Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion

[mmarquo]

Here is Turn 15, September 25 from my match with MTours. Nonrandom weather, unbridled/aggressive air supply - sometimes 10 -14 drops per hex - he has figured out a way to play with utter disregard for any semblance of logistical restraint. Everyone of his spearheads has been cutoff multiple times, isolated, etc., all to no avail.

On this turn he has captured Tambov, Ryazan and Vladimir and encircled virtually the entire Russian army [X(] Now the entire game has been these massive encirclements which I fight out of; Soviet losses thus far 2,300,000 and I still field 4,700,000. I will end up with perhaps 5,800,000 by the time of the blizzard. He is moving forward at will, as if there are no Soviet units on the map.

TURN 15

[mmarquo]

More of the East Front Fantasy TURN 15

[Oberst_Klink]

Deja-vu?! I am playing (PBEM) just the Road to Kiev as Soviet and it's turn 5 and I am already screwed... and I am not a rookie. How on earth did your opponent get passed Voronezh in 15 turns? Surely he's not Pelton with his 100x exploits. But then... how did Michael T did achieve this? HQ build ups, etc?

Klink, Oberst

[mmarquo]

And east of Moscow to Vladimir by a hook around [:D] Super flying fuel birds ensue that the thirsty panzers never go wanting....

[Oberst_Klink]

WTF? So, basically one doesn't give a toss about flanks, units cut off, etc. Just supply whole Panzer Armies with Goering's Luftwaffe??? If only Paulus had 10% of that support back in Stalingrad. A WitE Paulus would have had a well supplied 6th Army with a nice x-mas cake for everybody and plenty of fuel to guzzle for the Panzers?

Klink, Oberst

[Aurelian]

That's why I only play against the AI now.

[Flaviusx]

Just resign, man. This is just stupid. Him and Sapper should play each other, and find out who is the King of Cheese.

[mmarquo]

For the record this is MTours, not MT. MTours plays with absolutely no regard for his flanks, and does not care about exposing marauding forward panzer units to encirclement because it simply does not matter. He fills up the unit and/or HQ to the maximum with fantasy flying fuel and simply breaks out and pushed forward. Hopefully a developer is seeing this and taking note. I will be glad to forward files. My recommendation:

Unless you want to play a fantasy role playing game, never play with anyone who will use bombers to fly fuel; and restrict bombers only to He-111's to drop supplies (not fuel). I would go further: the units can't move the turn they get air supplied by any means (like HQ buildup; would consider only allowing air resupply to units on a city/urban hex. Even this is a stretch for various reasons.

Marquo

[SigUp]

That's just ridiculous. [8|]
Honestly, that's exploiting on the highest level, not caring about game balance etc. I am impressed that you managed to play on until turn 15.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

That's why I only play against the AI now.

Well, it's another thing, if you can find an opponent who is willing to avoid cheesing and also strives for more historic play.

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Unless you want to play a fantasy role playing game, never play with anyone who will use bombers to fly fuel; and restrict bombers only to He-111's to drop supplies (not fuel). I would go further: the units can't move the turn they get air supplied by any means (like HQ buildup; would consider only allowing air resupply to units on a city/urban hex. Even this is a stretch for various reasons.

Or set logistics at 75 and only Ju-52s are allowed to fly supplies and fuel.

[mmarquo]

Flaviux,

I resigned the turn before, but did one more turn for him because he was dubious that I could have cut off a huge mass of his troops. Here is the situation before his move:

[timmyab]

I think you could easily get rid of bomber supply and HQ buildup and the game would be much better off for it.I've hardly used either in my game against Bobo and I'm roughly historical I think.Maybe even a little ahead?I'm not certain.Without these things 41 is actually starting to feel pretty good, i.e it's a massive struggle for the German player with counterattacks a constant menace.It's after turn 17 that it all goes mad.Removing the 1:1 rule at the start of the blizzard would be a start.

[Walloc]

Well, my term for LW never did take. The Heers fuel truck number 1. Hopefully by WiTE 2.0 changes will be made. Why use the LW for GS that is sadly unneeded in the current setup, if u instead can have ur Pz Groups milling around at near max MP. Incentives is what makes the world go around.

Rasmus

[mmarquo]

"That's just ridiculous.
Honestly, that's exploiting on the highest level, not caring about game balance etc. I am impressed that you managed to play on until turn 15."


Well, I am not a quitter and prefer to go the long haul, but this is too much. I do not blame MTours and applaud his ingenuity; the devs should take note that there is still work to do. It would be a pity if this exploit stands unaddressed.

Marquo [;)]

[mmarquo]

"Or set logistics at 75 and only Ju-52s are allowed to fly supplies and fuel."

Sig,

Have you tried this? 75 for both sides or only the Axis?

[SigUp]

Yeah, I am always impressed by people coming with with such solutions. On the other hand I don't think it is in the interest of fair play to do something like this.

As for logistics settings, first of all, I am a bad player, so what I have tried is not representative. Last week me and loki did a little test game with the Road to Smolensk scenario on 75, a little AAR is there in the AAR section. I am also playing a game against the AI on 60 and indeed, the logistics are pretty restrictive, if one declines on spamming HQ buildup and aerial supply.

[Lobster]

This game has a complete and utter disregard for time and space. Why should anything surprise anyone? Why do you look for realism when that is totally impossible?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I think you could easily get rid of bomber supply and HQ buildup and the game would be much better off for it.I've hardly used either in my game against Bobo and I'm roughly historical I think.Maybe even a little ahead?I'm not certain.Without these things 41 is actually starting to feel pretty good, i.e it's a massive struggle for the German player with counterattacks a constant menace.It's after turn 17 that it all goes mad.Removing the 1:1 rule at the start of the blizzard would be a start.

Need to do a lot more than that to tame the blizzard, imo. I think the morale hit all the way through February is too much. And I don't buy the globalized effects. It seems to me that as the Germans fall back west their situation ought to improve. (And by "falling back west" I do NOT mean Poland. The Soviets should have a difficult time sustaining their own drive.) Nor did the Soviets manage to drive the Axis back along the whole front, only against AGC did they enjoy marked success. Elsewhere things stabilized relatively quickly. As the game presently stands, you can do just as well across the entire line and that seems very dubious to me.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Nor did the Soviets manage to drive the Axis back along the whole front, only against AGC did they enjoy marked success. Elsewhere things stabilized relatively quickly. As the game presently stands, you can do just as well across the entire line and that seems very dubious to me.

This. In the area of Army Group South, with the exception of the breakthrough at Izyum, the Soviets failed to achieve any significant gains. And also at Army Group Centre did the Soviets struggle in areas where the Germans were not overstretched come January. The East facing front of the army group basically stayed the same and even in December did the Red Army need the entire month to push 4th Army out of its positions at Naro-Fominsk. Furthermore, currently the Germans can't conduct counteroffensives like the relief operation for Suchinichi in late January 42.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Need to do a lot more than that to tame the blizzard, imo. I think the morale hit all the way through February is too much. And I don't buy the globalized effects. It seems to me that as the Germans fall back west their situation ought to improve. (And by "falling back west" I do NOT mean Poland. The Soviets should have a difficult time sustaining their own drive.) Nor did the Soviets manage to drive the Axis back along the whole front, only against AGC did they enjoy marked success. Elsewhere things stabilized relatively quickly. As the game presently stands, you can do just as well across the entire line and that seems very dubious to me.

This is really the main point. You can deal with the Axis exploits by setting up house rules. But what about the blizzard? I've never seen anyone try to impose a house rule that deals with the blizzard. Maybe only allow hasty attacks? Maybe only allow one division per hex? I don't have any experience but without a blizzard house rule the game falls apart after turn 25 unless you've beaten the Russians to a pulp.

[timmyab]

Someone did come up with some house rules not long after release when the blizzard was more like the Black Death than anything else.I can't remember exactly what they were though.

Ideally the Soviets should only have offensive capability over roughly half the front.I've always thought that ammo doesn't play enough of a part in the game.This could be the limiting factor.Under a certain amount - no deliberate attacks, lower still and no attacks allowed at all.The player would have a limited stockpile which he could allocate to Front or Army HQs.This system would actually work well throughout the game.