Matrix Games Forums

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

"Tarhunnas", how much time and effort (i.e. battles) did yor opponent "Michael T" spend on dealing with pockets he made?

Shameless BUMP! [:D]


Frederik and Michael - can you please answer?


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

"Tarhunnas", how much time and effort (i.e. battles) did yor opponent "Michael T" spend on dealing with pockets he made?

Shameless BUMP! [:D]


Frederik and Michael - can you please answer?

Sorry for not answering. I didn't see you question until now. A have not read the thread very closely since it turned sort of acrimonius.

He generally only spent so much effort as he had to on the pockets, generally bypassing them and leaving minimum garrisons around them.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

"Tarhunnas", how much time and effort (i.e. battles) did yor opponent "Michael T" spend on dealing with pockets he made?

Shameless BUMP! [:D]


Frederik and Michael - can you please answer?

Sorry for not answering. I didn't see you question until now. A have not read the thread very closely since it turned sort of acrimonius.

He generally only spent so much effort as he had to on the pockets, generally bypassing them and leaving minimum garrisons around them.

RGR and thanks for info Frederik!

So... the pockets just died by themselves (i.e. by being close to minimum enemy garrison)...


Leo "Apollo11"

No, they did not die by themsleves AFIK, but he did often wait for a while until eliminating them.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

No, they did not die by themsleves AFIK, but he did often wait for a while until eliminating them.

OK... but his casualties were light and no real strong force was needed for their elimination?


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

No, they did not die by themsleves AFIK, but he did often wait for a while until eliminating them.

OK... but his casualties were light and no real strong force was needed for their elimination?


Leo "Apollo11"

Can't really tell, I didn't study his pocket eliminations in detail. Better ask Michael T.

You don't need strong forces for pocket elimination in '41

Axis Allies can easily do it

Michael, if you can bother to reply this -I think you haven't mentioned this:

Tarhunnas has fought forward, as you requested, so do you think what happened on this game is normal or not? If not, what's in your opinion the problem here?

Thanks for question TD, rather than the crap I keep getting from others. I will answer in due course. Bit busy with a 8 month old baby right now.

Apollo. Isolated units only seem to surrender if they are broken or a very long way from the front. I tend to just keep going forward once a pocket is secure. Eliminating the pocket with infantry coming up from the rear. Generally with hasties. Mostly the Sov's surrender with the first shot if you apply enough force. But the odd unit sometimes gives you a merry old chase. The main rule of the thumb is economy of force. Once a pocket is secure the primary goal is to secure the next one rather than the elimination of any isolated units. Mech are very rarely used for pocket elimination.

Michael T has taught the programmers much about their own game; we all owe him a debt of gratitude. Hopefully some of us will still be around to experience WITE2; btw, will the owners of WITE1 get a free upgrade to WITE2 when it is released?

Hey Mike, I just played the first 10 moves of EFS AGC; any tips about logistics for that game???

Marquo [:)]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Apollo. Isolated units only seem to surrender if they are broken or a very long way from the front. I tend to just keep going forward once a pocket is secure. Eliminating the pocket with infantry coming up from the rear. Generally with hasties. Mostly the Sov's surrender with the first shot if you apply enough force. But the odd unit sometimes gives you a merry old chase. The main rule of the thumb is economy of force. Once a pocket is secure the primary goal is to secure the next one rather than the elimination of any isolated units. Mech are very rarely used for pocket elimination.

OK - thanks for info!

BTW, how were your losses in those battles? Light?


Leo "Apollo11"

@TD, I think Fredrik took the fighting forward defence to the extreme, with a very aggressive attitude. I think fighting forward is possible with a less aggressive stance and not sacrificing so many units with the tar baby approach. I am not saying he should not push some units forward or not make any attacks. Just less so. This is why I wanted the return game, to try a forward defence when forced to do so but with my slant on it.

The forward defence requires much more skill to pull off than any other type. But it makes for a much better game and it should be encouraged by some mechanic in the game. But it is not. Bottom line, the forward defence should be encouraged and the run for the hills approach discouraged. I think the best way to do this would be with some more sophisticated VC, including sudden death for running too far too soon. Equally I advocate for rules or VC that discourage the Axis running as well.

So to answer your question I think the result in our game is normal and expected, considering the extreme strategy employed by Fredrik, and assuming a certain level of player skill on the part of the German. But a German player less skilled or more prone to mistakes would struggle against Fredrik’s strategy.

In my game against glvaca I will be totally free to use whatever defensive strategy I deem necessary. I truly believe with this freedom the game is *unlosable* for Russia, assuming a certain level of competence by the Soviet player. No matter how good the German player is. And to follow on, the top tier of Russian players will always *win* the game if allowed total freedom of action, no matter the German skill level. Note the difference between not losing and winning.

FWIW I think isolated units do die too easily. However I think more should just outright surrender, but the troops who don’t chuck it in should be tougher to eliminate.

@Marquo, I have only played AGC once, so I am no expert in that one. I have played many games of AGN and AGS though. I look forward to the new and hopefully combined AGC/Typhoon game as I think AGC on its own is not that inspiring for the Russian player.

@Apollo. Yes very light if the unit surrenders.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I saw this one a mile away. Everyone has been bitching about mules, and in the hands of TWO players on this site, mules were overwhelming. But has there been anything done about Soviet run away with picket strategy? Not much, other that German players pointing out it becomes a clickfest in 42 and 43. This game is making a point. It's not to side favor for Michael. The personal attacks are worthless. It's to show what happens if the Soviets are forced to fight historically. Because if they are allowed to run away and put silly pickets up everywhere with no consequences, the game becomes a silly clickfest for the Germans later. Michael may have shown that a historical Soviet game is weighted towards the Germans. OK. Now we have something to work with. Balance the game in 41 from this perspective. Run away should hurt the Soviets. Don't run away, and German panzers may be overweighted. Balance somewhere in middle. But don't sit here an try to tell me that the game is fine as is. It isn't. It needs to be better balanced.

[/quote]

The problem with the game and always has been there is 0% reason for the russian to fight.

After playing the computer and reading the rules closely the first week after game went gold I realized that muling was the only possible way to win, because the russian player could simply be a redneck an use the run for the hills hill billy tactic of running for the hills.

Until there is a reason to fight the game will be a joke as far as history goes and not really playable for both sides.

I am not going to waste 100's of hrs playing when the outcome is a given all things being equal.

If their was a reason for the russian to fight forward it would be very simple to balance the game.

The game is played on a knifes edge for the German, but as long as you stay on the edge its an easy win.

The only games I lost I did not mule, vs good players.

The only fix as it has always been is city's must be worth something, this will make the game 100% more interesting and flexable for both sides.

As it is now the game is boring and a waste of gaming time.

Pelton

ORIGINAL: Pelton



The problem with the game and always has been there is 0% reason for the russian to fight.

After playing the computer and reading the rules closely the first week after game went gold I realized that muling was the only possible way to win, because the russian player could simply be a redneck an use the run for the hills hill billy tactic of running for the hills.

Until there is a reason to fight the game will be a joke as far as history goes and not really playable for both sides.

I am not going to waste 100's of hrs playing when the outcome is a given all things being equal.

If their was a reason for the russian to fight forward it would be very simple to balance the game.

The game is played on a knifes edge for the German, but as long as you stay on the edge its an easy win.

The only games I lost I did not mule, vs good players.

The only fix as it has always been is city's must be worth something, this will make the game 100% more interesting and flexable for both sides.

As it is now the game is boring and a waste of gaming time.

Pelton

[/quote]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Now all that's left to wonder are what glaring a-historical anecdotes will govern strategy for the Allies in War in the West.

It is a round robin argument: the overwhelmingly distorted logistical capabilities of the Axis make any forward defense a very dangerous proposition. Why fight forward and not run, given the overly exaggerated supply capability?


Why fight forward when surrounded units offer almost no resistance and simply evaporate, even in the later stages of the game? What possible justification is there to allow a a stack of 3 corps of guards units with a CV of 30 fall to a CV of 1 after being surrounded for one turn? Most games half a defense or give a CRT modifier, but dropping a CV this much seems quite odd.

If the Soviets had a real fighting chance, the a fight forward would be worth the time bought.

ORIGINAL: Marquo

It is a round robin argument: the overwhelmingly distorted logistical capabilities of the Axis make any forward defense a very dangerous proposition. Why fight forward and not run, given the overly exaggerated supply capability?


Why fight forward when surrounded units offer almost no resistance and simply evaporate, even in the later stages of the game? What possible justification is there to allow a a stack of 3 corps of guards units with a CV of 30 fall to a CV of 1 after being surrounded for one turn? Most games half a defense or give a CRT modifier, but dropping a CV this much seems quite odd.

If the Soviets had a real fighting chance, the a fight forward would be worth the time bought.

It's not "Axis logistics" please.
It's War in the East Logistics en toto.

I don't have a problem with your conclusion, mind you - but this idea that it's a problem unique to Germany belies some of what I assert is bias by the people who mostly enjoy playing the Soviet.

The Soviet counter to the problems brought about by logistics in 1941 is to run away.

The German counter to the problems brought by the Soviet run away is...
non existent.

Therefore, if it's pointless to stand and fight as the Soviet in 1941 (which it is)
it becomes pointless to play the game as Germany at all, because the only viable 1941 strategy (full speed ahead in every possible way) forces the German player into a pointless exercise in testing the elasticity of a rubber band.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

@TD, I think Fredrik took the fighting forward defence to the extreme, with a very aggressive attitude. I think fighting forward is possible with a less aggressive stance and not sacrificing so many units with the tar baby approach. I am not saying he should not push some units forward or not make any attacks. Just less so. This is why I wanted the return game, to try a forward defence when forced to do so but with my slant on it.

The forward defence requires much more skill to pull off than any other type. But it makes for a much better game and it should be encouraged by some mechanic in the game. But it is not. Bottom line, the forward defence should be encouraged and the run for the hills approach discouraged. I think the best way to do this would be with some more sophisticated VC, including sudden death for running too far too soon. Equally I advocate for rules or VC that discourage the Axis running as well.

So to answer your question I think the result in our game is normal and expected, considering the extreme strategy employed by Fredrik, and assuming a certain level of player skill on the part if the German. But a German player less skilled or more prone to mistakes would struggle against Fredrik’s strategy.

Thanks for the answer [:)]

On my other game (vs 2ndACR) I had done exactly this: mob the panzers with overwhelming hordes. To great effect I would say. But then Sabre21 had enigmatically said successive lines were the way to go. And this is the strategy I followed during 1941 on my current game (vs Marquo). It basically worked. I always had -at any given time- minimum 3 lines in the center (Moscow he he he). In fact that's what the Soviets did (and needless to say the various lines were encircled and destroyed the same -let's never forget that). You bring your units forward and basically fight and stay.

I am not sure this would have made a difference though (against you that is).

And still, as I have said some comments ago (see above), it is a fact that the Soviet player does not have all the men and counters that were available in the real thing. And this means the players are necessarily on the razor's edge. We could see this in almost every Tarhunnas's screenshot: his mob around your panzers... and nothing left behind. This is living from hand to mouth.

What I don't understand is why they castrated the Soviet OOB & manpower during 1941 [;)]

Said this, as I said two or three times, I agree with you. Soviets should be fighting (and therefore take historical losses) like their historical counterparts... but... fix the logistics, gimme the historical Soviet OOB... Without this I don't think it's fair.

EDIT: on the screenshot you can see the 20th Army positioned on the third line. On turn 27 this army became the 1st Guards Army, which obviously means I was not avoiding the fight. I fought.

"The German counter to the problems brought by the Soviet run away is....non existent."

Not entirely; muling and magic airbases were discovered and developed by creative players trying to counter the run away.

Marquo[:)]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"The German counter to the problems brought by the Soviet run away is....non existent."

Not entirely; muling and magic airbases were discovered and developed by creative players trying to counter the run away.

Marquo[:)]

So let me get this right; I'm being criticized for not having broken the system egregiously enough to counter the Soviet egregious breaking of the Zone of Control system?

Mon Dieu!

The Axis player can do the same ZOC thing with regiments. Not to say either side is right in doing so.