quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

1) Rebuilding Lines with Wooden Overhead Cover

I guess we both agree that one line could be built if most of the German Army worked on it for 1 week. Once this line is broken (+1 to odds modifier), it is unrelialistic to expect the Wehrmact had the capability under attack to generate a second or third line. If the American Army could not do it in the Battle of the Bulge with a large component of specialized engineers and a huge number of operational trucks, the German Army could not have done it over a much bigger front. Both armies suffered a large number of frost bite cases, interestingly enough! Thus it does not appear to solve the problem if realism is to be preserved.


2) Why Didn't Russian Army Built Plethora of Fortifications in 1941-1942?

Regarding the end of the German offensive capability in 1941 due to Russian fortification pileup in the game, why was this not the historical Russian tactic? Any (non-Maginot) fortification line without strong reserves can be easily penetrated. Classic examples are the D-Day attacks (even Omaha Beach), the Gustav line in May 1944, and the Stalin Line in 1941. Even the imfamous West Wall, which had taken years to build, was quickly breached in several places. In this latter case it was the attacking force which lacked the needed reserves. One a line in penetrated in a few places, available attacking reserves will move in and defeat the whole line. Thus placing half (or more) of ones army in the rear building and occupying massive fortifications was not effective. It was better to use reserves on the front, especially if the tactical ability of the troops were grossly inferior to the enemy.


3) Are the effective of game fortifications too great?

Normally a fortification line is attacked along a few choice spots. The rest of the line, say inside the game hex, would not be attacked. Thus only a small part of the defense gets the combat benefit of the fortification and most of the defensive force does not participate. Perhaps the game does not address this properly. Also, the Germans did create psuedo fortifications out of villages. The following link is excellent for explaining how the German Army survivied in late 1941.
http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/Wray/wray.asp#winter


4) How to Make German Players Happy

If the actual German Army lost Berlin in May 1945, it is unreasonable to expect a Russian player from doing worse in the current game. Does it really matter if Berlin falls in November 1944 or February 1945? Germany still ends up destroyed, and the German Army will be annihilated. This is true due to the overwhelming manpower and equipment, regardless in Stalingrad had previously been captured or not, as modeled in the game. I understand that there currently is a major inaccuracy in winter 1941 modeling (show stopper), but the next obstacle remaining is in summer 1942 with massive Russian fortications, and I expect this to be a show stopper as well. Then the fortifications will be tweaked, and the German players will dislike ending offensive operations completely by winter 1942. This is properly an accurate simulation of expected capabilities. It seems like a German win should still be possible in 1943+. This is why I recommend looking at both Russian casualties and German strength factors in determing victory, with various time-changing thresholds. These are not that unrealistic, but assume Hitler had been deposed, German attrocities had stopped, and the Western Allies had suffered more severe setbacks. I apologize if you felt I was trivilizing your winter 1941 frustrations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Nothing against Oleg as a Russian (I think he would admit he is still learning), but this AAR is an exception rather than the rule of most AAR's. I would think most of the community is closely watching Jame's two games against Pieter and Flav since Oleg was also a victim of James as well. I do agree that there are things to learn from Emir's AAR as well. I think 2ndACR's game got the ball rolling and Q-Ball's game has really caused it to pick up steam since it was a later version of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
There are several blizzard threads in the development forums, and Joel has made some pretty dramatic suggestions for changes that are being discussed and debated at the moment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
Just relax and learn to put some facts and meaning behind your posts and maybe you can shake this 'clown' label. Good luck with that and I mean that sincerely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
The supply network did start to break down in the mud of Oct and extreme cold weather later in Nov/Dec 41. But the real cause for no winter equipment being sent to the front in late Sept and early Oct, was Hitler forbade it

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
Just relax and learn to put some facts and meaning behind your posts and maybe you can shake this 'clown' label. Good luck with that and I mean that sincerely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
The supply network did start to break down in the mud of Oct and extreme cold weather later in Nov/Dec 41. But the real cause for no winter equipment being sent to the front in late Sept and early Oct, was Hitler forbade it

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

Blizzard is way too severe and the months of Jan and Feb are just wrong in terms of attrition

I have yet to see a screenshot or receive a save from turn 53 that shows the Axis start the 1942 campaign with less men, tanks and aircraft than they had in June 1942. The problem has been that the Divisions' morale and experience levels have been lower, and resulted in an average 1.1 CVs per infantry division shortfall, and this is what the patches have aimed to fix, and if anyone has saves for T24, T39, and T53 for a game played under v5, we will be able to see if the changes have had the desired effect.

I am about to enter the Blizzard as The SU for the first time, so I get to see the other side of the coin, and hopefully get a balanced perspective on the Blizzard.

As to whether the blizzard is turning people off from playing the game, I can only comment from my personal point of view, in that I saw the Blizzard as a challenge that I was not going to let get on top of me, particularly after my first blizzard experience in which AGS evaporated in 4 turns. After 2 further attempts, I figured out a plan that would achieve my objectives, and managed to execute them against the AI and PBEM. The results of my attempts have been documented in the Field Marshal Noob AAR, and I have posted selected AAR pictures of my PBEM game in one of the many other Blizzard threads.

BigAnorak,

There's a very serious flaw in your argument. You are assuming and now imposing historical results in troops strength on all axis players in 1942 irregardless of their strategy in 41. Do you see how wrong this is? So basically if I'm an axis player and don't do the following historical path which was:

- attack hard in Oct/Nov
- become reckless with supply lines
- push troops to extreme fatigue
- little or no concern to digging in for winter (fort'ing)

So if the axis player does, oh let's say the opposite of this late 41 strategy like I have tried and others too, we should have the same depleted forces in spr 42? Really? Does that mean I need to create a Stalingrad situation as axis too in late 42? I'm really so sick and tired of people trying to impose some axis stats from 1942 when I have played 1941 totally different then historical. Sure Big, if you as testers want to test the historical path and see if the #'s match up, that's totally fine. But how many of us are going to play and take the 'historical' path? For example, how many sov players take the historical path and leave large amounts of sov troops forward to get encircled, because the Stalin told them to hold their ground? lol, none that I know of.

My loses in blizzard were insane, considering I did almost all the game allows for in preparing for it. My troops were not exposed, had good supply and supply lines, TOEs were in 80% range, many font line forts, high morale and exp (before bug hit TOE upgrade). None of this mattered for the WitE blizzard mechanics, my troops weer savaged and my loses in 13 turns of blizzard were 1.2 million! Just wrong.

So if the only argument people have for blizzard being 'ok' in WitE is this assumption that axis troops strength should be the same as historical in 1942... we'll you're just not getting it. That only makes sense for building the 1942 scenario.

It just amazes me people are still trying to argue that the first blizzard in winter 41-42 is fine and doesn't need some looking into. Really? these people obviously have not been on the axis side against a competent sov player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

+1 abulbulian

I too don't like to be compared with 1942 historical results when I did many things different than historically occurred in 41. My human vs human game was also some what ended after the blizzard. I was backed into almost Rom by the time spr came.

If the game was going to have to have the same historical results or similar, why even play? Not sure about everybody else, but the term 'game' is something that people should focus on. This is not a simulation and I didn't purchase it for a WW2 eastern front simulation.

I too am looking forward to the day when blizzard is adjusted to be more sensible and realistic. Just adding some consideration for other factors should would be a step in the right direction.

Still waiting to hear from a developer about this topic of first turn blizzard. <crickets> Just to even know their thoughts and plans would be very welcome at this point in time.

I think I'll start a support group for those of us that had to go through this blizzard along with the TOE bugs...nothing could have prepared an axis player for that trauma.
[:(]


PS: let me leave you with a quote from my human sov opponent (keep in mind this was pre-beta 3):

"I thought playing the Russians in 1941/42 would be stressful, it was actually far from it. Being able to counter-attack with great efficiency in 42 was a surprise. I almost feel dirty in how unhistorical it seemed".

While I'm clearly with you and Abul, please be careful when you assume the silence of official development personnel means they are being derelict toward perceived problems and/or possible improvements.

From the developers' standpoint, there is no advantage gained when you come out and say "We agree this is a problem and we are thinking about doing X, Y, or Z to address it in balancing".

Doing so starts a firestorm amongst the community that "A isn't a problem and they're giving in to the cry-babies" or "X is a stupid idea that isn't historical" or "Y isn't nearly sufficient to remedy the problem."

They're definitely watching us duke it out in the forums with our various ideas and perceptions, and I'm sure they're having the same kinds of conversations internally, with factions taking similar sides to those we see in this thread.

I have every confidence that eventually steps will be taken to give the Axis flexibility in Blizzard if they've taken radically different approaches to their 1941 campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
There are several blizzard threads in the development forums, and Joel has made some pretty dramatic suggestions for changes that are being discussed and debated at the moment.

Are the changes coming soon? Because, as you may see from the above screenshot, I will need to defend Moscow in blizzard, as German!! HELP!!!!!!!!! [:D]

quote:

Are the changes coming soon? Because, as you may see from the above screenshot, I will need to defend Moscow in blizzard, as German!! HELP!!!!!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Sorry, have to invoke the NDA stuff here, but some of the proposals made me fall off my chair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
There are several blizzard threads in the development forums, and Joel has made some pretty dramatic suggestions for changes that are being discussed and debated at the moment.

Are the changes coming soon? Because, as you may see from the above screenshot, I will need to defend Moscow in blizzard, as German!! HELP!!!!!!!!! [:D]

Your screwed, but you got the Finns, so might actually have some prayer. Slim, but maybe not. And you have a bunch of cities not garrisoned, you are breeding partisans which will cause you oh so much trouble come winter.

And that is a super long line to defend come Blizzard. Should be fun to watch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno
And I have a real issue with this. If the Finns held Leningrad and far, far more than they had ever hoped, would they have stopped in the middle of nowhere and refused to budge? "Sorry, Heinz. I can't go one step east of this tree in this forest." The Russian player can easily strip the extreme north of forces, knowing that after that last city is captured by the Finns, that's it for them. Knowing that the Finns can't throw a left-hook towards Yaroslavl/Ivanho is a tremendous advantage. Thin the forces out, the Finns aren't going anywhere.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno
And I have a real issue with this. If the Finns held Leningrad and far, far more than they had ever hoped, would they have stopped in the middle of nowhere and refused to budge? "Sorry, Heinz. I can't go one step east of this tree in this forest." The Russian player can easily strip the extreme north of forces, knowing that after that last city is captured by the Finns, that's it for them. Knowing that the Finns can't throw a left-hook towards Yaroslavl/Ivanho is a tremendous advantage. Thin the forces out, the Finns aren't going anywhere.....

That is exactly what my opponent did, there is not a single Sov unit opposite Finns in the north. He knows they got as far as they possibly could, so he has one less sector to worry about.

Kinda gamey, but I am not complaining as I stripped everything north of this Finnish second limit line of any German unit, concentrating everything in the south. If he pushes too far towards Leningrad, Finns will again come into play.

Yeah, winter in this game could be very interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno
Well, sending your own forces South isn't optional for you. You will have to do so to have a defence in place along the front. You do have the forces available (just) to do a linebacker defense, even being that far forward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
My opponent did what I allowed him to do. Axis player calls the shots in the opening turns and Sov plays in as much as the Axis allows him. Very very few people on the board know how to use Axis forces optimally. I am personally far from that point but I am learning (as can be seen). Other players are even further from perfection than me, but they don't always realize that, they blame the game for their own shortcomings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno
Well, sending your own forces South isn't optional for you. You will have to do so to have a defence in place along the front. You do have the forces available (just) to do a linebacker defense, even being that far forward.

This screenshot is couple turns old and it does not show all my forces in the area.

My opponent did what I allowed him to do. Axis player calls the shots in the opening turns and Sov plays in as much as the Axis allows him. Very very few people on the board know how to use Axis forces optimally. I am personally far from that point but I am learning (as can be seen). Other players are even further from perfection than me, but they don't always realize that, they blame the game for their own shortcomings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Mayhaps your Soviet opponent sucks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno
Umm, you just said your opponent stripped the forces that were aligned against the Finns. I am not certain that you "allowed" this. It's a strange thing to allow really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno
Umm, you just said your opponent stripped the forces that were aligned against the Finns. I am not certain that you "allowed" this. It's a strange thing to allow really.

I am not sure we understand each other. By "allowing" I didn't mean any house rules. I meant that he plays in as much as he possibly can given Axis incessant pressure. We don't use any house rules.

The stripping of the Finnish front is not really important, except as a little trick. He did that only after Leningrad was taken and honestly Axis forces advanced in that region till the very edge of the inhabitable universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

That front line is really weird - what is happening to the long thin salient just south of centre? A long front definitely could impact blizzard defence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

If the German side really has NO chance of winning why bother playing the Germans? Bragging that you won because Germany lost the war in June 45 instead of May 45 seems kind of pointless to me. There has to be a 'reasonable' chance for the Germans to win before talking about counting victory point.

The same applies to the Russians. If the Russians have an I win button then bragging that you won the war in April 45 instead of May 45 is again pointless as the Germans can't win regardless of what they do.

Why Play at all? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

That front line is really weird - what is happening to the long thin salient just south of centre? A long front definitely could impact blizzard defence.