RELOADS and HQ Build Up

[Farfarer61]

If people want balance, real balance, then it's very simple.

1. Adjust initial Soviet unit Morale and Experience levels to German levels.
2. Scale Soviet production and manpower levels to German levels.
3. Set the start date to July 1st 1941, leaving deployments as they are.
4. Set Russian TOE, vehicle and supply levels to German levels.
5. Edit all leader stats, so they're all the same.
6. Remove units from Soviet OOB so the Axis and the Soviet Union have an 1:1 relationship in men, tanks and artillery.

Then we would have a "balanced" game. People getting so vocal about this issue, certainly could devote time in the editor to modify the GC to fit into that scenario. Though it wouldn't be the War in the East. It would be, let's say, "Hearts of Iron: The Operational Game". Which would probably become the Game of the Year, or some other meaningless marketing title.[/quote]


Wasn't this an AH Boardgame called "Blitzkrieg" ?

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I like to see the war end during 45.

I beleive the current setup is about right BUT we never know until some of us can get to 44/45.

The bitch I have is the dev's are alrdy nerfing the german side before the current patch has been completely tested, which is screwing the players willing to help out and figure the game balance out.

It is always easier to consider someone more seriously if he behaves seriously.

We in fact don't know yet, and that's why the devs exercise patience. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is only one example of a "past 43 scenario" (the one with the 1944 start against Axis AI), while a number of AARs are into late 43 or even 44, but they must be considered with care since they were started under previous patches, suffering from various positive and negative bugs or changes all along.

The 1944 game, however, rang some bells. I was actually scared by the rate at which the Axis AI broke in the 1944 game, even though it was AI. Since it is a historical start late in the war, it can be compared well against the original months towards the end of the conflict. The Axis break down appeared surprisingly fast to me. I don't wish my army to disintegrate that quickly. Together with the experiences stated by play testers, and the experiences we have on the German advance and ease of keeping an Army advancing fast and in good supply, this is a good first indication to watch out for some issue there.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I think me and Flaviusx feel same way on one issue. Russians will be slightly over powered late war.

So I agree, this indication suggests that something is allowing the Russians to appear overpowered on the offensive part. Now approach the origin of that: Is it too quick or efficient moral gains? Likely not, the numbers compare well to Axis -- the proficiency is lower than Axis, but it ought to turn into a reasonably good army by 44. Let's assume that that design goal is met. Is Axis disintegrating too quickly in terms of manpower or moral? Well, by 1944 that could happen with a 1941 start GC since these are a long-term effects, but surely should not be so fast as to happen in a "short 1944 start" scenario within but a couple of turns! What else affects the combat power and pace of which an advance can be sustained over extended periods? Well, foremost supply, fuel and ammo? Which should tie in with the rail repair speed, and the truck pool and assignment questions. So perhaps something is "too efficient" with the distribution of these goods, which in turn means the Soviet can advance continuously with a rather high pace and only slowly decreasing combat power instead of having to stop after certain jumps? If this is true, then the supply routines should be tightened.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I disagree that germans are over powered in the first 2 yrs. All things being equal the German player cant take Moscow. Its been showing in the current AAR's that Moscow can be held, but its a bitch. Thats is just what it was like Moscow almost fell and might have if Hitler had not made AGC go save AGS ass.
Leningrad falls which it should have.
South is very slightly better then historical. Rail nerf has fixed that.
Pelton

If supply is tightened, since it is supposedly treated by the same mechanics on both sides, German fanboy or not, this also affects the German speed of advance. Which to me feels a little fast as well, but not nearly as bad as a Soviet who possibly could reach Berlin by early 44 since his much greater Army likely benefits even more from this. So to save may own late war game as predominantly Axis player, tuning the supply transport and distribution levels to more realistic rates at the cost of a little slower (and perhaps similarly more realistic) pace in 1941 would sound like a very good compromise.

If tuning supply to "presumably more realistic" rates would reduce the German offensive power too much, then obviously something else would need to be looked at. But I think that has already been done by taking away significant benefits for the Russians like the 2:1, which I would rather wish to be entirely removed (even if that would mean tuning up Soviet starting moral a bit, which in fact could have the benefit of allowing to fight forward), and tuning down the fortification related parameters.

Besides, even as a German and German player I don't like to be given Leningrad as a freebee -- mainly because I doubt the Germans actually had a truly big chance in that terrain with the overextended state of their forces to take it. It should be possible to take it, but that should be a challenge to master, which means that there also should be a chance to hold it as Soviet. Moscow, on the other hand, will need to be seen first whether it becomes a standard as Lvov has. If it will in an average game be a tight match, then it would be where I hope it was.

Late edit: too many typos.

[Aurelian]

"Saving AGS's ass"

Sure, much better to drive on Moscow with 650,000 Russians on your ever extending flank.......

Good way to have Stalingrad early.

[Flaviusx]

Janh, it's mostly logistics.

The game is systemically biased in favor of the offense. So whoever is on the offense has a strong tendency to run away with it due to lack of a logistical leash. Early on, this is the Axis. Later on, it's the Soviets. There's also a fairly nasty feedback loop that plays into this so far as morale goes: nothing succeeds like success so far as unit morale goes and failure breeds yet more failure.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


...

I'm really sick of the random fanboy sh*t throwing which aborts any kind of meaningful discussion and all the sickening revisionism that some posts on this thread smack of. I find laughable that so many people consider the German Army to be the best Army in the world, vastly superior to its opponents, without wondering why, since they were so good, why they did lose.

Oh, and saying "I resigned the game because I realized in turn 15 than in turn 8 I could have done a better thing" is unfair to an opponent, and a, from my point of view, a gross lack of gaming etiquette.

Over & Out.

Thank you BG [&o]

[PeeDeeAitch]

My question was a serious one. Has anyone here, under the latest series of patches, tried to run an 1941 campaign without HQ buildup?

I have gone through turn 13 doing so against Jame, and the results suprised me - not much less in distance achieved, a far higher kill rate (this might be part of the 1941 grinding now that is allowed to the Germans), and the realization that for all the "OMG the Germans NEED it!" statements this might not be true...

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Janh, it's mostly logistics.

The game is systemically biased in favor of the offense. So whoever is on the offense has a strong tendency to run away with it due to lack of a logistical leash. Early on, this is the Axis. Later on, it's the Soviets. There's also a fairly nasty feedback loop that plays into this so far as morale goes: nothing succeeds like success so far as unit morale goes and failure breeds yet more failure.

It would seem that this plays into it. Tuning distribution and logistics would be similar to tuning the parameters that influence how ammo or fuel lack translate into less BP or CV. Not necessarily 50% ammo should mean 50% CV, if you understand what I mean. Yet maybe another factor would also influence the op-tempo, and it may also presently be on the low side: The Soviet combat power, which does seem a bit toothless in 1941.

Counterattacking German units, for example Panzer Divisions which are inherently less suitable on the defense than Landsers, is really costly even if you expect heavy casualties stack attackers 3 units high. In turn that means if I perform my jumps in 41, all I need to ensure is that Soviet units cannot sneak into my communications, i.e. the rear of the deeply penetrating columns. But otherwise I need not fear them much and can push very fast and deep without my Infantry.

Also: a defender doesn't require a limit of left over BP for a successful defense without penalties, say 3 for Inf and 6 for mechanized units. If a Panzer unit with less than 6 BP would get a "static defense" penalty, say 10% less CV for each missing BP, and would also risk additional losses if retreating without sufficient BP, I would be forced to stop my Panzers with some >=6 BP left, and not run them down to minimum BP. Hence, lower op-tempo despite technically the tanks would still have a higher range to move, but tactically it would be unsound. I think besides the static issue (reaction moves), this would be something I would consider a fundamental improvement of the game mechanics.

I think we can tweak starting morale of Soviet units with the editor, but not the changes in the national morale? If I can scrape the time together, it would be worth tuning up the Soviet NM a bit, say 5 or 10 points, and see whether this would force me to advance more cautiously and in closer connection with my and my infantry.

[Flaviusx]

There's some talk of tweaking the 42 NM up to 45, as a matter of fact. I think the present 40 NM is pretty ridiculous.

During testing this low morale was so bad that it led to huge numbers of Soviet units lapsing into unreadiness more or less permanently. Half or more of the Red Army was unready at any given time due to poor morale. Pavel finally had to adjust the unreadiness code to make the check more forgiving.

But I also think the late war Soviet NM is too high. Much of the Red Army, maybe even most of it, by that point is getting lots of different morale bonuses, so when added to the base NM, it's a bit much.

[Q-Ball]

Seems like a quick fix both ways is instead of a 40 bottom, 60 top, just adjust each by 5, to 45/55. I suppose make the morale changes happen 1 point every other month, to stretch out the change.

Guards and Mech would still be higher, it would just be the grunts at 55 in the later game.

[Flaviusx]

Q-ball, thing is, even the regulars can get bonuses if attached to shock or guards armies. So it's possible with a bit of planning to arrange matters such that very little of the Red Army is operating at base NM. With 5 shock armies and no limits of guards armies, there's plenty of command capacity out there to do this.

Specialized formations, of course, get their own type specific bonuses, even as regulars. That's in addition to whatever benefits they are getting from their army commands.

This doesn't matter much early on. Later on, it becomes pretty huge.

[Q-Ball]

I suspect alot of the NM changes were put in place to simulate the changing military efficiency of the Red Army, and the way NM is right now, it does mirror how it went in the war on that one measure.

Sounds like the problem is that military efficiency de-couples from NM in many ways, and the Red Army becomes less efficient due to experience levels quite apart from NM, and more efficient later due to various bonuses (and better equipment and organization).

Even if Morale didn't change in the game the whole war, you would see some of this due to factors outside of NM; the Red Army would get worse quickly, then get better slowly.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

My question was a serious one. Has anyone here, under the latest series of patches, tried to run an 1941 campaign without HQ buildup?

I never use HQ Build-up, though I play against the AI. I tinkered with it when it was first available, but found it far too unrealistic. A certain degree of supply prioritization would be nice in the game.

I also don't play run for the hills/carpet/checkerboard defense as the Russians. Just as gamey as HQ build-up. I prefer historical plausabilities.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
Schmart,

Why do you say the "pull-back carpet/checkerboard defense" is historically implausible? Is it because the Russians didn't use this type of defense, or because you believe they were incapapable of doing so, or some other reason?

Yes, because I believe they were incapable of it. Considering the Soviet state of readiness, training, doctrine, and leadership during the first year of the Russian campaign, I can't see them pulling of an organized fighting withdrawl back into well prepared defenses in depth. By the summer of 42 they were getting better at fighting withdrawls (as signified by the German lament at far fewer pockets), and by the summer of 43 they were capable of massive defenses in depth at Kursk. But none of this was possible in 41 and early 42.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Janh, it's mostly logistics.

The game is systemically biased in favor of the offense. So whoever is on the offense has a strong tendency to run away with it due to lack of a logistical leash. Early on, this is the Axis. Later on, it's the Soviets. There's also a fairly nasty feedback loop that plays into this so far as morale goes: nothing succeeds like success so far as unit morale goes and failure breeds yet more failure.

Finally it has been said! Supply is far too easy on the offensive.

[freeboy]

I think to try and limit supplies to "help" the defender is convoluted..
remember this is one week turns and when they had supplies.. each side historically ran riot over the enemy in open non fortified areas..
If you are to say supplies arive to quickley after breakout etc.. that should really be a ? of truck and mule/horse movement fromrailhead or depots at army or higher hq imo

[gingerbread]

No talk about increasing Soviet manpower? That would make it easier to establish training camps - not the same as strategic reserves.
500k would make it possible to have 40-50 divisions training/refitting for morale & experience gain during Jan. to May.

Also. I'd like to propose that rebuilding units arrives in ready mode. When they arrive in refit, they use up a lot of men and becomes unusable. There is a case for disbanding on the turn they arrive as it is now.

An even better change would be to allow access to next turns arrivals via the CR, where it should be possible to set mode & TOE%.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I think we also have to distinguish game balance vs. historical balance. This was always a factor in WITP-AE discussions. Everyone knows the real Japanese were 100% doomed to lose the war, the minute they started it. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER is doomed to lose, even though they will be crushed eventually. And in that one, where the game is now, the Japanese side is clearly more proficient than historical.........and everyone seems to like it that way, because it does make for a better game.

Q-Ball, I have never played WITP-AE but it seems to me that the big difference between the War in Russia and the War in the Pacific is that in Russia the Axis "outplayed " the Soviets, while in the Pacific the Allies "outplayed" the Japanese. So if you have two equal players and a reasonably accurate simulation it is probable that the Germans will lose in Russia earlier than they did historically, while the Japanese will be able to holdout longer.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: freeboy
I think to try and limit supplies to "help" the defender is convoluted..
remember this is one week turns and when they had supplies.. each side historically ran riot over the enemy in open non fortified areas..
If you are to say supplies arive to quickley after breakout etc.. that should really be a ? of truck and mule/horse movement fromrailhead or depots at army or higher hq imo

I think what Flavius is pointing out about, and what others including me also ponder about, does not involve the argument "to help anyone" or "defender" at any stage. It is only about the supply mechanics in general, without narrowing the aspect to any side. It presently just feels too easy, for e.g. (but not limited to) if you hit the HQ build-up button and you know that your stores will end at some +95% or almost 100%. As supply, that is fuel, is critical in determining the MP, which in turn are most important on the offense than on the defense, this is where it will show. It ain't about the defender, nor about the German only, nor about the Soviets only -- it just appears to show at different points.

Yet as Pelton pointed out, patience is in order while watching for possible causes of high op-tempos on both sides. It may not be only ease of supplying, or maybe not solely it. Tanks can drive that far with full tanks under peace conditions, or average conditions. But thought it is often written and reported that units like the 7. "Ghost" Division ran their tanks regiments until the tanks were "almost dry", it not necessarily means that "almost dry" is empty. Often units likely stopped with just enough reserve to maneuver and defend... And that they did because they probably couldn't be sure whether they would be target of a dangerous counterattack? The "T-34" or "KV Schreck", as the "Deutsche Landser" did call it, for example. Something seems to be a tad bit off with the ease of keep sustained and not slow offensives alive in general. And as Flavius indicated, a small thing may have a big impact, so it is likely a minor thing.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
Q-Ball, I have never played WITP-AE but it seems to me that the big difference between the War in Russia and the War in the Pacific is that in Russia the Axis "outplayed " the Soviets, while in the Pacific the Allies "outplayed" the Japanese. So if you have two equal players and a reasonably accurate simulation it is probable that the Germans will lose in Russia earlier than they did historically, while the Japanese will be able to holdout longer.

That's surely right at large. The Japanese basically lost their initiative at Midway (besides what was left afterwards at Guadalcanal). They lost in such a decisive fashion, whether bad luck and/or inherent reasons for it, that a player in WiTP can basically only do better if he plays a little more conservative with Kido Butai (his main CV forces).

He also can do better as he can bring the Japanese economy up to speed in fashion that applies hindsight to economy, and he can phase out and replace equipment that hindsight or stats prove less valuable, though not the ToE of land combat units. Yet just steering the building of his main assets, planes and ships, while the Allies are fixed with their reinforcements (all somewhat or far superior in quality and number so really no great production changes would be needed there even if they were allowed) will allow the Japanese to endure the pounding some time longer, and will allow for the challenge of trying to do a little better and achieve some spectacular, but usually futile victory with his new toys or unusual tactics.

It is fun, because loosing is predetermined and no one expects that to be different, or takes great pride in defeating the Japanese, but everyone seems to consider the way the goal. It is about having fun. Read the many AARs and you will notice how the excitement soars in times of great tension, despite the invariable outcome...

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Until the Soviets have to make some strategic decisions that have meaningful tradeoffs, I'm going to vociferously object to how simple Soviet gameplay is.

Yes, I believe I made that very same statement about 8 months ago when it became apparent that the only major difference the Axis player could achieve in variance to history of any consequence was the capture of Leningrad.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
http://warandgame.com/2007/08/20/russo- ... lans-1941/

"On the first day of the war, 22 million Soviet citizens were called up. By mid-August, a shaken Halder was writing that the German Army, which had expected to face fewer than 200 Soviet divisions, had already identified 360 such divisions on the fighting front. Within a year, and despite having suffered the worst mili­tary disasters in history, the Red Army had attained a marginal superiority over the enemy in manpower and weapons and had stabilized the front."

True enough, but they were noobs, conscripts, human speed bumps, not reflected in the game. Axis forces would have had a field day with a checkerboard defense, slicing and dicing these folks, piecemeal, into oblivion.

I agree that the Axis folks were doomed from the start, because no matter what they did in '41 the Soviet dudes just weren't going to give up. But, as one poster described it... the fear factor... was real but in this game is totally absent.

From where I sit, viewing the progression of the game and game play from the start, I would say that it was the Sov folks who unbalanced PBEM as soon as they figured out that they could retreat with impunity and suffer no real consequences. That is such a huge divergence from the actual war that terms such as "simulation" or "a game based on history" are totally ludicrous.

It is a game based on fantasy.