Matrix Games Forums

A handful of coordinated attacks and the remaining Soviets go down. Five weeks of game time, I'm not sure if it was worth it or if I could have done better by straight forward bashing. But pockets are definitely more fun.
Two differences from the stock campaign that I think probably made this possible, or a little more possible. 1) I've given all units higher spotting ranges in order to be able to have an idea of what is going on in the area, and to also avoid those unsurprising surprise attacks. 2) The Panzer Korps can move six instead of four or five in the stock campaign .

Thanks for posting this all, and I'm wondering, are any of the resources within the pocket Key Resources, e.g. a Secondary Supply Center?

Only it seems odd for Poltava to be at strength 5, assuming of course that nothing else has been changed in the mod, e.g. supply is calculated via rail connections as in the official campaigns?

Hi Bill - I think it was because it wasn't cut off yet, as all that action was spread out across posts 75-77 [which were all three posts from the same turn]. Next turn it was at 2 [3 minus 1 for having two units adjacent], and I didn't post that because I was more excited that my panzers took the town.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

A handful of coordinated attacks and the remaining Soviets go down. Five weeks of game time, I'm not sure if it was worth it or if I could have done better by straight forward bashing. But pockets are definitely more fun.
Two differences from the stock campaign that I think probably made this possible, or a little more possible. 1) I've given all units higher spotting ranges in order to be able to have an idea of what is going on in the area, and to also avoid those unsurprising surprise attacks. 2) The Panzer Korps can move six instead of four or five in the stock campaign .

Interesting experiment. Five weeks doesn't seem like a lot of time, but historically units surrounded without air supply were very quickly dealt with. Units needed a lot of supply to maintain fighting capability, specially in conditions of positional warfare.
But to achieve realistic results with this supply system, which is completely wrong, it is hopeless.
Units would need food, fuel, ammunition among other things (supply parts etc) to keep fighting, and no every city should provide these.
Also, unit's supply level is the same regardless of if the unit have moved, or have engaged in combat. Among other problems.
Also, units with 0 supply have too much fight in them, but this issue I think could be fixed.

Still, a great game and I'm having lots of fun with it.

An equally old and frequently discussed problem. Units with zero supply are more limited in their ability to move than in their combat power and the readiness and morale does not drop fast enough when the supply is insufficient. However, as a developer I would not intervene in the sensitive supply system. This would probably lead to more problems with the playability and the game balance than would solve irregularities. From my point of view a reduction in unit strength, adapted to the degree of under-supply, would be the more appropriate approach. Units in understrength will lose their fighting capability much faster and should ultimately be able to disintegrate even without combat. At the same time, the problem of "stranded" units would have been solved...

I would not intervene in the sensitive supply system. This would probably lead to more problems with the playability and the game balance

Well put, I agree. I haven't played too many other games, but in my limited experience I have not seen a system that covers all aspects well [V4V ?]. However, when it comes to penalties to stranded units my mind becomes filled with various attributes of country and situation. I don't think one solution fits all.

A countdown for units in zero supply should not be unusual in other strategic games. Under what circumstances would such a regulation be inappropriate? I do not notice spontaneously a situation, which could surpass the positive effect of a noticeable restriction for cut off units in zero supply.

Well, not in every case, but in many instances the surrounded units had to be attacked in order to whittle away their strength. Eventually they run out of ammo at which point resistance ends. However, in some cases, pockets remained eternally, until attacked. So I think that perhaps having a mechanism whereby stranded units automatically lose each turn may not always be appropriate.
As it is now, we have mechanics in place to reduce pockets without combat. Cut off from rail lines, adjacent to two or more enemy units, hit by numerous types of bombs; all reduce defenders ability to stay at 10 and 100%. I think for most players though, it is contrary to expectation to bring all you have to bear on a unit(s) and leave it at 1 or 2, only to have it go back to 5 or 8 in its turn.

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield
From my point of view a reduction in unit strength, adapted to the degree of under-supply, would be the more appropriate approach. Units in understrength will lose their fighting capability much faster and should ultimately be able to disintegrate even without combat. At the same time, the problem of "stranded" units would have been solved...

I think that is a good idea. The system is already in the game, as for instance when German units in Russia suffer from winter effects, do you think it could be possible to set an automatic event everytime units are at supply=0 so they suffer strength reductions?

Unfortunately this is not possible, otherwise I would have tested such a script a long time ago on its playability. If I remember correctly, the only script with a direct unit reference might be the supply script. But yes, some additional command lines for the decision event that relates exclusively to the interactions of units would be fantastic. For a variety of reasons, I have often missed this when creating a mod. [8|]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Hi Bill - I think it was because it wasn't cut off yet, as all that action was spread out across posts 75-77 [which were all three posts from the same turn]. Next turn it was at 2 [3 minus 1 for having two units adjacent], and I didn't post that because I was more excited that my panzers took the town.

Thanks, that's good to hear. [:)]

Five weeks doesn't seem like a lot of time, but historically units surrounded without air supply were very quickly dealt with.

Made me curious, so I checked the historical Kiev pocket, the one where 600,000 Soviet troops were surrounded. From the time of enclosure to the time of last resistance was only 10 days. WOW ! It is also reported that the fighting was vicious [150,000 of the Soviets were killed].

That's exactly what I meant. The "breakdown" of permanently undersupplied units should be massively speed up during the weekly(+) turn mode. With the current game engine, reducing the strength would be very helpful without having to intervene in the current supply rules. [8D]

There is something puzzling me about this mod, which overall I think is excellent -- Soviet corps seem to have identical qualities as guard corps, but the guard corps are more expensive. Does anyone know the answer?

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Five weeks doesn't seem like a lot of time, but historically units surrounded without air supply were very quickly dealt with.

Made me curious, so I checked the historical Kiev pocket, the one where 600,000 Soviet troops were surrounded. From the time of enclosure to the time of last resistance was only 10 days. WOW ! It is also reported that the fighting was vicious [150,000 of the Soviets were killed].

Less than a week to clear the pocket in the second battle of Kharhov, 1942, with more than 200k prisoners. I think when the surrounded forces try to breakout, that usually lead to quicker outcomes such in these cases, when supply is not that big of an issue that would be when forces adopt a hedgehog defense and wait to help from the outside.
As Clausewitz said, defense is stronger...

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield
That's exactly what I meant. The "breakdown" of permanently undersupplied units should be massively speed up during the weekly(+) turn mode. With the current game engine, reducing the strength would be very helpful without having to intervene in the current supply rules. [8D]

Yes, and this is what I meant when I mentioned the various circumstances pertaining to situation and country. In this case, the Soviets had very poor supply infrastructure, so they could not last for long. This is why I've had the idea to reduce some of the Soviet Resource Supply Values when Barbarossa starts. I have yet to playtest it to see if there is any effect.

ORIGINAL: Winslow
There is something puzzling me about this mod, which overall I think is excellent -- Soviet corps seem to have identical qualities as guard corps, but the guard corps are more expensive. Does anyone know the answer?

Nothing in my notes, so either there is nothing there and it is an oversight, or at the time I did it I didn't feel it was important enough to document. However, they all arrive free of charge, and the player is supposed to re-build them only, which is cheaper than building. Of course then, rifle corps are also be cheaper to rebuild ...
Overall I'm not sure, what do you think should be the case ?

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield
That's exactly what I meant. The "breakdown" of permanently undersupplied units should be massively speed up during the weekly(+) turn mode. With the current game engine, reducing the strength would be very helpful without having to intervene in the current supply rules. [8D]

Yes, and this is what I meant when I mentioned the various circumstances pertaining to situation and country. In this case, the Soviets had very poor supply infrastructure, so they could not last for long. This is why I've had the idea to reduce some of the Soviet Resource Supply Values when Barbarossa starts. I have yet to playtest it to see if there is any effect.

Maybe, but the supply infrastructure in Stalingrad, Leningrad and Berlin were also not exhilarating and nevertheless was fought for months and not days. I suspect that the factors sea/air supply, weather situation, leadership and moral of the defending troops are somewhat more serious than country-specific differences of infrastucture and therefore a solution approach over the Russian resources may not solve the general problem of encircling.

I like the idea of having the guards. I think Soviet units received the guards designation based on performance in battle, but I'm not positive about that. For example, if the 1st Corps performed really well, it would be renamed 1st Guards Corps. However, in this game it seems appropriate to give the guards a slight increase in combat capability if they are going to be more expensive -- maybe 0.5 points attacking hard targets, or a half point in both soft or hard defense ratings.

Yes, the 'Guards' title was given to units based on combat performance. The actual TO&E of Guards units didn't change except they were given a couple more artillery pieces.

give the guards a slight increase in combat capability if they are going to be more expensive -- maybe 0.5 points attacking hard targets, or a half point in both soft or hard defense ratings.

I like this, I think I'll do it, thanks !