Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

I agree with vic, glvaca...I have no problem withdrawing, myself..my problem is that the game assumes I dont withdraw, assumes I make the same errors historically made, withdraws divisions lost at Stalingrad, for example, even if I dont lose them there, hits my TOE assuming I lost heavily in the first winter, even if I avoided that, etc. I say let the ongoing game decide the future game..if I am being hammered, I am being hammered, the game will punish me for it..but if I am winning, I should not still be punished for choices that I avoided doing, just because the historic command made them.

So Kg, let me get this right. If I pull the entire German Army behind the x54 lines on the map prior to the blizzard so they aren't subject to the blizzard rule, , which is probably a dumb thing to do but might be interesting to try, I still lose TOE from the units?

hmmm, no disrespect intended towards your opponent, but he hardly seems to know his stuff. You probably need to find a good German to get a challenging game.
I understand you're overstating your case because you seem genuinly disspointed in some aspects of the game but I don't think you know many of the subjects you raise have been hashed over many times a long time ago.
As a result many things were tuned down, forts, the Blizzard effects (forts help, january increase of defense strength), manpower ratio's for the Germans (up) and the Soviets (down), hiwi's, quick rebound for the Germans in March, etc...

A lot has already been changed in favor of the Axis, I hate to think what you would have said 6 months ago!
Take a break from the game is my advice, it's unlikely anythings going to change anytime soon.

Glav, you are probably right on the money.

My German opponent isn't doing much different than anyone else. If you don't put units against the line, everything on the front line is set to reserve and therefore can participate in nearby battles up to 6 hexes away. So extreme concentration of German forces can be counter-productive in the face of triple lines of defense in reserve mode. There's no penalty for being in reserve mode, so why not put everything into it?

One thing I would say in reading this forum for the last few months, I don't believe these issues were truly hashed out. I do admit that some balancing mechanisms have been put into the game and it's truly hard to think that things were worse for the Germans. However, there's complaints to this day about opening German moves and mules. The cases for using mules and the opening move is based on many other outstanding issues, yet to be addressed.

I doubt things will change. I'm hoping that the devs realize that there are still imbalance issues as well as problems in the combat mechanics and work to address them in either future patches or next version of the game.

And yes, I'll be taking an extended break from the game. I've been belaboring the same points for 3-4 days now. I've pretty much burned through the frustration.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Glav, you are probably right on the money.

My German opponent isn't doing much different than anyone else. If you don't put units against the line, everything on the front line is set to reserve and therefore can participate in nearby battles up to 6 hexes away. So extreme concentration of German forces can be counter-productive in the face of triple lines of defense in reserve mode. There's no penalty for being in reserve mode, so why not put everything into it?

One thing I would say in reading this forum for the last few months, I don't believe these issues were truly hashed out. I do admit that some balancing mechanisms have been put into the game and it's truly hard to think that things were worse for the Germans. However, there's complaints to this day about opening German moves and mules. The cases for using mules and the opening move is based on many other outstanding issues, yet to be addressed.

I doubt things will change. I'm hoping that the devs realize that there are still imbalance issues as well as problems in the combat mechanics and work to address them in either future patches or next version of the game.

And yes, I'll be taking an extended break from the game. I've been belaboring the same points for 3-4 days now. I've pretty much burned through the frustration.

Well, taking a break is certainly a (good) option. Another is playing a very good German. I still recommend you play MichealT to get a good view on the problems the Soviet face when pressed. It will certainly balance your opinions and test them to see if they are indeed right.

MichaelT mules. That's the great equalizer in this game and in his hands, swings the game to the German side.

What I'm talking about, and I've tried to be clear about this in almost every post over the last few days, is what happens if the German player doesn't mule. People are up in arms over mules and the german opening. Well, the cases to use both of these tactics is based on the game being unbalanced if you DON"T do these two things.

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

The German army did fine in nearly as poor conditions in the west in '44, primarily in the Ardennes.

In 1944 the Germans were not deep into Soviet territory with all the logistical constraints that entailed.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

LOL, I didn't even know that. Don't do Stalingrad and you still lose the troops. OMG.

Can you point that out in the withdrawl schedule?

ORIGINAL: vicberg

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

What Hitler rule is built into the game? Where in the manual can I find it?

LOL. You won't find it. It's the fact that there's no choice over Hitler's decision to not send winter clothes and better prepare for winter in spite of the advice of his generals. There's no way to mitigate the first blizzard rules.

Translation: I won't find it because it doesn't exsist. So the claim of a Hitler rule is false.

Oh, BTW, it isn't Hitler's fault that instead fo capturing Russian trains intact the troops shot them up. Nor is it his fault about the state of Russian "roads".

Oh, and unlike his generals, *you* decide when and where to stop moving east.

94th infantry destroyed Stalingrad--- withdrawn 4/8/43
305th infantry destroyed Stalingrad 1/43--- withdrawn 3/4/43
3rd Motorized Infantry Division destroyed Stalingrad early 43--- withdrawn May 43

XIV panzer corp destroyed Stalingrad--- withdrawn 4/43
29th Motorized Infantry Division destroyed Stalingrad---- withdrawn 5/43
60th Motorized Infantry Division destroyed Stalingrad---- withdrawn 5/43
297th infantry destroyed Stalingrad---- withdrawn 6/10
295th infantry destroyed Stalingrad---- withdrawn 7/15
71st infantry destroyed Stalingrad ----withdrawn 8/5/43
LI corp destroyed Stalingrad -----withdrawn


These units were destroyed at Stalingrad and withdrawn from the game at the above dates. The issue is that these units were not historically withdrawn, but reconstituted (rebuilt using the number, but very few if any of the original troops).
These units are lost to the Axis player not because they were sent west, but because they were destroyed. Not one of the above units (and 2 HQs)was "withdrawn" historically from the eastern front. The issue is a bit technical, but represents the argument being made.

A number of German divisions destroyed at Stalingrad are not "withdrawn" from the game. This includes all the panzer divisions even though the 16th panzer was rebuilt and did serve some time in Italy before returning to the eastern front.

From the Axis side those 2 HQs can be huge. In 1943 who wants to lose divisions in the face of a growing enemy?

Some may think it is a non issue, others think that it is. For me the issue is a bit technical and not a real big deal to me. It can be argued either way. Even though those divisions represent an entire armies strength. Instead of taking a compromise and withdrawing only half they withdraw them all. They withdraw the full division not just an empty shell to be refilled in Germany.I think that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to what I would like to see changed. To each his own.


Aurelian don't play stupid you should know full well what the argument is. Agree or not, you know what the argument is.

How do different players come to the same results about being tied to Hitler? This is not the first time that this has come up. Is there something to it? For you no, for others yes. It is a valid description of an observation. Agree or not.

How can you withdraw a unit that was never "withdrawn"?

ORIGINAL: vicberg

MichaelT mules. That's the great equalizer in this game and in his hands, swings the game to the German side.

What I'm talking about, and I've tried to be clear about this in almost every post over the last few days, is what happens if the German player doesn't mule. People are up in arms over mules and the german opening. Well, the cases to use both of these tactics is based on the game being unbalanced if you DON"T do these two things.

I don't think many people have a problem with the "standard" Lvov opening, it's just the new version people have concerns with. By the way, I use the Lvov as German too but would not use the new version. The difference is between the 2 is actually not that big in terms of units lost, but it does make a difference so early in the game. However, I doubt it will determine a win or loss.

Muling, well, I'm not really all that concerned about as a good German can almost achieve the same results by good planning and air resupply drops on HQ's. Strategy is much more important than people are willing to give the game credit for, especially for the Germans in 1941 as they have the initiative.

Basically, Lvov new version and muling don't create a Soviet defeat by themselves, they just compound the problems already there and certainly might tip the balance although I doubt that without competent play either or both will secure you certain victory. In the final analysis, it's still the players skill which will determine the outcome. What more can you expect from a game?

You still lose when the new TOE comes into effect, with smaller, weaker divisions, which historically was caused by the losses of that winter.

I admit to being lost in the term "muling" which has come up several times here...what exactly is this?

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

You still lose when the new TOE comes into effect, with smaller, weaker divisions, which historically was caused by the losses of that winter.

Not just by losses in the east. And IIRC, they don't vaporize, but go to the pool.

Oh BTW, Russian Mech/Tank divisions, regardless of their CVs (Some are 7/8/9), become rifle divisions/tank brigades. Whether they lose anything or not.

And those tank brigades will never see a CV anywhere near that high. Nor will rifle divisions that come from mech divisions.

Funny how Axis players forget that.

Russian armies, before the first blizzard is over, drop from 24CP to 18.

Carefull what you wish for. If the Axis get to chose their TOE, then so will the Soviet. And would you rather face Soviet divisions of 14,000 vs 8/9,000? A Tank Corps made from 3 brigades or 3 divisions. A Rifle Corps made from 3 brigades of about 5,000 each? Or one of 3 divisions of 14,000 each

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Oh BTW, Russian Mech/Tank divisions, regardless of their CVs (Some are 7/8/9), become rifle divisions/tank brigades. Whether they lose anything or not.

And those tank brigades will never see a CV anywhere near that high. Nor will rifle divisions that come from mech divisions.

Funny how Axis players forget that.

Russian armies, before the first blizzard is over, drop from 24CP to 18.

Carefull what you wish for. If the Axis get to chose their TOE, then so will the Soviet. And would you rather face Soviet divisions of 14,000 vs 8/9,000? A Tank Corps made from 3 brigades or 3 divisions. A Rifle Corps made from 3 brigades of about 5,000 each? Or one of 3 divisions of 14,000 each

I think the point is that both sides made changes to ToE's based on what happen on the battlefield. The Russian changes were a result of the initial German attacks. Most of those formations you speak of were wiped out historically (and are still wiped out in the current game). The Russians implemented changes as a result. If the Axis don't hit the threshold to cause those changes, then both players are probably looking to start a new game and the German player got his butt handed to him.

What many Axis players are saying is the conditions that existed historically that made the German high command reevaluate the ToE's for many of their units do not exist in many games. So if it doesn't exist in game (typically losses are lower both in terms of material and manpower), then why force a change on the Germans based on a date? Why not tie that to a threshold in losses that after you exceed the threshold, THEN the ToE changes go into effect.

As a general rule of thumb, I think most German TOE changes were forced by the material and manpower losses the Germans suffered and their inability to replace them as the war went along. The Russian changes were more driven by experience and study of what was working and what needed some work to improve it.

Exactly how many of these high CV tank/mechanized divisions are present at the start of the game, that do not get destroyed in the Llov pocket?
 
Anyways, good point Klydon.

ORIGINAL: Klydon



As a general rule of thumb, I think most German TOE changes were forced by the material and manpower losses the Germans suffered and their inability to replace them as the war went along. The Russian changes were more driven by experience and study of what was working and what needed some work to improve it.

Yes, the Soviet ones were. But still, change one, you have to change the other. If the Axis player gets to decide if he wants to change his TOE, (and I don't think that was in the purvue of OKH. Could be wrong there.), then the Soviet player gets to decide what does and does not work. Especially as STAVKA was higher up the food chain than a theatre command.

And TOEs can change without loses. (The number of panzer divisions before Jun 22 were doubled by splitting the exsisting ones in half IIRC.)


It's all academic anyway. Jaw's already stated he isn't going to change the TOEs.

And I kind of doubt they'll take time away from WiTW to make what would probably be a drastic change.

ORIGINAL: AFV

Exactly how many of these high CV tank/mechanized divisions are present at the start of the game, that do not get destroyed in the Llov pocket?

Anyways, good point Klydon.

You do know that they are also elsewhere on the map?

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Klydon



As a general rule of thumb, I think most German TOE changes were forced by the material and manpower losses the Germans suffered and their inability to replace them as the war went along. The Russian changes were more driven by experience and study of what was working and what needed some work to improve it.

Yes, the Soviet ones were. But still, change one, you have to change the other. If the Axis player gets to decide if he wants to change his TOE, (and I don't think that was in the purvue of OKH. Could be wrong there.), then the Soviet player gets to decide what does and does not work. Especially as STAVKA was higher up the food chain than a theatre command.

And TOEs can change without loses. (The number of panzer divisions before Jun 22 were doubled by splitting the exsisting ones in half IIRC.)


It's all academic anyway. Jaw's already stated he isn't going to change the TOEs.

And I kind of doubt they'll take time away from WiTW to make what would probably be a drastic change.

Sigh... Aurelian you are aware that the Soviet player can form armies, whether regular, schock or Guard, attribute units to those, farm for guars units, build SUs at wish, etc...

By your logic of "what goes around comes around" and "if he can do it I must be able to do it to" would you suggest the Axis has the ability to form armies as well???

See how absurd such thinking is ?

Do you honestly qualify the ability for the axis player to have a toggle on on post 1943 TOE changes as a "drastic Change" that should wait for WITW?..

At least be logic with yourself man. The Soviets and the Axis are different beasts, the fact that they maybe different options for each of them is not absurd. Just as the army creation and organisation capabilities of the Soviet player try to reflect the way the Sovs adapted and organises to better their capabilities after the initial onslaught, an more flexible TOE system for the Axis would reflect better how the Axis have to adjust, or not, to the Soviet steamroller..

We are not talking here about axis SU creation, or other options that many players favor but that can legitimately considered "drastic changes"... We are talking about a marginal at best change to enhance game play and logic in late war situations...

I am afraid that you are suffering from a severe case of "reverse-Heliodoriusism" where any change, albeit marginal, to Axis play options is perceived as an evident assault against the ability of the soviets to win this game...

relax and learn how to say "maybe" instead of "no, non, nein, niet" to everything...

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: AFV

Exactly how many of these high CV tank/mechanized divisions are present at the start of the game, that do not get destroyed in the Llov pocket?

Anyways, good point Klydon.

You do know that they are also elsewhere on the map?

I asked a question, if you don't know the answer, then say "I dont know".

I don't know the answer, which is why I asked. I do know there are other units outside of the Llov pocket area (which any reasonable person could read that into the question, which is why I specifically asked outside the Llov pocket). However, as I recall, its not a whole lot of them (something like 5). Again, not sure so I asked.

You always seem to be on the wrong side of the fence, from the simple interface issue of keeping your HQ from displacing, to optional victory conditions. What also is consistant is that you really don't logically look at any issue, you don't even attempt to look at issues from both sides, and whether its posting BS about "show me withdrawals at Stalingrad" like its not in the game or knee jerk reacting to any post that might possibly make playing the Axis more fun, you are always predictable.

Yes, I agree with vej1- relax, and try and see a bigger picture. If we run out of Axis opponents, then its truly game over.

I did some quick looking and this is not exact, but rather a ball park.

The Russians start with 26 mech corps.

Leningrad MD: 2, Baltic MD 1, Western MD 6, Kiev MD 8, Odessa MD 1.

In addition, there are two more mech corps that are in the second tier of defenders. One north, one south.

For Kiev, 5 of the 8 are up on the front.

The others are in interior MD's or down on the Turkish border.