Bleeding the beast to death and the AP crunch explained.

[mmarquo]

"I'm not sure why you think it would take 8-12 weeks to create Sov divisions"

In this game it takes at least 3 weeks to create, refit and unfreeze a new SOviet unit, and even then it is barely ready for combat.

Marquo

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"I'm not sure why you think it would take 8-12 weeks to create Sov divisions"

In this game it takes at least 3 weeks to create, refit and unfreeze a new SOviet unit, and even then it is barely ready for combat.

Marquo

Units as you know per a patch have a ZOC so even units you call usless are very usfull+ FOW.

Also then men,equipment,fuel,food don't magicly appear at location X.

As you allready know Marquo,MT and others - 2by3 has stated that the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets.

Like Carlkay58 points out officers don't magiclly appear eather.

ALL armys have to set up a pipe line so that officers, soldiers ect ect can go from the street to the front.

Only so many can be put through the pipe line. Once the first blob of reserveist/former army men and officers were drafted in the first 6 months, the SHC was only able to train X amount of men per month.

This is historical and 2by3 has done there work and this is as has been stated why the AP system is the way it is.

SHC can't just magicly pull 30 divisions out of their butts in a single week in 1942 , get real.

Earth not Middle Earth.

[76mm]

Pelton, when you like a game feature you claim it is historical and that the devs got it right, but when you don't like it is an ahistorical, gamey abomination![:'(]

To just address a couple of your points:
1) You claim that just-created Sov units are "very useful" for ZoC and FoW reasons. I don't know many Sov players that create new divs for the these effects, generally if you create a unit you want it to live past its first week. These new unit are depeleted so can hardly be used for combat. If your complaint is that these units should not have a ZoC, I would tend to agree with you (although I'm not certain that they have one).

2) Regarding your claim that "the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets." Sure, that was the intent, it just doesn't work well. Next question...

3) Your claim that the Sovs could only mobilize so many men in 1941 because they recruited only " reserveist/former army men and officers" is just wrong--the Sovs recruited pretty much everyone in 1941, and the big surge in mobilization occurred because, you know, their country had been invaded, not because they were able to recruit reservists.

4) I don't understand your arguments about not being able to create divisions... As far as I'm concerned, the Sovs should be able to create an unlimited number of rifle divisions BUT such formations would be completely useless (and empty) until they had been filled with men and arms via the production/manpower pipeline. This is the main point--no one is saying that there should not be any constraints on new Sov units, just that AP is not the right way to limit the number of units. The limit should be on how to man/equip these units, not on creating a box on an OOB. So I tihnk I should be able to create 30 divs in one week--after all creating a unit counter is essentially a paper exercise--but the more divs I create, the longer it would take to fill them, and so the longer they would remain useless.

[karonagames]

Yes, god forbid the German actually have a path to victory...

Pelton, you can't win. If you find a strategy that works against SHC, the Sovie-o-phile fanboi base will promptly ensure it is patched out of existence.

Your AP choke strategy will very soon be patched out of the game by whatever method they can justify (probably doing exactly what Micheal says).

It used to be that they argued that the AP issue that the Soviets face was an intended design challenge, which is how they justified the fact that the Soviet pays 350% less to re-assign units to new HQs. Now, it's 'a hole that needs to be plugged'...

It is interesting that nearly 2 years after I posted this tm.asp?m=2705668 ,Pelton has finally come to advocate the exact same strategy. This path to victory has always been there, and has not been affected by any of the changes to the game since I wrote the strategy guide way back when. Indeed, if anything the task has been made easier for the Axis as the blizzard has been made easier to survive from when I wrote the guide, and Axis manpower problems have also been eased with the Hiwi rule.

The whole "AP crunch" concept is there to give players the chance to achieve what the axis could not achieve in 1942, namely the destruction of the Red Army, because as has been pointed out,historically they were allowed by Stavka to avoid encirclements, unlike 1941. If the Axis do more damage to the Red Army in 1942 than historically, the AP crunch caused, gives a possible path to victory.

In the 2 campaigns I played following this strategy, both were won in 1942 when the soviets decided they could not repair the damage I did to them in the spring/summer of 1942.

The one remaining "fix" I think the game needs is to find a way to reward the Axis more if the Soviet player follows a runaway strategy and suffers lower than historical losses before the blizzard. The quid pro quo for the runaway should be that the Axis have a 1942 start line further east than historical, but this rarely happens, especially in the south.

Unfortunately I can't see a way with the current mechanics to reflect the runaway, unless there was some way to link the harshness of the blizzard to the amount of territory gained/VPs when the blizzard starts.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Pelton, when you like a game feature you claim it is historical and that the devs got it right, but when you don't like it is an ahistorical, gamey abomination![:'(]

To just address a couple of your points:
1) You claim that just-created Sov units are "very useful" for ZoC and FoW reasons. I don't know many Sov players that create new divs for the these effects, generally if you create a unit you want it to live past its first week. These new unit are depeleted so can hardly be used for combat. If your complaint is that these units should not have a ZoC, I would tend to agree with you (although I'm not certain that they have one).

2) Regarding your claim that "the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets." Sure, that was the intent, it just doesn't work well. Next question...

3) Your claim that the Sovs could only mobilize so many men in 1941 because they recruited only " reserveist/former army men and officers" is just wrong--the Sovs recruited pretty much everyone in 1941, and the big surge in mobilization occurred because, you know, their country had been invaded, not because they were able to recruit reservists.

4) I don't understand your arguments about not being able to create divisions... As far as I'm concerned, the Sovs should be able to create an unlimited number of rifle divisions BUT such formations would be completely useless (and empty) until they had been filled with men and arms via the production/manpower pipeline. This is the main point--no one is saying that there should not be any constraints on new Sov units, just that AP is not the right way to limit the number of units. The limit should be on how to man/equip these units, not on creating a box on an OOB. So I tihnk I should be able to create 30 divs in one week--after all creating a unit counter is essentially a paper exercise--but the more divs I create, the longer it would take to fill them, and so the longer they would remain useless.

1. If creating units was free as per MT then you see poeple flooding the battle field with them. SHC has to simply slow down GHC so SHC would create 0-0 Cv units that get destoryed then throw them into the mix and keep refit off.

2. Working fine. Its been over a yr and this is the first time I seen people asking for something different.

3. I in now way disagree with what your saying at all? I have said 3 times that I am talking about 1942, and you keep whining about 1941. 1941 is historical ther is no shortage of units and SHC can build even more.
No idea for the 3rd time what your talking about as far as 41 goes.

Your kicking the crap out of a 1941 Strawman. I am in 42-45.

4. Again this would be the greatest SHC I win button ever. SHC players would simply have to flood the map with 0-0 units. Poland to Moscow. Yes totally historical, russian does not have limitless amounts of officers.

2by3 has stated that the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets and to avoid (your #4 SHC) I win button exploits you and other would love to have.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Yes, god forbid the German actually have a path to victory...

Pelton, you can't win. If you find a strategy that works against SHC, the Sovie-o-phile fanboi base will promptly ensure it is patched out of existence.

Your AP choke strategy will very soon be patched out of the game by whatever method they can justify (probably doing exactly what Micheal says).

It used to be that they argued that the AP issue that the Soviets face was an intended design challenge, which is how they justified the fact that the Soviet pays 350% less to re-assign units to new HQs. Now, it's 'a hole that needs to be plugged'...

It is interesting that nearly 2 years after I posted this tm.asp?m=2705668 ,Pelton has finally come to advocate the exact same strategy. This path to victory has always been there, and has not been affected by any of the changes to the game since I wrote the strategy guide way back when. Indeed, if anything the task has been made easier for the Axis as the blizzard has been made easier to survive from when I wrote the guide, and Axis manpower problems have also been eased with the Hiwi rule.

The whole "AP crunch" concept is there to give players the chance to achieve what the axis could not achieve in 1942, namely the destruction of the Red Army, because as has been pointed out,historically they were allowed by Stavka to avoid encirclements, unlike 1941. If the Axis do more damage to the Red Army in 1942 than historically, the AP crunch caused, gives a possible path to victory.

In the 2 campaigns I played following this strategy, both were won in 1942 when the soviets decided they could not repair the damage I did to them in the spring/summer of 1942.

The one remaining "fix" I think the game needs is to find a way to reward the Axis more if the Soviet player follows a runaway strategy and suffers lower than historical losses before the blizzard. The quid pro quo for the runaway should be that the Axis have a 1942 start line further east than historical, but this rarely happens, especially in the south.

Unfortunately I can't see a way with the current mechanics to reflect the runaway, unless there was some way to link the harshness of the blizzard to the amount of territory gained/VPs when the blizzard starts.

Sorry I never read that. Your post is not real clear on the how and why. But is a gold nugget in there if you been around for a while.

Most GHC players use the easyest path to victory.
Until .13 winning by AP crunch was really not needed in anyones tool kit as the supply system had more loopholes then the tax code in US.

Before the .13 nerf I started playing based on the AP crunch vs M60 and others. As the writing was on the wall muling ect was going to get nerfed finally in the near future.

I agree with your last point, not sure on fix other then a VP system.

The current system most "newbie" vs Newbie games the SHC holds at close to the major rivers then wipes out GHC in the blizzard to the point the German army is usless come 42 summer.

I think on balance game is about as good as they are going to get it.

All thiings being equal there are far more 10-0+ SHC players then 10-0+ then GHC players. And most if not all beleive its easyer to play SHC side. As it should be.

In my game vs Hugh hes avoided pockets and given ground in 42, but the VP's are at 228( July 42 )in a 260 VP game. I have yet to get close to Moscow. So lowering the VP total needed has made the game more interesting. I think mybee coding in VP sudden death for 41/42/43/44 would make it less likely that SHC or GHC would run.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

4. Again this would be the greatest SHC I win button ever. SHC players would simply have to flood the map with 0-0 units. Poland to Moscow. Yes totally historical, russian does not have limitless amounts of officers.

2by3 has stated that the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets and to avoid (your #4 SHC) I win button exploits you and other would love to have.

You're going to have to explain why filling the map with 0-0 units is an I-win button, because it is not very obvious. If these units have a ZoC (I have not checked) that should be fixed. Otherwise I don't see the big advantage, so you'll have to explain.

Your second comment--that I in particular as well as others are seeking some kind of exploit--is pretty rich, especially coming from the mule-king. I have argued in plenty of threads about how the Sovs could/should be weaker in some respects, so don't talk to me about how I'm looking for exploits.

Finally, your constant referral to 2x3's design choice as proof that something is correct is also very humourous coming from you, who campaigned against another of their design decisions re the 1:1->2:1 rule.

[Peltonx]

Definition of RICH
1: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth
2a : having high value or quality b : well supplied or endowed <a city rich in traditions>
3: magnificently impressive : sumptuous
4a : vivid and deep in color <a rich red> b : full and mellow in tone and quality <a rich voice> c : having a strong fragrance <rich perfumes>
5: highly productive or remunerative <a rich mine>
6a : having abundant plant nutrients <rich soil> b : highly seasoned, fatty, oily, or sweet <rich foods> c : high in the combustible component <a rich fuel mixture> d : high in some component <cholesterol-rich foods>
7a : entertaining; also : laughable b : meaningful, significant <rich allusions> c : lush <rich meadows>
8: pure or nearly pure <rich lime>

Are you pointing out 8

[Peltonx]

I guess we disagree on the AP crunch which is fine.

I still have allot of respect for you and hope your still playing the game.

But this thread is not about if it is right or wrong, but how the AP crunch works.

Its 1 of the few ways left for GHC to win as BigAnorak and others have pointed out.

It is by design and not an exploit as muling and other things were.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
But this thread is not about if it is right or wrong, but how the AP crunch works.
Its 1 of the few ways left for GHC to win as BigAnorak and others have pointed out.
It is by design and not an exploit as muling and other things were.

All true, this is certainly a very solid strategy, not an exploit, and not even what I would call "gamey". It is just, like other parts of the game, something that I don't consider particularly realistic or well-designed.

[carlkay58]

According to some of my earlier tests done in version 6.06 or thereabouts: Depleted units do not have ZOCs, are not allowed to enter enemy territory/ZOCs, and are pretty much destroyed when an enemy unit moves adjacent. Broken units do not have ZOCs, are not allowed to enter enemy territory/ZOCs, may not use special movement (naval/air/rail), and are routed when an enemy unit moves adjacent. *Unready units do have ZOCs, are not allowed to move into enemy territory/ZOCs, and are routed when an enemy unit moves adjacent.

Note that each time an enemy unit moves adjacent to one of the above unit types, it has a victory check done. It is quite possible to rack up a few victories each turn chasing down broken/HQ/AirBase units. Note also that none of the above required any additional expenditure of MPs other than the ZOC for the *Unready units. So all that a blanket of empty shell units do is cost the Soviets the AP cost of creating the unit and freebie morale boosts for the Axis. Not a winning tactic for the Soviets in my humble opinion.

On the other hand, air recon will report them as units (rarely past a detection level of 1 or 2) so they can be best used in the Soviet Rear to seem as if a major buildup is happening in the area. Just hope that the Axis does not do a Panzer thrust into the group and watch them all disappear! This is one of Pelton's points above about the FOW effects.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
On the other hand, air recon will report them as units (rarely past a detection level of 1 or 2) so they can be best used in the Soviet Rear to seem as if a major buildup is happening in the area. Just hope that the Axis does not do a Panzer thrust into the group and watch them all disappear! This is one of Pelton's points above about the FOW effects.

Well it would make sense to me if depeleted units do not show up on recon, since they are essentially paper units anyway--there is nothing for air recon to see.

[mmarquo]

The newly created units do not unfreeze until move three, so ZOC or not, they are pretty much useless until then.