Matrix Games Forums

I'm now into September, have reorganized the Sov army twice, and played lots of other cards to improve efficiency, etc.

Any yet in 6 of the last 7 turns, when
I tried to change an army's posture, it says that we can't communicate with that army.

While this kind of problem was common in the first few weeks of the war, it was pretty much unheard of by September. So 6 out of the last 7 turns seems like a bit much...

[EDIT] Also, I should mention that once you fail communications once, on one front, you can't change posture for any army, on any front, for the rest of the turn.

On the other hand, this turn I was able to communicate with my first army and subsequently could change the posture of what seemed to be an unlimited amount of armies in all the fronts.

Both of these outcomes seem odd--is this WAD?

Hi,

This is a game mechanic that reflects both the physical communication issues the Soviets had and the chaos, confusion and disruption that they underwent.

They didn't resolve these issues until late in '41 and September was certainly not a period where the Soviet Command Structure was working like a well oiled machine.

If you fail communications you're given the % required and the roll. Reorganising your command structure drops the % chance each time you do so. The Soviets were forced to undergo some very dramatic reorganisations in '41 before they settled on a workable system.

The check is made every time you play a posture card.

It provides a limit on what you can achieve in a turn and reflects the problems above and the high levels of 'friction' that STAVKA had to deal with in '41.

Fail one check and fail them all for the turn is there to prevent you from constantly clicking on posture cards and being unable to do anything after they fail.

It also acts as an incentive to get you to reorganise your command structure. Not doing so is going to hurt.

Cheers,
Cameron

Hey Cameron, thanks for the feedback. A couple of responses.

ORIGINAL: lancer
They didn't resolve these issues until late in '41 and September was certainly not a period where the Soviet Command Structure was working like a well oiled machine.

While I certainly wouldn't argue that the Sov command structure was working like a well-oiled machine, by September they were able to successfully issue orders to major subordinate units such as armies without a lot of drama...

Anyway, in September, after two reorgs, my chance of communications failure (IIRC was 20%); we can quibble about whether this is too high, but after failing 6 out of 7, the main thing I was wondering is whether this % is reflected in the code. I guess leave it for now, if the problem continues I'll post again.

ORIGINAL: lancer
Fail one check and fail them all for the turn is there to prevent you from constantly clicking on posture cards and being unable to do anything after they fail.

Honestly, this mechanic seems a little goofy to me; if you can't communicate with one army it doesn't mean you can't communicate with ANY across the whole front--it seems like there should be a separate commo check for each army?

ORIGINAL: 76mm ...

ORIGINAL: lancer
Fail one check and fail them all for the turn is there to prevent you from constantly clicking on posture cards and being unable to do anything after they fail.

Honestly, this mechanic seems a little goofy to me; if you can't communicate with one army it doesn't mean you can't communicate with ANY across the whole front--it seems like there should be a separate commo check for each army?

I also feel the penalty is too harsh and actually reported it as a bug here: tm.asp?m=3974518

To me a better design would have been to take away the PP's used for the failed attempt but allow other attempts against different HQ's if you still had PP's remaining.

ORIGINAL: elmo3
To me a better design would have been to take away the PP's used for the failed attempt but allow other attempts against different HQ's if you still had PP's remaining.

Makes sense, but note that at this point my posture attempts are free (after a couple reorgs and other cards). But the main point is that if I can't contact one army, it doesn't mean that all of them are MIA.

OK. I never got my cost down to free in my first game so that would be problematic. My other suggestion was to take away the cards for that front on a failed try instead of all the cards. You could still try with the other fronts until you failed there and it would simulate a partial communications breakdown.

Not seeing a problem in any of this. I think the design is fine.

You just have to roll with the punches and accept that it's going to take a while for you to get all your postures in order. I've had turns where I blow the roll the first time around and others where I beat the odds. It all averages out over time.

Hi,

The original design was for comm's breakdowns to affect only a single army but it was found by the testers to be too fiddly.

You check one, fail, check another, fail, etc.

While it might not be realistic it does impart the message and is a better way of doing it game wise.

However rather than shutting down the lot, shutting a front instead is interesting. I'll give it some thought.

The random number generation is pretty solid. You've just had a bad run.

Cheers,
Cameron

Personally I don't mind a bit of fiddliness to achieve greater immersion, as a per army role would do; but per front would definitely be better than currently.

Currently, I can either do ZERO armies, or ALL of them (I got reposturing down to zero PP); just doesn't seem like a great game mechanic.

I've had some in between results, but mostly it does seem like feast or famine in terms of activations.

Actually I was wrong about how it works--now I've been able to resposture one or two armies before losing commo and not being able to do any more.

Hi,

Way it works is every time you play a posture card a comms check is made.

Once you fail a check that's it.

At the start with a 30% comms failure rate you should, on average, be able to change at least one posture per turn.

With a couple of reorganisations you should be able to three.

Probabilities can, however, do funny things at times.

Cheers,
Cameron