Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

60% of all facts are made up, 72% of the people know that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Perhaps it would appease everyone if:

1) Industry is evacced automatically by the computer whenever a city has an axis unit adjacent to it, (or is within some arbitrary range) or if the city is isolated, similar to the way manpower is evac'd.

2) On such an evacuation, rail cap for the Russians is lowered by some amount for the next few turns (up to 4).

3) A percentage of said industry is elimanted in said move...maybe based on date. (100% destruction turn 1 to 0-25% mud turn)

4) Said industry shows up in cities on the other side of the Volga in the same number of turns as 2)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Perhaps it would appease everyone if:

1) Industry is evacced automatically by the computer whenever a city has an axis unit adjacent to it, (or is within some arbitrary range) or if the city is isolated, similar to the way manpower is evac'd.

2) On such an evacuation, rail cap for the Russians is lowered by some amount for the next few turns (up to 4).

3) A percentage of said industry is elimanted in said move...maybe based on date. (100% destruction turn 1 to 0-25% mud turn)

4) Said industry shows up in cities on the other side of the Volga in the same number of turns as 2)

It won't please anyone. The Axis won't get to do their factory raiding. The Reds won't get to decide when it's time to move them. Or worry about waiting too long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
2. I had seen the number of 40% of Russian production was destroyed or captured by the Germans. This article from the BBC claims that 66% was destoryed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml
or if you really want some fun numbers buy and read this bad boy. http://www.jstor.org/pss/151494

Ok we look at both numbers I only look at the arm production in the areas of German advances and we will call it 50% captured.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

2. I had seen the number of 40% of Russian production was destroyed or captured by the Germans. This article from the BBC claims that 66% was destoryed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml

quote:


Accordingly, a massive evacuation-relocation effort was undertaken in the summer and autumn of 1941. In general, the evacuation schedule for specific economic regions was tied to changes in the location and condition of the military front.4 More specifically, 109 enterprises were evacuated from Belorussia between June and August, 283 major industrial enterprises from the Ukraine between July and October,5 92 large-scale enterprises from Leningrad between July and September,6 and 498 all-union and union-republic-level enterprises from the Moscow region between July and November. All in all, between July and November 1941, 1523 industrial enterprises, including more than 1,360 large plants, were evacuated to the rear-226 to the Volga region, 667 to the Urals, 244 to western Siberia, 78 to eastern Siberia, and 308 to Kazakhstan and Central Asia. The temporary loss of their productive capacity stretched the already strained Soviet war effort even further. By mid-1942, however, more than 1,200 of these evacuated enterprises had been restored to production. The struggle for survival, at least on the industrial front, had been won.

Initially, however, the evacuation project was marked by chaos, particularly in the western border regions that lay in the immediate path of the rapidly advancing enemy forces. Party and governmental organs in these areas had to deal with the problems of evacuation themselves because the regimes's evacuation machinery was not yet functioning. Indeed, at the start of hostilities, contingency plans for the evacuation of industry did not even exist. The absence of such plans, the speed of the enemy advance, the immensity of the task at hand, and the lack of power and competence on the part of the local officials in border areas to cope with the larger issues and problems of evacuation combined in most instances to doom the efforts of the local organs to failure.

quote:


Yet, at the same time, all too often it is overlooked that the Soviet regime, despite the precarious position in which it found itself during this period, still possessed sufficient strength, and sufficient resources-physical, moral, and administrative-to make the evacuation of industry the great success it was. The Stalinist system, even at the height of the crisis of war, still appears to have been viable. Indeed, while readily recognizing all of the negative aspects of Stalinism, including its basic responsibility for the country's lack of preparation for war in June 1941, it can be argued that, given the Soviet Union's overall position at the start of the war, it is doubtful whether the country would have been able to survive had a different system been in effect. In a way, the Stalinist system - a garrison state making considerable use of extraordinary forms of administration and control even in the pre-war period - was itself a vital factor in the Soviet Union's ability to survive in time of all-out war.

quote:


Why did Hitler fail? Circumstantial factors played a certain part, of course. Among the underlying reasons for German failure in 1941-2, however, are included the counter-actions and initiatives of the Soviet government and people. German military success in 1941-2 depended on stunning and paralyzing the Soviet military economic machine with a colossal blow. Soviet resilience stemmed partly from the reactions and initiatives of Soviet leaders from above, partly from those of Soviet people at a lower, less discernible level. At the highest level the Soviet military economicmachine was only partially and momentarily stunned. The Kremlin’s first clearsighted responses to the economic emergency can be found in the campaign for industrial evacuation. It was this programme which saved Soviet specialized defence plant and provided the essential context for the economy-wide mobilization of war production.

Such early high-level initiatives to grapple seriously with the threatened economic catastrophe depended heavily on the qualities of leading individuals. The individualization of authority and responsibility, reinforced by dictatorial powers, rapidly became a leading principle of wartime administration in the first eighteen months. It was reflected in the division of labour within Stalin’s war cabinet where, for example, Beriya was responsible for armament and ammunition procurement, Malenkov for the aircraft industry, Molotov for tank building, Kaganovich for railway transport. This adaptation of the Soviet political system to new tasks had peacetime precedents in previous emergencies of confrontation with the peasantry and food shortage, of international tension, and of industrial and defence mobilization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
2. I had seen the number of 40% of Russian production was destroyed or captured by the Germans. This article from the BBC claims that 66% was destoryed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml
or if you really want some fun numbers buy and read this bad boy. http://www.jstor.org/pss/151494

Ok we look at both numbers I only look at the arm production in the areas of German advances and we will call it 50% captured.

Ok, I've finally found the time to read both of these articles and can't say that I was surprised to find that neither of them support the numbers you claim.

The BBC article does not seem to include any percentage figure at all, and the Soviet Studies article states (see footnote 8) that "From June 1941 to January 1943 more than 1,500 large industrial enterprises were evacuated to the rear. Among the objects evacuated were '..the equipment of almost all defence plants..." [emphasis added].

As an aside, the article also states that 25 million civilians were also evaced, including 17 million from June-December 1941.

Are we finished now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01

It would be interesting to see a numeric comparison of the amount of rolling stock, locomotives and etc. between the Soviet Union and th Axis between say 1940 and 1945. I haven't the foggiest idea how the historical figures might shake out or what designer assumptions were entailed in determining in-game rail capactities. Was Soviet rail capacity really four or five times great than Germany's + Rumania + Hungry (and I suppose Czech, Austrian, Polish and etc.)? -- (or whatever the actual in-game rail capacity ratio is between Axis & Soviet)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01

It would be interesting to see a numeric comparison of the amount of rolling stock, locomotives and etc. between the Soviet Union and th Axis between say 1940 and 1945. I haven't the foggiest idea how the historical figures might shake out or what designer assumptions were entailed in determining in-game rail capactities. Was Soviet rail capacity really four or five times great than Germany's + Rumania + Hungry (and I suppose Czech, Austrian, Polish and etc.)? -- (or whatever the actual in-game rail capacity ratio is between Axis & Soviet)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01

It would be interesting to see a numeric comparison of the amount of rolling stock, locomotives and etc. between the Soviet Union and th Axis between say 1940 and 1945. I haven't the foggiest idea how the historical figures might shake out or what designer assumptions were entailed in determining in-game rail capactities. Was Soviet rail capacity really four or five times great than Germany's + Rumania + Hungry (and I suppose Czech, Austrian, Polish and etc.)? -- (or whatever the actual in-game rail capacity ratio is between Axis & Soviet)

Some data:
Reichsbahn freight in tons:
1939: 46,14 Mio. tons (between 3,1 and 4,4 Mio tons per month)
1940: 46, 91 Mio. tons (between 2,9 and 4,6 Mio tons per month)
1941: 45,95 Mio. tons (between 3,4 and 4,2 Mio tons per month)
War time reeorg of Reichsbahn was controlled by Wehrmacht. Despite all efforts the performance of the Reichsbahn did not match neither the growing needs of transport outside the Reich nor the wartime economy. “Even if the Reichsbahn performance collaps which happened during the first war-winter wasn’t repeated, in the second half of 1941 a steady drop of performance took place because of the War in the East.”
Das Deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg, Vol. 5.1 p. 651-653.

The transportation situation of the Reichsbahn in the winter 1939/40 became very bad, it even directly influenced the war conduct. Because of the overstraining for years locomitives, freightcars and railroads were in bad shape. Those pre-war deficits became worse in the winter 1939/40. Thus the lacking coal supply for the armament industry led to production delays. In January 1940 the Reichsbahn reported to the Army’s transportation leader that it couldn’t support a major offensive. On Hitler’s order the most urgent deficies were corrected before the offensive in the West 1940. But all in all in nearly all sectors the situation was unsatisfying and led to lots of temporary substitutes strainig the menpool and organization”
Burkhart Mueller-Hillebrand, Das Heer, Vol.2, p.42.


Paul Kennedy, The rise and fall of the great powers, p. 466
„[In WW2 in the German-occupied parts of European Russia, the Ukraine, and Belorussia] transportation was hit by the destruction of 65.000 km of railway track, loss of or damage to 15.800 locomotives, 428.000 good wagons [...] and half of all the railway bridges in the occupied territory [...].

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The game is quite different from before going from 1941 to 1942 now, as the Germans get Hiwi's, Soviet national morale is reduced and forts are less impressive, and it will be a while before the long term effects of recent changes are felt.

To say, like Pelton and now Stoat too, that the developers essentially only care about the Soviet side, is complete rubbish. To say that Pelton and Stoat represent most of the community is also false.

After the recent changes, there are more minor and major issues with the system than there are minor and major issues with a certain side, which was the case before, so in my opinion we're on the right track at least in that regard. Could that have been achieved earlier? Maybe, but we probably would've broken more things than were broken now with changes being applied more gradually.

Also, Stoat: We jump on Pelton because he rants and doesn't really provide evidence supporting his cause. What he says wouldn't be the problem if it would not be a rant (coming from a not so very articulated person) and if it would be based on the average situation and not what he views as a problem at the time. For obvious reasons, the game is more likely to be adjusted if something goes wrong on average than if something goes wrong in one single game, as long as it doesn't concern a bug, but an outcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stoat
So the way I see it, reduced down to the crux of it, Pelton is the greatest champion of making the game better, and FlaviusX is the greatest proponent of destroying the game. I think they're both smart and I like them both. But this is why I stand with Pelton & why I stand against FlaviusX.

Untrue and unfair.

Though it was pretty clear to me that it (along with much of your overly long and rambling post) was intended as a bit of humorous hyperbole, it makes it rather difficult to pay any credence to some of the more important issues that you do allude to in the rest of the post. Namely, what range of outcomes should we take to be reasonable, and historically plausible?

quote:

y long and rambling post) was intended as a bit of humorous hyperbole, it makes it rather difficult to pay any credence to some of the more important issues that you do allude to in the rest of the post

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
In fact given the planning involved in moving the factories I wonder if the military had any direct say in which factories moved when, more likely the military to some extent had to react to planned factory moves, so there could be a basis for removing this kind of decision from player control. Moreover, the Sovs would certainly have screwed things up sometimes (how did the Germans cut that rail line?!) so random losses of factories would also be expected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
In fact given the planning involved in moving the factories I wonder if the military had any direct say in which factories moved when, more likely the military to some extent had to react to planned factory moves, so there could be a basis for removing this kind of decision from player control. Moreover, the Sovs would certainly have screwed things up sometimes (how did the Germans cut that rail line?!) so random losses of factories would also be expected.

That would just muddy the scope of the player's reach even more. We're supposedly the part of some very high command that can ignore political objectives at will, but we're subject to having our commanders randomly reassigned and dismissed ostensibly by Hitler/Stalin?

The Soviet player has much more complete control over the formation/construction/composition of his Army, but the German player has no say in this, up to and including withdrawals of formations that were only due to East Front events that may not have happened in the alternate timeline he's already playing!

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
That would just muddy the scope of the player's reach even more. We're supposedly the part of some very high command that can ignore political objectives at will, but we're subject to having our commanders randomly reassigned and dismissed ostensibly by Hitler/Stalin?

quote:

Really, there doesn't seem to be much daylight between you guys as concerns game balance - is there secretly some NKVD guy with a Maxim gun enforcing discipline in your rear? ;)

quote:

up to and including withdrawals of formations that were only due to East Front events that may not have happened in the alternate timeline he's already playing!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stoat

Let us say we'd like to achieve the most realistic historical simulation (as above, with reasonable abstractions such that it remains playable). I think we'd all like the game to be able to produce some range of outcomes, rather than every game producing the same outcome, because that would be pointless and no fun to play.

Some on this forum have in fact expressed this view, and moreover feel that this is in fact the current state of affairs. I do not share this view, but I am sympathetic to it, because over many AARs I think we can observe what to me personally is quite a narrow distributions of outcomes.

So this is my idea:

1) IF we can agree on what historically occurred, then we can assign this a numerical value of 0, representing no deviation from the mean historical outcome.
3) Over a sufficient number of samples, if the game is not hardwired to produce the same result every time, we will observe a distribution of outcomes.
3) Perhaps we can agree that the mean observed (played) out come should more or less equal the historical outcome (0 error or deviation).
4) ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

In early or mid October Hitler's generals had suggested they prepare winter quarters in November. He briefly considered. This could be an option in any East Front campaign. Not like it's science fiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
The Axis player must be burdened with all the historic mistakes that were made in the '41 campaign while the Soviet player must be allowed to do what ever they feel like.

It's historical, it's documented and it's only fair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, what I think is slightly different: I think the game has a systemic bias towards the offense. This is true both in terms of logistics and the combat engine.