Couple of criticisms

[Senno]

At least as Axis and vs AI you might be OK counter-shoving when the combat is freewheeling. But when you run into forts you will wish that you had maintained an orderly C&C to get Support Units in the form of pioneers attached to your Corps (at least) or Divisions.

This newest game I left 11th Army alone on their way to Sevastopol. First by XI Corps failed, due to lack of Pioneers. Fortunately I had II Rum Corps (lol) on hand with proper C&C established and they were able to reduce the forts of 2 hexes and kick out the Soviets. Rather embarrassing result for the Germans, lol. So, now Model has been promoted to 11th Army, Support units moved into 11th Army and on down to the rest of the Corps and next turn Sevstopol will fall. Perhaps I should allow II Rum the honors however? =P

[LiquidSky]

Wel, if Smirfy doesn't want to play with all his toys, I have no desire to talk him out of it. However, I did decide to read in the manual what HQ's actually do, so I could guage whether or not they are useful. I was quite suprised to see how many different functions the HQ provide. So the HQ's are not the problem.

The problem is, you can handicap yourself against the AI by doing all kinds of foolish things. You can probably win the game by leaving the entire Luftwaffe in the National Reserve. (against the AI) Or you can choose to play with your HQ's in Germany. Its your game, you play how you want. But if you win, its not because the Luftwaffe was useless, or the HQ's dont do anything or whatever handicap you chose... its because you are playing the AI. But really, dont whine about it here, instead, make an AAR and post your magnificent glories there for people who care to see...

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: Senno

At least as Axis and vs AI you might be OK counter-shoving when the combat is freewheeling. But when you run into forts you will wish that you had maintained an orderly C&C to get Support Units in the form of pioneers attached to your Corps (at least) or Divisions.

This newest game I left 11th Army alone on their way to Sevastopol. First by XI Corps failed, due to lack of Pioneers. Fortunately I had II Rum Corps (lol) on hand with proper C&C established and they were able to reduce the forts of 2 hexes and kick out the Soviets. Rather embarrassing result for the Germans, lol. So, now Model has been promoted to 11th Army, Support units moved into 11th Army and on down to the rest of the Corps and next turn Sevstopol will fall. Perhaps I should allow II Rum the honors however? =P

Yup this is one of the good songs on the Album. 10/10 for support unit operation and how it dovetails with leadership. Now if there was a few more features as good you would be talking a classic

[Great_Ajax]

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

What's your point? Units whose CNC aren't handled well suffer penalties precisely because they're lacking all that infrastructure.

The point is a unit attached to Stavka or OKH can march 100 odd miles without any loss of combat value. As I have explained that makes a nonsense out of armoured warfare. The point is that I can operated a tank Army 230 miles aways from its HQ I can operate a Tank corps (I aint tried a tank army but I dont see why not) a 500 miles from stavka. What is the point of modeling a T-34 or Tiger the best it can be if it exists in middle earth not the russian front.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: Senno

At least as Axis and vs AI you might be OK counter-shoving when the combat is freewheeling. But when you run into forts you will wish that you had maintained an orderly C&C to get Support Units in the form of pioneers attached to your Corps (at least) or Divisions.

This newest game I left 11th Army alone on their way to Sevastopol. First by XI Corps failed, due to lack of Pioneers. Fortunately I had II Rum Corps (lol) on hand with proper C&C established and they were able to reduce the forts of 2 hexes and kick out the Soviets. Rather embarrassing result for the Germans, lol. So, now Model has been promoted to 11th Army, Support units moved into 11th Army and on down to the rest of the Corps and next turn Sevstopol will fall. Perhaps I should allow II Rum the honors however? =P

Yup this is one of the good songs on the Album. 10/10 for support unit operation and how it dovetails with leadership. Now if there was a few more features as good you would be talking a classic

Well, maintaining the theme, I think I detect a slight "change of tune".[;)]

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.



[Trey.

Are those armies marching one hundred miles to engage the enemy? Nope. Are they are sitting in reserve ready to be released to a front? yes. Would they go into combat attached to Stavka, nope. Is it a case of just like Hitler in France Stalin was keeping them on a tight rein. As for the 7th I imagine if it was directly attached to Stavka and in a combat zone it was for very very specific reasons.

[Great_Ajax]

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.



[Trey.

Are those armies marching one hundred miles to engage the enemy? Nope. Are they are sitting in reserve ready to be released to a front? yes. Would they go into combat attached to Stavka, nope. Is it a case of just like Hitler in France Stalin was keeping them on a tight rein. As for the 7th I imagine if it was directly attached to Stavka and in a combat zone it was for very very specific reasons.

[2ndACR]

Not even going to touch this thread.

[karonagames]

their loss in combat value has been nearly zero,

Well that is different to "no loss in combat value". Was there no increase in fatigue after their 100 mile march? It is usually 3-4 points per hex.

9.4.1. GROUND ELEMENT FATIGUE
Fatigue impacts the Combat Value of a ground element and this is reflected in the CV value
shown for a unit in the game. The CV of a ground element is reduced by 1/3 of the fatigue level.
Thus, an element that has a fatigue of 60 will have its basic CV value reduced by 20 percent
when calculating the CV of the unit. Fatigue also impacts movement point allowance (14.1.2).

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: Senno

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: Senno

At least as Axis and vs AI you might be OK counter-shoving when the combat is freewheeling. But when you run into forts you will wish that you had maintained an orderly C&C to get Support Units in the form of pioneers attached to your Corps (at least) or Divisions.

This newest game I left 11th Army alone on their way to Sevastopol. First by XI Corps failed, due to lack of Pioneers. Fortunately I had II Rum Corps (lol) on hand with proper C&C established and they were able to reduce the forts of 2 hexes and kick out the Soviets. Rather embarrassing result for the Germans, lol. So, now Model has been promoted to 11th Army, Support units moved into 11th Army and on down to the rest of the Corps and next turn Sevstopol will fall. Perhaps I should allow II Rum the honors however? =P

Yup this is one of the good songs on the Album. 10/10 for support unit operation and how it dovetails with leadership. Now if there was a few more features as good you would be talking a classic

Well, maintaining the theme, I think I detect a slight "change of tune".[;)]

I have no difficulty complimenting the game on what it does well, it just does not do enough well to justify A/ The hype B/ The price. Like I have said before I was Beta in a few game before so I understand a bit about the process and the personality. Alot of people invest time and effort into making a game the best they can, they dont try and do a bad job so they can be understantibly a bit defensive. Now Ive seen a few things right and wrong with the game and pointed that out in equal measure but sometimes critcism does more harm than good and I have hit this wall before and got the same deaf ears so there comes a point were banging on is pointless as you have generated antipathy. I hope people can step back and think this stuff through because in beta I have seen these sort of problems before and it is not good.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away.

I wouldn't have any problem with this, reserves are often controlled by higher level HQ's, it's normal.The problem is that you can attach hundreds of divisions directly to Stavka with no intermediate HQ's and still have a viable force.In peace time you might just about get away with this but in war time Stavka would be hopelessly overloaded and your entire army would become paralyzed.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away. 7th Army guarding the Svir River against the Finns was under direct STAVKA control and did not fall under any Front command for the entire war. Reserve armies positioned behind the lines were normally placed under STAVKA control. Several Tank Armies at Kursk were initially under STAVKA control for months until they were commited. Somehow, these armies were supplied, led, and prepared for combat operations

Trey.



[Trey.

Are those armies marching one hundred miles to engage the enemy? Nope. Are they are sitting in reserve ready to be released to a front? yes. Would they go into combat attached to Stavka, nope. Is it a case of just like Hitler in France Stalin was keeping them on a tight rein. As for the 7th I imagine if it was directly attached to Stavka and in a combat zone it was for very very specific reasons.

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

their loss in combat value has been nearly zero,

Well that is different to "no loss in combat value". Was there no increase in fatigue after their 100 mile march? It is usually 3-4 points per hex.

9.4.1. GROUND ELEMENT FATIGUE
Fatigue impacts the Combat Value of a ground element and this is reflected in the CV value
shown for a unit in the game. The CV of a ground element is reduced by 1/3 of the fatigue level.
Thus, an element that has a fatigue of 60 will have its basic CV value reduced by 20 percent
when calculating the CV of the unit. Fatigue also impacts movement point allowance (14.1.2).

This is my last attempt honestly, you guys have gamed for years, your all inteligent guys and can respect you even though we are at odds over this so bear with me I will try another angle to get my point across.

You guys kept ZOC that age old mechanic why did we not keep Overun that other age old mechanic?

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?

I suspect that it was because it was an isolated area defended by a single army, therefore no need for a front HQ.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?

I suspect that it was because it was an isolated area defended by a single army, therefore no need for a front HQ.

Yup the most likely reason

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: Senno

ORIGINAL: Smirfy




Yup this is one of the good songs on the Album. 10/10 for support unit operation and how it dovetails with leadership. Now if there was a few more features as good you would be talking a classic

Well, maintaining the theme, I think I detect a slight "change of tune".[;)]

I have no difficulty complimenting the game on what it does well, it just does not do enough well to justify A/ The hype B/ The price. Like I have said before I was Beta in a few game before so I understand a bit about the process and the personality. Alot of people invest time and effort into making a game the best they can, they dont try and do a bad job so they can be understantibly a bit defensive. Now Ive seen a few things right and wrong with the game and pointed that out in equal measure but sometimes critcism does more harm than good and I have hit this wall before and got the same deaf ears so there comes a point were banging on is pointless as you have generated antipathy. I hope people can step back and think this stuff through because in beta I have seen these sort of problems before and it is not good.

I am trying to be light hearted and not develop any antipathy. But from my reading you have gone from "HQ's are are no value" to a more moderated message. So, perhaps your message isn't as clear as you think it is, and my reading of what you are saying probably isn't perfect as well.

Anyway, I'm off to a Doctor's appt. so I shall have to leave this here for now.

[Great_Ajax]

Yep. I apologize as I only read the first half of your response before I replied. However, I was just answering your disbelief that armies were attached to Stavka and be in combat at the same time so I guess I don't understand what your issue is since you seem to accept that. I'll have to go back and re-read your issue as I thought your problem was that combat units attached to STAVKA should have no combat effectiveness.


Trey

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: el hefe

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Smirfy




Are those armies marching one hundred miles to engage the enemy? Nope. Are they are sitting in reserve ready to be released to a front? yes. Would they go into combat attached to Stavka, nope. Is it a case of just like Hitler in France Stalin was keeping them on a tight rein. As for the 7th I imagine if it was directly attached to Stavka and in a combat zone it was for very very specific reasons.

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: el hefe

STAVKA regularly had complete armies under its direct control several hundreds of miles away.

I wouldn't have any problem with this, reserves are often controlled by higher level HQ's, it's normal.The problem is that you can attach hundreds of divisions directly to Stavka with no intermediate HQ's and still have a viable force.In peace time you might just about get away with this but in war time Stavka would be hopelessly overloaded and your entire army would become paralyzed.

Ahh, time for one last question. From my reading "Stavka" is laregely a misnomer for Stalin, and directives from "Stavka to HQ", is likely direct contact between Zhukov and Stalin, or Rohkovvisblah and whatever other Stavka member was in the area and gave a new order. Stavka the game counter is in Moscow most likely, but in reality Stavka representatives were out and about. So with the simplified command structure, doesn't that help and simplify person to person directives, and lessen the impact of Staff work done at various HQ's which could bog down in layers of HQ staffs and whatever?

Basically, it seems to me that the simplified command structure makes it more likely for Stavka to be overloaded (you will still fail many many admin roles though) and feel that you are being successful. But when you need those Support units at a specific place and time, well they might just not arrive, and your limited counter-attack remains just that, it doesn't develope into any kind of counter-offensive. There is a price to be paid ultimately, seems to me.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Yep. I apologize as I only read the first half of your response before I replied. However, I was just answering your disbelief that armies were attached to Stavka and be in combat at the same time so I guess I don't understand what your issue is since you seem to accept that. I'll have to go back and re-read your issue as I thought your problem was that combat units attached to STAVKA should have no combat effectiveness.


Trey

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: el hefe

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

Trey


[/b]

See my last post. 7th Army which was engaged in defensive operations against the Finns along the Svir River was under STAVKA control for the entire war. It was not assigned to a front.

I'll just highlight something there for you just incase there is any misunderstanding, I actually read posts and try to answer as best I can

Did it move? was there any political considerations? any other examples?

At Kursk and at other big offensives Stalin would have kept a tight rein on reserves those units would have had a combat effectivness sure but to embark on operations they would have attached to a front it was a bit like Hitler freeing the Panzer Reserves at Normandy. Most other units, like exist in our game attached to Stavka/OKH/SHAEF would be be resting, refitting, in billets all over the place, training etc and nowhere near ready for combat. Once activated for operation they would come together and be a cohesive unit. But to do that they would invariably come under the revelant front HQ.

[Great_Ajax]

Okay. I see what you're saying and it does make sense that combat units would be assigned to a tactical headquarters while commited to combat for guidance and direction. I just don't know what kind of change you could implement and would it be worth it to implement? You already have a CV loss for units in different HQs participating in an attack and there is a clear case of a defending army attached directly to STAVKA (several hundreds of miles away) which didn't affect its performance.

Trey