Matrix Games Forums

Lots of good ideas bandied about here. My take on the easiest ones to implement:

1) Increase the supply costs of deliberate and hasty attacks. The former requiring more of course. Germans would get a bonus on the first turn here.

2) Reduce the capacity of HQs to build up supply. Soviet HQs have less early but grow in time. Germans start high but lose capacity over time. This must be carefully tested to get the balance right. But that's what we're here for, right? [:D]

3) Reduce fort construction rate (yeah, that's another thread, I know) and impose a supply cost on forts > 2. Again, this would need lots of testing, especially in the later years, to ensure the Germans ability to defend is not totally hosed.

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: kvolk

I think to some extent the fuel does this especially with the panzer units by limiting their mobility. Some refiniment of this as it relates to the other two supply items and looking at tighter useage models. Then add in the ability that others are talking about to direct that flow where you want. It would be a whole new sub game to play.

Yeah but directing the flow of supply where you ( the player ) wants it to go is the hard part. The developers might want to have a say in this,.....they know what's possible in the code and what's not possible given the functional framework of the existing game code. Some of these ideas might be easily coded and some of it might just not be possible unless major changes are made. The most dangerous thing you can do to a computer program is change it.

Agreed Larry but I think it is something over time that could be developed...Kinda of how the players can manage the TOE % right now could work with the army command units and stavka/OKH being the avenues for it.

I think that making the 'static' mode beeing used more by players (more harsh conditions for motor pool and/or more incentive for static mode and/or a little less AP to switch) could help simulate the restricted offensive capabilities.

It looks like it's the intent of the game designers if you look at the starting situations in 43 and 44 scenarios where as in the GC you never have to put large portion of your front on static.

I'd really really like to see one of the more experienced players posting something dealing with "how to use static mode to your advantage".  I'm familiar with static mode and know how to create it for units etc.  I'm just more interested in how in the world it could really really be used in the game in a way that doesn't penalise the person using it.  So far all I know is that it involves the gain or loss of AP's and trucks.

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
I'd really really like to see one of the more experienced players posting something dealing with "how to use static mode to your advantage".  I'm familiar with static mode and know how to create it for units etc.  I'm just more interested in how in the world it could really really be used in the game in a way that doesn't penalise the person using it.  So far all I know is that it involves the gain or loss of AP's and trucks.

As far as I know Soviet side cannot go offensive forever they run out of vehicles and morale to keep attacking. I cannot say about German side I have only played couple games with Germans but I think it’s the same. Moving lots of units consume a lot more vehicles from pool in the long run than just staying in one place up to the point that you can’t keep all your units in supply.

Especially moving and using large number of motorized, mechanized and armored units eat away motor pool faster than you can say cheese.

Static mode is just strategic choice to rip off some units from their vehicles to be able to sustain offensive longer in other places. It is just one option for a choice.

ORIGINAL: herwin
It complicates a game a whole lot.

While true, that isn't much of a defence here.

First because the computer can handle a lot of the complexity on its own without burdening the player that much other than a moderately high level direction of resources (I want 9th army to attack, they need supplies this turn, as well as 2nd Panzer and 4th army).

And second, the nature of the material and the way they've already implemented things makes supply extremely important. But they only did a half baked solution that is in the end rather unsatisfying.

Many games covering this period gloss over supply completely (be in supply, attack as you will), but that isn't what was done here. Instead they went with that concept... and then added in all sorts of little complications; supply is important (but how much you get is never complete clear), ammunition magically comes from generic supply, fuel is separate from supply but comes with the same shipment (unless its air supply), differing supply distance in winter and mud, air supply, HQ supply build up, encirclement being independent of supply (still don't get that one), limits on how much supply is manufactured and shipped (but in a completely unrealistic manner that rather defeats the purpose of the limits in the first place), and so on and so forth.

They would have been better off simply saying "if you are in supply, you're good" instead of adding these complications that create a rather messy system that the player has very little control over.

Besides, the primary problem isn't the supply system (even if it is weird), it is that the tempo of the war just feels wrong, and this is an attempt to fix that. For games with 1 or 2 month turns, everyone being able to attack at some point during that turn isn't a huge issue, for a game with a 1 week turn, everyone being able to attack every week for months on end feels wrong.

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
I'd really really like to see one of the more experienced players posting something dealing with "how to use static mode to your advantage". I'm familiar with static mode and know how to create it for units etc. I'm just more interested in how in the world it could really really be used in the game in a way that doesn't penalise the person using it. So far all I know is that it involves the gain or loss of AP's and trucks.

I’m not an experience player but as far as I can tell there isn’t any point to using static mode for either side. Primary because it doesn’t provide any combat benefit as far as I can tell so all you get is the AP’s plus trucks in the pool. But secondary because the Germans have more than enough trucks and AP already, and the Soviets can manage their trucks best by not overloading on Mech/Tank Corps and in the end getting units out of static cost more AP’s in the end.

If Static mode is going to be used as the balance for limiting attacks then there really need to be a compelling reason for people to start using it. Whether it’s a carrot or a stick approach isn’t for me to say. But it could be tied somehow to increasing digging or defensive CVs then that would seem like and appropriate benefit to me.

Going one step further how about consuming AP’s to make attacks? Obviously it would need some balancing but ultimately you could stockpile AP’s that could launch a front wide offensive but it wouldn’t be sustainable in the long term since AP’s are a limited resource. Forcing you to narrow the attack or static units to gain AP’s to continue attacking?

I think static mode is there in the scenarios etc as an attempt to simulate the reality of not being able to attack all along the front.

I like coding for effect rather than the complex 'realistic' calculations which ofter add complexity and little advantage

Perform a calculation each turn to show what percentage of units can be in a 'major offensive mode'

Only units in major offensive mode attack and tactically at normal values etc.

so each turn the player needs to decide which units get the 'benefit'.

For example if 30% is the calculation for that turn you can only switch on 'major offensive' for 30% of your units.