Cities… just another terrain hex

[Jim D Burns]

I’m finding I’m not too pleased with the treatment of cities in game. There is no real incentive to fight for them. The fact isolated units generally surrender in a single turn means there aren’t going to be any long siege battles for the cities in game unless there is tons of air transport available, which wasn’t the case for most pocket battles. The Germans held out at Velikie Luki for about a month with just supply stocks they had on hand, but in game the Germans in a Velikie Luki situation are going to go poof after just one turn.

I’m finding it’s better game play practice to simply abandon cities rather than lose units trying to hold onto them, because there is no threat of long city sieges in the game model. I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn.

Then reduce the isolation penalty by about half if units can trace to a city stockpile. This would give units some ability of trying to fight their way out of a pocket as happened at Velikie Luki and in many pocket battles during the war.

The above may be too complex of a fix to hope for, if so a less complex way of handling it may be to give cities some limited ability to keep units supplied. You could say cities keep 1 unit supplied, light urban 2 and heavy urban 3. This would be a less appealing fix due to the abstract nature of it and the fact you'd want supplies to eventually run out, but anything is preferable to the total lack of importance we see for cities in game currently.

Jim

[Kaletsch2007]

+ 1

[Tarhunnas]

I agree. It is hard to see sieges at all in the game, not just in cities. The Demyansk or Kholm pockets are extremely unlikely to happen in the game. And a surrounded 6th army in Stalingrad would probably not hold out for 2 months = 8 turns, even with all the air supply you can muster. I believe German forces in particular should have a better capability to hold out when surrounded than they currently have in the game.

[color]

I like the concept of this suggestion

[saintsup]

+1

[Blind Sniper]

Moreover you have to divert sone units to handle this pockets, that can be change the strategy for both opponents.
Anyhow Leningrad would became impregnable.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn.

I'd definitely like to see this.
I also think that if the road and rail network were better simulated then cities would have far more significence as transport hubs than they currently do and therefore as important objectives.After all that is the main importance of cities in military terms.

[heliodorus04]

+1

[Texas D]

+1

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I’m finding I’m not too pleased with the treatment of cities in game. There is no real incentive to fight for them. The fact isolated units generally surrender in a single turn means there aren’t going to be any long siege battles for the cities in game unless there is tons of air transport available, which wasn’t the case for most pocket battles. The Germans held out at Velikie Luki for about a month with just supply stocks they had on hand, but in game the Germans in a Velikie Luki situation are going to go poof after just one turn.

I’m finding it’s better game play practice to simply abandon cities rather than lose units trying to hold onto them, because there is no threat of long city sieges in the game model. I think if cities had some minimal ability to stockpile supplies similar to how an HQ can stockpile them, it would allow trapped units to then draw some supply for a few turns rather than simply vanishing after one turn.

Then reduce the isolation penalty by about half if units can trace to a city stockpile. This would give units some ability of trying to fight their way out of a pocket as happened at Velikie Luki and in many pocket battles during the war.

The above may be too complex of a fix to hope for, if so a less complex way of handling it may be to give cities some limited ability to keep units supplied. You could say cities keep 1 unit supplied, light urban 2 and heavy urban 3. This would be a less appealing fix due to the abstract nature of it and the fact you'd want supplies to eventually run out, but anything is preferable to the total lack of importance we see for cities in game currently.

Jim

+1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out.


And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.

[Rasputitsa]

+1 [:)]

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley




+1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out.


And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.

One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed.

And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway).

But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up.

The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: bwheatley




+1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out.


And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.

One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed.

And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway).

But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up.

The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis.

Ya i know if you re-connect you get a 75%ish boost again in CV I saw it with my smolensk pocket. But that means you can NEVER break out you always have to break in. Which does not "feel" right. Case in point my smolensk pocket in my game vs ara. He encircled my best units all had at least 2-3CV they had been resting all game. They get pocketed and on the same turn (yes 7 days abstracted) my best morale units were reduced to <1 CV. So no break out was possible. I had to break in with some high MP cav units. Then i magically (yes it's not magic i'm just saying magic for effect) got 75% of my cv back and was able to start doing some counter attacks. Which just does not feel right. I'd be willing to see routed units stay routed for one of my turns in order to have units properly handle isolation.

I also actually don't like seeing most of my routed units come back to life in the same turn. I'd like to see some leadership check penalties for units in early 41 to help keep routing units from getting themselves back into fighting order.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: bwheatley




+1 i hate how isolation works. I especially hate it for cities. I also hate that you don't get 1 turn after isolation to have close to full CV so you can attempt a break out. it basically turns anything into a bunch of crying babies instead of a military force that can still attempt to break out. Especially for the soviets where when you get your turn it's still the same week as it was for the germans so you should have enough cv to try to break out.


And yea in cities you can't hold them and it's a practically worthless.

One thing to remember about the sudden and immediate drop-off in CV, though, is that technically your pocket formed over the prior 7 days (abstracted). This is the same abstraction that allows units to route out of a fully formed pocket on the turn the pocket is sealed.

And IF you re-connect the pocket, CVs immediately increase again (which is hard for the Soviet in 41 to see, because his units all suck anyway).

But yeah, I've just closed the pocket on Leningrad (vs. AI game), where 40 Soviet Divisions in level 4 forts await a slow, marching death that is a foregone conclusion. Probably over 3 weeks. The first week, several level 4 forts aren't attackable, but knowing the leaching they'll take each turn, by 3 weeks they should be shells, even without attacking many of them, such that I can mop them up.

The game misses the epic feeling of isolated pockets desperate for relief over a month or more. Something's missing in the mechanics to allow for Stalingrads and Vellikie Lukis.

But yes i agree with you about not liking the way isolation feels.
In 41 its me losing units to german encirclements but in late 42-43 it will be the germans on the other side asking for isolate to be changed.

[G Felzien]

I have only seen a city hold out once. It was Smolensk versus the AI. Three rifle divisions sat in the hex for five turns ('41). Their CV slowly dropped but only after an attack otherwise would not change between turns. I do not know how the game managed it but I would love to see it happen more often for both sides. After all, the Soviets had some tough nuts to crack in '45.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

Ya i know if you re-connect you get a 75%ish boost again in CV I saw it with my smolensk pocket. But that means you can NEVER break out you always have to break in. Which does not "feel" right. Case in point my smolensk pocket in my game vs ara. He encircled my best units all had at least 2-3CV they had been resting all game. They get pocketed and on the same turn (yes 7 days abstracted) my best morale units were reduced to <1 CV. So no break out was possible. I had to break in with some high MP cav units. Then i magically (yes it's not magic i'm just saying magic for effect) got 75% of my cv back and was able to start doing some counter attacks. Which just does not feel right. I'd be willing to see routed units stay routed for one of my turns in order to have units properly handle isolation.

I also actually don't like seeing most of my routed units come back to life in the same turn. I'd like to see some leadership check penalties for units in early 41 to help keep routing units from getting themselves back into fighting order.

Your points are well taken. The universal strategy for re-connecting (in real life) an isolated pocket is for the strongest units INSIDE to attack toward units that are simultaneously attacking toward them. And the way it presently works, there's no point using the encircled units.

[jomni]

Isolation penalties are way too harsh. But fun game though as it's an exciting fight during the encirclement process.

[Redmarkus5]

I would refer you to my posts complaining about this same issue back when the game was released, but I can't locate them in the forum - search doesn't seem very useful here for some reason

Hopefully, you will get acceptance of your point and the response from the developers that I never got... The treatment of cities in the game is a huge flaw that should never have made it to the commercial release, IMO.

[Senno]

Yes. In my current game the AI withdrew from Moscow (!). I can't imagine that would have happened at all. They didn't get far as they were mostly 1=1 units and the rails were cut, but they withdrew.

[Mynok]

It's not the treatment of cities that are the problem. It is how isolation is treated. That could use some rethinking.