Guerrillas

[Meanfcker]

Just a quick thought about the cavalry.
If any of you have read Clausewitz, he points out that in rough terrain the (mountains) the defender is at a disadvantage for anything but guerrilla warfare.
So for all of you guys who are complaining about how unrealistic it is to have cavalry fighting well in the mountains, having large armies dug in on mountains and/or in swamps and/or in jungle is rather unrealistic as well, if for no other reasons than logistics. That all being said, try not to think of them as lancers and mounted swordsmen, rather, the were mounted rifle infantry, riding horses into a combat area and dispersing and dismounting and leaving some men to watch the horses while most of the men went ahead to fight. On D-Day +2 and D-Day +3 , thousands of Canadian and British troops brought collapsible bicycles ashore to help with thier mobility. Also, according to Col. Glantz, cavalry/mechanized Corps were formed specifically to fight in rough terrain areas where regular tank fomations could not operate effectively.

[kombrig]

Just a quick thought about the cavalry.
If any of you have read Clausewitz, he points out that in rough terrain the (mountains) the defender is at a disadvantage for anything but guerrilla warfare.
So for all of you guys who are complaining about how unrealistic it is to have cavalry fighting well in the mountains, having large armies dug in on mountains and/or in swamps and/or in jungle is rather unrealistic as well, if for no other reasons than logistics. That all being said, try not to think of them as lancers and mounted swordsmen, rather, the were mounted rifle infantry, riding horses into a combat area and dispersing and dismounting and leaving some men to watch the horses while most of the men went ahead to fight. On D-Day +2 and D-Day +3 , thousands of Canadian and British troops brought collapsible bicycles ashore to help with thier mobility.

I think those who complain about cavalry, actually indeed see it as mounted rifle infantry and not lancers and swordsman. And therefore the cavalry super attack value is unrealistic. Yes, cavalry should have better mobility - who has argued against it?

Current ATG cavalry is simply a unrealistic and gamey unit in WW II context. I wonder what Glantz would really say if somebody would introduce him the role of cavalry in ATG.[;)]

And yes, I think that the stack limit in heavy terrain should be reduced.

However the claim that the defender is at disadvantage in rough terrain (mountains) may have been true when Clausewitz lived (I don't know really), but not on 20th Century.[;)]
In mountains it is much harder to concentrate heavy weapons to suppress the defenders. Also it is hard to maneuver for the attacker. Defender can use elevation as a advantage.

[kombrig]

Advantages of defense in mountains are described also in US Field Manual (see p. 3-27).

http://books.google.ee/books?id=3HXRDma ... &q&f=false

[Meanfcker]

All of the advantages of defending mountains dissappear as the size of the units in the mountains is increased.
The attacker may concentrate all of his strength at one place and the defender will find it difficult to reinforce trhough mountain passes.
Mountains simply cannot support large fomations, in 1944, when Konev pinned the 1st SS panzer up against the Carpatian mountains, the 1st SS Panzer did not just climb up and dig in. They were effectively cut off, not given a great defensive position.
There are lots of things that one might find to complain about in this game.
If we tried to change everyting to make it "more realisitc", we would sacrifice much of what is enjoyable about the game.
I still think that the only real change that needs to be made, is to make guerrillas available to all factions.
Meanie.

[kombrig]

All of the advantages of defending mountains dissappear as the size of the units in the mountains is increased.
The attacker may concentrate all of his strength at one place and the defender will find it difficult to reinforce trhough mountain passes.

Likewise it is hard for the attacker to concentrate all his strength at one place in the mountains.

Mountains simply cannot support large fomations, in 1944, when Konev pinned the 1st SS panzer up against the Carpatian mountains, the 1st SS Panzer did not just climb up and dig in. They were effectively cut off, not given a great defensive position.

And I don't think it realistic either that large formations can dig in on mountains. However when not-so-large formations dig in, they have advantage (and not disadvantage) in defense because the terrain hinders enemy manouver and concentration.

If we tried to change everything to make it "more realisitc", we would sacrifice much of what is enjoyable about the game.

Who has talked about "everything"? I myself created a mod for my own pleasure, I don't ask that Vic implements all my changes*. All I see that some people here have huge problems changing even the smallest gamey features, like cavalry attack stats.

*Actually I wonder how is it a great blow for enjoyment if for example MGs, Bazookas, Mortars and AT guns are made paradroppable? Or if research, oil and raw costs are lowered? Yeah, the game becomes obviously incredibly boring if one can actually research and upgrade, conduct bombing campaigns etc etc.

[jreid]

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker
If we tried to change everyting to make it "more realisitc", we would sacrifice much of what is enjoyable about the game.
I still think that the only real change that needs to be made, is to make guerrillas available to all factions.
Meanie.

I agree here. The only thing I'd change is to reduce the combat power of the Cavalry, probably to Infantry levels. They are still very useful for recon (especially), raiding and cutting off retreat hexes.

Guerrillas are, in my opinion, tedious (for both the user and defender) and take away from the main ebb and flow of the game.

[all5n]

Totally agree with the Halftrack line of reasoning. Halftracks are great, if somewhat expensive, additions to any infantry force.

I did a bunch of combat sim experiments using halftracks looking for a good way to counteract cavalry. Overall the results were good, especially when coupled with defending in non-open terrain.

[Meanfcker]

Totally agree with the Halftrack line of reasoning. Halftracks are great, if somewhat expensive, additions to any infantry force.

I did a bunch of combat sim experiments using halftracks looking for a good way to counteract cavalry. Overall the results were good, especially when coupled with defending in non-open terrain.

Once everyone gets playing around with this idea, cavalry will diminish of their own accord, they are bloody expensive if they are neutralized.
CarlVon and I put halftracks through a rigorous examination and we were quite impressed. Sure they lose battles, but at very slight cost to the defense while reducing combat readiness of the attacker. When they lose battles, once in a while you will lose a halftrack or two, but most of the time your troops can and will, retreat over a river and up a mountain with minimal losses. Halftracks mixed in with cav and a few (this could mean anything) armor units, make for a very fomidable force structure that is not to be intimidated by great gobs of cavalry.As an added bonus, this makes your starting supply of garrison units last a lot longer, allowing more tanks earlier in the game.

[jreid]

I'm all for a varied force and more units being useful, such as halftracks, but I still think Cavalry have too much offensive power, especially in rough terrain.

I'm also for a fluid game of movement, but I just don't see the point of Cavalry having such a large offensive punch. Forgetting about realism, it doesn't need to be there for game purposes.

I say keep the exceptional Cav movement and recon, but tone down the offensive punch.

[CarlVon]

This has been a great discussion.

I would be willing to trade of Cav offensive power for more oil production, raw production and cheaper techs. My theory is that the increased manufacturing capabilities would keep the game mobile, and varied techs would keep army composition interesting.

[Meanfcker]

My concern, as always is, reducing the mobility and striking power of two of the most powerful and mobile units in the game, will have a stultifying effect on creative game play. My opinion is still, to leave cavalry alone and just make guerrillas available to all factions.
That all being said, I really like the idea of reducing (by almost half) the cost of techs and increasing (slightly) the amount of pps that we are able to produce.
I really believe that this would make for very exciting game play. I also like Kombrig"s idea that paratroopers, should be able to drop with medium wieght weapons, like MGs, bazookas, mortars and even AT guns and infantry guns. Right now, paratroopers are so vulnerable as to make them almost useless. We rarely use paratroopers, because they die so quickly and easily, they usually aren't worth the oil to fly them to their drop zone.
Meanie

[Tac2i]

I would suggest that we add transport aircraft to the research tree. At level 2 you could carry MG, Bazookas and Mortars. At level 3 you could airdrop jeeps and AT guns and at level 4 armored cars. This would simulate the development of air mobile operations overtime (i.e. gliders for carrying the heavier stuff). Perhaps to start with there should be no paratroopers on the research tree until Airborne Theory (new addition) is researched. By the way, paratroopers did usually die rather quickly if the front line troops did not break through to them soon enough (remember Arnhem?)

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker

I also like Kombrig"s idea that paratroopers, should be able to drop with medium weight weapons, like MGs, bazookas, mortars and even AT guns and infantry guns. Right now, paratroopers are so vulnerable as to make them almost useless. We rarely use paratroopers, because they die so quickly and easily, they usually aren't worth the oil to fly them to their drop zone.
Meanie

[Tac2i]

I tend to agree with jreid that cavalry offensive punch is too powerful but I don't think making it the same as infantry is the answer. I'd suggest cavalry attack values be about 1.25 to 1.50 that of regular infantry.

Re fluid game: a multi-player game vs other humans is really only fluid in the sense that you can rapidly shift where your production goes each turn. If you are able to somehow surprise your opponent about what you have in a particular location, you might achieve a break-thru but it will usually be quickly contained, though not always. With both sides equally fluid the game can still become a slow slugfest as you try to advance hex by hex. I'm in such a 2v2 game now. On one front our opponents got the jump on us and captured a couple of cities. On the other front we have captured a couple of cities. While there is some chance of a break-thru, at present ground is only gained a few hexes at a time. That said, this game is the most sustained long term fun I've ever had in my computer game days which go back a long long way. I had a blast back in 2000 with Sudden Strike but it was rather short lived and required all players be online at the same time.

ORIGINAL: jreid

I'm all for a varied force and more units being useful, such as halftracks, but I still think Cavalry have too much offensive power, especially in rough terrain.

I'm also for a fluid game of movement, but I just don't see the point of Cavalry having such a large offensive punch. Forgetting about realism, it doesn't need to be there for game purposes.

I say keep the exceptional Cav movement and recon, but tone down the offensive punch.

[Twotribes]

A single Battalion held their end of the Bridge unsupported for 9 days. The main area held longer until the Allies broke through to the river. About a quarter of the Division escaped. Paras in this game die as soon as any formation attacks them as they have no supporting arms, no tech upgrades. Even with some support the collapse quickly.

[kombrig]

A single Battalion held their end of the Bridge unsupported for 9 days. The main area held longer until the Allies broke through to the river. About a quarter of the Division escaped. Paras in this game die as soon as any formation attacks them as they have no supporting arms, no tech upgrades. Even with some support the collapse quickly.

[:-]If these paras would occasionaly actually fight back cavalry and stop tanks what a fun killer and creativeness suppressor it would be! (Couldn't hold back sarcasm, sorry.)

[Tac2i]

Based on an article I just read, Lt. Col. John Frost and his men that held the north end of the Arnhem bridge lasted only 5 days before being overrun. Frost and all of his wounded went into captivity during a two hour truce arranged to save the wounded. The entire battle lasted 9 days with a portion of the British force escaping over the river. More than anything I learned of the extreme confusion that can exist in battle on both sides (principally caused by poor communications, poor intel, and just plain bad luck).

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

A single Battalion held their end of the Bridge unsupported for 9 days. The main area held longer until the Allies broke through to the river. About a quarter of the Division escaped. Paras in this game die as soon as any formation attacks them as they have no supporting arms, no tech upgrades. Even with some support the collapse quickly.

[Meanfcker]

If these paras would occasionaly actually fight back cavalry and stop tanks what a fun killer and creativeness suppressor it would be! (Couldn't hold back sarcasm, sorry.)

That "alleged sarcasim" wouldn't be directied toward me would it?
You and I both know, but for any one who doesn't, paras add a wild fluidity to the game.
They don't recieve much use becase they are vulnerable. One other idea for getting heavy weapons to paras, be able to para drop engineers, who can build an airbase. Then you could fly in heavy weapons, if this idea is not to "overpowered" or "unrealistic". (My own bit of restrained sarcasm)

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker

If these paras would occasionaly actually fight back cavalry and stop tanks what a fun killer and creativeness suppressor it would be! (Couldn't hold back sarcasm, sorry.)

That "alleged sarcasim" wouldn't be directied toward me would it?
You and I both know, but for any one who doesn't, paras add a wild fluidity to the game.
They don't recieve much use becase they are vulnerable. One other idea for getting heavy weapons to paras, be able to para drop engineers, who can build an airbase. Then you could fly in heavy weapons, if this idea is not to "overpowered" or "unrealistic". (My own bit of restrained sarcasm)

Engineers would be useless behind enemy lines. No supply. Haven't checked but Airfields might require some supply to make, the one exception I do know is the engineer built ports.

[Meanfcker]

ngineers would be useless behind enemy lines. No supply. Haven't checked but Airfields might require some supply to make, the one exception I do know is the engineer built ports.

It seemed to make sense that if you can dump them off of a ship and build a port, then you should be able to build an airfield which takes less of everything if I remember correctly.

[Strategiusz]

Guerrilla overpowered? I just don't belive this. Did the players have equal skills? Any screens? They need research and they are just weak infantry, so no offensive power, and they need supply anyway. I think paras are better for cutting supply lines (roads usually).

I think we need a moderator on this forum for splitting topics etc.