HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics

[Great_Ajax]

Sorry but this is fantasy. No way you can supply an entire panzer army 100-200 miles from a railhead for 5 weeks at anything close to movement capacity. Guderian's spearheads were stalling out in about a week after it launched Typhoon in late September/early October and those units were less than 100 miles from a railhead. The Germans couldn't even supply their normal units at anywhere near full supply much less ones that are 200+ miles in front of their railheads. The answer is to prioritize supply distribution for specific units while decreasing supplies to others and allow a measured stockpiling of supplies which is what Pavel is envisioning at some point.

Trey

[PeeDeeAitch]

I have to agree, this is gaming the system, finding loopholes that allow unrealistic and impossible end results. Frankly, and this is as a nearly exclusive Axis player to date, if this is the result of buildup, then it should go.

[Michael T]

The answer is to prioritize supply distribution for specific units while decreasing supplies to others and allow a measured stockpiling of supplies which is what Pavel is envisioning at some point.

Something I think we all can agree on. Bring it on. Sounds just like OCS works.

But I still say given feeble resistance, no matter what system you have in place you will see spectacular advances when someone focuses supply in one area.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Micheal T: do you seriously think it's ok to be able to spam this turn after turn and keep moving the panzers at 50 MPs 5 turns in a row like this?

I mean, c'mon man.

I have been able to reach Stalingrad with this reserve HQ and HQ build up tactics while playing Axis side at 41 and take it just before first mud turn hits. (and also kill all armament cities along the way in south)

It is possible if you send most rail repair units in south and conserve all AP in south too.

People didnt beleve me when I reported this on the forum and I was too lazy to post it with pictures and examples.

This is pretty much same tactics I used to reach Stalingrad before mud at 41.

I have also used variants of this same tactic to take Leningrad before Soviet Side can even get reinforcements and twice as fast than German reach gates of Leningrad historically.

[Encircled]

 Anyone who thinks what Pelton is doing is even vaguely historical doesn't know anything about military logistics.

 The closest military example I can think of is Rommel first attack across Cyrencia in '41, and that involved massive amounts of luck, far, far, far, far less troops and captured supply dumps.

 If its going to be exploited by certain players like that, then it has to go

[mmarquo]

Well, you can't blame Pelton, Michael and Jakerson for using the tools supplied to them by the game engine. Jakerson, did you take Stalingrad like that against the AI or a human? I would like to see you do this in a short match against me; maybe the opening campaign in the South? If you get Kiev and D-town in 5/6 moves then I will not start any new new games until this is fixed. It is not so much the "daisy chain" tactic, rather the multipe reassignments of units to the HQs which I find pure fantasy.

Perhaps a better way to deal with this is to some variant of new Beachhead/air supply rule. Another thing to consider: any tank pushed as hard and as far as is currenly possible, would have a significant chance of breakdown. Perhaps punishing breakdown attrition for units pushed so hard could be a realistic deterrent?

Marquo [;)]

[Great_Ajax]

I don't blame anyone. It is a game and the players gamed it well. This HQ build up was a last minute addition (1 to 2 months prior to release) to the game that didn't get enough play before the game was released and everyone on the development team knows that this needs to be reeled in for some kind of more realistic logistic system. My two remaining pet peeves about this game is the logistics and the air campaign. I'm confident they will all get worked out in time.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Well, you can't blame Pelton, Michael and Jakerson for using the tools supplied to them by the game engine. Jakerson, did you take Stalingrad like that against the AI or a human? I would like to see you do this in a short match against me; maybe the opening campaign in the South? If you get Kiev and D-town in 5/6 moves then I will not start any new new games until this is fixed. It is not so much the "daisy chain" tactic, rather the multipe reassignments of units to the HQs which I find pure fantasy.

Perhaps a better way to deal with this is to some variant of new Beachhead/air supply rule. Another thing to consider: any tank pushed as hard and as far as is currenly possible, would have a significant chance of breakdown. Perhaps punishing breakdown attrition for units pushed so hard could be a realistic deterrent?

Marquo [;)]

[marcpennington]

It does seem an exploit that needs to be closed, but, until a better logistic system is implemented, perhaps the exploit could be best dealt with by house rules. These would probably need to be gentlemen's agreements not to do anything too gamey with the supply system as is, as the line between pulling back a panzer corps with attached units to use HQ buildup and the absurd cycling of HQ in and out might be a bit hard to pin down either with an exactly worded house rule, or for the designers to close with a limited change to HQ build up as is, rather then completely scrapping the entire system. Even if a limitation on HQ buildup could be found by the designers that would stop the exploit, likely it would mean less fuel to the panzers to those playing by the spirit of the rules as well, when I think the game in general needs to get a bit more fuel to the panzers, not less.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I don't blame anyone. It is a game and the players gamed it well. This HQ build up was a last minute addition (1 to 2 months prior to release) to the game that didn't get enough play before the game was released and everyone on the development team knows that this needs to be reeled in for some kind of more realistic logistic system. My two remaining pet peeves about this game is the logistics and the air campaign. I'm confident they will all get worked out in time.

Trey

I dont blame developers. It is fact that more complex the game it open more ways to bend rules.

One trouble is that removing HQ build up totally might punish German side too much but this reserve HQ + plus HQ build up + shifting mobile troops between reserve HQ's is freakingly effective if you practice it a bit over multiple turns and totally optimize use of it.

[Michael T]

From my experince it seems that breakdowns are the true limiting factor. A player could keep a Pz Korp going even with just air supply. But eventually there would be no tanks left. All would be damaged.

Another thing that allows me to keep going is doubling up my rail engineers. You get one or two extra hexes per turn. After 12 turns thats maybe 18 extra hexes. The summer campaign is all about fuel for the Germans. I reckon I have spent more time studying the supply aspects of the game than everything else together.

Taken together, air supply, HQ BU, doubling up rail engineers, treating fuel like gold and really good planning allows deep operations. Its not any one on its own. It only works when all are optimized.

I am happy to see HQ BU go as long as there is some other way that allows a prioritisation of available supply that can be allocated by the player. Untill then I will use whatever tool I have available to keep my motorized units fuelled. Its a game after all. I think that it is feasible (given weak opposition, clear weather and the ability to funnel fuel to a small number of units) that these deep thrusts would be possible. Just becasue 'historically' it didn't happen doesn't mean it could not have happened.

There are a lot of factors at play here. Not the least being the ability of the opposing players. Its a bit like compound interest. Even a 5% skill advantage will become a huge snowball after just 10 turns.

There is always this debate over what happened historically versus what 'might' have happened. I play any game within the rules as written unless a house rule is agreed. I am happy to play with any rule that falls within 'my' realm of possibility or reason. Obviously people have different views here.

I generally just avoid playing people who are sticklers with historical accuracy. So no problem. [:)]

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Michael TJust becasue 'historically' it didn't happen doesn't mean it could not have happened.

True, but when the very same 'didn't happen' were rejected because of things like 'every infantry division in the Army Group would have to stop moving' in order to do this, then you do get some sense of the trade-offs which should be implicit in the decision to use HQ build-up and which gaming around the restrictions already in place tend to ignore.

Helpless has said a few times that he wants to revisit the logistic aspects of the game, and I'm happy enough to wait for that. Most people tend to focus on the Axis 'issues' but there are also elements on the Soviet side, which would benefit the Axis player, from trying to provide some trade-offs and logistical rubber-bands to advances.

[Michael T]

Zebedee I get your drift. It comes down to player philosophies, that is why do we play the game in the first place? People play for different reasons. Some kinds should probably just not play each other.

There are lots of things in WITE that need work, no doubt. But the game is fun anyhow. Some time back I just decided to accept what it is and enjoy it for that. If I want to play a simulation I play OCS. I play WITE for fun.

Is it historically accurate that the Soviets can conduct perfectly timed multi divisional attacks in July 41? No.
What about even just getting a unit to move from A to B by time C? No
That a Inf unit with 500 men has the same zoc as a unit with 20000 men and 200 tanks? No

I could go on and on.

As it stands I would rather play with HQ BU with warts and all than not have it at all. And I play both sides. To date 7 CG's as German and 5 as Russian. Each side has its own set of so called 'exploits'. But I can honestly say they all pretty much cancel each other out and the game remains roughly balanced, my only doubt being the drop of the ARM IND from 200 to 130. But the greatest imbalance is, and always will be, is simply player skill.

In the end I would rather just play RAW with a minimum set of house rules, ideally none. I guess from now on I will place a warning in my opponent wanted adds about 'non historical' play on my behalf.

[stone10]

what soviet 'exploits' could match HQ BU exploit?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: stone10

what soviet 'exploits' could match HQ BU exploit?

That's an odd question, since the Soviets can use HQ Buildups, as well.

[stone10]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: stone10

what soviet 'exploits' could match HQ BU exploit?

That's an odd question, since the Soviets can use HQ Buildups, as well.

Did you use HQ BU when playing the Soviets?

[Michael T]

what soviet 'exploits' could match HQ BU exploit?

What about a carpet of empty tank brigades to simply suck the MP's from the Germans?
What about attaching 100's of tanks to Cav Corp that never have to worry about fuel?

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Zebedee I get your drift. It comes down to player philosophies, that is why do we play the game in the first place? People play for different reasons. Some kinds should probably just not play each other.

Meh, to be honest Michael, I was just pointing out that in this case (as in the previous thread on the subject) that appeals to history just make the case for really hammering home the impact of prioritising supply to spearhead units rather than providing some justification for gaming one's way around the mechanics. The fundamental issue is that infinite supply arrives at the railhead. Gaming around the HQ build-up just increases the problems caused by that abstraction. For me, it's nothing to do with personal play styles or 'non-historical' play because it's obviously something which devs and testers are looking at and thinking 'fix' because the option to do this shouldn't be there.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: stone10

what soviet 'exploits' could match HQ BU exploit?

This not serious case as Soviet has better use for their AP that waste then for reserve HQ / HQ build up tactics.

Actually Soviet Using this tactics could be beneficial for Germany as it eats so much AP that Soviet have no AP left to do other things like fortifying or building more troops. It eat huge amount of AP to HQ build up and move units back and forth between different HQ's.

Soviet cannot afford waste vehicles like Germany can. More vehicles Soviet waste for HQ build ups less troops Soviet side can field and build in the long run. Germany on the other hand cannot make more troops so they only lose vehicles as a price of tactics witch they can afford.

[karonagames]

what soviet 'exploits' could match HQ BU exploit?

Prior to 1.05 the SU could farm 100's of APs and trucks by putting the motorised and tank divisions divisions into static mode, which gave them the ability to organise more counter-attacks with better leaders (that's what I did with them anyway), and there was plenty of "discussion" ( read whining) about SU counter attacks in 1941.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

what soviet 'exploits' could match HQ BU exploit?

Prior to 1.05 the SU could farm 100's of APs and trucks by putting the motorised and tank divisions divisions into static mode, which gave them the ability to organise more counter-attacks with better leaders (that's what I did with them anyway), and there was plenty of "discussion" ( read whining) about SU counter attacks in 1941.

Why not in 1.05 anymore ?