Guerrillas

[Tac2i]

Like the game of chess, between equally skilled players, ATG is a game of winning small advantages. You lose a few resource hexes and 2 to 3 cities and you are going to have a tough time overcoming that. Throw in an unequal kill/loss ratio over a few turns and its gets even tougher. Cavalry and guerrillas aren't going to save you.

After the Battle of Kursk and the disaster in North Africa, both in May 1943, the Wehrmacht should have overthrown Hitler and sued for peace. It was over. Same type of turning points come in ATG and most players simply give it up and start another game. One just needs to be careful not to give it up before that turning point. Also, it can still be some fun and learning to be had in a losing cause.

ORIGINAL: jreid

But I also don't want to see it a game where when you lose your Raw and Oil, then you're done, although that might be a bit closer to reality.

[Meanfcker]

The long and short of it is this, they should not be reduced or "tuned down" in any way.
They should be made available to all factions.
I bet that most of the guys that play the "Mean way of war" would not like to go back to the line warfare of the past.
The game is much more fun and exciting when it is highly mobile.
Our last 2v2 (Mean, Web v Kombrig, Iroduke) was so fluid throughout that it was like liquid, and it was stinking fun, I tell you.
Please do not make any changes that would tend to reduce the speed of the offensive.
Meanfcker.

[Meanfcker]

I can't really comment authoritatively on guerrilla units as I've not used them much or had to defend against them. It would seem cavalry would be good guerrilla hunters because of their speed and recon abilities. Perhaps guerrilla movement needs toned down some. I'm assuming they are on foot and not horseback.

In the book "Born to run", Christipher McDougall sites several US races where men (the ultimate marathon running machine on the planet) win against horses in 50 to 100 mile races. Come up with something better than that please.
Wingate's Chindits and Merrills Marauders were the cream of the army, that must be born in mind. Read up on their campaigns and you will see that my recent use of guerrillas is approaching reality.

Do some serious reading and you guys will find a few things perceived by popular history are distorted.
There was hardly any tank on tank fighting in WWII. Most of it was tank on infantry and tank against prepared defenses.
Most tank armies and mechanized armies were composed mostly of infantry with tanks adding punch.
As infantry hand held, anti tank weapons became better and more plentiful, tank numbers decreased further.
All of the "Old World" armies used massive amounts of horses. The russians and the Finns made extensive use of Combat Cavalry formations.
Western history writers write books that will be popular in the west and make money, so they talk about "our" heroes.
How many of you have read about the Korsun Pocket, or the Vistula-Oder Offensive?
Much of what happened on the eastern front has been largely ignored in the West.
Cavalry continued to see extensive combat in the east until `1945, do some serious reading.
The units are fine the way they are, just make guerrillas available to everyone.
Meanie.

[Tac2i]

@Mean: you make some good points although I'm not entirely convinced that cavalry can't be tweaked a little without destroying its value. That said, I'm not looking for an historical simulation of historical battles. That is why I like the random games in ATG. It has been my ideal wargame for about 5 years now: WW2 era technology matched up with the best random game generator I've ever come across. By the way, guerrilla troops are not marathon runners ; )

RE: "Our last 2v2 (Mean, Web v Kombrig, Iroduke) was so fluid throughout that it was like liquid, and it was stinking fun, I tell you." ...Meanie

The most 'stinking fun' I've had in awhile.

[all5n]

Having played ATG since beta testing to the current version, i can safely say that the addition of cavalry has fundamentally changed the game. I will leave you to consider that statement as good or bad as you see fit.

A third to a half of the per-turn production in the 4 games i am in is dedicated to Cavalry. Cavalry has better mobility than light tanks in many cases, especially when the weather turns. Its offensive punch against soft targets makes it too good to not use heavily.

Cavalry charge against heavily entrenched infantry? No problem. With only a .25 deduction to the attack power, its one of the better options for that task. Even better with 3+ hex sides, which is very easily doable with the inherent great mobility.

It is vulnerable to counter-attack. Good thing the mobility often lets you remove the cav from the front line after a successful attack. Rinse and repeat for the next turn.

PP for tech upgrades? No way. Have not seen more than 2-3 total tech upgrades per game (mg, light tank II, heavy artillery usually -- thats it). Its hard to justify tech when you can just roll over your enemy by building more cavalry and light tanks.

[Meanfcker]

You will all admit, if any player tried to go too heavy in cav and not enough inf or tanks, they would be swept off of the battlefield in a couple of turns.
Cavalry don't stand up to any form of armor, and they dont hold ground the way a large well mixed infantry unit can.
They add punching power, to be used liberally on the offensive or the defensive, that is all.
They are not too powerful, everyone is just not thinking outside the box.
In our last 2v2 Webizen and I effectively neutralized most of our enemy's cavlary with a well organized recon screen using halftracks.
Any of the players from that last game are welcome to comment on this, but I know that I am right.
I think that once everyone gets a load of our new mobile formations, cavalry wont seem that bad anymore anyway.
Meanie.

[Meanfcker]

As per my last post, I bet there will be some serious talk about half tracks soon....

[LazyBoy]

Cavalry have the same defensive stats as infantry, admittedly they are hard to mix in MGs AT etc,
but can be done by having a supporting formation of these weapons

[kombrig]

Currently the game should be called: ATG: the world of overpowered cossacks. It's simply unrealistic for WW II period. I myself would like to see more realism. Otherwise we might just as well introduce flying fire-bursting dragons with amazing manouver abilities.

Cavalry was indeed used in the East until 1945, but was it like 1 percent (or even less) from the overall Soviet force? In ATG: WOC it's something like 25-50 percent of forces.

[kombrig]

In summary: there is something wrong with the cavalry in the ATG when compared to the real world. In real WW II the cavalry was a minor player. I don't know what was the exact reason. I suspect it was at least partly tied with the fact that cavalry horses weren't growing on trees but were an expensive resource to raise, train and maintain.

The secret of Russian/Soviet larger cavalry masses were the cossack areas (especially Don and Kuban). But in ATG there seems to be cossack areas everywhere.

Edit:
If I sounded like I wanted to be rude towards pro-cavalry people (especially Mean), then I didn't want to do that.

[Meanfcker]

True, the cavlary is more powerful than in reality, but so are the tanks. Right now the game is very fun, very fluid and the offensive.
I realize that the changes everyone would like to see, would give a more realistic appearance to force composition, but are you all realy willing to sacrifice the fluid mobility we enjoy now, for a slow, more stabilized reality. I mean lets face the facts, 10 engineers cant really build a tank factory in one month. Infantry in a fortress should be invulnerable except to a long siege. I could go on but you get the point. We sacrifice some realism for enjoyable game play.
Right now, the only thing that I would change, is to make guerillas available to everyone, after all in reality, the Arabs are not the only pieople to use guerrilla warfare! Think long ad hard about reducing cavalry. The game play WILL slow down a lot if cavalry punching power or mobility is reduced.
For those of you who enjoy our fast paced games, you must decide, do you enjoy this type of "mobile war" more than the "line battle, artillery duels" of the past?

Kombrig and Ironduke, you were both in the last game, how did your cavlary fair against my new formations? I feel confident that I can answer for you, they accomplised.... nothing.

At least wait a month or two before changing the cav. I really feel that once everyone sees what we are doing now, cav wont seem like such a big deal.

Meanie

[kombrig]

I think that the game can be made more fluid also if the players get more resources/PPs (like 400-600% more than now) and the research is less costly. (Mean pointed out similar thing earlier.) Then we can have real industrial warfare. At this point nobody really uses level or strategic bombers or heavy tanks in multiplayer scenarios. Trucks are rarity. We hardly upgrade anything.

I would like to see that one is able to create during the first turns a real war machine which then clashes with similar war machines.

[kombrig]

Kombrig and Ironduke, you were both in the last game, how did your cavlary fair against my new formations? I feel confident that I can answer for you, they accomplised.... nothing.

I don't really agree. Cavalry combined with some light armor was enough effective against them. The problem wasn't your new formations but 10+ strong tank armies roaring around. [;)]

[Meanfcker]

Looking back at the last game, the only time we ever felt any threat was when Kombrig managed to sneak a large TANK force up to the front unobserved.
I killed thousands of cav in the last game and you guys never even got a single city from me, and I had less cav on the field than in any previous game. I feel that our new mobile formations will consign cav to a secondary role without Vic making any changes

[kombrig]

If we had the similar production capabilities (raw), then you would not have had chance to kill thousands of cavalry.[;)]

[Meanfcker]

quote:

Kombrig and Ironduke, you were both in the last game, how did your cavlary fair against my new formations? I feel confident that I can answer for you, they accomplised.... nothing.

I don't really agree. Cavalry combined with some light armor was enough effective against them. The problem wasn't your new formations but 10+ strong tank armies roaring around.

Well then, what did they accomplish? The halftracks largely replace cavalry in the recon role in my formations, and my cav was mainly used to help add punch in the big fights.

[kombrig]

In the north your new units were more than once beaten by my units which consisted only cavalry.

[Meanfcker]

One must always bear in mind, cavlary are very expensive and they die in droves.
I had a great deal of success with them largely due to novelty and shock value. All5n, Shadehawk, Lazyboy and a few others have no real problem containing my cavalry advances, because they are used to them now and they counter effectively, usually with light armor.
As the game play continues to evolve, I feel cavalry will be reduced in significance without interference from Vic.

[Meanfcker]

In the north your new units were more than once beaten by my units which consisted only cavalry.

I had three small units that were charged with stopping you from entering in the north, mission accomplished.
The thing about half tracks, they retreat, but in good order and with minimal losses, and that is what we use them for.
They let my "meatshields" take several good hits, from your cav, and they were still there, combat capable and ready to go.

[kombrig]

I had a great deal of success with them largely due to novelty and shock value. All5n, Shadehawk, Lazyboy and a few others have no real problem containing my cavalry advances, because they are used to them now and they counter effectively, usually with light armor.

And to counter that one must simply add light armour to cavalry. And the cavalry isn't reduced to anywhere.