HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics

[Jakerson]

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

Yeah 1.05 adds more risks for spamming static mode as there is no more free activating of static units when they displace in combat. It is also incentive to go more offensive and take risks by trying pocket static units before they can react.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

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

ALL Soviet players must play the Axis a time or two. It allows a Soviet player to understand exactly how long the Axis supply-line "leash" is. There are only 1 or 2 viable railroad paths in 1941 for the German per FBD. Once you exceed about 30-40 MPs from railhead, your panzers aren't getting more than 20 MPs without air resupply. Once you understand how the supply line leash works against the Axis, you know where you should place your ZOC 'maginot line'.

You can already afford to lose half the Soviet starting army to the Germans, and as long as you lose the factories that are historically lost, you're going to be fine for historical army growth (and thus, counter-attack potential) over time (well, let me leave wiggle room since we don't know the armament point factory issue yet in 1.05).

The Soviet has every advantage possible in 1941 to out-perform the historical predecessor. Complete C&C, excellent supply, parity of air force with the Luftwaffe in 1941, and plenty of unimportant ground to cede...

Without HQ buildup, you might as well play chess: Soviet players will be able to calculate Axis supply distances entirely from the turn number and the distance to the Starting border, and can set up the ZOC maginot each turn to delay rail conversion along the desirable paths, then retreat to ensure panzers will not be moving around and isolating anyone(since there's no HQ buildup).

What some Soviet players appear to me to want is a historical German advance and an ahistorical (i.e., superior to history) Soviet ability to react to the historical German advance. You guys consistently seem to want to take the tools away from the German side to remove strategic options.

I think you fail to take into account how the macro-strategy (the 1942-45 outcomes) game depends entirely on Germany's 1941. Limit Germany's 1941 options, and you remove variety from the game. Remove variety from the game, and you lose fun for both sides.

The German must complete BOTH of the following goals:
kill 3.5 million men (almost impossible versus a veteran Soviet)
AND
destroy Arm Factory points (currently not known how many are essential, but it used to be 100, and that was also virtually impossible against an experienced Soviet).

Without HQ buildup, those goals become out-and-out impossible.

The 'HQ buildup realism' matches to the Soviet 'perfect C&C realism'. If you want Buildup removed/toned back down (again), then let me know what you plan to do to limit the Soviet player's strategic gameplay options.

One thought I mused about regarding factory relocation is to have a bell-curve style cost system for transporting factories. The idea being that efficiency goes up the more you do of something, so that the first points of moving any kind of factory are more expensive, but costs scale down the more of a factory you move.

So for example, to move 10 points of armament from a single hex, I'd want something like 10,000 rail cap for the first point (instead of 6,000 uniform per point as it is now), then 9,000 for the second, 8,000 for the third, etc. etc., until your cost to move the ENTIRE factory is about the same if you move it ALL in one sitting, but you are punished for trying to "min/max" the system by taking small numbers of points from multiple factories over multiple turns.

Right now the Soviet can take 1 Arm point from 10 of his most vulnerable factories over multiple turns without penalty. If instead, he had to choose to spend 30,000 points to move 3 Arm points from 3 factories, versus say 24,000 to move all 3 from one place, well, that's a strategic limit that the German can align his strategy to.

[DTomato]

I've posted one suggestion here:

tm.asp?m=2907110

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Without HQ buildup, you might as well play chess: Soviet players will be able to calculate Axis supply distances entirely from the turn number and the distance to the Starting border, and can set up the ZOC maginot each turn to delay rail conversion along the desirable paths, then retreat to ensure panzers will not be moving around and isolating anyone(since there's no HQ buildup).

What some Soviet players appear to me to want is a historical German advance and an ahistorical (i.e., superior to history) Soviet ability to react to the historical German advance. You guys consistently seem to want to take the tools away from the German side to remove strategic options.

I think you fail to take into account how the macro-strategy (the 1942-45 outcomes) game depends entirely on Germany's 1941. Limit Germany's 1941 options, and you remove variety from the game. Remove variety from the game, and you lose fun for both sides.

The German must complete BOTH of the following goals:
kill 3.5 million men (almost impossible versus a veteran Soviet)
AND
destroy Arm Factory points (currently not known how many are essential, but it used to be 100, and that was also virtually impossible against an experienced Soviet).

Without HQ buildup, those goals become out-and-out impossible.

The 'HQ buildup realism' matches to the Soviet 'perfect C&C realism'. If you want Buildup removed/toned back down (again), then let me know what you plan to do to limit the Soviet player's strategic gameplay options.

First of all let me say sorry for cropping some of the quote.

I am not sure what you assert as givens are set in stone as you say. I also do not think that a certain amount of Soviet ability to not make stupid mistakes (once they inherit turn 1 Axis moves) is also bad. Finally, I do not think that a somewhat broken (or at least very able to be gamed) mechanism like buildup is the answer to other problems.

We had screaming that when the HQ limit was moved to 20/19 movement points the system was screwed up and the Axis had no chance. We are seeing the first screams that the recent changes have undone the Soviet abilities and will result in huge losses. The first quite obviously did not pan out - both HQ buildup and gaming it still is overused without too many ramifications, and the second no doubt will play out differently than players expect.

I do not see the game devolving into chess, as you say, for the nuances of the recent changes make things far more important. Setting up a maginot line far back was never a great strategy, it has been broken from early on by those who thought the deep defense was the best method - the further the Axis go also means the further they have to be pushed in the long run. Rather than speaking of realism, we should speak as realistic within the game system - and the sir robin or the pull back or what have you is not a good strategy for the Soviets - less so now that this line will not be much (if all) above level 2 entrenchments and will thus be easy to breach.

I frankly do not buy all the statements about perfect C&C, the Soviet army in 1941 is still rather weak, if numerous, and with the dropping national morale it will also erode to reflect the problems caused by the Axis onslaught. This whole aspect has yet to be worked out.

Beyond this, the changes to production make the Soviet needs even more dire for evacuations, there are those amongst us who think the changes might be too much and gimp the Soviet production. But even if this is not so, there are many small facets that have to play out, production and otherwise in order to understand what is happening.

Thus I think your statements, while obviously not meant to inflame or provoke more than a debate, are stated with an assurance that does not necessarily stand up. We shall see.

As it stands now, the playing around with the buildup is a rather severe gaming of the system - and I would suspect that when things like this appear it ends up like the nail that sticks up...

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ALL Soviet players must play the Axis a time or two. It allows a Soviet player to understand exactly how long the Axis supply-line "leash" is. There are only 1 or 2 viable railroad paths in 1941 for the German per FBD. Once you exceed about 30-40 MPs from railhead, your panzers aren't getting more than 20 MPs without air resupply. Once you understand how the supply line leash works against the Axis, you know where you should place your ZOC 'maginot line'.

+1

I’d add that players that insist upon playing only Axis really need to take off their pickelhaube once in a while and attempt a GC or two as the Soviets.

Without (Axis) HQ buildup, those goals become out-and-out impossible.

+1

Given the games current logistics model, I'm of the opinion that HQ Build-Up is a key component for maintaining that very crucial operational maneuverability needed by the Axis in 1941 -- and 1942 for that matter.

While I haven't much interest in monkeying about with the logistics piggy-backing loop-hole\exploit\cheese\perfectly-legit-way-to-play (whatever someone feels they need to call it), if the result of this piggy-backing thingy is that Axis motorized units are gaining a major advantage in logistics and sustained maneuverability relative to the designers original intent and statistically relavent historical precedent, than the "issue" should be scrutinized and reined-in.

This isn’t to say that I think that HQ-Build-Up should be castrated or eliminated. There are two different issues here: 1) Players gaining an unintended advantage from HQ-Buildup via the HQ piggy back thing; vs. 2) The original design intent behind the HQ-Build-Up rule. I think the original design intent was to provide players a small amount of control over logistical focal points; or concentration of logistical effort; or logistical Schwerpunkt if you like.

What I perceive to have been the designers original intent behind HQ-Build-Up arguably has statistically relavent historical precedent. It’s a logistical abstraction. But I think that the intent of HQ-Build-UP is a rational and logical abstraction.

If HQ-Build-Up is eliminated outright, than there needs to be something to fill the void left by the intent and function of HQ-Build-Up (i.e. some way for players to focus logistical effort). We have the capability in-game to focus “combat units” into areas of primary effort – center of gravity – Schwerpunkt – --weight of effort – whatever. But to truly concentrate “combat power” we also need to be able to focus our logistical effort. Moreover, it’s not enough to pile 15 Divisions into a given sector if we can’t provide these combat units with supplies, fuel, ammunition, etc. HQ-Build-UP is currently about the only hands-on control players have in terms of focusing logistical effort.

[*Lava*]

Well, I'm just your average "Bozo Axis vs the AI" player and am currently on Turn 25. It has been my most successful game to date, having taken Leningrad and come up just short of Rostov. I've inflicted 4.1 million casualties on the Sovs and captured 2.7 million.

During the entire '41 campaign, when I needed it, I never had HQ Buildup available. In fact, I didn't do a single HQ Buildup. Boy, what a change! Thank goodness for air drops! [:)]

So I sit here reading all this "gamesmenship" stuff a little in awe and it merely reflects my view that I shan't be playing PBEM anytime soon.

Overall though, from my not very good single player perspective I am very happy with the changes that have been made so far (love shattering Sov units much more now) and to be quite frank, if they change the HQ Buildup rules I doubt if it will effect me much one way or another.

[:D]

[AKCLIMBER]

ORIGINAL: Lava

During the entire '41 campaign, when I needed it, I never had HQ Buildup available. In fact, I didn't do a single HQ Buildup. Boy, what a change! Thank goodness for air drops! [:)]

I just finished a game as Axis vs AI on normal in which I decided to forego the use of HQ buildups altogether. It made for a challenging, fun game that went the distance. I ended up with a major victory, managing to take Leningrad, Kharkov, etc. in 1941 and Rostov, Moscow, Gorky in my 1942 offensive and get all the way to Kazan (sp?) in early 1943 before I ran out of steam and began my long defensive stand. I realize that playing vs a human is not the same playing against the AI but for those of us who play vs the AI, not using HQ buildup makes for an interesting challenge.

Cheers!

[Encircled]

I feel less guilty about using the "checker board" after reading this

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: AKCLIMBER
I just finished a game as Axis vs AI on normal in which I decided to forego the use of HQ buildups altogether. It made for a challenging, fun game that went the distance.

Mind you, it's not that I didn't want to use HQ Buildup, what I wanted was a really fast jump off and penetrate as deeply as possible to prevent the Sovs from building up their fort levels. So I was never in range (I imagine based on how I understand HQ Buildup was changed) when that extra boost could have cracked things wide open. I was also spending every single admin point I had to motorize infantry divisions and get them to the front as quickly as possible.

In the end, it allowed me to take the most territory before the Blizzard that I have ever achieved in single player, and because of that (uncharted territory) I was almost certainly way too timid as winter approached (I had 3 Panzer Corps in the Stalino area which had HQ Builup available) or I would have taken Rostov as well.

For me, that was an incredible ´41 campaign and I learned an aweful lot about not only managing my mobile forces but my air and infantry as well. It is also the first time I plan to continue the game into '42.

This tells me that some very significant changes have been made to the game such that if someone really wants to learn how to play, they should now be able to at least replicate against the AI the Axis historical gains. So overall I am impressed with game development and looking forward to more tweeks.

Cheers!

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Marquo
This is the perennial problem of every East Front game; how to force the Soviets to stand fast and not run.

That is an easy one to solve... [:)]

Stalin did not begin to move his heavy industry on day one of the invasion. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I believe that that didn't start happening until July.

One way to force the Soviets to stand and fight, as they historically did... and make this a much more interesting game from a PBEM perspective, would be to prohibit industrial movement until at least Turn 3 or 4.

That puts a snot load of Sov industry at risk in the south... and forces the Sov player to have to make some real hard decisions about what to defend, unlike now where he can defend everywhere just by retreating until he has enough forces to make a practically impenetrable checkerboard against the Axis player.

Until something like this gets implemented, I won't even consider playing PBEM.

Cheers!

[Flaviusx]

Many Soviet players don't bother evacuating until turn 3. I don't.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Until something like this gets implemented, I won't even consider playing PBEM.

Cheers!

That is your loss pal... Just another IF you don't do this, I WON'T do that... It is not constructive...

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Until something like this gets implemented, I won't even consider playing PBEM.

Cheers!

That is your loss pal... Just another IF you don't do this, I WON'T do that... It is not constructive...

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

That is your loss pal...

None at all, thanks.

I don't play almost any PBEM, but seeing what I do on the AARs posted, why would anyone be even tempted???

[:-]

But once again... the point goes flying off into space. I have complained about routing Sovs moving faster than Panzers. I have pointed out that the Soviets historically didn't begin to move factories until at least turn 3. Those are, BTW... "constructive" criticisms. But these things go unanswered. Change these two things and the Lvov pocket goes away and a sense of history returns.

And it is because of things like this that you have folks like Pelton gaming the system to the max. Good on him, I just don't have time for it.

Like I say, it is a fun single player game, I really enjoy it, but PBEM... [:D]

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Many Soviet players don't bother evacuating until turn 3. I don't.

Does anybody actually know the date the Sovs started moving factories? The best I can come up with is July 41.

[carlkay58]

The Soviets began preparing industry to move about July 1, 1941. The first trains though were about July 4 or 5. This as per Charles Sharp. In the game, the Soviets are not able to evacuate factories on the first turn and still have a very limited rail capacity on turn 2 - I am not sure if they can evacuate then or not.

[cherryfunk]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I have to agree, this is gaming the system, finding loopholes that allow unrealistic and impossible end results. Frankly, and this is as a nearly exclusive Axis player to date, if this is the result of buildup, then it should go.

Why not just restrict unit reassignments to or from an HQ the turn after it builds up supplies? Wouldn't that eliminate the 'shuffling HQ' exploit?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I have to agree, this is gaming the system, finding loopholes that allow unrealistic and impossible end results. Frankly, and this is as a nearly exclusive Axis player to date, if this is the result of buildup, then it should go.

Why not just restrict unit reassignments to or from an HQ the turn after it builds up supplies? Wouldn't that eliminate the 'shuffling HQ' exploit?

Yeah, I suggested that uptopic as a possible solution.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I have to agree, this is gaming the system, finding loopholes that allow unrealistic and impossible end results. Frankly, and this is as a nearly exclusive Axis player to date, if this is the result of buildup, then it should go.

Why not just restrict unit reassignments to or from an HQ the turn after it builds up supplies? Wouldn't that eliminate the 'shuffling HQ' exploit?

I like drastic, draconian solutions that sound good in the heat of the moment but really are too severe. It is just my way.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch
I like drastic, draconian solutions that sound good in the heat of the moment but really are too severe. It is just my way.

[:D]