I don't want to play anymore

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Edit: Although I understand your anger over seeing the hens flee the hen house right as you came through the door. It is actually a good… no, it’s a very good thing that the AI managed to evade you. Think about that, what other AI ever have you seen that can recognize and then react to a threat like that? It did exactly what any human player would do in the same situation.

Another problem I have is that even if a small gap is open, how realistic is it that ALL of the Soviet units would know where it was in the chaos of the pocket? It seems to me that many units in a pocket are bagged because they don't know they are in a pocket, or don't know which way to go to get out of the pocket, and end up blundering around in the wrong direction. In this case a human player would at least have FoW to deal with, and might not see all of the enemy units, or at least not know where the pocket might be weakest. Therefore, I still see this AI behavior as rather unrealistic.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: henri51
I think I understand the response about porous pockets on the first turn of encirclement, but doesn't this lead to gamey tactics? In other words, it is clearly better NOT to attack units in the pocket on the first turn because it is likely that they will rout out of the pocket. ("No Colonel, do NOT attack those Russians, because we don't want them to escape the pocket!"). Would it not be better to have a routine to take into account the porous nature of the pocket without encouraging gamey tactics?

You have to give the opposing side a chance to respond. To have a system that would allow you to surround and eliminate your opponents units in the same turn would be inherently unfair to the defender. The system we have works, players just need to adjust their thinking when it comes to pockets. A pocket is not a pocket until it’s been isolated for at least 1 turn. Until then the units you have in place are just plotted to be there, the enemy has a chance to prevent those units from actually sealing off their plotted position.

ORIGINAL: henri51
OTOH there WERE cases in WW2 where porous pockets allowed huge numbers of enemy troops to escape, the best (or worse)example being the Falaise pocket where hundreds of thousands of Germans escaped without their equipment through he neck of the pocket before it was closed.

Understood, but not a good example to use for the eastern front. Overwhelming allied air power is the reason the equipment got left behind. That level of air power was never even remotely achieved on the eastern front. If Falaise had occurred on the eastern front most of the equipment would have escaped as well.

ORIGINAL: henri51
Many of use are waiting with bated breath to see the developers' response to the specific pocket of the OP, because even if the pocket were not completely closed, it is unlikely that such a large number of units could escape the pocket in a week without serious casualties.

Again I stress that the German units should be considered as getting into position during the Soviet players turn due to the system the game uses. Penalties should not be imposed until 1 turn of isolation has occurred, otherwise it’s not fair to the defense.

Jim

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: henri51
I think I understand the response about porous pockets on the first turn of encirclement, but doesn't this lead to gamey tactics? In other words, it is clearly better NOT to attack units in the pocket on the first turn because it is likely that they will rout out of the pocket. ("No Colonel, do NOT attack those Russians, because we don't want them to escape the pocket!"). Would it not be better to have a routine to take into account the porous nature of the pocket without encouraging gamey tactics?

+1 - It would be a shame if success depended on 'gamey tactics' [:)]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: fsp
If the AI did not cheat, and I now think it probably did not, it is indeed a very good thing. However, how did it get the units with just 1 MP out of there? Also, even if the AI did not cheat, is it realistic to get ALL of those units out of such an almost encirclement without even any loss?

Can't speak to the 1 MP issue, perhaps a dev will chime in. As to whether it's realistic or not, all I can say is it's the only fair way to handle this issue in a turn based system like we have. If it helps, think of the Soviet move to evacuate occurring at the same time your units are moving to try and cut them off. They got out just as your panzers rolled up.

Jim

[PyleDriver]

The concept that Gary put into place was hard on my brain at first. But as Leo said things are going on at the same time. Defenders are allowed counters to regain supply. If you don't keep a tight grip on the pocket men escape. The first few turns you can make wide sweeping pockets, after that you need to put a body in every hex. Breakdown divisions if needed. Now in 42, regiments won't hold a breakout, the AI will break it open and regain supply...

[Erik Rutins]

That pocket has a pretty big "hole" at the top with only a brigade to keep things shut. A save file, a screenshot with hex control and a next turn save or screenshot showing where the Soviet units were one turn later would be a big help.

Regarding the rest, please keep things civil everyone. A lot of people are learning the game and getting adjusted, let's keep open minds and not make assumptions.

Regards,

- Erik

[PyleDriver]

If you guys go to my 41 AAR, you'll see how theres a progression of how you form pockets. Bigger may not be better as the war goes on. Also you'll notice I captured alot of men and stuff...

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Again I stress that the German units should be considered as getting into position during the Soviet players turn due to the system the game uses. Penalties should not be imposed until 1 turn of isolation has occurred, otherwise it’s not fair to the defense.

I think it would be reasonable to impose some penalty on the defence, as the escaping units are not making a normal planned military movement, envisaged by the usual expenditure of MP, but scrambling for their lives in a potentially chaotic situation. There should be some additional disruption, or loss of equipment, morale, etc, but I don't know how it could be applied. [:)]

[PyleDriver]

I really don't see in my games units escaping. Once the pocket is reduced they do add to PC units...

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
I think it would be reasonable to impose some penalty on the defence, as the escaping units are not making a normal planned military movement, envisaged by the usual expenditure of MP, but scrambling for their lives in a potentially chaotic situation. There should be some additional disruption, or loss of equipment, morale, etc, but I don't know how it could be applied. [:)]

But in an I go, you go system, everything is assumed to be going on at the same time even though we move in separate turns, so technically the Russian units got out long before his German units got into place to create the threat of a pocket. I don’t know how else to explain it better except to say, if the Germans spent 98% of their movement getting into those final hexes and the Russians only spent 60% of theirs to get out, they were gone long before the Germans were around to threaten them. Perhaps ZOC penalties should increase if the unit exerting the ZOC has a lot of its movement left.

As to interdiction, that is already modeled in game. If you don’t use all your air assets in your turn, it’ll be available to interdict your opponent’s moves during his turn. If you do use it up in your turn, then there is none left to interdict with.

Jim

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

That pocket has a pretty big "hole" at the top with only a brigade to keep things shut. A save file, a screenshot with hex control and a next turn save or screenshot showing where the Soviet units were one turn later would be a big help.

Regarding the rest, please keep things civil everyone. A lot of people are learning the game and getting adjusted, let's keep open minds and not make assumptions.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik

With all due respect - it wasn't that people made any assumptions - they were just things that came to mind after reading his post. Given my lack of knowledge of the game, it was certainly all I could provide. APparently unless tyou know the game inside out you're to keep your pathetic attempts of help to yourself! (and how is that for being elitist?!)

He's got every right to come on here and ask for clarification on the way the AI behaves - but his post was about not playing anymore because it didn't look like he could win. Most people on here (regardless of how they worded it) were suggesting he keep going.

No-one was suggesting the OP was thick. Contrary to what some people think, we were only trying to help by suggesting reading the relevant manual parts whilst playing the smaller scenarios and I only suggested that because that is how I am trying to learn - I admit my first post was a little tongue in cheek dig, but his post did sound like he was giving up on what appears to be a great game because he couldn't win the Grand Campaign on his first go! - but it certainly wasn't offensive.

[76mm]

All this talk about IGOUGO is all well and good, but I'm confused about whether the AI has some sort of advantage in avoiding ZoCs (to allow escapes)?

[Flaviusx]

The pocket doesn't appear to be cut off from supply. Note that brigade sized units do not flip over contested hexes in terms of control, although their ZOC can impede movement. (This is one of the many reasons I hate Soviet rifle brigades, parenthetically.) Here there's a hex with control contested by a Soviet HQs.

A single hasty attack on the SS motorized brigade up north would easily have cleared a ZOC free path out of the pocket. There's a monster 9 point tank division nearby that with a couple of other units would have done this. I don't know if the AI did this, but against a human this pocket wouldn't hold.

All that said, it would have been difficult for the southernmost units to get clear away and I'd expect a substantial number of these to cluster at or near the weak spot up by the north of the pocket. I'd be curious to see the Soviet dispositions after breaking out. Most of the units inside the pocket do have quite a bit of movement points, though.

The pocket was a little too ambitious and not properly sealed off. Leaving aside whether or not the AI cheated here somehow, don't expect this sort of thing to fly in PBEM. I'd bust out of it with ease. Of course, I'd never allow myself to get so near being bagged in a big way like this to begin with. [;)]

[Flaviusx]

Also, is this really turn 2 as displayed on the Soviet screenshot? That doesn't seem right.

[JudgeDredd]

Some of those units in the south - are they saying they only have 1 MP though? If so, how would they get out?

[Mifune]

I am not quite sure, but I think part of what is frustrating fsp from what I see in my games so far. Is if you are playing the Axis and fall behind there seems to be no recovery possible, the initiative is lost. A Soviet wall 6 deep. So to go on in a campaign is fruitless because you can not take the initiative back.

[Flaviusx]

Those units I have to assume were set on static. They could have been reactivated and moved away some.

But I doubt they could have gotten clear away. Typically a freshly reactived leg unit like that is going to have 8 mps or so. So that is strange. But that's not the only odd thing about the screenshort. The turn showing as 2 is decidedly odd.

[ComradeP]

Flavio: reactivated infantry units should be motorized, but it's still a lot of ground to cover, especially with the ZOC's.

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Those units I have to assume were set on static. They could have been reactivated and moved away some.

But I doubt they could have gotten clear away. Typically a freshly reactived leg unit like that is going to have 8 mps or so. So that is strange. But that's not the only odd thing about the screenshort. The turn showing as 2 is decidedly odd.

Odd? Because of what??

[fsp]

I don't even have the slightets doubt that this pocket would be relieved in PBEM. Against a human, I would not even have tried to form it this way.

It is "turn 2", as I loaded the save as a scenario, that kind of screws up the turn count I guess.
The two hexes in question were Soviet controlled at the start of the Soviet turn.

This is the Soviet save 1 turn later (turn 11).