Winter Idea......Comment

[Pford]

All this would be somewhat easier to test if the game had shipped with a 1941 Winter Counter-offensive scenario. Curious that it didn't....

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

How is your feel on that Speedy? You think those casualties for the Russians are about right? Added up over the winter, those seem to be pretty significant. 

Both sides are suffering about double what they should, because the Sovs are attacking twice as much as they seemed to be able to previously. Unfortunately I can't apply the house rules, because I have to see just how much the system let's me get away with, so we know how much to adjust it.

BigAnorak, I am concerned about the casualty ratio. I realize that quoting highly debatable, historical casualty figures may not be all conclusive, but the Wikepedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... Casualties ) lists the German casualties of 103,000 during the counter-offensive up to January 7, 1942, and Russian casualties at 380,000, a ratio of 3.7:1, which compares very favorably to the campaign ratio of a little over 4:1. I think the German Army Group Center had 100,000 casualties from frostbite during the winter, so many of the German casualties were non-combatant. This was against a German army which had rifle squads of around 30% strength, having to retreat frequently in bitter, lethal cold, and which had very poor front line distributions. If the game has more German strength, straight lines, and prepared positions, and with the Russians just have more numbers, I expect an exchange ratio from 4:1 to 6:1.

[Skanvak]

It look like that the game should portrait that whoever is not in city/town will suffer from blizzard, not only the german.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, beside some problems about balancing, they is it not really discussed that the russians lost nearly as much troops by blizzard as the germans?

In this game - as far as i could read - the russian army is winter-proof.

in reality, the russians hat SOME well trained and winterized troops. They hat generally better prepared equipment (but even if you know that your engines can hold -20 Celisus, it dosen´t help you with -45 deg Celsius)
But their troops suffered the same as the germans, even more if they do NOT throw back the german defence lines.
Why should a russian soldier, even in winter cloths survive -40deg Celsius in a snow storm, it modern troops with 100times better equipment would loose 20-30% Combatreadyness?
The blizzard is not to hard for the germans, but it is way to good to the russians. Just to remember, it was the coldest winter in russia in the 20th. Century...

So my opinion: some troops are well prepared and do suffer only to a certain degree. (Mountain, sib. Troops, special trained russian troops (you can winterize em as russian), the romans had also harsh weather conditions, did they suffer the same as the germans? i don´t know exactly, but i think that this is not true), all others (including nearly all german troops) will suffer.
So the russians can do their offensive action, but only with SOME troops.

This should be possible to do - or is it a silly idea?

Most important - the weather need a reprogramming... every hex or - if this isn´t possible, some zones (say each is east-west the same and some hexes in north-south) with similar weather have the SAME weather...

so even in blizzard, some zones are winter... same is true for sumer 41... you get SOME clear hexes, but also mud...  this could solve the other problem, the superduper-ultragermans (in the time before blizzard)

A lot of boardgames used this type of feature. Some of the Russian units are well equipped for cold weather fighting but the rest suffered from the blizzard. I wonder if some Russina units could be designated as Winterized, to borrow from DNO, and others not.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4
Then I think it will be obvious that there needs to be some changes to the Combat model.  German infantry Company strength going into Operation Typhoon were in some cases 1/3 of normal and all 50% or less.  In the game German strength is 60% on the low side and usually 75-85% strength.  Do a game that tries to minor the actual events of summer, fall, winter 41 and compare loses.  Then based on this test you can tweak the Blizzard turns to match the German non-combat loses due to frostbite and other winter effects. This would then get us a lot closer to what historically took place that is currently in place.

EXACTLY!! That 75-85% strength dropping to.... nothing.... overnight is basically a re-word of what I have been ironically calling "waves of supermen".

First the Germans are far too strong for far too long (summer supermen!) then we need to make them very very VERY weak so that the winter can follow "historic script". Current solution slashes 70-80% of their CV literally in one turn, and we get Soviet supermen for 13 turns. That is contrived, atrificial, scripted, not enjoyable etc.....

Summer supermen can be abused too, it just requires quite a lot of skill, so is not as obvious and not as bad for gameplay as Soviet supermen. But always keep on mind that German supermen can ruin the game too.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, beside some problems about balancing, they is it not really discussed that the russians lost nearly as much troops by blizzard as the germans?

In this game - as far as i could read - the russian army is winter-proof.

in reality, the russians hat SOME well trained and winterized troops. They hat generally better prepared equipment (but even if you know that your engines can hold -20 Celisus, it dosen´t help you with -45 deg Celsius)
But their troops suffered the same as the germans, even more if they do NOT throw back the german defence lines.
Why should a russian soldier, even in winter cloths survive -40deg Celsius in a snow storm, it modern troops with 100times better equipment would loose 20-30% Combatreadyness?
The blizzard is not to hard for the germans, but it is way to good to the russians. Just to remember, it was the coldest winter in russia in the 20th. Century...

So my opinion: some troops are well prepared and do suffer only to a certain degree. (Mountain, sib. Troops, special trained russian troops (you can winterize em as russian), the romans had also harsh weather conditions, did they suffer the same as the germans? i don´t know exactly, but i think that this is not true), all others (including nearly all german troops) will suffer.
So the russians can do their offensive action, but only with SOME troops.

This should be possible to do - or is it a silly idea?

Most important - the weather need a reprogramming... every hex or - if this isn´t possible, some zones (say each is east-west the same and some hexes in north-south) with similar weather have the SAME weather...

so even in blizzard, some zones are winter... same is true for sumer 41... you get SOME clear hexes, but also mud...  this could solve the other problem, the superduper-ultragermans (in the time before blizzard).

Interesting, the German Army fought fanatically for villages, for losing one meant a unit would have to make a desperate retreat to the next village in the rear, and doing this at night would incure the worst parts of the blizzard! The Russian troops staying out night in the open must have been a horrible experience as well. This must have been a factor in the Russians not acheiving their desired objectives (leading to annihilation of Army Group Center). Troops in the cold also need much more calories and more fresh clothing (socks) than normal, requiring an increase in the normal supply allocation to remain at current capacity. The Russian supply system should be reduced substantially in blizzard. This gives the Russians a limited time going over to the offensive before these adverse factors start to dominate the combat equation.

I was very impressed that throughout the war the German Army was a master of the local counter-attack. It was very effective against all of the Allied Armies, because the German planned in advance for its use and had trained troops. By currently down scoping the German CV in blizzard, this capability is completely eliminated from the game! Interesting, the Russian Army ability to counter-attack is virtually annihilated in the pre-blizzard part of the campaign as well. This is why is seems such a shame to have the German players forced to come up with creative, layered defenses, when the German Army would have much rather used the reserves to counter-attack Russian penetrations. Even as late as February 1944 at Korsun the German Army had this amazing capability.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: color

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

The blizzard is not to hard for the germans, but it is way to good to the russians. Just to remember, it was the coldest winter in russia in the 20th. Century...

Totally agree, this is one of the first things I noticed about the blizzard rules, it sounds only logical that both combatants suffer. Of course Germans, given their general lack of preparedness, would suffer more.
Have never seen any real numbers that details russian frostbites, but some unconfirmed source, supposedly a russian historian stated the numbers were significant. Would be very interesting to see some real numbers.

EDIT: I also think the attrition to blizzard should be worsened when troops are attacking.
Reading about those stories where any village or kind of shelter would be the center of the days fighting, so the winner could have a place to pass the night . . . while the looser would spend then night out in the open.

A lot of Russian wounded must have frozen to death before getting to an aid station. This is why most armies in history do not attack in winter.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: bednarre


Interesting, the German Army fought fanatically for villages, for losing one meant a unit would have to make a desperate retreat to the next village in the rear, and doing this at night would incure the worst parts of the blizzard! The Russian troops staying out night in the open must have been a horrible experience as well. This must have been a factor in the Russians not acheiving their desired objectives (leading to annihilation of Army Group Center). Troops in the cold also need much more calories and more fresh clothing (socks) than normal, requiring an increase in the normal supply allocation to remain at current capacity. The Russian supply system should be reduced substantially in blizzard. This gives the Russians a limited time going over to the offensive before these adverse factors start to dominate the combat equation.

This is a more subtle point than it looks like I think, and well worth expanding on.

Moving around in cold weather sucks. Its painful, it burns energy, and it put you at risk for all sorts of terrible cold related injuries.

Sitting in one place in cold weather, even in poor shelter, is *dramatically* more comfortable and safer.

Unlike some folks here (I think 2ACR has some actual combat experience in the cold), I've never tried to fight in a winter campaign.

I have, however, spent a lot of time outdoors in very cold weather, and the killer really is moving. A nice snow cave will take the ambient temperature up 50 or more degrees just from your body heat. Even just hunkering down in the downwind side of a tree and piling some branches around yourself can make a huge difference.

Point being I suppose, the game should reward you for staying in place since that's the safest thing to do. Moving around on the attack, or the retreat, is to be avoided at all costs because you're out in the elements.

I'd like to see attritional losses tied to activity rather than just presence in the weather zone.
Yes, if I marched an infantry corps 90 miles across the steppe during a blizzard I should take significant attritional losses. If that same corps is hunkered down in bunkers in a static line thought, I'd expect significantly lower losses.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

3. Try to avoid solutions that tie drastic changes to the calender. December should be the worst month the Germans face, but if you make it so horrible and take away many of the issues in Jan-Feb, the Axis will simply give a lot of ground in December to avoid those issues and make a stand in Jan-Feb. The Axis can afford to give ground for a month, but not 2-3 months. Having said that, I do repeat that December should be somewhat different for the Germans to simulate the shock of the winter and then improvement as the Axis were able to take countermeasures and become more combat effective as the winter went along.

I haven't chimed in here in a while because you guys are better at understanding the effects of your strategies. But I'm a real advocate for consistency that if the Soviet player can get away with it, the Axis player should be able to get away with it, too.

I bring up point 3 because the Soviet player already has the kind of advantage Klydon is wanting to ensure the Axis doesn't have. The Soviet has complete control and ability to withdraw during the summer months generally netting about 1 to 2 million men over historical periods (I use that figure based on what I see you guys writing in your various AAR accounts). That debate ended with people basically agreeing that they're okay with that Soviet advantage.

Whatever the unbalancing effects of the blizzard are, and however you fix them, I see absolutely nothing unbalancing about a German army that can retreat in decent order (attrition notwithstanding) in order to keep the over-strength Soviet (again, compared to historical) from maximizing his winter advantage. That's what Soviets do to Axis, and I believe in reciprocity in strategy viability.

[Klydon]

Helidorus04, you may have missed my point on that statement. Basically, if they try to go super harsh with just December, the Axis players will simply retreat big time for 4 turns to avoid the worst of the conditions. It is a case of someone coming up with an plan, but expecting the opponent to do certain things. When the opponent doesn't do certain things, then the situation could still remain "broken". All I am saying is that any fix that is come up with that depends on a short window of time (Oleg's idea of a short 5 turn blizzard also sort of falls under this category for example), the Germans will simply retreat and generally the Axis can afford to give ground for the most part to avoid things for a month. Instead of coming up with something that may work predicated on the Germans staying and defending and then wasting time finding out the Germans are not staying and defending and then having to go back to the drawing board again, I am saying any "fix" that is come up with needs to take that into account right off the bat.

The trick will be to get it just right where December gives the Russians an advantage, but not such a huge advantage over what they would have in January and February as to make the situation still remain broken by the Germans simply running away for 4 turns. I am not advocating the Germans don't have the ability or right to retreat; they do.

I also think most reasonable players are on board with the fact that the Russians should be able to launch an effective winter counter offensive with some historical feel that includes the Russians taking quite a few casualties doing the offensive and the Germans having a limited ability to counter attack here and there along with not such a huge success rate on attacks by the Russians. The Germans being able to hold ground over the winter while inflicting huge losses has about as much appeal to me as the current situation where the Russians just beat the living hell out of the Axis all up and down the front with a very high level of successful attacks and the Germans are basically helpless to do anything at all about it no matter what strategy they may adapt going into winter.

Hopefully this makes more sense of what I was trying to get across with the point.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: bednarre


Interesting, the German Army fought fanatically for villages, for losing one meant a unit would have to make a desperate retreat to the next village in the rear, and doing this at night would incure the worst parts of the blizzard! The Russian troops staying out night in the open must have been a horrible experience as well. This must have been a factor in the Russians not acheiving their desired objectives (leading to annihilation of Army Group Center). Troops in the cold also need much more calories and more fresh clothing (socks) than normal, requiring an increase in the normal supply allocation to remain at current capacity. The Russian supply system should be reduced substantially in blizzard. This gives the Russians a limited time going over to the offensive before these adverse factors start to dominate the combat equation.

This is a more subtle point than it looks like I think, and well worth expanding on.

Moving around in cold weather sucks. Its painful, it burns energy, and it put you at risk for all sorts of terrible cold related injuries.

Sitting in one place in cold weather, even in poor shelter, is *dramatically* more comfortable and safer.

Unlike some folks here (I think 2ACR has some actual combat experience in the cold), I've never tried to fight in a winter campaign.

I have, however, spent a lot of time outdoors in very cold weather, and the killer really is moving. A nice snow cave will take the ambient temperature up 50 or more degrees just from your body heat. Even just hunkering down in the downwind side of a tree and piling some branches around yourself can make a huge difference.

Point being I suppose, the game should reward you for staying in place since that's the safest thing to do. Moving around on the attack, or the retreat, is to be avoided at all costs because you're out in the elements.

I'd like to see attritional losses tied to activity rather than just presence in the weather zone.
Yes, if I marched an infantry corps 90 miles across the steppe during a blizzard I should take significant attritional losses. If that same corps is hunkered down in bunkers in a static line thought, I'd expect significantly lower losses.

Excellent Idea! I would support this method.

But this does not solve the German Army going into winter having suffered relativly light casualties, when compared to what they were really at just prior to the Blizzard.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4


Excellent Idea! I would support this method.

But this does not solve the German Army going into winter having suffered relativly light casualties, when compared to what they were really at just prior to the Blizzard.

I would classify this one under "two wrongs do not make a right".

The fact that German summer casualties are too low is a problem.
The fact that German winter casualties are too high is also a problem.

The fact that the two problems point in opposite directions doesn't make them problems, they just cancel out some of the effects (although I'd clearly argue that winter is a worse problem).

Personally I'd like to fix both.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

[font=calibri]I will pose the question, has the game ever been tested to mirror the real war between two players or a single player playing both sides?  I would say based on what we are seeing the answer is NO.  This should be done to see if the game meets certain base lines, rates of advance, German loses, Russian Prisoners, Russian casaulties.  Then I think it will be obvious that there needs to be some changes to the Combat model.  German infantry Company strength going into Operation Typhoon were in some cases 1/3 of normal and all 50% or less.  In the game German strength is 60% on the low side and usually 75-85% strength.  Do a game that tries to minor the actual events of summer, fall, winter 41 and compare loses.  Then based on this test you can tweak the Blizzard turns to match the German non-combat loses due to frostbite and other winter effects. This would then get us a lot closer to what historically took place that is currently in place.[/font]

Instead of whinning and bitching, I will try and be apart of the solution. I will voluteer for this test, as I know it would greatly increase my knowledge of the operational maneuver that took place, but sadly I don't have the time right now. But by Mid April I will have the time, I would just need an opponent or play both sides, but prefer an opponent. We should keep a fairly detailed joint ARR, take FOW off, so we can better match historical events. Post casualties, and types and as much information as possible. I have a pretty extensive library on the Eastern Front, so I should be able to replicate most of the operational moves fairly close, suggest the opponent have the access to some good sources. I prefer David Glantz, but there are others as well.

I guess my whole point in doing this is to clearly show the game does not replicate historical casualties, but without the test we will not really know. OR if this has been done by one the testers please chime in.

[Angelo]

Did not know anyone was trying to collect stats.

There should be a sticky for these kind of requests.

I have the saves from a GC pbem game, if you intested let me know. I have up turn 34.

Ang

[2ndACR]

If we need it, I can run either another game from start or I can beg Oleg to paddle my backside in our PBEM game. I think we are at turn 18 or so.

I do have all the saves from mine and Kelblau game still running.......turn 32. But it is extremely ugly to even view, makes me want to just cry.

[hfarrish]

It's interesting you mention about SU casualties. I've been tracking them in BA and my game and interestingly they're losing around 160-200k per week of combat vs 170-260k Axis. 2/3 of the SU are killed whereas 2/3 of Axis at present are disabled. Just some more numbers to throw around.....

I can attest having just finished a blizzard as SU that even though you gain a lot of territory and know you knocked the Axis around, the casualty ratios wipe the grin off your face a bit - while overall the casualties were roughly even or maybe I lost less, the "kill" ratio was overwhelmingly against me, something like 2:7. Granted, my opponent did a very good job under difficult circs keeping his line intact and in 2-3 forts at all time...

[Speedysteve]

Thanks hfarrish....the more data and reports the merrier

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

I can attest having just finished a blizzard as SU that even though you gain a lot of territory and know you knocked the Axis around, the casualty ratios wipe the grin off your face a bit - while overall the casualties were roughly even or maybe I lost less, the "kill" ratio was overwhelmingly against me, something like 2:7. Granted, my opponent did a very good job under difficult circs keeping his line intact and in 2-3 forts at all time...

How much territory did you gain? Also how many men were killed/disabled? Did your Army strength increase or decrease?

[hfarrish]

My primary thrusts were near Leningrad and South from the Crimea North and from Stalino East. My line ran roughly from Stalino to just east of of Kursk and Belogorod, then roughly due north to about 10 hexes north of Kalinin /Torzhok before turning west to a line running up to Pushkin. From there I pushed to a new line centered inside the Narva corridor, south to one hex short of Pskov, running east until turning due south to one hex short of Veliki Luki, Smolensk, then running SW through Sumy and Poltava, then turning South along the Dnepr (again, one hex short of Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporohzye. The idea was that the South (including the Crimea offensive) and North hooks (together, where most of my reserves were massed) would draw forces away from the center so that a general offensive along the line would have a better chance a few weeks later. The Crimea offensive was able to link with the Southern hook, and overall it netted anywhere from 10 to 30 hexes depending on the sector, all in all.

Army strength remained roughly flat from the start of the blizzard to the end, running at various points just over 6M. I think I hurt him more in terms of tanks and guns then manpower.

[Zort]

I am hfarrish's opponent, here are the losses 1 Dec- 2 April. We installed beta 5 on 1 dec so the first wave of german toe's were in effect before the beta was installed.