Winter Idea......Comment (Full Version)

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



Message

2ndACR -> Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 7:40:31 PM)

We have all heard and read the blizzard screams. I do not want to start another, looking for serious input only.

I have seen fort level arguments offered as a possible solution. But I feel the below is the best way to offer "balance".

Allow the German player to "winterize" a division with a 20 AP point cost IF:

The unit is on a repaired rail line.
Has not moved for 4 turns.
Cannot be in enemy ZOC
Limited to 50 Divisions (since that is the amount of historical winter gear)

This will allow the German player to be rewarded for "winter prep" by sacrificing offensive operations. If a unit is "winterized" (marked just like the "motorized") then said unit will suffer 50% less attrition loss as a non "winterized" unit, will not suffer the immediate slashing of combat power during blizzard turns (the attrition will take of that all on it's own but much slower). Hence the unit will act like a baby mountain div, but will still suffer attrition loss (not well trained as mountain troops for cold).

Now before the screaming starts, remember, I just took a division "out of play" for a month game time. So my offensive power is diminished while the conditions are met. We can go further by not allowing panzer or motorized div to be "winterized" since no one could predict the massive vehicle issues faced. Limited offensive ops mean not nearly the amount of ammo and fuel need to be sent forward.

The "not in enemy ZOC" means that the German will HAVE to pull a unit off the line to "winterize" it. Even further off line if "on repaired rail" has to also be met. So he cannot just halt on say turn 20 and winterize 50 units. With a 20 AP cost, he will have to prepare well in advance to meet the 50 division number anyway.

So, now the German is being rewarded for proper planning, but the Russian is not seriously injured by this either, since he faces less combat power overall during the summer offensives.

"Winterize" will end in say April. Now the German must spend those AP's all over again each winter.

And I am not even sure how hard this would be to code in. But really feel this would benefit the "balance" versus the "history" arguments.

Please, serious comments only.



NinetyNine -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 7:58:18 PM)

I like any solution that trades campaigning time for winter survivability, it avoids being left totally vulnerable during the first winter while not allowing you to continue advancing right up until snowfall.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 7:59:29 PM)

This is probably too convoluted of a rule to ever be implemented into an already programmed game. Besides, it’s no big deal for the Germans to sit still for four turns during mud, so other than the AP cost, I see nothing that changes the power dynamic in game to penalize the axis for the benefit gained.

A better solution would be to reduce the winter effects German units suffer by 5% for each fort level they are sitting in. So level 5 forts would give a 25% reduction to winter penalties and creating that level of a fort requires enough of a lead time that the Germans will have to stop attacking pretty early to gain such a benefit.

Jim



Klydon -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 8:01:29 PM)

To be honest, I don't like the idea the Germans can "winterize" units.

The issue right now is the Russians are far too successful with most any half baked attack (see Q-Ball's AAR where the Russians were successful 63 out of 76 attacks) and the Germans have no real ability to counter attack except against very weak brigades in most cases. The Germans lost a lot of ground in December, but not much after that. Granted there were some Russian offensives in the AGN area and AGS, but the Germans were able to counter attack most of those effectively. Right now, I don't think its possible for the Germans to make a stand at say Rzhev like they did historically.

There are some core issues here. The Germans are likely to be unable to create the losses the Russians actually suffered because the Russians did so badly in 1941 and it is very easy to do better for the vast majority of games. (not saying there are not exceptions to the rule, but most games follow this pattern). I do not believe there is a fix for this nor should there be. The second core issue is the blizzard effects need to be reworked. The Germans are simply too easy to not only push around but to outright slaughter in the winter. Part of this is because the Russians have more to work with, but not to the point where I can use a single Russian division to make a hasty attack on most German infantry divisions and the result is a win. The Germans had to give ground and got pushed back, but they were able to stabilize a front at some point in January where there was severe fighting in the center; where German counter attacks were possible. The German CV's are simply too low to consider any of that, fortified or not.

In my test game, I think I am half way through January and the German army is pretty much toast. I think I have destroyed close to 100 Axis formations so far and losses have been running 4 Axis for 1 Russian a turn for the last several turns. Both sides have suffered over 2 million casualties at this point and while I have lost more as the Russian, by the end of winter, I expect to have the Axis with more casualties than the Russians. The Germans currently have less than 2 million in the field right now. I switched over to version 5 right at the start of December, so this is after most of the fixes. The settings I am playing with are Axis 110% and Russian 100%. The vast majority of German infantry are 1 cv. I have seen a couple 4's, but I think they are re-enforcements sent to the front. Panzers are 1-3 CV. They all suck compared to a lot of my infantry that is 5+ CV each.

Until things get figured out, I think the grand campaign game starting in 1941 is going to end in frustration for the Germans far more often than not. A 1942 start may have to be the norm until the blizzard stuff gets sorted out.



2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 8:03:59 PM)

Yes, but the auto slashing of your CV will not offset the attrition savings. A 4 CV division in a level 4 fort will, if lucky, hold for 1 attack, 2 if you are lucky. And then you are toast. Period. My biggie is the huge double whammy the German gets popped with right off the get go.


And also, if you see above the no ZOC rule and repaired rail. No way is he going to just be able to halt during mud.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 8:12:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Yes, but the auto slashing of your CV will not offset the attrition savings. A 4 CV division in a level 4 fort will, if lucky, hold for 1 attack, 2 if you are lucky. And then you are toast. Period. My biggie is the huge double whammy the German gets popped with right off the get go.


And also, if you see above the no ZOC rule and repaired rail. No way is he going to just be able to halt during mud.


A 5% reduction to winter penalties per fort level implies all penalties, so attrition too would be positively affected by such a rule. So even if the axis only averages staying behind level 2 forts for most of the winter, that’ll save him 10% of the current level of attrition losses he would have otherwise suffered. That coupled with a 10% reduction in the auto halving of the CV would make the Blizzards less brutal but still expose the axis to a concentrated Soviet push.

And more importantly, the rule is simple enough that it may actually have a chance of being implemented.

Jim



Zort -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 8:22:35 PM)

I kinda agree but has anyone seen the effects of beta 5 yet?  I agree with the double wammie the germans get, they should be able to stabilize their lines in Jan, just got out of blizzard but was pushed back lots (beta 3 upgraded to beta 5).  I think it is good to have this discussion but I want to see if beta 5 is a good fix first.  Wonder what the devs are thinking is my next question.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 8:26:03 PM)

There are things I like in both Klydon's comments and 2ndACR's.  (At first I thought Klydon was going to say "suq it Wehrmacht!" but it turns out that was an over-reaction on my part ;)

What I like about 2ACR's approach is that it has a cost-benefit tradeoff.  YOu have to acquire AP (which is a big sacrifice), and you have a limit of 50 divisions (historical).  Armor should be able to be winterized from manpower losses, if not vehicle losses, though.  And motorized units have an inherent advantage at staying warm in that they have lots of engines to stay warm around (as I'm sure you remember from your days in the Cavalry in winter on the Ostfront ;) )

What I don't like is the combination of 4-week no move, plus 0-damage rail, plus no enemy ZOC restrictions.
I can live with some of this, but not all of it.  If you're talking 4 weeks of 0 MP expenditures, you're really talking about 5 weeks, because there's one turn where you'll have to move to railhead.  This is the one I think ought to be removed.  Give it 2 weeks, and "within 10 hexes/25 MP of a railhead".  That aligns better (IMO) to the supply model we see in the game.  And in fact, winterization should be a percentage basis each turn, the same way forts are completed by percentage each turn.  And the enemy ZOC thing has got to go.  The last thing you'll want to see is the Soviets advancing up next to you the last turn before you winterize, essentially burning all your winter clothes just by showing up next to you. 

But generally speaking, it's a fine basic approach that I could easily support.

With regard to what Klydon said, he also has a point that the ridiculous double-whammy the Germans face between attrition & loss of CV, combined with the unjustifiable (IMO) 1-to-1 combat odds bonus that Soviets get - it's overkill on the historicity side of the game.

But I don't think that removing the combat odds bonus that Soviets get actually improves the problems the Axis face right now in winter.

From what I read elsewhere, the consensus of WitE players regarding the issue of historical Soviet Command and Control limitations is 'suq it Axis'.  From a gameplay standpoint, I understand the rationale.  Soviets are already dull enough to play in 1941 without taking a lot more control away from the human Soviet player.

But without compensation to the German side regarding winter preparations, or attack efficiency, or supply, or SOMEthing... we have a game that Soviets can win pretty easily in 1943 with average play, and where Germany is only fun to play for about 17 turns.  I am sounding the clarion call to WitE developers that if you keep it this way, the fun factor of this lopsided approach is going to kill the game.



2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 8:26:18 PM)

I am almost to the winter in PBEM started under Beta 3 and upgraded to Beta 5. Turn 19 right now.

Q-Ball is using beta 5 in his game upgraded.

This was started to just see if it was even feasible to offer up.

I am open to a lower limit on turns. I came up with these to try and keep the screaming to a minimum. I am 90% sure that I could meet each of those conditions and be happy though. Doubt I will get to 50 div though.

2 week sounds okay to me, but I want the ZOC rule. Now you HAVE to pull that unit off the line and rotate the units to get the benefit. No mass upgrade can be done.



Q-Ball -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 9:14:35 PM)

I want to play it out more before making final judgements, but I am with Klydon on this one.

2ACR, your idea is a good one, but in the end I think too complicated to implement, and kinda convoluted.

Klydon is right, the Germans get pushed around far too easily in Winter. The only real ground the Reds took was near Moscow, where the Germans were dangerously overextended, and had no prepared positions. Under those conditions in WITE, the result would be even worse than historical.

The Soviet player needs to be rewarded for making even bad attacks, which hopefully the morale rules still capture. I actually have no issue with the Axis attrition losses, they should be bad, and are.

I am very concerned that 1942 operations will lose fluidity. There is no reason the Soviet player cannot have several layers of size-3 forts available by June, manned by better units than in 1941, and attacked by depleted Germans. Can't tell until we get there, but the odds of several-hundred mile advance are slim. It will look alot more like Citadel, just in 1942.

The REDS are going to be stronger in the '41 Winter than historical, because the REd player isn't doomed to make the same mistakes as historical. The problem is the Axis player IS doomed; no matter how much you prepare, you won't be ready.

I would like to see consideration to a couple rule changes around:

1. Better German CV in First Winter
2. How about FORTS disappearing if you don't keep a unit in them? Though the Reds probably can afford better to keep units "manning" forts

Not sure what some fixes are yet, but historically, the Soviets did not attack successfully all along the front, and did not push Germans back on 80% of attacks



mikemcmann -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 9:27:44 PM)

Forts do degrade if units don't occupy them...

I have only played the ai, but without the betas I still faired the winter fine.

I think more playing is required before "fixing" anything.

Also, people seem to think the "sky is falling" and the war is over if they can't capture Moscow or Leningrad. The game and vps are designed so Germany can still "lose" the war, but win compared to history.

I'd say it might need fixing when every grand campaign reaches turn 224 with a soviet decisive victory......until then, play on...

Mike



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 9:38:43 PM)

I agree with Q-Ball, but I think the problem actually lies in the concept of the 'Blizzard' and the lack of granularity in the weather model. I understand what it's meant to represent, but there wasn't actually a true blizzard all across the SU from December to February, was there?

I think that the winter effects should be broken down a bit to reflect some historical factors. This would allow the Axis to recover gradually, and would also allow for some management decisioning to be added that could affect the impact of the weather.

Here are some examples of what I mean, just as discussion points:

1. The Axis believed they would win before winter, so winter clothing was not ordered/issued in sufficient quantities - so, add an Axis option to invest in winter equipment at the cost of AP and/or supply.

2. The immediate effect of the cold on the Axis was not only frostbite but weapon and vehicle performance - therefore digging into a fortified line should reduce this as wood, the correct oils and lubricants etc. would be on hand.

3. The Soviet T34 tanks had better maneuverability across the snow due to their wider tracks - reduce Axis MP more than CV to reflect the fact that while less mobile, they were still dangerous if approached.

4. The greatest effects of the winter were felt at the outset while the Axis troops were shocked by the cold - reduce the winter effects more gradually over the period. I hate nothing more than seeing the Axis units bounce back from 2 CV to 8 CV in the space of one week at the end of winter!



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 9:40:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemcmann

Also, people seem to think the "sky is falling" and the war is over if they can't capture Moscow or Leningrad. The game and vps are designed so Germany can still "lose" the war, but win compared to history.



Excellent point!



JR5555 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 9:54:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


The issue right now is the Russians are far too successful with most any half baked attack (see Q-Ball's AAR where the Russians were successful 63 out of 76 attacks)



How about maybe making the guaranteed +1 combat odds modifier for the Soviets random. This will increase their failed attack rate making it more historical.



Q-Ball -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 10:14:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemcmann

Also, people seem to think the "sky is falling" and the war is over if they can't capture Moscow or Leningrad. The game and vps are designed so Germany can still "lose" the war, but win compared to history.



Excellent point!


Actually, I respectfully disagree. The German VP requirements are impossible against a human. The best the German can hope for is a draw.

There are a great many moving parts to the simulation, so balancing everything is very difficult. I don't really know what levers to pull. The sky is not falling. But there are some serious balance issues. The latest patch addressed some.




Skanvak -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 10:15:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I agree with Q-Ball, but I think the problem actually lies in the concept of the 'Blizzard' and the lack of granularity in the weather model. I understand what it's meant to represent, but there wasn't actually a true blizzard all across the SU from December to February, was there?

I think that the winter effects should be broken down a bit to reflect some historical factors. This would allow the Axis to recover gradually, and would also allow for some management decisioning to be added that could affect the impact of the weather.

Here are some examples of what I mean, just as discussion points:

1. The Axis believed they would win before winter, so winter clothing was not ordered/issued in sufficient quantities - so, add an Axis option to invest in winter equipment at the cost of AP and/or supply.

2. The immediate effect of the cold on the Axis was not only frostbite but weapon and vehicle performance - therefore digging into a fortified line should reduce this as wood, the correct oils and lubricants etc. would be on hand.

3. The Soviet T34 tanks had better maneuverability across the snow due to their wider tracks - reduce Axis MP more than CV to reflect the fact that while less mobile, they were still dangerous if approached.

4. The greatest effects of the winter were felt at the outset while the Axis troops were shocked by the cold - reduce the winter effects more gradually over the period. I hate nothing more than seeing the Axis units bounce back from 2 CV to 8 CV in the space of one week at the end of winter!


Though I globally agree, I have the following remark :

1/ this is a strategic option, which mean a what-if. Either it is a different scenario or something you buy at start of the campaign.

2/ ok, that is in line with the fact that the german did well when they stand and fight (the no retreat order).

3/ Not sure as the german tank fighting ability is strongly tied to their ability to move. Thought, AT gun will still be as effective.

4/ Indeed, I strongly feel that is very right here. Men tend to adapt so they will get used to that, and gradually receive their winter equipment(still to check) or steal it from prisonner (I have read about it).



janh -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 10:16:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
3. The Soviet T34 tanks had better maneuverability across the snow due to their wider tracks - reduce Axis MP more than CV to reflect the fact that while less mobile, they were still dangerous if approached.

4. The greatest effects of the winter were felt at the outset while the Axis troops were shocked by the cold - reduce the winter effects more gradually over the period. I hate nothing more than seeing the Axis units bounce back from 2 CV to 8 CV in the space of one week at the end of winter!


++ Good ideas along those lines.

Although weapons functionality became a problem for the Germans in winter as well (the oil froze!) However, this was not only a problem for the German side, so both sides suffered lower effectiveness, though to different degrees.

One thing I don't quite understand is that I previously believed that the Soviet winter offensives were in large parts owed to transferring the Siberians over from the Vladivostok. In the AARs it seems that most of the Russian units are ready and in strength to counterattack when blizzard starts. Is this due to the Russian players mostly preserving them? Or the German not pushing hard enough?

Before the Siberians arrived, the Russian Army was even numerically basically even with Wehrmacht and its Allies due to incurred losses, right? The Siberians not only were fresh and could stall Typhoon, but they also had basic winter equipment and training (as simple as those wooden snow boots, no idea what exactly they are called). So the December winter offensive was only possible due to the freshly arrived divisions, and as such limited to them? My understanding was that not until early January had the Soviet forces in areas other than Moscow recovered sufficiently from their 41 beatings, that a reasonable offensive against the Germans was possible. And even that historically didn't go very far.

So is my understanding half way correct? Could the harshness of the blizzard have to do more with the Germans not pushing hard enough, or the Russians preserving too much force for blizzard, rather than with the blizzard rules?



Klydon -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 10:27:00 PM)

Now people can say all they want about this not being against a human Axis player, but its still silly. Settings are 110% German, 100% Soviet. Turn is 15 Jan and I am not done yet as the Russian, although most of the turn is complete. Two of the armored divisions lost were the Hungarian and Rumanian, but the rest were German. I don't have a "success" attack rate, but it is very high and the amount of deliberate attacks I have made are very low, especially since I figured out I don't have to use them to win battles.

As I have mentioned before, I don't have the dog in the hunt on which side I play. I actually will be involved in playing both at some point. Right now, I would skip 1941 as a Axis player because no matter what you do against a good Soviet, you are toast come winter and you will absolutely struggle to do anything meaningful in 1942 in an offensive way. Only when there has been a total collapse of the Soviet position has an AAR gone the German way. None have seen the Germans do much of anything in 1942. I had high hopes for Q-Ball's game that incorporated a lot of things that were worked on in various threads for German play, especially the openings but I just don't see a competitive game in 1942 at this point and it may well end up being trench warfare again where the Germans feel they are too weak to make any major offensive effort and stand on the defensive, although I could be very wrong about that.



[image]local://upfiles/36689/0011DE311F5A489EBBC09C3197C7CD28.jpg[/image]



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 10:33:10 PM)

I think a greater problem than the supper ineffectiveness of the the Germans (though I do agree that the "waking up" of the Germans on March 1st is a bit odd...) is that the Soviets can make coordinated, cohesive, and planned attacks. The real winter counter-offensive was devastating initially, and could have been far more of a home run had their been better control by the Soviets. The inability to wipe out the Rzhev salient (and losing large numbers of troops surrounded, the fate of the 2nd Shock Army, among others, points to not so much the inability of the Soviets to attack effectively, but more their inability to coordinate an offensive and react to counter-moves.

This is more the problem that Q-ball is seeing, a too-effective attacking in coordinated fashion soviet army.



paullus99 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 11:09:18 PM)

We know that this is designed to be a fairly historically accurate representation of the fighting on the Eastern Front (OOBs, start lines, etc) but that history will diverge from day one, since we can use the knowledge that we have to not make the same mistakes our historical counterparts did.

So, the Red Army player can pull his troops back & prevent the major encirclements of history, and husband his troops for the inevitable counterattack during the historical blizzard.

Of course, due to the hard-coded blizzard effects, regardless of what the German player does to prepare (especially against a Sir Robinski strategy) he's going to get hammered during the winter anyway. This does seem, from a game balance standpoint, to be a little unfair - but on the flip side, I don't know what could be or should be done to correct it.

I would, if possible, like to see a trade-off made available (if the Russians run, the Germans can be more prepared for winter, etc).

Just a thought.



2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 11:09:58 PM)

Against a human, you can push as hard as you can and barely be able to inflict 3 million casualties against a good opponent.

But once blizzard arrives, you will watch your infantry div drop from 8CV to 4 CV on turn 26. If they are in the open, it will be even worse no matter what the fort level is. And it gets worse each turn. Much worse.

If they want to drop the automatic combat value reduction and just let attrition do the dirty work, I am all for that. It is better than it is now. I was offering it up as an idea. I prefer the "option" I suggested of course. It in no way hurts the Russian player, and rewards the German. Besides, the option gives me something to spend all those AP's on. By turn 13 or so I am at 500 and there it stays forever basically.

I know it is complicated and said that I don't even know if it could be done. But I prefer to have the "option" if it could be done. I am trying to avoid the "this happened in history so there" argument. That went out the window turn 1. People who want a historical game could home rule not to allow it.

We managed to get massive upgrade options in WITP after release with a toggle switch so anything is possible.



Zort -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 11:11:24 PM)

I agree with PeeDeeAitch.  Which in one way gets me to supply and it's effect.  What I would state as "attack" supply is way to available.  Both sides don't have to accumulate stores like they did before conducting major offensives.  So for me the points are:
1. Germans should be able to have a good chance of holding ground from around mid Jan.
2. Soviets should have a tougher time coordinating front wide attacks.
3. Both sides should not have easy access of supply to conduct front wide attacks for a continued periods of time.



2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/21/2011 11:19:03 PM)

Problem is, is that by mid January, you as the Germans are already toasted combat wise. You will see most of your infantry divisions with 8000 men or less, even if they sat still and never got attacked. They will be on par with the Romanians combat wise facing 4-5 CV infantry div. Mainly you will face 3 stack units with 13CV or so. And this is if you even halt all advances and dig from Sept 41 till blizzard.

I don't know what the answer is, but something has to be done. I am just searching for a way to reward the German who pulls short but also it cannot "hurt" the Russian. God knows they can pull units out of thin air basically.



Angelo -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 12:11:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

Both sides should not have easy access of supply to conduct front wide attacks for a continued periods of time.



Completely agree with this. The supply rules appear to be the main culprit at least from my games with human players. It will need major modifications to both simulate the eastern front logistics and make a balanced game for human players.

This does not mean I like the weather and blizzard rules. Both also need major upgrading! A more detailed and accurate weather system would help for the weather. The blizzard rules are too harsh mostly because attack supply is too lenient.

How to fix the problems? Without access to the game design documentation nearly impossible to offer any workable solution(s) as this game if quite complex and making any rule changes would require a good understanding of the game design and the programming. I suspect that testing changes would be time consuming and difficult. As it stands the v1.3 beta still needs a lot more testing.

For me, I'll wait for a new patch before wasting any additional time playing grand campaigns against human players that are imbalanced and ahistorical. Sorry if this sound too negative but that's how I see it. I do love this game and will still play, just wish the grand campaigns had been done better. [:(]




PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 12:42:03 AM)

In my most recent examination, I have seen a couple of things from beta 5.

1 - the numbers for the Soviets have been impacted, perhaps a million less men in the lines.

2 - the TOE and returning experience for the germans have helped.  Spring 42 sees 5,6, and 7 strength German infantry divisions. (2nd ACR, I would think your units that did not face attack against Kelblau would have been far stronger yet - the "late arriving" OKH divs are far closer to starting strength)

2a - even in January and February, units in "quiet" sections (if there are any) can have 3 or even 4 CV showing - returning troops and lessoning effects of blizzard.  This was what the intent was before.  However, see point 4 below...

3 - the Soviets do not gain as many guards, but the Germans suffer as much or more because the "middle divisions" do not get above the 70s in morale.

4 - the Soviets can and still do attack on very large fronts, wearing down many units.  This does not allow the "January/February reduction of effects" to really be felt.  Only if the German can be ruthless in keeping units off the line can this happen - and when pressed on very wide fronts this become far harder.

This is the reason why I feel that a great part of the issue is the Russian ability to attack on wide fronts, with coordinated and sustained assaults.  There is not lulls, as actually happened, to give some small bit of recovery.  One reason for optimism on my part WAS seeing units outside of level 4 towns with a 3 CV in Feb...that was itself like a bolt from the blue. 



color -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 1:37:49 AM)

I would like to share some of my thoughts about the winter effects, especially the '41, since I have never shared them before. I will try to keep it short and rather elaborate by further comments if necessary.

1. Attrition. I think all sides should suffer attrition during winter turns, not only Germans. I read some writings of a Red Army surgeon claiming frostbites cases (no known numbers but unconfirmed 'substantially'), attributed mostly to soviet units attacking out in the open. Clue is in the open, which arguably can be translated to fort level 0 in the game. I would choose to interpret this that whatever troops, no matter their nationality, would suffer out in the open during blizzard.

2. German lack of winter clothing = Germany suffers much higher attrition than soviets during the 41 winter. That's already modelled. Gradually Germans gain winter clothing by helping themselves to clothing from (russian) dead and later when their own winter clothing arrived. Sounds like a gradually declining attrition effect with highest in 41. Seems mostly modelled like this in game.

3. Fort levels. Supposedly 2 Panzer Division had in the order of 800 frostbite casualties per day in january 42. The claim they make is that when they used TNT to blast holes, build shelters of wood and heat them, the frostbite casualties dropped to three a day. If this claim is correct it can be used to argue for the case that in the game fort levels should have an effect in lowering attrition, I won't try to open an argument as to how much.

4. Problems with weapons not functioning. Reason being lubrication could not stand the cold. This rings true in the beginning, but substitutes were found. Lubricating weapons with Kerosene the Germans found worked well, but they had to be lubricated regularly. Also sunflower oil were extensibly used, especially in the south. In game German CV is lowered during blizzard, but the effect is constant throughout winter. One could maybe argue that the penalty diminish after a period of time as substitutes are introduced.

5. Supply. German vehicles and their European horses could not stand the blizzards. Did not take long for Germans to commandeer and use the native Panje horse & sleds, by early 42 supposedly some panzer divisions had as many as two thousand of these horses, and hardly no serviceable motor vehicles. Can be interpreted as a brutal supply hit when blizzard arrives in '41, then gradually the situation improving. German supply lowered in blizzard in game, but I think it is constant?
I tend to believe that one of the most important factors to german disaster was lack of reinforcements and supplies (in terms of vehicles & ammo).

6. Russian organization, weapons and tactics better prepared for winter warfare. As well as Russian wider tracks/higher ground clearance tanks more effective in snow. Modelled in the game it seems. This tank disadvantage for the Germans was a problem mostly with tank models in/before '41. Later models incorporated wider tracks.

I completely agree with the developers about wanting to reproduce the Axis casualty levels of the 41/42 winter. I also think the best way to do it is to get the 'blizzard simulation' right, and then focus on obtaining the desired result by penalizing the historical strategy that lead to the disaster. I.e. among other things; exhausted & depleted units far out from supply trains (is it correct that the average fighting power of a division was down to 40% by december 41?), and lack of defensive positions/winter quarters.

If the soviet player is allowed to use ahistorical strategy, give ground to minimize casualties in beginning of barbarossa, then I would say it's only right that a German player should be allowed to use ahistorical strategies like in stopping and digging in to better survive winter (but at the cost of less ground gained).
I.e. it can be argued that more incentives can be made for the german player to drive deep early, and having to apply historical strategies to gain that and run the risk of disaster. Or he can choose to be safer, lessen losses, but be sorry later.





IronDuke_slith -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 2:07:59 AM)


The game is set up to replicate the German historical experience, but it's flawed because the player is free to create an unhistorical experience. Yet, If he does, he still suffers the historical experience.

Where the Germans were overextended, poorly supplied and in offensive deployments, the Soviets drove them back with heavy casualties. But where the Germans were ready, it was much tougher. The Germans did not lose all combat capability in December. Amidst the worst of it, Model was actually able to reorganise and re-establish 9th Army contact with neighbouring forces. The Panzer Armees pulled back a long way, but then they were in mid air with wide open flanks, so attempted a fighting withdrawal. That's not the same thing as being in headlong retreat, since if their flanks had been secure, they would have stayed put.

Ultimately, a Soviet player who successfully avoids debilitating losses in the run up to December 1941, gets a much stronger counteroffensive than historical. A German player who avoids overextending, who avoids heavy losses and prepares for winter.....still gets an overwhelming experience.

High level forts should provide some protection, with trenches and bunkers providing respite against the biting wind, and even the cold. The Germans surely suffered so badly because in the retreat, they found the ground was too hard to create good defensive positions from. If you have already dug in, then you have slit trenches to protect from the wind and bunkers (perhaps even with simple fires therein) to help with the cold.

There should be heavy attrition, and maybe even heavier attrition of equipment, but the Germans shouldn't have their CVs slashed. Most of the Russians facing them were poorly trained and favoured the frontal assault. Fighting in winter didn't make them better soldiers. As the cold takes it's toll, men and equipment become disabled, then German CV strength will fall naturally. Supply issues will also adversely affect them, but at the moment, all these things take their toll, and on top, CVs get abitrarily slashed too. They also get slashed up front, rather than slowy declining as the winter tales effect.

I like the idea of bringing forward winter equipment, but there should be a corresponding drop in supply reaching the front for every division kitted out. I'm not sure what is being modelled with the suggestion units not be in contact or be out of the front for several weeks, but I'd run it like the HQ build up. Click a button and the unit "winterises". It loses all MPs for that turn and can't have moved prior to the event. APs are expended and a set percentage of trucks are lost and there is a general reduction in the supply amounts being generated to reflect trains carrying food and ammo carrying winter kit instead.

Regards,
ID






paullus99 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 2:48:43 AM)

From a game-play perspective, who wants to play a game where - in human v. human games, 1941 is a waste because, no matter how far the German player gets, he knows he's going to be demolished in the blizzard (regardless of what he does to prepare).

We haven't seen a lot of 1942 combats yet - post blizzard, but I have my doubts that the German Army can be anyway near historically combat effective against a human Red Army - which leads to a very, very boring game.



Pipewrench -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 3:11:09 AM)

from what I have read if you want to balance the game vs a human you are going to have to eliminate the blizzard effects in 41 otherwise very few people will play pbem.
In my humble opinion it was the weather that doomed Germany in 41 and if you want to play that fine but it will get very old, very fast.

History goes out the window when Germany builds forts in september and knows the weather while Russia pulls back, husbands its strength because it also knows the weather. You have created a great historical simulation that satisfy's many and yes the russians win.


keep things as they are but immediatly get to work on an expansion.

rip out the blizzard and re-balance each side to where good play should evenly match both by late 42.

the game developers make $$ for the effort and speaking for myself , I get the pleasure of investing in a true human vs human 80 hour think-fest that does not have a scripted atomic bomb that goes off in 41.






von Beanie -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/22/2011 7:28:53 AM)

I've primarily played the Soviet side, so I have a somewhat different perspective. Here are my suggestions:

Soviet units that move normally (not by train) or attack should suffer attrition unless they are fully winterized. The four Shock Armies should be automatically winterized, and perhaps any army arriving after the mud begins, but there should be an AP cost per Soviet army to winterize the others. The attrition should only affect Soviet units that move or attack. This would have a tendency to stagnate larger portions of the front. Soviet AP are very precious prior to the winter offensive, so this is not something the Soviet side could do lightly, except in the region where they want to launch their offensive. Perhaps the cost should be about 20 AP per army to prevent the attrition effects. This would slow down the full-length frontal assaults that occur now. I know that I would be disinclined to launch the full-line offensives with armies that suffer winter attrition in addition to the combat losses.

On the German side I believe the forts should be 50% effective. But more importantly, units defending in cities or able to trace a line of supply to a city should not see a substantial CV drop until surrounded for at least one turn, and then reduced by 33% every turn after that. This would help preserve some Soviet pockets in the summer of 1941, and also greatly aid the German hedgehog defense in the winter of 1941. Because of the extreme CV loss if a city is surrounded, German players sometimes are willing to expend large forces in the blizzards trying to keep them from being surrounded. In fact, the Soviet ski troops and paratroopers often controlled much of the territory around the German strongpoints, and yet they remained intact until the worst of the weather had passed. If it was more difficult for the Soviets to reduce a surrounded force in a city, that might lead to the more historical result of the hedgehogs being surrounded for extended amounts of time. Since the Soviet RR repair units cannot advance beyond an enemy controlled city, this will greatly diminish how far the Soviet forces can advance in supply unless the surrounded cities are reduced first.

(Incidentally, on this last point Brest-Litovsk was a major fortress that held out more than a week at the beginning of the war against a staggering German attack. By itself, if this was modeled correctly the AGC German RR repair unit wouldn't be able to advance as far as it does. I've yet to see it hold out beyond the first turn of the game, so it is time to put a fortress there).

On the other hand, the changes in Beta 5 have not been tested adequately yet. In my game versus QBall I was able to evacuate all of my factories except those at Minsk. That won't happen in a future game, which will substantially weaken the Soviet side going into the winter. So if changes are to be made, it might be wise to see what happens when the game is started with Beta 5.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.359375