Cities, Is there a problem?

[Wild]

I wouldn't be against giving some help to the Soviets if that is whats needed. But my primary focus is to make cities an important part of the game, as now it is more one dimensional focusing only on the destruction of the Red Army.
I would like to add some strategic objectives to this to make the game more enjoyable.

[Aurelian]

Well, to quote Manstein, "I'd rather lose a city than an army."

US Grant certainly knew it. He said "Lee's army is your objective point. Where he goes you will also."

He didn't say Richmond.

Napoleon got all the way to Moscow. And he couldn't hold it.

Washington DC was taken by the Brits during the War of 1812. And yet......

Destroy the Red Army, and the cities will fall.

Concentrate on things like panzer raiding of factories, and one gets what they deserve.

[Oskkar]

Historically, there were 3 possible German victory scenarios

a) political: the Soviet regime would collapse after the first weeks of war (option defended by Hitler in 1941).

b) militar: destruction of the Red Army in 1941 (option defended by the German Generals)

c) economic: capture of the oil fields in the Caucasus (rationale for Case Blau)

As far as I know, no historian has suggested that the capture of Kiev, Orel or Leningrad could be determinant in this war (well, they were not). If the Soviets thought that cities per se were so important, they had not implemented their evacuations plans. Introducing the concept of "critical cities" is therefore, in my opinion, ahistorical: but as a houserule anybody can choose its pet city...

[Richard III]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Panzeh

I think the problem is that the Red Army is so worthless in 1941 that soviet players are not rewarded at all for fighting, and the Germans can basically do whatever with very little risk or casualties.  This basically makes an a-historical fabian approach inevitable.

Agreed, there is just no reason to fight unless there is some incentive/requirement for the Sovs to do so, which there currently is not.

That`s the issue IMHO as well.

Axis Fans complain that the Soviets just run, and they do because the German Army is way overpowered and over supplied in `41 and the Red Army is useless in the early Game. Any Soviet attempt at an encirclement/maneuver warfare or worse, trying to hold a city in strength to slow them down always meets with defeat in 1 turn. What`s the point[:(] .

The issue ( among others ) in WITE is of course the AI combat routines. You fight in `41, the Germans win, just like Garry`s other classic WITP, you fight , the Japanese always wins in any CV vs CV or LCU combat up to late `42.

The combat routines need to be stretched so ( and the Terrain Modifiers actually work ) the Sov gamer may get a" Hold " or a "Germans Retreat" at least once in awhile.....so they roll the dice sometimes in the `41 GC.

Makes for a much more interesting game for both players.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I advocated a Turn-Based VP system awhile ago. I would rather the devs energies be spent at this point on perfecting the game model itself, but the code is there to do a turn-based approach, because several scenarios have it. It would be up to one of us to develop and propose one that's fair.

+1.

The spreadsheet I made might be a good starting point for discussion. It's a reverse engineering of the VP scoring in WitE scenarios (not counting airframes, though). I hope we'll see something like that in the game sooner or later. It's really at the devs fingertips.

If anybody really feels this issue to be a game breaker for them, nothing as easy as take the spreadsheet and use it to determine Victory levels. You just need to convince your opponent

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Empire101

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While I agree that cities generally seem completely irrelevant in this game (other than as good defensive terrain), the problem with many of the proposed solutions is that they in essence force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes while allowing the Germans to avoid them. To avoid this, any incentives/requirements for the Sovs to defend West must be accompanied by incentives/requirements for the Germans to attack East (as in Stalingrad, etc.).

I also don't like the idea of losing cities being tied to automatic morale losses, as a major defeat can as often induce steely resolve as a reduced will to fight (OK, maybe not as often, but often enough); moreover, as Encircled points out the Sovs already suffer a morale drop for the overall pounding that they take in 1941.

I think the best way would be for the loss of certain places to have the potential to cause various problems, so that the Sovs would know that losing Moscow (for instance) could be "bad" but never really be sure how bad. For instance, maybe the Sov government would collapse (x%)? Maybe the Finns would decide to attack Lgrad (y%)? Maybe the Sovs would lose some morale (z%)? Maybe some good generals would be shot (xx%)?

For less important cities, my guess is that some kind of VP sistem would be best, but it seems like it would have to be very finely-tuned...in other words, if I lose Smolensk on turn 5 instead of turn 10, how much effect should it really have on whether I lose the campaign game? While appropriate VP levels could probably be figured out eventually, it could be rather complicated and would certainly be a source of endless argument...

Excellent ideas here from 76mm. The idea of some sort of 'unknowns' being factored in could lead to some very interesting operations/campaigns. It would be great if this could be incorporated for both sides, a sort of blind set of victory/penalty conditions for both sides.

Also touched on in this post is the problem of addressing less important cities, and I agree that they would have to be fine tuned much more than the majors. As for endless argument, well, this forum speaks for itself, does'nt it!!?[;)]

Another WitP: AE question:
Does WitP:AE do anything like this in emphasizing important locations?

Yes. In WitP:AE everyplace is worth a little bit and some places are worth a lot and victory levels are based upon a point ratio. Furthermore, in general the victory points that one side gets for holding a base that you own at start are less than the opponent gets for taking it. If the Allies run away too quickly they can lose the game due to Japanese auto victory; if fact that is about the only way the Allies can loose (unless I am playing the Allies [:)])

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
the problem with many of the proposed solutions is that they in essence force the Sovs to repeat historical mistakes while allowing the Germans to avoid them.

What historical mistakes can the Axis player avoid?

Late spring attack... nope.
Overstretched supply lines... nope.
No collapse of Soviet regime... nope.
Partisan attacks in rear... nope.
Disastrous '41 winter ... nope.

I see all the really important Axis mistakes clearly hard coded in the game. Am I missing something here?

Ray (alias Lava)

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lava

I see all the really important Axis mistakes clearly hard coded in the game. Am I missing something here?

You really think that those are the only mistakes that the Germans made?! [X(]

What about attempting to take Stalingrad and the Caucauses? What Hitler's "hold fast" policy which facilitated Sov encirclements? There are others of course but I think those two suffice...

I think that at least in the game (and almost certainly IRL as well) trying Case Blue is almost guaranteed to be a disaster.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

You really think that those are the only mistakes that the Germans made?! [X(]

What about attempting to take Stalingrad and the Caucauses? What Hitler's "hold fast" policy which facilitated Sov encirclements? There are others of course but I think those two suffice...

Condescending posts are of little value in a discussion. [:-]

If you want to be constructive, give me some examples of mistakes the Axis made in '41 which he can avoid? As per your original statement.

Then we can start making a comparison of the those mistakes the Axis player can avoid in '41 and those the Sov player can avoid in '41.

I've stated that the Axis player cannot avoid ANY of the historical mistakes. Can the Sovs say the same?

Ray (alias Lava)

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Lava

I've stated that the Axis player cannot avoid ANY of the historical mistakes. Can the Sovs say the same?

Ray (alias Lava)

+1

[Flaviusx]

The Germans can't avoid Stalingrad?

So far as 41 goes, the Germans, if they know what they are doing, can take Leningrad every time. Every. Single. Time. So they're certainly avoiding mistakes there. The Lvov opening, if you believe this was actually possible (I do not) could be classified as avoiding a mistake.

German players know the blizzard is terrible and can act on that foreknowledge in ways their historical counterparts cannot, and do things to significantly diminish the impact of it.

Germans get to avoid their historical logistical problems in this game in various ways. Eventually, so do the Soviets, when they are on the offensive. Logistics in this game are very forgiving for the side attacking.

The Germans in this game have ways of optimizing their play; not the same ones as the Soviets, obviously, but they have their own grab bag of tricks. What's come to pass as "standard" 1941 play for Germans isn't historical at all, actually. The game deviates from history in a pretty big way from turn 1.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lava
If you want to be constructive, give me some examples of mistakes the Axis made in '41 which he can avoid? As per your original statement.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was not talking about Axis mistakes in 1941, I was talking about during the course of the war. Do you think the Sovs should be required to repeat their mistakes in 1941, but the Germans free to avoid their mistakes in 1942 and after? That's the point...

Sorry for the response, but you have to admit the Germans made some pretty major blunders during the war other than the ones you mentioned (I didn't realize you were only referring to 1941).

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Lava
If you want to be constructive, give me some examples of mistakes the Axis made in '41 which he can avoid? As per your original statement.

For example the single biggest "mistake" either side made in the whole war:

The German player right from the start knows exactly that this campagin won't be over in two to three months.

Regards

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

A VP system like the SSG series would work best.  You get so many VPs holding these cities this long and then they increase as time goes by.  Something has to be done to make population centers worth holding, otherwise a nations people will feel worthless and overall moral will plummet as it should but doesn't as things stand now.

And there must be a reason why real life armies aim for the enemy's cities and real life defenders try to hold them, right? Something to do with infrastructure, power grids, warehouses, petrol storage, housing, heating and food maybe?