HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics

[Attack]

This HQ build-up gamey remember to me a "gamey" that I invented in War in Russia. A German pz korp advanced without supply, only been air suplied. And it reached Baku! Nothing that the Russian player could do, stoped it. Of course, I played it only a time, and after we agreed an home rule to forbid this.
 
HQ build-up gives flexibility to the German attack, I like it. In WiR it was "extra supply". But the Pelton way to use it seems not realistic. An this is an historical game, we are not playing martians against venusians. Of course, there are other things unrealistic in the game, but we´re trying to do the game more realistic, this is not excuse for all gameys. If you think that something is not realistic, open a post and I´m sure that the developpers[&o] will change the game if there is consensus and the game is more historical and more playable.

Anyway, Pelton is right about the armaments factories: is too much dificult to destroy an historic number of factories.

About build-up, I don´t like this: if an unit is unsupplied (isolated) and after moving is again in supply, with a HQ build-up the unit is again at 100%. Why try to cut the supply line of Germans, if with an HQ build-up they are plenty of supply?

Some home rules that the PBEM player of War in Russia used to avoid gameys with "extra-supply":
-A unit can´t change of HQ and receive HQ build-up (extra supply) in a single turn.
-If a unit is isolated, it can´t receive HQ build-up (extra-supply) in the same turn, even if is open the supply line in the movement phase.
-Only a single HQ can do build-up (extra-supply) in a turn (in WitE perhaps could be 2 HQs, because the scale)
These home rules worked well. 

[mmarquo]

I just found this amazing link by using Goggle to search: "German Supply Eastern Front". It is a CIA study about what Allied strategy could/should have been in preparing for 1942 based on what was/wasn't known about German logistics in the East.


"Methodology and validity of a pioneering estimate of German supply and transport problems in 1941. THE EASTERN FRONT AT THE TURNING POINT"



https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... p_0001.htm

[Peltonx]

I agree with the shuffling thing nerf Flaviusx.

Attack

Some home rules that the PBEM player of War in Russia used to avoid gameys with "extra-supply":
-A unit can´t change of HQ and receive HQ build-up (extra supply) in a single turn.
-If a unit is isolated, it can´t receive HQ build-up (extra-supply) in the same turn, even if is open the supply line in the movement phase.
-Only a single HQ can do build-up (extra-supply) in a turn (in WitE perhaps could be 2 HQs, because the scale)
These home rules worked well.

I hate to say it, but back a few months ago I was for doubling the cost of HQ build-ups. This way a German player would have to thk ahead before using them. Its basicly 2 a turn now, unless there are less then 4 divisions per Corps.
If they made HQ build-up cost 25 min, no matter how many units it has would be a help.


I also beleive your pt about isolation alrdy works. Just had 6 divisions cut of and they did not get all MP back once they were freed up

I like all of Attacks changes.

[Farfarer61]

HQ Build Up is OK, unless serious analysis shows it means an Axis payer can 'always' set the conditions for decisive victory. Otherwise, the Axis player taking a drug for short term gain with a long term penalty (I think there was a Star Trek Episode about this - it is your choice. I like the 1.05 rules. While normally I would have AP and trucked farmed, I recently gathered tank divs (by rail), put them under Rocko with good SUs a turn ahead, and actually attacked in Turn 4! I took 10 to 1 AFV losses against Panzer Divs, but the Panzers were fatigued and at the end of their rope (I think), so they retreated, for a tactical advantage to me ( I Think). Flaviusx's constant refrain that all who are not wildly offensive Soviets from turn one should hold their manhood cheap was factor

[Attack]

Some home rules that the PBEM player of War in Russia used to avoid gameys with "extra-supply":
-A unit can´t change of HQ and receive HQ build-up (extra supply) in a single turn.
-If a unit is isolated, it can´t receive HQ build-up (extra-supply) in the same turn, even if is open the supply line in the movement phase.
-Only a single HQ can do build-up (extra-supply) in a turn (in WitE perhaps could be 2 HQs, because the scale)
These home rules worked well.

I hate to say it, but back a few months ago I was for doubling the cost of HQ build-ups. This way a German player would have to thk ahead before using them. Its basicly 2 a turn now, unless there are less then 4 divisions per Corps.
If they made HQ build-up cost 25 min, no matter how many units it has would be a help.


I also beleive your pt about isolation alrdy works. Just had 6 divisions cut of and they did not get all MP back once they were freed up

I like all of Attacks changes.

Thanks, Pelton.

In WiR PBEM we had, too, a lot of problems with the extra-supply, till was consensus of use. The extra-supply (or HQ build-up) is a useful and necesary tool for the Germans, but must be adjusted.

Any side, German or Russian, must have the posiblility of priorize the supply for some critical units, like in real life. But as in real life, must be limitations.

To me (is an opinion), HQ build-up should give a x2 supply to the HQ and their units during the next supply phase, at x3 or x4 spend of trucks and some waste of supply due to inefficiency.

Without limits of MP (why 20 hex, or 25, and not 15 or 30?), but with spend of AP and limitations of number of HQs that can do it in every turn (if not, if I was the German player, I´ll use all my APs in extra-supply my panzers). And if in the turn you´re isolated, you´ll lose the APs and trucks, without to have supply.

I like realistic games, not "fantasy" games.

When I understood the Pelton´s tactic of sucesive HQ build ups, I though "Brilliant!" But after this, I though: "I don´t want to play this game if Germans can reach Leningrad in 3 weeks" (Same as I don´t want to play a game if Germans can reach Baku being only air-supplied or I don´t like play games where the cows can fly).

[Toidi]

Thanks, Pelton.

In WiR PBEM we had, too, a lot of problems with the extra-supply, till was consensus of use. The extra-supply (or HQ build-up) is a useful and necesary tool for the Germans, but must be adjusted.

Any side, German or Russian, must have the posiblility of priorize the supply for some critical units, like in real life. But as in real life, must be limitations.

To me (is an opinion), HQ build-up should give a x2 supply to the HQ and their units during the next supply phase, at x3 or x4 spend of trucks and some waste of supply due to inefficiency.

Without limits of MP (why 20 hex, or 25, and not 15 or 30?), but with spend of AP and limitations of number of HQs that can do it in every turn (if not, if I was the German player, I´ll use all my APs in extra-supply my panzers). And if in the turn you´re isolated, you´ll lose the APs and trucks, without to have supply.

I like realistic games, not "fantasy" games.

When I understood the Pelton´s tactic of sucesive HQ build ups, I though "Brilliant!" But after this, I though: "I don´t want to play this game if Germans can reach Leningrad in 3 weeks" (Same as I don´t want to play a game if Germans can reach Baku being only air-supplied or I don´t like play games where the cows can fly).

Totally agree!

[Peltonx]

AGS is not far from railheads at all.

I just blow a huge hole in the lines vs TVD, Flaviusx and many others because

1. I had the hole army withen HQ build up range. Did 1 the turn before thrust and did one after thrust. Its very important to make sure you have the brakethrough corps withen hq build up after moves, that way you can follow up on breakthrough. Normal stuff all of guys do.
2. Both are railing out production way to soon and are not getting something other then junk units to front lines and not many of them.
3. Running for 4 turns and letting my infantry advance so quickly.

Players like Kamil new HQ rules and Hoooper under the OLD HQ rules were able to keep me under control in the South because of smart tactics. Russian players are just simply giving up to much ground to fast in south and making it easy for anyone to blow holes in there lines in the south.

The raiding by single units can be fixed very easyly with not letting units switch after moves are done. Most of what I do in south is nothing amazing or exploiting anything. I just plain ahead, other guys do same thing.

Nerfing something that poeple have proven can be stopped aka Hoooper/Kamil is really just babysitting all the other poeple that are making basic mistakes that can be avoided.

Whenever a German player makes a mistake and the Russian player makes him pay its called great game play.
Whenever a Russian player makes a mistake and the German player makes him pay its called exploiting and the rules must be changed to help the russian play for his poor tactics.

Pelton

[Attack]

3. Running for 4 turns and letting my infantry advance so quickly.

The sir Robisnky strategy doesn´t work, the soviets simply can´t run because then the Germans can advance too quickly. The soviets must fight.

Now we´re thinking about if sucesive HQ build-ups tactic is a gamey or not.

What is a gamey in an historical game (IMHO)? A tactic or strategy that the motor of the game allows, but in real life was impossible. In fantasy, scienci-fi or magic games, there are not gameys.

I.e: in WiR I invented, playing with the Germans, the massive attack on Leningrad of all the Finn army. And the city always fall, even in 43 campaign. But in real life the Finns didn´t want to do it, so we created the Leningrad home rule: still Leningrad has fallen, the Finns can´t attack Leningrad or cross a line trough south. This home rule has been adapted to WitE.

In my opinion, in real life, an advancing mechanized unit, to receive more supply that ussual, should, in any way, stand a time. That´s why the HQ can´t move.

But if someone after moving the mech/pz div changes the parent HQ, then is a gamey, exploiting the sensus of the rule.

I don´t mind if this balance or unbalance the game: the real life was, is and will be unbalanced. The way to balance an historic game is to create a good victory conditions, not to change the rules or the reality. And to play both sides before decide victory or defeat: in football, tennis... in all sports, there is a change of side at the middle of game.

In my opinion, to the German is too dificult to have a decisive victory. I propose: if the German, at the end of the 41 winter (or any other winter)has Leningrad, Moscow, Kharkov and Donbass cities, this is a decisive victory. This is much better than historical!

That´s why Pelton try not to win, but not to loose in the long term: is near impossible to have a decisive victory as German.

I´d like to know better the Pelton tactic: if there are not HQ changes with HQ build-up, then is realistic and must be accepted. And the soviet players can begin to think about it, and prepare counter-tactics.

[Flaviusx]

Hardly a Sir Robinsky.

[Michael T]

Whenever a German player makes a mistake and the Russian player makes him pay its called great game play.
Whenever a Russian player makes a mistake and the German player makes him pay its called exploiting and the rules must be changed to help the russian play for his poor tactics

I think on this site there is some truth to this.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Whenever a German player makes a mistake and the Russian player makes him pay its called great game play.
Whenever a Russian player makes a mistake and the German player makes him pay its called exploiting and the rules must be changed to help the russian play for his poor tactics

I think on this site there is some truth to this.

Only if one accepts that the converse also has some truth to it on this site.

[mmarquo]

Perhaps not so Michael; I have not played long enough past spring 42 to have a "learned opinion but it seem like most of the 1.05 xx changes should help the Axis, no?

Marquo [:)]

[Michael T]

Don't get me wrong Mark. I try to maintain a balanced opinion on things. It just seems lately there is a bit more 'anti Axis' feeling out there. Probably due to the extra help the Axis get in 1.05.

There are plenty of things the Soviets can do to 'nullify' HQ BU as the game between Flav and Pel is showing. Just as I predicted. A strong Soviet defender can halt the mad dash to the factories. But I don't and have never held the drive for the factories philosophy. I play the more traditional penetrate/isolate/destroy and repeat as neccesary game when Axis. Just ask any of my opponents.

I enjoy playing both sides too. [:)]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Don't get me wrong Mark. I try to maintain a balanced opinion on things. It just seems lately there is a bit more 'anti Axis' feeling out there. Probably due to the extra help the Axis get in 1.05.

Agreed. It's also true that most heated discussions on the game have been prominently "Anti Soviet". Now we have a change. In both cases, "Anti Soviet" and "Anti Axis" discussions tend to be very short sighted and done on the basis on scant, debatable or ambiguous evidence.

I still think that removing the 1:1 -> 2:1 rule, for instance, from March onwards can have the quite unexpected result of lowering significantly Soviet losses and making attacks much more predictable, due to the removal of the ROF bonuses granted to Axis units. And these two things hardly work in the benefit of Axis interests.

What about forts? I think nobody has really realized how much more work is now to defend as the Axis in 1943. I'm going through the Spring 1943 as the German, and man, I'm finding really useful the abilities I acquired while playing the Soviet.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
There are plenty of things the Soviets can do to 'nullify' HQ BU as the game between Flav and Pel is showing. Just as I predicted. A strong Soviet defender can halt the mad dash to the factories. But I don't and have never held the drive for the factories philosophy. I play the more traditional penetrate/isolate/destroy and repeat as neccesary game when Axis. Just ask any of my opponents.

And what about the Axis? Can they in 1944? Can you imagine what a savvy Soviet player can do, by building extra Tank Army HQ's in a Bagration-like scenario? Most vocal defenders of HQ Buildup "as it is" are assuming they'll be finishing up the Soviet Union in 1941 or 1942 the latest. A thing like this can be pulled up in 1942, with catastrophic consequences. What will they think when the same thing is done to them and lack the strategic depth - space, time, economy and ability to reinforce - to convert these pushes into "victories in the void"?

[Michael T]

Well if I used it in 41/42 I wouldn't complain about my opponent using it in 43/44 or anytime for that matter. Right now I am most curious as to why the devs have not made any comment on this so called exploit. I am sure if it is a problem they will rub it out. Untill then I will happily go on using it. Why? Because even with its warts I still think it is neccesary for a player to prioritise his supply. At this point there is no other mechanism apart from HQ BU. And I will freely admit I don't see how I could defeat the Soviets without it. If HQ BU goes without a replacement system I would simply become a Soviet only player. Again, no problem with that either. I have plenty of other games I can play to get my Axis fix. [:)]

[mmarquo]

Mike,

One thing the Axis could do is not move or attack on fronts not critical to an attack. Many have posted about the unrealistic ability for the Soviets to attack all along the front in a sustained manner during the blizzard; but what about the myriad attacks the average Axis player does all along the front for the first 4 months of the game? Surely part of the logistical issue for the Axis stems form this behaviour? What do you think?

Marquo

[Michael T]

The entire logistical system could do with a complete revamp. Will it happen? I don't know. I hope so. Meanwhile we just have to live with it. I would be happy to play with a house rule that limits HQ BU to Pz/Tank HQ's only. This would limit the the chaining mechanism.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Well if I used it in 41/42 I wouldn't complain about my opponent using it in 43/44 or anytime for that matter.

Fair enough.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Right now I am most curious as to why the devs have not made any comment on this so called exploit. I am sure if it is a problem they will rub it out. Untill then I will happily go on using it.

Because I don't consider it to be an "exploit", I don't think they consider it so either. Until they can say something concrete they'll just remain silent, as they have done in the past.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Why? Because even with its warts I still think it is neccesary for a player to prioritise his supply. At this point there is no other mechanism apart from HQ BU. And I will freely admit I don't see how I could defeat the Soviets without it. If HQ BU goes without a replacement system I would simply become a Soviet only player.

I actually agree with that Michael. I do think it's an essential feature of WitE, very much like fortifications.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Again, no problem with that either. I have plenty of other games I can play to get my Axis fix. [:)]

I don't think you'll need to find a dealer elsewhere [:)]

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The entire logistical system could do with a complete revamp. Will it happen? I don't know. I hope so. Meanwhile we just have to live with it. I would be happy to play with a house rule that limits HQ BU to Pz/Tank HQ's only. This would limit the the chaining mechanism.

That's actually a sensible house rule. The only problem I foresee is that the Soviet player doesn't "Get" any Tank HQs. You have to build them, and it's a little expensive. Maybe there is another way to build limits.

[Iota]

I dont like the feature HQ-build up, though i just played the Axis so far.
Instead of HQ-build i would like to see new rules for Railroad Repair.


If the closest enemy hex is more than XX Hexes away from railhead:
- reduced Railroad Repair Cost (RRC)
- advanced Railroad Repair Value (RRV)
- higher MAXIMUM MOVEMENT POINTS (for FBD-units)
- A hex is eligible for FBD repair if the hex is within 4+X (Baltic 6+X) hexes of a railhead


But I dont know what this would mean to the soviets later in the game?