quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet


We could argue about Smolensk. But Pskov after a good turn 1 only in turn 9? Sov player notenome shows in his AAR for this game that he had substancially reinforced Pskov as of turn 2, as well as formed a nice riverline defense running south of this city. Many of these units must have been thrown to this region via rail. Skillful move, painful for Axis. Nicely illustrates that mobility has a huge impact for building defenses.

If you further follow notenomes AAR have a look at the AGS situation on page 2, post 38, where notenome created a huge checkerboard, after railing in units from "everywhere", as he wrote. Poof, up went a carpet in front of the axis spearheads... Now tell me again Soviet rail capacity does not create problems for Axis early in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madgamer2

Red Flag in Berlin? You don see any epic things on the axis side? Try opening your eyes. What if the Axis puts the Russians out of the war? not conquest but simply gets them to stop the struggle? Unlikely you say? Ah but what an Epic (your word) achievement! The Axis could then trasfer troups to the west sort of like WW1 but with more impact and better chances.

I have found your posts to be a bit on the esoteric side for the most part but then you have seen most of mine as a complainer but i have been learning that thia is not the way to do things. This is not to say you have not stated some interesting items and i do like reading them even if they mean very little to me ant least your making some contributions of sorts.

Madgamer2

quote:

In fact, if the German player could hold Moscow (against a competent Soviet player) on let's say 1945, I doubt I would be buying this game... That's what I mean when I say I want a REALISTIC game. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The Axis *do* have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout.

I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have *the other* wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D]

That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players.

Yea that's what happened to me constantly losing huge chunks of territory in a single turn. Then with isolation system you can't break out ever you have to try to break in. And the thing with the "history only" critics is fine. I mean people want to play their way. The only way to solve the issue will be preference checkboxs (like in witp) so the history only people can play their game that you'll always follow history. And people like me and ara can start out with history and then play our way and see what happens.

That would make both sides happy. I can understand people (including myself) giving their view points. They want the game they want. Only way you can do both is to have a preference checkbox at the beginning of the game.

In WitP, no matter what your preferences are the Japanese will NEVER invade the West Coast. They will NOT invade Panama Canal... You will hardly capture Pearl Harbor, in fact [;)] The Japanese player will not do so because he could NOT do that in the real war to begin with...

An Iron Man scenario was made though. The Japanese got many toys. A What-if scenario for those who want to play a science-fiction game. But the vanilla game per se is a hardcore REALISTIC game.

And not only the Japanese were castrated... the Allied side too. Hard to have few squadrons operating let's say in Port Moresby in let's say may or june 1942... The logistics on that game are simply amazing (an awesome game inside the game).

I want to do WHAT could be done. I am not interested about science-fiction games, sorry. To each, his own taste. And above all, the market is already full of what-if games. Games like WitP and now WitE are GEMS, unique, mere exceptions. People should realize this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


I think you will find that Glantz does not think the Germans had a snowballs chance in hell of capturing Moscow in 41

"This argument too does not hold up to close scrutiny. Had Hitler launched
Operation Typhoon in September, Army Group Center would have had to penetrate
deep Soviet defenses manned by a force that had not squandered its strength in fruitless
offensives against German positions east of Smolensk. Furthermore, Army Group Center
would have launched its offensive with a force of more than 600,000 men threatening its
ever-extending right flank and, in the best reckoning, would have reached the gates of
Moscow after mid-October just as the fall rainy season was beginning"

"The argument that Hitler would have won the war if the Wehrmacht had been able
to capture Moscow, a corollary to the arguments described above, is also subject to
serious question. If Hitler’s legions had actually reached and tried to capture Moscow, it
is likely that Stalin would have assigned one or more of his reserve armies to fight and die
in its defense. Although the Germans might have seized the bulk of the city, they would
likely have found themselves facing the same lamentable dilemma that the Sixth Army
faced at Stalingrad a year later. More ominous still, had it captured Moscow, the
Wehrmacht would have faced the daunting task of trying to winter in Moscow, with the
inherent danger of emulating the fate of Napoleon’s army in 1812."


I will also think you will find that Hitler was wise not to pay the butchers bill to fight a "Stalingrad" against Lenningrad in 41 thirdly it is now widely accepted as it was in 41 that the Germans had no choice than to push on in 41 because of a risk of stalemate. Many German generals after the war off cousre try to paint a different picture but their memoirs are now largely debunked when it come to what was possible. As the strategic situation in 41 was the same in 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 that the allies had greater recuprative powers and Germany had no logistics the choice to push on was a no brainer and Bock, Brauchitsch and Halder all supported it. The simple fact is Germany would have been in a worse position strategically had they halted in October the Russians after all lost 650,000 men at in the pockets of Bryansk and Vyazma, 650,000 men who would have been better equiped and trained in 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Here's where I have to completely disagree with your premises and narrow view of what could have been done on the eastern front starting on Jun 22, 1941. If you like I can give you many sources (using mostly Glantz and a few others) to confirm the follow.

Could have it been possible for the Germans to ...
- capture Moscow before end 41: YES
- capture Leningrad before end 41: YES
- capture Kharkov before end 41: YES
- capture Stalingrad before end 41: NOT LIKELY
- capture Sevastopol before end 41: NOT LIKELY
- ceased offensive operations and prepared suitable defensive positions in Autumn 41: YES

"Could have it been possible for the Germans to". That's not history, sorry. It's science-fiction (because it never happened)... The Germans can only win in 1941. Their army, economy, manpower can only afford a short campaign against a BIG industrialised country, with plenty of manpower, raw materials, factories, oil like the USSR (and then the US). Hitler might be crazy but he got that one right: he wanted to force the Soviets to surrender on 1941 (his famous "kick in the door and the rotten structure will collapse"). His expectations were simply wrong though, after each big pocket he would say "come on, they are on the verge of total collapse, one more little push and they are finished". Oh well, just like the Japanese in the Pacific (the US were a decadent bunch, right?) he made a big mistake, grossly underestimating his enemy.

Because what happened after 1941 proves what I say is 100% true. Have you ever wondered why they Germans -after the many casualties taken since day one of the invasion and until the 1941-42 winter counter-offensive- never EVER managed again to fill their depleted divisions? Gremlins, perhaps? They could not fill them simply because they lacked manpower. In other words, this conclusively PROVES the Germans were NOT prepared for this war. It would only have worked if the Soviets had surrendered during the Blitzkrieg, on 1941 itself (that was the German plan, philosophy). But it looks that didn't work, right?

What happened on the 1942 summer German offensive? They ONLY could attack a portion of the front (in the south, taking men and equipment from the AGN and AGC) aka Germany IS now weak and can't attack the whole front and there is more!, to conduct that offensive they need the assistance of their allies... Italians, Hungarians and Roumanians. We all know how trustful these allies were, don't we? What are those things telling us? If you're not blind then you can only conclude that this war was (on 1942, YES) well beyond the realms of the possiblity... They were already scraping the bottom of the barrel. Literally...

On 1943, 1944, the manpower thing would be even more grotesque... Many German divisions only existed on paper. And Hitler would insist that these ghost divisions should maneuver and attack the Red Army...

So attacking Moscow on 1941 (your soldiers, machines and horses not prepared) was a "gamble", as someone said, eh? What's this? An Euro Sport poker game? Is this how military operations are conducted? To me this sounds the most pure ADVENTURISM... It could have worked? well, one thing is certain: the Soviets did NOT surrender (despite the astronomical losses) ergo the Germans were forced to fight a long war... that they could NEVER win against a big industrialised state with plenty of manpower, factories and modern equipment... So to me the answer is pretty obvious.

Don't know what those military historians might say. The problem I have with them is that they focus almost entirely on the battlefields, and you know, the answer is NOT really on the battlefields, it's on the rear... And that's what Historians study. I mostly read the latter, by the way [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet


We could argue about Smolensk. But Pskov after a good turn 1 only in turn 9? Sov player notenome shows in his AAR for this game that he had substancially reinforced Pskov as of turn 2, as well as formed a nice riverline defense running south of this city. Many of these units must have been thrown to this region via rail. Skillful move, painful for Axis. Nicely illustrates that mobility has a huge impact for building defenses.

If you further follow notenomes AAR have a look at the AGS situation on page 2, post 38, where notenome created a huge checkerboard, after railing in units from "everywhere", as he wrote. Poof, up went a carpet in front of the axis spearheads... Now tell me again Soviet rail capacity does not create problems for Axis early in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

So let me ask you why you play WitE? Sounds very different from why I play WitE. For me playing as axis (example) is to try my OWN strategies given the tools the game allows to have a successful campaign in the Soviet Union. Do I care to try and recreate the mistakes and bad choices the Germans made to see where they lead? Probably not, unless I was tester for WitE or just curious with time to burn.

I think for most of us want the ability to make choices with unique outcomes that didn't occur historically. Given all that, what needs to happen is the WitE game mechanics has to be tweak to realistic parameters for the warfare and conditions that took place. This is where lots of personal opinion can be formed and argued. The only choice I see is to leverage this knowledge from the professionals that have done the research and sifted through the millions of documents to formulate all these capabilities.

Not an easy chore to say the least.

This is not about fantasy what-if scenarios at all. This is about having the control to make choices other the ones that were actually made and facing those consequences, good or bad. It's not fantasy to expect a flak 88 to have penetration on a t-34 at 1000m. Similarly, it's not a fantasy to expect that units in well fortified/prepared positions, with good supply sources, high moral/exp, and ample ammo/supplies will be able to put up an effective defense in the face of extreme conditions..mud, cold, whatever.

To me WitE is not a simulation of the historical battles on the eastern front, but rather a game that allows re-playability, fun, and enough realism for those that purchase it to enjoy it and created alternate strategies to the conflict.

Abulbulian, I have nothing against players using different strategies. It's part of the fun. All I'm saying is that IF this game is well designed and made (and I am pretty certain it is), the Germans CANNOT win (just like the Japanese will not win in WitP). Ok, maybe the red flag won't be over the Reichstag, but the Soviet hordes will be at 5-10 hexes of Berlin. Whatever.

In fact, if the German player could hold Moscow (against a competent Soviet player) on let's say 1945, I doubt I would be buying this game... [;)] That's what I mean when I say I want a REALISTIC game. Give me the tools and let's see what can I do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

So if you're so concerned with history then you also commit your troops to foolhardy attacks as russia?
I mean you do everything down the exact date and order right? Because if you don't that's "science fiction". I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of your arguments. Sure germany won't ever really win they never had a chance. But a little "science fiction" might help an axis player feel like he might have a slim chance to win.

quote:

Yes, I believe that ComradeP and notename have an AAR. This is a good example of a novice sov player vs a vet axis player, even notenome acknowledged this at the start of the game. According to ConradeP notenome is using 'Sir Robin/Robinovich' strategy and just withdrawing his line back east and avoiding any large traps. As I already know from my human vs human game, if the sov are able to start the winter offensive with these troops it means big trouble for the axis. I had removed about 4 mil of the sov army before winter bliz in my game and still got smacked around by sov units for 12 turns blizzard.

IMO, essentially what you'll see as the 'norm' will be a low exp sov player with a single strategy to just pull back east will give even the most vet axis player a hard time. I know some people don't want believe the game is in an unbalanced state, but I have real data from at least one game know. Starting March 1942 the sov player already has 2x soldier's and 4x planes than the axis. Yes, some of those may be inferior of course. But all these units are now in a line that is already 4-5 hexes deep almost everywhere but extreme North. With some guards and shock army units back as reserves. I not sure what kind of summer offensive is possible in 42 for the axis player even if he has a decent 41. Also, the sov player still has 2 months of snow/mud to dig in more.

I'm not bringing this up because I'm some axis 'fanbon'. No, I just want the possibility for the axis player to do better than historical if he outplays his opponent. Currently, with the harsh blizzard mechanics any advantage the axis player may have gained in 41 if he did well is nullified. Even if the axis players is smarter than Hitler (not hard to do) and stops offensive operation in Autumn and attempts to dig in and rest his units. You'll still suffer as badly as did historically if when all the historic factors that cause the disasters of that winter don't exist.

It might take some time as these games progress and more people have similar experiences and real data, but I do believe some future changes will happen to balance the game a bit more. BTW, playing an AI sov opponent will not give you any insight into the axis problems I've just conveyed. It's a great AI, don't get me wrong, but still no substitute for a decent human player which is fine.

quote:

We could argue about Smolensk. But Pskov after a good turn 1 only in turn 9? Sov player notenome shows in his AAR for this game that he had substancially reinforced Pskov as of turn 2, as well as formed a nice riverline defense running south of this city. Many of these units must have been thrown to this region via rail. Skillful move, painful for Axis. Nicely illustrates that mobility has a huge impact for building defenses.

If you further follow notenomes AAR have a look at the AGS situation on page 2, post 38, where notenome created a huge checkerboard, after railing in units from "everywhere", as he wrote. Poof, up went a carpet in front of the axis spearheads... Now tell me again Soviet rail capacity does not create problems for Axis early in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


So again, we can override Hitler's order (to avoid blizzard) but can't do the same with Stalin's orders (to avoid the huge pockets of the first turn)? You haven't answered that one...

Just ask the designers to make a what-if scenario. End of the problem [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

1) Soviet Union can strategic transfers about 30 infantry divisions per week / one turn assuming that there are no factory transfers. This is about 300 000 men. I do not know how much cargo and passenger’s soviet rail system at 1941 could handle in one week but this doesn’t sound horrible high number of passengers and cargo for whole week.
2) Most of rifle divisions that soviet gets at start as shell units that takes 2-5 turn to have them toe filled up from the point they arrive. Soviet units also start very low experience and morale. This means that these shell units almost always lose every combat agent German units.
3) Fact number three is that even Hitler was stunned Soviet ability to bring more troops to the front. Germans destroyed 34000 tank, million men and tens of thousands soviet artillery just in one year of war still 1942 Soviet had ability bring up more men, tanks and artillery to the front that they had at start of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley



Halder most certainly did not support it. He requested that they bivouac for winter and not push on to moscow. Hitler overruled him and like a good professional soldier he did as ordered. This is coming from multiple sources the newest of which is "Absolute War" which looks at the history from the soviet side using documents declassified after the fall of the soviet union.

But i also think what ara is saying and i agree with is the germans COULD have taken moscow in 41 if they had not bothered with trying to form the kiev pocket. But yea i agree if come september you are not there you don't really want to go for it since you're pushing your luck with winter coming upon you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

A few soviet players also aren't helping by throwing out magnanimous comments which can sometimes border on trolling, but this is the internet and the level of discourse tends to plummet at any given time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

I'd advise thinking again of buttoning away notenome. His AAR is a treasure source for any novice trying to get a grip on playing Soviets, even experienced players might learn one or the other thing there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

Oh boy. Alright first things first, I find the way people have referred to ComradeP in this thread to be rather disrespectful, and honestly it makes no sense to write an AAR if it just feeds reactions like this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

I do believe that the Red Army's capability to maneuver units is somewhat inflated. I do not believe this is solely due to rail capacity. Though soviet rail capacity is awfully high, it tends to go down as cities get captured.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

I'd advise thinking again of buttoning away notenome. His AAR is a treasure source for any novice trying to get a grip on playing Soviets, even experienced players might learn one or the other thing there.

Thanks for the advice. I think I will be able to survive without that AAR... if you know what I mean [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

That's why I intentionally keep my twitching finger quiet when the cursor approaches the ominous green button. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Reconvet: what you are failing to understand, despite having been told so several times, is that railing around a couple of dozen shell units uses up negligible rail capacity. And that's what's going on most of the time for the Soviets in 1941.

I really do not understand exactly what the problem is here. We're talking about "divisions" with a couple of clerks and a baker running around.

The replacements needed to flesh out the shells arrive for "free" so far as rail capacity goes. You need only place the shells in the right place and let them grow.

I actually use far more rail cap as the Soviets in 1943. Putting, say, two full blown tank armies on rails in the 43 scenario vastly outweighs the typical load used up shuttling around shells in 1941.

Basically, you are confused as to the source of your frustration in 1941. I assure you: it is not the rails which are causing you grief. You could actually reduce them below the German rail cap and it wouldn't make a lick of difference in the final analysis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

I have to admit I didn't proceed further than turn 5 as Soviet. In T5 I have a rail pool of 139'395. My strongest Inf unit (133rd Rifle Div) has a transport cost of 1744 (TOE 91). Let's round that up to 2k. That would mean I could strat rail more than 60 such Inf Divisions in one week, loading & unloading included with rail range of 55 hexes. Whopper of a blocking force in front of any Axis breakthrough....

These are extreme figures, and of course I know a reserve of 60 Divs is not feasible for a single threatened region. But let this number melt on any Soviet players tongue: strat moving 60!!!, repeat 60!!! near max TOE Inf Divisions in 1 turn....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

We're at an impasse here, because having reread your post 110, I'm not changing my mind.

My own view is that if the rail is being overstated, the problem is related to replacements, not units. The system disburses replacements for free. (For both sides.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

We're at an impasse here, because having reread your post 110, I'm not changing my mind.

My own view is that if the rail is being overstated, the problem is related to replacements, not units. The system disburses replacements for free. (For both sides.)

Replacements??

Try to generate smoke as much as you like, the capacity to move 60 fullblown Inf Divisions is a fact that can't be denied nor neglected in it's impact on Soviet defense in '41.

Moving shells and let them fill up while digging fallback positions is at most a secondary issue. The main issue is being able to rail move combat ready troops too far too fast without being confronted with hard choices. I consider you a very able Soviet player who knows his tools. And who obviously doesn't want to compromise his best weapon for an easy life in pbem.