Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: henri51
So although some players can indeed "win" the game against the AI, it seems that no one can achieve what the real Germans would have considered a win, that is destroy the Soviet Army. I think that aside from all the heated rhetoric, this is what is being argued: unless one is a fan of playing fighting retreats, playing the Germans in this game is "no fun" after the original Blitzkrieg peters out.

There are players that also enjoy the defensive phase of the GC for Axis, including me! Seems like a lot of players dismiss that possibility.

In fact, I would bend as far as to say that this phase is the one that requires a lot more skill of an Axis player than what I so disrespectfully could call my 41 "bowling runs". Not that the 41 campaign is really that easy for Axis, you can make a lot of mistakes that can cost you dearly later, but once you have learned your rules, playing with the initiative (in contrast to having only the chance to set up in the main avenue of approach and use reserve mode, but nothing like reaction moves when being the watching player) while the Russians are so weak that they barely can do more than ZOC locks and a few local counterattacks, feels a lot more "controllable".

If, however, you only derive your fun in games from offensive Axis play, or don't like strongly disparate contests, than the Eastern Front at this level is probably not your best bet. You might have more fun with the WitW 1939-42 once 2by3 get to that.

ORIGINAL: henri51
Now in fact there have been historians (and German Generals - including Manstein) that claimed that the Germans COULD have won the war if they had avoided certain mistakes (like splitting AGS between the Caucasus and Stalingrad). But as far as i can tell, the game makes no allowance for any such possibility: I could be wrong, but I don't think that any German player will ever get close enough to Stalingrad to have to make that choice - nor will he be able to make the choice between encircling Kiev or going for Moscow.

Well, considering on the reverse how far you would have to weaken the Red Army by setup or rules for the Germans to be able to win, it doesn't seem like it was ever in the cards. Even Lend-and-Lease is fixed in this game, but I would be certain that it would have been expanded and accelerated if the Germans had been as successful in history as they are in many AARs here: Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov, and huge offensive power left in 42. It seems very unlikely, but of course for everything there is a finite chance. Whatever its magnitude.

Henri51, a lot of games are being decided in the 41-2 period right now and never even reach the late war period. There's a fair number of Axis blowouts going on. That is why I am bemused by Helio's stance on the entire subject, which seems like it is about 2 versions old. We've come a long ways since even 1.04.

Once the Axis player figures out how to game the logistics, it's very difficult to prevent blowouts in the first couple of years. It can be done, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is the Soviet side which is the harder one to play in these circumstances. The logistical model of the game heavily favors the offense (this is also true in the late war period for the Soviets, if a game gets that far.)

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Henri51, a lot of games are being decided in the 41-2 period right now and never even reach the late war period. There's a fair number of Axis blowouts going on. That is why I am bemused by Helio's stance on the entire subject, which seems like it is about 2 versions old. We've come a long ways since even 1.04.

Once the Axis player figures out how to game the logistics, it's very difficult to prevent blowouts in the first couple of years. It can be done, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is the Soviet side which is the harder one to play in these circumstances. The logistical model of the game heavily favors the offense (this is also true in the late war period for the Soviets, if a game gets that far.)

I must have missed something or those games are not being put on the AAR list. Could you point me to one of those AARs where the Germans are clearly crushing the Soviets after the 1942 blizzard?

As has probably been mentioned multiple times, the biggest single factor of difficulty for the Germans in this game is the devastating Blizzard effects. Perhaps an option to tone this down a bit (historical or not) might help to appease those like me who would rather leave the chore of fighting defensive battles to the AI...

I have to say I have the highest admiration for those who have mastered the ins-and-outs of this game (I am not one of them). I have been spending some time watching video courses on Itune U on Einstein's theory of General Relativity by a Stanford professor, and I find it somewhat simpler than this game [:D]

Henri

Check out any of Micheal Ts games. He has never even reached 1942, his opponents have always resigned. He's basically found a way to bypass the entire logistical system and none of his Soviet opponents have figured out how to deal with that.

Pelton has also done well in a number of his games.

The only remotely competitive midwar game going on right now than I can think of is between Q-ball and Smokingdave, and frankly I think Q-ball's Wehrmacht has the edge even in that one.

ORIGINAL: janh
Besides, the effects that for e.g. a 4 vs. a 5 div Korps has, are being a bit exaggerated in this respect. The penalties, given the excellent officers and die rolls you enjoy already over the Soviets as Wehrmacht, are really not that big in comparison to the advantage in CV that Wehrmacht counters in 41 have over the Soviets anyway.

I have a point around that, which is that to what I know we don't really know the actual penalties for exceeding the CP limit. Consider these paragraphs from 11.3.1:

(a) "Leaders of headquarters units where the number of attached units exceeds the command capacity (7.6.2) will have their chances of making the leader rating check reduced with the more excess units, the less the chance of a successful check"

(b) "Approximately one admin point is subtracted from the leader’s admin rating for every ten percent the HQ unit is below its TOE support squad strength, with a max reduction of five points"

Paragraph (b) tells us something, and that's great, I understand it completely. Paragraph (a) is completely useless for me, because it doesn't tell me anything. If there was some operation that is checked only from CP value, I could have a sense of much an impact it is, but the way things are, each operation involves an undefined number of undefined checks, so I have no idea what is the actual effect of CP overload compared to the other checks.

So, say, can I compensate exceeding CP by 10 by getting a leader with 1 more admin points? Or does that need +10 xp? Is exceeding CP by 1 any noticeable? If my units aren't getting any replacements, is that because their front exceeds its CP by 100, or is that because their leader sucks, or is there a bug around?

I have no idea about any of those questions, and that's because some checks are pretty well detailed in the manual, while other checks are just left rotting in the dark - just like in WITP. But I know Gary's secret. The checks do not depend on CP - they depend on elves, fairies and hobgoblins - so panzers have level 33 flying hobgoblins which do well while there are pumpkins around, but they get beaten by the winter fairies - and then the panzer do badly. All perfectly understandable, just wait for my level 54 elf Zhukov.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
This is how kampfgruppen worked. As War in the East stands, it is the Soviet who has the ability to create Kampfgruppen in the field, while Germany cannot.

Most German Kampfgruppen were on the Bn or Regt level. It was a significant deal to swap Divisions between Corps. It's not something you can do on a daily basis 'on the fly'. As for the cost for the Soviets to swap Divisions, early war Rifle Divisions are mostly weak, semi-controlled mobs. These aren't well trained staffs with a large communication or logistics requirement. What you also seem to avoid discussing, is that later war Soviet Corps (much closer in strength to German Divisions) cost 8-16 APs to swap around, something which can become prohibitively expensive.

The Axis player can add SUs to divisions. The Russian player can't.

So attach a tank and artillery SU to a division and you have your KG.

Yeah, it was mostly at the battalion level, but it could range from company to corps.

So where does this "Germany can't" come from.

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: janh
Besides, the effects that for e.g. a 4 vs. a 5 div Korps has, are being a bit exaggerated in this respect. The penalties, given the excellent officers and die rolls you enjoy already over the Soviets as Wehrmacht, are really not that big in comparison to the advantage in CV that Wehrmacht counters in 41 have over the Soviets anyway.

I have a point around that, which is that to what I know we don't really know the actual penalties for exceeding the CP limit. Consider these paragraphs from 11.3.1:

(a) "Leaders of headquarters units where the number of attached units exceeds the command capacity (7.6.2) will have their chances of making the leader rating check reduced with the more excess units, the less the chance of a successful check"

(b) "Approximately one admin point is subtracted from the leader’s admin rating for every ten percent the HQ unit is below its TOE support squad strength, with a max reduction of five points"

Paragraph (b) tells us something, and that's great, I understand it completely. Paragraph (a) is completely useless for me, because it doesn't tell me anything. If there was some operation that is checked only from CP value, I could have a sense of much an impact it is, but the way things are, each operation involves an undefined number of undefined checks, so I have no idea what is the actual effect of CP overload compared to the other checks.

So, say, can I compensate exceeding CP by 10 by getting a leader with 1 more admin points? Or does that need +10 xp? Is exceeding CP by 1 any noticeable? If my units aren't getting any replacements, is that because their front exceeds its CP by 100, or is that because their leader sucks, or is there a bug around?

I have no idea about any of those questions, and that's because some checks are pretty well detailed in the manual, while other checks are just left rotting in the dark - just like in WITP. But I know Gary's secret. The checks do not depend on CP - they depend on elves, fairies and hobgoblins - so panzers have level 33 flying hobgoblins which do well while there are pumpkins around, but they get beaten by the winter fairies - and then the panzer do badly. All perfectly understandable, just wait for my level 54 elf Zhukov.

When games were simpler some of the combat formulas in Gary's work would be right in the manual. This product may be sufficiently complex to the point that getting the exact formula for some calculation takes work to hunt down, and perhaps even Gary forgets what he's exactly done? Joel even made the point that he looked at some of the coding and it gave him a headache.

This example in section 11.3.2 might help with the command capacity question re leader checks (it's not easy to figure out, but you can calculate it if you take the time):

Game Play Info: Leader check example: Let’s say a German combat unit
is attached to a Corps HQ unit with a leader initiative rating of 6 and the
corps HQ unit has 11 command points (CP) worth of units attached to it
and as a Corps HQ unit it has a command capacity of 8 CP. So the first
test for the unit making an initiative rating check is to see if random (10+
(11-8))<6. If random (13)<6 the leader rating check for the combat unit
passes. If the leader fails the check, then the leader in the next HQ unit
up the chain of command conducts an initiative rating check. Let’s say
that it is an Army HQ unit that is 10 hexes from the combat unit, has 22
command points worth of units attached and as an Army HQ unit it has a
command capacity of 24 CP, and a leader with an initiative of 7. The check
would be to see if random (20 + 0 {due to command capacity not being
exceeded} + (11/2) {because army HQ units have a range modifier value
of 2}) < 7. Or random(25) <7. (Values are rounded down). As you go up
the chain of command, the base value of 10 doubles each time you go up
a HQ level. If the Army HQ unit leader rating check failed, then the Army
177
Group HQ unit leader would try and the base would be 40, although since
it is a higher level HQ, the range effect divisor will be 3 instead of 2. If the
Army Group check fails, then OKH makes a check. As you go up the chain,
the chance to make the check goes down a lot due to the doubling. Also,
note that if the unit reported to an Army instead of a corps, then the first
check would still be made using a base of 10 and no range modification. If
it failed, then the Army Group would check with a base of 20 (10 doubled).
Clearly with each HQ up the chain, the chance of the HQ passing the test
goes down. The advantage of having a unit attached at the lowest level
is that the unit has more HQ units in the chain, only one of which must
pass the check.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
This example in section 11.3.2 might help with the command capacity question re leader checks (it's not easy to figure out, but you can calculate it if you take the time):

I stand corrected - that's a pretty good explanation there.

From that, I think that the chances of success for those leader checks are:

1st chance: leader_rating / ( 10 + (CP-CC))
2nd chance: leader_rating / ( 20 + (CP-CC) + distance/divider )
3rd chance: leader_rating / ( 40 + (CP-CC) + distance/divider )

Therefore, exceeding CP by 10 at any level will halve the chance of getting a first-chance check at that level. That is, if an unit is attached to an Army Group and the leader has a rating of 8, then 10 excess CP makes the check to be the same as if the leader had a rating of 4.

That is, exceeding CP by 10 is terrible for all units attached to that HQ, whatever its level. It is the same thing as decreasing the leader stats by 50%.

Meanwhile, for second-chance checks on the same HQ (due to failures on lower HQ checks), the penalty is smaller but still big. If the second-level HQ is an Army and is 10 hexes away, then distance/divider = 5, so for excess in CP of 10:

Without the CP penalty, the chance of success is: rating / (20+5) = rating / 25
With the CP penalty, the chance of success is: rating / (20+10+5) = rating / 35 = (rating * 25/35) / 25

So the effect is apparently same as decreasing the leader rating by 30%. The relative effect is higher at smaller ranges.

This seems to make the case for never exceeding a HQ's CP, as exceeding it even by 1 is the same thing as decreasing the leader stats by 10% for any first-chance checks done in that HQ (and some 6% for second-chance checks, and perhaps 3% for third-chance checks, all that depending on the distance).