Matrix Games Forums

Question, when the germans take Sevastopol is the 11th army automathically withdrawn from the game?

No it stays, artillery and all.

At no cost? that seems very unhistorical...

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

At no cost? that seems very unhistorical...

I agree, they should be a big card to pay to be able to keep 11th army after Sebastopol capture.

ORIGINAL: rominet
I agree, they should be a big card to pay to be able to keep 11th army after Sebastopol capture.

That was my initial thought also...but is is really an option NOT to use the 11th army ?
I'm a beginner with this game (having played the short scenarios and are currently playing CASE BLUE FULL (normal AI, very slow turnspeed) for the first time...It's going fairly well with the exception of Sevastopol that took to long to capture (not using my bombers in a good way i guess)...It took until july 16 before the city was captured...

Not being able to transfer units from the 11th army up north to the Rostov area until mid july has left my line very thin at that part of the front...I have transfered 2 german rear area infantry divitions, an entire italian corps and 3 romanian infantry divitions (reinforcements) to the Rostov area to help hold the line against the russian attacks both in the Kamensk area and attacks against my line running from west of Schachty to Taganrog...My lines seems to be holding for now but the enemy is massing very large forces in this area...I have diverted the XIV-panzercorps (1st panzer army) from its push towards Millerowo and ordered it to cross the Donetz from the north (east of Voroshigrad) and head south east to help out in the Kamensk area. I think this will be enough to be able to hold my lines but pushing forward WITHOUT the 11TH army seems almost impossible.

Maybe its just me...but it seems more or less impossible to reach the objectives of the campaign without the 11th army...If its not an option to include them or not then i don't think a card is the best way to solve this problem with the 'unhistorical' 11th army...

just my thoughts...

Repsol

Yes but don't forgett that IA has bonus against you when you play at normal level.
Against human, combats would be more fair.

Thats true...

Also please keep in mind it is an interesting situation to model if you want to keep it "historical". This because taking 11th Army away after accomplishing the conquest of the Crimea is not really an incentive to conquering the Crimea or to keep an eye on losses while doing so. Basically having a "historical" rule might lead to a-historical moves by the player here. I am open for suggestions of course, but just want everybody to know it was a concious decision of mine to leave 11th Army and Manstein in the south.

Best,
Vic

Most of the divisions that were in the 11th army, enroute to Leningrad where brought back to this theater anyways. The end result would be the large artillery, and the 22nd airlanding division would be removed. Not 'the whole 11th army'. Manstein himself was kept in theatre as the new Army Group B boss.

Also alot of the times when a unit is withdrawn from a theater, they dont take their heavy equipment with them...instead giving it up as replacements for the guys in theatre.

But it does bring an interesting idea....can you even have withdrawals? I will have to look at the event stuff to see if you can.

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


Most of the divisions that were in the 11th army, enroute to Leningrad where brought back to this theater anyways. The end result would be the large artillery, and the 22nd airlanding division would be removed. Not 'the whole 11th army'. Manstein himself was kept in theatre as the new Army Group B boss.

Also alot of the times when a unit is withdrawn from a theater, they dont take their heavy equipment with them...instead giving it up as replacements for the guys in theatre.

But it does bring an interesting idea....can you even have withdrawals? I will have to look at the event stuff to see if you can.

The thing is you can handle withdrawls with the current engine, but it would be easy for the player to pre-empt it by disbanding the unit (and getting its forces as replacements for others) before it is redrawn. Or using it recklessly in combat, same thing.

So to do this properly you'll have to write a script that redraws a certain number of troops and/or tanks and that just takes as many units as it takes to furfill this rule.

Other work around could be to have high command request a certain number of divisions to be given up for another theater and the player actually having to use a card to select the unit he wants to give to high command. If the player then did not return enough units before the deadline he could be fired or lose prestige.

best,
Vic

You could add prestige for giving back the units and remove prestige if you declined to give them back.

I don't know if you can pro-rate it based on the unit strength but that would keep you from disbanding them.

ORIGINAL: Vic

Also please keep in mind it is an interesting situation to model if you want to keep it "historical". This because taking 11th Army away after accomplishing the conquest of the Crimea is not really an incentive to conquering the Crimea or to keep an eye on losses while doing so. Basically having a "historical" rule might lead to a-historical moves by the player here. I am open for suggestions of course, but just want everybody to know it was a concious decision of mine to leave 11th Army and Manstein in the south.

Best,
Vic

Maybe one way to give the player "an incentive to conquering the Crimea" could be to make Sevastopol and maybe also Kerch HIGH COMMAND ORDERS (the player loosing prestige points if failing to take the objectives at a certan date).
This would limit the players intrest in ignoring Sevastol and transfering the 11th army to other parts of the front (without having to pay any price for keeping it this way)...I doubt the axis minors will be able to take the crimea objectives by them self (atleast without very high casualties).

Once Sevastopol is taken i think an idea something like James Wards suggested might be good...If the player agrees to send the 11th army to Leningrad he will earn some prestige points...Maybe split that up in 2 or 3 options...

- Send 11th army infantry to Leningrad...5 prestigepoints
- Send 11th army artillery to Leningrad 8 prestigepoints
- ..........

To keep the player from recklessly attacking with the units of the 11th army there should be a limit to how low
the integrety level of thoose units can be to be able to gain prestigepoints for sending them back...

This is just a suggestion...The 'unhistorical' 11th army is in no way a gamekiller for me (not even the slightest).
and i very much like the free setup option...to be able to test some different setups (other than historical) will be interesting (not tried it yet though...)

Repsol

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


Most of the divisions that were in the 11th army, enroute to Leningrad where brought back to this theater anyways. The end result would be the large artillery, and the 22nd airlanding division would be removed. Not 'the whole 11th army'. Manstein himself was kept in theatre as the new Army Group B boss.

That is not correct.
72Inf Division was diverted to Army Group Center to deal with a
local crisis there.
Thus all that ultimately remained of Eleventh Army's original order of battle after the detachment of other units that remained in Crimea were H.Q.s LIIII and XXX Corps, 24, 132 and 170 Infantry Divisions and 28 Light Division, they were sent to Army Group North.
None of the mentioned divisions returned to the Southern section of the Eastern Front.
As for Manstein himself, after the fall of Sevastopol he was on leave in Romania until returning to the Crimea on 12th August. On 27th August Eleventh Army headquarters arrived on the Leningrad front. It was not until 20th November he received orders to assume immediate com mand of the sector on both sides of Stalingrad as the headquarters of a newly created Don Army Group

ORIGINAL: Vic
Also please keep in mind it is an interesting situation to model if you want to keep it "historical". This because taking 11th Army away after accomplishing the conquest of the Crimea is not really an incentive to conquering the Crimea or to keep an eye on losses while doing so. Basically having a "historical" rule might lead to a-historical moves by the player here. I am open for suggestions of course, but just want everybody to know it was a conscious decision of mine to leave 11th Army and Manstein in the south.
Best,
Vic

Old discussion, but never ending theme. I just want to address those things, as it's said that Vic is going to make the new game on Russo-German front.

So are my assumptions:
- unit models (tanks, aircrafts) can be historical (or close to historical proportions)
- units placement on map can be historical (mostly)
- industry capabilities or resources can be set at historical proportions
- map can be historical

But all of this can not justify "historical events"! If you want a historical game, you will get something that is not a game.
Example: to get historical results one should act historically and his opponent should do it to. More, there should be modeled historical losses in game or we will end with unhistorical combat strength proportion on map soon
So if you want to see it historical, you should exclude yourself from playing (to not make any unhistorical mistakes) and script AI to do only historical moves.
Remember: historical input (resources) + historical play (losses) = historical output on map (day by day).
Is it this what you want?

For me "historical" game is a pure nonsense. The first move I choose after historical set-up, the very first battle I fight (with RANDOM number generator), when I loose 3 tanks instead just 1 (as was in history) I stray from historicity and take my own voyage into my own alternative timeline.

Should I try to encircle Soviets around Kiev instead if driving towards Moskva in 1941? Really?
Should I launch Case Blue to get Baku instead concentrate efforts on Stalingrad in 1942? Really?
Should I launch Zitadelle against heavy entrenched Soviets in 1943? Really?

If game let me NOT TO DO that (most games do), then stop calling for historical play.

If my 11th Army would be magically withdrawed after taking Sevastopol, then I will never take that city. Let there be one strayed Soviet unit in city if that allow me to save all my army. That is how many players will do. They find a way to avoid scripted restrictions, because in their games, those restrictions could look stupid.

Should MY 11th Army go to the north to take Leningrad after Sevastopol? Why? I just can capture Leningrad first, so no need to engage those army there. Can I do this? Yes, in most games I can. So please don't ask for avoiding "unhistorical" moves, as this games takes unhistorical road from the very first battle you did. You just got unhistorical results, and after that in second battle RNG gives you the same unhistorical results, and so on, so on.

Vicor, please do not do like Gary Grigsby in his series (historical withdrawal of units in certain dates). It's a way to nowhere.
If you must do something about the rest of the world when simulating only one front (huge one, but limited), then consider system that was in old PC DOS game War in Russia, also by Gary, but he was younger then
Use container named like West, North Africa, Balkans, Norway, Germany and allow players decide what units and when they will put into those containers to simulate conflicts on other parts of the world. As units have combat points, it could be easily readable:
I have 300 combat points in North Africa vs. 900 allied combat points - I will soon lose. I need to reinforce North Africa.
But this should be up to player what he will do about situation.

And please allow players replace units, build reinforcements (as it is in DCCB) and add subunits to existing divisions (why I can't attach more stug battalions to divisions as 5th subunit?).

Also it will be very encouraging to let players steer their economy (industrial output). I just like to have options of building more Stugs and less tanks (or vice versa). Strict (scripted) replacements are not that funny.
Just my 2 cents.

Use container named like West, North Africa, Balkans, Norway, Germany and allow players decide what units and when they will put into those containers to simulate conflicts on other parts of the world. As units have combat points, it could be easily readable:
I have 300 combat points in North Africa vs. 900 allied combat points - I will soon lose. I need to reinforce North Africa.
But this should be up to player what he will do about situation.

I agree with this. Or failing that, a randomised 'Fuhrer order' stripping a certain amount of troops from the front to deal with en emergency elsewhere. Perhaps large prestige hit could be used to counteract.

Also it will be very encouraging to let players steer their economy (industrial output). I just like to have options of building more Stugs and less tanks (or vice versa). Strict (scripted) replacements are not that funny.
Just my 2 cents.

Hmm. Not sure how I feel about this. I foresee a huge amount of people gaming such a system, and then complaining about how easy it is. Besides, I cannot see how the CinC of Army group South could get enough pull to order industrial complexes in Germany to build their own personalised shopping list.

Part of the allure of this game to me is the frustration of command and dealing with the 'higher power'. While I concur that giving the player the freedom to deal with problems in this regard is a good step (such as your idea about what troops to send), giving the player ahistorical powers over such things as production goes a little far.

ORIGINAL: SapperAstro

Use container named like West, North Africa, Balkans, Norway, Germany and allow players decide what units and when they will put into those containers to simulate conflicts on other parts of the world. As units have combat points, it could be easily readable:
I have 300 combat points in North Africa vs. 900 allied combat points - I will soon lose. I need to reinforce North Africa.
But this should be up to player what he will do about situation.

I agree with this. Or failing that, a randomised 'Fuhrer/Stalin order' stripping a certain amount of troops from the front to deal with en emergency elsewhere. Perhaps large prestige hit could be used to counteract.

Also it will be very encouraging to let players steer their economy (industrial output). I just like to have options of building more Stugs and less tanks (or vice versa). Strict (scripted) replacements are not that funny.
Just my 2 cents.

Hmm. Not sure how I feel about this. I foresee a huge amount of people gaming such a system, and then complaining about how easy it is. Besides, I cannot see how the CinC of Army group South could get enough pull to order industrial complexes in Germany to build their own personalised shopping list.

Part of the allure of this game to me is the frustration of command and dealing with the 'higher power'. While I concur that giving the player the freedom to deal with problems in this regard is a good step (such as your idea about what troops to send), giving the player ahistorical powers over such things as production goes a little far.