|
janh -> RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) (5/27/2013 5:26:55 PM)
|
Wow, this looks really scary now. This type of opening is really most "victory efficient". Though this seems a bit unsound to have a rule holding the Rumanians and the 17th Army in the south fixed (for good historical reasoning), but then rail a Panzerkorps all the way there and start an aggression from Rumanian territory that its government denied. If so, then this would fit much better to an alternate campaign with no fixing and MP limits in place.
I don't think you can hold the Djenpr now, it can hardly be held nowadays with limited fort-building capabilities if the Axis arrives later and the Soviet is in better order. I guess I'd try to set up speed-bumps and get out what I can, and otherwise hold AGN and perhaps AGC back -- though after these losses, I don't spontaneously see what forces to commit really. Yet if, just if, you can force Michael to go into blizzard with a very unusually stretched flank and front line from somewhere S/W of LG, hopefully W of Moscow and whatever depth beyond Rostov/Stalingrad/Kharkov/Voroshilovgrad/Tula he may achieve, this may come haunting him? Perhaps.
quote:
ORIGINAL: delatbabel
If you compare what really happened in the summer of 1941 vs what actually happens in 1941 in most PBEM games, then you'll find that the real Soviet losses in 1941 were actually much higher than those suffered by most players. In turn, the actual Soviet replacements and reinforcements were actually much higher than the game provides. I don't believe that the VP system needs fixing to solve this, but it is a fundamental change that needs making. Hear my argument for a moment if you will:
...
Good arguments, and sound. The recruitment and production of course resulted from necessity as much as from possibility, but quite certainly Stalin hadn't kept recruiting if losses had been way lower in territory, men and material. Or probably would have even increased the paces (and the Allies their Lend and Lease) if it had been worse. It is the same with the Axis withdrawals, ToE changes and so on.
These causalities is completely missing in game, and this could be the lever to keep the balance in a GC under control such that it is playable at least into 44 with good chances for both sides for in most games, i.e. just not those that are ruined by poor tactics or only the worst of luck. It could limit the growth (rate) of the Soviets if they survived better by a cap (a function of date perhaps, enable it to grow beyond only slowly), as well as it could prevent German unit withdrawals in times of need, or ToE changes in times of surplusses etc. Hopefully they will implement that in WitE2, else it will run into the same "extreme games" that we sometimes see here. Else only two players playing quite historically can retain some "suspense of disbelief".
|
|
|
|
