Hold at all costs!

[sveint]

Actually nevermind, retreat as soon as the odds are even! (Soviet 1:1 => 2:1 rule)

Could we please have a game option to turn this effect ON/OFF. That would settle the problem, those who like it can play with it on.

And no I don't want it even when playing as the Soviets.

[kirkgregerson]

ORIGINAL: sveint

Actually nevermind, retreat as soon as the odds are even! (Soviet 1:1 => 2:1 rule)

Could we please have a game option to turn this effect ON/OFF. That would settle the problem, those who like it can play with it on.

And no I don't want it even when playing as the Soviets.

+1

I vote for it to be toggled on/off per year. [:D]
That would allow more player vs player games to come to an agreement as to what might be fair.

[abulbulian]

Better yet, give German units a 'Hold or Die' order(for some small AP expenditure?) which would allow them to negate the Soviet attack bonus, but introduce a possibly for higher casualties.  This would be the case if they still were forced to retreat.


So you'd have 'Refit', 'Ready', 'Hold or Die' choices  [:'(]

[Scook_99]

Generally, the order was issued after they were encircled, so it's not like they had much choice. Fortress Stalingrad es kaput!

It isn't quite as easy as a toggle, from what I have read about the 1:1 rule. Russians take more casualties from using the 1:1, so you have to remove the odds and the extra casualties. So methinks it's hard coded in there.

[WingedIncubus]

Why would a player issue an order to resist to the last man in WITE? What results would it accomplish, aside from tying large numbers of enemy units to the kessel?

There's no Hitler or Stalin to impose it on you. Only players who really want to roleplay Hitler or Stalin would do that.

[sveint]

Well the example in the game I just played was to hold a bridgehead at all costs until next turn.

[Jakerson]

Does this hold at all cost means that Germans just stand still when Soviet hammer them with every artillery piece and bomber plane they have in the theatre as long as something moves there and even more when there is nothing left to move?

[delatbabel]

A "hold at all costs" order would be useful in holding a bridgehead, or (for example) a land bridge between two rivers or between sets of swamps. I think it should be added to the game, but of course will result in extra casualties for the defending units. I think that a prudent German player is likely to use it when pressed when there's a fair bit in the pool, but as the replacements start to dry up it would be extremely hard to justify using it.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A "hold at all costs" order would be useful in holding a bridgehead, or (for example) a land bridge between two rivers or between sets of swamps. I think it should be added to the game, but of course will result in extra casualties for the defending units. I think that a prudent German player is likely to use it when pressed when there's a fair bit in the pool, but as the replacements start to dry up it would be extremely hard to justify using it.

I am not happy about these kinds of chances in game of this scale of game that simulate whole eastern front as it adds more micromanagement in game.

Player already have option defending important bridgeheads with best and strongest units, assign best generals lead units that defend most important places and also deploy more SU and air support in important sectors and commit reserves that can help bridgeheads. These are all more important factors than some vague hold at all costs order to boost defense.

[Commanderski]

I think it depends on the individual player. If a player, either German or Soviet, thinks a bridgehead, land bridge , city or whatever piece of ground is worth holding onto he will hold at all costs. Especially if he thinks it by holding it he will tie up the opposing forces for an extended period of time.

An Admin option does not need to be added as they can do that now. Making it an option to have a unit stay in one hex regardless of the overwhelming odds and not move until totaly wiped out would make that unit a "super unit" and would be out of context of this game and unrealistic.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

I think it depends on the individual player. If a player, either German or Soviet, thinks a bridgehead, land bridge , city or whatever piece of ground is worth holding onto he will hold at all costs. Especially if he thinks it by holding it he will tie up the opposing forces for an extended period of time.

An Admin option does not need to be added as they can do that now. Making it an option to have a unit stay in one hex regardless of the overwhelming odds and not move until totaly wiped out would make that unit a "super unit" and would be out of context of this game and unrealistic.

This is obviously false as it entirely depends on how you implement it. I've played several games that allow axis players to give units a 'Hold at all costs' posture. What I was suggesting in WitE in reality doesn't mean to the last man, just negating the Soviet attack bonus.


So here is what I'm suggestion:

German units only may be placed in a 'Hold at all Cost' posture which has the following considerations:

- small AP expenditure to set this status on a German unit
- unit must have a minimum of 75 morale and TOE 50%
- unit must make a leader check in order for this order to actually be carried out when defending
- status will revert back to 'Ready' the following turn (so only lasts 1 turn)
- if unit passes check(one for every attack) then it will negate the Soviet attack bonus.


I think this is sensible and realistic. This could also be a posture available to certain Soviet units at some point in the war?

[Commanderski]

German units only may be placed in a 'Hold at all Cost' posture which has the following considerations:

- small AP expenditure to set this status on a German unit
- unit must have a minimum of 75 morale and TOE 50%
- unit must make a leader check in order for this order to actually be carried out when defending
- status will revert back to 'Ready' the following turn (so only lasts 1 turn)
- if unit passes check(one for every attack) then it will negate the Soviet attack bonus.

If it was set to those conditions and not able to do that until maybe the winter of '42 that would sound reasonable.

[Truppenstab]

Yes I think the current game mechanisms work very well to simulate hold at all costs. That any of changes would possibly make a unit in a strong positions too good.

Paul.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: sveint

Actually nevermind, retreat as soon as the odds are even! (Soviet 1:1 => 2:1 rule)

Could we please have a game option to turn this effect ON/OFF. That would settle the problem, those who like it can play with it on.

And no I don't want it even when playing as the Soviets.

How do you really feel? [:D]

Wasn't this in the SPI boardgame too?

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Truppenstab

Yes I think the current game mechanisms work very well to simulate hold at all costs. That any of changes would possibly make a unit in a strong positions too good.

Paul.

This is reason why I oppose game design chances that add micromanagement and are exploitable numerous ways. This you say it is just one way to exploit feature hold at all cost. I am not fan of any feature that makes busting trough heavily fortified hexes harder than it is like hold at all cost mode.

Current mechanics already in the game give plenty of ways holding most important hexes.

Also it is debatable from military strategy point of view that holding at all cost even should boost defense as it is not every case best way to defense. In game of this scale I mean grand strategy I assume that generals and troops always do the best they can with resources I give them it is no sense to let player meddle with operational level of leadership.

[Der Lwe]

But at the strategic level you did not decide if a division would use hasty or deliberate attack either. This game spans from military strategic down to tactical level. We have to ways to attack, why not two ways to deffend? Deliberate deffence and "normal" defence. In deliberate you need to get a shatter or rout before the unite moves. This might have to be ballanced by giving rout and shatter results easier when attacking deliberate deffence and maybe other mecanism, like costing admin point for defenders everytime someone set up a deliberate deffence.