Balance discussion

[beender]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

While we're discussing game tweaks- One question I have is what is the rationale for making regiments and brigades slower when entering enemy territory? IMO, if anything, they should be faster since they don't place such a strain on the local road network that a unit 3x the size would (though I'd be happy to just make the movement costs the same as divisions). I think they would also have an easier time maneuvering around obstacles and have a quicker response to changes due to a more nimble C&C structure (fewer echelons to pass orders and reports thru).

I suppose the primary rationale is related to logistical reasons. Since division is usually the smallest formation that is self-supporting, brigade or regiment really cannot conduct operations independently for an extended time. Making them slower in enemy territory is a crude way to simulate this, though perhaps is good enough.

[GoodbyeBluesky]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

While we're discussing game tweaks- One question I have is what is the rationale for making regiments and brigades slower when entering enemy territory? IMO, if anything, they should be faster since they don't place such a strain on the local road network that a unit 3x the size would (though I'd be happy to just make the movement costs the same as divisions). I think they would also have an easier time maneuvering around obstacles and have a quicker response to changes due to a more nimble C&C structure (fewer echelons to pass orders and reports thru).

I think a good compromise would be for the regiment to have reduced ZOC Cost as it is propably easier for such a formation to remove itself or keep away from the enemy while keeping the movement cost into enemy territory the same.

This way it would be easier to push for example a brigade into a hex that you have already taken or forward into that 1 vital hex you want to have it in to be a minor nuissance.

[Huw Jones]

[/quote]I think a good compromise would be for the regiment to have reduced ZOC Cost as it is propably easier for such a formation to remove itself or keep away from the enemy while keeping the movement cost into enemy territory the same.

This way it would be easier to push for example a brigade into a hex that you have already taken or forward into that 1 vital hex you want to have it in to be a minor nuissance.
[/quote]

Sounds like a good idea.

[Huw Jones]

I don’t think things should change much from where they presently are, only minor alterations, bug fixes.

The Germans could have taken Moscow much earlier most likely in the real world, if they hadn't done the Kiev pocket or sent Panzer units off to Kursk instead of concentrating everything on Operation Typhoon, so losing Moscow in the game I don't see as a problem.

Most players won't leave a Kiev pocket, but that is more than compensated for by the basic Lvov pocket.

FOR THE GERMANS

1 Soviet +1 should end as the blizzard commences.

FOR THE RUSSIANS

1 Sort the Soviet construction bug out.
2 REMOVE the false Lvov pocket hex flipping, only flipping hexs that you normally do elsewhere, that won't stop people doing the basic Lvov, but the 2nd & Super Lvov will be harder, as you will need more units to keep the basic Lvov bottled up.
3. An extra option added, so that the really good Germans can be nerfed slightly, maybe something to do with Panzer fuel, so possibly extra costs for HQ build up, something like that.

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: Huw Jones

I don’t think things should change much from where they presently are, only minor alterations, bug fixes.

The Germans could have taken Moscow much earlier most likely in the real world, if they hadn't done the Kiev pocket or sent Panzer units off to Kursk instead of concentrating everything on Operation Typhoon, so losing Moscow in the game I don't see as a problem.

Most players won't leave a Kiev pocket, but that is more than compensated for by the basic Lvov pocket.

FOR THE GERMANS

1 Soviet +1 should end as the blizzard commences.

FOR THE RUSSIANS

1 Sort the Soviet construction bug out.
2 REMOVE the false Lvov pocket hex flipping, only flipping hexs that you normally do elsewhere, that won't stop people doing the basic Lvov, but the 2nd & Super Lvov will be harder, as you will need more units to keep the basic Lvov bottled up.
3. An extra option added, so that the really good Germans can be nerfed slightly, maybe something to do with Panzer fuel, so possibly extra costs for HQ build up, something like that.

What about Leningrad? Do you think it should be as easy for the Germans to take as it has been throughout the history of the game? What historical "what-if" context would you make for this city falling?

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
What about Leningrad? Do you think it should be as easy for the Germans to take as it has been throughout the history of the game? What historical "what-if" context would you make for this city falling?

Historically it was a German decision to pull back from assaulting the city - Hitler's decision. He had been so upset at the casualties in taking Kiev that he did not want to repeat it at Leningrad. (A feeling he did not repeat a year later). If you follow that logic then historically if the Germans had decided to make a full assault in 1941 they would have taken it?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
What about Leningrad? Do you think it should be as easy for the Germans to take as it has been throughout the history of the game? What historical "what-if" context would you make for this city falling?

Historically it was a German decision to pull back from assaulting the city - Hitler's decision. He had been so upset at the casualties in taking Kiev that he did not want to repeat it at Leningrad. (A feeling he did not repeat a year later). If you follow that logic then historically if the Germans had decided to make a full assault in 1941 they would have taken it?

Could have been a Stalingrad a year earlier You just never know!!

Actually I sort of think that hits the point. After all in the meaningful sense the Axis did actually take the city of Stalingrad. There should always be an option for the Germans to take Leningrad in 1941 - but if it is by direct assault against dug in troops in supply then yes it should be a blood bath.

[daretti]

Germany loses too few tanks during the campaign 41

[Huw Jones]

[/quote]

What about Leningrad? Do you think it should be as easy for the Germans to take as it has been throughout the history of the game? What historical "what-if" context would you make for this city falling?
[/quote]

The Panzers to me seem to move to fast North of the Pskov with a good German player.

We don't want to change things to much, so the extra button regarding fuel supply only for the very good German players initialy, see how that pans out.

Some extra forts appear South of Leningrad in the start up would help, using the same button, BUT in step 2 could be an option.

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain



Ya, the thing is is that Leningrad will fall unless you defend it with just about everything a Soviet has. But these leaves everything else very open. So Leningrad pretty much falls 90%+ of all games played I bet you. I know that is what I see in almost all the AAR's.

As for Moscow if the Germans want to push and take this I give them a good 60-70% chance easily to take the city in 41 if that is their effort. You just need to do certain things to make this happen as Germany. Not for a AAR spoiler but the way BrianG is going he will probably take Moscow. But of course he is unpredictable and may change direction on me.

Keep your eye on forts. I have been the only one saying this but this is a huge buff for the Soviets early game and balances some of what is above.

I don't see how you can say forts are a huge buff but you will likely lose Moscow. If you are going to save Moscow, one would think forts have to be a part of the equation.

Excellent question. I might be overstating forts as a HUGE buff since all my previous games was with no digging at all. So I am used to that being the case and the new reduced cost of fort building to me is HUGE. For everyone else it probably isn't huge. But I do think it is a great benefit over the previous edition and well worth the point investment. Of course I could be totally wrong.

Now for me in the game I reference I used all my points to build forts around Leningrad and just started on Moscow turn 5. So I am behind the build schedule for that since BrianG turned from Lenigrad and going towards Moscow. He is just past VL. Plus I am defending all sections of the Map against BrianG and I just don't have the units at turn 6. He has been Pacmaning my units and just blowing them away with combat. A deadly combo I have a ton of routes this turn along with on average 5-10 units surrounded It is just something I have to survive until turn 10ish.

BTW. The cadres I got for the Reserve front that start with an experience of 14-19 have been in the meat grinder twice now. They have risen in experience to 16-22 on average after two German sustained attacks. In exchange for roughly 250,000 in loses in 2 turns. Sheesh.

While we're at it, for Soviet players contemplating building support units for their forts, I would not suggest construction battalions. Apparently "construction" is an honorary title.



Really???




And yes, it has almost no experience, but even at exp 50-ish it has a construction value of 1 as compared to 3 for a sapper battalion.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[daretti]

Late game is too unbalance. Look old patch tm.asp?m=2792361&mpage=38&key= germany in 45: 1.5 mln soldiers 3000 AVW...

Newest patch tm.asp?m=4280532&mpage=29&key= germans 3.8 mln 15 000 AVW in 1945 its redicules....

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: daretti

Late game is too unbalance. Look old patch tm.asp?m=2792361&mpage=38&key= germany in 45: 1.5 mln soldiers 3000 AVW...

Newest patch tm.asp?m=4280532&mpage=29&key= germans 3.8 mln 15 000 AVW in 1945 its redicules....

You cannot do a comparison on one game. Stef did very well which is why they have a higher OOB - in other games where they do not do well they do not. Remember the vast majority of games do end in a decisive Soviet victory.

[daretti]

ok but 15 000 germans AVW in 45 is LOL ROTFL IMAO....

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Telemecus



You cannot do a comparison on one game. Stef did very well which is why they have a higher OOB - in other games where they do not do well they do not. Remember the vast majority of games do end in a decisive Soviet victory.

This game is all about attacking. The Soviets can't do enough damage when attacking the Super German PZ's. You take thousands of loses for what?...... maybe 20 Panzer Grenader men killed. Plus you should be able to put a modifier in by year not for the whole darn game not to unbalance it. I know for a fact this modifier can be done because the handle was pulled to cause the Soviets extra loses in 1941 from June 22 to Aug 31. Come on already and lets get off our azzes and pull the handle for German Panzers/Moto units to take more loses in 1941. This argument for late years unbalance is getting stale while the Soviets rack up Millions of men dead for a fist full of German Panzer grenadiers.

If you think about it this is the major reason the offense just keeps going and going. These panzers/Moto never have to sit and refit from their losses. The only thing that is holding them back is the fuel.

I think this little nugget had the makings of a good idea and could have gone a ways towards addressing some of this.

15.3.2.5. Fort Level and AFV Damage
There is a small chance that attacking AFV ground elements may become damaged during combat by mines. The probability of damage increases with the fort level, representing the higher density of minefields.

Unfortunately, like so many things in this game, its effect is so well masked that there is no way of telling how far this might be pushed to get better results. If done properly, and I'm not saying all Soviets did this, but anti-tank ditches and minefields designed to disable tanks and covered by anti-tank guns would have an effect. Obviously in 1941 the Soviets should not have Kursk-like defenses, but there has to be some middle ground here. The loss of sapper regiments was done for historical reasons. Fair enough. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the strength of the panzer division was in its mobility and shock effect against troops in the open. When going up against prepared positions, losses were expected which is why the panzers would often try to avoid such locations, and simply bypass strong points of resistance.

[Huw Jones]

[/quote]

If you think about it this is the major reason the offense just keeps going and going. These panzers/Moto never have to sit and refit from their losses. The only thing that is holding them back is the fuel.
[/quote]

Up until the blizzard, the Germans had recieved very light losses.

The problem was lack of fuel and supplies.

Even when the rail lines were close to them on the Typhoon attack, the units involved were only getting 2/3rds of the trains the required, which mounts up quickly.

Is that taken into consideration with the overall fuel/supply situation for the Germans in 41?