Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

I think the biggest difference is a Soviet player has historical hindsight, and doesn't commit the catastrophical and self-defeating errors that Stalin and Stavka did in 1941 and during much of 42.

Germany lost the war on June 22nd of 1941. Soviet errors simply made that less than obvious for a while.

yep, fully agree.

assuming a reasonable match, then the axis shouldn't be able to win (in the sense that the Soviet Union is reduced to some sort of rump state over the Urals).

What we are currently seeing is reports of quick German wins (usually in the sense the Soviet player gives up leaving no real idea of how well they can recover). Take 'received wisdom' and Leningrad. At one stage in testing, it was declared it was impossible to take, then players started to work out how to take it. Ok, we now see games where Leningrad is taken. Its a nice VP bonus, shortens the line, but beyond that?

My concern at the moment is a feeling that the balance pt should be roughly the historical German advance in 1941. No its feasible, and sensible, that German players may wish to pull up short of this, but that should be something regularly seen. And its actually near to impossible, even vs the AI (on 110) you can forget about achieving it

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I would like to point out that Glantz, Sharp, and Neufizinger (sp?) all agree that Soviet losses by the end of December 41 were close to 6M men. At the start of May 42 WitE2 has 10M men total available for the Soviets - so if the Soviets have lost 5M by May 42 then the Soviets will have 5M able to be on the map. I am not sure how many men are available to the Soviets by Jan 42 but I also don't know of any Axis player who has hit the 6M Soviets out of the war by then. All of the sources also agree that the Soviets lost about 1M men in Dec 41 so Soviet losses should be about 5M by the end of Nov 41. Once again, I don't know if any Axis have achieved that yet.

So where did they lose those men? The opening border battles (and pockets), Kiev, and Operation Typhoon. Soviet players are aided by historical knowledge to avoid Kiev and very few Axis players launch a major operation like Typhoon that late in 41. So it goes both ways here. It seems that the Soviet players are benefiting more from historical knowledge than the Axis players are. Without those large losses in 41 the Soviets SHOULD be in a better place in 42.

As to Assault commands, the Soviets use them to reduce their Command Point penalties - which I think is the major change for the Soviets. Without the increased command levels of the Assault Fronts the Soviets suffer immense command penalties that essentially eliminate leadership above the corps/army level and seriously hinder the army level with the penalties for direct army attachment until the end of Nov 41. With an assault HQ and a good Front commander the Soviets are much better on leadership than historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

My feeling (& its not much more than that), is the problem of Soviet recovery (which is too fast) comes off a few issues:

a) in the main the game models Soviet capacity rather than practical capability

This is close to the Soviet pre-37 defensive plan where an offensive is absorbed by the first echelon forces, stalled by the second echelon and thrown back by the third. Now the latter was clearly an over-estimate (& mostly is not what is happening) but the first 2 reflect what we are often seeing?

b) some easy hits on capability

b1) raise the command divisor to /14 for army level till say 1 December, its not much but it removes the real value of getting the top 10 commanders into the main forces early on
b2) as others have said, no assualt fronts before december and only 1 then. That not only hampers the CPP regain, it adds to the leadership problems.

In testing, most Soviet players didn't go for early assault fronts as the perception was there were better uses for the admin pts. In consequence the game played a lot better - now its inevitable that people experiment, report and that gets copied, and we get a new feeling for overall balance.

b3) Admin movemement is removed after an attack, that should stop the hit and run stuff that a lot of Soviet players now indulge in. Worth remembering that Kravchenko's tank victory in late Sept 41 was essentially a defensive ambush not a mobile operation.

c) don't mess with logistics, despite some claims the system works and hits both sides in the right way

d) I'd be cautious about reducing the time to level 1 fort, mainly as that could make a real mess of any later Axis defences in the Ukraine

If there is a simple fix, its take off Soviet assault fronts in 1941. I'd be more interested in that than any of the more esoteric house rules being adopted. As above, I know that until quite late in testing it wasn't regularly used and it did make for very different play dynamics. I don't think there have been any really major code changes since then so (wearing my social policy evaluation hat), if there is something big and different focus on that rather than something small and marginal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

I think the biggest difference is a Soviet player has historical hindsight, and doesn't commit the catastrophical and self-defeating errors that Stalin and Stavka did in 1941 and during much of 42.

Germany lost the war on June 22nd of 1941. Soviet errors simply made that less than obvious for a while.

yep, fully agree.

assuming a reasonable match, then the axis shouldn't be able to win (in the sense that the Soviet Union is reduced to some sort of rump state over the Urals).

What we are currently seeing is reports of quick German wins (usually in the sense the Soviet player gives up leaving no real idea of how well they can recover). Take 'received wisdom' and Leningrad. At one stage in testing, it was declared it was impossible to take, then players started to work out how to take it. Ok, we now see games where Leningrad is taken. Its a nice VP bonus, shortens the line, but beyond that?

My concern at the moment is a feeling that the balance pt should be roughly the historical German advance in 1941. No its feasible, and sensible, that German players may wish to pull up short of this, but that should be something regularly seen. And its actually near to impossible, even vs the AI (on 110) you can forget about achieving it

Reading this makes me want to find another game if the Germans can't or should never win :(. Game wise you have a game that is going to see a mass exodus of players leaving once the realization is that playing Germany is a no-win scenario. Matter of fact I already see that with a few die hards trying to prove it is possible to still win as Germany. Well the question should be, "Is it possible at the same skill level"? Is it? Probably not, so why play a game then when you can't win? Most won't. I am one of those die-hards that loves the German side & will try my best but even my best I don't feel is going to be good enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

I think the biggest difference is a Soviet player has historical hindsight, and doesn't commit the catastrophical and self-defeating errors that Stalin and Stavka did in 1941 and during much of 42.

Germany lost the war on June 22nd of 1941. Soviet errors simply made that less than obvious for a while.

yep, fully agree.

assuming a reasonable match, then the axis shouldn't be able to win (in the sense that the Soviet Union is reduced to some sort of rump state over the Urals).

What we are currently seeing is reports of quick German wins (usually in the sense the Soviet player gives up leaving no real idea of how well they can recover). Take 'received wisdom' and Leningrad. At one stage in testing, it was declared it was impossible to take, then players started to work out how to take it. Ok, we now see games where Leningrad is taken. Its a nice VP bonus, shortens the line, but beyond that?

My concern at the moment is a feeling that the balance pt should be roughly the historical German advance in 1941. No its feasible, and sensible, that German players may wish to pull up short of this, but that should be something regularly seen. And its actually near to impossible, even vs the AI (on 110) you can forget about achieving it

Reading this makes me want to find another game if the Germans can't or should never win :(. Game wise you have a game that is going to see a mass exodus of players leaving once the realization is that playing Germany is a no-win scenario. Matter of fact I already see that with a few die hards trying to prove it is possible to still win as Germany. Well the question should be, "Is it possible at the same skill level"? Is it? Probably not, so why play a game then when you can't win? Most won't. I am one of those die-hards that loves the German side & will try my best but even my best I don't feel is going to be good enough.

I think there are 2 issues and you are conflating them a wee bit.

Could the Germans win this war - I actually don't think so. Laying aside they were stretched everywhere else, quite simply the Soviet system was that horrible (to deal with) combination of very robust and very dispersed. Once it stoppped losing on the battlefields it was going to start winning. Now maybe that spins off into a long brutal slogging match but only one side wins when wars in this era in the end come to raw resources.

Now should a German player have a route to win the game? Yes, and they are in the game (quite a few of them). There are enough vs AI reports of German players managing this.

My main concern here, is less can the German win, more why are we not seeing them lose historically? I actually think the answer to one (in game turns) is the answer to the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

...
Who is conflating what now ? ;-). Seems you just did it too. For instance you are comparing with AI vs player we are not comparing the same apple. When the conversation deviates from player vs player I am out since I already know the bread and butter money maker is player vs AI with the majority of the player base playing against the AI.

@ last para are we talking in PvP game terms or in PvAI game terms?

I still feel the Germans can win even if it is a Phricc victory in 44 after getting beat to crap with current ruleset. It will be a long tough road with equal skilled players for the Germans. At least that is what I am trying to prove. This is just what I read, and then wrote about, is the "feeling" I got from reading all the above comments in the previous post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst Hausser

It is close to pointless, however much enthusiasm there is therein, to glean much information about the game. With the advent of a substantial new patch as of 18/10/21 this makes it even more so.

You spent 2.5 hours before playing so that we could learn what?

Lets just calm down and read many AAR to get RELEVANT well understood pointers to the game.

AFTER 4 or so full play ( tests) both the reader and the player may be a in a better position to properly analyse the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst Hausser

There have been some well argued suggestions that ASSAULT HQ should be reduced quite a bit.

1941 German 2-3 Russian 1
1942 German 3? 4 Russian 2
1943 German 3 Russian 3
1944 German 2 Russian 4

The AHQ artificially bolster each side in a way that TOTALLY alters the combat and supply situations. It is these that actually REPRESENT the war in 1941.

With what I have read of the new patch of 18/10/21 ( Making Panzers and possibly all motorised stronger) the makeup of Assault HQ as above " feels right" in relation to the historical account. Anyone with a better understanding of the game with a sound historical knowledge is welcome to comment herein :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst Hausser

...
AFTER 4 or so full play ( tests) both the reader and the player may be a in a better position to properly analyse the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky Simples

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


I've played full games to 1944 or 1945 victory points three times so maybe I have some glimmer of how to analyse the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky Simples

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky Simples

Yep, Loki made the mistake of playing Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany?

Nothing, if you like to lose.

Or alternatively, you can perhaps play Germany and not lose if you wait for a favorable patch (this is the best strategy), like the current patch seems to be more favorable to an as yet unknown degree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany?

Nothing, if you like to lose.

Or alternatively, you can perhaps play Germany and not lose if you wait for a favorable patch (this is the best strategy), like the current patch seems to be more favorable to an as yet unknown degree.

I disagree 100% the German side will lose. I know there was a great deal of propaganda that was spewed out the last couple of months by many proponents, and I too fell into that despair at the beginning of my AAR's. But I no longer believe at all the Germans will lose. I find it quite on the contrary that the Germans are very strong and very capable to win with in WITE2 and too many have fell into the trap of the propaganda.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

And just exactly is wrong with playing Germany?

Nothing, if you like to lose.

Or alternatively, you can perhaps play Germany and not lose if you wait for a favorable patch (this is the best strategy), like the current patch seems to be more favorable to an as yet unknown degree.

I disagree 100% the German side will lose. I know there was a great deal of propaganda that was spewed out the last couple of months by many proponents, and I too fell into that despair at the beginning of my AAR's. But I no longer believe at all the Germans will lose. I find it quite on the contrary that the Germans are very strong and very capable to win with in WITE2 and too many have fell into the trap of the propaganda.

I started believing this under patch .09.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky Simples

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

...

Versus the AI. Head to Head games are always different & this game with one other that I know about has made it to 42 from a 41 start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100



and to HLYA, yes I play the AI, even worse, I quite enjoy vs AI games. They also have the huge merit of getting into the mid/end game and thus chuck up a lot of bugs, oddities and undocumented 'features'. Over time we then deal with the bugs and get the 'features' documented.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

...

Versus the AI. Head to Head games are always different & this game with one other that I know about has made it to 42 from a 41 start.

that we don't have any documented HtH games that went to (never mind past) the initiative change is one reason I'm sticking with this, I want to understand how the AI baseline compares. We have StB but inevitably no 1941 GC is going to map onto that. Tyrone has stated that the Germans can't defend post-43, I think he may well be right but we don't know. My AI test says opposite so again the capacity is there, but whether a HtH allows that latent capacity to have an effect is a different question

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

The analysis is simple....Herr Loki is inferior to Comrade Speedyevsky Simples

really no need to say any more ...

actually in this game, my core problem was my own fault in that I had a brief opportunity (around T12-14) to do real damage and rather lost the plot with grandiose fantasies of what I might be able to do

so while 1941 took place at a time when I think the game was off kilter, I don't particularly think that was the core reason for this bit of a guddle in 1942 - and the inevitable fall out as the game develops

and to HLYA, yes I play the AI, even worse, I quite enjoy vs AI games. They also have the huge merit of getting into the mid/end game and thus chuck up a lot of bugs, oddities and undocumented 'features'. Over time we then deal with the bugs and get the 'features' documented.