RELOADS and HQ Build Up

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Mike29

Regarding reloads problem, my suggestion is to enable option of "super PBEM" - save shall be possible only after end of turn. And thats all, easy. Who wants hardcore game set this option and start to think on strategy, operations and movement points. Every move is important, every attack is principal. German will make more prepared attacks, and Russian will have chance of heroic defense.

Regards,
Mike

This is a great idea IMHO!

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I just fail to see how 1 HQ build-up per turn is an exploit or cheating. Thats like saying every russian player that only evac armaments is cheating becaus they know hvy means nothing and armament points everything.

Its how the game is designed and all russian players evac only hvy, just like all german player use HQ build-ups.

Pelton

Speak for yourself. When I play Axis, I don't use build-up. I think its a gamey (and exploitable) addition to the game. Halting the Panzers and waiting for supplies to build back up again gives me a far more historical feel. Neither do I evac only armaments as the Russians. I pick a city and only move on to another city when the first city has had everything evac'ed.

And yes, I would consider evac'ing only armaments as much of an exploit as build-ups. For the record, I also consider carpet and/or checkerboard defense as gamey as well.

HQ build-up exploit is only required to offset factory evac and carpet/checkerboard exploits, none of which is any fun. I say nerf it all! [;)]

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I just fail to see how 1 HQ build-up per turn is an exploit or cheating. Thats like saying every russian player that only evac armaments is cheating becaus they know hvy means nothing and armament points everything.

Its how the game is designed and all russian players evac only hvy, just like all german player use HQ build-ups.

Pelton

Speak for yourself. When I play Axis, I don't use build-up. I think its a gamey (and exploitable) addition to the game. Halting the Panzers and waiting for supplies to build back up again gives me a far more historical feel. Neither do I evac only armaments as the Russians. I pick a city and only move on to another city when the first city has had everything evac'ed.

And yes, I would consider evac'ing only armaments as much of an exploit as build-ups. For the record, I also consider carpet and/or checkerboard defense as gamey as well.

HQ build-up exploit is only required to offset factory evac and carpet/checkerboard exploits, none of which is any fun. I say nerf it all! [;)]

I think anyone who believes HQ buildup, in and of itself, is exploitive, has probably not played Germany much, or at least not against an experienced human opponent. Without buildup at all, the game is unplayable as Germany because so much is simply given to the Soviets (hindsight advantages, at a minimum).

Pelton is absolutely 100% right that the bug-fix/(nerf to Germany) on rail distance is going to fundamentally change what is possible for Germany in the center and south. It's handing a lot of the power back to the Soviets, which is why I'm done playing Germany for a while.

The German-hating side is winning the argument to make sure Germany can't threaten them in any meaningful way during 1941. There's less and less room for variety in how German players approach the game. With fewer options for strategy, the game is less fun for the people playing that side.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The German-hating side is winning the argument to make sure Germany can't threaten them in any meaningful way during 1941. There's less and less room for variety in how German players approach the game. With fewer options for strategy, the game is less fun for the people playing that side.

In case you missed it, I also said that the Russians should be nerfed as well. I think the game as it stands, has over-compensated for both sides. Both are stronger than they should be historically. I think the capabilities of both sides need to be reduced (compensate downwards, not upwards). Just my opinion.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The rail repair nerf is going to make taking Moscow and Rostov much harder now even with chaining,because its tied to the railhead.

What is this nerf? I though rule was always you can build RR up to 4 hexes away + 6 in baltic. Has this changed and if so how? I know I'm only on T3 as G but I haven't noticed any difference yet

[Michael T]

As the game stands now Germany cannot win the game without HQ BU against a *competent* Soviet player, period. I will challenge anyone who thinks they can beat me as Soviet and they German without HQ BU. I have said it 100 times. Sure nerf HQ BU but you *must* replace it with a system that allows prioritising supplies to units that the player desires.

This subject of HQ BU coming up all the time as an *expolit* is tiresome. Surely if the devs thought it so bad they would have cut it out by now or made some comment.

I play both sides and in my current game I am playing the Soviets. I have no problem at all with my opponent using HQ BU. It makes the game a challenge.


As for the cheating thing. I am releived the admin people monitor the reloads. It would be good if each time I loaded up my turn I could see my opponents number of saves and loads from his previous turn. They should be equal baring some techincal problem, like a crash or server problem.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The rail repair nerf is going to make taking Moscow and Rostov much harder now even with chaining,because its tied to the railhead.

What is this nerf? I though rule was always you can build RR up to 4 hexes away + 6 in baltic. Has this changed and if so how? I know I'm only on T3 as G but I haven't noticed any difference yet

Units not inside the Baltic zone could often stretch the rail distance to 5 hexes (by doubling down on rail FBDs especially).

[gingerbread]

I have in a current game seen the focus in the south on the Odessa Nikolaev Z-town rout. This is shorter than Chernovtsy D-town and a couple of hexes can be stolen with an extra FBD (with the 4-hex max rule in effect) around Odessa. It does make the void in the centre even larger, so there is an opportunity cost to the max eastward supply reach choice.

This means that there is an early game, long duration effect decision for the Axis, that's good!

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I play both sides and in my current game I am playing the Soviets. I have no problem at all with my opponent using HQ BU. It makes the game a challenge.

It would be interesting to know if you play a more historical Russian stand fast/linear defense, or a historically implausible pull-back carpet/checkerboard defense. If the former, I'd like to know your secret because no Russian player on this planet could hold up the WitE German advance. If the latter, then I've made my point. Exploited a-historical attack vs. exploited a-historical defense = out of whack (both sides need nerfing).

[Michael T]

I use whatever type of defence is neccesary. Its usually a mix of linear, linebacker and checker. How on earth are you going to control where and how a defender places his units? The only way to nerf checker boards is to make them less effective. That would mean reducing zoc costs, morale penalities for non-adjacent units and improving the overun rules. Both have been raised early on and gained no traction at all.

WITE 1.0 is fundamentally finished. I can't see any major changes happening until WITE 2.0. The devs themselves have said this. There may be the odd tweak here and there but that's about it. Removing HQ BU and replacing it with something else would be a big change. I may be wrong but I don't see it happening any time soon.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

I have in a current game seen the focus in the south on the Odessa Nikolaev Z-town rout. This is shorter than Chernovtsy D-town and a couple of hexes can be stolen with an extra FBD (with the 4-hex max rule in effect) around Odessa. It does make the void in the centre even larger, so there is an opportunity cost to the max eastward supply reach choice.

This means that there is an early game, long duration effect decision for the Axis, that's good!

Like a Soviet player would know anything about having to make tradeoffs...

ORIGINAL: Schmart
It would be interesting to know if you play a more historical Russian stand fast/linear defense, or a historically implausible pull-back carpet/checkerboard defense. If the former, I'd like to know your secret because no Russian player on this planet could hold up the WitE German advance. If the latter, then I've made my point. Exploited a-historical attack vs. exploited a-historical defense = out of whack (both sides need nerfing).

I can agree both sides have stuff that's out of balance. But my major contention with complaints that Germany gets this or that boils down to a couple factors:
1) Soviets can squeeze FAR more advantage from historical hindsight than Germany can
2) Soviets get to build units, making all but 1941 far more flexible in strategy choices than Germany gets.

You can't go around taking stuff from Germany without taking more from Soviets in the process, because the Soviets already have every conceivable advantage after 1941.

[sillyflower]

[quote]ORIGINAL: heliodorus04



Units not inside the Baltic zone could often stretch the rail distance to 5 hexes (by doubling down on rail FBDs especially).


[quote]

Even doubled up in earlier games I only ever managed 4 hexes as the stuka flies so sometimes 5 only where rail line is very wiggly. Has that gone so it's now only 40 miles of track?

[jwduquette1]

Speaking of reloads in PBEMs, the problem has been brought up before here. This is just one of a number of threads folks here have already asked if something rational can be done to limit cheat potential in PBEMs.
tm.asp?m=2856190&mpage=1&key=&#2858959

It sounds like sever games have some tracking stuff going on already. However, I also hope 2by3 can offer some sort of solution for PBEMs.

[gingerbread]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

I have in a current game seen the focus in the south on the Odessa Nikolaev Z-town rout. This is shorter than Chernovtsy D-town and a couple of hexes can be stolen with an extra FBD (with the 4-hex max rule in effect) around Odessa. It does make the void in the centre even larger, so there is an opportunity cost to the max eastward supply reach choice.

This means that there is an early game, long duration effect decision for the Axis, that's good!

Like a Soviet player would know anything about having to make tradeoffs...

Well, the standard '41 tradeoffs are trading space for units and units for time - I have seen an AAR in which Leningrad is given up, after evacuation.

[Phenix]

Jesus Mike!
This :"no strategy skills required for Germans, just reload and push. " implies that only German players cheat, oh come on what a bunch of horse....
You come off as a really bad loser, did you loose a game and therefore suspect cheating?

And then this:
And HQ buildup a cheat? come on ,why? if you do no chaining , why is it cheating? soon there will be no tools left for the German player early...

I dont really understand this...its in the rules so how can it be cheating?

this discussion never dies it seems

Ah now i see , you play Pelton, Might that be the reason of the sore comments about Hq -buildups and evil German players that cheat? [;)]

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have no problem with HQ Buildups, but do have a problem with what is commonly called HQ Chaining. This is where a player (usually the Axis but I suppose it could be the Russian) empties an unmoved HQ of all attached units on one turn and performs an HQ Supply Buildup (at I believe a cost of only 5 APs). This causes the HQ to recieve a massive buildup of supplies with nowhere to go. On his next turn he moves the HQ forward (even beyond 20 mp from railhead) and than attaches several panzer/motorized units to the HQ. On hs next turn these units will have 45+ mps.

Thats muling supplies and not chaining. It is a real waste of trucks and is not nessary. Its been used by poeple but only works when you really have a russian over matched.

I have explained chaining more then once but here we go again.

I got the idea from the opening 2 turns of the game I am not smart enough to figue it out myself so basicly every sigle person thats played as a German has used it. HQ builds last 2 turns.

Chaining is when you HQ up one corps at a time over 4 or 5 turns. You start close to the border or on a railhead and work your way away from it over several turns.

AGN is never done
AGC turns 10-14 ish depends on when railheads get to front. New rules conserning rail repair have nerfed this somewhat. So taking Moscow is much harder.
AGS vs a runner you start turn 2 vs normal tactics (evac and run)you start turn 3.
Vs fighting forward russians of which there are few who have the skills to do this Hoooper, Kamil and Flaviusx only 3 I know of that can, you start turn 4 or 5.

The one HQ switching ect thing does not work like that at all. The fuel does not sit there for turns, they bleed off ect. Not sure why, but they dont just sit there for ever.

Muling is stupid doesn't work.

Chianing works because it keeps pressure on the enmey for 3 to 5 turns.

There is nothing amazing about it 1 HQ build up per turn I dont see it as cheating or even exploiting. It can be countered, but requires skills.

If your having an issue with chaining and can't figure out how to stop it, ask Kamil/Hoooper/TDV or Flaviusx for some advise.

M60 was doing fine then assumed I was going to start digging in for blizzard and let his guard down for a few turns.

Chianing is not some uber tactic that wins every game hehehehe.

I agree nerf muling no ones doing it, but sure nerf it. MT and I both dont mule its a waste of time, trucks and supplies.

The rail repair nerf is going to make taking Moscow and Rostov much harder now even with chaining,because its tied to the railhead.


So all the 1.05 games that were started before the nerf was put in is not a true reflextion of how hard it will be to take Moscow and Rostov now.

Leningrad is still easy, but that is a true reflextion of history. Germans were there early, but assummed the russians would surrender,which was a stpid move by Hitler and OKH.

Pelton

In my defence, if I confused "HQ Buildup Chaining" with "HQ Muling" I relied on the following exchange between Michael T and myself on a previous thread:

ME: " Ok, so I've read this post, but I still don't think I understand the mechanics of HQ Buildup chaining. Does it work like this?:

1. On turn 3, for example, you empty an HQ by assigning all of it's units to other HQs and perform a HQ BU with this HQ. Of course this HQ must be within 19 MPs of a railhead and can't move on this turn. This causes a massive amount of supplies to be stored in the HQ with no where to go.

2. On turn 4 you move the HQ forward (even beyond 19 MPs from a railhead) and attach panzer and motorized units to it.

3. On turn 5 the excess supplies in the HQ are disbursed to the panzer and motorized units, all of which end up with 45+ MPs.

Is this it? If not, what is the correct procedure"

MICHAEL T: " Thats it. But its 20MP now for the limit."

So there appears to be some general confusion as to the differences between the two.

But OK, I think HQ Muling is an exploit then, whether it is worth it or not is irrelevant.

Pelton, having read your post explaining HQ Chaining I still don't understand the procedure fro HQ Chaining. For example you don't say if you detach units from the HQ before you do the Buildup or if you attach units to the HQ on the turn after the Buildup. If you are simply doing one HQ Buildup a turn and units are attached to the HQ at the time you do the buildup and you don't attach any more units to the HQ that turn or the turn thereafter, then I say that is perfectly fine. If that is all HQ Buildup chaining is then I have no problem with it. In fact I don't see how anyone can complain as it is clearly what HQ Buildup is designed to allow and I do agree that the Axis need to be able to do this against a competent Soviet player.

But if units are being attached to the HQ on the turn after the Buildup, than, IMHO, that is an exploit.

[Michael T]

Do you guys really understand how HQBU works? When you do it all attached units get 99% fuel, ammo and supplies. The HQ itself also gets loaded up with extra fuel. Depending on how many units are attached this could be between 1000 to 2000 tons give or take. This extra fuel is then made available to whatever units are attached in a logistics phase 2 turns later. The terms chaining and muling are related as I see it. There are elements of each in both so called methods.

If you BU a HQ that only has one or even no units attached it will cost less AP's and have less extra fuel assigned to it (and expend less trucks naturally). BU a HQ with 5 units and it will cost much more in AP's and trucks but it will have a huge stock pile of gas.

The said HQ can move up to its allowance with all this gas (because it will still have extra trucks assigned to it) and it will refuel any units attached to it within 5 hexes next logistics phase. The players can naturally change the attached units.

I don't see any problem with this because it is a game. And as such many things are abstracted. Including supply. When I look at a HQ I see C&C plus a supply infrastructure. Some games seperate this. Not WITE. Perhaps this is the difficult part for players to accept. A HQ loaded up with extra gas is simply a commander creating an adhoc temporary mobile supply dump. These exist in many other games. They are the norm in operational wargaming.

Perhaps people would be happier if we had a little truck unit created every time we did a HQ BU rather than assign the trucks to a HQ. But the end result would be the same. All HQ BU does is allow a player to direct extra supply to units he desires. What is so wrong with that? It is not gamey. Its a legitimate method to keep spearheads going.

Have a look at OCS, GMT's Barbarossa series, FITE/SE, explicit supply in HPS Panzer Campaigns. They all have abstract methods to create mobile supply dumps. WITE does nothing more than these other games. Just differently. The effect is the same. Get over it. It's part the established method of forward supply in wargaming.

[heliodorus04]

Harry, I think the answer to your question about the implementation that is NOT "muling", it depends. Have I attached units to an HQ right before it's going to use BU? Often, but only once that I can remember did I over-load a corps (4 divisions) and do it, and then it was simply because it logically made sense.

Just like the Soviet, the Axis does not get enough Admin Points to optimize everything. If you are moving your corps around the map efficiently, a rotating series of HQ buildups is seamless. If you're not efficient, it's an admin point sink to have to attach and re-attach divisions to the 'right' corps so it has the buildup benefit.

Sometimes the same HQ does it on alternating turns, sometimes you can rotate them through in sequence. It depends on what your opponent is doing. It depends on terrain.

I've never heard of 'muling' an HQ with zero units attached before, though. Never known anyone who did that.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I just fail to see how 1 HQ build-up per turn is an exploit or cheating. Thats like saying every russian player that only evac armaments is cheating becaus they know hvy means nothing and armament points everything.

Its how the game is designed and all russian players evac only hvy, just like all german player use HQ build-ups.

Pelton

Speak for yourself. When I play Axis, I don't use build-up. I think its a gamey (and exploitable) addition to the game. Halting the Panzers and waiting for supplies to build back up again gives me a far more historical feel. Neither do I evac only armaments as the Russians. I pick a city and only move on to another city when the first city has had everything evac'ed.

And yes, I would consider evac'ing only armaments as much of an exploit as build-ups. For the record, I also consider carpet and/or checkerboard defense as gamey as well.

HQ build-up exploit is only required to offset factory evac and carpet/checkerboard exploits, none of which is any fun. I say nerf it all! [;)]

I feel the same way, but there are far far to many russian fanboys that refuse to give up all their toys. They only want one sided nerfed.

When one side can build whatever they like and the other is stuck with hisorical, things will never be even.

Thats the biggest sticking point to game.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I just fail to see how 1 HQ build-up per turn is an exploit or cheating. Thats like saying every russian player that only evac armaments is cheating becaus they know hvy means nothing and armament points everything.

Its how the game is designed and all russian players evac only hvy, just like all german player use HQ build-ups.

Pelton

Speak for yourself. When I play Axis, I don't use build-up. I think its a gamey (and exploitable) addition to the game. Halting the Panzers and waiting for supplies to build back up again gives me a far more historical feel. Neither do I evac only armaments as the Russians. I pick a city and only move on to another city when the first city has had everything evac'ed.

And yes, I would consider evac'ing only armaments as much of an exploit as build-ups. For the record, I also consider carpet and/or checkerboard defense as gamey as well.

HQ build-up exploit is only required to offset factory evac and carpet/checkerboard exploits, none of which is any fun. I say nerf it all! [;)]

I think anyone who believes HQ buildup, in and of itself, is exploitive, has probably not played Germany much, or at least not against an experienced human opponent. Without buildup at all, the game is unplayable as Germany because so much is simply given to the Soviets (hindsight advantages, at a minimum).

Pelton is absolutely 100% right that the bug-fix/(nerf to Germany) on rail distance is going to fundamentally change what is possible for Germany in the center and south. It's handing a lot of the power back to the Soviets, which is why I'm done playing Germany for a while.

The German-hating side is winning the argument to make sure Germany can't threaten them in any meaningful way during 1941. There's less and less room for variety in how German players approach the game. With fewer options for strategy, the game is less fun for the people playing that side.

The problem is that the russian side can be unhistorical cowards and evac and run. They are rewarded for crappy skilless game play.

I will never play the russian side because a monkey can win. How hard is it to just evac and run? Moscow Leningrad ect ect mean nothing in the long run. Manpower grows back by 43 so as russian just run east give up citys who cares? Its meaningless.

Flaviusx and the russian fanboys got what they wanted with the rail nerf. Whoever in good faith started a 1.05 game has wasted there time. The rail nerf came into effect long after most games started.

Any game that started withen a week of 1.05 being released is not a true reflection of 1.05.