Over rated Russian rail system.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: 76mm
In fact given the planning involved in moving the factories I wonder if the military had any direct say in which factories moved when, more likely the military to some extent had to react to planned factory moves, so there could be a basis for removing this kind of decision from player control. Moreover, the Sovs would certainly have screwed things up sometimes (how did the Germans cut that rail line?!) so random losses of factories would also be expected.

That would just muddy the scope of the player's reach even more. We're supposedly the part of some very high command that can ignore political objectives at will, but we're subject to having our commanders randomly reassigned and dismissed ostensibly by Hitler/Stalin?

The Soviet player has much more complete control over the formation/construction/composition of his Army, but the German player has no say in this, up to and including withdrawals of formations that were only due to East Front events that may not have happened in the alternate timeline he's already playing!

Good point. As with TOoE changes, I'd like to see historical withdrawals triggered by off map historical events and on map situations equivalent to historical triggers. Why withdraw a division to refit when it's at full strength, or weaken a TOoE when your manpower and arms pools are overflowing?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
That would just muddy the scope of the player's reach even more. We're supposedly the part of some very high command that can ignore political objectives at will, but we're subject to having our commanders randomly reassigned and dismissed ostensibly by Hitler/Stalin?

heh heh, I agree. Actually the article I read yesterday said that the evac committee worked closely with the military to decide what to evac and when, so the point is probably moot.

[ComradeP]

Really, there doesn't seem to be much daylight between you guys as concerns game balance - is there secretly some NKVD guy with a Maxim gun enforcing discipline in your rear?

Not really, the testers agree on many things and we rarely have debates that could even be remotely described as "hostile".

Flavio and I (and James and the others) have our own perspective on the game and what's causing some problems. My perspective is more of the micro level, with individual battle results that I sort of extrapolate to the macro level, whilst Flavio looks more at the macro level. I believe that, unless I'm mistaken, I've probably played more scenarios as the Axis than him, which means I have a bit more experience with some specific Axis problems (many of which have recently been solved, but there are still a few). I'm now playing a GC as the Soviets vs. the AI, which makes me experience some new and old Soviet problems.

The rather varied opinions that sometimes pop-up on the tester forums do mean that problems can be solved fairly quickly as there's usually someone who looks directly at the cause of the problem.

-

up to and including withdrawals of formations that were only due to East Front events that may not have happened in the alternate timeline he's already playing!

Unless I misinterpreted the changelist, I believe Gary has already removed several withdrawals regarding units that were destroyed on the Eastern Front from the in-game withdrawal list.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Stoat

Let us say we'd like to achieve the most realistic historical simulation (as above, with reasonable abstractions such that it remains playable). I think we'd all like the game to be able to produce some range of outcomes, rather than every game producing the same outcome, because that would be pointless and no fun to play.

Some on this forum have in fact expressed this view, and moreover feel that this is in fact the current state of affairs. I do not share this view, but I am sympathetic to it, because over many AARs I think we can observe what to me personally is quite a narrow distributions of outcomes.

So this is my idea:

1) IF we can agree on what historically occurred, then we can assign this a numerical value of 0, representing no deviation from the mean historical outcome.
3) Over a sufficient number of samples, if the game is not hardwired to produce the same result every time, we will observe a distribution of outcomes.
3) Perhaps we can agree that the mean observed (played) out come should more or less equal the historical outcome (0 error or deviation).
4) ...

Very clearly expressed. One thing is bothering me though if we go into the 'simulation/modelization' path (which is different from the 'historical' or the 'fun gameplay' paths).

Why should the actual history which is just ONE sample be the mean of the model ?

[Shazman]

In early or mid October Hitler's generals had suggested they prepare winter quarters in November. He briefly considered. This could be an option in any East Front campaign. Not like it's science fiction.

Over Rated Russian (put your favorite whine here).

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Shazman

In early or mid October Hitler's generals had suggested they prepare winter quarters in November. He briefly considered. This could be an option in any East Front campaign. Not like it's science fiction.

Totally unacceptable.

The Axis player must be burdened with all the historic mistakes that were made in the '41 campaign while the Soviet player must be allowed to do what ever they feel like.

It's historical, it's documented and it's only fair.

[;)]

[Peltonx]

The current production/rail system is broken.

Losses are far as historical is broken.

Mainly because as poeple have been saying for months, there is no reason to fight.

The only thing that is being fought over is armerment pts, everything esle is meaningless.

So tring to crush the Red army can't be done, because any Russian player with any exp simply runs.

There is no way of pocketing millions of troops unless your playing a newbie Russian.

Basicly at start the German can pocket 1000000 men then that is it. You never get a chance to bag more then a handfull of units. And the Russian fanboys want this taken a way.

Flaviusx thinks that the Russian aren't doing enough damage to Germans every battle, hes joking right?

So basicly he wants the Germans to never get close to historical russian loses in industry, pocketed troops, killed troops ect ect. Plus the Russians need to be doing more damage to Germans in every little battle?

Your joking right? Opps I forgot he also thinks that HQ is over powered.

Did I miss anything.

Plus hes got 100 fanboys cheering him on.

Lvov has it 100% right,

The Axis player must be burdened with all the historic mistakes that were made in the '41 campaign while the Soviet player must be allowed to do what ever they feel like.

It's historical, it's documented and it's only fair.

Nothing has changed, these are the facts:

1. Hvy means nothing.
2. 45% to 66% of all war industry was destoryed in the areas that the Germans over ran or in WiTe terms of industry that means something = 53 to 80 arm pts. (again HVY means nothing)
3. Russian players are exploiting this to death, in every ARR. Same as 1v1=2v1 and the old HQ build-up rules were exploits. Crappy rules cause exploiting by the player base in any game.
4. Because of this exploit the rail system is over rated.
5. Its impossible because of this exploit to reach historical levels of industry destoryed.
6. Its impossible because of this exploit to reach historical levels of men killed because russian players simply evac and run east leaving 75 to 80% of the front dead. With the russians staying just out of supply range. 3/4 of the front is a bore after turn 7.

Dropping the manpower output would have helped, but because of the exploit russian players never have to worry about issues with equipment or manpower because they only have to fight around Leningrad and Moscow. They can easly keep the red army above 4 million men before mud sets in.

The current rail/hvy/evac rule set is broken and unbalancing the game. This is really not something thats is even a debate anymore its a clear matter of fact all sides see.

The only question is are you going to defend this exploit that is unbalancing the game or are you looking for a fair fix that will make the game better in the long run?

I think its more then clear to all sides other then the hard liners who really don't care about fair play or a better game that something needs to be done to address this exploit.

Pelton

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lava
The Axis player must be burdened with all the historic mistakes that were made in the '41 campaign while the Soviet player must be allowed to do what ever they feel like.

It's historical, it's documented and it's only fair.

But haven't recent patches given greater protection to German troops in forts? Doesn't that address your concern? If not, what else are you looking for?

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, what I think is slightly different: I think the game has a systemic bias towards the offense. This is true both in terms of logistics and the combat engine.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, what I think is slightly different: I think the game has a systemic bias towards the offense. This is true both in terms of logistics and the combat engine.

Yep

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The current rail/hvy/evac rule set is broken and unbalancing the game. This is really not something thats is even a debate anymore its a clear matter of fact all sides see.

The only question is are you going to defend this exploit that is unbalancing the game or are you looking for a fair fix that will make the game better in the long run?

I think its more then clear to all sides other then the hard liners who really don't care about fair play or a better game that something needs to be done to address this exploit.

I thought we'd established that your numbers (based on your referenced sources) were not correct?

It has gotten to the point where I can only describe your style of posting as Soviet, or maybe Orwellian... ("no debate" [yes there is], "clear matter" [based on what evidence?], "defend this exploit which is imbalancing the game" [I don't see an exploit and game imbalances are caused by other issues].

I for one agree that there is a problem, but don't agree with your fix at all. So I am defending an "exploit"? Several times I (and others) have suggested various "fair fixes" to facilitate fair play and a better game. But you are just not happy if someone does not agree with your demanded fixes, which of course are tailor-made for your play style. Please stop trying to bully everyone with your rants.

[PeeDeeAitch]

It comes as a shock that there are others ways to play this game, and perhaps (maybe) ways that are more successful. I know JAM is presently doing a great job as the Germans by just beating the snot out of the Soviets in 1941, no raiding at all.

[gradenko2k]

For what it's worth, I think Pelton is calling it an 'exploit' because he may feel that a Soviet player SHOULD be using rail points on evacuating HVY, even if the current production model is structured such that it is not necessary. I personally would not call that an 'exploit' insofar as there are as many definitions of that (and the word 'gamey') as there actual players, but let's not get too hung up on the semantics.

I mean, if we're to take Pelton's definition at face value, then the Germans *should not* be doing the Lvov pocket any more than the Soviets *should not* be skipping HVY evacuations, but I would think that most of us would agree that being able to skip HVY evacuations is a gap in the production model, even if we do not all agree on how it should be changed with regards to its effect on everything else.

[Aurelian]

Skipping HVY is a fault of the production system. No matter how many times he claims it, the "over rated", (something he fails to prove), rail system has nothing to do with it.

[76mm]

Also, just to remind everyone, we don't yet know the long-term effects of essentially abandoning all hvy points.

According to the manual, hvy produces ammo and presumably other "important stuff" that the Sovs will need as they build their army and start fighting back. Pelton is just mad that by saving their arm points, the Sovs don't allow him his quick victories. If in fact there are no consquences to abandoning all hvy, it should be fixed, but it is clearly too early to say.

[Oskkar]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

It has gotten to the point where I can only describe your style of posting as Soviet, or maybe Orwellian... ("no debate" [yes there is], "clear matter" [based on what evidence?], "defend this exploit which is imbalancing the game" [I don't see an exploit and game imbalances are caused by other issues].

I do not think the Soviets deserve to be compared with Pelton.

He throws and argument, and when refuted, he tries not to counter-argue. What does he do? He symply repeats (copy and paste) his initial claim. That is not to argue as an Stalinist. It is to behave as a parrot (with all due respect to the parrots).

If anyone is interested, let us see what Pelton says to the following:

"The Soviet economy and the Red Army 1930-1945", by Walter Scott Dunn 1995

"By the end of 1941,1523 large factories were moved. A few went to the Far East. The total was only a small portion od the 32000 factories captured by the Germans, but arms-related factories, reperesenting 12% of the industrial potential in the occupied zone, were evacuated".

His (Pelton's) version: most of the war industries were captured by the Germans...

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The only question is are you going to defend this exploit that is unbalancing the game or are you looking for a fair fix that will make the game better in the long run?

I think its more then clear to all sides other then the hard liners who really don't care about fair play or a better game that something needs to be done to address this exploit.

Quite demagogic: You speak for "all sides". And it's your say to determine who are the hard liners and what is fair play and what is a better game.

If it is all broken, make your own *better* mod. You seem to have all the time to do so.

If you care about "fair balance" play chess.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Oskkar

"The Soviet economy and the Red Army 1930-1945", by Walter Scott Dunn 1995

"By the end of 1941,1523 large factories were moved. A few went to the Far East. The total was only a small portion od the 32000 factories captured by the Germans, but arms-related factories, reperesenting 12% of the industrial potential in the occupied zone, were evacuated".

So both your citation and mine seem to say basically the same thing: the Sovs lost massive amounts of industry, but most armament factories were evacuated. In other words, pretty much exactly what is currently happening in the game...something is obviously broken!!

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Skipping HVY is a fault of the production system. No matter how many times he claims it, the "over rated", (something he fails to prove), rail system has nothing to do with it.

So it would seem presently. This actually should settle the discussion in this thread, the issues are elsewhere. If at all, one should take a closer look at the German rail system for comparison, to check for consistency. As Joe Billings indicated above, German rail capacity may be a little overestimated, and perhaps rail repair capacity as well. Not that I think it should be changed, but this may add to the seemingly quite fast op-tempo the Germans can maintain in 41. Would be interesting to know if that is playing into it.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Oskkar
"The Soviet economy and the Red Army 1930-1945", by Walter Scott Dunn 1995

"By the end of 1941,1523 large factories were moved. A few went to the Far East. The total was only a small portion od the 32000 factories captured by the Germans, but arms-related factories, reperesenting 12% of the industrial potential in the occupied zone, were evacuated".

So both your citation and mine seem to say basically the same thing: the Sovs lost massive amounts of industry, but most armament factories were evacuated. In other words, pretty much exactly what is currently happening in the game...something is obviously broken!!

Seems right, things might be close now to what they were back then? No one has established yet what the priorities list of the soviets looked like, nor what exactly was captured, i.e. critical tools, equipment or simply just empty factory building with generic tools or stuff?

And besides, there are more industrial branches that could have been cited in the reports besides directly military related HI/HVY or armaments, tank and plane factories, which are the only ones represented in WitE. Also a baby-powder factory is a factory to be captured...

[Peltonx]

tm.asp?m=2922689