Boring Opening Moves?

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
If I well understood you are basically saying that perhaps we should give them perhaps 3 or 4 turns (until they run out of fuel, etc.). I take it that the same applies to the surrounded SOVIET forces in the Frontier Districts [:D] So what would we have? Panzers advancing let's say towards Leningrad. Their infantry is of course VERY busy reducing the pocketed Soviet forces in the border. But VERY WELL supplied, of course: if the Germans can have this, the Soviets too... I mean, the Soviets would not resist one turn (week) but 2, 3 or 4... Why not?

You're a Republican aren't you? I've never seen anyone with as much ability to twist facts and refusal to accept unsavoury facts as Republicans, so I figure you have to be one.

Did you even read what I posted? The article I linked? I don't think you did, otherwise you'd realize just how silly your post is.

Or perhaps not. You have your view and will not let anything change it. Especially the facts.

I am only asking for what actually happened, in the real world, in the Soviet Union, in 1941. Remember that? The historical event this game is based on?

No magic, no exaggerated trips to the other side of Asia, no miracles, no super men, no invulnerability, nothing you are trying to claim - merely the fact that they were prepared for what they did, and did it. Your counter-claim that the Soviets must be able to do it too is silly because they didn't. They were not prepared for the war in June, and the Luftwaffe blew up most of their ready supplies in the first couple days.

And when the panzer groups were getting low on supplies - they did stop - and the 'waiting bear' tried to hug them, and failed - got some good scratches in though, forcing 56 Panzer to 'break the hug' and retreat. Another historical fact. This was because the Soviet forces weren't really up to the fight yet, and failed to deliver a decisive blow.

For the first few weeks of the war, the Soviet army wasn't up to the task. They tried attacks on several occasions all along the line, and while they did bloody the Germans, they got hurt worse for the efforts. Stalin didn't like it much either, he fired and killed a few generals for it. But it is why the Germans did as well in 1941 as they did - if the Red Army hadn't been in such a mess to start with, and if the Luftwaffe hadn't blasted most of the Soviet's available supplies, I seriously doubt the Germans would have gotten anywhere near as far as they did.

You may not like the historical facts, but that completely fails to change them.

Besides, its not like the Germans won the war or anything. They had their day, and then the Soviets had theirs, and then some.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
Of course, I dont allow that to happen, instead, I fight with my panzers and infantry close together. The infantry always at least a turn behind my tanks, so they can 'rescue' my panzer divisions. And in my PBEM game, have had to do it on multiple occasions.

Yes, the game forces that strategy, even though that rather completely defeats the purpose of blitzkrieg. It makes armour nothing more than 'shock units' - and to be fair, that is often all they were. But there were a few times when Guderian's ideas of blitzkrieg actually got to work (I don't think he called it that actually). Not often - it required the right circumstances and preparation - but it was done, Most notably on the East front with Panzer Groups 2, 3, and 4 (AG S was slowed dramatically). And on at least one occasion the blitzkrieg failed (Ardennes 44, started off okay and then petered out) probably because of inadequate forces and supply - and that the American forces were not poorly organized, and had more supply than they knew what to do with.



Sigh, this thread has become completely side tracked over one detail that is only relevant for something like four turns of the game. Blah.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

You're a Republican aren't you?

You're correct [:D] I don't support monarchy...

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
I am only asking for what actually happened, in the real world, in the Soviet Union, in 1941[/b] [...] They were not prepared for the war in June.

The first two turns then, eh? Well, I would say the Soviets are already castrated on the game on these first turns [&:] Cutting enemy panzers off on the really FIRST turn is basically irrelevant... On the second it's perhaps a small nuisance... What do you suggest then? Germans UNTOUCHABLE until what turn? [;)]

And by the way, perhaps "not prepared" but the Red Army fought stubbornly from day ONE of the invasion. And that alone bought the Soviets some time. Or not? You make it sound as if they all had dropped their rifles en masse, a walk in the park for the mighty Werhmacht. As if the Germans were not even scratched... [8|]

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
Of course, I dont allow that to happen, instead, I fight with my panzers and infantry close together. The infantry always at least a turn behind my tanks, so they can 'rescue' my panzer divisions. And in my PBEM game, have had to do it on multiple occasions.

Yes, the game forces that strategy, even though that rather completely defeats the purpose of blitzkrieg. It makes armour nothing more than 'shock units' - and to be fair, that is often all they were. But there were a few times when Guderian's ideas of blitzkrieg actually got to work (I don't think he called it that actually). Not often - it required the right circumstances and preparation - but it was done, Most notably on the East front with Panzer Groups 2, 3, and 4 (AG S was slowed dramatically). And on at least one occasion the blitzkrieg failed (Ardennes 44, started off okay and then petered out) probably because of inadequate forces and supply - and that the American forces were not poorly organized, and had more supply than they knew what to do with.



Sigh, this thread has become completely side tracked over one detail that is only relevant for something like four turns of the game. Blah.

In order for blitzkreig in the Barbarossa/France 1940 sense to work, your opponent has to do you the willing favor of staying put in a crust defense while you run around in his ready cutting off his supply lines and pocketing his units.

The anglo-french did this to a degree in France.
The soviets did this hugely in the opening weeks of Barbarossa.

A human player won't be that foolish though; he'll have the advantage of history on his side and recognize that the best way to deal with deep armored penetrations is to pinch the sides of the salient and fall back from your own exposed salients before they turn into pockets.

The point I suppose is that for classical blitzekreig to work, the defender has to mishandle the defense. Historically, the soviets did. A human most likely will not, and that fact has a huge impact on game balance and the question of realism vs historical accuracy.

Do you want historical results? If so, you need to artificially bump axis capabilities because the historical soviets underperformed their capabilities.

Do you want historical capabilities? If so you need to adjust victory conditions because its unlikely the axis players will achieve their historical high water marks.

[carlkay58]

A few notes on the previous subjects:

1) Whenever you have a set situation (as Turn 1 is in many wargames) you will have the ability to devise optimal opening moves. This is very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid. As many have pointed out, it is the Soviet turn 1 reply that begins to make the situation entirely different and unique.

2) In actual 1941 AAR's written by both the German and Soviet commanders you will find that the battles in June, July, and August were a combination of small scale encounter battles and set piece defenses by Soviet units. In game terms this can be duplicated by a "checkerboard" defense leaving small unsupported units being involved in combat over extended distances and by a semi-organized line of Soviets behind a river trying to dig in before being out-flanked, overrun, or just plain massacred by German forces.

3) The historical Stavka response to the invasion was to rush the reserve armies forward to throw the invaders back. This was usually based on faulty intelligence and a total lack of knowledge of just how bad the situation at the front really was. Too many of the reports that did come back from the front lines really had no basis or connection of any type with reality. So Stavka thought that the front line had mostly held with only minor incursions, many of the encounter battles in the end of June and throughout early July were Soviet units moving to a front they thought were 30 to 40 kilometers further west than they were.

4) The Soviet supply situation on June 21 was abysmal. Many of the units had less than 30% of the necessary ammo and fuel necessary to fight a minimal battle, let alone against the blitzkrieg that was happening. Most board games represent this situation with special rules for the first few turns. This game does have some special rules for turn 1, but I have not really examined the Soviet supply situation that closely as of yet to know just how they are portrayed.

Now some futher comments:

1) The winter of 41 rules have been changed to be much closer to historical with the new 1.04.xx update. The Soviets were able to do a good counterattack for about the first 3 or 4 weeks of winter and then spent the rest of the winter training, resupplying, and rebuilding - something they desperately needed to do at that point. I have not yet tried 1.04 but I have played through the winter of 41 in 1.03 and know that the Germans got pounded much worse than historically.

2) Isolation should only affect the morale of a unit. The actual lack of supply should be handled as normal - if you have plenty of supply then you should be able to move and fight normally - if you run out of fuel, whether you are isolated or not should not matter. This game seems to punish you in all ways rather than just a morale modifier.

3) The game does oversimplify supplies. From reading the air supply rules, it appears that supply points are generic until delivered into a unit where it is then determined what you need the most. This makes it difficult to build up on general and fuel while keeping ammo the same (since when the panzers are rolling there are very few targets for the ammo!). This does skew a few things in the supply situation.

4) The overall supply availiablity becomes skewed because of #3. The supply issues are what limits real life commanders and game commanders from being able to attack and maneuver over the entire front rather than smaller sections of it. This is very difficult to regulate in any type of game - not just a board or computer one.

Carl

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
The first two turns then, eh? Well, I would say the Soviets are already castrated on the game on these first turns

Yes, that is fundamentally it. Every East Front game I have ever seen (and I have seen quite a few actually, as have my wargaming friends) has the exact same early game mechanics. There are always special rules that cover the first weeks of the war that severely hamper the Soviet player, and give the Axis player advantages representing their preparations and the effect of surprise.

In the summer of '41 the Soviets only practical option is retreat. Offensive action is at best little more than a nuisance, and at worst disastrous. The better option is to retreat back to a good defensive position and preserve your army as much as possible. And every one of these games admits that yes, the first few turns are pretty damn grim for the Soviet player - which is fairly appropriate - but also says "you will get your revenge".

The flip side is that the late game in every East Front game has the Germans almost incapable of doing anything either, they try to retreat as slowly as possible, but aren't capable of offensive action. The Germans are too battered at this point, their supply is abysmal, they aren't getting any reinforcements, the Soviet army is massive and has learned the lessons of the early war - and they are out for blood.


So if the entire point of your concern is that you don't like the idea of not being able to go on the offensive on the first turn of the game, then the '41 game as the Soviets isn't for you. Or at least shouldn't be. This game isn't representing the situation the Red Army found itself in very well, so you currently can respond far more effectively than the Red Army was able to historically.

What do you suggest then? Germans UNTOUCHABLE until what turn?

No, just that attacking them in the first few turns should be ill advised. Yeah, you can hurt them, but your own units are going to take a worse beating in return. Which is as how it went when the Soviets historically did attack in the summer.

And by the way, perhaps "not prepared" but the Red Army fought stubbornly from day ONE of the invasion. And that alone bought the Soviets some time.

Certainly. And they made some heroic defensive actions that were quite effective - already fortified locations, or the pockets where their backs were against the wall and so they fought well. The July 14 attack on 56 Panzer did delay the Corps by a week, and probably made them decide to sit and wait for resupply there - the Soviet forces that made the attack had supply (unlike the front line units that had lost much of theirs), they were relatively fresh units that hadn't been damaged, or seen the earlier routs and thus demoralized, and it was now over three weeks since the start of the campaign on the Red Army was starting to come to terms with what was going on (but on the other hand, it was still a clumsy poorly led force, so its attack wasn't a resounding success).

But the other attacks with units that had been on the front were all costly failures.

Three things this game fails to model that contributed to these failures are:
- Destruction of Soviet forward supplies in the first few days; without these supplies the forward units were severely hampered
- Destruction of Soviet rail lines; the Luftwaffe bombed the rail lines in many points so the front lines couldn't receive new supplies, thus keeping them low on supply
- Thousands upon thousands of refugees fleeing the advancing army; the game notes that population dflees various centres, but they just disappear after that, when in fact they clogged roads, spread conflicting stories among the responding Soviet forces, probably caused confusion and disarray, and likely were bad for morale as well. These factors would only serve to make the situation significantly worse for the Red Army.

The early weeks of the war, much of '41 in fact, was pretty damn grim for the Soviet Union. They didn't know General Winter would strike so effectively, they didn't know the strategic limitations the Germans had, their backs were against the wall and it was looking bad. The early game of any East Front game should reflect that, or it really isn't an East Front game.

[Joel Billings]

One could argue that the first turn surprise rules that hammers the soviet units by setting very low morale and experience levels and damaging many of the elements is doing what you want. These low values will slowly come up over time, but in the meantime the units are very weak. Also, many of the damaged elements will end up rotating to the pool and eventually returning, but will leave the units in the early turns very weak. Soviet motorized units have lousy MPs for the first few months of the war, Soviet railroads in the first two turns are halved in capacity. Soviet early war leaders are generally lousy which impacts everything. How many ways do we need to make the Soviets bad? One could argue that all of these factors taken together get the effects you are looking for.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

One could argue that the first turn surprise rules that hammers the soviet units by setting very low morale and experience levels and damaging many of the elements is doing what you want. These low values will slowly come up over time, but in the meantime the units are very weak. Also, many of the damaged elements will end up rotating to the pool and eventually returning, but will leave the units in the early turns very weak. Soviet motorized units have lousy MPs for the first few months of the war, Soviet railroads in the first two turns are halved in capacity. Soviet early war leaders are generally lousy which impacts everything. How many ways do we need to make the Soviets bad? One could argue that all of these factors taken together get the effects you are looking for.

I accept your argument that stuff is bad for the Soviet. I've played GC'41s as both sides.

I think two competent players can imagine in their minds two things (it would be an interesting marketing experiment here, perhaps).

Any given player:
1) Imagine the front line from north to south for the start of first turn of mud, snow, blizzard start or end (or both) (for example, Leningrad to Moscow to Rostov on turn 27).

2) Pick a Soviet casualty number that you think will have been 'bagged' by the same turn points.

I think most players will generally disagree over where the line is, but most players will agree to the theoretical 'most probably outcome' of Soviet casualties. I think the game as it exists right now correlates German long-term success by the casualty number, not the geographic line. And I think the game as it exists right now makes it a simple enough task for a competent Soviet player to safeguard his physical number of dudes with rifles that 1942 is to some extent a narrow arc of probably gameplay options for the Axis because the Soviet is much more well prepared, numerous, and dug in than his predecessors, and 1943/44 (imagined in my case, to be sure) will see even fewer options of gameplay. I think that what we're calling the 'trench warfare' game becomes a singularity, that, like a black hole grows in mass until it sucks out all of the fun for both sides, really.

That may be historically very accurate (I cede it), and I can't call a game I've played pretty goddamn religiously for the past 7 months 'unfun'.

But at this point, my realization (mostly accurately and dispassionately, I assert) is disheartening, that unless I kill (or lose) 4 million Soviets by the start of Turn X (and I think it's mud or the first turn of blizzard, I forget which), I'm in for a sucky 1942.

I think the game as it now exists makes it easy for the Soviet to trade land smartly and crisply in defensible terrain with a good supply network and an efficiently used pool of Admin points, to safeguard those 4 million men. (the previous sentence is meant to illuminate irony as well).

I'm not sure how you fix these things, and hell, from a business standpoint, you may not need to. Just because I'm finding the game tedious at times, and kinda futile, doesn't mean you're not meeting your sales figures and aren't getting the kind of feedback you want in the numbers you want it.

I'm finding the whole thing predictable, which is not an association you want with a game. Now, I never bought WitP because my understanding of history was that the Japanese industrially had no hope of knocking the US out of the war, ever, and I couldn't envision a see-saw game of 1941 and then 1942+.

Maybe my being disheartened is simply my understanding of history of the Eastern front being corrected, others may be the judge. I do think the game as it currently exists cheats both players out of excitement and the feeling that their actions really matter against the context of history.

Peace out. I don't regret my purchase at all. Just wondering if I've reached the end of the bottle.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

One could argue that the first turn surprise rules that hammers the soviet units by setting very low morale and experience levels and damaging many of the elements is doing what you want. These low values will slowly come up over time, but in the meantime the units are very weak. Also, many of the damaged elements will end up rotating to the pool and eventually returning, but will leave the units in the early turns very weak. Soviet motorized units have lousy MPs for the first few months of the war, Soviet railroads in the first two turns are halved in capacity. Soviet early war leaders are generally lousy which impacts everything. How many ways do we need to make the Soviets bad? One could argue that all of these factors taken together get the effects you are looking for.

I accept your argument that stuff is bad for the Soviet. I've played GC'41s as both sides.

I think two competent players can imagine in their minds two things (it would be an interesting marketing experiment here, perhaps).

Any given player:
1) Imagine the front line from north to south for the start of first turn of mud, snow, blizzard start or end (or both) (for example, Leningrad to Moscow to Rostov on turn 27).

2) Pick a Soviet casualty number that you think will have been 'bagged' by the same turn points.

I think most players will generally disagree over where the line is, but most players will agree to the theoretical 'most probably outcome' of Soviet casualties. I think the game as it exists right now correlates German long-term success by the casualty number, not the geographic line. And I think the game as it exists right now makes it a simple enough task for a competent Soviet player to safeguard his physical number of dudes with rifles that 1942 is to some extent a narrow arc of probably gameplay options for the Axis because the Soviet is much more well prepared, numerous, and dug in than his predecessors, and 1943/44 (imagined in my case, to be sure) will see even fewer options of gameplay. I think that what we're calling the 'trench warfare' game becomes a singularity, that, like a black hole grows in mass until it sucks out all of the fun for both sides, really.

That may be historically very accurate (I cede it), and I can't call a game I've played pretty goddamn religiously for the past 7 months 'unfun'.

But at this point, my realization (mostly accurately and dispassionately, I assert) is disheartening, that unless I kill (or lose) 4 million Soviets by the start of Turn X (and I think it's mud or the first turn of blizzard, I forget which), I'm in for a sucky 1942.

I think the game as it now exists makes it easy for the Soviet to trade land smartly and crisply in defensible terrain with a good supply network and an efficiently used pool of Admin points, to safeguard those 4 million men. (the previous sentence is meant to illuminate irony as well).

I'm not sure how you fix these things, and hell, from a business standpoint, you may not need to. Just because I'm finding the game tedious at times, and kinda futile, doesn't mean you're not meeting your sales figures and aren't getting the kind of feedback you want in the numbers you want it.

I'm finding the whole thing predictable, which is not an association you want with a game. Now, I never bought WitP because my understanding of history was that the Japanese industrially had no hope of knocking the US out of the war, ever, and I couldn't envision a see-saw game of 1941 and then 1942+.

Maybe my being disheartened is simply my understanding of history of the Eastern front being corrected, others may be the judge. I do think the game as it currently exists cheats both players out of excitement and the feeling that their actions really matter against the context of history.

Peace out. I don't regret my purchase at all. Just wondering if I've reached the end of the bottle.

Well said.

[tigercub]

Good stuff going back to the bottle now...

[Arstavidios]

Humm, i think Good german players can advance much faster than historical. so the soviets do not have time to bring their troops and set up positions.
This makes for a snowball effect, Although apparently Soviet losses remain low, you just lose a lot of mapower through the early loss of large cities, including very often BOTH Leningrad, and Moscow. and there's not much you can do about it.

All you can do is save whatever you can, but by the end of July the German player can be between one and two months ahead of schedule all along the front. IMO this is a very serious issue.

[Klydon]

The Germans are often ahead of schedule in terms of territory captured because the Russians are basically running for most of the summer so they don't take the "magic" 4 million in losses. From what I see, retreating is in vogue because the Germans are still coping with making the Russians pay for that strategy (most of the testers have said the "Sir Robin" defense does not work long term, but the German has to be a good player in order to take advantage of it). Until the Axis community can start "proving" it is a bad idea to do that (and there are signs that it is starting to happen with Tarhunnas AAR against Q-Ball as an example), then its going to happen. After that, the Russians will have to change their tactics when they know "Sir Robin" tactics mean they will likely lose. We then may see a more "historic" game in terms of geographic gains and losses.

[henri51]

ORIGINAL: Arstavidios

Humm, i think Good german players can advance much faster than historical. so the soviets do not have time to bring their troops and set up positions.
This makes for a snowball effect, Although apparently Soviet losses remain low, you just lose a lot of mapower through the early loss of large cities, including very often BOTH Leningrad, and Moscow. and there's not much you can do about it.

All you can do is save whatever you can, but by the end of July the German player can be between one and two months ahead of schedule all along the front. IMO this is a very serious issue.

It is not an issue at all if territorial gain is irrelevant unless the Russians have 5 million losses. In my present game, I am at Rostov in the middle of August, Moscow is surrounded and Leningrad may be about to fall, but the Russians have only 2.5 million losses. If territory gain is irrelevant as some claim, this means that I could still lose...[:-]

Henri

[Arstavidios]

Sir Robin or no sir Robin makes no difference.
If you fight you die.
If you retreat you die
Panzers go way too fast you cannot do anything about it.

Whatever you do against a good German opponent your position will collapse.

You can make speed bumps at some places and that's pretty much it.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Arstavidios

Sir Robin or no sir Robin makes no difference.
If you fight you die.
If you retreat you die
Panzers go way too fast you cannot do anything about it.

Whatever you do against a good German opponent your position will collapse.

You can make speed bumps at some places and that's pretty much it.

Ok, we have the "The Germans are nerfed and don't have a chance" - brigade, and then we have the "The Soviets are beaten whatever they do" - brigade. Since we have both sides, it sounds like a pretty well balanced game I would say [:)].

[Arstavidios]

Territorry loss are far from irerelevant.
Losing leningrad and Moscow means the Soviets lose a LOT of manpower in the long run, so the soviet ends up much much weaker. soviet manpower is far fron unlimited.

Late game with soviets also has some issues, but at the moment 41 industry and manpower losses mean you're rather unlikely to get into late war anyway. so the question is more whether or not you can prevent a German auto victory in 42 or 43

[Arstavidios]

Well, the real question about balance is what happens in the games
Do you get balancesd results overall or does a side have a significant advantage.
IMO, there's still some balancing to do. Blizzard effects reduction was a good step.
My own personal opinion is that offensive pace is too fast for both sides. But as the germans start on the offensive they get the advantage and can blow the soviets off so much in the initial offensive that they will not be able to come back later.

i also would like to see some tweeaking about attrition losses.  You often lose several times more men from attrition than actual fighting, even when when most of your units spend their turn mostly fighting. that's somewhat weird

[Arstavidios]

ust to make my point.
In my game against Pelton who masters the axis side of the game: I tried to fight, launched some counterattacks and retreated many axis divisions and routed several of them
Here's the situation in the south early august:

[Arstavidios]

in the center

[Arstavidios]

And in the NortH.
Basically, it's only early august, and well......... I guess I'm pretty much dead
i don't pretend a great player
I suppose you may consider that a normal rate of german advance. ............