Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run?

Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (Full Version)

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

Message

fbs -> Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 4:38:44 AM)
One thing I don't understand in this discussion about the soviet running, is why people think that doesn't reflect a realistic historical option. They ran from Napoleon, even gave Moscow away, and that was a successful strategy. Then they ran again in 1942 to Stalingrad, and once again that was successful. So why do people think that there should be a penalty for the soviets running away in 1941? That seems to be one of their best historical strategies available for 1941. I think that instead of trying to answer "what penalties should be applied", a more realistic discussion would be "what would the German Army do in 1941 if the Soviet ran away"? I think they would just keep moving forward towards their historical goal at the Volga, and the only reason why the game punishes the Germans for doing what historically they would do, is that imho all rail gets damaged upon conquest, and that's way unrealistic. I think that if rail has a small chance of being damaged upon German conquest (say 20% instead of 100%), that will allow the Germans to keep moving forward, as they would.

Flaviusx -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 4:44:46 AM)
Short answer: Stalin.

Oberst_Klink -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 5:16:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs One thing I don't understand in this discussion about the soviet running, is why people think that doesn't reflect a realistic historical option. They ran from Napoleon, even gave Moscow away, and that was a successful strategy. Then they ran again in 1942 to Stalingrad, and once again that was successful. So why do people think that there should be a penalty for the soviets running away in 1941? That seems to be one of their best historical strategies available for 1941. I think that instead of trying to answer "what penalties should be applied", a more realistic discussion would be "what would the German Army do in 1941 if the Soviet ran away"? I think they would just keep moving forward towards their historical goal at the Volga, and the only reason why the game punishes the Germans for doing what historically they would do, is that imho all rail gets damaged upon conquest, and that's way unrealistic. I think that if rail has a small chance of being damaged upon German conquest (say 20% instead of 100%), that will allow the Germans to keep moving forward, as they would. I am afraid changing the RR thing would be unrealistic as well, simply because of the different gauge. They Eisenbahnpioniere had to change the Russian broad gauge to European narrow gauge anyway. And even IF there'd have been enough rolling stock and locomotives available, captured from the Soviets, it wouldn't have been sufficient. Klink, Oberst

fbs -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 5:19:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Short answer: Stalin. Well, Stalin changed his mind in 1942 on the retreat to Stalingrad. Who is to say he couldn't have changed it in 1941? Running was a viable military strategy in 1941. To say that it couldn't be done because of Stalin is the same as saying that this particular Panzer group must go that way because Hitler wanted so.

fbs -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 5:29:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink I am afraid changing the RR thing would be unrealistic as well, simply because of the different gauge. They Eisenbahnpioniere had to change the Russian broad gauge to European narrow gauge anyway. And even IF there'd have been enough rolling stock and locomotives available, captured from the Soviets, it wouldn't have been sufficient. Klink, Oberst How about Dunnigan's point in "How to Make War": he states 1,000 tons of supply keep 100,000 men in combat for a day. So 3,000,000 men make it 30,000 tons a day; according to him, that's about 75 trains a day. Make it 150 because of reliability/etc... So in order to move supplies through the Russian narrow gauge network, you need to convert some 150-200 trains; seems less costly than converting several thousand miles of track. Plus, they can be done in parallel (convert trains + convert tracks), what would mean allow damaged Soviet rail to transport at least some supplies. I think the issue of train gauge fits the point of German preparations for a long war, rather than a technical limitation. So, if one gives the Soviets the foresight of running rather than fighting, then also give the Germans the foresight to convert trains rather than rebuild the whole rail network...?

loki100 -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 6:59:45 AM)
the rail thing was not just the regauging. Soviet trains were larger as a result of the wider gauge so all the infrastructure of running steam trains was laid out to support that design - ie water and coal were more widely dispersed than you needed for a western train of the same era. Even if the Red Army had left it all intact, the Germans would have had to build more (or capture an awful lot of rolling stock). as to retreat, working with hindsight, its all too easy to see Stalin's regime as secure. It wasn't, not least as a lot of people had kept quiet or put up with the purges essentially as they had accepted the argument there was no other way to keep the USSR secure. The defeats in 1941 all brought that deal into question,

SigUp -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 8:05:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Short answer: Stalin. Well, Stalin changed his mind in 1942 on the retreat to Stalingrad. Who is to say he couldn't have changed it in 1941? Running was a viable military strategy in 1941. To say that it couldn't be done because of Stalin is the same as saying that this particular Panzer group must go that way because Hitler wanted so. Stalin didn't intend to run in 1942. It is a big misconception, that in the Summer of 1942 Stalin came to senses and agreed to a great running plan. Truth was, he wanted and ordered his troops to stand and fight. However, parts of the Red Army lost discipline and it was more of a hasty flight than a planned retreat. That's why the situation in July 1942 was seen as so critical. There was a reason for the famous Order No. 227 (the No-Step-Back one).

Flaviusx -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 9:10:34 AM)
Plain fact of the matter is that in 1941 Stalin had no intention of retreating. The massive Kiev pocket was 100% his fault; he knew or should have known it was going to happen. Instead, he sacked or demoted anybody who told him otherwise. Now, of course, none of this can possibly work in game as things stand. You can't ask a Soviet player to hold on to Kiev until September because any decent Axis player will take the place in July almost regardless of anything the Soviet does. The entire SW front is destroyed on turn 1 before the Soviet player does a thing rather than in September. So it's all borked up anyways. But if this nonsense ever gets fixed (along with many other problems) then, yeah, you're going to have to find a way of making the Soviet hold on to ground more stubbornly. Ditto the German, later on.

Peltonx -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 10:02:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs One thing I don't understand in this discussion about the soviet running, is why people think that doesn't reflect a realistic historical option. They ran from Napoleon, even gave Moscow away, and that was a successful strategy. Then they ran again in 1942 to Stalingrad, and once again that was successful. So why do people think that there should be a penalty for the soviets running away in 1941? That seems to be one of their best historical strategies available for 1941. I think that instead of trying to answer "what penalties should be applied", a more realistic discussion would be "what would the German Army do in 1941 if the Soviet ran away"? I think they would just keep moving forward towards their historical goal at the Volga, and the only reason why the game punishes the Germans for doing what historically they would do, is that imho all rail gets damaged upon conquest, and that's way unrealistic. I think that if rail has a small chance of being damaged upon German conquest (say 20% instead of 100%), that will allow the Germans to keep moving forward, as they would. Games are based on what ifs not players have to do what is 100% historical. I have no issue with SHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. I have no issue with GHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. The problem is people like Flaviusx can't see the forest through the trees. Before T-1 Hitler and Stalin are in control not Pelton vs fbs, once T-1 starts Pelton and fbs are in control of GHC and SHC not Hitler and Stalin. The Lvov pocket is 100% historical as it stands now with the newest beta patch and so is GHC and SHC running. The big sales pitch on this game was you can be Hitler or Stalin and command the armies of the eastern front. WitW will be sold as "You can command the armies of the western powers or GHC and prove your skills at commanding the forses of WW2 in the west" not you will be hog tied to repeat all the failures of WHC and GHC. Really people think.

RedLancer -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 10:31:34 AM)
This is the epitome of the 'how historic should the game be' argument. I can't understand why people want to recreate the Eastern Front in an almost forensic way - I understand replicating the laws of physics and nature but 'forcing' players to replicate every decision made is a bit too far. I've checked all the game data and neither Hitler nor Stalin are modelled unless a player choses to adopt the same mindset (not recommended). I concede that the game's attempts to model the laws of physics and nature are not 100% - elements of the first turn, first blizzard and the overly generous logistics system spring to mind but this insistence that history must be followed or the game is broken is nonsense. It's not often I find myself agreeing with Mr Pelton but he is correct. If you argue for further historic changes then Soviet unit arrivals ought to be made historic too and not set by the player.

loki100 -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 10:39:01 AM)
I don't think its about forcing a re-enactment, its about creating a framework. Parts of the framework to WiTE are brilliant but for example the logistics system is too lax to the point of unrealism. Now that is fine if you want to play chess but a deep problem if you want competitive, realistic, gameplay. Another part of the framework, within which the player should have freedom, is the reality of the political regimes, and political decision making they operated within. Now before you start tieing either player to that particular wheel, you have to stamp out the rampant problems. We know that T1 and the blizzard won't shift this side of WiTE2, you can actually solve a lot of the logistic abuse. First agree a house rule to reflect the simple reality that bombers, esp tactical bombers, didn't carry fuel and supplies for tanks. Second set the logistics at around 70-80% for both sides. With that you have removed some of the worst causes of unreality. quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton I have no issue with SHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. I have no issue with GHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. Except that neither proposition was at all plausible, in part due to the nature of the political systems that led to this war

Dangun -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 11:07:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton I have no issue with SHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. I agree. Running was a strategy that was historically available to the SHC leadership. Perhaps the problem is in the logistics. It might not make sense that the GHC repair the rail at the same speed no matter whether the Soviets are in the next hex or 250 miles away. If the relationship between rail head repair speed and soviet proximity was changed, the soviets would have to balance running against a faster moving rail head/supply. Conversely, refueling panzers via airdrops was not a strategy available to anyone. It is garbage.

Gabriel B. -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 11:13:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs [ How about Dunnigan's point in "How to Make War": he states 1,000 tons of supply keep 100,000 men in combat for a day. So 3,000,000 men make it 30,000 tons a day; according to him, that's about 75 trains a day. Make it 150 because of reliability/etc... So in order to move supplies through the Russian narrow gauge network, you need to convert some 150-200 trains; seems less costly than converting several thousand miles of track. Plus, they can be done in parallel (convert trains + convert tracks), what would mean allow damaged Soviet rail to transport at least some supplies. I think the issue of train gauge fits the point of German preparations for a long war, rather than a technical limitation. So, if one gives the Soviets the foresight of running rather than fighting, then also give the Germans the foresight to convert trains rather than rebuild the whole rail network...? You need more than 150 trains , if memory serves, the germans had 2000 for suplying the forces in SU, It is more than just one day in, one day out , actualy counting loading and unloading , about one week in, one week out. 2000 trains means a minimum of 100,000 carloads to be converted , whereas reguaging simply requires drilling holes into existing ties and moving the track closer togheder.

timmyab -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 2:08:49 PM)
I've always thought that unless you recreate some of the Soviet mistakes from 41 then the game will be too one sided and people wont want to play it.41 should set the scene for the rest of the game.If the Axis player can't launch a decent 42 offensive that will have both players on the edge of their seats then I'm out of here, what's the point.This can only be done in my opinion by simulating poor Soviet leadership through to late 42.They had great fighting men and equipment, add great leadership from the start, as you effectively have now, and the game's over by 44 and the German 42 offensive never happens.

fbs -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 3:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timmyab I've always thought that unless you recreate some of the Soviet mistakes from 41 then the game will be too one sided I think that's a great argument. I concur, if the Soviets made no mistakes in 1941 and the Germans kept their plan, that would have been a short war. And that comes down to my original question: if the Soviets had run in 1941, what would the Germans have done? It's not possible that they would just surrender. I think that people understand there's nothing the Germans could have done to move faster and keep themselves supplied, that the Germans are undoubtedly doomed if the Soviets run, but I'm dubious about that concept - something must have improved between 1812 and 1941. On the other side of the argument, perhaps what's missing is not related to rail, but the burden to evacuate their industries? I mean, historically the Soviets would lose several industries if they had run, right?

javats -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 3:46:03 PM)
I believe Pelton has nicely summed up the realities of playing WITE 1.0 ; "you are in command" It would seem the developer/designer must strike a balance between the playable and historical. and adjust as needed.

janh -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 5:15:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs One thing I don't understand in this discussion about the soviet running, is why people think that doesn't reflect a realistic historical option. They ran from Napoleon, even gave Moscow away, and that was a successful strategy. Then they ran again in 1942 to Stalingrad, and once again that was successful. So why do people think that there should be a penalty for the soviets running away in 1941? That seems to be one of their best historical strategies available for 1941. I'll respond to your last statement first: If you look through the AARs that ran too the end, and pick those where the Russian player ran, no matter whether it was an earlier version where fighting easily meant certain Axis victory or a later one, where fighting appears to have become the better choice, you will find that quite a few easily ran too far and underestimated the staunchness of a skilled Axis player holding this ground mile by mile. Berlin's victory clock ticks fast... Regarding your first and main point: I don't think at all that it is inconceivable, but you'd go a bit beyond the scope of the designers choices for the game, and into an area, where the game models the course poorly. Just as many Axis players including myself decide and play with ignoring the Hitler "Feste Pl�tze" strategy and save themselves dozens of divisions and a Stalingrad like disaster by not clinging tight to endangered locations when conserving forces wins the game, which you can with equal rights consider "impossible" with Hitler being a designers choice just as Flavius raised the argument that "Stalin", you can ignore the Stalin principle. Merely depends on how strict you want to be with historicity when playing. You could easily come up with alternative scenarios assuming Stalin never had reappeared from his Dacha that he hid in during the first few weeks after the initial disasters, and there you go. The only trouble I see is that the game is rather inflexible when it comes to treating cases that are far outside the average, historical course. All the withdrawals, the reinforcements, the manpower rates, the industry expansion, the unit building or the behavior of the national morale are designed from a standpoint of an average, close-to-historical path. If the Soviets run and conserve most of their 41 force, would that have so aggressively recruited and expanded their industry as well, or much slower as they never felt the losses and arising needs? If the Axis had advanced much faster, reached all three main goals by December, and inflicted tremendous losses on an enemy fleeing too slow or not at all, as happened already in a few games in the past, wouldn't they have paced up further, and received more lend-and-lease? Or if Axis had been less successful and already gotten stuck before Pskov and Smolensk, which history showed to have nearly happened, would the Soviets have pushed their population and industry less, and the Germans sped up their mobilization efforts? In all such cases, the game falls into traps with its own static "environment", beyond the battlefield. Similarly I think you can easily "break" it when you play strategies that are just too far outside the average, be it a pure and overdone flight from the Germans in 41, or a German flight back in winter. Fortunately it seems in a good many cases you are getting punished by such flights, no matter who flees to far.

Walloc -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 5:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton Games are based on what ifs not players have to do what is 100% historical. I have no issue with SHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. I have no issue with GHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. Before T-1 Hitler and Stalin are in control not Pelton vs fbs, once T-1 starts Pelton and fbs are in control of GHC and SHC not Hitler and Stalin. I agree in as much. At leased if u impose restriction or as in this case non u should do in a manner where its fitting with history. Stalin wasnt the only one that interfered in 41. So did Hitler. As far as i know on 17 occations alone in 41 he interferes with operational matter. Any how the game treats this fairly and non of the sides are imposed by such, which is fine by me. quote: The Lvov pocket is 100% historical as it stands now with the newest beta patch and so is GHC and SHC running. The big sales pitch on this game was you can be Hitler or Stalin and command the armies of the eastern front. WitW will be sold as "You can command the armies of the western powers or GHC and prove your skills at commanding the forses of WW2 in the west" not you will be hog tied to repeat all the failures of WHC and GHC. Really people think. Problem is this is only partly true and in large its a strawman argument. Lets review some gaming history. Back in the days of Second front and WiR it was physically impossible to get to Minsk in the first turn as it was 6 hexes away from the border and u could only move 5 hexes. So u couldnt mirrow the historic advance. I remember the constantion if not to say outrage that occured. Same would be true in the case of WiTE. If germans couldnt have made it to Minsk in the first week ppl would have been miffed and lets it be known. " "I cant do what i historicly could do, this game is crap" Who says mot units should have a MP of 50. Its arbitary number ofc teh designers put thot into it, but this might as well have had been 40 or 30 and to some extend its pulled out of a hat. The only 2 turns u in the entire war that saw advances that neared those distances was the first 2 turns. Never for either side was that ever replicated in the rest of the war. So while the history is out on turn 1 it happens within some parameters that ppl may or may not agree in but there are there. If they wasnt and russians could counter attack on turn 1 driving the germans back to Berlin by turn 15. No need to say what ppl would say then. So the plausibility of how the campaigns evolve has alot to say about the perception of a game and its historicy. So while i agree. If u have no restrictions and u dont in the case of WiTE ppl should be allowed to do as they please, but that this shouldnt happen within set parameters is simply not true. Ppl might tell them themselfs that but it isnt true. In the case of Pelton, i've seen plenty a complaints about X ability. This is from the moral discussion thread: quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton The game is currently unplayable as GHC. So even for Pelton parameters matters or it couldnt be a problem that the russians got X in moral, funnily enough as originally intended and as described in the manual. Then comes the Lvov pocket. No it isnt historical and it shouldnt be particular possible. Not because that the german players shouldnt be allowed to try or for that matter move forces from AGC to the AGS area. Its because the parameters surrounding the AGS area isnt showed in game. Things that is pre turn 1 historics. The designers have choosen or not choosen as the case might be. Not to in effect make any difference on the defensiveness of the russians in the AGS area vs AGC and AGC. At end of turn 1 u in large was still fighting the initial border forces in AGS area in the first 2-3 hexes in. Replicating such is simply impossible in game. Showing the parameters are off base here. U cant replicate history nor do better for 1 side. u automaticly do better for one of the sidess. The fact that the russian had 4500 tanks in some of the better Mech corps and that was alerted and in fact reacted to a degree higher than in AGC area isnt taken into account. In game those 4500 tank through the workins of the engine/choose parameters has no impact, u can just bypass/they cant react. Nor is teh fact that the germans them self tell in they cant cant even deploy the troops they had in the area so logic is more wouldnt have helped is shown in game. In reality and the german should so be able to be negated and destroy those but it toke and should take time. It doesnt in game. It isnt a question of the players doing their thing and doing better than history. Its a question of the parameters is off ingame here. AGC/AGNs advance rate has been the yard stick and been in effect applied to AGS area instead of showing the realities was indeed different there. it has zero to do with history out the window from turn 1 and ppl are in charge. That has never been mine or as far as i know Flavs issues with it. Correct me if im wrong Flav. What if 2By3 games instead had chosen to use the historic yard stick from AGS and u only could in the AGN/AGC area advanced 3-4-5 hexes in the first turn. Im pretty sure the argument of history is out the window on turn 1and now im in charge wouldnt have been the applied with no regards to the parameters of the campaigns. Hey its just a question of the russian player automaticly doing better. Parameters define the game and how the campaign evolve just as much as player ability with in the before mentioned. Saying u cant discuss that or that if some thing is to the advantage of 1 side then is a question of im in charge now so this is historical and then saying "the game is unplayble if moral is X" for the other side is simply hipocracy. Case in point being my OP of teh realismn discussion. Kind regards, Rasmus

Schmart -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 6:42:42 PM)
There is more to it than simply Stalin. The entire Soviet command structure at the time didn't have the capability to mount any kind of 'intelligent' operation. The winter war with Finland barely 'succeeded' only after committing overwhelming force and suffering massive casualties. A strategic fighting withdrawl of any kind takes a great deal of skill and competence, something that the Russians simply weren't capable of in 1941, due to the depleted nature of the officer core after Stalin's purges. The reality of their command structure with political commissars and general disarray, did not suit itself to an organized retreat. I suppose it may have been possible (theoretically, pretty much anything is possible), but it was also a possibility that the Germans could have built the A-bomb, so maybe that should be included in the game? The better question to ask is, what it plausible? Was there a realistic chance given the circumstances at the time that it could happen? An organized fighting withdrawl by the Russians was not plausible in 1941. Theoretically, Aliens could have landed on the planet in 1943 just in time to give the Germans a boost and win the battle of Kursk. It's certainly possible, so why not include that possibility in the game? No one can claim that it isn't/wasn't possible. Aliens could also possibly land tomorrow and unite the planet bringing world peace for ever and ever, so Aliens must be included in every wargame because you just never know? The problem with WITE, is that the game system does not adapt to major strategic changes from historical. If the Russians HAD actually ran in 1941, it would have resulted in significant differences politically, strategically, economically, and militarily than what is represented in the game. Maybe Russian industry would have been evacuated quicker, or maybe more industry would have been abandoned, both of which could significantly change long-term production, for better or for worse. Maybe the Japanese interpret the Russian withdrawl as a collapse, and attack in the Far East. Maybe the US sees the same and either decides on an immediate declaration of war on Germany, or a more complete reluctance to enter the war, again, all having significant possible changes to the course of the war. Maybe the Russian high command doesn't want to retreat, so they mount a coup, kill Stalin, and change the course of history. And on and on we go... I think these possible historical changes need to be taken more into account if the players are allowed major deviations from historical actualities. Generally, I've viewed historical wargames as being within a certain strategic/operational/tactical scope and having certain relevant restrictions on players in terms of the scope involved, but not so much as to require players to follow historical decisions 100%. There should be room for different decisions, but there should also be consequences. Right now, WITE is pretty much wide open for major differences (for example, running away, for both sides), with very little consequence in game. In reality, there are pros and cons to every decision, quite often outside of the commander's (or player's) jurisdiction (ie: political or economic), something that WITE does not reflect very well. The Russians should be able to have the option to run away in 1941 but there should be more strategic consequences for it, such that there aren't any easy and optimized in-game strategies. There should be enough negative consequences for each major change to historical, so that a player must seriously consider what they are going to do.

Schmart -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 6:55:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs I think that instead of trying to answer "what penalties should be applied", a more realistic discussion would be "what would the German Army do in 1941 if the Soviet ran away"? I think they would just keep moving forward towards their historical goal at the Volga, and the only reason why the game punishes the Germans for doing what historically they would do, is that imho all rail gets damaged upon conquest, and that's way unrealistic. I think that if rail has a small chance of being damaged upon German conquest (say 20% instead of 100%), that will allow the Germans to keep moving forward, as they would. The inherent problem with the rail lines is that the Russians and Germans used different gauges of track. A German train won't run on a Russian track, and vice versa, and thus the need to 're-build' all rail lines for both sides. Beyond rail lines, the Germans had limited numbers of trucks to transport from rail heads. The game doesn't reflect historical logistical capabilities. If the western Allies, with their hundreds of thousands of trucks can have supply problems in 1944 in western Europe (which has far better and more numerous roads than Russia), then the Germans should (and in fact did) have much more difficulty with logistics in Russia. If there's one thing the game needs, it's NOT more logistical support for the Germans. In fact, they need less...

Peltonx -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 7:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Walloc quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton Games are based on what ifs not players have to do what is 100% historical. I have no issue with SHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. I have no issue with GHC running, because it is 100% an historical possibility. Before T-1 Hitler and Stalin are in control not Pelton vs fbs, once T-1 starts Pelton and fbs are in control of GHC and SHC not Hitler and Stalin. I agree in as much. At leased if u impose restriction or as in this case non u should do in a manner where its fitting with history. Stalin wasnt the only one that interfered in 41. So did Hitler. As far as i know on 17 occations alone in 41 he interferes with operational matter. Any how the game treats this fairly and non of the sides are imposed by such, which is fine by me. quote: The Lvov pocket is 100% historical as it stands now with the newest beta patch and so is GHC and SHC running. The big sales pitch on this game was you can be Hitler or Stalin and command the armies of the eastern front. WitW will be sold as "You can command the armies of the western powers or GHC and prove your skills at commanding the forses of WW2 in the west" not you will be hog tied to repeat all the failures of WHC and GHC. Really people think. Problem is this is only partly true and in large its a strawman argument. Lets review some gaming history. Back in the days of Second front and WiR it was physically impossible to get to Minsk in the first turn as it was 6 hexes away from the border and u could only move 5 hexes. So u couldnt mirrow the historic advance. I remember the constantion if not to say outrage that occured. Same would be true in the case of WiTE. If germans couldnt have made it to Minsk in the first week ppl would have been miffed and lets it be known. " "I cant do what i historicly could do, this game is crap" Who says mot units should have a MP of 50. Its arbitary number ofc teh designers put thot into it, but this might as well have had been 40 or 30 and to some extend its pulled out of a hat. The only 2 turns u in the entire war that saw advances that neared those distances was the first 2 turns. Never for either side was that ever replicated in the rest of the war. So while the history is out on turn 1 it happens within some parameters that ppl may or may not agree in but there are there. If they wasnt and russians could counter attack on turn 1 driving the germans back to Berlin by turn 15. No need to say what ppl would say then. So the plausibility of how the campaigns evolve has alot to say about the perception of a game and its historicy. So while i agree. If u have no restrictions and u dont in the case of WiTE ppl should be allowed to do as they please, but that this shouldnt happen within set parameters is simply not true. Ppl might tell them themselfs that but it isnt true. In the case of Pelton, i've seen plenty a complaints about X ability. This is from the moral discussion thread: quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton The game is currently unplayable as GHC. So even for Pelton parameters matters or it couldnt be a problem that the russians got X in moral, funnily enough as originally intended and as described in the manual. Then comes the Lvov pocket. No it isnt historical and it shouldnt be particular possible. Not because that the german players shouldnt be allowed to try or for that matter move forces from AGC to the AGS area. Its because the parameters surrounding the AGS area isnt showed in game. Things that is pre turn 1 historics. The designers have choosen or not choosen as the case might be. Not to in effect make any difference on the defensiveness of the russians in the AGS area vs AGC and AGC. At end of turn 1 u in large was still fighting the initial border forces in AGS area in the first 2-3 hexes in. Replicating such is simply impossible in game. Showing the parameters are off base here. U cant replicate history nor do better for 1 side. u automaticly do better for one of the sidess. The fact that the russian had 4500 tanks in some of the better Mech corps and that was alerted and in fact reacted to a degree higher than in AGC area isnt taken into account. In game those 4500 tank through the workins of the engine/choose parameters has no impact, u can just bypass/they cant react. Nor is teh fact that the germans them self tell in they cant cant even deploy the troops they had in the area so logic is more wouldnt have helped is shown in game. In reality and the german should so be able to be negated and destroy those but it toke and should take time. It doesnt in game. It isnt a question of the players doing their thing and doing better than history. Its a question of the parameters is off ingame here. AGC/AGNs advance rate has been the yard stick and been in effect applied to AGS area instead of showing the realities was indeed different there. it has zero to do with history out the window from turn 1 and ppl are in charge. That has never been mine or as far as i know Flavs issues with it. Correct me if im wrong Flav. What if 2By3 games instead had chosen to use the historic yard stick from AGS and u only could in the AGN/AGC area advanced 3-4-5 hexes in the first turn. Im pretty sure the argument of history is out the window on turn 1and now im in charge wouldnt have been the applied with no regards to the parameters of the campaigns. Hey its just a question of the russian player automaticly doing better. Parameters define the game and how the campaign evolve just as much as player ability with in the before mentioned. Saying u cant discuss that or that if some thing is to the advantage of 1 side then is a question of im in charge now so this is historical and then saying "the game is unplayble if moral is X" for the other side is simply hipocracy. Case in point being my OP of teh realismn discussion. Kind regards, Rasmus The problem Walloc and Flaviusx knows this and I am sure 2by3 does also. IF there is no Lvov pocket the game is over turn 1. SHC will simply run. As I have stated at least 85% of the games end by March 42 as both players know based on past AAR's that SHC will be in Berlin in Dec 44 or Jan 45, EVEN if GHC does better then historical by taking Leningrad. WitE is right now as good as it will be under the current engine. A handful of GHC players can win or draw because they know the fuel or morale systems better then anyone. 95% or more of the people playing this game have no chance of drawing or winning as Germany vs a below average SHC player. Walloc my statement is a fact, for most people the game is broken for GHC players. They can do far better then historical and lose by February 45. WitW hopefully will be better, the bitch about logistic is a strawman argument all together. Germany went from Kiev to Rostov in a few weeks and were 100's and 100's of miles past railheads. The HUGE problem for 2by3 is Germany could and did require far less troops, equipment, ammo and supplies to do what Russia/America/England could do. Its almost like there would have to be 2 logistic system for both sides. ��German��-Russian��Ratio 1941 3rd��551,000��2,795,000��-5 to 1 4th��280,000��1,598,000��-5.7to 1 1942 1st��280,000��1,686,000��-6 to 1 2nd��220,000��1,395,000��-6.3 to 1 3rd��383,000��2,371,000��-6 to 1 4th��177,000��1,281,000��-7.2 to 1 1943 1st��498,000��1,908,000��3.8 to 1 2nd��110,000��444,000��-4 to 1 3rd��533,000��2,633,000��-5 to 1 4th��381,000��1,939,000��-5 to 1 1944 1st��423,000��1,859,000��-4.4 to 1 2nd��352,000��1,021,000��-3 to 1 3rd��879,000��1,771,000��-2 to 1 4th��297,000��1,086,000��-3.6 to 1 Where wite falls horribly short is the combat ratios in 42 and 43. I have bitched about this from day one. Currently wite in 42 and 43 the combat ratio is 2.5 to 1. That's not even close to historical. There were very few pockets in 42+43. This is the core issue that's screwing wite. IF IF IF the engine was reflective of historical combat ratio's then you could dump the Lvov pocket, the Middle Earth Blizzard and "fix" the logistics system. My issue with WitW is the current engine will work fine because the lose ratio in the west was 2.5 to 1 (throwing out surrenders), but will do nothing to fix wite 2.0. Nerfing logistic will simply make for WW1 on the Eastern Front.

Numdydar -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 7:11:37 PM)
All these points made in this thread reflect the difficulties in creating startegic games based on a single front. I would go so far as to say North Africa is really the only area where this is possible. Simply due to scale and more easily modeled impacts of things outsdie the players direct control. In my opnion the Eastern front cannot be modeled at all in a game simply because of the meddilng of Stalin and Hitler. Decisions were made about the Eastern Front long before the first shots were even fired. These decisions (of which the player has NO input on) had the most impact on what occured on the Eastern Front. So until 2 by 3 can make all their planned modules tie togeather, I thing we will see a lot of these some discussion points being made when WitE 2.0 comes out. The only method I can see to fix this to use a rolling VP system. Which of course can be used or not [:)]. Turn it on and if the Germans capture a VP location before the historical schedule, they get bonus points. Obviously if the Russians keep it longer, then they get the bonus points. Compare the VP totals every turn and if the difference between them get too large, you 'win'. This indicates you did better than the historical record. Turn the system 'Off' and you have an anything goes type of game and can do whatever you want. The players can decide between them what a 'victory' should look like for each side. But I think for now, we just have to wait until the next version for the game to really be what we all would like it to be. Fortunately, there are other games to occupy the time [:D]

fbs -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 7:45:33 PM)
I wish I could run a poll in this forum. Let's use this as a poll, with three questions: 1 - Do you believe that it was realistic for the USSR could have run East in 1941 as fast as players do in WITE? (a) Yes, it was realistic that the USSR should have run East in 1941 (b) Maybe (c) No, it was unrealistic that the USSR should have run East in 1941 2 - If realistic and the USSR had run East in 1941, what would be the bad consequence (real life) for the Soviet HQ? (multiple choice) (a) Immediate surrender/lose the war (b) Reduced production / logistics / reinforcements / ammo / fuel (c) Reduced political / lose leaders / reduce morale (d) Lose forces (desertion, lose Fronts/Armies, etc..., reduced command capacity) (e) Tactical or strategic constraints (cannot command, reduced movement, etc...) 3 - If realistic and the USSR had run East in 1941, what would be the good consequences (real life) for the German HQ? (multiple choices) (a) Increased production / logistics / reinforcements / ammo / fuel (b) Increased political / gain new leaders / increase morale (c) Increased forces (gain Army Groups/Armies, etc...) (d) Tactical or strategic benefits (increased command, increased movement, etc...)

fbs -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 7:50:59 PM)
I understand that the game currently models as if in real life was this: 1 - Was realistic for the USSR could have run East in 1941? (a) Yes 2 - If realistic and the USSR had run East in 1941, what would be the bad consequence (real life) for the Soviet HQ? (multiple choice) None 3 - If realistic and the USSR had run East in 1941, what would be the good consequences (real life) for the German HQ? (multiple choices) None Is that right? And people say "that's not how it really was", and the work-around to fix an un-historical situation is to assume that real life would have been like this: 2 - What would be the bad consequence (real life) for the Soviet HQ? (multiple choice) (a) Surrender / lose the war because that's what losing VP means, right?

loki100 -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 8:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs I wish I could run a poll in this forum. Let's use this as a poll, with three questions: 1 - Do you believe that it was realistic for the USSR could have run East in 1941 as fast as players do in WITE? (a) Yes, it was realistic that the USSR should have run East in 1941 (b) Maybe (c) No, it was unrealistic that the USSR should have run East in 1941 2 - If realistic and the USSR had run East in 1941, what would be the bad consequence (real life) for the Soviet HQ? (multiple choice) (a) Immediate surrender/lose the war (b) Reduced production / logistics / reinforcements / ammo / fuel (c) Reduced political / lose leaders / reduce morale (d) Lose forces (desertion, lose Fronts/Armies, etc..., reduced command capacity) (e) Tactical or strategic constraints (cannot command, reduced movement, etc...) 3 - If realistic and the USSR had run East in 1941, what would be the good consequences (real life) for the German HQ? (multiple choices) (a) Increased production / logistics / reinforcements / ammo / fuel (b) Increased political / gain new leaders / increase morale (c) Increased forces (gain Army Groups/Armies, etc...) (d) Tactical or strategic benefits (increased command, increased movement, etc...) for what its worth - c/c/a+b the Soviet regime would have survived, perhaps as a military state rather than under Communist Party control. But of course Stalin wasn't interested in the survival of the USSR as such, he was aware of the threats to his own survival. I do think that losing too much in 1941 was such a threat. From his own perspective the 1937-8 army purges were not foolish, he was busily eliminating an alternate power base that had existed ever since the Soviet regime militarised to win the Civil War. As I've argued elsewhere a lot of people kept quiet/went along with the purges not out of loyalty to Stalin but out of a combination of fear and accepting the argument that his methods were essential for the survival of the USSR. It was the fracturing of that 'deal' in 1941 and again in the summer of 1942 that put the Stalinist regime at last. Vasily Grossman's Life and Fate is a great, semi-fictional, rendering of this mindset.

mmarquo -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 9:57:55 PM)
Since the Soviets had no real idea what was happening initially, and were confident in their war machine, why would they have run? Running would have crippled their industrial capacity, and this game needs to punish running more severely in this regard while simultaneously reigning in the absurd logistical abuses. Running is a great idea only in hindsight. My 2 cents FWIW. [:)]

mmarquo -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 10:03:15 PM)
delete

Michael T -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 10:29:08 PM)
I have no idea why anyone who wants to game at war would decide to move all units away from the enemy as fast as possible from the get go. I have better things to do with my time.

carlkay58 -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 10:40:28 PM)
Perhaps the best way to actually get the game to punish the "run away" decision is to punish the in-game leaders. A system that lowered the Political ratings of leaders that 'ran away' would allow the current game system to have them auto replaced by Hitler / Stalin - something that currently happens already. Or perhaps punishing the leader by tacking on to his loss record or a combination of both would be more effective. Yes, the system could be gamed - very easily in some cases. But too much running and you will eventually run out of leaders . . .

fbs -> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? (8/27/2013 11:08:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael T I have no idea why anyone who wants to game at war would decide to move all units away from the enemy as fast as possible from the get go. I have better things to do with my time. I think that's because running away is probably one of the best options for the Soviet player in 1941, there are very little negative effects, and there is nothing the German player can do (currently) to counter that?

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.90625