RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (Full Version)

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



Message

morvael -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 8:48:25 AM)

The only way Axis should be allowed to win in 95% cases is by victory points, by comparing their highwatermark and how much was left at the end to historical progress. War on both fronts was unwinnable. I don't care if Axis players complain about no chance for sudden death victory in '41. I just want to get closer to historical results, especially in '42.



mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 8:57:02 AM)

i don't support changing the code. in history, the German didn't capture kiev before September (i think every GHC could achieve it), the Russians should be encouraged to fight forward rather than run away. if the game is more likely to be a Russian win, that is more like history. if the two people who like to fight a even game, better play a chess. this war can't be even in itself. when one play German, he choose to be challenged, if he lose, there is no shame in it. just like many people are still willing to play the German side in 1945 scenarios. we play to experience History, more than to determine IQ or skill.



mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 9:04:11 AM)

but i see you won overwhelmingly.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No, even with the Rumanian sneak attack Russia will win easily under the current rule set.




Oberst_Klink -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 9:05:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

The only way Axis should be allowed to win in 95% cases is by victory points, by comparing their highwatermark and how much was left at the end to historical progress. War on both fronts was unwinnable. I don't care if Axis players complain about no chance for sudden death victory in '41. I just want to get closer to historical results, especially in '42.

That's in fact the correct way to determine 'vicotry' for a side in most historical simulations or wargames. If you do better than historically, you win, if you don't you lose, if you done as good/worse as historically, a draw. :) A good solution was implemented in the 'Drang nach Osten' scenario that stretches from the start of Barbarossa until the end of the Soviet winter offensive in April '42. Highly recommended.

Klink, Oberst



mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 9:15:10 AM)

i fully support this solution. but i think even by doing so, Russian is more likely to win, simply because the SHC won't do those stupid mistakes which Stalin and many of his early genrals did.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

The only way Axis should be allowed to win in 95% cases is by victory points, by comparing their highwatermark and how much was left at the end to historical progress. War on both fronts was unwinnable. I don't care if Axis players complain about no chance for sudden death victory in '41. I just want to get closer to historical results, especially in '42.

That's in fact the correct way to determine 'vicotry' for a side in most historical simulations or wargames. If you do better than historically, you win, if you don't you lose, if you done as good/worse as historically, a draw. :) A good solution was implemented in the 'Drang nach Osten' scenario that stretches from the start of Barbarossa until the end of the Soviet winter offensive in April '42. Highly recommended.

Klink, Oberst




morvael -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 9:17:57 AM)

The Germans are also free not to make their share of mistakes. They don't have to fight under no retreat orders etc.

However, I enjoy games which encourage (but not force) to repeat some of those mistakes by giving VP for doing sub-optimal things like not running away but fighting forward.



mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 9:20:28 AM)

on the other hand, i believe most GHC could do much better than Hitler in the late scenarios.
quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

i fully support this solution. but i think even by doing so, Russian is more likely to win, simply because the SHC won't do those stupid mistakes which Stalin and many of his early genrals did.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

The only way Axis should be allowed to win in 95% cases is by victory points, by comparing their highwatermark and how much was left at the end to historical progress. War on both fronts was unwinnable. I don't care if Axis players complain about no chance for sudden death victory in '41. I just want to get closer to historical results, especially in '42.

That's in fact the correct way to determine 'vicotry' for a side in most historical simulations or wargames. If you do better than historically, you win, if you don't you lose, if you done as good/worse as historically, a draw. :) A good solution was implemented in the 'Drang nach Osten' scenario that stretches from the start of Barbarossa until the end of the Soviet winter offensive in April '42. Highly recommended.

Klink, Oberst






mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 9:21:55 AM)

we are sharing the opinion,[:)]
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

The Germans are also free not to make their share of mistakes. They don't have to fight under no retreat orders etc.

However, I enjoy games which encourage (but not force) to repeat some of those mistakes by giving VP for doing sub-optimal things like not running away but fighting forward.




Michael T -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 10:08:26 AM)

As so often occurs here people confuse winning the war with winning the game. They are separate and entirely different outcomes within the context of the game, any historical wargame for that matter.




morvael -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 10:15:54 AM)

Do the Germans really need to capture Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov in '41 to feel like they are winning the game? Won't that trigger sudden death/260VP condition and end the entire game prematurely? Leningrad or Moscow in '41 should be extremely rare, but still the Germans in '42 should be able to either get Caucasus or one of those cities if they choose so.



mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 10:25:37 AM)

Michael, i see what you mean, but i am afraid that the majority of people who are interested in play these games are wanting to experience history, while you might be more enjoying doing a board game and polish your skills.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As so often occurs here people confuse winning the war with winning the game. They are separate and entirely different outcomes within the context of the game, any historical wargame for that matter.





mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 10:26:27 AM)

good point.
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Do the Germans really need to capture Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov in '41 to feel like they are winning the game? Won't that trigger sudden death/260VP condition and end the entire game prematurely? Leningrad or Moscow in '41 should be extremely rare, but still the Germans in '42 should be able to either get Caucasus or one of those cities if they choose so.




mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 10:33:30 AM)

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Do the Germans really need to capture Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov in '41 to feel like they are winning the game? Won't that trigger sudden death/260VP condition and end the entire game prematurely? Leningrad or Moscow in '41 should be extremely rare, but still the Germans in '42 should be able to either get Caucasus or one of those cities if they choose so.



mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 11:07:42 AM)

the reality is: if the developer of the game wants to promote its marketing, it has to promote it as more liking the history than a even game, in which both side enjoy 50-50 chance to win the war.
quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

Michael, i see what you mean, but i am afraid that the majority of people who are interested in play these games are wanting to experience history, while you might be more enjoying doing a board game and polish your skills.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As so often occurs here people confuse winning the war with winning the game. They are separate and entirely different outcomes within the context of the game, any historical wargame for that matter.







Peltonx -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 11:30:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.



That's completely an opinion.

Germany would have easly won a 1 front war. Based on a few simple facts.

Populations:

German 86 million not even counting minor allies.
Russia 176 million

Combat ratio 3.5 to 1.

Germany was easly winning the war of attrition.

Russia could not build enough trucks to keep logistics above 70%, they had to have western allies help.

Germany had several million combat troops doing nothing in the west.

Germany could have easly "won" the war if Hitler had commited 1 million more men to the east in 41. This fact alone makes The War in Europe problematic. A sandbox WiE would be an easy German win, they will have to find some way to keep GHC players from going all in on the Eastern Front in 41




mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 11:44:04 AM)

unfortunately both Guderian and Manstein didn't share the same conclusion with you, they admitted that German shouldn't start that war at all. i didn't think you are better than they were. the best result would be badly wounding the bear, but german inevitably lose in the end.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.



That's completely an opinion.

Germany would have easly won a 1 front war. Based on a few simple facts.

Populations:

German 86 million not even counting minor allies.
Russia 176 million

Combat ratio 3.5 to 1.

Germany was easly winning the war of attrition.

Russia could not build enough trucks to keep logistics above 70%, they had to have western allies help.

Germany had several million combat troops doing nothing in the west.

Germany could have easly "won" the war if Hitler had commited 1 million more men to the east in 41. This fact alone makes The War in Europe problematic. A sandbox WiE would be an easy German win, they will have to find some way to keep GHC players from going all in on the Eastern Front in 41






mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 11:54:00 AM)

a simple fact that the Germans didn't even play of the idea of threating Moscow in 1942 tells how big a gap between the two sides.
quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

unfortunately both Guderian and Manstein didn't share the same conclusion with you, they admitted that German shouldn't start that war at all. i didn't think you are better than they were. the best result would be badly wounding the bear, but german inevitably lose in the end.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.



That's completely an opinion.

Germany would have easly won a 1 front war. Based on a few simple facts.

Populations:

German 86 million not even counting minor allies.
Russia 176 million

Combat ratio 3.5 to 1.

Germany was easly winning the war of attrition.

Russia could not build enough trucks to keep logistics above 70%, they had to have western allies help.

Germany had several million combat troops doing nothing in the west.

Germany could have easly "won" the war if Hitler had commited 1 million more men to the east in 41. This fact alone makes The War in Europe problematic. A sandbox WiE would be an easy German win, they will have to find some way to keep GHC players from going all in on the Eastern Front in 41








morvael -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 12:12:29 PM)

Several million combat troops in the West in '41? Where did you read about it?



mktours -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 12:26:31 PM)

that is the historical knowledge stored in Mr Pelton's mind, who believed sincerely that Leningrad should be an easy cake for the Germans.
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Several million combat troops in the West in '41? Where did you read about it?




swkuh -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 2:14:34 PM)

Certainly agree that players should have their own values for good outcomes of good play. Then, either side can enjoy outcomes if well played. House rules can level the playing field as needed, what's a victory, what's allowed, and even starting set using the editor can be arranged. What's not to like?

As to issues of Allied/Axis actions, 2nd fronts, 3rd fronts, etc. Introducing political variables probably not a good choice, in this game. Where do you begin and end? It would be a different game entirely. Suppose Japan doesn't attack? England folds? Franco joins Axis? There have been board games that reflect these issues, but not with detailed combat play.



Peltonx -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 2:15:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

unfortunately both Guderian and Manstein didn't share the same conclusion with you, they admitted that German shouldn't start that war at all. i didn't think you are better than they were. the best result would be badly wounding the bear, but german inevitably lose in the end.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

in fact, the Germans stood no chance to win the war in history, Hitler just shouldn't start it. both Guderian and Manstein admitted this after the war.





That's completely an opinion.

Germany would have easly won a 1 front war. Based on a few simple facts.

Populations:

German 86 million not even counting minor allies.
Russia 176 million

Combat ratio 3.5 to 1.

Germany was easly winning the war of attrition.

Russia could not build enough trucks to keep logistics above 70%, they had to have western allies help.

Germany had several million combat troops doing nothing in the west.

Germany could have easly "won" the war if Hitler had commited 1 million more men to the east in 41. This fact alone makes The War in Europe problematic. A sandbox WiE would be an easy German win, they will have to find some way to keep GHC players from going all in on the Eastern Front in 41






They said what they had say to stay out of jail lol.

You can not and never will change the cold hard numbers I put up. They simply can't be refuted by anything other then fairytales and feelings.



Peltonx -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 2:17:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Several million combat troops in the West in '41? Where did you read about it?


Its called Google or Hitler vs Stalin ect ect

Less drama son and more facts



Peltonx -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 2:20:12 PM)

Generally people want to keep Germany in a box fixed to a nice clean allie victory when in fact Germany would have easly won if they had committed more troops in 41 or 42.

Russia was using female units in late 42 and pushing old men into service shortly after that.

Germanys easy win would have been mostly because Stalin was a complete moron for killing off the Russian officer corp and his world war I strategy's he used until findly doing what his generals wanted in 1943.



Peltonx -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 2:36:06 PM)

363,000 allied trucks.

see how far Russia gets with out them, [:D]



morvael -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 2:57:18 PM)

Germany was doomed, because they achieved war production in 1944 (gearing for that started as late as '43). In 1941 they ran out of ammo, fuel, vehicles and tanks. Not completely to be defeated immediately of course, but enough to slow down the operational tempo two or three times before winter and give some much needed respite to the Red Army (and give some serious fears to German High Command, just read their diaries). Planning for a 3-month campaign to reach Urals was fantasy, and even that might not mean the end of the war as well. If, and only if, Germany would be on war production levels from late 30's (as was USSR) and focused more on land power (Bismarck - what a waste of steel), they would have a chance for a knock-out blow IMHO. But then, from where would they take so much resources to feed their industry and especially fuel for their tank armada?

I can imagine that had there been no land-lease USSR would order some more trucks produced instead of insane amounts of tanks and assault guns. How far did Germany went on their French, Belgian, Dutch and Czech trucks? Their infantry divisions from start to end of war required several thousand horses each, and there were problems with obtaining more as soon as late summer '41. WitE is already too generous to Germans in the logistics department.



Walloc -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 2:58:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Germany would have easly won a 1 front war. Based on a few simple facts.

Populations:

German 86 million not even counting minor allies.
Russia 176 million

Combat ratio 3.5 to 1.

Germany was easly winning the war of attrition.


Been here before, but lets go again. While the population numbers are correct they fail to take into account that the russian was able to mobilize a far higher % of its population than the german ever was or ever was going too.

So the population numbers in the selves doesnt mean much if they dont directly correlate with mobilization numbers.
U have several times quoted G F Krivosheev's book when adding up russian casulties. U do seem to forget the part of his book where he looks at the russisn mobilization numbers. Just under 30m and that not counting the alrdy standing army, IIRC.
So if germany and allies was to win a war of attrition vs 1 to 1 with a 3.5-1 loss ratio they had to mobilize around 10 mio man, alone to fight the at the russian front. They didnt, was never ever going to or any thing remotely close.

The 3.5-1 number we have discussed before. Its correct if u stop at dec 1944 and includes axis Allies. How ever this means these numbers DO include the mass russian surrenders early on but DOESNT include the mass german surrenders, obvisouly scewing the numbers.


quote:


Germany had several million combat troops doing nothing in the west.


Define West and when? The peak number for france, and the Benelux totalled was in 1944 at approx 880k men. As to doing nothing, i think most would disagree. As to them being combat or even combat worthy troops well OKW differs with u looking at the operational ratings they give many of these men. Not to mention quite a few of them arent even german or close and is purposely held at the western front as they tend to speak pretty good russian, polish/related languages.

quote:


Germany could have easly "won" the war if Hitler had commited 1 million more men to the east in 41. This fact alone makes The War in Europe problematic. A sandbox WiE would be an easy German win, they will have to find some way to keep GHC players from going all in on the Eastern Front in 41


Where are this spare 1 mio man in '41 or '42? what would have happend if germany moved every man in the West, Norway, yugoslavia and in the Med to the russian front? would the western Allies just had sat on ur asses with no forces between the English channel and Berlin? not to mention the other fronts.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



elmo3 -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 3:00:04 PM)

Please stay on topic. Joel is not going to wade through all this superfluous discussion to see if there is a consensus on the problem and any reasonably easy fixes.



morvael -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 3:05:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Several million combat troops in the West in '41? Where did you read about it?


Its called Google or Hitler vs Stalin ect ect

Less drama son and more facts



Some 30+ infantry divisions, no more than 600 000-800 000 men. Also they couldn't be completely taken away as someone was needed to occupy all those captured lands and protect the coast. I can't imagine there would be no serious problems if all occupying forces were withdrawn from the West. At most, Axis minor allies would have to be placed in the West (another problem - would they be willing to do it and efficient in that task?) so that would bring some quality improvement, not size or maneuverability improvement in the east. All '44-'45 measures would have to be taken to maximize strength on the front - squeezing excess men from Goering's Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, creating Volksturm divisions for garrison duties, manning Flak at home with teenagers. German leadership wasn't willing to do that before everything in the East went avry, thus it's more like a fantasy scenario for them. The potential was there, but no one wanted to tap into it.

edit: sorry elmo, my post was written as you posted and I didn't refresh the page.
feel free to delete it.



morvael -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 3:18:02 PM)

More on topic: higher than "real" morale has to be accepted for the Soviet side, because it's the counters and their CV that stop Germans, not logistics. That has it downsides, but you can't fix one thing properly while the rest remains broken. The morale must improve at the moment when German advance stalled due to logistical reasons and again it must fall down when they did their Fall Blau. And since there is some delay before NM "filters down" to unit level, this must be done in advance. Something should also be done about the positive feedback loop, where winner gets stronger all the time and defender weaker. Fast morale regain to NM level is one of such measures.



Schmart -> RE: Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken. (7/11/2013 5:14:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
You can not and never will change the cold hard numbers I put up. They simply can't be refuted by anything other then fairytales and feelings.


Despite what you might want to believe, history and war is not about 'cold hard facts' or statistical inevitabilities. It's about politics, people, decisions, emotions, uncertainty, guessing, gambles, mistakes, learning, etc. Cold hard facts should prove that Germany had no chance against France in 1940. The reality was different.

Hence the strong debate about a factor so murky and intangible as 'morale'. And rightly so, because such intangibles are at the heart of any inter-human conflict, especially war.

To the topic, it seems the easy solution is to reduce Russian NM to below 50 (likely 45) in 1941, and/or reduce the size of morale gains when refitting 10+ hexes from the enemy, or make the requirement to be 20+ hexes away.

Alternatively, it could be incremental: 10+ hexes gives max 1 per turn gain, 20+ hexes gives 2 per turn, 30+ hexes 3 per turn, etc, although that might be not so easy for the programers to implement.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375