What needs addressing...

[squatter]

Having played PBEM on both sides now, the game is winnable as either Russians or German. I stand by my assertion this is the best hex-based strategy system in existence right now. Which is not to say it cant be improved. My list of imbalances I'd like to see addressed:

1. Soviet recon units dont have any recon ability. Their tanks get +1 recon range, but their recon 0. This is surely an oversight?
2. Forest, hills and woods are too easy to move through. Hills should be a nightmare for foot. Forest a nightmare for armour.
3. Russian cavalry has too much movement. Even when you pin them down with adjacent infantry they can waltz off behind your lines willy nilly. Historically, how much more maneuverable were cavalry compared to motorcycle, armoured car, and tank units? I would have thought movement of 40 tops would be better.
4. The armoured brigade that accompanies the second Russian cavalry group to arrive also has movement 50. Are these tanks being towed by the horses? This is presumably a mistake.
5. Shouldnt some tank regiments be more/less fast than others? Can a PzIII move as far as a t34, for example?
6. The Russian player is bedevilled by his AOs. The German player basically has none. Is this historic? Also, as per other posts, AOs need more variation to prevent gamey tactics.
7. What does is the German "Panzer shock" bonus supposed to reprisent? Perhaps this sould be limited to the first couple of turns only, given the game is easier for Axis right now.
8. Russian units arriving in the eastern reinforcement hexes arrive in trucks or trains, even up to the final turn. They cant fight, entrench, or refit on the turn they arrive. While this is very helpful for the first 10 turns when the front is miles away, it gets progressively less so as the game goes on. Cant we elect to have some arrive on foot once the Germans are closing in? Otherwise they just go straight into the jaws of the beast.
9. Marsh is unbelievably horrible to assault, far worse even than urban. Is this realistic? Should the gap between urban/forrest/marsh be narrowed a little?
10. Hills should offer indirect fire modifier. Anyone heard of reverse slope defence?
11. And this is a big one: the code for seeing where you can move to in enemy terrain needs re-writing. Currently, when I click on my Russian cavalry, I can see deep into enemy terrain, showing which hexes I can move to. I can also see exactly which hexes are occupied by enemy units, and which arent. Even if these hexes are 20km away. All this I know before I even move my unit a single hex. In fact, this function - simply clicking on a cavalry unit to see its available moves - is its most powerful recon function, letting you plan counterattracks with great intelligence before anyone expends a single OP. What really needs to happen when you click on a recon unit is that all enemy terrain is greyed out beyond its recon range. Only when you get within recon range should enemy positions be revealed. And any move which reveals new info should not be undoable.

[hank]

This is very good.  And what you said in the other thread is spot on for Russian strategy.  To repeat, The Ruskies have to perform a delaying withdrawal ... until the last few turns.  And like you said, those who played the original AtD successfully know this.  That was one of my favorite scenarios from the KP days. 
 
I'll be interested to see the comments to your excellent post.  [&o]

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: squatter
5. Shouldnt some tank regiments be more/less fast than others? Can a PzIII move as far as a t34, for example?
A: I think this represents not just how far the tank itself can move but doctrine and initiative as well. The T34's were apparently the most generally mobile tank in 1941 over any sort of terrain, but the Germans were very aggressive with their panzers. Maybe this is why?
7. What does is the German "Panzer shock" bonus supposed to reprisent? Perhaps this sould be limited to the first couple of turns only, given the game is easier for Axis right now.
A: I would guess this represents the amazing breakthroughs the Germans were able to make in 1941. They repeatedly surprised the Soviets by quickly crashing through lines and positions that the Soviets expected to hold, unhinging defense lines and shocking rigid Soviet command structures. This bonus allows the Germans to achieve unexpected and surprising tactical victories - which they really did in 1941.
8. Russian units arriving in the eastern reinforcement hexes arrive in trucks or trains, even up to the final turn. They cant fight, entrench, or refit on the turn they arrive. While this is very helpful for the first 10 turns when the front is miles away, it gets progressively less so as the game goes on. Cant we elect to have some arrive on foot once the Germans are closing in? Otherwise they just go straight into the jaws of the beast.
A: Agree - I'm not a fan of it being so easy for the Germans to even reach the edge of the map. Edge of the map combat in general is tricky and funky in any game because obviously in the world there is no "map edge" so it leads to gamey/funny stuff happening. One solution might be to bring the reinforcements in earlier but restrict thai AO to an area near the map edge until they are released.
11. And this is a big one: the code for seeing where you can move to in enemy terrain needs re-writing.
A: I don't have a big problem with this. Despite SSG's comment that air recon wasn't useful, there are clear and constant examples in the Raus book that I'm reading of spotter and recon planes reporting to Wermacht units about Soviet concentrations and movements. This information was used both on the tactical level (in one example Raus orders a 3 hour halt in the assault on a village to allow an approaching Soviet regiment spotted by the Luftwaffe to enter the village which Raus considered a trap. In another example Raus uses a half-day break in action to use Luftwaffe photos of a Soviet defense to plan a renewed assault) and the operational level. So this is one way of representing air recon - you know that something is out there.

[squatter]

"7. What does is the German "Panzer shock" bonus supposed to reprisent? Perhaps this sould be limited to the first couple of turns only, given the game is easier for Axis right now.
A: I would guess this represents the amazing breakthroughs the Germans were able to make in 1941. They repeatedly surprised the Soviets by quickly crashing through lines and positions that the Soviets expected to hold, unhinging defense lines and shocking rigid Soviet command structures. This bonus allows the Germans to achieve unexpected and surprising tactical victories - which they really did in 1941."

The whole point of this game is to simulate the surprise breakthoughs that you talk about, but that is done through the player's use of overwhelming force and mobility and skill, not by pressing a magic button in the combat interface. The German player doesnt need the panzer shock button to do everything you mention - he has the resources on the map. I'd prefer to see more air power for the germans instead to represent periods of high-priority for the offensive - or perhaps increased attack bullet supply in the early turns. Anything rather than a magic button.

"11. And this is a big one: the code for seeing where you can move to in enemy terrain needs re-writing.
A: I don't have a big problem with this. Despite SSG's comment that air recon wasn't useful, there are clear and constant examples in the Raus book that I'm reading of spotter and recon planes reporting to Wermacht units about Soviet concentrations and movements. This information was used both on the tactical level (in one example Raus orders a 3 hour halt in the assault on a village to allow an approaching Soviet regiment spotted by the Luftwaffe to enter the village which Raus considered a trap. In another example Raus uses a half-day break in action to use Luftwaffe photos of a Soviet defense to plan a renewed assault) and the operational level. So this is one way of representing air recon - you know that something is out there."

What you are talking about is air recon, which I agree should be a feature in the game. What I am talking about is the way long-range units can magically 'see' what lies deep behind enemy lines before they even move there to have a look. And this is not a good abstraction of air recon. If taken to mean this what it says is: as the Russian, where I have cavalry, I have first rate air reconnaisance. Where I dont have cavalry I have zero air reconnaisance. Which is absurd.

"I'm not a fan of it being so easy for the Germans to even reach the edge of the map. Edge of the map combat in general is tricky and funky in any game because obviously in the world there is no "map edge" so it leads to gamey/funny stuff happening. One solution might be to bring the reinforcements in earlier but restrict thai AO to an area near the map edge until they are released."

This is a very good idea, and would be a good fix for the problem. 

[ComradeP]

4. The armoured brigade that accompanies the second Russian cavalry group to arrive also has movement 50. Are these tanks being towed by the horses? This is presumably a mistake.

German tank units have 48 OP's, admittedly for a T-26 the OP's are too high, but if they were BT's, the speed would be on the low side.

5. Shouldnt some tank regiments be more/less fast than others? Can a PzIII move as far as a t34, for example?

That's one thing I'm going to change in an edited version, German tanks are WAY too fast relative to Soviet tanks.

9. Marsh is unbelievably horrible to assault, far worse even than urban. Is this realistic? Should the gap between urban/forrest/marsh be narrowed a little?

The Marsh CRT's has better retreat odds than urban and similar casualty figures, the main reason why it's more difficult too attack is because there's less chance for an overrun and it's more difficult to encircle, but aside from that it's mostly similar to City terrain.

[gingerbread]

RE: 4&5

It's not the tanks as such so much, it's the units and the support.
Soviet tank units had the fuel that was in the tanks, Guderian made Brest-Minsk (360 km) in 5 days! Orsha-Smolensk is 110 km, so the German units(!) are not too fast in the game.

Germany also had the doctrine allowing such excursions by mobile formations, the Soviets did not when it came to armor, but cavalry had another tradition so they could, and I think it is a nice touch from the designer to allow the tank units attached to the cav formations to adapt that tradition.

my 2c

/g

[ComradeP]

There is still the problem that a BT is simply a much faster tank than anything the Germans used. Even with less adequate logistics and half empty fuel tanks, it would still be able to come close to the German speed.

The Soviets are also still fighting a defensive action using interior lines.

Soviet tank units had the fuel that was in the tanks, Guderian made Brest-Minsk (360 km) in 5 days! Orsha-Smolensk is 110 km, so the German units(!) are not too fast in the game.

I wrote "relative to the Soviet tanks". A Panzer 38(t), II, III or IV was slower than a BT series tank or a T34 overall (on road and off road) and only slightly faster than a T26.

In the DB series, non-supplied Panzer units had something like 7 OP's, here they have 24, which makes cutting Panzers off from their supply line less effective, as they can still move quite a bit, especially when there are no enemies around/in their ZOC.

If I were to edit the Soviet OP's, I'd give the BT series the same amount of OP's as the Germans, as the speed would compensate for lacking logistics (they can travel further on a fuel tank than a T26) and will slightly increase OP's for T26 units. I'm not yet sure what to do with the T34's. The KV unit will still be fairly slow.

[squatter]

Is perhaps part of the answer reducing German armour OPs for when they are out of supply? Tanks can't move without fuel, after all.

It would be interesting to hear from SSG what the thinking behind the relative tank speeds is? Is it meant to reflect doctrine as well?

Where is the KV unit, btw - I havent noticed that one playing as the Russians.

[Carl Myers]

There is still the problem that a BT is simply a much faster tank than anything the Germans used. Even with less adequate logistics and half empty fuel tanks, it would still be able to come close to the German speed.

The speed of the tank is not an important factor in this situation. If there was no mechanical breakdown, a rotation of drivers and adequate fueling stops, the BT tank could go from Moscow to Berlin in a single day. The question would be, how far behind would be the rest of the unit?

[Carl Myers]

Where is the KV unit, btw - I havent noticed that one playing as the Russians.

The Soviets had 500 of those tanks when the Germans invaded, they were used individually or in platoon sized actions.

[ComradeP]

Is perhaps part of the answer reducing German armour OPs for when they are out of supply? Tanks can't move without fuel, after all.

That would be a good idea. As we've experienced in Husky, OP's for out of supply units are significantly lower. Lowering the OP's to 12 would be a good start. With random weather, being out of supply in a rain storm wouldn't be pretty.

Where is the KV unit, btw - I havent noticed that one playing as the Russians.

In the 102nd Tank Division, arriving on turn 16 (OMA) or 17 (on map). It's a 3 step unit.

The speed of the tank is not an important factor in this situation. If there was no mechanical breakdown, a rotation of drivers and adequate fueling stops, the BT tank could go from Moscow to Berlin in a single day. The question would be, how far behind would be the rest of the unit?

Of course the speed of a tank is in important factor, would you give a tank with a movement speed of around 30 kilometres/hour the same amount of OP's as a tank that can manage aruond 60? It depends on the level of abstraction, but the speed of the Soviet light pre-war tanks was certainly one of their two main advantages, the other being packing a good gun for their type and role.

As said before: the Germans are also advancing away from their depots and rear echelons, whilst the Soviets will in most cases be moving towards them or at the least not moving too far away from them. A certain interior line bonus would be appropriate.

In the original Kharkov scenario, Soviet tank units are slightly slower than German tank units, and lose more OP's when they're out of supply. A certain penalty for the clumsy handling of armoured operations is fine, but in this case they have 18 OP's less, which is in my opinion too much of a penalty.

It would be interesting to hear from SSG what the thinking behind the relative tank speeds is? Is it meant to reflect doctrine as well?

According to SSG, it represents doctrine and lack of fuel. In response to that, I've argued that fuel is usually abstracted into supply and that doctrine is usually abstracted into divisional integrity and lower combat stats. To me, but that's all a matter of interpretation, OP's are mostly just pure movement speed of a formation/the "cruise" speed where a certain combat effectiveness can be preserved. Without the extended movement from the DB series, balancing OP's is more tricky than it was before.

[Carl Myers]

Of course the speed of a tank is in important factor, would you give a tank with a movement speed of around 30 kilometres/hour the same amount of OP's as a tank that can manage aruond 60?

You are forgetting another factor. Why would you want to give a tank unit that has radios in only the command tanks the same mobility as a tank unit that has radios in the tanks? Moving forward by bounds would definitely be faster with all radio unit than an unit that has to control the majority of its tanks with visual signaling. BT units have a basic OP of 20, 80 percent of German tank units. It is the HQ bonus for OP's that really make a major difference.

[ComradeP]

You are forgetting another factor. Why would you want to give a tank unit that has radios in only the command tanks the same mobility as a tank unit that has radios in the tanks? Moving forward by bounds would definitely be faster with all radio unit than an unit that has to control the majority of its tanks with visual signaling.

Radios are part of divisional integrity. The German AM radios didn't come close to having the range covered by the HQ's, not to mention that a unit outside divisional integrity radius can move just as far as unit that isn't, as long as it's in the HQ radius. The player can already move units in some completely ahistorical ways due to not being forced to remain in the divisional integrity radius.

[Carl Myers]

The German AM radios didn't come close to having the range covered by the HQ's, not to mention that a unit outside divisional integrity radius can move just as far as unit that isn't, as long as it's in the HQ radius.

I am not talking that far up the chain of command. Do you really expect a platoon of BT's to be more mobile than a platoon of radio equipped panzers when the Soviet platoon leader has to get the attention of the rest of the platoon by hand and arm signals?

[ComradeP]

No, but that's dealt with through divisional integrity and also through (much) lower OP penalties for movement. Radios mostly help out in tactical situations, as long as everybody knows where they're supposed to go or can follow someone who knows, having a radio or is not necessarily something that speeds up movement. If we agree to meet up at a certain point in the nearest city, you don't need to call me to get there.

[Pete AU]

Divisional Integrity raduis is quite interesting. My research shows at 5-7Km per hex, essentially, the Soviets would have to have an entire Division in one hex to get divisional benefits. The editor does not support a '0' hex radius so it could be set at 1. However, discussions with players would tend to indicate this would be more irritating than helpful and a 4 or 5 hex radius makes a better game.

In my upcoming treatment of Op Uranus I have used Soviets as divisional counters, rather than regiments and built the bonus into the individual divisional counter. I have always felt the soviet ability to split into rifle regiments over vast distances gives them far too much of a tactical edge - forcing them into rifle divisions is more realistic in my opinion. Indeed there are usually enough independent brigades and regiments in a Soviet Army or Corps anyway to give some tactical ability and keep the situation realistic. I think other nations are portrayed well in the system as regiments and bn's.

[jjdenver]

No, but that's dealt with through divisional integrity and also through (much) lower OP penalties for movement. Radios mostly help out in tactical situations, as long as everybody knows where they're supposed to go or can follow someone who knows, having a radio or is not necessarily something that speeds up movement. If we agree to meet up at a certain point in the nearest city, you don't need to call me to get there.

Just FYI I think the Soviets did use regiments and battalions as manuever elements for the divisions. I always refer to the Raus book because that's what I'm reading right now so it's fresh....but anyway on many occasions a Soviet rifle division will throw a regiment several hours march away to hold a town, forest, etc and regiments and battalions from the same division attack from multiple angles, etc. The regiments of a division seemed to be able to manuever together effectively over several kilometers distance in the Raus' book anyway.

If a hex is 5-7km I guess that a division could be a single unit but at any smaller scale they probably deserve some flexibility to use regiments as manuever elements I think. That's my 2 cents.