Page 2 of 2
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:13 am
by Tarhunnas
ORIGINAL: map66
Part of the problem is that the game doesn't model that the Germans were not as well prepared in the south as they were in the center and the north, especially logistically, due to the diversions necessary for the Balkan campaign. In game terms, obviously, one rail head can be used be used to support an unlimited number of panzers--- something that sounds like it will be modeled better in WiTW, but for now allows a rather a-historical diversion of forces south and the resulting Lvov pocket.
One possible solution would be to have the turn 1 surprise rules not be in effect south of certain line--- i.e. German units that operate south of there pay normal movement and attack costs. This might do a decent job of modelling the relative German un-preparedness in the south and the relatively higher performance of the Soviet units in that area. Obviously, any units from Army Group Center moved south of the line would start to pay the higher movement costs, and my suspicion is that this might eliminate the Lvov pocket as an option, or make its implementation much more of a trade off then it is now.
Sounds like a good idea! Worth exploring.
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:38 am
by vicberg
No....Germans don't win against Soviet run away strategy. Someone show me wrong, and I'll be happy to recant. First turn is not the game. LVOV pocket, plus all the other additional pockets that may be formed now first turn do not mean automatic victory. If the Soviets withdrawl correctly, it's still very much in Soviet hands. You want a completely one-sided game. Fine. Keep going and no one will play it. Have fun against the AI. Don't build this game on the results of a 2 German players. Even then, I'd like to see someone play against Pelton or Michaelt with the ability to fully withdrawl and no mules, and see if these two players can recreate the same results. I doubt they will.
I'm sorry, but have been on this forum for a while, I get the strong feeling that if the Germans even have a chance at victory, that's wrong. Sorry, it's a game, with two players, and both having a chance for victory. Any other option, and one side is wasting their time.
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:11 pm
by Rufus T. Firefly
If there was a logistical problem in the south then maybe a cleaner more accurate fix would be to give AGS units somewhat less than full supply on turn 1. A fuel shortage would have the effect of taking away movement points as Tarhunnas has suggested, but this gives it a rationale rather than being arbitrary. An ammo shortage would limit the number of attacks.
I think this is better than taking away the suprise rule which to my mind quite properly makes German attacks more deadly on the first turn.
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:35 pm
by notenome
With 20/20 hindsight or a million/million hindsight the Germans wouldn't have been able to form the Lvov pocket. Firstly, the Lvov pocket was pretty much what OKH wanted to do, trap the Soviets vs the Romanian border. The problem was the incredibly large number of Soviet mechanized forces that attacked the Germans in what became a series of meeting engagements (including the largest tank battle of all time at Dubno) combined with Soviet resistance in the swamps which created an elongated right flank.
To Joel:
I agree with the first turn rules except its only three days! By the end of turn 1 (again, 3 days) the Germans hadn't created the large pockets or reached the Dvina in the north. That took a week. Not 3 days. That's the sticking point for me, to advance 200, 250 miles in 3 days was impossible at that time (and still very hard in this day and age). The only commander to do so was Rommel, because he rufueled his puppies at civilian gas stations. Also, what about the unit isolation idea?
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:56 am
by kg_1007
ORIGINAL: notenome
With 20/20 hindsight or a million/million hindsight the Germans wouldn't have been able to form the Lvov pocket. Firstly, the Lvov pocket was pretty much what OKH wanted to do, trap the Soviets vs the Romanian border. The problem was the incredibly large number of Soviet mechanized forces that attacked the Germans in what became a series of meeting engagements (including the largest tank battle of all time at Dubno) combined with Soviet resistance in the swamps which created an elongated right flank.
To Joel:
I agree with the first turn rules except its only three days! By the end of turn 1 (again, 3 days) the Germans hadn't created the large pockets or reached the Dvina in the north. That took a week. Not 3 days. That's the sticking point for me, to advance 200, 250 miles in 3 days was impossible at that time (and still very hard in this day and age). The only commander to do so was Rommel, because he rufueled his puppies at civilian gas stations. Also, what about the unit isolation idea?
It is difficult, but not impossible. The 7th Panzer Division advanced between 0305 hrs on 22June, 1941, and 2300 Hrs on 25June..just 4 days, ...390km, and cut the highway between Minsk and Moscow..in that 4 days, 1 day was spent halted at Vilna allowing the flanks some hours to close.
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:34 am
by Rufus T. Firefly
Wouldn't the simple solution to the 3 day first turn issue simply be to make all turns including the first turn 7 days and forget about trying to conform to the calendar?
In game turns this means that using random weather there would be a significantly increased progbability of mud arriving 1 turn sooner for example' turn 16 now starts 4 days later) than at present, which will make it harder for the Germans to take Moscow, which is a more historical result.
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:39 am
by kg_1007
Rufus, you have a good head on your shoulders, as they say. I have wondered this myself often.
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:06 am
by notenome
I agree with that as well, it would solve the Dvina and Minsk issue. Still leaves the Lvov pocket in the open, unfortunately. As for comforming to the calendar, just make the first mud turn 3 days long, nothing happens on that turn anyways so you wouldn't have to deal with the whole 3 day advance thing.
One solution to the Lvov Pocket would be to make some of the first turn rules not apply to the South. This would be historically correct as Kirponos disobeyed Stalin's order and began alerting and moving his forces to the front a few days before the invasion.
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:04 am
by Tarhunnas
A problem with isolation is that it is so digital. Either you are isolated and very weak and susceptible to surrender, or you are not and units are much stronger and will not surrender. That invites things like the para-pocket-relief.
IMHO Isolation should be much more gradual, with poor morale units more likely to surrender and long supply lines or low supply status increasing the risk.
Pardrops are ok to block someone elses supply IMHO, but having them drop to reopen supply lines is unrealistic. A good way woul be to make a hex converted by airdrop "neutral" so that no side could trace supply through it. But I guess that would be complicated to implement.
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:34 pm
by Cavalry Corp
I agree and high morale units like Guards TK Corps etc and Pz/ SS units did not surrender as a rule only when instructed. For certain it would be good to have units surrender on a roll based on current morale and supply. Conversely low morale units adjusted by fatigue and supply and non mobile units ( that know they cannot easily get out) would surrender more easily as a rule.
Its a week long turn and Cav/ mobile / armoured units would react and could easily break out of a weak encirclement before it got stronger. If they got orders to do so.
Cav
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:22 pm
by Great_Ajax
I have found in my reading that air support is a key ingredient to how well an isolated force can fight. Surrounded forces without air support tend to fold rather quickly. There are many examples where the Soviets fought very well while surrounded until the Luftwaffe was unleashed on them. Constant aerial unhindered ground attacks from the air have a remarkable effect on morale of the ground forces.
Trey
RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:39 pm
by Cavalry Corp
Agreed, as I said mbile units that remain mobile could break out and because they know that they are less deomralised. But if say heavily interdicted and unabe to move would realise their fate maybe sealed.