Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (Full Version)

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



Message

glvaca -> Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 2:49:27 PM)

This question came up in Tarhunnas AAR and on his request I'm moving it here. Am I the only one (who plays both sides equally) who thinks this is the case? I'd start a poll but don't have the rights.

If I'm wrong so much the better. Perhaps I'm hoping that the devs would share their thought making process here so we can at least understand why certain decisions have been made. Let's hope.

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Ultimately, just about everyone discovered that a more balanced approach to their tank forces (i.e. filling the gaps with mobile/motorized/mechanized infantry) was the way to go. The more tanks & less infantry - particularly in the attack, the higher losses the tanks would take (look at the fighting the British & Americans did in Normandy) - in the vast majority of cases, unless you were in full pursuit mode, tank-led attacks without proper infantry support were decimated by dug-in anti-tank defenses.

Over the course of the war, the Germans also revamped their armored forces to include more infantry until they reached a much more balanced OOB of about equal battalions of infantry to armor.


Hmmm, I think the Germans got that lesson exactly right from the start. A panzer division didn't actually change a lot (except on how many tanks and other supporting arms) concerning infantry. Standard, 2 regiments, 4 battalions during the whole war, +1 recon and 1 Engineer batt. They did lose the motorcycle batt mid 1942. SS, 2 regiments, 6 batt. Obviously, the Sovs, and the UK focussed more on tanks with less infantry BUT, their doctrine required the infantry divs to provide the infantry. That didn't always work out though.

Point is however, the tank was the crutial weapon in the panzer division or TC. And, whenever tanks caught infantry in clear terrain and not dugin to the teeth (level 4-5) infantry almost always paid a steep price. As in completely eliminated, like all other games I know except WitE. In this game, tanks route infantry, cause minimal damage, lose quite a few tanks in the process. On the defense it even gets worse, I'm shocked with how easy it is to push a 90 morale/experience 90% TOE panzer division from it's hex, even in 1941! And causing 40% casualties in the process. Just pile up enough crap infantry divisions and poof, there goes your panzer div. Surely, it wasn't as easy as numbers. Again, check out some tactical wargames to see how easy it is to attack tanks.

The Normandy example is actually not quite right. It wasn't that more tanks wasn't better. It wasn't that the infantry wasn't supporting the tanks, it was that the Germans had less but vastly superior tanks and used them to great effect and with great determination. The Allies chose to have a lot of inferior tanks versus fewer but better tanks. And they paid a serious price for this. Only 1/3rd of the British tanks were Fireflies and had the upgraded 76mm gun which could penetrate the Panthers and Tigers at a reasonable distance. Most where either still the 75mm or the normal 76mm. I don't think the US had any Fireflies. Those tanks could only penetrate Tigers and Panthers at rediculous close ranges if at all. In addition, the Germans had the superb 88mm gun which just tore the haert out of any tank attack. Come to think of it, why can't we attach a 88m LW regiment directly to a German division in the game? Surely, it was done quite often historically. Or would that upset the balance of the game?

This probably will sound rude but it isn't intended as such. This is a GREAT game. And I'm having a ton of fun playing both the Germans and the Russians in the 2 pbem's I'm playing. But my honest, unbiased opinion is that as it stands, the game is heavily biased towards the Soviets at this point in time. To name but a few key "rulings" in favor of the Soviets:
1. massive importance of arty. I'm not about to dispute the effect of arty, but the germans did devellop tactics to reduce it's effects. For instance withdrawing to a second line before the barrage (read the Raus book for more info). Secondly, quantity is good, but that doesn't mean the fire is accurate.
2. Germans can't attach arty directly to a division but can to a fortified region!?? Which to boot is rediculously weak?
3. Soviet Corps and the stacking advantage it brings. I mean, seriously, you have a stacking limit of three units regarless of size, but that is actually trippled when the Soviet get their corps (each corps being 3 divisions). I mean, why can you suddenly get 3 times as many men and weapons in a 15km hex as before? What's the rational? It certainly smells like a serious game balancing trick in favor of the Sovs.
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.
5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.
7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.
9. No seperate pool which keeps experience for returning disabled soldiers from lowering experience. An experienced soldier returning from hospital is still an experienced soldier. In a system that depends so heavily on experience (or should) this is really a source of annoyance. Especially affecting the German side.
10. No real reason to fight forward for the Russian player.
11. Too easy to move industry and too fast back in production, even if radom and not at full production.
12. Capturing Moscow and all the other cities doesn't have any effect.
13. Losing industry doesn't really matter.
14. Basically zero chance for the German to win the GC 41 game on points.
15. etc... etc...

Again devs, this is intended as positive, constructive critism. I write because I care. [;)]




KenchiSulla -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 3:04:27 PM)

Ill react to your item 4

- How about giving the side using tanks in a battle against the side that doesn't use them (or not in sufficient numbers) a bonus in CV - Breakthrough/local counterattack event - when calculating odds?



ComradeP -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 3:19:32 PM)

quote:

I have some serious question marks with these statements. Not the makeup of the Mech/Tank/Inf. Corps but certainly with the combat efficiency of the Russian infantry. And the unefficientcy of the tanks. Let's say the game is right, that poses the question why all WW2 particpants produced the amount of tanks they did? If they're just for exploitation, you don't need that many. Secondly, often in Russain offensives, the tank armies (which normally had the role of exploitation as you mention) were committed to effect the breakthrough when the infantry corps failed to do so. Take for example Operation Kutozov (12 july 1943) to liberate Orel. I'm writing from memory so I probably get some details wrong, but the Soviet threw something like 4 infantry and 2 tank armies against a couple of infantry corps backed up with 5th and 8th Panzer divs and some more armour redeployed from 9th Army. Only in 11th Guards Armies sector did they achieve a clean penetration that was then halted by the reinforcing panzers. On the East side of the Orel Bulge, they got nowhere and a tank army was committed to achieve the breakthrough and failed in this instance.


Tanks were produced because they were at the time the primary mobile unit type that could be employed for breakthroughs, this being the time before large scale use of APC's/IFV's by all participants and with cavalry being obsolete. Tanks and AFV's in general are great for support or chasing an enemy that is withdrawing, they are far less good at head on fights. The average WWII tank is going to lose a fight against the average by the time modern WWII dug in AT gun. You can't really compare the firepower and protection those tanks had to the firepower and protection tanks have today.

quote:

Frankly, while the Russians certainly envisaged infantry making the breach which then would be widened by tank corps attached to the infantry armies and exploited in depth by the tank armies, more often than not, the tank armies where needed to MAKE the breakthrough, and paid a tremendous price for doing so. In Operation Kutuzov, the Russains lost about a 1000 tanks more than in Operation Citadelle, something in the order of 2500. Simply put, the infantry just didn't get through without the tanks!


The tanks could also not get through without the infantry, it's a combined arms operation. However, using the tanks as armoured guns for support was not why they were designed or something they were particularly good at with their in many cases mediocre frontal armour compared to the firepower of the AT guns of the opponent.

quote:

In Citadelle, against such though defenses (fortifications) heavy German tanks were key to make any progress at all. The infantry just could not follow the tanks as they were subjected to tremendous fire from machine gun, arty, etc.. This in turn made the tanks vulnerable to close in attacks.

Without tanks, the Russian infantry just didn't get anywhere against the German panzer divisions untill well into 1944, perhaps until the end of the war. And until the end the German Panzer divisions inflicted terrible punishment on the Russian infantry.


What you're describing here goes for all combatants, even in modern times. Tanks need infantry just like infantry need AFV's for support. The infantry/tanks are not likely to get anywhere fast without support, not in modern war.

quote:

Certainly, the approach of the game in the way it _SEEMS_ to handle tanks (seems because there is not really transparency) is a clean break away from most if not all other hardcore wargames I've played over the past 20 years. To name the W@W series again, upto +10 shifts for armour. Boardgame FitE/SE +3 attack -2 defense in clear, OCS, CV value doubled against soft infantry.


I agree that the lack of a chase phase or some sort of overrun rule can limit the effectiveness of tanks significantly, it's also something I'm not entirely happy with.

quote:

Finally, when going down to the tactical level, like for example the Close combat series also from Atomic and now through Matrixgames. Have you ever tried attacking a Tank with infantry in clear terrain? It's bloody difficult and bloody costly if it works at all!


True, but now think of a scenario where the enemy has dug in AT guns, or AFV's of its own, and you have a mostly AFV centered force, with maybe a couple of infantry squads with trucks in support. The result is going to be highly predictable, and it's not going to be a nice and easy victory for the attacker.

quote:

The Normandy example is actually not quite right. It wasn't that more tanks wasn't better. It wasn't that the infantry wasn't supporting the tanks, it was that the Germans had less but vastly superior tanks and used them to great effect and with great determination. The Allies chose to have a lot of inferior tanks versus fewer but better tanks. And they paid a serious price for this. Only 1/3rd of the British tanks were Fireflies and had the upgraded 76mm gun which could penetrate the Panthers and Tigers at a reasonable distance. Most where either still the 75mm or the normal 76mm. I don't think the US had any Fireflies. Those tanks could only penetrate Tigers and Panthers at rediculous close ranges if at all. In addition, the Germans had the superb 88mm gun which just tore the haert out of any tank attack. Come to think of it, why can't we attach a 88m LW regiment directly to a German division in the game? Surely, it was done quite often historically. Or would that upset the balance of the game?


Compared to the Western Allies, the Germans had few tanks in Normandy, the terrain and infantry held/manned AT weapons were much more of a problem than enemy tanks.

The Germans can't attach Luftwaffe units to divisions, and they can't attach regiments either, so that's why you can't attach Luftwaffe regiments. You can, however, attach mixed FlaK battalions which also have 88mm's.

quote:

1. massive importance of arty. I'm not about to dispute the effect of arty, but the germans did devellop tactics to reduce it's effects. For instance withdrawing to a second line before the barrage (read the Raus book for more info). Secondly, quantity is good, but that doesn't mean the fire is accurate.


It seems there was (in your version: is) an issue with long range artillery effectiveness, which can be rather underwhelming, so artillery by itself is less effective in the game than you think. Mortars can be very effective, but medium/heavy artillery usually isn't. Infantry guns can also be very effective.

quote:

2. Germans can't attach arty directly to a division but can to a fortified region!?? Which to boot is rediculously weak?


The Soviets can't attach artillery directly to corps either, and fortified zones/regions are meant to be weak as they were generally not supposed to survive an attack by a division sized force. They're mostly there to dig or to guard an area where only weak enemy forces are present, they're not actual forts.

quote:

3. Soviet Corps and the stacking advantage it brings. I mean, seriously, you have a stacking limit of three units regarless of size, but that is actually trippled when the Soviet get their corps (each corps being 3 divisions). I mean, why can you suddenly get 3 times as many men and weapons in a 15km hex as before? What's the rational? It certainly smells like a serious game balancing trick in favor of the Sovs.


The stacking rules can become a bit problematic in practice because the amount of men in a unit doesn't matter, but only the size of the unit does. The Soviets are meant to get an advantage in stacking, to allow them to mass historical amounts of manpower in a sector.

quote:

4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.


Tanks do have an effect, but it isn't always as pronounced as the effect of an attack by infantry. Generally, as long as the attack was successful and the enemy wasn't packing a lot of AT firepower, you'll end up with fewer losses for the same or higher casualties inflicted on the enemy compared to an attack made by infantry.

quote:

5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.


Better leader ratings and corps HQ's are a significant benefit, it's mostly the retreat losses (which don't seem to be influenced by leader ratings entirely the same way that regular losses are) where the Germans could use a bit of an advantage.

quote:

6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.


We're trying to find a way to reduce the long term problems the post-release morale changes can cause for the Axis, but it's difficult to make it all work without the Germans or Soviets being able to become supermen, like in the release version.

quote:

7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.


Well, an attack can turn into a scouting operation, but I agree there's less flexibility with orders than in, say, TOAW.

The other points are already being discussed in other threads or have recently been discussed.



Q-Ball -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 3:47:53 PM)

Comrade, RE: Morale, have you guys thought of a quicker "bounce-back" of Morale levels to National Morale, if Morale of a unit goes below National Morale?

At the moment, there isn't a great "bounceback", it takes a long time. This rule would really only help the Germans. Couple it with the Morale changes, and the Wehrmacht morale would more closely follow the actual National Morale levels.

This wouldn't unleash a high "ceiling" which was what the problem was before with 99 morale Romanians, etc., but it would create a harder "floor"



Rasputitsa -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 4:01:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.


I think you need to reflect the change in the effectiveness of AFVs, from the early war period when infantry AT weapons (anti-tank rifles, small calibre AT guns [exception 88mm)) were not as effective, into the change of tactics (Pakfronts) in the later war period, with much more effective AT guns and widespread use of individual infantry AT weapons (Panzerfaust, bazooka).

Note : during the 1940 French campaign, Meuse crossing at Sedan, the mere report of tank shells (which was erroneous) landing in the area was enough to start a major panic in the rear areas, leading to the cancellation of a counter attack on the German bridges. This 'tank fright' was not so apparent later in the war, as infantry tactics and equipment began to provide an answer to the tank, giving more confidence to units to stand and fight.



JocMeister -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 4:07:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Tanks were produced because they were at the time the primary mobile unit type that could be employed for breakthroughs, this being the time before large scale use of APC's/IFV's by all participants and with cavalry being obsolete. Tanks and AFV's in general are great for support or chasing an enemy that is withdrawing, they are far less good at head on fights. The average WWII tank is going to lose a fight against the average by the time modern WWII dug in AT gun. You can't really compare the firepower and protection those tanks had to the firepower and protection tanks have today.


That is exactly what the US army thought. They later learned that they were wrong. Their whole armoured force was build on that doctrine on the start of WW2. That a stationary, conceled AT gun would destroy a tank everytime. I canīt really remeber the exct details from memory but I think its from "The tank killers" by Harry Yeide.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Compared to the Western Allies, the Germans had few tanks in Normandy, the terrain and infantry held/manned AT weapons were much more of a problem than enemy tanks.


I think that its somewhat established that the reason for the failures in Normandie was to blame almost exlusivly on poor leadership by the allied forces? Not terrain and AT weapons. In game terms this should be reflected by exp, morale and leaders.

Iīm going a bit oftopic here though! [:)]
I do agree with glvaca wholeheartly on most points!




BletchleyGeek -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 4:24:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.


This is simply not true: attacks, with good odds, and AFV support on clear - no river crossing, etc. - are successful more often than not. The problem is to understand/see what actual damage are doing your AFV's. When we get the more detailed combat reports, I think we'll eventually get some insight into this - and other issues.

BTW, regarding AFV's in the defense. You might have a point here: I wonder whether tactical combat simulation handles differently AFV's in the attack or in the defense. I think it should: AFV's are mobile weapon platforms, and the Germans historically perfected their use to spoil local breakthroughs with local counterattacks. How this should be reflected at the *operational* level in WiTE? Better chances to hold? Retreat - as ComradeP suggests - with milder losses (less destroyed, more damaged) for the defender and higher losses for the attacker (more destroyed, less damage)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.


Perhaps hasty/deliberate attack MP costs should be variable (lower variance for better leadership, experience and morale), or asymmetric between both sides. See the discussion above regarding AFV's on the defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.


Not entirely true. It's easy to get up to National Morale for bothsides (just put them behind the lines on Refit). What is actually hard is to get significantly above National Morale.



Ketza -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 4:30:57 PM)

You make a lot of good points towards the case that the game is Soviet biased. In its current form I am a firm believer that the very best Soviet play trumps the very best Axis play every time. I also believe however that the game developers are working on the situation and are getting closer and closer to getting the balance down so that the game becomes more fun for both sides.

Although I would like the stacking in the game to be more of a regiment equivalent system like FITE I think that type of change would be a tremendous amount of work. We have seen that the game can "bug" a higher stacking ability and it is also evident that when a unit is placed on reserve units can be overstacked on both offence and defence so within the system it must be possible. One of my Soviet opponents seems to place everyone on reserve and I have seen one hex defended by 3 units increased to 6 units from reserves. That is an ouch!

I would like to see a change where HQs have some sort of defensive combat value reflective of the SUs that reside within them.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 4:43:53 PM)

I think it is important to temper the initial claims of bias - while there are definite issues that have been described in 1942 and beyond, any Soviet player will raise an eyebrow at claims that 1941 is biased toward them. Even a slapdash German player like me can make hash at times out the Russians. The issues of scale and changes over time are certainly important and being worked on, however I dislike absolute arguments.

Now, I have been involved in the long losing war after the 1st winter, I have also been involved in successful campaigns in 1942. The game evolves and changes and right now as has been said it seems that the later war issues do indeed seem to raise flags. Still, having the ants overrun by the rampaging elephant in 1941 does seem somewhat right.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 5:50:51 PM)

When talking about the advantages of the tank, we are actually in luck. World War I is the best example what a battlefield dominated by arty, infantry and machine guns looked like. Trench warfare. WWI was decided by the employement of tanks as a breakthrough weapon. Granted, there weren't many AT weapons available at the time but clearly, the tank was a game changing weapon and it came to age during WWII, obviously.

I have to be carefull with wording, so to be clear, I'm not disputing that the tank excelled at the exploitation role and was indeed used as such by the Germans (and later the Sov). Where we seem to differ in opinion, is that while they excelled at exploitation, they obviously could be employed very effectively as weapons in their own right. That to be most effective they needed to work with the infantry is without question. But to claim that the Soviet infantry didn't need the tanks and could make the breakthrough alone is quite simply wrong. And it is that which I think most people are trying to say. Soviet infantry corps are too powerfull versus what a tank corps or panzer division could achieve.

Secondly, the losses caused by Panzer divs are just too light. As discussed a lack of a persuit (or chase as you call it) doesn't help. Clearly though, infantry divs lack the mobility and a tank can drive faster then we can run. So once a massed tank attack routes a division losses should be VERY high, much higher then an infantry on infantry attack as it is much easier to run away. This is seriously undermoddled currently.

Thirdly, the tank versus AT topic is interesting. However, aren't we forgetting that setting up a big AT gun takes quite a bit of time. Once setup that AT gun isn't particularly mobile, in fact it's fixed. On the other hand that tank just needs to drive around, find a weakspot and attack there and can outflank the defence. It is exactly that, mobility, tactics, doctrine that the Germans excelled at. They didn't attack at the strongest point, but exactly at the weakest point. They could because they have the mobility and initiative to do so. So while the AT gun certainly could exact a toll, there weren't enough in a division to cover the complete front line and they are defensive weapons by nature, certainly they don't really help in the offense because of their lack of mobility. Hence the creation of SPG's.

Fourthly, tanks could get through without the infantry. Terrain would be the most important factor. And also, what kind of tank obviously. A PzII of 1941 can just not be compared with a Panther or Tiger of 1942-43. It's a totally different beast.

Fifthly, tanks on the defense are not stationary waiting to be attacked. As another poster wrote, they formed local reserves and counter attacked often to very great effect because after the initial advance, the infantry would be without AT support unless it had accompanying tanks to provide that capability and did not have time to bring up the heavy weapons.

In short, tanks ruled WW2. WW2 without tanks would have been WWI part 2. To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong. Everywhere and always panzer divisions were thrown into the line they stopped the Soviet attacks and often counter attack with great effect and large losses for the Soviets. AT guns or not. Do you think it was the infantry in the Panzer divs that did that? Common mate, you can't be serious.



buchand -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 5:50:54 PM)

Isn't the TOAW combat system tied in with the action points? I think the hasty v deliberate attack covers it but on defence some form of all costs v mobile defence would be useful to both sides.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 6:13:25 PM)

The Germans had really a LOT of tanks in Normandy. They started with:
21st, 12SS, 130th Lehr, 2nd Panzer on or close to the beach heads.
They were reinforced by the 17SS Panzer Gren., 1st SS, 2nd SS, 9th SS, 10th SS, all within about a month of the invasion. Later by I think another 2 or 3 panzer divs.
In addition to these, there were at least the 2 SS Tiger batt. And later an army Tiger batt. that were attached at corps level.
In addition, all these panzer divs where at full strength and appart of the 21st Pnazer, they all fielded the on batt. PzIV's and 1 batt. Panzer V's. By then they also had strong SPG's like the JagdPanther, etc...

From Panzer truppen volume 2:
21st Pz: 4 PzIII, 21 PzIV(kz), 98 PzIV(lg)
12SS: 98 PzIV, 79 PzV
Lehr: 101 PzIV, 89 PzV, 3PzVI
SS101: 45 PzVI
2nd Pz: 98 PzIV, 79 PzV
1st SS: 98 PzIV, 79 PzV
2nd SS: 78 PzIV, 79 PzV
9SS: 46 PzIV, 79 PzV
10SS: 39 PzIV
SS102: 45 PzVI
503rd: 45 PzVI
116th Pz: 73 PzIV, 79 PzV
Total:
PzIII: 4
PzIV: 652
PzV: 563
PzVI: 135

This is just what was comitted during June and July!
Clearly, The Germans had quite a few tanks in Normandy and the above numbers ignore SPG and tank destroyers. The problem for the Germans in Normandy was:
1. lack of infantry divisions to hold the line so they could concentrate their armoured force in a counter attack.
2. Total air dominance for the Allies.
3. Naval barrage.
4. very strong AND effective arty
5. Lack of supplies and replacements reaching the battlefield.

It definitely wasn't lack of tanks ;-)



Tarhunnas -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 6:21:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

When talking about the advantages of the tank, we are actually in luck. World War I is the best example what a battlefield dominated by arty, infantry and machine guns looked like. Trench warfare. WWI was decided by the employement of tanks as a breakthrough weapon. Granted, there weren't many AT weapons available at the time but clearly, the tank was a game changing weapon and it came to age during WWII, obviously.


I am with you on the tank issue, but I am not sure WW1 is a good example. Stosstruppen, mission tactics (or whatever Auftragstaktik would be in English) and improved artillery tactics gave the Germans the ability to make much larger breakthroughs than the Entente did with tanks.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 6:28:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Tanks were produced because they were at the time the primary mobile unit type that could be employed for breakthroughs, this being the time before large scale use of APC's/IFV's by all participants and with cavalry being obsolete. Tanks and AFV's in general are great for support or chasing an enemy that is withdrawing, they are far less good at head on fights. The average WWII tank is going to lose a fight against the average by the time modern WWII dug in AT gun. You can't really compare the firepower and protection those tanks had to the firepower and protection tanks have today.


That is exactly what the US army thought. They later learned that they were wrong. Their whole armoured force was build on that doctrine on the start of WW2. That a stationary, conceled AT gun would destroy a tank everytime. I canīt really remeber the exct details from memory but I think its from "The tank killers" by Harry Yeide.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Compared to the Western Allies, the Germans had few tanks in Normandy, the terrain and infantry held/manned AT weapons were much more of a problem than enemy tanks.


I think that its somewhat established that the reason for the failures in Normandie was to blame almost exlusivly on poor leadership by the allied forces? Not terrain and AT weapons. In game terms this should be reflected by exp, morale and leaders.

Iīm going a bit oftopic here though! [:)]
I do agree with glvaca wholeheartly on most points!




Exactly, US doctrine emphasized mobility over armour and firepower, they were proven wrong in Normandy. The loss rate in tanks was just horrible. Obviously, once the break through and collapse was established, tank losses rose spectacular for the Germans. But if you compare figures for June-July, it's not pretty for the Allies.

For a good read on Overlord try Max Hastings Overlord.

Simply put, the Germans had better weapons on all cathegories except arty and transport. OTOH, the Allies could lose 400 tanks and have them replaced the next day. The Allies won by attrition.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 6:48:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.


Better leader ratings and corps HQ's are a significant benefit, it's mostly the retreat losses (which don't seem to be influenced by leader ratings entirely the same way that regular losses are) where the Germans could use a bit of an advantage.

quote:

6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.


We're trying to find a way to reduce the long term problems the post-release morale changes can cause for the Axis, but it's difficult to make it all work without the Germans or Soviets being able to become supermen, like in the release version.

quote:

7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.


Well, an attack can turn into a scouting operation, but I agree there's less flexibility with orders than in, say, TOAW.

The other points are already being discussed in other threads or have recently been discussed.


5. That's exactly what I mean. German discipline, leadership should really weigh much more heavily. As you say, especially during retreats, they should be much less punished as currently the case. At least, that's what it seems like.

6. If the reason for changing the initial morale settings was super Rumanians, then why not set a hard cap for the Rumanians, Italians, etc... of say 60, 65? Was it necessary to punish the whole Whermacht for a couple of Rumanians? Secondly, with the first winter being so incredible hard originally, the effect on the Whermacht was obviously that they would finish the winter with really low morale. Honestly, again sorry if this sounds straightforward, it took till patch 1.4.36 to reduce the winter effects. It only took one patch to take away the one ace the Whermacht had going for them to regain morale fairly easily. Hmmmm...

7. Yes, I've seen that happen maybe once or twice. Okay, I'm overstating, but seriously the chance of this happening is really not high and that's even with the great, super, German leaders that give a lot of benifits.

On the topic of the Rumanians and Italians, OCS (not a beer and prezzles game by any margin) actually rates these units a great deal better as in this game. How did those morale/experience values come to being? Interesting tit-bit of info, in Operation Uranus the infantry couldn't effect the breakthrough even against the Rumanians and it was 5th Tank army that was committed and quite literally overran their positions with T-34's as their AT guns were ineffective.

Final thing, even in 43 citadel, the standard AT gun for the Soviet infantry as the 45mm AT gun. 76mm and 88mm AAA, were consolidated in the AT brigades.

Again guys, this is just my opinion based on the very limited info available, and certainly nothing personal or offensive intended.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 6:51:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

When talking about the advantages of the tank, we are actually in luck. World War I is the best example what a battlefield dominated by arty, infantry and machine guns looked like. Trench warfare. WWI was decided by the employement of tanks as a breakthrough weapon. Granted, there weren't many AT weapons available at the time but clearly, the tank was a game changing weapon and it came to age during WWII, obviously.


I am with you on the tank issue, but I am not sure WW1 is a good example. Stosstruppen, mission tactics (or whatever Auftragstaktik would be in English) and improved artillery tactics gave the Germans the ability to make much larger breakthroughs than the Entente did with tanks.


Off course, it wasn't just tanks alone, it was the whole blitzkrieg concept/doctrine. But you will admit that the tank was at the center of the whole concept.

And let's not forget the effective ground support by stuka's, command and control. And, not to forget, the kampfgruppe system that combined all the different elements needed for combined arms tactics.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 7:02:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.


Not entirely true. It's easy to get up to National Morale for bothsides (just put them behind the lines on Refit). What is actually hard is to get significantly above National Morale.



Well yes, but for the Germans it's all about getting above the 86 Morale limit. Everything goes better once you get there. Faster movement is really key. The point being, if one silly hasty attack which doesn't really cost you a lot of casualties can set you back -2 morale, and it's so difficult to gain morale back, you're not going to get to the winter with high morale troops. During winter, you're going to be hit during blizzard on your morale. Each turn, each combat, etc... So even if you can get back to your nationale morale of 70(?) fairly easily, that's not really a good state of afairs.

It's especially frustrating with the panzers. Once these guys lose morale, it's almost impossible to gain it back. With 1942 being so difficult for the Germans, I wouldn't look much further than this with the very limited info available to me...

Net result is, whatever you do, you're going to end up with low morale troops. So maybe that's the intended effect. Ok, no problem. But it certainly is a BIG advantage for the Soviets. As they have low morale troops which can easily gain to national morale and that's already a huge improvement.

[;)]



ComradeP -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 8:10:24 PM)

quote:

Comrade, RE: Morale, have you guys thought of a quicker "bounce-back" of Morale levels to National Morale, if Morale of a unit goes below National Morale?

At the moment, there isn't a great "bounceback", it takes a long time. This rule would really only help the Germans. Couple it with the Morale changes, and the Wehrmacht morale would more closely follow the actual National Morale levels.

This wouldn't unleash a high "ceiling" which was what the problem was before with 99 morale Romanians, etc., but it would create a harder "floor"


Currently, getting back to national morale through combat is fairly easy, but getting there through resting can take a long while, that's one of the things we're trying to tweak.

quote:

That is exactly what the US army thought. They later learned that they were wrong. Their whole armoured force was build on that doctrine on the start of WW2. That a stationary, conceled AT gun would destroy a tank everytime. I canīt really remeber the exct details from memory but I think its from "The tank killers" by Harry Yeide.


AT guns wouldn't destroy a tank every time, of course they wouldn't, but tank only attacks would be less effective than combined arms attack when facing a dug in defender with good AT support. The tank is just a weapon, or weapon system, it's still vulnerable.

quote:

I think that its somewhat established that the reason for the failures in Normandie was to blame almost exlusivly on poor leadership by the allied forces? Not terrain and AT weapons.


Allied corps and army level leaders were not great and their divisional leaders were often not spectacular either, but the lower level leaders did what they could and suffered high losses (which was one of the reasons why Allied force quality decreased from 1944 to 1945). They were facing an initially determined opponent in difficult terrain, there's not much they could've done in terms of winning the battle quicker than they did aside from committing more forces or taking some serious risks in the first week beyond D-Day.

quote:

But to claim that the Soviet infantry didn't need the tanks and could make the breakthrough alone is quite simply wrong.


World War II was primarily fought by infantrymen, not by tank crews. I'm not saying the infantry didn't need the tanks, I'm saying that limited numbers of tanks could be enough as more tanks didn't always mean a greater success, it all depends on how they're used. Attaching the tanks to the infantry was one of those pre-war ideas that failed badly in practice.

quote:

Soviet infantry corps are too powerfull versus what a tank corps or panzer division could achieve.


Remember that you're talking about 3 Rifle divisions when you're talking about a full strength Rifle corps. In a head-on fight, they would be more likely to achieve something than a single mobile division. The mobile units come into play when the riflemen and artillery did their thing. Attaching tanks to a slow infantry assault can work, but it might just as well result in a plethora of burning wrecks post-battle.

quote:

Fourthly, tanks could get through without the infantry. Terrain would be the most important factor. And also, what kind of tank obviously.


Yes, they could break through, but their logistics would be non-existent unless the infantry bailed them out after being cut off by the enemy after making an unsupported breakthrough. A lot would depend on enemy strength, but a poorly supported breakthrough just leads to a classic case of spearheads being destroyed one by one.

quote:

Fifthly, tanks on the defense are not stationary waiting to be attacked.


They don't act as such, they generally keep some distance. Most of the losses you see happen when the parent unit of the tanks withdraws, so it's retreat attrition.

quote:

To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong.


They were not "just" exploitation weapons, they were weapons with a role. That role wasn't going Rambo in unsupported operations, the way Pelton uses them in his games, their role was to keep the momentum, disturb enemy rear areas and, if needed, to attack enemy positions, but that was better left to the infantry. I stand by an earlier statement that mobility was their greatest strength. Against a determined defender with good AT support, a Panzer division/Tank corps is not going to achieve much by itself, infantry (and artillery) is needed.

quote:

The Germans had really a LOT of tanks in Normandy. They started with:


They key thing to note is that they theoretically >started< with a fair amount of tanks. After the initial move from various parts of France/rear areas to the front using a disrupted transportation network and constant Allied air strikes, running tank numbers rapidly dwindled. AFV density was somewhat high near Caen, with the SS, but the front west of that had a minimal AFV density. The lack of replacements also meant the tanks that were lost, either through direct action or simply through breaking down could not be replaced, which combined with futile counterattacks in the face of Allied air superiority and artillery barrages reduced numbers even further. All of that lead to a lack of tanks to cover the entire frontline within weeks of D-Day. There was no single time where, with the historical setup, the Germans decisively employed any AFV advantage they might've had initially to push the Allies back, it just didn't happen. The best they could do was stage limited counterattacks and defend. It all ended with the typical German problem of, as time past, having to do more and more with ever decreasing numbers.



Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 8:23:21 PM)

No matter what historical fact is that 80% of casulties came from Artillery fire rest 20% from tanks and small arms.

Artillery is that tells how much damage you can make other stuff is there just to provide the hit points. :D



DorianGray -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 8:39:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

In short, tanks ruled WW2. WW2 without tanks would have been WWI part 2. To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong. Everywhere and always panzer divisions were thrown into the line they stopped the Soviet attacks and often counter attack with great effect and large losses for the Soviets. AT guns or not. Do you think it was the infantry in the Panzer divs that did that? Common mate, you can't be serious.


I don't know if I can agree with your conclusion of "tanks ruled WW2". I would argue it was the concept of "combined arms doctrine" which was the foundation of blitzkrieg. The close coordination and support of each of the major combat types (armor, infantry, artillery, air) is really what ruled WW2. And, to Germany's credit, they seemed to have mastered this to a much greater proficiency than their counterparts. So much so that the German armored formations were more efficiently used and required much less armor in their TOE.

As far as tanks advancing on their own with little or no support from the other combat arms, I'm not aware of this being widely done to much success.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 9:10:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DorianGray


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

In short, tanks ruled WW2. WW2 without tanks would have been WWI part 2. To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong. Everywhere and always panzer divisions were thrown into the line they stopped the Soviet attacks and often counter attack with great effect and large losses for the Soviets. AT guns or not. Do you think it was the infantry in the Panzer divs that did that? Common mate, you can't be serious.


I don't know if I can agree with your conclusion of "tanks ruled WW2". I would argue it was the concept of "combined arms doctrine" which was the foundation of blitzkrieg. The close coordination and support of each of the major combat types (armor, infantry, artillery, air) is really what ruled WW2. And, to Germany's credit, they seemed to have mastered this to a much greater proficiency than their counterparts. So much so that the German armored formations were more efficiently used and required much less armor in their TOE.

As far as tanks advancing on their own with little or no support from the other combat arms, I'm not aware of this being widely done to much success.

Mark, I think you're misquoting me a bit here. [;)]
As stated above, it's the whole package. However, if you look at WWI, all the other elements of combined arms warfare were already there (obviously with technology of the period), it was the tank that broke the deadlock and if you take it away it would have been trench warfare till the end.

The lesson of WW1 is that arty & infantry cannot prevail against deep trenches and machine guns. So trying to make the point that Soviet infantry corps don't need tanks in support or that tanks didn't decisively contribute in offensive operations as a weapon is, in my opinion not correct.




glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 9:11:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

No matter what historical fact is that 80% of casulties came from Artillery fire rest 20% from tanks and small arms.

Artillery is that tells how much damage you can make other stuff is there just to provide the hit points. :D


I'm not sure it's 80%. However, again, arty & infantry without tanks leads to WW1 trenches.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 9:22:56 PM)

ComradeP,

We seem to be inching closer together.
So just to cement a few things:
1. Tanks work better with combined arms. Which is what the Panzer divs were. The Germans develloped this and perfected this so we all agree here.
2. Tanks need infantry to work best. No arguement, panzer divs did have the most infantry organically. It was part of the doctrine.
3. All the usual blablabla we agree on, I think ;-)

The core of the issue is whether tanks actually contributed more than just exploitation? Did they aid the advance of the Soviet infantry Corps in a decisive way? Could the infantry Corps just as well do their thing without tanks?

Here it _seems_ we disagree. If I understand your position correctly, you argue that the effect of tanks in an infantry supportive role is negligable and that the Soviet inf. Corps can just as well do without.
Secondly, tanks (as in panzer divisions, as in the whole division not just the tanks of the panzer division) in panzer divs and TC, cannot by themselves establish breakthroughs and cause a lot of casualties because they lack organic infantry.

Is that my correct understanding? Let's focus the discussion, otherwise there's not really much point to it.

As to Normandy, here to we are coming closer together. But that's some sort of a way from having few tanks, to tanks being ineffective because of no infantry support and that infantry would have done the job without tanks. ;-)

Thanks for replying!

Edit: refined question :-)



Captain -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 9:38:03 PM)

In a typical attack, tanks/SP guns were used in an infantry support role.

For example, if you look at the Canadian Army in Normandy, which I am more familiar with, a typical attack would look like this.

1. artillery barrage to prep enemy positions, which would then "lift" to seal off the battlefield from reinforcements;
2. infantry would then attack the enemy positions. They would be supported by plain Shermans to provide direct fire support to take out enemy bunkers/MG nests;
3. Once the objective was secured, infantry would dig in, bring up AT guns, Wolverines/Fireflys would move up to cover potential enemy attack lines and the Shermans would retire.

A typical Soviet attack in 43/44 was similar, although SP guns, would provide direct fire support.

An attack would rarely be made by AFVs alone or by AFVs leading, since they were vulnerable to AT guns, mines, etc.



ComradeP -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 9:47:47 PM)

quote:

The core of the issue is whether tanks actually contributed more than just exploitation? Did they aid the advance of the infantry in a decisive way? Could the infantry just as well do their thing without tanks?

&

Here it _seems_ we disagree. If I understand your position correctly, you argue that the effect of tanks in an infantry supportive role is negligable.
Secondly, tanks (as in panzer divisions, as in the whole division not just the tanks of the panzer division) in panzer divs and TC, cannot by themselves establish breakthroughs and cause a lot of casualties.


My argument comes down to that a tank in an infantry support role isn't really making use of the tanks primary asset: mobility. If you use a tank as an armoured 57mm/75mm/76mm/85mm gun (to use the most common mid/late war calibres), you're wasting the mobility. You get a slow advance. Sure, the infantry probably appreciates it, but you might as well be using an assault gun for the same job, also because within no time some tanks will be brewing up because their frontal armour normally can't withstand prolonged fights.

In that case, to continue the link in the discussion to fighting in the west, you end up fighting like the Western Allies: you move the tanks in with the infantry, either the infantry or the tanks start taking losses and refuse to go further, reinforcements are called in. The result is a situation where a potentially very small enemy force, a few squads well equipped with MG's and Panzerfausts and an (self-propelled)AT gun, for example, can slow the advance down significantly, because the tanks are forced to stick to the infantry.

What the Germans understood well was that tanks were not made for that kind of thing. If the tanks encounter stiff dug-in resistance, you let them go somewhere else and let the infantry fight the enemy. You don't start banging your head against entrenched positions, a situation where tanks are just big targets.

In game terms, this means that when mobile units attack well entrenched units, they can suffer, but generally speaking when they attack some, say, Rifle division that has already been displaced by the infantry, the Soviets are going to take a beating, although losses can still be somewhat unimpressive (no argument there, I've made a couple of suggestions on the tester forum for improving casualties caused by mobile units).

If tanks attack well entrenched positions, they're probably at their most vulnerable.

Think of it like this: you have infantry and tanks at your disposal, in separate units, and you encounter an enemy position, knowing that both forces could dislodge the enemy. You could attack the position with your infantry, removing the enemy from their positions and then send your still fresh tanks after them, or you could send your tanks in to fight the enemy and then...order your infantry to walk after the enemy? The latter option isn't going to do you much good. The enemy will have plenty of time to reorganize as the infantry you send after them is easily slowed down by a couple of delaying actions.



KenchiSulla -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 10:22:11 PM)

Nice insights ComradeP, and nicely put...



Schmart -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 10:28:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
If tanks attack well entrenched positions, they're probably at their most vulnerable.


Good point. However, does the game take into account the different roles of tanks and SPGs? Or are they all treated in combat as 'AFVs'? Does a tank get (numbers used for the sake of argument) -1 when attacking entrenched postions but +1 when attacking in the open, and does an SPG get a +1 when attacking entrenched positions but -1 when attacking in the open?



ComradeP -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 11:04:40 PM)

I don't know if in-game, say, self-propelled AT guns are less likely to move in closer than tanks, but there are differences in the way they participate in a battle due to their particular armament, armour, speed and size ratings. Self-propelled AT guns generally have a size rating of 3 or 4, a good gun and (for their chassis) good frontal armour for the non-open topped ones. The big gun (I)SU's have a size rating of 5. The average mid-late war medium tank has a size rating of 4 or 5, a decent gun and reasonable to good frontal armour.

I'd have to check the combat report dump details to see if tanks also tend to close in more often than self-propelled guns, but as stated above there's already a difference in how they perform just based on the performance of the various AFV types.



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/22/2011 11:37:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

The core of the issue is whether tanks actually contributed more than just exploitation? Did they aid the advance of the infantry in a decisive way? Could the infantry just as well do their thing without tanks?

&

Here it _seems_ we disagree. If I understand your position correctly, you argue that the effect of tanks in an infantry supportive role is negligable.
Secondly, tanks (as in panzer divisions, as in the whole division not just the tanks of the panzer division) in panzer divs and TC, cannot by themselves establish breakthroughs and cause a lot of casualties.


My argument comes down to that a tank in an infantry support role isn't really making use of the tanks primary asset: mobility. If you use a tank as an armoured 57mm/75mm/76mm/85mm gun (to use the most common mid/late war calibres), you're wasting the mobility. You get a slow advance. Sure, the infantry probably appreciates it, but you might as well be using an assault gun for the same job, also because within no time some tanks will be brewing up because their frontal armour normally can't withstand prolonged fights.

In that case, to continue the link in the discussion to fighting in the west, you end up fighting like the Western Allies: you move the tanks in with the infantry, either the infantry or the tanks start taking losses and refuse to go further, reinforcements are called in. The result is a situation where a potentially very small enemy force, a few squads well equipped with MG's and Panzerfausts and an (self-propelled)AT gun, for example, can slow the advance down significantly, because the tanks are forced to stick to the infantry.

What the Germans understood well was that tanks were not made for that kind of thing. If the tanks encounter stiff dug-in resistance, you let them go somewhere else and let the infantry fight the enemy. You don't start banging your head against entrenched positions, a situation where tanks are just big targets.

In game terms, this means that when mobile units attack well entrenched units, they can suffer, but generally speaking when they attack some, say, Rifle division that has already been displaced by the infantry, the Soviets are going to take a beating, although losses can still be somewhat unimpressive (no argument there, I've made a couple of suggestions on the tester forum for improving casualties caused by mobile units).

If tanks attack well entrenched positions, they're probably at their most vulnerable.

Think of it like this: you have infantry and tanks at your disposal, in separate units, and you encounter an enemy position, knowing that both forces could dislodge the enemy. You could attack the position with your infantry, removing the enemy from their positions and then send your still fresh tanks after them, or you could send your tanks in to fight the enemy and then...order your infantry to walk after the enemy? The latter option isn't going to do you much good. The enemy will have plenty of time to reorganize as the infantry you send after them is easily slowed down by a couple of delaying actions.


I appreciate your efforts ComradeP, its good to hear that suggestions are made to improve the potential of tanks.

However, huhmmmm, you didn't really answer the questions :-)
Obviously we all agree that using panzer divs to exploit a pre-made breach is surely preferable to having to make the breach with the panzers/TC.
I certainly won't dispute that tanks/SPG are most vulnerable when attacking highly entrenched positions, but then again, so is infantry, and they don't have 100cm of hardened steel to hide behind.

Tanks and SPG's are more or less the same when supporting infantry. Certainly, SPG's were probably slightly better suited but the principle remains the same, direct fire support to help the infantry overcome enemy strong points.

Regarding tanks going around strongpoints, couldn't agree more but surely this is something that considering the scale of the game must be abstracted and taken into account by the engine, not the player, as it is very tactical in nature. It is also something in which the germans excelled and the Soviets didn't get right till far in 1943, perhaps even until operation Bagration in 1944. Certainly not in 1941.

But the whole discussion resolved around the effectiveness of panzer divs/TC in the attacking role which seems underrated while at the same time Soviet rifle corps are the real killers even without tank/SPG support.

I'm also confused with the Normandy example. IF I understand correctly, your point there is that you're better of sending in the infantry without the tanks because when the infantry bogs down, your tanks stop too. Right? Doesn't that actually contradict the statement that infantry doesn't need tanks/SPG to help them overcome strong defenses?

Seriously, the question remains:
1. Do Soviet rifle corps need tanks to overcome highly fortified enemy positions or can they do equally well with lavish arty support? The current consensus is that in the game, tanks are reduntant and my understanding is that you support that design decision.
2. Are panzer divs or TC/MC capable of effecting the breach themselves if the situation calls for it? Currently, the consensus seems to be that in the game the panzer divs are too weak and cannot overcome strong defenses better or even on par with _good_ strong infantry divs. Hence, the statement that armour is underwhelming.

Question 2 is especially important when looking at the issue from the German perspective after 1941 when your infantry is simply not strong enough to make the breach for you and the German player must look at his panzer divs to that for him. As such, the position I'm defending is that yes, Panzer divs. could make the breach even better because of the prime asset it had: tanks (and obviously in a combined arms situation). Was it better not to employ them as such is beyond question. Were they employed in this role, even by the Germans, is also without question. Just look at Kursk, it were primarily the Panzer Divs, and panzer grend. divs. with the tanks in the vanguard, leading the attack, together with the infantry of those divs, that did most of the fighting simply because there was no way that ordinary infantry divisions would stand a chance to crack those entrenchements without tank/SPG support.

Nobody will dispute that infantry made up the vast majority of the armies but, honestly, whenever there was an offensive, tanks were crutial to the success or failure of said offensive IF terrain permitted the use of tanks. As someone else has remarked, mobility is not only movement after breakthrough, but also using that mobility on a tactical scale which is not under our control.

So, to come back to the original post, is the current game as is, leaning toward favoring the Soviet player? I'm still inclined to think it is. If the German panzer divs would be "upgraded" to be able to perform closer to histrical that would go a long way to even the score...IMHO.



ComradeP -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/23/2011 12:14:37 AM)

quote:

I certainly won't dispute that tanks/SPG are most vulnerable when attacking highly entrenched positions, but then again, so is infantry, and they don't have 100cm of hardened steel to hide behind.


Infantrymen are vulnerable in the sense that they have no real protection against artillery fire or bullets, but they can still hit the deck or use the terrain, confusion and smoke to get closer to the enemy. That's another problem with AFV's in that role: when the infantry closes in and the battle becomes more disorganized, or as soon as smoke covers the battlefield, their effectiveness drops dramatically.

They can't reliably engage a target they can't see unless they have a really big gun and a good idea of where the target is, and they can't risk firing at positions that are being contested by friendly infantry. AFV's are great for the period leading up to the infantry getting to the enemy positions, but depending on the defender's positions, the AFV's either need to get really close to be effective after that or need to prepare for the enemy counterattack, letting the infantry do their thing. That's the moment in the battle where the tank crews need to at least move somewhere if they don't want to be sitting ducks.

Self-propelled guns are actually at a disadvantage at that stage compared to tanks, because they have no turret that can turn to engage new targets that might pop up. Not having a turret isn't much of a problem during a ranged battle with either a slow moving enemy or a static one, but in close combat or in a quickly changing situation, it's a disadvantage, especially for the (heavier) self-propelled guns with slow turn speeds.

I'd say the game models this well: infantry is vulnerable, but not too vulnerable and the defender's infantry is more likely to disrupt or damage rather than instantly kill the attacking squads until the range closes to 50 meters or less. Depending on how disrupted the attacking and defending infantry is, the attacker can then either cause some damage to the defenders or retreat with moderate losses after not making much of an impression on the defender (as in: those 100 German to 6000 Soviet losses Soviet failed attacks you sometimes see).

quote:

I'm also confused with the Normandy example. IF I understand correctly, your point there is that you're better of sending in the infantry without the tanks because when the infantry bogs down, your tanks stop too. Right? Doesn't that actually contradict the statement that infantry doesn't need tanks/SPG to help them overcome strong defenses?


I'm saying that was what happened historically, a practice both the Germans and (eventually) the Soviets managed to avoid by both having a higher tolerance for losses and a more serious focus on mobility. Western Allied battleplans were not really imaginative compared to how the war in the east was fought. The only truly big encirclement they achieved, in the Ruhr in the final weeks of the war, was made possible because the Germans didn't withdraw and had very little mobility left. The Western Allies somehow often managed to run into the weakness of both infantry (slow) and tanks (vulnerable when leading an attack against well defended positions) whilst not really using their advantages.

quote:

1. Do Soviet rifle corps need tanks to overcome highly fortified enemy positions or can they do equally well with lavish arty support? The current consensus is that in the game, tanks are reduntant and my understanding is that you support that design decision.


Tanks are not redundant, they're just not miracle weapons. They have their own purpose. Engaging heavily defended positions is not really what they're there for. Sure, they can help out, but depending on the quality of the defender they might just give the defending AT guns/AFV's something to shoot at. Rifle units, backed with artillery, can and do make successful attacks. The follow-up attack is then made by the mobile units.

quote:

2. Are panzer divs or TC/MC capable of effecting the breach themselves if the situation calls for it? Currently, the consensus seems to be that in the game the panzer divs are too weak and cannot overcome strong defenses better or even on par with _good_ strong infantry divs. Hence, the statement that armour is underwhelming.


As mobile units generally have a higher CV than infantry units of the same size, they're better at removing the defender from their position.

The main problem the Germans face with their mobile units, from my perspective, is that they can't really make economical counterattacks. That's a problem we're trying to solve now. On the other hand, Soviet backhand blows can be quite effective. A "deep defense" style defense can cause the Axis some serious pain even in 1941, but especially in later years. We've had some discussions about it on the tester forum, but for the moment they're still discussions, it's difficult to decide what changes can be made to limit their effectiveness, aside from reducing Soviet national morale in 1941, which overall won't really limit their ability to simply rail in a Guards army or two whenever the Axis break through.

It's mostly those kind of defensive strategies that make mobile units look bad in the game currently, whilst they can still be quite good when attacking. As soon as losses for high experience units are lowered, and the mobile units are more likely to stay at fairly high morale levels, things should be better combined with the changes to forts.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625