I don't want to play anymore

[Flaviusx]

Pieter, motorized or not, in my experience freshly leg reactivated units do not get a whole lot of MPs.

Treale: I thought this was 11 turns into a game. Not 2. So, yeah. Strange.

[Toby42]

The screenshot says Turn 2, but the date is 8/28/1941? Can this be right?

[Flaviusx]

FSP, your latest screenshot shows this as Soviet turn 1.

Send a save to us. There's something odd going on here in several respects.

[Toby42]

Look farther to the left on the information bar. It says: (Save turn 010 8-21-1941 So.scn) ???

[fsp]

The first screenshot with the units (almost) in the bag is my turn 10.
The second screenhot, with them gone, is turn 11.

To make the screenshots, I changed the file extensions of the Soviet saves to scn and loaded them as a scenario with both players human. Don't know how else to make the screenshots.

[Helpless]

The first screenshot with the units (almost) in the bag is my turn 10.
The second screenhot, with them gone, is turn 11.

To make the screenshots, I changed the file extensions of the Soviet saves to scn and loaded them as a scenario with both players human. Don't know how else to make the screenshots.

If you play AI you can disable AI move in game options and it will give control next logistic phase.

[Joel Billings]

It would be great to get a save before the AI move. Was that deleted? If not, please send to 2by3@2by3games.com. If the hexes in the north are not German controlled, then a move out of the pocket can be done in such a way to only pay one extra MP (the cost of leaving an enemy units ZOC). For this reason, most of the units could get out or at least close to getting out of the pocket. Those with 1 MP are an oddity that would need to be explained and I'd need a save to see what's going on. Even if all you have is the modified file that you used to take the screenshot, please send that as it would provide some information.

As for the mechanism of units having to be isolated (surrounded for a turn) to surrender instead of rout, this was a conscious design decision. Attacking units while the pocket is being formed could lead to them streaming to the rear before the pocket is closed. Leaving them alone would give you a chance to pocket them before they knew that they were in trouble. Given the IGOUGO system, no solution is perfect and a designer uses many tools and abstractions to provide a way for the game to simulate history and provide options for the players. This is one of the big ones that Gary came up with, and we think it works. You need to know the rule so you can make the decision that you think is best for the situation you are facing.

As several have stated there were many pockets that were not properly closed and in which many soldiers escaped. This looks like one of those situations. I'd still like to see the saves if you have them so we can rule out any overly aggressive cheat move by the AI.

[henri51]

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.

Ok, Jim, but just for argument's sake (until the facts can be clarified about this specific pocket),if what you say is true, it seems to imply that in principle one can NEVER create a pocket, because the AI opponent, as soon as he sees the pocket closing, could immediately fly out of the pocket.

I have nothing against units trying to break out of the pocket as some have indicated would be possible with this specific pocket, nor against taking into account that moves should be simultaneous, but it seems to me that the AI should be obliged to follow the rules for the cost of entering zones of control and submit to penalties for being low on supplies etc.

You make a game "Igougo", you live with the consequences!...

After all, what compensations are given to the human player for moves not being simultaneous? If I get stuck in a pocket, tough luck for me!("Hey General Zhukov, no fair, you surrounded me while I wasn't looking, so why don't you let me just rout outta here while YOU are not looking?")

Henri

[JAMiAM]

Just to throw out a theory here, but it seems to me that many of the units that were inside the pocket were disbanded, or merged with other units. There are several units inside the pocket for the first screenshot that are nowhere to be found in the second. I tend to think that perhaps the AI moved what it could save, and disbanded the rest. It's what I would have done, at least.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: henri51

Ok, Jim, but just for argument's sake (until the facts can be clarified about this specific pocket),if what you say is true, it seems to imply that in principle one can NEVER create a pocket, because the AI opponent, as soon as he sees the pocket closing, could immediately fly out of the pocket.

But players do pocket the AI pretty often so, on principle, the AI gets pocketted at least some of the time.

[Kel]

I agree with our friend.

1/The fact that even quite well done pockets (with only one tiny hole) will see almost all pocketed units escape is quite frustrating. Especially when you read book after book about the fact that even loosely closed pockets managed to bag huge number of soviet units. In a nutshell : things seem to go a little bit too smoothly for units in a pocket, and it does not feel right. Pockets, even incomplete one are not the chaos and logistic nightmare we feel they should be, when inadequate commanders are in charge. The supernatural knowledge of the soviet units to find their way out is a bit too much.
SUGGESTION : I would enjoy some more friction and attrition here : maybe the "fall-back-and-escape-the-pocket" AI routine could leave some units without the orders ?

2/ Second point : a routed (and supposedly exhausted and disorganized) infantry division can make 3 or 4 times the distance of the panzer divisions who are chasing it. It seems to be a bit too much.
SUGGESTION : I would advise a tweak to the behaviour of routed units making them able to retrat once at running speed. But not twice: if a routed unit gets in contacta second time with a division-level combat unit, the exhausted guys would simply collapse of fatigue and constitute themselve prisonners - the unit disappears.

That said, lets congratulate one more time the designers and testers for this (still a bit rough) diamond.

[Joel Billings]

Once you are proficient, you will be able to pocket the AI (and human players). You can't expect to be as good at it as you will be after some game experience.

Disbanding is not possible when too close to the enemy, so that can't explain the movement.


Having looked at the situation, all the units in static mode could have gotten to 2 hexes south of the 2 hex opening at the north end of the pocket. Almost all other units could at least get to the 2 hexes that are open at the north of the pocket, and many can get clear of the pocket. It takes 12 MPs to clear the pocket for those at the very south end (9 hexes plus 2 MPs for leaving 2 zocs plus 1 mp for going over a stream). I would expect 75% of the units in the pocket to have made it out, but that there'd be a clump of units in the hexes at the top of the pocket and just south of it. Were there any units left in the pocket when you played the next turn?

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Kelblau

I agree with our friend.

1/The fact that even quite well done pockets (with only one tiny hole) will see almost all pocketed units is extremely frustrating. Especially when you read books after books about the fact that even loosely closed pockets managed to bag huge number of soviet units. To put it in a nutshell : things seem to go a little bit too smoothly in a pocket, and it does not feel right. Pockets, even incomplete one are not the chaos and logistic nightmare we feel they should be, when inadequate commanders are in charge. The supernatural knowledge of the soviet units to find the way out is a bit too much.
SUGGESTION : I would enjoy some more friction and attrition here : maybe the "fall-back-and-escape-the-pocket" AI routine could leave some units without the orders ?

2/ Second point : a routed (and supposedly exhausted and disorganized) infantry division can make 3 or 4 times the distance of the panzer divisions who are chasing it. It seems to be a bit too much.
SUGGESTION : I would advise a tweak to the behaviour of routed units making them able to retrat once at running speed. But not twice: if a routed unit gets in contacta second time with a division-level combat unit, the exhausted guys would simply collapse of fatigue and constitute themselve prisonners - the unit disappears.

That said, lets congratulate one more time the designers and testers for this (still a bit rough) diamond.

Have to agree with the above, as however much this may comply with the rules, it doesn't look right. It's been said that the pocketed units have a chance to move out of the pocket in simulated simultaneous movement. So they all knew where the gap was going to be, at a time-scale before the gap was finalised, none of them blundered into the encircling units, no traffic hold-ups, as all these units slip effortlessly through the narrowing gap.

There just has to be a penalty of some sort, even to make it possible to attack in the first turn of the pocket, without giving routed units a helping hand out of the pocket. There could be a chance element as to which way they rout and how far they go, some may just go to ground, some may move away from attacking units, even if that is further into the pocket. [:)]

[jomni]

Maybe those 1MP units in the south disintegrated due to attrition...
Can fsp send that screenshot with combat location overlay turned on?
And a lot of people have been asking for the first screen screenshot with enemy control overlay turned on but he hasn't sent us anything yet.

[Joel Billings]

All the hexes not occupied by German units are Soviet controlled hexes. That's why so many units could get out easily without having to make a ZOC to ZOC move or a move into an enemy controlled hex.

[fsp]

Hi Joel,

I just sent you two saves, the one before the AI turn and the one after. I think those are the two that should matter, the one that got overwritten was the one from the German turn.

I still like most of the design decisions taken, given the fact that really huge numbers of Russian soldiers did escape those pockets. However, mostly they did not do so as coherent formation but as manpower.

To make it very clear: Both of those two hexes are controlled by the Soviets. I did not know that a brigade does not exercise the same amout of ZOC (makes sense though). On the other hand, should it matter that much in a case like this? Talking real life: To leave this pocket, you'd have to pass by either the SS brigade or the two divisons east, which would see you lose at least some troops, if around 500,000 men are passing through a 20 mile hole. I know the design decisions you have to take there might come back to hound you, still...

Also, I am still a bit confused what happened with those 1 MP units.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: fsp
Talking real life: To leave this pocket, you'd have to pass by either the SS brigade or the two divisons east, which would see you lose at least some troops, if around 500,000 men are passing through a 20 mile hole. I know the design decisions you have to take there might come back to hound you, still...

If a unit can rout out of a pocket then why wouldn't it also be possible for them to escape in good order? Since the game is designed to sort of take into account the Soviet actions while the Germans are moving, maybe you can think of them as having moved north as the Germans were encircling them.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

So they all knew where the gap was going to be, at a time-scale before the gap was finalised, none of them blundered into the encircling units, no traffic hold-ups, as all these units slip effortlessly through the narrowing gap.

In terms of not-quite virtual simultaneity, if the gap wasn't finalized, then they wouldn't have to know exactly where it was, only that they had to rush north. They might be imagined as passing through the future/past path of the moving encirclers either before or after they had gone by. After all confusion might just as well afflict the encirclers -- perhaps even more so since they are expecting to meet up with friendly troops coming from the opposite direction, but they don't know when where or how, whereas the escaping troops just have to avoid any encounters.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao
In terms of not-quite virtual simultaneity, if the gap wasn't finalized, then they wouldn't have to know exactly where it was, only that they had to rush north. They might be imagined as passing through the future/past path of the moving encirclers either before or after they had gone by. After all confusion might just as well afflict the encirclers -- perhaps even more so since they are expecting to meet up with friendly troops coming from the opposite direction, but they don't know when where or how, whereas the escaping troops just have to avoid any encounters.

I still think it is rather unrealistic to have to shut off every possible avenue of escape to avoid a pocket emptying out. Again, many units would not even know they were encircled, would be waiting for orders that never came, would here that there was a gap to the north, not to the west, etc., resulting in a large bag of encircled units. In WiTe, you leave a one hex gap and -POOF- the pocket is empty. That's not right...

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: MengJiao
In terms of not-quite virtual simultaneity, if the gap wasn't finalized, then they wouldn't have to know exactly where it was, only that they had to rush north. They might be imagined as passing through the future/past path of the moving encirclers either before or after they had gone by. After all confusion might just as well afflict the encirclers -- perhaps even more so since they are expecting to meet up with friendly troops coming from the opposite direction, but they don't know when where or how, whereas the escaping troops just have to avoid any encounters.

I still think it is rather unrealistic to have to shut off every possible avenue of escape to avoid a pocket emptying out. Again, many units would not even know they were encircled, would be waiting for orders that never came, would here that there was a gap to the north, not to the west, etc., resulting in a large bag of encircled units. In WiTe, you leave a one hex gap and -POOF- the pocket is empty. That's not right...

Realistically the encirclers would be more confused than the encircled. The encircled just have to get out, the encirclers have to go deep into enemy territory, strung with transport along winding routes at top speed, get to some unknown location in some time frame, find all the other encirclers, stay suppplied and in contact with their own forces and be prepared to react to threats from any direction. The encircled just have to stay out of contact and get away through familiar territory.