Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I'm not convinced that the casualty ratio is right when the attacking force is outnumbering the defenders by an order of magnitude (10 or more times bigger). I agree that it is a sustainable gamey thing to do as the Soviet, the manpower lost when those small units are crushed will be recovered. As the German, holding the line with KGs is plainly a bad idea. Attrition will eat those KGs and reduce them to reinforced battalions fairly quick (especially during winter, where fatigue levels become high due to poorer supply).

The casualty ratio's currently, in my opinion, quite a bit off when attacking smaller units. That's also what makes those NKVD regiments so effective: after the first turn and after they become ready, you're playing whac a mole with them.

I'm also not talking about holding a line with regiments, as the intention would not be to hold the line, but to minimize losses. For some reason, casualties don't necessarily differ much when the Soviets attack a regiment from when they attack a division, whilst your own losses will be much less as the Axis. I'm still not sure how that's possible.

Indeed, I have seen some of those results myself and the only thing in the rules or forums I could find that might account for it is that defenders in Soviet attacks take extra shots at the attackers. But I would have expected that to scale with the number of defending elements, but it doesn't. Strangely enough, I'd say it is more related to the number of attacking elements.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
One of my pet peeves is the (potentially) huge gap in casualties between a failed attack and a successful one, no matter whether it succeeds at 1:1>2:1 or at "natural" 2:1 or higher odds or fails at any odds. The difference can literally be thousands of casualties. It's like the defenders just stop firing at some point, but still keep taking pretty brutal (by Axis standards) losses themselves. We're currently trying some experimental changes whilst Pavel's on his holiday, so by the time he gets back we should've tested the experimental changes enough for Joel and Gary to decide whether they want to go public with (some of) them.

That last paragraph are excellent news, guys. I don't want to repeat myself but the support devs & testers are providing to this game would ashame most companies out there.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

To draw an analogy from an - strategy - wargame I also play a lot: Dominions 3. If the war is going on some other player lands, then it's going well. Period. If the war comes to your lands, it's going badly. Period. A winning strategy is the one that keeps the war far from your homeland the longest.

There comes a point when trying too hard to fight in the RSFSR will seriously harm defensive efforts in later years. For example: if you end 1943 in the RSFSR in some parts of the front, but hold the line with 2 CV units, the Soviets will just steamroll over you in 1944 and you can forget about establishing a line ever again.

Knowing when to retreat towards the west is a crucial skill for the Axis player to master.

The obvious course of action is to hold fast. But the most obvious approach is not necessarily the wisest nor the one that achieves your goal.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The key 1941 game as the Axis is to preserve "future" - not present - forces, thinking about operations that have long-term effects. Such as destroying or shattering many Soviet units - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up experience - and damaging/destroying manpower & material production centers - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up strength.

Indeed. As the Axis I'm more worried about morale losses than about manpower or AFV losses in 1941. I can replace the latter, but not the former. The Wehrmacht consisting mostly of ~70 morale infantry divisions at the end of the first winter is not necessarily a problem. Only having ~70 morale mobile units is a huge problem, however.

Yes, in that way you have the guarantee that no matter what the losses, as long as there are replacements and you can retreat those units to put them into Refit, the replacements will get to the level of the surviving veterans.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Even at the times when the line doesn't physically shorten in terms of hexes that need to be covered, it will shorten in terms of units needed to economically hold an area, as both the Carpathians and the Pripyat marshes don't require a division in every hex.

The line will also tend to straighten, as normally AGC and AGS are ahead of AGN, whilst when you start retreating you'll end up with something resembling an actual vertical line, instead of a diagonal one with a bulge or two.

The marshes are useless if the units to the north and south of them are pushed back. And they will be.

Actually Salient would be a perfectly valid term - Bulge seems an Americanism to my English ears

ORIGINAL: Lieste
Actually Salient would be a perfectly valid term - Bulge seems an Americanism to my English ears

Argh. I'm too paranoid of false friends and sounding dumber than I actually am [:'(]

I played a game called STAVKA-OKH and the victory objectives (sudden death) for Germans is to take either Leningrad and Moscow or Stalingrad and Moscow.  I found this an elegant comprimise regarding the issue we're dabating here. Wouldn't it be nice if this can be implemented in the game, maybe keep it optional? Or maybe a house rule?

I also recommend people to try out the game just for kicks.  It's very strategic in scale.  Turn time is in seasons so the whole war can be fought quickly.  You play STAVKA or OKH.  Each turn, you chose one of three battle plans.  But Hitler or Stalin can veto against your plan.  There is also a roleplaying aspect (supporting or going against your party) which determines your fate at the end of the war.

http://www.rodvik.com/rodgames/STAVKA-OKH.html


Regading the point system: Why hasn't anyone made a custom Grand Campaign utilising the small scenario point system? Is it hard to do (I guess it's the balancing)? If this scenario was present then we would be making both sides happy.

The marshes are useless if the units to the north and south of them are pushed back. And they will be.

Certainly, but by the time you get to the Pripyat marshes, stopping the Soviets is impossible along most of the front, you can only slow them down. Again: I'm not talking about holding terrain, but about preserving forces so that when you get to Germany/Poland and the minor Axis states, you still have an army left that can cause some harm to the Soviets when it's defending. A line of dug in stacks of ~5 CV divisions can cause the Soviets some serious headaches along the Vistula or Oder as they can't really flank your positions anymore by that point.