Dispatches from OKH: Q-Ball (Axis) v. Von Beeanie (SOV)

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
I fought forward because I didn't want to just hand-over forts I built.

Exactly! Any strategy that suggests just giving up forts is nothing but confirmation that something is indeed deeply flawed!

I've never seen a wargame, let alone a real world situation, that suggests leaving forts to make space between defender and attacker, because, suddenly, overnight, attackers have eaten kryptonite and turned into fort-eating Godzillas [:@]

WiTE is one of the wargames where I've seen its easiest to build strong fortifications in depth - you just leave your units in the hex, wait a few clear turns, and presto! A x3 multiplier to CV in defense pops up! Too bad those fortifications didn't come with heating, someone needs to send a memo to the Todt organization. Not to mention the lack of coats, boots and other winter gear.

If by forts you mean "fortified zones"... Well, that's some real commitment (AP's, manpower, weapons, etc.) so there's at least some reason to hold on to them.

Now, Oleg, I know you're a player with some experience already playing as the Soviets.

Imagine it's late September 1941, and you've managed to setup a strong fortification line around Khar'kov (say fort level 4, which is perfectly doable) manned by two strong Armies, 200K overall. In one turn, your opponent rips two holes in your line. One north, at Belgorod, and another south, on the way to Stalino. You see (via recon and DL) that you've got 2. Panzer-Armee on your right flank and 1. Panzer-Armee on your left flank.

What would you do? Would you leave those 200K to get encircled around Khar'kov next turn? What are more valuable, the forts or the 200K men with weapons and all?

[color]

ORIGINAL: bevans

... The whole concept that any unit's CV increases during a blizzard is laughable. ...

Just in case you are referring to the doubling of the Russian CV during blizzard (which is the only Cv increase during blizzard I can think of), this is only a visual aid to better reflect the impact of blizzard on the germans. The real CV used in combat calculations is the same.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: color

ORIGINAL: bevans
... The whole concept that any unit's CV increases during a blizzard is laughable. ...

Just in case you are referring to the doubling of the Russian CV during blizzard (which is the only Cv increase during blizzard I can think of), this is only a visual aid to better reflect the impact of blizzard on the germans. The real CV used in combat calculations is the same.

A visual aid, I must say, which is very misleading when trying to figure out the odds before launching the attack.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Imagine it's late September 1941, and you've managed to setup a strong fortification line around Khar'kov (say fort level 4, which is perfectly doable) manned by two strong Armies, 200K overall. In one turn, your opponent rips two holes in your line. One north, at Belgorod, and another south, on the way to Stalino. You see (via recon and DL) that you've got 2. Panzer-Armee on your right flank and 1. Panzer-Armee on your left flank.

What would you do? Would you leave those 200K to get encircled around Khar'kov next turn? What are more valuable, the forts or the 200K men with weapons and all?

What can I say? A classic case of German summer supermen, a specie that I said several times is almost as irritating as Soviet winter supermen.

That is how this game deals with "following history" in 41-42, we have two waves of supermen going at each other in 3-4 month periods, broken by a short period of "superman mud". I understand ressons for such modelling, but as it is it:

a) Does not provide too much fun to the "underman" player in any given period
b) Quite simply does not work well as repeat of history as we haven't seen one game approaching real world situation in spring 42. Very rare games (and I've been on the receiving end of one) end in outright German victory (or surrender, I surrendered to Emir for moral reasons), most end in winter comedy, or victory for Sovs.

I've been on both ends of that stick BTW, so I do speak from experience, not just from reading Q-Balls excellent AAR.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Imagine it's late September 1941, and you've managed to setup a strong fortification line around Khar'kov (say fort level 4, which is perfectly doable) manned by two strong Armies, 200K overall. In one turn, your opponent rips two holes in your line. One north, at Belgorod, and another south, on the way to Stalino. You see (via recon and DL) that you've got 2. Panzer-Armee on your right flank and 1. Panzer-Armee on your left flank.

What would you do? Would you leave those 200K to get encircled around Khar'kov next turn? What are more valuable, the forts or the 200K men with weapons and all?

What can I say? A classic case of German summer supermen, a specie that I said several times is almost as irritating as Soviet winter supermen.

That is how this game deals with "following history" in 41-42, we have two waves of supermen going at each other in 3-4 month periods, broken by a short period of "superman mud". I understand ressons for such modelling, but as it is it:

a) Does not provide too much fun to the "underman" player in any given period
b) Quite simply does not work well as repeat of history as we haven't seen one game approaching real world situation in spring 42. Very rare games (and I've been on the receiving end of one) end in outright German victory (or surrender, I surrendered to Emir for moral reasons), most end in winter comedy, or victory for Sovs.

I've been on both ends of that stick BTW, so I do speak from experience, not just from reading Q-Balls excellent AAR.

Oleg, I've played the Operation Typhoon scenario six times already, two against humans (once as the Axis, another as the Soviets). Typhoon, as the scenario notes say, is sort of a 1941 campaign compressed in 16 turns. So I also know a bit about what I am talking about, besides what I can read on - I will agree with you on that - excellent Q-Ball's AAR.

What do you call a "classic case of Axis supermen" looks to me more like a "classic case study of Barbarossa". Two rested and well supplied '41 Panzer-Armees punching holes on the flanks of a strong Soviet position can be hardly qualified as weird, ahistorical or both. WiTE is painfully accurate simulating the operational and tactical limitations of the RKKA.

Now, my point is that the line of reasoning that goes something like "since I built the forts, I must defend those forts" is not sound, since it's based on the false premises that "forts are hard to build", "forts will compensate for blizzard" or "forts nullify any advantage my opponent might get by attacking my position from more than one hex-side".

They multiply CV: and CV is just an approximation of the actual combat power of a unit. Which might turn out to be a huge over-estimation of the real combat power, especially with high levels of fatigue and before seeing the effects of enemy artillery. Blizzard decreases CV, increases fatigue and causes losses by disabling ground elements. I think it's pretty easy to see where this will lead if you let it run without control for a few turns.

Besides that, there's another subtle detail, regarding the importance of "unready" status. Units in unready status won't be able to attack if they move. RKKA units get unready really fast. Keeping an static position allows those units to participate in attacks - either deliberate or hasty.

ComradeP has already made a very clear exposition regarding morale and MP costs of attacking and entering enemy hexes.

Add to the points above the ideas I shared here from the Spanish forums, which were ideas, indeed, mostly based on experiences against the AI. But they're "different" ideas!

[color]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: color

ORIGINAL: bevans
... The whole concept that any unit's CV increases during a blizzard is laughable. ...

Just in case you are referring to the doubling of the Russian CV during blizzard (which is the only Cv increase during blizzard I can think of), this is only a visual aid to better reflect the impact of blizzard on the germans. The real CV used in combat calculations is the same.

A visual aid, I must say, which is very misleading when trying to figure out the odds before launching the attack.

A visual aid, I must say, which is very misleading when trying to figure out the odds before launching the attack.

Yeah, it can be a bit misleading [&:]
I suspect it was made this way as the nunmber of CV reductions for the germans during the blizzard would make the german cv's all drop to below 1. So in order to get some more distinction between the lowest german CV's it was decided to raise other units displayed CV to extend the visible range, so to speak.

[karonagames]

Oleg, How many turns of Blizzard have you experienced as the Axis?

Until you have tried to survive 3 complete blizzards in 3 different ways, it is difficult to take your exaggerations seriously. I am happy to compare notes with anyone who has been through the mill and come out the other end (7 times in my case). Show me the section in the manual that says entrenchments or fortified zones make any difference to performance in the Blizzard? I knew their value before I went into the blizzard, hence the reason I don't use fortified zones, but spend the APs to organise my army to cope with the conditions as best I can, while trying to create the best possible conditions to survive the change from superhuman to freezing cold man holding a rifle that won't fire.

Are those conditions easy to achieve? No. Did I achieve them the first time I played? No. Did I achieve them the second time I played? No. Did I give up trying to create the best conditions? No. Did I have anyone to teach me how to create the best conditions? No. Have I ever said there are no problems with the current state of the first winter rules? No.

We are trying to identify how much of a fix is needed based on AARs of players who are clearly doing their best to control the soviet onslaught; we get no useful information from players who give up on the first turn of blizzard; only exaggerations of how bad it is. At least show that you are making an effort to deal with it.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Until you have tried to survive 3 complete blizzards in 3 different ways, it is difficult to take your exaggerations seriously. I am happy to compare notes with anyone who has been through the mill and come out the other end (7 times in my case).

It is perfectly OK to disregard what I (and dozens of others BTW) say as lack of experience on our side. I mean that, honestly. However, I haven't seen any really successful blizzard stories from you experienced guys who went thru blizz 7 times or more, so allow me to disregard your "evidence" as well, because I see none [:)]

Do you mean to say it is the bleak future of having to go thru blizz 7 times, and being overrun each time, something to look forward with smile? [:D]

I am strictly a player of this game, I don't want to be tester, history teacher, developer, modder, or anything else, just a player. As such I have no intention of testing and retesting some element of the game that looks pretty ridicolous even on the first try (again, not only to me....). I was beta tester sevral times in my life, once for GG game as well. It's fun, but also hard work, and that's exactly why I am happy to leave testing to testers and be just the ordinary player in this case.

Having to go thru blizz more than once, in current state, would just build up frustration BTW. I am perfectly happy to throw a word or two from the sidelines, based on my, admittedly limited experience, and leave testing to testers, and developing to developers.

Show me the section in the manual that says entrenchments or fortified zones make any difference to performance in the Blizzard?

Don't you think they should??

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Now, my point is that the line of reasoning that goes something like "since I built the forts, I must defend those forts" is not sound, since it's based on the false premises that "forts are hard to build", "forts will compensate for blizzard" or "forts nullify any advantage my opponent might get by attacking my position from more than one hex-side".

I don't get what you're saying. Forts are a CV multiplier, unless they are flanked, it's always better to be in forts than without them, no matter what your original CV is. I would happily give forts up if flanked (that's one of the main reasons for flanking, to force enemy to give up his CV multipliers for free).

However in blizzard forts are of very little use, and are easily taken in frontal attack (I never mentioned flanked forts). OK that's how the game currently works.... but to suggest to leave well prepared forts, and go back in the open, without being flanked, is just crazy talk. If the game "suggests" this as good strategy, then it's just a good evidence something is deeply flawed.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Now, my point is that the line of reasoning that goes something like "since I built the forts, I must defend those forts" is not sound, since it's based on the false premises that "forts are hard to build", "forts will compensate for blizzard" or "forts nullify any advantage my opponent might get by attacking my position from more than one hex-side".

I don't get what you're saying. Forts are a CV multiplier, unless they are flanked, it's always better to be in forts than without them, no matter what your original CV is. I would happily give forts up if flanked (that's one of the main reasons for flanking, to force enemy to give up his CV multipliers for free).

It looks to me that you actually got my point [:)]

EDIT: It's "always" better yes, unless it's flanked or the odds its facing are hopeless (like 3:1) or you're clinging to a meaningless hex just for the sake of it having a fort, rather than because it makes sense when considered in the context of a coherent defensive plan.

[karonagames]

haven't seen any really successful blizzard stories from you experienced guys who went thru blizz 7 times or more,

Is the Field Marshal Noob AAR not enough?

[karonagames]

Do you mean to say it is the bleak future of having to go thru blizz 7 times, and being overrun each time, something to look forward with smile?

Because I made the effort to learn how to not be overrun.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

haven't seen any really successful blizzard stories from you experienced guys who went thru blizz 7 times or more,

Is the Field Marshal Noob AAR not enough?

That was against the AI in some pretty old alpha version, there's no way I repeat NO WAY you would get that percentage of HOLDs vs human.

Blizzard AARs show somewhere in between 70 and 100 Sov attacks on the first turn, HUGE majority of which are successful. (85-95%)

[karonagames]

Blizzard AARs show somewhere in between 70 and 100 Sov attacks on the first turn, HUGE majority of which are successful. (85-95%)

Isn't that about the same as when the Axis are attacking? Why should it be any different when the soviets attack? I'm sure the Sovs dig as many lvl 3 entrenchments as the Axis, probably more.

But the number of attacks reduces each turn.In my game with Speedy I made 68 attacks in the first turn and 48 in the second, 42 in the third etc., So lets say the average is 45. Times by 13 turns = 585. You then have 4 turns of snow in March when the Axis become supermen again. Lets say they can make 45 attacks per turn. That is 180. the difference between the two = 405. Hopefully from this AAR we will see how much is lost and how much is taken back.

How many hexes did I estimate were lost historically in my house rules thread?

The question then becomes whether you start the blizzard in a position where you could afford to lose the 400 hexes and still be better off than the Axis were historically. Your AAR had the opportunity to show you could.

In the Field Marshal Noob AAR I clearly show I got to a position where I could afford to lose the territory, and the March Supermen were able to take back more than they lost in the south.

Arguing that digging in in September gives the Axis the right to hold the ground is a fallacy, as all you do is give the Soviets more men and more time to co-ordinate more powerful attacks. Whether you should lose as much territory because you dig in is what we are trying to determine, and as I said in the house rules thread there is no magic switch that can control the number of attacks the Soviets can make.

I apologise for this excellent AAR being hijacked.

[Q-Ball]

That's fine to hijack, because not sure where this game is right now. Von Beanie hasn't sent a turn or communicated since Thursday, and prior to that he was extremely reliable and fast. Not sure what happened. It couldn't of been due to game conditions, that's for sure!

That's why I haven't posted an update in a couple days...

[ComradeP]

1-Hex back still leaves enough MPs for the Soviets to make Deliberate attacks with Rifle Divisions.

Basically only those with 16 MP's can make deliberate attacks, and as they're attacking a stack, the chance of success is more limited.

The problem you're facing and which some in this thread seem to ignore, as I said before, is pretty simple: you can see the enemy's offensive CV's, yet expect your defensive line with lower CV's to hold. No matter how you spin it, blizzard penalties or not, that's a faulty defensive strategy. The Axis shouldn't do it in non-blizzard weather and the Axis most certainly shouldn't do it in the first winter.

One other thing people are ignoring is that Axis units pre-blizzard are in many cases significantly stronger than their historical counterparts. After Typhoon, the majority of the German infantry divisions were at what in WitE terms would be around 4-5 CV. In Q-Ball's case, in the last snow turn the average infantry division had around 6-7 CV judging by the screenshots. Now, assuming the blizzard doesn't give the Axis a CV penalty, 4x4 (4 CV with level 3 forts) is still 16 and 16 isn't good enough to withstand a serious Soviet attack from two hexsides. Without the blizzard penalties but with historical losses, the first blizzard turns would still be ugly for the Axis.

Oleg: You can't say that, on one hand, you don't want to play against an experienced Soviet player, yet still claim the Axis are supermen in the summer as if you know that from your own experience with the Axis. They're not, as any experience with the Axis against a remotely competent Soviet opponent will soon indicate.

[TulliusDetritus]

How about Carnage's excellent AAR? He was a rather competent German player AND played ALL the blizzard turns [;)] Hmm, after the blizzard he concludes:

"here we have the total numbers for each side start and end of blizzard. I don't know if these numbers are good or historical but I'm happy with them overall".

He also says:

"Not to bitch and moan but I think this will be one of my last Axis pbem games until some sort of better balance comes about for the Axis first winter. I'm not asking for supermen to spring out of the ground but I'm asking for infantry across the board that are not Romanian quality after a hard winters fight. There is no way I can make a historical counter attack after playing a historical type defense against Red's somewhat historical offensive... boo hoo for me."

This is an important issue. Yes, the Germans have to survive (Carnage DID survive) AND execute some sort of limited offensive (not so evident, but he discontinued his game on mid march: what about refit, etc.?) [&:]

EDIT: please also note that WAS his FIRST game vs a human [;)] He more or less survived... not too bad, eh?

EDIT 2: oh, and Carnage was hit by the TOE bug, I think [X(] He did rather well, don't you think?

[janh]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
How about Carnage's excellent AAR? He was a rather competent German player AND played ALL the blizzard turns [;)]
...
This is an important issue. Yes, the Germans have to survive (Carnage DID survive) AND execute some sort of limited offensive (not so evident, but he discontinued his game on mid march: what about refit, etc.?) [&:]
...
EDIT: please also note that WAS his FIRST game vs a human [;)] He more or less survived... not too bad, eh?

Sounds like you conclude that an Axis player in his first attempt should have a very hard time to achieve anywhere near historical performance, while a Russian player should be expected to maul the Axis during blizzard on his first attempt? Hmmh... My impression from reading on this topic, which I admit might be skewed since most of the books I have are from German authors and show perhaps too much of a German perspective of the occurrences, was clearly not that the Russians had a particularly easy time fighting the Germans in Dec-41/Jan-42.

But you are probably right by indicating he should have continued playing out into Autumn 42 to see whether the force balance would allow another German offensive, or whether the Russians could go over to a sustained offensive towards Berlin before the end of the year.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: janh
Sounds like you conclude that an Axis player in his first attempt should have a very hard time to achieve anywhere near historical performance, while a Russian player should be expected to maul the Axis during blizzard on his first attempt?

The inexperienced German players also maul their opponents during the summer. No rocket science, eh? [;)]

I conclude the Germans should get some during the blizzard, right...

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Oleg: You can't say that, on one hand, you don't want to play against an experienced Soviet player, yet still claim the Axis are supermen in the summer as if you know that from your own experience with the Axis. They're not, as any experience with the Axis against a remotely competent Soviet opponent will soon indicate.

Pieter, we can argue about the level of "supermanism" for each side in the game, but the fact remains that game's way of dealing with 41-42 seems to be pitching two waves of supermen against each other. Both waves irritate me on every level (gaming, history, user enjoyment etc) but Soviet winter wave is currently on top of the list... with German summer supermen following closely behind.

Even you say that "Axis units pre-blizzard are in many cases significantly stronger than their historical counterparts", and I agree. (Only to become wussies overnight I would add.) Don't you think oscillations like these suggest the game mechanism is very contrived and too artificial?

I am very much sure that with enough time and maturing of the game and community we will have significant mitigation of "supermanism" even if that means having more modest German advances in summer, and certainly even more modest Rus advances in first winter. After that, 42 and beyond all bets are off.

As for the "competent opponent"..... I as Axis rolled over a guy, taking LG and Harkiv comfortably, Moscow somewhat less comfortably, all of them complete with industry (except around half in LG but M and H are much more industrialized anyway).

That, to me, is a clear German victory if I ever saw one. Certainly a very successful Barbarossa. Can you ask for a more successful Barb, ever?? That would also, according to you, suggest that my opponent was not "competent". I would not comment on his competency, I just used my German supermen best I could, trying to give him least possible opportunity to play his game [;)]

First turn of blizzard comes and I see that the game turned into complete and utter hilarity: 94% of Soviet attacks are success, my units are broken, forts, SS, full divisions, you name it, everything is in retreat. Not ONE of Panzer counterattacks work (I kept them in cities).

So you tell me, is my opponent "competent" or not, or is it irrelevant because the winter modelling is broken? Latter option gets my vote [;)]