Simple Fix for German Raiding

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: jaw

Let's see we have an unrealistic rule (HQ Buildup) which leads to unrealistic tactics (panzer raid) and the solution is to change a realistic rule (can't evacuate factories if enemy is besieging you).

Yes.
Yes.
Methodically yes, but in this particular case, no.

While I strongly disagree that a tank regiment adjacent to a city should prevent evacuation, what you're bringing to light is is a grossly mistaken approach to making good wargames, or anything built to last- pragmatism. The problem here is HQ buildup. Why not reduce the movement allowance for tank regiments to solve the problem? Because very obviously this will create problems elsewhere, but the same goes for any solution that doesn't go to the root of the problem. You solve one issue and a whole load more crop up elsewhere.

Yes, Flaviusx, I'm suggesting get rid of HQ buildup completely. Its a grotesque fudge and excuse for a proper logistics simulation. Make this game system last and grow by getting to the essence of the problem. Logistics isn't working.

[Farfarer61]

Leave it and let the German exploit it all he/she wants. Its a game, so everyone wants a chance at Decisive Victory. I tried the "Pelton Tactic" and you can actually time it wrong, achieve little and burn your trucks for nothing. Remember that your alter ego playing 12Oclockhigh/BTR (which I play) has hammered flat all those vehicle factories in the West. If you want to see why the German should NOT burn trucks, try playing the excellent Keke 1943 GC mod. Against the AI you can decide to shift your Panzers anywhere - Leningrad, Kuban or try Citadelle and have great fun. Unfortunately you have no supply after your marvellous operational breakthroughs as some bastage used up all your trucks in 1941

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

Leave it and let the German exploit it all he/she wants. Its a game, so everyone wants a chance at Decisive Victory. I tried the "Pelton Tactic" and you can actually time it wrong, achieve little and burn your trucks for nothing.

This is an under-appreciated aspect of any particular tactic, and especially of HQ Buildup.
You can screw it up two ways. You can be out of position where you can't use it when it's needed. Or you can use it when it didn't do you much good (enemy in the way that you didn't see, failed in a deliberate attack, etc.).

You don't see the times when these 2 mistakes happen on the German side. Pelton is obviously exceptionally good at 5-turns-ahead movement of his entire AGS. Not many people are that good (anyone?). True, if his strategem works, it will be replicated in time(thus, why I'm in favor of restricting Buildup in some minimalist fashion).

I don't personally do this with Buildup. But when I do use Buildup, I generally get something amazing to happen. And that's what Soviet players are remembering: all the successes their German opponent had with Buildup. The failures are generally overlooked completely, same with the massive truck attrition.

I know that when I have a great success with Buildup, it is because I was tracking my opponent's habits and figuring out how to exploit them with maneuver warfare, and I had to plan timing correctly AND rail distance correctly, several turns in advance.

This is another reason why I advocate playing both sides of the 1941 GCs. What looks like magic to one side is the product of hard work, good admin, hard-won experience with the game engine, and one player's patience and good analysis.(*)

(*)Except the Soviet side, which has 1 iwinbutton and a bunch of failsafes in case something goes wrong with it.(**)

(**) I kid.

[Peltonx]

The problem with the game and has been stated 1000+ times is there is zero reason for the russian player to fight.

HQ buildup can be removed, but then the game simply becomes the russian player doing Hilly Billy tactics and running for hills. Every single arm pt will be evaced other then Minsk. Very very boring game. As Tarhunnas has put it why as the german do I bother advancing if I will acheive nothing?

Their is no reason to fight. Russian players simply run game after game, yes woot totally historical- they do not have to fight. There is way to much baby sitting going on for the Russian side at this point.

As you know Flavousx the germans cant advance faster then railheads. Its a cake walk to evac factorys, thats the only reason at this point for the german player to advance. Citys mean nothing. HVY,Manpower, factorys zip. They have no real effect on the game.

The over all factory/HQ build up needs to be fixed, NONE of it is historical or realistic.

Like the Russians could move a T-34 factory in a week, 100,000 troops and a bunch of supplys to the front, lol get real.

Fixes:

1. German HQ's withen 25 hexes get more supplies, there by totaly removing HQ build up from game. Increase supplys as per they are now.
2. Russian rail is about 200% over powered. Lock production in plase or make moving them allot harder. Its a joke at this point what can be railed around in 7 days.

The rail system is as big of a flying pig rule as tank being 200 miles from a railhead then advances another 100 miles the next turn.

Don't make me start posting pictures of pigs driving tanks 300 miles from railheads of pigs dismantling factors and driving trains.

Don't get me wrong I think 1.05 was a huge step in right direction, but someone on the dev team needs to get out a gun and start killing off these flying pig rules that have zero place in a historical game.

I lov playing and will be for yrs to come, because I know at some point they get it right.

I hope these "rules" do not make there way into the new games you guys are working on.

The good or bad press will come from these very forums on your next projects.

Lets all hope 1.06 fixes the logistic issues that are now the major things that need to be addressed.

Keep up good work.

Pelton

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, the only way you can get all the armament points out is if you totally ignore HI and do bare minimum afv/plane evacs. And dedicate 100k+ rail cap each and every turn from turn 3 onwards.

In other words, stuff is going to burn.

I totally disagree with you about Soviet runaways. I absolutely despise running away. It is your raiding style which is promoting Soviet runaways. Play differently, and then maybe you'll see Soviet players fighting you up front -- and maybe you can sucker them into making pockets. You are stuck on this factory raiding business, and it is by no means the only way to play the game. It may not even be the most effective way to play it.

If I can stand and make a fight of it, I'll do it. You can't ignore the manpower now, btw, the 42 multiplier for that has been reduced.

Ask James how much and how often I counterattack. Perhaps even to a fault. But against you, everything has to be tailored to this one trick pony of raids. What you are seeing is a direct consequence of the way you play. Change it up.

[Ketza]

I have found that HQ buildup raid success typically hinges upon under garrisoned or not garrisoned at all cities.

In all my Soviet games I have never had a problem with raids or have I had an issue with losing factories. I think its because I defend against it.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Ask James how much and how often I counterattack. Perhaps even to a fault. But against you, everything has to be tailored to this one trick pony of raids. What you are seeing is a direct consequence of the way you play. Change it up.

If I don't see at least a half-million Soviets throw themselves against my spearheads each turn, I seriously begin to start worrying about Flavio...[;)]

The point of adapting playstyles, offensively and defensively, to counter opponent-specific playstyles should not be neglected here. Most players have a fairly distinct method of play. An adept player, after a time or two, playing, or studiously observing AARs, can get a feel for their opponent's playstyle, and use the tools within the program to counter.

Personally, I think that the best counter to Pelton's style is something different from what Flavio shows in his screenshot in the HQ Buildup thread in the War Room. Then again, Flavio may be keeping some techniques "in reserve" that will later become active as the game develops. Myself, I would alternate between (redacted) and (redacted) depending on what the railhead distances are and what my recon of the approach axes of the "Pelton Spear Points" reveals.

[PeeDeeAitch]

I have been known in the past for lots of pockets. I suppose that is how I play. I am not the deep threat (well, I did some against Cpt Flam, but that was because he waited to evac Stalino and I went for it), but instead I concentrate on killing units. In those games I have done well, and yes skeptics, against rather good players I have managed well over 3m russian killed, the winter has been ok. The real problems in 1942 were more the level of fortifications and the size of the Soviet armies, again addressed (we shall see if too much) in 1.05. The caveat is that I have also failed miserably...c'est la guerre.

I am not the best player, but it is is important to remember that a different strategy can and will yield different results. The gaming of buildup will end up with changing of the rules - because it is not realistic to do the HQ swap or what have you. Not just not realistic, but against the basic thrust of the game as I see it.

In the end, it is good to see those who figure out how to push the rules, not to say "let's play that way" but rather in how it might need to be changed.

(note - all opinions in this post are as I see it. They do not reflect anything other than my meglamania.)

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, the only way you can get all the armament points out is if you totally ignore HI and do bare minimum afv/plane evacs. And dedicate 100k+ rail cap each and every turn from turn 3 onwards.

In other words, stuff is going to burn.

I totally disagree with you about Soviet runaways. I absolutely despise running away. It is your raiding style which is promoting Soviet runaways. Play differently, and then maybe you'll see Soviet players fighting you up front -- and maybe you can sucker them into making pockets. You are stuck on this factory raiding business, and it is by no means the only way to play the game. It may not even be the most effective way to play it.

If I can stand and make a fight of it, I'll do it. You can't ignore the manpower now, btw, the 42 multiplier for that has been reduced.

Ask James how much and how often I counterattack. Perhaps even to a fault. But against you, everything has to be tailored to this one trick pony of raids. What you are seeing is a direct consequence of the way you play. Change it up.

Couple points here:

First, I agree that with the changes, more industry will likely burn unless the Russians make more of a stand than they have been in most AAR's.

Flaviusx, while your position on the Sir Robin defense is well known, the fact is the vast majority of the Russian players do in fact run for the hills. I do not expect them to allow themselves to be encircled if they can help it, but the vast majority of Russian players absolutely fear seeing a lot of troops being surrounded that is not on level with the actual capability of the Germans in many cases. They feel they can preserve as much of their army as possible for the big winter offensive and in past versions, they can easily survive losing what industry they lose. The lack of garrisions in the rear cities is also disturbing as well in many AAR's.

The short version is they were running before Pelton showed up and they have been running after he showed up, so to say the Russians have changed tactics in response to what Pelton has done is not correct imo.

What I am hopeful of is that the 1.05 games in progress will show the community it is in fact the Russians who must change tactics and get rid of the runaway as a pat Russian defense that occurs in 80+% of the AARs if the Russians hope to preserve enough industry in order to continue the war and come back with an eventual win. My concern is the downside of running away is not immediately apparent and it will continue for some time.

I play both sides, so I don't have an ax to grind one way or another here except for the desire to see a better overall game and I think 1.05 is a great step in that direction. I also heartily recommend players sample both sides in order to gain a better appreciation of the issues facing a particular side.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

What I am hopeful of is that the 1.05 games in progress will show the community it is in fact the Russians who must change tactics and get rid of the runaway as a pat Russian defense that occurs in 80+% of the AARs if the Russians hope to preserve enough industry in order to continue the war and come back with an eventual win. My concern is the downside of running away is not immediately apparent and it will continue for some time.

I play both sides, so I don't have an ax to grind one way or another here except for the desire to see a better overall game and I think 1.05 is a great step in that direction. I also heartily recommend players sample both sides in order to gain a better appreciation of the issues facing a particular side.

Seconded.

My chief concern with 1.05 is the issue with how long it will take the playing community to recognize that the Soviets can't simply run to the Volkhov/Rzhev-Rzhev/Kiev-Kiev/D-town 'unofficial Soviet start line'.

The Soviet community MUST start to anticipate how losing industry in 1941 is going to affect their 1942 & their 1943 armies. Not knowing how the testing of 1.05 went, I'd argue we could really use some tester input on what to expect, because Soviet play is about to undergo radical forced evolution (which was required for the good of the game), and most Soviet players aren't going to understand how different 1942 will look until games get to 1942.

If they screw up the anticipation of 1.05 outcomes based on industry loss/forts/AP loss (from having to build forts meaning they can't build as many new units), they could end up feeling unable to compete, and we could see a lot of complaining that 1.05 is a bad patch.

I have a fear that Soviet play is so akin to EasyMode (deal with it; Soviet is much more forgiving of mistakes than Axis) that the exclusive-Soviet-side players are going to come back to the forum and complain about how they are hopelessly neutered by 1.05 without ever having tried to evolve their pre-set notions about Soviet strategic tradeoffs, and the tactics they require. I'd hate to see future patches swing back against the Axis because the Soviet side's accumulated wisdom for that side's game play toolbox isn't actually that robust.

That being said, I am concerned for the Soviet side regarding the future unknown of the Armament Point multiplier (it may or may not be too severe and we won't know until new games reach 42). I'm also concerned although less so, with the loss of AP Soviets will face for fort creation.

Just as I hated being a Soviet player when a German resigned on Turn 25 or whatnot, I will not enjoy getting into late 1942 only to have a Soviet resign because he can't equip enough divisions with rifles or guns.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Klydon

What I am hopeful of is that the 1.05 games in progress will show the community it is in fact the Russians who must change tactics and get rid of the runaway as a pat Russian defense that occurs in 80+% of the AARs if the Russians hope to preserve enough industry in order to continue the war and come back with an eventual win. My concern is the downside of running away is not immediately apparent and it will continue for some time.

I play both sides, so I don't have an ax to grind one way or another here except for the desire to see a better overall game and I think 1.05 is a great step in that direction. I also heartily recommend players sample both sides in order to gain a better appreciation of the issues facing a particular side.

Seconded.

My chief concern with 1.05 is the issue with how long it will take the playing community to recognize that the Soviets can't simply run to the Volkhov/Rzhev-Rzhev/Kiev-Kiev/D-town 'unofficial Soviet start line'.

The Soviet community MUST start to anticipate how losing industry in 1941 is going to affect their 1942 & their 1943 armies. Not knowing how the testing of 1.05 went, I'd argue we could really use some tester input on what to expect, because Soviet play is about to undergo radical forced evolution (which was required for the good of the game), and most Soviet players aren't going to understand how different 1942 will look until games get to 1942.

If they screw up the anticipation of 1.05 outcomes based on industry loss/forts/AP loss (from having to build forts meaning they can't build as many new units), they could end up feeling unable to compete, and we could see a lot of complaining that 1.05 is a bad patch.

To my great surprise [X(] I find myself in total agreement with heliodorus here [:D]

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I admit it, I am a soviet fanboy. That is why I play so poorly as the Axis.

Then maybe make it easy on all and get rid of your DAS sig?

[randallw]

What the game needs is a special turn, maybe sometime in late 1942, with a rock-paper-scissors competition.  Can save a lot of time skipping the later turns.

[Valgua]

ORIGINAL: lastdingo

I'm sorry, but I saw factories being evacuated by AI when I had entirely surrounded Kharkov - all six neighbouring hexes had 1-3 German divisions. The Soviet AI still evacuated the tank factory and all else.

I say THAT is a bug that cries out loud for a fix!

AI

+1 Cheers!

[karonagames]

To my great surprise I find myself in total agreement with heliodorus here

It is a valid concern.

I have done some "unofficial" testing of 1942 against the AI, and have run a complete year under 1.05 to July 1943, and saw a substantial change in manpower numbers - positively for the Axis from the Hiwis and negatively for the SU. I need to double check my save when I get home to see how many men are sitting in the manpower pool waiting for rifles. Unfortunately the AI doesn't adjust TOE% settings off 100%, so it is difficult to say what the actual numbers are likely to be for PBEM games where players are adjusting TOE%s to turn the rifle/artillery taps on and off.

Prior to 1.05 there was a lot of slack in the SU manpower/armaments numbers, and in AI/AI testing we often saw the Red Army growth to 10m+ compared to the 6.5-6.8m historical peak. 1.5m -2m of the extra was usually caused by the Axis AI inability to pocket large numbers of SU troops. I believe the new armaments multiplier is designed to keep the Red Army closer to the historical cap, and so the variance on the number of captured troops will determine the eventual maximum size of the Red Army. My Guess is that it will peak at around 7.5m, which is slightly easier for the Axis defender to manage than a 10m+ Juggernaut, especially now the Axis has more manpower to absorb the attrition and +1 has been removed - the AI struggled to make any headway during the winter of 1942/43 until I changed the setting to Hard. Obviously H2H AARs are a long way from this crucial "tipping point", and, for me, this is the main question for 1.05 to answer.

Both sides will need to micro-manage TOE%s to swap between rifle squad and artillery production.

Are the changes going to be enough to make the Soviets quit? Only if they are not prepared to rethink current strategies and plan how to deal with slower digging in less depth, less APs from mech division farming, and less attacking capability from 1942 onwards, and much much more planning of manpower allocations and artillery building through TOE% manipulation.

Without have played through 1944, my gut is telling me that the Soviets will find it tougher to grind through many turns of attritional combat until the Germans eventually reach shatter point and they can advance at decent rates, but I think 1.05 will finally get games into 1945, and both sides will have a tough fight to get better than a draw.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Are the changes going to be enough to make the Soviets quit? Only if they are not prepared to rethink current strategies and plan how to deal with slower digging in less depth, less APs from mech division farming, and less attacking capability from 1942 onwards, and much much more planning of manpower allocations and artillery building through TOE% manipulation.

Without have played through 1944, my gut is telling me that the Soviets will find it tougher to grind through many turns of attritional combat until the Germans eventually reach shatter point and they can advance at decent rates, but I think 1.05 will finally get games into 1945, and both sides will have a tough fight to get better than a draw.

Lots of people have more experience with the game than I do, but I don't think it will be simply a matter of the Sovs adjusting strategies. I suspect that a because of the various changes, an almost fool-proof German strategy will be to make many small pockets starting in March 1942. The Sovs won't be able to dig in or arm themselves to stop the pockets from forming, and then won't be able to relieve them due to the arm changes and the abolition of the 1:1 rule. The Germans will be able to detroy an army or two and quickly retreat behind their uber-fortified positions, where they will be invulneralbe. Repeat this several times and the Sovs will be hard-pressed to hold the front.

I think that all of the predictions that 1.05 will "fix" 1942 are based on the assumption that the Germans will now launch major offensives toward the Caucauses, Stalingrad, etc., which will probably occur at first. But if the game is realistic, German players will soon realize that these are losing strategies, because they stretch German forces too thin, and they will stop making grand offensives and adopt the strategy described above, with much better results.

All of this is just a guess, of course, but that is my prognosis...

[heliodorus04]

Soviet players should start with this thought:
Under 1.04, the Soviet Army started to stabilize when Spring 42 Mud returned. That's when the winter offensives are over and players would rebuild units and defensive lines. 

Under 1.05, the Soviet Army will not be stable in Spring 42. Adjust accordingly. It will still be vulnerable to maneuver warfare (this is good for the game).

For the Germans, the game still has the problem that 76mm believes will see the German behave a-historically.  The reason the Germans don't drive on Stalingrad is that there is no incentive for the German to hold land, ever! You can't capture resources for strategic use, so there's no point, after Turn 17, of trying to grab land (unless the Soviet player baits you by leaving factories where they can be destroyed). In fact, WitE players know full well that Hitler's strategic imperative for 1942, deprive resources to the USSR and obtain them for the Reich, is impossible. So strategically, the Germans will never try to achieve in 1942 the objectives that OKH set for 1942 in Russia. Just as the Soviet player knows that Stavka's historic goals (break the German army in the frontier) for 1941 are impossible.

If you want the Germans to go for land, try leaving your factories where he can try for them.  Use a gambit.

Until there is an incentive to hold land (and the HiWis are NOT incentive enough to risk over-exposure), the Germans won't bother with it.

The only reason the Soviets have to hold land, and the only time, is 1941.

[Flaviusx]

76mm, it's all going to depend on how the Soviet positions his reserves. You can even deliberately thin out the south to encourage an Axis advance there.

The reserves can also act as diggers in conjunction with fortified regions to lay down some kind of fallback line. This indeed is the only way to get any kind of digging done during the poor weather, the old business of just plopping down brigades everywhere doesn't work that great now, you have use considerable forces to get any traction. Mud in particular is bad for digging.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
If you want the Germans to go for land, try leaving your factories where he can try for them.  Use a gambit.

Until there is an incentive to hold land (and the HiWis are NOT incentive enough to risk over-exposure), the Germans won't bother with it.

I generally agree with you but nce you get to Rostov, I don't think there are sufficient factories to use as bait...the T34 factories in Stalingrad can be whisked away in a turn if the Germans get close. Who is going to risk their army going for that? The oil in the Caucauses might be tempting, but since the Germans can't use it, I doubt it.

I also see zero incentive for the Germans to seize more land in 1942, and now that the 1:1 rule is gone they will find it much easier to adopt an offensive/defensive strategy as I described in my previous post.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
76mm, it's all going to depend on how the Soviet positions his reserves. You can even deliberately thin out the south to encourage an Axis advance there.

The reserves can also act as diggers in conjunction with fortified regions to lay down some kind of fallback line.

I contend that a smart German player won't take the bait no matter how thin the Sov lines in the South. Why go there? What's the incentive to do so? I actually tried this in my game with Ketza, and he wisely didn't take the bait, instead choosing to surround armies near the front line.

Re fallback lines, in my experience, a German player that knows what he's about can cut through even level 4 forts like a hot knife through butter. Since most Sov forts will now not exceed Level 2, I think it will get ugly, and against good German opponents fallback lines will not provide any defense at all, because the German's objective is to swallow your frontline in numerous places, not penetrate beyond your fallback positions.

[karonagames]

When I start testing officially again I would like to try different variants to see which does the most long term damage to the SU- the current test took the historical route aiming for Baku and Stalingrad I got Stalingrad (vs AI) but came up short of Baku. I pocketed 900k.

I want to try Fiva55's Leningrad Gambit, and also try to replicate Pyledriver's Moscow- based campaign (see his AAR), but not sure that can be emulated in PBEM. Each option takes out differing manpower centres and direct manpower via capture. The most boring option would be to not attack, which up to now is the option most Axis players feel has been forced on them due to the 4-deep slab of lvl4 fortifications they are faced with. At the very least 1.05 should give them the chance to do something in 1942.