HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics

[PeeDeeAitch]

5) New Rule - Static units no longer lose their static status when they are retreated or routed.
6) New Rule - Units may not enter static mode in 1941.

Units can't go into static in 1941, and when they are in static they don't get "free" bumping from static when displaced.

[mmarquo]

Michael,

Since you seem to have mastered the leap frog so well, what do you think is a Soviet countermove? For all we know Jakerson's success may have bee due to playing th AI on easy (and no, this not a jab at anybody, just trying to understand WTF is happening).

Given the success you are having in your current PBEM, probably from mastery of this, I am a bit hesitant to start our Grand Campaign if the outcome is predetermined by this technique and the heavy handicap 1.05 places on teh Soviets. I, too, generally beleive that if the game engine allows it, go for it. But still, there are some things....

I would like to see you do this in a short match against me; maybe the opening campaign in the South? If you get Kiev and D-town in 4 - 6 moves then I will not start any new large games until this is fixed.

Marquo

[karonagames]

As noted in another thread, there is a lot of self balancing in the use of the HQ buildup ploy to go on industry raids, in that the Axis forego forming large pockets and maximising the number of Captured SU.

This leads to having to fight a stronger Red Army during the Blizzard pushing the axis back further and making them weaker in 1942, and having a smaller Hiwi pool to offset attrition from 1943 onwards. If the Reds have 1.2m more armed men than historically, the industry raids have to take out at least 1.2m armaments points.

Axis strategy has to be a mix of depriving the SU of the resources need to fight the war,and is a balance of manpower and industry. The HQ buildup ploy puts too much emphasis on industry and not enough on Manpower. It would actually be better used to create mega-pockets rather than going on deep raids on industry.

Under 1.05 manpower is even more important than any version heretofore.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: map66

It does seem an exploit that needs to be closed, but, until a better logistic system is implemented, perhaps the exploit could be best dealt with by house rules. These would probably need to be gentlemen's agreements not to do anything too gamey with the supply system as is, as the line between pulling back a panzer corps with attached units to use HQ buildup and the absurd cycling of HQ in and out might be a bit hard to pin down either with an exactly worded house rule, or for the designers to close with a limited change to HQ build up as is, rather then completely scrapping the entire system. Even if a limitation on HQ buildup could be found by the designers that would stop the exploit, likely it would mean less fuel to the panzers to those playing by the spirit of the rules as well, when I think the game in general needs to get a bit more fuel to the panzers, not less.

+1

Although I'm never a fan of house rules as there's too much potential for differing player expectations as to what is and isnt encompassed by a particular house rule.

Unfortunately now that the cat is out of the bag on this extremely silly exploitation of the spirit of the games logistics rules, everyone and their brother will be trying to employ it. Which makes me wonder if continuing with the new 1.05 PBEM GC41-45 I just started is worth it.

I wish this was an issue that had been handled outside the realm of the public forum. Most folks probably would not have thought to figure out such an exploit. On the other hand I also wonder weather the only way to get people to take notice of such things is to throw the stinky fish out there so that everyone starts taking advantage of it.

The thing I am curious about is the seeming glut of Axis AP points showing on the various screen shots from page 1 of this thread. Given what "I think" is being done with this exploit, it would seem that a fair bit of reshuffling of Divisions between Korps HQs is required. How is it there is such a large accumulation of Axis AP points on those screen shots?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Michael,

Since you seem to have mastered the leap frog so well, what do you think is a Soviet countermove? For all we know Jakerson's success may have bee due to playing th AI on easy (and no, this not a jab at anybody, just trying to understand WTF is happening).

Given the success you are having in your current PBEM, probably from mastery of this, I am a bit hesitant to start our Grand Campaign if the outcome is predetermined by this technique and the heavy handicap 1.05 places on teh Soviets. I, too, generally beleive that if the game engine allows it, go for it. But still, there are some things....

I would like to see you do this in a short match against me; maybe the opening campaign in the South? If you get Kiev and D-town in 4 - 6 moves then I will not start any new large games until this is fixed.

Marquo

This is what I'm trying.

[Peltonx]

If you wanted as TVD20 has done you could have evaced all the production west of the Dnepr river on turn 4.

I will up date the thread asap, just got back from work road trip.

HQ build-up is not over powering even chaining build-ups and muling in supplys vs a good russian your not going to pocket much for troops or production. Only if the Russian player trains to many troops to front lines will they lose prodution or men.

As it is IF the Russian player knows the limits of the Germans supplys you should have more then enough time to evac everything other then 25 to 40 armerment pts and not let the germans have much of a chance at pockets other then around Leningrad and Moscow. The Russian player really has no reason to fight in the south other then a general delaying action. The Germans can only go so far in the center and south because of supplys as per this very screen shot Flaviusx has put up.

We need to play more, but I am thinking the Devs MIGHT have gotten it right with 1.05.

Factory losses will be less then historical or they should be all things being equal. This with the nerfing of arm production and 1v1=2v1 "should" make for an interesting 42.

Sure Russian losses will be low, but so will German losses, because once the production is railer out of south their will be no reason to advance.

I am guessing best Russian tactics will be to defend Moscow, then Leningrad then south. Rail from south to nouth as per Flaviusx idea of letting the German have the 25 arm ect west of the 2 rivers.

We don't know for sure until we play until 43 atleast.

I am HQing as much as possible to see if HQ or rail is over powered, but if you think about it based just on math I think it is close to balanced.

TVDs idea is the extreme example of saving production first which is exploiting the rail system and German limited supply system. Is there any penality for evacing stuff so early?

Yes yes I am exploiting HQ system, but again all things being equal there is no reason for the Russian player to lose more then historical in production and much less then historical in troops.

Pelton

Pic is start of turn 5 I have not moved yet and closed production is Z-town. Up north Leningrad is walled off and Moscow is not close because supply heads are a long long ways off.

[Flaviusx]

I don't entirely agree with your analysis, Pelton.

For starters, I do think a delaying action of sorts needs to be fought against your raids. I'll let you figure out what I'm trying to do, specifically, and it is purely tailored to deal with this situation.

Secondly, I don't believe in runaways except in dealing with you in particular and because of the way you exploit the rule. I actually fight a forward defense against anybody else not gaming the rule.

To compare and contrast here is a screenshot of t3 in my game with James. He does things differently than you, and in some ways more complicated to deal with. But he plays it straight up, no cheese.

[Peltonx]

If HQ build up is removed it would be 100% impossible vs an averge Russian who understands how the game engine works at this time to destory more then 12 arm pts.

Also as Tarhunnas has pointed out 100 times there is 100% no reason for the Russians to do anything then delay, because the German supply chain is so so short without HQ build up.

Evacing out 95% of production with HQ build-up removed is a piece of cake and you never lose more then 3 million men, because again there is zero reason to fight in south.

Simply "game" the system. Move most of troops to Moscow and Leningrad fronts, delay a little in south and you lose next to nothing.

And your not going to get anyways near Stalingrad in 41 vs anyone with a clue.

Sure being 100 to 200 miles from railheads is not realistic, but simply running east and not fighting as the Russian player is 100% not realistic at all.

So the system can be gamed by both sides.

1.05 is about balanced all players being equal.

If hq build-up is removed then you will have to atleast double the cost of moving production or there is zero reason for the German player to advance past 2 rivers. You never pocket any troops or destory any production unless the Russian player is a totally newbie to game.



Pelton

[Flaviusx]

Nobody has decided what to do with the rule yet, let alone removing it altogether. But I disagree that Germans absolutely need to use the rule as you do to enjoy success. Other players are doing it differently and doing quite well.

[Peltonx]

I basicly know what your doing which is cool.

I am talking about how easy it is as Russian player to evac everything as things are now.

The system can be "gamed" by both sides, because as Tarhunnas pted out and many others there is no reason to fight forward as Russian player.

It might be best idea to remove HQ, but you have to give the Russians a reason to fight at this pt even with HQ build-up its very hard to get better then historical vs a good russian player or pocket troops.

1.05 is huge step in right direction. Tarhunnas VP system or something like it needs to be put in next major patch. Russians need a reason to fight and germans need a reason to advance past rivers.

A good German player is not going to play cat and mouse for production. Get close and have it removed. Mybee once but most good players have seen that one alrdy.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

It depends on who your playing.

Ok off to coach HS V-ball.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

So your not disagreeing that any Russian player can evac everything other then 25 arm pts. Then play cat and mouse counter attacking German armored spearheads then evec production?

tm.asp?m=2902711&mpage=1&key=&#2906705

Pelton

[Michael T]

Marquo, I honestly think a good Russian player who is savy about HQ BU can slow down this so called exploit, or nullify it. I play both sides so if I thought it was an unfair ploy I would be jumping up and down about it. It makes the game fun. If you take HQ BU away without some other method of forward supply then I would challenge anyone to win against me as Russian. I would bet my house on it.

I have played against majeloz as Russian and he used a similar type of Pelton surge for my Arm Ind in Kharkov and Stalino. He got both pretty much intact except for the T34 factory. I lost just over 100 Arm Ind plus Leningrad, but not the KV's. But I saved my army and kicked ass hard in the Blizzard. Game over by turn 27. My point is against competent play these deep charges alone won't win the game for you.

Pelton's style is completely different to mine. He has his way I have mine. I am just about to finish my T17 in my lastest CG as German. I will post some screenies soon. My opponent made some early errors and has never really recovered but he has learned how to defend in depth very effectively now.

As for our game I am cool to wait until the dust settles on this matter.

[Flaviusx]

There are workarounds this exploit as the Soviet, yes. But it's an exploit, and if you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.

By the way, it promotes runaways. I say this as somebody who flat out prefers to fight up front and make the German pay for advances. But if that German spams buildups, then it's going to be Sir Robin time on large sectors of the front, with a skirmish line thrown up to put the spearhead in zocs. You can only defend against this straight up on very limited sectors of the front with high unit density. Elsewhere, not possible.

HQ buildups were always intended to be an occasional and extraordinary expedient. That's not what's going on here.

[Michael T]

I play by the rules. Call it what you will. I don't care. If its a problem I am sure the devs will change it. But I am somewhat surprised that it is still in the game if it is as bad as you claim. If there is no replacement for it I will just play Russian. No problem. I am not going to worry about anymore. I would be interested in what Joel thinks about it though.

[mmarquo]

Michael,

We will still play as planned [:)] I am curious to see what happens...just want a small practice run to see if I have any chance against it. OTOH, I have not yet played as the Axis PBEM, so I have not really had a chance to fiddle with this. As I mentioned, I also agree that of the rules allow it, well so be it, within reason.... [;)]

Mark

[mmarquo]

"Sure being 100 to 200 miles from railheads is not realistic, but simply running east and not fighting as the Russian player is 100% not realistic at all"

Pelton,

This is the perennial problem of every East Front game; how to force the Soviets to stand fast and not run. GMT's Barbarossa requires Mandated Attacks, and I understand that the new Proud Monster has some interesting angles, but I have no first hand knowledge yet. You can't simply ask a rational Soviet player to stand fast unless there is a good reason. And given your use of the the game engine, I would never stand fast playing you. Up to now, I have had very good success with forward defenses with a controlled retreat, but as Flaviusx has posted, I would would defend deeper and screen the advance while trying to make the RR conversions difficult.

Now this is counterintuitive to me, because I feel that the game is won in 1945; every hex I let the Axis player have to the east, represents so much more I have to retake to get to Berlin later.

Marquo [;)]

[LiquidSky]

Hmm..seems to me that you can comprimise. Keep HQ buildup but don't allow the germans to destroy factories by occupying a hex until it converts to an axis railhead. If the Soviets can retake the city (ie Blizzard) then they can keep the factories.

[Michael T]

Michael,

We will still play as planned I am curious to see what happens...just want a small practice run to see if I have any chance against it. OTOH, I have not yet played as the Axis PBEM, so I have not really had a chance to fiddle with this. As I mentioned, I also agree that of the rules allow it, well so be it, within reason....

Mark

Marquo I don't use the rule quite the same as Pelton. First, going nuts for Kharkov and Stalino in the South is not my priority, but if you leave the door open it may well be

I am more an opportunist. I just try to make sure I can take advantage of any weakness in the defences.

Second, even though its possible to use INF Hq's as the supply dump I don't do that. I only use the Pz HQ's. This creates a limiting factor along with available AP's. Even I draw the line at using non Pz HQ's for the rule. Come to think of it that would be a way to limit the use. Only allow HQ BU with Pz HQ's. I find I can generally only scrape up 2 spares across the front until the 40th comes in to play.

So doing a pre game test in the south would be of no benefit. Plus my gaming time is limited and I would rather spend it playing the actual game. It's a moot point at the moment though because my esteemed opponent is turning out to be quite resilient. But you are up next.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
There are workarounds this exploit as the Soviet, yes. But it's an exploit, and if you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.

I'm unsure about being an "exploit", as in "getting an unfair advantage", just something that gets out of hand. It certainly lacks a limiting factor, very much like fortifications needed one. Perhaps, increasing the # of trucks damaged linearly with the distance from a railhead, so doing a build-up 19 MP's from a railhead would be something *really* expensive. And I mean really expensive. Right now, HQ build up is described as "something that can gimp the supply of your whole army" when it's obvious it is not really the case. Another additional option could be to make the MP increase, rather than automatic and flat-out, less something predictable so it varied depending on Admin and Mech checks by the HQ leader.

Rommel offensives in North Africa are also a text-book example of near optimal use of the logistic means available and their limiting factors. Let's remind that as soon as Rommel logistics ooomph was burnt the Germans were completely and totally shafted.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
By the way, it promotes runaways. I say this as somebody who flat out prefers to fight up front and make the German pay for advances. But if that German spams buildups, then it's going to be Sir Robin time on large sectors of the front, with a skirmish line thrown up to put the spearhead in zocs. You can only defend against this straight up on very limited sectors of the front with high unit density. Elsewhere, not possible.

You certainly show the way putting ZOCs all the way.

People is really too concerned about preserving the Red Army too early. In Pelton screenshots his opponent is too wary of that, not realizing that it's worse - in the long run - to let the Axis logistics work at top efficiency in the most favorable of all possible environments. Losses do matter, but I think matters more to lay ZOC on German supply lines, his supply trucks MP's skyrocket, and you can well disregard losses entirely as long as you get divisions for free and you can fill them up fast enough. If the Germans didn't do this in the campaign is as much because of the "limiting factors" discussed above as because the Red Army was creating credible threats - and I mean credible as in "actually interfering" - to the Axis Line of Communication. Soviet cavalry historically distinguished itself in this role and many of the "unconceivable" stops the German Army had to do were because of exactly this. And it was extremely costly in material and lives.

This discussion is eerily similar to that of the combination of First Winter and 1:1 -> 2:1 rule, just with the roles reversed.

EDIT: Engrish fixed