front lines

[gwgardner]

Do the game's supply mechanics encourage continuous front lines on the eastern front?

One aspect of SC2 that I really disliked was the way the eastern front always devolved into pockets of activity around cities - there was absolutely no need for a continuous front line in SC2, due to the supply rules. You could have huge gaps in the front with no problem.

Since Road to Victory's supply rules are also based upon cities, is it much the same? (Hope not!)

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Do the game's supply mechanics encourage continuous front lines on the eastern front?

One aspect of SC2 that I really disliked was the way the eastern front always devolved into pockets of activity around cities - there was absolutely no need for a continuous front line in SC2, due to the supply rules. You could have huge gaps in the front with no problem.

Since Road to Victory's supply rules are also based upon cities, is it much the same? (Hope not!)

The game doesn't require a continuous front line though it helps if you can keep one.

[alaric318]

greetings, to not have a main continuos front line and center on cities, in fact is a more weak defense, more on in this game, as an attacker will have more chances to find "holes" to make concentric attacks, mainly, concentric attacks is the way to destroy enemy units, you will have less units with 3 potential attacks paths in a continous front line than if you instead make deployment around cities with multiple front lines, more 3 hexes attacks will be rewarded from the system, that leads to more casualties, here comes the relevance of have some small (divisions) level units to fill the gaps and flanks of strong units, personally i find the given system much historically realistic, somewhat this go against playability as a good defender will left much less gaps or holes free to an attacker, in a frontline you will have around, at most, 3 or 4 hexes free with 3 paths to be attacked, the other way, you will have hexes with 3 paths to attack in every city, worse defense, indeed,
 
with best regards,
 
murat30

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Do the game's supply mechanics encourage continuous front lines on the eastern front?

One aspect of SC2 that I really disliked was the way the eastern front always devolved into pockets of activity around cities - there was absolutely no need for a continuous front line in SC2, due to the supply rules. You could have huge gaps in the front with no problem.

Since Road to Victory's supply rules are also based upon cities, is it much the same? (Hope not!)

The game doesn't require a continuous front line though it helps if you can keep one.

It should be noted that a home nation city does produce supply, but not as much as the "main supply source" (MSS) city (identified with the star symbol I associate with capitals). In most cases, the MSS is the capital, but there are some exceptions (e.g., Cairo, Stalingrad and I forget the other Soviet city, I think Magnitogorsk). Yes, a city that can't trace to the MSS will still enable units to function but not as well. For example, the armor and motorized units will have fewer action points, and will thus be restricted in their movement, and their ability to cut off and destoy your armored and motorized spearheads (bitter experience in my first game against the AI talking here).

[Mickrocks201]

[font="arial"]I have found having as strong as possible front line is critical...   it adds much to the finesse of the game trying to get your mobile units in position to breakthrough the weakest spot in enemy lines vs. the enemy trying to shore up the vulnerable areas with strategic moves and builds.  The eastern Ukraine gets especially interesting due it its lack of cities for supplies and redeployment.   You really find yourself in trade offs of buying divisions to fill gaps as opposed to corps to have some staying power, since division do tend to get targeted and disappearing from your OOB.  Try to keep your divisions behind rivers and in woods and especially in places where they can be attacked from one hex - elsewise you will be bleeding PP's replacing them.   Once Russia can get a solid line of Inf corps at max level they can stem the axis tide and then start buying armor and paras and air units to attack the axis minor allies in the line.   Then life gets interesting [;)][/font]

[gwgardner]

Thx for your comments.  I assume your comments above refer to human vs human games. 

I purchased the game and have experimented with the Polish campaign and the beginning of the '41 scenario, as Germany.  I realize that is VERY little actual playing time with the game, but so far my impression is that the AI makes zero attempt to maintain a front line, but just falls back on cities.  There's so little effect of zones of control, that it's too easy to surround the AI.

Otherwise the game looks very promising.

[Mickrocks201]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Thx for your comments.  I assume your comments above refer to human vs human games. 

I purchased the game and have experimented with the Polish campaign and the beginning of the '41 scenario, as Germany.  I realize that is VERY little actual playing time with the game, but so far my impression is that the AI makes zero attempt to maintain a front line, but just falls back on cities.  There's so little effect of zones of control, that it's too easy to surround the AI.

Otherwise the game looks very promising.

[font="Arial"]Yes, I am referring to human vs human games. I have given up on the AI providing anything close to a challenge -- once you get a handle on the game you can roll over the AI at ease even giving it lots of extra PP's. Don't know if there is any plans to make the AI more competitive but it needs to be greatly improved.

So, in essence, if you are looking for a challenging human vs AI game it is not so promising after all. Human vs Human does look promising though.
[/font]