RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (Full Version)

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



Message

Guru -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 8:11:35 AM)

As a matter of fact, I must admit that I have, along with my 3 or 4 usual opponents, given up on the game for the moment. It's not even the problem of balance, strictly speaking - it's just that we bought WithE because we enjoy historical simulations, and that, with all due respect for the devs' and the designers'admirable work in many aspects, and the unavoidable( and therefore perfectly acceptable) distortions/simplifications that arise from squeezing reality into a computer game equation, well, it doesn't feel right...
It's a bit as if I were playing a game pitching the Gallic hordes vs the Roman invader, and that the Gauls were able to conduct an orderly and gradual retreat, protected by a disciplined screen of rearguard skirmishers backed by a line of tortuga formations. That might have been a smarter thing to do, but that simply ISN'T a Gallic army. Whichever side I would play, it would still amount to a very unsatisfying game experience.
As I explained earlier, the army conducting the skillful orderly retreat that we witness most commonly (not to mention such intricated defensive niceties such as "carpet" or "checkerboard", which border on system exploitation) simply IS NOT the Red Army of 1941.
The Red Army of 1941 was INTRINSICALLY not able to perform that.

All we're waiting for (and I admit we might be in for a very long wait) is some sort of mechanism that places certain Soviet HQs on "counterattackattack mode" - I mean, fundamentally, it's no different that have HQs on "frozen mode"! Frozen units had legs and wheels, their status merely reflects unpreparedness, confusion, friction, whatever. Those defending player omnipotence should have rebelled against that ("Hey, I'm in charge, what prevents me from giving these damn frozen units the ORDER to move on?")

About omnipotence/omniscience, I remember a Clash of Arms game that is still pretty much acclaimed as a fine piece of work ("Edelweiss", on the Caucasus campaign) that contained a mechanism for asking permission to retreat, to abandon bridgeheads, etc. Rather than frustrating or unpleasantly constraining the game, it actually added an additional layer of challenge and made for an extremely rewarding game experience.

Of course, such system as I recommend would strongly tilt the balance in the Germans' favour, and I think it could be compensated by putting the Germans on a shorter supply leash (as I do not seem to be the only one to deem Axis logistics overgenerous) and by somewhat shortening the most extreme spectrum of unfavourable results for Soviet counterattacks (as I mentioned before, the couple of dead German soldiers vs zillions of Russian men and AFV). If not in term of losses, in term of loss of readiness for the attacked, which in turn will reduce their movement points total - as a effect of the delay inflicted upon them.

A note on the Lvov opening: I do consider it a lesser problem. It basically derives from the fac that the German player has access to the Soviet set-up at start, which certainly wasn't the case in reality and doesn't happen later in the game because of the FOW rules. I am therefore in favour of a limited randomness in Soviet initial placement of some units in order to prevent that.

Muling and Lvov openings might be seen by some as necessary features in order to give the Germans a chance, but I sincerely believe that compensating unrealistic advantages on one side with unrealistic advantages on the other is not a good solution.

I have been waiting for so long for this game, and it is pretty good in many ways, what a shame to see players drop out like that [:(]




janh -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 10:35:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
I don't have a feel for how common the mule stuff is. I know some Germans used it all the time. I never have.
Most Russians have run for the hills for a long, long time so that is nothing new. They don't really have a choice to a point and are not penalized by it very harshly in game terms.


Mulling is quite useful. I combine it with shifting divisions between corps in alternating fashion for PzGrp 1, which can accelerate the pace (at a few bad dice rolls in combat, but the Germans usually over-match the Russians anyways).

The bill comes later through the penalty on supply across the whole front, but I find compared to the penalty that 1st blizzard rules already enforce, it doesn't make a big difference. Then, however, I tend to advance with the Axis until the least possible moment and usually do not prepare forts and defenses for winter, just like they did back then, which forces me to retreat with the Axis in winter. Sometimes I even rail out the best units to Germany.

Without forts, I have not yet managed to stand my ground with blizzard rules, even using reserve orders and stacking units 3 high in every 2nd hex just as Q-Ball did. It is the Soviet summer retreat all over, exact same thing -- too weak to fight while risking very dire consequences. In one case, the blizzard rules change the balance dramatically, in the other the defender is already quite powerless, and further curtailed by the large 1st turn pockets.



jaw -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 1:14:14 PM)




quote:

If the Soviets don't make mistakes, then no chance for Germans. That's my point. The game isn't balanced.


But that's just it, the Soviets DID make mistakes, enormous mistakes, and without those mistakes the Germans would have done much worse than they did historically. We have already factored into the game a great many disadvantages for the Soviet player to make his task as difficult as possible. Here are some examples:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.



Guru -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 2:05:17 PM)

quote:

quote:

If the Soviets don't make mistakes, then no chance for Germans. That's my point. The game isn't balanced.

But that's just it, the Soviets DID make mistakes, enormous mistakes, and without those mistakes the Germans would have done much worse than they did historically.
[...]
For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.


It is probable that the Germans had little chance of actually prevailing in this gigantic clash (and their handicaps are no less factored into their representation in the game); however, from the game's point of view, this must be dealt by the Victory conditions, where Victory should not be defined as forcing the enemy's surrender, but rather outperforming significantly one's historical counterpart, without necessarily an ultimately victorious outcome.
Without such a perspective, it would be impossible to create viable and enjoyable games for assymetrical campaigns such as, for example, France 1940.
For me (and my pals) it is really the question of the physiognomy of the conflict that caused our disaffection; it is precisely the Soviet Army's ability to totally disregard its historical doctrinal conditioning and operational capabilities that appears to me as "historical fantasy"...



vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 2:29:11 PM)

Jaw,

There's nothing I disagree with. The soviet army is under huge disadvantages. You need to forget history or there will be no one playing this game in short order. Looking at this thread, plus private PMs I've received, many people have stopped playing it because it is so unbalanced. That's a mistake at a business level for Matrix, a game design level and of course programming and delivery.

I'm not buying the danube expansion nor WITW. They couldn't balance this game, why think it will be balanced in other games? That's bad business and will impact sales of this series.

Game vs. history. I'm not buying history. If I want to buy history, I'll buy a book. It's cheaper also. I'm buying a game that's fun to play, not just the first year.





RCHarmon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 3:21:14 PM)

h



jaw -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 4:32:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guru

quote:

quote:

If the Soviets don't make mistakes, then no chance for Germans. That's my point. The game isn't balanced.

But that's just it, the Soviets DID make mistakes, enormous mistakes, and without those mistakes the Germans would have done much worse than they did historically.
[...]
For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.


It is probable that the Germans had little chance of actually prevailing in this gigantic clash (and their handicaps are no less factored into their representation in the game); however, from the game's point of view, this must be dealt by the Victory conditions, where Victory should not be defined as forcing the enemy's surrender, but rather outperforming significantly one's historical counterpart, without necessarily an ultimately victorious outcome.
Without such a perspective, it would be impossible to create viable and enjoyable games for assymetrical campaigns such as, for example, France 1940.
For me (and my pals) it is really the question of the physiognomy of the conflict that caused our disaffection; it is precisely the Soviet Army's ability to totally disregard its historical doctrinal conditioning and operational capabilities that appears to me as "historical fantasy"...


But YOU the player is doing that not the game. Try getting past the ego thing about who wins and who loses and play the Soviet side the way the Soviets fought the war then come back and tell me it was no fun.



vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 4:57:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guru

It is probable that the Germans had little chance of actually prevailing in this gigantic clash (and their handicaps are no less factored into their representation in the game); however, from the game's point of view, this must be dealt by the Victory conditions, where Victory should not be defined as forcing the enemy's surrender, but rather outperforming significantly one's historical counterpart, without necessarily an ultimately victorious outcome.
Without such a perspective, it would be impossible to create viable and enjoyable games for assymetrical campaigns such as, for example, France 1940.
For me (and my pals) it is really the question of the physiognomy of the conflict that caused our disaffection; it is precisely the Soviet Army's ability to totally disregard its historical doctrinal conditioning and operational capabilities that appears to me as "historical fantasy"...


First, I have to get a dictionary out and look up half these words.

Jaw, he's not saying the Soviets have to play historically. He's talking about this as a game, playable by both sides. It has nothing to do with winning or losing. I has to do with having fun.

There are elements of the combat mechanics that lead to great frustration because FOW is so extreme, too extreme. Variance in CV is too extreme and if the Germans are medicore in 41, they get slammed in 42. That's not the case with Soviets. The soviets can survive anything other than a disasterous 41, and even then, can still have a competitive game. Look at Pelton vs. M60A3TTS. M60 had a terrible 41, but the game is still competitive. The germans can't have a mediocre 41. This is where the game is wildly out of balance, frustrating and not fun.

It has nothing to do with ultimately winning or losing. It has to do with having a competitive game that lasts into 43 and 44 that ISN'T 100% reliant upon perfect German play in 41.



jaw -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 6:59:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

[Jaw, he's not saying the Soviets have to play historically. He's talking about this as a game, playable by both sides. It has nothing to do with winning or losing. I has to do with having fun.

There are elements of the combat mechanics that lead to great frustration because FOW is so extreme, too extreme. Variance in CV is too extreme and if the Germans are medicore in 41, they get slammed in 42. That's not the case with Soviets. The soviets can survive anything other than a disasterous 41, and even then, can still have a competitive game. Look at Pelton vs. M60A3TTS. M60 had a terrible 41, but the game is still competitive. The germans can't have a mediocre 41. This is where the game is wildly out of balance, frustrating and not fun.

It has nothing to do with ultimately winning or losing. It has to do with having a competitive game that lasts into 43 and 44 that ISN'T 100% reliant upon perfect German play in 41.



He's saying the game should force the Soviet player to counterattack in 1941 irrespective of the fact the German player will be optimizing is play to make those counterattacks as meaningless as possible. If you examine the actual times the Soviets counterattacked in any force before the winter of 1941 you will see that these attacks were launched to exploit vulnerabilities created when the Germans over-extended themselves. In most games it is rare for the German player to run such risks therefore the Soviet player has few if any opportunities to counterattack. People keep saying they want a game not a book but then ask for rules to force players to play historically. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

As for your other objections: FOW, don't like it, turn it off. I played board games for years without FOW and they played just fine. With a game of this size I don't think FOW even matters. No FOW would also help a little with CV variance although I personally have never found it to be a significant problem. It is true the German player can't afford to play anything less than a good game in 1941 but if he can't perform well when he has his greatest advantage versus the Soviet, things are not going to get better later. If you have a bad Barbarossa, you concede and start over.

The historical Germans were not "competitive" in 1943 let alone 1944 and from a correlation of forces perspective they weren't even competitive in 1942. Operation Blue owes much of its early success to Soviet under-estimation of German strength resulting in the failed Spring offensive at Kharkov and STAVKA's reluctance to accept that the German strategic objective for 1942 was not Moscow. If either player goes conservative in 1942 you are just not going to get a very exciting game. In both 1941 and 1942 both sides have to go all out for victory to get the kind of dynamics that happened historically.

Once you get past 1942 you are in to one of either two types of games: either the Axis player has greatly exceeded his historical success which means he has won and continued play would only lead to ahistorical distortions, or he has done no better, or more likely worse, than history and his defeat is only a matter of time. Neither of these situations are much fun to play, but the game is designed more for the latter than the former.



vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 7:18:47 PM)

Jaw,

I understand what you saying.

Now you have to look at what 2by3 did with WITPAE. They added ahistorical capabilities to the Japanese that keep them competitive until 1944. Everything from ASW to Pilot quality to Air frame production. Not historical in the slightest, because by 43, the allied subs had already torched the Japanese Merchant Marine. Because it is competitive, you'll see 40-50 AARs going on at any given time, minimum, not including those choosing not to AAR, compared with maybe 5-10 going on here on this forum, with the majority of them being Pelton.

When I posted for a game, I must have received at least 15 PMs. It tells me that a lot of people want to play, just a very few of them German.



Guru -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 9:05:50 PM)

quote:

He's saying the game should force the Soviet player to counterattack in 1941 irrespective of the fact the German player will be optimizing is play to make those counterattacks as meaningless as possible. If you examine the actual times the Soviets counterattacked in any force before the winter of 1941 you will see that these attacks were launched to exploit vulnerabilities created when the Germans over-extended themselves. In most games it is rare for the German player to run such risks therefore the Soviet player has few if any opportunities to counterattack. People keep saying they want a game not a book but then ask for rules to force players to play historically. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

I'm not necessarily saying that you have to suicide the whole Red Army with banzaï charges. But at least hold on to some vital ground and poke the advancing spearheads.
The question of the balance between historical and non-historical has no definitive answer. It is all a matter of how many concessions you make to reality and how you conceive you should draw the line. WitE HAS a lot of historical constraining - why, for example, wouldn't the Germans be able to focus exclusively on building Panthers and FW-190 as soon as the prototypes are available ( as it used to be the case in the former War in Russia)? What if I want to? I can't. And I believe it is best that way, because Nazi War industry system was a nearly feudal constellation of competing interests, and that has to do with the very nature of the Nazi regime's way of ruling. And we're playing the Nazis. The Soviets too suffer some straightjacketting. Why the frozen units? Why do the low admin points prevent to reshuffle the whole command structure on turn 1, why the restructuration of units into unwanted formats?
All these are things that a player might want to do or avoid, but that the army he commands was unable to acheive historically, due to its nature/doctrine/structural limitations/ whatever.
It is worth noting that this issue was dealt with from War in Russia to WitE in the sense of a clear restrcition of the freedom spectrum, and eveyone seems to welcome the changes.
I only wish this reflection had been conducted more thoroughly to embrace such fields as the in-build operational and strategic capabilities of each army/ regime.



Apollo11 -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/20/2012 11:58:57 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

<SNIP>

what 2by3 did with WITPAE

<SNIP>


The "2By3" were not involved with WitP-AE - the "2By3" made "Uncommon Valor" (UV) and original "War in the Pacific" (WitP)...


Leo "Apollo11"



vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 3:48:10 AM)

Apologies. Their logo still comes up for WITPAE. Point is, someone beefed up the Japanese, ignored the allied fanboys crying non-historical foul. and created a game far more active and with a much larger base than this game. Don't care who did it. Irrelevent.



Klydon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 4:09:43 AM)

Slight derail as I know very little about the WITP/WITPAE game, but didn't the community come up with the mod that beefed up the Japanese? In general, my impression is that variant of the game has become the accepted one to play by the community at large.

There have been no mods created yet for WITE by the community that the community at large has shown even remote interest with let alone looked at as a "more balanced" version of the game. (That is to say any mods created by the community have pretty much been ignored).

I think this also highlights the difference between the two theaters in that there is pretty close to universal agreement that Japan can not "win" the war while there is no such agreement in the war between Germany and Russian and the opinions range from the Russians don't really stand a chance to the Germans could have never won.

Not anyone's fault. Just the way it is.



RCHarmon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 4:59:46 AM)


h



kg_1007 -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 5:34:44 AM)

I am currently working on a mod that I will release soon, which has made up for some of these effects, by altering such things as mandatory TOE changes, forced withdrawals, etc.
One thing I cannot control in the mod, that I would like to see, is more in the way of game results dictating game conditions.
For example, the Soviet morale gradually trends upwards from 1942, while the German trends downwards...this is irrespective of current conditions in game. Historically, this morale change occurred because the war began going against Germany around that time. if in the game, it is not, there should be no reason for suddenly German armies to be low morale, and Soviets to be higher, also, vice versa, if the Germans totally blow it in '41, their morale should start tumbling a lot sooner.
The same with many aspects of what otherwise I still see as a great game...it reminds me some of the Paradox game HOI where they had leaders automatically "killed" on the historic date, even if the player was not actually even in a battle on that date, etc. Perhaps it is difficult to make a game that follows the path the players are creating, but if doable, it would make for a much more immersing experience.



vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 4:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Slight derail as I know very little about the WITP/WITPAE game, but didn't the community come up with the mod that beefed up the Japanese? In general, my impression is that variant of the game has become the accepted one to play by the community at large.

There have been no mods created yet for WITE by the community that the community at large has shown even remote interest with let alone looked at as a "more balanced" version of the game. (That is to say any mods created by the community have pretty much been ignored).

I think this also highlights the difference between the two theaters in that there is pretty close to universal agreement that Japan can not "win" the war while there is no such agreement in the war between Germany and Russian and the opinions range from the Russians don't really stand a chance to the Germans could have never won.

Not anyone's fault. Just the way it is.


Actually, what started as mods were integrated into stock. Further mods have been integrated into other mods and will become stock. So yes, you are correct. The point I'm trying to make is that WITP is competitive. And because it is, you've got a lot of people willing to play both sides.

I'm not seeing the level of play that in this game. I would love to. It has an highly addictive movement/combat system, brilliant, and fun. However, the rest of game can be extremely unforgiving, especially for the Germans. It can be unforgiving if the Soviets make the mistakes, but the burden is squarely on the Germans to have a perfect 41, which sets up 42 and on. Some of the combat mechanics make it extremely difficult to have a perfect 41.

Depending on the level of modding allowed in this game, yes it's worthwhile to look at, and if the devs start seeing many more people playing the mod than stock, maybe they will wake up.

If I were thinking about a mod, and I might try it, I would love to increase Soviet morale in the first year so they don't feel like they have to run away. In addition, I would increase the cost to production of losing major cities, so there's a need to fight, and I would slow down Soviet production in 42 or at a minimum increase Germany in 42. 42 is when Germans started entering their wartime economy. They had a lot of slack in 40 and 41. These aren't necessarily historically based, but an attempt to balance the game. The goal would be that the Germans don't need a perfect 41 in order to have a competitive 42.




kg_1007 -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 5:22:52 PM)

Quite true Vic..in general, the Soviets were under the same(idiotic, I might add) orders from Stalin not to run away in 41 and early 42. The Germans seem to have their stupid orders built into the game, assuming they will collapse at Stalingrad, for example, assuming they will not send winter supplies, assuming Hitler ignored the advice of generals such as Guderian, Manstein, Rundstedt, v. Leeb, etc, who all insisted on pulling back to better defense quarters. So, we have the game essentially saying , for example, that germany falls apart in that first blizzard, as they nearly did historically, ONLY because Hitler did not accept what was sound advice from his generals, and on the other hand, the Soviet side is excused from THEIR idiot leader's orders to stand and defend their ground, which was not historical.



RCHarmon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 5:43:28 PM)

Easy there kg_1007, that's crazy talk in these parts.



vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 6:15:52 PM)

Yes, the lack of winter supplies is built right into the game in the form of CV being halved or thirded or worse, blizzard attrition, plus the 1-1 becomes 2-1 rule. That was Hitler's decision and can't be overridden by anything. The Soviets aren't forced to make the same decisions as Stalin, but the German army HAS to suffer the decision of Hitler.

I never thought about that.



RCHarmon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 6:25:26 PM)

This very same point was argued before by other players(players who have since moved on). The answer is always the same. The Axis are not tied to Hitler and there will be no Axis fantasy game.



vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 6:30:23 PM)

A real crazy thought, if the war isn't going well in 41, which it generally won't against a good Soviet, save yourself from the blizzard, pull back to before that x54 coordinate, and start the war anew in 42. Morale will be higher than when the war started. The entire german army won't suffer the morale hit and will be refit, rested and ready to fight again. I don't believe the Soviets will have units to convert the rails back, so the best they can do is damage them, making the conversion back fairly quick. Could be wrong there.

Probably will fail anyway because of the Soviet production will be too high, but it's tempting to try. It's certainly a work around to the "Hitler Rule"



RCHarmon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 6:33:59 PM)

Ideally, the axis player should be able to escape some/most of the blizzard effects if they are in a lv 3 fort. That would make the Axis player have to think to push on or to dig.

The soviet would have to engage the Axis so they couldn't build the lv 3 fort and then ensure the blizzard effects on the Axis.

Instead there is a blizzard script.

The idea of a lv3 fort is to give the Soviet a reason to have to fight. If they are allowed to run with no repercussions should the Axis also be free from repercussions?

It takes a lot of time to build a lv3 fort. Time is against the Axis player. If the Axis player takes the time to build these and have the APs and the Soviets let him, then yes he should get some benefit. This whole game is one bad manipulation.

The Soviet will have to have something to fight with. I think the Soviet player wants to fight. Let 'em fight.

I expect the Axis player to kicked around some during the blizzard in 1941. As a player I expect to be back on my heels. Not so in this game. If you are not running with your back to the enemy you could be toast.

This game does allow the complete preservation of Panzer divisions which players take advantage of and in a way that is not really possible. Training out all your panzer divisions back to Germany? So, the Axis do get a big benefit in that regard.



The editor is insufficient to fix all that is needed to be fixed.



vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 6:39:13 PM)

According to the rules, the first blizzard rule only applies to x > 54 and y < 95. That basically means germany is safe. What am I missing?



RCHarmon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 6:41:03 PM)

I was mistaken about the range of the blizzard, sorry.




vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 6:50:40 PM)

It's extremely tempting, though probably pretty stupid. Don't worry about Lgrad (or possibly, so they take a temp manpower hit and let the Finns garrison/defend). Push to Smolensk, Denpr in the south. Protect the panzers, move forward with infantry and combined arms, perhaps rush the panzers out if there's tons of open ground to quickly capture cities, but otherwise, focus on improving German morale. Since there isn't going to be a huge rush for land, let the Germans collapse all the pockets to gain morale (I usually let the huns and romans collapse the Lvov pocket). Get the majority of the army into the high 70s or 80s or 90s, then pull back. The soviets will still be at low morale going into 42 and the German army will be fully ready for a 42 battle, a battle perhaps using BigA's war of attrition.

It's the blizzard that I find difficult to counter. I have no idea where the lines will be by the blizzard, so it's difficult to figure out when and where to start the fort lines and unless I've been lucky and I've done enough damage the Soviets in 41, I find the German army totally depleted going into 42, minus one shock army (usually the 18th). One shock army isn't going to cut it.

Of course I could always mule and that would fix all of this. :)



Klydon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 7:00:18 PM)

Oh where to start with this.

First, lets take the topic of severe blizzard and the effects upon the German army in Russian in 1941. It is far more than the matter of some warm cloths showing up at the front to make things all better.

You have no anti-freeze for engines, the fact that the artifical rubber (buna) the Germans used broke in the severe cold, most lubricants would not work, etc. In addition, the Germans were tenderfoots in that type of climate. Even if they had the warmer gear, etc they still would have learned how to cope with conditions. They had solders dying because they went to the latrine. No matter what or how much you sent to the front, you can't change the fact the German army didn't know how to deal with the climate. Only after they got some experience with it, learning through the school of hard knocks, were they able to adapt and better survive. Sort of the same thing happen in the desert. The British were able to adapt better to the desert climate than their Axis counterparts, especially the Italians. (One example was the Italians used pasta rations in the desert; something requiring a lot of water).

A couple of books I have read from the German side of view lament the occasions that fresh troops showed up and were immediately thrown into battle without being "seasoned" in theater and learning about the Russian theater before being committed to battle. Such formations committed right away typically took hideous casualties. For perhaps a different view, this is why General Pershing would not commit his US troops in WW1 to the line until they had undergone more training and seasoning in terms of trench warfare, etc. History was to prove him correct that while the US troops took casualties, it was much less than if they had just been thrown into battle upon landing in France.

Should there be a option in the future that allows better German preparedness for winter? Probably. But it seems many players have this all or nothing expectation that the blizzard effects on the German army would just totally go away only if Hitler had authorized a few warm coats and allowed his troops to build some shelters out in the middle of nowhere.



RCHarmon -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 7:15:20 PM)

All your points are valid. What made the blizzard worse for the Axis was that they were out of position, exhausted, low on supply. The blizzard was bad,but in the end the Axis did not break. They did fight and hold(they did lose ground. They were pushed back from Moscow and lost some ground in the south) and come spring they did straighten their line out some.

What if the Axis had pulled back? Gotten a little rest? Saved some of those supplies expended on Typhoon? If they did construct a positioned defense? Losses yes, but not to the level that it was.

In this game, if you stand and fight as they did historically, you will lose many divisions. Historically, how many divisions were lost by the Axis?

The only divisions captured during the 1941-1942 blizzard were Russian not Axis.




vicberg -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/21/2012 7:15:30 PM)

I can understand being unprepared for the severity of the winter, so the affects should not be removed outright.

However, I think winter clothing would have helped, quite a bit, especially going to the latrine. :) It's loss of troops which I see as having a bigger impact than anything else. The panzers, even in current winter rules, run to cities or Germany.

The issue is the Hitler Rule being built into game, which the Stalin rule isn't.

Off topic: Pershing didn't want to commit his troops unit he had command of them. France and England wanted them under allied command. Once Pershing got what he wanted, the French noted the bravery in which the doughboys fought (and I forget the couple of battles), where the US fought without regard to trench warfare. They fought like the French and English did in the beginning of the war when Trench warfare was being learned and perfected. They fought with disregard to their lives. The Germans weren't ready for that either. One the battles, the US got their tails handed to them. I'd have to look up that battle. They also had a crappy commander. I forget his name also.





glvaca -> RE: Next qualitative leap for WitE (4/22/2012 12:28:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I can understand being unprepared for the severity of the winter, so the affects should not be removed outright.

However, I think winter clothing would have helped, quite a bit, especially going to the latrine. :) It's loss of troops which I see as having a bigger impact than anything else. The panzers, even in current winter rules, run to cities or Germany.

The issue is the Hitler Rule being built into game, which the Stalin rule isn't.

Off topic: Pershing didn't want to commit his troops unit he had command of them. France and England wanted them under allied command. Once Pershing got what he wanted, the French noted the bravery in which the doughboys fought (and I forget the couple of battles), where the US fought without regard to trench warfare. They fought like the French and English did in the beginning of the war when Trench warfare was being learned and perfected. They fought with disregard to their lives. The Germans weren't ready for that either. One the battles, the US got their tails handed to them. I'd have to look up that battle. They also had a crappy commander. I forget his name also.





I'm going to repeat the question here so it doesn't get overlooked; Vic, have you ever played the Soviets?
I'd appreciate a response as I'm really curious about this. Thanks!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.3125