Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

So you and others say basically, the axis side (please do not ignore the other nations) has in 90 (99?)% of the games only the chance to do as they did historically?

In the moment the common axis player (compared with the common russian player) is far behind the historical results.

So, in gameterms, why should this be okay?
Nobody like to answer this easy question.

In 41 untill blizzard, the axis should cause on average as many losses as they did historically. Is it in the game?
no
in the blizzard, in history the germans were exhausted and depleted. Their supply lines were thin, overstretched. In the game the axis side mostly avoid this mistakes, are digged in, prepared and "well supplied"
Still they got crushed by the blizzard - it doesn´t matter how good the russian player is, the game makes it sure.

So again, why should someone think that it is worth to play the grand campagin, after beeing much better as historically, he get crushed by blizzard (WAD) and his strength is way behind the historical losses he had.
So not even his gameplay will be nullified (even if loosing less troops (saving strenght))  but he will also be punished more.

With this, the game should result in easy russian victories latest in 43. Historically the russians were bled white cause of the losses. How do the game handle the late-war-combats? Do the axis have more casulties as the russians?

again i like to say that the gc41 is "the scenario".
I also agree, that the game has big problems if a "1943-1945"-campagin with historical start forces shows significant more sucsessfull axis players. In this case the game needs to be checked, too. Because in this stage of the war, the russians are too strong.
Also i think if both sides plays "historical", the losses should be like they were historically... has someone some tests about it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Just as a FYI: as far as I know, we haven't actually seen games with competent players where the Soviets ended up in Berlin in 1942/1943, we've mostly seen a number of games where the Germans got hammered in the blizzard. People instantly say "the Soviets will win" but the Soviets lack significant offensive punch until 1943, basically, especially now that corps are more expensive to create, the manpower modifier has been tuned down and brigades can't be merged until mid 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

again i like to say that the gc41 is "the scenario".

quote:

ORIGINAL: victor charlie

Based on those figures did Germany ever have a chance of defeating the Soviets then?

Besides a collapse similar to WW1, on pure attrition the math don’t look good for them.

Can quality overcome quantity?

That’s the question I think this game should be showing us.

If production is too high then the end results is going to be badly trained, ill equipped and poorly led troops who will be next to worthless on the battlefield against experienced veterans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

I think once you start the historical losses, replacements, etc should be a baseline. If the Germans lose less than they did the first year or conserve men later (no 6th army) then they should get more divisions or keep more for the East front. Having a 100K less losses the first year should allow a couple extra divisions. The game should also check the replacement pool to see if the TOE should be dropped unlike now where you can have plenty of men and machines but the game nerfs your divisions to be historical. The German player should be rewarded for playing better and that includes stopping their offensive and preparing for winter. The reason the Soviets were so successful the first winter is they were hitting tired undersupplied troops out in the open. If the Germans are set up in defensible territory, supplied and not fatigued they should be able to hold and bleed the Soviets. Right now the game punishes the Germans by forcing them into the same strategic mistakes made in history but allows the Soviets to avoid most of theirs. It allows a totally ahistoric retreat which Stalin would never have allowed and doesn't cost anything like it would have if it had been used in real life. They not only get their historical replacements, but can buy more. Seems a double standard to me. Just my two cents

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

In terms of irrecoverable losses, 1941 only amounted to 27.8% of the total losses for the war.

I'm not sure why you're presenting this as a low figure. It's actually a really high percentage out of the total considering that the fighting only lasted a bit over 6 months in 1941.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

In terms of irrecoverable losses, 1941 only amounted to 27.8% of the total losses for the war.

I'm not sure why you're presenting this as a low figure. It's actually a really high percentage out of the total considering that the fighting only lasted a bit over 6 months in 1941.

My point is that 1941, 1942, and 1943 all had catostrophic losses. It was not that 1941 was conducted so well. The main point is that the Russians had high losses against the Germans in defending as well as attacking engagements. Against a German player more competent than Hitler, I think the extra Germans and equipment would have been a significant factor! The fact that the German player knows it will take two years to severely damage Russia is a big advantage over historical, with their "6 month" campaign madness. Suppose 6 Russian soldiers were as combat effective as 1 German soldier before 1944. The 100,000 German soldiers lost due to frostbite in front of Moscow should have been the equivalent of about half a million Russian soldiers. The 200,000 Germans sacrificed at Stalingrad amounted to over a million Russian soldiers. Let us assume that over-attacking and non-retreating cost the Germans an extra 200,000 men, not counting Stalingrad. Thats equal to another million Russian soldiers. The result, the Germans should have been able to handle two more million Russian soldiers in the game and in real life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: victor charlie

Based on those figures did Germany ever have a chance of defeating the Soviets then?

Besides a collapse similar to WW1, on pure attrition the math don’t look good for them.

Can quality overcome quantity?

That’s the question I think this game should be showing us.

If production is too high then the end results is going to be badly trained, ill equipped and poorly led troops who will be next to worthless on the battlefield against experienced veterans.

Interestingly, when the Russians became well equipped, their losses were still horrendous. The Germans became better equipped as well (Tigers, Panthers, Panzerfausts, etc.). There appear to be two types of German "victory". The first is Germany conquering Russia. This seems hopeless, unless the England and America would have pulled out of the war (or America never entering the war). The other type is Germany doing so well that Russia would rather reach an armistice (keeping its military intact). This could only occur before D-Day (June 1944). This allows Germany to concentrate on the other Allies, perhaps making D-Day impossible. Perhaps Hitler would have been killed by the atomic bomb then? The key is that Russia would not conquer Germany!

Just how many more losses would the Russians have had to have before an armistice? One of the keys is how the rest of the Allies were doing. If additional German troops would have been sent West, they could have significantly delayed the Italian Campaign. This would place a premium on conservation of German strength and equipment. Perhaps if the losses in 1943 were greater than in (historical) 1942, this could have the breaking point (armistice in winter 1943). One other factor is how much the German Army was reduced on the Eastern Front. The game allows Hitler's poor generalship to be avoided in the East, but not in the West! The game decision to have historical German reinforcements and withdrawls, reflecting the West Front disasters in Tunisia, loss of Sicily, and surrender of Italy, give the Russians a better chance at avoiding an armistice in the game.

It is not clear to me exactly how much negotiation was done in 1942-1943 between the two countries. If Stalin was willing to truly negotiate with Hitler, then the Russian Army must have been in desperate straits! If the negotiations were just a Russian ploy to acertain how weak Germany was, fine. In either case, in the game the players are making the decisions Hitler and Stalin had to make, so perhaps letting them negotiate terms may be a way to make the mid-game more realistic and entertaining. On the other hand, the game should improve the chances of a German victory by bleeding the Russian Army. This should be doable in an accurate simulation because:

1) Germany should have greater manpower and especially more weapons compared with historical (no Hitler)
2) Germany should be much better supplied than historical (no Stalingrad, no Moscow)
3) Germany still had a great tactical advance over the Russians in 1943
4) There was a good chance German withdrawls in 1943 to Italy could have been postponed (no Tunisia)
5) Russian and Western Allies feud much more over poorer Western Allies contribution in 1943

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: victor charlie

Based on those figures did Germany ever have a chance of defeating the Soviets then?

Besides a collapse similar to WW1, on pure attrition the math don’t look good for them.

Can quality overcome quantity?

That’s the question I think this game should be showing us.

If production is too high then the end results is going to be badly trained, ill equipped and poorly led troops who will be next to worthless on the battlefield against experienced veterans.

Interestingly, when the Russians became well equipped, their losses were still horrendous. The Germans became better equipped as well (Tigers, Panthers, Panzerfausts, etc.). There appear to be two types of German "victory". The first is Germany conquering Russia. This seems hopeless, unless the England and America would have pulled out of the war (or America never entering the war). The other type is Germany doing so well that Russia would rather reach an armistice (keeping its military intact). This could only occur before D-Day (June 1944). This allows Germany to concentrate on the other Allies, perhaps making D-Day impossible. Perhaps Hitler would have been killed by the atomic bomb then? The key is that Russia would not conquer Germany!

Just how many more losses would the Russians have had to have before an armistice? One of the keys is how the rest of the Allies were doing. If additional German troops would have been sent West, they could have significantly delayed the Italian Campaign. This would place a premium on conservation of German strength and equipment. Perhaps if the losses in 1943 were greater than in (historical) 1942, this could have the breaking point (armistice in winter 1943). One other factor is how much the German Army was reduced on the Eastern Front. The game allows Hitler's poor generalship to be avoided in the East, but not in the West! The game decision to have historical German reinforcements and withdrawls, reflecting the West Front disasters in Tunisia, loss of Sicily, and surrender of Italy, give the Russians a better chance at avoiding an armistice in the game.

It is not clear to me exactly how much negotiation was done in 1942-1943 between the two countries. If Stalin was willing to truly negotiate with Hitler, then the Russian Army must have been in desperate straits! If the negotiations were just a Russian ploy to acertain how weak Germany was, fine. In either case, in the game the players are making the decisions Hitler and Stalin had to make, so perhaps letting them negotiate terms may be a way to make the mid-game more realistic and entertaining. On the other hand, the game should improve the chances of a German victory by bleeding the Russian Army. This should be doable in an accurate simulation because:

1) Germany should have greater manpower and especially more weapons compared with historical (no Hitler)
2) Germany should be much better supplied than historical (no Stalingrad, no Moscow)
3) Germany still had a great tactical advance over the Russians in 1943
4) There was a good chance German withdrawls in 1943 to Italy could have been postponed (no Tunisia)
5) Russian and Western Allies feud much more over poorer Western Allies contribution in 1943

I agree. The game can be made very finely balanced in 1942-1943 especially if you assume the Russians suffered an historical 1941 and the Germans avoided losing multiple armies in the Mediterranean (1 Italian Army in Cyrenica in 1940, 1 Italian Army in Eithiopia in 1941, effectively an army or two in Crete and the Balkans pinned down as Garrisons after 1941, 2 German and 2 Italian Armies in Tunisia effectively in 1942 and the whole Italian army and effectively another German army in Sicily and Italy in 1943 for a total of 10 armies lost or immobilized or 4-5 Stalingrad administrative disasters (SAD) in the Mediterranean). Plus assume Stalin is interested in China or something and wants an armistice if possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

So you and others say basically, the axis side (please do not ignore the other nations) has in 90 (99?)% of the games only the chance to do as they did historically?

In the moment the common axis player (compared with the common russian player) is far behind the historical results.

So, in gameterms, why should this be okay?
Nobody like to answer this easy question.

In 41 untill blizzard, the axis should cause on average as many losses as they did historically. Is it in the game?
no
in the blizzard, in history the germans were exhausted and depleted. Their supply lines were thin, overstretched. In the game the axis side mostly avoid this mistakes, are digged in, prepared and "well supplied"
Still they got crushed by the blizzard - it doesn´t matter how good the russian player is, the game makes it sure.

So again, why should someone think that it is worth to play the grand campagin, after beeing much better as historically, he get crushed by blizzard (WAD) and his strength is way behind the historical losses he had.
So not even his gameplay will be nullified (even if loosing less troops (saving strenght))  but he will also be punished more.

With this, the game should result in easy russian victories latest in 43. Historically the russians were bled white cause of the losses. How do the game handle the late-war-combats? Do the axis have more casulties as the russians?

again i like to say that the gc41 is "the scenario".
I also agree, that the game has big problems if a "1943-1945"-campagin with historical start forces shows significant more sucsessfull axis players. In this case the game needs to be checked, too. Because in this stage of the war, the russians are too strong.
Also i think if both sides plays "historical", the losses should be like they were historically... has someone some tests about it?

Adnan,

I'm all for making the game more balanced. I'd like to do so though by altering the start positions and offering a different starting scenario.

I don't like the idea of balancing the game by adding artificial hindrances to the soviet player.

In an accurate model of history, with competent players on both sides, the soviets *should* outperform history.
I want to fix this by giving the axis player more on-map capabilities in an alternate start scenario, rather than by layering on rules to hamstring the soviets or artificially overpower the axis unit counters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

The game need to be so good, that the axis player can achive historical results in 41

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Hi,
i disagree.
First -the game should allow historical results with historical gameplay.
second - the german army or his axis should NOT get MORE strengh. The game need to be so good, that the axis player can achive historical results in 41
also he should get punished, if he do as historical by exhausted troops and with a russian counteroffensive, he should have high losses
BUT - if the russian player is smarter as his historical counterparts then why should the german player be not able to fight and DEFEAT the russian counterattacks in winter41?
third - if we agree that the soviets do better in 41, save their army for the counterattack (and to be consequent - slaughter the german and axis troops in winter 41), why should the game allow a german summer offensive in 42? and also, the HUGE losses of the russians (with better equipment, better trained troops and so on) in defending 42 and even more critical in the offensive operations from 43 on will cause to greater axis losses (they couldn´t hold with the way lower losses they had in RL) and the collaps of the axis frontlines will happen way earlier.

If the game do HARDCODED things to avoid this, this cause new superaxis... the same guys not able to do any better as historical 41/42 now need to be ultra-supermen, if the game will normally end in may 45...

sorry, a game that need to do such things to give near-historical-results seems unfinished.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
Your opinion (equip the german/axis armies with more material/troops) is just utterly wrong.

It is a wrong workaround.
What would you say if a civilwar-game needs 10 Longstreets, 4 Lees, 1000 cannons, 50.000 confed cav and 200.000 more confed troops to bring the historical results of this civil war? Sure, this could be fun, but also you can give the axis "todesstrahler" and nuclear weapons to balance it (this is a little bit outside the real problem, i just like to make this point clear)

in history, the axis achieved great victories (beside some really serious failures) and hold the material superior russian army with huge losses for this army.

in the game, well - if it is played balanced they do no victories and can not hold so long as they did historically.

That IS wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Do not make the mistake of thinking in Western terms when considering the Soviet Union. You will not come to an understanding. The Soviets had planned to turn over the Army, the entire Army, every 8 months during intense campaigning. They had been preparing for a war against someone since 1927.

They were still running low on manpower by 1945. The Germans ran out first, and more catastrophically, but the soviets lost about 35% of their military age manpower in the war (ages 15..49)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

By the time of the battle of Berlin, the size of the red army was already dropping from its 1943 peak as they had serious trouble getting replacements.

If you're curious, losing 35% of your military age males is an amazing high count; the fact that soviet society continued to function at all with losses like that is a tribute (in a disgusting sort of way I suppose) to the stalanist regime.

By contrast, the germans lost about 4.5 million casualties out of a prewar military age population of around 25 million (so they lost maybe 16%) or about half the soviet loss rate, and the Germans ran the barrel dry as well.

Point being I think that, as others have pointed out, the Soviets actually were at the end of their manpower tether in 1945. They had enough to win the war, but not much more. If the Germans had managed, for example, to kill another 4-5 million soviets in 1941-42, the red army would have been that much smaller in 1943-45.

Edit:

Its worth pointing out that, in absolute terms, the soviet population was only about 2.5 times greater than the ethnic german population of the reich (roughly 200m soviets vs 80m ethnic germans in the greater reich). So an overall casualty rate of > 2.5:1 in favor of the germans theoretically favored the axis.

Naturally the germans were taking casualties on other fronts, and arguably had a lower manpower saturation point than the soviets did, but even if you assume the real "break even" point was 3:1 or 3.5:1, those are actually achievable numbers within the game engine.

The soviet population was large, but it was not infinite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I agree with Pat that the Russians should not have any extra penalties on them to "help" the Germans and to make things geared to produce a more "historical" result. They have a lot of penalties already with a screwed up command structure. (Watch the difference between how well replacements and recovery go for units in good command vs those in bad for one example). Rail issues and bad units are another example. In most cases, the Russians are going to be able to do better than historical territory wise, but that is not always the case and they should do better in the loss department. The Germans will get their opportunities to avoid major mistakes later (avoiding a Stalingrad debacle and Kursk for example to name two). 

Part of all this is going to be an attitude adjustment for many German players. "Winning" is not crushing the Russians in 40% of the games. The Germans should have a chance of an outright win, but it will probably be fairly low across a broad spectrum of games. The other thing that needs to happen after they get the blizzard stuff fixed is to see games that last several years. The Russians have to deal with the German onslaught and it is only fair that the Germans play to the end, even past the point of where they can "win" outright.

I also agree to the concept of German TOE changes being based on losses as that the big reason historically why they were made. Probably pretty hard to implement if you get off a time line however, so I don't know if this idea will ever see the light of day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

I think you're missing an important part of my proposal.
I am not proposing we alter the historical 1941 start to give the Germans "fantasy units".
I am proposing the creation of a different 1941 start scenario that gives the Germans significantly more units to aid in PBEM balance.

This is a similar solution that was found for another huge war game, WITP. In that game, the historical scenario was no fun as the japanase since by late 1942 the war was over and you were ground down by the allies. To aid in PBEM balance an "altered start" scenario was created that gave the Japanese extra troops, better pilot training, and more ships/planes.

That altered start scenario (Scenario 2) is, by far, the most popular PBEM scenario.
I'd like to see the same thing here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

In terms of irrecoverable losses, 1941 only amounted to 27.8% of the total losses for the war.

I'm not sure why you're presenting this as a low figure. It's actually a really high percentage out of the total considering that the fighting only lasted a bit over 6 months in 1941.

My point is that 1941, 1942, and 1943 all had catostrophic losses. It was not that 1941 was conducted so well. The main point is that the Russians had high losses against the Germans in defending as well as attacking engagements. Against a German player more competent than Hitler, I think the extra Germans and equipment would have been a significant factor! The fact that the German player knows it will take two years to severely damage Russia is a big advantage over historical, with their "6 month" campaign madness. Suppose 6 Russian soldiers were as combat effective as 1 German soldier before 1944. The 100,000 German soldiers lost due to frostbite in front of Moscow should have been the equivalent of about half a million Russian soldiers. The 200,000 Germans sacrificed at Stalingrad amounted to over a million Russian soldiers. Let us assume that over-attacking and non-retreating cost the Germans an extra 200,000 men, not counting Stalingrad. Thats equal to another million Russian soldiers. The result, the Germans should have been able to handle two more million Russian soldiers in the game and in real life.

Unless say 3 Russians were as dangerous as one German in which case the Germans would be at least a million men short of a full deck in the game and in real life, which might explain what happened in reality as well as in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

I think you're missing an important part of my proposal.
I am not proposing we alter the historical 1941 start to give the Germans "fantasy units".
I am proposing the creation of a different 1941 start scenario that gives the Germans significantly more units to aid in PBEM balance.

This is a similar solution that was found for another huge war game, WITP. In that game, the historical scenario was no fun as the japanase since by late 1942 the war was over and you were ground down by the allies. To aid in PBEM balance an "altered start" scenario was created that gave the Japanese extra troops, better pilot training, and more ships/planes.

That altered start scenario (Scenario 2) is, by far, the most popular PBEM scenario.
I'd like to see the same thing here.

You can do this now with the editor. If folks want to make their own 41 scenario they currently can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well...
actually only some playtesters explain openly, that the game should work exactly this way

If the blizzard destroy the german army (as it is untill now) and the russians just need to avoid mistakes to be much better, what is the consequence out of it (beside some other "blizzard" events like "german soldiers get sterioids from 43 on)

Also it does not solve the problem that the best the axis player can achieve is worse as history
You self had declared that russian airforce is a pain in 43 (not historically true compared to the rare combat records we can read here)

if someone want to play gc41, he knows exactly that it doesen´t matter
playing the russians, he will crush the german army in blizzard, so the axis can not mount any serious offensive action
playing the axis he can do what he wants, he allways will be leveld by blizzard, after this, because the problem with "verdun in the east", he can´t break through russian defence lines (the germans did all the time, even late in the war)

The best thing is, that so many people (with so less knowledge) allways explain why the blizzard has this effect, but they compare apples with, err. skyscrapers, cause in history exhausted soldiers without supply fought far away from any supply lines and in the game they hold their army intact and in good supply (Supply is another thing, i fully agree that both sides should have much more problems to supply their troops for all these monster-operations)

Sorry, in the moment i fire eastfront on my pc, it seems for gameplay this is the game with more fun for both sides in a gc

(i still think i should give the short campagins a chance, but buying the game only for them (gc41 is broken in the moment) is outside my interests in the moment. Even sadlier, westfront will propably have the same problems)

oh, i did mention that i want to play BOTH sides? fine....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

Well a total war in europe game will solve that issue.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre
<snip>

Russia was willing to participate of the invasion of Japan; it does not look like they were at the end of their manpower pool. The US expected 1 million casualties itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

Well a total war in europe game will solve that issue.  

I was thinking the same thing. Do you have any idea when it might be ready for players?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre
<snip>

Russia was willing to participate of the invasion of Japan; it does not look like they were at the end of their manpower pool. The US expected 1 million casualties itself.

Sure, but so was Britain and she was equally out of manpower by the end of ww II.

Just because you're out of reserve manpower doesn't mean you're out of the war; the Wehrmacht ran out of reserve manpower in late 1943 and absolute troop counts dropped the last two years of the war, but they kept fighting.

Same thing with the soviets, they started to run out in 1944 and were feeling shortages by the end of the war in europe, but they still had a sizeable army.

Stalin saw the Japanese campaign as a great way to share in the pacific spoils, so he was willing to take still more casualties because the gains looked significant.

Also worth pointing out is that the soviets committed only about 1.7m men to the manchurian campaign, or roughly 1/4 of what they ended the war with in europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre
<snip>

I don't think England was volunteering to invade the island of Japan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well...
actually only some playtesters explain openly, that the game should work exactly this way

If the blizzard destroy the german army (as it is untill now) and the russians just need to avoid mistakes to be much better, what is the consequence out of it (beside some other "blizzard" events like "german soldiers get sterioids from 43 on)

Also it does not solve the problem that the best the axis player can achieve is worse as history
You self had declared that russian airforce is a pain in 43 (not historically true compared to the rare combat records we can read here)

if someone want to play gc41, he knows exactly that it doesen´t matter
playing the russians, he will crush the german army in blizzard, so the axis can not mount any serious offensive action
playing the axis he can do what he wants, he allways will be leveld by blizzard, after this, because the problem with "verdun in the east", he can´t break through russian defence lines (the germans did all the time, even late in the war)

The best thing is, that so many people (with so less knowledge) allways explain why the blizzard has this effect, but they compare apples with, err. skyscrapers, cause in history exhausted soldiers without supply fought far away from any supply lines and in the game they hold their army intact and in good supply (Supply is another thing, i fully agree that both sides should have much more problems to supply their troops for all these monster-operations)

Sorry, in the moment i fire eastfront on my pc, it seems for gameplay this is the game with more fun for both sides in a gc

(i still think i should give the short campagins a chance, but buying the game only for them (gc41 is broken in the moment) is outside my interests in the moment. Even sadlier, westfront will propably have the same problems)

oh, i did mention that i want to play BOTH sides? fine....

Adnan, what is really frustrating the both of us right now, and perhaps others, is that there have been alot of player comments but every little official feedback from what the designers are poundering/thinking/tinkering. Perhaps they fear an unstable system with too many comments, too soon in the development process. I understand an official AAR is somewhere in the system (would like to know where), but to me this is only the first step in a long process.


Can we please get a little more feedback from the staff? Thanks...