Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Imagine it's 1980, and the Soviets launched a surprise attack against NATO, and are rolling in all fronts.

Would you order your troops to march to the front and stand and die, so the population can evacuate and reinforcements can build a 2nd line of defense, or would you pull back your troops, face the media (that will call you a coward) and leave the civillians to their fate?

I would stay in the front, for a matter of ethos: it's very difficult to run away and leave the enemy run rampant in your country - even if staying means a high chance of defeat. That's a fundamental dilemma that, I believe, many professional soldiers would struggle with in real life.

Meanwhile players are not troubled with (or punished for) trading territory for time in the game. The lack of attachment to the little dots in the map is, for me, the biggest difference between a player playing WITE and a real general playing the war. The former will choose "X" with mathematical precision because he will get whatever maximum probability, while the later will choose "Y", even if that's not the best mathematical choice, but is the one he can live with in real life.

Any thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

I would also like to add that while i just voted for a lower auto VP condition and earlier end date. From a purely historic point of view i just argued that the russians would give any ground and i stand by that. So im saying that i might not even believe in lower victory conditions, but for sake of the gaming i see reason in them.

Again i understand the reasoning in making accued VP it has problems too agart from getting the balance right. Since no one knows how the game plays out before its played. There is no way before hand to say if a certain VP lvl is artifical. If one sides does one thing differently than history why force the other into not able able to respond by predertermained places to hold a certain times. U remove the other sides possibilty of reacting, doing things differently now that the other side started the spiral.
Accued VP doesnt take that into account at all or extremly hard to balance right IMO. It gives just replace one set of gamey tactics for another. Hold on to some things in spite all good operational sense for 5 VPs per turn. I can forsee the titles of future post. feastung X cities. Holding on to cities with all for the sake of a few VPs, not militarily sense. Many major cities fell and was recapitualed several times during war. I see no evidence in that the sides necesarrily held on cities unless it explicitly had a purpose. Lenningrad/Stalingrad ofc comes to mind.
Until the very end. With the hitlers/german side orders to make cities into feastungs. I dont see how that helped em win the war aka accue VPs if any thing it was just large prison camps not VP earners.
Also Cities were even used to lure enemies into traps/backhand blows. Again same as in 1812. So it can also create unhistoric behavior. Gaming the game just as much, just in different ways.

In some games it might turn out that the right way to beat ur opponent in the sense of who is last man standing is retreating or elastic defence. In others not, u cant say before hand cuz u cant say how the game will evolve. It was 2 gaints fighting to the death, no less! The current VP conditions is more or less a reflection of that. History wise i'd say those VPs are prolly correct in the sense of whom was the last man standing.

Many games and it been discussed on the boards too victory conditions rewards players for doing better than history. Earn X victory level for doing X "better". Ofc what is better is determained by the designers. I certainly can understand these and would mostly agree with such. U feel a sense of accomplishment of doing better than "expected".
Just note that a minor victory in such isnt the same thing as ur side would have won the war.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

So, in another words, what you're saying is that they apparently were NOT able to come up with accrued victory points in the scenarios?

About the only thing I can agree with you on, or even understand your point is that accrued VP would be difficult to balance (but not impossible).

quote:


I see plenty of evidence the Soviets held on to cities. One in particular was Moscow.
Come to think of it, Leningrad and Stalingrad also come to mind. You really can't say the Soviets did not defend cities, at least for damn sure those three!

quote:


I really can't understand you not realizing the Soviets tried to hold ground in the war they had no business (from a strictly military sense) trying to hold. Time after time they fell into that trap, and ended up being encircled by the Germans.

quote:


Again, I will side with you it would not be trivial to balance, but seriously, not that hard. There are plenty of AARs that could test any set that was put together.

And I would also argue that in general, the outcomes, whether you used accrual VP or the current set we have now would be about the same. The only thing that would change, albeit slightly, would be the behavior in game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

I do think the Soviet ability to trade massive amounts of space for time is ahistorical, but more to the point, I think it hurts game play. While I find the proposition that the Soviet Union would have collapsed doubtful, given, primarily, that they didn't collapse despite the beating they took in 1941-42, I do think both sides were operating under the assumption that the Soviet Union very well might. On the one hand, the whole notion of "one good kick and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down" caused the Germans to over-extend themselves in both years' campaigns, thinking that just one more push would bring victory. Conversely, Stalin's own doubts about his regime's durability (witness his nervous collapse in his dacha in October 1941 for evidence of his psychological fragility) was one very major factor in both the forward defense in 1941 such as during the Battles of Smolensk or Kiev as well as the "not a step back" order in 1942, among many, many other examples of Soviet refusal or inability to trade space for time.

quote:


In game terms, I'm a proponent of adding a variable percentage chance for Soviet collapse that changes with time and is primarily tied to how many urban centers are being lost over what time period (for example, loosing 5 major urban centers in one turn is bad...), and could receive a major boost from events such as the fall of Moscow or Leningrad, or earlier in the war, receive a reduction if the Soviets are holding onto locations like Smolensk or Kiev. Again, I don't think Soviet collapse was historically likely, but I do think the possibility of such will in game terms cause a better simulation of the constraints acting on the participants. Ideally, it would be modeled to encourage the Germans to go all out (including motivation in the November '41 winter tuns to make a last gasp rather then digging in for the blizzard), and similarly cause the Soviets to try and fight forward on lines like the Dnepr. At the least, it would make it an agonizing choice for the Germans to NOT keep pushing recklessly forward or the Soviets to NOT risk major encirclements with a forward defense.

Of course, I could see many people disliking the rule, so I imagine it would need to be optional. And having a role at the beginning of each turn to see if the Soviets collapse or not would be rather agonizing, and might lead to somewhat anti-climactic endings to games, but I see few other ways to really model the sort of limitations the Germans and Soviets were operating under.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Walloc
I would also like to add that while i just voted for a lower auto VP condition and earlier end date. From a purely historic point of view i just argued that the russians would give any ground and i stand by that.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Walloc

As said above that was cuz they'd been oprationally outmanuver cuz of the slowness of the command/speed of germans. I dont think for a second the russians wouldnt have left the Kiev area sooner if they had seen what was comming, but they didnt until it was to late. They fought for it, but here it was an bad idea. As at smolensk. In that sense u right, but it doesnt tell about the state of mind. The SHC was shell shocked and made alot bad choices, Yes.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Walloc
Ppl giving up land, percieved to easily, but forcing them to to stand by cities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

It does not "hold" them in place. However, if I am more adept than the average bear at holding territory/cities before retreating, then advantage---> me
The whole point is not that it necessarily makes military sense to hold a city- the whole point is, as you said, it does not make sense. Yet they did. You do not see this behavior modeled in the game, because we, as gamers, are not under any pressure to do anything we dont want to. But if I can get an extra VP by holding a city one more turn, then I will, If I believe I am skilled enough and if I think the risk is worth it.

quote:


And bottom line they were prepared to defend Moscow to the death.

quote:


Exactly, I am not saying, nor did I ever say, it was smart to defend territory too the point where your whole army is endangered.

quote:


And bottom line they were prepared to defend Moscow to the death.

quote:


Clearly, you don't see a problem in that territory or cities don't mean anything in this game. We do agree that changing victory conditions would change behavior, as you call it, game the game. Except normally, that term is meant when players do something totally unrealistic because the game rules (perhaps not the spirit of the games rules) reward it. This would have players doing something *more* realistic. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Problem is u only think in terms it when it makes rationel sense and not when there are conflicting interrsts at steak.
Lets say u need 15 more VPs win a minor victory instead of a draw. U clearly by ur posts are incentive/rewards based type of guy which is by far the most common. Ok u want the minor victory right? u will do any thing to get that as most would. U have np abandon Moscow by own admition.
Fine down to the wire and have 2 cities left that give points Moscow 15 points, Gorky 5 points.
now losing Gorky means that Moscow would effectivly be cut off, and ur army too, but hey u need those 15 points.
U can if u transfere all ur men from Gorky to Moscow hold Moscow the turn(s) needed for the minor victory, but u ofc will lose Gorky.
U ofc go get the minor victory by moving ur troops to Moscow. The exact opposite of any military sense. Thats the kinda feastung type of behavior gaming the game will create in those situasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
They had effectivly ardy put in motion the order to evac and moscow in sep 41, parts of goverment leaving, which creates IMHO some what of a problem for ur arguement. Mud saved em from fully extending the choice. Giving time to prepare for Typhoon and fight for the city. Not that they IMHO wouldnt have given up Moscow espcially since now the facs were evaced, if they had too. They ofc didnt have too cuz they now slowed/stopped the germans and even counterattacked. I never said they'd run for no reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

quote:


Exactly, I am not saying, nor did I ever say, it was smart to defend territory too the point where your whole army is endangered.

quote:


And bottom line they were prepared to defend Moscow to the death.

Which is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
In some cases yes and in others not. As to cities they mean lots, manpower and factories are generally contrated there. I'd sure keep em if i can. If i cant then no. I dont think we that far apart, but no i dont think they would have fought to the death over cities. Unless no other option excists, cut off and so on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The Russians don't have any place where they feel their back is against the wall and are forced to fight. This was certainly not the case for Moscow in particular in this game because there is not much of a consequence in losing Moscow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


The game is too much of a track meet right now. Russians retreat very quickly

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Here's the thing... Stalin had many defeats in the first months because he refused to trade space for time. He'd rather trade soldiers (and Generals) for time. Only by 42 the Soviets had a clear strategy of giving space to avoid encirclements - and the proof is that they had much less of them in 42.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


The game is too much of a track meet right now. Russians retreat very quickly

No they do not. People need to stop repeating this nonsense. It is not that the Soviets are retreating too quickly. It is that the Axis offensive is preposterously accelerated. The Red Army is simply being blown away too quickly and stuff is being overrun as a result.

You can't hold Kiev until September when SW Front is pocketed on turn 1. Generally the Dnepr is being crossed as early as turn 6. Leningrad can't be held at all. Moscow is falling in a non trivial portion of games. None of these things are because of "runaways." The first real runaway is the one that happens in the winter...by the Axis.