FITE opinions

[Raver508]

ORIGINAL: Karri

Well,  I have a game going with following changes:


Axis minors now reconstruct, with the exception of fleets, forts and air force.
-Finns reconstruct in Helsinki
-Hungarians reconstruct at Budapest
-Slovakians reconstruct at Bratislava
-Italians reconstruct at Triest
-Romanians reconstruct at Bucharest

- German air shock 105 in 1943, instead of 100(event 10)
-Russian first winter shock 105(event 11)
-Russian shock of 95 after winter offensive(event 14)
-turn 178 russian air shock 100(event 26)
-Russian shock until mud set to 95(event 361)
-turn 4 air shock to 80(event 362)
-turn 11 russian air shock to 85(event 363)
-turn 32 russian air shock 90(event 501)
-turn 57 russian air shock 95(event 502)



-Some changes to territory in Finland. Shallow water to deep water
in order to decrease frontage
-Max rounds per battle set to 2


Object is to make the game playable beyond 1941.

Is it Buzz's 7.0 that you've modified Karri or the original FitE 5.0?

[sPzAbt653]

The Soviets in FiTE become much stronger than they should get much earlier.

You may be correct, but I don't think so. Most of the units you mentioned do not reconstitute. So as Colin points out, the player should destroy them, then they are out of the equation. The oob also takes into account the fact that there are few regiments or battalions, and there were many historically. A couple times I have taken historical numbers of divisions and compared them to the numbers I have had in some save files, and they have been very close. Close enough not to have any issue.

[Panama]

Ah yes. You guys are correct. The scenario is fine as it is and nothing needs changed. What was I thinking? Putting out ideas and getting feedback with no counter ideas. Yes, I'm sorry I was wrong. Forgive me. [&o]

[fogger]

I think part of the problem is that the Soviet player has 20/20 hindsight. As such he will not make the costly mistakes that happen. He knows that the German player will have supply problems (which the Soviets did not know) and with that knowledge he SHOULD / WILL pull back and defend. However "on the other side of the coin" the German player is playing with his "hands (supply line) being tied behind his back". The German player is not able to be prepared for the 1st winter or a long war. From my readings as an army officer (and now my memory as that was along time ago) I read somewhere that in 1942-43 the Germans had a million soldiers manning AA guns around Germany and 2 million servants. If the German player has an option to prepare (Germany did not go onto a wartime economy until 1942-43), or even in 1942 to call up even 500,000 servants to replace the men on the AA guns, well then it would be interesting.

I think one way of overcoming some of the problems with the soviet player’s strength would be to force more of his units to re-org after an attack. Soviet tanks did not have radios and commanders did not change the plans/orders that were given to them. Once an objective was taken the commanders would sit and wait for new orders. Infantry would just keep on attacking the same spot again and again until they ran out of men or took the objective.

Having said this I think FiTE is a great game [:D] and it will be the reason why I will buy TOAW 4 and then 5 etc when they come out. Like a good wine FiTE will only improve over time. I also “take my hat off” to the guys who started FiTE. [&o] [&o] [&o]

[Olorin]

I am with Panama. The Soviet OOB is ridiculously unrealistic.
- Just take a look at the starting oob and you will find divisions near the front that didn't even exist until much later. They sit ON the path where the Germans will advance, fortified.
- And the ones that did exist are also fortified and in good health, even nkvd units.
- The Mech Corps in Fite is a very powerful formation, whereas in reality it lacked mobility, leadership, supply and training.

So the German player has to fight a much larger and stronger Soviet West Front than was the case historically. And that's only in 41, which is supposed to be the easiest year to depict. Later we've got other problems, I don't need to repeat them, Panama has done it already.

A good first step would be to incorporate Daniel McBride's OOB for 1941 from DNO, which is almost 100% correct, and build on that.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: fogger

I think part of the problem is that the Soviet player has 20/20 hindsight. As such he will not make the costly mistakes that happen. He knows that the German player will have supply problems (which the Soviets did not know) and with that knowledge he SHOULD / WILL pull back and defend. However "on the other side of the coin" the German player is playing with his "hands (supply line) being tied behind his back". The German player is not able to be prepared for the 1st winter or a long war. From my readings as an army officer (and now my memory as that was along time ago) I read somewhere that in 1942-43 the Germans had a million soldiers manning AA guns around Germany and 2 million servants. If the German player has an option to prepare (Germany did not go onto a wartime economy until 1942-43), or even in 1942 to call up even 500,000 servants to replace the men on the AA guns, well then it would be interesting.

Yeah -- but the German errors can be -- and are -- easily reflected simply by giving them their historical OOB, supply levels, etc.

Russian errors are harder to replicate. They occured in the actual course of the campaign. The Germans made errors as well, of course -- but they weren't the sort of massive, systemic errors that it would be impossible to force a TOAW player to make. I can see a TOAW German keep pushing for Moscow too long. I can't see a TOAW Russian deciding that it's a good idea to keep going after 12-20's with a 1-3.

My own thought -- and it's a radical one -- would be to simply start the campaign after the Kiev pocket. From about that point on, both sides were starting to gain a more realistic appreciation of what they were in for.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The Soviets in FiTE become much stronger than they should get much earlier.

You may be correct, but I don't think so. Most of the units you mentioned do not reconstitute. So as Colin points out, the player should destroy them, then they are out of the equation. The oob also takes into account the fact that there are few regiments or battalions, and there were many historically. A couple times I have taken historical numbers of divisions and compared them to the numbers I have had in some save files, and they have been very close. Close enough not to have any issue.

Ah Sir sPzAbt653, that is another thing. The Soviet units reconstitute far too quickly. That's why, as Larry says, you have boatloads of infantry.

The Soviets disbanded the pre 1941 tank divisions and mech corp because they simply did not work well. Not my words, that's from those who study all this stuff and have access to official archives. That wouldn't be me. In fact, I don't know anything about the war other than what I read. And I say nothing on this forum about historical facts and figures unless it's something I read.

So if I were to say the 100th Rifle Division was renamed the 1st Guards Rifle Division on 18 September 1941 and it was 'pretty chewed up' when it became a Guards unit, that's not me. That's someone who has far more information and expertise than I. And then if I were to say the Guards unit it had become was disbanded on 20 November 1942 and used to form the cadre basis for the 1st Guards Mech Corps that also is not me that found that out but again, an expert with access to the archives

The 100th Rifle Division didn't reform until 18 March 1942 at Vologda in the Arkhangelsk Military District.

The 1st Guards Rifle Division reformed 23 January 1943 from the 1st Guards Mortorized Rifle Division.

In this example you get a rifle division you shouldn't have for six months and then you get a Guards rifle division you shouldn't have for two months.

In the game neither of these divisions are removed when they get renamed yet you get the new divisions they became and get to keep the old. Not only that but they can come into the game much better off than they should. The scenario is repleat with examples such as this. It doesn't take a genius to understand why, in the scenario, the Soviets become so strong so quickly. I understand there's a counter limit. But that doesn't change the fact that there are units present that should not be.

Here's something I forgot to add. It seems that if a unit is withdrawn it can't be brought back without increasing the unit count. Is this correct? If yes, why? It's already in the scenario's database. Why can't it just reappear? Why can't the games programming be made to use the unit again?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The Soviets in FiTE become much stronger than they should get much earlier.

You may be correct, but I don't think so. Most of the units you mentioned do not reconstitute. So as Colin points out, the player should destroy them, then they are out of the equation. The oob also takes into account the fact that there are few regiments or battalions, and there were many historically. A couple times I have taken historical numbers of divisions and compared them to the numbers I have had in some save files, and they have been very close. Close enough not to have any issue.

Ah Sir sPzAbt653, that is another thing. The Soviet units reconstitute far too quickly. That's why, as Larry says, you have boatloads of infantry.

The Soviets disbanded the pre 1941 tank divisions and mech corp because they simply did not work well. Not my words, that's from those who study all this stuff and have access to official archives...

It'd be interesting to know if any of these units were still combat-ready formations when they were disbanded. That is one consideration in all this; units that are 'destroyed' in TOAW usually continued to exist in real life -- they just weren't useful in combat for a while.

[Panama]

Early on the Soviets were terrible at deleting units that had ceasted to exist in the various pockiets.

The 73rd Rifle Division was surrounded and destroyed near Vyazma in mid-October 1941. The Soviet General Staff officially deleted the 73rd from the order of battle on 27 December 1941.

So actually the opposite was common. Units ceased to be, it was known they no longer existed mostly because they were caught in pockets, yet the General Staff didn't take them off the OB till months later.

The mech units were disbanded because they were unweildy for what the Soviets had as officers at the time. Not enough OJT yet. So they took what tanks were left and formed the tank brigades. Small, less durable, but much easier to command.

"In late August 1941 the Soviet army began forming tank brigades. The advantages of the tank brigade were:

1. It was a unit small enough that the Soviet tank officers could handle it.

2. They could be formed fast. Many were put together from existing tank battalions or tank regiments in just a few weeks.

3. Enough of them could be formed that everybody could have some tank support, even if not very much.

4. Although small the tank brigade could still provide some minimum support for the tanks, in the form of infantry and light artillery and antiaircraft units."
(The Deadly Beginning by Charles C. Sharp)

The Russians have admitted they lost 20.5k tanks in early 1941. They started the war with about 23.1k. about 2.2k where in factories for repair. About another 5.6k were in the Far East. Some were in interior districts or at the southern borders. About 12.8k were in the western districts. So even with the losses in the first couple of weeks they still had ALOT of tanks to throw at the Germsns. 2600 tanks can form alot of brigades and battalions.

The Russians have said that of the massive losses the majority were due to breakdowns. No spare parts, no fuel, no ammo because of over run depots or panicky crews abandoning tanks that were not knocked out of action. Heck, even if they had the depots they would still have to come up with a way to tow them all and the techs to fix them. They didn't have much of either. Makes the idea of an early Soviet attack seem kind of funny. Especially considering that when they invaded eastern Poland most of their losses were self inflicted.

In any event, the mech corp need to be disbanded in the game not simply because they get blowed up but because no one had the ability to use them. Too big and unwieldy for the expertise of the Soviet tank officer of the time. Either that or reduce their proficiency to less than what they are. 30 might be a good number. Oh, and take away most of their trucks too.

[LLv34_Snefens]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Ah Sir sPzAbt653, that is another thing. The Soviet units reconstitute far too quickly. That's why, as Larry says, you have boatloads of infantry.

The Soviets disbanded the pre 1941 tank divisions and mech corp because they simply did not work well. Not my words, that's from those who study all this stuff and have access to official archives. That wouldn't be me. In fact, I don't know anything about the war other than what I read. And I say nothing on this forum about historical facts and figures unless it's something I read.

So if I were to say the 100th Rifle Division was renamed the 1st Guards Rifle Division on 18 September 1941 and it was 'pretty chewed up' when it became a Guards unit, that's not me. That's someone who has far more information and expertise than I. And then if I were to say the Guards unit it had become was disbanded on 20 November 1942 and used to form the cadre basis for the 1st Guards Mech Corps that also is not me that found that out but again, an expert with access to the archives

The 100th Rifle Division didn't reform until 18 March 1942 at Vologda in the Arkhangelsk Military District.

The 1st Guards Rifle Division reformed 23 January 1943 from the 1st Guards Mortorized Rifle Division.

In this example you get a rifle division you shouldn't have for six months and then you get a Guards rifle division you shouldn't have for two months.

In the game neither of these divisions are removed when they get renamed yet you get the new divisions they became and get to keep the old. Not only that but they can come into the game much better off than they should. The scenario is repleat with examples such as this. It doesn't take a genius to understand why, in the scenario, the Soviets become so strong so quickly. I understand there's a counter limit. But that doesn't change the fact that there are units present that should not be.

Here's something I forgot to add. It seems that if a unit is withdrawn it can't be brought back without increasing the unit count. Is this correct? If yes, why? It's already in the scenario's database. Why can't it just reappear? Why can't the games programming be made to use the unit again?

Yes, I got Sharp's books too.

Each of these lines require use of events:
-Form 1st Gds Div when 100th Mot witdraws/disbands
-Form 1st Gds Mech Corps when 1st Gds Div witdraws/disbands
-Form 1st Gds Div again 2 months after it first witdraws/disbands
-Form 100th Div 6 months after 100th Mot witdraws/disbands

Not to mention use of an extra unit slot because, like you say, they can't be recycled once withdrawn.

At the time development of the 'vanilla' FITE was stopped there were 500 events and all were used. Additional 500 have been made avaiable since, but I still foresee that they would run out quick if every unit were to have conditional formations.
I agree that there could be played with the strength of new units arriving, with no cost of events. Eventually that would have been the plan of giving the units an "overhaul". In the current form, they are very generic.
On the other hand, what is the point of having a unit always arrive "pretty chewed up", because of what historically happend to it several months into the war, no matter how it fairs in your particular game. It might just as well have been in good shape on September 18th when it became guard.

[ColinWright]

On this topic, Glantz has some illuminating material on the actual state of equipment of various Red Army units in the summer of 1941.

As to the 'method' by which new Red Army units were formed, I keep thinking about the account of the fate of the militia divisions raised in Moscow given in Braithwaite, Moscow 1941: a City and its People at War -- damned fine book.

1. Form irregular masses of what amount to urban levies. Equip them with a random but definitely inadequate stock of arms which they have no idea how to use.

2. Feed them to panzer divisions. A minority survive this experience with a hard, combat-worthy core.

3. Reform these cores as regular divisions. Some even went on to become Red Guard formations.

It leads me to the thought that it's a pity that my idea about an absolute cap on weapons in a division ran into Roadblock LeMay. If there was an absolute limit, one could have such units appear with four hundred 'civilian squads' and 0/216 rifle squads, etc. and then either get evaporated or slowly transmogrify into useful combat divisions.

[Panama]

If you included all the volunteer militia divisions, brigades and 'battalions' in the game you would have to expand the unit count by another 2000. You're talking about 4 million men and women. 2 million went into the militia divisions and brigades. Although they weren't militarily significant ( you only heard about them when they go over ran or absorbed into a regular division) they were numerous.

Then you have the Battalions. They would have made the taking of Leningrad or Moscow a block by block living hell that they would have fought in from their own bedroom windows with antiquated weapons and makeshift bombs. Every city block in both cities had their own 'Fighter Battalion' (Istrebitelnyi Battalion). [:D]

It's crazy when you read about all the formations they put together. In 1941 the Soviest mobilized these plus the 5.5 million reservists. It's just nuts.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you included all the volunteer militia divisions, brigades and 'battalions' in the game you would have to expand the unit count by another 2000. You're talking about 4 million men and women. 2 million went into the militia divisions and brigades. Although they weren't militarily significant ( you only heard about them when they go over ran or absorbed into a regular division) they were numerous.

Then you have the Battalions. They would have made the taking of Leningrad or Moscow a block by block living hell that they would have fought in from their own bedroom windows with antiquated weapons and makeshift bombs. Every city block in both cities had their own 'Fighter Battalion' (Istrebitelnyi Battalion). [:D]

It's crazy when you read about all the formations they put together. In 1941 the Soviest mobilized these plus the 5.5 million reservists. It's just nuts.

The flip side of it is what I don't think receives enough emphasis.

The bulk of Russia's trained military personnel became casualties in 1941. Largely, the Russian army was formed in combat -- OJT, so to speak. This view is borne out by not just statistics, but also by the more detailed accounts I have read.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Karri

Well,  I have a game going with following changes:


-Russian shock of 95 after winter offensive(event 14)
-turn 178 russian air shock 100(event 26)
-Russian shock until mud set to 95(event 361)
-turn 4 air shock to 80(event 362)
-turn 11 russian air shock to 85(event 363)
-turn 32 russian air shock 90(event 501)
-turn 57 russian air shock 95(event 502)

Object is to make the game playable beyond 1941.

This is one of the things that bothers me when trying to make this scenario playable. Units are made immobile and unable to react to even local circumstances. If Soviet infantry divisions are made less mobile in 1941 the result will be somewhat the same. Divisions had no problem acting on their own initiative. It was generaly when you got below division level initiative might become a problem. Instead, entire armies are made static by lowering shock. In my opinion I see nothing in unit histories that would justify this. Has no one tried to force the Soviet to stand and defend instead?

Will the unit max be increased in 3.4? This scenario sorely needs that.

As I said, object is to make game playable beyond 1941. If that means a few formations will be in shock, then so be it. Although, now that you mention it, perhaps it would be better to give the Germans a higher shock for longer.


But, it's a game and it follows the game's mechanics. It's not a history show. It doesn't even have a production system which complicates things further...all in all, it pushes the TOAWs engine to the very limits. All things considered it is the best scenario ever, and Matrix can thank Snefens and the others because this scenario has sold the game...well at least to a few players, no idea how much they have actually sold.


Which reminds me, while you're waiting for TOAW 4, WiE is worth a look and will probaply be everything that we want from FitE.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, I've made my modifications to the vanilla FitE.

[Panama]

I still think the recon is far too high for both sides. Zero would be best because with so much recon there can be no surprise as the Germans bump into the 19, 20, 21 and 22 Soviet Armies at Smolensk. They didn't even know they existed, thinking instead they had destroyed the Soviet military. There can be no Stalingrad. No Guderian brilliance as he sprung his trap on Popov that destroyed his armored task force and the 5th Tank Army. No Mansteinian miracles. There is simply too much information for both players to be able to do these things. It's sad, the scenario would be so much more fun and full of suspence. [:(]

[pionier]

Hello everyone,

I think in most cases you didn't get the point, Fite is a simulation of the war in the east on TOAW. While TOAW ist a operational simulation it can't fit the needs perfect for a scenario of this scale. To fix this problem some things are different.

In two years I played 4 games of fite,

1. german: endet in turn 17 while my opponment quit.
2. german: endet in turn 19 while my opponment quit.
3. soviet: in summer 2009 we stopped the game at turn 82 with the folling situation:



4. german: active, from end june to we played till Turn 77 and I'm about to start case blue, Situation:



i write down an excel dokument with several more statistics, but this is the overall graphic:



My guesses:

[ol][*]Agree to logical houserules with your opponment - it will fix almost all issues[*]Don't read the aar of your opponment - it gives the soviet player to many informations[*]Be careful and take you time to get it right. If you push the game you will end it earlyer then you thought because of mistakes.
[*]Get in your mind that you will loose as axis player, this scenario is supposed to be lost. YOUR TASK IS TO HOLD AS LONG AS YOU CAN as german player
[/ol]

[ColinWright]

I love #3.

[Curtis Lemay]

The one thing I would strongly recommend for this scenario is to bite the bullet and program the PO for both sides. Once that's done, you can then run PO vs. PO tests. That's a huge help in quickly getting a good approximation on balance issues. It enables you to then easily experiment with balancing factors like shock, proficiencies, and the Attrition Divider, etc.

Player vs. Player tests, can be more accurate - if the players have equal skill levels(rare). But, even then, they take forever. PO vs. PO tests can give you a rough answer in a few days.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The one thing I would strongly recommend for this scenario is to bite the bullet and program the PO for both sides. Once that's done, you can then run PO vs. PO tests. That's a huge help in quickly getting a good approximation on balance issues.

I really doubt this would work in a scenario of this scale. The PO can never redeploy strategically to react to events 100 hexes away. So the PO could certainly play itself- but the results would be quite different to a PBM game.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I really doubt this would work in a scenario of this scale. The PO can never redeploy strategically to react to events 100 hexes away.

It wouldn't need to if it were playing its counterpart PO. That's not something the PO can exploit.

So the PO could certainly play itself- but the results would be quite different to a PBM game.

Sure. But its much quicker. And it has the advantage that both POs are equal skill. So crude approximations can be made quickly for the effect of various parameter changes. (And it checks out events and reinforcement schedules, too). Then only the fine points need to be sorted out via Human vs. Human tests. Clearly, this scenario seems to have some serious balance issues. Relying entirely on Human vs. Human tests will take years to sort them out. PO vs. PO tests are just a fundamental part of the design process that shouldn't be skipped.