Post 2015 Improvements

HQ for planning the next gaming event in Sandusky
User avatar
Madison
Uber-Oberst
Uber-Oberst
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:31 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Post 2015 Improvements

Postby Madison » Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:13 pm

Any suggestions on making Winterfest better? What did you like? Anything you didn't like?

shturmovik
PFC
PFC
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:31 am

Re: Post 2015 Improvements

Postby shturmovik » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:17 pm

Not sure how GMT Barbarossa game ended up, but I think some rule modifications are needed.
Seems like AGS never gets very far, and AGC is always behind schedule.
Suggest:
1 minor changes to ZOC rules;
2 addition of Lithuanian and Western Ukraine popular uprisings for cities (Kaunas, Vilnius, Lwow);
3 1x Brandenburger op per Army Group per game (-2 on an OVR).

Rule 1 would lessen the ability of crappy Russian units holding up a PzGr for a turn.
Rule 2 is historically accurate and allows the German player to blow by these citues, like they did, as opposed to the slugfests they typically become.
Rule 3 gives the German a decent chance to get over the Dvina. (Commandos also got them over the river beyond Minsk at Borisov.)

Honestly, I think this ruleset has some serious flaws despite the valiant job it does trying to mesh combat with an easy to use supply situation. It has too much of a WW1 feel to combat operations and denies sufficient Blitzkrieg effects.

Just my $0.02,
Greg.

kqrgcw
Captain
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 1:25 am

Re: Post 2015 Improvements

Postby kqrgcw » Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:38 pm

I agree copmpletly although I have only played the game 4 maybe 5 times. I would like to add the following for discussion.

1. The WWI feeling comes from the Russians being able to mass troops at critical points with no regard for the political consequence. Stalin would never have allowed huge gaps in the line without a single unit to cover it. I propose that the Russians need to attempt to maintain an actual line at least covered by ZOC for as long as possible.

2 For whatever reasons the Russians wreaked theirarmy by what we see today as futile counterattacks. These should not be an option but an outright requirement perhaps with a few more.

3. I think the Russian surrender rules need tweaked so that those pockets can really happen. I would propose that if a Russian unit cannot connect to a RR by the 21/7 rule they are in a pocket and must attempt to break out not hunker down.

Just some thoughts from my limited experiance.

Roger

DaveM1
Major
Major
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:05 pm

Re: Post 2015 Improvements

Postby DaveM1 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:14 pm

Honestly, this rule set has made it to the table so may times - and has had problems so many times - that I've decided it's better for me to invest in other systems. I worry about significant house ruling just because it usually throws the entire game off balance even further with multiple unanticipated consequences.

There's a lot out there, after all....

firefly17pdr
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Post 2015 Improvements

Postby firefly17pdr » Thu May 21, 2015 4:09 am

Not to beat a dead horse, but a lot of the comments listed here reflect an unfamiliarity with the rules and how to make use of them. True - they may need to be better written (I'm still finding things that I have totally missed), and there is a concerted effort on COMSINWORLD to do just that. There is a team that making suggestions to GMT for revisions, and the new AGN (which will be released soon) will have many of the rules and ideas we have discussed. For example - major river crossings will become easier, orders will become more realistic along with better supporting combat results, and so on. If anyone is interested in discussing this with me I'd be glad to do it.

Ron

firefly17pdr
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Post 2015 Improvements

Postby firefly17pdr » Thu May 21, 2015 4:33 am

shturmovik wrote:Not sure how GMT Barbarossa game ended up, but I think some rule modifications are needed.
Seems like AGS never gets very far, and AGC is always behind schedule.

Well, if i recall correctly, we managed to plow ahead through about 20 turns. That is an average of about 3 turns per day. Not bad considering the scale of the game. AGN was on the Luga Line, AGC was outside of Smolensk, and AGS Soviet forces had been routed.

Suggest:
1 minor changes to ZOC rules;
2 addition of Lithuanian and Western Ukraine popular uprisings for cities (Kaunas, Vilnius, Lwow);
3 1x Brandenburger op per Army Group per game (-2 on an OVR).

Rule 1 would lessen the ability of crappy Russian units holding up a PzGr for a turn.
Rule 2 is historically accurate and allows the German player to blow by these citues, like they did, as opposed to the slugfests they typically become.
Rule 3 gives the German a decent chance to get over the Dvina. (Commandos also got them over the river beyond Minsk at Borisov.)

You should be able to overrun those "crappy Soviet units" surprisingly easily. A 5:1 is the minimum odds requirement.
Estonia and Ukraine both have units that serve the Axis forces. Estonia receives 6 units initially as partisans, which then convert to security brigades. Ukraine has two brigades, one of which upgrades when it reaches Lodz.
i have toyed with the idea of Brandenburgers, and had created a house rule: 1 per Army Group; provides a -1 die roll mod when attacking across a major river at a bridge; capability is lost if the Axis rolls any adverse result - a loss a retreat, or an *. However, with the upcoming change in major river crossings, this really becomes moot.

Honestly, I think this ruleset has some serious flaws despite the valiant job it does trying to mesh combat with an easy to use supply situation. It has too much of a WW1 feel to combat operations and denies sufficient Blitzkrieg effects.

Just my $0.02,
Greg.

firefly17pdr
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Post 2015 Improvements

Postby firefly17pdr » Thu May 21, 2015 4:43 am

kqrgcw wrote:I agree copmpletly although I have only played the game 4 maybe 5 times. I would like to add the following for discussion.

1. The WWI feeling comes from the Russians being able to mass troops at critical points with no regard for the political consequence. Stalin would never have allowed huge gaps in the line without a single unit to cover it. I propose that the Russians need to attempt to maintain an actual line at least covered by ZOC for as long as possible.

Not sure what you mean here, Roger. Soviets are operating from interior lines to begin with. However, their rail capacity is non-existent for the first five turns, and their road movement is also severely limited on the first two turns.

2 For whatever reasons the Russians wrecked their army by what we see today as futile counterattacks. These should not be an option but an outright requirement perhaps with a few more.

Soviet forces were mandated by Stalin to counter attack early on in the campaign. Each front has 2 or 3 mandated attacks they have to deal with in the beginning and often are required to make more as the game progresses, or they loose VP's. This could become critical in a game where you follow Victory Conditions.

3. I think the Russian surrender rules need tweaked so that those pockets can really happen. I would propose that if a Russian unit cannot connect to a RR by the 21/7 rule they are in a pocket and must attempt to break out not hunker down.

If you follow closely the LOC and supply line rules, you will find that Soviet forces are easy to encircle. In fact, what you are proposing is actually a rule. Soviet forces do try to break out, but don't forget that if they attack without supplies they are penalized. Therefore it makes more sense to hunker down and force the Axis to root them out. Unfortunately, once the Soviet forces go from emergency supply to unsupplied and have an Axis unit in contact with them, they become easy pickings for surrender.

Just some thoughts from my limited experiance.

Roger

firefly17pdr
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Post 2015 Improvements

Postby firefly17pdr » Thu May 21, 2015 4:54 am

DaveM1 wrote:Honestly, this rule set has made it to the table so may times - and has had problems so many times - that I've decided it's better for me to invest in other systems. I worry about significant house ruling just because it usually throws the entire game off balance even further with multiple unanticipated consequences.

There's a lot out there, after all....


This is the third time we have played this beast. I am finding that the latest group of players were more experienced with the rules this year than in previous years. This game flowed better, and had closer adherence to the rules. However, I am still seeing lots of inexperience with the rules and their implementation. I think that if we played this again next year or for the next several years and made it important to really work through the rules and understand the game flow, it would be a much more enjoyable experience. I know not many people like playing this system - its no fun taking a royal beating for the first 10 or 15 turns, or seeing a more experienced player roll your army up, and it doesn't fit their preconceived notion on how a wargame should operate (reversed movement phases for the Soviets). Its just not comfortable, and it doesn't follow the traditional format of many other older and standardized games.

I would like to play a Civil War game this next year, but I would be willing to run a seminar or a small scenario on this game system so those who are interested or who have less experience with the rules can have a chance to sharpen their skills.

Ron


Return to “Winterfest XVIII - 2015”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest