Simple Fix for German Raiding

[Q-Ball]

If I am the Soviets, I would only move 1 T-34 at Kharkov. That's a tough decision to make, because it really kills your T-34 production well into 1942 (when the T-34-'42 comes online).

You can survive though, because you don't have the logistical capacity to support full T-34 production anyway. In my game vs. Tarhunnas, I lost piles and piles of T-34, and still had plenty in the pool. There is ample room for losses. You can also fall back on the Allied Lend-Lease Mediums. They are crappy, but they are better than nothing. And with the Morale changes, Soviet tankers can't shoot worth a damn anyway. By 1943, you'll have it all back to normal.

I would save the Armaments, and suffer the T-34 production loss, because by 1943 you'll want the 10-ish extra Armament Factories, and you will have forgotten the T-34s

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Wild
Maybe instead a max number of factories could be moved but once that limit was reached then no more evacs. Forcing the soviets to defend those cities.

While I agree that more thought should be given to how to get the Russians to defend to the West and the Germans to attack to the East, let's avoid ideas like the one above, which is a totally artifical construct only meant to "balance" the game rather than reflect anything like reality.

Rather like the revised implentation of the 1:1 rule (1:1 till March 1942 then poof!).

I will agree with you that this suggestion is not optimal. I'm just trying to think of a way to motivate the Germans to fight for objectives. Not trying to pile on the Soviets, and would be in favor of seeing the armament multiplier increased to 150 or so if people think it's needed.

What do people think about making oil and resources more relevant? Flaviusk whats your opinion on this?

[Flaviusx]

I very much doubt that oil is a realistic objective for the Germans. Trying to get at it will stretch the Wehrmacht to the breaking point. Supplying a drive to Baku is also extremely difficult.

The Red Army ought to be the objective of the Axis in 1942, imo. I think people need to play this patch to 1942 and get a feel how things develop. It's a more open game now. No more fort spam. So the German has every incentive to try to cripple the Red Army in 1942 rather than just sit in their forts. (Which are weaker now in any case.)

[Wild]

Fair enough.

[msvknight]

I believe the issue is the availability of railcap for factories.  The railcap treats a lathe being packed up and moved exactly the same way as an infantryman or a vehicle that are (comparitively) easily loaded and unloaded from a train.  Perhaps railcap used for moving industry needs to have its availability reduced for the next turn based on the percentage of maximum weekly rail travel that it used to move the factory.  As an example if it moved a factory 2/3rds of the maximum rail range in a turn, then 1/3rd of that capacitiy is not available for any purpose for the following week (only).  If you had not moved any industry the previous wek 100% would be available, but if you moved industry the previous week, your theoretical maximum would be reduced based on how far it moved.  Short moves of up to half of the theoretical range should not affect available railcap.

[Peltonx]

1.05 is very close to finishing off game mechanics ect. The more we talk about it and play it the more it seems about right.

I think the only major thing that needs to be done is the VP system at this point. Right now it just plan sucks, but its not a key part of game so it should be last major thing addressed.

Small tweaks would be

1. Switching units between HQ build up corps.
2. Russian rail sytem needs to be lower slightly.
3. Possibly upping arm production from 135 to 145 or 150.
4. Air war still needs a little love.
5. Raiding issue. My take would be that arm and hvy can be railed out, but factorys can't. Arm and hvy factorys are generally small operations where as tank ect are huge. I would also say that cost should be 2x because of city is under attack, not sure if that can be coded into system

Best patch so far, great job. I am sure we will find a few other things to bitch about, but this seems to be a home run as far as patchs goes.

Pelton

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I think the only major thing that needs to be done is the VP system at this point. Right now it just plan sucks, but its not a key part of game so it should be last major thing addressed.

I agree. GC VP system needs to be changed. Do you have concrete proposal for this? That GC VP system needs work is something that has been discussed for some time here.

The simplest proposal I can think of is that of the amount of Minor, Major and Decisive victory along the following guidelines:

• Holding the Barbarossa start line by October 1945 is qualified (if I recall it right) as a Minor Victory. This is no "minor" achievement by any standard, more so when the strategic "dice" are so heavily loaded.
• Axis auto-victory conditions are something with a double edge, especially for the Axis side. Either the concept is completely removed from the game, or it entails something which really means that the Soviet Union will and ability to fight is effectively destroyed. In my opinion, the Soviet Union would never surrender, since the Axis weren't looking for any kind of political settlement, but that of annihilation. However, even if it would never surrender, a very different matter is that of waging a large-scale "industrial age" war against the Axis powers. So auto-victory should be tied to what degree the Axis have destroyed/conquered on-map Manpower and Oil. I guess this means that the Axis needs to conquest Baku and make substantial headway into the Russian "heartland" (which actually lied east of Moscow).
• Soviet victory levels should depend on the amount of damage done by the Axis, and the damage suffered fighting it back, rather than by the date the Red Army manages to plant the hammer and sickle flag on the Reichstag. That was a powerful symbol, but the sad truth is that the Soviet Union didn't recover from the war until the sixties at least (some people claim its effects were even more far reaching than that). Soviet Union victory, while epic, also had something of being a pyrrhic one.

[PeeDeeAitch]

In the end, the HQ swapping, long range raiding should not be an issue. First of all it is cheesey, I prefer my cheese on pizza, maybe a salad, but in general on edible things. Secondly, it has counter strategies (albeit less fun ones), as Flavius has shown. Third, it doesn't do the right things, especially with the 1.05 changes. The goal is not to smash armaments any more, but rather to take the Soviet army to far less ready state by winter - that is done not with raiding, but with good old fashioned blitzkrieg.

If the Soviets sir robin, they lose everything, if they fight well they will lose a lot. Perhaps too much, this is a beta test and we are learning. Still, the "I have to play this way" defenses of completely ahistoric strategies (note you all caps people, it was for both sides - retreat by one, raids by another) can simmer down and see that there are changes.

And yes, there is something to play for - but the victory in this is four years away, and there is not an "I win" button.

[KenchiSulla]

Victory conditions are but an artificial way to "end" a game... IMHO the least interesting part of any game.. How would changing the scoring system change the way people play the game? Autovictory if axis capture x, y and z? And the reward? A scoring screen at game end?

Is that why you play the game?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Victory conditions are but an artificial way to "end" a game... IMHO the least interesting part of any game.. How would changing the scoring system change the way people play the game? Autovictory if axis capture x, y and z? And the reward? A scoring screen at game end?

Is that why you play the game?

No, not really. The interesting part is how do you get to that scoring screen. And I think that if Tarhunnas finishes his game against gids, he can well have that screen printed on a T-shirt and wear it proudly.

[76mm]

double post

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Victory conditions are but an artificial way to "end" a game... IMHO the least interesting part of any game.. How would changing the scoring system change the way people play the game? Autovictory if axis capture x, y and z? And the reward? A scoring screen at game end?

Is that why you play the game?

Victory conditions are critical for any East Front game because the Germans will almost inevitably lose the war, but that does not mean that they should lose the game.

And after spending maybe a year or more to get from 1941 to 1945, I think both sides deserve to know how they did vs some objective yardstick, as represented by a well-balanced set of victory points.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Victory conditions are but an artificial way to "end" a game... IMHO the least interesting part of any game.. How would changing the scoring system change the way people play the game? Autovictory if axis capture x, y and z? And the reward? A scoring screen at game end?

Is that why you play the game?

Victory conditions are critical for any East Front game because the Germans will almost inevitably lose the war, but that does not mean that they should lose the game.

And after spending maybe a year or more to get from 1941 to 1945, I think both sides deserve to know how they did vs some objective yardstick, as represented by a well-balanced set of victory points.

Those things you mention are available without victory points... Why waste resources on something that is, again, IMHO trivial..

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Those things you mention are available without victory points...

Such as how?

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Those things you mention are available without victory points...

Such as how?

Compare your exploits to history

[kevini1000]

Really were going to take this away from the axis as well. I guess the Russian players just don't have it good enough.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Those things you mention are available without victory points...

Such as how?

Compare your exploits to history

I agree. Victory points don't interest me much. I would rather see more direct consequences for taking cities than is currently in the game. Such as more impact for capturing Resources,oil,supplies,heavy industry etc.

In general make cities more important and give the Germans more reason to fight for them.

[Peltonx]

Can you stop cring about the I win button? Your the only one cring a river about it.

Get some nuts man its going to last 5 yrs.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Victory conditions are but an artificial way to "end" a game... IMHO the least interesting part of any game.. How would changing the scoring system change the way people play the game? Autovictory if axis capture x, y and z? And the reward? A scoring screen at game end?

Is that why you play the game?

Victory conditions are critical for any East Front game because the Germans will almost inevitably lose the war, but that does not mean that they should lose the game.

And after spending maybe a year or more to get from 1941 to 1945, I think both sides deserve to know how they did vs some objective yardstick, as represented by a well-balanced set of victory points.

Thats what I am talkinf about. Good post 76MM, mybee I will ask you to be on my buddy list [:D]

[Ketza]

I would like to see yearly victory conditions for both sides. If either side does not meet a minimum criteria the game ends with a victor. If they both meet certain criteria it continues. Checks are made each year until the final turn.

Not sure how it would all work out but imagine the desperate offensives and defenses that would arise knowing you had to capture X or defend Y or the game would end. It would actually promote offensive action when in the games current form you have no need to take any.

Just a thought!