Possible PBEM house rules for turns 25-41

[karonagames]

Disclaimer: These ideas are from Bob the gamer, not Bob the tester, and are not supported or endorsed by 2by3 or Matrix.

The more I look at the threads and AARs relating to the infamous First Winter, and the more I analyse my own playing of the game, the more I feel there needs to be some limit on the SU's ability to attack and advance during the blizzard. If you look at what happened historically you may start to understand why the game engine sometimes struggles to cope with the pressure put upon it.

In AGN's sector the Soviets recovered the equivalent of 50 hexes from Tikhvin to the Volkov and around Demyansk.

AGC lost the Equivalent of 300 hexes - Kalinin/Moscow/Tula/Voronezh back to VL/Rzhev/Orel/Kharkov.

AGS retreated from Rostov to Mius line, giving up about 50 hexes.

So overall the Axis lost about 400 hexes or 33 per turn. In most AARs we are seeing reports of 60+ attacks in the early turns that produced retreats, dropping to about 40 per turn, and this is broadly in line with what I saw in testing.

Within the current game mechanics I cannot see the "magic switch" that will reduce the SU's ability to attack and recover territory. So while we wait for 2by3 to figure this out the following House Rules could be a solution, and do represent many of the historical realities of the First Winter.

By turn 25 the SU has 8 Fronts in Action. To reflect to Logistic and command difficulties the soviets had at the time, players could agree to the following rules:

1: During turns 25-27 the soviets may attack with 4 fronts.
2: During turns 28-34 the soviets may attack with 3 fronts.
3: During turns 35-37 the soviets may attack with 2 fronts.
4: No Front can attack for more than 3 turns in row - i.e. they must rest every 4th turn.
5: On turn 38 the Axis can attack with 1 Army Group.
6: On turn 39 the Axis can attack with 2 Army groups
7: On turns 40 and 41 the Axis can attack with 3 Army groups.

There will be gamey ways to get around the restrictions by transferring armies between fronts etc., but these will cost large amounts of APs, but from the Axis perspective this is OK.

As the Soviet I would play anyone with those restrictions, but players could obviously adapt them to reflect their relative abilities and experience, and the state of the front line at the start of the First Winter.

What do you think?

edit: can't add up!

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Disclaimer: These ideas are from Bob the gamer, not Bob the tester, and are not supported or endorsed by 2by3 or Matrix.

The more I look at the threads and AARs relating to the infamous First Winter, and the more I analyse my own playing of the game, the more I feel there needs to be some limit on the SU's ability to attack and advance during the blizzard. If you look at what happened historically you may start to understand why the game engine sometimes struggles to cope with the pressure put upon it.

In AGN's sector the Soviets recovered the equivalent of 50 hexes from Tikhvin to the Volkov and around Demyansk.

AGC lost the Equivalent of 400 hexes - Kalinin/Moscow/Tula/Voronezh back to VL/Rzhev/Orel/Kharkov.

AGS retreated from Rostov to Mius line, giving up about 50 hexes.

So overall the Axis lost about 400 hexes or 33 per turn. In most AARs we are seeing reports of 60+ attacks in the early turns that produced retreats, dropping to about 40 per turn, and this is broadly in line with what I saw in testing.

Within the current game mechanics I cannot see the "magic switch" that will reduce the SU's ability to attack and recover territory. So while we wait for 2by3 to figure this out the following House Rules could be a solution, and do represent many of the historical realities of the First Winter.

By turn 25 the SU has 8 Fronts in Action. To reflect to Logistic and command difficulties the soviets had at the time, players could agree to the following rules:

1: During turns 25-27 the soviets may attack with 4 fronts.
2: During turns 28-34 the soviets may attack with 3 fronts.
3: During turns 35-37 the soviets may attack with 2 fronts.
4: No Front can attack for more than 3 turns in row - i.e. they must rest every 4th turn.
5: On turn 38 the Axis can attack with 1 Army Group.
6: On turn 39 the Axis can attack with 2 Army groups
7: On turns 40 and 41 the Axis can attack with 3 Army groups.

There will be gamey ways to get around the restrictions by transferring armies between fronts etc., but these will cost large amounts of APs, but from the Axis perspective this is OK.

As the Soviet I would play anyone with those restrictions, but players could obviously adapt them to reflect their relative abilities and experience, and the state of the front line at the start of the First Winter.

What do you think?

Is it not easier to insert 3-4 SNOW turns in 41-42 winter,as proposed by Oleg, if I remember it correctly?

[Smirfy]

Truth be told the supply mechanics (along with air) are total rewrites or else such a convoluted work around would not be suggested. V4V games had the best supply allocation in computer wargaming to stop the general free for all counter shoves I suggest you rewrite supply and adopt it for war in the west (along with a new air system)

[karonagames]

Is it not easier to insert 3-4 SNOW turns in 41-42 winter,as proposed by Oleg, if I remember it correctly?

It might be easier, but the impact might over-adjust. Andy, the head tester, played a random weather game where there was a turn of snow after blizzard, and he found that the Axis counter attack in the turn disrupted the Soviets for 3 turns, because rifle divisions are still pretty fragile at this stage of the game.

There might be a case for reducing the Blizzard to 11 turns and giving the Axis 6 turns of snow to recover lost territory, but that might be giving too much to the Axis, as noted the rifle divs are still fragile - I could do a lot of damage in 6 turns. Maybe 12blizzard and 5 snow would be a good compromise?

Indeed, playing a random weather game might go some way to dealing with a lot of the first winter issues, if you can put up with the moaning about mud during the summer. One turn of snow in the middle of the blizzard could make all the difference.

But none of this would prevent the current situation where the sovs can attack up and down the front. My house rules proposals are aimed at recreating the relative loss of territory experienced by the Army Groups historically.

[karonagames]

I suggest you rewrite supply

Did you not read my disclaimer? I have nothing to do with the code of the game.

I am one of the few who is happy to play the game in it's current state - I am just trying to come up with constructive ideas that works with the code as it stands for those who are not happy, while lobbying for changes in background based on data that hopefully shows where the problems exist.

[Tarhunnas]

I think your idea is good as a quick fix! I would happily play either side with those rules! As tghe game is now, it takes the fun out of it for the Soviets knowing you will be able to hammer the German sensless come winter.

I do not really think snow turns in between the blizzard turns is the right solution. The difference betweeen snow and bliizzard is too great. I would say that a slight mitigation of the combat effects of Blizzard for the Germans coupled with more severe supply limitations for the Soviets would appear to be the best solution.

[alfonso]

But maybe the "threat" of even only one snow turn (preferibly random?) would make the soviet to push harder only where he is really strong, therefore ruling out crazy overall offensives? ...just thinking aloud...

I think your proposal might be a little cumbersome, and difficult to perform in practice (oops, I moved that stack containing a unit of another Front!!), and it seems almost impossible to detect when it is violated.

[KenchiSulla]

Your proposal makes a lot of sense Bob

ORIGINAL: alfonso

But maybe the "threat" of even only one snow turn (preferibly random?) would make the soviet to push harder only where he is really strong, therefore ruling out crazy overall offensives? ...just thinking aloud...

I think your proposal might be a little cumbersome, and difficult to perform in practice (oops, I moved that stack containing a unit of another Front!!), and it seems almost impossible to detect when it is violated.

Alfonso, houserules will only really work if you trust your opponent....

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Your proposal makes a lot of sense Bob

ORIGINAL: alfonso

But maybe the "threat" of even only one snow turn (preferibly random?) would make the soviet to push harder only where he is really strong, therefore ruling out crazy overall offensives? ...just thinking aloud...

I think your proposal might be a little cumbersome, and difficult to perform in practice (oops, I moved that stack containing a unit of another Front!!), and it seems almost impossible to detect when it is violated.

Alfonso, houserules will only really work if you trust your opponent....

Yes, I understand that, but I would prefer houserules more difficult to break by mistake, and that are easy to detect when that happens: "no paratroops in major cities", "no amphibious landings in Romania before 1943", things like that...

I do not feel I am prepared for the discipline necessary to commit oneself to Bob's rule...but, oh, well, everything can be trained...

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I suggest you rewrite supply

Did you not read my disclaimer? I have nothing to do with the code of the game.

I am one of the few who is happy to play the game in it's current state - I am just trying to come up with constructive ideas that works with the code as it stands for those who are not happy, while lobbying for changes in background based on data that hopefully shows where the problems exist.

Sorry I did not mean you in particulair and I'm sure you are doing great behind the scenes work. I am despite my criticisms of the game actually playing it I'm just a bit fustrated that a game that is so good in many areas is so hamstrung in others. These problems are self evident. The logistics side of the game is extremely poor and basically equates to zero gravity which is nothing to do with winter, Germans and Russians or anything else, its just mechanics. That is beyond a work around. It is also stretchs credibility for a premium game that the player has to invent mechanisms because the supply side is so poor.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I would say that a slight mitigation of the combat effects of Blizzard for the Germans coupled with more severe supply limitations for the Soviets would appear to be the best solution.

I'm certain this is the way to go.I think that Axis CV's shouldn't be much more than halved, which would still be bad enough anyway.I also think that the supply situation in the game does need some serious attention.It just doesn't ring true at the moment.I would like to see the ability to target supplies through army and front HQ's so that only units targeted in this way with ammo, fuel and general supplies would have the power to truly smash the German lines.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Within the current game mechanics I cannot see the "magic switch" that will reduce the SU's ability to attack and recover territory. So while we wait for 2by3 to figure this out the following House Rules could be a solution, and do represent many of the historical realities of the First Winter.

By turn 25 the SU has 8 Fronts in Action. To reflect to Logistic and command difficulties the soviets had at the time, players could agree to the following rules:

1: During turns 25-27 the soviets may attack with 4 fronts.
2: During turns 28-34 the soviets may attack with 3 fronts.
3: During turns 35-37 the soviets may attack with 2 fronts.
4: No Front can attack for more than 3 turns in row - i.e. they must rest every 4th turn.
5: On turn 38 the Axis can attack with 1 Army Group.
6: On turn 39 the Axis can attack with 2 Army groups
7: On turns 40 and 41 the Axis can attack with 3 Army groups.

There will be gamey ways to get around the restrictions by transferring armies between fronts etc., but these will cost large amounts of APs, but from the Axis perspective this is OK.

Thank you Bob for writing down so concisely these HRs. I think I will be applying them on my ongoing GC.

Re: Supply System "issues": I see that my Soviet Motor Pool is perhaps too much on the positive: I have over 30k surplus trucks. Either we're getting too many trucks - Lend Lease? - or Soviet trucks are too resilient to winter conditions or the RKKA has unrealistic capacity to repair them or a combination of the three.

[TulliusDetritus]

It sounds reasonable. If I get to winter I will do that [8D]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Re: Supply System "issues": I see that my Soviet Motor Pool is perhaps too much on the positive: I have over 30k surplus trucks. Either we're getting too many trucks - Lend Lease? - or Soviet trucks are too resilient to winter conditions or the RKKA has unrealistic capacity to repair them or a combination of the three.

On the other hand, it's also true that my opponent halted operations for 8 turns. Most of my army HQs accumulated a pile of supplies and fuel during those weeks. Which now translates in less vehicles required from the Motor Pool (if I understand correctly the rules, HQ's push supply to units with their internal vehicle pools, and do not pull from the global supply network if they have accumulated reserves).

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Is it not easier to insert 3-4 SNOW turns in 41-42 winter,as proposed by Oleg, if I remember it correctly?

It might be easier, but the impact might over-adjust. Andy, the head tester, played a random weather game where there was a turn of snow after blizzard, and he found that the Axis counter attack in the turn disrupted the Soviets for 3 turns, because rifle divisions are still pretty fragile at this stage of the game.

There might be a case for reducing the Blizzard to 11 turns and giving the Axis 6 turns of snow to recover lost territory, but that might be giving too much to the Axis, as noted the rifle divs are still fragile - I could do a lot of damage in 6 turns. Maybe 12blizzard and 5 snow would be a good compromise?

Well if what you wrote above is not a key argument for my case that blizz and snow are currently too different, I don't know what is!

Isn't this ridicolously contrived set of rules?

Blizz => Germans are idiot wussies. But BLAMMO, randomly we get a TURN of SNOW (not, like, Hawaii tropic beach weather, but snow, which in reality is pretty similar to blizzard, most people would not tell the difference) and Germans turn into Godzillas for a week. Next week blizzard => Germans are again wussie retards.

I mean come on. Too contrived. Too artificial. Too scripted to help one side, in this case Soviets, that even one turn of snow (again, in real life that's almost the same thing as blizz!) disrupts this carefully planned script of making Sov supermen.

I also find mud rules too contrived and scripted to stop everything but they don't help any side, so no one complains about them.

The proper way to deal with this is firstly to work on weather (refinement, more granulation, less turns of blizz) and get rid of most of those contrived scripted rules invented to help one side.

In a word: weather and it's effects are used to script the game in 41. That, in itself is wrong, but at least some omprovement could be done by "granulating" and randomizing the weather in that case, so that not every hex on the map is the same, for weeks on end.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
On the other hand, it's also true that my opponent halted operations for 8 turns.

Attacking in mud cuts your CV at one eigthth (1/8) of the original strength. Who would not halt operations under those circumstances? I tried to prove myself it can be done (attacking in mud) and my 16 CV units were not able to dislodge 1=1 ant....

[karonagames]

Well if what you wrote above is not a key argument for my case that blizz and snow are currently too different, I don't know what is!

I repeat; I am just trying to work with the tools we have at the moment, because, while there is plenty of discussion and debate in the development forums, there is no sign of new code that changes what we have. Of course something could arrive tomorrow, but I guarantee that if you maintain a line, use your reserves sensibly, with these house rules you will start 1942 in better shape than the axis started historically.

The game engine is trying to cope with a huge spike in the change in relative performance of two armies caused by the extreme weather conditions that one side wasn't prepared for,so of course the contrast between blizzard and snow is extreme; which of course, you are exaggerating with your colourful language.

Interesting post in the war room:

tm.asp?m=2739897

Maybe you should do the same as this guy.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
The game engine is trying to cope with a huge spike in the change in relative performance of two armies caused by the extreme weather conditions that one side wasn't prepared for,so of course the contrast between blizzard and snow is extreme; which of course, you are exaggerating with your colourful language.

Interesting post in the war room:
Maybe you should do the same as this guy.

I appreciate that guy's cavalier attitude towards the game and life, and am happy for him [:D] ...even though he did nothing to explain what they did in his PBEM, good or bad. However, speaking for myself, I honestly cannot be too happy with current modelling of both summer and winter of 41-42 (but I find winter far worse in this regard). Two waves of supermen, using, presumably, weather as their kryptonite, the source of superhuman stregth. Thanks for the colorful language remark, I am not even native english speaker.

I am having fun on the forums, and also have lots of experience with GG games. I know this will be polished, patched or modded in the long run.

Speaking of that, why not just add ability to edit weather zones, effects, timetables and rules in the scenario editor??

[Zort]

Talking a little on supply.  Many people have stated the historical Axis limitations for rail thru 41 into early 42.  What I would like to have seen implemented is that no axis combat units would be allowed to use the rail net past the invasion line until spring 42.  

[Uxbridge]

The time to start the real game is closing in for me and my usual opponent. We have tested enough and if we don’t start the big campaign soon, there’s a distinct danger of deteriorating general interest in WitE. So we just can’t wait for the blizzard issue to be decided. However, having followed the many threads about the weather and all it’s consequences, we have decided to try a house rule of ourselves.

The suggestion in the beginning of this thread wasn’t bad, but we felt that it imposed an unecessary amount of extra micro-management for the Soviet player. Instead of imposing restrictions on Fronts, we will therefore do it on game turns. The period between turn 25 and 37 will be divided into a number of Soviet ”attack turns” and ”passive turns”. Thus there will be a number of turns when the Soviet player are prohibited from initializing any ground attacks at all.

How to decide? Easy, the Soviet player will do that himself, paying a certain cost for each turn that he wants to attack. The price, paid in the currency ”Attack points”, for certain turns will be as follows:

Turn 25-28 = 6 Attack points
Turn 29-32 = 4 Attack points
Turn 33-37 = 3 Attack points

When GT 25 starts the Soviet player will have 40 Attack points to spend at his desire.

In addition to this – just to add a little spice and make the Soviet player a little uncertain – the German player will have the option to declare a one-time Attack-free Soviet turn whenever he likes, starting with turn 26 and ending with turn 34. If the German player opt for this, however, he must pay to the Soviet player the number of Attack points that the Soviet player should have paid if he were to initiate an Attack Turn in his segment (example: an Attack-free Soviet turn declared by the German player on turn 30, would increase the number of Soviet Attack points with ”4”).

I’m posting this to help others getting ideas for house rules of their own, and also for feedback from players who have been through the blizzard and may detect problems with our rule.