Slitherine

quote:

Big A, I think you opened up a bag of worms on this one . 

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

The developers and testers have been monitoring the forums and the AARs, trying to get a handle on relative performance between the SU and the Axis, and as noted in several threads, the AI on normal is being easily cracked by Axis players (57 turns for a decisive victory), but the feeling coming back from the published PBEM AARs is that the Axis are struggling to get anywhere near the 1942 campaign start lines, and there are fears that the Wehrmacht may not recover enough from the Blizzard attrition sufficiently to mount a credible 1942 campaign.

The debate amongst the developers and the testers is trying to determine how much impact the inexperience of first time players is undermining Axis performance. I would therefore like to open up this thread to Axis PBEM players to outline what their first experience of the game has taught them, and what lessons they have learned that they can apply to their next games, and whether they think they can beat an equally experienced soviet player. "Beating" does not necessarily mean a decisive victory.

Please don't turn this into a "Fix this" or "Fix that" thread, simply help us gauge whether we are seeing Axis players that are running on all cylinders.

The only benchmark I have personally is my test game with Trey (El Hefe), where I had some luck and managed to get Leningrad and the Crimea, and was holding up pretty well during the blizzard, and was therefore on track to start 1942 slightly better than historically; so I know that it is possible in PBEM to do better, but I don't know how much was luck or my ability to exploit Trey's mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Since I'm a little pressed for time, at the moment, my short answer is that the Axis players are suffering from a lack of experience at this stage of post release play. When they begin to gain better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the Axis position, they will be able to ameliorate their deficits, and to better take advantage of the various tools at their disposal - causing the Soviet player a much higher degree of grief.

quote:

I am not under the impression that the Wehrmacht lost its edge in experience over winter of '41

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I don't have a PBEM game going, but have been watching a bunch of them.

One thing that I think is evolving is the German opening turn. There is a good thread going on AGS opening moves, but I think the Germans have got to have a good opening turn to both get a lot of ground (and be able to move their infantry up as quickly as possible) and to make as many Russian units surrender as possible without it taking 3-4 turns in the south. I think the German opening moves in the south are in a state of evolution as far as how much to send from AGC and who to send where. There are some opportunities I have seen with AGN on the opening move, but this is minor.

The second I agree with comsolut about the Germans having the experience on when to pull a HQ buildup for maximum gain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

The best of those three Axis guys is very good indeed. He does not seem to need any "help" from tweaks but we'll see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Big A, I think you opened up a bag of worms on this one .  The testers will probably have to ride shot gun on this one to keep if from becoming a 'fix me' thread.  Keeping this thread focused on experiences is the only way its going to be productive.  That being said, the only people who really can comment are those who have weathered the blizzards in a pbem game.  Their the real experts on the do's and don't s.

So as a Axis pbem player I can't really give you any feed back in my 3 games yet.  I haven't weathered the blizzard in any of them yet.  Each Soviet player is putting up a different type defense.  I really wish I could share the other two with you all but time will not allow me to.

I would love to hear from pbem Axis players who have gone through the blizzard and what they say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Since I'm a little pressed for time, at the moment, my short answer is that the Axis players are suffering from a lack of experience at this stage of post release play. When they begin to gain better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the Axis position, they will be able to ameliorate their deficits, and to better take advantage of the various tools at their disposal - causing the Soviet player a much higher degree of grief.

Actually there are some things that you can't change. For example, due to the massive losses as the Axis in the blizzard, you'll also lose a lot of experience, and that is basically irreplacable for the infantry. For the Axis, it is essential to have very good infantry to be able to break soviet lines and speaking frankly, I am not under the impression that the Wehrmacht lost its edge in experience over winter of '41.

Also there are other issues that strike me personally especially, regarding the Axis minor allies who are really badly hamstrung in some cases. Its not they were idiots or could not learn from war experience...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmauser

Glad to see this thread because I was thinking about the very same thing over the weekend.

I am in my second "test" GC against the AI on normal. I am on turn 38 which is the first non-blizzard turn and evaluating the status of the Wehrmacht. Although I have no fears that I can beat the AI on normal (probably not turn 52), I can definitely see the challenges for an Axis player against a human opponent. Being short of time I will leave you with the following thoughts for the developers based on a comparison between WITP and WITE. I hope to properly join the discussion when I have more time.

WITP is based on a historical opening (Pearl Harbor) and leaves the rest to the players. There is no preprogrammed destruction of the Japanese fleet at Midway and the results of December 7 are variable. A good opening by a Japanese player has a very small chance of an auto victory in 42 and a reasonable chance for an auto victory in 43. Even if auto victory is not achieved, good opening play by a Japanese player can result in a good fight past 43 with a chance for a marginal victory later in the war. In most cases a competent allied player can avoid the auto victory conditions because of the points system that requires invasions of difficult places like India or the one sided destruction of large numbers of allied ships. In short, there is enough there to reward a player for wanting to play the Japanese and there is enough of a safety net for an allied player to try more aggressive strategies. This makes the game fun.

After turn 1, WITE does not have a historical opening in MP play as the Soviet player knows the limits of the Axis advance and can fall back to prepared lines of defense. These lines of defense will yield in 41, but will cause a higher level of casualties to the Axis player and result in fewer losses to the Soviet. The only limits to that plan are slowing the advance enough to evacuate factory capacity. In addition, there is a preprogrammed destruction of the Axis army in the Winter and the Soviet player has to do absolutely nothing to generate 1,000,000+ Axis casualties. If the Soviet husbanded their forces in 41, they can increase those casualties drammatically as the Axis take disproportionate losses as morale falls and fatigue rises. This makes it nearly impossible for the Axis MP player to win in 41 and makes it highly unlikely for them to win in 42. Failure in 41 and 42 leads to the destruction of the Axis in 43 as the Soviets are then just too strong and numerous. Doesn't sound like much fun to me.


Things that the developers might want to consider. This isn't a wish list, just some ideas to consider to increase MP playability.

1) Find a way to penalize the Soviet player for evacuating territory too early in 41. No matter what the high command thinks, soldiers don't like giving up their homes and families. This could be reductions to morale or decreases in manpower and manufacturing capacity. Fighting farther forward makes the Axis player earn the casualties inflicted on the Soviets and you could similarly bonus the Soviet for being able to hold ground.

2) Find a way to enhance the Axis player if the Soviets evacuate. This could be increases to rail conversion rates or bonuses to movement. Units move much slower tactically than they do on road marches.

3) Reduce releases of additional units if the Soviet player isn't attempting to hold ground. Why give them those units if the front is stable?

4) Base the 41 winter effects on supply levels (perhaps fortification levels too?). The availability of warm weather clothing in December should be higher if fuel and ammo didn't need to be brought forward for fighting in August. Less time spent fighting also means more time to build shelter.

5) Reward the Axis player with supply, fuel and ammo when they take cities. This would reflect that units could withdraw, but that their logistical base is not as easily evacuated. This would have the effect of moving supply forward without changing the rail conversion process. I have found the lack of this feature perplexing since this is a common feature in WITP and is based on historical fact.

6) Make the Soviets "earn" those winter casualties. Winter attrition is linked to operations.

7) Reduce general Soviet effectiveness in the 41 Winter. The current model treats every Soviet unit as Siberian shock troops. Results against the Finns and show that the Soviets weren't exactly the masters of Winter fighting.

8) Reduce the double whammy of regular attrition compounded by Winter attrition. Guys aren't banging away at each other when they are trying to stay warm.

9) Return the Winter disablements to the Axis at a much higher rate. As it is it will take you 2 years to get those troops back. The problem is that this gives you bodies, but doesn't give you back the gear. Perhaps there should be a return of equipment as well.

10) Add Winter disablements and deaths to the Soviets. Again, the Soviets were not Winter supermen.

11) Allow the Axis player to raise limited manpower from captured sources. Evacuating factories is one thing, but the Soviet Union was a hetergeneous population.

12) Find a way to prevent Axis offensive operations in Blizzard 41 while moderating the overall Winter effects. This would provide the Soviets with freedom of maneuver while still rewarding a competent defense.

13) Reduce Soviet abilty to fortify in 41. The Soviets reacted to being overrun and encircled.

14) Reduce effect of Soviet ZOC's in 41. Units with poor command and control and the intent to retreat large distances will focus less on what is around them.



I personally believe the 41 Winter modeling to be the fundamental issue for MP play. Soviet players will do everything to delay for it and maximise it's effects on the Axis player to break their back in 42. Axis players will lament it because no matter how they husband their forces in 41, they will watch the winter destroy their army and the chances of victory in 42. Although based in history and a legacy of the board game, implementing it as a brutal certainty kills the "what if" that makes MP play the real challenge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: comsolut

I am just beginning to see some possible insights into the German play. Will need to test them out.

In order of importance:

6) Is there a way to have the Luftwaffe destroy/cause more Russian casualties

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmauser
1) Find a way to penalize the Soviet player for evacuating territory too early in 41. No matter what the high command thinks, soldiers don't like giving up their homes and families. This could be reductions to morale or decreases in manpower and manufacturing capacity. Fighting farther forward makes the Axis player earn the casualties inflicted on the Soviets and you could similarly bonus the Soviet for being able to hold ground.

quote:

4) Base the 41 winter effects on supply levels (perhaps fortification levels too?). The availability of warm weather clothing in December should be higher if fuel and ammo didn't need to be brought forward for fighting in August. Less time spent fighting also means more time to build shelter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmauser

After turn 1, WITE does not have a historical opening in MP play as the Soviet player knows the limits of the Axis advance and can fall back to prepared lines of defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

12) Find a way to prevent Axis offensive operations in Blizzard 41 while moderating the overall Winter effects. This would provide the Soviets with freedom of maneuver while still rewarding a competent defense.

How can any Axis player conduct offensive operations in Blizzard 41? I have played quite a few Blizzard turns against the AI, even games where I decimated his army, and offensive ops is a sure fire failure by the Germans. Your worse than the Romanians during the Blizzard (the starting Romanians that is).

quote:

At the peak of the blizzard I took 86,000 casualties on turns on which there were n Soviet attacks along the entire front. I had pulled up in September and shortened lines, etc and was as well prepared as I could contrive to be yet still took massive casualties. This was expected of course due to prior reports in AAR's, etc. I actually felt good when the casualties due to Blizzard reduced to 46,000 for a few turns...

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Once again I find comments where people are at t10 and making strong comments about balanced very annoying. Or just people that don't want to be objective and look at the data that is already coming in from other HUMAN vs HUMAN PBEM games.

Please re-read the initial thread post by BigAnorak, before you dilute this post any more.

I have a human vs human game at T41 against a player of equal skill. I've already posted this in another thread, but will repeat some of the important data.

Some highlights lowlights:

- able to widely encircle Leningrad as my mobile units kept probing east for least possible resistance and met up with Fins by end of Aug. Don't think Bill was thinking I'd encircle so far east. I let most of them starve, but finally took Leningrad proper by Nov snow to release the Fins(hounds). Fins are beast in blizzard and have been hold my North front as far south as they can. Had to use 16th, 18th and PZ Grp 1, 3, and part of 2 in this operation.

- pulled armor from 2 and a half pz grps out of encirclement of Leningrad and made a mad dash to try and get a Smolensk pocket. With the help of Pz Grp 4 and 1 from south I was able to create a large Smolensk pocket of some 600k men. Was lucky and able to hold. Much to Bill's disappointment, many of his units surrendering and thus was able to keep loses light with only minimal attacks near last turns of pocket and prep'ing for mud.

- southern push stalled... left 11th army and Roms to fate and no push to get into Crimea. Got adjacent to Dnep. Before winter. Bill had units well dug in on approaches to Crimean. No way I was getting through any of that with the forces at hand,

- made attempt at a Kharkov pocket and was somewhat successful. Mud really hurt me, but in snow was able to complete pocket and take Kharkov. Only to lose in in few few turns of blizzard.

- loses by before Dec 41 Bliz started Axis: 500k and 2.3k tanks. Sov: 4 mil and 15k tanks

- I tried to prepare lines for winter in most places with some fortified zones (start on t16) and had some fort 3's thinking they would hold up a few turns blizzard.

- t25, first turn blizzard and the axis nightmare starts. Even with fort positions, rested units, good supply lines, and well supplied units I was pushed back almost everywhere by my opponent. Had 3 strong inf div encircled on 1st turn bliz and watch in horror as their CV went to 1 on next turn bliz and 35k strong surrendered.


- blizzard is very a bit harsher then should be IMO for axis, I really believe attack should be penalized heavy for axis, but def should not be as bad for units that are prep'd. As it stands, a smart human opponent will have no problem shattering any line you put out there.

- Finally to turn 34 and few bliz turns left. Been retreating for past 9 turns in most sectors... Fins holding just fine . Still have many hexes in front of Leningtad, but middle is back to Smolensk, Gommel. South is back to Kiev and Nickolov. So bad in south.

- after t33 loses were: Axis 1.6 mil and 2.8k tanks Sov: 4.6mil and 18k tanks

- blizzard finally over and after 13 turns of blizzard I accumulated another 1.2 million loses and am now at a grand total of 1.7 million starting t41. Soviet men up to 6 million already and 14k air force.

** not sure what sort of shape my army will be in to start spring 42. I have about 1mil disabled listed so hoping even at the 1% return, my lines fill up a bit. I know 42 will be limited offensive time and I'll have to reduce TOE in the non-active sector.

The pockets I was able to get around Leningrad and Smolensk, were something of a bit of luck. Both my opponent, bwheatley, and I agree that this sort of mass pocketing will be hard to come by for a non-novice sov opponent. So whatever advantage I had in 41 with my low loses and taking of Leningrad were mostly negate by the blizzard effects. I was able to keep most of my mobile forces strong by displacing them to city and urban hexes prior to the blizzard. Just for people that are curious, besides the luck in taking Leningrad in the North, my spring 42 start line is no where near historically. I'm not saying it should be, but it will be a factor as the game continues and my 42 offensives need to make some serious ground which I don't see in the cards.

The massive loses of 1.2 million men in the 13 blizzard turns has also now created a situation where my once very exp INF units are now starting to lose exp rapidly as they take back some replacements. My moral was destroyed in the blizzard turns as well. My thought is that as I approach the May month (every other turn mud) and are able to try and launch some limited attacks, my Inf units won't have much of an exp/moral advantage in 42. My mobile units are still my only prayer for something of a decent 42 in limited objectives.