Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message

matt.buttsworth -> Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 7:23:17 AM)

Hello Everyone,

I am playing my first PBEM against my esteemed opponent William using tactics developed and mofidifed from Wir.
My esteemed opponent William attacked well, conquering southern Russia nearly to Dneprovosk although he got nowhere near Moscow or Leningrad.
Russian losses were heavy but the Russians survived - kill ratio about 1-2.5
It is now January 15 the Russians are attacking heavily in the North, Centre and South and the German forces are out of reserves - 1.5 million casualities, 2.6 million left standing against 6.6 million Russians.
By my assessment Germany has lost and, as with Wir, the blizzard turns allow a good Russian opponent to destroy them.
Any thought?
Has anyone won the game as German?
Has anyone else won the game by January 42 as Russian?
Do the Germans have any hope of a recovery when snow and eventually mud return?
Is the game balanced enough - within historical parameters of course - to give the Germans a chance to win?
Where did William go wrong (he attacked until one turn before blizzards only digging in with fortifications in 5 squares in the North but they are now lost?

All comments, discussion welcome.

Matthew Buttsworth



randallw -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 7:36:10 AM)

By victory points there is a decent chance that the Axis can get a tie.  



Encircled -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 7:39:04 AM)

Early days so far, so most of us will be guessing

Against the AI, yes

Against a human? Not so sure, especially if the '41 offensive isn't a roaring success

Be fun finding out though!



2ndACR -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 7:44:31 AM)

He did not prepare for the brutal winter he knew was coming. That was his biggest mistake. He should have prepared big time. You only have a prayer if you sitting behind level 3+ forts across your entire front. Anything less and you get butchered by the Russians.

I halt most offensive ops around the mud turns hit and fall back to defensive posture. I try to create a buffer zone that will force the Russian player to advance to my lines and burn a turn or 2 of Blizzard. If he gets next to my line before the blizzard I will deliberate attack to crush that stack/unit. Until he keeps his distance. That is the theory anyway. LOL

But that is what happens when you are kind of locked into a pattern. I know there will be blizzard from this date to this date, so I stop well in advance and prepare. What I would like to see is random winters, will it be as bad as the real 41 winter or will it be a mild winter.



randallw -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 7:56:20 AM)

You can always add some randomness by having random weather on.  Random weather gives a 2/15 chance of mud in a turn, 3/15 snow chance for December.





2ndACR -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 8:02:46 AM)

I play with random, and let me say that mud across 90% of your front on turn 3 or 4 really is a pain in the butt as the Germans. And then again on turn 8 or 9. You will not make historical lines with random weather, no way.



karonagames -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 11:11:40 AM)

quote:

Has anyone won the game as German?
Has anyone else won the game by January 42 as Russian?


It really depends what your definition of " win" is. If you look at the Campaign Victory conditions, then the Axis achieves a minor Victory by holding the line they start at on turn 1 at turn 225, and as I noted in the Axis strategic principles thread, I believe this can be achieved.

For the Soviets to achieve better than a minor victory they Need Berlin and a bunch of Cities south of Berlin by May 1945. No matter how bad the Blizzard may seem, they have no chance of getting to Berlin by 1942.

Every AAR published to date has shown the Axis to recover from the Blizzard to start with more than the 3million they had at the start of the 1942 campaign. But most AARs have shown the 1942 start line to be behind the 1942, which obviously makes things a bit tougher.

Everyone's first First winter is a shock to the system for an Axis Player, but once you learn to survive it in reasonable shape you can be counter attacking from Marh 1942 onwards.



loveman2 -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 1:18:26 PM)

March oh March for where art thou March[&o]



*Lava* -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 1:37:23 PM)

Personally....

I don't think it is a question of balance. Balance implies that both the Germans and the Soviets have the same capability of "winning" the game.

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

This isn't that kinda game.

My own opinion is the Axis player must realize that with this game, if he plays as good as the Germans did during the actual war... he will lose.

Now given all the "hindsight" we have concerning the conflict, the German player should be able to do better. In this game the question is... how much better?

That is the challenge that is presented for the Axis player. And that is why IMO, it is one super game.

[;)]



raizer -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 1:58:12 PM)

I think both sides, when playing a person of equal skill, in the grand campaign, should have the opportunity,when they play their butts of to get a minor victory.  We dont know if thats possible yet.  Now you might play russian punching bag at the start, stalemate in the middle, then german punching bag in the end, but as long as the vps are balanced and you have fun-who cares!
One of the worst  punching bag games ive ever played and still play, is Tillers Minsk 44-basically operation bagration down to company level.  The game is HUGE...180 turns or so, turns taking 4 hours to do at the start and the germans get crushed.  But its bagration so what to you expect but the victory points work out that if you get crushed right, and smack the soviets down (relative speaking) at the limit of their suppply lines, you can get a minor victory or a draw and believe me, that feels good.  (Plus there are great mods that throw up to 4 topped off SS panzer/moto division into the mix) This game will probably play out the same way.  You fight like crazy, have fun and look at VP levels and adjustments will be made



Ron -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 2:29:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

[;)]



I keep on seeing this kind of partisanship but it only clouds the true issues. The balance is attempting to model what historically happened not some 'German' magic formula. Playing in '42 and being able to mass hundreds of artillery and planes as the Russian to smash PzCorps wholesale while initially exciting does make me pause. I don't think I should be able to do that in early '42, '44 sure, so yeah I think the balance is off somewhere, whether the combat algorithms that over emphasize massed arty/air, or manpower or certain design effects. I would think all of us here are trying to make a better game historically.



Klydon -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 3:14:06 PM)

Part of the issue is to look at what Axis players define as "victory" and what the game defines as "victory" for the Axis.

Most Axis players define victory as an outright "sudden death" win. Between players of equal skill, etc I don't think it is happening or only very rarely.

I think most games will wind up with a minor victory for one side or the other and that is sort of the balance you aim for, not the Germans winning on a sudden death win half the time. 



typhoon -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 3:34:57 PM)

Klydon I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Axis players best chance of a sudden death win is 1941 and that in my opinion should with players of equal skill be next to impossible to achieve which from reading and looking at the forums seems the way they have set it up. The problem seems to be that gambling for the win in 1941 the German player is then hit by the blizzard and very quickly looses the will to continue the fight. It may indeed be impossible and the blizzard may need to be tonned down a notch or two I think it's still too early to tell. Games when they reach the spring and summer of 42 will probably provide the best answers to where the balance lies. After all when on the Eastern front was there ever balance. Before Kursk maybe or before Stalingrad that debate alone could fill a book. My own experience playing is limited to two camapigns as german both of which are yet to reach the Blizzard. I'm not very good and admit as such I tend to just strike out with the Panzers all the time but even playing like that I'm having a great deal of fun that will change no doubt when the Blizzards arrive. For me balance is less of an issue at the moment than certain fixes that need putting in place minor fixes for sure but things that would make the game even better. The air war needs looking at some more and the Soviet swamp defence also needs some attention.



GFelz -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 4:29:10 PM)

Perfect +1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Personally....

I don't think it is a question of balance. Balance implies that both the Germans and the Soviets have the same capability of "winning" the game.

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

This isn't that kinda game.

My own opinion is the Axis player must realize that with this game, if he plays as good as the Germans did during the actual war... he will lose.

Now given all the "hindsight" we have concerning the conflict, the German player should be able to do better. In this game the question is... how much better?

That is the challenge that is presented for the Axis player. And that is why IMO, it is one super game.

[;)]




jjdenver -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 4:31:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

Has anyone won the game as German?
Has anyone else won the game by January 42 as Russian?


It really depends what your definition of " win" is. If you look at the Campaign Victory conditions, then the Axis achieves a minor Victory by holding the line they start at on turn 1 at turn 225, and as I noted in the Axis strategic principles thread, I believe this can be achieved.

For the Soviets to achieve better than a minor victory they Need Berlin and a bunch of Cities south of Berlin by May 1945. No matter how bad the Blizzard may seem, they have no chance of getting to Berlin by 1942.

Every AAR published to date has shown the Axis to recover from the Blizzard to start with more than the 3million they had at the start of the 1942 campaign. But most AARs have shown the 1942 start line to be behind the 1942, which obviously makes things a bit tougher.

Everyone's first First winter is a shock to the system for an Axis Player, but once you learn to survive it in reasonable shape you can be counter attacking from Marh 1942 onwards.


+1 to BigA's post. Realistically I doubt Germany could have "won" by wiping out the massive USSR. In the game a Soviet minor victory should probably be considered by PBEM players as a draw. A draw should be considered a German victory.

If you want to play Germany and drive your panzers into the Urals then you probably want a fantasy game, not a real east front game. If you want to play German and hang on in 1943/44 in bitter defense, then you probably want a realistic east front game. The massiveness of the USSR, the difficulty of controlling such a huge territory, supplying an army there, and the manpower disadvantage along w/ massive lend lease from allies and Soviet industry built in the Urals pre-war then moved there during war as well.....all meant Germany was foolish to seek war with USSR and foolish to declare war on the US in the middle of that war.

Of course the Germans made mistakes that can be corrected but so did the Soviets. It was a long crazy war on the east front and both sides had mistakes, ups, downs. But in the end the USSR was just too much for Germany to swallow, in particular while engaged vs the western allies, and in bitter partisan warfare in other theaters like Yugoslavia, Greece, France, etc. The manpower and the industry (when combined with Lend Lease) favored the Soviets. Heavily. The logistics and the weather disadvantaged the Germans. Heavily.

So no you won't drive your panzers into the Urals and you shouldn't expect to. But if you can hang on for a draw then you've won in my book. I don't think we've seen enough PBEM's go far enough to determine what the likelihood of this is or isn't.



sillyflower -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 5:32:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Part of the issue is to look at what Axis players define as "victory" and what the game defines as "victory" for the Axis.

Most Axis players define victory as an outright "sudden death" win. Between players of equal skill, etc I don't think it is happening or only very rarely.

I think most games will wind up with a minor victory for one side or the other and that is sort of the balance you aim for, not the Germans winning on a sudden death win half the time. 



For me playing Russians in PBEM or vs AI winning means doing better than historically so Gemans 'win' if I don't get Berlin until June 45.
If we use game definitions then it is hard to see any German ever 'winning'. Hence many calls to make it easier for them as people tend to want an equal chance of winning whichever side they play: although I do support some of them.



matt.buttsworth -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 9:27:44 PM)

Historically,
except for the turn south to Kiev, key German generals such as Mainstein in Lost Victories argue the Wehrmacht had a chance in 1941 except for Hitler's orders.
This also, if one agrees with Suvorov, was also due to Stalin placing the Soviet armies in the wrong posiitons in 1941 as he prepared to attack Germany, allowing them to be surrounded and destroyed by the Germans.
I therefore believe two things:
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.

In my game I could stop the Germans approacing Leningrad, them stop them approaching Moscow, allowing them only to advance in the South which could not be held, but could be retaken in the blizzards.
For me, this was too easy, and was not the historical reality.
Thoughts?
How close have people got to Leningrad?
Who has reached the suburbs of Moscow by the 10th of December 1941 as the Germans did?
Again balance.

2 - if this is not accepted in the standard scenario a survorov scenario should be created placing the Soviet forces in an extremely dangerous position, to give the germans a chance in the GC. If anyone is interested I would be willing to cooperate iwth someone to help them create this.

3 - If someone is willing, it would be fun as a historical possible variant that never happened, to create the suvorov variant, as one in which on June 15th, the Soviets attacked first.

Anyone interested in helpng create these?

Do other players believe Mainstein that the Germans did ever have a chance of winning in 1941?

All comments will be eagerly read.

Dr Matthew Buttsworth



randallw -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 9:30:55 PM)

Even though either side can mass airplanes to a battle the ground casualties from air attacks, as displayed on screen, are actually very very modest.



*Lava* -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 10:24:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.


Sorry, but the Russians refused to surrender to the French when they took Moscow and the chances of them surrendering to the Nazis were the same... nil.

In case folks haven't noticed in their studies of history, the Russians didn't use the same rules of warfare.

If Mainstein believed he could have "conquered" Russia by capturing Moscow, he was just as delusional as Napoleon.

So let's not reinforce that little bit of silliness. [;)]



Klydon -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 10:24:39 PM)

The issue with the German generals and the turn south for Kiev is they believed that if the Germans took Moscow, the Russians would quit. There is no evidence to suggest this would have happen at all. The Germans had already underestimated how much the Russians could scrape together in terms of reforming armies, how much manpower they could call up, etc. They were very much of the opinion (like Hitler) "kick the door in and the whole house will come down". It didn't happen and short of the capture of the Russian government/Stalin, it likely wasn't going to happen unless the Red Army absolutely collapsed.

In this game, there is no potential for a Russian collapse (rightfully so). However, I would love to see them work into the system moral penalties for the loss of key locations (Moscow and Leningrad). It doesn't need to be huge (-5 probably would be good for each), but I think there is no question at all Russia would have been affected by the loss of those centers.



*Lava* -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 10:29:27 PM)

The only thing that the Germans would have captured in Moscow was a burnt out city which would have provided absolutely no solace for the brutal winter that was to come.

Damn... it's not as if this was the first time someone had tried to defeat them by taking Moscow, why on earth would they react any differently.

I say give the Russians a moral bonus for losing Moscow. It would have only pissed them off even more.



Klydon -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 10:38:43 PM)

Don't get me wrong, but there are far more implications to the Russians in losing Moscow in 1941 than to the French in the 1800's.

The biggest difference is there are rail roads, of which Moscow is a huge hub for. The second biggest is that as a center of logistics, command and control, the loss of Moscow would have hurt the Russians as well.

The Germans were looking to capture Moscow from the standpoint that in their opinion, it would have split the Russian front into two parts; north and south with them in the center and the Russians have a far more difficult time being able to react to any German moves against one side or the other. 



JeffroK -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/29/2011 10:59:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Don't get me wrong, but there are far more implications to the Russians in losing Moscow in 1941 than to the French in the 1800's.

The biggest difference is there are rail roads, of which Moscow is a huge hub for. The second biggest is that as a center of logistics, command and control, the loss of Moscow would have hurt the Russians as well.

The Germans were looking to capture Moscow from the standpoint that in their opinion, it would have split the Russian front into two parts; north and south with them in the center and the Russians have a far more difficult time being able to react to any German moves against one side or the other. 


So the effect of this is shown by the Red Army's inability to use the rail hub of Moscow, it shouldn't need any further "rules" to show this.

I think a morale penalty would be enough, 5 each for Moscow/Leningrad etc but 15 if both are lost. I would imagine an increasing disenchantment with the Soviet system is too many major cities fall. (Maybe the Tsar wasnt all that bad!)



gradenko2k -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/30/2011 3:53:27 AM)

quote:

Historically,
except for the turn south to Kiev, key German generals such as Mainstein in Lost Victories argue the Wehrmacht had a chance in 1941 except for Hitler's orders.
This also, if one agrees with Suvorov, was also due to Stalin placing the Soviet armies in the wrong posiitons in 1941 as he prepared to attack Germany, allowing them to be surrounded and destroyed by the Germans.
I therefore believe two things:
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.


The counter-point to "The Germans could've won in 1941 if only Hitler didn't give some of the orders he did" is that "The Soviets wouldn't have lost as much as they did in 1941 if only Stalin didn't give some of the orders he did"

An overarching theme of the arguments towards game balance revolve around the idea that the Germans aren't getting as far as they were historically without taking into account the fact that the historical Soviet player was really bad at Real-WITE's first year. Just because the Panzers are freed from the shackles of politics doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be able to drive onto Moscow that much more easily, because the Rifle Divisions have earned their freedom (to run) as well.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/30/2011 5:59:59 AM)

Here's my two cents. I'm as bad an amateur historian as ever to post on such a forum, but I'm speaking to the kind of game I want to play.

It would be foolish to play a game that didn't have some sort of Axis first turn surprise bonus.  WITE does, and it's a good one.
It would be ridiculous to have a game that didn't have an "Hey Hans, did you know how cold it gets in Russia in January?" penalty.  WiTE does and it's a good one.  They have really interesting effects on gameplay choices you make (well the latter at least, use your own metaphor for the Soviets on turn 1, please), and these affect 1942 a lot.

I think it's unwise not to have incentives for the Axis to concentrate on one or more of Moscow/Leningrad/Stalingrad.  I think if you take Moscow (or one of the others) during 1941, even if it's in a Blizzard turn and you lose it the next, the Soviets ought to have a penalty to something (don't ask me about balance any more than you would about history, please!).  That would be a fun game to play.  Something like loss of admin points, or a drain/tax on their supply production/distribution.  Imagine if you lose Moscow and you can't create units for a month (or something equally interesting on balance).  RIght now the incentives are not strong enough for the Axis, so you get a game where East front attrition might be too heavily incentivized.  (Take Moscow, soviets can't attack the next turn? Just thinking out loud. Imagine taking Moscow the turn before the Blizzard... Take Leningrad, lose half your AP per turn for X turns... dunno)

I don't think, given that the invasion of Russia was delayed and complicated by Yugoslavia/Greece, by the Axis Minors being unready/unwilling to engage in total war from the opening day, or the weather of that particular year, I don't think it's plausible that Stalin would have been deposed, or the Soviets to be truly defeated and capitulate before the summer of 1942.  I certainly don't think a game that sees the Soviets surrender in 1941 would be particularly fun.  Games that incentivize early capitulation aren't great for this genre, where you invest a lot of energy in each turn.  But I could handle losing by 1942 as the Soviet, if the German really kept me off balance all year.

So to me, a "decisive" Axis victory isn't something that happens before 1942 anyway.  And given the advantages the human Soviet has in dealing with the game mechanics that real-world operational commanders can't exploit, like zones of control, and conversion of friendly territory, the Soviet does have a significant edge over his historical counterpart.

Incentives that rewarded clever Axis strategy could, and I think should be introduced to the game.  These incentives balance the fact that Soviet players can exploit things like I've just mentioned.  These incentives would, to me, be best left to affect the 1942 sequence of events.

I think if the German doesn't win the decisive in 1942 (and by end of 1942 is an interesting comparison since that's when the Stalingrad debacle was sealed), the game has to replicate the attrition advantages of the Soviet, and thus, the manpower crunch forcing Germany ever west to defend the homeland.  That's the only way to abstract the other theaters of the war, I think, and the lack of strategic control this game allows either side.  Arguably, the Soviet has strategic control of the long game, by virtue of being able to create whole units.  ANd the German becomes ever more hampered by the uselessness of his so-called Allies.

Oh, yeah, I want a random Finnish no-attack/no-move line, that the Soviet cannot see.  That the Finns have a gentleman's agreement 's a horrible exploit that Stalin couldn't count on.

And I'm thinking, from my experience defending as Soviet, that the swamp defense might be a serious balance issue. I've seen some crappy Soviet divisions hold off massive amounts of German quality infantry with support.  Multiple times.  I felt bad for the German.



IdahoNYer -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/30/2011 6:06:27 AM)

WiTE as is, is an outstanding wargame design achievement. Even so, we, the gamers, do benefit from hindsight. No German player is going to "go for broke" trying to take Moscow ala Typhoon with a blizzard fast approaching. Nor is a Russian going to keep pushing troops west right into easily formed pockets. Unless.....there was some reason to do so. If there was just a chance, maybe 10% or so that if Moscow falls, it generates a Soviet collapse, would provide enough incentive for a German to "go for broke" and seize the city late in '41 at the expense of digging in an preparing for the blizzard - throw Leningrad and Kiev into the mix adding 5% for each, and then....might really get the Germans to stick his neck in the noose. Now, knowing that this is a possibility, this might force the Soviets (I'm talking PBEM here by the way), to send more forces west to slow the Germans down instead of playing Sir Robin until the Germans begin to run their supply dry.




heliodorus04 -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/30/2011 6:23:18 AM)

That's another thing, the game ought to be balanced for Player vs. Player, because that's when the possibilities truly shine.  



von Beanie -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/30/2011 6:36:28 AM)

This is why I proposed "Hitler Directives" and "Stalin Directives," hidden to the opponent, that force the players to fight for certain computer-determined objectives, or lose significant victory points for each turn they fail (up to a set amount).

What is also needed is a hypothetical scenario beginning on 15 May, the original start date for the campaign. As it turned out there were fairly substantial rains between then and June 22, but those wanting to see if Russia could be defeated with a longer campaign season could find such a scenario entertaining.

In a good design, a historical start with historical hindsight on both sides should produce historical results. And this game comes pretty close to it, especially if the German player uses the HQ Buildup more than twice. In human vs human games this leads to quite historical lines/accomplishments no matter what the Soviet player tries to do to slow down the Germans.



gradenko2k -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/30/2011 6:41:46 AM)

quote:

I think it's unwise not to have incentives for the Axis to concentrate on one or more of Moscow/Leningrad/Stalingrad.

Leningrad has plenty to recommend it as a target: You shorten your lines, free up your panzers for AGC/AGS, and the excellent winter capabilities of the Finnish troops let you survive the Blizzards with that much more forces intact. One consideration though is that for all that, Leningrad also has plenty to make its defenses impenetrable.

Stalingrad by itself probably doesn't have all that much going for it, but a southward drive does have its appeal, because a LOT of Soviet manpower comes from there.

Finally, I agree that Moscow doesn't have enough to make it an enticing target, even if we grant that the Soviet player will also lose a significant amount of manpower.

quote:

And I'm thinking, from my experience defending as Soviet, that the swamp defense might be a serious balance issue

I believe this is going to be fixed in the next patch. Apparently swamps (and certain other rough terrain types) were lumped in with heavy urban hexes that doubled the defense potential.



SgtKachalin -> RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance? (1/30/2011 6:56:38 AM)

The short answer to the question is "no". Too much is known of the war and, in another short answer, unless the USSR collapsed politically ("when we kick the door in the whole rotten house will collapse" paraphrasing what the little corporal said, and in the end that was the victory condition that they couldn't get), then Germany simply had zero chance. Germany had a population of around 75 million; the USSR had close to 200 million. Germany was at war with pretty much the entire Western world, and though victorious to that point still had the burden of occupation and defense of its conquests, while the USSR had nothing but allies or at worst neutral nations around it. The USSR was a scientific and industrial power by 1941, though not nearly as advanced as a nation as Germany it wasn't Ethiopia to be kicked around by an old world power. The German philosophy and motivation precluded offering self determination to any of the people in the USSR; this would be a campaign of conquest with no quarter given. And the USSR was huge, much too large to simply overrun and occupy in a 'shock and awe' campaign as earlier victories had been.

So I have to agree with the other posters here, looking to "win" in the classic sense of conquering is not in the cards. The game is too accurate a reflection of history to have that happen.

That said it could be a [:(]. But it's not for a few reasons. First is Russian Front gamers in general know all this, and the play is the thing! Yeah yeah I'll get my butt kicked but $%& *@#$@& I will take Moscow! [:D] The fun is in the play. Second are scenarios; they can be designed to give the Germans a chance to "win". Third is the (hopefully) evolution of optional rules (as others have mentioned). They can be both historically feasible and have an impact.

Just for grins two campaign options that have crossed my mind are:

1) German Total War. German industry was (despite the efficient-German stereotype) both rather inefficient and not dedicated to war production to nearly the extent it could have been. "Total war" production wasn't really given priority until after Stalingrad in 1943. What if that had happened earlier? Speer in charge of rationalizing industry in 1940 could have hugely increased output. Easy to implement as well, simply up the APs and reinforcement/replacement schedule.

2) Stalin in Charge. In the past twenty years it's come to light that the Soviet "trade land for time" as a strategy was a myth propagated by the communist party after the war to put a better light on earlier defeats: "Yeah, that's it... we meant to lose all those cities and resources to draw the Germans into a trap. Yeah, that's the ticket!" [:D] In 1941 and 1942 the RKKA was constantly counter attacking, with large forces, under the direct orders of STAVKA to "do something!" to stop the German advance. The battles (Colonel Glantz has monographs titled "Forgotten Battles of the German-Soviet War" that document them, based on translations of RKKA archives opened up when the USSR fell), were largely disastrous for the Russians. When the Wehrmacht wasn't gutting the Red Army the Red Army was busy doing it themselves in useless attacks! In the game, of course, the Soviet player won't launch his brand new armies into the teeth of the advancing panzers. But what if an optional rule implemented "Stalin's Dictates"; on any given turn 'n' attacks with 'm' divisions/manpower/whatever MUST be launched by the Soviet? If they're not, Generals get sacked, VP are lost, whatever. Maybe simply an out right "you lose!" Nothing says the attacks must fail, but as we know in general attacking with the Soviets in 1941 results in more tears for the Russians than Germans.

Anyway, two ideas to make the Germans more competitive in the Campaign.

PS. Just read von Beanie's post. What he said! [:)]



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875