Soviet Production a bit too much / Major Game play issue?

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well...
actually only some playtesters explain openly, that the game should work exactly this way

If the blizzard destroy the german army (as it is untill now) and the russians just need to avoid mistakes to be much better, what is the consequence out of it (beside some other "blizzard" events like "german soldiers get sterioids from 43 on)

Also it does not solve the problem that the best the axis player can achieve is worse as history
You self had declared that russian airforce is a pain in 43 (not historically true compared to the rare combat records we can read here)

if someone want to play gc41, he knows exactly that it doesen´t matter
playing the russians, he will crush the german army in blizzard, so the axis can not mount any serious offensive action
playing the axis he can do what he wants, he allways will be leveld by blizzard, after this, because the problem with "verdun in the east", he can´t break through russian defence lines (the germans did all the time, even late in the war)

The best thing is, that so many people (with so less knowledge) allways explain why the blizzard has this effect, but they compare apples with, err. skyscrapers, cause in history exhausted soldiers without supply fought far away from any supply lines and in the game they hold their army intact and in good supply (Supply is another thing, i fully agree that both sides should have much more problems to supply their troops for all these monster-operations)

Sorry, in the moment i fire eastfront on my pc, it seems for gameplay this is the game with more fun for both sides in a gc

(i still think i should give the short campagins a chance, but buying the game only for them (gc41 is broken in the moment) is outside my interests in the moment. Even sadlier, westfront will propably have the same problems)

oh, i did mention that i want to play BOTH sides? fine....

Adnan, what is really frustrating the both of us right now, and perhaps others, is that there have been alot of player comments but every little official feedback from what the designers are poundering/thinking/tinkering. Perhaps they fear an unstable system with too many comments, too soon in the development process. I understand an official AAR is somewhere in the system (would like to know where), but to me this is only the first step in a long process.


Can we please get a little more feedback from the staff? Thanks...

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Zort

Well a total war in europe game will solve that issue.  

I was thinking the same thing. Do you have any idea when it might be ready for players?

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: bednarre
<snip>

Russia was willing to participate of the invasion of Japan; it does not look like they were at the end of their manpower pool. The US expected 1 million casualties itself.

Sure, but so was Britain and she was equally out of manpower by the end of ww II.

Just because you're out of reserve manpower doesn't mean you're out of the war; the Wehrmacht ran out of reserve manpower in late 1943 and absolute troop counts dropped the last two years of the war, but they kept fighting.

Same thing with the soviets, they started to run out in 1944 and were feeling shortages by the end of the war in europe, but they still had a sizeable army.

Stalin saw the Japanese campaign as a great way to share in the pacific spoils, so he was willing to take still more casualties because the gains looked significant.

Also worth pointing out is that the soviets committed only about 1.7m men to the manchurian campaign, or roughly 1/4 of what they ended the war with in europe.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: bednarre

ORIGINAL: Zort

Well a total war in europe game will solve that issue.  

I was thinking the same thing. Do you have any idea when it might be ready for players?

Since WITE is just recently released, and their future plans were sort of laid out, and given the history of quality products I expect they would not rush something out the door. My ballpark firgure would be 24-36+ months (and probably the later for a full-fledged Toatal War in Europe). But I wouldn't object at all if they could pull it off sooner.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: bednarre
<snip>

Russia was willing to participate of the invasion of Japan; it does not look like they were at the end of their manpower pool. The US expected 1 million casualties itself.

Sure, but so was Britain and she was equally out of manpower by the end of ww II.

Just because you're out of reserve manpower doesn't mean you're out of the war; the Wehrmacht ran out of reserve manpower in late 1943 and absolute troop counts dropped the last two years of the war, but they kept fighting.

Same thing with the soviets, they started to run out in 1944 and were feeling shortages by the end of the war in europe, but they still had a sizeable army.

Stalin saw the Japanese campaign as a great way to share in the pacific spoils, so he was willing to take still more casualties because the gains looked significant.

Also worth pointing out is that the soviets committed only about 1.7m men to the manchurian campaign, or roughly 1/4 of what they ended the war with in europe.

I don't think England was volunteering to invade the island of Japan. The lack of British replacements severly hampered their fighting ability. For example, their was relunctance on the part of General Montgomery to come to the aid of the Americans in the Battle of the Bulge. In North Africa and Italy, most of the troops were from the Commonwealth and not England proper.

Did the German's run out of manpower in 1943? The German kept creating new divisions throughout the war; they had manpower reserves. The problem was finally there was insufficient labor to keep the war production going. The Germans did not use their manpower as effectively as they could. For example, Hitler kept shells of divisions intact so they would still appear on the map, wasting valuable supply and support personnel. Also, the extra manpower did not arrive when needed. If more had been called up in 1941-1942, perhaps an amistice would have occured.

Russia historically did not like to put replacements in old divisions either. The number of troops in a division was very low at the end of the war, but the number of divisions was very large. Once source has the Red Armed Forces at 11.3 million at the end of the war. That does not look like an army on it's death bed. Stalin was pressured in helping America against Japan to save American lives. The sovereignity of Poland unfortunately was sacrificed as a compromise. Stalin wanted a part of the Japanese mainland and Manchuria, but he clearly thought he had enough troops to go on another major campaign (with millions of more casualties).

The following link briefly describes the Russian mainland invasion plan (step #1).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Finally, America would have wanted the Russian to stay out of the area, if not absolutely needed. Russia was prevented from occupying Japan, but their takeover of Manchuria and northern Korea has significant negative reprecussions for democracy in the region today.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: bednarre
<snip>

I don't think England was volunteering to invade the island of Japan.

Actually, they were. Operation Coronet (the invasion of Japan proper, included a commonwealth component at the british request.

Likewise significant commonwealth naval forces were planned for both operation olympic and corinet.

[Smirfy]

The Tunisian campaign was hardly pointless sure Hitler sacrificed a couple of hundred thousand Axis troops but it delayed the invaision of Southern Europe which had a frontage of thousands of miles were 200,000 troops would only guard a fraction by 6 months buying time for an eastern front offensive to try and bring decision there. What were the Allies going to do if they did not fight in Tunisia, sit on their hands? I love Axis counterfactuals honestly I do. If anything Tunsia freed troops for the eastern front. As Jodl said once Italy was invaded on having to keep ten divisions in reserve just to protect the communications of the army fighting in Southern Italy "All this at a time when the eastern front was subjected to severe assault, was begging for reserves more urgently than ever"

[Klydon]

A couple of points.

First, the staff has said they are looking at the blizzard issues. For the time being, we have some house rules suggested by BigA for the time being that make a lot of sense. tm.asp?m=2739605&mpage=1&key=&nbsp; I think the time line for any fixes is going to be a bit as they let the changes they have made get played out and tested and more testing and data comes in from games.

As far as scenario changes to favor the Germans, there are some already done and available for use. I have made a couple (some historically plausible, some not as much) and I spent a fair amount of time doing the best research I could on them. I don't claim to go to the depths that Pavel does as I don't have his language skills or sources to work from, but I think they are not that far fetched, etc. I don't make any bones about which side they help (I have done several for Germany and 1 for Russia), but I like the idea of doing alternate stuff like that, be it for PBEM games or against the AI as a way to give an advantage over just bumping up the percent levels. None of these scenarios are "official" but that should not stop two players from using them if they feel in particular the German side needs the help. Unfortunately, the community at large has shown very little interest in such scenarios. In part they want smaller scenarios that are "official" and most Russian players are not in favor of allowing the German side extra advantages.

Something that a lot of people don't realize is the Axis lost more in Tunisa than they lost at Stalingrad, although Stalingrad is the one that gets the big press.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: bednarre

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well...
actually only some playtesters explain openly, that the game should work exactly this way

If the blizzard destroy the german army (as it is untill now) and the russians just need to avoid mistakes to be much better, what is the consequence out of it (beside some other "blizzard" events like "german soldiers get sterioids from 43 on)

Also it does not solve the problem that the best the axis player can achieve is worse as history
You self had declared that russian airforce is a pain in 43 (not historically true compared to the rare combat records we can read here)

if someone want to play gc41, he knows exactly that it doesen´t matter
playing the russians, he will crush the german army in blizzard, so the axis can not mount any serious offensive action
playing the axis he can do what he wants, he allways will be leveld by blizzard, after this, because the problem with "verdun in the east", he can´t break through russian defence lines (the germans did all the time, even late in the war)

The best thing is, that so many people (with so less knowledge) allways explain why the blizzard has this effect, but they compare apples with, err. skyscrapers, cause in history exhausted soldiers without supply fought far away from any supply lines and in the game they hold their army intact and in good supply (Supply is another thing, i fully agree that both sides should have much more problems to supply their troops for all these monster-operations)

Sorry, in the moment i fire eastfront on my pc, it seems for gameplay this is the game with more fun for both sides in a gc

(i still think i should give the short campagins a chance, but buying the game only for them (gc41 is broken in the moment) is outside my interests in the moment. Even sadlier, westfront will propably have the same problems)

oh, i did mention that i want to play BOTH sides? fine....

Adnan, what is really frustrating the both of us right now, and perhaps others, is that there have been alot of player comments but every little official feedback from what the designers are poundering/thinking/tinkering. Perhaps they fear an unstable system with too many comments, too soon in the development process. I understand an official AAR is somewhere in the system (would like to know where), but to me this is only the first step in a long process.


Can we please get a little more feedback from the staff? Thanks...

The staff of 2By3 for WitE consists of Gary and Joel and Gary never gets on the forum. Joel is it, everyone else is either a tester like myself or Erik who works for Matrix. Pavel has done a huge amount of coding for the game and is currently the one doing any bug fixes and/or enhancements and is busier than a one-legged man in a three-legged race. Many of the older testers are pretty burned out and have gone onto other things, there are a few diehards left as well as several of the newer testers.

There are hundreds of posts and dozens upon dozens of threads and the testers are helping when they can but there is no way they are going to be able to respond to everyone's questions in the general section of the forum. Bugs and technical issues need to go up top in the proper section, Joel and Pavel will definitely catch those.

As for what else might be going on, we testers are still subject to the NDA and while I can say a lot of testing is ongoing and several more historical scenarios are being worked on, anything beyond that will need to be answered by Erik or Joel.

[2ndACR]

Never have doubts do to lack of feedback. They are working and I know Joel is monitoring the forums. He may not comment but he reads and listens.

These things take time. I have never lost faith in 2by3 and never will. Just give them time to work things out.

Oh, and no burn out allowed, back to work testers.[:-]

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Never have doubts do to lack of feedback. They are working and I know Joel is monitoring the forums. He may not comment but he reads and listens.

These things take time. I have never lost faith in 2by3 and never will. Just give them time to work things out.

Oh, and no burn out allowed, back to work testers.[:-]

Last year this time I was running 2 or 3 pbem games along with several ai tests all ongoing at once. I was putting in 12 to 16 hours every day and loving it as were most of the testers then. Pavel never seems to sleeps and I still think he is actually some alien android although he does claim to be married.

Responding to questions or issues does take up a lot of time though, I have soent the last 3 or 4 hours just on this forum and haven't got a single minute of testing in. I would love to play one of you guys but after Trey gave me a ration of **** for putting a game up on the server the day it was released I just went back to testing...lol. I figure I'm just a run of the mill average player so I probably wouldn't be much of a challenge anyways.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

The game need to be so good, that the axis player can achive historical results in 41

Well the game is so good that a competent Russian player can avoid anything as bad as
what happened to the Russians in 1941.

If the only measure of goodness is that the Germans should be able to routinely
fatally cripple the Russians in 1941, I think you're going to be disappointed in
playing this game.

Well - we agree to disagree [:)][:D]
THe game should be so good, that it can achive both - a competent russian player, by avoiding so and so much losses is in better shape in dec 41.
Here we agree 100%.
But we disagree to 100% about the capability of the germans, if the russian player avoid the losses.

Do you really think all russian officers were plain stupid?
Do you belive all the lies about "how we could have crushed the faschists with easy if only bad boy stalin had allowed it"?
That is the same bs like the things the german generals comited after the war to blame hitler. This you belive in a second, but the lies of the russian generals should all be true?
Strange thinking.

Nobody speaks about "fatally crippling" the russian army.
In the moment the only army fatally crippled (as i said it does not matter what the axis player do) is the german army. The same army that could inflict huge russian losses untill the last day of war in history (it was still not enough cause you can´t win with 3-front-war, airwar (loosing end), mad dictator, absolute evil and brutal regime (that gives the communist-hating easteuropeans in stalins hands) end a stupid and inefficent war production.

But the point is, a game about ww2 in the east should simulate this ability - to win against all odds, not the war (conquering russia), but throwing back the frontlines of the russians and "hold" a frontline without collapsing. EVEN if the russian player do not redo the mistakes of the russian historicall troops.
Why? because the germans could do it - did it (spring 43) and in any russian breakthrough the germans had some reserves they crushed the russian breakthrough

Not numbers but the general better comand structure down to the lowest officers was the key. Nothing to do with "übermenschen". The US Army made books about the combat abilities of the german Wehrmacht. Read them.

I never said that the russians should be crushed, the russian player should in most times (6 out of 10) be in better situation as historical in spring 42, but only if the axis player is only as good as him or worse. If the german player is better, he should nearly allways be in better situation in 42 - not that i say that they should have the chance to crush the russian side (autovictory is nonsense anyway... i play for the endresult. End of game is end of latest date - in witp ae, this is spring 46)

[Adnan Meshuggi]

But only AFTER the end of ww2 in europe.
Stalin could not do both - he was finished and exhausted.
He made this clear at jalta - 3 months after surrender of germany he could attack. Not earlier, because he needed this time to move troops from europe to asia....

That is the problem with this game... to many people have not researched really well the real events - some have read only german sources (with the "if we had done what we allways wanted to do we had won easily"-attitude), some have seen to many (really bad) american war movies with Fritz the stupid guy who allways looks in the wrong direction...
both is nonsens. in the moment the hollywood-fraction is winning [8|]

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

The game need to be so good, that the axis player can achive historical results in 41

Well the game is so good that a competent Russian player can avoid anything as bad as
what happened to the Russians in 1941.

If the only measure of goodness is that the Germans should be able to routinely
fatally cripple the Russians in 1941, I think you're going to be disappointed in
playing this game.

In the moment the only army fatally crippled (as i said it does not matter what the axis player do) is the german army. The same army that could inflict huge russian losses untill the last day of war in history (it was still not enough cause you can´t win with 3-front-war, airwar (loosing end), mad dictator, absolute evil and brutal regime (that gives the communist-hating easteuropeans in stalins hands) end a stupid and inefficent war production.

When I said "fatally crippled" I had in mind the idea that it was reasonable to expect the Germans to do so well in 1941 that they were sure to win in 1942. I just don't think that's
very likely if you use even remotely historical forces and logistics and the Russian players is reasonably competent.

On the other hand the Germans historically had problems that were crippling before they attacked Russia. You've noted some of them:
mad dictator, absolute evil and brutal regime, a stupid and inefficent war production. To which we can also add: poor access to resources
such as oil, an archaic and wasteful agricultural sector and a fatally underpowered, under-capitalized, fragile and vulnerable industrial base that was being
seriously impacted by bombing and blockades and sabotage. Given all that, it didn't matter ultimately how well the German Army did; they
were set up for a defeat of some kind at the moment the Germans decided to artificially force the value of their money so high that
they no longer could trade effectively (early 1930s).

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

ORIGINAL: MengJiao




Well the game is so good that a competent Russian player can avoid anything as bad as
what happened to the Russians in 1941.

If the only measure of goodness is that the Germans should be able to routinely
fatally cripple the Russians in 1941, I think you're going to be disappointed in
playing this game.

In the moment the only army fatally crippled (as i said it does not matter what the axis player do) is the german army. The same army that could inflict huge russian losses untill the last day of war in history (it was still not enough cause you can´t win with 3-front-war, airwar (loosing end), mad dictator, absolute evil and brutal regime (that gives the communist-hating easteuropeans in stalins hands) end a stupid and inefficent war production.

When I said "fatally crippled" I had in mind the idea that it was reasonable to expect the Germans to do so well in 1941 that they were sure to win in 1942. I just don't think that's
very likely if you use even remotely historical forces and logistics and the Russian players is reasonably competent.

On the other hand the Germans historically had problems that were crippling before they attacked Russia. You've noted some of them:
mad dictator, absolute evil and brutal regime, a stupid and inefficent war production. To which we can also add: poor access to resources
such as oil, an archaic and wasteful agricultural sector and a fatally underpowered, under-capitalized, fragile and vulnerable industrial base that was being
seriously impacted by bombing and blockades and sabotage. Given all that, it didn't matter ultimately how well the German Army did; they
were set up for a defeat of some kind at the moment the Germans decided to artificially force the value of their money so high that
they no longer could trade effectively (early 1930s).

well, yes.
But still they kicked a lot butts really hard and quite often.
This is not the point for this game.
The point is, that if you want to make your answer come true the game should be ONLY onesided, russian player agains ai.

But it is not a onesided game - so you can do the things the germans did, you are partly Hitler (by not give mad orders), you are the economy (partly), by deciding what air group gets what plane.... you get my point?

So, with these freedom of orders (like the freedom for the russian player to not die at the border), the axis player should be able to perform way better as historically .
If the russian stay and die, he can stop earlier so his troops are better supplied (but exhausted) Result in blizzard should be: better defence, higher russian losses, better starting positioon
If the russian run away/avoid combat he should grab more land, have more room for retreat (if played good! just remember i do not talk about the "russian crush german army in blizzard - even if the russian player sucks) and so could be also better as historically.

This sucsess in 41 is the only logical target for any player
why?
because if the game allows a german victory from 42 on (or worse, 43) the odds are so bad, that the game is broken too.
So no fanboyism.
But - with a good attack in 41, a even better defence in blizzard (because of the better results in 41) the russian army should be so weak, that the germans could achive a better early-43-frontline, maybe with more troops (or less russians in early 43), so the battle is not singlesided after autum43.

even then the russian player (with worse circumstances) should be able to win - don´t misunderstand me... but in the moment any game with worse starting date (42) and a victorious axis army in 45 (say, holding the startline) would be as silly as the blizzard combat.


But we know only the blizzard bug for sure - in the moment. You will read the same critics from me if in 43 the russians get crushed like they got crushed in summer 41.

Honestly, many players think that the axis need boosters because otherwise they are doomed in 42. So we are in fantasy-campaigns - not bad (i like what-ifs), but in the "realistic" campagin, a german army with better results in 41, avoiding many big mistakes in 42 (frontlines to long, to little reserves (shortened frontlines gives more reserves, big problem historically for the russians) should be on eye with the russians

and this does not happen

greetings

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi




In the moment the only army fatally crippled (as i said it does not matter what the axis player do) is the german army. The same army that could inflict huge russian losses untill the last day of war in history (it was still not enough cause you can´t win with 3-front-war, airwar (loosing end), mad dictator, absolute evil and brutal regime (that gives the communist-hating easteuropeans in stalins hands) end a stupid and inefficent war production.

When I said "fatally crippled" I had in mind the idea that it was reasonable to expect the Germans to do so well in 1941 that they were sure to win in 1942. I just don't think that's
very likely if you use even remotely historical forces and logistics and the Russian players is reasonably competent.

On the other hand the Germans historically had problems that were crippling before they attacked Russia. You've noted some of them:
mad dictator, absolute evil and brutal regime, a stupid and inefficent war production. To which we can also add: poor access to resources
such as oil, an archaic and wasteful agricultural sector and a fatally underpowered, under-capitalized, fragile and vulnerable industrial base that was being
seriously impacted by bombing and blockades and sabotage. Given all that, it didn't matter ultimately how well the German Army did; they
were set up for a defeat of some kind at the moment the Germans decided to artificially force the value of their money so high that
they no longer could trade effectively (early 1930s).

This sucsess in 41 is the only logical target for any player

Not for a Russian player.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: bednarre
<snip>

I don't think England was volunteering to invade the island of Japan.

Actually, they were. Operation Coronet (the invasion of Japan proper, included a commonwealth component at the british request.

Likewise significant commonwealth naval forces were planned for both operation olympic and corinet.





Thank you for enlightening me! The following link shows the 3 Commonwealth divisions embarked for the operation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_ ... l#Allied_2

The divisions were the British 3rd Inf. Div, Canadian 6th Inf Div, and Australian 10th Div. Thus 2/3 of army was composed of non-British troops. The British division was at D-Day. This should be contrasted with the 61,715 British troops landed on D-Day (83,115 counting the Canadians ). Yes the Commonwealth was represented, and yes, they had big manpower problems.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: bednarre

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well...
actually only some playtesters explain openly, that the game should work exactly this way

If the blizzard destroy the german army (as it is untill now) and the russians just need to avoid mistakes to be much better, what is the consequence out of it (beside some other "blizzard" events like "german soldiers get sterioids from 43 on)

Also it does not solve the problem that the best the axis player can achieve is worse as history
You self had declared that russian airforce is a pain in 43 (not historically true compared to the rare combat records we can read here)

if someone want to play gc41, he knows exactly that it doesen´t matter
playing the russians, he will crush the german army in blizzard, so the axis can not mount any serious offensive action
playing the axis he can do what he wants, he allways will be leveld by blizzard, after this, because the problem with "verdun in the east", he can´t break through russian defence lines (the germans did all the time, even late in the war)

The best thing is, that so many people (with so less knowledge) allways explain why the blizzard has this effect, but they compare apples with, err. skyscrapers, cause in history exhausted soldiers without supply fought far away from any supply lines and in the game they hold their army intact and in good supply (Supply is another thing, i fully agree that both sides should have much more problems to supply their troops for all these monster-operations)

Sorry, in the moment i fire eastfront on my pc, it seems for gameplay this is the game with more fun for both sides in a gc

(i still think i should give the short campagins a chance, but buying the game only for them (gc41 is broken in the moment) is outside my interests in the moment. Even sadlier, westfront will propably have the same problems)

oh, i did mention that i want to play BOTH sides? fine....

Adnan, what is really frustrating the both of us right now, and perhaps others, is that there have been alot of player comments but every little official feedback from what the designers are poundering/thinking/tinkering. Perhaps they fear an unstable system with too many comments, too soon in the development process. I understand an official AAR is somewhere in the system (would like to know where), but to me this is only the first step in a long process.


Can we please get a little more feedback from the staff? Thanks...

The staff of 2By3 for WitE consists of Gary and Joel and Gary never gets on the forum. Joel is it, everyone else is either a tester like myself or Erik who works for Matrix. Pavel has done a huge amount of coding for the game and is currently the one doing any bug fixes and/or enhancements and is busier than a one-legged man in a three-legged race. Many of the older testers are pretty burned out and have gone onto other things, there are a few diehards left as well as several of the newer testers.

There are hundreds of posts and dozens upon dozens of threads and the testers are helping when they can but there is no way they are going to be able to respond to everyone's questions in the general section of the forum. Bugs and technical issues need to go up top in the proper section, Joel and Pavel will definitely catch those.

As for what else might be going on, we testers are still subject to the NDA and while I can say a lot of testing is ongoing and several more historical scenarios are being worked on, anything beyond that will need to be answered by Erik or Joel.

Thanks for the info.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

ORIGINAL: MengJiao




When I said "fatally crippled" I had in mind the idea that it was reasonable to expect the Germans to do so well in 1941 that they were sure to win in 1942. I just don't think that's
very likely if you use even remotely historical forces and logistics and the Russian players is reasonably competent.

On the other hand the Germans historically had problems that were crippling before they attacked Russia. You've noted some of them:
mad dictator, absolute evil and brutal regime, a stupid and inefficent war production. To which we can also add: poor access to resources
such as oil, an archaic and wasteful agricultural sector and a fatally underpowered, under-capitalized, fragile and vulnerable industrial base that was being
seriously impacted by bombing and blockades and sabotage. Given all that, it didn't matter ultimately how well the German Army did; they
were set up for a defeat of some kind at the moment the Germans decided to artificially force the value of their money so high that
they no longer could trade effectively (early 1930s).

This sucsess in 41 is the only logical target for any player

Not for a Russian player.

partly true.
For me, playing in 41 as the russians i want to be better as historically, but not by the gameengine but by my doing.
In the moment you can do anything and still kick the axis butt in witer so bad, that you are in better shape in spring42.

That is simple ahistorical.
So even playing the sovjets, i think they need urgently to fix it.

[mmarquo]

Sigh...
&nbsp;
I will never play as poorly as the Soviets actually performed in 1941, so&nbsp;I do not want to be penalized for their historical mistakes. This is a game afterall, not a historical recreation that needs to be scripted so that the events in the game track history. What fun is that? We all know that both sides made titanic errors in judgement -&nbsp;let the players make theri own errors and good choices, and may the better man win...the game.
&nbsp;
Marquo&nbsp;[:)]