1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc

[Redmarkus5]

of course, players who use other techniques to reduce the losses for the Soviet side are in a different situation and have a much bigger advantage than I do...

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: notenome

Paul I haven't finished that turn yet, so you're describing an attack ComradeP hasn't even seen yet. I'd ask you (and it's an understandable mistake) to not mention anything you read in an AAR thread until one of the two players approaches the topic first.

This touches on a subject that came up when I was intially challenging some of the assumptions, hypotheses, and claims being made about how hosed the Axis are. I was asked to show "proof" how they aren't, and to bolster my counterclaims that many of ComradeP's problems are coming from how (I feel) he is misplaying the Axis, by not utilizing doctrine essential for playing to their early war strengths and advantages vis-a-vis the Soviets.

Much of my analysis was directly influenced by both yours and his excellent AARs. Being able to see both sides, of course, helps immensely. However, it also makes it very difficult for someone to offer concrete examples of where someone has 'failed', here in the open forum, where the discussion has since boiled over. If I show a screenshot from one of ComradeP's posts, then it gives too much information to notenome, and vice versa. Thus, the only way that I could think of to 'prove' my point was to challenge ComradeP to a game - a challenge that he has graciously accepted.

There is another way to show the greater community some examples of what I feel to be 'good' Axis doctrine, versus 'bad' Axis doctrine, and that would be to - with both yours and ComradeP's expressed permission - post a few screenshots taken from both of your AARs along with some of mine from current PBEM games that I have going. That way, I can offer a contrast between the strengths and weaknesses of our various approaches, and throw the subject out for further analysis. I don't know if this particular thread would be the best one for it, or the Axis doctrine thread, or a fresh thread altogether. In any event, such an analysis would, again, hinge on both of you permitting me to show the screenshots. What do you gents think? How should I proceed, in order to more effectively participate in the discussion?

[Flaviusx]

We've got some significant tweaks in the latest tester build that should impact many of these issues. The manpower reduction for the Sovs, for example, works out to something like a million fewer replacements over 41-2. We're looking at things to stabilize experience and morale levels. Plus other stuff. The restriction on brigades converting to rifle divisions until May of 1942 I think pulls some of the teeth from the blizzard; by February you're running short on fresh divisions, and brigades won't pack the same punch. Etc.

[notenome]

JAMIAM I'd be ok with screenshots but only after the iniative has passed to my side (aka Blizzard), before that there is too much Abewehr potential, and also with a 'when in doubt: don't' level of discrecion (sp?). My problem with what Paul said was not so much the referencing of the battle, but that he referenced an ongoing battle of a turn I had not yet finished, which I can only imagine would be quite frustrating for ComradeP as he would be hearing about an attack without seeing it first.

[ComradeP]

JAMiAM: the problem with what you say in my opinion is that you don't know how I got into a specific situation. The screenshots I post for the moment are zoomed out and don't display CV or MP's. That's why I asked you for proof that the problem was not due to, say, routing units being combat ready in the Soviet phase, but due to how I'm attacking/what I'm trying.

You don't know how I'm attacking, as you're only shown zoomed out screenshots from the end of the turn.

You can say "I would've done this" and point out where you would've gone based on a screenshot I posted, but you have no idea whether it would've been possible.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

This may come back to haunt me, but I have played through most of a campaign vs. the Axis AI and had them on the borders of Poland by '43. I am now playing Carnage and while I have been told that my defensive tactics are very poor (linear defence, poor level of entrenchments, no use of Forts - don't believe in them - etc.) he never really got close to Moscow in '41 and I am pushing him back all along the front in January of '42. And Carnage is a solid player, IMO.

My conclusion is that the Soviet side (factoring in terrain, weather, CC and everything else) comes out too strong. I don't know the best way to fix that, but I dread the thought of playing as the Axis against a good Soviet player.

Love your AAR's but sometimes you can be a little close to the action to see the bigger picture. I get the view from the other side of the hill and without adding spoilers just a couple of obsevations.


Your opponent is using a more flexible defence than Hitler

The push to Moscow was broken off 40 miles from the City in September now that is better than historical. Hitler would have pushed on your opponent wanted use his forces more economically.

Your opponent also captured the Crimea which involved two armies one of them armoured. Your opponent was obviously thinking of his position in 42 rather than Hitler trying to win the war in 41. That dilution of force when time is at a premium is critical. Would Barbarossa have done as well with such a diversion. He took the Crimea but did no materiel damage.

Your opponent did not realiase unitl midway through Barbarossa that your defence was linear so his tactics were based around what he percieved not what was happening on the ground.


You decided on a stop line early in the game something Stalin did not do. In the real Barbarossa when Guderian turned south Stalin expended his reserves attacking the centre

You did not have a Kiev and a Vayzma, 1 million men plus equipment still around for the winter of 41 is a big bonus

Your opponent did not really risk his Roumanians unlike Barbarossa so his German armies were diluted over greater distances

At Lenningrad the result is to all intent Historical.


If you look at the AI game you will find (just like in mine) Russian casaulties are horrendus despite kicking the German AI round the map.

The problem of the game in my opinion lies with CiC, logistics and air (especially interdiction) The player of which ever side can move too freely which leads to no great encirlcements. These mechanics should be tightened up so we might get a Kiev or a Stalingrad. At the end of the day no one is going to play like Hitler or Stalin given the mechanics. That is the fudamental principle reason how the game is panning out.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

We've got some significant tweaks in the latest tester build that should impact many of these issues. The manpower reduction for the Sovs, for example, works out to something like a million fewer replacements over 41-2. We're looking at things to stabilize experience and morale levels. Plus other stuff. The restriction on brigades converting to rifle divisions until May of 1942 I think pulls some of the teeth from the blizzard; by February you're running short on fresh divisions, and brigades won't pack the same punch. Etc.

Does this imply that ongoing campaigns should be re-started?

[ComradeP]

Hmm, yes, I now see why you thought they ran out of ammo.

One of the testers mentioned ammo expenditure seems huge for defensive actions, which might explain this.

I'll ask on the tester forum what causes notenome's CV to become 3 times as high on two occassions, as I have a bad feeling about there being some bug in Soviet modified CV calculations.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

We've got some significant tweaks in the latest tester build that should impact many of these issues. The manpower reduction for the Sovs, for example, works out to something like a million fewer replacements over 41-2. We're looking at things to stabilize experience and morale levels. Plus other stuff. The restriction on brigades converting to rifle divisions until May of 1942 I think pulls some of the teeth from the blizzard; by February you're running short on fresh divisions, and brigades won't pack the same punch. Etc.

You are adding a big tier of micromanagement there and will most likely be annoying especially with the stacking rules. IMHO you should be looking at command range and other HQ features, retreats and logistics.

[Redmarkus5]

Hi Smirfy. I'm not sure we are really saying different things, possibly just focusing on different facets of the problem.

Yes, my opponent did divert large forces into the Crimea, but once I spotted his movement I was able to halt it without too much difficulty before the blizzard struck.

He is using a more flexible defence than Hitler, but our losses are on par with history (see my later post) while my gains on the ground are probably about twice what they were historically. His commitment of armour to stop my advance around Lake Ilmen also tells me that he is very stretched, flexible defence or no.

I don't have a million extra men - I have lost almost exactly the historical number, as have the Axis - I just lost them in different ways and in lots and lots of smaller pockets. I do agree that I was able to evade pockets way too easily. When I made this observation 1 day after buying the game I was dismissed in these forums, but every game reconfirms it.

Carnage's result at Leningrad was only historical if you take a snapshot in Nov 41, but it's surely not historical now - he is being pushed steadily away from the city. I don't buy the argument that this is an example of a flexible defence in that sector - Carnage has fought tooth and nail to hold the line there.

Something just doesn't feel right about the balance of forces in Jan '42. I have too many divisions and too many options for manoeuvre, IMO. I don't really mind (it's fun) but unless the Axis turns around and kicks me back to the Volga or Moscow come summer, I will be sorely disappointed.

[ComradeP]

When I made this observation 1 day after buying the game I was dismissed in these forums

You were dismissed for your delivery of what you were saying, not always for the message. You were drawing conclusions that were not backed up by experience, now you're concluding things based on experience. That's a big difference.

[randallw]

I've also seen modified Soviet CVs to be larger than the base CV, that 2 or 3 multiplier that Paul mentioned.  I'm very late in my game so the leaders have received some ratings improvements, with a decent amount of 6's for Inf ( maxed out for that ), though armor ratings still lag.

[ComradeP]

What seems fishy is that Von Manstein, one of the best German leaders and better than all Soviet leaders aside from Zhukov, managed to add, at best, 20 CV to the Panzer division. And then some mediocre Soviet leader, or possibly Rokossovsky, effectively quadrupled the Soviet CV? It just doesn't add up.

[abulbulian]

Yeah, I had posted a while back about the issues with leaders impacts not modeled properly. Not sure how an axis player is suppose to gain the type of ability that Manstein had in some very significant battles in the Crimea. The initial entry to the Crimea, the Kerch battle (which was amazing what it accomplished with forces involved) and the final capture of Sevastopol and with that the entire Crimea. All that with basically 11th Army, several Romanian units, and lots of extra and special siege arty (spr 42).

I don't think the concept of leadership in WitE models anything close to the advantages the Germans had over the Soviets in 41-42. If you take out Hilter's nonsense (which the axis player now represents) many lost battles would have been avoided too.


In my PBEM game vs bwheately, my 11th army and Rom units couldn't even get close to breaking into the Crimea.

[ComradeP]

I stand by my observation that the Soviets generally seem to get better modified CV's than the Axis when they get positive modified CV's.

I've been saying that for a while on the tester forum, but people dismiss is at false, coincidence or refer to some vague greater variability for Soviet CV's.

I think it's a problem if one of the best German leaders can't really double or in some other way significantly increase the CV of one of his units once in six battles.

[Redmarkus5]

I can only respond to that by saying that what seemed obvious to me on day one remains obvious today, with all the extra experience... My 'delivery' issues were a reaction to being shot down for not having 'the experience'. Maybe experience isn't everything?

[ComradeP]

Some of the issues you were seeing were not issues, or were already fixed. Many of your observations that were true were certainly not new, whilst you were acting like you just discovered some horrible secret.

Your feedback was and is appreciated, of course, but not everything you said or say are thing that we're unaware of.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

What seems fishy is that Von Manstein, one of the best German leaders and better than all Soviet leaders aside from Zhukov, managed to add, at best, 20 CV to the Panzer division. And then some mediocre Soviet leader, or possibly Rokossovsky, effectively quadrupled the Soviet CV? It just doesn't add up.

But how fishy is it really? The Pz divisions are already operating much closer to peak efficiency than the Russians formations. To take a really crude way of looking at it:

1) Manstein makes a few good suggestions to a Panzer formation that is already using its 80 tanks very well and adds 20 CV factors
2) Some reasonable Russian makes some very basic suggestions (like get to the front and use your radios!) to say 400 tanks that are mostly
not getting used well at all (say at 1/10 effectiveness), to quadruple he just has to get 160 out of 400 tanks to operate reasonably, unlike Manstein who has to do something miraculous to get 80 tanks to function as well as 160. The Russian could double it all again to a 320-tank level and still be operating at less than half of Manstein's magic level.

[notenome]

One could test this in the editor, no? Put one Axis division in clear next to one soviet division and assign Manstein to one side and Rokossovky to the other. Then make a hotseat 'game' and have each side attack 10 times, see how CVs faired.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Yes, that is fairly odd. You're not even trying, and the Axis still get stuck.

Well, I am trying - I'm just not very good!

Based on Jackerson's sources and my own reference material (particularly Mawdsley's Thunder in the East) I have come up with the following comparison of in-game losses versus the historical ones in my game against Carnage, in both case to December 41. This is killed plus captured.

As you can see, the figures are amazingly close, almost identical. So, the issue isn't the loss statistics when the game is fought along historical linear defence lines. It is either the level of replacements, reinforcements, unit quality or the impact of the blizzard, maybe all four combined. I would argue that the battle results must be incredibly realistic to produce this output and I'm not sure that's where the focus should be...

Not sure I agree with your figures on soviet loses in 1941. I have sources for soviet loses KIA + wounded + MIA in the ball park of 6 million.

Here's one source: Stalingrad: the infernal cauldron, 1942-1943. Stephen Walsh P26

"Soviet loses in 1941 were horrific. It is estimated that between 22 June 1941 and 31 December 1941, the Red Army suffered upwards of 6 million causalities. Three million POW and tank loses of 21,391."

So I think you value of 3 million is way off. Is that just POW? Where did you get those crazy numbers for loses?

So in reality your actual soviet loses are about 1/2 what they should be. Which supports exactly the type of issues the game has in play balance. Simply put, the axis are lucky to get anything close to historical for soviet loses in 41. While the axis loses will almost always be as much or more than historical with not much effort from the sov player. I was lucky against my PBEM opponent to just get 4 million in 41. Which we both agreed would not happen again if we played again.

All the extra troops the sov have in spr 42 cause very serious issues in 1942 for the axis. I think the current changes for manpower reduction mods (less 450k in 41 and less 700k in 42) will help, but still will not be enough.

ALSO, just wait until after the 13 turns of blizzard. You will lose about 1 million axis troops and even more if the sov players makes attacks, which a decent sov player will do in all 13 turns of blizzard.

[&:]