Chaining nerfed?

[Jimbo123]

@ jahn

I agree with everything you have said. Maybe the best way to say this is at my skill level against my opponents my army turns to mush in late 43. My answer was to chain as it gave me a way of getting to Kharkov-Stalino which I was able to do this game. I have always caprured Lenningrad and scared Moscow without chaining. I'm not there yet as we are about to enter the 41 blizzard, but I feel from my side that I have givin RHC some things to think about and therefore a better gaming exp. I think all of us would like to know how few games even get to 43.

I am also sad and frustrated as this will be my one and only chance to see what happens using this tactic.

Also any thoughts as to how Sapper is doing it in the Harrybanana vs Sapper AAR? It was used in this tread of no chaining German success.

Inquiring minds want to know!

Jimbo

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I think the fundamental problem is the victory conditions and to achieve them the Germans have to destroy the Soviet army and production in 1941 to have any chance of "winning" the game.

Historically the Germans didn't take Moscow or Leningrad in 1941. They got close, got pushed back to Berlin by April 1945 and doing exactly that as the Germans should be a draw. If the Germans have control over Berlin in May 1945 that should be a German victory. Realistically, the Germans didn't have any chance of winning the war and aren't going to win it, but if a player can do better than the Germans historically did then that should be a win.

I'd probably even say that the Germans, historically, did a lot better than they should have on paper. So perhaps the victory line should be somewhere in 1944 to make the game more competitive.

+1 Could not have said it better myself (although I have tried on several occaisons).

[mevstedt]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
I'd probably even say that the Germans, historically, did a lot better than they should have on paper. So perhaps the victory line should be somewhere in 1944 to make the game more competitive.

I very much also agree on this point. When you then consider that a GHC player needs to outperform the historical result in -41 in order to even get a draw you could say that something isn't quite right but we all know that much, unfortunately there is no easy solution.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

Harrybanana I am sorry and had zero intent on insulting your play! My comment was from the frame of reference of "how could this happen if he wasn't chaining". Since you started your game after chaining was nerfed then he isn't chaining. Your word is enough as well.

No offense taken.

Style and speed of retreat could also be factors in your game.

You may be right; but I would say that Saper's style of play forced my speedy retreat.

I've played several games into 1943 only to have the russian steamroller turn my army into a speed bump. While I am by no means a great player my perspective has been formed from the very common tactic of running and putting up a stone wall just outside the logistical capibilities of the GHC in the South. I have also played some very good russian players. I have no delusions of winning but mearly to put up a great fight and be a quality opponent.

When a game becomes unfun people stop playing it.

How long til you all run out of GHC players?

You make a good point Jimbo, just not sure we agree on the solution. As you say the problem with play balance is that the smart Russian players do run, at least when necessary, especially in the South. Though, imho, Saper is showing a way for the Germans to counter this. But if I understand you your solution to this is to allow chaining so the Germans stand an equal chance. I guess my response is that chaining as it was being used was not historically possible. You might as well give the Germans phasers and plasma rifles to create play balance as to allow chaining.

Others have suggested different rules that require the Russians to stand and fight in order that the Germans can destroy large parts of the Russian army as was historical. My problem with this is why would I, or anyone, want to play as the Russians when I no longer have freedom of choice as to how to run the War. Isn't the entire purpose of these games to allow us as the players the chance to do things differently. Then later on in the War will we add rules to force the Germans to make the same mistakes they did historically? If I or my opponent are forced to make the same mistakes as our historical counterparts made where is the fun in that. If the game is unbalanced then my solution would be to cahnge the victory conditions.

[kevini1000]

I lost interest and stopped playing this game a good while ago since I knew all this was coming. But what the heck they all ready got my hard earned dollars so what do they care. Well I'll be smart enough to never buy anything else from them again.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

@harrybanana

I guess since sapper is not chaining I would love him to post a screen shot showing the progress of his southern railheads and his begining MP's of his PZ's. ( probably too late ) Post turn russian screen shots really don't help us get better or understand what is going on. I went back and studied AAR's to figure out how to chain and it became my answer to my problem. If there is another way then back to the drawing board. I don't want to clutter your AAR with off topic remarks.

Obviously I haven't read Saper's AAR. MY understanding is that he was doing the AAR to show people how he was doing what he was doing as there had been suggestions that he was cheating. If this is not what he is doing in his AAR then I don't know what to say except that he does struggle with English. However the simple answer is that he is using massive amounts of airsupply every turn to provide fuel to some of his motorized units. Motorized units require less fuel than panzers so by doing this he has been able to keep 4 to 6 motorized units per turn in good fuel supply. Since, unlike HQBUs, this does not cost APs and he can perform the supply runs to the same units turn after turn, it has some advantages over HQBUs.

As for the MPs these units have, you can get a pretty good idea by reading my AAR. I generally circle each turn the German units that have good fuel supply. If the unit has light green fuel showing on my turn (I always have the fuel soft factor turned on) then it means it has 86% to 100% of it's required fuel. This means it will proably have around 45 MPs on it's next turn. If dark green it will have 71% to 85% fuel = 38 MPs; Yellow = 55% to 70% = 30MPs, etc. Of course, this is just a rough guide I use.

[janh]

Saper is quite surely not cheating in any way, at least not within my definitions of cheating. He's merely acting really smart. If German production were open like the Japanese in AE, I am sure he would optimize/rationalize it as well and cut away all the expensive toys and focus on bang-for-the-buck like late Pz IV. Maybe he'd even cut the Pz V series. It is hindsight he is using.

A WW2 PzIII or IV eats some 300 liters of fuel per 100 km, i.e. if I remember correctly, and a Pz II not much less. Take 100-200 of those plus all the trucks, motorbikes, prime mowers etc. and you have a real fuel hog. Ok, a fuel hog with a punch on the offensive and disadvantages as defensive element, but with the Soviet unit quality as stands now, for most of the purposes you don't need that extra bang, or you'll usually wait for the infantry to catch up and do the fighting anyway.

As a pure exploit element, to penetrate deep, feel out and occupy like recon units usually do -- exactly as Saper appears to be using them -- the Mot. Infantry seems to be just good enough. The still pack a good punch to brush aside single, unintrenched Russians. A WW2 truck still eats >30 liters for 100 km range, but overall you get many more miles out of them per ton fuel delivered by the Luftwaffe than directing that fuel to Panzers. Sounds merely smart to me, surely not like cheating.

You could now ask why the Germans didn't realize so themselves, and do so? Perhaps they had better services for the Luftwaffe than to act as supply train for 4 months? Was that just a prestige thing, aka pilots objecting to that and rather wanting to fight? Or does it mean Luftwaffe ground attack effects are underestimated in this game (play a 43 scenario, there LW support becomes much more important...)? Or does it mean that Wehrmacht units per se are so much stronger, or Russian units so weak in 41 (== i.e. combat engine interpreting experiences to calculate losses), that unlike in the real conflict Luftwaffe is not really required for the Axis player to bomb except in cases of heavy Russian opposition or river crossings like LG? Is it because supply of airfields in this game is easier than was in real life, partly because of the logistics engine, partly because of the generic nature of fuel and supplies in games?

Can, in this game, Mot. Infantry used with less risk-less than in real life? Wasn't it just infantry on trucks, escorted by recon elements with trikes and motorbikes, some amored scout cars, perhaps a battalion of assault guns and plenty of towed AT and artillery, that generally was a little vulnerable on advancing through unsecured enemy terrain, so often was preceded by tanks, or moved not exactly a maximum speed to allow its forward deployed elements to clear the route? Might it be that the lack of the defender to be able to generate meeting engagements (i.e. simulating attacking a moving Mot. Inf. column, like move simultaneously with the attacker into an adjacent hex) or even truly ambush units (attacker moving into "apparently empty" hex with severe combat penalties) might eliminate some of the real life dangers Mot. infantry faced and therefore can be used much better in this game to exploit depths? Maybe the Germans generally moved about more cautiously as they believed the Russians to falter before Christmas anyway, so why taking risks? Maybe they didn't move as "almost reckless" as most Axis players as they didn't have the benefit of hindsight and wouldn't know what to expect or face -- maybe it is players habits coupled with our knowledge on this conflict, that brings things like this about?

Answer yourselves. The Germans exploited much with small columns, often recon elements, and as this game doesn't account for ad-hoc combat groups or small units like recon platoon etc., Saper's use of the Mot Inf seems to mimic that as good as this game allows. Whether he can do so with less risk than should be because of I-Go-U-Go limits, or force disbalance, or whether it be so -- answer yourself...

[Jimbo123]

@harryBanana

After the rail repair was toned down which I believe was the first attempt to rein some of the massive advances during the muling days, at a rate of 3.5 repaired hexs per turn ( more then generous ) it takes 13.1 turns to get a rail head to cherkassey and you still are not across the dnepr. That leaves little time for any sort of supplied offensive thus the poor performance. It is also much harder to even get there and force the river as well without help. This has been "my" experence. The Russian army is able to stay out of reach and hold their southern Pop centers and turf the GHC needs to give back to survive the blizzard.

At the risk of stating the obvious to you all

Chaining is a 3 step process. Empty a HQ and make sure it is in HQBU range. Next turn fill it with supplies. Next turn move it to the front and assign units. Next turn attack with fully loaded units. With proper planning you can cut out the first step until the dnepr is crossed or use a forth HQ. For me anyway this process simulated the planning required to build up supplies. You also have to have at least 3 HQ out of the command system to consistently keep the supplies moving East ( thus the name chaining). Now for all of those who want to scream exploit. Isn't all of those supplies coming down a single rail line mean that the supply system in WITE somewhat abstract anyway.

Again for me it was the best solution to our shared problem with balance.

1. You have to plan!
2. It really only helps in 41 and goes away after that
3. At my skill level,in my one and only game to do this I was able to achieve the historical advance rate of the GHC. However, since it was my first time using it I do feel I would have gotten better at it. It does require skill believe it or not!

What if the Devs had a download let's say 206.19 which meant that the game was exactly the same execept the chaining exploit was left in. Would Russian players accept a challenge. They would know what they were signing on for which from my seat would be a more entertaining "game". It would be interesting to see which they would choose.

Think of the extra glory for whipping those weak whimpy GHC exploiters (laughing)!!!!!!!

@ Jahn

I agree with your whole post.

I just want to know how he is doing it! His whole army seems to be at a highesh ( is that a word? ) level of supply. The math doesn't work for me based on my current understanding of the rules. I have started a test game to see if I can recreate the effects.

I also very much want to thank everyone for the thoughtful and civil discussion on this emotional and controversial topic!!!

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I felt like you did a month ago until I switched to the "dark side". I was totally against muling and tried everything to avoid the decision to chain. While you are entilted to your opinion I think it might have a bit more relevence after you have experenced 1943. I was permitted to resign by my last russian opponent in late 43 and in conversing with him post game I decided to learn the basics of chaining and then go back to human play. I started a thread announcing my reasons for the switch and my opponent had no trouble accepting my challenge. If he wants to weigh in he can, but I think he has had to work much harder thus enjoying the game more. I also would be suprised if he doesn't feel he will win. I actually play the Germans because I enjoy defending. To be able to do that 41/42 had to get better.

OK then, I will.

I stand by pretty much everything I said to you after the last game. Other Axis players have kept me off guard and kept me retreating much further than you managed to achieve. It's a pity that unrealistic strategies like chaining and muling are required to achieve that, but in retrospect your offense in 1941 should have been good enough to get close to a draw (your limited offense in '42 wasn't good enough, but then again I have practiced my 42 defense quite a lot compared to some players), and your defensive strategy from late 1942 was very good so you should have come away with a marginal loss at worst. Your blizzard defense probably let you down a bit, you put too much armour up front and let me chew away at it, and that weakened your 42 offensive.

In this game you've pushed me back much further, you took Leningrad and I thought you'd take Moscow. I threw everything I could at the defense of Leningrad but with the current game system it's just indefensible, however I probably delayed enough of your units up there to save Moscow.

Yes, this game has been more enjoyable.

I still stand by points I've made previously in this and other threads, which are:

* The Soviet army in the summer of 1941 is unrealistically weak and can't put up even a delaying defense anywhere. People who have tried (witness the recent "no retreat" strategy against MT) have been caned. So the Soviets have no option other than to pull back. Players advocating for rules to make it harder or impossible for the Soviets to retreat are just asking for a game that the Germans will win every time. I would love to put up a solid 1941 defense, but it simply can't be done.

* Even attempting to defend "hero cities" will just lead to more units surrendering and a huge AP drain -- cut off units can't survive a turn of enemy attacks, even if heavily fortified in urban areas. This is probably the last game where, as the Soviets, I will attempt more than a token defense of Leningrad. Realistically it should be possible to defend Leningrad, in the game it is not, and the consequences of trying are 100+ AP of units destroyed. 2 engineers with a dynamite-laden dog can reduce a level 4 urban fort to rubble every single time and take no losses doing so, and an entire supplied Soviet army cut off from the magical supply route to Baku or Chelyabinsk for a week is reduced to zero defense strength anyway, even if fortified and air supplied.

* The blizzard effects on the German army are too severe, especially against a less experienced player who hasn't siphoned his best units off to sit in cities in Poland.

* The Soviet army builds up too fast in 1942 and 1943 even if they aren't hurt badly in 1941. Realistically, the Soviets only had so many men and provided the army with the reinforcements that they needed. It probably wouldn't have been Stavka strategy to throw in an extra 3 million men to an army already sitting over 7 million in size (considering that those men needed to be pulled away from farms and factories).

* The overall effect is that the game is an easy "win" for the Soviets, unless they get severely caned in 1941. No amount of defensive strategy by the Germans will stop a 10+ million man Soviet army. That is also unrealistic. A good German player should be able to reach the gates of Moscow and Leningrad in late 1941 or 1942, set up a mobile defense through 1943 and a good strong static defense in 1944 and win the game. That's not possible.

You are correct, I will win this campaign because the victory conditions are b0rked. I offer you the following alternative victory conditions:

* Soviets occupy Berlin before Jan 1944: Soviet decisive victory.
* Soviets occupy Berlin between Jan and June 1944: Soviet major victory.
* Soviets occupy Berlin between July and September 1944: Soviet minor victory.
* Soviets occupy Berlin between Oct 1944 and Dec 1944: Draw.
* Soviets occupy Berlin between Jan and March 1945: German minor victory.
* Soviets occupy Berlin between April and May 1945: German major victory.
* Soviets occupy Berlin after May 1945: German decisive victory.

[SigUp]

I agree pretty much with every point you made (though mostly through observation of AARs, my own experience is rather limited).

In 1941 practically nobody (human and AI alike) counterattacks on a bigger scale (like in reality the Yelnya offensive) simply because the Red Army is too weak. Thus the German player has far fewer critical moments like the real German forces faced in 41, which is also reflected in the rather low losses prior to the blizzard. The question is now how to fix (for a possible sequel), perhaps either through giving the Soviet player the possibility to mass more units, or giving higher combat strength to them (while restricting mobility or something like that, to avoid the Wehrmacht getting stalled at Dniepr-Dvina every time).

If the 41 summer is fixed, I think the blizzard problem will be fixed as well. The current need for the blizzard from hell is due to the Germans being too strong in the summer.

[Jimbo123]

Nice to have you weigh in Del!

It's true what you said about our first game. ( played with zero exploits ) Since I know first hand your skill, do you think those people who pushed you were chaining because from my seat they would have too.

From my side of the table my 42 offensive had more to do with facing a dug in 7.8m Russian army since my 41 offense was not strong enough.

I was conservitive in my offense and might have been able to take Moscow but you are correct, Lenningrad did have a huge effect on that outcome. I took it much easier from you last game and expected the same here! Well done! No chaining in the North and 1 HQBU in the center. Who knew after lasting so long that chaining would be nerfed. I would have pushed much harder in hindsite. Won't get the chance going foward if I continue hunman play. As it stands right now I don't see the cost benefit where I can move on to a new game and wait for WITE II

Your victory conditions are much more in line with what is possible and will give us something to compare too.

As always your other points are dead on. I once got to hear James Dunnigan speak and he talked about how great games don't force players to do anything. Rules are in place to encourage correct play. An example would be keeping units close to their HQs. You don't have too but......! I am not in favor of any rule that forces russian tactics. I'm not pro chaining but for the Germans to make a game of it in 43 /44 the 41 offensive has to be able to push a retreating Russian. For me it seemed the best fix from a list of bad choices.

Jimbo