Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree deeply with Hyla above.

In more than one game I quickly faced Soviets that were super prepared in CPP (Which as force multiplier benefits them a lot due to many units - and in the way CPP are spent).
The '41 WAll of Soviets was already amazing - and at the first battering Soviets take they can just slip slightly away, maybe sacrifice 1-2 hexes of division(s) and reshape a sturdy line.
Germans wasted their CPP to achieve that little.

quote:

ORIGINAL: quantas

Thanks a lot for this AAR. I enjoyed it and learned a lot while reading your posts and ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree deeply with Hyla above.

In more than one game I quickly faced Soviets that were super prepared in CPP (Which as force multiplier benefits them a lot due to many units - and in the way CPP are spent).
The '41 WAll of Soviets was already amazing - and at the first battering Soviets take they can just slip slightly away, maybe sacrifice 1-2 hexes of division(s) and reshape a sturdy line.
Germans wasted their CPP to achieve that little.

Perhaps the Soviet player should not be able to have assault HQ's until December 41. And perhaps it should be restricted during spring and summer of 42 too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

while I try to avoid an early death as the Axis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree deeply with Hyla above.

In more than one game I quickly faced Soviets that were super prepared in CPP (Which as force multiplier benefits them a lot due to many units - and in the way CPP are spent).
The '41 WAll of Soviets was already amazing - and at the first battering Soviets take they can just slip slightly away, maybe sacrifice 1-2 hexes of division(s) and reshape a sturdy line.
Germans wasted their CPP to achieve that little.

Perhaps the Soviet player should not be able to have assault HQ's until December 41. And perhaps it should be restricted during spring and summer of 42 too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree deeply with Hyla above.

In more than one game I quickly faced Soviets that were super prepared in CPP (Which as force multiplier benefits them a lot due to many units - and in the way CPP are spent).
The '41 WAll of Soviets was already amazing - and at the first battering Soviets take they can just slip slightly away, maybe sacrifice 1-2 hexes of division(s) and reshape a sturdy line.
Germans wasted their CPP to achieve that little.

Perhaps the Soviet player should not be able to have assault HQ's until December 41. And perhaps it should be restricted during spring and summer of 42 too?

Perhaps the Axis player should go where they are not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

Just a reminder, I have had a chance to practice building the Red Army during beta testing. Here was a result from a game against a couple testers at about the same time of the game. This didn't end long before release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

In my axis vs ai the reds are dying in 100k plus range per turn in winter nov dec 42
the losses above do not represent all situations they will likely go over 8 million men lost in the weeks to come in my game.
Weather is the worst enemy I have

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

The more I read the more I grow worried - that screenshot above shows elite german formations just mass surrendering in June '42.

Another problem I regularly saw is that Soviets attacks are often scott free.
Minimalistic losses or the like. Commissars clearly allowed bayonet assaults to stop at the first artillery fire from Germans; instead of sending Soviet troops to the butchery.

But I see already in '41 extreme operational capability in the hands of -some- Soviet players, that smash Panzer Regiments all over the place.
Either Germans pocket using divisions, or they get mauled. - Sure the Soviets lose a quantity of armour too but it seems they replace it like nuts. Same is for ... pretty much anything, perception wise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

The more I read the more I grow worried - that screenshot above shows elite german formations just mass surrendering in June '42.

Another problem I regularly saw is that Soviets attacks are often scott free.
Minimalistic losses or the like. Commissars clearly allowed bayonet assaults to stop at the first artillery fire from Germans; instead of sending Soviet troops to the butchery.

But I see already in '41 extreme operational capability in the hands of -some- Soviet players, that smash Panzer Regiments all over the place.
Either Germans pocket using divisions, or they get mauled. - Sure the Soviets lose a quantity of armour too but it seems they replace it like nuts. Same is for ... pretty much anything, perception wise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: smokindave34
Well done M60! I reserve the right for your first official match for WITE3 (or War in Europe....)

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

quote:

ORIGINAL: smokindave34
Well done M60! I reserve the right for your first official match for WITE3 (or War in Europe....)

Thanks Dave. You're always first in line for re-matches.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

Now I get it, thank you for the explanation.

By the way, I would love to see a game between you and HLYA. :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree deeply with Hyla above.

In more than one game I quickly faced Soviets that were super prepared in CPP (Which as force multiplier benefits them a lot due to many units - and in the way CPP are spent).
The '41 WAll of Soviets was already amazing - and at the first battering Soviets take they can just slip slightly away, maybe sacrifice 1-2 hexes of division(s) and reshape a sturdy line.
Germans wasted their CPP to achieve that little.

Perhaps the Soviet player should not be able to have assault HQ's until December 41. And perhaps it should be restricted during spring and summer of 42 too?

That would be a very good step in the right direction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree deeply with Hyla above.

In more than one game I quickly faced Soviets that were super prepared in CPP (Which as force multiplier benefits them a lot due to many units - and in the way CPP are spent).
The '41 WAll of Soviets was already amazing - and at the first battering Soviets take they can just slip slightly away, maybe sacrifice 1-2 hexes of division(s) and reshape a sturdy line.
Germans wasted their CPP to achieve that little.

Perhaps the Soviet player should not be able to have assault HQ's until December 41. And perhaps it should be restricted during spring and summer of 42 too?

That would be a very good step in the right direction.

I think this touches on the main issue I see. CPP build up just happens too fast. Historically, it took months to build up for an offensive in one sector, not two weeks. I think this is the main reason that the Soviets can sustain offensives much longer than they were able to historically.


I think an elegant solution is to subject CPP build up to leadership rolls. This would give the Axis an edge in building up their armies, as well as slow down the rate of CPP build up for both sides. It does seem kind of silly that almost everything in game has to be rolled for, but the most important stat in the game is an automatic buff every turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree deeply with Hyla above.

In more than one game I quickly faced Soviets that were super prepared in CPP (Which as force multiplier benefits them a lot due to many units - and in the way CPP are spent).
The '41 WAll of Soviets was already amazing - and at the first battering Soviets take they can just slip slightly away, maybe sacrifice 1-2 hexes of division(s) and reshape a sturdy line.
Germans wasted their CPP to achieve that little.

Perhaps the Soviet player should not be able to have assault HQ's until December 41. And perhaps it should be restricted during spring and summer of 42 too?

That would be a very good step in the right direction.

I think this touches on the main issue I see. CPP build up just happens too fast. Historically, it took months to build up for an offensive in one sector, not two weeks. I think this is the main reason that the Soviets can sustain offensives much longer than they were able to historically.


I think an elegant solution is to subject CPP build up to leadership rolls. This would give the Axis an edge in building up their armies, as well as slow down the rate of CPP build up for both sides. It does seem kind of silly that almost everything in game has to be rolled for, but the most important stat in the game is an automatic buff every turn.

Reading that, it seems like a very good suggestion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

quote:

ORIGINAL: smokindave34
Well done M60! I reserve the right for your first official match for WITE3 (or War in Europe....)

Thanks Dave. You're always first in line for re-matches.

I absolutely admire Smokindave. :) Great guy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Tyronec and Roadwarrior are far better players than me & I believe Tyronec said it the best on the current state of the game. I can only parapharse it but went something on the line of, "if you don't take the Soviet out in 41 early 42 then the Soviets will grow massive and Germany will die in 44". Of course Tyronec put it much more elegantly.

I do think that the game does favor the Soviets. But it isn't that bad at the moment, I think...

I think this is an excellent point, and I am coming to agree with this. I am about to start a Stal to Berlin as Germany vs. a good opponent (Speedysteve) and I expect to get quashed. In testing I played the other side vs. Loki, and by early '44 was rolling toward Romania.

I don't think the solution is necessarily to help the Germans in '41 take out the Soviet Union, but rather some later help for the Germans....not sure how, since 1943 turns into a feedback loop where Soviets win, increase morale, get stronger, while Germans constantly doing the opposite.

I really don't know the cure......the game certainly favors a supplied attacker, especially in clear terrain

The crux is the casualty rate to the Soviets. The Soviets can control the flow in 41 with retreat & retreat and retreat.
The Germans are hard pressed to do anything about it if the Soviets retreat correctly.
To have a chance the Germans have to surround then force surrender many many Soviets and it isnt going to happen in WITE2.
By the time the Germans get to a Soviet line the units are rested, with good leaders, well supplied.
Thus when the germans do attack the casualties are way low and Soviets retreat from a combat with minimial losses.
Then during their turn the Soviets just rotate out the Divisions that got hit for a rest.
I saw this and was no way I was going to play the Soviets again in WITE2 and decided to end a game before even getting started when I came back this month.
I like a challenge and thus went back fully to the German side. On top of that my game is a no early end which will be "Hell on Earth" for me to even survive til 1944.
I don't think it can be done as Germany. But that is just me looking into my crystal ball.

Don't even get me started on the free AP's given tot he Soviets by mid 1943. 1500 AP is a very large number of AP to do anything with.
If you are going to give APs then subdivide the gifted AP where you have the normal AP you get a turn then break it down to what it was given for and only can be used for it.
Thus the AP for Cav should only be used to purchase Cav & not build a whole bunch of forts instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RoadWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Tyronec and Roadwarrior are far better players than me & I believe Tyronec said it the best on the current state of the game. I can only parapharse it but went something on the line of, "if you don't take the Soviet out in 41 early 42 then the Soviets will grow massive and Germany will die in 44". Of course Tyronec put it much more elegantly.

I do think that the game does favor the Soviets. But it isn't that bad at the moment, I think...

I think this is an excellent point, and I am coming to agree with this. I am about to start a Stal to Berlin as Germany vs. a good opponent (Speedysteve) and I expect to get quashed. In testing I played the other side vs. Loki, and by early '44 was rolling toward Romania.

I don't think the solution is necessarily to help the Germans in '41 take out the Soviet Union, but rather some later help for the Germans....not sure how, since 1943 turns into a feedback loop where Soviets win, increase morale, get stronger, while Germans constantly doing the opposite.

I really don't know the cure......the game certainly favors a supplied attacker, especially in clear terrain

The crux is the casualty rate to the Soviets. The Soviets can control the flow in 41 with retreat & retreat and retreat.
The Germans are hard pressed to do anything about it if the Soviets retreat correctly.
To have a chance the Germans have to surround then force surrender many many Soviets and it isnt going to happen in WITE2.
By the time the Germans get to a Soviet line the units are rested, with good leaders, well supplied.
Thus when the germans do attack the casualties are way low and Soviets retreat from a combat with minimial losses.
Then during their turn the Soviets just rotate out the Divisions that got hit for a rest.
I saw this and was no way I was going to play the Soviets again in WITE2 and decided to end a game before even getting started when I came back this month.
I like a challenge and thus went back fully to the German side. On top of that my game is a no early end which will be "Hell on Earth" for me to even survive til 1944.
I don't think it can be done as Germany. But that is just me looking into my crystal ball.

Don't even get me started on the free AP's given tot he Soviets by mid 1943. 1500 AP is a very large number of AP to do anything with.
If you are going to give APs then subdivide the gifted AP where you have the normal AP you get a turn then break it down to what it was given for and only can be used for it.
Thus the AP for Cav should only be used to purchase Cav & not build a whole bunch of forts instead.

+1 to HLYA
Great AAR by the way and grats to you both on your game.


The logistics system currently is at the heart of the unhistorical results we see in the AARs

1. SHC is unhistorically rewarded to retreat a few hexes a turn until the logistic chain stops GHC in the center and south. An Army that is simply marching forward turn after turn and hardly fighting is using very few supplies, this is just basic math!!!!!! Supplies shortages for Germans and Russians were caused by heavy fighting or fuel by long advances, not both sides holding hands taking a summer walk together 30 miles a week to the east.
2. So moral, KIA and factory loses are far lower than historical, supplies for some reason are low based on a lack of combat and long summer walks?????
3. By 1942 German Army is at 1943 levels and Russian Army at 1944 levels. There is no 1942, which is why games will end in 44.
The massive encirclements of spring and summer of 1942 are not possible because SHC has 1/2 dozen Armies that can easily break open almost any pocket in 1942, when historically that simply was not the case. Supplies and replacements were a major issue in 42 for SHC, but not in this game. The combat tempo of 41 is simply not happening and a logistics system that is hard wired to output data that says the combat tempo is high when it simply is low, very low if the hand holding is done right.
4. The logistics system is a single system for both sides when historically it simply was not. This is by far the biggest problem with the game.
5. Because of the logistic system (1 system for both sides) simply is not working historically; it causes a feedback loop where the attacker never runs out of supplies after summer of 41.
When historically the Russians took months to build up supplies for major operations and then had to stop after some small gains because they ran out.

Summer 1941 was a blood bath. The Russians caused supply issues for the Germans, because they attacked causing shortages and delaying German advances. The 1941 supply issues were not caused long summer walks.

The logistic system appears to need allot of tweaking, allot.

Sadly I would have to say 1.0 is more of a historical simulation than 2.0. No idea if the logistics system can be fixed or if the will is their to fix it's clear short coming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RoadWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Tyronec and Roadwarrior are far better players than me & I believe Tyronec said it the best on the current state of the game. I can only parapharse it but went something on the line of, "if you don't take the Soviet out in 41 early 42 then the Soviets will grow massive and Germany will die in 44". Of course Tyronec put it much more elegantly.

I do think that the game does favor the Soviets. But it isn't that bad at the moment, I think...

I think this is an excellent point, and I am coming to agree with this. I am about to start a Stal to Berlin as Germany vs. a good opponent (Speedysteve) and I expect to get quashed. In testing I played the other side vs. Loki, and by early '44 was rolling toward Romania.

I don't think the solution is necessarily to help the Germans in '41 take out the Soviet Union, but rather some later help for the Germans....not sure how, since 1943 turns into a feedback loop where Soviets win, increase morale, get stronger, while Germans constantly doing the opposite.

I really don't know the cure......the game certainly favors a supplied attacker, especially in clear terrain

The crux is the casualty rate to the Soviets. The Soviets can control the flow in 41 with retreat & retreat and retreat.
The Germans are hard pressed to do anything about it if the Soviets retreat correctly.
To have a chance the Germans have to surround then force surrender many many Soviets and it isnt going to happen in WITE2.
By the time the Germans get to a Soviet line the units are rested, with good leaders, well supplied.
Thus when the germans do attack the casualties are way low and Soviets retreat from a combat with minimial losses.
Then during their turn the Soviets just rotate out the Divisions that got hit for a rest.
I saw this and was no way I was going to play the Soviets again in WITE2 and decided to end a game before even getting started when I came back this month.
I like a challenge and thus went back fully to the German side. On top of that my game is a no early end which will be "Hell on Earth" for me to even survive til 1944.
I don't think it can be done as Germany. But that is just me looking into my crystal ball.

Don't even get me started on the free AP's given tot he Soviets by mid 1943. 1500 AP is a very large number of AP to do anything with.
If you are going to give APs then subdivide the gifted AP where you have the normal AP you get a turn then break it down to what it was given for and only can be used for it.
Thus the AP for Cav should only be used to purchase Cav & not build a whole bunch of forts instead.

+1 to HLYA
Great AAR by the way and grats to you both on your game.


The logistics system currently is at the heart of the unhistorical results we see in the AARs

1. SHC is unhistorically rewarded to retreat a few hexes a turn until the logistic chain stops GHC in the center and south. An Army that is simply marching forward turn after turn and hardly fighting is using very few supplies, this is just basic math!!!!!! Supplies shortages for Germans and Russians were caused by heavy fighting or fuel by long advances, not both sides holding hands taking a summer walk together 30 miles a week to the east.
2. So moral, KIA and factory loses are far lower than historical, supplies for some reason are low based on a lack of combat and long summer walks?????
3. By 1942 German Army is at 1943 levels and Russian Army at 1944 levels. There is no 1942, which is why games will end in 44.
The massive encirclements of spring and summer of 1942 are not possible because SHC has 1/2 dozen Armies that can easily break open almost any pocket in 1942, when historically that simply was not the case. Supplies and replacements were a major issue in 42 for SHC, but not in this game. The combat tempo of 41 is simply not happening and a logistics system that is hard wired to output data that says the combat tempo is high when it simply is low, very low if the hand holding is done right.
4. The logistics system is a single system for both sides when historically it simply was not. This is by far the biggest problem with the game.
5. Because of the logistic system (1 system for both sides) simply is not working historically; it causes a feedback loop where the attacker never runs out of supplies after summer of 41.
When historically the Russians took months to build up supplies for major operations and then had to stop after some small gains because they ran out.

Summer 1941 was a blood bath. The Russians caused supply issues for the Germans, because they attacked causing shortages and delaying German advances. The 1941 supply issues were not caused long summer walks.

The logistic system appears to need allot of tweaking, allot.

Sadly I would have to say 1.0 is more of a historical simulation than 2.0. No idea if the logistics system can be fixed or if the will is their to fix it's clear short coming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

VPs are very rarely a good way to balance the game. Because the 'final picture' is 'final'. A player has to get there, a player needs to have some fun. If PlayerA(xis in this case) is to take the beating without hopes from Winter 41 til surrender date ... or just play for the same of 'sticking there' but really not enjoying it til '44 or '45 ... how many do that?

In general the good balancing factors are Economics and 'Quality' level of units. (How many and how good).

VPs unless netting a sudden Auto-Win (or Auto-Loss) mean little. Would the Soviet player in '41 have a 4M army and have Axis at 600 VP, or have a 5M army and have the Axis at 650 VP (Numbers are an example). I am sure in this game any Soviet player will pick the 2nd, simply because of the Snowball effect. Their position in '42 will be way better, they'll start to pound back Germany way earlier, the 50 VP difference they'll regain cheaply by being in Berlin a year ahead or so! (Concept wise).

Thus, even if I advocate deeply a more granular spreading of VP cities that is an extra.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

quote:

ORIGINAL: RoadWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Tyronec and Roadwarrior are far better players than me & I believe Tyronec said it the best on the current state of the game. I can only parapharse it but went something on the line of, "if you don't take the Soviet out in 41 early 42 then the Soviets will grow massive and Germany will die in 44". Of course Tyronec put it much more elegantly.

I do think that the game does favor the Soviets. But it isn't that bad at the moment, I think...

I think this is an excellent point, and I am coming to agree with this. I am about to start a Stal to Berlin as Germany vs. a good opponent (Speedysteve) and I expect to get quashed. In testing I played the other side vs. Loki, and by early '44 was rolling toward Romania.

I don't think the solution is necessarily to help the Germans in '41 take out the Soviet Union, but rather some later help for the Germans....not sure how, since 1943 turns into a feedback loop where Soviets win, increase morale, get stronger, while Germans constantly doing the opposite.

I really don't know the cure......the game certainly favors a supplied attacker, especially in clear terrain

The crux is the casualty rate to the Soviets. The Soviets can control the flow in 41 with retreat & retreat and retreat.
The Germans are hard pressed to do anything about it if the Soviets retreat correctly.
To have a chance the Germans have to surround then force surrender many many Soviets and it isnt going to happen in WITE2.
By the time the Germans get to a Soviet line the units are rested, with good leaders, well supplied.
Thus when the germans do attack the casualties are way low and Soviets retreat from a combat with minimial losses.
Then during their turn the Soviets just rotate out the Divisions that got hit for a rest.
I saw this and was no way I was going to play the Soviets again in WITE2 and decided to end a game before even getting started when I came back this month.
I like a challenge and thus went back fully to the German side. On top of that my game is a no early end which will be "Hell on Earth" for me to even survive til 1944.
I don't think it can be done as Germany. But that is just me looking into my crystal ball.

Don't even get me started on the free AP's given tot he Soviets by mid 1943. 1500 AP is a very large number of AP to do anything with.
If you are going to give APs then subdivide the gifted AP where you have the normal AP you get a turn then break it down to what it was given for and only can be used for it.
Thus the AP for Cav should only be used to purchase Cav & not build a whole bunch of forts instead.

+1 to HLYA
Great AAR by the way and grats to you both on your game.


The logistics system currently is at the heart of the unhistorical results we see in the AARs

1. SHC is unhistorically rewarded to retreat a few hexes a turn until the logistic chain stops GHC in the center and south. An Army that is simply marching forward turn after turn and hardly fighting is using very few supplies, this is just basic math!!!!!! Supplies shortages for Germans and Russians were caused by heavy fighting or fuel by long advances, not both sides holding hands taking a summer walk together 30 miles a week to the east.
2. So moral, KIA and factory loses are far lower than historical, supplies for some reason are low based on a lack of combat and long summer walks?????
3. By 1942 German Army is at 1943 levels and Russian Army at 1944 levels. There is no 1942, which is why games will end in 44.
The massive encirclements of spring and summer of 1942 are not possible because SHC has 1/2 dozen Armies that can easily break open almost any pocket in 1942, when historically that simply was not the case. Supplies and replacements were a major issue in 42 for SHC, but not in this game. The combat tempo of 41 is simply not happening and a logistics system that is hard wired to output data that says the combat tempo is high when it simply is low, very low if the hand holding is done right.
4. The logistics system is a single system for both sides when historically it simply was not. This is by far the biggest problem with the game.
5. Because of the logistic system (1 system for both sides) simply is not working historically; it causes a feedback loop where the attacker never runs out of supplies after summer of 41.
When historically the Russians took months to build up supplies for major operations and then had to stop after some small gains because they ran out.

Summer 1941 was a blood bath. The Russians caused supply issues for the Germans, because they attacked causing shortages and delaying German advances. The 1941 supply issues were not caused long summer walks.

The logistic system appears to need allot of tweaking, allot.

Sadly I would have to say 1.0 is more of a historical simulation than 2.0. No idea if the logistics system can be fixed or if the will is their to fix it's clear short coming.

Brief thought #1 on this - I don't think we have enough data at this point - how many AARs have gone well into 42? I can just think of this game (which IMHO doesn't tell us a great deal given the differing levels of experience of the two players); Loki v SpeedySteve; jubjubs 'comeback' AAR that he started in 42 (which seems to be following a more historical path) and the GloriousRuse v Bobo AAR that was going on pre-release.

Brief thought #2 - I disagree on the logistics system. Not so much that I don't think it has any flaws/problems - more that it is miles better than WITE1 where you could supply all of your panzer armies at the end of a single rail line etc.

Brief thought #3 - If there is an issue with the Soviets being able to retreat too easily and avoid losses I think the simpler way to deal with it is to look at the victory conditions. So for example I'd maybe move the current 1st January check to 1st December and set the mark at something like the cities historically taken + 40VPs or something like that. So the Soviet player would have to fight further forward in the South to prevent the Axis player getting too many time bonuses and the 'fringe' victory cities in the centre like Rzhev/Tula/Orel (which many Axis players are reluctant to take at the moment because of the risk of losing them and the time bonus in the Soviet counter-offensive) become more contested.

Brief thought #4 As a general principle the way I see it is that as long as the Devs/players are satisfied that various mechanics are working 'adequately' and that the very broad pattern of the outcomes are historical (so you aren't seeing the Axis taking Moscow every game or the Soviets continuing their winter counteroffensive all the way to Berlin etc) it makes more sense to try and balance the game through the victory point system rather than having a situation where the balance 'pendulum' keeps on swinging between the two sides as the developers fiddle with mechanics.

EDIT

Agree on the Assault HQs - they just don't quite feel 'right' at the moment in the way they are working. If the HQs are going to have an effect on CPPs it makes more sense to me for the rule to be that units in Assault HQs lose half as many CPPs when attacking rather than regaining them twice as quickly.