Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


Why not indeed. We have a difference in perspectives here. You play to win, and any tactic that works is valid. The game being played, whether WIR or Chess, is irrelevent, winning is the important thing. I play to win too, but only using tactics that are historical. That the game is a simulation of an *historical* event *is* important to me.

Your strategy is a great one, and can lead to German victory in '41 often. There is only one problem with your strategy: It could not in '41, and to this day it still cannot, happen on a real battlfield in a real war. I don't consider a win achieved by using exploits/bugs in the game's code to be a real win.

Ed,
I think you have been hard with Lorenzo. Everybody in the forum have many years of experience playing wargames, board and computer games. I have played many times the GRD Serie Europa board game (excelent game!) and others and everybody makes the imposible to win but no making tricks or making profit of bugs. I explore the rules to find the key of success and the practice gives the mastesful. Lorenzo do that.
I have played many games with Lorenzo and I think that for him is not the same win at WIR than chess. He explored the game and make a good job and explain here to everybody. If is historical or not is not guilty of him but the game. I believe that anybody in this forum likes to win with the help of a bug.
Josan

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


Why not indeed. We have a difference in perspectives here. You play to win, and any tactic that works is valid. The game being played, whether WIR or Chess, is irrelevent, winning is the important thing.

If I was playing only to win, Íd say nothing. I wrote about this tactic because I think it́s a new strategical aspect (in fact, the first idea of Germans was conquer the Caucasus oil, Stalingrad was after... and a wrong idea).
I hate bugs... and I dońt play this way. I know a Jgpz battalion has the same effect as a SS panzer division in France, but this is a bug, and I dońt use this. I dońt send to Africa any Hungarian or Rumanian division, even though this it́s the best use of hungarian or rumanian Pz division. But I think, the rumanian and hungarian, after the winter of 41, would like rest in France... added to the SS panzer divisions, of course.

But you think it́s not possible advance with only air supply in real world. Well, I must say I haveńt experience about armored armies. But Íve commanded some real operations with air supply (not Ju-52, but helicopters, of course). And if the weather is clear, there is not problem, if there is radio contact and plain terrain. It́s true, sometimes Wéve walked 80 km in a day without water or food, or walked some hours in the desert night without find the damned meeting point. But this occurs sometimes even in the best supplies places (even in the US army, I think).

Perhaps Íve some deformation because my formation and my family tradition is to fight in “guerrilla”.
And I remark: to advance with air supply, it́s necessary total air superiority, surprise, the enemy must not have deep tank reserves, and not to be deeply entrenched in rearguard.
I can think is possible advance with air supply, not so fast as 5 hexes (2 is good), but advance. You can think is not. We can argue (i.e., mongol armies, advancing thousand of kilometers without any supply), but I think it́s better dońt use personal arguments.

Lorenzo! I believe that unit can advance when supplied by air only moving 2 hexes(70km) per week. But from posts in this thread, I got the impression that your panzer korpses were crushing all opposition on their way and there was nothing your opponent can do against it. I think it must be easier for infantry without heavy weapons to advance(ie no squad losses due to 0 supply) but unit moving without ground supply must lose their heavy weapons and tanks because of breakdowns, damages and so on. I doubt very much that 2-3 panzer divisions can fight their way through enemy lines while supplied by air. By the way, how much fuel does panzer korps need to advance? Not moving, no. Advance. 6th army needed minimal 700 tonns of supplies just to stay in place. I guess there was not enough all Luftwaffe capabilities to supply just one panzer korps advancing. May be there should be some easiness for infantry without heavy weapons, may be. But infantry korps also has their vehicles, horses etc which must be supplied, not telling about ammunition for guns. I think one hex(35 kms) per week must be enough for infantry korps advancing though enemy controlled area(if there is no armies it does not mean that this area is totaly undefended because some one controlls thos hexes ). Moving though the mountains without supply must cost many heavy weapons(remember Hanibal losing many of his elephants ). I suspect your 'arguement' about mongols was a joke right?

Originally posted by Josan:
I think you have been hard with Lorenzo.

I disagree with him, but I haven't been "hard" on him as far as I see. If I were being hard on him, everyone would recognize it.

He explored the game and make a good job and explain here to everybody. If is historical or not is not guilty of him but the game.

I agree completely, the bug is in the game, but what we disagree about is whether, after finding an exploit/bug in the game, it should be used or not.

I believe that anybody in this forum likes to win with the help of a bug.

I absolutely disagree. I have made it clear from the beginning that I DO NOT want to win by using a game bug, and Loki's response shows there is at least one other person here who agrees with me. Not everyone here "likes to win with the help of a bug".

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

If I was playing only to win, I?d say nothing. I wrote about this tactic because I think it?s a new strategical aspect

This is what we disagree about. To you it is a "strategical aspect", to me it is a game exploit.

I hate bugs... and I don?t play this way.

Ok, I believe you. The issue really is whether your air supplied Panzer corps is realistic or not. Obviously I don't believe its realistic at all.

But you think it?s not possible advance with only air supply in real world. Well, I must say I haven?t experience about armored armies. But I?ve commanded some real operations with air supply (not Ju-52, but helicopters, of course).

What was the size of this operation? Did it include a tank/armored corps? If it didn't involve a panzer corps then this isn't relevent to the issue at hand. The question is whether a panzer corps could survive indefinitely behind enemy lines supported only by air supply.

And I remark: to advance with air supply, it?s necessary total air superiority, surprise, the enemy must not have deep tank reserves, and not to be deeply entrenched in rearguard.

These conditions that determine whether the tactic can work or not don't matter because I'm arguing the tactic itself is wrong/unrealistic and shouldn't be used anyway.

I can think is possible advance with air supply, not so fast as 5 hexes (2 is good), but advance. You can think is not. We can argue (i.e., mongol armies, advancing thousand of kilometers without any supply),

Did the Mongols have armored cars, or trucks, or tanks whose fuel consumption was roughly speaking about 3 to 9 gallons of fuel per mile, or guns that needed ammunition which couldn't be made outside of a factory?

Ancient warfare can't be used for an analogy here since they had only to worry about food, for the men and the horses. This food was fairly easy to come by in inhabited areas, allowing these armies of the past to literally live off the land they passed through.

but I think it?s better don?t use personal arguments.

What personal arguments are you talking about? We are individuals who disagree, there is no way around that. I haven't said anything about your mother, and you haven't mentioned my father, so as far as I see we're doing pretty well.

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



I absolutely disagree. I have made it clear from the beginning that I DO NOT want to win by using a game bug, and Loki's response shows there is at least one other person here who agrees with me. Not everyone here "likes to win with the help of a bug".

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Sorry Ed, my english in not good I only want to say that NONE likes to win with a bug. Perhaps this is better " nobody likes to win with the help of a bug " and not anyone. Sorry again.Also I dont like win in this form.
In another post I speak about the "impossible" war of attrition the germans can make in 1942 so knowing is unhistorical can I play this strategy?

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



What personal arguments are you talking about? [ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

May be my english is not good, when if someone said I only want to win even using bugs, this is a little... personal.

I see you agree with Saddam Hussein, who thought was not posible supply in the deep desert an only mechaniced division. Do you know how many water needs a man in the desert in combat conditions? When he see an entire modern army advancing, he could protest: "this is a bug, this is not possible". And a M1 Abrams needs a lot of oil, more of a Pz-III.
150 kilometers a week is easy over plain terrain, if there is not necesary fight eavy. And I say, the Luwaffe fight, the armored division only ocupied de groung.

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

I see you agree with Saddam Hussein, who thought was not posible supply in the deep desert an only mechaniced division. Do you know how many water needs a man in the desert in combat conditions? When he see an entire modern army advancing, he could protest: "this is a bug, this is not possible". And a M1 Abrams needs a lot of oil, more of a Pz-III.
150 kilometers a week is easy over plain terrain, if there is not necesary fight eavy. And I say, the Luwaffe fight, the armored division only ocupied de groung.

Wow. I did not know that Desert Storm was supplied by air only.

Originally posted by Josan:

Sorry Ed, my english in not good I only want to say that NONE likes to win with a bug.

Ahh, OK, thats fine. I was worried there for a moment that I was dealing with a really strange person.

In another post I speak about the "impossible" war of attrition the germans can make in 1942 so knowing is unhistorical can I play this strategy?

I'm not sure... If it were me, I just wouldn't play the '42 Campaign at all if it is so screwed up that the Germans can win by a war of attrition, which of course is what the Soviet Union ended up doing against the Germans in reality. If its unbalanced that bad, I wouldn't waste any time with it. There should be a change in the next version of the game that reduces infantry losses of defenders with good fort levels, so that may make a difference.

Something you guys should also keep in mind. The beta team tends to concentrate on Campaign '41 and achieving some historical balance there, in that scenario. The other scenarios don't get much attention, except from our heroic RickyB.

Hmmm, would someone with the 1.1 or 1.3 version of WIR be willing to check the '42 Campaign in it and see if the "attrition war" tactic works for the Germans in that version of the game? This may be a big balance problem in the current game itself, and not just the scenario.

Originally posted by Mist:
Wow. I did not know that Desert Storm was supplied by air only.

It wasn't. The reason for the long time between "Desert Shield" to "Desert Storm" was the need to build up a supply stockpile. The mechanized forces were still supplied by ground.

Now the US 101st did do something interesting if I remember right. They would fly into the country to an uninhabited area and build a resupply base in the middle of nowhere, allowing subsequent units to refuel and continue on. A string of these bases allowed the 101st to go deeply into Iraq. Again however, these forces were not heavy armored/mechanized units.

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:
May be my english is not good, when if someone said I only want to win even using bugs, this is a little... personal.

Ok, you reported it to the forum, but your report wasn't reporting a bug, you were passing along a "strategy" others could use, a warning to Soviet players, instead of condemning it as a game exploit. Really, look at your first 2 posts in this thread. If at first you didn't think the strategy was unrealistic, that's ok, but you've been trying to defend it ever since instead of realizing just how ahistorical the tactic is. It never happened historically because it couldn't happen.

I see you agree with Saddam Hussein, who thought was not posible supply in the deep desert an only mechaniced division. Do you know how many water needs a man in the desert in combat conditions?

Supply and movement wasn't the problem, navigation was. Since western forces have been using GPS for years to locate their position to within a few feet, these forces can go anywhere without getting lost, and reach their objective in a short amount of time because they could go in a straight line at full speed. Saddam and his generals never realized how important GPS was/is to our military. Besides, Saddam and friends relyed on a World War One mentality, while the West relyed on the modern strategies of manuever warfare and vertical envelopment.

When he see an entire modern army advancing, he could protest: "this is a bug, this is not possible".

Like I said, the GPS made this possible. We know it can be done now because we did it in the real world in a real war. We can safely predict they might be able to do it again in the next war.

And a M1 Abrams needs a lot of oil, more of a Pz-III.

Sure the M1 gets from 3 to 9 gallons per mile depending on who you believe. They use a kerosene based fuel called JP8 not oil or diesel. They had tankers following the mechanized divisions to refuel the tanks and other vehicles, but toward the end that wasn't even enough:

Third, the jury remains out on certain performance factors on which data have not been thoroughly analyzed. The high fuel consumption of the M1 remains an open question because the lack of an enemy air threat reduced the risk of bringing fuel supplies forward in unarmored trucks. By the end of 100-hour war, however, fuel demands were noticeably straining VII Corp's logistics system. An observer later told Periscope: "If the unit did not have a top-notch S-4 (staff officer in charge of supply), it was almost out of gas."

http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/gcv/tanks/w0003593.html

So even by ground they were having a hard time getting enough fuel to the mechanized units. Air supply wouldn't have put a dent in the problem even if it were possible today. We don't have planes that can do this anymore - for transport now we rely on large planes that need large, paved runways.

150 kilometers a week is easy over plain terrain, if there is not necesary fight eavy. And I say, the Luwaffe fight, the armored division only ocupied de groung.

Again, we aren't talking about how far a force can go in a week in a given terrain type. We are talking about whether such a force could operate at full potential if behind enemy lines and being supplied only by air.

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

I think there are two issues here:
what is possible for a game player,
and what is necessary for the game design.
My objection to Lorenzo's tactics (and I want this to be absolutely clear as I like Lorenzo) is not that they are a 'cheat.'
They are not.
By using an unthought of capacity of airpower they are a very adventerous and daring tactic which changes the game completely making defence in 1941 much more difficult and in 1942 for the Russian impossible.
There is simply too much rear territory to cover to create a rear screen of armoured units to attack panzers that can break through and charge kamikaze anywhere from Leningrad to Grozny.
That does not mean what Lorenzo is doing is wrong. He is a player and like commanders they must exploit the game to the upmost which he does superbly.
But as a playing community we are also in the position of being designers, or helping designers (Arnaud, Rick, Ed and others), to keep the game on track.
The game is a strategic simulation of the Eastern front and a wonderful one at that.
What Lorenzo does is so devastating that it destroys the balance of the game (and that is what is so wonderful about it), and destroys one scenario (I believe a very weak and historically false one at that) completely taking the game to the level of historical fantasy because forgetting the sixth army, the Germans were not even able to keep their mountain divisions supplied by air in the Caucasus, meaning they then had to retreat back to their supply lines, let alone an armoured division, two infantry divisions etc as a single unit.
As designers therefore I think along the lines of Ed and hope that there can be found a way to stop that tactic because I believe it destroys the game.
Lorenzo is not wrong to use the tactic, but we would be very wrong if we did not try to find a way in the next version to stop it dead.
That is my point of view, and I hope it takes the debate above any remarks that can be seen as personal, to the level of how we want the game played.
I believe it should be historically one of blitzkrieg as practised by the Germans - advance rapidly, surround and destroy and advance again with the limit of advance - which did stop them dead - being their land based supply capability.
I agree with the proposed rule changes by Ed whole heartedly as that would brring the game back to the historically balanced level which is what the aim of the design was and should be. MRB

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:

My objection to Lorenzo's tactics (and I want this to be absolutely clear as I like Lorenzo) is not that they are a 'cheat.'
They are not.
By using an unthought of capacity of airpower ..... MRB

My2cents

You imply that the gemans have the capacity to supply a Pz Corps* behind the lines. Considering their assets and the air supply performance in latter battles (Ahrnm/Stngrd) i think the Germans would have had huge problems keeping just 1 Pz Division in minimal supply.
It is not an 'unthought of capacity', it is an unrealistic capacity.
I feel that most readers love the attention to detail and realism of this game in regard to ground and air units. We should be just as demanding in what those same ground and air units can actually do in the real world.

I make the statement

" Had Hitler ordered a Pz Corps* to slip behind the lines and stay there on air supply.....
I would stand beside Guderian and Manstein and echo their reply that it simply WAS NOT POSSIBLE "

Nick

* That is at least, 2PzDv 1MtDv +3Support.
(1500 to 2000 vehicles, 75,000 men)

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:

* That is at least, 2PzDv 1MtDv +3Support.
(1500 to 2000 vehicles, 75,000 men)

Keep in mind the distinction between motorized and unmotorized divisions. A single "light" infantry division could be supplied very well, if you own the skies above it. The air supply of the 101st Airborne in Bastogne is a good example. In this case the supplies consisted of mainly just food and small arms ammunition. A motorized division on the other hand is very different because it requires a huge amount of fuel to keep it going, along with a steady stream of vehicle/tank/engine parts, lubricants, replacement tank treads, tires, etc.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



Keep in mind the distinction between motorized and unmotorized divisions. A single "light" infantry division could be supplied very well, if you own the skies above it. The air supply of the 101st Airborne in Bastogne is a good example. In this case the supplies consisted of mainly just food and small arms ammunition. A motorized division on the other hand is very different because it requires a huge amount of fuel to keep it going, along with a steady stream of vehicle/tank/engine parts, lubricants, replacement tank treads, tires, etc.

Plus of course the USAAF in late 1944 was the strongest and most balanced airforce in the war. In terms of size, quality, training etc it had no equal. Even if say a couple of Patton's tank divisions had been trapped at Bastogne it could have kept them easily supplied.

definitely not possible for the Germans to supply panzer division plus two infantry in a corps. Historically unrealistic and in the game unplayable as an opponent in 1942 scenario.
Definitely not a tactic I would use although I cannot blame others for using it.
Would like it elimitated though along the lines of Ed's suggestions.
If Germans could not air supply single mountain divisions for an attack by air, how could they possible supply repeated panzer units in endless attacks lasting months on end?

I have forgotten where the discussion over the Demyanisk pocket began but I will continue here as it is relevant. 6 divisions surrounded, including Totenkopf, in total 95,000 men and 20,000 horses. The Germans were surrounded in January 1942 and survived until Spring, when a corridor to the West was opened.
AT the highpoint the Luftwaffe was able to airlift 300 tonnes per day, but later it was much less than that (half). The Germans survived only just, and Totenkopf which stayed in the bridgehead was totally decimated and lost two thirds strength.
No major offensive activity was undertaken. All they could do was hold on for their lives and this in a front which was only tens of miles, not hundreds as in the Caucasus or Stalingrad case, from the German lines.
I rest my case about German airlift capabilities and the capacity of the Germans to attack using air supply alone.

Isn't that the point? It can be done in WIR. If everything in the game is tied directly to what happened historically, then why bother turning on the computer? I'll just go down to the local library and pick up a book on the Russo-German War and read about it. Or slap in Cross of Iron in the DVD player and watch it again.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



If it were possible, don't you think it would have happened historically? If it were that easy to supply a armored/motorized corps by air, the Germans would have scraped up all the bombers and transports they had to provide air supply, and would have sent 3 or 4 panzer korps screaming "Banzi!" and heading straight for Moscow and/or Leningrad, ignoring their flanks, relying solely on air supply for movement and combat.

In reality, whether in 1941 or today, show me a full strength armored/mechanized corps, out of ground supply and only receiving air supply, moving and fighting continuously, losing little equipment due to being unsupplied, and doing this for 3 months behind enemy lines, and I'll shut up.

It can't be done, never has been done, plain and simple, except in WiR.

Now if we're talking about a single unmotorized infantry division then that may be a different story, but here you have the problem that the unit isn't strong enough to handle the enemy it meets on the way to its objective, and once it gets there, it can be defeated by the presence of just a single enemy infantry division garrisoning that location.

[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

I'm with you on this issue Ed. I also don't like to win by a bug. But I also think that this particular strategy in discussion is not necessarily a bug issue. I reinterate, if the Luftwaffe can be used in sufficient strength to keep a unit in SL 0 with a high enough readiness not to incure equipment losses, and with no combat, then I think it's a valid strategy. If the unit is incurring losses due to combat or low readiness and airlift replaces lost equipment, then it is a definite bug.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



I absolutely disagree. I have made it clear from the beginning that I DO NOT want to win by using a game bug, and Loki's response shows there is at least one other person here who agrees with me. Not everyone here "likes to win with the help of a bug".

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Guess you've never seen what a squadron of C-130's can do in lift capabilities. The whole purpose of there design was to takeoff/land on any surface and if they can't land, the old back door opens up and you roll the stuff out as you go by. They kept Khe Sahn alive for a few months. Not the same as an armored army, but it is feasible.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



Again, we aren't talking about how far a force can go in a week in a given terrain type. We are talking about whether such a force could operate at full potential if behind enemy lines and being supplied only by air.

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]