HLYA GC Step-by-Step German turn 1 featuring the Full Rovno pocket

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Thank you for this thread HLYA. Gave me some great ideas, here's what I ended up with. (Center pocket is secure, no motorization)
South Pocket.JPG
Still have HQ moves to complete and I'm happy with the results.

AWESOME!!! This is what the guide is for. To get you thinking and coming up with your own solutions. The rest comes from your experience during play. If you ever have a set-back just pick yourself back up and work out how you can do it better next time.

The only comment I have is that the bigger the pocket the harder it is to liquidate the next turn. Also, giving Soviets maneuver room can sometimes be detrimental. Not so much on the first turn but in later turns. Small tight pockets are the best from my experience. But yes, your opening looks really good! Happy hunting.

[56ajax]

@HLYA - Leader Combat Ratings.

I did a very small test using a division attached to I Corp AGN. I got this division to clear 3 forts using the existing commander, Inf = 5 and then repeated the attacks with an upgraded commander, Inf = 8. I then repeated this test 3 times.

In terms of surrenders/routs the results were exactly the same.

In terms of Soviet casualties, in 2 out of 3 cases the Commander with the lower ranking caused substantially more Soviet casualties than the commander with the higher ranking. In the other case it was on a par.

Possible explanations are :

1. Test case numbers are too small to draw a conclusion. Very likely.

2. There are so many moving parts in determining combat results that the combat rating has become insignificant (2 thirds of 20% of half a bucket of nought)

3. Rotten luck in random number generation.

4. Something peculiar about T1.

5. Defect.

I will have a play around.

[Jango32]

The real chad move is using policeman regiments with ground support turned on to clear the pesky Soviet forts on turn 1.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

The real chad move is using policeman regiments with ground support turned on to clear the pesky Soviet forts on turn 1.

I can only quote what a famous "Bookguy" once told me long ago.

Bookguy.png (29.54 KiB) Viewed 2404 times

I do implore you Jango to write up a turn 1 walk through. You have some very good insight into some finer points that some new players could use.

[821Bobo]

If with policeman regiments are meant Sicherungs-Divisions(split) then one should remember these were created from ordinary infantry divisions. Ergo they are not policemen but the same infantrymen like in infantry division.
Sure, they were not intended to do attacks on the front, however after you do first click ingame it is anyway what if scenario.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

If with policeman regiments are meant Sicherungs-Divisions(split) then one should remember these were created from ordinary infantry divisions. Ergo they are not policemen but the same infantrymen like in infantry division.
Sure, they were not intended to do attacks on the front, however after you do first click ingame it is anyway what if scenario.

I have seen these SEC rgmts shattered from Soviet counter attacks. I personally just start sending them to the TB's to not lower their TOE from Soviet counter attacks. Sure you can use them to attack forts but there is always pros and cons and the "What if scenario" as 821Bobo mentions.

[DekeFentle]

HLYA

Big ask, would very much like to see you're associated air phase for this open. Perhaps most especially Ground Support and or Air Superiority settings.

Thanks in advance!

[DeletedUser1769703214]

HLYA

Big ask, would very much like to see you're associated air phase for this open. Perhaps most especially Ground Support and or Air Superiority settings.

Thanks in advance!

I use GS with only fighters. What I mean by that is that I have no "level or Dive bombers" flying, only Fighters in the GS.

I have the snapshots of my Air directives and will post later.

Thank you much.

[exalted]

First one awesome guide, did a T1 recently just for fun and decided my outcomes where so substandard I didn't want to continue. This makes me want to try again The step by step really disects the mechanics of pathfinding, retreat directions and so on, I personally think the system is over complicating movement making for some silly preformance differences when using regiments as pathfinders and optimising combat delay but hey it is how it works.

@HLYA - Leader Combat Ratings.

I did a very small test using a division attached to I Corp AGN. I got this division to clear 3 forts using the existing commander, Inf = 5 and then repeated the attacks with an upgraded commander, Inf = 8. I then repeated this test 3 times.

In terms of surrenders/routs the results were exactly the same.

In terms of Soviet casualties, in 2 out of 3 cases the Commander with the lower ranking caused substantially more Soviet casualties than the commander with the higher ranking. In the other case it was on a par.

Possible explanations are :

1. Test case numbers are too small to draw a conclusion. Very likely.

2. There are so many moving parts in determining combat results that the combat rating has become insignificant (2 thirds of 20% of half a bucket of nought)

3. Rotten luck in random number generation.

4. Something peculiar about T1.

5. Defect.

I will have a play around.

From doing a lot of analysis on this in my last vs AI game I'd say Leader Ratings help but equipment is so way more important and when you have crap leaders, slightly better or slightly worse doesn't matter at all since random chance have a great impact on individual fights even thought the average over time will favor the better leaders. Did analysis on a couple of hundred fights so pretty sure

[Mehring]

When players develop opening moves from experience never available to real life belligerents and worse, publicise them for everyone to copy like parrots, you risk both fundamentally unbalancing the game and turning its beginning into a tediously predictable routine. It's time to introduce variable set ups, giving the defenders a pre-turn 1 move, allowing a certain number of units freedom of movement or perhaps all units the ability to shift a few hexes.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

First one awesome guide, did a T1 recently just for fun and decided my outcomes where so substandard I didn't want to continue. This makes me want to try again The step by step really disects the mechanics of pathfinding, retreat directions and so on, I personally think the system is over complicating movement making for some silly preformance differences when using regiments as pathfinders and optimising combat delay but hey it is how it works.

@HLYA - Leader Combat Ratings.

I did a very small test using a division attached to I Corp AGN. I got this division to clear 3 forts using the existing commander, Inf = 5 and then repeated the attacks with an upgraded commander, Inf = 8. I then repeated this test 3 times.

In terms of surrenders/routs the results were exactly the same.

In terms of Soviet casualties, in 2 out of 3 cases the Commander with the lower ranking caused substantially more Soviet casualties than the commander with the higher ranking. In the other case it was on a par.

Possible explanations are :

1. Test case numbers are too small to draw a conclusion. Very likely.

2. There are so many moving parts in determining combat results that the combat rating has become insignificant (2 thirds of 20% of half a bucket of nought)

3. Rotten luck in random number generation.

4. Something peculiar about T1.

5. Defect.

I will have a play around.

From doing a lot of analysis on this in my last vs AI game I'd say Leader Ratings help but equipment is so way more important and when you have crap leaders, slightly better or slightly worse doesn't matter at all since random chance have a great impact on individual fights even thought the average over time will favor the better leaders. Did analysis on a couple of hundred fights so pretty sure

Thank you, but the guide could be better. Especially someone that is much better than me could share their writings. But I just provide what little bit I know. This is just to get people thinking, doing, and advancing their thinking which it looks like it has done for you. Excellent job and keep at it.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

When players develop opening moves from experience never available to real life belligerents and worse, publicise them for everyone to copy like parrots, you risk both fundamentally unbalancing the game and turning its beginning into a tediously predictable routine. It's time to introduce variable set ups, giving the defenders a pre-turn 1 move, allowing a certain number of units freedom of movement or perhaps all units the ability to shift a few hexes.

Sophistry and falsehood in the above paragraph. I really don't see the need to say more. Have a nice day.

[Mehring]

Sophistry and falsehood in the above paragraph. I really don't see the need to say more. Have a nice day.

One often encounters such an answer from people who lack an argument to detail. have a nice day to you.

[821Bobo]

If there will be added in the future pre-turn, both sides need to benefit from it. Otherwise it will loop in the opposite, Soviets will do perfect setup. Also attacker is choosing time and place of the offensive and position the forces accordingly, not vise versa. Therefore Axis should have the option to react on any changes of Soviets dispositions.
However from the greater perspective, competent Soviet player can deal with the Axis T1 in the long term and I believe pre-turn is useless. The game is not about T1.
Soviet fanboys should also remember that if they want to force Axis players in some direction, Axis have arguments about unrealistic Soviet play as well. For instance I can imagine feature that will cost Soviets VPs for not doing futile suicidal attacks on first few turns against Axis forces as they did historically.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Sophistry and falsehood in the above paragraph. I really don't see the need to say more. Have a nice day.

One often encounters such an answer from people who lack an argument to detail. have a nice day to you.

Thank you for wishing me to, "have a nice day". That was the first good thing you said in your write-up without character attacking a write-up to benefit people to learn from. Again, "Thank you for those kind words". If you like to have a conversation then by all means let's have a conversation. Otherwise, I am not getting into an "argument".

argument.png (104.45 KiB) Viewed 2208 times

[DeletedUser1769703214]

If there will be added in the future pre-turn, both sides need to benefit from it. Otherwise it will loop in the opposite, Soviets will do perfect setup. Also attacker is choosing time and place of the offensive and position the forces accordingly, not vise versa. Therefore Axis should have the option to react on any changes of Soviets dispositions.
However from the greater perspective, competent Soviet player can deal with the Axis T1 in the long term and I believe pre-turn is useless. The game is not about T1.
Soviet fanboys should also remember that if they want to force Axis players in some direction, Axis have arguments about unrealistic Soviet play as well. For instance I can imagine feature that will cost Soviets VPs for not doing futile suicidal attacks on first few turns against Axis forces as they did historically.

My sentiments exactly 821Bobo and a very nice writeup. The game is not won on T1 at all. My guide is to benefit people to think differently and try things that they may not know. The sharing of knowledge to benefit the community.

[Mehring]

Sophistry and falsehood in the above paragraph. I really don't see the need to say more. Have a nice day.

One often encounters such an answer from people who lack an argument to detail. have a nice day to you.

Thank you for wishing me to, "have a nice day". That was the first good thing you said in your write-up without character attacking a write-up to benefit people to learn from. Again, "Thank you for those kind words". If you like to have a conversation then by all means let's have a conversation. Otherwise, I am not getting into an "argument".


argument.png

Argument definition #1- 1. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=argum ... ce=desktop
...but choose a meaning that suits your, err, argument. There is nothing "character attacking" in my post or any "sophistry" or "falsehood." Demonstrably it is you who resorts to "character attacking" when someone disagrees with the spirit of your posts, which I do in their entirety.

If there's nothing to be gained by rehearsing and perfecting T1 opening moves, and against an oponent whose hands are tied, why bother? It is Bobo who emplys a sophistic and straw man argument in your defence. There is nothing in the suggestions I've made from which it can legitimately be construed that I am proposing to enable the Soviets to create a perfect set up. Merely the Soviets should be allowed to throw a spanner of unpredictability in the works of the ahistorical tedium of the Axis playing T1 by numbers.

And neither am I a Soviet fanboy, I play both sides.

[Veterin]

When players develop opening moves from experience never available to real life belligerents and worse, publicise them for everyone to copy like parrots, you risk both fundamentally unbalancing the game and turning its beginning into a tediously predictable routine. It's time to introduce variable set ups, giving the defenders a pre-turn 1 move, allowing a certain number of units freedom of movement or perhaps all units the ability to shift a few hexes.

This post isn't helpful. When someone spends the time and effort to share this with the WITE2 community we should be appreciative.

You don't have to follow it just because it's there. There are many ways to open and each has its benefits and drawback. By showing a step by step guide like this, curious players can learn a lot about retreat mechanics for example (i certainly have).

[Mehring]

This post isn't helpful. When someone spends the time and effort to share this with the WITE2 community we should be appreciative.

You don't have to follow it just because it's there. There are many ways to open and each has its benefits and drawback. By showing a step by step guide like this, curious players can learn a lot about retreat mechanics for example (i certainly have).

No, I don't have to follow it and neither do I have to appreciate what I don't appreciate. If anyone's too fragile to deal with criticism, I can't help that, yes men add nothing to anything.

These sorts of posts are in a sense inevitable because of the number of players looking for perfect, infallible solutions to the, as yet, fixed T1 problem. We saw it years ago in v1 with a peculiar infatuation with destroying the maximum Soviet planes on T1, also the various Lvov openings. The number of threads dealing with Axis T1 when the Soviet player has no chance of altering the effect of the Axis players' move is totally out of relation to any other topic on the forum. Who's posted a solution to T54? Nobody, because nobody knows what T54 will be and there is no possible infallible remedy for it.

If you want to study retreat mechanics, why not do it in an abstract context rather than searching for the T1 holy grail? Are there no other threads dealing with retreat mechanics? Because in truth you want to learn how to give the Soviet player the maximum kicking when they can do nothing about it? You have to ask the question.

So what I want is a solution to players with this mindset who you cannot know before you start a game with them. A variable set up that gives the Soviets limited flexibility in their setup to make sure there is nver a "perfect" Axis opening move. Why would anyone object to that if their real objective was not just to ensure they could kick in the Soviets as much as possible when their hands are tied? Bobo's criticsm of my suggestion is partisan and spurious.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

This post isn't helpful. When someone spends the time and effort to share this with the WITE2 community we should be appreciative.

You don't have to follow it just because it's there. There are many ways to open and each has its benefits and drawback. By showing a step by step guide like this, curious players can learn a lot about retreat mechanics for example (i certainly have).

No, I don't have to follow it and neither do I have to appreciate what I don't appreciate. If anyone's too fragile to deal with criticism, I can't help that, yes men add nothing to anything.

These sorts of posts are in a sense inevitable because of the number of players looking for perfect, infallible solutions to the, as yet, fixed T1 problem. We saw it years ago in v1 with a peculiar infatuation with destroying the maximum Soviet planes on T1, also the various Lvov openings. The number of threads dealing with Axis T1 when the Soviet player has no chance of altering the effect of the Axis players' move is totally out of relation to any other topic on the forum. Who's posted a solution to T54? Nobody, because nobody knows what T54 will be and there is no possible infallible remedy for it.

If you want to study retreat mechanics, why not do it in an abstract context rather than searching for the T1 holy grail? Are there no other threads dealing with retreat mechanics? Because in truth you want to learn how to give the Soviet player the maximum kicking when they can do nothing about it? You have to ask the question.

So what I want is a solution to players with this mindset who you cannot know before you start a game with them. A variable set up that gives the Soviets limited flexibility in their setup to make sure there is nver a "perfect" Axis opening move. Why would anyone object to that if their real objective was not just to ensure they could kick in the Soviets as much as possible when their hands are tied? Bobo's criticsm of my suggestion is partisan and spurious.

I really am not your enemy, no matter how hard you are trying to make me an enemy. If you do make me your enemy, you are not my enemy since I still love you just the same.

Just like T1 max Soviet air kills threads there are a plethora of threads on “alternate” Soviet setup and/or able to move Soviet units before Germans move in WITE1, BETA WITE2, and WITE2. You even eluded to this in your post above. You could have started a thread for the Devs to comment on it, you did not. You know why you did not? Because your posts really aren’t about an alternative setup. If it was you would have done a thread to the Devs with your concerns and referenced this thread. I would have agreed with you on that thread to the Devs too. Instead your post are about someone that “wrote” a step by step that you have the main issue with. Thus, the character attacking the person (not just me, anyone that would write a write-up to be clear) that takes advantage of T1 disposition.

saying.png (84.04 KiB) Viewed 2151 times

You further justified that position in your reply to Veterin.

Sorts.png (81.29 KiB) Viewed 2151 times

Then you take on another character attack here?

crit.png (28.77 KiB) Viewed 2151 times

But that is ok, you can criticism me all day long if you want to, it is 100% fine to do so. I have had a metric buttload from this forum. But to belittle people (anyone not just me) for posting giving what is capable in the game is over the top.


So me saying the below marked in green I said it early seeing where this whole conversation was going to go to.

Soph.png (86.53 KiB) Viewed 2151 times

So, prove me wrong on my statement of “Sophistry and falsehood”. Your motives are plain to see and I called it early, kill the messanger. To prove me wrong post a thread in the main forum on “Alternative” Soviet setup T1 or moving Soviet units around T1 or whatever you want to call it. I will even support your post since I always “love” unknown setups. You really are not doing “any justification” to further your cause in this thread of what you are trying to advocate. You are just attacking the messenger. The Devs don’t, or very rarely, read these sub-forums either. Then, after you post, we can work together to see if a change can be done for the Soviet alternative setup T1. If not, or more of the same kind of posts in this thread, then I called it correctly from the start, “Sophistry and Falsehood”.



Again my statement from the top,

I really am not your enemy, no matter how hard you are trying to make me an enemy. If you do make me your enemy, you are not my enemy since I still love you just the same.