Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Well, one of the problem with territory loss is not loss of population but loss of food as in WWI. Guns of August does it very well (htough simplistic).

I think that losing territory should impact the Russian hability to feed its population which should result in starvation and eventually lack of supply. The Russian should have the possibility to chossoe to give preference to Army feeding or civilian feeding (resulting in less supply but less death of civilian due to starvation). Historically Stalin let its civilian population starve to death. With a huge army the problem could be far worse.

May that is already model in the game? If not we should research about the impact.

quote:

America alone sent 5 million tons of food.

quote:

Even with the loss of 2/3rds of grain production, etc, the civilian population did not starve to death. Not on the scale that you seem to imply.

quote:

And of course you're going to make the Germans face the same choice? One rather large factor in not taking Leningrad was the fact that the Germans would of had to feed it.

So, now the Germans have a choice too. Take all those cities and feed them. Or not take them and take care of the military.

quote:

Such is beyong the game's scope.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan


Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my own personal experience and the experience of several players on the forum, taking Leningrad isn't exactly a "Do I take it and feed it, or just pass by?" Its more an issue of a half a million plus Soviets deciding to defend it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

I think the scenarios should be adjusted so that all factories are located in cities west of Moscow, and relocation is not an option; then the Axis fanboys will be happy.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan


Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my own personal experience and the experience of several players on the forum, taking Leningrad isn't exactly a "Do I take it and feed it, or just pass by?" Its more an issue of a half a million plus Soviets deciding to defend it.

OK, you're wrong. The Germans chose not to take it because they didn't want to be stuck with feeding a city of 2 million. But if you want to put things that are beyond the scope of the game, then you have to do it for both sides. You want the Sovs to make a choice between feeding the military and civilians. So why not impose the same thing on the Germans?

Soviet grain production fell by about 66% of 1940 figures. Cattle by 48%. Sheep and goats by 33% Pigs by 78%. That isn't what was removed, that was what was lost.

Why is it that some want to turn this into Railroad Tycoon/Imperialism????

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Should the Germans also be forced to stand and fight ala Stalingrad? No retreats during the first blizzard?

quote:

"In the winter of 1941–42 Hitler believed that his obstinate refusal to allow the German armies to retreat had saved Army Group Centre from collapse. He later told Erhard Milch,

I had to act ruthlessly. I had to send even my closest generals packing, two army generals, for example ... I could only tell these gentlemen, "Get yourself back to Germany as rapidly as you can — but leave the army in my charge. And the army is staying at the front."

The success of this hedgehog defence outside Moscow led Hitler to insist on the holding of territory when it made no military sense, and to sack generals who retreated without orders. Officers with initiative were replaced with yes-men or fanatical Nazis. The disastrous encirclements later in the war — at Stalingrad, Korsun and many other places — were the direct result of Hitler's orders. This idea of holding territory led to another failed plan, dubbed "Heaven-bound Missions", which involved fortifying even the most unimportant or insignificant of cities and the holding of these "fortresses" at all costs. Many divisions became cut off in "fortress" cities, or wasted uselessly in secondary theatres, because Hitler would not sanction retreat or abandon voluntarily any of his conquests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao
My point is that if you want the Russians to have a reason to fight pretty far forward, you might consider a scenario where it makes sense to fight pretty far forward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown
Should the Germans also be forced to stand and fight ala Stalingrad? No retreats during the first blizzard?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
Yes they should it boring that they give up land without fight. Game really need some Hitler rule that auto execute all retreating German Generals that do not fight for every inch of Soviet territory as Hitler required mobile defence was historically out of question.

Hitler ordered Historically that German troops have no right to retreat at all at winter 41-42. Hitler beleaved that his order of not allowing retreat at all actually saved army group center from collapse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
Hmmh, never thought that it would be boring if one player pursued a strategy that would be hard to punish by the opponent, like a (fighting, or not?) Russian withdrawal during the summers of 41 and 42, or a German one during the winters. However, maybe this would in fact have been the best strategy both the Russians and Germans could historically have pursued?

There probably is a fine line between allowing "boring" strategies, and cutting down on viable options to be pursued within the game model. It is not entirely unimaginable that either Hitler or Stalin would have given their staff the freedom to conduct the withdrawals (would you bet against it?), either voluntarily, or by external influences (say getting a heart attack and being left as a marionette -- esp. Hitler wasn't in good health at all times). And besides, this is a game and ideally should allow as much freedom as would be rationally possible (i.e. could technically have happened if there had historically not been any human interference/doctrines). This makes probably the most powerful game/simulation engine that will be around for long.

House rules, or optional on-start campaign rules could be used to limit it by preventing either withdrawals. But in that case I agree with C&G that both sides need to be tied by comparable hindrances.

However, say if you limit withdrawals, one perhaps should also add another rule should force Germans to attack right up until all forces are below 50%, and that Russians would need to be forced to counterattack at certain times (to prevent skewing the outcome by the 1st rule?). And maybe one also ought to implement a Hitler rule to tell the player in which areas to place the armor, and which goals and targets he ought to pursue -- as for Hitler I am sure he defined targets and goals, and employment of Corps like II. SS-PzKps, Stalin I don't know. I hope you see my point already. The more you limit the game by additional "human-induced" rules, the less the player can actually do within the game. Until at least you converge on a truly close-to-historical course, and basically find yourself left without control and reading a book... I suppose the game should leave a lot of freedom, and that optional rules and house rules should complement it as to the player's wishes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
Historically Stalin gave Soviet generals more freedom than Hitler in strategical choices apart from 1941 forced soviet counter attacks where Stalin destroyed large part of soviet armored troops by forcing them to counter attack German troops.

Hitler intervened and restricted German choices all a way during the war. Stalin did that mostly only 41 but not after that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

Historically Stalin gave Soviet generals more freedom than Hitler in strategical choices apart from 1941 forced soviet counter attacks where Stalin destroyed large part of soviet armored troops by forcing them to counter attack German troops.

Hitler intervened and restricted German choices all a way during the war. Stalin did that mostly only 41 but not after that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Where as Stalin was never consider as head of the army, only as head of state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
The difference is that Hitler was the head of army (Chieff of General Staff) and Chief of Government. It is clearly stated by Guderian in his memoirs. Where as Stalin was never consider as head of the army, only as head of state.

But as player actually play the head of the army, they are in Hitler shoes at least partly, so Hitler rules are meaningless.

This game is about simulating the military choice. So I strongly advocate against any rule that compell a side to do something. Only to make the system simulate the consequences of choice, hence the grain rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
The difference is that Hitler was the head of army (Chieff of General Staff) and Chief of Government. It is clearly stated by Guderian in his memoirs. Where as Stalin was never consider as head of the army, only as head of state.

But as player actually play the head of the army, they are in Hitler shoes at least partly, so Hitler rules are meaningless.

This game is about simulating the military choice. So I strongly advocate against any rule that compell a side to do something. Only to make the system simulate the consequences of choice, hence the grain rules.

Stalin was not just Head of State, he was 'head of everything' and had shown the power to have 10, 000s of Red Army officers excectuted in 1937. Therefore, titles are meaningless in a vicious dictatorship.

For me, it is to have an option to have each side with the same capabilities and doctrine as the historical forces, principally in play against the AI. You could also have settings and options for changes in doctrine, such as Soviet better preparations, a Tank doctrine as planned by Tukhachevsky (murdered in 1937), overthrow of Stalin - Zhukov in charge (Stalin hid in his dacha in June 41, expecting a coup), Germans get winter equipment.

This is all easy for me to say, as I don't have the skills, but I am sure there is a development team and modding groups that can, so it's not a matter of what we don't want, more a case of what would be good for the game in all its possible variations and settings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
So, if you want an historical game, for any campaign start, against either the German, or Soviet AI, the above factors should be reflected in the game, either as available settings, or scenarios. For those who want other features and doctrine, there would be alternative settings, or scenarios and PBEM options. We should all be very happy in the end, this is only the beginning of the trail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Oddly enough, Stalin wasn't the head of state. He had some non entity for that. For much of his career he actually hid behind a facade of collective leadership with only General Secretary as his title. During the course of the war he collected more titles and headed the GKO and assumed official status as a Generalissimo, but never became the head of state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Oddly enough, Stalin wasn't the head of state. He had some non entity for that. For much of his career he actually hid behind a facade of collective leadership with only General Secretary as his title. During the course of the war he collected more titles and headed the GKO and assumed official status as a Generalissimo, but never became the head of state.

Thanks for correcting me.

The point that some don't realise and what I wished to point out is that Hitler was acting as commander in Chief where as Stalin had Stavka doing it for him (as it should be). And STAVKA seems to have been far less impress by Stalin that the OKW/OKH was by Hitler. Stalin did meddle some time but did not command the Army whereas Hitler did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Come on guys, this is getting old. Every one needs to step back and wait until Beta 3 comes out. Since it fixes a lot of issues. Then we can get a better feel for what might need to be done then.

I could care less if the Russian runs straight for the Urals on turn 1. It will be boring for about 25 turns. Then I get to defend my gains. But I also have crippled him with his manpower losses. I have yet to see a German run away in any PBEM. Create buffers to shorten lines, go to better defensive ground, yes. That is only the smart thing to do. No one will force me to advance or even attack in mud. Same as no one will force me to defend what I know cannot be held without great risk. I will risk Hitler's bullet before I allow that.

And that is all I will say on the matter until after Beta 3.