Matrix Games Forums

Free assignment of generals will greatly favor the Soviet, imo. Be careful what you wish for. Bringing order out of the leadership chaos of June 22 is a massive AP sink for the Sovs that takes months and even years.

The Wehrmacht doesn't have nearly as much leadership shuffling to do.

During testing I felt that APs were a very elegant solution to prevent the instant min/maxing that took place in WIR that enabled both sides to operate a "perfect" command and control structure with the best generals available at all times.

By integrating C&C and unit creation for the soviets, it also gave the axis a target to attack and apply so called "AP pressure" by forcing the Soviet to buy things he doesn't want or preventing him from buying things he does want.

The system also allows players to invest in different types of defensive structures : Fixed defensive lines based on FZ/FRs or a defensive minded C&C structure based on a properly organised C&C structure with the right leaders available at all levels, or a mix of both.

The system is not perfect, and it has anomalies and loopholes that can be exploited if one wishes to spend the time needed to squeeze the last bit of juice out of the system, but the nastiest exploits have been removed. In general I think the game benefits from the checks and balances it provides.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
By integrating C&C and unit creation for the soviets, it also gave the axis a target to attack and apply so called "AP pressure" by forcing the Soviet to buy things he doesn't want or preventing him from buying things he does want.

On second thought, I retract my earlier statement about APs, because I generally like the AP pressure concept. As the Russians, you basically have two choices on how to spend APs:
1) Maximize leadership and C&C
2) Build a historical OOB

The two are largely mutually exclusive, meaning if you want good leadership and C&C your OOB will suffer, and if you want an historical Army your C&C and leadership will suffer (as it did historically). However, one could argue that the Russians shouldn't even have this option, and that the game should provide an historical OOB and minimal APs to very slowly sort of the leadership and C&C issues.

I agree APs are a simple solution, because what is the alternative? Command Points? There isn't really anything even in real life preventing a C-in-C from purging his generals (Stalin did it a few times) but it is rare. Some generals are better for training, other are better on attack, or defense, or pursuit. A C-in-C sometimes loads up commands with his 'buddies', not necessarily always the best available. Then there's human interaction: A great Corps commander might butt heads with his Army commander, and operations suffer because of it. That Corps commander might then work much better in a different Army. Constantly swapping generals around isn't good for morale or efficiency. How can all that be easily replicated in a game? I think APs are a simple solution to all that.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
During testing I felt that APs were a very elegant solution to prevent the instant min/maxing that took place in WIR that enabled both sides to operate a "perfect" command and control structure with the best generals available at all times.

By integrating C&C and unit creation for the soviets, it also gave the axis a target to attack and apply so called "AP pressure" by forcing the Soviet to buy things he doesn't want or preventing him from buying things he does want.

These are certainly good points, and I'll think forward about them. They may change my point of view, but for the moment at least I still can't get my mind around why C&C and production are mixed. In real life one is controlled by a field army, and the other by a training army, and I can't understand a dilemma like "either you get Zhukov or you get 5 new divisions - make your choice".

I mean, you see these kind of things in card-based games. I'm sure they are a lot of fun, but I never had interest in playing one. What I love in Gary Grisby's games are that touches of realistic detail. I have no idea how a rifle brigade TO&E having 8 mortars would make the game any different than having 28 mortars, but boy I do love that count of 8. I'm impressed at reading that the 13mm MG 131 gun has a penetration of 2, and although I have no idea what that 2 means, it sounds terrific. So I take ownership of the concept, and if someone ever tries to argue that it should have penetration of 5 - ha! I'd say "Gary said it's 2 so of course it's 2, so get lost, booger!"

Then suddenly I get a "Zhukov or 5 new divisions" curve ball, and I think... what the hell? This is not a 1289 supplies cost for a Ju 88G! This is not 27mm top armor for a T-38E! This is... I don't know what this is. It's arbitrary. It's an out of place deus ex machina construct. I reject and disown it. Give me a dwarf or 5 elves and that's fine, but Zhukov or 5 divisions... yerg.

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
During testing I felt that APs were a very elegant solution to prevent the instant min/maxing that took place in WIR that enabled both sides to operate a "perfect" command and control structure with the best generals available at all times.

By integrating C&C and unit creation for the soviets, it also gave the axis a target to attack and apply so called "AP pressure" by forcing the Soviet to buy things he doesn't want or preventing him from buying things he does want.

These are certainly good points, and I'll think forward about them. They may change my point of view, but for the moment at least I still can't get my mind around why C&C and production are mixed. In real life one is controlled by a field army, and the other by a training army, and I can't understand a dilemma like "either you get Zhukov or you get 5 new divisions - make your choice".

I mean, you see these kind of things in card-based games. I'm sure they are a lot of fun, but I never had interest in playing one. What I love in Gary Grisby's games are that touches of realistic detail. I have no idea how a rifle brigade TO&E having 8 mortars would make the game any different than having 28 mortars, but boy I do love that count of 8. I'm impressed at reading that the 13mm MG 131 gun has a penetration of 2, and although I have no idea what that 2 means, it sounds terrific. So I take ownership of the concept, and if someone ever tries to argue that it should have penetration of 5 - ha! I'd say "Gary said it's 2 so of course it's 2, so get lost, booger!"

Then suddenly I get a "Zhukov or 5 new divisions" curve ball, and I think... what the hell? This is not a 1289 supplies cost for a Ju 88G! This is not 27mm top armor for a T-38E! This is... I don't know what this is. It's arbitrary. It's an out of place deus ex machina construct. I reject and disown it. Give me a dwarf or 5 elves and that's fine, but Zhukov or 5 divisions... yerg.

I think it is a "I'm tired of people complaining about micormanaging" playability thing. There should be 1) Build unit points, 2) Move built unit points, 3) Reorganize Army points, and 4) Change commander points all accumulated and tracked seperately. There was a command decision made to combine all four into one thing called AP. Personally I like micromanagement so I would prefer the seperate counters but I can see why they did it. OTOH, while it is not realistic, it is kind of neat to be able to defer building stuff in order to shuffle units around to group the colors (and avoid those nasty coordination penalties)

Zhukov is worth at least 10 elves.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Zhukov is worth at least 10 elves.

I see him as more a Balrog, or Gandalf, depending on which side I'm playing, and what stage of the war it is.

I finished my grand campaign without even thinking about AP costs.  I just do as I please and stop when there's not enough AP.  Didn't even cross my mind if the AP pricing is fair or not.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Zhukov is worth at least 10 elves.

Right, but not 50,000 russians.

I suspect that the number of truly exceptional generals has been, through history, quite small. I imagine that there were other quite capable generals in the red army - after all, they had a few thousands of them.

These are certainly good points, and I'll think forward about them. They may change my point of view, but for the moment at least I still can't get my mind around why C&C and production are mixed. In real life one is controlled by a field army, and the other by a training army, and I can't understand a dilemma like "either you get Zhukov or you get 5 new divisions - make your choice".

I mean, you see these kind of things in card-based games. I'm sure they are a lot of fun, but I never had interest in playing one. What I love in Gary Grisby's games are that touches of realistic detail. I have no idea how a rifle brigade TO&E having 8 mortars would make the game any different than having 28 mortars, but boy I do love that count of 8. I'm impressed at reading that the 13mm MG 131 gun has a penetration of 2, and although I have no idea what that 2 means, it sounds terrific. So I take ownership of the concept, and if someone ever tries to argue that it should have penetration of 5 - ha! I'd say "Gary said it's 2 so of course it's 2, so get lost, booger!"

Then suddenly I get a "Zhukov or 5 new divisions" curve ball, and I think... what the hell? This is not a 1289 supplies cost for a Ju 88G! This is not 27mm top armor for a T-38E! This is... I don't know what this is. It's arbitrary. It's an out of place deus ex machina construct. I reject and disown it. Give me a dwarf or 5 elves and that's fine, but Zhukov or 5 divisions... yerg.

I understand completely where you are coming from - heck, I stopped testing/playing the game three times, but APs have never been my particular bugbear. I have just finished my 12 step program to deal with my variance/modified CV problem!

At the end of the day, we have to accept that Gary is one of the few designers that gets to include their name in the title, and he has earned that right because he comes up with concepts like APs. I have returned to playing the game 3 times, by learning to live with the things that still bug me and accept that they do not affect my overall enjoyment of the game.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak


At the end of the day, we have to accept that Gary is one of the few designers that gets to include their name in the title, and he has earned that right because he comes up with concepts like APs. I have returned to playing the game 3 times, by learning to live with the things that still bug me and accept that they do not affect my overall enjoyment of the game.

Well, he should see Cid Meier's Civilization V if he thinks he's beyond the reach of epicfail. No matter how great the press releases say Civ 5 is, the playing community tells people it sucks a$$, and its sales figures are the lowest of any Civ release. War in the East has taken GG very, very close to that threshold. It is over-specified, historically unreflective of actual combat, and, my largest complaint and the biggest anchor around 2by3's neck: The game is uncompetitive. Oh, and it was the most expensive PC game (not a deluxe/collector's edition) released in the last 24 months.

Now, back to the original subject:
Back when I did this with maths to back it up, I proved that the German starting command proficiency (by assigned leaders in each army) is only 20%-30% superior to the Soviets (frankly, Germany begins the game with a lot of corps commanders that could be improved upon easily).

Back at that time, before the AP constraint-over-time was implemented on Soviet Army HQs, this was an even bigger problem. Since Soviet armies commanded more CP than German corps, it was easier for Soviets to create "Hammer & Anvil" armies with great commanders, and 10 divisions in each. Note that this is still the case in 1941: Soviets have an operational leadership advantage over Germany by virtue of the flexibility their Army HQ CP levels provide them.

When your HQ commands more divisions, if the command rating of the commanders are equal, the larger CP capacity has the advantage. The Soviets are given this advantage in 1941, when their army should be at its least capable and least flexible. Over and over again the Soviets are given a-historic means of being an agile army operationally that they should not have in 1941.

Now, regarding Flavius's comment:

Helio, I'm not seeing how the huge costs of HQ transfers favors the Soviets. It sucks equally for both sides, near as I can tell.

Where armies are concerned, both sides pay exorbitant costs, yes. And having played a game (versus AI) with 200% AP modification for Germany, I can tell the user community that straightening out Army Group South and Army Group Center does not enable these Army Group HQs to change much. The best I can do with AGC is about 20 points over command limit (moving a panzer corps to AGN, along with all of 2nd Army), and even with all the Romanians under Army Group Antonescu, AGS is hosed for command. So the idea that Germany can do a lot by straightening that out is false - it won't provide any meaningful help.

But the AP issue hurts Germany TREMENDOUSLY.
Germany can make its life easier in two key ways, and two ways that are historically aligned to the way it trained, and to the way it fought the actual war.

First, extra APs are best invested in assigning good Morale/Infantry ratings in your infantry corps. Better leaders means more movement, which means more advance to the east with better combat results.

Second, and the ultimate goal of my AP crusade is so that Germany can have tactical flexibility that reflects the Kamfgruppe, which was the Keystone of German effectiveness from 1940 to 1945.

The big deal preventing this in game is the AP cost to move DIVISIONS, not necessarily Army HQs. Germany pays an exorbitant cost. For one division, the basic cost is more than 5% of its single-turn AP awards. Again, when I did the maths before, I proved that when you open any given German division and try to change it's HQ, it will cost you on average 5 APs (prior to a leadership check, and remember that Germany's leadership advantage is only 20% over Soviet).

By contrast, I can prove that the average cost for a Soviet division is 1 in all circumstances (or some fraction below 1.2 AP, if you want to be picky).

I don't care what Soviet players DO with that advantage - that is immaterial to my purpose. I wish the Soviets paid more - they SHOULD pay more, and frankly, the Soviets are handed to them an a-historic ability to optimize and organize their defense since every single reinforcing division and HQ is assigned to Stavka.

If that's not enough to justify raising the AP cost of Soviet division re-assignment, then I revert back to my criticism of the player community: You don't care when the Soviets get a-historic capability that borders on fantasy (1986-Nato staggered defense in depth as soon as Germany invades; the ability to airdrop a regiment 200 miles behind enemy lines?). You also don't care when Germany is forced into Army degradation irrespective of on-map performance (specific unit withdrawals, etc.).

What I care about is what Germany can do if it is provided with the same AP cost to move divisions that the Soviets get.

Here is the case (in an AI game, so don't get too excited about the situation I describe):

In the drive to Leningrad, as usual, one corps of 18.Army drives on Kalinin while the remainder drives on Novgorod. 16.Army drives on the Valdai hills south of Lake Ilmen, and 2.Army is marching into the Pskov area to reinforce as necessary.

In the process of the advance on Leningrad, 4.Panzer Group sees a way to divide the Soviets at Leningrad in two, with half being in Leningrad, and the cut-off half being around the east side of Lake Peipus. Kalinin is still in Soviet hands.

Note that 2.Army has been used as was my operational plan: Reinforce as necessary. The tactical necessity was to ensure the pocket held while maintaining proper pressure against Leningrad.

Due to the Army HQ re-assignment problem, I would have no hope of streamlining my command to the tactical situation (move some 2.Army corps to 18.Army, and move the Kalinin corps into 2.Army so it can go into an appropriate reserve role after taking Kalinin. It would be nice to have that ability, certainly.

But if you’re the Soviet, you can effectively get around that problem because you can re-assign 10 divisions to the HQ you want for only 10 APs! Efficiency for the win! No point in assigning 11.Army to Northwest front when you can assign 10 divisions from 11.Army directly into the appropriate, nearby HQs! Viola, a-historical flexibility achieved for the Soviets, meanwhile Germany would have to spend an entire turn’s AP to move those same 10 divisions. THIS is the capability Germany needs. The one the Soviets already have.

Now, if Germany has this capability, it reflects, via game mechanics, the ability to create kampfgruppes.

Here is a screenshot:









Now let’s examine this picture.
Germany has lost the ability to maneuver, and so it’s ability to conduct deliberate attacks is highly constricted, but proper combat selection can go a long way here. What the German army could do in this situation is form kampfgruppen out of the units I have circled. None need to move far, and all can move and get probably one deliberate attack in.

Unfortunately, if those units fight together, command is going to be uncontrollable, maybe 1.Corps will direct it (Model), maybe 41.Panzer corps will lead (Rheinhardt), maybe 26.Corps will lead (Wodrig). The inability to control with certainty the command will have a huge impact on the combat in the SUs assigned. More significantly will be the impact of the combat percentage DEDUCTED from the German units based on the command levels involved. Maybe Germany loses 6 to 16% from the panzer unit, or from Model’s units.

Now can you see the difference in AP switch cost for divisions between Germany and the Soviet? The Soviets can get around this situation for 8 APs (1 per unit circled).

If Germany can move divisions for the 1 AP average cost that Soviets pay, then all of these divisions can be assigned to Model (who has the heavy artillery and Stugs), and the combat will take place at full efficiency (minus any overload Model may be under).

This is how kampfgruppen worked. As War in the East stands, it is the Soviet who has the ability to create Kampfgruppen in the field, while Germany cannot.

Thank you for your interesting and well reasoned treatise in response to my comment. As noted in my post, the AP system is not perfect, but I think it does a reasonable job preventing both sides operating "perfect" C&C from Day1 and allows both sides to mould their armies in their own image over a reasonable period of time. I fully understand you wanting things to happen sooner.

Despite it's many problems, and there are plenty more that I could mention that you have yet to identify and turn into a treatise; the game is fun for me and the people I play against. When it stops being fun I will stop playing.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
This is how kampfgruppen worked. As War in the East stands, it is the Soviet who has the ability to create Kampfgruppen in the field, while Germany cannot.

This is an interesting point of view.

Perhaps the german side should have much smaller penalties for mixed-HQ attacks - that should bring back to life the Kampfgruppe concept. And leave those penalties high for the Soviets, to reflect the inflexible command structure.

Now, my main beef with the high cost for army/general changes with the soviets is that I can't understand how changing an army cost much more than purchasing, while changing a division costs much less than purchasing, and changing a support unit costs the same as purchasing.

I think that administrative changes should have a consistent cost in admin points (relative to purchase of new unit) through the board, and some cost in morale or supplies or damaged elements.

ORIGINAL: fbs


I suspect that the number of truly exceptional generals has been, through history, quite small. I imagine that there were other quite capable generals in the red army - after all, they had a few thousands of them.

LOOOL

By the way Helio, the way to partially avoid paying to high a price for transfers as the Axis, is to transfer to OKH (Halder) with his 9 admin rating, and more often than not you will only pay 1 or 2 AP's. Then transfer to the Corps you want.
The trick is to have OKH "close" enough so it can be selected, but that's not to hard. And please 2by3, don't close this loophole!!!

As to SU's, use the (very bad) auto transfer for the heavy lifting to OKH, then reassign either directly to Corps (No AP cost) or select what you want from the list and pay 1 AP.

As usual, you are overstating your case, by several miles. So here's my offer, if you think Germany has no chance, consider yourself challenged. I'll take the poor Germans, lets see what you can do with the Russian supermen, unbelievable C&C, and what not.

Oh, and lets make an AAR to prove your point.

what say the?

In order to make admin costs fully consistent across the board, the Soviet per turn budget would have to go up, and this would lead to balancing problems. Perfect symmetry here is not really a good idea. Alternately, the German per turn budget would have to go down, if their costs were reduced to Soviet ones. Already the Axis player in a typical game spends much of it sitting on hundreds of APs. APs just are not a limiting factor for the Axis as a practical matter to anything like the same degree as the Soviets, for the basic reason that they don't do nearly as much for them as the Soviets. Many Axis players indeed are remarkably wasteful about how they spend APs in a way that a Soviet could never be. (You will never see a Soviet player building literally hundreds of FRs the way some Axis players do.)

Anyways, this has gone completely off the original topic and has about as much to do with it as the price of fish in Helsinki.

Whether or not some are wondering about the price of fish in Helsinki or not , the challenge stands.

So put up, or shut up.

ORIGINAL: glvaca

...And please 2by3, don't close this loophole!!!...

I'll add this to the but list right away! [:'(] Just kidding.

In the Wehrmacht most Kampfgruppen were battalion-sized formations. If their impact is to be enhanced, wouldn't it be better to pimp the impact of SUs, of reserve orders & stick with higher German division quality, etc.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgruppe

Regards

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: glvaca

...And please 2by3, don't close this loophole!!!...

I'll add this to the but list right away! [:'(] Just kidding.

Well, it was a worthy sacrifice for a worthy cause, so be it [:'(][;)]