GC 41 Kelblau (S) vs 2ndAcr (G) No 2ndAcr

[Klydon]

Kudos Kelblau for having the guts to try something different strat wise. I think when you first implemented it, no one really thought it would work. I don't know if it will pay off in the long run from the standpoint if the Russians will score a "win" in this game or not, but part of it is also the German response. I think if they counter-turtle, it would be really rough to pull out a win against a fresh German army that is very well dug in and without very much in the way of Guards units. Crossing "no mans land" could be daunting indeed without the protection of the fortifications. Obviously if the Germans exhaust themselves against this defense (ala Kursk), then the Russians will have a fair shot at winning since they won't have to fear German reserves as much.

[Flaviusx]

Kelblau, there's no question that a German runaway going into mud and winter is also a problem and contributed to your own turtle.

I'm hoping the next patch mixes things up and introduces more fluidity to the game and allows Germans to press harder and deeper into the Soviet Union. And to hold as much of that ground as possible. That will more or less force the Sov to counterattack during the winter to gain some breathing space. You'll be a lot less willing to turtle up if the Germans are as far east as they got in real life.

The lines will move during the winter and this helps avoid this trench warfare in the east stuff, which is going to be a real game killer for many folks. It would be for me, anyways, and I'm a diehard Sov player. I would actually deliberately leave sections of the front weaker than others just to get more mobile warfare going -- and give me some chances to catch an overextended German. Blasting through fortlines is tedious.

I actually think the German stands reasonable chance of getting a draw or a minor victory in this sort of turtling situation, btw. But blech. Booooring. For both sides.

Plainly the gutting of German infantry during the blizzard and the present lack of recovery of their morale and experience isn't helping.

[Magnum88]

Perhaps changing the blizzard mechanics to lower Axis losses if the Soviets do not press them. Units not moving would suffer low attrition/morale losses, those next enemy units more, those that move even more, attacked but successfully held more still, and forced to retreat the worst. That way if the Soviet player decided to not do a winter counteroffensive the Axis would suffer little from the first winter rule.

[tuffgong]

Flaviusx's suggestion of looking at fortification seems like a good one, from what I can tell from the AAR's. I don't know much about the game mechanics so the following should be taken with that in mind, some of it may be in the game now:

Fortification levels supposedly represent the range of things from simple foxholes through linked trench systems allowing troops to move about under cover, log and earthen dugouts and bunkers, cleared fields of fire with minefields and wire obstacles and anti-tank barriers all the way to concrete pillboxes and fortifications. Terrain should be one factor affecting just how much and how quickly a hex can be fortified. Parts of the steppes were open treeless plains in which building log bunkers and dugouts would be pretty tough for example, and there should probably be limits to just how much you can fortify in a swamp where digging in tends to result in holes filling with mud and water. It was especially hard to dig at all in the harsh winters. German generals reported that their over-extended troops couldn't even dig foxholes in the hard-frozen ground. It should be very hard to fortify in blizzard conditions, taking considerable extra resources per hex to achieve higher fort levels. Historically weather and terrain, both separately and in combination, would have affected the ability of troops to fortify an area.

There would also be limits on just how much help an engineer or construction battallion could give at the corps or army level of attachment. With 10 mile hexes, each hex represents roughly 100 square miles! In this AAR, Soviet armies are occupying 3 x 3 hex areas, about 900 square miles. There is just a limit to how much of that a battallion of folks can help with in a one-week turn. (Again, I don't know a lot about the game mechanics and there may be limits already in place, such as attached batallions only helping fortify one hex.)

In '43, the Soviets spent months devoting their resources to fortifying the Kursk salient since they knew the German attack plans. In this AAR, they appear to have fortified the entire front line to Kursk-like levels or more, in early 1942. Having the German and Soviet armies facing each other in Manginot lines, in depth, the length of the east front after a couple months doesn't seem a reasonable possibility given the resources available.

[Ketza]

The problem is there is not enough extra incentives built into the game that promote more agressive activity.

I have been ripped for this before and it may not be possible given the game engine but a system that generates some sort of points that can be spent as a player meets certain objectives would go along way for long term replayability and add a level of excitement to the game.

Dont get me wrong I enjoy the game. As it stands however it could be so much more.

As the Axis give me a solid reason to push my guys to the limit in the winter of 1941. Maybe if I meet certain conditions I get 500 political points to institute a "stand fast" order. That in turn helps me defend against the onslaught.

As the Soviet if I manage to cling onto the Don Basin in 1941 I get extra points to build units... or transfer an extra 10 divsisions from Siberia.

The level of unpredictability would grow immensely. It would also punish certain behaviors that in real life would not be tolerated politically.

Its a great game but like all games it runs the risk of the players figuring out the best path to victory and everything becoming predictable or leading to games that become boring.

Just my quick 2 cents.

[modrow]

First a little quip at my friend Ketza - check his great new AAR for background info, in addition it's really one of the most beautiful AARs I see presently.

Worrying about sustainability already? Great [8D].

Now, back to the main topic - how to provide a reason for aggressive action on the map.

I really do not have any hard data on it as of yet - and I think probably only testers have looked at it in detail, but could not at least in principle the production system provide such a reason (or maybe it does already, but we did not recognize it so far ?)

I mean, if the owner of a hex really profits from oil, resources, HI etc and/or if those hexes changing hands frequently negates such use, said owner will fight for it. Conversely, if losing hexes really hurts, players won't give space away for free.

Can any of the testers or someone who has played sufficiently far in a campaign with an eye on production make a statement relating to the question whether captured oil resources etc make a difference? Or may be modified (at the risk of leaving the historical framework) in such a way that they do?

Thanks

Hartwig

[Kel]

Thank you for the comments and encouraging posts.
For the time being, with 2ndAcr, we agreed on proceeding with the game, at least until the patch.
An update of the Soviet view of the current battle should be posted in a few days, let's say around turn 60. In the meantime, we'll both try to do our worst.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

First a little quip at my friend Ketza - check his great new AAR for background info, in addition it's really one of the most beautiful AARs I see presently.

Worrying about sustainability already? Great [8D].

Now, back to the main topic - how to provide a reason for aggressive action on the map.

I really do not have any hard data on it as of yet - and I think probably only testers have looked at it in detail, but could not at least in principle the production system provide such a reason (or maybe it does already, but we did not recognize it so far ?)

I mean, if the owner of a hex really profits from oil, resources, HI etc and/or if those hexes changing hands frequently negates such use, said owner will fight for it. Conversely, if losing hexes really hurts, players won't give space away for free.

Can any of the testers or someone who has played sufficiently far in a campaign with an eye on production make a statement relating to the question whether captured oil resources etc make a difference? Or may be modified (at the risk of leaving the historical framework) in such a way that they do?

Thanks

Hartwig

The sustainability comment came from the fact that there isnt a lot of strategic unpredictability built into the game. Eventually we will all be somewhat evenly matched as opponents and I fear the "Ho Hum" factor may set in.

One of the best things about witp and witpae was that both sides had tremendous strategic decisions to make on a consistent basis. It is a very unpredictable game.

Speaking of which I will send you back a AE turn soon hartwig.

Oh and about the production thing. My 2 cents is its a rather passive game mechanic. You kinda know that it helps to capture a Soviet city or capture a resource but it really doesnt jump out at you. If the mechanic was more player interactive it would help.

[Kel]

TURN 60 SUMMARY (August 1942)

1/ In the Kursk-Kharkov sector, the german offensive has been stopped. The panzers are stationed in front of the soviet first lines and have obviously learnt the lessons.

2/ All along the front, especially in sectors where we suppose no axis reinforcements could be brought quickly to retaliate) we conduct attacks with no decisive results (a retreat here a hold result there). However, these fights are slowly raising the experience levels of the involved divisions, and prevent the German army to entrench too strongly in zones that are critical for future operations.


SOUTHERN SECTOR OFFENSIVE
In the Azov Sea southern sector (map) we are conducting a 2 fronts attack centered on Krivoi-Rog (Transcaucasus Front) and Nikolaïev (Crimea Front).
The army HQs have been reinforced with 2 tank bns each, 1 flamethrower tank bn, 2 sapper rgts, and 1 BM howitzer bn. One shock army has been added to Konev' Crimean Front.

Transcaucasus front has been given the additional task to garrison a fall-back line on the Dnieper should the offensive be repulsed.

Local successes were achieved (Krivoi Rog has been taken, lost, and retaken) and the first tangible effect of this move was that its magnitude was consequent enough to provoke the shift of a full panzerkorps and one infantry korps to Krivoi-Rog, thus alleviating the pressure on the central sector of the frontline.

We will observe how this operation develops and, if we can achieve satisfying results, we may choose to develop a symetric diversionary attack in the north, specifically to recapture Velikye Luki in early september. Provisions are made to that end.

[Kel]

LAST WORD

With the arrival of beta patch, I agreed to 2ndAcr proposal to start a new campaign game (he was specially upset by the xp loss when his divs upgraded to the 1942 toe).


My last move (turn 63, end of august 1942) resulted in retreating two stacks of panzers (one in front of Orel, the other one at Krivoï Rog), one of motorized infantry (including the infamous Totenkopf) and pushing a dozen infantry divisions all along the front.

And I am quite curious of what effect the first rifle corps and gun brigades would have had on the current battle. They are almost ready for action.

Anyway, it was a very interesting campaign game. The possibilities offered to the soviet commander are fascinating. We barely scratched the surface of what could be done with such a magnificent machine of war.