Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

No, guns do not run out of ammo. An unsupplied unit may attack indefinately. And vehicles do not run out of gas. An unsupplied unit may move indefinately. Getting BLOWED UP does not constitute a supply condition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Huh. So an artillery unit which is cut off and fires for ten rounds at 1% supply will disappear ten times faster than the same unit firing for just one round?

It's an abstraction, and you've just given an extreme case. Clearly, if they started at 100% supply, the one firing ten times would disappear much faster. Regardless, at 1% they're both going to be disappearing fast. Being unsupplied in TOAW is a bitch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raver508

Just reverting back the topic of this thread for a moment.

I'm up to turn 5 of a new game as the Soviets, playing Buzz's mod, and it does look very much to me like there are balance issues here. I have been more or less able to form a continuous line encompassing the historic stalin line going north through Smolensk, without too many problems at all. What's worse is that the units forming the line are all in very good readiness and supply shape. It seems to me that at the least the soviet units and especially reinforcement units should come onto the map in much worse state in terms of supply. Might be an idea to increase the number of negative shock turns for the soviets too, to try and simulate the general breakdown of order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raver508

Just reverting back the topic of this thread for a moment.

I'm up to turn 5 of a new game as the Soviets, playing Buzz's mod, and it does look very much to me like there are balance issues here. I have been more or less able to form a continuous line encompassing the historic stalin line going north through Smolensk, without too many problems at all. What's worse is that the units forming the line are all in very good readiness and supply shape. It seems to me that at the least the soviet units and especially reinforcement units should come onto the map in much worse state in terms of supply. Might be an idea to increase the number of negative shock turns for the soviets too, to try and simulate the general breakdown of order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright




If you want to 'repeat history' why bother playing at all? The idea is to NOT repeat history if it will result in defeat.

One of the problems the Soviet had early on was one of training. That is to say, they had drilled offensive operations into their army. Very little attention was paid to defensive operations. So you ended up with things like AT guns placed at even intervals by the book with no regard to terrain or avenues of advance. The first period of the war (22 June 1941 to November 1942) was one of on the job training.

This offensive doctrine was evident in their strategic planning. They had intended to go on a general offensive upon being invaded. This was played out time and again with the results being what we have seen in the history books.

I don't see any way to force the Soviet player to attack. You can force him to defend areas or face defeat by losing too much turf too early. And if the Soviet units are deployed in the sorry state they were actually in then the outcome 'should' be different than what you see in FiTE. HOWEVER, big however, at the same time you have to do something about the Axis running rampant with no supply. Tanks should run out of gas in the red. Artillery should run out of ammo in the red. Trucks should roll to a halt. Unless you can model both sides in the way things would actually happen all will be for naught.

There was another reason that the Russians fought amateurishly in 1941. It has to do with the power of the unit political commissars to control or influence operations. A Soviet commander who failed to "fight by the book" was apt to end up in trouble for being some sort of "counter-revolutionary" and if he lost a fight while doing this he was practically certain to end up standing in front of a wall somewhere. I've always felt that, in some ways, Hitler's "Commissar Order" helped the Russians by killing off a lot of the political officers and temporarily reducing their effect on the Red Army - no proof, just a gut feeling.

I agree with much of what Panama had to say about equipment shortages for the Red Army, particularly in 1941. As to how to address these in FiTE, I'm not sure, short of going through every Soviet unit and individually adjusting the current equipment to reflect the shortages. I do agree with those who advocate making it more "expensive" for the Soviet player to simply abandon all of the territory the Soviets typically give up in a game. I suppose one way to partially offset that would be to allow the Axis player to not abuse the civilian population - thus greatly cutting down on the numbers of partisan units available to disrupt the already tenuous Axis supply lines.

I haven't read through this whole discussion yet, but if a group is forming to make mods to FiTE to better reflect the historical situation I'd be willing to participate as a playtester/debugger or whatever role might be needed.

For those of you who haven't yet read them I highly recommend checking out the recent work that David Glantz has done based on recently opened Russian archives. His writing is a bit dry, but he is making available a wealth of information that was not previously available to Western researchers. I've read his book on the Battle of Kursk - in which it becomes clear that the Germans came a lot closer to victory than has been generally recognized. Not that it would have done them any good in the long run - though Stalin may have been more open to a negotiated peace if the Red Army had taken a drubbing at Kursk. I'm currently working my way through the first volume of his Stalingrad campaign trilogy - which is very detailed and, again, shows that the Soviets were not in great shape during the summer of 1942. I expect that he'll end up showing that the counter-attack at Stalingrad was more of a shoestring operation than is known in the West and could have very well ended up suffering the same fate as Operation Mars did. Glantz has a lot of facts and lays them all out, but I do wish he'd learn how to "tell a story" while doing so. Just my opinion - YMMV. ;)

Anyway, from what I've read so far it seems obvious that all of us like FiTE a lot. The question seems to be: how do we take FiTE as the base and modify it enough to be both more historically correct while also improving play balance? That said, has anyone contacted the team that put FiTE together in the form that we know and love it? Are they working on any mods themselves? Do they have any problems with another group building off of their base? Would they be willing to work with us to improve the scenario? It seems to me that the original group recognized (recognizes) that there are short-comings in their implementation - which is why they've put out several versions over the years.

FWIW, I think we need to focus on what we can change about the scenario - not worry about aspects of the TOAW game engine that we can't really do anything about, other than trying to minimize their effects.

Here's hoping I haven't stepped on too many toes,
Ron


_____________________________

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
GnuPG public key available at: pgp.mit.edu

(in reply to Panama)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I am with Panama. The Soviet OOB is ridiculously unrealistic.
- Just take a look at the starting oob and you will find divisions near the front that didn't even exist until much later. They sit ON the path where the Germans will advance, fortified.
- And the ones that did exist are also fortified and in good health, even nkvd units.
- The Mech Corps in Fite is a very powerful formation, whereas in reality it lacked mobility, leadership, supply and training.

So the German player has to fight a much larger and stronger Soviet West Front than was the case historically. And that's only in 41, which is supposed to be the easiest year to depict. Later we've got other problems, I don't need to repeat them, Panama has done it already.

A good first step would be to incorporate Daniel McBride's OOB for 1941 from DNO, which is almost 100% correct, and build on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: dicke bertha

While certainly many changes were built into T3, I am not sure they adressed the - in my view - most important issues with the game, e.g. supply.

From what I understand, supply is being addressed in the upcoming patch

After reading Ralph's blogs it is my understanding that the ability for a unit to receive supply is being modified. However, I don't see anything about what happens when a unit's supply is reduced to the point where it has used up what it has. They can still move almost as if there were an eternal motion engine in all vehicles.

In the real world tanks and other vehicles actually DID run out of gas. Guns actually DID run out of ammo.

In TOAW bullets and shells and fuel are manufactured on the spot by the units. This is one of the most glaring problems with the game. I really don't understand why it's not addressed.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. (except the science fiction parts. )

quote:

ORIGINAL: morleron1
I agree, the Soviet OOB does seem inflated both in numbers and in capability. IIRC, the Soviets were in the process of disbanding their Mechanized Corps and reorganizing the men and equipment into true "all arms" formations, based loosely on the German panzer divisions, when the Germans embarked on their little vacation trip. From what Guderian wrote in his memoirs the Soviet Mech Corps were unwieldy and the command structure did not lend itself to rapid reaction - both factors which prompted the Soviets to pull them out and reorganize them as quickly as they could. The Soviets also suffered from having far too many different kinds of tanks - all with different capabilities and not really trained to work together - problems which they corrected (at least organizationally) by 1942 after the Germans relieved them of most of their useless T-28s, etc. in the 1941 encirclement battles. Somewhere I have a picture of the main highway between Moscow and Smolensk which looked a lot like the highway north of Kuwait City when the Iraqis tried to evacuate during Desert Storm - miles of abandoned and destroyed vehicles.

Is it possible to still get McBride's DNO scenario. He's withdrawn it from the "Rugged Defense" site and I've been unable to find it elsewhere. How big a job would it be to graft his initial OOB onto FiTE? Also, is there a definitive source for Red Army OOB information over the course of the war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: morleron1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I am with Panama. The Soviet OOB is ridiculously unrealistic.
- Just take a look at the starting oob and you will find divisions near the front that didn't even exist until much later. They sit ON the path where the Germans will advance, fortified.
- And the ones that did exist are also fortified and in good health, even nkvd units.
- The Mech Corps in Fite is a very powerful formation, whereas in reality it lacked mobility, leadership, supply and training.

So the German player has to fight a much larger and stronger Soviet West Front than was the case historically. And that's only in 41, which is supposed to be the easiest year to depict. Later we've got other problems, I don't need to repeat them, Panama has done it already.

A good first step would be to incorporate Daniel McBride's OOB for 1941 from DNO, which is almost 100% correct, and build on that.

I agree, the Soviet OOB does seem inflated both in numbers and in capability. IIRC, the Soviets were in the process of disbanding their Mechanized Corps and reorganizing the men and equipment into true "all arms" formations, based loosely on the German panzer divisions, when the Germans embarked on their little vacation trip. From what Guderian wrote in his memoirs the Soviet Mech Corps were unwieldy and the command structure did not lend itself to rapid reaction - both factors which prompted the Soviets to pull them out and reorganize them as quickly as they could. The Soviets also suffered from having far too many different kinds of tanks - all with different capabilities and not really trained to work together - problems which they corrected (at least organizationally) by 1942 after the Germans relieved them of most of their useless T-28s, etc. in the 1941 encirclement battles. Somewhere I have a picture of the main highway between Moscow and Smolensk which looked a lot like the highway north of Kuwait City when the Iraqis tried to evacuate during Desert Storm - miles of abandoned and destroyed vehicles.

Is it possible to still get McBride's DNO scenario. He's withdrawn it from the "Rugged Defense" site and I've been unable to find it elsewhere. How big a job would it be to graft his initial OOB onto FiTE? Also, is there a definitive source for Red Army OOB information over the course of the war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama




Also, the Axis didn't have to relieve the Soviets of tanks. Old and obsolete, the majority of them broke down, were abandoned by paniced crews or ran out of gas/ammo. There werre too few modern tanks. In the SW one unit received about a dozen KVII but there was no ammo for the 152mm guns they mounted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raver508

What would be needed -- and considering the interest in the topic it's not all that unreasonable a request -- is a way for the Russian forces to start out under P.O. control and shift to player control. Hopefully gradually and formation by formation, but all at once if necessary. Indeed, sporadic player control that gradually becomes the norm might get us close to the ideal.


Now that is an interesting idea! I always thought passive idiocy was the best representation possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bibbo

The Soviets lacked effective command&control that first summer and poor morale in their ranks. Simply making it difficult for the soviets to move would model this. Say give a negative shock penalty to any unit that voluntarily moves the first 8 or 10 turns. I think a global shock penalty for voluntarily abandoning key areas too early is a possibility. The Soviets needed to learn the hard way...by losing large amts of men and material. Stalin had to sack his bad commanders,but first they had to make the big mistakes we are trying to model. These huge losses weaken the Soviet collosus, but with clever pull backs in 42 and beyond the Soviets survive and eventually prevail.These early Soviet losses if we can model them into the game allow the game to stay competitive into 42 (case blue) and maybe into 43 (citadel)

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner

The real issue is the double dipping. The Red army replacements are historical, but adjusted for locations. So if the German player can't advance to the historical line the Red Army will be stronger. However historically the factories were moved east anyway, so we end up with to high Soviet production.

quote:

Both sides had logistic constraints on the size of the forces they could field each year. But as 1941 the Red Army lost so many units, it has a much larger force if it pulls back then it would have had.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I have to assume that- whatever the Soviet propaganda- the relocation of the factories to the East resulted in a major dip in their effective output. This in addition to loss of millions of able bodied workers and potential recruits. So I'm sure that, all else being equal, the Soviets would have produced more if the Germans had not advanced as far.


That's true- but it's really only a symptom of the key problem: the ability of the Red Army to make an orderly exit from the Western Soviet Union more or less without a fight. This is what would need to be changed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: madner
The real issue is the double dipping. The Red army replacements are historical, but adjusted for locations. So if the German player can't advance to the historical line the Red Army will be stronger. However historically the factories were moved east anyway, so we end up with to high Soviet production.

I have to assume that- whatever the Soviet propaganda- the relocation of the factories to the East resulted in a major dip in their effective output. This in addition to loss of millions of able bodied workers and potential recruits. So I'm sure that, all else being equal, the Soviets would have produced more if the Germans had not advanced as far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I have to assume that- whatever the Soviet propaganda- the relocation of the factories to the East resulted in a major dip in their effective output. This in addition to loss of millions of able bodied workers and potential recruits. So I'm sure that, all else being equal, the Soviets would have produced more if the Germans had not advanced as far.


That's true- but it's really only a symptom of the key problem: the ability of the Red Army to make an orderly exit from the Western Soviet Union more or less without a fight. This is what would need to be changed.

No doubt the Soviets could have produced more:
Losses were placed at coal 42%, iron ore, 65%, pig iron 60%, steel 55%, and coke 63% the first year.

Those are major Donbas resources.

Now, if the RKKA had retreated as players seem to want to do I doubt very much if they could have justified this to the population. Blatantly abandoning 40% of the population, 60% aluminum, 41% of the railroads, the bulk of their prime farmland, 42% of the electrical production and the pigs, think of the pigs, 60% of them.

How long could the regime last if they had actually turned their back on that without a fight? Plus the previous coal, etc figures.

Sugar
(thousands of tons)
Soviet Production	1,460
Allied Deliveries	610
Total	2,070
Allied Proportion	29.5%

Meat
(thousands of tons)
Soviet Production	3,715
Allied Deliveries	664.9
Total	4,379.9
Allied Proportion	15.1% 

Explosives
(in tons)
Soviet Production	600,000
Allied Deliveries	295,600
Total	895,600
Allied Proportion	33%

Copper Ore
(in tons)
Soviet Production	470,000
Allied Deliveries	387,600
Total	857,600
Allied Proportion	45.2%

Aluminum
(thousands of tons)
1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total
66	56	45	69	82.7	86.3	263
Allied Deliveries	328.1
Total	591.1
Allied Proportion	55.5% 

Railroad rails
(excluding narrow guage rails)
Soviet Production	48,990
Allied Deliveries	622,100
Total	671,090
Allied Proportion	92.7%

Locomotives
(all types)
1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total
928	708	9	43	32	8	442
Allied Deliveries	1966
Total	2408
Allied Proportion	81.6%

Rail cars
(all types)
Soviet Production	2635
Allied Deliveries	11,075
Total	13,710
Allied Proportion	80.7%

Aviation Fuel
thousands of tons (includes Allied deliveries)
1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total	%
889	1269	912	1007	1334	1017	4396
Allied Deliveries	2586	59
Soviet Production	1810	41

Automotive Fuel
thousands of tons
Soviet Production	9431.5
Allied Deliveries	242.3
Total	9673.8
Allied Proportion	2.5% 

 [ code ]
                            Automotive Fuel 
                            thousands of tons 
 Soviet Production             9431.5 
 Allied Deliveries             	242.3 
 Total                         9673.8 
 Allied Proportion                2.5%  
   

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Hey Madner:

if you put the tags [ code ]  [ / code ]  around the figures in your post (without the spaces in the tags I used as an example ) the numbers will stay in lined up columns.  It'll make your post look a tiny bit better.  Just a thought.

like this:

 [ code ]
                            Automotive Fuel 
                            thousands of tons 
 Soviet Production             9431.5 
 Allied Deliveries             	242.3 
 Total                         9673.8 
 Allied Proportion                2.5%  
   

[ / code ]