Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

[ceyan]

No I don't have to face this "no units in sight to the left or right". Neither does anyone else who knows what the purpose of a ZOC is.

Please. Just go and read up on some soldier level recounts of the war. For one you sure as hell didn't have any significant external force projection (ie, a ZoC), and you certainly had humongous moral problems and even increased desertion rates. Neither of which is represented in the game as those units still get a ZoC and suffer no penalties despite being out of touch with any other unit for no reason other than your (in the role as the "commander") say so.

Axis players want to shackle the Soviet one so they can achive what can't be done in H2H play. Unless the Soviet is an idiot.

Since you're responding to my points specifically, you're obviously ignoring my post. Go back up and re-read where I stated I don't want a Axis "I win" button, and I'll be perfectly fine with seeing changes on their side of the house if needed.

You know what happens when you give up large swaths of territory w/o a fight? The Germans get a free advance. They get to overrun manpower centers. Possibly keeping factories of various types from leaving. Overrunning railyards.

A) When you're talking about defending strategic points like that, the choice of defending/not defending them has in-game consequences as you've pointed out.

B) What about the fact that the Ukraine provided a large chunk of the food supply for the western half of the Soviet Union and what does its immediate loss do if you don't fight for it and thus give those extra precious days to get even more supplies out?

Penalties for actions which would of been a big deal? What penalty will you give for the Germans for retreating during the first Soviet winter offensive? How about you lose because you get relieved by Hitler.

Still ignoring my post? Just as the Soviet player doesn't have to deal with Stalin, the German player doesn't have to deal with Hitler. IT IS ALREADY MODELED IN GAME! Geez, how many times does it have to be said?

The Russians fought, and they still lost a great deal of agriculture, mines, the entire Donbas. Not only that, but about their entire peacetime strength. And they still won.

Classic case of selective reading.

The reality of the situation is that if you run as the Soviet, it's a bad move. You'll give up a great deal of territory for free.

And yet people are doing it with great success. Plus it isn't a bad move, because there is no penalty for doing it (note: it will probably make more sense to you once you realize that everyone in the thread is talking about the gamey way Soviets can retreat versus your literal re-interpretation of the subject). Once again you're only focusing on the strategic level issues and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Hopefully I'll catch you with the edit before you reply. I also think you are getting confused on a individual issue rather than collective issue. Individually none of those issues need to be fixed or addressed in any way. Lots of real life scenarios are modeled via larger rules, or just ignored entirely because they're outside the scope of the game. However when a game allows too much leeway with ignoring the realities of the situation then you have to consider these issues and how they're represented.

Regardless of personal opinion the game currently allows the Soviet Union to trade space for time (maybe not across the entire front and western Soviet Union, but a good chunk of it) at no cost where they didn't in history and would have had to suffer some consequences for doing so. Thanks to that, all things being equal, Germany will suffer a disadvantage larger than they should/would have assuming the SU player exploits the issue.

[Klydon]

The trains thing will probably have to get looked at. I remember reading v Mellenthin's book and he would describe German units coming in and how they had to time counter moves, etc but had to juggle how long it took units to assemble and be ready for action, etc. It was not a couple of days, especially in the case of armored units. One of the battles (I don't remember which, but it was in the south in 43 maybe) he talks about a panzer division that got railed in and the artillery/infantry were in one sector and the tanks were several days behind. The Russians were advancing so fast, they almost caught the unit de-training (and quite unable to defend itself). I think there was a rain or something that really slowed down the Russian advance and that part of the division was able to get unloaded, but it was another week before the tanks arrived and the division was able to assemble and be ready for combat. 

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: aurelian
The reality of the situation is that if you run as the Soviet, it's a bad move. You'll give up a great deal of territory for free.

ORIGINAL: ceyen
And yet people are doing it with great success. Plus it isn't a bad move, because there is no penalty for doing it (note: it will probably make more sense to you once you realize that everyone in the thread is talking about the gamey way Soviets can retreat versus your literal re-interpretation of the subject). Once again you're only focusing on the strategic level issues and ignoring everything else.

This, Aurelian. You seem to be reading the "run" comment as doing a ghost vaporization act from the forward military districts to the major river defenses.

I am (and I think Ceyen is) talking about checkerboard. It's a classic Min/Max incentive to use ZOCs like dragon's teeth (tank obstacles). The instant a human Axis player attacks a human Soviet player, Soviet doctrine changes to something that wouldn't be developed until the 1980s in NATO.

Add in some game mechanics, like how few units shatter and how it turns out that Routing units can both teleport and be in better supply situations, and you just have some problems with realism AND strategy options.

1) I'm not opposed to a game that goes to 1945 every time. In fact I kinda like it (but I'd like a 1942 victory to be possible for the Axis given certain conditions).
2) I AM opposed to a game where the Soviet Army's combat effectiveness nadir ends on Turn 2.

And I've played both sides in enough scenarios to think that we have the game in situation No. 2.

[Aurelian]

The "checkerboard" is not a be all end all strategy.

And I don't see a problem of railing from Kiev to Vella then fighting. Not at the scale of weekly turns.

Don't really care what how it was done in 1990-91. That has nothing to do with 1941,

[Dietrich1941]

von Manstein wanted to continue the Kursk offensive even while 12 infantry divisions were being withdrawn to be sent to Italy after the western allied landings...he was a bit optimistic at times. [:D]
I've only played one GC against the Soviets AI and in this game the amount of manpower centers necessary to capture in order to win is excessive. Sevastopol is usually much more valuable in other games than it is in this game. The Germans can bomb major ports into rubble but a couple of small fishing villages on Lake Ladoga seem to be able to supply Leningrad (without the Luftwaffe being able to drop a bomb on their two or three little docks.) End of mini-rant
The Soviets largely survived the devastating losses of the summer and fall by being fed by the Americans. No other form of government would have survived losses like that. They had one paved highway in the whole country between Minsk and Moscow. This lack of infrastructure was the number one reason the Soviets survived into the Fall at all.
Leningrad can be taken, just not by wasting too much armor up there. Heavy infantry and a good supply net through Pskov and Novgorod gives the Germans at least six good attack turns on the suburbs and city itself. If the Russians stop the Germans there they should be so thin in the south that the Ukraine becomes a pursuit long before mud sets in, assuming the Soviets aren't cheating around Moscow, which is why the Germans should try for a Rzhev / Vyazma AGC winter line before digging in and keep the pressure on and the uncertainty of their intentions going as long as possible. (When Moscow is one short leap away the Russians have to pile in their worker battalions as thickly as they can.) This can be reached with with the 4th and 9th Army infantry pretty much alone. If you're holding everywhere as the Soviet then you haven't been pressed or pocketed enough. There may well be a balance problem, we'll see as more people play and report in.

[matt.buttsworth]

Same post as in other forum.

There is no need to argue.


Gentlemen,
It appears we are locked in an increasingly acrimonious argument that is unnecessary. The game allows for more than one scenario and there is no need for people to argue about creating one right version of the game. Clearly that is impossible.
I believe from the discussion so far there are to clear camps:
1) those who believe the game is historically accurate, Germany should not have a real chance in 1941 and should suffer forever after with no changes in game balance needed as that is the supposed reality of history.
2) Those who believe that game at the moment is unbalanced and there is no fun playing german if they cannot win in 1941 and have no hope of mounting a real offensive in 1942.
I am off the second camp and believe that to make the game enjoyable, and in my opinion to reflect what happened in history, the German player should, if he is very good:

a) have a chance of winning in 1941 by capturing Moscow and triggering political collapse; and
b) have a chance of mounting a dangerous offensive in 1942 - Case Blau - and even a doomed offensive in 1943 - Operation Citidel - before inevitably losing in summer 43, 44, and 45.

As the game is now, our game is over in January 1942, and I know I will win by September 1942 when I cut off German oil with mopping up occuring in Berlin beginning 1943.
During this whole time, Germany will be unable to launch any major offensives having been totally crippled by the 1941-42 blizzards.
I do not believe this is historically accurate, and the German enjoyable part of the game is limited to June to November 1941. After that it is pure pain

(and for critics, who think I am a German fan, remember that I am playing Russian and usually play Russian)

If a group of players is happy with this state of affairs as historically accurate, then let them enjoy pulverising Germany every game.

The game I want to play is version 2 - call is scenario 1941-1945 G - in which it is enjoyable to play Germany from 1941 to - as a good player - 1943 when the avalanche becomes unstoppable with a real chance of victory for a very very good German player in 1941 and a real chance of victory with a good 1941 in 1942 even if this is hard to achieve. While a very good Russian player can survive the German assault in 1941 to coutner attack in the blizzards, can attack again with more strength in 1942, ane become unstoppable in summer autumn 43 with an abnormal but possible game finishing for germany in 41 or 42 and a normal game finishing for Russia between summer 44 and spring 45.
Such a game would reflect what happened in history and be fun and a challenge to play for both sides.
The question is how to get there.
It needs I beleive a specific scenario created

Possible Suggestions I can make:
1) strenthening blitzkrieg warfare (helps 41 or 42)
2) weakening the effect of the blizzards so that Germans can survive the winter in reasonable shape.
3) reducing soviet transport capacity so that rail transport is a limited resource and at some times russian players must choose between losing factories or shifting armies.
4) lowering morale and experience of many russian units in 1941 to reflect the fact that many ukrainian and caucaussus units did not want to fight
5) preventing more russian units from moving in turn 1 or turns 1-2 reflecting paralysis of Soviet command in first weeks of war.

I think this scenario - 1941-1945 G - will be a matter of trial and error in development to achieve game balance.
But I think it will be worth it in that:
a) people who believe the game is right as it is can play the existing GC 1941-1945; and

b) those who want a game in which Germany has a chance and which in my opinion greater reflects what happened 1941 to 1945 can play the alternate scenario GC 1941-1945 G.
This I believe will attract a greater audience to this excellent game in that Germany will have 2 1/1 enjoyable summers and a chance to win and Russia will have two winters and two years of enjoyable offensive play with a greater chance of winning.
Such a game giving pleasure to both sides will increase the long term number of players for the game for who will want to play more than once if German defeat is inevitable after November 1941.

I am therefore asking for people willing to help create GC 1941 G scenario.
Any helpers?

Dr Matthew Buttsworth
Weimar
Germany

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Dietrich1941

Sevastopol is usually much more valuable in other games than it is in this game. The Germans can bomb major ports into rubble but a couple of small fishing villages on Lake Ladoga seem to be able to supply Leningrad (without the Luftwaffe being able to drop a bomb on their two or three little docks.) End of mini-rant

To which game do you refer to? I have played the old WIR versions and there was nothing special about Sevastopol. Same for FITE.

The Germans in fact bombed the "ice road" to Leningrad repeatedly and suffered heavy losses doing it and they could never stop the supplies coming in. Remember over the winter months that the days grow very short there, making it almost impossible for aircraft to do anything. Luftwaffe pilots reported the flak over Leningrad was worse than anything they had seen over London.

@Matt

I think the upcoming changes will go a long way to address some of the issues with a 1941 campaign. Specifically, the manpower reduction for the Russians and reworking/fixing how the Germans recover from the winter. There are some other things being looked at as well. I would suggest we take a look at those and see how they work before trying to hammer out an alternative scenario. Part of the issue of doing an alternative scenario is first the Editor has some issues and will get updated at some point. The other thing is some things are hard wired into the game that can't be changed by the editor. Two of these make any changes to a scenario in the editor moot with both the blizzard effects (and returning German manpower strength) and also the inflated Russian manpower.

Scenarios that freeze Russian units/unfreeze German units, etc are possible along with giving the Germans extra troops, etc. However these would come under the "what if" category and the community has shown no real interest in such scenarios.

One final note is that I think while there are some issues with the game (and they are being addressed) something else needs to happen and that is that German strategy and tactics need to continue to evolve.

[2ndACR]

I am waiting on Beta 3 before harping on any further changes. Once I have Beta 3 and run a game up to Summer 42, I will have a better idea of what else might need to change.

Of course, if someone wants to make a scenario which keeps the TOE of 42 German thru the entire war, be my guest and I will play it. At least then if I do really good, I have strong units and if I do bad, well I will have a bunch of understrength units.

[Dietrich1941]

Sevastopol was the home, main port of the Soviet Black sea fleet.  Whomever controls it dominates the Black Sea or let's say will find easier to do so.  Going back to "War in the East" in the 70's Sevastopol was never just another city.  It was a permanent Fortress complex. 

The Germans in fact bombed the "ice road" to Leningrad repeatedly and suffered heavy losses doing it and they could never stop the supplies coming in. Remember over the winter months that the days grow very short there, making it almost impossible for aircraft to do anything. Luftwaffe pilots reported the flak over Leningrad was worse than anything they had seen over London.

You'll get no argument here,  I've always read the same thing.  The Luftwaffe also sank a Battleship in Leningrad I believe.  I'm talking about a much tighter encirclement having cleared the entire west bank of the Volkov and all but one village on the SE coast of Lake Ladoga the computer was doing a pretty good job of supplying the entire garrison from a level 2 port which the game would not let me attack. 

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: aurelian
The reality of the situation is that if you run as the Soviet, it's a bad move. You'll give up a great deal of territory for free.

ORIGINAL: ceyen
And yet people are doing it with great success. Plus it isn't a bad move, because there is no penalty for doing it (note: it will probably make more sense to you once you realize that everyone in the thread is talking about the gamey way Soviets can retreat versus your literal re-interpretation of the subject). Once again you're only focusing on the strategic level issues and ignoring everything else.

This, Aurelian. You seem to be reading the "run" comment as doing a ghost vaporization act from the forward military districts to the major river defenses.

I am (and I think Ceyen is) talking about checkerboard. It's a classic Min/Max incentive to use ZOCs like dragon's teeth (tank obstacles). The instant a human Axis player attacks a human Soviet player, Soviet doctrine changes to something that wouldn't be developed until the 1980s in NATO.

An Axis human player who wouldn't refrain from doing something like this:

p x - -
* x - -
* x - x
* x - -
p x - -

p's are PzDivs, * misc german units - empty hexes in Soviet control, . empty hexes in Axis control.

1: Attack on the flanks of the line

- p - - -
* x - - -
* x - x -
* x - - -
- p - - -

2: exploitation

. . p . -
* x - - -
* x - x -
* x - - -
. . p . -

. . . . .
* x - p -
* x - x -
* x - p -
. . . . .

3: hasty attacks, lonely russian unit routs

. . . . .
* x - p .
* x - . .
* x - p .
. . . . .

4. advance supporting units, cover PzDivs LOCs for use elsewhere

. p . . .
* x - . .
* x - . .
* x - . .
. p . . .

And it can be done better than in the picture, converting even more hexes to Axis ownership.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Add in some game mechanics, like how few units shatter and how it turns out that Routing units can both teleport and be in better supply situations, and you just have some problems with realism AND strategy options.

I have yet to see Routed units to teleport out of a really tight encirclement. And those "teleporting" units may lose over 70% of their numbers.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
1) I'm not opposed to a game that goes to 1945 every time. In fact I kinda like it (but I'd like a 1942 victory to be possible for the Axis given certain conditions).

Perfectly fine. Who might be against that?

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
2) I AM opposed to a game where the Soviet Army's combat effectiveness nadir ends on Turn 2.

That's a gross exaggeration.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek



I have yet to see Routed units to teleport out of a really tight encirclement. And those "teleporting" units may lose over 70% of their numbers.

Really, you have not seen units route 7 or more hexes away?
I certainly have. I have seen units leap generally eastward out of partial encirclements, the move paths of which (considering their encirclement opening versus the direction and final location of their move) imply units have moved 7 hexes north to the one friendly hex that's not enemy controlled, then 7 hexes east, then a few hexes south.

I understand in week-long turns that thing get abstracted, like:
when the combat occurs is an abstraction in a week-long turn
when the enemy wall of units is actually formed is another abstraction
movement paths like the one I describe above are also abstractions

It's not a BIG deal to me that these routes happen. I think there is something wrong with the combat result for Shattered, for two reasons: 1) because I see it so incredibly rarely, 2) Because units that get teleported in examples like mine above should probably be considered Shattered instead.

But more specifically, I'm concerned with how quickly routed units that take said 70 percent casualties can recover and be back in a fort in good order exerting crisp ZOC discipline against the Germans within 1 week (which happens really often for me when a good leader is in charge of the Front, and the unit is within command range of the Front) or 2 weeks (I have never seen a Soviet unit stay routed for more than the turn following the one in which it's attacked).

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
2) I AM opposed to a game where the Soviet Army's combat effectiveness nadir ends on Turn 2.

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
That's a gross exaggeration.

Hmm, I wasn't trying to use hyperbole. What I mean is that the Soviets when controlled by a human no better than I as their leader (and I'm pretty inexperienced) can ensure that no German can match, let alone out-perform, his historical predecessor. This starts on Turn 2 when I have sufficient APs to restructure command (and thus, supply), fall back on a good checkerboard defense, executing crisp ZOC discipline that the 1941 Soviets are hardly known for in the AGN and AGC areas.

I find something upsetting about this situation.
I'm eagerly looking forward to the swamp patch, which I hope will remedy this to a high degree (it's the key issue in those ZOC blankets I'm referring to).

But I'd also like to see more of the Command & Control problems, and the chaos of Summer 41, modeled into the game than it currently includes.

[Encircled]

As said on a previous post, people are over reacting a bit here

Wait till the patch comes out, and then will we see

Its still very early days in the game, and somebody, somewhere, might well find the strategy that massively helps the Germans.

Reading the "Axis Turn 1" guide, you can cut off most of the decent soviet strength in the south on Turn 1, and that is a potential game winner

[Klydon]

Check Q-Ball's AAR. His is the first to really implement a lot of the discussions held on the German first turn, which I also consider a big key to getting the Germans off to a good start. A good first turn is essential and while it won't win the war for a German, a "bad" first turn will go a long way to making life a lot harder than it needs to be for the Germans. 

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: jomni

If you ask me. I think the balancing is in the points system, it is not about who won the war.
Axis will lose the war 90% of the time but they may still get a victory or a draw based on the points system 50% of the time.
This way, you keep things in historical perspective but also make the game (not the war) winnable when playing Axis.

If you want to have a non-historical game where the Axis really had the chance to win the war then make a separate scenario like the ones in WITP (where the Japanese are better prepared).

+1
hence for me 'winning' a GC is doing better than historical result not WiTE definition. If game used my approach then there might be fewer German concerns about lack of balance. If it did and Germans still lost constently, then there would need to be more German complaints. Playing Russians so far in PBEM I doubt it is balanced though. Hope new beta will solve or go a long way to solving as am about to play Jerry.

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
But that is what happens when you are kind of locked into a pattern. I know there will be blizzard from this date to this date, so I stop well in advance and prepare. What I would like to see is random winters, will it be as bad as the real 41 winter or will it be a mild winter.

+1
Does anyone find it a bit preposterous to be able to know EXACTLY when the snow and mud hits? On the other hand, attenuating the Blizzard changes the campaign drastically to the extent of resulting in an entirely different game, even if the Blizzard effects are softened somewhat ( a good thing, judging by the extant AARs) in the upcoming patch. The Random option is a bit too, well, random. The Germs risk hitting the wall too early.

Proposal: a third weather option that retains the hellacious blizzard of 41 while deviating in other respects, mostly with respect to timing.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

Same post as in other forum.

There is no need to argue.


Gentlemen,
It appears we are locked in an increasingly acrimonious argument that is unnecessary. The game allows for more than one scenario and there is no need for people to argue about creating one right version of the game. Clearly that is impossible.
I believe from the discussion so far there are to clear camps:
1) those who believe the game is historically accurate, Germany should not have a real chance in 1941 and should suffer forever after with no changes in game balance needed as that is the supposed reality of history.
2) Those who believe that game at the moment is unbalanced and there is no fun playing german if they cannot win in 1941 and have no hope of mounting a real offensive in 1942.
I am off the second camp and believe that to make the game enjoyable, and in my opinion to reflect what happened in history, the German player should, if he is very good:

a) have a chance of winning in 1941 by capturing Moscow and triggering political collapse; and
b) have a chance of mounting a dangerous offensive in 1942 - Case Blau - and even a doomed offensive in 1943 - Operation Citidel - before inevitably losing in summer 43, 44, and 45.

I'm largely with you except I don't think Germans should have a good chance of '41 against fairly equal opponent. Not least a lot of Germans might go for broke then surrender if they fail, or just let Russians have some blizzard fun then have to surrender.

I hope new patch will really help.

An issue for me is that factories are usually at 50% immditely after move so start producing at that rate 7 days after someone decided they should start being dismantled. I don't know if this is realsic, but will start a thread to find someone who knows more.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Pford

... even if the Blizzard effects are softened somewhat ( a good thing, judging by the extant AARs) in the upcoming patch.....

The blizzard effects aren't going to be softened, exactly. The runaway morale increases generally gained by the Soviets during the Blizzard will be affected by the patch. On the other hand, the morale increase nerfing will also affect the Axis player's typical Summer/Fall 41 gain. How this all plays out is still unknown. On the one hand, it will hurt the Axis' ability to pump up their morale (with all the attendent benefits) before the Blizzard. On the other, it will keep the Soviets from developing a 1942 Army of 80+ morale ubermenschen. Should be interesting...

[bloomstombs2]

any news on when the patch is coming out?

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: bloomstombs

any news on when the patch is coming out?

He said today it should be this week.

This was said in the ''Garrison Constanta'' thread

[randallw]

It should be noted that the game mechanism allows units to have morale float up towards 75, if they just sit there turn after turn, in supply.  Even if the Soviet player just does a turtle strategy ( such as in a current AAR ) the post-blizzard Sov Army will be better than the pre-blizzard one.