Matrix Games Forums

pipewrench

great job so far Kamil.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
You're not being fair with Encircled [:)] As Alfonso said the Frontier District Massacres (aka the German mega pockets) are POSSIBLE because of the CHECKERBOARD thing. Yes, the Germans use a checkerboard to surround the Soviet hordes on the first turns [;)] From the screenshots I can clearly see what is Encircled's strategy (very familiar because I did the same). He is heavily defending Leningrad and Moscow. In the south, he lets his opponent do whatever he wants... I did the same. So the checkerboard in the south is because a) he is too weak and b) this is tank country.

ORIGINAL: johnnyvagas

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
You're not being fair with Encircled [:)] As Alfonso said the Frontier District Massacres (aka the German mega pockets) are POSSIBLE because of the CHECKERBOARD thing. Yes, the Germans use a checkerboard to surround the Soviet hordes on the first turns [;)] From the screenshots I can clearly see what is Encircled's strategy (very familiar because I did the same). He is heavily defending Leningrad and Moscow. In the south, he lets his opponent do whatever he wants... I did the same. So the checkerboard in the south is because a) he is too weak and b) this is tank country.

It’s not an indictment of his playing skills. He’s using what the game lets him use to maximize his chances of success within the games environment. And it’s pretty evident he’s studied your own use of the same in your lengthy AAR. But the game environment that rewards a player employing checker board defense ignores some very basic principals of war.

My post – for the good reasons I indicated within and which you did not include in your reply quote -- was directed at a game design that rewards this sort of approach to operational level defense. Formations have flanks and rear areas. These actually mean something in terms of a units combat power and its ability to defend itself. Presumably you are familiar with the principal of Stosstruppen and infiltration tactics and the eventual evolution of Stosstruppen tactics into “blitzkrieg”. The intention, in short, was to get into the rear of a unit and destroy artillery assets, disrupt or eliminate communications and command and control, destroy logistical support or supply trains for the guys in the trenches. Kill this “soft” stuff and the units combat elements wither and die on the vine very quickly.

Again Checker board relies upon a player tossing out a widely dispersed cordon of divisional and brigade sized formations over wide expanses of terrain. The main effect being:

I) Chew up Axis motorized units MPs
II) Chew up Axis fuel levels within these motorized units
III) Attrite Axis Motorized units in terms of fatigue and equipment break downs from long moves.
IV) And most importantly it telegraphs the intended schwerpunckt. Pts – I – III chew-up the crucial 1st turn MP bonus associated with HQ Build-up. The Russian Player than converges his reserves on the schwerhpunckt. The german is committed to this avenue of attack as on the 2nd turn of his push his mech units will have significantly lower MPs as they burned most of the HQ build-up fuel dealing with the widely dispersed checkerboard lines. It’s sort of like a skirmish line defense followed by a massive commitment of reserves to pack in around the schwerpunckt. And its effective if employed correctly. Like what we are seeing being done very effectively by Encircled in this AAR.

These are all very desirable things for the Russian player to do. The problem is course that units strung out with 20-mile gaps between their nearest flank anchor will by necessity form all around defensive positions to protect their artillery assets, their supply trains, and their command and control elements. All the crucial soft target aspects that were specifically the target of Stosstruppen and infiltrations tactics and eventually blitzkrieg tactics. And of course there has always been and probably always will be a profound psychological aspect to enemy units turning ones flank or appearing in ones rear areas.

When a divisional sized unit circles its wagons – so to speak – i.e. its various battalions and regiments are formed into a circular defense, the unit’s defensive frontage is going to be maybe ½ to 1/4 the frontage of that same unit when that unit is able to anchor its organic battalions\regiments on the flanks of friendly divisions to its right and left. Call it what ever suits your fancy – divisional laager, divisional hedgehog, circular defense…

A division that circles its battalions will exercise much less influence upon the surrounding terrain because of its consolidated defensive posture. Instead of the divisions battalions being stretched somewhat linearly across a ten mile hex, a divisional laager\hedgehog\circle is contracted into a area a fraction of the size of the hex. Aggressive patrolling and or placing fires on surrounding terrain (adjacent hexes), or whatever it is we all associate with zones of control, is equally contracted as a result of the circle your wagons tactics a division has to employ when it’s
all by it’s lonesome.

Some units are actually trained to survive and excel in these sorts of all around defensive postures. But the average divisional commander will be keenly aware of his flanks and rear area and the issues associated with an enemy unit suddenly appearing on its flank or within its rear area.

The tactics and tactical deployment a division would have to employ when its ass is hanging in the breeze are not replicated within the game. Thus the ability of players to successfully employ something like a “checker board” defense.

My criticism isn’t directed at players adopting tactics that are best suited to the game environment in which they are expected to perform within. The criticism is associated with assessing why this sort of player tactic is actually successful. It’s gamey because the reality of a unit that has nothing nothing on either flank but ether, is something very different than what is currently replicated within the games environment.

If the game environment replicated units with specific orientation for their associated combat power, than the player by default has to face the reality of what flanks and rear areas mean and how the like will dictate both tactical and operational approaches to attack and defense.

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

So I hope in the future the devs wake up to the idea of flank modifies. Play enough war games that consider flanks, I find it hard to believe this game could even go this far without it a consideration.

Please somebody tell me what I'm missing here?

"If you do not know the field nor day for battle, then the left flank cannot aid the right, nor the right flank aid the left; the front cannot aid the rear, nor the rear aid the front. How much more so when the distant are some tens of kilometres away and the near several kilometres apart? Thus I say victory can be achieved. Even though the enemy is more numerous, they can be forced not to fight."


-Sun Tzu's The Art of War

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

If any developer or designer would have taken the time to read even a portion The Art of War

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

If any developer or designer would have taken the time to read even a portion The Art of War, they'd know this as it's a central theme throughout his works. Or maybe look at some of the largest defeats or victories for the Romans. Alexander the Great's campaigns as well. For the period of WitE maybe Rommel's campaign in North Africa. Heck, just look at Operation Desert Storm which was basically a feint followed by a left hook flank by 7th Corps.

Maybe the WitE team had a good reason to leave out the advantage factor for a unit getting hit front and flank(s), I can't see it. Has nothing to do with the scale, because in most cases were talking divisions and in all cases were talking about a battle front of 10 miles.

IMO, there's no excuse. If somebody wants to give them one, that's their prerogative. Once again, WitE is a good game, but it can be better and no reason to settle ... is there?

pompackI would suggest that you watch the supply length for the units at Rostov and encircling the Stalino group since there are fairly ugly penalties for exceeding 100 mp from railheads; repaired ports can remove the worst penalties. Usually this isn't a problem until mud but things can get nasty quickly then and it takes time to repair the ports.