Winter Idea......Comment

[Skanvak]

The only thing wrong with the blizzard it that the Germans are not punished for stopping their attack prematurely...

That can be solve by giving year by year victory point. Which means that the Germans will have more victory point if they take Moscow early and less if they go for latter.

Otherwise, the random weather is the best, but sometime we want to feel the true 41 blizzard experience.

[Redmarkus5]

Both sides knew to a great extent what was about to happen:

- They had both studied Napoleon's campaign in great detail.
- The German army had fought in Russia through most of WW1 and many of its senior WW2 officers had served on that front, as had their Soviet counterparts only 20+ years earlier.
- The Soviets were building up reserves under Zhukov for their planned winter counter-offensive.

The key factors that led to the debacle experienced by the Axis were over-confidence and a sense that the Soviets could not have any more reserves of manpower remaining after their losses in '41, plus the severity of the '41 winter. However, even if -40 weather was extreme, the Axis would have suffered in -20 or even -10 given that they were not equipped.

I agree that the winter needs to be better modeled, but there was a certain dreadful inevitability to the events that occurred in real life, which was anticipated by commanders on both sides.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Marquo
The only thing wrong with the blizzard it that the Germans are not punished for stopping their attack prematurely...[:D] 

I made 2-3 attacks as German during MUD. My 16 CV attacks failed against his 1=1 units.

As I wondered why, I read Joel's newest and apparently undocumented explanation that CVs get divided by 8 (!!!! thats EIGHT) on attack during mud.

Ah so that explains it.... [X(]

Far too many contrived, artificial weather-related rules, that, because of very crude and global-wide every-hex-turns-into-mud-and-blizz weather model, make the game silly at times.

[Pipewrench]

marco that is an interesting idea.

this might be a brain-fart but here it goes.

a leadership check every turn in 41 when a german tries to fortify beyond 2. if it check fails a penalty is assessed. This would reflect the hitler hold at all cost option.(very rough around the edges)

a leadership check in blizzard for the soviets and if it fails will only give a partial bizzard bonus to the units it is attached to, hence strong commanders will gain more ground but will create flanks because weak commanders cannot keep up.the failed commanders are still able to keep up a forward advance but take blizzard attrition.

I can just see this thread go on forever until a compromise is reached...lol

[Q-Ball]

Wouldn't a simple fix be changing the CV modifiers?

Currently, the Germans are 1/3 on defense, and 1/4 on attack.

What if it was simply just 1/2?

This would force the Soviets to concentrate forces to make progress. Triple-stacks of Rifle Divisions would probably be needed to make progress on dug-in Infantry. Eventually they would due to attrition, but it might take some time.

1/2 would also preserve a German counterattack ability, which isn't really there right now

Historically, the Russians didn't make alot of progress against prepared positions; most of the progress was against over-extended AGC, wasn't it? Am I wrong?

[Zebedee]

Forgive a silly question, but what game penalties do the Soviets suffer in winter and do they adequately reflect the difficulties the SU had both in movement and supplying units (outside of inherent logistic weakness) and the non-combat losses taken?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee
Forgive a silly question, but what game penalties do the Soviets suffer in winter and do they adequately reflect the difficulties the SU had both in movement and supplying units (outside of inherent logistic weakness) and the non-combat losses taken?

None. No.

Have you been following the thread up to now? [:-]

[mmarquo]

"Far too many contrived, artificial weather-related rules, that, because of very crude and global-wide every-hex-turns-into-mud-and-blizz weather model, make the game silly at times"
 
Everyone reading this thread knows of the Rasputitsa and the horrendous blizzard of 1941 - so why try to contrive that it was anything rather than what it was? Come on - bitching because Axis attacks fail in mud up to the waist? Really? Bitching because the Werhmacht gets it's ass handed to it during the blizzard? Really? Maybe the 1/8 modifer is too generous...see below.   [;)]
 
Marquo
 
 

[mmarquo]

Is the 1/8 Mud modifier too generous? Umm....

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
1/2 would also preserve a German counterattack ability, which isn't really there right now

Counter attacking ability, or the seemingly TOTAL lack of it, is another problem I have with the current 41-42 game model.

I admit I was believing Flavio, the eternal optimist, and his talk about brave Soviets counterattacking German spearheads in summer, then Germans counterattacking Soviet spearheads in blizzard. I think he was even optimistic about attacking in mud (!!). But Flavio was wrong.

The fact of the matter is none of these attacks really work. Sovs can counter-attack in summer with tons and I mean TONS of luck, only in south, with perhaps 2-3 units on the map strong enough to think of attacking. Mud attacks just don't work, at ALL (with 1/8 malus, no wonder - who ever suggested them?).

Counterattacking in blizzard... had three rested Panzer divs held in cities unable to dislodge meagre 2 Tank corps intrusion. It just does not work!

We have superhuman Germans, impervious to attack in summer, only to become wussies overnight, and super-super human Russians in winter to compensate. Counterattacking is a forlorn hope in both cases, so we have rampant one-sidedness in key periods of play.

I admit I don't like both current super-human models, but the Soviet winter superhuman model is a tad bit more silly IMO. (or it just lasts longer in game - 13 turns of perfectly predictable weather over every hex on the map)

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Forgive a silly question, but what game penalties do the Soviets suffer in winter and do they adequately reflect the difficulties the SU had both in movement and supplying units (outside of inherent logistic weakness) and the non-combat losses taken?

Movement penalties apply to both sides

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Is the 1/8 Mud modifier too generous? Umm....

In situation like on that picture, perhaps it is. But not every mud hex looks like that, and certainly not every hex on the map should be muddy really.

[CapAndGown]

Question: is there any trade off between number of units moved by rail and amount of supply delivered?

I ask because the Germans' basic problem was their horrible supply network that could not deliver both bullets and clothes.

I was struck by the fact that the reinforcement divisions that arrive during the winter suffer the same penalties as those divisions that have been on the front all winter. The divisions that arrived during the winter did bring winter gear with them. Yet in the game they are no more winterized than any other division.

It seems to me that there needs to be a concept of winterized divisions. Not just mountain divisions, but any divisions can be winterized. The trade off, however, needs to be the amount of supply delivered. For every divisions winterized, the amount of supply delivered to the front needs to go down.

[mmarquo]

Oleg,
 
You can't expect a game where every single hex has an independent chance of weather effects to varying degrees...at least not for the price of WITE. Be happy with a reasonable abstraction; and yes - the Germans did very little of offensive significance duing the mud or blizzards of 41/42 - why resist the facts?
 
My son once saw me reading yet another book about the Eastern Front, and commented, "Dad, no matter how many books you read about it, the outcome will always be the same." Interesting reflection from a 14 year old.
 
Marquo [;)] 

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Question: is there any trade off between number of units moved by rail and amount of supply delivered?

I ask because the Germans' basic problem was their horrible supply network that could not deliver both bullets and clothes.

No rail cap is seperate from supply deliver.

[AKCLIMBER]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

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.

I completely agree with this assessment and was in fact planning on starting another thread with much the same sentiment (with the added twist that without implementation of your suggestions, the "replayability" of the game will, for me, suffer greatly). Weather, at least in 1941, is as much of an influencing factor on the combatants as the combatants are on each other. As such, the handling of weather should be as refined and variable as that of any other major aspect of the game. FOW should also apply to weather. Seems to me, weather has at least four aspects that can and should be addressed, all of which can be variable: (1) timing - when the effect occurs, (2) duration - how long the effect occurs, (3)intensity - level of impact on your forces and (4) location - where it occurs. I'd love to see a choice added to the game to give us a the ability to have a statistically realistic model throw weather at us in a realistic but not telegraphed fashion. Heck, we could also be given the choice of intensities of the mud, snow or blizzard (mild, average, severe?) effects or just have it be random. Of course, the option of historically accurate weather should also be kept available (but tweaked to address concerns raised in this and other threads).

Here's a plea to the developers to consider these suggestions! [&o]

Cheers!

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Marquo
You can't expect a game where every single hex has an independent chance of weather effects to varying degrees...at least not for the price of WITE. Be happy with a reasonable abstraction; and yes - the Germans did very little of offensive significance duing the mud or blizzards of 41/42 - why resist the facts?

My son once saw me reading yet another book about the Eastern Front, and commented, "Dad, no matter how many books you read about it, the outcome will always be the same." Interesting reflection from a 14 year old.

Yes that's why we play games, the only way to actually change the outcome [8D]

I don't think a slightly better weather model would make the game more expensive. I mean we have insanely (in a good way) detailed OOBs and TOEs where every rifle squad is simulated etc, then BLAMMO mud or blizz fall accross every damn hex on the map, and suddenly these incredibly detailed lovingly modelled units and squads all lose some huge amount of detail, and could all be abstracted into.... well, almost nothingness.

Why model units to such detail if snowfall all turns them adhere to a very simple rule: wherever Sovs attack, they will advance. Repeat for 13 turns. Then go back to detailed modelling, again.

(For the record, superhuman Germans in the opening turns irritate me almost as much as superhuman Sovs in winter, but that's another matter, as in this thread we discuss winter.)

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
None. No.

Have you been following the thread up to now? [:-]

Yes. Some interesting ideas (bednarre and Q-Ball in particular), some ludicrous ones and more than its fair share of ranting to little useful purpose. Fair summary?

----

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Movement penalties apply to both sides

But that's currently all we're aware of and may be the only one? I couldn't find anything documented, but... well, you know

[Zemke]

I REALLY hate to say this, but for me the game is broken.  There I said it publicly.  I bought the game, so I am out the $100 dollars, but if many of the issues are not fixed, I just won't play it.  I bought it when it first came out, very excited, and at first I was very pleased till I played it more and more, then the detail problems start to show up.  I have read and posted on several threads about the following listed issues, and will not go into detail:
1.  German Winter loses in 41-42 due to Blizzard used as the primary game balancing tool in the game: the big deal breaker for me
2.  Super Germans in summer, super Russians in winter: deal breaker
3.  The attrition loses come back with lower morale, lower trained: deal breaker
4.  The Isolation model does not ring true to me: don't like it, but can live with it
5.  Combat model seems a bit off, but still "ok"....but I think is the key to fixing the biggest probems of 1 and 2.

I would support the 2nd ACR's idea, at least it does something to fix the problem.

I just hope the Devs are reading and planning to tweak, change/fix these problems, which I have confidence they will be addressed at some point, and until them I will play WitP:AE.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Forgive a silly question, but what game penalties do the Soviets suffer in winter and do they adequately reflect the difficulties the SU had both in movement and supplying units (outside of inherent logistic weakness) and the non-combat losses taken?

Movement penalties apply to both sides

Playing as the Soviets during the blizzard I felt the penalties quite clearly. Although I was able to attack on a very wide front (too many units?) I couldn't exploit effectively. I don't think the Soviet MPs need changing at all