Matrix Improvements

[von Flannell]

I'm with Roadrunner here - game balance is crucial. The Germans won in many situations when they shouldn't have done (e.g. with limited numbers of Pz IVs rather than Panthers) due to their excellent training at all levels and their superior command & control (I find this whole aspect completely fascinating and have read about the war the Eastern Front a lot). This only changed towards the end of the war due to attrition and improved Soviet tactics, C&C, doctrine etc. For example, at the start of the war, Russian tanks did not have radios (apart from platoon commanders tanks) and signals were sent by flags and by prearranged tactics, pretty tricky in the middle of a battle when tanks were buttoned up and individual tank commanders were looking through observation ports with smoke everywhere.

In a H2H EF game, the command and control etc achieved by both commander is absolute - you know exactly where all your units are, where all the LOS enemy units are, and your units all do what they are told to. The reaction time to an enemy surprise is therefore immediate, and I feel far too rapid to reflect the Soviet situation, at least in the early part of the war. Imagine having a one turn lag for Soviet movements....., or a one turn lag for the Germans and a two turn lag for the Soviets. The title of this thread is 'Matrix Improvements', I'm not for a moment suggesting that the above would be an improvement, but it would make things more realistic, as would a degree of random cluster:censored: with units not obeying or misinterpreting orders - see Charge of the Light Brigade or Black Hawk Down. In my younger days I used to play all night Advanced Squad Leader sessions and we would simulate the Fog of War with a 'herbal cigarette'.......!!! Extremely effective, though the arguments about the rules slowed things up hugely. More seriously, the Extreme Fog of War could be made more extreme e.g. more smoke from burning vehicles and guns fired?

This is why I support Roadrunner in game balance vs realism. A scenario depends on the geography, the balance of forces opposing each other and the ability of the opposing generals. Thus the scenario designer has the problem of balancing the geography and opposing forces to make a scenario balanced so we can find out who the best general is. Easier said than done.

By the way I'm a noobie (-ish) who doesn't have time to play online, so I only play LCGs or very occasionally DCGs when I run out of LCG's. Ironically, given my above comments much prefer LCGs vs DCGs as they are more historical, though even harder to balance over say 10 scenarios. I think that playing the Germans against the Soviet AI (on at least the hard setting for DCGs) might be pretty realistic in terms of the relative ability of the two sides tactical control etc, at least until the Soviets recovered from Stalin's pre-war purges and Hitler got involved e.g. with the no retreats and replacing generals far too frequently.

Oh well, that's enough from me, by the way I think that you guys are great and I love reading the posts. Any LCGs gratefully received, waiting for PB2 if it hasn't dropped off the list of priorities - haven't seen a post on that for a while......

von Flannell