Remove winterdebuff unless Soviets earn it in blood!

[exalted]

If you're playing on 110+ the AI has its own set of challenges.

If you're playing on 100 and you're willing to:
a) read the whole manual at least once
b) take 2 days/turn and pay proper attention to logistics (including reading the full logistics report a few times until you get the hang of it)
I would be very surprised if you can't get a Major Victory in '44.

Can only agree and will go further. On 100 you could do AI depot and Air management and win if you understand ground warfare and especially the flow of advantage between the soviets and axis during 41, 42 and 43. Of course this is only against the AI a human soviet players has a lot of tricks to play some which are simply put a bit too good.

[DarkHorse2]

The winning by 1944 is not a problem against the AI.

Seems like there is a point where the AI starts to fall apart and I restart at that point. This is usually around Autumn of 1942.

It is in the 1941 initial Barbarossa that I find the AI challenging. Does a good job preventing large scale break-throughs and I have a hard time maintaining historical capture schedule in AGS though.

Depending on the weather, I may or may not take Rostov.
Leningrad is pretty much a given. (Leningrad is high priority for me)
Moscow, don't really push hard until '42, as I'm not going to bleed the Axis white over it.
Kharkov is a given, but hard to push past in '41 before the muds set in.

So, by the end of '41, the Soviet position doesn't look all that bad. I figure against a human Soviet, it would look better.

[Stamb]

Which AI settings did you use?

At 100% Soviet AI was terrible in my first wite 2 game and the only GC game vs AI.
Even when i left useless axis allies with 1-2cv on the edge of a big pocket - AI still refuses to attack and open a pocket.
Overall i hardly recall any attack from it before a winter. And in the winter it also did not get any success except of routing axis allies, cuz i had no idea that they are so terrible.

But in 42 i had Moskva, Stalingrad, Saratov, Gorky, i was already near Baku.

I sent half of my panzers to the reserve cuz i did not need them.

And it was my first game in a wite 2...

[DarkHorse2]

The AI is still bad at breaking out of pockets.

There are some aspects of the AI that are subject to exploit, which I don't. (such as a thinly garrisoned pocket)

But AI's teleport / reserve-line formation is pretty good.

[MechFO]

German soldiers were definitely suffering from the cold - but the issues of the 'General Winter' were not just the cold itself.

That the cold freezes the grease of your machine gun has little impact if you're miles away from the action.
Certainly it is of less impact if the lubricants of the panzer or truck engine are frozen in midst of night or early morning and there is an emergency (because the enemy is attacking) and another is if there is time and means to warm them up.

So the 'issue' is that the cold hinders operations itself (and yes Germans had summer equipment, including boots with metal reinforced soles to easen marching - which were awful cold conductors for winter) - but at the same time 'solutions applicable' were not that easily applicable when under direct pressure from the enemy aggressions.

I believe that is (or should at least) be mirrored by the different treatment if something is in urban or not. In truth it should be something related to front distance as well. Because even a garrison in a small town far from the front would not have huge problems to warm up with logs of wood and the like locally provisioned (at the mega-micro scale).

Winter material was available in the supply system, it didn't make it to the front due to the supply crisis. The fresh units that were commited from the West and had winter equipment were able to conduct successful manouver warfare in January and February 1942 to pocket several Soviet Armies.

I do not believe though present 1st Winter Rules are excessive - the problem is that the Axis player cannot inflict enough damage on Soviets in Summer / Fall '41. And thus Soviets can do a general all front offensive from Leningrad to Rostov or the like during Winter '41. Which is pretty much completely ahistorical. (By that I am speaking of PvP games with matching / similar skill opponents).

The combat rules are excessive with no base in reality, but the supply penalties are not enough.

The problem is again hindsight and the ability to learn from mistakes. Now that there is more or less a blueprint for the German supply organisation, the supply crises can no longer have the effect it should. If the Soviets fight pre winter, the freight system should have problems supplying replacements and supply, making the Germans vulnerable when the added penalties hit. Maybe captured railyards should take much longer to repair in 41, or be kept in permanent damaged state for a few months. The demolition of the real world railyard infrastructure contributed in a major way to the historic collapse of the supply system.

[DarkHorse2]

Winter material was available in the supply system, it didn't make it to the front due to the supply crisis.

It was more than just logistical, but was also political.

The official Nazi narrative at the onset of Barbarossa was that it was going to be over in 6 weeks.

Why bother with stockpiling, pre-deploying or planning for the delivery / distribution of a bunch of winter equipment / supplies for a war that is going to be concluded by then?

The Nazi's stuck to this (false) narrative for so long, they ended up doubling down on it.

The moment that the German High Command would start ordering, transporting and distributing cold-weather equipment and supplies is the moment they are admitting that Soviet Union is *not* near defeat and the war will extend into the winter months (and beyond).

It did not help that the '41 winter got very cold, very fast. In this case, not being properly prepared was devastating for the Axis forces.

By the time the German logistical, military and political chains of commands were finally willing to acknowledge that -
"Not only is it cold in the Soviet Union, it is f**king cold! There is noway this is getting concluded anytime soon! Break out the parkas!"

it was too late and impossible for the supply system to be responsive enough to immediately meet these needs.

At this point, it is almost a 100% supply problem. But that is only because Germany remained in denial for so long.

[ToxicThug11]

but yeah, lets make it even easier for the axis player

lol

Having played both sides I've come to agree that the victory mechanics are significantly tilted towards the Axis side in GC41.

Really the only reason someone wouldn't do well as Axis is impatience. This happens at multiple levels e.g.

• plunging into multiple GC games without reading the manual end-to-end even once

• rushing through, trying to play 5+ turns/week and suffering unnecessary losses as a result

• not spending enough time on logistics, which kills both the summer push and blizzard defense

• giving up at the first setback, especially when the weather turns bad

An Axis player who aims for the 12/31/1944 victory condition and only plays 2-3 turns/week with due care and diligence is nearly unbeatable IMO, at least by people at the same level of experience.

Your points are correct (alot of people rush their turns and dont pay proper attention to logistics, which leads to a feedback loop of losses) but I disagree with your assertion that a skilled Axis player is unbeatable. I would very much like to play against an Axis player who feels he is unbeatable.

[ToxicThug11]

To be clear, you are referring to Axis vs AI games or Axis vs Human Soviet games?

[jubjub]

but yeah, lets make it even easier for the axis player

What does this mean? I think the SP and PBEM players are thinking completely differently here.
Currently the game is not worth playing in PBEM due to axis weakness.

I play both .. and am on my third Axis HtH since release.

In my current game the OKH had 658 wins and 69 losses for the first of the December turns. When i got T29 back (ie the start of the Jan turns) I have 706 wins and 93 losses. So I won 48 battles and lost 24 in the period when the Soviets get their best bonus. Thats not enough for them to make any real gains, never mind generate many Gds. And with their NM at 45, losses really hurt as it pushes them towards that 45 value - at that point almost any retreat becomes a rout

In none of my games has the Soviet player mounted a front wide offensive turn after turn.

Your opponent is simply not aggressive enough. Honestly, with only 93 wins by January, your opponent clearly doesn't know how to create wins. I have 75 losses vs todger on turn 10, and most of these happen on his turns.

It's literally impossible to supply the entire front well in the first winter. There will always be areas that are 4+ hexes from a depot, and these areas can be attacked to unhinge the well supplied areas.

[jubjub]

but yeah, lets make it even easier for the axis player

What does this mean? I think the SP and PBEM players are thinking completely differently here.
Currently the game is not worth playing in PBEM due to axis weakness.

Disagree with this assessment. I think the game is pretty well balanced for experienced players. However, the Axis side definitely has a higher learning curve, and the Soviets are very favored in a battle between less experienced players due to the easier time they have with logistics.

Once the game extends to 1943 and on, the Soviets start to really struggle with manpower, so if you haven't built up a very strong army by then, the Soviets will start to have a hard time creating successful offensives.

[jasonbroomer]

It's literally impossible to supply the entire front well in the first winter. There will always be areas that are 4+ hexes from a depot, and these areas can be attacked to unhinge the well supplied areas.
[/quote]

There is nothing to stop the Axis retiring a hex or two to ensure that they are within 3 hexes.

[jubjub]

It's literally impossible to supply the entire front well in the first winter. There will always be areas that are 4+ hexes from a depot, and these areas can be attacked to unhinge the well supplied areas.


There is nothing to stop the Axis retiring a hex or two to ensure that they are within 3 hexes.

It's physically impossible to do that everywhere.

[Jango32]

Axis and Soviet units can receive supply and replacements
from a depot without having to use vehicles up to 3 hexes
from the depot through the use of animal drawn transport.
However, this will cost double the freight being delivered
as the animal drawn transport is assumed to be consuming
fodder (if the unit is isolated, it receives the delivery but
does not pay double freight).

Also,

units within 3 hexes of a depot will use horses if they can fully supply from that depot, if they can't then they use trucks. So the distance rule needs to take account of supply at the target depot and total demand falling on that depot

With the freight penalties on top of this, Axis won't really be making use of horses delivering freight in winter.

[AlbertN]

Axis and Soviet units can receive supply and replacements
from a depot without having to use vehicles up to 3 hexes
from the depot through the use of animal drawn transport.
However, this will cost double the freight being delivered
as the animal drawn transport is assumed to be consuming
fodder (if the unit is isolated, it receives the delivery but
does not pay double freight).

Also,

units within 3 hexes of a depot will use horses if they can fully supply from that depot, if they can't then they use trucks. So the distance rule needs to take account of supply at the target depot and total demand falling on that depot

With the freight penalties on top of this, Axis won't really be making use of horses delivering freight in winter.

I am not sure if this goes unit by unit but I'd would like to be able to decide if to use only trucks - because horse supply is more freight intensive.
So it can widely backfire if a depot receives 1000 Freight for example, but in truth because of 'horse supply' it drops down to 500 freight.
I'd rather have trucks lifting the 1-2-3 hexes of distance and have 1000 freight in a moment of freight shortage.

[Stamb]

AlbertN
+1

[loki100]

so lets be tedious and remind Stamb and AlbertN of the actual rules?

the horse option only works IF the unit is within 3 hexes AND that depot can supply the unit

both conditions need to be met, if one fails it reverts to trucks. And, amazingly, the second condition often fails in the first winter.

wider point - the solution is not even more micro-control, its understanding how the wider system works

[Stamb]

lets say we have 2000t that gets to a depot

and this 2k will be used at a double rate for units that can fulfill its needs from this depot if this unit is within 3 hexes, meaning that 2k freight is turned into 1k effective freight
or am i missing something?

and yeah,
there is a lot of micro in this game

[Killmaster851]

Less microabilty somtimes be leading to more micro

[Stamb]

considering that you need to have PHD in logistics as an Axis i would micro horse/trucks all days long
fortunately i am not playing as an Axis any more
and there was written enough about Soviets logistics so i will not repeat myself and other players

[DarkHorse2]

As I have previously stated, i really hate the hard-coded nature of the 1st winter rules in terms of the arbitrary modifications made tied to the date range of (Nov, 1941 - Mar, 1942).

I understand the intent behind it, but the implementation was just bad.

There was actually a set of underlying conditions that occurred, historically, during that time frame. These include the state of individual unit winterization, coupled with extreme weather conditions. If those same conditions subsequently occurred in '42, '43, etc.... then the same penalties should apply, to either side. There should not be a magical time barrier on this.

Never-the-less, it is what it is and too late to change now. Just have to live with it.

However, given the current first winter rules, it seems like the Axis are expected to virtually dissolve in the face of the Soviet Counter offensive and sustain overwhelming losses in the process.

This flies in the face of the historical record during that time period. If you look at the historical losses of Axis forces during the Jun 1941 to Mar 42 time-frame, you will see the greatest losses generally occurred in the months of July & Sep '41 - not during the first winter.

The below figures include only those killed, not those taken prisoners or wounded.

June 1941 25.000
July 1941 63.099
Aug 1941 46.066
Sep 1941 51.033
Oct 1941 41.099
Nov 1941 36.000
Dec 1941 40.198
Total 1941 302.495

Jan 1942 48.165
Feb 1942 44.099
Mar 1942 44.132
---- following included just for reference ----
Apr 1942 23.066
May 1942 38.099
June 1942 29.033
July 1942 38.066
Aug 1942 62.165
Sep 1942 45.033
Oct 1942 25.000
Nov 1942 31.198
Dec 1942 78.759
Total 1942 506.815

Another study asserts the following losses on the Eastern Front:

(includes Dead, missing, but not POW)

June 1941 29,000
July 1941 67,132
Aug 1941 51,066
Sep 1941 53,033
Oct 1941 44,099
Nov 1941 38,000
Dec 1941 42,198
Total 1941 357,000

Jan 1942 53,165
Feb 1942 52,099
Mar 1942 46,132
--- following included for reference ---
Apr 1942 24,066
May 1942 44,099
Jun 1942 34,033
Jul 1942 46,099
Aug 1942 74,231
Sep 1942 46,033
Oct 1942 30,000
Nov 1942 38,231
Dec 1942 83,792
Total 1942 572,000

I feel that it is without question that the scope and scale of the Soviet Winter Offensive caught the Axis by surprise. Also, the gains made by the Soviets during this time period is beyond dispute.

But there is nothing to support the Axis suffered excessive combat casualties during this time period - with the possible exception equipment abandoned or otherwise lost.