Lost North Africa on Turn One!!
-
Larry Stephens
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Lost North Africa on Turn One!!
Started up a new campaign as the Germans on the weekend using version 2.1. Spent about 2 hours completing the very important first turn only to have the North African front surrender without a fight! I didn't move any units in or out of the Med during the turn so I'm at a loss as to why this happened. The version 2.1 readme file suggests that this had been a problem in the past but it had been (hopefully) resolved. Is this happening to anyone else?
Originally posted by Larry Stephens:
Started up a new campaign as the Germans on the weekend using version 2.1. Spent about 2 hours completing the very important first turn only to have the North African front surrender without a fight! I didn't move any units in or out of the Med during the turn so I'm at a loss as to why this happened. The version 2.1 readme file suggests that this had been a problem in the past but it had been (hopefully) resolved. Is this happening to anyone else?
Larry,
There is a slight chance of this happening on the first turn (2%). Hopefully you saved that turn before you initiated combat. If you set the replacement level to about 80% the slight chance quickly goes away.
Svar.
May I ask one very important question here? Just why is that we debate only on the surface about this problem? Frankly, we're being told that the chances of the front collapsing are very remote, but for all the times I played WIR in the past, the front NEVER collapsed if I maintained the front strength level for that year (which noone is talking about)(which usually meant that you could withdraw a ton of stuff).
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the formula that is used to keep the front going as it did historically. What I used to do, which now appears hopeless, is in '41 I used to take the worst scenario in Africa, which would be 1500 strength points needed (you know - tanks X3, infantry X1, aircraft X1, etc) and leave the front at that strength and generally until '43 it worked (assuming you kept each years increased requirement up), but now it would appear that it's WORSE than it was before. You withdraw one lousy unit and it's almost certain to collapse, and in the case cited here, one unit wasn't even withdrawn. What's the point of maintaining the front when it collapses so easily? If it collapses so easily, what good will putting all sorts of units in there do? For some reason it would appear the formula used in the manual that states what will happen to the front if it's maintained or not, has been totally abandoned and has left it meaningless. Or perhaps the formula at least needs to be restated, so that it reflects, a much higher maintenance level. From what I've seen, I've yet to see anyone dismiss the original formula, nor even to state that the formula is not that one, but that it will remain a secret. Thanks
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the formula that is used to keep the front going as it did historically. What I used to do, which now appears hopeless, is in '41 I used to take the worst scenario in Africa, which would be 1500 strength points needed (you know - tanks X3, infantry X1, aircraft X1, etc) and leave the front at that strength and generally until '43 it worked (assuming you kept each years increased requirement up), but now it would appear that it's WORSE than it was before. You withdraw one lousy unit and it's almost certain to collapse, and in the case cited here, one unit wasn't even withdrawn. What's the point of maintaining the front when it collapses so easily? If it collapses so easily, what good will putting all sorts of units in there do? For some reason it would appear the formula used in the manual that states what will happen to the front if it's maintained or not, has been totally abandoned and has left it meaningless. Or perhaps the formula at least needs to be restated, so that it reflects, a much higher maintenance level. From what I've seen, I've yet to see anyone dismiss the original formula, nor even to state that the formula is not that one, but that it will remain a secret. Thanks
In the original version, the manual did not state what was truly happening. There were NO shatter checks in 1941, so you literally could strip the entire Italian front bare without any danger until 1942. There were also built in shatter/surrender events that would happen no matter what for both West and Italian fronts, destroying or heavily damaging all units in them. These events happened within a very small date range, making it possible to take advantage of the system quite easily.Originally posted by Charles22:
... but for all the times I played WIR in the past, the front NEVER collapsed if I maintained the front strength level for that year ...
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the formula that is used to keep the front going as it did historically. What I used to do, which now appears hopeless, is in '41 I used to take the worst scenario in Africa, which would be 1500 strength points needed (you know - tanks X3, infantry X1, aircraft X1, etc) and leave the front at that strength and generally until '43 it worked (assuming you kept each years increased requirement up), but now it would appear that it's WORSE than it was before. You withdraw one lousy unit and it's almost certain to collapse, and in the case cited here, one unit wasn't even withdrawn. What's the point of maintaining the front when it collapses so easily? If it collapses so easily, what good will putting all sorts of units in there do? For some reason it would appear the formula used in the manual that states what will happen to the front if it's maintained or not, has been totally abandoned and has left it meaningless. Or perhaps the formula at least needs to be restated, so that it reflects, a much higher maintenance level. From what I've seen, I've yet to see anyone dismiss the original formula, nor even to state that the formula is not that one, but that it will remain a secret. Thanks
The current system you are talking about is being tweaked further for the next release, so what I will say will be changing some, but NONE of the testers, using the current version had a shatter in weeks of testing for 1941. The way it is setup in the current release is (some of this I am not positive about, but it is correct for 1941 anyway):
Italian Front:
Allied strength = 1000 + 500*(year-1940)
Also, if the Axis leader fails a check, the allied strength gets a random increase from 1-750. Hitler can replace the assigned leader for this check, making it more likely to fail (I believe the chance of Hitler being used is 33% or so).
A random number is selected from 1 to the allied strength. If this is greater than the Axis strenth, it fails its check and the event happens. The initial Axis stength in 1941 is around 1760 using the latest OBWIR files. It goes up from there as the strength gets increased, which is faster than earlier versions due to the higher tank pools at the start.
Thus, the only way for the Italian front to shatter is if:
The leader fails his check - approximately a 35% chance.
The random increase in Allied strength is greater than 260. This is about 65%.
Finally, the random choice of a number for the allies must be greater than 1760.
As the average allied strength, if the Axis leader fails his check, is 1875, the total chance of shattering when the leader fails is about 6.5%, with a 35% chance of the failure happening, for a total chance of .35*.065 or around 2%, if I remember everything correctly. This is for the first turn only. As the Axis strength increases, the chance of a shatter drops quickly, if the front is left alone, until 1942.
In the next version, Arnaud is, based on our pleas, going to make the chance of a negative event basically nil, unless there is strength removed. Also, the automatic shatter events have been removed from the game, which is why there needs to be some kind of increased random chance to counterbalance this removal. Basically, this is primarily being handled for the Italian front by making the odds of a shatter increase by triple in 1943, when automatic events used to happen, but doing it on a random basis throughout the year.
This is the best I can come up with as to what is going on, but the current checks follow the manual more closely than the 1.x versions, I think, which did things not even follow the things documented.
------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
Charles 22,Originally posted by Charles22:
May I ask one very important question here? Just why is that we debate only on the surface about this problem? Frankly, we're being told that the chances of the front collapsing are very remote, but for all the times I played WIR in the past, the front NEVER collapsed if I maintained the front strength level for that year (which noone is talking about)(which usually meant that you could withdraw a ton of stuff).
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the formula that is used to keep the front going as it did historically. What I used to do, which now appears hopeless, is in '41 I used to take the worst scenario in Africa, which would be 1500 strength points needed (you know - tanks X3, infantry X1, aircraft X1, etc) and leave the front at that strength and generally until '43 it worked (assuming you kept each years increased requirement up), but now it would appear that it's WORSE than it was before. You withdraw one lousy unit and it's almost certain to collapse, and in the case cited here, one unit wasn't even withdrawn. What's the point of maintaining the front when it collapses so easily? If it collapses so easily, what good will putting all sorts of units in there do? For some reason it would appear the formula used in the manual that states what will happen to the front if it's maintained or not, has been totally abandoned and has left it meaningless. Or perhaps the formula at least needs to be restated, so that it reflects, a much higher maintenance level. From what I've seen, I've yet to see anyone dismiss the original formula, nor even to state that the formula is not that one, but that it will remain a secret. Thanks
To elaborate a little on what Rick Bancroft said, the Allied strength = 1000 + (500 if weather is clear) in 1941. In 1942, the Allied strength = 1500 + (500 if the weather is clear). Starting in 1943, the Allied strength = 2000 + (500 if the weather is clear) and the Axis strength is divided by 2 if the Axis are fighting outside of Italy.
The Axis strength is still calculated like the rule book says and the CV for the Italian Front is the Axis strength divided by 10, so you can use that figure to modify your forces in the Italian Front and maintain the minimum strength to prevent it from shattering. Because of the changes it is possible to still have the Axis fighting in North Africa at the end of the war if high enough Axis strength levels are maintained in the Italian Front.
That is why Matrix is still adjusting this formula.
Svar
Thanks for the explanations guys, but one thing puzzles me, not having the rulebook in front of me now.
I thought the formula was simply that the Axis had to maintain the strength total for every year, in order for the front to run historically. In other words, '41's worst case scenario would require the minimum maintenance of 1500 pts. for the Axis in order to pass the check. As I understand it, front events happen regardless, or at worst occur speeded up (and possibly slowed down), by exceeding the strength requirement for a given year (and I do recall how the West Front would shatter almost no matter what in '44). From the way I recall the formula, there was no mention of a random factor, other than if the Axis leader failed his check, which at worst in '41, requires the additional 500 pts. for the worst case of 1500 total.
I've never seen in the formula how there was any such thing as a Allied strength total it was working against, nor indeed that the Axis forces were reduced to 1/10 and then being compared to it. While the formula that y'all specify might work quite well, it's very inapparent, and it should be made clear that the old formula is no longer adhered to in any fashion. I might not have read the old formula correctly, as indeed I recall counting the NAfrica forces perhaps exceeding 2500, and that was after I took out some units, but I surely didn't get everything wrong, which is what the approach you're giving me would seem to suggest (other than a whole new formula).
I didn't know that the front wouldn't shatter in '41 no matter what in the earlier version, but I always seemed to keep at least 500 pts over the minimum limit, and it worked fine till '43 for the most part. I'm not sure where this 1/10 factor figures in, but I don't think it operated on the old system, unless the hidden (if it were hidden, for it certainly isn't in the manual)Allied forces granted a great deal of strength to the Axis formula mentioned. What I mean, is that to achieve the 1500 pt. requirement, if it's then going to be 1/10'd, would require somewhere arounf 15000 strength points for the Germans, and there just isn't a way. Anyway, I hope the formula is completely legible on the newer version's readme file.
I thought the formula was simply that the Axis had to maintain the strength total for every year, in order for the front to run historically. In other words, '41's worst case scenario would require the minimum maintenance of 1500 pts. for the Axis in order to pass the check. As I understand it, front events happen regardless, or at worst occur speeded up (and possibly slowed down), by exceeding the strength requirement for a given year (and I do recall how the West Front would shatter almost no matter what in '44). From the way I recall the formula, there was no mention of a random factor, other than if the Axis leader failed his check, which at worst in '41, requires the additional 500 pts. for the worst case of 1500 total.
I've never seen in the formula how there was any such thing as a Allied strength total it was working against, nor indeed that the Axis forces were reduced to 1/10 and then being compared to it. While the formula that y'all specify might work quite well, it's very inapparent, and it should be made clear that the old formula is no longer adhered to in any fashion. I might not have read the old formula correctly, as indeed I recall counting the NAfrica forces perhaps exceeding 2500, and that was after I took out some units, but I surely didn't get everything wrong, which is what the approach you're giving me would seem to suggest (other than a whole new formula).
I didn't know that the front wouldn't shatter in '41 no matter what in the earlier version, but I always seemed to keep at least 500 pts over the minimum limit, and it worked fine till '43 for the most part. I'm not sure where this 1/10 factor figures in, but I don't think it operated on the old system, unless the hidden (if it were hidden, for it certainly isn't in the manual)Allied forces granted a great deal of strength to the Axis formula mentioned. What I mean, is that to achieve the 1500 pt. requirement, if it's then going to be 1/10'd, would require somewhere arounf 15000 strength points for the Germans, and there just isn't a way. Anyway, I hope the formula is completely legible on the newer version's readme file.
One of the odd things about this discussion is that it is based on the assumption that the Italian front can be stripped to reinforce the russian front. Realistically the chances of this occuring were nil. The Italian and German Airforces deployed in Italy were required to be there to contest the British in the Med. The chances of Italian ground units being transfered to Russia were also nearly nil.
When playing I withdraw 1 Italian fighter and 1 Italian bomber group (from the 8th army) and send them to the german army which has the Italian EXPForce, withdraw the airborne and the weak panzer and motorised units to the 8th to build and transfer in 2 german infantry divisions. The airpower stays in place. I have never had a problem with shattering except under the old system where even a strong front would shatter in 43. Plus I increase the replacement level to 80 and increase that by 5% per year to a max of 90.
The one thing I would like to see changed is that unit strength would not decrease when the situation is "Defending xxxx". This is very silly when the strenght of formations decreases while no combat is going on.
When playing I withdraw 1 Italian fighter and 1 Italian bomber group (from the 8th army) and send them to the german army which has the Italian EXPForce, withdraw the airborne and the weak panzer and motorised units to the 8th to build and transfer in 2 german infantry divisions. The airpower stays in place. I have never had a problem with shattering except under the old system where even a strong front would shatter in 43. Plus I increase the replacement level to 80 and increase that by 5% per year to a max of 90.
The one thing I would like to see changed is that unit strength would not decrease when the situation is "Defending xxxx". This is very silly when the strenght of formations decreases while no combat is going on.
Charles22,Originally posted by Charles22:
Thanks for the explanations guys, but one thing puzzles me, not having the rulebook in front of me now.
I've never seen in the formula how there was any such thing as a Allied strength total it was working against, nor indeed that the Axis forces were reduced to 1/10 and then being compared to it.
I'm sorry I didn't make it a little clearer. When you start the game in 1941, the CV for the Italian front reads about 176. The Axis strength is really about 1760 and that is the number that is compared to the random number generated between 0 and the calculated Allied strength. So if the weather is clear and Rommel passes his leader check, the Allied strength is 1500 and the random number will be between 0 and 1500. As you can see, in that case it is impossible for the Front to shatter because the Axis strength is 1760 even though the CV is 176. Clear as mud right? If I have made you more confused let me know and I'll try again.
Svar
Per the manual, the Allied strength is determined for the Italian front by:Originally posted by Charles22:
As I understand it, front events happen regardless, or at worst occur speeded up (and possibly slowed down), by exceeding the strength requirement for a given year (and I do recall how the West Front would shatter almost no matter what in '44). From the way I recall the formula, there was no mention of a random factor, other than if the Axis leader failed his check, which at worst in '41, requires the additional 500 pts. for the worst case of 1500 total.
I've never seen in the formula how there was any such thing as a Allied strength total it was working against, ...
I didn't know that the front wouldn't shatter in '41 no matter what in the earlier version, but I always seemed to keep at least 500 pts over the minimum limit, and it worked fine till '43 for the most part. ...
Anyway, I hope the formula is completely legible on the newer version's readme file.
(Year -1941)*500 + 500 (if clear weather) + 500 (if Axis ldr fails his check).
I don't know if this was actually followed completely or not. The current formula is:
(Year-1940)*500+500+500 (if Clear)+750 (if leader fails his check).
Thus, it is quite similar to the old formula from the book, just adjusted primarily due to the removal of the automatic events (which weren't in the book anyway) that no strength would have affected or slowed down. The randomness in the old system only affected additional events, and there were only limited set events so you could do better than historical if you avoided the additional events.
Again, the current version follows the old format but with tweaked formulas. The next version will be tweaked further to reduce the liklihood of these events for the Italian front, while keeping the total randomness rather than the fixed events of before, that were not documented in the manual at all. This should end up being a better overall experience as the Axis player won't be able to strip fronts right before the set events anymore, as some used to do.
Hope this helps with what is going on compared to before. You are right about the formulas being in the read me - the playtesters did not know what the latest formulas were until fairly recently either.
------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
.-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Ed Cogburn: Are you saying that the front wasn't touched, in other words the historic forces that came along, were the only additions and that it didn't fall till then? The front could certainly last till that long if it were reinforced early enough, strong enough (for example Rommel ends up taking all of Egypt) so that a later US invasion, assuming it would've even been strategically possible, would've had a lot more territory to take from a victorious Africa Korp as opposed to one which had lost at El Alemein.
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Charles22:
Ed Cogburn: Are you saying that the front wasn't touched, in other words the historic forces that came along, were the only additions and that it didn't fall till then?
Yes, it was original forces only, no reinforcements by me at all.
Actually I don't think so. What stopped Rommel was not the British Army, it was his failing supply line (courtesy of the Navy and Air Force plus reinforcements from the Yanks), and a distracted Hitler (once Barbarossa begin, the African Front took a distant back seat). I have a hard time trying to imagine what the Germans could have done to change those things.
The front could certainly last till that long if it were reinforced early enough, strong enough (for example Rommel ends up taking all of Egypt) so that a later US invasion, assuming it would've even been strategically possible, would've had a lot more territory to take from a victorious Africa Korp as opposed to one which had lost at El Alemein.
[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited October 26, 2000).]
Ed Cogburn: It's not really that hard to imagine is it? Afterall, Rommel was well known to have thought he could have done so much more with another division or two (German). Also, if the new divisions that had arrived after the route at El Alamein, had arrived before El Alamein, that situation could've been very different indeed. As the limits to the game go, let's say you send a few air formations or more divisions, since we can't control places like Malta and Gibraltar, could've been used to possibly take those places, thereby completely changing the theatre, thereby rendering supply more effective. It's really not that hard to imagine the Germans taking Malta, is it? Many historians have written endlessly on how much stronger the Germans would've been with Malta in their grasp. Apparently the Germans found it worthy enough to at least bomb it considerably.
If you've read extensively on NAfrica, one thing that gets highlighted almost glibly is the lack of supply, but often Rommel's plans were limited by a simple lack of tanks. Another armored division or two, or even some infantry could've made a huge difference when things were so touch-and-go before the defeat at El Alamain.
I would have to doubt very seriously whether Operation Torch would've even been attempted if Germany held Malta and possibly Egypt as well. Even if they just held onto Tunisia it might not have been attempted. This of course might have worked out for the worst for the Germans, because it probably would have prompted the Allies into invading France earlier.
In essence, we have what I believe is called a NAfrican front, which later changes to Italian, but needn't mean that the Axis if given more resources from the Russian campaign, would've done the exact same things in the exact same places in NAfrica, nor indeed that their supplies would've been just as limited because a stronger presence might've been able or more willing to protect the supply (and more able to capture some).
If you've read extensively on NAfrica, one thing that gets highlighted almost glibly is the lack of supply, but often Rommel's plans were limited by a simple lack of tanks. Another armored division or two, or even some infantry could've made a huge difference when things were so touch-and-go before the defeat at El Alamain.
I would have to doubt very seriously whether Operation Torch would've even been attempted if Germany held Malta and possibly Egypt as well. Even if they just held onto Tunisia it might not have been attempted. This of course might have worked out for the worst for the Germans, because it probably would have prompted the Allies into invading France earlier.
In essence, we have what I believe is called a NAfrican front, which later changes to Italian, but needn't mean that the Axis if given more resources from the Russian campaign, would've done the exact same things in the exact same places in NAfrica, nor indeed that their supplies would've been just as limited because a stronger presence might've been able or more willing to protect the supply (and more able to capture some).
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Has anyone at Matrix given any more thought to the idea of giving the Axis the option launching offensives on the African/Italian or eastern fronts?
The idea is, put a button saying "Launch offensive" in the Front Window. If the button is pushed, the game makes a shatter check, but reversed (or something like that). If the Axis win, the Allies are pushed back a step (ie "Fighting South of Rome" reverts to "Defending Italy" again).
If the axis loose, then that front suffers great extra losses.
What do you think?
The idea is, put a button saying "Launch offensive" in the Front Window. If the button is pushed, the game makes a shatter check, but reversed (or something like that). If the Axis win, the Allies are pushed back a step (ie "Fighting South of Rome" reverts to "Defending Italy" again).
If the axis loose, then that front suffers great extra losses.
What do you think?
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Ok, if they take Malta things could have changed for the better for awhile, but it depends on when it happens, early or late. They had plans, but never tried it, yet they took Crete, a less important target, despite not controling the sea. So why didn't they try Malta which was in air range from the Italian mainland? I suspect they found some reason that would make the operation a failure, or at least resulting in nothing good in the long run.Originally posted by Charles22:
In essence, we have what I believe is called a NAfrican front, which later changes to Italian, but needn't mean that the Axis if given more resources from the Russian campaign
Suppose they took Malta and drove the Brits out of Eygpt. They would still face a two front war fighting Brits as far East as Persia, and perhaps Soviet forces as well, and Yanks invading from the West. Suppose it required the Axis player moving additional air power, panzer divisions, and resources to accomplish this, which would have a significant effect on their invasion of the USSR. The end result would still be inevitable, it would just be a matter of time. You might buy a lot of time in the Med theater, but you've hurt yourself in the East and West.
The interesting thing is this: knowing you'll lose anyway, what player would give up significant forces for this endeavor, when the player is only playing the invasion of the USSR? Barbarossa is what WiR is about, the Fronts aren't the important part of WiR, Mother Russia is. I for one would *never* use such an option because it would take away from the Eastern front, which is precisely what I'm playing, the Eastern Front, not the Med or the West. I doubt very many people would use such an option for the same reason. In fact, most people I suspect look for ways to take *away* from the other Fronts in order to bolster the Barbarossa campaign.
You guys are asking Matrix to turn the Fronts in WiR into a game unto themselves, but there is two problems with that: WiR was never meant to be a full War in Europe simulation, the Fronts aren't sophisticated as they are just meant to remind the player what's going on elsewhere, and second, Matrix is not going to build such a complex Fronts system into WiR because their mandate for WiR is very restricted, e.g., fix the bugs and update the OOB and map.
Please keep in mind the WiR update is not some huge endeavor by Matrix with a half dozen programmers and an army of playtesters all working full-time. There is exactly one programmer along with a dozen testers or so, and they are all volunteers working part-time (well the programmer may be getting paid, I'm not sure).
Instead of asking for the impossible with this WiR update, a better bet would be to start pestering the Matrix folks for a built-from-scratch European theater wargame. I'll happily join you in such a pestering campaign.
Ed Cogburn: Haven't you heard how the British, themselves, said that they could've easily lost the entire Middle East basin if they lost at El Alamein? You have to also ignore the benefit of a successful Rommel linking up with the East Front and helping in the attack in Stalingrad etc. Historians have waxed extensively on how disasterous losing Egypt (more oil for Germany for one thing) and then Rommel possibly moving to link up to Russia, would have been. For one thing, it at that time would no longer be 'two fronts' but rather one extended one. So that if they wanted to hold Tripoli and so on, they could use reinforcements "without" needing to control the Mediterranean, a key consideration. Of course Russia being attacked from multiple angles would be the main benefit of Rommel going in. What would once be two fronts for Gerry would be more like one extended front, while what was once one front for Russia turns into two (unless the Rommel link-up were done at a time and place that was already taken by the Germans.
So you see how additional forces in another theatre can play a decisive effect. Yes, NAfrica could have a VERY direct effect on whether Italy stays in the Axis, whether NAfrica is Allied-invaded later, and so on.
As far as wanting to see the other theatres and play them, yes that would be ideal, but I don't think many of us see that as possible with the construction of the game as it is, but even so, that's not a successful counter to the idea of more things poured into NAfrica (or less) having some signifigance. To me, a heavily reinforced NAfrica shouldn't make the Axis dominant there, or worse yet allow a German Southern Front invasion, but it should at least allow the Germans to hold it if wanted (or at least dramatically slow it down). The bottom line is that if all of the Russian Front were thrown into NAfrica, could the Allies hold it? Not on your life. So, the give and take of units on that front shouldn't work purely for detriment to the Germans with no benefit.
I agree, that I am playing an East Front game, but the other fronts are included in a vague way are they not? If another front shatters, do I not have to lose tons of replacements and direct untis to bolster that front to the minimum again, thereby weakening the East? Yeah, as the game is constructed, there in nothing to win (or hold off) on the vague fronts, so like you, I wish to win what is possible to win. Even within game structures, however, I may be more willing to pull back a few divisions to another front earlier, rather than lose the entire front at one time, and then have to scramble to get units there when rail is limited.
You play the same strategy with the other fronts that you can play on the attack, just within Russia itself. You know...when my positions are holding up really well on defensive places in Russia, I can drain those areas in order to concentrate where I'm attacking. To say that NAfrica shouldn't benefit from withdrawn forces elsewhere is to not give me any benefit within pulling forces on the East Front itself to benefit what would otherwise be a limited offensive elsewhere. It's a bit silly. Gamewise, and I thought it at least operated this way to some extent early on, the invasion timelines should recede by the amount of support is sent to it. What's the point in modeling a front, even in the vague sense, if it works only to one side's benefit? If the answer is that we are only 'really' trying to effect things on the Eastern Front, all I can tell you is that as things stand the Battle of the Bulge could've never happened, because the Germans wouldn't have been able to gain an advantage, temporary or not, in moving en masse units to another front. It doesn't matter whether in the end the Ardenne attack shortened the war or not, because ultimately it could've extended it as well. Sometimes concentration of force doesn't pay off, and may even backlash to an extent, but it's pretty rare that the very front where it's sent suffers for it. Of course, had the front been reinforced, as it was, with little or no attack, then surely the West Front would've been more stable. It's what you do with the concentration of force that counts, but of course gamewise we have no control of that, but again, concentration of force on another front, should pay off in some way, at least slowing the opposition.
It would seem to me it would be quite easy to program. Instead of the formula only shortening the historic timeline of invasions for amounts withdrawn, you have forces added which "lengthen" the invasion timeline. That doesn't call for allowing victory in the Mediterranean or conquering England, but only to slow things down. If I want my massive adjustments to a front falling in 6/43, to delay it till 1/44, shouldn't I be able to do that? I may not be able to take win in Russia by 6/43, but with less units I "might" be able to do the same job by 1/44. The East Front could benefit enormously by not having the '43 summer offensive stymied by another front falling during it.
That's my two cents worth anyway.
So you see how additional forces in another theatre can play a decisive effect. Yes, NAfrica could have a VERY direct effect on whether Italy stays in the Axis, whether NAfrica is Allied-invaded later, and so on.
As far as wanting to see the other theatres and play them, yes that would be ideal, but I don't think many of us see that as possible with the construction of the game as it is, but even so, that's not a successful counter to the idea of more things poured into NAfrica (or less) having some signifigance. To me, a heavily reinforced NAfrica shouldn't make the Axis dominant there, or worse yet allow a German Southern Front invasion, but it should at least allow the Germans to hold it if wanted (or at least dramatically slow it down). The bottom line is that if all of the Russian Front were thrown into NAfrica, could the Allies hold it? Not on your life. So, the give and take of units on that front shouldn't work purely for detriment to the Germans with no benefit.
I agree, that I am playing an East Front game, but the other fronts are included in a vague way are they not? If another front shatters, do I not have to lose tons of replacements and direct untis to bolster that front to the minimum again, thereby weakening the East? Yeah, as the game is constructed, there in nothing to win (or hold off) on the vague fronts, so like you, I wish to win what is possible to win. Even within game structures, however, I may be more willing to pull back a few divisions to another front earlier, rather than lose the entire front at one time, and then have to scramble to get units there when rail is limited.
You play the same strategy with the other fronts that you can play on the attack, just within Russia itself. You know...when my positions are holding up really well on defensive places in Russia, I can drain those areas in order to concentrate where I'm attacking. To say that NAfrica shouldn't benefit from withdrawn forces elsewhere is to not give me any benefit within pulling forces on the East Front itself to benefit what would otherwise be a limited offensive elsewhere. It's a bit silly. Gamewise, and I thought it at least operated this way to some extent early on, the invasion timelines should recede by the amount of support is sent to it. What's the point in modeling a front, even in the vague sense, if it works only to one side's benefit? If the answer is that we are only 'really' trying to effect things on the Eastern Front, all I can tell you is that as things stand the Battle of the Bulge could've never happened, because the Germans wouldn't have been able to gain an advantage, temporary or not, in moving en masse units to another front. It doesn't matter whether in the end the Ardenne attack shortened the war or not, because ultimately it could've extended it as well. Sometimes concentration of force doesn't pay off, and may even backlash to an extent, but it's pretty rare that the very front where it's sent suffers for it. Of course, had the front been reinforced, as it was, with little or no attack, then surely the West Front would've been more stable. It's what you do with the concentration of force that counts, but of course gamewise we have no control of that, but again, concentration of force on another front, should pay off in some way, at least slowing the opposition.
It would seem to me it would be quite easy to program. Instead of the formula only shortening the historic timeline of invasions for amounts withdrawn, you have forces added which "lengthen" the invasion timeline. That doesn't call for allowing victory in the Mediterranean or conquering England, but only to slow things down. If I want my massive adjustments to a front falling in 6/43, to delay it till 1/44, shouldn't I be able to do that? I may not be able to take win in Russia by 6/43, but with less units I "might" be able to do the same job by 1/44. The East Front could benefit enormously by not having the '43 summer offensive stymied by another front falling during it.
That's my two cents worth anyway.
I think most of us agree with the comment about being able to hold out longer with stronger forces than historically, as you have stated. That is what the changes to the event checks are allowing. Before, you would have problems no matter what on certain dates. Now you can hold out through the use of stronger forces for a longer period as there is not going to be the set shatter formula. It is tweaking the event formulas to make them work "historically" within random chance that is the tough part of this change. Also, the Italian front in North Africa is almost doomed to fail no matter how much strength you put there, but not by a set date. It could conceivably hold out even then, but would require major reinforcements in 1943 and 1944, at the risk of losing them all anyway.Originally posted by Charles22:
It would seem to me it would be quite easy to program. Instead of the formula only shortening the historic timeline of invasions for amounts withdrawn, you have forces added which "lengthen" the invasion timeline. That doesn't call for allowing victory in the Mediterranean or conquering England, but only to slow things down. If I want my massive adjustments to a front falling in 6/43, to delay it till 1/44, shouldn't I be able to do that? I may not be able to take win in Russia by 6/43, but with less units I "might" be able to do the same job by 1/44. The East Front could benefit enormously by not having the '43 summer offensive stymied by another front falling during it.
That's my two cents worth anyway.
The game does not represent all of the available units for the West front especially, and the Italian front (along with Yugoslavia and other areas). I have always looked at the units in the game as being available for transfer to the east front, at the risk of losing the war if these extra troops can't win the war in the east quickly enough.
Just some thoughts, but the changes will provide more upside potential to the game than the old automatic events, I think.
------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
Thanks Rick, I was starting to think that there was no possibility of slowing a front down. So, from what you're telling me, will all fronts stand till the historic timeline if those fronts are untouched? From what I understand all that had to be kept on the other fronts was the formula's minimum strength composition. From what I understand, it would seem to get around the problem of someone pulling everything out of NAfrica, that y'all are now allowing the front to 'possibly' fall no matter what, Wouldn't it make more sense to tell people what the minimum force composition that's needed to have an excellent chance for the front to hold out that long, instead? I mean, isn't it a bit silly that Germany is conquered because you might have accidently withdrew a unit too many out of that front? Does an entire front collapse because it's only weaker than before? Shouldn't the duration of timelines be specifically related to the strength points across the board for every year?
One problem I have with the game, as it stands, is that I have no idea what the 'historic' force was in order to try to shore up the front lasting as long as it did. It seems as though the game works off what the historic forces sent/taken away, were, and also off the minimum strength formula in the manual. The problem I have with that, is if the 90th Motorized comes to NAFrica, I might move it into Russia because the minimum strength is still high enough without it, but if withdrawing a unit which was never taken from that front speeds up the timeline, what am I to do if I'm unaware of that effect? I don't knwo how the game is now, but I've taken one lousy JPZ squad out of the Western Front and lose the war because of it, so it oviously isn't working solely off strength points, as the Western Front is way over the minimum (BTW, I played the first turn like four separate times and each time withdrawing one such minimal squad collapsed the front. Obviously then only way the game, at that time, and possibly now, will allow you to withdraw a unit, is if you put another unit of equal strength in it. Either that, or there are certain units which the computer won't let you move, regardless.
One problem I have with the game, as it stands, is that I have no idea what the 'historic' force was in order to try to shore up the front lasting as long as it did. It seems as though the game works off what the historic forces sent/taken away, were, and also off the minimum strength formula in the manual. The problem I have with that, is if the 90th Motorized comes to NAFrica, I might move it into Russia because the minimum strength is still high enough without it, but if withdrawing a unit which was never taken from that front speeds up the timeline, what am I to do if I'm unaware of that effect? I don't knwo how the game is now, but I've taken one lousy JPZ squad out of the Western Front and lose the war because of it, so it oviously isn't working solely off strength points, as the Western Front is way over the minimum (BTW, I played the first turn like four separate times and each time withdrawing one such minimal squad collapsed the front. Obviously then only way the game, at that time, and possibly now, will allow you to withdraw a unit, is if you put another unit of equal strength in it. Either that, or there are certain units which the computer won't let you move, regardless.
Charles22,
If you leave things totally alone, the West front will typically last throughout the war without any problems - in my tests usually the Allies get stuck in Normandy. The Italian front is harder to say, but there typically should not be any problems with the default units until 1943, and even after that reinforcements should keep it up okay.
I generally don't touch anything myself, but if you are having a problem after moving just one smaller unit out of the West front, I will give it a try and see what happens. What unit have you tried moving? There is no strength level that guarantees a shatter event, a reduced strength just increases your chance of a negative event, but you can get lucky (just like in Las Vegas). BTW are you playing a regular game or the Secure PBEM?
Thanks
------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
If you leave things totally alone, the West front will typically last throughout the war without any problems - in my tests usually the Allies get stuck in Normandy. The Italian front is harder to say, but there typically should not be any problems with the default units until 1943, and even after that reinforcements should keep it up okay.
I generally don't touch anything myself, but if you are having a problem after moving just one smaller unit out of the West front, I will give it a try and see what happens. What unit have you tried moving? There is no strength level that guarantees a shatter event, a reduced strength just increases your chance of a negative event, but you can get lucky (just like in Las Vegas). BTW are you playing a regular game or the Secure PBEM?
Thanks
------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi