Army Group Boundaries

[governato]

I think *small* changes to the boundaries should be 1) allowed at the start of the game (possibly as options or randomly as part of moving armies around at start up) and 2) they should not be visible to the Russian player when FOW is ON. While an important and realistic constraint, those boundaries should not be written in stone.

I have found myself micromanaging the game to second guess what my opponent would be doing..based on the perfect knowledge of where those boundaries are. I do not think it's right.

[Michael T]

Boundaries that are a little more 'fuzzy' would be good.

[lancer]

Hi,

Might have to pass on that one.

Lot of game mechanics hang off the position of the theatre boundaries. Unfortunately it's a big job.

Realistically a Russian Player (and German) have magnitudes greater knowledge of their opponents than on the day by virtue of historical hindsight.

Cheers,
Cameron

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

Might have to pass on that one.

Lot of game mechanics hang off the position of the theatre boundaries. Unfortunately it's a big job.

Realistically a Russian Player (and German) have magnitudes greater knowledge of their opponents than on the day by virtue of historical hindsight.

Cheers,
Cameron

Then perhaps the cost for being 2 hexes away could be change to 1PP.

[nukkxx5058]

Yes, penalty for trespassing should maybe be smaller, one way or another ...

[Michael T]

Yes a smaller hit for temporary tactical transgressions is warranted at the least IMO.

[Belphegor]

Always a fan of the complex I'm going to insert my complexity.

I think that a boundary transgression is always a serious thing as it has the real possibility of slightly disrupting the road moves of neighbors (which you may not know are intending on using the road) to causing huge traffic jams which end up freezing both units and affecting higher HQ. Moving out of your area of operations is not something considered lightly.

I'd prefer to see a higher penalty if there's a possibility of friction (a neighboring front's division) within 2 hexes... which seems reasonable within a 4-day turn and a lower penalty for boundary infractions where there is no chance of friction.

[governato]

The problem I am trying to address is slightly different, specifically the tactical necessity to have an infantry army to straddle a fixed AG boundary for an unspecified period of time. This is especially useful later in the campaign, when the front is a lot less fluid.

I think it can be addressed with a card,

'allow an Infantry army to straddle its parent Army Group boundary'. Meaning: as many infantry divisions from the chosen infantry army can cross and stay outside the AG the boundary with no penalties. However, the parent HQ has to remain on the correct side of the AG border. Normal boundary violation penalties occur if a division is out of command range from the parent HQ (so units can't move very far from the border)

This makes the boundary 'fuzzy' and should allow for most tactical situations. Some variation of this could be applied to Stavka, which faced similar problems.

Only one such card can be at play at any given time, and it can be revoked by Hitler or Stalin if he so wishes.

[Franciscus]

Hi

IMHO the boundary penalties are ok. They fit well at the abstraction level of the game and the duration of the scenario. They add a further operational problem for the player to deal with, and that is fine, to me at least.

The problem would be greater and would warrant some flexibility or possibility for dynamic changes if the game covered the entire eastern campaign, of course.

Regards

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: governato


The problem I am trying to address is slightly different, specifically the tactical necessity to have an infantry army to straddle a fixed AG boundary for an unspecified period of time. This is especially useful later in the campaign, when the front is a lot less fluid.

I think it can be addressed with a card,

'allow an Infantry army to straddle its parent Army Group boundary'. Meaning: as many infantry divisions from the chosen infantry army can cross and stay outside the AG the boundary with no penalties. However, the parent HQ has to remain on the correct side of the AG border. Normal boundary violation penalties occur if a division is out of command range from the parent HQ (so units can't move very far from the border)

This makes the boundary 'fuzzy' and should allow for most tactical situations. Some variation of this could be applied to Stavka, which faced similar problems.

Only one such card can be at play at any given time, and it can be revoked by Hitler or Stalin if he so wishes.

For the russians there is already some leeway. I have moved units outside the boundry without penalty. I think there is a numerical limit though.

There is a card for allowing a panzer army to go into another front. You need good relations with Hitler to do it. Perhaps there should also be a card for an infantry army to do this as long as Hitler isn't pissed at you.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: James Ward




The problem I am trying to address is slightly different, specifically the tactical necessity to have an infantry army to straddle a fixed AG boundary for an unspecified period of time. This is especially useful later in the campaign, when the front is a lot less fluid.


'allow an Infantry army to straddle its parent Army Group boundary'. Meaning: as many infantry divisions from the chosen infantry army can cross and stay outside the AG the boundary with no penalties. However, the parent HQ has to remain on the correct side of the AG border. Normal boundary violation penalties occur if a division is out of command range from the parent HQ (so units can't move very far from the border)

This makes the boundary 'fuzzy' and should allow for most tactical situations. Some variation of this could be applied to Stavka, which faced similar problems.

Only one such card can be at play at any given time, and it can be revoked by Hitler or Stalin if he so wishes.

Perhaps there should also be a card for an infantry army to do this as long as Hitler isn't pissed at you.

The problem would be greater and would warrant some flexibility or possibility for dynamic changes if the game covered the entire eastern campaign, of course.

All these considerations fit well together and yes this is strictly for infantry armies. The further into Barbarossa, the more the game will evolve away from historical and so the for need such a card. Same for longer/later scenarios or scenarios involving different campaigns altogether. The main assumption is that the logistics will not be strained as much as for a Panzer Group.

[JervisBay]

A couple of observations: when you reassign a PG to another theatre it doesn't seem to adversely affect your relations with either theatre commander - perhaps there should be a chance of it doing so since you're either taking one's toys away to meet someone else's objectives or else allowing a neighbour to get in the way of your own troops. Secondly, if one theatre has met it's objectives (Moscow taken, say) then there would be a bit more liberality I'd have thought about moving stuff out of theatre.

[Moltke71]

I've had adverse effects with the Center commander when I reassigned PG 3 north.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck

I've had adverse effects with the Center commander when I reassigned PG 3 north.

That makes sense. Moving Armies should have some consequences but at the moment you can only do it with the panzer armies. I think a second card or changing the card so it can apply to any army might be a good idea.