The meaning of pockets

[Dunkelheit87]

I have a simple question: is pocketing make any sense in this game? My experience of Barbarossa scenario gave me a negative answer. For example, one soviet corps received regular reinforcements in Latvia pocket when main front line was near Moscow more than a year.

[BillRunacre]

Hi

It all depends on whether the pocket is actually cut off via rail to a Soviet Capital/Industrial Center/Supply Center. Also whether an enemy HQ is present.

If none of these apply then the pocket will have very low supply and consequently little ability to reinforce or engage in successful combat.

[Dunkelheit87]

It seems that if there is town or city in pocket (and in most cases it is so) troops will receive full reinforcements, at least soviet.

[Hartmann]

Also, you have to wait until the effects of low supply actually kick in. I've seen a few letsplay vids where players surrounded enemy units and attacked them in the same turn expecting to do severe damage - that's too impatient. [:)]

[Hartmann]

ORIGINAL: Dunkelheit87

It seems that if there is town or city in pocket (and in most cases it is so) troops will receive full reinforcements, at least soviet.

If you place two units directly adjacent to the town, it will lose one supply every turn (except the capital).

[Dunkelheit87]

Also, you have to wait until the effects of low supply actually kick in. I've seen a few letsplay vids where players surrounded enemy units and attacked them in the same turn expecting to do severe damage - that's too impatient.

If you place two units directly adjacent to the town, it will lose one supply every turn (except the capital).

But all these features just make pocketing strategically meaningless (at least in Barbarossa) at Army/Corps level, because you must destroy the enemy as quick as possible, and that can (must?) be made without pockets.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: Dunkelheit87

But all these features just make pocketing strategically meaningless (at least in Barbarossa) at Army/Corps level, because you must destroy the enemy as quick as possible, and that can (must?) be made without pockets.

No because a pocket requires troops to be actually next to the pocketed unit. You want bypassed troops to face this which is different.

Like Hartman said, place two or 3 units around that city and unless it's a capital or major supply source it will lose supply and the capacity to repair beyond 5 and even less after time. Think Leningrad in real life.

[Dunkelheit87]

Like Hartman said, place two or 3 units around that city and unless it's a capital or major supply source it will lose supply and the capacity to repair beyond 5 and even less after time. Think Leningrad in real life.

And precisely this can be the cause of failure of Barbarossa, because 3 Army/Corps units is an excess for a single pocket.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Dunkelheit87

It seems that if there is town or city in pocket (and in most cases it is so) troops will receive full reinforcements, at least soviet.

If any can reinforce to full strength then they must either have a HQ present or not really be cut-off in line with what I described above. It's simply not possible otherwise.

The idea with creating a pocket is to surround them in one turn, or at least to cut off their supply from the hinterland.

Then in your next turn they will be far easier to attack as their supply levels will generally be significantly lower. That is the mopping up phase.

[ILCK]

Pockets are often a net loss for me as surrounding a unit takes more guys than you would think and I do lots of low damage to units with sub 20 morale and readiness.

There should be a flanking bonus. If I encircle a unit on 5 sides that unit should die quickly no linger on for months.

[Dunkelheit87]

If any can reinforce to full strength then they must either have a HQ present or not really be cut-off in line with what I described above. It's simply not possible otherwise.

OK. So, formal pocketing is not enough. I intended to say though that encircled units receive stable reinforcements on some lower level, say 8. And attacking troops too have to receive lower level reinforcements if the pocket is far from a frontline. And after eliminating of pocket I must spend 2 or 3 turns to use them again.

Pockets are often a net loss for me as surrounding a unit takes more guys than you would think and I do lots of low damage to units with sub 20 morale and readiness.

I'm talking about this too. The question remains: is there sense to adapt a pocket-strategy with so hard pocket rules in Corps/Army level game?

[Fintilgin]

The supply/pocket system with enemy units magically reinforcing fifty miles behind the front lines was an issue in SC2 as well. As much as I've enjoyed the games over the years, I've always disliked the supply system and the weird need to do things like chain HQs in places.


I was really hoping it would be fixed or revised for SC3, but no such luck. [:(]

[Malor]

I like the idea of pockets, but supply from a city should only be available to a unit allied with the original owner of it when it is surrounded and only for a short time period to simulate rationing.

Thus, an axis unit in a surrounded (I defined surrounded as no other hex connects to a supply source, not necessarily surrounded by six units to assume ZOC from other units) USSR city should have supply drop to zero at the end of the turn and no reinforcements/upgrades allowed. If the unit wants to fight it's way out, it does so without being able to magically reinforce any loses. I'm tired of surrounding a unit in a city and losing more points to the units attacks against me than I do against it and than watch it reinforce back to strength 10.

The same goes for USSR in Germany, Germany in France, etc. There is no way a unit that is surrounded should be able to reinforce, but I see it every game. After all, where are they getting the supplies from. Men, ammunition, fuel, and other war materials don't just appear via a transporter, they need to be moved in and be compatible with your existing TOE. Food, maybe you can scrounge, at least for one turn or two, but once you fired all your ammunition, you're done and cannot scrounge them up in an enemy city. Many times in history have troops surrendered once they had no way to actually fight, not because they lost the will to fight.

Malor

[Hartmann]

If we consider average turn length, I think the rate at which supply goes down in a besieged city (with two adjacent units) is scaled rather adequately. The encirclement and battle of Kiev in 1941 took well over a month.

[sPzAbt653]

Supply and Reinforcement/Upgrades are the Mechanics of this game system. As players it is up to us to determine how to effectively reduce the enemy's ability to Reinforce by using our Offensive Mechanics [surrounds, bombing and blockading]. I see no issue with the game as it is, as long as we understand these Mechanics.
The only area where I see this as unfairly skewing history is on the east front in the opening months of Barbarossa. In this situation the Soviets had little or no infrastructure, and when surrounded their units had very little ability to continue resistance.
Other than that, SC3 works well as a simulation. It forces the player to bring adequate resources to bear on enemy positions in order to reduce them. We shouldn't look on cut-off units as being reinforced by new equipment, supplies and soldiers. We should look on this as units reorganizing their resistance after being attacked. When proper Offensive Mechanics are brought to bear on a location, resistance is shortly overcome.

[Hartmann]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

We shouldn't look on cut-off units as being reinforced by new equipment, supplies and soldiers. We should look on this as units reorganizing their resistance after being attacked.

I like this way of making sense of the strength point repairs in pockets.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Malor

I'm tired of surrounding a unit in a city and losing more points to the units attacks against me than I do against it and than watch it reinforce back to strength 10.

Hi Malor

If you see this happen please can you send me a saved turn so I can take a look?

Thanks

bill.runacre@furysoftware.com

[Hotschi]

Don't forget to bombard the pocketed units with your tactical bombers, this really makes a difference. As I see it, if a enemy unit gets bombarded before your own ground units attack it, it takes way more damage than without air-attack. Same is true for heavy artillery.

[macroeconomics]

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

Don't forget to bombard the pocketed units with your tactical bombers, this really makes a difference. As I see it, if a enemy unit gets bombarded before your own ground units attack it, it takes way more damage than without air-attack. Same is true for heavy artillery.

Medium (not tactical) bombers and artillery have a de-entrenchment attribute. So an attack by these units reduces the defenders entrenchment level for all future attacks.

As far as supply goes, remember that some cities are labeled as being a secondary supply source. Surrounding those cities isn't much of an advantage as the surrounded units still get supply and thus can still get some level of replacements.

But otherwise, surrounding units tends to be pretty useful, IMO. Keep in mind that one of the biggest attack modifiers is whether or not the attacking unit had to move before it attacks. If not, I think you get a +25% strength modifier. So there are plenty of times when I want to kill an enemy unit but my attackers have to move to get next to it. That may be a good time to surround it. Then next turn the enemy is less supply and you get a +25% attack bonus with your now adjacent units.

[Hotschi]

Seems I confused the bombers [;)]