Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

...if it were harder to build forts, I would have no objections to the ones that were built being stronger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

thx for response, 1) nothing on reserve activation as far as I can tell (don't really like to spend time watching the combats play out) 2) the pz and mot div have been used for strong points
3) the axis took a pretty huge beating winter 41-42. Neither myself or my opponent are anywhere near the skill level I have seen demonstrated in aars. My point is that the fort levels, not necessarily the combat results, are too easy to reduce. Not advocating for changes, I like the game very much. Considering your experience (v mine) I would have to agree with your remarks about a "slog". I am still wondering if reserve activations can be significantly reduced by bombing. Hope to get the chance to find out.

We probably don't actually disagree - I think that forts are too quick to build less than I think they are "too strong" - if it were harder to build forts, I would have no objections to the ones that were built being stronger. This would definitely help the Germans in '41 (unlike past help like flying gas cans that was clearly ridiculous) while giving the Germans more of an incentive in '43+ to try to change the game through offense (since sitting in trenches would be less effective).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

...if it were harder to build forts, I would have no objections to the ones that were built being stronger.

I think this is a great idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

....

Also, it might be thoughtful to keep in mind that, during the War in the East, trenches were not as effective as they were in World War I. Tanks, better infantry tactics, better artillery and better artillery ammo combined to reduce the effectiveness of trenches on the Eastern front during World War II.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Just an update for those interested. Germans have managed to take Moskow and right hook around Leningrad has cut the rail supply and is 50 miles (5 hexes) from the Finish Troops at the no-attack-line. Maybe two moves until Blizzard... Who knows ? We'll probably all die of frostbite... LOL. (I love this game.)

Taking Moscow but not necessarily Leningrad is quite unusual - I've lost Leningrad in almost every game I've played but never lost Moscow. How did the South end up looking?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Would have loved to see an AAR on him taking Moscow.

quote:

Next turn is #25, first of Dec 41 and still blizzard I hope even with random weather.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

....

Also, it might be thoughtful to keep in mind that, during the War in the East, trenches were not as effective as they were in World War I. Tanks, better infantry tactics, better artillery and better artillery ammo combined to reduce the effectiveness of trenches on the Eastern front during World War II.

Well, not quite. Look at the various offensives by Western Front on the Orsha-Mogilev axis from late 42 till early 44. Massive losses (incl the Mars foul up), some can be put down to less than stellar Soviet leadership and planning but mostly the German defensive lines were just too good,

It wasn't till Rokossovsky cleared Gomel, using much more astute tactics, and flanked this line to the south that they made any progress. So in sectors, fortifications did turn specific campaigns into a WW1 re-enactment.

What I think is the problem in game, is that FZs are relatively cheap, esp for the axis who often build up a large pool of admin points, so you can extend the fortification belts much more widely than they were historically deployed.

On the other hand, esp in the Ukraine, the Germans didn't accept they were on the strategic defensive till after Kursk, a mistake that no competent German player is going to make. Its another of those issues where game design and player hindsight, lead to a different pattern to what really happened - but not necessarily a pattern that was impossible. In reality if the Germans had started to dig a serious defense line on the Dniepr after their victory at Kharkov .... ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheat

Oh, and no guards yet. Hmmmmmm. One division has 5 victories! I tried to attack earlier whenever I thought it prudent.

quote:

Oh, and no guards yet. Hmmmmmm. One division has 5 victories! I tried to attack earlier whenever I thought it prudent.

quote:

Condition One:
 For non-motorized units, the unit's number of wins plus the year modifier must be greater or equal to 8 plus random(8).(see glossary for definition of random(x))

Condition Two:
 For all units, the unit's number of wins plus the year modifier must be greater than 9

Condition Three:
 For all units, the unit's number of wins plus the year modifier must be greater than 2 plus the unit's number of losses

Random(x): The computer generates a random number from 0 to x-1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

quote:

Oh, and no guards yet. Hmmmmmm. One division has 5 victories! I tried to attack earlier whenever I thought it prudent.

Wheat, as far as I can tell the system works just fine. This info is just for infantry:

quote:

aye, as with you, I'm not disagreeing in a fundamental manner.

Where WW2 differed from WW1 was if you got a breakthrough, every army (limited by their operational competence and equipment) had the means to escalate it.

Cambrai in 1917 is a good eg. The British and Canadian forces managed the holy grail of a clean breakthrough (with tanks), described in despatches as reaching 'to the green fields beyond', but couldn't exploit as partly the High Command didn't expect to win so reinforcements weren't in sector, but mainly that everything that moved up had to cross the wasteland of the old front. And of course the last thing you did in a 1917 tank was go on a blitzkrieg.

Bagration is usually put down as a stunning Soviet success. But there losses in the first week were horrendous and shocked even their own commanders. Now once the German line broke, the Soviets had the means (& numbers) to amplify that victory. Tactically it led the Soviets to grasp the value of the APC as used by the Germans or Western Allies to move the infantry rather than sticking a rifle squad on a tank (even if this only was really introduced post war).

So to me, in sectors, a well prepared defense should be a major barrier.

Its a problem I think were reasonable simulation meets gamers using hindsight and looking for slightly implausible advantages. The permissive logistics in WiTE make it hard to check an offensive, so both sides dig in more substantially than they could have in reality. In my current game with SigUp I have defensive belts around Moscow-Tula that would put those of Kursk to shame. Its way beyond capability, but its a means to deny him operational freedom which is over-valued (due to the lack of logistics restraints). German players in the mid game do the same in reverse, when in reality the Germans built a series of localised lines (some more formidable in their notional title than in reality) that covered most of AGN-AGC and never really prepared for being on the strategic defense in the south.

I do think slowing digging speed is good (ie the settings), esp if tied to reducing the logistics settings. And hfarrish's idea of being harder to build, but more effective is a means to simulate the type of defense constructed by AGC, but also to mean that if it is breached (as in Bagration), they are then in deep trouble.