Winter Idea......Comment

[IronDuke_slith]

The central issue is that the game engine is being used to create an historical starting point for 1942.

Given few if any Russian players stand and die in droves as they did historically, this creates the issue for the Wehrmacht. An ahistorically strong opponent during the winter who gets the blizzard mechanics and a chance to run riot all along the line. Result looks to be punitive from the Axis point of view.

Either the Russian player needs to be forced to stand and fight, rather than fight a well organised delaying action from Minsk to the gates of Moscow (so they are weak when the blizzard mechnaics kick in), or the blizzard needs to be toned down (so the Russian hordes can do less damage). I don't favour tying any player to historical strategies, so there is only one solution left.

The Germans couldn't really win in 1941, and were almost certainly finished after Smolensk, but they still inflicted huge numbers of casualites during the 41 campaign. This is the core of the issue. The Germans did about as well as they possibly could have done in 1941. However, the game takes that as the medium in the range of outcomes and canes them during the blizzard to reflect history. However, the Soviet player ignores history from the first turn and the German player can't achieve this medium historically against a competent opponent. Therefore, he gets caned past reality during the blizzard.

As ACR has suggested a number of times, just giving the Germans their CV back would be enough. Combined with defensive deployments, a German player could dig in ahead of the blizzards and hold much of what he has won, albeit at a high attritional cost as the cold disables thousands every turn.

If they go all out and end up with exhausted Panzer Spearheads with wide open flanks as the weather turns, then they will get annihilated (since I would argue building anything above a level 1 fort from scratch should be impossible when the cold hits).

Regards,
ID

[Skanvak]

So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942.

Though I totally agree with this expectation, I'd like a simulation to not be designed to give an expected result as it kill exploration of alternative strategy. Beside this expectation is about player of same capability. I have played "Defiant Russia" which I like a lot as a game and see russia destroyed in 41 and in another game, the wermach totaly exploded before winter (the Russian took warsaw). This make strating a game always a good experience.
What I mean is that the game average the expected result but is not define or driven by them. I think it is good.

Which means that we might not reach the expected result with some players matching. We have to kkep that in mind.

[color]

ORIGINAL: Senno

Right. But in reality a couple months later it was the Soviets with the breathing room and the good "anything could happen" feeling and the Germans with the bad "anything could happen" feeling.

Basically, I don't think it should be a walkover for anyone. And there should be no sure fire "a-ha" defense or offense for either side.

So let's look at what changed historically (in AGC) since mid october until beginning of december when typhoon was cancelled and the Russians started their counteroffensive, and which are factors the german player can control to some extent.

- German troops exhausted, depleted and far from optimal supply railheads.
- Not much of defensive positions prepared.
- Supply train situation close to collapse only 1/3 to 1/2 of minimum daily dispatches can be made. This combined with Hitlers insistence of first sending ammo and supply for continued advance has the effect of German winter clothing sitting in stores in Germany and not being brought forward.

IMHO the above reasons should be important indicators as to what should 'be punished'.

There are other factors as well that one should take into account, and that takes effect around december '41 over which a player has no control (mostly related to weather):
- Russians get substantial reinforcements from Siberian and easter front troops. Soviets had somewhere close to 60 divisions in reserve for winter counterattack as far as I have read, but I don't have any exact number as to how many came from Siberia/Far East.
- German vehicles and weapons fail in the harsh blizzard conditions.
- German horses don't stand up to the cold and die en masse. This and inoperable vehicles does further harm to the already pressed german supply situation.
- Attrition on Germans due to lack of winter clothing (this IMHO should be linked to the supply situation and if the supply situation is good, attrition should drop to simulate winter clothing being brought forward)
- Russian better proficiency at winter war (tactics, organization)
- Russian equipment more adapted to winter (weapons, tank thread width & ground clearance)

[2ndACR]

Alfonso,

You could start digging in Sept and get level 4 forts, those would last for the most part 1 turn, maybe 2 if you get lucky. And then it is all she wrote.

Try breaking some level 4 forts during the Summer 41. Once you see how hard that is, you will wonder why it is so easy to do the same during the blizzard turns. It should be even harder to break level 4 forts in the blizzard. But that is not the case at all.

But since you think it is just us, how about posting up some AAR's of your games and show all of us players how it is done.

I have tried every strategy I can think of, digging very early, yep. Using linear defense, yep. Hedgehog, yep. Pulled back 100 miles pre blizzard, yep. Only the last one has some usage. It works even better if you pull back farther and create a buffer large enough that the Russian has to waste 4+ turns crossing just to get to you. But once he gets to you, your toast.

[karonagames]

I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs

Turn 27, and we are getting through roughly a turn a day, so middle of next week should see us at the end of the blizzard. Going into the blizzard we have seen differences in the morale and experience levels compared to the pre 1.03 versions. I am seeing a lot of differences to the tests I was doing between June and November last year.

Feedback is going back to Joel each turn.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: Senno

I don't accept your contention. But for the moment, let's just say that I do. Given how history played out should there be a viable defense available? There are 2 players involved, your successful defense = unsucessful Soviet attacks. And no one can argue the Soviets weren't successful over large swaths of the front. Where does the balance lie? What do you consider a viable defense, all Soviet attacks defeated and not one step back?

<snip>

I think the balance of the winter counteroffensive is the same as the balance of the initial summer blitzkrieg.

If the germans do something stupid like push away from their railheads in mud and then get stranded in the bush without prepared positions when the blizzard hits, they should be vulnerable for a counterattack.

Historically, the germans did precisely that and they paid the price.

A human player, with the advantage of hindsight, will not make the same mistake and shouldn't pay the same price.

The flip side of this is also true in that the historical soviets did the germans a number of willing favors by staying put and letting themselves be encircled, leading to the cauldron battles in the summer of 1941.

A human player won't do that and will preserve a far greater proportion of the red army than historically happened.

So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942.

What I see in the game today though are a pair of artificial components designed to produce roughly the outline of the historical first 12 months of the war.

The germans are given ahistrically strong assault capabilities in Summer of 1941 to allow for a viable blitzkrief.
The soviets are given ahistorically strong assault capabilities in Winter of 1941/42 to allow for a "rollback" of the Wehrmacht high water mark.

So much more concise than I was, my compliments. I completely agree. Set the mechanics and the game will play itself, using the engine to recreate the historical winter to create a historical 1942 will always fail because few soviet players will allow themselves to be hit as hard as they were in the historical summer of 41.

We already have the first part of this in that no German player (against a comparable Soviet) is likely to achieve the 4.5 million plus casualties the Germans managed historically. Blitzkrieg is not weaker mechancally, but always faces a savvier opponent so is weaker operationally. That said, some of the results tables which seem to rout Soviet units with 2000 casualties without touching the AXIs player strikes me as odd.

Either there need to be penalties for the Soviet player abandoning territory without a fight or the blizzard has to be more reflective of reality rather than history.

Regards,
ID

[PeeDeeAitch]

There are a few "what ifs" I would like to see, AAR-wise.
&nbsp;
1 - Someone actually do ComradeP's suggestion for a hedgehog/withdrawal defense.&nbsp; All the AARs I have seen seems to be mostly linear or linebacker
&nbsp;
2&nbsp;- A Feldmarschall Von Robin game, where the Axis retreat at least 2 hexes each turn in Blizzard - this would make an interesting snow if the Panzers are nice and comfortable in urban areas.
&nbsp;
Either of these two, given the present replacement and TOE fixes, would promise an entirely different 1942 - the Soviets would not be as experienced from all the successful attacks of the present, and the Germans would only have the attrition loses to make up (mostly), and the entrenchement problem would be gone as the Soviets are advancing all winter to keep up.
&nbsp;
Part of this is that for some reason people are arguing as if the Axis are stuck in their rut, they have to advance, then the game must be changes so they can hold in winter with realistic losses, then....recreate 1942 (von Paulus might object)?
&nbsp;
This is a game, a simulation that allows a wide-ranging set of options.&nbsp; The game is set up on historical parameters, but the options are ours as the players.&nbsp; Go "balls-out" in the Summer and Fall of 1941, then try something else.&nbsp; Those in the 18th Army deep forts in Feb, 1942 found out that level 4 forts could be broken easily by Vlasov and the 2nd Shock Army, why do we need to show that, yes this happens.
&nbsp;
Ultimately, I have argued that the Soviets can make too many coordinated and supplied attacks.&nbsp; Right now other than house rules I don't see that changing anytime soon - the game allows them to not be constrained by history.&nbsp; So...don't be constrained by history yourself...

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
You could start digging in Sept and get level 4 forts, those would last for the most part 1 turn, maybe 2 if you get lucky. And then it is all she wrote.

Try breaking some level 4 forts during the Summer 41. Once you see how hard that is, you will wonder why it is so easy to do the same during the blizzard turns. It should be even harder to break level 4 forts in the blizzard. But that is not the case at all.

I absolutely agree with ACR, my two time opponent as German. First time I just walked through his lines, forts or no forts, Panzers, SS, full divs, regiments, you name it, except for mountain units (including Romanians) everythying else was as if it was made of butter (or snow LOL). There's an AAR somewhere, and in it I didn't even use all my might. I was fooling around, sort of. I wasn't believing how easy it was, as it was my first blizz experience, I didn't even read up the rules, suddenly in front of me were ghosts of former units....

At first I thought he did something wrong and pays the price. In the meantime I've read up on other AARs, and had my own game as German. When the blizzard time in my second game vs ACR came, I simply refused to walk all over him again using those awfully biased rules.

So Senno, Alfonso and others, if you wish another blizzard AAR or blizzard experience or whatever, you may ask ACR to take the game over from him and I will be glad to provide several turns of right-clicking for your (dis)pleasure. Or we may continue our game and describe it if ACR is willing to suffer for science (I know I would not be, in case where I play German).

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942.

Though I totally agree with this expectation, I'd like a simulation to not be designed to give an expected result as it kill exploration of alternative strategy. Beside this expectation is about player of same capability. I have played "Defiant Russia" which I like a lot as a game and see russia destroyed in 41 and in another game, the wermach totaly exploded before winter (the Russian took warsaw). This make strating a game always a good experience.
What I mean is that the game average the expected result but is not define or driven by them. I think it is good.

Which means that we might not reach the expected result with some players matching. We have to kkep that in mind.

This is one of those cases where there's two perfectly reasonable ways to approach balancing a wargame like this, and I think I just happen to come down on a different side from you .

My "ideal" game if you will gives both players historical capabilities, *even if* human players cannot be expected to achieve historical results with them.

For players of the same game who wanted a most historical experience, I'd offer an alternate start scenario with modified starting forces.

Applying that to WITE, I'd eliminate both the super summer germans and the super winter soviets, even though I'm fully aware that the result would be a very limited blitzkrieg and, likely, a kursk style materialskrieg in 1942 because I think that's the most likely outcome had both sides made good decisions in the actual war.

I'd then offer an alternate campaign in which the axis was substantially reinforced for the summer 1941 campaign for those players who wanted to play a scenario with more historical flow.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs

Turn 27, and we are getting through roughly a turn a day, so middle of next week should see us at the end of the blizzard. Going into the blizzard we have seen differences in the morale and experience levels compared to the pre 1.03 versions. I am seeing a lot of differences to the tests I was doing between June and November last year.

Feedback is going back to Joel each turn.

Thanks for the update.

It's getting harder and harder to argue for a "wait for the data" approach out here.[:D]

[TulliusDetritus]

Ever heard the funny Admiral E. J. King's quote "I don't know what the hell this 'logistics' is that Marshall is always talking about, but I want some of it"?

Then me, a Soviet player says: "I don't know what the hell this 'blizzard mess' is that everyone is always talking about, but I want some of it! "

It has to be some sort or Texas Chainsaw Massacre raised to the power of 3.457! [8D]

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


So Senno, Alfonso and others, if you wish another blizzard AAR or blizzard experience or whatever, you may ask ACR to take the game over from him and I will be glad to provide several turns of right-clicking for your (dis)pleasure. Or we may continue our game and describe it if ACR is willing to suffer for science (I know I would not be, in case where I play German).

Well, I'm with you in that I'd rather make my own mess and clean it up than take on someone else's mess. That's why I don't like to start the '42 campaign on either side. I'd rather improve the position than be stuck with that.

So, I'm glad BA checked in, and know that we won't see any changes that aren't well debated in the Dev/Tester forums....

I'm sure you'd make hash of me anyway, even if I got to choose my superman...

I wish the Devs would check in though, maybe advise what they might be thinking. But I'm not holding my breath for it.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
Applying that to WITE, I'd eliminate both the super summer germans and the super winter soviets, even though I'm fully aware that the result would be a very limited blitzkrieg and, likely, a kursk style materialskrieg in 1942 because I think that's the most likely outcome had both sides made good decisions in the actual war.

I'd then offer an alternate campaign in which the axis was substantially reinforced for the summer 1941 campaign for those players who wanted to play a scenario with more historical flow.

I agree with you on both accounts, and I am willing to bet that once the game and community mature, exactly this will be the result, ie the most played best versions, mods, scenarios or whatever....

People hate artificially produced supermanism (lets just remember the outcry about first Japanese turn in WITP, and that was ONE turn in a 1000+ turn game).

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

There are a few "what ifs" I would like to see, AAR-wise.

1 - Someone actually do ComradeP's suggestion for a hedgehog/withdrawal defense.  All the AARs I have seen seems to be mostly linear or linebacker

2 - A Feldmarschall Von Robin game, where the Axis retreat at least 2 hexes each turn in Blizzard - this would make an interesting snow if the Panzers are nice and comfortable in urban areas.

on your idea

and this is out to developers or modders,

is it possible to change operation Typhoons end date in the scenerio's menu to give those who want to tinker with winter options a starting benchmark to work with. My thoughts are extending the offensive until mid June.

edit
if it is to restrictive in scope maybe an agreed benchmark save in the late 41' grand campaign would be helpful. If it is already out there sorry for the wasted post.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Alfonso,

But since you think it is just us, how about posting up some AAR's of your games and show all of us players how it is done.

2ndACR, I cannot defend the Axis side succesfully during blizzard. If I knew how to do it, of course I would gladly show it to everyone. But I thought this lack of success was due to my poor abilities, not to the game being poorly designed. I will be very happy when you prove me wrong. A way to prove me wrong will be to see a good "axis" player being destroyed by many "normal or mediocre" Soviet players: I could offer me in the role of mediocre Soviet player.

I think that the game cannot be mastered in 3 months. I cannot prove that either, but it seems more complex than, say, chess. And I concede that, precisely because its complexity, is less likely to be balanced than chess (which is itself unbalanced). But for a chess player, 3 months of experience is nothing...what is wrong about thinking the same with WITE?

EDIT: However, if the developers say the game is unbalanced, or that blizzard is unplayable, I of course will be convinced.

[Speedysteve]

Hi guys,

Just to add my 2p. As Bob says we're into our Blizzard now and everything's being tracked.

I've only joined the Team post release but I can say this we do care, read, listen and want to make this the best out there. No doubt about it. Taking Blizzard alone it's a tricky thing. There's so much to factor in, track, judge, balance and accommodate from morale, experience, supply, historical factors/data, what to judge with relative under/over performance compared to history etc.

A few tweaks here and there can have BIG implications. All I'll say is please be patient. If things need tweaking/fixing they will be. Heck I've been here since 9-11 and loved witp which was great since release. That has evolved and become even more incredible over the years. There's no reason wite won't be the same.

We're all passionate about it and IMO it's the best eastern front game out there as is without future development!

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

I think that the game cannot be mastered in 3 months. I cannot prove that either, but it seems more complex than, say, chess. And I concede that, precisely because its complexity, is less likely to be balanced than chess (which is itself unbalanced). But for a chess player, 3 months of experience is nothing...what is wrong about thinking the same with WITE?

Well, your argument of ultra complex game doesn't hold. Yes, the game is very complex regarding what is happening under the hood. But it is quite manageable for what you, as player, can do and for what you have to care about during play. I find it less complex then Hearts of Iron for example or TOAW. Problem is not that of complexity but rather of flawed mechanics in '41.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

ORIGINAL: alfonso

I think that the game cannot be mastered in 3 months. I cannot prove that either, but it seems more complex than, say, chess. And I concede that, precisely because its complexity, is less likely to be balanced than chess (which is itself unbalanced). But for a chess player, 3 months of experience is nothing...what is wrong about thinking the same with WITE?

Well, your argument of ultra complex game doesn't hold. Yes, the game is very complex regarding what is happening under the hood. But it is quite manageable for what you, as player, can do and for what you have to care about during play. I find it less complex then Hearts of Iron for example or TOAW. Problem is not that of complexity but rather of flawed mechanics in '41.

Do you find this game more complex than chess, or less complex?

[Emx77]

Alfonso I think you are asking wrong question. Chess have simple rules which are same for whole course of game. In WitE you have sudden changes in rules, and there is a problem. I'm ok with rules but not with rules which balance game besides of what player have achieved to that point. It would be same as if, in a chess game, all your pawns on turn X become queens, bishops, knights and all of my strong figures suddenly becomes pawns.

[2ndACR]

I too will be happy to see someone prove me wrong. I have played strategy games since the C64 days. I have tried every strategy against the AI I can come up with. I played the original WIR for years. Then came WITP, I played the BTR to death when it first was released. But I am more of a land guy. So this game is right up my alley and for that reason, I can get passionate about things.

I will concede that I am not the risk taking player, I have a tendency to pull up short or slow my advance to allow rail repair to get closer, I prefer not to take huge risks with my guys. So my advances are short of historical, but also tempering that is my multiple games during blizzard turns. I know what to expect so refuse to go farther than I can defend. I pull up short and start digging (since it does not help, not sure why) and try make sure my guys start the blizzard fully supplied and rested (that does not help so not sure why I do it). 95% of my blizzard games are versus the AI to try different strategies, but the AI is not a human. So if the AI can clobber me 90% of the time, a human will do it almost every time.