Winter Idea......Comment

[Oleg Mastruko]

It seems to me blizzard combat mechanics are OK, it's just that the blizzard in game lasts far too long. Indeed, after 3 months of blizzards whole Russia would look like in that Ronald Emmerich CGI disaster movie with mountains of snow covering entire skyscrapers etc.

Also, blizzards and snow are like night and day, two totally different things in game. In reality they are not really that different. I think changes should look in the direction of refining the weather model, not the blizzard first winter CV rules per se.

How about this suggestion: 4 turns of blizzards in Dec, then alternating or random snow/blizzard turns thru Jan and Feb? Seems to me that would yield most realistic results. Random weather probability rules would be adjusted accordingly.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

It seems to me blizzard combat mechanics are OK, it's just that the blizzard in game lasts far too long. Indeed, after 3 months of blizzards whole Russia would look like in that Ronald Emmerich CGI disaster movie with mountains of snow covering entire skyscrapers etc.

Also, blizzards and snow are like night and day, two totally different things in game. In reality they are not really that different. I think changes should look in the direction of refining the weather model, not the blizzard first winter CV rules per se.

How about this suggestion: 4 turns of blizzards in Dec, then alternating or random snow/blizzard turns thru Jan and Feb? Seems to me that would yield most realistic results. Random weather probability rules would be adjusted accordingly.

I agree with that one!

I think "blizzard" is a misnomer. It brings to mind a three month continous snowstorm, but that is obviously not the case. I think the Europa series names of "Freeze" and "Snow" were better, but maybe they wanted something different here. Still, I agree that the difference between snow and blizzard is too big. Ind I would like to see some limited winter effects in the winter of 1942-43, perhaps a slight disadvantage to the Axis when attacking. After all, the pattern of German summer offensive and Soviet winter offensive was a recurring theme up until 1944.

[kirkgregerson]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

It seems to me blizzard combat mechanics are OK, it's just that the blizzard in game lasts far too long. Indeed, after 3 months of blizzards whole Russia would look like in that Ronald Emmerich CGI disaster movie with mountains of snow covering entire skyscrapers etc.

Also, blizzards and snow are like night and day, two totally different things in game. In reality they are not really that different. I think changes should look in the direction of refining the weather model, not the blizzard first winter CV rules per se.

How about this suggestion: 4 turns of blizzards in Dec, then alternating or random snow/blizzard turns thru Jan and Feb? Seems to me that would yield most realistic results. Random weather probability rules would be adjusted accordingly.

+1

I have to say, maybe I was wrong about Oleg. Hope people understand I like to kid a lot and not to take too much of what I comment about people persoanlly too seriously.

This is a good suggestion and I'd be happy with this and possibly a little consideration tweak for fort levels pertaining to unit attrition and def CV, only because that seems a realistic concept.

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: Angelo

Found this...

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

great map , the topic and your map might force me to pull out a book this weekend. I know I have a book somewhere.


here is a link back to you ,note some videos work...

battle for moscow


not trying to high-jack the thread...apologies.


edit: utube carries the whole video in parts
part 1

[Skanvak]

What is the week by week average temperature and weather from december 41 to february 42? This way we could check Oleg theory. I would had that on a weekly basis may be there are week that were "hotter" (mean snow weather) during this winter and alternatively some snow month could have one blizzard turn? This should be easy to check?

Though we wtill have to check if the blizzard effect are correct. The good methodology in my mind is to design a scenario starting with the russian counter-attack of 5 decembre 1941.

[Q-Ball]

If you shorten the number of Blizzard turns, though, you won't have the attritional effect on the Wehrmacht. This seems to me like it's not too far off right now; the Germans should suffer piles of attrition losses in Winter. Even in my game, this still accounts for the bulk of the losses, as it should.

The problem is that the Russians are able to easily push around the Wehrmacht, and do so on a sustained, multi-front pace for three months. That's what needs to change, either by propping-up German CVs, or by restricting Soviet supplies enough that they can't sustain a full-frontal offensive for any length of time.

I would like to play the Soviets one day, and they need to be able to retain an offensive capability for the entire winter. Just not a full-front one, IMO.

For these reasons, I am in favor of keeping Blizzard 3 months. I would probably end it for the South Region (Crimea), but I would keep it 3 months. I would make Germans units more combat capable though, and better able to resist.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

If you shorten the number of Blizzard turns, though, you won't have the attritional effect on the Wehrmacht. This seems to me like it's not too far off right now; the Germans should suffer piles of attrition losses in Winter. Even in my game, this still accounts for the bulk of the losses, as it should.

...I would like to play the Soviets one day, and they need to be able to retain an offensive capability for the entire winter. Just not a full-front one, IMO.

For these reasons, I am in favor of keeping Blizzard 3 months. I would probably end it for the South Region (Crimea), but I would keep it 3 months. I would make Germans units more combat capable though, and better able to resist.

Interesting discussion. Hope the devs are reding it.

I played Soviets in winter and pushed and kicked ACR around while picking teeth with my left hand and yawning... it was that easy... never had any supply problems at all. BTW Sovs also spawn tons of rail repair units when on offensive and they do pretty good job following Sov advance, so don't hope for any supply problems for him. ACR wrote an AAR so you can find it somewhere (2nd ACR vs Oleg). I didn't do a front wide push, I concentrated at couple of sectors but really smashed those thoroughly (back in Odessa by Feb 42).

To be honest I thought he kinda deserved that because he didn't take nearly enough territory or cities or fatories or manpower centres or kill enough Russians to have an easy winter.

Simply put his position was bad and ripe for picking, he deserved to have bad winter IMO, so I thought it was fair, not a sign of buginess or unbalance.

However, you really really did your pre-winter homework and deserved to fare better. If this is happening to you, then something is indeed wrong.

As for the length of blizzard.... I suggested 5 turns of blizz then alternating or randomizing snow-bliz for two months. However, that's assuming combat mechanics between snow and blizz do not change (to simplify things). In fact snow and blizz are far too different (like night and day). Perhaps they should be made more similar? In that case we might keep some attrition for Germans during snow. That would make them attrit as per your wishes, but would also make snow and blizz more "alike", and keep their CV somewhat higher over a period of time.

Three months of Ronald Emmerich and what's happening to you is too long and unfair. Unless you made some grave mistakes you didn't tell us about [:D]

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Three months of Ronald Emmerich and what's happening to you is too long and unfair. Unless you made some grave mistakes you didn't tell us about [:D]

Everything is fine as long as you ignore the rumors of a mix up about sending French ammunition by mistake to the Eastern Front. [;)]

[randallw]

It seems to me that the parts of the Soviet winter offensive ( actual events, not game events ) that failed tended to lack a good numerical superiority; in current games the Soviet players manage to preserve forces better, so they have another 1 or 2 million men to play with, come winter/snow/blizzard.  Having these extra men may be part of why Soviet blizzard attacks have a strong success rate.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: randallw

It seems to me that the parts of the Soviet winter offensive ( actual events, not game events ) that failed tended to lack a good numerical superiority; in current games the Soviet players manage to preserve forces better, so they have another 1 or 2 million men to play with, come winter/snow/blizzard.  Having these extra men may be part of why Soviet blizzard attacks have a strong success rate.

The German Army successfully counterattacked many of the major Russian penetrations (see map), and pinched them off. The increase in German Army combat power obtained by shortening the lines would not have been inconsiderable. Unfortunately the German reinforcements are not dependent on the game situation; they are based on the historical situation. I am convinced Hitler would have sent enough German troops to stabilize the front (and probably not a man more) with the Russians having 1 or 2 million more soldiers. The Russians had not learned how to attack effectively at this point in the war. On the other hand, the extra T-34 tanks would have been a big problem! Guderian indicated that he felt confident in the German Army winning even if outnumbered 6:1.

It seems attrition should be great when moving, attacking, and retreating, and much reduced when successfully stationary. Even the small villages could offer significant shelter. Restoring a more appropriate balance to the German to Russian CV ratio would allow more German units to remain stationary, and the blizzard could remain in full time extent. This should be even more pronounced if the Germans had started with straight lines. On the other hand, the Russian CV seems way too small in the June-September time frame, and this was overcompensated by deflating the German Army CV. Balancing them better would still allow the Russian winter counterattack, but the earlier period would have to reduced effective Russian CV via suprise and command and control limitations. The Russians did effectively counterattack on occasion (Smolensk), and this capability should definitely be modeled in the game as well. Just limit the Russian Army to counterattack all over the front early on.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Interesting discussion. Hope the devs are reding it.

Yep... interesting... [:)]

BTW all thread are always read (and interesting ideas / possible issues are always copy&paste to developers forum)... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Skanvak]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

If you shorten the number of Blizzard turns, though, you won't have the attritional effect on the Wehrmacht. This seems to me like it's not too far off right now; the Germans should suffer piles of attrition losses in Winter. Even in my game, this still accounts for the bulk of the losses, as it should.

The problem is that the Russians are able to easily push around the Wehrmacht, and do so on a sustained, multi-front pace for three months. That's what needs to change, either by propping-up German CVs, or by restricting Soviet supplies enough that they can't sustain a full-frontal offensive for any length of time.

I would like to play the Soviets one day, and they need to be able to retain an offensive capability for the entire winter. Just not a full-front one, IMO.

For these reasons, I am in favor of keeping Blizzard 3 months. I would probably end it for the South Region (Crimea), but I would keep it 3 months. I would make Germans units more combat capable though, and better able to resist.

I see two flaws in the reasonning.

1/ We don't give actual weather reports to back our opinion so until we have something to compare the turn weather to the real weather we don't back our opinion on blizzard duration.

2/ Your reasonning start with "the soviet shouldn't be able to mount a front wide offensive" which prevent all exploration of possibility or for letting the Soviet do better. Beside according to an historian the Soviet always launch front wide offensive, they just did not succeed everywhere.

The reasonning should be the other way round, you should first explain if and why soviet suffer suffer supply problem and where the game model is wrong. Otherwise we kill all possibility to explore alternative strategy.

The logical point is that you don't rule out (with facts) that ohter theory are wrong :
_ the russian mount a front wide offensive but they were defeated because German line can resist in winter in the other part of the front
_ the russian could have mounted a wide front offensive but just chose not to either by error of judgment or to save supply and manpower for later time.

[karonagames]

The problem is that the Russians are able to easily push around the Wehrmacht, and do so on a sustained, multi-front pace for three months. That's what needs to change, either by propping-up German CVs, or by restricting Soviet supplies enough that they can't sustain a full-frontal offensive for any length of time.

I am still very early into my blizzard offensive in my test game with Speedy, but I have always felt that there needs to be some sort of logistic brake applied to the Soviets, but it is difficult to do within the current games mechanics, but lets say we wanted the SU to attack about 20-25% less than they are able to atm, would turning 3 of the 13 turns of blizzard to snow be the answer?

I have been brainstorming this as an idea to try to extrapolate what the net outcome would be, and whether this would "fix" the blizzard, and can see some pluses and minuses;

The pluses are that the soviet would have to have to advance more cautiously and ensure that the front line could deal with a snow turn. The axis would also have the opportunity to repair the damage to his lines to restrict the amount of retreating he has to do.

The minuses are, that if you used a random system to give one turn of snow in January and two in February, the axis could have 2 periods of 3 weeks of snow, which would allow substantial recovery or a continuous period of 5 turns of snow that could allow the axis to mount a substantial counter attack, and gain back more than they lose. The other unknown is whether the extra attacks will generate a similar amount of casualties to what would have been suffered in a snow turn.

Another option may be to use admin/initiative checks to apply an extra MP penalty to soviet armies and fronts to the point where they would be prevented from making deliberate attacks and forced to make riskier and more expensive (in terms of casualties) hasty attacks. This option could also force the Soviets to use HQ buildups to guarantee he has enough MPs to attack, with the costs in APs and trucks, that would make the SU think twice about attacking up and down the front.

I think we need feedback from some soviet players about how they would feel about having a stop/start winter offensive and/or having attacking options restricted.

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

The problem is that the Russians are able to easily push around the Wehrmacht, and do so on a sustained, multi-front pace for three months. That's what needs to change, either by propping-up German CVs, or by restricting Soviet supplies enough that they can't sustain a full-frontal offensive for any length of time.

I am still very early into my blizzard offensive in my test game with Speedy, but I have always felt that there needs to be some sort of logistic brake applied to the Soviets, but it is difficult to do within the current games mechanics, but lets say we wanted the SU to attack about 20-25% less than they are able to atm, would turning 3 of the 13 turns of blizzard to snow be the answer?

I have been brainstorming this as an idea to try to extrapolate what the net outcome would be, and whether this would "fix" the blizzard, and can see some pluses and minuses;

The pluses are that the soviet would have to have to advance more cautiously and ensure that the front line could deal with a snow turn. The axis would also have the opportunity to repair the damage to his lines to restrict the amount of retreating he has to do.

The minuses are, that if you used a random system to give one turn of snow in January and two in February, the axis could have 2 periods of 3 weeks of snow, which would allow substantial recovery or a continuous period of 5 turns of snow that could allow the axis to mount a substantial counter attack, and gain back more than they lose. The other unknown is whether the extra attacks will generate a similar amount of casualties to what would have been suffered in a snow turn.

Another option may be to use admin/initiative checks to apply an extra MP penalty to soviet armies and fronts to the point where they would be prevented from making deliberate attacks and forced to make riskier and more expensive (in terms of casualties) hasty attacks. This option could also force the Soviets to use HQ buildups to guarantee he has enough MPs to attack, with the costs in APs and trucks, that would make the SU think twice about attacking up and down the front.

I think we need feedback from some soviet players about how they would feel about having a stop/start winter offensive and/or having attacking options restricted.

agree with what you are saying

would this idea be a possibility?

as skies did clear in January for relief operations to commence for the luftwaffe, would it not be possible to put that in the game. I think for now the blizzard should be kept as is as the soviets need this advance but if extra supply could be targeted by the german player with the use of air assets to a point where localized counterattacks could be made it might keep the russian player from overextending and applying too many envelopements?

[mmarquo]

An alternative way to adjust the balance of the game without tinkering too much with the historical weather pattern or logistical challenges would be to give VPs for losses of men, AFVs, etc in addtion to geographical VPs. This is palpably lacking in the campaigns. The Axis player gets no VP reward for operational successes leading to the loss of 3 - 4,000,000 Soviets in 1941, etc. Furthermore, the Axis player does not get a reward for operational successes leading to the capture of key large cities; if Kharkov is captured in 1941 and then the Axis is ejected, this should at least lead to some accumulation of permanent VPs, etc.
 
Currently a heavy urban hex is worth 5 points at end of 224 move game; what if each turn of possion gave the possessor 1/224 points? This would interject the concept of time in addition to space into VP consideration.
 
Marquo [:)]

[Oleg Mastruko]

I stopped playing two of my PBEMs (one Sov one Axis) because of blizzard. I never thought I'd say it but it's just ridicolous really.

Was this game ever playtested HvH thru winter and spring 42?

I played through one blizzard before (as Soviet) beating and kicking my opponent senseless. It was just unspeakably easy. In fact I restrained myself of kicking him even more because I didn't want him to leave the game in disgust. I also thought he deserved the beating because he must have been doing something wrong. Now I see he didn't do anything wrong, it's just the way it is.

So first we have 17 turns of skewed rules and numbers to get totally helpless Russians (hard to reproduce setbacks like Smolensk or Yelnya). Then after mud we have 13 turns of even more ridicolously skewed rules to get totally helpless Germans to compensate. It's all too contrived if you ask me.

Both are wrong, it's just that we've seen only few German players play that good to abuse German "superhumans" in the opening turns (Emir and James can do it). Russians played by humans are so easily used and abused, that almost every PBEM that gets to the blizzard phase turns into comedy (see Q-Ball vs Beanie). I am starting to have Q-Ball winter experience, but unlike him I just don't have the nerve to play through it and describe it on the boards. I don't see myself playing this game until blizzard is patched (unfirtunatelly nothing can be done in game editor as this is hard coded).

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
The minuses are, that if you used a random system to give one turn of snow in January and two in February, the axis could have 2 periods of 3 weeks of snow, which would allow substantial recovery or a continuous period of 5 turns of snow that could allow the axis to mount a substantial counter attack, and gain back more than they lose. The other unknown is whether the extra attacks will generate a similar amount of casualties to what would have been suffered in a snow turn.

Well, isn't one of the problems obvious from what you wrote - that snow and blizz turns are just too different, like night and day, when in reality they are pretty similar. And they are applied over ALL map, every single hex. My last game looked so contrived and gamey. October, Germans stop. 5 turns of mud, not one attack. Last two turns of mud, Russians crawling like zombies towards me, they are not attacking because they have psychic powers so they know what is about to happen so why waste energy attacking. First turn of blizzard: 99 attacks (90% successful). Forts falling down like cards. Very contrived, gamey and artificial.

Simplified weather model that applies mud accross all map (no hex is spared), then blizzard in same manner, is in BIG part to blame.

Then after mud we have this blizzard, that is so easily abused by Sov player, lasts for three months over every single hex etc.

To me the biggest problem is the weather model.

- We need more randomness in weather.
- More "granulation", difference between hexes or far more weather zones.
- Less pre-programmed weather.
- Less difference between snow and blizz.
- Blizzard lasting NO MORE than 5 turns UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. 13 turns of this silliness turns even the best games into comedy.

When all or some of this is applied, we won't have Sov players abusing the weather model and blizz benefits like we have now.

The problem of German players abusing their own superpowers in opening turns will remain, but so far only few German players know what to do with it.

I think we need feedback from some soviet players about how they would feel about having a stop/start winter offensive and/or having attacking options restricted.

See above. I had one Sov blizz experience in PBEM and it was just ridicolously easy. Took third of Ukraine back, killed 5 Panzer and IIRC 20-some infantry divisions. At time I thought my opponent must have been doing something wrong now I see he didn't, it's just the way game works.

Refine and randomize the weather model.

[Angelo]

I concur.

A detailed weather system and it's effects on operations (especially the first winter) is required as the current one is broken.

Personally I feel the supply system is a major culprit with the 41/42 issues but I'm not an expert on supply systems. If the supply system is historically realistic then command and control rules will need to be added to enable a more accurate historical result, not changes to the combat values.

[Klydon]

Initially, I like the idea of shortening the blizzard as suggested above and/or the random snow weather turns inserted as BigA mentions. In regards to BigA's comment about being worried about many successive turns of snow, it could happen, but under your suggestion in Jan and Feb, the Germans may know for sure that the next turn in January may be snow if he is in the last week of January, but the first week of February could  be blizzard or snow and he has to plan accordingly.

One other issue of a "short" blizzard stretch is if I were the Germans, I would just pull back in as many spots as I could and while I would give up a fair amount of territory, not having most of my army get touched by the Russians when I am most vulnerable (and my army would get its butt kicked anyway) would probably make it a very attractive consideration, especially if I know I can launch limited counter attacks during snow in Jan/Feb.

I do agree the weather zones and how they work for especially fixed weather needs to be looked at. To think it instantly goes from snow to blizzard at the same time in Leningrad as it does in the Crimea makes it a stretch I think. Same with thaws in the spring going from winter to mud to clear.

[mmarquo]

"My last game looked so contrived and gamey. October, Germans stop. 5 turns of mud, not one attack. Last two turns of mud, Russians crawling like zombies towards me, they are not attacking because they have psychic powers so they know what is about to happen so why waste energy attacking. First turn of blizzard: 99 attacks (90% successful). Forts falling down like cards. Very contrived, gamey and artificial."
 
It's a bitch when one's best contrived plans are of no avail. Maybe the Axis should be forced to launch a certain number of attacks/turn or get serious VP penalties -this will maybe hinder the incredible foresight the Axis player currently has to build a hundred forts and prepare fallback positions given the robust nature of their meteriologic services [;)]     Maybe even give them a, "Winter logistical preparation boost" for let's say for the loss of 250 VPs or 50 APs/turn.
 
 The only thing wrong with the blizzard it that the Germans are not punished for stopping their attack prematurely...[:D]