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: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion

 
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 >> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 2:04:04 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		No. Clearly it wasn't done on this scale in the east. But I beleive so in Africa. But I am not arguing that it *was* done. Just that is was plausible, considering the LB fleet would be sitting around with no enemy to bomb if they all ran away.

Some people can't stomach it. I respect that. But others are more open minded. I think the game handles it well enough in comparison to other 'plausible' things that also never happened historically. Like Stalin being *ok* with the Army giving up all of European Russia west of Moscow without a fight. Not likely, but plausible.

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 91
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 2:53:55 AM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline 		There is just an endless discussion of this subject. It's quite frustrating. Maybe one should strictly look at game balance. The game programmers should simply get rid of bomber air supply and make the blizzard MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH weaker. Then you would almost have a perfect game.

I have no idea why they don't make these changes. Wouldn't this be a very simple task?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 92
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 4:25:45 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

I have no idea why they don't make these changes. Wouldn't this be a very simple task?


haha, I don't think so; this is a very complex game modelling a very complex campaign, and every change causes unintended effects to ripple throughout the game, thus requiring further changes, ad infinitum. The devs made valiant efforts to fix things in the many patches, to no avail.

Reading this thread is like "deja vu all over again." Most of the arguments have been made as long as the game has been out. Ho hum...

< Message edited by 76mm -- 9/6/2013 4:26:23 AM >

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 93
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 6:55:35 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


-Soviets fight forward (with rules + gentlemen's intent to enforce)
-In blizzard, Germans fight forward + only deliberate attacks by Soviet

I really feel this might get us somewhere. The 41 running is due to insane logistical exploits. The blizzard insanity is due to the ability of Sov players to annihilate the German army if it holds its ground due to crazy blizzard rules. Without the logsitical boosts in summer or hasties in winter, you might actually see a normal game (that is the theory anyway).





What is meant by the term 'Fights forward'?

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 94
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 8:49:08 AM   
Gabriel B.

 

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

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Depending on aircraft reliability rates 75% of fuel needed by this exploitation force can be delivered by air .



I will accept this as a valid tactic if someone in this forum can personally stand on the ground and catch a couple of tonnes of diesel fuel dropped by air.



Hey , I have no problem if you would need to stack the HQ with a army airbase in order to receive the fuel , becuse it would eliminate the waste due to imprecision of the airdrop .

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 95
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 9:22:30 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		Before talking about whether airsupply via bombers were possible at all one has to address another issue first: In game terms every airbase is like an unlimited supply store. Your only restraint is the capacity of your airfleet. It makes no sense at all if for example an HQ on the same hex as the airbase only gets 100 tons of fuel which it then distributes to its divisions, while from the airbase you can fly many times that amount. Before a base can fly supply a supply accumulation akin to a HQ buildup should take place first. And then you can only fly the amount of fuel in that airbase minus its own need to units. Currently it is like the airbases are basically exempt from the supply system, aside from that 5 MPs regulation.

< Message edited by SigUp -- 9/6/2013 9:23:19 AM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)
Post #: 96
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 9:49:56 AM   
821Bobo


Posts: 2311
Joined: 2/8/2011
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

IIRC I read it somewhere many years ago when the Germans halted for supply lines to catch up. Guderian beleived he could pursue with air supply (fuel) but was overruled by some superior, maybe even Hitler. Not sure but the theory was certainly in the mindset of the forward thinking Panzer General.


I read something like this as well. In Guderians or Mansteins memories I guess. Actually if I can remember, they were using Luftwaffe bombers for delivering fuel to spearheads in opening stages of Barbarossa.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 97
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 11:03:39 AM   
Walloc

 

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

ORIGINAL: Michael T

If the Soviets are running and the Mech units are chasing them then surely they would/could have used the LB fleet to act as transports especially when not being used as Ground Support as there was no enemy to bomb.


In ur game vs Tarhunaas. Did u revert using ur LB to GS when he did the fight forward strategy or did you use them as always to deliver fuel?
What creates what?

quote:


Use some imagination people. The Germans were quite innovative when faced with new problems. AND I am almost certain Guderian wanted to use the LB for this very purpose sometime in July 1941. IIRC I read it somewhere many years ago when the Germans halted for supply lines to catch up. Guderian beleived he could pursue with air supply (fuel) but was overruled by some superior, maybe even Hitler. Not sure but the theory was certainly in the mindset of the forward thinking Panzer General.


Yes they were. Among others so imagientive that after supplying a few trapped divisions in pockets in 1941/42. I then hear that the head of the luftwaffe one presumably more capable of knowing what his force is capable off than a heer general. That he couild supply a trapped army. IIRC i read that too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo
I read something like this as well. In Guderians or Mansteins memories I guess. Actually if I can remember, they were using Luftwaffe bombers for delivering fuel to spearheads in opening stages of Barbarossa.


Yes they did it a few times, but what wasnt written or read was that it was mostly with a few exception to case of LVI pz corps being cut off having no fuel to move its tanks so it was tacticlly incapable of defending it self. They they got fuel deliver to being able to tacticlly repel russian counter attacks, not fuel as said with a few exception on a very limited scale fuel so they could sustain advances. The former being an "act of desperation" to survive and restablish commincations so real supply could come in.

Earlier in this thread wasnt showned the entire amout of fuel deliver duing Blue. It was what some few divisions would have used for a few fuel loads depnding on amount of combat was done. As during Blue u only had one direction of advance was done and as the german indeed was so imagientive dont u think they would have used fuel to a much larger degree if it was a real possibility. Or is it a question of selective imagentivity. When it fits ur side of teh coin its a good thing when they showed to be only goes X far then we convinently overlook that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No. Clearly it wasn't done on this scale in the east. But I beleive so in Africa. But I am not arguing that it *was* done. Just that is was plausible, considering the LB fleet would be sitting around with no enemy to bomb if they all ran away.


Yes and in Afrika u had 2-3 motorized divisions. They werent supplying armies, but a few divisions. Not only that if u take cases like at El Alemain its so far from the german supply bses so again the fuel is in quantities to survive tactically. So when u reach a certain distance u couldnt and didnt sustain advances or by which russian standarts extremly limited ones. Fuel deliver by air was a fraction of the supply that was needed. A much more pertinant factor and what many times sustain the german advances was captured british fuel stocks.
Look into what happend when Kesselring promises air delivered fuel at the whole july 1942-nov 1942 era as the tankers gets sunk quite often. An excellent case of what fuel delivery can and cant do.

quote:


Some people can't stomach it. I respect that. But others are more open minded. I think the game handles it well enough in comparison to other 'plausible' things that also never happened historically. Like Stalin being *ok* with the Army giving up all of European Russia west of Moscow without a fight. Not likely, but plausible.


Or its a question of wishfull thinking cuz it fits into the vision one have of the romantic germans rolling "immer forwards". Not that i cant understand that, but there are reason the german "only" got as far as they did. Ignoring those isnt a question of plausibilty, but a question of thinking if ppl are just openminded they can train a tortus to be a world class 100m sprinter.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 9/6/2013 11:25:02 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 98
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 11:38:43 AM   
Michael T


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

Yes and in Afrika u had 2-3 motorized divisions


Yes and similar proportions of a/c in comparison to the east.

If 3 divisions can be supplied tactically why not just one with 3 times as much?

Its a game and some leeway will always be built in. Get over it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 99
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 1:46:00 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		There are several factors to consider in using aerial re-supply.

The first is that grass strips are merely okay for single engine fighters but they are only used as emergency expedients for larger aircraft. The reason is while a single engine light airplane can easily negotiate a grass airfield, an almost overloaded transport has difficulties. This is the reason why the transport squadrons preferred to use hardened airfields with facilities. The sustained use of grass airstrips would decrease readiness rates as these aircraft would have to be serviced more often. Repair parts and repair facilities were already a major issue in 1941. By the end of September, transport squadrons were struggling to maintain 40-60% readiness rates. Additionally, grass strips are limited in their takeoff and landing ground space as well as their loading and unloading facilities. The use of such grass strip often resulted in long delays while loading and unloading and preventing more aircraft from landing while this process was being executed. To make matters worse, during poor weather with lots of precipitation, these grass strips became mud strips and their usefulness became even less with longer delays and less usable ground space.

Also, the transport squadrons couldn't dedicate their sortie time to supporting the army with fuel as the Army wasn't the only organization that had logistic issues. The Luftwaffe had problems getting fuel, ammunition, food, and spare parts. It was the transport squadrons that often had to fly in these necessities to keep aircraft operational. The transport squadrons also had to spend a lot of time moving their personnel and equipment forward as the Luftwaffe air and ground crews moved forward to support the invasion.

Finally, military personnel are a very proud bunch and they resist doing something that they aren't trained for. Using bombers as supply aircraft was only used in dire situations where there was significant forces that were surrounded. The Luftwaffe commanders and aircrews were very sensitive about being subordinate to the Wehrmacht and any suggestion that bombers be used regularly as transport aircraft would have been resisted vehemently unless there was an emergency. Not to mention that using bombers in an other than intended usage probably has an impact on the readiness rate of these aircraft which means that sustained operations in a transportation role would result in low readiness rates and a loss in capability to accomplish its primary mission.

Trey

< Message edited by el hefe -- 9/6/2013 1:47:25 PM >

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 100
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 2:16:37 PM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline 		It wasn't just fuel that stopped mobile units, it was also equipment attrition from breakdowns. Repair & Refit is needed for every mile forward and it gets out of hand when ignored. All supplies & services become dear when armies are way forward. (Of course, fuel is very important.)

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 101
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 2:36:59 PM   
Walloc

 

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

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

Yes and in Afrika u had 2-3 motorized divisions


Yes and similar proportions of a/c in comparison to the east.


And thats where ur premise is wrong. Luftwaffe has 365 transport aircraft IN ALL on 27th july 1942. Of those Luftflotte 2 in the med has 180 Ju 52. That just about half of the entire transport fleet of the luftwaffe and those couldnt even fly in fuel enough to make offensive combat operations possbile for more than 2 days(of an advance of 20 ish km for 2 very under strengthed Pz divs and one motorized division in the same state. Actually its officially the sole reason the offensive gets cancelled after 2 days. Nor were they after Halfa Elam was able to build up supplies/fuel so offensive operartions was possible until the British/commonwealth takes the offensive.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
If 3 divisions can be supplied tactically why not just one with 3 times as much?


Exactly. There is alot of difference between being supplied tacticly so u can actually move ur tanks if combat occures and that of a 300km advance of several Pz/motorised division with its full tail of possibly 3000+ vehicles each. One takes 10+ times more fuel than the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Its a game and some leeway will always be built in. Get over it.


Ok, so we wont ever hear about how the game is biased towards the russian, nor any complaints about the blizzard or the russian steammroller?
As such cant be problems. I mean some leeway have to be build in, get over it.

i've said it before and ill say it again. This is a case in point how problems are percieved differently for the 2 sides. It gets a shrug/get over it atttitude when we in fantasy land in regards to problems on the one side. The problems on the other side with near automacy ruins the game. To quote u, there is no game if Lvov pocket issue could possibly be fixed. As long as that mindset is like this then rebalacing becomes an impossibility. Objectivy in regards to the problems is by the nature of it an impossibity as the perceptions of the sides is different and starts scewed to one of the sides.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 9/6/2013 6:25:48 PM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 102
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 3:11:59 PM   
janh

 

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

ORIGINAL: el hefe
Finally, military personnel are a very proud bunch and they resist doing something that they aren't trained for. Using bombers as supply aircraft was only used in dire situations where there was significant forces that were surrounded. The Luftwaffe commanders and aircrews were very sensitive about being subordinate to the Wehrmacht and any suggestion that bombers be used regularly as transport aircraft would have been resisted vehemently unless there was an emergency. Not to mention that using bombers in an other than intended usage probably has an impact on the readiness rate of these aircraft which means that sustained operations in a transportation role would result in low readiness rates and a loss in capability to accomplish its primary mission.


Suppose so, yes. So besides the whole technical or practical aspects of why LW fuel delivery couldn't have persistantly achieved what it can achieve within the framework of the game's logistic simulation, the "political" aspect also deprives of plausibility. Like you can be almost (but only almost) certain that with Stalin there would not have been a strategic retreat during Barbarossa, they same holds with Goering allowing LW Kampfgeschwander to move to a regular role of flying logistic support of Wehrmacht.

For the sake of this being a game, of course it is not too far a stretch to allow this to happen nonetheless, but then you'll logically not be able to reject more leeway for the Russian strategies as well.
Whatever you do, and that doesn't concern only air supply but also ground logistics: When allowed, only with the rational, realistic and limited capabilities that the Germans or Soviets also could have achieved, as Walloc, el Hefe and others have pointed out -- keep physical reality governing it, so to speak. In that regard I am very curious about the new developments in WitW and have high hopes for a fundamental change in this matter, and in WitE2 consequently.

< Message edited by janh -- 9/6/2013 3:12:25 PM >

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 103
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 4:50:53 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Its a game and some leeway will always be built in. Get over it.


Then we can stop with all the complaints about Russian retreats and the blizzard.

Excellent.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 104
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/6/2013 5:09:59 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Obviously the the a\c are landing on a flat field (not an airstrip), rolling the drums of fuel down a few planks and then taking off back to the point of departure for the second sortie.


Natural, wild, grass fields are not usually all that flat and smooth. There's bumps, divets, holes, rocks/boulders, soft spots, bushes, tree trunks, etc. It does take some preparation work for many locations. Looking back to the Demyansk pocket air supply situation, the pocket had two reasonably equipped/prepared and existing (captured) Russian airfields. The majority of supply was not brought in on an ad-hoc basis. It was a planned, prepared, deliberate operation.

I've worked in air operations in the Canadian bush, I think reasonably similar to the Russian hinterland in the 1940s (and many areas still today), with forests, swamps, rivers, lakes, limited infrastructure/road access, etc. Even designated and semi-prepared landing areas can create a lot of wear and tear on aircraft, even nowadays in modern times and even for small aircraft and helicopters. Access and landing areas are not 'wherever we want'. There are physical/geographical limits and restrictions. It's not easy, wide-open land wherever you want terrain. Large multi-engined transport aircraft are going to have a very hard time in anything other than fully prepared and well maintained landing strips.

quote:

Hell they did this in the PTO on a regular basis, bulldoze a strip in a day and within 24 hours transports were flying supplies in.


Yes, and the keyword here is 'bulldoze'. The US had the resources and specialist abilities to construct prepared or semi-prepared landing strips in a very short time. I don't recall the Germans (resourceful and ingenious as they were) having those kinds of heavy engineering assets on hand at a moment's notice. Where are these German bulldozers coming from and how are they getting to the front? If the Germans are having a difficult time getting basic fuel and supplies to the Panzers, how are they shipping bulldozers criss-cross around Russia?

quote:

If the Soviets are running and the Mech units are chasing them then surely they would/could have used the LB fleet to act as transports especially when not being used as Ground Support as there was no enemy to bomb.


In historical cases when the Russians were on the run and the Panzers were running on dry tanks, why didn't the Germans in real life think of these things? Either they were stupid or they didn't have the abilities/resources to pull it off. A game like WITE should allow for some exploring of 'what ifs', but it shouldn't be based on 20/20 hindsight and allow for correction of all historical errors, misinformation, misjudgments, etc.

quote:

Use some imagination people. The Germans were quite innovative when faced with new problems. AND I am almost certain Guderian wanted to use the LB for this very purpose sometime in July 1941. IIRC I read it somewhere many years ago when the Germans halted for supply lines to catch up. Guderian beleived he could pursue with air supply (fuel) but was overruled by some superior, maybe even Hitler. Not sure but the theory was certainly in the mindset of the forward thinking Panzer General.


In other words, there were real-life constraints to this aspect...

Overall, I'm not saying air supply should be cut off completely. There are cases when the Germans pulled it off historically. Supplementing a division here or there, a small pocket now and again, and as Walloc (I think correctly points out) in limited, defensive, tactical survival situations, etc. And that is likely the intent of the air supply option within WITE. But on the scale that some are using in the game currently for supplying entire Panzer Armies driving east of Moscow before the fall mud, no way, and it's a bug within the game.

I think realistically, using some imagination and ingenuity (and a hint of hindsight leeway) the Germans could have provided continuous air supply for one Panzer Korps on limited offensive operations. That's with the entire air transport fleet committed, all-in C&C, political, and logistical support for such an operation. That might provide for an operational level coup now and then, but I don't think it would've been enough for a strategic game changer in the scheme of things.

Frankly, if the Germans had the resources and ability to pull that off, then why didn't they? They were intelligent and resourceful. Why couldn't they do it?

The Western Allies definitely DID have the resources and abilities to conduct large scale air supply operations, but they notably didn't in the drive across Western Europe in 1944. Why not? Why were even they limited and reliant on road/truck re-supply for forward mobile columns? Why couldn't they have created a flying column with several Armoured Divisions driving through France into Germany, supplied only by air, walking into Berlin and ending the war in 1944? Sounds easy. Maybe Eisenhower just needed to use his imagination? I suppose Market-Garden was an attempt at such a concept, although it didn't end up working.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 9/6/2013 6:21:20 PM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 105
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/7/2013 11:28:52 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Its a game and some leeway will always be built in. Get over it.


Can I humbly suggest that a lot of this discussion willfully or accidently conflates two separate issues. Some things that are done by some players simply were impossible in this time frame. Some things that are done by players were not done in this time frame.

As Schmart rather competently demonstrates, the use of bombers dropping fuel to panzer spearheads is in the first category. Its an exploit of the game engine, pure and simple.

Now there is a lot of developed in-game traditions, such as the Soviet 41 run away, the Axis blizzard run away, that could indeed have been done in reality. If Stalin and Hitler weren't in charge, no doubt both armies would have behaved differently - but then you can make a strong argument that if that pair weren't around then this entire war would not have been fought. So here we are in the murky terrain of things that didn't happen but *could* have happened.

I realise that Flavius has a well grounded view that too many systems are out so that solving one doesn't solve others. But I do think one reason for the a-historic Soviet run away tactic is that a German player prepared to exploit the logistic system can simply move too far too fast. Cramp that, and it becomes feasible to see a 1941 campaign as a series of forced strategic withdrawals interspersed with counterattacks and critical, 'hold the line' defensive operations. In other words, something closer to what happened (and a damn sight more fun to play too).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
Frankly, if the Germans had the resources and ability to pull that off, then why didn't they? They were intelligent and resourceful. Why couldn't they do it?


In this respect, the reality of the German drive towards Grozny in the summer of 1942 is instructive. They were abandoning lots of vehicles simply to get fuel into a few to retain some momentum. Once it was clear the Soviets had turned the city into a fortress, the Germans bombed the local oil industry into the ground. So they had level bombers - enough to secure their secondary goal of denying the oil production to the Soviets, they had vehicles littering the road from Rostov out of fuel. But no sign of Ju-88s hoiking barrels of oil out of the sky or landing next to the road to fuel up the Panzers.


< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/7/2013 11:33:48 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 106
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/7/2013 11:32:31 AM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline 		Why didn't Western Allies use large scale air supply operations? They're costly, risky, and the ground game was working. When tried (Market Garden) these operations proved troublesome. Commander Hind Sight is a wonderful strategist.

Riskiness is not a linear scaled factor for air supply (IMO;) as scale increases the effects of weather, refit & repair, enemy opportunity, etc. grow. One might get away cheaply with a short lived, limited effort but longer term operations of wider scope not.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 107
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/7/2013 12:17:58 PM   
SigUp

 

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

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Why didn't Western Allies use large scale air supply operations? They're costly, risky, and the ground game was working.

Or, why didn't they utilize aerial resupply when their troops ran into severe supply problems in the pursuit phase? It was not until Antwerp with its big harbour had fallen that these supply problems were alleviated.

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 108
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/7/2013 1:09:53 PM   
Walloc

 

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

ORIGINAL: loki100
I realise that Flavius has a well grounded view that too many systems are out so that solving one doesn't solve others. But I do think one reason for the a-historic Soviet run away tactic is that a German player prepared to exploit the logistic system can simply move too far too fast.




quote:


Cramp that, and it becomes feasible to see a 1941 campaign as a series of forced strategic withdrawals interspersed with counterattacks and critical, 'hold the line' defensive operations. In other words, something closer to what happened (and a damn sight more fun to play too).


I sat down yesterday and in a responce to JanH and some extend Bozo as of a few days ago. Explained why we see runing and how its a result of the incentive structure is off in WITE.
That running is a sympthom of the disease not the cause. Its not that i cant understand the will and desire too when ppl see a problem and wanting to fix it. So do i. Problem is if u bandaid the symptom instead of fixing the cause u create other problems that is bound to happen as u dont change any thing in causality effect that causes ppl ro run. Problem is i hate writting as im excedingly bad at it and im up too 5 pages in words now and not half finnished. Guess we will see if it ever gets finnished or not.

Any how in short(me short haha, laughs to my self) i see the same. Ppl havent always run, the didnt in 1.04 nor did they in the games started right after 1.07.06. If ppl have any incentive to stay, they stay. As in the case of 1.04 and again in 1.07.06 the problem is that CV gets to high so u in 1.04 ended up with carpets of forts in 42 and in 1.07.06 to high CVs for the russians. Still it shows when ppl are actually able to have an effect on german ops tempo they stay. If ppl experince that they just lose Smolensk at turn 5 whether u sacrifice 200k men or not. Ppl are going to run as u gain nada for those 200k men, so why sacrifice them. The cause of the running is IMO with out a doubt a result of the upping in german ops tempo since 1.05 in its varying evolutions along with ppl learning the game mechanics by then. The ralying cry a year or year and a half ago when asking for advise for teh russain side. Defend the landbridge! Stop them there. If any suggested the same today u would be seen as a fool. Ppl quickly learn as a result of upping of ops tempo that u couldnt defend against it vs a knowledgble german player. Running became the norm.

The same is tru come blizzard the russian can have hay delivering(supply) LI-2 running around boosting Cav corps MP and that is just as redicioulus as the fuel delivery on the other side. Unfortunatly(not to be seen as a reason not to do some thing about it) but supply has more uses than fuel so limiting fuel is easiser than supply as limit supply drops will have other effects too. Non the less that the russains have the ability to boosts the ops tempo of Cav corps by hay dropping LI-2s during blizzard conditions should be removed. The ops loss rate would have been horrendous. U need to lower the russian ops tempo in the blizzard too and come 43+ along with having the oddity of now seeing fort carpets on the opposite side of 1.04. Ofc the axis shouldnt have that ability either like the russian should have had it in 1.04.

I really commend Carls attempt and he actually does some thing, nothing u can fault in that. The problem i see being by tying the russian down in that fashion doesnt affect the root causes of the running. Im not saying it wont ever work and u can rebalance the blitz points along the way. If u play by the script it can work. The AAR now shows it can be fun and if u play by script how u can come closer to history.
My point is if he meets an opponent that knows how to make fail safe pockets and im not talking an MT/Sapper/Pelton type highest echelon german player. Just some one that knows how to make pockets. That u will run into the issue that causes the running. U use a pacmac like type strategy just gobble up the the soviets units in the first 5 to 8 turn u by then have few soviet units left. The influx of units doesnt really starts to take place until after turn 10. The ops tempo is such that with out even having to resort to the use airrefueling just using HQBU as is now that u can make this happen in teh first 5-8 turns if u know how to make fail safe pockets. If there is no or few units left the idea behind Carls system breaks down. We alrdy been down this road before and it was tested. There are even several ways to cheese Carls system that im not going to say publicly, but if Carls wants them ill ofc tell him.
U could ofc say that the reason we are not seing fail safe pockets is because Carl defends forward and that creates the situasions where he can break the pockets. My point is If that had been universally true u wouldnt see running, but i guess the only way to show it either way is doing a test of the system against some one that does know how to make fail safe pockets.

So my issue isnt with tying down the russians in it self but if u do it with out addressing the root causes for running namely the ops tempo of the game u just run into another problem annd its then only a bandaid solution that doesnt solve any thing other than creating another problem. IMO and apparenly Loki is with me on that if u instead addrese the root causes u fix the issue, tho there is a finely tunned balance to find so im not saying its easy. Hench it wont be done.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 9/7/2013 1:58:26 PM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 109
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/7/2013 6:56:16 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


suggest that a lot of this discussion willfully or accidently conflates two separate issues. Some things that are
Now there is a lot of developed in-game traditions, such as the Soviet 41 run away, the Axis blizzard run away, that could indeed have been done in reality. If Stalin and Hitler weren't in charge



That's one thing that the designers emphasized. The player will not be saddled with the mistakes made by those two. But rather free to make their own.

I'd rather not withdraw as the Soviets, but Axis players will have to, as one of them says, get over it. Or stop exploiting the system.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 110
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/8/2013 12:07:44 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		I don't have anything to get over. I am happy to play the game and continue to do so.

It's not an issue for me. And no matter what the devs do or don't do I will still succeed in any game I put my mind too

< Message edited by Michael T -- 9/8/2013 12:08:25 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 111
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/8/2013 1:00:01 AM   
Bozo_the_Clown


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

I am happy to play the game and continue to do so.


Same here! There are a lot of Soviet players by the way who complain about lack of realism but are more then happy to rail U2-VS factories west for the Axis to capture. One man's cheese is the other man's great strategy.

The best games I've played so far are the one's without house rules.

Games played by mktours, MichaelT, Pelton, sapper222 and others are anomalies. The other "less skilled" players like me should stop trying to copy them and they should not panic when they don't capture Leningrad on turn 5.

The game is fun the way it is! It's just a matter of matching the right players.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 112
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/8/2013 1:34:12 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I don't have anything to get over. I am happy to play the game and continue to do so.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I absolutely refuse from now on to play WITE without severe penalties for wholesale retreats. Its just my preference and how I like to play. I just won't be playing people who want to run anymore.


If you don't have anything to get over, then you don't need "severe penalties." You'll play those people anyway. :)

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 113
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/8/2013 1:49:52 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		No, I will play like minded people, there are plenty around. And people like yourself can play each other. So all are happy in the WITE world

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 114
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/8/2013 6:04:13 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		Nothing against you MT, but your stance is kind of inconsistent. You speak out against Soviet withdrawals. In the past you have spoken out against massed use of reserve activation by the Soviets in 1941. So why is it so hard for you to accept a limitation on aerial resupply?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 115
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/8/2013 6:14:57 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Because a limitation on aerial resupply without some counter balance on the Soviet side will unbalance the game in the Soviets favour. It is already in their favour.

I respect others preferences. But for me this issue of aerial supply realism is less important than maintaining the current status quo in game balance terms.

I see no problem really. People can simply agree no to use LB as supplies if it is a problem for them.

IMO the biggest issue with the game now is the blizzard. But I doubt anything will be done as WITW is taking up all resources. WITE is quite a playable and reasonably balanced game as it stands now that morale has been addressed.

If the devs tinker with Aerial supply again it will open up a new can of worms.

_____________________________


(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 116
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/9/2013 7:24:59 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Why didn't Western Allies use large scale air supply operations? They're costly, risky, and the ground game was working. When tried (Market Garden) these operations proved troublesome. Commander Hind Sight is a wonderful strategist.

Riskiness is not a linear scaled factor for air supply (IMO;) as scale increases the effects of weather, refit & repair, enemy opportunity, etc. grow. One might get away cheaply with a short lived, limited effort but longer term operations of wider scope not.


In fact yes they did... but on the other side of the planet. From India to China, to help the latter. The Hump.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 117
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/9/2013 7:38:01 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Pretty sure the KMT didn't field mechanized armies.

It's true that the USAAF did fly over a lot of fuel and munitions over to China to try their hand at strategic bombing from that location, but the results were so dismal and the logistics so unpromising that this effort eventually got relocated to the Marianas. In any event, not strictly comparable to supplying mechanized formations from the air.

I think a better case can be made for Slim's efforts in SE Asia in this regard. That may have been the most successful sustained attempt at air supply of a ground army of the war, and he even had some mechanized elements in his command.

The Soviets tried their hand at this in Manchuria in 1945, and barely managed to keep a few forward detachments of 6. Guards Tank Army refueled this way; but the formation as a whole basically ran out of gas. By that point the damage had been done, though.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 118
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/9/2013 8:07:07 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		The Hump was quite inefficient and can't be taken as a successful example of sustained aerial supply. In the whole year 1942 only 1.571 tons arrived in China and in 1943-44 194.072 tons, which amounts to some 8.000 per month. The 15th June 1944 air raid against the Yawata ironworks consumed so much of the accumulated stockpiles, that subsequent operations had to be downscaled and by the end of the year 20th Air Force was transferred to the Marianas.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 119
RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Disc... - 9/9/2013 8:10:37 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		I know it was inefficient. But is was "large scale air supply"

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.031