Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

To attempt to return this thread make to its orginal meanings, here is my take on the subject.

Both sides benefit from regiments/brigades being over powered on the defense. I am currently playing as the Axis in a GC and I am not noticing much difference with the change either. I will also state that this is my first game as the Axis after five or six games as the Soviets, so I would think this is beyond the 'bias' charge.

Perhaps we should go back to the standards that were set in FitE/SE games and just say that non-divisional units should not have ZOCs. This would allow a brigade or regiment to block a strategic hex in a narrow spot but not slow down 30 miles of front. The Axis player could then just speed around ignore them.

Pointless, imo.

All this will do is shift ZOC based defenses to expendable divisions on the Soviet side, which is perfectly possible to do now. I already mostly do this as is.

The Soviet Union doesn't have that many brigade sized formations in 1941. The huge mass of tank brigades and rifle brigades arrives only towards the end of the year. And I for one form rifle brigades into divisions as soon as it is possible in May of 1942 and would do so earlier if possible.

Ultimately, in an army that reaches 400+ rifle divisions, ants just aren't necessary. The rifle division itself is an ant taking the longer view.

It's not that I see a balance problem here, I just think it's utterly irrelvant and would have no effect whatsoever on gameplay in practical terms. It's a solution in search of a problem.

On the Axis side, their regimental breakdowns in defensive actions are most usefully employed in reserve mode, not in ZOC defenses. And I'd much rather have 3 of them than 2 from that standpoint. This change would actually hurt the Axis while making no meaningful difference on the Soviet side. The Axis already has problems as is in the later period of the war when they are on the defense. Let it alone.

Flav - interested in your take...do you think the current German breakdown ability is ok? I have heard various suggestions for making it cost more APs, etc, and given how devastating it can be I would be happy to see it limited in 41 in exchange for a reduction in Soviet brigade power (like you, I don't use brigades independently much anyway). The German regimental breakdowns in 41 seem to just be icing on the logistically overpowered cake right now...

Not only do I think the German regimental breakdowns are ok, they are absolutely essential taking the longer view. They need those breakdowns on the defense.

As far as 1941 goes, the fault lies in an overgenerous logistical system, not the divisional breakdowns. Operational tempo is too fast in this game. True also on the Soviet side, eventually.

The real advantage to regimental breakdown is that the losses are proportionately less; a division of 9,000 men attacked by 90,000 Soviets suffers much more than 3 regiments of 3,000 men each attacked by 30,000 Soviets. Do German units ever vaporize; if so I have never seen it.

Marquo

I've never gotten them to shatter, and only very rarely to rout. They have to practically be shells before routing. (Leaving aside attacks on units without a retreat path.)

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

As far as 1941 goes, the fault lies in an overgenerous logistical system, not the divisional breakdowns. Operational tempo is too fast in this game. True also on the Soviet side, eventually.

Totally agreed...just tough to get to the part where the Soviet benefits right now.

ORIGINAL: Marquo

The real advantage to regimental breakdown is that the losses are proportionately less; a division of 9,000 men attacked by 90,000 Soviets suffers much more than 3 regiments of 3,000 men each attacked by 30,000 Soviets. Do German units ever vaporize; if so I have never seen it.

Marquo

My experience is that as good as it feels to make a German regiment retreat, it signifies nothing. Not sure how it plays into the overall fatigue / morale / supply makeup of a division but against opponents who didn't use breakdown my attacks seemed to have far more impact than against more numerous successes against breakdown opponenets.

In regards to regimental breakdowns.

In 1941 they are useful to cover quiet sections of the front (swamps inbetween Kiev and Bryansk before the Dnepr is breached, for example. They are bad for holding pockets because they can be retreated without much effort. In terms of doing damage to Axis, and not just resupplying pockets/isolating spearheads, attacking divisions is preferable to regiments because there's more to shoot at, so you're spending precious offensive mps to attack 1/3 the targets you normally would. But since most attacks in early 41 are geared towards isolating/freeing isolated units, this to me seems a minor consideration. The real drama of regiments (and the reason I consider them a bad idea for mobile units in 41) is that an aggressive soviet player can tarbaby them which will cause most of their mps the next turn be wasted on reforming, and not advancing. Still some Axis players love them, and I love them for it.

I have no problem with allowing the German Mechs to have two breakdown KGs with ZOCs.

Flav, I think there is a distinction between having a regimental or brigade unit slow down a stack of three divisions just seems worse to many players than a division being able to slow them down. Getting rid of non-divisional ZOCs means you have to have a division or larger to slow down the advance. In early 1941 it is no problem for the Soviets to throw away divisions rather than brigades but after Nov 41 the Soviets will be losing more AP to replace the destroyed units.

It also matters in the current combat resolution where the regiments/brigades seem much more resiliant than the divisions when attacked and have much fewer losses than a division would.

Any Axis players seeing a lot of Soviet opponents ordering up lots of rifle brigades? I keep seeing "Ooooooh these brigade ZOCs are so unfair!" complaints, so shouldn't Soviet players try to carpet the map with brigades from Moscow to the Volga?

ORIGINAL: randallw
Any Axis players seeing a lot of Soviet opponents ordering up lots of rifle brigades? I keep seeing "Ooooooh these brigade ZOCs are so unfair!" complaints, so shouldn't Soviet players try to carpet the map with brigades from Moscow to the Volga?

Sov players don't really need to create any, they get tons of them in, what, late 1941 or 1942? As Flav has said, I think the ZoC issue is really only important in 1941, when the Sovs have relatively few brigades. By 1942 the Sovs generally have enough divisions that they don't have to rely on brigades for this.

In past games in 1942 I have generally used brigades either as a covering force in front of my main line or in a checkerboard behind the main line to help slow down breakthroughs. I actually think that this is *generally* realistic, as it could represent a brigade being broken down into company-sized detachments to defend key points in the rear to slow down (but not stop) an enemy which had broken through. And this is exactly what they are doing...

Interesting conversation.. A few notes though..
The rate of Axis advance that I have seen, is definitely not unrealistic, except in some ways slower than historic, but even there, not by much. The 7th Panzer Division as an example covered 390km in its first 4 days, including 1 day of actually sitting waiting for its flanks to be covered. For the most part historically, the Germans pushed forward with quite rapid speed, up until the point where they began far outrunning their railheads, but even as late as October some units in AGC pushed several hundred km in a 10 day span. These types of advances are not able to be achieved really in this game with carpets of brigade sized units which , as noted, composed in a recent game, begin around 1800men, hit by a 14.000 strong division, take 2-300 losses, retreat one hex(10 miles) then force you to attack them again to move, and obviously with no overruns(the historic result of most of these meetings) a division will only have the MP to do that twice or maybe 3, and end its turn.
That said, there ARE ways around it..for every measure, there is always a countermeasure, and when the Germans "play defense" later, they can use the same rules.
The idea of the game should be to enjoy playing it, work with what we have, etc. I assume this is how muling came into practice as the Axis side working with what they have..the more annoying aspect, is that some players are all for erasing any of the other sides' workarounds, while wanting their own left..personally, I prefer that the developers add things, rather than concentrate on taking things away..people paid a lot of money for this game, it actually is a fun game, but we should have a right to enjoy it however we want, without developers stepping in to take away tools..if you cannot trust the people you are playing against, then really, why play against them anyway?

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

That's my read as well, Notenome. The real Axis problems occur later on in the war. But I personally think that right now the Axis has a significant edge in 1941, and getting past that hump as a Soviet right now is rough.

Against any kind of strong German player I will not play a 41 GC without random weather anymore. This is the only break on their logistics the game provides.

I was thinking about coming back to the game after the latest Beta came out, but having read this post and the two that preceded it I changed my mind.

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Interesting conversation.. A few notes though..
The rate of Axis advance that I have seen, is definitely not unrealistic, except in some ways slower than historic, but even there, not by much. The 7th Panzer Division as an example covered 390km in its first 4 days, including 1 day of actually sitting waiting for its flanks to be covered. For the most part historically, the Germans pushed forward with quite rapid speed, up until the point where they began far outrunning their railheads, but even as late as October some units in AGC pushed several hundred km in a 10 day span. These types of advances are not able to be achieved really in this game with carpets of brigade sized units which , as noted, composed in a recent game, begin around 1800men, hit by a 14.000 strong division, take 2-300 losses, retreat one hex(10 miles) then force you to attack them again to move, and obviously with no overruns(the historic result of most of these meetings) a division will only have the MP to do that twice or maybe 3, and end its turn.
That said, there ARE ways around it..for every measure, there is always a countermeasure, and when the Germans "play defense" later, they can use the same rules.
The idea of the game should be to enjoy playing it, work with what we have, etc. I assume this is how muling came into practice as the Axis side working with what they have..the more annoying aspect, is that some players are all for erasing any of the other sides' workarounds, while wanting their own left..personally, I prefer that the developers add things, rather than concentrate on taking things away..people paid a lot of money for this game, it actually is a fun game, but we should have a right to enjoy it however we want, without developers stepping in to take away tools..if you cannot trust the people you are playing against, then really, why play against them anyway?

You miss the point. The devs take away things that they did not intend to happen. They have the overview of what _should_ be possible within the game. They have the final decision of what they want in as a feature, not an exploit as in something unintended.
I still think you underestimate the capabilities of the German side. Focus less on exploits, more on strategy & tactics.

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Interesting conversation.. A few notes though..
The rate of Axis advance that I have seen, is definitely not unrealistic, except in some ways slower than historic, but even there, not by much. The 7th Panzer Division as an example covered 390km in its first 4 days, including 1 day of actually sitting waiting for its flanks to be covered. For the most part historically, the Germans pushed forward with quite rapid speed, up until the point where they began far outrunning their railheads, but even as late as October some units in AGC pushed several hundred km in a 10 day span. These types of advances are not able to be achieved really in this game with carpets of brigade sized units which , as noted, composed in a recent game, begin around 1800men, hit by a 14.000 strong division, take 2-300 losses, retreat one hex(10 miles) then force you to attack them again to move, and obviously with no overruns(the historic result of most of these meetings) a division will only have the MP to do that twice or maybe 3, and end its turn.
That said, there ARE ways around it..for every measure, there is always a countermeasure, and when the Germans "play defense" later, they can use the same rules.
The idea of the game should be to enjoy playing it, work with what we have, etc. I assume this is how muling came into practice as the Axis side working with what they have..the more annoying aspect, is that some players are all for erasing any of the other sides' workarounds, while wanting their own left..personally, I prefer that the developers add things, rather than concentrate on taking things away..people paid a lot of money for this game, it actually is a fun game, but we should have a right to enjoy it however we want, without developers stepping in to take away tools..if you cannot trust the people you are playing against, then really, why play against them anyway?

You miss the point. The devs take away things that they did not intend to happen. They have the overview of what _should_ be possible within the game. They have the final decision of what they want in as a feature, not an exploit as in something unintended.
I still think you underestimate the capabilities of the German side. Focus less on exploits, more on strategy & tactics.

As an officer who teaches tactics, I should point out that tactics in general ARE exploits..you look for a weakness, and exploit it. Here, apparently, as an example, many Axis players saw that due to super-brigades which back up, as mentioned, one hex each time they are hit by a unit at even 10:1 odds(that historically would and did crush them)..so, the Axis player had to look for a tactic that allowed them to overcome this, someone sat, apparently, and came up with muling(really a rather ingenious idea lol) I give them credit actually as it never even would have occurred to myself. So, it was 'fixed' ie. taken out of the game..as it was not a tactic I would choose to use, it does not really directly affect me, but I still feel that someone who paid $80US for a game, should be able to, if they think they want to(personally, things like that make it less fun for me, even if they work..but I did not buy THEIR games, I bought my own) The developers nevertheless , by this post, seem to have left in the reason that many people resorted to muling..ie, the super brigades which slow down and drain the Axis offense of logistics, forcing them to waste resources in a hex-by-hex attack against many of these brigades just to move forward in a 1 week turn, less than they did in 1 day in some of these areas.
But I am NOT arguing to end that , either.. employing the brigades well, ALSO is a tactic, developed by Soviet players here, and to a lesser extent by Soviet AI, to overcome also less-than-realistic advantages on the Axis part...the eventual logistic drain on the Axis army is nowhere near as bad as it became historically. So my argument above was not "pro Axis" OR "pro-Soviet" but rather"pro player" because I really feel that we paid for this game, each of us, we should not have to keep giving up parts of it..patches should add to it, or fix bugs that make it unplayable, etc, not remove parts that, apparently, at least some people who paid, like.

kg, the point is that most people want to play a game that reflects real-life tactics, not that rewards taking advantage of flaws in game design or programming errors. Are you suggesting that Michael T's recent find of a bug which allows unlimited fuelling possibilities is also a valid "tactic"? Personally I'm not interested in playing such a game...

ORIGINAL: 76mm

kg, the point is that most people want to play a game that reflects real-life tactics, not that rewards taking advantage of flaws in game design or programming errors. Are you suggesting that Michael T's recent find of a bug which allows unlimited fuelling possibilities is also a valid "tactic"? Personally I'm not interested in playing such a game...

Remove the crutch.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

kg, the point is that most people want to play a game that reflects real-life tactics, not that rewards taking advantage of flaws in game design or programming errors. Are you suggesting that Michael T's recent find of a bug which allows unlimited fuelling possibilities is also a valid "tactic"? Personally I'm not interested in playing such a game...

I had not heard of that until you just wrote this..looking around I see it..and good point..I can understand it I guess better with that as an example..I still think however that you should be able to trust people you play against NOT to exploit, the devs should not have to use their time removing exploits...or, perhaps, that is just very naive of me ...personally, I prefer a game people can make what they want of..some people, say, for example, my nephew, buy a game, and the first thing they do, is look up "cheats"..I do not begrudge them that..for myself, I cannot understand why you would want to pay for a game, then learn how to cheat to win it ....but, to each their own. For myself, the challenge is more fun, win or lose, than finding something I can type or some trick the programmers missed, that gives me a million men or something . I would rather have a fun game I lost, than a game I used these things to win.