1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality

[mmarquo]

Has anyone tested or played with the new 1:1 --> 2:1 twist into 1942 or further? I am currently fooling around against the Axis AI set on difficult; remarkably in 1942 it is virtually impossible to dislodge almost any Axis unit whether fortified or not. It is almost impossible to get 2:1 and a successful attack against a German unit; some of the lower CV Roumanians can be successfully attacked. Now, on the first move of the blizzard there (Turn 76) is still little hope. I think the only way will be to attack with 6 corps and artillery back up, and even then it will be problematic. There are not enough APs to muster more a few of such clusters for the attack.

Time shall tell.

Marquo

[Baelfiin]

Marqo

I have a game in late 43 with hooper where I have a lot of big forts and defensive values. He is able to bust my lines up most of the time when he can roll in the mass artillery. I hold a hex somewhat more often now than i did before the change, but not always. Casualties are heavy. Most of the russian piles that are attacking have cv's of 30 plus and there are LOTS of artillery. I can post some screenies if you are interested.

[mmarquo]

I beleive you because that is what I am seeing; did you start your game with 1.05? The only way to crack the lne is with huge masses of artillery and stacks of 30+; the challenge is that the Soviet can only masses a few of these horrors...

2:1 really limits the number of successful attacks.

Marquo

[jomni]

I've been out of the game for so long... So they finally got rid of 1:1? 

[karonagames]

I have replayed 78 turns of a 100 turn test of 1942 against the AI with +1 removed.

I dare not tell you you what the difference in the advance rates were - let's just say the Red Army was a long way from The Dneiper in 1944, but the AI is a poor performer on attack anyway, so human v. human tests with their higher operational tempo will better demonstrate the difference.

The date chosen for losing the +1 and the casualty penalty was not the date I would have chosen, as I don't think it reflects when the Soviet, command and control and leadership structure had developed to the point it was truly able to co-ordinate its attacks in the "proper" manner.

[delatbabel]

Yes, due to many repeated "flying pig" graphics from a few players like Pelton, the rule that allows the Soviets to force a retreat at 1:1 is now gone after early 1942. It's not the date I would have chosen either. Basically I'm finding much the same as OP, the Soviets can't launch a successful attack until well after the 1942 blizzard, which means that their overall morale is lower in 1943 and 1944 and the game turns into even more of a slow grind than it was.

Probably the only thing keeping the Soviets going forwards at this stage is the overwhelming superiority of the Soviet air force (this is now 1944). I'm occasionally able to pile 400+ bombers into ground support for an attack, and that produces enough German losses to get over the 2:1 line.

I haven't played past mid 1944 yet, but in my current PvP game the Russians haven't retaken Kiev yet and it's early June 1944. I can't see how they are going to force the Germans back into Romania and beyond in 1945, let alone win the war. Mind you, a lot of 1943 was spent moving units back and forth between the front line and the second line and hence doing very few attacks, and in the latest 1.05 beta they have reduced the attrition losses a bit so that may not be required as much so that may change things.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Yes, due to many repeated "flying pig" graphics from a few players like Pelton, the rule that allows the Soviets to force a retreat at 1:1 is now gone after early 1942. It's not the date I would have chosen either. Basically I'm finding much the same as OP, the Soviets can't launch a successful attack until well after the 1942 blizzard, which means that their overall morale is lower in 1943 and 1944 and the game turns into even more of a slow grind than it was.

Probably the only thing keeping the Soviets going forwards at this stage is the overwhelming superiority of the Soviet air force (this is now 1944). I'm occasionally able to pile 400+ bombers into ground support for an attack, and that produces enough German losses to get over the 2:1 line.

I haven't played past mid 1944 yet, but in my current PvP game the Russians haven't retaken Kiev yet and it's early June 1944. I can't see how they are going to force the Germans back into Romania and beyond in 1945, let alone win the war. Mind you, a lot of 1943 was spent moving units back and forth between the front line and the second line and hence doing very few attacks, and in the latest 1.05 beta they have reduced the attrition losses a bit so that may not be required as much so that may change things.

I'm just coming into 1942 with a 1.04 campaign updated to 1.05 in mid December 1941, so Soviet experience and morale is much better than it would be in a pure 1.05 game.

What I'm trying to avoid is that my opponent turtles up. If he does, well, then it'll be a Drôle de Guerre until 1943. If he attacks, things will be different.

(We're palying with HR regarding Victory Conditions, where Soviet victory levels are set to obtain a significantly better performance than historically).

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
(We're palying with HR regarding Victory Conditions, where Soviet victory levels are set to obtain a significantly better performance than historically).

Being a long time WiF player, I believe that any result other than the fall of Berlin before 1st April 1945 should count as a German victory. It will be interesting if the devs address the victory conditions issue at some stage.

[karonagames]

I think, but don't know, that the intention of removing the +1 was to force the SU player to plan the building of his army better than he has had to heretofore. Artillery definitely is the key, and in the pre-1.05 AARs that got even close to 1943, it was clear that the Soviet players were not building enough artillery units, but because of +1 they did not need the artillery because the rifle corps could stroll up and use +1 to gain the ground anyway. Anyone who has played the 1943 campaign with the historic artillery OOB knows the pain that +1 inflicts.

The SU definitely shouldn't need +1 in summer 1943 if they do have enough artillery, but not having it during the summer and winter of 1942, to me, is still debatable, but trying to get the game to reach the "correct" tipping point for when the Axis truly lose the initiative has been tricky.

While 1.05 has made huge strides towards achieving a better tipping point, the +1 issue may not be helping achieve the desired long-term result.

[Peltonx]

Sticking with history, which we all know runnian players hate to do.

The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 and that was only because the Germans through away their reserves on the stupid battle at Kursk.

The 1v1=2v1 rule was tested and found to allow the Red army to break the Germans army totally in 43 and not mid 44 to late 44 as historical.

I am sorry that the I win button was taken away from the Red players, but the game needed to be based on history and not fairytales.

The Red army will have no problem breaking the German army in 44 as historical, unless you aren't that good of a player and deserve to lose.

Ask Hoooper for a few pointers and stop cring for your I win button back.

Pelton

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
(We're palying with HR regarding Victory Conditions, where Soviet victory levels are set to obtain a significantly better performance than historically).

Being a long time WiF player, I believe that any result other than the fall of Berlin before 1st April 1945 should count as a German victory. It will be interesting if the devs address the victory conditions issue at some stage.

Let me dig them out for you:

Decisive Soviet Victory - Germany surrenders before 7/1/1944
Major Soviet Victory - Germany surrenders between 7/1/1944 and 12/1/1944
Minor Soviet Victory - Germany surrenders between 12/1/1944 and 5/1/1944
Draw - Germany surrenders between 5/1/1944 and 10/1/1945, or it has less than 100 VPs at the end of the game.
Minor German Victory - Germany has between 100 and 142 VPs at the end of the game.
Major German Victory - Germany has between 142 and 200 VPs at the end of the game.
Decisive German Victory - Germany has more than 200 VPs at the end of the game.

On the German victory levels: the idea is to reward a truly outstanding result, such as holding the 1942 start line all the way until 1945. A major victory involves keeping under the hobnailed Axis boot a significant portion of the Ukraine, the Baltic States and Bielorrussia. Minor Victory means keeping the Red Army out of the - roughly - 1939 Reich frontiers.

(All the above with the understanding that if things become a Drôle de Guerre it's game over).

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 and that was only because the Germans through away their reserves on the stupid battle at Kursk.

"Generally useless in the offensive" is by far a wide shot. I'd rather say that the Wehrmacht was outstanding in the defense (check the work Model did on August 1942 stopping the onslaught Western Front throw at 9. Armee in the Rzhev - Sychevka direction). If anything, these "useless" offensives paved the way for the huge victories later in the year. The Germans lost their edge after so much fighting, not to mention that Stalin finally saw the point his STAVKA advisors made about not squandering away preparation and troops.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sticking with history, which we all know runnian players hate to do.
*****
Ask Hoooper for a few pointers and stop cring for your I win button back.

Do you have to act like a 12 year old in every single post? People can't discuss anything without your gratuitous comments ("Sticking with history, which we all know runnian players hate to do") and your whining about someone else whining.

[76mm]

DOUBLE-POST

[karonagames]

The Red army will have no problem breaking the German army in 44 as historical, unless you aren't that good of a player and deserve to lose.

This post very nearly got a Green Button from me. How do these comments add anything constructive to the debate on the changes in the +1 rules?

You really need to re-consider the manner in which you make your points, as I think you are alienating people and causing threads where people want genuine discussion to get sidetracked.

I assume you don't do it on purpose, but if you are, you definitely get a green button.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
I think, but don't know, that the intention of removing the +1 was to force the SU player to plan the building of his army better than he has had to heretofore. Artillery definitely is the key, and in the pre-1.05 AARs that got even close to 1943, it was clear that the Soviet players were not building enough artillery units, but because of +1 they did not need the artillery because the rifle corps could stroll up and use +1 to gain the ground anyway. Anyone who has played the 1943 campaign with the historic artillery OOB knows the pain that +1 inflicts.

The SU definitely shouldn't need +1 in summer 1943 if they do have enough artillery, but not having it during the summer and winter of 1942, to me, is still debatable, but trying to get the game to reach the "correct" tipping point for when the Axis truly lose the initiative has been tricky.

The problem that I see with the removal of the 1:1 rule is that 1942 will be, if possible, even more stalemated than previously. Sovs simply won't be able to attack fortified German lines, and the Germans don't have any real reason to attack the Sovs unless they are suicidal. Result: no one will do anything until 1943, when the Sovs have built enough rifle corps and arty to do some damage to the Germans. But by then the Germans will be so well dug in that any advance will be a very tedious slog.

I can't really critize the lack of Sov offensive punch in 1942, but coupled with the lack of incentives for the Germans to leave their forts, I think the games will be very tedious.

[karonagames]

The 1941 Campaign is and was always going to be the most susceptible to hindsight, with players correcting the mistakes of history, which maybe makes the 1942 stalemate phase we see currently inevitable, which is why I started playing more 42 and 43 campaigns, where you are taking over situations that reflect the historical mistakes.

Maybe a change to the GC1941 victory conditions is needed that gives the Axis the chance of an "instant" win in 1942, based on capturing Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku or a combination thereof, as this definitely reflects a better than historical performance, even though it is well short of the Axis' own victory conditions which were the control of the whole WITE map!

[heliodorus04]

Pelton,

I need to agree with 76mm here. We all know your feelings.
You're coming off like a bully, and its undermining the respect people have for you.
You're losing your authority.
Please change course.

[karonagames]

Result: no one will do anything until 1943, when the Sovs have built enough rifle corps and arty to do some damage to the Germans.

In testing the discussions about 1942 revolved around the Axis being able to apply sufficient AP pressure, to force the SU to rebuild a chunk of his army using APs and slow down the rate at which he could build his Artillery/mechanised Juggernaut so that in turn the rate at which the juggernaut could advance would be slowed. Unfortunately testing before the game released was never able to explore this issue.

If the Axis do nothing in 1942, the Soviets can build their Juggernaut unmolested and start hammering away well before summer 1943.

The debate which the OP started was as to whether the removal of +1 is adding or subtracting from the rate of advance, and unfortunately until we see more games where the SU player has built as much artillery or more than is in the 1943 OOB, we will not see the true impact of the new +1 rules.

The rate of attrition, which ultimately causes the collapse of the Axis armies is a separate issue, although partially linked to +1, there are many other factors than determine if the breaking point is occurring too early. For example, we have not seen the long term impact of the new static rules and the lower attrition that results.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
The problem that I see with the removal of the 1:1 rule is that 1942 will be, if possible, even more stalemated than previously. Sovs simply won't be able to attack fortified German lines, and the Germans don't have any real reason to attack the Sovs unless they are suicidal. Result: no one will do anything until 1943, when the Sovs have built enough rifle corps and arty to do some damage to the Germans. But by then the Germans will be so well dug in that any advance will be a very tedious slog.

I can't really critize the lack of Sov offensive punch in 1942, but coupled with the lack of incentives for the Germans to leave their forts, I think the games will be very tedious.

I think it would be worth keeping a close eye at some of the AARs of more conservative players now entering blizzard and then spring, they might show how the balance between 2:1 and then dropping it with the new fort rules could be affected. If the new fort rules lead to a new dynamics of some forth-and-back swinging in winter, and consequently fewer static, strongly dug-in fortifications for either side in spring, then also the spring and summer fighting might see some good opportunities for the Germans to break the Soviet lines a second time. Also opportunities for the Soviets to pursue some local counteroffensives a la Izum might arise if the Germans leave winter with lower fort levels.

In fact, if a German player pushes the 41 offensive similarly to history right until blizzard hits and stops his "engines" cold, he'll be much more exhausted than most players drive their Axis forces presently (and the Soviets consequently also more attrited), but most importantly he will be weakly dug-in for the Soviet blizzard counteroffensive. I would say that for example the Q-Ball vs. Bletchley AAR shows something more towards that end, and recent turns I find have shown that the Soviet player here is able to push forward quite well in the blizzard since the German fort levels are low compared to 1.04 or earlier. That made me wonder whether Bletchley at all needs the 2:1 rule for a successful offensive here? Time will tell!

However, if the Germans start turtling earlier, and don't push to exhaustion to reach Moscow or Rostov, the fort levels might be comparably high again. In which case a Russian blizzard offensive should probably be much bloodier and perhaps even fail, given the German decision to invest in defense rather than paying for the last yards towards the goal line.
What do you think about this trade-off?

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 and that was only because the Germans through away their reserves on the stupid battle at Kursk.

Suppose then the history books must be rewritten if the Soviets could have pulled of the Stalingrad offensive before summer of 43, right?????

The Soviets pulled off small scale counterattacks against infantry or exposed Panzer formations right from the start, and the subsequently learned to coordinate those to bigger scales. See the 41/42 winter offensives, the 42 spring offensives such as Izum, or the 42 winter offensives including SG. The catch is, the planning apparently lacked, sufficient reinforces to exploit were often not available, or had to be used to achieve the breakthru still, and once the Soviets did indeed break free, no such panic spread thru German ranks as previously thru the Soviet conscripts. The Germans often reacted fast and well, improvised blocking and delaying actions, attempted to hold both of the flanks of breakthrus until the latter could be sealed of themselves... Soviets did have a very bloody and steep learning curve, one that likely will not be repeated in such dimensions by a skillful player with good knowledge of history though. But for sure they were not totally useless.