Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
My thoughts are:

1. A pocket that includes a higher HQ should be in full supply for at least the next turn to represent higher HQ supply dumps etc.

I wonder whether this could already be done via the HQ BUILDUP function.

2. A pocket that includes a minor urban hex should be in full supply for 3 weeks.

But the game should also keep track of the "supply status" of the city. I mean an unban hex just ravaged by furious combat and that hosted a starving garrison until the precedent turn isn't going to offer much supplies.
I thought that one could tie the supply level to the current population level but I'm afraid this is not the optimal solution.
Moreover a player should be able to decide for a scorched earth policy.

3. A pocket that includes a major urban hex should be in full supply for 6 weeks.

See above.

4. A pocket that includes a port that is in supply from another friendly port should be in full supply for 6 weeks and then 50% supply for the rest of the game until attacked.

In my present CG as the Soviets I had no difficulty in holding Riga for a month, even if my units were pocketed. Same for Odessa. AFAIK you can already trace supply from a port, even if pocketed.

2. A pocket that includes a minor urban hex should be in full supply for 3 weeks.
3. A pocket that includes a major urban hex should be in full supply for 6 weeks.

This would be every Soviet player's wet dream in 1941, but it would seriously unbalance the game.

Keeping in mind that the game uses weekly turns and that isolated units still need to be attacked, and might retreat instead of surrendering, as well as keeping in mind that a number of encircled Soviet troops escape after a battle, I don't think it's ahistorical that a unit loses cohesion and surrenders after a week in a pocket. Also keep in mind that you do have to commit forces to clean up the pocket most of the time, as the Soviets won't surrender automatically in one or two turns if it's a big pocket.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

2. A pocket that includes a minor urban hex should be in full supply for 3 weeks.
3. A pocket that includes a major urban hex should be in full supply for 6 weeks.

This would be every Soviet player's wet dream in 1941, but it would seriously unbalance the game.

Keeping in mind that the game uses weekly turns and that isolated units still need to be attacked, and might retreat instead of surrendering, as well as keeping in mind that a number of encircled Soviet troops escape after a battle, I don't think it's ahistorical that a unit loses cohesion and surrenders after a week in a pocket. Also keep in mind that you do have to commit forces to clean up the pocket most of the time, as the Soviets won't surrender automatically in one or two turns if it's a big pocket.

As I said above, "Shock should allow for most early pockets to be eliminated quickly, and later pockets to last longer", so I am not suggesting a 1941 Soviet player's 'wet dream', as you put it.

Axis pockets historically lasted for months (Demyansk, Stalingrad, etc.) but in the game they just melt away in a week. See my AAR for examples.

What is the "optimal solution", if not the above? Or do we just have to live with what is clearly an a-historical set of outcomes?

Pockets, especially Axis pockets, don't "melt away". You have to attack them. What you're essentially saying is that committing a fairly large force to reduce a pocket, with the units in the pocket surrendering at some point during the turn is ahistorical. I disagree with that. If you use a significant number of units, pockets will be mopped up in one or two turns, if you don't it could take months.

The battle of Stalingrad is not a good example: 1) the Germans could easily have broken out early on;2) they held a major city and had an airfield;3)the pocket was much larger than usual;4) the soviets were allowed to complete a double encirclement while Hitler dawdled;5) the Soviets had enough control of the air to prevent sufficient airdrops and the Germans did not have enough planes to supply the encircled forces even if they DID control the air.

From reading the forums, the Soviets already have a major advantage making it almost impossible for the Germans to win. Implementing some of the suggested changes would make the Soviets unbeatable even in the early weeks of the campaign. Th result would be what happens in AI vs AI games: a stalemate in front of Smolensk in 1941 followed by a battle of attrition ensuring an early win for the soviets.

Henri

Once again, this appears to be a thread best answered by "keep playing the game, you'll see."

I'm into the summer of 1943 in an Axis GC. What I've noticed about Soviet pockets is confirmed by the longtime playtesters:

-- They're easiest to take down in 1941, as they should be.

-- It becomes harder to form them in 1942 and 1943 as Soviet forces become better at defending en masse.

-- The larger the pocket, the longer it takes to reduce them (unless you're using your panzer forces, but then *you* are the one playing ahistorically, not the AI-- and your overall advance will suffer due to the lack of your panzers at the front).

-- The AI definitely resupplies key forces within pockets.

-- Dug in forces within pockets survive much better than those that aren't: I've been HELD any number of times when underestimating the amount of force required to cause a retreat / surrender.

Really, the game mechanic isn't perfect-- there are exceptions to every situation-- but as a generic model on this time scale, it does a fantastic job.

Also, remember that the AI, while good, isn't as good as the lamest human player. Humans would fight not to get pocketed, would fight hard to get out of pockets, would form relief forces to get into pockets (which provide instantaneous pocket-wide supply when successful!), and would launch heavy air resupply of pockets. The AI does all these things, but it just doesn't do them as well as a human player would. Can't criticize that too much.

THAT ALL SAID... if there was *one* thing I would tweak about pocket defense, it's that armored units appear to surrender far more quickly than infantry units. I can rationalize this-- tanks need fuel, far likelier to be scarce in any pocket-- but playing against the AI my repeated experience has granted me the foresight to know that when reducing pockets, if I see a lone tank brigade, division or even corps, I can generally use a fairly weak Axis unit to attack it with a likelihood of causing its surrender, reserving my stronger forces for dealing with Soviet infantry (which tend to better defend in pockets).

While I'm fine with the pocket mechanic at it is, might be worth a look at whether there is something to this, and that armor in pockets shouldn't be penalized as much (IRL, it'd be a case of fewer armor available, but that armor would still be capable as long as the gas didn't run out... maybe a higher attrition mechanism for armor in pockets, but no other penalties?)

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Pockets, especially Axis pockets, don't "melt away". You have to attack them. What you're essentially saying is that committing a fairly large force to reduce a pocket, with the units in the pocket surrendering at some point during the turn is ahistorical. I disagree with that. If you use a significant number of units, pockets will be mopped up in one or two turns, if you don't it could take months.

Comrade P - They don't melt away to nothing, but within 1 week the Axis pockets I created were reduced to CV 1 or 2 and mopped up in a single turn - 1 turn to create the pocket and 1 turn to mop it up.

This was despite Axis air supply being dropped.

Henri - the battle of Stalingrad is actually a great example, and you have just explained why. "1) the Germans could easily have broken out early on;2) they held a major city and had an airfield;3)the pocket was much larger than usual." So, in WiTE a large pocket around a major city SHOULD be able to either break out of last for several turns. But it can't. Game issue.

Everybody has a reason to disagree with suggested changes, but where are the alternative suggestions for fixing the problems? I can pretty much guarantee you that once other players get to turn 70+ you're going to see new threads on this issue.

I pocketed and destroyed 39 Axis divisions vs. the AI on 110%. Not one pocket took more than 1 turn to eliminate.

Odessa fell to the Romanians and those three German units that I railed from reinforcements. I use a concentric attack. Get units on either side of the objective to attack before the main (at least Corp level) planned attack.

Dont forget to keep your air units forward too as they help and have the HQ close for added sp units.

I am the Soviets. The pocket is about to form. Note the German CVs.

Pocket has now been created.

Next turn and the pocket is gone, with the Axis pulling back in several places.

The only a-historical thing about these images is the speed of the German collapse in the pocket.

Let's admit that the game isn't perfect and focus on how it can be fixed.

Hi all,

Where there any HQs with them in the pocket at all?

What was their supply status?


Leo "Apollo11"

I don't have my references handy but I don't recall any long, drawn-out pockets the Germans kept open for any significant amount of time during Bagration.

EDIT: I believe LIII Corps which was cut off around Vitebsk was cut off and destroyed with 30,000 men in less than a week.

Trey

redmarkus: I'm not saying the game is perfect, and you haven't ever heard me say that. I just disagree with you that most of the things you spot that you don't like or that you feel are ahistorical are actual ahistorical or a flaw that has to be fixed immediately.

I looked at those screenshots in your AAR, and I see that you have about 3 armies worth of troops in the area to force about 10-11 divisions to surrender. It isn't ahistorical to achieve that in a week.

I agree with comradeP on this.
I have not noticed anything seriously amiss. Of course there might be the odd anomaly as no system is perfect. I think it is way too early to start changing fundamental mechanics of the game, that can't be properly judged until more people have made it into '43 and '44 and report their findings.

It is difficult to recreate in this game something like the Stalingrad pocket that persisted for many weeks.

But this was a very exceptional sort of pocket. By and large, for both sides, pockets died fast. Even very large ones, like around Kiev and Orel-Vyazma in 1941. Or, later on, during Bagration. (Or Iassy Kishinev, or the Vistula Oder op, etc.)

I can live with this. We probably shouldn't be encouraging players to recreate their own Stalingrads just to prove that this can be done.

The 'Pocket' at Stalingrad lasted MONTHS (late Nov 42 to mid feb 43). Some of the stories from the 6th Army were nearly unbelievable.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I can live with this. We probably shouldn't be encouraging players to recreate their own Stalingrads just to prove that this can be done.

Unless the game renders isolated, higher morale units less susceptible to CV erosion- on defence. Which may reflect reality.

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

The 'Pocket' at Stalingrad lasted MONTHS (late Nov 42 to mid feb 43). Some of the stories from the 6th Army were nearly unbelievable.

According to Zeimeke (Stalingrad to Berlin), Hitler promoted von Paulus to Field Marschal as a polite way of saying "Just kill yourself."
But Paulus apparently thought it was just a nice thing for the Furrher to do. When Hitler heard that Paulus hadn't killed himself he said that
Paulus had "Made and about-face at the very door of Immortality."

I always thought was was kind of funny about that was that Paulus didn't get the hint and didn't have to do an about-face at all since
he wasn't getting the Furrher's subtle hint (as in "Just kill yourself.")