Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

By momentum, I mean having a feel for the state of the other side.

I think Pieter's boys are tired and running low on supply and gas up there. That's exactly the time when you as the Soviet want to hurl yourself with wild abandon at the panzers. The panzers are not invincible and can be manhandled when they're tuckered out. They are reaching that point.

You're getting a bit bogged down in the minutiae of individual combat results and missing the larger operational picture here, Paul.

You are preaching to the choir Flaviusx about hitting them when they are weakened from over extended supply lines.

I am indeed getting bogged down in the details, because that is what I came here looking for. I only wanted to see what got ComradeP up in arms over this whole +1 bonus thing. I found it, but that last attack on the 7th...I mean...out of bullets to that degree oh man...ohhhh man. That is golden...that is priceless...that is one in a million times do you see something like that. I'm afraid I haven't read the rest of the AAR so I can't comment on momentum because well...I was focused on what the heck was causing the ComradeP campaign against something that at the end of the day is largely neither here nor there.

I also treat the game like it was real life, that leads me to evaluate things with a different set of filters then a lot of people use. To me, and no offense intended here, Notenome gambles more than I would. But as I said, a certain short French Generalismo said "I'd rather have a lucky general." I hope his luck continues to hold and he boots Pieter's butt around the battlefield. My view on "gambling" isn't a criticism it is just a personal view, and if it was taken as one it is not intended as such.

Here's the mega map for turn 13.

it would be funny if comrade found a bug in the sov multiplier-if there is-we will surely hear about it [:D] 

On another note:

I've come to observe with some amusement my newfound reputation as a gambler, when a few turns back I was criticized for doing a Robinovich (I did not) or being too conservative. So here's a little exposé.

I simply established a plan and have stuck to it. I decided to withold counterattacking until the second half of the Barbarossa campaign season because I wanted the panzers to have some wear and tear on them. I also have consistently made Southern Front my weakest sector because this kind of Fall Blau Southern corridor is completely undefendable, and permits a one pronged encirclement battle come winter. I delayed the Axis crossing of the Dnepr as long as possible and then have sought every opportunity to turn it into a meatgrinder, always defending at least 30 miles in depth. The idea is to recreate the scenario Glantz described 'two punch drunk boxers trading body blows'. Except that instead of Moscow, my goal was Smolensk. Furthermore I have refused to weaken Soutwestern Front's defenses (and will not do so no matter) because as can be clearly seen, the Axis do not have a contigious front. There are no cities and few towns in the Pripyat Marshes, which more than offsets their defensive bonus thanks to Blizzard attrition. As long as I hold Kiev (and I have no plans to loose it) I hold the means to destabilize the flanks of AGS and AGC. Once the mud hits I'll begin posting the operational plans I made for the winter.

Raizer, this is a pretty old debate with the testers. No such bug has ever been found. I'm not going to go into the details here -- I'm still bound by an NDA -- but this isn't a new issue and has never yielded anything and may be based on a misunderstanding of the combat engine by some of the testers.

There is most definitely a difference in CV variability between the Soviets and Germans. So far, devs insist this is WAD. Soviet values start off very low, and are incredibly sensitive to leadership checks succeeding as a result.

I know based on my own gaming experience that leadership makes a big difference here in terms of final adjusted CVs. Your garbage generals will not produce these results.

Sounds like a plan. [:)]

Why on earth should the rules not be open and clear?

If there's a mystery modifier, all players should know about it, not an inner circle of high priests/testers. Bit mystified why this 'soviet variable modifier' wouldnt be in the manual, but instead treated like some divine secret only Tom Cruise and John Travolta are allowed to know.

Not meant as a dig at you Flav.

Unless you're a scientologist.

Squatter, it is difficult to explain without going into the nitty gritty of the code. It's not a mystery modifier, just the way the leadership rolls function at the unit element level can lead to non linear results. And yes, I know that sounds like doubletalk without going into serious detail.

No scientology involved, but I do feel somewhat constrained in terms of my NDA.

Here's a possible in game experiment you can try for yourself to see the effects on the Axis side. Set up a game with a bunch of poor experience units under a first class general. Say, the Romanians under Manstein. Have them do some combats. Observe the final results on their CVs.

Is Pavel allowed to talk about it?

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Squatter, it is difficult to explain without going into the nitty gritty of the code. It's not a mystery modifier, just the way the leadership rolls function at the unit element level can lead to non linear results. And yes, I know that sounds like doubletalk without going into serious detail.

It doesn't sound as doubletalk to me at all. It sounds to me that the combat model has just been built in a way it can't be "gamed" by adding a lot of uncertainty and non-determinism. And, as Flaviusx suggests when proposes that experiment, that cuts *both* ways.

Good discussion, I didn't realize Leadership made THAT much of a difference. A difference, sure, but not such a multiplier. Good to know, I have some APs to spend......

The biggest problems with the Axis Allies isn't firepower it seems, but morale and leadership

The point is that the extent of leadership impact - and that this impact varies between the two sides, and varies depending on experience, etc, is not in the manual. Were it not for teasing it out of helpful testers like our man flavour flav here, then we would all still be in the dark about even what the rough mechanics are. The manual goes into grotesque detail about certain things, with arcane formulas telling you that your chance of being in supply is die(40)xrange-MP+leader roll, or whatever, but then doesnt even mention a really important mechanic like this. That's my slight beef.

I'm starting my 2nd campaign against the computer ( Axis ) and i'm getting killed on the dice rolls early on. Some of my modified CVs end up around 40% of original;  [:(] that's even with Zhukov and Konev each taking a Front.

It's the same formula and code for both sides, Squatter. The key difference being experience levels. If German unit element experience levels ever fell to Soviet levels, then they too would see big swings between initial and final adjusted CVs. They would even see them more often and more consistently than the Sovs, because they have better generals across the board and on average.

That's why I offered my little experiment above. If you can somehow get Axis minors under German generals, they should start doing rather better in combat, and will display similar swings as can happen with the Sovs. In practice this could be tricky, because I'm not sure Germans have a lot of spare command capacity to fit minors in without overloading their HQs.

ORIGINAL: randallw

I'm starting my 2nd campaign against the computer ( Axis ) and i'm getting killed on the dice rolls early on. Some of my modified CVs end up around 40% of original;  [:(] that's even with Zhukov and Konev each taking a Front.

If the Fronts are overloaded, having a good general at that level may not make much difference, bear in mind. And Soviet Fronts do tend to be overloaded during much of the war. The good news for the Sovs is that they get tons of army commands and can always contrive to keep those HQs under the command caps. So if you can get a bunch of 6 and 7 pointers to fill in all those commands, you'll get good results. I personally wouldn't even put Zhukov in charge of an army, though. Kind of a waste. I leave him in STAVKA until that overloads, and then move him over to a Front, and try to keep that Front in particular from overloading. But it's hard to avoid this.

The SW front is overloaded but Western Front is okay; i've reached the period where corps HQs are disbanding and I have to shove the army HQs up so the C&C is a little fudgy.

hi there, great aar. i don't have the game but like to read those aar's here. one question: if your winter offensive in the south isn't as succesfull as you hope, isn't this pull back risking a huge risk in the spring summer of '42? looks like ComradeP could be in a wonderful situation for a pincer going north?

Keunert, to be honest I would be very surprised if my southern push isn't sucesful come winter. ComradeP has a long corridor to defend that's only gonna get bigger and bigger as he pushes towards Rostov. I simply have to pick a spot that's weakly defended (and there will be one) and drive south. Considering the Panzer divisions will almost certaintly be garrisoned (and if not they will be severely weakend come 42), that will put an even greater burden on his infantry. A single pincer heading north in 42 would create very exposed flanks, plus I would have interior lines of comunication to pressure the spearhead.
 
In other news I will be travelling until early March, so this AAR is now officially on hold. I have spoken with ComradeP, and depending on what further changes occur in the next two-three weeks, we may very well reboot this AAR, which is fine by me despite my satisfaction with the over all strategic picture. In particular a change in the air model would almost certaintly warrant a reboot, as the Luftwaffe is woefully underperforming ingame.

That's another very under-emphasized point there notenome: the Luftwaffe is indeed underperforming in the game.