TrionDelta Posted September 1, 2002 Share Posted September 1, 2002 i know this has been talked about before but... im playing axis '39 campagin expert +1 with all options on (cept war in siberia). its late 41 russia delcared war on me so they got first attack, nothing major. So on my turn i realese the dogs of war on them and begin a major break thorugh along the whole front. well everything is going fine till i get to mins (2nd turn) ive got it copmletedly surrounded i had attained air superioity, also have several HQ units. in the pocket theres 1 russian tank 3 russian corps.. and what do u know they can reniforce back to 8-7... now im not one to complain about a game that is great like this but... considering there surrounded by several armies and tank groups, they have lost air superiority... and there getting pounded on time and time again... HOW ARE THEY REINFOCING.. it makes no logical sense... the bad part this war repeated all along the fron Leningrade, riga, smolensk, kiev... etc.. its mid '42 and ive reached the outskirts of moscow and they have a strong front there many tanks corps and Airfleets. they western allies landed on brest but have been contained by the Italinans and my western army... (german 2tanks groups 5 corps 1 army) (italin 1 corps 1 tank 1 army) im in jepordy in iraq the russians reinforced them and my italins are losing badly... well i just want to say this would have been avoided if there was an accurate representation of cut off armies! im probably going to win but its gonna be... intresting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Wagner Posted September 1, 2002 Share Posted September 1, 2002 I have to agree that the reinforcement rules are a bit too liberal in this game...I know that there are phantom troops available when a unit is surrounded such as civilian population ect. but it still seems to me that attacks are stalled rather unrealistically, especially when you take in to account the turn length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted September 1, 2002 Share Posted September 1, 2002 Originally posted by J Wagner: I have to agree that the reinforcement rules are a bit too liberal in this game...I know that there are phantom troops available when a unit is surrounded such as civilian population ect. but it still seems to me that attacks are stalled rather unrealistically, especially when you take in to account the turn length.HQs in particular suffer from a "circular reasoning" sort of fallacy: since they are considered sources of supply, they have a default level of supply of 5, even when surrounded. Hence they can resupply themselves back up to 8, even if cut off from all other logistical sources. JD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 If you completely surround a unit in a city, i.e. occupy all adjacent land hexes with your own units it will only be able to reinforce up to 5. For HQ's, they act as supply wagons that can increase a unit's supply even when enveloped in a pocket. The idea here was to have this simulate trapped formations being supplied by air drops etc., but only if they have an HQ to bump up supply levels. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrionDelta Posted September 3, 2002 Author Share Posted September 3, 2002 thanxs for your reply Hubert, wasnt able to get on yesterday to look, work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Gilbert Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 As a slightly differing train of thought. I have viewed units being resupplied when surrounded as more of an act of unit reorganization than of one of re-inforcement. Considering the game's time scale, shattered units have the time to regroup into cohesive battle units. Okay ... I know, this may be a reach but, it is my way of looking at it. I damn sure do not think it is a flaw in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norse Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Originally posted by Jeff Gilbert: As a slightly differing train of thought. I have viewed units being resupplied when surrounded as more of an act of unit reorganization than of one of re-inforcement. I agree. It is all about the military combat value baby! That doesn't neccesarily haveto mean more troops. Get it? ~Norse~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Originally posted by Jeff Gilbert: As a slightly differing train of thought. I have viewed units being resupplied when surrounded as more of an act of unit reorganization than of one of re-inforcement. Considering the game's time scale, shattered units have the time to regroup into cohesive battle units. Okay ... I know, this may be a reach but, it is my way of looking at it. I damn sure do not think it is a flaw in the game.Actually this is not far off at all with the design framework I chose. It is, as you mention, precisely the TIME SCALE and STRATEGIC SCOPE that determined the reinforcement rules. Being allowed to overrun units located in cities etc. too quickly and the game would not play out properly at all in a strategic sense, most likely it would be over in a couple of years easy. If it were tactical in scope than I would agree the reinforcement rules would need serious tweaking, but the scale would be very much different, so I think that this has to be kept in mind as well. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts