forces that cant be bypassed and in layed defences. Thats what stops 1st Pz Group. Not the terrain or lack there off. Just as in AGN and AGC terrain mattered nothing as there was no enemy too stop them from advancing down the road in the "bad terrain". Could it have been different if there had been enemies to stop them sure than terrain matters as it confines the possible avenues of approches helping any defence. Just wasnt the case as there was "no one" to defend.
Looking at the map of WiTE it also shows exactly this there are many more troops and in semi checkerboard formation in det opposite 1st Pzgroup. In the AGN, AGC area there is the initial border forces but as soon as u are past them there are lots of avenues u can just keep driving not having to make any combat as there is no enemies to contact.
Unfortuatly the engine doesnt begin to show these difficulties/stiffness of the opposition in AGS area so one are automaticly able to do things that wasnt remote possible in RL with or with out added forces. A few pushes here and there and u open up holes u can drive through. Nothing to do what happend in reality or what was remotely possible to do in real life.

U can keep tellign ur self that its much easier terrain, so ofc u could have made the same the same progress. If u wana know why they only made it 2 hexes from the border in the first turns time, study the reasons. Then u will also know there really wast much different they could have made to make it go any faster. Less we going into fantasy land and use of 20/20 hindsight.

There is real life military friction and then there is games. Highjack over.

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/12/2013 1:58:15 AM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 39

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 1:43:34 AM

Michael T

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

The coming patch will nerf this the Southern opening anyhow as the Soviets will be able to rail out the Lvov units if the Axis does not pocket them on T1. So its no longer an issue. I did it once and I would have used a HR in future to prevent it also.

As for the Luftwaffe being used a flying gas cans I have no problem with it. Guderian proposed this very thing sometime IRCC around July/August anyhow. But the plan never went anywhere. I am happy with it no matter which side I play. I think with the Soviet morale tweak in 41/42 the game will be ok as long as Sudden Death is used. At least that version prevents the Axis from running away come winter 41 and beyond.

_____________________________

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 40

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 2:47:46 AM

Flaviusx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The coming patch will nerf this the Southern opening anyhow as the Soviets will be able to rail out the Lvov units if the Axis does not pocket them on T1. So its no longer an issue. I did it once and I would have used a HR in future to prevent it also.

As for the Luftwaffe being used a flying gas cans I have no problem with it. Guderian proposed this very thing sometime IRCC around July/August anyhow. But the plan never went anywhere. I am happy with it no matter which side I play. I think with the Soviet morale tweak in 41/42 the game will be ok as long as Sudden Death is used. At least that version prevents the Axis from running away come winter 41 and beyond.

The scale and efficiency of air supply in this game is wildly unrealistic, MT. Nothing like it was ever done in real life by the Wehrmacht. This is going to have to change in WITW, and then I suppose retroactively be applied to WITE2. The present mechanic, if it doesn't change, is going to be even more crazy if the WITW allies get it. Ports? Who needs ports? Bomber command and the US 8th Air Force have this covered!

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 41

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 3:04:18 AM

Michael T

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

There are also many things that counter Air Supply in WITE though, for instance why does it cost 2 or 3 times as much fuel to traverse hexes that are empty of the enemy but just happen to have had been occupied by the enemy last? Why does crossing a river in an enemy zoc cost so much more in fuel? I have brought this up before. But it is ignored. Fuel consumed and MP spent should be seperate issues. IMO the logistics model tries to be too smart but falls down in some very basic areas. The game would be better off with a very simple but clear cut logistics system. Why can't we direct fuel to where we want it, board game designs from the 80's do this? In 2013 with computers we can't! So for me having very loose Air Supply compensates for things like this. And let's face it. An Axis without some decent MP in 1941 makes for a boring game and a quick Soviet victory. Let the Axis have some teeth for goodness sake.

Bottom line is I accept a lot of ahistorical aspects because they negate a lot of other ahistorical aspects or inherent modelling flaws (eg the fuel thing I raise above).

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 42

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 3:06:12 AM

Michael T

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

As for WITW. I don't know. Hopefully an improvement is made. North Africa is my next favourite after the East.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 43

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 4:40:05 AM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Michael, you are talking about the supply requirement difference between the administrative movement (area already secured) and an advance to contact force posture (moving into unsecured hexes), while moving into a ZOC is probably at least meeting with sporadic contact. In general I think a fuel consumption of 2-3 times greater would be the minimum expected under those conditions. Do you not agree?

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 44

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 4:43:07 AM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

By the way, this article is a bit interesting for the Barbarossa time frame, since that is what we mostly have issues with...
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol6no4/pdf/v06i4a07p.pdf

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 45

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 6:00:36 AM

Michael T

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

When moving thru the open plains in Russia in clear weather only the lead elements would be fanned out in tactical formation (using fuel at a higer rate), the vast majority of follow up units would be single file along some dusty track using far less fuel, the same for all practical purposes as admin movement. No way it would be 2 or 3 times as much. The MP cost of a hex should be independant of the Fuel costs per hex. So I would say that fuel expenditure should be far less when NOT moving in a Zoc relative to the MP expended. Plus it costs something like 56% fuel (or 28 MP) to get ferried across a major river. Once across the river I would reckon fuel expenditure would equate any other Zoc fuel costs. But it seems to cross a pontoon bridge or the use of a ferry sends fuel consumption thru the roof. MP equates to time. Fuel is not time. Fuel is energy. Energy and Time should be seperate.This brings me back to a point I made earlier. They want to model every tank, gun and squad in combat but as for logistcis we can't even seperate Gas consumption from MP. That is tactical movement from admin movement or something very close to it.

_____________________________

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 46

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 6:08:34 AM

Michael T

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

To put it another way. It might take 1/2 a week to cross a major river in a Zoc (i.e 28MP out of a possible 50MP), that is time. But it should not cost over half the gas that Pz XX is carrying, that is energy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 47

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 9:24:33 AM

Gabriel B.

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

Rasmus .

You are arguing about 1 turn difference more or less .
By 7 july panzer group 1 with no help all from pg2 took Zhitomir, (that is in the midle of turn 3 ) , two days later (end of turn 3/ start of turn 4 ) they reached Kiev fortifications.

If a axis player were to do just that , all soviet formations would excape , there is no doubt about it .

Edit :slight corection july 9 instead of 7.

< Message edited by Gabriel B. -- 8/12/2013 9:49:19 AM >

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 48

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 9:36:03 AM

Saper2229

Posts: 186
Joined: 3/9/2011
From: Russia
Status: offline

Historical?! Can only start position and number divisions. After - who how lean play in this game. The game is balanced - Germany was very hard win it in 1941-1942 (I think - impossible) and Soviet was very hard win in 1943-1944 - that is historical in this game. After clik start button players create other history - difference for each game - that is the best fun!

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 49

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 10:31:31 AM

STEF78

Posts: 2094
Joined: 2/19/2012
From: Versailles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

I am very sorry for doing the game in a way which you didn't like. I didn't anticipate it. I have now decided to cancel the game and this AAR and apologize to you. To be happy is more important than win.

La classe!

I don't know the translation, maybe "great class"

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 50

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 11:09:46 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

Michael, I believe you could see this opening as a double edge sword for the GHC, in my opinion, there is no need to nerf it, it just makes the game fun (well, for some kind of players), good SHC would be able to defend it. I would not do it any more simply because I have played it 3 times, I repeated it because I expected my opponent would be better and could give more challenge and I want to see how they react.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The coming patch will nerf this the Southern opening anyhow as the Soviets will be able to rail out the Lvov units if the Axis does not pocket them on T1. So its no longer an issue. I did it once and I would have used a HR in future to prevent it also.

As for the Luftwaffe being used a flying gas cans I have no problem with it. Guderian proposed this very thing sometime IRCC around July/August anyhow. But the plan never went anywhere. I am happy with it no matter which side I play. I think with the Soviet morale tweak in 41/42 the game will be ok as long as Sudden Death is used. At least that version prevents the Axis from running away come winter 41 and beyond.

< Message edited by mktours -- 8/12/2013 11:36:16 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 51

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 11:12:29 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

I completely agree. Saper, I believe you would be able to defend this opening properly. we are the same style of players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saper222

Historical?! Can only start position and number divisions. After - who how lean play in this game. The game is balanced - Germany was very hard win it in 1941-1942 (I think - impossible) and Soviet was very hard win in 1943-1944 - that is historical in this game. After clik start button players create other history - difference for each game - that is the best fun!

(in reply to Saper2229)

Post #: 52

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 11:19:12 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

Thanks, STEF
But I think I am doing the right thing, we play games for fun, I would feel sorry if my style of playing is causing unhappiness or is unwanted by my opponent, it would be wasting time for the both sides. this game is very time-consuming and demands of a lot of thinking, so it might be better that the two sides are satisfying with the way their opponent is playing the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: STEF78

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

I am very sorry for doing the game in a way which you didn't like. I didn't anticipate it. I have now decided to cancel the game and this AAR and apologize to you. To be happy is more important than win.

La classe!

I don't know the translation, maybe "great class"

(in reply to STEF78)

Post #: 53

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 11:30:49 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

generally I agree with your argument, thanks for the comments, we see things in the same way.
As for the defending of LUKI, the matter is not whether the SHC is defending it properly or not, the matter is how much commitment the two sides are willing to make in that area. In the two other games I played, the SHC did guard the area, but was cleared by multi-direction attack by 2 Pz group, the key is to garrison the city itself, if so, then the GHC would not have enough MP for any unit to capture the city, then this opening would not exist at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Depends on what is in front of them, by july 2, 3rd panzer division was at Roghacev , that just deep into SU and across more dificult terain than pz gr1 had from his staging area to kiev.

as for velikie luki, that hapend becase , the soviet player did not defend that area properly .

< Message edited by mktours -- 8/12/2013 11:32:22 AM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 54

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 11:31:26 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

repeated post

< Message edited by mktours -- 8/12/2013 11:32:01 AM >

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 55

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 12:36:25 PM

Flaviusx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saper222

Historical?! Can only start position and number divisions. After - who how lean play in this game. The game is balanced - Germany was very hard win it in 1941-1942 (I think - impossible) and Soviet was very hard win in 1943-1944 - that is historical in this game. After clik start button players create other history - difference for each game - that is the best fun!

So anything goes? I can't accept that, sorry. My suspension of disbelief has its limits, at least in this genre of gaming.

If I want something that freewheeling I'll fire up Civ 5. (Or, heck, Distant Worlds, for some good old fashioned galactic domination.)

Balance shouldn't be the primary concern here. Or rather, balance in this context means, or ought to mean: does this make any sense? Is it historically plausible?

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Saper2229)

Post #: 56

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 12:37:59 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Rasmus .

You are arguing about 1 turn difference more or less .
By 7 july panzer group 1 with no help all from pg2 took Zhitomir, (that is in the midle of turn 3 ) , two days later (end of turn 3/ start of turn 4 ) they reached Kiev fortifications.

Edit :slight corection july 9 instead of 7.

No. Its far more than that. While recce parties from pz Grp 1 reach the are 1-2 hexes from Kiev on 11 july thats turn 4-5. The main part of Pz grp 1 wasnt even close at that date. The Korosten counter attack on the 10th july hold ups the main part of the northern wing thats on turn 4 and u can in game reach Kiev in turn 2 with larger parts of Pz Grp 1 if u so wish. Turn 2 is at 26 june(where mk reached Kiev) or in 4 days, not the 11 july or 19 days into the campaign. Thats 4-5 times faster.
Try and read about the supply situasion then for the 1st pz Grp, by then btw.

Then the Southern part of Pz Grp 1 is off to to do battle of Uman while not taking part in all of it, it finishes at 6 aug or turn 8ish. The "slowness" of these manuvers has in large to do with the alrdy worsend supply situasion/weather and more.

quote:

If a axis player were to do just that , all soviet formations would excape , there is no doubt about it .

Yes, ofc. Thats the point. There was no way to do the turn 1-2 advances we see in game now in the AGS area nor as stipulated why in above post with added forces. The advance rate is as pointed out above 3-4-5 times faster(depending on when exact u say a turn is as it has a start and end date) than historical and the reason why the advance wasnt at that pace isnt really shown in game/ the engine is as it is.
Will the logical conclusion of showing the historical realities be that the Southern/SW front might escape. Sure, they did in real life. Wasnt for free lost several thousand tank in delaying and many of those troops was later bagged at Uman/Kiev and so on but such that toke time later on.

As to historical vs the game. The point is if AGC was allowed to advance 3-4-5 times faster than historical then they'd be in Moscow in turn 3-4. Then there would be an outcry even from those that want a as free as possbile gaming population. U simply cant compare the situasiuon advance in the first days of AGC/AGN vs AGS as the situasion was completely different.
I have no problem with ppl playing the game and players should be free to do so. If it then applies to both parties and if there is plausibilty in the actions. Advancing at 3-4-5 times the rate isnt showing why that didnt take place nor why it couldnt have. Like the AGC couldnt have reached Moscow on turn 4.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/12/2013 1:41:41 PM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 57

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 2:23:54 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

When moving thru the open plains in Russia in clear weather only the lead elements would be fanned out in tactical formation (using fuel at a higer rate), the vast majority of follow up units would be single file along some dusty track using far less fuel, the same for all practical purposes as admin movement. No way it would be 2 or 3 times as much. The MP cost of a hex should be independant of the Fuel costs per hex. So I would say that fuel expenditure should be far less when NOT moving in a Zoc relative to the MP expended. Plus it costs something like 56% fuel (or 28 MP) to get ferried across a major river. Once across the river I would reckon fuel expenditure would equate any other Zoc fuel costs. But it seems to cross a pontoon bridge or the use of a ferry sends fuel consumption thru the roof. MP equates to time. Fuel is not time. Fuel is energy. Energy and Time should be seperate.This brings me back to a point I made earlier. They want to model every tank, gun and squad in combat but as for logistcis we can't even seperate Gas consumption from MP. That is tactical movement from admin movement or something very close to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

To put it another way. It might take 1/2 a week to cross a major river in a Zoc (i.e 28MP out of a possible 50MP), that is time. But it should not cost over half the gas that Pz XX is carrying, that is energy.

I agree Michael. Is it true as pointed out that in combat u use more fuel, generally accepted 3-4 times as much in combat then just moving a unit. This is absolutly true and should be reflected in some way. No doubt.

Problem is that this direct corrolation between MP and fuel usage leads to the possibilty of gaming the supply system. I really cant figur out why ppl havent figured out yet that this is one of the keys to ur/MTs maximizing the supply system.
For example LVI Pz Korps race to Pskov. They really didnt fight that much they primarily just drove. U had the fuel u had. Now if u in game drive one 86+ moral Ps div up there swapping the hexes. Lets assume no rivers and all clear hexes. The follow up division in the next turn only pay 1 MP instead of 3 MP cutting the fuel usage to 1/3.(had it been a 71 to 85 moral division the difference would have been 1 to 4.) So instead of arriving at Pskov empthy of fuel u can be close to full or 3/4s full. Completely opposed to the historical logistical constraints.
This signifcantly alter the advances u can do as u can cut ur fuel usage totally shredding the system as is.
I really dont think the fuel usage of LVI would have been historicly any different if they had driven 1 division up first then waited 3 days to send the next cutting the fuel usage by 2/3s or more.
Little tricks like that extends the possible advance rate significantly. U still drive the same distance in either of the cases and going by history. Would u really without much fighting have seen a fuel usage that would have been that marketly different.

This makes it totally impossbile for the designers to gauge how much the logictics/suppply fuel delivered should be as the usage can vary by 300-400% or more driving the same distance.
What that does to what ppl can do for those that knows how to game the system and those that dont/cant/wont is so different that u achieve very different results.

If i was designer and im not, i would wana remove the possibilty of gaming the system just for that sake as the result u can get from it is so different. Ur ability to control what player can or cant do is so vastly different with the current system. Its far to easy to keep MP in the high end constantly using this along with Fuel truck number 1 aka the luftwaffe, unbalanced the what i percieve as intend of designers concerning the supply system.

Potentially driving 1 hex, crossing a river in ZoC costs near the same in fuel as driving 16 hexes or 250 km through enemy territory or 50 hexes(800 km) through friendly territory.
Clearly a Pz div woudnt use the same fuel amount in those 3 cases. The vast difference in what this makes possible, unbalance the supply system/fuel usage.
Yes combat should cost fuel, but does a hasty only really use 1/6 of a prepared attack and sure crossing a river from ZoC to ZoC should cost, more than jsut driving a hex but is the fuel usage really the same as driving 800km.

I would have had a much more stringent fuel usage in much higehr degree tied to distance travel than now if up to me. Ofc taken into account battle uses fuel and tricky manuvers too.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/12/2013 4:00:18 PM >

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 58

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 3:12:22 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

Question to Marquo. Had you known that he was opening that way would you've been able to defend?

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 59

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 4:58:16 PM

Gabriel B.

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

Rasmus .

Sorry for stating the obvious, but mktours did not reach kiev on 26th .

on 26 june he starts at Novogorod Volnsky .
on 3th july he starts at Kiev.

In all fairness, you must admit that there is nothing spectacular about turn 2, becuse 13th panzer did cover the distance from Novogorod Volnsky to Kiev in less than 5 days.

turn 1 when he destroyed practicaly the best mechanised corps in the ukraine is the isuee here.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG