43 GC Soviet side

[Oleg Mastruko]

Comrade, in Flavio's 43GC early beta AAR vs Bob (a sticky on this board) you criticised Bob's general doctrine, as going too much in Flavio's favor, essentially fighting the war that suits Flavio. Reading that, I agreed with you - one of those probably rare occasions where I agree with you [;)] Flavio quickly abandoned any fight for territory, and settled for attrition war, with his primary goal being the German high casualty rate.

In this game I noticed Bob did exactly the same thing, in short he was fighting the war that suited me, and that was causing great casualties to him. In my opinion German should base his strategy on simply denying the Soviet opportunities for delib attacks. I don't know how easy or hard it is to do (I might try myself one day) but I haven't seen Bob or anyone else try this. Someone should try, so that we can see if that works or not.

As for that Dnepr hex, it was a bridgehead that was leading to nowhere, it wasn't even a bridgehead. Two hexes next to it is a Dnepr bend where I could, and in the very last turn I did, simply forced his units back without crossing a river. In the end I joined the "bridgehead" and these units that were going parallel to Dnepr. He suffered 30k+ casualties that were completely unnecessary IMO, fighting for a hex that he would lose anyway, and that was covered by 7000+ my arty tubes (without even moving). That is a good example of the kind of war Germans MUST avoid in 43+

[ComradeP]

Splitting up of non-SS mobile units as the Germans is something I just don't get, I generally don't do it even in 1941. After fatigue, you end up with at best 3-5 CV units that can easily be pushed back. The SS is, of course, a bit better, but regiments/breakdown units still have limited staying power, especially those of Panzer divisions which are essentially packing only a reinforced battalion worth of infantry.

I'd also say/agree that giving some ground is the way to go when you see large concentrations of Rifle formations backed by the obligatory horde of guns, and that's where the primary unbalance is in late war scenarios: you can't really do that because your units are static. That's also a big difference with, say, a 1941 campaign that enters 1943. You know what the Soviets can do, so you can prepare for it. Instead of an entirely static line, I personally prefer static unit-active unit-static unit-active unit and so on. You need to put a bit more of the line on static, but you also have a much reduced danger of losing those active units to encirclements, as they can respond to Soviet threats.

As to the Dnepr crossing: I think I would've thrown your forces back too, had I been playing the Axis at that time. Given the state of the forces the Germans, even a single hex bridgehead is a bridgehead. You could've launched deliberate attacks, widened it, and crossed it with a much bigger force in the next turn. Sure, losses were bad for Bob, which is why you also need to know when to stop trying to push it back, but pushing a bridgehead back across the river for at least 1 turn is I'd say generally a good idea as it buys you time to relocate your forces.

As Bob also didn't wheel AGN slowly towards a more defendable line along the Narva, the rivers in the Pskov are down to the Daugava, which is something I would seriously consider in the 1943 campaign as it shortens the line, an early bridgehead would also have unhinged AGN's southern flank, where the only thing standing between the current defensive stalemate and disaster is a few regiments or LW field divisions.

I think that even with the AP "handicap" early on, the Germans could eventually still establish a defensive position, to me the lack of being able to counterattack in an economical way is a much more serious problem. I've been campaigning to get something done about that on the tester forum for a while, but to no avail thus far, so mid-late war Soviet losses when defending will generally always be in the Soviets favor.

Another thing that makes the scenario a bit easier for you is that you're feeling far less manpower pressure than you should by this point.

[sillyflower]

Oleg

You may well be right on many of the game issues but that does not excuse rudeness to or about your opponent or quoting from private emails without consent.

In a way this scenario and game are both 'unbalanced' in that it should, with equal players, end up wih Germans being wiped.

Two answers occur to me.

1 agree surrender or no surrender in advance. All my previous GC opponents surrendered in 1st year but I do not go criticise them for this. My 2 current opponents and I have agreed we won't surrender and I will keep my side of the bargain ( says me believing I won't have to[8|])

2 Swap sides and see who does better. That should restore any doubts about fairness, especially as playing German in later scenarios is a bit one dimensional as you can never really attack.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

You may well be right on many of the game issues but that does not excuse rudeness to or about your opponent or quoting from private emails without consent.

Silly flower I didn't quote from my opponents e-mails, Bob sent me couple very long e-mails, of which, I only quoted the "I quit" part. Everything else remained confidential. For me the whole affair would end there, and I would be looking for someone to take over the game and that's it. Everything else in that other thread was my quarrel with Pieter and Keke and one other guy, NOT with Bob (my original opponent in 43GC). Please have that on mind.

Surrendering is OK, I accept that, no questions asked. I just wanted to find someone to take over the game because I felt, and still feel, that it's far from being over. Pieter and Keke posted that the scenario is broken, totally unbalanced, unplayable, horrible.... and *THAT* is the moment when the quarrel and flame war started. Everything else before that point, including Bob's quitting, was fine with me. So again, please have that on mind, thanks.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Another thing that makes the scenario a bit easier for you is that you're feeling far less manpower pressure than you should by this point.

Based on the opening 14 turns, I would agree/suggest with two changes in 43GC:

a) more APs for Germans, let them move about if they wish
b) slightly lower replacement/recruitment/manpower rate for Soviets

All other issues remain open (undecided) for me.

So as you can see Pieter, I do think it is useful to actually PLAY the damn scenario for more then 14 turns between two solid opponents. I don't think it is terribly broken or unplayable, and I certainly don't think it is already won or lost after 14 turns. A tweak here or there might be useful, but before final conclusions we certainly need to play more. Perhaps, after 20 more turns, I would argue for some pro-Soviet changes who knows?

[Klydon]

Like anything, there is going to be a learning curve to it. As exhibit "A", I present the difference in the German opening moves you see now compared to when the game first came out. A lot of thought into the "whys" and evolution of tactics has resulted in much better Axis performance on the first turn to give them a better chance to get rolling.

I see no reason why some of the same principles don't apply with this scenario, especially since playing 43 versions of each side is different than playing the 41-early 42 versions.

[ComradeP]

So as you can see Pieter, I do think it is useful to actually PLAY the damn scenario for more then 14 turns between two solid opponents. I don't think it is terribly broken or unplayable, and I certainly don't think it is already won or lost after 14 turns. A tweak here or there might be useful, but before final conclusions we certainly need to play more.

There is a difference between unbalanced and broken, which is why I'm more in the "it's unbalanced" camp as the problems are serious but aside from the AP's the problems are not necessarily due to the campaign, but more to game mechanics as a whole. The problem with playing on after an unbalanced start is that all further results are skewed too. It would be a bit like saying the Axis need a boost in 1941 based on the 2nd ACR-TulliusDetritus game, for example.

For example: What would be learned from you capturing Berlin in 1944 after a start like this? What long term useful information could be derived from that? Before you can make conclusions on the middle or end of a scenario, it needs a solid, non-problematic start that this game was lacking.

It's one thing for a scenario to be historically challenging, that's what the Soviet player expects for 1941 and 1942 and the Axis for the 1943 and 1944 campaigns, but it's another thing entirely if it's unbalanced in terms of gameplay.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
For example: What would be learned from you capturing Berlin in 1944 after a start like this? What long term useful information could be derived from that? Before you can make conclusions on the middle or end of a scenario, it needs a solid, non-problematic start that this game was lacking.

I think this scenario actually had very good start. I was very happy with individual combat results - very realistic, no supermen on either side (and let me remind you, I suffered horrendous casualties on most attacks, but I feel it was realistic too for 43 Soviet).

I pointed out some mistakes (in my opinion) Bob made, or some strategic choices he made, and consequences of his choices. In short - trading casualties for territory. I was there to punish him for his choices very quickly. Apparently, what he did is not the right thing to do from a German perspective, but it may be too early even for that conclusion, let alone Berlin.

Capturing Berlin in 44 is a pipe dream, we can discuss that if that happens. I progressed 10% of the way to Berlin, probably even less that that. We can also discuss aliens landing in Berlin when that happens, and with current rate of people abandoning games we'd sooner see aliens land on Reichstag than Soviet flag being planted there in a PBEM.... [8|]

The situation we currently have, after 14 turns, is in my opinion 90% result of our play and choices we made, 10% of possible game disbalance(s), so in my opinion scenario is fine, and absolutely worth playing (continuing). If I'd capture Berlin in 44, then we can analyse how much of that is due to my play, German play, bugs, or possible disbalances.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Now, esteemed jury of this court, I present Exhibit A, list of IMO most important parameters of this game. It's the Excel table of operational elements of German and Soviet armies during opening 14 turns.

On the Axis side it's only Germans, without minors, because Germans are what matters for the Axis, but feel free to mentally add numbers for minors as well, they work fine as cannon fodder [;)]

There are operational elements (numbers in parentheses on the OOB screen). Disabled elements do not matter. Casualties also don't matter as there are many disabled both sides start with, simulating wounded in the previous years of war.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Note couple things on the above table:

1. "mud1sec" in turn 6 means "mud in one sector", central sector of the front, a consequence of me picking random weather for this game. As you can see, even though I attacked very hard in the remaining two sectors that turn, German numbers in that turn have RISEN.

That's BAD news for Soviets. That's a good sign as to what Germans need to do - AVOID being deliberately attacked! How can they achieve that, apart from using shaman dances to induce rain and mud? Well that's open to discussion but I cetainly think it's possible. For one thing - retreat!

2. Turn 15 was mud too, numbers rising again. That's after Mynok took over the game, and some pockets were being eliminated, so numbers didn't rise that much for infantry (dying in pockets that were done before mud), but have risen significantly for AFVs.

3. Now lets forget infantry for a moment. Before anyone starts whining about German infantry replacements being low lets look at horrible German AFV losses, probably a best sign of Bob being simply TOO STUBBORN and defending and fighting TOO OFTEN. As soon as fighting subsided for a moment, his AFV numbers rose significantly! Apparently, only mud could force him to stop fighting, ie resisting [;)]

That for me is one possible evidence of him simply fighting too often. He paid that with almost 50% of his starting AFVs, but I would not say that is result of scenario disbalance, just some of his strategic choices (German tanks are, if anything, too powerful). Infantry suffered, but not nearly as much as AFVs. (20%, again a result of his stubbornness).

4. German arty numbers simply followed infantry numbers. Nothing too important there. Aircraft - same story.

5. Now if we look at the Soviet side of things - arty, AFV and aircraft numbers seem totally OK and very realistic for the kind of combat we were having. Infantry numbers are probably too high, I'd be first to admit it, probably need some tweaking, but it's too early to say conclusively.

In closing, I think everything presented points to a pretty solid scenario, with the results of this game following choices made by PLAYERS, not by god liking one side more or scenario being broken. Certainly a game worth continuing.

[bevans]

For what it is worth, the SU could almost certainly have captured Berlin in late '44 if they had so chosen. Instead, they decided to expand the Russian Empire by conquering Rumanian, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Balkans. Plus they had excellent seats to watch those pesky Polish freedom fighters dealt with, saving them the bother of having to do it later. They knew that if Germany surrendered with SE Europe unconquered, there would have been an immediate surrender to the Western Allies, with whom these governments were already talking.

Bob seems to think that the scenario is unbalanced which means that for the Axis, they will always do worse than historical. I have no opinion as I haven't played it, although it is one of the scenarios that definitely interests me. Germany might still be able to 'win' (i.e. lose less quickly) with some sort of potentially interesting game play. It might very well be that Bob did not choose the optimum approach; still I see very little data proving the inherent superiority of other approaches. There may be lots of ground to give up in '43 but the Germans have to stop and fight someone and I expect that 95%+ of German players would choose the Dnepr for that line. I am a little puzzled by the view expressed here that a bridgehead across the Dnepr is unimportant and not worth fighting for, because you are just going to lose anyway. So why play? Bob's strategy was to hold east of the Dnepr until the mud, then use that time to rebuild and dig in. Doesn't strike me as a pathetically flawed strategy. My preference would have been a more mobile defense but that is made really hard by the fact that the infantry is all static and you don't have enough CPs to free 'em up for that type of defense. And maybe that is how this scenario is unbalanced; the scenario forces a non-mobile defense which is doomed. If I ever do play this one, I'll certainly visit the editor first and make sure both sides have lots of CPs.

[Aditia]

The big problem with the Dnepr line is that it's so close to the starting front when the soviets have yet to start their offensive. Of course, after the Dnepr it is all open tank country

[Oleg Mastruko]

His "fight hard" Dnepr hex was one clear hex in the north between Vitebsk, Smolensk and Mogilev, it's a funny hex to be stubborn about, because it's not even a real bridgehead. Two hexes away is Smolensk landbridge, that I was about to push back anyway, with no river to hide behind. So I would approach that pointless hex in 2-3 turns anyway, from north or from the east (or both). No reason for him to retake it. I picked this battle as an example of battles he was too stubborn about, instead of just conceding and retreating, there were other similar battles too.

Taking and retaking hexes, under 7000 Soviet guns, is not something Germans should be doing in 43. Concede the battle, and retreat. And if you're hit with massive arty concentration, then retreat, no questions asked, before you're hit again in the next turn.

In the south Dnepr it's somewhat different, but basic premises are the same...

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

His "fight hard" Dnepr hex was one clear hex in the north between Vitebsk, Smolensk and Mogilev, it's a funny hex to be stubborn about, because it's not even a real bridgehead. Two hexes away is Smolensk landbridge, that I was about to push back anyway, with no river to hide behind. So I would approach that pointless hex in 2-3 turns anyway, from north or from the east (or both). No reason for him to retake it. I picked this battle as an example of battles he was too stubborn about, instead of just conceding and retreating, there were other similar battles too.

Taking and retaking hexes, under 7000 Soviet guns, is not something Germans should be doing in 43. Concede the battle, and retreat. And if you're hit with massive arty concentration, then retreat, no questions asked, before you're hit again in the next turn.

In the south Dnepr it's somewhat different, but basic premises are the same...

That is an excellent point.

[pat.casey]

I think there's probably two different questions at work when evaluating a scenario:

1) Is it historically balanced in that equally skilled players should generally achieve historical outcomes
2) Is it fun to play

I have a feeling that the problem with the 1943 player as an axis isn't so much that its imbalanced relative to history, but rather that playing 2 years of grinding defense with no real chance to counterattack and a "best case" outcome of holding Berlin past April of 1945 is no fun.

I abandoned my most recent 1942 game vs the AI in summer of 1943. I was sure I could have kept the Soviets out of germany proper into 1945, but I was also sure that there really wasn't anything else I could *do* with the game. I was going to get pushed back; it was just a matter of how far and how fast.

Wasn't fun.

[Oleg Mastruko]

IGO UGO games are generally more fun for the attacker, by design. You only play the game when attacking. Otherwise you just move some counters in *expectation* what enemy might do. However once the enemy sees your defensive dispositions during his turn, in a IGO UGO game he will simply decide to strike somewhere else [8D]

I agree it can be frustrating and not fun in a "gaming way"

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

IGO UGO games are generally more fun for the attacker, by design. You only play the game when attacking. Otherwise you just move some counters in *expectation* what enemy might do. However once the enemy sees your defensive dispositions during his turn, in a IGO UGO game he will simply decide to strike somewhere else [8D]

I agree it can be frustrating and not fun in a "gaming way"

That's probably a better way of putting it than I managed.

I think the problem with 1943 is that, as the axis, when your turn comes up there really isn't much you can do except retreat a few hexes. The whole cadence of the game breaks down once the soviets reach critical mass and that's no fun for a soviet.

I've thought for a while that a radically ahistorical scenario which tried to keep the game better balanced (meaning the axis player has something to do on his turn other than retreat) longer would be better suited for PBEM use than the current historical scenarios.

[ComradeP]

Now if we look at the Soviet side of things - arty, AFV and aircraft numbers seem totally OK and very realistic for the kind of combat we were having.

Oleg, you gaining a million men in your OOB in the middle of what should be a costly summer campaign is not "totally OK and very realistic" it is ahistorical and unrealistic.

I also don't see how ~80-90 experience mobile units attacking ~50-60 experience Soviet units yet getting at best 2:1 or 3:1 casualty ratings means German tanks are too powerful. I'd be more inclined to say that the Germans are not causing enough casualties for their experience level, which makes counterattacking uneconomical and thus somewhat pointless as a strategy in the long term.

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: bevans

For what it is worth, the SU could almost certainly have captured Berlin in late '44 if they had so chosen. Instead, they decided to expand the Russian Empire by conquering Rumanian, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Balkans. Plus they had excellent seats to watch those pesky Polish freedom fighters dealt with, saving them the bother of having to do it later. They knew that if Germany surrendered with SE Europe unconquered, there would have been an immediate surrender to the Western Allies, with whom these governments were already talking.

Sorry to go OT, but this is and interesting point. But I wonder how accurate this is. If they really could have finished Germany in 44, I would have thought the prize of occupying all of Germany, rather than just the eastern zone, would have been enormous, far bigger than, say, occupying Bulgaria.

I think it's certainly true that the Soviets were keen to occupy the Eastern European countries as a 'buffer' between them and a hostile West, but at the expense of occupying the most powerful nation in Europe, and Russia's traditional tormentor?

As far as I understood it, Stalin more or less challenged Zhukov and Konev to get to Berlin as fast as possible, regardless of the losses involved.

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: squatter

Sorry to go OT, but this is and interesting point. But I wonder how accurate this is. If they really could have finished Germany in 44, I would have thought the prize of occupying all of Germany, rather than just the eastern zone, would have been enormous, far bigger than, say, occupying Bulgaria.

What Beavans wrote here was also mentioned in a History Channel documentary. Unfortunatelly I can't remember title of that documentary.