Winter Idea......Comment

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

That front line is really weird - what is happening to the long thin salient just south of centre? A long front definitely could impact blizzard defence.

Well, his screenshot was from 27/9, so I imagine he rationalized his defense?

And that his foe rationalized his own? (I hope).... Looks like his foe forgot how to retreat, and Oleg kept on moving. The thin nose will turn into a "crushed skull" soon enough, I'd gather.

And if his game is Beta 5, it would be good data for post-winter, wouldn't it?

Edit: Doh, screwed up the formatting.

Double oops, created a DP somehow... Sorry.

[cookie monster]

Shame I uploaded my salient pictures last night to witewiki.

That salient to the Pripyet Marshes is in a Class of It's own!

Can I just remain Politically Correct and say I have seen enough.[:D]

[Oleg Mastruko]

We patched couple times through the game so far.... I think we started in beta3 but am not sure.

Why does it matter in THIS thread? Here we discuss winter related ideas and comments. We don't discuss how I got this far. We discuss what can be done to keep it thru winter. I think this game of mine will be good test. Assuming pretty good German advance (and I think this qualifies as one) the question is can the German player survive blizzards, and be strong enough in Spring to decisively finish off the Soviets or mount at least some good offensive or two. Not to be rude, but I do think if anyone deserves to win the German game in 42, then it's this German here.

As I said, if blizzards kill me and I am unable to build up the strength in Spring 42, with pre-mud position this good, then I will become Axis whiner too...

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

We patched couple times through the game so far.... I think we started in beta3 but am not sure.

Why does it matter in THIS thread? Here we discuss winter related ideas and comments. We don't discuss how I got this far. We discuss what can be done to keep it thru winter. I think this game of mine will be good test. Assuming pretty good German advance (and I think this qualifies as one) the question is can the German player survive blizzards, and be strong enough in Spring to decisively finish off the Soviets or mount at least some good offensive or two. Not to be rude, but I do think if anyone deserves to win the German game in 42, then it's this German here.

As I said, if blizzards kill me and I am unable to build up the strength in Spring 42, with pre-mud position this good, then I will become Axis whiner too...

I'm interested in how you come out of the winter and in what shape. The armaments and TOE bugs, etc. have made the data from Beta's 1-4 imperfect. So a clean run on Beta 5 would be preferable. It's nothing against your performance, just how the Wehrmacht will look in 42 June for summer offensive.

The question is correct, I think. The answer would be best in a pure Beta 5 game. And until we have that info, I'm uncertain that there is anything wrong with Beta 5. Much less that anything needs fixed.....

I guess BA's and Speedy's game will have the cleanest data. They started under Beta 5.

[2ndACR]

Easy guys, I don't mind blizzard talk here but how he got to where he is, is for another thread.

Now, we just sit back and see what happens to Oleg during the blizzard. I just had my first Blizzard turn against Kelblau, and I think me and Oleg are on turn 14. So now we see what happens.

[Skanvak]

Insteresting face surely, and we should see how the new patch works.

Though I have been surprised by the opposition of some to compare the game result to historical result. I someone said this is a common check of the validity of a simulation. Given same strategy, we should have the same result most of the time.

If the German put in the same situation they were after the failure of tyhoon cannot hold as good as they did given similar soviet strategy, then we should have a consencus between the "gamers" and the "simulationists" on the blizzard problem. That why I think they should make a dec 41-feb 42 scenario to test the blizzard effect. This way we should have a good basis for common understanding to what should be fixed in blizzard.

If you mix the debate with other what-if (more winterization), this cannot lead to an adequate understandings as the basics are not fixed. Once the blizzard and hence the GC campaign work as a correct simulation of what is intended, we could surely start discussing alternative scenario and option system like what AGEOD did for their WWI game or what have been done for WitP.

[Senno]

Righto. Which is why I am hopeful that Beta 5 games will come in with their data sooner than later.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Senno

Righto. Which is why I am hopeful that Beta 5 games will come in with their data sooner than later.

There will always be some new beta, some new patch, some new bug discovered (that, I am sure, some players will blow outta proportions).... that's the future of WITE for at least a year or two, if WITP experience is any measure.

Call me old fashioned but I don't really understand this obsession with minor tweaks and this or that patch. Some players will vehemently argue that some patch favored this or that side - personally, apart from very very minor adjustments, I am pretty certain any AAR result you see now, is pretty much the same you would have seen with v1.00

I don't obsess over such miniscule changes, I worry about the overall strategy and conducting operations. Apart from the things I learned about the game and my own experience, I would play the same game if I'd to play with v1.00 and I am sure results would be 99,9% the same (give or take a hex or two).

[Senno]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree about the seriousness of the TOE and EXP bug then. Those were the worst culprits, I believe.

If they were "miniscule", I doubt the developers would have put them on the front burner, and released a hot fix for the armaments bug, as well. Why spend the man-hours if they are miniscule?

No, they were fixed on a very timely basis. Which was a very nice display of customer service.

I'm sure your last opponent disagrees pretty seriously with how "miniscule" they were, as well. And how do you discuss a "fix" for something, if one is unsure that anything is broken?

I'm not interested in patches per se. Just that the current release version reflects the Designers intent for this fun game we play. Since they continue to patch and hot-fix, I think that is not at 100%. It's pretty close though, to my thinking. And current play through the winter feels ok to me, vs the AI.

Anyway, I'm not sure that a problem exists under Beta 5. So await data. Perhaps BA and Speedy will speak again about their current game.[:)]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

No one in the test team has ever denied that there are issues with the blizzard, but they are mostly related to morale and experience, and not the total number of casualties. The split between KIA/WIA/disabled is out of whack but the total permanent casualty figures are pretty accurate. There is also a first turn spike in casualties, that I have lobbied long and hard to have reduced.

There are several blizzard threads in the development forums, and Joel has made some pretty dramatic suggestions for changes that are being discussed and debated at the moment.

PS: I will hazard a guess that the Devs and testers don't agree with you.

To me, obsession is sticking to the same trite (rote?), opinion, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree about my definition here, as well.[;)]

[abulbulian]

Call me old fashioned but I don't really understand this obsession with minor tweaks and this or that patch.

I'm would disagree that the patches since the initial release of WitE are minor. If this is not what you meant, please excuse my comments.

Do you really believe that playing against human player or AI with v1.00 and the latest patched version would give 99.9% same results .. give or take a hex or two? Really? That seems to diminish all the efforts of the players, testers, and devs that have put so much time into making changes that they felt would have an impact. I think it's very clear that the initial release was heavily favor for the sov side in CG41-45. Given the extra 1.2 million manpower, terrain def inflated CV mods bug, cheap AP corp creating just to name a few of the issues finally adjusted/fixed.

I think this game scale just does not allow for a timely release will all factors worked out. I have no problem being allowed to play the game 6 months earlier and to deal with the patches. Even the testers can get into a mind set and not see aspects/issues with the game that the larger community will find.

I'm looking forward to some more balancing and UI features/tweaks to WitE in the future. I'm sure as in WitP, the more granular control over production will be allowed or at least a toggle setting.

[color]

Given the scale of the blizzard discussions, I'm voting for opening a whole new subsection on the WITE forum just for this [:'(]

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: bednarre


2) Why Didn't Russian Army Built Plethora of Fortifications in 1941-1942?

Regarding the end of the German offensive capability in 1941 due to Russian fortification pileup in the game, why was this not the historical Russian tactic? Any (non-Maginot) fortification line without strong reserves can be easily penetrated. Classic examples are the D-Day attacks (even Omaha Beach), the Gustav line in May 1944, and the Stalin Line in 1941. Even the imfamous West Wall, which had taken years to build, was quickly breached in several places. In this latter case it was the attacking force which lacked the needed reserves. One a line in penetrated in a few places, available attacking reserves will move in and defeat the whole line. Thus placing half (or more) of ones army in the rear building and occupying massive fortifications was not effective. It was better to use reserves on the front, especially if the tactical ability of the troops were grossly inferior to the enemy.

To be honest, I think you have a mix bag on your examples. The Gustav line has to be counted as a success for the Axis by many accounts simply because it took until May of 44 to breach it in a way to cause an Axis withdraw. The Allies actually got stuck before the line in Nov of 43 and suffered heavy casualties trying to breach it (another goal of fortifications). The West Wall was a propaganda joke by 1944 as most everything of military use had been stripped and sent to the Atlantic wall.

I can quickly think of several Russian examples of fortifications in depth that were quite effective in at least slowing the Germans down in 1941-42 and these include the defenses around Leningrad, in front of Moscow and also in Stalingrad. Kursk 43 is another example where the Russians had time (and reason) to dig lines in depth. Also realize that part of the side effects of fortifications are not only to slow an enemy down, but to also cause an inordinate amount of casualties on the enemy attempting to attack them while being able to defend with fewer forces.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Senno
If they were "miniscule", I doubt the developers would have put them on the front burner, and released a hot fix for the armaments bug, as well. Why spend the man-hours if they are miniscule?

Because they are perfectionists, which is very welcome in this world ruled by mediocricy [8D]

Devs are polishing every aspect of the game. But I am not obsessing over that, nor do I think it matters a lot for my overall strategy (so far - if there's something ground breaking I will reconsider).

Let's put it this way - do you think Guderian obsessed over minor tweaks between Panzer IIIg and Panzer IIIj? Did he even know the difference? Did it matter for him when planning operations? Probably not. He just said "I want Unit X at objective Y at Hour H". Yet, for some engineer in tank factory, those little tweaks between AusfD and AusfE meant thousands of man hours and were most important thing in his life. For platoon leader they meant small changes in performance and some hours spent familiarizing with the new model.

For someone as high as Army leader those were miniscule tweaks, probably not worthy of changing The Big Plans (I am talking minor revisions not the completely new Panther tank). That's how I see myself, as Guderian, not as engineer in tank factory.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Senno
If they were "miniscule", I doubt the developers would have put them on the front burner, and released a hot fix for the armaments bug, as well. Why spend the man-hours if they are miniscule?

Because they are perfectionists, which is very welcome in this world ruled by mediocricy [8D]

Devs are polishing every aspect of the game. But I am not obsessing over that, nor do I think it matters a lot for my overall strategy (so far - if there's something ground breaking I will reconsider).

Let's put it this way - do you think Guderian obsessed over minor tweaks between Panzer IIIg and Panzer IIIj? Did he even know the difference? Did it matter for him when planning operations? Probably not. He just said "I want Unit X at objective Y at Hour H". Yet, for some engineer in tank factory, those little tweaks between AusfD and AusfE meant thousands of man hours and were most important thing in his life. For platoon leader they meant small changes in performance and some hours spent familiarizing with the new model.

For someone as high as Army leader those were miniscule tweaks, probably not worthy of changing The Big Plans (I am talking minor revisions not the completely new Panther tank). That's how I see myself, as Guderian, not as engineer in tank factory.

Well, we will have to disagree, I suppose. As I don't believe that missing a million armaments is "miniscule". But to each his own, I suppose. Ultimately why they patch isn't that important. But that they do, very frequently is as it has improved gameplay quite a bit. So thanks to the Developers/Testers for their hard work.

I don't think "dramatic changes" to winter would be contemplated by the developers as they are being done, if the only thing left to do is polish. The game does feel pretty balanced to me now, but we will know more about the testers/developers opinions shortly, I hope. If they come out thinking the game as it stands is fine winter-wise, great.

PS: It's nice to know that I am dealing with a reasonable person, and not a perfectionist. Misspelling "mediocrity" would bug a perfectionist to death as they tend to be obsessive-compulsive about such things.[;)]

PPS: I suppose that type of example did matter to Guderian. He was the Inspector General of mucketymucks as I recall. And was against the development of the Jagdpanzer IV in favor of more Stugs. So I can easily imagine that yes, he was quite concerned about the various Panzer models, whether IV's, III's, etc especially once it was his job to worry about them. Not that this example matters to the overall discussion.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Senno
And I suppose that type of example did matter to Guderian. He was the Inspector General of mucketymucks as I recall. And was against the development of the Jagdpanzer in favor of more Stug's.[:)]

That was after Barbarossa but I agree, I picked the wrong man for my example [:D] I didn't think, should have picked... well pretty much anyone else [;)] Anyway you get the idea (even if we continue to disagree).

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: color

Given the scale of the blizzard discussions, I'm voting for opening a whole new subsection on the WITE forum just for this [:'(]

It's not just the blizzard rules that are the issue. The Germans causality rate in 41/42 where caused by several issues the weather being only one. The supply system broke down. High command started an ill conceived major operation, Typhoon, just before the mud season with fatigued troops and few reserves. There was no shelter for the troops. Poor leadership espacially at the higher commands. I'm sure there are more that i've missed.

The weather, blizzard and supply rules appear to be arbitrary and cause in-balance in the human to human games, because good players will exploit these rules. I doubt that fine tuning the casualty rates, or fort building or other band-aid solutions will solve these systemic problems.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: bednarre


2) Why Didn't Russian Army Built Plethora of Fortifications in 1941-1942?

Regarding the end of the German offensive capability in 1941 due to Russian fortification pileup in the game, why was this not the historical Russian tactic? Any (non-Maginot) fortification line without strong reserves can be easily penetrated. Classic examples are the D-Day attacks (even Omaha Beach), the Gustav line in May 1944, and the Stalin Line in 1941. Even the imfamous West Wall, which had taken years to build, was quickly breached in several places. In this latter case it was the attacking force which lacked the needed reserves. One a line in penetrated in a few places, available attacking reserves will move in and defeat the whole line. Thus placing half (or more) of ones army in the rear building and occupying massive fortifications was not effective. It was better to use reserves on the front, especially if the tactical ability of the troops were grossly inferior to the enemy.

To be honest, I think you have a mix bag on your examples. The Gustav line has to be counted as a success for the Axis by many accounts simply because it took until May of 44 to breach it in a way to cause an Axis withdraw. The Allies actually got stuck before the line in Nov of 43 and suffered heavy casualties trying to breach it (another goal of fortifications). The West Wall was a propaganda joke by 1944 as most everything of military use had been stripped and sent to the Atlantic wall.

I can quickly think of several Russian examples of fortifications in depth that were quite effective in at least slowing the Germans down in 1941-42 and these include the defenses around Leningrad, in front of Moscow and also in Stalingrad. Kursk 43 is another example where the Russians had time (and reason) to dig lines in depth. Also realize that part of the side effects of fortifications are not only to slow an enemy down, but to also cause an inordinate amount of casualties on the enemy attempting to attack them while being able to defend with fewer forces.

The Allied to German division ratio in attacking the Gustav line was very close to 1:1 before May 1944! The line did bend but did not break, because the Allies did not have any significant reserves and because of extreme weather conditions (rain, mud, and cold). These reserves were created in May 1944 by moving most of the British 8 Army from the east coast of Italy to the west coast, and adding new divisions, principally mountain trained French forces. Second, the Gustav line was build around major rivers and mountains, which are themselves like fortifications. Finally, the Allied generalship was abysmal! A classic example in the loss of two thirds of the Texas 36th infantry division. Italy was a side-show theater as well. Tying down German troops was an Allied victory.

I think the Germans could have broken through the Leningrad defenses. The problem was there was nothing in Leningrad which rated the significant German losses taking the city block by block, ala Stalingrad. In fact, about 95% of the city of Stalingrad was captured. Moscow's fortifications were layered in belts, but this covered a realitively small area compared to the size of the Eastern front, protected a high asset location, and the German still broke through in places with very weakened and undersupplied forces! In fact the Russians had several "defensive" belts even farther away from Moscow, but the Germans went quickly through them. Kursk 43 is definitely a classic example of effective belts of fortifications. In this case the Russian Army new where the Germans were going to attack, wanted the attack, and established significant reserves. The Russians actually outnumered the Germans in the battle! Never the less, the German Army broke through most of the southern belts, and probably would have done so in the northern part with more forces. The Germans did try to build a belt of fortifications 10 miles behind the main lines in late 1944 when defending at the German border. Hitler overruled the Germans, and made the belt be placed 3 miles behind instead. The net result was that the resevers, the main belt line, and of course the first line were all overwhelmed by the Russian Army. In any case, the rear fortifications were designed to reduce the effectiveness of the massive Russian artillery forces. This merely bought time. German artillery fire control was much more flexible and waste was unacceptable.

In regard to casualties caused by fortifications, their most significant effect is reducing the casualties of the defenders due to artillery fire. The standard counter tactic was to bring high velocity guns, hopefully mechanized, and blast the fortifications. The fortifications could be reduced one by one. Another key was to use engineers with high explosives. Casualties were higher than without the fortifications, but remember that not every fort need be attacked. Breaking through a section of the line can defeat the whole line! The key is the reserves available to both the attacker and the defender. This is the same type of problem encountered by major rivers. No one seems to be complaining about attacking over them in the game!

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Let's put it this way - do you think Guderian obsessed over minor tweaks between Panzer IIIg and Panzer IIIj? Did he even know the difference? Did it matter for him when planning operations? Probably not. He just said "I want Unit X at objective Y at Hour H". Yet, for some engineer in tank factory, those little tweaks between AusfD and AusfE meant thousands of man hours and were most important thing in his life. For platoon leader they meant small changes in performance and some hours spent familiarizing with the new model.

For someone as high as Army leader those were miniscule tweaks, probably not worthy of changing The Big Plans (I am talking minor revisions not the completely new Panther tank). That's how I see myself, as Guderian, not as engineer in tank factory.

General Guderian stated in his autobiograhpy "Panzer Leader" in Chapter "The Advance to Tula and Moscow" a quote from his troops during the Russian winter 1941 counter-offensive: 'If only we were mobile and had our old combat strength, then it would be child's play. The Russian is trained and equipped for winter warfare and we are not'. He also stated on December 8th his belief "The troops were no longer enough to capture Moscow and I therefore decided with a heavy heart, on the evening of December 5th, to break off our fruitless attack and to withdraw to a previously selected and relatively short line which I hope that I shall be able to hold with what is left of my forces".

The game results of the German army reaching Armageddon on December 5 do not appear to correspond to the expectations of Guderian and his troops at the time. The biggest factor appears to be the density of German soldiers at the front! The loss of mobility meant that the few German reserves could not easily reach threatened areas. This is how they broke up the numerous Russian Army counterattacks before this time! The result was that the German Army retreated in stages, and was not continuosly pushed back every day. Does anyone have a good map of the Russian counter-attack lines from December 5 to January 15?

[Angelo]

Found this...

http://www.serpukhov.su/dima/war/eng/mattack.jpg

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Angelo

Found this...

http://www.serpukhov.su/dima/war/eng/mattack.jpg

Thanks Angelo! It looks like German counterattacks were effective and numerous. If the Germans could have straightened their lines in advance, per general recommendation, the Russian gains would have been smaller. Look how many extra troops were tied down holding such a convoluted front in front of Moscow. In the game, the German lines are straightened in advance, fortified, and obliterated. Assuming the actual advance was about 90 km (5 1/2 hexes) from December 5, 1941 to January 10, 1942 (5 game turns), this shows the Russians indeed pushed back the Germans. Advance after January 10 were much slower and German counterattacks were effective. Also, some areas of the front in front of Moscow were almost stagnant over the first 5 weeks of the winter attack!