The meaning of pockets

[BillRunacre]

Tactical Bombers upgraded to level 2 Ground Attack will also remove 1 level of entrenchment, so they can play a role in this too. [:)]

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

Tactical Bombers upgraded to level 2 Ground Attack will also remove 1 level of entrenchment, so they can play a role in this too. [:)]

It is always in order
Artillery/Rockets
Medium Bombers
SF/ENG
Corps
Those are all deentrenching then the following kill
Tactical Bombers
Armies
Mech
Tanks

[itkotw2000]

It is kinda funny that everyone is describing how to destroy encircled, "out of supply" units by listing how to stack bonuses using many different unit types. The way everyone is talking you would think we were trying to destroy some sort of fortress hex. The even "funnier" thing is that encircled/"out of supply" units have the same supply as enemy units that are in supply, but are a few hexes from their supply source. The attack methods everyone is describing works better on "in supply" units that are a few hexes from their supply source. There needs to be night and day differences between surrounded and not-surrounded troops.

Troops that are surrounded in real life have a really hard time when you consider that size of the units we are using, corps and army. The supply needs of an army sized unit are HUGE and it is not just food and rifle bullets. Artillery and anti-tank shells (these units would have some "organic" artillery and AT units), vehicle parts and tires, medical services, the list is endless. There is no way an army sized unit would be considered "supplied" for months if they were encircled. If an army sized unit tried to fight at full intensity and not ration its artillery shells, I bet it would run out in a week. Remember we are just talking about city hexes and not fortresses or fortified hexes. Just an average city where an army decided to stop.

Not all city attacks are or were "sieges". Not every city is a fortress or even "fortified". Here are some rough dates for the historic capture of cities (quick internet searches are not the best, I know): Minsk - "On 26 June Minsk, the capital of Belarus, fell to the Wehrmacht"(Wikipedia), Smolensk - "However, when the Smolensk pocket was finally eliminated on 5th August the Soviet 16th, 19th and 20th armies within had ceased to exist, and another 309 000 POWs had been taken" (operationbarbarossa.net). So, the Minsk "pocket" was destroyed FOUR DAYS after the start of Barbarossa, and the Smolensk attack started on July 10 and ended August 5th, that is about 21 days to create AND destroy a "pocket" containing three armies. And we can assume that every pocket up to Smolensk was destroyed by that August 5th date, that is about 45 days after the start of Barbarossa, or about 4 game turns. Yes four game turns to take Smolensk.

Just off the cuff, I would say that units should not be able to reinforce in any way if they don't have a rail or port link back to the capital and supply should be reduced to one or two for city hexes. Another problem I have ran into is that if your units attack to reduce the entrenchment number, but receive damage, the enemy unit gets experience. If your attacks fail multiple times over the span of a few turns the enemy unit gains significantly more experience than your units. I think it would be better if the attacking units get experience for destroying entrenchment points equal to causing losses to strength points. So many of the attacks in game are done to reduce the entrenchment, but these attacks are not rewarded with much experience. If there were no other changes to the game other than the experience change, I would be happy.

I realize that many of the game mechanics are only there to create difficulty for the player. But we need to figure out a better way to create player difficulty without creating too many grossly ahistorical situations (I would call them "grossly ahistorical" because EVERY town in the game creates these hard to crack nuts). Remember that the game has to change to get better. The game will never get better by staying the same.

[Ason]

completely agree. The "effectiveness" of pockets need to be increased. I like that resource hexes can hold out longer than normal hexes, but there needs to be a system that takes time into consideration when calculating strenght/supply of surrounded units.


For example:
Surrounded - normal hex = start losing 2-3 supply per turn (regardless of how many enemy units there are in adjacent hexes)
Surrounded - resource hex = start losing 1 supply per turn (regardless of how many enemy units there are in adjacent hexes)

[Dunkelheit87]

After I started three times the Barbarossa scenario I would say that although there is no sense to adapt a pocket strategy pocketing is a sad necessity in this game. Two of my first attempts, to pocket purposefully and not to pocket at all, have led to strategic failure because in both cases the time was lost (it must be noted though that in this game it is impossible to follow historical rate of offensive). Then I have adopted a combined strategy, because rather static gameplay forced me to make some pockets during the advance, and finally I have won a decisive victory. First, USSR surrendered after I took Perm (on 8 may 1945 lol), then on 26 July 1945 I took London. It must be noted that effective pockets are possible rather when one has already won a strategic advantage, so pockets are rather obstacles than an aid in offensive. Small pockets were useful in Afrika, but in Spain and Normandy there were battles for attrition. Also the soviet resistance seems too fanatical, so it is useless to try to defeat USSR fast for early peace with the Allies. On the screenshot you can see my biggest pocket during the campaign.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan

completely agree. The "effectiveness" of pockets need to be increased. I like that resource hexes can hold out longer than normal hexes, but there needs to be a system that takes time into consideration when calculating strenght/supply of surrounded units.


For example:
Surrounded - normal hex = start losing 2-3 supply per turn (regardless of how many enemy units there are in adjacent hexes)
Surrounded - resource hex = start losing 1 supply per turn (regardless of how many enemy units there are in adjacent hexes)

The problem is for Barbarossa that basically all the Soviets do is garrison every city so you have to reduce each one in tedious fashion because each one is self-replenishing. there aren't "lines" as such to pierce and then encircle.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan

completely agree. The "effectiveness" of pockets need to be increased. I like that resource hexes can hold out longer than normal hexes, but there needs to be a system that takes time into consideration when calculating strenght/supply of surrounded units.


For example:
Surrounded - normal hex = start losing 2-3 supply per turn (regardless of how many enemy units there are in adjacent hexes)
Surrounded - resource hex = start losing 1 supply per turn (regardless of how many enemy units there are in adjacent hexes)

I agree that something needs to be done regarding the effectiveness of pockets.

C

[James Taylor]

What some people see as a problem, I see as an opportunity. Like sPzAbt653 & Hartmann relate to, patience and bringing the proper forces to the battle set up the mechanics to build those experienced units that are so coveted.

You want to win? It's just like real life, understand your tools and how to use them to be successful.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

What some people see as a problem, I see as an opportunity. Like sPzAbt653 & Hartmann relate to, patience and bringing the proper forces to the battle set up the mechanics to build those experienced units that are so coveted.

You want to win? It's just like real life, understand your tools and how to use them to be successful.

I think we all know how to defeat them but in context of how you want/need to fight on the ETO it never feels right. That unit in whatever that city is in the Prypiat Marshes can hold out for years despite being cut off my hundreds of kilometers because I won't devote the 4 corps plus air power to kill it.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: itkotw

It is kinda funny that everyone is describing how to destroy encircled, "out of supply" units by listing how to stack bonuses using many different unit types. The way everyone is talking you would think we were trying to destroy some sort of fortress hex. The even "funnier" thing is that encircled/"out of supply" units have the same supply as enemy units that are in supply, but are a few hexes from their supply source. The attack methods everyone is describing works better on "in supply" units that are a few hexes from their supply source. There needs to be night and day differences between surrounded and not-surrounded troops.

Troops that are surrounded in real life have a really hard time when you consider that size of the units we are using, corps and army. The supply needs of an army sized unit are HUGE and it is not just food and rifle bullets. Artillery and anti-tank shells (these units would have some "organic" artillery and AT units), vehicle parts and tires, medical services, the list is endless. There is no way an army sized unit would be considered "supplied" for months if they were encircled. If an army sized unit tried to fight at full intensity and not ration its artillery shells, I bet it would run out in a week. Remember we are just talking about city hexes and not fortresses or fortified hexes. Just an average city where an army decided to stop.

Not all city attacks are or were "sieges". Not every city is a fortress or even "fortified". Here are some rough dates for the historic capture of cities (quick internet searches are not the best, I know): Minsk - "On 26 June Minsk, the capital of Belarus, fell to the Wehrmacht"(Wikipedia), Smolensk - "However, when the Smolensk pocket was finally eliminated on 5th August the Soviet 16th, 19th and 20th armies within had ceased to exist, and another 309 000 POWs had been taken" (operationbarbarossa.net). So, the Minsk "pocket" was destroyed FOUR DAYS after the start of Barbarossa, and the Smolensk attack started on July 10 and ended August 5th, that is about 21 days to create AND destroy a "pocket" containing three armies. And we can assume that every pocket up to Smolensk was destroyed by that August 5th date, that is about 45 days after the start of Barbarossa, or about 4 game turns. Yes four game turns to take Smolensk.

Just off the cuff, I would say that units should not be able to reinforce in any way if they don't have a rail or port link back to the capital and supply should be reduced to one or two for city hexes. Another problem I have ran into is that if your units attack to reduce the entrenchment number, but receive damage, the enemy unit gets experience. If your attacks fail multiple times over the span of a few turns the enemy unit gains significantly more experience than your units. I think it would be better if the attacking units get experience for destroying entrenchment points equal to causing losses to strength points. So many of the attacks in game are done to reduce the entrenchment, but these attacks are not rewarded with much experience. If there were no other changes to the game other than the experience change, I would be happy.

I realize that many of the game mechanics are only there to create difficulty for the player. But we need to figure out a better way to create player difficulty without creating too many grossly ahistorical situations (I would call them "grossly ahistorical" because EVERY town in the game creates these hard to crack nuts). Remember that the game has to change to get better. The game will never get better by staying the same.

+1

What I also found hard to deal with is how hard it is to shatter surrounded units that are and have been at 0 supply level for many consecutive turns despite being at low readiness and moral...[&:]

Is there any way to tweak this with the editor or will this possible be addressed in terms of a balancing issue in the upcoming patch?

C

[Christolos]

I haven't studied this carefully enough to be sure, but it seems like surrounded units with 0 supply only drop in moral and readiness when attacked. Is this so?

C

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: CC1

I haven't studied this carefully enough to be sure, but it seems like surrounded units with 0 supply only drop in moral and readiness when attacked. Is this so?

C

Units with 0 supply (but not 1 or more) should lose steps points every turn IMHO, even if not attacked - in CEAW-GS they lose one per turn at 0 supply.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: CC1

I haven't studied this carefully enough to be sure, but it seems like surrounded units with 0 supply only drop in moral and readiness when attacked. Is this so?

C

No, their low supply will reduce their Morale and Readiness, with it falling more as more turns pass.

[Bylandt11]

I agree with most others here. Being cut off should be more severely penalized. Like 1 strength point loss each turn. Or simply mass surrender after two turns or so.

This would actually make the game a lot more interesting. Less slogfest, more war of manoeuvre.

This game is better than Order of Battle or Unity of Command. But it could use their harsh treatment of pockets.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: Bylandt11

I agree with most others here. Being cut off should be more severely penalized. Like 1 strength point loss each turn. Or simply mass surrender after two turns or so.

This would actually make the game a lot more interesting. Less slogfest, more war of manoeuvre.

This game is better than Order of Battle or Unity of Command. But it could use their harsh treatment of pockets.

If the pocketed units are actually at 0 supply, then I agree they should start to suffer step losses, lose entrenchment and a ton of morale/readiness

If the pocketed units and/or nearby HQs can't trace supply to a primary or secondary supply source, but can to a city/town that provides some supply then I don't think they should lose step points, but they perhaps shouldn't be able to increase entrenchment and should be more harshly penalised on morale/readiness than currently each turn they remain this way (unless in a fortress, perhaps).

[Ironclad]

The game seems to handle pockets well given the historical record at least in respect of Russians and Germans. Reducing the pockets in 41 was no cake walk for the Germans and the forces required and the losses that resulted played a significant part in the strategic exhaustion that led to the failure of Barbarossa. In 42 the bitter fighting that characterised the successful advance of Operation Blue may have destroyed Soviet armies but the pockets proved more resilient and illusory because of insufficient German troops (particularly infantry formations) to stop large numbers of Russians escaping. On the German side we have the long record of tough fighting by their surrounded troops with numerous breakout attempts, some successful others failures throughout the first Russian winter offensive, Stalingrad and the later campaigns of 43-45.

I agree that a step reduction for 0 supply troops as in CEAW-GS would be helpful though.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: CC1

I haven't studied this carefully enough to be sure, but it seems like surrounded units with 0 supply only drop in moral and readiness when attacked. Is this so?

C

No, their low supply will reduce their Morale and Readiness, with it falling more as more turns pass.

Thanks Bill.

So how fast is morale and readiness supposed to fall in relation to supply level 0? What about at 1 and 2, does it fall at all?

It would be nice if they also lost steps too...[8|]...

C

[BillRunacre]

The decline will take place over a number of turns, with actual figures depending on the unit's morale and readiness before it reached this supply state, as well as whether or not it might be under a HQ's command or not.

[Christolos]

Thanks Bill...but shouldn't the rate also be determined by the level of supply such that it would faster if at supply level 0 versus 1 or 2?

C

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: 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.

amen... If it takes cycling 4-5 to down one (wounded) unit, you're never going to get to Moskow in time.

Yeah, either a flat flank bonus or have it that unit next to the one being attack get a free bombardment shot (which might or might not cause additional casualties). Suddenly a unit bordering 3 is not so safe.