FITE 2

[Teufeldk]

Good point!

The Italians are never withdrawn.

I don't think we have ever discussed it - so it seems you have hit on a mistake in the game. They should probably be withdrawn after the invasion of Italy.

I don't think it will matter much in most games since the Italians get so few replacements, that they have probably withered away by 1943.
On the other hand - if they are only used to fight partisans, they will probably be more or less intact.

We will implement their withdrawal in version 2.0

[gliz2]

Please don't!
Such things should be left to players via the Options like partisants or effort chits.
And the more of them the better.

In a game of such scale also the scale of probabilities such be bigger. What if the Italians had not withdrawn in '43?

[Teufeldk]

We can make it an option

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Please don't!
Such things should be left to players via the Options like partisants or effort chits.
And the more of them the better.

In a game of such scale also the scale of probabilities such be bigger. What if the Italians had not withdrawn in '43?

All of them didn't.

[FaneFlugt]

ORIGINAL: Teufeldk



The Italians are never withdrawn.

[Teufeldk]

Ha ha

[gliz2]

I assume it is a quite pain in the ass still what I would kindly ask is to give more options to the players.
Like this OP Beowulf. Why could one not increase the air capacity earlier since it's clear that it could have been released?
Or allowing some of the tank reserves (some 800 Pzkpw III and IV) to be released.
There are few options for both sides that could make things more interesting.

PS. If one would like to develop such options what should one read in terms of how to program them and what one should consider from practical experience of development of FITE?

[gliz2]

I would add some thoughts on the design.
1. Trying to artificially duplicate the historical tempo of Barbarossa is futile. Unless House Rules do not demand from Soviet player attacking the Germans there is a big chance even an average player will succeed with delaying tactics till Winter Offensive.
2. The problem is that there is no real simulation of political pressure which was a powerful factor that influenced strategy and tactics. Political leaders were pressuring generals to act (counterattack) in case of aggression. While in game a player can simply only defend.
3. Soviet winter offensive of '41 was not such successful because of the power of the Soviet forces but because of a decision of Hitler which declared no withdrawal policy. Hence currently the Soviet Offensive effects are artificially inflated.
4. Too little in terms of unpredictability. Unfortunately the Soviets players knows that he only need to survive till Winter Offensive kicks in. And then it's more or less game over for ze Germans. And all of this has little to do with historical probabilities and a lot to do with historical programming.
And this is something unfortunately that is almost impossible to overcome because of the game engine.

I wish I could offer some solutions but reality is the issues can only be negotiated by players as the game unfold.
I have the privilege to currently fight against opponent who is also a grognard and veteran of "let's be reasonable about this". However this means things like Soviets not using the Winter Offensive advantage, never checking the expected reinforcement or not following the initial shock rules.

For example the Barbarossa shock rules could be based on reaching 3 out of 5/6 objectives to give operational freedom. Now it is forcing player to go for sometimes useless objectives.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Teufeldk


In 1942 I think the Germans should attack where they can kill a lot of Russians. And that could be in a place that is relatively poorly defended - the Caucasus might be such a place. If not then attack somewhere else

If the purpose is attrition then I would suggest local offensives with a view to securing a good defensive line, keep the army intact and avoid exposing it to serious defeats. Certainly advancing deep into the Caucasus puts the German's head in a noose.

[Hellen_slith]

Sometimes I see entire Corps etc. spawning whole (no subdivided units) while many other times I see replacements spawning as 1/2/3 subdivided units and I have to recombine them, is that because one set is "reinforcements" and the other "replacements"? I let Chelyabinsk go for a while, and then I had to spend about 45 minutes just playing the recombine game.

I wish they would just "wait" until they can re-spawn as a "whole" unit rather than hunting and pecking and waiting for the right units to stack so that I can recombine them.

[Lobster]

While I can understand why units divide due to combat I can't understand why this can't be turned off. [:'(]

[Lobster]

Some of the game mechanics prohibit players from doing things. Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all is so fraught with science fiction implications it's ludicrous. Remove that and the game becomes more capable of allowing the Soviet to do the crazy stuff they did. Maybe a bit more sticky zones of control would help that along. *shrugs*

As it stands now some people play the opening moves until they have it perfect and then pound their chest about how great they are in wiping out all of the Soviet units. Not only this game but the Grigsby one too. How about starting a turn early and allowing the Soviet player to move every unit one hex in any direction. That would take care of the first turn perfectionists.

Don't allow the Soviets to retreat any units in the first turn. If they move at all it's to the front or parallel to it. This is what their standing orders were. Make them stick to it.

Don't allow the Soviet player to retreat beyond the Stalin line before a certain turn. In fact, don't allow them to even go to it until the July 2 turn or until the Germans have met certain conditions. Give them incremental defensive lines east of the Stalin line based on what actually happened historically and based on in game German advances. They never would have retreated wholesale like the way they do in the game.

Do away with the Finnish stop line. Let them advance as far as they can until 5 November. Force the Soviets to defend against them instead of running behind the stop line and lightly defending it.

Soviet reinforcements arrive too early.

There are a bunch of other things that can be done. But you denounce historical measures and at the same time seek historical measures. If you force one side to stick to history then both sides should have to. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Some of the game mechanics prohibit players from doing things. Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all is so fraught with science fiction implications it's ludicrous. Remove that and the game becomes more capable of allowing the Soviet to do the crazy stuff they did. Maybe a bit more sticky zones of control would help that along. *shrugs*

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

Is that so- for the specific situation Lobster is referring to? Where a unit is surrounded during the turn but the attacking units themselves remain at full MPs?

I thought only the units actually involved in combat determined the BTS, and that only the hex where the combat occurred had a BTS added- but I'm prepared to be corrected.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

While I can understand why units divide due to combat I can't understand why this can't be turned off. [:'(]

It's trivial for the designer to turn off. He just gives the unit the "section" icon.

Back when it was straightforward to customise graphics, you could even change the section icon to look like a brigade icon or whatever.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

Is that so- for the specific situation Lobster is referring to? Where a unit is surrounded during the turn but the attacking units themselves remain at full MPs?

I thought only the units actually involved in combat determined the BTS, and that only the hex where the combat occurred had a BTS added- but I'm prepared to be corrected.

See post #103 in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=4&key=

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


See post #103 in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=4&key=

Thanks. This leaves the (reasonably minor) case where units take advantage of the removed ZOC to move through the adjacent hexes. Since presumably the destroyed unit was on the road, that's not much of an issue.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Some of the game mechanics prohibit players from doing things. Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all is so fraught with science fiction implications it's ludicrous. Remove that and the game becomes more capable of allowing the Soviet to do the crazy stuff they did. Maybe a bit more sticky zones of control would help that along. *shrugs*

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

No, it wasn't. Simply advancing a time stamp does not solve the problem. Not sure if anything really can. [:(]

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

While I can understand why units divide due to combat I can't understand why this can't be turned off. [:'(]

It's trivial for the designer to turn off. He just gives the unit the "section" icon.

Back when it was straightforward to customise graphics, you could even change the section icon to look like a brigade icon or whatever.

It's a lame work around. You are forced to make every unit on the map that might break down into a section and deny the ability for the player to voluntarily divide units. Not a good solution at all.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Some of the game mechanics prohibit players from doing things. Completely surrounding a unit and then attacking it with one of the units that has not moved at all is so fraught with science fiction implications it's ludicrous. Remove that and the game becomes more capable of allowing the Soviet to do the crazy stuff they did. Maybe a bit more sticky zones of control would help that along. *shrugs*

This was fixed by the BTS thing.

No, it wasn't. Simply advancing a time stamp does not solve the problem. Not sure if anything really can. [:(]

?? In what way does it not solve the problem? The attackers are hit with the same time stamp as any later blockers.