The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

[Walloc]

Hi Mike,

Im not sure i understand u entirely. So some answers might be based on wrong assumptions.

As to armaments just be happy. At some points during 42 there is change overs of squad types. That will eat up alot of armament so its necesarry/good thing to have a pool. When u start to make more armament heavy units like art divs and the such u will use up alot fast too.

About manpower. As too squads in pool they actually arent formed squads. They are shells(rifles, pan, handgrenades) without any manpower. In order to enter units they would have to draw manpower from the pool.

U say u have problems getting troops into the field. If every one is at 100% they naturally cant recieve any more. Only other way to make new units that can use the manpower/armaments in the pools. If u dont have units at 100%, then there could be some reasons they are not recieving replacements. If units are in frontlines they will recieve little and the best way to refit a unit fast is put it on a RR behind the frontlines.

I could suspect u play the AI at normal and please correct me if wrong. Thats not to hard and in no way the same as playing a human player. If playing normal difficulty i suggest turning it up a notch. I would say even that wont really prepare to play most human players but it is closer than normal.

If u look around AARs and discussions u see thats it happens that having russian player only recieving 80-90-95k per turn in 42. Deduct the auto attrition and all of a sudden what is left to lose in combat/build of forces isnt particular much.

I saw Pelton was looking for a game so if u want a challenge. I suggest u take him up on it.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[lycortas]

No, i am an experienced gamer, my units are all understrength. [:)]
I am playing this against the computer for a bit to first, get an idea of the Soviets, (i have played 2 PBEM games as the Germans) and second to fool around with how replacements work. I had tons of understrength tank units set to 100% toe, on refit, no where near the front, on a railroad, have manpower, armaments, and squad shells, but would gain maybe 10 squads a turn when they were at 25% squad strength.

It does not seem to matter how many units i have on the map, the game does not seem to want to give me more than 150,000 to 160,000 men per turn.

I had rotated a couple rifle division armies off of the front in spring '42 since they were in horrible shape, put them on refit, and suddenly my cavalry corps, who were also off the line on refit stopped getting cav squads. I had been getting 60 or 70 cav squads a week, when i put a bunch of rifle divisions on refit i went down to 9 cav squads a week! Again, plenty of armaments and manpower.

I am an inveterate tinkerer and i would like to understand this replacement system.

thanks,
Mike

[lycortas]

I could not play Pelton, i am inexperienced s the Soviets and i have house rules he would not like.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: lycortas

No, i am an experienced gamer, my units are all understrength. [:)]
I am playing this against the computer for a bit to first, get an idea of the Soviets, (i have played 2 PBEM games as the Germans) and second to fool around with how replacements work. I had tons of understrength tank units set to 100% toe, on refit, no where near the front, on a railroad, have manpower, armaments, and squad shells, but would gain maybe 10 squads a turn when they were at 25% squad strength.

It does not seem to matter how many units i have on the map, the game does not seem to want to give me more than 150,000 to 160,000 men per turn.

I had rotated a couple rifle division armies off of the front in spring '42 since they were in horrible shape, put them on refit, and suddenly my cavalry corps, who were also off the line on refit stopped getting cav squads. I had been getting 60 or 70 cav squads a week, when i put a bunch of rifle divisions on refit i went down to 9 cav squads a week! Again, plenty of armaments and manpower.

I am an inveterate tinkerer and i would like to understand this replacement system.

thanks,
Mike

Ok Mike,

Good, but there are still some question. U say u'r in 42 and ur units recieve 150k to 160k per turn. Now i dont know the frontlines in ur game. Reason i ask is that by 42 the manpower multiplier is 40. Assuming u havent lost a single manpower point u would get 40*3937 =157,8k per turn.
Well i assume u do have lost some territory. The historic summer 42 lines would give u around 2600*40=104k which ofc is less than 150k-160k So u might have a manpower pool build up, but it would be drained giving out 150k 160k per turn since it would be more than what i assume u get in. There are a number of other factors. Kickback from disabled, swicthing OOB for lower manpower ones freeing up manpower. Still doesnt explain that kinda differnece on the long term.
Since its an AI game and i dont suspect the AI of cheating by looking at the threads here. Couldnt u make a seperate thread, posting some pics about ur manpower production and its pool. Not the squad pool. Note here that u can switch pools and see what is in active pool, what is in transite pool and overall pool. I suspect, as default is the overall pool, that a number of ppl dont realize the effect of this. They look at pool and think its what they have to use right here and now. Thats not alwasy the case. At times, tho far from all the time, the overall figur is actually the same as what is in the transit pool, leaving 0 in the active pool.

As too tank divs give a detail pic of one of those that seemingly wont recieve replacements. When u say it has 25% ToE do u mean over all or for inf type portions of the div. U could possibly have a div with full inf but lacking all tanks being low in ToE but not cause of a lack of manpower but tanks/combat vehicles.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[lycortas]

You are correct; manpower is my limiting factor. I guess the system uses the manpower you have that turn and then after production new manpower goes into the pool. So i always see manpower in the pool.

Sorry, was confused. More than usually!

Carp, that means i did not need to save every armament point. Not enough manpower. I probably fiddled around with the Soviets back in like 1.02 or something and remembered having virtually limitless manpower.

Thanks again for your help.

Mike

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: lycortas

You are correct; manpower is my limiting factor. I guess the system uses the manpower you have that turn and then after production new manpower goes into the pool. So i always see manpower in the pool.

Sorry, was confused. More than usually!

Thanks again for your help.

Mike

Your welcome,

U far from the first falling for this and i think there are still plenty a ppl that dont know this [:)]
We all have to learn at some point. I had to, too.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: lycortas
Carp, that means i did not need to save every armament point.

If i were u, i would wait before i made that conclussion. Just wait [;)]

Rasmus

[BletchleyGeek]

This is quite funny [:)]

I spent a few months away from WitE and when I decide to come back guess what: a thread about the T1 Lvov Pocket.

@Red Lancer: I tried to make an alternative scenario evening the odds for Southwestern Front by tweaking deployment, MP allocation, freezing some German units which didn't do anything remarkable during the first three days of the war, revising TOE's, gaming Reserve mechanics to get those Tank Divisions reacting to German spearheads... and it just didn't work at all. Flavio is - actually was, he made very much the same remarks months ago about the surprise rules - totally right. The game is completely rigged during the first turn, and this rigidity - as Pelton says - can be easily "used to achieve a breakthrough" (this is an euphemism for "exploiting") given enough intelligence, time and willpower.

Here you have the link, btw

tm.asp?m=2934258

[Shazman]

The fact that you can do this AT ALL should tell you how far out of whack this game is. It is simply not within the realm of reality. Period. Pure science fiction.

[Ketza]

What can happen with no Lvow pocket. In this game my Axis opponent did not do a Lvow pocket. I was able to shuttle out some very good units as well as reinforce the center and Leningrad as that is where he sent the bulk of his Panzers.

Note all of the mountain divsions that have not even attacked his MLR yet. I will be able to do hasty attacks with them as his forts run out.

Now its time for the Blizzard pain with a Soviet army over 5.5 million men. Also the 37th tank divsion is a monster. Im pretty sure it will go "poof" soon but damn what a beast!

[timmyab]

The game will certainly need re balancing if the Lvov armies are allowed to escape.
I still favor some sort of enforced Soviet forward defense.Either by making it vital to hold forward cities for as long as possible or possibly make heavy industry more important or some sort of simulated C&C induced paralysis, or a combination of all three.

[Michael T]

The game will certainly need re balancing if the Lvov armies are allowed to escape

Balance in a game about the Eastern Front? What a bizzare concept Tim

[Walloc]

Could it just be that its a overall reflection of the player abilties? i mean if u dont do Lvov, what else doesnt the german player do that should have been done/being capable of.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Could it just be that its a overall reflection of the player abilties? i mean if u dont do Lvov, what else doesnt the german player do that should have been done/being capable of.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Not a ton I don't think. The Russians just run. If you don't sent the forces in the south, they run out of gas in the center. Several of the AAR's I have seen lately have the Russians running from Leningrad as well, so even if you put extra punch behind AGN, it doesn't matter.

I have not seen a lot of comments about the Russian mountain divisions, but if they manage to get several of them out from the border area and also preserve what they get from Caucasus region along with doing some training with them, they can be absolute beasts in the winter. They have far more mobility than regular infantry and do not have a glass jaw like the armor brigades do when the snow is flying. Of course, this assumes the German is silly enough to fight. Instead, the Germans just get their track shoes on as well and run away.

[Walloc]

The picture ofc only shows as much, but since the german hasnt even or barely so made it over the lower/middle Dneiper, it cant be that its a question of just running. Chernigov is on the middle Dnieper. Quite the opposite seems to be suggested by that.

As too just running, it seems it has been tried a few times lately. The only that has had a result so far is DF vs Speedy, where russian side gave up by turn 10ish. By the nature of it we cant know the result in the games given up by other reason so u cant take any thing definitive from that.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Flaviusx]

Changes to the Lvov pocket will not occur in a vacuum, or indeed, at all, prior to WitE2. WitE may be regarded as a finished product at this point, with no more fundamental changes, only the occasional bug fix. When I'm talking about fixing the pocket, I'm very clearly looking to the second iteration of the game, which will include many other changes.

The runaway in the south is product of the Lvov pocket; absent that SW Front can put up a fight there and should do so. A stock AGS will get nowhere very fast down there with a historical opening until AGC is threatening its rear. I don't understand why people refuse to believe this, but it is true and easily confirmed by playtesting. The fashion du jour nowadays, alas, seems to be to run for the hills more or less everywhere and as fast as possible.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Changes to the Lvov pocket will not occur in a vacuum, or indeed, at all, prior to WitE2. WitE may be regarded as a finished product at this point, with no more fundamental changes, only the occasional bug fix. When I'm talking about fixing the pocket, I'm very clearly looking to the second iteration of the game, which will include many other changes.

The runaway in the south is product of the Lvov pocket; absent that SW Front can put up a fight there and should do so. A stock AGS will get nowhere very fast down there with a historical opening until AGC is threatening its rear. I don't understand why people refuse to believe this, but it is true and easily confirmed by playtesting. The fashion du jour nowadays, alas, seems to be to run for the hills more or less everywhere and as fast as possible.

To be honest, one first step towards fixing the Lvov pocket would be to fix Victory Conditions, so there's a reason for the Soviets to fight forward in the South. The main reason why you can see the Red Army fighting hard on the roads to Leningrad and Moscow is because there isn't much depth to absorb the German offensive. In the South, the story is totally different. The vast expanses of the Ukraine take some time to be crossed, and it is a fact that Axis supply lines will barely be able to reach Rostov before Blizzard. All you need is to delay enough to evacuate Kharkov and Stalino.

In the past, I have been reluctant to agree with people proposing sudden death rules (like Michael T). But over time I think I do agree with such rules - to some extent.

That is, in order to keep in the game you need to keep a reasonable VP ratio which takes into account losses and industry destroyed/resources lost as much as territorial objectives. Such sudden death rules would basically account for the fact that Sov commanders doing a really poor job that get a one-way ticket to Lubyanka, rather than depicting some totally ahistorical Hoi3-like surrender event. And these sudden death rules would also apply - of course - for the German player (GROFAZ is bummed and makes him a 'landed knight' in Western Poland).

The problem is how to keep track of this alternate VP formula. Joel was very clear saying that 2by3 wouldn't devote any programming time to something the players can sort out themselves [sic]. I didn't like much that statement - and I still I don't - but I think we can do something. Say, like writing some small application that allows the players to enter data from the game and does the math.

This, in its turn, has two problems. First, the fact that you have to enter the data by hand. There's not any kind of API (or log file which can be parsed) that would allow a 3rd-party app to auto-magically keep track of this stuff. And then there's the problem of not having the game playing the part of an umpire, terminating the game according to the rules and avoiding situations such as the Sov (or the Axis) saying that the game isn't over. But as we said in Spain, the one who sleeps in the same bed as his children, usually gets up in the morning wet.

The first problem is the one which is actually important. Would be anyone interested in brainstorming/working on this? I can do the coding work, but I would really like feedback from people here like - in no particular order - such as Klydon, Michael T, Ketza, Kamil, Flavio, Pelton, etc. about this.

[Michael T]

The problem BG, in any attempt to come up with a sudden death rule, is that the discussion will be derailed by those who just disagree with the concept entirely. Look at the negative and distracting commentary in previous threads on the subject. I would like to help out, but how do you keep your thread on track? Even the, dare I say popular, Alt scenario was almost derailed by the naysayers.

As to the Soviet runaway strategy. I still maintain it’s a failsafe option. I am yet to lose a game as Soviet and I have run (to varying degree's) in every game I have played as Soviet. In my current game I feel I am well in control, but it looks like the game has come to a premature end.

[Flaviusx]

Fundamentally I do not believe in sudden death rules for games such as this, BG. Furthermore, I think people would be a lot less happy in practice with them than they themselves think.

I note the new Case Blue game has them, and people have complained about it. I.e. games ending prematurely when Voronezh doesn't fall in time, etc.

It's too much of a straightjacket for my tastes. Everyone will be forced to optimize their play according to an arbitrary VP schedule.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The problem BG, in any attempt to come up with a sudden death rule, is that the discussion will be derailed by those who just disagree with the concept entirely. Look at the negative and distracting commentary in previous threads on the subject. I would like to help out, but how do you keep your thread on track? Even the, dare I say popular, Alt scenario was almost derailed by the naysayers.

Green button to those Michael, really. I'm past caring about sh*tty comments. And setting up a Google Groups discussion group is easy as peanuts, man

Are you interested? I do really think that looking at the elements - territory, troop losses and industry losses - we can come up with something which makes sense in order to measure 'performance' and create incentives to keep people to play 'in character'.