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: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed)

 
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 2 >> RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 3:07:36 AM   
Skritshell

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 11/18/2019
Status: offline 		As has been hinted at already, I believe the largest problem is not the assault HQ’s but the way CPP works. CPP as an instrument benefits the defender, their units will always be in friendly terrain and can often remain static for multiple turns creating large gains. Conversely an attacker will be constantly burning their CPP creating holes, and then advancing and burning what little is left. This has, I believe, the intended effect of burning out an offensive in 2-4 turns. As a system, this benefits the soviets more, as on the defence they will have a greater number of units behind the front gaining a large amount of CPP waiting to counter attack, while on the offence they have the ability to rotate entire army’s in and out of combat. The Germans do not have this ability, at best a German player can have 1/10ths of their forces off the front at a time. This is almost the reverse of the strength of the Wehrmacht in the early years of the war, the ability to create ad hoc units(kampfgruppen), coupled with their excellent lower ranking officers, allowed them to rapidly respond to changing situations and retain the initiative.

What I believe CPP intends to represent is this initiative, the ability to rapidly reform units after combat and maintain cohesion. It should not be supplies, as there is already an adequate system in place to represent this. This is in effect the larger problem we are seeing. If one reads multiple AAR’s on this forum it is quite clear that Barbarossa effectively ends between turn 10 and 13, not mud. At this point the Germans are out of CPP, and no longer have the time to wait for it to recover. On the other end the Soviets will have fallen back, reformed their units and have the capacity to counter attack into whatever weak German formations attempt a pocket. This denies the German player a Vyazma-Bryansk like pocket and pushes the Soviets in to an excellent position to conduct a winter offensive and farm all those lovely Guard tank brigades.

In order to correct this, and the larger problem of assault armies in general I would suggest these following points:

1. Remove all additional CPP gain from assault armies, it is a poor system that, as has been touched on by others, does not adequately represent what constitutes a formations ability to attack and sustain an advance.
2. Tie CPP gain to 3 things. The fatigue of a unit, the experience of a unit and the skill of their commanders. This will more properly represent what factors went into a unit's ability to sustain a proper offensive.
3. Remove all the preexisting rules on CPP gain, especially the rules about being adjacent to enemy terrain or in recently occupied terrain.
4. Remove assault armies, they are a poor system, in their place institute a proper system that has a correlation between a commander's skill level and their ability to effectively command more troops. This will have the added benefit of forcing players to move the better generals to higher command positions, as players will want to properly balance their command structures.
5. The problem of foresight has not been addressed. Soviet players in 41 will always retreat into the steppe regardless of how many bonus VP’s are assigned to certain cities. To this I do not believe there is any good way to force a soviet player to fight forward. Giving them more offensive power in 41(assault HQ’s) only increases the damage they can do when they choose to fight.

I make no claim that these suggestions would not create more problems, or would they solve any of the other issues the game is currently experiencing. But I do believe it would be a step in creating a much more dynamic game and would remove one of the most predictable aspects from the game, CPP gain.

Chow.

(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 31
RE: Assault HQ's - 9/6/2021 3:13:08 AM   
Aurelian

 

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

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

My idea of Soviet assault HQ:

Only one, from turn 24 until end of February of 42. None from Mars until October of 42, (possibly even end of October). Then two from October/November of 42. The third and final given in June of 43 (this can of course be house ruled in MP games until its possible patching).

Another thing also comes to mind.

The AP bonuses given to the Soviets in December of 41 should be for AI only. They are allegedly given to create ski battalions, rifle and cavalry corps. But the the Ski Bns are free, and the two rifle and eight cav corps that can be created in December only costs 120 AP (while 200 AP are given). Instead, make the two + eight December rifle and cav corps free.

While I haven't played that far yet, I am also pretty sure that the other AP bonus events should also be AI only. A human player should not be given these.



And meanwhile you'll leave the Germans with 6.... Interesting.....

Just what are you basing that idea on?

The current player versus player balance.



So you'll leave the Germans with 6. Yeah, balance.....

_____________________________

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

(in reply to erikbengtsson)
Post #: 32
RE: Assault HQ's - 9/6/2021 3:23:30 AM   
Aurelian

 

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

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

It may well be the case that assault HQs, at least for Soviets in 1941, are too good.

However, I hope that one thing that doesn't get lost in this conversation is that historically, the Soviets counterattacked in 1941. Not just a little bit, but a LOT. So if there is supposed to be a historical sort of experience in WITE2, then Soviets should counterattack in WITE2.


Historically, the Germans only cut off Leningrad. And lost. You can't expect one side to act "historically" without expecting the same from the other side.

It's not a documentary, or a history book. It's a game, not a slave to history. You get to make your own, original, mistakes and successes. That's what I hope doesn't get lost in the conversation.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 33
RE: Assault HQ's - 9/6/2021 3:34:58 AM   
Aurelian

 

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

ORIGINAL: vinnysix

In relation to historical context - Russia probably comes closest to the concept of Assualt Formations/Armies/Divisions....

During the Second World War, the Red Army of the Soviet Union deployed five shock armies (Russian: ударные армии – singular: Russian: ударная армия) between 1941 and 1945. Many of the units, which spearheaded the Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front from the Battle of Stalingrad (1942–1943) to the Battle of Berlin (1945), were shock armies. Shock armies had high proportions of infantry, engineers, and field artillery, but with less emphasis on operational mobility and sustainability. Soviet shock armies were characterized by a higher allocation of army-level artillery units to break German defense positions by weight of fire, and often had heavy tank regiments or heavy self-propelled gun regiments to add additional direct fire-support. Once a shock army had made a breach in an enemy tactical position, more mobile units such as tank and mechanized corps would insert themselves through the shock army's positions with the mission of penetrating deep into the enemy rear area. By the end of the war, though, Soviet guards armies typically enjoyed superior artillery support to that of the shock armies.

Shock armies were instrumental in the execution of deep operation (also known as Soviet deep battle – Russian: Глубокая операция, glubokaya operatsiya). The central composition of the deep operation was the shock army, each acting either in cooperation with each other or independently as part of a strategic front operation. Several shock armies would be subordinated to a strategic front.

Well-known shock armies include the 2nd Shock Army, which spearheaded several offensives in the Leningrad area, and the 3rd Shock Army, which played a key role in the Battle of Berlin.

A Soviet ad hoc combat group was a mixed-arms unit of about 80 men in assault groups of six to eight men, closely supported by field artillery. These tactical units were able to apply the tactics of house-to-house fighting that the Soviets had been forced to develop and refine at each Festungsstadt (fortress city) they had encountered from Stalingrad to Berlin.[7]

The Yugoslav Partisans also established "shock" units during World War II, commencing in February 1942. These initially formed as company- and battalion-sized units, and later grew into brigades.

In or amongst the German armed forces, large armies such as the Waffen-SS received training with the best gear and weapons, primarily used to hit weak points. The Waffen-SS also served as a heavy unit. Used to smash well-armed and -equipped armies on the Eastern Front, the Waffen-SS lost its efficacy after Kursk (1943), but nevertheless later fought in many theaters and played a role in the Battle of the Bulge (1944–1945).

I would point out that some german divisions were also designated Sturm divisions 78th I think.

After 1943 (particularly during and after the invasion of Italy), specialist British units, such as the Commandos and certain detachments of the Special Air Service were used as shock troops against well dug in or elite German forces. Again, both forces would be used in similar roles after the Allies crossed the Rhine, serving as a vanguard for British forces.

The modern British formation is 16 air assault brigade... So the concept is feasible and is meant to employ extra and possible elite formations to take on tough defenders in effect this requires extra training, buildup and supply with command focus given for operational purposes.

Just Saying....


Well, yes the Sovs did. But as the war went on the Shock Armies generally reverted to nothing more than a fancy titled ordinary army.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to vinnysix)
Post #: 34
RE: Assault HQ's - 9/6/2021 7:02:45 AM   
hei1

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 11/22/2019
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub


quote:

ORIGINAL: hei1

quote:

Meanwhile, the Axis has to attack and move with their assault units, burning CPP and preventing CPP build up. A typical turn will only see the Axis player able to rest 1/4 of their assault fronts, while the rest are busy attacking and spending their SMP's. With 1/4 resting, this gives the Axis 120/4 * 50 = 1,500 points per turn.


This leads to the very strange situation: keep an assault army behind(!) the front and assign burned out units to it until filled up. The non-assault unit will advance, until ... you exchange them again. Gamey.
BTW: I support the concept of CPP (among others: limited advance in combat). But its still not perfect...


With what units? Once you have 6 assault HQ’s, almost all your German units are under one anyway..


not in my current HvH game in 1943: 12 army HQs (plus 3 allies) and only 4 assault modes. (Plus: lots of action all over the front). But I'm still experimenting ...

_____________________________

--- it's not a bug, it's a feature ---

(in reply to jubjub)
Post #: 35
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 7:03:29 AM   
loki100


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

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.
...


me too to be honest, its too frustrating. It was sort of fun trying to work out if there was a solution but there isn't.

Some points worth bearing in mind.

a) this game is insanely complicated and tricky, speoific solutions may well cause more problems than they solve. We're still finding wierd bugs with the city fort concept.

b) some concepts were in the game when I started testing what could have been called 'WiTW goes east', including CPP. So they are not going to come out, even if the rules around gain/loss can be tweaked.

c) I played a test game about 2 years back, it was one of the few HtH games to get into mid-42 (ended with a patch that invalidated older saves), and it roughly worked out as you'd expect. Point is my opponent was on his first HtH as the Soviets and me as the Axis (very early testing had to end before the winter). The only really major rule system that has been added since then was the assault front concept but equally the logistics system has had a lot of issues knocked out of it

d) its not the logistics, if anything if you know what you are doing that is too permissive, you can and should have 35+MP in your mobile units and 12+ in the infantry. That combination, if the front unlocks, is potentially deadly for the Soviets - so bear that in mind. The game has the potential to swing the other way with Axis players looking up the possibility of a winter in the Urals.

e) Assault fronts came in to model the Soviet late war capacity (think of the 1m+ Fronts in 1945) but also the German ability to regenerate, cobble together and operate when they really should have run out of steam.

In 1941, without assault fronts, the Soviets have the following problems:

i) too many units under poor commanders;
ii) too many armies reporting to either overloaded fronts or odd locations - so basically relying on army commander-Stavka for their command chain;
iii) Low CPP as its hard to regenerate when retreating, even if you avoid too much fighting;
iv) high CPP allows the Soviets to gain higher MP as it sidesteps the dire admin scores (as well as the issue in ii);
v) obv one, high CPP = high attack capacity.

With 2 assault fronts, that lot disappear into the ether, and we get the game we are seeing. It would take real nerve to pull a good leader and decent formations out of the line to regain CPP, commit it to maybe one or two attacks and then have to pull it out for another 3 weeks.

Going back to another point made. Of course the Soviets retain an incentive to attack. A failed but over 1-1 will strip out CPP and MP off the defender, you end up modelling the frustration that the Yelna battles inflicted on AGC post-Smolensk. Not entire Pzr divisions routed.

So, on the principle of keep it simple. I don't think its sensible to get into subtle changes or stuff that might set off other problems. But I won't play HtH (either side) with Assault Fronts for the Soviets before Dec 41 (and then only 1). If this still leaves real problems then its time to get subtle - but remember the programming base for the game is limited.

edit - now this doesn't need a patch to resolve, just player agreement that both sides would enjoy something a little bit more historical than re-enacting the Soviet 1935 defensive plan.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/6/2021 9:33:52 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 36
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 7:44:18 AM   
Sammy5IsAlive

 

Posts: 514
Joined: 8/4/2014
Status: offline 		My idea would be to change the Assault bonus from CPP regain being doubled to CPP loss being halved. That would at least solve the issue of Soviets using assault fronts 'defensively' as we are currently seeing. It would also change tempos of the Axis offensives - at the moment it feels to me that you only get maybe 3 turns of contested attack before you have to stop to rest for a turn. I would suggest that an 'offensive' lasting 6 turns followed by a longer rest would be more difficult for the Soviets to deal with?

I agree with what others have said re. command limits also and especially what Tyrone has said about how at the moment the game feels like it is missing some of the feeling of 'jeopardy' that #1 had from a command perspective - an issue that is exacerbated by the free OOB changes.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 37
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 10:55:38 AM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		In fact I'd add Admin Point cost to swap units (both CU and SU) from this Corp / Army to that other one - like in WITE. (And if somethign is in OKH / AG / Stavka costs 0 to be 'claimed' but costs normal to go back there)

And Soviets need to spend Admin Point to disband stuff too.

That ought to slow down some the min-maxing they can do early on of their Soviet Army.

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)
Post #: 38
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 1:18:40 PM   
Wild


Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline 		Please don't burden those of us who like to keep our armies organized with AP expenditures. I absolutely hated that about Wite 1. It would basically be a game breaker for me.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 39
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 2:10:34 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		At the moment it's like "Move HQ with Good leader of 50ish hexes where needed, instantly reassign your finest divisions there to it." kind of gameplay.

One moves the HQs instead of reassigning leaders (or leave HQs with bad leaders vacant on the spot).

To have an entire Corps HQ (Which I assume is to manage Combat Units) being at 0 divisions and regiments, and all they do is ... commandeer micromanaged RAD regiments or construction units ...
Or have your Army general staff planning and commandeering how to optimize the freight to be stocked in a railyard ... (Agaiin with 0 or almost 0 units assigned)

That to me is a game breaker - but we may just see things differently there, at opposite polar sides.


(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 40
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 5:42:26 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 8650
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline 		There is both a CPP and leadership penalties for transferring the command of a unit. So there is a cost for the turn of the transferring of commands - although only lasting a turn.

I think the Assault HQ problem is going to require a lot of thought and some tinkering before it can be resolved. Historically the 'Assault HQs' tended to have smaller commands (faster response time for the fewer command elements) and allowed for better handling and coordination with the smaller number of commands. This has always been a questionable decision to INCREASE the command ability of an Assault HQ rather than limit it. Look at the size of the Panzer Groups in 41 and the fact that most Soviet Armies used for an offensive (especially in 41) were only about three or four combat commands. Perhaps the command ability of Assault/Non Assault HQs should be switched with the Assault HQs with the smaller number of command points.

CPP has been a major focus and addition for WitE2 versus the earlier games in the series. It does force the offensive player to rotate forces out of the front and allow them to recover. Faster recovery in Assault HQs is part of that design. I don't see this factor as something that can easily be changed.

It may seem ideal to have leadership ratings take over the size of the command and CPP recovery but you would return to the same features of the earlier games while adding complexity to both programming code and game play. Leadership is already responsible for many things in the game and is already vital in every game function.

The game already has more than enough APs for both sides to pay the costs of switching around leaders. Although the Soviets did this as a matter of planning for their next offensive, the Axis also did some serious leadership changes during the war. Swapping the command of divisions between corps and armies happened very frequently so the AP cost was dropped as being able to cover the AP costs of swapping a large amount of units each turn would make an AP glut almost mandatory.

So my thoughts on this comes down to these points:

1. Swap the command ability of Assault and non-Assault HQs to make the Assault HQs have smaller commands.
2. Decrease the current turnly AP awards as there are too many at this time.
3. I would limit the Axis to four total Assault HQs through 41 and 42. Decrease that to three in 43 and two in 44 and 45.
4. I would limit the Soviets to one Assault HQ in Dec 41 through Oct 42. Increase that to two from Nov 42 to Oct 43. Increase that to three for the rest of the war.

Another thing that could be adjusted is the cost of making an HQ into Assault mode. Possibly increase the penalties for swapping commands or increasing the number of turns the penalties incur. I don't think either of these are necessary but they are further limits on the use of Assault HQs.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 41
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 9:23:27 PM   
mikael333

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 4/10/2021
Status: offline 		I play against the AI and need all the advantages I can get, especially as the Axis. For me the assault HQs with increased command capacity do not feel right from an immersion and historic perspective. They mean for good results I should assign as many infantry divisions as possible to the panzer armies and the mighty 4. and 9. German armies get largely robbed of their units.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 42
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 9:50:30 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		I believe the original concept originated after issues starting popping up with the massively overloaded Soviet Front HQs in WitE with the Bagration scenarios. There needed to be a way for some HQs to deal with the heavy weight of units beyond the normal limits to support major offensive operations. I think it since has merged into a way to prioritize main efforts for both sides with extra benefits.

Although I don't know why the Germans really need Assault HQs, the Soviets definitely went through a learning curve with commanders gaining experience in coordinating more and more units. I don't know what the limits would be but I bet if you follow the development of the Soviet Shock Armies in late 41-43 and then the offensive fronts starting after the Battle of Kursk, you should get an idea of how big and how many Assault HQs the Soviets should have. Perhaps only a number of Shock Army HQs in 41-late 42 and then have their first one or two Front Assault HQs to coincide with Uranus in late 42.

Trey

< Message edited by Great_Ajax -- 9/6/2021 9:51:19 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to mikael333)
Post #: 43
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/6/2021 11:11:01 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		That answer worries me -hugely-.

Pratically it screams of Soviet Power; if we warrant that '44 Leadership of the Soviets is anywhere superior to German '41 or even '44.
The issues Germany have are of production, of logistics, and manpower - all otherwise represented in the game and in a way not related to Assault HQs.

If the issue is that their army is bloated and cumbersome - well that was the case of Soviet army. It always had to work like a boxer, even in '44 at supposed peak of operations, first they had the offensive toward Romania. That stemmed down due to logistics, and wearyness and as it slowed down it started Bagration (that front ammassed supplies and reserves). Righ hook, left hook, with interludes.

Now I believe there is already a 'system' in place for what is explained above, and is that over the course of years the HQ can change their baseline command rating. If the Soviets grow more skilled in managing and cooperating larger formations as time flow (and on that I surely agree) the Command Capacity of a Soviet Army can simply increase some in '43, and some more in '44. Simple as.




(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 44
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/7/2021 11:52:04 AM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline 		Interesting how when I raised this a week ago, it was no deal breaker:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5066458

Now, "sudden death" was dealt with via an option, but a scenario edit. But I can see where this is integral to the game engine, and cannot just be dealt with my simply doing some scenario edits.

However, my feeling is if you are a uber-WITE2 mensch, you might just impose house limits on your own side to limit ASSAULT ARMY count, and do most of your army structuring via building good command structures over time. And setting appropriate resource allocations to certain commands. ASSAULT is almost a meta-priority for an entire force.

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北，台灣，中國退休)

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 45
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/7/2021 12:34:09 PM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline 		I have carefully reread this whole thread.

I am not historian; just a senior manager.

Large organizations tend to have increasing inertia. So, the fact that ASHQ are big and bad with low inertia seems to be counter the laws of human endeavors.

I would think a more realistic representation of big and bad with low inertia, results from two ends of the spectrum. You form a superior organization (not simply in name), but in terms of talent. So, yes, you can move HQs and divisions, but before they get bonuses, they must meet minimum requirements of command stats, TOE, morale, and experience. So, effectively the ASHQ reinforces the concept of superiority both from the top down and the bottom up.

I suppose this would also mean that you are only going to have 2-3 at most, since to create them, you would need to cherry pick the best of the best.

In my mind this is how real management works. Superior organizations aren't simply designated, they are built carefully by a talented leader. When you have such a leader, and chose the right people, you now have an organization that goes above and beyond. This is different that deliberate attack, since that is just time invested in planning. ASHQ is time invested in assembling and nurturing.

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北，台灣，中國退休)

(in reply to MarkShot)
Post #: 46
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/7/2021 1:15:53 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

I believe the original concept originated after issues starting popping up with the massively overloaded Soviet Front HQs in WitE with the Bagration scenarios. There needed to be a way for some HQs to deal with the heavy weight of units beyond the normal limits to support major offensive operations. I think it since has merged into a way to prioritize main efforts for both sides with extra benefits.


Actually, in WitE you could just define different CP limits for different TOEs. Dunno why that was removed in WitE2.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 47
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/7/2021 1:46:16 PM   
loki100


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

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

I believe the original concept originated after issues starting popping up with the massively overloaded Soviet Front HQs in WitE with the Bagration scenarios. There needed to be a way for some HQs to deal with the heavy weight of units beyond the normal limits to support major offensive operations. I think it since has merged into a way to prioritize main efforts for both sides with extra benefits.


Actually, in WitE you could just define different CP limits for different TOEs. Dunno why that was removed in WitE2.


Because the code split with the 1.08.xx WiTE1 patch and its never easy to reintegrate them. So no it wasn't 'removed', never present

_____________________________


(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 48
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/7/2021 2:09:00 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		Yeah. This capability was something that Dominic added long after the initial release.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

I believe the original concept originated after issues starting popping up with the massively overloaded Soviet Front HQs in WitE with the Bagration scenarios. There needed to be a way for some HQs to deal with the heavy weight of units beyond the normal limits to support major offensive operations. I think it since has merged into a way to prioritize main efforts for both sides with extra benefits.


Actually, in WitE you could just define different CP limits for different TOEs. Dunno why that was removed in WitE2.


Because the code split with the 1.08.xx WiTE1 patch and its never easy to reintegrate them. So no it wasn't 'removed', never present



_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 49
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/7/2021 2:12:02 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.
...


me too to be honest, its too frustrating. It was sort of fun trying to work out if there was a solution but there isn't.





I believe we are over complicating the whole Assault HQ situation. There are easy solutions and can be easily programmed. (I am talking about both sides not just the Soviets)

* Limit the amount of units attached to Assault HQ to normal levels. NO increase for being in an Assault HQ from the start of 1941 scenario.

* Ramp up Soviet Assault HQ capabilities over the years. i.e. 1941 Soviet Dec 110%, 1942 120% command limit, 1943 Soviet HQ's can command 130% of command limit, 1944 140% command limit(these are only examples of %'s but give you an idea without butchering 1941 levels. I am sure the power to be can come up with a good percentage to get to their desired results for late game Soviet capabilities.).






(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 50
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/7/2021 4:52:29 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100
Because the code split with the 1.08.xx WiTE1 patch and its never easy to reintegrate them. So no it wasn't 'removed', never present


Aight, but it doesn't sound like something that would be too hard to add. Especially since it's already done in a similar strcuture.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 51
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 8:08:43 AM   
tyronec


Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline 		There are two factors here, Command points and CPP. They are linked but separate.

Command points has an historical basis as to what HQs commanded. With the present set up it works best for Axis in '41 to stuff their Panzer armies with infantry Corps and group the bulk of their troops in 6 assault armies. This is clearly unhistorical, if this command structure worked they would have used it. For the Soviets assault fronts look wrong in summer '41 given their command issues. Similar to Axis they are going to have a few over sized fronts on Assault later in the war. If the Soviets do need to have more command points later in the game it would seem more appropriate to increase command capacity for some/all of the HQs they have rather than to have the Assault HQ bonus.

CPP is an abstraction of the game. There are two combat systems running in parallel, one that has casualties primarily caused by weapons which is historically based. The second that says a 2:1 victory is a win, has multipliers for terrain and fortification, leadership factors, CPP and so on is all an invention of the game system. The level of CPP gain has to come from trial and error to create game balance and it has a particular impact on the offensive/defensive relative strength.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 52
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 9:04:21 AM   
karonagames


Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline 		Assault HQs are not the sole cause of the "woes" that are afflicting WITE2. Fundamentally this game is about gaining and losing hexes and how far the game varies from the historical rate at which hexes were gained and lost. Most of the changes to the WITE1 system have made it harder to gain, and easier to lose hexes.

The Logistics system combined with the fatigue and CPP gain and recovery system means there is less offensive power compared to WITE1 to force retreats from hexes,Then the new terrain rules,the weather, the delay rules together with logistics system producing less movement points, means you can't occupy the hex if you force the retreat.

Once the Axis lose momentum, usually about turn 8, it is really hard to maintain a rate of advance or create outflanking threats that force retreats. Once the logistics collapse occurs at around turn 12, it is even harder.

The ability to prevent the loss of hexes during the Blizzard is hardwired into the new rules WITE2 has introduced, but they are definitely not tuned to allow a player to achieve anything close to historical levels.

Looks like I am back to playing WITE1.




_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 53
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 10:24:18 AM   
loki100


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

ORIGINAL: karonagames

...
The Logistics system combined with the fatigue and CPP gain and recovery system means there is less offensive power compared to WITE1 to force retreats from hexes,Then the new terrain rules,the weather, the delay rules together with logistics system producing less movement points, means you can't occupy the hex if you force the retreat.

Once the Axis lose momentum, usually about turn 8, it is really hard to maintain a rate of advance or create outflanking threats that force retreats. Once the logistics collapse occurs at around turn 12, it is even harder.

...



well quite simply your logistics system shouldn't collapse in T8 unless you are doing far better than historical ... . And you can both lose and regain momentum, it just it takes some serious planning and force re-allocation to achieve.

In both my current HtH games I've played the summer with mobile units usually over 40 and infantry at least at 12 (usually more), so its not my potential to move that is the issue. If I get a gap, I can readily exploit it - that is where the problems then start

_____________________________


(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 54
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 10:50:48 AM   
karonagames


Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.
...


me too to be honest, its too frustrating. It was sort of fun trying to work out if there was a solution but there isn't.[quote}

So are the problems/woes enough for you to stop playing the game or not? My interpretation of the problems is not solely based on Assault HQs. Yours is.

Fair enough.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 55
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 11:09:42 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		well I can only speak for myself.

What I don't see:

a) an unrealistically harsh logistical chain on the axis, which is why I'm not readily convinced that is the problem
b) I can stop high Soviet admin movement, just run broad low level GA-interdiction over key sectors, remember that anything stops admin moves. Ju-88s with lots of bombs do a good job here - at least in clear terrain.
c) being hindered by raw combat power

So to me, all the tools for a standard German attack are there, I can break a line (I might need to use an entire infantry corps ), I can exploit

What I do see:

when I exploit it all goes t*ts up, regiments are doomed, divisions are vulnerable, you need to use a complete fresh Pzr corps to pocket a division.

So the issue is the Soviets can match my combat power - which is where I personally think the issue lies. There maybe more - this game is insanely complex and balancing over the HtH and vs AI community is not easy. But for the moment, I'd happily play a Soviet player who opted not to use assault fronts in 1941 (say 1 in December) and see where that goes. If their position fell apart due to axis mobility, then I'd be equally happy to relax that.

One advantage of informal house rules, you can amend with experience.

What I do have is 5+ years experience of playing and testing. I've seen this game in many variants and as major rules come in and get refined. The situation we are all facing as of now, is new, but so is the widespread adoptiong by Soviet players of assault fronts right from the start of 1941

edit: One of the many things I do to earn money is evaluation of public policy decisions - one key element is to start looking for something big that changed recently when trying to build a cause-effect chain ... hence my current focus on assault fronts.

edit 2: I'm not going to start any more 1941 GC HtH without the constraint above in place. Since I have 2 active HtH games and a rather fun vs AI one at the moment, I'm not going to start any more till I clear that lot. One of the HtH is going to go past the Soviet initiative change sometime in 42 or 43, the other I fear won't pass the Jan 42 sudden death threshold. The AI game will probably come down to the 1944 victory test vs Axis HWM.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/8/2021 11:15:17 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 56
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 1:16:20 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline 		I think dropping the primacy concept of Assault HQs to generate CCP is what should happen, and moving the game towards the existing concepts of experience, fatigue and logistics, but I realize there has been too much water under the programing bridge at this point to go back.

I do agree the current logistics system is too easy on the Germans in 41, and THAT should play more of a role. I have never read in any accounts by German Commanders, that the Heer was held up on the road to Moscow because they ran out of Combat Preparation Points. I have read due to no fuel, lack of ammo, bad roads, high casualties, terrible weather, fanatical Russian resistance. There seem to be many trucks, too easy to get fuel, rail lines are too easy to convert and bring forward in 1941.

It is also far too easy for the Germans to fill up depleted divisions in the winter of 1941/42. I do not recall, (may be wrong) reading where the Germans were regularly adding replacements to depleted units pulled off the line during that first winter, bring them up to near 100% TOE. I mean they could not get enough ammo and fuel to units much less men, to say nothing of winter equipment.

The German Army of 1941 was the most experienced, combat proven military organization in the West at that time. It had better leadership up and down the chain of command from NCO to Army Group, it had a doctrine of Combined Arms (not perfected, but superior to everyone else at the time), and it had been tested in combat in two major operations, Poland and France by the time they invade the USSR. The German military would never again be as proficient at the art of War as it was on the morning of June 22, 1941. I would argue the Germans should be even a higher experience level going into Barbarossa, and that the logistics, weather and casualties should be what "balances" the game out, because that is what happens to the Germans. Not Soviet Ast HQs, or German Ast HQ that generate CCP. As I stated before CCP is a totally artificial creation that has yet to be defined sufficiently that it meets the "oh yeah, that makes historical sense", to me at least.

< Message edited by Zemke -- 9/8/2021 1:20:29 PM >

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 57
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 1:23:11 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: karonagames


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.
...


me too to be honest, its too frustrating. It was sort of fun trying to work out if there was a solution but there isn't.[quote}

So are the problems/woes enough for you to stop playing the game or not? My interpretation of the problems is not solely based on Assault HQs. Yours is.

Fair enough.



Assault HQ's is the major culprit to the current woes. I believe it is a pretty easy fix & Loki's recommendation is a good step forward but the problem I have with that is the command limit of Assault HQ's is too large, for both sides. A great many of the other items that have raised their head in the game are tied to Assault HQ's. Just like what I do in the field of networking you fix "one" thing and look for the cause and effect first. You don't shotgun a resolution to more than one thing at a time. I am pretty sure fixing Assault HQ's will take care of some other items.

Now having said that this link concerns me greatly. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5071970 I know this is an AI game but just look at those numbers. The truth points to itself here in those numbers. Even an AI game where the Germans are doing well is falling short. Now take those number for a H2H game and this scenario of a German chance is abysmal.

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 9/8/2021 1:24:39 PM >

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 58
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 1:50:59 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

I think dropping the primacy concept of Assault HQs to generate CCP is what should happen, and moving the game towards the existing concepts of experience, fatigue and logistics, but I realize there has been too much water under the programing bridge at this point to go back.

I do agree the current logistics system is too easy on the Germans in 41, and THAT should play more of a role. I have never read in any accounts by German Commanders, that the Heer was held up on the road to Moscow because they ran out of Combat Preparation Points. I have read due to no fuel, lack of ammo, bad roads, high casualties, terrible weather, fanatical Russian resistance. There seem to be many trucks, too easy to get fuel, rail lines are too easy to convert and bring forward in 1941.

It is also far too easy for the Germans to fill up depleted divisions in the winter of 1941/42. I do not recall, (may be wrong) reading where the Germans were regularly adding replacements to depleted units pulled off the line during that first winter, bring them up to near 100% TOE. I mean they could not get enough ammo and fuel to units much less men, to say nothing of winter equipment.

The German Army of 1941 was the most experienced, combat proven military organization in the West at that time. It had better leadership up and down the chain of command from NCO to Army Group, it had a doctrine of Combined Arms (not perfected, but superior to everyone else at the time), and it had been tested in combat in two major operations, Poland and France by the time they invade the USSR. The German military would never again be as proficient at the art of War as it was on the morning of June 22, 1941. I would argue the Germans should be even a higher experience level going into Barbarossa, and that the logistics, weather and casualties should be what "balances" the game out, because that is what happens to the Germans. Not Soviet Ast HQs, or German Ast HQ that generate CCP. As I stated before CCP is a totally artificial creation that has yet to be defined sufficiently that it meets the "oh yeah, that makes historical sense", to me at least.


I have played both sides and my experience is a bit different.

@#2 para = Logistics is tearing me apart in my current game. (Even in my earlier games Logistics were eating me up) My casualty rate has skyrocketed, most units don't have full ammo or fuel. Keep killing any type of logistics for the Germans and the Germans will be down to bow and arrows that they make from wood on the land.... now to find out where I can produce the string from for the bow....

@#3 Para = to fill up TOE on a German Division that starts with a 49 TOE is 3-4 turns(still was in low 90's when I needed to move it forward). I know, I just did it with one of my Divisions that got murdered during fighting and I am still semi close to western Europe supply. That is "not" easy when you are also trying to supply your Army.

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 9/8/2021 1:52:34 PM >

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 59
RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) - 9/8/2021 3:38:05 PM   
jubjub

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 5/2/2021
Status: offline
quote:


I have played both sides and my experience is a bit different.

@#2 para = Logistics is tearing me apart in my current game. (Even in my earlier games Logistics were eating me up) My casualty rate has skyrocketed, most units don't have full ammo or fuel. Keep killing any type of logistics for the Germans and the Germans will be down to bow and arrows that they make from wood on the land.... now to find out where I can produce the string from for the bow....

@#3 Para = to fill up TOE on a German Division that starts with a 49 TOE is 3-4 turns(still was in low 90's when I needed to move it forward). I know, I just did it with one of my Divisions that got murdered during fighting and I am still semi close to western Europe supply. That is "not" easy when you are also trying to supply your Army.



From my experience, ID and motorized divisions can typically be refit to 90% or more in 1-2 turns if they are placed on a depot with an HQ boost. This is more on a static front though. Panzer divisions take time get back above 90% TOE even refitting in the reserve.



(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> RE: Assault HQ's(no new games for me until fixed) 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

0.859