Open your mind!

[DesertedFox]

I have a link below to an article that is called

The Soviet-German War1941-1945:Myths and Realities:A Survey Essay

.

I strongly recommend this to all players of WITE, especially those of you whose favourite book is Mein Kampf.

The Russians tried their very best to let the Germans win in 1941 and up until August 1942, but ultimately they failed.

I fully believe the game currently reflects Russian abilities and arms production quite well. As already admitted by the devs, German morale and experience is not working as designed as the war goes on and they are looking at it.

However the Russians were ridiculously strong in 1942 and the Germans can be thankful that Stalin fritted away much of this strength in crazy attacks before and after the commencement of Operation Blue. None the less,the Red Army still had so much strength left over that wallopped the Germans with overwhelming numbers in the counter attack at Stalingrad.

If the game is unbalanced in terms of victory conditions then these need to be looked at for sure. But the inability of the Germans to force a decision against the Russians in 42 is not fiction but fact.

oooops forgot the link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50705317/11/T ... TOBER-1942

Mark

[gargoil]

Nobody wants to play a game that is a forgone conclusion.

The game must be as realistic as possible but in some way keep a glimmer of hope for the Axis side.

[abulbulian]

Gargoil,

As a can sympathize with your first statement, it's just sort of hard knowledge that the chances of any German success against the Soviet Union were not great. Given the axis better control over using it's production and building support units could help make it a more enjoyable game for axis players.

There's still some issues, IMO, with the battle engine as well as how German morale and experience is handle in combat and overall in the game. There does need to be some variants in the game to maybe help the axis to have more of a chance, but I'm not sure how many Soviet players would go for that in human vs human.

Per Deserted Fox, people should also realize besides the failed summer Kharkov offensive in which the Soviets through away almost half million men and the Stalingrad debacle, the Soviets also lost millions in the below offensives. Thus, given a competent Soviet player not making this kind of horrible mistakes, the axis is going to have a very difficult creating a stalemate situation in mid-late 42 and onward.

Lyuban (1942) Soviet Union: failed attempt to relieve Leningrad.

Mars (1942) Soviet Union: failed major offensive against Rzhev salient

Jupiter (1942) Soviet Union: second phase of failed major offensive against Rzhev salient.

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

Nobody wants to play a game that is a forgone conclusion.

The game must be as realistic as possible but in some way keep a glimmer of hope for the Axis side.

I'd say plenty of people still play WitE. [:'(] The misconception most have is that an axis victory means conquering the Soviet Union. That is of course not correct. Just holding out long enough with enough key cities will give the axis a victory.

[DesertedFox]

Hi Gargoil,

I agree 100% with your sentiments.

What I am saying that historical Soviet strength is well represented in game as it stands.

In WITP in both editions the Japanese are "assisted" in having the ability to do their own production. This is purely to make them more competitive against the Allies.

Whilst we don't want to see a WW1 style conflict on the eastern front, parameters would need to be changed to give the Germans a better show of it in 42. Maybe this should be an option for players like it is in WITP for the Japanese.

Victory conditions in any game should also give both players a fair shot at winning and if both perform equally, then a draw.

What I am also saying is to those people complaining that the Soviets are unrealistically or unhistorically strong in 42, my 2 cents is they are not.

Mark

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

Hi Gargoil,

I agree 100% with your sentiments.

What I am saying that historical Soviet strength is well represented in game as it stands.

In WITP in both editions the Japanese are "assisted" in having the ability to do their own production. This is purely to make them more competitive against the Allies.

Whilst we don't want to see a WW1 style conflict on the eastern front, parameters would need to be changed to give the Germans a better show of it in 42. Maybe this should be an option for players like it is in WITP for the Japanese.

Victory conditions in any game should also give both players a fair shot at winning and if both perform equally, then a draw.

What I am also saying is to those people complaining that the Soviets are unrealistically or unhistorically strong in 42, my 2 cents is they are not.

Mark

You are absolutely right about Soviet strength and Capabilities in 1942 and beyond. I think most players are looking for the "Perfect Storm" win when playing the Axis. What strategy, tactics, Soviet mistakes and LUCK combination can lead to the conquering of the USSR? Victory conditions not withstanding.

[lparkh]

Well the factor that keeps being brought up is Stalin. What about a bit of political modeling so Soviet player has to do some stupid attacks or pay costs in some fashion. For example, in Gary's civil war game there is pressure on to take offensives against the Rebs.

In several high quality eastern front board games like No Retreat and Barbarossa Campaign various "No Retreat" pressurs are put in place.

My experience of the game is limited, perhaps this is already captured, but it sure seems like implicitly people are saying "the Soviets were hampered by Stalin... not by their forcepool.. and it is less of a game if the full forcepool optimally used is allowed."

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil
You are absolutely right about Soviet strength and Capabilities in 1942 and beyond. I think most players are looking for the "Perfect Storm" win when playing the Axis. What strategy, tactics, Soviet mistakes and LUCK combination can lead to the conquering of the USSR? Victory conditions not withstanding.

Many German players get spoiled at 41 when they get all their bonuses from surprise blitzkrieg and were able to push Soviet side here and there.

42 Germans should be only able to push in one theatre and only if they concentrate all of their best troops in one theatre and spend a long time rebuilding their mobile troops and dont waste them in winter and spring offensives.

[Q-Ball]

Given historical parameters, Soviet players should do better, because they are not consigned to the collosal mistakes the real Soviets made.

A couple caveats to that though: First, I still think it's too skewed vs. the Germans, and they need some help.

Second, if we accept that Germans likely will not have historical results in 1942, then the VP conditions need to change. As it is, it is nearly impossible for the Axis player to win a PBEM in 1942, even when they are clearly outperforming the Soviet.

[sveint]

Nobody wants to play a game that is a forgone conclusion.

The game must be as realistic as possible but in some way keep a glimmer of hope for the Axis side.

This is utterly wrong. The Axis can win the game and lose the war.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: lparkh

Well the factor that keeps being brought up is Stalin. What about a bit of political modeling so Soviet player has to do some stupid attacks or pay costs in some fashion. For example, in Gary's civil war game there is pressure on to take offensives against the Rebs.

In several high quality eastern front board games like No Retreat and Barbarossa Campaign various "No Retreat" pressurs are put in place.

My experience of the game is limited, perhaps this is already captured, but it sure seems like implicitly people are saying "the Soviets were hampered by Stalin... not by their forcepool.. and it is less of a game if the full forcepool optimally used is allowed."

What about the weaknesses in the Red Army that negated much of their well documented numerical superiority? It all wasn't Stalin's fault. Are these represented in 1942 for the Soviet side? From what i've read.....there may lie a root cause to the complaints being generated.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: lparkh

Well the factor that keeps being brought up is Stalin. What about a bit of political modeling so Soviet player has to do some stupid attacks or pay costs in some fashion. For example, in Gary's civil war game there is pressure on to take offensives against the Rebs.

In several high quality eastern front board games like No Retreat and Barbarossa Campaign various "No Retreat" pressurs are put in place.

My experience of the game is limited, perhaps this is already captured, but it sure seems like implicitly people are saying "the Soviets were hampered by Stalin... not by their forcepool.. and it is less of a game if the full forcepool optimally used is allowed."

And of course you want the same for the Axis? Such as:

No taking Leningrad, as Mr Hitler said no.

Must drive on Stalingrad, because Mr Hitler said so.

What should the Axis suffer for not following that?

[FM WarB]

Deserted Fox,

Thankyou for posting the link to that excellent paper by Glanz. It addresses many of the issues that have been discussed here, related to the game.

WB

[76mm]

This essay looks quite interesting, does anyone have it on pdf? I'd like to put it on my kindle.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: lparkh

Well the factor that keeps being brought up is Stalin. What about a bit of political modeling so Soviet player has to do some stupid attacks or pay costs in some fashion. For example, in Gary's civil war game there is pressure on to take offensives against the Rebs.

In several high quality eastern front board games like No Retreat and Barbarossa Campaign various "No Retreat" pressurs are put in place.

My experience of the game is limited, perhaps this is already captured, but it sure seems like implicitly people are saying "the Soviets were hampered by Stalin... not by their forcepool.. and it is less of a game if the full forcepool optimally used is allowed."

And of course you want the same for the Axis? Such as:

No taking Leningrad, as Mr Hitler said no.

Must drive on Stalingrad, because Mr Hitler said so.

What should the Axis suffer for not following that?

Good point, and I have several times argues for better victory conditions that better simulated the political pressures on both sides.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Per Deserted Fox, people should also realize besides the failed summer Kharkov offensive in which the Soviets through away almost half million men and the Stalingrad debacle, the Soviets also lost millions in the below offensives. Thus, given a competent Soviet player not making this kind of horrible mistakes, the axis is going to have a very difficult creating a stalemate situation in mid-late 42 and onward.

Lyuban (1942) Soviet Union: failed attempt to relieve Leningrad.

Mars (1942) Soviet Union: failed major offensive against Rzhev salient

Jupiter (1942) Soviet Union: second phase of failed major offensive against Rzhev salient.

Operation Mars is actually a very good example of why WITE is not currently getting the right results in 1942. In WITE, operation Mars would not have been a failure! The Soviets would have pushed the Germans back and eliminated their fortifications, which would have made it impossible for the Germans to hold on to their frontline hexes without accepting intolerable losses. Quite simply, the historical operation Mars shows that even in late 1942, the Soviets were unable to penetrate German prepared positions. In WITE, they can easily do that from early summer 1942 and onwards!

Edit: @Deserted Fox: Interesting paper, thanks for posting the link.

[Tarhunnas]

I compared the numbers that Glantz gives in June 1942 with the situation in my game vs Q-Ball. Very interesting! The OOB i show here is from turn 63, August 1942, I didn't find one from June, but the difference shouldn't be very large.

The Germans have 400,000 men more in our game than according to Glantz, which is interesting in itself! The Soviets have 1,600,000 more men, despite having lost Leningrad and Moscow, which is even more interesting!

Looking at relative strength, in Glantz figures, the Germans have 50% of Soviet numbers. In our game it is 44%. Not all that great a difference.

Consider then that the Germans in history could drive to Stalingrad and the Caucasus, while in our game not even a limited offensive is possible!

I think these figures suggest:

a: The Soviets despite losing Leningrad AND Moscow still come out stronger in 1942 than historically. Edit: even losing more men than historically in 1941!. In our game the Soviets lost 3,700,000 men in 1941, according to Glantz they lost 2,993,80 in 1941.

b: With force ratios similar to the historical numbers, there is not even the slightest chance of a minor advance, while the historical Germans could advance hundreds of miles, so something is clearly wrong in WITE in 1942.

c: German losses in this game at least are somewhat lower than historical, which surprised me a little.

[Tarhunnas]

A little correction on Soviet casualties. I cited Glantz figure for killed, missing and captured above, but his total number for Soviet losses is 4,308,09, so that comes to 600,000 more than the losses suffered by the Soviets in our game. Still that is considerably less than the 1,6 million Soviet surplus in men found above. Considering that the manpower centers of Moscow and Leningrad have been lost to the Soviets in our game, the conclusion is still that the Soviets appear massively overpowered in WITE.

[DesertedFox]

Hi Tarhunnas, A couple of ?s for ya.

You are looking at current strengths from game to history, what about armour/artillery strengths? On your evaluation above with manpower, it does seem they r getting too much in that area.

I find the Russians are hanging by a thread in 41, to increase German attacking potential in 41 would often tip the Russians over the brink of the point of no return. With 42 being the main issue I believe by most players, and your evaluation of the "extra" manpower the soviets seem to have, if this can be correlated correctly, along with the fix to the Germans morale/experience, we might find a sweet spot for a very enjoyable experience for both sides in 42.

Mark

[Tarhunnas]

Looking at the numbers Glantz give for German strength, it is surprising that the Germans are so strong in the summer of 1943. I compared this number with my OOB in my AAR game "The Wolf and the Bear" OOB for the end of May 1943. If Glantz numbers are correct, then the German army in my game is 500,000 men below Glantz figures, and that is in a very successful campaign where the German army has not lost an entire army at Stalingrad! If these numbers are correct, then it seems that WITE seriously underestimates German recuperative powers in early 1943!

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

A little correction on Soviet casualties. I cited Glantz figure for killed, missing and captured above, but his total number for Soviet losses is 4,308,09, so that comes to 600,000 more than the losses suffered by the Soviets in our game. Still that is considerably less than the 1,6 million Soviet surplus in men found above. Considering that the manpower centers of Moscow and Leningrad have been lost to the Soviets in our game, the conclusion is still that the Soviets appear massively overpowered in WITE.

The current manpower dynamics seem a bit off.

I think the problem might be that too many manpower centers are allowed to escape and repair in the far east, especially when a big center is captured. Or that in combination with too high recruitment factors. Currently a manpower point of 50'000 people generates approx 8'500 fit recruits over the course of the war, that's massive.