Breakthrough, mobilty, by-passing, etc...?

[unmerged(6909)]

I have a problem to see how the Blitzkrieg in France can be simulated when I read the FAQ and the information provided in the preview at Strategyfirst:

Generally spoken the german tank-spearheads had the order not to attack the allied tanks because they were inferior to them in direct combat. The british Matilda for example was impossible to destroy for the german tanks (they hit them with Stuka and the famous Flak 88 instead).

Avoiding combat with those units was very important so they captured/destryed the supporting units instead or waited until those were out of supply or simply drove away from them leaving these heavy tanks for the infantry/Luftwaffe.

BUT:
IN HOI there isn't room enough to simply march on for the german tanks?
Yes, you can combine your tanks with infantry, add some Stuka's or the Flak 88...but then it's not a Blitzkrieg anymore. Then Germany is going to fight like the Allies early in WWII: Infantry with tank support.

A unit can be supplied when it's within reach of a city/HQ (taken from FAQ). A french unit fighting on french soil is considered to be automatically supplied then? When the allied tanks tried to chase after the german tanks it happened that the french tanks ran out of fuel, because they weren't designed to be comparable mobile. Again, there is room for manouvering needed...?

Sure, you can give german tanks an advantage during the shock phase (provided by Blitzkrieg doctrine)....
You can give the german tanks the ability to recover organizational level faster....
but I have a bad feeling about it.

French units sitting in the border provinces could cover everything since a province is the smallest level of terrain. This would mean that combat would occur...and I can hardly see the the meaning of bypassing them. What could be a possible goal for a german unit blitzing through them?

Ok, I'm used to play WWII games with Hexagons, but still I'm lacking some imagination how the feeling of Blitzkrieg can be kept

In case that this was already answered somewhere (I haven't found it) feel free to make me look stupid by providing the link

 

[Spruce]

I agree (as a hexagon addict), I want to make the difference on the battle field.

But some compromise will be needed, otherwise the game is not playable.

IMHO the solution lies in general AI = the general makes up a master plan (=I will use that amount of tanks, guns, support, etc. and I will attack from here and do this and that). The player can change this in some degree and can follow the battle up...later on...the player can only influence all of the time...

I didn't get much feedback, so I'm afraid the answer is still the same...

silence...

 

[unmerged(1095)]

Originally posted by Spruce
I agree (as a hexagon addict), I want to make the difference on the battle field.

But some compromise will be needed, otherwise the game is not playable.

IMHO the solution lies in general AI = the general makes up a master plan (=I will use that amount of tanks, guns, support, etc. and I will attack from here and do this and that). The player can change this in some degree and can follow the battle up...later on...the player can only influence all of the time...

I didn't get much feedback, so I'm afraid the answer is still the same...

silence...

Silence is what you will get at the moment. All beta testers are bound by the NDA and Johan and company are spending their valuable time working on the game.
You will have to wait and see.

 

[Deserteur]

I share the same fear as Nebukadnezar and the only possible solution to this would be a second level map of the provinces (displaying cities and major roads) where you can maneuver your troops more accurate. During the invasion of France the tanks were ordered to bypass cities to provide fast movement and the loss of many tanks in the streets. Now until I have seen the screenshots I cannot imagine of a Blitzkrieg doctrine would function without a "battlemap" where you can specific orders to your troops.

Can't any programmer give some hints about this?

 

[unmerged(1095)]

Originally posted by Deserteur
I share the same fear as Nebukadnezar and the only possible solution to this would be a second level map of the provinces (displaying cities and major roads) where you can maneuver your troops more accurate. During the invasion of France the tanks were ordered to bypass cities to provide fast movement and the loss of many tanks in the streets. Now until I have seen the screenshots I cannot imagine of a Blitzkrieg doctrine would function without a "battlemap" where you can specific orders to your troops.

Can't any programmer give some hints about this?

Not at the moment. There is both the NDA and the fact that the programmers are busy.

 

[Deserteur]

And you know nothing, right?

 

[unmerged(1095)]

Originally posted by Deserteur
And you know nothing, right?

Look - details will be released when Paradox decide that they should be. That depends on how the beta testing goes.
Until then you will just have to be patient. The beta testers are not allowed to reply and the Paradox Staff do not have the time as they are a small team working on at least 2 games.
Speculate all you like - but do not expect immediate answers or get riled when answers are not forthcoming.

 

[Deserteur]

ok, although I do not know what "riled" means, because it was not even in my dictionary, we will simply have to wait and hope that our programmers will work good

 

[unmerged(10352)]

I could imagine blitzkrieg at this scal be represented by something like this.

You have the blitzkrieg doctrine, and some suitable units, ARM with/without some MOT. You attack a hex and achieve a breakthrough(however that is determined) then your ARM units take relativly light casualties, as well as the defenders. But, some of his supply and artillery is destroyed and he receives massive disorganization points / morale hit. Your ARM and MOT units may or may not be able to move onto the next province (I think kind of too far to allow that). When your follow on INF attack (perhaps timed wisely by you) the enemy force crumbles and/or surrenders due to pitiful organizational state/morale.

 

[unmerged(6909)]

"There did nothing happen in this thread. Please, move on, - there is nothing to see. Yes, a moderator is counting for one half of the posts in this thread but this doesn't mean anything. Nobody was injured. Please move on...."

I wonder if it ever happened before that a moderator made such a massed 'attack' on one thread without warning or banning anyone..... besides the countless "Yes" 's and "Nope" 's from BiB, of course,

 

[unmerged(1095)]

Originally posted by Nebukadnezar
"There did nothing happen in this thread. Please, move on, - there is nothing to see. Yes, a moderator is counting for one half of the posts in this thread but this doesn't mean anything. Nobody was injured. Please move on...."

I wonder if it ever happened before that a moderator made such a massed 'attack' on one thread without warning or banning anyone..... besides the countless "Yes" 's and "Nope" 's from BiB, of course,

You are in violation of rule 19 of the Board Rules.
Do not do it again

Thank you for your attention

 

[Berkut]

UD isn't a moderator, he is something, much, much worse.

But I am!

And what he says is pretty much what you are going to get, sorry to say.

But think of it like this:

Issues such as blitzkreig are operational in nature, not strategic. This is a strategic wargame, so it seems likely that those issues will be abstracted to some degree or another. Doesn't mean it won't exist, it just means you may not have direct operational control of what is essentially a tactical/operational doctrine.

Does that help?

Berkut

 

[unmerged(6909)]

Originally posted by robothelpermnky
...You have the blitzkrieg doctrine, and some suitable units, ARM with/without some MOT. You attack a hex

Hex=Province?

and achieve a breakthrough(however that is determined) then your ARM units take relativly light casualties, as well as the defenders. But, some of his supply and artillery is destroyed and he receives massive disorganization points / morale hit.

Example taken from Strategyfirst?
Yes, they talked about massive disorganization in that case especially for tank attacks. You can simulate that very good through tech advances (doctrines).
I'm not sure about supply. From what I have read you're supplied within the range of city (longe range) or HQ (short range) as long as you've enough supply in general (and maybe infrastructure is involved).
Yes, it was also mentioned in that article that each side will loose supply in combat (attacker more than defender), so there must be auto-calculated supply even for single units.
Maybe there is a military doctrine (Blitzkrieg again) for mobile units to be supllied automacially for a certain amount of time. Guderian paid very much attention to logistics. He wanted the Panzer to act independently for at least five days (trading armor for carrying more fuel/armor/food/etc without giving up speed).
So with a certain doctrine your units will be longer in supply while the enemy will be out of supply for some time... yes, sounds good.

Your ARM and MOT units may or may not be able to move onto the next province (I think kind of too far to allow that). When your follow on INF attack (perhaps timed wisely by you) the enemy force crumbles and/or surrenders due to pitiful organizational state/morale.

... the game will be real-time....the tanks will attack... you may order them to blitz their enemies without destroying them leaving those disorganized in the province while the tanks are trying to move out of the province in the hunt for more enemies to blitz (or reaching a certain goal).
...you ordered your infantry to attack the disorganized enemies... well fine, so far.

But again, what is going to happen when your tanks successfully reach the next province (if at all)?
More enemies? This cannot be the point. For getting more enemies all you have to do is to wait.
The purpose of the tank attacks besides causing havoc behind the lines and attacking soft targets was to divide big chunk of the main army in Belgium from the rest of France to keep them out of supply and by dividing also getting better odds in following battles against lesser numbers.
A bonus for attacking from several fronts is already mentioned....maybe there will be another bonus:
When you are fighting the # of adjacent provinces with your troops will give a bonus (even when those troops in the adjacent provinces won't join the battle)
Well, at least this was the case in most of the hexagon-games. Not sure if this should apply here - would also make it harder for the germans to break through (nearly every adjacent province has unfriendly armies)....
Maybe you will suffer additional damage when you cannot draw a supply line to your capital...? (forgotten which board game this was in)
Maybe there is a special bonus for taking provinces with important cities? Moral loss for the whole army?
There has to be something...something which should be a reward for reaching another province...

You may be right and there is no hope for displaying the mobility by reaching another province/field since there aren`t enough provinces available. Maybe it will all come done to doctrine and battles within a single province. I'm hoping not - I'm hoping that Paradox is much smarter than we are currently

 

[unmerged(6909)]

Originally posted by Berkut
UD isn't a moderator, he is something, much, much worse.

But I am!

And what he says is pretty much what you are going to get, sorry to say.

WHAT? AS A PAYING CUSTOMER I DEMAND THE FULL ATTENTION OF PARADOX TO ALL OF MY QUESTIONS AND...
..
No, seriously, this thread was intended as a discussion about what is possible with the engine. At least a part of the user-inface of HOI we have seen and the FAQ/StrategyFirst revealed some interesting information. I never expected to get a private mail from Paradox uncovering every secret

But think of it like this:

Issues such as blitzkreig are operational in nature, not strategic. This is a strategic wargame, so it seems likely that those issues will be abstracted to some degree or another. Doesn't mean it won't exist, it just means you may not have direct operational control of what is essentially a tactical/operational doctrine.

Does that help?

Berkut

Yes, that's what I've read so far in the FAQ.
I'm just a bit worried how to balance strategic/operational level without loosing the 'feeleing' of a Blitzkrieg and by discussing it it may be possible to get a better guess at what is awaiting us with HOI

 

[Deserteur]

yes and I still hope that there is a 2nd level operational map where we can see the actual Blitzkrieg on

 

[unmerged(5664)]

I'm with UD on this one. Speculate all you'd like, and even ask all the questions you'd like (I'm sometimes quite surprised at what Johan or Patric will respond to), but don't get upset if you don't get a response.

I'd much rather have them working on improving the game than surfing the forums.

 

[Spruce]

Now, the second level strategy map isn't a new idea...so I hope the silence is a positive indicator for this idea. But I'm afraid they would not go that far, I only estimate the odds at 33%

Bottom line is that you have in battles a sort of hierarchie =

human player involment (25%),
AI general (planning, supplies, reinforcments (50%),
battle parameters (25%),

On the other hand, I'm convinced that Paradox will give the generals lots of freedom (66% chance IMHO). They will decide master attack plans, defensive warfare, etc. The human player will be able to agree or disagree.

But disagreeing means not that you can micromanage the attack all by yourselves. You can alter perhaps some things like = fighter support should be increased, timing for the attack...

The only way to get an all new master plan is to get rid of the general... But this not always the best option.

It's like delegating work to coworkers.

IMHO we should increase effort as forum members to designate what freedom the general may have in HOI...

Everybody knows what goes wrong when you promote a corporal to army commander... hé hé so long live our generals...

 

[flavius]

And what about having the army totally anihilated or destroyed by a blitz attack?

After all, it may be a radical solution, but not impossible...

just my thought

Flavius

 

[unmerged(8622)]

Originally posted by Deserteur
ok, although I do not know what "riled" means, because it was not even in my dictionary, we will simply have to wait and hope that our programmers will work good

Riled is the same meaning as "all upset" or "cranky and fiery"
OK?
As a betatester, i am bound to keep the details of the game secret. But, i can tell you not to worry.
-SS

 

[unmerged(11047)]

I am very interested to see how these Operational considerations are modelled in this Strategic game. To be honest I'm a bit skeptical because of the "provincial" organisation of the maps. In EU the provincial stuff is completely right... acquisition of a province / state is the goal of military operations. However, come WW2 to specify a province as the objective does not seem right, particularly because the provinces are completely artificial when it comes to what forces on the ground are trying to do. In fact in some operations the objective will be the destruction of enemy fighting power and not the acquisition of territory.

One of the greatest and most decisive features of the whole land war was the series of massive encirclements achieved on the Eastern Front (by the Germans in 1941, by the Soviets in 1944). I am very interested to see how this is modelled / abstracted in HOI. Like some of the previous posters, I'm an old-time hex gamer as well!