Re: Historical Accuracy posts (Full Version)

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



Message

lastkozak -> Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/8/2013 6:20:15 PM)

I am wondering if it is possible to have some streamlined forum for discussing and proposing possible errors or questions pertaining to historical accuracy of the game? Or a place to ask questions and get answers from the designers specifically, and/or where more civil and perhaps more academic discussions can take place (and citing things beyond wikipedia).

I am sure that there are many people who have thoughts, criticisms and argument to historical accuracy questions in the game. So far, so many discussions end up shooting off into many directions that it is difficult finding them all, or discussing each topic separately.

I can see nothing but benefit coming to the designers, since so many forum users are well versed in the History of this period as well as few, I am sure, who may have some academic background in History. Though I am not a Historian, I am a senior High School History Teacher, with a bone to pick about 'Folk History' versus Historical Academia. Of course there is always the debate as to what level of historical accuracy are the designers and producers of the game going for? How much is needed to sell the product?

Some questions which I have noticed are:
- The lack of any real naval involvement, in the Black and Baltic seas.
- The use of Naval Guns in Leningrad's defense.
- The use of the Black Sea Navy for Bombardment and special operations in the Black Sea; bombarding Constantia.
- The Bombing of Polesti by Soviets early in the war.
- The much discussed Ju52 supply methods, and over use of HQ build ups.
- I am sure the members could come up with an exceptionally long list.
- Forts and coastal batteries with Gun emplacements which had ranges greater than 10 km; not represented in the game.
- Old Fortifications which the Soviets reused, which are not represented in the game.
- More Supplies for the German war machine when the Soviet Submarine fleet is lost if Leningrad fell? More or less supplies of illegal chrome ore from Turkey, if and when Sevastopol falls, and even more when there are no more Soviet Ports in the Black Sea.
- There were air forces for both the Black and Baltic seas, to protect the navies, but now these planes are just used for other soviet operations.

Thanks for listening!

lastkozak



carlkay58 -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/8/2013 11:30:20 PM)

The naval units are not really covered in this game. War in the West (WitW)is beginning to add naval units but it will be some time (if ever) before the naval game is up to the land type of detail.

You can bomb Polesti early in the war as the Soviets. There will be little effect under the current version however. This is another thing that WitW is developing for the series.

The rest of your list falls into the 'not yet addressed' list. Whether they ever will be is up to the designers.



Gabriel B. -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/9/2013 6:32:31 AM)

I did hit Ploesti several week in a row with 200 bomber raids, but it takes to long to put out even 25 percent out of action
by which time the axis can get some better defense organised .



lastkozak -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/9/2013 4:16:11 PM)

quote:

I did hit Ploesti several week in a row with 200 bomber raids, but it takes to long to put out even 25 percent out of action
by which time the axis can get some better defense organised .


Yes, the impression I got from a Documentary was that the damage was extensive enough that it was this which influenced Hitler into going into Crimea and Sevastopol, when they did. Given that refineries are easy targets and once a few storage tanks go up, there is a tendency for a chain reaction. If anything it is costly to repair. However the designers would need to know, how much fuel reserves the Germans had, and how much they were dependent upon Ploesti for fuel. Did it infact decrease fuel availability in '41, or not?



Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/9/2013 4:39:21 PM)

You can hit Ploesti on T1 with your long range bombers and get up to 6% damage. At least that is the maximum damage I ever achieved. But the repair rate for industry is way to fast. If the repair rate would be only 1% per turn it would be more interesting to bomb industry.

The same goes for ports. Ports are handled completely wrong in this game. Ports should always be 100% damaged when captured and the repair rate should be randomized.



Gabriel B. -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/9/2013 8:21:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lastkozak

quote:

I did hit Ploesti several week in a row with 200 bomber raids, but it takes to long to put out even 25 percent out of action
by which time the axis can get some better defense organised .


Yes, the impression I got from a Documentary was that the damage was extensive enough that it was this which influenced Hitler into going into Crimea and Sevastopol, when they did. Given that refineries are easy targets and once a few storage tanks go up, there is a tendency for a chain reaction. If anything it is costly to repair. However the designers would need to know, how much fuel reserves the Germans had, and how much they were dependent upon Ploesti for fuel. Did it infact decrease fuel availability in '41, or not?


Short ansver NO.
It took the USAAF 15th airforce 3 months to acheive damage beyond 50 % , so there might be easy targets, but not with 1940 bombing sights. The Tidal Wave planers got it right , Go at tree top level with 200 big bombers and raise hell .

I did aim for 5-6 % damage per turn hopping to overwelm the repair capacity but against a human oponent it is pointles .








Ketza -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/10/2013 1:23:14 AM)

I have bombed Ploesti into a smoking ruin multiple times. I don't think it has any impact whatsoever [:D]



Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/10/2013 1:52:17 AM)

Define smoking ruin. I mean percentage wise.



Ketza -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/10/2013 3:55:10 AM)

100% fuel and Oil damage....[sm=fighting0045.gif]



Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/10/2013 2:04:03 PM)

quote:

100% fuel and Oil damage....


Did you keep them at 100% damage for an extended period?



Ketza -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 1:08:06 AM)

Through the Blizzard from the start of the game. No Axis player ever defended the place with fighters so after awhile I stopped the bombing assuming it was pointless.

Funny thing is no one ever tried it against me but I always defended the place regardless.



Gabriel B. -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 7:24:14 AM)

did you use daylight bombing ?



Brandle -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 4:58:45 PM)

interesting paragraph from Black Cross Red Star vol 1



page 72

In 1941 the Germans were ill prepared to sustain the losses inflicted by the tenacious Soviet resistance. After 9 days of war, 699 German aircraft, including 286 bombers, had been lost. Soviet claims match these figures 613 shot down by fighters, 49 by AAA.

If we are trying to get accurate results in WitE, we may need to rethink how we go about it to get these losses after turn 2.




BC/RS Vol 1 says after 1 month:


Soviet losses = 7564 aircraft

German = 1284 or almost half the original force



lastkozak -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 5:15:32 PM)

brandle, that is exactly the type of reference and discussion which I was proposing, not to devalue the others' here who have input their ideas and thoughts.

I suspect that the game design may have been influenced by pro-german players, and nazi folk history. Although many germans soldiers lived to tell their stories, too often the info they had were via the german propaganda machine, thus there are limitations to the history of the eastern front. Fortunately the Russians are allowing greater access to their archives, since they are no longer attempting to protect Stalin's memory!

Perhaps a comparison of the historical reports from the allies' battles with the germans versus the historical records and recollections of the germans, of the same battles, can indicate the deviation from the truth, which the propaganda machine had; thus allowing us an idea of what margins of error to consider when reading Germans recollections of the eastern front!

I had never thought the casualties of the Luftwaffe were so high, although it makes sense, since they ran out of planes, but these losses cannot be accounted for by the allies' kills! It has always seemed that during 41-42, a large portion of the Luftwaffe disappeared off the records.

Do these losses include german allied losses also?



SigUp -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 6:36:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lastkozak

I suspect that the game design may have been influenced by pro-german players, and nazi folk history.

Interesting statement. If we look at total aircraft losses, the game woefully understates the Soviet losses. In the game the Soviet player - as far as I can see from AARs - lose 50.000 planes at best. In reality, however, the VVS lost some 106.400 planes (46.100 combat losses), with combat aircraft losses at 88.300 (43.100 combat losses). Before you counter with the source, the source is the book Grif Sekretnosti Sniat by G. F. Krivosheev, so a Russian source. That's why the VVS just blows up after 1941, reaching some 20.000 to 30.000 planes in 1944-45.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brandle

page 72

In 1941 the Germans were ill prepared to sustain the losses inflicted by the tenacious Soviet resistance. After 9 days of war, 699 German aircraft, including 286 bombers, had been lost. Soviet claims match these figures 613 shot down by fighters, 49 by AAA.


I'd be careful with the Soviet claims. It was incredibly hard to clearly identify shot down aircraft in those days. The margin of error is quite high. So it is possible (not saying that it is necessarily so) that the Soviet claims are off by a good margin and that a good portion of the German losses are actually operational losses.

In that regard the German numbers were (most of the time, not always of course) relatively good. The Luftwaffe had high requirements for recognizing a kill. The kill had to be confirmed by a witness (aside from the pilot himself), or the wreckage had to be found and this process often took quite some time. That's why for example the number of German fighter kills are lower than the Western Allied losses over Germany, even after factoring in losses due to flak.

One area the (admittedly broken) air model does very poorly in, is the percentage of aircraft that are operational. I don't know about the Soviet side, but for example in 1943-44 only about 50% of the Luftwaffe aircraft in the East were operational.



Gabriel B. -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 6:44:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brandle

interesting paragraph from Black Cross Red Star vol 1



page 72

In 1941 the Germans were ill prepared to sustain the losses inflicted by the tenacious Soviet resistance. After 9 days of war, 699 German aircraft, including 286 bombers, had been lost. Soviet claims match these figures 613 shot down by fighters, 49 by AAA.

If we are trying to get accurate results in WitE, we may need to rethink how we go about it to get these losses after turn 2.




BC/RS Vol 1 says after 1 month:


Soviet losses = 7564 aircraft

German = 1284 or almost half the original force




apples vs lemons .

soviet figures means total loss .

german figure means destroyed + damaged .



Tom Hunter -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 6:46:35 PM)

Lastkozak, though everything you list is true, I’ll suggest that there are other, perhaps larger issues to consider.

No Soviet or German general would be allowed to stay in charge if they did not attack.

In the war victory was defined in many ways. Sometimes it was taking a place, like Leningrad, sometimes it was stopping the enemy on a river line, sometimes turning a rout into a stable line, or capturing an army out in the open. In game victory is very static, which reflects the roots of these games in the paper and carboard games of the 1960s to 1990s.

As a number of people have noted, the pace of operations is too fast, much faster than historical.

The game is missing millions and millions of Russians. I have not done the math but I am wondering if it is missing as many Russians as were killed in the war, that seems possible.

I’m enjoying the game, but the historical issues go way beyond the missing navy or strategic bombing.



lastkozak -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 6:47:51 PM)

If such is true, are we comparing the same time periods? Brandle is indicating the 9 day mark and the 1 month mark. Which period of time does your source indicate the stats are from? Where was it published and what data was used? Recent data? Just because he is Russian does not mean he looked through the old secret files of the Soviet Union. Allied sources will use German data often. The good books compare what both sides indicated, the bad books mention one side's data only.

I am not criticizing your input, nor suggesting that you are incorrect, as much as putting forward explanations for the differences in numbers of planes shot down.



lastkozak -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 6:51:44 PM)

Gabriel B.

If what you say you believe to be true, then indicate where you obtained this information, and where did the author get there info, and does i cover the same periods of time? We cannot have a discussion if, like you say, we are comparing apples to lemons!



Brandle -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 6:58:26 PM)

Not quite as much detail about Axis losses but Vol 1 covers Jun '41-Dec'41.

On another note, I guess you consider Germany somehow more guilty than Russia for invading Poland, rounding up and killing innocents and basically starting war? It seems to me they were partners for a long time and caused alot of pain before Germany turned on Russia.



lastkozak -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 7:00:14 PM)

Tom Hunter

Indeed the game moves much faster. Perhaps if supply was done where the supplies used for the first period are in fact stocked up supplies and as they decrease, more supplies come, but not at the same rate thus slowing down the Germans. Kind of like the High HQ needs to build up a supply dump before another onslaught can happen. This I believe would be a lot closer to the supply issues they had.

1st turn, I believe the germans have an unhistorical advantage, in their attacks and movement points. people may say it is the only way to give the Germans a chance, but this argument may in fact indicate that the germans though an exceptionally professional army, with advanced weapons, but still not so much as they could have defeated the Soviets. It may be that the germans did not stand a hope in hell originally, and much of their advance was in fact a result of Soviet Errors, not German superiority!

No sure I know what you mean regarding the missing Soviets?



Gabriel B. -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 7:00:51 PM)

well there are several but here is just one :

Mark Solonin The Casks and The Hoops
page 312 on my translation

22 JUNE -2 AUG : eastern front

968 destroyed + 606 damaged

10 may -24 jun : battle of france [:)]

1401 destroyed +672 damaged .








lastkozak -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 7:03:32 PM)

Brandle said:

quote:

On another note, I guess you consider Germany somehow more guilty than Russia for invading Poland, rounding up and killing innocents and basically starting war? It seems to me they were partners for a long time and caused a lot of pain before Germany turned on Russia.


Have you written this to me? I do not believe I have said anything that would indicate that I think or consider such.



SigUp -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 7:09:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lastkozak

Just because he is Russian does not mean he looked through the old secret files of the Soviet Union. Allied sources will use German data often. The good books compare what both sides indicated, the bad books mention one side's data only.


Krivosheev's work is actually quite famous and used quite widely, so before you lambaste my source as potentially bad:

quote:

General Krivosheyev became widely known after the 1993 publication of the book titled Гриф секретности снят: Потери Вооруженных Сил СССР в войнах, боевых действиях и военных конфликтах (Transliteration: Grif sekretnosti snyat: poteri vooruzhyonnyh sil SSSR v voynah, boevyh deystviyah i voennyh konfliktah), originally in Russian, and about Soviet military casualties in various conflicts of the twentieth century, particularly in World War II. With Krivosheyev being the general editor of the book, this analysis prepared by historians based on declassified Soviet archival data represents the first comprehensive attempt to scientifically address the losses of the armed forces of the former Soviet Union during World War II.



lastkozak -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 7:18:48 PM)

Gabriel B.

Your data covers 10-11 days more, but which data set did the author use? German? Soviet?

as for the discrepancy, perhaps Brandle's data does not include the difference between damaged and destroyed airplanes, however even so the difference between them is only 300 or so, and although this seems high, I am not sure the difference would in fact meet the required threshold which would indicate the difference is great enough to be statistically significant. Unfortunately such data is difficult to test for significance, one of my criticism of History authors.

However, brandle's statement of almost half the Luftwaffe being out of service, even if part of it is temporarily would be pretty significant!



SigUp -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 7:23:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lastkozak

However, brandle's statement of almost half the Luftwaffe being out of service, even if part of it is temporarily would be pretty significant!

That's what I mentioned about the game doing a poor job handling the percentage of operational aircraft. But this counts for both sides and isn't part of a German bias of which you are accusing the game designers.



Brandle -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 7:23:30 PM)

On a seperate note, droptanks dont impact range of the aircraft carrying them, and quite vexing....bombers are in overload conditions with ranges based on not having any loadout.

a rough example and I wont quote my source just please dont look at the DB-3 wiki page.

"The bomb bay was designed to carry ten 100 kg (220 lb) FAB-100 bombs, but heavier bombs could be accommodated on external bomb racks up to a total of 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) on short-range missions. The defensive armament for the three crewmen consisted of three 7.62 mm (0.3 in) ShKAS machine guns. One in the tip of the nose manned by the bombardier-navigator and the two others protecting the rear hemisphere. The rear gunner manned both the gun in the SU dorsal turret and the gun in a LU ventral hatch.[4]

Flight tests of the second example pre-production aircraft conducted May–October 1937 revealed that it was slightly inferior to the TsKB-30 in performance, but still exceeded its requirements by a considerable margin. It attained a speed of 390 km/h (240 mph) at an altitude of 5,000 m (16,000 ft). It could carry a bomb load of 500 kg (1,100 lb) to a range of 4,000 km (2,500 mi) and a 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb load to a range of 3,100 km (1,900 mi). In comparison, the Heinkel He 111B then in production was 10–20 km/h (6.2–12 mph) slower and could only carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) of bombs to a range of 1,660 km (1,030 mi) and 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) to a distance of 910 km (570 mi). This performance arguably made it the best twin-engined bomber in the world already or entering service in 1937.[3] 45 DB-3s were built that year at Factory No. 39 in Moscow and No. 18 in Voronezh and the aircraft entered service with the VVS.[3]"


Has anyone ever tested a campaign and compared the same bombers using different loadouts?



Gabriel B. -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 8:14:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lastkozak

Gabriel B.

Your data covers 10-11 days more, but which data set did the author use? German? Soviet?

as for the discrepancy, perhaps Brandle's data does not include the difference between damaged and destroyed airplanes, however even so the difference between them is only 300 or so, and although this seems high, I am not sure the difference would in fact meet the required threshold which would indicate the difference is great enough to be statistically significant. Unfortunately such data is difficult to test for significance, one of my criticism of History authors.

However, brandle's statement of almost half the Luftwaffe being out of service, even if part of it is temporarily would be pretty significant!


German sources for german losses , it would be a bit odd to use russian sources for german losses , no ?

Anyway before anyone starts criticising my autor, here is another for cross cheking :

W .Murray Strategy for Defeat.

chapter II
THE EASY WAR: GERMANY TRIUMPHANT, SEPTEMBER
1939-SEPTEMBER 1940

chapter III

THE TURN TO RUSSIA .

as for percentage of operational aircraft from chapter III:

june : fighters 75% / bomber 57 %
july : fighters 72%/ bomber 62%
aug : fighters 67 %/ bomber 52 %
sep: fighters 62 %/ bomber 45 %
oct: fighters 62 %/ bomber 38 %
nov : fighters ? %/ bomber 45 %
dec: fighters 52 %/ bomber 32 %





Tom Hunter -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 9:40:15 PM)

@lastkozak

I have not dug into it very deeply, but my impression is that the Soviet replacement rate runs below historical. For example the Soviets appear to have lost 8 million men in 1941, if you combine my losses and my army it adds up to 8 million. After losing 8 million they still had millions in arms. My understanding is the lower replacement rate is needed to make the game work, and I am quite happy with that, but its not historical and this is a thread about historical accuracy.

As I said, right now this is just an impression, I have not done a lot of research into it, and I don't plan to, because I don't really care, but I would like to see better figures than mine if someone has them handy.



Flaviusx -> RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts (12/11/2013 9:51:24 PM)

I estimate Soviet manpower to be running at about half of its historical level in game. You cannot afford anything like historical losses with the existing manpower provided.

The Soviets called up 5 million men to the colors in July of 1941 alone -- although admittedly some of this is shown in game as reinforcements not replacements. In game you get somewhere around 3 million replacements in all of 1941.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.421875