Page 4 of 9
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:16 pm
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: alfonso
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
ORIGINAL: ParaB
That would make sense. But advancing at the rate of the railroad repair teams is sooo WW1...[;)]
Funnily enough I feel more like Haig than Zhukov in my game. you take one hex in every push.
Why dont you try deep envelopments?. It seems funnier, and you will see what happens when you have german Division between your units and your railgrid... And you perhaps will arrive to Berlin sooner
Why dont you try deep envelopments?. It seems funnier, and you will see what happens when you have german Division between your units and your railgrid... And you perhaps will arrive to Berlin sooner
The AI seems to be operating a checker board defense which he just spams, I have destroyed 30 or so divisions in this offensive and forced Roumania to surrender and he still has 150 in the line. This offensive ended up more a test than actual play . In the Winter offensive up North I'll go for a master stroke.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:34 pm
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Smirfy, try a 43 scenario in PBEM. I think you might just be getting a little jaded on the AI. It plays an adequate defensive game. But it's not von Manstein.
A game against a human is far more gripping and free wheeling (on both sides.)
All my playtesting efforts at present are in this late war period, btw, I've got a second 43 campaign going with Bob and some new late war scenarios.
I am sure a human opponent would be interesting and I'm sure you would have to be more careful of CV and expect serious and upredictable counter attacks but presently I'm happy to go at my own pace. I am sure you testers are not oblivious to what might be improved and I'm sure you understand alot of people like these big campaign games because of the the sand box aspect. So you know people like the sand box to have a believable enviroment. So I have faith that you guys will raise a few points and we will see a marked improvement to a premium product.
If things dont get improved in the east the west which beyond a shadow of a doubt will be a harder enviroment to model will end up a pigs breakfast. Just think of trying to attempt with what is in place now to model France 44. You guys had a Christmas release I've done beta before I know about deadlines but now you have time and a customer base.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:06 pm
by Rosseau
+1
And it's a darn good AI still. I just can't commit the time to PBEM, so any improvements are always appreciated. Also, I am a generally poor strategist, so am blessed in that regard!
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:05 am
by jomni
Gamplay-wise, supply is not such a problem for the Soviets in the Winter 41 offensive since railheads are pretty close to all units because of the retreat in the prior months. Distance to HQ's may not be as important as stated by the OP. But HQ still provide support units right? Another thing is that I always put my Army HQ's 5 hexes away from all the units so it really doesn't give the Soviet's any supply woes in 41. But I'm now in March 42 and my general offensive has seen some slowdown... requiring me to rest and refit armies and alternate frontline units. I see a lot of red rail hexes now.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:31 am
by Pawsy
+1 I dont like the checker board defence either it stifles the game. Something needs to be done. We want depth in defence but this is just crazy.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:30 am
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: starbuck310
+1 I dont like the checker board defence either it stifles the game. Something needs to be done. We want depth in defence but this is just crazy.
Thats why we need better mechanics, right now the game has no gravity so the AI (and player) just spams units. If we had proper mechanics would stifle such practice. The old V4V series had a very simple yet elegant supply and HQ range system that penaliased the player for not maintaining C+C. Right now in game a player can string units anywhere without penalty making huge and in depth frontages possible. This just was not possible in reality. You should be getting a distance from HQ penalty after 3 hexs and it should get worse with distance. The penalties for overloading HQ's should be more severe. There should be a better distinction between HQs with penalties for moving the different types. This also means when an HQ gets displanced by a unit moving next to it, it actually effects something
Right now the only brake on the game is units which is hardly elegant.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:48 am
by jomni
Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough?
Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned...
If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz.
Maybe each side should have their own formula.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:26 am
by EisenHammer
I guess that would be nice if the German player would like there HQ performance downgraded as the years go by and the Russians player upgraded.
The Russian HQ at the beginning of the war is about 2 or 3 hexes and the Germans about 6 or 7 hexes. And as the war goes on it moves too 5 hexes at 43-44 for both sides. And then at 45 the Russian are at 6 and the Germans are at 4 or 3 hexes. With the closer to your HQ your units are the more morale, supplies, and fuel you get. And also maybe cut HQ MPs in half to make up for the extended range of the HQs.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:24 am
by timmyab
ORIGINAL: jomni
Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough?
Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned...
If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz.
Maybe each side should have their own formula.
I don't see why this should matter if C&C was properly simulated from the ground up.If it was a problem for the Germans in real life, (as it surely must have been), then it would be a problem in the game.One to be overcome with skill.
I often feel that C&C is very much an afterthought in wargame design when in fact it should be the foundation on which everything else is built.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:42 pm
by MengJiao
ORIGINAL: ParaB
Have you perhaps massively increased your logistics level in the settings? Or have lowered your enemy's morale and logistics? I ask because what you report is so much different from what I see in my current game with the Axis that I can't really believe it. Some screenshots would be apreciated.
I agree. I'm fighting the AXIS normal AI in late 1942 and I find keeping in supply is a major problem for the Russians. To run an offensive I have to check the chain of command, check the railroads and make sure I'm close to my HQs.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:21 pm
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: MengJiao
ORIGINAL: ParaB
Have you perhaps massively increased your logistics level in the settings? Or have lowered your enemy's morale and logistics? I ask because what you report is so much different from what I see in my current game with the Axis that I can't really believe it. Some screenshots would be apreciated.
I agree. I'm fighting the AXIS normal AI in late 1942 and I find keeping in supply is a major problem for the Russians. To run an offensive I have to check the chain of command, check the railroads and make sure I'm close to my HQs.
The only thing that stopped me in 42 was my roleplaying in 43 I even forgot to repair rail lines for a while and was not effected too bad
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:41 pm
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: jomni
Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough?
Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned...
If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz.
Maybe each side should have their own formula.
Existant penalties are practically non existant.
Lets examine what is happening, Units, ie divisions or Russian Corps can be deployed by rail or by tac movement on top of any advance. These units exist without C+C being a problem. Infantry units can march 150 miles thats
150 miles! on foot and suffer a minimal loss of effectiveness in one turn. Seriously a division can traveres that distance and not have to worry about which HQ it is drawing its supply from because the HQ's are irrevelant and be an effective fighting force at the end. Where is the planning in that if "Foot Cavalry" can lie down under the tracks of tanks and form its checkbooard defence no problem. Just start to think the staff work and preperation to have an infantry unit arrive 150 miles distant on a whim.
Proper C+C would get the player to actually spend AP transfering units between headquarters like proper staff work entails to function in a reliable manner.
I dont see it too hard for the Axis to maintain its advance because Russian units will be out of C+C and supply and more esily pocketed if proper parameters are implemented. If the Axis need help, help can always be given.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:34 pm
by alfonso
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Existant penalties are practically non existant.
How have been you able to quantify the loss of effectivity compared to the situation with the unit being in HQ range?
For instance, I see that your unit has 412 support and needs 905. How do you know that this deficiency has no effects? How do you know that the loss of succesful leader checks due to distance has no effects? Have you a "control" Tank Division to compare with?
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:38 pm
by MengJiao
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
ORIGINAL: jomni
Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough?
Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned...
If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz.
Maybe each side should have their own formula.
Existant penalties are practically non existant.
Lets examine what is happening, Units, ie divisions or Russian Corps can be deployed by rail or by tac movement on top of any advance. These units exist without C+C being a problem. Infantry units can march 150 miles thats
150 miles! on foot and suffer a minimal loss of effectiveness in one turn. Seriously a division can traveres that distance and not have to worry about which HQ it is drawing its supply from because the HQ's are irrevelant and be an effective fighting force at the end. Where is the planning in that if "Foot Cavalry" can lie down under the tracks of tanks and form its checkbooard defence no problem. Just start to think the staff work and preperation to have an infantry unit arrive 150 miles distant on a whim.
Proper C+C would get the player to actually spend AP transfering units between headquarters like proper staff work entails to function in a reliable manner.
I dont see it too hard for the Axis to maintain its advance because Russian units will be out of C+C and supply and more esily pocketed if proper parameters are implemented. If the Axis need help, help can always be given.
It's like you are playing a totally different game from the one I'm playing. In the game I'm playing, an infantry unit cannot walk 150 miles and attack at all, nor will it be entrenched at all. If its not attached to an HQ, its not going to get sappers to help it dig in and no support units. Plus, if its not able to get supplies, its CV is going to go down.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:41 pm
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: alfonso
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Existant penalties are practically non existant.
How have been you able to quantify the loss of effectivity compared to the situation with the unit being in HQ range?
For instance, I see that your unit has 412 support and needs 905. How do you know that this deficiency has no effects? How do you know that the loss of succesful leader checks due to distance has no effects? Have you a "control" Tank Division to compare with?
I know because nothing has stopped them, they have attacked every turn since May and fought 300 miles. Lets explore whats happening to explain that this game has a hollow feel.
I had a tank army (6th) behind the lines in reserve ready to take the place of the 3rd when it expended all its energy in this offensive but as we have seen the duracell 3rd went on and on so the 6th was at a loose end. Abandoning role play because things were getting way too shallow for a premium game I decided to test a couple of things with the 6th.
I threw it in pretty much isolated from other units and it was out on a limb so noticing I had Stavka units and other units nearby (100 miles away
) not attached to that front I moved them to fill the gaps. These are units reporting to headquarters not even attached to a front or units directly attached to Stavka and they function just like a unit with an HQ in the hex beside it sitting in a proper chain of command. What is the point of AP's commanders, HQ's etc etc if they have no bearing on the game. Seriously just forget about HQ's and run the thing from Stavka.
Surely what should happen is The Unit coming 100 miles down to support my 6th tank army should have the choice either suffer a huge penalty and losing its ZOC as well for operating so far from its administrative and supply base plus or join with a HQ nearer the action AP dependant plus having to endure a saving roll versus the new HQ's commander to decide what shape it will now be in. That would be an imaginative use for commanders and help simulate German superiority in flexible staff work.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:46 pm
by KenchiSulla
I think part of the issue is the fact that he basicly annihilated the Axis normal AI in a 41/42 winter offensives. The axis cant cope with losses as well as the russians and the units he is fighting are probably pushovers....
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:47 pm
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: MengJiao
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
ORIGINAL: jomni
Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough?
Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned...
If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz.
Maybe each side should have their own formula.
Existant penalties are practically non existant.
Lets examine what is happening, Units, ie divisions or Russian Corps can be deployed by rail or by tac movement on top of any advance. These units exist without C+C being a problem. Infantry units can march 150 miles thats
150 miles! on foot and suffer a minimal loss of effectiveness in one turn. Seriously a division can traveres that distance and not have to worry about which HQ it is drawing its supply from because the HQ's are irrevelant and be an effective fighting force at the end. Where is the planning in that if "Foot Cavalry" can lie down under the tracks of tanks and form its checkbooard defence no problem. Just start to think the staff work and preperation to have an infantry unit arrive 150 miles distant on a whim.
Proper C+C would get the player to actually spend AP transfering units between headquarters like proper staff work entails to function in a reliable manner.
I dont see it too hard for the Axis to maintain its advance because Russian units will be out of C+C and supply and more esily pocketed if proper parameters are implemented. If the Axis need help, help can always be given.
It's like you are playing a totally different game from the one I'm playing. In the game I'm playing, an infantry unit cannot walk 150 miles and attack at all, nor will it be entrenched at all. If its not attached to an HQ, its not going to get sappers to help it dig in and no support units. Plus, if its not able to get supplies, its CV is going to go down.
I have not bothered with support units in ages stopped even moving my artillery all I need is the "Duracell third" and my 70 CV rifle stacks . If the Germans do breakthrough sure I can march units 150 miles to block them and exercise a ZOC.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:47 pm
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
ORIGINAL: alfonso
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Existant penalties are practically non existant.
How have been you able to quantify the loss of effectivity compared to the situation with the unit being in HQ range?
For instance, I see that your unit has 412 support and needs 905. How do you know that this deficiency has no effects? How do you know that the loss of succesful leader checks due to distance has no effects? Have you a "control" Tank Division to compare with?
I know because nothing has stopped them, they have attacked every turn since May and fought 300 miles. Lets explore whats happening to explain that this game has a hollow feel.
I had a tank army (6th) behind the lines in reserve ready to take the place of the 3rd when it expended all its energy in this offensive but as we have seen the duracell 3rd went on and on so the 6th was at a loose end. Abandoning role play because things were getting way too shallow for a premium game I decided to test a couple of things with the 6th.
I threw it in pretty much isolated from other units and it was out on a limb so noticing I had Stavka units and other units nearby (100 miles away
) not attached to that front I moved them to fill the gaps. These are units reporting to headquarters not even attached to a front or units directly attached to Stavka and they function just like a unit with an HQ in the hex beside it sitting in a proper chain of command. What is the point of AP's commanders, HQ's etc etc if they have no bearing on the game. Seriously just forget about HQ's and run the thing from Stavka.
Surely what should happen is The Unit coming 100 miles down to support my 6th tank army should have the choice either suffer a huge penalty and losing its ZOC as well for operating so far from its administrative and supply base plus or join with a HQ nearer the action AP dependant plus having to endure a saving roll versus the new HQ's commander to decide what shape it will now be in. That would be an imaginative use for commanders and help simulate German superiority in flexible staff work.
It's like you are playing a totally different game from the one I'm playing. In the game I'm playing, an infantry unit cannot walk 150 miles and attack at all, nor will it be entrenched at all. If its not attached to an HQ, its not going to get sappers to help it dig in and no support units. Plus, if its not able to get supplies, its CV is going to go down.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:56 pm
by MengJiao
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
ORIGINAL: MengJiao
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Existant penalties are practically non existant.
Lets examine what is happening, Units, ie divisions or Russian Corps can be deployed by rail or by tac movement on top of any advance. These units exist without C+C being a problem. Infantry units can march 150 miles thats 150 miles! on foot and suffer a minimal loss of effectiveness in one turn. Seriously a division can traveres that distance and not have to worry about which HQ it is drawing its supply from because the HQ's are irrevelant and be an effective fighting force at the end. Where is the planning in that if "Foot Cavalry" can lie down under the tracks of tanks and form its checkbooard defence no problem. Just start to think the staff work and preperation to have an infantry unit arrive 150 miles distant on a whim.
Proper C+C would get the player to actually spend AP transfering units between headquarters like proper staff work entails to function in a reliable manner.
I dont see it too hard for the Axis to maintain its advance because Russian units will be out of C+C and supply and more esily pocketed if proper parameters are implemented. If the Axis need help, help can always be given.
It's like you are playing a totally different game from the one I'm playing. In the game I'm playing, an infantry unit cannot walk 150 miles and attack at all, nor will it be entrenched at all. If its not attached to an HQ, its not going to get sappers to help it dig in and no support units. Plus, if its not able to get supplies, its CV is going to go down.
I have not bothered with support units in ages stopped even moving my artillery all I need is the "Duracell third" and my 70 CV rifle stacks . If the Germans do breakthrough sure I can march units 150 miles to block them and exercise a ZOC.
Again, I'm not seeing anything like this at all.
RE: Couple of criticisms
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:57 pm
by Smirfy
ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder
I think part of the issue is the fact that he basicly annihilated the Axis normal AI in a 41/42 winter offensives. The axis cant cope with losses as well as the russians and the units he is fighting are probably pushovers....
Even if this was true and for arguements sake lets say it was even if there was no Germans at all it is still nonsense that I am able to perform in such a way. It is still nonsense that a premium game can be so devoid of mechanics. I love the depth of the data base, I love the map but show me the game. No wonder the checker board defense is prevelant all there is to this is units units and more units. I'm minded just to run a game from stavka to show how pointless every thing is, I'm minded not to build one support unit outside railway construction to prove this baby is hollow.