Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton is also cheating. So I figure I can cheat too.

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't understand. The rules are clear that the first week new territory is taken there are extra movement costs involved. These include but are not limited to:

1) Lack of understanding of the terrain.
2) Unknown of when enemy will be encountered.
3) Road congestion as units are moving in ways that were not predicted in advance.
4) Small scale delaying actions by enemy units that are abstracted.

I understand the rules when terrain is DISPUTED... however...

Let's look at your list. All of those items are good examples of what Clausewitz referred to as "Friction in War" and are summed up in a very famous quote... "Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult."

In his book "On War" he reflects that although a battalion may be expected/calculated to march a certain distance, in War, chance or even an insignificant event can throw that calculation to the wind... friction.

But though the rules you have applied to the game work well in the simulation of combat, taking into account the friction of war, one must also understand that friction is directly correlated to what Clausewitz referred to as "Danger in War." As he writes, "The danger which War brings with it, the bodily exertions which it requires, augment this evil (friction) so much that they may be regarded as the greatest causes of it."

*italics is my word.

Thus friction increases as danger increases. Conversely, friction decreases as danger decreases. It the situation illustrated with the above graphic the Soviet army has retreated. As your enemy retreats, danger fades and with it... so should friction.

Your model is incomplete because it does not include danger. Every time a Sov player retreats a significant distance, you model still penalizes the Axis player because it models friction as though each hex brings with it the same amount of danger, whether there is an actual ZOC there or not. Because of that modeling, retreat is actually an exploit available to the Soviet player, because whether or not the area is contested, the Axis player still receives the same attrition and fatigue even though the level of danger has dropped dramatically.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton is also cheating. So I figure I can cheat too.

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't understand. The rules are clear that the first week new territory is taken there are extra movement costs involved. These include but are not limited to:

1) Lack of understanding of the terrain.
2) Unknown of when enemy will be encountered.
3) Road congestion as units are moving in ways that were not predicted in advance.
4) Small scale delaying actions by enemy units that are abstracted.

I understand the rules when terrain is DISPUTED... however...

Let's look at your list. All of those items are good examples of what Clausewitz referred to as "Friction in War" and are summed up in a very famous quote... "Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult."

In his book "On War" he reflects that although a battalion may be expected/calculated to march a certain distance, in War, chance or even an insignificant event can throw that calculation to the wind... friction.

But though the rules you have applied to the game work well in the simulation of combat, taking into account the friction of war, one must also understand that friction is directly correlated to what Clausewitz referred to as "Danger in War." As he writes, "The danger which War brings with it, the bodily exertions which it requires, augment this evil (friction) so much that they may be regarded as the greatest causes of it."

*italics is my word.

Thus friction increases as danger increases. Conversely, friction decreases as danger decreases. It the situation illustrated with the above graphic the Soviet army has retreated. As your enemy retreats, danger fades and with it... so should friction.

Your model is incomplete because it does not include danger. Every time a Sov player retreats a significant distance, you model still penalizes the Axis player because it models friction as though each hex brings with it the same amount of danger, whether there is an actual ZOC there or not. Because of that modeling, retreat is actually an exploit available to the Soviet player, because whether or not the area is contested, the Axis player still receives the same attrition and fatigue even though the level of danger has dropped dramatically.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Rafo

Personally, I think there is something really wrong here. The Soviet player, Flaviusx, is basically cheating. Call it the "retreat gambit". He is cheating because he forces the Axis player to have to expend movements points just to come to grips. It is a gambit based on the ZOC rules which force the Axis player to "convert" enemy ZOCs, even when the territory is not "held" by the Sov player. That is bullshit.

Actually, as Betchley wrote, the main problem with the rules (at least in 41) is that it allows the Germans to make pockets with thin air by converted hex. The cost of ennemy hex is not much for the German motorized units, but very few Soviet units can cross 3 hex of empty "ennemy" land in their own country, even if the first German is 100 km away.[&:]


In my Opinion, the cost of empty ennemy territory should not depend on moral at all. After all, it isn't truly ennemy. Maybe the game need a special status for "no man's land" hexes.

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It doesn't need to be any faster.

If the area is not disputed... then yes, one would reasonably expect an advance to be faster.

BTW... I bring these things up not to gain advantage for one side or another. Don't really care actually. I bring them up to try to help bring more realism, at least theoretically, to the game.

Perhaps attrition, fatigue and morale could be scaled more robustly based on the distance (i.e., danger) each side is from the other. As the danger increases, so should the friction, just as when the danger decreases, so too the effects of friction should decrease.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Its not cheating.

Its called a strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy

Basiced on the current rule set vs me, Flaviusx is forsed to retreat. I think out of fear more then what was really possible he pulled back way more then was needed and it will cost him during blizzard turns.

We both play the game by the numbers, thats why there has been so little fighting to date. My losses are at an all time low compared to my other 13 campiagns.

Basicly the current rule set favors the Russian player retreating after turn 4 in the south. If you slow down German mech units then the Russian player simply retreats a little slower.

There is ZERO reason for the Russian player not to run in the south. You can nerf the Lvov pocket, but after turn 2 or 3 the Russian player will run, because all production will be out of German reach and if they hang around to fight they just get bagged.

If you nerf German MP's the game will be nothing more then WWI on the Eastern front in 1941.

If I was Flaviusx I do same thing, why fight when I can retreat and have a huge army during Blizzard.

Flaviusx is not the first person to do this vs me. I have fought several poeple that have had 6 million men during blizzard and I have lived to tell about it.

Your never going to get poeple to fight in the south, because the Russians simply don't have to and they never be as dumb as Stalin was.

You can't forse the Russian players to play stupid.

Pelton

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Its not cheating.

Yep...

Made a fool of myself...

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Pelton

throw up a nice flaming post and get someone to refute it.

[:D]

Well, all I can say is that I give up. I bought this game with the expectation that playing the Axis would be very difficult. Only I didn't expect it to be THAT difficult. [:@] [;)]

So I've been thinking something must be wrong here... [:)]

Guess the best thing for me is, like all old soldiers (sailor in my case), to just fade away... shut up, and just play the game.

Cheers and sorry for the unruly behavior.

BTW... I'm really enjoying the AARs and especially Flaviusx vs Pelton. Great game guys!

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Ketza

How far can you get without any fighting and just converting hexes? Would be an interesting test!

The more interesting question is how far they can get just by fighting. Very far indeed. Morale snowballs in the German favor after a while; all those easy wins add up. Conversely, Soviet morale craters and never gets a chance to recover. Nothing succeeds like success.

My own playtesting shows at this point that German losses are extremely low on the offensive. On the order of 300 men lost per attack or less. Even when the Soviets win a major defensive victory, the losses they inflict tend to be minor. German armies post patch are maintaining their strength in manpower with ease, only the armaments bug was holding them back. (AFV and plane losses, however, can be extremely heavy.)

It is entirely possible right now for the Wehrmacht to enter the blizzard nearly topped off in manpower. I don't think this is right.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The German player can be close to topped off but only if he chooses not to go after Leningrad and Moscow and the Russian play gives up the south.

The lower losses are a reflection of game play and not the game engine. Russian losses are far far lower then historical because they choose not to be stupid and get cut off as per Stalin. Do we forse them to be stupid, noper. Why should we forse German losses to be historical if the tactics used are nothing like what historically happened, which are generally Russian tactics and nothing to do with what the German player is doing.

German losses can be greatly lowered by only doing attacks you know will probably win, in other words very few hasty attacks.

Just the threat of encirclement generally forses most Russian players to withdraw without fighting, therefor German loses are kept low. Not because of the game engine, but because of a general lack of fighting or smart game play by the Russian player.

The losses ect are never going to reflect history 100% because most players are not going to follow history.

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It doesn't need to be any faster.

If the area is not disputed... then yes, one would reasonably expect an advance to be faster.

BTW... I bring these things up not to gain advantage for one side or another. Don't really care actually. I bring them up to try to help bring more realism, at least theoretically, to the game.

Perhaps attrition, fatigue and morale could be scaled more robustly based on the distance (i.e., danger) each side is from the other. As the danger increases, so should the friction, just as when the danger decreases, so too the effects of friction should decrease.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)

You'd need to also account for FOW at all times.

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way:

Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time.  The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn.  It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way:

Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time.  The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn.  It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way:

Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time.  The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn.  It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

There is a concept in Soviet military operations of the stability of the defence. That is, it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around.

The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column. In NATO Division Commander--particularly after the errata were released--this was modelled, with a number of possible formations, and the OCS system uses a somewhat simplified version of the same system.

Beck's inter-war delaying defence envisioned the use of motorised machine gun Abteilungen, which could--due to their professional skill and motorisation--ploy and deploy much more rapidly than the French Army. With heavy firepower, they were expected to delay a French advance almost indefinitely. (Some of these Abteilungen were used to organise the 5th Light Division.)

This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods. As Red Army infantry forces approached in column, they deployed and forced the Red Army to deploy and organise an attack. Meanwhile they were ploying and falling back to the next position. That meant that the Red Army infantry was reduced to pursuing about 3-5 miles a day.

This local tactical dance is also the reason forces in contact were limited in how fast they could retreat. They couldn't simply form up in column and move out--they had to leave a screen in contact, and the screen was vulnerable to penetration by the mobile forces that even infantry divisions possessed. They could also conduct a tactical retreat and stay in formation to receive an attack--although once out of the organised position they were much weaker and more vulnerable. The Red Army lacked the training to conduct a successful retrograde, so once forced to retreat, things got messy.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

I understand the concept of enemy owned hexes this way:

Imagine if the game played the game in Real Time.  The Soviet units would be retreating while the Axis units would be tailing them right up to the new line the Soviets formed at the end of the turn.  It is appropiate the the Axis must use more MPs to advance to the new Soviet line than if all that land was already occupied by the Axis.

There is a concept in Soviet military operations of the stability of the defence. That is, it took time for a unit organised for a retrograde movement to deploy and occupy defensive positions, and it was important for a pursuing force to attack that position before it stabilised. As an example of the implementation of this idea in the West, the MG battalion of the late-WWI and early-WWII British infantry division was given the assets it needed to organise brigade and division stop lines--prepared heavy MG positions that retreating infantry could retreat to and organise a defence around.

The game lacks a concept of formation, so the delay to go from a column formation organised for movement to a linear formation organised for combat or vice versa is missing. The shift in formation, by the way, once had a specialised terminology: a unit deployed from column to line, and ployed from line into column. In NATO Division Commander--particularly after the errata were released--this was modelled, with a number of possible formations, and the OCS system uses a somewhat simplified version of the same system.

Beck's inter-war delaying defence envisioned the use of motorised machine gun Abteilungen, which could--due to their professional skill and motorisation--ploy and deploy much more rapidly than the French Army. With heavy firepower, they were expected to delay a French advance almost indefinitely. (Some of these Abteilungen were used to organise the 5th Light Division.)

This tempo superiority was the reason mobile forces in the German Army in the East were able to defend sectors for extended periods. As Red Army infantry forces approached in column, they deployed and forced the Red Army to deploy and organise an attack. Meanwhile they were ploying and falling back to the next position. That meant that the Red Army infantry was reduced to pursuing about 3-5 miles a day.

This local tactical dance is also the reason forces in contact were limited in how fast they could retreat. They couldn't simply form up in column and move out--they had to leave a screen in contact, and the screen was vulnerable to penetration by the mobile forces that even infantry divisions possessed. They could also conduct a tactical retreat and stay in formation to receive an attack--although once out of the organised position they were much weaker and more vulnerable. The Red Army lacked the training to conduct a successful retrograde, so once forced to retreat, things got messy.

All well and good and accurate to real-world warfare. But almost meaningless to game design in the sense that you're only looking at 1 part of the picture: The Soviets.

A German panzer division did not advance in wedge formation covering 20-ish miles wide (for the ZOC abstraction) and 280 miles deep.

If you want ploying/deploying modes, what are you willing to give up for it?

Would you like to lose the terrain that you now "own" when there are open hexes without ZOC coverage by your side? Do you want to give up ZOC conversion of adjacent hexes? Do you want to give up Axis panzer movement points to go from moving to attacking (as many games with move mode/deployed mode do)?

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Constructive criticism is one thing, but all mr. erwin can ever do is claim that this result is wrong! this model is wrong! All is wrong! [>:]

Game development needs people who do, not people who just talk.