Armor and Mech Blob - What Needs to Be Done?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Thank you for your reply
But in fact does not modify the game, player can deal with Germany's armored Strategy.
In the Battle of morris VS me ,, we can use Soviet Union defend Germany panzer strategy.
In this case,Victory depends on the Who fewer mistakes

I think you fail to see the point. Only you and Morris know the armor blob well and that means you know the other will use the strategy and can defend against it. When we tried and failed numerous times it means it's not obvious how you defend against such a strategy. So most players will simply be crushed being faced with the armor blob.

Again I ask you. What's the FUN in luring unsuspected players into such a game and crush them in 1941 as the Axis? You know the strategy can beat any other strategy unless you counter it from September 1939. Are you so focused on beating the other players you ignore that you completely ruin his fun in the process? Most players accept defeat if they felt they had a fair chance and their own mistakes contributed to the defeat.

We need to have a game where players have a fair chance to do well with a reasonably sound strategy. Seeing the Germans only build armor units with such a fragile oil situation they had is not logical and I think the real Germans would never have done that. Hitler would have been told it's impossible to support so many tanks in 1941 if he had ordered the creation of 15 armor corps.

[Plaid]

I think all would agree, that wargame should be realistic, first of all. It should not be exact repeat of what happenend in reality surely, but the feel must be realistic. Personally I will not feel like german high command, when moving 2 dozens panzer korps in Syberia. This unrealistic force organisation feels more like Civilization serries games, or sort of. I don't like all sorts of blobbing because its impossible in reality and feels...silly.
Countering one silly strategy with another silly one seems little fun from realism aspect.
So I think right job is done, to make blobbing strategies unattractive and unpopular, for the sake of realism.
Example from older times.
Vanilla CEAW. 100% AXIS ultimate victory blueprint:
Build only airpower and navy units since very start of game, mostly TAC bombers.
Do sealion after France. -> Do Canada after Sealion. -> Britain surrenders, no allied powers left, axis won somewhere like July 1941.
Maybe it looks smart 1 time, but who will play a game where EVERY game plays like this?

[gerones]

We shouldn´t forget that CEAW-GS is both a game and a simulation. Civilization is only a game in which can occur fantastic things. Fantastic things like 15 german panzer corps units in 1941 cannot occur in a simulation game like CEAW is.

[LOGAN5]

Putting a cap on units is basically ruining the game, having control over building your army will turn into an illusion and a pointless task when you know at the end of the year you will reach a certain pre-determined mix of units.

[rkr1958]

We changed our minds because the armor blob is ruining the game balance. When you can take Omsk in 1942 against an elite player like Neil using the armor blob then there is something wrong about the blob strategy. No way the real Germans would be able to get to Omsk in 1942 against competent Russian play.

Of all the elite players I’ve played (e.g., Borger, Neil, Max, Joe Rock), to whom I’ve never won and have always lost, I would say that in my opinion the best defensive player of them all is Neil. I mean no disrespect to the other elites, who are by far better defense players and are among the best in the game. Neil wins be defense and the others by a combination of offensive and defensive. For example as the allies against Borger, Max or Joe I have “feared” for my survival in game terms. That is, I was worried whether or not I could keep Russia in the game and in most cases I did just barely. I did lose Russia one time to Borger and one time to Joe.
Against Neil as the allies, I’ve never felt for Russia’s survival. However; on the flip side, trying to transition to the offensive against him in severe weather or, in general in 1943 was like trying to punch my way out of a wet paper bag. He would pull back just enough for me to whiff. I could really never get traction against him and when May 1945 rolled around the allies were still slugging it out in southern Italy, barely established in France (if at all) and the Russians were still in Russia.
If the best defensive player in the game can’t stop the blob after numerous attempts, and I do mean numerous attempts, then something is wrong. I now feel that “something wrong” is now being corrected.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Putting a cap on units is basically ruining the game, having control over building your army will turn into an illusion and a pointless task when you know at the end of the year you will reach a certain pre-determined mix of units.

That's your view and I don't share that.

First of all you can build as many units you want of a particular type. So there is actually no build cap. It's only if you build hordes of units of one kind early in the game you will get some penalty (primarily oil). I guess you haven't met an Axis player attacking you with 15 armor units in May 1941. Try to hold Omsk in 1942 against such a force. THAT is ruining the game, not getting penalties from trying to do so.

The free logistics limit increases by the game year and 95% of all games are within the limit all years (except Soviet mechs in 1941 and 1942). Some might have a slight overuse, but then that's the player's choice and he's willing to pay the penalty. But I think we won't see many players choosing extreme blob strategies anymore.

I don't hear people complain about not having 20 German armor units in the force pool in 1941 in World In Flames. As long as the force pool is bigger than the normal OOB it means you have good variety in what you could build.

You can easily get 8-10 armor units in GS v2.0 for a May 1941 Barbarossa and manage the penalty, but if you go to 15 then you will suffer.

Do you really think it would have been possible for Germany to have 15 armor corps ready for a May 1941 start? They could certainly have built the number of tanks, but having them supported with fuel, spare parts, ammo etc. would have been almost impossible.

[Plaid]

One of reasons why real germans gone for Kiev instead of Moscow in August 1941 was the fact that they had no spare tank engines to replace worn ones, needed to advance further long distance into USSR.
Most of german tanks burned their engines in June-July long advance, and all what was availiable were 200-300 engines to replace (partly because Hitler liked building brand new tanks more then producing replaceable parts ) So germans had issue with their 4 panzer groups, and you offer 15 claiming it to be realistic.

[PionUrpo]

The unit cap issue has been fought to death in x^n games and there'll always be those who like it and those who don't. Frankly I like mine with some "realism" how ever you wish to define it. Some like a more "sandbox" approach. I can respect that.

Since the logistics/supply model of CEAW GS is rather ehmm... simple, I don't mind having some limits on unit amounts as a way to keep things in reasonable parameters.

[gerones]

Limitations based both on logistical-supply reasons should be always welcomed. Let´s think that in vanilla game you were able to make sea landings all over the coast of the Atlantic Wall from Bourdeaux to Denmark since there was not limit at all to sea invasions.

[ncali]

I was initially against unit caps. But after reading all the comments here, it sounds like some type of cap is in order. I would prefer having the least-limiting cap and the soft limits proposed (where you pay to go over) sounds like the way to go. I wonder if you wouldn't want to start with a litte bit higher limit, however, to see if that is sufficient?

A couple additional comments:
(1) Maybe armour should have slightly increased costs as well?
(2) Or maybe the issue is just that the Axis has just a little too much oil in GS2.
(3) Also, the "blob" strategy does point to something that is a little unrealistic. You never have any idea of the composition of the enemy forces until they are engaged. This is particularly unrealistic when it comes to pre-Barbarossa. The Russians certainly had some intelligence about the German forces.
I wonder if there is any way you could get a general (not specific) idea of the army composition of your opponents?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One way to do that could be to allow the statistics screen to show ALL countries for both sides. This means you know the number of units of each major type (infantry, armor, air and naval). So you can use that to draw some conclusions. You don't know where the units are. You simply know that e. g. Germany has 8 armor units when they're built and you can try to counter that. Germany will be able to spot the counter by seeing the number of Allied armor units go up as well.

The same about naval and air units. It's harder for infantry units because it counts garrisons, corps and mech into one group. Maybe the statistics could count mech and armor into one group and just corps and garrison into the infantry group. That would hide the armor intelligence a bit too because you don't know if the increased number is mech or armor.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The oil level of the Axis were made a bit easier after most Axis players ran out of oil too early in GS v1.0. We increased the oil slightly like adding +1 oil to artillery tech 2 (for GS v2.01) so mech units get 2 oil consumption after artillery tech 2 and 3 after armor tech 4. Armor units start with 3 oil instead of 2 oil (+1 oil for tech 1 blitzkrieg is removed). Next oil increased for armor is reduced one tech level in armor so they get 4 oil maybe by the time Barbarossa starts.

Do the Germans can certainly run out of oil in GS v2.0 as well. I run a quite successful campaign against Richards and by the end of 1942 I was down to 200 oil. I had just normal numbers of air, armor and mech, but pushing deep into Russia cost me a lot of oil.

I think Axis players who don't push as hard and go on the defensive earlier to save oil could actually have enough oil to the very end. But if you attack like you normally do then you will run out of oil.

[Morris]

I quite understand your concern , if really so ,I do agree with you to do the adjustment . But I think the present game is almost balance .
The Armor bloc is not easy to launch & difficult to drive , I don't believe the new player can make it . Even to Armor bloc itself , it does have the solution but a little bit complicated to explain . I have a suggestion that i would invite any of the elites( Ronnie mentioned) to play pbem by using Axis Armor bloc , I will play the Allies . I will show you how to stop it . ( if he will not use it & defeat me , I will also agree with you . the one who defeat me by Armor bloc I will provide a gift for him .

Who will be the one ? I am waiting for your armor bloc !

[Morris]

I quite understand your concern , if really so ,I do agree with you to do the adjustment . But I think the present game is almost balance .
The Armor bloc is not easy to launch & difficult to drive , I don't believe the new player can make it . Even to Armor bloc itself , it does have the solution but a little bit complicated to explain . I have a suggestion that i would invite any of the elites( Ronnie mentioned) to play pbem by using Axis Armor bloc , I will play the Allies . I will show you how to stop it . ( if he will not use it & defeat me , I will also agree with you . the one who defeat me by Armor bloc I will provide a gift for him .

Who will be the one ? I am waiting for your armor bloc !

[ferokapo]

(...)
Game play showed that even with the 15 armor units starting Barbarossa in May 1941 the Germans had 300-400 oil left at the end of 1941. (...)

Why not raise base oil consumption drastically? I always thought that in comparison to air and naval units, MECHs and ARMs burn little oil. This is just a gut feeling, but sending hundreds of tanks over several hundred kilometers certainly burns a LOT of fuel. Has anyone done a calculation about the relation between air, naval and land units fuel consumption?

On the other hand, is it possible to reduce the oil burnt when on defensive? I always thought it unrealistic that one ARM corps burns through one turn's amount of oil from Ploesti when attacked from several units.

If you increase base consumption for movement, and decrease consumption for defense, you will counter an armor blob strategy effectively, because the Axis player cannot rail in the hinterlands of Russia. If you reduce consumption for actual fighting, ARMs will still be a valuable unit. It will just be impossible to get them in mass to Omsk.

Another thing is that I find it slightly inconsistent to punish an exceeded unit cap with oil. During game play, all extraordinary effort exceeding naval or rail caps is punished by PPs, not oil.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We can't raise the armor oil consumption more or the game balance for normal play will be disrupted. It was already increased in GS v2.0 from an initial 2 to 3. The main reason the armor blob didn't use more oil was because Morris didn't buy any air units or subs. He also invested in blitzkrieg and not armor.

Units don't burn oil on the defense except interceptors. You burn oil both for moving and oil again for attacking.

It's also possible to punish overuse with PP's by changing a flag in general.txt

[Morris]

I am still waiting for the Armor bloc user ...........

[Morris]

we will see the result by the fact of practise .

[gerones]

Why not raise base oil consumption drastically? I always thought that in comparison to air and naval units, MECHs and ARMs burn little oil. This is just a gut feeling, but sending hundreds of tanks over several hundred kilometers certainly burns a LOT of fuel. Has anyone done a calculation about the relation between air, naval and land units fuel consumption?

An air unit in CEAW represents about 260 available aircrafts. This suppose to be a great consumption of oil. So I don´t think there´s an issue between air units and armoured-mech units oil consumption.

Another thing is that I find it slightly inconsistent to punish an exceeded unit cap with oil. During game play, all extraordinary effort exceeding naval or rail caps is punished by PPs, not oil.

This really makes sense. An exceeded production of any unit (excluding infantry units) would necessarily have to affect to the industrial structure of a country and this would necessarily results in an extra inversion for making possible that. So this would really have to be reflected via PP´s in some way. A progressive system like the one for amphibious landings could be an option.

[rkr1958]

This really makes sense. An exceeded production of any unit (excluding infantry units) would necessarily have to affect to the industrial structure of a country and this would necessarily results in an extra inversion for making possible that. So this would really have to be reflected via PP´s in some way. A progressive system like the one for amphibious landings could be an option.

Victor, I think penalizing in oil is better than in PPs. Both really are abstraction for impacts on supply and economy. The reason I feel that penalizing in oil is better is that if you do overbuild you're still chared the oil each turn; however, you can choose to limit the impact by limiting the use of oil consuming units. So if you do have 16 armor corps in 1941 and your oil levels were draining you could stop that by stopping you force. You would still pay an overcost but only that cost. On the other hand if you charge in PP's then this couldn't be limited because you can't disband units. A putative PP overage would defacto be a fairly hard force pool limit. One may argue that using oil does this but I don't think so. You can still be a large force over the limit and only feel the effects of it when you're using that force. This, I think, is more realistic.